“Greenhouse Gases” Have A Profound Effect On The Climate

Written by Carl Brehmer

“Greenhouse gases” have a profound effect on the climate as can be seen in every climate system that has a high concentration of water vapor (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2)—the two “most potent ‘greenhouse gases’”. Here are some photos:

CB1

The climate change that water vapor brings, far from being catastrophic, is quite the opposite. Water vapor brings an otherwise dead biosphere to life and makes it lush and green and, as we will see, even cools it down somewhat. What about carbon dioxide? Take a look:

CB2

 It is such a scientific certainty that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide promote robust plant growth that commercial gardeners pump carbon dioxide into their greenhouses up to levels > 3 times higher than is currently present in the open atmosphere.

In general, carbon dioxide supplementation of 1,000 ppm during the day when vents are closed is recommended [to bring the total concentration up to 1,300.]”Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

If we were to look at pictures that compare the Arabian Desert to Bangladesh or the Nairobi Desert to the Congo the result would be the same. It is incontrovertible that water vapor and carbon dioxide bring life into a climate system as can be seen in the lush eco-systems of New Zealand, Bangladesh and the Congo compared to the deserts in Nevada, Saudi Arabia and Nairobi and it is no mystery as to why.

Water vapor in high enough concentrations condenses into clouds, which produce rain that drenches the soil. Plants, using the sun’s energy, pull carbon dioxide out of the air and water out of the soil to create carbohydrates and oxygen—the food that animals eat and the air that they breathe.

Photosynthesis:

6CO2 + 6H2O +(Sun)light energy —–> C6H12O6 + 6O2

Where: CO2 = carbon dioxide

H2O = water

C6H12O6 = carbohydrate

O2 = oxygen

The “carbo” in carbohydrate comes from the word “carbon”—the base element of the food chain. That is why the flora and fauna of the eco-system of which we are a part are called “carbon-based” life forms. In Mass. vs. EPA (2007) the US Supreme Court bizarrely decided to call carbon dioxide—the foundation of all organic life—a pollutant!

The fact is, what makes a desert devoid of abundant life is not its temperature; rather it is a lack of a sufficient quantity of water vapor—referred to by the IPCC in its AR5 report as “the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere.” Without sufficient water vapor in the air clouds cannot form and without clouds there is no rain. 

Here is a picture of the Raven Golf Course in Phoenix, Arizona. To compensate for the Arizona desert’s lack of the “greenhouse gas” called water vapor and the consequent inadequate rainfall, the golf course installed an elaborate sprinkler system. As you can see, with adequate water available the temperature becomes irrelevant and the desert comes alive.

CB3

Of course you already know all of this because you learned about photosynthesis in elementary school and you have experience the life-giving affect of humidity within your own climate system. 

You already know that without sufficient water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the entire land-based Eco-system of the Earth would die—without water vapor and carbon dioxide all plant life would die and without plant produced carbohydrates to eat and plant produced oxygen to breathe all animal life would die as well.

In the face of the incontrovertible truth that these two potent “greenhouse gases” bring profoundly beneficial changes to climate systems worldwide, one is puzzled by the conclusion drawn by the IPCC in its recent AR5 report. 

On the IPCC web site there is a video called Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis and in this video Thomas Stocker, a climate modeler and Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I, makes this odd statement, “ . . . continued ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions cause further climate change . . . Therefore we conclude limiting climate change requires substantial and sustained reductions in “greenhouse gas” emissions.” Based on the actual “climate change” that water vapor and carbon dioxide cause in the real world what he is actually saying is, “ . . . continued ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions cause further [proliferation of plant and animal life] . . . Therefore we conclude limiting [this proliferation] requires substantial and sustained reductions in [the] emission [of the airborne plant fertilizer carbon dioxide in the hopes that this will reduce the amount of water vapor that is available for photosynthesis].”

Why on Earth would anyone want to limit the proliferation of plant and animal life? How can the IPCC on the one hand claim to be concerned about the Earth’s biosphere yet on the other hand intend to limit the concentration of the two gases that give it life, i.e., carbon dioxide and water vapor?

