Great presentation David, thank you. I really appreciated your reference to Javier Vinos and his books. The point that Javier makes about the earth's climate and the conservation of energy is fascinating to me. As warm ocean water is transported to the poles via AMO, the poles are able to release that energy to space with no water vapor to stop it. It's counterintuitive to think that warming poles mean increased energy losses to space. Best of luck with your classes.
Great presentation, slightly above my pay grade but very enjoyable and a nice starting point for a deep dive. Thanks David and special thanks to Tom for his tireless work. Cheers.
Well, you invited constructive comment. So here goes. If you want to talk in proper physical terminology, you will say, for example at 1:15, that heat comes into the earth as short wave radiation, and leaves it as long wave radiation. Radiation is a form of heat. The absorbed heat becomes internal energy, which is also the source of emitted radiation. The proper thermodynamic definition of 'heat' is 'energy in transfer by mechanisms other than thermodynamic work or transfer of matter'. This is a definition by exclusion. For a closed system, it guarantees the proper division of transferred energy into thermodynamic work and heat. Thermodynamics proper, being a macroscopic topic, eschews talk of such microscopic things as molecules. As helpful and valid explanation, one can say that heat is energy in transfer by microscopic mechanisms, such as radiation, thermal conduction, and friction, but that is explanation, not proper thermodynamic talk. Very often, people talk as if they thought that heat as such is stored in a body, but such talk is really a residue of the now obsolete caloric theory of heat. You won't find the foregoing except by reading and carefully analysing and comparing many textbooks of thermodynamics. One where it is made clearest is Buchdahl, H.A. (1966), 'The Concepts of Classical Thermodynamics', Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK. The current Wikipedia definition is for heat transfer engineers, not for thermodynamics proper.
Fantastic David and thankyou Tom for getting David back, I tell you what the world has a lot to learn when it comes to the so-called settled science. Thankyou.
Actually, I do have a Question! Has anybody counted up how much Time, Money, Effort, Taxes, Fines, etc.,has been invested in trying to understand The Climate, then - more importantly, what are the benefits to humanity & Our Planet from all that investment? People used to criticize The Space Race, but it seems there were plenty of tangible benefits. Where's the upside to Climate Science? (Apart from expanding knowledge & understanding.)?
I really like your line of thinking here and comparison to the space race where some benefits were derived. From my point of view, there is little to nothing to show for the investment in the climate hysteria, and the money could have been spent on other things where there would be clear benefit - infrastructure, health care, education, etc. The waste is not a neutral waste, it is extremely sad for humanity. Also we need to look at the environmental damage from wind and solar and rare metal mining.
The upside is purely political: WEF, UN control over the masses. Eat, drive, live, spend as we tell you to. Recruit disciples via "research" grants and "media" funding. That's the "upside".
Given that the alarmists have convinced world governments to spend billions of every currency on subsidising solar and wind energy production, there is a direct wealth reduction effect from all the climate hysteria. And don't get me going about EV's !!
Really enjoyable, actually watched it all, rather than merely listening. I appreciate we can't convince people they are being hoodwinked - but perhaps we could convince taxpayers that spending their hard earned money on things which are NOT improving our lives, are actually damaging the planet and making us POORER and more vulnerable, is not a Good Idea. Maybe we should be asking people where they love to vacation? Where they have spent most of their vacation time? Perhaps studying tourist trends - like the airport in the Maldives, to see what that tells us and whether that might help ease people's (irrational) Fears. That a slightly warmer planet is to be embraced, or accepted, and certainly not demonized and monetized against us - when considering the alternative (colder will be horrible!). Thank you David & Tom.
As a Londoner it is great how the freezing Thames is so often used as a reference for cooling. I hope to live to see people skating on the Thames in 2050!
BertWald: Be careful what you wish for. A recent paper estimates the probability of an AMOC* collapse (caused by global warming caused by increased CO2) before 2050 at between 42% and 76%. An AMOC collapse is estimated to cause a decline in February average temperatures in London of around 10degC. *AMOC = Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.
A significant part of the Thames freezing was the speed at which it flowed and its depth. The old London Bridge had many piers, which slowed the river's rate of flow, while at the same time it was broader and shallower, picking up more silt in the process. Since those times, London bridge has been rebuilt with far fewer piers, the river has been constantly dredged and embankments built which reclaimed land from the edges of the river. None of this, of course, changes the actual temperature differences.
I do enjoy your presentation and it definitely above my fireplace but understand your argument to a degree that makes sense to me and I do agree that CO2 is not the "bad guy" in this equation and has no influence on climate as it fluctuated wildly through the millennia past.
Great discussion and presentation. I think it would be valuable to have a conversation with Ben Miller (of SuspiciousObservers; no financial interest) about the effect the Earth's weakening geomagnetic field and its effect on climate. And how the failure to incorporate this effect into models may be making things seem chaotic/erratic when they are not.
Great lecture. One tiny addition: CO2 warmed through radiation doesn't only give that warmth to atmospheric N2 and O2, but also the other way around: warm N2 and O2 also give more warmth to CO2 if there is more CO2. And CO2 is not only a good IR absorber but also a good IR transmitter. This means that warm air cools faster if there's more CO2 in it. Which is relevant at certain times and locations.
I think the main function in that sense is to release mechanical heat to space. As the atmosphere dries out at the top, CO2 does more and more of that work, and 100 percent of all incoming energy eventually is dethermalized that way.
An excellent presentation. Really has helped put things into perspective for me and completely supports my own convictions even though I have not been able to communicate my understanding of the climate. I have up to nowtotally rejected the radiation model in favour of the thermal model because the thermal model is supported by basic laws of physics. I might have to change my mind and accept some of the radiation model now.
Just OK. Even in the driest conditions on earth, isn't there a lot more water than CO2 on a molar basis. This is an important assumption that is not addressed. A second point is that there is direct heat transfer between the earth and the air with no "greenhouse" gas middleman required at all. The boundary condition is that the temperature of the air must equal that of the ground (at zero elevation) - no CO2 required. Another point not addressed. I get weary of calling a molecule that adsorbes IR a "greenhouse" gas and it plays into the global warming narrative. A green house works by letting short waves in, and not letting thermal energy out by convection. That is why a greenhouse has walls and a closable door. If a greenhouse worked by keeping shortwave radiation from escaping to space instead of thermal energy, it would need no walls. Glass is great from converting shortwaves into thermal energy on one side, converting it to heat, conducting it across its thickness, and then re-emitting as IR to space - so terrible and stopping radiation - so on this basis is a poor choice for a greenhouse construction material. What glass is really GOOD at, is stopping convective breezes from removing heat from the greenhouse while letting shortwaves through - ie nothing to do with shortwaves at all!
"A second point is that there is direct heat transfer between the earth and the air with no "greenhouse" gas middleman required at all." That is called conduction of heat. "the temperature of the air must equal that of the ground (at zero elevation)" Often it happens that there is a temperature discontinuity at the condensed matter surface, brought about by radiation. How exactly to define the temperature of the "surface" when evaporation is active? "I get weary ... converting short waves into thermal energy ... nothing to do with shortwaves at all!" partly a fair comment, but it is not too easy to persuade people not to speak of "the greenhounse effect". Glass hardly converts short waves into thermal energy. Glass mostly passes short waves straight through, and they are already thermal energy, if you like to use that rather fishy term.
@@christophergame7977 Thanks Chris, I agree with what you are saying. On point 1 - yes this is indeed conduction. There is a temperature gradient between the ground and the air, but the temperature at the boundary are the same. Conduction warms the air right at the surface causing it to rise away from the ground (like a hot air balloon) to be replaced by colder air arriving descending. The circulation of warmer air upwards, cooling off as it expands and heavier cooler air downwards to be warmed by the earth (via conduction) is a convection cycle. While there may be, in some circumstances a very minute discontinuity at the earth's surface, this is not germain. The boundary condition for any heat transfer differential equation solution to the issue is that the temperature is equal - it is the first derivative - the temperature gradient that drives conduction at the surface. Direct heat transfer without a longwave middleman. Over water, there will be a temperature discontinuity due to the wet bulb effect. Evaporation will cause a temperature drop (lower temperature) right at the liquid surface as the latent heat of evaporation (or sublimation) is removed. This heat is replaced by conduction/convection from water below the surface or even conduction from the air above (in which case the evaporation is cooling the air. This is why we enjoy cool breezes off the ocean. This is also why a wet thermometer registers a lower temperature than a dry one (known as the wet-bulb temperature), and is actually used to measure relative humidity of the air. If you know the temperature of the air and it's relative humidity you can tell the web-bulb temperature right at the water surface. On your 2nd point - you are absolutely correct - my mind was thinking of typing "longwave" instead of "shortwave". My excuse is that I am used to saying "IR" for "long waves" and UV for "short waves" (and I was in a hurry). What I meant to say was I get weary of calling a molecule that adsorbes IR a "greenhouse" gas and it plays into the global warming narrative. A green house works by letting short waves in, and not letting thermal energy out by convection. That is why a greenhouse has walls and a closable door. If a greenhouse worked by keeping LONGWAVE radiation from escaping to space instead of thermal energy, it would need no walls. Glass is great from converting LONGwaves into thermal energy on one side, converting it to heat, conducting it across its thickness, and then re-emitting AGAIN as IR to space - so terrible and stopping LONGWAVE radiation - so on this basis is a poor choice for a greenhouse construction material. What glass is really GOOD at, is stopping convective breezes from removing heat from the greenhouse while letting shortwaves through - ie nothing to do with LONGwaves at all! Sorry about the confusion, and thanks for your comments. Dave
@davidpayne8646 "the temperature[s] at the boundary are the same." Not necessarily. They can be the same, but not necessarily. For conduction calculations, it is mathematically convenient when they are the same, but, in physical reality, conduction can occur through a temperature discontinuity. It's just a matter of collisions of gas molecules with the condensed matter surface.
I don't think so, the temperature gradient would be infinite. The bumping would violate momentum and energy conservation for this to be so. Any discontinuity would be rapidly healed restoring the laws of thermodynamics. The only argument is that temperature and thermodynamics are statistical in nature, such that any discontinuity that existed could only exist on an atomic scale, and only for fractions of a nanosecond. At the first collision, sanity will be restored. This is important as many GHG model assume a separate layer (vacuum) between the atmosphere and the ground - allowing cold CO2 to warm up a warmer earth. This would create a drop in entropy and we would quickly disappear into a black hole (where time runs backwards).
At 1:45, you rightly distinguish between the rate of radiative transfer of energy and the speed of a photon. Chandrsekhar's theory of 'radiative equilibrium' for stars is a way of saying that, in a star, the temperatures are so large that radiation far outstrips convective circulation as a mode of energy transport. On earth, of course, such is not so. Within the earth, convective circulation of atmosphere and sea largely outstrips radiation. But, tightly thinking, a single photon generated in the middle of the sun will have practically no chance of getting out, because it will most likely be intercepted.
We could, but I think it is best not to mess with a system whose nature we don't understand very well. It could result in all kinds of unexpected mischief. (Useful maxim: when in doubt, don't interfere.)
David, your ocean temperature chart from 2004 to 2019 was interesting for me to see what the CO2 effect would be using my GHG Lab tool. I used 376 PPM for 2004 level A and 409 PPM for 2019 level B. The calculator predicts the change in temperature would be 0.05C +/- 0.02C, the latter being the convergence accuracy. So in my opinion, a change in CO2 level can account for the temperature change. Clearly there would be some lag due to the thermal mass of the ocean, so in actuality the calculation would be for slightly lower CO2 levels for both A and B, but it would be roughly the same gap between the two PPMs.
I am really puzzled how the simplistic radiative model actually could have become mainstream. Do they really think that the average Earth surface temperature without GHGs would be -17 'C something like on the Moon? The rest of the atmosphere and second law of thermodynamics, conduction, convection don't matter at all? Every physicist or engineer should be able to understand that.
The radiative model is how the energy is released to outer space. The other models are the movement of energy within the Earth system. They don't contradict each other. From my understanding, in the steady state, the movement of energy within the Earth system does not effect the GHG heating of the Earth. That internal energy transfer is only related to chaotic weather events - short term and long term. If one is wondering how much do GHGs heat the Earth, it is only an input and output radiative calculation. It took me over a year to finally come to this realization. If you look at those graphics for the Earth energy balance (NASA's or others), understand that for the solar energy that is absorbed by the Earth system, about 1/3 is in the atmosphere and 2/3 at the surface. Nobody fusses over the atmospheric absorption being computed differently from the surface absorption. Similarly, the radiation to space doesn't have any bearing on the transfer of thermal energy within the Earth system other than where does the emission occur. I hope I've addressed your point to your satisfaction but feel free to question me further if you wish.
@@climatebell I did not think they contradict each other either. Those two phenomena coexist in the real world together, but it is probably not easy to model that coexistence. I meant, that we should not focus only on one of them. Or am I wrong about the temperature of the Earth surface in the case of complete absence of GHGs? Would it be the same as without any atmosphere at all? An yet you can see that in my opinion obviously wrong claim everywhere.
@@neilnewinger3059 The GHG effect is real and is understood from the point of view of solar input energy into the Earth system meaning what is absorbed. One can calculate the blackbody temperature and compare it to the average Earth temperature - the conjecture is this is the greenhouse effect and I agree with the conjecture. It is a 33-35C warming effect, the uncertainty being differing opinions on such things as reflectivity (albedo) to name one thing. Calculating the effect of a change in GHGs is similarly simple in terms of radiated emissions factoring in emission locations (Earth's surface and cloud tops), absorption coefficients, and return to outer space efficiency of those emissions that got intercepted on their way to outer space. From my understanding, any internal energy transfers, the mechanisms, and the delays, aren't relevant to answering the question - "How much does an increase in GHGs affect Earth's average temperature?" It is purely an output calculation.
I don't believe anyone with scientific understanding believes it. It is simply what they say in order to get paid. To non-scientists is is a religion. I tried to bring up a scientific climate change discussion with my astronomy club and was told I was an idiot by one rude member, and this was deemed deserved by the club president by my bringing up something "political". The link, of course, is the field of astrophysics but my mistake for thinking astronomy was actually about science! NASA have compartmentalized this very well - allowing their "climate guys" to spread the GHG message to keep their government support for the non-climate space program. Why does no-one talk about the greening of the earth (reported by NASA) and increased crop yields? Does NASA not support the earth being more green?
"Do they really think ... like on the Moom?" Yes, they do really think so, and they are right. You will come to the same conclusion when you think it through. It is about a comparison between a hypothetical earth with no greenhouse gases and an actual earth with greenhouse gases. In both cases, the earth’s condensed matter surface is hit and heated by sunlight, and in both cases it radiates strongly in the infrared. Without greenhouse gases, that radiation all goes straight to outer space, and it doesn't heat the atmosphere. The radiation has strongly cooled the condensed matter surface, perhaps to -17°C. With greenhouse gases, perhaps, say, 14% of it goes straight to outer space, but, say, 86% is absorbed by greenhouse gases, mainly water vapour. That absorbed radiation warms the atmosphere. The warmed atmosphere then warms the condensed matter surface by conduction and back radiation, to perhaps +15°C. That is given the name "the greenhouse effect". The name is perhaps inappropriate, but the effect is real. It is natural. The warmists then claim that man-made carbon-dioxide emissions dangerously enhance the natural effect; they are mistaken about that.
just a slight nit to pick: SST in absolute terms is warmer than land temperature; it's just the anomalies around a baseline that make it seem the other way around. The simplest explanation is that lapse rate governs the change in temperature with elevation, and lands are naturally higher up than the seas. cheers
Great presentation and I see you progressed in your understanding. You introduced the thermalization - dethermalization concept which has been described previously by Georges Geuskens, and recently advocated by Tom Schulte. The idea is that most IR is converted into heat in the first tens of meters of atmosphere, heat being convected upwards. With this mechanism in mind, how can should we interpret the downweliing radiations measured by pyrgeometers ? If I understand correclty, we should not measure the entire troposhere but just downwelling radiations from 10s of meters above the meter. Any thoughts on this ?
Wind moves the surface temperature directions randomly. Full cloud in one location holding in heat will turn cool at the surface when the wind blows cold air from a location at random that has full clear sky but cold.
Hey David - What impressed me was that you make connections between diverse knowledge (sun, seas, earth, atmosphere, and the movement of energy). Well done. Yes, there are details that were ... but nothing that would affect the conclutions. If you are interested in making the final set of connections (adding in the biosphere) let me know. You are worth spending time with between working with China, India, Norway, and CO2Co'n to end this nonsense in two years. Both Will and Andy can put you in touch.
This presentation is a tour de force of falsification indicators. I would love to hear any musings on reradiation upward bias. Every reradiated photon has an X,Y,Z direction component. X and Y have no effect on verticle energy transfer. The Z component has a bias based upon the air density gradient and it is UP. The more radiators the larger the bias effect. The higher the rate of Up energy would increase and the downwelling energy would decrease. That is how I see it. CO2 is gas phase only and locked in fixed set of emission bands. H2O has all phases. Water and ice do nat have full black body bands. That would suggest H2O would be a more potent downweller an upweller. Also a 70f dew point is 25,000 PPM that is about 50%?? of the atmosphere mostly in the tropics. This is all the time. Is there clear sky downwelling vs Dew Point equation? I have a dew point to H20 PPM spreadsheet based upon bolton equation.
Yes Tom. My thermodynamics professor warned me that I will likely be confronted with "perpetual motion machines" and "heat moving from cold to hot" disguised by arm waving theories and jargon. At the end of the day Entropy rules and colder CO2 cannot warm a warmer earth. Any photons captured by CO2 are quickly thermalized to the air - called "thermal quenching" and re-radiation of these photons is only significant (and then only barely significant) above the troposphere where the air is very thin. Heat gets there via water vapour and convection.
The greenhouse effect is natural. It heats the condensed matter surface through back radiation from greenhouse gases, mainly water vapour, but also carbon dioxide. The natural greenhouse effect is claimed by warmists to be enhanced by man-made CO2 emissions, but this enhancenent is not a large effect, and is perhaps too small to be detectable.
From a totally hopeless laywoman's perspective: Very interesting and well-laid out presentation - The main thing that pricked my scepticism (though I may have missed something or misunderstood) was "plate tectonics doing their thing": the idea that plate tectonics, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions would have no important detectable interplay with climate?? How could two such massive Earth phenomena NOT be deeply connected even if we haven't yet found the patterns?? Anyhow, thanks again Mr Nelson!
I wonder that, too. One mechanism which might connect the two is variations in gravitational effects. Solar gravity may be pulling plates and mantle sideways to some extent, and variations in that would be caused by changes in the Earth-Sun distance and the orbits of Jupiter and other planets. I guess it's an unknown quantity at this stage, so we must simply bear it in mind.
@@fredneecher1746 Hmmm. I was thinking more along the lines of Solar flares or even Galactic Cosmic Rays impacting subterranean matter and fluids electromagnetically... perhaps even as subsequently evidenced by anomalies in Schumann resonances... resulting in such phenomena as Transient Luminous Events and/or "Earthquake lights"... dunno. Bear it in mind sounds like good advice.
Kate: The answer is that the RATES of change of i) plate tectonics on the one hand and ii) human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere on the other, are several orders of magnitude different. Specifically, plate tectonics causes changes on timescales of tens of millions of years. Human alterations to the atmosphere is occurring on timescale of tens of years, around a million times faster. THAT is why "plate tectonics doing their thing" is a non-issue with respect to our present situation.
@@Tengooda Ah. Indeed, I definitely wasn't thinking in terms of rates nor specifically of our present situation. I was wondering in absolute terms about the major and very direct or subtle and seemingly indirect yet very integral connection between seismic, volcanic and tectonic activity and climate.
13 minutes: water and C02 cover the same wavelengths. Not the case. Co2 absorbs strongly at a wavelength where the H20 has minimal effect . Koonin/unsettled pg 53 figure 2.3 (also see happer's article)
Question ❓ Has any Research been carried out about The Affect of Radio Radiation, (Mobile Phones and the like) on Heating the Atmosphere, all the Mobile Antennas release MegaWats of Energy. This Must have an effect, after all CO2 is only a very small part of the equation.
The total global energy production by humans (of which that produced by the processes you mention s a tiny fraction) is itself a tiny fraction of the excess energy absorbed by our planet as a result of the human caused increase in greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is the most important.
Tiny. Even all the volcanoes in the world, including all those underwater, contribute a tiny fraction of the energy delivered by sunlight. Insignificant.
The temperature of the Earth in that region, which is controlled by the energy movements from further south to that region through processes including those that David describes, gives it its temperature and hence its blackbody radiation profile. If it weren't for the atmosphere and ocean currents, the temperature at the North Pole would be much colder, perhaps similar to the backside of the moon (-180C).
I teach this in my class, and it's in Javier's book: about 20 percent of the solar energy entering the tropics leaves through the polar vortices, mostly during winter.
@@InfiniteGameOfLife You offered the same claim in the video. But, NO energy leaves the Earth "through the polar vortices". The transfer of energy from high in the atmosphere around the Tropopause is via thermal IR radiation, mostly GHG's under clear sky conditions and thru additional emissions from clouds. Of course, the horizontal motions in the atmosphere transport warm, moist air to higher latitudes, where it energy can then be emitted to space via IR radiation. The return flows of colder, dryer air provide the Winter weather conditions we experience at mid-latitudes.
@@e.swanson7769 Ah thanks. Yes, it does go through the polar vortices but then the heat is absorbed by greenhouse gas molecules and the energy is emitted to space as LWR at the ToA. I didn't mention that step - thanks!
@@InfiniteGameOfLife The satellite measurements above the TOA of upward clear sky radiation show a "notch" in the spectrum for CO2 which is the result of those emissions originating at a higher level where it's very cold. The H2O emissions, originate lower down, thus they appear stronger and follow a Plank curve for warmer temperature. One must not forget that those CO2 emissions in the "notch" cool the upper atmosphere, without which, there would be no path way to cool the top of the vertical convection loop which you suggest is the primary mode for moving the energy in the upward direction. There's evidence that the addition of CO2 has resulted in moving the Tropopause to a greater altitude over the tropics. The IR radiation heat transfer thru the atmosphere and the vertical convection operate in parallel and thus can not be considered separately when analyzing the system.
Good presentation. Here are some points which may be of interest : 1) Even if the spontaneous emission is indeed very unlikely due to the relaxation time (0.5s), CO2 can re-emit also by induced emission such as : - by collision with another molecule, - by other photons in the same 15µm band passing nearby (effect on which LASER / MASER are based). 2) the back-radiation spectrum measurement (measured with a spectrometer facing upward near the surface) shows that its 15µm radiance intensity is almost the same as the black-body radiance intensity at ambient temperature in the same waveband. This shows that the atmosphere absorbs almost nothing in this waveband (absorbtion = upward flux minus downward flux = near 0 W/m²/sr in the 15µm waveband). This also seems to induce that there is almost no thermalization in the 15µm waveband. 3) Conversely, the emission from the atmosphere into space in the 15µm waveband is similar to what would emit a black body at 250 K in this waveband (14-16µm waveband at 250 k has a radiance = 7 W/m²/sr), thus higher than what it absorbs in this waveband from the surface. 4) 15µm photons are emitted at the peak intensity of a black-body at -80°C (Wien's displacement law). Putting such radiators (as many as wanted) in the atmosphere can't thus warm anything on Earth, the CO2 downward radiation can't neither. 5) Anyway, we can't have 100% thermalization at 15µm and warming from CO2 by back radiation.
"the atmosphere can't thus warm anything on Earth". No one thinks that the natural "greenhouse" effect directly warms the atmosphere. It's that the natural back radiation counteracts the radiative, conductive and evaporative cooling of the condensed matter surface, thus slowing its natural net cooling. The naturally slower net cooling of the surface then naturally warms the atmosphere. One should be careful to observe that near the equator, the atmosphere is on average cooler than the surface, while in the winter near the poles, it is the other way, so that indeed locally and transiently the atmosphere warms the surface, though this natural effect is less in net. The thing that we deny is that man-made CO2 emissions make a noticeable difference in this.
@@christophergame7977 Nobody claims that the atmosphere never warms the surface, this appens for instance when there is a temperature inversion, but the Earth energy budget (NASA 2017 for example) clearly shows that globally the atmosphere does not warm the surface since there is an energy transfer from the surface to the atmosphere by convection (18.4 W/m²), evaporation (86.4 W/m²) and radiative transfer (358.2 - 340.3 = 17.9 W/m²). BTW, when I said "the atmosphere can't thus warm anything on Earth", it was with respect to the CO2 emission 15 µm band which is the peak intensity waveband of a radiator at -80°C (according to the Wien's displacement law) which can't (Thermodynamics second law) warm anything on Earth where almost all the condensed matter is at a higher temperature (except in some rare cases in the Antarctic). You say "No one thinks that the natural "greenhouse" effect directly warms the atmosphere" : this is according to an obsolete (and wrong) definition of GHG forcing in which the back-radiation by itself warms the surface : this is physically wrong since the downward flux is not an energy transfer (see before). The "modern" GHG hypothesis is that more GHG traps more heat in the atmosphere by decreasing the TOA IR upward flux and thus warms it. The consequence is that the cooling of the surface is delayed and that the surface must emit more (and thus must warm) so that the equilibrium with respect to the 340W/m² intake from the Sun is met again. Recent papers (see Happer's for instance) try to estimate the evolution of the TOA IR upward flux when CO2 concentration is doubled. Happer finds that doubling the CO2 concentration induce a decrease of the TOA flux of about 3 W/m² which indues a warming of 0.7°C in the low troposphere. The back-radiation is not even mentioned, simply because it is meaningless.
@kevinhachton9649 "this is according to an obsolete (and wrong) definition of GHG forcing". I don't accept the term "GHG forcing." I define the 'greenhouse effect' as the difference between when greenhouse gases are present and absent. I define 'back radiation' as the downward hemispherical atmospheric emitted radiation. It is often said to be on the order of 333 Wm^(-2).
Well, you asked for errors to be pointed out to you, but I didn't expect to see one within the first couple of minutes: but you obliged. The dichotomy that you suggest between you "Radiative Model" and the "Thermal Model" does not exist. They are describing different aspects - or parts - of the same whole. It is no more meaningful to say that there are two ways to think about the Earth's climate system - radiative or thermal - than it is to claim that there are two ways to think about an elephant - one involving its head and the other its digestive system.
Yes, but it sound engineering principle to categorize mechanisms of heat transfer into significant and insignificant and to not worry about the insignificant things too much. In the troposphere convection, conduction, and the water cycle - tangible things we can see and feel every day are the mechanisms of heat transport. Longwave radiation from the earth is largely controlled by the presence of clouds, which is another link to the water cycle - another mechanism that we can see and feel every day. Getting concerned by those specific wavelengths captured by a CO2 molecule that are rapidly thermalized anyways is just a waste of time and errr energy. How much CO2 hasn't mattered to climate in the past, nor will it in the future. Note that our "climate models" do not even include the water cycle. If it is accounted for at all, it is via a "fudge factor", or as they would call it - a "tuning control". They have flat earth written all over it.
@@davidpayne8646 1. "Longwave radiation from the earth is largely controlled by the presence of clouds" Longwave radiation from the Earth's surface is determined by its temperature via the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship. At 15C that equates to 398W/m^2, which is certainly significant, and greater than that provided by convection, conduction and evaporation combined. 2. "How much CO2 hasn't mattered to climate in the past, nor will it in the future." Nonsense.
Yes, I am fully aware of the Stefan Boltzmann equation. But the ground emissions never get to space if there are clouds in between. Clouds are condensed material and adsorb long waves originating from the surface, or even CO2 (if by magic it isn't thermally quenched first). Long term temperatures do not correlate with CO2 concentrations, which are currently at historic lows. Simply saying "Nonsense" is very devoid of science and knowledge. You are full of nonsense... so there, take that.
