This month’s open thread for climate science discussions. Be nice, it’s Earth month.
Reader Interactions
361 Responses to "Unforced Variations: Apr 2021"
TYSON MCGUFFINsays
128 MA Rodger
As for the radiation emitted from a gas, imagine it were a solid, a horizontal solid sheet of temperature T(sh). You would not be challenged if you said the radiation emitted by such a sheet equaled double 5.67e-8 x T(sh)^4, that is half of it up and half of it down.
That makes absolutely no sense. If I measure the emission from above I get:
Eup = σT(sh)^4 and If I measure the emission from below I get Edown = σT(sh)^4. No need to double or half anything i.e. no need to fudge the numbers.
TYSON MCGUFFINsays
125 zebra
(In your reply to MAR as well… how is energy ‘extinguished’?)
I never said energy is extinguished but rather that [radiation] emission from the surface is extinguished in the atmosphere. Are you familiar with extinction of electromagnetic waves? Yes there is a small fraction (~6%) that is radiated directly to space.
Regarding your comment about “actual units.” I’ve been speaking of fluxes; it is well known, by those who know it well, that fluxes are expressed in W’s unless you are a meteorologist in which case it means flux density.
The sanctimony and low reading comprehension in some of these replies are off the charts.
Ray Ladburysays
z1, The problem you are experiencing is not one of your own designing. Rather, consider that scientists have been saying there was an issue since the 1980s. They have faced hostility, calumny and even death threats as they did so.
So, when someone comes along 40 years into the crisis and suggests that it is utterly new to them, it strains credulity for those of us who have been fighting the anti-science crowd for decades.
But you are in luck. In the upper left hand corner of this very webpage is a tab that says Start Here. Do what it says. Read the resources. They are reliable and approved by actual climate scientist. If you get stuck, then ask specific questions, and you will probably get a warmer reception.
Piotrsays
TYSON MCGUFFIN (132) Guys thanks again for your attention. It’s obvious that this is the wrong forum for addressing this issue. Regards.
You got that right – the forum right for you is either a high-school science club, or the same deniers’ web site you got your idea from. Wasn’t a disclaimer there? You know, something like:
“ WARNING: The arguments seen here are valid on this site only. You are entitled to an exchange for another argument of the same or lesser value. The full refund is offered only during the limited-warranty period, upon producing the original receipt; no facsimile shall be accepted.
Any unauthorized use outside of this site is at the client’s own risk and we bear no responsibility for any resulting serious eyebrows raising, excessive eyerolls, facepalming, questioning your educational pedigree or intellectual prowess. In case of severe ego bruising, move away from the source of the acerbic comments and wash them down with a stream of cooling or lukewarm compliments from your brothers-in-denial, or if not on hand, with praises from your mother. Do not induce vomiting or excessive farting [1]”.
===
[1] Sidoli M., 1996. “Farting as a defence against unspeakable dread”. J. Analytical Psychology. 41(2):165-178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-5922.1996.00165.x
(see also the “Citing Literature” there)
CCHolleysays
Mal Adapted @129
IMHO it’s rational to assume that fossil carbon capitalists, who have the most to lose by the transition to carbon-neutrality, will invest in politics as necessary to sustain their profits as long as possible. In spite of that, I’m more optimistic about collective decarbonization than I’ve been since 1988.
Another reason for optimism is that although conservatives mostly remain against specific actions for reducing fossil fuel use such as carbon fees, conservatives do not, in general, dislike the proliferation of green energy–especially if it makes economic sense.
A 2019 Gallup Poll found that the vast majority of Americans want to see more emphasis placed on the production of green energy sources—specifically solar power (80%) and wind (70%). The idea of *green* energy is popular and that popularity is growing, regardless of people’s stance on climate change.
So not only will fossil fuel use decline as it becomes less and less competitive, support for government actions to promote a faster expansion of green energy is bipartisan and are likely to succeed in Congress.
Piotrsays
z1 (146): Thanks everyone for your responses. Not sure this is the proper forum for learning about the actual extent of the “climate emergency” or if any exists at all.”
z1, do you own homework, not that of your friends! Questioning the climate emergency was NOT YOUR homework but that of
1. “Joe Wellborn” – “ there is, in fact, considerable debate within the scientific community on the climate crisis thesis”
2. “Nathaniel “Very Skeptical to “Crisis” Wixon”.
You, Aden, and McGuffin, on the other hand, were supposed to discuss science:
3. your topic (z1 if you forgot)- were supposed to defend “MIT Professor Richard Lindzen” against “the arrogance and dismissive attitude by “priests of settled science” which you “find “extremely off putting”.
4. Aden’s topic: “the increase in the speed of the earth’s rotation falsifies the increase in sea levels”.
5. McGuffin’s topic: the greenhouse effect does not exist because back-radiation is equal to out-radiation (I think)
But of these latter 3:
– “Aden” disappeared,
– “McGuffin” said it may not be good forum for him, so he … snatches Wellborn and Wixon’s topic by posting about … climate “emergency”
– and then you pull a McGuffin by saying too that you doubt whether it is a good forum to learn “ if any “climate emergency” exists at all”
Concentrate, people! You can’t pull a heist, if everybody did what they wanted -the getaway car driver instead of fixed the flat, says “I’m not sure if this is a good car for me” and walks into the bank to help to terrorize the cashiers, or to open the Vault. People, this no way to do a heist!
CCHolleysays
@143
My simple model is straight out of Petty’s Atmospheric Radiation book; If you have a problem with it then take it up with him!
I’d like to know exactly where in Petty’s book he uses a single layer model to describe atmospheric radiation.
michael Sweetsays
Tyson McGuffin at 143:
The problem is that you have taken a very simple model that describes the emission of energy at the surface and the first few meters of the atmosphere and tried to apply it to the entire atmosphere. You are extending the model beyond what it is capable of modeling. A one layer model like yours cannot describe the entire atmosphere because the atmosphere consists of many layers.
When we measure the energy leaving the atmosphere from space we see that it is much less than the energy emitted upward from the surface. This is because the energy at the top of the atmosphere is emitted from high in the atmosphere where the temperature is lower. Since you do not understand the model you are using you are applying it incorrectly. Less energy is emitted from the top of the atmosphere than is emitted from the surface. That is one of the basics of the greenhouse effect.
Go to the start here button at the top of the page. If you read some of the basics you will begin to understand what is happening. You have to understand the basics before you can understand how energy is transferred in the atmosphere.
z1says
Ray Ladbury @153
Thanks for the “start here” suggestion. I am mostly perplexed by the Greenhouse Effect (which sits at the base of the AGW argument) as I don’t see how the analogy holds without a barrier (glass, blanket) which blocks convection. This link from “start here” explains:
“So, it is not really like a blanket, which inhibits convection in both directions, or like an actual greenhouse, which lets in the sunlight and then also inhibits convection, but both are reasonable analogies as far as they go. The scientists in the IPCC know this, they are only using these analogies to help laypeople understand the very general principals. If you hear someone attacking climate science by attacking these analogies, they are attacking a strawman.”
My questions:
Isn’t the energy that’s trapped by a co2 molecule free to be exchanged with its surroundings, making it warmer?
Is it realistic to model the Earth surface and the co2 molecules as two mirrors that bounce (reflect, radiate) energy (fluxes) between each other, making each other warmer?
Has the Greenhouse Effect been demonstrated to exist by an experiment? For example has it been shown that the temperature of an irradiated body surrounded by greenhouse gasses is warmer than its temperature when surrounded by equal amount and density of non-greenhouse gasses?
The article argues that it is the Greenhouse Effect that raises the avg temperature on Earth by 33C (to 15C) from -18C which would have been its temp without an atmosphere. But what would its temp have been with an atmosphere (of equal quantity and density of gas molecules) containing zero greenhouse gasses? Wouldn’t mere gravity, producing pressure on the gas molecules create heat in the atmosphere and warm the Earth’s surface? It seems that ANY irradiated body surrounded by an atmosphere would be warmer than if it had no atmosphere. No Greenhouse Effect, and no complex energy flux models needed?
Is there a link that answers the above questions? Thx in advance.
BPL@103 – Regardless of how said walrus actually arrived in the British Isles he moved on to South Wales where he was then accosted by a horde of Great British Easter sightseers and took to the waves once again.
Wally has now apparently recovered from the shock and returned to his favourite haulout on the slipway at Tenby lifeboat station:
zi @146. This is completely the right site for learning about the science of the climate emergency. I suggest that you follow the copious links in the side bar, do some reading and come to conclusions. If you think that scientists are over-egging the extent of the crisis, then maybe do some of your own research (by which i mean, measurement, data analysis, equations and stuff… watching YouTube videos doesn’t count as research), and if you present it coherently people will be happy to debate you.
An awful lot of the science is indeed settled. Anthropogenic CO2 is rising. Settled (by observation). Increased CO2 causes higher temperatures. Settled (by theoretical physics). Temperatures are rising. Settled (by observation, and in line with predictions). Sea level is rising. Settled (by observation and in line with predictions). Now there is a lot that isn’t settled. detail of rates, regional effects, impact on ocean currents, magnitude of feedbacks. imapct of change on ecosystems and their capacity to respond, etc. etc.. And that’s why science goes on, observing, creating new hypotheses, testing, reviewing and refining.
z1: Seems like anyone who even asks the question here is immediately accused of trolling or shilling
BPL: Only if they are obviously trolling or shilling. If your intent was to come in here and prove how awful RealClimate is, you obviously didn’t come for answers or out of real curiosity. I, for one, gave you straight answers, but they didn’t change your mind, did they? Because you’re not really looking for the truth; you’re looking for a fight.
We’ve seen it before. It’s boring.
zebrasays
Tyson Mcguffin #152,
As I said earlier, you seem to be confused either by physics concepts or the meaning of words. Extinction of radiation in physics is not the same as “emissions being extinguished“, which is what you said. The difference should be obvious.
If you really want an answer to your questions, you have to articulate them clearly. Now, you said at 120, for your simple model:
“Incoming shortwave Flux (F1) + Downwelling IR Flux (Fa)= Upward Flux from the surface (Fs)”
And I asked you what seems a simple question, because I want to understand your model:
Where is the energy coming from that radiates into space from the atmosphere?
Again, if you want to have a real scientific discussion, you have to be able to establish your concept clearly. So far, it seems to change from comment to comment.
TYSON MCGUFFIN @151/152,
The apparent sanctimony you witness down this comments thread results from the need to have the patience of a saint to cope with the incoherent and befuddled bullshit you present within your comments.
Let us review your crazy record down this thread:-
@81 you ask about ”back radiation” which you describe as an ”idea” (rather an odd way to describe a physical phenomenon) but which is obviously an inevitable ”idea” given the existence of GHGs and the S-B law which you do appear to accept as part of your reality.
Your comment is asking ‘Where did the idea of “back radiation” originate?” which is a bit like asking where the idea of sunlight came from (except you do need an instrument to measure IR so pre-1830 the ”idea” of any form of IR was until then no more than an idea.)
@105 you add a bit more crazy-speak, still apparently with regard to the surface energy balance (or lack of it) and start gabbing-on about ” the half-and-half proposition” that ”does not hold in the case of the atmosphere.” You appear not to be considering the TOA in this ”does-not-hold” argument as you only talk of the surface and had not made specific mention of anything but radiative fluxes. Indeed latterly, TOA considerations presented to you @117 (& @elsewhere) are specifically converted to purely surface considerations in your reply @120. With such thought in mind, I did point you to a graphic showing the actual radiation imbalance with the atmosphere at the surface was but a few W/m^-2 suggesting a surface temperature imbalance of a handful of degrees.
@120 you continue to give no clarity about your ”issue”. You are happy with there being ”back radiation” and that the energy fluxes add up. But then there is another crazy account of your ”issue.”
☻ Your first explanatory paragraph suggests the surface radiation absorbed by the atmosphere results both in ”back radiation” and in emissions at TOA (this the first indication that you are actually considering TOA radiation), perhaps implying that these resulting fuxes together should balance the surface radiation flux, which of course is crazy.
☻ But then your second explanatory paragraph sets up a crazy thought experiment with no upward surface flux and accepts that the atmospheric flux will be defined by S-B (and thus the gas temperature) which is fine and dandy (as long as the gaps in the gas emission spectrum are accounted for, gaps you account in your first paragraph). You again mention TOA in this thought experiment yet for some reason you set the atmosphere with a constant top-&-bottom temperature. As I say, ‘crazy!’
@132 you make us all happy by saying you are buggering off.
But here you are back again @151/152 to respond to cross-posted comments. It is interesting that, excepting the first paragraph of your first comment @81, you do not ask questions but instead make blindingly-stupid and inconsistent assertions. You talk for ”fudging numbers” but all you do here is ‘fudge comments.’
I feel you were right @132. Take your befuddled bullshit and bigger off!!
TYSON MCGUFFINsays
157 CCHolley
I’d like to know exactly where in Petty’s book he uses a single layer model to describe atmospheric radiation.
Page 139 Section 6.4.3. You missed that?
William B Jacksonsays
#132 Tyson in otherwords you have been spanked and are taking your road show elsewhere. Why do I suspect that you are indeed a McGuffin in the Hitchcock sense?
TYSON MCGUFFINsays
To summarize for the hard of learning and those interested in examining inconsistencies in their own knowledge.
The Earth’s greenhouse effect exists because the surface is heated by radiation from both the Sun and the atmosphere. The atmosphere radiates by virtue of having a temperature above absolute zero and it does not reradiate half of the received surface radiation down and half up, in fact, the emission spectrum of the atmosphere is different from that of the surface. The radiation received from the surface is extinguished by absorption and different radiation is emitted.
RSS has posted for March with a global TLT anomaly of +0.47ºC, down on February’s +0.65ºC and January’s +0.59ºC, but the drop is a lot less dramatic than the UAH TLT drop.
In RSS, March 2021 sits as the 11th warmest March (24th in UAH, =8th in GISTEMP SAT) while the opening 3 months in RSS are the 8th warmest on record (12th in UAH, 10th in GISTEMP SAT). In RSS, March 2021 has the lowest monthly anomaly since May 2018 (in UAH, since May 2013).
z1 159: Wouldn’t mere gravity, producing pressure on the gas molecules create heat in the atmosphere and warm the Earth’s surface?
BPL: No. That would make the atmosphere a perpetual motion machine of the first kind.
zebrasays
Tyson Mcguffin #167,
Well, I give you credit for writing a coherent paragraph, so we can proceed to refine the issue.
But the problem of language persists when you use the term “extinguish”. The radiation from the surface is a form of energy, and when it is absorbed, it is converted, not “extinguished”.
“Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only change from one form to another.” Right?
That conversion is to the thermal energy of the atmosphere…the reason it is above absolute zero, and so radiates, half up and half down.
So when we use the term “back radiation”, that refers to the direction of energy transfer. It’s still the same energy, that has gone through further transfers and conversions within the atmosphere before becoming down-radiation.
If you acknowledge that you understand this, there’s more to consider, but, one step at a time.
TYSON MCGUFFINsays
163 zebra
…you said at 120, for your simple model:
“Incoming shortwave Flux (F1) + Downwelling IR Flux (Fa)= Upward Flux from the surface (Fs)”
And I asked you what seems a simple question, because I want to understand your model:
Where is the energy coming from that radiates into space from the atmosphere?
I stated my assumption that the system is in equilibrium which is [scientific] shorthand for the condition wherein Energy In = Energy Out.
TYSON MCGUFFIN @167,
This is a curious description if the greenhouse effect you provide.
☻ “The Earth’s greenhouse effect exists because the surface is heated by radiation from both the Sun and the atmosphere.”
A greenhouse effect exists because an atmosphere contains gases that are radiatively active at the same frequencies as the planet’s surface radiative emissions. (There is the assumption that such an effect exceeds any effect of shielding the planet’s surface from inward radiation.)
☻ “The atmosphere radiates by virtue of having a temperature above absolute zero…”
Specific to planet Earth in dry air, the gases that radiate to contribute to the greenhouse effect comprise just 0.05% of the atmosphere, the level of these various gases’ radiative activity being dependent on the specific atmospheric temperature.
☻ “…and it does not reradiate half of the received surface radiation down and half up,”
The greenhouse effect works because the atmospheric temperature at the altitude radiating out into space (at the various frequencies) are colder than that at lower altitude radiating to the surface. The radiative energy fluxes impacting the atmosphere are not solely from the surface and there are additionally non-radiative energy fluxes operating at the surface.
☻ “…in fact, the emission spectrum of the atmosphere is different from that of the surface.”
The emissions spectrum of the planet out into space is altered due to the temperatures of the space-emitting gases being less than the surface temperature. Thus with today’s surface temperature, the S-B surface emissions of roughly 390Wm^-2 which would exit into space with zero GHGs (but today’s surface temperature) becomes ~330Wm^-2 with a dry atmosphere and ~240Wm^-2 with the wet atmosphere.
☻ “The radiation received from the surface is extinguished by absorption and different radiation is emitted.”
Effectively all IR absorbed by the atmosphere is converted into thermal energy. Generally, the rule of thumb that absorptions-equal-emissions still holds as there is no comparable energy fluxes operating within the atmosphere to redistribute energy imbalances.
I do not entirely expect you to explain your “issue” with the operations of GHGs. That would be asking too much of you. But I hope by correcting your slapdash understanding I have here helped you along the way.
TYSON MCGUFFINsays
164 MA Rodger
TL;DR
Ray Ladburysays
z1, some answers to some of your questions
“Isn’t the energy that’s trapped by a co2 molecule free to be exchanged with its surroundings, making it warmer?”
De-excitation can happen in several ways. The main competing processes are re-radiation and collisional de-excitation, where the kinetic energy of the vibrating CO2 molecule is imparted to another molecule via collision. In Earth’s atmosphere, said molecule will most likely be N2. The lifetime of the excited CO2 molecule tends to be long, so at lower altitudes, where densities are higher, collisional de-excitation predominates.
“Is it realistic to model the Earth surface and the co2 molecules as two mirrors that bounce (reflect, radiate) energy (fluxes) between each other, making each other warmer?”
As George Box said, “All models are wrong. Some models are useful.” So, it can be useful to look at things that way–that is, it can illuminate some aspects of the situation. However it isn’t really correct. The thing you have to consider is that there is a temperature gradient in the atmosphere. In the troposphere, the atmosphere cools as you go up. So, there are lots of unexcited CO2 molecules waiting to mop up any IR radiation in the right band. And the atmosphere at these higher, cooler levels, radiates away less energy than it does at lower levels. That is how the energy gets trapped. In the stratosphere, the atmosphere warms up as you move higher, so the greenhouse effect here tends to cool the stratosphere. The tropospheric warming/stratospheric cooling is a signature of the greenhouse effect–and it is precisely what we observe in the present warming epoch.
Has the greenhouse effect been observed? Yes–both Earth and Venus are such objects. But keep in mind, go get warming, you need both a greenhouse gas and a temperature and density gradient, and that is harder to reproduce in the lab. Lab measurements do show that greenhouse gasses behave exactly as expected.
Pressure, by itself, does not warm a gas. Compression does–you have to perform work on the gas. Consider the ideal gas equation PV=nRT. At the top of the atmosphere P is low, but so is n. You don’t have to lower the temperature go get equilibrium. If you took a compressible balloon full of gas in equilibrium with the upper atmosphere and pulled it down through the atmosphere, the gas would warm, but that is because you are doing work pulling it against pressure going down through the atmosphere. So, an inert atmosphere wouldn’t appreciably raise the surface temperature.
Does this help? It can be hard to find a description of the greenhouse effect that answers all your questions, because the questions you ask are particular to your own understandings/misunderstandings. A textbook treatment is just going to lay out the generalities. You might try Spencer Weart’s history of the greenhouse effect. I used to work with Spencer at American Institute of Physics–he’s a good writer and a good physicist.
Isn’t the energy that’s trapped by a co2 molecule free to be exchanged with its surroundings, making it warmer?
“Trapped” is a bit problematic as a term here–and yes, I know a lot of folks use it–but yeah: the radiation absorbed by a CO2 molecule creates heat (ie., molecular motion) and that heat can warm other molecules nearby. That’s how a GHG can warm the atmosphere in general.
Is it realistic to model the Earth surface and the co2 molecules as two mirrors that bounce (reflect, radiate) energy (fluxes) between each other, making each other warmer?
No, which is why nobody models it that way. A better simple model is that the atmosphere acts upon the Earth’s surface as a blanket acts upon your body when it’s reclining in bed: it warms you by slowing the rate at which heat can escape. (Note, though, that the ways in which each accomplishes this feat are physically different; it’s only the effect that is analogous.)
Has the Greenhouse Effect been demonstrated to exist by an experiment? For example has it been shown that the temperature of an irradiated body surrounded by greenhouse gasses is warmer than its temperature when surrounded by equal amount and density of non-greenhouse gasses?
That second one is a little less direct: it shows the absorption of IR, but not the actual warming that results. It’s an updated version of the original experiments done in 1959-60 by John Tyndall, and which I wrote about here:
So, yeah, this has been demonstrated more than amply.
The article argues that it is the Greenhouse Effect that raises the avg temperature on Earth by 33C (to 15C) from -18C which would have been its temp without an atmosphere. But what would its temp have been with an atmosphere (of equal quantity and density of gas molecules) containing zero greenhouse gasses? Wouldn’t mere gravity, producing pressure on the gas molecules create heat in the atmosphere and warm the Earth’s surface? It seems that ANY irradiated body surrounded by an atmosphere would be warmer than if it had no atmosphere. No Greenhouse Effect, and no complex energy flux models needed?
No, that’s absolutely not the case. When gas is compressed, it will warm, to be sure–but when the compression process stops, the warmth gradually radiates away. Think of a tire being very rapidly inflated at the repair shop, if you’ve ever had a chance to witness this close up. The tire warms perceptibly as it’s pressurized, but then cools pretty quickly to ambient temperature. The atmosphere is no different in this regard. (If it were otherwise, we’d essentially have a perpetual motion heat machine–and a massive violation of the principles of thermodynamics.)
Is there a link that answers the above questions?
There are innumerable links that answer parts of the big questions on this topic. It’s a very, very big topic, after all, so single links rarely if ever attempt to cover absolutely everything. IMO, the single most helpful one is:
The atmosphere radiates by virtue of having a temperature above absolute zero…
So far, so good…
…and it does not reradiate half of the received surface radiation down and half up…
Tilt! This is a fail because–once again!–you can’t treat the atmosphere as unitary in this context. Each (arbitrarily fine) layer of the atmosphere radiates in all directions, which can correctly be described as ‘half up and half down.’ However, each layer of the atmosphere also receives different amounts of radiation both from the surface and from surrounding layers. The closer to the surface, the more energy each layer receives from the surface–and also from overlying atmospheric layers. Conversely, the closer to TOA, the less it receives from either source.
…in fact, the emission spectrum of the atmosphere is different from that of the surface.
Yes, and in fact each layer of the atmosphere has a slightly different emission spectrum, too, because all are at systematically varying temperatures and pressures, according to the altitude.
(I will say, though, that I’m still not sure what point follows from this discussion. It’s great to get details right, of course, but is this meant to address some larger issue not yet clearly articulated?)
166 William B Jackson
I will admit that not all replies to my original query were simply sanctimonious, others are just pure hubris.
Piotrsays
TYSON MCGUFFIN (167) “To summarize for the hard of learning and those interested in examining inconsistencies in their own knowledge.”
That’s …rich, coming from somebody who:
– proudly stands behind the tautologies …. nobody challenged(Stefan-Boltzmann equation),
– falsifies the arguments that were made only in …. his had (NOBODY in the right mind would argue for equal radiation from the top and the bottom of the atm.),
– invokes things irrelevant to the argument: like the Sun – even though it is the presence of the atm. that matters – you can have (small) greenhouse effect without the Sun, and you can have the Sun without greenhouse effect (the Moon)
– can’t get to this head that the back-radiation near the bottom of the atm. (324 W/m2) is different than the out-radiation from its top (195W/m2) hence “modelling”
atmosphere, as if it were a SINGLE radiative body with uniform temp, and IR therefore uniform IR emissions, is an absurd.
– has proven incapable to understand not one, but half a dozen of of different posters here who tried to sort out through his messy writing and provide patient not too technical for his abilities explanation (including, mine at 108)
– and is utterly uninterested in examining the gaping holes of his knowledge and logic.
And after all that- he has the hutzpah to call others “hard of learning” and uninterested “in examining inconsistencies in their own knowledge”.
I guess, ignorance breeds arrogance.
==
Mc·Guf·fin /məˈɡəfin/ noun, an object or device in a movie or a book that serves merely as a trigger for the plot.
Usually, the McGuffin is revealed in the first act, and thereafter declines in importance (“(132) “Guys thanks again for your attention. It’s obvious that this is the wrong forum for addressing this issue. Regards.” It can reappear at the climax of the story ( see 6 additional appearances AFTER his farewell in 132), but may actually be forgotten by the end of the story. Multiple McGuffins^* are sometimes derisively identified as plot coupons.
====
^* 1. The original McGuffin (Tyson)
2. z1 McGuffin “as a neutral observer with no horse in this climate race [..]I find the arrogance and dismissive attitude by “priests of settled science” extremely off putting”
3. Joe “considerable debate on climate crisis thesis” Wellborn McGuffin
4. Nathaniel “Very Skeptical to “Crisis” Wixon McGuffin
5. Aden “the increase in the speed of the earth’s rotation falsifies the increase in sea levels” McGuffin
TYSON MCGUFFINsays
115 MA Rodger
I have updated and fixed your Global Energy Budget so you don’t embarrass yourself again with your back radiation B.S. (Bad Science).
This is an interesting geophysics & climate science paper that revisits Pierre-Simon Laplace’s papers from the 18th century which formulated the partial differential equations for modeling geophysical fluid dynamics still used today.
F. Lopes, J.L. Le Mouël, V. Courtillot, D. Gibert, “On the shoulders of Laplace”,
Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 2021, 106693, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2021.106693
“We have come to the same conclusion regarding many climatic indices (Le Mouël et al., 2019d). If there is a good correlation of many characteristic periods, pseudo-periods and components extracted with SSA, for instance between Earth’s rotation and many features of climate, it is reasonable to assume that this is because they are subject to some common forcings. This is not an overly speculative hypothesis: with the views of Laplace on tides, we know that the fluid envelopes react on short time scales (to changes in the Moon’s declination for 2/3rds and the Sun for 1/3rd). On longer time scales, the whole (including solid) Earth responds (e.g. Dehant and Mathews, 2015), all being governed by the Liouville-Euler equations.”
The authors are from U of Paris which has a long history of maintaining earth orientation data via the observatory. For years they have monitored slight changes in the earth’s rotation and wobble to ascertain correlations to climate change https://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/index.php
Yes, ENRON CEO Ken Lay’s chief speechwriter. Doesn’t he realize that whatever he writes about is tainted by that debacle? If ENRON was still around it would have likely made the Texas Blackout worse.
TYSON MCGUFFINsays
173 MA Rodger
See # 180 & # 182. My advise to you is: talk less but say more.
TYSON MCGUFFIN @182,
You say in reply to #115 that you “have updated and fixed [my] Global Energy Budget” (actually a non-controversial graphic from Follett et al 2011) and in so doing you present Fig 1 from Read et al (2016). So you are Peter Read or one of his co-authors? Or are you but a mutton-headed troll with flaming pants? Your arrogance is entirely at odds with one so stupid and slapdash, one who (says he) cannot cope with the 400 word comment @164 because it’s too long for him. So sorry if I over-taxed you delicate mental faculties. And I do hope you will enjoy the ridicule that will be thrown at you during your continuing visit here.
z1says
Barton Paul Levenson @ 170
Ray Ladbury @ 175
Kevin McKinney @ 176
Thanks so much for your replies! This comment format is not very user friendly so I will try to respond in a single post and addressing only some (not all) points, if you don’t mind.
The linked GHE demonstrations show that irradiated CO2 molecules absorb energy and heat up but that was never in question. An actual greenhouse heats up because it has a glass enclosure that prevents convection. Without the glass enclosure a greenhouse would be no more. The atmosphere doesn’t have such an enclosure (blocking convection) so warmer parts of it are free to exchange energy with cooler parts. The atmosphere is also free to exchange energy with outer space, the Earth, and the oceans. There are no glass enclosures blocking energy exchange anywhere in this system so I have a difficulty establishing the greenhouse analogy for it.
As to whether atmospheric pressure itself (regardless of any greenhouse effect) affects a planet’s temperature. I found this paper showing (both theoretically and empirically) that not only that it does but that it’s crucial for determining a planet’s surface temperature, whereas greenhouse gas concentrations affect it very little, if at all. I would be grateful for your comments on it:
“Abstract
A recent study has revealed that the Earth’s natural atmospheric greenhouse effect is around 90 K or about 2.7 times stronger than assumed for the past 40 years. A thermal enhancement of such a magnitude cannot be explained with the observed amount of outgoing infrared long-wave radiation absorbed by the atmosphere (i.e. ≈ 158 W m-2), thus requiring a re-examination of the underlying Greenhouse theory. We present here a new investigation into the physical nature of the atmospheric thermal effect using a novel empirical approach toward predicting the Global Mean Annual near-surface equilibrium Temperature (GMAT) of rocky planets with diverse atmospheres. Our method utilizes Dimensional Analysis (DA) applied to a vetted set of observed data from six celestial bodies representing a broad range of physical environments in our Solar System, i.e. Venus, Earth, the Moon, Mars, Titan (a moon of Saturn), and Triton (a moon of Neptune). Twelve relationships (models) suggested by DA are explored via non-linear regression analyses that involve dimensionless products comprised of solar irradiance, greenhouse-gas partial pressure/density and total atmospheric pressure/density as forcing variables, and two temperature ratios as dependent variables. One non-linear regression model is found to statistically outperform the rest by a wide margin. Our analysis revealed that GMATs of rocky planets with tangible atmospheres and a negligible geothermal surface heating can accurately be predicted over a broad range of conditions using only two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure. The hereto discovered interplanetary pressure-temperature relationship is shown to be statistically robust while describing a smooth physical continuum without climatic tipping points. This continuum fully explains the recently discovered 90 K thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere. The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that has important theoretical implications. A key entailment from the model is that the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition. Consequently, the global down-welling long-wave ux presently assumed to drive Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure. In other words, the so-called ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is globally a result of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it. Our empirical model has also fundamental implications for the role of oceans, water vapour, and planetary albedo in global climate. Since produced by a rigorous attempt to describe planetary temperatures in the context of a cosmic continuum using an objective analysis of vetted observations from across the Solar System, these findings call for a paradigm shift in our understanding of the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ as a fundamental property of climate.”
Again, thanks much in advance for any replies and comments.
CCHolleysays
@165
Page 139 Section 6.4.3. You missed that?
Yes, there it is indeed.
This relationship is interesting, because it tells us that if alw > asw, then the surface temperature in our simple system will be warmer than would be the case without an atmosphere (alw = asw = 0) or, for that matter, any case where alw = asw.
In fact, our atmosphere is relatively transparent to shortwave radiation from the sun, while being comparatively absorbing at thermal IR wavelengths. We can approximate the earth’s atmosphere by choosing asw = 0.1 and alw = 0.8. Thus, we expect the surface temperature of the earth to be substantially warmed by the absorption and re-emission of long wave radiation by the atmosphere. This warming effect due to the presence of an atmosphere is commonly known as the Greenhouse effect.
The above analysis assumes that the atmosphere either transmits or absorbs all of the solar radiation that is incident on it. It therefore cannot be used directly to obtain a realistic estimate of the equilibrium surface temperature of the earth. However, we can compensate for the loss of radiation due to reflection of clouds etc. by replacing S with S(1 – Ap), where Ap = 0.30 is the observed planetary albedo utilized earlier in our calculation from (6.20). We are in effect pretending that all solar radiation reflected to space by clouds etc. experiences this reflection at the top of the atmosphere, before having any opportunity to be absorbed by the surface or atmosphere. With this simplifying assumption, we obtain a new surface equilibrium temperature of 286 K, as contrasted with 255 K obtained earlier for the earth with the same planetary albedo but no atmosphere. In view of the crudeness of our model, this is surprisingly close to what is actually observed.
Grant W. Petty, A first Course in Atmospheric Radiation, Second Edition, page 142
Piotrsays
TYSON MCGUFFIN:
-“ for the hard of learning and those interested in examining inconsistencies in their own knowledge”
– “My advise [to MARodger] is: talk less but say more”.
– “I have updated and fixed your Global Energy Budget so you don’t embarrass yourself again with your back radiation B.S. (Bad Science)”
What a …. terrible improvement:
1. “My advise to you: talk less but say more” – HALF of your words in graph labels is redundant
2. Consistency – don’t use different descriptions for the same thing: “Infrared Radiation” or “Longwave flux”, no need for both
3. Make graphical choices logical:
– why the bottom of one arrow is a …circle, and of another a semicircle
– why the “bottleneck” in the Circle-Arrow thingy?
4.CONTENT:
– what happens to the energy from Sensitive heat, Latent Heat and Shortwave Absorbed atm. – they … disappear into thin air ???
– graphically it looks that the sole source of energy for your Circle Arrow is Surface IR radiation arrow? (hint – it is not)
– where your Semicirle Arrow gets ANY of its energy from???
And as for your main claim to fame:
McGuffin: “[I] fixed your Global Energy Budget so you don’t embarrass yourself again with your back radiation B.S. (Bad Science).”
What have you “fixed”? Changed the label “Back Radiation” with “Longwave emitted by atmosphere to surface“? Whau, way to catch MA with his Bad Science pants down!
zebrasays
MA Rodger #173,
MA, we all know you know the physics, and do a better job communicating it than many. But I refer you to my #140 to Piotr.
Tyson #167 has answered our question…
“WTF is your problem with the term “back radiation??”
… and there’s no need for a long discourse. It’s obvious that he was conflating the term with some concept involving the reflection of EM, where it has been presented as “the same wave”. I could speculate where that may have come from, but I really don’t care enough to violate my policy of brevity.
We’ll see if he now understands from my #171 that it is a perfectly correct term of art, because the energy comes from the surface and then is transferred back from the atmosphere. (And that’s in his simple model; no need to make it more complicated.)
Then how about the major, massive disruption of the distribution of life on the planet which signals a massive bifurcation has occurred or is occurring?
Life on earth used to be distributed just the way you might expect on a healthy planet… It looked like a bell curve, a smooth and gentle shape…
…The distribution has collapsed. The middle has imploded. Now there are two new peaks emerging, as the distribution becomes “bimodal,” which is a fancy way of saying something more like a U-shape in the middle…
…Life is fleeing equatorial regions, and migrating north and south. That is because equatorial regions are simply becoming too hot to live in. Not just for a few species — but on such a massive level that the distribution of life on planet earth has been altered.
…Who made the planet into an oven? We did. We have radically altered the shape of life on planet earth… And the consequences, as I’m going to explain, are going to be catastrophic.
This is one of the greatest transformations in history. Not “our” history, but history, period. Deep history. When was the last time such a thing happened? …252 million years ago, and it took more than 30,000 years for that warming to happen.
…In the 1950s, life had the gentle bell curve shape of a normalish distribution you might expect. By the 70s, the middle of the curve had begun to collapse, as species fled equatorial regions in vast numbers. And by the 90s, the curve had imploded.
…as life flees equatorial and tropical regions that have become searing, unliveable ovens, all the basic functions of our civilisation are going to collapse.
Let me say it again, so the relationship is clear. The basic functions of our civilisation are going to collapse right alongside the implosion of the distribution of life on planet earth…
Bang. Our civilisation collapses right alongside the distribution of life on planet earth.
I suppose that this might trigger the armchair Psychologists and cause them to ascribe motives or assumed personality problems, spew insults or guesses about the writer’s politics. Fruit for thought though, pretend for a moment, a day even, that the author is not part of an evil empire of disinformation and try to understand the point of view.
TYSON MCGUFFINsays
186 MA Rodger
Oh my! Why so cranky?
So, am I to understand from your comment that when you put up a Trenberth (1997) diagram in # 115, you were in effect saying that you are either Trenberth or Kiehl? You are ridiculous.
I see from # 188 that you have finally gotten a hold of Petty (2006). Good for you, it should be a good addition to your armchair climate science library. You are welcome!
TYSON MCGUFFINsays
187 z1
What’s next, Robert Holmes’ paper on using the Ideal Gas Law to disprove AGW?
TYSON MCGUFFIN @192,
We all appreciate you are but a feeble-minded troll clattering round this comment thread, likely more pleasant surroundings than under your drafty stinky old bridge. So what is your point in referencing that David Sepkoski essay? Are you saying his words set out a “point of view” that you yourself subscribe to?
Frankly I find that very unlikely. A moron like yourself would probably read no more than the title and sub-title (‘The Anthropocene Is Overrated’ – ‘The way we talk about climate change and our effect on the planet is all wrong—and increasingly dangerous.’) and conclude that David Sepkoski is a fellow traveler of yours, another drooling idiot who denies the effects of AGW.
So did you read the essay? Do you agree with David Sepkoski? Are you signed up to his “point of view”? Your comment suggests you do although, with you being such a cretin, this may not be been intentional.
To be clear, what I’m saying is that if you were normal, if you were even just a little less ridiculously stupid, you may have read the following line (it being in the second paragraph so not difficult to spot) and been a little less eager to embrace David Sepkoski as one of your bosom buddies:-
“The resulting Earth from this [ie AGW] catastrophe may become devoid not only of humans but perhaps of most complex life on land and in the seas.”
TYSON MCGUFFINsays
91 Piotr
in a secret underground lab of Bill Gates, while drinking the blood from the children abducted in a pizza parlor from tall glasses with the lounge music playing in the background?
And… that’s where I stopped reading. It has a Jeffrey Dahmer vibe. No thanks.
CCHolleysays
More on the single layer atmospheric radiative model.
Since Tyson McGuffin failed to understand Petty’s single layer model, let’s simplify it further.
Simplified single layer radiative model of the atmosphere—no reflection, scattering, nor convection and conduction.
Energy flux from the sun reaches the surface unimpeded because the atmosphere is translucent to the shortwave radiation. The surface radiates upward per the S-B law. If the atmosphere were non-existent or also translucent to the long wave radiation of the surface in addition to the shortwave radiation of the sun, for equilibrium the surface would need to warm to the temperature in which its flux is equal to the solar flux in. This temperature can be calculate with S-B law. In this case, the atmosphere would be at absolute zero because it does not absorb either form of radiation. (we are, of course as stated, for this model ignoring other means of heat transfer between the surface and the atmosphere.)
Now if we assume that the atmosphere is translucent to only the shortwave flux of the sun and is opaque to all the long wave flux from the surface, then the atmosphere would be warmed by that upward flux from the surface. Since the surface radiation is entirely absorbed by the atmosphere and cannot escape to space, now it would be the temperature of the atmosphere that determines the total outward flux. Per the S-B law, for equilibrium, the temperature of the atmosphere would now need to be the same that the surface was in the previous translucent atmosphere model. However, at that equilibrium temperature (or any temperature), unlike the solid earth’s surface, the atmosphere radiates in all directions–it has to, no debate. As such, that upward flux that balances the downward solar flux must also be emitted back towards the surface. What this means is that for equilibrium the surface temperature must increase per the S-B law until the surface upward flux is double that of the downward solar flux to offset the additional downward flux of the atmosphere. Obviously, the surface temperature must increase per S-B to produce that additional amount of upward flux. That’s the greenhouse effect.
For equilibrium: downward flux (sun) = upward flux (atmosphere)
and for that to be possible: downward flux (sun) + downward flux (atmosphere) = upward flux (surface)
Piotrsays
Killian (91) ” I see nobody wants to talk about more relevant climate science as they’d rather measure penises over the nature of back radiation than discuss Pine Island Glacier tipping points noted here “
Maybe because the vulnerability of that glacier has been known for a while, and to say something insightful on the new things in that paper – quantification of the melting, would require expertise we don’t have? Perhaps if you came up with some interesting questions about the paper we can discuss it more? Until then – back to our penises!
Oh wait – I see you brought in something new. Actually, I may know a thing or two about that, so I’ll lay my background-radiation penis to the side, and whip up my ecosystem one:
[Everybody, Devo style!
“ Now whip it
Into shape
Shape it up
Get it straight
Move ahead
It’s not too late
To whip it
Whip it good! “”
Thank you, everybody, for the words of encouragement. So here we go. First, a disclaimer – I’ll whip it only on the Umair Haque’s post, under the somewhat understated title “We’re Ripping the Heart Out of Life on Earth“(I haven’t found a copy of the PNAS paper yet).
Dramatic claims (“We’re Ripping the Heart Out of Life on Earth“) require dramatic proofs, and I don’t think Umair Haque succeeds with his use of the PNAS paper for it: on land, where tropics are indeed the heart of life – global warming ain’t the main heart ripper; while in the ocean, where climate is the ripper – there is no (well-defined) heart. Here is why I think so:
Land: the “heart” might be a fair analogy, with most of both productivity and diversity in the the tropical rain forest. However, I don’t think the climate is the ripper – the main culprit deliberate burning and clearcutting, is the Soviet-style mentality for the “ taming of the hostile/useless nature for the benefit of the nation ” by Bolsonaro et al. In other words, if the rainforests die, it will be because we wanted our hamburgers, or palm and soybean oil (Brazil is already the largest beef exporter, Indonesia and Malaysia are the two main exporters of palm oil), not because we made it too hot.
Ocean: climate change is the main driver – but equatorial waters are no “heart” there – the species richness at best was flat between 40S and 40N, while the productivity was and is the largest in high latitudes. And the impacts of climate on marine ecosystems is much more pervasive (temperature, acidification, lowering oxygen and nutrient supply) than on land, and at the same time the ability of species to “slip into something more comfortable” (climate-wise) is much larger – if you are a fish its easier to migrate into cooler waters, than if you are on land and try to find an identical ecosystem but colder (options limited by geography and human presence).
So, conclusions:
– We are losing species in the equatorial oceans most likely due to the synergistic impacts of several climatic factors
– Some of the species move north or south, increasing species-richness there
in a bimodal distribution
– This response is not symmetrical – northern “mode” gained more initially than the southern one, but then dropped down below it
– Would be interesting to figure out why this asymmetry of the response
– However, for the main reason Killian brought it up – I don’t think it well extrapolates onto ripping the heart out of the entire Earth.
Ian Forrestersays
z1 @187
Nikolov and his buddy are not climate scientists. They have been dishonest a number of times by publishing the same rubbish under pseudonyms.
As noted in that link the journal “Environmental Pollution and Climate Change” is a predatory journal (pay to publish) and has been accused of gross deception. I wouldn’t accept a word from either the paper you cited or the journal it is published in.
nigeljsays
z1, @187 that study you quote on planetary temperatures and pressure has been debunked many times for example:
128 MA Rodger
As for the radiation emitted from a gas, imagine it were a solid, a horizontal solid sheet of temperature T(sh). You would not be challenged if you said the radiation emitted by such a sheet equaled double 5.67e-8 x T(sh)^4, that is half of it up and half of it down.
That makes absolutely no sense. If I measure the emission from above I get:
Eup = σT(sh)^4 and If I measure the emission from below I get Edown = σT(sh)^4. No need to double or half anything i.e. no need to fudge the numbers.
125 zebra
(In your reply to MAR as well… how is energy ‘extinguished’?)
I never said energy is extinguished but rather that [radiation] emission from the surface is extinguished in the atmosphere. Are you familiar with extinction of electromagnetic waves? Yes there is a small fraction (~6%) that is radiated directly to space.
Regarding your comment about “actual units.” I’ve been speaking of fluxes; it is well known, by those who know it well, that fluxes are expressed in W’s unless you are a meteorologist in which case it means flux density.
The sanctimony and low reading comprehension in some of these replies are off the charts.
z1, The problem you are experiencing is not one of your own designing. Rather, consider that scientists have been saying there was an issue since the 1980s. They have faced hostility, calumny and even death threats as they did so.
So, when someone comes along 40 years into the crisis and suggests that it is utterly new to them, it strains credulity for those of us who have been fighting the anti-science crowd for decades.
But you are in luck. In the upper left hand corner of this very webpage is a tab that says Start Here. Do what it says. Read the resources. They are reliable and approved by actual climate scientist. If you get stuck, then ask specific questions, and you will probably get a warmer reception.
TYSON MCGUFFIN (132) Guys thanks again for your attention. It’s obvious that this is the wrong forum for addressing this issue. Regards.
You got that right – the forum right for you is either a high-school science club, or the same deniers’ web site you got your idea from. Wasn’t a disclaimer there? You know, something like:
“ WARNING: The arguments seen here are valid on this site only. You are entitled to an exchange for another argument of the same or lesser value. The full refund is offered only during the limited-warranty period, upon producing the original receipt; no facsimile shall be accepted.
Any unauthorized use outside of this site is at the client’s own risk and we bear no responsibility for any resulting serious eyebrows raising, excessive eyerolls, facepalming, questioning your educational pedigree or intellectual prowess. In case of severe ego bruising, move away from the source of the acerbic comments and wash them down with a stream of cooling or lukewarm compliments from your brothers-in-denial, or if not on hand, with praises from your mother. Do not induce vomiting or excessive farting [1]”.
===
[1] Sidoli M., 1996. “Farting as a defence against unspeakable dread”. J. Analytical Psychology. 41(2):165-178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-5922.1996.00165.x
(see also the “Citing Literature” there)
Mal Adapted @129
Another reason for optimism is that although conservatives mostly remain against specific actions for reducing fossil fuel use such as carbon fees, conservatives do not, in general, dislike the proliferation of green energy–especially if it makes economic sense.
A 2019 Gallup Poll found that the vast majority of Americans want to see more emphasis placed on the production of green energy sources—specifically solar power (80%) and wind (70%). The idea of *green* energy is popular and that popularity is growing, regardless of people’s stance on climate change.
So not only will fossil fuel use decline as it becomes less and less competitive, support for government actions to promote a faster expansion of green energy is bipartisan and are likely to succeed in Congress.
z1 (146): Thanks everyone for your responses. Not sure this is the proper forum for learning about the actual extent of the “climate emergency” or if any exists at all.”
z1, do you own homework, not that of your friends! Questioning the climate emergency was NOT YOUR homework but that of
1. “Joe Wellborn” – “ there is, in fact, considerable debate within the scientific community on the climate crisis thesis”
2. “Nathaniel “Very Skeptical to “Crisis” Wixon”.
You, Aden, and McGuffin, on the other hand, were supposed to discuss science:
3. your topic (z1 if you forgot)- were supposed to defend “MIT Professor Richard Lindzen” against “the arrogance and dismissive attitude by “priests of settled science” which you “find “extremely off putting”.
4. Aden’s topic: “the increase in the speed of the earth’s rotation falsifies the increase in sea levels”.
5. McGuffin’s topic: the greenhouse effect does not exist because back-radiation is equal to out-radiation (I think)
But of these latter 3:
– “Aden” disappeared,
– “McGuffin” said it may not be good forum for him, so he … snatches Wellborn and Wixon’s topic by posting about … climate “emergency”
– and then you pull a McGuffin by saying too that you doubt whether it is a good forum to learn “ if any “climate emergency” exists at all”
Concentrate, people! You can’t pull a heist, if everybody did what they wanted -the getaway car driver instead of fixed the flat, says “I’m not sure if this is a good car for me” and walks into the bank to help to terrorize the cashiers, or to open the Vault. People, this no way to do a heist!
@143
I’d like to know exactly where in Petty’s book he uses a single layer model to describe atmospheric radiation.
Tyson McGuffin at 143:
The problem is that you have taken a very simple model that describes the emission of energy at the surface and the first few meters of the atmosphere and tried to apply it to the entire atmosphere. You are extending the model beyond what it is capable of modeling. A one layer model like yours cannot describe the entire atmosphere because the atmosphere consists of many layers.
When we measure the energy leaving the atmosphere from space we see that it is much less than the energy emitted upward from the surface. This is because the energy at the top of the atmosphere is emitted from high in the atmosphere where the temperature is lower. Since you do not understand the model you are using you are applying it incorrectly. Less energy is emitted from the top of the atmosphere than is emitted from the surface. That is one of the basics of the greenhouse effect.
Go to the start here button at the top of the page. If you read some of the basics you will begin to understand what is happening. You have to understand the basics before you can understand how energy is transferred in the atmosphere.
Ray Ladbury @153
Thanks for the “start here” suggestion. I am mostly perplexed by the Greenhouse Effect (which sits at the base of the AGW argument) as I don’t see how the analogy holds without a barrier (glass, blanket) which blocks convection. This link from “start here” explains:
https://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/greenhouse-violates-thermodynamics
“So, it is not really like a blanket, which inhibits convection in both directions, or like an actual greenhouse, which lets in the sunlight and then also inhibits convection, but both are reasonable analogies as far as they go. The scientists in the IPCC know this, they are only using these analogies to help laypeople understand the very general principals. If you hear someone attacking climate science by attacking these analogies, they are attacking a strawman.”
My questions:
Isn’t the energy that’s trapped by a co2 molecule free to be exchanged with its surroundings, making it warmer?
Is it realistic to model the Earth surface and the co2 molecules as two mirrors that bounce (reflect, radiate) energy (fluxes) between each other, making each other warmer?
Has the Greenhouse Effect been demonstrated to exist by an experiment? For example has it been shown that the temperature of an irradiated body surrounded by greenhouse gasses is warmer than its temperature when surrounded by equal amount and density of non-greenhouse gasses?
The article argues that it is the Greenhouse Effect that raises the avg temperature on Earth by 33C (to 15C) from -18C which would have been its temp without an atmosphere. But what would its temp have been with an atmosphere (of equal quantity and density of gas molecules) containing zero greenhouse gasses? Wouldn’t mere gravity, producing pressure on the gas molecules create heat in the atmosphere and warm the Earth’s surface? It seems that ANY irradiated body surrounded by an atmosphere would be warmer than if it had no atmosphere. No Greenhouse Effect, and no complex energy flux models needed?
Is there a link that answers the above questions? Thx in advance.
BPL@103 – Regardless of how said walrus actually arrived in the British Isles he moved on to South Wales where he was then accosted by a horde of Great British Easter sightseers and took to the waves once again.
Wally has now apparently recovered from the shock and returned to his favourite haulout on the slipway at Tenby lifeboat station:
https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2021-04-13/wally-the-arctic-walrus-returns-to-tenby-after-vanishing-over-easter
zi @146. This is completely the right site for learning about the science of the climate emergency. I suggest that you follow the copious links in the side bar, do some reading and come to conclusions. If you think that scientists are over-egging the extent of the crisis, then maybe do some of your own research (by which i mean, measurement, data analysis, equations and stuff… watching YouTube videos doesn’t count as research), and if you present it coherently people will be happy to debate you.
An awful lot of the science is indeed settled. Anthropogenic CO2 is rising. Settled (by observation). Increased CO2 causes higher temperatures. Settled (by theoretical physics). Temperatures are rising. Settled (by observation, and in line with predictions). Sea level is rising. Settled (by observation and in line with predictions). Now there is a lot that isn’t settled. detail of rates, regional effects, impact on ocean currents, magnitude of feedbacks. imapct of change on ecosystems and their capacity to respond, etc. etc.. And that’s why science goes on, observing, creating new hypotheses, testing, reviewing and refining.
z1: Seems like anyone who even asks the question here is immediately accused of trolling or shilling
BPL: Only if they are obviously trolling or shilling. If your intent was to come in here and prove how awful RealClimate is, you obviously didn’t come for answers or out of real curiosity. I, for one, gave you straight answers, but they didn’t change your mind, did they? Because you’re not really looking for the truth; you’re looking for a fight.
We’ve seen it before. It’s boring.
Tyson Mcguffin #152,
As I said earlier, you seem to be confused either by physics concepts or the meaning of words. Extinction of radiation in physics is not the same as “emissions being extinguished“, which is what you said. The difference should be obvious.
If you really want an answer to your questions, you have to articulate them clearly. Now, you said at 120, for your simple model:
“Incoming shortwave Flux (F1) + Downwelling IR Flux (Fa)= Upward Flux from the surface (Fs)”
And I asked you what seems a simple question, because I want to understand your model:
Where is the energy coming from that radiates into space from the atmosphere?
Again, if you want to have a real scientific discussion, you have to be able to establish your concept clearly. So far, it seems to change from comment to comment.
TYSON MCGUFFIN @151/152,
The apparent sanctimony you witness down this comments thread results from the need to have the patience of a saint to cope with the incoherent and befuddled bullshit you present within your comments.
Let us review your crazy record down this thread:-
@81 you ask about ”back radiation” which you describe as an ”idea” (rather an odd way to describe a physical phenomenon) but which is obviously an inevitable ”idea” given the existence of GHGs and the S-B law which you do appear to accept as part of your reality.
Your comment is asking ‘Where did the idea of “back radiation” originate?” which is a bit like asking where the idea of sunlight came from (except you do need an instrument to measure IR so pre-1830 the ”idea” of any form of IR was until then no more than an idea.)
@105 you add a bit more crazy-speak, still apparently with regard to the surface energy balance (or lack of it) and start gabbing-on about ” the half-and-half proposition” that ”does not hold in the case of the atmosphere.” You appear not to be considering the TOA in this ”does-not-hold” argument as you only talk of the surface and had not made specific mention of anything but radiative fluxes. Indeed latterly, TOA considerations presented to you @117 (& @elsewhere) are specifically converted to purely surface considerations in your reply @120. With such thought in mind, I did point you to a graphic showing the actual radiation imbalance with the atmosphere at the surface was but a few W/m^-2 suggesting a surface temperature imbalance of a handful of degrees.
@120 you continue to give no clarity about your ”issue”. You are happy with there being ”back radiation” and that the energy fluxes add up. But then there is another crazy account of your ”issue.”
☻ Your first explanatory paragraph suggests the surface radiation absorbed by the atmosphere results both in ”back radiation” and in emissions at TOA (this the first indication that you are actually considering TOA radiation), perhaps implying that these resulting fuxes together should balance the surface radiation flux, which of course is crazy.
☻ But then your second explanatory paragraph sets up a crazy thought experiment with no upward surface flux and accepts that the atmospheric flux will be defined by S-B (and thus the gas temperature) which is fine and dandy (as long as the gaps in the gas emission spectrum are accounted for, gaps you account in your first paragraph). You again mention TOA in this thought experiment yet for some reason you set the atmosphere with a constant top-&-bottom temperature. As I say, ‘crazy!’
@132 you make us all happy by saying you are buggering off.
But here you are back again @151/152 to respond to cross-posted comments. It is interesting that, excepting the first paragraph of your first comment @81, you do not ask questions but instead make blindingly-stupid and inconsistent assertions. You talk for ”fudging numbers” but all you do here is ‘fudge comments.’
I feel you were right @132. Take your befuddled bullshit and bigger off!!
157 CCHolley
I’d like to know exactly where in Petty’s book he uses a single layer model to describe atmospheric radiation.
Page 139 Section 6.4.3. You missed that?
#132 Tyson in otherwords you have been spanked and are taking your road show elsewhere. Why do I suspect that you are indeed a McGuffin in the Hitchcock sense?
To summarize for the hard of learning and those interested in examining inconsistencies in their own knowledge.
The Earth’s greenhouse effect exists because the surface is heated by radiation from both the Sun and the atmosphere. The atmosphere radiates by virtue of having a temperature above absolute zero and it does not reradiate half of the received surface radiation down and half up, in fact, the emission spectrum of the atmosphere is different from that of the surface. The radiation received from the surface is extinguished by absorption and different radiation is emitted.
RSS has posted for March with a global TLT anomaly of +0.47ºC, down on February’s +0.65ºC and January’s +0.59ºC, but the drop is a lot less dramatic than the UAH TLT drop.
In RSS, March 2021 sits as the 11th warmest March (24th in UAH, =8th in GISTEMP SAT) while the opening 3 months in RSS are the 8th warmest on record (12th in UAH, 10th in GISTEMP SAT). In RSS, March 2021 has the lowest monthly anomaly since May 2018 (in UAH, since May 2013).
Good article in the Guardian about soil, climate etc. :
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/16/poor-mans-rainforest-stop-treating-soil-like-dirt-aoe?utm_campaign=Carbon%20Brief%20Daily%20Briefing&utm_content=20210416&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Revue%20Daily
z1 159: Wouldn’t mere gravity, producing pressure on the gas molecules create heat in the atmosphere and warm the Earth’s surface?
BPL: No. That would make the atmosphere a perpetual motion machine of the first kind.
Tyson Mcguffin #167,
Well, I give you credit for writing a coherent paragraph, so we can proceed to refine the issue.
But the problem of language persists when you use the term “extinguish”. The radiation from the surface is a form of energy, and when it is absorbed, it is converted, not “extinguished”.
“Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only change from one form to another.” Right?
That conversion is to the thermal energy of the atmosphere…the reason it is above absolute zero, and so radiates, half up and half down.
So when we use the term “back radiation”, that refers to the direction of energy transfer. It’s still the same energy, that has gone through further transfers and conversions within the atmosphere before becoming down-radiation.
If you acknowledge that you understand this, there’s more to consider, but, one step at a time.
163 zebra
…you said at 120, for your simple model:
“Incoming shortwave Flux (F1) + Downwelling IR Flux (Fa)= Upward Flux from the surface (Fs)”
And I asked you what seems a simple question, because I want to understand your model:
Where is the energy coming from that radiates into space from the atmosphere?
I stated my assumption that the system is in equilibrium which is [scientific] shorthand for the condition wherein Energy In = Energy Out.
Most replies to my query indicate that you either did not read/understand Learning from a simple model gavin @ 10 April 2007.
TYSON MCGUFFIN @167,
This is a curious description if the greenhouse effect you provide.
☻ “The Earth’s greenhouse effect exists because the surface is heated by radiation from both the Sun and the atmosphere.”
A greenhouse effect exists because an atmosphere contains gases that are radiatively active at the same frequencies as the planet’s surface radiative emissions. (There is the assumption that such an effect exceeds any effect of shielding the planet’s surface from inward radiation.)
☻ “The atmosphere radiates by virtue of having a temperature above absolute zero…”
Specific to planet Earth in dry air, the gases that radiate to contribute to the greenhouse effect comprise just 0.05% of the atmosphere, the level of these various gases’ radiative activity being dependent on the specific atmospheric temperature.
☻ “…and it does not reradiate half of the received surface radiation down and half up,”
The greenhouse effect works because the atmospheric temperature at the altitude radiating out into space (at the various frequencies) are colder than that at lower altitude radiating to the surface. The radiative energy fluxes impacting the atmosphere are not solely from the surface and there are additionally non-radiative energy fluxes operating at the surface.
☻ “…in fact, the emission spectrum of the atmosphere is different from that of the surface.”
The emissions spectrum of the planet out into space is altered due to the temperatures of the space-emitting gases being less than the surface temperature. Thus with today’s surface temperature, the S-B surface emissions of roughly 390Wm^-2 which would exit into space with zero GHGs (but today’s surface temperature) becomes ~330Wm^-2 with a dry atmosphere and ~240Wm^-2 with the wet atmosphere.
☻ “The radiation received from the surface is extinguished by absorption and different radiation is emitted.”
Effectively all IR absorbed by the atmosphere is converted into thermal energy. Generally, the rule of thumb that absorptions-equal-emissions still holds as there is no comparable energy fluxes operating within the atmosphere to redistribute energy imbalances.
I do not entirely expect you to explain your “issue” with the operations of GHGs. That would be asking too much of you. But I hope by correcting your slapdash understanding I have here helped you along the way.
164 MA Rodger
TL;DR
z1, some answers to some of your questions
“Isn’t the energy that’s trapped by a co2 molecule free to be exchanged with its surroundings, making it warmer?”
De-excitation can happen in several ways. The main competing processes are re-radiation and collisional de-excitation, where the kinetic energy of the vibrating CO2 molecule is imparted to another molecule via collision. In Earth’s atmosphere, said molecule will most likely be N2. The lifetime of the excited CO2 molecule tends to be long, so at lower altitudes, where densities are higher, collisional de-excitation predominates.
“Is it realistic to model the Earth surface and the co2 molecules as two mirrors that bounce (reflect, radiate) energy (fluxes) between each other, making each other warmer?”
As George Box said, “All models are wrong. Some models are useful.” So, it can be useful to look at things that way–that is, it can illuminate some aspects of the situation. However it isn’t really correct. The thing you have to consider is that there is a temperature gradient in the atmosphere. In the troposphere, the atmosphere cools as you go up. So, there are lots of unexcited CO2 molecules waiting to mop up any IR radiation in the right band. And the atmosphere at these higher, cooler levels, radiates away less energy than it does at lower levels. That is how the energy gets trapped. In the stratosphere, the atmosphere warms up as you move higher, so the greenhouse effect here tends to cool the stratosphere. The tropospheric warming/stratospheric cooling is a signature of the greenhouse effect–and it is precisely what we observe in the present warming epoch.
Has the greenhouse effect been observed? Yes–both Earth and Venus are such objects. But keep in mind, go get warming, you need both a greenhouse gas and a temperature and density gradient, and that is harder to reproduce in the lab. Lab measurements do show that greenhouse gasses behave exactly as expected.
Pressure, by itself, does not warm a gas. Compression does–you have to perform work on the gas. Consider the ideal gas equation PV=nRT. At the top of the atmosphere P is low, but so is n. You don’t have to lower the temperature go get equilibrium. If you took a compressible balloon full of gas in equilibrium with the upper atmosphere and pulled it down through the atmosphere, the gas would warm, but that is because you are doing work pulling it against pressure going down through the atmosphere. So, an inert atmosphere wouldn’t appreciably raise the surface temperature.
Does this help? It can be hard to find a description of the greenhouse effect that answers all your questions, because the questions you ask are particular to your own understandings/misunderstandings. A textbook treatment is just going to lay out the generalities. You might try Spencer Weart’s history of the greenhouse effect. I used to work with Spencer at American Institute of Physics–he’s a good writer and a good physicist.
z1, #159–
OK, I’ll take a crack at these questions.
“Trapped” is a bit problematic as a term here–and yes, I know a lot of folks use it–but yeah: the radiation absorbed by a CO2 molecule creates heat (ie., molecular motion) and that heat can warm other molecules nearby. That’s how a GHG can warm the atmosphere in general.
No, which is why nobody models it that way. A better simple model is that the atmosphere acts upon the Earth’s surface as a blanket acts upon your body when it’s reclining in bed: it warms you by slowing the rate at which heat can escape. (Note, though, that the ways in which each accomplishes this feat are physically different; it’s only the effect that is analogous.)
Some demonstrations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joQoshnRa20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt6gLt6G5Kc
That second one is a little less direct: it shows the absorption of IR, but not the actual warming that results. It’s an updated version of the original experiments done in 1959-60 by John Tyndall, and which I wrote about here:
https://discover.hubpages.com/education/Global-Warming-Science-In-The-Age-Of-Queen-Victoria
So, yeah, this has been demonstrated more than amply.
No, that’s absolutely not the case. When gas is compressed, it will warm, to be sure–but when the compression process stops, the warmth gradually radiates away. Think of a tire being very rapidly inflated at the repair shop, if you’ve ever had a chance to witness this close up. The tire warms perceptibly as it’s pressurized, but then cools pretty quickly to ambient temperature. The atmosphere is no different in this regard. (If it were otherwise, we’d essentially have a perpetual motion heat machine–and a massive violation of the principles of thermodynamics.)
There are innumerable links that answer parts of the big questions on this topic. It’s a very, very big topic, after all, so single links rarely if ever attempt to cover absolutely everything. IMO, the single most helpful one is:
http://history.aip.org/climate
You are welcome.
Dang, I wish you could edit your comments!
I wrote that Tyndall’s original experiments were done in “1959-60,” but of course that’s wrong. (As my link, and even its bare title, makes clear.)
It was a pure typo for the correct “1859-60.”
TM, #167–
So far, so good…
Tilt! This is a fail because–once again!–you can’t treat the atmosphere as unitary in this context. Each (arbitrarily fine) layer of the atmosphere radiates in all directions, which can correctly be described as ‘half up and half down.’ However, each layer of the atmosphere also receives different amounts of radiation both from the surface and from surrounding layers. The closer to the surface, the more energy each layer receives from the surface–and also from overlying atmospheric layers. Conversely, the closer to TOA, the less it receives from either source.
Yes, and in fact each layer of the atmosphere has a slightly different emission spectrum, too, because all are at systematically varying temperatures and pressures, according to the altitude.
(I will say, though, that I’m still not sure what point follows from this discussion. It’s great to get details right, of course, but is this meant to address some larger issue not yet clearly articulated?)
FYI:
A New Threat to New York’s Clean Energy Goals: Bitcoin Mining
166 William B Jackson
I will admit that not all replies to my original query were simply sanctimonious, others are just pure hubris.
TYSON MCGUFFIN (167) “To summarize for the hard of learning and those interested in examining inconsistencies in their own knowledge.”
That’s …rich, coming from somebody who:
– proudly stands behind the tautologies …. nobody challenged(Stefan-Boltzmann equation),
– falsifies the arguments that were made only in …. his had (NOBODY in the right mind would argue for equal radiation from the top and the bottom of the atm.),
– invokes things irrelevant to the argument: like the Sun – even though it is the presence of the atm. that matters – you can have (small) greenhouse effect without the Sun, and you can have the Sun without greenhouse effect (the Moon)
– can’t get to this head that the back-radiation near the bottom of the atm. (324 W/m2) is different than the out-radiation from its top (195W/m2) hence “modelling”
atmosphere, as if it were a SINGLE radiative body with uniform temp, and IR therefore uniform IR emissions, is an absurd.
– has proven incapable to understand not one, but half a dozen of of different posters here who tried to sort out through his messy writing and provide patient not too technical for his abilities explanation (including, mine at 108)
– and is utterly uninterested in examining the gaping holes of his knowledge and logic.
And after all that- he has the hutzpah to call others “hard of learning” and uninterested “in examining inconsistencies in their own knowledge”.
I guess, ignorance breeds arrogance.
==
Mc·Guf·fin /məˈɡəfin/ noun, an object or device in a movie or a book that serves merely as a trigger for the plot.
Usually, the McGuffin is revealed in the first act, and thereafter declines in importance (“(132) “Guys thanks again for your attention. It’s obvious that this is the wrong forum for addressing this issue. Regards.” It can reappear at the climax of the story ( see 6 additional appearances AFTER his farewell in 132), but may actually be forgotten by the end of the story. Multiple McGuffins^* are sometimes derisively identified as plot coupons.
====
^* 1. The original McGuffin (Tyson)
2. z1 McGuffin “as a neutral observer with no horse in this climate race [..]I find the arrogance and dismissive attitude by “priests of settled science” extremely off putting”
3. Joe “considerable debate on climate crisis thesis” Wellborn McGuffin
4. Nathaniel “Very Skeptical to “Crisis” Wixon McGuffin
5. Aden “the increase in the speed of the earth’s rotation falsifies the increase in sea levels” McGuffin
115 MA Rodger
I have updated and fixed your Global Energy Budget so you don’t embarrass yourself again with your back radiation B.S. (Bad Science).
This is an interesting geophysics & climate science paper that revisits Pierre-Simon Laplace’s papers from the 18th century which formulated the partial differential equations for modeling geophysical fluid dynamics still used today.
F. Lopes, J.L. Le Mouël, V. Courtillot, D. Gibert, “On the shoulders of Laplace”,
Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 2021, 106693, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2021.106693
The authors are from U of Paris which has a long history of maintaining earth orientation data via the observatory. For years they have monitored slight changes in the earth’s rotation and wobble to ascertain correlations to climate change https://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/index.php
CCHolley said:
Yes, ENRON CEO Ken Lay’s chief speechwriter. Doesn’t he realize that whatever he writes about is tainted by that debacle? If ENRON was still around it would have likely made the Texas Blackout worse.
173 MA Rodger
See # 180 & # 182. My advise to you is: talk less but say more.
TYSON MCGUFFIN @182,
You say in reply to #115 that you “have updated and fixed [my] Global Energy Budget” (actually a non-controversial graphic from Follett et al 2011) and in so doing you present Fig 1 from Read et al (2016). So you are Peter Read or one of his co-authors? Or are you but a mutton-headed troll with flaming pants? Your arrogance is entirely at odds with one so stupid and slapdash, one who (says he) cannot cope with the 400 word comment @164 because it’s too long for him. So sorry if I over-taxed you delicate mental faculties. And I do hope you will enjoy the ridicule that will be thrown at you during your continuing visit here.
Barton Paul Levenson @ 170
Ray Ladbury @ 175
Kevin McKinney @ 176
Thanks so much for your replies! This comment format is not very user friendly so I will try to respond in a single post and addressing only some (not all) points, if you don’t mind.
The linked GHE demonstrations show that irradiated CO2 molecules absorb energy and heat up but that was never in question. An actual greenhouse heats up because it has a glass enclosure that prevents convection. Without the glass enclosure a greenhouse would be no more. The atmosphere doesn’t have such an enclosure (blocking convection) so warmer parts of it are free to exchange energy with cooler parts. The atmosphere is also free to exchange energy with outer space, the Earth, and the oceans. There are no glass enclosures blocking energy exchange anywhere in this system so I have a difficulty establishing the greenhouse analogy for it.
As to whether atmospheric pressure itself (regardless of any greenhouse effect) affects a planet’s temperature. I found this paper showing (both theoretically and empirically) that not only that it does but that it’s crucial for determining a planet’s surface temperature, whereas greenhouse gas concentrations affect it very little, if at all. I would be grateful for your comments on it:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317570648_New_Insights_on_the_Physical_Nature_of_the_Atmospheric_Greenhouse_Effect_Deduced_from_an_Empirical_Planetary_Temperature_Model
“Abstract
A recent study has revealed that the Earth’s natural atmospheric greenhouse effect is around 90 K or about 2.7 times stronger than assumed for the past 40 years. A thermal enhancement of such a magnitude cannot be explained with the observed amount of outgoing infrared long-wave radiation absorbed by the atmosphere (i.e. ≈ 158 W m-2), thus requiring a re-examination of the underlying Greenhouse theory. We present here a new investigation into the physical nature of the atmospheric thermal effect using a novel empirical approach toward predicting the Global Mean Annual near-surface equilibrium Temperature (GMAT) of rocky planets with diverse atmospheres. Our method utilizes Dimensional Analysis (DA) applied to a vetted set of observed data from six celestial bodies representing a broad range of physical environments in our Solar System, i.e. Venus, Earth, the Moon, Mars, Titan (a moon of Saturn), and Triton (a moon of Neptune). Twelve relationships (models) suggested by DA are explored via non-linear regression analyses that involve dimensionless products comprised of solar irradiance, greenhouse-gas partial pressure/density and total atmospheric pressure/density as forcing variables, and two temperature ratios as dependent variables. One non-linear regression model is found to statistically outperform the rest by a wide margin. Our analysis revealed that GMATs of rocky planets with tangible atmospheres and a negligible geothermal surface heating can accurately be predicted over a broad range of conditions using only two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure. The hereto discovered interplanetary pressure-temperature relationship is shown to be statistically robust while describing a smooth physical continuum without climatic tipping points. This continuum fully explains the recently discovered 90 K thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere. The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that has important theoretical implications. A key entailment from the model is that the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition. Consequently, the global down-welling long-wave ux presently assumed to drive Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure. In other words, the so-called ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is globally a result of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it. Our empirical model has also fundamental implications for the role of oceans, water vapour, and planetary albedo in global climate. Since produced by a rigorous attempt to describe planetary temperatures in the context of a cosmic continuum using an objective analysis of vetted observations from across the Solar System, these findings call for a paradigm shift in our understanding of the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ as a fundamental property of climate.”
Again, thanks much in advance for any replies and comments.
@165
Yes, there it is indeed.
Grant W. Petty, A first Course in Atmospheric Radiation, Second Edition, page 142
TYSON MCGUFFIN:
-“ for the hard of learning and those interested in examining inconsistencies in their own knowledge”
– “My advise [to MARodger] is: talk less but say more”.
– “I have updated and fixed your Global Energy Budget so you don’t embarrass yourself again with your back radiation B.S. (Bad Science)”
What a …. terrible improvement:
1. “My advise to you: talk less but say more” – HALF of your words in graph labels is redundant
2. Consistency – don’t use different descriptions for the same thing: “Infrared Radiation” or “Longwave flux”, no need for both
3. Make graphical choices logical:
– why the bottom of one arrow is a …circle, and of another a semicircle
– why the “bottleneck” in the Circle-Arrow thingy?
4.CONTENT:
– what happens to the energy from Sensitive heat, Latent Heat and Shortwave Absorbed atm. – they … disappear into thin air ???
– graphically it looks that the sole source of energy for your Circle Arrow is Surface IR radiation arrow? (hint – it is not)
– where your Semicirle Arrow gets ANY of its energy from???
And as for your main claim to fame:
McGuffin: “[I] fixed your Global Energy Budget so you don’t embarrass yourself again with your back radiation B.S. (Bad Science).”
What have you “fixed”? Changed the label “Back Radiation” with “Longwave emitted by atmosphere to surface“? Whau, way to catch MA with his Bad Science pants down!
MA Rodger #173,
MA, we all know you know the physics, and do a better job communicating it than many. But I refer you to my #140 to Piotr.
Tyson #167 has answered our question…
“WTF is your problem with the term “back radiation??”
… and there’s no need for a long discourse. It’s obvious that he was conflating the term with some concept involving the reflection of EM, where it has been presented as “the same wave”. I could speculate where that may have come from, but I really don’t care enough to violate my policy of brevity.
We’ll see if he now understands from my #171 that it is a perfectly correct term of art, because the energy comes from the surface and then is transferred back from the atmosphere. (And that’s in his simple model; no need to make it more complicated.)
I see nobody wants to talk about more relevant climate science as they’d rather measure penises over the nature of back radiation than discuss Pine Island Glacier tipping points noted here https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/04/unforced-variations-apr-2021/comment-page-3/#comment-790148.
Then how about the major, massive disruption of the distribution of life on the planet which signals a massive bifurcation has occurred or is occurring?
Article: https://eand.co/were-ripping-the-heart-out-of-life-on-earth-and-the-consequences-will-be-disastrous-da1d50c712bc
Paper: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/15/e2015094118
The Anthropocene Is Overrated – The way we talk about climate change and our effect on the planet is all wrong—and increasingly dangerous.
I suppose that this might trigger the armchair Psychologists and cause them to ascribe motives or assumed personality problems, spew insults or guesses about the writer’s politics. Fruit for thought though, pretend for a moment, a day even, that the author is not part of an evil empire of disinformation and try to understand the point of view.
186 MA Rodger
Oh my! Why so cranky?
So, am I to understand from your comment that when you put up a Trenberth (1997) diagram in # 115, you were in effect saying that you are either Trenberth or Kiehl?
You are ridiculous.
I see from # 188 that you have finally gotten a hold of Petty (2006). Good for you, it should be a good addition to your armchair climate science library. You are welcome!
187 z1
What’s next, Robert Holmes’ paper on using the Ideal Gas Law to disprove AGW?
Pretty slick!
TYSON MCGUFFIN @192,
We all appreciate you are but a feeble-minded troll clattering round this comment thread, likely more pleasant surroundings than under your drafty stinky old bridge. So what is your point in referencing that David Sepkoski essay? Are you saying his words set out a “point of view” that you yourself subscribe to?
Frankly I find that very unlikely. A moron like yourself would probably read no more than the title and sub-title (‘The Anthropocene Is Overrated’ – ‘The way we talk about climate change and our effect on the planet is all wrong—and increasingly dangerous.’) and conclude that David Sepkoski is a fellow traveler of yours, another drooling idiot who denies the effects of AGW.
So did you read the essay? Do you agree with David Sepkoski? Are you signed up to his “point of view”? Your comment suggests you do although, with you being such a cretin, this may not be been intentional.
To be clear, what I’m saying is that if you were normal, if you were even just a little less ridiculously stupid, you may have read the following line (it being in the second paragraph so not difficult to spot) and been a little less eager to embrace David Sepkoski as one of your bosom buddies:-
91 Piotr
in a secret underground lab of Bill Gates, while drinking the blood from the children abducted in a pizza parlor from tall glasses with the lounge music playing in the background?
And… that’s where I stopped reading. It has a Jeffrey Dahmer vibe. No thanks.
More on the single layer atmospheric radiative model.
Since Tyson McGuffin failed to understand Petty’s single layer model, let’s simplify it further.
Simplified single layer radiative model of the atmosphere—no reflection, scattering, nor convection and conduction.
Energy flux from the sun reaches the surface unimpeded because the atmosphere is translucent to the shortwave radiation. The surface radiates upward per the S-B law. If the atmosphere were non-existent or also translucent to the long wave radiation of the surface in addition to the shortwave radiation of the sun, for equilibrium the surface would need to warm to the temperature in which its flux is equal to the solar flux in. This temperature can be calculate with S-B law. In this case, the atmosphere would be at absolute zero because it does not absorb either form of radiation. (we are, of course as stated, for this model ignoring other means of heat transfer between the surface and the atmosphere.)
Now if we assume that the atmosphere is translucent to only the shortwave flux of the sun and is opaque to all the long wave flux from the surface, then the atmosphere would be warmed by that upward flux from the surface. Since the surface radiation is entirely absorbed by the atmosphere and cannot escape to space, now it would be the temperature of the atmosphere that determines the total outward flux. Per the S-B law, for equilibrium, the temperature of the atmosphere would now need to be the same that the surface was in the previous translucent atmosphere model. However, at that equilibrium temperature (or any temperature), unlike the solid earth’s surface, the atmosphere radiates in all directions–it has to, no debate. As such, that upward flux that balances the downward solar flux must also be emitted back towards the surface. What this means is that for equilibrium the surface temperature must increase per the S-B law until the surface upward flux is double that of the downward solar flux to offset the additional downward flux of the atmosphere. Obviously, the surface temperature must increase per S-B to produce that additional amount of upward flux. That’s the greenhouse effect.
For equilibrium: downward flux (sun) = upward flux (atmosphere)
and for that to be possible: downward flux (sun) + downward flux (atmosphere) = upward flux (surface)
Killian (91) ” I see nobody wants to talk about more relevant climate science as they’d rather measure penises over the nature of back radiation than discuss Pine Island Glacier tipping points noted here “
Maybe because the vulnerability of that glacier has been known for a while, and to say something insightful on the new things in that paper – quantification of the melting, would require expertise we don’t have? Perhaps if you came up with some interesting questions about the paper we can discuss it more? Until then – back to our penises!
Oh wait – I see you brought in something new. Actually, I may know a thing or two about that, so I’ll lay my background-radiation penis to the side, and whip up my ecosystem one:
[Everybody, Devo style!
“ Now whip it
Into shape
Shape it up
Get it straight
Move ahead
It’s not too late
To whip it
Whip it good! “”
Thank you, everybody, for the words of encouragement. So here we go. First, a disclaimer – I’ll whip it only on the Umair Haque’s post, under the somewhat understated title “We’re Ripping the Heart Out of Life on Earth“(I haven’t found a copy of the PNAS paper yet).
Dramatic claims (“We’re Ripping the Heart Out of Life on Earth“) require dramatic proofs, and I don’t think Umair Haque succeeds with his use of the PNAS paper for it: on land, where tropics are indeed the heart of life – global warming ain’t the main heart ripper; while in the ocean, where climate is the ripper – there is no (well-defined) heart. Here is why I think so:
Land: the “heart” might be a fair analogy, with most of both productivity and diversity in the the tropical rain forest. However, I don’t think the climate is the ripper – the main culprit deliberate burning and clearcutting, is the Soviet-style mentality for the “ taming of the hostile/useless nature for the benefit of the nation ” by Bolsonaro et al. In other words, if the rainforests die, it will be because we wanted our hamburgers, or palm and soybean oil (Brazil is already the largest beef exporter, Indonesia and Malaysia are the two main exporters of palm oil), not because we made it too hot.
Ocean: climate change is the main driver – but equatorial waters are no “heart” there – the species richness at best was flat between 40S and 40N, while the productivity was and is the largest in high latitudes. And the impacts of climate on marine ecosystems is much more pervasive (temperature, acidification, lowering oxygen and nutrient supply) than on land, and at the same time the ability of species to “slip into something more comfortable” (climate-wise) is much larger – if you are a fish its easier to migrate into cooler waters, than if you are on land and try to find an identical ecosystem but colder (options limited by geography and human presence).
So, conclusions:
– We are losing species in the equatorial oceans most likely due to the synergistic impacts of several climatic factors
– Some of the species move north or south, increasing species-richness there
in a bimodal distribution
– This response is not symmetrical – northern “mode” gained more initially than the southern one, but then dropped down below it
– Would be interesting to figure out why this asymmetry of the response
– However, for the main reason Killian brought it up – I don’t think it well extrapolates onto ripping the heart out of the entire Earth.
z1 @187
Nikolov and his buddy are not climate scientists. They have been dishonest a number of times by publishing the same rubbish under pseudonyms.
https://www.desmog.com/ned-nikolov/
As noted in that link the journal “Environmental Pollution and Climate Change” is a predatory journal (pay to publish) and has been accused of gross deception. I wouldn’t accept a word from either the paper you cited or the journal it is published in.
z1, @187 that study you quote on planetary temperatures and pressure has been debunked many times for example:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/08/making-elephant-dance-as-performed-by.html
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/08/08/no-pressure-alone-does-not-define-surface-temperatures/
And to cause a warming trend pressure has to CHANGE. No sign of that.