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 Support

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

Argument Feedback

Please use this form to let us know about suggested updates to this rebuttal.

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  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  Next

Comments 1226 to 1250 out of 1393:

  1. @1225 Tom I guess if definitions aren't important to science then G&T is pretty well meaningless. IIRC they are trying to avoid word play by defining what they mean very precisely. How can one talk about RGHE if it is not well defined? G&T studied fourteen IIRC definitions of the RGHE and found at least one of them to describe a "Perpetuum Mobile of the 2nd kind" which I take to mean they found that definition of RGHE to be a violation of the 2nd law in that it described a perpetual motion machine. And yes, I'm tired of hashing over Wood too. So much more to discuss.
  2. 1223, Tom, Thanks. I hadn't reread the opening in a while, but you are right... the original point of the experiment was as stated, and the real problem is that the conclusion (amazingly) has little to do with the intended design. Wood sort of derailed there. But agreed, Wood is way off topic. This is best resumed by TOP, if he so chooses, after the Wood post is up on on that thread. That would be the right place for it. [Somehow, I now find myself dreading that day, however.] Am I right in thinking that TOP's use of the term RGHE refers to "radiative greenhouse effect?" (A term presumably created to distinguish it from "convective greenhouse effect?")
  3. TOP @1226, if you wish to discuss G&T's purported discovery that a particular definition of the Radiative Green House Effect (?) is a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind, summarize their argument including quotes of the most important sections, including, most importantly, the definition they are challenging and the cited source of that definition. Failure to find a cited source of the definition probably establishes the definition to be a straw man. You should probably confine your argument to this point as it is only this point that is actually on topic on this thread (which is not a generalized refutation of G&T).
  4. TOP, I note that you haven't yet come up with some clear idea of what physical quantity your IR thermometer measures. The basis of G&T's obfuscation piece is to confuse people like TOP to think that heat, in the thermodynamic sense, is the same as energy. Energy can flow from the atmosphere to the surface, heat can not. Their game is made easier by the fact that the word is used with less care than it deserves in popular explanations. Nowhere in radiative atmospheric physics is there a sugggestion that heat flows from the atmosphere to the surface. Anyone who believes that will be fooled by G&T's game. I don't know how this paper made it through peer-review, it is of no interest whatsoever. I reiterate that G&T do not have a point. However, there is no shortage of individuals who are not really qualified, yet draw from it enough arrogance to go on pontificating that atmospheric physicists have it all wrong. That is why this thread was necessary, not because there is any substance in G&T.
  5. Spherica, Tom, TOP - I introduced the term "radiative greenhouse effect" quite some time back in this thread - for the specific purpose of avoiding abuse of and confusion between convective (glass) greenhouses. I realize that's perhaps not a standard term, but I've found it useful in disambiguating the discussion. My apologies if it has been confusing. I would suggest continuing a practice of expanding acronyms the first time they are used. TOP - G&T's paper mostly consists of an extended and repetitive set of strawman arguments. They misrepresent the radiative greenhouse effect as the convective greenhouse effect, they misrepresent various energy transfers as the net transfer (heat), most clearly in their Fig. 32 (where they simply and distortingly do not show the full set of energy flows), etc. And once they have created these strawmen, they attack arguments that are not physical, and simply not made, by the scientific community. Add to that the near-Victorian language, the continual tone of 'scolding', and lots of irrelevant side trips such as the 8-10 pages of semantic games with the definitions of greenhouse effects, and G&T lack rigour, content, or any connection to reality. The entire paper is semantic games, rhetoric, and strawmen. Hence the multiple (and to date unmet) requests for you to identify something in the paper (other than semantic gaming) indicating some physical basis for objecting to the (radiative) greenhouse effect that G&T don't seem to actually discuss.
  6. @1224 Tom and 1219, 1221 Sphaerica First of all to Tom. While I am writing responses to posts other post are made which I don't see until I submit my post. If you take this to be avoiding answering 1219, so be it, but I think you will find I was writing 1220 at the time 1219 was also being written and submitted. I seem to be having to answer several posts simultaneously and this has to be done one at a time. And of course I can no longer respond to 1221 or 1223 either. Tom I appreciate that you restated much of what I stated in 1220. To clarify RGHE see @465,859 and others. KR uses this term frequently in this thread and others without complaints. Now to ask the question that Sphaerica requested: In G&T they quote this definition of RGHE from Stichel:
    “Now it is generally accepted textbook knowledge that the long-wave infrared radiation, emitted by the warmed up surface of the Earth, is partially absorbed and re-emitted by CO2 and other trace gases in the atmosphere. This effect leads to a warming of the lower atmosphere and, for reasons of the total radiation budget, to a cooling of the stratosphere at the same time.”
    to which G&T respond, " "This would be a Perpetuum Mobile of the Second Kind. A detailed discussion is given in Section 3.9. Furthermore, there is no total radiation budget, since there are no individual conservation laws for the different forms of energy participating in the game. (T&G p39)" Question 1 G&T make the assertion that Stichel's definition of RGHE is a violation of the 2nd Law. Is this definition a violation of the second law and if so why or why not? In particular I believe Stichel's choice of the term "warming" has something to do with G&T's response as in the colder atmosphere is raising the temperature of the warmer ground. Question 2 G&T make the assertion that there are no individual conservation laws for different forms of energy [which I take to mean that energy has to be taken as a whole to be conserved]. If you look at Tom's point #1 in 1181 he produces a picture of from Ternbeth et al, 2009 showing 333 W/m2 of something called backradiation flowing back to the earth's surface. Is this back radiation a "heat flow" that can raise the earth's temperature? If it is a "heat flow" is it occurring from a colder to a warmer body in general? Question 3 I will also add a question about Ternbeth's graphic since it appears so many places. It shows a convection (thermals) and a latent heat flow of heat in one direction, up. Why does it not also show the counter convection heat flow and latent heat flow down as occurs when rain falls or cold air sinks to the surface? When I took thermodynamics we had to clearly define the boundaries around which we considered heat and work moving in and out.
  7. @1230 KR You do realize that one or both author's (Gerlich & Tscheuscher) speak German as their first language? I wouldn't take this as indicative of some attitude on their part. I have read other author's who speak German as a first language and have found some of these turns of speech prevalent there also. German grammar is different that English grammar an can color the lanquage of a non-native speaker. I appreciate that they took the time to communicate in English and most of all to translate important quotes into English.
  8. 1231, TOP, Okay. Please note that G&T do not in any way make their case. They do absolutely nothing more than to say, in so many words, "2nd law, you lose." Their entire section 3.9 is nothing more than a repetition of explanations of accepted Thermodynamics. They then finally get to page 78 where they quote Rahmstorf as saying that the second law is not violated, to which they simply say what Rahmstorf would agree with, that it is energy, not heat, being exchanged, which could be an argument for exactly why the second law is not violated. In the end, they have made no point. They then attack a phrasing of the issue in Wikipedia. Wow. What earth shattering scientific prowess they show! They have published a peer-reviewed paper to correct Wikipedia! And yet G&T present no evidence or clear argument whatsoever. They do nothing more than stomp their feet and shout "2nd Law." There is nothing there to argue with. G&T is a total and complete waste of everyone's time. Honestly, the International Journal of Modern Physics must be a pretty crappy journal to have published it. I'd refer you to Comment on "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics" by Halpern et al.
  9. @1230 KR Figure 32 It just raises the question which I raised in 1231 Question 3, "Where is the boundary across which RGHE is expressing a heat balance?" G&T put it at the stratosphere. Ternbeth uses the term "atmosphere" in depicting some nebulous boundary. G&T go on to quote Rahmstoff in discussing the figure, but Rahmstoff uses the term atmosphere not stratosphere. Rahmstoff clarifies, "However, the second law is not violated by the greenhouse effect, of course, since, during the radiative exchange, in both directions the net energy flows from the warmth to the cold.” It seems like the RGHE is trying to mix microscopic phenomenon "radiative energy transfer by means of photons" with macroscopic effects, heat flow. Is the major transfer of heat from the atmosphere to the surface in either direction primarily through conduction or radiation?
  10. @1233 Sphaerica Which question were you answering? It would help me if you specified which question you are answering. I'm pretty thick you know. You asked me for specific questions. The least you could do is give specific answers. I have Halpern and I have response to Halpern. I also have versions 1-4 of G&T's paper. Still working through them.
    Response: [DB] Your link is corrupted.
  11. Sorry, how is this? response to Halpern
    Response:

    [DB] Close enough that I was able to fix it.  :)

  12. 1231, TOP, I'll answer your question 3 for now because it's the easiest. The "heat" doesn't come back down with the rain. The water comes back down, but the direction of energy transfer is only one way. Water evaporates, gains energy. Water vapor rises. Water condenses, transferring the extra energy to the surrounding atmosphere. Condensed water falls as rain. When cold air sinks to the surface... it's, umm, cold! No heat carried down with it.
  13. 1235, TOP, I didn't answer any of your questions in post 1233, I simply pointed out that your response about the section of G&T claiming that GHE represents a perpetual motion machine has no foundation. They offer no support. They point to section 3.9 which gives the standard discussion of thermodynamics and perpetual motion machines, but they never demonstrate how this relates to the GHE. For your questions: 1) I can't begin to tell you, because as you point out, the G&T comment is mere assertion without further explanation or support. They do so throughout the paper, which is why it is a waste of words. 2) Again, an unexplained G&T assertion, although I would clarify that "heat" is not exactly a "form" of energy. Heat and temperature are both useful quantifications (perceptions) of energy. To clarify, consider that when you touch hot pavement what you are sensing as heat is the rapid vibration of the molecules in your (solid) skin, as a result of the heat transfer from the pavement to your skin. Those vibrations are caused by a combination of the transfer of kinetic energy from the vibrations in the molecules of the pavement as well as IR emissions resulting from the relaxation of some of those vibrations. On the other hand, when you sense heat in the wind from a hair dryer, because you are dealing with a gas and not a solid, the vibrations in the molecules of your own skin are caused primarily by the velocity of molecules in the gas (and, again, by IR radiation, as well as possibly vibrations and rotations if the molecules are complex enough — like H2O — to have vibrational and/or rotational modes). "Heat" and "temperature" are concepts that arise naturally from the observations of the macroscopic world around us, but looking further into inner space we find that these are mere mathematical, perceptual constructs which help us to describe large systems in aggregate, but do not exist in and of themselves as distinct "things." Thermodynamics itself, in fact, is a holdover from an age where only macroscopic analysis, concepts, descriptions and relationships were possible. Unfortunately, too many people seem unable to move beyond this or, more importantly to reconcile the combination. That G&T get caught up in the distinction between heat and energy without themselves being able to clearly articulate how the distinction does and does not apply the the process behind the greenhouse effect speaks to either their poor abilities as communicators or their poor understanding of the subject they are tackling (or both).
  14. 1235, TOP, You might want to look here for more about G&T. But... Based on your posts, my feeling is: 1) Your own foundation in science, while not "poor," is incomplete. The fact that you were confused by latent heat and convection as a heat transport mechanism in the atmosphere, as well as what you were measuring with a handheld IR thermometer, suggests to me that you need to start from scratch. Find a text on atmospheric physics and read it (learning it, rather than assuming that it is full of errors that you can riddle out as you go). 2) The bulk of your objection seems to fall back on G&T, i.e. an appeal to authority, when in fact that particular "authority" is alone, contradicted by all of the other authorities available, and who themselves are not able to clearly articulate their own case.
  15. @1239 Sphaerica Thanks for the link. I couldn't find the link to Halpern's January 25th material which G&T reference, but this will keep me occupied for a while. I assume most of what is here also found it's way into Halpern's refutation to G&T. Actually I don't know if was me or Trenbeth that was confused about latent heat and convection if you want to make a point of it. Look carefully at the diagram. Look just north of the Bering Straits. Trenbeth
    Response:

    [DB] "I don't know if was me or Trenbeth that was confused about latent heat and convection"

    You would have us choose between believing

    1. you are possessed of a well-spring of D-K (equating yourself the equal of a subject area specialist in climate science and then arrogantly saying that one of you is confused)
    2. you are simply trolling here to cause confusion and mayhem.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
     
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

  16. TOP#1240: No fear, it's not Trenberth who's 'confused'. Run the numbers in that diagram again, they check.
  17. 1240, Trenberth is fine. Thermals carry 17 W/m2 up via warm air. That warm air is replaced by cooler, sinking air. Heat transfer is upwards only. Evapotranspiration puts 80 W/m2 into water vapor (i.e. water that evaporates from the surface). It rises and condenses, releasing its energy as latent heat to the surrounding atmosphere, and then the water, now devoid of that transported energy, falls as rain. Heat transfer is upwards only. This is all, I think, fairly clear, and coincides with what I have already explained. Do you still not follow it?
  18. TOP @1231, Stichel's definition is a perfectly acceptable definition of the greenhouse effect, if somewhat abbreviated. However: 1) If you look at G&T's more detailed discussion of Stichel's definition, you can see that they have interpreted him as saying that the greenhouse effect takes heat from the stratosphere and moves it to the surface, thus warming the surface. Stichel did not say this, and this is just one of many bizarre misinterpretations by G&T. As an aside I will note two examples of their misinterpretation. In the definition by the German Meteorological Society (3.3.8, pp 40-1) it says:
    "in the infrared range of the spec- trum the radiation emitted form the ground is absorbed to a large extent by the atmosphere ... and, depending on the temperature, re-radiated in all directions."
    (My emphasis) to which G&T respond:
    "The assumption that if gases emit heat radiation, then they will emit it only downwards, is rather obscure."
    (My emphasis) Well certainly it is obscure since it exists only in their interpretation, and is in direct contradiction to the claims of the German Meteorological Society. Later, in their response to Rahmstorf's definition (3.3.14 pp 43-4) G&T say:
    "Obviously, reflection is confused with emission."
    Perhaps, but the confusion is entirely on their part as Rahmstorf never mentions reflection. Indeed, G&T have again directly contradicted their source, for Rahmstorf he talks about:
    "... the portion of the long-wave radiation ... which is radiated by the molecules partly downward and partly upward."
    (My emphasis) Such blatant distortions of the views of those they criticize must make the work of a critique very easy, but also completely worthless. Returning to G&T's misinterpretation of Stichel, obviously a transfer of heat from the cold stratosphere (average temperature around -10 degrees C) to the warm surface would be a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It would also be completely insufficient as an source of the surfaces warming because of the relative heat capacity of the ocean and the stratosphere. It is also completely irrelevant to any sane discussion of the atmospheric green house effect as nobody proposes that as a mechanism of that effect. 2) The back radiation is a flow of thermal energy from a cold to a warm source. However, using a strict definition as, for example, is used by Philippe Chantreau's excellent comment @1229, and sometimes by G&T, it is not a flow of heat. Using that strict definition, "heat flow" is the net transfer of thermal energy between two points. That means (loosely*) that the 2nd Law of thermodynamics states only that the net transfer of thermal energy between two points must be from the a hotter to a colder source. Because the 2nd law only talks about the net transfer way of thermal energy, it in not way prohibits transfers of thermal energy from the atmosphere to the surface. Further, as you can see from the energy balance diagram, the net thermal transfer is from the surface to the atmosphere. I note in passing that G&T only sometimes use the strict definition of heat. Indeed they frequently use that definition to justify the assertion that heat can never flow from a colder to a warmer location. However, in criticizing Rahmstorf's discussion of the 2nd law (section 3.9.3, page 78), saying:
    "Rahmstorf's reference to the second law of thermodynamics is plainly wrong. The second law is a statement about heat, not about energy. Furthermore the author introduces an obscure notion of "net energy flow". The relevant quantity is the "net heat flow", which, of course, is the sum of the upward and the downward heat flow within a fixed system, here the atmospheric system. It is inadmissible to apply the second law for the upward and downward heat separately rede ning the thermodynamic system on the fly."
    If you are using the strict definition of heat, then the term "net heat flow" is nonsensical. There cannot be a heat flow, both up and down at the same time in order for there to be a 'net heat flow' under that definition, so G&T's claim here is nonsensical. In fact what they have done is slipped into the common definition of heat to refute Rahmstorf while retaining the distinct and contradictory strict definition for the rest of you discussion. When you allow yourself such blatant equivocation, you can prove anything you like (including, in a favourite example from my childhood, that a penny is a shilling.) Given the way that G&T play loose with word meanings, and radically misinterpret their sources, they can not be relied on as an authority, or source of instruction in any way. Their paper is so bad that it could well constitute evidence of academic misconduct, and not just incompetence. I cannot understand why you are using it as a source. I note that G&T's first criticism of Rahmstorf over discussing energy ignores the fact that the laws of thermodynamics have been generalized to apply to all energy transfers. That Rahmstorf uses the physics of the 20th century, while G&T wish to restrict themselves only to the physics of the early 19th century is no valid criticism of Rahmstorf. (* I said loosely because fridges are a counter example to this definition, and hence to the definition as used by G&T, but not a counter example to the law as strictly stated.) 3) In nearly all instances of heat transfer by precipitation, the heat transfer is from the ground to the atmosphere. That is because when precipitation returns to the ground (as water in either solid or liquid form) it is typically colder than when it left it (as water vapour).
  19. @1241 muon I know. I added them up. Other than a little rounding the math is fine. Not saying anything about the math. I meant to say me and Trenberth. @1242 Sphaerica Follow it just fine. @1243 Tom In #3 you sort of get my point in 1239. Both sinking cold air and rain, snow or ice all have heat content when they reach the earth. It's just that they are at a lower temperature so when the cycle begins again they are heated or receive heat of evaporation or fusion to be lifted up in the atmosphere. So by analogy why treat the "cold" back radiation any differently. Why not just say that the net upward radiative heat flow to the atmosphere is 23 W/m2? It makes it a lot easier to put in perspective the effect of RGHG (Radiative GreenHouse Gases).
  20. TOP#1244: "they are heated or receive heat of evaporation or fusion to be lifted up ... So by analogy why treat the "cold" back radiation any differently." You're kidding, right? Because there is no 'analogy.' Latent heat and convection are not radiative. Analogy: a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based
  21. TOP @1244, it certainly is easier to say that: 1) Adding CO2 to the atmosphere reduces the net rate at which energy flows from the surface to the atmosphere, which 2) Cools the atmosphere, resulting in a reduction in the rate at which which energy flows from the surface and atmosphere to space, and 3) The additional CO2 also (and independently) reduces the rate at which energy flows from the surface and atmosphere to space; which 4) Results in the surface warming because the net rate at which energy leaves the surface has reduced while the rate at which energy enters the surface from the sun has remained the same; and that consequently 5) The increasing surface temperature (from 3) increases the net rate at which energy enters the atmosphere, thereby warming the atmosphere, and 6) therefore increases the energy leaving both the surface and atmosphere to space until the original balance of energy leaving for space is restored, with 7) both the surface and atmosphere being warmer in the final equilibrium condition than in the former equilibrium condition. There you have the entire greenhouse effect in a nutshell with no mention of back radiation, and no heat flowing from colder to warmer regions. It should be noted that the reduction in heat flow from surface to atmosphere is primarily through a reduction in convection the balance of which is restored in days, and further that the cooling that results in the atmosphere is concurrent with warming from preceding additions of CO2 in the atmosphere, so that given noisy data the signal of that initial cooling is undetectable. However, as soon as somebody asks, "How do you know? I must introduce the physics of radiation, and hence upward long wave radiation, and downward long wave radiation and all the other complexities you want us to avoid. If you want an account for children, then we can ignore back radiation. If not, we cannot.
  22. @1243 Tom 1) I suppose G&T could have misinterpreted Stichel. 2) Why I am using G&T as a source? It is the SoD! Nowhere in a refrigerator or air conditioner do you find heat flowing from hot to cold. The cooling coils inside are always colder than the inside box and the radiator on the outside is always hotter than the outside air. The fact that work is being added by the compressor to change the working fluids volume is not a heat flow.
  23. @1246 Tom Why not simplify even more? Using Trenberth as a reference point and taking the surface of the earth as the boundary within which we are accounting for heat: 396-333 = 63 W/m2 radiative heat across boundary. Of that 63 W/m2, 40 W/m2 goes directly to space and 23 W/m2 increases the heat content of the atmosphere from ground radiation. No confusion about heat flowing from cold to hot, no confusion at all by doing this simplification. And no chance for the 2nd law naysayers to squawk. It then makes it easier to put into perspective the effect of RGHG.
  24. TOP @1247: 1) Not only could, but clearly did. Their interpretation, as illustrated by figure 32 (page 78) is plainly absurd. 2) You have provided no explanation as to why you are relying on G&T as a source despite their obvious misinterpretations and equivocations. The only abbreviation of SoD that is relevant is "Science of Doom" an online science blog, and G&T are certainly not the Science of Doom. Nor is the fact that SoD discusses and eviscerates G&T justification for using it as a source. Quite the contrary. Finally, you have merely asserted that fridges do not violate the 2nd law, which they do not. Never-the-less, if I place water at 2 degrees C into my working freezer, it will fall in temperature to -2 degrees C, freezing in the process. In the meantime the excess heat released by my ice cubes will be lost from the heat exchange at the back of the fridge to the 30 degree C ambient atmosphere.
  25. TOP @1248, if you simplify to that level you cannot explain why the greenhouse effect works. Consequently you also cannot make predictions of how it will react when perturbed. Scientists do not operate with story book level explanations, and no amount of creative misinterpretation by the G&T's of the world is sufficient reason to retreat back into mysticism as you are suggesting.

Prev  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  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 2022 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us