1
The Environment / Is the greenhouse effect a stupid mistake?
« on: 13/06/2018 01:32:44 »
Let me skip the explanation of the GHE, it should be well known. I could point out to a couple of major and decisive flaws in the original theory, but that shall not be the scope of this posting. No, rather I want to take a look at the solid evidence for the GHE.
The GHE is observable and measureable. There are essentially two approaches to that, one is to look up the sky and detect "back radiation" and the other one is looking down from space, measuring long wafe infra red (LWIR). Both approaches show and confirm how greenhouse gases (GHG) interfere with surface emitted LWIR.
Back radiation is typically measured with pyrgeometers, which I consider somewhat untrustworthy. The problem is, pyrgeometers will react to changes in LWIR, but they are very hard to calibrate in case you are not knowing the absolute amount of LWIR. The problem is solved by calibrating pyrgeometers with other pyrgeometers, so that they give similar results. However, that brings up the question how the first pyrgeometer was calibrated. I am afraid it is more a model based measurement, than a fact based.
Anyhow, there is back radiation and thermographic cameras support that claim. Thermographic cameras detect radiation at certain wave lengths where GHGs do not absorb that radiation, also known as the "atmospheric window" (AW). That works so well, that you can even look at the moon, and it will give are relatively accurate temperature for its surface.
Let me provide two examples for such recordings, which offer a lot of interesting details if you take a closer look.
Right now I only want to direct your attention to the clear sky. It appears very cold, like -35 to -40°C, while the surface temperature was also relatively low (~10°C). Yet that means there will be a lot of radiation coming down from the clear sky. Relative that would be like (233K/283K)^4 = 46% of the amount of LWIR emitted by the surface. This result is quite consistent with other recordings of that kind, taken at different temperatures, and the GHE model itself, if you will.
The important point however is, this LWIR emitted by GHGs is also emitted in AW. Meaning that GHGs emit LWIR but hardly absorb LWIR at these wave lengths.
The other fine piece of evidence is provided by NASA. They have satellites looking onto Earth which measure outgoing LWIR. Now they not just measure the total amount, but also give us the spectrum of these emissions. What we can see very clearly, is how GHGs interfere with these emissions. You can see the wave bands where CO2 or vapour absorb LWIR, and accordingly less radiation goes into space. By hindering LWIR emissions that way GHGs warm the planet, so the story goes. Also we can see how in the range of the AW, there is almost exactly as much LWIR going outward as the theory suggests. At wave numbers from 800 to 1250 GHGs (with the exception of ozone) are very transparent to LWIR, and so the blue area mingles with the red line, which represents the theoretical emissions from the surface.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
So far everything makes perfect sense, and all the evidence fully supports the theory of the GHE. Keep in mind that not even "climate sceptics" are seriously doubting the existence of the GHE. So by all means, there is absolute consensus on this subject. And by looking at the evidence, it all supports the theory. So why did I choose this headline?
Well, you probably have not mentioned it, but there is a huge and disastrous mistake in all that. It is not just a mistake, a minor flaw, but a total annihilation of the GHE, well concealed in what I just said.
It is all about the AW and the amount of radiation measured by NASA. In that range the satellite is measuring just or almost as much LWIR as the surface should emit in theory. That is no surpise, as we know the atmosphere is perfectly transparent there. The problem is that we know, that GHGs are also emitting a lot of LWIR in that range. If you look down onto Earth, you will receive almost 100% of LWIR emitted by the surface, plus LWIR emitted by GHGs, which might add another 50%. So the satellite should be able to measure almost 1 1/2 times as much radiation, as the surface alone would emit in theory.
Rather than a perfect match, now we have a perfect missmatch. I am not even sure if these data have been measured, or if they were simply manufactured. For the sake of the argument let as assume they are legitimate, because that has some serious consequences.
Once we understand, that measured LWIR in the AW must be representing LWIR emitted from the surface plus the LWIR emitted by GHGs, and that likely in a relation of 2:1, we can draw some mighty logical conclusions.
1. The surface itself must emit far less than 390W/m2. That is no surprise, as specific emissivity is not 1 (like a perfect black body), but rather just 0.92. So the surface itself would only emit like 360W/m2, which destroys one of the foundations of the GHE theory. Next to it, clouds will sharply decrease these emissions. Just have a look at the linked video above to see how the moon drops from 400K to below 100K just because thin clouds cover it shortly.
(Correction: the scale in that first video - which we do not really see - is certainly not in K)
2. It is logical and obvious to conclude, that the surface plus clouds will emit far less than 300W/m2, likely something in the range of 240W/m2 only. Only then the relation works. Only then we can explain, why in the AW the LWIR from surface and GHGs amount to sharply less than what the surface itself should emit.
3. With the surface covered by clouds emitting just as little LWIR, there is absolutely no scope for GHGs, which of course carry the wrong name. CO2 and the others are just gases, no greenhouse related to it.
4. We start to understand how they are perfectly climate neutral, despite interfering with LWIR. Yes, so called "GHGs" do absorb LWIR and thus reduce the amount of LWIR going from the surface into space. But at the same time, they emit LWIR themselves, thereby cooling Earth. What is getting absorbed by so called "GHGs" at certain wave lengths, is being emitted additionally at other wave lengths. Reading the balance sheet correctly, the net effect must be more or less zero.
