Measuring Downwelling Long Wave Radiation by Ghost Detector
In previous posts I have shown that CO2 alarmism is based on the idea that the atmosphere is warming the Earth surface by Downwelling Long Wave Radiation DLWR or Back Radiation as the physics of the Greenhouse Effect
The existence of which is supposed to be documented through measurements with various instruments such as pyrgeometers and radiometers reporting data of the typical form (with clear skies in the beginning and end of the period and cloudy in between):
We see here depending on cloudiness measured DLWR ranging from 280 to 400 Watts/m2, to be compared with around 200 Watts/m2 from Short Wave Radiation from the Sun, thus very substantial, about two extra Suns.
The conclusion from measurement is thus that the atmosphere depending on cloudiness is warming the Earth surface more than the Sun, and from that discovery send an alarm message that just a tiny bit of change of the atmosphere like doubling of the concentration of the trace gas CO2 can cause ‘catastrophic’ global warming of up to 3-5 C.
The argument is that if you can measure something (DLWR) with some instrument (pyrgeometer) that something which your are measuring must exist. But is this a valid scientific argument?
No, it is not necessarily so without looking inte the functioning of the instrument: In earlier posts I have shown that a pyrgeometer is a ghost detector, which reports massive DWLR from a formula of the form
- DWLR = pyrgeometer measurement + OLWR (1)
where OLWR is assumed to be Outgoing Long Wave Radiation from the instrument into a background of zero Kelvin according to Planck’s Law. But OLWR is a fictional massive ghost radiation since the instrument is communicating with the atmosphere and not the zero Kelvin outer space.
What the pyrgeometer actually measures is in fact the temperature difference between the warmer Earth surface and the somewhat colder atmosphere (but not outer space at zero Kelvin), which is of moderate size and according to Stefan-Boltzmann’s law scales with the heat transfer from the Earth surface to the colder atmosphere.
The pyrgeometer thus measures a moderate heat transfer from Earth surface to atmosphere, which together with the massive fictional non-physical OLWR of size 390 Watts/m2 at mean Earth surface temperature around 15 C, becomes massive fictional non-physical DWLR of size 280-400 Watts/m2 as reported by (1) as the postulated physics of a fictional non-physical Greenhouse Effect.
We may compare with a situation where you have hired a plumber or lawyer to do a certain job and after completion the net work accomplished is recorded and you are presented with a bill of the form
- total cost = net recorded result + invested effort by plumber/lawyer (2)
and where the invested effort can be anything and the net recorded result can even be negative, which is the analog of (1), while the total cost to pay is big. This can be the case if you have not agreed on a total cost for the job ahead, and just hope that you will not get ripped off in an open-ended contract (current account) like (2).
But in climate alarmism you do get ripped off by the use of a ghost detector reporting a DLWR, which does no exist because it is the Earth surface which warms the colder atmosphere and not the other way around.
Why should you allow to get ripped off, if it is not necessary? By getting fooled about a fictional non-physical Greenhouse Effect recorded by a ghost detector? But the cheating is so simple that it may be difficult to discover. More details in this presentation from Climate Sense 2018.
Note that the above picture reports more warming from cloudy skies at night, which fits with experience and so deceptively can be used to sell the idea that DWLR is real.
For physically correct versions of Planck-Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law see Computational BlackBody Radiation.
If you are not convinced about the role of DWLR/Back Radiation in selling CO2 alarmism, take a look at the following energy budget diagram presented by NASA:
See (with support from slides and hand-out to innocent students) that the Earth surface absorbs 48 percent of incoming sunlight (yellow) and an additional 100 percent (two extra Suns) from Back Radiation (brown), while the Earth surface emits 117 percent more the twice what is absorbed.
How do you react when you understand that you are being fooled?
See more here: claesjohnson.blogspot.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Shawn Marshall
| #
Clara, I am just a dumb retired EE but I get exhausted with these arguments about downwelling radiation heating the earth…. Even people like Prof Happer buy into it. Tell me why this experiment would not falsify the physics;
Construct a building
Vented at top for convection
Install a resistance wire ground grid covered in water
Maintain the temp of the water at 90F
Meter the electric energy
Install a plastic cloud(IR translucent) above the surface at 10 feet or so ( to freely allow conduction)
Fill the ‘cloud’ with CO2 ( ? A plastic bag some 5 meters thick?)
Run the experiment some number of hours recording temps in the cloud and various heights in the building
Rerun the experiment with the cloud filled 80/20 with N and O2.
If downwelling radiation from CO2 has an effect it should reduce the energy required to keep the surface at 90F.
And why would this effect not be calculable?
Two identical buildings running with and without the CO2 cloud could offset any confounding factors.
Skeptics should insist on a large scale empirical proof such as this to stop the hysteria and demand quantification if any of the AGE claims.
Reply
Squidly
| #
It makes absolutely no difference how much DWLR there is. The surface cannot reheat itself. The source of the IR is from the surface, then reflecting back to the ground to heat it more? .. are you freaking kidding me? .. Talk about a clear violation of the fundamental laws of physics! .. it is impossible in this universe!
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
Especially as it was already warmed by shorter wave radiation from the sun surface that is around 5,000 degrees hotter than the Earth’s surface then leaves the surface as a longer wave radiation because part of the shorter wave energy is still in the surface.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Suset,
The shorter x-ry and uv wavelengths are produced in solar flares, while visible light comes from the sun’s surface. During a solar minimum ingest colder because there is less short wave radiation testing the N2 and O2 in the atmosphere.
Herb
Reply
Allan Shelton
| #
What happens if I replace the inert gas in my all weather windows with 100% CO2?
And replace my house insulation with bags of 100% CO2?
Will there be back radiation into my house when my furnace is on?
If 0.04% CO2 can warm Planet Earth, then 100% CO2 in my house must be a huge warmer. No???
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
In fact, the energy transited from one pane to the other will increase drastically if CO2 is the filler gas.
CO2 is a polyatomic molecule and a radiative molecule, it has higher molar heat capacity than the typical filler gas (usually Ar) so it’ll convectively transit more energy. And because it’s a radiative molecule, it’ll also be able to absorb energy via conduction by colliding with the warmer pane, then radiatively emit that energy toward the cooler pane. That matters little in a dual-pane window, it matters more in the atmosphere, which is why CO2 is a net radiative coolant at all altitudes except for negligible warming right at the tropopause, where it absorbs a greater proportion of cloud-reflected solar IR and radiation from cloud condensation.
https://i.imgur.com/0DTVYkR.png
The image above is from a presentation given by atmospheric research scientist Maria Z. Hakuba at NASA JPL.
https://i.imgur.com/IYDjzxX.png
That’s adapted from the Clough and Iacono study, Journal Of Geophysical Research, Vol. 100, No. D8, Pages 16,519-16,535, August 20, 1995.
Note that the Clough & Iacono study is for the atmospheric radiative cooling effect, so positive numbers at right are cooling, negative numbers are warming.
Ar is a monoatomic, thus it has no vibrational mode quantum states and thus it cannot absorb nor emit IR, and it’s got fewer degrees of freedom (DOF) and thus a lower molar heat capacity. Thus it convectively and radiatively transits less energy than CO2.
That is the reason, after all, that CO2 is not used as a filler gas in dual-pane windows.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi LOL,
CO2, like H20 and Argon, is confined to the troposphere where the primary transfer of energy is by convection, with the slow process of radiation having a minimal effect.
The temperatures which correspond to the wavelengths absorbed by CO2 are -80C, +412C, and over +700C. For all practical purposes it is not absorbing energy in the atmosphere.
Herb
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
From my prior writings… feel free to use whatever I write however you wish, with or without attribution….
The CO2 molecule (a triatomic covalently-bonded linearly symmetric molecule with an axis of symmetry along the nuclei and a plane of symmetry perpendicular to this axis) has two rotational mode quantum states, three vibrational modes (one with two degenerate states) and four fundamental vibrational mode quantum states at 3 radiation wavelength bands centered on:
4.25677 µm ({v3}; 2349.2 cm-1 wavenumber) {v20(0)} -> {v3(1)}
Wien Displacement Law equivalent temperature: 680.7 K, 407.6 C, 765.7 F
Asymmetric stretch mode; this mode is very IR-active, but the dipole moment oscillates parallel to the molecule’s symmetric axis, and therefore ΔJ = 0 Q-branch transition is forbidden (photon angular momentum is transferred to electronic mode degrees of freedom instead of rotational mode degrees of freedom, and since the resonant radiation for the vibro-rotational fine structure of the electronic mode doesn’t have sufficient energy to excite the electronic mode, it cannot be absorbed), making this very narrow-band. The radiance at this narrow frequency band is also minimal, falling at the minima between the Planck curves of solar (incoming) and terrestrial (outgoing) radiation. As discussed below, however, the CO2{v3(1)} vibrational mode quantum state is the main route for v-v (vibrational-to-vibrational) transfer of energy from vibrationally-excited N2{v1(1)} to CO2{v3(1)}.
7.20357 µm ({v1}; 1388.2 cm–1 wavenumber) {v20(0)} -> {v1(1)}
Wien Displacement Law equivalent temperature: 402.3 K, 129.12 C, 264.4 F
Symmetric stretch mode; this mode is IR-inactive and Raman-active, it cannot absorb IR radiation since the molecule has no change in net magnetic dipole moment unless the molecule is perturbed via collision at the same time that it absorbs a resonant photon. It does, however, Raman-scatter.
14.98352 µm ({v2}; 667.4 cm-1 wavenumber) {v20(0)} -> {v21(1)}; {v21(1)} -> {v22(2)}; {v22(2)} -> {v23(3)}
Wien Displacement Law equivalent temperature: 193.4 K, -79.75 C, -111.55 F
2 degenerate bending modes with 3 practically-degenerate vibrational states.
There is a narrow absorption band centered on ~2.7 µm, but it is swamped by the {v3} (asymmetric stretch) fundamental of H2O centered at 3755 cm-1, the {v1} (symmetric stretch) fundamental of H2O centered at 3652 cm-1 and the {v2 + v3} band of H2O centered at ~5000 cm-1, and thus has little radiance available to it except in extremely low humidity locales:
– 2.76785 µm ({v20(0) -> v22(2) + v3(1)}; 3612.91 cm-1 wavenumber)
– 2.69209 µm ({v20(0) -> v1(1) + v3(1)}; 3714.59 cm-1 wavenumber)
…the only one of those vibrational modes which has any appreciable radiance available to it, and which is IR-active is 14.98352 µm, and hence this wavelength band is the largest contributor to CO2 vibrational mode quantum state energy from IR absorption.
The prevalent CO2 absorption / emission wavelengths:
{v23(3)} → {v22(2)} 668.1 cm-1 (14.96782 µm)
{v22(2)} → {v21(1)} 667.8 cm-1 (14.97454 µm)
{v21(1)} → {v20(0)} 667.4 cm-1 (14.98352 µm)
{v3(1)} → {v20(2)} 1063.7 cm-1 (9.40115 µm)
The first three above are the practically-degenerate {v2} vibrational mode quantum states, excited via absorption of radiation and via t-v collisional processes.
The last one is because solar insolation-excited O3 excites N2 to its N2{v1(1)} vibrational mode quantum state, which is nearly perfectly resonant with the CO2{v3(1)} vibrational mode quantum state, which becomes excited via a v-v collisional process. with N2{v1(1)}.
And CO2 is not only absorbing IR (terrestrial and solar), but it’s also being excited via t-v (translational-vibrational) collisional processes, which occurs more prevalently as temperature increases, in accord with 2LoT:
https://i.imgur.com/CxVTcro.png
At 287.64 K (the latest stated average temperature of Earth) and an emissivity of 0.93643 (calculated from NASA’s ISCCP program from data collected 1983-2004), at a photon wavelength of 14.98352 µm (the primary spectral absorption wavelength of CO2), the spectral radiance is only 5.43523 W / m^2 / sr / µm (integrated radiance from 13.98352 µm – 15.98352 µm of 10.8773 W/sr-m^2 to fully take into account the absorption shoulders of CO2).
That means that the maximum that CO2 could absorb would be 10.8773 W/sr-m^2, if all CO2 were in the CO2{v20(0)} vibrational mode quantum state.
As I’ve shown, while the Boltzmann Factor calculates that 10.816% of CO2 will be excited in one of its {v2} vibrational mode quantum states at 288 K, the Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution Function shows that ~24.9% will be excited. This is higher than the Boltzmann Factor calculated for CO2 because faster molecules collide more often, weighting the reaction cross-section more toward the higher end.
Thus that drops to 8.1688523 W/sr-m^2 able to be absorbed. Remember, molecules which are already vibrationally excited can not absorb radiation with energy equivalent to the vibrational mode quantum state energy at which they are already excited, unless a degenerate vibrational mode quantum state exists to absorb that energy. That radiation passes the vibrationally excited molecule by.
So an increased population of vibrationally-excited CO2 is functionally akin to a reduction of atmospheric concentration of CO2… it reduces the ability of the CO2 to absorb radiation.
That’s for all CO2, natural and anthropogenic… anthropogenic CO2 accounts for ~3.63% (per IPCC AR4) of total CO2 flux, thus anthropogenic CO2 can only absorb 0.29652933849 W/sr-m^2.
CO2 absorbs ~50% within 1 meter, thus anthropogenic CO2 will absorb 0.148264669245 W/m^2 in the first meter, and the remainder 0.148264669245 W/m^2 within the next ~9 meters.
The net effect of an increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration is not a ‘trapping’ of energy in the atmosphere, it is a reduction in the extinction depth at the given wavelength. The radiation which would be absorbed at a higher atmospheric CO2 concentration is already absorbed long before it reaches space, and always has been… it’s just absorbed in a shorter distance with increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration.
That energy thermalized increases Convective Available Potential Energy, which increases convection, which carries the energy stored in the specific heat capacity (and the latent heat capacity in the case of water) of the atmospheric molecules high enough in the atmosphere where collisional processes no longer dominate, radiative processes do. This is why CO2 is the most prevalent atmospheric coolant at and above TOA (TOA being where the atmospheric density reduces sufficiently that the atmosphere effectively loses its opacity for the given wavelength of radiation). A higher convection rate convectively carries more energy to the upper atmosphere, and a higher concentration of molecules capable of emitting that radiation increases the photon emission flux (remember, the homonuclear diatomic molecules such as O2 and N2 have no net magnetic dipole and thus cannot effectively emit nor absorb radiation unless perturbed by a collision), thus increasing the radiation emitted to space, which is by definition a cooling process.
Further, CO2 being a polyatomic molecule, has more DOF than do the diatomic molecules, thus it has a higher molar heat capacity (CO2: 28.26916348 J mol-1 K-1) than the diatomics (N2: 20.78614962 J mol-1 K-1 and O2: 20.8 J mol-1 K-1) and monoatomics (Ar: 12.4717 J mol-1 K-1). Thus a higher atmospheric concentration of CO2 will result in more energy convectively transported to the upper atmosphere than the diatomics or monoatomics could transport, thus more energy which can be emitted, thus more energy emitted to space, which is by definition a cooling process.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi LOL,
I didn’t know it was you who determined the temperatures where CO2 absorbs energy. I just asked the question on DuckDuckGo.
The only way an object can change the flow of energy is by absorbing energy coming from one direction and radiating it in all directions. This is by internal energy or flexing across bonds, not by the entire equalizing with the flow of energy.
N2 and O2 are absorbing 95% of the uv coming from the sun and converting it to kinetic energy (IR). Since N2 and O2 make up 99% of the atmosphere your contention that CO2 (.042 %) is a major factor in energy distribution is questionable.
Herb
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Herb Rose wrote:
“Since N2 and O2 make up 99% of the atmosphere your contention that CO2 (.042 %) is a major factor in energy distribution is questionable.”
