CO2 Absorption Spectrum & The Bogus Greenhouse Gas Effect

Written by Dr Gary Novak

There is no valid mechanism for  carbon dioxide (CO2) creating global warming:
1.  Climatologists missed the dilution factor. There are 2,500 air molecules around each CO2 molecule, which means each CO2 molecule must be 2,500°C to heat the air 1°C—an impossibility.

2.  The official science of climatology claims the earth is giving off as much radiation as white hot metals, meaning 79% radiation with the remaining 21% of the energy given off as conduction and evaporation.

3.  The planet is cooled by radiation which goes around ‘greenhouse gases’, not through them.

Absorption Peaks

Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the available black body radiation is picked up by these “fingerprint” frequencies of CO2.

Several decades ago, before global warming was an issue, scientists concluded that carbon dioxide blocked 8% of the infrared radiation from going through the atmosphere. This is consistent with bandwidth. The width of the 15 micron peak is two microns wide from outer edges of shoulders.

The total range of infrared radiation, called black body radiation, is about 100 microns, tapering off after 50 microns. Black body radiation is all infrared radiation given off by matter. It increases with temperature.

 

radiation

 

A measured absorption spectrum is shown here. See an exactly measured 15 micron peak in Heinz Hug’s paper. Heinz Hug showed that carbon dioxide in the air absorbs to extinction at its 15µM peak in about ten meters. This means that CO2 does whatever it’s going to do in that amount of space. Twice as much CO2 would do the same thing in about 5m. There’s no significant difference between 5m and 10m for global warming, because convectional currents mix the air in such short distances.

Attempted Fix

This is nothing new. Climate scientists know that more CO2 does not result in more heat under usual conditions. So the mythologists among them try to salvage the global warming propaganda by pretending that something esoteric occurs higher in the atmosphere. The difference is that the absorption peaks for CO2 separate from the peaks for water vapor. Then supposedly, radiation which misses CO2 does not get picked up by water vapor and travels into outer space; and more CO2 causes less radiation to get missed on the shoulders of the peaks.

Everything about that rationalization stretches reality to a point of misrepresentation. The increase in CO2 levels could only be relevant for the last cycle of absorption near the outer edges of the atmosphere, where there is not enough influence of the lower atmosphere to be significant. But the rationalizers claim it is significant in the mid levels of atmosphere. Not so. Doubling the CO2 would only shorten the distance of radiation travel before total absorption occurs.

What Miniscule Shoulders Mean

This image is the distance infrared radiation travels at the present concentration of CO2 in the air.

distanceThe outer edges of the shoulders of the absorption peaks are said to be unsaturated, because they don’t absorb all radiation available to them. The unsaturated area is virtually nonexistent. The image at right shows how the distance of absorption increases as shoulder molecules get thinner. Where the molecules are one tenth the density, the distance is ten times as much, which is 100 meters. Where the density is one hundredth, the distance is 1,000 meters. Where is the unsaturation supposed to be? Fake equations are contrived to show a result in contradiction to the obvious logic.

The green part of the image is the absorption spectrum superimposed onto the atmospheric effects. The yellow areas on the edges of the shoulders are supposedly where the heat is added to the atmosphere.

The question is phrased in terms of what happens when CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled. Doubling only shortens the distance the radiation travels before being completely absorbed, as shown in the small image.

distanceSpreading miniscule radiation over long distance means the supposed heat is spread extremely thin. It means the effect is ridiculous.

At mid levels of the atmosphere, the center of the peaks would absorb at about 30m instead of 10m, while the shoulders would absorb at about 300m instead of 100m. Reducing those distance by half is not relevant. But just like relativity, if it takes more than a mouthful of arguing to prove them wrong, frauds decree the obfuscation to be fact.

As shown on the page titled “Crunching the Numbers,” the quantities involved are so miniscule as to be totally incapable of causing global warming.

The Fraud

Frauds are creating the impression, and uninformed persons such as Al Gore are assuming, that all of the heat on the planet is bouncing right back on top of everyone due to carbon dioxide. The image above shows what all scientists know—that only the most infinitesimal amount of heat is even in question.

There’s another major reason why the fix is unreal. Supposedly, it is the outer shoulders on the CO2 peaks which are responsible for global warming. Not only is a small percent of the CO2 influenced by the shoulder radiation, but the distance increases for absorption. There is more nitrogen and oxygen per CO2 molecule in this area. Dilution reduces the temperature increase per unit of energy. If there is 5% as much CO2 on the shoulders, it is spread over 20 times as much space in the atmosphere. This means the temperature effect on the shoulders should be multiplied times 5% twice—once for the decrease in amount of CO2 and once for the dilution of the energy in the atmosphere. So much dilution of so few molecules could not be responsible for a significant amount of temperature increase.

The miniscule area of concern on the shoulders of the absorption peak for CO2 is shown on one of Heinz Hug’s graphs.

Most of the infrared radiation in the atmosphere is emitted from the atmosphere, not the ground. Heat causes all matter to emit black body radiation, and this includes the atmosphere. Most climatologists have been adhering to the concept that the radiation emitted high in the atmosphere is most relevant.

The image at right shows what happens to radiation emitted in the atmosphere. It travels a short distance and gets absorbed, when it is of a suitable wavelength. At ground level, the wavelength which is centered on 15 microns travels about 10 meters before getting absorbed by CO2, while nearby wavelengths, between 14 and 16 microns, travel about 100 meters. At the top of the troposphere, the distance is about ten times as much.

When the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is doubled, the distances are reduced to one half, as shown in the right hand portion of the image.

It’s important to realize that climate alarmists are contradicting this concept in pretending that radiation goes through the atmosphere without saturating. If that were true, each dot would be larger than the troposphere, and the edges would extend beyond the troposphere and into the stratosphere.

Pretending that radiation goes through the atmosphere at wavelengths absorbed by CO2 is the most basic fraud of climate alarmists. They apply the Beers-Lambert analysis to the atmosphere pretending to calculate how much energy is held up in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide increases. That type of analysis only applies to purified conditions in a laboratory, where some of the radiation continues to go through the gas. It does not apply to saturation, where all of the radiation gets absorbed in a short distance. So climatologists modified the Beers-Lambert analysis and replaced it with a fudge factor which gives them a similar logarithmic curve and then tacked on a constant which produces the result they want, as described on the page titled Fake Equations.

curve

Ill-Informed Assumption

The assumption of some persons is that shorter distances mean the heat stays in the atmosphere longer before escaping into space. Supposedly, the radiation will be re-emitted and re-absorbed more often, when distances are shorter. But they err in two ways. One is in not taking into account the convection which removes the relevance of short distances. The other is in assuming the direction is toward space.

When radiation is re-emitted in the atmosphere, it moves in all directions. The energy does not move closer to space, because it is not directional. The way heat moves toward the outer atmosphere is either through convectional currents or long wave infrared radiation which is not affected by greenhouse gases.

Here’s how the dynamic works. The IR is emitted from the surface of the earth as black body radiation, which has a wide bandwidth. Then CO2 absorbs a fingerprint set of frequencies, which is 8% of the available black body radiation. As it is absorbed, it is instantly converted into heat (in less than a pico second). The heat is distributed over all molecules in the atmosphere, which means 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen. After some time, an equivalent amount of black body radiation is emitted from everything in the atmosphere, and 8% of it is absorbed by CO2 as fingerprint radiation.

The amount of delay before re-emission determines how much heat is held within the atmosphere. No one knows how much time delay there is, so no one knows how much heat the atmosphere should hold in the processes of releasing it into space. The temperature can be measured, but theory cannot be applied through the fake science and computer models being applied to the subject.

Another ill-informed assumption is that radiation absorbed by CO2 must be re-emitted by CO2 in exactly the same way it was absorbed, because electrons jump to a higher orbit when absorbing and must fall back to a lower orbit when emitting.

Electrons changing orbit does not apply to global warming. Electron orbit shift only applies to things like fluorescence or lasing. Global warming is about so-called finger print radiation being absorbed. This is due to covalent bonds stretching and bending during vibrations, where no electrons shift orbits.

This means that when finger print radiation is absorbed the energy is instantly converted to heat as increased vibration of the molecule. If the energy as heat is re-emitted by transforming into radiation, it is emitted as black body radiation, which all matter emits based on its temperature.

Some supposed experts insist that CO2 will absorb and instantly re-emit at the same wavelength in the atmosphere. They are wrong, but if they were right, it would be irrelevant, because instantly re-emitting at the same wavelength is no different from not absorbing at all. No heat is produced.

Fakes like to make claims of that sort, because there is no detectable difference between it happening and it not happening, so no one can prove them wrong. But then what relevance would it be? Spewing fraud has the purpose of stripping rationality from the subject.

Basic principles create knowledge in science allowing claims and predictions to be accurate without tests. Incompetent persons try to strip knowledge and rationality from science, because it leaves them behind and exposes their corruptness.

Proponents do not have clear explanations for their assumptions. They use computer models and juggle the numbers until they get the results they want

Redirected Radiation

I notice that fakes keep referring to radiation which is directed back to the surface of the earth. Often, the whole concept of how ‘greenhouse gases’ create global warming is described in terms of such radiation being redirected to the surface of the earth.

The concept of redirected radiation is absurd. The wavelengths in question saturate, meaning they get totally absorbed. They can’t travel far enough to get to the surface of the earth, unless they are emitted from air which is very close to the earth’s surface. Such radiation certainly can’t get from the top of the troposphere to the surface of the earth. If ‘greenhouse gases’ are absorbing radiation on its way up, they are going to absorb it on its way down.

The above explanations apply to this. There is no reflection involved. ‘Greenhouse gases’ absorb at one set of wavelengths (fingerprint radiation) and emit at a different set (black body radiation) after some delay.

All matter absorbs and emits black body radiation. This includes the atmosphere and CO2 in the atmosphere. If the earth were giving off significant black body radiation, it would be absorbed by the whole atmosphere, not just the ‘greenhouse gases’, which absorb a small percent of the wavelengths as fingerprint radiation. But the earth only gives up its energy as 1% black body radiation, in my estimate, while fakes say it is 40%. Whatever it is, the matter in the atmosphere will absorb it without ‘greenhouse gases’, but in longer distances. ‘Greenhouse gases’ only shorten the distance that some wavelengths get absorbed.

Saturation makes the entire subject of what ‘greenhouse gases’ do irrelevant. The planet is cooled by radiation which goes around the ‘greenhouse gases’, not through them. Increasing the amount of ‘greenhouse gases’ does nothing. See It’s Like a River, Not a Window.

All biology is on the verge of becoming extinct due to a shortage of carbon dioxide in the air, which is needed for photosynthesis. There was five times as much CO2 in the air during dinosaur years, and twenty times as much when modern photosynthesis began.

 

CO2 History


Background Information:

The fingerprint type of IR absorption is due to stretching and bending of internal bonds. Nitrogen does not do that. But all matter absorbs and emits IR in proportion to its temperature. This is called “black body” radiation. Physicists say all matter has the same characteristics in absorbing and emitting black body radiation, except that the quantitative proportions vary, mostly due to reflection. For nonreflective substances, such as wood and concrete, the percent IR absorbed or emitted (called emissivity or absorptivity) is around 90% of a perfect black body. Metals are good reflectors of IR, so they have an emissivity of around 50%. This means they emit or absorb about 50% of the infrared radiation which contacts them. Kirchhoff’s law says emissivity equals absorptivity, which means everything absorbs and emits black body radiation in the same way.

There is a curve for black body radiation, and it applies to all matter. The curve slides toward higher frequencies for higher temperatures. At earth temperatures (around 300 degrees Kelvin) the black body curve (or Planks curve) peaks at a wavelength of about 10µM. The sides of the curve taper off at about 1µM and 30µM. Visible light is 0.4 to 0.8µM, which is just above the curve for cold black body radiation, but hot objects will radiate into the visible range, which is of course how an incandescent light bulb works. Carbon dioxide has fingerprint peaks at 2.7, 4.3 and 15µM, which are all within the black body radiation curve.

In some quantity, everything in the air including nitrogen and oxygen absorbs and emits black body radiation at frequencies which overlap the frequencies absorbed by CO2. In fact, the only reason why there is IR in the air is because the surface of the earth emits black body radiation in proportion to its temperature. The air then does the same thing at some level.

The question then is, in what quantity is the atmosphere absorbing and emitting black body radiation. The emissivity of nitrogen and oxygen gases should be closed to 100%, since they do not reflect IR significantly. But the larger question is how does the quantity of black body absorption compare to the fingerprint absorption of CO2. Actual measurements and numbers do not seem to exist. So promoters use computer models and pull numbers out of the hat which say increases in CO2 levels will create a global temperature increase of about 6°C. This is about 20% of the 33°C which the atmosphere is said to contribute to the temperature of the globe.

The reason why CO2 absorbs fingerprint radiation but emits almost none, is because all molecules absorb a lot of radiation and emit very little. This is why black asphalt heats in the sun. It absorbs most of the radiation and emits almost none. Radiation leaves almost entirely as black body radiation, because vibration of whole molecules, which creates black body radiation, is vastly greater than vibration within molecules, which creates fingerprint radiation.

There are about 30 times as many water vapor molecules in the air as CO2 molecules, and water vapor has a more effective fingerprint spectrum which is about three times wider than that of CO2. It is also much more variable. This means water vapor will swamp whatever CO2 does. It is obviously not being honest to say CO2 does twenty percent of the heating, when there is a hundred times as much effect by water vapor doing the same thing.


  1. Charney, J. G., Arakawa, A., Baker, D., Bolin, B., Dickerso, R., Goody, R., Leith, C., Stommel, H.M. & Wunsch, C.I. 1979 Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment. Washington, DC. National Academy of Sciences Press.
    http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf

  2. Hansen, J., I. Fung, A. Llacis, D. Rind, S. Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, and P. Stone, 1988. Global Climate Changes as Forcast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Three Dimensional Model. J. Geophys. Res. 93:9341-9364.
    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha02700w.html

  3. Myhre, G., E.J. Highwood, K.P. Shine, and F. Stordal, 1998. New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases. Geophys. Res. Lett. 25:2715-2718.
    http://go.owu.edu/~chjackso/Climate/papers/Myhre_1998_New%
    20eatimates%20of%20radiative%20forcing%20due%20to%
    20well%20mixed%20greenhouse%20gasses.pdf

Read more at nov79.com

Comments (36)

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    Quote: “There are about 30 times as many water vapor molecules in the air as CO2 molecules, and water vapor has a more effective fingerprint spectrum which is about three times wider than that of CO2. It is also much more variable. This means water vapor will swamp whatever CO2 does. It is obviously not being honest to say CO2 does twenty percent of the heating, when there is a hundred times as much effect by water vapor doing the same thing.”
    When I read this, I am led to believe that there is a GHE , but WV is dominant.
    Yet the heading says the the GHE is bogua.
    What am I missing???

    • Avatar

      Al Shelton

      |

      typo; bogus not bogua

      • Avatar

        Squidly

        |

        Personally, I like your new word “bogua” … 🙂

    • Avatar

      John O'Sullivan

      |

      Al, Thanks for noting that. Dr Novak was illustrating an inconsistency in the consensus GHE theory and should probably have specified that he was playing devil’s advocate in that assertion. We may add a clarification.

    • Avatar

      Rosco

      |

      Al Shelton says “When I read this, I am led to believe that there is a GHE , but WV is dominant.
      Yet the heading says the the GHE is bogua.
      What am I missing???”

      You are not missing anything – this whole article is confirming everything that climate scientists claim about the greenhouse effect as shown explicitly in this graph attributed to Perry-

      https://www.dropbox.com/s/heaqk8u2kq7tres/nimbus-satellite-emissions-.jpg?dl=0

      How can the arguments presented in this article do anything other than confirm the author is providing evidence for the greenhouse effect ?

  • Avatar

    GPAltaBob

    |

    What is an “air” molecule?

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    “So promoters use computer models and pull numbers out of the hat which say increases in CO2 levels will create a global temperature increase of about 6°C. This is about 20% of the 33°C which the atmosphere is said to contribute to the temperature of the globe.”

    I have to disagree with this point – you should use Kelvin and a value of about 0.22% for 6°C. You can’t use centigrade – it has negative values.

    Don’t thermal imaging devices dispute your assertions about atmospheric absorption ? It seems IR can travel freely through the atmosphere and produce clear images at distance.

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    I have seldom read a more convincing argument for the radiative greenhouse effect – apparently it may be mostly due to water vapour but it is accepted as real by this article.

    I do however have a problem with several claims:-

    “There is a curve for black body radiation, and it applies to all matter.”

    Nonsense !

    “This is why black asphalt heats in the sun. It absorbs most of the radiation and emits almost none. ”

    Nonsense – ever heard of an IR thermometer ? Ever used one ?

    I said thermal imaging demonstrates a potential dispute to this claim :-

    “At ground level, the wavelength which is centered on 15 microns travels about 10 meters before getting absorbed by CO2”

    This graph

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/heaqk8u2kq7tres/nimbus-satellite-emissions-.jpg?dl=0

    and the associated Planck curves show clearly that the peak emissions from a blackbody at ~30°C occur right in the wavelengths where CO2 absorbs strongly. As is evident a significant amount of radiant energy is not transmitted.

    This article says the distance is ~10 metres at ground level and this is where CO2 concentration is a maximum.

    A human being’s skin temperature is ~30°C and therefore a significant of the radiant energy emitted by a person is allegedly removed within 10 metres at the peak emission bandwidths.

    As such a person should be difficult to distinguish from the background but this is not the case.

    • Avatar

      lifeisthermal

      |

      Absorption of heat in cold surroundings(atmosphere) cools a heat source. Absorption of heat is what should be prevented to retain heat in the heat source.
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation
      “Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”

      Increased absorption=increased heat loss

      Stop arguing that a cold gas can make a heat source warmer. It is ridiculous.

      • Avatar

        Rosco

        |

        Are you implying I am “arguing that a cold gas can make a heat source warmer” ?

        All I am doing is making the argument that publishing articles such as this, which is full of obvious errors, AND giving it a provocative, sarcastic title (designed to cause ridicule to any argument (scientific or otherwise) which is in opposition to the philosophy of this site) is not particularly clever !

        In fact it is downright dumb – because anyone can simply state the article is wrong even if there are some valid points.

        However I always notice very few people can actually provide any real justification for their viewpoint that my criticisms are not appropriate !

        Instead they construct some simplistic statement that they think supports their faith and postulate the ridiculous.

        Just what the hell does thermal insulation have to do with the Earth’s only mechanism of “shedding thermal energy” to space ?

        Increased absorption=increased heat loss ??

        Come on – put your brain into gear !

        You stand in the middle of the Sahara under the Sun in 40°C air temperature and the Increased absorption=increased heat loss ?? WTF ??

      • Avatar

        Rosco

        |

        Sorry – I didn’t read your comment properly originally !

        “Absorption of heat in cold surroundings(atmosphere) cools a heat source. Absorption of heat is what should be prevented to retain heat in the heat source.”

        I don’t even know how to describe your comment – just how is it relevant to anything ?

        I am amazed at how unobservant people commenting here are.

  • Avatar

    tom0mason

    |

    So lets build a computer program to predict weather/climate.

    Do we know all the weather/climate variables? — NO
    Have we quantified all the weather/climate variables? — NO
    Do we know how all the weather/climate variables act and react? –NO
    Do we have all the histories of all weather/climate variables to a good accuracy or precision? — NO

    Can we build a computer program that can accurately simulate the weather/climate?
    NO!

    We can attempt to build one, however I strongly doubt it will be accurate, stable, or in the long term reliable. We (of course) don’t know enough about all the known unknowns, and there is no way of knowing all the unknown unknowns. At least good meteorologist understand that their computer programs are not perfect, climate people have yet to realize that.
    But currently it is politically expedient for politicians to gain power, and for so called ‘climate scientists’ to get well paid jobs just through demonizing CO2, while blaming western life on it’s rise without having the evidence to support such a view.
    How strange the human world is, with it’s astigmatically myopic view of the rest of the planet.

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    Hi Gary,

    “1. Climatologists missed the dilution factor. There are 2,500 air molecules around each CO2 molecule, which means each CO2 molecule must be 2,500°C to heat the air 1°C—an impossibility.”

    Bad argument!!! These same diluted carbon dioxide molecules are the molecules required for all land based plants.

    Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    Joseph Olson

    |

    Wiki/Water_Absorption_Spectrum

    Clearly there are other mechanisms that electron orbit jump involved in ‘absorption’ a misnomer, better described as ‘filtering resonance’, followed in a billionth of a second by a longer wavelength, lower energy emission. Per Wien’s Law, EMR frequency is a function of temperature, for humans at 98.6°F this is 10 microns, for GHG….

    Carbon Dioxide > 2.7 micron (800°C), 4.3 microns (400°C), 14.7 microns (-80°C)

    Methane > 3.3 micron (600°C), 7.7 micron (104°C)

    The only OLR radiation absorption by CO2 and CH4 is at -80°C and impossible to warm anything.

  • Avatar

    John O'Sullivan

    |

    Hopefully Dr Novak will take on board the constructive criticism offered here. It’s the whole point of open discussion.

  • Avatar

    Dr Pete Sudbury

    |

    When every academy of science in the world, over 97% of experts in the field, businesses, insurance companies and all governments except the US one (which is widely regarded as waging war on science) agree that a hypothesis is probably correct with a high degree of certainty, we can be pretty sure that an article claiming to refute it is either a work of genius, or contains some fundamental flaws.
    As someone who would love the whole greenhouse theory to be wrong (not least because I have children who will inherit the mess), I read in hope, but end up disappointed. However, I do learn a lot. Thank you for assisting that.
    Just taking the first 3 statements:
    1. Climatologists missed the dilution factor. There are 2,500 air molecules around each CO2 molecule, which means each CO2 molecule must be 2,500°C to heat the air 1°C—an impossibility.
    2. The official science of climatology claims the earth is giving off as much radiation as white hot metals, meaning 79% radiation with the remaining 21% of the energy given off as conduction and evaporation.
    3. The planet is cooled by radiation which goes around ‘greenhouse gases’, not through them.
    Statement 1 surely omits the crucial factor of “time”: it is probably true that in order for a tiny fraction of the atmosphere to warm the rest by one degree instantaneously, that fraction would have to get very, very hot indeed. However, the earth’s atmosphere as a whole is warming by about 0.15 degree (C) a decade. Defining “instantaneously” as “within 1 second”, and that the temperature difference required for that is approx. 2200K, I worked out that the sustained temperature difference between CO2 molecules and the rest of the atmosphere would only need to be an extra +2.1×10 to the -6 (i.e. 0.0000021 degrees) warmer …and, as others have pointed out, water vapour and other GHGs account for 75% of the observed effect, so it’s even less than that. (that number assumes the atmosphere would otherwise be in equilibrium).
    With number 2, I’m assuming that statement must be nonsensical, simply because, if true, it would be so blindingly obvious that it wouldn’t occur to anyone to include it in any science. I think we have to assume people aren’t completely gaga!
    With number 3. How can any form of radiation “go round” a gas, or a molecule? Surely, it passes through wither interacting, or not interacting. later in the paper, you imply very strongly that it is interacting.
    If you go further down, I’m very confused over whether you agree that 8% of the heat reflected from the earth’s surface is captured by CO2 (which sounds about right: GHGs capture about 30% of the energy emitted, and CO2 is about a quarter of the total effect), or whether its all captured within 10 metres of the surface, with only conduction and convection beyond there. There may be around this by considering the absorption / re-emission in three dimensions: If radiation which would, unhindered, pass straight up through the atmosphere is absorbed, then it will be re-emitted in all directions, including the arc subtending the surface of the earth, so there is an effective increase in the energy received by the earth’s surface. The anthropogenic greenhouse effect is equivalent to 0.8w/sqm across the whole surface of the earth, which is a fraction of a percent of the average insolation (over 300w/sqm). so you’re only looking for a tiny imbalance, and I think adding a third dimension to your modelling gives an idea how that is derived.
    So, alas, what you’ve said, sharpened a bit, demonstrates, quite brilliantly, both how the “greenhouse effect” is plausible and the mechanisms by which it functions.
    Have a great day.

    • Avatar

      John O'Sullivan

      |

      Dr Pete, Your appeal to a discredited and disgraced authority won’t save your climate fraud buddies. This month Dr Tim Ball won the first of two SLAPP lawsuits he defended against former UN IPCC climate ‘scientists’ (sic) (Dr Andrew Weaver, next Mikey Mann). Ball’s lawyers are gearing up to inflict an even more devastating legal defeat against climate criminal, Mann. The whole edifice of climate alarm stems from the corrupt science of a just handful of self-serving government researchers. The rest of the job was completed by groupthink chuckleheads, Check Google Scholar and you will see Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick paper (MBH98) has been cited over 2,000 times (by your ‘experts’). Six years ago Mann’s lawyers threatened to sue me with libel, too – I’m still waiting and laughing. Greenpeace useful idiots like you are a joke.

      • Avatar

        EllBee

        |

        John O’Sullivan – When Justice Skolrood states in his decision, “… despite Dr. Ball’s history as an academic and a scientist, the Article is rife with errors and inaccuracies, which suggests a lack of attention to detail on Dr. Ball’s part, if not an indifference to the truth.” He goes to state, ““the Article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views, including his views of Dr. Weaver as a supporter of conventional climate science.”

        He goes on, “These allegations are directed at Dr. Weaver’s professional competence and are clearly derogatory of him. Indeed, it is quite apparent that this was Dr. Ball’s intent.” And yet again, “It is very unlikely that the Article and the opinions expressed therein had an impact on the views of anyone who read it, including their views, if any, of Dr. Weaver as a climate scientist. Rather, the reasonably thoughtful and informed reader would have recognized the Article as simply presenting one side of a highly charged public debate.”

        But I suppose a Pyrrhic victory is better than none.

        • Avatar

          James McGinn

          |

          JO’S
          The whole edifice of climate alarm stems from the corrupt science of a just handful of self-serving government researchers. The rest of the job was completed by groupthink chuckleheads, Check Google Scholar and you will see Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick paper (MBH98) has been cited over 2,000 times (by your ‘experts’).
          Dr Pete, do you dispute Sullivan’s assertion that Mann’s “hockey stick” paper (MBH98) is fraudulent and that it has been cited over 2,000 times (by your ‘experts’).

          James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
          Explaining The Behavior of Non-Newtonian Fluids
          http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16885

    • Avatar

      jerry krause

      |

      Hi Pete,

      I seem to remember I have before pointed out to you that Richard Feynman taught (The Feynman Lectures on Physics): “Thus Einstein assumed that there are three kinds of processes: an absorption proportional to the intensity of light, an emission proportional to the intensity of light, called induced emission or sometimes stimulated emission, and a spontaneous emission independent of light.” But in case you forgot or ignored, it does hurt to repeat.

      Hence, absorbed photons are not converted to sensible heat, they are emitted.

      Relative to the 97%, this same Einstein has stated: “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.”

      Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        Rosco

        |

        “Hence, absorbed photons are not converted to sensible heat, they are emitted.”

        So it is not possible to heat objects by irradiating them with thermal radiation ? The Sun’s radiation cannot possibly heat the Earth’s biosphere ?

        I’d love to know what you’ve been smoking.

        • Avatar

          jerry krause

          |

          Hi Rosco,

          I have been troubled by your question: “The Sun’s radiation cannot possibly heat the Earth’s biosphere? ”

          What Einstein assumed was a quantum mechanical idea which only applies to small particles of matter like atmospheric matter. What I claim to properly understand is that these ideas do not describe properties of macroscopic particles which are either liquid or solid matter and not gaseous matter.

          I believe, but do not know, you will agree that the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law does not apply to the emission by gas molecules (like atmospheric water molecules) but does apply to the emission from a liquid water or a solid water surface.

          But Einstein clearly states there is a spontaneous emission which does not dependent upon the intensity of light. Which I have other places is the emission that is proportional to the matter’s temperature to which the S-B law describes for solid and liquid surfaces. Which also occurs if there are gas molecules capable of emitting photons. Which requires that the molecule be in an excited state and therefore capable of emitting a photon (energy). But I understand that the population (percentage) of these excited states depends upon temperature, hence their emission depends upon temperature. But the intensity of emission from a given volume of space must also dependent upon the emitting molecules density in this space. So, it is impossible to mathematically describe the spontaneous emission of photons from water molecules in the atmosphere because the density and temperature of these molecules naturally and somewhat randomly vary from one volume of space to the next.

          And I might as well take another step and conclude that the downwelling IR radiation measured at the earth surface is composed of photons emitted or scattered downward by the matter of the atmosphere. But i can show you observation after observation that this downwelling IR radiation has no influence upon the upwelling IR radiation when measured 1.5m above the earth’s surface.

          I will await you response. Thank you for this discussion (not argumentation).

          Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            jerry krause

            |

            In my first sentence there should have been the word–before.

          • Avatar

            ScottM

            |

            “But i can show you observation after observation that this downwelling IR radiation has no influence upon the upwelling IR radiation when measured 1.5m above the earth’s surface.”

            Pure straw man.

            Upwelling IR 1.5 m above the surface is influenced by the surface temperature. The surface temperature adjusts toward an equilibrium point at which radiation inputs and outputs are balanced.

  • Avatar

    Jack Miller

    |

    I am relatively new as a climate realist, I have only just started delving deeper into this area of CO2 radiative greenhouse effect. I thought this article was interesting, but was wondering if it’s possible for the author Dr Gary Novak to respond to Rosco’s comments?

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    I am totally amazed that no-one has even commented on this – doesn’t anyone have any idea about blackbody radiation ?

    Surely anyone with even a passing acquaintance with the concepts can see just how wrong this quote below is ?

    Joseph Olson wrote – February 27 –

    “The only OLR radiation absorption by CO2 and CH4 is at -80°C and impossible to warm anything.”

    Seriously ??

    This is complete NONSENSE !!

    Below are 2 Planck curves which prove this claim is complete nonsense !

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/6nw6z9t8vroe0ss/Wavenumber.png?dl=0

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/6l4t8pviwujoqp0/Wavelength.png?dl=0

    As is clearly evident in both of these plots of Planck curves the energy emitted at wavenumber 666 – the centre of the CO2 ansorption bandwidth (the devil’s number ?) – increases dramatically as the temperature increases from 254 K to 394 K.

    In fact the emissions are much higher than the PEAK emissions for the lower temperatures even though they do not coincide with the peak for the 394 K curve.

    Does everyone agree that CO2 would NOT absorb these large quantities of radiant energy in the bandwidths centred around 666 per cm ?

    Surely anyone with even a passing acquaintance with the concepts of blackbody radiation can see just how wrong this is ?

    And yet not a whisper from anyone ?

    666 per cm is 15.015 microns for those who do not know how to transform between the various units.

    There is also something glaringly obvious in these plots that no-one has even mentioned.

  • Avatar

    Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE

    |

    Field Trip Report

    While attending the CSASTRO meeting held at the Colorado Springs Space Foundation Discovery Center last night a couple of exhibits caught my eye.

    There is a mockup of the Manned Maneuvering Unit used on three space shuttle missions for free floating space walks. The late Bruce McCandless was pictured in several recent news articles floating in space in a MMU. I understand the MMU was abandoned as too risky, a failure and the astronaut is screwed. Too bad they weren’t as cautious about SRM O-rings and loose foam insulation blocks.

    A nearby descriptive panel highlights some of the major MMU systems including a cooling system. If outer space is cold, why is a cooling system needed? Why not a heating system?

    Close by stands a glass case with a mannequin clothed in long underwear interwoven with coolant tubing, the first layer of a lunar excursion outfit. A placard nearby explains this cooling is needed because the airless surface of the moon is 253 F (122.7 C, 395.7 K).

    Typical diurnal range of the Moon’s equatorial surface temperature according to Diviner radiometric data is 390 K to 93 K (297 C range) with an average of 213 K. (https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723)

    The ISS has not one, but a redundant pair of ammonia refrigerant cooling, chilling, air conditioning systems. Without thermal controls, the temperature of the orbiting ISS sun lit side would soar to 250 degrees F (121 C, 394 K). (https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar_1/)

    According to Radiative Green House Effect theory the surface of the earth at 288 K is 33 C warmer than the earth without an atmosphere at 255 K. (https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/predictedplanetarytemperatures.html)

    The physical evidence presented above suggests that, because of an airless 0.12 albedo, the earth is 93.7 C cooler with an atmosphere than without (381.7 K w/o – 288 K w/).

    What this discussion presents is actual, real, physical, measured evidence that clearly refutes, falsifies RGHE theory and the man caused climate change, CAGW, Anthropocene house of cards, Jenga blocks, dominoes pseudo-science nonsense stacked upon it.

    • Avatar

      Rosco

      |

      Well Done.

      Just as their stupid space is cold meme when the space at Earth’s orbit is continuously subject to 1367 W/m2 solar radiation !

      The only time I’ve ever hear of a volume with a continuous flux capable of boiling water
      traversing it described as cold is when I listen to climate “scientists” !

    • Avatar

      ScottM

      |

      Did you forget the factor of 1/4 on radiation that is due to the approximately spherical shape of the planet?

      On Earth, what would, without an atmosphere, be a deadly temperature at noon on the equator gets moderated by atmospheric circulation.

      The Moon doesn’t have an atmosphere to redistribute the heat. Therefore temperatures will rise very high when the Sun is directly overhead (and the factor doesn’t apply). Meanwhile, near the poles and near the terminator, a square meter of surface intercepts only a small fraction of a square meter’s worth of solar flux, but it still radiates as one square meter. Such a tract of land won’t need a high temperature to achieve equilibrium. So the lunar surface will have some very hot spots, but the majority of that surface will be cool or cold. Such a high temperature in one spot doesn’t imply that the lunar average would be more than 255 K.

      Likewise for an astronaut’s suit or the surface of a space vehicle. The areas normal to the Sun’s radiation will get quite hot.

      • Avatar

        Rosco

        |

        “Did you forget the factor of 1/4 on radiation that is due to the approximately spherical shape of the planet?”

        I’m not sure what you are implying.

        The solar radiation incident normal to a square metre of the Earth’s surface is a determined by geographical location and time of day.

        As the Sun is far enough away the radiation is considered to be parallel for calculation purposes.

        Thus at the equinox the solar radiation incident normal to a square metre is the TOA value times the cosine of the latitude at noon.

        At sunrise it is this value (Cos latitude) times the sine of the sun’s position above the horizon.

        Obviously an atmosphere reduces these calculated values.

        But these calculations are right and tables for all locations, times of day and season are used by the solar industry to calculate the expected yield of solar panels fitted to your home for example.

        Note these calculations take no note of the 1/4 value your talk about.

        Now you correctly state that without an atmosphere Earth’s surfaces would be very hot at noon.

        Similarly any of the higher latitudes would be less hot at the equinox – but even at 70°N the maximum insolation at noon could be as high as ~466 W/m2 – equivalent to a SB calculated temperature of ~301 K or ~28°C. In summer it would be significantly higher, in winter significantly lower.

        You have to travel to ~80°N before the normal insolation at noon drops to the level where the SB calculated temperature is ~255 K or the famous (in ?) minus 18°C.

        At the poles it is effectively zero insolation because as we all know cos 90 = 0 but Earth’s axial tilt ensures this situation exists for only part of the year.

        But if you are claiming the nonsense that the solar insolation is calculated by taking one quarter of the solar constant then you supporting junk science !

        If you support the 1/4 “factor” then tell me what is wrong with these :-

        https://www.dropbox.com/s/6i0ho5mntii2571/Inverse%20Square%20Page%201.jpg?dl=0
        https://www.dropbox.com/s/s5a2vmylehpls3d/Inverse%20Square%20Page%202.jpg?dl=0

        It is interesting that the values chosen as insolation by climate “scientists” are inconsistent with the rest of physics.

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    Response to Jerry Krause February 28, 2018 at 11:00 pm.

    Hi Jerry – I did this because the format for replies ends up looking like Twiggy.

    I don’t believe ANY real object obeys the Stefan-Boltzmann law other than in very few constrained circumstances.

    This is where climate scientists have it completely wrong – they apply the Stefan-Boltzmann law as if it is the “be-all and end-all” of all science. They torture it through absurd algebraic manipulation that defies all logic.

    This is why I keep attacking this subject – I’m trying to get some discussion on “their science” and show how simple it is to debunk with REAL science – not absurd half-truths, incorrect science or analogy.

    The Stefan-Boltzmann law simply says that at a particular temperature scientists observed and made very careful measurements of the radiation emitted from the cavity oven experiments.

    The cavity oven experiments were designed to exclude any ambient environmental radiation considerations. Through the construction of the cavity ovens any ambient radiation entering the oven had ~zero chance of exiting and hence became part of the radiation internal field.

    For simplicity they called this blackbody radiation because all radiation entering the cavity was “trapped” – it emitted no light other than what resulted from the internal temperature.

    But people have gone insane over the concept and make all sorts of stupid assertions about blackbody radiation !

    Thus by virtue of the experiments we know that the radiation emitted from the cavity ovens has the following properties :-

    Wien established that as the temperature increased the peak emissions shifted to shorter wavelengths. He was able to establish a linear relationship and calculate a constant.
    Stefan noted that it was possible to calculate a relationship between the fourth power of temperature and total power emitted by an exhaustive process. Boltzmann derived a similar relationship theoretically – hence the modern name.

    3 Many tried to derive a relationship between the radiant emission and wavelength or frequency. Most failed spectacularly.

    Planck abandoned everything he had learnt about classical physics to postulate the quantum idea. His equation was the only one to completely describe the emissions from the experiments.

    But it simplicity itself to debunk most of the claims of climate “science’s” radiative equilibrium hypothesis and all of the mathematics built upon it in all of the climate models which are the ONLY “evidence” they have – and it is all nonsense !

    Every substance on Earth has different characteristics. Some have a very low specific heat whilst others have high values. All have different conductivity and emissivity properties.

    All of the people who argue the “radiative equilibrium” hypothesis claim than any radiation incident upon any object is absorbed and simply MUST increase its temperature.

    I say absolute bullshit !

    There are countless irrefutable scientific facts that totally destroy this claim and I’ll name just a few :-

    Everything has a melting point and boiling point (OK some gases sublimate) and pressure characteristics and you can throw as much energy at them and they do not increase in temperature until the process completes.

    Liquids increase in temperature to a point where they begin to change viscosity without increasing in temperature.

    Gases cannot possibly obey Stefan’s law – they do not emit anything resembling the complete spectra of blackbody radiation but emit line spectra. To apply an equation describing a complete continuous spectrum to substances which only emit line spectra seems the height of absurdity to me !

    Hottel demonstrated that gases do not obey the Stefan-Boltzmann with empirical evidence – see these charts where the emissivity of both water vapour and CO2 decreases as temperature increases. If they emit les as they get hotter they defy Stefan’s law !

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/1afsawnuitduaas/Emissivity%20of%20Gases.png?dl=0

    I’ve been trying to get people to understand Planck curves for themselves because Planck’s equation links all the radiation laws.

    Wien’s law is derived by differentiating Planck’s equation and setting this to zero to find the paek of the curve.

    The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is derived by integrating Planck’s equation.

    People who ascribe to the “radiative equilibrium” hypothesis are really claiming the radiative emissions define the temperature when it is clearly the temperature that defines the radiative emissions – they have it totally backwards.

    But Planck curves ensure you cannot venture down this insane pathway but the Stefan-Boltzmann equation provides very little information of any value because it has absolutely no way to determine the spectral properties of any radiative flux !

    Only Planck’s equation is capable of that !

    Here are two different Planck curves showing the impossibility of determining reality using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation alone.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/9iyl7g2fzyxnald/P-net%20-%201.png?dl=0

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/cfm21qwg846iu5m/P-net%20-%202.png?dl=0

    In the first one 239.7 W/m2 is the area under the 254 K curve and it is also the “net” between the 303 K curve and the 254 K curve but people use these in algebraic manipulations as if they are the same thing which is nonsense.

    And the P(net) in the second link is also 239.7 W/m2 yet it obviously has zero similarities to either of the 239.7 W/m2 values in the first figure.

    And I have already demonstrated that the method used in climate “science” to sum radiative fluxes and calculate temperatures for the sum is wrong:-

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/4f2eu2mfed3u1zi/239.7%20%2B%20239.7.png?dl=0

    As can be seen the sum 239.7 W/m2 + 239.7 W/m2 may well equal 479.4 but you can’t get the right answer of a temperature of 303 Kelvin using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation because the green curve representing this algebraic manipulation is not a Planck curve ! Therefore whatever equation defines this curve will not have the necessary relationship to blackbody radiation and the algebraic sum is therefore invalid !

    You can see the mathematical proof of this in the link under the “PROM” section – “Back Radiation Greenhouse Effect of 33 Kelvin Possible ?”.

    This is the fight to take to them – their maths and physics are just wrong !

      • Avatar

        jerry krause

        |

        The immediately previous comment was so how sent before I added any of my comments.
        This more product information from Apogee Instruments: Apogee SI series infrared radiometers are calibrated to the temperature of a custom blackbody cone held at multiple fixed temperatures over a range of radiometer (detector/sensor body) temperatures. The temperature of the blackbody cone is measured with replicate precision thermistors thermally bonded to the cone surface. The precision thermistors are calibrated for absolute temperature measurement against a platinum resistance thermometer (PRT) in a constant temperature bath. The PRT calibration is directly traceable to the NIST.

        I neither sets of information do I see any mention of cavity ovens which I suspect, but do not know are used when radiation emitted from much hotter surfaces than ambient environmental surfaces are being measured.

        Long ago I read that a cone, as being described, is a good approximation for the theoretical black body. So I accept the Apogee instruments perform as advertised and I cannot accept that you can ignore what is measured, as it seems you do.

        Also, I have a brief study ready for posting by John, it he willing, but it will not be submit for a while because I writing a series of short essays which is titled
        Problem–Earth Surface Temperature Measurement–Part 1, 2, 3, etc.

        So I have nothing else to say about what you have just written until I get to the study which has already been written..

        Have a good day, Jerry

        • Avatar

          Rosco

          |

          I mentioned the cavity oven experiments of the nineteenth century because they provided the empirical measurements that lead to the formulation of the radiative science “laws” which we call blackbody radiation.

          You asked me a simple question – did I believe the SB law applies to gases ?

          I simply expressed the fact that what we call blackbody radiation is a continuous spectra emitted from the cavity oven experiments.

          I know there are no gases that emit continuous spectra hence to apply equations derived from the emission of continuous spectra to substances that do not is clearly wrong.

          Hence I don’t get why you are talking about calibration of an instrument.

          I do not believe the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and the algebraic manipulations used in climate science are mathematically valid or universal.

          There are countless examples where everyday objects do not follow the implied applications of the Stefan-Boltzmann law – phase changes are one example as are Hottel’s measurements of emissivity of CO@ and water vapour.

          Do I believe the SB law etc. can be used to manufacture precision measuring equipment – of course I do !

          Do I believe emissivity as is regularly quoted – ie a fraction of the total emissive power – is a correct term in strict mathematical analysis – probably not !

          Do I believe an emissivity factor can be applied to measuring equipment – of course I do as it is based on countless empirical observations !

          I don’t deny reality.

    • Avatar

      jerry krause

      |

      Hi Rosco,

      Emissivity Correction
      Appropriate correction for surface emissivity is required for accurate surface temperature measurements. The simple (and
      commonly made) emissivity correction, dividing measured temperature by surface emissivity, is incorrect because it does not
      account for reflected infrared radiation.
      The radiation detected by an infrared radiometer includes two components: 1. radiation directly emitted by the target
      surface, and 2. reflected radiation from the background. The second component is often neglected. The magnitude of the
      two components in the total radiation detected by the radiometer is estimated using the emissivity (ε) and reflectivity (1 – ε)
      of the target surface:
      ( ) ESensor ETarg et 1 EBackground = ε ⋅ + − ε ⋅ (1)
      where ESensor is radiance [W m-2 sr-1
      ] detected by the radiometer, ETarget is radiance [W m-2 sr-1
      ] emitted by the target surface,
      EBackground is radiance [W m-2 sr-1
      ] emitted by the background (when the target surface is outdoors the background is generally
      the sky), and ε is the ratio of non-blackbody radiation emission (actual radiation emission) to blackbody radiation emission at
      the same temperature (theoretical maximum for radiation emission). Unless the target surface is a blackbody (ε = 1; emits
      and absorbs the theoretical maximum amount of energy based on temperature), Esensor will include a fraction (1 – ε) of
      reflected radiation from the background.

  • Avatar

    Tommy Makua

    |

    Beneficial writing! A lot more webmasters had the main perusing. I hope to share a great deal more of your stuff. In my opinion , you might fantastic awareness together with idea. My business is really galvanized this particular resources.

Comments are closed