These are the only logical conclusions in line with the named observations, which ironically were meant to prove the GHE.
The GHE is observable and measureable. There are essentially two approaches to that, one is to look up the sky and detect "back radiation" and the other one is looking down from space, measuring long wafe infra red (LWIR). Both approaches show and confirm how greenhouse gases (GHG) interfere with surface emitted LWIR.
Back radiation is typically measured with pyrgeometers, which I consider somewhat untrustworthy. The problem is, pyrgeometers will react to changes in LWIR, but they are very hard to calibrate in case you are not knowing the absolute amount of LWIR. The problem is solved by calibrating pyrgeometers with other pyrgeometers, so that they give similar results. However, that brings up the question how the first pyrgeometer was calibrated. I am afraid it is more a model based measurement, than a fact based.
Anyhow, there is back radiation and thermographic cameras support that claim. Thermographic cameras detect radiation at certain wave lengths where GHGs do not absorb that radiation, also known as the "atmospheric window" (AW). That works so well, that you can even look at the moon, and it will give are relatively accurate temperature for its surface.
Let me provide two examples for such recordings, which offer a lot of interesting details if you take a closer look.
Right now I only want to direct your attention to the clear sky. It appears very cold, like -35 to -40°C, while the surface temperature was also relatively low (~10°C). Yet that means there will be a lot of radiation coming down from the clear sky. Relative that would be like (233K/283K)^4 = 46% of the amount of LWIR emitted by the surface. This result is quite consistent with other recordings of that kind, taken at different temperatures, and the GHE model itself, if you will.
The important point however is, this LWIR emitted by GHGs is also emitted in AW. Meaning that GHGs emit LWIR but hardly absorb LWIR at these wave lengths.
The other fine piece of evidence is provided by NASA. They have satellites looking onto Earth which measure outgoing LWIR. Now they not just measure the total amount, but also give us the spectrum of these emissions. What we can see very clearly, is how GHGs interfere with these emissions. You can see the wave bands where CO2 or vapour absorb LWIR, and accordingly less radiation goes into space. By hindering LWIR emissions that way GHGs warm the planet, so the story goes. Also we can see how in the range of the AW, there is almost exactly as much LWIR going outward as the theory suggests. At wave numbers from 800 to 1250 GHGs (with the exception of ozone) are very transparent to LWIR, and so the blue area mingles with the red line, which represents the theoretical emissions from the surface.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
So far everything makes perfect sense, and all the evidence fully supports the theory of the GHE. Keep in mind that not even "climate sceptics" are seriously doubting the existence of the GHE. So by all means, there is absolute consensus on this subject. And by looking at the evidence, it all supports the theory. So why did I choose this headline?
Well, you probably have not mentioned it, but there is a huge and disastrous mistake in all that. It is not just a mistake, a minor flaw, but a total annihilation of the GHE, well concealed in what I just said.
It is all about the AW and the amount of radiation measured by NASA. In that range the satellite is measuring just or almost as much LWIR as the surface should emit in theory. That is no surpise, as we know the atmosphere is perfectly transparent there. The problem is that we know, that GHGs are also emitting a lot of LWIR in that range. If you look down onto Earth, you will receive almost 100% of LWIR emitted by the surface, plus LWIR emitted by GHGs, which might add another 50%. So the satellite should be able to measure almost 1 1/2 times as much radiation, as the surface alone would emit in theory.
Rather than a perfect match, now we have a perfect missmatch. I am not even sure if these data have been measured, or if they were simply manufactured. For the sake of the argument let as assume they are legitimate, because that has some serious consequences.
Once we understand, that measured LWIR in the AW must be representing LWIR emitted from the surface plus the LWIR emitted by GHGs, and that likely in a relation of 2:1, we can draw some mighty logical conclusions.
1. The surface itself must emit far less than 390W/m2. That is no surprise, as specific emissivity is not 1 (like a perfect black body), but rather just 0.92. So the surface itself would only emit like 360W/m2, which destroys one of the foundations of the GHE theory. Next to it, clouds will sharply decrease these emissions. Just have a look at the linked video above to see how the moon drops from 400K to below 100K just because thin clouds cover it shortly.
(Correction: the scale in that first video - which we do not really see - is certainly not in K)
2. It is logical and obvious to conclude, that the surface plus clouds will emit far less than 300W/m2, likely something in the range of 240W/m2 only. Only then the relation works. Only then we can explain, why in the AW the LWIR from surface and GHGs amount to sharply less than what the surface itself should emit.
3. With the surface covered by clouds emitting just as little LWIR, there is absolutely no scope for GHGs, which of course carry the wrong name. CO2 and the others are just gases, no greenhouse related to it.
4. We start to understand how they are perfectly climate neutral, despite interfering with LWIR. Yes, so called "GHGs" do absorb LWIR and thus reduce the amount of LWIR going from the surface into space. But at the same time, they emit LWIR themselves, thereby cooling Earth. What is getting absorbed by so called "GHGs" at certain wave lengths, is being emitted additionally at other wave lengths. Reading the balance sheet correctly, the net effect must be more or less zero.
These are the only logical conclusions in line with the named observations, which ironically were meant to prove the GHE.