This is absolutely brilliant! I thought I had a pretty good understanding of the GHG mechanism and the quantisation involved. But I've never seen anyone set out the impact of thermalisation like this. So, this is a double killer blow to climate change. At 15um, CO2 absorbs 100% of upwelling IR within 10 to 50 metres (meaning climate sensitivity is close to zero). But this video shows that the reality of thermalisation kills climate change before you even need to worry about radiative absorption and re-emission.
@@TengoodaThank you for reinforcing my point and revealing your true character. FYI, I have read some of Pierrehumbert’s work and found it unremarkable. It is more of the same that fits the mainstream narrative. You are entitled to your opinion, which apparently means you are part of the “settled science” contingent. I am not, so we will have to agree to disagree.
@@Tengooda Yes, they assume as we do that thermally excited emission causes the atmosphere to "glow". But somehow they neglect that thermal energy can´t be converted back to radiation without losses. Have a closer look how Manabe does his "convection-correction". You will be surprised.
I understand your objections. But I do that intentionally. Sooner or later they will change the narrative (maybe because AI needs a lot of energy) and then "Greenhouse Gases" will be, like Fauci´s famous "save and effective", a reminder on the fraude and crimes commited in the name of this agenda. Then academics will talk about "IR-active components of the atmosphere" but we will contiue to talk about GHGs to rub salt into their wounds.
@@MarkusOtt-o4z I agree with @mybirds2525. I think you are discounting the most dominant constituents in the greater argument: the public. For 97% of the public the supposition that "greenhouse" gases exists is the end of the argument. They literally don't care about the details.
Excellent work. While not news to me I am glad you gathered it in one comprehensive video for others and more. If I may I would like to point out that Earth mean temp is due to specific heat capacity of it's surface (water) and it's rotation period (1 day). The atmosphere with the water cycle is mostly a cooling mechanism as far as I can tell, but I may be slightly wrong on the magnitude of this one claim. This became obvious while computing the temperature of the Moon if it's rotation period got shortened to 1 day instead of the current 29 days.
I think the point is not that there is no green house gas effect. Rather that the effect is not a purely radiative one, although radiative models appear to have good agreement with satellite measurements (right answer for the wrong reason perhaps). The alarmists claim that more CO2 will cause more warming is not threatened by the thermalisation theory. Instead we get back to the point that there is already sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb much of the emitted radiation of the appropriate wavelength (then thermalise it) so adding more CO2 will have a small effect (diminishing returns).
Manabe gets a linear relation between surface temperature and OLR by assuming a fixed relative humidity and, even worse, the validity of Kirchhoff´s law of radiation in the troposphere. Based on these wrong assumptions he somehow generates a siutable result. Now I understand why Bob Dylan was so reluctant to receive his nobel prize.
The radiative measurements are only at ground level and satellite top of the atmosphere. There is close to none (I know 1) spectral IR data in between.
@dragoscoco2173 Not so much spectral data in between, but masses of radiosonde data in between. That radiosonde data is a big part of the data for calculation of temperatures from satellite data.
@@MarkusOtt-o4zDear Markus, we don't rely so much on Manabe's calculations these days. We don't think they are wrong in detail, but we think they are inadequately planned.
The bold text at the bottom at 13:04 can presumably be easily verified using an 15um IR source incident on a suitable sensor at various distances in air. What parts of this narrative CANNOT be experimentally verified and why not? What specifically is refuted by GW obsessives?
Such measurements were done. Our colleague Yong (www.youtube.com/@yongtuition) shows the results in some of his viedos. The radiation transfer models try to get around these short ranges by postulating a cascade of absorption-reemission processes. To achive that they assume that Kirchhoff´law of radiation is applicable to the troposphere. As we have shown before this assumption is invalid.
@@PattayaPhysics For some reason the link includes the ")" at the end. I am sure we pay that massive YT army of IT guys an order of magnitude too much.
If I remember correctly, our colleague Yong assumes that there is no back radiation at all. Given the hight of the atmosphere that is more or less the same as our 50m.
nice presentation. Thinking it can be simplified further for the pols. WE live in the lower atmosphere (about 10 m/30 feet). This is the only area we need to be concerned about. The sun is the source of heat for the Earth. Sunlight is converted to infrared radiation. This amount is constant. 99.4% is absorbed by current levels of Co2 and converted to heat. Adding CO2 has essentially no effect because there is essentially a no more infrared radiation to absorb and convert. This is the "CO2 saturation effect'. Measuring OLR is not useful as a proxy for 'the greenhouse effect" is the OLR is decoupled from the heating of the lower atmosphere (where we live).
My favorite video on the Tom Nelson podcast so far! I feel stumped that I could have ever 'fallen for' the idea that heat transport from the surface of the earth to the top of atmosphere (ToA) could be (modelled as) purely radiative, when all human experience, plus my extensive industrial ditto, point clearly to *convection* as the dominant heat transfer mode. It was right in front of me the whole time... Anyway, CO2 does capture some radiation, which had it not been for CO2, would have radiated into space. What is not true is that it matter a lot whether 99.9% is absorbed within the first 5, 10 or 20 m of the troposphere.
@@dragoscoco2173 Sure, but the heat flow schematic at 18:50 implies that radiation is the dominant heat transfer mode to/from the surface. This may be true in still/low wind conditions, but those conditions rarely apply, at least where I live. Convection, caused by wind, enhances both conduction and evaporation from the surface. Anyway, I'm still trying to understand and correlate the average heat flows with my personal experience during night and day time. I attribute the condensation on grass and cars at night to the surface losing heat by radiation to space through the 'atmospheric window' and cooling the low-hanging air. How does the air lose heat to space? Convection is slow, but if the average time to re-emit a 15 um photon is half a second, then radiative heat transfer would be even slower (absent thermalization), considering the many thousands of absorptions and re-emissions a photon would have to 'endure' on its path to ToA.
@@thomaspaaruppedersen6781 The fact that the ground can emit 400W/sqm and receives back 350W/sqm (radiative+conduction+condensation are all grouped in one big arrow really) means the total loss via radiation is 50ish Watts. Just like a human radiates away 1000W as can be computed via SB law, receives back 900W to total the average heat loss of 100W. From the surface around 30% radiate, 10% convect and 60% are evaporating. If radiating is blocked the other two go into overdrive and compensate for said loss.
@@thomaspaaruppedersen6781 Forced convection (wind) is only an enhancing factor for a free convection (caused by the temperature gradient). At the range of temperatures typical for the surface, convection and conduction are dominating which is why you have to remove all air from thermos flasks or Dewar's vessels or they won't keep the temperature of the content. If there would be discernible difference in the heat transfer rate between thermos filled with CO₂ and one with air, I bet the latter would loose heat slower. Ultimately the energy has to leave the Earth by radiation, but it happens mostly at the effective height of emission, which is about 4 km or so.
Dear Markus, to further clarify for you, I will here give an example of how flow of energy through a system is not adequately accounted for by the oversimplified paradigm that you rely on on your talk of the second law. Much energy is transported from equatorial to polar regions, partly by ocean currents, partly in the atmosphere. In a polar winter region, radiation from the condensed matter surface to outer space is much easier than it is in equatorial regions, because the polar air is drier. In a polar winter region, there is a temperature inversion, so that the condensed matter surface is colder than the troposphere above it. Thus, in a polar winter region, there is substantial net transport of energy as heat from troposphere to condensed matter surface, contrary to your overgeneralisation that the net transport is always from condensed matter surface to troposphere. This is not the only reason why your oversimplified narrative for the second law is astray, but it is a simple example of one way in which it can go astray. To cover the process globally overall, instead of the static oversimplification that you rely on in your appeal to the second law, a thoroughly dynamic approach is needed.
Roy Spencer did an experiment with an IR thermometer. He measured a clear sky temperature of 27 deg F and pointing at a cloud a temperature of 41 deg F. The current temperature was 78 deg F. How this can be explained with the thermalization process, as measured radiations are just coming from 50 meters up? You can find Roy's experiment on his blog of April 2013.
There is no GH effect because : - the IR energy transfer between the surface and the atmosphere is the difference between the upward IR flux (from the surface towards the atmosphere but not in the atmospheric window) and downward IR flux (from the atmosphere towards the surface). - This IR energy transfer = 17W/m² (according to the NASA) and is upward so it can't warm the surface (which is indeed warmer than the atmosphere). - These same active gases in the IR spectrum emit 170W/m² (according to the NASA, and 160W/m² from the top of the troposphere according to the IPCC) into the space, with a negligeable backward flux, so that the IR energy transfer is 170W/m² (or 160 W/m² at the top of the troposphere). - thus, the global effect of those gases (with the contribution of convection/advection cells) on the atmosphere is the difference of the 2 IR energy transfers (what is emitted into space minus what is absorbed from the surface by the atmosphere) and the result is that those gases cool the atmosphere by 170 - 17 = 153Wm² (and they cool the troposphere by 160-17-10 = 133W/m² where -10W/m² is the IR backradiation from the stratosphere (and up) to the troposphere). "GHG" should be named "active gases in the IR spectrum" or "ACG" for "air conditioning gases" or "Atmosphere Cooling Gases". P.S. : - data from the K&T Energy budget showed at 18:35 are similar and the result is the same. - the "trick" of the backradiation in those energy budget is that the bac radiation is a simple flux, not an Energy transfer. With respect to energy transfers (which are the aim of the energy budget diagrams) the 2 radiative fluxes between the surface and the atmosphere HAVE to BE substracted on to the other to give ONE single upward energy transfer = 17W/m² in the NASA energy budget, and = 350 - 324 = 26 W/m² in the K&T energy budget diagram.
Dear Markus, perhaps it may help if I explain in more detail why your attempt to apply the second law is mistaken. Strictly, the second law refers to a scenario of two bodies, starting with each in its own state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium, separated by a rigid wall that is impermeable to heat. The wall is then made permeable to heat, conductive and radiative. The law then says that heat will pass from the hotter to the colder. You effectively rely on this simple scenario. Such is not the scenario of the earth’s energy transport process, the system of present interest. The latter scenario is always far from thermodynamic equilibrium, with substantial amounts of heat entering and leaving as radiation, the heat being supplied by a hot body, the sun, and being passed out to cold surroundings, outer space. That there are substantial energy flows through the system calls for analysis beyond that of the simple scenario on which you rely.
Thank you I suppose someone needs to TAKE the FEAR out of Greenhouse! Perhaps we should use the more correct terminology thereby reducing the Fear connotation from the dialogue? All the great greenhouses I've ever been in are filled with the MOST amazing plants and creatures - so where's the fire?!! And the irony is, they are covering our beautiful, fertile lands, which live & breathe and even produce FOOD, with hideous GLASS solar panels and plastic & concrete wind turbines.. Talk about a man-made crisis.
That sounds a little bit different, as in your other Videos. Where you tell us, there is no Backradiation because of Thermalisation. Now you say, if i understand it right, yes there is backradiation, but not from interaction with Photons rather from thermally excited emission. That means collisions with other Moleculs, right? But in one of your other Videos you calculate that only ca. 3% (at See level) of all air molecules have enough kinetic energy to excite a CO2 Molecule. That cannot explain the Measurments of the backradiation. If they measure right.
I agree with you that this might be a bit confusing. If I remeber correctly, I mentioned in one of the older videos, that thermally excited emission is the source of the measurable atmospheric radiation and that due to the short range of the GHG-frequencies only the radiation from the near surface air can be measured at the surface. Thermalisation eliminates direct photon-absorption-reeimission-processes from the same GHG-molecule. That means the reemission is driven by the thermal energy of the air molecules. This energy is transfered to the GHG-molecules via collisions. Since air molecules suffer about 7*10^9 collisions per second, about 3% of that are more than enought to drive the thermally exited emission. If I stated back then taht there is no back radiation, that means there is no real radiation flow through the whole troposphere, that warms the surface, but only a radiation exchange of the surface with the air close to the surface. Here English is a bit less precise than German. In German this radiation exchange (with no net radiation flow) is called "Gegenstrahlung" (counter radiation) and the fictive atmospheric radiation flow through the whole troposphere is called "Rückstrahlung" (back radiation). The important thing is, that thermalisation forces reemission on a detour over heat (thermal energy). This means that a complete conversion of absorbed radiation back into emitted radiation is not possible due to the 2th law of thermodynamics and that Kirchhoff´s law of radiation is not applicable under these conditions. Have a look at Manabe´s (Nobel)-speches. One of the first things he mentions is that he assumes that Kirchhoff´s law is applicable to the atmosphere. That means that at least one of his fundamental premissis is wrong. Sorry for that inconsitancy. Back then I expected that it is sufficnet to mention that the surface radiation is completely converted into heat over a distance of a few meters, since this complete conversion into heat implies all the stuff I told in the last two videos.
If one took a pyrgeometer high enough up a skeletal structure, would it be possible to prove there were no back radiation at that height above ground level (50m) ?
This kind of thiing is the exact problem with GW. In engineering we build a model for a system, then we empirically test it in the real world and if the data doesn't fit the theory then we dicard the model. GW models are not properly tested. Your experiment should be conducted.
@@MarkusOtt-o4z As per some of my other comments here, how do we experimentally verify all of this? It must be done if the controversy is to end or we will just be lost in the fog of multiple hypotheses for ever.
@@davelowe1977 The linear relation between OLR and surface temperature is a clear hint that convection dominates the energy flow. The radiation transfer models are all based on the assumption that Kirchhoff´s law is applicabe to the troposphere. Manabe alway invokes Kirchhoff´s law when he talks about his model. His model produces also a linear relation between OLR and surface temperature. Bud based on at least one wrong assumption. If one of the basic assumptions is wrong, then all the results of these models are wrong.
@@MarkusOtt-o4zI understand your point but how can this be proven beyond doubt by experiment? In other words, there are two models/interpretations. What practical test can be devised to differentiate between them that is not ambiguous and on which both parties would accept prior to it being carried out?
re 20.58 mins; If back radiation is photons, then is thermodynamics relevant ? If a colder medium is radiating 320Wm2 of photons, which are not heat. then what prevents a warmer medium, the ground, from absorbing them ?
At 6:21 you say that "in the case of CO2" its excited state is maintained for about half a second, but earlier (2:33) you said "Greenhouse gas molecules" store for ~0.5sec. Do different GHGs have different storage times?
This is a top notch analysis. A late question... Do windmills result in global warming by adding resistance to convection? I'm sure the effect is small, but must result in a higher delta-T between the top of the troposphere and the earth to drive the same heat transfer. How ironic.
Not really, windmills affect atmospheric mass and energy transfer over the surface. They prevent mixing so hot patches stay hot and cold patches stay cold for a longer time than previous. Given SB law that would mean more Black-body radiation, not less.
@@dragoscoco2173 I think you are missing the part of vertical convection that depends on horizontal flow. I know this is not in the climate models because they don't model vertical convection. I could care less whether the surface directly heats the air, or if it radiated up to CO2 several feet above and then converted to thermal energy. Either way, the heat is convected up. So it is not only thermodynamics that is missing from climate models, it is also a complete lack of fluid mechanics and convective heat transfer concepts. The radiative models are not valid during convection. Again, that is why we put walls on a greehouse, and not just a roof. We control the temperature by opening a door or some vents allowing heat to convect away. By putting a windmill across the door, we will reduce the cooling provided by the convection through the door.
@@davidpayne8646 "By putting a windmill across" That works only if a roof is present. Convection is buoyancy dependent, which is dampened by turbulence mixing it up, so hard to quantify unless tested, models cannot do this even in the slightest. You are onto something but given the many unknowns and chaotic behavior it is hard to make valid statements.
@@dragoscoco2173 Ohhhh, it's bouyancy dependent. That makes sense. I wonder why no one has created a model for convection before - one would think that there are lots of engineering and science problems that such a model would be helpful with. Maybe I will create such a model, and I think I will use a finite difference approach to the partial differential equation. Good thing it only needs to one dimensional though because since it is bouyancy related there is no need for other dimensions. My only problem is how can I get the hot air to move up through the cold air moving down without getting all mixed up. Good grief, we are all lost.
@@davidpayne8646 It is very complex. Hot air does rise for a while, pushing above air upwards, which in turn is warmer than whatever is beneath it and so on. It is a small effect unless..... The other part of convection is from evaporation. Water evaporates raising local pressure, and is a lighter than air gas so buoyant, it rises to cold altitudes, crashes into water vapor lowering the pressure there. This is the bigger effect of upward motion. It is a highly invisible motion untill the silver lining where clouds form. You can imagine that the cloud has a plume of water gas rising below it. Some days after a rain or close to the sea you can spot several clouds forming in the same manner if the wind is not too strong.
Critics of the saturation argument say that as photons are emitted by relaxing CO2 molecules, those photons will run into increased CO2 in the upper atmosphere and this will cause more warming. Any comment?
CO2 requires 1000000 more time to re-emit that 15um IR photon, than it takes for a air molecule (take your pick) to hit the CO2 and absorb (thermalise) that energy via collision. Basically CO2 does not have much chance to re-emit that 15um IR it absorbed from the ground. The IR emission time of CO2 is well known and a prerequisite to CO2 laser calibration etc.
@@dragoscoco2173 Not sure I understand but I get the impression that in the upper atmosphere there will be almost no 15 micron radiation for CO2 to absorb. All that can happen up there is that N & O might hit CO2 and transfer energy but there would not be a net gain in atmospheric temp at that point. Sorry to be a pest but after the Queensland election in a few weeks many members of the Conservative party will want to abandon the net zero lunacy as a policy position but close to half the party still buy into the panic and I need to have a good arguement that I understand so that I can defuse the story from the remaining alarmists in the party.
@@davidjuliesmiththomas7983 As ATLAS EoDG data of planetary limb spectra shows us, the TOA emission of the atmospheric gas is mainly water and CO2 about the same in intensity. Meaning CO2 emits quite well at TOA from thermalisation and the planet in 15um looks like a dim lightbulb. More CO2 really means more emission there so more cooling, not less.
More plainly, sats with IR spectral gear can be pointed at the planetary limb, as in observing only the spectra of the atmosphere without any ground contribution. ATLAS EODG limb spectra, googled, remove the logarythmic and 2 more prominent peaks show up. Water and CO2. Meaning the top of our atmosphere thermally emits from water and CO2 mainly. That emission is not from IR from the ground as that cannot reach such heights. That is thermal emission from thermal collisions. Now the question is what would more CO2 do to that peak of emission considering no CO2 would kill it.
The TOA is very dry, but presumably more CO2 up there would allow a bit more conversion of thermalised heat to 15 um radiation. Doesn't that effectively make the TOA just radiate a bit more 15 um but at the expense of a bit less other radiation excited from the small amount of H2O that is there, i.e. no net change?
The only section I violently disagree with here is the discussion of the IPCC energy flow diagram, at about the 19 minute mark. 1. The diagram is bad conjecture. It is not empirically based, and I believe it will fail any attempt to validate it. Convenient for the IPCC that there's no way to validate their averaged energy diagram as such a world imagined by the modellers does not exist. In the real world : we have day and night. Earth has a titlt giving seasons. the amount of incident radiation recieved at the ground varies because earth is a sphere and the sun rays hit that sphere almost as straight lines. I believe no empirically derived energy balance system exists. But correct me if I'm wrong - is there a whole earth real energy balance system? - to check the silly "flat earth" IPCC model against? 2. Warmists miss-apply the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, as explained by Yong Tuition. There should be 2 terms a Source term and an absorber term. both T^4. The absorber has a lower temperature, so that term is lower than the source term. The absorber term is subtracted from the source term to get a value for radiance flow. When radiation only travels a short distance before it is absorbed by CO2/H2O radiatively active gases, the absorber term will be quite high as the temperature difference between temperatures of the surface and atmosphere above it are small. I suppose the absorber term for the fraction of emissions making their way out to space will use 3K : 3^4 - the supposed temperature of the background radiation of the universe? In both cases of radiation emitted from earth's surface, absorber terms are needed to subtract from source terms. IPCC ignore these S-B absorber terms which should be reducing their outbound radiance values.
I agree with you that the global mean energy balance should not be taken very serious. They are hiding in plane sight that the back radiation is not a real energy flux but only a radiation exchange. In the older German meteorolgy literature the wording is "Gegenstrahlung" (counter radiation) instead of "back radiation" . This "Gegenstrahlung" directly indicates that there is no net energy flux and that the "Gegenstrahlung" is driven by the heat content of the surface, which can´t heat itself via Gegenstrahlung.
@@MarkusOtt-o4z I estimate IPCC are out by a factor of 10 in the troposphere. I calculate infrared radiated by earth's surface is 8% of surface cooling, not 80% as IPCC say. I think it should be possible to setup an experiment to test it. Using a Pirani gauge with a high emissivity filament - such as an oxidised NiChrome wire. 80Ni:20Cr, ε ~ 0.9 or 20Ni:25Cr:55Fe, ε ~ 0.97; using 0.02mm diameter wire. High Vacuum pump and a Pirani gauge should show this. Plain old Pirani filaments have quite low emissivity ~ 0.05 which , I think, gives better accuracy at medium (conduction dependent) vacuum ranges (above 0.001 Torr to 0.1 Torr) I think this is the only criticism I have of Tom Shula's original interview on this topic. His estimate was too low for surface OLR; and that excused a lot of people's dismissal his case. The acutual IR should be about 20 times Tom Shula's original estimate, which ~ 8% - when using that high emissivity filament. Which brings us to the point. Q: Why did IPCC overestimate surface OLR so much? A: Because IR travels at light speed & their model would cool earth very quickly unless they added massive downwelling IR to counter balance & slow that model cooling down. I'm NOT saying the conspired to do it. With the demands politicos made on them, a wild overestimate was the ONLY result IPCC could produce. They would have been abolished in 1995 after AR2 had they not blamed global warming on humanity back then. As Bernie Lewin explained in : www.amazon.co.uk/Searching-Catastrophe-Signal-Origins-Intergovernmental/dp/0993118992
If the theory presented here is true, you would measure one or more orders of magnitude (50.000 times less?) less radiative flux in the 15 um band when moving away from the surface, but pointing towards the surface. Because the flux that originates from the surface of the Earth (locally) would be thermalized than thus 'disappear', only to 're-emerge' at ToA (top of atmosphere), specifically the height where thermally stimulated emission starts to outweigh thermalization. Has such an experiment been carried out?
Dear Markus, it is a mistake of logic to try to define the greenhouse effect as you seem to do at 0:13, as 'a thing caused by back radiation'. The mistake of logic is to try to define something just by one of its several constituent mechanisms. As if to try to define the wood by one of its trees (or, in American parlance, the forest by one of its trees). Back radiation is one of the several constituent mechanisms of the greenhouse effect, but it is not its sole defining feature. The proper definition of the greenhouse effect is as an overall effect of the presence of greenhouse gases relative to their absence.
Care for a physics problem? Can you compute the mean temperature of the Moon if it's rotational period were shortened to 1 day instead of 29 as present?
Dear Markus, you are not using a proper or natural definition of the greenhouse effect. The natural meaning of the term 'greenhouse effect' is 'the difference between the condensed matter surface temperatures in the presence and absence of greenhouse gases'. You confuse yourself by trying to define it in terms of your notions of the several contributory mechanisms of energy transport in the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect is properly defined by the overall effect, not by consideration of its several contributory mechanisms. It is natural and substantial, roughly 33°C. Those of us, such as you and me and Tom, who say that man-made carbon-dioxide-emissions global warming is practically nothing, are saying that added man-made CO2 adds practically nothing to the natural greenhouse effect.
With respect to my previous question; If the back radiation is a near ground effect only, then why is the downwelling thermal radiation increased by clouds ? "Question on downwelling radiation ; In his presentation Happer shows a graph of measurements of DWR (using a pyrgeometer) at 12 minutes ruclips.net/video/60nJOKGU3Ks/видео.htmlsi=efcO8joACEgTsa-R ."
I would certainly like a back and forth because Marcus presents a rather theoretical idea but that leaves some gaps open to explain. Happer et al would clearly know what to ask him.
I assume there is a misconception. Back radiation is not a near ground effect only. The whole air columne emits radiation, but due to the relatively short range of the greenhouse gas frequencies in the lower atmosphere, surface mounted pyrgeomter receive only radiation from the near surface air. Clouds are made of water droplets or ice crystals. They therefore emit the full black body spectrum. The cloud´s emission in the range of the atmospheric window can penetrate the atmosphere mostly unhindred and therefore adds to the IR emitted by the greenhouse gases near the surface. The pyrgeometer therefore receives mor radiation under a cloudy sky. Our range estimate of 10 to 50m for the greenhouse gas frequencies is based on humid air. Over some deserts the range may be a bit longer.
@@MrBallynally2 the 320W/m2 back and forth radiation is based on the global mean energy balance. In the real world the lower latitudes, on average emit more and high latitudes receive more radiation. In one of the next videos we will dicuss that i more detail.
Clouds are high albedo like high reflectivity particles. You are measuring the temperature of the IR window reflected back into your thermometer. From a satelite clouds tend to look like -70-90'C patches, while measuring their temp leads to -10-20'C. They reflect back the cold of space (misnomer) into the sat IR imaging systems. Clouds themselves are produced form quite energy releasing condensation. They do radiate themselves sometimes and do heat up the surrounding air for a while.
Dear Markus, we value your opinion, but here you are mistaken. The temperatures of the bodies that are affected by the earth’s energy transfer process are governed by the nets of various substantial flows of energy, so that the system is always substantially out of thermodynamic equilibrium, though it can, suitably averaged, at times be transiently in a more or less steady state. The balance of energy at the earth’s condensed matter surface is the algebraic sum of the following several substantial flows of energy: of the rate of absorption of directly impinging sunlight on the condensed matter surface (+), of the rate back radiation from the atmosphere (+), of the rate of surface emitted radiation passing straight through the atmosphere to outer space (-), of the net rate of absorption of the surface's emitted radiation by the atmosphere (-), of the net rate of transfer of energy from the surface to the atmosphere by evaporation (-), of the net rate of transfer of energy from the surface to the atmosphere by conduction (-), and of net storage rate of energy by the condensed matter surface (+). Though it is never violated, the second law of thermodynamics does not directly govern this net algebraic sum because the second law, exactly stated, refers to completed transfers between bodies in mutual and respectively internal thermodynamic equilibrium, which is a state of zero rates of energy transfer, not a state of substantial rates of flow of energy. It is a matter of rates of flow of energy. Other things being equal, increase of back radiation results in decrease of net rate of cooling of the condensed matter surface. The greenhouse effect is the difference between the states in the presence and absence of greenhouse gases. This does not in any way violate the second law of thermodynamics. It simply says that greenhouse gases affect the radiative properties of the atmosphere by their presence. The surface is warmer in the presence of greenhouse gases than it would be in their absence. Evaporation of surface water is a major factor in the cooling of the surface.The term 'greenhouse effect' is something of a misnomer because greenhouses work by prevention of otherwise substantial convection between their interiors and their atmospheric surroundings, while there is no corresponding convection between the earth and its atmosphere on the one hand, and the surrounding outer space on the other hand. It is perhaps unlikely that the term 'greenhouse effect' will be changed by customary usage, but who knows? The occurrence of the greenhouse effect is uncontroversial. Controversial is the extent to which man-made carbon dioxide emissions influence the greenhouse effect. Contradicting the views of many established authorities, you and I, and I guess Tom, agree that the latter influence is too small to be detectable in our present state of measurement ability and knowledge of the details of the earth’s energy transport process. The main mechanism of climate change is apparently change of oceanic currents, the causes of which are not yet well understood, along with causation by the processes in the solar system, such as solar radiation and the changing motions of the earth.
@MarkusOtt-o4z Dear Markus, thank you for your response. No, it's not an AI generated comment. I made it myself. I am a proper living person. Is there something I can write here to persuade you of that? Can you tell me which sentence or sentences in my comment you disagree with?
@@christophergame7977 Originally credited to Jan Sibelius, and repeated by many others since, I paraphrase, “No one has ever erected a statue to honor a critic.” This particular video is intended to address one specific aspect of of the tragedy of errors named the “greenhouse effect” within the context of the body of work that Markus and I have presented here, not yet complete. If you were to view this presentation in that context, you would understand that we have covered most of the issues that you raise in other parts of our work. In some respects you seem to be in agreement, but then you say, “…while there is no corresponding convection between the Earth and its atmosphere on the one hand, and the surrounding outer space on the other hand.” So apparently you believe that the energy transport in the atmosphere is purely radiative? We are simply saying that near the surface, the GHGs absorb the radiation from the surface and via thermalization convert it to sensible heat. The sensible heat is transported upwards via convection. In the convective zone, there is thermally excited emission, absorption, and thermalization which is random and results in no net energy transport. At “top of atmosphere” the thermally excited emission rate exceeds the thermalization rate, and the so-called GHGs convert the sensible heat into radiation which escapes to space. The primary energy transport mechanism is convection, and the behavior of GHGs actually enhances cooling. You seem to have a lot to say. If you have original thoughts and a model of your own perhaps it would be more productive to create your own presentation so that all could have the benefit of understanding your position. In the meantime, your long “critiques” are beginning to sound more like “word salads” which is why the AI question was raised.
@@ThomasShula Dear Tom, thank you for your response. I will try to engage with it here. You write "then you say, “…while there is no corresponding convection between the Earth and its atmosphere on the one hand, and the surrounding outer space on the other hand.” So apparently you believe that the energy transport in the atmosphere is purely radiative?" You put words into my mouth. You have me in a dilemma. I try to initially cover as many objections as I can comfortably predict, and you accuse me of prolixity, as "word salads". I omit to cover a particular objection, and you fabricate an accusation that I believe the opposite of what I believe. My clause “… there is no corresponding convection between the Earth and its atmosphere on the one hand, and the surrounding outer space on the other hand” means what it says. I am not denying the occurrence of convective circulatory transport of energy in the atmosphere. To say "that the energy transport in the atmosphere is purely radiative" is tantamount to saying that there is no convective circulatory transport of energy in the atmosphere, in other words, that intra-atmospheric circulatory convection does not occur or is unimportant. Of course I know full well, and have several times said, that convective circulatory transport of energy in the atmosphere is great and most important. For clarity, let me repeat it: convective circulatory transport of energy in the atmosphere is great and important. My sentence quoted above, which you ridicule, talks not about intra-atmospheric circulatory convection; no, it talks about the non-existence of circulatory convection between, on the one hand, the Earth and its atmosphere, and the surrounding outer space on the other hand." There is more to be said, but I will pause my response at this point to let you respond to it so far.
Is it possible that the process you identify, thermalization, or rather the reverse of it 'thermally excited emission' is in fact the cause of the back radiation. You state that "very few" co2 molecules get to re radiate due to 7x10 to the 9 interactions per second. Maybe those very few are sufficient enough to be the cause of back radiation. In fact the large number of interactions per second may cause enough excitations of co2 molecules, that some will radiate faster than the 0.5 half life stated. Or that the constant collisions will ensure that the co2 molecule is excited for a long enough period that it will then indeed emit a photon. This would mean the back radiation is dependent on the amount of GHG molecules, logarithmic relationship. The additional heat from clouds would then make sense if that heat results in greater thermalization of the co2 molecules by oxygen and nitrogen and inevitably more thermally excited emissions and therefore more back radiation?
The important thing is that direct absorption-reemission from the same molecule is surpressed in the dense air of the lower atmosphere. This direct absorption-reemission would be compatible with Kirchhoff´s law of rediation. But as soon as emission is driven by heat under convective conditions, Kirchhoff´s law becomes invalid. Yes the high collision rates produce the back radiation via thermally excited emission.
The claim that the GHE is in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is predicated on the fact that the person making this claim is using a strawman argument! And seeing that there is so many of these arguments, i'm not going to go into details about them. Rather, detail what the GHE is: The GHE is predicated on the fact that temperature at the surface is dependent on energy balance: If energy in is = to energy out, you have no temperature change. If energy in is > than energy out, then temperature rises. If energy in is < energy out, then temperature decreases. GHG's like Co2 and Water Vapor slow the loss of energy into space, thus creating a buildup of energy near the surface. (Temperature rises)
But it is in violation of the 2nd law. As were black holes until we gave them a temperature. People who disregard entropy are suckers. Excuse me now while I warm my hands by holding them up to some ice.
@@davidpayne8646 *"But it is in violation of the 2nd law"* I just explained how it is NOT. Please explain how it is. How is the slowing of escaping energy a violation of the 2nd law? *"Excuse me now while I warm my hands by holding them up to some ice"* You don't actually believe the GHE states that the cold atmosphere is warming the surface do you?
@@House_Stark You can't have heat transfer from a colder substance (the atmosphere) to a warmer one (the earth). Entropy is defined as E/T, so the energy would be running uphill, decreasing entropy, and charged with a felony according to the second law. The climate cult does not understand thermodynamics.
Very clear explanation of energy transfer in the atmosphere. Thank you.
This is absolutely brilliant! I thought I had a pretty good understanding of the GHG mechanism and the quantisation involved. But I've never seen anyone set out the impact of thermalisation like this. So, this is a double killer blow to climate change. At 15um, CO2 absorbs 100% of upwelling IR within 10 to 50 metres (meaning climate sensitivity is close to zero). But this video shows that the reality of thermalisation kills climate change before you even need to worry about radiative absorption and re-emission.
@@Tengooda Another “appeal to authority”
@@TengoodaThank you for reinforcing my point and revealing your true character. FYI, I have read some of Pierrehumbert’s work and found it unremarkable. It is more of the same that fits the mainstream narrative. You are entitled to your opinion, which apparently means you are part of the “settled science” contingent. I am not, so we will have to agree to disagree.
@@Tengooda This guy will allso tell you how the whole universe works, driven by gravity only.
@@Tengooda Yes, they assume as we do that thermally excited emission causes the atmosphere to "glow". But somehow they neglect that thermal energy can´t be converted back to radiation without losses. Have a closer look how Manabe does his "convection-correction". You will be surprised.
Wait till you find out what more CO2 does at the top of the atmosphere.
Those elocution lesson were certainly worth the money. Haven’t listened to a scientist with such perfect diction for a long time.
It is the text to speech function of OneNote for Windows 10.
I think it's an AI generated voice.
@@IanPritchard It is the text to speech function of OneNote for Windows 10
I have a criticism here. Please take it to help and not fuss. The primary issue is to stop calling "Greenhouse Gases". Just call them CO2 or whaterver
Greenback Gases is more apt methinks.
I understand your objections. But I do that intentionally. Sooner or later they will change the narrative (maybe because AI needs a lot of energy) and then "Greenhouse Gases" will be, like Fauci´s famous "save and effective", a reminder on the fraude and crimes commited in the name of this agenda. Then academics will talk about "IR-active components of the atmosphere" but we will contiue to talk about GHGs to rub salt into their wounds.
@@MarkusOtt-o4z I agree with @mybirds2525. I think you are discounting the most dominant constituents in the greater argument: the public. For 97% of the public the supposition that "greenhouse" gases exists is the end of the argument. They literally don't care about the details.
@@SolvingTornadoes You may be right, but if I use other names for these gases the 97% will never find my stuff.
@@MarkusOtt-o4z The 97% don't care about the details. The more they hear the phrase the more they believe it exists.
That's like asking "why is the earth a spheroid, yet bodies of water measure totally flat?"
Excellent work. While not news to me I am glad you gathered it in one comprehensive video for others and more.
If I may I would like to point out that Earth mean temp is due to specific heat capacity of it's surface (water) and it's rotation period (1 day). The atmosphere with the water cycle is mostly a cooling mechanism as far as I can tell, but I may be slightly wrong on the magnitude of this one claim.
This became obvious while computing the temperature of the Moon if it's rotation period got shortened to 1 day instead of the current 29 days.
I think the point is not that there is no green house gas effect. Rather that the effect is not a purely radiative one, although radiative models appear to have good agreement with satellite measurements (right answer for the wrong reason perhaps).
The alarmists claim that more CO2 will cause more warming is not threatened by the thermalisation theory.
Instead we get back to the point that there is already sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb much of the emitted radiation of the appropriate wavelength (then thermalise it) so adding more CO2 will have a small effect (diminishing returns).
Manabe gets a linear relation between surface temperature and OLR by assuming a fixed relative humidity and, even worse, the validity of Kirchhoff´s law of radiation in the troposphere.
Based on these wrong assumptions he somehow generates a siutable result. Now I understand why Bob Dylan was so reluctant to receive his nobel prize.
@@MarkusOtt-o4z The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind.
The radiative measurements are only at ground level and satellite top of the atmosphere. There is close to none (I know 1) spectral IR data in between.
@dragoscoco2173 Not so much spectral data in between, but masses of radiosonde data in between. That radiosonde data is a big part of the data for calculation of temperatures from satellite data.
@@MarkusOtt-o4zDear Markus, we don't rely so much on Manabe's calculations these days. We don't think they are wrong in detail, but we think they are inadequately planned.
The bold text at the bottom at 13:04 can presumably be easily verified using an 15um IR source incident on a suitable sensor at various distances in air. What parts of this narrative CANNOT be experimentally verified and why not? What specifically is refuted by GW obsessives?
Such measurements were done. Our colleague Yong (www.youtube.com/@yongtuition) shows the results in some of his viedos.
The radiation transfer models try to get around these short ranges by postulating a cascade of absorption-reemission processes.
To achive that they assume that Kirchhoff´law of radiation is applicable to the troposphere. As we have shown before this assumption is invalid.
@@MarkusOtt-o4zthe RUclips link doesn’t work
@@PattayaPhysics That’s because they’re bstrds!
@@PattayaPhysics For some reason the link includes the ")" at the end. I am sure we pay that massive YT army of IT guys an order of magnitude too much.
The general picture agree perfectly with the 2021 paper by Dr. Yong Tuition.
If I remember correctly, our colleague Yong assumes that there is no back radiation at all. Given the hight of the atmosphere that is more or less the same as our 50m.
nice presentation. Thinking it can be simplified further for the pols. WE live in the lower atmosphere (about 10 m/30 feet). This is the only area we need to be concerned about. The sun is the source of heat for the Earth. Sunlight is converted to infrared radiation. This amount is constant. 99.4% is absorbed by current levels of Co2 and converted to heat. Adding CO2 has essentially no effect because there is essentially a no more infrared radiation to absorb and convert. This is the "CO2 saturation effect'. Measuring OLR is not useful as a proxy for 'the greenhouse effect" is the OLR is decoupled from the heating of the lower atmosphere (where we live).
My favorite video on the Tom Nelson podcast so far!
I feel stumped that I could have ever 'fallen for' the idea that heat transport from the surface of the earth to the top of atmosphere (ToA) could be (modelled as) purely radiative, when all human experience, plus my extensive industrial ditto, point clearly to *convection* as the dominant heat transfer mode. It was right in front of me the whole time...
Anyway, CO2 does capture some radiation, which had it not been for CO2, would have radiated into space. What is not true is that it matter a lot whether 99.9% is absorbed within the first 5, 10 or 20 m of the troposphere.
Convection and evaporation remove only 70% of the Earth's surface energy outflow.
@@dragoscoco2173 Sure, but the heat flow schematic at 18:50 implies that radiation is the dominant heat transfer mode to/from the surface. This may be true in still/low wind conditions, but those conditions rarely apply, at least where I live. Convection, caused by wind, enhances both conduction and evaporation from the surface.
Anyway, I'm still trying to understand and correlate the average heat flows with my personal experience during night and day time. I attribute the condensation on grass and cars at night to the surface losing heat by radiation to space through the 'atmospheric window' and cooling the low-hanging air. How does the air lose heat to space? Convection is slow, but if the average time to re-emit a 15 um photon is half a second, then radiative heat transfer would be even slower (absent thermalization), considering the many thousands of absorptions and re-emissions a photon would have to 'endure' on its path to ToA.
@@thomaspaaruppedersen6781 The fact that the ground can emit 400W/sqm and receives back 350W/sqm (radiative+conduction+condensation are all grouped in one big arrow really) means the total loss via radiation is 50ish Watts.
Just like a human radiates away 1000W as can be computed via SB law, receives back 900W to total the average heat loss of 100W.
From the surface around 30% radiate, 10% convect and 60% are evaporating. If radiating is blocked the other two go into overdrive and compensate for said loss.
@@thomaspaaruppedersen6781 Forced convection (wind) is only an enhancing factor for a free convection (caused by the temperature gradient). At the range of temperatures typical for the surface, convection and conduction are dominating which is why you have to remove all air from thermos flasks or Dewar's vessels or they won't keep the temperature of the content. If there would be discernible difference in the heat transfer rate between thermos filled with CO₂ and one with air, I bet the latter would loose heat slower. Ultimately the energy has to leave the Earth by radiation, but it happens mostly at the effective height of emission, which is about 4 km or so.
@@marek-kulczycki-8286 Sigh... RUclips just threw away the long reply I wrote... I think we are basically in agreement.
Dear Markus, to further clarify for you, I will here give an example of how flow of energy through a system is not adequately accounted for by the oversimplified paradigm that you rely on on your talk of the second law. Much energy is transported from equatorial to polar regions, partly by ocean currents, partly in the atmosphere. In a polar winter region, radiation from the condensed matter surface to outer space is much easier than it is in equatorial regions, because the polar air is drier. In a polar winter region, there is a temperature inversion, so that the condensed matter surface is colder than the troposphere above it. Thus, in a polar winter region, there is substantial net transport of energy as heat from troposphere to condensed matter surface, contrary to your overgeneralisation that the net transport is always from condensed matter surface to troposphere. This is not the only reason why your oversimplified narrative for the second law is astray, but it is a simple example of one way in which it can go astray. To cover the process globally overall, instead of the static oversimplification that you rely on in your appeal to the second law, a thoroughly dynamic approach is needed.
Roy Spencer did an experiment with an IR thermometer. He measured a clear sky temperature of 27 deg F and pointing at a cloud a temperature of 41 deg F. The current temperature was 78 deg F. How this can be explained with the thermalization process, as measured radiations are just coming from 50 meters up?
You can find Roy's experiment on his blog of April 2013.
Nobody claimed that the atmosphere does not radiate back. It does.
@@dragoscoco2173 You answered on a previous thread. it's all frequency dependent, and a IR thermometer cannot distinguish those.
There is no GH effect because :
- the IR energy transfer between the surface and the atmosphere is the difference between the upward IR flux (from the surface towards the atmosphere but not in the atmospheric window) and downward IR flux (from the atmosphere towards the surface).
- This IR energy transfer = 17W/m² (according to the NASA) and is upward so it can't warm the surface (which is indeed warmer than the atmosphere).
- These same active gases in the IR spectrum emit 170W/m² (according to the NASA, and 160W/m² from the top of the troposphere according to the IPCC) into the space, with a negligeable backward flux, so that the IR energy transfer is 170W/m² (or 160 W/m² at the top of the troposphere).
- thus, the global effect of those gases (with the contribution of convection/advection cells) on the atmosphere is the difference of the 2 IR energy transfers (what is emitted into space minus what is absorbed from the surface by the atmosphere) and the result is that those gases cool the atmosphere by 170 - 17 = 153Wm² (and they cool the troposphere by 160-17-10 = 133W/m² where -10W/m² is the IR backradiation from the stratosphere (and up) to the troposphere).
"GHG" should be named "active gases in the IR spectrum" or "ACG" for "air conditioning gases" or "Atmosphere Cooling Gases".
P.S. :
- data from the K&T Energy budget showed at 18:35 are similar and the result is the same.
- the "trick" of the backradiation in those energy budget is that the bac radiation is a simple flux, not an Energy transfer. With respect to energy transfers (which are the aim of the energy budget diagrams) the 2 radiative fluxes between the surface and the atmosphere HAVE to BE substracted on to the other to give ONE single upward energy transfer = 17W/m² in the NASA energy budget, and = 350 - 324 = 26 W/m² in the K&T energy budget diagram.
Dear Markus, perhaps it may help if I explain in more detail why your attempt to apply the second law is mistaken. Strictly, the second law refers to a scenario of two bodies, starting with each in its own state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium, separated by a rigid wall that is impermeable to heat. The wall is then made permeable to heat, conductive and radiative. The law then says that heat will pass from the hotter to the colder. You effectively rely on this simple scenario. Such is not the scenario of the earth’s energy transport process, the system of present interest. The latter scenario is always far from thermodynamic equilibrium, with substantial amounts of heat entering and leaving as radiation, the heat being supplied by a hot body, the sun, and being passed out to cold surroundings, outer space. That there are substantial energy flows through the system calls for analysis beyond that of the simple scenario on which you rely.
Thank you I suppose someone needs to TAKE the FEAR out of Greenhouse! Perhaps we should use the more correct terminology thereby reducing the Fear connotation from the dialogue?
All the great greenhouses I've ever been in are filled with the MOST amazing plants and creatures - so where's the fire?!! And the irony is, they are covering our beautiful, fertile lands, which live & breathe and even produce FOOD, with hideous GLASS solar panels and plastic & concrete wind turbines.. Talk about a man-made crisis.
That sounds a little bit different, as in your other Videos. Where you tell us, there is no Backradiation because of Thermalisation. Now you say, if i understand it right, yes there is backradiation, but not from interaction with Photons rather from thermally excited emission. That means collisions with other Moleculs, right?
But in one of your other Videos you calculate that only ca. 3% (at See level) of all air molecules have enough kinetic energy to excite a CO2 Molecule. That cannot explain the Measurments of the backradiation. If they measure right.
I agree with you that this might be a bit confusing. If I remeber correctly, I mentioned in one of the older videos, that thermally excited emission is the source of the measurable atmospheric radiation and that due to the short range of the GHG-frequencies only the radiation from the near surface air can be measured at the surface.
Thermalisation eliminates direct photon-absorption-reeimission-processes from the same GHG-molecule. That means the reemission is driven by the thermal energy of the air molecules. This energy is transfered to the GHG-molecules via collisions. Since air molecules suffer about 7*10^9 collisions per second, about 3% of that are more than enought to drive the thermally exited emission.
If I stated back then taht there is no back radiation, that means there is no real radiation flow through the whole troposphere, that warms the surface, but only a radiation exchange of the surface with the air close to the surface.
Here English is a bit less precise than German. In German this radiation exchange (with no net radiation flow) is called "Gegenstrahlung" (counter radiation) and the fictive atmospheric radiation flow through the whole troposphere is called "Rückstrahlung" (back radiation).
The important thing is, that thermalisation forces reemission on a detour over heat (thermal energy). This means that a complete conversion of absorbed radiation back into emitted radiation is not possible due to the 2th law of thermodynamics and that Kirchhoff´s law of radiation is not applicable under these conditions.
Have a look at Manabe´s (Nobel)-speches. One of the first things he mentions is that he assumes that Kirchhoff´s law is applicable to the atmosphere. That means that at least one of his fundamental premissis is wrong.
Sorry for that inconsitancy. Back then I expected that it is sufficnet to mention that the surface radiation is completely converted into heat over a distance of a few meters, since this complete conversion into heat implies all the stuff I told in the last two videos.
I imagine, i understand your point.
If one took a pyrgeometer high enough up a skeletal structure, would it be possible to prove there were no back radiation at that height above ground level (50m) ?
No, the the greenhouse gases emit randomly in any direction. Therefore there will always be back radiation as long as there is still an atmosphere.
This kind of thiing is the exact problem with GW. In engineering we build a model for a system, then we empirically test it in the real world and if the data doesn't fit the theory then we dicard the model. GW models are not properly tested. Your experiment should be conducted.
@@MarkusOtt-o4z As per some of my other comments here, how do we experimentally verify all of this? It must be done if the controversy is to end or we will just be lost in the fog of multiple hypotheses for ever.
@@davelowe1977 The linear relation between OLR and surface temperature is a clear hint that convection dominates the energy flow. The radiation transfer models are all based on the assumption that Kirchhoff´s law is applicabe to the troposphere. Manabe alway invokes Kirchhoff´s law when he talks about his model. His model produces also a linear relation between OLR and surface temperature. Bud based on at least one wrong assumption.
If one of the basic assumptions is wrong, then all the results of these models are wrong.
@@MarkusOtt-o4zI understand your point but how can this be proven beyond doubt by experiment? In other words, there are two models/interpretations. What practical test can be devised to differentiate between them that is not ambiguous and on which both parties would accept prior to it being carried out?
re 20.58 mins; If back radiation is photons, then is thermodynamics relevant ? If a colder medium is radiating 320Wm2 of photons, which are not heat. then what prevents a warmer medium, the ground, from absorbing them ?
Nothing prevents the ground from absorbing the 320W/m2. But at the same time the ground emits 320W/m2. So overall the is no net energy flow.
At 6:21 you say that "in the case of CO2" its excited state is maintained for about half a second, but earlier (2:33) you said "Greenhouse gas molecules" store for ~0.5sec. Do different GHGs have different storage times?
yes they all differ a bit. In the HITRAN-data bank you can find more detailed information.
Thank you!
This is a top notch analysis. A late question... Do windmills result in global warming by adding resistance to convection? I'm sure the effect is small, but must result in a higher delta-T between the top of the troposphere and the earth to drive the same heat transfer. How ironic.
Not really, windmills affect atmospheric mass and energy transfer over the surface. They prevent mixing so hot patches stay hot and cold patches stay cold for a longer time than previous. Given SB law that would mean more Black-body radiation, not less.
@@dragoscoco2173 I think you are missing the part of vertical convection that depends on horizontal flow. I know this is not in the climate models because they don't model vertical convection. I could care less whether the surface directly heats the air, or if it radiated up to CO2 several feet above and then converted to thermal energy. Either way, the heat is convected up.
So it is not only thermodynamics that is missing from climate models, it is also a complete lack of fluid mechanics and convective heat transfer concepts. The radiative models are not valid during convection.
Again, that is why we put walls on a greehouse, and not just a roof. We control the temperature by opening a door or some vents allowing heat to convect away. By putting a windmill across the door, we will reduce the cooling provided by the convection through the door.
@@davidpayne8646 "By putting a windmill across" That works only if a roof is present. Convection is buoyancy dependent, which is dampened by turbulence mixing it up, so hard to quantify unless tested, models cannot do this even in the slightest.
You are onto something but given the many unknowns and chaotic behavior it is hard to make valid statements.
@@dragoscoco2173 Ohhhh, it's bouyancy dependent. That makes sense. I wonder why no one has created a model for convection before - one would think that there are lots of engineering and science problems that such a model would be helpful with. Maybe I will create such a model, and I think I will use a finite difference approach to the partial differential equation. Good thing it only needs to one dimensional though because since it is bouyancy related there is no need for other dimensions. My only problem is how can I get the hot air to move up through the cold air moving down without getting all mixed up.
Good grief, we are all lost.
@@davidpayne8646 It is very complex. Hot air does rise for a while, pushing above air upwards, which in turn is warmer than whatever is beneath it and so on. It is a small effect unless.....
The other part of convection is from evaporation. Water evaporates raising local pressure, and is a lighter than air gas so buoyant, it rises to cold altitudes, crashes into water vapor lowering the pressure there. This is the bigger effect of upward motion.
It is a highly invisible motion untill the silver lining where clouds form. You can imagine that the cloud has a plume of water gas rising below it. Some days after a rain or close to the sea you can spot several clouds forming in the same manner if the wind is not too strong.
Critics of the saturation argument say that as photons are emitted by relaxing CO2 molecules, those photons will run into increased CO2 in the upper atmosphere and this will cause more warming. Any comment?
CO2 requires 1000000 more time to re-emit that 15um IR photon, than it takes for a air molecule (take your pick) to hit the CO2 and absorb (thermalise) that energy via collision.
Basically CO2 does not have much chance to re-emit that 15um IR it absorbed from the ground.
The IR emission time of CO2 is well known and a prerequisite to CO2 laser calibration etc.
@@dragoscoco2173 Not sure I understand but I get the impression that in the upper atmosphere there will be almost no 15 micron radiation for CO2 to absorb. All that can happen up there is that N & O might hit CO2 and transfer energy but there would not be a net gain in atmospheric temp at that point. Sorry to be a pest but after the Queensland election in a few weeks many members of the Conservative party will want to abandon the net zero lunacy as a policy position but close to half the party still buy into the panic and I need to have a good arguement that I understand so that I can defuse the story from the remaining alarmists in the party.
@@davidjuliesmiththomas7983 As ATLAS EoDG data of planetary limb spectra shows us, the TOA emission of the atmospheric gas is mainly water and CO2 about the same in intensity. Meaning CO2 emits quite well at TOA from thermalisation and the planet in 15um looks like a dim lightbulb. More CO2 really means more emission there so more cooling, not less.
More plainly, sats with IR spectral gear can be pointed at the planetary limb, as in observing only the spectra of the atmosphere without any ground contribution. ATLAS EODG limb spectra, googled, remove the logarythmic and 2 more prominent peaks show up. Water and CO2.
Meaning the top of our atmosphere thermally emits from water and CO2 mainly. That emission is not from IR from the ground as that cannot reach such heights. That is thermal emission from thermal collisions.
Now the question is what would more CO2 do to that peak of emission considering no CO2 would kill it.
The TOA is very dry, but presumably more CO2 up there would allow a bit more conversion of thermalised heat to 15 um radiation. Doesn't that effectively make the TOA just radiate a bit more 15 um but at the expense of a bit less other radiation excited from the small amount of H2O that is there, i.e. no net change?
"summary for policy makers"......lol.
== UN propaganda!:)
The only section I violently disagree with here is the discussion of the IPCC energy flow diagram, at about the 19 minute mark.
1. The diagram is bad conjecture. It is not empirically based, and I believe it will fail any attempt to validate it. Convenient for the IPCC that there's no way to validate their averaged energy diagram as such a world imagined by the modellers does not exist. In the real world : we have day and night. Earth has a titlt giving seasons. the amount of incident radiation recieved at the ground varies because earth is a sphere and the sun rays hit that sphere almost as straight lines. I believe no empirically derived energy balance system exists. But correct me if I'm wrong - is there a whole earth real energy balance system? - to check the silly "flat earth" IPCC model against?
2. Warmists miss-apply the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, as explained by Yong Tuition. There should be 2 terms a Source term and an absorber term. both T^4. The absorber has a lower temperature, so that term is lower than the source term. The absorber term is subtracted from the source term to get a value for radiance flow. When radiation only travels a short distance before it is absorbed by CO2/H2O radiatively active gases, the absorber term will be quite high as the temperature difference between temperatures of the surface and atmosphere above it are small. I suppose the absorber term for the fraction of emissions making their way out to space will use 3K : 3^4 - the supposed temperature of the background radiation of the universe? In both cases of radiation emitted from earth's surface, absorber terms are needed to subtract from source terms. IPCC ignore these S-B absorber terms which should be reducing their outbound radiance values.
I agree with you that the global mean energy balance should not be taken very serious. They are hiding in plane sight that the back radiation is not a real energy flux but only a radiation exchange. In the older German meteorolgy literature the wording is "Gegenstrahlung" (counter radiation) instead of "back radiation" . This "Gegenstrahlung" directly indicates that there is no net energy flux and that the "Gegenstrahlung" is driven by the heat content of the surface, which can´t heat itself via Gegenstrahlung.
@@MarkusOtt-o4z I estimate IPCC are out by a factor of 10 in the troposphere. I calculate infrared radiated by earth's surface is 8% of surface cooling, not 80% as IPCC say. I think it should be possible to setup an experiment to test it. Using a Pirani gauge with a high emissivity filament - such as an oxidised NiChrome wire.
80Ni:20Cr, ε ~ 0.9 or 20Ni:25Cr:55Fe, ε ~ 0.97; using 0.02mm diameter wire. High Vacuum pump and a Pirani gauge should show this.
Plain old Pirani filaments have quite low emissivity ~ 0.05 which , I think, gives better accuracy at medium (conduction dependent) vacuum ranges (above 0.001 Torr to 0.1 Torr) I think this is the only criticism I have of Tom Shula's original interview on this topic. His estimate was too low for surface OLR; and that excused a lot of people's dismissal his case. The acutual IR should be about 20 times Tom Shula's original estimate, which ~ 8% - when using that high emissivity filament.
Which brings us to the point.
Q: Why did IPCC overestimate surface OLR so much?
A: Because IR travels at light speed & their model would cool earth very quickly unless they added massive downwelling IR to counter balance & slow that model cooling down. I'm NOT saying the conspired to do it. With the demands politicos made on them, a wild overestimate was the ONLY result IPCC could produce. They would have been abolished in 1995 after AR2 had they not blamed global warming on humanity back then. As Bernie Lewin explained in : www.amazon.co.uk/Searching-Catastrophe-Signal-Origins-Intergovernmental/dp/0993118992
If the theory presented here is true, you would measure one or more orders of magnitude (50.000 times less?) less radiative flux in the 15 um band when moving away from the surface, but pointing towards the surface. Because the flux that originates from the surface of the Earth (locally) would be thermalized than thus 'disappear', only to 're-emerge' at ToA (top of atmosphere), specifically the height where thermally stimulated emission starts to outweigh thermalization.
Has such an experiment been carried out?
Co2 cannot prevent climate regulation, the speed of our rotation determines the level of Climate Regulation.
As in the daily speed of rotation of the Earth. If so, nicely put.
Dear Markus, it is a mistake of logic to try to define the greenhouse effect as you seem to do at 0:13, as 'a thing caused by back radiation'. The mistake of logic is to try to define something just by one of its several constituent mechanisms. As if to try to define the wood by one of its trees (or, in American parlance, the forest by one of its trees). Back radiation is one of the several constituent mechanisms of the greenhouse effect, but it is not its sole defining feature. The proper definition of the greenhouse effect is as an overall effect of the presence of greenhouse gases relative to their absence.
Care for a physics problem? Can you compute the mean temperature of the Moon if it's rotational period were shortened to 1 day instead of 29 as present?
A good and thorough explanation, but with a bit too many pseudo-science terms such as 'greenhouse gasses' and 'photons'.
We can´t "reinvent" everything.
This seems to make theoretical sense, but we need data to back it up?
Take an IR spectrometer and climb a mountain.
Dear Markus, you are not using a proper or natural definition of the greenhouse effect. The natural meaning of the term 'greenhouse effect' is 'the difference between the condensed matter surface temperatures in the presence and absence of greenhouse gases'. You confuse yourself by trying to define it in terms of your notions of the several contributory mechanisms of energy transport in the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect is properly defined by the overall effect, not by consideration of its several contributory mechanisms. It is natural and substantial, roughly 33°C. Those of us, such as you and me and Tom, who say that man-made carbon-dioxide-emissions global warming is practically nothing, are saying that added man-made CO2 adds practically nothing to the natural greenhouse effect.
With respect to my previous question; If the back radiation is a near ground effect only, then why is the downwelling thermal radiation increased by clouds ? "Question on downwelling radiation ; In his presentation Happer shows a graph of measurements of DWR (using a pyrgeometer) at 12 minutes ruclips.net/video/60nJOKGU3Ks/видео.htmlsi=efcO8joACEgTsa-R ."
I would certainly like a back and forth because Marcus presents a rather theoretical idea but that leaves some gaps open to explain. Happer et al would clearly know what to ask him.
Is it something to do with condensing h20 vapour releasing heat?
I assume there is a misconception. Back radiation is not a near ground effect only. The whole air columne emits radiation, but due to the relatively short range of the greenhouse gas frequencies in the lower atmosphere, surface mounted pyrgeomter receive only radiation from the near surface air.
Clouds are made of water droplets or ice crystals. They therefore emit the full black body spectrum. The cloud´s emission in the range of the atmospheric window can penetrate the atmosphere mostly unhindred and therefore adds to the IR emitted by the greenhouse gases near the surface. The pyrgeometer therefore receives mor radiation under a cloudy sky.
Our range estimate of 10 to 50m for the greenhouse gas frequencies is based on humid air. Over some deserts the range may be a bit longer.
@@MrBallynally2 the 320W/m2 back and forth radiation is based on the global mean energy balance. In the real world the lower latitudes, on average emit more and high latitudes receive more radiation. In one of the next videos we will dicuss that i more detail.
Clouds are high albedo like high reflectivity particles. You are measuring the temperature of the IR window reflected back into your thermometer. From a satelite clouds tend to look like -70-90'C patches, while measuring their temp leads to -10-20'C. They reflect back the cold of space (misnomer) into the sat IR imaging systems. Clouds themselves are produced form quite energy releasing condensation. They do radiate themselves sometimes and do heat up the surrounding air for a while.
Dear Markus, we value your opinion, but here you are mistaken. The temperatures of the bodies that are affected by the earth’s energy transfer process are governed by the nets of various substantial flows of energy, so that the system is always substantially out of thermodynamic equilibrium, though it can, suitably averaged, at times be transiently in a more or less steady state. The balance of energy at the earth’s condensed matter surface is the algebraic sum of the following several substantial flows of energy: of the rate of absorption of directly impinging sunlight on the condensed matter surface (+), of the rate back radiation from the atmosphere (+), of the rate of surface emitted radiation passing straight through the atmosphere to outer space (-), of the net rate of absorption of the surface's emitted radiation by the atmosphere (-), of the net rate of transfer of energy from the surface to the atmosphere by evaporation (-), of the net rate of transfer of energy from the surface to the atmosphere by conduction (-), and of net storage rate of energy by the condensed matter surface (+). Though it is never violated, the second law of thermodynamics does not directly govern this net algebraic sum because the second law, exactly stated, refers to completed transfers between bodies in mutual and respectively internal thermodynamic equilibrium, which is a state of zero rates of energy transfer, not a state of substantial rates of flow of energy. It is a matter of rates of flow of energy. Other things being equal, increase of back radiation results in decrease of net rate of cooling of the condensed matter surface. The greenhouse effect is the difference between the states in the presence and absence of greenhouse gases. This does not in any way violate the second law of thermodynamics. It simply says that greenhouse gases affect the radiative properties of the atmosphere by their presence. The surface is warmer in the presence of greenhouse gases than it would be in their absence. Evaporation of surface water is a major factor in the cooling of the surface.The term 'greenhouse effect' is something of a misnomer because greenhouses work by prevention of otherwise substantial convection between their interiors and their atmospheric surroundings, while there is no corresponding convection between the earth and its atmosphere on the one hand, and the surrounding outer space on the other hand. It is perhaps unlikely that the term 'greenhouse effect' will be changed by customary usage, but who knows? The occurrence of the greenhouse effect is uncontroversial. Controversial is the extent to which man-made carbon dioxide emissions influence the greenhouse effect. Contradicting the views of many established authorities, you and I, and I guess Tom, agree that the latter influence is too small to be detectable in our present state of measurement ability and knowledge of the details of the earth’s energy transport process. The main mechanism of climate change is apparently change of oceanic currents, the causes of which are not yet well understood, along with causation by the processes in the solar system, such as solar radiation and the changing motions of the earth.
Is the an Ai generated comment?
@MarkusOtt-o4z Dear Markus, thank you for your response. No, it's not an AI generated comment. I made it myself. I am a proper living person. Is there something I can write here to persuade you of that? Can you tell me which sentence or sentences in my comment you disagree with?
@@christophergame7977 Originally credited to Jan Sibelius, and repeated by many others since, I paraphrase, “No one has ever erected a statue to honor a critic.”
This particular video is intended to address one specific aspect of of the tragedy of errors named the “greenhouse effect” within the context of the body of work that Markus and I have presented here, not yet complete.
If you were to view this presentation in that context, you would understand that we have covered most of the issues that you raise in other parts of our work.
In some respects you seem to be in agreement, but then you say, “…while there is no corresponding convection between the Earth and its atmosphere on the one hand, and the surrounding outer space on the other hand.”
So apparently you believe that the energy transport in the atmosphere is purely radiative?
We are simply saying that near the surface, the GHGs absorb the radiation from the surface and via thermalization convert it to sensible heat. The sensible heat is transported upwards via convection. In the convective zone, there is thermally excited emission, absorption, and thermalization which is random and results in no net energy transport.
At “top of atmosphere” the thermally excited emission rate exceeds the thermalization rate, and the so-called GHGs convert the sensible heat into radiation which escapes to space.
The primary energy transport mechanism is convection, and the behavior of GHGs actually enhances cooling.
You seem to have a lot to say. If you have original thoughts and a model of your own perhaps it would be more productive to create your own presentation so that all could have the benefit of understanding your position.
In the meantime, your long “critiques” are beginning to sound more like “word salads” which is why the AI question was raised.
@@ThomasShula Dear Tom, thank you for your response. I will try to engage with it here. You write "then you say, “…while there is no corresponding convection between the Earth and its atmosphere on the one hand, and the surrounding outer space on the other hand.” So apparently you believe that the energy transport in the atmosphere is purely radiative?" You put words into my mouth.
You have me in a dilemma. I try to initially cover as many objections as I can comfortably predict, and you accuse me of prolixity, as "word salads". I omit to cover a particular objection, and you fabricate an accusation that I believe the opposite of what I believe.
My clause “… there is no corresponding convection between the Earth and its atmosphere on the one hand, and the surrounding outer space on the other hand” means what it says. I am not denying the occurrence of convective circulatory transport of energy in the atmosphere. To say "that the energy transport in the atmosphere is purely radiative" is tantamount to saying that there is no convective circulatory transport of energy in the atmosphere, in other words, that intra-atmospheric circulatory convection does not occur or is unimportant. Of course I know full well, and have several times said, that convective circulatory transport of energy in the atmosphere is great and most important. For clarity, let me repeat it: convective circulatory transport of energy in the atmosphere is great and important. My sentence quoted above, which you ridicule, talks not about intra-atmospheric circulatory convection; no, it talks about the non-existence of circulatory convection between, on the one hand, the Earth and its atmosphere, and the surrounding outer space on the other hand." There is more to be said, but I will pause my response at this point to let you respond to it so far.
@@christophergame7977 Now you are saying “convective circulatory transport”. I have not seen that phrase before. What does it mean?
Boy, that was such a dry presentation my mind kept drifting off..
You're right. Actually, it shouldn't be necessary to talk about such basic stuff.
Is it possible that the process you identify, thermalization, or rather the reverse of it 'thermally excited emission' is in fact the cause of the back radiation. You state that "very few" co2 molecules get to re radiate due to 7x10 to the 9 interactions per second. Maybe those very few are sufficient enough to be the cause of back radiation. In fact the large number of interactions per second may cause enough excitations of co2 molecules, that some will radiate faster than the 0.5 half life stated. Or that the constant collisions will ensure that the co2 molecule is excited for a long enough period that it will then indeed emit a photon. This would mean the back radiation is dependent on the amount of GHG molecules, logarithmic relationship. The additional heat from clouds would then make sense if that heat results in greater thermalization of the co2 molecules by oxygen and nitrogen and inevitably more thermally excited emissions and therefore more back radiation?
The important thing is that direct absorption-reemission from the same molecule is surpressed in the dense air of the lower atmosphere. This direct absorption-reemission would be compatible with Kirchhoff´s law of rediation. But as soon as emission is driven by heat under convective conditions, Kirchhoff´s law becomes invalid.
Yes the high collision rates produce the back radiation via thermally excited emission.
The claim that the GHE is in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is predicated on the fact that the person making this claim is using a strawman argument! And seeing that there is so many of these arguments, i'm not going to go into details about them. Rather, detail what the GHE is:
The GHE is predicated on the fact that temperature at the surface is dependent on energy balance:
If energy in is = to energy out, you have no temperature change.
If energy in is > than energy out, then temperature rises.
If energy in is < energy out, then temperature decreases.
GHG's like Co2 and Water Vapor slow the loss of energy into space, thus creating a buildup of energy near the surface. (Temperature rises)
But it is in violation of the 2nd law. As were black holes until we gave them a temperature. People who disregard entropy are suckers. Excuse me now while I warm my hands by holding them up to some ice.
@@davidpayne8646 *"But it is in violation of the 2nd law"*
I just explained how it is NOT. Please explain how it is.
How is the slowing of escaping energy a violation of the 2nd law?
*"Excuse me now while I warm my hands by holding them up to some ice"*
You don't actually believe the GHE states that the cold atmosphere is warming the surface do you?
@@House_Stark You can't have heat transfer from a colder substance (the atmosphere) to a warmer one (the earth). Entropy is defined as E/T, so the energy would be running uphill, decreasing entropy, and charged with a felony according to the second law. The climate cult does not understand thermodynamics.
Well there are convection and evaporation which go into overdrive to balance that. Negative feedback and all.
@@davidpayne8646 It does not violate the 2nd, as that law does not bother with the speed of heat transfer.
Climate science. Dispute that!