Simple Truth of How ‘Greenhouse’ Gases Actually Cool Earth
Pseudo-scientists estimated our planet’s average surface temperature from the average amount of sunlight energy that it received. Only they got it wrong because the physics is not as basic as they assumed.
They got an average of -18.2oC which is 33oC below the actual measured average of 15oC. And they called that 33oC the Greenhouse Gas (GhG) effect. Not only was their physics seriously wrong, their ‘greenhouse’ nametag was even more so.
The story was made worse by concocting an impossible explanation that not only defies a Natural Law of Thermodynamics, but also defies our human experience of heat energy flowing only from hot places to cold.
Their pseud-science concoction said that because CO2 molecules in particular could absorb heat that was escaping naturally out into cold space at -270oC, they could however re-radiate some of their absorbed heat energy back into Earth by ignoring thermodynamics to help keep the latter’s temperature at +15oC.
But such false concoctions become unnecessary if you use the correct physics to calculate the correct temperature in the first place.
And the value that you get is 15oC, which makes the GhG effect both zero and redundant and ridiculous. And this makes the further concoctions of “Global Warming” and “Emissions Control” and “Paris Accords” equally redundant and equally ridiculous.
In fact, the situation is even more farcical than that. If you do the chemical engineering correctly, you realize that GhG actually cool the planet by allowing all of the heat that has accumulated during the daytime to escape into deep cold space.
Air is actually a very poor conductor of heat, as evidenced by its use in thermal clothing and bedding, and would be about six million times too slow if it had to conduct all of that daily heat away.
So then if the GhG didn’t absorb and radiate heat outwards to space, Earth’s average surface temperature would settle at about 42oC, and neither ourselves nor our food could exist.
So all of the inhabitants of Earth are lucky that among the GhG, they have water-ice and clouds that firstly reflect about 30% of the arriving heat back into space before it can warm the planet anyway, and secondly that the GhG (particularly humidity and CO2) allow all of the incident heat that reaches the surface to radiate back out at night-time, thus keeping the overall temperature steady.
In fact, evidence from Ice-age cycles show that Earth’s temperature does fall by a few degrees over the 80,000 years of each glacial stage, so the balance is not quite perfect.
Nevertheless, it’s helpful at our current position in the current cycle to have a very slight temperature increase occurring as a result of the governance exercised by other planets. What it means in practice is that mankind should now be installing more carbon-based electrical generators, and farming more ruminating animals, and felling more timber to try to increase the GhG concentrations in the atmosphere in order to cool the planet more quickly each night.
One could also argue from a socialist perspective that by so providing cheaper carbon-based energy to give more jobs and better food and better accommodation to poorer citizens, the current attempts to reduce CO2 emissions are exactly the wrong thing to be doing.
So what was that original lie ? In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, two scientists revealed the experimental and theoretical (thermodynamic) proof of the very strong Stefan-Boltzmann relationship which shows that the intensity of radiation emitted from a hot body in space is directly proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature of the body.
This became part of the quantum theory of light as developed later by Einstein, Plankt, and others. Because such hot bodies in space are spherical, it can be assumed that the departing radiation passes through all of the emitting surface orthogonally, (ie at right angles), and uniformly in all directions. So the Sun’s temperature could be measured from its solar intensity, and then calculating the temperature as about 5300oC.
However, the surface temperature that results from receiving such solar radiation is not so straightforward to calculate, because for spherical receiving bodies (eg Earth), solar radiation strikes at different angles across the whole hemisphere that is illuminated at any instant in time.
At any instant, the centre-point of the radiation that does hit Earth does so orthogonally; but further away from that centre, the angle decreases until it only just tangentially strikes it near the perimeter of the lit-up hemisphere, ie near the poles or in the vicinity of sunrise or sunset.
Thus one has to average those varying values across the whole of the hemisphere that is illuminated at any point in time. And this has different mathematics to a spherical body that is emitting radiation.
The geometry, calculus, and statistics used to do that receiving calculation are more complicated that those needed for a spherical emitting surface. As a first step, the intensity of radiation reaching Earth’s outer atmosphere at some 149.6 million km from the sun has to be calculated as 1365.2 [W/m2].
Then an averaging factor has to be calculated for the spherical geometry involved where the sun’s rays strike at varying angles. That factor is calculated accurately as 40.6%, so the average intensity of solar radiation striking the outer atmosphere of Earth at each and every instant of time is the product of those two numbers being 553.3 [W/m2].
Note that although Earth does rotate, exactly one half of its surface is always exposed to the sun, while the other half (hemisphere) is always exposed to deep space.
By way of contrast, the pseudo-scientists from twenty years ago used a stupid averaging process taken over 24 hours, which meant that they somehow included the time when a given point on the surface was exposed to the cold night-time sky. Their averaging factor was 25%, which gave them an arriving intensity of 341.3[W/m2].
This would be near-true if Earth were a cube that always had one face turned directly to the sun, but which “flipped” through 90o angle every six hours to expose a new face.
Clearly that maths is just not appropriate for our rotating Earth. But it was the complexity that gave rise to the lie that those scientists couldn’t or wouldn’t tackle when they did their lazy calculations of twenty years ago.
The next step in calculating Earth’s surface temperature is to subtract the 29.9% of energy that gets reflected back into space anyway in passing from the outer atmosphere into Earth’s surface where it affects the temperature. The pseudo scientists did do that correctly, but because of their wrong averaging factor, found that the net inflow of energy was 239.4[W/m2]. which gave the temperature of -18.2oC when calculated from Stefan-Boltzmann.
When the scientifically accurate averaging factor is used, an intensity of 388[W/m2] is obtained, which then gives a temperature of 14.5oC, rounded to 15oC. It’s as simple as that, and it enables all of the earlier claims to be made, the most important of which is the recognition that CO2 and humidity act as cooling agents for Earth, not warming agents.
Further observational proofs then follow from this change in basic understanding. For a cloudless sky and a snow-free land-mass, as Australia was on 18th December 2019 during that heat-wave, Stefan-Boltzmann gives a temperature of 41.2oC which compares with the CSIRO-calculated value of the continent’s “area average maximum temperature” of 41.9oC.
