I want to explore how the adiabatic cooling as we move up the atmosphere works with radiant cooling. I hope this post will clarify the concept. However first, the other relevant discussions:
In this first post The CO2 Green-house effect is real (sometimes), I introduced the Advanced Green-House Gas Theory in its simplest form which is a semi-transparent layer in an otherwise transparent atmosphere.
In the second post Reconciling skydragons and mainstream skeptics? , I clarified some points and showed how the Advanced Green-House Theory is compatible with both the Basic Green-House Theory (which is very problematic) and the Skydragon ideas of adiabatic cooling.
Finally there is an excellent discussion at Tallbloke
Definition: Green-House Warming
Before I start, I want to stop arguments of the form “greenhouse warming doesn’t exist because its not what we mean by it”. So instead of the wooly conceptual definition which no one really seems to know what it means, I want to define “green-house warming” in a way that isn’t linked to a particular theory but is a general concept. So, I am defining the Green-House Effect in this quantifiable form:
“The amount the real world is warmer than a theoretical world with no atmosphere.
This should allow us to compare models. For the purposes of this discussion, the Green-House Effect is the explanation of how the atmosphere warms us over what we would expect for a bare earth pseudo-black body type scenario. Obviously it can only be theoretical, because without an atmosphere the ocean will boil.
The other problem is that there are different models of a “bare earth”, possible starting points might be:
- The totally uniform perfectly conductive ball at single temperature
- The rotating earth with cold and hot sides
- The rotating earth with heat transportation mechanisms (to create latitude temperature as we see on real earth)
Obviously all these have temperature differences, but these should be quantifiable. But the basic single starting point, should be the simplest system which would be (1) above (with a stated emissivity).
Quick recap of the two main Green-House theories
Basic Green-House Gas Theory (as found on catastrophists sites)
“Green-house gases” are assumed to absorb IR and stop it leaving the earth. As such this is largely:
an “earth up” view of the atmosphere.
In this theory the the emission of IR is largely ignored. As such Green-House gases are taken to be a uni-directional conduit, only taking IR energy from the earth into gaseous energy. The temperature of the atmosphere is (wrongly) assumed to be irrelevant in the way the green-house gas works.
The skydragon theory
The adiabatic expansion causes the atmosphere to cool as we rise and get hotter as pressure increases toward the surface. Because the most significant pathways are those highest in the atmosphere, the apparent temperature of the earth as viewed from space is strongly affected by the temperature at the top of dense layers (like the troposphere) or at opaque cloud layers. As such this is largely an:
A space down view of the atmosphere
The Advanced Green-House Gas Theory (aka skydragon theory)
Like the Skydragon Theory this includes adiabatic expansion causing the atmosphere to cool as we rise and get hotter as pressure increases toward the surface. But in this theory, green-house gases provide a dual-directional energy pathway between gaseous and radiative energy throughout the atmosphere.
When the most significant pathways are those highest in the atmosphere, the apparent temperature of the earth as viewed from space is strongly affected by the temperature at the top of dense layers (like the troposphere) or at opaque cloud layers. As such this is largely an:
A space down view of the atmosphere
Because the Advanced Green-House Theory assumes green-house gases both emit and absorb, the flow of energy from gas temperature to radiant energy is strongly affected by atmospheric temperature.
And the net effect of green-house gases in the atmosphere which is cooler due to adiabatic cooling, is that there is a lower radiant energy flux out of the planet which is why heat is retained and green-house gases lead to a warmer world. (see start of previous post “why colder is warmer”)
Pressure pushing down causes heat to rise.
How it works
At the heart of the Advanced Green-House Gas theory is a simple concept that a gas allowed to expand cools. This is the same as saying a volume of gas pressurised by the weight of the atmosphere above will heat up (see left). The theory then says that the IR emissions are linked to this atmospheric temperature through the bi-directional conduit provided by green-house gases such as water vapour, CO2 and other conduits like dust and most importantly cloud.
A Virtual Cycle (NOT AIR MOVEMENT!!)
Cycle
To explain how this cooling of the atmosphere can warm the planet, I would like to take you through a virtual tour as an “observer” moving around the atmosphere with a parcel of air.
Note: this is not (yet) meant to signify convective currents.
- At the Warm surface air rises and expands. This expansion causes an adiabatic expansion so that the temperature changes without significant IR loss.
- Cool high air, has an open “window” to space and so easily loses heat by IR
- We now returns down to surface . As we do our air warms adiabatically (without significant IR gain/loss)
- Air the surface, there is strong heating from sunshine and the air warms.
So, because the bulk of the radiation is emitted at the top where it is coldest, the more the air column is cooled, the lower the temperature at the point where the IR is emitted, and so the lower the radiant energy outward. Less energy emitted, means more is retained and so that tends to keep us warm.
So, the more adiabatic cooling, the lower the temperature, the lower the emitted energy and the more heat is retained.
How do the different theories work with this?
Basic Green-House Theory
Basic Green-House theory.
Green-house gases stop radiation escaping and form a blanket. This accounts for the warmer region at the surface and cooler radiation leaving the earth.
Adiabatic/Skydragon Theory
Skydragon Theory
The Skydragons focus on the adiabatic cooling. They make the assumtion all radiation is from the top. This explains why the temperature near the ground is cooler and why there is less emissions into space. It does not explain how individual gases interact.
Advanced Green-House Theory
Advanced Green-House Theory
In this theory the green-house gases act as a two way conduit between the adiabatic cooled atmosphere and radiation. It is because this adiabatic cooling is linked to radiation that we have the green-house effect. When the effect is very weak, it is close to the Basic Theory as heat is effectively trapped from the IR as it tries to escape. With a strong green-house effect, IR is trapped in the bulk of the atmosphere [+where the density of greenhouse gases means IR travels only short distances within the gas and so it +] only escape from the top. Then it becomes the skydragon or adiabatic cooling where the IR is only from the top of the atmosphere.
More importantly, those “virtual” arrows can now become real air movement.
Summary
All these theories are simplifications and like all theories they cannot include all effect. The Basic Green-House Theory explains in the most simple terms of a blanket how green-house gases work, but doesn’t do much else. The Skydragon theory, focusses on the real atmosphere, but it uses a very simple idea for radiation which fails to explain how the adiabatic cooling is linked to the radiative emissions from the earth in the bulk of the atmosphere.
The advantage of the Advanced Green House Theory, is that it brings together both the Basic Green House Theory, but it links it to the real atmosphere.
Very interesting post. Thanks.
I am wondering if you have seen this post on CO2 absorption:
http://www.principia-scientific.org/global-warming-and-settled-science.html
I think it is more evidence in favor of your advanced theory.
~ Mark
I think all I did was look at the problem from the outside in, rather than the earth’s surface looking out.
Yes, the post is good. I was at one point thinking of trying to use an analogy of a train stopping at stations (the stations being molecules like CO2 and the train being the flow of IR). If I had, then perhaps the best analogy for a filled band would be that all the first class passenger seats are full.
Scottish Sceptic says: ”IR is trapped in the bulk of the atmosphere and can only escape from the top”
That’s where the clever Warmist tricked the ”Skeptics”.= too often using the words; ”heat radiation, radiative effect”
The truth: heat doesn’t ”radiate” through the atmosphere, because oxygen & nitrogen are perfect heat insulators. The ”engineers that make ”double wall refrigerators, double wall cool boxes, to keep your beer cold all day, thermos flask, to keep your coffee hot all day – those people are clever, because they have to deliver the goods that can be packaged and sold for good use – on the other hand, the protagonist on the blogosphere are selling bullshine..That’s what says on my post:
The story goes: heat is ‘’radiating’’ from the ground up to the stratosphere B] from CO2 in the atmosphere – heat ‘’radiates’’ down towards the ground and keeps the planet warm. In reality, ‘’radiation’’ of heat is very, very lousy, because in-between is lots and lots of oxygen & nitrogen; which are very good ‘’Insulators’’ of heat! The Truth:
1]Listen to this: from a campfire of 700C – radiates only about 3feet, that’s from 700C. The ground, especially in the tropics, gets hot up to 70C-80C, and it ‘’radiates’’ heat about a foot; that’s why dogs suffer much more than human from heat in the tropics, because dog’s head is about a foot from the ground / definitely the heat is not ‘’radiating’’ from the ground for tens of km up into the atmosphere! Everybody knows that: in the fridge walls / door and in the walls of the cool box is air/ oxygen& nitrogen, to insulate heat from coldness, BUT, when it comes to the phony GLOBAL warming… everybody forgets the insulating properties of those two gases. Actually, everybody forgets that those two gases even exist in the atmosphere… precursor of all evil.
In the thermos flask bottle is kept your coffee hot for a whole day, by a small amount of O2&N2 trapped in the walls of the bottle! From the ground to the stratosphere there is 30km tick layer of those two gases = no ”radiation” like that, as promoted, exist!
So, the soil radiates heat a foot above the ground -> horizontal winds collect that heat; and then: the heated air / O&N try to expand – because of the atmospheric pressure – the heated air instead get squeezed upwards, to the end of the troposphere and even jumps a foot into the stratosphere (troposphere is; from the ground, up to where is oxygen and nitrogen. O.K, it does the same as: if you start to blow up a balloon on the bottom of the pool, or just get a tennis ball to the bottom of the swimming pool and release it – it will instantly go to the surface and even jump a bit into the air. So, when the hot air goes up, where air is very tin -> expands and releases the heat in that very cold place -> becomes gets very cold -> instantly shrinks and, as heavier per volume from the air below -> that air sinks back down as shotgun pellets, to take more heat. In other words: oxygen & nitrogen are ‘’SHUTTLING the heat up’’ not by the Warmist stupid ‘’radiation’’ of heat, but the vertical winds! That is; the ‘’vertical’’ winds that people with hang-gliders are using, keeps them up in the air for hours, b] the strength of hot air lifts half a ton hot air balloon up.
2] in the morning, the sunlight can see the CO2 close to the ground – warms it up, and by 9am, most of the CO2 lifts high up to 5-7km altitude. Up there is very cold – sunlight keeps the CO2 just a bit warmer than the surrounding air, so that it will stay there all day. In the evening, by sundown, CO2 loses the benefit from the sunlight -> cools instantly and falls down to the ground; that’s the time when the trees, crops are gorging themselves on the good stuff. (at night CO2 is close to the ground as invisible fog)
Which means: ‘’during the day, when the sunlight is on; on that high altitude CO2 cannot get much ‘’warm’’ it’s about zero degree centigrade up there, even in the tropics – that ‘’heat’’ of around zero centigrade cannot warm the warmer air down close to the surface, for a start heat goes only upwards, not down B] you guessed correctly: that heat from the CO2 molecule cannot ‘’radiate’’ to far below; because in the atmosphere, every CO2 molecule is surrounded by lots of O2&N2, as perfect heat insulators! C] experiment: take a red hot iron and place it one foot below your feet -> you will feel the heat, Then place it a foot above your head – you will not feel the heat. Because under the ‘’normal’’ laws of physics: heat goes upwards / coldness goes down. In other words: warmed oxygen, CO2 and nitrogen, when warmed extra, they instantly expand and go up. Speaking of ”radiating heat” is naive; should be referred as: ”SHUTTLING HEAT”:
I’ve amended the text slightly to make it clearer that the density of IR absorbing and emitting gases reduces the mean free parthway of CO2. Thus radiation is TRAPPED and so radiative transfer is less. And it’s a simple fact that radiation is important even in an insulator.
The story goes: heat is ‘’radiating’’ from the ground up to the stratosphere B] from CO2 in the atmosphere – heat ‘’radiates’’ down towards the ground and keeps the planet warm. In reality, ‘’radiation’’ of heat is very, very lousy, because in-between is lots and lots of oxygen & nitrogen; which are very good ‘’Insulators’’ of heat!
Stefan, you are fundamentally misunderstanding why Oxygen and nitrogen are good insulators. The reason is because they don’t interact with IR …. THEY DON’T EMIT IR (much)! This is the same as saying THEY JUST LET IT THROUGH.
The reason you add inert gases to double glazing IS NOT BECAUSE THEY BLOCK IR. Quite the reverse, it is because any heat they pick up by contact with one window pain, is not then radiately emitted
The IR that passes by these molecules does not interact – THEY DO NOT STOP IT. The only gases that can INSULATE the IR are IR active gases like CO2. And the reason more and more CO2 tends to insulate, is because the IR gets a lower and lower mean free path before it finds another molecule of CO2 where it interacts.
And in insulating materials, even very dense materials like we use in homes, radiation is an important process. E.g. you can buy an insulator which is nothing but several layers of 5mm or so quilt between silvered plastic. So you have |Q|Q|Q|Q|Q|. The total insulation thickness is only about an inch, but it is claimed to be far more insulating than the same thickness of quilt. The reason is because the silvered plastic STOP RADIATION, within an insulator!!
So, even the people who produce insulating material for B&Q accept this idea that an insulator has radiation going through it.
O & N might be good insulators – but they don’t stop radiation. If they don’t interact with the IR, then they can be ignored when considering IR. Because only an IR absorbing gas can stop radiation. And only an IR absorbing gas can emit IR within the atmosphere (or particles). So, only a dense set of IR absorbing gases can insulate IR.
On “CO2 lifts high up to 5-7km altitude” … where is your evidence for this. My understanding is that CO2 is relatively well mixed in the atmosphere. So, unless you have gas samples that show otherwise, you have to accept the data we have.
“A campfire of 700C – radiates only about 3feet.”
I regularly sit 5m from a campfire and feel warm. ,
A human at just 30C skin temperature can be seen for miles with IR camera. At close range you can detect 0.05C difference surface temperature with a good IR camera.
Scottish Sceptic says: ” THEY DON’T EMIT IR (much)! This is the same as saying THEY JUST LET IT THROUGH”
1] yes Scotty, O&N just let the sunlight trough, SAME as clear plastic or glass roof on a ”normal” greenhouse = that’s why they are the ”greenhouse gases”, not CO2; because CO2 stops the sunlight -reason they don’t put black roof on the greenhouse, to ”stop” the sunlight! You are trying to judge what I say, by using the Warmist pagan religion…
.Scotty says: ”The reason you add inert gases to double glazing IS NOT BECAUSE THEY BLOCK IR. Quite the reverse, it is because any heat they pick up by contact with one window pain, is not then radiately emitted”
2] you are obsessed by ”IR” – the truth: O&N ”carry” heat up, heat is NOT wasted by ”conductivity” which you refer as ”radiation” – but by those two gases ”shuttling” the heat up to the edge of the troposphere ”personally”, when warmed on the ground = they create ”vertical winds” those winds speed up when more heat is produced; is part of the self adjusting temp mechanism. Reason the hang-glider people prefer above rocks and sand, and ”avoid” above swamps and rice paddies
Scotty says: The only gases that can INSULATE the IR are IR active gases like CO2
3] CO2 is about 350ppm, or less – it’s same as putting a fishnet as a roof on a greenhouse or on your house = will not ”insulate” much, you will not be able to ”warm up” your house (fishnet fabric represents CO2, the holes represent O&N 98999ppm).
B] in double walls O&N are not a good heat conductors – you are confusing ”conduction” with radiation… metal is good heat conductor where one atom is passing the heat to next
Scotty says: ”O & N might be good insulators – but they don’t stop radiation”
4] you are obsessed with ”radiation” .I’m proving to you that: ”radiation” of heat is very short; so, the heat is carried up, doesn’t ”radiate” from the ground to the stratosphere!
Scotty says: ”The total insulation thickness is only about an inch, but it is claimed to be far more insulating than the same thickness of quilt. The reason is because the silvered plastic STOP RADIATION, within an insulator!!”
5]in that case are TWO reasons, not one! Silvery color helps, BUT, the ”silvery plastic” also ”prevents” the O&N inside of ”moving / ESCAPING” to go far up = that’s clever invention
Scotty says: ”If they don’t interact with the IR, then they can be ignored when considering IR. Because only an IR absorbing gas can stop radiation. And only an IR absorbing gas can emit IR within the atmosphere (or particles). So, only a dense set of IR absorbing gases can insulate IR”
6] in one sentence you have 7 times use of ”IR” can you dig it: they are using ”infrared radiating” as smokescreen, people not to realize that: heat is getting ”carried” up, by individual atoms of O&N.. That’s why O&N is a taboo for both camps… that’s why both camps are comparing the earth with the moon and venus…
.
Scottish Sceptic says: My understanding is that CO2 is relatively well mixed in the atmosphere. So, unless you have gas samples that show otherwise, you have to accept the data we have.”
