Two world-class professors probe what arguments are best to debunk CO2 alarmism. On his blog, Swedish Math professor, Claes Johnson posts his discussion with Professor Will Happer under the title ‘The Catch of CO2 Alarmism vs Homeopathy‘
The catch of CO2 alarmism is that CO2 as an atmospheric trace gas is claimed to have considerable impact on global temperature as a “greenhouse gas”, by IPCC estimated to 3-5 C warming upon doubling of the concentration from 0.03% in preindustrial time, with today 0.04%. It is also claimed that this reflects a near saturation (logarithmic) effect of CO2 with additional warming from another doubling being very small. The catch is then that CO2 as a greenhouse gas of very small concentration is claimed to have a big effect up to 0.03% as a very substantial part of an estimated total atmospheric effect of +33 C, but much smaller effect above 0.03% by saturation.
Now, a physical system for which a small cause can have a big effect is an unstable system and as such cannot persist over time. This is like steering your car with a very small joystick sensible to every little shake of your hand. You do not get far with such a control mechanism.
So, if global temperature is largely controlled by CO2 as a trace gas as a very small cause, the Earth faces the possibility of a “runaway greenhouse effect” with huge warming upon doubled CO2. But this is not what we see when observing less than 1 C warming with CO2 raising 0.01% from preindustrial level. The proposed explanation is saturation of the warming effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, which then must have been reached already today.
But there is another more natural explanation of the little observed warming from increased CO2, namely that CO2 as trace gas has no (observable) influence on global temperature at all. This is like removing the control function of steering your car from the sensitive joystick to a conventional steering wheel. You can then let your kids play with the joystick as much as they want under an illusion that they steer the car.
This connects to a principle of homeopathy of dilution where the concentration of a substance supposed to be beneficial can be reduced to only a trace while keeping/improving the effect. You can then be a believer, or you can as a non-believer say that the substance has no beneficial effect whatsoever independent of dose.
The catch of CO2 alarmism is thus to claim a big effect from a small cause without runaway effect and then eliminate the possibility that the small cause de facto has only a small effect. This dilemma has not been resolved.
The big effect of CO2 as trace gas is claimed to be demonstrated by its blocking effect (causing warming) on Outgoing Longwave Radiation OLR as the big ditch in the radiation intensity spectrum around frequency 600 as reported by AIRS spectrometers in satellites with the green curve representing OLR from an atmosphere without CO2 as presented by William Happer (time 25.00):
The effect of doubling CO2 is represented by a slight broadening of the ditch in red upon doubling as a small effect by saturation. The ditch in OLR causing global warming is thus presented as a big effect up to 0.03% and a small effect upon doubling, as discussed above with connection to homeopathy.
But there is a catch in the above spectrum, since what AIRS de facto measures is the temperature of atmospheric CO2 at the highest level where it can be detected (220 K at the tropopause), which is possible even at trace concentrations, but what is reported is radiation intensity from Planck’s Law as if CO2 as a trace gas is blocking considerable amount of radiation. The above diagram is presented as the main evidence that CO2 as trace gas causes considerable global warming, but then without runaway effect. But the diagram can be questioned since it reports something which is not directly measured. Maybe a true OLR has no ditch and so no (observable) warming from CO2. Maybe the spectrometer acts as a ghost detector like that detecting Downwelling Long Wave Radiation DLWR discussed in this post. What do you think?
Happer is a skeptic claiming little warming from doubled CO2 as the slight broadening of the ditch. But Happer seems to believe in its present big effect represented by the green curve without ditch. It would be interesting to hear what Happer says about the possibility that the diagram is the result of ghost detection, and so I have asked him and am waiting for response.
PS1 The fact that an AIRS spectrometer directly measures temperatures and not radiation intensity (like a pyrgeometer) is supported by the fact that it contains both coolers and radiators at 150 K and 190 K. Also recall this post.
PS2 Communication with Will Happer:
Claes: Does a pyrgeometer directly record temperature or radiation intensity?
Will: RADIATION INTENSITY AND TEMPERATURE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. PYROMETERS MEASURE RADIATION INTENSITY (OR FLUX), NOT TEMPERATURE. IN EARTH’S ATMOSPHERF RADIATION IS SELDOM EVEN CLOSE TO A THERMAL EQUILIBIUM STATE (THE PLANCK STATE) WHICH CAN BE DESCRIBED BY A TEMPERATURE. THE CLOSEST THING TO THIS SITUATION IS THE INTERIOR OF OPTICALLY THICK CLOUDS AT NIGHT, WHEN SHORT MEAN FREE PATHS FOR THERMAL RADIATION AND THE ABSENCE OF SUNLIGHT PRODUCE NEAR EQUILIBRIUM THERMAL RADIATION AT THE TEMPERATURE OF THE LOCAL CLOUD PARTICULATES.
Claes: Thanks for response, which I much appreciate. We are both (CO2 alarmism) skeptics and so a main question can be what arguments are best to debunk CO2 alarmism. You seem to say that a pyrgeometer directly measures radiation flux and not temperature, whereas I have the opposite impression.
Let us seek an answer by looking into the design of a pyrgeometer, which consists of (1) a thermopile reading/measuring voltage U scaling with end temperature difference dT, (2) a silicon dome/window and (3) temperature sensor measuring the temperature T_dome of the dome. The source temperature T_source can then (after calibration) be determined as T_source = T_dome + dT. Again, what is de facto measured is (1) voltage U scaling with dT and (3) thermopile temperature.
There is, as far as I understand, no sensor measuring incoming radiation flux into the dome. Incoming radiation is calculated by postulating outgoing radiation according to Planck-Stefan-Boltzmann of magnitude sigma T_dome^4, but this is a fictional quantity as if the dome is in radiative contact with outer space at 0 K but in fact is in radiative contact with a source of higher temperature.
A. Can we agree that what de facto is measured is (1) thermopile voltage scaling with end temperature difference and (3) dome temperature?
B. Can we agree that there is no sensor directly measuring incoming radiation?
C. You compute a climate sensitivity (without feedback) of about 1 C, about the same as that presented by CO2 alarmists. Is that a complication for a skeptic? Would it help us if climate sensitivity could be estimated to be less than 0.1 C?
LISTEN TO WILL HAPPER ON TNT RADIO WITH MARC MORANO BELOW:
LISTEN TO CLAES JOHNSON ON TNT RADIO WITH JASON Q BELOW:
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.
It seems that Prof. Johnson is questioning basic tenets of radiative heat transfer than have been established and experimentally verified for decades.
I have to wonder if he agrees with Willis Eschenbach’s solution for the single shell steel greenhouse model. If he does not, then what is his solution and what are the governing equations for the temperatures of the sphere and the shell?
The Earth with shell will take the same temperature as without shell. The presence of the steel shell will not raise the Earth temperature. The temperature of the surrounding of a body must be taken into account to determine the radiative heat transfer from/to the body.
You seem to be assuming absolutely zero conduction/convection between sphere and shell, which is an academic case without interest for Earth + atmosphere, so why bother?
Claes – If you would like, we can allow for other modes of heat transfer between the sphere and the shell. The point is that your claims about the effects of radiative absorbers on the temperature of a heated object are physically incorrect.
I am really surprised that you are not willing to write down the equations that lead you to your claims.
Would you like to add convective heat transfer between the sphere and the shell? Would you like to put an “atmospheric window” in the shell? We can do all of these thing but it makes the equations take a form that requires numerical solutions as opposed to closed form solutions. I would think that is something that you could appreciate as a mathematician.
Let’s face it corporations rule the world behind the shadows of government and have perfected the pay to play operandi. They engineer a problem, induce panic through the CIA “operation mockingbird” media fear mongering and systematically scare the human race. They divide and conquer using problem, reaction, solution. At this point it’s VERY evident to those not living under a rock that the “solution” (the vaccine) has run its course. Millions are waking up to the reality that the vaccine didn’t work as advertised and people are pissed. In the upcoming years I won’t be surprised if some kind of vaccine scandal materializes out of all of this. But it doesn’t matter because those who were susceptible to the covid PsyOp probably won’t see the next one coming and that’s a staggering 68% of the population. So what is the next engineered problem? It’s Man-made climate change. Yes you’re being convinced that “ humans“ are destroying the earth’s climate. Only a completely brainwashed moron would believe this nonsense spewing from the bill and Melinda gates foundation and their ilk. These VERY rich and powerful people use more hydrocarbons in 3 months then you will in your entire life. Yes it’s true! if you don’t believe me just look how much fuel is consumed with their private jets as they travel to dozens of climate summits and meetings just to tell us to stop driving and lower our thermostat in winter. They have a shared goal of depopulation of the so-called worthless eaters, they don’t need or want you!
Now with all that said, NATURE NOT GOVERNMENT RULES THE WEATHER! The polar bears are thriving and the media is lying, the so-called unprecedented heat is 100% a fabrication performance for the masses by your masters. Simply put the greenhouse gas effect does not exist on our planet, it never has and never will. The THEORY of greenhouse gas dates back to 1827 France. It suggest certain gases act as a atmospheric shield preventing infrared radiation from escaping back into space. It’s derived from the presumption that CO2 only absorbs and does not radiate infrared energy, nothing is further from the truth. There is no significant difference between the infrared absorption capabilities of CO2, 02, N2 or AR when thermal absorption is measured instead of the VERY flawed spectrographic wave absorption method currently used. As a consequence the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist and is in no way related to trace gases such as carbon dioxide.
The global warming argument FAILS if CO2 a harmless and very necessary trace gas found in everyday life and the earths atmosphere is be proven to have no atmospheric warming abilities. Unfortunately they will continue to run with this narrative, at some point it too shall fail just like COVID. Hopefully sooner than later.
How can you when you know the following and professors Johnson and Happer should know. Should know because you know of the following three PSI articles.
If PSI is to be a SCIENTIFIC website, you should know about the history of SCIENCE. You should know that Galileo Galilei wrote a book (Dialogue on the Two Chief Systems of the World—English translation) published 1632 for which he was threatened with being burnt at the stake if he did not retract his claim, based upon observation he made with his telescope. So to save his life he did retract the claim that the Earth did not standstill. However, he was forbidden to write another book which we know he did. My two PSI articles use unquestionable observations, which I did not have to make because other SCIENTISTS had, which absolutely prove that the idea of the greenhouse effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is absolutely wrong just as Galileo’s telescopic observations proved that the idea that the Earth stands still was absolutely wrong.
SCIENCE not based upon arguments and intellectual debate; it is simply based upon simple observation if the right instruments have been invented.
PSI Readers should be taught this.
‘ Maybe a true OLR has no ditch and so no (observable) warming from CO2. Maybe the spectrometer acts as a ghost detector like that detecting Downwelling Long Wave Radiation DLWR discussed in this post. What do you think?’
I think the above question needs to be resolved.
And dumb question time. It is claimed that water in its various phases accounts for approx. 95% of atmospheric radiative gases. (please excuse some H2O phases being labeled gases. Liberalism)
Is it possible for the trough in the graph to be caused by water vapour or cloud absorbing in the 600 waveband but re-emitting in two separate wavebands? Two differing molecules in the three molecule structure of a water molecule!!!
At (https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html) we can see, with a little effort, that this NOAA project measures six radiations (4 solar and 2 infrared). At high noon on 10/2/2022 at Desert Rock NV one can see, after a little effort, that at ‘high noon) the maximum downwelling solar is near 1000watts/m^2 while the upwelling infrared radiation is about 700watts/m^2 and the downwelling infrared is about 500watts/m^2. If anyone cannot see a problem; I doubt any comment, which I could make, would make a difference.
I challenge flaming Lukewarmist Happer to a Zoom video debate where I can correct his decade long delusions on Atmospheric Radiation Physics and Thermodynamics
Joseph – Why not just make your points here? Can we start with a simple system like the steel greenhouse problem posed by Willis Eschenbach?
Here is my solution to that problem for steady-state. Please indicate which equation or equations you are not in agreement with.
For the sphere:
q = sigma ( Tsphere^4 – Tshell^4)
Here let’s assume that the surface area of the sphere is 1m^2. q is the constant energy input to the interior of the sphere per unit time. sigma ( Tsphere^4 – Tshell^4) is then the heat transferred from the surface of the sphere to the inner surface of the shell. Let’s assume that the shell is very thin such that we can approximate it as having a uniform temperature. Let’s also assume that the gap between the sphere surface and the shell is small in comparison to their radii such that we can assume view factors of 1. Then, the energy balance for the shell is:
sigma ( Tsphere^4 – Tshell^4) = sigma Tshell^4
where again sigma ( Tsphere^4 – Tshell^4) is the heat transferring to the shell from the sphere and sigma Tshell^4 is the energy transferred out to space.
Solving these two governing equations for Tsphere and Tshell yields:
Hi Rocky,
Since in the troposphere energy transfer is done by convection shouldn’t the sphere include the troposphere and the shell be the higher layers (heated by uv) where energy is transferred by radiation?
Herb
Herb – We can attempt to add any features that you like. Ultimately the vast majority of the energy emitted from the Earth to space is via radiation, so for these simple models you always need an outer shell. Otherwise you would need to solve the differential equations associated with radiative transfer through gases, etc.
Before we add anything more complicated, are you in agreement with the solution for the simplest form of the model that I have provided above?
Hi Rocky,
Here’s a problem I have. The interior of the Earth is hot and trying to radiate energy into space through the shell. The exterior of the shell is being heated by the sun preventing the geothermal heat from escaping (except during seismic activity) so the use of a sphere as a model seems inaccurate. Shouldn’t it be like the skin of a ballon that is gaining and losing energy coming from the sun where the equilibrium point between geothermal and solar heat keeps shifting in the skin? Isn’t the heat the Earth is radiating the heat it gets from the sun?
Herb
Hi Rocky,
Yes the energy of an object is a function of its volume (energy equalizes with all mass) and the absorption and radiation of energy is a function of area.
Herb
It strikes me that the discussion of radiant emission from the Earth is treated as an unstated uniform, and implicitly warm, one. In fact, CO2’s major radiant interactivity (the wedge cutout midway in the graph) is from between 13.26 to 17.07 μm, peaking at ~ 15 μm. By Wien’s Displacement Law temperature there would be Wien’s constant (2897) divided by peak 15μm wavelength on the spectrum, or 2897 ÷ 15 = 193.13K or -79.87°C. Energy transport at that temperature has been observed in the stratosphere, I believe – and on the Antarctic plateau, which is capable of that temperature and a ratio of CO2 to water vapor at a parity of 1:1.
Dr. Salby states (Physics of the atmosphere and climate, (New York, Cambridge Univ.,2012, p 102.) “The strong absorption bands of CO2 and O3 sharply reduce emission to space at 15μm and 9.6μm, respectively. Outgoing radiation at those wavelengths corresponds to blackbody temperatures that are distinctly colder than within the atmospheric window, where outgoing radiation emanates directly from the Earth’s surface.”
Why does neither Dr. Happer nor Dr. Johnson address the specific, and seemingly relevant, temperatures of CO2’s radiant absorption/emission bands? It might to have a salutary effect against prospects of calamity.
Tom – Happer does address the details of the emission and absorption bands of CO2 and the full range of temperatures throughout the atmosphere. Additionally, all Wien’s displacement law tells you is the relationship between the PEAK frequency of the radiation spectrum and the blackbody temperature that produces that spectrum.
A blackbody object at 300K produces more radiation in the 15-16 micron band than a blackbody object at -80C.
“A blackbody object at 300K produces more radiation in the 15-16 micron band than a blackbody object at -80C.” It is hard to argue with that, but we are not discussing masses or collections of temperatures. .
Peak absorption/emission by the Displacement Law has been a way of calculating radiant energy grouped around an averaging approximation point since about 1890, revised for quantum calculations. The law is also called Wien’s Approximation, which may more suitably describe what it measures, since the peak emerges from photons from 13.26 to 17.70 microns.
Energy transfer appears in two ways. It appears first at a position within the energy-emitting spectrum (e.g., the sun) as a “drop-out emission line,” which emerges when an atom or molecule at a certain place in the spectrum emits a photon at the spectrum band’s given “positional intensity.” These energy drop and absorption bands are usually illustrated in the visible range with corresponding colors in paired energy bands for emission and absorption. The bands’ light/energy/temperature is directly related to the location’s frequency, although Wien’s law uses the reverse of frequency, wavelength.. Upon emission, energy at the emitting spectral position drops from its original higher energy level E2, for example, to a lower level E1. The photon emitted has an “Einstein A” coefficient that identifies the absorption/emission energy mathematically. Second, somewhere in the universe is an atom or molecule with an Einstein B coefficient of energy corresponding to the emitted energy, which gives it the probability of receiving and absorbing the photon. If the photon’s whole-integer energy, or a multiple of it, exactly matches the integer difference between the target molecule’s energy levels, and the molecule absorbs the photon, it gains the emitting molecule’s energy, and rises from its original quantum integer energy level to a level determined by the emitted photon’s multiple of the absorbing molecule’s quantum determinant.
This holds for every spectral line of absorption/emission at any temperature. The point is that each has a specific temperature calculable by the Wien Approximation, Displacement Law. The radiant energy is not a mass of generalized energy/heat/light. We don’t get that from Dr. Happer’s presentation.
Wien’s approximation is irrelevant. The Earth emits radiation in the 15 micron band. If that radiation were able to travel directly to space instead of being absorbed then the surface could be colder in order to have the same amount of energy radiators to space as is absorbed from the sun. That is what the divot in the TOA spectrum is all about.
I trust you noticed the 15 micron bands radiates at minus 80 Celsius. Atmospheric CO2 not the Earth (surface?) absorbs and radiates it. And spectral bands are central to understanding the range of energy shown in the graph. The supposition “directly to space” doesn’t apply. You seem to have confused your absorber/emitter as well the outgoing energy bands, if you read the energy amounts apply to the atmospheric gases. Look again.
You will note in the emission graphs that there are emission/absorption bands for most atmospheric gases, each at specific radiant bands, dependent on their quantum numbers and doing the job of radiating energy to space. The Earth surface indeed absorbs and radiates.
Do you understand that the area under that curve must be equivalent to a flux of approximately 240 W/m^2?
If all of the radiation emitted by the surface could travel directly to space without being absorbed then the average surface temperature would be approximately 255K.
The fact that the 15 micron band is emitted from a colder temperature than that means that there is a deficit in the area. That deficit must be made up by having the surface warm so that it can get more radiation out to space in the non-15 micron bands.
A few observations:
A). The conversation starts with a false premise, that being the atmosphere ‘warms’ the Earth surface by +33 degrees Celsius.
Completely false and idiotic. The atmosphere does not ‘warm’ the Earth, it cools it. Please, see temperature of Moon, which has no atmosphere.
B). Folks like ‘Rocky’ believe that a cold object or gas can ‘heat’ a warmer object.
Not physically possible.
Last time we pumped cold water through a nuclear reactor on a Virginia Class submarine, it did not ‘heat up’ the reactor. It cooled it.
Some of you folks need to go back and learn how radiational heat transfer actually works, and stop with the ‘Land of Make-Believe” nonsense.
The prediction of the scientific idea known as the GHE of atmospheric carbon dioxide is “the atmosphere ‘warms’ the Earth surface by +33 degrees Celsius.” And for an idea to be scientific requires that something be predicted because of the idea which has not been observed.
The natural atmospheric temperature is the issue and not the cooling of a nuclear reactor on a submarine; that is an engineering problem.
The average surface temperature of the moon is lower than that of Earth. The only way that the average surface temperature can be higher than the effective radiating temperature is if there is a GHE. If convection were turned off the warming due to the GHE would be about 92C. So convection is a cooling effect that brings that warming down to about 30 C.
“B). Folks like ‘Rocky’ believe that a cold object or gas can ‘heat’ a warmer object.
Not physically possible.”
Of course it is physically possible to add cold insulation around a heated system and cause that system to increase in temperature. Go look at the solution to the sphere-shell model. If you disagree with that solution then PROVIDE THE MATH for your solution.
“Last time we pumped cold water through a nuclear reactor on a Virginia Class submarine, it did not ‘heat up’ the reactor. It cooled it.”
Of course that was the case because the water you were pumping through was able to transfer heat away from the reactor more effectively than the surrounding air. This is all basic heat transfer.
Cold insulation causes the interior heated system to WARM because it is LESS effective at transferring heat out from the system. This really is not that difficult to understand.
Hi Kevin,
The transfer of energy in the troposphere is primarily done be convection, where molecules collide. This type of energy transfer is described by the law of conservation of momentum (not radiation), which states that the masses of the objects are irrelevant and energy flows from the object with greater velocity (energy) to the object with less energy. Cold (less kinetic energy) can heat (add energy) hot
Herb
Herb – There are types of elastic collisions between particles where the slower low energy particle can transfer energy to the faster high energy particle.
A few questions for Rocky and other ‘brilliant’ scholars:
1) Does Ozone heat or cool the Earth surface?
2) Does fog heat or cool the Earth surface?
3) Do clouds of water vapor heat or cool the Earth surface?
4) Does CO2, which like Ozone, blocks/scatters incoming radiation from the Sun, then how does it heat the Earth surface?
Ozone in the stratosphere absorbs UV and then emits. Thus shields the earth from some of the warming effects of UV.
Fog is a very minor player. Clouds are another story. They contribute both to reflecting UV which is a cooling effect and to downwelling LWR which is a warming effect.
CO2 does not interact strongly with UV, and so it is not like ozone at all. It’s effects are prominent in the troposphere where it acts to warm the surface below and cool the stratosphere above.
Hi Rocky,
The ozone in the stratosphere is created when an oxygen molecule absorbs energy from uv and splits into oxygen atoms. Those atoms can then form the unstable ozone. Do you really believe that ozone molecule at a concentration .003% can absorb 95% of the uv coming from the sun? It is not the ozone that is absorbing uv it is the N2 and O2 in the atmosphere.
Water does not absorb uv, but IR, which is why you can et sunburned while in the water. It is water in the atmosphere that controls the temperature. If you use the UGL topcoat the temperature at different altitudes (Divide temperature by density together the kinetic energy of a constant number of molecules) you will see that the kinetic energy increases in a straight line in the troposphere, where water moderate temperature, and in an exponential line above the troposphere.
Use the “Search” button on PSI’s to look up my article “What The Energy of Molecules in the Atmosphere Tell Us About It and the GHGT” The kinetic energy of molecules in the atmosphere increases with increasing altitude. The zig zag line produced by a thermometer is caused by the thermometer being inaccurate in a gas because a change in energy produces a change in density. Both mass and energy become variables.
Herb
Hi Rocky,
Only about 5% of the uv coming from the sun reaches the Earth’s surface (look it up). What do you think absorbs that uv? (All matter absorbs radiated energy (LoT) and since neither N2 or O2 absorb visible or IR radiation, what type of radiation do you think those gases ate absorbing?
Do you believe the surface of the Earth is heating the atmosphere? The radiation and absorption of energy is a function of area. So if the surface is 1000 times denser (More area/mass) how much more kinetic energy must the molecules on the surface have to transfer energy to the gas molecules? (hint: transfer is done by convection. See my article “How Cold Heats Hot”.)
Herb
Herb – The surface absorbs an average of ~160W/m^2 of radiation from the sun out of an average total of ~340 W/m^2 coming in at the TOA. The rest is reflected (~100 W/m^2) and absorbed in the atmosphere (~80 W/m^2).
So yet again, you need to get your facts straight.
To Herb you wrote: “you need to get your facts straight.” And you wrote: “The rest is reflected (~100 W/m^2) and absorbed in the atmosphere (~80 W/m^2).”
Surfaces of solids and liquids reflect; the gas molecules of the atmosphere SCATTER (back toward space) the UV radiation which doesn’t photo-dissociate oxygen molecules and ozone molecules.
Hi Rocky,
So where does the energy from the 95% of uv absorbed in the atmosphere go? Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
So you don’t believe that the conservation of momentum applies when slow objects collide with fast objects. The problem is your “facts” are the same crap spewed by the fact checkers determined to preserve their beliefs.
Herb
Indeed. I suggest to look up “Trenberth diagram” for an accounting of the energy flows. No energy is created or destroyed. You continue to put forth incorrect statements about the amounts of UV. You should correct your errors.
“So you don’t believe that the conservation of momentum applies when slow objects collide with fast objects.”
Of course I believe in conservation of momentum. Are you unaware that in oblique collisions the slower particle can give its energy to the faster particle?
Rocky and Jerry.
It takes 500,000 joules/mole to split an oxygen molecule into oxygen atoms. Look up what creates the ozone in the atmosphere.
The sun radiates all spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. What wavelengths objects absorb depends on the size of the electron field around them. Gamma and x-ray are absorbed by atoms and dislodge electrons creating the ionosphere. The next larger wavelengths (uv) are absorbed by small molecules O2 and N2 with their double and triple bonds.This is why the upper atmosphere has a layer of oxygen atoms and helium. Because it takes over 900,000 joules/mole to split N2 into atoms the N2 molecule is only partially split and the next lower layer of the atmosphere consist of molecules made from oxygen atoms and partially split nitrogen molecules. In the stratosphere the ozone molecule is created when an oxygen atom combines with an oxygen molecules.
The visible spectrum is too large to be absorbed by N2 and O2 molecules so that spectrum transmits through the atmosphere and heats the surface of the Earth (your 340W/m^2)m along with the 5% of uv that makes it through the atmosphere.
Shorter wavelengths are absorbed by many different objects and are not reflected (uv is not reflected by water but passes through it). That is why they make IR and radio telescopes to see deeper into space.
Surface molécules are not reflecting gas molecules. The gas molecules exist because they have enough kinetic energy to escape the liquid phase and when they collide with the surface they transfer energy to it. If the Earth was to absorb all the energy of the gas molecule it would become a liquid or solid on the surface.
Why do you think the Earth cools during a solar minimum, when there are fewer flares producing UV? The amount of visible light emitted by the sun doesn’t vary.
Herb
Herb – I had a bit of a brain malfunction. For some reason I was reading “UV” as “solar radiation”. So my numbers were for all solar radiation and not simply UV.
I don’t know if your numbers are correct, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume they are.
So my question is, who cares? The energy balance is for all radiation bands, not simply UV. So what is your hang-up about UV?
Hi Rocky,
According to those who study the sun the visible light spectrum varies by .1%. There is a study (I forget the name) showing where the different wavelengths are emitted by the sun. X-rays and UV rom solar flares, visible and IR from the surface.
Herb
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Rocky
| #
It seems that Prof. Johnson is questioning basic tenets of radiative heat transfer than have been established and experimentally verified for decades.
I have to wonder if he agrees with Willis Eschenbach’s solution for the single shell steel greenhouse model. If he does not, then what is his solution and what are the governing equations for the temperatures of the sphere and the shell?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/
Being a mathematician, he should be happy to address such questions on a simple system.
Reply
Claes
| #
The steel shell will attain the same temperature as the Earth without shell, and the shell will not raise the temperature of the Earth.
Reply
Claes Johnson
| #
The Earth with shell will take the same temperature as without shell. The presence of the steel shell will not raise the Earth temperature. The temperature of the surrounding of a body must be taken into account to determine the radiative heat transfer from/to the body.
Reply
Claes Johnson
| #
You seem to be assuming absolutely zero conduction/convection between sphere and shell, which is an academic case without interest for Earth + atmosphere, so why bother?
Reply
Rocky
| #
Claes – If you would like, we can allow for other modes of heat transfer between the sphere and the shell. The point is that your claims about the effects of radiative absorbers on the temperature of a heated object are physically incorrect.
I am really surprised that you are not willing to write down the equations that lead you to your claims.
Would you like to add convective heat transfer between the sphere and the shell? Would you like to put an “atmospheric window” in the shell? We can do all of these thing but it makes the equations take a form that requires numerical solutions as opposed to closed form solutions. I would think that is something that you could appreciate as a mathematician.
Reply
RedTape
| #
Let’s face it corporations rule the world behind the shadows of government and have perfected the pay to play operandi. They engineer a problem, induce panic through the CIA “operation mockingbird” media fear mongering and systematically scare the human race. They divide and conquer using problem, reaction, solution. At this point it’s VERY evident to those not living under a rock that the “solution” (the vaccine) has run its course. Millions are waking up to the reality that the vaccine didn’t work as advertised and people are pissed. In the upcoming years I won’t be surprised if some kind of vaccine scandal materializes out of all of this. But it doesn’t matter because those who were susceptible to the covid PsyOp probably won’t see the next one coming and that’s a staggering 68% of the population. So what is the next engineered problem? It’s Man-made climate change. Yes you’re being convinced that “ humans“ are destroying the earth’s climate. Only a completely brainwashed moron would believe this nonsense spewing from the bill and Melinda gates foundation and their ilk. These VERY rich and powerful people use more hydrocarbons in 3 months then you will in your entire life. Yes it’s true! if you don’t believe me just look how much fuel is consumed with their private jets as they travel to dozens of climate summits and meetings just to tell us to stop driving and lower our thermostat in winter. They have a shared goal of depopulation of the so-called worthless eaters, they don’t need or want you!
Now with all that said, NATURE NOT GOVERNMENT RULES THE WEATHER! The polar bears are thriving and the media is lying, the so-called unprecedented heat is 100% a fabrication performance for the masses by your masters. Simply put the greenhouse gas effect does not exist on our planet, it never has and never will. The THEORY of greenhouse gas dates back to 1827 France. It suggest certain gases act as a atmospheric shield preventing infrared radiation from escaping back into space. It’s derived from the presumption that CO2 only absorbs and does not radiate infrared energy, nothing is further from the truth. There is no significant difference between the infrared absorption capabilities of CO2, 02, N2 or AR when thermal absorption is measured instead of the VERY flawed spectrographic wave absorption method currently used. As a consequence the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist and is in no way related to trace gases such as carbon dioxide.The global warming argument FAILS if CO2 a harmless and very necessary trace gas found in everyday life and the earths atmosphere is be proven to have no atmospheric warming abilities. Unfortunately they will continue to run with this narrative, at some point it too shall fail just like COVID. Hopefully sooner than later.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi John O’Sullivan (PSI founder and Editor),
How can you when you know the following and professors Johnson and Happer should know. Should know because you know of the following three PSI articles.
https://principia-scientific.com/prevailing-theories-have-been-proven-wrong-before/
https://principia-scientific.com/new-scientific-law-greenhouse-effect/
https://principia-scientific.com/solar-radiation-sufficient-no-greenhouse-effect-certain-atmospheric-gases/
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi John,
If PSI is to be a SCIENTIFIC website, you should know about the history of SCIENCE. You should know that Galileo Galilei wrote a book (Dialogue on the Two Chief Systems of the World—English translation) published 1632 for which he was threatened with being burnt at the stake if he did not retract his claim, based upon observation he made with his telescope. So to save his life he did retract the claim that the Earth did not standstill. However, he was forbidden to write another book which we know he did. My two PSI articles use unquestionable observations, which I did not have to make because other SCIENTISTS had, which absolutely prove that the idea of the greenhouse effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is absolutely wrong just as Galileo’s telescopic observations proved that the idea that the Earth stands still was absolutely wrong.
SCIENCE not based upon arguments and intellectual debate; it is simply based upon simple observation if the right instruments have been invented.
PSI Readers should be taught this.
Reply
MattH
| #
‘ Maybe a true OLR has no ditch and so no (observable) warming from CO2. Maybe the spectrometer acts as a ghost detector like that detecting Downwelling Long Wave Radiation DLWR discussed in this post. What do you think?’
I think the above question needs to be resolved.
And dumb question time. It is claimed that water in its various phases accounts for approx. 95% of atmospheric radiative gases. (please excuse some H2O phases being labeled gases. Liberalism)
Is it possible for the trough in the graph to be caused by water vapour or cloud absorbing in the 600 waveband but re-emitting in two separate wavebands? Two differing molecules in the three molecule structure of a water molecule!!!
There is no such thing as a dumb question.
Reply
Moffin
| #
Water and frequency harmonics?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
Claes wrote: “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.” (https://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2022/07/measuring-fictional-downwelling-long.html)
At (https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html) we can see, with a little effort, that this NOAA project measures six radiations (4 solar and 2 infrared). At high noon on 10/2/2022 at Desert Rock NV one can see, after a little effort, that at ‘high noon) the maximum downwelling solar is near 1000watts/m^2 while the upwelling infrared radiation is about 700watts/m^2 and the downwelling infrared is about 500watts/m^2. If anyone cannot see a problem; I doubt any comment, which I could make, would make a difference.
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
I challenge flaming Lukewarmist Happer to a Zoom video debate where I can correct his decade long delusions on Atmospheric Radiation Physics and Thermodynamics
Reply
Rocky
| #
Joseph – Why not just make your points here? Can we start with a simple system like the steel greenhouse problem posed by Willis Eschenbach?
Here is my solution to that problem for steady-state. Please indicate which equation or equations you are not in agreement with.
For the sphere:
q = sigma ( Tsphere^4 – Tshell^4)
Here let’s assume that the surface area of the sphere is 1m^2. q is the constant energy input to the interior of the sphere per unit time. sigma ( Tsphere^4 – Tshell^4) is then the heat transferred from the surface of the sphere to the inner surface of the shell. Let’s assume that the shell is very thin such that we can approximate it as having a uniform temperature. Let’s also assume that the gap between the sphere surface and the shell is small in comparison to their radii such that we can assume view factors of 1. Then, the energy balance for the shell is:
sigma ( Tsphere^4 – Tshell^4) = sigma Tshell^4
where again sigma ( Tsphere^4 – Tshell^4) is the heat transferring to the shell from the sphere and sigma Tshell^4 is the energy transferred out to space.
Solving these two governing equations for Tsphere and Tshell yields:
Tshell = (q/sigma)^(1/4)
Tsphere = (2 q/sigma)^(1/4)
So the sphere is warmer than the shell, which it must be for heat to be transferred through the system at steady state.
What are your equations?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Rocky,
Since in the troposphere energy transfer is done by convection shouldn’t the sphere include the troposphere and the shell be the higher layers (heated by uv) where energy is transferred by radiation?
Herb
Reply
Rocky
| #
Herb – We can attempt to add any features that you like. Ultimately the vast majority of the energy emitted from the Earth to space is via radiation, so for these simple models you always need an outer shell. Otherwise you would need to solve the differential equations associated with radiative transfer through gases, etc.
Before we add anything more complicated, are you in agreement with the solution for the simplest form of the model that I have provided above?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Rocky,
Here’s a problem I have. The interior of the Earth is hot and trying to radiate energy into space through the shell. The exterior of the shell is being heated by the sun preventing the geothermal heat from escaping (except during seismic activity) so the use of a sphere as a model seems inaccurate. Shouldn’t it be like the skin of a ballon that is gaining and losing energy coming from the sun where the equilibrium point between geothermal and solar heat keeps shifting in the skin? Isn’t the heat the Earth is radiating the heat it gets from the sun?
Herb
Rocky
| #
No Herb, the shell is not being heated. In the original problem the energy source is within the sphere.
We can discuss your objections to this as a model for the Earth in due course.
First, can we agree with the basic equations governing the temperatures for THIS problem?
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Rocky,
Yes the energy of an object is a function of its volume (energy equalizes with all mass) and the absorption and radiation of energy is a function of area.
Herb
Tom Anderson
| #
It strikes me that the discussion of radiant emission from the Earth is treated as an unstated uniform, and implicitly warm, one. In fact, CO2’s major radiant interactivity (the wedge cutout midway in the graph) is from between 13.26 to 17.07 μm, peaking at ~ 15 μm. By Wien’s Displacement Law temperature there would be Wien’s constant (2897) divided by peak 15μm wavelength on the spectrum, or 2897 ÷ 15 = 193.13K or -79.87°C. Energy transport at that temperature has been observed in the stratosphere, I believe – and on the Antarctic plateau, which is capable of that temperature and a ratio of CO2 to water vapor at a parity of 1:1.
[Lightfoot and Mamer, “Calculation of Atmospheric Radiative Forcing (Warming Effect) of Carbon Dioxide at Any Concentration,” Sage Journals, research article, Dec. 1, 2014,
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305x.25.8.1439
https://doi.org/10.1260/0958-305X.25.8.1439%5D
Dr. Salby states (Physics of the atmosphere and climate, (New York, Cambridge Univ.,2012, p 102.) “The strong absorption bands of CO2 and O3 sharply reduce emission to space at 15μm and 9.6μm, respectively. Outgoing radiation at those wavelengths corresponds to blackbody temperatures that are distinctly colder than within the atmospheric window, where outgoing radiation emanates directly from the Earth’s surface.”
Why does neither Dr. Happer nor Dr. Johnson address the specific, and seemingly relevant, temperatures of CO2’s radiant absorption/emission bands? It might to have a salutary effect against prospects of calamity.
Reply
Rocky
| #
Tom – Happer does address the details of the emission and absorption bands of CO2 and the full range of temperatures throughout the atmosphere. Additionally, all Wien’s displacement law tells you is the relationship between the PEAK frequency of the radiation spectrum and the blackbody temperature that produces that spectrum.
A blackbody object at 300K produces more radiation in the 15-16 micron band than a blackbody object at -80C.
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
“A blackbody object at 300K produces more radiation in the 15-16 micron band than a blackbody object at -80C.” It is hard to argue with that, but we are not discussing masses or collections of temperatures. .
Peak absorption/emission by the Displacement Law has been a way of calculating radiant energy grouped around an averaging approximation point since about 1890, revised for quantum calculations. The law is also called Wien’s Approximation, which may more suitably describe what it measures, since the peak emerges from photons from 13.26 to 17.70 microns.
Energy transfer appears in two ways. It appears first at a position within the energy-emitting spectrum (e.g., the sun) as a “drop-out emission line,” which emerges when an atom or molecule at a certain place in the spectrum emits a photon at the spectrum band’s given “positional intensity.” These energy drop and absorption bands are usually illustrated in the visible range with corresponding colors in paired energy bands for emission and absorption. The bands’ light/energy/temperature is directly related to the location’s frequency, although Wien’s law uses the reverse of frequency, wavelength.. Upon emission, energy at the emitting spectral position drops from its original higher energy level E2, for example, to a lower level E1. The photon emitted has an “Einstein A” coefficient that identifies the absorption/emission energy mathematically. Second, somewhere in the universe is an atom or molecule with an Einstein B coefficient of energy corresponding to the emitted energy, which gives it the probability of receiving and absorbing the photon. If the photon’s whole-integer energy, or a multiple of it, exactly matches the integer difference between the target molecule’s energy levels, and the molecule absorbs the photon, it gains the emitting molecule’s energy, and rises from its original quantum integer energy level to a level determined by the emitted photon’s multiple of the absorbing molecule’s quantum determinant.
This holds for every spectral line of absorption/emission at any temperature. The point is that each has a specific temperature calculable by the Wien Approximation, Displacement Law. The radiant energy is not a mass of generalized energy/heat/light. We don’t get that from Dr. Happer’s presentation.
Reply
Rocky
| #
Wien’s approximation is irrelevant. The Earth emits radiation in the 15 micron band. If that radiation were able to travel directly to space instead of being absorbed then the surface could be colder in order to have the same amount of energy radiators to space as is absorbed from the sun. That is what the divot in the TOA spectrum is all about.
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
I trust you noticed the 15 micron bands radiates at minus 80 Celsius. Atmospheric CO2 not the Earth (surface?) absorbs and radiates it. And spectral bands are central to understanding the range of energy shown in the graph. The supposition “directly to space” doesn’t apply. You seem to have confused your absorber/emitter as well the outgoing energy bands, if you read the energy amounts apply to the atmospheric gases. Look again.
You will note in the emission graphs that there are emission/absorption bands for most atmospheric gases, each at specific radiant bands, dependent on their quantum numbers and doing the job of radiating energy to space. The Earth surface indeed absorbs and radiates.
Reply
Rocky
| #
“I trust you noticed the 15 micron bands radiates at minus 80 Celsius.”
This statement is absolutely meaningless. Photons do not have a temperature.
15 micron photons are emitted by objects at 100K and they are emitted by objects at 10000K.
The amount of energy that is able to travel directly to space is what is relevant. If you can’t understand that then you are lost.
Reply
Rocky
| #
Do you understand that the area under that curve must be equivalent to a flux of approximately 240 W/m^2?
If all of the radiation emitted by the surface could travel directly to space without being absorbed then the average surface temperature would be approximately 255K.
The fact that the 15 micron band is emitted from a colder temperature than that means that there is a deficit in the area. That deficit must be made up by having the surface warm so that it can get more radiation out to space in the non-15 micron bands.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
A few observations:
A). The conversation starts with a false premise, that being the atmosphere ‘warms’ the Earth surface by +33 degrees Celsius.
Completely false and idiotic. The atmosphere does not ‘warm’ the Earth, it cools it. Please, see temperature of Moon, which has no atmosphere.
B). Folks like ‘Rocky’ believe that a cold object or gas can ‘heat’ a warmer object.
Not physically possible.
Last time we pumped cold water through a nuclear reactor on a Virginia Class submarine, it did not ‘heat up’ the reactor. It cooled it.
Some of you folks need to go back and learn how radiational heat transfer actually works, and stop with the ‘Land of Make-Believe” nonsense.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Kevin,
The prediction of the scientific idea known as the GHE of atmospheric carbon dioxide is “the atmosphere ‘warms’ the Earth surface by +33 degrees Celsius.” And for an idea to be scientific requires that something be predicted because of the idea which has not been observed.
The natural atmospheric temperature is the issue and not the cooling of a nuclear reactor on a submarine; that is an engineering problem.
Reply
Rocky
| #
The average surface temperature of the moon is lower than that of Earth. The only way that the average surface temperature can be higher than the effective radiating temperature is if there is a GHE. If convection were turned off the warming due to the GHE would be about 92C. So convection is a cooling effect that brings that warming down to about 30 C.
Reply
Rocky
| #
“B). Folks like ‘Rocky’ believe that a cold object or gas can ‘heat’ a warmer object.
Not physically possible.”
Of course it is physically possible to add cold insulation around a heated system and cause that system to increase in temperature. Go look at the solution to the sphere-shell model. If you disagree with that solution then PROVIDE THE MATH for your solution.
“Last time we pumped cold water through a nuclear reactor on a Virginia Class submarine, it did not ‘heat up’ the reactor. It cooled it.”
Of course that was the case because the water you were pumping through was able to transfer heat away from the reactor more effectively than the surrounding air. This is all basic heat transfer.
Cold insulation causes the interior heated system to WARM because it is LESS effective at transferring heat out from the system. This really is not that difficult to understand.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Kevin,
The transfer of energy in the troposphere is primarily done be convection, where molecules collide. This type of energy transfer is described by the law of conservation of momentum (not radiation), which states that the masses of the objects are irrelevant and energy flows from the object with greater velocity (energy) to the object with less energy. Cold (less kinetic energy) can heat (add energy) hot
Herb
Reply
Rocky
| #
Herb – There are types of elastic collisions between particles where the slower low energy particle can transfer energy to the faster high energy particle.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
A few questions for Rocky and other ‘brilliant’ scholars:
1) Does Ozone heat or cool the Earth surface?
2) Does fog heat or cool the Earth surface?
3) Do clouds of water vapor heat or cool the Earth surface?
4) Does CO2, which like Ozone, blocks/scatters incoming radiation from the Sun, then how does it heat the Earth surface?
Reply
Rocky
| #
Ozone in the stratosphere absorbs UV and then emits. Thus shields the earth from some of the warming effects of UV.
Fog is a very minor player. Clouds are another story. They contribute both to reflecting UV which is a cooling effect and to downwelling LWR which is a warming effect.
CO2 does not interact strongly with UV, and so it is not like ozone at all. It’s effects are prominent in the troposphere where it acts to warm the surface below and cool the stratosphere above.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Rocky,
The ozone in the stratosphere is created when an oxygen molecule absorbs energy from uv and splits into oxygen atoms. Those atoms can then form the unstable ozone. Do you really believe that ozone molecule at a concentration .003% can absorb 95% of the uv coming from the sun? It is not the ozone that is absorbing uv it is the N2 and O2 in the atmosphere.
