Ott/Shula: Why is there back radiation but no greenhouse effect?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2024
- Second in a short series of physics videos. This is a followup to this Shula/Ott presentation: • Ott/Shula: The second ...
About Tom Shula:
• Academic training in theoretical physics. Disillusioned with the
community and left with a M.S. to work in tech industry.
• Primary work in semiconductor and disk drive component and system
development and manufacturing.
• Brief diversions into other industries including steel mills, refining,
food processing, and waste treatment.
• Exposed to a broad range of fluid dynamic systems with pressures
ranging from kpsi to 10-12 Torr, and temperatures from 77K (liquid
nitrogen) to greater than 1000C
• I have been extremely curious from an early age, and was considered
a top problem solver in my professional technical career
• I’ve been following the “climate change issue since the “global
cooling” scare of the 1970s. More intently since 2009.
Markus Ott, a chemist with a PhD, has been working as a researcher and developer in the chemical and pharmaceutical industry since 1994. He has mainly worked on the development of photolithographic methods for the production of biochips and on the development of light-curing plastics. In addition to the theoretical basics, he has the necessary practical experience to assess the interaction of light with matter. As an enthusiastic aviator, he is deeply interested in the processes in the atmosphere since his youth. The present text "Dismantling The CO2-Hoax" or the German version "Demomtage des CO2-Betruges" were written from the practitioner ́s perspective who has to deliver reliable products and cannot hide behind computer models.
Two PDFs (episode transcript and K.Schwarzschild: About the equilibrium of the solar atmosphere) available here: tomn.substack....
=========
AI summaries of all of my podcasts: tomn.substack....
My Linktree: linktr.ee/toma...
UA-cam: • Tom Nelson Podcast
X: / tomanelson
Substack: tomn.substack....
About Tom: tomn.substack....
I have a criticism here. Please take it to help and not fuss. The primary issue is to stop calling "Greenhouse Gases". Just call them CO2 or whaterver
Greenback Gases is more apt methinks.
I understand your objections. But I do that intentionally. Sooner or later they will change the narrative (maybe because AI needs a lot of energy) and then "Greenhouse Gases" will be, like Fauci´s famous "save and effective", a reminder on the fraude and crimes commited in the name of this agenda. Then academics will talk about "IR-active components of the atmosphere" but we will contiue to talk about GHGs to rub salt into their wounds.
@@MarkusOtt-o4z I agree with @mybirds2525. I think you are discounting the most dominant constituents in the greater argument: the public. For 97% of the public the supposition that "greenhouse" gases exists is the end of the argument. They literally don't care about the details.
@@SolvingTornadoes You may be right, but if I use other names for these gases the 97% will never find my stuff.
@@MarkusOtt-o4z The 97% don't care about the details. The more they hear the phrase the more they believe it exists.
This is absolutely brilliant! I thought I had a pretty good understanding of the GHG mechanism and the quantisation involved. But I've never seen anyone set out the impact of thermalisation like this. So, this is a double killer blow to climate change. At 15um, CO2 absorbs 100% of upwelling IR within 10 to 50 metres (meaning climate sensitivity is close to zero). But this video shows that the reality of thermalisation kills climate change before you even need to worry about radiative absorption and re-emission.
@@Tengooda Another “appeal to authority”
@@TengoodaThank you for reinforcing my point and revealing your true character. FYI, I have read some of Pierrehumbert’s work and found it unremarkable. It is more of the same that fits the mainstream narrative. You are entitled to your opinion, which apparently means you are part of the “settled science” contingent. I am not, so we will have to agree to disagree.
@@Tengooda This guy will allso tell you how the whole universe works, driven by gravity only.
@@Tengooda Yes, they assume as we do that thermally excited emission causes the atmosphere to "glow". But somehow they neglect that thermal energy can´t be converted back to radiation without losses. Have a closer look how Manabe does his "convection-correction". You will be surprised.
Thank you I suppose someone needs to TAKE the FEAR out of Greenhouse! Perhaps we should use the more correct terminology thereby reducing the Fear connotation from the dialogue?
All the great greenhouses I've ever been in are filled with the MOST amazing plants and creatures - so where's the fire?!! And the irony is, they are covering our beautiful, fertile lands, which live & breathe and even produce FOOD, with hideous GLASS solar panels and plastic & concrete wind turbines.. Talk about a man-made crisis.
I think the point is not that there is no green house gas effect. Rather that the effect is not a purely radiative one, although radiative models appear to have good agreement with satellite measurements (right answer for the wrong reason perhaps).
The alarmists claim that more CO2 will cause more warming is not threatened by the thermalisation theory.
Instead we get back to the point that there is already sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb much of the emitted radiation of the appropriate wavelength (then thermalise it) so adding more CO2 will have a small effect (diminishing returns).
Manabe gets a linear relation between surface temperature and OLR by assuming a fixed relative humidity and, even worse, the validity of Kirchhoff´s law of radiation in the troposphere.
Based on these wrong assumptions he somehow generates a siutable result. Now I understand why Bob Dylan was so reluctant to receive his nobel prize.
@@MarkusOtt-o4z The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind.
The bold text at the bottom at 13:04 can presumably be easily verified using an 15um IR source incident on a suitable sensor at various distances in air. What parts of this narrative CANNOT be experimentally verified and why not? What specifically is refuted by GW obsessives?
Such measurements were done. Our colleague Yong (www.youtube.com/@yongtuition) shows the results in some of his viedos.
The radiation transfer models try to get around these short ranges by postulating a cascade of absorption-reemission processes.
To achive that they assume that Kirchhoff´law of radiation is applicable to the troposphere. As we have shown before this assumption is invalid.
@@MarkusOtt-o4zthe UA-cam link doesn’t work
@@PattayaPhysics That’s because they’re bstrds!
Very clear explanation of energy transfer in the atmosphere. Thank you.
"summary for policy makers"......lol.
== UN propaganda!:)
That's like asking "why is the earth a spheroid, yet bodies of water measure totally flat?"
That sounds a little bit different, as in your other Videos. Where you tell us, there is no Backradiation because of Thermalisation. Now you say, if i understand it right, yes there is backradiation, but not from interaction with Photons rather from thermally excited emission. That means collisions with other Moleculs, right?
But in one of your other Videos you calculate that only ca. 3% (at See level) of all air molecules have enough kinetic energy to excite a CO2 Molecule. That cannot explain the Measurments of the backradiation. If they measure right.
Roy Spencer did an experiment with an IR thermometer. He measured a clear sky temperature of 27 deg F and pointing at a cloud a temperature of 41 deg F. The current temperature was 78 deg F. How this can be explained with the thermalization process, as measured radiations are just coming from 50 meters up?
You can find Roy's experiment on his blog of April 2013.
nice presentation. Thinking it can be simplified further for the pols. WE live in the lower atmosphere (about 10 m/30 feet). This is the only area we need to be concerned about. The sun is the source of heat for the Earth. Sunlight is converted to infrared radiation. This amount is constant. 99.4% is absorbed by current levels of Co2 and converted to heat. Adding CO2 has essentially no effect because there is essentially a no more infrared radiation to absorb and convert. This is the "CO2 saturation effect'. Measuring OLR is not useful as a proxy for 'the greenhouse effect" is the OLR is decoupled from the heating of the lower atmosphere (where we live).
Critics of the saturation argument say that as photons are emitted by relaxing CO2 molecules, those photons will run into increased CO2 in the upper atmosphere and this will cause more warming. Any comment?
Co2 cannot prevent climate regulation, the speed of our rotation determines the level of Climate Regulation.
The only section I violently disagree with here is the discussion of the IPCC energy flow diagram, at about the 19 minute mark.
1. The diagram is bad conjecture. It is not empirically based, and I believe it will fail any attempt to validate it. Convenient for the IPCC that there's no way to validate their averaged energy diagram as such a world imagined by the modellers does not exist. In the real world : we have day and night. Earth has a titlt giving seasons. the amount of incident radiation recieved at the ground varies because earth is a sphere and the sun rays hit that sphere almost as straight lines. I believe no empirically derived energy balance system exists. But correct me if I'm wrong - is there a whole earth real energy balance system? - to check the silly "flat earth" IPCC model against?
2. Warmists miss-apply the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, as explained by Yong Tuition. There should be 2 terms a Source term and an absorber term. both T^4. The absorber has a lower temperature, so that term is lower than the source term. The absorber term is subtracted from the source term to get a value for radiance flow. When radiation only travels a short distance before it is absorbed by CO2/H2O radiatively active gases, the absorber term will be quite high as the temperature difference between temperatures of the surface and atmosphere above it are small. I suppose the absorber term for the fraction of emissions making their way out to space will use 3K : 3^4 - the supposed temperature of the background radiation of the universe? In both cases of radiation emitted from earth's surface, absorber terms are needed to subtract from source terms. IPCC ignore these S-B absorber terms which should be reducing their outbound radiance values.
I agree with you that the global mean energy balance should not be taken very serious. They are hiding in plane sight that the back radiation is not a real energy flux but only a radiation exchange. In the older German meteorolgy literature the wording is "Gegenstrahlung" (counter radiation) instead of "back radiation" . This "Gegenstrahlung" directly indicates that there is no net energy flux and that the "Gegenstrahlung" is driven by the heat content of the surface, which can´t heat itself via Gegenstrahlung.
@@MarkusOtt-o4z I estimate IPCC are out by a factor of 10 in the troposphere. I calculate infrared radiated by earth's surface is 8% of surface cooling, not 80% as IPCC say. I think it should be possible to setup an experiment to test it. Using a Pirani gauge with a high emissivity filament - such as an oxidised NiChrome wire.
80Ni:20Cr, ε ~ 0.9 or 20Ni:25Cr:55Fe, ε ~ 0.97; using 0.02mm diameter wire. High Vacuum pump and a Pirani gauge should show this.
Plain old Pirani filaments have quite low emissivity ~ 0.05 which , I think, gives better accuracy at medium (conduction dependent) vacuum ranges (above 0.001 Torr to 0.1 Torr) I think this is the only criticism I have of Tom Shula's original interview on this topic. His estimate was too low for surface OLR; and that excused a lot of people's dismissal his case. The acutual IR should be about 20 times Tom Shula's original estimate, which ~ 8% - when using that high emissivity filament.
Which brings us to the point.
Q: Why did IPCC overestimate surface OLR so much?
A: Because IR travels at light speed & their model would cool earth very quickly unless they added massive downwelling IR to counter balance & slow that model cooling down. I'm NOT saying the conspired to do it. With the demands politicos made on them, a wild overestimate was the ONLY result IPCC could produce. They would have been abolished in 1995 after AR2 had they not blamed global warming on humanity back then. As Bernie Lewin explained in : www.amazon.co.uk/Searching-Catastrophe-Signal-Origins-Intergovernmental/dp/0993118992
Those elocution lesson were certainly worth the money. Haven’t listened to a scientist with such perfect diction for a long time.
It is the text to speech function of OneNote for Windows 10.
I think it's an AI generated voice.
@@IanPritchard It is the text to speech function of OneNote for Windows 10
This seems to make theoretical sense, but we need data to back it up?
re 20.58 mins; If back radiation is photons, then is thermodynamics relevant ? If a colder medium is radiating 320Wm2 of photons, which are not heat. then what prevents a warmer medium, the ground, from absorbing them ?
Nothing prevents the ground from absorbing the 320W/m2. But at the same time the ground emits 320W/m2. So overall the is no net energy flow.
At 6:21 you say that "in the case of CO2" its excited state is maintained for about half a second, but earlier (2:33) you said "Greenhouse gas molecules" store for ~0.5sec. Do different GHGs have different storage times?
yes they all differ a bit. In the HITRAN-data bank you can find more detailed information.
Climate science. Dispute that!
A good and thorough explanation, but with a bit too many pseudo-science terms such as 'greenhouse gasses' and 'photons'.
We can´t "reinvent" everything.
The general picture agree perfectly with the 2021 paper by Dr. Yong Tuition.
If I remember correctly, our colleague Yong assumes that there is no back radiation at all. Given the hight of the atmosphere that is more or less the same as our 50m.
If one took a pyrgeometer high enough up a skeletal structure, would it be possible to prove there were no back radiation at that height above ground level (50m) ?
No, the the greenhouse gases emit randomly in any direction. Therefore there will always be back radiation as long as there is still an atmosphere.
This kind of thiing is the exact problem with GW. In engineering we build a model for a system, then we empirically test it in the real world and if the data doesn't fit the theory then we dicard the model. GW models are not properly tested. Your experiment should be conducted.
@@MarkusOtt-o4z As per some of my other comments here, how do we experimentally verify all of this? It must be done if the controversy is to end or we will just be lost in the fog of multiple hypotheses for ever.
@@davelowe1977 The linear relation between OLR and surface temperature is a clear hint that convection dominates the energy flow. The radiation transfer models are all based on the assumption that Kirchhoff´s law is applicabe to the troposphere. Manabe alway invokes Kirchhoff´s law when he talks about his model. His model produces also a linear relation between OLR and surface temperature. Bud based on at least one wrong assumption.
If one of the basic assumptions is wrong, then all the results of these models are wrong.
@@MarkusOtt-o4zI understand your point but how can this be proven beyond doubt by experiment? In other words, there are two models/interpretations. What practical test can be devised to differentiate between them that is not ambiguous and on which both parties would accept prior to it being carried out?
Thank you!
Boy, that was such a dry presentation my mind kept drifting off..
You're right. Actually, it shouldn't be necessary to talk about such basic stuff.
Is it possible that the process you identify, thermalization, or rather the reverse of it 'thermally excited emission' is in fact the cause of the back radiation. You state that "very few" co2 molecules get to re radiate due to 7x10 to the 9 interactions per second. Maybe those very few are sufficient enough to be the cause of back radiation. In fact the large number of interactions per second may cause enough excitations of co2 molecules, that some will radiate faster than the 0.5 half life stated. Or that the constant collisions will ensure that the co2 molecule is excited for a long enough period that it will then indeed emit a photon. This would mean the back radiation is dependent on the amount of GHG molecules, logarithmic relationship. The additional heat from clouds would then make sense if that heat results in greater thermalization of the co2 molecules by oxygen and nitrogen and inevitably more thermally excited emissions and therefore more back radiation?
The important thing is that direct absorption-reemission from the same molecule is surpressed in the dense air of the lower atmosphere. This direct absorption-reemission would be compatible with Kirchhoff´s law of rediation. But as soon as emission is driven by heat under convective conditions, Kirchhoff´s law becomes invalid.
Yes the high collision rates produce the back radiation via thermally excited emission.
With respect to my previous question; If the back radiation is a near ground effect only, then why is the downwelling thermal radiation increased by clouds ? "Question on downwelling radiation ; In his presentation Happer shows a graph of measurements of DWR (using a pyrgeometer) at 12 minutes ua-cam.com/video/60nJOKGU3Ks/v-deo.htmlsi=efcO8joACEgTsa-R ."
I would certainly like a back and forth because Marcus presents a rather theoretical idea but that leaves some gaps open to explain. Happer et al would clearly know what to ask him.
Is it something to do with condensing h20 vapour releasing heat?
I assume there is a misconception. Back radiation is not a near ground effect only. The whole air columne emits radiation, but due to the relatively short range of the greenhouse gas frequencies in the lower atmosphere, surface mounted pyrgeomter receive only radiation from the near surface air.
Clouds are made of water droplets or ice crystals. They therefore emit the full black body spectrum. The cloud´s emission in the range of the atmospheric window can penetrate the atmosphere mostly unhindred and therefore adds to the IR emitted by the greenhouse gases near the surface. The pyrgeometer therefore receives mor radiation under a cloudy sky.
Our range estimate of 10 to 50m for the greenhouse gas frequencies is based on humid air. Over some deserts the range may be a bit longer.
@@MrBallynally2 the 320W/m2 back and forth radiation is based on the global mean energy balance. In the real world the lower latitudes, on average emit more and high latitudes receive more radiation. In one of the next videos we will dicuss that i more detail.
Dear Markus, we value your opinion, but here you are mistaken. The temperatures of the bodies that are affected by the earth’s energy transfer process are governed by the nets of various substantial flows of energy, so that the system is always substantially out of thermodynamic equilibrium, though it can, suitably averaged, at times be transiently in a more or less steady state. The balance of energy at the earth’s condensed matter surface is the algebraic sum of the following several substantial flows of energy: of the rate of absorption of directly impinging sunlight on the condensed matter surface (+), of the rate back radiation from the atmosphere (+), of the rate of surface emitted radiation passing straight through the atmosphere to outer space (-), of the net rate of absorption of the surface's emitted radiation by the atmosphere (-), of the net rate of transfer of energy from the surface to the atmosphere by evaporation (-), of the net rate of transfer of energy from the surface to the atmosphere by conduction (-), and of net storage rate of energy by the condensed matter surface (+). Though it is never violated, the second law of thermodynamics does not directly govern this net algebraic sum because the second law, exactly stated, refers to completed transfers between bodies in mutual and respectively internal thermodynamic equilibrium, which is a state of zero rates of energy transfer, not a state of substantial rates of flow of energy. It is a matter of rates of flow of energy. Other things being equal, increase of back radiation results in decrease of net rate of cooling of the condensed matter surface. The greenhouse effect is the difference between the states in the presence and absence of greenhouse gases. This does not in any way violate the second law of thermodynamics. It simply says that greenhouse gases affect the radiative properties of the atmosphere by their presence. The surface is warmer in the presence of greenhouse gases than it would be in their absence. Evaporation of surface water is a major factor in the cooling of the surface.The term 'greenhouse effect' is something of a misnomer because greenhouses work by prevention of otherwise substantial convection between their interiors and their atmospheric surroundings, while there is no corresponding convection between the earth and its atmosphere on the one hand, and the surrounding outer space on the other hand. It is perhaps unlikely that the term 'greenhouse effect' will be changed by customary usage, but who knows? The occurrence of the greenhouse effect is uncontroversial. Controversial is the extent to which man-made carbon dioxide emissions influence the greenhouse effect. Contradicting the views of many established authorities, you and I, and I guess Tom, agree that the latter influence is too small to be detectable in our present state of measurement ability and knowledge of the details of the earth’s energy transport process. The main mechanism of climate change is apparently change of oceanic currents, the causes of which are not yet well understood, along with causation by the processes in the solar system, such as solar radiation and the changing motions of the earth.
Is the an Ai generated comment?
@MarkusOtt-o4z Dear Markus, thank you for your response. No, it's not an AI generated comment. I made it myself. I am a proper living person. Is there something I can write here to persuade you of that? Can you tell me which sentence or sentences in my comment you disagree with?
@@christophergame7977 Originally credited to Jan Sibelius, and repeated by many others since, I paraphrase, “No one has ever erected a statue to honor a critic.”
This particular video is intended to address one specific aspect of of the tragedy of errors named the “greenhouse effect” within the context of the body of work that Markus and I have presented here, not yet complete.
If you were to view this presentation in that context, you would understand that we have covered most of the issues that you raise in other parts of our work.
In some respects you seem to be in agreement, but then you say, “…while there is no corresponding convection between the Earth and its atmosphere on the one hand, and the surrounding outer space on the other hand.”
So apparently you believe that the energy transport in the atmosphere is purely radiative?
We are simply saying that near the surface, the GHGs absorb the radiation from the surface and via thermalization convert it to sensible heat. The sensible heat is transported upwards via convection. In the convective zone, there is thermally excited emission, absorption, and thermalization which is random and results in no net energy transport.
At “top of atmosphere” the thermally excited emission rate exceeds the thermalization rate, and the so-called GHGs convert the sensible heat into radiation which escapes to space.
The primary energy transport mechanism is convection, and the behavior of GHGs actually enhances cooling.
You seem to have a lot to say. If you have original thoughts and a model of your own perhaps it would be more productive to create your own presentation so that all could have the benefit of understanding your position.
In the meantime, your long “critiques” are beginning to sound more like “word salads” which is why the AI question was raised.
@@ThomasShula Dear Tom, thank you for your response. I will try to engage with it here. You write "then you say, “…while there is no corresponding convection between the Earth and its atmosphere on the one hand, and the surrounding outer space on the other hand.” So apparently you believe that the energy transport in the atmosphere is purely radiative?" You put words into my mouth.
You have me in a dilemma. I try to initially cover as many objections as I can comfortably predict, and you accuse me of prolixity, as "word salads". I omit to cover a particular objection, and you fabricate an accusation that I believe the opposite of what I believe.
My clause “… there is no corresponding convection between the Earth and its atmosphere on the one hand, and the surrounding outer space on the other hand” means what it says. I am not denying the occurrence of convective circulatory transport of energy in the atmosphere. To say "that the energy transport in the atmosphere is purely radiative" is tantamount to saying that there is no convective circulatory transport of energy in the atmosphere, in other words, that intra-atmospheric circulatory convection does not occur or is unimportant. Of course I know full well, and have several times said, that convective circulatory transport of energy in the atmosphere is great and most important. For clarity, let me repeat it: convective circulatory transport of energy in the atmosphere is great and important. My sentence quoted above, which you ridicule, talks not about intra-atmospheric circulatory convection; no, it talks about the non-existence of circulatory convection between, on the one hand, the Earth and its atmosphere, and the surrounding outer space on the other hand." There is more to be said, but I will pause my response at this point to let you respond to it so far.
@@christophergame7977 Now you are saying “convective circulatory transport”. I have not seen that phrase before. What does it mean?