@@davidpayne8646 1. The fact that LW photons are very unlikely to escape to space without numerous interactions with ghg molecules or clouds is not controversial, nor does it in any way refute climate science. Specifically it does not refute the fact that the SB emissions occur as I outlined. Indeed, such interactions are what thermalises (transfers heat to) the atmosphere, which in turn is responsible for back radiation. 2. The correlations of CO2 with global average temperature, both long, medium and short term, are established facts. Unfortunately, the YT algorithm prevents me from posting links to studies demonstrating those facts, but the following are brief descriptions of some of them: i) Barton Paul Levenson in 2009 (CO2 and Temperature: What is the Correlation) analysed the instrumental record between 1880 and 2007 and found "The correlation coefficient is about 0.874, which means 76.4% of the variance is accounted for." You can check this visually yourself on the Wood for Trees site if you put in the following parameters on the interactive part of the site: a) plot: gistemp, from:1880, mean: 60 b) plot: esrl-co2, scale: 0.01, offset: -3.2 ii) If you search for graphs of a) global average temperature and b) atmospheric CO2 over that last millennium (or longer) you will find close a visual correlation (obviously that can be confirmed via an analysis similar to BPL's above). iii) Perhaps you have been misled by graphs that simply show estimates of atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures during the Phanerozoic Eon, which indeed often show times of little apparent correlation, particularly in the earlier periods of the Phanerozoic. However, such deliberately misleading graphs fail to take any account of solar changes. When solar changes are taken into account the correlation becomes obvious. iii) This correlation is also evident during the last 50 million years or so (when solar output was not greatly different from present), even without taking the small solar changes into account. Over this 50 million years the collision of what is now the Indian sub-continent with Asia uplifted the Himalaya, exposing vast amounts of rocks and minerals to weathering, which absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere. The steady decline in atmospheric CO2 thus caused was then responsible for a similar steady cooling which caused the formation of permanent ice on Antarctica (and then Greenland) around 34 million years ago and eventually the Ice Age 2.6 million years ago. That decline in CO2 and temperature was only reversed in recent times with the release of huge quantities of CO2 by humans that caused the dramatic uptick in temperature since the industrial revolution started in 1750AD. iv) The thermal spike of the PETM around 55 million years ago, (as well as several older hyperthermals) was caused by a relatively rapid transfer of carbon to the atmosphere, providing yet more evidence of the correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature. Such hyperthermals (along with with other related events including ozone depletion, oceanic anoxia and euxinia and heavy metal and halogen pollution) caused mass extinction events. Human emissions of CO2 are now increasing atmospheric CO2 faster than any of those previous mass extinction events caused by increasing CO2.
@@davidpayne8646 I wrote a fairly long reply to your post but it has been removed, possibly because I referred to YT's algorithm and a particular website that would have enabled you to see the correlation in recent times very clearly. Thus YT makes it almost impossible to provide evidence rather than relying on bald assertions - which is all you have provided and why I previously merely relied on "nonsense" in reply. YT is suppressing evidence based discussions. I'll post again with reference to the evidence unfortunately removed.
David says the longwave photon from the surface that isn't at wavelengths 8µm(89°C) to 14µm(-66°C). Question how is that 12%?. If N2 speed is 350 meters per second and CO2 at 278 meters per second, CO2 can't make N2 go faster. Especially as there is only 4 CO2 to every 7,800 N2 molecules. Reality CO2 absorbs a photon(not necessarily from the surface) in stratosphere below -66°C and not near the surface. N2 gains heat with collisions with the earth and other molecules that have collided with the earth. At the same time 100,000 pascals and newton force is increasing the speed of the N2 molecules, increasing air temperature. What David has said is nonsense science, the opinion programmed in climate models. Joule is the same as watt per second or 1 kg⋅m²⋅s⁻³, and so 8.3145 * 43.2166 moles * 278.3 kelvin is 100,000 pascals(newton force). This is real science missing in the conversation.
@@glenndavis4452 The reason N and O don't emit is because they are constant until a collision or change in pressure. Radiation in the atmosphere hits mostly objects (like the surface), which heats up. In the atmosphere vacumm surface emissions mostly escapes to space, if emissons cools fast enough then will be absorbed by CO2 in the stratosphere. IR is 527 (37.4°C) watts of the 1000 watts, striking the surface at suns zenith(90° angle in the sky). Thermal radiation can have a broad spectrum of heat from -100°C to 100°C. CO2 absorbs at the low end. Just make that clear to you.
@@glenndavis4452 The complicated math equation: 8.3145 Joules is the gas constant per mole. 43.2166 moles for 278.3K. A mole is 28.97 grams of molecules at 0.287 Joules per gram. 5.3C temperature is 278.3 in kelvin(just add 273 to Celsius) 1 bar pressure is the result of the complicated math equation.
@@glenndavis4452 N and O don't emit is because the entropy (amount of energy transfered divided by the temperature in kelvin) changes by 1K corresponding to a thermal energy change of (6.022^23*1.38^-23 or 8.3145 Joules). Away from weather a certain altitude entropy stays near constant day and night. Reason we have heatwaves and coldwaves. Air masses carry heat from where it came from with little change. Entropy near surface decreases due ground cooling. Not above the clouds where planes fly, temperature pretty much constant. Pressure level (altitude change) is what changes entropy.
A lot of what is said in the video is sound, but it is mixed in with some things that are not. Overall the message is OK, but we DO need to be as correct as possible which I think the presenter is trying to do. I am not sure what you are talking about in terms of "speed" of N2 and CO2. The speed of an individual molecule is captured by the temperature and then temperature only tells use the average speed. When CO2 captures a photon, it changes its quantum - internal vibration state. This is then turned into "speed" (or temperature) by bumping into N2 molecules. It takes, I believe an average of 1.7 seconds before a CO2 molecule can re-emit an longwave photon, in which time it will bump into billions of N2 molecules and hence, has virtually no chance of re-emitting the photon back to earth. Entropy rules after all.
@@glenndavis4452 The amount of matter and the velocity of matter is kinetic energy. This kinetic energy transforms into heat, internal heat. The total solar constant 1360 watts, only 66% heats 66% of the earth(336 milliion sqkm), average 340 watts per sqkm. Earth is already heated to this amount making it 680 watts. 374(187) watts is taken by the atmosphere and 306 watts (153 watts) by IR. IR plus the internal energy 221 joules per second equals 527 watts (37.4C). The 374 and 153 (527 w) is released to space. Only 64.52% of the (306+221) already in the earth system remains.
I think i would say the radiative only model is invalid. As is the thermal only model. Energy arrives and leaves via radiation and moves from the surface to the atmosphere via radiation. The thermal model describes energy moving between the atmosphere, ocean and around the planet. The radiative model is then needed again to describe why more energy leaves the polar regions. l'm not sure about the "unsaturated" CO2 description. It seems to me the discussion is around the boundary between quantum mechanics (ir radiation absorbed by CO2)and Newton mechanics (kinetic/vibration energy transferred from thermalised molecules by collisions). My brain needs a rest at that point.
Saturated and unsaturated are literally the opposite. Using the 180 degree opposite term and saying you are saying the same thing...what? Happer designed and used CO2 lasers. He didn't just write text books about CO2 or make models or have theories. He used CO2 in lasers. Actual mechanism where if your theory is wrong, they don't work. Saying the literal opposite and claiming you are saying the same thing, makes no sense. Words have meaning and that matters. Define your terms.
I know. Listen to what I say and tell me if I'm saying something true, regardless of the words. I correspond with Will all the time. I believe we are both right, but we're using the same word differently. I think my version is better for lay people, but his work and terminology are accurate in his context. I could use a different word, but I think unsaturated gives the idea accurately. I know it's challenging for people who are used to using that term differently, but to be honest, most people aren't at Will Happer's level.
@@carlosgaspar8447 @engiredbeard Let's try this: Perhaps we could say CO2’s ability to reradiate is saturated, but its ability to pump mechanical heat into the atmosphere is unsaturated.
@@DavidSiegelVision The way I understood it is like this: If you spill some water on the counter and you grab a wad of paper towels to mop it up, and you mop up all the water so the counter is dry, but the paper towels still have the capacity to pick up more water (if there was any more water) therefor they are not saturated. On the other hand all the water is picked up so there's nothing left to mop up. All the water that can be picked up has been picked up, so in that sense it's saturated?
Siegel's explanation for the rise in global average temperature since 1850 (ruclips.net/video/X1Z2G5QOhFU/видео.html) is absurd. He attributes the overall rise in temperature to "the solar cycle and ocean oscillations (AMO and PDO)" than to CO2. But he ignores the facts that: i) the "solar cycle" - or rather the slight changes in solar output - has been slightly NEGATIVE for the last 50 years or so, as global temperatures have risen at an almost unprecedented rate, and ii) that ocean oscillations (AMO and PDO) CANNOT add net heat to the Earth's land/ocean/atmosphere system (which is what has occurred). Such oscillations merely temporarily redistribute the heat from one place to another (as do the El Nino and La Nina episodes). So, ocean oscillations cannot account for the observed increase in heat content of that system since 1850.
Balance is a misconception. Flux is a better word. Just like population movements. Romans went north from a warm place to spread their Empire, the Brits went south, as did the Norsemen before them, all products of their home climates and times. Today everywhere that people can travel from are heading north again. At some time in the future, Antarctica will be the destination, but probably not this century.
I agree with the comment below by @dougsherman 1562 below. I am in Australia and the time of the webinars are difficult for my time zone. Is there a way I can access your webinars
Great presentation David, thank you. I really appreciated your reference to Javier Vinos and his books. The point that Javier makes about the earth's climate and the conservation of energy is fascinating to me. As warm ocean water is transported to the poles via AMO, the poles are able to release that energy to space with no water vapor to stop it. It's counterintuitive to think that warming poles mean increased energy losses to space. Best of luck with your classes.
Great presentation, slightly above my pay grade but very enjoyable and a nice starting point for a deep dive. Thanks David and special thanks to Tom for his tireless work. Cheers.
