Whereas, the latest IPCC report shows greenhouse gas back radiation to represent 95% (324 W/m²) of the total incoming radiation (342 W/m²) from the sun:
Back radiation shown as 324 Wm-2 at lower right
Since heat is radiated from "greenhouse gases" in all directions, not just back to the earth, if the energy back radiated is 342 Wm-2, then an equal amount must also be radiated by GHGs to outer space (omitted from IPCC diagram), which would imply GHGs are radiating nearly double the energy input from the sun (i.e. a perpetual heat engine). Thus, the GHG "contribution" is off by a factor of two. The IPCC manages to "balance" it's unphysical energy budget via a number of arbitrary fudge factors which allow a large range of possible scenarios. This effectively "covers all the bases" and allows undue flexibility of computer models to derive any desired result due to greenhouse gas concentrations.
Yes, but... words are still there:
ReplyDelete"The longwave energy emitted from the surface of the Earth and absorbed by the atmosphere results in an increase in the ambient temperature (i.e., the greenhouse effect). This absorbed energy is then emitted both to space and back towards the Earth's surface.
The greenhouse effect is due mainly to water vapor in the atmosphere. This effect is enhanced by carbon dioxide, methane and other infrared-absorbing gases."
http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/radiation_facts.html
If the GHG molecules absorb the long-wave energy and then re-emit it, the direction of re-emission could be any direction (including back).
ReplyDeleteIt appears that one main difference between the two figures is that NASA's incoming and outgoing is balanced at the Earth's surface (51% in and same amount out). Whereas IPCC has 168 (49%) coming in and 390+78+24 (144%) going out (with 324 of that being "reradiated" by GHG, leaving net 168 out). This implies that under NASA's figure if you turn off the sun everything stops; whereas under the IPCC's if you turn off the sun, the Earth keeps radiating at 390.
I had some online exchanges about the difference between the two analyses with Hank Roberts who is active in the online warmist community. He told me that the two plots are based on the same data and are essentially the same. The difference is less than 0.33% of incoming solar energy which represents the "greenhouse" effect. This is rounded out of the NASA energy budget. Those guys think they can measure and quantify a signal that is less than 0.33% of the solar signal. Wow, those guys are good.
ReplyDeleteThis is an excellent site-not just for the content, but also the pithy comments!
ReplyDeleteClearly, NASA are in full retreat on this and no longer espousing the K-T energy fudgery. Apply Occam's Razor to the GHG hypothesis and it vanishes away K-T all together.
"Simply stated, the second law of thermodynamics dictates “Warmth can never spontaneously pass from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature” e.g. colder greenhouse gases back radiating to the earth."
ReplyDeleteAll that means is that the back radiation must be less than the forward radiation from the surface. And it is. See the Trenberth diagram: 390 (forward) vs. 324 (backward). So no, back radiation doesn't violate thermodynamics at all.
The NASA diagram is a simplified version that omits BOTH forward and backward radiation. One of their key components is unlabeled. It has never passed peer review, and couldn't in its current form.
"Since heat is radiated from "greenhouse gases" in all directions, not just back to the earth, if the energy back radiated is 342 Wm-2, then an equal amount must also be radiated by GHGs to outer space"
No, and that's the whole point. The amount of blockage increases as the level of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere goes up. Your suggestion would only be true if greenhouse gases were confined to a one-molecule thick layer. They aren't. The real situation is outgoing IR is absorbed and re-emitted many times before it makes it either to the surface or to space. If you imagine not one, but two perfectly absorbing layers, you will find that the escaping fraction is cut from 1/2 to 1/3, and the surface-absorbed fraction increases to 2/3. Add a third layer and the escaping fraction drops to 1/4.
Nope, sorry KAP
ReplyDeleteI've been over this a million times on this blog and don't have the time for a private tutorial
Here's a small sample of remedial reading:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/09/climate-scientists-discover-magical.html
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/09/must-see-video-exposes-greenhouse.html
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/09/professor-nasif-nahle-publishes-new.html
and many more
I've refuted those posts rather easily. Got anything else?
ReplyDeleteNo,
ReplyDeleteyou haven't successfully refuted any of them
"All that means is that the back radiation must be less than the forward radiation from the surface. And it is."
ReplyDeleteSo if it's 350 out and 324 back-radiated it would appear to be affected by gravity as it _only_ radiates back to the planet apart from 26 units which presumably are travelling faster than escape velocity for some reason?
Anon cos the idea is valid no matter where it originates.
Wow, are you for real? You might want to understand some of the most basic things about what you are arguing against.
ReplyDeleteComments such as this are worthless, devoid of scientific content, prove nothing, and demonstrate you have no counter-argument.
DeleteActually, I am offer counter arguments in the links you provided above.
DeleteNo, you have offered nothing, and as stated, comments such as this are worthless, devoid of scientific content, prove nothing, and demonstrate you have no counter-argument.
DeleteThe second law of thermodynamics deals with entropy. Warm air might move towards cool air because it has more kinetic energy. In other words, it bumps into surrounding molecules and transfers kinetic energy, thus warming it up. Radiation is not kinetic energy, and doesn't work the same way.
ReplyDeleteThe 2nd law requirement that total entropy always increases disproves AGW
Deletehttp://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=entropy
The Earth is not a closed system; you have to include the sun if you want to make an entropy argument. And if you include the sun then the entropy is always increasing.
DeleteI'm well aware the Earth is not a closed system. AGW proposes that the fabled "hot spot" will appear in the tropical troposphere. A "hot spot" would require a reduction in entropy, forbidden by the 2nd law.
DeleteThe 2nd law only applies to a closed system. If you are admitting Earth is not a closed system, then you are admitting that the second law doesn't apply.
ReplyDeleteFalse argument
DeleteThe 2nd law says the total entropy must stay the same or increase. AGW requires that the total entropy of the Earth-atmosphere system decreases, in violation of the 2nd law.
Where do you propose the entropy increases to more than offset a decrease in entropy in the Earth-atmosphere system from AGW?
Furthermore, a localized reduction in entropy requires work input. Where do you propose said work input comes from? GHGs cannot, repeat cannot, provide work input.
DeleteUm, the sun, as I have already stated. And how is it a false argument, are you going to tell me entropy applies to an open system? That argument was a deductively valid argument.
ReplyDeleteObviously, the Sun provides essentially ALL work input to the Earth-atmosphere system. As you have now admitted, GHGs provide no work input and therefore are incapable of producing a "hot spot" or localized reduction in entropy.
DeleteNo, not all the work. GHGs do not provide work, but they change how the energy from the sun is absorbed. Let me ask you something, do you realize that the air moves around, and that heat is not evenly distributed?
ReplyDeleteOh please, the Sun provides essentially all of the work plus a relatively small contribution from geothermal sources.
DeleteUh, yes, I'm well aware that air moves around. Here's some remedial reading for you on how the adiabatic lapse rate alone explains the surface temperature of the Earth, regardless of GHGs.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=adiabatic
I'm not your personal tutor. I'm done with explaining these basics to you, bye.