If you dig into the AR5 report you find that the premise upon which this life-destroying policy recommendation is based is the notion that these “greenhouse gases” threaten to cause catastrophic global warming of which 66-75% is projected to come from water vapor. “Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. The contribution of water vapour to the natural greenhouse effect relative to that of carbon dioxide (CO2) depends on the accounting method, but can be considered to be approximately two to three times greater.” (AR5 chapter 8, FAQ 8.1) There is simply no way around the fact that all of the IPCC’s prophecies of doom about the coming climate catastrophe are dependent upon the warming that they expect to happen because of an increase in global humidity, because of what they call “positive water vapor feedback”. So, when you hear a prediction that the Earth’s temperature might be 4 °C warmer by the end of the 21st century, know that 3 °C of that projected warming is expected to be the doing of humidity, i.e., water vapor. They are quite literally asserting that higher levels of global humidity will cause irreparable damage to the Earth’s ecosystems along with “substantial species extinction!” “Global climate change risks are high to very high . . . and include . . . substantial species extinction.” IPCC, AR5

Can one conceive of any notion that is more disconnected from reality than the idea that an increase in global humidity will cause “substantial species extinction” when one can see with ones own eyes that those climate systems that are the most humid are also the climate systems that have the most abundant and diverse life?

Let’s take a look at the effect that humidity actually has on the global climate systems:

CB4

 This is a picture of the correlation that exists between high humidity and abundant life within the various climate systems around the globe. Where ever the humidity is high life flourishes in abundant diversity. Wherever the humidity is low life struggles to exist. The IPCC would have you not believe your own eyes, but rather believe them when they tell you that higher global humidity levels, “the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere,” threatens to kill almost everything unless we do what they say.

And what is it that they say we must do? Primarily abandon using fire as an energy source, i.e. stop “burning” hydrocarbons, because doing so produces the potent airborne plant fertilizer called carbon dioxide. They have issued this global command even though they acknowledge “there is a wide range of possible adverse side-effects . . . from climate policy that have not been well-quantified.” IPCC, AR5

Imagine that!

Your impoverishment is just a “side-effect” of their climate policy.

Your loss of dependable, low cost electricity is just a “side-effect” of their climate policy.

Your loss of independent travel in a private vehicle is just a “side-effect” of their climate policy.

Your loss of plentiful food to eat is just a “side-effect” of their climate policy (most agricultural production in the world today requires the use of hydrocarbon energy; beyond that enough food is currently being converted to biofuels to feed tens of millions of people each year.)

Your inability to continue heating your home in the winter and air-conditioning it in the summer is just a “side-effect” of their climate policy.

Your loss of dependable modern health care is just a “side-effect” of their climate policy (modern hospitals are dependant upon the stable electrical grid that burning hydrocarbons provide.)

 Therefore, the likelihood that you will die younger is just a “side-effect” of their climate policy.

This, of course, would be just all right with some of the leading advocates of the IPCC’s “climate policy”.

Ted Turner”There are too many people; that’s why we have global warming.”

     David Rockefeller laments the 20th century drop in the infant mortality rate and the increase in life expectancy because these have resulted in “over population”. ”The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary eco-systems is becoming appallingly evident.”

     David Attenborough”Today we are living in an era where the biggest threat to human well being, to other species and to the earth as we know it might well be ourselves . . . Human population density is [at the root] of every environmental problem that I have encountered [including] the relentless increase in atmospheric pollution [i.e., carbon dioxide].”  

    In the paper Too Many People: Earth’s Population Problem the group Population Matters wrote, ”At a 1990 per capita emission rate of about four tones of carbon dioxide per person per year, the world’s theoretically environmentally optimum population level would not be much higher than two billion, living at an average 1990 lifestyle, in order to stabilize carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere.”  ”to reduce climate impacts it helps to reduce the number of climate changers.” 

So there you have it.

In the eyes of the advocates of the IPCC’s “climate policy” your children and grandchildren are no longer “human beings”; they are just little “climate changers” and it would have been better for the Earth if they had not been born.  What is most unsettling is that your little “climate changers” only have less than a 30% chance of surviving the population reduction that needs to occur to ”stabilize carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere!” 

The truly strange thing about the superstitious belief that water vapor causes global warming is that it is contrary to observed reality. Not only do higher levels of humidity bring more abundant and more diverse life to the biosphere, the mean temperature in very humid climates is predictably lower than it is in very arid climates along the same latitude. It is an observed phenomenon that when nature takes the moisture out of the air, either in a desert or during a drought, the mean air temperature goes up—not down! As such “heat waves” are most often associated with droughts rather than with periods of high humidity.

1) The Great North American heatwave of 1936 was brought on by the “Dust Bowl” drought that “came in three waves, 1934, 1936, and 1939–40, but some regions of the High Plains experienced drought conditions for as many as eight years.” “Drought: A Paleo Perspective – 20th Century Drought”, National Climatic Data Center

2) Marble Bar heatwave, 1923-24: “In the summer of 1923-1924 the monsoon stayed further north and no cyclones occurred anywhere in Australia that year, a truly unusual year. During its record-breaking heat wave only 79 mm of rain fell on Marble Bar in the form of 2 brief storms, and only 12 mm of rain fell before the next wet season began in December of 1924. The tropical section of Western Australia experienced a severe drought in 1924, with no cloud cover to relieve the seemingly endless days of extreme heat.” Australia: The Land Where Time Began

All that one has to do to observe this reality is to go outside and take a look at actual, real-world temperature vs. humidity readings:

CB5

All of the above graphs were produced by simply looking at publicly available temperature and humidity readings and as you can see the presence of water within a climate system cools it down via well-established and thoroughly studied processes such as latent heat transfer, increased albedo from the increased cloud cover, enhanced intra-atmospheric radiative heat transfer, the cooling affect of precipitation, a lowering of the lapse rate, etc.

For example, northern Arizona where I live has a dry season and a wet season. In June when the humidity is very low the temperature is very high. In July when the “Monsoons” come the humidity goes up sharply. Not only does this result in a marked drop in daily mean temperatures, it also causes the countryside to turn green—a welcome climate change indeed!

Let’s be clear, it is not that water vapor doesn’t cause as much warming of surface-level air temperatures as the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis predicts—it causes zero warming of surface level air temperatures and is actually associated with lower temperatures and quite literally causes deserts to bloom! Why on Earth would the IPCC want to demonize this “water of life” by suggesting that if global humidity levels rise irreparable damage will be done to the biosphere?

The fact is, the only places where water vapor causes a 22-25 °C temperature increase in the global surface-level air temperatures by causing a “greenhouse effect” is within the imagination of certain people, within computer models, within certain peer-reviewed scientific papers and within IPCC Assessment Reports.

In the real world, no such water vapor mediated warming exists (very high confidence).

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments (32)

  • Avatar

    D o u g 

    |

    In calm conditions air doesn’t actually move in parcels at all. Assuming there’s no wind complicating things, molecules continue to move in all directions and nothing whatsoever keeps a parcel together.

    Now a point of definition: Diffusion becomes advection when a net movement of molecules can be measured. The term convection in physics includes both diffusion and advection.

    If there is a pre-existing state of thermodynamic equilibrium, but it is then disturbed by the absorption of new incident solar radiation in the troposphere, we get a local region in which the temperature is higher than it was or would be if thermodynamic equilibrium existed with its associated temperature gradient. Hence the new energy will disperse in all accessible directions away from the source of that new energy, even downwards into warmer regions, until a new state of thermodynamic equilibrium is attained.

    That’s how the surfaces of Venus and Earth get warmed. Yes in direct sunlight on a clear day the Sun can warm a region with temporary thermal energy being deposited into the solid surface in the morning, for example. So then convection is observed going upwards, but it also goes downwards from the warmed surface layer of the oceans into the colder thermocline region. Conduction also conveys thermal energy into the solid surface regions.

    But during sunlit hours there is 21% of the incident solar radiation being absorbed mostly by water vapour before it reaches the surface. This disturbs the thermodynamic equilibrium and some thermal energy will move towards the surface as the whole thermal profile in the troposphere rises to a new parallel position. On Venus, for example, the rise by day and the fall by night are each about 5 degrees, and that’s how the extra energy gets into the surface by day, and back out by night.

    The same process operates on all planets including Earth. Broadly speaking, the only exception is the extra warming of non-polar land surfaces when a significant amount of direct sunlight strikes any region. Because such a region warms quickly, it also cools quickly until the cooling rate is slowed and almost stopped in the early pre-dawn hours by the supporting temperature at the base of the troposphere. From that point onwards the whole troposphere has to cool, maintaining the same temperature gradient, so it’s a much slower process, as on Venus where it takes 4 months to cool by 5 degrees.

    There is nothing left for any radiative GH forcing to accomplish.

  • Avatar

    D o u g 

    |

    Please see my “OPEN LETTER to DR ROY SPENCER” on [url=http://www.principia-scientific.org/climate-change-chicanery-and-the-federal-agency-academic-complex.html]this[/url] thread.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C o t t o n 

    |

    Greg, you clearly don’t understand the process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and nor do you understand thermodynamic equilibrium. I doubt that you could even quote the law and definition of thermodynamic equilibrium or tell me the difference between it and thermal equilibrium.

    Hence you are way out of your depth arguing with someone like myself who has been studying these matters for many years and helping students understand. But you are not willing to be a student, and so you will continue to cite your school boy thoughts about the Second Law, without having any idea about the necessary prerequisites for the corollary of that law (yes, the bit about warm to cool only) and why those prerequisites are not met in a vertical plane wherein mean gravitational potential energy varies with altitude.

    The proof that what I have described and explained in my book is correct can be found in any planetary troposphere, and I have shown that I can explain all relevant temperatures and energy transfers. This is ground-breaking physics way beyond the hopeless mess that James Hansen got into with his attempts to expalin even just the Earth’s surface temperature.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C o t t o n 

    |

    Thanks Rosco for your encouragement.

    Those who persist with concepts about solar radiation heating planetary surfaces to the observed temperatures should consider the base of the nominal Uranus troposphere where it’s 320K – hotter than Earth, yet 30 times further from the Sun and not receiving any solar radiation through 350Km of troposphere anyway, nor having a surface there to collect the non-existent incident solar radiation – and not having any convincing evidence of long term cooling or internal energy generation converting mass to energy.

    As Prof Julius Sumner Miller used to say in our physics lectures back in the 60’s, “Why is it so?”

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C o t t o n 

    |

    [b]TO ALL WHO BELIEVE IN RADIATIVE FORCING:[/b]

    If your knowledge and understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is restricted to the school-boy concept that heat flow is always from hot to cold, then you apparently don’t realise that this 19th century claim is only a corollary of the Second Law and requires certain prerequisites, the most relevant being that garvitational potential energy does not alter. In other words, it is only a correct corollary for conduction and convection in a horizontal plane, not a vertical plane in a force field like gravity.

    The core of the Moon is well over 1,000C and that does not require any nuclear energy generation. If it did, considering how much the surface cools on the dark side, there would have to be a hell of a lot of nuclear power generation.

    It is solar energy which maintains the Moon’s core temperature, and that of any planet or moon in the Solar System.

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    [quote name=”Greg House”][quote name=”Rosco”]You did make this allegation “#22 Greg House 2013-08-10 20:53
    What you are claiming is equivalent to this horrible “cold warms hot” and the “greenhouse effect”.”[/quote]

    Right, I said your nonsense was equivalent to “cold warms hot” nonsense. Now you are claiming that that was me saying “cold warms hot”? Shame on you.

    I suggest you stop it, otherwise you will quickly turn into Doug2.0 version.[/quote]

    You have never made any actual original, comprehensible contribution to this site – Doug has made a significant number of original contributions – whether you agree or not.

    Actually your disagreeing with Doug is the only positive thing you have ever done – it proves he is far more talented than most give him credit for if a complete no talent like you disagrees with his thoughts.

    You have no ability to postulate any original contributions to anything here and that of itself is a significant character reference for Doug.

    Idiots criticising anyone is a positive review for the person criticized!

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    Doug

    Of course you are right about the Sun warming the atmosphere and you are dead right about Venus.

    The solar radiation would have a major impact on Venus’ atmosphere even though a lot of the visible light is reflected – the greenhouse advocates ignore this with their claims about Venus.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Rosco”]You did make this allegation “#22 Greg House 2013-08-10 20:53
    What you are claiming is equivalent to this horrible “cold warms hot” and the “greenhouse effect”.”[/quote]

    Right, I said your nonsense was equivalent to “cold warms hot” nonsense. Now you are claiming that that was me saying “cold warms hot”? Shame on you.

