greenhouse

Frequently Made Errors in Climate Science – The Greenhouse Effect

Estimated Read Time: 7 minute(s)
Common Topics: temperature, surface, atmosphere, greenhouse, convection

1.What is meant by “The Greenhouse Effect”?

Many gases, such as H2O, CO2, CH4, are transparent to visible light but absorb and emit parts of the infrared spectrum.  Most of the visible light reaching the Earth’s surface gets re-emitted, eventually, as infrared.  Media that pass visible light through but block infrared can act as heat traps.

2. Real Greenhouses

X “The Greenhouse Effect does not exist; Prof R.W.Wood proved it in 1909.”

Most glass also blocks parts of the infrared band.  It was widely believed that this was primarily responsible for the effectiveness of greenhouses.

Prof. Wood suspected that blocking convection was the primary mechanism, so set up a simple experiment to test this.  There are a number of weaknesses in the experiment, but the essential conclusion is correct: real greenhouses work primarily by blocking convection.

  “Whether or not the Greenhouse Effect exists, it is not the main way real greenhouses work”

However, this just means that the term ‘greenhouse effect’ may be misleading.  Wood’s result says nothing about how the atmosphere works.

3. Black Body Earth

If we treat the Earth as emitting and absorbing radiation as a “black body”, ignoring the atmosphere, and treating incoming light as spread evenly over the whole Earth’s surface all the time, we can calculate the equilibrium temperature as -18C.  At that temperature, black body radiation would balance insolation.

Adding a non-greenhouse atmosphere, e.g. pure nitrogen doesn’t change this.  The atmosphere would take no part in the energy balance.  By conduction, it would come to match the surface temperature of the Earth, throughout its depth.

Note:

  1. With a non-greenhouse atmosphere but now allowing the realities of a rotating sphere, convection would boost the upper atmosphere to something approaching the temperature of the hottest spot on the surface.  The surface layer of the atmosphere would be a little cooler by virtue of conduction back to the cooler surface regions.)
  2. The non-greenhouse atmosphere may also result in some attenuation through Rayleigh scattering.  The nitrogen in Earth’s atmosphere may scatter about 4% of light power back into space, taking the temperature down by maybe 3K.

4. The Troposphere

The atmosphere has many layers, featuring quite different processes and temperature profiles.

The atmospheric convection with which we’re familiar only operates up to the tropopause, the top of the troposphere – the band where weather happens.  Beyond that, temperature inversions inhibit convection.

X “The ‘greenhouse gases’ are a net coolant since convection carries the heat through the troposphere, past 80% of them.  They then block reradiation back to the surface.”

It’s the 20% above the tropopause that matters.  This makes the tropopause warmer and/or higher.  Since convection is limited by the lapse rate, a higher or warmer tropopause leads to a correspondingly warmer surface.

The existence of this “tropospheric hotspot” is considered a fingerprint of Global Warming.

5. Temperature and Pressure

X “It’s hotter at lower altitudes because it’s at a higher pressure, and compressing a gas heats it”

Compressing a gas heats it, but won’t keep it hot.  If the atmosphere were just a static layer of gases, only heated or cooled by conduction, it would all come to the same temperature.

6. The Lapse Rate

X “It’s hotter at lower altitudes because if air rises it expands and cools”

This only explains why convection cannot bring the troposphere to a uniform temperature.  It does not explain why there should be a temperature difference in the first place.

Since conduction is not limited by the pressure gradient, there must be an active process producing the temperature gradient.  This process is the heating of the Earth’s surface by the sun.

The full story of energy transfers is quite complex.  See Trenberth and Kiehl, 1997, Fig 7.  Omitting all the absorptions and reradiations:

  • The Sun warms the Earth’s surface
  • The heat energy is transferred back to the air in the troposphere by a mix of conduction, convection and radiation.  Overall, 60% makes it up through the troposphere at least partly by convection, 40% by radiation only.
  • Convection’s ability to carry up the heat is limited because of the pressure gradient: rising air expands and cools.  The resulting temperature gradient is known as the Lapse Rate
  • The troposphere is the layer in which convection can operate.  At the top (the tropopause), the temperature gradient is insufficient.

X “We can calculate the surface temperature from the height of the tropopause, the temperature there and the lapse rate.  This fixes the surface temperature.”

That has causality backward.

If the mean surface temperature changes, the height of the tropopause will change.

7. Greenhouse Gases

X “There’s nothing special about CO2.  All gases can absorb heat”

All gases can conduct heat, but the ability of a molecular species to absorb and emit radiation depends on the intervals in its internal energy states and the polarity of its structure.

If vibration of the atoms in a molecule does not involve a net oscillation of electric field then that vibration cannot absorb or emit electromagnetic radiation.  Diatomic gases like N2 and O2 are non-polar (or”homo-polar”).  A vibration in the bond between the atoms does not result in any net movement of charge.  Other energy levels of those molecules do not have the right intervals to interact with light in either the visible or infrared bands, so are completely transparent to both.  Only much higher energies, sufficient to ionize the gases, would be strongly absorbed.

Both water and CO2 are hetero-polar, so can act as dipoles.  Some vibrations involve a negatively charged atom group moving one way while a positively charged group moves the other.  This net oscillation of charge allows them to interact with radiation at certain frequencies.

X “CO2 is insignificant compared with H2O as a greenhouse gas”

H2O, CO2, CH4 and many others can absorb/emit in parts of the infrared.  None of them do so in the entire infrared band.  Increasing the level of relatively rare greenhouse gas has more effect than increasing the level of a more common species.

8. Forcings and feedbacks

Climate scientists distinguish factors affecting global temperature as either forcings or feedbacks.

X “Atmospheric H2O is a forcing that overwhelms CO2”

A feedback is a variable which both affects temperature and is affected by temperature.   Pure feedback would be a variable entirely controlled by temperature.

These can be further divided into negative and positive feedbacks.  This list is by no means exhaustive.

  • A few positive feedbacks
    • Atmospheric H2O: the warmer the atmosphere, the more water vapor it will hold.
    • Polar albedo: as ice caps melt, less incoming light is reflected straight back through the atmosphere.
    • The warming of soils and oceans can lead to the release of CO2.
  • A negative feedback
    • The hotter the Earth’s surface, the more infrared it emits

Note: If something is a negative feedback it acts to dampen change; it cannot make the change go in reverse.  That said, delayed feedback can lead to cyclic and chaotic behaviours.

A pure forcing is a variable which affects temperature but is not affected by it.  Radiative output from the Sun clearly fits that description.

More loosely, a variable tends to be called a feedback if it is primarily controlled by temperature, and forcing if primarily controlled by other factors.  On that basis, anthropogenic CO2 is forcing, but H2O is a feedback.

  Anthropogenic CO2 is a significant force because its effect is amplified by positive feedbacks, such as water vapor.

9. The Greenhouse Effect is Logarithmic, roughly

“The light passing through a filter should fall as the negative exponential of the optical thickness, so why is the effect logarithmic?”

 

“Solar Spectrum”. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons – http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png#/media/File:Solar_Spectrum.png; but note the 5250C is incorrect, it is closer to 5777K.

The diagram shows the absorption bands (yellow) for incoming radiation, and the same applies to outgoing.  It shows that for most of the width of an H2O or CO2 band, absorption is already substantial.

The quantum basis for specific bands suggests, at first sight, that the wavelengths should be quite precise.  However, some subtler processes spread the bands.  In particular, the Doppler effect means that molecules moving towards the radiation absorb at a shorter wavelength, while those moving away absorb at a longer.

The primary consequence of adding more of an already abundant gas is to increase the number of molecules at the most extreme speeds relative to the radiation.  This increases absorption at the edges of the band, broadening the band slightly.  It is this that grows logarithmically with the prevalence of the gas.

“How can it be logarithmic?  That would mean adding the first little bit of a new gas would have an infinite effect.”

The logarithmic relationship would not apply for a rarer gas that is still well short of full absorption in the center of its bands.  Likewise, it breaks down when bands broaden so much that they overlap.

 

87 replies
« Older Comments
  1. Buzz Bloom says:

    [QUOTE="BillyT, post: 5328816, member: 536963"]I think that is miss leading. Even if the atmosphere were argon, the sky would still be blue.”Hi BillyT:I confess that I am confused by your comment.I don't understand why you mention argon.  As I understand it, there is much much less argon in Earth's atmosphere than nitrogen.  Even if, as  you say, an argon atmosphere would also appear blue, am I wrong that the blue sky we see are mostly the blue photons from the sun that that been scattered by nitrogen?  If so, why do we see blue photons from all directions in the sky?I also do not understand your discussion of cubes.  Are you saying that since 1/5 of the atmosphere is oxygen, that it also scatters blue photons, and 1/5 of the photons we see in the blue sky are scattered by oxygen rather than nitrogen?Regards,Buzz

  2. Geoffw says:

    [QUOTE="mheslep, post: 5594367, member: 70823"]Yes. At the surface, the outgoing long wave must be represent one or the other, escaping long wave or atmospheric heat gain. Conservation of energy.”Thanks for the reply,Sorry, but to clarify, do you agree with the diagram in vacuo potentials shown as massive opposing fluxes, when the surface total radiative losses are much smaller?

  3. mheslep says:

    [QUOTE="Geoffw, post: 5594103, member: 606206"]Is this thread still active?I believe the Trenberth diagram mentioned here is misleading. The massive opposing long wave fluxes are in vacuo radiative potentials and do not represent surface losses or atmospheric gains by radiation.Any comments?”Yes. At the surface, the outgoing long wave must be represent one or the other, escaping long wave or atmospheric heat gain. Conservation of energy.

  4. Geoffw says:

    Is this thread still active?I believe the Trenberth diagram mentioned here is misleading. The massive opposing long wave fluxes are in vacuo radiative potentials and do not represent surface losses or atmospheric gains by radiation. Any comments?

  5. Reality Is Fake says:

    [QUOTE="haruspex, post: 5519760, member: 334404"]Because that is what determines Earth's radiative emissions and average temperature.  A patch of ground at the equator at midday does not instantly heat up to the temperature required to emit 1370W/m[SUP]2[/SUP] (about 500K).”No, no. What determines surface temp, and all other temps in the system, is ABSORBED intensity/m^2 and that is transformed into heat(temperature) in the radiated body and averaged as emitted intensity in double the surface area.Temperature is determined by the source of radiation, everywhere, in relation to mass and emissivity of that mass. The heated body does not have any influence over the source. It´s temperature, when source is external, is DETERMINED by absorption of the source radiative transfer, and determines only it´s emissions.

  6. Reality Is Fake says:

    [QUOTE="haruspex, post: 5519760, member: 334404"]But that is irrelevant to the point being discussed at the time.  You were comparing with the 1370 that arrives at the Earth's top of atmosphere from the sun.  What is absorbed at ground level will obviously be less.Because that is what determines Earth's radiative emissions and average temperature.  A patch of ground at the equator at midday does not instantly heat up to the temperature required to emit 1370W/m[SUP]2[/SUP] (about 500K).”It´s all thermic radiation, how much that is absorbed/m^2 without gas and water interferring is not easy to know. But we know that moon is above 100C without an atmosphere, and an average including dark side that is cooling to space is not interesting for intensity reached from absorbed/m^2, it is interesting in relation to cooling by total emitted/m^2.

  7. Reality Is Fake says:

    [QUOTE="Bandersnatch, post: 5519754, member: 399360"]Does your solar panel collect 1000W when you lay it flat on the Antarctic or during the night? The infographic shows global energy balance, not energy incident on a solar panel angled perpendicular to solar rays at noon!”No, it shows an energy budget, with sums of energy received in total over timer, wrongfully averaged as effect, wich is indenpendent of time as W/m^2. The panel gives about 700 to 1400 over the half sphere, When we want temperature we need effect, and effect is W/m^2 of irradiated area. Not the area that is not irradiated.

  8. Reality Is Fake says:

    [QUOTE="haruspex, post: 5519703, member: 334404"]That is merely your opinion.  It is unsupported by the facts.  Do the math.  A black body surface at -18C emits 343 W/m[SUP]2[/SUP], as much as the average reaching Earth's surface from the Sun.  If 'empty' space were at 130K say, instead of 4K, it would add 20W/m[SUP]2[/SUP] (I think that's about right), which would be a significant addition.Of course it must be.That is merely your opinion.  It is unsupported by the facts.”So measurements is to be ignored because greenhouse theory says so?A measured amount of 1000W in an irradiated m^2 is not relevant for the transfer rate of heat from the sun?

  9. Reality Is Fake says:

    [QUOTE="D H, post: 5518641, member: 42688"]That is incorrect. Without an atmosphere, the Earth's surface temperature would be below freezing. The incoming solar radiation is the solar constant, 1365.2 W/m[sup]2[/sup], divided by 4, or 341.3 W/m[sup]2[/sup]. You apparently forgot to divide by 4. The reason you need to divide by 4 is because the Earth's cross section to incoming solar radiation is that of a circle with a radius equal to that of the Earth, or [itex]pi R^2[/itex]. The Earth's surface area is that of a sphere with a radius equal to that of the Earth, or [itex]4pi R^2[/itex].”But measurements show between near 700W and up to almost 1370W, from poles to sahara and similar areas, and we measure 1370W at TOA. Without an atmosphere we would have that at the surface.The whole surface area of the sphere is not irradiated, so why do you average over that?That includes "not heated" in a calculation of "heated". “Some of that incoming radiation will be reflected away. Assuming an albedo of 12.5% (the average albedo of land and ocean), only 298.6 W/m[sup]2[/sup] will go into heating the Earth. That yields a blackbody temperature of 269.3 kelvins. Assuming an albedo of 30% (the albedo with clouds), the blackbody temperature drops to 254.7 kelvins. The world would be an inhospitable place were it not for the greenhouse effect.”So… measurements in reality is wrong when they don´t agree with your theory? It does´nt matter that we can measure the rate of heat transfer from the sun, because you calculate heat transfer with not heated surface area?Albedo can be ignored until we clear out the difference in your numbers to real time observations.”Instead of complaining, you should try to understand that diagram. It is fundamentally correct.”A radiative balance that is very far from measured values in reality should be questioned strongly. If we have measurements we should use them and not a much lower value that is not measured anywhere.”We can be pretty sure it does.”You are arguing that laws of nature does´nt apply here, are you aware of that?The atmosphere does not have a temperature of intensity enough to emit 333W. That nothing but a lie as we know from measurements that in reality it is at average 250K, in its warmest part!“You have been making a number of false claims. Please read the rules that pertain to climate change.”Which false claim? It is you that is saying that the atmosphere is radiating with an intensity of 276K, in only one direction at 1m^2 surface.That would take an average of 276K at least from surface to tropopause. And since we know tropopause temperature at about 220K which is  132W/m^2, we would need 310K as the hottest layer of atmosphere, as averaged over surface. Thats 22K hotter than average surface temp. For an atmosphere radiating in 1m^2, but it is radiating in 2m^2.

  10. haruspex says:

    [QUOTE="Reality Is Fake, post: 5519749, member: 598755"]shows 161W absorbed from insolation.”But that is irrelevant to the point being discussed at the time.  You were comparing with the 1370 that arrives at the Earth's top of atmosphere from the sun.  What is absorbed at ground level will obviously be less.[QUOTE="Reality Is Fake, post: 5519749, member: 598755"]why use 343W which would represent a long timespan average”Because that is what determines Earth's radiative emissions and average temperature.  A patch of ground at the equator at midday does not instantly heat up to the temperature required to emit 1370W/m[SUP]2[/SUP] (about 500K).

« Older Comments

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply