The greenhouse (GH) effect is the IPCC’s basic concept in global warming. The anthropogenic (man-made) global warming theory is based on the enhanced GH effect caused by GH gases.
There have been many comments on net pages that how carbon dioxide having only 400 ppm concentration can lead to so much warming as proposed by the IPCC.
This story is a piece of simple evidence that it cannot.
The basic information about the energy fluxes affecting the GH effect can be found in Figure 1. The radiation fluxes are practically the same as used in the energy balance presentation of the IPCC.
The Earth receives net energy of 240 Wm-2 as a difference between the incoming insolation and the reflected shortwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere.
Based on observations, the Earth’s surface absorbs 165 Wm-2 and the missing portion 240-165 = 75 Wm-2 has been absorbed by the atmosphere.
Satellite observations confirm that the Earth radiates 240 Wm-2 longwave radiation into space.
This is also according to physical laws that the Earth must radiate the same amount into space what it receives because otherwise, the Earth would continuously cool down or warm-up.
The magnitude of the GH effect is simple to calculate, but it is a little bit theoretical. It is impossible to estimate accurately what would be the Earth’s surface temperature without the atmosphere and without the GH effect.
It has been generally agreed that theoretical temperature corresponding to the net radiation flux of 240 Wm-2 received from the Sun is the surface temperature without the GH effect.
This temperature can be determined by the radiation law introduced by Max Planck in the year 1901.
According to this law, a black surface having a temperature of -18°C radiates 240 Wm-2.
The average surface temperature is +15°C, and its difference to -18°C is 33°C. This 33°C has been generally accepted to be the magnitude of the GH effect. The GH effect definition is needed to explain what mechanism is resulting in this warming effect.
I think that only a few readers have ever read the GH definition of the IPCC. This time the IPCC does not refer to any published scientific sources, but it has formulated the definition by itself since the First Assessment Report 1990.
It is easy to think that it is an old definition and it must be correct without any doubts. I show that you should check it because there is a serious flaw.
The definition of the GH effect, according to Assessment Report 5 (2013) is:
“The longwave radiation (LWR, also referred to as infrared radiation) emitted from the Earth’s surface is largely absorbed by certain atmospheric constituents – (greenhouse gases and clouds) – which themselves emit LWR into all directions. The downward directed component of this LWR adds heat to the lower layers of the atmosphere and to the Earth’s surface (greenhouse effect).”
By simple terms, this definition means that GH gases and clouds absorb a certain amount of energy from the infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface and thereafter GH gases and clouds radiate it back to the surface.
So far so good – it is according to radiation and physical laws.
The obvious reason for the GH effect seems to be the downward infrared radiation from the atmosphere to the surface and its magnitude is 345 Wm-2. Therefore, the surface absorbs totally 165 + 345 = 510 Wm-2.
It does not matter whether the surface absorbs shortwave radiation from the Sun or longwave radiation from the atmosphere – the total energy is decisive.
The difference between the radiation to the surface and the net solar radiation is 510 – 240 = 270 Wm-2.
The real GH warming effect is right here: it is 270 Wm-2 because it is the extra energy warming the Earth’s surface in addition to the net solar energy.
The final step is that we must find out what is the mechanism creating this infrared radiation from the atmosphere.
According to the IPCC’s definition, the GH effect is caused by the GH gases and clouds which absorb infrared radiation of 155 Wm-2 emitted by the surface and which they further radiate to the surface.
This same figure has been applied by the research group of Gavin Schmidt calculating the contributions of GH gases and clouds.
As we can see there is a problem – and a very big problem – in the IPCC’s GH effect definition: the absorbed energy of 155 Wm-2 cannot radiate to the surface 345 Wm-2 or even 270 Wm-2.
According to the energy conversation law, energy cannot be created from the void. According to the same law, energy does not disappear, but it can change its form.
From figure 1 it is easy to name the two other energy sources which are needed for causing the GH effect namely latent heating 91 Wm-2 and sensible heating 24 Wm-2, which make 270 Wm-2 with the longwave absorption of 155 Wm-2.
When the solar radiation absorption of 75 Wm-2 by the atmosphere will be added to these three GH effect sources, the sum is 345 Wm2.
Everything matches without the violation of physics. No energy disappears or appears from the void. Coincidence? Not so.
Here is the point: the IPCC’s definition means that the LW absorption of 155 Wm-2 could create radiation of 270 Wm-2 which is impossible.
This violation of the law of physics is a trick on how the warming effects of GH gases can be practically duplicated as I will show.
Somebody may think that it does not matter if the total driving force of the GH effect is 155 Wm-2 or 270 Wm-2. It makes a big difference.
Or somebody may think that the IPCC may define the GH effect as they like. Yes, they can do so, as anybody can, but in the real world, any correct definition must obey the laws of nature.
The warming impact of carbon dioxide in the GH effect is calculated by dividing the carbon dioxide absorption of 20.1 Wm-2 by the total absorption, which is 155 Wm-2 per IPCC.
Using these numbers, the research group of Schmidt has calculated the contribution percentage of carbon dioxide to be 19% and another research group has calculated 26%.
This latter number is still the most referred figure even though it has been calculated applying a wrong atmospheric composition containing 50% less atmospheric water than the global average atmosphere, thus increasing – practically doubling – the contributions of other GH gases like carbon dioxide.
By applying the right GH effect number of 270 Wm-2, the contribution of carbon dioxide in the GH effect is only 7.4% corresponding to 2.5°C.
And what is more: this low contribution of carbon dioxide in the GH effect results in the conclusion that in the present atmosphere the warming effect of carbon dioxide model of the IPCC cannot be fitted in the overall carbon dioxide contribution of 2.5°C but it must be reduced by about 70%.
In other words, the climate sensitivity of 0.6°C can be fitted into the overall GH effect but the 1.8°C climate sensitivity of the IPCC cannot be fitted in. The climate sensitivity is the warming caused by the carbon dioxide increase from 280 ppm to 560 ppm.
It turns out that carbon dioxide is not a strong GH gas. A reader must now conclude if this description is scientifically correct meaning that the IPCC science has a massive error in the GH effect definition questioning the scientific basis of the anthropogenic warming theory.
And by the way, Wikipedia uses different numbers in explaining the IPCC’s GH effect covering the breaking of physical laws. Maybe this is the only case when a Wikipedia description is not according to the official science of the IPCC.
Dr. Antero Ollila is an Adj. Ass. Prof. (Emeritus) of Aalto University.
Misunderstanding again. It is not difficult to find those places. Both the top of the atmosphere, the atmosphere itself and the surface are in balance: incoming energy and outgoing energy are the same, see the figure. If it would not be so, these places would cool down or warm up all the time. So, those places are in equilibrium, you are right.
I guess the next claim is that there is no energy needed from the sun because the Earth’s surface is in balance.
The Earth’s surface is not in balance. The Earth’s curved surface does not receive the Sun’s radiation evenly. Short term, we experience weather which constantly moves heat around. Long term, geologically, we experience changes in climate.
Global average temperature is a political propaganda tool.
Short-term variations make weather but the long-term situation is what makes climate. The long-term here is about a year. The real radiation observations – shortwave radiation in and longwave radiation out – prove that the Earth is very well in balance. There is always an average although the temperature varies regionally and in short term periods. The global temperature trends show that the Earth is amazingly stable with respect to climate. For example, global precipitation is very accurately 1 meter from year to year. It is very difficult to unsettle the climate.
Could it be because 70% of Earth’s surface is water? Water has a high specific heat, (compared to other elements), exists in three states
( solid, liquid, vapour), the changes between those states absorbs or releases large amounts of heat with no temperature change (latent) and the most important of all, evaporation and condensation occur miles apart in elevation. Anyone who points out that water vapor is the major greenhouse gas misses the big picture. Water is Mother Earth’s coolant, her sweat.
Water is the most important GH gas if we mean the absorption of infrared radiation by GH gases and clouds. Its portion is about 80 % and the same of CO2 is about 13 %. But if we calculate the contributions of the GH effect according to the correct GH effect definition the portions are as follows:
– water 33.6 %
– latent heating 33.6 %
– clouds 13.3 %
– sensible heating 8,9 %
– carbon dioxide 7.4 %
– ozone 2,6%
– methane & nitrogen oxide 0,7 %.
GH effect is a very important factor in the climate and CO” has only a minor role in that phenomenon. Water controls in many ways. Oceans control the dynamics of climatic changes because of its long-residence time. Water has also the most important factor in the GH effect: 33.6 + 33.6 +13.3 = 80.5 %.
In other words, the NET effect is that energy dissipates until there is an equilibrium. Hard to find such a place on Earth. If it does exist here, it’s artificial.
Dear Squidly,
Your understanding of physics is almost zero. People like you refer to this statement: Heat cannot be transferred from colder object to a hotter object. But if you were so sure about your own physical laws, you can comment about the explanation of the second law of thermodynamics explained here:
But if you so sure about your own physical laws, you can comment about the explanation of the second law of thermodynamics.
The second law of thermodynamics:
The radiation is energy transferred radially away from the bodies, and its magnitude is given by the Stephan-Boltzmann law. The radiance (watts per square meter per steradian) is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature. Thus, a colder body will radiate to the hot body much less than the hot body to the cold. As the hot body will be cooling by its radiation, the rate of cooling will be less than it would be if there were no cold radiator close to it. On the other hand, as the incoming radiation from the hot body is much larger than the loss of the cold body’s black body radiation, the cold body will get heated. A cold body emits photons as well as the hot body but less. When a photon from the cold body hits the hot body, it will be absorbed, and a part of its energy will increase the temperature of the hot body: energy cannot be destroyed but it can change its form.
You write: Ok I followed you on your statement but it appears to have stopped “mid sentence” what is your point exactly”. I have to say that I did not understand what do you mean. I show in detail how the GH effect magnitude (the driving force, if you like) is 155 W/m2 but the actual magnitude is 270 W/m2 which is the extra energy radiated on the surface in addition to the solar radiation 240 W/m2.The surface temperature of the Earth can be affected only by radiation fluxes entering right the surface. Can you explain what is the point that you think is not correct or do you think that anyway IPCC’s definition and calculation basis is correct?
The text assumes everything in watts and probably equal temperature. But…
The IR re-radiated from CO2 molecules has a lower temperature (frequency) than that of the outgoing IR radiation from the planet. Each molecule co2 radiates its IR in all direction and only a small portion is directed to Earth.
Thermodynamically co2 can not warm an object with a higher temperature.
This comment has been frequently represented on any climate change web pages, but it is against the radiation and energy laws. This claim has been formulated normally just like that: a colder object cannot warm up an object in a higher temperature. One thing is sure: net energy transfer is always from a hotter object to a colder one.
Now we are talking about longwave radiation that is also called infrared radiation. Any material above zero Kelvin temperature in the universe radiates electromagnetic radiation. It means that they emit photons having a frequency according to the emitting material’s temperature. Those photons disappear only through absorption process and it means that energy has been added to the receiving material – no matter how cold or hot that material is. According to the energy conservation law, the energy does not disappear, but it will raise the temperature of that receiving material. Otherwise the laws of thermodynamics would not work.
This is also wrong: “Each molecule CO2 radiates its IR in all direction and only a small portion is directed to Earth.” It is not only CO2 molecules or even GH gas molecules which radiates according to their temperature. As written above: any material above the zero Kelvin emits radiation. CO2 is a very strong absorber in its wavelength zone about from 12 to 19 micrometers and therefore its absorption is over after 1 km altitude.
The surface emits radiation (W/m2) 395, GH gases absorb 155 and into space goes 395-155 = 240 , surprise, surprise. Above the troposphere there is almost no absorption.
… Ok I followed you on your statement but it appears to have stopped “mid sentence” what is your point exactly ?
Thanks
I think that I write it very clearly open. The portion of CO2 in the GH effect is only about 7% and not 19% or 26%. This means also that the IPCC’s climate sencitivíty of 1.8 C cannot be fitted into the overall CO2 effect but the climate sensitivity of 0.6 C can be fitted very well. The wrong GH effect definition has an impact on the warming impacts of CO2 in the end.
BS! .. there is no “sensitivity” to CO2 other than cooling (that’s why CO2 is the most widely used industrial coolant in the world, because of its high emissivity to IR). Heating via any so-called “GHG” is physically impossible. According to the magical “greenhouse effect”, the source of that IR is .. wait for it .. the surface .. and we should all realize that an object (the surface) cannot heat itself !!! .. so no amount of “back radiation” from the atmosphere can further heat the surface. And your magical “pressure” doesn’t cut it either. “Heat” cannot pile! .. no matter how much 130F coffee you add to your cup, you cannot get your coffee hotter than 130F !!! .. our atmosphere is no different as is proven by the lapse rate.
Furthermore, in terms of CO2, CO2 absorbs radiation at 15 microns, which has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C = 193K = -112F, which can’t melt an ice cube!!!, whose Planck radiation max wavelength by the way is 10.6 microns.
CO2’s other absorption wavelengths are 2.7 microns and 4.3 microns. 2.7 microns corresponds to a Planck radiation temperature of 797C (1070K) (1466F), and 4.3 microns corresponds to one of 401C (675K) (755F), neither of which the Earth’s surface is capable of reaching outside of volcanoes!!!
So your next argument is going to be, “CO2 acts like a blanket by ‘trapping’ heat” .. except that nothing can “trap” heat .. especially a gas in an open atmosphere. “Heat” is not a “thing” .. “Heat” is a “result” .. In other words, “heat” is a VERB not a NOUN. Furthermore, “heat” itself cannot be moved from place to place, only the “energy” can be moved and the “heat” is still the result. Again, “heat” is not a “thing”.
Simply put, the so-called “greenhouse effect” is not possible in the known universe. Such a process violates the fundamental physical laws that govern our universe. As proof of this, despite $BILLIONS being spent, not a single person in the world has been able to demonstrate this magical “effect” despite the claims that it is all around us all the time every single day wherever we are. Claiming such an effect is ridiculously stupid and only the ignorant and gullible can fall for such a scam.
Zero degrees Kelvin is the point where all molecules do not vibrate. No activity. Absence of heat. In this case, heat is a noun. ‘To heat’ is something else, a verb.
And btw, Squidly, carbon dioxide is preferred as a refrigerant IN CLOSED SYSTEMS for economic and environmental reasons. I don’t see anywhere in our atmosphere where it changes states, from liquid to gas, so it doesn’t act as a refrigerant in nature.
This fact needs to be hammered home. Should always be displayed on the front page. The UN didn’t see the climate changing, and then set up the IPCC to determine why. The IPCC was initiated under the premise that the main driver for the current climate change IS human activity (AGW). As the article implies, AGW forms the basis for ALL IPCC activities. So, it’s been predetermined the IPCC will blame climate change on human activity.
The IPCC was set up to provide scientific cover
for the claim that there is a global problem needing UN governance to address. As Maurice Strong acknowledged, the power group he was part of (The Club of Rome), decided to make manmade climate change that problem. The result may have exceeded Strong’s socialist desires.