• Home
  • Current News
  • Is no “Greenhouse Effect” possible from the way that IPCC define it?

Is no “Greenhouse Effect” possible from the way that IPCC define it?

Written by John Elliston AM, FAusIMM(CP)

This article makes two significant points: – 1) The IPCC definition of “Greenhouse Effect” on page 946 of their Report No. 4, 2007, is wrong and no “Greenhouse Effect” is possible from the way IPCC define it. 2) Radiant energy reaching the Earth from the Sun is the only source of heat to maintain or vary global climate. earth in bottleTotal radiant heat gained must establish equilibrium with total radiant heat lost.

As in the past, global climate change can only be due to longer or shorter-term variations in solar radiation.

The erroneous IPCC definition

Readers are invited to consider a fundamental error in physics in the IPCC Report No. 4, 2007.

The definition of ‘Greenhouse Effect’ on page 946 contains an erroneous statement that would invalidate the premise on which most of the report is based.

We should have particular regard to the IPCC sentences that state: “Atmospheric radiation is emitted to all sides, including downward to the Earth’s surface. Thus, greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system.”

The definition then goes on to explain that the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere decreases with height and the infrared radiation emitted to space originates from high altitude where the average temperature is -19°C in balance with the net incoming solar radiation.

The enveloping atmosphere keeps the Earth’s surface at a much higher temperature as IPCC says averaging +14°C so there is a temperature gradient all the way up to the limits of our gaseous atmosphere with, on average, all higher parts of the column of air being at lower temperature than those below it.

This gradient is measured thousands of times each day as our aeroplanes climb to high altitude but of course the main transfer of heat to the upper atmosphere is by convection. This is quite violent at times with typhoons, hurricanes, or tropical thunderstorms each afternoon.

Nevertheless, total radiant heat outward from the whole Earth must remain in equilibrium with the radiant heat inward from the Sun. The IPCC definition (below) claims that ‘Greenhouse gases’ (CO2, methane, water vapour, etc.) absorb thermal infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface and by the atmosphere itself due to the same gases.

 

ipcc ghe

Where the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere are at a higher temperature than greenhouse gases in the cold upper atmosphere it is certainly possible for them to do this. The IPCC illustrate their definition of “Greenhouse effect” on page 115 (page 98 some versions) of their Report No. 4, 2007, as it is reproduced in Figure 1.

elliston fig 1

No object in the universe can heat itself by its own radiation so that the source of radiant heat must always be at higher temperature than the object or substance absorbing the radiation. Greenhouse gases at all levels in the atmosphere are a minor component of an adiabatic gas in an open system that cannot be compressed other than by its own weight.

If a slightly higher concentration (from 0.0278% to 0.0387%) of greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere absorbs more radiant heat than it otherwise would have done, this excitation simply expands the gas volume slightly. It does not heat or “trap heat” within the surface-troposphere system.

Clausius’ simple statement of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says: “No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.”

Low-level heat in the cold upper atmosphere cannot result in heating or retention of heat to increase the temperature of the warmer atmosphere below it. The incorrect popular cartoon-like diagram as IPCC published it on page 115 of their Report 4 to illustrate the “Greenhouse Effect” Figure 2.

elliston fig 2

The cartoon-like IPCC diagram is redrawn to point out the incorrect concept of radiant heat from the cold upper atmosphere resulting in heating or “trapping” heat in the warmer atmosphere below.

Heat cannot be effectively re-radiated downward from the colder upper atmosphere towards the warmer lower atmosphere and surface of the Earth to result in increasing its temperature. It is a common experience that heat radiates the other way from hot or warmer things to its colder surroundings.

Therefore no Greenhouse Effect is possible from the way IPCC define it.

 Increasing trace levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, either from natural or anthropogenic sources, do not create a “Greenhouse Effect”. Any such increase in CO2 cannot cause global warming or be the cause of climate change.

The erroneous concept in the IPCC definition and in the popular-type “cartoon” they have used to illustrate it is shown in the redrawn Figure 2. The nature of the IPCC investigation The IPCC Report No. 4, 2007, is a selected assemblage of material using scientific terms and concepts to describe natural phenomena that may indicate the recent global warming period was due to industrial CO2 emissions.

The authors are predominantly meteorologists who appear to have abandoned the scientific method of hypotheses rigorously tested by experiment. Instead they have selected and assembled a large body of scientific opinion that supports the conclusions they are attempting to reach.

Testing a scientific hypothesis is not a matter of consensus, as if scientific truth were something to be voted on. It is either true or not true.

Scientific method requires the truth to be established by repeatable experiment. Weather forecasting or predicting future trends in global climate change cannot be the result of any precise scientific procedure or measurements. Meteorologists have to “average” or consider large volumes of complex data and make “best estimates” or educated guesses! The IPCC reporting has therefore introduced a scale of “likelihood” that is used to assess the probability of certain outcomes.

The different IPCC working groups now include a very large number of highly qualified climatologists. Different groups of these ‘specialists’ now peer review each-others papers. With attention focused on the meteorological records and the “likelihood” of increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere causing global warming, the IPCC reviewers must have missed the simple error in physics or more precisely in the thermodynamics of adiabatic gases that occurs in their definition of “Greenhouse Effect” and diagrams.

There is no causal link between increasing CO2 in the atmosphere and the recent warming period from 1950 to 1998 when IPCC have said average global temperatures increased by approximately 0.8°C. Earth energy fluxes must balance.

The Earth cannot be out of thermal equilibrium with the Sun in the long term because the Sun is the only source of heat for the Earth plus surface-troposphere system (assuming negligible geothermal effects).

The only way to heat or cool the Earth in the long run is to change the amount of solar energy that is absorbed. The presence of greenhouse gases does not change the energy input and if the absorbed energy input remains unchanged, the output energy cannot change.

Every body that is not at absolute zero of temperature will radiate heat. The Earth will give off just as much power in radiation as it absorbs when it is in radiative thermal equilibrium with the Sun. At average radiative thermal equilibrium for the surface-troposphere system, the Earth’s average surface temperature is the result of adiabatic temperature distribution of air in its gravitational field.

Clearly there are some parts of the complex atmospheric layer round the Earth that are hotter, and some that are cooler, but the average can be used for the system as a whole. Radiant heat energy can only flow from hot to cold Using the established theoretical laws of physics (Kirchhoff’s Law and Stefan-Boltzmann Law), the average temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere can be calculated to be +14.5°C (Postma, J.E., 2011).

This predicted average air temperature on the ground also corresponds to observed global average sea-level temperatures! June 2015 3 The total average equilibrium temperature for the surface plus atmosphere system at -18°C is therefore about 5 km above the surface but at the bottom of the atmosphere the average temperature is +14.5°C.

The average temperature at which the whole system Earth and its surrounding atmospheric gases are in radiative equilibrium with the incoming energy with the Sun can also be calculated using established thermodynamic theory. This is -18°C to -19°C as IPCC have used in their definition.

The average temperature of -19°C high in the atmosphere from which the Earth-atmosphere system is re-radiating the total heat gained from the Sun back into space may seem too cold.

However, this result calculated from physical theory is confirmed as correct by direct measurements from satellites. -19°C or 254°K above absolute zero radiating outward is actually quite hot compared with no heat at all radiating inward from the heatless reaches of endless space!

Radiant energy from the Moon and stars is negligible so the Sun is the only real source of energy reaching the Earth. Within the Earth’s atmosphere it does not matter that some low-level thermal radiation is re-emitted back down towards the ground.

There isn’t a high enough radiative energy flux density to heat the warmer atmosphere and Earth’s surface below it. Only radiant energy with greater energy flux density can induce further heating. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not say thermal infrared radiation cannot be emitted towards a warmer body.

 It says no process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature. The sole result of the thermal infrared radiation from the Earth and anywhere in the atmosphere is to dissipate the heat absorbed from the Sun back into space to maintain thermal equilibrium of the whole system. Heat cannot be “trapped” within the open adiabatic gases of the surface-troposphere system.

The direction of heat flow is only from hot (the Earth’s surface), to cold (upper atmosphere), and then by radiation into outer space. Infrared energy leaves the atmosphere in only a few milliseconds, even if it gets scattered by gases. However, this infrared radiation is merely a result of the existing temperature below it, not a cause of it, and therefore it cannot induce further heating upon its own source.

The total absorption and radiation of heat from the troposphere has the effect of transferring heat from the warmer surface of the Earth towards heatless outer space. The open atmosphere cannot act like a greenhouse Water vapour or CO2 in the atmosphere do not act like a glasshouse.

A greenhouse or garden glasshouse gets warm because the glass panels prevent atmospheric convection. The radiant solar energy warms surfaces inside a greenhouse so that they warm the air in contact with them by conduction and internal convection.

The glass panels prevent or restrict circulation so the warm air stays inside the greenhouse. There is no “radiative entrapment”. In 1909 Professor Robert Wood conducted detailed experiments to demonstrate the way solar radiation warms the air inside a greenhouse.

In view of the confusion created by inappropriate use of the term “Greenhouse Effect” to infer increasing CO2 in the atmosphere traps radiant heat in the lower atmosphere like a greenhouse, Professor N.S. Nahle has rigorously repeated Wood’s original experiments and these results were published on July 5th 2011.

Space does not return anything towards the Earth in infrared radiation. The energy balance is the solar flux reaching the Earth (mostly in the visible spectrum) on one side of it and infrared fluxes departing from the surface with a small fraction intercepted by the atmosphere that is also finally lost to the heatless regions of open space. The cold upper atmosphere cannot “trap” radiant heat in the warmer atmosphere or surface of the Earth below it. No “Greenhouse Effect” is possible from the way IPCC define it. There is no causal link between increased or decreased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and increases or decline in average global temperatures.

elliston fig3

Natural Climate Change Cycles Before the false claim that a Greenhouse Effect “trapped” heat in the lower atmosphere to cause global warming, geoscientists were taught that natural climate change cycles are due to variations in solar radiation. These variations correspond to the repeated changes in sunspot numbers that have been observed since Thomas Harriot in 1610.

Natural cycles of global warming and cooling result from natural variations in this sunspot activity and the way the Earth is exposed to the greater levels of heat radiation that are emitted from sunspots. Sunspots are natural eruptive activity in the highly volatile magnetic gaseous plasma at the Sun’s surface. All records of sunspot activity, sunspot numbers and areas of sunspots on the side of the sun facing the Earth show a very clear eleven-year cycle corresponding to the orbital period of Jupiter.

This is shown in the record of monthly average sunspot numbers since 1750 illustrated in Figure 3 (above). The pattern of eruptive activity in the Sun’s surface plasma follows the “tide-like” gravitational effect of the heavy planets orbiting the Sun. This normal rotation of the heavy planets in their different orbital periods results in a complex cyclic pattern of longer-term variations in sunspot activity.

This modulation of sunspot numbers and intensity exposes the Earth to the variable heat radiation that results in natural global warming and cooling periods. The varying green band in Figure 3 indicates the changes in sunspot activity that give rise to the Earth’s natural longer climate change cycles.

The recent period of global warming from 1950 to 1998 is one of seven warm-cool periods of natural climate change that have occurred since 1000 AD. Before the false anthropogenic “Greenhouse gas” alarm, these were considered normal and given names. Starting and ending dates were estimated from historic records and proxies such as tree ring patterns, ice cores, etc.

They were: Oort minimum cool period 40 years duration 1040 to 1080; Medieval warm period duration 150 years from 1100 to 1250; Wolf minimum cool period duration 70 years from 1280 to 1350; Spörer minimum cool period duration 100 years from 1450 to 1550; Maunder minimum cool period duration 70 years from 1645 to 1715; Dalton minimum cool period (sometimes referred to as the little ice age) duration 30 years from 1790 to 1820 (see Figure 4.); and Modern warm period duration 48 years 1950 to 1998.

elliston fig 4

 elliston fig 5

 elliston fig 6

The present return to a cooling period through seasons of extremes Because radiation from the Sun is the only source of energy that can result in warmer or cooler periods of global climate, it is logical that cooler periods occur when sunspot activity is minimal and the spectrum of solar radiation contains less heat (infrared radiation). This certainly appears to have been the case in January 2011.

NASA published an image of the side of the Sun facing the Earth on 11th January 2011. This showed a very quiet period with no sunspots (Figure 5) and it corresponded to the time that the British Isles were completely frozen over and covered with snow (Figure 6.). The modern period of global warming, 0.7°C rise in average temperatures from 1950 to 1998, is consistent with the pattern of past natural climate change cycles.

All of these occurred without industrial CO2 emissions. In the ten years from 1998 to 2008 two observatories, Hadley CRU and MSU satellite measurements, record strong fluctuations in global average temperatures and a slight decline over the whole period as in Figure 7.

elliston fig 7

 This pattern is consistent with previous extreme climate fluctuations, hot summers, very cold winters, floods, typhoons, etc., that Landscheidt has attributed to previous periods of change from global warming to global cooling. No correlation between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and global warming However, the observatory on Mauna Loa in Hawaii shows that trace level CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise.

There is no correlation between these CO2 levels measured high in the ocean atmosphere on a Hawaiian island and the variable slightly declining global average temperatures from 1998 to 2011. In the last period of global cooling from 1939 to 1949 the average temperature declined approximately 0.3°C (Figure 8).

elliston fig 8

 At this time there was also no relation between the cooling period and the sharply increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that were measured by chemical methods. In their reporting the IPCC have adopted the data published in G. Callendar’s 1958 paper “On the Amount of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere” (Figure 9).

elliston fig 9

 This shows a gradual increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere from about 285ppm to 310ppm at the beginning of World War II, then to 315ppm by 1949 and 322ppm in 1958 (grey zone in Figure 9). In the war years (green zone in Figures 8 and 9) a sharp increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions would certainly be expected.

This is clearly indicated by a large number of measurements by chemical methods that were recorded at a number of stations in Germany, Scotland, Helsinki and two in USA in Massachusetts and Alaska. They include readings up to 417ppm, which is much higher than the present level of 387ppm. Beck, May 2008, is critical of Callendar, 1958, and the IPCC report that also adopted Callendar’s +10% “corridor” of data (grey zone in Figure 9).

Beck claims that Callendar rejected these chemical determinations of CO2 in the atmosphere because they are more than +10% from the mean of earlier and later values within his “acceptance corridor”. Another explanation may be that Callendar, 1958, was unaware of the measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere made by chemical methods in Germany, Scotland and Helsinki during the war years.

The determinations made in Massachusetts and Alaska at that time should have been known to him. Beck points out that IPCC have disregarded all the recorded measurements by chemical methods because they would establish higher than present levels of CO2 in the atmosphere during a period of decline in average global temperatures.

Several such instances of the selective use of data in the IPCC reporting suggest IPCC is pursuing a political agenda rather than conducting a methodical scientific investigation.

Average global temperatures declined in the period 1939 to 1949 that included the war years in which anthropogenic CO2 emissions increased. Figure 9. High levels of atmospheric CO2 in the war years should have resulted in higher average temperatures than today if it were the cause of global warming.

Natural variations in the strength of sunshine Variations in the total solar radiation intercepted by the Earth (solar irradiance) have previously caused changes in global climate and continue to do so. This is not only due to natural fluctuations in the strength and nature of the solar radiation (spectral wavelengths emitted) but solar radiation intercepted by the Earth is proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance between the Earth and the Sun.

Due to the elliptical path of the Earth’s orbit this distance changes five million kilometres each year between the Earth’s closest approach to the Sun (at perigee) and furthest distance from it (at apogee). The change in distance therefore cannot be averaged when considering the Earths exposure to solar radiation.

Their definition of Total Solar Irradiance on page 953 of AR4, 2007 reveals that IPCC have made this simple mathematical error.

The amount and nature of solar radiation emitted varies according to the number and area of sunspots (sunspot activity) on the side of the Sun facing the Earth. Sunspot activity is due to the “tide-like” effect of Jupiter on the highly volatile magnetic gaseous plasma at the surface of the Sun.

This moves round the Sun every 11.86 years in accord with the orbital position of Jupiter and the Earth must pass it 10.86 times in the course of one orbital rotation of Jupiter. The number of sunspots on the side of the Sun facing the Earth varies strongly in accord with this eleven-year cycle as shown in Figure 3.

The effect of solar radiation on the Earth’s climate is also dependent on whether the annual passage of the Earth past the area of maximum sunspot activity is at or near its perigee or apogee. This variation is because the strength of solar radiation intercepted is proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance between the Earth and the Sun. It would change about 7% if the variation were due to distance alone (Figure 10).

elliston fig 10

Deliberately or unintentionally IPCC have failed to recognise this significant difference in irradiance due to distance. They use the mean distance of the Earth from the Sun as if the Earth’s orbit were circular (IPCC Report 4, 2007, page 953). Sunspot activity is primarily due to the gravitational influence of Jupiter but it is modified by the degree to which the other heavy planets, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, are clustered on the same side of the Sun as Jupiter (planetary conjunction), positioned more or less evenly round the Sun, or clustered on the opposite side to Jupiter.

elliston fig 11

This planetary clustering or relatively even positioning of the heavy planets is indicated in Figure 11 but planetary conjunction or alignment of all four heavy planets on one side of the Sun is an extremely rare event in our solar system.

Conclusions

No “Greenhouse Effect” is possible from the way IPCC define it and we may now look forward to a period of gently declining average global temperatures if Landscheidt’s calculations predicting the orbital paths of the heavy planets are correct.

The fact that low level radiant heat from the cold upper atmosphere cannot result in heating or “trapping” heat in the warmer atmosphere below it is apparent to everyone.

Fortunately, politicians, economists, media attempts to suppress this information, and those with a strong vested interest in maintaining the “Greenhouse Gas” scare, will not be able to prevail against the inevitable cycle of natural changes in global climate.

***

John Elliston, AM, BSc(Hons Geol), BSc(Chem), FAusIMM; Vice Chairman (Australasia) of Principia Scientific International (PSI)

Author’s Update ( July 28, 2015):

To all commenters: 

Most comments are digressing from the point. The main conclusion from the article is that: –
“No Greenhouse Effect is possible from the way IPCC define it” – on page 946 and explain it in their diagram on page 115 of IPCC Assessment Report 4, 2007.
The basis for this conclusion is the wording and diagram in the report. It can only be true or false.
I would certainly like to ask everyone commenting on my article to address the specific question “Is no Greenhouse Effect possible from the way IPCC define it?” Thank you.

References

CRC Handbook of Physics and Chemistry, 1st Student Edition, 1987; – Second Law of Thermodynamics, p. F-73; StefanBoltzmann law, p. F-75; Kirchoff’s law. P. F-71.

Beck, Ernst-Georg, Dipl. Biol., 5/2008; CO2 is not responsible for global warming! There is no man-made greenhouse effect caused by CO2. The climate delusion and the CO2 hysteria will drive mankind into poverty. Contradictions of the man-made greenhouse effect today and in the past.

Beck, Ernst-Georg, Dipl. Biol., Discussion paper May 2008, Evidence of variability of atmospheric CO2 concentration during the 20th century, Postfach 1409, D-79202 Breisach, Germany

Beck, Ernst-Georg, Dipl. Biol., 8.5.2008, Climate Change knowledge in a Nutshell, PIK Potsdam (Germany) and its sevenfold contradiction. See: http://www.pikpotsdam.de/infodesk/climate-change-knowledge-in-a-nutshell/view?set_language=en

Butterfly sunspot area diagram: – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot_cycle

Clausius’ Statement, Second Law of Thermodynamics. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#C lausius_statement

Duhau, S., and de Jager, C., The Solar Dynamo and Its Phase Transitions during the Last Millennium, Solar Physics (2008) 250: 1-15. DOI 10.1007/s11207-008-9212-x

IPCC Report No. 4, 2007. Download from: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fo urth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_bas is.htm

Landscheidt, T., 1999. Extrema In Sunspot Cycle Linked To Sun’s Motion. Solar Physics 189 (2): 415-426.

Nahle, Nasif S., Repeatability of Professor Robert W. Wood’s 1909 experiment on the Theory of the Greenhouse, July 5, 2011. Biology Cabinet Online-Academic Resources and Principia Scientific International. Monterrey, N. L. Download from: www.tech-know.eu

Postma, Joseph E., Astrophysicist, Understanding the Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect, March 2011. Download from: www.tech-know.eu

Solar variation, 400 years of sunspot observations and Solar cycle variation (suppressed to less than 1%): – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#

Solar _variation Solar events (warm-cooling period table) : – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

Thames Frost Fair, 1795-96, See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fairs#Years_wh en_the_Thames_froze

Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments (88)

  • Avatar

    Retired Physics Educator

    |

    Based on the mean flux of radiation …

    (a) The effective temperature of the Sun’s radiation reaching the surface of Earth is about -40°C. Yes, minus 40.

    (b) The effective temperature of the Sun’s radiation reaching the surface of Venus is about -140°C

    (c) The effective temperature of all the radiation from Earth’s atmosphere to its surface is about 3°C.

    Because these planets are rotating spheres, the actual mean temperature that any of the above radiation could achieve is a few degrees colder than would be achieved with uniform orthogonal flux striking a flat non-reflecting surface. The reason for this relates to the fact that the achieved temperature is only proportional to the fourth root of the flux. So, because the flux varies with the angle of incidence, flux that is above the mean achieves only a relatively small increase in temperature above that achieved by the mean flux.

    From this it is obvious that the mean temperatures of the surfaces of Earth and Venus are not achieved by direct radiation into those surfaces. Some relatively small regions on Earth may rise in temperature due to direct solar radiation, but overall, the observed global mean temperature cannot be explained by solar radiation. Atmospheric radiation would also not keep the mean temperature above freezing point (0°C) either.

    Hence we need to consider a totally different paradigm (based on entropy maximization and the laws of thermodynamics) which can and does explain the actual observed temperatures, not only for Earth and Venus, but for all planets and even the regions below any solid surface. Correct physics produces correct results that agree with data from the real Solar System.

    The breakthrough has come in this 21st Century and the science stands up to the test, being supported by copious evidence from planetary data, studies and experiments such as outlined at http://climate-change-theory.com so you will learn what is really happening if you read and study such.

  • Avatar

    Retired Physics Educator

    |

    I refer you all to [url=http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/07/15-years-of-ceres-versus-surface-temperature-climate-sensitivity-1-3-deg-c/#comment-196392][b]this comment[/b][/url] about the physics of heat transfer.

    • Avatar

      Retired Physics Educator

      |

      “Transfer of energy through the collision mechanism is at least a 50 to 1 chance against radiative transfer due to water vapour – it most likely results in maintaining an overall energy balance.”

      Yes Rosco. The ovErall “energy balance” is the state of maximum entropy and, for there to be “overall energy balance” there must be no remaining unbalanced energy potentials. The dissipation of such energy potentials is represented by an increase in entropy, and when all such potentials are gone we have the state of thermodynamic equilibrium which is of course the state of maximum entropy.

      And because the energy potentials have all dissipated we have a homogeneous distribution of total molecular energy (including gravitational potential energy) and, in the absence of reactions and phase changes, that comes down to a homogeneous sum (PE+KE) which implies a vertical temperature gradient, because temperature is proportional to mean molecular kinetic energy and potential energy varies with altitude.

      THE SLOPING THERMAL PLANE WHICH THUS EVOLVES WITH ENTROPY MAXIMIZATION ACTS LIKE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD OVER WHICH ANY NEW “HEAP” OF THERMAL ENERGY WILL SPREAD OUT IN ALL DIRECTIONS AS HERE.

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    I think all the back radiative greenhouse effect is nothing more than pseudoscience concocted by an organisation charged with establishing man has a negative impact on the Earth.

    If there are too many people on Earth and mankind needs some form of population control surely intelligent adults can conduct that argument and not rely on some inane childish religion like “save the planet” from the “enhanced greenhouse effect”.

    I believe our atmosphere shields us from various adverse effects of the solar radiation and reduces the heating impact as well as the oceans.

    Any advocate of a back radiative greenhouse effect needs to explain how non greenhouse gases with their even lower radiating power than so called “IR active” gases cool down – because there is absolute proof they heat up and cool down.

    Transfer of energy through the collision mechanism is at least a 50 to 1 chance against radiative transfer due to water vapour – it most likely results in maintaining an overall energy balance.

    The other BS inherent in greenhouse advocates arguments is the low level of radiation from the surface emitted through the atmospheric window.

    All the plots cited by alarmists involve wavenumber “x-axis” units.

    This choice shifts the peak emission to CO2’s ~15 micrometer absorption band.

    A wavelength plot has peak emissions square on the atmospheric window wavelengths – ~9.7 to ~12.

    A wavelength plot clearly shows the surface emissions through the atmospheric window approach ~40% – ~50% rather than Trenberth’s claimed 16.78 %.

    If you analyse a wavenumber plot you see a similar amount through the atmospheric window wavelengths but it is much more difficult to ascertain.

    Contrast the plots using Petty’s figure that alarmists often highlight to the plots from the Comet satellite program which present data in wavelength plots.

    A wavenumber plot appears “alarming” from CO2 absorption perspective whilst a wavelength plot places the CO2 absorption bands in an area of insignificance in the scheme of things.

    Whilst I am comfortable with the mathematical transformation between variables in Planck’s equation and the various plots of theoretical curves I am somewhat bemused by the results.

    I like maths to be precise but the shifting of peak emissions for a theoretical Planck curve by a change of variable disconcerts me somewhat.

    But that is the state of the maths of current radiation physics and we just have to live with it.

    At least it isn’t as absurd as a “Steel Greenhouse” !!!

  • Avatar

    Retired Physics Educator

    |

    [i]Doug Cotton shows how simple thermodynamic physics implies that the gravitational field of a planet will establish a thermal gradient in its atmosphere. The thermal gradient, a basic property of a planet, can be used to determine the temperatures of its atmosphere, surface and sub-surface regions. The interesting concept of “heat creep” applied to diagrams of the thermal gradient is used to explain the effect of solar radiation on the temperature of a planet. The thermal gradient shows that the observed temperatures of the Earth are determined by natural processes and not by back radiation warming from greenhouse gases. Evidence is presented to show that greenhouse gases cool the Earth and do not warm it.[/i]
    John Turner B.Sc.;Dip.Ed.;M.Ed.(Hons);Grad.Dip.Ed.Studies

  • Avatar

    Retired Physics Educator

    |

    And on Roy Spencer’s thread …

    pochas says:
    [url=http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/07/15-years-of-ceres-versus-surface-temperature-climate-sensitivity-1-3-deg-c/#comment-196323]August 3, 2015 at 9:46 AM[/url]

    Hear hear, RPE

    You wrote: [i]“Entropy maximization does so, because the Second Law of Thermodynamics is never violated.”[/i]

    Long past time for the radiative model fixated to step back from their obsession and learn some thermodynamics.

  • Avatar

    Retired Physics Educator

    |

    [b]Squid and Mack (and PSI members)[/b] might do well to note that there are people who agree with me …

    [url]http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/07/15-years-of-ceres-versus-surface-temperature-climate-sensitivity-1-3-deg-c/#comment-196323[/url]

  • Avatar

    Retired Physics Educator

    |

    Suppose there were another planet in our Solar System located in an orbit about root 2 times (~1.4142x) further from the Sun and having no atmosphere. It would receive half the solar radiation that Earth receives at our top of atmosphere, but about the same as Earth receives at its surface, because about half of our TOA solar radiation is either reflected or absorbed in the atmosphere.

    The imaginary planet’s Solar constant would thus be about 1360/2 = 680W/m² and, for the sunlit hemisphere the mean flux would be half that, namely 340W/m² which has black body temperature of 278.3K, equal to 5°C. However, that 5°C would only be achieved in a flat disk receiving uniform flux of 340W/m² striking it orthogonally. Because the mean is based on variable flux, the actual mean would be below 5°C. And that’s just for the sunlit hemisphere. If the planet kept one face always towards the Sun, the dark side would get down below 3K unless there were significant internal conduction across from the warm side. So we are talking about a very cold mean temperature about half way between 278K and 3K.

    So it’s absolute garbage to talk about there being only 33 degrees of warming due to the introduction of an atmosphere sending additional radiation back to the surface. In fact, according to those energy diagrams like [url=http://climate-change-theory.com/energy-budget-back-radiation.jpg]this[/url] one, the Earth’s atmosphere (after 30% reflection) receives 235W/m² (342-107) at the top, and then delivers from its base 492W/m² (324+168) into the surface, thus amplifying the solar energy by over 109%.

    So there’s apparently about 150 degrees of warming due to back radiation if you work things out using the incorrect 20th century paradigm that assumes radiation determines a planet’s surface temperature.

    You all need to think outside the square and break free from the indoctrination that has been prevalent in the whole education system from the 1980’s onwards. It’s all wrong.

    • Avatar

      Retired Physics Educator

      |

      The following is a copy of a comment posted by Rocking MrE 2 years ago regarding my video.

      [b][i]This is a great video, and spoken with the finesse of a teacher that understands the subject matter with intellectual precision..[/i][/b]

  • Avatar

    Retired Physics Educator

    |

    If you place a heated metal cube close to a cold one, the cold cube may well be warmed to a temperature close to that of the hot one. Say it is warmed from 20°C to 70°C by the hot cube which has an electrically controlled temperature of 80°C. But if you now add 5 more such heated cubes (each heated to 80°C) close to the other 5 faces of the cube that got to 70°C you will not make that cube hotter than 80°C despite there being six times the radiative flux that got it from 20°C to 70°C. For the same reason you cannot add the back radiation to the solar radiation and use the total in Stefan Boltzmann calculations. The 324W/m^2 of back radiation is equivalent to the radiation from a black body at a temperature of 3°C.

  • Avatar

    Retired Physics Educator

    |

    A flat “black body” disk receiving 390W/m^2 would indeed warm to about 15°C. That is not what should be used in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations for Earth’s surface though because you can’t count backradiation and ignore energy losses by radiation back to the atmosphere and Space. But that’s what the IPCC do – it’s there in all those energy budgets. Solar radiation: 168 plus back radiation 324 less non-radiative losses of 102 = 390W/m^2.

    But let’s suppose we play along with their little bluff and say, OK, the mean flux is 390W/m^2 and that would give us 15°C if it were delivered uniformly to a flat black body orthogonal to the radiation. But, a hemisphere receiving twice that amount by day and nothing at night would have a mean temperature far below 15°C because of the T^4 relationship between flux and temperature. We know that some regions on Earth do receive far more than the mean flux (however you calculate that mean flux) but because it is the mean, then there will be other regions receiving less than the mean.

    If you do a few calculations you’ll soon see that, because the flux does vary, its mean does not produce as high a temperature as would equivalent uniform flux with the same mean.

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    If 99% of the atmosphere can absorb thermal energy by contact with the heated land/ocean surfaces (which the “non greenhouse gases” obviously do) but cannot radiate powerfully enough to “shed” that thermal energy to space (which is also supposedly true) then there is no need to even contemplate anything like a greenhouse effect.

    In this scenario greenhouse gases are the only significant mechanism for the atmosphere to “shed” thermal energy to space – which is obviously true if you see the IR radiation spectra for oxygen and nitrogen.

    How this translates to “heat trapping” by “greenhouse gases” is a complete mystery to me.

    Obviously collisions between “non greenhouse gas” molecules are far more likely than collisions with “greenhouse gas” molecules.

    Given the low radiating power of “non greenhouse gases” – or all gases really – it is logical that only “non greenhouse gases” actually retain thermal energy whilst “greenhouse gases” shed it.

    Convection into the upper atmosphere does not necessarily result in loss to space for non radiating gases – it simply converts temperature expressed as kinetic energy into potential energy at lower kinetic energy.

    Besides all of that the atmosphere is significantly thinner as you ascend yet the IPCC never seem to consider this as a major failing in their greenhouse effect theory.

    They have a colder and significantly lower mass density upper atmosphere transferring more thermal energy to a warmer and significantly higher mass density lower atmosphere and generating extra “heat” beyond the loss from the surface and lower atmosphere ?

    Radiative forcing is bullshit – only higher energy radiation can induce temperature increases. It was introduced to provide a pseudoscience explanation for a phenomenon that has never actually been verified by experiment.

    Average insolation as used in climate science is bullshit.

    1 hour of 2390 watts per square metre radiation is most definitely not the same as 10 hours at 239 watts per square metre.

    The former can bake a cake at 180 degrees C whilst the latter obviously cannot !

    So, if “non greenhouse gases” are actually responsible for slowing heat loss to space – as Professor Wood stated over a century ago – then adding “greenhouse gases” to the atmosphere is more likely to increase the radiation emitted by Earth to space as warming has occurred – exactly as the Nimbus satellite observed here

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Nimbus/nimbus2.php

    The graph clearly shows the Earth emitted more radiation to space as it warmed slightly yet their absurd commentary says that the Earth warmed by “trapping” radiation in contradiction of their own graph and data ?

    Go figure.

    • Avatar

      Squid2112

      |

      Excellent comment Rosco! … thanks for that!

      • Avatar

        Retired Physics Educator

        |

        Yes, Squid2112, you’ll find very similar “excellent comment” in a certain article written [url=http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-21st-century-new-paradigm-shift-in-climate-change-science.html]here[/url] in January 2013 by guess who? I quote:

        [i][b]Oxygen and nitrogen keep the surface warm with non-radiative diffusion processes just by being there at almost the same temperature. The closer the temperatures are, the slower is the cooling by both diffusion and evaporative cooling of water surfaces. Oxygen and nitrogen keep the surface warm with non-radiative diffusion processes just by being there at almost the same temperature.[/b] The closer the temperatures are, the slower is the cooling by both diffusion and evaporative cooling of water surfaces. And these normal air molecules (mostly oxygen and nitrogen and yes, 0.04% of them carbon dioxide) are at that temperature because of the autonomous formation of a thermal gradient as molecules swap kinetic energy (KE) and potential energy (PE) when in free flight between impacts – even in still air – even without convection – even at the poles of Venus where no sunlight ever reaches down.
        The great planets receive virtually no solar insolation at their surfaces, so where is the energy for any back radiation? There isn’t any. Their atmospheres get warmed by the Sun and a thermal gradient develops and maintains itself automatically due to their gravitational field. Their atmospheres “support” similar surface temperatures, which may be slightly warmer due to day/night variations.
        So “human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests, have not intensified any natural greenhouse effect, and are not causing global warming.”
        That is the real world. That is the real Solar system. That is the real universe, because physics is universal. The autonomous thermal gradient in the atmosphere, together with Solar insolation, which sets the overall level of the thermal profile, determines the surface temperatures on Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and – wait for it – Earth.[/i]

      • Avatar

        Retired Physics Educator

        |

        PS: It’s good to see that you, Squid2112, now praise [b]Rosco’s description of the “heat creep” process[/b] …

        [i]”They have a [b]colder[/b] and significantly lower mass density [b]upper atmosphere transferring more thermal energy to a warmer[/b] and significantly higher mass density [b]lower atmosphere[/b] and generating extra “heat” beyond the loss from the surface and lower atmosphere?”[/i]

    • Avatar

      Retired Physics Educator

      |

      Yes, but if you applied 2390W/sq.m for 1 hour and zero for 9 hours you’d have 453K for 10% of the time and 0K for 90% of the time, thus a weighted mean of 45.3K, whereas if you applied uniform flux of 239W/sq.m you’d have a mean (and constant) 254.8K in a perfect black body. This is why all the arguments about flat Earth etc seem to ignore the fact that the uniform mean flux in those Energy diagrams would produce a mean temperature several degrees hotter than would the actual variable flux which Earth’s surface receives. So you can’t explain a 15°C mean surface temperature with any valid radiation calculations, even if you incorrectly include back radiation, which is equivalent to black body radiation from a body at a mere 3°C.

    • Avatar

      Retired Physics Educator

      |

      Yes Rosco, these guys could have read about GH gases being holes in the blanket back in January 2013 in [url=http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-21st-century-new-paradigm-shift-in-climate-change-science.html]this[/url] PSI article, but they never learn.

      They might also have done well to read [url=http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf]this[/url] PSI paper.

    • Avatar

      Retired Physics Educator

      |

      Yes, mostly good points, Rosco, but what you scoffed at in saying [i]”They have a colder and significantly lower mass density upper atmosphere transferring more thermal energy to a warmer and significantly higher mass density lower atmosphere and generating extra “heat” beyond the loss from the surface and lower atmosphere”[/i] [b]has to happen[/b] and does happen, but just doesn’t (and cannot) happen by radiation because radiation does not involve molecules that are affected by gravity in a way that leads to changes in entropy as gravitational potential energy varies.

      You Rosco, could be among the first to fully understand the 21st century hypothesis at [url]htpp://climate-change-theory.com[/url] – give it a go and I’ll answer all genuine questions.

  • Avatar

    Squid2112

    |

    I agree with you Mack. I am so sick and tired of the Doug Cotton carpet bombing runs that I don’t read even one word of his comments anymore. Same garbage over and over and over again. Contradictions abound, never answers any of my questions, just monologs how he is the greatest physicist the world has ever seen and how all others on the planet know nothing but Doug knows it all! … old, very very old …

    • Avatar

      Retired Physics Educator

      |

      So you, Squid2112 disagree with the guy who wrote [url]http://entropylaw.com[/url] and you have no idea what he is talking about or why it is extremely relevant to the carbon dioxide debate.

      You also agree that a swimming pool at the North Pole in summer should be warmer than Mack’s private pool where he dreams up his amazing “fissics” in 94°F warmth while the Sun apparently passes directly overhead – just as it does in Nicaragua at this time of the year.

  • Avatar

    Mack

    |

    “Readers can see that comments have been deleted above”.
    Readers can see that this PSI site is again being spammed by the shouting , crank Cotton, with his 168w/sq.m. insufficient solar radiation and his substituted quack “Gravitatioal Thermal” hypothesis. You’re like one of those candles that won’t blow out,the lunacy just keeps on burning.
    Postma’s wrong, PSI’s wrong, Spencer’s wrong…everybody’s wrong except you.
    “I will be here to point out errors in the physics I will not tolerate”
    Yeah Doug, my tolerance with your shouting pseudoscience, ranting and railing against nearly everybody, is well maxed out now..as is everybody else’s tolerance.
    Now see your comments go…

    • Avatar

      Retired Physics Educator

      |

      I must say I’m curious, Mack, regarding your reference to 168W/sq.m That does indeed appear to be the incident surface solar insolation shown in energy budget diagrams. And when I use that flux with the Stefan Boltzmann Law I do indeed get a temperature of 233K. I can see that the 168W/sq.m figure is derived from the Solar constant by first dividing by four (so as to distribute the energy passing through a circle to that striking a sphere with the same radius) and then using about half that result so as to allow for the albedo and atmospheric absorption.

      So there’s no huge error in the 168W/sq.m mean flux of radiation striking the surface. Would you agree with that point? If not, what do you make it and why?

      Now, I would suggest that, for any mean flux we would get the highest temperature if that flux were homogeneous. But in reality the mean is derived from a wide range of different flux levels striking the surface. Thus the mean temperature that the solar radiation could achieve would clearly be less than the above 233K, wouldn’t you agree? If not, please explain why. If, for example, we considered a simplified case where the 168 was the mean of two levels of flux on two halves of the surface – say 268W/sq.m and 68W/sq.m, then the Stefan-Boltzmann Law gives us temperatures of 262K and 186K and the mean of these is 224K which is colder than the above 233K for uniform flux.

      So it does indeed appear pretty obvious that the mean solar flux of about 168W/sq.m could only achieve a mean temperature colder than 233K wouldn’t you say? If not, please outline the method you would use to determine the planet’s mean surface temperature from solar radiation? After all, as the top post says, the IPCC claims that this solar radiation warms the Earth. Do you agree with the IPCC on that issue? In that you don’t appear to agree with calculations of such temperatures using concepts of entropy maximization that people are now talking about then I assume you agree these people are wrong and the IPCC was right all along. But I’m just looking forward to your calculations that show why the IPCC is apparently right in your eyes.

      • Avatar

        Mack

        |

        Well I must say, although you’ve hit me with a barrage of questions Cotton, I think the moderators will probably leave your last comment alone…because on the surface of it, it appears just normally curious and enquiring. However I’m of the opinion you’re just setting up some facade, and I really am only dealing with a loon whose sole intent is self promotion and some sort of top dog mentality in this “climate science” field.
        Actually, I would like to bring into question your mentality. What sort of person would have the mentality to just ignore what I’ve already spelled out to you starting with quite amiable conversation about here….
        http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-infrared-radiative-structure-of-the-earth-s-atmosphere.html#comment-9486
        Then some further comments here..where you’ve now been deleted…
        http://www.principia-scientific.org/singer-concurs-with-latour-co2-doesn-t-cause-global-warming.html#comments
        and then here..where my patience with you is finally exhausted…
        http://www.principia-scientific.org/stack-theory-mathematics-paper-discredits-greenhouse-gas-climate-alarm.html
        I don’t know quite else to say to you Doug Cotton. I’ve tried every possible means I know to answer your questions but just look at your very first sentence….”Mack, regarding your reference to 168 w/sq.m. That does appear to be the incident solar insolation shown in energy budget diagrams”
        There is your first and key piece of ignorant (wilful?) misunderstanding. You believe in these Trenberth Earth energy budget diagrams. They are nonsense. Just look at them Doug…
        http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/faq-1-1-fig-1.jpg
        It all starts with an incoming solar radiation of 342w/sq.m. at the TOA ,which then attenuates down to your 168w/sq.m at the Earth’s surface. Now bear with me…what if that incoming solar radiation at the TOA was not 342w/sq.m…and there was this huge mistake…it was 1360w/sq.m.instead. What would be the incident solar at the Earth’s surface? Yes, you guessed it..about 342w/sq.m. Duggie. Now see a little bit of confusion setting in? Yes there is a little bit of confusion already, and this designed, conjured up by AGW people to be confusing. So I’m sorry to hit you with the fact that you’ve been teaching all your pupils unreal, geometrically CALCULATED nonsense. Look at the diagram ..all the figures you see there are not real measurements but are derived from your wrong incoming solar radiation at the TOA, which then transforms into figures tearing around in Trenberth’s hysterical imagination. The way they’ve arrived at these figures is all serious scientific stuff, all calculated from complicated guesstimates,and hours of wasted taxpayer time…but all bollocks. But you subscribe to these looney Trenberth Earth Energy budget diagrams. As I’ve already said, you must be hellishly hot at nightime, according to Trenberth, you’re only getting an average of 168w/sq.m. from the sun , but you’ve also got 324w/sq.m. “backradiation” (in your case, “heat creep”) belting down from the ATMOSPHERE 24/7.
        Stop with the spamming Doug.

        • Avatar

          Retired Physics Educator

          |

          You wrote: “what if that incoming solar radiation at the TOA was not 342w/sq.m…and there was this huge mistake…it was 1360w/sq.m.instead.”

          What if?

          Then the surface area of a sphere would have to be the same as that of a circle with the same radius.

          Good luck with proving that.

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            Actually it’s not a matter of what if..it’s in reality, what is. Get used to it. It IS 1360w/sq.m yearly global average arriving at, and passing through the TOA, whether you like it or not.

          • Avatar

            Retired Physics Educator

            |

            You are so pathetic Mack. The Solar constant of about 1360W/sq.m that strikes Earth’s TOA is measured as that which passes through an orthogonal circle with the same radius as the Earth. The number of square meters is thus pi*R^2 where R is the radius of the Earth in meters. So the total radiated energy striking the Earth each second is 1360 * pi * R^R Joules. Over 24 hours that energy per second is spread over the surface area which is 4 * pi * R^2 and so, for the actual surface area the flux is (1360 * pi * R^2)/(4 * pi * R^2) = 340W/sq.m

          • Avatar

            Retired Physics Educator

            |

            So stop your spamming Mack as it does you no good what-so-ever in the eyes of intelligent silent readers, especially those with a background in physics. Go find a friend with qualifications in physics and get him to review you comments before you post such errors again – and again.

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            The moderator will probably delete those 2 comments Doug.

        • Avatar

          Retired Physics Educator

          |

          Is there anything I’ve written that’s led you to the mistaken belief that convective heat transfer is downward at night?

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            Everything you write leads to a mistaken belief. esp the mistaken belief in some crackpot theory that “downward convective heat transfer” , “thermal diffusion” ,all arising from the atmosphere,is responsible for, and explains the Earth’s surface temperatures, and even all planet’s temperatures right down to their cores!
            The kid at the beach who’s burning his feet on hot sand will give you the fingers and tell you “it’s the sun stupid.” But is that enough to cure you of your mistaken belief, Duggie boy?

          • Avatar

            Squid2112

            |

            OMG, here Doug goes with the “average” crap again. Denying the FACT that, right now, above my head, the TOA is receiving 1360W/m² of energy, and my pool will reach 94°F later this afternoon, all without his magical “downward this and that” or “thermal diffusive rat droppings”

            So much for averages … idiot [Doug].

          • Avatar

            Retired Physics Educator

            |

            And where I am, Mack, at latitude 33°45′ mid morning the Sun is at an elevation of about 45° so the ground here is receiving about 48% of 1360 * sin 33°50′ * sin 45° which is about 256.5W/sq.m which would raise a black body to a temperature of 259.3K which is -14°C but, thanks to the natural downward convective heat transfer (what else?) the temperature is about 25 degrees hotter at 11.1°C.

            As for your pool, well as I keep saying, the Sun doesn’t have time to raise it to the temperature that 48% of 1360W/sq.m could raise a black body to, namely 327.6K which is about 54.3°C or about 130°F, so thanks for confirming that.

            Anyway, enjoy your life in the tropics where, if the Sun passes directly overhead today, I assume you’re somewhere around a latitude of 13°N which would place you in [url=http://www.mapsofworld.com/nicaragua/nicaragua-lat-long.html]Nicaragua[/url] down Mexico way.

          • Avatar

            Retired Physics Educator

            |

            PS: Go and have a swim at the North Pole, young Mack. At this time of the year it’s probably getting nearly 24 hours of your 1360W/m² warming sunshine, so you must deduce it would be hotter than your 94°F pool. (Down here my pool was never warmed to more than 25°C (77°F) so you must be closer to the Equator.)

            But you wouldn’t understand why because you have decided it is inappropriate to multiply flux by the sine of the angle of elevation from horizontal.

          • Avatar

            Squid2112

            |

            Actually, Doug, I live at 36.1592°N, and my pool warms to 90°F or more each day, depending upon how much sun is shining on it and how much it cooled the previous night (mostly via evaporation).

            I also had a pool when I lived at 30.3302°N, and observed exactly the same thing. And what do you know, I also had a pool when I lived at 46.8764°N, observed the same thing, only the pool typically would not rise much above 85°F on its own, as one might expect, due [b]mostly[/b] to greater night cooling.

            By the way Dougie, although nearly exactly the same altitude, the record high temperature at 46.8764°N is almost a full 10°F higher than at 30.3302°N or at 36.1592°N. Why do you suppose that might be?

            Doug, please go away and quit blanket spamming these blogs. I know of no one here that is remotely interested in what you have to say, as it is just the same as you have said a thousand times before.

          • Avatar

            Retired Physics Educator

            |

            The Sun’s direct radiation at 30° latitude at noon is about 48% of 1360 * sin30° namely 326W/m² which has a black body temperature of about 275K which is about 36°F, so thanks for providing a good example of how it must be “heat creep” that is warming your pool, not direct solar radiation.

          • Avatar

            Retired Physics Educator

            |

            Ooops! Correction to above comment …

            The Sun’s direct radiation at 30° latitude at noon is about 48% of 1360 * [b]cos[/b]30° namely 565W/m² from which we deduct 102W/m² for non-radiative losses (probably much more actually) leaving a net of 463W/m² which has a black body temperature of about 300.6K which is about 27.3°C or 81°F, but only at noon. The mean flux during the day would be quite a bit less, so thanks for providing a good example of how it must be “heat creep” that is warming your pool, not direct solar radiation. Your pool, by the way, with a solid floor is nothing like the ocean where the solar radiation penetrates and only raises the temperature of much cooler regions down in the thermocline.

          • Avatar

            Retired Physics Educator

            |

            PS: One possibility is that your cooler 30.3302°N location was closer to the ocean. That’s why I eliminated places like that in my study that you obviously have not read.

        • Avatar

          Retired Physics Educator

          |

          Yes hellishly hot. The 168W/sq.m from the Sun can raise a black body to -40°C and the 324W/sq.m of backradiation can raise a black body to 3°C. So in fact the back radiation wins and would warm a flat orthogonal black body to 3°C without the Sun being able to make it any hotter after that.

          But the 3°C would be achieved only if there were uniform back radiation to a flat surface. When radiation is at an angle we must multiply by the sine of the angle between it and the horizontal to get the effective flux. For a spherical Earth even the “hotter” back radiation would not get the surface above freezing point, which is not hard to believe on a cold winter’s night, and the Sun, on average, can only do less than -40°C.

          So that why I use the K-T diagrams – not to prove that their radiation figures are wrong – they aren’t far out – but to prove that these realistic radiation figures are still not sufficient to explain observed surface temperatures.

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            “…are still not sufficient to explain observed surface temperatures”
            You’re an ivory towered cloistered teaching academic who hasn’t made a single scientific observation your whole life. Your head hasn’t even moved out the classroom door, in fact, you’re totally incapable of independant thought.
            “…these realistic radiation figures”
            Yeah right, the sort of radiation figures telling you that the oceans would be frozen…that realism….riiight. Sorry Duggie. I’m the sceptic, you’re the gullible loon.

          • Avatar

            Retired Physics Educator

            |

            Yep. That’s “realism” because radiation to the surface ain’t what is doing the warming. The warming is brought about by entropy maximization. You can read up on that at [url]http://entropylaw.com[/url] where that guy has explained the Second Law pretty well. I quote from his site:

            [i]According to the old view, the second law was viewed as a ‘law of disorder’. The major revolution in the last decade is the recognition of the “law of maximum entropy production” or “MEP” and with it an expanded view of thermodynamics showing that the spontaneous production of order from disorder is the expected consequence of basic laws.
            [/i]

            [i]The key insight was that the world is inherently active, and that whenever an energy distribution is out of equilibrium a potential or thermodynamic “force” (the gradient of a potential) exists that the world acts spontaneously to dissipate or minimize. All real-world change or dynamics is seen to follow, or be motivated, by this law.[/i]

            [i]Clausius coined the term “entropy” to refer to the dissipated potential and the second law, in its most general form, states that the world acts spontaneously to minimize potentials (or equivalently maximize entropy), and with this, active end-directedness or time-asymmetry was, for the first time, given a universal physical basis.[/i]

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            “The warming is brought about by entrophy maximisation”
            Aaahahahahaha…yeah right Doug…we’re all getting this 324w/sq.m of this “entropy maximisation” from the atmosphere, belting down 24/7 keeping us warm… according to you who says..”I use the KT diagrams”.
            Now trying to bambozzle us with entrophy are you? because you realise nobody fully understands it, except,of course, you.
            I prefer to listen to what a real and honest scientist says ..
            http://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/04/radiative-transfer-according-to-agw-a-note-from-neutrino/#comment-480095

          • Avatar

            Retired Physics Educator

            |

            Well you, young Mack, sure don’t understand entropy. You’ve read so little about it that you can’t even spell it.

          • Avatar

            Retired Physics Educator

            |

            I see you’ve been arguing with Nasif Nahle, a professor of physics on your linked thread, young Mack. You certainly are a “know-all” aren’t you! You can’t even spell entropy – dear me – obviously not much physics education in your resume.

          • Avatar

            Retired Physics Educator

            |

            Oh – now I see you [i]”Just managed to scrape a C pass in physics 101″[/i] young Mack. Well aren’t you just soooooo knowledgeable and soooooo well qualified to argue about physics and topics like entropy maximization by diminishing unbalanced energy potentials leading to the state of thermodynamics equilibrium as stated in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

          • Avatar

            Retired Physics Educator

            |

            Say, Mack, why don’t you write an article for PSI. Perhaps you could construct one that refutes one of my articles on this site.

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            What’s with this “young Mack” stuff. I’m only a couple of years younger than you. Seems you’re a bit of an anti-aging health nut as well..peddling “anti-oxident” pills. Fits nicely with your “Gravitationl-Thermal” medication, keeping us alive and warm, delivered from the atmosphere.
            PSI would approach me if they wanted an article,Duggie, but I rate their collective intelligence far above yours,and that would preclude them the need to have any article from me.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            Mack, do you believe in “Earth’s radiative blackbody temperature is -18°C”? Just curious.

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            Greg, the phrasing of your sentence is a little duplicious..like “When did you stop beating your wife?”
            If you were to rephrase it by saying..Mack, do you believe in “The Earth considered (modeled) as a radiative blackbody would have a temperature calculated as -18 C?”
            The duplicity is removed, hypothesis is not presented as fact and reality.
            Students having a lecture on this can’t distinguish the subtle nuances between legitimate science, and reality devoid pseudoscience.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            I take your peculiar answer as yes, you do believe that nonsense. But for whatever reason you won’t admit that. A very interesting case.

            So, Mack, you surely understand that that makes you as stupid as Doug in this particular respect. Maybe you could consider not opening such a big mouth in the future. Doug can and should of course be criticized for thread bombing, but as far as physics bombing is concerned you are not much different from him.

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            @ Greg House,
            The reason I “won’t admit that” is because I’m just a layman, so haven’t a clue how or why this hypothetical temperature of -18 degree C is arrived at. Of course it’s not true…but if calculations on a blackboard arrive at that figure, who am I to counter-argue that.

          • Avatar

            Retired Physics Educator

            |

            I don’t sell any supplements or make money in the health arena, even though I have a High Distinction from a course in nutrition and also studied a post-graduate diploma university course in Natural Medicine.

            The study of human aging, and what slows the rate thereof, goes a long way beyond anti-oxidants, I can assure you. Your best source of information is the Life Extension Foundation (in the US) [url]http://lef.org[/url] where you could read up on such matters as how to increase the body’s level of Super-oxide-dismutase for example, or the new breakthrough with AMPK Activator.

          • Avatar

            Retired Physics Educator

            |

            [i]”Clausius coined the term “entropy” to refer to the dissipated potential and the second law, in its most general form, states that the world acts spontaneously to minimize potentials (or equivalently [b]maximize entropy[/b]), and with this, active end-directedness or time-asymmetry was, for the first time, given a universal physical basis.”[/i]

            (Source: [url]http://entropylaw.com/entropy2ndlaw.html[/url])

            If you’re in your late 60’s Mack I’d never have guessed it from the school-boy “fissics” you waffle on with, and your obvious complete lack of open-mindedness or willingness to learn in your old age from those like myself and several others, such as those quoted in other comments who understand my experiments and studies and the theory that supports them.

            [b]And where did you get the idea, Mack, that my hypothesis is not supported by studies of real world and Solar System data, as well as experiments such as those with centrifugal force? Where’s your personal study confirming the IPCC hoax that the GHG water vapor warms? Or your experiment disproving that centrifugal force causes “heat creep” in the same way that gravity does?[/b]

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            “Where’s your personal study confirming the IPCC hoax that the GHG water vapor warms?” blathers this crank Cotton into the ether. Listen loon, we’ve already agreed there’s no such thing as a “greenhouse” gas… so why the “GHG water vapour” bullshit? Why do you try to put words in my mouth like “water vapour warms” ? Nothing in the atmosphere warms, you clot.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            “Nothing in the atmosphere warms, you clot.”

            🙂

          • Avatar

            Retired Physics Educator

            |

            The atmosphere itself does the warming of the surface, which warms the mantle, which warms the core. And you will never understand how, when or why until you study the hypothesis and understand entropy maximization.

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            “The atmosphere itself does the warming of the surface, which warms the mantle, which warms the core”
            Riight,…atmosphere warms surface, surface warms mantle, mantle warms core.
            Nah Doug, Very big mistake right at the start…should read..”atmosphere COOLS surface”
            You’re confused with the Man-made atmospheric global warming or Anthropogenic Global Warming.
            It’s to do with climate science.
            You’re spamming the wrong site. Try the Australian Woman’s Knitting blog. They’ll listen to your crackpot “heat creep” theory…they’ve got a handle on thermal insulation and stuff like that.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    John,

    the problem is that if you make a statement like “there is no greenhouse effect and 2+2=5” nobody will take what you said about greenhouse effect seriously because you included nonsense (2+2=5) in your statement. Did you do something like that? Yes, you did unfortunately, John, I quoted that in my first comment.

    You can learn why I consider what I quoted a nonsense if you read my comments above. If you have question or objections, go ahead, we can talk about it.

  • Avatar

    carlallen

    |

    [i]”To all commenters:
    “Most comments are digressing from the point. . .
    I would certainly like to ask everyone commenting on my article to address the specific question ‘Is no Greenhouse Effect possible from the way IPCC define it?’ Thank you.[/i]

    I fully agree. The “greenhouse effect” hypothesis as enunciated by the IPCC in AR4 2007 is false. The problem is that those who profess believe in it don’t care because it supplies them with the perfect pretext to foist upon the world a virulent political ideology at the heart of which is shutting down industrial civilization. If by some chance the “scientific community” sees the light and universally rejects the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis will they not just find another pretext to continue pushing their agenda?

    The EPA, for example, recently pursued shutting down coal powered plants because of mercury; agriculture in Central California has been decimated to save a fish; in the late 20th century the logging industry was gutted because of the Spotted Owl; the fracking of oil and natural gas wells to increase their output is being condemned because of presumed contamination of ground water; one of the more bazaar excuses that has been floated to shut down industrial civilization is the notion that since carbon dioxide promotes plant growth there are now more ragweeds and thus more asthma attacks due to the increase in airborne ragweed pollen. They therefore reason that we need to shut down industrial civilization for the sake of asthma sufferers.

    Perhaps a shift in approach would be of value. Instead of arguing that carbon dioxide causes no harm to the environment maybe championing the profound benefits of fossil fuel energy to modern civilization would strike a cord with reasonable people. Just have them turn off their electricity for a week and either walk or take a bicycle where ever they want to go. They will then become acutely aware of what is at stake and what will be the real goal of the discussions to take place in Paris later this year, i.e., what the UN is actually purposing for humanity in the 21st Century.

    Carl

  • Avatar

    Squid2112

    |

    [b][ Message to Doug ][/b]

    [b]STOP THE CARPET BOMBING ALREADY! … We aren’t listening to you anymore![/b]

  • Avatar

    John Marshall

    |

    Callender was well aware of the historic CO2 data, going back to 1850 with levels up to 490ppmv, but discounted them as they were outsise his preferred range. A classic example of skewing data to match preconceived ideas and “prove” a pet theory.

    • Avatar

      Retired Physics Educator

      |

      No I’m afraid it does not do so. No one anywhere can explain (using incident radiation alone) the surface temperature of any planet with a significant atmosphere. Try using Postma’s method for Venus.

  • Avatar

    Martin Hertzberg

    |

    The eliptical orbit of the Sun not only changes the radiant flux reaching the Earth from the Sun but also the total time of esposure to that flux. Currently the Earth is further from the Sun during the Northern Hemisphere Summer half of its orbit; however the Earth moves more slowly in orbit during that time. There are about 7 more days in that Summer half than in the Winter half. The heating effect depends on both the radiant intensity and the time of exposure to that radiation. The two effects are opposite to one another. We are currently in an interglacial warming because the exposure time has a stronger heating effect than the lower radiant flux.
    In another half cycle of the precession of the equinoxes both effects will reenforce each other and we should be due for a huge glacial cooling.

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Martin, I think there is something wrong in your wording.

      You seem to be saying:
      1) That when the Earth is in the half orbit, it is then moving slower, and that allows it to receive more solar energy than when it was moving faster, closer to the Sun, in the other half of its orbit. That would, or course, be wrong.
      2) That the situation in 1) will change to where the Earth is receiving less energy over a longer period, then producing “huge glacial cooling”. That would, of course, be wrong also.

      You may want to rephrase accordingly.

  • Avatar

    Retired Physics Educator

    |

    (continued)

    Whilst we have to admit that the Sun’s direct radiation into the surfaces of planets like Earth and Venus is obviously insufficient to explain the observed temperatures, we do know that these planetary surfaces rise in temperature on the sunlit side and inevitably cool a little on the dark side. So we can deduce that the warming has something to do with the Sun.

    However, for a temperature to rise there must be a net gain of mean molecular kinetic energy, which we will refer to as thermal energy. This can, and does come mostly via molecular collisions between the atmospheric molecules and the solid surface molecules.

    But where does the new energy come from in the first place?

    When we apply Stefan-Boltzmann calculations we see that the Sun’s direct radiation can usually only raise the temperature of IR-absorbing molecules in the upper atmosphere where the temperatures are low enough for this to happen.

    In school-boy physics you probably learnt that heat only transfers from warmer sources to cooler targets. So you will be surprised to learn that there are exceptions to this rule when there is an external force field like gravity. That is because the Second Law of Thermodynamics is really about entropy maximization, and entropy changes when molecular gravitational potential energy changes.

    This process has been described in recent publications like “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” and there’s not space here to elaborate here, save to say that this is indeed the new paradigm that James Hansen was not experienced enough to even contemplate.

    • Avatar

      John Marshall

      |

      One of Joe Postma’s papers explains the error of the flat earth model of energy processes in the atmosphere and explains a new model that gives the correct global energy process and latitudinal sharing.

      • Avatar

        Retired Physics Educator

        |

        A flat Earth receiving any given uniform radiation would be WARMER than a spherical Earth receiving the same mean radiation because of the T^4 relationship between flux and temperature. Mention that to Postma will you?

        The Earth’s surface receives far more radiation from the atmosphere than by direct solar radiation. But even the radiation with a mean of 324W/sq.m from the atmosphere would only make a flat Earth 3°C and a spherical one a few degrees colder than that. The Sun (delivering 168W/sq.m) can’t even compete with the atmospheric radiation. Of course neither on its own or together is what explains observed temperature. Entropy maximization does so, because the Second Law of Thermodynamics is never violated.

  • Avatar

    Retired Physics Educator

    |

    James Hansen (and subsequently the whole AGW crowd) originally applied an algorithm which added back radiation to solar radiation (treating each the same) and used it in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations, showing that 390W/m^2 yields a black body temperature of 288K which is about 15°C, thought to be the mean surface temperature for the whole globe.

    But nature always treats every single pencil of radiation such that it obeys the Second Law of Thermodynamics and some of the electro-magnetic energy is only converted to thermal (kinetic) energy in a target that has a lower Planck curve than the effective Planck curve of the source after any attenuation due to distance, reflection or absorption. The Sun’s mean effective radiation is like that of an extremely close black body that is at a very cold -41°C and Hansen realized its direct radiation to the surface could never explain the surface temperature. Such is even more obvious on Venus. Even at Earth’s Equator the mean solar radiation over 24 hours is only around 214W/m^2 for which the black body temperature is about -25°C.

    Now, if you calculate a mean temperature using Hansen’s algorithm of adding back radiation into the calculations, then it is implicit that you are applying that algorithm to every location on the globe and determining a mean of all the temperatures thus calculated. You can see that the algorithm is incorrect, because there are regions on the planet which, on a clear day at noon in the tropics, receive over 800W/m^2 – maybe even 1,000W/m^2 of direct solar radiation. If you then add back radiation (probably far greater than the mean of 324W/m^2 in these locations) you get totally unrealistic temperatures often over 90°C. So it’s obviously wrong to do so, and physics confirms this.

    Hence, because you can’t add back radiation you can’t deduce that the back radiation from increasing levels of carbon dioxide will cause warming. Furthermore, you have to go looking for a completely different algorithm – a wholly different paradigm, and you find that when you come to understand the process of entropy maximization, which is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is all about.

  • Avatar

    GoFigure

    |

    This debate will never be appreciated by most folks. It’s obvious that even decent scientific backgrounds in this area lead to a debate which nobody else has the time or patience to understand. Arguing the actual data is not so easily debunked.

    co2 science folks look at the past four interglacial periods (covering about 340k years) and note that the high temp during our current interglacial is 2 degreees lower than during the prior four. But… in our current interglacial the co2 level is about 42% higher. That clearly blows the IPCC claim, since co2 is showing no impact on global warming. It’s therefore impossible that the principle cause of our current warming is due to human activity. (We already know it ain’t due to UHI !)

    There is NO evidence, even over geologic periods (when co2 was generally much higher than now) that co2 has EVER had any impact on the global temperature.

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the IPCC is just another buraucracy attemting to justify its existence.

  • Avatar

    Me again

    |

    If you don’t understand how and why the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us entropy will be maximized (and density and temperature gradients thus form in a planet’s troposphere because of the force of gravity) then you understand nothing of the very relevant physics which enables us to explain planetary surface temperatures.

    The Earth’s surface, on average, warms by day. That requires an input of thermal (kinetic) energy, meaning molecules start to move faster. The electro-magnetic energy in back radiation is not converted to such kinetic energy where the target surface region is warmer than the source of spontaneous radiation from the atmosphere.

    You can’t use Stefan Boltzmann calculations to determine the surface temperature because the surface does not act remotely like a black body. Only the whole Earth+atmosphere system acts like a black body. Because it does so, no amount of internal manipulation by mankind will alter the effective radiating temperature of the Earth. That temperature is found nearly half way up the troposphere because there is a temperature gradient in the troposphere.

    As we know, the Earth’s surface temperature is higher than that radiating temperature by about 33 degrees. The Venus surface is hundreds of degrees hotter. The reason such surface temperatures are higher is primarily because of the fact that entropy maximization (the process that the Second Law says will happen) causes there to be both a density and a temperature gradient.

    Now, IR-active gases (so-called greenhouse gases like water vapor, CO2 etc) cause thermal energy to pass from warmer to cooler regions (mostly upwards in the troposphere) and so this transfer works against the gravitationally induced temperature gradient, reducing its magnitude by up to about a third in all planetary tropospheres, although the reduction can be as little as 5% as for the planet Uranus. The temperature at the base of the troposphere “supports” the surface temperature, but that temperature is determined by the planet’s radiating temperature, the mean altitude for the radiation and the factors that affect the temperature gradient.

  • Avatar

    Me again

    |

    See also [url=http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/07/15-years-of-ceres-versus-surface-temperature-climate-sensitivity-1-3-deg-c/#comment-195743]this[/url] comment which gives a detailed explanation.

    If you want to call it a GHE then it’s a [b]G[/b]ravity and [b]H[/b]eight of atmosphere [b]E[/b]ffect.

  • Avatar

    Me again

    |

    The plain fact is, that anyone who believes in the IPCC “radiative forcing” guesswork MUST have to believe that back radiation flux can be added to Solar flux and the total used in Stefan Boltzmann calculations to get the surface temperature. There’s no avoiding the fact that they calculate it that way: it’s staring you in the face in energy budget diagrams.

    Roy Spencer, for example, tries to have a foot in both camps. On the one hand he does not agree with the adding of back radiation to the solar flux, proving that back radiation slows that portion of surface cooling which is by radiation but does not raise the surface temperature directly.

    On the other hand, he thinks the Sun’s direct radiation (with a mean of 168W/m^2) can raise the surface temperature in the first place. But that’s not what does it, as I have explained at [url]http://climate-change-theory.com[/url].

    You see, although 168W/m^2 is an average, there are some places on a very small percentage of the Earth’s surface which can receive in the vicinity of 600W/m^2 to 650W/m^2. Well 650W/m^2 does give us about 55°C which is possible. BUT, if you now add the back radiation flux (as the IPCC et al insist we can) you get a flux probably over 1000W/m^2 because the back radiation in such regions would be greater than the mean of 324W/m^2. And your problem is that 1,000W/m^2 has a black body temperature around 91°C, and even that 1000 is probably underestimated, because they say the mean back radiation is twice the mean solar radiation. So let’s try 600W/m^2 of solar and 1200W/m^2 of back radiation, but deduct perhaps 300W/m^2 for non-raiative losses. That gives us a net of 1500W/m^2 and a black body temperature of 130°C. In contrast, 600W/m^2 of solar radiation gives around 48°C when we calculate the correct way. Take your pick – you can’t be in both camps at once. If you use a particular algorithm to calculate a mean, then you are assuming the same algorithm is used for all the individual calculations for surface temperatures everywhere.

  • Avatar

    Me again

    |

    Suppose we drive a vehicle up and over a hill following a curved road. We need extra energy going up the hill, and less going down. But when a ship sails across a curved ocean surface no such considerations apply because the surface is in a state of (near) mechanical equilibrium formed by gravity.

    So it is when going from cooler temperatures in a planet’s troposphere to a warmer surface. Thermal energy just “flows” over the sloping thermal plane in the troposphere because that slope represents the state of thermodynamic equilibrium in the gravitational field.

    I know it’s hard to imagine why, but it is a reality echoed in vortex tubes and other experiments with centrifugal force. And it can be explained by entropy maximization, which is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is all about. That’s the reason the surface warms, even on a cloudy morning.

    For more detail visit http://climate-change-theory.com

  • Avatar

    Me again

    |

    (continued)

    [i]the average temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere can be calculated to be +14.5°C (Postma, J.E., 2011)[/i]

    I have pointed out that the above is not correct. In calculating the 14.5°C the IPCC adds the flux of back radiation (324) to the solar flux (168) and deducts non-radiative losses (102) to get a net of 390W/m^2 from which Stefan Boltzmann calculations give 15°C. You should only use the direct solar radiation, noting that 168W/m^2 yields only -41°C, though you might argue that radiation from the atmosphere might raise that a little, perhaps to -19°C.

    [b]You are left with the need for a totally different hypothesis which is at [url]http://climate-change-theory.com[/url][/b]

    You will find that the hypothesis in my websites, youtube videos, linked papers and book stands up to the rigorous testing which you correctly advocate. Nothing else does, because only one hypothesis can be correct.

  • Avatar

    Me again

    |

    John Elliston:

    A good article, but some comments on the quotes in italics:

    but of course the main transfer of heat to the upper atmosphere is by convection. This is quite violent at times with typhoons, hurricanes, or tropical thunderstorms each afternoon.

    The main input of thermal energy in the upper “atmosphere” (which includes the stratosphere) is absorption of incident insolation. The word “convection” should be qualified as being either “natural” or “forced” because the two are very different and the temperature gradient has only to do with natural convection, not wind of any form.

    Clausius’ simple statement of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says: “No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.”

    For natural convective heat transfer (which, by definition, includes diffusion) the Clausius statement is only correct in a horizontal plane, because the term for gravitational potential energy is omitted in the entropy expression from which that statement is derived.

    • Avatar

      Me again

      |

      [b]John[/b]

      By the way, Postma’s calculations (seen on pp 9 to 11 [url=http://principia-scientific.org/publications/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf]here[/url]) are incorrect because he has forgotten to deduct about 20% of the solar radiation which is absorbed by the surface, and he has not deducted about 102W/m^2 for the simultaneous heat loss by non-radiative heat transfers out of the surface.

      Either you work with a mean of 168W/m^2 (giving -41°C as just a rough indication) or you work with a mean of double that (336W/m^2) for one hemisphere and zero for the other. That gives you black body temperatures of 4°C and -273°C. Even then you are overestimating the temperature, because we find in practice that if the solar radiation reaches about 1,000W/m^2 in some location on a clear day at noon, it still only raises the temperature to about 30°C to 40°C because there is not enough time in the day for the Sun to achieve higher temperatures, and also because of the simultaneous heat losses by non-radiative processes. For example, Singapore maximum temperatures every day of the year are always in the range 30°C to 32°C even though twice a year, when the Sun passes directly overhead, it would receive in the vicinity of 1,000W/m^2 solar radiation at noon on a cloudless day.

      [b]So, however you look at it, the Sun’s direct radiation into the surface of Earth is totally insufficient by a long shot to explain the observed temperatures.[/b]

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    Sorry, the first paragraph was a quotation. It will be nice if the moderator corrects it, thanks.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote]the average temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere can be calculated to be +14.5°C […]
    The average temperature at which the whole system Earth and its surrounding atmospheric gases are in radiative equilibrium with the incoming energy with the Sun can also be calculated using established thermodynamic theory. This is -18°C to -19°C as IPCC have used in their definition.[/quote]

    Unfortunately this is the same unscientific nonsense I criticized recently on this site.

    Again, you can not make +14°C out of -18°C without a more powerful source of energy, which IS NOT THERE.

    To put it in a more simple way, the warmer surface would radiate more energy away, than is delivered by the Sun, which is impossible because equivalent to creating of energy out of nothing. There is no way around it. This is the explanation, why the established in climate science “greenhouse effect” is impossible. The same goes for other theories we are unfortunately familiar with that “explain” how impossible is possible.

    • Avatar

      Squid2112

      |

      Greg, I think you may be confused here. The -18C is NOT the surface temperature, but the temperature at 5km ABOVE the surface. The +14C is at the surface.

      [quote]The total average equilibrium temperature for the surface plus atmosphere system at -18°C is therefore about [b]5 km above the surface[/b] but at the [b]bottom of the atmosphere the average temperature is +14.5°C.[/b][/quote]

      Which is the very same thing that Joseph Postma has demonstrated as well.

      • Avatar

        Greg House

        |

        Dear Squid2112, you should read their nonsense carefully. But let me try this first. You can say like “-30°C is found Xkm above the surface” or “-40°C is found Ykm above the surface”. SO?

        OK, what you overlooked in the quote above was “in radiative equilibrium with the incoming energy”. This is just another way to say that the Sun can only induce -18°C average temperature. Which brings us to the same (nonsensical) point where the “greenhouse effect” starts. The difference is that climate pros explain that 33°C difference by “back radiation heating” and climate amateurs explain it by creeping heat or pressure or gravity or lapse rate or even (my favorite!) like “a thing can have 2 different temperatures at the same time”. All those explanations are false, because [b]there can not be any difference[/b], either 33°C or 0.001°C (provided the Sun is the only source of heat, of course). Because it violates conservation of energy or is in other words equivalent to production of energy out of nothing.

        • Avatar

          Me again

          |

          Greg: My hypothesis does not violate the First or Second Laws of Thermodynamics. It is developed from those laws. You just don’t understand the process of entropy maximization, which is what the Second Law is all about. Study more carefully what I have explained, because it is correct and it is pointless and unproductive of you to make hand-waving assertive statements to the contrary without any discussion of the correct physics that I have presented.

          The fact is, Greg, that planets do exhibit surface temperatures that are higher than the effective radiating temperature. You are left with no explanation as to how the temperature of the surface of Venus rises by day to compensate for the inevitable cooling at night. In contrast, I have explained it for the first time in world literature.

          It’s all at http://climate-change-theory.com as you know.

        • Avatar

          Squid2112

          |

          Greg, I think you are still misunderstanding. What I quoted you shows that, the -18C is in a different place (altitude) than the 14.5C. The sophists would have you believe that -18C would be at the surface would it not be for the “greenhouse effect”, however, this has been shown to be false and indeed, as you state, sunshine, [b]and sunshine alone[/b], is responsible for 100% of the temperature of the surface. period. And this I would agree with you. The atmosphere does not make our world warmer than it would be otherwise, and in fact, makes it cooler than it would be otherwise. The atmosphere is a cooling effect, not a warming one. And as for Doug and all of his sci-fi gravity, entropy garbage … pfffftt.. He’s still trying to make something out of nothing, just in an obfuscated, convoluted and fancy way, but it is the same bullshit.

          One very simple fact that even Doug cannot get around, is that, in order for molecule (A) to further excite molecule (B), it must already be at a higher energy (or vibrational) state than molecule (B), otherwise, energy transfer is from molecule (B) back to molecule (A). There is no physical way around this. So Doug can play all he wants with his little theories here and there, but the physical world will continue to refute him.

          • Avatar

            Squid2112

            |

            And I wonder how Doug can explain how my skin can get to over 40C while laying in my pool in the bright sunlight. Or how my driveway (concrete) can get so hot that I can’t walk on it with bare feet. After all, the sun, by itself, it not capable of heating my driveway beyond -18C. Seems my feet would freeze, not burn.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            Squid2112, I think you are still ignoring what they are actually saying. As for “the -18C is in a different place (altitude) than the 14.5C” I could not agree with you more and this is not what I dispute.

            So again, the author said [i]”The average temperature at which the whole system Earth and its surrounding atmospheric gases are in radiative equilibrium with the incoming energy with the Sun can also be calculated using established thermodynamic theory. This is -18°C to -19°C as IPCC have used in their definition.”[/i] This is the same -18°C both climate pros and amateurs use when they divide the solar power by 4 and get 239 W/m² and then they put it in the SB formula and get their -18°C. Again, pay attention to the words [b]”in radiative equilibrium with the incoming energy with the Sun”[/b]. You can not just ignore that and keep saying “but this is at a different place!”, this would be irrelevant and pure sophistry, sorry. So, [b]physically [/b]this means, as I said, that the the Sun can only do -18°C.

            This is pure nonsense which can be demonstrated in 2 ways:

            a)by demonstrating that they falsely apply the SB formula. I did that a few times and abandoned it for 2 reasons: they do not get it and it is not so obvious for the general reader.

            b)by demonstrating that they violate the law of conservation of energy. They still won’t get it, but at least it is easily understandable for the general reader.

            So I personally prefer the way (b) and by the way, look, even Doug get it, if you read his comments on this page, he just can not get down from his fence.

          • Avatar

            Retired Physics Educator

            |

            Greg: My hypothesis does not violate the First or Second Laws of Thermodynamics. It is developed from those laws. You just don’t understand the process of entropy maximization, which is what the Second Law is all about. Study more carefully what I have explained, because it is correct and it is pointless and unproductive of you to make hand-waving assertive statements to the contrary without any discussion of the correct physics that I have presented.

            The fact is, Greg, that planets do exhibit surface temperatures that are higher than the effective radiating temperature. You are left with no explanation as to how the temperature of the surface of Venus rises by day to compensate for the inevitable cooling at night. In contrast, I have explained it for the first time in world literature.

            It’s all at http://climate-change-theory.com as you know.

    • Avatar

      Me again

      |

      And what you say, Greg, is correct, and that’s why my hypothesis is the only correct hypothesis, and is, not surprisingly, backed up by copious empirical data and other evidence. It’s all to do with natural convective heat transfers (including diffusion) and not radiation.

      • Avatar

        Greg House

        |

        A little more logic on your side were just fine, Doug. It can not be at the same time that I am correct and your theory is correct, because I said that you theory was incorrect. But never mind, I guess I should lower my expectations, we are dealing with climate science here!

        • Avatar

          Me again

          |

          We are dealing with physics here – entropy – thermodynamics – stuff I’ve been helping my students understand since the mid 1960’s. Most of those involved in the infant science of climatology haven’t a clue about the relevant physics.

          What you said was: [i]the warmer surface would radiate more energy away, than is delivered by the Sun, which is impossible because equivalent to creating of energy out of nothing.[/i]

          Yes, it would be impossible if radiation were the only source of thermal energy input to the surface, which I’m pretty sure was what you were thinking. So your own reasoning is thus along the lines that there appears to be missing energy, and I agree with that.

          That’s why there is a need for the supply of thermal energy being transported by diffusion and natural convective heat transfer (nothing to do with radiation) from the upper troposphere (where some incident solar radiation can actually raise the existing cold temperatures up there) down to the surface in order to restore the state of maximum entropy (thermodynamic equilibrium) that was disturbed by the absorption of new solar energy, perhaps that morning, in the upper troposphere and any clouds.

Comments are closed