Why greenhouse gas radiative forcing doesn't explain Earth's energy budget

We have previously demonstrated that the atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure theory of the 33C greenhouse effect explains Earth's surface temperature and the temperatures throughout the troposphere, rather than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

We have also demonstrated why the atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure theory of the greenhouse effect also perfectly explains the observed greenhouse effect on Titan, the closest Earth analog in our solar system, and the only planet other than Earth with an atmosphere comprised of mostly non-greenhouse gases (Titan: 98.4% Nitrogen, 0.1% hydrogen, and only 1.5% greenhouse gas methane compared to Earth's 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide).

We now address three additional reasons why the conventional anthropogenic CO2 warming theory is flawed due to incorrect assumptions regarding the energy budget. In contrast, the mass/gravity/pressure alternative greenhouse theory is entirely compatible with Earth's energy budget, physical laws, and observations. 

The radiative greenhouse theory is commonly represented by the Earth energy budget devised by Kiehl and Trenberth as shown in this diagram from their 2008 publication:

Trenberth, Fasullo, Kiehl 2008 Earth energy budget shows "atmospheric window" transmitting only 40 W/m2 from the surface directly to space

which shows an "atmospheric window" where the greenhouse gases don't significantly absorb/emit infrared radiation, and thus most of this radiation travels directly from the surface to space unimpeded by greenhouse gases, or any radiative forcing as a result. 

The "atmospheric window" of radiation direct to space falls between 8-12 micron wavelengths, as shown in the figures above and below, which includes the peak emission wavelengths (~8-11 microns) from Earth, thus ~80% of these peak emissions from Earth pass directly to space without being absorbed or emitted by greenhouse gases, thus don't contribute to radiative forcing. 

Blue curve shows the Planck curve assuming Earth radiated as a true blackbody, with peak emissions located at ~10 microns, which is at the middle of the 8-12 micron "atmospheric window" that is not absorbed/emitted by greenhouse gases.

However, according to the Trenberth et al Earth energy budget above, only 40 W/m2 passes through the "atmospheric window," i.e. only 10% of the 396 W/m2 radiative surface emissions in his energy budget.

The Planck–Einstein relation is a formula integral to quantum mechanics, and states that the energy of a photon (E) is proportional to its frequency (ν). The constant of proportionality, h, is known as the Planck constant:

and since frequency v is inversely related to wavelength λ by

v = c/λ where c = speed of light

therefore

E = hc/λ

thus, the shorter the wavelength/higher the frequency of a photon, the higher the energy it contains.

Therefore, the highest energy photons at the short 8-12 micron wavelengths emitted from Earth's surface fall within the direct atmospheric window to space without any interaction with greenhouse gases.

We can get a sense for the huge effect just a few microns change in wavelength has on the corresponding blackbody emission temperature by plotting the peak blackbody emission wavelength in microns vs. the peak emission temperature of a blackbody determined by Wien's Displacement Law, which shows the emission temperature at the beginning of the atmospheric window at 8 microns is 89C, dropping all the way down to -31.7C at the end of the atmospheric window at 12 microns, a temperature change of 120.7C.

The catastrophic greenhouse gas CO2, however, absorbs and emits line spectra centered around 15 microns, so what does Wien's displacement law calculate for a blackbody (which CO2 is not) emitting at 15 microns? Whoa, a toasty peak emission temperature of minus 80C:

Thus, the radiative greenhouse theory makes the absurd assumption that CO2 radiating at a blackbody temperature of -80C contributes 20% of the radiative greenhouse effect and heats the Earth by 6.6C from the equilibrium temperature with the Sun of -18C to -11.4C. How can a cold body radiating at -80C cause a hotter body at -18C to warm by 6.6C or at all? Pictet's experiment 214 years ago, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the principle of maximum entropy production, Planck's law, the Pauli exclusion principle, and quantum mechanics all prove it cannot. CO2 radiating at an equivalent blackbody temperature of  -80C cannot possibly account for 20% of the ~33C greenhouse effect to cause 20% of the warming from -18C to 15C.

