The Greenhouse Effect & Man Made Global Warming, Revisited
Much has been made for the last few decades of the “Greenhouse Effect” and the “Enhanced Greenhouse Effect” a.k.a. “Man Made Global Warming”. So, let’s review:
Let’s start from basic principles, let’s follow “A Day in the Life of a Global Warming Photon”;
1. A Photon of Visible Light (a.k.a. Sunlight) arrives on the surface of the Earth. Nothing spectacular here, this happens all the time when the Sun is shining.
2. This Photon is either reflected or absorbed by the surface of the Earth. The visible reflected portion is not of much interest to the Man-Made Global Warming Hypothesis, so we will ignore it for now.
3. This absorbed Photon raises the temperature of the Earth by a small amount, no dispute here.
4. The warmer Surface of the Earth then releases some Infrared radiation, no dispute here. The energy content of this emitted radiation is LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO the amount absorbed. As a result the Earth cools by an amount equal to the energy radiated.
5. This infrared Radiation MAY be absorbed (the chances are about 450/1,000,000) by a molecule of a “greenhouse gas” in the atmosphere, no dispute here.
6. This molecule of a “greenhouse gas” will be warmed by a small amount, no dispute here.
7. This warmed molecule of “greenhouse gas” will emit something less than 50% of this energy back towards the surface of the Earth as infrared radiation, no dispute here. As a result the molecule cools by an amount equal to the energy radiated.
8. Some of this infrared radiation emitted back towards the surface of the Earth will be absorbed by the surface and thereby warm it, (ignoring for a moment that some is reflected), no dispute here.
9. The surface of the Earth having been warmed by the radiation reflected by the “greenhouse gas” will thereby re-emit this as infrared energy back towards space, no dispute here. The energy content of this emitted radiation is LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO the amount absorbed. Note that the “Man-Made Global Warming” Hypothesis clearly admits that a warmer surface of the Earth emits infrared radiation, see step 4 above. As a result the Earth is cooled by an amount equal to the energy radiated.
10. This infrared radiation emitted back towards the cold vacuum of space MAY again be absorbed by a “greenhouse gas”, the chances of this occurring is now (450/1,000,000)*(450/1,000,00).
11. This cycle continues ad-infinitium…
12. Simply calculate the following equation to find the chances that a Photon is forever “trapped” by the alleged “greenhouse effect”; chances of being “trapped forever” = 450^N/1,000,000^N, where “N goes to infinity”. N represents the number of times a Photon is absorbed/reemitted by the surface of the Earth and is ALSO absorbed/reemitted by a molecule of a “greenhouse gas”.
13. The chances of an individual photon being absorbed by a “greenhouse gas” TEN times is:
450^10/1,000,000^10 = ~ 3.4×10^-34 = 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,34 !! (I have to admit I counted the zero’s several times, but I may be mistaken by a few)
14. So, as N approaches infinity the chances of a Photon being “trapped” and forever after causing a “permanent warming” of the Earth quickly approaches NOTHING, or as we in the engineering field used to call it “ZERO POINT S–T OVER INFINITY”.
15. Oh, by the way this simple calculation ignores the fact that something less than 50% of the energy absorbed by the “greenhouse gas” is emitted back towards the surface of the Earth.
16. A more accurate equation is: 0.50^N*450^N/1,000,000^N, which for N=10, is even WORSE at ~3.3×10^-37, hurry up and add three more zero’s.
17. The value of 450 (“greenhouse gas equivalent” in ppmv) is largely immaterial, it could be 100ppmv or 5000ppmv, the outcome is the essentially the same. The chances of TEN “greenhouse gas” absorptions at “100ppmv” = 1×10^-40, the chances at “5000 ppmv” = ~ 9.8×10^-24. Either way, that’s a WHOLE LOT OF ZERO’S
18. In Fact, even if the concentration of “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere is 100% (BTW, we’d all be dead) the chances that a photon is ”trapped” and forever after causes a “permanent warming” of the EARTH is: 0.50^N*1,000,000^N/1,000,000^N, for N=10, this evaluates out to 9.8×10^-4. This case does of course become more complicated since no clear path from the surface of the Earth to the cold vacuum of Space exists. So there are many more absorptions and reemissions occurring, each of which emits more energy to space.
19. This final example is in fact the situation present inside a man made greenhouse. Glass replaces the “greenhouse gas” in the atmosphere. Last we checked common glass is the same as a 1,000,000 ppmv “greenhouse gas”. In this case the glass is partially heated by the infrared radiation reflected from the ground. It then radiates from both surfaces of the glass (inside and outside), 50% to space, and 50% back towards the earth. In the meantime the restraint of convection causes the temperature inside the greenhouse to climb, until the Sun goes down.
So in summary, we can suggest a few salient points:
As predicted by the laws of Thermodynamics, no heat is ever “trapped” in the atmosphere of the Earth.
The surface of the Earth (a.k.a. A WET ROCK) is not particularly well known for its intelligence. It is not capable of figuring out if it was heated by visible light, or by infrared light reflected from a “greenhouse gas”. Regardless of how it was heated the Earth emits this heat back towards the cold vacuum of space as infrared radiation, WITHOUT ANY NET GAIN IN ENERGY CONTENT, resulting in a cooling of the Earth.
The fact that some of the Thermal Insulating Gases surrounding the surface of the Earth are heated only by conduction and convection (Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc.), and other gases are heated by conduction, convection and the absorption of infrared radiation is INCONSEQUENTIAL! All of these gases participate in a huge heat transfer problem which still follows all of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Note that all of these absorptions and reemissions happen within time frames of microseconds, or less. So the thought that heat has been trapped and will show up in a decade, or two decades, or one hundred years is RIDICULOUS !!
So the final result of a change in the proportions of gases heated by convection and conduction versus the gases heated by convection, conduction and radiation is that the response time of the climate of the Earth is ever slightly slower as “greenhouse gases” increase. Since the ultimate forcing function is the rising and setting of the Sun these changes are overwhelmed by the Sun. Of course, there are likely to be other physical processes identified (i.e. the cosmic ray – cloud connection) that may expand our current understanding of the very complex system known as the “Climate of the Earth”.
Further, we should discuss empirical observations. Much has been made of the observations of many events including the retreat of some glaciers, the alleged unusual melting of icecaps, delayed seasonal snowfalls, extended droughts, etc. etc. In general, empirical observations should not be used as a substitute for a sound, logical explanation of a physical effect. Empirical observations may be used to reinforce or refute a proposed logical explanation of a physical effect. IT CANNOT BE STRESSED STRONGLY ENOUGH THAT AN OBSERVED CORRELATION BETWEEN OBSERVATION “A” AND OBSERVATION “B” DOES NOT IN ANY WAY PROVE THAT “A” CAUSES “B” !! Or for that matter, THAT “B” CAUSES “A”.
If the “greenhouse effect” does indeed exist, we should expect Man-Made Greenhouses to slowly heat up and eventually reach a “Tipping Point” and burst into flames. Of course this presumes the doors are kept closed to contain the hot air. Little empirical evidence of these observations exists. However, perhaps the government should immediately start a program to indentify our oldest greenhouses and prepare plans to open the doors everyday before people get hurt? This would of course align with the precautionary principle.
Finally, yes, we know that a photon is defined as the smallest unit of light. We are aware that 50% of a photon is not a meaningful unit, but the logic of this argument is still sound. If you are concerned about this, you can rephrase this logical argument in Step 1 as: “a flux of 1 photon per second arrives on the surface of the Earth”. The conclusions are not changed. The original logic was written to make the sequence of events more readable.
i’m at the beach. it’s hot here. over and out
RandomRED“> Posts
Loading…
value=”YToxOntzOjc6InBvc3RfaWQiO2k6MjI1Mzt9″ />
Tagged with climategate, deniers, global warming, greenhouse effect, greenhouse gases
Loading ...
Interesting analysis, but I am not sure I understand where you are going with it.
I may not hang in climatologist circles, but I don’t remember anyone other than hippy-sign-wavers claiming that GW causes heat to be trapped forever.
If I understand their position correctly, it seems more accurately characterized to be: Like the glass in a greenhouse, these gasses are slowing the rate at which the Earth can vent heat into space.
I mean, clearly it is hotter in a greenhouse than outside of it (at least during the day), so it stands to reason that if the sunny side is hotter and the non-sunny side takes longer to cool, the net effect of more of these gasses would be a hotter environment. Right?
I guess your analysis does reinforce the idea that any hypothetical warming cause by these gasses isn’t permanent and removing them 100 years from now is just as useful as removing them today, again assuming they are causing the warming in the first place.
I think the stronger argument is that regardless of whether we are causing it, the atmosphere has a large degree of variability in mean temperatures. So eventually it is going to happen whether we cause it or not. Perhaps all the energy being spent hand-waving about this issue would be better utilized to prepare for temperature variation over time rather than trying to force the climate to conform to a specification arbitrarily defined as “how it was in 1700-1800.”
PS: I’m no AGW apologist, by any means, I’d just like to understand better what you are getting at.
Rate This Comment:
0 
0
Were dinosaurs warm blooded or was the Earth hotter so that huge reptiles could survive back then? Perhaps it’s like you know, a cycle… like woman have but with large intervals rather then 13 times a year???
Rate This Comment:
0 
0
what will the environment lobby now do?
Rate This Comment:
0 
0
Up to step 12, spot on, beyond that you got completely misunderstood the theory. The reason for anthropogenic global warming lies in the fact that the amount of green house gases has been increased far beyond any ‘natural’ level and thus has heightened the potentiality of trapped photos. More GHG more trapped photos more heat.
Rate This Comment:
0 
1
Unless I’m mistaken… “Greenhouse Gasses” work differently than glass; they also block heat rays from getting to the earth? If so, having more “greenhouse gasses” means that more heat rays reflect back into space at the same ratio of In vs Out… Therefore if all things remain relatively constant; It is simply an issue of the sun. When our sun is hotter the earth gets hotter, when the sun is colder we are colder. Of course big variables do exist; but I think they are primarily in outer space and well beyond our control.
Rate This Comment:
0 
1
You’re awesome. I love this blog, you don’t give a s*** about what dickheads think and you’re not afraid to voice our opinion with reasonable logic.
I love this blog!
Rate This Comment:
2 
1
A sound thesis in a world of irrational supposition. It should also be noted that the term “Greenhouse Effect” is itself a misnomer. “Greenhouse Gas” like CO2 does not impede convection like a greenhouse would. To the contrary, it promotes convection. How can we can take the concept seriously if it can’t even get the science right?
Rate This Comment:
1 
0
Complete nonsense.
It so simple:
Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide or methane enhance the total optical absorption of Earth’s atmosphere. This mean a higher fraction of photons (from the Sun and from the Earth) gets stuck in the atmosphere and heats atmosphere and Earth’s surface.
Rate This Comment:
0 
2
I think you’re confusing the metaphor for the reality. The earth is not a greenhouse, hence it does not work the same way as a greenhouse does.
What you actually showed is:
When you put some energy from the sun into earth and then stop this external energy flow, the additional energy will be finally dissipated back into universe.
In a more demonstrative picture:
You put a kettle (earth) on a cooker (sun) and switch the cooker on for some time. Whatever is in the kettle will have heated. When you put the cooker off the stuff in the kettle will again cool to room temperature. The cooling happens regardless whether there a lid (greenhouse gases) on the kettle or not.
However, this is not the correct situation. The sun keeps on adding energy while your “photon bouncing” happens.
In a more demonstrative picture.
You place two kettles with the some stuff in them on a cooker. One kettle carries a lid, the other doesn’t. The cooker provides the same energy to both kettles, but the kettle with the lid will warm up faster and to a higher temperature than the other one.
The only thing you can argue about is the magnitude of the warming the greenhouse gases will allow for. But maybe there is a tiny chance that scientist actually do a better job at that? For instance it is completely wrong to estimate the absorption probability of the greenhouse gases by their concentration.
Rate This Comment:
2 
0
This article is absolutely correct, but it never completes the argument. What causes the so called Greenhouse Effect? The GHE (incorrectly labeled) is caused by the effect of gravity on the total mass of the atmosphere. The tug of gravity forces atmospheric density to increase inversely with altitude. Increasing density means more molecules per cubic meter. That results in more energy per cubic meter as we descend through the atmosphere. CO2 only contributes to this proportional to its overall atmospheric mass which is less than 0.06% of the atmosphere. As you point out, radiative forcing has nothing at all to do with the GHE.
Rate This Comment:
0 
0
This article is correct, but the article never completes the argument. So what causes this so called Greenhouse Effect? The GHE (incorrectly labeled since the atmosphere is not at all like a closed greenhouse) is caused by the effect of gravity on the total mass of the atmosphere. The tug of gravity forces atmospheric density to increase inversely with altitude. Increasing density means more molecules per cubic meter. That results in more energy per cubic meter as we descend through the atmosphere. CO2 only contributes to this proportional to its overall atmospheric mass which is less than 0.06% of the atmosphere. As you point out, radiative forcing has nothing at all to do with the GHE.
Rate This Comment:
0 
0