The Confusion over Trapping Heat
A good friend of mine goes almost apoplectic as he insists that he traps heat in order to grow his tomatoes in his Greenhouse.
The confusion arises because in any confined space, be it a glasshouse, a hut or a room, it is possible to raise the temperature whilst heat is being generated.
Say the heat is generated by the Sun, then once the Sun sets, the heat dissipates.
If the heat is generated by fire in a central heating boiler, then once the boiler is switched off the heat dissipates. So everybody, especially old people, know this law.
Just think about it. If heat could be trapped then we would not need fire. So when some scientists, even Physicists, talk about Carbon Dioxide emissions ‘trapping heat’ they are simply in error. It is totally impossible.
Let us think first principles. The infrared radiation from the Sun encounters the mass of the Earth/Oceans and causes heat largely because 99{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the atmosphere is transparent to this radiation, namely Nitrogen and Oxygen. The 1{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} left are wrongly called “Greenhouse Gases”. They scatter the incoming radiation from the Sun, especially Water Vapour in the form of clouds, and this causes cooling. Agreed?
Now the radiation from the Earth is far more feeble than the infrared from the Sun , and this radiation can only affect 1{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the atmospheric gases, the so-called “Greenhouse Gases” Why? Answer: Because Nitrogen and Oxygen are transparent to both near and far radiation. As heat goes upwards it is not ‘trapped’ by clouds but scattered. So the heat may dissipate more slowly on a cloudy night than a clear night, but the heat is never, never trapped.
The Warmists have alas, not only not understood science, they have also misunderstood language. What they call ‘settled science’ is just pure ignorance.
Their whole theory is completely misplaced, since the heating of the atmosphere takes place, not by Radiation at all, but by Conduction. Nitrogen and Oxygen, being transparent to infrared, can only be warmed or cooled by Conduction – and subsequently cooled by Convection. This is an exercise in logic.
Once this is fully comprehended everything else falls into place.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
jerry krause
| #
Hi Anthony,
You concluded your essay: “This is an exercise in logic. Once this is fully comprehended everything else falls into place.”
A historical fact is that Aristotle and his very logical fellow philosophers got several very fundamental facts about Nature absolutely wrong. I do not review them because I am sure you are aware of this history.
And because I am sure you are aware of this history, I cannot understand how you, as we try to understand (explain) Nature, consider that logic, which has been proven not to work, is the solution.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Squidly
| #
You cannot “slow cooling” by adding a constituent gas that is of higher emissivity than the local environment (ie: atmosphere). CO2 has very high emissivity for IR.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Comparing our planet’s atmosphere to that of a greenhouse is a nonsense, our atmosphere does not work the same way. In your greenhouse (glasshouse) the warmest place is close to the roof, whereas on our planet the warmest parts are close to the ground.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi,
The warmest part of the atmosphere is at the top of the atmosphere. A satellite at the top of the atmosphere will have the surface facing the sun heated to 250 F while the same surface at sea level will be heated to 50 F. The problem is in using a thermometer to measure the temperature of a gas. A thermometer measures the heat striking it. It is not a thermo-enumeratormeter that counts how many molecules are transferring the heat. The temperature measured with a thermometer decreases, then increases, then decreases with increasing altitude. If you use the universal gas law to calculate the temperature of the atmosphere the temperature increase with increasing altitude.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Gymbo
| #
Surely you jest ?
“If you use the universal gas law to calculate the temperature of the atmosphere the temperature increase with increasing altitude.”
Have you never heard of the adiabatic lapse rate ?
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/atm-temp-profile.jpg
Look at the atmospheric pressure at the level where the temperature exceeds the ground level temperature – it is less than 0.001 mb.
You clearly do not understand the Universal Gas Law !
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Gymbo,
Atmospheric pressure is the weight of the molecules in the atmosphere. The pressure referred to in the universal gas law is the pressure that confines a gas and resists expansion. In the atmosphere that pressure is gravity and the difference in that pressure at the top of the atmosphere and at sea level is 1.5%, not significant. If were not for the heat of the molecules the atmosphere would be a liquid laying the surface of the Earth. It is the energy the molecules that creates the volume of the atmosphere acting against the pressure of gravity.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Gymbo
| #
I wish I knew what you’re smoking.
“If were not for the heat of the molecules the atmosphere would be a liquid laying the surface of the Earth.”
Liquid Nitrogen at atmospheric temperature boils at ~63 Kelvin whilst liquid Oxygen boils at ~54 Kelvin.
Just how do you propose this is even remotely possible ?
“In the atmosphere that pressure is gravity and the difference in that pressure at the top of the atmosphere and at sea level is 1.5%, not significant.”
Hmmm – let’s see what reality says.
At the height of the thermosphere pressure is 0.001 mb while at seal level pressure is 1000 mb.
To me that sounds like a difference of 1/1,000,000 and not your cited 1.5 %.
I wish I knew what you’re smoking.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Gymbo,
“Liquid Nitrogen at atmospheric temperature boils at -63 Kelvin whilst liquid Oxygen boils at -54 Kelvin.”
I have no idea what you are saying. I have never heard of an “atmospheric temperature” or any temperature below absolute zero so I never said that it was possible. If the sun were to cease radiating energy the atmosphere would condense into a liquid as it lost all its energy.
The .001 mb and 1000 mb are atmospheric pressure or the weight of the molecule above the altitude. To figure the force of gravity at the top of the atmosphere and bottom of the atmosphere you must compare the square of the two distance (4000 mi and 4030 mi).
A rock on the top of a mountain does not hold the mountain on the Earth.
tom0mason
| #
As you go up the mountain it gets colder — end of story, end of your sophistry nonsense.
Bye!
Reply
Mervyn
| #
How many people have visited London’s most famous Royal Botanic Gardens & enjoyed the Palm House?
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Anthony,
In a recent essay (11/27/2018) you wrote (https://principia-scientific.com/the-evidence-for-global-cooling/): “The evidence that Climate Change is man-made is so flimsy that even the proponents use careful language to say that they are almost certain of the hand of man. Just think about it.
“The theory is all based on “Greenhouse Gas” emissions. Well the greatest “Greenhouse Gas” is Water Vapour and they would have a hell of a job to prove anything there, so they settle on that innocent gas, Carbon Dioxide, and argue that it ‘traps’ heat.
“Well only nincompoops and scientific illiterates argue that way, for it is abundantly clear to any half intelligent person that ‘heat ‘ cannot be trapped under any circumstances.”
To which I commented, a portion of which was: “If you look at Figures 5&6 of the diurnal oscillations of soil temperatures at depths (https://principia-scientific.com/the-corvallis-or-uscrn-site-a-natural-laboratory/) you will see that the soil stores a portion of solar radiation incident upon the soil’s surface as sensible hear [heat, I make errors like this all the time for which I have no excuse] during the daytime which is then conducted back to the surface and radiated (emitted) from its surface to space during the nighttime if, and only if, the atmosphere is apparently cloudless (Fig 5). I have no trouble in imagining that this stored energy (sensible heat) can be considered to have been trapped for awhile.”
Now I add: The evidence of Figure 6 is that some nights there is no evidence that any sensible heat is being “then conducted back to the surface and radiated (emitted) from its surface to space during the nighttime.
Since I was not there when these automated measurements were being made, I suppose one could argue I have no evidence as to whether any clouds were there or were not there.
But a fact is I have no evidence that you have ever looked at figures 5&6.
So please do not call others ‘nincompoops and scientific illiterates’ because you fault their arguments. For you in this essay have not cited a single measurement. What you have written is an ‘argument’, made by many authors, which I have read multiple times.
SCIENCE is based solely upon measurements (sometimes only qualitative observations) and never upon logic (rational arguments) which have been proven not to work.
A friend, long ago, told another friend, who considered I was confronting him needlessly, “If Krause didn’t respect you, he would ignore you and what you are doing.” (Obviously a paraphrase because I could never remember the actual words from so long ago.)
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Pete Sudbury
| #
Your ignorance of basic science is cringeworthy.
Here’s what the real scientists think, simplified so anyone can understand it. This video only takes 60 seconds to watch, and has references at the end for further details.
https://youtu.be/n4e5UPu1co0
Reply
geran
| #
Pete, that video is NOT “basic science”. It is a mix of some physics with pseudoscience. For example, atmospherice CO2 radiates in all directions, so it can NOT “trap heat”.
All of that has been thorougly debunked, years ago.
Where have you been?
Reply
geran
| #
Pete, that video is NOT “basic science”. It is a mix of some physics with pseudoscience. For example, atmospherice CO2 radiates in all directions, so it can NOT “trap heat”.
All of that has been thorougly debunked, years ago.
Where have you been?
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Pete Sudbury
Your video is cringeworthy — 2.6°C to 4.8°C of warming is nonsense, no science involved just alarmist carp. Just more propaganda paraded as basic science.
Currently global temperatures are falling not rising, your ‘basic physics’ nonsense is not working!
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
CO2 can’t generate heat because all it does is absorb and emit IR energy.
Reply
Squidly
| #
It takes energy to create “heat” .. where is the extra energy coming from?
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Squidly,
To answer your question–“where is the extra energy coming from?”–I repeat, or try to state more clearly: There is no extra energy but the energy being emitted from the earth surface is often scattered back toward the earth’s surface by cloud of variable thickness so the surface is observed not to cool during the nighttime as it does when there are no obvious atmospheric clouds. Of course, if there is cloud during the day-time this scattering is also occurring even though the temperature of the surface might be warmed by the solar radiation that is ‘transmitted’ through the cloud of variable thickness or density. This influence of cloud upon radiation is easily seen if you do not overlook the obvious when it naturally occurs.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply