This month’s open thread for climate science discussions. Be nice, it’s Earth month.
Reader Interactions
361 Responses to "Unforced Variations: Apr 2021"
jgnfldsays
@245 re. “This format is extremely cumbersome for quoting and responding. Is there a more convenient forum (with basic forum features) where these things could be more easily asked/discussed?”
Some subjects need discussion as there are competing views/frames of reference applicable. This particular subject at this particular highly intro level needs the _studying_ of texts and the asking of qualified teachers to clear up confusions. There are many honest clear presentations of the greenhouse effect available and really nothing at all to “discuss” save said student’s confusions.
TYSON MCGUFFINsays
243 Mr. Know It All
That’s why the founding fathers of the USA included the Bill of Rights. They got sick and tired of living under command and control of kings and bureaucrats. That pesky 2A is the only thing that keeps us free; and is why the left is working 24/7/365 to eliminate it. Be careful what you wish for – you may get it.
Reply
FYI… It is well known, by those who know it well, that Command and Control (CAC) is one of the two traditional approaches to environmental regulations employed by policy-makers for controlling patterns of production and consumption, the other being market based methods. Nothing new here.
Ray Ladburysays
Mr. KIA: “That’s why the founding fathers of the USA included the Bill of Rights. They got sick and tired of living under command and control of kings and bureaucrats. That pesky 2A is the only thing that keeps us free; and is why the left is working 24/7/365 to eliminate it. Be careful what you wish for – you may get it.”
What a fucking moron. Dude, my greatest disappointment of Jan. 6 was that the MAGA mob did not try to face down full infantry, tanks and artillery with their piddly-shit little AR-15s. That’s a defense budget I could get behind. The last rebellion didn’t quite go your way, now did it. Where’s General Sherman when you need him.
Ray Ladburysays
z1,
The only condition at thermal equilibrium is that energy out= energy in. Energy out is purely radiative–e.g. blackbody. A blackbody spectrum has a distinctive shape, and the planet with no greenhouse gasses will look more or less like a blackbody–modula the fact that its emissivity will not be uniformly 1.
Greenhouse gasses complicate the radiative behavior considerably. The surface will radiate like a blackbody, but the outgoing IR photons will be absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere. Up higher, the atmosphere will also radiate like a blackbody, but because of the temperature gradient, at a lower temperature than the surface. Again, the GHGs will take a bite out of the blackbody spectrum. Eventually, you will get to an altitude where the density of the atmosphere is low enough that an IR photon even in the middle of a GHG absorption band stands a reasonable chance of escaping. At this “Top of Atmosphere–or TOA”, the temperature is much lower than at the surface, so the blackbody radiation that escapes in the GHG absoprtion bands is quite suppressed compared to the rest of the blackbody spectrum. This means that there must be more energy in the spectrum outside of these bands, right? Since the energies of the radiation from both bodies must be equal? So, the surface of the GHG planet must be warmer.
Remember, it’s the presence o GHGs AND the fact that temperature decreases with altitude in the atmosphere that leads to the warming of the surface.
William B Jacksonsays
243 You have tendency to be wrong on so many things one of which is off topic here. But I would point out that the second amendment was as it clearly says intended to support a organized and well officered militia. It is to be noted that congress acted to support that act by funding a program to procure and refurbish muskets and rifles to sell to members of state militias! Note that word STATE militias, not every Tom,Dick and Harry but members of state militias.
TYSON MCGUFFINsays
242 nigelj You seem to be confusing the back radiation issue with the energy budget of the atmosphere as a whole. These are two different things. Reply
Wrong.As I have said before, here is how it works. The outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) received by the atmosphere is partly absorbed (by the GHGs) and partly transmitted. The portion of OLR that is absorbed is annihilated and converted to kinetic and potential energy of the molecules. In the lower altitudes (higher pressures) of the atmosphere, where collisional processes are dominant and the collisional deexcitation time is shorter than the lifetime of the excited molecular state, the excited molecules transfer their kinetic energy to other molecules. Because following a collision the colliding molecules are moving faster than before, the increased velocities are a measure of increased temperature in the atmosphere. Thus higher GHG concentrations in the atmosphere result in increased collisions and net warming. In the upper atmosphere OLR photons are again extinguished by absorption by GHG molecules, but here their spontaneous emission lifetimes are shorter than the collisional deexcitation times. These new emitted photons do not result in any net warming. As a result, OLR absorbed by the atmosphere is not “reradiated back towards the surface.” The confusion may come from a misinterpretation of the global energy budget diagrams by bloggers and their statistical climatologist followers.
242 nigelj You do come across a bit like a denialist troll, but not entirely. Reply
You do come across as a bit of the reason God created the middle finger, but not entirely, so I’ll read on.
242 nigelj So what’s you[r] basic point of view? Do you accept human activities, particularly fossil fuels, are the dominant cause of the modern global warming period? (a simple unambiguous answer would be appreciated). Reply
Yes.
242 nigelj Do you accept solutions should be energy substitution, electric cars etc? Reply
Yes, an energy transition is inevitable, as is substitution for the petroleum feedstocks into thousands of products essential to modern life.
242 nigelj Are you someone who worries about climate mitigations effects on poor people? ( my instincts say you might). Reply
Yes, see energy transition above.
242 nigelj What point are you trying to convey about the Anthropocence apart from it being wider than the article suggested? Reply
Following ten years of study, the Anthropocene Working Group voted two years ago to recognize the Anthropocene as a new geologic epoch marking the impact of humans on the planet. This is a monumental determination since it is made by Earth Scientists. The group is now working to identify the global boundary stratotype location and the physical evidence in the sedimentary record that marks the start of the epoch, after which the Anthropocene will be enshrined in the Geologic Time Scale.
The larger issue is that the professional geological associations have not adopted a formal position on climate change (yet) primarily because of their close ties to energy companies. I see this as a problem because if Earth Scientists see the anthropogenic footprint in the geologic record it follows that their professional societies must do more than simply “encourage members to, through their own research, to continue to develop their own understanding of climate science and policies.” The latter is excerpted from the AAPG’s most recent climate statement.
By contrast, the American Society of Chemical Engineers has the following in its Climate Change Policy Statement says that “Scientific analysis finds that non-natural climate change is occurring and has been strongly influenced by human-caused releases of greenhouse gases… Adverse climate change possess threats to all of us, both individually and as a society. These threats fall squarely in the realm of the Chemical Engineer…”
I see three of our hosts feature in The Reuters Hot List of the world’s top climate scientists.
37th Michael E Mann
72th Stefan Rahmstorf
84th Gavin A Schmidt
To build their Hot List, Reuters say they created a system of identifying and ranking 1,000 climate academics according to how influential they are. So if you publish loads of papers you get rated. If those papers have loads of citations you get rated, although dependent on the average citation-frequency of the specific subject area. And if you get your papers mentioned in the various media (including tweets and facebook) you get rated. These three measures are then totted up to give the final ranking within the “hot list.” Thus the list is topped by Keywan_Riahi who was ranked in the three individual ratings 47th for 205 published papers, 10th for 29,548 citations & 30th in media ranking. And if you squid down right to the bottom, you find Chen Xin Jun of Shanghai Ocean Unversity in 1,000th place.
Reuters do provide some “notes of caution” with this Hot List. First it is not meant to rate if your work as being any good but rather provides “a measure of influence” of the work. Also the criteria may have missed papers not identified for the analysis and can be skewed by a paper or two that hits big in the third media rating. They also see the prolific paper-writers may be over-rated despite the second & third rating being “designed to compensate for this possible bias.”
Not surprisingly, this Hot List has been criticised by some (eg this twitteratti thread which I see includes some swivel-eyed climate change deniers bleating that they are under-represented).
The blanket analogy doesn’t apply either since (like the greenhouse glass) the blanket impedes/prevents convection & conduction whereas those are not impeded within the atmosphere, not between the atmosphere and the Earth, and not between the atmosphere and the oceans.
As to mechanism, no, but as to effect, yes. And since you’re working to understand the effect, this could potentially help you out.
Could two Blobs with EQUAL propensity for energy exchange via convection and conduction within their rock, gasses, and water parts (and between those parts) have (significantly) DIFFERENT internal temperature distributions, regardless of their differences in radiative transfer caused by GHG in Blob2?
In abstract principle, yes. But in reality, solid conduction is largely irrelevant, and I think the water part would directly affect warming trajectory, not equilibrium status. The crucial piece would be lapse rate, which has quite a few variables of interest:
(Per that, the presence or lack of water has a profound effect on atmospheric structure.)
…the analogy with the GHE remains since the claim there is that CO2 back-radiation in Blob2 somehow makes its rock, atmosphere, AND water parts warmer than their Blob1 counterparts even though the same energy comes into both Blobs from the Sun and gets radiated back into open space.
I feel like I’m repeating myself here, but no, that is not the claim. That is, the surface is warmer on the GHG ‘blob’, but not because of back-radiation. It’s warmer because the ‘residence time’ of energy within the system is longer. And the mechanism for that is the change at TOA, where the altitude of the effective radiating layer increases. The back-radiation is a dependent variable in this process–unavoidable, tightly correlated, but not the driver.
(Incidentally, here’s the causality chain there, WRT your point that the temperature is the same: 1) mean path-length decreases due to GHG ‘fog’; higher altitude of ERL is a corollary of that. 2) Due to lapse rate, ERL is now colder as well. 3) That decreases radiative efficacy, per S-B. 4) That creates a radiative imbalance, since now more radiation is coming in than is going out. 5) The radiative imbalance warms the system. 6) The warmer system increases radiative efficacy at TOA, bringing everything back into equilibrium again, but at a slightly higher surface temperature. Voila!)
(Incidentally #2: your ‘baked chicken’ reductio fails principally because it lacks a continuing source of energy input: the chicken can at most cool a tiny bit more slowly because of back radiation (either from the ‘mirrors’ or just from the walls of the oven.) Now if you wanted a closer analogy, what you’d need is a heat source inside the chicken–say, a magic radioactive heater that released no ionizing radiation, just heat. I’ll call it a “Heat Pill.” So, suppose you had two identical chickens and Heat Pills. You place the Pills inside the chickens, and cover one chicken with a plastic spatter shield and the other with a thick coating of thermally insulating clay. Finally, you use a Heat Pill remote to turn on the Pills simultaneously. Which chicken cooks faster?)
Killiansays
Climate Criminal:
That pesky 2A is the only thing that keeps us free
The 2nd A has nothing to do with the U.S. being free, cabbagehead. Personal guns do not prevent revolutions, mass incarceration, or anything else. They are used for insurrection, however. See: Jan. 6th, 2021.
255 William B Jackson says:
21 Apr 2021 at 9:17 AM
243 You have tendency to be wrong on so many things one of which is off topic here. But I would point out that the second amendment was as it clearly says intended to support a organized and well officered militia. It is to be noted that congress acted to support that act by funding a program to procure and refurbish muskets and rifles to sell to members of state militias! Note that word STATE militias, not every Tom,Dick and Harry but members of state militias.
Further, a series of 4 laws has converted those militias, in a very direct, unambiguous line, into the current National Guard. Beyond participation in the NG or hunting, there is no right to bear arms just because. If one wishes to defend against the Fed Gov, join the NG.
/fini
(Further discussion of this should go elsewhere.)
zebrasays
Tyson Mcguffin #256
In the upper atmosphere OLR photons are again extinguished by absorption by GHG molecules, but here their spontaneous emission lifetimes are shorter than the collisional deexcitation times. These new emitted photons do not result in any net warming. As a result, OLR absorbed by the atmosphere is not “reradiated back towards the surface.”
So those “newly emitted photons” are all emitted upwards? Wow! You need to get this published in the quantum physics journals as soon as possible!!
Very confused thinking, as I have observed previously.
Piotrsays
Re: Killian (220): Killian (91):”I see nobody wants to talk about more relevant climate science “
Piotr (198): 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?
Killian (220) But you’re qualified on all the other aspects of climate. Right…
“Wrong….” – I try to speak on those aspects of climate change on which I know something. What do you do?
Piotr (198) Perhaps if you came up with some interesting questions about the paper we can discuss it more?
Killian (220) Why do you need me to point out what is important about it?
It’s not for me, it’s for you, genius: it was YOU who were complaining that nobody commented on the article YOU brought up. So to YOUR complaining I suggested a technique that might have alleviated the very thing YOU complained about.
Killian (220) Oh, but… I did. This looks like a very important paper on identifying PIG tipping points, reversibility and irreversibility.
We differ in what “interesting” is for us. For me: something new or surprising to me. The idea that if we push a local system too much it may be irreversible – is neither. The post your brought up next – at least had an interesting link(see my next response) and was within my area, so I commented on it (see the other response).
The ‘Anthropocene’ is a term widely used since its coining by Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer in 2000 to denote the present geological time interval, in which many conditions and processes on Earth are profoundly altered by human impact. This impact has intensified significantly since the onset of industrialization, taking us out of the Earth System state typical of the Holocene Epoch that post-dates the last glaciation.
The ‘Anthropocene’ has developed a range of meanings among vastly different scholarly communities. Here we examine the Anthropocene as a geological time (chronostratigraphic) unit and potential addition to the Geological Time Scale.
Phenomena associated with the Anthropocene include: an order-of-magnitude increase in erosion and sediment transport associated with urbanization and agriculture; marked and abrupt anthropogenic perturbations of the cycles of elements such as carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and various metals together with new chemical compounds; environmental changes generated by these perturbations, including global warming, sea-level rise, ocean acidification and spreading oceanic ‘dead zones’; rapid changes in the biosphere both on land and in the sea, as a result of habitat loss, predation, explosion of domestic animal populations and species invasions; and the proliferation and global dispersion of many new ‘minerals’ and ‘rocks’ including concrete, fly ash and plastics, and the myriad ‘technofossils’ produced from these and other materials.
Many of these changes will persist for millennia or longer, and are altering the trajectory of the Earth System, some with permanent effect. They are being reflected in a distinctive body of geological strata now accumulating, with potential to be preserved into the far future.
The Anthropocene is not currently a formally defined geological unit within the Geological Time Scale; officially we still live within the Meghalayan Age of the Holocene Epoch. A proposal to formalise the Anthropocene is being developed by the AWG.
Mr. Know It Allsays
253 – Ray Ladbury
“The last rebellion didn’t quite go your way, now did it.”
No, it didn’t go the way I’d have preferred. In case you didn’t notice, our side (the freedom-loving, law-abiding good guys) did not have to get past any troops or tanks to get inside the building, because there were no troops or tanks. The Capitol Police let some of them inside and took photos with them. (Some folks did break and enter or tried to enter other locations.) And, in case you didn’t notice our guys did not have any AR-15s or any other kind of firearm in the building. Some “rebellion”, eh? Some called it sedition. Laughable in both cases. The obvious sedition occurred on Nov 3 when the voting stopped simultaneously in about 6 swing states. Truth. It hurts sometimes.
TYSON MCGUFFIN @250,
You reply saying “Wrong” and wrong you are at pretty-much every turn.
Did you just make all that crap up on your own? Or did you get help of a fellow cretin?
I rather dismiss the possibility that you have managed to entirely misread some sensible account of how the greenhouse effect works. (I think this is very unlikely as the level of misreading would have to be catastrophic, something difficult to achieve even for someone as stupid as the likes of troll TYSON MCGUFFIN.)
Piotrsays
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me and others … 15 times, shame … on George W. for screwing up the saying?
TYSON MCGUFFIN arriving on RC: (81) “Where did the idea of “back radiation” originate? I see mention of back radiation warming the surface of the earth but have not been able to trace its origin.”
Week and a half later not only has it already traced its origin:
McGuffin(256): “it may come from a misinterpretation of the global energy budget diagrams by bloggers and their statistical climatologist followers.”
but rebuffs any attempt at educating him:
nigelj (242):” You seem to be confusing the back radiation issue with the energy budget of the atmosphere as a whole. These are two different things.”
MCGUFFIN(256) “Wrong. As I have said before, here is how it works.
[…] OLR absorbed by the atmosphere is not “reradiated back towards the surface.”
And rewards the rest of us for trying to explain things to him:
-“Your reading comprehension is lacking.”
– “You missed that?”
– “That makes absolutely no sense”
– “Most replies to my query indicate that you either did not read/understand”
– “Fruit for thought though, pretend for a moment, a day even, that the author is not part of an evil empire of disinformation”
– “My advise to you is: talk less but say more.”
– “The sanctimony and low reading comprehension in some of these replies are off the charts.”
– “I will admit that not all replies to my original query were simply sanctimonious, others are just pure hubris“.
-“[to MARodger] I have updated and fixed your Global Energy Budget so you don’t embarrass yourself again with your back radiation B.S. (Bad Science).”
[and when he could not show the “fixing” part]: “Oh my! Why so cranky? You are ridiculous“.
[All above – a sample from just a couple of days.]
What else do we need to see this is NOT a poor soul wanting to learn something, but a troll. And, yes, “entirely”, Nigel, “entirely”^*.
======
^* nigelj(242): “You do come across a bit like a denialist troll, but not entirely.”
Mcguffin(256): “You do come across as a bit of the reason God created the middle finger, but not entirely, so I’ll read on.”
=========
nigeljsays
TYSON MCGUFFIN @256, thanks for the clarifications. Perhaps one of the experts can comment on your understanding of the greenhouse effect. Sounds right for the lower atmosphere but the description for the upper atmosphere sounds a bit odd. Yes I confess I’m probably sometimes the reason god created the middle finger, ha ha. I will try to be better behaved in future. Good point about geologists. Ian Plimer is a geologist sceptical of climate change who wrote a nonsensical book “Heaven and Earth” and he’s worked in the fossil fuel industry. Divided loyalties. Not good enough.
jgnfldsays
@245 re. “But the analogy with the GHE remains since the claim there is that CO2 back-radiation in Blob2 somehow makes its rock, atmosphere, AND water parts warmer than their Blob1 counterparts even though the same energy comes into both Blobs from the Sun and gets radiated back into open space.”
When you sequester energy under a physical blanket you do notice the warmth under the covers. What you apparently never did notice–but actually occurs–is that at the moment you crawl under the covers, the temps in the room (gases and inner surfaces) cool slightly over the prior situation when you were out in the room naked radiating heat. Also, even at thermal equilibrium, the top of the blankets radiate all your heat into the room, true (else you’d die). That is, the tops of the blankets while radiating precisely the same amount of heat as you generate don’t radiate at anywhere near blood temps. They radiate at a much cooler temp.
This is the reason we wear more insulating clothes in the winter than in the summer: When we are cold we want to sequester more of our waste heat near the body for a longer period. But we still radiate about the same 100W of energy no matter what the temps are (again, else we’d die) and regardless of what we are or are not wearing. Just not at the same wavelengths.
Ever worn various thermal evasion gear in the military? Gets warm inside. (For anyone who doesn’t accept mainstream science texts, various “militia” sites–e.g., oathkeepers, et. al.–have literal tons of info on this topic as well.)
Greenhouse gases do the same though through a different physical mechanism. The math says when you sequester heat in the lower layers of the atmosphere upper layers must cool. And guess what: THIS IS WHAT IS OBSERVED! Google “stratospheric cooling”. Or, study the decade-old article on the subject at skepticalscience.com: https://skepticalscience.com/Stratospheric_Cooling.html
nigeljsays
KIA @264
“No, it didn’t go the way I’d have preferred. In case you didn’t notice, our side (the freedom-loving, law-abiding good guys”
You describe people breaking into the white house as “law abiding” and do it with a straight face? Is that irony or something? KIA they were nothing more than delusional, violent, intimidating idiots.
Plus your second amendment is as clear as mud. Googled it, and people cant even agree on what it means, whether its just about militias, or allows anyone to bear arms. This is your frigging constitution? You Americans put a man on the moon, and this is the best you have about guns?
Piotrsays
Re: Killian (220) defending 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“
Piotr (198): [because that] would require expertise we don’t have?
Killian (220): – But you’re qualified on all the other aspects of climate. Right
Piotr(262) – “Wrong….” – I try to speak on those aspects of climate change on which I know something. See my P(198): 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, whip it good … “] […] 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.
K: I don’t give the slightest damn about his rhetoric.
Since you BROUGHT UP the post under _that_ title, ASKED that we discuss it, and are DEFENDING this headline claim (“that’s not ripping the heart out?“), so the lady doth protest too much …
K(220): “You think fish can just go anywhere and the ecosystem up the road will support them, it seems, which completely ignores how ecosystems work and trophic cascades”
I think that only in your head. In my actual writing (Piotr 198) I merely state that the ability of pelagic fish to migrate into colder water is BETTER than the ability of the tropical rainforest species to migrate north and south, because land migration are MORE constrained by “geography and human presence”. And this was NOT to trivialize the climatic impacts to marine species, as you insinuate, but to say the effect of deforestation of Amazon is EVEN much more dramatic, because animals there have nowhere to go.
So, with:
– DIFFERENT initial species richness distribution (flat between 40S and 40 N in the ocean vs. massive peak around equator on land)
– DIFFERENT ability to respond to changes (species from eq. moving to N and S vs. nowhere to go because of “geography and human presence” in the Amazon)
-DIFFERENT main cause of changes (Climate change in the ocean, Deforestation on land)
you need DIFFERENT studies to make claims about the land than the PNAS paper about the ocean.
Then, I made some points about that PNAS paper, and summed it up as Piotr(196):
– 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”
Reading that, the same Killian who just lamented the lack of interest in new and relevant science, relegated all the above to the role of a jumping board (“”that’s not ripping the heart out?“) to defend the “ We’re Ripping the Heart Out of Life on Earth” headline that he … “does not give the slightest damn about”
I must hand it out to you, Killian, you certainly know to stimulate productive discussion, one that sticks to the core scientific information from new papers, and avoids being derailed into rhetorical technicalities.
CCHolleysays
MCGUFFIN @ 250
Wrong.
Nope. Not wrong in the least. McGuffin is so full of himself and his utter and total BS.
Here is how it works. The outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) received by the atmosphere is partly absorbed (by the GHGs) and partly transmitted. The portion of OLR that is absorbed is annihilated and converted to kinetic and potential energy of the molecules.
Mostly true, although annihilated is a very odd way to refer to the energy transformation.
In the lower altitudes (higher pressures) of the atmosphere, where collisional processes are dominant and the collisional deexcitation time is shorter than the lifetime of the excited molecular state, the excited molecules transfer their kinetic energy to other molecules. Because following a collision the colliding molecules are moving faster than before, the increased velocities are a measure of increased temperature in the atmosphere. Thus higher GHG concentrations in the atmosphere result in increased collisions and net warming.
Mostly true. Fancy way to say that energy from the CO2 molecules warmed by long wave absorption is transferred by conduction to other molecules in the atmosphere, but whatever. Key here is atmospheric warming occurs. What is ignored is that the CO2 molecules cannot transfer all that absorbed energy by conduction due to the second law of thermodynamics—heat flows from hot to cold. At equilibrium, both the CO2 molecules and the rest of the atmosphere are warmer than before the long wave radiation was absorbed by the CO2. And, by gosh, that CO2 molecule radiates continuously as it it is warmer than absolute zero—in ALL DIRECTIONS. Since its net temperature increases along with the rest of the atmosphere, the amount of radiation it emits increases equally in all directions due to that temperature increase and the increased portion of that radiation toward the surface is (gasp) back radiation.
In the upper atmosphere OLR photons are again extinguished by absorption by GHG molecules, but here their spontaneous emission lifetimes are shorter than the collisional deexcitation times. These new emitted photons do not result in any net warming.
This is actually funny. Spontaneous emissions? bahaha. The GHG molecules emit only based on their temperatures. If they are warmer, they emit more per S-B. Whether they warm the rest of the atmosphere by conduction (collisions) or not is moot. That radiation is in all directions with half of that radiation up and half back towards the surface–again (gasp) back radiation.
In summary, OLR absorbed by the atmosphere is not “reradiated back towards the surface.” The confusion may come from a misinterpretation of the global energy budget diagrams by bloggers and their statistical climatologist followers.
In summary, this is utter BS. There is no confusion by those with any kind of background in radiative physics and thermodynamics. Back radiation exists and can be measured at the surface and through spectroscopy its sources can be identified—and it comes from greenhouse gases—FACT. Anyone can take a digital infrared temperature thermometer and point it at the night sky and detect back radiation.
So in the plainest language possible here is how how it really works. CO2 (and water vapor along with other greenhouse gasses) in the atmosphere absorbs most of the long wave radiation emitted by the surface within tens of meters of the surface. Some of that absorbed energy is transferred to the rest of the atmosphere through conduction and the rest of it is re-radiated in all directions with half of that radiation back toward the surface and half upward where it can be reabsorbed by greenhouse gases higher up. This process continues upward through the atmosphere. The overall temperature of the atmosphere increases due to the absorption. However, it should be noted that due to the lapse rate the temperature of the atmosphere decreases linearly upward. Why this is so will be left for another discussion although it should be noted that heat also transfers upward due to convection.
Since space is mostly a vacuum. The only way for heat to escape from the earth system is through radiation—this radiation is mostly from greenhouse gases since most of the long wave radiation from the surface has been absorbed in the atmosphere and then re-emitted continuously both up and down. Per the S-B law, for equilibrium, it is the layer of the atmosphere where radiation can finally escape upward without reabsorption that must be at the equilibrium temperature of emittance per S-B. The lapse rate then determines the surface temperature required to warm that layer to the equilibrium temperature required. Adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere increases their overall density throughout the atmosphere and thus raises the elevation that the radiation can escape unimpeded. Lapse rate determines the new surface temperature required to raise the atmospheric temperature to that higher elevation. Back radiation is the mechanism.
264. “the freedom-loving, law-abiding good guys”
Your guys killed Heather in Charlottesville, the people in the church in SC, and the people at the synagogue in Pittsburgh, among many others. DHS has made it clear that white supremacists are the greatest threat in the nation. Let alone your blatant lies about 11/3. Your hatred of scientific facts and democracy as well are vile.
TYSON MCGUFFINsays
#261 zebra: So those “newly emitted photons” are all emitted upwards? Wow!
Reply
I did not say that. Your reading comprehension is lacking as I have observed previously.
KIA 264: Some “rebellion”, eh? Some called it sedition. Laughable in both cases.
BPL: I call it treason. Those militia assholes you so admire beat a cop to death, traumatized two more so badly they committed suicide, put over a hundred in the hospital or in the infirmary, erected a gallows to “Hang Mike Pence!”, shit in the halls, stole classified documents, and otherwise acted like the lawless, irresponsible brownshirts they are. If you think they were the good guys, there is something deeply wrong with you.
CCHolleysays
More on back radiation.
”back radiation” is that portion of the radiation absorbed by the atmosphere from the surface that is reradiated back towards the surface.
Reply
Wrong.
MCGUFFIN apparently has made up his own definition of “back radiation” although it isn’t by any means clear what the hell that definition is.
Here is what Raymond T. Pierrehumbert says about it in his textbook: Principles of Planetarry Climate, page 197
Similarly, the downward radiation (I_,s(v)) from the atmosphere into the ground – some-times called the back-radiation – is of interest because it characterizes the radiative effect of the atmosphere on the surface energy budget. …so that the atmosphere radiates to the ground like a blackbody with temperature equal to the low-level air temperature.
From NASA Earth Observatory we have:
The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called “back radiation”) is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy. The Earth’s surface responds to the “extra” (on top of direct solar heating) energy by raising its temperature.
So technically “back radiation” is any of the radiation emitted by the atmosphere downward toward the surface…i.e. radiation emitted by greenhouse gases whose temperature is higher than they would be if they had not absorbed the long wave radiation from the surface. It would appear that calling it “re-emitted radiation” is confusing to McGuffin because I can only surmise he seems to think calling this “re-emitted radiation” is saying that the exact same photons that were absorbed are being emitted back out. But that would be silly, the GHG is simply emitting radiation at a higher rate in all directions due to its increased temperature.
Plus, I seem to recall being assured, years ago and on these very boards, that of radioactive waste products only strontium bio-concentrates in the environment. Wrong, apparently!
Killiansays
270 Piotr says:
21 Apr 2021 at 10:05 PM
Re: Killian (220) defending Killian (91)
Science info was posted. Science info was ignored. The ignoring of science info was noted.
Troll MCGUFFIN @247,
You respond to the comment @261 that said “So those “newly emitted photons” are all emitted upwards? Wow!” by replying “I did not say that. Your reading comprehension is lacking as I have observed previously.”
That you “did not say that” may perhaps be forensically true but do note that neither did I say any of the words set out in this comment. Rather, I set them out in writing.
However what you did undeniably write @250 and @256 was (as pointed out @261):-
“In the upper atmosphere OLR photons are again extinguished by absorption by GHG molecules, but here their spontaneous emission lifetimes are shorter than the collisional deexcitation times. These new emitted photons do not result in any net warming. As a result, OLR absorbed by the atmosphere is not “reradiated back towards the surface.”
Note that “OLR” (or Outward Long-wave Radiation”) usually refers to the radiation that is shot out into space so it would not be absorbed (in you idiosyncratic-speak “extinguished”) within the Earthly atmosphere. But were it to include radiation which was absorbed in the “upper atmosphere,” you are certainly “saying” those newly emitted photons (as in such circumstance absorption is almost always closely matched by emission) are all emitted upwards.
Deny it as much as your moronic reality can cope with, but it does not make you any less truthful as your sole possible excuse is that you are not a bare-face liar but instead a cretinous moron who simply cannot be trusted.
Nick Meolasays
I enjoy and hopefully benefit from the discussion of climate issues on this forum. It is disappointing to see Mr KIA offer support for the violent seditious mob that stormed the Capitol on 1/6 and then offer baseless conspiracy theories about election fraud. If KIA has “evidence” of this alleged fraud he should give it to Sidney Powell because so far her defamation defense has been “my election fraud claims were so outrageous and ridiculous” no one should have believed them. Also, how does KIA know how many of the rioters were armed with guns since the overwhelming majority were allowed to leave without being arrested or searched.
z1says
I see the blanket/glass/insulator analogy repeated despite the obvious fact that no such things exist in the atmosphere. Atmospheric molecules in Blob1 and Blob2 are EQUALLY free to exchange their kinetic energy and momentum with their surroundings. No blanket/glass/insulator prevents this in either. The GHE hypothesis claims that ALL parts (rock, gasses, water) of Blob2 are somehow kept warmer than their Blob1 counterparts even though no blanket/glass/insulator exists and no extra energy is added to the system. Both the blanket (insulator) and the mirror (back-radiation) analogies are not even close to describing physical reality.
On a more general note, and to paraphrase Feynman, if you can’t explain your theory to a child, then you probably don’t understand it yourself. I’m not only not a child but hold a STEM PhD with decades of experience including publishing in and reviewing for peer reviewed-journals. If this is all you’ve got, then your GHE emperor probably has no clothes.
Anyone care to comment on this 1917 Einstein paper about radiation, gas molecules, and momentum?
“During absorption and emission of radiation there is also present a transfer of momentum to the molecules. This means that just the interaction of radiation and molecules leads to a velocity distribution of the latter. This must surely be the same as the velocity distribution which molecules acquire as the result of their mutual interaction by collisions, that is, it must coincide with the Maxwell distribution. We must require that the mean kinetic energy which a molecule per degree of freedom acquires in a Plank radiation field of temperature T be
kT / 2
this must be valid regardless of the nature of the molecules and independent of frequencies which the molecules absorb and emit.”
“If beam of radiation has the effect that a molecule on which it is incident
absorbs or emits an amount of energy hν in the from of radiation by means
of an elementary process, then the momentum hν/c is always transferred to
the molecule, and, to be sure, in the case of absorption, in the direction of
the moving beam and in the case of emission in the opposite direction. If the
molecule is subject to the simultaneous action of beams moving in various
directions, then only one of these taken part in any single elementary process
of incident radiation; this beam alone then determined the direction of the
momentum transferred to the molecule.
If, through an emission process, the molecule suffers a radiant loss of
energy of magnitude hν without the action of an outside agency, then this
process, too, is a directed one. Emission in spherical waves does not occur.
According to the present state of the theory, the molecule suffers a recoil of
magnitude hν/c in a particular direction only because of the chance emission
in that direction.”
“Almost all theories of thermal radiation rest on the considerations of the interaction between radiation and molecules. But, in general, one is satisfied with dealing only with the energy exchange, without taking into account the momentum exchange. One feels justified in this because the momentum transferred by radiation is so small that it always drops out as compared to that from other dynamical processes. But for the theoretical considerations, this small effect is on an equal footing with the energy transferred by radiation because energy and
momentum are very intimately related to each other. A theory may therefore
be considered correct only if it can show that the momentum transferred
accordingly from the radiation to the matter leads to the kind of motion that is demanded by thermodynamics.”
What is Einstein talking about here?
nigeljsays
I wonder if Tyson McGuffin, who does not seem like a climate denialist as such, has a massive case of dunning kruger, and a desire to make a name for himself by some revelation on back radiation.
——————–
Astringent @272, I didn’t say all geologists were sceptical or equivocal about the climate issue, but a significant minority don’t in my experience. That was all I wanted to draw attention to.
nigeljsays
Oh curse the typos. Try again. Astringent @272, I didn’t say all geologists were sceptical or equivocal about the climate issue, but a significant minority are in my experience. That was all I wanted to draw attention to.
nigeljsays
z1 @283
“I see the blanket/glass/insulator analogy repeated despite the obvious fact that no such things exist in the atmosphere.”
Yes there’s nothing physical like a blanket in the atmosphere. The point of an analogy is to use simple physical things to provide a insight into how complex processes work. As long as there is SOME connection between the two that will suffice.
“On a more general note, and to paraphrase Feynman, if you can’t explain your theory to a child, then you probably don’t understand it yourself. ”
Ok, so and explanation to child: We are adding carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels, and CO2 absorbs heat energy and it then causes the whole lower atmosphere to warm up. Its a little but like being under a blanket.
What is wrong with that? Nothing, except to a climate denialist troll. Im sure you wouldnt be one of those…
Piotrsays
Killian (280) Science info was posted. Science info was ignored. The ignoring of science info was noted. There is nothing to defend in that sequence. You’re an idiot.”
Eeer, that’s not how I recall it. Rather:
A technical paper on glacier was posted. Nobody had the expertise to comment. Umbrage was taken, penises mentioned. New science item, under a catchy scientific title: “ We’are ripping the Heart Out of Life on Earth” was brought in for discussion. The problems with new article were pointed, The points were not comprehended, attempts at irony ensued. The umbrage was at at technicality (use of the word “defending”) thank to all arguments were deleted and ignored and their author, in a classic scientific comeback, called: You’re an idiot.“… That’s how I remember it.
But to avoid the “he said, she said” – here is the original, so anybody can decide for themselves who of us two, Killian or I, tells the truth about it:
==== “Piotr(262): ==============
” Re: Killian (220) defending 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“
Piotr (198): [because that] would require expertise we don’t have?
Killian (220):” But you’re qualified on all the other aspects of climate. Right…
Piotr(262) – “Wrong….” – I try to speak on those aspects of climate change on which I know something. See my P(198) […]
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.
K(220): “I don’t give the slightest damn about his rhetoric.”
Since you BROUGHT UP the post under _that_ title, ASKED that we discuss it, and are DEFENDING this headline claim (“that’s not ripping the heart out?“), so the lady doth protest too much …
K(220): “You think fish can just go anywhere and the ecosystem up the road will support them, it seems, which completely ignores how ecosystems work and trophic cascades”
I think that only in your head. In my actual writing (Piotr 198) I merely state that the ability of pelagic fish to migrate into colder water is BETTER than the ability of the tropical rainforest species to migrate north and south, because land migration are MORE constrained by “geography and human presence”. And this was NOT to trivialize the climatic impacts to marine species, as you insinuate, but to say the effect of deforestation of Amazon is EVEN much more dramatic, because animals there have nowhere to go.
So, with:
– DIFFERENT initial species richness distribution (flat between 40S and 40 N in the ocean vs. massive peak around equator on land)
– DIFFERENT ability to respond to changes (species from eq. moving to N and S vs. nowhere to go because of “geography and human presence” in the Amazon)
-DIFFERENT main cause of changes (Climate change in the ocean, Deforestation on land)
you need DIFFERENT studies to make claims about the land than the PNAS paper about the ocean.
[Then, I made 4 specific _scientific_ observations on the PNAS paper – see Piotr(196)] Reading that, the same Killian who just lamented the lack of interest in science, used [4 observations] as a jumping board (“that’s not ripping the heart out?“) to defend the very “We’re Ripping the Heart Out of Life on Earth” headline that he … “does not give the slightest damn about”.
I must hand it out to you, Killian, you certainly know to stimulate productive discussion, one that sticks to the core scientific information from new papers, and avoids being derailed into rhetorical technicalities.
====
Killian(280) deletes all the above, puts up his version of events [see at the top] and wraps up neatly with: “You’re an idiot“
Susan Andersonsays
A Year to Change the World features Greta Thunberg, and a good few recognizable figures such as Mike Mann, Kevin Anderson, Attenborough, and even Kate Raworth – 3 hours (2 1/2 really) – aired on PBS and no doubt there will be repeats and streaming. IMNSHO it is a must watch. Greta Thunberg appears to be a remarkably clear, forceful, observant, intelligent, and humble being. I knew she was good, but I’ve never seen anything like it. She just doesn’t get in her own way, or in the way of what she has to say. A truly heroic life (and hats off to her family too).
There was a little short in the 19 April 2021 New Yorker issue about her. Greta Thunberg’s Happy Crusade – From a Stockholm safe house, the teen-age activist discusses her disappointment in Biden and Merkel, her new documentary, and pranking her parents. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/19/greta-thunbergs-happy-crusade
Piotrsays
z1 (283): “On a more general note, and to paraphrase Feynman, if you can’t explain your theory to a child, then you probably don’t understand it yourself.”
I can see several _more likely_ possibilities:
a) you disproved Feynman (congratulations!)
b) Feynman did not anticipated adults so set in their ways that they resist any attempt to explain things to them
c) you are intellectually BELOW the level of a child
d) you are a denier troll
And there is a simple test to narrow down which of the four, by seeing how, after claiming:
z1 I see the blanket/glass/insulator analogy repeated despite the obvious fact that no such things exist in the atmosphere
you explain why the Earth does not have the average temperature around -15C^*. Which it WOULD HAVE TO HAVE if your arrogance:
“ the blanket/glass/insulator analogy repeated despite the obvious fact that no such things exist in the atmosphere.”
was justified.
So?
=====
^*To calculate that -15C I used:
Stefan Boltzmann F= sigma*T^4 for σ = 5.670374419…×10−8 W⋅m−2⋅K−4; average Earth Emissivity assumed around 0.95.
For the steady state Earth -let’s use the Trenberth 2009 budget https://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Jeremy.Schnittman/Oreopoulos.pdf
IR has to emit ONLY = 341(incoming solar) – 102(albedo) – = 239 W/m2
And that’s CONSERVATIVE calculation – with latent heat and thermals included
the effective emission WOULD BE EVEN LOWER.
===
z1 @283,
You ask “What is Einstein talking about here?” That would be ‘Radiation Pressure’.
What is perhaps more difficult to understand is how somebody who professes to hold a PhD in some aspect of science, technology, engineering or maths could be unable to grasp what any child would effortlessly cope with. Perhaps we are expecting too much of you (by assuming you was edgemacated proper).
So let me reduce this to baby-speak.
☻ There is a blanket on your GHG BLOB2. The planet shoots radiation out into space from high in its very cold upper atmosphere.
☻ There is no blanket on your non-GHG BLOB1. The planet shoots radiation out into space from the very cold surface which is equally as cold as the very cold upper atmosphere on BLOB2.
☻ The processes of conduction and convection are unable to shift energy up from the surface of BLOB2 without a temperature gradient. Thus there will always be a temperature difference between the surface of BLOB2 and its upper atmosphere. So BLOB2’s surface will always be warmer than its very cold upper atmosphere.
☻ And as the processes of conduction and convection on planet Earth are so weak, the atmosphere is effectively stationary and works like the blanket on your bed at home.
In the atmosphere, the vertical up-&-down movement of air is mostly reduced to a process that doesn’t involve any cooling of the warm surface or warming of the cold upper atmosphere. So the air insulates like your blanket. It is a process regulated by what grown-ups call an adiabatic lapse rate. That means the atmosphere gets cold as the air becomes thinner and this happens quite quickly, at about 10°C per vertical kilometre in dry air. That is why you can often see snow on the tops of mountains even though it has all melted away on their lower slopes.
mike @258,
The Scripps MLO CO2 numbers have been yielding the daily 12-month CO2 increases as sub-2ppm for the past week, actually averaging under 1ppm (+0.93ppm).
The less noisy 30-day average has now also dropped strongly into the sub-2ppm zone which is where it would be expected (wobbles aside) to reside for a period given we have been in La Niña conditions for some months now.
Of course, as you usually mention, these are noisy data.
Killiansays
279
Kevin McKinney says:
22 Apr 2021 at 12:24 PM
A bit tangential to climate change, but of interest and a bit of concern:
Plus, I seem to recall being assured, years ago and on these very boards, that of radioactive waste products only strontium bio-concentrates in the environment. Wrong, apparently!
One reason nuclear zealots get it so wrong is the failure to apply or outright dismissal of the Precautionary Principle. I have used very simple questions to illustrate this, but all you get back is magical thinking:
Look at where humanity was 10k yrs ago. Look at what remains of what we built then. Given all the infrastructure for waste is already fragile, can you predict how the world will be in 1,000 years, let alone another 10k?
The answer is, of course, magic: We will find solutions… someday… and before we need them… because.
zebrasays
Of Students, Trolls, and Sock Puppets,
This is for all the people who have been responding to the z1/TM entity.
1. Does anyone doubt that this is the same person? (see #283, where it forgets which persona it is supposed to be)
2. I’ve made this point a couple of times: The goal is to “own the libs” and create the illusion of a real debate. This is true for some of the regulars like KIA as well.
3. And I’ve made the point that the best way to deal with them is not to ‘splain and lecture at length, because that serves their purpose.
Even if they were sincere students, it is pointless to go through all the details when someone obviously is making fundamental errors like ignoring conservation of energy. The first, essential step in helping a student who doesn’t understand something is figuring out what they do understand.
So, instead of allowing them to manipulate you, why not require that they demonstrate what they do or do not understand… otherwise, they get no responses.
I submit my earlier questions to z1/tm as examples (e.g #249) of such an approach. In my experience, if it is a troll and not a student, it results in revelation of the troll-ness, or they just run away.
These are not your peers; why play along with their childish games??
TYSON MCGUFFINsays
Rely to 278 CCHolley
Yes, I am aware that Dr. Pierrehumbert (2009) has given a nod to the “back-radiation” colloquialism in discussing the atmosphere’s contribution to the two-way radiation exchange with the surface; many authors do.
In my search for its first appearance I was surprised to find that Salby didn’t use the term in his Fundamentals (1996) book nor the revised edition (2012). He does however use the half-up-half-down “accounting” characterization when discussing global energy budgets. Granted this is the same AGW “contrarian” Salby (https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Murry_Salby.htm), but it is worth mentioning because the same characterization has been repeated by some in this month’s comments.
However, LW radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface is captured by the overlying air, chiefly by the major LW absorbers: water vapor and cloud. Energy absorbed in an atmospheric layer is reemitted, half upward and half back downward. The upwelling re-emitted radiation is absorbed again in overlying layers, which subsequently re-emit that energy in similar fashion.
Salby, Murry L.; Physics of The Atmosphere and Climate; Cambridge University Press: New York, 2012, 47.
TYSON MCGUFFINsays
284 nigelj 10:09 PM
I wonder if Tyson McGuffin, who does not seem like a climate denialist as such, has a massive case of dunning kruger, and a desire to make a name for himself by some revelation on back radiation.
Reply:
No need to wonder because I have neither. I am simply that guy for whom certain colloquialisms have the same effect as hearing the screech of fingernails on a chalkboard; back-radiation in the context of the atmosphere’s contribution to the radiation exchange with the surface happens to be one of those. I have stated my reasons several times already.
Ray Ladburysays
z1@283: “I see the blanket/glass/insulator analogy repeated despite the obvious fact that no such things exist in the atmosphere.”
and
“If this is all you’ve got, then your GHE emperor probably has no clothes.”
Uh, dude, can you point me to one single solitary, peer-reviewed, published paper that claims that such a layer does exist? Have you even been reading my responses to your questions? If not, I am more than happy to expend my energies elsewhere.
George Box said, “All models are wrong. Some models are useful.” Analogies are a type of model. The blanket/insulator model is not useful as a physical model. I would suggest that you concentrate on the actual models of the greenhouse effect if you are able to parse them. If not, then you are stuck with accounts of such models by those like me who can.
You claim to have a PhD in STEM. What field?
I am beginning to suspect that you are Zeller, himself.
TYSON MCGUFFINsays
283 z1
…Anyone care to comment on this 1917 Einstein paper about radiation, gas molecules, and momentum?…
…What is Einstein talking about here?
Reply
I believe this is the paper where Einstein begins to lay out the theoretical basis for Thermodynamic Equilibrium in the interactions of radiation with matter. The three processes of Kinetic Energy, Molecular Excitation and Photo Emission are each characterized by specific probability distribution functions (Maxwell, Boltzman, Planck, respectivly) that describe the velocity, excitation states and frequency distributions of a system. The three processes occur simultaneously but not at the same temperature but, being coupled, they influence and drive each other’s temperature towards equilibrium.
TYSON MCGUFFINsays
272 Astringent
Tarring a profession, that has made significant contributions to understanding climate change, with the views of mavericks or a sub group with a specific interest in hydrocarbon exploitation is a cheap shot.
Reply
No, not the whole profession. Merely pointing out that there are many “contrarians” within the field.
Most scientists urge shifting to nuclear and/or renewable energy, amply justified by air pollution, dwindling fossil fuels and, many believe, global warming by CO2.
Atmospheric molecules in Blob1 and Blob2 are EQUALLY free to exchange their kinetic energy and momentum with their surroundings. No blanket/glass/insulator prevents this in either.
The ‘blanket’ analogy doesn’t apply to the individual molecules, it applies to the ‘blobs’ as entities. That is, the “blanket” slowing the loss of heat from your body is analogous to to a GHG-laden atmosphere slowing the loss of heat from a blob–or Blob.
The GHE hypothesis claims that ALL parts (rock, gasses, water) of Blob2 are somehow kept warmer than their Blob1 counterparts even though no blanket/glass/insulator exists and no extra energy is added to the system. Both the blanket (insulator) and the mirror (back-radiation) analogies are not even close to describing physical reality.
The GHG hypothesis doesn’t say anything about “blankets” or about “blobs” (or their components) or about “mirrors.” Here’s my attempt to paraphrase it in the form of a causal chain, from #259:
1) mean path-length decreases due to GHG ‘fog’; higher altitude of ERL [effective radiating layer–the mean altitude from which emitted radiation reaches space] is a corollary of that.
2) Due to lapse rate, ERL is now colder as well.
3) That decreases radiative efficacy, per S-B.
4) That creates a radiative imbalance, since now more radiation is coming in than is going out.
5) The radiative imbalance warms the system.
6) The warmer system increases radiative efficacy at TOA, bringing everything back into equilibrium again, but at a slightly higher surface temperature.
if you can’t explain your theory to a child, then you probably don’t understand it yourself. I’m not only not a child but hold a STEM PhD with decades of experience including publishing in and reviewing for peer reviewed-journals.
Have you considered that, if you really were a child, you might have grasped it by now? C.f., Mark Twain’s ‘It’s not what you don’t know that trips you up, it’s what you know that ain’t so.’ (I paraphrase.) I mention this not so much to be snarky, as because you repeatedly characterize “the GHG hypothesis” in ways that show no hint whatever that you know what it actually does say. It suggests that you don’t readily relinquish mistaken ideas.
Killiansays
287 Piotr says:
23 Apr 2021 at 12:08 AM
Killian (280) Science info was posted. Science info was ignored. The ignoring of science info was noted. There is nothing to defend in that sequence. You’re an idiot.”
Eeer, that’s not how I recall it.
Who cares? You’re a nasty, uselessly pedantic little angle-biter. Until you decide not to be, you’re pretty useless and add nothing to this site other don’t already do better.
You might be of use if you decided to stop acting like a rabid chihuahua.
@245 re. “This format is extremely cumbersome for quoting and responding. Is there a more convenient forum (with basic forum features) where these things could be more easily asked/discussed?”
Some subjects need discussion as there are competing views/frames of reference applicable. This particular subject at this particular highly intro level needs the _studying_ of texts and the asking of qualified teachers to clear up confusions. There are many honest clear presentations of the greenhouse effect available and really nothing at all to “discuss” save said student’s confusions.
243 Mr. Know It All
That’s why the founding fathers of the USA included the Bill of Rights. They got sick and tired of living under command and control of kings and bureaucrats. That pesky 2A is the only thing that keeps us free; and is why the left is working 24/7/365 to eliminate it. Be careful what you wish for – you may get it.
Reply
FYI… It is well known, by those who know it well, that Command and Control (CAC) is one of the two traditional approaches to environmental regulations employed by policy-makers for controlling patterns of production and consumption, the other being market based methods. Nothing new here.
Mr. KIA: “That’s why the founding fathers of the USA included the Bill of Rights. They got sick and tired of living under command and control of kings and bureaucrats. That pesky 2A is the only thing that keeps us free; and is why the left is working 24/7/365 to eliminate it. Be careful what you wish for – you may get it.”
What a fucking moron. Dude, my greatest disappointment of Jan. 6 was that the MAGA mob did not try to face down full infantry, tanks and artillery with their piddly-shit little AR-15s. That’s a defense budget I could get behind. The last rebellion didn’t quite go your way, now did it. Where’s General Sherman when you need him.
z1,
The only condition at thermal equilibrium is that energy out= energy in. Energy out is purely radiative–e.g. blackbody. A blackbody spectrum has a distinctive shape, and the planet with no greenhouse gasses will look more or less like a blackbody–modula the fact that its emissivity will not be uniformly 1.
Greenhouse gasses complicate the radiative behavior considerably. The surface will radiate like a blackbody, but the outgoing IR photons will be absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere. Up higher, the atmosphere will also radiate like a blackbody, but because of the temperature gradient, at a lower temperature than the surface. Again, the GHGs will take a bite out of the blackbody spectrum. Eventually, you will get to an altitude where the density of the atmosphere is low enough that an IR photon even in the middle of a GHG absorption band stands a reasonable chance of escaping. At this “Top of Atmosphere–or TOA”, the temperature is much lower than at the surface, so the blackbody radiation that escapes in the GHG absoprtion bands is quite suppressed compared to the rest of the blackbody spectrum. This means that there must be more energy in the spectrum outside of these bands, right? Since the energies of the radiation from both bodies must be equal? So, the surface of the GHG planet must be warmer.
Remember, it’s the presence o GHGs AND the fact that temperature decreases with altitude in the atmosphere that leads to the warming of the surface.
243 You have tendency to be wrong on so many things one of which is off topic here. But I would point out that the second amendment was as it clearly says intended to support a organized and well officered militia. It is to be noted that congress acted to support that act by funding a program to procure and refurbish muskets and rifles to sell to members of state militias! Note that word STATE militias, not every Tom,Dick and Harry but members of state militias.
242 nigelj You seem to be confusing the back radiation issue with the energy budget of the atmosphere as a whole. These are two different things.
Reply
Wrong.As I have said before, here is how it works. The outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) received by the atmosphere is partly absorbed (by the GHGs) and partly transmitted. The portion of OLR that is absorbed is annihilated and converted to kinetic and potential energy of the molecules. In the lower altitudes (higher pressures) of the atmosphere, where collisional processes are dominant and the collisional deexcitation time is shorter than the lifetime of the excited molecular state, the excited molecules transfer their kinetic energy to other molecules. Because following a collision the colliding molecules are moving faster than before, the increased velocities are a measure of increased temperature in the atmosphere. Thus higher GHG concentrations in the atmosphere result in increased collisions and net warming. In the upper atmosphere OLR photons are again extinguished by absorption by GHG molecules, but here their spontaneous emission lifetimes are shorter than the collisional deexcitation times. These new emitted photons do not result in any net warming. As a result, OLR absorbed by the atmosphere is not “reradiated back towards the surface.” The confusion may come from a misinterpretation of the global energy budget diagrams by bloggers and their statistical climatologist followers.
242 nigelj You do come across a bit like a denialist troll, but not entirely.
Reply
You do come across as a bit of the reason God created the middle finger, but not entirely, so I’ll read on.
242 nigelj So what’s you[r] basic point of view? Do you accept human activities, particularly fossil fuels, are the dominant cause of the modern global warming period? (a simple unambiguous answer would be appreciated).
Reply
Yes.
242 nigelj Do you accept solutions should be energy substitution, electric cars etc?
Reply
Yes, an energy transition is inevitable, as is substitution for the petroleum feedstocks into thousands of products essential to modern life.
242 nigelj Are you someone who worries about climate mitigations effects on poor people? ( my instincts say you might).
Reply
Yes, see energy transition above.
242 nigelj What point are you trying to convey about the Anthropocence apart from it being wider than the article suggested?
Reply
Following ten years of study, the Anthropocene Working Group voted two years ago to recognize the Anthropocene as a new geologic epoch marking the impact of humans on the planet. This is a monumental determination since it is made by Earth Scientists. The group is now working to identify the global boundary stratotype location and the physical evidence in the sedimentary record that marks the start of the epoch, after which the Anthropocene will be enshrined in the Geologic Time Scale.
The larger issue is that the professional geological associations have not adopted a formal position on climate change (yet) primarily because of their close ties to energy companies. I see this as a problem because if Earth Scientists see the anthropogenic footprint in the geologic record it follows that their professional societies must do more than simply “encourage members to, through their own research, to continue to develop their own understanding of climate science and policies.” The latter is excerpted from the AAPG’s most recent climate statement.
By contrast, the American Society of Chemical Engineers has the following in its Climate Change Policy Statement says that “Scientific analysis finds that non-natural climate change is occurring and has been strongly influenced by human-caused releases of greenhouse gases… Adverse climate change possess threats to all of us, both individually and as a society. These threats fall squarely in the realm of the Chemical Engineer…”
I see three of our hosts feature in The Reuters Hot List of the world’s top climate scientists.
37th Michael E Mann
72th Stefan Rahmstorf
84th Gavin A Schmidt
To build their Hot List, Reuters say they created a system of identifying and ranking 1,000 climate academics according to how influential they are. So if you publish loads of papers you get rated. If those papers have loads of citations you get rated, although dependent on the average citation-frequency of the specific subject area. And if you get your papers mentioned in the various media (including tweets and facebook) you get rated. These three measures are then totted up to give the final ranking within the “hot list.” Thus the list is topped by Keywan_Riahi who was ranked in the three individual ratings 47th for 205 published papers, 10th for 29,548 citations & 30th in media ranking. And if you squid down right to the bottom, you find Chen Xin Jun of Shanghai Ocean Unversity in 1,000th place.
Reuters do provide some “notes of caution” with this Hot List. First it is not meant to rate if your work as being any good but rather provides “a measure of influence” of the work. Also the criteria may have missed papers not identified for the analysis and can be skewed by a paper or two that hits big in the third media rating. They also see the prolific paper-writers may be over-rated despite the second & third rating being “designed to compensate for this possible bias.”
Not surprisingly, this Hot List has been criticised by some (eg this twitteratti thread which I see includes some swivel-eyed climate change deniers bleating that they are under-represented).
down spikey day at MLO
Daily CO2
Apr. 20, 2021 = 417.12 ppm
Apr. 20, 2020 = 416.29 ppm
Noisy numbers, but thought I would post the unusual daily reading that goes against the trend with a yoy increase under 1 ppm.
co2.earth
Cheers
Mike
z1, #245–
As to mechanism, no, but as to effect, yes. And since you’re working to understand the effect, this could potentially help you out.
In abstract principle, yes. But in reality, solid conduction is largely irrelevant, and I think the water part would directly affect warming trajectory, not equilibrium status. The crucial piece would be lapse rate, which has quite a few variables of interest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
(Per that, the presence or lack of water has a profound effect on atmospheric structure.)
I feel like I’m repeating myself here, but no, that is not the claim. That is, the surface is warmer on the GHG ‘blob’, but not because of back-radiation. It’s warmer because the ‘residence time’ of energy within the system is longer. And the mechanism for that is the change at TOA, where the altitude of the effective radiating layer increases. The back-radiation is a dependent variable in this process–unavoidable, tightly correlated, but not the driver.
(Incidentally, here’s the causality chain there, WRT your point that the temperature is the same: 1) mean path-length decreases due to GHG ‘fog’; higher altitude of ERL is a corollary of that. 2) Due to lapse rate, ERL is now colder as well. 3) That decreases radiative efficacy, per S-B. 4) That creates a radiative imbalance, since now more radiation is coming in than is going out. 5) The radiative imbalance warms the system. 6) The warmer system increases radiative efficacy at TOA, bringing everything back into equilibrium again, but at a slightly higher surface temperature. Voila!)
(Incidentally #2: your ‘baked chicken’ reductio fails principally because it lacks a continuing source of energy input: the chicken can at most cool a tiny bit more slowly because of back radiation (either from the ‘mirrors’ or just from the walls of the oven.) Now if you wanted a closer analogy, what you’d need is a heat source inside the chicken–say, a magic radioactive heater that released no ionizing radiation, just heat. I’ll call it a “Heat Pill.” So, suppose you had two identical chickens and Heat Pills. You place the Pills inside the chickens, and cover one chicken with a plastic spatter shield and the other with a thick coating of thermally insulating clay. Finally, you use a Heat Pill remote to turn on the Pills simultaneously. Which chicken cooks faster?)
Climate Criminal:
The 2nd A has nothing to do with the U.S. being free, cabbagehead. Personal guns do not prevent revolutions, mass incarceration, or anything else. They are used for insurrection, however. See: Jan. 6th, 2021.
255 William B Jackson says:
21 Apr 2021 at 9:17 AM
Further, a series of 4 laws has converted those militias, in a very direct, unambiguous line, into the current National Guard. Beyond participation in the NG or hunting, there is no right to bear arms just because. If one wishes to defend against the Fed Gov, join the NG.
/fini
(Further discussion of this should go elsewhere.)
Tyson Mcguffin #256
So those “newly emitted photons” are all emitted upwards? Wow! You need to get this published in the quantum physics journals as soon as possible!!
Very confused thinking, as I have observed previously.
Re: Killian (220): Killian (91):”I see nobody wants to talk about more relevant climate science “
Piotr (198): 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?
Killian (220) But you’re qualified on all the other aspects of climate. Right…
“Wrong….” – I try to speak on those aspects of climate change on which I know something. What do you do?
Piotr (198) Perhaps if you came up with some interesting questions about the paper we can discuss it more?
Killian (220) Why do you need me to point out what is important about it?
It’s not for me, it’s for you, genius: it was YOU who were complaining that nobody commented on the article YOU brought up. So to YOUR complaining I suggested a technique that might have alleviated the very thing YOU complained about.
Killian (220) Oh, but… I did. This looks like a very important paper on identifying PIG tipping points, reversibility and irreversibility.
We differ in what “interesting” is for us. For me: something new or surprising to me. The idea that if we push a local system too much it may be irreversible – is neither. The post your brought up next – at least had an interesting link(see my next response) and was within my area, so I commented on it (see the other response).
Anthropocene Working Group
Notes
The ‘Anthropocene’ is a term widely used since its coining by Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer in 2000 to denote the present geological time interval, in which many conditions and processes on Earth are profoundly altered by human impact. This impact has intensified significantly since the onset of industrialization, taking us out of the Earth System state typical of the Holocene Epoch that post-dates the last glaciation.
The ‘Anthropocene’ has developed a range of meanings among vastly different scholarly communities. Here we examine the Anthropocene as a geological time (chronostratigraphic) unit and potential addition to the Geological Time Scale.
Phenomena associated with the Anthropocene include: an order-of-magnitude increase in erosion and sediment transport associated with urbanization and agriculture; marked and abrupt anthropogenic perturbations of the cycles of elements such as carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and various metals together with new chemical compounds; environmental changes generated by these perturbations, including global warming, sea-level rise, ocean acidification and spreading oceanic ‘dead zones’; rapid changes in the biosphere both on land and in the sea, as a result of habitat loss, predation, explosion of domestic animal populations and species invasions; and the proliferation and global dispersion of many new ‘minerals’ and ‘rocks’ including concrete, fly ash and plastics, and the myriad ‘technofossils’ produced from these and other materials.
Many of these changes will persist for millennia or longer, and are altering the trajectory of the Earth System, some with permanent effect. They are being reflected in a distinctive body of geological strata now accumulating, with potential to be preserved into the far future.
The Anthropocene is not currently a formally defined geological unit within the Geological Time Scale; officially we still live within the Meghalayan Age of the Holocene Epoch. A proposal to formalise the Anthropocene is being developed by the AWG.
253 – Ray Ladbury
“The last rebellion didn’t quite go your way, now did it.”
No, it didn’t go the way I’d have preferred. In case you didn’t notice, our side (the freedom-loving, law-abiding good guys) did not have to get past any troops or tanks to get inside the building, because there were no troops or tanks. The Capitol Police let some of them inside and took photos with them. (Some folks did break and enter or tried to enter other locations.) And, in case you didn’t notice our guys did not have any AR-15s or any other kind of firearm in the building. Some “rebellion”, eh? Some called it sedition. Laughable in both cases. The obvious sedition occurred on Nov 3 when the voting stopped simultaneously in about 6 swing states. Truth. It hurts sometimes.
TYSON MCGUFFIN @250,
You reply saying “Wrong” and wrong you are at pretty-much every turn.
Did you just make all that crap up on your own? Or did you get help of a fellow cretin?
I rather dismiss the possibility that you have managed to entirely misread some sensible account of how the greenhouse effect works. (I think this is very unlikely as the level of misreading would have to be catastrophic, something difficult to achieve even for someone as stupid as the likes of troll TYSON MCGUFFIN.)
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me and others … 15 times, shame … on George W. for screwing up the saying?
TYSON MCGUFFIN arriving on RC: (81) “Where did the idea of “back radiation” originate? I see mention of back radiation warming the surface of the earth but have not been able to trace its origin.”
Week and a half later not only has it already traced its origin:
McGuffin(256): “it may come from a misinterpretation of the global energy budget diagrams by bloggers and their statistical climatologist followers.”
but rebuffs any attempt at educating him:
nigelj (242):” You seem to be confusing the back radiation issue with the energy budget of the atmosphere as a whole. These are two different things.”
MCGUFFIN(256) “Wrong. As I have said before, here is how it works.
[…] OLR absorbed by the atmosphere is not “reradiated back towards the surface.”
And rewards the rest of us for trying to explain things to him:
-“Your reading comprehension is lacking.”
– “You missed that?”
– “That makes absolutely no sense”
– “Most replies to my query indicate that you either did not read/understand”
– “Fruit for thought though, pretend for a moment, a day even, that the author is not part of an evil empire of disinformation”
– “My advise to you is: talk less but say more.”
– “The sanctimony and low reading comprehension in some of these replies are off the charts.”
– “I will admit that not all replies to my original query were simply sanctimonious, others are just pure hubris“.
-“[to MARodger] I have updated and fixed your Global Energy Budget so you don’t embarrass yourself again with your back radiation B.S. (Bad Science).”
[and when he could not show the “fixing” part]: “Oh my! Why so cranky? You are ridiculous“.
[All above – a sample from just a couple of days.]
What else do we need to see this is NOT a poor soul wanting to learn something, but a troll. And, yes, “entirely”, Nigel, “entirely”^*.
======
^* nigelj(242): “You do come across a bit like a denialist troll, but not entirely.”
Mcguffin(256): “You do come across as a bit of the reason God created the middle finger, but not entirely, so I’ll read on.”
=========
TYSON MCGUFFIN @256, thanks for the clarifications. Perhaps one of the experts can comment on your understanding of the greenhouse effect. Sounds right for the lower atmosphere but the description for the upper atmosphere sounds a bit odd. Yes I confess I’m probably sometimes the reason god created the middle finger, ha ha. I will try to be better behaved in future. Good point about geologists. Ian Plimer is a geologist sceptical of climate change who wrote a nonsensical book “Heaven and Earth” and he’s worked in the fossil fuel industry. Divided loyalties. Not good enough.
@245 re. “But the analogy with the GHE remains since the claim there is that CO2 back-radiation in Blob2 somehow makes its rock, atmosphere, AND water parts warmer than their Blob1 counterparts even though the same energy comes into both Blobs from the Sun and gets radiated back into open space.”
When you sequester energy under a physical blanket you do notice the warmth under the covers. What you apparently never did notice–but actually occurs–is that at the moment you crawl under the covers, the temps in the room (gases and inner surfaces) cool slightly over the prior situation when you were out in the room naked radiating heat. Also, even at thermal equilibrium, the top of the blankets radiate all your heat into the room, true (else you’d die). That is, the tops of the blankets while radiating precisely the same amount of heat as you generate don’t radiate at anywhere near blood temps. They radiate at a much cooler temp.
This is the reason we wear more insulating clothes in the winter than in the summer: When we are cold we want to sequester more of our waste heat near the body for a longer period. But we still radiate about the same 100W of energy no matter what the temps are (again, else we’d die) and regardless of what we are or are not wearing. Just not at the same wavelengths.
Ever worn various thermal evasion gear in the military? Gets warm inside. (For anyone who doesn’t accept mainstream science texts, various “militia” sites–e.g., oathkeepers, et. al.–have literal tons of info on this topic as well.)
Greenhouse gases do the same though through a different physical mechanism. The math says when you sequester heat in the lower layers of the atmosphere upper layers must cool. And guess what: THIS IS WHAT IS OBSERVED! Google “stratospheric cooling”. Or, study the decade-old article on the subject at skepticalscience.com: https://skepticalscience.com/Stratospheric_Cooling.html
KIA @264
“No, it didn’t go the way I’d have preferred. In case you didn’t notice, our side (the freedom-loving, law-abiding good guys”
You describe people breaking into the white house as “law abiding” and do it with a straight face? Is that irony or something? KIA they were nothing more than delusional, violent, intimidating idiots.
Plus your second amendment is as clear as mud. Googled it, and people cant even agree on what it means, whether its just about militias, or allows anyone to bear arms. This is your frigging constitution? You Americans put a man on the moon, and this is the best you have about guns?
Re: Killian (220) defending 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“
Piotr (198): [because that] would require expertise we don’t have?
Killian (220): – But you’re qualified on all the other aspects of climate. Right
Piotr(262) – “Wrong….” – I try to speak on those aspects of climate change on which I know something. See my P(198): 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, whip it good … “] […] 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.
K: I don’t give the slightest damn about his rhetoric.
Since you BROUGHT UP the post under _that_ title, ASKED that we discuss it, and are DEFENDING this headline claim (“that’s not ripping the heart out?“), so the lady doth protest too much …
K(220): “You think fish can just go anywhere and the ecosystem up the road will support them, it seems, which completely ignores how ecosystems work and trophic cascades”
I think that only in your head. In my actual writing (Piotr 198) I merely state that the ability of pelagic fish to migrate into colder water is BETTER than the ability of the tropical rainforest species to migrate north and south, because land migration are MORE constrained by “geography and human presence”. And this was NOT to trivialize the climatic impacts to marine species, as you insinuate, but to say the effect of deforestation of Amazon is EVEN much more dramatic, because animals there have nowhere to go.
So, with:
– DIFFERENT initial species richness distribution (flat between 40S and 40 N in the ocean vs. massive peak around equator on land)
– DIFFERENT ability to respond to changes (species from eq. moving to N and S vs. nowhere to go because of “geography and human presence” in the Amazon)
-DIFFERENT main cause of changes (Climate change in the ocean, Deforestation on land)
you need DIFFERENT studies to make claims about the land than the PNAS paper about the ocean.
Then, I made some points about that PNAS paper, and summed it up as Piotr(196):
– 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”
Reading that, the same Killian who just lamented the lack of interest in new and relevant science, relegated all the above to the role of a jumping board (“”that’s not ripping the heart out?“) to defend the “ We’re Ripping the Heart Out of Life on Earth” headline that he … “does not give the slightest damn about”
I must hand it out to you, Killian, you certainly know to stimulate productive discussion, one that sticks to the core scientific information from new papers, and avoids being derailed into rhetorical technicalities.
MCGUFFIN @ 250
Nope. Not wrong in the least. McGuffin is so full of himself and his utter and total BS.
Mostly true, although annihilated is a very odd way to refer to the energy transformation.
Mostly true. Fancy way to say that energy from the CO2 molecules warmed by long wave absorption is transferred by conduction to other molecules in the atmosphere, but whatever. Key here is atmospheric warming occurs. What is ignored is that the CO2 molecules cannot transfer all that absorbed energy by conduction due to the second law of thermodynamics—heat flows from hot to cold. At equilibrium, both the CO2 molecules and the rest of the atmosphere are warmer than before the long wave radiation was absorbed by the CO2. And, by gosh, that CO2 molecule radiates continuously as it it is warmer than absolute zero—in ALL DIRECTIONS. Since its net temperature increases along with the rest of the atmosphere, the amount of radiation it emits increases equally in all directions due to that temperature increase and the increased portion of that radiation toward the surface is (gasp) back radiation.