Well, you invited constructive comment. So here goes. If you want to talk in proper physical terminology, you will say, for example at 1:15, that heat comes into the earth as short wave radiation, and leaves it as long wave radiation. Radiation is a form of heat. The absorbed heat becomes internal energy, which is also the source of emitted radiation. The proper thermodynamic definition of 'heat' is 'energy in transfer by mechanisms other than thermodynamic work or transfer of matter'. This is a definition by exclusion. For a closed system, it guarantees the proper division of transferred energy into thermodynamic work and heat. Thermodynamics proper, being a macroscopic topic, eschews talk of such microscopic things as molecules. As helpful and valid explanation, one can say that heat is energy in transfer by microscopic mechanisms, such as radiation, thermal conduction, and friction, but that is explanation, not proper thermodynamic talk. Very often, people talk as if they thought that heat as such is stored in a body, but such talk is really a residue of the now obsolete caloric theory of heat. You won't find the foregoing except by reading and carefully analysing and comparing many textbooks of thermodynamics. One where it is made clearest is Buchdahl, H.A. (1966), 'The Concepts of Classical Thermodynamics', Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK. The current Wikipedia definition is for heat transfer engineers, not for thermodynamics proper.
Fantastic David and thankyou Tom for getting David back, I tell you what the world has a lot to learn when it comes to the so-called settled science. Thankyou.
Great stuff, learned a lot. Thank you both
Actually, I do have a Question! Has anybody counted up how much Time, Money, Effort, Taxes, Fines, etc.,has been invested in trying to understand The Climate, then - more importantly, what are the benefits to humanity & Our Planet from all that investment?
People used to criticize The Space Race, but it seems there were plenty of tangible benefits. Where's the upside to Climate Science? (Apart from expanding knowledge & understanding.)?
I really like your line of thinking here and comparison to the space race where some benefits were derived. From my point of view, there is little to nothing to show for the investment in the climate hysteria, and the money could have been spent on other things where there would be clear benefit - infrastructure, health care, education, etc. The waste is not a neutral waste, it is extremely sad for humanity. Also we need to look at the environmental damage from wind and solar and rare metal mining.
The upside is purely political: WEF, UN control over the masses. Eat, drive, live, spend as we tell you to. Recruit disciples via "research" grants and "media" funding. That's the "upside".
Given that the alarmists have convinced world governments to spend billions of every currency on subsidising solar and wind energy production, there is a direct wealth reduction effect from all the climate hysteria. And don't get me going about EV's !!
Excellent summary by David Siegel. Great!
Really enjoyable, actually watched it all, rather than merely listening. I appreciate we can't convince people they are being hoodwinked - but perhaps we could convince taxpayers that spending their hard earned money on things which are NOT improving our lives, are actually damaging the planet and making us POORER and more vulnerable, is not a Good Idea.
Maybe we should be asking people where they love to vacation? Where they have spent most of their vacation time?
Perhaps studying tourist trends - like the airport in the Maldives, to see what that tells us and whether that might help ease people's (irrational) Fears. That a slightly warmer planet is to be embraced, or accepted, and certainly not demonized and monetized against us - when considering the alternative (colder will be horrible!). Thank you David & Tom.
This is my first conversation with Tom: ruclips.net/video/NWhWuv7MMDU/видео.html
As a Londoner it is great how the freezing Thames is so often used as a reference for cooling. I hope to live to see people skating on the Thames in 2050!
I think it'll be 2450, so you had better start taking your longevity pills.
BertWald: Be careful what you wish for. A recent paper estimates the probability of an AMOC* collapse (caused by global warming caused by increased CO2) before 2050 at between 42% and 76%.
An AMOC collapse is estimated to cause a decline in February average temperatures in London of around 10degC.
*AMOC = Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.
@@Tengoodaa recent study claimed there's space bats on alpha centuri!
@@TengoodaI wish you well.
A significant part of the Thames freezing was the speed at which it flowed and its depth. The old London Bridge had many piers, which slowed the river's rate of flow, while at the same time it was broader and shallower, picking up more silt in the process. Since those times, London bridge has been rebuilt with far fewer piers, the river has been constantly dredged and embankments built which reclaimed land from the edges of the river. None of this, of course, changes the actual temperature differences.
Absolitely fantastic! Very easy to comprehend and well presented. Thak you, David and Tom.
I do enjoy your presentation and it definitely above my fireplace but understand your argument to a degree that makes sense to me and I do agree that CO2 is not the "bad guy" in this equation and has no influence on climate as it fluctuated wildly through the millennia past.
Very well explained IMHO!
An excellent presentation!
Great discussion and presentation. I think it would be valuable to have a conversation with Ben Miller (of SuspiciousObservers; no financial interest) about the effect the Earth's weakening geomagnetic field and its effect on climate. And how the failure to incorporate this effect into models may be making things seem chaotic/erratic when they are not.
ben davidson, not miller.
Model results are the results paid for by the funders. You think they care about the real world and more accuracy?
Great lecture. One tiny addition: CO2 warmed through radiation doesn't only give that warmth to atmospheric N2 and O2, but also the other way around: warm N2 and O2 also give more warmth to CO2 if there is more CO2. And CO2 is not only a good IR absorber but also a good IR transmitter. This means that warm air cools faster if there's more CO2 in it. Which is relevant at certain times and locations.
I think the main function in that sense is to release mechanical heat to space. As the atmosphere dries out at the top, CO2 does more and more of that work, and 100 percent of all incoming energy eventually is dethermalized that way.
An excellent presentation. Really has helped put things into perspective for me and completely supports my own convictions even though I have not been able to communicate my understanding of the climate. I have up to nowtotally rejected the radiation model in favour of the thermal model because the thermal model is supported by basic laws of physics. I might have to change my mind and accept some of the radiation model now.
Just OK. Even in the driest conditions on earth, isn't there a lot more water than CO2 on a molar basis. This is an important assumption that is not addressed.
A second point is that there is direct heat transfer between the earth and the air with no "greenhouse" gas middleman required at all. The boundary condition is that the temperature of the air must equal that of the ground (at zero elevation) - no CO2 required. Another point not addressed.
I get weary of calling a molecule that adsorbes IR a "greenhouse" gas and it plays into the global warming narrative. A green house works by letting short waves in, and not letting thermal energy out by convection. That is why a greenhouse has walls and a closable door. If a greenhouse worked by keeping shortwave radiation from escaping to space instead of thermal energy, it would need no walls. Glass is great from converting shortwaves into thermal energy on one side, converting it to heat, conducting it across its thickness, and then re-emitting as IR to space - so terrible and stopping radiation - so on this basis is a poor choice for a greenhouse construction material. What glass is really GOOD at, is stopping convective breezes from removing heat from the greenhouse while letting shortwaves through - ie nothing to do with shortwaves at all!
"A second point is that there is direct heat transfer between the earth and the air with no "greenhouse" gas middleman required at all." That is called conduction of heat. "the temperature of the air must equal that of the ground (at zero elevation)" Often it happens that there is a temperature discontinuity at the condensed matter surface, brought about by radiation. How exactly to define the temperature of the "surface" when evaporation is active?
"I get weary ... converting short waves into thermal energy ... nothing to do with shortwaves at all!" partly a fair comment, but it is not too easy to persuade people not to speak of "the greenhounse effect". Glass hardly converts short waves into thermal energy. Glass mostly passes short waves straight through, and they are already thermal energy, if you like to use that rather fishy term.
@@christophergame7977 Thanks Chris, I agree with what you are saying.
On point 1 - yes this is indeed conduction. There is a temperature gradient between the ground and the air, but the temperature at the boundary are the same. Conduction warms the air right at the surface causing it to rise away from the ground (like a hot air balloon) to be replaced by colder air arriving descending. The circulation of warmer air upwards, cooling off as it expands and heavier cooler air downwards to be warmed by the earth (via conduction) is a convection cycle. While there may be, in some circumstances a very minute discontinuity at the earth's surface, this is not germain. The boundary condition for any heat transfer differential equation solution to the issue is that the temperature is equal - it is the first derivative - the temperature gradient that drives conduction at the surface. Direct heat transfer without a longwave middleman.
Over water, there will be a temperature discontinuity due to the wet bulb effect. Evaporation will cause a temperature drop (lower temperature) right at the liquid surface as the latent heat of evaporation (or sublimation) is removed. This heat is replaced by conduction/convection from water below the surface or even conduction from the air above (in which case the evaporation is cooling the air. This is why we enjoy cool breezes off the ocean. This is also why a wet thermometer registers a lower temperature than a dry one (known as the wet-bulb temperature), and is actually used to measure relative humidity of the air. If you know the temperature of the air and it's relative humidity you can tell the web-bulb temperature right at the water surface.
On your 2nd point - you are absolutely correct - my mind was thinking of typing "longwave" instead of "shortwave". My excuse is that I am used to saying "IR" for "long waves" and UV for "short waves" (and I was in a hurry). What I meant to say was
I get weary of calling a molecule that adsorbes IR a "greenhouse" gas and it plays into the global warming narrative. A green house works by letting short waves in, and not letting thermal energy out by convection. That is why a greenhouse has walls and a closable door. If a greenhouse worked by keeping LONGWAVE radiation from escaping to space instead of thermal energy, it would need no walls. Glass is great from converting LONGwaves into thermal energy on one side, converting it to heat, conducting it across its thickness, and then re-emitting AGAIN as IR to space - so terrible and stopping LONGWAVE radiation - so on this basis is a poor choice for a greenhouse construction material. What glass is really GOOD at, is stopping convective breezes from removing heat from the greenhouse while letting shortwaves through - ie nothing to do with LONGwaves at all!
Sorry about the confusion, and thanks for your comments.
Dave
@davidpayne8646 "the temperature[s] at the boundary are the same." Not necessarily. They can be the same, but not necessarily. For conduction calculations, it is mathematically convenient when they are the same, but, in physical reality, conduction can occur through a temperature discontinuity. It's just a matter of collisions of gas molecules with the condensed matter surface.