Further, even within the CO2 equivalent -80C blackbody emission peak at 15 microns [line spectra range ~13.5 - 17 microns], the CO2 and water vapor absorption/emission spectra significantly overlap such that almost 70% is independently due to water vapor and thus would be completely unaffected by increased CO2. Thus, despite overwhelming evidence that CO2 cannot significantly warm the planet, if you still believe the radiative greenhouse theory and reject the alternate mass/pressure greenhouse theory, the overlapping spectra of CO2 with water vapor prove CO2 is a bit player at most:

Shaded area shows difference between CO2 and water vapor absorption/emission spectra

Blowup of above figure. Area with asterisk is absorbed by CO2 only, remainder below overlaps with absorption spectra of water vapor.

Another huge flaw in Trenberth's energy budget is the false assumption that infrared radiation from greenhouse gases can heat the oceans, and just as effectively as the land surface. This is disproven by both theory and observations, since IR can only penetrate the ocean surface a few microns to cause evaporative cooling of the ocean skin surface, not warming. Since the oceans cover 70% of the Earth's surface, this problem alone suggests the radiative greenhouse theory is exaggerated by at least 70% (not even considering the cooling effect of evaporation and that evaporation results in clouds and further cooling).

These are only three of many fatal flaws of conventional radiative greenhouse theory. There is one and only one explanation for the entire ~33C greenhouse effect that satisfies all physical laws and is in accordance with millions of weather balloon and satellite observations, the atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure greenhouse theory. 

How can Uranus have storms hot enough to melt steel? A runaway greenhouse effect?

Here's a great question for CAGW enthusiasts:

According to recent reports, "giant storms on gassy Uranus have astronomers scratching their heads," because they are extremely large [~5,760 miles wide] and especially because they are extremely hot [2,800°F = melting point of steel].

How does that happen on a planet 30 times further from the Sun than Earth, and without any volcanic activity or SUVs?

From a Mannian/Hansenian runaway-greenhouse radiative-forcing effect? 

Let's see if that's possible.

According to infrared images taken with the Keck telescope, these storms radiate at peak wavelengths of 1.6 - 2.2 microns. Using Wien's Displacement Law, we can calculate the temperature of a blackbody radiating at these peak wavelengths as:

1.6 microns → 1,538°C, or 2,800°F or 1,811°K [steel melts at 2,600 - 2,800°F]

2.2 microns → 1,044°C or 1,911°F or 1,317°K

This is amazing considering that Uranus only receives a trifling 3.71 W/m2 energy from the Sun, which per the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is equivalent to a blackbody radiating at a temperature of -183°C, 90°K, or -298°F.

How do greenhouse gases violate the 1st law of thermodynamics to amplify 3.71 W/m2 incoming radiation from the Sun to 610,143 W/m2 radiated by a blackbody at 1,538C with peak emission at 1.6 microns, an amplification of outgoing radiation to space over incoming radiation from the Sun by a factor of 83,596 times?

Furthermore, how do greenhouse gases raise the outgoing radiating temperature by 1811°K - 90°K = 1721°K, a temperature increase of more than 20 times? [90°K is the Uranus equilibrium temperature with the Sun]

It's clearly impossible, unless you program a GIGO climate model to say so. 

The real and very simple explanation for this phenomenon is the ideal gas law, not radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, which as the great physicist Maxwell noted, results in a temperature gradient of an atmosphere within a gravity field. 

As explained in the basic physics quiz for climate alarmists, 

"the base of the troposphere on the planet Uranus is 320K, considerably hotter than on Earth [288K], despite being nearly 30 times further from the Sun. The base of the troposphere on Uranus is 320K at 100 bars pressure, despite the planet only receiving 3.71 W/m2 energy from the Sun. By the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, a 320K blackbody radiates 584.6 W/m2. This is 157.5 times the energy received from the Sun, due to the atmospheric temperature gradient produced within a planetary gravity field. The temperature at the base of the troposphere is determined by the ideal gas law PV=nRT, where pressure from gravity and atmospheric mass raise the temperature at the base of the troposphere from the equilibrium temperature with the Sun of Uranus of 89.94K to 320K, regardless of the atmospheric mixture of greenhouse gases."

Atmospheric mass/pressure/gravity establish the lapse rate/tropospheric temperature profile of all of the planets in our solar system with thick atmospheres, as demonstrated by a paper in Nature by Robinson and Catling. Convection dominates over radiative forcing in the troposphere of each of these planets as also demonstrated by Robinson and Catling. 

Note also as stated by the report below, 

"These storms on an usually quiet Uranus have astronomers scratching their heads, De Pater said. The three other gassy giant planets — Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune — all seem to have strong internal heat sources, and that energy could help stir up storms in the atmosphere. But Uranus doesn’t appear to have one — which means that the Sun must be mostly responsible for generating such disturbances in the planet’s atmosphere, astronomers had thought."

"But seven years after the equinox, there is not enough sun to explain these massive storms, De Pater pointed out. So it means that the inner workings of Uranus, which remain hidden from view, are more complex than scientists expected."

“Well, at least it tells us that the theories have to be adjusted,” De Pater said. “They are not representative of reality.”

Giant storms on gassy Uranus have astronomers scratching their heads


Infrared images taken with the Keck telescope at 1.6- and 2.2-micron wavelengths show storm systems on Uranus. The white spot is an extremely large storm that was brighter than any feature ever recorded on the planet in the 2.2-micron band. The cloud rotating into view at the lower-right limb 

By AMINA KHAN

Storms peppering Uranus hint at mysterious processes in the planet's interior

It never rains but it storms on Uranus. Astronomers have spotted a slew of squalls on this usually quiet, distant planet — two of them giant storms that took professional and amateur astronomers by surprise.

The findings, presented this week at the American Astronomical Society’s Division of Planetary Sciences meeting in Tucson, show that the mysterious, blandly blue planet might be far more complicated than scientists had thought.

Team lead Imke de Pater, a planetary astronomer at UC Berkeley, said she and colleagues first spotted the strange activity in August while using the Keck Observatory in Hawaii to study weather patterns on Uranus — which they had been doing regularly for more than a decade.

To their surprise, they saw eight large storms, including the brightest tempest ever seen on the planet at 2.2 microns — the wavelength of light that picks up clouds hanging just below the tropopause (the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere).[and the tropopause is much colder than the base of the troposphere]

“It was just by chance I was observing and noticed these incredible storms that we really had never seen before,” De Pater said in an interview. “You always have to be looking, I guess, to see things like that — so this was one of those lucky times.”

The squalls were highly unusual, De Pater said. The scientists might have expected this kind of activity in 2007 — that’s when Uranus had its equinox (a once-in-42-years event) and the sun would have been shining directly over the equator.

But for such storms to brew up some seven years later?

“People had predicted that the maximum in cloud activity would be around 2007 … and indeed we did see cloud activity,” De Pater said. “But it was nothing compared to what we saw in August.”

The scientists wanted to study this strange phenomenon further, but they didn’t have a lot of telescope time. So they alerted the amateur astronomy community to the storms to see if its members could help.

Amateur astronomers picked up another bright feature, but this one was visible only at a wavelength of 1.6 microns — which meant that this storm was brewing deeper in the atmosphere. The scientists also later used the Hubble Space Telescope to find storm systems at a variety of depths and across a distance of 5,760 miles.

These storms on an usually quiet Uranus have astronomers scratching their heads, De Pater said. The three other gassy giant planets — Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune — all seem to have strong internal heat sources, and that energy could help stir up storms in the atmosphere. But Uranus doesn’t appear to have one — which means that the Sun must be mostly responsible for generating such disturbances in the planet’s atmosphere, astronomers had thought.

But seven years after the equinox, there is not enough sun to explain these massive storms, De Pater pointed out. So it means that the inner workings of Uranus, which remain hidden from view, are more complex than scientists expected.

“Well, at least it tells us that the theories have to be adjusted,” De Pater said. “They are not representative of reality.”


Newfound Mega-Storms on Uranus Pose Planetary Puzzle

Known for calm weather, the seventh planet from the sun is suddenly sporting a series of storms.

Andrew Fazekas for National Geographic

PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 13, 2014

A distant, icy, green giant—the planet Uranus—appears to have unexpectedly awakened from a long slumber. Astronomers have discovered a yet unexplained rash of extreme storms on the normally placid planet.

Peering through the world's most powerful telescopes, the Keck Observatory in Hawaii and the Hubble Space Telescope, a team of researchers based out of the University of California, Berkeley have spotted unusually bright cloud activity in the upper atmosphere of the seventh planet from the sun, which lies about 1.86 billion miles (3 billion kilometers) away.

Over a span of just two days in early August this year, the team spotted eight storms in the planet's northern hemisphere. One of the storms is now considered the brightest ever seen there, accounting for 30 percent of all the reflected light we can see coming off Uranus. (Related: "Auroras Seen on Uranus for First Time.")

