Remember me
▼ Content

The entire greenhouse effect does not even add 0.1 C. The debate is over. The science is settled.


The entire greenhouse effect does not even add 0.1 C. The debate is over. The science is settled.11-01-2016 17:18
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
The Stefan–Boltzmann law is incredibly accurate at predicting any planet's average surface temperature. The equation is

T = 100 * (I / (5.67 * e)) ^ 0.25

, where the output T in units K is the surface's temperature, the input I in units W/m2 is the surface's absorbed solar radiation, the input e is the surface's emissivity which is the surface's ability to emit infrared energy.

Let's try this law on planet Earth.

The albedo of Earth's surface is found to be 0.30. The Sun's incoming solar radiation is found to be 341 W/m2.
I = absorbed solar radiation = incoming solar radiation - reflected solar radiation = 341 - 341 * 0.30 = 239.

The emissivity of Earth's surface is found to be 0.612.

Input 239 for I and 0.612 for e, the equation outputs
T = 100 * (239 / (5.67 * 0.612)) ^ 0.25 = 288 K, which is 15 C, which is exactly the observed value.

Alarmists assume Earth's surface is a perfect black body, so they have 1 as the value of emissivity, and they calculate Earth's surface temperature as
T = 100 * (239 / (5.67 * 1)) ^ 0.25 = 255 K, which is -18 C, which is 33 C less than the observed value.

I quote

This absorption and radiation of heat by the atmosphere—the natural greenhouse effect—is beneficial for life on Earth. If there were no greenhouse effect, the Earth's average surface temperature would be a very chilly -18°C (0°F) instead of the comfortable 15°C (59°F) that it is today.


http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php
Edited on 11-01-2016 18:03
11-01-2016 17:56
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The emissivity of Earth's surface is found to be 0.612.

That can't be right. The IR emissivity of sea water is around 0.98, and the IR emissivities of almost all land surfaces are above 0.90. Where did you get that figure from?
11-01-2016 18:01
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The emissivity of Earth's surface is found to be 0.612.

That can't be right. The IR emissivity of sea water is around 0.98, and the IR emissivities of almost all land surfaces are above 0.90. Where did you get that figure from?


You are right. I misunderstood emissivity. The emissivity of an object is the object's ability to emit infrared energy. An object's emissivity has nothing to do with the said object's albedo. It is corrected in the first post. Thanks for the heads up.


Emissivity is a number between 0 and 1. A perfect mirror has emissivity 0. A perfect black body has emissivity 1. Earth's surface's emissivity is found to be 0.612.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model

http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/link-suggestion/wpcd_2008-09_augmented/wp/c/Climate_model.htm
Edited on 11-01-2016 18:08
11-01-2016 19:13
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
Tai Hai Chen wrote: Earth's surface's emissivity is found to be 0.612

You'll have to forgive those of us who summarily dismiss data taken from Wikipedia or other flagrantly biased non-authoritative sources.

Tell me how I can compute earth's emissivity.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-01-2016 19:25
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The emissivity of Earth's surface is found to be 0.612.

That can't be right. The IR emissivity of sea water is around 0.98, and the IR emissivities of almost all land surfaces are above 0.90. Where did you get that figure from?


You are right. I misunderstood emissivity. The emissivity of an object is the object's ability to emit infrared energy. An object's emissivity has nothing to do with the said object's albedo. It is corrected in the first post. Thanks for the heads up.


Emissivity is a number between 0 and 1. A perfect mirror has emissivity 0. A perfect black body has emissivity 1. Earth's surface's emissivity is found to be 0.612.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model

http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/link-suggestion/wpcd_2008-09_augmented/wp/c/Climate_model.htm

Go back and read your sources again. 0.612 is the effective emissivity of the Earth as a whole (after taking into account the greenhouse effect), not the emissivity of the Earth's surface!
11-01-2016 20:34
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The emissivity of Earth's surface is found to be 0.612.

That can't be right. The IR emissivity of sea water is around 0.98, and the IR emissivities of almost all land surfaces are above 0.90. Where did you get that figure from?


You are right. I misunderstood emissivity. The emissivity of an object is the object's ability to emit infrared energy. An object's emissivity has nothing to do with the said object's albedo. It is corrected in the first post. Thanks for the heads up.


Emissivity is a number between 0 and 1. A perfect mirror has emissivity 0. A perfect black body has emissivity 1. Earth's surface's emissivity is found to be 0.612.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model

http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/link-suggestion/wpcd_2008-09_augmented/wp/c/Climate_model.htm

Go back and read your sources again. 0.612 is the effective emissivity of the Earth as a whole (after taking into account the greenhouse effect), not the emissivity of the Earth's surface!