It is, above the tropopause, where collisional processes are less prevalent. Remember that N2 and O2 are homonuclear diatomics with a net-zero magnetic dipole. They cannot absorb nor emit radiation unless that net-zero magnetic dipole is perturbed via collision. In the upper atmosphere, radiative processes predominate, not collisional processes. Hence CO2 is the most prevalent atmospheric radiative coolant above the tropopause. It is a net atmospheric radiative coolant at all altitudes (except at the tropopause, where it absorbs a greater proportion of cloud-reflected solar IR and radiation from cloud condensation), but below the tropopause, water vapor’s radiative cooling effect far exceeds the radiative cooling effect of CO2.
https://i.imgur.com/0DTVYkR.png
The image above is from a presentation given by atmospheric research scientist Maria Z. Hakuba at NASA JPL.
https://i.imgur.com/IYDjzxX.png
That’s adapted from the Clough and Iacono study, Journal Of Geophysical Research, Vol. 100, No. D8, Pages 16,519-16,535, August 20, 1995.
Note that the Clough & Iacono study is for the atmospheric radiative cooling effect, so positive numbers at right are cooling, negative numbers are warming.
In essence, the climastrologists flipped reality on its head, they flipped causality, claiming that what actually causes cooling causes warming, and twisting the mathematics to bolster their lies.
The easiest lie to tell is an inversion of reality, a flipping of causality. One needn’t invent new physics nor invent new processes nor invent new timelines, one need merely reverse causality. It’s sad that so many have fallen for this obvious CAGW scam. We need to overhaul the education system from bottom to top.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi LOL,
All matter absorbs radiated energy (laws of thermodynamics). Since N2 and O2 are not absorbing visible or IR radiation, from what spectrum do they absorb radiated energy? The contention that it is tho ozone molecule in the ozone layer, at a concentration of .001 %, is absorbing 95% of the uv coming fromthe sun is completely absurd.
Look up the chemical composition of the atmosphere at different altitudes.
Herb
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
CO2 is most certainly not confined to the troposphere. It is, in fact, the prevalent atmospheric radiative coolant above the tropopause, as the NASA SABER project showed.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi LOL,
Look up the composition of gases at different altitudes. Argon within molecular weight of 40 is restricted to the troposphere, N2 (mw 28) and O2 (mw 32) exist in most altitudes. CO2 (mw 42) ? (H20 (mw18) cannot exist as a gas in the troposphere)
The thermometer does not give an accurate indication of the kinetic energy of molecules in a gas. Use the UGL to determine the kinetic energy of a constant number of molecules (inverse of density) to determine the energy at different altitudes and look at the types of molecules at that altitude.
Herb
Tom Anderson
| #
Mark Twain noted that it was easier to fool people than convince them they have been fooled. His remark makes no reference to value of continued foolery kept alive by keeping it as far from from reality as possible.
For example, Professor Nassif Nahle in his 2011expermient identified cirrus clouds and globules of rising warm air transporting thermal radiation to higher altitudes. They absorbed, reflected, scattered, and emitted radiation.
Nahle’s surface and atmospheric measurements showed that none flowed to the warmer surface. (Nahle, Nasif, “Observations of ‘backradiation’ during nighttime and daytime,” Biology Cabinet, Principia Scientific International, Sept 26, 2011.)
While at it, how much effort do you suppose decent people should spend debating Ptolemaic Spheres?
I suggest a new name for climate alarmists: “Pseudopaths.”
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
A parting word for common sense: the world’s first essayist, Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) said he preferred to talk to peasants because they had not been educated to think wrongly.
Reply
Brian James
| #
Jul 14, 2022 THE SUN | Destroyer of Climate Science Fraud
Daily Sun, Earth and Science News!
https://youtu.be/ZRAwsbi-0_o
December 22, 2008 Solar Activity Between 1250-1850 Linked To Temperature Changes In Siberia
An ice core drilled at the Belukha glacier in the Siberian Altai by a Swiss-Russian research team under the leadership of the Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) in 2001 has now provided new findings in climate research. Oxygen isotopes in the ice were used to reconstruct the temperatures in the Altai over the past 750 years.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081219180532.htm
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
The experts on the climate …Allie Gore, Mikey Mann, et al…..must answer why from about 1940 to 1980 CO2 went up 15% and the avg. temp went down a fraction. Also, they must explain the climate cycles of the last 8000 years which were toughly several centuries in length and temps varied a few degrees from top to bottom. If they “know” CO2 is warming the climate then they must know the answer to the 2 questions.
Reply
MattH
| #
One two. One two Test. Test.
Reply