Hubble looked at the planet just this past October 24 and found multiple giant storms extending more than 5,592 miles (9,000 kilometers) across, at various altitudes. That is roughly three-quarters of the diameter of Earth.

All these alien tempests appear to be happening above the main methane-laden part of the atmosphere, where the atmospheric pressures are about half of what they are here on Earth.

But one thing is for sure, this busy weather on Uranus has caught scientists completely off-guard.

This sky chart places Uranus in the constellation Pisces.

Seasonal Shocker

Forecasters predicted a peak in the planet's atmospheric activity during the 2007 Uranian equinox, when the sun shone straight down on its equator. The equinox is an event that happens once every 42 years, twice in the course of the planet's 84-year orbit around the sun.

Astronomers have been watching the weather on Uranus for more than a decade, charting swirling storms near its north pole. Since there is no internal heat source for these storms on the planet, these cloud activities were thought to be driven solely by sunlight.

For that reason, with the northern hemisphere turned away from the sun in recent years, the heating effect was expected to wane. But it hasn't.
Even the amateur astronomy community has sprung into action to document the surprising storms, turning their backyard telescopes on the green giant. Despite using much smaller instruments than their professional counterparts, amateurs were able to observe a different bright spot deeper in the atmosphere of Uranus.

"There definitely is a lot of dynamic activity in Uranus's atmosphere, and we have no idea why," said astronomer and team leader Imke de Pater, of the University of California, Berkeley, at a press conference at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society's Division for Planetary Sciences in Tucson, Arizona, this week.

"Predictions said they should fade away but they didn't, and we hope theorists will now take this mystery on and help explain what exactly is going on."


A simulated binocular view shows the position of the tiny green disk of Uranus in relation to the star Delta Pisces, faint to the naked eye.

See for Yourself

Backyard sky-watchers can see the giant green world for themselves on any clear night this month.

Uranus is four times as wide as Earth, but since it lies about 1.86 billion miles (3 billion kilometers) away from our planet, it's barely visible to the naked eye at magnitude 5.7-and only in very dark, pristine skies.

However, the planet makes for an easy target with binoculars and small scopes. Look for Uranus lying within the field of faint stars that make up the constellation Pisces, which is now rising above the eastern sky after local nightfall this week.

The faint blue-green disk will appear only 3 degrees to the lower right of the faint naked-eye star Delta Pisces, which shines at 3.5 magnitude. Their apparent separation will be equal to six full moons, making them both fit easily within the field of view of a standard pair of binoculars.

Happy hunting!

Is the 'Greenhouse Effect' based on a 'cool' Sun?

        Most descriptions of the 'greenhouse effect' are similar to that offered by Wikipedia: "If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody was the same distance from the Sun as the Earth, it would have an expected blackbody temperature of 5.3°C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30%... of the incoming sunlight, the planet's actual blackbody temperature is about -18 or -19°C, about 33°C below the actual surface temperature of about 14 °C or 15 °C. The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual temperature and the blackbody temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect."
        This calculation is based upon the Stefan-Boltzmann law, radius of the Sun and Earth, distance between the Sun and Earth, and albedo (reflection, mostly from clouds), from which the following equation is derived:

where
Te = Temperature of the Earth surface
Ts = Temperature of the Sun surface
Rs = Radius of the Sun = 6.96x10^8 m
a   = Albedo (reflection of incoming solar radiation mostly from clouds) = 0.306
E  = IR emissivity of the Earth (assumed to be ~1)
D  = the Astronomical Unit = distance between the Sun and Earth = 1.496x10^11 m
        If we plug in the value for the temperature of the Sun (5778°K) used by the Wikipedia article, we find that the temperature of the Earth without an atmosphere (setting albedo to 0) should be 278.68°K (5.53°C). This is very close to the 5.3°C ideal blackbody temperature as stated above. If we then set albedo to the commonly used value of 0.306 for Earth with an atmosphere, we find the Te calculation drops to -18.8°C. The 'greenhouse effect' is then calculated from the globally 'averaged' earth surface temperature of 15°C - -18.8 = 33.8°C. Note also the G&T paper has shown that it is not possible to calculate an 'average' Earth surface temperature (p.70-71), which also renders the 'greenhouse effect' calculation moot. In addition, all of these calculations are based on the incorrect assumption that the Earth, atmosphere, and Sun can each behave as ideal blackbodies.
       The value for Sun surface temperature used in these calculations (5778°K or 5505°C) is a low estimate and thus biases the calculation to show an enhanced 'greenhouse effect.' The reason why is shown in the graph below of the observed distribution of solar radiation reaching the top of the atmosphere as a function of wavelength (solid black line).  

Ts based on wavelength at Max Intensity

We see that the wavelength at maximum intensity is in the visible spectrum at about .475 microns or 475 nanometers, which is what the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 82nd Edition, CRC Press, 2001 also shows as the maximum 'Solar Spectral Irradiance.' The Wein displacement law can then be used to calculate the Sun surface temperature based upon the maximum irradiance wavelength, resulting in a Sun surface temperature of 6101°K (5828°C). Another source gives an even higher figure, "The Sun's outer visible layer is called the photosphere and has a temperature of 6000°C," which is equivalent to 6273°K.
        If we had used the Sun surface temperature of 5778°K assumed by the Wikipedia article, we would find that the Sun emitted more energy than an ideal blackbody throughout the visible spectrum, which is impossible:

Solar flux exceeds blackbody Wikipedia Ts

, 

        If we now use the Sun surface temperature calculated from Wein's displacement law as the input to the equation above, we find the Earth surface temperature without an atmosphere should be 294.26°K or 21.11°C. Since the 'average' Earth surface temperature is commonly cited as 15°C, that means the Earth with a 'greenhouse gas' atmosphere along with the additional factors of convection, evapo-transpiration, and adiabatic effects is colder than an Earth without!
see also the peer-reviewed Chilingar et al paper Cooling of the atmosphere due to CO2
h/t comments by Gord, graph source

Why a new paper does not provide evidence of an increased CO2 greenhouse effect

A new paper published in Nature claims to be the "first direct observation of CO2's increasing greenhouse effect at Earth's surface" from 2000 to 2010.

However, there are multiple fundamental problems with the claim including:

1. As stevengoddard.com points out in "Junk Science Award For The Evening"

Posted on February 26, 2015by stevengoddard 

"Over the deade the authors examined (2000 to 2010), the average level of the gas (CO2) in the atmosphere went up by 22 parts-per-million. And the time series shows a steadily rising trend in its impact, layered on top of the seasonal changes. By the end of that period, the gas was retaining an extra 0.2 Watts for every square meter of the Earth’s surface compared to the start. 

Still, it seems worth noting that the continued increase in greenhouse energy retention measured during this time coincides with a period where the Earth’s surface temperatures did not change dramatically. All that energy must have been going somewhere. [i.e. to space] "

Newsflash: the greenhouse effect really exists | Ars Technica

The authors started in the 2000 La Nina, and ended at the 2010 El Nino – when troposphere temperatures were half a degree warmer. Then they noticed that there was slightly more downwelling long wave radiation [DWLR], which they blamed on increased absorption from the increase in CO2.
The increase in DLWR was due to the warmer troposphere during the El Nino. Warmer air emits more longwave radiation. The higher concentration of CO2 will also emit more DLWR radiation, but that is not due to increased absorption. I don’t know how scientists can get any more clueless than that.

Indeed, the authors admit in the abstract below that the CO2 contribution to the alleged overall trend of downwelling longwave radiation is a mere 10% of the total. So what caused the other 90%? 

2. Secondly, the authors claim CO2 was retaining an extra 0.2 Watts for every square meter of the Earth’s surface compared to the start (over a period of one decade).

However, per the (debunked) IPCC formula, the rise in CO2 from 369.52 ppm in 2000 to 389.85 ppm in 2010 "would" have "trapped"

5.35*ln(389.85/369.52) or 0.29 W/m2

Thus even if one believes the IPCC formula and this new paper's assumptions (including extensive computer modeling in the new paper), the IPCC formula exaggerates CO2 surface radiative forcing by 45% over the observations.

3. Thirdly, the peak emission spectra of CO2 is at 15 microns, which by Wien's displacement law is equivalent to a blackbody radiating at -80C. Per the second law of thermodynamics, a low temperature/frequency/energy body at -80C cannot warm a higher temperature/frequency/energy body at 15C (Earth).

4. Rather, the entire 33K greenhouse effect is entirely explained by the Maxwell/Carnot/Clausius atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure theory and the 'greenhouse equation.' Increased CO2 instead facilitates loss of outgoing IR radiation to space, as has been observed by an increase in OLR (Outgoing Longwave Radiation) over the past 60+ years, opposite to the predictions of the alternative radiative forcing greenhouse theory. 

The claim that the warming 2000-2010 is from CO2 confuses cause with effect. Warming of the atmosphere due to internal variability, ocean oscillations, cloud cover changes, solar amplification mechanisms, etc. secondarily warm the CO2 in the atmosphere increasing the 15 micron IR radiation observed from increased levels of CO2. 

Update:
From Greenie Watch & Tallbloke's talkshop:

UPDATE: Rog Tallbloke Has even more fun with the above study than I did.  He points out that in Alaska over the study period, the average temperature actually FELL by four degrees.  So rising CO2 must cause cooling, Right?

Another point I did not mention because I saw no point in beating a dead horse concerns the graph below.  It appeared with the original story.



It shows two nicely matching curves, does it not?  But what are the quantities being graphed?  One is CO2 but the other is NOT temperature.  It is a theoretically derived construct called forcing.  Not so impressive.

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010

• D. R. Feldman,
• W. D. Collins,
• P. J. Gero,
• M. S. Torn,
• E. J. Mlawer
• & T. R. Shippert

• Affiliations
• Contributions
• Corresponding author

Nature

 

(2015)

 

doi:10.1038/nature14240

Received

 

09 June 2014 

Accepted

 

15 January 2015 

Published online

 

25 February 2015

Article tools

• Citation
• Reprints
• Rights & permissions
• Article metrics

The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing¹, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth’s radiation field from pre-industrial and present-day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual-mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 ± 0.19 W m⁻² (ref. 2). However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2. Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra³ together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations⁴. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m⁻²per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m⁻² per decade and ±0.07 W m⁻² per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m⁻². This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation^5, 6, 7. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.

Why global warming is not explained by a change in "effective radiating level"

Having abandoned "back-radiation" from greenhouse gases as the explanation of the greenhouse effect, many claim global warming is instead due to an increase of the "effective radiating height" or "effective radiating level" [ERL] of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. So the theory goes, an increase of CO2 levels will cause longwave infrared emissions from CO2 to be from colder heights in the atmosphere, and since colder bodies emit less radiation, more radiation will allegedly be "trapped" by colder CO2 in the fabled tropospheric "hot spot" & unable to escape to space. 

Let's examine whether this theory holds water, since there are no observations finding either the "hot spot" or an increase of the "effective radiating level" over the satellite era as predicted by the theory.

First, the theory summarized from slides from a climate science course at the University of Wisconsin:

And now multiple reasons why the theory does not hold water:

1. The effective radiating temperature of Earth is 255K or -18C, equal to the equilibrium temperature between the Earth and Sun, and the "effective radiating level" or "ERL" at this 255K temperature is located in the middle troposphere at about 5.5km above the surface:

2. The location of the ERL at ~5.5km in the tropics is part of the fabled mid-upper tropospheric "hot spot" region, which climate models predict will warm the fastest from AGW. Thus, an increase in height of the ERL would be offset by alleged warming from AGW in this same region of the atmosphere, countering the assumption that the increased height of the ERL would be colder and emit less radiation. Further, radiosonde observations show no evidence of the "hot spot" predicted by the models, and very slight warming of this region of the tropical troposphere since 1958:

3. Observations show no correlation between tropopause height and troposphere temperature 1980-2004:

Open symbols show no relationship between tropopause height and troposphere temperatures

4. Climate scientists assume the greenhouse gases CO2 and water vapor behave as true blackbodies and that the blackbody laws of Stefan-Boltzmann, Kirchhoff, and Planck can be applied to their radiative characteristics in the atmosphere. Measurements and a recent paper show this assumption is false, and that CO2 and water vapor emissivities behave the opposite of blackbodies, decreasing with temperature. The greenhouse effect models also make this same false assumption that CO2 and water vapor act as true blackbodies. Gases have distinct emission lines and do not follow a Planck curve of radiative emissions as all true blackbodies do. 

5. Even if we assume CO2 does act as a blackbody and use the physical laws only applicable to blackbodies including Wien's Displacement Law, we find that at the peak emission line of CO2 at 15 microns, the equivalent blackbody temperature is -80C or 193K:

Therefore, the "blackbody" CO2 emits at a blackbody temperature of -80C or 193K, which is far colder than any portion of the troposphere, tropopause, or stratosphere as shown on the atmospheric temperature profile graph above. Changing the ERL does not change the "blackbody" emission temperature of CO2 one iota; CO2 emits at 15 microns/-80C no matter where it is located in the atmosphere. Thus, the notion that more CO2 can change the emissivity and emission temperature of CO2 is false and increases in ERL/CO2 levels cannot explain an increased greenhouse effect.

6. Even if an increased ERL could increase CO2 radiative forcing (already disproven above), it makes little difference to the troposphere since convection dominates over radiation in the troposphere and acts as a negative feedback that "short-circuits" radiative forcing from CO2.

7. Increased CO2 increases the radiative surface area of the atmosphere which increases the ability to radiatively cool, analogous to a bigger heat sink on your microprocessor. Warmists, however, don't agree on why increased CO2 allegedly cools the stratosphere but warms the troposphere.

Modeling shows CO2 is the primary cooling agent of the stratosphere, and has a slight cooling effect on the troposphere as well

Another model demonstrating that CO2 acts as a cooling agent throughout the entire troposphere and stratosphere, and as an alleged heating agent only at the tropopause near 15 km. and states, 

“NOTE: CO2 has very small radiative heating rates. Radiation emitted at one level is absorbed at nearby level having almost the same temperature. Only at the tropopause (near 15 km), where the temperature profile has a minimum, there is a small amount of heating. At higher altitudes, pressure broadening is much weaker allowing emitted radiation to escape to space with little compensating radiation downward from higher levels.” Fig 12.1 also shows H2O acts as a cooling agent throughout the troposphere, tropopause, and stratosphere. [note these model results are also found in the lecture notes of Dr. Irina N. Sokolik, Climate Science Professor in Judy Curry’s Dept. at Georgia Tech]

8. The ERL theory predicts a decrease of outgoing longwave radiation [OLR] from increased greenhouse gases, however, observations show the opposite of an increase of OLR over the past 62 years. 

9. The real 33C atmospheric greenhouse effect is instead entirely explainable on the basis of atmospheric mass/gravity/heat capacity/adiabatic lapse rate, and the "ocean greenhouse effect" explainable on the basis of the  ~0.76 - 0.89 far-IR emissivity of the oceans, which "traps" heat from solar radiation in the oceans.

Related: Blackbody radiation and CO2 emissions

Optimistic long-term projections show renewable energy will be 3 times more expensive than fossil fuels

The Fundamental Limitations of Renewable Energy

Posted August 6, 2013  The Energy Collective

Many people still think that it will not be long before renewable energy such as solar and wind becomes outright cheaper than fossil fuels, thereby leading to a rapid expansion of the thin orange slither in the graph below. This is an ideologically very attractive notion, but, as discussed in this article, it is questionable whether this is in fact physically possible.

So, what does renewable energy have to accomplish before it can compete with fossil fuels in an open market? Well, in short, we will have to overcome the diffuse and intermittent nature of renewable energy more efficiently than we can overcome the declining reserve qualities and unrefined nature of fossil fuels.

In other words, renewables need to overcome the following two challenges in order to displace fossil fuels in a fair market:

1. Solar panels and wind turbines need to become cheaper than raw fossil fuels. This is the challenge posed by the diffuse nature of renewables.
2. Storage solutions need to become cheaper than fossil fuel refineries (e.g. power plants). This is the challenge posed by the intermittent nature of renewables.

Point number 1 is the way in which we procure our energy (mining/drilling fossil fuels or deploying solar panels and wind turbines) and point number 2 is the way in which we make this energy useful to society at higher levels of penetration (refining fossil fuels to electricity or smoothing out the intermittent surges of renewable energy). Without point number 1, point number 2 cannot exist and without point number 2, the energy procured in point number 1 cannot sustain a complex society such as ours.

Thus, if renewables are to challenge fossil fuels in an open market, technology must advance to the point where renewables can compete under both these points. This article will examine whether this is in fact possible.

The diffuse nature of renewables

Renewable energy advocates often point to the total energy fluxes of the Earth (below) and proclaim that renewable energy resources are essentially boundless. Yes, it is true: we are surrounded by incredible amounts of diffuse renewable energy (e.g. solar radiation and wind). Unfortunately, however, this energy is useless to us unless it is concentrated into forms such as electricity or fuels.

The reason behind this is called the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy must flow from a concentrated form to a more diffuse form in order to do work. Our entire society was built on the work performed through transforming concentrated fossil energy to diffuse heat and, in order to compete, renewable energy technologies also need to deliver such concentrated energy.

Now there is no question that renewable energy can be sufficiently concentrated by solar panels and wind turbines. The only question is whether this can be done more cost effectively than simply digging already concentrated fossil fuels out of the ground.

This challenge is two-fold. Firstly, energy does not like to be concentrated, hence the fact that the average commercially available solar panel is only about 13% efficient. And secondly, because the energy source is so diffuse, vast areas need to be covered in order to harvest this diffuse energy. The video presentation below gives a very informative discussion on the size of the areas we are talking about here (the video is long, but definitely worth the time).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFosQtEqzSE

As a result of this challenge, it was previously calculated that the solar panel price needs to fall to about $0.31/W installed in order to compete with coal at $100/ton. It is therefore clear that installed solar prices still need to fall about one order of magnitude [10 times] before we can see a sustained market driven displacement of coal by PV.

Is this possible? Well, the most optimistic projection in the OpenEI database sees solar PV levelling off at about $1.44/W installed which is more than quadruple the required level. Perhaps we will be pleasantly surprised by some technological miracle in the medium-term future, but achieving the required prices with current PV technology will unfortunately be completely impossible.

The intermittent nature of renewables

If intermittent renewables like solar and wind are ever to contribute a sizable portion of our global energy mix, a large amount of additional infrastructure will need to be deployed in order to counter the large fluctuations in output varying over timescales ranging from seconds to years.

As an example, the variability of wind generation in Germany for 2012 is shown below. On a countywide basis, the output varied over more than two orders of magnitude [over 20 times] from a minimum of 0.115 GW to a maximum of 24 GW. It is clear that a large amount of extra infrastructure will be needed in order to smooth out this erratic output to something that better resembles the demand profile. Solar PV is of course even worse because it generates no power whatsoever for the majority of the time and delivers most of its energy in the few hours around noon.

Again, there can be no doubt that we have a wide range of technically proven solutions to this problem. When just looking at the area of energy storage there are many proven ways to store energy in chemical, kinetic and various potential forms. But again, the challenge is to deploy these solutions at a lower cost than that involved in the refinement of fossil fuels.

A coal power plant is the most expensive kind of fossil fuel refinery. For example, a standard coal-fired power plant must sell electricity for about $0.06/kWh, but coal at $100/ton costs only $0.015/kWh. The remaining $0.045/kWh represents the price of refining coal to electricity and arises primarily from the low efficiency and high capital costs of coal plants.

So, how does energy storage compare? Well, a recent test of lead acid and Li-ion batteries found that these technologies could store energy for about $0.34 and $0.40 per kWh over their respective lifetimes. Hence, we again have to conclude that the most ideal renewable energy storage solution is still about one order of magnitude away from challenging fossil fuels on a level playing field.

The Li-ion battery throughput cost of $0.40/kWh mentioned above was calculated for an initial cost of $600 per kWh of capacity. Most optimistic projections for Li-ion battery costs give longer-term prices at about $200 per kWh of capacity. At these prices, battery storage would be about triple the price of refining coal to electricity. Again, we need a technological miracle.

Final word

So, these are the facts. In order for intermittent renewable energy sources such as solar PV to effectively compete with fossil fuels like coal, both the price of installed solar panels and the price of battery storage will need to reduce by a full order of magnitude. In addition, optimistic long-term projections state that both solar panels and battery storage will reach technological maturity at roughly triple the cost of their fossil fuel counterparts.

Does this mean that it is fundamentally impossible for renewable energy to trump fossil fuels? Well, I would stop short of saying that, but, from this analysis, it appears unlikely that we will see a large scale market driven displacement of fossil fuels by renewable energy in the first half of this century.

Authored by: Schalk Cloete

I am a research scientist searching for the objective reality about the longer-term sustainability of industrialized human civilization on planet Earth. Issues surrounding energy and climate are of central importance in this sustainability picture and I therefore seek to learn more from the Energy Collective community. My current research focus is on second generation CO2 capture processes.