The Greenhouse effect- does it really exist??

[Climate Realist]

Thinking about the laws of thermodynamics and the nature of the interaction of IR radiation with IR Interacting Gasses (IRIGs) and the fact that IRIG's block a lot of direct IR from the sun (remember my GiT theory??) and the fact that IRIG's re-radiate in all directions randomly, not just down and they certainly DO NOT trap any radiation. (In fact IRIGs must logically act as an efficient conducting medium, spiriting IR radiation back out to space). I am coming to the conclusion that my scpeticism at the very existence of the GHE is validated.

And I am not the only one- witness the plethora of papers from Physicists damning the GHE theory.

This should be the dagger in the heart of the CAGW scam, disprove the GHE and the whole house of cards collapses. No need to argue about climate sensitivity if there is none!

Is it 0.5, 1.2, 2 or 6 C per doubling CO2 etc??

Answer- NONE OF THE ABOVE!

Ahhh but what about water vapour amplification they say?? Answer- IRIGs do not warm the atmosphere, water vapour included, therefore water vapour amplification is physically impossible.

As Scotty used to say "ye canney change the laws of physics"

[Philip]

Hi CR,

I think that first and foremost it is important that reasonable people reject the alarmist agenda, irrespective of uncertainties over the scientific details. You quite reasonably raise two questions here:

[1] Does a C02/water vapour GHE exist?
[2] Do water vapour and cloud feedbacks occur and if so do they amplify warming?

[A] If the answer to [1] is "no", then the answer to [2] is irrelevant, which I think is part of the point you are making. In this case, increases in C02 concentrations will not cause any problems.

[B] If the answer to [1] is "yes", and the answer to [2] is "no", then increases in C02 concentrations are very unlikely to cause any significant problems.

[C] If the answers to both [1] and [2] are "yes", then there is cause for concern over increasing C02 levels.

In terms of policy, positions [A] and [B] both lead to rejection of mitigation policies. Therefore, people who hold position [A] or position [B] are on the same side from the policy point of view, and in opposition to people who hold position [C].

How is it possible to decide which of the positions [A], [B] or [C] is correct?

Like you, I've seen a lot of theoretical arguments for both "yes" and "no" answers to both questions [1] and [2], but I think these are only relevant to the extent that they explain observations.

There are good observations supporting a "yes" answer to [1], both lab experiments and measurements of the real climate system (such as LW radiation incident at the earth's surface).

There are also good observations supporting a "no" answer to [2], including radiosonde measurements of the tropical tropospheric temperature and satellite energy balance measurements.

Many of the arguments for a "no" answer to [1] point to processes such as convection and surface heat absorption, which I understand work in parallel with radiation effects and do not replace them. I would say that such arguments point towards a low sensitivity, and therefore support and explain the observed situation.

I think the discussion about [A] or [B] is a scientific debate without significant policy implications: both positions are consistent with opposition to the environmental agenda. Even if [A] turns out to be the case, I think the activists will simply find other means to push forward their agenda. To push back, mainstream intellectual and political opinion needs to become convinced that this agenda should be rejected as being unnecessary and undesirable. Unfortunately, much of it seems to currently be immune to reason.

[Philip]

I want to add a few more comments here, but before I do I want to make it clear that I really do strongly agree with the conclusion that CAGW is basically a politicised scam. I also agree with the writers who have pointed out that the atmosphere does not actually behave like a greenhouse at all. However, I'm also concerned that some of the arguments being used against the greenhouse effect -- based on the second law of thermodynamics -- do not really work. In particular, I've noticed that the second law has been used to justify both of the following assertions: -

[1] IR cannot flow from within the troposphere downwards to the earth's surface.
[2] IR cannot flow from the tropopause upwards to outer space.

The basis for these assertions is that the second law says that heat cannot by itself flow from a cold body to a hot body. The second law is most certainly valid, but I don't think it implies either of the above assertions. In fact if the assertions were true, then it would surely mean that incoming SW and outgoing LW would be stopped dead at the tropopause. As far as I know, both assertions are incorrect.

First of all, the second law is a macroscopic law, and applies to the overall flow of heat through and between bodies. It doesn’t mean that energy is prevented from flowing in both directions, but that the overall flow is from the hotter body to the colder.

So for example, if there are two hot bodies, then they will both radiate energy. Radiated energy from the cooler body will be incident at the hotter body and will be absorbed by it. However, the warmer body will radiate more energy than the cooler and hence the overall transfer of energy will be from the hotter to the colder in accordance with the second law.

It is also the case that radiation can effectively pass straight through a medium such as the atmosphere, even against the direction of flow of heat energy. So for example, solar photons incident at TOA easily pass straight through the atmosphere to be absorbed by the earth's surface.

Consider the situation in assertion [1]. Energy is emitted as LW by the earth's surface and travels upwards through the troposphere where it may be absorbed and then reemitted by molecules of water vapour or C02. An individual molecule reemits photons equally in all directions. Some reemitted photons will make their way back down to the earth's surface, and others will continue to move upwards towards the tropopause. The second law means that the amount of heat energy flowing upwards will be greater than the amount flowing downwards.

The more molecules of water vapour or C02 present in the atmosphere, the more IR will be absorbed, and the more will end up making its way back down to the surface. The effect of these absorbing molecules is therefore to slow down the upward movement of thermal radiation within the troposphere. It is worth also remembering that convection, rather than radiation, is I think the main heat transfer mechanism within the troposphere. The second law says that the heat energy released from the surface will move upwards towards the cooler conditions at the tropopause.

Now consider the situation in assertion [2]. In this case, heat energy entering the tropopause is not transferred upwards by convection because the stratospheric temperature increases with height - convection instead operates horizontally to move heat energy polewards. Thermal radiation from an absorbing molecule in the stratosphere will however again travel equally in all directions. However, the concentration of absorbing molecules in the stratosphere is a lot lower than it is in the troposphere and I imagine that the majority of upward travelling thermal photons will therefore simply escape into outer space.

This is all supported by observation as far as I know, and implies that increased CO2 concentrations will have an effect on temperatures by slowing down the escape of heat energy from the atmosphere. However, it is a very big step from here to CAGW, and there seems to be little or no observational justification for taking such a step or for accepting mitigation policies (quite the opposite in fact). It seems pretty self-evident that mitigation policies will do harm to westerners and even more to ordinary people in developing countries, and will have absolutely no benefits except for the lucky few who end up with a large chunk of money in their back pockets. Given this view, its pretty obvious that I'd find such proposals to be both hypocritical and morally disgusting.

Nonetheless, I do think that increased C02 will have some effect. Even if the effect turns out to be so small as to be unmeasurable (for example, if it was 0.2K for 2xC02), then natural variations will still cause climate changes that will hurt someone somewhere. No one is to blame for this, and no amount of mitigation will have any effect. Therefore, I agree that resources should be devoted towards helping people caught up in such disasters as occur from time to time, but reject the idea that they be wasted on pointless and politically motivated mitigation exercises.

Philip.

[Climate Realist]

Thanks Phillip, I wanted your point of view as our local physics expert. I will read through your posts until my chemists brain makes sense of it all. Ponder upon the IRIG's and visualise them interacting with IR in the atmosphere and see what I come up with.

Thank you for your thoughts, much appreciated!

I still think it is valid to challenge this theory and see what happens. I'm sure that some back radiation of IR does occur from IRIG's, but bearing in mind the 2nd law, if far more IR is emmited by the ground ( and much of this is not in the CO2 or H20 spectra) then the small amount of back radiation may have no discernible impact in the real world and the greenhouse is still broken. After all, the IRIG's block some direct IR from the sun in their absorption spectra, and the IR from the ground surface will all be UP, wheras the IR from IRIG's in the atmosphere will be totally random in all directions. Plus IR itself is not heat, it is radiation that can generate heat, but if the ground surface is already hot and emmitting IR at that frequency it is possible that most of the back radiation from IRIG's is reflected straight back up again from the hot ground without warming anything on the surface, so the greenhouse is still broken. We have a spring effect of IR until night time when the IR escapes, either as heat or conducted to outer space via the IRIG's.

[Climate Realist]

More info!

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5932

seems to confirm what I am thinking that IR does not always equate to heating, especially if the surface you are trying to heat is already radiating IR at the same frequencies.

[Mike Davis]

I will get back to this shortly because I see a problem with what people are referring as the Green House Effect. For starters I ask that you think about how a Green House works. My observations are that a green house works by restricting. I know of Green Houses in the desert that are used to grow plants that require a controlled temperature range and humidity. Our atmosphere restricts incoming and outgoing energy! It keeps the planet for getting to warm during the daylight and to cold during the night by restricting.

[Climate Realist]

"Our atmosphere restricts incoming and outgoing energy! It keeps the planet for getting to warm during the daylight and to cold during the night by restricting."

I agree with this- remember my GiT theory?? That IRIG's stop incoming IR as well as making some back radiation of IR. I think that this back radiation is in effect cancelled by forward radiation of IR back out to space and the net result is close to zero. Plus, we never hear about the speed of these processes. As IR travels at the speed of light and the quantum mechanics of bond stretching and "waggling" (I forget the proper term) must happen so fast, that the conduction of IR out of the atmosphere from one IRIG molecule to another then to space must be like a bolt of lightning. Far faster transfer of energy than convection and evaporation.

[Philip]

I still think it is valid to challenge this theory and see what happens.

I agree it is very valid to challenge the theory. But remember that according to IPCC, the GHE only accounts for 1 K of their 2xC02 rise. The remainder is down to feedbacks. The GHE is by far the most scientifically well-supported aspect of the alarmist case; therefore it is also the most difficult to attack. This doesn't mean it is impregnable of course; but feedbacks are the low-lying fruit.

All of this "well supported aspect" is very well explained at S.o.D, as is the reason for doubting the overall conclusion, http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/12/13/und ... -the-flaw/. The author of the letter contained there is also listed here, http://www.climatescienceinternational. ... cle&id=289.

Personally, I think there are two effective ways of arguing against the science of AGW. First is to demonstrate that there is no case to answer, which can be done by pointing at temperature records. Second is to argue that feedbacks are in reality negative or neutral, which can be done by arguing about clouds and convection and pointing to satellite data.

I find it extremely difficult to argue effectively against the reality of the basic GHE. I also think that arguing about glacier changes, sea ice changes, hurricanes and droughts is pointless as well. These are phenomena that are going to occur in any case, and provide no support either for or against AGW. Feedbacks on the other hand, completely nail the situation.

I also think that another good line of attack is to argue politically. After all, it seems as if many of the alarmists are not arguing from a scientific standpoint at all, but from an ideological one. But boy, have they become good at conflating the two. I have to admit that at this point I start to feel angry, because their behaviour undermines the credibility of science and therefore eats away at the foundation stones of civilization – which I suppose is their objective anyway.

[Climate Realist]

Hello Phillip.
I agree with you, all those avenues of attack are valid. However, if one were to cut down a tree, the quickest way is to chop at the base (even though this is where the tree is at it's thickest and has the most hard wood), then the whole lot comes down in one go.

I am a chemist by education and career, I like to visualise molecules moving, vibrating, interacting with each other, bonds stretching due to receiving and emitting radiation. This is all totally ramdon and very fast. I therefore have great difficulty in accepting that the IRIGs can somehow act as a heat mirror focussing radiation back to the earths surface in sufficient intensity to change the climate. Whether temperature can be affected is time and energy dependant and I have seen no information on this. The IPCC and most scientists, even realists start by assuming the GHE is real. It is entirely possible that the effect is meaningless in the real world.

[Climate Realist]

-snip-
I also think that another good line of attack is to argue politically. After all, it seems as if many of the alarmists are not arguing from a scientific standpoint at all, but from an ideological one. But boy, have they become good at conflating the two. I have to admit that at this point I start to feel angry, because their behaviour undermines the credibility of science and therefore eats away at the foundation stones of civilization – which I suppose is their objective anyway.

i especially agree with your last statement. I have heard the phrase "scientists say...." so much that when all this nonsense blows over that the general public will have lost what little faith they had in science. This is wrong, because science is not about feelings and faith, it is about data, theory and experiment. At least it is to me having spent a long time as a scientist. And the application of science as technology is what the civilised world depends upon and is threatened.