I don't think so, the temperature gradient would be infinite. The bumping would violate momentum and energy conservation for this to be so. Any discontinuity would be rapidly healed restoring the laws of thermodynamics. The only argument is that temperature and thermodynamics are statistical in nature, such that any discontinuity that existed could only exist on an atomic scale, and only for fractions of a nanosecond. At the first collision, sanity will be restored.
This is important as many GHG model assume a separate layer (vacuum) between the atmosphere and the ground - allowing cold CO2 to warm up a warmer earth. This would create a drop in entropy and we would quickly disappear into a black hole (where time runs backwards).
Unless you mean a discontinuity in temperature gradient - this is ok when there is a discontinuity in thermal conductivity.
At 1:45, you rightly distinguish between the rate of radiative transfer of energy and the speed of a photon. Chandrsekhar's theory of 'radiative equilibrium' for stars is a way of saying that, in a star, the temperatures are so large that radiation far outstrips convective circulation as a mode of energy transport. On earth, of course, such is not so. Within the earth, convective circulation of atmosphere and sea largely outstrips radiation. But, tightly thinking, a single photon generated in the middle of the sun will have practically no chance of getting out, because it will most likely be intercepted.
Great presentation! We can stop an ice age by sprinkling soot or dark dust on the glaciers as they appear, causing them to absorb more light and melt.
the Earth has been in a major ice age for 2.6 million years
We could, but I think it is best not to mess with a system whose nature we don't understand very well. It could result in all kinds of unexpected mischief. (Useful maxim: when in doubt, don't interfere.)
David, your ocean temperature chart from 2004 to 2019 was interesting for me to see what the CO2 effect would be using my GHG Lab tool. I used 376 PPM for 2004 level A and 409 PPM for 2019 level B. The calculator predicts the change in temperature would be 0.05C +/- 0.02C, the latter being the convergence accuracy. So in my opinion, a change in CO2 level can account for the temperature change. Clearly there would be some lag due to the thermal mass of the ocean, so in actuality the calculation would be for slightly lower CO2 levels for both A and B, but it would be roughly the same gap between the two PPMs.
I am really puzzled how the simplistic radiative model actually could have become mainstream. Do they really think that the average Earth surface temperature without GHGs would be -17 'C something like on the Moon? The rest of the atmosphere and second law of thermodynamics, conduction, convection don't matter at all? Every physicist or engineer should be able to understand that.
The radiative model is how the energy is released to outer space. The other models are the movement of energy within the Earth system. They don't contradict each other. From my understanding, in the steady state, the movement of energy within the Earth system does not effect the GHG heating of the Earth. That internal energy transfer is only related to chaotic weather events - short term and long term. If one is wondering how much do GHGs heat the Earth, it is only an input and output radiative calculation. It took me over a year to finally come to this realization. If you look at those graphics for the Earth energy balance (NASA's or others), understand that for the solar energy that is absorbed by the Earth system, about 1/3 is in the atmosphere and 2/3 at the surface. Nobody fusses over the atmospheric absorption being computed differently from the surface absorption. Similarly, the radiation to space doesn't have any bearing on the transfer of thermal energy within the Earth system other than where does the emission occur. I hope I've addressed your point to your satisfaction but feel free to question me further if you wish.
@@climatebell I did not think they contradict each other either. Those two phenomena coexist in the real world together, but it is probably not easy to model that coexistence. I meant, that we should not focus only on one of them.
Or am I wrong about the temperature of the Earth surface in the case of complete absence of GHGs? Would it be the same as without any atmosphere at all? An yet you can see that in my opinion obviously wrong claim everywhere.
@@neilnewinger3059 The GHG effect is real and is understood from the point of view of solar input energy into the Earth system meaning what is absorbed. One can calculate the blackbody temperature and compare it to the average Earth temperature - the conjecture is this is the greenhouse effect and I agree with the conjecture. It is a 33-35C warming effect, the uncertainty being differing opinions on such things as reflectivity (albedo) to name one thing. Calculating the effect of a change in GHGs is similarly simple in terms of radiated emissions factoring in emission locations (Earth's surface and cloud tops), absorption coefficients, and return to outer space efficiency of those emissions that got intercepted on their way to outer space. From my understanding, any internal energy transfers, the mechanisms, and the delays, aren't relevant to answering the question - "How much does an increase in GHGs affect Earth's average temperature?" It is purely an output calculation.
I don't believe anyone with scientific understanding believes it. It is simply what they say in order to get paid. To non-scientists is is a religion. I tried to bring up a scientific climate change discussion with my astronomy club and was told I was an idiot by one rude member, and this was deemed deserved by the club president by my bringing up something "political". The link, of course, is the field of astrophysics but my mistake for thinking astronomy was actually about science!
NASA have compartmentalized this very well - allowing their "climate guys" to spread the GHG message to keep their government support for the non-climate space program. Why does no-one talk about the greening of the earth (reported by NASA) and increased crop yields? Does NASA not support the earth being more green?
"Do they really think ... like on the Moom?" Yes, they do really think so, and they are right. You will come to the same conclusion when you think it through. It is about a comparison between a hypothetical earth with no greenhouse gases and an actual earth with greenhouse gases. In both cases, the earth’s condensed matter surface is hit and heated by sunlight, and in both cases it radiates strongly in the infrared. Without greenhouse gases, that radiation all goes straight to outer space, and it doesn't heat the atmosphere. The radiation has strongly cooled the condensed matter surface, perhaps to -17°C. With greenhouse gases, perhaps, say, 14% of it goes straight to outer space, but, say, 86% is absorbed by greenhouse gases, mainly water vapour. That absorbed radiation warms the atmosphere. The warmed atmosphere then warms the condensed matter surface by conduction and back radiation, to perhaps +15°C. That is given the name "the greenhouse effect". The name is perhaps inappropriate, but the effect is real. It is natural. The warmists then claim that man-made carbon-dioxide emissions dangerously enhance the natural effect; they are mistaken about that.
just a slight nit to pick: SST in absolute terms is warmer than land temperature; it's just the anomalies around a baseline that make it seem the other way around. The simplest explanation is that lapse rate governs the change in temperature with elevation, and lands are naturally higher up than the seas. cheers
Great presentation and I see you progressed in your understanding. You introduced the thermalization - dethermalization concept which has been described previously by Georges Geuskens, and recently advocated by Tom Schulte. The idea is that most IR is converted into heat in the first tens of meters of atmosphere, heat being convected upwards. With this mechanism in mind, how can should we interpret the downweliing radiations measured by pyrgeometers ? If I understand correclty, we should not measure the entire troposhere but just downwelling radiations from 10s of meters above the meter. Any thoughts on this ?
Tom Shula?
I think I addressed this in the video, actually.
Great stuff!
Great! Thanks.
Wind moves the surface temperature directions randomly. Full cloud in one location holding in heat will turn cool at the surface when the wind blows cold air from a location at random that has full clear sky but cold.
Hey David - What impressed me was that you make connections between diverse knowledge (sun, seas, earth, atmosphere, and the movement of energy). Well done. Yes, there are details that were ... but nothing that would affect the conclutions. If you are interested in making the final set of connections (adding in the biosphere) let me know. You are worth spending time with between working with China, India, Norway, and CO2Co'n to end this nonsense in two years. Both Will and Andy can put you in touch.
This presentation is a tour de force of falsification indicators. I would love to hear any musings on reradiation upward bias. Every reradiated photon has an X,Y,Z direction component. X and Y have no effect on verticle energy transfer. The Z component has a bias based upon the air density gradient and it is UP. The more radiators the larger the bias effect. The higher the rate of Up energy would increase and the downwelling energy would decrease. That is how I see it. CO2 is gas phase only and locked in fixed set of emission bands. H2O has all phases. Water and ice do nat have full black body bands. That would suggest H2O would be a more potent downweller an upweller. Also a 70f dew point is 25,000 PPM that is about 50%?? of the atmosphere mostly in the tropics. This is all the time. Is there clear sky downwelling vs Dew Point equation? I have a dew point to H20 PPM spreadsheet based upon bolton equation.
Yes Tom. My thermodynamics professor warned me that I will likely be confronted with "perpetual motion machines" and "heat moving from cold to hot" disguised by arm waving theories and jargon. At the end of the day Entropy rules and colder CO2 cannot warm a warmer earth.
Any photons captured by CO2 are quickly thermalized to the air - called "thermal quenching" and re-radiation of these photons is only significant (and then only barely significant) above the troposphere where the air is very thin. Heat gets there via water vapour and convection.
The greenhouse effect is natural. It heats the condensed matter surface through back radiation from greenhouse gases, mainly water vapour, but also carbon dioxide. The natural greenhouse effect is claimed by warmists to be enhanced by man-made CO2 emissions, but this enhancenent is not a large effect, and is perhaps too small to be detectable.
What is your meaning of average temperature
From a totally hopeless laywoman's perspective: Very interesting and well-laid out presentation - The main thing that pricked my scepticism (though I may have missed something or misunderstood) was "plate tectonics doing their thing": the idea that plate tectonics, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions would have no important detectable interplay with climate?? How could two such massive Earth phenomena NOT be deeply connected even if we haven't yet found the patterns?? Anyhow, thanks again Mr Nelson!
I wonder that, too. One mechanism which might connect the two is variations in gravitational effects. Solar gravity may be pulling plates and mantle sideways to some extent, and variations in that would be caused by changes in the Earth-Sun distance and the orbits of Jupiter and other planets. I guess it's an unknown quantity at this stage, so we must simply bear it in mind.
@@fredneecher1746 Hmmm. I was thinking more along the lines of Solar flares or even Galactic Cosmic Rays impacting subterranean matter and fluids electromagnetically... perhaps even as subsequently evidenced by anomalies in Schumann resonances... resulting in such phenomena as Transient Luminous Events and/or "Earthquake lights"... dunno. Bear it in mind sounds like good advice.
Kate: The answer is that the RATES of change of i) plate tectonics on the one hand and ii) human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere on the other, are several orders of magnitude different. Specifically, plate tectonics causes changes on timescales of tens of millions of years. Human alterations to the atmosphere is occurring on timescale of tens of years, around a million times faster.
THAT is why "plate tectonics doing their thing" is a non-issue with respect to our present situation.
@@Tengooda Right.
@@Tengooda Ah. Indeed, I definitely wasn't thinking in terms of rates nor specifically of our present situation. I was wondering in absolute terms about the major and very direct or subtle and seemingly indirect yet very integral connection between seismic, volcanic and tectonic activity and climate.
13 minutes: water and C02 cover the same wavelengths. Not the case. Co2 absorbs strongly at a wavelength where the H20 has minimal effect . Koonin/unsettled pg 53 figure 2.3 (also see happer's article)
Actually David is basically correct. Check out the HITRAN absorption spectrums and you will see.
Question ❓
Has any Research been carried out about The Affect of Radio Radiation, (Mobile Phones and the like) on Heating the Atmosphere, all the Mobile Antennas release MegaWats of Energy.
This Must have an effect, after all CO2 is only a very small part of the equation.
The total global energy production by humans (of which that produced by the processes you mention s a tiny fraction) is itself a tiny fraction of the excess energy absorbed by our planet as a result of the human caused increase in greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is the most important.
Tiny. Even all the volcanoes in the world, including all those underwater, contribute a tiny fraction of the energy delivered by sunlight. Insignificant.
Muchas gracias Thanks
Is there any sunlight at the North Pole in January? If there is no sunlight, where is the infrared radiation coming from?
The temperature of the Earth in that region, which is controlled by the energy movements from further south to that region through processes including those that David describes, gives it its temperature and hence its blackbody radiation profile. If it weren't for the atmosphere and ocean currents, the temperature at the North Pole would be much colder, perhaps similar to the backside of the moon (-180C).
I teach this in my class, and it's in Javier's book: about 20 percent of the solar energy entering the tropics leaves through the polar vortices, mostly during winter.
@@InfiniteGameOfLife You offered the same claim in the video. But, NO energy leaves the Earth "through the polar vortices". The transfer of energy from high in the atmosphere around the Tropopause is via thermal IR radiation, mostly GHG's under clear sky conditions and thru additional emissions from clouds. Of course, the horizontal motions in the atmosphere transport warm, moist air to higher latitudes, where it energy can then be emitted to space via IR radiation. The return flows of colder, dryer air provide the Winter weather conditions we experience at mid-latitudes.
@@e.swanson7769 Ah thanks. Yes, it does go through the polar vortices but then the heat is absorbed by greenhouse gas molecules and the energy is emitted to space as LWR at the ToA. I didn't mention that step - thanks!
@@InfiniteGameOfLife The satellite measurements above the TOA of upward clear sky radiation show a "notch" in the spectrum for CO2 which is the result of those emissions originating at a higher level where it's very cold. The H2O emissions, originate lower down, thus they appear stronger and follow a Plank curve for warmer temperature. One must not forget that those CO2 emissions in the "notch" cool the upper atmosphere, without which, there would be no path way to cool the top of the vertical convection loop which you suggest is the primary mode for moving the energy in the upward direction. There's evidence that the addition of CO2 has resulted in moving the Tropopause to a greater altitude over the tropics. The IR radiation heat transfer thru the atmosphere and the vertical convection operate in parallel and thus can not be considered separately when analyzing the system.
Good presentation. Here are some points which may be of interest :
1) Even if the spontaneous emission is indeed very unlikely due to the relaxation time (0.5s), CO2 can re-emit also by induced emission such as :
- by collision with another molecule,
- by other photons in the same 15µm band passing nearby (effect on which LASER / MASER are based).
2) the back-radiation spectrum measurement (measured with a spectrometer facing upward near the surface) shows that its 15µm radiance intensity is almost the same as the black-body radiance intensity at ambient temperature in the same waveband. This shows that the atmosphere absorbs almost nothing in this waveband (absorbtion = upward flux minus downward flux = near 0 W/m²/sr in the 15µm waveband). This also seems to induce that there is almost no thermalization in the 15µm waveband.
3) Conversely, the emission from the atmosphere into space in the 15µm waveband is similar to what would emit a black body at 250 K in this waveband (14-16µm waveband at 250 k has a radiance = 7 W/m²/sr), thus higher than what it absorbs in this waveband from the surface.
4) 15µm photons are emitted at the peak intensity of a black-body at -80°C (Wien's displacement law). Putting such radiators (as many as wanted) in the atmosphere can't thus warm anything on Earth, the CO2 downward radiation can't neither.
5) Anyway, we can't have 100% thermalization at 15µm and warming from CO2 by back radiation.
"the atmosphere can't thus warm anything on Earth". No one thinks that the natural "greenhouse" effect directly warms the atmosphere. It's that the natural back radiation counteracts the radiative, conductive and evaporative cooling of the condensed matter surface, thus slowing its natural net cooling. The naturally slower net cooling of the surface then naturally warms the atmosphere. One should be careful to observe that near the equator, the atmosphere is on average cooler than the surface, while in the winter near the poles, it is the other way, so that indeed locally and transiently the atmosphere warms the surface, though this natural effect is less in net. The thing that we deny is that man-made CO2 emissions make a noticeable difference in this.
@@christophergame7977 Nobody claims that the atmosphere never warms the surface, this appens for instance when there is a temperature inversion, but the Earth energy budget (NASA 2017 for example) clearly shows that globally the atmosphere does not warm the surface since there is an energy transfer from the surface to the atmosphere by convection (18.4 W/m²), evaporation (86.4 W/m²) and radiative transfer (358.2 - 340.3 = 17.9 W/m²).
BTW, when I said "the atmosphere can't thus warm anything on Earth", it was with respect to the CO2 emission 15 µm band which is the peak intensity waveband of a radiator at -80°C (according to the Wien's displacement law) which can't (Thermodynamics second law) warm anything on Earth where almost all the condensed matter is at a higher temperature (except in some rare cases in the Antarctic).
You say "No one thinks that the natural "greenhouse" effect directly warms the atmosphere" : this is according to an obsolete (and wrong) definition of GHG forcing in which the back-radiation by itself warms the surface : this is physically wrong since the downward flux is not an energy transfer (see before).
The "modern" GHG hypothesis is that more GHG traps more heat in the atmosphere by decreasing the TOA IR upward flux and thus warms it. The consequence is that the cooling of the surface is delayed and that the surface must emit more (and thus must warm) so that the equilibrium with respect to the 340W/m² intake from the Sun is met again.
Recent papers (see Happer's for instance) try to estimate the evolution of the TOA IR upward flux when CO2 concentration is doubled. Happer finds that doubling the CO2 concentration induce a decrease of the TOA flux of about 3 W/m² which indues a warming of 0.7°C in the low troposphere. The back-radiation is not even mentioned, simply because it is meaningless.
@kevinhachton9649 "this is according to an obsolete (and wrong) definition of GHG forcing". I don't accept the term "GHG forcing." I define the 'greenhouse effect' as the difference between when greenhouse gases are present and absent. I define 'back radiation' as the downward hemispherical atmospheric emitted radiation. It is often said to be on the order of 333 Wm^(-2).
Well, you asked for errors to be pointed out to you, but I didn't expect to see one within the first couple of minutes: but you obliged. The dichotomy that you suggest between you "Radiative Model" and the "Thermal Model" does not exist. They are describing different aspects - or parts - of the same whole.
It is no more meaningful to say that there are two ways to think about the Earth's climate system - radiative or thermal - than it is to claim that there are two ways to think about an elephant - one involving its head and the other its digestive system.
Yes, but it sound engineering principle to categorize mechanisms of heat transfer into significant and insignificant and to not worry about the insignificant things too much. In the troposphere convection, conduction, and the water cycle - tangible things we can see and feel every day are the mechanisms of heat transport. Longwave radiation from the earth is largely controlled by the presence of clouds, which is another link to the water cycle - another mechanism that we can see and feel every day.
Getting concerned by those specific wavelengths captured by a CO2 molecule that are rapidly thermalized anyways is just a waste of time and errr energy. How much CO2 hasn't mattered to climate in the past, nor will it in the future.
Note that our "climate models" do not even include the water cycle. If it is accounted for at all, it is via a "fudge factor", or as they would call it - a "tuning control". They have flat earth written all over it.
@@davidpayne8646
1. "Longwave radiation from the earth is largely controlled by the presence of clouds" Longwave radiation from the Earth's surface is determined by its temperature via the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship. At 15C that equates to 398W/m^2, which is certainly significant, and greater than that provided by convection, conduction and evaporation combined.
2. "How much CO2 hasn't mattered to climate in the past, nor will it in the future." Nonsense.
Yes, I am fully aware of the Stefan Boltzmann equation. But the ground emissions never get to space if there are clouds in between. Clouds are condensed material and adsorb long waves originating from the surface, or even CO2 (if by magic it isn't thermally quenched first).
Long term temperatures do not correlate with CO2 concentrations, which are currently at historic lows.
Simply saying "Nonsense" is very devoid of science and knowledge.
You are full of nonsense... so there, take that.
@@davidpayne8646
1. The fact that LW photons are very unlikely to escape to space without numerous interactions with ghg molecules or clouds is not controversial, nor does it in any way refute climate science. Specifically it does not refute the fact that the SB emissions occur as I outlined. Indeed, such interactions are what thermalises (transfers heat to) the atmosphere, which in turn is responsible for back radiation.
2. The correlations of CO2 with global average temperature, both long, medium and short term, are established facts. Unfortunately, the YT algorithm prevents me from posting links to studies demonstrating those facts, but the following are brief descriptions of some of them:
i) Barton Paul Levenson in 2009 (CO2 and Temperature: What is the Correlation) analysed the instrumental record between 1880 and 2007 and found "The correlation coefficient is about 0.874, which means 76.4% of the variance is accounted for."
You can check this visually yourself on the Wood for Trees site if you put in the following parameters on the interactive part of the site: a) plot: gistemp, from:1880, mean: 60 b) plot: esrl-co2, scale: 0.01, offset: -3.2
ii) If you search for graphs of a) global average temperature and b) atmospheric CO2 over that last millennium (or longer) you will find close a visual correlation (obviously that can be confirmed via an analysis similar to BPL's above).
iii) Perhaps you have been misled by graphs that simply show estimates of atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures during the Phanerozoic Eon, which indeed often show times of little apparent correlation, particularly in the earlier periods of the Phanerozoic. However, such deliberately misleading graphs fail to take any account of solar changes. When solar changes are taken into account the correlation becomes obvious.
iii) This correlation is also evident during the last 50 million years or so (when solar output was not greatly different from present), even without taking the small solar changes into account. Over this 50 million years the collision of what is now the Indian sub-continent with Asia uplifted the Himalaya, exposing vast amounts of rocks and minerals to weathering, which absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere. The steady decline in atmospheric CO2 thus caused was then responsible for a similar steady cooling which caused the formation of permanent ice on Antarctica (and then Greenland) around 34 million years ago and eventually the Ice Age 2.6 million years ago.
That decline in CO2 and temperature was only reversed in recent times with the release of huge quantities of CO2 by humans that caused the dramatic uptick in temperature since the industrial revolution started in 1750AD.
iv) The thermal spike of the PETM around 55 million years ago, (as well as several older hyperthermals) was caused by a relatively rapid transfer of carbon to the atmosphere, providing yet more evidence of the correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature. Such hyperthermals (along with with other related events including ozone depletion, oceanic anoxia and euxinia and heavy metal and halogen pollution) caused mass extinction events. Human emissions of CO2 are now increasing atmospheric CO2 faster than any of those previous mass extinction events caused by increasing CO2.
@@davidpayne8646 I wrote a fairly long reply to your post but it has been removed, possibly because I referred to YT's algorithm and a particular website that would have enabled you to see the correlation in recent times very clearly. Thus YT makes it almost impossible to provide evidence rather than relying on bald assertions - which is all you have provided and why I previously merely relied on "nonsense" in reply. YT is suppressing evidence based discussions.
I'll post again with reference to the evidence unfortunately removed.
David says the longwave photon from the surface that isn't at wavelengths 8µm(89°C) to 14µm(-66°C). Question how is that 12%?. If N2 speed is 350 meters per second and CO2 at 278 meters per second, CO2 can't make N2 go faster. Especially as there is only 4 CO2 to every 7,800 N2 molecules. Reality CO2 absorbs a photon(not necessarily from the surface) in stratosphere below -66°C and not near the surface. N2 gains heat with collisions with the earth and other molecules that have collided with the earth. At the same time 100,000 pascals and newton force is increasing the speed of the N2 molecules, increasing air temperature. What David has said is nonsense science, the opinion programmed in climate models. Joule is the same as watt per second or 1 kg⋅m²⋅s⁻³, and so 8.3145 * 43.2166 moles * 278.3 kelvin is 100,000 pascals(newton force). This is real science missing in the conversation.
@@glenndavis4452 The reason N and O don't emit is because they are constant until a collision or change in pressure. Radiation in the atmosphere hits mostly objects (like the surface), which heats up. In the atmosphere vacumm surface emissions mostly escapes to space, if emissons cools fast enough then will be absorbed by CO2 in the stratosphere. IR is 527 (37.4°C) watts of the 1000 watts, striking the surface at suns zenith(90° angle in the sky). Thermal radiation can have a broad spectrum of heat from -100°C to 100°C. CO2 absorbs at the low end. Just make that clear to you.
@@glenndavis4452 The complicated math equation:
8.3145 Joules is the gas constant per mole. 43.2166 moles for 278.3K.
A mole is 28.97 grams of molecules at 0.287 Joules per gram.
5.3C temperature is 278.3 in kelvin(just add 273 to Celsius)
1 bar pressure is the result of the complicated math equation.
@@glenndavis4452 N and O don't emit is because the entropy (amount of energy transfered divided by the temperature in kelvin) changes by 1K corresponding to a thermal energy change of (6.022^23*1.38^-23 or 8.3145 Joules). Away from weather a certain altitude entropy stays near constant day and night. Reason we have heatwaves and coldwaves. Air masses carry heat from where it came from with little change. Entropy near surface decreases due ground cooling. Not above the clouds where planes fly, temperature pretty much constant. Pressure level (altitude change) is what changes entropy.
A lot of what is said in the video is sound, but it is mixed in with some things that are not. Overall the message is OK, but we DO need to be as correct as possible which I think the presenter is trying to do. I am not sure what you are talking about in terms of "speed" of N2 and CO2. The speed of an individual molecule is captured by the temperature and then temperature only tells use the average speed. When CO2 captures a photon, it changes its quantum - internal vibration state. This is then turned into "speed" (or temperature) by bumping into N2 molecules.
It takes, I believe an average of 1.7 seconds before a CO2 molecule can re-emit an longwave photon, in which time it will bump into billions of N2 molecules and hence, has virtually no chance of re-emitting the photon back to earth. Entropy rules after all.
@@glenndavis4452 The amount of matter and the velocity of matter is kinetic energy. This kinetic energy transforms into heat, internal heat. The total solar constant 1360 watts, only 66% heats 66% of the earth(336 milliion sqkm), average 340 watts per sqkm. Earth is already heated to this amount making it 680 watts. 374(187) watts is taken by the atmosphere and 306 watts (153 watts) by IR. IR plus the internal energy 221 joules per second equals 527 watts (37.4C). The 374 and 153 (527 w) is released to space. Only 64.52% of the (306+221) already in the earth system remains.
I think i would say the radiative only model is invalid. As is the thermal only model. Energy arrives and leaves via radiation and moves from the surface to the atmosphere via radiation. The thermal model describes energy moving between the atmosphere, ocean and around the planet. The radiative model is then needed again to describe why more energy leaves the polar regions.
l'm not sure about the "unsaturated" CO2 description. It seems to me the discussion is around the boundary between quantum mechanics (ir radiation absorbed by CO2)and Newton mechanics (kinetic/vibration energy transferred from thermalised molecules by collisions). My brain needs a rest at that point.
30mins in and I've Just realised David is using "radiative model" as synonymous with "CO2 driven warming"
@@grahammerritt1329 No, there's a difference between radiation and heat.
The evidence is overwhelming, rising CO2 causes hysteria.
Saturated and unsaturated are literally the opposite. Using the 180 degree opposite term and saying you are saying the same thing...what? Happer designed and used CO2 lasers. He didn't just write text books about CO2 or make models or have theories. He used CO2 in lasers. Actual mechanism where if your theory is wrong, they don't work. Saying the literal opposite and claiming you are saying the same thing, makes no sense. Words have meaning and that matters. Define your terms.
I know. Listen to what I say and tell me if I'm saying something true, regardless of the words. I correspond with Will all the time. I believe we are both right, but we're using the same word differently. I think my version is better for lay people, but his work and terminology are accurate in his context. I could use a different word, but I think unsaturated gives the idea accurately. I know it's challenging for people who are used to using that term differently, but to be honest, most people aren't at Will Happer's level.
Let me know if you have a better term. I think the concept is right, but a better term would probably help.
he did not spend much time on that point in question, probably to keep this talk under an hour...
@@carlosgaspar8447 @engiredbeard Let's try this: Perhaps we could say CO2’s ability to reradiate is saturated, but its ability to pump mechanical heat into the atmosphere is unsaturated.
@@DavidSiegelVision The way I understood it is like this: If you spill some water on the counter and you grab a wad of paper towels to mop it up, and you mop up all the water so the counter is dry, but the paper towels still have the capacity to pick up more water (if there was any more water) therefor they are not saturated. On the other hand all the water is picked up so there's nothing left to mop up. All the water that can be picked up has been picked up, so in that sense it's saturated?
Siegel's explanation for the rise in global average temperature since 1850 (ruclips.net/video/X1Z2G5QOhFU/видео.html) is absurd.
He attributes the overall rise in temperature to "the solar cycle and ocean oscillations (AMO and PDO)" than to CO2.
But he ignores the facts that:
i) the "solar cycle" - or rather the slight changes in solar output - has been slightly NEGATIVE for the last 50 years or so, as global temperatures have risen at an almost unprecedented rate, and
ii) that ocean oscillations (AMO and PDO) CANNOT add net heat to the Earth's land/ocean/atmosphere system (which is what has occurred). Such oscillations merely temporarily redistribute the heat from one place to another (as do the El Nino and La Nina episodes). So, ocean oscillations cannot account for the observed increase in heat content of that system since 1850.
Balance is a misconception. Flux is a better word. Just like population movements.
Romans went north from a warm place to spread their Empire, the Brits went south, as did the Norsemen before them, all products of their home climates and times. Today everywhere that people can travel from are heading north again. At some time in the future, Antarctica will be the destination, but probably not this century.
I agree with the comment below by @dougsherman 1562 below. I am in Australia and the time of the webinars are difficult for my time zone. Is there a way I can access your webinars
both global warming and higher levels of CO₂ would benefit the biosphere
the Earth is too cold
and CO₂ is a nutrient
Sigurno je točno jer ima puno ljepih grafikona i gomilu nevažnih podataka.