This is actually funny. Spontaneous emissions? bahaha. The GHG molecules emit only based on their temperatures. If they are warmer, they emit more per S-B. Whether they warm the rest of the atmosphere by conduction (collisions) or not is moot. That radiation is in all directions with half of that radiation up and half back towards the surface–again (gasp) back radiation.
In summary, this is utter BS. There is no confusion by those with any kind of background in radiative physics and thermodynamics. Back radiation exists and can be measured at the surface and through spectroscopy its sources can be identified—and it comes from greenhouse gases—FACT. Anyone can take a digital infrared temperature thermometer and point it at the night sky and detect back radiation.
So in the plainest language possible here is how how it really works. CO2 (and water vapor along with other greenhouse gasses) in the atmosphere absorbs most of the long wave radiation emitted by the surface within tens of meters of the surface. Some of that absorbed energy is transferred to the rest of the atmosphere through conduction and the rest of it is re-radiated in all directions with half of that radiation back toward the surface and half upward where it can be reabsorbed by greenhouse gases higher up. This process continues upward through the atmosphere. The overall temperature of the atmosphere increases due to the absorption. However, it should be noted that due to the lapse rate the temperature of the atmosphere decreases linearly upward. Why this is so will be left for another discussion although it should be noted that heat also transfers upward due to convection.
Since space is mostly a vacuum. The only way for heat to escape from the earth system is through radiation—this radiation is mostly from greenhouse gases since most of the long wave radiation from the surface has been absorbed in the atmosphere and then re-emitted continuously both up and down. Per the S-B law, for equilibrium, it is the layer of the atmosphere where radiation can finally escape upward without reabsorption that must be at the equilibrium temperature of emittance per S-B. The lapse rate then determines the surface temperature required to warm that layer to the equilibrium temperature required. Adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere increases their overall density throughout the atmosphere and thus raises the elevation that the radiation can escape unimpeded. Lapse rate determines the new surface temperature required to raise the atmospheric temperature to that higher elevation. Back radiation is the mechanism.
Tyson @256 and Nigelj at @267 suggest geologists don’t recognize climate change. The world’s oldest Geological Society certainly does (https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/climatechange). The Geological Society of America has made clear statements (https://www.geosociety.org/GSA/Science_Policy/Position_Statements/Current_Statements/gsa/positions/position10.aspx).
Tarring a profession, that has made significant contributions to understanding climate change, with the views of mavericks or a sub group with a specific interest in hydrocarbon exploitation is a cheap shot.
264. “the freedom-loving, law-abiding good guys”
Your guys killed Heather in Charlottesville, the people in the church in SC, and the people at the synagogue in Pittsburgh, among many others. DHS has made it clear that white supremacists are the greatest threat in the nation. Let alone your blatant lies about 11/3. Your hatred of scientific facts and democracy as well are vile.
#261 zebra: So those “newly emitted photons” are all emitted upwards? Wow!
Reply
I did not say that. Your reading comprehension is lacking as I have observed previously.
TM 250: These new emitted photons do not result in any net warming.
BPL: Then where do they go?
TM 256: These new emitted photons do not result in any net warming.
BPL: That’s the second time you’ve made that statement. What happens to these photons that cause no net warming?
KIA 264: Some “rebellion”, eh? Some called it sedition. Laughable in both cases.
BPL: I call it treason. Those militia assholes you so admire beat a cop to death, traumatized two more so badly they committed suicide, put over a hundred in the hospital or in the infirmary, erected a gallows to “Hang Mike Pence!”, shit in the halls, stole classified documents, and otherwise acted like the lawless, irresponsible brownshirts they are. If you think they were the good guys, there is something deeply wrong with you.
More on back radiation.
MCGUFFIN apparently has made up his own definition of “back radiation” although it isn’t by any means clear what the hell that definition is.
Here is what Raymond T. Pierrehumbert says about it in his textbook: Principles of Planetarry Climate, page 197
From NASA Earth Observatory we have:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/page6.php
So technically “back radiation” is any of the radiation emitted by the atmosphere downward toward the surface…i.e. radiation emitted by greenhouse gases whose temperature is higher than they would be if they had not absorbed the long wave radiation from the surface. It would appear that calling it “re-emitted radiation” is confusing to McGuffin because I can only surmise he seems to think calling this “re-emitted radiation” is saying that the exact same photons that were absorbed are being emitted back out. But that would be silly, the GHG is simply emitting radiation at a higher rate in all directions due to its increased temperature.
A bit tangential to climate change, but of interest and a bit of concern:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dbzan/american-honey-is-radioactive-from-decades-of-nuclear-bomb-testing
Plus, I seem to recall being assured, years ago and on these very boards, that of radioactive waste products only strontium bio-concentrates in the environment. Wrong, apparently!
270 Piotr says:
21 Apr 2021 at 10:05 PM
Science info was posted. Science info was ignored. The ignoring of science info was noted.
There is nothing to defend in that sequence.
You’re an idiot.
Troll MCGUFFIN @247,
You respond to the comment @261 that said “So those “newly emitted photons” are all emitted upwards? Wow!” by replying “I did not say that. Your reading comprehension is lacking as I have observed previously.”
That you “did not say that” may perhaps be forensically true but do note that neither did I say any of the words set out in this comment. Rather, I set them out in writing.
However what you did undeniably write @250 and @256 was (as pointed out @261):-
Note that “OLR” (or Outward Long-wave Radiation”) usually refers to the radiation that is shot out into space so it would not be absorbed (in you idiosyncratic-speak “extinguished”) within the Earthly atmosphere. But were it to include radiation which was absorbed in the “upper atmosphere,” you are certainly “saying” those newly emitted photons (as in such circumstance absorption is almost always closely matched by emission) are all emitted upwards.
Deny it as much as your moronic reality can cope with, but it does not make you any less truthful as your sole possible excuse is that you are not a bare-face liar but instead a cretinous moron who simply cannot be trusted.
I enjoy and hopefully benefit from the discussion of climate issues on this forum. It is disappointing to see Mr KIA offer support for the violent seditious mob that stormed the Capitol on 1/6 and then offer baseless conspiracy theories about election fraud. If KIA has “evidence” of this alleged fraud he should give it to Sidney Powell because so far her defamation defense has been “my election fraud claims were so outrageous and ridiculous” no one should have believed them. Also, how does KIA know how many of the rioters were armed with guns since the overwhelming majority were allowed to leave without being arrested or searched.
I see the blanket/glass/insulator analogy repeated despite the obvious fact that no such things exist in the atmosphere. Atmospheric molecules in Blob1 and Blob2 are EQUALLY free to exchange their kinetic energy and momentum with their surroundings. No blanket/glass/insulator prevents this in either. The GHE hypothesis claims that ALL parts (rock, gasses, water) of Blob2 are somehow kept warmer than their Blob1 counterparts even though no blanket/glass/insulator exists and no extra energy is added to the system. Both the blanket (insulator) and the mirror (back-radiation) analogies are not even close to describing physical reality.
On a more general note, and to paraphrase Feynman, if you can’t explain your theory to a child, then you probably don’t understand it yourself. I’m not only not a child but hold a STEM PhD with decades of experience including publishing in and reviewing for peer reviewed-journals. If this is all you’ve got, then your GHE emperor probably has no clothes.
Anyone care to comment on this 1917 Einstein paper about radiation, gas molecules, and momentum?
https://inspirehep.net/files/9e9ac9d1e25878322fe8876fdc8aa08d
“During absorption and emission of radiation there is also present a transfer of momentum to the molecules. This means that just the interaction of radiation and molecules leads to a velocity distribution of the latter. This must surely be the same as the velocity distribution which molecules acquire as the result of their mutual interaction by collisions, that is, it must coincide with the Maxwell distribution. We must require that the mean kinetic energy which a molecule per degree of freedom acquires in a Plank radiation field of temperature T be
kT / 2
this must be valid regardless of the nature of the molecules and independent of frequencies which the molecules absorb and emit.”
“If beam of radiation has the effect that a molecule on which it is incident
absorbs or emits an amount of energy hν in the from of radiation by means
of an elementary process, then the momentum hν/c is always transferred to
the molecule, and, to be sure, in the case of absorption, in the direction of
the moving beam and in the case of emission in the opposite direction. If the
molecule is subject to the simultaneous action of beams moving in various
directions, then only one of these taken part in any single elementary process
of incident radiation; this beam alone then determined the direction of the
momentum transferred to the molecule.
If, through an emission process, the molecule suffers a radiant loss of
energy of magnitude hν without the action of an outside agency, then this
process, too, is a directed one. Emission in spherical waves does not occur.
According to the present state of the theory, the molecule suffers a recoil of
magnitude hν/c in a particular direction only because of the chance emission
in that direction.”
“Almost all theories of thermal radiation rest on the considerations of the interaction between radiation and molecules. But, in general, one is satisfied with dealing only with the energy exchange, without taking into account the momentum exchange. One feels justified in this because the momentum transferred by radiation is so small that it always drops out as compared to that from other dynamical processes. But for the theoretical considerations, this small effect is on an equal footing with the energy transferred by radiation because energy and
momentum are very intimately related to each other. A theory may therefore
be considered correct only if it can show that the momentum transferred
accordingly from the radiation to the matter leads to the kind of motion that is demanded by thermodynamics.”
What is Einstein talking about here?
I wonder if Tyson McGuffin, who does not seem like a climate denialist as such, has a massive case of dunning kruger, and a desire to make a name for himself by some revelation on back radiation.
——————–
Astringent @272, I didn’t say all geologists were sceptical or equivocal about the climate issue, but a significant minority don’t in my experience. That was all I wanted to draw attention to.
Oh curse the typos. Try again. Astringent @272, I didn’t say all geologists were sceptical or equivocal about the climate issue, but a significant minority are in my experience. That was all I wanted to draw attention to.
z1 @283
“I see the blanket/glass/insulator analogy repeated despite the obvious fact that no such things exist in the atmosphere.”
Yes there’s nothing physical like a blanket in the atmosphere. The point of an analogy is to use simple physical things to provide a insight into how complex processes work. As long as there is SOME connection between the two that will suffice.
“On a more general note, and to paraphrase Feynman, if you can’t explain your theory to a child, then you probably don’t understand it yourself. ”
Ok, so and explanation to child: We are adding carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels, and CO2 absorbs heat energy and it then causes the whole lower atmosphere to warm up. Its a little but like being under a blanket.
What is wrong with that? Nothing, except to a climate denialist troll. Im sure you wouldnt be one of those…
Killian (280) Science info was posted. Science info was ignored. The ignoring of science info was noted. There is nothing to defend in that sequence. You’re an idiot.”
Eeer, that’s not how I recall it. Rather:
A technical paper on glacier was posted. Nobody had the expertise to comment. Umbrage was taken, penises mentioned. New science item, under a catchy scientific title: “ We’are ripping the Heart Out of Life on Earth” was brought in for discussion. The problems with new article were pointed, The points were not comprehended, attempts at irony ensued. The umbrage was at at technicality (use of the word “defending”) thank to all arguments were deleted and ignored and their author, in a classic scientific comeback, called: You’re an idiot.“… That’s how I remember it.
But to avoid the “he said, she said” – here is the original, so anybody can decide for themselves who of us two, Killian or I, tells the truth about it:
==== “Piotr(262): ==============
” Re: Killian (220) defending 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“
Piotr (198): [because that] would require expertise we don’t have?
Killian (220):” But you’re qualified on all the other aspects of climate. Right…
Piotr(262) – “Wrong….” – I try to speak on those aspects of climate change on which I know something. See my P(198) […]
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.
K(220): “I don’t give the slightest damn about his rhetoric.”
Since you BROUGHT UP the post under _that_ title, ASKED that we discuss it, and are DEFENDING this headline claim (“that’s not ripping the heart out?“), so the lady doth protest too much …
K(220): “You think fish can just go anywhere and the ecosystem up the road will support them, it seems, which completely ignores how ecosystems work and trophic cascades”
I think that only in your head. In my actual writing (Piotr 198) I merely state that the ability of pelagic fish to migrate into colder water is BETTER than the ability of the tropical rainforest species to migrate north and south, because land migration are MORE constrained by “geography and human presence”. And this was NOT to trivialize the climatic impacts to marine species, as you insinuate, but to say the effect of deforestation of Amazon is EVEN much more dramatic, because animals there have nowhere to go.
So, with:
– DIFFERENT initial species richness distribution (flat between 40S and 40 N in the ocean vs. massive peak around equator on land)
– DIFFERENT ability to respond to changes (species from eq. moving to N and S vs. nowhere to go because of “geography and human presence” in the Amazon)
-DIFFERENT main cause of changes (Climate change in the ocean, Deforestation on land)
you need DIFFERENT studies to make claims about the land than the PNAS paper about the ocean.
[Then, I made 4 specific _scientific_ observations on the PNAS paper – see Piotr(196)] Reading that, the same Killian who just lamented the lack of interest in science, used [4 observations] as a jumping board (“that’s not ripping the heart out?“) to defend the very “We’re Ripping the Heart Out of Life on Earth” headline that he … “does not give the slightest damn about”.
I must hand it out to you, Killian, you certainly know to stimulate productive discussion, one that sticks to the core scientific information from new papers, and avoids being derailed into rhetorical technicalities.
====
Killian(280) deletes all the above, puts up his version of events [see at the top] and wraps up neatly with: “You’re an idiot“
A Year to Change the World features Greta Thunberg, and a good few recognizable figures such as Mike Mann, Kevin Anderson, Attenborough, and even Kate Raworth – 3 hours (2 1/2 really) – aired on PBS and no doubt there will be repeats and streaming. IMNSHO it is a must watch. Greta Thunberg appears to be a remarkably clear, forceful, observant, intelligent, and humble being. I knew she was good, but I’ve never seen anything like it. She just doesn’t get in her own way, or in the way of what she has to say. A truly heroic life (and hats off to her family too).
https://www.pbs.org/show/greta-thunberg-year-change-world/
There was a little short in the 19 April 2021 New Yorker issue about her. Greta Thunberg’s Happy Crusade – From a Stockholm safe house, the teen-age activist discusses her disappointment in Biden and Merkel, her new documentary, and pranking her parents.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/19/greta-thunbergs-happy-crusade
z1 (283): “On a more general note, and to paraphrase Feynman, if you can’t explain your theory to a child, then you probably don’t understand it yourself.”
I can see several _more likely_ possibilities:
a) you disproved Feynman (congratulations!)
b) Feynman did not anticipated adults so set in their ways that they resist any attempt to explain things to them
c) you are intellectually BELOW the level of a child
d) you are a denier troll
And there is a simple test to narrow down which of the four, by seeing how, after claiming:
z1 I see the blanket/glass/insulator analogy repeated despite the obvious fact that no such things exist in the atmosphere
you explain why the Earth does not have the average temperature around -15C^*. Which it WOULD HAVE TO HAVE if your arrogance:
“ the blanket/glass/insulator analogy repeated despite the obvious fact that no such things exist in the atmosphere.”
was justified.
So?
=====
^*To calculate that -15C I used:
Stefan Boltzmann F= sigma*T^4 for σ = 5.670374419…×10−8 W⋅m−2⋅K−4; average Earth Emissivity assumed around 0.95.
For the steady state Earth -let’s use the Trenberth 2009 budget https://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Jeremy.Schnittman/Oreopoulos.pdf
IR has to emit ONLY = 341(incoming solar) – 102(albedo) – = 239 W/m2
And that’s CONSERVATIVE calculation – with latent heat and thermals included
the effective emission WOULD BE EVEN LOWER.
===
z1 @283,
You ask “What is Einstein talking about here?” That would be ‘Radiation Pressure’.
What is perhaps more difficult to understand is how somebody who professes to hold a PhD in some aspect of science, technology, engineering or maths could be unable to grasp what any child would effortlessly cope with. Perhaps we are expecting too much of you (by assuming you was edgemacated proper).
So let me reduce this to baby-speak.
☻ There is a blanket on your GHG BLOB2. The planet shoots radiation out into space from high in its very cold upper atmosphere.
☻ There is no blanket on your non-GHG BLOB1. The planet shoots radiation out into space from the very cold surface which is equally as cold as the very cold upper atmosphere on BLOB2.
☻ The processes of conduction and convection are unable to shift energy up from the surface of BLOB2 without a temperature gradient. Thus there will always be a temperature difference between the surface of BLOB2 and its upper atmosphere. So BLOB2’s surface will always be warmer than its very cold upper atmosphere.
☻ And as the processes of conduction and convection on planet Earth are so weak, the atmosphere is effectively stationary and works like the blanket on your bed at home.
In the atmosphere, the vertical up-&-down movement of air is mostly reduced to a process that doesn’t involve any cooling of the warm surface or warming of the cold upper atmosphere. So the air insulates like your blanket. It is a process regulated by what grown-ups call an adiabatic lapse rate. That means the atmosphere gets cold as the air becomes thinner and this happens quite quickly, at about 10°C per vertical kilometre in dry air. That is why you can often see snow on the tops of mountains even though it has all melted away on their lower slopes.
mike @258,
The Scripps MLO CO2 numbers have been yielding the daily 12-month CO2 increases as sub-2ppm for the past week, actually averaging under 1ppm (+0.93ppm).
The less noisy 30-day average has now also dropped strongly into the sub-2ppm zone which is where it would be expected (wobbles aside) to reside for a period given we have been in La Niña conditions for some months now.
Of course, as you usually mention, these are noisy data.
279
Kevin McKinney says:
22 Apr 2021 at 12:24 PM
One reason nuclear zealots get it so wrong is the failure to apply or outright dismissal of the Precautionary Principle. I have used very simple questions to illustrate this, but all you get back is magical thinking:
Look at where humanity was 10k yrs ago. Look at what remains of what we built then. Given all the infrastructure for waste is already fragile, can you predict how the world will be in 1,000 years, let alone another 10k?
The answer is, of course, magic: We will find solutions… someday… and before we need them… because.
Of Students, Trolls, and Sock Puppets,
This is for all the people who have been responding to the z1/TM entity.
1. Does anyone doubt that this is the same person? (see #283, where it forgets which persona it is supposed to be)
2. I’ve made this point a couple of times: The goal is to “own the libs” and create the illusion of a real debate. This is true for some of the regulars like KIA as well.
3. And I’ve made the point that the best way to deal with them is not to ‘splain and lecture at length, because that serves their purpose.
Even if they were sincere students, it is pointless to go through all the details when someone obviously is making fundamental errors like ignoring conservation of energy. The first, essential step in helping a student who doesn’t understand something is figuring out what they do understand.
So, instead of allowing them to manipulate you, why not require that they demonstrate what they do or do not understand… otherwise, they get no responses.
I submit my earlier questions to z1/tm as examples (e.g #249) of such an approach. In my experience, if it is a troll and not a student, it results in revelation of the troll-ness, or they just run away.
These are not your peers; why play along with their childish games??
Rely to 278 CCHolley
Yes, I am aware that Dr. Pierrehumbert (2009) has given a nod to the “back-radiation” colloquialism in discussing the atmosphere’s contribution to the two-way radiation exchange with the surface; many authors do.
In my search for its first appearance I was surprised to find that Salby didn’t use the term in his Fundamentals (1996) book nor the revised edition (2012). He does however use the half-up-half-down “accounting” characterization when discussing global energy budgets. Granted this is the same AGW “contrarian” Salby (https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Murry_Salby.htm), but it is worth mentioning because the same characterization has been repeated by some in this month’s comments.
284 nigelj 10:09 PM
I wonder if Tyson McGuffin, who does not seem like a climate denialist as such, has a massive case of dunning kruger, and a desire to make a name for himself by some revelation on back radiation.
Reply:
No need to wonder because I have neither. I am simply that guy for whom certain colloquialisms have the same effect as hearing the screech of fingernails on a chalkboard; back-radiation in the context of the atmosphere’s contribution to the radiation exchange with the surface happens to be one of those. I have stated my reasons several times already.
z1@283: “I see the blanket/glass/insulator analogy repeated despite the obvious fact that no such things exist in the atmosphere.”
and
“If this is all you’ve got, then your GHE emperor probably has no clothes.”
Uh, dude, can you point me to one single solitary, peer-reviewed, published paper that claims that such a layer does exist? Have you even been reading my responses to your questions? If not, I am more than happy to expend my energies elsewhere.
George Box said, “All models are wrong. Some models are useful.” Analogies are a type of model. The blanket/insulator model is not useful as a physical model. I would suggest that you concentrate on the actual models of the greenhouse effect if you are able to parse them. If not, then you are stuck with accounts of such models by those like me who can.
You claim to have a PhD in STEM. What field?
I am beginning to suspect that you are Zeller, himself.
283 z1
…Anyone care to comment on this 1917 Einstein paper about radiation, gas molecules, and momentum?…
…What is Einstein talking about here?
Reply
I believe this is the paper where Einstein begins to lay out the theoretical basis for Thermodynamic Equilibrium in the interactions of radiation with matter. The three processes of Kinetic Energy, Molecular Excitation and Photo Emission are each characterized by specific probability distribution functions (Maxwell, Boltzman, Planck, respectivly) that describe the velocity, excitation states and frequency distributions of a system. The three processes occur simultaneously but not at the same temperature but, being coupled, they influence and drive each other’s temperature towards equilibrium.
272 Astringent
Tarring a profession, that has made significant contributions to understanding climate change, with the views of mavericks or a sub group with a specific interest in hydrocarbon exploitation is a cheap shot.
Reply
No, not the whole profession. Merely pointing out that there are many “contrarians” within the field.
#283, z1–
The ‘blanket’ analogy doesn’t apply to the individual molecules, it applies to the ‘blobs’ as entities. That is, the “blanket” slowing the loss of heat from your body is analogous to to a GHG-laden atmosphere slowing the loss of heat from a blob–or Blob.
The GHG hypothesis doesn’t say anything about “blankets” or about “blobs” (or their components) or about “mirrors.” Here’s my attempt to paraphrase it in the form of a causal chain, from #259:
Have you considered that, if you really were a child, you might have grasped it by now? C.f., Mark Twain’s ‘It’s not what you don’t know that trips you up, it’s what you know that ain’t so.’ (I paraphrase.) I mention this not so much to be snarky, as because you repeatedly characterize “the GHG hypothesis” in ways that show no hint whatever that you know what it actually does say. It suggests that you don’t readily relinquish mistaken ideas.
287 Piotr says:
23 Apr 2021 at 12:08 AM
Killian (280) Science info was posted. Science info was ignored. The ignoring of science info was noted. There is nothing to defend in that sequence. You’re an idiot.”
Eeer, that’s not how I recall it.
Who cares? You’re a nasty, uselessly pedantic little angle-biter. Until you decide not to be, you’re pretty useless and add nothing to this site other don’t already do better.
You might be of use if you decided to stop acting like a rabid chihuahua.