Data from across central Australia at that time showed that no matter what the maximum daily temperature had been, the overnight temperature fall was always less than 17oC, which is only half of what would apparently be needed for a 33oC GhG effect. And that was true over a full year for all weather stations investigated, thereby further quashing that idea.
The Stefan-Boltzmann relationship is satisfied on Earth’s emission of night-time heat by the the flowrate of 388[W/m2] and the surface temperature of 15oC. The temperature anomaly noticed over the 30 years from 1943 to 1973 can thus now be explained by the massive amounts of CO2 produced for armaments and then for infrastructure such that the cooling of daytime temperatures also occurred until the CO2 eventually dissolved in the oceans.
The initiation of an Interglacial phase in an Ice-age cycle can now also be explained by the eventual loss of an escape-path for night-time heat when the CO2 and humidity levels fall sufficiently to disallow that flow, whereupon Earth’s temperatures rise until humidity is re-established. As a final technical point, observing the output of a fixed solar panel over 12 daylight hours shows that a cosine curve can be nicely fitted to that data, exactly as predicted by the mathematics behind the “averaging factor”, above.
A more subtle analysis shows that although Earth’s temperatures are rising from solar and orbital cycles, the cooling effect of GhG is rising too, and actually reduces the observed rises by as much as half.
More detailed analysis behind this simple story is available in my Principia Scientific article: ‘The Dishonesty Of ‘Greenhouse Gases.’
However the story is really simple. Mankind has made his worst-ever scientific miscalculation in accepting the 20-year old logic of the pseudo scientists who initiated the ideas that have cost mankind trillions of dollars for little benefit whatsoever.
About the author: Dr Ron Murtagh. BE(Chem), PhD is a retired R&D chemical engineer with an extensive career in finding fundamental team-based answers for practical problems, in NZ, UK and Australia. Worked in explosives, cement, water-treatment, polythene film, and integrated process control via DDC. Experienced with large-scale modelling, statistical analysis, and LP optimization.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Allan Shelton
| #
Excellent article. Thanks.
The trouble is that the Alarmists refuse to believe anything that does not support their politics.
I ‘ve said it before and I’ll say it again……..
“You can lead a liberal to facts, but you can’t make them think”
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Dr. Murtagh,
While it is true that in radiated energy hot cannot gain energy from a cooler object, that is not the case in when collisions occur.
If heat is kinetic energy then it is possible for an object with more energy but less mass (and kinetic energy) to transfer energy to a object with less energy but more mass (kinetic energy) according to the conservation of momentum.
X and Y are two objects with different masses and velocities. When they collide both objects will have the same velocity.Xv=Yv) but cannot have the same kinetic energy (1/2Xv^2 <> 1/2Yv^2). A smaller mass with greater velocity (energy) will transfer velocity (energy) to a larger object with less energy.
Just like it seems a heavier object should fall faster than a lighter object, what seems obvious is not necessarily true.
Reply
Antero Ollila
| #
All claims of this story are wrong.
1. “And they called that 33oC the Greenhouse Gas (GhG) effect.” The correct name generally used is “The Greenhouse Effect” or GH effect.
2. “So then if the GhG didn’t absorb and radiate heat outwards to space, Earth’s average surface temperature would settle at about 42oC, and neither ourselves nor our food could exist.” The Earth does not need an atmosphere for emitting radiation. The Earth’s surface radiates about 395 W/m2, the GH gases and clouds absorb 155 W/m2 and the Earth finally emits infrared radiation to space 240 W/m2. The GH gases decrease cooling radiation.
3. “Then an averaging factor has to be calculated for the spherical geometry involved where the sun’s rays strike at varying angles. That factor is calculated accurately as 40.6%, so the average intensity of solar radiation striking the outer atmosphere of Earth at each and every instant of time is the product of those two numbers being 553.3 [W/m2].” The Earth receives solar radiation 1360 W/m2 /4 = 340 W/m2. Because 100 W/m2 is reflected by clouds, air, and surface, the net energy from the sun is 240 W/m2. Why 1360 W/m2 must be divided by a factor of 4. Simply therefore that the net area receiving the solar radiation is the same as the area of a disk with the Earth’s diameter. The writer does not seem to be aware of this. There is a simple rule of geometry that the area of a ball is four times greater than a disk with the same diameter. The striking radiation with different angles is not the basis of this calculation.
4. “Their pseud-science concoction said that because CO2 molecules, in particular, could absorb heat that was escaping naturally out into cold space at -270oC, they could however re-radiate some of their absorbed heat energy back into Earth by ignoring thermodynamics to help keep the latter’s temperature at +15oC.” The normal claim of denialists of physics is that the reradiation of 345 W/m2 could warm the surface to emit radiation of 395 W/m2. This is a traditional strawman argument. The surface receives direct solar irradiation of 165 W/m2 and together with 345 W/m2, it makes 510 W/m2. There is more than enough energy to emit 395 W/m2 and the rest of 115 W/2 is the sum of latent heating 91 W/m2 and sensible heating 24 W/m2. Together these three energy fluxes are absorbed by the atmosphere (plus the SW absorption 75 W/m2) and the total energy of 75+155+91+24 = 345 is emitted by the atmosphere to the surface. The real GH effect is 270 W/m2 meaning that the contribution of CO2 is only 7.4 % corresponding to 2.5 degrees. The IPPC is also wrong.
I do not answer to any comments because my experience is that deniers of physics do not change their minds.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Antero,
Do you really believe that the area of the surface of a hemisphere is the same as the area of a disc with the same radius?
Herb
Reply
Antero Ollila
| #
If you really want to know what is the real GH effect and how to calculate its magnitude, here is the link to the net page of a contrarian researcher:
https://www.climatexam.com/single-post/the-six-definitions-of-the-greenhouse-effect
Reply
Lloyd
| #
HEY! You answered! So much for being a tough guy. Paul Erhlich et all claimed we would be headed for an Ice Age by about 1980, Now, let’s be all tough again.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Show and explain your math.
You don’t explain Venus … but I do:
http://phzoe.com/2019/12/25/why-is-venus-so-hot/
Reply
Nick Schroeder
| #
Venus, we are told, has an atmosphere that is almost pure carbon dioxide and an extremely high surface temperature, 750 K, and this is allegedly due to the radiative greenhouse effect, RGHE. But the only apparent defense is, “Well, WHAT else could it BE?!” (besides/also molten core volcanism)
Well, what follows is the else it could be: (Q = U * A * ΔT) aka a contiguous participating media.
Venus is 70% of the Earth’s distance to the sun, its average solar constant/irradiance is about twice as intense as that of earth, 2,602 W/m^2 as opposed to 1,361 W/m^2.
But the albedo of Venus is 0.77 compared to 0.31 for the Earth – or – Venus 601.5 W/m^2 net ASR (absorbed solar radiation) compared to Earth 943.9 W/m^2 net ASR.
The Venusian atmosphere is 250 km thick as opposed to Earth’s at 100 km. Picture how hot you would get stacking 1.5 more blankets on your bed. RGHE’s got jack to do with it, it’s all Q = U * A * ΔT.
The thermal conductivity of carbon dioxide is about half that of air, 0.0146 W/m-K as opposed to 0.0240 W/m-K so it takes twice the ΔT/m to move the same kJ from surface to ToA.
Put the higher irradiance & albedo (lower Q = lower ΔT), thickness (greater thickness increases ΔT) and conductivity (lower conductivity raises ΔT) all together: 601.5/943.9 * 250/100 * 0.0240/0.0146 = 2.61.
So, Q = U * A * ΔT suggests that the Venusian ΔT would be 2.61 times greater than that of Earth. If the surface of the Earth is 15C/288K and ToA is effectively 0K then Earth ΔT = 288K. Venus ΔT would be 2.61 * 288 K = 748.8 K surface temperature.
All explained, no need for any S-B BB LWIR RGHE hocus pocus.
Simplest explanation for the observation.
(NASA planetary data sheet, engr tool box, first principles & math)
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Nick,
You state (ask): “But the only apparent defense is, “Well, WHAT else could it BE?!” (besides/also molten core volcanism)”
Venus has a albedo of 0.77 because its surface is totally overcast by thick layer of sulfuric acid droplets whose base begins about 50km about the planet’s surface. Read what the meteorologist, R.C. Sutcliffe, wrote. (On Science Concepts,Cultures And Limits)
Published here at PSI on December 21, 2020 Written by Dr Urmie Ray
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Nick,
It’s because it’s hot due to geothermal that Venus has a thick atmosphere and high atmo pressure. Not vice versa.
Reply
Nick Schroeder
| #
The temperature difference surface to ToA is Q = 1/R * A * dT same as the insulated walls of a house or pretty much any insulated thang.
BTW I cited volcanic.
Reply
Nick Schroeder
| #
Attached is a slide/link of Modest Experiment 5.0 where I once again demonstrate that radiative heat flow DOES NOT function separately from the non-radiative heat transfer processes of conduction, convection, advection and latent. They work together and in concert. Increasing non-radiative processes reduces the system temperature thereby reducing the amount of radiation. They are chained together like escaped convicts.
The energy leaving the naked free standing heating panel is 68% radiation, 32% non-radiation.
The energy leaving the fanned panel is 23% radiation and 67% non-radiation.
The energy leaving the wetted panel with latent evaporation is 34% radiation and 66% non-radiation.
The energy leaving the covered panel where convection is effectively stifled is 79% radiation and 21% non-radiation.
RGHE theory as depicted in the K-T diagram and numerous clones assumes/requires the surface of the earth to radiate “extra” energy independently and as a near black body. Trenberth also specifically states this assumption in TFK_bams09.
As I have demonstrated five times now by classical experiment because of the non-radiative heat transfer processes of the contiguous participating atmospheric molecules – this assumed BB upwelling of “extra” energy for the GHGs to “trap” and “back” radiate – is – not – possible.
RGHE does not exist!!
I also have a demonstration showing how IR thermometers can be spoofed into displaying energy that does not exist as is required to measure non-existent up/down welling LWIR.
Link: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_climatechange-greenhouse-co2-activity-6749812735246254080-bc6K
Reply
Nick Schroeder
| #
288 K w – 255 K w/o = 33 C cooler.
288 K is pulled out of WMO’s butt. The K-T diagram uses 289 K. UCLA Diviner says 294 K.
255 K assumes the naked earth keeps the .3 albedo. This ridiculous assumption is scientific if not criminal malfeasance.
1) By reflecting away 30% of ISR the albedo, which would not exist w/o the atmosphere, makes the earth cooler than it would be without the atmosphere like that reflective panel set on the dash. Remove the atmosphere/GHGs and the earth becomes much like the moon, a 0.1 albedo, 20% more kJ/h, hot^3 on the lit side, cold^3 on the dark. Nikolov, Kramm (U of AK) and UCLA Diviner mission all tacitly agree.
2) the GHG up/down welling, “trapping”/”back” radiating, 100 % efficient, perpetual warming loop requires “extra” energy which it gets from
3) the terrestrial surface radiating that “extra” energy as a near ideal .95 emissivity black body which
4) it cannot do because of the non-radiative heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules.
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 0 RGHE + 0 GHG warming + 0 CAGW.
All science backed up by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_climatechange-greenhouse-co2-activity-6749812735246254080-bc6K
Reply
Guy
| #
@Nick Schroeder
Very interesting. Thank you.
Reply
TL Winslow
| #
Why do so-called physicists trying to understand Earth’s climate keep sticking slavishly to the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) Law? This law works for the Sun because it is a mainly unchanging energy source, but the Earth isn’t, so the law can’t be used to calculate the surface temperature without knowing the instantaneous energy radiated, which leads to circular reasoning, especially when the atmosphere and oceans are added, which control and modulate surface radiation via evaporation and convection. Even then, surface radiation changes instantaneously, and isn’t amenable to any trigonometry-based “global average temperature” (GAT) calculation for political purposes.
The elephant in the room is what does atmospheric CO2 have to do with it? Answer: NOTHING. In practice the global Marxist-run U.N. IPCC pushes the 33C CO2 global warming hoax to get around the problem of CO2 actually being unable to melt an ice cube with its weak puny 15 micron -80C photons, as if the 33C must come from CO2 so case is closed and no further debate is necessary.
To really model Earth’s climate will take a dynamic 3-D computer program, not some simple trig functions and the S-B Law. But CO2 will never have any place in such a program, so you can be sure the IPCC scientists will never consider it since their mission is only to frame CO2 emissions as evil to put over the multi-trillion Green New Deal and Great Reset and make off with the money to recycle it for redistribution of wealth for Marxist social-racial justice. So ironically real climate science will have to be done outside the IPCC while suffering from ostracism and lack of funding. Meanwhile if we don’t wake up the public to the IPCC’s big scam they will win walking away, and all freedom will be jeopardized.
Read my cool Quora articles designed for the general reader but with deep physics underpinning, and sharpen your debating skills with IPCC victims: Click the Web site window above for my free online course covering all aspects of the IPCC bloomin’ onion of lies.
https://www.quora.com/What-does-an-increase-in-CO2-emissions-have-to-do-with-how-high-the-temperatures-in-our-planet-are/answer/TL-Winslow
https://www.quora.com/How-do-we-know-that-humans-cause-climate-change/answer/TL-Winslow
https://www.quora.com/What-specific-chemical-properties-of-carbon-dioxide-causes-the-greenhouse-effect-Why-chemically-is-carbon-more-reflective-than-other-gases/answer/TL-Winslow
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-the-WEFs-Great-Reset-proposal-and-communism-or-socialism/answer/TL-Winslow
Reply
Antero Ollila
| #
If you are not familiar with the Earth’s energy budget, I explain one thing. All the energy flows if the energy budgets are in dimensions W/m2. Therefore, all the energy fluxes must be calculated against the Earth’s area. The Earth emits radiation per every square meter but it receives radiation only for the area which is four times smaller.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Antero,
The energy budget deals with income and expenditures, not assets. If you continually spend what you earn you will have a balanced budget (equilibrium), like the moon and the Earth with the sun. If you have no assets, like the moon, and your income ceased you could not continue to spend. If you had assets, like the Earth with stored solar energy, you would still be able to spend even when your income ceased. Your theory treats income and expenditures as determining assets and at what level the budget is balanced.
Herb
Reply
Max
| #
Occam’s razor wins 🙂
https://phzoe.com/2020/12/29/geothermal-denial/
Reply
Carl
| #
Science in its pure form is extremely precise and what the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis suffers from most is imprecision.
The supposed average “surface” temperature of 15oC is not actually a “surface” temperature if you are talking about the “ground”. It is an “air” temperature—air that is about 1.5 meters off of the ground—air that is part of a thermodynamic system called the Troposphere, which is about 11km thick. This11km thick thermodynamic system has a well-documented temperature gradient within it as well as a well-documented pressure/density gradient. At its hottest point—its bottom—the average temperature is about 15oC and at is coldest point—its top, the Tropopause—the average temperature is about -60oC.
For some unexplained reason the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis arbitrarily takes the average temperature of the hottest part of this 11km thick thermodynamic system and calls it the average global temperature? It then asks, “Why is the average global temperature hotter than it should be?”
If the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis would have, on the other hand, arbitrarily taken the average temperature of the coldest part of the Troposphere and called it the average global temperature it would be asking, “Why is the average global temperature colder than it should be.?”
If the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis would have taken the average temperature of the entire 11km thick Troposphere and called it the average global temperature, it would have found it to be just right at about -18oC (the temperature around its mid mass.)The real question that scientists should be asking is why does this11km thick thermodynamic system called the Troposphere have within it such a marked and sustained energy imbalance, which makes its bottom about 75oC warmer than it top?
Believers in the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis insist that it is because of “back radiation” from “greenhouse gases” in which certain gases higher in the atmosphere radiate energy down towards the lower part of the Troposphere and warm it up.
I say that it is because of the operation of the Ideal Gas Law. That is, the constant vertical movement of air within the Troposphere results in the well documented adiabatic cooling of ascending air and the adiabatic warming of descending air. It’s no more complicated than that.
Why the creators and believers in the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis don’t know about or choose to ignore the role that the Ideal Gas Law plays in creating the thermal energy imbalance that exists within the Troposphere, which results in its bottom being ~33oC warmer than the average temperature of the entire Troposphere, remains a mystery to me.
Reply
Carl
| #
If the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis would have taken the average temperature of the entire 11km thick Troposphere and called it the average global temperature, it would have found it to be just right at about -18oC (the temperature around its mid mass.)
The real question that scientists should be asking is why does this11km thick thermodynamic system called the Troposphere have within it such a marked and sustained energy imbalance, which makes its bottom about 75oC warmer than it top?
Believers in the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis insist that it is because of “back radiation” from “greenhouse gases” in which certain gases higher in the atmosphere radiate energy down towards the lower part of the Troposphere and warm it up.
I say that it is because of the operation of the Ideal Gas Law. That is, the constant vertical movement of air within the Troposphere results in the well documented adiabatic cooling of ascending air and the adiabatic warming of descending air. It’s no more complicated than that.
Why the creators and believers in the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis don’t know about or choose to ignore the role that the Ideal Gas Law plays in creating the thermal energy imbalance that exists within the Troposphere, which results in its bottom being ~33oC warmer than the average temperature of the entire Troposphere, remains a mystery to me.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Carl and other PSI Readers,
Have any of you actually read: “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground Svante Arrhenius Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276?
You must start at the BEGINNING. It is available online.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
If no one answers this question I must assume you have not read the first English article in which it was proposed (predicted) that a measured atmospheric temperature would be about 33C less if not for the natural atmospheric carbon dioxide.
For if this is the case, why do you make any comment about the idea of the GreenHouse Effect of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide?
You can have no idea what assumptions Arrhenius made in his energy (radiation) balance calculation.. And you cannot appreciate of all effort he made to calculate the earth’s average atmospheric temperature which agrees very closely to the present calculated average temperature.
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Carl,
The energy imbalance in the atmosphere is a result of the thermometer not giving an accurate measurement of the kinetic energy of a gas. A thermometer measures the difference between the kinetic energy absorbed by the measuring medium and the radiating of energy by the body of the thermometer.In a gas as energy is added to the unconfined gas the gas expands (Ideal Gas Law) and fewer molecules are transferring energy to the thermometer but the area radiating energy remains the same.
The temperature recorded by the thermometer does not give an accurate measurement of the kinetic energy of the gas molecules. To find the real kinetic energy of molecules you must use the ideal gas law (P in the atmosphere is gravity which doesn’t change significantly in the atmosphere) and compare the density at different altitudes. It shows that the greater the altitude the less dense the molecules and the greater their kinetic energy.
When energy from the sun (uv) equalizes with the molecules at an altitude it is distributed between the molecules. If there are fewer molecules they each will have more energy. This means even if there were no energy loss with altitude the same energy would give the fewer molecules higher in the atmosphere more kinetic energy even though the temperature recorded by the thermometer is lower (fewer molecules transferring energy).
The atmosphere exists because molecules have enough kinetic energy to overcome the force from gravity. The greater the kinetic energy the higher the molecules go. Molecules descending in the atmosphere are losing energy not gaining it.
Herb
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Carl,
How do you feel about … ?
https://youtu.be/2z5W6U6woaQ
Reply
Norman
| #
Dr Ron Murtagh
Some major problems with your article.
You make this claim: “When the scientifically accurate averaging factor is used, an intensity of 388[W/m2] is obtained, which then gives a temperature of 14.5oC, rounded to 15oC. It’s as simple as that, and it enables all of the earlier claims to be made, the most important of which is the recognition that CO2 and humidity act as cooling agents for Earth, not warming agents.”
This is not remotely possible even with no loss by reflection. If Earth absorbed all the energy it receives from the Sun your calculation of 388 W/m^2 would exceed what the Earth can possibly receive from the Sun (unless some giant mirrors redirected solar energy to the Earth surface).
I will use your own values to demonstrate your incorrect conclusions.
You have the amount of energy from the Sun at Earth distance is 1365.2 W/m^2.
The total amount of energy that the Earth can receive from the Sun (without redirection) is the same amount of energy that passes though the area taken up by the Earth circle (if the Earth were a flat pancake). You do not get more energy reaching the surface if you have a sphere. To visualize, take a flashlight and shine it on a wall. The bright circle is the energy an object can get from the flashlight, if you put a ball in front it will not receive more energy than the circle.
With that correct logic, the Earth radius is 6,371,000 meters. To calculate the amount of energy the Earth can receive from the Sun you find this area and multiply it by 1356.2 W/m^2.
So Watts the Earth receives = (1365.2 W/m^2) x (6,371,000 m)^2 x (Pi)
1.74 x10^17 Watts = (1365.2 W/m^2) x (40,589,641,000,000m^2)(3.14159)
So the Earth (with no losses can only receive that much energy). If you take the 30% loss from refection (energy that is not absorbed by the surface) you get a value of:
1,22 x 10^17 Watts.
Since the Earth is a sphere, and you use the average intensity hitting the Earth that you somehow calculated (but you do not show any work on that) you give the number 388 W/m^2.
The area of a sphere with Earth radius would be A=4(Pi)r^2
So A=(4) x (6,371,000 m)^2 x (Pi) = 5.10 x 10^14 m^2
So you have an averaged value of 388 W/m^2. In order to supply each m^2 of Earth surface with that much energy the Earth would have to receive 1.979 x 10^17 Watts. This value exceeds what the surface receives from the Sun if it were a perfect black-body so more than obvious your calculations are wrong. Maybe rethink what you did and find the flaw in your calculations. It is there for sure.
If you took the value of 1.22 x 10^17 Watts and smear this equally to all m^2 of Earth’s surface you get the correct value of 239 W/m^2.
The scientists getting these answers use correct logic and valid geometry. Rather than accept your calculations (which are impossible) if is far more rational to accept the correct ones.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Norman,
Since the sun only shines on 1/2 the Earth why do you divide its energy by the entire surface area of the Earth instead of 1/2 the area of a sphere?
I also question the 30% reflection of energy back into space. The water droplets in clouds are transparent just like all water and water is not a good reflector of light. How much of the reflected energy is actually energy being absorbed and then radiated into space? Reflected energy does not interact and add energy to an object while radiated energy represents a loss of energy that is in equilibrium with the incoming energy and therefore should be counted as incoming energy.
Herb
Reply
Norman
| #
Herb Rose
Because the entire sphere continues to radiate energy away. The calculation made for the GHE is not so complex. You take the total energy a sphere the size of Earth receives. For a moment forget about the night/day. Just take a sphere the size of Earth that has some internal energy source that distributes the energy equally to all parts of the sphere.
The sphere would reach an equilibrium temperature of 255 K.
The amount of energy reflected to space is an actual measured value.
With the Earth you will have hotter and colder spots but the average temperature, without the GHE, would not get above 255 K.
If you are interested you can actually prove the GHE with real world measured values. It is not in doubt. You can always have doubters of anything but that is not science. Evidence supports GHE.
I will give you these graphs. Real world measured values. Without GHE ;there is not enough solar energy to sustain the amount of energy radiated away by the surface. Only with GHE do you have enough energy to support the amount radiated away plus other losses from the surface like evaporation and convection.
I am not going to do the calculations here as I have already done them many times. Yo can do it yourself if you are so moved.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5fee630d433fa.png
This is US desert in June on a sunny day. You can look at the upper left for what the lines mean. You can calculate the amount of energy a square meter receives from the Sun in 24 hours as well as how much it radiates away in the same time frame. The answer is more energy is radiated away from the surface than received by solar input.
The next graph includes Downwelling IR (from GHG) and you now have sufficient energy balance to maintain the radiant loss from the surface plus the other heat transfer surface losses.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=dra&date=2016-06-20&p1=dpsp&p2=upsp&p5=dpir&p6=upir&p8=rns&p9=rnir
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Norman,
When they speak of incoming solar energy are they talking about the incoming visible spectrum or do they include the shorter wavelengths (x-ray& UV) that are being absorbed by the N2 and O2 in the atmosphere? Since these wavelengths are converted to infrared (kinetic energy) by the molecules they would be accounted for in the radiated energy but not the incoming energy. (If you look at a chart of the composition of atmosphere it shows that the O2 molecules are absorbing enough energy (450,000 joules/mole) to break the bonds between the atoms.)
Herb
Reply
Norman
| #
Herb Rose
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/instruments.html
Here is a link to the instruments used by SURFRAD data. You can see the ranges. The Solar input is in the range of 0.285 to 2.8 micrometers. The Infrared detectors are in the range of 3.5 to 50 micrometers.