A perfect black body has emissivity 1. What's Earth's surface's emissivity then?
11-01-2016 23:53
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The emissivity of Earth's surface is found to be 0.612.

That can't be right. The IR emissivity of sea water is around 0.98, and the IR emissivities of almost all land surfaces are above 0.90. Where did you get that figure from?


You are right. I misunderstood emissivity. The emissivity of an object is the object's ability to emit infrared energy. An object's emissivity has nothing to do with the said object's albedo. It is corrected in the first post. Thanks for the heads up.


Emissivity is a number between 0 and 1. A perfect mirror has emissivity 0. A perfect black body has emissivity 1. Earth's surface's emissivity is found to be 0.612.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model

http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/link-suggestion/wpcd_2008-09_augmented/wp/c/Climate_model.htm

Go back and read your sources again. 0.612 is the effective emissivity of the Earth as a whole (after taking into account the greenhouse effect), not the emissivity of the Earth's surface!


A perfect black body has emissivity 1. What's Earth's surface's emissivity then?

From the link you posted:

The emissivities of terrestrial surfaces are all in the range of 0.96 to 0.99 (except for some small desert areas which may be as low as 0.7).
11-01-2016 23:55
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Surface Detail wrote:
The emissivities of terrestrial surfaces are all in the range of 0.96 to 0.99 (except for some small desert areas which may be as low as 0.7).


That does not explain this.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-temperature-d_461.html

There has been practically 0 change to temperature after a 43% increase in CO2. I call the greenhouse effect bull. There could be a small effect, maybe, but definitely not a 33 C increase.
Edited on 11-01-2016 23:55
11-01-2016 23:59
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
The emissivities of terrestrial surfaces are all in the range of 0.96 to 0.99 (except for some small desert areas which may be as low as 0.7).


That does not explain this.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-temperature-d_461.html

There has been practically 0 change to temperature after a 43% increase in CO2. I call the greenhouse effect bull. There could be a small effect, maybe, but definitely not a 33 C increase.

Nor does it explain the price of bananas. It was the answer to your question though.
12-01-2016 00:01
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Surface Detail wrote:
Nor does it explain the price of bananas. It was the answer to your question though.


We have done the experiment. 43% increase in CO2. No effect. The science is settled. The debate is over. Science is all about experimentation. This is the scientific method pioneered by Galileo at the start of the Renaissance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sKX20WhKS4
Edited on 12-01-2016 00:03
12-01-2016 00:08
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Nor does it explain the price of bananas. It was the answer to your question though.


We have done the experiment. 43% increase in CO2. No effect. The science is settled. The debate is over. Science is all about experimentation. This is the scientific method pioneered by Galileo at the start of the Renaissance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sKX20WhKS4

What do you mean, no effect? The last century has seen the most rapid rise in global temperature since the current interglacial began over 10,000 years ago!
12-01-2016 00:09
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Surface Detail wrote:
What do you mean, no effect? The last century has seen the most rapid rise in global temperature since the current interglacial began over 10,000 years ago!


No change in temperature, as far as I can tell, after 44% increase in CO2. Experiment has proven the greenhouse effect is negligible.

Any minor increase in temperature can be wholly explained by:

1. the world was coming out of the little ice age

2. vast increase in human energy use since the start of the industrial revolution, which convert into heat at the surface
Edited on 12-01-2016 00:14
12-01-2016 00:25
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
What do you mean, no effect? The last century has seen the most rapid rise in global temperature since the current interglacial began over 10,000 years ago!


No change in temperature, as far as I can tell, after 44% increase in CO2. Experiment has proven the greenhouse effect is negligible.

Any minor increase in temperature can be wholly explained by:

1. the world was coming out of the little ice age

2. vast increase in human energy use since the start of the industrial revolution, which convert into heat at the surface

Given that you've just demonstrated a startling inability to comprehend your own sources concerning emissivities, you'll forgive me if I don't take your further musings very seriously without some form of explanation or reference. How much heat has been produced by humans? Is this significant compared to the heat from the sun? Would it be sufficient to account for the 1 C rise in global temperature measured during the last century?
Edited on 12-01-2016 00:28
12-01-2016 00:33
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Surface Detail wrote:Given that you've just demonstrated a startling inability to comprehend your own sources concerning emissivities, you'll forgive me if I don't take your further musings very seriously without some form of explanation or reference. How much heat has been produced by humans? Is this significant compared to the heat from the sun? Would it be sufficient to account for the 1 C rise in global temperature measured during the last century?


Earth is not a black body. Earth is too complicated and dynamic to be modeled. The only way is to do an experiment on Earth and see the results.

