The Science of Doom

Recap

This post is a follow on from my original article: American Thinker – the Difference between a Smoking Gun and a Science Paper.

Gary Thompson who wrote the article in American Thinker that prompted my article was kind enough to make some comments and clarifications. Instead of responding in the comments to the first article, I thought it was worth a new post, especially to get the extra formatting that is allowed in posts rather than comments.

I appreciate him commenting and I’m sure he has a thick skin, but just in case, any criticisms are aimed at getting to the heart of the matter, rather than at him – or anyone else who has different views.

For people who have landed at this post and haven’t read the original.. the heart of Gary’s article were 3 papers, of which I examined one (the first). The paper compared two 3-month periods 27 years apart in the East and West Pacific. Gary commented that the actual OLR (outgoing longwave radiation) was higher in the later period in the important CO2 band (or what we could see of it).

His claim – the theory says that more CO2 should lead to less emission at those wavelengths and therefore the theory has been disproved.

My point – Gary doesn’t understand the theory. The temperature was higher in the later period in this region and therefore the radiation leaving the earth’s surface would be higher. We’ll see this explained again, but did I mention that you should read Gary’s article and my article before moving forward? Also at the end of the Science of Doom post you can see Gary’s comments. Always worth reading what people actually wrote rather than what someone (me) with the opposite point of view highlighted from their words..

The Unqualified Statements in Papers

Gary started by saying:

I know why the authors of the papers were using climate models to simulate the removal of effect from surface temperatures and humidity and that the ‘theory’ says you must do that. But my problem lies in two peer reviewed papers that casts doubt on that theory and that method.

And cites two papers. The first, a 1998 paper: The Trace Gas Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming by the great V. Ramanathan (I will continue to call him ‘great’ even though he didn’t reply to my email about his 1978 paper.. possibly busy, but still..).

I recommend this 1998 paper to everyone reading this article. Even though it is 12 years old, it is all relevant and a very readable summary.

The Great Ramanathan

Gary pointed out page 3 where statements appeared to back up his (Gary’s) interpretation of the later OLR study. Here’s what Ramanathan said:

Why does the presence of gases reduce OLR? These gases absorb the longwave radiation emitted by the surface of the earth and re-emit to space at the colder atmospheric temperatures. Since the emission increases with temperature, the absorbed energy is much larger than the emitted energy, leading to a net trapping of longwave photons in the atmosphere. The fundamental cause for this trapping is that the surface is warmer than the atmosphere; by the same reasoning decrease of temperature with altitude also contributes to the trapping since radiation emitted by the warmer lower layers are trapped in the regions above.

By deduction.. an increase in a greenhouse gas such as CO2 will lead to a further reduction in OLR. If the solar absorption remains the same, there will be a net heating of the planet.

Gary commented on the last part of this:

Notice there is no clarifying statement about having to use model simulated graphs to ‘correct’ for surface temperatures and water vapor before seeing that OLR reduction.

And on the first part:

“since the emission increases with temperature, the absorbed energy is much larger than the emitted energy, leading to a net trapping of longwave photons in the atmosphere.” – here the author stated clearly that even taking into account higher emissions from warmer surfaces, the net will still be a reduction.

For half the readers here, they are shaking their heads.. But for Gary and the other half of the readership, let’s press on.

First of all, if we took any of 1000 papers on the “greenhouse” effect and observations, models, theoretical adjustments, impacts on GCMs – I bet you could find at least 700 – 900 of them at some point will make a statement that could be pulled out which has no “clarifying statement”. That “cast doubt” on the theory. Perhaps 1000 out of a 1000.

Context, context, context as they say in real estate.

Where to begin? Let’s look at “the theory” first. And then come back and examine Ramanathan’s statements.

The Theory

There are a few basics. For newcomers, you can take an extended look at the theory in CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? It’s in seven parts! Actually it’s a compressed treatment.

This is itself is a clue.

In the books I have seen on Atmospheric Physics many tens of pages are devoted to radiation, including absorption and re-radiation – the “greenhouse” effect – and many tens of pages are devoted to convection. Understanding the basics is critical.

For Gary and his followers, the theory is on a precipice and these papers are giving us that clue. For people who’ve studied the subject the theory of the “greenhouse” effect is as solid as the theory of angular momentum, or the 2nd law of thermodynamics (the real one, not the imaginary one).

As Ramanthan says in the same paper Gary cites:

It is convenient to separate the greenhouse effect from global warming. The former is based on observations and physical laws such as Planck’s law for black-body emission. The concept of warming that results from the greenhouse effect, is based on deductions from sound physical principles. Numerous feedback processes, determine the magnitude of the warming; these feedbacks are treated with varying degrees of sophistication in GCMs and other climate models. As a result, predictions of the magnitude of the warming are not only model dependent but are subject to large uncertainties..

If I can paraphrase:

Greenhouse effect – dead solid. Global warming – lots of factors, need GCMs, pretty complicated.

Perhaps he has not realized that his words in the same paper combined with experiments demonstrate a flaw in the theory of the dead-solid “greenhouse” effect..

Back to the theory, but first..

A Quick, possibly Annoying, Diversion to the Theory of Gravity

But before we start, I thought it was worth an analogy. Analogies are illustrations, not proof of anything. They can often inflame an argument, but that’s not the intention here. Many people who are still undecided about the amazing theory of the inappropriately-named “greenhouse” effect might welcome a break from thinking about it.

The theory of planetary movements is my analogy. I picture a world where gravity – and its effects on the planets orbiting the sun – is strangely controversial. A concerned citizen, leafing through some fairly recent scientific papers notices that planets don’t really go around the sun in ellipses as the theory claims. In fact, there are some quite odd movements. And so, surprised that the scientists can’t see what’s in plain sight, this citizen draws attention to them.

When some detail-orientated commenters point out that the theory is actually (in part):

F = GMm/r²

where F= force between 2 bodies, G is a constant, M and m are the masses of the 2 bodies and r is the distance between them

And the ellipse idea is just a handy generalization of the results of the laws of graviational attraction.

And the reason why some planetary movements recently measured don’t follow an ellipse is because a few planets are a bit closer together, there’s a large asteroid flying between them and so when we do the maths it all works out pretty well.

The original concerned citizen then pulls out a few papers where, in the introduction, gravity is explained as that force that produces elliptical movements in the planets.. with no disclaimers about F=GMm/r² and claims that this theory is, therefore, under question.

Why this annoying analogy? Most “theories” in physics are developed because of some observations which get analyzed to death – and finally someone produces a “comprehensive theory” that satisfies most of the relevant scientific community. The paper with the comprehensive theory usually contains some equations, some observations, some matching of the two – but often in common everyday usage the shorthand version of the theory is used.

“The theory of gravity tells us that planets orbit the sun in an elliptical manner, and ..”

So much more tedious to keep saying F=GMm/r², and the other formulae..

(I know, I haven’t proved anything, but maybe a few readers can take a moment and see a parallel..)

Back to the Radiative-Convective Theory

First, bodies radiate energy according to Planck’s formula, which looks complicated when written down. The idea is simplified by the total energy radiated according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law which says that total energy is proportional to the 4th power of temperature.

Temperature goes up, energy radiated goes up (quite a bit more) – and the peak wavelength is a little lower. Here’s a graphical look of the Planck formula which takes away the mathematical pain:

Blackbody Radiation at 288K and 289K (15'C and 16'C)

Two curves – 288K and 289K. Now zoomed in a little where most of the energy is:

Close up of the peak energy of 288K and 289K

Total energy in the top curve (289K) is 396W/m^2, and in the bottom curve (288K) is 390W/m^2

Second, trace gases absorb energy according to a formula, which when simplifed is the Beer-Lambert law.

Absorption of Radiation as "optical thickness" increases

Without going into a lot of maths, as the concentration of a “greenhouse” gas increases, the absorption graph falls off more steeply – more energy is absorbed.

Third, re-radiation of this energy takes place according to an energy balance equation that you can see in CO2 – Part Three. The energy balance or radiative transfer equations rely on knowledge of the temperature profile in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere), because the actual temperature here is dominated by convection not radiation. (Radiation still takes place and the temperature profile is a major factor in the radiation – but this effect is not the primary determinant of the temperature profile).

When Gary says:

I know why the authors of the papers were using climate models to simulate the removal of effect from surface temperatures and humidity and that the ‘theory’ says you must do that. But my problem lies in two peer reviewed papers that casts doubt on that theory and that method.

It sounds like Gary believes this “model” is some suspicious extra that tries to deal with problems between the theory and the real world. But it’s the foundation. Anyone who had read an introduction to atmospheric physics would understand that. Someone who had tried hard to understand a few papers without a proper foundation would easily miss it.

• Higher temperatures increase OLR
• More trace gases reduce OLR in certain wavelengths

Which effect dominates in a particular situation?

It’s simple conceptually. But, if we want to find out exact results – such as, which effect dominates in a particular situation – we need a “model” = an equation or set of equations. Because if we want to quantify the effects we have to solve some tricky equations which you can see in a paper by.. the Great Ramanathan. Well, Ramanathan & Coakley 1978  – a seminal paper on Climate Modeling through Radiative-Convective Models, here’s an extract from p7:

A few equations from Ramanathan and Coakley, p7

Lots of maths. The rest of the paper is similar. Let’s move on to Ramanathan’s much later paper and what he said and meant.

Has Ramanathan given up on The Theory?

Let’s review the words Gary pulled out of the paper:

Why does the presence of gases reduce OLR? These gases absorb the longwave radiation emitted by the surface of the earth and re-emit to space at the colder atmospheric temperatures. Since the emission increases with temperature, the absorbed energy is much larger than the emitted energy, leading to a net trapping of longwave photons in the atmosphere.

Gary reads into this “here the author stated clearly that even taking into account higher emissions from warmer surfaces, the net will still be a reduction“. By which Gary thinks Ramanathan is saying something like:

..measurements from a specific location at a later date when CO2 has increased will always lead to a reduction in OLR..

-my paraphrase.

But no, he has totally misunderstood what the author is saying. Ramanathan is doing a quick drive through of the basics and explaining how the greenhouse effect works.

Lower temperatures in the atmosphere mean that the radiation to space from this lower temperature atmosphere is lower than the radiation from the surface. (This is the “net trapping”). Therefore – the “greenhouse” effect. There is no conclusion here that “at all times in all situations increases in “greenhouse” gases will lead to a reduction in OLR in these bands“. The conclusion is just that “greenhouse” gases mean that the surface is warmer than it would be without these gases

And the first claim, Ramanathan said:

By deduction.. an increase in a greenhouse gas such as CO2 will lead to a further reduction in OLR. If the solar absorption remains the same, there will be a net heating of the planet.

Gary said:

Notice there is no clarifying statement about having to use model simulated graphs to ‘correct’ for surface temperatures and water vapor before seeing that OLR reduction.

That’s because the basics of the theory are the solid foundation and don’t need to be restated as qualifiers to every statement. Ramanathan helped write the theory! For people who think that this stuff is just some added extra, read his 1978 paper and see all the maths and the explanations. This is the theory.

In the earlier part of his earlier statement he said “Since the emission increases with temperature” but didn’t qualify it with “emission increases in proportion to the 4th power of temperature“.

Is Ramanathan losing confidence in the Stefan-Boltzmann formula? Or Planck? Are these rocks crumbling?

It’s only because Gary has decided that these points are somehow rocky that he would reach these conclusions. (And I could pick 10’s of other statements in the paper which, without qualifiers, could be taken to be the beginning of the end of a specific theory).

As a general point – when we look at the hypothetical global annual average after “new equilibrium” from increased CO2 is reached – if this new equilibrium exists – the theory (1st law of thermodynamics) predicts that the “new” OLR will match the “old” OLR (global annual average). And in that case the OLR in “greenhouse” gas bands will be reduced a little, while the OLR outside of those bands will be increased a little.

But when we look at one local situation we need the theory, also known as “the model”, also known as equations, to tell us what exactly the result will be.

Ramanathan hasn’t cast any doubt on it. He believes it. His papers from the 1970s to today work it all out. He just doesn’t write qualifiers to each statement as if every line will be read by people who don’t understand the theory..

Gary’s Maths

In Gary’s comment he reproduced his back of envelope calculations of how much surface temperature should have changed over this 27 year period.

He takes the charitable approach of considering a net reduction in OLR from one of the three papers he originally reviewed – if I understood this step correctly. The figure he takes to work with is a 1K reduction. And then tries to work out how much this 1K reduction in OLR in the CO2 band would have on surface temperatures.

Like all good science this starts on napkins and the back of envelopes, because everyone studying a problem first has to attempt to quantify it using available data and available formulae. Then when the first results are worked out and it seems like something new is discovered – or something old overturned – then the scientist, patent clerk, writer now has to turn to more serious methods.

In Gary’s preliminary results he shows that a reduction in OLR due to CO2 might have contributed something like 0.3°C to surface temperature change over 30 years or so – where the GISS temperature increase for the period is something like 0.7°C. The essence of the calculation was comparing the Planck function (see the first and second graph in this post) of two temperatures 1K apart, then considering how much is in the CO2 band and so calculating the approximate change in W/m². Then by applying a “climate sensitivity” number from realclimate.org, converting that into a temperature change.

Radiative physics has the potential to confuse everyone. Perhaps if we consider the “equilibrium case”, one problem with Gary’s calculation above will become clearer.

What’s the equilibrium case? In fact, it’s one generalized result of the real theory. And because it’s easier to understand than dI = -Inσdz + Bnσdz = (I – B)dχ people start to think the generalized result under equilibrium is the theory..

Under equilibrium, energy out = energy in. This is for the whole climate system. So we calculate the incoming solar radiation that is absorbed, averaged across the complete surface area of the earth = 239 W/m².

So if the planet is not heating up or cooling down, energy out (OLR) must also = 239 W/m².

So we consider the golden age of equilibrium in 1800 or thereabouts. We’ll assume the above numbers are true for that case. Then lots of CO2 (and other stuff) was added. Let’s suppose CO2 has reached the new current CO2 level of 380ppm – and stays constant from now on. The downward radiative forcing as calculated at “top of atmosphere” from the increase in CO2 is 1.7 W/m². And nothing else happens in the climate (“all other things being equal” as we say).

Eventually we will reach the new equilibrium. Doesn’t matter how long it takes, but let’s pretend it’s 2020. Before equilibrium the planet will be heating up, which means OLR < 239 W/m² (because more energy must come into the planet than leave the planet for it to warm up). At equilibrium, in 2020, OLR = 239 W/m² – once again. (Of course, at wavelengths around 15μm the energy will be lower than in 1800 and other wavelengths the energy will be higher).

At this new equilibrium point we still have a “radiative forcing” of 1.7W/m², which is why the surface temperature is higher, but no change in OLR when measured at 1800 and again at 2020.

We’ll assume, like Gary, the realclimate.org climate sensitivity – how do we calculate the new equilibrium temperature?

The change in OLR is 0.0 W/m². Therefore, change in temperature = 0’C. Ha, we’ve proved realclimate wrong. Climate sensitivity cannot exist.

Or, it was wrongly applied.

As trace gases like CO2 increase in concentration they absorb energy. The atmosphere warms up and re-radiates the energy in all direction. Simplifying, we say it re-radiates both up and down. The extra downward radiation is what is used to work out changes in surface temperature. Not the immediate or eventual change in OLR.

The extra downward part is usually called “radiative forcing” and comes with a number of definitions you can see in Part Seven of the CO2 series (along with my mistaken attempt to do a “back of envelope” calculation of surface temperature changes without feedback).

How do we work out the change in surface temperature?

In Gary’s case, what he will need to know is the change in downward longwave radiation. Not upwards.

Conclusion

The theory of radiative transfer in the atmosphere, at its heart, is a relatively simple one – but in application is a very challenging one computationally speaking. Therefore, it’s hard to grasp it in its details intuitively.

The theory isn’t the generalized idea of what will happen when moving from one equilibrium state to another equilibrium state with more “greenhouse” gases. That is a consequence of the theory under specific (and idealized) circumstances.

But because everyone likes shorthand, to many people this has become “the theory”. So when someone applies the maths to a specific situation it is “suspicious”. Maths becomes equated with “models” which to many people means “GCMs” which means “make-belief”. I think that if Gary had read Climate Modeling through Radiative-Convective Models by the Great Ramanthan, he might have a different opinion about the later paper and whether Ramanathan is “bailing out” on the extremely solid theory of “greenhouse” gases.

Anyone who has read a book on atmospheric physics would know that Gary’s claim is – no nice way to say it – “unsupported”. Yes – cruel, harsh, wounding words – but it had to be said.

However, most of the readers here and most on American Thinker haven’t read an undergraduate book on the topic. So it makes it worth trying to explain in some detail.

It’s also great to see people trying to validate or falsify theories with a little maths. Working out some numbers is an essential step in proving or disproving our own theories and those of others. In the example Gary provided he didn’t apply the correct calculation. (The subsequent pages of Ramanathan’s 1998 paper also run through these basics).

For those convinced that the idea that more CO2 will warm the surface of the planet is some crazy theory – these words are in vain.

But for the many more people who want to understand climate science, hopefully this article provides some perspective. The claims in American Thinker might at first sight seem to be a major problem to an important theory. But they aren’t.

Note – I haven’t yet opened the Philipona paper, but will do so in coming weeks and probably add another article about it. I didn’t want to leave Gary’s comments unanswered, and this post is already long enough..

Note on a Few Technical Matters

A few clarifications are in order, for people who like to get their teeth into the technical details.

Strictly speaking, at the very top of atmosphere there is no downward longwave forcing at all. That’s because there’s no atmosphere to radiate.

The IPCC definition of “radiative forcing” at “top of atmosphere” is a handy comparison tool of extra downward radiation before feedbacks and before equilibrium of the surface or troposphere is reached. In reality the increase in downward radiation doesn’t occur in just one location, extra downward longwave radiation occurs all throughout the troposphere and stratosphere.

In the example above, from 2010 to 2020 as surface and troposphere temperatures increased, radiative forcing would also increase slightly so it wouldn’t necessarily be constant at 1.7W/m².

Climate sensitivity is calculated by GCMs to work out the resulting long term (“equilibrium”) temperature change, with climate feedbacks, from increased radiative forcing. No warranty express or implied as to their accuracy or usefulness, just explaining how to apply the climate sensitivity value correctly.

Read Full Post »

Many readers of this blog would like progress towards the solution of the great questions in climate science. Other readers have stopped by still pondering the basics.

Some of those pondering the basics might have read many of the exciting claims on the internet that the “greenhouse” effect can’t exist because it would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

It’s not a claim that you find in any books on atmospheric physics by the way, it’s strictly an “internet phenomenon”.

Just a few basics in case this is the first post you have read from this site.

The inappropriately named “greenhouse” effect can be summed up in a few sentences:

Longwave radiation from the earth’s surface is absorbed by many trace gases, including water vapor and CO2. The absorption causes these gases to heat up and energy is radiated back out – both up and down. The upward radiation is effectively “no change”. The downward radiation adds to the energy received from the sun and heats up the surface of the earth more than if this downward radiation did not occur.

If there was no absorption of radiation by “greenhouse” gases the surface of the earth would be a lot colder. Here is a very simplified graphic to draw people’s attention to the fact that “something big” is going on:

Upward Longwave Radiation, Numbers from Kiehl & Trenberth (1997)

(TOA = top of atmosphere). If there was no absorption and re-radiation back down the two numbers would be the same. (Note that the downward radiation is not shown to crystallize the issue)

These numbers are global annual averages under a clear sky. Under a cloudy sky the numbers are different but similar – and still the radiation from the surface of the earth is a lot greater than that leaving through the top of atmosphere. For more on this take a look at CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? – Part Six – Visualization and the followup CO2 Can’t Have That Effect Because.. as well as the start of the series on CO2.

Many people have said that the numbers are obviously wrong, I’m mixing up solar radiation and longwave radiation, it can’t happen, the temperature varies a lot from equator to poles so that’s why the radiation numbers are wrong..

As one person said on another blog, possibly commenting on one of these earlier posts:

I even saw one where the guy had 100 watts/m² going into the atmosphere MORE than was coming out FOREVER.

Sharp-eyed readers might notice that I haven’t drawn in the downward radiation. Energy is balanced in the atmosphere because of the downward radiation from the atmosphere (not drawn). This is the “greenhouse” effect.

Onto the Imaginary Second Law of Thermodynamics

How can a colder atmosphere add heat to a warmer surface?

Can a candle warm the sun?

There are many popular restatements of the imaginary 2nd law. These two should be a representative sample. And so follows the Q.E.D. claim that the “greenhouse” effect plainly contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.

What is the second law?

The Real Second Law of Thermodynamics

My boring thermodynamics books and I have long since had a parting of the ways, so I looked it up on Wikipedia. Not a 100% reliable source, but the (real) second law is just as I remember it so I looked no further.

It’s possible that the imaginary second law has taken a strong hold because anyone who does look it up finds statements like dS/dt>=0, where S is entropy. Wow. Clever people. What’s entropy? How does this relate to candles? Candles can’t warm the sun, so I guess the second law has just proved the “greenhouse” effect wrong..

According to Wikipedia, Clausius expressed the second law (validly) like this:

Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature

Again, that seems right and it doesn’t have any entropy involved in the description. I never did like entropy. It never seemed real.

Perhaps this formulation has been the inspiration for the imaginary second law. As a not very precise definition many people might read this and think no energy at all can flow from a cold body to a hot body.

In fact, no net energy can flow from a cold body to a hot body.

In the case of the real “greenhouse” effect and the real 2nd law of thermodynamics, net energy is flowing from the earth to the atmosphere. But this doesn’t mean no energy can flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer ground.

It simply means more energy flows from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere than in the reverse direction.

Another likely reason the imaginary second law has become popular is most people are much more familiar with conduction of heat than radiation. Conduction of heat only appears to flow one way.

A Thought Experiment

We’ll do a thought experiment to demonstrate why the imaginary second law of thermodynamics is wrong. It’s simpler, safer, cheaper AND more reliable than assembling equipment. After all, we are going to look at radiation and if we do an experiment we would need to ensure that no convection or conduction was taking place.

And the thought experiment will, I hope, be more powerful. Plus it will have the added benefit for those already convinced by the beguiling imaginary second law that they can say “you haven’t proven anything, it’s all in your head” and so the popular imaginary law can live on.

In our thought experiment we will consider the sun. It’s hot. It doesn’t conduct or convect any heat outside its immediate surface because space is a vacuum and heat can only travel by radiation through a vacuum.

So energy is radiated out from the sun equally in all directions. At a 1000km distance from the sun, we get our measuring instrument out and find that energy radiated is 10,000W/m² (because I can’t be bothered to work out the actual number).

Now we fly in a cold large rock and park it at 1000km from the sun. Energy from the sun is absorbed on this cold rock and it heats up to some equilibrium value where it is also radiating out what it is receiving.

The temperature of this large once-cold rock is now a toasty 648K (375’C). All is well with both the real and imaginary formulations of the 2nd law, so far.

Now, from a galaxy far far away, we fly in a new star. Before we started moving it we checked the radiation 1000km away from the star and found that it was 11,000W/m². We are careful in our relocation of this star that nothing changes in its inner generation of radiation. The new star is parked 1000km away from the once-cold rock and 1000km away from the sun.

It’s a love triangle. Due to the new star’s welcome appearance, the rock heats up further. It now receives 21,000W/m². Its new equilibrium temperature is 780K. All is still well with both the real and imaginary formulations of the 2nd law.

Trouble in Paradise

But now a problem.. the new star is radiating out in all directions. Believers in the imaginary second law have no problem with the idea that the sun receives energy from the new star. After all the sun was a little colder.

But what about the sun? It is also radiating out in all directions. Or it was before the new star arrived.

Now that the new star is parked 1000km from the sun, squarely in the path of some portion of the sun’s radiation we have to ask ourselves what actually happens?

Believers in the real second law of thermodynamics are quite happy. No cognitive dissonance there. The energy from the sun which is incident on the new star’s surface actually increases the new star’s surface temperature compared with what it was before.

11,000W/m² are flowing from the new star to the sun, and 10,000W/m² are flowing from the sun to the new star. Some kind of new equilibrium might be reached, but for real second law believers there is no angst. The net flow of energy is from the hotter to the colder.

Believers in the imaginary second law, what happens?

One obvious suggestion is that the sun’s paltry 10,000W/m² which was flowing through that exact spot now divert around the new star as if it had some kind of force field. Perhaps all the energy lines completely redistribute so that (depending on the diameter of this new star) about 10,015W/m² flow in all directions except through the location of the new star.

Another obvious suggestion is that the sun “realizes” the new star is there and energy is flowing from the new star to it so just stops radiating in that exact direction. I put “realizes” in quotes of course because we all know the sun is not sentient. It’s just terminology. Some process that drives the imaginary second law will no doubt make this happen.