Here is a graph of the energy coming from the Sun
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/natureofgeoinfo/node/1883
The instruments do a really good job of getting most of the energy that comes from the Sun and that which is radiated away by the Earth.
Reply
Ross Handsaker
| #
Norman
The Global Energy Budget shows around 341 W/m2 of radiation is received from the Sun of which 102 W/m2 is reflected by the atmosphere and surface. A further 40 W/m2 is radiated direct to space via the atmospheric window.
This means the maximum energy that can be absorbed by the atmosphere is 199 W/m2,
yet 333 W/m2 is radiated from the atmosphere to the surface! How is it possible for the greenhouse gases to create this additional energy?
By adding together energies radiated from the surface and the atmosphere, the surface transfers more energy to the atmosphere than it receives from the Sun!
The following is a quote from a module for students studying The Greenhouse Effect and the Global Energy Budget at Pennsylvania State University.
” The remarkable thing to observe and remember here is that THE SURFACE RECEIVES ALMOST TWICE AS MUCH ENERGY FROM THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT THAN IT DOES DIRECTLY FROM THE SUN! But, if you look at the diagram a bit, you can see that the energy sent to the surface from the atmosphere is essentially recycled energy, whose origin is the Sun.”
So, according to Pennsylvania State University and the Global Energy Budget, by recycling energy you can create more energy!
Norman
| #
Ross Handsaker
The Earth system does not emit more energy than it receives from the Sun. If you look at energy budgets the amount of energy entering the Earth system is very near the amount leaving. The difference is what is causing the current warming.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/what-is-earth-s-energy-budget-five-questions-with-a-guy-who-knows
The surface is only a part of the whole system and it can have different temperatures.
As to your point about it seeming as energy is created by the atmosphere, no, the recycled idea helps to understand what is going on.
In this link:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-05235-x
You can get a selective surface (one that absorbs visible light very well but is a very poor emitter of IR) to reach much higher temperatures than a blackbody would reach. Does that mean energy is created? No it just does not lose the energy it is receiving as fast so it warms up until it emits enough to equal the incoming energy.
In the article they heat an selective surface to 225 C in unconcentrated light. If it were a black-body it would have to receive 3491 W/m^2. Solar input reaching the surface is considerably lower than this. The Earth’s system acts like a selective surface. The solar energy reaches the surface where it is absorbed and turned into heat but it has to reach a temperature where it emits 390 W/m^2 to get 240 W/m^2 out at the top of the atmosphere.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi again Norman,
You need to explain how using input and output can determine the temperature of the Earth. An equal amount of water can flow into a pool and out of it (equilibrium) but that tells you nothing about how much water is in the pool.
Herb
Reply
Norman
| #
Herb Rose
You would not use the input/output energy to find a temperature. You find the temperature of an emitting body solely by the energy it emits. You measure the radiant energy and if you know the emissivity (the Earth is over 0.95 average because of the water) you can use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to determine the objects temperature. Temperature and radiant energy are dependent variables.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
But you can get the output energy from the input energy because they have to be equal if no other heat transfer mechanism exists (a sphere in the vacuum of space would only lose energy via radiation) the object receiving a given amount of radiant energy will warm to a point where it is radiating energy at the same rate it is receiving incoming energy. If you add 300 watts to a one m^2 sphere it will warm until now it emits 300 watts. You use the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to convert the outgoing radiant energy to a temperature.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Norman,
It’s nice to have a discussion without all the posturing and name calling.
I have 2 basic problems with your argument.
First is the use of temperature in the atmosphere as an indication of kinetic energy. Objects radiate energy, not temperature, and the plot of density (universal gas law) gives a better indication of the kinetic energy of molecules at different altitudes than the crazy zig-zag graph of recorded temperatures. It shows the energy comes from the sun. (Note: the assumption that because the gases in the atmosphere do not absorb visible light they are heated by the surface of the Earth violates the laws of thermodynamics which holds that all matter absorbs radiated energy.)
The second problem is the laws you use to make your calculations.
The data from the atomic clocks on satellites (the greater the altitude (weaker gravitational field and velocity) the slower the clock.) , to me, is proof that Einstein’s theories are wrong. The source of this error is the photon and constant speed of light. (The clocks are slower at greater altitudes because the electromagnetic waves powering the clocks are slower in the weaker electric and magnetic fields.) Unless someone (nobody I’ve questioned has answered) can explain why the results from these satellites is opposite to Einstein’s predictions I will not accept any law (Planck’s law and Stefan-Boltzmann law) that is based on a constant speed of light.
If you have any theories on why the clocks on satellites give results opposite to the expected I would certainly be interested in hearing them.
Herb
Norman
| #
Herb Rose
In Einstein time dilation equations both gravity and the relative speed of an object alter the rate the clocks tick compared to a reference frame. The satellite clocks would speed up (relative to an Earth clock) in the weaker gravity but they would slow down more because of the speed of the satellite. You can calculate it out using the equations in the link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
Also the speed of light, in a vacuum, has been measured many times by many people by many methods. The speed is well established science. Your idea is just speculation. It has no evidence to support it nor any proposed experiment to test it. Science does not work with people coming up with ideas and then that becomes the Reality we accept. The people come up with ideas BUT then they must be verified with evidence. Only then do they become accepted science.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Norman,
Both increased speed and greater gravitational field would cause the clock in the satellites to go slower. Since the satellites with greater altitude have less speed and experience less gravity you would expect them to have the faster clocks (relative to a clock on Earth) than the clocks of satellites lower which have greater velocity and are in a stronger gravitational field.
Herb
Norman
| #
Herb Rose
My request is you use the available equations as given and see how they work. You can calculate the change in gravity and the velocity of various satellites and plug the numbers in the equations. If it does not work then, you have something. You are still just speculating. Questions you ask can be answered but you have to do the math.
Norman
| #
Herb Rose
Here are two time dilation calculators. One is for gravity, the other for speed. You can use these to get real numbers and compare them with the time dilation observed on satellites.
https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993
https://www.engineersedge.com/calculators/gravitational_time_dilation_15003.htm
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Norman,
Math is not my strong suit but I do know that if you have 2 variables that cause an effect that if both of these variables increase the effect will increase. If both gravity and speed increase time dilation (slowing of the clock) should increase. This is not what the data shows with the greater dilation occurring in the satellites with the lower speed and weaker gravitational field. Check the chart showing time dilation versus altitude.
Herb
Norman
| #
Herb Rose
Here are the graphs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation#/media/File:Orbit_times.svg
With the rapid orbital speed of a low satellite the speed effect on time is larger than the gravity. The gravity effect overcomes the orbital speed as the farther satellites move slower. On near earth satellites time slows down. Farther out the clocks are faster than on Earth.
The graphs show the effects of both competing time dilations. About 10,000 kilometers from the Earth Center (maybe 3000 kilometers out) the clocks now move faster than on Earth, below this level they move slower.
Norman
| #
Herb Rose
I think you misread something at some time. The clocks on GPS satellites actually do tick faster than ones on Earth’s surface. Around 45 picoseconds per day.
Here:
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html#:~:text=As%20such%2C%20when%20viewed%20from,by%2045%20microseconds%20per%20day.
From article: “As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.”
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Norman,
I looked at the graph you linked and it showed with increase altitude there is an increase in time dilation (slowing of clock). What I didn’t understand was the line for “Gravity Speed”. According to Kepler’s law for orbits (C =dv^2) when a object is in a higher orbit (greater d) its velocity must decrease. The greater the altitude the weaker gravity. So while all satellites show time dilation the ones with greater altitude show greater dilation even though they have less speed and are in weaker gravitational field. Do the satellites with greater altitude have slower clocks than the satellites at lower altitudes?
Herb
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Norman,
I think I see what your saying. I take time dilation as a slowing of time but your saying it is an increase in time. Is the old twin paradox wrong when it says that the moving twin will age less than the non moving twin?
I thank you for your patience.
Herb
Norman
| #
Herb Rose
You are reading the graph wrong (opposite). with altitude the clocks are running faster than on Earth. Close to Earth and moving faster the clocks run slower. The twin paradox is based more upon the time dilation of relative speed and not about gravity effects.
Time dilation is the slowing of time relative to someone else not moving. In the Earth’s gravity field you have too opposing effects. Increase in speed will slow clocks but less gravity will speed them up.
Outside of a gravity influence the clocks would always slow down more with greater relative speed. I think the two effects are what is causing you problem.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Norman,
I see my error but the results still pose problems for me.
As I said math is not my strong suit so I try to visualize what is happening. In the case of time slowing with increased speed it is easy. I picture a ball representing time moving up and down at a steady pace. When there is movement to an outside observer the ball moves at an angle increasing time for that observer while for the observer moving with the ball time remains the same. When the speed of light is the reference, when there is a change in time there must also be a similar change in distance to keep the ratio constant. For speed dilation time cannot go faster only slower.(Although if Einstein had moved towards the clock towers instead of away, the clocks would have gone faster).
When gravity causes a time delay there must also be a change in distance. The greater the gravity, the greater the time and distance for an outside observer. This would cause me to picture the vortex over a mass as being inverted with increasing distance closer to the source of gravity. For the observer moving towards the mass they would see themselves getting closer but for the external observer they would see them getting further from the mass. That is my problem and I think it has something to do with my inability to understand how an objet accelerating towards a singularity can have both its energy and mass increase without violating the conservation of energy.
Herb
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Norman,
I looked at the calculations for time derivation due to mass and have a question. My math is bad but it appeared to me if you substituted ct/t (d=c times t) for v in one of the equations (dt’=dt/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) the denominator becomes zero.
Herb
Lloyd
| #
From my days at University circa 1970s. There is no Gravity. The Earth Sucks. Why is Gia the Earth getting warmer? Because it is having an Orgasm from being f–ked so much! 🙂
Reply
Alan
| #
My understanding is that the -18C is the effective temperature at which the earth radiates to space. The climate scientists assume that energy in = energy out but they have then assumed that temperature in = temperature out, hence the sun only heats the surface to -18C. They have effectively created a new law of physics – conservation of temperature.
Even more astonishing is that this nonsense is being taught in schools, colleges, and universities and none of the students have the brains to question it. Instead they march the streets supporting Greta Thunberg.
Reply
Ross Handsaker
| #
Norman
The selective surface which you mention, absorbs visible light but is a very poor emitter of infrared energy whereas the greenhouse gases are transparent to visible light and are good absorbers of infrared energy.
You state energy reaches the surface where it is absorbed and turned into heat but it has to reach a temperature where it emits 390 W/m2. If that is the case where does the extra energy come from? A thermal insulator cannot heat an object to a temperature greater than the source of the heat – in this instance, the Sun.
The energy from the Sun if far more intense than energy emitted by the atmosphere to the surface – you wont get hot standing outside at night. Unless the temperature of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is warmer than the temperature of the surface heat will not flow from the atmosphere to the surface.
I have difficulty understanding why you think recycling helps understanding what is going on when you must know that it does not create additional energy. If greenhouse gases, which comprise on average less than 1% of the atmosphere, are responsible then, what is the mechanism. A good absorber and emitter of energy such as steel can get very hot but it cannot create additional energy.
Reply
Norman
| #
Ross Handsaker
You do not need extra energy to increase a temperature. That is but one way to increase temperature. But if you are adding energy to an object and restrict the amount of energy that leaves it will increase in temperature.
Your point about insulation is vague. What is the source temperature of light filament? It is electricity. How hot can the filament get? It depends upon how much energy is loses.
A 20 Watt light filament can reach thousands of degrees. What is the temperature of the source? The temperature depends both about how much energy an object receives and how much it gets rid of. I am not sure what you mean by that term, maybe elaborate. In the selective surface I linked you to, the object gets much hotter than is possible for normal surfaces. The 20 watt filament is only receiving 20 watts of energy (20 joules/second) but it needs to get up to thousands of degrees to emit away 20 watts of energy.
Reply
Ross Handsaker
| #
Norman
The issue I raised was where does the additional energy come from in the Global Energy Budget (atmosphere radiates 333 W/m2 to the surface yet receives only 199 W/m2 from the Sun) and the statement from Pennslyvania State University that the atmosphere heats the surface by twice as much as the Sun. Apparently, the answer is through the recycling of energy between the atmosphere and the surface via the greenhouse effect.
The Global Energy Budget shows that there is more energy in the system than is derived directly from the Sun.
Greenhouse gases absorb and instantaneously radiate infrared energy but, unless the temperature of the atmosphere increased to above that of the surface, the surface temperature will not rise. Remember, energy should not be conflated with heat – a large block of ice radiates plenty of energy but objects around it will cool, not get warmer.
Additionally, thermal insulation works both ways – it reduces heat loss but also reduces heat gain. For example, the atmosphere reduces daytime temperatures by absorbing and reflecting some of the energy from the Sun while at night it (particularly clouds) reduce heat loss.
I do not see the relevance of a selective surface or a light bulb filament to what happens in the Earth’s atmosphere.
The question remains: how do greenhouse gases add additional energy to the system?
Reply
Norman
| #
Ross Handsaker
On your block of ice point (I have read variations of this a lot). A block of ice can cool or warm objects depending upon conditions. If the ice is between an even colder surroundings the ice will keep the objects warmer by returning some radiant energy that would be less with colder surroundings.
Also you seem to forget the Earth’s surface is a HEATED surface. It is gaining energy constantly from the Sun (at least parts are but solar input is continuous just not for all parts at the same time). A heated object can have multiples of temperatures depending upon how much energy it can lose. The filament is most significant in pointing out steady state temperatures are far more complex than just input energy along.
Without GHG the surface would radiate away far more energy. The atmosphere in GHE theory does not just warm the surface. The overall effect is still a cooling one, the surface is losing more energy to the atmosphere than it gains from it. No violation of 2nd Law.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/what-is-earth-s-energy-budget-five-questions-with-a-guy-who-knows
If you look at the link you will see that 163.3 Watts are gained by each m^2 of surface. What the GHE does is lower the amount lost. With no atmosphere the surface would lose at a rate of 398.2 Watts/m^2 far greater amount than it receives from the Sun so it would cool until it was at equilibrium with the input energy (it would receive more energy with no atmosphere like around 240 W/m^2). With GHG they absorb the upwelling IR convert it to molecular kinetic energy and this higher energy molecules will emit in all directions outward (because of lapse rate) of 239.9 W/m^2 and downward at 340.3 W/m^2. With an emitting atmosphere that absorbs the upwelling IR from the surface and returns a lot your Heat loss of the surface with our Atmosphere would be a net loss of 57.9 W/m^2. With the GHE going on the solar input of 163.3 W/m^2 is greater than the radiant surface loss. The surface would keep warming up more but other surface heat transfer mechanisms remove the remainder.
The GHE is as simple as insulating a heated object to make it warmer than it would get without the insulation. If you add the same amount of energy to a home that is not insulated (in winter cold conditions, outside is freezing) it will be colder than one with good insulation. Neither house has more energy added to it the same number of joules/second (watts) are added but one is warmer. No additional energy is required only limiting the rate of loss. That is my point. Maybe I don’t make it so well but that is the point of the filament.
20 watts added to a one-meter square object (with no outside energy sources say like the deep void of space) will reach a steady state temperature that is quite cold. -136 C . This exact same energy can heat up a filament with very small surface area to thousands of degrees. The point is there is no set temperature for how hot an object gets from an energy input. So the Sun’s 163.3 Watts/m^2 can warm the surface to multiples of different temperatures, it all depends upon how much is lost. If you remove the heat transfer mechanisms like convection and evaporation, with the same solar energy you can reach much higher temperatures with no extra heat added. A car in the summer is an example. The car is not receiving more energy than the surroundings but it has removed some of the heat transfer mechanisms that keep other objects much cooler.
Reply
Ross Handsaker
| #
Norman
You seem to think greenhouse gases are good thermal insulators but is this true. For example, the gases which are the best thermal insulators are xenon, krypton and argon and these are poor emitters of energy. On the other hand, carbon dioxide is a very good emitter of energy. In 1989, Reilly, Arasteh and Rubin conducted research into the effects of infrared absorbing gases on window heat transfer and found ordinary air was a better thermal insulator than carbon dioxide.
We also know that places at the same latitude and altitude, which have low absolute humidity (water vapour in the atmosphere above them) are hotter than places with high absolute humidity. For example, the average maximum and minimum temperatures at Phoenix (dry) are higher for every month than at Atlanta (humid).
Using details from your reference, I note 163 W/m2 is received from the Sun with 40 W/m2 emitted direct to space, 18 W/m2 transferred to the atmosphere via thermals and 86 W/m2 transferred through evaporation, leaving just 19 W/m2 to be absorbed by the greenhouse gases. This is before the mysterious additional energy is added from the recycling of energy between the atmosphere and surface.
It seems the greenhouse effect hypothesis overlooks the heating of the main gases in the atmosphere (nitrogen and oxygen) from thermals (convection) and evaporation when the water vapour condenses. Remember, rooms in a house are mainly warmed by convection even when the source of heat is a radiator.
Given nitrogen and oxygen do not emit energy as effectively as carbon dioxide, these two gases should be the better thermal insulators.
Thermal insulation, reduction of heat loss, recycling, does not add additional energy to the system yet it is clear from the Global Energy Budget there is more energy than that provided by the Sun. I do not wish to discuss the likely source of this energy here.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Ross,
I will discus the source of energy. It is the sun. There is an assertion in the GHGT that since O2 and N2 do not absorb visible light and longer wavelengths that they are not absorbing radiated energy from the sun. Nonsense, all matter absorbs radiated energy.The gases absorb shorter wavelengths. This is evident if you look at the forms of oxygen in the atmosphere. At the highest altitude there are oxygen atoms with the most energy. Next is the nitrous oxide molecules followed by ozone, then O2 and finally at the lowest level with the least reactivity you have CO2. The energy heating the atmosphere comes from the sun not the Earth. These shorter wavelengths are emitted by solar flares and during solar minimums even though there is no decrease in the longer wavelengths heating the Earth’s surface the Earth cools due to less energy being absorbed by the gases in the atmosphere.
Herb
Max
| #
I think that just the description of what is supposed to happen with the greenhouse gases is a proof of their impossibility : “the cold that heats the hot taking the heat from the hot” (the cold gases heat the warm earth taking the heat from the earth) means a violation of both 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Sorry, it cannot happen.
Reply