    I suggest you stop it, otherwise you will quickly turn into Doug2.0 version.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C o t t o n 

    |

    Rosco: Of course the Sun warms the atmosphere, especially the troposphere. On Earth about 20% of its incident radiation is absorbed before it gets to the surface, mostly by water vapour and some by carbon dioxide in the 2.1 micron band mostly. On Venus over 97% of incident solar radiation is absorbed by its atmosphere which is nearly all carbon dioxide. Thermal energy then spreads over the whole troposphere and into the surface, especially into Earth’s oceans on the sunlit side. The spreading by convection (meaning both diffusion and advection) is restoring thermodynamic equilibrium with its temperature gradient.

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    “#9 Greg House 2013-08-11 08:39

    The reason for the higher temperature you obtained as a result can only be what Martin Hodgkins has already said here: increase in the air temperature near the bulb thanks to the second lamp and therefore reduced convective cooling of the bulb.”

    And none of the criticisms made change the reality that at any temperature you like to name Planck, Wien, Stefan and Boltzmann ALL claim the radiation emission from that object is capable of calculation by the Stefan-Boltzmann law which is all I have ever claimed.

    If you think that it is possible to heat the air around the thermometer so as to suppress convection whilst there is no restriction on convection you are deluded.

    How does the radiation from a spotlight heat the air around the thermometer when the Sun seems incapable of directly heating the majority of the atmosphere ?

    Again I say –

    Greg – put your obvious talents to good use and [b]write something enlightening [/b]for all of us to read and free us from our ignorance !

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    It is all too easy to pick up meaningless comments from Greg.

    “#9 Greg House 2013-08-11 08:39

    The reason for the higher temperature you obtained as a result can only be what Martin Hodgkins has already said here: increase in the air temperature near the bulb thanks to the second lamp and therefore reduced convective cooling of the bulb.”

    So you wish to claim that higher small local temperatures in a large cooler environment SUPPRESS convection ?

    There’s a paper right there GREG !

    Write that up with some evidence and submit it to the PSI team –

    OH WAIT – you can’t because it is total BS!

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    [quote name=”Greg House”][quote name=”Rosco”]…because YOU do not have the intelligence to see that there was NEVER any cold heating hot effect, as YOU ridiculously claimed, in my experiment[/quote]

    😮 I never claimed any cold heating hot effect, either in your “experiment” or elsewhere, please do not lie.[/quote]

    Come on Greg !!

    You are so confused you do not even realise you simply make contradictory statements all the time.

    Amazing that you accuse anyone of lying !

    You did make this allegation

    “#22 Greg House 2013-08-10 20:53

    What you are claiming is equivalent to this horrible “cold warms hot” and the “greenhouse effect”.”

    And this simply proves my assertion –

    “YOU do not have the intelligence to see that there was NEVER any cold heating hot effect, as YOU ridiculously claimed, in my experiment …”

    I do not lie Greg – you simply like to disagree with everyone who does not fit your personal philosophy and you often make a fool of yourself by these contradictory and antagonistic comments !

    But clearly I have proven beyond doubt you actually did make the comment which you accuse me of fabrication.

    You were wrong – AGAIN !!!

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C o t t o n 

    |

    All the models and radiation calculations assume that there would be an isothermal troposphere in the absence of water vapour, CO2 etc and that radiation is instantaneously raising all temperatures to what is observed. The reality is that thermal energy from the Sun has been trapped under the gravitationally induced temperature gradient over the life of the planet, and the whole thermal profile is maintained at the level where radiation balance occurs. But it maintains the temperature gradient (because that is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium) and so the surface end is warmer.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C o t t o n 

    |

    Of course water vapour is what is absorbing about 20% of the incident solar radiation and warming the troposphere with this energy from the Sun on the sunlit side. But water vapour also radiates and thus makes the temperature gradient less steep and the surface cooler than it would have been without that radiation.

    It is not the radiation from water vapour that warms the ocean surface on a cloudy day: it is convective heat transfers from the clouds and above. Much of that energy entering the non-polar ocean surfaces makes its way down to the bottom of the thermocline and thence to the polar surfaces. So there must be a huge energy input to the oceans from the atmosphere in such circumstances. How else could the ocean surface get warmed to its observed temperature? Answers anyone? Don’t try to convince me that warmed air always rises: it doesn’t.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C o t t o n 

    |

    You see, Mervyn and others, that the density gradient is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium which the Second Law says will evolve. We all accept that there is a density gradient in the troposphere of any planet, and we know there is a temperature gradient. But people just don’t understand that the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (with its density gradient) also has a temperature gradient for the simple reason that there can be no unbalanced energy potentials and so the sum (PE+KE) is homogeneous even in a vertical plane. The rest of the argument is obvious. So tell me, do you understand Mervyn?

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C o t t o n 

    |

    Mervyn

    What people don’t understand is thermodynamics. They can understand that (in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics) gravity forms a density gradient, but they can’t understand why it also forms a temperature gradient.

  • Avatar

    D o u g 

    |

    Rosco wrote [i]”Why not show us all how clever you are and submit an article which supports your assertions ?”[/i]

    Well [i]I[/i] have in the form of a paper and articles, most of which have either been now removed or not accepted in the first place. I even submitted the whole text of my book [i]”Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All”[/i] to John O’Sullivan (with two peer-reviews that you can read on Amazon) so that the text of the book could be made available to read free in the form of a PSI PROM paper subject to open review. But it seems open review policies are overridden by initial closed review whereby certain key establishment members gang up against anyone who puts forward alternative proposals which are contrary to the radiation and back radiation models which are still there as official papers representing PSI’s stand against the gravito-thermal effect and the existence of downward convection.

    [i]The downward convection is carrying out the process described in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.[/i]

    [b]Only in the context of the necessary thermal energy being supplied by this downward convection process (not back radiation) can we explain computationally the observed temperatures in all planetary tropospheres and surfaces where applicable.[/b]

  • Avatar

    Mervyn

    |

    The greenhouse effect is not even an hypothesis, it is merely a supposition.

    It does not stand up to scientific scrutiny as demonstrated by Physicists, Gerlich and Tscheuschner, in their scientific paper “Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics” published in March 2009 edition of the “The International Journal of Modern Physics”.

    What I cannot understand is why so many people do not understand that carbon dioxide and water in the atmosphere are not sources of heat. The sun is the source of heat.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Rosco”]What is wrong with Carl summarising FACTS in the manner he has done – at least they are easily verifiable.[/quote]

    I answered this question before you asked it, in my #5. You do not want us to go in circles, do you?

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Rosco”]I believe the effect is not possible and tried to demonstrate by simple experiment. But, as usual, YOU ridiculed my efforts…[/quote]

    Please, do not start it again, we’ve had a few episodes of this show already. 😮

    Hijacking this thread is not nice.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Rosco”]…because YOU do not have the intelligence to see that there was NEVER any cold heating hot effect, as YOU ridiculously claimed, in my experiment[/quote]

    😮 I never claimed any cold heating hot effect, either in your “experiment” or elsewhere, please do not lie.

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    As usual all of the critics miss the point.

    Greg – there has already been lots of discussion criticizing the back radiative greenhouse effect – and it is simply ignored by a majority of so-called sceptics who defend to the death the hypothesis and criticize any who disagree.

    I believe the effect is not possible and tried to demonstrate by simple experiment. But, as usual, YOU ridiculed my efforts because YOU do not have the intelligence to see that there was NEVER any cold heating hot effect, as YOU ridiculously claimed, in my experiment – simply 2 very hot sources of radiation heating an object at ambient temperature to varying levels determined by placement as a result of inverse square law.

    What is wrong with Carl summarising FACTS in the manner he has done – at least they are easily verifiable.

    Equatorial locations surrounded by water (e.g. Singapore) never experience the extreme high temperatures of even sub-tropical deserts (e.g. Baghdad in Summer).

    Surely that is worth pointing out to someone who does not appreciate how important water is to the Earth ?

    As usual the critics like to think they have some special knowledge about something or other and insult people who make a valid contribution to debate.

    Why not show us all how clever you are and submit an article which supports your assertions ?

    Water covers a substantial proportion of the Earth’s surface and the tropics are mostly ocean. Evaporation absorbs enormous quantities of the Sun’s energy with little effect on temperature.

    If the tropics were predominantly land surfaces I expect they would resemble the Sahara not the tropical forests we see today.

    Water transports energy around the globe – both in the oceans and atmosphere.

    Back radiation is undemonstrated and impossible to my mind.

    The solar radiation has a significant component of high energy photons whilst terrestrial radiation has almost none of these high energy photons – at least that is what theory says.

    I do not believe it is possible to sum different types of radiation by adding W/sqm and therefore I reject the climate “science” model for the greenhouse effect – two disparate radiation fluxes.

    Similar radiation fluxes, however, seem to be amenable to a “net” sum using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in the appropriate form.

    I believe people who claim you simply add up flux values ignoring the source of emission are mistaken and this was demonstrated centuries ago.

  • Avatar

    D o u g 

    |

    Charles I replied but it was deleted.

    Of course I have considered inter-molecular radiation and other radiation matters pertaining to water vapour. That is the precise reason I gave as to why the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient is reduced in magnitude, leading to cooler supporting temperatures at the base of the troposphere.

  • Avatar

    D o u g 

    |

    The easiest way to understand why it is not radiation to the surface which is determining the mean global temperature is to think about the thin surface layer of the oceans, especially in non-polar regions where most of us live. There are published measurements of solar radiation entering the water and penetrating at least 20m. Let’s define the water surface as having that thickness which absorbs the first 10% of the energy in the incident solar radiation. (This is quite thick enough to determine the surface temperature.) So the other 90% of the solar radiation warms colder regions below. Thermal energy in those colder regions below the surface cannot rise to the warmer surface above it. Instead it heads for the poles and so has no effect on the temperature in the non-polar regions of the oceans.

    Now, to calculate the surface temperature you would have to use only 10% of the solar flux in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations, and obviously that gives temperatures way below freezing point, even for that direct flux of 650W/m^2 at noon in the tropics on a clear day. For example, for emissivity of 0.984 for ocean water, 65W/m^2 gives only 185K. So you have a very obvious and huge different between observed temperatures in non-polar ocean surfaces and the temperatures derived with radiation calculations.

    [b]So let’s focus on this issue all ye who still believe in radiative forcing.[/b]

  • Avatar

    D o u g 

    |

    (continued)

    The radiation by water vapour is not the only reason the air near the surface cools rapidly in the late afternoon and early evening after a warm sunny day. This would still happen in dry air due to convection. The reason is that direct solar radiation striking a solid surface can certainly raise the temperature well above the supporting temperature. This causes a far steeper temperature gradient than that associated with the state of thermodynamic equilibrium. That radiation can be in the vicinity of 650W/m^2 (compared with the global mean of about 161W/m^2) and Stefan-Boltzmann calculations give a temperature of 333K (60C) for asphalt paving with emissivity 0.93. But for the mean of 161W/m^2 we get only 235K for an asphalt-paved Earth.

    [b]So the elephant in the room is the gravito-thermal effect. If you have trouble remembering that, imagine wrestling with the elephant because that may remind you of the effect of gravity.[/b]

  • Avatar

    D o u g 

    |

    [b]Charles (and others)[/b]

    I have many times said that water vapour, because of its radiative properties, reduces the magnitude of the temperature gradient and thus lowers the supporting temperature at the base of the troposphere.

    I have explained why moist air between doubled glazed window panes reduces the insulating effect, because inter-molecular radiation between the water vapour molecules (and directly to the cooler pane) helps energy to “leap-frog” across the far slower moving energy being transported across the gap by diffusion. The same happens in the troposphere: transfers of thermal energy by radiation are only ever from hotter sources to cooler targets, but such radiation has a temperature-levelling effect working against the gravito-thermal effect. (In liquid water it probably eliminates it altogether.)

    Indeed, all the processes involving water vapour radiation – absorbing incident solar radiation, radiation direct to space and radiating to other molecules in the troposphere all play a part in reducing the magnitude of the gradient by up to about 35%. Likewise, by my calculations, inter-molecular radiation between methane molecules in the Uranus troposphere reduces the magnitude of the gradient there by about 5% of the theoretically calculated gravitationally induced gradient, which is the quotient of the acceleration due to gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases.

    The net effect of the water cycle is probably not that great, because your “cool rain” gets warmed when it is about to strike the surface again and may be nearly back to the original temperature of the water before it evaporated. In any event, the effect of latent heat release is fairly localised and the new energy will move by diffusion in all directions away from the clouds in an endeavour to restore the state of thermodynamic equilibrium with its gravitationally-induced temperature gradient. In cloudless but moist skies above oceans in the tropics you still find the gradient reduced, even though there is no latent heat being released. Likewise on Venus, the gradient is reduced significantly all through the troposphere due to inter-molecular radiation between carbon dioxide molecules which thus leads to significantly lower surface temperatures on Venus.

    What the computer models primarily ignore is downward convection in the sunlit hemisphere which supplies the missing energy which must be entering the surface but which they quite wrongly attribute to back radiation – and then have to invent their own “net” version of the Second Law. I discussed this “net” issue in my PSI paper on Radiated Energy.

    [b]However, radiation is not the primary determinant of planetary surface temperatures: the gravito-thermal effect is.[/b]

  • Avatar

    Charles Higley

    |

    Doug, you are missing the elephant in the room. Water vapor indeed cools the climate big time in two ways.

    First, CO2 and water vapor are radiative gases. During the day, they are saturated with IR radiation and emit and absorb, adding up to a wash. But, during the night, these two gases convert heat energy to IR radiation that is lost to space. This explains why the air cools down so very rapidly in the lower atmosphere after the Sun goes down. This is important because ALL of the computer climate model only daytime and have NO night-time. By the way, it is night-time on half the planet 24/7.

    And second, water vapor is part of the water cycle, a huge global heat engine based on water evaporation form the surface, absorbing the heat of vaporization, into warm air that then rises by convection to altitude, cools by adiabatic cooling, the water condenses releasing the latent heat of condensation, the resulting energy is radiated out to space, and cool rain falls back to Earth. Between the warm air and water vapor convection, this engine is responsible for moving more than 85% of the surface energy budget away from the surface, with IR radiation only about 10–15% of the budget. [This 85% is the missing energy that Trenberth is always trying to find and currently claims is hiding in the ocean depths, with no clue how it managed to dive down there. Trenberth denies the water cycle that we teach in grade school.]

    The computer climate models completely ignore the water cycle and convection, giving CO2 and water vapor only warming effects and ignoring this massive heat engine that ramps up when the climate warms, bringing it back down. Only major changes, such as solar changes or ocean cycles, have sway against this huge negative feedback engine.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    Carl, your article is unfortunately an example of straw man argumentation, since you failed to address the key point. I would say “as usual”, because your previous articles I read have the same problem.

    The key point of the AGW is the alleged warming by back radiation from the so called “greenhouse gases”. You know it very well, still in your article you failed to criticize it. You even did not mention it.

    I can not help thinking that the main purpose of such articles is to draw the readers’ attention away from the weakest AGW point and redirect it to harmless stories about plant food etc.

  • Avatar

     D o u g

    |

    You see, when you write [i]”the presence of water within a climate system cools it down via … a lowering of the lapse rate”[/i] you are getting close. That is indeed the primary reason. But how and why then would the surface actually get to hotter temperatures in the first place before water vapour cools it? Where are your calculations for the temperature of the thin surface layer of non-polar oceans, for example? There is nothing anywhere in any PSI paper which explains this correctly.

  • Avatar

     D o u g

    |

    So we look at two photos of regions at different latitudes and altitudes and conclude that this hand-waving evidence proves water vapour cools, do we? What level of “science” has PSI stooped to in this article?

    How about you do a study like mine of 30 years of temperature data (realistically adjusted for altitude) from inland tropical regions in their hottest month, which does indeed show (with statistical significance) that regions with higher precipitation levels have lower daily mean maximum and minimum temperatures than do much drier regions at similar latitudes and altitudes?

    Yes water vapour cools, but where is your explanation of the correct physics in which you demonstrate a correct understanding of thermodynamic equilibrium, entropy and unbalanced energy potentials, and you explain the correct energy flows?

    When you truly understand the thermodynamics of the atmosphere you will be able to explain how and why, even during several days of extensive cloud cover, the surface temperature still rises in the morning and cools at night, even though not a ray of sunshine reaches it through the cloud. I’ll give you 5 days to think about that one before explaining the mechanism that supplies the necessary energy.

  • Avatar

    FauxScienceSlayer

    |

    We live in a false paradigm reality bounded by faux science, fake history, filtered news and financed by a fiat currency. The, as yet unfiltered internet has allowed the free exchange of information and world wide communication this is rapidly destroying the ruling elites false paradigm. AGW was to be the funding mechanism for an unelected one world government of tyranny. As the LIES are exposed, the ruling elite will be deposed and humanity will enter a Truth based, just and productive future.

    Find and share Truth….it is your duty as an Earthling.

  • Avatar

    Oliver K . Manuel

    |

    Thanks Oliver. Like you, we fight a war of attrition against the forces of anti-science. We will one day have a shared victory to celebrate.

Comments are closed