1] all the fuss for the last 20y is that: CO2 intercepts ”IR” and that ”warms it up”
Wen CO2 during the day ”warms up” it goes high up! Cavemen discovered that: warmed CO2 goes ”up” that’s how they invented the chimney = if you update your knowledge about CO2 from the caveman = you will know more about it, than ALL the Warmist & skeptics combined. b] in first grade your teacher told you: in case of housefire – crawl on the floor and get out – at that time you were a big, clever boy – you learned that: warmed CO2 tries to get up – unfortunately.. the warmist propaganda shrunk your knowledge
1A: I was intending to suggest to you: to get yourself a gadget that monitors the amount of CO2 and you can rub the nose of Met office: average CO2 level in Scotland (outside the big city) is about 340ppm / Europe is the biggest emitter – then you will know that: in Australia, south america, antarctic is much less, is NOT 390ppm as they are lying. b] during the day is ”less” CO2 close to the ground, even though more is produced during the day c] before the rain is more CO2 than after the rain. Co2 during the day is warmed and goes up – at night loses the benefit of sunlight / cools and falls down – that’s when trees crops are most active, after 8pm. if you are interested in the truth – get the gadget and prove Met office wrong D] before you switch on the gadget, first guess how much in in the air, than look at the gadget – you will be wrong by a lot, because CO2 is colorless and odorless – then you will ask the met office: how do they know what was the exact amount before the industrial revolution, before the ”gadget” was invented?!?!?!
Scotty says: ”A campfire of 700C – radiates only about 3feet.”I regularly sit 5m from a campfire and feel warm”
2] you feel warm 5” away – because: ”the winds (O&N) are pushing the flames and are spreading the heat, NOT ”radiation”.
b] the other day somebody put on the bar-be-que too much coal; by the time the meat was defrosted, the metal plate was red hot – for the metal plate to be red hot it’s ”over” 700C – I was standing 1,5” away from the plate to fry the meat – so: lets get the ”radiation of 700C” down to 2 feet, instead of 3”. In Scotland the ground temp average would be 20C, can that 20c heat ”radiate” 30km upwards? compare 700C with 20C
Scotty says: ”A human at just 30C skin temperature can be seen for miles with IR camera. At close range you can detect 0.05C difference surface temperature with a good IR camera”
3] human temp is 37C, not 30C. B] can be seen for miles, BUT doesn’t ”radiate” for miles. c] with color photo camera can ”see” that green forest in the hills 20km away – but that forest doesn’t ”radiate” that green paint 20km.
Scotty says: ”IR camera can detect warm object/ body from far away – because that body is ”warmer” or ”emits” warmth for few inches around it, not to far away”
4] So: CO2 can intercept IR, UV, alpha, beta radiation, yes, CO2 is a good gas, that’s why CO2 triggers the fire alarm – we should rejoice that is more CO2 now than 150y ago – there are more people now, they need more trees and more productive crops. At that time from 1,2 billion people, bigger percentage was starving than today!. Tell your Warmist: to find some other gas to blame, not CO2!!!
The ”self adjusting temp mechanism” is very, very powerful, CO2 heat is a joke for it!
you are obsessed by ”IR”
When the issue is the temperature of our planet, unless one understands that heat cannot cross a vacuum except through radiation like light & IR, it is very difficult to understand.
From what I can see your idea really is this:
1. Energy arrives from sun
2. The atmosphere insulates because (for some odd reason you pick) O & N
3. You have no means for heat to leave the earth. You have no outgoing flow of heat.
So your model appears to me to be “heat in … no heat out”, which means the earth will just increase in temperature.
So, before going any further, please tell me where you think the IR leaving the earth originates. (the permissible answers are:
A) IR active molecules like CO2
B) particles like water droplets or dust.
C) the earth’s surface
And if it does not originate in the atmosphere that is from either A or B, then the atmosphere has no impact WHATSOEVER on the global temperature.
Scottish Sceptic commented : ”2. The atmosphere insulates because (for some odd reason you pick) O & N 3. You have no means for heat to leave the earth. You have no outgoing flow of heat”
Scotty, this is the final, cutting edge science, so please read the whole comment, is all step by step:.
1] the campfire radiates 3 feet – those 3′ of air expands and becomes 6′ of air by volume; therefore ”around” the fire, instead of 5m3 of air became 10m3 of air – that’s extra 5m3 of ”air volume” All that 10m3 is warmed and tries to expand, but doesn’t expend as much as it wishes, because is one atmosphere pressure on the surface – instead goes up to the edge of the troposphere carrying all that heat (same as when you try to blow up a balloon on the bottom of the swimming-pool – ballon instantly goes to the surface) Every 10 seconds, 10m3 of hot air is moving up, as long as the fire burns and goes up!!!
When it gets to 25km altitude, there the air is very thin – in-between that thin air is plenty of that ”cold nothingness” -those 10m3 of air expand and release the heat into that ”cold nothingness”. Therefore: the troposphere is larger by volume of 5m3 as long as the fire burns – encompass in that ”extra volume in the very thin air extra of the cold nothingness”; now we are getting into the tricky truth/ reality, the most important part:
Because that ”cold nothingness” doesn’t have friction – how deep it penetrates into the troposphere?! Well, on Kilimanjaro mountain ”in the tropics” there is snow and ice. Kilimanjaro is one of the closest point to the sun – lots of sunshine, lots of heat from surrounding valleys goes to the mountain, but is ice and snow = the ”cold nothingness” penetrates that deep.
B] that ”cold nothingness” on the polar caps goes to the surface of the planet – lots of heat is released in Arctic from the warm currents coming from north pacific, some heat is produced by the summer sun, plus geothermal heat released, but is getting all destroyed. C] in the permafrost, that ”cold nothingness” penetrates deep into the soil and keeps destroying the heat that comes from below, from the geothermal heat. Now the tricky part:
The earth produces enough heat, to warm up that ”cold nothingness” from the surface to 25km up, in one week, why it doesn’t? That ”cold nothingness, when warmed a bit, doesn’t go anyway”, but: THE EARTH GOES. The earth cannot take that ”warmed cold nothingness” with her, BECAUSE THAT COLD NOTHINGNESS DOESN’T HAVE FRICTION, OR GRAVITY. Therefore: by spinning around and orbiting around the sun, the earth in a week will be millions of miles away. So, the earth is in constant contact with ”new” cold nothingness; so: O&N and ”warmed CO2 are releasing / or radiating, if you will that warmth by only one micron, into that cold nothingness that penetrates into the troposphere – the planet moves away – ”warmed cold nothingness stays where it was”, but the planet doesn’t! Same as: if your car engine works all day in the garage, the heat of the engine and exhaust would warm up the garage, BUT, when you travel 100kmh on the road, the road is not getting hot, because you travel. The earth TRAVELS much faster than your car!!!.
Therefore: if you adopt the new aprouch, you will win the war against the Warmist: :
The universe is very hostile place, very cold. b] the earth is traveling trough a ”very cold space” If you put a shielded thermometer from the sun in the space where the satellites orbit – would be colder than -100C (reason when the cosmonauts are repairing something outside the space station; ”in the shadow” of it – must be pumped lots of warmth by umbilical cord – otherwise he would be stiff frozen in 7minutes); therefore: THAT COLD NOTHINGNESS ”DOES” COLLECT HEAT!!!That ”same” cold nothingness cools in Sahara, from 45C, in 12h, at night goes down to 10C; cooled by 30C.
Therefore: we should rejoice that: the earth is producing heat, to fight the ”NEW cold nothingness” all the time – otherwise everything would have being stiff frozen.
Bottom line: troposphere is like a piano accordion – when warmed ”extra” expands ”extra” instantly, and encompasses in itself ”extra cold nothingness” Therefore: that ”self adjusting mechanism ”doesn’t allow extra heat to accumulate in the atmosphere”
Ok, your theory is that there is a “cold nothingness” which is in contact with the atmosphere which absorbs the heat at the top layer. This is what you are proposing as an alternative to IR emission from the earth.
Whilst interesting as a theoretical construct, it does seem to have few small problems:
1) It doesn’t explain the normal transfer of heat via IR.
2) It doesn’t explain the simple fact that mirrored surfaces in space keep things warm according to the normal laws of IR physics.
3) It doesn’t explain why the sun feels hot … because according to your theory all the heat would be absorbed by the “nothingness of space” around the sun.
3) If this heat is absorbed by the “nothingness in space”, what then happens to it? Wouldn’t the earth sometime in it’s history have travelled through one of these super heated zones from the sun and we would all have been fried in an instant?
Scottish Sceptic says: ”Ok, your theory is that there is a “cold nothingness” which is in contact with the atmosphere which absorbs the heat at the top layer. This is what you are proposing as an alternative to IR emission from the earth”
1] that ”cold nothingness” cancels ALL the heat in the atmosphere. b] not only in the ”top layer” the cold nothingness reaches to the ground; reason there is snow / ice on Kilimanjaro, in the tropics – the earth must fight against that cold nothingness all the time. You keep the windows, doors closed in Scotland, to trap a bit of heat inside – that warm air finds a way to get out, doesn’t ”radiate” that heat, reason you keep the windows closed -> when escapes -cold nothingness gets in; in the middle of the night you have to cover yourself with a blanket, otherwise you feel it on your skin. (from now, that ”cold nothingness” will haunt you for the rest of your life and will keep remaining you of its existence, because you leave in a cold country)
you say: #1} It doesn’t explain the normal transfer of heat via IR.
A#1: yes it does: O&N collect the heat -> expand and carry it high up-> there expand even more and ”release / transfer” that heat to the cold nothingness! The cold nothingness ”neutralizes” that heat. There is no long-wave heat ”IR radiation” for many kilometers, that’s only Warmist crap, shoveled by the ”Skeptics” You are confusing longwave IR ”KINETIC HEAT”radiation, which is only a micron long, with shortwave IR from the sun…
you say #2) ”It doesn’t explain the simple fact that mirrored surfaces in space keep things warm according to the normal laws of IR physics”
A#2: water has the surface that has ”mirror effect” b] desert ”reflects” more sunlight than forest, but, on high altitude above the desert is always colder than above rainforest. c] water clouds ”reflect” some sunlight back in space; but that doesn’t make the planet cooler – because clouds ”slow down cooling at night”; those two factors cancel each other (same with CO2 – intercepts a bit of the sunlight high up / but slows cooling at night by that much = overall effect is ZERO! d] that ”reflection and IR radiation” from the earth is same as what you get here from the moonlight – you can’t get suntan/moontan from it; the cold nothingness cancels all the heat on the earth and moon.they both travel fast into new cold nothingness constantly.
you say #3) ”It doesn’t explain why the sun feels hot … because according to your theory all the heat would be absorbed by the “nothingness of space” around the sun”
A#3: YES! on the surface of the sun is only 4500C -that heat doesn’t ”radiate” more than 3km; we are NOT getting any of that heat – the heat on the earth is produced HERE, by the shortwave UV&IR.
you say# .4) ”If this heat is absorbed by the “nothingness in space”, what then happens to it? Wouldn’t the earth sometime in it’s history have travelled through one of these super heated zones from the sun and we would all have been fried in an instant?”
A#4: the earth doesn’t travel through that super heated zone: the whole ”solar system” as a unit travels in direction that the sun’s north pol points – the sun and the planets are as a propeller on a boat traveling upstream the river – the propeller never hits same water droplets. b] the closest star is Alfa Century, two light years away, the reath / sun cannot heat all that space – we are not even going that way, she is in a different part of the sky
Obviously you think: ”if the earth suddenly decides to travel sideways like a sand-crab, and goes where the sun was last year…. first of all; they travel together in the same direction, don’t cross each other’s path b] even if the earth gets drunk and loses her compass – the 4500C ”super heated” temp emitted from the sun disperses. How it disperses, is complicated science; in my book it takes 11,2/3 pages about it, cannot be done new staff in one paragraph, plus, you are not ready for it yet
.
A#3: YES! on the surface of the sun is only 4500C -that heat doesn’t ”radiate” more than 3km; we are NOT getting any of that heat – the heat on the earth is produced HERE, by the shortwave UV&IR.
You are now suggesting two different form of “radiation” that produces heat. You seem to admit IR is emitted from the sun, but you have a new mysterious “it doesn’t radiate more than 3km” type of radiation.
This is all very interesting, but without any evidence to support this type of radiation, I don’t think this is a very constructive conversation.
Scottish Sceptic said: ‘’You are now suggesting two different form of “radiation” that produces heat. You seem to admit IR is emitted from the sun, but you have a new mysterious “it doesn’t radiate more than 3km” type of radiation’’
Mike, now you hit the nail on the head! You said that you know electronics; if you read this comment – you can give lots of hell to the Warmist; I commented on different blogs, the Warmist know about the confusion they created with: IR in IR out: this is what it says on my post:
INTENTIONALLY CONFUSING SHORTWAVES ‘’IR’’ cold radiation for long distances, with ‘’longwave IR’’ which is: radiation from ‘’existing’’ heat, which is kinetic energy/ heat, radiates only few microns.
I was told that: most of the climatologist are not physicist, but Jim Hansen is; therefore: if he is put on a witness stand, under oath – he would end up in long term, jail. Everything in the solar system is controlled / regulated by the laws of physics! Engineers that created radio, TV, mobile telephone, X-ray machine, atom bomb, microwave Owen; they had to deliver the goods, they cannot sell lies to get cash, like Met office and IPCC.
1] there are many different radiations – as for example: shortwave IR /UV that come from the sun to the earth – they don’t carry any heat, they ‘’create heat’’ by vibrating atoms and molecules – they vibrate CO2 in the atmosphere, soil on the ground, and surface of the water – that ‘’vibration’’ which rubs molecules / atoms from each other, creates heat.
2] same as your microwave Owen, doesn’t produce heat, but vibrates the water molecules in the cup, that ‘’friction’’ boils the water in 2minutes. Same as when you rub the hands, to warm up (water molecules vibrate much faster) then, that heat in the cup is kinetic energy / heat and doesn’t radiate heat for more than few microns.
3] same as the ‘’cold’’ shortwave IR / UV from the sun’’ vibrate the CO2 in the atmosphere and the soil and ‘’creates’’ the heat in it. Then, ‘’that kinetic heat ‘’radiates only by one micron from the CO2 –that heat is collected by O&N and taken higher, to waste it (most of that heat from CO2 is neutralized by the ‘’cold nothingness’’ that penetrates into the atmosphere) CO2 during the day goes up 5-7km, there is always pretty cold. CO2 doesn’t ‘’radiate’’ heat down to the ground, doesn’t ‘’radiate’’ that heat up into the stratosphere; because longwave heat doesn’t radiate for more than a micron from the CO2, and the ‘’kinetic heat’’ from the ground radiates only few inches. All the cooling is done by O&N. Taking it up. When it gets hotter than normal -> vertical winds increase, instantly and equalize in a jiffy!
4] so: lonwave and shortwave radiation is what they confuse, to con. The heat in the cup, heat into the CO2, heat into the soil AND the heat on the sun surface are kinetic energy / heat; same heat that is produced by burning coal, to melt iron ore. For melting iron ore is needed 2000C, and people are standing 15 feet away from the fire – on the surface of the sun is only 4500C; which is only two and a half times of that in the smelter. Yes, deep down into the sun, where fusion is created, is millions of degrees, but that is deep, deep down.
5] so: shortwaves vibrate, same as: BBC radio, or TV in London ‘’radiates shortwave vibration’’ that shortwave vibration vibrates the membrane on your radio and TV in Scotland -> membrane vibrating produces the sound. Even those radio waves on TV, radio, mobile telephone are of different frequencies; kilohertz / megahertz.
6] those ‘’cold shortwaves’’ from the sun, travel though a very cold place, for long distances, to get to the earth – because in-between is no gases or solid objects, to vibrate and produce heat – the temp between the earth and the sun is five and a half times colder, than in your deep freezer (apart of when Mercury every couple of months, sometime Venus end up between the earth / sun and they intercept those cold short-waves and create heat / kinetic energy there) The moon intercepts ‘’shortwave radiation’’ from the sun -> heat is created there; that kinetic heat doesn’t radiate from the moon to the earth – because ‘’longwave radiation’’ doesn’t get far! It radiates a foot from the ground and is neutralized by the ‘’cold nothingness’’ because the moon travels faster than the earth into ‘’new cold nothingness’’ it’s all neutralized in the path of the moon.
Therefore: it’s not: ‘’IR’’ comes in – ‘’IR’’ radiates out, from the ground to out in space. All the heat created on the earth, is neutralized by the new ‘’cold nothingness’’ that constantly penetrates deep into the troposphere = Warmist don’t have a case!!! Hansen as physicist, can be put in jail, easy; if it wasn’t for this: Warmist keep creating bull – Skeptics keep shoveling it… The truth will win, only will take longer. P.s. physicist and engineers in the ‘’Skeptic’s’’ camp, should be in the same jail cell as Hansen, only for longer period. Because: they play the cop, but are assisting the bank-robbers! In every country, under the existing laws – the cop gets bigger penalty than the robbers; when they are ‘’assisted’’ by the cop. When those ‘’Skeptics’’ are blaming the Warmist for robbing the people – I feel like eating more – so I can trow up more…
Pingback: Cloud feedbacks | Scottish Sceptic