Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
Introduction: Traditional anthropogenic theory of currently observed global warming states that release of carbon dioxide into atmosphere (partially as a result of utilization of fossil fuels) leads to an increase in atmospheric temperature because the molecules of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) absorb the infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface.
This statement is based on the Arrhenius hypothesis, which was never verified (Arrhenius, 1896). The proponents of this theory take into consideration only one component of heat transfer in atmosphere, i.e., radiation. Yet, in the dense Earth’s troposphere with the pressure p a > 0:2 atm, the heat from the Earth’s surface is mostly transferred by convection (Sorokhtin, 2001a). According to our estimates, convection accounts for 67{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}, water vapor condensation in troposphere accounts for 25{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}, and radiation accounts for about 8{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the total heat transfer from the Earth’s surface to troposphere. Thus, convection is the dominant process of heat transfer in troposphere, and all the theories of Earth’s atmospheric heating (or cooling) first of all must consider this process of heat (energy)– mass redistribution in atmosphere (Sorokhtin, 2001a, 2001b; Khilyuk and Chilingar, 2003, 2004).
When the temperature of a given mass of air increases, it expands, becomes lighter, and rises. In turn, the denser cooler air of upper layers of troposphere descends and replaces the warmer air of lower layers. This physical system (multiple cells of air convection) acts in the Earth’s troposphere like a continuous surface cooler. The cooling effect by air convection can surpass considerably the warming effect of radiation.
The most important conclusion from this observation is that the temperature distribution in the troposphere has to be close to adiabatic because the air mass expands and cools while rising and compresses and heats while dropping. This does not necessarily imply that at any particular instant distribution of temperature has to be adiabatic. One should consider some averaged distribution over the time intervals of an order of months.
Download PDF
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Andy Rowlands
| #
Excellent article. Am I right in thinking CO2 is used to cool some cutting machines in industry? If that’s so, it is another bit of proof CO2 cannot cause atmospheric warming.
Reply
richard
| #
We know short wave IR does not heat the air-
Short wave heaters-
“Infrared is the direct transfer of heat from the heater to the object (you and the room around you) without heating the air in between”
Longwave-
Long Wave Heating
“Long wave heaters are highly unsuitable for outdoor heating as the heat emitted is susceptible to air movement and is easily affected by the wind, thereby warming the air instead of penetrating through it and warming the person. Only 40% of the energy of a long wave heater is emitted as heat, and so 60% of its energy is used to heat the surrounding space, resulting in the long wave heaters being the least efficient type of infrared heaters. Solaira currently does not engineer products with long wave heating”
If even from a heater to the person the longwave is “susceptible to air movement and is easily affected by the wind” there is no way longwave radiation reflects back to earth.
Reply
geran
| #
Richard, I know the point you are trying to make, but you are leaving yourself open to attack from Warmists.
Longwave infrared DOES arrive Earth’s surface from the atmosphere. It can be seen on a spectrometer.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022407315300340
Downwelling IR exists, but the energy is so low that it could not raise surface temperatures, even if it were absorbed.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran,
Where do you state Downwelling IR in terms of W/m^2? I can’t find it. I can’t find any sensible way to compare their findings to anything else.
Reply
geran
| #
Zoe, DWIR is typically measured in W/m^2, if I understand your question.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Yes, and what number do they get?
geran
| #
Usually they indicate about 300-350 W/m^2. Here’s one example
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmchem/docs/DEPSCOR_progreport_9_13_07.pdf
Zoe Phin
| #
Perfect.
Even though Downwelling IR can only come from IR-absorbing gases, and the most they can absorb is ~155 W/m^2, they claim double that.
It just goes to show that there can’t be Downwelling IR, and it’s really Upwelling-from-Pyrgeometer IR.
The instrument sends radiation, not vice versa.
geran
| #
I’m sorry Zoe, but none of that makes sense.
Let’s take it one small point at a time.
All matter emits photons, based on its temperature.
The atmosphere contains matter.
The atmosphere emits entirely in the infrared.
That’s how Earth cools itself.
Some of the emitted photons are directed back to Earth.
There are instruments to measure these photons (flux).
I’m not saying that the infrared from the atmosphere can warm the planet–it can’t. But, the flux is real. It is just unable to cause warming.
That’s why I use the example of ice. Ice emits about 300 W/m^2. It can be measured. It is real. But, you can not warm your room in winter with blocks of ice. Only pseudoscience clowns believe such nonsense:
https://principia-scientific.com/taller-tower-test-exposes-co2-back-radiation-nonsense/#comment-26845
Zoe Phin
| #
“All matter emits photons, based on its temperature.”
No evidence of that.
“Some of the emitted photons are directed back to Earth.
There are instruments to measure these photons (flux).”
These instruments beed to be super cooled to receive these photons. Which means they are not sent to a warmer surface.
geran
| #
“No evidence of that.”
Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of particles in matter. All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation
“These instruments need to be super-cooled to receive these photons. Which means they are not sent to a warmer surface.”
About $60 at most box stores. Measures IR just fine, no super-cooling needed.
http://www.southwiretools.com/tools/tools/31030S
.
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran,
According to Gavin Schmidt, lead of NASA GISS, GHGs can only emit 155 W/m^2. So how can a device measure over 300 W/m^2?
Your $60 device doesn’t measure Downwelling IR, only Net Upwelling IR. The device sends radiation to the sky, and registers a negative voltage, then subtracts that from temperature sensor.
No downwelling IR is actually measured – except if you have a super cooled instrument.
geran
| #
“According to Gavin Schmidt…”?!?!?!
Zoe, are you going to resort to using Gavin Schmidt as a credible source?
I could ask where he indicated “GHGs can only emit 155 W/m^2”, but let’s not go down that rabbit trail yet. Let’s stick with the logical resolution of the points. Do you now agree that: “All matter emits photons, based on its temperature.”
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran,
As you well know, alarmists believe in the greenhouse effect, i.e. the difference between 390 and 235 W/m^2 = 155 W/m^2.
That’s what they believe. If that’s what they believe then they can not, at the same time, believe GHGs can emit over 300 W/m^2.
“Do you now agree that: “All matter emits photons, based on its temperature.””
I always did. I just went a few steps ahead. O2 and N2 are very weak, somewhere around 1/750th as powerful as CO2.
There’s no way to explain over 300 W/m^2 of Downwelling IR. Therefore it doesn’t exist. QED
geran
| #
So that’s where you got the “155”.
But, it’s pseudoscience. You cannot subtract fluxes. The 155 is bogus, so it should have no impact on your reasoning. It helps me to understand where you get your ideas.
Continuing on, you agree that All matter emits photons, based on its temperature.
Do you also agree that The atmosphere contains matter.
Zoe Phin
| #
It may be bogus, but that’s the point.
Alarmists believe that GHGs add 155 W/m^2 and >300 W/m^2 at the same time.
“Continuing on, you agree that All matter emits photons, based on its temperature.”
Of course I do, but unless alarmists can explain their contradictory beliefs using emission from other substances, they are exposed as contradictory. In other words if 155 + (something else) >= 300 then at least their pseudoscience is coherent.
But it’s not coherent even by their standards. QED
geran
| #
You are confused by the pseudoscience. The “155” is the difference between 390 and 235, as you indicated.
390 – 235 = 155
But, 155 is NOT the back-radiation. The 390 is the BB flux from a surface at 288 K. The 235 is the BB flux from a surface at 255 K. Both figures are derived from imaginary objects. So the “net” is meaningless, as in “bogus”.
The actual radiation from the atmosphere is REAL. All matter emits. But just because infrared is emitted, that does not mean it will be absorbed. Thermalization only happens after absorption. The sky definitely emits infrared, but the sky can NOT warm the surface.
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran,
Maybe you are confused by the pseudoscience?
“The actual radiation from the atmosphere is REAL.”
Lifeisthermal that it’s REAL only to a super cooled instrument. You don’t have any evidence without a measured spectrum.
“All matter emits.”
Yes, but only in the direction of heat flow, i.e. to outer space.
“The sky definitely emits infrared, but the sky can NOT warm the surface.”
There is no evidence that the sky emits to the surface, except to 4K instruments.
The GH effect hypothesis states that GHGs absorb about half the outgoing radiation and sends it back down. 155 is closer to half of 235 then >300. Don’t you think?
geran
| #
“You don’t have any evidence without a measured spectrum.”
Zoe, the atmosphere emits in all directions. It can be measured several ways. Did you fail to check out the link to a simple handheld IR thermometer?
“Yes, but only in the direction of heat flow, i.e. to outer space.”
“Heat” flows from hot to cold, but emitted photons can travel in any direction. You appear to be confusing “heat” with “emitted energy”.
“There is no evidence that the sky emits to the surface, except to 4K instruments.”
The sky emits in all directions. Are you, AGAIN, confusing “heat” with “emitted energy”? Did you, AGAIN, fail to understand the link to a simple handheld IR thermometer?
“The GH effect hypothesis states that GHGs absorb about half the outgoing radiation and sends it back down.”
The atmosphere gets the vast majority of its warmth from the surface. The atmosphere then emits in all directions. The energy returned to Earth does not have the ability to increase surface temperatures. But, it is REAL. It can be measured.
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran,
It looks like you ignored what I said about your $60 IR thermometer.
I’ll repeat: ”
Your $60 device doesn’t measure Downwelling IR, only Upwelling-from-device IR. The device sends radiation to the sky, and registers a negative voltage, then subtracts that from temperature sensor.”
“But, it is REAL. It can be measured.”
No. You’re confusing Downwelling IR (which doesn’t exist) with Upwelling-from-device IR, which does exist.
“but emitted photons can travel in any direction”
No. They can’t travel up the gradient of photon pressure. The surface emits serious photon pressure that can’t be overcome by atmo molecules.
A 4°K instrument does not emit serious photon pressure, and so it can receive atmo photons.
geran
| #
Zoe, all that is just silly.
It doesn’t even deserve a response.
We’re not making progress here, so it’s time to say adios. You’re as obsessed with entering comments as you are with avoiding reality, so you can have the last word.
Until you can appreciate facts and logic, I’ll just sit back and enjoy your hilarious pseudoscience.
Go for it.
Herb Roser
| #
Hi Geran,
Both you and Zoe ignore the obvious error in your arguments. If the Earth is radiating heat into space through the atmosphere how can the temperature decrease through the troposphere, increase through the stratosphere, decrease in the mesosphere, then increase in the thermosphere? When an object radiates heat the heat decreases with distance. It doesn’t do gyrations. What is the source of energy at 50 km that is heating the atmosphere.
You both accept that the temperature gives the mean kinetic energy of the molecules being measured with no evidence to support that belief. The molecules of 0 C water have more kinetic energy than the molecules of 0 C ice. The molecules of 100 C steam have more kinetic energy than the molecules of 100 C water
A thermometer does not give an accurate indication of kinetic energy. You can demonstrate this by exposing more of the mercury in a thermometer to boiling water than just the bulb. The thermometer will show a temperature greater than 100 C even though the mean kinetic energy of the water molecules cannot be greater than 100 C. A thermometer records the total kinetic energy flowing to the measuring medium, not the mean kinetic energy.
To get a comparison of the kinetic energy of the molecules in the atmosphere you must divide the temperature at an altitude by the density of the molecules at that altitude.to get the kinetic energy for a constant number of molecules (constant mass). When this is done the crazy curve of the measured temperature is replaced with a constantly increasing curve showing the source of heat for the Earth is the sun and it is the atmosphere that is absorbing and radiating the energy from the sun.
Herb
geran
| #
Hi Roser,
Somehow all of your mistakes cancelled and you got to the correct answer: “The Sun heats the surface and the surface heats the atmosphere.”
“Serendipity”, I think it’s called….
richard
| #
Probably best to contact the company that makes the $60 device and ask then what it can and cannot measure.
geran
| #
The facts are readily available to those that seek facts.
https://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/Measuring%20the%20Temperature%20of%20the%20Sky%20and%20Clouds.pdf
Unfortunately Richard, many are repelled by facts, because facts conflict which their false beliefs.
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran,
The FACT is that you don’t understand what a thermocoupler device like a pyrgeometer or regular IR thermometer measures.
I explain here:
https://i.ibb.co/H4tHRrk/geothermal.png
Although I apply it to boreholes, same holds true for anywhere on the surface.
There is no double IR flow DEAD-ENDS.
There is no Downwelling IR. Your “Downwelling” IR is nothing more than Upwelling-from-measuring-instrument IR.
Herb,
We use two completely different types of thermometers for the troposphere and layers above. Until you understand that, there is no reason to discuss anything with you.
richard
| #
No, what does the company that make them say?
Zoe Phin
| #
you = they
Reply
richard
| #
“there is no way longwave radiation reflects back to earth” causing warming
Reply
geran
| #
MUCH better!
Perfect.
🙂
Reply
lifeisthermal
| #
So, I found this about Far Infrared Spectrometers(FIRST):
“The detectors are cooled to 4.2 K”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228354819_First_light_from_the_Far-Infrared_Spectroscopy_of_the_Troposphere_FIRST_instrument
This means that the Spectrometer doesn’t measure what’s received by a ~288K surface, it measures what’s received by a 4.2K surface. Those measurements actually prove that there’s no DLR from a cold atmosphere, because you can’t measure the DLR without cooling to a much lower temperature than the surface. There is no transfer of energy from low T to high T.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Your article measures upwelling ir.
Can we be certain that the downwelling ir is also measured by instrument cooled to 4K?
Reply
lifeisthermal
| #
I just searched for FIRST-detectors, which is what was used in Geran’s link.