And the most likely suggestion of all is that this radiation from the sun, when it strikes the surface of the new star, just bounces off. Or is absorbed but doesn’t actually heat up the surface of the new star (unlike the inner radiation of this new star which does warm the surface from the inside).

Conclusion

I can’t help thinking that all my explanations for the imaginary second law have their own problems. And so I welcome explanations from promoters of the theory for the physical processes that take place near the surface of the new star.

Perhaps the problem is in the thought experiment itself. After all, you can’t just fly a star in from another galaxy and park it close to the sun. Barking mad!

And so the Imaginary Second Law of Thermodynamics lives on!

Update – the imaginary law also covered (possibly created by) On the Miseducation of the Uninformed by Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009)

Update – a worked example with the maths, Radiation Basics and the Imaginary Second Law of Thermodynamics

Update – and more explanation with reference to one advocates explanation of this imaginary law, Intelligent Materials and the Imaginary Second Law of Thermodynamics

Read Full Post »

There’s a paper out which has created some excitement, On Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects, by Gerlich & Tscheuschner (2009). It was published in International Journal of Modern Physics B. I don’t know what the B stands for.

Usually I would try and read a paper all the way through to understand it, then reread it.. but I got as far as page 55 out of 115 – even the seminal Climate Modeling through Radiative Convective Methods by Ramanathan & Coakley (1978) paper only had 25 pages.

Quite a few points have already jumped out at me that made me not want to read the whole thing:

First, a lot of time was spent showing that greenhouses and bodies surrounded by glass (or anything that stops air movement) retain heat not because of absorption and reradiation of longwave energy but because convection is reduced.

Why spend so long on it when everyone agrees. Sadly the “so-called greenhouse effect” became that because it passed into common language to describe this effect even though it’s not the right description.

Even in CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Six – Visualization I said:

I tried to think of a good analogy, something to bring it to life..

But didn’t mention greenhouses, because the greenhouse isn’t a good analogy..

This is a concern if it’s a serious paper, because attacking arguments that no one agrees with is the strawman fallacy, a refuge of people with no strong argument.

Here is a nice example, commenting on a paper by Lee, who says that the “greenhouse” term is a misnomer:

Lee continues his analysis with a calculation based on radiative balance equations, which are physically questionable.. Nevertheless, Lee’s paper is a milestone marking the day after which every serious scientist or science educator is no longer allowed to compare the greenhouse with the atmosphere, even in the classroom, which Lee explicitly refers to.

The authors of this paper don’t actually explain where Lee’s equations are questionable, instead draw attention to a day that should be marked down in history.. and use that to show that anyone mentioning “greenhouses” have got it wrong.

None of the papers that discuss the radiative-convective method actually argue from the greenhouse. So why are the authors of this paper spending so much time on it?

Second, attacking poor presentations with a mixture of correct (but really irrelevant) and incorrect arguments.

They cite, not a paper, but an Encyclopedia..

In the 1974 edition of Meyer’s Enzyklopadischem Lexikon one finds under “glass house effect”:

Name for the influence of the Earth’s atmosphere on the radiation and heat budget of the Earth, which compares to the effect of a glass house: Water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere let short wave solar radiation go through down to the Earth’s surface with a relative weak attenuation and, however, reflect the portion of long wave (heat) radiation which is emitted from the Earth’s surface
(atmospheric backradiation).

Disproof: Firstly, the main part of the solar radiation lies outside the visible light. Secondly, reflection is confused with emission.

Nice. They have brought this up a few times. Yes, technically we call infrared that part of the radiation that is longer wavelength than visible light. So anything >700nm is infrared. Any yet, in common terminology, often cited to a point of pain, we use “longwave” to mean that radiation over 4μm because 99% of it is radiated from the earth, and we use “shortwave” to mean that radiation under 4μm which is solar radiation.

So their first “disproof” isn’t a disproof. And their second one is simply picking a terminology mistake in an encyclopedia. Yes, the encyclopedia has mixed up the phenomenon.

Why are they citing from this source?

Third, another example of “destroying” the opponent’s argument..

They quote another source:

The infrared radiation that is emitted downwards from the atmosphere (the so-called back-radiation) raises the energy supply of the Earth’s surface.

And comment:

The assumption that if gases emit heat radiation, then they will emit it only downwards, is rather obscure.

It wasn’t what their source actually said. Their source didn’t say, or imply, that radiation was emitted only downward.

Fourth, and most importantly, the paper gives the appearance of discussing prior work by discussing a real mix of very old work and lots of more recent comments by people in their “introduction” to something quite different. That is they are citing from papers which are introducing another subject while not attempting to demonstrate any formal proof of the inappropriately named “greenhouse effect”. They don’t discuss the relevant modern work that attempts to prove the relevance and solution of the radiative transfer equations.

They do reference one key paper but never discuss it to point out any problems.

The paper in question is S. Manabe and R.F. Strickler, Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with Convective Adjustment, J. Atmosph. Sciences 21, 361-385 (1964)

It is referenced through this quote:

The influence of CO2 on the climate was also discussed thoroughly in a number of publications that appeared between 1909 and 1980, mainly in Germany. The most influential authors were Moller, who also wrote a textbook on meteorology, and Manabe (the citation). It seems, that the joint work of Moller and Manabe has had a significant influence on the formulation of the modern atmospheric CO2 greenhouse conjectures and hypotheses, respectively.

The work that most recent papers on the solution to the radiative transfer equations discuss or cite is Ramanathan and Coakley (1978) – often along with a citation of M&S – and of course Ramanathan and Coakley cite and discuss Manabe and Strickler (1964). That is, anyone calculating the effect of CO2 and other trace gases on the surface temperatures.

Why not open up these two great papers and show the flaws? Ramanathan and Coakley are never even cited. Manabe and Strickler aren’t discussed.

R&C is 25 pages long and works through a lot of thermodynamics in their paper. If Gerlich & Tscheuschner want to get a result, show their flaws. It should be a breeze for them..

This doesn’t instill any confidence in the paper. I starting writing this post a few weeks ago and at the time wrote:

One day I may find the energy to read and reread all 115 pages and do them justice. Perhaps there is some revelation inside. More likely, they are having a laugh. Otherwise why is half the paper nothing to do with disproving the theory that modern atmospheric physicists believe?

I’m sure they would say otherwise.. And I’m certain we would get on great over a few drinks. If we drank enough I’m sure they would admit they did it for a bet..

Non-Conclusion

If Gerlich & Tscheuschner want to be taken seriously maybe they can write a paper which is 20-30 pages long – it should be enough – and they can ignore greenhouses and encyclopedia references and what people say in introductions to less relevant works.

Their paper could reference and discuss recent work which from first principles demonstrate and solve the radiative transfer equations. And they should show the flaw in these papers. Use Ramanathan and Coakley (1978) – everyone else references it.

On that paper: Climate Modeling through Radiative Convective Methods – R&C are into the maths by page 2 and don’t mention greenhouses. I would recommend this excellent paper (you should be able to find it online without paying) to anyone who wants to learn more about the approach to solving this difficult but well-understood problem. Even if you don’t want to follow their maths there is lots to learn.

Gerlich & Tscheuschner waste 50 pages with irrelevance and poorly directed criticism.. if they have produced a great insight it will be lost on many.

In New Theory Proves AGW Wrong! I commented that many ideas come along which are widely celebrated.

Some “disprove” the “greenhouse effect” or modify it to the extent that if their ideas are correct our ideas about the (inappropriately named) greenhouse effect are quite wrong.

Some disprove AGW (anthropogenic global warming). There is a world of difference between the two.

This paper falls into the first category. I also commented that the papers in the first category usually disprove each other as well, so it’s not “one more nail in the greenhouse effect” – it’s “one more nail in the last theory” and the theories that will inevitably follow.

Interestingly (for me), since I wrote that article: New Theory Proves AGW Wrong! someone produced a list of a few papers that I should “disprove”. One was this paper by Gerlich and Tschueschner, another was by Miskolczi. Yet they disprove each other and both disprove what this person promoted as their own theory.

This doesn’t prove anyone wrong – just they can’t all be right. One or zero..

And I’ll be the first to admit I haven’t proven Gerlich and Tschueschner wrong in their central theory. I have pointed out a few “areas for improvement” in their paper but these are all distractions from the main event. More interesting stuff to do.

Update – new post: On the Miseducation of the Uninformed by Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009)

Read Full Post »