Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest MeWe

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

The greenhouse effect and the 2nd law of thermodynamics

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is consistent with the greenhouse effect which is directly observed.

Climate Myth...

2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

 

"The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist." (Gerhard Gerlich)

 

Skeptics sometimes claim that the explanation for global warming contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. But does it? To answer that, first, we need to know how global warming works. Then, we need to know what the second law of thermodynamics is, and how it applies to global warming. Global warming, in a nutshell, works like this:

The sun warms the Earth. The Earth and its atmosphere radiate heat away into space. They radiate most of the heat that is received from the sun, so the average temperature of the Earth stays more or less constant. Greenhouse gases trap some of the escaping heat closer to the Earth's surface, making it harder for it to shed that heat, so the Earth warms up in order to radiate the heat more effectively. So the greenhouse gases make the Earth warmer - like a blanket conserving body heat - and voila, you have global warming. See What is Global Warming and the Greenhouse Effect for a more detailed explanation.

The second law of thermodynamics has been stated in many ways. For us, Rudolf Clausius said it best:

"Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature."

So if you put something hot next to something cold, the hot thing won't get hotter, and the cold thing won't get colder. That's so obvious that it hardly needs a scientist to say it, we know this from our daily lives. If you put an ice-cube into your drink, the drink doesn't boil!

The skeptic tells us that, because the air, including the greenhouse gasses, is cooler than the surface of the Earth, it cannot warm the Earth. If it did, they say, that means heat would have to flow from cold to hot, in apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

So have climate scientists made an elementary mistake? Of course not! The skeptic is ignoring the fact that the Earth is being warmed by the sun, which makes all the difference.

To see why, consider that blanket that keeps you warm. If your skin feels cold, wrapping yourself in a blanket can make you warmer. Why? Because your body is generating heat, and that heat is escaping from your body into the environment. When you wrap yourself in a blanket, the loss of heat is reduced, some is retained at the surface of your body, and you warm up. You get warmer because the heat that your body is generating cannot escape as fast as before.

If you put the blanket on a tailors dummy, which does not generate heat, it will have no effect. The dummy will not spontaneously get warmer. That's obvious too!

Is using a blanket an accurate model for global warming by greenhouse gases? Certainly there are differences in how the heat is created and lost, and our body can produce varying amounts of heat, unlike the near-constant heat we receive from the sun. But as far as the second law of thermodynamics goes, where we are only talking about the flow of heat, the comparison is good. The second law says nothing about how the heat is produced, only about how it flows between things.

To summarise: Heat from the sun warms the Earth, as heat from your body keeps you warm. The Earth loses heat to space, and your body loses heat to the environment. Greenhouse gases slow down the rate of heat-loss from the surface of the Earth, like a blanket that slows down the rate at which your body loses heat. The result is the same in both cases, the surface of the Earth, or of your body, gets warmer.

So global warming does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. And if someone tells you otherwise, just remember that you're a warm human being, and certainly nobody's dummy.

Basic rebuttal written by Tony Wildish


Update July 2015:

Here is the relevant lecture-video from Denial101x - Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

 


Update October 2017:

Here is a walk-through explanation of the Greenhouse Effect for bunnies, by none other than Eli, over at Rabbit Run.

Last updated on 7 October 2017 by skeptickev. View Archives

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Related Arguments

Further reading

  • Most textbooks on climate or atmospheric physics describe the greenhouse effect, and you can easily find these in a university library. Some examples include:
  • The Greenhouse Effect, part of a module on "Cycles of the Earth and Atmosphere" provided for teachers by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR).
  • What is the greenhouse effect?, part of a FAQ provided by the European Environment Agency.

References

Comments

Prev  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  Next

Comments 1301 to 1350 out of 1501:

  1. @1297 Yogi, When I talked about the OLR graph in #1290, I said "the radiation coming from the surface", not radiation coming from CO2 near the surface. When you are looking down in the 600-750 band, you are seeing the emission from CO2 at the level near the detector. Using a standard lapse rate of 6.5 degrees, at 3 km, the brightness temperature should be about 19.5 lower than the surface temperature, so the dip will be relatively small. Using the standard atmosphere at 3km looking down, that is about right (it'll be clearer if you turn off water vapour, which tends to distort the top of the spectra). The closer you get to the surface, the less temperature contrast between the surface and the air temperature near the "instrument", and so the dip will be smaller. Now for clouds it appears to radiate as a black body. If you are on the surface looking up, you are effectively seeing the bottom, and if you are using heavy cloud/rain, the cumulus base is at 0.66km. The temperature on the surface is 288K, so lapse rate of 6 degree puts you at 284k at the base. that looks about right from the spectra. If you look closely at the 600-750 band you'll see a slight bump, since there you are actually detaching radiation from CO2 near the ground, which is warmer. When you are looking down at 20km, having cloud is effectively like having a surface that is cooler. If you compare the case without cloud, and altostratus at cloud top at 3km, you'll expect a change in brightness temperature in the 800-1000 band by about 20 degrees, and that is exactly what you'll get.
  2. IanC#1290 "As for your question, in the OLR (20km looking down) graph and at regions without atmospheric absoprtion, you will be seeing radiation coming from the surface, which is ~265K." But the surface is at 287.7K so must be looking at something colder further up. "The closer you get to the surface, the less temperature contrast between the surface and the air temperature near the "instrument", and so the dip will be smaller." #1301 The closer you get to the surface the less absorption there is from the 600-750 band, and the majority of the effect is above 3km.
  3. So what happens in a desert at night, does the CO2 back-radiation turn off when the sun goes down ? and what is warming the ground up quicker through the next morning, the Sun or the back-radiation ?
  4. YOGI (i) Why choose a desert rather than say a rain forest? (ii) the sun of course, the back radiation is only there because GHGs in the atmosphere absorbs IR radiated from the surface that is heated by absorbing largely visible and UV light from the sun. N.B. the surface doesn't stop radiating IR when the sun goes down, as it has considerable thermal inertia.
  5. "(i) Why choose a desert rather than say a rain forest?" its drier so has more temperature range. (ii)..it has considerable thermal inertia. yes, but the desert cools rapidly at night.
  6. YOGI Yes, but *why* does dryness mean there is a bigger temperature range?
  7. Now if I had a greenhouse with glass that was coated with a highly IR reflective layer, it should heat up considerably slower than one with panes made from a material which IR can pass through, according to this flow chart: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/TDDizFtBw0I/AAAAAAAABMI/Hl_EW6F_-og/s1600/divine.gif
  8. Dikran Marsupial moisture moderates extremes.
  9. YOGI Perhaps it would be better if you finished discussing the previous example you raised before initiating another? So *why* does moisture moderate extremes?
  10. Earth`s average surface temperature is maintained by Ocean heat not 33C of back-radiation.
  11. YOGI Please answer my question, why does moisture moderate extremes (explaining how the dryness of a desert means there is a greater temperature range)?
  12. By slowing the loss of heat at night (unless clouds/air that are warmer move in, then that can radiate and warm a cooler surface below), and in daytime by reducing sunlight, and increasing convection due to the low density of water vapour.
  13. YOGI O.K. so *how* does water vapour slow the loss of heat at night (we can move onto the day later)?
  14. Insulation, it cant warm the ground though unless its warmer than the ground.
  15. YOGI O.K. so how does it insulate the ground? IR is radiated from the surface, then what happens to it?
  16. If I take my cup of tea out in the cold night air it will cool quicker. Same for the ground, but if there is more water vapour above it will absorb IR from the ground, warm up, and reduce the rate at which the ground can then radiate.
  17. YOGI O.K. so the water vapour absorbs the IR radiated from the ground and then warms up. What happens to the heat energy that the water vapour has acquired in this way? n.b. insulators do not work by reducing the rate at which something radiates photons of IR (that depends on its temperature)
  18. YOGI 1302, Our discussion up to post 1290 is related to the figures in the article. If you read the caption that came with the figure, you'll notice that 265K, instead of 287K, will be the more sensible surface temperature. "The closer you get to the surface the less absorption there is from the 600-750 band, and the majority of the effect is above 3km." No. Absorption increases with density. Since the density is the greatest near the surface, the absorption is the greatest there too.
  19. IanC#1318 So from the IR intensity Earth looks a lot colder from 20km up than it really is on the surface. Did you like my greenhouse in #1307 ?
  20. IanC can I suggest we leave YOGIs greenhouse until we get to the conclusion of the discussion of why the desert cools rapidly at night. We won't make any progress in this discussion if it keeps branching out onto new thought experiments before the earlier ones have been resolved.
  21. Dikran Marsupial "O.K. so the water vapour absorbs the IR radiated from the ground and then warms up. What happens to the heat energy that the water vapour has acquired in this way?" It will want to radiate it towards somewhere colder. But while it is warmer, it will mean the ground will lose heat slower, remember my cup of tea ? ~ insulation. "insulators do not work by reducing the rate at which something radiates photons of IR" Paint your roof white and it will do exactly that.
  22. YOGI wrote "It will want to radiate it towards somewhere colder." O.K. so when a molecule of water vapour in the atmosphere emits a photon of IR, how does it know not to emit it in the direction of a warmer body?
  23. #1322 ok there may an exchange but it cant get cool off in the direction of the warmer body, as the warmer body is warming it faster than it can cool off.
  24. YOGI O.K., so you agree that the water vapour re-radiates some IR photons back to the surface. Would you agree that these back-radiated IR photons cause the surface to be warmer than it would be if those molecules of water vapour were not there?
  25. "Insulation, it cant warm the ground though unless its warmer than the ground." The "insulation" effect is radiative. A quick look at the thermal properties of moist air (conductivity, heat capacity) cf dry air, would tell you that conductive insulation isnt at work. Do the math. As to your "greenhouse". Incoming radiation from sun isnt in IR range (that is whole point) so no, it would heat up slower. If you have really read the SoD articles explaining the science here, you are showing little evidence of it.
  26. No, it just reduces the rate of cooling, it cant warm it up.
  27. YOGI I didn't say that it would warm the surface up, I said it would be warmer than it would if there were no water vapour in the atmosphere (and therefore no back-radiated IR). Do you agree that the back-radiated IR from the water vapour in the atmosphere would cause the surface to be warmer than it would be if the water vapour were not there?
  28. #1325 Solar near IR is forty something % of the heat input from the Sun. You never heard of IR blocking windows ? its the solar thermal IR they are blocking, not DLR.
  29. #1327 No it causes it to cool down slower.
  30. Can I suggest we ignore YOGI's comment above until we have reached the end of the discussion about deserts. The errors in YOGI's post about solar IR are pretty obvious and begging for an answer, but it would be better if the answer were delayed for a while.
  31. YOGI O.K. well lets revisit the original question, which was: "So what happens in a desert at night, does the CO2 back-radiation turn off when the sun goes down ?" We now know the answer, it isn't that the CO2 back-radiation turns off when the sun goes down, it cools more quickly because there is less back-radiation from water vapour because the atmosphere above the desert is drier. In fact the rapid cooling of the desert at night is a common example used to demonstrate the existence of back-radiation. Now your most recent post is essentially just blatant rhetorical evasion. If the back-radiation from water vapour causes the surface to "cool down slower", then at any point in time after nightfall it will be warmer than it would be if the water vapour were not there, precisely because of the difference in the rate of cooling. The reason why you want to evade admitting that the back-radiation causes the surface to be warmer than it would be if the water vapour were not there is obviously because you would then be forced to concede that the surface would be warmer than it would otherwise be if not for the back-radiation from CO2. Frankly getting to this point has been like getting blood out of a stone, and I can't see why you should think anyone will be willing to engage in a scientific discussion with you if you are going to behave in this manner. I am sorry to have to strongly suggest to everybody "DNFTT".
  32. #1325 There are some absorption bands in the solar IR but plenty gets through. And IR penetrates into the surface of land like radio waves do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png [Snipped]
  33. YOGI - you can verify some of this by actually comparing the measured backradiation in a desert compared to somewhere humid. Remember this is measurable properties here. Eg look at the SoD articles on DLR. In part one, you see the spectra for incoming versus outgoing. In part two, there is DLR measurements for Alice springs versus Billings OK. Read and understand.
  34. #1331 If I agree that the back-radiation from the water vapour causes the ground to be warmer than it would otherwise be, that is paramount to saying that it heats the ground. It does not and cannot, as it is colder than the ground, it merely slows the rate of cooling, not warms it.
  35. YOGI Sorry, nobody can say I haven't been extreemly patient with you, but again you are playing word games. Nobody has said that back-radiation makes the surface warmer, just that it makes the surface warmer than it would otherwise be. Are you warmer if you cover yourself in a blanket than you would be without the blanket? Yes of course you are, because the blanket back-radiates some of your body heat. Likewise the back radiation from GHGs causes the earth to loose the heat it gains from absorbing visible and UV light from the sun more slowly by returning some of the out-bound IR back to the surface. I have had more than enough of this discussion; had you behaved better I would continue, but life is just too short.
  36. Yogi, Let me state this clearly. You are wrong and confused. You are religiously clinging to a misunderstanding of the science. You do not need Dikran or anyone else to walk you, step by painful step, through the thought process. What you need is to simply say to yourself "gee, maybe I don't understand all this, and I should open my mind, and go read and learn, and then come back when I have a better understanding of things." Trying to convince everyone else that you know better than all of science is a waste of everybody's time.
  37. #1333 S.O.D. article: "Notice that DLR does not drop significantly overnight. This is because of the heat capacity of the atmosphere – it cools down, but not as quickly as the ground." http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/dlr-billings-ok-1993-2wks.png Thats bigger than some of the seasonal variation !
    Response: [JH] Your propensisty to post factoids without context is wearing very thin. It's like someone throwing gobs of paint against a wall and hoping that some will stick. At the end of the day, the wall is a complete mess. Please cease and desist.
  38. #1336 "Are you warmer if you cover yourself in a blanket than you would be without the blanket? Yes of course you are, because the blanket back-radiates some of your body heat." Unlike the Earth I am internally heated so the analogy is not safe, but if the blanket is bright white, it could be handy to reflect the sunshine on a really hot day. But for an externally heated system such as Earth, to have 235W/m go in and out, but to reach 390 watts within the system is impossible: [link]
    Response:

    [DB] You are advised to read the entire thread above, as your fallacy has been corrected several times already.

    Additionally, you would be wise to read this guest post by Dr. Trenberth for yet further exposition into the subject.  It contains this updated version of the graphic you link:

    Click to enlarge

    [RH] Hotlinked url that was breaking page format.
  39. Response: [JH] Your propensisty to post factoids without context...... It was not out of context. I was commenting on the SOD link at #1333. And the data shows that daily min/max soil temp`s range less than the atmosphere.
    Response: [JH] You are skating on very thin ice. Please cease and desist.
  40. "[DB] You are advised to read the entire thread above, as your fallacy has been corrected several times already." Nutshell it for me now if you can, unless you can link me to the relevant comment, I`m not going to read all the comments for it.
    Response:

    [DB] If you cannot be bothered to read work already done, there for inspection, then why should anyone here engage you?  Perhaps if you succinctly narrow down your objection to the one thing you want to hang your hat on then someone here will be able to help you.

    Unless your goal is to simply waste the time of others.  As also has been evidenced on this thread.

  41. Yogi 1338, If, hypothetically speaking, the source of heat on earth is internally generated, would you, in this case, agree that the earth will be warmer with water vapour present compared to the case without?
    Response: [JH] Please do not feed the troll.
  42. I will read the Trenberth guest post and comment later, thank you.
  43. Ahem... Um, is this the Dunning-Kruger thread?
  44. YOGI wrote: "Unlike the Earth I am internally heated so the [blanket] analogy is not safe" which clearly shows that YOGI has not the slightest familiarity with how the greenhouse effect works, which is not a good position from which to be questioning it. The atmosphere is largely transparent to visible and UV light, which makes up the majority of the Sun's radiation. Thus most of the Suns radiation is absorbed by the surface, which heats up as a result, and re-radiates this energy as IR radiation. Thus as far as the atmosphere is concerned, it is being heated from below by the surface, which is why the blanket analogy is perfectly reasonable, provided it is not extended beyond this most basic point. Now anybody who has made the slightest effort to understand the way in which the greenhouse effect works will know that already. Sadly the WWW is full of Dunning-Kruger sufferers who think that a few things they have read on climate blogs means they know more than scientists who work on this for a living. Generally all they manage is to make themselves look silly, as YOGI has done on this thread (he/she is not the first and I suspect will not be the last). The basic idea of the greenhouse effect goes back to the 1820s at the very least, so it would be extremely unusual for a physical theory to have survived this long if it contradicted a fundamental law of thermodynamics! Of course it doesn't. The error is to assume that the second law says that heat cannot flow from a cooler body to a warmer one. It doesn't, essentially the net flow of heat must be from the warmer body to the cooler one, and even then it is only true in a statistical sense after the exchange of a sufficiently large number of IR photons. To see this is true, consider a thought experiment, where there are two identical bodies, separated by a small gap, both of which are only slightly above absolute zero. One is warm enough to emit photons of IR at random at an average rate of one per year (365 days). The other is a little cooler, so that it radiates a photon at an average rate of one per 366 days. If you observed them for a month, then assuming one photon was emitted by one body and absorbed by the other in that month, it is almost as likely to have gone from the cooler body to the warmer body, thus making the warmer body a little warmer. However this is not in contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics. If you observe the bodies for long enough, you will find that slightly more IR photons from the warmer body are absorbed by the cooler body than vice versa, and hence the net flow of heat is from warmer to cooler. Anyway, I hope my exchange with YOGI has demonstrated that he/she is not here for rational discussion of the science, and is not worth the effort. DNFTT.
  45. 1343, Rob, No, this is the Galileo thread. The Dunning-Kruger thread overloaded and exploded.
  46. There's always the Poptech thread...the Valhalla of mythic D-K.
  47. With regard to the Blanket analogy, it is worth pointing out that the heat humans (and other organisms) produce is derived from the respiration of foodstuffs, and so is not an internal source of energy and typically pass through a blanket unimpeded (unless you happen to have it over your head :-) ). Incoming Solar radiation is thus analogous to food in the Blanket analogy.
  48. Dikran Marsupial OK cover the Earth with a blanket (FULL CLOUD COVER) and see how cold it gets. I really did mean your blanket analogy was not safe, and if you want to continue pushing it, I have no problem with de-bunking it at every step. Solar IR makes up a significant proportion of insolation. Your thought experiment proves that beyond a single photon or so, the second thermo law must also apply between the Earth`s atmosphere and surface.
  49. Phil#1347 We create our body heat internally from the calorific value of the food we eat. Excess heat may be lost through respiration or evaporation of perspiration, and body heat is continually lost in IR radiation from the body surface (when the surrounding air temperature is lower than the body temperature). Now as you know a blanket will reduce the IR emmission from your body in cold air by insulating it, and enable you to maintain your body temperature easier.
  50. Daniel @ 1346... Actually, I think that's officially called the "He who must not be named" thread.

Prev  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  Next

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2020 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us