Comments
New Peer Reviewed Study: ‘Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics’ by Gerlich & Tscheuschner
A new peer reviewed paper has been published in the International Journal of Modern Physics. Purchase the paper at the WSPC website for $ 25.00
G. Gerlich, R. D. Tscheuschner:
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics.
International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (30 January 2009), 275-364
World Scientific Publishing Co.
There is a freely available post-print version 4.0 from the preprint server of the Cornell University :
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
Physicist Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, of the Institute of Mathematical Physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig in Germany, and Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner co-authored a July 7, 2007 paper titled “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics.”
The Abstract of the paper reads, in part: “(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects; (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet; (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly; (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately; (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical; (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.” Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s study concluded, “The horror visions of a risen sea level, melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious consequences of fictitious physical mechanisms, as they cannot be seen even in the climate model computations. The emergence of hurricanes and tornados cannot be predicted by climate models, because all of these deviations are ruled out. The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo explanations, which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training.”
From the Conclusions: “The derivation of statements on the CO2 induced anthropogenic global warming out of the computer simulations lies outside any science.”
March 19th, 2009 at 5:34 am
A good site – both in look and content.
I’m a regular
March 20th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
I´m curious to know if you agree with what reads in this paper?
March 20th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
I have an open mind as the whether or not the paper is fully or partly correct about the greenhouse effect.
March 21st, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Real measurements at any single station in the US weather station network fluctuate by as much as 4 degrees C over a year or two. Volatility is very high. The database is available from a link on CO2 Science web site. That fluctuation is consistent with rapid cooling to space and absence of a green house.
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:46 am
To paraphrase the IPCC description of the atmospheric greenhouse effect:
1. A warm body (the earth) radiates heat to a cool body (the atmosphere)
2. The cool body “back-radiates” (IPCC term) heat to the warm body.
3. This process continues perpetually, with heat flowing round and round in a continuous cycle.
4. The result of this perpetual process is that the warm body becomes warmer.
What is most amazing is that both alarmists and skeptic scientists have taken the above blatant 2nd Law of Thermodynamics violation at face value for so long. Many will shout that all bodies radiate … yes they do but NETT heat flow is always from hot bodies to cool bodies (without the input of work), not the reverse. Note also that the 2nd Law does not care about the wavelength of radiant heat.
Atmospheric gases do absorb radiation from the sun and the earth. NETT radiation from the cool daytime atmosphere is to space. The Sahara desert in daytime has a very low “greenhouse gas” concentration above it, yet contrary to greenhouse theory, it is a hot place rather than a cool place.
Night time, rotation of the earth, convection, conduction, latent heat all add greatly to the complexity of climate. However the basic daytime atmospheric greenhouse model as presented by the IPCC and most school textbooks, is nonsense.
Gerlich at last provides a rational view of this topic.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:36 am
adb: Actually, it is the G&T paper that is nonsense. You are right that the 2nd Law states that the net heat flow (in the absence of work) has to be from the hotter body to the cooler body. Where you (and G&T, as near as I can figure from wading through their dense writing) go wrong is in believing that this is violated by the atmospheric greenhouse effect. It is not.
Now, you are probably saying, “That makes no sense…How can the greenhouse effect cause warming of the earth if the net heat flow is from the earth to the atmosphere?” Well, the answer to that question is simply to ask, “Warming relative to what?” What the earth is warmer relative to is the case of an IR-transparent atmosphere in which case all of the heat that the earth radiates (according to the Stefan Boltzmann Eq.) goes out into space with NONE of it being returned to the earth. So, even if only a small portion of what the earth radiates that is absorbed by an IR-absorbing atmosphere is then radiated back to it, the result is a warming relative to the IR-transparent case…and this is what we call the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
If this all still confuses you, one can get a better handle on it by considering a simpler problem involving an emitting blackbody sphere at constant temperature surrounded by one or two concentric spherical blackbody shells, all immersed in empty space. With a few assumptions, this problem (described in more detail here http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/03/second-law-and-its-criminal-misuse-as.html ) can be solved exactly by any decent student in a 1st-year physics course using the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation and the results then clearly illustrate where G&T have gone astray.
Another way of looking at it is given by a retired meteorologist named Alistair Fraser at this website: http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html Personally, I think he is a little too militant in what he considers acceptable pedagogy but I agree with him that that his statement, “The surface of the Earth is warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere because it receives energy from two sources: the Sun and the atmosphere” is a very succinct way of putting it (and avoids words like “re-radiate” or “reflect” that are shorthands which can lead to misunderstandings).
March 28th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
OK, there are two “interfaces” (earth-lower atmosphere and higher atmosphere-space) where radiation is important factor, and this is what G&T are not covering enough. But does this render all their work to complete nonsense, is at least questionable. Let imagine an atmosphere without “greenhouse gases,” consisting only of N2,O2, Ar etc, shortly gases without IR absorbtion/emission lines. Because of the heat capacity and conductivity of non-greenhouse gases, there will still be higher night temperatures on the ground, if compared to celestial bodies without atmosphere, like the Moon, isn’t that correct? If yes, then maybe it’s reasonable to think, as G&T obviously do, that the only effect of so called GHG-s is slightly higher heat capacity which has almost nothing to do with spectral lines of the GHG-s.
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:07 am
Heat in the form of radiation flows in all directions from any warm object to any other object that intercepts that frequency of radiation, without regard to the temperature of the other object (or to space, which doesn’t intercept). NET natural heat flow by ALL means is always from warmer to cooler, but there can be heat flows in all directions, particularly if you consider one narrow form of heat flow in isolation – for example, radiative heat flows in the frequencies that our atmosphere will absorb.
So the proferred case that greenhouse theory violates the laws of thermodynamics, is not true.
The atmosphere essentially operates as a blanket, both by its thermal mass and by its radiation characteristics.
The theory is that an increased CO2 level makes that blanket slightly *thicker*. The lower atmosphere already captures ALL the planet surface’s radiation at the frequencies where CO2 is relevant (the overwhelming majority of it is captured by water vapor, not CO2), and some of it is re-emitted back toward the surface while some goes more or less up to be captured a second time at a somewhat higher altitude. More CO2 can’t increase the absorption there. But go far enough up in the atmosphere, and that ceases to be the case; more CO2 *there* means more absorption which in turn means more re-emission downward… like throwing another sheet over the six heavy quilts on your bed.
I have my doubts about whether this theory is *significantly* true. It is true, as far as it goes. (It may overlook some things. For that matter my analogy, in addition to being rather short on numbers, probably overlooks some things that the actual theory takes into account.) But I suspect the effect over the range of plausible increases in CO2 may be trivial.
A big factor in my doubts is that CO2 really isn’t that big a deal in the earth’s greenhouse-gas profile, constituting something like 1/4 of 1% of the whole atmosphere’s absorption. (The balance consists of water vapor and rounding-error gases.) Also atmospheric CO2 apparently used to be vastly (several hundred to several thousand percent) more dense than it is now, pretty much any time prior to 50 million years ago – and life on earth seems to have done pretty well.
May 1st, 2009 at 8:35 pm
As 70% of the surface of the earth is water and as liquids don’t emit Plancks radiation it is not allowable to use Boltzmann’s equation to calculate the surface temperature of the globe. Water will transfere heat by evaporation not by radiation.
July 20th, 2009 at 1:42 am
G&T write out equations in great detail which apply in very specific circumstances only to state that these circumstances are not found in the messy conditions of earth’s atmosphere. But if you can’t give an exact average temperature of the earth surface does that mean there is no radiation into space (aren’t clear, still nights colder than cloudy, windy ones?). If gases don’t behave like idealized black body solids, do they not radiate more when they are warmer? What people who want to reduce co2 emissions are saying is that it is possible and likely that increased levels of co2 cause dangerous warming of the earth. What G&T seem to say is that we must not do anything to avoid it until we are absolutely sure it has happened.
August 13th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
“What G&T seem to say is that we must not do anything to avoid it until we are absolutely sure it has happened.” No Tober, that is an unfair representation of what G&T write. They are concerned with science proper and the misuse of it in public debate and want to rectify that. Whatever one should believe without scientific support or whatever one should do in practical politics is without the realm of their arguments in this paper. I am sure they have personal opinions on politics, too, but that is beside the point just here.
September 1st, 2009 at 8:50 am
I don’t understand the notion of “the surface of the Earth would not be as warm without the greenhouse effect”. If this is true, why is the daylight side of the moon 253F|123C ? And this despite the fact that it also gets down to -387F|-233C at night. So, the temperature rise is a whopping 640F|356C change between night and day. I understand how our atmosphere “holds” the heat at night, but without other effects that cool the atmosphere and surface (ie: precipitation, clouds, water vapor negative feedback), I suspect that our temperature would also be similar to that of the moon. It is in fact, water (Ocean’s) and water vapor that regulates (buffers) our temperature to a much more modest level. I still don’t see how you can come to the conclusion that, if it were not for the “greenhouse” effect, that our temperature would be much lower. This just doesn’t make sense.
December 17th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
I’ve been searching the internet for hours in vain trying to find somebody rebutting this publication (I’m in a quantitative field, but not physics, so I cannot evaluate it properly myself).
I’ve seen many of these discussions on blogs, and apparently every single one results in the critics of this paper shutting up and disappearing.
This is an interesting link (don’t mind the title of the pdf, it summarizes some of the replies by the authors in question…):
http://ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/DEFINITIVE_DEATHKNELL_to_CLIMATE_ALARMISM.pdf
This is big… VERY BIG…
I can’t wait for the physics community
December 17th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
[hit enter by accident]
…I can’t wait for the physics community to get a hold of this.
They may let the media slam the skeptics for the sake of a ‘better’ environment. However, I doubt that they will let the media slam the second law of thermodynamics.
December 17th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
I’ve been searching the internet for hours in vain trying to find somebody rebutting this publication (I’m in a quantitative field, but not physics, so I cannot evaluate it properly myself).
I’ve seen many of these discussions on blogs, and apparently every single one results in the critics of this paper shutting up and disappearing.
This is an interesting link (don’t mind the title/URL of the pdf, it summarizes some of the replies by the authors in question…):
http://ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/DEFINITIVE_DEATHKNELL_to_CLIMATE_ALARMISM.pdf
This is big… VERY BIG…
I can’t wait for the physics community to get a hold of this.
They may let the media slam AGW skeptics for the sake of a ‘better’ environment. I however highly doubt that they will let them slam the second law of thermodynamics.
December 28th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Squidly: If this is true, why is the daylight side of the moon 253F|123C ? And this despite the fact that it also gets down to -387F|-233C at night. So, the temperature rise is a whopping 640F|356C change between night and day.
One can compute the average moon temperature as (123-233)/2 = -55C, quite a bit colder than Earth (although, comparisons between an orb without and one with atmosphere may not be valid). Also, the moons day/night cycle is about one earth month making the extremes much larger. If the moon revolved in 24 hours, the difference would be much smaller. Just guess how hot the day would be here on earth if it lasted 360 hours.
December 30th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
What really counts is what the empirical data shows. Please explain that away.
December 30th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
The empirical evidence is pretty unexciting – CO2 changes following temperature changes in the past (for only half of the geological record) and a warming world after the end of the Little Ice Age, which started before any significant man-made CO2 emissions.
January 6th, 2010 at 2:34 am
I’m not a climate scientist, but I am an astrophysicist, so I’ve studied radiative transfer and thermodynamics. I teach thermo at the university level, so I’m qualified to judge the G&T paper. It is nonsense, and I am flabbergasted that they got it past peer review. They assert, among other things, that the atmosphere can’t “warm” the earth, because it would require that heat flow from a cool object (the atmosphere), to a warm object, (the earth), in violation of the second law of thermo. But that’s not the point! The atmosphere simply makes it harder for heat to escape, leading to a higher equilibrium temperature at low levels in the atmosphere given the more-or-less constant input of heat from the sun. If their argument were correct, there would be no point in wearing a jacket on a cold day — how can a jacket, which is cooler than you are, keep you warm? The point is that the heat is _of course_ flowing outward from your body; the jacket simply makes it harder for you to lose heat, so your equilibrium temperature is higher than it would be without the jacket. So, adb:
“What is most amazing is that both alarmists and skeptic scientists have taken the above blatant 2nd Law of Thermodynamics violation at face value for so long.”
Yes, that would be amazing if true. It simply isn’t. The second law is alive and well, and it is completely consistent with conventional radiative transfer theory, which explains the greenhouse effect.
The G&T paper is really garbage, on fundamental physical grounds. They may have doctorates, but their analysis is deeply incompetent.
January 6th, 2010 at 2:56 am
Thanks palindrom. If Michael Mann can get his papers through peer review, then anything is possible!
January 6th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
I can’t believe someone who teaches thermo can state “Yes, that would be amazing if true. It simply isn’t. The second law is alive and well, and it is completely consistent with conventional radiative transfer theory, which explains the greenhouse effect.”, as this demonstrates no understanding of the second law or of the behavior of an ideal gas. Most of the atmosphere is an ideal gas, and is compressed by Earth’s gravity. If unperturbed, the dry (ideal gas) portion will have a higher temperature at Earth’s surface than at higher elevations. Radiative theory and the greenhouse effect are bunk!
January 13th, 2010 at 7:49 am
BigWaveDave: Well, I’m glad you’re not teaching thermodynamics at the university level, because your reply makes no sense at all. The temperature profile of an atmosphere depends on a lot of things — is it in convective equilibrium? In that case one can compute a lapse rate based on adiabatic expansion. Is it isothermal? In that case, it has an exponential density profile. Both of these are perfectly compatible with the ideal gas law.
Look, AGW may be right, or it may be wrong. I wish I knew! But the G&T paper is incompetent, and if you’re a serious AGW skeptic looking to discredit AGW, I suggest you look elsewhere.
January 13th, 2010 at 8:21 am
palindrom: Another take on the greenhouse effect for you to cast your eye over, with presentation, here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2010m1d12-Hungarian-Physicist-Dr-Ferenc-Miskolczi-proves-CO2-emissions-irrelevant-in-Earths-Climate
January 15th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
admin, I glanced at that, and aside from the tendentious tone it doesn’t look half as crazy as G&T, which is just laughably, wildly, weirdly wrong. The Miskolczi theory is not obviously wrong to the non-specialiast scientist reader. However, it seems very pat — declaring that you have a “law” and a “Constant” are the marks of a polemicist who’s chasing a foregone conclusion. Who knows, maybe he’s right! But the Hungarian journal of meteorology isn’t exactly the top of the scientific food chain. I know, I know, all dissenting voices have been cruelly suppressed, it’s a all a conspiracy, the scientists formed a cabal, they’re all commies trying to take away our cars, they’re guilty libs who want to bring us down to the level of the third world, and so on and on — but I do know some of these people as colleagues, and I frankly don’t believe it. They could certainly all be wrong, but they know a whole lot more than I do about the problem, and they’re deeply worried, and — whatever you think — it’s not because of a political agenda, and not because they hunger for grants. They honestly think there is likely to be a real problem.
January 15th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
I left the G&T paper alone for a couple of years, until it was peer reviewed. The ‘climategate’ emails give an unambiguous insight into what goes on in the peer review and IPCC process.
In the end, it all comes down to the true rather than theoretical climate sensitivity to CO2 in a naturally variable, chaotic, non-linear climate system. Taking into account the Tsonis et al natural ‘climate shifts’ and the poorly understood but tangible solar-climate link, there doesn’t seem to be much room left for the ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’which seems to be close to nil.
January 21st, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Like palindrom I have read G&Ts paper but have come to quite different conclusions.
He said that he agrees with G&T that heat cannot flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer Earth.
However this is exactly the claim that is made by the IPCC consensus.
G&T are very careful to distinguish between energy, work,heat and entropy.
Others either do not know or do not care about such distinctions.
Quite often the G&T critics use an energy balance approach to show the greenhouse effect is valid.
While this approach may satisfy the Ist Law of THD in does not satisfy the 2nd Law of THD.
This topic is bedevilled by people who are free and easy with their speculations.
The speculations are made without the need to tie these to observations.
The huge size of the “back radiation” from the clouds should be easy to measure.
Where is there an experiment to support this magnitude of an effect?
Instead computer models are trundled out to produce predictions.
When the predictions fail other factors are then added so no falsification of the “theory” is possible!
A good summation on this aspect of the debate is
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net
February 6th, 2010 at 4:04 am
People get excitedly the Himalayan Glaciers and Amazon forest boobs, by the IPCC.
A much bigger clanger is shown in the diagram ipcc_fig1-2.
In the diagram EM radiation is shown in and about the surface of the Earth.
In an effort to balance the energy from the Suns Radiative Balance with the Earth.
What they dont seem to comprehend is that EM radiation has no fixed direction ,it can be refleced and refracted.
Going by their diagram the Sun provides 342 w/m2 to earths surface.
the same square metre provides 168+324 down and 350+40 up.
Remember that the photons do not worry about direction this means that the available energy just above the surface is 900w/m2 .
The energy moving around at the surface of the Earth is almost three times the input energy from the Sun.
March 24th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
A lot of people are very happy when a paper like this comes about.
Most (but not all) are equally happy that Miskolczi published his theory.
Most (but not all) are equally happy when Lindzen and Choi published their theory.
What many of the happy people don’t realize is that Gerlich & Tscheuschner “disprove” both Miskolczi and Lindzen. And Miskolczi “disproves” Gerlich & Tscheuschner and Lindzen. And Lindzen disagrees with all of these folk.
Lindzen of course is firmly in the consensus camp that the “greenhouse” effect exists, according to foundational physics. He just has a different view about positive and negative feedback after the original “greenhouse” effect takes place.
I only made it 55 pages into the 120 page “opus” of Gerlich & Tscheuschner, so much pointless stuff and so many errors on the way.. they are clearly “having a laugh” – http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/03/14/on-having-a-laugh-by-gerlich-and-tscheuschner-2009/
And see “New Theory Proves AGW Wrong!” – at http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/26/new-theory-proves-agw-wrong/
10,000 physicists are probably right. It’s just slightly important to understand whether you are talking about the “greenhouse” effect or “AGW”. Two different theories.
Being a skeptic means asking questions, not accepting any C&B theory that comes along that knocks something you don’t like.
March 26th, 2010 at 5:21 am
Okay, my background is as a Chemical Engineer (lots of thermo, heat transfer, mass transfer etc). I also worked (12 yrs) in the world of air emissions monitoring. I like to explain things like I would my wife and friends who mostly aren’t engineers or scientist. So please excuse my simplistic explanation.
CO2, H20 and other things in air absorb IR energy. That energy absorption excites that molecule (raises it’s kinetic energy) and so it bumps into surrounding molecules (O2 and such) thus sharing the energy raising the average motion of the molecules around it, we feel this as heat. But there is no accumulation. Rather, other energy (heat) transfer mechanisms come into play. Convection allow the “warmer” gases to rise and mix further with cooler gases. But ultimately what happens to the energy? It isn’t wasted, and it isn’t accumulated. Rather in the end it is released as microwave radiation, (lower energy radiation than IR), but still radiant so that it goes out to space where the concentration of energy approaches 0 per unit volume. (yes it goes equally in all directions but bounces off surfaces that are unable to absorb it and so eventually to space). A rise in CO2 concentration, will cause what IR radiation comes off the face of the earth to be absorbed at lower levels. Maybe raising the temperature at the point of absorption and thus making it feel hotter. However the total energy coming in from the sun is what it is (we can’t control that luckily it is somewhat consistent), and the rate of energy coming in from the sun has to equal the rate of energy flowing out (on average), otherwise we have accumulation and would be cooked by now. The atmosphere acts as a buffer, in that the rate that it releases the energy in the form of microwave radiation to space is greater when the air temperature is warmer, and less when it is cooler.
So the real affect of rising CO2 concentration is really that the IR energy is absorbed sooner that is a bit lower than what it might otherwise be. But there is no overall increase of energy to the system, so what we have is a different temperature profile, but overall the heat in has to equal the heat out. This is of course ignoring the fact that by burning stuff… we release energy bound in molecules (fossil fuels) in the form of additional heat, that also has to be emitted. Now that does cause the energy balance to shift as it is the suns energy + the energy released by combustion that must now escape our earth. This means there is a slight temperature rise (more energy per unit volume) but at the same token, the energy transfer rates will go up as the overall system tries to find the equilibrium. However the end result is a slightly warmer (more energy per unit volume) equilibrium. But not so significant as to throw the world into chaos, and defiantly not an unstable relationship where you are going to have accumulation of energy on the planet.
So as you can tell, I see the CO2 argument as a farce and see folks flocking for a piece of the pie ($) to fund projects and what not. If I’m wrong, then we are already in deep trouble, because we cannot reduce CO2 emissions enough without imposing on ourselves going into the dark ages…turn off the lights. The emissions of CO2 compared to the ability for plant life and the oceans to buffer it (especially since a warmer earth means the oceans are expelling stored CO2) is not even comparable. There really is not policy that would turn it around if it were a true problem. What our focus should be is on conserving fossil resources for future generations, and raise our efficiency of using such, and tap into other forms of energy not for the environment but to extend this finite resource. Fossil fuels are necessary for plastics and other goodies, and some day, (yes way after I die, my kids die, and grand kids…maybe a few more generations) man kind will be without. Learning to not rely on fossil energy now, will smooth that transition when it becomes necessary. I feel we owe that to the future.
March 31st, 2010 at 1:49 am
DontBlameCO2:
A well argued case.
Its interesting to note that your practical work is in heat transfer.
Another two commentators Fred Staples and Terry Oldberg have a similar background.
In fact I haven’t come across any heat transfer specialists who support the theory of AWG.
April 3rd, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Hi guys
With all due respect for your undoubted expertise and qualifications
As a simple sceptic with NO formal qualifications who has taken an interest in the subject of Climate change subsequent to all the furore, I have been reading all that I can, the one conclusion I am coming to is that we are unable to see the forest for the trees.
So many are caught up in their own expertise in narrow isolated theoretical abstracts and theorems.
I come from Melbourne in the state of Victoria in Australia, locally renowned for having 4 seasons in one day. Google our location and the climatic influences that would cause that.
The extreme bushfires we have and the droughts tend to be because of the very hot dry northerly winds from our arid centre, the lack of vegetation in the arid centre means the solar energy rather than being used in photosynthesis and plant growth evaporation etc, rather heats the ground, the heat is radiated back into the atmosphere, there ain’t much evaporation and that hot dry wind rips the moisture out of the plants and land on its way to the Southern Ocean leading to extreme weather and bushfires. So where is the H2O aspect in the heating of the air over the arid centre, the heating is radiative. As to why the centre is arid, Australia is the continent where up to European colonisation the inhabitants lived the hunter gatherer lifestyle of our forebears using the firestick as a hunting tool burning the forests and shaping the vegetation and the climate of the land. There is a thread on the yahoo aust message boards under politics labelled “the history of land degradation in Australia”. Just simple people seeking answers and raising many valid points in relation to how mankind has changed climate, it may be worth assessing .
Liquids don’t radiate energy ? , please explain cyclones and high and low pressure systems over oceans.
It is about the real world not just theoretical abstracts
April 3rd, 2010 at 2:31 pm
A couple of other factors that I have not seen referred to are
1) The diamagnetic properties of H2O and the effect of magnetic variations both planetary and solar and atmospheric and aquatic currents
2) The geothermal heat from the molten core which is a factor of eddy currents and the Earths magnetic dynamo effect, resulting in volcanos, thermal springs etc. This heat is additional to the direct solar radiation, and I see no reference to it in any of the theories, or much in the way of quantification of the heat produced.
3) The composition of and effect if any of nanoparticles inserted into the atmosphere by volcanos, and combustion
4) What happens to compund aerosols such as CO2 and H2O etc in high energy enviroments such as the upper atmosphere and storm clouds which produce and dissipate massive energy in the form of lighting, what effect does that have on the theories?
Demonstrating that theories such as this are a usefull excercise but their real world application is open to conjecture
April 6th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
@DontBlameCO2 – you started well.
The key equations are the radiative transfer equations (apparently endorsed by the comedic duo of Gerlich & Tscheuschner) and certainly the standard for the field, derived from 1st principles.
They are hard equations to solve in your head because you have to integrate across all wavelengths (both for absorption and emission) and through a vertical slice through the atmosphere. And spectral lines change with pressure and temperature and so do concentrations of water vapor. The equations have to solved by numerical methods – like most real world problems with challenging boundary conditions.
Ramanathan and Coakley – “Climate Modeling through Radiative-Convective Models” (1978) is probably the definitive paper explaining how to use these equations in the atmosphere – as described in “CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Five”:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/10/co2-%E2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-five/
And more on Gerlich and Tscheuschner in “On the Miseducation of the Uninformed by Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009)” at:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/05/on-the-miseducation-of-the-uninformed-by-gerlich-and-scheuschner-2009
If Gerlich and Tscheuschner are correct there would be no downward longwave radiation at the earth’s surface – but there is, it’s substantial and we can measure it. And a big chunk of it is in the CO2 15um band:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/11/co2-%e2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-six-visualization/
– For those who believe that this effect doesn’t exist, how is it that we can measure it?
– What happens to those W/m^2 from CO2 when they hit the earth’s surface – do they vanish? Or warm the surface?
April 11th, 2010 at 3:29 am
ScienceofDoom:
What happens to those W/m^2 from CO2 when they hit the earth’s surface – do they vanish? Or warm the surface?
Its all a matter of scale
W/m^2 from CO2 and for that matter too H2O vapour will reach the Earth surface ie 1% of atmospheric gases.
The mass of the Earth and all its Oceans means that this tiny amount of radiation will have no practical effect.
You can be pedantic and say well it might have a tiny effect if you like.
By the same method of thinking some of the Suns radiation that reaches the Earth will be re radiated back to the Sun.
Does that mean that the Earth heats up the Sun?
By the way G&T do not state that absolutely no radiation from the atmosphere reaches the Earths surface.
What they do say correctly is that no heat travels from the cold atmosphere to the warmer Earth surface.
April 14th, 2010 at 10:45 am
@Bryan
“The mass of the earth and oceans means that this tiny amount of radiation will have no practical effect. You can be pedantic and say well it might have a tiny effect if you like.”
Solar radiation absorbed by the earth’s surface – approx 170 W/m^2 (global annual average)
Solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere – approx 70 W/m^2 (global annual average)
[Total solar radiation absorbed by the climate system approx 240W/m^2]
Downward longwave radiation at the earth’s surface – approx 300 W/m^2
Some of this downward longwave radiation is due to solar heating of the atmosphere, most of it is due to the absorption (and therefore re-emission) of the longwave radiation from the earth
Tiny effect?
“By the way G&T do not state that absolutely no radiation from the atmosphere reaches the Earths surface. What they do say correctly is that no heat travels from the cold atmosphere to the warmer Earth surface.”
What happens to this 300W/m^2 radiation when it reaches the earth’s surface? Vanishes? Bends around the earth’s surface and off into space? Magically reflected?
Or is it absorbed but doesn’t have any heating effect? (Same as vanish, I think)
All so plausible – but which one do you pick?
Of course, no climate scientists says that *net* heat travels from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface. More heat flows from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere than the reverse.
All very simple, but quite challenging for the G&T advocates to explain what actually happens to that “tiny” 300W/m^2 (globally annually averaged) that “reaches” the earth’s surface.
April 14th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
ScienceofDoom:
Your reply and question of the effect of radiation falling on Earth made me try to quantify in a simple way the effect on the mass of the Earth of such heating.
I have used a very simple model of the Earth made of uniform material with reasonable conductivity
If the Earth absorbed all the Suns radiation that landed on it and absolutely no heat ever escaped.
How long would it take for the temperature to rise by 1 degree centigrade.
Formula used
Pxt =cm(temperature rise)
P=1367W/m2x(crosssectional area of Earth)
t =time in seconds
C = specific heat capacity = 1000 (you can tweek this number if you like)
m = Mass of Earth =6x10power24
When calculated it turns out to be 1080 years.
April 15th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
@Bryan
So apart from the calculations of length of time for 1′C rise which can be much better refined.. before doing this we first need to know:
a) is the downward longwave radiation around 300W/m^2? (we can call it “tiny”, it doesn’t really matter, approximate numerical values are more useful than “value judgements”)
b) what happens to this downward longwave radiation when it “reaches” the earth’s surface?
This second question is very important. Why?
I have yet to find a G&T supporter that will answer this question.
- Disappearing acts
- Questions over whether the right number is used for downward longwave radiation
- Lots of questions over definitions, e.g. “You assert that radiation “flows,” implying that at every point in a radiation field there is a a vector.” This implication is incorrect. At every point in a radiation field, there is a set of rays.”
But no one answers the obvious question – does this radiation reach the earth’s surface? does it get absorbed by the earth’s surface? does it heat the earth’s surface?
As ambassadors for Gerlich and Tscheuschner surely these should be simple questions for you to answer. Finally you can clear up the confusion!
For the rest of us, we have no idea whether Gerlich and Tscheuschner just never understood atmospheric physics, never even read any atmospheric physics, never understood the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or are just “having a laugh”.
Your chance to explain.
And if you need to contact Dr. Gerhard Gerlich to iron out the subtleties of any points, apparently he is at Technische Universität Braunschweig
phone: +49 531 – 391 4125/4124/4123/4122
email: presse@tu-braunschweig.de
April 16th, 2010 at 4:13 am
ScienceofDoom:
I have shown you a simple calculation to prove that with radiation ten times the value that you are so worried about you would have to wait for 1080 years to show a one degree rise in temperature.
Think of it this way:
A person empties a can of coke into the Pacific Ocean.
Does the sea level rise?
Most practical people would say that it is too small to be measurable and hence would ignore it.
April 17th, 2010 at 11:11 am
@Bryan
I have asked for 2 simple clarifications. They should be easy for you. Then we can debate whether your calculation is the right one.
1. Is the downward longwave radiation approximately 300W/m^2 at the earth’s surface? (You call it “tiny”, implying that you don’t think it is 300/W/m^2).
2. What happens to this downward longwave radiation when it “reaches” the earth’s surface? Does it “heat” the earth’s surface? Does it vanish? Bend around the earth?
Without knowing your answers to these questions it’s pointless to discuss the possible effect on the world’s oceans.
As you have “gone into bat” for G&T lots of people now have the opportunity to find out the answers to these important questions.
Everyone supporter I have asked so far finds a way to avoid answering the questions.
April 17th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
ScienceofDoom:
…Does it “heat” the earth’s surface? Does it vanish? Bend around the earth?……..
Anyone who has taken even a basic course in thermodynamics knows that a colder surface cannot heat a warmer surface.
Even if we accept for the moment the IPCC diagram Fig 1-2 your figure for downward radiation of 300W/m2 is overridden by an upward surface radiation of 390 W/m2.
The downward radiation must in large part be caused by Rayleigh Scattering(the effect that gives us blue sky’s.)
Since all air particles cause this effect the contribution of CO2 will be about 0.03% of the total.
Now to show how utterly absurd your calculation is;
In post 36 I have exaggerated in every possible way to make your concerned figure as large as I could make it but it comes out at 1080 years for a one degree rise.
If you can think of another way to inflate your figure further then let me know.
I note that you have not disputed my calculation given in post 36.
However my real impressions of IPCC diagram Fig 1-2 were given in post 27.
April 18th, 2010 at 11:11 pm
Bryan:
So it’s clear, you claim that even though the radiation from the atmosphere “reaches” the earth’s surface it has no effect?
Basic thermodynamics textbooks – as you can see in http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/05/on-the-miseducation-of-the-uninformed-by-gerlich-and-scheuschner-2009/ – show radiation from a warmer surface reaching a colder surface and being absorbed – and therefore heating that surface – and they also show radiation from a colder surface reaching a warmer surface and being absorbed – and therefore heating that surface.
The net effect is, uncontroversially, that the warmer surface heats the colder surface.
The controversial effect – to G&T believers only – but not the people who write thermodynamics text books – is the idea that radiation from a colder surface (e.g. a colder atmosphere) can have an effect on a warmer surface.
Of course the downward longwave 300W/m^2 from the atmosphere is less than the upward longwave radiation from the surface! No one would dispute that. Well, G&T believers find it difficult to believe the downward part. They say things like you say.
“Must be caused by Raleigh scattering” or “you got the wrong numbers” or “it’s tiny” or “it can’t happen because that would be a violation of the imaginary second law of thermodynamics”.
So let’s take the Raleigh scattering. If you are right..
.. then the spectrum of this longwave radiation will closely follow the Planck curve of radiation from a blackbody. Because most surfaces on the earth have an emissivity of close to 1 in the longwave region.
Is this the case?
On the other hand, if the downward longwave radiation is actually re-emitted from the various trace gases like CO2, methane, and ozone then we would find a spectrum which was dominated by wavelengths around 15um (CO2), 9.6um (ozone) and 7um (methane).
Which one is it?
…
Why not check out http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/11/co2-%E2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-six-visualization/ to see what the downward longwave radiation at the earth’s surface looks like.
The downward longwave radiation at the earth’s surface is dominated by the wavelengths of trace gases like CO2, methane, ozone and water vapor. Therefore, it’s not scattering. The outgoing longwave radiation at the top of atmosphere as measured by satellites has a characteristic “notch” in all of these wavelengths. That’s the absorption. It’s easy to understand.
This is why physicists long ago came to the conclusion that trace gases like CO2 absorbed – and re-radiated energy. Some of that radiation is downward. It makes the surface warmer than it would have been without this radiation.
Simple and basic thermodynamics.
G&T are “having a laugh”. You’ve been had.
And of course I haven’t (yet) disputed your calculation. The real question is first “how much downward longwave radiation is received at the earth’s surface from re-emission by trace gases”.
First we have to know how much radiation is received. And whether this “received” radiation is actually absorbed – the question you have dodged. Then it’s time to see what effect it has.
You said earlier:
But you haven’t actually stated a number. I have given a number. Do you agree that it’s the correct number? It’s not clear whether you agree with it. Just tell us.
You said earlier:
But haven’t yet answered my question that I have asked more than once – what happens to this radiation when it “reaches the earth’s surface”? Is it absorbed? Yes? No?
I think you say “No” (but I can’t be certain) – if you say “No” what happens to this radiation?
Just come out and explain it. Be clear.
Does the radiation not come down from the atmosphere?
Does the earth’s surface reject it?
Reflect it?
Transmit it somewhere else?
How does the earth’s surface know that this radiation came from a colder atmosphere and put out traffic cones?
Does the atmosphere “look down” at the earth’s surface and decide not to radiate according to the usual formula because it’s heading for warmer climates?
Does it only radiate upwards because it knows about the imaginary second law of thermodynamics?
Or is it possible that you have no idea about thermodynamics? – take a look at the extract from a thermodynamics text book that I posted at the end of the article – http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/05/on-the-miseducation-of-the-uninformed-by-gerlich-and-scheuschner-2009/
Read it and think about it. Then you will see how it can be that a radiation from a colder surface incident on a warmer surface can possibly have an effect. Not a net effect. An effect.
Just like in the climate where a colder atmosphere radiates in all direction. And when that radiation reaches any surface it is absorbed (according to the absorptivity of that surface for those wavelengths) regardless of how cold or hot it is.
So the colder atmosphere radiates to the warmer surface. And the warmer surface radiates to the colder atmosphere. The net effect is from the warmer to the colder.
G&T are “having a laugh”.
April 19th, 2010 at 4:53 am
ScienceofDoom:
You claim to have access to a book on thermodynamics.
I would urge you to read it carefully and try some of the exercises before you post such nonsense.
In any proof of the second law of thermodynamics or the Carnot cycle you will find the concept of the “reservoir” that is a hot or cold entity where subtracting or adding a small amount of heat makes no difference to the temperature of the reservoir.
Like taking or emptying a glass of water into the Pacific Ocean.
Can the Earth be considered to be the hotter reservoir?
I have given well in excess of any radiation figure you seem so concerned about(1367W/m2.
Not only that to make the numbers work in your favour I have disregarded any heat loss from the planet ever.
In spite of these gross concessions to your position it would take 1080 years for a measly one degree rise for the planets temperature.
It appears that you have accepted my figures so it is difficult for me to see what your problem is.
Put it another way work out the temperature forcing element that the IPCC is so worried about and then do the calculation above for a yearly rise in the Earths temperature and set your working out in a clear way so that it can be checked.
April 19th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
So Bryan isn’t going to explain the basics – what happens to the radiation from the colder atmosphere when it “reaches” the earth.
Hopefully some more G&T enthusiasts will come by and be prepared to explain this most important of concepts.
Or perhaps all G&T enthusiasts have signed a confidentiality agreement so that it is a secret until the appointed time? (Let us at least know the expected date of the revelation).
Well, if it’s not a secret then lots of people would really appreciate knowing:
a) does the atmosphere radiate any heat?
b) does this atmospheric radiation reach the earth?
c) what happens when it reaches the earth – does it have any effect?
No one thinks that there is a net heat transfer from the atmosphere to the earth. The only question is about what the atmosphere does.
For people who agree with Bryan that these ideas are “nonsense” perhaps a few can take a look at the extract from the standard thermodynamics text book by Incropera and DeWitt – http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/05/on-the-miseducation-of-the-uninformed-by-gerlich-and-scheuschner-2009/ – and explain what’s wrong with it.
I imagine that after the 6th edition Incropera and DeWitt will feel pretty stupid to have published such “nonsense” for a few decades. But I’m sure they’d like to put it right.
April 20th, 2010 at 12:13 am
ScienceofDoom:
….So Bryan isn’t going to explain the basics – what happens to the radiation from the colder atmosphere when it “reaches” the earth……
Likewise I am not going to agree with you that pouring a glass of water into the Pacific Ocean
” will increase sea level.”
Further I will not be one of the pedants, who on realising that some radiation from Earth reaches the Sun, then want to state
“that the Earth heats up the Sun.”
I am perfectly happy to agree with G&T and every Physics and Thermodynamics Textbook on the planet that
“heat never flows from a cold object to a warmer object of its own accord”.
April 24th, 2010 at 12:23 am
Long wave radiation is energy not in the form of what we call “heat”. Heat is the average kinetic motion of molecules in a defined volume. Long wave radiation that is released from vibrating molecules, (which is the mechanism by which the energy absorbed by gasses is released over time) does go in all directions, but tend not to re-excite other molecules. The size and shape of molecules play into what wavelengths of electromagnetic energy will excite them. Kind of like in music, what wavelengths of sound will cause a harmonic response in some keys of percussive instruments. Long wave electromagnetic waves emitted from excited molecules will either pass through or bounce off a media depending on the properties, but will continue to travel until finding itself on a path out into the vast and ever expansive universe.
IR radiation is what is absorbed by CO2, H2O and other things. When absorbed the motion of these molecules speed up we call this phenomenon “heat”. As they do, they bump into other molecules in the atmosphere transferring some of the energy of their molecular motion to the other molecule. As molecules get excited, they create more space between each other, thus “hot” air is less dense than “cold”, allowing colder air above to sink down, and mix with hot air that seems to rise, all the while molecules are bumping into one another further distributing the “heat”. Warmer gaseous molecules that come in contact with a “cooler” surface will “warm” that surface by passing energy to the cooler surface through this same mechanism. Thus hot air from the south can lead to a warming of our soil. Once the average kinetic energy of the surface is equal to the gasses, the transfer stops. If the air above becomes “cooler” that is it has less kinetic motion per unit volume than does the surface, the surface can through contact transfer heat back to the gases above. This is a comparably inefficient transfer as compared to the IR release by solids when they are hot enough to emit such energy in this form. But in the end… molecules continue to cool and would continue to cool towards absolute zero by continually releasing at slower and slower rates, longer and longer wavelengths of energy which are not of the right size to be absorbed by and excite other molecules.
To understand energy transfer, you have to be aware of the many forms of energy, and have to realize that “hotness” and “coldness” are incomplete measures of energy. However, they are what most focus on because those are the forms most tangible.
May 2nd, 2010 at 1:37 am
DontBlameCO2:
Hi, I read your last post with much interest;
In particular;
……Long wave electromagnetic waves emitted from excited molecules will either pass through or bounce off a media depending on the properties, but will continue to travel until finding itself on a path out into the vast and ever expansive universe…….
I wonder if you have ever looked at the IPCC diagram below
http://www.climateprediction.net/images/sci_images/ipcc_fig1-2.gif
The diagram is more likely to confuse than to inform but it is a favorite amongst the AGW proponents.
In particular look at the Surface Radiation of 390 W/m2 and the Back Radiation of 324W/m2.
We notice that both these figures are about twice the solar radiation reaching the surface.
These figures are claimed to be measurable with an instrument called a Pyranometer.
I think that the experimenters are measuring some kind of EM radiation but I don’t think it is capable of producing a heating effect.
If it were capable of such an effect I am sure someone would be marketing a device which would utilise the large energy flux when both up and down sets of photons are included.
Hence your interesting comment above.
I think it explains that particularly for the Backradiation section the photon flux is largely made up of just such long wave EM radiation.
May 3rd, 2010 at 7:51 am
After spending several thousand hours trying to figure out how less than a 1 in 10,000 increase of CO2 over the last several decades would cause global planet warming, I find that Gerlich & Tscheuschner provided the physics explanations that explain why the imagined proffered CO2 effect can not be measured. one cannot measure the imagined in the real world.
My background is engineering in test and measurement. A real world consideration.
A h20 vapor molecude is how much more an absorber of longwave IR than CO2 molecule. 100 times, 1000 times. 10,000 times In tropics where the termperatures and relative humidity is high, also where lots more photons are flying, water can be 3% of the atmosphere 3% is 300 parts in 10,000. So how is trace CO2 supposed to change any radiation balance. But the IPCC model predicts CO2 to do what. http://toms.homeip.net/global_warming/IPCC-predicted-v-measured.jpg
After Gerlich & Tscheuschner provided the physics explanations, the following inference can be made, one has the ability to comprehend physics or not.
I also have collected lots of papers http://toms.homeip.net/global_warming/
May 11th, 2010 at 12:34 am
The formal rebuttal to Gerlich and Tscheuschner has now been published, and appears with their reply in IJMP(B), Vol 24, Iss 10, Apr 20, 2010. Despite the date it only actually came out a couple of days ago.
The references are:
[1] Comment On “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”, by Joshua B. Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith and Jörg Zimmermann, pp 1309-1332, doi:10.1142/S021797921005555X
[2] Reply To “Comment On ‘Falsification Of The Atmospheric Co2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics’ By Joshua B. Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith, Jörg Zimmermann”, by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, pp 1333-1359, doi:10.1142/S0217979210055573
Full disclosure; I am one of the authors of this rebuttal, Chris Ho-Stuart.
In my opinion, the hypothesis of Gerlich and Tscheuschner represents an extreme view with no prospect of having any scientific impact, and neither the paper nor their reply to our rebuttal has any scientific merit. However, they have both now been published, and I am content to let the chips fall where they may. I do not expect our rebuttal to have any scientific impact either. In fact, I believe our rebuttal paper will be the first peer reviewed citation to the original 2009 paper! Scientifically speaking this whole thing has been a side show, our rebuttal included. I am quite certain the only impact will be with onlookers who are trying to sort out what the science involves, and this was our reason for publishing.
I do not think the working climate scientists who are skeptical of conventional climate science will consider this affair relevant. I am thinking of scientists like Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, Douglass, and so on. I suspect Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s ideas are limited to only a handful of individuals; though I appreciate many onlookers may be wondering whether there is anything to it.
Given that there is a lot of public interest and disagreement on the subject, and on some of what I have said above, I think there is a place to support a courteous and substantive discussion, with anyone interested.
I have recently started a bulletin board, called Climate Physics Forums, which is intended as a space where any one can come and participate free from personal abuse or ridicule. The board has no policy on correct answers, and anyone is welcome to join in. The requirements are for courtesy to other contributors, and for actual claims to be supported with reference to scientific publication; this still allows for a large range of views. For example, Gerlich and Tsheuschner’s paper is also acceptable at the board as a scientific publication. Critical comment on papers or ideas, again from any perspective, is welcome.
There’s a discussion of the rebuttal, and of the reply, now available at the board if anyone would like to take a look. It is at Published comment, and reply, on Gerlich and Tscheuschner 2009.
Best wishes — sylas
May 11th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Regarding post48 above
Chris Ho-Stuart(sylas) one of the authors admitted
None of my co-authors are prominent as physicists.
The reference is: Joshua Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith, Jörg Zimmermann (2010) Comment On “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics”
Two of the group are chemists.
None of the group as far as I know are Heat Transfer Specialists like “DontBlameCO2″ post 29 above.
ScienceofDoom above is a journalist
May 13th, 2010 at 11:12 am
On the other hand, neither are Gerlich and Tsheuschner prominent as physicists. That’s what is so funny about this. There’s a bad double standard applied here whenever the issue of credentials is raised.
My point was that you don’t need much more than undergraduate level understanding of atmospheric thermodynamics to see that GT2009 has no scientific merit. Publication of such papers does occur from time to time but it is really unusual, and this was the worst paper I have ever seen get into a legitimate science journal.
This is the standard that should always be applied — not credentials, but scientific merit.
I should hasten to add — Gerlich and Tscheuschner are not representative of anyone but themselves. In rebutting their paper, we are not rebutting every other view critical of conventional climate science. As far as the scientific world is concerned, their paper has been ignored, as far as I can see, by pretty much everyone, including all the climate scientists with skeptical views of conventional climate science. People like Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, Douglass and so on would not be taken in by this for a second, I am sure. (I only know of one exception, and it is possible there might be another one or two. It’s a wonderful world!)
Please note! I do not fault “Climate Research News” at all for blogging about this paper.
It DID get into a legitimate journal, and this is how scientists make their work and their ideas available to others for consideration. Reporting on significant claims like this is right and proper. I do not think GT2009 has any scientific merit — as you can see in our rebuttal, but that is not to say no-one should look at it. It is published, and so it is part of the corpus of scientific work which outlets like this can legitimately point to and discuss. Same goes for the reply of G+T to our rebuttal. I am more than happy for those interested to look at the published record for themselves, and I will continue to engage myself substantively on the merits of actual arguments in all these papers… though not in the scientific literature. I believe this is a dead issue there, and that the discussion, if any, will continue for a while at blogs and bulletin boards and then eventually die out. But let the chips fall where they may!
On the matter of prominence, though, I cannot resist pointing out…
Prominence is a subjective term. The basic starting requirement for a scientist is to publish. Merely having physics publications is not enough to stand out; that is what is required to be in at the ground floor!
The only author of the the eight people involved (I and my five co-authors, and the original authors Gerlich and Tsheuschner) who has a credible claim for “prominence” is Joshua Halpern. People wishing to undermine his credibility often describe him as a chemist, and indeed he is currently a professor of physical chemistry at Howard University. But his PhD and early work is physics, and his involvement in chemistry is very much from the perspective of a physicist, and he continues to publish papers that are plainly physics.
Josh Halpern’s publication record would be enough to gift wrap the publications of Gerlich and Tscheuschner combined with something over for decorative bows!
Of the others, it I have not done a careful search but I doubt that Tscheuschner’s modest previous record in physics publication would be as good as some of my other co-authors.
Dr Gerlich is not in the game at all, by this measure. He publishes mainly in mathematics; and has only a modest record there. My own position is similiar. I have no previous physics publications, but a modest record of formal publication in mathematics and computer science.
Certainly neither Gerlich nor Tscheuschner have any prior formal record at all in atmospheric thermodynamics, and they have absolutely zero research background in it. Their original paper gives no original research at all — merely an error soaked dismissal of basic well established undergraduate level atmospheric physics. The original paper, despite its sweeping claims, has sunk like a stone into the scientific world with not a ripple to show for it. Our rebuttal is, I believe, their very first citation from peer reviewed literature, and I am not excepting our rebuttal or their reply to have any interest other than in the public sphere of people trying to understand what goes on in climate science, and confused by strange publications like GT2009.
Be that as it may, you may engage with me further on the actual content of our rebuttal and of the reply at the link I gave above. All viewpoints are welcome, as long as people engage with mutual courtesy and a focus on the substance rather than on individuals. If this is you, feel free to drop in! I will strive to ensure that no-one is subjected to ridicule or abuse, but that everyone is open to a critical examination of their ideas — me most certainly included.
Regards — sylas (the admin at Climate Physics Forums)
May 13th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
What sylas fails to mention is that not one Heat Transfer Specialist can find any fault with the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper.
Any Physicist Chemist or Engineer whose professional work is in heat transfer such as DontBlameCO2(post 29) who have declared themselves have spoken up in favour of G&T.
Is this a coincidence?
May 14th, 2010 at 8:07 am
That simply isn’t true Bryan, and furthermore you are out of line trying to speak on behalf of all “heat transfer specialists”.
If you need a name of a bona fide expert who has actually been bothered with this, see Professor Grant Petty.
Professor Petty is designated by the University of Wisconsin Madison as an expert contact for satellite remote sensing of the atmosphere and atmospheric radiative transfer. It doesn’t get more relevant than that, and he writes text books on atmospheric thermodynamics. He’s also had the bad luck to get caught up in this nonsense because Tscheuscher — who has zero background in heat transfer as a specialization (how come you never look at the specializations of G+T, by the way?) requested a copy of his text book and then made a high school level howler mistake in commenting on it. I talk about that in the discussion I have linked above. (I find it is MUCH better to look at the actual merits of a subject than just appeal to unnamed authorities.)
Note that the greenhouse effect is largely a consequence of radiative heat transfers; but if you just say “heat transfer” you are likely to get side tracked more into conductive and convective transfers, which are involved but only indirectly. You might find an engineer who has worked in a totally different context, for example, but that would be silly. The greenhouse effect is a basic consequence of elementary atmospheric thermodynamics, and that is the expertise you want to focus on. And you don’t need much. It’s a first year level issue, truly; but it is quite likely someone who focused rather on chemical processes or fluid flows or insulation might not be immediately familiar with the relevant theory.
If you don’t know what Petty thinks, what business do you have in speaking for all heat transfer specialists? (And yes, I DO know what Petty thinks, and even specifically his reaction to the reply published a week or so ago. It ain’t pretty.)
But we should not be reduced to looking at what experts say. We should look at substance.
After all — Gerlich and Tscheuschner have no specialist training in heat transfer at all! It wouldn’t matter. Their arguments stand or fall on their own merits. DontBlameCO2 didn’t appeal to credentials. He tried to make a substantive argument — and made an error when he suggests that given a constant solar input, the altitude at which IR-absorption occurs (better, the IR-optical depth) can’t have a significant impact on temperature. That is a very basic error, and no amount of expertise could save it from being an error. Our published and peer reviewed rebuttal made no attempt to count up experts. We simply pointed out specifically where G+T were at fault, and frankly we only scratched the surface of the errors in that paper.
We should look at the scientific case. We published a formal rebuttal not because specialists were finding it hard to see the faults (they certainly weren’t) but in order to help clarify matters for people in the public sphere — in blogs like this one — who wanted to know specifics of where G+T went wrong. The only ones who will benefit are people willing to focus on the subject itself rather than irrelevant distractions about credentials. It’s harder work, but infinitely more rewarding.
May 15th, 2010 at 12:55 am
Sylas said
“furthermore you are out of line trying to speak on behalf of all “heat transfer specialists”.”
What I said
Any Physicist Chemist or Engineer whose professional work is in heat transfer such as DontBlameCO2(post 29) who have declared themselves have spoken up in favour of G&T.
I became interested in this topic after reading the now infamous e-mails from the CRU.
I tried to get as much information as I could from various sources including websites both believers in AGW and sceptics of AGW.
Having a physics degree I could make sense of the evidence provided to make the case for and against AGW and had an open mind about the outcome.
What I found was:
With believers in AGW sites a very unpleasant intolerance and anti scientific atmosphere.
Sceptics were often personally insulted and censored.
This created a very negative impression for an open minded onlooker like me.
Sceptic sites were almost always exactly opposite, with a pleasant tolerant and scientific atmosphere.
The Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper had just been peer reviewed and I read through it and it made sense.
I was quite interested in how other people responded to the paper particularly those with expertise in heat transfer.
I have now come across six such individuals who declared their occupations and attitude.
All six support the conclusions of the G&T paper.
Why doesnt someone with such a background find the flaws in the paper?
Sylas claims the flaws are many and obvious.
He further pokes fun at the authors and implies that they don’t know basic physics.
I find this attitude to be preposterous, the university in Germany would have a Professor who is ignorant of basic physics.
The academic supporters of the theory of AGW mainly seem to be employed by the climate change industry.
Several pillars of their theory are under attack.
G&T question if there is any evidence to support even the “Greenhouse Effect of CO2″
The theory of “Radiative Balance” is questioned.
The temperature record is in question.
Other theories of climate change such as the Solar wind may provide a more convincing explanation.
The G&T reply to the group that includes sylas will make interesting reading.
Unfortunately it is not free to view and I will have to wait for a visit to the library before getting access.
However in the brief outline G&T say the Halpern group have totally misrepresented their paper.
If that’s the case then sylas may be arguing with himself.
May 15th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
Poke fun? Where? What are you speaking of here?
Note that I believe only Gerlich is a minor professor at a University, and his specialty is mathematics. I do not think Tscheuschner is a professor at any University.
Errors many and obvious? Yes, certainly, and we point them out. You might need to know a bit about atmospheric radiative thermodynamics, but if you do; then yes, as obvious as can be.
Ignorant of basic physics? Yes, they are, definitely. Note that this is not actually that unusual. There’s a lot of different fields of physics, and it is not unusual even for a professor to be ignorant of some of the basics in a field in which they have not studied particularly. Unfortunate, perhaps, but it happens. What is unusual is for someone to publish a paper attempting to rewrite a field with which they are not well acquainted.
Neither Gerlich nor Tscheuschner have many publications in physics at all, and nothing whatsoever before this in atmospheric physics or thermodynamics. It simply is not their field.
Have you read their original paper? The abuse they heap upon other far more well known and better recognized physicists is amazing.
If you are going to pick on credentials… look to the credentials also of G+T.
If you are going to speak of a university professor… try to find the home pages for G+T at their university.
If you are going to talk about being disrespectful… read how G+T speak of others in their paper!
If you are going to look at prominence… check the publication records and citation counts of G+T.
I am not poking fun to say that these two scientists are virtual unknowns, with very little research experience or standing in anything, writing outside their field, with a paper full of errors, in conflict with any text book on atmospheric radiation physics, and which has had no impact on the scientific community.
That’s not poking fun; they is simply letting you know that you seem to be mistaken about their standing.
Yes, they do, and with all due respect — they are flatly wrong.
They will continue to argue this, of course, which I do not find at all troubling. I am content for this exchange to be available for others to read, and I am 100% positive that it will continue to have zero impact on the actual progress of science. I am 100% sure that already well known climate scientists skeptical of AGW will continue to ignore it, because even a minimal understanding of basic atmospheric radiative thermodynamics will be sufficient to see that all their primary conclusions are profoundly mistaken.
Seriously Bryan — doesn’t it surprise you even just a little bit that scientists like Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, Douglass, etc … all the major scientists who actually publish their research on the physics of climate and climate change, and yet are skeptical of AGW … continue to use the greenhouse effect, and focus their attention on other matters, primarily climate sensitivity?
I’m genuinely curious, and would love to know.
May 16th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
sylas
I understand that your degree is in computer science, correct me if I’m wrong.
I would guess that the topic of thermodynamics would not feature with any prominence in such a degree.
That does not mean that by some diligent personal study you could not get a grasp of the subject and I would encourage you to do so.
The major part of the Halpern group criticism of G&T is the following interpretation.
Because G&T say(in common with every competent physicist on the planet) that heat does not travel from a colder atmosphere to a warmer planet this means that;
G&T are saying that long wave radiation leaving the colder surface cannot be absorber by the warmer surface.
They make a great fuss about how ridiculous such a statement is, they blog each other,each trying to outdo the other with invective about the stupid physicists Gerlich and Tscheuschner.
How does a photon know where to go they will say with mock astonishment!
Because they have either misunderstood or deliberately twisted reality they are tilting at windmills of their own creation.
I have not read G&Ts reply to the Halpern Group comments but I would be surprised if the reply is something along the lines of;
A colder surface can radiate to a warmer surface but the warmer surface will radiate more to the colder surface.
The difference in the two fluxes is what we call heat and it always moves from a higher temperature to a lower temperature.
They may also stress the contribution of conduction and convection as methods of heat transfer.
Many AGW advocates say that conduction of gases is so small that it can be ignored.
G&T might also tackle the unphysical concept of “Radiant Balance”.
All this is guess work on my behalf as I haven’t read the reply as yet.
However if the Halpern Group having misunderstood the paper, stand corrected by the reply; then the would rise in everyone’s estimation, if they made a sincere appology.
May 17th, 2010 at 8:19 am
We have not misunderstood their paper. You appear to be merely taking for granted the claims of G+T that they are being misunderstood.
The effects of conduction ARE small within the atmosphere and can be ignored in energy balance. Sensible heat flows within the atmosphere are convection and latent heat transfers, involving bulk movements of air. Air is an excellent insulator. Foam insulation, or down jackets, work mainly because of the insulating effects of air trapped within the foam or down. Conduction is important right at the boundary of the surface and the atmosphere; but the heated air is carried away from the surface by bulk movements as hot air rises. Conduction is negligible by comparison. In practice any contribution from conduction can be considered as part of the sensible heat flow within the an energy balance treatment, but if you quantify it the impact is well below significance level.
Radiative balance is not unphysical at all. It is the particular case of energy balance in cases sensible heat transfers are negligible. Radiative balance applies in particular for the radiation in and out of a planet, and also within the stratosphere.
Within the troposphere and for the planet surface, the more general case of energy balance is used.
You mention my own qualifications; yes, my own PhD is in discrete mathematics and automata theory. On paper, I have the least physics qualification of any of the authors involved. In practice, when engaged in substantive discussion of physics, this makes no difference. But if you want to look at the backgrounds of the authors, then sure, I have no credentials in physics. But on that score, note that several of my co-authors have better physics credentials than either Gerlich or Tscheuschner.
But the simple fact of the matter is this. The surface of the Earth is at temperatures which mean that the thermal radiant energy leaving the surface is well in excess of the total energy arriving from the Sun. And furthermore, because the surface is hotter than the atmosphere, all the sensible heat flows are upwards from the surface as well; convection conduction and latent heat transfers all result in even more energy leaving the surface and flowing upwards.
The reason this occurs is that there is a substantial flow of radiant energy downwards from the atmosphere. This is called backradiation. The net flow of heat by radiation is the difference of the radiant energy going up, and the backradiation coming down, and this results in a net heat flow up from the planet which, in combination with the sensible heat flows, makes up the total heat flow from the surface. It is this total heat for which the second law applies.
Given the capacity of the atmosphere to interact with radiation, absorbing and emitting thermal radiation, the end result is a much warmer surface. If the atmosphere had no greenhouse effect and no interactions with radiation, then there would be no backradiation, and the radiant heat flow would be simply the thermal surface radiation, and this would be much less that you have with an atmosphere.
Cheers — sylas
May 17th, 2010 at 10:54 am
Oops.
The final sentence of my previous post concludes: “this would be much less that you have with an atmosphere.” That should be “more”.
Final paragraph of above post should be:
Given the capacity of the atmosphere to interact with radiation, absorbing and emitting thermal radiation, the end result is a much warmer surface. If the atmosphere had no greenhouse effect and no interactions with radiation, then there would be no backradiation, and the net radiant heat flow would be simply the thermal surface radiation. This would be much more than the small net flow arising when there is an atmospheric greenhouse effect, and with a much lower surface temperature.
May 17th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
sylas says
“The effects of conduction ARE small within the atmosphere”
I wonder if he considers why convection currents are set up in the air in the first place?
Air molecules hitting the Earth surface leave with the characteristic temperature of the surface, this is a purely conductive transfer.
This then gives rise to a layer of warmer air(and less dense) just above the surface.
This less dense warmer air rises up through the denser air above it as explained well by DontBlameCO2 in post 45.
So its largely conduction that gives rise to the the convection currents we see in the atmosphere.
Another example of conduction which may be more to the liking of sylas since it involves radiation.
If a CO2 molecule absorbs say a 4um photon its energy increases to eight times its STP value.
This increased energy takes the form of additional translational,rotational and vibrational KE.
However with the molecule making ten to the power ten collisions per second with neighbouring molecules(mainly N2 and O2) this energy is quickly lost by the equipartition of energy principle.
This subsequent transfer of the initial radiant energy is best described by a conductive transfer.
So even sylas AGW theories depend on a conductive process in the air.
Sylas says
“Radiative balance is not unphysical at all”
This is that the for example the Sun radiation reaching the Earth most be balanced by an equal amount of radiation leaving the Earth or there will be dire consequences in short order.
This theory is also known as “Radiative Equilibrium”.
Lindzen has recently commented on this and says radiative equilibrium is seldom observed.
I did a simple calculation in 36 above and looked at the consequences for the planet if there were no Radiative Equilibrium whatsoever.
If all the Solar radiation landed on the Earths surface and none ever escaped it would take 1080 years to raise the temperature of the Bulk of the planet by one degree centigrade.
This is because of the massive thermal capacity of the Earth.
Sylas says
“You appear to be merely taking for granted the claims of G+T that they are being misunderstood.”
Well that’s what they say and until I read their reply, I must leave it at that.
May 18th, 2010 at 2:45 am
I’m right here, Bryan. You can talk to me directly, if you like.
My post directly above already covered this. I described the role of conduction at the boundary of the surface and the atmosphere, and pointed out that it is negligible for transport of heat within the atmosphere, or away from the surface. Here’s the bit from my post #56 where I described the only significant role for conduction:
Bryan also says:
This is not a heat flow; as there is no gradient involved. It is not the same as conduction, which is more correctly identified with a flow of heat from hotter to colder. Individual molecules don’t have a temperature; continuous exchanges of energy between molecules within a gas leads to a distribution of energies for individual molecules — the Maxwell-Blotzmann distribution for an ideal gas and with appropriate generalizations for mixtures and non-ideal gases. You get a well defined temperature when you have this distribution of energies for a collection of molecules.
As certain molecules pick up energy from radiation, for example, this is shared with the rest of the gas by the same random dispersion of motions that maintains this distribution, and the whole gas is heated.
Bryan, I double-dog dare you to email Lindzen and ask him point blank if he believes Gerlich and Tscheuschner have falsified the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
He can waffle around anything else he likes, but try to get a straight answer to that one specific question.
This is the fundamental problem with Gerlich and Tscheuschner. They make a very strong claim indeed, claiming that all kinds of well established basic physics is “falsified”, but then go into all kinds of definitional minutiae (usually very badly) which do not correspond to the grand falsification that they claim.
The principle of radiative balance is significant precisely because the tiny IMBALANCE that can exist has a definite physical meaning. Radiation is the only way that heat energy enters and leaves the planet. The energy coming in, and going out, is in approximate balance, and a non-negligible imbalance has considerable significance. At present, there appears to be an imbalance of around 0.25 to 0.5 W/m^2; a fraction of a percent of the total solar input. This means, as a direct consequence, that the Earth is OUT of balance, and heating up. The only heat sink that really makes any difference here is the ocean. That is where the additional heat is going, and it is the rate at which the ocean can heat that really determines a long term surface temperature trend on the scale of decades.
But we are diverging from the topic.
The topic here is the atmospheric greenhouse house effect, a very well understood fundamental physical consequence of basic thermodynamics. This effect means that at equilibrium, the surface temperature of a planet with a more thermal absorption in the atmosphere will be higher than the surface temperature of a planet with less thermal absorption — all other things being equal.
And specifically, if the Earth’s atmosphere was a dry combination of Oxygen and Nitrogen, with no water or carbon dioxide (our major greenhouse gases), then the surface temperatures would be about 33 degrees colder, given the same albedo and solar input.
Well, you don’t HAVE to… you COULD if you like take into consideration what we say as well. But hey. I stand by our rebuttal, without reservation, and with total confidence that Gerlich and Tscheuscher’s work will fade into obscurity. As will out rebuttal — and rightly so. It is scientifically a dead issue, and always has been. The only thing that keeps it alive is a few people around blogs and the like who continue to read what they say and leave it at that, dismissing anything else and applying double standards for their credentials and standing by comparison with the standing of the hundreds or thousands of scientists who write the text books and papers that use and teach and explain the physics of the atmospheric thermodynamics.
In the world of science, Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s claims on atmospheric thermodynamics have never had the slightest impact, and never will, because they are physically nonsensical. Their claims that everyone else is physically nonsensical play well only to a very limited audience.
Cheers — sylas
May 18th, 2010 at 7:21 am
sylas
Apart from the fact that air/surface conduction causes the massive convection flows we see on the planet we will move swiftly on or so sylas would like you to do.
But hold on a minute you say “Conduction is negligible by comparison.”
But if conduction causes the convection it must be at least the same size in comparison!
Sylas sounds like someone who has got hold of a textbook but barely understands it.
“Individual molecules don’t have a temperature; continuous exchanges of energy between molecules within a gas leads to a distribution of energies for individual molecules — the Maxwell-Blotzmann distribution for an ideal gas and with appropriate generalizations for mixtures and non-ideal gases.”
The ideal gas equation was formulated by following the behaviour of a single molecule and then gereralised.
If one molecule or ten thousand molecules have the same speed they will have the same temperature.
So if one molecule after absorbing a photon increases its Kinetic Energy and this is shared out amongst the neighbouring molecules increasing their speed then there will be a local increase in temperature caused by the exchange of KE by conduction.
G&T are absolutely correct when they say there is no such a law in Physics as Radiative Balance.
However sylas says when this happens
“This means, as a direct consequence, that the Earth is OUT of balance, and heating up.”
Perhaps sylas should study a long time scale atmospheric temperature graph( but certainly not the Mann “Hockey Stick” rubbish).
He will notice that the Earths temperature is always changing hence the Earth is generally out of balance.
The well documented “Medieval Warm Period” and the “Little Ice Age” shows the change despite the attempts to smooth them out by scientific fraud.
Sylas says
“In the world of science, Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s claims on atmospheric thermodynamics have never had the slightest impact, and never will, because they are physically nonsensical.”
Actually the boring thing is that Gerlich and Tscheuschners thermodynamics are absolutely traditional.
That why their paper looks so straightforward to heat transfer specialists.
By the way sylas you have still to identify a practising heat transfer specialist who does not agree with Gerlich and Tscheuschner.
May 18th, 2010 at 10:54 am
I already did this ages ago: Grant Petty; although he has not bothered to speak publicly. It’s not a scientific issue at all. Gerlich and Tscheuschner themselves have zero personal credibility as specialists in this area, and are basically ignored by specialists. The only reason to address their paper is to help non-specialists who are confused on the claims.
As I told you previously, expertise in insulation, or heat control in engineering applications like reactors or engines or buildings, is not the relevant specialization. This is on atmospheric thermodynamics.
Since nothing I have said seems to have made any difference for you, it is going to be a matter of some confusion to you when this paper fades into obscurity and basic texts on atmospheric physics continues to deal with the greenhouse effect as they have always done.
I am going overseas in a two days, and will have limited time, and so I must conclude this exchange.
Cheers — sylas
May 18th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
sylas says
“As I told you previously, expertise in insulation, or heat control in engineering applications like reactors or engines or buildings, is not the relevant specialization. This is on atmospheric thermodynamics.”
Yes well I’m sure glad that Mann,Kiehl and Trenberth are not involved in heat transfer calculations in a Nuclear Power Plant.
Sylas prefers to comment on atmospheric thermodynamics.
In his review of the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper he says;
“Publication of such papers does occur from time to time but it is really unusual, and this was the worst paper I have ever seen get into a legitimate science journal.”
Well in his own area of expertise perhaps he should review the Mann “Hockey Stick” paper in light of Steve McIntyre’s findings.
Perhaps he will find time to look at the paper I am presently reading by Kiehl and Trenberth.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/KiehlTrenbBAMS97.pdf
On page 200 we find “The emissivity of low and middle level clouds is assumed to be 1.
..for high level clouds emissivity is set at 0.6″
Note these figures seem to be plucked out of (pardon the pun) ‘thin air’.
Instead of using real experiments this pair seem largely to be using computer models and tweaking the parameters to achieve some preconceived structure.
It is little wonder that none of these models stand up to any reality check.
On page 206 we have the famous diagram of the energy budget.
Notice that the values given are mostly given to three significant figures.
The figures in the diagram have since been revised and for example the Earth surface radiation now is given as 396.1 W/m2 that is to four significant figures.
Now any experimenter from an exact science will know that you should not claim any more accuracy in your final result than was used to calculate that result.
Which in the case of the diagram(page 206) should be to one significant figure.
The emissivity numbers I quoted above from the article are to one significant figure.
Any other emissivity numbers I have seen are to two significant figures.
This rule if applied makes the diagram unusably crude.
Yet that is the blunt reality of the situation.
This report would not be acceptable if presented in a first year physics lab.
Now wonder the authors are now saying that its a “travesty” that reality is not following their computer predictions.
Recently they were complaining that they “cant find the missing heat” and that it will come back to “haunt us”
One other problem with the Earth Surface Radiation figure when used in the Stefan Boltzmann equation for 15 degree Celsius temperature.
It gives an emissivity of well over one which is physically impossible.
May 19th, 2010 at 9:55 am
I still have a few spare hours before leaving and this is a issue worth correcting, so here’s another comment. Bryan says:
Wow. I have finally lost my temper with this stupidity. Read the paper, you incredible dunce!
This kind of response is not my norm, but if you will excuse the above line in this one instance, it will help to give a fair idea of my reaction to this. The provocation of the increasingly silly responses seen above has been extreme. My apologies to other readers, I shall be purely substantive in what follows.
The same assertion about emissivity over 1 — which is of course completely impossible — was made by “Suibhne” over at deltoid, and I would love to know how this interpretation originated. The paper itself is freely available and clearly explains how the value is actually obtained. What follows will be purely substantive for people who would like to know what is being discussed.
The reference for the diagram is: Trenberth, K.E., Fasullo, J.T., and Kiehl, J. (2009) Earth’s Global Energy Budget, in Bulletin of the Amer. Meteor. Soc., Vol 90, pp 311-323. (open access link)
The global mean upwards radiation was originally estimated as 390 W/m^2 in 1997, and then revised to 396 W/m^2 in when the updated paper, cited above, was published in 2009. It is this 396 which is the Earth Surface Radiation figure to which Bryan refers.
The method used to calculate this value is \explained on page 315, in a highlighted box. Basically, the 390 W/m^w was estimated in 1997 using unit emissivity and assuming a uniform temperature over the globe. Both are crude approximations, and the value obtained was properly identified then as an approximate value. The increased value in 2009 is because they use a more thorough calculation, considering that some parts of the globe are a bit cooler and some parts a bit warmer. This results in a higher radiation value over all, by Holder’s inequality, even when using accurate emissivity values which are all slightly less than unity.
Emissivity values are based on the maps used by NASA for their satellite remote sensing work. The proper reference here is:
Wilber, A. C., D. P. Kratz, and S. K. Gupta, 1999: “Surface emissivity maps for use in satellite retrievals of longwave radiation”. NASA Tech. Publication NASA/ TP-1999-209362, 35 pp.
The most relevant value is a broadband water emissivity of 0.9907 for the ocean.
You may also check table 1b of the 2009 reference, as it gives a number of other estimates from the literature, for the upwards thermal radiation flux from the surface, ranging from 394.8 to 395.9 W/m^2.
This has now moved away from the Gerlich and Tscueuschner claims, and is looking at what is the major review reference for Earth’s energy budget, by the world’s leading acknowledged expert on the subject. It is cited and used extensively, and it most certainly does not use physically impossible presumptions as a basis for the numbers. The paper is freely available, and well worth reading. The first author is particularly well known for urging improvements in the measuring systems that are used to monitor the Earth, so as to get a better understanding of the details of the energy budget.
As far as the matter of whether the greenhouse effect has been falsified, I have recently written a more straightforward and basic account for inclusion at the Skeptical Science website. It is illustrated with some detailed spectra of the atmospheric emission spectra, both the backradiation at the surface and the emissions at high altitude outward towards space, supplied by Grant Petty, whom I mentioned previously as a well established authority on this subject. Keep an eye out for it; I expect it will be appearing soon.
Cheers — sylas
May 19th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
This is the level of debate that the advocates of Human Induced Global Warming are fond of indulging in.
Sylas says of me
“Wow. I have finally lost my temper with this stupidity. Read the paper, you incredible dunce!”
I have made quotes from the paper
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/KiehlTrenbBAMS97.pdf
I have come to reasonable observations as to the content of the paper and supported these observations by quotations from the paper.
Any reader can check this out I have even given page references to assist.
Instead of dealing with my quotations he resorted to personal insults.
He then directs me to two sites that apparently want me to pay for the information.
He thinks I should have known all about this before writing my observations on the paper above.
But wait all is not lost because sylas is going to;
“I have recently written a more straightforward and basic account for inclusion at the Skeptical Science website.”
Now the Skeptical Science website despite its name is the opposite of sceptical when it comes to Human Induced Global Warming.
It ruthlessly censors and deletes points of view that come anywhere near proving that this great hoax is built on a tissue of half truths and downright falsehoods.
Its all so predictable.
May 19th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Correction
Ive found I can get through free to the Nasa site.
Most figures there are from graphs scaled to two significant figures.
Water appeared to be approaching 0.96 at 14um
I have not yet found a value for salt water(Ocean) yet, no account of temperature seems to be given.
This is just a quick look as I wanted the correction above.
Will look in more detail later.
May 19th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
Bryan, your paper from 1997 gives a surface radiation of 390 W/m^2
The S-B blackbody effect at 15C, or 288.15K, is σ.T^4, which gives radiation of 390.92 W/m^2
So the effective emissivity implict with those numbers is 390/390.92 = 0.998
This, you may notice, is not greater than 1.
Most likely the original paper used 288 K for the temperature, which is indeed about 15C, but would give radiation of 390.1.
You comment about emissivity being greater than 1 was based on values NOT from the 1997 paper, but the updated 2009 paper, which I cited for you. This gives surface radiation of 396 W/m^2. Now if you fail to read the paper, and simply apply the calculation above, you will get emissivity of 396/390.92 = 1.013, which is, as you note, nonsense.
But if you DO read the paper, you would see that the value is obtained by a much more careful calculation over the whole globe, taking into account differences in emissivity and temperature in different regions and times. The major effect of that, which is clearly described on page 315, is that you avoid a first order error term which arises when you just use one temperature over the whole globe. OK? The calculation actually used LOWER emissivity values.
The account at Skeptical Science is now up, at Has global warming been falsified? It is my own work, but I have taken into account some suggestions from various experts — including Professor Grant Petty whom I have mentioned previously. Any errors in what remains are my own.
The discussion there should be specifically on the substance, and not on the alleged expertise or standing of people who don’t accept the reality of the greenhouse effect. It is not about global warming; the natural greenhouse effect works just as well in pre-industrial times.
This is actually a topic on which it should be possible for critics and supporters of the science of AGW to agree. The Earth’s surface obviously emits far more radiation than it receives from the Sun, and it also loses additional energy by sensible heat flows. If it were not for this, the planet would freeze over completely. The natural greenhouse effect is what makes life as we know it possible, and the physics of it is perfectly understandable without going into more subtle questions of what happens as composition of the atmosphere actually changes.
May 20th, 2010 at 5:08 am
Further to sylas intemperate comment 63
He says
“The first author is particularly well known for urging improvements in the measuring systems that are used to monitor the Earth, so as to get a better understanding of the details of the energy budget.”
Well I would take it as a given for any scientist, so why the special mention.
Are the other climate scientists quite complacent?
The comment that caused the syles outburst was when I suggested that the AGW advocates were using the maximum value for emissivity(e = 1) and possibly at times using the physically impossible more than one.
Readers might say “so what!”
Well as we know the CRU have been accused of rounding up temperatures to justify the global warming scare.
You don’t need to round up much to create a crisis out of nothing.
As Lindzen ha pointed out over the last weekend;
There has been a rise of about 0.7 degrees C over the last 150 years.
I can hardly sleep at night for worrying about it.
But back to the emissivity and whether there is some rounding up.
The bigger the emissivity values the greater the radiation flux values hence the bigger the global warming problem.
I have now had a chance to look at the Nasa paper.
So what do we find.
No salt water figure for Ocean.
One graph gives a value of 0.96 for water as the curve nears 15um
A table later on gives 0.97 for water for 15um
(OMEGA source gives 0.67 for 38 degrees C showing how emissivity varies with temperature.)
Open scrubland 0.86 to 0.95 Barren 0.93
But very oddly since it does not have a value for Urban(towns and so on) it just ROUNDS UP the value of emissivity to one!
So I had to consult Omega again for typical urban materials.
Slate 0.97 at 20c to 0.67 at 38c
Asphalt 0.93 Plowed field 0.38
Gray brick 0.75 Gravel 0.28
Red tiles 0.4 Granite 0.45
I hope readers agree that the rounding up of emissivity values is just another way to make a climate crisis out of nothing.
Here in Britain we are faced with electricity charges increasing to three times present prices in real terms over the next 15 years.
This is just one of the huge dislocations of society as we are forced into measures to solve a non problem.
As usual it is the poor in society that will bear the brunt of costs.
So despite the insults I will continue to hold the IPCC and their adherents to account.
http://www.omega.ca/prodinfo/infraredthermometer.html
May 20th, 2010 at 9:30 am
The emissivity values are based on the reference I gave you previously. I’ll add a link.
Wilber, A. C., D. P. Kratz, and S. K. Gupta, 1999: Surface emissivity maps for use in satellite retrievals of longwave radiation. NASA Tech. Publication NASA/ TP-1999-209362, 35 pp.
It’s got nothing to do with trying to prop up global warming. It’s the straight technical issue of managing remote sensing technologies as best they can. You won’t get exactly the same values with tables for a handheld infrared thermometer.
Don’t let’s get off track here. It’s not about global warming, or actual changes in climate. This is straight out looking at the energy flows for understanding the Earth in more detail. You seem to be seeing “global warming” as a backdrop to everything. That just isn’t the case.
The subject of the paper discussed in this specific blog is the greenhouse effect itself and a claim that it has been falsified. This is a matter of the basic physics of the natural greenhouse effect that keeps Earth’s climate livable at all.
The radiation from Earth’s surface is, roughly speaking, something around 390 to 400 W/m^2. This is much greater than the 240 W/m^2 Earth absorbs from solar radiation. And on top of that, there is also sensible heat flows of convection and latent heat that transport more heat up from the surface.
This occurs because of the natural effect of the atmosphere, so that thermal radiation cannot get out directly to space. There’s no violation of the second law in this; the net heat flows are still all moving up from the surface. When a flow of heat has a thermal barrier of some kind, temperatures rise until the heat flows are sufficient to carry away the excess energy.
The capacity of the atmosphere to absorb thermal radiation, much more strongly than it absorbs solar radiation, is called the “greenhouse” effect, a phrase coined back in the 1800s. A glass greenhouse and an atmospheric greenhouse both involve a physical barrier that blocks the flow of heat, leading to a warmer temperature below the barrier. The underlying physics is different, however. A glass greenhouse works primarily by blocking convection, and an atmospheric greenhouse works primarily by blocking thermal radiation, and so the comparison is not exact. This difference is well understood and explained in most introductions to the subject. Where confusion arises, it is usually the glasshouse that is improperly described, rather than the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
This really ought to be common ground for skeptics and supporters of the IPCC alike. Understanding the Earth’s natural atmospheric greenhouse effect is a basic part of the underlying fundamental physics used by us all. And for the most part, it is.
May 20th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Sylas
There was no hidden agenda when Mann produced his “Hockey Stick” graph which smoothed out the little ice age and the medieval warm period and exaggerated the temperatures from 1970 to the late 90ies.
There was no hidden agenda when the CRU produced the inflated Chinese readings and then when challenged could not name the stations where the readings were taken.
There is no hidden agenda when the source you quote say were not sure about the urban emissivity so we will just give it the maximum value of one.
Look at the list I have given of typical urban readings, any rational person can see that they are very far from unity(1).
In these three instances the people were indulging in ivory tower research with no axe to grind about the outcome, some naive people might say.
The “rounding up” and “smoothing out” process just happens to support the great hoax of man made global warming through increased levels of CO2.
May 20th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Be aware that you cannot just look at the materials alone to get a good emissivity value.
One of the contributing factors to a high emissivity over urban areas is that there is a lot more surface area by virtue of structures sticking up. Topology matters, for how effective a radiator can be. Urban areas really do have high emissivity.
And yes, there is no hidden agenda involved in this case. It has nothing to do with climate change, as I have said previously, simply because these are new measurements that cannot be compared with what it was in the past. It really is simply sorting out the energy budget and doing effective remote sensing, by technicians who are interested in that technical problem and not in some other climate based agenda.
Likewise, the G&T paper is not about climate change, but the underlying physics of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect, without worrying about changes. There’s no agenda in pointing out their errors, for me, other than education in the underlying physics of climate. Forget warming, and change. You seem to have a bit of an agenda yourself on that score which keeps us side tracking.
The question is… is the natural atmospheric greenhouse effect itself a real physics effect? Does the Earth’s atmosphere work to help trap heat and keep the surface temperatures above freezing?
The answer to these questions is “Yes”, and that should be common ground for skeptics and supporters alike of the science involved in how climate might change.
Now posting on the run, from an airport hotel! Cheers — sylas
May 21st, 2010 at 2:52 am
Sylas says
“Urban areas really do have high emissivity.”
This is just an assertion without any evidence.
Sylas says
….by technicians who are interested in that technical problem and not in some other climate based agenda…….
Climate Science as a subject has gown exponentially in the last 40 years on the back of scare stories.
In the era of massive cutbacks in higher education I wonder what would happen in the following scenario.
IPCC on reviewing the best evidence have come to the conclusion that man made global warming does not exist.
The Governments of the world would of course keep funding at the same rate in the interests of “pure science”.
Perhaps you do live in a world where such generous people are to be found.
Watch out for the man at the airport selling “snake oil”.
May 21st, 2010 at 10:33 pm
[...] and On the Miseducation of the Uninformed by Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009)) and one on another blog the subject has been much [...]
May 22nd, 2010 at 10:48 am
Quite a dramatic indication that the IPCC is grossly in error
http://solarcooking.org/research/McGuire-Jones.mht
The solar heater when pointed to a cold part of the sky at night should have picked up “backradiation” according to IPCC theory.
For instance one metre area parabolic dish should have 300W/m2 of infra red radiation concentrated at its focal point.
I thought it would be much less, but not that it would be going the other way.
However this paper shows that the heat energy is going the other way and cooling the surfaces connected to the dish even I did not expect this dramatic effect.
Proving the “backradiation” if it exists is very small and certainly nothing remotely like 300W/m2.
As I say this paper should be tested rigorously but if it holds up the IPCC theory is grossly in error.
A simple practical experiment bursts though years of pseudoscience global warming hoax.
May 29th, 2010 at 3:25 am
If I can comment here briefly… you cannot focus backradiation. It comes from the sky, not from a point source that could be focused. A parabolic mirror only works with light all coming in the same direction, or close to it — such as radiation from the Sun. It will be completely ineffectively with radiation coming from all across the sky.
I think Bryan also now agrees, as a result of discussions at “science of doom”, that this particular thought experiment was a mistake; though it is best if he speaks for himself.
The major point I want to emphasize, for myself, is as follows:
The large magnitude backradiation is data. It is directly measured, and it is well over 300 W/m^2 on average. Any theory must account for this as part of what we observe in the real world. Any thought experiment that supposedly refutes this magnitude of backradiation is already falsified, and the thought experiment will have errors in the physics as well, just like the parabolic mirror argument did.
I’m not selling snake oil. The high emissivity of urban areas is another fact of life, not just something I thought up for the sake of argument. I don’t have a reference right at hand and it is long past time I went to bed so I’ll have to leave that as a personal assurance that I am trying my best in good faith to give helpful information.
Goodnight — sylas
May 30th, 2010 at 8:06 am
Sylas says
“……I think Bryan also now agrees, as a result of discussions at “science of doom”, that this particular thought experiment was a mistake; though it is best if he speaks for himself……..
Yes I should have remembered that a parabolic mirror focuses parallel light not diffuse light.
So no concentration at the source.
What also emerged from discussion at SoD was that a source cannot “heat” a surface higher than its own temperature.
In other words the radiation coming from -20c atmosphere cannot “heat” surface to more than -20c.
This shows the limited influence of backradiation.
It further explains what seemed even weirder to me that the “solar oven” could actually freeze water when the air outside was well above zero.
May 30th, 2010 at 11:05 pm
I don’t think we should recapitulate that whole discussion. Nothing “emerged”. You made a claim of your own, and other people showed what what wrong with it. Basically, you miss the whole point when you speak of the atmosphere heating the surface.
As has been explained many many times, the atmosphere does not heat the surface. It cannot… it is colder that the surface. The surface is heated from the Sun. The atmosphere — or specifically, the greenhouse gases of the atmosphere — makes it harder for the surface to shed heat to space, which results in a much hotter surface than you would have otherwise. To describe this as the atmosphere heating the surface is physically incorrect. The atmosphere is not a source of heat. It is not a heater. It is a barrier for radiant heat coming from the surface, and without it the surface would be frozen solid.
Cheers — sylas
May 31st, 2010 at 9:25 am
sylas:
…….”As has been explained many many times, the atmosphere does not heat the surface. It cannot”………
I am glad we agree on that.
The atmosphere is a good insulator of the Earth.
This is the point I have been making perhaps I could have expressed myself even more effectively.
You certainly do not need to convince me of that all my posts here will testify to that.
However you still have a lot of work to do with scienceofdoom who still believes that a colder body can heat a warmer body.
Perhaps he will listen to your argument more than mine.
Give it a try.
I still do not think that the radiative properties of man induced co2 can produce the so called “greenhouse effect”
The effect of scale
To study the Earth and its Atmosphere we need to some realistic magnitudes.
Ratio of;
Mass of Earth/Mass of Atmosphere =1,200,000
Earth at temperature 10c has 1200000 mass units
Atmosphere at temperature -10c has 1 unit
Only 1% of body 2 can radiate so radiating mass =0.01 unit
However we are trying to nail the villain co2 so radiating co2 mass =0.0004
But only 0.25 of today’s co2 is thought to be caused by human activity so human induced radiating co2 mass at temperature -10c =0.0001 mass units
Earth at temperature 10c has 1200000 mass units
To prove that human induced co2 can significantly increase the temperature of the atmosphere is far from proven!
May 31st, 2010 at 11:16 pm
I am not especially interested in sorting out who is right or wrong, so much as simply identifying and fixing up misconceptions. However, for the record, I think Science of doom understands what is heating what just fine; and if you think otherwise then I am pretty sure you have misunderstood him. Many of his descriptions of the underlying physics and thermodynamics have been very good and in all seriousness, you have a lot to learn from him.
It is important to distinguish two different things. One is the actual flow of heat at a given time. The other is the impact of change from one dynamic equilibrium to another. The greenhouse effect certainly warms the Earth, in the sense that without it the surface would be frozen. But in terms of heat flows, the greenhouse effect does not work by heating the surface, but by making it harder for the surface to cool down. In this very general sense, it is like a blanket, which is not a source of energy but a barrier to loss of energy.
If you decompose the thermodynamic system into parts, the Sun, the Earth and space, then you have heat flow from the Sun to the Earth, and from the Earth to space.
If you further break up the Earth into the surface and the atmosphere, then you have:
(1) heat flow from the Sun to the surface, and from the Sun to the atmosphere.
(2) heat flow from the surface of the Earth to the atmosphere, and from the surface to space.
(3) heat flow from the atmosphere to space.
The flow of heat from the surface to the atmosphere includes special heat transfers, but otherwise the only energy transport that matters from the Sun, or into space, is radiant heat flow. To find the radiant heat from the surface to the atmosphere, you must take the difference between the radiant energy up from the surface, and the backradiation down from the atmosphere. You end up with something like 60 to 70 W/m^2 radiant heat from the surface to the atmosphere. There’s approaching 400 W/m^3 upwards, and something around 330 W/m^3 or more of backradiation coming downwards.
Quibbling over the accuracy of figures misses the picture. The broad details are not in any doubt: there is of a lot of backradiation (roughly 2/3 of the radiation reaching the surface is backradiation from the atmosphere, with the Sun contributing the rest) and there is even more upwards radiation from the surface.
When you change the composition of the atmosphere, you change the characteristics of how energy is transported. More greenhouse gases in the atmosphere mean that less heat gets from the surface to space; and this has the same general effect as a blanket in the sense that when you impede a heat flow then the temperatures rise until the surface is able to radiate enough energy to be in balance again.
Your numbers are not helping. The mass of the Earth is irrelevant to surface temperature. You might find that handy for sorting out geothermal heat flows, but this has a negligible impact on surface temperatures. It is another red herring as far as the physics of climate is concerned.
But in any case, anthropogenic contributions of CO2 have raised concentrations by about 40%. The associated radiative forcing is around 1.7 to 1.8 W/m^2. These numbers are very solid. What is much harder to determine is the temperature rise to balance that forcing. This is the issue of “sensitivity”, and there are all kinds of issues to look at there. But basically, the temperature rise simply from what emissions have occurred so far is expected to be something from 0.7 to 2.2 degrees. Projections for the future need to estimate how much more will be added, which will continue to add to the impact.
There’s a heck of a lot of scope there to look at time scales, feedback processes, estimation methods and lots more. Gerlich and Tscheuschner attempt to circumvent all that by claiming that there are basic physical errors in the whole idea of greenhouse effects at all. They are wrong. Their paper has no impact at all for scientists working in these fields, and it can only distract others from understanding the real questions of the impact of human changes to the atmosphere.
I really recommend those interested in this try reading a text book on the relevant atmospheric thermodynamics. There are many texts available which can help give a clearer picture of how the Earth’s surface temperature is established, given the radiation received from the Sun and the effects of reflection and atmospheric absorption.
Here’s just one that may help: Physical Principles of Meteorology and Environmental Physics, by D. Blake and R. Robson (World Scientific 2008). I have linked the title to the book’s webpage, where Chapter 1, “The Big Picture”, can be freely downloaded. This includes a good introduction to the greenhouse effect.
Cheers — sylas
June 1st, 2010 at 6:09 am
sylas
How come this diagram from Nasa doesn’t show any backradiation
http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/images/Erb/components2.gif
How come even on the Moon with no atmosphere we have evidence that stupidly applying a formula does not match the reality of an experiment.
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon.pdf
How come despite claiming to have falsified the Gerlich and Tscheuschner you have yet to prove one mistake in the paper.
Pick just one point and show that Gerlich and Tscheuschner are clearly in error.
Why do we not see an apology from the Halpern group that their claim that Gerlich and Tscheuschner said that a cold surface cannot radiate to a warmer surface is false.
June 1st, 2010 at 9:48 am
Because it is given the net heat, not a decomposition into the fluxes up and down. It combines the upwards radiance and the backradiation into a single net heat flow upwards.
The appropriate formulae work just fine on the moon, and the unpublished paper you have cited is merely ridiculous. I have done the appropriate calculations for the moon in our rebuttal paper. You can also read a thread at physics forums where I explained the proper calculations for the moon. Please note however that physics forums no longer support climate discussions and the new climate physics forums (link from my name) is for climate based discussions.
Using the basic formulae for the Moon is a pretty standard undergraduate exercise; it will not be hard to find examples of this calculation in basic textbooks.
The question I would ask is how come you have not managed to recognize any of the errors we have proven already? The point is, we have given a rebuttal, which shows many of their errors, and that is now on record. If you do not accept it, that is your prerogative, but I think that is more to do with you than with us. I am content with what is now on record, both the paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner, and our rebuttal, and their reply, and am 100% confident that this is no issue at all in the scientific community. Their paper is the worst I have ever seen get into a real physics journal.
Their claims of violations of the second law in any account of the atmospheric greenhouse effect are in error, and we show this in our rebuttal.
Gerlich and Tscheuscher’s paper is full of confusions and mix ups. What we claim that they have said is from quotes in their paper. You should refer to those, which are all recorded in the rebuttal paper. Demanding “apologies” is not a sensible way to address our work.
Cheers — sylas
June 1st, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Sylas you say
…..”Using the basic formulae for the Moon is a pretty standard undergraduate exercise; it will not be hard to find examples of this calculation in basic textbooks.”…….
That’s the problem.
If the equation you apply is unrealistic then no matter how careful you are with the arithmetic the result will still be nonsense.
Is your calculation backed up with experimental evidence from the Moon showing a near perfect match with the temperature record?
Gerlich and Tscheuscher’s paper pointed out that errors would follow if care was not applied when using the Stefan Boltzmann Equation(pg 19,20) and Kirchhoff’s Law (pg 48,49)
This peer reviewed paper from outside the climate science area shows how limited Kirchhoff’s Law is;
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-19-01.PDF
you say
…..”Why do we not see an apology from the Halpern group that their claim that Gerlich and Tscheuschner said that a cold surface cannot radiate to a warmer surface is false.”..
Could you point me to a page number in the G&T paper to substantiate your claim.
I don’t believe you can
June 4th, 2010 at 3:05 am
From Bryan’s comment above:
Your response “that’s the problem” makes no sense to me. What problem? There’s no particular problem here. I was saying there ISN’T a problem, and you have shown nothing wrong with the basic physics involved. You gave a link to an unpublished essay, which is, I repeat, merely ridiculous.
What you should be using here is not unpublished web essays, but conventional physics textbooks. I guess many texts would show how conventional thermodynamic forumlae apply to the Moon. A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation, by G. W. Petty (Sundog publishing, 2006) is one to which I have referred to in G&T discussions before. The account for the Moon there is section 6.4.1, starting page 133, and covers similar ground as I gave for you previously in links to where I described thermodynamics of Lunar temperatures independently. Or there’s the more detailed “Principles of Planetary Climate” by Ray Pierrehumbert, coming out in Dec 2010 and well worth getting if you want to do calculations for different planets. This book notes, quoting about page 16, Section 1.4:
Section 3.3 also goes on to give the simple case of the Moon explicitly.
This is not about some grand global warming conspiracy. This is the Moon we are talking about now, and the physics we apply is used because it IS realistic. Physics is NOT nonsense, and we DO know how thermodynamics applies to modulate temperatures on the Moon, and on the Earth. It IS a basic level undergraduate exercise to calculate expected temperatures on the Moon, and it gets sensible, realistic answers.
From Bryan’s comment again:
With respect, you are not quoting me anywhere there at all. You are quoting YOURSELF above.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s paper is very poorly expressed, but as we have said in our rebuttal, the descriptions of conventional climate models in GT2009 on page 340 and especially figure 32 describes a climate model as having a heat transfer from the upper atmosphere to the surface (their accounts here are inconsistent; referring to “atmosphere” in the caption and “surface” in the diagram, but the argument seems unaffected) which they declare impossible. They say, in the caption (which we quote)
The fundamental point here is that it is flatly wrong to say there is any kind of perpetual motion machine or any other such violation of elementary thermodynamics fundamentals in climate models.
Either they have got not the slightest clue about what climate models do, or else they are claiming that backradiation from a cold reservoir to a hot one is impossible.
IF we owe them an apology about taking this as a claim that the energy flux downwards is impossible, THEN they first of all owe every climate modeler on the planet an apology for misrepresentation about the direction of heat flow in climate models.
Many of the people who cite Gerlich and Tscheuschner with approval as having some kind of meaningful criticism here have somehow gained the impression that there’s some kind of thermodynamic problem with the existence of backradiation from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface. This is, of course, false.
The fact of the matter is that no climate model anywhere gives a flow of net heat from a cool reservoir to a warmer one, and ALL of them have flows of thermal radiation going in both directions between reservoirs with different temperatures. The claims of second law violations repeated through GT2009 are erroneous.
Cheers — sylas
June 4th, 2010 at 8:55 am
sylas:
Did you even look at the article on the Moon.
The Stefan Boltzmann equation doesn’t even give the maximum Lunar temperature accurately.
Look at the predicted value from SB(i.e. calculated) and see that it is never reached
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon.pdf
I take the fact that you can calculate the values in an equation as a given.
However the calculated values do not match the experimental values.
On the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper.
Both you and I know that in the blog exchanges from Rabbit and Deltoid great fun was made of the interpretation that G&T claimed that “radiation could not go from a colder to a warmer surface”
While you may excuse yourself from this particular misinterpretation it is part of the Halpern group comment on G&T.
A few posts back I made the point that I should have remembered that diffuse light is difficult to focus.
That’s what a sceptic does corrects the record and acknowledges it.
What I find interesting is the opposite seems to happen with IPCC theory adherents.
If the slightest mistake is acknowledged then the whole edifice is in danger of falling down.
People would have more respect for your views if you said in this respect you had taken the wrong interpretation and were happy to amend your views in that respect.
For a group who as a whole think that the Mann “hockey stick” paper is valid to describe the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper as the worst paper they have read says more about them than it does about Gerlich and Tscheuschner.
The Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper is just standard thermodynamics applied to the Earth and its atmosphere.
A physicist will look at the experimental evidence to determine how to proceed
The original “greenhouse glasshouse theory” was falsified by a simple experiment by Woods.
It now looks like the IPCC “greenhouse theory” and the assumption behind the use of SB equation are facing a challenge from the Moon.
June 5th, 2010 at 2:05 am
Yes, Bryan, of course I did look at the essay on the moon. It is on the basis of looking at it that I told you it is ridiculous. I suggest you stick to talking about that essay at Science of Doom (here). I am not involved in that discussion; and I have no interest as soon as I saw its superficiality and misconceptions.
No offense intended. I am just not interested; and I do not mind — nor at this stage I am surprised — that you apparently think your link is making sense. This is your prerogative, and I do not have any obligation to persuade you of the problems at that link. I am also pretty sure it would be futile. In any case, you are already engaging the topic with others and I suggest you continue with them, and leave me, and this blog article, to the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper. Thanks.
Huh? I did not attempt to excuse myself. I just gave you above chapter and verse from G&T which suggests an impossibility of backradiation from a cooler reservoir to a warmer one.
If they are NOT claiming that, then they have completely misrepresented what every climate model anywhere does, and if we start demanding apologies, then they get to go first.
In either case, their claims about second law violations in any of the descriptions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect are a fundamental error in the paper. There are no violations of the second law in climate models or in the standard textbook descriptions of the greenhouse effect.
My style of engagement is a bit different from that taken by Eli and Tim; everyone has their own style. For the most part we agree on the substance, though I feel free to disagree with either of them on occasion. In this instance, I have shown you the quotes from G&T as you requested. Whether people “make fun” of them, or take a more dispassionate approach, is stylistic.
Woods gave useful experiments for the workings of a glasshouse; not the atmosphere. This is basic information now in introductions to the atmospheric greenhouse effect. The similarity with a glasshouse is strictly limited. The glasshouse, or standard garden greennhouse, works mainly by restricting heat rising from the surface by convection (as Wood’s work with rocksalt and glass showed quite effectively). The atmospheric greenhouse works by restricting heat rising from the surface by radiation.
They are similar in that both give higher surface temperatures by making it hard for the surface to shed heat absorbed from the Sun. But they do so by restricting different modes of vertical heat transport, so they are not the same physical process.
I accept and understand Wood’s experimental results. They present no problem to anything I have described or anything in the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
But speaking of experimental results… have YOU yet recognized the experiments that measure large backradiation values? I’ve given them to you on previous occasions I am not sure if you have recognized these experimentally determined values as yet. Can you confirm or not please?
The reference: Stern, S.C., and F. Schwartzmann (1954) “An Infrared Detector For Measurement Of The Back Radiation From The Sky”. J. Atmos. Sci., 11, 121–129. This obtained values in Maryland, and they were in the range 314 to 405 (daytime) and from 206 to 312 (nighttime), limited to clear sky conditions.
You are aware, I guess, that the Moon has no atmosphere and no greenhouse effect? The physics behind the atmospheric greenhouse effect is basic thermodynamics understood long before there was an IPCC and well before global warming was identified as a problem. The Moon is a much simpler case which is perfectly consistent with all the standard thermodynamic formulae; and the only person I can see who applied them incorrectly is the author of your link, who applied them with an assumption of zero heat capacity. That’s his problem. Not mine, not NASAs, not the IPCC and not any of the physicists who do things more sensibly.
Cheers — sylas (from Hong Kong this time)
June 5th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
sylas
I think you should review the way you address people or you will be addressed in a similar manner
…….”I saw its superficiality and misconceptions.
No offense intended. I am just not interested; and I do not mind — nor at this stage I am surprised — that you apparently think your link is making sense. This is your prerogative, and I do not have any obligation to persuade you of the problems at that link. I am also pretty sure it would be futile.”
No offence intended but I think your endless evasions and repetitions are symptomatic of the vacuous views of the Halpern Group.
No offence intended but it is rather surprising that after several attempts to get you to indicate where in the G&T paper they say “that a cold surface cannot radiate to a warmer surface”. I don’t believe you can and it now seems pointless in asking.
I do not mean to be personal but I think you would benefit from reading an introductory book on thermodynamics.
I mean to be helpful when I say that this should be preceded by a study of basic Kinetic Theory of Gases.
I am perhaps concerned that I might be overloading you with reading material however you may be interested in just what the limitations of applicability of Planck’s equation, Stefan-Boltzmann equation (the integration of the Planck function over all wavelengths) and how they are related to Kirchhoff’s Law.
The reference below takes the reader through first principles and by a step by step approach reaches the conclusion that great care must be exercised in the use of these three equations.
They are not universal.
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-11-06.PDF
June 7th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
No problem Bryan, I take no offense, and I do not demand your respect.
I’m personally satisfied that I already know much more about any of the relevant science than you could ever hope to manage, and that nothing whatsoever will persuade you of this. You probably feel the reverse, which I find amusing but not surprising or upsetting; and I shall continue to try an avoid being merely nasty. I appreciate your doing this also, thanks. So let us get back to substance:
I have already told you above in my comment on June 4th, 2010 at 3:05 AM that a portion of the G&T paper which indicates a second law violation with backradiation is on page 340 of their paper. You’ve let this pass without any comment while still berating me for not giving you this information; so I don’t know what you mean by evasion.
In the meantime, I am still interested to hear your reaction to the direct measurement of the large magnitude of backradiation, and so I ask yet again. The reference again (open access) is: Stern, S.C., and F. Schwartzmann (1954) “An Infrared Detector For Measurement Of The Back Radiation From The Sky”. J. Atmos. Sci., 11, 121–129.
This obtained values in Maryland, and they were in the range 314 to 405 W/m^2 (daytime) and from 206 to 312 W/m^2 (nighttime), limited to clear sky conditions. You will have to do a simple units conversion from the numbers in the paper, which are given in cal / cm^2 / min. 1 cal is 4.1868 J, so 1 cal/min is 0.06978 J/sec (or Watt). With another factor of 10000 for cm^2, the numbers in the paper should by multiplied by 697.8 to convert to W/m^2, near enough to 700.
You have yet to show any actual error in our use of thermodynamic formulae, and you have cited a strange paper “ilovecarbondioxide” which DOES make an error by assuming zero heat capacity at the surface.
Now you cited another paper, published by “Progress in Physics”, which is not a recognized journal. Papers there can be anything from good to atrocious. I don’t see anything immediately wrong with the paper, nor that it is particularly relevant. It deals with, for example, changes to the state of material with temperature which impact on emissivity or other thermal properties. I know this; a nice example of the importance of state changes is the latent heat transport in our atmosphere. You say that you must take care with applying forumlae. Of course! The only example of NOT applying proper care explicitly noted was, amusingly, from your other link to the absurd essay at “ilovecarbondioxide”. It’s all very well to say you have to apply formulae with care. The thing is… we do; and you have not shown otherwise.
The best starting point continues to be basic textbooks. A very good standard reference which I have on hand at present (I am still overseas) is “An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation” by K.N. Liou. (2nd ed, Academic Press 2002)
You’ve said a fair bit about backradiation, and also about the need to be consistent with experiment. So if you reply again, please do comment on the direct measurement of backradiation I have cited for you. Thanks!
June 9th, 2010 at 2:16 am
Sylas you say
……”I have already told you above in my comment on June 4th, 2010 at 3:05 AM that a portion of the G&T paper which indicates a second law violation with backradiation is on page 340 of their paper”………
Where do you get a page 340?, my version pages stop at 98 then followed by references to 115.
Sylas says
“I’m personally satisfied that I already know much more about any of the relevant science”
Having a degree in computer science doesn’t count as there is no chance of doing experiments in such a course.
Running computer programmes is not a scientific activity.
I’m glad you found the paper in “Progress in Physics” of some interest.
He has a very poor view of the validity of Kirchhoff’s Law.
He said that if this Law were true then MRI machines could not work however since every major hospital will confirm they work just fine.
I am coming round to the view that the high magnitude of backradiation is perhaps based on climate scientists assuming that these equations are correct and then calibrating their instruments on this assumption.
I have recently been reading the paper below
Onpage 4239(of link below) shows readings taken of “backradiation” in the Antarctic.
Two instruments were used
1. Radiance Interferometer(RI)
2. Pyrgeometer(P)
Take the July figure for instance
RI gives 48W/m2 P gives 90 W/m2
These are not unusual examples they are pretty typical for the table.
If the research team had only one instrument there would be less confusion, but would the result be any more accurate?
Other reports suggest that the Pyrgeometer is particularly prone to false readings.
The instruction manuals give equations to tell you the “right” answer.
There is a very convenient “offset” knob.
The less charitable amongst us would think that this control could then be used to make sure that the results validated the equations.
However should the point of any experiment be to test the theory and falsify it if that’s what the results show.
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~vonw/pubs/TownEtAl_2005.pdf
There is very little to show for the billions spent on so called climate science.
All their projections seem to be worthless and are designed to cause alarm and despondency within our population.
At least the public have non stick pans and Velcro from the space race.
Climate Science gave us hockey sticks, fraud,manipulation of data,interference with the peer review process and a number of rather self opinionated bigots to prop it up.
My heart sinks when I open any paper from the “consensus” side.
My humanitarian instincts propel me into attempts to read their papers but one is quickly gobsmacked by the poor level of error analysis and inflated data to give exaggerated conclusions.
My feelings about consensus climate science is on a par with my feelings about astrology.
June 10th, 2010 at 4:16 am
Bryan, the online PDF for G&T shows figure 32 (which sylas has repeatedly referred to in earlier postings) as falling on page 78. I suspect that page 340 is from the journal in which it was published.
Figure 32 (you should be able to find that) is notably incomplete, and quite wrong. They only show one of the energy flows (atmosphere to ground), neglecting the larger ground -> atmosphere, and base their erroneous arguments on the incomplete (and incorrect) illustration they provide. This was one of the (many) issues with the G&T paper that made me gag when reading it; it’s a poorly done strawman argument.
Lots of people have measured the atmospheric IR – including the paper by Town et al that you refer to (June 9th, 2010 at 2:16 am). Oddly enough – they agree! Town’s results are rather lower than the global average, which is not surprising considering that this was the South Pole (a bit chilly, hence thermal radiation both up and down have lower values); measurements at multiple locations indicate a global average in the ~325 W/m^2 range.
Your accusation (June 9th, 2010 at 2:16 am) that multiple scientists over the last ~60 years must have committed malfeasance and fraud, when any number of hungry grad students would love to make their reputations by repeating the experiments and refuting such easily exposed misrepresentations – well, Bryan, I hate to say this, but that’s not “less charitable”, that’s a conspiracy theory. And if you hold to that, I’ve got some fine aluminum foil hats you might be interested in…
June 10th, 2010 at 8:00 am
Trying this again…
Bryan – Sylas referred to Figure 32 of G&T, which in the online PDF version appears on page 78. I believe page 340 refers to the page in the published journal. You should be able to locate it by figure number.
In this figure G&T show an incomplete drawing, indicating downward radiation from the atmosphere to the earth but NOT including the upward (larger) radiation from the earth to the atmosphere. They then use this incorrect illustration to base their arguments about supposed violations of thermodynamics, which is a strawman argument in the worst way. This is but one of the many issues I have with the G&T paper.
A note on the Town et al paper you referred to: they made these measurements at the South Pole, where due to low temperatures both upward and downward IR radiation at the surface are fairly small. However, the global average (from many measurements, including the paper Sylas referred to from the early 1950′s making measurements in Maryland) indicate a downward global average of ~324 W/m^2.
Do you have any evidence of ongoing misrepresentation of these IR values since the 1950′s? Or contradictory observations of downward IR values? If so, I would love to hear it.
June 12th, 2010 at 12:00 am
KR.
I left a fairly large post last night but it has not appeared as yet.
Hope I don’t have to repeat it however I will if it eventually fails to show up!
June 12th, 2010 at 2:27 am
KR
It looks like the long post has vanished!
page 78 comment.
It looks here like G&T are being inconsistant with the rest of their paper.
To be consistent they should have said HEAT flows from hotter to colder substance rather than NET heat.
By saying net heat it could be misinterpreted that heat flows from cold to hot but more heat flows from hot to cold.
In the rest of the paper they make it quite clear that NO heat moves from cold to hot.
Perhaps in their reply to the Halpern group comment they took the opportunity to clarify this point.
In their defence its quite clear when reading their paper that English is not their first language.
June 12th, 2010 at 2:53 am
KR
…….”Do you have any evidence of ongoing misrepresentation of these IR values since the 1950’s?”…….
You will have seen my comments on the Pyrgeometer in post above.
Even now you will read recent accounts of people addressing the inaccurate results obtained by this meter.
However the large magnitude of the backradiation at +300w/m2 is perhaps the best evidence that the IPCC adherents have.
On the other hand there is no direct physical effect that you can show for a magnitude of almost twice that of direct solar radiation.
Indeed when The solar heater when pointed to a cold part of the sky
nighthttp://solarcooking.org/research/McGuire-Jones.mht
and should have picked up “backradiation” according to IPCC theory it managed to freeze water.
I realise that the reflector did not focus properly the diffuse radiation but nevertheless it hardly confirms IPCC theory.
Another test of IPCC theory is given by the Moon.
In earlier posts you will find me disputing using an emissivity value of unity for the Earth surface.
Sylas and SoD both seemed insistent that it was so close to unity that it was reasonable to use that value.
However if the same logic is used for the Moon we find;
1.A pseudo greenhouse effect
2.The Stefan Boltzmann equation doesn’t even give the maximum Lunar temperature accurately.
Look at the predicted value from SB(i.e. calculated) and see that it is never reached
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon.pdf
….to be continued.
June 12th, 2010 at 2:57 am
KR
Link above should be
http://solarcooking.org/research/McGuire-Jones.mht
June 12th, 2010 at 4:58 am
KR.
From a sceptics viewpoint the AGW theory seems to be;
1. +300W/m2 backradiation
2. +33C warmer atmosphere because of “greenhouse effect”
There does not seem to be a credible mechanism to get from 1 to 2. other than vague references to radiative properties of CO2 and water vapour since the other air gases N2 and O2 do not radiate in the IR.
In the paper below the author has worked out the emissivity of CO2 as 0.001
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5847&linkbox=true&position=2
If the water vapour has an emissivity even ten times greater than CO2 there does not seem to be a physical mechanism to support the greenhouse theory.
Gerlich and Tscheuscher’s paper pointed out that errors would follow if care was not applied when using the Stefan Boltzmann Equation(pg 19,20) and Kirchhoff’s Law (pg 48,49)
Kirchoff’s Law only claims validity for surfaces in thermal equilibrium.
Is this condition being ignored?
This paper from outside the climate science area shows how limited Kirchhoff’s Law is;
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-19-01.PDF
The reference below takes the reader through first principles and by a step by step approach reaches the conclusion that great care must be exercised in the use of these equations.
They are not universal.
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-11-06.PDF
Perhaps the instruments used to measure backradiation were calibrated with the assumption that there equations were true and universal.
If this assumption does not hold you are left with a circular argument!
Perhaps SoD will take up this issue in one of his forthcoming topics.
You say
……”This is but one of the many issues I have with the G&T paper.”……
Identify some of these issues.
June 12th, 2010 at 6:26 am
To start with, the G&T paper (not peer reviewed, incidentally – it was a ‘review’ paper invited by the editor) poses an initial strawman argument by describing glass greenhouses (energy retention through convective blocking), radiative atmospheric greenhouse effect (energy retention through a back-reflection of ~50% of the IR at GHG wavelengths), and then claiming that because these are not the same mechanism that radiative effects don’t exist. No physicist or climate researcher would claim that they are identical; it’s simply a useful analogy. Yet they spend ~18 pages commenting on this strawman!!!
The absolutely silly claims that the radiative greenhouse effect violates thermodynamics follow later: Figure 32 in fact is a core of these arguments, and is appallingly inaccurate. The earth is radiating ~396 W/M^2, the atmosphere re-emits ~324 back down – without GHG’s in the atmosphere the earth would be about 33 deg. C colder. The earth is warmer than the atmosphere, which slows the heat loss much like a blanket, the IR readings agree, and there’s no violation of thermodynamics whatsoever.
Energy moves from the sun (plasma spectra) to the ground, then from the ground to the atmosphere (thermal IR spectra), part of which gets bounced back by the atmosphere, slowing the rate of transfer like a blanket (GHG re-emission), and finally out to space. Equilibrim temperatures are determined by the total energy coming from the sun and the transfer rates (which are modified by varying GHG levels).
The second section is terribly incomplete, incidentally – spectral theory of gas absorption/emission is very well known, yet they only mention path length and claim that the rest is too complex.
In section 3.1 of G&T they list the basics of the radiative greenhouse effect – they then claim that “Unfortunately, there is no source in the literature, where the greenhouse effect is introduced in harmony with the scientific standards of theoretical physics.” Absolutely wrong – this effect was described over 150 years ago, and is a basis of first year climate studies.
Their analysis of thermal effects are further trashed by assuming no time constants for solar heating – instant equilibrium. I think the papers below mention that as well.
Other issues are better described by others, I would point out first Smith and the peer reviewed Halpern papers. After a certain time I had to put the G&T paper down and get a strong drink to wash the distaste out.
Sylas asked you, and I’ll ask you again – WHAT EVIDENCE can you provide that the last 60 years of atmospheric scientists, using multiple instruments (FTIR spectrometers, pyrometers, etc.) have all either mistakenly or fraudulently had all their readings biased in the same direction? ~396 W/m^2 from the Earth, ~324 W/m^2 from the atmosphere to the ground? If you want to claim that everybody is wrong, you’re going to need some evidence!
Not entirely on topic, but… The G&T paper has a very familiar feel to me. It’s much the feel I got from tobacco industry/Tobacco Institute papers declaiming any health issues with cigarettes. Their claims were absurd, unfounded, and quite wrong; published in a non-peer reviewed fashion, never referenced by any other researchers, and yet bandied about by bloggers and politicians with vested interest to invoke plausible doubt about well supported science. Verbose neo-victorian pseudo-science phrasing, oversimplified and strawman arguments, and lots of irrelevant quotes also help. This is SOP for a lot of lobbyists.
You might want to read “Thank You For Smoking”, or see the movie – my brother _had_ that job (apologist/doubt raiser) for a major tobacco firm, and sent me a copy of the book right after he got hired. It’s an accurate description of the tactics used by vested interests when they know they’re in the wrong, but will lose money if (correct) science holds out.
June 12th, 2010 at 6:32 am
I’ve said this on other blogs, and I’ll say it here again.
Hypotheses and theories depend upon the evidence, and in fact must provide explanations for that evidence.
If your hypothesis does not agree with the evidence, then it’s time for a new hypothesis.
The G&T hypothesis that the radiative greenhouse effect doesn’t exist is directly contradicted by the evidence.
June 13th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
KR
You say
…….”No physicist or climate researcher would claim that they are identical; it’s simply a useful analogy. Yet they spend ~18 pages commenting on this strawman!!!”…..
It is unfortunately untrue, both recent editions of “Equilibrium Thermodynamics” and “Thermal Physics” both by C J Adkins carry the old discredited version of “The Greenhouse Theory”.
Both these otherwise excellent books are firm favourites for undergraduate physics courses.
On the other hand my old school Physics textbook by Nelkon and Parker (1960)” A level Physics” had the now widely accepted proper G&T version and they also mention Wood.
June 13th, 2010 at 10:41 pm
KR you say
……..”which slows the heat loss much like a blanket”……
I think we are all in agreement here
The atmosphere acts like an insulator.
The 4 methods of heat transfer all contribute to insulate the Earth surface.
Heat transfer is always from the hotter surface to colder surfaces.
Why not call the miscalled “greenhouse Effect” the “insulator effect”?
June 13th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
KR
You say
……”Sylas asked you, and I’ll ask you again – WHAT EVIDENCE can you provide that the last 60 years of atmospheric scientists, using multiple instruments (FTIR spectrometers, pyrometers, etc.) have all either mistakenly or fraudulently had all their readings biased in the same direction? ~396 W/m^2 from the Earth, ~324 W/m^2 from the atmosphere to the ground? If you want to claim that everybody is wrong, you’re going to need some evidence!”
If you google “pyrometers” and “errors” and “new methods for improving accuracy” and so on you will find many published papers as I have.
I am coming round to the view that the high magnitude of backradiation is perhaps based on climate scientists assuming that Kirchhoff and SB equations are universal and correct and then calibrating their instruments on this assumption.
I have recently been reading the paper below
Onpage 4239(of link below) shows readings taken of “backradiation” in the Antarctic.
Two instruments were used
1. Radiance Interferometer(RI)
2. Pyrgeometer(P)
Take the July figure for instance
RI gives 48W/m2 P gives 90 W/m2
Why were these instruments giving totally different results for the same quantity?
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~vonw/pubs/TownEtAl_2005.pdf
June 13th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
KR you say
“……Other issues are better described by others, I would point out first Smith and the peer reviewed Halpern papers….”
The Halpern paper was a comment, G&Ts reply would have similar scrutiny.
If you describe them as peer reviewed then that’s up to you.
The fact that the main thrust of the Halpern Group criticism was down to the Halpern Group being unable to read G&Ts original paper properly.
All G&T had to say in reply was “where did we say that”.
Id imagine it was very embarrassing for the Halpern Group and they probably now wished they had not put their name to such a silly paper!
June 13th, 2010 at 11:16 pm
KR you say
…..”Not entirely on topic, but… The G&T paper has a very familiar feel to me. It’s much the feel I got from tobacco industry/Tobacco Institute papers declaiming any health issues with cigarettes.”…….
So G&T only did it for the money?……..
Well what about these freeloaders; Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, Lord Oxburgh and Al Gore.
You tell me how much G&T were paid and you will find these other gentlemen were in it for for much more than G&T could earn in a lifetime.
June 15th, 2010 at 6:01 am
Bryan, on June 13th, 2010 at 10:53 pm you asked about Radiance Interferometer(RI) versus Pyrgeometer(P): a pyrgeometer has a bandpass of ~2 to 25 µm, whereas a radiance interferometer has a bandpass of ~4.5 to 18 µm, at least for their instrument. See Table 3 in the paper you referenced. I suspect the different bandpasses explain the different integrated energies observed.
Your accusations on mis-calibration are rather silly – these values come from multiple types of instruments (pyrgeometer, RI, FTIR, etc. – each would have to be wrong the same way), calibrations from reference standards (meaning that basic radiation physics would have to be _wrong_ to mis-calibrate), and lots of researchers over the last 60 years. Unless you have some evidence, I’m going to consider that argument a no-go.
The Halpern paper was clear and well written, and having read both that and G&T, I agree with Halpern et al. The Smith paper showed quite succinctly that the greenhouse effect accounts for the 33C difference between expected temperatures with/without GHG influences on the Earth, and points out the inherent errors in the G&T model formulation. I’ll have to disagree with you on the relative values of these papers – such is life.
Gerlich has in the past been a member of the “European Academy for Environmental Affairs” and the “Science and Environmental Policy Project” (along with Fred Singer, Soon, and a number of other people who have made considerable money producing ‘lobbying’ papers for tobacco and energy firms); I’ll consider him biased. However, his paper has to stand on it’s own merits, and it fails there.
If, as you said on June 13th, 2010 at 10:41 pm, “The atmosphere acts like an insulator”, where is the issue with GHG’s making it a better insulator? The only way for Earth to lose energy from the top of the atmosphere to space is via radiation, and GHG’s block part of the thermal spectra (a better ‘blanket’).
June 15th, 2010 at 6:24 am
Bryan, as to your post on June 13th, 2010 at 10:41 pm: Why not call the miscalled “greenhouse Effect” the “insulator effect”? – that’s an excellent term for it.
I’ve always preferred a one-directional diagram for these energy flows: Sun -> Earth and atmosphere (branch to both), Earth -> atmosphere, top of atmosphere -> space. In each case the energy goes from hot to cold. Rates of energy flow are set by insulating, radiating (and conductive, evaporative, convective) avenues through the various portions. I actually consider that much clearer than the bi-directional flows in most of the diagrams.
And given the insulating properties (in radiation) of the atmosphere/space interface with GHG’s present, the Earth has to be at a higher temperature than it would be otherwise in order to radiate all the solar energy away. Thermal radiation at a lower temperature wouldn’t get rid of all the solar input through the atmospheric band-passes.
June 15th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
KR
……”The Halpern paper was clear and well written, and having read both that and G&T, I agree with Halpern et al. The Smith paper showed quite succinctly that the greenhouse effect accounts for the 33C difference between expected “……..
The Halpern and Smith explanations used the layer model.
But now Chris Colose has rejected this;
Chris Colose
……..One of the things that I have tried to emphasize in my own postings of the greenhouse effect, a concept that cannot be appreciated in the simple “layer model” is that a convective troposphere and the establishment of the adiabat is just as important for understanding the greenhouse effect then is the presence of IR absorbing molecules. Personally, I think the “layer model” is a useless description and cannot come to grips with the spectral dependence and thermal structure of the atmosphere which is crucial for interpreting graphs of outgoing spectra, and in turn, for understanding how the GHE bites off areas under the Planck curve and upsetting radiative equilibrium……..
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/12/venusian-mysteries/
Fred Staples on 14 June sets out why this model just doesn’t make sense.
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/05/on-the-miseducation-of-the-uninformed-by-gerlich-and-scheuschner-2009/
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/05/on-the-miseducation-of-the-uninformed-by-gerlich-and-scheuschner-2009/
June 16th, 2010 at 2:10 am
Actually, Bryan, Science of Doom has an excellent one-directional treatment of this subject: Start from absolute zero and treat the solar input as an internal heater, the Earth radiating that energy away in IR. The atmosphere absorbs some IR and warms, and emits IR in all directions (including back down). Emissivity = absorptivity at equilibrium, although IIR emissivity is less than absorptivity while warming up. This means less energy leaving the top of the atmosphere, and that the Earth is receiving more than the solar input (solar input plus 50% of atmospheric emission) – it warms up. So does the atmosphere.
Eventually the atmosphere is warm enough that it’s radiating as much energy as the solar input is supplying, and the system is at equilibrium – with the Earth warmer than it would be without the IR absorbing/emitting atmosphere. It’s warmer with the ‘blanket’ than it would be without. Add another atmospheric layer, and you get warmer. This is just like putting on layer after layer of clothing – heat loss drops, and internal temperature rises.
Note that this isn’t an infinite progression, unless you’re stuck on Zeno’s paradox – an infinite number of layers go to infinitely thin each as you integrate. And the 4th power relationship between temperature and energy radiated means it’s always possible to radiate at the same rate as the solar input.
Pretty straightforward, and I suspect you’ve already read it at Science of Doom. If you have, and you can’t follow that, there’s little I can say to (for) you.
June 16th, 2010 at 4:05 am
KR
Its like you attended a class on heat transfer where the first topic was radiation then you dropped out.
The temperature profile of the troposphere can be explained by the Kinetic Theory of Gases in a Gravitational Field.
No reference whatsoever need be paid to radiative gases.
When moist air is included it modifies the profile to some extent.
But the important physical effects are then evaporation condensation and convection.
Water vapour is by far the most important of the radiative gases.
The role of the trace gas CO2 is very minor.
Why do you think Chris Colose and others are abandoning the layer model?
The post by Fred Staples is worth a read!
June 16th, 2010 at 4:09 am
Bryan – I just saw your posting, apparently ours crossed in moderation:
I won’t pretend that the one-layer model is an accurate representation of the Earth/atmosphere system – that requires numeric integration, accurate molecular emissivity/absorptivity spectral values, etc. Those are all necessary to get accurate temperatures from physical values, and to evaluate in detail the forcings and feedbacks involved in GHG’s. Lower atmosphere convection, latent heat transport, clouds, etc. – all have an effect on the details of how far the GHE will heat the earth given certain levels of greenhouse gasses.
However, the one and several layer models are more than sufficient to show that (a) the radiative greenhouse effect has a physical basis, (b) this causes a higher temp for the Earths surface than it would have otherwise have without GHG’s, and (c) the radiative greenhouse effect doesn’t violate any laws of physics including thermodynamics, entropy, and/or energy conservation. Greenhouse gasses slow heat loss, the Earth heats up _until_ radiation output equals radiation input. That’s the entire point of the Smith paper, and one of the major Halpern et al criticisms of the G&T paper – G&T just don’t get it, whether in error or as a deliberate ploy.
Chris, incidentally, argues for a more detailed interpretation, while Fred has been debunked repeated on SoD.
A rough band-pass absorptivity/emissivity in IR in the simple model is _more_ than enough to show the GHE, including it’s dependence on the quantity of GHS’s present. And up is still up, even if the simple models can’t tell you exactly how high the temperature will go. That’s what the detailed numeric models are for.
Enough – the information is out there, Bryan, the math is straightforward, the physics of radiative transfer have been known for over 100 years, the measurements support it including in the papers you’ve quoted, and G&T’s paper is a widely known crock. Your unquestioning agreement with a poorly written singleton paper that disagrees with the last 100 years of physics and QM demonstrates a distinct lack of physics background on your part. I’m not going to waste any more time on this…
June 16th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
KR
Its a pity you have to leave since you have so much left to learn.
Read post 29 above from DontBlameCO2, he like Fred Staples is a professional heat transfer specialist.
Ray Pierrhumbert and Chris Colose(two of the more perceptive AGW proponents) have now abandoned the “layer model” you would do well to follow their example.
June 17th, 2010 at 7:54 am
To correct your apparent misapprehension from June 16th, 2010 at 6:07 pm – the layer model is overly simplified for predicting exact future temperatures in a complex system. It’s delightful overkill for rejecting G&T, however; while it lacks details it is a simple chalkboard example of how their premises lack any merit whatsoever.
DontBlameCO2′s post is disturbingly bad – he accepts that CO2 absorbs energy, but seems to think that it radiates in the microwave frequencies (?!?). Absorbitivity and emissivity are at the same wavelengths, and spherically distributed, hence half the energy absorbed by CO2 goes back down when the CO2 radiates it away. SoD pointed that out quite clearly. Bad example to use, Bryan.
I’m off and on the road for a while – in the meantime, you might think about the following while considering the consensus response to G&T:
“But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” – Carl Sagan
June 17th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
KR
Its a pity that you have such a closed mind.
Instead of trying to understand why traditional thermodynamics rules out the called “greenhouse effect” of co2 you prefer to believe in fairy tales.
You think it is perfectly reasonable that the atmosphere with an average temperature of-30c can somehow “heat up” an earth surface of + 15c.
That co2 is only a tiny fraction of the total radiative gases which themselves only comprise 1% of the atmosphere,can achieve this miracle.
You think that all heat transfer specialists like DontBlameCO2,Fred Staples,Tery Oldberg can be ignored.
The fact that Ray Pierrhumbert and Chris Colose(two of the more perceptive AGW proponents) have now removed a major pillar of AGW theory does not disturb you!
If you review your contribution here you must agree that it amounts to little more than a series of impertinent unsubstantiated attacks on Gerlich and Tscheuschner.
June 23rd, 2010 at 10:45 pm
Bryan’s comments are always entertaining, and he should be complimented on this.
What the newcomer might miss – and I write this comment for them – is that any hint of a problem in conventional theories that will possibly cast doubt on the inappropriately-named “greenhouse” theory is enthusiastically grasped by Bryan without any critical thinking.
So, for example, again and again Bryan happily brings up the “problem” with the Stefan-Boltzmann law. For newcomers, this law is the equation that links radiated energy with the 4th power of temperature.
- E = emissivity x sigma x T^4
Well, all Gerlich and Tscheuschner did there was to point out that this calculation of energy radiated from a surface is the total “hemispherical emissive power” – all of the energy radiated from a surface in all directions.
This is usually in the first 10 pages of a chapter on basic radiation and well-known to everyone. (Not actually a problem). Stefan-Boltzmann’s law is a well-established law that is fundamental to thermodynamics. And yet Bryan has enthusiastically jumped on this “problem” because IT MIGHT cast doubt on stuff to do with the greenhouse effect.
Clearly Gerlich and Tscheuschner were having a laugh. At Bryan’s expense.
And Bryan has happily jumped on “possible problems” with Kirchhoff’s law. This law states that emissivity = absorptivity, which is a wavelength dependent property of every material. Another foundational thermodynamics property. The amusing side of this is that Bryan busily used this to claim that therefore downward surface radiation from the atmosphere is under question.
The problem for Bryan is that the theory predicts this downward radiation and the instruments that measure it match the theory. Yet for Bryan, the fact the G&T have mentioned a possible limiting condition in the formula means that it is in doubt. What about the *measurements*?
And in the final one of a series of posts – http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/05/28/the-first-law-of-thermodynamics-meets-the-imaginary-second-law/ – Bryan admitted “I don’t know” when shown a thought experiment of a -10′C body increasing the temperature of a 0′C body.
Having been pressed earlier, he agreed that if 10um radiation from a 10′C body was 80% absorbed by a 0′C body, then 10um radiation from a -10′C body would also be 80% absorbed.
Oh no. That means that radiation from a colder body can be absorbed by a hotter body. So either the first law of thermodynamics is in question, or Bryan’s fundamental premise is flawed.
Which is it to be? “I don’t know”
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/05/28/the-first-law-of-thermodynamics-meets-the-imaginary-second-law/#comment-2598
Interested newcomers can check out the whole post and see how many times the specific question was asked before an answer was finally given. And also the difficulty in providing clarity on his own ideas:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/03/lunar-madness-and-physics-basics/#comment-2803
So for newcomers (who made it this far), if you want reasons to doubt the inappropriately-named “greenhouse” effect, follow Bryan!
If you want to find science answers, he may not be your ideal guide.
June 24th, 2010 at 7:02 am
SoD – thanks for the input. This thread has been pretty quiet, and I appreciate the additional perspective.
Bryan (Brian H.? Suibhne? The arguments appear to be the same, as are many of the word choices, I assume it’s the same poster) just won’t admit to error, even when his own admissions (as you noted show so clearly in the “first law of thermodynamics meets the second law”) point out the contradictions.
Bryan – the measurements match the theory. You’ve admitted that energy can travel from a cold object to a hot object, invalidating one of the core G&T claims, as is reasonable since it’s basic thermodynamics. G&T just cannot explain the current measurements, and if your hypothesis fails to match the measurements, it’s time for a new hypothesis!
Enjoy your search. I would recommend starting with the standard atmospheric textbooks.
July 6th, 2010 at 3:00 am
ScienceofDoom.
Why don’t you tell the readers of this forum of how you claimed G&T were misleading people by using the traditional definition of infra red radiation?
What happened when I proved that SOD was totally out of order by showing him that the G&T definition was almost identical to the Wikipedia definition?
Well instead of thanking me for reducing his considerable store of ignorance he conceded the point, but with sarcasm.
I am ever hope full that by pointing people in the right direction they will thank me for my efforts like polite people should.
For SODs benefit he might like to look up the experimental proof of the zeroth law of thermodynamics.
For years most people took this for granted but for SOD it might come as a revelation that the introduction to the vicinity of two objects at thermal equilibrium by a third object at the same temperature does not lead to a temperature gain/or loss of the original two.
July 6th, 2010 at 7:19 am
KR:
I have just returned from a nice holiday in Ireland.
You might find yourself quite at home there.
In Ireland many people believe in Fairies Leprechauns and Banshees.
Your belief in the fairy tale of man made global warming(see post 110) might fit in quite well.
July 6th, 2010 at 8:13 am
ScienceofDoom:
You seem to be fascinated by the G&T paper unfortunately you do not seem to have read or understood the paper.
SOD says above ….
So, for example, again and again Bryan happily brings up the “problem” with the Stefan-Boltzmann law. For newcomers, this law is the equation that links radiated energy with the 4th power of temperature.
- E = emissivity x sigma x T^4
Well, all Gerlich and Tscheuschner did there was to point out that this calculation of energy radiated from a surface is the total “hemispherical emissive power” – all of the energy radiated from a surface in all directions.
Bryan responds
Here SOD implies that G&T are quite happy to use the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Yet on page 12 we find
…that validity definitely does not cover the atmospheric problem…..
On page 21
….The T^4 law will no longer hold if one integrates only over a filtered spectrum…
…and so on.
SOD should stop making silly remarks that can so easily be exposed.
My advice to him is to read and consider carefully the G&T paper before making any further ill considered comments.
Will SOD thank me for my well meaning advice?
Wait and see!
July 14th, 2010 at 10:24 am
Hmmm – interesting to see you back, Bryan. Things certainly haven’t changed in your view, have they?
An object A (at some temperature) with an 80% emissivity/absorptivity at 10um is struck by a 10um photon. What’s the chance of absorption? Hint – perhaps 80%? Note, photons don’t carry identity cards showing where they came from, unlike people in Arizona.
Now, perhaps that photon came from an object 10 deg. warmer than A. Or perhaps it came from an object 10 deg. cooler than A (fewer photons, but still some)? Does that unidentified 10 um photon add to the energy in A? Hint – Yes, first law of thermodynamics. Objects at any temperature radiating photons may have those photons absorbed by another object, since PHOTONS DON’T CARE WHERE THEY CAME FROM.
Does A radiate thermal energy at a rate determined by (- E = emissivity x sigma x T^4)? Hint – Yes. At the wavelengths determined by the emissivity spectra of the object. Objects of lower emissivity lose heat through thermal radiation slower than a black body, not a contradiction, not an issue in any manner whatsoever.
Readers (other than Bryan) – always make certain you follow the science. Bryan – get a clue. I’m outta here.
July 17th, 2010 at 3:18 am
KR
The temperature profile of the troposphere can be explained by the Kinetic Theory of Gases in a Gravitational Field.
No reference whatsoever need be paid to radiative gases for the basic profile.
However some gases like H2O vapour and CO2 have a radiative effect.
Water vapour is by far the most important of the radiative gases.
But the important additional physical effects H2O bring are evaporation and condensation in phase change.
The role of the trace gas CO2 is very minor.
I have calculated for the world average H2O/co2 radiation split is 90% due to H2O and 10% due to co2.
When moist air is included it modifies the profile to some extent but the major effect on the lapse rate is still Gravitational compression.
On a cloudy night temperatures do not fall as low as on a clear night.
Why is this?
You will say this effect is backradiation.
But consider this;
the clouds contain condensing water vapour.
The release of 2,300,000J per kilogram of H2O vapour keeps the temperature of the clouds at a high value.
Now the convection currents of air (the main method of heat transfer in the atmosphere ) will be much weaker if there is little temperature difference between the Earth surface and the clouds.
The insulating properties of the night sky is improved by the presence of the clouds.
Now add in if the radiative contribution to and from the clouds you have the picture we can all recognise.
It is important to separate the important from the less important factors affecting heat transfer in the atmosphere.
September 15th, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Gerlich and Tscheuschner reply to the comment;
Comment On “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”, by Joshua B. Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith and Jörg Zimmermann, pp 1309-1332, doi:10.1142/S021797921005555X
Is now available to freely download
Reply To “Comment On ‘Falsification Of The Atmospheric Co2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics’ By Joshua B. Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore
(www.skyfall.fr/wp-content/gerlich-reply-to-halpern.pdf)
November 9th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
palindrom said:
“If their argument were correct, there would be no point in wearing a jacket on a cold day — how can a jacket, which is cooler than you are, keep you warm?”
I can’t believe that anyone who claims to be physicist can spout such nonsense:
a) a jacket works primarily by preventing heat loss to the atmosphere via conduction and convection.
b) a jacket also prevents evaporative cooling due to sweating.
c) layered clothing is is more effective than a single layer of the same insulating ability.
The real proof of your ignorance is the fact that people can easily tolerate still-air temperatures below 0C. This means radiative heat loss is far less than convection and conduction.
November 9th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Another arxiv.org paper cites G & T:
On the meaning of feedback parameter, transient climate response, and the greenhouse effect: Basic considerations and the discussion of uncertainties
Gerhard Kramm1 and Ralph Dlugi2
1University of Alaska Fairbanks, Geophysical Institute, 903 Koyukuk Drive, P.O. Box 757320,
Fairbanks, AK 99775-7320, USA
2Arbeitsgruppe Atmosphärische Prozesse (AGAP), Gernotstraße, D-80804 Munich, Germany
Abstract
In this paper we discuss the meaning of feedback parameter, greenhouse effect and transient
climate response usually related to the globally averaged energy balance model of Schneider and
Mass. After scrutinizing this model and the corresponding planetary radiation balance we state
that (a) the this globally averaged energy balance model is flawed by unsuitable physical
considerations, (b) the planetary radiation balance for an Earth in the absence of an atmosphere is
fraught by the inappropriate assumption of a uniform surface temperature, the so-called radiative
equilibrium temperature of about 255 K, and (c) the effect of the radiative anthropogenic forcing,
considered as a perturbation to the natural system, is much smaller than the uncertainty involved
in the solution of the model of Schneider and Mass. This uncertainty is mainly related to the
empirical constants suggested by various authors and used for predicting the emission of infrared
radiation by the Earth’s skin. Furthermore, after inserting the absorption of solar radiation by
atmospheric constituents and the exchange of sensible and latent heat between the Earth and the
atmosphere into the model of Schneider and Mass the surface temperatures become appreciably
lesser than the radiative equilibrium temperature. Moreover, neither the model of Schneider and
Mass nor the Dines-type two-layer energy balance model for the Earth-atmosphere system, both
contain the planetary radiation balance for an Earth in the absence of an atmosphere as an
2 asymptotic solution, do not provide evidence for the existence of the so-called atmospheric
greenhouse effect if realistic empirical data are used.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1002/1002.0883.pdf
December 13th, 2010 at 4:56 am
I’ve read somewhere that there are only a few wavelengths of energy that a CO2 molecule can absorb, and that at an atmospheric level of 20 ppmv CO2 is already absorbing 50% of the energy available to it. Given that it is now about 400 ppmv, it would seem, at least for all practical purposes, that additional increases in its level would have correspondingly less impact on warming.
Is that information correct?
December 14th, 2010 at 9:08 am
GoFigure – correct, each _doubling_ of CO2 will increase the CO2 greenhouse retention by the same amount. It’s a log relationship, not a linear relationship.
What happens is that the center of the CO2 bands (Gaussian/Lorentzian in shape) are saturated (in Earths atmosphere), but with increasing concentration the _width_ of the absorbing CO2 bands increases, with the edges of the band rising – hence more IR is returned to the surface.
As a mental picture, think of a Gaussian clipped to a maximum value. With each doubling of the Gaussian, the clipped/blocked section gets wider and wider.