Home/BlogOnce again I am being drawn into defending the common explanation of Earth’s so-called “greenhouse effect” as it is portrayed by the IPCC, textbooks, and virtually everyone who works in atmospheric radiation and thermodynamics.
To be clear, I am not defending the IPCC’s predictions of future climate change… just the general explanation of the Earth’s greenhouse effect, which has a profound influence on global temperatures as well as on weather.
As we will see, much confusion arises about the greenhouse effect due to its complexity, and the difficulty in expressing that complexity accurately with words alone. In fact, the IPCC’s greenhouse effect “definition” quoted by Dr. Ollila is incomplete and misleading, as anyone who understands the greenhouse effect should know.
As we will see, in the case of something as complicated as the greenhouse effect, a simplified worded definition should never be the basis for quantitative calculations; instead, complicated calculations are sometimes only poorly described with words.
What is the “Greenhouse Effect”?
Descriptions of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect are unavoidably incomplete due to its complexity, and even misleading at times due to ambiguous phrasing when trying to express that complexity.
The complexity arises because the greenhouse effect involves every cubic meter of the atmosphere having the ability to both absorb and emit infrared (IR) energy. (And almost never are the rates of absorption and emission the same, contrary to the claims of many skeptics – IR emission is very temperature-dependent, while absorption is not).
While essentially all the energy for this ultimately comes from absorbed sunlight, the infrared absorption and re-radiation by air (and by clouds in the atmosphere) makes the net impact of the greenhouse effect on temperatures somewhat non-intuitive. The emission of this invisible radiation by everything around us is obviously more difficult to describe than the single-source Sun.
The ability of air and clouds to absorb and emit IR radiation has profound impacts on energy flows and temperatures throughout the atmosphere, leading to the multiple infrared energy flow arrows (red) in the energy budget diagram originally popularized by Kiehl & Trenberth (Fig. 1).
[As an aside, contrary to the claims of the 2010 book Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory, this simplified picture of the average energy flows between the Earth’s surface, atmosphere, and space is NOT what is assumed by climate models. Climate models use the relevant physical processes at every point on three-dimensional grid covering the Earth, with day-night and seasonal cycles of solar illumination. The simplified energy budget diagram is instead the best-estimate of the global average energy flows based upon a wide variety of observations, model diagnostics, and the assumption of no natural long-term climate change.]
If the Earth had no atmosphere (like the Moon), the surface temperature at any given location would be governed by the balance between the rate of absorbed solar energy and the loss of thermally-emitted infrared (IR) radiation. The sun would heat the surface to a temperature where the emitted IR radiation balanced the absorbed solar radiation, and then the temperature would stop increasing. This general concept of energy balance between energy gain and energy loss is involved in determining the temperature of virtually anything you can think of.
But the Earth does have an atmosphere, and the atmosphere both absorbs and emits IR radiation in all directions. “Greenhouse gases” (primarily water vapor, but also carbon dioxide) provide most of this function, and any gain or loss of an IR photon by a GHG molecule is almost immediately felt by the non-radiatively active gases (like nitrogen and oxygen) through molecular collisions.
If we were to represent these infrared energy flows in Fig. 1 more completely, there would be a nearly infinite number of red arrows, both upward and downward, connecting every vanishingly-thin layer of atmosphere with every other vanishingly thin layer. Those are the flows that are happening continuously in the atmosphere.
The most important net impact of the greenhouse effect on terrestrial temperatures is this:
The net effect of a greenhouse atmosphere is that it keeps the lower atmospheric layers (and surface) warmer, and the upper atmosphere colder, than if the greenhouse effect did not exist.
I have often called this a “radiative blanket” effect.
Interestingly, without the greenhouse effect, the upper layers of the troposphere would not be able to cool to outer space, and weather as we know it (which depends upon radiative destabilization of the vertical temperature profile) would not exist. This was demonstrated by Manabe & Strickler (1964) who calculated that, without convective overturning, the pure radiative equilibrium temperature profile of the troposphere is very hot at the surface, and very cold in the upper troposphere. Convective overturning in the atmosphere reduces this huge temperature ‘lapse rate’ by about two-thirds to three-quarters, resulting in what we observe in the real atmosphere.
Dr. Ollila’s Claims
The latest installment of what I consider to be bad skeptical science regarding the greenhouse effect comes from emeritus professor of environmental science, Dr. Antero Ollila, who claims that the energy budget diagram somehow violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, i.e., conservation of energy, at least in terms of how the greenhouse effect is quantified.
His article is entitled, How The IPCC’s Greenhouse Definition Violates the Physical Law of Conservation of Mass & Energy. He uses a modified version (Fig. 2) of the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram:
It should be noted that these global average energy budget diagrams do indeed conserve energy in their total energy fluxes at the top-of-atmosphere (the climate system as a whole), as well as for the surface and atmosphere, separately. If you add up these energy gain and loss terms you will see they are equal, which must be the case for any system with a stable temperature over time.
But what Dr. Ollila seems to be confused about is what you can physically and quantitatively deduce about the greenhouse effect when you start combining energy fluxes in that diagram. Much of the first part of Dr. Ollila’s article is just fine. His objection to the diagram is introduced with the following statement, which those who hold similar views to his will be triggered by:
“The obvious reason for the GH effect seems to be the downward infrared radiation from the atmosphere to the surface and its magnitude is 345 W/m2. Therefore, the surface absorbs totally 165 (solar) + 345 (downward infrared from the atmosphere) = 510 W/m2.“
At this point some of my readers (you know who you are) will object to that quote, and say something like, “But the only energy input at the surface is from the sun! How can the atmosphere add more energy to the system, when the sun is the only source of energy?” My reading of Dr. Ollila’s article indicates that that is where he is going as well.
But this is where the problem with ambiguous wording comes in. The atmosphere is not, strictly speaking, adding more energy to the surface. It is merely returning a portion of the atmosphere-absorbed solar, infrared, and convective transport energy back to the surface in the form of infrared energy.
As shown in Fig. 2, the surface is still emitting more IR energy than the atmosphere is returning to the surface, resulting in net surface loss of [395 – 345 =] 50 W/m2 of infrared energy. And, as previously mentioned, all energy fluxes at the surface balance.
And this is what our intuition tells us should be happening: the surface is warmed by sunlight, and cooled by the loss of IR energy (plus moist and dry convective cooling of the surface of 91 and 24 W/m2, respectively.) But the atmosphere’s radiative blanket reduces the rate of IR cooling from the warmer lower layers of the atmosphere to the upper cooler layers. This alteration of average energy flows by greenhouse gases and clouds alters the atmospheric temperature profile.
A related but common misunderstanding is the idea that the rate of energy input determines a system’s temperature. That’s wrong.
Given any rate of energy input into a system, the temperature will continue to increase until temperature-dependent energy loss mechanisms equal the rate of energy input. If you don’t believe it, let’s look at an extreme example.
Believe it or not, the human body generates energy through metabolism at a rate that is 8,000 time greater than what the sun generates, per kg of mass. But the human body has an interior temperature of only 98.6 deg. F, while the sun’s interior temperature is estimated to be around 27,000,000 deg. F. This is a dramatic example that the rate of energy *input* does not determine temperature: it’s the balance between the rates of energy gain and energy loss that determines temperature.
If energy has no efficient way to escape, then even a weak rate of energy input can lead to exceedingly high temperatures, such as occurs in the sun. I have read that it takes thousands of years for energy created in the core of the sun from nuclear fusion to make its way to the sun’s surface.
Since this is meant to be a critique of Dr. Ollila’s specific arguments let’s return to them. I just wanted to first address his central concern by explaining the greenhouse effect in the best terms I can, before I confuse you with his arguments. Here I list the main points of his reasoning, in which I reproduce the first quote from above for completeness:
[begin quote]
The obvious reason for the GH effect seems to be the downward infrared radiation from the atmosphere to the surface and its magnitude is 345 Wm-2. Therefore, the surface absorbs totally 165 + 345 = 510 Wm-2….
The difference between the radiation to the surface and the net solar radiation is 510 – 240 = 270 Wm-2...
The real GH warming effect is right here: it is 270 Wm-2 because it is the extra energy warming the Earth’s surface in addition to the net solar energy.
The final step is that we must find out what is the mechanism creating this infrared radiation from the atmosphere. According to the IPCC’s definition, the GH effect is caused by the GH gases and clouds which absorb infrared radiation of 155 Wm-2 emitted by the surface and which they further radiate to the surface.
As we can see there is a problem – and a very big problem – in the IPCC’s GH effect definition: the absorbed energy of 155 Wm-2 cannot radiate to the surface 345 Wm-2 or even 270 Wm-2. According to the energy conversation law, energy cannot be created from the void. According to the same law, energy does not disappear, but it can change its form.
From Figure (2) it is easy to name the two other energy sources which are needed for causing the GH effect namely latent heating 91 Wm-2 and sensible heating 24 Wm-2, which make 270 Wm-2 with the longwave absorption of 155 Wm-2.
When the solar radiation absorption of 75 Wm-2 by the atmosphere will be added to these three GH effect sources, the sum is 345 Wm2. Everything matches without the violation of physics. No energy disappears or appears from the void. Coincidence? Not so.
Here is the point: the IPCC’s definition means that the LW absorption of 155 Wm-2 could create radiation of 270 Wm-2 which is impossible.“
[end quote]
Now, I have spent at least a couple of hours trying to follow his line of reasoning, and I cannot. If Dr. Ollila wanted to claim that the energy budget numbers violate energy conservation, he could have made all of this much simpler by asking the question, How can 240 W/m2 of solar input to the climate system cause 395 W/m2 of IR emission by the surface? Or 345 W/m2 of downward IR emission from the sky to the surface? ALL of these numbers are larger than the available solar flux being absorbed by the climate system, are they not? But, as I have tried to explain from the above, a 1-way flow of IR energy is not very informative, and only makes quantitative sense when it is combined with the IR flow in the opposite direction.
If we don’t do that, we can fool ourselves into thinking there is some mysterious and magical “extra” source of energy, which is not the case at all. All energy flows in these energy budget diagram have solar input as the energy source, and as energy courses through the climate system, they all end up balancing. There is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
Is There an Energy Flux Measure of the Greenhouse Effect?
One of the problems with Dr. Ollila’s reasoning is that there really isn’t any of these unidirectional energy fluxes (or combinations of energy fluxes, such as 155, or 270, or 345 W/m2) that can be called a measure of the greenhouse effect. The average unidirectional energy fluxes are what exist after the surface and atmosphere have readjusted their temperature and humidity structures (as well as after the sensible and latent convective heat transports get established).
Even the oft-quoted 33 deg. C of warming isn’t a measure of the greenhouse effect… it’s the resulting surface warming after convective heat transports have cooled the surface. As I recall, the true, pure radiative equilibrium greenhouse effect on surface temperature (without convective heat transports) would double or triple that number.
If the atmospheric radiative energy flows are too abstract for you, let’s use the case of a house heated in the winter. On an average cold winter day, I compute from standard sources that the heating unit in the average house leads to a loss of energy through the walls, ceiling, and floor of about 10 W/m2 (just take the heater input in Watts [around 5,000 Joules/sec] and divide by the surface area of all house exterior surfaces [ around 500 sq. meters]).
But compare that 10 W/m2 of energy flow though the walls, ceiling, and floor to the inward IR emission by the exterior walls, which (it is easy to show) emit an IR flux toward the center of the house that is about 100 W/m2 greater than the outward emission by the outside of the walls. That ~100 W/m2 difference in outward versus inward IR flux is still energetically consistent with the 10 W/m2 of heat flow outward through the walls.
This seeming contradiction is resolved (just as in the case of Earth’s surface energy budget) when we realize that the NET (2-way) infrared flux at the inside surface of the exterior walls is still outward, because that wall surface will be slightly colder than the interior of the house, which is also emitting IR energy toward the outside walls. Talking about the IR flux in only one direction is not very quantitatively useful by itself. There is no magical and law-violating creation of extra energy.
Concluding Comments
If you have managed to wade through the arguments above and understand most of them, congratulations. You now see how complicated the greenhouse effect is compared to, say, just sunlight warming the Earth’s surface. That complexity leads to imprecise, incomplete, and ambiguous descriptions of the greenhouse effect, even in the scientific literature (and the IPCC’s description).
The most accurate representation of the greenhouse effect is made through the relevant equations that describe the radiative (and convective) energy flows between the surface and the atmosphere. To express all of that in words would be nearly impossible, and the more accurate the wording, the more the reader’s eyes would glaze over.
So, we are left with people like me trying to inform the public on issues which I sometimes consider to be a waste of time arguing about. I only waste that time because I would like for my fellow skeptics to be armed with good science, not bad science.
[I still maintain that the simplest backyard demonstration of the greenhouse effect in action is with a handheld IR thermometer pointed at a clear sky at different angles, and seeing the warming of the thermometer’s detector as you scan from the zenith down to an oblique angle. That is the greenhouse effect in action.]
Roy,
You’re layering on too much complexity in all of this. The GHE at its core is a radiative resistance to upward IR cooling, where absorbed up IR from the surface is re-radiated by the atmosphere both up and down. This radiatively forces the lower atmosphere (and ultimately the surface) to be emitting IR up a higher rates than the surface and atmosphere together are require to be passing/transmitting into space in order to achieve balance. That is, emitting at higher rates than 240 W/m^2, thus warming the surface above 255K.
The key thing to grasp is that balance is achieved when the surface and atmosphere *together* are able to transmit the 240 W/m^2 of IR back into space to offset the post albedo solar flux of about 240 W/m^2 absorbed into the system. The GHE and its physics requires/radiatively-forces the lower layers of the atmosphere to be emitting upwards at higher rates than 240 W/m^2 in order to do this. If the lower layers are forced to be emitting up a higher rates, they’re also forced to be emitting downwards at higher rates than 240 W/m^2. This is what generates the large amount of IR flux passed from the atmosphere to the surface, i.e. about 300 W/m^2, but not all of this flux is actually added to the surface, as much of is cancelled by non-radiant flux leaving the surface, but not flowing back into the surface (as non-radiant flux). But the generated 300 W/m^2 IR flux to the surface from the atmosphere is what causes the net warming of the surface above what solar could do on its own.
The key thing, again, is the upward IR transmission into space requires the lower layers of the atmosphere to be emitting up a higher rates than the rate solar energy is absorbed into the system, which is not any violation of COE at all since all of the joules causing the net flux increase at the surface (about +150 W/m^2) originate from the Sun’s initial absorbed flux of 240 W/m^2. COE is conservation of joules, no conservation of energy flux.
Yes, I agree with your description… but I’m not sure you made it simpler. (smiley face) -Roy
“Yes, I agree with your description… but I’m not sure you made it simpler. (smiley face) -Roy”
Well, you never seem to mention that it’s the *portion* of surface emitted IR that’s absorbed by the atmosphere, i.e. not transmitted into space, which is subsequently re-radiated back downwards towards the surface that radiatively forces the lower atmosphere (and ultimately the surface) to be emitting up a higher rates than the surface and atmosphere together are required to be transmitting into space in order to achieve balance (about 240 W/m^2).
If you don’t explain it in terms of how balance is achieved via the underlying driving physics of what is ultimately generating the 300 W/^2 of IR passed from the atmosphere to surface that results in the net surface temperature increase above what solar could do on its own, massive confusion is likely to persist.
Basically, the surface can’t transmit all of what it radiates into space, because GHGs in the atmosphere ‘block’ or absorb a large amount of surface emitted IR. Then when the atmosphere re-radiates this absorbed IR energy from the surface, *some* of it — initially and henceforth — goes back downwards towards surface. This creates a downward diverging re-emitted IR flux (that otherwise wouldn’t exist) that has to be offset in addition to the post albedo solar flux coming/radiating down into the system. In order to offset this additional downward radiant flux, it requires/radiatively-forces higher emission rates from the lower atmosphere and surface (and thus a higher net rate of gain at the surface), in order to achieve balance.
Roy,
In a nutshell, what I’m saying here is the upward IR component required to achieve balance is equally as important as the downward IR component, and I believe is actually the key to understanding the how the large downward IR component is generated by the physics.
“If you don’t explain it in terms of how balance is achieved via the underlying driving physics of what is ultimately generating the 300 W/^2 of IR passed from the atmosphere to surface that results in the net surface temperature increase above what solar could do on its own, massive confusion is likely to persist.”
That sentence is going to cause massive confusion.
Not because it’s wrong, but because it’s too involved.
The level of complexity required to explain depends on the reader, not the writer. That’s a lot of variety, and no straightforward answer.
“That sentence is going to cause massive confusion.
Not because its wrong, but because its too involved.”
Well, the short and simple explanations don’t seem to work.
The audience on whom it doesn’t work are never going to get it. They are a lost cause.
It’s all about “it” working, after all…
The so called CO2 greenhouse effect is concocted from a climate model where the earth and the atmosphere is flat as a pancake and static, it does not rotate and it does not orbit, it has no poles, it has no night side and the Sun shines on it all the time.
It has no relations to a rotating planet where most of the surface is in the dark, most of it covered by flowing water and the ait constantly flowing and mixing
The blanket claim is the fizzix according to a third grader
Now, see, this is the problem I run into. You obviously were too lazy to actually read the post, because everything you just claimed is obviously (not arguably) WRONG. I am glad to let your comment stand, however, as a testament to why I have to write such articles. -Roy
“Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.”
Dr. Myki, horse podiatrist:
Do not drink whiskey before commenting !
Yeah, like Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says just ignore the trolling Dr Mikeymouse and the likes of him.
The top is the pic of emission that the warmists always show
But that when the sun shines over head .
The pic below is the one they never show , when the sun doesn’t shine , the chart goes inverted , thats one funny heat trapping greenhouse effect , ever seen a blanket working this way ?
https://i.postimg.cc/qqS0PG3T/ir.jpg
Did you see Dr Spencer’s reply to you, Eben?
Of course I know “now” they say their models are round globe. The point is The “CO2 blanket” just carries on from the flat ones.
I’m not gonna write a mile long articles about it on every point.
https://bit.ly/33gmD9S
Eben: Im am unable to defend my beliefs with actual facts, but no matter.
Eben: The so called CO2 greenhouse effect is concocted from a climate model where the earth and the atmosphere is flat as a pancake and static, it does not rotate and it does not orbit, it has no poles, it has no night side and the Sun shines on it all the time.
If this is how you interpreted the various models used to analyze the climate system then you may not have understood them.
Eben is correct. The greenhouse effect is based on a false description of the system.
The Sun heats the surface at an average rate of about 476 W/m^2, not 238 W/m^2. The oceans, atmosphere and land are heated at the surface, directly by the Sun, to an average temperature of about 303K, and then carried into the night where they only cool.
Balance between the solar input (1-A)*S*Pi*Re^2 to an area of 2*Pi*Re^2 and loss to space from the entire 4*Pi*Re^2 did not occur until an initial warming of the surface to the point where the global loss from the upper atmosphere to space equaled the hemispherical solar input. The atmosphere is somewhat like a blanket because gravity holds it with the heat developed during the day, near the surface and through the night. All the while, the atmosphere is losing an average 240 W/m^2 to space, mostly from the radiatively active gas species above the 500 mb altitude, where the average atmosphere is about 33C cooler than at the surface.
The average TOA flux is 340 W/m^2. The average atmosphere and surface uptake is 240 W/m^2. We can certainly quibble about the precise values of these figures, but 476 W/m^2 is not even in the realm of possibility.
The average 2m T is about 288K. Again we can quibble about the precise value, but 303K is not even in the realm of possibility.
I can post the list of links pointing to climate models using flat earth , and not get a word back about it , it is invisible through their hockey stick glasses
but here is the specific one
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2019/06/06/response-to-roy-spencer-regarding-his-support-of-flat-earth/
“The average TOA flux is 340 W/m^2.”
You are dead wrong on that one.
You cannot take the average of power input over the whole area.
Only flat earthers do.
Another Joe,
Yes. I can. I literally did it. Here’s how it works.
5.47e24 joules / 510e12 m^2 / 31557600 seconds = 340 W/m^2.
Which one of these numbers do you disagree with?
On a second by second basis, it is the total number of joules in one second received by the lit hemisphere. So your area is wrong. Also you need to take angle of incidence into account, as the Earth is not flat.
The surface area of Earth is 510e12 m^2. Is that what you are disagreeing with?
So half of that figure is a hemisphere…
Earth is not a hemisphere. It is a sphere.
Indeed.
bdgwx
Which one of these numbers do you disagree with?
I disagree on the area that’s applicable for the solar incoming radiation.
You take a flat Earth. I would take a spherical one.
This is were we disagree!
Another Joe,
You disagree that the area of Earth is 510e12 m^2?
Nice try bdgwx!
The internet says that the Earth – Surface Area is 510,064,472 km.
Do you agree with yourself that this exact area is lit up by the sun every single second?
A pretty poor “No GHE” argument from Dr Ollila.
Some better ones here:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/03/07/the-nub-of-the-argument/
Why don’t you put into your own words, ones that you can properly defend?
Except you do all the time, when you feel like you can make a ‘point’.
The good doctor’s article is specifically addressed to people like you, who deny the GHE.
At least have the balls to explain to us what he has gotten wrong.
N.B: I no longer respond to commenter “Nate”. Haven’t for months, now.
Thats’s a pretty good trick, allowing you to avoid any valuable reaction to:
“The good doctor’s article is specifically addressed to people like you, who deny the GHE.
At least have the balls to explain to us what he has gotten wrong.”
And I add: ‘Please explain in own words’.
Any reference to people like Postma, or web sites like ‘principia’ is useless.
J.-P. D.
No trick. I don’t need to explain what Dr Spencer “got wrong”, since as I already said, it was not a good argument from Dr Ollila. I am not here to defend his article. Try to pay attention, Bindidon.
I paid much more of that than you imagine.
Il m’a suffi de lire entre les lignes.
OK, Bindidon.
D “I dont need to explain what Dr Spencer ‘got wrong’, since” I have no idea.
This is the crux of the issue with D and Eben, et al
They have ‘belief’ that Roy and mainstream science have GHE all wrong, they just cant explain why it is wrong.
Because their ‘belief’ is not fact based.
Someone has mentioned this article over in the comments at CoS now:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/03/07/the-nub-of-the-argument/#comment-62929
“THEY just cant explain why it is wrong.”
Care to expand?
You maybe just did not read what was being written!
If you have two bodies that receive energy, which can make the bodies warmer, one of them has the ability to shed that energy through radiation, the other body does not have that ability.
Which one will be warming up more?
GHG do radiate energy away, IR inactive gases do not!
Which one is holding back energy?
I love that website name: “climate of sophistry”. So telling! I’ve been watching some of joe’s videos alot trying to understand his arguments and i start to believe that he’ s just a very skilled troll. I mean, a person with a phd in astroPHYSICS can’t be that clueless for gods sake.
*sorry, he’s got MSc not phd. Still, should be enough to give one some kind of physics knowledge.
He makes very basic physics blunders
Says who?
Maybe he’s not the one that’s clueless…
Oh no, he’s not clueless. He’s is a very good actor, and he trolls you people for some obscure reason. I think so because I cannot believe that someone who did success fully go through 5 years of university physics can possibly be so blatantly clueless about a rather elementary thing. Now, GHG is not elementary, but there are things that he claims that are even easier to understand than GHG, things that don’t even require anything but junior high math.
“Maybe..”
Its telling that you can’t tell.
“Now, GHG is not elementary, but there are things that he claims that are even easier to understand than GHG, things that don’t even require anything but junior high math…”
…things that you are reluctant to provide an example of…
Not reluctant; lazy may be more correct.
Basically, *IF* I understood Postma’s flat-earth argument correctly (which is very hard to do), he claims rather incoherently that treating earth as ‘flat’, which is done in first approximation, leading to the effective surface temperature of -18*C leads to the need for a greenhouse effect to raise the earth effective temperature to the observed value of around +15*C. As I understood it, he thinks that treating the earth in a more complete way, taking into the account full diurnal and annual cycle, would lead to the observed relatively high temperatures, discarding the need for a greenhouse effect. Notwithstanding the fact that such an argument cannot disprove the GHE because the GHE is not included because it is ‘needed’ but rather follows from the more fundamental properties of matter and light, his argument fail on a more simple grounds that don’t even touch the actual GHE physics, and that’s the thing I had mentioned. And here it is…
There is a simple fact, learned at a junior high math level, that the mean of the squares of any set of real numbers is always larger-or-equal than the square of the mean of the same numbers. The proof is pretty simple, and the same is true about means of the fourth power (and the proof is essentially the same, just slightly more laborious). So,
(ΣXn/N)^4<=Σ(Xn)^4/N
Substituting Xn^4=An, we get
Σtsrt(An)/N<=tsrt(ΣAn/N)
Now, for a given amount of energy the planet gets, W, Wn would mean variation of such energy in time and space. We get
Tmean_real=ΣTn/N=Σtsrt(Wn/s)/N<=tsrt(ΣWn/N/s)=tsrt(W/N/s)=tsrt(W_mean/s)=Tmean_flat
or,
Tmean_real<=Tmean_flat
SO! What we just mathematically shown, that for_ANY_ distribution of insolations, the real mean temperature would always be LESS or equal to the mean temperature the earth would have had in the 'flat' approximation. Meaning that the spherical earth temperatures would inevitably be LESS than the flat-earth effective temperature of -18*C. Meaning that the calculated effective GHE value of 33*C is only the LOWER BOUND for the actual GHE observed on earth, and that the real GHE is more than that.
The website magled my math a bit, the “Σ” symbol is a SUMM symbol
coturnix,
Numerical you are correct with that.
The assumption could be that you take Earth for just one second and average the incoming solar one one hemisphere and the non-existing solar radiation on the other hemisphere. This calculates to a much lower temperature of -121 Deg C. Since this carries on for each and every second you could use this as value for the GHE baseline temperature of Earth.
But can the actual temperature now be explained with the current Greenhouse model? No it cannot!
Here in the main thread: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/28/the-hot-and-cold-of-space/ you find a nice calculation that looks at the same thing from a slight different angle.
If you accept the solution to the initial question from Thomas Edwardson:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/28/the-hot-and-cold-of-space/#comment-2928557
Then you just have to do an extra step to come up with a 33 K difference.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/28/the-hot-and-cold-of-space/#comment-2932010
The 33K is an arbitrary number that is created by averaging and converting temperatures and power/m2 forth and back using two different areas.
The 33K GHE is not physical reality, but the forced out come for a model where the solar insulation is spread over the full surface of Earth.
You can call me sold on the idea that 33K is not enough, but you have to come up with an idea what is really causing the GHE!
Not understanding the difference between the 1360 and 340 W/m^2 figures and the conflation of the 340 W/m^2 figure with a flat Earth model was almost beyond belief.
Nobody expects you to correctly represent his arguments.
The thing is when you are a member of a cult, like DREMT, the cult leader is required to be infallible.
His silly flat Earth was thoroughly debunked by Roy Spencer and many others here.
But doesnt matter, hes infallible.
He makes the absurd assertion that heat transfer problems are always equilibrium problems, so heat flows always tends to 0, even when heat is being continuously supplied.
This has been debunked many times.
But doesnt matter, his followers repeat this error over and over, because they refuse to believe that their dear leader is fallible.
Nate,
please point to one fixed location on Earth that continuously receives the same amount of heat from the sun.
School kids already learn that there is night and day and you still refuse to acknowledge this?
I think you have an issue with a 3D Earth model but even the flat Earth seems to be a problem, and you can even make a point!
Coturnix, you’re talking about Holder’s inequality. That’s fine, but is besides the point Postma is making with his flat Earth comments.
Which was not what I linked to, anyway.
>>Coturnix, you’re talking about Holder’s inequality.
yes, ty, keep forgetting what they are called.
>>That’s fine, but is besides the point Postma is making with his flat Earth comments.
It’s quite hard to figure out what comments he makes as his language is mostly a garbled word salad that i was too dumb to get through successfully. Whatever I got from it I stated in my original comment. He’s a very good presenter though, he could be a great radio host. Kinda reminds me of Jeff Rense in his vocal qualities though.
Also, whatever his comments about it are, they are irrelevans since the aforementioned inequalities prove mathematically that no matter how you rotate the earth or whatever shape you give it, as long as the IR radiation depends on temperature as w=s*T^a, a>1, the effecctive greenhouse-less mean temperature of earth will always be less than the ‘flat-eath’ temperature of -18*C.
His point is that it leads you to the the wrong conclusions if you average it over time. Everybody argues as if he doesn’t understand the math. He does. We all understand the divide by 4, and the reasoning behind it. It’s just that even though you can do something and justify it mathematically, it doesn’t necessarily represent physical reality any longer, when you do so. By averaging the insolation over the entire planet, you are ignoring the reality that sunlight is not falling over the whole Earth at any one moment in time.
‘By averaging the insolation over the entire planet, you are ignoring the reality..’
Most models are not averaging insolation over the entire planet, but often are averaging over day-night.
JP never could never explain why that is a problem for looking at climate change over years or decades.
“By averaging the insolation over the entire planet, you are ignoring the reality that sunlight is not falling over the whole Earth at any one moment in time.”
While that matters for some things, it doesn’t materially affect the calculation of the ‘effective temperature’ of the Earth, as rotation is relatively speedy.
He thought energy budget models are based on flat Earth physics. That’s literally what he said. He even stuck with this assertion when it was pointed out that S/4 necessarily means it is based on spherical geometry; not flat geometry. And remember, it was he who calculated an Earth-Sun that was incorrect; not climate scientists. Yes, I know what his intent was. It was to present a strawman that he could tear down. His cult following bought it hook, line, and sinker though. Too bad he would not engage any of us regarding the matter on this blog where he could not control and manipulate the conversation.
>>His point is that it leads you to the the wrong conclusions if you average it over time.
He’s wrong. Any physical model of the reality is necessarily an approximation, and thus there is always an error introduced. While error introduced by the roght averaging is quantitatively prohibitive, it still is qualitatively acceptable.
>>Everybody argues as if he doesn’t understand the math. He does.
Either way, he doens’t use it. Because if he did, he’d see that the round earth actually everything else being equal requires STRONGER greenhouse effect to remain warm than the flat earth. He go the SIGN wrong, how much more incorrect can one be?
>>We all understand the divide by 4, and the reasoning behind it.
good
>>It’s just that even though you can do something and justify it mathematically, it doesn’t necessarily represent physical reality any longer, when you do so.
Again: a graduated approximation of reality.
>>By averaging the insolation over the entire planet, you are ignoring the reality that sunlight is not falling over the whole Earth at any one moment in time.
He, you and other silly GHE denier argue as if scientists don’t understand the that. They do.
No, Postmas round Earth model requires no GHE to explain surface temperatures. You obviously havent seen it.
>>No, Postmas round Earth model requires no GHE to explain surface temperatures. You obviously havent seen it.
Guilty as charged. I didn’t see it. Is there a link to a (preferebaly formatted) pdf eludiccating his calculations? I have demonstrated mine, and it seems pretty concincing to me. The round rotating earth would be inevitable colder than the flat earth! So while I’d like to see his calculations, I suspect that they are of a “2+2=5”-proof-like.
Have a read through some of the articles at the blog. You will soon find it.
In other words, they don’t exist. As expected.
Incorrect.
As per the usual, DREMT wants us to go elsewhere and read some nonsense that DREMT doesnt understand, by someone else who is no longer around to defend it, then when we debunk it D will claim that we misrepresented it. Thus it has a ‘debunking shield’.
No thanks.
Here’s one link, coturnix, if you really are too lazy:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/07/08/how-to-calculate-the-average-projection-factor-onto-a-hemisphere/
Though Postma’s round Earth model has been around for at least the last six years. It’s one of the earliest things he wrote about on his blog.
>>Though Postma’s round Earth model has been around for at least the last six years.
and in all those 6 years he still failed to realize that there is NIGHTTIME, which half of all time, and during which the erath surface cools down significantly??? unbelievable…
Yes, he is aware of the existence of night-time.
From the link you’ve given i kinda doubt it. Also… are you – him? he seem to be speaking oddly confidently about the awareness of some people who you only met over the internet.
coturnix says: “are you him?”
Certainly not, DREMT is much nicer, his cult leader suffers from Coprolalia.
“Skeptical Science” – now that’s a cult. They even ran a little brain-washing course for a while…
…they are all about psychological manipulation.
coturnix: and in all those 6 years he still failed to realize that there is NIGHTTIME, which half of all time, and during which the erath surface cools down significantly??? unbelievable
Oh…yeah I think you’re right. I didn’t know what you meant by this until I derived his formula in the same way so I could better understand what he’s doing. He’s only integrating the lit hemisphere. His formula is “trying” to compute the mean temperature of the lit hemisphere only (which it does incorrectly as well). When you correct for this oversight by integrating the SB law with 0 W/m^2 on the unlit side you end up with a final answer of 144K for the global mean temperature (which is obviously wrong as well).
Another problem is if I apply the same method exactly as-is with lunar parameters then I get 303K which doesn’t match at all observations of the lunar mean temperature either. That should have been a huge red flag.
I think the issue is that instead of integrating TSI down the hemisphere he is integrating the result of the SB law down hemisphere. This is why you see that awkward cos(p)^1/4 term in the integral. The thing is radiant flux scales to the 4th power of temperature; not the 4th power of the latitude. It would be great if someone more knowledgeable can comment on this.
He is only integrating the lit hemisphere because the input is only over the lit hemisphere. He integrates the output over the entire sphere because the output is over the entire sphere.
As a very, very simplified and dumbed down explanation, energy is conserved, not flux, and flux involves area. On a second by second basis, the same amount of energy (joules) falls on the lit hemisphere as leaves from the entire globe. So the input flux will not be the same as the output flux, yet they will balance (energy, not flux, is conserved).
His formula attempts to compute the mean temperature of a hemisphere that always faces the Sun at 1 AU distance.
What we want to know is the mean temperature of the entire Earth. Earth is a sphere that rotates.
#2
He is only integrating the lit hemisphere because the input is only over the lit hemisphere. He integrates the output over the entire sphere because the output is over the entire sphere
As a very, very simplified and dumbed down explanation, energy is conserved, not flux, and flux involves area. On a second by second basis, the same amount of energy (joules) falls on the lit hemisphere as leaves from the entire globe. So the input flux will not be the same as the output flux, yet they will balance (energy, not flux, is conserved).
Postma’s formula is..
T = 0.8 * ((1-A) * Z * 5.67e-8)^0.25
…where A is the albedo and Z is the zenith flux.
There is no parameter in this formula that represents Earth’s output energy flux.
He uses A=0.3 and Z=1370 for lit hemisphere. The parameters for the unlit hemisphere are A=0.3 and Z=0.
Therefore using his method I get T=288K for lit hemisphere, T=0K for the unlit hemisphere, and T=144K for the entire Earth.
I’ll repeat…Earth is not a hemisphere whose face is constantly pointed toward the Sun. It is a sphere that rotates. It has a day and a night. The night side is just as real as the day side.
@DREMT
>>He integrates the output over the entire sphere because the output is over the entire sphere
NOT in the link above, nor in his rejected paper that i googled up (no thanks to you). In there, he also prominently confuses heat and energy, as noted by a reviewer as JP himself noted in a video about the rejection of his paper.
“He is only integrating the lit hemisphere because the input is only over the lit hemisphere. He integrates the output over the entire sphere because the output is over the entire sphere”
Except he is ignoring the rotation of the Earth and the temp of the dark side.
He could fix this by letting the sunlight vary with hour as Roy does, or by cutting the flux on the lit side in half, to account for night time.
This additional 1/2 would lead to a reduction of temperature by (1/2)^.25 =0.84.
That would cool his Earth from 288 K down to 242 K. Getting close to Roy’s result.
Clearly he has fudged it.
Are you even looking at the right thing!?
https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/zoomed-in-reality.jpg
In this link
https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/07/08/how-to-calculate-the-average-projection-factor-onto-a-hemisphere/
He does some nice math to show that the average flux over a hemisphere is 1/2 of the peak flux, and an area averaged temp from this is 303 K.
and some nice math to show that the flux averaged temp over the hemisphere is 288 K.
Fine, but then he simply neglects the dark side of the Earth and its cold temps.
Im beginning to understand this phrase:
“Its just that even though you can do something and justify it mathematically, it doesnt necessarily represent physical reality any longer, when you do so.”
Here’s another link with a similar (slightly updated) diagram. Sorry coturnix/bdgwx, I assumed you knew what I meant, as it is frequently displayed at CoS, like I said. Do you even bother reading the blog? That might be why you are so confused and totally unaware of what his actual arguments are…
https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/02/10/earths-thermodynamic-energy-budget/
No point in directing us to look at new nonsense, when your first link of his round Earth is so clear.
It is quite simple, DREMT, he is ignoring the dark side of the nonrotating Earth.
And that side will be awfully cold.
Can you not understand that?
coturnix/bdgwx:
Whoops, posted this in the wrong place:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/03/comments-on-dr-ollilas-claims-that-greenhouse-effect-calculations-violate-energy-conservation/#comment-447868
Might as well take it down-thread now anyway…
DREMT,
Yes I read the blog. I paid particular attention to the derivation his formula at the bottom and the calculations he made assuming an albedo of 0.3 and zenith flux of 1370 W/m^2.
Problem #1: He attempts to compute the mean temperature of the lit side only.
Problem #2: He computes the mean temperature of the lit side incorrectly. I believe this is because he treats the radiant flux as being proportional to the 4th power of the latitude instead of the 4th power of the temperature like it is supposed to be. This occurs because he integrates the SB law down the hemisphere first when he should be integrating the TSI down the hemisphere first. This is why you see the awkward cos(p)^0.25 term inside the integral.
And a reminder…his formula used the way he wants you to use it yields a mean temperature of the Moon > 300K which isn’t even remotely close to the observed value. That should be a big red flag to anyone who thinks it is correct.
Wake up, bdgwx. We’re talking about the diagram. Downthread you go…
‘ It’s just that even though you can do something and justify it mathematically, it doesn’t necessarily represent physical reality any longer, when you do so. ‘
Heard this many times before. You just can’t deal with the reality that the language of physics is mathematics.
You cannot substitute hand waving for math and hope to get things right.
“While that matters for some things, it doesn’t materially affect the calculation of the ‘effective temperature’ of the Earth, as rotation is relatively speedy.”
Again, it’s not the calculation that’s the problem so much as it’s the physics it represents.
I can repeat that a hundred times and you guys will still never openly acknowledge the distinction being made. Next we’ll have somebody talking through the calculations, as though the math is not understood…
‘Again, it’s not the calculation that’s the problem so much as it’s the physics it represents.’
As explained, averaging, does not create any physics problem that you guys have been able to explain, anymore than Roys averaging the global temperature over a month.
“As explained, averaging, does not create any physics problem that you guys have been able to explain”
That looks like the distinction beinbg acknowledged, and not for the first time.
By averaging the insolation over the entire planet, you are ignoring the reality that sunlight is not falling over the whole Earth at any one moment in time, you are effectively treating the Earth as though it were flat and not experiencing day and night, and you are not taking into account that at certain parts of the day the sun has heating potential up to some 80 centigrade after taking albedo into account. This has been explained in great detail numerous times. bdgwx, and others, simply cannot be relied upon to accurately represent Postma’s arguments, not did Dr Spencer, and so I encourage anyone curious to investigate for themselves.
>>By averaging the insolation over the entire planet, you are ignoring the reality that sunlight is not falling over the whole Earth at any one moment in time, you are effectively treating the Earth as though it were flat and not experiencing day and night
yes, that is absolutely true. It’s called an approximation. One build a simple model in order to be able to reason abot the reality. A model, being simplistic, introduces a substantial error. In this particular case, the error as I have shown already with a remedial-level math, is to make the earth temperature to appear WARMER in the model than it would’ve otherwise be. A more complete round-earth model with a diurnal cycle produces a COOLER earth than the flat-earth approximation. meaning that whtever it is supposed to prove, it cannot disprove the need for theGHE, in fact it makes it greater. In the flat-earth model the GHE is 33*C, in the full rotating earth model it is more than that.
>>and you are not taking into account that at certain parts of the day the sun has heating potential up to some 80 centigrade after taking albedo into account
and YOU are not taking into account that there is such thing as NIGHT, when GHG-less earth cools down to cryogenic temperatures even if it does heat up to 80+*C during the day.
Why are you still talking about Holder’s inequality? You seem to have missed the point completely.
>>Why are you still talking about Holder’s inequality? You seem to have missed the point completely.
It’s hard not to miss what does not exist. My comments are directed less so towards you (as believers generally cannot be reasoned out of their belief), as towards random denizen who will read the comment thread. It is designed to discredit your argument by showing that it is incorrect.
Maybe familiarise yourself with his round Earth model before you start, and you might be more successful in your endeavour.
I had forgotten all of the silliness of the JP Flat Earth idea that was debunked by Roy Spencer and the rest of us.
Such as his ridiculous idea that climate scientists are getting the Earth-Sun distance wrong, by being confused about the factor 4.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/on-the-flat-earth-rants-of-joe-postma/#comment-356261
“Maybe familiarise yourself with his round Earth model before you start, and you might be more successful in your endeavour.”
Ok. He claims his model produces a warm Earth like ours without any GHE.
But Roy Spencer clearly DEBUNKED that, in his next post where he modeled the Earth in the same way as JP, and it produced a very cold Earth:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/
“A Simple ‘No Greenhouse Effect’ Model of Day/Night Temperatures at Different Latitudes
Abstract: A simple time-dependent model of Earth surface temperatures over the 24 hr day/night cycle at different latitudes is presented. The model reaches energy equilibrium after 1.5 months no matter what temperature it is initialized at. It is shown that even with 1,370 W/m2 of solar flux (reduced by an assumed albedo of 0.3), temperatures at all latitudes remain VERY COLD, even in the afternoon and in the deep tropics.”
Nate,
Someone else also remembered that discussion (I did not. Yikes, is dementia not far off?) and I had a look back at that spreadsheet model. Somethings I don’t understand are why only one hemisphere is included and how the averages are calculated. Have you checked it and does it makes sense to you? You will go way up in my estimation by explaining these to me. Also, does it seem right that the albedo should be the same for all latitudes? I would think it different at the equator and the poles.
This stuff may have been covered in the comments, but there are over 2,000!
This is correct.
Dr. Spencer should try to use a flashlight on a football to see how much area is lit up.
Alternatively he can tell us if he can see the back of the ball by looking at it. He can even try to rotate it and tell me he can see the whole area every single second.
Here’s another significant point about Spencer’s model, Chic and Another Joe:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2019/06/06/response-to-roy-spencer-regarding-his-support-of-flat-earth/#comment-149756
The point of the model was to test the JP claim that such a model that takes into account the actual hourly solar input snd its longitudinal and laditudinal variation will still produce a warm Earth with no GHE.
That was the claim of JPs round Earth model. That not averaging as the ‘Flat Earth’ model does gets us a warm Earth.
It doesnt. The model fails to produce a warm Earth. In fact it produces a cooler Earth thsn the Flat Earth approx.
One can improve the model, but its not going to change the overall cold Earth into a warm Earth, because there simply isnt enough input flux.
Eg the heat capacity of ocean is simply going to change the equilibration time, not the final temp.
P.S: In the comment following the one I linked to about the surface layer absorp.tion being set to only 0.1m deep when the oceans can absorb sunlight to a depth of 200m, is a comment containing a link to Postma’s response to the model.
“Somethings I dont understand are why only one hemisphere is included and how the averages are calculated.”
Looks like only one hemisphere is needed because he is changing the insolation. In effect moving the sun rather than rotating the Earth. He is assuming the other hemisphere will simply behave identically.
I assume Roy knows how to take the average over the whole Earth surface, and he finds temps at different latitudes.
Perhaps DREMT has “familiarized himself with” JPs model enough to explain what difference in it gives such a dramatically warmer Earth than Roys model.
“Sunlight penetrates 200m”
No it doesnt.
But in any case, I dont see how storing some of the suns energy deeper in the ocean is going to produce a warmer surface..
Again conservation of energy still applies.
And adding greater and deeper thermal storage simply means the surface would be initially cooler until ocean water down to 200m reached the T of surface. IOW a longer equil time.
Here’s a direct link to that updated diagram, btw:
https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/model-atmo-b-1.jpg
@DREMT yes, his diagram is a correct though less so than the flat earth diagram approximation of the real climate system. So what?
well, tbh it’s not entirely correct even withing the bounds of the approximation used. The lies are the words ‘gradual cooling’ on the night-side of the earth combined with the dayside temperatures calculated under the assumbption of the instant equilibrium.
Here is another interesting article, from 7 years ago…
https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/07/28/the-difference-between-math-and-physics/
Still ignores the cold of dark side.
A straightforward analogy would be like a piece of meat on a spit, getting slowly roasted above a heat source as it rotates. In real time, the meat is getting enough heat to be cooked as it rotates around. Of course, if you averaged it out such that you diluted the power from the heat source by a factor of 4, you might erroneously conclude that the meat could not be cooked…
JPs model is nor rotating. One side of the meat is raw.
“@DREMT yes, his diagram is a correct though less so than the flat earth diagram approximation of the real climate system. So what?”
How can it be less correct than the flat earth diagram!? The Earth is not flat, for starters…
Also, just FYI:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/02/10/earths-thermodynamic-energy-budget/#comment-61634
First of all, I was wrong saying that it is correct, see my new comment in the thread above.Secondly, it is more correct because the flat-earth is more like what is observed in reality due to the high rottion rate and high heat capacity of the earth. The real earth temperature observed from space is closer to the flat-earth diagnosed one than to the JP mean of -120*C
Drawing an arrow for rotation is insufficient when it doesnt change the fact that one hemisphere is still receiving 24 hours of sunlight!
It recwives twice the average flux gets hotter than a hemisphere which has nighttime!
Then the cold side is ignored.
As a very, very simplified and dumbed down explanation, energy is conserved, not flux, and flux involves area. On a second by second basis, the same amount of energy (joules) falls on the lit hemisphere as leaves from the entire globe. So the input flux will not be the same as the output flux, yet they will balance (energy, not flux, is conserved).
You notice he has the effective temperature and corresponding radiative flux as the output, yes? The key here is getting the correct input, second by second. The Earth is continually rotating, but it is also constantly receiving light on only one hemisphere.
>>On a second by second basis, the same amount of energy (joules) falls on the lit hemisphere as leaves from the entire globe. So the input flux will not be the same as the output flux, yet they will balance (energy, not flux, is conserved).
I’m sorry, but that that’s the only adequate response that i can think of.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRKz82v5JQY
Energy (joules) is conserved.
Flux (joules per second per meter squared) is not conserved.
The input flux is over a different area than the output flux.
Not too hard to understand, surely?
hard to understand what that has to do with anything?
“They will balance (energy, not flux, is conserved)”
Yes that is fine, but if he only reports the temperature of the lit side and neglects the temp of the dark side, that will give a too high answer for global temp.
Each hemisphere on the real Earth is lit 50% of the time, and cannot warm up as much as it would if it were lit 100% of the time, as in his model.
Not too hard to understand, surely?
“hard to understand what that has to do with anything?”
I guess it’s too much for some people…
DREMT, it is quite simple obvious to see that JP has cheated, but only if you are not a member of the cult.
I don’t know if you (you personally, JP as well as all who believe in his pseudotheory) people are masterful trolls maybe you are are simply insane, but I’m pretty sure that you can’t be reasoned with. Kinda feel sorry for trying to. In half a decade you produced no coherent presentation for your thoughts, you arguments are always a syntactically correct but semantically senseless word salad, and the only evidence is a simple diagram that is not clear for me how to interpret it because of the reasons i named before. I feel tempted to continue, but I must resist the desire, and recommend the same to all other who feel like they can explain something to you. How can I explain anything to you if you can’t explain not only what you don’t undertand but even what you understand?
Yeah, I mean his model does not produce the correct value for the mean temperature of the lit hemisphere, unlit hemisphere, global mean temperature, or the lunar mean temperature, or any temperature of any planetary body in the solar system AFAIK. That should be enough to conclude his model is inferior to other models that can accurately predict the mean temperature of Earth.
So this is all that’s left. Insults, and bdgwx (who still can’t keep up with what we’re even talking about).
We’re talking about JP’s model which you linked to above.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/07/08/how-to-calculate-the-average-projection-factor-onto-a-hemisphere/
Incorrect. We are talking about the diagram contained in that link, an updated version of which I posted again recently:
https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/model-atmo-b-1.jpg
“So this is all thats left.”
Yep par for the course when, as Coturnix accurately notes, you cant be reasoned with, and dont take anyone elses points seriously.
Flux is conserved in this case because time and area are constant. The intuitive way to think about this is that flux, as represented in energy budget diagrams, is quickly convertible to energy by simply multiplying by a constant. You can even transform the values as-is in your head by using power-time units like watt-years. For example, an average flux of 240 W/m^2 is equivalent to 240A W-years of energy in 1 year where A is the area of Earth (a constant). If you want the figure in joules just multiple by A which is 510e12 m^2 (a constant).
The way Postma deals with fluxes is not conserved because he treats input area and output as different. That means A is not constant in his model. That is a limitation of his model, but not the canonical energy budget model as described above by Dr. Spencer. And not that the canonical energy budget is a spherical Earth model because it projects the solar constant over a full sphere.
I think the main reason this is even an issue is because contrarians do not bother understanding the model and geometrical principals involved and instead focus their critique on the fact that many of the diagrams use straight lines instead of curved lines. And I don’t blame the authors of the diagrams. I’m terrible at illustration as well. I would draw straight lines as well because I assume my audience is smart enough to understand that it is a spherical model and that I’m really bad at illustration.
I give props to JP though for his illustrative ability. Now he needs to work on the underlying geometrical/orbital/mathematical principals involved.
“The way Postma deals with fluxes is not conserved because he treats input area and output as different.”
Which is correct. Input area and output area are different. Hence this is a limitation in the canonical energy budget model as described by Dr Spencer, which does not treat the input and output area as being different, and thus treats the Earth as though it were a flat disk in space continuously illuminated by the sun.
“I think the main reason this is even an issue is because contrarians do not bother understanding the model and geometrical principals involved and instead focus their critique on the fact that many of the diagrams use straight lines instead of curved lines.”
We are well aware of the geometrical principles involved in the divide by 4. Have you acknowledged yet that the 255 K figure is on Postma’s diagram, though correctly labelled as an output rather than the input? Of course you haven’t. That would spoil the semi-veiled insults you are spewing.
Even when he claims he has done day night simulation:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/07/28/the-difference-between-math-and-physics/
“Putting the above model into a computer simulation that utilizes the actual, physically real, real-time solar input on a spherical and rotating Earth with day and night, and including the behaviour of latent heat in H2O, the model automatically produces temperatures which can melt ice into water, as seen in this numerically-integrated solution of the equations”
His ‘results’ show oscillations peaking at ~ 303K and dropping down to 275 K.
Far warmer than Roy’s similar simulation.
He claims that the night doesnt cool down much because of heat capacity. OK.
But that would also mean that the day doesnt warm as high either.
Problem is his non-rotating Earth diagram reaches ~ 303 K on the light side.
This doesnt make sense, his rotating Earth should not reach this high in the daytime, due to heat capacity.
Unlike Roy, who shows us his spreadsheet, JP doesnt show us what he actually does to achieve this unrealistic result.
For comparison, Roys results for temperature
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Simple-no-GHE-model-output.jpg
Mid-latitudes never exceed 32 F.
No further responses? I guess that’s that, then.
Neither JP nor DREMT can show us how JP gets his anomalous results.
But D believes it anyway. Clearly his beliefs are not based on any objective facts.
That’s that then.
#2
No further responses? I guess that’s that, then.
Yep, I agree, thats that.
#3
No further responses? I guess that’s that, then.
WORD
#4
No further responses? I guess that’s that, then.
It seems that the confusion comes from the way the diagram of Trenberth is drawn. For people not familiar with radiative heat fluxes calculation, it is difficult to understand that the heat lost by the ground by IR radiation is only the difference between the upward and downward arrows.
I think that an equivalent diagram showing only the heat fluxes (and not the radiation energy fluxes), such as this one would solve the “energy conservation” dispute (diagram from WUWT).
“For people not familiar with radiative heat fluxes calculation, it is difficult to understand that the heat lost by the ground by IR radiation is only the difference between the upward and downward arrows.”
I don’t see any significance of this to the COE issue (and general confusion on all of this). The only requirement I see is that the surface upward emitted IR flux has to be greater than the surface DLR flux, because this is required to satisfy the 2nd law, i.e. that the net flow of energy is up away from the surface. We know from the S-B law that the surface can’t be gaining more than about 390 W/m^2 at a temp of 288K, so net radiant flux gains/losses at the surface/atmosphere boundary aren’t important in understanding the GHE, IMO.
I should have said:
“so net IR flux gains/losses at the surface/atmosphere boundary aren’t important in understanding the GHE, IMO.”
Yep.
The tricky part of the ‘trenberth diagrams’ (TDs), that is confusing to people, and because of which TDs whilst being physically sensible are didactically broken, is not marking the correct dimensions on the quantities denoted with the arrows. These so-call infrared ‘radiant fluxes’ aren’t really fluxes, technically speaking they are (partially integrated) spectral energeticc IRRADIANCES. And while the energetic irradiances have the same dimension as energy fluxes (W/m2) their physical meaning is quite different. And that would not be a problem, but the TDs show side by side both the ‘real fluxes’ such as the net sensible and latent heat flux, and the spectral irradiances while marking them with the same dimensional quantities! AANd that is what in my opinion confuses many people, both deniers and, surprisingly, alarmists too! Some professional physicist who didn’t give the problem thorough thinking also seem to be bamboozled into misinterpreting thise tricky diagrams. In fact, I sometimes call them ‘Loki diagrams’ ^-^
I agree that the “greenhouse effect” does exist because in the UK where I live we have had nights that were much warmer than the days which would be crazy if there was only sunlight. Air circulates around the globe and warm air gives up water vapour when it cools. A hot summer day is always much warmer than a warm winter night but in winter we are kept warmer than we would otherwise be by clouds and other forms of water other than snow.
“In winter we are kept warmer than we would otherwise be by clouds and other forms of water”
Just add ‘vapor’ to that sentence and you have the GHE.
You are right that I am not a “true believer” in what most people regard as the “greenhouse effect” because it means adding up every photon lost or gained by the earth which is too complicated. It would be better I think to recognise that the atmosphere also retains some energy as well as the more solid part of the earth(water and land) so that energy is not directly lost to space. I don’t think that the (water and land) are influenced by the energy retained by the atmosphere so much because (water and land) have more mass than the atmosphere and heat up much less or slower also the amount of energy emitted by the (land and water) is a power function of temperature which gives a lot of energy but what comes back should be the reverse of that function and smaller.
Sorry think I misread ‘does exist’ as ‘does not exist’
One of the main problems with all this is referring to the so-called “greenhouse effect” as if it in anyway resembles how an actual greenhouse functions. It doesn’t!
An actual greenhouse functions primarily by restricting air movement (convection). The short-wave radiation easily enters through the “glass” walls and roof. Once striking the darker floor (often earth), the short-wave radiation is converted to the long-wave infrared radiation which becomes trapped by the glass walls and roof.
This does not happen on earth or within our atmosphere. Calling the warming which does occur (combination of sunlight, atmospheric pressure, cloud formation, etc.) a greenhouse effect is a serious misnomer and the source of a great deal of needless confusion and misinformation.
The analogy is that like a greenhouse which allows energy to come in, but impedes its exit so too do GHGs allow energy to penetrate the atmosphere but impede its exit to space. The specific heat transfer mechanism by which they operate are clearly different. That’s not the point of the analogy though.
The term is not the cause of confusion. Most people dion’t even know how a real greenhouse works. The confusion comes from cranks on the internet (and a certain paper by G&T).
Yeah, what a gem that was.
Explaining how the GHE isn’t exactly like a greenhouse.
Duh.
EVERYBODY missed the true greenhouse effect:
You add CO2 to the air inside a greenhouse and the plants grow faster and bigger.
That’s a REAL greenhouse effect related to CO2 — completely ignored by the global warmunists !
Nope,
They add CO2 to greenhouses because the plants will suck all the CO2 out of the air to the point where they stop growing.
That’s because plant LUV and NEED lots of CO2
It is what they use to grow. !
And no, they add CO2 to actual greenhouses to enhance plant growth.
That is also basically the only effect CO2 has in the atmosphere.
Yeah to enhance it so the plants grow which they don’t do after they use up all the CO2 in the greenhouse.
Unless the greenhouse is leaky, which defeats the purpose of the greenhouse.
You mean this one:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf
and this one, written in response to Halpern et al’s criticisms:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.0421.pdf
Yeah, they screwed the pooch with this statement
“Joshua Halpern6 and Jorg
Zimmermann, for example, are chemists”
The dumbasses couldn’t even bother to determine the qualifications of the Rabett.
Probably don’t know what physical chemistry is either.
Plus they devoted about one percent of their entire paper to discussing how the GHE is not like a real greenhouse! One whole percent! Terrible, unforgivable problems, bob. The entire paper is worthless just because of these small petty foibles you guys introduce.
I think you are quite off on the 1%, why don’t you read the paper again?
I won’t because it’s drivel.
They use your favorite debating tool, blind assertion that they are right.
Understanding of the properties of gaseous CO2, that fact that CO2 emits infrared radiation is enough to demonstrate a so-called greenhouse effect.
True, might be less than one percent.
No, as I recall there were many pages of straw.
…in the Halpern et al rebuttal…
From memory it’s about 15% of the paper. Amazing that they spent more than a sentence on it.
The discussion has come along way in the last 11 years. You might not devote more than a sentence to it now, back then it was a point worth making. I may exaggerate with the one per cent, but it is hardly like it is the main thrust of the paper.
It is an easy pot shot for you lot to make, to try to dismiss the rest…
Oh come one. No one in climate research was confused in 2007 – or at any time from the coining of the phrase – that the atmospheric ‘greenhouse’ effect was exactly the same as a real greenhouse.
18 pages out of 90 – I counted. Fully 20% of the paper is devoted to the most useless discussion.
“A real greenhouse gets warm because convection is supressed by the solid roof. The atmospheric greenhouse effect is said to occur due to radiation emitted from the ground towards space being slowed by so-called ‘greenhouse’ gases, which absorb and re-emit some of the ground radiation back to the ground.”
That is all they needed to say in a peer-reviewed study for research purposes.
It is an easy pot shot for you lot to make, to try to dismiss the rest
Well the gin and tonic team didn’t falsify the observation that CO2 absorbs and emits infrared radiation, which is the greenhouse effect.
That’s my pot shot.
Now for a shot of pot.
Any one want to argue that that’s not the greenhouse effect?
Barry,
The greenhouse analogy is as confusing today as it was in 2007, because the difference between the atmosphere and a real greenhouse is crucial to understanding the global warming debate. You can tell by the people who respond here that this is not well understood. A greenhouse has no evaporation of water and stifles the convection which produces cooling of the surface. The surface would be warmer during the day and cooler during the night with less IR absorbing gases in the atmosphere. If more CO2 warms the planet, the reason is due to less extreme temperatures as a result of Holder’s inequality math.
If you disagree, please say on what basis, the magnitude of the effect or the correctness of the processes involved, etc.
“It is an easy pot shot for you lot to make, to try to dismiss the rest”
I hadn’t even begun to dismiss the rest. There are other people far more qualified than me debunking it.
Mind you, it’s a valid criticism when fully 20% of the long paper is spent of a trivial non-issue. And ironically you linked the paper and the response by the authors to a formal debunking, but not the debunking. That’s a more glaring omission than me chiming on the length of a segment.
…and their so-called “debunking” was itself debunked in a published rebuttal by the original authors:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.0421.pdf
Are you groggy? I just said that you linked that response but not what it responded to, criticising your myopic presentation. And here you do it again.
Criticize me all you like, barry. I could criticize you for always choosing the easy way out. Where is your response to Chic? Where is your criticism of the rest of the paper? Here, I’m going to link to their rebuttal to Halpern et al again:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.0421.pdf
Just for the fun of it.
I’ve already replied to Chic’s inane contention that the nomenclature causes confusion. He’s simply repeating what he said, and until he responds to what I said and makes a progressed case, why waste my time? Aren’t you yourself tired of repetitive arguments?
Why did you not include the 3 papers? Why only one side of the discussion?
Clearly, the answer could not possibly be – “I have a neutral interest in the outcome of these debates.”
And before you accuse me of the same fault – note I have not linked the article you omitted. I’m curious to see if you are even capable of doing it. In the interest of fair dealing, rather than sheer promotion of a single point of view.
You may also remember I helped you find a working link for a paper I think is trash. I prefer for infomation to be openly revealed, not preferentially omitted. That’s my gauntlet lying at your feet.
I didn’t link to a paper. Big whoop. People should stop being so lazy and research things for themselves anyway.
Omitting the link in the chain is other people’s problem? What a craven response.
Talk about making a fuss over nothing.
barry,
“I’ve already replied to Chic’s inane contention that the nomenclature causes confusion. He’s simply repeating what he said, and until he responds to what I said and makes a progressed case, why waste my time?”
If you feel it’s a waste of time to discuss details, then don’t. You have done little more than regurgitate talking points and links to other blogs.
The processes of evaporation, thermalization, and convection/advection potentially obviate any alleged increased warming due to an increase in CO2. Granted, this would be difficult to prove. Same reason you have trouble providing definitive evidence of the reverse.
Dale,
As once explained by Roy, the analogy is better than you think.
In a greenhouse, the sunlight heats the floor, convection and radiation transfers heat to the roof, the roof warms and emits heat to the outside. The net result is the inside is warmer than the outside.
Similarly on Earth, the surface is warmed, and convection and radiation move the heat to the upper troposphere, which warms and emits heat by radiation to space. The net result is a warmer surface and troposphere.
Serious questions: Why does a polythene greenhouse work? Is polythene also opaque to long wave infrared in the same way as glass?
Right. Works by blocking convection only.
On Earth convection above the troposphere is also blocked.
Dr. Spencer,
I have posited that the GHE forces the energy emitted by the surface to take longer to make its way through the troposphere. An increase in residence time. This in turn causes energy to accumulate.
Your comment here seems to support the idea:
[I have read that it takes thousands of years for energy created in the core of the sun from nuclear fusion to make its way to the suns surface.]
Unfortunately the link to the actual paper itself appears to be broken, but:
https://notrickszone.com/2017/10/20/u-of-canberra-expert-doubling-atmospheric-co2-would-increase-heating-by-less-than-0-01k/
Here is the ‘paper’.
https://tinyurl.com/rxt5q8v
Not submitted for review. This fine work from a software engineer with no credentials in atmospheric physics needs to be taken very seriously indeed.
How have you managed to link to a fragment of the paper?
“Back in the 1970s Dr. Davies spent years in experimental and theoretical work (QM calculations) in gas phase molecular spectroscopy for an MSc degree, and spent more than five years in environmental research. His work on leaded fuel showed that both sides of the debate were significantly wrong, and helped lead to breaking a deadlock.”
Copy dead link.
Go to waybackmachine website.
Paste link there.
Click on results until a page comes up.
I read software engineer early in the piece. It was tough to find much information on him outside the notricks article.
What do you mean “fragment”? It goes all the way to Summary and references. But not peer-reviewed.
Not on the device I use…
There are a few captures at the waybackmachine. Maybe one will work better for you.
https://web.archive.org/web/2019*/http://brindabella.id.au/climarc/dai/RadiativeDelay/RadiativeDelayInContext170828.pdf
Thanks, that might be helpful for others (obviously I have already read and commented previously on the paper).
Please comment on this papper dr roy spencer are mentioned as reference. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.biocab.org/Observation_Backradiation.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwitisGwh5boAhWF1aYKHR5fAZoQFjABegQIARAL&usg=AOvVaw0zUz4mTc_RfAxRKKjD43AU
There are too many cranks out there. This paper by a biologist is not peer-reviewed.
There are too many people out there looking for quick, glib dismissals:
http://www.biocab.org/Academic_Curriculum.html
Right, Barry. It is an interesting approach to science.
If one applies ideological filters instead of quality and credibility filters, one will tend to believe all cranks and dismiss all textbook science.
It seems as though there’s also an outlier filter being applied to. In other words, many contrarians seem to base their worldview of science and climate specifically on only outlier lines of evidence.
Yes.
Outliers are outliers generally for good reason. Statistically they are almost always wrong.
No one every heard about the thousands of outliers who were wrong.
Only the very few who were right, and became famous.
With blogs and Youtube, unfortunately, all outliers have a megaphone now.
Your only interest is to dismiss, misrepresent, and/or denigrate as efficiently as possible.
Lets face it real scientists dont have time to read all the crank papers. They do need an efficient filter for them. Its called peer review.
#2
Your only interest is to dismiss, misrepresent, and/or denigrate as efficiently as possible.
Drs. Michael and Ronan Connolly’s research finds serious flaws in greenhouse gas theory and assumptions: https://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/11/summary-the-physics-of-the-earths-atmosphere-papers-1-3/
That is quite nutty stuff. See the comments.
Coolist
Thank you for this comment. I have read the Connolly’s papers and watched their video and find their work very important in this discussion. Their analysis is very thorough and their conclusions seem reasonable. It is my understanding that they are pursuing this work with Willie Soon for whom I have great respect. Their findings seem to bridge the gap between Dr. Spencer and the ” lapse rate only group”.
I dont have a handheld IR thermometer to do the experiment. Does anyone know a link to a good youtube video of the experiment?
They are cheap. Get one at, eg, Harbor Freight Tools
Harbor freight is a distant dream. I do miss the ability to just get something I want. I live in Malaysia and things are a challenge to get. I’m mostly curious about the relationship between angle from perpendicular and readings. It would be excellent to have monthly data at consistent angles over a year to span the solar seasonal variability of radiation influx. I would think you could use the sun radiation as a variable to isolate the “green house” effect.
Ie incoming radiation varies and ghg effect would respond.
Aaron,
I don’t think it would be good enough for that purpose..
Besides, the main GHE occurs in the upper troposphere, producing the radiative imbalance, that then warms the whole atmosphere.
Well. I have two of them as I use it at work daily and I can confirm it does exactly what he says it does , except it will not tell you anything about the reasons why
Look up how thermopiles work, then come back and discuss what they are measuring in the sky.
Don’t bother its nonsense , this hocus pocus reads temperature gradient not any kind of greenhouse
IOW, don’t bother with science and facts when youve got perfectly good astrology.
An object lying out in the Sun gets warmed by the Sun’s incoming radiation. An object lying in the shade remains at the ambient temperature of the local environment even if under an open sky. The UN IPCC 5th Assessment Report states that the thermal downward radiation has double the energy of the incoming Sun’s radiation yet this obviously does not cause any warming of exposed objects on the ground. Hence there cannot be any Greenhouse Effect.
This can be seen in colder climates after it has snowed. The Sun’s rays melt the snow in those areas open to the sunlight. The snow remains in those areas shaded from the Sun’s radiation but with clear sky above because there is no Greenhouse warming to melt the snow.
I do not have a radiometer so I must rely on my bodily responses. When I move from a shaded area out into full sunlight, I only feel warmed on that part of me receiving the Sun’s radiation. I do not feel heat radiating down from the sky as the UN IPCC would have us believe so I conclude that there is not any Greenhouse Effect.
Science serves us best when it explain the reality that we experience. It is our servant not our Master.
“Science serves us best when it explain the reality that we experience.”
_________________
Following the same logic the earth must be flat.
Except the flat Earth model does not explain reality as well as the spherical Earth model.
Bevan, from what did you copy and paste your post? That’s why it has the weird characters in it.
“The UN IPCC 5th Assessment Report states that the thermal downward radiation has double the energy of the incoming Sun’s radiation yet this obviously does not cause any warming of exposed objects on the ground. Hence there cannot be any Greenhouse Effect.”
It causes the average temp of the surface of the Earth to be much higher than without an atmosphere. Yes, ‘greenhouse’ gases have a warming effect on the surface. During the day, you have solar + IR. At night, just IR (and convection etc).
barry,
I use Corel WordPerfect X9 and am puzzled by the odd characters as this does not happen when I copy and paste to Notepad to get a simple text file.
Regards, Bevan Dockery
This site has plenty of vagaries. Any quotes you should type them in here, or they could be converted to weird signs.
You can paste your text here:
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
copy the result and it will post fine here.
Bevan,
“I do not feel heat radiating down from the sky as the UN IPCC would have us believe so I conclude that there is not any Greenhouse Effect”
First of all, there is much in nature that we cannot detect without scientific instruments.
Second, on a clear dry night it is actually possible to feel the reduced IR radiation from the sky. Face or top of hand facing sky will be slightly cooled. Rotate hand, the cooling effect goes away.
The cooling effect is absent on a cloudy or humid night, when IR radiation from the sky is much higher.
Can see this effect more clearly with a thermometer.
BTW this is the same effect that causes a frost on plants on clear nights when the air temp remains just above freezing.
“I do not feel heat radiating down from the sky”
And just to clarify, you SHOULDNT feel heat from the sky, just as you dont feel heat from the closed door to your freezer.
For both you feel an absence of cold.
With the freezer door open, you feel cold as heat from your body is flowing into the cold interior of the freezer.
With the GHE absent you would feel very cold as heat flows from your body would radiate directly to very cold of space. You can feel some of that on a clear dry night.
barry, please stop trolling.
And yes that post to Bevan would be good for you to mull over as well, DREMT.
An no, you imposing your OCD last-wording behavior on us serves no purpose.
#2
barry, please stop trolling.
oh nevermind..
#3
barry, please stop trolling.
WORD
#4
barry, please stop trolling.
Barry? Wheres Barry? D’s hearing voices.
#5
barry, please stop trolling.
“Interestingly, without the greenhouse effect, the upper layers of the troposphere would not be able to cool to outer space, and weather as we know it (which depends upon radiative destabilization of the vertical temperature profile) would not exist.”
Yet, according to the Kiehl & Trenberth Energy Budget some 40 W/m2 is radiated to space through the atmospheric window, apparently without the assistance of any greenhouse gases.
Nitrogen and oxygen in the troposphere are warmed by convection, latent heat from condensing water vapour and through molecular collisions. Dr Spencer states ” ….the atmosphere both absorbs and emits IR radiation in all directions. “Greenhouse gases” (primarily water vapour, but also carbon dioxide) provide most of this function,..”. Yet, if we heat a room, mainly through convection, it is nitrogen and oxygen which have the main warming effect (they comprise the bulk of gases in the room).
Nitrogen and oxygen warmed in the troposphere can only cool by emitting energy (anything with a temperature above nearly 0 degrees K will emit energy. Being a radiative gas, carbon dioxide is a better emitter of energy than either nitrogen or oxygen. There does not seem any logical reason why energy emitted by nitrogen and oxygen in the upper troposphere would not also escape to space, similarly to energy emitted by “greenhouse gases”.
“can only cool by emitting energy”
They can transfer their energy via collisions with CO2 or H2O
CO2 can capture a 15um photon and use that newly acquired energy to either 1) emit a new 15um photon and scatter it in a random direction or 2) induce a dipole momentum that accelerates the molecule causing it to collide more forcefully with a neighbor. Many of us generally describe the later process as ‘thermalization’. The reverse can happen as well in which CO2 can acquire energy via a collision and shed it via the creation of a new 15um photon. This is how N2/O2 can cool via CO2/H2O/etc. without emitting energy directly themselves.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
The ‘sky dragon’-style cranks are harmless.
It is the cranks on the other side who are dangerous viz. the cranks in government implementing policies to be so-called ‘zero-carbon’ by 2050 let alone 2030.
That futile endeavor has already caused enormous waste of wealth in the developed world both directly and by associated opportunity costs, wealth that could have been used to improve community resilience to whatever happens.
I know, its ridiculous that we have to breath cleaner air and have fewer deaths as a result of policies that have helped shift us away from coal.
Its ridiculous that we only have energy efficient light bulbs and cars that force us to pay less for energy.
So-called ‘zero carbon’ policies have nothing to do with air pollution.
If only there were some economic assessments of the cost/benefits. Then we might have some substance with which to discuss this matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_global_warming#Major_reports_considering_economics_of_climate_change
Empirical evidence alone suggests that the benefits of the use of carbon-based fuels in the past 150 years or so outweigh the costs by many orders of magnitude.
There is no reason to believe the same wouldn’t apply to the future in developing economies.
Empirical evidence alone suggested that water, wood, and animal power were the most useful energy sources in 1750..
But then came fossil fuels.
Now we have renewable energy sources that are more sustainable and have environmental benefits.
If you had mentioned nuclear power I would have taken that comment at least half-seriously.
Well, you can stick with your beliefs, Chris. No one is forcing you to check out the in-depth analysis of experts.
There are no experts on the future.
Except for you, it seems.
It’s a pity to resort to ‘ad hom’ but I guess that is more a reflection on you.
Where have I claimed to be an expert?
Tetlock and Gardner have shown that experts are less likely to be right at predicting the future than non-experts.
Barry is correct, you are predicting that the investment in renewables and carbon mitigation will turn out to be a massive waste of money.
You are predicting that AGW will turn out to have no large economic or human impacts.
Chris, when teams of economic (and other kinds of) experts with decades of collective experience in their fields have spent collectively thousands of hours estimating cost/benefit of various scenarios to do with the point you’re tallking about, and you then dismiss all that, then you are elevating your opinion above theirs. You are judging yourself to be more expert than they.
Unless you are saying, “My opinions about the future are as worthless as theirs…”
barry, please stop trolling.
Optimum CO2 for life is around 1000 ppm , that is out of reach in foreseeable future but 600 ppm would be pretty good already.
https://youtu.be/wbQI4h4uqlI
It is truly amazing that plants and humans survived and thrived all these millenia under CO2 starvation conditions?
The ability of air and clouds to absorb and emit IR radiation has profound impacts on energy flows and temperatures throughout the atmosphere, leading to the multiple infrared energy flow arrows (red) in the energy budget diagram originally popularized by Kiehl & Trenberth (Fig. 1).
Trenberth’s original heat budget diagram had all the input and output arrows exactly balance. A few years later he revised the diagram to show an imbalance i.e., “Net Absorbed 0.9Wm^2” It’s pretty obvious that there was a realization that the original diagram with the exact balance of in and out was at odds with “Global Warming Theory” It’s amazing that all those arrows were measured accurately enough to add up to that 0.9Wm^2.
Its amazing that all those arrows were measured accurately enough to add up to that 0.9Wm^2.
The +0.6 W/m^2 imbalance (using the figure in the diagram in this post) was not determined by computing the net of all of the other fluxes in the diagram. It is based on direct observation as well.
Trenberths original heat budget diagram had all the input and output arrows exactly balance.
Can you point me to the publication you are referring to. I’d like to review it. I’m wondering if there may be missing context here that is important in the interpretation of that diagram you speak of.
He’s referring to the paper from 1997 I believe. Search for ‘Kiehl Trenberth 1997’
Great. Thanks. I was actually just reading through the Trenberth 2009 paper earlier today and I think they mentioned the K&T 1997 paper. I noticed it because there was something about an energy budget analysis under the assumption that the budget was balanced…in other words the energy balance figure was intentionally excluded. I’ll take another look and verify when I get time.
Umm…that wording isn’t exactly right. What I meant to say is that the energy imbalance isn’t only computed by the net of all other fluxes. Sure, you can theoretically do it that way if the uncertainty on each flux is low enough, but it is my understanding that its too high to effectively do it that way. Trenberth et al 2009 estimated it from a model. Others estimate it from direct observation.
bdgwx says:
March 13, 2020 at 10:02 AM
barry says:
March 13, 2020 at 4:26 PM
Barry says different charts for different purposes, some have the imbalance noted some don’t. OK, but the numbers for the various flux pathways also changed.
bdgwx says the imbalance was observed. Hmm, Not 1 Wm^2 but 0.9 Wm^2 – precise to a tenth of a watt per square meter. That would need accurate measurements of the entire disk night side and day side to get that – and of course the sun. Old time pen light bulbs were more than a tenth of a watt. Just thinking about it, the 0.9 Wm^2 value is probably what they thought it should be. Actually observed? See my comment to Barry about the flux values changing chart to chart.
I had thought both variations appeared in different IPCC reports. After a short search, it looks like that’s not the case.
Do I have a bias? You bet I do, I don’t believe anything about “Climate Change” from academia or the media unless I have good reason to.
Yes. The figures for the various flux pathways change as new observations and understanding are used to refine the values.
Yes. The imbalance has been directly observed. It is done by measuring the energy accumulated in the geosphere. Since the hydrosphere accumulates most of the imbalance using just oceanic heat content provides a pretty good estimate on its own. +0.6 W/m^2 a pretty good if not conservative estimate based on observation.
bdgwx says: March 14, 2020 at 3:11 PM
The imbalance has been directly observed. It is done by measuring the energy accumulated in the geosphere.
An internet search tells me that Solar radiation varies over the year 1,413 to 1,321 and Averages 1367 – or ~342 Wm^2 for the disk, and you want me to believe that the imbalance is directly observed to 0.9 Wm^2. over the entire globe. That’s five place accuracy. Very impressive indeed. You guys toss out numbers like you’re Moses coming down from the mountain and we all are supposed to, slack jawed, take you at your word.
What I believe is the desired warming was plugged into Stefan-Boltzmann and solved for the imbalance. Directly observed by measuring geosphere energy? How was that done to five place accuracy?
Besides all that Trenberth’s charts say 0.9Wm^2 and the chart in Dr. Spencer’s post says 0.6Wm^2.
What I believe is the desired warming was plugged into Stefan-Boltzmann and solved for the imbalance.
Your belief would be incorrect then.
Directly observed by measuring geosphere energy?
Correct. That is one method.
How was that done to five place accuracy?
It has not been done to 5 places of accuracy. At best the estimate has an uncertainly on the order of 0.1 W/m^2. That’s only 1 decimal place of accuracy.
It is done by measuring the temperature change of the geosphere’s heat reservoirs. The mass, specific heat capacity, and enthalpy of fusion/vaporization of these reservoirs are additional inputs used to map the temperature changes to a planetary energy imbalance.
Solar radiation has little if any relevance here.
Besides all that Trenberth’s charts say 0.9Wm^2 and the chart in Dr. Spencer’s post says 0.6Wm^2.
I believe the +0.9 W/m^2 Trenberth figure was a model estimate right?
I believe Dr. Spencer believes it is +0.8 W/m^2.
I personally like the more conservative +0.6 W/m^2 figure. This comes directly from OHC measurements which admittedly excludes the heat uptake in the cryosphere, atmosphere, and land.
You guys toss out numbers like you’re Moses coming down from the mountain and we all are supposed to, slack jawed, take you at your word.
I don’t want anyone to ever take my word for it. Aside from the fact that I’m just as susceptible to making mistakes and being wrong as anybody (maybe more so) it is never a good idea to hang your hat on the word of one guy. I want you to independently review as much of the available literature as possible.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
There are plenty of those charts with no imbalance, as they are based on a steady state view to visualize incoming and outgoing fluxes, showing how energy is apportioned on average. And there are versions with the energy imbalance that emphasise global warming. There’s no skullduggery here, just different charts for different purposes.
barry, please stop trolling.
Why do you demean yourself with this rubbish? It makes me feel like a fool for engaging with you honestly.
It’s just the hallmark of a juvenile barry.
Teenager I guess.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Or are you paid per post?
Are you paid by post to pop up out of nowhere with your snide remarks every five minutes?
DREMT doesnt respond to my posts, so……
Word.
He does seem to work full time here.
Of course he might have a compatible job,
life guard on Waikiki Beach maybe?
#2
Svante, please stop trolling.
Are you paid a bonus if you have the last word?
It is part of your GHEDT game plan that one of you always has to have the last word, so I try to part-parody, part beat you at your own game.
‘ beat you at your own game.’
He cant win the arguments, cant win on the facts, so, like a 3rd grader who just lost at 4-square, he has to win at SOMETHING.
OK D, go ahead, have the last word.
Dr Roy you write “Convective overturning in the atmosphere reduces this huge temperature ‘lapse rate’ by about two-thirds to three-quarters, resulting in what we observe in the real atmosphere.”
Please note that lapse rate = g/Cp (g = gravitational constant, Cp = heat capacity of the atmosphere). The lapse rate is unaffected by trace gasses. This means that any radiative effect from trace gasses will be opposed by two-thirds to three-quarters by heat carried upward by the mass transport provided by convection.
The heat capacity of the atmosphere is governed by the distributed mass density of the atmosphere, at each point in the atmosphere. The mass density is affected by the specific internal energy (or other cardinal energy function) at each point. The specific internal energy is governed by radiation and convection. Radiation is significantly affected by trace gases such as carbon dioxide.
No offense to Dr. Spencer, but he continues the Fourier tradiation of geothermal denial and ideological mathematics posing as physics.
The geothermal flux is only about 0.1 W/m^2. It’s too small to account for the warming.
If you have a link to publication that suggests it has increased to 2.0 W/m^2 I’d be happy to review it.
Of course…you’ll still need to explain where all of that CO2 induced radiative forcing went if not into the geosphere. But let’s take it one step at a time.
“The geothermal flux is only about 0.1 W/m^2. It’s too small to account for the warming.”
Have you measured conductive heat flux in the sun or the atmosphere?
It’s also tiny. Irrelevant.
Here you go:
http://phzoe.com/2019/12/04/the-case-of-two-different-fluxes/
http://phzoe.com/2020/02/20/two-theories-one-ideological-other-verified/
My point is that if you want to invoke geothermal energy as a causative mechanism for the warming then you need to demonstrate that the geothermal flux has increased by a factor of 20x. And that’s only part of the problem with invoking the geothermal hypothesis.
Read the material.
Assuming same temperature at some depth, the SMALLER the geothermal heat flux, the higher the potential at the surface. INVERSE relationship.
My understanding is that both the Kiehl & Trenberth(Fig.1) and Dr. Ollila’s version of the energy budget are irrelevant. They both show different amounts of energy flowing through the system at different places but contrived to show a “balance”.
In fact they do no such thing as energy is not additive in that sense. It is pointless to add the energy from a source at 5778 deg.C to the energy from a source at 15 deg.C., they are two different entities with completely different spectra, emitting photons of completely different frequency/wavelength combinations. An object at 200 deg.C will not be heated by radiation from a source at 15 deg.C but will be heated by radiation from, for example, a source at 5778 deg.C – the estimated Sun’s temperature.
This particularly applies to the so-called back-radiation. The radiative gases absorb and release photons at specific bands within the electromagnetic spectrum. This means that the radiation is only isolated parts of the original radiation from the Earth’s surface. It does not even represent the original Earth’s radiation much less radiation from a hotter source which is what is required to raise the temperature of that surface. Thus the Greenhouse Effect cannot raise the Earth’s surface temperature.
As for the surface being warmed by the ‘blanket’ effect slowing down the release of radiation from the surface, at the Equator that surface is moving at a rotational velocity of about 1670 km/hr. The surface has no chance of reaching anything like thermodynamic equilibrium so the ‘blanket’ must come on and off at great speed and it may not have any measurable effect on the highly variable surface below which is undergoing continual changes in its thermodynamic properties.
Well, for starters “greenhouse effect” should not be called “greenhouse” because this is not how greenhouses work. As Gerlich and Tscheuschner rightly point out, it is blocking convection that keeps greenhouses warm. That is not to say that IR transfer does not exist in greenhouses. It does, but it is so small as to be negligible and practically unmeasurable, as experiments by Wood and others demonstrate.
In the atmosphere, there are other effects that are much more powerful than CO2 itself. Of course, there is water vapour in the first place, of which there is way, way more than CO2 and which is way more powerful as IR active agent than CO2. Then we have the clouds, convection, and turbulence. The models can’t account for those from basic principles, because they lack the required resolution and, in case of clouds, their physics is not fully understood anyway. So they kludge instead, and the kludges produce unphysical effects that produce unphysical excessive warming.
In fact, most atmospheric warming of the earth’s surface is as predicted by barometric formulas that treat the gas as ideal (or van-der-Waals) and wrap radiative transfer effects in gas thermal constants. This works well for Earth and other planets, e.g., Venus, Mars. Specific radiative corrections are second order.
“Well, for starters ‘greenhouse effect’ should not be called ‘greenhouse’ because this is not how greenhouses work.”
Anyone who is confused by the terminology probably doesn’t know how a real grenhouse works either. IOW, this is a pointless criticism.
We call it the Earth, knowing full well that it is more than just a ball of soil.
Dr Spencer knew his post would usher in the standard greenhouse denial. Voila.
barry, please stop trolling.
There is no greenhouse gas effect and backradiation in the real world. It is only based on theoretical mathematical exercise.
Solar oven are used to heat stuff. When pointed to sky at night they make ice. So where is the 340 w m2 of greenhouse gas effect. Olilla is correct based on observation s.
Nabil
“Solar oven are used to heat stuff. When pointed to sky at night they make ice. So where is the 340 w m2 of greenhouse gas effect. ”
Yes indeed, but the ice making ability depends on atmospheric conditions, eg presence of water vapor and clouds.
How do you account for that difference?
We account for it by a change in the amount of downwelling IR with wv or clouds.
NS, “Making ice” with a greenhouse depends on the IR emissivity of the covering material. Glass is a good IR emitter/absorber, thus such will produce less cooling (i.e., less ice) than one with a cover that exhibits low absorp_tion, such as some plastics. This fact is easily demonstrated, as I did with a simple experiment using a freezer.
Reflection is not the same thing as absorp.tion/emission:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/03/07/the-nub-of-the-argument/#comment-62832
DRsEMT wrote:
Well Duh. Any solid material’s surface will exhibit absorp_tion, reflection and/or transmission for a particular incident EM wavelength. For non-transparent surfaces, low absorp_tion means high reflection/scattering and conversely. For transparent materials, such as glass, low absorp_tion may result in high transmission. What’s your point, (if you have one)?
It’s OK, I think others can work it out. Especially with the help of the link.
Its ok, no need to understand your own posts!
Yes it is the same. Let’s stick to perfect black body emission to compare to a perfect reflector to avoid talking about spectrum.
A photon directly from the BB will be no different than one from the BB reflected off the reflector.
I.E. A photon has no temperature, it is pure energy and does not “know” the temperature of the thing that emitted it. (How could it?)
No it is not the same. Not that it is pertinent to the points made at the link above, but different photons have different wavelengths.
Yes and spectrums overlap. Part of the cold object photons have higher frequency than part of the hot object photons, and vice versa.
OK, Svante.
I’m glad you get it. Here’s an image, looks like 30% of the 273 K
photons have higher frequency/energy than most 293 K photons.
https://tinyurl.com/s5ynrxa
Assuming a receiver at 283 K, how can he discriminate between incoming 273/293 photons so that the former has no effect?
#2
OK, Svante.
Nate,
We care about what we see, and this is the only fact. There is no such a thing as 340 w per m2 of greenhouse gas effect, period. Ollila is correct, no question about that. Anything else is a mere concept or assumption.
Would you mind explaining how radiometers in space detect water vapor or how my infrared thermometer is able to register a temperature while pointed up that is dependent on the water vapor mixing ratio without invoking any part of the GHE hypothesis?
Would you mind explaining how “parts” of the “GHE hypothesis” being “invoked” would mean the whole thing is correct?
Nabil, your assertions are mind-boggling.
‘There is no such a thing as 340 w per m2 of greenhouse gas effect, period.’
But do you have an alternative to answer my question or not?
Specifically how do you explain how the cooling effect of a clear dry night sky (that you mentioned), and the absence of such a cooling effect with high humidity or clouds?
Nabil Swedan
How is it that you, being a professional engineer, do not comprehend radiant heat transfer?
So do you believe an object with some temperature does not emit IR?
I do not know how you formed your ideas or what they are based upon.
They are very wrong and asserting them with authority does not do make you look knowledgeable. Most the skeptics who proclaim these ideas do not understand physics at all. They read some blogs and feel they are expert. No textbook on heat transfer agrees with our conclusions. Further no book on heat transfer engineering agrees with you conclusion. How did you pass those classes to get your degree if you did not understand how to perform radiant heat transfer problems?
Why not do what the other skeptics of GHE will NOT do. Read up on heat transfer from textbooks and learn what it actually says and not come here acting like an expert but looking like someone without a clue!
+1
Norman, stop using your wifes name…
Whoever Lori is, they make a good point. And it applies equally well to you, DREMT.
#2
Norman, stop using your wifes name…
Dr. Spencer,
The top graphic shows 170 w/m2 emitted to space from the atmosphere vs. 340 w/m2 emitted to Earth. That is not possible due to geometry.
You could argue that we are seeing the greater surface area at the top, and hence a lower flux, but then you shouldn’t have a “balance”, i.e. the numbers shouldn’t add up because you are dealing with fluxes and different surface areas.
Bottom line, in absolute terms the atmosphere should radiate more to space than the surface of the Earth. Note this does not disprove “greenhouse” theory, only that this graphic CAN’T be correct.
James, you are nitpicking. The error from the area of a sphere, say, 50 km higher than the surface of the earth is less than 2%, which is less than our knowledge of any of these fluxes.
Roy, you said – The error from the area of a sphere, say, 50 km higher than the surface of the earth is less than 2%, which is less than our knowledge of any of these fluxes.
So all your assertions about something you cannot define are based on things you admittedly have no knowledge about and don’t understand.
It seems that you think that insulating a thermometer makes it hotter. No?
Try expressing this idea in equations if you cannot do it using the English language. Too hard?
Amazed is a straw man specialist, just like Mike Flynn!
Nate
” It seems that you think that insulating a thermometer makes it hotter. No? ”
This is not like – this IS the Flynn guy, alias Cynic.
“So all your assertions about something you cannot define are based on things you admittedly have no knowledge about and don’t understand.”
No, he’s just saying the margin of error of the measurements of the fluxes is larger than 2%.
The bottom line here is there is no law of conservation of energy flux. The GHE could be wrong for one reason or another, but not due to any COE violation.
Roy, remember what I wrote a few months ago regarding the updated IPCC AR5 science basis and FAQ 8.1 at https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf where the IPCC concedes that water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas and many times more potent than CO2. However, for the IPCC to keep up the carbon dioxide scare, they had to invent the control knob to control CO2 as a forcing which leads to a feedback of water vapor, the greenhouse gas “NUMERO UNO”.
As a geologist relatively well versed in climates of the past, I prefer to forget about radiation here-and-there and just use simple logic regarding climate regulation.
During the past long history of life on our planet, isn’t it funny that despite tumultuous events (gigantic volcanic eruptions, drift of continents (platye tectonics), bombardment by extra-terrestrial bodies, etc.) causing drastic changes in plant and animal species, the climate on Earth always returned more-or-less to the amiable climate that we know that has been conducive to life. How is this possible?
The main requirements can be limited to the fact that the distance between our Earth and the Sun is just right. Thanks to that our planet has ever since it formed over 4.5 billion years ago and cooled sufficiently to allow atmospheric water vapor to condense and form our oceans and to retain them to this day.
The other prerequisite has to do with the physical properties of water, i.e. the strong thermodynamic processes involved in phase changes between gaseous, fluid and solid forms of water.
Thus solar energy and water in its various forms constitute the “thermostat” that has kept this planet alive with a multitude of various life forms flourishing in an amiable climate.
Just imagine lying on the beach in the warmth and all of a sudden you feel chilled – what has happened – simple, just a cloud happened to park in front of our Sun. Note that the quality and amount of clouds constitutes the actual climate regulator.
Except for water vapor, all the other so-called greenhouse gases are superfluous when discussing global climate. Carbon dioxide is in reality a very minor greenhouse gas, but it has a very important, actually crucial, role as the absolute prerequisite for all life we have had and have on this planet. There would be no life without CO2.
If you question my views, please note that palaeoclimatology is the science studying past climates and also life forms.
“During the past long history of life on our planet, isnt it funny that despite tumultuous events (gigantic volcanic eruptions, drift of continents (platye tectonics…..the climate on Earth always returned more-or-less to the amiable climate that we know that has been conducive to life.”
That premise is far from reality. The Earth has had several different climate ‘states’, mostly NOT like our current climate. Weve had glacial periods, hothouse periods, and iceball periods. Most of the time with no polar ice sheets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth
Boris, learn about the CO2 thermostat.
Svante, tell me more about your CO2 thermostat, but it should be better than https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Lacis%20et%20al.,%202010,%20Science.pdf
Yous should also take a look at the link I had in my first comment at March 13, 2020 at 12:42 PM
Sorry Svante the link ti the Lacis paper5 should be: https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Lacis%20et%20al.,%202010,%20Science.pdf
Science from a reputable university:
https://tinyurl.com/ya9bplrq
Please the study the differences between condensing and non-condensing gases and the implications of those differences have in regulating the energy balance of the planet.
Svante, learn about “no GHE” arguments.
DREMT
The arguments are very bad. I tried to demonstrate clearly the GHE with actual data on PSI. I doubt those on that blog have a clue. Most don’t know how a pyrgeometer actually works.
Here is what I posted. It basically proves the reality of the GHE based upon measured values of real world energy flows. All one can do is deny the energy given by the instruments in valid.
ME: ” I tried to reason with the fanatic Joseph Postma on his blog. Most irrational fanatic and he does not understand heat transfer at all!
Rick you called it. The rant of a fanatic who convinces a couple of scientific illiterates and gains their praises.
I used empirical evidence to prove to him the GHE but he does not accept it and he was not able to grasp the content of the graphs. Just a fanatic but not very bright.
In a series of graphs of measured energy fluxes it will be shown the GHE is quite valid and real.
First graph is a sunny day in the summer of a desert location in Nevada.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5e68322629a27.png
The Red line is the total energy of the Sun detected by a sensor. The Blue line is the energy measured that is reflected by the surface and not absorbed. The Green line is how much energy a one meter square area of the surface. To determine the total amount of joules that reaches the area in 24 hours you calculate the area under the curve (2/3 * B * H). The H is 800 watts/m^2 the B is 14 hours or 50,400 seconds (to get joules out of watts convert to total seconds). It is an approximation but will show clearly the GHE is valid science and based upon actual data. If you do the math your will come to the value that a one meter square surface area will receive 26,880,000 joules of energy. If you divide this energy into 24 hours you have 311 W/m^2 or which will give you a surface temperature of 30 F (below freezing). No one likes this sort of math but it does not matter for the reality of the GHE because you can use other measured values to clearly demonstrate the GHE is absolutely necessary to explain the available data (or you could go Conspiracy and believe the data is just a bunch of lies by the Illuminati tricking the Sheeple but the few unscientific fanatics have it all figured out).
Now we can use the measured value of the upwelling IR at this same location on the same date.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5e6833bb2dd78.png
Doing rough calculations under the curve you get a 24 hour energy loss of 38,880,000 joules. You have an input of 26,880,000 joules for a given square meter in 24 hours but in that same time frame the energy lost is 38,880,000 joules. The one meter square is losing much more energy than it gained. This would not be possible based upon 1st Law physics and it is not logical. Something must be going one. Other heat loses from the surface (conduction, evaporation, convection) do not help since they are removing energy from the surface and NOT adding it.
Now for another graph of measured values at the same location on the same day.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5e683543091ad.png
You have three lines.
Blue: Upwelling IR (loss by surface emission)
Red: Downwelling IR (energy returned to surface by atmosphere)
Green: Infrared NET (the actual amount of energy lost by the surface)
One can see the atmosphere IS NOT HEATING the surface as Joe Postma prophets claim endlessly. The surface is still losing energy via radiant energy even with a GHE, the thing that is obvious is with a GHE it now only loses 17,280,000 joules of energy from the square meter of surface instead of 38,880.000 joules without any GHE. Now it is losing less energy via radiant heat loss than it is gaining from solar input.
You have a positive gain of energy 26,880,000 joules of total solar input in 24 hours minus 17,280,000 joules lost by radiant energy to space. In 24 hours the surface gains 9,600,000 joules of energy. This energy is removed by the other heat transfer mechanisms and the average surface temperature remains about the same throughout the summer months.
9.600,000 joules divided by 24 hours would give heat transfer into the atmosphere by conduction, convection and evaporation of 111 Watts/m^2″
What does this have to do with my comment!?
DREMT
It has everything to do with your comment. It demonstrates the reality of the GHE using actual measured values in real world setting.
YOU: “Svante, learn about no GHE arguments”
I gave you one that clearly debunks any of these arguments with real world data. You can reject the data but you can’t refute the reality (if you accept the measured values) of the GHE.
Seems like a bit of a tenuous link for you to squeeze in your favorite meme of the moment, to me.
DREMT
It may be a long post but has all the material needed to prove a real GHE using actual measured values.
I think if the SURFRAD data conclusively proved the GHE then we would have heard about it by now…
Hi, Norman.
I like what you are doing here, but I think you should keep in mind that those IR measurements in your graphs apply to the surface only and don’t indicate what’s happening at the TOA. Also is the upwelling solar measured at the surface or TOA?
Your 38,880,000 Joules comes out to only 450 W/m2. That is much less than the graph indicates.
Did you take initial heat content into effect when you calculated 311 W/m2 of solar input would only make the surface 271 K? The Nevada sun only needed to provide that 311 W/m2 to keep the surface at the same temperature at the same time the next day.
Also, where did your 17,000,000 Joules to space come from?
Chic Bowdrie
Thanks for pointing out my error. I went back and figured out what I did wrong. I took the parabola as if it was on the 0 axis when I calculated it like I had done for the incoming solar input. I should not have done this. The baseline for the parabola is 450 W/m^2 for 14 hours (50,400 seconds). I add the value from the parabola on to this value and use only 275 W for the parabola peak.
Anyway doing it correctly I get around 46,000,000 joules of energy lost by the surface in 24 hours by the measured value instead of 38,880,000 joules when calculated incorrectly
Now the averaged value comes out at 532 W/m^2 which matches more closely to what the graph shows.
On your other questions. I believe the upwelling solar is determined at the surface with a pyranometer pointing down.
The 17,000,000 joules lost is the 24 hour approximation of the net loss of IR from the surface. It loses about 200 W/m^2 but it looks like it would be less.
I looked at a better graph
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5e6d6a44420d4.png
The result looks closer to 15,000,000 joules lost from surface via radiant energy with GHE active.
Chic Bowdrie
I believe the heat content effect would only matter as to a portion of time during your measuring. At stead state it would not matter.
If you have material with great heat capacity, like water, it will take longer to warm up and cool down but if it receives a constant input energy of say 311 W/m^2 it will reach a temperature where it is losing 311 watts/m^2. In real world situations there are other heat transfer mechanisms at play. Isolated to just radiant energy it would not matter. If you had boiling water with 311 W/m^2 reaching its surface it would reach the steady state temperature of 271 K regardless. While hot it would radiate away much more than 311 W/m^2 and continue until it reached the temperature that it would radiate away what it received.
Your data represents a 24 hour period. There is no time for steady state to develop. If the surface receives 311 W/m2 from the sun it only needs to lose that amount by the combination of conduction, IR, and evaporation (if any) accompanied by convection and circulation of the air warmed by those mechanisms plus the IR directly to space.
The surface isn’t at 100 deg C. Maybe 35 deg or so. No matter. The point is that it won’t cool to 0 deg C unless weather conditions change resulting in cooler temperatures.
Boris Winterhalter
” Except for water vapor, all the other so-called greenhouse gases are superfluous when discussing global climate. ”
You are probably the 5,000,000th person replicating that stuff.
I do the inverse, and replicate that while water vapor obviously is the major IR-sensitive gas in the atmosphere, it nonetheless precipitates around the tropopause, as opposed to CO2 which is present in altitudes up to 50 km.
And that is what people talk about, not more, not less.
The consequence of CO2’s presence namely is that the more of it is present at high altitudes, the less efficient will be the final IR escape to space, because IR reemissions from temperatures around -50 C are obviously less efficient than IR reemissions at the surface.
Feel free to translate this excellent French article in Finnish:
documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/handle/2042/39839/meteo_2011_72_31.pdf?sequence=1
I currently lack both time and interest to do; bit Google’s translating tool might help.
Rgds from Germoney
J.-P. Dehottay
Bindidon, sorry, you write: “while water vapor obviously is the major IR-sensitive gas in the atmosphere, it nonetheless precipitates around the tropopause, as opposed to CO2 which is present in altitudes up to 50 km”.
My point is not IR sensitivity, but the direct effect of water vapor and solar insolation together constituting the actions of a thermostat. Sure water vapor is a condensing gas contrary to CO2 which is said to stay in the atmosphere even hundreds of years according to the IPCC, is OK with me.
What I am driving at is a logical explanation of solar insolation and its ability to warm oceans and other bodies of water, not forgetting gas exchange of surface plants, all effectively leading to real evaporation, and eventually to cloud formation and sure enough also to be precipitated. The fact remains that there is most of the time more water vapor in the global atmosphere acting as a greenhousegas, continuously being replenished, as compared to CO2.
However, the most important outcome from the joint effect between solar energy flow and evaporation is the formation of clouds. The more clouds the less solar energy is able to evaporate water; the less evaporation, the more energy reaches the surface. The balance between solar energy and cloud formation is governed by the themodynamic processes between the three phases of water (gas, fluid, solid). This in my view constitutes a perfect thermostat that has kept temperatures of our Earth within the narrow limits required by the life we find now and which has existed eons ago.
Boris Winterhalter
You are perfectly correct as far as we consider the past three or more millennia until present.
But Dufresne and Treiner don’t speak about the past or the present either: they describe the future, a future which in their mind sees CO2’s influence increasing for two reasons:
– (1) its increasing action above the tropopause I wrote about in the comment above, due to the temperature gradient for final emissions to space;
– (2) the consequence of (1) being a tiny warming of surface and atmosphere which in turn increases water vapor’s presence, what has a very great influence on the average absorp-tivity in the troposphere.
They show in their article that while the absorp-tivity is not much increased by CO2 increases, the water vapor increase CO2 induces is the real problem: the increase of absorp-tivity within the atmospheric window.
You see that when looking at figures 6, 7 and 8.
I hope I can find some time to translate this stuff in English and upload it.
Rgds
J.-P. Dehottay
Ooops!?
I put the replied person’s identifier in the name field instead of my own one!
Sorry.
Dr. Spencer,
I was wondering what your take was on the “negative feedback water paper” article: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0260.1
In particular, how significant this effect is or is not, in the grand scheme of energy feedbacks – both positive and negative.
Looks pretty naive at first glance:
“This effect is referred to as the vapor buoyancy effect and has often been overlooked in climate studies”
I don’t think there is any such name, and the fact of water vapour being more buoyant is deeply entrenched in atmospheric physics. Google scholar or even wikipedia’s entry on Water Vapour will quickly dispel that strange assertion. WV buoyancy is mentioned many times, including in a search string with ‘climate model’ included at google scholar.
https://tinyurl.com/wueohoh
barry, please stop trolling.
Lori,
The greenhouse gas effect simply suggests the existence of two suns. We only have one. It is that simple. If you wish to use the greenhouse gas effect concept, please go ahead, but do not say that it causes climate change. Climate change has been driven by the inherent nature of living matter to change it size. There are published works on this subject. Just look around.
It’s really very simple. The temperature of an object is determined by the balance of of heat gain and heat loss. The Earth’s atmosphere, being opaque to infrared radiation, slows the rate at which the surface loses energy to space. As the sun is a continuous source of energy, any change in the rate of energy loss from the Earth to space will change the surface temperature of the Earth.
That’s one of the most elementary facts of physics. Increase energy input, object warms. Reduce energy loss, object warms.
‘Greenhouse’ gases absorb IR in the spectra associated with Earth’s temperature. This radiation is re-emitted by the atmosphere in all directions, some downward to the surface, where it is absorbed and re-emitted. This is the way that energy loss from the surface to space is delayed. If the atmosphere becomes optically thicker – such as by adding more GHGs – then the overall rate at which the energy flows from the surface to space is reduced. This, as we know from physics 101, causes the surface to warm.
Slowing energy loss is a daily fact of life, from putting on a jumper or diving under a blanket to insulating your house to stay warmer in Winter. A car overheats on a hot day instead of a cold one. And yet in both instances the engine is much hotter than the ambient air, even while idling. If the ambient air has a higher temperature, the heat loss from the engine is less efficient, and the car overheats.
All of this is standard stuff and quite intuitive. The atmosphere is a bit more complex, but the blanket analogy will do just as well for the basic idea.
Opaque to infrared? Hardly. Certainly not in relation to the Sun. Most of the radiation hitting the surface is IR. And at night, the IR from the surface leaves rapidly, resulting in cooling!
Do you live on a fictional planet?
Yep it sounds like Mike F.
What does that have to do with the comment? Are you denying the surface cools at night? Are you a believer in an effect neither you nor Dr Spencer can even describe?
Your mind reading abilities are matched by your knowledge of physics – zero.
For one of the most arrogant and ignorant commentators putting stuff on this blog
Barry of course did not mean
“The Earths atmosphere, being opaque to infrared radiation…”
but
“The Earths atmosphere, being partly opaque to infrared radiation…”
And it is evident that during the night, when there is no sunlight warming the atmosphere and the ground, the Earth’s surface and atmosphere tends towards the temperature of the outer space!
But… the thermal inertia of the air means that at nighttime, the temperature goes down and our nights are thus cooler.
The less the concentration of atmospheric constituents and processes inhibiting cooling, like for example in deserts and arid regions, the cooler the nights. This is surprisingly valid for the Tropic oceans too:
https://tinyurl.com/wc33u59
And barry is plain right when writing:
” Increase energy input, object warms. Reduce energy loss, object warms. “
When I grew up, I learned that ‘opaque’ means not transparent, which could be anything from frosted glass to a sheet of metal.
This is what I mean by ‘opaque’ when I think of radiation through the atmosphere.
https://tinyurl.com/rhetz5g
“Climate change has been driven by the inherent nature of living matter to change it size.”
Sounds like “a mere concept or assumption” Nabil.
At least with the GHE we can quatify bit and measure it.
Nabil Sweden
No GHE DOES NOT at all suggest two suns. Why do you persist? You are just wrong. Why be a braindead skeptic, rather use the intelligence it took you to master engineering and move away from the lunatic fringe that is clueless about physics or the 2nd Law.
Since you are an engineer I found a link for you on the topic.
https://www.cedengineering.com/userfiles/Heat%20Transfer.pdf
Scroll down to Radiant Heat Transfer and read the material and work on the problems given.
From the link: “All bodies above absolute zero temperature radiate some heat. The sun and earth both radiate
heat toward each other. This seems to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states
that heat cannot flow from a cold body to a hot body. The paradox is resolved by the fact that
each body must be in direct line of sight of the other to receive radiation from it. Therefore,
whenever the cool body is radiating heat to the hot body, the hot body must also be radiating
heat to the cool body. Since the hot body radiates more heat (due to its higher temperature) than
the cold body, the net flow of heat is from hot to cold, and the second law is still satisfied.”
As Mike Flynn pointed out, you cannot heat water with ice emitting 300 W/m2, no matter how you twist words. You obviously dont understand the difference between temperature and heat.
Amazed, MF’s many rants about heating water with ice ignore the basic problem that water is liquid ice and the ice must therefore be located above the water for said heating to occur. To counter MF’s claim, I demonstrated that ice can in fact “warm” another solid material as long as the ice doesn’t melt. In my demo, a heated plate exhibits a higher temperature when shielded by an ice slab, the effect being similar to other high emissivity materials, such as glass.
He didnt say that at all, IIRC. Put the water anywhere you like – on top of the ice? Put the ice in the water, say. Forget the nonsense that insulating a thermometer will make it hotter. That is just rubbish.
You even put “warm” in quotes to show you didnt really mean warming or heating!!
Amazed wrote:
If the thermometer is embedded in a body being supplied with energy from an external source at a constant rate, which is the basic situation so often discussed around here, adding insulation to said body will cause the temperature to rise. That result is so easy to prove that it’s not in doubt.
Of course, all you are doing is throwing out multiple red herrings to add to your previous attempt at obfuscation.
Forget the nonsense that insulating a thermometer will make it hotter. That is just rubbish.
MF,
Here’s a simple experiment idea. Put a thermometer in your oven. Turn your oven up to the max setting (so that it does not try to cycle) but leave the door open. Wait until steady state conditions are achieved. Now insulate the thermometer by shutting the oven door. Observe the temperature. Let us know what happens.
BTW…I just did the experiment. Spoiler alert…the thermometer got hotter.
You dream. What did you insulate the thermometer from? Not the heat, thats for sure. Stupid. That is about as silly as moving your thermometer closer to the source of heat and being surprised the thermometer gets hotter.
Anyone can do that experiment, but you don’t have to because it is intuitively obvious. You insulate a house against heat escape by closing windows and doors and putting fibrous material in the wall cavities. Closing the oven door insulates the switched on oven (and hardy thermometer) from heat loss, resulting in higher temps inside the oven.
How is this not freaking obvious?
Nate, look around and read before concluding it is a concept. Also, see how climate change can be calculated.
Read about radiant heat transfer before deciding the GHE just a concept.
Norman an Nate,
Look at the diagram of energy budget at the beginning of the post. You see two heat fluxes to the surface each having 342 w per m2. They are two suns to me. You and Nate can say all the theory of heat transfer in the world, but we go by what we see and measure, not by theory. Solar oveons at night make ice. Therefore, there is no 342 w per m2 of backradiation that your heat transfer theory suggests.
Yes , Their model is a super perpetual motion machine
Nabil Sweden
Then go what they measure. The 342 W/m^2 is an averaged amount, it is derived not measured. In a link above I have actual measured values.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5e6cb81590a16.png
That is a graph of measured downwelling IR at a desert location in Nevada.
Here is one with all the IR measured values for the same day and location.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5e6cb8963001e.png
Notice that the NET IR is negative. The surface is still losing energy via radiant heat transfer. Notice that with GHG it is less. it IS NOT a second SUN. Be rational, be an engineer. The skeptic movement on this one is dense and a lame and you supporter Eben is one of the densest posters. He links to Flat Earth videos. Be a logical rational engineer and think about the issue. Also read heat transfer textbooks. For a time I also thought like you until I started to read the real material. Then the skeptics of GHE look dumb and don’t know what they are taking about. You have an engineering degree. There is a lot of hope you will see your error but it won’t come be supporting your current understanding. It will come when you read and understand heat transfer.
Norman,
Take ESRL measurements of downwelling IR with a grain of salt. They are not actual measurement of IR radiation, they are proxies of incorrectly Calibrated pyrgeometers. Do your research. Pyrgeometer are based on thermocuples, they sense temperature, not radiation. The calibrfion equation displays radiation. Without calibration, pyrgeometer displays 0 to -200 w m-2. With calibration you get 350 w m-2. It is thus a virtual backradiation based on theoretical calibration equation. Investigate how backradiation is measured first before you jump into conclusion.
PS
0 to -200 w m-2 measured at night. Or no backradiation at night without calibration. 350 w m-2 at night with calibration.
Nabil Sweden
You go to the next line of defense as the group of misguided skeptics.
I have done research on how pyrgeometers work. The bottom part has a temperature sensor. The thermopile is made of a paint that has an emissivity of 98.5 in the IR band. Near a blackbody conditions.
The thermopile is made of a heat resistant material (insulator) so the top and bottom will not equalate temperatures via conduction.
The top part is free to radiate out the IR window on top (that also allows IR in). Visible bands are blocked by the window.
With the Stefan-Boltzman Law you determine the rate the thermopile would radiate at the bottom of the pile based upon the temperature and emissivity. The top of the thermopile is in balance with any external IR reaching it. If there is not a temperature change, the IR being absorbed by the top surface from external source (the sky when pointed upward, the Earth surface when pointed downward) is the same as would be radiated away from surface at the temperature of the bottom of the pile. If the measured temperature of the bottom of the thermopile is 80 F with an emissivity of 98.5 the radiant energy needed to maintain the temperature at the top of pile would be 447.5 W/m^2 (It loses 447.5 Watts/m^2 so it has to have an incoming 447.5 Watts/m^2 or it will change temperature).
If the IR coming down is less than the temperature of the bottom of the thermopile a voltage will develop because the top is colder than the bottom. Using a calculation that is based upon lab calibrations of known IR fluxes the voltage change can be converted directly to an incoming IR flux.
I do not know why you think there is this virtual backradiation. It is making an actual change on the surface of the top of the thermopile. Without calibration with known values no instrument is useful.
Also the instrument DOES actually measure IR radiation. The IR radiation produces a change. This change is what is measured. The calibration gives you a value based upon known values that would produce the result. I think your are barking up a bad tree with this line of thought. I hope you reconsider this, it is not a good or valid point. It makes you look ignorant and uninformed! Case of point. Alcohol in a tube or mercury in a tube DO NOT measure temperature. A given temperature causes a known rate of expansion or contraction of these working fluids (similar to what IR does to the thermopile). A thermometer is a calibrated device with these fluids that has degrees of change based upon calibration of the thermometer. Your argument applies to all instrumentation used in all fields including your own.
Norman,
When the sun heats the thermocouple, emf is positive. At night,
emf is negative because the thermocouple radiates to sky and cools. Yet pyrgeometer gives positive radiation from sky. This is incorrect calibration and that is how we get backradiation 24/7. In short we get two suns.
Nabil Swedan
Your statement is just wrong. I certainly wish you would get out of the stupid skeptic physics and use that clever brain of yours.
YOU: “Yet pyrgeometer gives positive radiation from sky. This is incorrect calibration and that is how we get backradiation 24/7. In short we get two suns.”
NO IT DOES NOT! The NET radiation IS NEGATIVE. The top of the thermopile is colder than the bottom.
Use some logic. The Solar input is one-way positive input to the surface. Say 163 W/m^2 average. All positive energy to the surface.
The IR you think is a second Sun is because you are not thinking it through. The IR given is the individual flows of energy. One down and one up. The NET is the HEAT transfer via IR radiant energy. If you look at Roy’s Global budget graph you can figure the amount of heat flow. Please note it is away from the surface.
The surface is losing 58 W/m^2 of IR energy. The HEAT flow is -58. Your thought process is wrong. The sky does not act at all like a second Sun. The IR is not positive. What you should try to grasp is that with the downwelling IR of 340 W/m^2 the HEAT loss is reduced from -398 W/m^2 (which is much greater loss than that gained by the Solar input) to -58 W/m^2. Use logic again and you can see that with the GHE the solar input exceeds the IR loss and the surface can warm until other heat transfer mechanisms limit the temperature rise.
it is not complicated. You could see it if you were willing to think about with a clear head.
You should really do more work on trying to understand how pyrgeometers work. You do not seem to understand their operations and you make it seem as if those who design them are not competent and do not know what they are trying to measure. the flaw is with you not them.
“It is thus a virtual backradiation based on theoretical calibration equation. Investigate how backradiation is measured first before you jump into conclusion.”
That could be said of many measurements we take for granted.
Temperature: classic one measures volume and fits that to a calibration curve.
Humidity: various sensors measure eg electrical resistance, all must be calibrated.
On and on.
IOW not a legit problem, Nabil
Nabil Swedan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgeometer#Measurement_of_long_wave_downward_radiation
Pretty easy to read.
But I know from experience that ‘skeptics’ (those with quotation marks) always dismiss Wikipedia as nonsensical when it says something different from what they want – and vice versa.
Bindidion,
The calibration equation of pyrgeometer by Wikipedia is incorrect. It assumes the existence of downwelling IR 24/7. This is wrong. We do not know if IR exists after sunset or not. The equation thus defeats the purpose of the experiment. It creates another sun at night.
Nabil Swedan
How can you persist with your nonsense comments. You are clearly totally wrong in your beliefs yet you still post them as if they were good points.
YOU: ” We do not know if IR exists after sunset or not. The equation thus defeats the purpose of the experiment. It creates another sun at night.”
Now I wonder how you got an engineering degree with that stupid comment and it really is stupid!
If you studied any physics at all you would know that objects with temperature emit IR. With gases, if they have bands that can emit in the IR they will if they have some temperature. The atmosphere has a temperature. It is always emitting IR. That you think different is more than strange. I think I will have to put in in the “Crackpot box”. You demonstrate a complete lack of heat transfer knowledge and do not understand IR emission. You get a big F in physics. Please read the subject before commenting on it.
Norman,
Radiation flows from high potential to low potential, just like electric currents. There is no backelectric current. This is the physics we learned and tested in practice. We go by what we see and measure. Solar ovens measure no backradiation at night.
Nabil Swedan
Not sure you are correct with your point on electricity.
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/sc545_notes04/back_emf.html
But it does not matter. Radiant energy is not at all like electricity. Very different.
Here read this about bosons:
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/09/06/can-one-bit-of-light-bounce-off-another-bit-of-light/
EMR can move through EMR with no interactions. Electricity is carried by fermions, the particles can’t move through each other.
Nabil Swedan
You make this statement: “Radiation flows from high potential to low potential, just like electric currents.”
Other than blogs where do you get this from? Nothing in a textbook on heat transfer remotely makes any such claim. All textbooks on heat transfer will clearly tell you that radiation (IR) is emitted by any object with temperature. The amount emitted is related to the temperature. Find me one source of valid science that supports your claim. You won’t be able to since it is blog made up science.
Nabil Swedan
YOU: “Solar ovens measure no backradiation at night.”
I have not heard they are a measuring instrument. Not sure what point you are making here. A Solar oven concentrates solar energy. You can’t do that with diffuse energy of downwelling IR that is coming from all directions. Solar energy comes in parallel is why you can focus it. You can’t focus the solar diffused energy in a fog.
Will you make even one point based upon actual physics or will you continue to post made up blog physics by crackpots and lunatics?
You can do better.
“we go by what we see and measure, not by theory. ”
Then why are you claiming your favorite speculative theory is right?
“Solar oveons at night make ice. Therefore, there is no 342 w per m2 of backradiation that your heat transfer theory suggests.”
Yes! And you did not respond to my question about this very point?
“Yes indeed, but the ice making ability depends on atmospheric conditions, eg presence of water vapor and clouds.
How do you account for that difference?”
Nabil,
The suns rays arrive collimated (parallel to each other) when they strike a solar oven. This allows them to be focused on a small area and produce a high temperature.
Further warming can be produced by using a greenhouse effect – the area of focus is covered by glass. This allows the focused solar radiation to enter, but prevents cooling by convection.
By contrast, downwelling radiation from the atmosphere is highly scattered, and from what I have read so far, cannot be focused without first being collimated.
Even if it could, the glass covering would not produce a greenhouse effect, because glass is opaque to LWIR rather than transparent.
*******
As for making ice at night? Let me see if I can find out how that works.
Nabil,
Sorry, I see now that my comment refers mostly to parabolic solar cookers, not solar ovens:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cooker
Do you have a link to the particular kind of solar oven you have in mind, and the science behind how it is able to make ice at night?
Never mind.
I think we should all talk about the Coronavirus instead
I have followed it closely and am getting more and more concerned, especially after seeing the recent comments by Steve Mosher (resident of S. Korea)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/13/the-math-of-epidemics/
We don’t need to say much about it here. It’s a pandemic, it spreads fast, and its lethality is higher than regular flu (3% v 0.1%).
Countries are passing on the health warnings of the WHO. Minimise contact, don’t congregate in large groups, wash hands frequently. Don’t touch your eyes or mouth if you can help it. Avoid travel to certain countries, and avoid traveling altogether unless its critical.
We’re seeing various countries reacting in ever-increasing vigour as the infection spreads. Some are trying to get ahead of those curves. It is now mandatory for every person entering New Zealand to self-isolate for two weeks, for example. NZ has 5 cases and no mortality.
The popel who have been employing me there very likely have tight connection to the NZ government, and they are concerned that borders will close to their European employees. They are even concerned that the bordere might close to Australia (they’ve asked me to come back early). They have been flying in English employees who are not going to be working for weeks, just to be sure they have them. When they arrive, they go into home isolation. I’ve been communicating with them.
Make no mistake, this is serious. Some people are being irrational about it wiith panic buying. Supermarkets all over Australia hve no toilet paper, for example (this is nuts). Pasta and pasta sauce are disappearing from shelves now. I went just a few hours ago. Picked up an armload of soup cans. A friend of mine went hunting online for freeze-dried, long-keep food, and found it hard to come by in bulk.
Italy has locked down the population in many parts of the country and Spain is doing the same. Denmark and Switzerland have shut down schools and other mass-meeting places. I have no doubt we’re going to see more draconian measures in very short order. The situation is evolving very rapidly.
I’m not a person who panics. I’m not alarmed or trying to alarm. But yes, you should take this pandemic very seriously indeed. I would quietly stock up. It’s by no means inevitable that panic-buying will empty your local supermarket, but the possibility should not be dismissed out of hand. Grab some tins of things, just a few each time you go. Probably no newed to worry, just be prudent. And don’t walk out with 3 trolley loads or YOU will be the one who started the panic buying!
Stay safe. Keep calm. Let’s talk about the climate.
Many posters here are older.
I hope all of you take precautions and stay well.
Dr, Spencer, in response to my coverage of Dr. Antero Ollila”s set of articles on our website you wrote an extensive discussion of the “greenhouse gas effect“ to which I am responding. There are multiple comments from “Dr. Roy’s Emergency Moderation Team” which effectively state” poor “no GHE argument”” by Dr. Ollila. However Dr. Ollila did not state “there is no greenhouse gas effect.”
For the record, the following is an unedited section I have extracted from a private email he sent to me on the subject. I feel it is important that his comments be aired and appropriately responded to.
“I must say it right away that the GH effect is a reality on the Earth. In my blog story, I have made it clear enough. I repeat the most important point:
– The net insolation energy from the sun, 240 W/m2, would mean the surface temperature of about -18 C. Because the surface temperature is about 15 C, there must a special explanation for this and it is called the GH effect.
– Based on the measurements we know that the atmosphere emits LW radiation 345 W/m2 and the direct solar insolation on the surface is only 165 W/m2. Together is means radiation of 510 W/m2. The “extra” energy from the atmosphere is this 510-240 = 270 W/m2. This energy originates from the sun. It has been trapped in the atmosphere from the latent heating, sensible heating, and LW absorption. The only way the atmosphere can get rid of this energy is by radiation back to the surface. This energy flux of 270 W/m2 recycles continuously between the surface and the atmosphere like solar energy flux 240 W/m2 recycles between the space and the Earth.
– GH effect is like an insulation layer between the surface and space. The IPCC has defined the GH effect in its own way for increasing the portion of GH gases in the GH effect.
– IPCC science is based on the wrong RF equation of CO2, and on the positive water feedback. By the wrong GH effect definition, they show that CO2 has enough potential for having its warming impacts. In a nutshell, this means the climate sensitivity is only 0.6 C and not 1.8 C. The carbon cycle model approved by the IPCC is wrong, which can be easily proven by the permille measurement. This means that CO2 concentration will stay below 560 ppm during this century and the warming impacts of CO2 are so low that the other reasons fluctuating the climate have a big role.
For the record please note that Dr. Ollila’s native language is Finish and the above is his writing in English.
Also, for the record, representations that Dr. Ollila is “my guy” or in some way working for us or my climate projects are not accurate. I have simply posted five of his articles and/or papers on our website at: https://climatecite.com
“There are multiple comments from “Dr. Roy’s Emergency Moderation Team” which effectively state” poor “no GHE argument”” by Dr. Ollila. However Dr. Ollila did not state “there is no greenhouse gas effect.””
Hence why it’s a poor “no GHE argument”!
P.S: I’m just a commenter here, I do not represent Dr Spencer in any way.
Good post, Barry
Besides, it’s the same solution as for global warming:
https://tinyurl.com/rabkgll
The problem with using the greenhouse analogy is not that it doesn’t resemble or have anything in common with the atmosphere in some respects. The main problem is how it leads to more important misconceptions, the main one being that an increase in CO2 will be or has been contributing to a rise in global temperature. There is no empirical evidence of that.
Thermalization is the process where IR radiation absorbed by CO2, water vapor, and other gases capable of absorbing IR radiation is transferred to the bulk air by molecular collisions which occur orders of magnitude more likely near the surface than do emissions from the excited gases. Increasing the population of those gases won’t substantially increase IR radiation absorbed from the surface. Subsequent convection due to the expanding air combined with evaporation and wind accounts for essentially all the transfer of energy through the atmosphere. The only exception is radiation which escapes directly to space through the atmospheric window where no gases absorb. Has the magnitude of the effect of any recession of the atmospheric window on temperature ever been measured?
Using the greenhouse analogy to explain the temperature of the planet is a slippery slope for concluding that more IR absorbing gases will cause further increases in global temperatures.
The main property of the atmosphere is to thermostatically control the temperature by inhibiting daytime warming and night time cooling. A “greenhouse analogy” doesn’t explain that.
“the main one being that an increase in CO2 will be or has been contributing to a rise in global temperature. There is no empirical evidence of that.”
Oh good grief, there’s tons of that.
* CO2 absorbs infrared radiation in the spectra associated with Earth’s temp
* Atmospheric CO2 has increased since the industrial revolution
* Upwelling radiation in the spectra absorbed by CO2 has darkened over time (more a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n) as measured by satellites looking down
* Downwelling infrared radiation has increased over time as measured by ground based instrument looking skyward
* Experiments of increasing CO2 in a volume of air cause the volume to warm
* The Earth has generally warmed over the last 100 years as CO2 has increased
Now, you can nit-pick details. You can mention a 30-year hiatus in warming mid 20th century, and a slow-down in the early 21st century. The premise of this argument is that only CO2 has an effect on global surface temperatures. You can postulate that long-term warming could be caused by something else, and the CO2 rise is purely coincidental. But then you need an empirically observed mechanism, rather than only correlation of some cycle or driver.
But what you can’t deny is that the above comprises empirical (as in observed and measured) evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 warms the surface of the Earth.
Or you could think that the heat resulted from burning increasing amounts of coal, gas, oil, wood etc, which happen to produce CO2. Try it and see.
I wasn’t mentioning anything. I nit-picked nothing. I clearly claimed no data measuring the increase in temperature from any CO2 increase. You listed a bunch of assertions without backing any up.
“But what you can’t deny is that the above comprises empirical (as in observed and measured) evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 warms the surface of the Earth.”
I can and did deny any observed and measured evidence of increasing CO2 warming the planet. Correlation does not amount to a measured response from an un-conflated treatment.
barry says:
March 14, 2020 at 4:37 PM
…The premise of this argument is that only CO2 has an effect on global surface temperatures. You can postulate that long-term warming could be caused by something else, and the CO2 rise is purely coincidental. But then you need an empirically observed mechanism, rather than only correlation of some cycle or driver.
But what you can’t deny is that the above comprises empirical (as in observed and measured) evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 warms the surface of the Earth.
And since 1850 world temperature peaked in 1878 and dropped to a low point in about 1912. Peaked again around 1945 and dropped to a low point some time in the ’70s and has risen since then. In all of that, world temperature is up about a degree, and no one can say how much of that is due to CO2. You guys like to extrapolate the rise since the ’70s out for the next 80 years – [You can Google “global temperature projection” for an illustration.] – and claim it’s a problem. I don’t buy it.
IPCC estimates CO2’s contribution to the net radiative forcing of about 70%. The total anthroprogenic contribution is > 95%. These figures are for 1750 to 2011 and come from AR5 WGI ch. 8. Actually that chapter has a pretty good summary of the timing and magnitude of many agents as they have evolved through time. I recommend taking a look. You can branch out to the different citations for details as needed if you like.
What IPCC estimates is meaningless. Was it measured anywhere? If so, how? What are the other possible sources of energy balance differentials? What about solar insolation due to clouds, water vapor, ocean heat content? Is there any data indicating a CO2 contribution different from zero?
Was it measured anywhere?
Yes. The way the estimate is derived is rather complicated though. It’s best to refer to IPCC AR5 WGI ch. 8 for the details.
What are the other possible sources of energy balance differentials?
There are many. Refer to IPCC AR5 WGI ch. 8 for a summary. Cross reference the citations for details.
What about solar insolation due to clouds, water vapor, ocean heat content?
All considered.
Is there any data indicating a CO2 contribution different from zero?
Absolutely. The data is so massive you’d never be able to review it by yourself in a single lifetime. Even just reviewing only the IPCC AR5 WGI ch. 8 1st citations would likely taking years. But you are encouraged to do so.
Estimates are not measurements. You have cited no data. If the data is massive, just show me the best experiment showing “CO2s contribution to the net radiative forcing of about 70%.”
“The total anthroprogenic contribution is > 95%.” Show me something indicating this is anything other than someone’s opinion. Hard data. No models, no guesstimates.
Stating it will take years to review the citations is not a very convincing argument. I’ve already been reviewing literature on climate change for at least ten years.
My reference is literally IPCC AR5 WGI ch. 8.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
What I did was took the CO2 forcing of 1.68 W/m^2 and divided it by the total forcing of 2.35 W/m^2 which is about 70%. Figure SPM.5 From AR5 WGI is what I used. Chapter 8 contains a more in depth overview of the factors considered when collating that figure. And then the complete bibliography containing the details that can be reviewed is at the end.
And there is not just one experiment. It requires the culmination of many observations, experiments, and lines of evidence to provide that estimate.
You asked if there was data. My response is that not only is there data, but there is so much of it that it would take a lifetime to review it. That’s how much there is.
I’m not expecting you agree with any of this. Afterall, this estimate has a high margin of error and is wide opening for debate. The point I’m responding to is that Steve’s assertion that “no one can say how much of that is due to CO2” simply isn’t true.
OK, we agree that Steve’s assertion isn’t true. Anyone can say how much warming is due to CO2 and it’s only anyone’s guess.
Your focus on the surface effect of added co2 is misleading.
The main effect is in the upper troposphere, where added Co2 raises the effective altitude of emission of IR to space. Above this altitude the atmosphere is no longer opaque in the ci2 bands. The higher the altitude the colder it is and thermal emissions are thereby reduced.
Heres a good description of this with calculations.
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4597
Just stop with regurgitating the unverified hypothesis. Where’s the data?
My post is nothing to with data or verifying the theory. My point that you seem to have missed is that your description of how you think think the GHE is supposed to work is incomplete.
So your attempt to show that it will not produce warming is very misleading.
I wasn’t explaining how the GHE is supposed to work. I was explaining why we shouldn’t be using a greenhouse as an analogy for the atmosphere, because people like you will use it to dumb down how the atmosphere works by hypothesizing about rising effective altitudes that have never been measured.
If I’ve misled you about something, why not explain exactly what you are referring to?
“Thermalization is the process…”
This whole paragraph sure looked like a description of the effect of co2 to warm the surface.
One that you dismiss as too weak and not observed.
I would think you would want to critique the actual GHE theory.
I guess not…
I already expressed my view on how the atmosphere works like a thermostat and that the impact of further increases in CO2 on global temperature is unknown. If you don’t understand, ask for a specific clarification. If you do understand, explain why my view is wrong.
I object to the greenhouse analogy and abhor references to “GHE theory.” Which version of it are you even referring to, one of the “actual” ones as opposed to the imaginary ones?
Thermalization involves any atmospheric gas that absorbs IR. If you think it only involves CO2 at one extreme or doesn’t involve CO2 at the other, then you need more understanding. Thermalization is a constant and crucial process in the atmosphere’s thermostatically controlled system. “Too weak and not observed” do not apply.
“Which version of it are you even referring to, one of the actual ones as opposed to the imaginary ones?”
As I explained,
‘The main effect is in the upper troposphere, where added Co2 raises the effective altitude of emission of IR to space. Above this altitude the atmosphere is no longer opaque in the co2 bands. The higher the altitude the colder it is and thermal emissions are thereby reduced.
Heres a good description of this with calculations.
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4597‘
He even explains why your description of the ‘surface effect’ of CO2 is not the main effect.
Well written, see what you think.
I discussed this with Clive Best in two comments almost six years ago. Has there been anything new in the way of data suggesting anything has changed since then?
http://clivebest.com/?p=4597#comment-5683
Looks like the discussion didnt get very far, and you didnt rebut his claims.
Well then you should have learned the correct GHE theory back then and be able to show why it is insufficient.
In fact I agree with Clive that “The net average effect though on earth of clouds is cooling -22 W/m2. A reduction in global cloud cover of 1-2% would offset all of AGW.”
Apparently nothing new including your tiresome trolling.
Chic,
* CO2 absorbs infrared radiation in the spectra associated with Earth’s temp [HITRAN database]
* Atmospheric CO2 has increased since the industrial revolution [C.D.I.A.C data portal]
* Upwelling radiation in the spectra absorbed by CO2 has darkened over time (more a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n) as measured by satellites looking down [Observational studies]
* Downwelling infrared radiation has increased over time as measured by ground based instrument looking skyward [Observational studies]
* Experiments of increasing CO2 in a volume of air cause the volume to warm [Eg, 1 and 2]
* The Earth has generally warmed over the last 100 years as CO2 has increased [Do I really need to list that evidence?]
That was a frustrating post to get through the site’s scanners. The string that prevented the post going through was:
https://tinyurl.com/y.7.n.n.x.2.v.p
without the full stops from ‘y’
Which is a link to this web page:
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absor.p.tion-properties/
minus the full stops in the offending word.
Anyhow, Chic, that is tons of empirical evidence on the items that corroborate the ability of atmospheric increase of CO2 to warm the globe.
I trust you won’t now shift the goalposts.
Shifting the goalposts? What goalposts? Empirical evidence is data, not observations of tons of papers speculating with hypotheses and model calculations. Corroborating the ability? How about demonstrating the ability with actual data?
Those papers document empirical measurements. There is plenty of data. The HITRAN database has millions of bits of data in the spectral porperties of various gases.
No, Barry. HITRAN data are calculations based on spectra covering specific times and places. But that is a long way from measuring temperatures produced at incremental levels of CO2.
I’m not shifting a goalpost. I’m only trying to define exactly where it is, how wide, and how far the bar is above the ground.
“HITRAN data are calculations based on spectra covering specific times and places.”
NO!
I see now that you are simply ignorant, and have the audacity or mindlessness to flap your jaws so vacuously hoping that no one will know the difference.
HITRAN is a database of million of measurements of the absor.p.t.ive properties of gases at hundreds of thousands of different wavelengths, measured in the lab, mostly by spectroscopy. There are also mathematically derived entries, but most are empirically measured wavelengths for atmospheric gases. The database has been growing since the 1960s.
HITRAN is the international standard, similar to the international standards for time and distance measurements. It’s not just a bunch of models and theory, as you seem to be implying, inanely.
https://hitran.org/about/
Those lines of evidence would all be good background information in the introduction of a paper showing the effect of CO2 on global temperature. Now all you need is some data to show that an incremental increase in CO2 will lead to a statistically significant increase in global temperature while controlling for a host of potentially confounding variables.
“Now all you need is some data to show that an incremental increase in CO2 will lead to a statistically significant increase in global temperature while controlling for a host of potentially confounding variables.”
a. We model the Earth and its atmosphere and past climate change, and use the model to predict temperature change and its spatial pattern over the next several decades. That was successfully done in ~ 1980.
b. We make more sophisticated models that control for a whole host of confounding variables, to see if stst sig GW still occurs. It does.
c. We observe other planets, like Venus, to verify that our models of enhanced GHE work, it does.
Who is we? Are you one of the climate modelers? Will it take constant revision of past temperatures and continual tweaking of model parameters to keep the correlation good? How many model runs are used in a statistical test of a correlation or a prediction of future temperatures? What is the statistical test of significance used? Using your best model, how confident are you that the temperature will be how much warmer than today some specific time in the future for any possible CO2 content of the atmosphere? Where is the work reported that shows the same model for Earth works for Venus?
Chic, No I am not a modeler, just read papers. The ‘We’ simply means science’s current understanding.
It is reasonable to ask questions that relate to uncertainty about how much warming there will be.
But you dont seem to be disputing that these are
“some data to show that an incremental increase in CO2 will lead to a statistically significant increase in global temperature while controlling for a host of potentially confounding variables”
“But you dont seem to be disputing that these are….”
Yes I am.
Specifically how?
The 1980 prediction is there, and its accuracy is easily verified.
The basic theory is there, and its verification for other planets is shown here EG from 40 y ago.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html
“The mean surface temperature is
T– 288 K. The excess, Ts – Te, is the
greenhouse effect of gases and clouds,
which cause the mean radiating level to
be above the surface. An estimate of the
greenhouse warming is
Ts ~ Te +GH eqn 3
where H is the flux-weighted mean altitude of the emission to space and G is the
mean temperature gradient (lapse rate)
between the surface and H. The earth’s
troposphere is sufficiently opaque in the
infrared that the purely radiative vertical
temperature gradient is convectively unstable, giving rise to atmospheric motions that contribute to vertical transport
of heat and result in G ~ 5 -6°C per
kilometer.”
“The greenhouse theory can be tested
by examination of several planets, which
provide an ensemble of experiments
over a wide range of conditions. The
atmospheric composition of Mars,
Earth, and Venus lead to mean radiating
levels of about 1, 6, and 70 km, and lapse
rates of ~ 5, 5.50, and 7°C per km,
respectively. Observed surface temperatures of these planets confirm the existence and order of magnitude of the
predicted greenhouse effect (Eq. 3).”
The more recent sophisticated models are there, YOU can go check them and tell us what confounding variables YOU believe they are missing.
Nate,
Thank you for bring the Hansen paper to my attention. The part you quoted expresses a hypothesis for the answer to why the surface is 288 K and not 255 K, but no data showing what CO2 has to do with it. lapse rate is caused by gravity and the pressure of the atmosphere, not CO2. The absorp.tion of radiation by all IR absorbing gases (mainly water vapor) disturbs the lapse rate daily along with contribution of evaporation, cloud formation, etc.
The paper outlines variations of a one-dimensional radiative-convective model with predictions of temperature increases for a doubling of CO2. Model outcomes are correlated with temperature for various parameters (Fig. 5). It appears that CO2 is the main driver of temperature and other parameters are introduced to match the ups and downs of the temperature record. Not much different from the main argument today, a correlation. There is insufficient data to know what the effect of any further increase in CO2 is on global temperature.
My criticism is for using the “analogy” of the greenhouse and the hypothesis that CO2 is a control knob for global temperatures. I have no reason to doubt that the atmosphere makes the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be.
“Not much different from the main argument today, a correlation.”
Yes, in terms of looking at past temps PRIOR to 1980, that could be called a correlation, and not by itself particularly convincing.
“There is insufficient data to know what the effect of any further increase in CO2 is on global temperature.”
Having tuned certain parameters such as ocean heat transport, using past temperatures, the SAME model was used to predict FOUR decades of CO2’s further effect on global temperature and its spatial pattern, correctly (within error).
How many more decades do you need?
The SAME model? Which one, Nate? Are you saying there have been no changes to Hansen et alia’s model parameters and no changes to the data being modeled?
Even if that were the case, it doesn’t prove the hypothesis correct because correlation is not causation. Another decade could invalidate the model.
“Another decade could invalidate the model.”
Yes, but suppose it doesnt.
So that would be 5 decades. Would you be impressed by that evidence?
Pretty soon we both will run out of decades for you to be convinced.
Not very promising that you will ever find satisfactory evidence.
“The SAME model? Which one, Nate?”
Yes in the paper, their model is tuned using past data (mostly ocean prpperties), Then the same model is used to predict the next 4 decades of warming, based on several co2 growth scenarios.
Their later models are completely different:gen circulation models, that are both more complex, more parameters many of which have uncertainties.
‘ it doesnt prove the hypothesis correct because correlation is not causation.”
All successful tests of sci predictions, can be called ‘correlation’, as if thats a bad word.
Einsteins successful relativity prediction of star position shifts at a solar ecclipse could be called a correlation.
None are ‘proof’ of the hypothesis. But if a logical causation is identified first, and if detailed quantitative predictions are made, as in this case, then what you call a ‘correlation’ between the predictions and the observations is, objectively, compelling evidence.
As was the case for relativity, a successful prediction is evidence, not the last word.
Chic,
Another decade could invalidate general relativity or quantum mechanics. Actually we KNOW that GR and QM are wrong. In fact, between the two they make the worst prediction in all of science so they are already invalid depending on your semantic meaning.
My point is that ALL models are invalid to some extent since they are only approximations of reality. We will never have a perfect model of anything. But that doesn’t mean that models in whatever discipline of science there is are not useful.
Hansen’s model might not be perfect. But it’s pretty good. And it’s infinitely better than having no model at all. Now, if you know of something better then by all means please present it to us. I think I can speak for most of here…we aren’t invested in any one particular model…we just want to find the one that works the best.
Nate,
“All successful tests of sci predictions, can be called ‘correlation’, as if thats a bad word.”
Don’t be daft. Most experiments begin with a hypothesis “If this, then that.” One plans the experiment with defined treatments to defined subjects and measures results. The results either support (“prove”) or disprove the hypothesis. It doesn’t mean that conditions might not have been sufficiently controlled so as to invalidate the “proof.” But those type experiments are far better evidence than model correlations.
bdgwx,
“we just want to find the one that works the best.”
That’s fine. Knock yourself out. But it will never serve as experimental/sufficient/definitive (etc.) evidence that an incremental increase in CO2 will cause a warming of global temperature. There are too many other variables that affect global temperatures that may not have been properly incorporated into a hypothetically perfect model.
‘Dont be daft. Most experiments..’
Chic, OMG, always a new excuse shot from the hip.
Dont be daft: Earth science is not an experimental science (most of the time), it is an observational science.
Like Astrophysics.
We dont do experiments on hurricane paths.
We don’t do experiments on black-hole collisions.
We do observe such natural events.
Does that make the theories and models in these fields invalid?
Of course not, with enough observations of the natural experiments, under different conditions one can test hypotheses and make predictions like ‘under these conditions that will happen.
Dr. Spencer has pointed out the high correlation between the Wuhan flu and countries using anti-malarial drugs for treatment. Would you have intimate contact with your significant other knowing that he/she was infected while you were taking an anti-malerial? Please explain.
Uggh, strawman.
Just because one can think of glaring ‘correlation is not causation’ examples, does not demonstrate that AGW is one of those.
“Now all you need is some data to show that an incremental increase in CO2 will lead to a statistically significant increase in global temperature while controlling for a host of potentially confounding variables.”
Just as expected – when presented with data corroborating the evidence listed, you shift the goapposts. That bit in bold is it.
The original was…
“the main one being that an increase in CO2 will be or has been contributing to a rise in global temperature. There is no empirical evidence of that.”
Every piece of the puzzle, corroborated by empirical data in the references I’ve given you, is EVIDENCE that CO2 warms the surface.
I don’t think you understand the phrase “empirical evidence.” Empirical evidence is observational data that has been well verified within uncertainties. It doesn’t even have to be complete in order to answer what you claimed – “NO empirical evidence.”
There’s not just some, there is plenty. Plenty that you dismiss without even checking properly. For instance, the many studies gathering the data also use it – which you write off as not doing the former. Pffft.
IIRC, we’ve been through this before. Apparently you expect me to pour over volumes of papers which collectively represent sufficient EVIDENCE for you to conclude CO2 warms the planet. Do these papers agree on how much? Is there any specific paper(s) that you can cite that irrefutably make a beyond-a-shadow-of-doubt case? Anything other than the circumstantial correlation is causation argument?
To me the jury is still out.
Chic Bowdrie
I consider you to be a good Skeptic of AGW in the content of your posts. You are not making up lunatic physics or forming stupid conclusions based upon ignorance (like Downwelling IR acts like a Second Sun). Good skeptics need good solid physics. I think the number could be close to 90% just make up whatever ideas they want and push them as if they were somehow true or factual.
You do not seem to fall into this camp of skeptics. You just demand evidence and proof. Excellent.
You requested actual proof CO2 warms the surface. Here is actual proof.
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html
Norman,
Thank you on rating me a good skeptic. I’ll take that as a compliment. I respect your positions, if not wholly supportive of all of them.
Re the link, I know that I and others (at WUWT?) have addressed it before. I’ll have to re-read and get back to you.
Chic,
I’m not asking you to wade through them.
You characterized the papers incorrectly. Because most of the papers make clear in their titles that they are observationally based (and the abstracts make it very clear), I knew immediately that you had barely glanced at them if you indeed clicked on the link for each component.
You only have to skim them, or even just read the titles. You asked for empirical evidence. I’ve given it to you. Observational data. Measurements. All components of the understanding that an increase in atmospheric CO2 should make the surface warmer. These lines of evidence are largely independent, too. Not just lab tests with CO2, not just spectral analysis of that and other atmpspheric gases in the lab, not just global temperature measurements (which are corroborated by observation of ocean heat content, reduced global glaciers, rising global sea levels etc), but also measured changes over time of atmospheric radiance in the spectra associated specifically with CO2 (as well as other gases).
I gave you what you requested. Do what you want with it, but don’t write it off just because I gave you ample data for each component. And don’t write it off without even a cursory inspection.
Chic Bowdrie says:
“Re the link …”
Note that even the seasonal forcing difference is measured.
The counter arguments are silly, such as:
– There was more DWIR energy but there is no proof it translated to thermal energy (of course it did).
– They only measured two locations so energy sneaked out elsewhere (of course every time you check you get good agreement with LBLRTM calculations).
barry,
“All components of the understanding that an increase in atmospheric CO2 SHOULD make the surface warmer.” (EMPHASIS mine)
The reason you have to say “should” is because it’s based on theory. There are no direct measurements.
For example, “measured changes over time of atmospheric radiance in the spectra associated specifically with CO2” does not translate directly into a global temperature change.
“I gave you what you requested.”
No, you gave me what you believe to be sufficient evidence. I don’t agree and will continue to be skeptical until better evidence surfaces.
‘I don’t agree and will continue to be skeptical until better evidence surfaces.:
Youll have to give us some idea of what specifically you would consider good evidence, that is also obtainable.
We can’t provide you another Earth, absent increasing CO2, all else the same.
Chic,
You said there was NO evidence. Now you are saying that the evidence that there is is INSUFFICIENT.
So please describe what you would consider sufficient evidence. What would it look like? How would we obtain and merasure it?
If your answer is that there is no kind of evidence imaginable that would be sufficient, then the problem is not with the science of AGW.
So, what would be sufficient evidence?
Are you really not able to think of evidence for AGW, or even ‘the enhanced greenhouse effect of CO2 rise’ that would be sufficient?
As I alluded to upthread, multiple lines of evidence is like circumstantial or “smoking gun” evidence. The reason there is no direct or definitive evidence for more CO2 causing more warming is because of the difficulty of controlling for all the confounding variables when you try to compare 300 ppm CO2 conditions with 400 ppm conditions. Even if you could make the case that some +/- degrees warming occurred between then and now, how will you know that another 100 ppm will make any further difference in global temperature?
‘The reason there is no direct or definitive evidence for more CO2 causing more warming is because of the difficulty of controlling for all the confounding variables when you try to compare 300 ppm CO2 conditions with 400 ppm conditions.;
Yep. And we are unlikely to ever be able to do so.
So if you are a policy maker and HAD to decide, still cant tell what evidence you would be seeking?
At least we are agreed that the statement “there is NO evidence” is wrong. You mean to say, “there is no CONCLUSIVE evidence.” In early days of the AGW debate, ‘skeptics’ would pronounce that there is no “proof.” It took a while for that milieu to understand that there is no “proof” in most science that is not pure math, and start using more appropriate verbiage.
We’ve moved forward a bit.
The circumstantial case for AGW is strong. There are multiple lines of evidence. I only mentioned a handful. For instance the fact that ther stratosphere has cooled while the surface has warmed flatly rejects warming caused by increased solar radiation. Other factors we can observe have been tested and found lacking in any coherent theory that explains the evolution of temperatures over the last 100 years or so. The best bet for skeptics so far is clouds.
Of course, there may be factors we can’t observe playing a part. But relying on that for any kind of argument is whistling dixie. Unknown unknowns have no traction.
“For instance the fact that the stratosphere has cooled while the surface has warmed flatly rejects warming caused by increased solar radiation.”
It doesn’t work like that. The main alternative explanation to a warmer surface is that more solar radiation is reaching the surface or at least warming the atmosphere. Yes, clouds could be the reason. It isn’t an argument that the sun’s radiation is changing, although it still could be.
What caused the stratosphere to cool? Could it be more CO2? Does it matter? This does not amount to evidence that adding more CO2 is going to warm the surface.
“This does not amount to evidence that adding more CO2 is going to warm the surface.”
It does Chic.
The lapse line rotates with added ppm CO2 (or any IR active gas) about a point to keep the system thermodynamic internal energy steady state constant (1LOT) with warming at the surface and equivalent cooling in the upper regions below the tropopause and continues past the tropopause cooler up through the lower ~isothermal stratosphere. Dr. Spencer referred you to the detailed paper in the top post.
Chic said: It doesnt work like that.
Yes it does. That observation falsifies many hypothesis including the Sun-only hypothesis because there’s no mechanism by which the Sun can do that on its own. Nevermind that solar radiation has been declining in recent decades.
“What caused the stratosphere to cool? Could it be more CO2? Does it matter?”
Ummm, it is one of the predictions of AGW theory. So it is another observation that agrees with predictions. Adds to the pile of agreement.
“This does not amount to evidence that adding more CO2 is going to warm the surface.”
Ummm, the only available logical explanation for the cooling is a reduction in heat transfer from the troposphere. By the first law of thermodynamics, if there is a reduction of heat transfer from the troposphere, then the troposphere must warm.
Ball4,
If your “lapse line rotates with added ppm CO2” notion is correct, you should be able to show me the data for that because CO2 cycles every year. Even better, show me where the lapse rate has been measured sufficiently to show the average lapse rate has rotated in the past.
bdgwx,
Try to keep up. I’m not proposing any change in the sun’s output is involved. Barry and I were discussing the change in the sign of the lapse rate. The sun isn’t doing anything on its own other than provide a relatively constant daily dose of radiation to the system. Differences between the stratosphere and troposphere provide the mechanism for the change in sign.
Nate, “Ummm, the only available logical explanation for the cooling is a reduction in heat transfer from the troposphere.”
Ummm, no. You of all people should know that more solar insolation (ASR) warms the troposphere without any necessary help from CO2. https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/06/26/verifying-my-near-global-1985-2017-olr-record/
Chic 5:57pm, for cooling of the lower stratosphere look up the observational measured data from the Microwave Sounding Unit aboard NOAA satellites. For warming of the surface data, look up GHCN near surface air thermometer data. Your interest in data for lapse rate top end & near surface end has therein been provided sufficiently to show you data for how the average troposphere lapse rate has actually rotated in an observation period of your choice.
For a theoretical explanation of why that happens & for which the data exists supporting the theory, again, Dr. Spencer referred you to the detailed paper in the top post.
‘You of all people should know that more solar insolation (ASR) warms the troposphere without any necessary help from CO2.’
Neither here nor there.
Increased ASR might be a thing, but its independent of stratospheric cooling.
Whilst simultaneous stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming is explained by AGW.
Try again.
No use trying again, because we’re in a pissing contest over belief systems. But to summarize, the stratosphere may be cooling because of more CO2 or some other reasons. That doesn’t mean the troposphere was warmed because of more CO2.
Ball4,
What detailed Dr. Spencer explanation are you referring to?
For details, Dr. Spencer: “demonstrated by Manabe & Strickler (1964)”
“for cooling of the lower stratosphere look up the observational measured data from the Microwave Sounding Unit aboard NOAA satellites.”
I’m not looking it up. Sometime between 1964 and now, someone must have done it already and reported it somewhere for you to know it. Unless you are just assuming it?
Not assuming it, I looked it up. Do so yourself in the way you feel comfortable.
Chic,
“No use trying again, because were in a pissing contest over belief systems.”
We present you evidence.
Rather than looking objectively at the evidence, you look first to your beliefs and seek the quickest excuse to reject it.
Not an effective way to get to truth.
Ha. The pot calls the kettle black. That’s hilarious.
You are the faithful one, I’m the skeptic remember? You use faith, subjective, and inductive logic, while I remain reserved, objective, and deductive.
“Subjective information or writing is based on personal opinions, interpretations, points of view, emotions and judgment. It is often considered ill-suited for scenarios like news reporting or decision making in business or politics [like climate change]. Objective information or analysis is fact-based, measurable and observable.”
Take the inductive vs. deductive test: https://www.thatquiz.org/tq/preview?c=fzjvo3ul&s=mevkuq
Warning: I scored 9/10. The last one fooled me.
‘You are the faithful one, Im the skeptic remember? You use faith, subjective, and inductive logic, while I remain reserved, objective, and deductive.’
Riiight, the papers I show you are belief based and not empirical.
Whatever makes you feel better.
IMO your skepticism is applied asymmetrically only to mainstream science, while your faith is given freely to outlier science, and blog ‘science’ (eg Ed Berry).
Master debaters , operating in packs, do you see them
The endless nagging, ankle biting, misdirection and straw-men parade , to confuse obfuscate and wear you down
https://bit.ly/3aWRFG6
Oh I see them alright…
The Second Law of Thermodynamics reads: “In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases.” *
We note that it applies to “a” (singular) natural thermodynamic process and only to (at most) “interacting” thermodynamic systems. Radiation into the surface and radiation out of the surface are NOT interacting systems: they are independent processes. The law does NOT apply to the net effect of independent processes. This claim is fiction invented by climatologists.
When a ball rolls down a plank entropy is increasing. That is the Second Law of Thermodynamics in action. The density gradient in the troposphere is a result of that law.
If one could “excuse” the Second Law with “net” effects, then you could argue that water would flow up a creek to a lake at the top of a mountain provided that it subsequently flows further down another creek on the other side of the mountain. To argue that back radiation adds thermal energy to the warmer surface just because the surface subsequently (maybe months later) cools by evaporation, conduction and some radiation is absurd.
What really happens is what was explained and known by physicists since 1876, namely that gravity acts on molecules, accelerating them in downwards motion (and vice versa) and thus forming a stable equilibrium temperature gradient as seen in every planetary troposphere. The fact that this is the state of maximum entropy (called thermodynamic equilibrium) enables non-radiative heat downwards, but not radiated heat. Learn why Dr Spencer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BEN3iJzlrI&feature=youtu.be
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
“then you could argue that water would flow up a creek to a lake at the top of a mountain provided that it subsequently flows further down another creek on the other side”
Yeah, if there was a big hose involved, that could work.
Its called a siphon.
“The law does NOT apply to the net effect of independent processes. This claim is fiction invented by climatologists.”
The law is not applicable to these independent processes (eg, radiative transfer) because it doesn’t consider them.
What is true is that these independent processes – omnidirectional fluxes of radiative energy – have a NET effect that complies with the 2nd Law.
However, even Clausius knew that there were fluxes to and from bodies of different temperature, and recognized the mutual double exchange in the ordinary transferrence of heat.
Critics mistakenly believe that the 2nd Law prevents radiation from a cooler body being absorbed by a warmer one, or that energy can only flow one way. The 2nd Law is about heat flow. Heat and energy are distinct. Critics of AGW forever muddy that distinction.
“To argue that back radiation adds thermal energy to the warmer surface just because the surface subsequently (maybe months later) cools by evaporation, conduction and some radiation is absurd.”
Uhhh, no one sensible argues that AA. Strawman.
The instantaneous NET radiation (sum of outgoing from a warm surface and incoming from cold surface) must obey the 2nd law.
Critics also ignore the “by its own means” clause. Even heat itself can flow from cool to warm. It just can’t do so by its own means. The evaporator and condenser bodies in a heat pump is the canonical demonstration of this. The evaporator cools while the condenser warms. In this manner heat can be pumped from a cool body to a warm body making the cool body even colder and the warm body even warmer.
No, nobody misses that clause.
It’s a red-herring for the point of contention.
A siphon demonstrates the Second Law of Thermodynamics and why it applies only to interacting systems / dependent processes. The two processes on either side of the siphon are clearly interacting and dependent. If you cut the hose at the top then you no longer have two dependent processes: they are now independent and each then obeys the Second Law. There is no longer a “net” effect.
Every single one-way passage of radiation obeys the Second Law of Thermodynamics BECAUSE it is an independent process and that law applies to every single thermodynamic process. How Nature ensures this happens is due to quantum energy steps and a resulting resonating process whereby photons from a source which are identical to some of those that the target could emit itself undergo “resonant” (or “pseudo”) scattering. They raise electrons through one or more electron energy states and then an identical photon is emitted. In contrast, photons which don’t match any that could be emitted by the target are thermalised with their energy becoming kinetic energy in a cooler target. The quantification of the heat transfer corresponds to the radiation represented by the area BETWEEN the Planck curves for source and target – just as engineers and physicists have always calculated.
Now, the whole AGW “physics” totally depends on an assumption that the fluxes of solar and atmospheric radiation can be added (and non-radiative surface cooling deducted) with the net result then being used in Stefan Boltzmann calculations.
THAT IS WRONG. IT CAN’T BE DONE. NO PHYSICS EXPERIMENT ANYWHERE DEMONSTRATES SUCH ADDITION OF RADIATIVE FLUXES.
Radiation just doesn’t work that way. If one electric bar radiator at a certain distance warms your cheek to 315K (just above body temperature) then 16 such radiators do NOT cook you at double the temperature (630K) as climatologists would calculate if their fictitious physics were correct. QED
Yeah, that’s why when you go to a high school football game at night, they only need one light to light the field.
The banks of bulbs they actually use are totally unnecessary, cause fluxes don’t add.
One forgets how braindead D.O.U.G C.O.T.T.O.N until he posts again.
Same old same old, always wrong and misinformed.
My proof that you are wrong Norman regarding averaging has not been refuted by your “last resort” personal slurs.
One day you may learn that reflection of visible light is a totally different physical process that pseudo scattering that is explained in the above comment and in physics papers.
I was noting that fluxes do indeed add, and if you can’t get that right, we don’t need to discuss anything further.
Non-scientist, non-academic
Non-anonymous.
Troll.
AA,
“Every single one-way passage of radiation obeys the Second Law of Thermodynamics BECAUSE it is an independent process”
Now you are just making up and slinging BS.
Clearly if a warm and a cold body are thermally connected, the second law requires the NET flow of thermal energy be from warm to cold. It places NO restriction on the one way passage of photons or molecular energy.
Just imagine if the objects were connected by a gas. There would be no restriction on the motions of individual molecules. Only when we look at the sum of all movements do we see a net movement of energy from warm to cold.
The second law has a statistical basis. It applies only to the NET movement of energy or matter.
The correct explanation of planetary core and surface temperatures is at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318008633_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures
An explanation of resonant (or “pseudo”) scattering of radiation is at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317997916_Radiated_Energy_and_the_Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics
The seven ways to prove radiative forcing is false physics are at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337915619_Cogent_and_irrefutable_reasons_why_carbon_dioxide_cannot_warm_Earth
and a detailed explanation of Loschmidt’s gravito-thermal effect is at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337915638_Understanding_Josef_Loschmidt's_Gravito-_Thermal_Effect_and_thus_Why_the_Radiative_Forcing_Greenhouse_Hypothesis_is_False
Neither of you has produced the requested experiment, and you never will because it doesn’t happen.
No need to do an experiment when going to a football game and counting lights will suffice.
I am amazed that you can shovel stupid that high.
No about the two-slit experiment? If the fluxes through the two slits were not adding you would not see interference fringes.
Garbage. Read your quantum physics text again. If you attempt to measure the photons paths, you get no interference. You obviously dont understand the significance of the two slit experiment.
The global mean solar flux entering the Earths surface (after about half is reflected or absorbed by the atmosphere) is of the order of 168W/m^2 because the global mean at top of atmosphere is a quarter of the Solar constant, namely about 340W/m^2.
Because of T^4 in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations, the blackbody temperature of about 233K for that 168W/m^2 is the MAXIMUM that could be attained and it would ONLY be attained if the flux were uniform day and night all over the globe. But, because it is variable, the mean temperature it could attain would always be less than 233K. That is a mathematical fact because the temperature that can be attained by any flux is proportional to the fourth root of the flux.
For example, I shall show this with Normans incorrect guesswork above. Lets use an online Stefan-Boltzmann calculator for his figures .
250W/m^2 gives 257.7K
750W/m^2 gives 339.1K
1000W/m^2 gives 364.4K
2000W/m^2 gives 433.4K
Average flux is 1000W/m^2 but the average of those temperatures is 348.7K
In comparison, uniform flux of 1000W/m^2 gives 364.4K which is hotter.
You also forget that there is simultaneous energy loss of about 102W/m^2 by non-radiative processes. So you would need over 500W/m^2 of direct solar radiation to the surface if that were what is explaining the surface temperature. It is not, and so Postma is wrong.
Nor is it back radiation tripling the effect of the Sun.
So PSI people have no explanation what-so-ever, and you only have to consider Venus to see why.
Guess who had the only correct explanation based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics operating in a gravitational field. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BEN3iJzlrI&feature=youtu.be
Let me guess.
Not you.
Crank!
Hi Roy,
I have a post in moderation – perhaps too many links held it up. Could you admit it, please?
He doesn’t look this far down a page, or at posts in moderation, does he? Try partial posts tomorrow.
barry
No moderation here; everything the scanner can’t handle is put aside.
Click in the browser on the ‘One page back’ arrow icon, and then you get your comment back at the end of the thread (it reminds whom you tried to reply to).
In rare cases, the scanner gets so disturbed that the comment really is lost.
J.-P. D.
Sometimes the site does say that your post is in moderation, but it never comes through.
Sometimes the post appears with a message that it is in moderation. It’s different to the usual nothing-at-all on a failed post. And I know to go back and hit reply to make the entry reappear. If it’s a long post, I always save it, as I did with this one.
OK barry & Svante…
I post here since years and never experienced any hint on a moderation.
It’s rare to get the moderation message. Over many years and thousands of posts I’ve seen it here maybe 4 times.
barry
Sorry for insisting a bit, but I think this is an automatic reply of the blog’s scanner to an input it can’t process properly.
You mentioned to possibly having had too many links in your comment.
Why don’t you in such cases use a tool like Libre Office Writer, and store the text as PDF file which you can upload using Google Drive?
J.-P. D.
I’ve had a few moderation messages, the first time was a message with about 15 links. I’ve seen no evidence that Roy looks at them, but perhaps he did during the posting problems last year. Just wait and re-post piecemeal.
I’ve seen you do that, Bindidon, and it’s a fair workaround. Are people able to click on links in the PDF file you create?
Would you mind explaining how and where the Total outgoing IR to space is calculated? 240 W/M2 but where is the meter located?
The energy budget works on the amount of energy calculated on its way to the earths surface and at the earths surface.
But the outgoing IR to space is not coming from the surface.
That has to be the emitted surface radiation, 395 W/M 2.
The radiation emitted to space is the radiation out at the TOA.
This is a concern because any radiation measured or assumed to be 240 W/M 2 at a level of 100 km [TOA surface area 526.2 million km² Radius: 6,471 km].
cannot be the same as radiation measured at the Earth Surface area [510.1 million km² Radius: 6,371 km.
–
The maths in the energy budget just becomes wrong.
If the outgoing energy has been adjusted to earth circumference the true TIA must be higher and then would not agree with what your instruments measure in terms of outgoing flux.
So are the instruments you use measuring true outgoing radiation at TOA
which is per square meter of the TOA surface area, what I would expect.
If so how can anyone use this figure 240 W/M2 to balance an energy equation based on square meters at earth Surface level.
–
I am sorry to be a nuisance.
You have offered to try to get the message across on IR which I hopefully get.
Could you please point out where the basic error I am making is?
No instrument exists which can accurately measure total solar irradiance. It is also quite impossible to measure total radiation emitted from the Earth. All guesses and estimates, influenced by wishful thinking. Pseudoscience.
angech
Did I understand you right? Are you serious?
Do you REALLY think that climate scientists still try to extrapolate TOA out of surface values, like thy did 50 years ago, and produce this out of some simulation?
https://tinyurl.com/wc33u59
*
Look at this below, it might set you up to date a tiny bit:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JTECH1712.1
“The two CERES satellite instruments aboard the Terra spacecraft provide highly accurate shortwave (SW), longwave (LW), and infrared window (WN) radiance measurements and top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiative flux estimates globally at a 20-km spatial resolution.
These data, together with coincident cloud and aerosol properties inferred from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), provide a consistent cloudaerosolradiation dataset for studying clouds and aerosols, and their influence on the ERB.
*
From Wikipedia, derived from the article above:
CERES operates in three scanning modes: across the satellite ground track (cross-track), along the direction of the satellite ground track (along-track), and in a Rotating Azimuth Plane (RAP). In RAP mode, the radiometers scan in elevation as they rotate in azimuth, thus acquiring radiance measurement from a wide range of viewing angles.
Until February 2005, on Terra and Aqua satellites one of CERES instruments scanned in cross-track mode while the other was in RAP or along-track mode. The instrument operating in RAP scanning mode took two days of along-track data every month.
However the multi-angular CERES data allowed to derive new models which account for anisotropy of the viewed scene, and allow TOA radiative flux retrieval with enhanced precision.
*
Should I have misunderstood you, so please manage to explain more concisely what you mean.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
Bindidon
Are you serious?
–
Yes.
Outgoing radiation is measured in terms of W/square metres from the top of the atmosphere by satellite on average 100 km out.
–
You cannot measure it any other way.
–
It is 240 W/TOASqM.
This figure would have a lot more energy in it if converted to W/SqM earth surface.
One cannot balance an energy balance by balancing incompatible terms.
–
TOA measurements are prone to very large SD.
My understanding is that what the earth would put out per sq M at the TOA surface equals what is put out at a much higher temperature at the earth’s surface.
They are equivalent.
There should not be any loss of energy at the TOA.
The amount of energy should be equal.
The GHG back radiation is needed to build the earth surface up to the required radiating temp.
Very disappointed that no one else can see this.
angech,
240 W/m^2 @ 100km is equivalent to 247 W/m^2 @ 0km
and
240 W/m^2 @ 0km is equivalent to 233 W/m^2 @ 100km
It is my understanding that all space based radiometers, energy budget diagrams, or any flux in W/m^2 in the context of the Earth is normalized to 0km. Did you have a different understanding?
bdgwx says: It is my understanding that all space based radiometers, energy budget diagrams, or any flux in W/m^2 in the context of the Earth is normalized to 0km. Did you have a different understanding?
240 W/m^2 @ 0km is equivalent to 233 W/m^2 @ 100km.
-Yes
I would hope Dr Spencer could clear this up by explaining it to us.
I do not think you can legally normalise the outgoing radiation to space at the TOA without stating this explicitly.
There is a flux out at the earth surface.
It just does not get to space.
The flux that gets out though is measured by instruments as a top of Atmosphere flux from a TOA surface area.
The instruments are not set up to say let us change this scientifically measured output to something that fits an earth energy budget.
Surely!
All the physics in the world would go wrong.
–
Speaking of which as you say the Energy Budget on your figures, [not taking Stefan Boltzmann into account -should one??]
show the energy budget is out 7 W/M2.
Why should this be?
Dr Spencer, help.
Bindidon says:
angech Do you REALLY think that climate scientists still try to extrapolate TOA out of surface values, like thy did 50 years ago, and produce this out of some simulation?*
–
Without Roy’s input into my lack of knowledge I am forced to slowly learn this on my own.
Thanks for your help.
I learned a bit more from an article “Andrew Dessler rebuts Roy Spencer” where Mr Dessler puts up some videos on the subject, without really rebutting Roy.
–
1. temperature is dependent on height in the atmosphere.
2. 240W/M 2 is the effective amount of energy absorbed by the earth atmosphere and surface.
3. The TOA is extrapolated from that surface value just like 50 years ago*
4. The effective radiating Temp for 240 W/M S is 255C at the TOA.
As it would be for the surface area with no GHG in the atmosphere.
This cleared up a lot of confusion for me as I was getting the 2 different values 240/255 confused when discussing energy output v temperature .
–
The problem persists though.
It is one thing to standardize the energy balance diagrams to the earths surface.
It is another to use the energy estimated at the TOA with the other figures at the earths surface in the energy budget diagram to try to calculate an imagined energy loss.
–
O will try again.
Roy,
if the effective radiating Temp for 240 W/M S is 255C at the TOA.
Can you please calculate what it is at the earth’s surface ??
With SB is it a good guess that it might be the emitted surface radiation, 395 W/M 2.
angech
Thanks for replying as expected. Now I understand better what you mean.
” This figure would have a lot more energy in it if converted to W/SqM earth surface. ”
Sorry, no.
This is only possible if all LW IR radiation emitted by the surface reaches TOA without being intercepted by any atmospheric constituent.
*
” The GHG back radiation is needed to build the earth surface up to the required radiating temp. ”
Sorry, no again.
The surface and the atmosphere above it must warm because outgoing energy must be equal to incoming energy in order to satisfy 1LoT.
And because atmospheric constituents weaken energy output, Earth warms accordingly.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
Bindidon says:
The surface and the atmosphere above it must warm because outgoing energy must be equal to incoming energy in order to satisfy 1LoT.
The GHG back radiation is needed to build the earth surface up to the required radiating temp.
Both mean the same thing.
–
This figure would have a lot more energy in it if converted to W/SqM earth surface.
This is only possible if all LW IR radiation emitted by the surface reaches TOA without being intercepted by any atmospheric constituent.
–
The argument is not about what is absorbed [I would prefer how the heat gradient is distributed]
bdgwx explained it
240 W/m^2 @ 100km is equivalent to 247 W/m^2 @ 0km.
Surface area at TOA is > SA on earth.
also that is with normal attenuation, not sure if SB comes into play as well.
Finally
“The surface and the atmosphere above it must warm because outgoing energy must be equal to incoming energy in order to satisfy 1LoT.”
What is the relationship between the energy at the TOA and the energy at the Surface levelof any planet with an atmosphere?
Answer the TOA and Surface total energy should be the same.
Lesser temp higher up because larger SA to radiate from.
I hope yuo can see this.
angech
I understand what you mean. Nonetheless, I stay on what I wrote because it is what I have read since over ten years in many publications.
If what you write does not come out of your personal thoughts, please reply with links to valuable papers explaining it on a scientific, well acknowledged basis.
J.-P. D.
Dr Spenser,
Re evapotranspiration:
” … in the 1990s scientists reported that the rate of evaporation was falling.[8] According to data, the downward trend had been observed all over the world except in a few places where it has increased.[9][10][11][12]
…”
A shift in the evapotrans rate could easily match the imbalance attributed to CO2. Has anyone looked at this or is the effect lost in parameterisation?
JF
Evapotranspiration is part the discussion at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
Julian Flood
From
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL027532
Indications of increasing land surface evaporation during the second half of the 20th century
Wilfried Brutsaert (2006)
“ It is generally agreed that the evaporation from pans has been decreasing for the past half century over many regions of the Earth. However, the significance of this negative trend, as regards terrestrial evaporation, is still somewhat controversial, and its implications for the global hydrologic cycle remain unclear.
The controversy stems from the alternative views that these evaporative changes resulted, either from global radiative dimming, or from the complementary relationship between pan and terrestrial evaporation.
Actually, these factors are not mutually exclusive but act concurrently. It is shown quantitatively that, if the presently available data records are taken at face value, despite global dimming, the observed decreases in pan evaporation are generally evidence of increased terrestrial evaporation in those regions.
This is consistent with independent hydrologic budget calculations for several large river basins in the USA, and likely further evidence of an accelerating hydrologic cycle in many areas. ”
J.-P. D.
From Roy’s link to his temperature readings with his little LT100 scanner.
“The thermometer is pointed first at a clear patch of sky (reading 27 deg. F), and then an adjacent cloud (reading 41 deg. F): IR-thermometer-clear-sky-cloud”
Roy is telling us that the cloud is 14F warmer than the sky around it.. LOL, that’s funny, Roy 🙂
“what causes the IR thermometer indicated temperature to increase from (1) clear sky to cloud, and (2) zenith clear sky to low-elevation clear sky?!
And yes the lower atmosphere is warmer than the upper atmosphere, if that is what is being measured.
(What is the distance range of one of these instruments.?)
Part of the temperature gradient, nothing to do with the GHE.
What is funny is that the temperature gradient is caused by the greenhouse effect.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Relaxation time is the average time that passes between when a ghg molecule absorbs a photon and when it emits one. The relaxation time is several orders of magnitude longer than the average time between contacts of molecules. Molecules bouncing off each other is how gas phase thermal conduction takes place. This is quantified in Section 4 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com . Therefore absorbed radiation energy is shared with surrounding molecules which contributes to warming the atmosphere.
Cumulative relaxation time slows the flow of energy through the atmosphere creating the misleadingly named greenhouse effect.
I make no excuse for pointing out just how wrong is the garbage in the first Principia Scientific International (PSI) paper by Joseph Postma. Direct solar radiation to the surface of planets like Earth and Venus does NOT enable explanation of observed global mean surface temperatures. The surface of Venus receives only about one-eighth of the direct solar radiation that Earth’s surface receives. It never dawns on Journalist John that Postma’s guesswork doesn’t have a hope of explaining Venus surface temperatures. The correct explanation is at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318008633_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures
An explanation of resonant (or “pseudo”) scattering of radiation is at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317997916_Radiated_Energy_and_the_Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics
The seven ways to prove radiative forcing is false physics are at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337915619_Cogent_and_irrefutable_reasons_why_carbon_dioxide_cannot_warm_Earth
and a detailed explanation of Loschmidt’s gravito-thermal effect is at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337915638_Understanding_Josef_Loschmidt's_Gravito-_Thermal_Effect_and_thus_Why_the_Radiative_Forcing_Greenhouse_Hypothesis_is_False
One more face of the indestructible Do-ug Cot-ton!
Dan Pangburn
[Cumulative relaxation time slows the flow of energy through the atmosphere creating the misleadingly named greenhouse effect.]
Slows the flow of energy ……. this is what Ive been saying. A slower flow amounts to an increase of residence time. Just like how the current is very slow as water makes its way through the reservoir of a dam.
****
And this from Dr. Spencer,
[If energy has no efficient way to escape, then even a weak rate of energy input can lead to exceedingly high temperatures, such as occurs in the sun. I have read that it takes thousands of years for energy created in the core of the sun from nuclear fusion to make its way to the suns surface.]
A thousand years residence time = very hot
Sna,
Relaxation time and residence time are referring to entirely different phenomena. Relaxation time is on average a few microseconds (about 5 s for CO2 at stp) whereas residence time, i.e. the average time a CO2 molecule stays in the atmosphere, is measured in years.
There are two little holes in a large box, through which a steady stream of bees are coming and going.
Every second one bee flies in and every second one bee flies out.
How many bees are in the box?
Is your brain full of bees? How many bees do you have in your bonnet?
The box represents the troposphere. Bees represent joules.
How many bees if, on average, each bee stays inside the box for a minute?
How many bees if, on average, each bee stays inside the box for a thousand years?
A few wannabees managed to turn this place into a quagmire, hijacked Dr Roy’s blog as their Xanadu fantasy-land playground to role play their fantasies of being climate scientists
Loser!
Winner!
Dont be so hard on yourself, Eben. Your inane comments tend to stir up the conversation. Even Dr. Spencer takes the time to reply to your posts,
[Now, see, this is the problem I run into. You obviously were too lazy to actually read the post, because everything you just claimed is obviously (not arguably) WRONG. I am glad to let your comment stand, however, as a testament to why I have to write such articles. -Roy]
Unfortunately, Roy doesnt actually understand what he is measuring when he points his handheld IR receiver at the sky. Every square foot of surface supports around 15 lbs of atmosphere of varying temperature and density. This air mass is obviously warm, otherwise it wouldnt be gas! It radiates. Its emissivity varies, while the assumed emissivity used by the thermometer doesnt. No GHE back radiation involved.
His silliness about clouds being hotter than the air which surrounds them beggars belief. He might just as well believe that IR reflected within prisms comes from the heat of the glass!
A bit of basic physics is called for, NASA nonsense notwithstanding. Why does he think clouds look white in the Sun? White water radiating at 6000 K?
Jeez.
Idiot!
Back at you, double!
Ama,
It appears from your assertion that you do not understand that clouds reduce participation of the cosmic background temperature in the measurement. The introduction in https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com might help you understand how this works.
Gobbledegook. You obviously dont know or care that your blog does not contain the words you claim I dont understand. Typical.
Maybe you should learn a little more about physic before you depend on appeals to your own authority.
Ama,
Sometimes it would be better to remain silent and have people speculate that you might not you have a grasp of the structure of the universe than to speak up and remove all doubt.
I wonder why you didnt take your own advice. You would have been better off.
The Amazed moron screwed up the calculations. At sea level, the nominal surface hydrostatic pressure is 14.7 psi. For a square foot of area, that works out to be a force of 2117 pounds. That represents a lot of mass overhead, but, since we live at the bottom, we don’t notice it directly.
Dummy. You just reinforced what I said. Thanks for stating that every square foot of surface has about 2217 pounds of air over it. No doubt you think this air has no temperature, but it has. It weighs nearly a ton. You may well be a silly person who believes that a ton of lead is much heavier than a ton of air! Ho ho!
Dont worry about ‘Amazed’ guys, he is just our trolliest of trolls, Mike Flynn, who keeps getting banned and coming back.
And you are just another dimwit who won’t accept reality. If you are wrong about my name, how can anyone believe you are right about anything else?
The Russian icebreaker Kapitan Dranitsyn was slowed for days by sea ice as she made her way to the North Pole to support the MOSAiC expedition icebreaker Polarstern, and she now requires assistance before returning. The icebreaker Admiral Makarov departed from Murmansk on March 3 with fuel for the vessel.
https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/icebreaker-needs-fuel-after-record-north-pole-voyage
Will another icebreaker get stuck in arctic ice?
And will they run out of toilet paper?
You missed this part of the story Ren
Never before has a ship ventured so far north during the Arctic winter. Additionally, two days later, the Kapitan Dranitsyn, shortly before her rendezvous with Polarstern at 8828 North, reached the northernmost position on her mission, marking the first time a ship had made it so far north under her own power so early in the year.
@Dan Pangburn
[Relaxation time and residence time are referring to entirely different phenomena.]
Of course, but as you noted, the cumulative relaxation time slows the flow of energy through the atmosphere. The slower current is what I was referring to.
*****
The main slowing is not relaxation time, though. 1/2 of the emitted infrared Is downwards, back towards the surface, rather than upwards towards space.
Even this is not the main thing WRT residence time. When infrared is thermalized, what is the new velocity for that quanta of energy? Upwards at maybe 2 or 3 MPH in a convective thermal?
And a large portion is not moving upwards at all, but laterally (advection). A portion is subsiding, over the poles and horse latitudes for example. Another portion of the thermalized energy falls back the surface as rain.
Together, these represent a massive increase in residence time compared to the alternative……. radiation traveling spaceward at the speed of light.
Sna,
OK, I understand all that. I have never tried to calculate the average time for the energy in a photon leaving the surface to get to some altitude. I expect energy leaving the surface as latent heat to take much longer.
I misspoke above, confusing lifetime (as used by the EPA) with residence time. So residence time works for what you are referring to.
Nearly all of latent and convective energy has been changed to radiant energy below the tropopause. A concept of the change is shown in Fig 0.7 at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com . Do you know of a credible source for the average residence time and/or a method of calculating it?
Now I read this a couple of thimes as a noneducted in climate science. But I read and follow this many years.
It would be intresting to read dr Spencers analysis of Connollys papper https://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/11/summary-the-physics-of-the-earths-atmosphere-papers-1-3/
THANK FOR YOUR EFFORT TO INFORM US.
BEST REGARDS
DAN SWEDEN
Dan Frberg
1. In the head page of the web site you present, I read:
” We have written a series of three papers discussing the physics of the Earth’s atmosphere, and we have submitted these for peer review at the Open Peer Review Journal. ”
2. I searched for “Connolly Open Peer Review Journal” using Google.
The very first link was a reference to a blog:
http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2014/02/global-warming-solved-in-open-peer.html
in which Roger Pielke Jr tells about the Connollys that they presented three new papers in a scientific journal.
The blog’s reaction:
” The journal is called “Open Peer Review Journal”, subtitle: “for rigorous open peer review”. Being an unknown journal, I was curious who was behind this journal, but the homepage does not mention an editorial board. Fortunately, there is also a blog by the Connolly family called “Global Warming Solved”. At this blog they state that they themselves have started the journal. ”
https://globalwarmingsolved.com/start-here/
People presenting papers in their own ‘Open Peer Review’ journal… that’s definitely too much.
Gracias no!
Rgds
J.-P. D.
Bindidon says: “People presenting papers …”
Could be useful now that we are running out of toilet paper.
Au!
Daran hatte ich nicht gedacht…
The US is different though, their instincts tell them to buy more guns.
I have heard about Wadenbeißermentalität, but what would you call that?
Visiting the “journal” page is a little sad. There are a total of 8 papers, all “published” in 2014, and all by the same two Connolly authors.
http://oprj.net/
Dan…the pair who wrote the article at your link seem to lack the basics of physics. For example, they wrote:
“The total energy of a substance will include the thermal energy of the substance, its latent energy, its potential energy, and its kinetic energy: ”
I agree with them that CO2 does not cause significant warming but the statement above is plain wrong.
According to Clausius, who defined the U in the 1st law which is internal energy. Clausius outlined very clearly that internal energy is a sum of the heat (thermal energy) in a body and the work done in the vibration of it’s atoms. The 1st law is stated as U = Q – W, where Q is external heat while W is external work. U is an internal summation of both Q and W.
The 1st law is not about conservation of energy per se although it could likely be extrapolated to other forms of energy. The 1st law is about the conservation of heat and work only. It was developed by scientists observing and measuring the effect of heat.
In the statement above, the authors are confusing potential and kinetic energy with heat and a so-called latent energy. Potential and kinetic energies are not energies per se, but descriptors of the state of a specific energy.
In a similar manner they seem to be confused as to why the atmosphere cools with altitude. It’s obvious that a gas under gravitational force is more strongly attracted near the surface than at increasing altitude. That means the gas is more dense near the surface therefore its pressure is higher. The Ideal Gas Law tells us for a relatively constant volume that the temperature should be higher. As the altitude increases, the gravitational effect reduces, the density of the gas reduces, the pressure reduces and the temperature reduces.
I don’t understand why the notion of lapse rate is required when you already have the Ideal gas Law. Maybe those in the field did not study it or know of it.
Gordo, where you been hiding? Stuck on a cruse ship somewhere waiting for the all clear? No matter, you are again back with more or your delusional physics.
Your explanation of the lapse rate in the troposphere misses the impact of moist convection. What’s that? Well, water vapor has a lower density than air at the same temperature and pressure. The more water vapor in a mass of air, the lower it’s density and the greater the lifting force provided by the surrounding dry air. Add the effect of surface warming the mass and the mass moves upward. As it rises, it’s pressure and temperature decline until the water vapor reaches saturation and clouds begin to form. The condensation releases energy to the air mass, warming it further, thus continuing the lifting process. And, in parallel, energy is absorbed and radiated by the Greenhouse gases in the mass, making things much more difficult to visualize.
Oh, BTW, your reasoning falls apart completely in the Stratosphere, where the lapse rate is positive with increasing altitude.
The lapse rate is the measured temperature change with altitude. The usual concepts of temperature are not useful where gas densities are low. The thermosphere, for example.
Learn some physics. It might help..
What clusterf*** of confusion! Obviously, the GHE has NOT been understood at all. And I am very sorry to point this out, but Dr. Spencer is totally wrong (like most of his colleagues).
To bring some light into this seemingly endless story of confusion, let me donate the chapter on this problem. Though I have to skip the illustriations..
The two greenhouse theories
I have no idea why this has gone almost unnoticed, it least to my knowledge, but we have indeed two different theories on how the GHE is supposed to work. And this not about some dispute among different fractions, rather both are well accepted among scientists. For the sake of argument let us call them Theory A and Theory B.
Theory A is likely more common as it is taught at schools and most people would understand the GHE just in this way. According to this theory Earth gets heated by the sun plus some “back radiation” which is emitted by GHGs. While the solar radiation alone would heat the planet to only 255K, the addition of “back radiation” would ultimately heat it to a much more comfortable 288K. Of course this effect can and will be enhanced if the amount of GHGs should be increased, as it is done by the emission of CO2. A very simplified model might look like this:
Theory B is a bit different, something like the “premium” version of the GHE. It is certainly less common in general but more popular with experts. According to this approach there is an average level within the atmosphere from where the planet emits LWIR into space, it is called the “photosphere”. There at the photosphere we should have 255K, while below it temperatures will be higher due to the adiabatic lapse rate. When moving downward and finally arriving at the surface, temperatures there will be 33K higher and that again will constitute the GHE. Also in this model an increase of GHGs will move up the photosphere and thus cause global warming.
Of course one might think if both models come to the same result, why would it even matter which approach is being used? The problem is, that despite these two approaches are usually referred to as “models” or “perspectives”, they are indeed fully grown theories. Both describe the very mechanism by how the GHE is supposed to work. “Photosphere” and “adiabatic lapse rate” do not matter in theory A, while “back radiation” has no scope in theory B. The pivotal part of each theory is irrelevant in each other theory. Also of course we know that two competing theories can not both be right.
For this reason it is very odd climate experts argue the GHE interchangeably with theory A or B, or sometimes with both of which, without feeling any pain over it. Here is an example where venerable Prof. Merrifield explains the GHE with both theories, though with a clear preference for theory B.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUFOuoD3aHw
Another example would be “scienceofdoom.com”, where they state: “Another way to consider the effect is to think about where the radiation to space comes from in the atmosphere. As the opacity of the atmosphere increases the radiation to space must be from a higher altitude.
Higher altitudes are colder and so the radiation to space is a lower value. Less radiation from the climate means the climate warms.”
(Note: they may not use the terms “photosphere” or “adiabatic lapse” in this case, though this is exactly the model they refer too)
This necessarily brings up the question which theory is right, which is wrong, and what consequences such understanding will have. To analyze this question let us name a few hopefully enlightening examples.
1. Jupiter is a gas giant and its atmosphere is getting thicker and hotter the deeper you go. This of course is not a unique property, you see the same pattern with any atmosphere, like that of Earth or Venus. The difference is just that you never hit a solid or liquid surface unless temperatures are probably even hotter than on the sun. Another interesting detail hereto is, that with a certain depth there will be no more solar radiation, as all of which has been absorbed or reflected by the atmospheric layers above. Yet temperatures will continue to increase the deeper you go.
A GH theory of course should not only explain a certain instance like that of Earth, but must also be able to explain the temperatures on Jupiter. In this case theory A will become very simple. In the absence of direct solar radiation all that remains to explain temperatures at a certain depth of the atmosphere will be “back radiation”. The deeper you go, the hotter it gets, the more “back radiation” there will be. So far so good.
The problem here is of logical nature. Obviously temperatures and “back radiation” increase side by side and it is definitely true, that “back radiation” increases because temperatures increase. “Back radiation” is just a part of ambient radiation and that is a function of temperature as the Stefan-Boltzmann law already tells us. In other words, theory A has a serious tautology problem, a classical egg-chicken issue.
Apart from this circular reasoning, theory A can not explain why temperatures and ambient radiation increase the deeper you dive into an atmosphere. To do that we require theory B, which henceforth is basically correct while theory A is wrong. This has the logical consequence that “back radiation” is indeed irrelevant for the GHE.
Also this totally applies to the common explanation of the GHE via “Earth Radiation Budget” diagrams which, although a bit complicated, suggest in their core that surface temperatures are determined by “back radiation”, ignoring that “back radiation” itself will be determined by surface temperature. I am afraid the GHE is commonly understood (and taught) the wrong way.
2. Let us assume you would measure ambient radiation in water with a probe which can be directed upward or downward. At any given temperature you would find there is just as much radiation upwelling as downwelling (“back radiation”). Question: will that mean there is a massive GHE in water?
3. There is a classical “experiment” to prove the GHE. Two bottles, one of which enriched with CO2 are heated with some source of light. The CO2 enriched bottled then is meant to heat up more strongly than the other one as CO2 would absorb more heat. As troublesome as this experiment is for a lot of reasons, let us assume it would work indeed.
As an act of heresy you could invert the experiment. Again two bottles, one with additional CO2, and now you warm them up in an oven to moderate temperatures. Finally you take them out and observe which one cools faster. Logically it must be the one with CO2, since it not only absorbs but also emits LWIR. Question: would this prove CO2 cools Earth??
Obviously such simple experiments can be misleading and set up to give any result you like. The same is true for “back radiation”. What is usually being omitted is the fact, that CO2 for instance not only “radiates back”, but also upward. This means due to GHGs less radiation will be emitted from surface to space, but additional radiation will be emitted by GHGs themselves into space. This would be a lump sum game unless you introduce the concept of adiabatic lapse rate and photosphere into your theory.
4. Let us take an extreme, theoretic example. We have a planet which receives just as much solar radiation as Earth does. It has no (or a perfectly transparent) atmosphere, but is totally covered by some fluid. The fluid is totally transparent to solar radiation, but totally opaque to LWIR. The solid surface underneath (or at the bottom) is both a perfect absorber and emitter. The fluid thus will work like a one-sided mirror. All goes in, nothing goes out.
The solid surface will attain 342W/m2 of solar radiation which will heat it to 279K. This will heat the fluid to the same temperature, which then again will emit another 342W/m2 back to the solid surface. A total of 684W/m2 will then heat the surface to 331K, with a GHE of 52K. Of course this is not the end of the story, as the fluid will turn hotter as well, giving more back radiation and so on. Temperatures eventually might turn so hot that the fluid evaporates.
However we have yet another restriction, as we know the temperature on top of the fluid, the liquid surface, must be 279K, since only with this temperature the planet emits as much energy as it receives from the sun. As soon as the temperature at the bottom is higher than these 279K, the warmer fluid will float to the surface balancing any delta in temperature between bottom and top of the fluid.
It turns out, even under such an extreme or prefect “greenhouse”, “back radiation” will not determine surface temperature as there are other mechanisms in place. It is a bit like eating soup with a fork. Yes, there is a momentum where you try to lift some soup out of the bowl, but eventually it will not yield the intended result. Even if you had a perfectly semi- or selectively transparent layer above the surface, that is not enough to catch the heat underneath. On the one side you have convection, which neutrals the effect of “back radiation”, on the other side real atmospheres are only marginally more or less transparent to SW as to LW radiation.
For all these reasons and many more, theory A based on “back radiation” is indeed a logical fallacy, while theory B is not. It provides a steady state mechanism to explain elevated surface temperatures which is not in conflict with any laws of physics, or logical consistency.
leitwolf…Theory B is scientific nonsense. It is based on a thought-experiment, not the scientific method.
You have missed the overriding issue that the GHE contradicts the 2ns law and according to Dr, Ollila, the 1sw as well.
There is another way in which the GHE contradicts the 1st law, that of perpetual motion. The overall claim is that back-radiation somehow raises the temperature of the planet beyond what it is heated by solar energy. That is a case of recycling heat as in perpetual motion.
You omitted Roy’s position that GHGs can act as a radiation blanket. Another physicist/meteorologist, Craig Bohren, disagrees with Roy, claiming the blanket theory is a metaphor, not a fact.
The problem with both of your theories is the lack of numbers. How much of an effect can GHGs with a total atmosphere percentage of 0.30%, have on the humungous IR flux radiated from each atom and molecule at the Earth’s surface? That’s why I called you plan B a thought-experiment. There have been no experiments based on the scientific method to verify what you claim.
Besides all that, an expert on gas radiation, R. W. Wood claimed CO2 could not warm the atmosphere as you claim. He thought a far better explanation for the GHE was the atmosphere gathering heat at the surface via conduction then transporting the heat to altitude. Since gas is a poor emitter of heat it retains its temperature longer.
“4. Let us take an extreme, theoretic example. We have a planet which receives just as much solar radiation as Earth does. It has no (or a perfectly transparent) atmosphere, but is totally covered by some fluid. The fluid is totally transparent to solar radiation, but totally opaque to LWIR. The solid surface underneath (or at the bottom) is both a perfect absorber and emitter. The fluid thus will work like a one-sided mirror. All goes in, nothing goes out.”
The fluid could be saltwater.
Or you talking about a solar pond.
With a salt gradient the hot salt water stays at the bottom.
The salt gradient prevents the hot water rising {it’s denser} and without convection, all you got is conduction of heat, and water and or salt water conducts heat poorly.
But the hot salty water at bottom of solar pond “only” reaches about 80 C. And far less salty water at top has temperature of about 30 C.
A significant aspect of solar pond is it can maintain this 80 C temperature throughout the night. And despite starting it’s day with the hot temperature at bottom of pond, the added sunlight, day after day, after day doesn’t increase the temperature beyond some maximum temperature {somewhere around 80 C}.
Of course this has nothing to do with “backradiation”- it merely inhibts the hot water from rising- inhibts convectional heat transfer. Similar to an actual greenhouse. Or parked car with windows rolled up. Or the insulated box with pane of glass at the top.
But the atmosphere itself also sort of works like this too.
A desert with hot surface air- say 50 C, will inhibt the convectional heat loss of the ground, so it reaches a ground surface temperature of about 70 C. Or if air only say 30 C {with same intensity of sunlight} the ground surface only reaches about 60 C- because there is more convectional heat loss when air is cooler. And if air is even cooler, say 10 C, there is even more convectional heat loss. But if had an insulated box and air was 10 C, it still get to about 80 C. Or if had a solar pond with 10 C air, it still gets to about 80 C. Or parked car with windows rolled up, still gets hot.
But an interesting thing about an actual greenhouse or solar pond {or insulated box or car with window rolled up} is if they are bigger {mainly taller or deeper} they don’t get as hot.
So the “main” difference between a sky and an actual greenhouse is the sky is much bigger.
And the main difference between a solar pond and an Ocean, is the ocean is much bigger.
Roughly speaking.
Roy…”As shown in Fig. 2, the surface is still emitting more IR energy than the atmosphere is returning to the surface, resulting in net surface loss of [395 – 345 =] 50 W/m2 of infrared energy. And, as previously mentioned, all energy fluxes at the surface balance”.
I have tried to point out that speaking in terms of generic energy leads to a misunderstanding of hear transfer. You cannot lump IR with heat and claim a two-way heat transfer between surface and atmosphere then atmosphere to surface.
Both the 1st law and the 2nd law are about heat transfer and have nothing whatsoever to do with IR, which is simply and energy transfer mechanism. The 1st law tells us that heat/work in must equal heat out/work out to maintain a balance with the internal energy. You cannot measure IR fluxes using the 1st or 2nd law and I think that may be what Dr. Ollila is on about.
You seemed to have joined the alarmists who claim a net energy transfer satisfies the 2nd law. You have not, however, explained what net energy transfer means. It suggests an addition of IR and heat and that is simply not allowed. You can add heat quantities if you merge atoms in gases of different temperatures but you cannot add IR fluxes and you cannot sum IR quantities with heat quantities. How, then, can you define a net energy transfer?
With the GHE, there is only one transfer, and that is the transfer of heat. Even that is misunderstood by alarmists. Heat cannot be transferred directly by IR. That is to say, heat is the kinetic energy of atoms and to transfer that heat through space, the atoms must move, as in convection.
Heat transfer by radiation is a two part effect. First, heat is converted to EM (IR) and that emitted IR moves through space. It is no longer heat…the heat was lost during conversion. The second part of the effect occurs ‘IF’ that IR reaches a cooler body, which is the case when the Earth’s surface radiates to a cooler atmosphere.
If cooler atoms (CO2 or WV) absorb IR from the hotter surface, electrons in those atoms convert the IR back to heat. Therefore the heat transfer means a loss of heat in the emitting mass and a gain of heat is the absorbing mass. Heat does not travel through space.
The reverse process is not possible by its own means. Not only does the 2nd law state that, quantum theory makes it clear. Electrons at higher energy levels in a hotter body simply cannot absorb IR from a cooler body. The electron in its orbit is a resonant system with a specific frequency related to its temperature. If it encounters IR of a lower intensity and frequency, it will not absorb it.
Therefore, so-called back-radiation has no effect on a warmer surface even though it contacts that surface. It will not be absorbed.
Gordon Robertson
I believe you have said you live in Vancouver Canada.
You make the same claim over and over. Now you can test it.
YOU: “Therefore, so-called back-radiation has no effect on a warmer surface even though it contacts that surface. It will not be absorbed.”
According to your logic it would be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the energy of a cold molecule was absorbed by a hotter molecule.
So here is what you can do. Turn off your home heating. Take off all your clothes and sit. Wait until the house temperature goes down to 10 C. Are you comfortable or cold? Now turn the heat on and warm your room to 25 C. Does it make a difference to you? How can it? Your body temperature is around 37 C. Much warmer than either room temperature. But you claim the energy of the colder molecules cannot transfer any energy to the hotter molecules of your skin surface, it can’t be absorbed. Why do you feel a difference? How can that be. It has to be a violation of your incorrect understanding of the 2nd law.
Note. You do not need to post a video of you performing the experiment. Your word should be enough. Let me know what you find. Based upon your distorted view of the 2nd Law there should be no difference to your comfort level.
Dont be stupid. Put ice in your coffee. Does it make it warmer? Where does the radiation from the ice go? No answer?
M.I.K.E F.L.Y.N.N.
The only thing amazing about your comment is how ridiculous it is. You have about zero level reading comprehension.
If you possessed even a little reading ability you would NOT see anything in my post that says the cold air will warm up a naked body.
I think that is enough of a response to your post. You can’t understand what I write anyway. You will not understand this one either.
Who is M.I.K.E F.L.Y.N.N?
You refuse to answer my previous question. Inconvenient truth?
Norman, I do not know where you live, but I assume that there are Saunas available in the vicinity. Ask a sauna master to heat the sauna to 90C. Then take an accurate thermometer and measure the air temperature of the sauna. Then take off your cloths and go in and sit there awhile. Measure the air temperature. Ask five pals of yours to join you one by one. Measure the air temperature all the time.I guess your hypothesis is that the air warms gradually. Accordingly you emit the heat to the air and you cool simultaneously. How fast would you freeze?
You also do not need to post a video of you performing the experiment. In case your pals are of the opposite sex you may consider.
snape…”here are two little holes in a large box, through which a steady stream of bees are coming and going.
Every second one bee flies in and every second one bee flies out.How many bees are in the box?”
A more important question is this: are the bees alive, dead, or not alive and not dead? I channelled that from Schrodinger.
Not to be confused with Schroeder the pianist in Charley Brown.
@Leitwolf
Theory B assumes an unchanged lapse rate.
So given a higher emission level, the surface has to be warmer in other for the math to work.
In theory A, backradiation warms the surface. So assuming a constant lapse rate, the emission level has to be higher.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Two different ways of describing the very same thing.
“Two different ways of describing the very same thing” – ABSOLUTELY NOT!
As pointed out, these are two seperate theories. Just because seemingly they come to the same result (they do not in the end, but that is another story), they can yet not be both true. Also I guess I have gone every length to explain the dilemma. If you have still trouble understanding it, just read it a couple of times.
Leitwolf, I agree with most of what you are saying. The experts have used theory B for at least 4 decades.
One thing about the back radiation. With increasing CO2 the radiating level at which CO2 and water vapor radiate downward to the surface will get LOWER. Thus with the usual lapse rate, the back-radiation to the surface will be higher.
In addition the troposphere at all levels will be warmer, as shown in Roy’s data, making the back radiation to the surface higher as well.
Leitwolf, both are true.
Raymond Pierrehumbert:
Raymond Pierrehumbert – the guy who said that CO2 was just planetary insulation! Put some insulation between you and the Sun – do you feel warmer, punk? Or just lucky to cool down?
Yes. If the thermal barrier allows incoming solar radiation to penetrate the barrier, but impedes the outgoing radiation/convection/conduction that occurs as a result of the solar heating then you will feel warmer.
MF knows full well he is serving up strawmen. He always neglects the cold sky.
Polystyrene does not have the magical properties you want. Neither does any other insulator.
Who is MF? Who is John Galt? Do you believe in cold rays?
order, not other.
binny…”The surface and the atmosphere above it must warm because outgoing energy must be equal to incoming energy in order to satisfy 1LoT”.
Another misinterpretation of the 1st law. Which energy is incoming and which energy is outgoing? Incoming is SW EM and outgoing is LW IR. Neither are covered by the 1st law which is only about heat and work.
However, there is another, more important outgoing energy, the heat loss due to conduction and subsequent convection. The surface heats atmospheric air and that air rises, allowed cooler air from above to flow in. 99% of that air is oxygen and nitrogen.
Clouds warm, as Roy claimed, because a cloud can be modelled as a lake of water since it is loaded with droplets of water. A cloud can absorb SW solar EM directly. In general, however, the atmosphere cools from the surface upward due to a lowering of air density. That is caused by a reduction in gravitational force.
Whereas a larger mass may not be affected by such a reduction in G-force, tiny particles making up air are affected.
For the eternal ignorant:
“ The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic processes, distinguishing two kinds of transfer of energy, as heat and as thermodynamic work, and relating them to a function of a body’s state, called Internal energy.
The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed. ”
You don’t know anything really, Robertson. You just boast your egocentric blah blah. You think that Clausius’ work is restricted to heat and thermodynamic work.
This is what has been teached 60 years ago by 60 year aged teachers who learned that 100 years ago.
Gordon
Come on, the math is simple. Assume they are long lived bees if that helps.
snape…”Come on, the math is simple. Assume they are long lived bees if that helps”.
I was just offering some humour, Snapesy. Don’t get a bee in your bonnet.
Nabil Swedan…”Take ESRL measurements of downwelling IR with a grain of salt. They are not actual measurement of IR radiation, they are proxies of incorrectly Calibrated pyrgeometers. Do your research. Pyrgeometer are based on thermocuples, they sense temperature, not radiation”.
The only way a thermocouple can measure temperature is when the source is hotter than the thermocouple. That would limit the use of a thermocouple-based pyrgeometer to very hot sources like a blast furnace environment. Of course, you could cool the thermocouple and in practice such devices are cooled to very low temperatures using liquid nitrogen.
A more practical application of a handheld device, like a FLIR, employs optical sensors, not thermocouples. Therefore those devices are collecting infrared as a frequency only, they do NOT measure heat directly. They rely on the frequency of the received IR affecting semiconductor material in such a manner that the semiconductor’s resistance to current flow is affected. That is not due to heating it is due electrons being affected in the semiconductor.
In a FLIR, the temperature is derived in a conversion algorithm which itself was developed in a lab by observing hot bodies emitting IR. That data/algorithm is programmed into the FLIR memory and is used to compare the derived current in the sensor’s receiver with a calculated current from an equivalent body temperature.
Furthermore, handheld FLIRs need to be able to distinguish the actual source radiation from background radiation and any radiation source in between. Therefore, they are best with a near focal point. In a room at a few feet from a wall the focal diameter is about 1″. If you point a FLIR at the sky it becomes overwhelmed with radiation and will only give you an average temperature of an air column.
As Roy, pointed out, pointing a FLIR at a cloud shows a warmer temperature because water droplets in a cloud are heated from above by solar energy. That was confirmed by Craig Bohren, a physicist/meteorologist. He noticed -50C in clear sky and only -2C pointing at a cloud.
Gordon,
I think you meant the only time thermocouples can be calibrated to measure radiation is when the source is warmer than the thermocouple. I agree with this statement.
Gordon,
However, pyrgeometer calibration equation calibrates thermocouples to measure radiation from a source colder than the thermocouple such as at night. This is a wrong calibration.
Nabil
How do you know its a wrong calibration?
AFIK, these devices have at least 2 thermocouples, and measure the temp difference btween them.
The T difference is used to determine heat flow through a thin material, via the Fourier eqn.
The heat flow determines the net radiation received or emitted by this material.
It can detect a colder object when the device has net emission of IR from the device to the cold object.
Nabil, you can buy uncooled handheld devices that can distinguish the temperatures of objects 40C cooler than the measuring device.
Look at the specs on this one.
https://www.flir.com.au/products/t1010/
Detector Type: Focal plane array (FPA), uncooled microbolometer>/b>
Difference Temperature: Delta temperature between the measurement functions and the reference temperature
Object Temperature Range: -40°C to 650°C (-40°F to 1202°F)
Clouds reflect lots of radiation. Visible light, for example. They are composed of little spheres of water. Depending on frequency, droplet size, angle of incidence, etc reflection may vary from zero to total.
Couple of examples. Weather radar shows clouds. Fly above some clouds in sunlight. You might need to pull down the window shades to avoid being blinded. You may feel the reflected heat, even when outside temperatures are -30 or so.
Roy is a meteorologist. He will tell you what happens if you heat a cloud. It evaporates. Vanishes.
dremt…from earlier…”A pretty poor No GHE argument from Dr Ollila.Some better ones here:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/03/07/the-nub-of-the-argument/ ”
Actually, Joe’s answer is not bad. I liked one of his statements a while back that we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do.
In the article at the link above he is essentially presenting the argument of R. W. Wood who claimed the GHE is about the atmosphere, which is 99% oxygen and nitrogen, collecting heat at the surface via conduction, and retaining it for a while because both N2 and O2 are poor emitters.
That makes far more sense than GHGs, which make up only about 0.31% of the atmosphere overall. being responsible for heating and cooling the atmosphere.
One might ask how O2 and N2 eventually shred the heat they collect at the surface. I think it’s done via a complex process which involves non-complex science.
The temperature of any gas depends on the number of molecules of gas in a certain volume. The molecules colliding with the walls of the container create the pressure and the temperature is due to the kinetic energy of the molecules as they move.
If you keep the volume constant, or relatively constant, temperature will be dependent mainly on pressure. Gravity keeps the atmosphere denser near the surface and loses its effect with altitude. Therefore the number of molecules per unit volume decreases, hence the pressure, and the temperature.
It’s clear that temperature reduces naturally with altitude therefore the shredding of heat occurs naturally as a heated gas rise. We still have to explain the energy in versus energy out. For that, we have to look at the long term picture. Over the eons, solar energy has heated the Earth and the Earth has absorbed that energy. If the Earth can act like an energy sponge, it can absorb a whole lot of energy without radiating it to space immediately.
Now that the Earth has reached a thermal equilibrium with the Sun, it only needs a fraction of the energy offered by the Sun to maintain that balance. However, huge amounts of energy are still stored in the Earth, particularly in its oceans. Since the Earth rotates at just the right angular velocity, it does not have its entire surface exposed to the Sun therefore the Sun is supplying just enough energy to maintain thermal equilibrium.
That means not all of the Sun’s input has to be immediately radiated away. Think of it as a child on a swing. The adult pushes the child many times to get the child moving with harmonic motion, but once the motion is established, the child will continue to swing with just an occasional push. In the same manner, the Earth will maintain its average temperature in the short term.
That’s what the Sun does, once a day it gives a push of energy to the Earth’s system. The atmosphere will respond by expanding slightly and when the Sun is no longer shining on that part of the Earth, the atmosphere will contract. That expansion/contraction will take care of much of the heating while the Sun is shining.
Of course, there will be emission to space but not at the suggested rate required immediately to balance an equation. I just don’t think the radiation component can be explained adequately by GHGs since they make up a trivial portion of the atmosphere. I think other factors such as those I have described, which involve the entire atmosphere, make more sense.
“One might ask how O2 and N2 eventually shred the heat they collect at the surface. I think its done via a complex process which involves non-complex science.”
shred = shed ??
The ground emits an average of 40 watts directly to space.
I assume the O2 and N2 emits some amount to space. Though willing to accept it is quite small.
A problem is I think the ocean warms the world.
This occurs in different ways.
The tropical ocean is heat engine of the world and part of how it does this is via evaporation.
So you could replace water with something that evaporates, and gas is not counted as “greenhouse gas”. Another aspect is heated water is transported poleward. Which seems like perhaps more easier to find liquid to substitute for.
The other way it warms the world, is the tropical ocean merely has a much warmer average temperature. So 40% kids of class with higher grade average which increase the class score to “15 C”.
Or if don’t include the tropical ocean score which adds to average global air temperature- average global temperature {excluding the tropical ocean area} is much lower than 15 C.
Or the warmth of tropical ocean makes it seems like the world outside the tropical ocean appear smarter than it is.
Said differently, the average global ocean surface temperature is about 17 C and the average global land surface temperature is about 10 C.
And the warmer ocean surface increases the average land surface temperature to 10 C.
Replace ocean with land, the replacement land doesn’t have average temperature of 17 C.
Though even if it did, it would not warm other the land to 10 C.
Or global average temperature would be somewhere around 0 C. Though it depends upon the planetary topography.
One thing about the ocean is it makes all surfaces “uniformly” near “sea level”.
Or without that factor, earth land could radiate more than about 40 watts, though I guess possible it could be even less than about 40 watts average.
gbaikie
” I assume the O2 and N2 emits some amount to space. Though willing to accept it is quite small. ”
O2 absorbs / emits 10,000 times, N2 1,000,000 times less than H2O / CO2.
This is easy to see in the HITRAN database at SpectralCalc.com, using the feature ‘scaled by atmospheric abundance.
–O2 absorbs / emits 10,000 times, N2 1,000,000 times less than H2O / CO2.
This is easy to see in the HITRAN database at SpectralCalc.com, using the feature ‘scaled by atmospheric abundance.–
H2O and CO2 emit about the same?
Or does H2O / CO2 mean the sum of H2O and CO2?
I assume the H2O / CO2 refers to the gas state or said differently, it excludes water droplets/Ice particles.
If talking about sums if you sum H20 and CO2 gas and compare it with the sum all droplets and particles dust, ice particle, etc, then what is comparison.
gbaikie
Is that sooo difficult to understand?
The difference in absorp-tion / emission between H2O and CO2 is way, way, way smaller than the difference between N2 / O2 and H2O / CO2 either.
OMG
Binny,
Not according to measurement. Around 1750 times. Unfortunately, there are more than 1750 times as many O2/N2 molecules as CO2. Total effect on radiation is more for O2/N2. Depends on density/pressure of course. What actual laboratory measurements are you using? What frequencies? What pressures?
No actual measurements? Just modelling?
Amazed i.e. Flynn
” Not according to measurement. Around 1750 times. ”
Why do you never and never show sources?
Avoid showing ‘sources’ like TrickZones, Hockexschtick, WUWT, Principia-Unscientifica, Postma and the like!
Who is Flynn? Not me, that’s for sure!
As to relative interaction with IR, you show no measurements whatever. That’s why I asked. You can’t find any, can you? Why should I do your work for you? Try Google.
Or do it yourself. Tell me your results. Only joking.
Finally, somebody that recognized the link wasn’t actually about his “flat Earth” remarks.
Meanwhile you failed to explain why JP ignores the temperature of the dark side of his non spinning Earth in his calculation of the Earths temp without a GHE.
Pretty clear he just fudged it, and the Earth still needs a GHE.
#2
Finally, somebody that recognized the link wasn’t actually about his “flat Earth” remarks.
Fluctuating temperatures in California are very conducive to infection.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/01000/w4qma0t0uhtb.png
The air temperature in California is now similar to that in Spain.
Also, the rain in Spain falls mainly on the Plain.
Does Pappy mourn your daffy cornea? Capricornia’s not in California.
@Dan Pangburn
[Do you know of a credible source for the average residence time and/or a method of calculating it?]
This is the only thing I have ever been able to find. Not peer reviewed, and I have no idea if the value is accurate:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.01932.pdf
Sna,
Thanks, I will check it out.
@Leitwolf
Sorry, I mistook you for the blogger Leitmotif, who posts at WUWT, and so only took the time to read a small part of your comment. Will try for a better reply later.
(For some reason my comments always appear at the bottom of the thread, no apostrophes)
I run into this “GHE is a violation of law X” stuff all the time myself and have tried various ways to address why it isn’t violating anything.
Sitting in a heated room we are all surrounded by objects at a lower temperature than we are. They are nonetheless radiating LWIR at us. (And we at them.) That LWIR can either be reflected or absorbed by us but .. it CANNOT just “disappear” because that would violate conservation of energy.
I guarantee that objects in a ~70F heated room help keep you warmer because you are absorbing their ~70F LWIR radiation. Even if the air was somehow kept at 70F, if the surrounding objects were at 0K you would feel a lot colder.
Another way to explain it is to compare wall insulation with and without Al foil. On a cold day, the radiation reflected by the foil will reduce the BTU’s /hr needed to keep the house heated. That reflected LWIR radiation is no different than LWIR from any warm object in the house- a photon is a photon, it doesn’t “know” where it came from. In the case of ones reflected by the foil it is radiant energy that wasn’t allowed to escape out of the house.
Similarly, a “space blanket” keeps you warmer than a clear sheet of Mylar because the reflected photons coming back at you reduces the net amount of photons radiated from you. The temperature of the Mylar has no affect on that.
GHE does not violate any law of thermodynamics. In a PASSIVE example it is true that a colder object cannot make a warmer object warmer by any means. But it is true that radiation from a colder object absorbed by the warmer object will reduce the amount of radiation coming from the warmer object.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/03/comments-on-dr-ollilas-claims-that-greenhouse-effect-calculations-violate-energy-conservation/#comment-446338
Mike Mitchell
Excellent comment.
Just don’t let the ignorant’s reactions bother you.
” … radiation from a colder object absorbed by the warmer object will reduce the amount of radiation coming from the warmer object. ”
Yeah.
No, the only way you can reduce the amount of radiation coming from the warmer object is to either change the temperature, or emissivity, of the warmer object.
Hmm, ought to apply to the cold object to.
And does it, or don’t you know? Please explain.
Amazed, that commenter just likes to follow me about wherever I comment, I don’t think it ever really has a point except to troll me. I’ve been trying to ignore it for months now.
Self absorbed DREMT thinks I only pay attention to him, when the reality is I point out stupidity and BS wherever I see it. DREMT just happens to be one of the biggest suppliers.
See what I mean?
You must do really bad on reading comprehension tests
#2
See what I mean?
Drop a red hot chunk or iron into a barrel of water. Tell me how the red hot chunk of iron is now cooling more slowly because it is absorbing radiation form the colder ice! Any blacksmith (even one without a PhD) will laugh at your silliness.
“red hot chunk or iron into a barrel of water”
GOOD EXAMPLE! How fast will it cool in boiling versus ice water? THAT is the whole point! Radiation is really no different in outcome, more of it being absorbed by a cooling object will REDUCE its radiation and it will cool more slowly = temperature of cooler thing DOES affect energy loss of the warmer thing.
Is this not true? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ETa4AUjWAAItWda?format=png&name=small
What is your point? Providing enough heat keep an object at 100 C keeps it at 100 C? Experimental verification of Newton’s Law of Cooling?
Cooling is not heating.
Way to miss the other 2 lines and figure out the corrollary.
If you power the object with an electrical source so that it holds its own temp instead of cooling, the 3 different shells each have a different effect on its rate of heat loss, and the 2 objects will achieve different steady state temps.
There are 2 ways an object receiving a steady heat source can get warmer. Increase the rate of energy input, or reduce the rate of energy loss of the object.
That’s what the 3 shells do per the chart, only in this case they are reducing energy loss of a cooling object.
Bindidon – thank you!
It seems they cannot understand that basic truth.
You are confused. Reflecting radiation from a body slows the cooling of the body, as you say. The reflector provides no heat. It merely gives you some of your own back. Some, not all. However, LWIR may be neither reflected no absorbed by a body, but simply pass through without disappearing”.
Just like visible light passes through glass or air. Radio waves pass through lots of things, and just vanish into outer space if nothing absorbs them. Learn some physics. It sounds like you need to.
“but simply pass through without disappearing” If the radiation was originally emitted from an object it damn well is going to be absorbed by it not pass thru it!
“It merely gives you some of your own back.” Which is effectively what GHG’s do, send photons that came from the surface back to the surface. Reflected or re-emitted makes no difference – a photon is a photon.
You say that I’m confused .. I say that you are.
Not at all. You cannot stop something from cooling merely by insulating it. Slowing the rate of cooling does not result in a rise in temperature. No warming, global or otherwise.
Wrap an inanimate object in as many space blankets as you like. The object emits IR, reflected by the space blanket, absorbs IR, but cools anyway. Photons are indeed photons. You need to learn what happens when they interact with matter.
Wasn’t the Earth once molten?
That would prove it, right?
“You cannot stop something from cooling merely by insulating it.”
BUNK! By definition a perfect insulator WILL stop something from cooling as will a perfect reflector in a vacuum.
If … ALL … the radiation from an object is redirected back to the object its NET radiation = zero and its temperature will NOT change. I guarantee it!
No perfect insulators exist. Nor does an infinite plane, or perfect black body etc. Accept reality.
How would you measure the temperature of your perfectly insulated body? Would you have to use a theoretical thermometer which could transmit its information through your perfect insulator? It’s worse than you thought!
S,
You tell me. Prove what?
” Slowing the rate of cooling does not result in a rise in temperature.”
= straw man, I never claimed that.
The POINT is that the cooler object affects the warmer one.
In the case of GHE the surface has a primary source of thermal energy – the sun.
I defy you to get around the fact that thermal equilibrium is when thermal energy in = thermal energy out.
Good. So Pierrehumbert surrounding the Earth with one seventh of an inch of polystyrene wont cause an increase in temperature. Not being a perfect insulator, it can’t even stop the Earth cooling when the sun Isnt providing sufficient heat.
Are you claiming that CO2 has magical better than perfect insulation properties? I hope not.
Why would I want to get around the fact that an object in thermal equilibrium has a constant temperature? Surely you are not claiming that the Earth is in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings. This would mean that the Earth’s temperature is constant. What a silly assumption. What happened to global warming? Is the Sun getting brighter?
Another Amazed red herring. We’ve been talking about a body which is being heated, not one just hanging out in space cooling because it’s losing energy. It’s that added energy flow which causes the body to exhibit an equilibrium temperature for any particular configuration. Generally speaking, with some amount of insulation, that body achieves some temperature. Of course, increasing the insulation results in a higher temperature.
Learn some physics and stop being Amazed.
So you think that insulating something from sunlight makes it hotter? The Earth, for example? or anything else? I suppose now you are going to say that if you have a magical one way insulator that lets heat in but not out, it should work. No such material exists.
A greenhouse?
The Amazed troll needs to learn some physics. It wrote:
Solar thermal collectors use materials which exhibit high emissivity for SW from the Sun, but low emissivity at temperatures producing longer wavelengths. Such materials are carefully designed to “let the heat in and not out”.
Of course, I never said anything “insulating something from sunlight”, indeed, my post specified some energy input, be it from sunlight, an electrical heater or other source.
Amazed: “You cannot stop something from cooling merely by insulating it.”
YOU are the one who brought up the total subterfuge that insulation cannot “stop” heat which NOBODY claimed was happening! We’re are discussing a perturbation to steady state condition of thermal equilibrium, i.e. energy IN – energy OUT = 0
1. Do you deny (yes or no) that insulation in a house wall (say in winter) slows down loss of thermal energy via sensible heat flow?
2. Do you deny (yes or no) that adding Al foil to it slows down loss of thermal energy via thermal radiation?
Just answer please…
E. Swanson says:
“Solar thermal collectors use materials which exhibit high emissivity for SW from the Sun, but low emissivity at temperatures ”
Yes and I heard that someone is working on a spectral selective ceramic coating for tungsten filaments that will make them more efficient than an LED by only allowing visible light to escape while reflecting IR back at the filament.
(I would guess the hurdle is preserving the coating during the mechanical shock from turn-on inrush current.)
https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/03/07/the-nub-of-the-argument/#comment-62832
“I guarantee that objects in a ~70F heated room help keep you warmer because you are absorbing their ~70F LWIR radiation.”
Nope. And this is disproven by what happens in ISS.
Or in microgravity you get very little convectional heat transfer with the air.
And with water. Which makes me think of experiment:
In microgravity water will form into a sphere or you can make a ball of water float in the middle of the room.
So make ball water in the middle of room {and turn off all blowing air in the room}.
Maybe put different dyes- red and blue {or blue and yellow] at the north and south pole of the ball.
Using radiant heat warm the equator of the ball of water.
And one can use different type of radiant heat.
Say large plate which less than 100 C. UV, etc.
But first, try to predict what will happen before doing such things.
–Even if the air was somehow kept at 70F, if the surrounding objects were at 0K you would feel a lot colder.–
The objects will have their temperatures going to equilibrium to the air temperature of room if in gravity field.
In microgravity in air, it go towards equilibrium by radiant transfers but it will be a much slower process.
For instance a person staying in one spot {without air circulating fans which are always going in ISS} will create a warm spot- mainly by breathing and be making small movements {which could be reduced if attempting to be very still}.
I would say if stay still and breath is muffled {with a cloth/pillow, for instance} the air should get quite warm around a person.
For Ren:
I Hope your daughter is well!!! And also well isolated!!.BecauseThats seems to be very important now with this incredible super infectous and terrible coronavirus!!
Thank you very much for the information!
I couldnt found chloroquine, hospitals must stock up on It!
My best wishes for you and your family!!
Adelaida
I invite you to my page. You will get more information.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/category/Blogger/Sunclimate-719393721599910/
DREMT
Allow me to explain the idea in a different order, a tact I tried a few years ago with Gordon and the knucklehead, JD Huffman.
1.
a) Place a thermometer on a table with the
thermostat set to 50 F.
b) when the thermometer reads 50 F, place a candle 3 inches away from the thermometer.
c) assume the warmth from the candle heats the thermometer to a steady 90 F, an increase of 40 F
*****
2.
a) Place a thermometer on a table with the thermostat set to 80 F
b) when the thermometer reads 80 F, again place the candle 3 inches away.
c) Now, with 40 F warming from the candle, the thermometer will reach a temperature of 120 F.
****
Do you seriously think that the result in example 2 is a violation of the 2LOT??
Or maybe you think the law does not apply to conduction or convection?
Instead of putting words in my mouth, try making a point.
Are you stupid? Another secret high temperature heat source hidden away? Are you dumb enough to believe that placing your candle 3 inches away from a thermometer will increase its temperature by 40 F regardless of the temperature of the surrounding environment?
Learn some physics, fool.
Why is this laughable Mike Flynn’ (being anyway already a fake pseudo real name) such a coward that he feels the need to keep behind a pseudonym?
Who is Mike Flynn? Why does it matter?
There is more convectional heat loss with cooler air.
A car engine roughly works by using convectional heat loss.
Climbing a hill with a car in warm air temperature is more likely to overheat a car engine, as compared climbing a hill with cold air.
I say likely because numerous factors could involved, or a properly
operating vehicle is designed not to over heat merely because the air is warmer. And with something “wrong” with the engine- it can over heat in -50 C air temperature.
But as general thing, if going up a long hill and weather is warmer, it’s more likely you see other drivers having problems their cars overheating. Or if note your engine temperature gauge, one can discern a difference.
Or when sun is higher than 45 degree above horizon {near zenith} sunlight will warm a dry ground to about 60 C. But if air temperature is +40 C the ground will warm closer to about 70 C.
Or warmer air has less conventional heat loss.
Or it doesn’t have anything to do with radiant heat transfers.
If you wanted to look for difference to do with radiant transfers, you looking at difference with say, reflective vs blackbody surface. Such differences might indicate something to do with radiant heat transfers {though it might not} but you not even addressing or discussing this aspect.
@DREMT
Asking a question is not putting words in your mouth.
*******
@ The amazing Mr. Flynn,
Maybe not 40 F warmer in each case, but thats nitpicking.
Do you thing the thermometer will be warmer in example 2?
I cant see any comment from Mr Flynn, whoever he is. I will assume you are confused, and referring to me.
Learn some physics, fool. Asking me whether exposing a thermometer to sufficient heat at higher temperatures makes the thermometer act as designed is pretty stupid, don’t you think?
Do you still believe your fantasies are superior to reality?
The SW insolation reaching the surfaces of planets like Earth and Venus is nowhere near sufficient to explain the observed global mean surface temperature. There is an obvious need for an additional source of thermal energy into the surface. But, as Prof Claes Johnson explained, atmospheric radiation cannot be that source as it undergoes a resonating process and is not thermalized in the warmer surface. The ONLY correct explanation is at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318008633_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures
C.O.T.T.O.N
Who care what a crackpot Claes Johnson thinks. He makes up whatever ideas he believes are correct. He does no experimentation. He is not an expert at physics at all. He may know math and that is the extent of his abilities.
If you are out to claim established physics is wrong then you must be prepared to perform experiments to prove it. Writing ideas means nothing in science.
Question for you. Why you accept the ramblings of Claes over established science. What evidence at all has he presented to you that convinced you he had valid information.
As far as I know he wrote a book with his opinions and some equations. Not exactly worthy of the scientific method.
Someone said that he couldn’t provide another Earth (without CO2) to experiment on. So, no reproducible experiment? No scientific method at all. Just speculation, incapable of verification by experiment. Saying it’s too hard is no excuse, is it?
I am not interested in communicating with people like Norman who are so arrogant and narcissistic that they cannot admit their errors such as have been exposed in earlier comments as I quote …
I shall show this with Normans incorrect guesswork above. Lets use an online Stefan-Boltzmann calculator for his figures .
250W/m^2 gives 257.7K
750W/m^2 gives 339.1K
1000W/m^2 gives 364.4K
2000W/m^2 gives 433.4K
Average flux is 1000W/m^2 but the average of those temperatures is 348.7K
D.O.U.G C.O.T.T.O.N
A poster on PSI tried your same point. I responded with this factual information.
ME: “Try to follow.
Y units are exponentially linked to X units you cant average the units.
Here is an example. If you have 10 X units this will give 100 Y units.
So if you want to add them the X and Y units do not average in this case.
10X units plus 4X units give 14 total X.
The sum of the Y units is 116 units.
The average X is 7. The Average Y is 58
But if you had just 7X with no average you would only have 49Y units. So you cant average (with simple math) Units that dont relate in linear fashion.
However if they are linear connected (for every X unit you have 10 Y units).
10X = 100 Y
4X = 40 Y
!0X + 4X = 14X
100Y + 40Y = 140Y
Average X =7X
Average Y= 70Y
If you just had 7X it also equals 70Y. The average works when the relationship is linear but not when exponential.”
I think a single experiment can put the debate to bed one way or the other. Spin up a well insulated container of dry air to measure T at various radii in an artificially accelerated field. That will will provide an artificially induced pressure gradient. Basically a centrifuge chamber say ~20″ (?) diameter x ~4″ wide perhaps made of aluminum.
Can use say 4 battery powered wireless RTD sensor/transmitters situated near the center so 4 temperature readings: at center, 1/3, 2/3 & full radius positions. Need pressure sensors too.
Tricky part is the type of insulation and how to support it so that it doesn’t sag or disintegrate at high G. (Can you buy Space Shuttle tile on Ebay?)
I would expect that the initial spin up will impart a T gradient because we are doing work on the gas – compressing it toward the perimeter so it will be warmest there at the beginning.
But if I’m right .. that T gradient will subside and T will equalize. If I’m wrong then highest pressure air at the perimeter will remain warmer than low pressure air near the center.
That would be a cool experiment indeed! I agree that a temperature gradient would likely develop at least initially. I’m going to have to really think about this one to see what the steady-state configuration would end up being.
Ya know…that constant outward push isn’t so unlike the constant inward pull of Earth’s gravity (obvious difference aside of course). There’s still a temperature gradient in the atmosphere.
What are your thoughts on the similarities between the gravity/atmosphere interaction and the centrifuge/air interaction in your experiment?
bdgwx says: “that constant outward push isn’t so unlike the constant inward pull of Earth’s gravity”
Einstein said they are the same.
I put my money on entropy, T will equalize.
Me too
“Tricky part is the type of insulation and how to support it so that it doesnt sag or disintegrate at high G. (Can you buy Space Shuttle tile on Ebay?)”
Well, they are collectibles {mostly} but one might get them a “product” but probably fairly expensive. I would suppose hard to fabricate into your design needs.
Wiki {Shuttle tiles}:
“The HRSI tile was composed of high purity silica fibers. Ninety percent of the volume of the tile was empty space, giving it a very low density (9 lb/cu ft or 140 kg/m3) making it light enough for spaceflight. The uncoated tiles were bright white in appearance and looked more like a solid ceramic than the foam-like material that they were.”
I would suggest aerogel or cheaper {and maybe easier} Styrofoam.
Aerogel:
“One of the best known and most useful physical properties of aerogel is its incredible lightness-it typically has a density between 0.0011 to 0.5 g cm-3, with a typical average of around 0.020 g cm-3. This means that aerogel is usually only 15 times heavier than air, and has been produced at a density of only 3 times that of air. It is so light, that if Michelangelos David was constructed from aerogel, it would weigh about the same as a bag of sugar! For many years, aerogel was in the Guinness book of world records as the solid with the lowest density, before being ousted recently by the metallic microlattice and then aerographite.
This far from renders aerogel redundant however, as it has a further 14 world records to its name, including best insulator. ”
So shuttle tile of 140 per cubic meter is .14 per cubic cm
But you want retail: Ie:
“Airloy X100 series materials from Aerogel Technologies are the world’s first commercially-available mechanically robust aerogels with the strength to stand up to real-world applications. Airloy X103 comes in densities up to fifteen times lighter than plastics (about the same density as our Classic Silica aerogels) yet is about 100x stronger in compression than classic aerogels and without the fragility of classic aerogels. Resistant to contact with moisture and liquid water. Dust-free. Provides 10-1000x better acoustic damping than traditional engineering materials over most audible frequencies. Easy to machine and adhere. Thermally superinsulating with a conductivity between classic silica aerogels and Styrofoam. Maximum operating temperature is ~80C. ”
That tile, if want tile, or there other products which might more suitable
But their comparison {or competition} is Styrofoam. And one have scrap Styrofoam somewhere or buy it cheaper so it fits the design purpose.
I didn’t include link causes sometimes prevents me from posting. In order:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_thermal_protection_system
https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=6499
And:
http://www.buyaerogel.com/
The CSIRO in Australia (in response to FOI’s) can produce no experiment or study to refute any of these seven proofs that radiative forcing does not happen … nor can anyone here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324664270_Comprehensive_Refutation_of_the_Radiative_Forcing_Greenhouse_Hypothesis
That’s silly. In this paper they measured it directly with interferometers. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3428v1r6
What the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt explained in 1876 about gravity forming the temperature gradients observed in every planetary troposphere and in sub-surface regions also is based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics and thus proves radiative forcing is not necessary – and that’s because it doesn’t happen anyway …
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337915638_Understanding_Josef_Loschmidt's_Gravito-_Thermal_Effect_and_thus_Why_the_Radiative_Forcing_Greenhouse_Hypothesis_is_False
Loschmidt was wrong. A column of gas without an external heat input will cool, eventually ceasing to become a a gas. A column of liquified or solidified gas is no different from a column of anything else. Liquid nitrogen has no temperature gradient due to gravity. Nor does the gas H2O in liquid form. A 10 km column of liquid H2O is colder at the bottom than the top, even though the pressure at the base is enormous. No gravito-thermal effect.
“A 10 km column of liquid H2O is colder at the bottom than the top, even though the pressure at the base is enormous. No gravito-thermal effect.”
Also the atmosphere itslef has inversions in the thermal gradient in each layer. If gravity were having a major effect on the gases per the author’s hypothesis, then how can it be the stratosphere is warmer at the top of that atmospheric region than at the bottom?
Answer – gravity does not determine temperature.
barry,
Let me try to explain it. The inversions in the atmosphere are a ressult of multiple physical phenomena. The temperature gradient in the troposphere is caused by gravity increasing the pressure and density of the air. The ideal gas law determines the resulting gradient which is a function of gravity and the heat capacity of the air. Convection continually opposes that gradient by replacing warmer air below by cooler air above. That relationship is opposed in the stratosphere where the air is thin, the pressure way less, the composition of the air is different. The air there absorbs more radiation from the sun than it loses by CO2 emissions.
As for the ocean being colder at the bottom, that is a completely different gravity effect. Convection still applies, but not the gas laws.
Gravity plays a major role in the temperatures of the air and oceans.
“The temperature gradient in the troposphere is caused by gravity increasing the pressure and density of the air.”
Convection in the troposphere mitigates the temerature gradient, as you say, but there is no convection in the stratosphere to mitigate the temperature gradient “caused by gravity increasing the pressure and density of the air.”
The stratosphere temperature gradient should be of the same sign as the troposphere, particularly when there is no convective activity to oppose it. The stratosphere should provide a pure example of this gravity/pressure/temperature relationship.
But the temperature gradient of the stratosphere is the opposite sign of the troposphere. Our purer section of the atmosphere inverts the gravity/pressure/temperature relationship.
“The inversions in the atmosphere are a ressult of multiple physical phenomena.”
Indeed.
“The air there absorbs more radiation from the sun than it loses by CO2 emissions.”
Indeed.
It is the radiative properties of the atmosphere in all layers that determines the sign of the lapse rate. In the troposphere, WV and CO2 strongly absorb on the IR range associated with Earth temperatures, resulting in an inversion of what we see in the stratosphere. In the stratosphere, WV all but disappears, and the ‘greenhouse’ effect is inverted.
But whether you believe that or not matters less to the point – gravity is not the primary regulator temperature gradients in the atmosphere, or the stratosphere should be a prime example.
barry,
You are correct writing, “The stratosphere temperature gradient should be of the same sign as the troposphere, particularly when there is no convective activity to oppose it.” So why is it not the case? The stratosphere is warmed from the top and colder at the bottom. The effect of gravity on the pressure/density/temperature relationship is too weak to overcome this situation. Like in a closed room without circulation, its warmer above than below.
“It is the radiative properties of the atmosphere in all layers that determines the sign of the lapse rate.”
Apparently not only radiative properties. Without CO2 and water vapor, there would still be a negative gradient in the troposphere. Convection reduces the gradient (ie, less negative). Evaporation reduces the gradient. CO2 has two opposing effects on the gradient. Thermalization cools the surface which reduces the lapse rate. Additional CO2 decreases the heat capacity of air which increases the lapse rate slightly (more negative).
It’s not the disappearance of WV in the stratosphere that reverses the lapse rate. In fact, the lapse rate increases (more negative) in the upper troposphere where WV is absent. It is ozone in the stratosphere that can absorb the radiation necessary to reverse the gradient.
“gravity is not the primary regulator temperature gradients in the atmosphere, or the stratosphere should be a prime example.”
So it’s just a coincidence that when gravity’s effect on pressure and density is minimal that the lapse rate reverses?
“So its just a coincidence that when gravitys effect on pressure and density is minimal that the lapse rate reverses?”
There is no line demarcating when gravity becomes “minimal.”
There are 4 main layers of the atmosphere, two with a negative, and two with a positive temperature gradient, altenrating.
The gravity of the Earth smoothly reduces with altitude. There’s no sudden hiccup, or gravitational inversion or other demarcation. There’s nothing about gravity that correlates with these temperature gradient inversions. Other forces dominate to create them.
“There is no line demarcating when gravity becomes ‘minimal.'”
Good point, but gravity still reduces with altitude. So which is affected most, reduced pressure or reduced density?
“Theres nothing about gravity that correlates with these temperature gradient inversions. Other forces dominate to create them.”
We seem to agree then. I’ve already suggested the atmospheric composition and ability to absorb solar radiation dominate.
‘Convection continually opposes that gradient.”
Convection creates the adiabatic gradient. The air parcels rising by convection do work on their surroundings, and lose energy and cool.
If no energy is radiated at the top of the column out to space by GHG, then eventually the convection would stop, and the atmosphere would reach a constant temperature with height.
“and lose energy and cool” = false
They expand and they cool but they do NOT “lose energy”. If they did it would NOT be “adiabatic”.
Nate,
“Convection creates the adiabatic gradient.”
That is fundamental wrong. http://web.gps.caltech.edu/classes/ese148a/lecture11.pdf
What does -g/Cp have to do with convection? Convection only disturbs the lapse rate. Absence of convection stabilizes it or even reverses it in the case of an inversion.
False. No further than the first line:
“This expression tells us that for adiabatic motion in the vertical, the temperature will fall by ~10 oC/km in a dry atmosphere.”
Motion. Motion of air is convection.
Poor choice of words by this professor. I should have found a better reference. At night when the surface is no longer being warmed by the sun, the convective empitus is gone, especially in a dry environment. The lapse rate will be as close to the theoretical dry lapse rate as possible. Convection is now slim to none especially when the ground is cooler than the air (inversion conditions). Read further down.
“Convection redistributes the thermal energy yielding (globally-averaged), a mean lapse rate of ~ -6.5 oC/km.”
Less convection means a more negative lapse rate. It doesn’t create the lapse rate which is produced by gravity and the presence of an atmosphere. Nice try though.
“At night when the surface is no longer being warmed by the sun, the convective empitus is gone, especially in a dry environment.”
Yes. It takes a long time to equilbrate the temperature profile, and the cooling at the top of the column does not cease at night while its warming is slowed.
“and the atmosphere would reach a constant temperature with height.”
Retract that. Only true if NO GHG present.
But the no convection condition willbonly be possible without GHG.
“It takes a long time to equilbrate the temperature profile, and the cooling at the top of the column does not cease at night while its warming is slowed.”
Wrong. During the day, temperatures rapidly change to accommodate the influx of new energy. During the night, temperatures adjust relatively fast, as well, considering the lack of convection from below no longer assists top down convection from TOA cooling.
“Only true if NO GHG present.”
Wrong, based on theory with assumptions and no data to support.
“But the no convection condition willbonly be possible without GHG.”
Also wrong, it’s based on ill-conceived theoretical assumptions with no data to support. The height of religiosity.
May the forcings be with you.
“The height of religiosity”
This is a straightforward scientific question. Please keep your religion out of it.
Look, the point is this, every source you can possibly find will say what I said, that the adiabatic lapse rate arises from a rising parcel of air, ie convection, doing work as it rises and expands, thus cooling adiabatically.
Can you dispute that? If so, show a source for that information.
“Can you dispute that?”
Nate 5:46pm, an air parcel rising along the adiabatic lapse doesn’t do work on the surroundings either just like there is no energy transfer with the surroundings by virtue of a temperature difference (which is what they mean by adiabatic).
I will take it under advisement that you predict I won’t find any source to the contrary. Meanwhile, consider that an adiabatic process means no heat leaves or enters the system. Yet an excess of heat enters the system during the day. In contrast, at night the TOA continues to cool without a commensurate warming from below. Convection occurs in both situations, but neither are adiabatic. An exception might be when the loss from the TOA exactly balances the warming from the surface at the end of the day. I contend that at that point there is no convection and the lapse rate is completely stable.
Can you dispute that? If so, show your work.
Did anyone else see this article from Dr. Fauci and Dr. Redfield? They say likely only 0.1% mortality rate from covid when all is said and done. Dr. Fauci said this morning that outside Wuhan the mortality rate is down to 0.7%. Most people don’t even know they have it. Trump shaking hands and posing for pics with two people that had it and tests negative means it’s not that contagious. The incidence in Italy is in elderly church going population while vast majority of dead in US elderly in old folks home exposed by a doctor fresh from China. The rest mostly from new Rochelle and a synagogue and unless I’m mistaken by another traveler from China. These populations would have likely died from any severe flu if exposed simarily.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387?query=recirc_curatedRelated_article
“If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.2
Yes, which should tell you there is an alternate agenda with Covid-19. The numbers do not warrant anywhere this level of response. The Swine Flu back in 2009 was 20 times worse before they did anything at all (12,000 deaths in the US alone before they did anything).
I wonder if this is a clue to the alternate agenda: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=1bc58f0a99&attid=0.1.1&permmsgid=msg-f:1661537472003098243&th=170ef7870fbec683&view=att&disp=safe
Please post your gmail password, I get login error 6922.
Swine flu had mortality rate 0.02 %
For current data on CV
“CFR = deaths / (deaths + recovered)
which, with the latest data available, would be equal to:
8,943 / (8,943 + 84,386) = 10% CFR (worldwide)”
“Finally, we shall remember that while the 2003 SARS epidemic was still ongoing, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported a fatality rate of 4% (or as low as 3%), whereas the final case fatality rate ended up being 9.6%.”
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/#who-03-03-20
Darwin Wyatt
Hilarious comment, written by a person living half a lightyear away from what we currently experience in Europe.
Look at the worldometer information, daily updated.
You don’t have a bit of a clue of what happens here in Italian, Spanish, French and German hospitals.
Elder people? That’s weeks and weeks away… noe people aged 25 enter the hospital and must be intubated within minutes to be kept alive.
What people limke you don’t understand is how this SARS-CoV2 propagates, how many people are infected per day.
The low fatality rate outside Hubei province in China is solely due to the dictatorial context there, inapplicable in ‘Western’ countries like Europe and… the US.
And… we are just at the very beginning of this amazing story.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
darwyn…”Did anyone else see this article from Dr. Fauci and Dr. Redfield? They say likely only 0.1% mortality rate from covid when all is said and done”.
I don’t trust anything Faucci says after the propaganda he fed us about HIV. IMHO, the guy is irresponsible.
A quick disclaimer. I do accept there is a serious infection going around in certain parts of the world but I cannot see a connection between Wuhan, China, Northern Italy, Spain, Iraq and other such diverse locations. The common flu kills an estimated 20,000 – 40,000 people a year and there is no reason to think a lot of these deaths are not due to the common flu or something else like tuberculosis.
Most deaths are from pneumonia,
I do agree that the covid scare, like the global warming/climate change scare is blown fully out of proportion. Here’s why.
1)No virus has been detected. If there was such a virus, there would be a photograph of it in a scientific journal, taken by an electron microscope, with a size marker included to indicated the size of the virus. That has not been done with HIV, the SARS series including all the covids, or any known popular virus including polio, small pox, etc.
The following is from a biologist who discovered the first virus in the ocean.
http://neue-medizin.com/lanka2.htm
2)the tests for covid, HIV, or any other virus do not test for a virus, They test for antibodies THOUGHT to be from a virus. If you read Lanka on this he explains the purpose of antibodies and how they can rise to give false positives.
Any of those viral tests will show a positive result in any person if the bar is lowered. They pick an arbitrary level for antibodies and anyone exceeding that level is declared positive with no proof that a virus is causing the high level.
3)The current method for testing for a virus, the viral loading test, depends on the PCR method for DNA amplification. There would be no need to amplify DNA if the virus could be isolated, purified, and photographed as required by a protocol for discovering a virus. They could take the DNA directly from the virus.
As it stands, the viral loading test is not using DNA from a virus, it is about converting strands of RNA found in samples to DNA then amplifying the resultant DNA. The scientist who discovered the PCR method claims a virus cannot be detected that way since all the genetic material in a sample is amplified. All you get is a larger sample of mixed DNA and still no virus to isolate.
The irony here is that the RNA method was used by the Montagnier team, who discovered HIV, to PRESUME HIV. He admitted that. Montagnier admitted a virus had not been isolated, purified, or photographed as required, even though a member of his team, Dr. Barre Sinousi, sat on a panel at the Louis Pasteur Institute in which the protocol for identifying a virus was laid out.
This nonsense about viruses is as bad as the pseudo-science about global warming/climate change and no politician has the guts to investigate.
For pity’s sake, don’t promulgate conspiracy theories about COVID-19.
It is abundantly obvious that governments worldwide are playing catch-up with the problem. It is exactly what it seems to be: a pandemic that is highly contagious, with uncertain but possibly high mortality rates. What government in the world wants to ruin their economy with scare stories?
In a time rife with frightened and angry people, idle talk of governments or forces out to get us can set people off. Pipe the fuck down.
“1)No virus has been detected. If there was such a virus, there would be a photograph of it in a scientific journal, taken by an electron microscope, with a size marker included to indicated the size of the virus. That has not been done with HIV, the SARS series including all the covids, or any known popular virus including polio, small pox, etc.”
A picture in an electron microscope is nice but almost worthless in determining which virus youve got.
In contrast a biological test for a DNA sequence, or a protein unique to this virus, is quite useful.
That is what we have Gordon. Read up on it.
“I do accept there is a serious infection going around in certain parts of the world but I cannot see a connection between Wuhan, China, Northern Italy, Spain, Iraq and other such diverse locations. ”
Not clear how you cherry pick which science facts to believe and which to not believe.
barry,
“For pity’s sake, don’t promulgate conspiracy theories about COVID-19.”
It’s the work of the deep state, i.e. they purposefully released it in China to cause this whole event in coordination with the mainstream media (who are per their orders, purposefully hyping it up to cause panic, fear, and bring down the stock market). It’s to try to bring down the global economy and hurt Trump’s re-election chances, as part of an ongoing effort to prevent all of their crimes, i.e. treason and crimes against humanity, etc., from being exposed to the public and prosecuted. Many of them are likely going to commit suicide rather than face trials for treason and crimes against humanity.
When all of this is finally exposed, it’s going to be the biggest scandal in world political history, by a country mile.
Clever bastards, planted infected bats at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market.
svante…”Clever bastards, planted infected bats at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market”.
I get the humour in your sarcasm but it’s not so funny when you regard how they are detecting this so-called virus. RW may not be far off the mark. I think a lot of the scientists involved are bluffing their way through.
I am not claiming there is not something serious afoot but as RW pointed out, it could be a more virulent form of the flu. It makes no sense to me that Northern Italy is going through the same serious infections as Wuhan, China. I get it that a virus can spread but not to this degree.
According to biologist, Stefan Lanka, who takes a deep interest in the history of medicine, this sort of hysteria has been invoked through the ages by authorities for various reasons. For example, the church once used it to distinguish evil from good. People who got disease had evil in them whereas those who did not were good. The same church once used goose bumps on the skin as an indication of evil to someone exposed to cold.
This current hysteria is a direct result of science gone bad. There are methods for identifying a virus. It must be isolated from its host, it must be purified, then it must be seen under an electron microscope accompanied by a size marker. Koch took it further, claiming the isolated pathogen should be able to produce the same symptoms in another person. Not many are willing to go that far.
Because the sample slices are so thin for the electron microscope they appear as black and white images yet most images of viruses you see on the net are coloured, with no size marker. They are obviously fakes.
Lanka has followed that method to identify the first virus in the oceans yet he claims there is no evidence of that method being followed for the identification of claimed viruses like HIV, herpes, or claimed viruses like SARS, which is part of the corona virus family. Rather, these viruses have claimed to be identified indirectly using strands of RNA from samples from an infected person. Luc Montagnier, who discovered HIV, admitted he has never isolated HIV or seen it. He inferred it based on RNA in a specimen he thought must come from HIV.
The tests for HIV and the corona virus do not test for a virus. Why? We have all the DNA analysis we need so it would seem easy enough to isolate the virus, take a sample of its DNA, and test it that way. They can’t do it!!!! In fact, they are converting RNA from an unverified source to DNA.
They can’t find the virus in question therefore they imply it using tests that test for antibodies. There is no way to get a one to one link between an antibody and and infecting agent. All they can tell you is that the body is reacting to something.
To show how stupid and ignorant some researchers can be, because they could not find HIV, they resorted to the PCR method to amplify it, a technique they call viral loading. The scientist who created the PCR method, Kary Mullis, told them they cannot identify a virus using his method since it amplifies all DNA in a sample. They told him he was wrong!!!
Sounds to me like the time John Christy of UAH took satellite data to a modeler only to have the modeler tell him he did not care, he still thought his model was right.
Viral loading is a fraud. Guess what they are still using to claim the corona virus???
Gordon,
This explains a lot about your approach to climate science.
You know we have airplane travel now. And you know we have international trade and business and tourism going on?
Yet you are skeptical that a highly infectious virus can spread around the world?
BTW, every year the flu, whatever strain(s) it is, spreads all over the world.
Put two and two together man.
‘The tests for HIV and the corona virus do not test for a virus. Why? We have all the DNA analysis we need so it would seem easy enough to isolate the virus, take a sample of its DNA, and test it that way. They cant do it!!!! In fact, they are converting RNA from an unverified source to DNA.’
This encapsulates all that the nonsense of the ‘faux’ skeptics.
They believe idiots on the internet, but disbelieve mainstream science. They believe mainstream scientists are, collectively, idiots, incompetent, fraudsters.
They believe they know more about the science, in this instance biology, then the experts.
Riiight.
‘They cant find the virus in question therefore they imply it using tests that test for antibodies. There is no way to get a one to one link between an antibody and and infecting agent. All they can tell you is that the body is reacting to something.’
Gee, I wonder how chemists were able for a century to do basic chemistry and identify what molecules were present in a mixture, before they could see molecules?!!
“It’s to try to bring down the global economy and hurt Trump’s re-election chances, as part of an ongoing effort to prevent all of their crimes, i.e. treason and crimes against humanity, etc., from being exposed to the public and prosecuted.”
I see you with a tinfoil hat on your head, grimly trawling the cesspits of the world wide web for this trash.
The “deep state” releasing viruses in China, and the mainstream media dutifully doing their bidding. The mainstream media that relies on a stable economy to function. WTF has the MSM to benefit from a global recession? Oh wait… with toilet paper out the way people will buy newspapers to wipe their butts. Brilliant!
This is some whacked out shit. If you were being sarcastic, it’s pretty authentic crackpottery and I’d commend you for it.
Yes, what barry said, and the real root cause is mixing people and live wild animals, it’s happened again and again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPpoJGYlW54
Some items from the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huanan_Seafood_Wholesale_Market
Badgers[20]
Bats[21]
Beavers[22]
Camel[3][20]
Chickens[21]
Civets[23]
Crab[17]
Crocodiles[3]
Dogs[23]
Donkeys[20]
Emmental cheese[24]
Fish[16]
Foxes[3]
Giant salamanders[3]
Hedgehog[24]
Herbs[24]
“Koalas”[12][25][a]
Marmots[21]
Ostrich[7]
Otters[23]
Pangolins[26][27]
Peacocks[3]
Pheasants[8]
Pigs[20]
Porcupines[3]
Rabbit organs[28]
Rats[3]
Sheep[20]
Shrimp[17]
Spices[16]
Spotted deer[28]
Striped bass[17]
Turtles[17]
Vegetables[17]
Venomous snakes (including Bungarus multicinctus)[29]
Wolf puppies[3]
barry,
No, I’m 100% serious about it, but the number of layers needed to see and understand it in order to put the whole thing together are too many and too deep to go into here.
The world will likely know fairly soon, and when it’s all revealed, it’s going to be the sh*t storm of all sh*t storms. The enormity of it all will absolutely shock the entire world, and the world will be forever changed afterwards (for the better).
‘The Storm’ is here, and during all of this, covert operations are now being carried out world wide to remove the deep state criminal cabal (the individual players and its global network of operations), i.e. large number of actual arrests are taking place. They’ve turned this event the deep state pushed against them, and have trapped them in it with the travel bans, etc.
Think I’m crazy, right? Fine, but remember what I said when it happens and is all revealed, probably sometime in the next few weeks (sometime in April most likely).
RW, I thought it for sure had to be sarcasm.
“Think I’m crazy, right?”
That would be yes.
RW,
“the number of layers needed to see and understand it in order to put the whole thing together are too many and too deep to go into here.”
A signature feature of conspiracy theories is their convolution.
Let’s say you’ve worked hard to build your case. You’ve poured over documents and histories, tracked persons of interests and by a compination of decuction and induction managed to present a coherent, plausible narrative that you feel is compelling when viewed in its entirety.
Now, have with as much diligence stepped back and tried to pull it apart?
You said that the MSM are dutifully abetting a deep state cabal in disrupting the world economy. I asked you how the MSM benefit from a global economic recession.
Does it help them get richer? No. Does the MSM suffer along with the rest of us? Yes.
So why are they helping to screw up their own lives? It doesn’t make sense.
Have you taken as vigorous an approach to debunking your theory as you have to building it?
Just remember what I’ve said.
I’ll take it the answer to my question is, “No.”
When no news turns up later on corroborating your theory, you will put this down to dark forces sussessfully suppressing such information. There is no way on Earth to disprove your theory, because you don’t allow it to have any falsifiability. This, too, as a signature feature of conspiracy theories. Everything that happens is embroidered into the conspiracy tapestry.
barry,
“When no news turns up later on corroborating your theory, you will put this down to dark forces sussessfully suppressing such information. There is no way on Earth to disprove your theory, because you don’t allow it to have any falsifiability.”
I expect it to happen and/or the beginnings of it at least to be revealed sometime in April, or maybe as late as May. If it doesn’t happen by July, I will consider it falsified. Fair enough?
“If it doesnt happen by July, I will consider it falsified. Fair enough?”
Yes, very fair. Ok.
barry…”For pity’s sake, don’t promulgate conspiracy theories about COVID-19″.
First of all, I want to acknowledge that serious infections are currently taking place in different parts of the world. There is no proof whatsoever that covid is causing them and I am about to go off topic, with Roy’s clearance, and explain why.
An estimated 20,000 to 40,000 people die each year from the common flu and there’s no reason to think, based on the pathetic test for covid, that many or most of these cases are not the result of a particularly virulent form of the flu.
There is no reason to think that the epidemic in Northern Italy is in any way related to the epidemic in Wuhan, China.
Before you go prattling on about conspiracy theories, show me a photo of this so-called virus with a size marker taken on an electron microscope. My source is a biologist, Stefan Lanka, who found the first virus in the ocean. This man understands clearly what a virus looks like and it is his claim that most of the popular viruses have not been adequately researched.
I can save you some time, there are no photos. The virus is being inferred based on RNA strands found in samples from infected people and the test for it tests for antibodies, not a virus.
This scientific misconduct has being going on for nearly 40 years since it was developed as a means of trying to justify the bs about HIV. In the beginning, circa 1983, the scientist who discovered HIV, Luc Montagnier, admitted he did not think HIV alone could cause AIDS. An equally qualified scientist, Peter Duesberg, went even further, claiming HIV was no different than any other virus and could not possible cause AIDS.
Duesberg, a world renowned expert on retroviruses, thought the notion of HIV lying dormant for 15 years, then suddenly activating to kill a person, is sheer nonsense. He has been proved correct by the pitifully small number of people who have died of AIDS, a fraction of 1% in most countries, and limited 90% to homosexual males and intravenous drug users.
As Duesberg, asked, what kind of virus seeks out mainly young males?
In Africa, AIDS is limited to the poorest of the poor. They suffer from malnutrition, contaminated drinking water, and parasitic infections. The definition of AIDS for Africans is quite different than the definition for North America and Europe. It is focused on one ailment, wasting syndrome, an ailment known before AIDS, to be caused by, you guessed it, malnutrition, contaminated drinking water, and parasitic infections.
Both Duesberg and Montagnier turned out to be right, but the viral cause of AIDS has become so entrenched that like the climate alarmists they refuse to concede they are dabbling is pseudo-science. A few years ago, Montagnier admitted he did not isolate HIV, purify it, or see it with an electron microscope. He inferred it based on RNA strands he found in a specimen.
Montagnier also claimed a few years ago, that HIV will not harm a healthy immune system. The data backs him.
No one has ever seen HIV and that’s why the pseudo-scientists who stick to the viral hypothesis invented viral loading. It’s a scam that claims to amplify DNA using the PCR method for DNA amplification. The inventor of the PCR method, Kary Mullis, who won a Nobel for his invention, told the cretins they could not use his test like that to identify a virus because the method amplifies all DNA in a cell mass. You still can’t see the virus after amplifying the DNA of a cell mass.
The question is, why did they need to amplify the virus at all? Could they not isolate it and view it under an electron microscope like any other viruses that have been identified?
You have no idea how much this virus nonsense has gotten out of hand. Covid is being inferred using the same pseudo-science. They are taking the same RNA used by Montagnier to infer HIV, converting it to DNA and amplifying it using the PCR method Mullis told them would not work.
I mean, these people have to be seriously stupid, right at the bottom of the ladder scientifically. And we humans are even more stupid for believing them without skepticism.
They are currently investigating an antimalarial drug as a solution. What the heck does malaria have to do with this infection? Malaria is caused by a parasite, not a virus.
Next they’ll be advocating HIV antivirals which the drug companies claim cannot cure HIV. Rather, the companies admit the anivirals can cause AIDS-like infections, a syndrome called IRS.
You have no idea how dangerous these b******** are and in your ignorance you are once again appealing to authority.
Barry, it’s time to kick yourself up the butt and open your eyes.
My earlier description of Gordon and his ilk was perhaps exaggerated:
“They believe mainstream scientists are, collectively, idiots, incompetent, fraudsters.
They believe they know more about the science, in this instance biology, then the experts.”
But I guess not.
Because heres how he describes the scientists who very quickly developed the widely used test for COVID19.
“I mean, these people have to be seriously stupid, right at the bottom of the ladder scientifically.”
As we all know, organisms have unique DNA and RNA sequences, and violent criminals are often convicted based on this uniqueness that can be extracted from very small samples left at crime scenes.
Instead of looking for COVID19s unique RNA sequence, with highly reliable PCR techniques, Gordon wants us to put everyone’s snot in an ordinary electron microscope to hunt for the virus, which will be very indistinguishable from many other similar sized viruses and other biological objects.
Or, alternatively, Gordon could be the one at the bottom of the ladder.
“The numbers do not warrant anywhere this level of response. The Swine Flu back in 2009 was 20 times worse before they did anything at all”
Perhaps they learned from that experience to head off the problem more swiftly.
The numbers – the rates of infection and mortality – currently look worse than for Swine Flu.
In the month April 27 to May 27 2009, reported infections grew from 64 to 8192 cases.
In the month February 20 to March 20, reported infections grew from 14 to 17235 cases.
That’s twice the infection rate for COVID 19, as far as we can determine.
As Nate has pointed out elsewhere, the death rate could be an order of magnitude greater, but this is a less certain metric. The infection rate is probably higher, which would make the death rate lower. However, this would make the ifection rate even worse compared to Swine Flu.
There is good reason to be more prudent with this pandemic than with the last.
It may possibly turn out that the numbers all decline, and that this virus is no more deadly than the common flu. That is an unlikely outcome, and at this time with the numbers we have, it is not an assumption we should be running with.
Amazed, DREMT,
The point I was getting at yesterday…
1.
a) Place a thermometer on a table with the
thermostat set to 50 F.
b) when the thermometer reads 50 F, place a candle 3 inches away from the thermometer.
c) assume the warmth from the candle heats the thermometer to a steady 90 F, an increase of 40 F
********
Now, turn the thermostat up to 80 F
The result? An ambient air temperature, 10 degrees colder than the thermometer, will force the thermometer to warm by roughly 30 F
Gee whiz, colder really can warm warmer!
Assume that you make a thermometer hotter! Gee whiz, thermometers react to increases in temperature! All you need to achieve this miracle is a candle and a furnace of suitable size!
Just dumb.
snape…” An ambient air temperature, 10 degrees colder than the thermometer, will force the thermometer to warm by roughly 30 F”
Not so, Oh Grand Master of the Thought Experiment.
The area in a candle flame at the outer edge of the blue flame is 1400C. You would not see the flame it it wasn’t hot enough to produce visible light. It’s heated air from the candle and radiation from the candle affecting the thermometer.
Once the candle sets a temperature on the thermometer, say the 90F you claim, any temperature lower than the 90F will not move the thermometer beyond 90F.
Since room temperature is 68F, increasing RT to 80F won’t cause the candle-heated thermometer to rise. It won’t rise till you increase RT beyond 90F.
Oh??
Gordon, this gets back to your powered computer chip that fails when it reaches ~ 130 degrees.
If its in an enclosure with a fan that reaches 80 degrees inside, or in an enclosure with a broken fan that reaches 110 degrees inside, in which situation is the chip more likely to fail?
It should be quite obvious to you of all people, that the chip will get hotter in the 110 degree enclosure and be more likely to fail.
Yes, an increase in ambient temperature, but the air in the room was still 10 F colder than the thermometer, wasnt it?
80 F air could never BY ITS OWN MEANS heat a 90 F thermometer. 2LOT.
With the help of a candle? Well, that is totally different.
norman…”you claim the energy of the colder molecules cannot transfer any energy to the hotter molecules of your skin surface, it can’t be absorbed. Why do you feel a difference?”
I you or I are sitting naked in a room, which I don’t like to practice, and the room temperature is less than the 37C of my body temp, the only reason my body temp remains at 37C is because I am taking in nutrients as fuel. If I stop eating altogether while remaining naked, my body temperature will start to drop.
If I live long enough, it will drop to room temperature, at about 20C, and I don’t think any human has dropped to such a low body temp. Actually…just looked it up, and a female skiier, Anna Bagenholm, was trapped under ice in freezing water and her body temp dropped to 13.7C, one of the lowest body temps for a human who survived.
The point is the body will not convert radiation from a cooler source in order to warm the body. The body is heated from within by burning fuel. It is not warmed by a room at an ambient temperature of 20C, in fact it takes a bath of hot water at 104F to warm the body comfortably.
Air molecules in a room at 20C will not warm a body by conduction, they simply lower the rate of heat dissipation and lessen the cooling effect of convection. If you sit naked in a room at 20C and don’t eat, you will begin to feel cold.
Another point, climbers high on Mount Everest, are warmed by solar radiation on a clear day but not by radiation from snow or ice. Once the Sun disappears behind clouds, or disappears at night, climbers will freeze to death unless properly dressed and equipped with sleeping bags in a tent.
Gordon,
[Not so, Oh Grand Master of the Thought Experiment.]
No, Gordon, not just a thought experiment. Easy to modify and perform in the facility where you live. All you need is a thermometer, a candle, and a permission slip from Nurse Ratched.
*****
a) Set a thermostat to 50 F, and wait until the thermometer comes to that temperature as well.
b) Set a thermostat to 80 F, and wait until the thermometer comes to that temperature as well.
*******
Now, in each case, place a candle near the thermometer, same distance away (I suggested 3 inches, may need to be closer).
Apparently you think the thermometer will reach the same temperature in both scenarios. Give it a try!
snape…”Apparently you think the thermometer will reach the same temperature in both scenarios. Give it a try!”
I did not say that. I said, once the candle has raised the temperature to 90F, you can crank the thermostat all you want, the thermometer will read 90F till the ambient room temperature exceeds 90F.
There may be other matters at play here. For example, the thermometer is not immune to the temperature of the body on which it is mounted. That body is dissipating heat as well, via conduction to air, radiation, and convection. The level of the expanded mercury is dependent on the body on which the glass containing the mercury is mounted.
Therefore, as the ambient room temperature increases, the difference in temperature between room air and the thermometer body will reduce, and the body should warm. That warming of the thermometer body will be transmitted to the mercury in the thermometer.
That’s why I steer away from experiments in science, it’s far too easy to miss something unless you have a Ph.D and you are working in the field all of the time.
ps. you could likely eliminate a lot of the temperature dependence a mercury thermometer may have on it’s holder by using a digital voltmeter that can measure temperature. It uses a wire to detect the temperature and the wire is not likely to be affected as much by changes in room temperature..
I don’t have the means to adjust a thermostat as you suggest so I can’t do such an experiment.
Roy,
I suppose you know that the depth of atmosphere you are looking through increases as you move away from the vertical. At the horizon, about 10 times the thickness. Not only that, refraction means you are looking “around the curve” a little. So add a bit more.
Have you calculated the average temperature of both extremes? Maybe you are misinterpreting your results.
nate…”Finally, we shall remember that while the 2003 SARS epidemic was still ongoing, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported a fatality rate of 4% (or as low as 3%), whereas the final case fatality rate ended up being 9.6%.”
THE WHO are a load of propagandists who claimed HIV would spread to the heterosexual population and become a world pandemic. Did not happen.
It did not happen because the science upon which they depend is plain wrong.
The WHO are as bad or worse than the UN and this pseudo-science about global warming/climate change.
You mentioned swine flu. It was centred at a pig farm in Mexico where locals had been complaining about waste from the pigs seeping into local water and poisoning them. Same with the bird flu.
This current epidemic is centred in Wuhan, China where animals are kept in squalid conditions adjacent to meat for sale. You can imagine how that meat is stored in Wuhan, China.
There is every indication that covid19 is about an unidentified infection and that different reports of deaths around the world may be reports of different infections, virally or bacterially induced. Most current reported deaths are due to pneumonia, an affliction that can be caused by tuberculosis, a bacterium.
It is reported that 20,000 to 40,000 people die annually from the common flu. Why don’t governments and the media make a big deal about a much greater problem?
We don’t give a hoot about the 20,000 – 40,000 who die. We don’t talk about self-isolation, we allow sick people to go to work and visit hospitals, we allow sick people in stores and every other public gathering. What is so different about the current so-called crisis? Not nearly as many people will die from it as from the common flu.
Yes, it’s being way, way overblown. The question is why (everyone should be asking this question, because it reveals there is an alternate agenda with this whole thing). Most of the reported deaths are probably from concurrent flu cases. I also think there are a lot of false positives with the testing. Last week, HHS revised the death rate from 2-3% to only somewhere between 0.1-1%.
The bottom line is that, while real (the virus), this whole thing doesn’t warrant anywhere near this level of response. So something else is going on beneath the surface of all of this, and I think we’ll soon find out.
“It is reported that 20,000 to 40,000 people die annually from the common flu. Why don’t governments and the media make a big deal about a much greater problem?”
They do make a fuss. Government advice is to get flu shots, and these statistics are quoted as reasons why. Last year I got the flu shot for the first time, as I was working intensively with my workgroup in secondary school education, visiting large groups of kids.
COVID-19 is not the common flu, which remains this season as a threat to health life. COVID-19 has a different pathology, and some of the numbers, which are uncertain, look potentially very bad.
Also, of course the cases reported are all (or the vast majority) specifically the COVID-19 virus, which has a specific signature different from other strains of the flu.
Flu symptoms appear in a few dyas, but COVID-19 can take up to 14 days to display symptoms, making it a greater contagion risk.
The fatality rate appears to be much higher than the flu, but it is early days and the rate could be much different – in either direction.
Your argumentation is confused, Gordon, you are wondering why more fuss is not made about regular flu, but downplaying a new strain that is additional to regular flu, and potentially more virulent. Maybe this pandemic will get people more conscuous about regular flu, whuch, because it is an annual event, we are quite innured to.
‘We dont give a hoot about the 20,000 40,000 who die.’
OK, That is say 30,000/400 million, or about 7/100,000 people in North America in one 6 month flu season.
In Italy, the recent death rate has been 400/day. That is 400/60,000,000, or about 0.7/day/100,000 people.
At that rate, which is still increasing, it would take 10 days to get an entire flu season of mortality.
And that is with the whole country getting locked down.
@ Amazingly Thick
The point of Dr. Spencers experiment was to demonstrate the existence, and warming produced by backradiation from clouds and atmosphere. Both usually colder than the surface.
[If the device was perfectly calibrated, and there was NO greenhouse effect, it would measure an effective sky temperature near absolute zero (-460 deg. F) rather than +34 deg. F, and nighttime cooling of the surface would have been so strong that everything would be frozen by morning. Not very likely in Alabama in August.]
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/
The point of Dr Spencers observation (not experiment) is unclear. Of course the gaseous atmosphere radiates. It is hot enough to remain gaseous. Don’t you realise this?
If there was no greenhouse effect, Dr Spencer would observe precisely what he observes. Why would the atmosphere cool to near absolute zero in the absence of CO2? You must be stupid if you imagine that CO2 can prevent temperatures falling far enough to liquefy air!
Sigh……
very clear, and it was never suggested the atmosphere would cool to near absolute zero in the absence of CO2.
So you claim that sky has an effective temperature near absolute zero without CO2? Or not? Maybe you should follow Roys link in his article . He asked for an explanation of his observed temperatures. I have suggested why he observed what he did. You want to play with words, fine.
Doesn’t change the fact that Roy is measuring the temperature under totally different conditions, and claims this is due to something mysterious. Its not.
Confused,
The clear sky would have an effective temperature of near absolute zero in the absence of greenhouse gasses. This is the main point he was trying to make.
His point is stupid. Have you heard of air temperature? You must be stupid enough to believe that oxygen and nitrogen do not radiate IR, and have no temperature. Wrong.
Norman, evidence for your skepticism about the wavier jet stream:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-the-underappreciated-influence-of-the-tropics-on-the-jet-stream
Svante
Thanks for the link.
Dr Spencer,
If you’re reading this far down, I wonder if there might be a slight miscommunication in your article. To quote:
“Interestingly, without the greenhouse effect, the upper layers of the troposphere would not be able to cool to outer space, and weather as we know it (which depends upon radiative destabilization of the vertical temperature profile) would not exist. This was demonstrated by Manabe & Strickler (1964) who calculated that, without convective overturning, the pure radiative equilibrium temperature profile of the troposphere is very hot at the surface, and very cold in the upper troposphere. Convective overturning in the atmosphere reduces this huge temperature ‘lapse rate’ by about two-thirds to three-quarters, resulting in what we observe in the real atmosphere….”
And then later;
“Even the oft-quoted 33 deg. C of warming isn’t a measure of the greenhouse effect… it’s the resulting surface warming after convective heat transports have cooled the surface. As I recall, the true, pure radiative equilibrium greenhouse effect on surface temperature (without convective heat transports) would double or triple that number.”
I believe you have erred in the former quote, saying “Without the greenhouse effect,” when you actually mean, “Without convective overturning,” in a greenhouse atmosphere.
If not, the statements appear to have similar conclusions with different premises. Wondering if I’m right or I’m missing something.
Better chance with Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Or bump it early on his next post.
Thank you, barry, for illustrating again why “greenhouse” analogies should be avoided in discussing climate science. More confusing than enlightening.
Don’t be silly, Chic. There is no question here that Roy may or may not be referring to a real greenhouse effect. In fact, his comments on convection in the atmosphere are quite clear. In the first sentence of that first para, I am wondering if he is seeing the theoretical atmosphere with or without GHGs.
barry, please stop trolling.
Barry
It all seems right to me. Convective overturning helps cool the surface, but does but help cool the layers in the upper troposphere.
Agreed. What I’m queryting is whether Roy erred saying, “without the greenhouse effect” in the first paragraph. With no greenhouse effect, surely the surface would be cooler. I think he meant, “with no convection,” same as the 2nd para.
If not, I’m curious what he means in the first para.
Barry
[Interestingly, without the greenhouse effect, the upper layers of the troposphere would not be able to cool to outer space….]
Here he is saying that without GHGs (which would have been a better choice of words), the upper troposphere would not be able to cool to outer space.
The surface would be much warmer, not cooler, with no convection. An idea he mentioned in the latter quote.
So I dont see anything that conflicts.
Without GHGs the Earths radiation balance has to be set at the surface.
That means 240 W/m^2, -18 C on average, at the surface.
Regardless of what the atmosphere is doing.
You both realise that the surface emits radiation directly to space, don’t you? Or don’t you believe that the surface cools when the sun goes down? As to the atmosphere, it cools all by itself, without any help from your delusional ideas.
A fine pair of nutters!
Snape – yeah, what Svante said.
In a non-‘greenhouse’ atmosphere solar radiation at the surface is ameliorated by the other gases, so the surface would be cooler than with no atmosphere at all. Instead of radiating at the TOA (5km altitude), the surface would cool directly to space, there being nothing to impede the upwelling flow of radiation.
I still think Roy meant to say, “without convection” in the first para where I bolded it.
@ Amazed
You wrote,
[Have you heard of air temperature? You must be stupid enough to believe that oxygen and nitrogen do not radiate IR, and have no temperature. Wrong.]
Oxygen and nitrogen do indeed emit IR, but only a tiny bit compared to the GHGs:
[Bindidon
March 17, 2020
gbaikie
I assume the O2 and N2 emits some amount to space. Though willing to accept it is quite small.
O2 absorbs / emits 10,000 times, N2 1,000,000 times less than H2O / CO2.
This is easy to see in the HITRAN database at SpectralCalc.com, using the feature scaled by atmospheric abundance.]
*******
With this in mind, consider an atmosphere with only N2/O2, heated by direct contact with the sun warmed surface (and distributed throughout by convection).
A reading from a mercury thermometer might show 255 K.
But at that temperature, such an atmosphere would emit an infinitesimal amount of IR, so the reading from an IR thermometer would read a temperature nearing absolute zero.
A temperature derived from IR output is called the effective temperature, and is what Dr. Spencer was referring to in the link I provided yesterday.
So you think that air temperature is determined by GHG content? Experiments have shown that air with H2O and CO2 removed shows no temperature change. You are a fool. If you like, find experiments which show that increasing GHG concentration makes air hotter. Dreams, models, and what you think are not experiments.
By the way, there are approximately 4 CO2 molecules per 10000 of O2 and N2. Binny refuses to believe that 9996 molecules of air can absorb and emit more IR in total than 4 molecules of CO2. Pity he cant find experimental evidence in support. Just models and opinions.
Just seeing that Amazed/Mike Flynn posted, the chances thst it will contain a thoroughly dumb strawman are 80%.
Sure enough, this one does too!
”
Experiments have shown that air with H2O and CO2 removed shows no temperature change”
Time to stop responding to his lame BS.
You don’t like experimental results? Try it yourself. It you don’t like reality, ignore it. I can’t see a post by the mysterious Mike Flynn. You seem quite upset because somebody doesn’t exist. Why is this?
**With this in mind, consider an atmosphere with only N2/O2, heated by direct contact with the sun warmed surface (and distributed throughout by convection).
A reading from a mercury thermometer might show 255 K.–
Well currently a “reading from a mercury thermometer might show 255 K”
I think you might be saying the global average temperature might show 255 K.
In basic terms what global average temperature, 33 K lower than an average global temperature of 15 C, is the polar regions would be much colder.
The Antarctic continent average temperature is about -50 C.
So if global average temperature was 33 K colder, the Antarctic would not be -50 C + 33 = -83 C, but instead would be about -100 C.
And that means CO2 would freeze out in the Antarctic.
Or it’s widely assumed that global warming results polar amplification, though opposite is also true {though is it not discussed much}.
Or if global temperature is 14 C, and the global average temperature increases by 1 C, polar region should warm by about 4 C and obviously if 15 C and cools by 1 C, than polar regions cool by about 4 C.
It is common knowledge that the tropical ocean warms the rest of the world. And it’s said the tropical ocean is the heat engine of the world.
Our tropical ocean average surface temperature is about 26 C.
If instead the tropical ocean average surface was about 27 C, then the tropical ocean would warm the rest the rest of the world more than if it was only 26 C.And if it was about 25 C, it would warm the rest of the world less.
But what is more likely than 1 degree increase or decreases in the tropical ocean temperature is the warmer tropical waters becoming wider or narrower. Or the tropical ocean engine gets bigger or smaller. Strictly speaking it can’t get wider or narrower because tropic is defined as being within Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn which in turn is defined by the tilt of earth’s axis.
But since the Earth axis angle does change over time periods of thousands of year, “strictly speaking” is can get wider and narrower.
But what I meant is ocean surface water gets warmer extending poleward from the tropics. And I say “more likely” because warmer tropics will have large effect on regions near it.
And one look at flip side, a colder polar region invades the tropics more. And with 255 K world one is obviously talking about a lot cold invasions into tropics.
And returning Earth tilt changing:
“During a cycle that averages about 40,000 years, the tilt of the axis varies between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees.”
[We are at about 23.5 degrees and decreasing]
And in terms of “polar invasions” it seems to me that 22.1 degree tropics should harder to invade than 24.5 degrees.
Though at 22.1 degrees the tropics is smaller and it seems the world’s heat engine should be smaller. And should warming the rest of world less.
And it seems a 24.5 degrees tropics is warming the rest of world more. If average ocean surface temperature of the bigger tropics was 26 C- then is seems more warming, than is case presently.
Just noticed something that I think helps explain the greenhouse effect while respecting the 2nd law.
The solar radiation spectrum bandwidth and it’s intensity are far greater than the bandwidth and the intensity of IR radiated from the surface. That means the surface is limited in its rate of heat dissipation compared to incoming solar. energy. It would make sense, then, that the heat of the planet would increase to a level where the more powerful solar radiation is matched by the much weaker outgoing IR from the surface.
That’s why we insulate homes, to slow the rate of outgoing energy. In the case of the Earth’s surface, the slower rate of heat dissipation keep the planet warmer. However, it is not GHGs slowing the heat dissipation it is the lower intensity of radiated IR, the narrower bandwidth of the IR, and the poor radiation ability of the nitrogen and oxygen making up 99% of the atmosphere.
Of course, that is far too simplistic to account for heat gathered from the surface by the atmosphere via conduction but it does give a ballpark explanation why the Earth is hotter with an atmosphere and oceans.
The GHG explanation is not required since CO2 and WV play no significant role in the +33C warming claimed due to a greenhouse effect. It’s simply a matter of the rate of energy in versus the rate of energy out and the fact that the Earth turns at such a rate that much of the surface is not exposed to the Sun for a good part of each rotation.
But in terms of the surface, WV and CO2 are primarily responsible for “the rate of energy out,” not nitrogen and oxygen, which primarily absorb UV.
N and O2 absorb next to no IR. They primarily reduce incoming radiation.
Complete nonsense. Learn some real physics.
@Barry
I agree with Svante too.
barry says:
That would be true for maximum temperatures.
Convection will even out temperature differences, and that will reduce the peak T^4 penalty, so average temperature can be higher with an atmosphere.
Air will circulate up around the equator, and bring down heat nearer the poles. Likewise for night to day side, etc.
Dr Roy Spencer, Ph.D, seemed to think the atmosphere would be hot without radiative cooling, but I reckon convection would create a lapse lapse as rising air cools by expansion, and by the compression as the corresponding air mass comes back down.
What do you think barry?
Svante argues against the GHE…probably without realizing it…
Svante, without a ‘greenhouse’ atmosphere (ie, with no greenhouse gases) there would be no convection. The gases left in the atmos (eg N, O2) absorb far more solar radiation than ground radiation, so the surface here should be cooler than in the case of no atmosphere at all, where LWIR is escaping to space unimpeded but solar radiation is being impeded. The troposphere (which wouldn’t really exist) would have an inverted lapse rate, colder on the bottom than the top.
But Roy said, “without the greenhouse effect,” and I don’t know how he is picturing this, or if he simply meant “with no convective overturning.” Here’s the paragraph.
“Interestingly, without the greenhouse effect, the upper layers of the troposphere would not be able to cool to outer space, and weather as we know it (which depends upon radiative destabilization of the vertical temperature profile) would not exist. This was demonstrated by Manabe & Strickler (1964) who calculated that, without convective overturning, the pure radiative equilibrium temperature profile of the troposphere is very hot at the surface, and very cold in the upper troposphere. Convective overturning in the atmosphere reduces this huge temperature ‘lapse rate’ by about two-thirds to three-quarters, resulting in what we observe in the real atmosphere…”
So I checked out M&S64, and am no clearer in understanding what Roy means. Perhaps you can figure it out.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281964%29021%3C0361%3ATEOTAW%3E2.0.CO%3B2
I’ve always been troubled by the notion mentioned here often enough that the atmosphere “needs” GHGs to cool, and perhaps this is a deficit in my underswtanding here.
No convection without GHGs? You have to be joking! The atmosphere is a fluid. It obeys the laws of fluid dynamics. So does water in the ocean. Learn some basic physics. Fluids also cool if allowed. no GHGs needed. Keep dreaming.
“am no clearer in understanding what Roy means”
barry, see M&S64 Fig. 4 & the discussion for Fig. 4. This is Dr. Spencer’s ref. The surface temperature for pure radiative equilibrium is shown warmer and upper troposphere colder than the avg. mid latitude tropics measured at 6.5C/km.
Ball4, I was looking at figure 4 as what Roy might be referring to. This looks like an atmosphere with GHGs and a ‘greenhouse’ effect, with and without convection (and also comparing dry adiabatic rate).
If this is what Roy is referring to, it seems he erred saying,
“Interestingly, without the greenhouse effect, the upper layers of the troposphere would not be able to cool to outer space, and weather as we know it (which depends upon radiative destabilization of the vertical temperature profile) would not exist. This was demonstrated by Manabe & Strickler (1964) who calculated that, without convective overturning, the pure radiative equilibrium temperature profile of the troposphere is very hot at the surface, and very cold in the upper troposphere.”
That bolded part is what I am querying. I think he actually means “without convection.” What do you think?