Surface measurements which give actual readings of atmospheric radiation always use sensors cooled to cryogenic temperatures. Another detector used on Antarctica, AERI, is also cooled:
“Two detectors are used, an HgCdTe and an InSb, cooled to cryogenic temperatures”
https://www.ssec.wisc.edu/aeri/
And as most people should know by now, pyrgeometers doesn’t measure any DLR:
“By also measuring its own temperature and making some assumptions about the nature of its surroundings it can infer a temperature of the local atmosphere with which it is exchanging radiation.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgeometer
They only infer a temperature of the lowest 25m of the atmosphere from the rate of heat loss (cooling of) in the sensor.
geran
| #
The fact that cooling is required relates to absorption. Downwelling IR is there, but it may not be absorbed.
THAT is the big gorilla in the room the Warmists want to ignore.
Zoe Phin
| #
I think lifeisthermal has done a good job proving there is no DLR – except to specially cooled instruments.
Geran, this also disproves crackpot Norman, who believes energy flows two ways.
If it did flow two ways, then why spend money on specially cooled instruments?
geran
| #
Zoe, I addressed that here:
https://principia-scientific.com/cooling-of-atmosphere-due-to-co2-emission/#comment-27052
Including mentioning the crackpot Norman!
Al Shelton
| #
Richard…
Thanks for that.
I presume that outdoor patio heaters at the sports bars are short wave…???
One would think so…
Reply
richard
| #
yes I believe so-
https://www.herschel-infrared.co.uk/what-is-infrared-heat/
Reply
richard
| #
“Solaira Emitter Lamps
Short wave high intensity quartz heaters work like sunshine, with no pre-heating time and are able to provide instantaneous heat, ideal for commercial, hospitality and outdoor heating. Short wave heaters warm people and objects within the beam rather than the air, resulting in a comfortable environment. ‘
Reply
tom0mason
| #
By observations only it would appear that any CO2 warming effect on the atmosphere is lost in the thermal noise of all the other atmospheric processes available in the atmosphere (convection, changes of phase of water, etc. see http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_anomalies.html#P1 for more).
Besides from about 1850, and the end of the Little Ice Age, until now the planet has only warmed by 1°C, and that is well within the normal range for natural variation. 1°C in 169 years! So consider that if (as a gross over-estimate) 1/4 to 1/5 of all that warming was due to CO2, then it is very, very poor heater of the atmosphere.
Since about 1700 something else has been steadily rising —
http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%20LeanUntil2000%20From2001dataFromPMOD.gif
Reply
lifeisthermal
| #
If you look at the spectrum from space in this link:
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html
You can see that co2 has an intensity of emission at the same level as a blackbody at ~220K, while sitting in an environment with average temperature ~255K. The “bite” in the spectrum indicates heavy absorption, pretty impressive for only 4/10000 of the molecules. So, co2 absorbs shitloads of heat in the atmosphere with average T=~255K, but still behaves like a 220K blackbody. This means that co2 keeps temperature down, it’s a coolant for a narrow band of wavelengths, but it looks like an effective coolant. It takes away the peak intensity of surface emission with strong attenuation. The weird thing is that such spectrums are used by alarmists as an argument for heating. It’s said that the “bite” shows retained heat, which is ridiculous. If something is warming, it’d show a spike above the smooth blackbody-curve of surface emission, since warming is an increase in intensity(area under curve). A decrease in intensity always means cooling.
Even if they were right, OLR hasn’t decreased like the alarmists predict from the greenhouse-hypothesis.
While co2 levels rose from 320 to ~400ppm since the seventies , the OLR-intensity is higher now than back then. And it was higher in the seventies than big parts of that period. This actually falsifies the concept “radiative forcing”, because OLR behaves in exactly opposite way than their predictions. Also, that graph shows a remarkably stable system temperature.
https://www.americanwx.com/bb/topic/18750-satellitenoaa-measurements-of-outgoing-lw-radiationregarding-agw-things-just-dont-add-up/
That graph agrees well with Phil Jones estimate of absolute global temperature:
“The absolute surface temperature of the world is likely to be between 13.7 and 14.0°C for the 1961–1990 period and 13.9 and 14.2°C for 1981–2010. The spatial detail reveals that most of this difference comes from Antarctica and to a lesser extent Greenland”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50359
I guess Phil did at least one good thing at the end of his career. His analysis of absolute average global temperature brings up some questions. As you can see there’s no global warming in absolute average temperature, in contrast to anomalies. If you do a straight average from raw data the warming doesn’t exist. It’s only max 0.2°C which is limited to two volcanically active areas, Antarctica and Greenland. This supports my conclusion, that with constant heat source power in a long running steady state where transients have played out its roles a long, long time ago, there cannot be any rising temperature. The system has optimized it’s heat flow over long time, it’s as warm as it can get. And a maximized steady state is extremely stable. It will only oscillate within fixed limits set by TSI and total OLR, which can be illustrated in the SB-transfer equation:
TSI-4σ255⁴=σ(393.6⁴-4*255⁴)=σ290⁴
Incoming heat flow minus total outgoing energy sets the limits and the result is what’s in between, σT⁴_surface. An optimized steady state must always be instantaneously balanced with average flows, time has no role to play in a system billions years old.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Nice theory!
Reply
tom0mason
| #
The basic problem is that most people are FIXATED on CO2. It’s NOT the answer!
This planet’s surface is 2/3 water. How does the sun warm the water? It does it via the action of UV not IR. For how long does some of that heat travel through the oceanic thermohaline circulatory system before it reaches the surface again?
Now once you’ve worked that out figure out how much and when does that heat get back to the atmosphere, squirming and morphing as it goes mostly through evaporation, then on to clouds (and their energy balance) before, at some point condensation occurs, and the heat energy is free to bumble through the atmospheric gases and out, radiating off the planet.
The oceans are a vast energy store of what was solar energy. This store has a huge lag in its release of energy, and does NOT release at the same rate as it was taken up.
Life itself is a vast store of old solar energy. The totality of life (and therefore store of solar energy) rises and falls with the solar activity. Generally the aggregated amount of life rises after solar activity rises, and falls after solar activity declines. So life too is a lagging store of solar energy. E.g. since 1850 humans have increase from approximately 1 billion to today’s approximately 8 billion longer living (compared to average lifespans in the 1850-1900) population. That could not have happened without all the necessary other life (bacteria, microbes, plants, and animals) to support it. Overall the total amount of life (and therefore it’s store of solar energy) has risen since 1850 in line with the solar activity.
The biggest effect humans has had, and continues to have, on the climate is NOT CO2, it’s land use changes. However as nature has many loosely bound, nonlinear feedback systems in place, we soon learn when we’ve change the land use to something detriment to the environment, the land (and the resource we wish from it) relatively quickly becomes unusable.
Nature controls the climate not humans and their venting of CO2. There is one source for Earth’s that affects the climate more than anything else and that is the sun. It is our inability to sort through all the myriad other lagging effects of loosely bound, nonlinear feedback systems that take-up and release that solar energy on many timescales — from days to centuries — that inhibit our basic understanding of climate.
IMO there is not a single answer to what keeps our planet as warm as it is. There are as many as there are natural processes that use and reuse solar energy. Many, many processes delaying what was initially solar energy from leaving this planet.
Reply
T L Winslow
| #
The lapse rate phenomenon when properly understood leaves no room for the CO2-driven greenhouse warming theory. That’s why the CO2 greenhouse warming hoaxer scientists rarely if ever mention it, or that solar heat is not just radiated by Earth’s surface to space but convected to the troposphere, where Planck (blackbody) radiation to space takes care of the little that remains. Why little? The convection process causes surface heat to be transformed into work to expand against decreasing pressure, and in general more is transformed into work to generate winds and storms. Instead the hoaxers rant about a global “radiation balance”, as if they’re talking about the Moon which has no atmosphere instead and loses solar heat by pure Planck radiation. The atmosphere is a Carnot engine, using solar energy the same way gasoline engines use gas. There’s no “radiation balance” for them, just gasoline in, work out. More gasoline flow, more horsepower.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-scientific-reason-behind-normal-lapse-rate-that-is-the-decrease-in-temperature-with-increase-in-altitude/answer/TL-Winslow
P.S. More P-S readers should get an account on Quora.com and begin posting educational articles. That free site gets 2 million visits a day, and they are still a free forum giving climate critics an equal platform with the CO2 hoaxer propagandists. See my profile showing that I’m getting over 14K page views a month.
Other good posters are James Matkin, John Voelker, John Lammi, Tjaart Lemmer, Paul Noel, Ted Brewster, John Bruyn, John Murphy, Alistair Riddoch, Allen Rogers, and Alan Willoughby.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
“The lapse rate phenomenon when properly understood leaves no room for the CO2-driven greenhouse warming theory.”
How so?
Reply
T L Winslow
| #
Read my link and properly understand it.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
I did. It has some mistakes.
The amount of energy available at the surface determines the size of the atmosphere, and the content of the atmosphere determines the thermal gradient from hottest to coldest point.
The moon is colder because it has 6 times less geothermal emission.
The atmosphere is a heat sink. It itself nor nothing in it makes it the surface warmer.
Reply