Water does not absorb uv, but IR, which is why you can et sunburned while in the water. It is water in the atmosphere that controls the temperature. If you use the UGL topcoat the temperature at different altitudes (Divide temperature by density together the kinetic energy of a constant number of molecules) you will see that the kinetic energy increases in a straight line in the troposphere, where water moderate temperature, and in an exponential line above the troposphere.
Use the “Search” button on PSI’s to look up my article “What The Energy of Molecules in the Atmosphere Tell Us About It and the GHGT” The kinetic energy of molecules in the atmosphere increases with increasing altitude. The zig zag line produced by a thermometer is caused by the thermometer being inaccurate in a gas because a change in energy produces a change in density. Both mass and energy become variables.
Herb
Reply
Rocky
| #
“Do you really believe that ozone molecule at a concentration .003% can absorb 95% of the uv coming from the sun?”
I don’t recall saying that. Oh right, I never made such a statement. That is your straw man.
“It is not the ozone that is absorbing uv it is the N2 and O2 in the atmosphere.”
N2 and O2 do not absorb much UV at all in comparison to the amounts of UV absorbed by the surface of the Earth and the ozone in the stratosphere.
You really should get your facts straight.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Rocky,
Only about 5% of the uv coming from the sun reaches the Earth’s surface (look it up). What do you think absorbs that uv? (All matter absorbs radiated energy (LoT) and since neither N2 or O2 absorb visible or IR radiation, what type of radiation do you think those gases ate absorbing?
Do you believe the surface of the Earth is heating the atmosphere? The radiation and absorption of energy is a function of area. So if the surface is 1000 times denser (More area/mass) how much more kinetic energy must the molecules on the surface have to transfer energy to the gas molecules? (hint: transfer is done by convection. See my article “How Cold Heats Hot”.)
Herb
Reply
Rocky
| #
Herb – The surface absorbs an average of ~160W/m^2 of radiation from the sun out of an average total of ~340 W/m^2 coming in at the TOA. The rest is reflected (~100 W/m^2) and absorbed in the atmosphere (~80 W/m^2).
So yet again, you need to get your facts straight.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Rocky,
To Herb you wrote: “you need to get your facts straight.” And you wrote: “The rest is reflected (~100 W/m^2) and absorbed in the atmosphere (~80 W/m^2).”
Surfaces of solids and liquids reflect; the gas molecules of the atmosphere SCATTER (back toward space) the UV radiation which doesn’t photo-dissociate oxygen molecules and ozone molecules.
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Rocky,
So where does the energy from the 95% of uv absorbed in the atmosphere go? Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
So you don’t believe that the conservation of momentum applies when slow objects collide with fast objects. The problem is your “facts” are the same crap spewed by the fact checkers determined to preserve their beliefs.
Herb
Rocky
| #
“Energy cannot be created or destroyed.”
Indeed. I suggest to look up “Trenberth diagram” for an accounting of the energy flows. No energy is created or destroyed. You continue to put forth incorrect statements about the amounts of UV. You should correct your errors.
“So you don’t believe that the conservation of momentum applies when slow objects collide with fast objects.”
Of course I believe in conservation of momentum. Are you unaware that in oblique collisions the slower particle can give its energy to the faster particle?
Use this simulator to see for yourself:
https://danimator.github.io/2D-Collision-Simulator/
For Object 1 enter:
Mass – 1
Entry speed – 10
Entry angle – 90
For Object 2 enter:
Mass – 1
Entry speed – 20
Entry angle – 0
If you make the coefficient of restitution 1, then you will see that the slower ball gives ALL of its energy to the faster ball.
Rocky
| #
Jerry – You need to learn the difference between the absorption of radiation by gases and scattering.
I’ll give you the opportunity to look it up and educate yourself.
Have a good day, Rocky.
Rocky
| #
Jerry – Perhaps I misunderstood your comment. The reflection of UV by the atmosphere is due to clouds, not the gases in the atmosphere.
I hope that clears up your confusion.
Have a good day, Rocky.
Herb Rose
| #
Rocky and Jerry.
It takes 500,000 joules/mole to split an oxygen molecule into oxygen atoms. Look up what creates the ozone in the atmosphere.
The sun radiates all spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. What wavelengths objects absorb depends on the size of the electron field around them. Gamma and x-ray are absorbed by atoms and dislodge electrons creating the ionosphere. The next larger wavelengths (uv) are absorbed by small molecules O2 and N2 with their double and triple bonds.This is why the upper atmosphere has a layer of oxygen atoms and helium. Because it takes over 900,000 joules/mole to split N2 into atoms the N2 molecule is only partially split and the next lower layer of the atmosphere consist of molecules made from oxygen atoms and partially split nitrogen molecules. In the stratosphere the ozone molecule is created when an oxygen atom combines with an oxygen molecules.
The visible spectrum is too large to be absorbed by N2 and O2 molecules so that spectrum transmits through the atmosphere and heats the surface of the Earth (your 340W/m^2)m along with the 5% of uv that makes it through the atmosphere.
Shorter wavelengths are absorbed by many different objects and are not reflected (uv is not reflected by water but passes through it). That is why they make IR and radio telescopes to see deeper into space.
Surface molécules are not reflecting gas molecules. The gas molecules exist because they have enough kinetic energy to escape the liquid phase and when they collide with the surface they transfer energy to it. If the Earth was to absorb all the energy of the gas molecule it would become a liquid or solid on the surface.
Why do you think the Earth cools during a solar minimum, when there are fewer flares producing UV? The amount of visible light emitted by the sun doesn’t vary.
Herb
Rocky
| #
Herb – I had a bit of a brain malfunction. For some reason I was reading “UV” as “solar radiation”. So my numbers were for all solar radiation and not simply UV.
I don’t know if your numbers are correct, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume they are.
So my question is, who cares? The energy balance is for all radiation bands, not simply UV. So what is your hang-up about UV?
Rocky
| #
“The amount of visible light emitted by the sun doesn’t vary”
According to who?
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Rocky,
According to those who study the sun the visible light spectrum varies by .1%. There is a study (I forget the name) showing where the different wavelengths are emitted by the sun. X-rays and UV rom solar flares, visible and IR from the surface.
Herb
Rocky
| #
“According to those who study the sun the visible light spectrum varies by .1%.”
LOL – That’s basically the ENTIRETY of the averaged annual variation over the 11-year cycle from 1365.5 to 1366.5.
Rocky
| #
Herb – Did you get a chance to look at that collision simulation?