Thermal imaging clearly shows, the air itself has a negligible downward radiation.

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/521fc8126bb3f77d6de58aba/thermal-images-of-new-york-city-show-why-cities-are-so-much-hotter-than-suburbs.jpg

As for the 1 C rise. Prove it. The Medieval warm period was 1 C higher than today. Today is nowhere NEAR that warm. The little ice age was 1 C lower than today.
Edited on 12-01-2016 00:38
12-01-2016 00:46
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Earth is not a black body.

The Earth's surface is an approximate blackbody; its atmosphere isn't.

Earth is too complicated and dynamic to be modeled.

Not so. The long term outcomes of complicated systems can often be modelled to a useful degree even though the short term fluctuations defy modelling.

The only way is to do an experiment on Earth and see the results.

That's what we are doing, despite the obvious moral issues.

Thermal imaging clearly shows, the air itself has a negligible radiation effect.

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/521fc8126bb3f77d6de58aba/thermal-images-of-new-york-city-show-why-cities-are-so-much-hotter-than-suburbs.jpg

At the particular wavelength used to make that image, perhaps. Do you know what wavelength was used?
12-01-2016 00:55
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Surface Detail wrote:
Not so. The long term outcomes of complicated systems can often be modelled to a useful degree even though the short term fluctuations defy modelling.


Pfffft. They can't even tell you what the weather will be like in a week. No way they can predict what the weather will be like in 10 years.


Surface Detail wrote:
That's what we are doing, despite the obvious moral issues.


Moral issues? CO2 is not a toxin. What about selling coke which is full of sugar and carbonic acid? Is that moral?
What about exposing people to all sorts of artificial chemicals, the effects of which are not known? Is that moral? What about exposing people to electromagnetic waves 24 / 7? Is that moral?


Surface Detail wrote:
At the particular wavelength used to make that image, perhaps. Do you know what wavelength was used?


Nop. In any event the air is too sparse to be picked up by thermal imaging.
Edited on 12-01-2016 00:59
12-01-2016 01:34
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Well, what a nice little Gish Gallop that was.
12-01-2016 01:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
Surface Detail wrote: What do you mean, no effect? The last century has seen the most rapid rise in global temperature since the current interglacial began over 10,000 years ago!

Sure, unless you acknowledge that we don't have the means to accurately measure and compute earth's average global atmospheric temperature.


For all anyone knows, the earth could be cooling right now.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

Edited on 12-01-2016 01:46
12-01-2016 01:54
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Any change in temperature over the past 100 years is negligibly small. Today is 1 C colder than the Medieval warm period and 1 C warmer than the little ice age.
Edited on 12-01-2016 01:54
12-01-2016 18:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Any change in temperature over the past 100 years is negligibly small. Today is 1 C colder than the Medieval warm period and 1 C warmer than the little ice age.

Frankly, I don't care much for comparisons with the medieval warm period. Is the earth cooler today than it was yesterday?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-01-2016 18:44
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation cannot be applied to Earth's surface. Earth's surface is not a black body. A black body is a theoretical concept that has an infinitely thin skin. Earth is far from that. Earth is a complex dynamic system.
Edited on 12-01-2016 18:48
12-01-2016 18:45
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Any change in temperature over the past 100 years is negligibly small. Today is 1 C colder than the Medieval warm period and 1 C warmer than the little ice age.

Frankly, I don't care much for comparisons with the medieval warm period. Is the earth cooler today than it was yesterday?


.


As long as I have been alive, and that's decades, I have not personally felt any change in Earth's annual temperature.

The Medieval warm period was much warmer than today. The Mongolian steppes were super fertile. That's why Genghis Khan conquered half of the world in that time. Greenland had very little ice. That's why Vikings settled in northern Greenland in that time. Today is 1 C cooler than the Medieval warm period. Today is 1 C warmer than the little ice age.
Edited on 12-01-2016 18:47
12-01-2016 19:47
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
Tai Hai Chen wrote: As long as I have been alive, and that's decades, I have not personally felt any change in Earth's annual temperature.


That is a refreshingly honest answer. As far as you know, the earth could be warming, albeit at an imperceptible rate, or the earth could be cooling, albeit at an imperceptible rate.

Personally, I am not aware of a single climate that has changed over the course of my lifetime. Warmizombies point to incidences of normal events as proof that a climate has somehow changed and that the Global Warming religion is true.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-01-2016 19:57
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote: As long as I have been alive, and that's decades, I have not personally felt any change in Earth's annual temperature.


That is a refreshingly honest answer. As far as you know, the earth could be warming, albeit at an imperceptible rate, or the earth could be cooling, albeit at an imperceptible rate.

Personally, I am not aware of a single climate that has changed over the course of my lifetime. Warmizombies point to incidences of normal events as proof that a climate has somehow changed and that the Global Warming religion is true.


.


It is generally accepted that Earth's average surface temperature today is 15 C. Medieval warm period should have been 16 C. Little ice age should have been 14 C. These were the accepted values in the 1990 IPCC report prior to the hockey stick fraud.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

But you know, the current Holocene is nothing compared to the previous Eemian interglacial which was 3 to 4 C more than today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian
Edited on 12-01-2016 20:03
12-01-2016 20:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
It is generally accepted that Earth's average surface temperature today is 15 C.

...with what margin of error?

What is generally accepted is that no one can accurately compute the global average atmospheric temperature and that no one can accurately compute the global average surface temperature.

Do you think you can?

In any event, no one knows what the earth's average surface temperature is. I realize that doesn't prevent warmizombies from writing it in Wikipedia and of course nothing prevents gullible people from believing it.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-01-2016 20:19
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
IBdaMann wrote:
...with what margin of error?

What is generally accepted is that no one can accurately compute the global average atmospheric temperature and that no one can accurately compute the global average surface temperature.

Do you think you can?

In any event, no one knows what the earth's average surface temperature is. I realize that doesn't prevent warmizombies from writing it in Wikipedia and of course nothing prevents gullible people from believing it.


.


They can do that with satellites. Like this. Prior to satellites, they could not measure global average temperature.

http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-114.19,21.67,274/loc=-155.809,59.639
Edited on 12-01-2016 20:49
12-01-2016 21:05
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
Tai Hai Chen wrote: They can do that with satellites. Like this.

I'm sorry, but they cannot. Who are they anyway?

First, we would need a constellation of at least five satellites that were synchronized and that could take full coverage measurements at the same time. We currently don't have this.

Second, temperatures vary greatly from the surface to the upper atmosphere where satellites reside with their sensors. This introduces a broad margin of error in measurements.

Once satellites are in orbit, they cease to be regularly calibrated. Over time, confidence in accuracy degrades.

So if we were to establish a global temperature constellation for this purpose, our current satellites cannot produce an acceptably accurate value...but it doesn't matter because we don't have such a constellation.

All we have on which to rely are warmizombie reports that every day is the warmest of the "temperature record."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-01-2016 23:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote: They can do that with satellites. Like this.

I'm sorry, but they cannot. Who are they anyway?

First, we would need a constellation of at least five satellites that were synchronized and that could take full coverage measurements at the same time. We currently don't have this.

Second, temperatures vary greatly from the surface to the upper atmosphere where satellites reside with their sensors. This introduces a broad margin of error in measurements.

Once satellites are in orbit, they cease to be regularly calibrated. Over time, confidence in accuracy degrades.

So if we were to establish a global temperature constellation for this purpose, our current satellites cannot produce an acceptably accurate value...but it doesn't matter because we don't have such a constellation.

All we have on which to rely are warmizombie reports that every day is the warmest of the "temperature record."


.


We could fill the sky with satellites and we would still not be able to take a global temperature, even if they were evenly spaced.

To take a temperature, a thermometer must be calibrated against an outside standard. For common thermometers, a laboratory thermometer will do. For lab thermometers, carefully prepared ice water and boiling water are prepared. These two calibration points set the scale for any thermometer.

We have used these calibration points to determine resonant frequencies of certain atoms kept at a fixed temperature. These are now used as convenient standards for today's thermometers, and in turn, for today's frequency standards.

In space you have no access to such a standard to verify against instrument drift. Over time, the temperature measurement on a satellite will drift and there is no standard to verify it against. Once launched, the craft is on it's own. The resolution they are capable of prevents using ground based reference thermometers as calibration points. In addition, using Planck's law to analyze the infrared light coming from the surface (which is how these things measure temperature in the first place) is simply not accurate enough given the reference oscillator being used. It is the reference oscillator that drifts...ever so slightly...but it's enough.

While useful for showing comparative temperatures over different areas, they are quite useless for showing anything more than this. The mission of these satellites is to compare the temperature of, say, the North Pole to the equator within a few minutes of time.

Measuring the global temperature is currently not possible.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 12-01-2016 23:24




Join the debate The entire greenhouse effect does not even add 0.1 C. The debate is over. The science is settled.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law39925-08-2019 09:55
Argument against AGW science314-08-2019 20:51
There is no greenhouse effect1513-08-2019 23:33
Greenhouse effect of CO22713-08-2019 17:11
Objectivity of Environmental Science109-08-2019 02:13
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact