What determines how quickly the Earth loses energy? There is a simple answer and a complex answer to that. Since the Earth can only lose energy to space by infra-red (IR) transmission, the simple answer is that the Earth’s temperature determines the rate of energy loss since it is temperature that determines the intensity of the IR transmission as shown in the Stefen-Boltzmann Law.
You are currently browsing the Radiative Heat Transfer category.
Over the past 18 months or so the measured OLR (out-going long-wave radiation) has been unavailable. In it’s place has been what was called the interpolated OLR. Since OLR can only be measured by satellites the data can only be available when satellites have existed. Oddly enough the new and improved interpolated OLR data was […]
Posted June 27th, 2012. 4 comments
Next week I plan on making a big push to get this information out to many, many people. This is one of the key topics that is covered in my book. It is not the only critical topic, but this one by itself is enough to demonstrate in a scientific way that warming as described by The Theory of Global Warming is impossible. My goal is to present this and related information to a wide audience next week. Wish me luck.
Posted May 14th, 2012. 14 comments
According to the theory of global warming, anything that changes the radiative energy balance of the Earth will cause a change in temperature that is correlated to the change of energy. The “consensus” is that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the energy at the surface by 3.7 W/m2. This additional energy will increase the temperature of the Earth by 3 °C.
So in this case, the climate sensitivity is described as temperature impact as a result of the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. In proper scientific form the climate sensitivity is the change in temperature as a result of a change in energy.
Climate Sensitivity = delta T / Delta E (K/Wm2)
Posted March 27th, 2011. 30 comments
The last couple of days have been busy as readers have been driving some interesting discussions. On one page there was an unexpectedly interesting discussion about the Moon. It started with an error on my part that was corrected by a reader. It had to do with the predicted and actual surface temperature of the Moon. The impact of this could be significant, but that I simply don’t know yet, but the idea is an interesting one that will require some more information.
The predicted (blackbody) temperature of the Moon is 270K (-3°C). That is a warmer predicted temperature than the Earth has. This is because the Moon reflects away less energy than the Earth does. This predicted temperature is not the actual temperature of the Moon though. The Earth has a predicted temperature 254K (-19°C). It is warmer than that by 33 °C and the Greenhouse Effect is the common answer as to why the Earth is warmer than this. Since there is no atmosphere on the Moon, there cannot be a Greenhouse Effect, but the Moon is not the temperature that is predicted by the Stefen-Boltzmann equations. Most interesting is that it was much warmer during the night and cooler during the day than it was predicted to be.
Posted March 13th, 2011. 10 comments
Dr. Hermann Harde from Helmut-Schmidt in Hamburg, Germany recently published a paper where he modeled the total impact of CO2 doubling for the Earth using the updated databases on the absorbance of greenhouse gases and water vapor in the Earth’s atmosphere. This approach was different from previous studies ( Myhre 1998, Hansen 1998) in that it accounted for more layers in the atmosphere and also accounted for overlapping absorbance bands. It also uses three major climate zones instead of two. This may not be critical as the results for two of the zones was very comparable, but it is still useful to see the results.
The big difference that I see is the added layers in the atmosphere. Radiative heat transfer is meaningless over large distances except in a vacuum which our atmosphere is not. So a model that is approaching the effects of the atmosphere is far more useful than one that treats it as only a couple of different interacting layers. This matters because it decreases the temperature gradients between the layers and as a result decreases the amount of heat that is transferred. As I have stated many times, nature does not like temperature gradients and as a result they do not last long in nature. I expect that as studies approach a model without layers that the effects of CO2 will decrease. The basis for that view is simply the amount of long wave (LW) energy that is absorbed by the atmosphere is already small which is why forcing is used in place of net heat transfers.
Posted March 8th, 2011. 4 comments
In Part 1 I discussed many instances where the Earth’s climate responded quickly to changes that happen on a regular basis. Events like seasons and volcanic eruptions all can cause the climate to respond very quickly to these events. Despite this there is a persistent belief amongst warmists that there is much more warming that is going to happen as a result of the CO2 emissions that have already happened. This would indicate that the climate responds slowly to changes.
This is where the idea of thermal inertia enters into the picture. The usage of thermal inertia in the terms of climate change is a very unusual usage of the scientific term. In normal usage it only applies when the steady state equations won’t apply because of the delay in the heat transfer into an object. In climate they have used it to say that the entire depths of the oceans will warm as a result of CO2 levels. They have created a delay so even if there isn’t warming, they can say that warming is taking place, but it is happening deep in the oceans and that is why it isn’t seen. This allows them to say that the warming will keep going for 100 or even 1,000 years even if CO2 is stopped now.
Posted March 3rd, 2011. 7 comments
On June 15, 1991 Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted over the course of 9 hours. That single eruption had a measurable impact on the Earth’s temperature for three years after the eruption. This is a very good case for studying how quickly the Earth’s temperature responds to changes in the climate system. The time that it takes for the Earth to respond matters a great deal in the climate debate. A quick response would indicate that even if CO2 does cause warming of the Earth’s climate, the effects are felt quickly and and not delayed far into the future. This would indicate that the full effects of 390 ppm of CO2 are in full effect and that the warming is already fully realized for the current emissions of CO2.
The eruption is useful for measuring the time lag because it is an event that happened at a single instance and then stopped. In engineering terms there was a step function change to the Earth’s atmospheric system on that date in June. The peak altitude of the eruption was 34 km (21 miles). The height of the eruption is what allowed the SO2 to reach the stratosphere. Once there it was able to slowly spread out and cover the entire Earth at the stratospheric level. This is why the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo had such an impact on the Earth’s climate. If the gas stayed in the much more humid troposphere it would have mixed with water and dissipated from the atmosphere much more quickly. Since it was in the dry stratosphere it stayed there for much longer.
Posted March 1st, 2011. 7 comments
This current article started out as a simple article about the time lag (or response time) between a change in CO2 level and when the warming takes place. The warmist theory indicates that it takes decades or centuries for the full effects of CO2 to be felt. This is in stark contrast to all other atmospheric effects that show a response on the order of a few months for the full effects to be felt.
The article grew long enough that it will now be a two part article. The first will cover the time lag of the Earth for different types of changes. The second part will discuss the theory that warmists use to support the claim that it will be a hundreds or thousands of years before the full effects are felt.
This is one of the least discussed aspects of global warming, but it is absolutely critical for future projections of warming. If there is little to no time lag, then the full effects of current CO2 emissions are already being felt. If the lag is 50 years, then we are only starting to feel the effects of the emissions from 1960 when the CO2 level was still around 320 ppm. The importance of understanding how quickly the climate responds is critical to future projections.
Posted February 28th, 2011. 11 comments
Previously I showed an equation that showed the ratio of convective and radiative heat transfer. That equation is derived from the ratio of the Nusselt and the radiative heat transfer (RHT) rates. From a practical standpoint the amount of energy transferred from the surface to the atmosphere by each method should be comparable for the […]