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

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
Keep me logged in
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.

Last updated on 22 October 2010 by TonyWildish.

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

1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Comments 1 to 50 out of 1393:

  1. I'm not a scientist so forgive me if I'm off topic
    There is a lay explanation of the physics underlying climate alarmism. KE Research, a German public policy consultancy firm, prepared the report based on interviews and editing assistance from noted German theoretical physicists Ralf D. Tscheuschner & Gerhard Gerlich, authors of the peer-reviewed paper Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics, and numerous other climatologists, physicists, and scientists at
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/rescue-from-climate-saviors.html

    Conclusions of the report include:

    The terms “greenhouse effect” and “greenhouse gas” are misnomers and obstruct understanding of the real world.
    Earth has a natural “cooling system”. If the planet warms, it will automatically raise its cooling power.
    An increase of earth temperatures is only achievable if the heating power is stepped up: first to “load” matter with more energy (i.e. to raise temperatures) and then to compensate for the increasing cooling, which results from the increase of IR radiation into space.
    CO2 and other IR-active gases cannot supply any additional heating power to the earth. Therefore, they cannot be a cause of “global warming”. This fact alone disproves the greenhouse doctrine.

    The “natural greenhouse effect” (increase of earth temperatures by 33°C) is a myth.
    IR-active gases do not act “like a blanket” but rather “like a sunshade”. They keep a part of the solar energy away from the earth’s surface.
    IR-active gases cool the earth: 70% of the entire cooling power originates from these molecules. Without these gases in the air, the surface and the air immediately above the ground would heat up more.
    The notion that a concentration increase of IR-active gases would impede earth’s cooling is impossible given the true mechanisms explained above.
    As a consequence the very foundation of the “Green Tower of Climate Dogma” crumbles. Computer models alleging to forecast warming based on “greenhouse effects” are worthless, and any speculation about the “impact of climate change” accordingly dispensable.
    Since the greenhouse hypothesis has been disproven by the laws of physics, it is only a matter of time until the truth becomes public opinion.

    Does anyone have any comments on the contents of that report?
  2. val majkus, you're not at all "off topic" -- this thread is basically explaining why Gerlich and Tscheuschner are completely wrong. The report you cite mostly just repeats the same errors and misinformation from G & T's original claims.
  3. Val, the responses to those incorrect claims are in this page above your comment, including the items referenced by the post. If you have questions after reading those, then please do ask here. But please read those first.
  4. "noted German theoretical physicists" - noted for an imaginary second law? Note also posts on Science of doom and Halpern et al above for a formal response.
  5. Fascinating to see Roy Spencer getting annoyed at denialists who won't allow radiation from the atmosphere to warm the surface of the earth.

    Click...
  6. To whom it may concern,

    "This is possible only because most of this radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere, and what actually escapes out into space is mostly emitted from colder atmosphere."

    Are you stating that the primary method of transferring energy from the surface to the Troposphere is via radiation absorption rather than via conduction?

    When you say 'colder', are you referring to a region or a temperature?
  7. To whom it may concern,

    "This absorption is due to trace gases which make up only a very small part of the atmosphere."

    So are you saying that IR from the surface heats the GHG's and then they transfer the energy to the primary gases N2 and O2?

    If so, how is that transfer made? Conduction from molecules colliding?
    Response: Yep.
  8. To whom it may concern,

    Forgive me, but this post is ripe with errors, from my understanding of physics. Would you prefer I ask questions regarding the supposed errors, or would you prefer I explain my reasoning outright?
    Response: Whichever is shorter.
  9. Regarding molecular collisions and heat distributions: At surface temps and pressure each air molecule (CO2, O2, N2, argon, etc.) collides with another molecule roughly one billion times per second (thanks, Ned). The relaxation time for an energized CO2 molecule is 100ns or more, depending on the vibrational state.

    That means that an IR energized CO2 molecule has on average a minimum of 100 collisions with other molecules before it has a chance to emit IR. CO2 _will_ maintain thermal equilibrium with the rest of the air mass, whether the air mass as a whole is cooling or heating by IR. (Or conduction, convection, latent heat changes, etc.)
  10. To whom it may concern,

    Well put, thank you :)
  11. So is CO2 a good reflector while a poor absorber or is it a good absorber but a poor reflector ?

    It seemed to me, that the 2nd law put the final nail in the coffin of this (CO2) debate. Yet, it's still alive. How is it possible ?

    The theory that man made CO2 is the cause of Global Warming has had so meny holes punched through it - I don't understand how it's survived this long. It's been de-bunked by simple sciance on so meny levels, it should have been dead long ago. All the while, people far smarter than myself keep pushing it along. What is it that I'am not understanding?

    I'm a simple man, thats probably a bit more inquisitive than most, looking for answers. Which is what lead me here.
    Response: Please don't post the same comment repeatedly. I deleted your second one.
  12. Re: KnuckleDragger (11)

    I'm glad you're inquisitive and I'm glad you're here.
    "It seemed to me, that the 2nd law put the final nail in the coffin of this (CO2) debate. Yet, it's still alive. How is it possible ?"
    This is a common objection from people who do not understand the greenhouse effect (or the 2nd law of thermodynamics, for that matter).

    A simple understanding of the greenhouse effect:
    Longwave radiation from the earth’s surface is absorbed by many trace gases, including water vapor and CO2. The absorption causes these gases to heat up and energy is radiated back out – both up and down. The upward radiation is effectively “no change”. The downward radiation adds to the energy received from the sun and heats up the surface of the earth more than if this downward radiation did not occur.
    The 2nd "law", simply put:
    "Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature"
    What this means is this:
    No net energy can flow from a cold body to a hot body.

    In the case of the real “greenhouse” effect and the real 2nd law of thermodynamics, net energy is flowing from the earth to the atmosphere. But this doesn’t mean no energy can flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer ground."
    It simply means more energy flows from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere than in the reverse direction.

    Sources: Here and here.
    "The theory that man made CO2 is the cause of Global Warming has had so meny holes punched through it - I don't understand how it's survived this long...What is it that I'am not understanding?"
    The first part of your statement is wrong on every level, but I can understand the confusion you must feel. If it's so wrong, why does every scientific body in the world support it? Why does Shell Oil, of all things, support it?

    KnuckleDragger, I'm a simple man too. If someone is telling you that CO2 doesn't warm the Earth or that it's the sun or that it's cooling, or it's a natural cycle, then you have 2 possible answers:
    1. They don't understand quite a bit about science, physics, the greenhouse effect or pay attention to developments in the natural world...

    OR...

    2. They're lying to you...
    The greenhouse effect is quite well understood. Here's a quick backgrounder on the GHE, CO2 and AGW (the important bit is the response to Question 1 & the 8 steps outlined).

    Basically, it come down to this: No-one has been able to come up with a physics-based alternative to the observed & predicted effects of CO2 and GHG's that explains what we can see and measure that ALSO explains why CO2 derived from fossil fuels DOESN'T act as a GHG.

    At this point, being an inquisitive man, you probably will have more questions. Feel free to ask; the kind people here will be glad to help you gain an objective understanding.

    The Yooper
  13. KnuckleDragger,
    to explicitly address your first question on absorption/reflection, thinking in this terms could be confusing.
    In everyday life we call reflection the "bouncing back" of light from a solid or liquid surface. In a gas there's no surface and it could be hard to understand how "reflection" may occur.
    I think it's easier to think in terms radiation absorption/emission. Quoting from the post:
    "Any substance that absorbs thermal radiation will also emit thermal radiation; [...]. The atmosphere absorbs thermal radiation because of the trace greenhouse gases, and also emits thermal radiation, in all directions."
    The backward emitted radiation is what you (and others) call reflection. So, the answer to your question is that CO2 at high concentration is a good absorber and reflector.
  14. KnuckleDragger, it's best to not use the term "reflect" at all, even as a convenient shorthand, because as Riccardo wrote it has a particular meaning that is different from absorption-emission. CO2 does effectively zero reflection at the wavelengths we are concerned with here, at CO2's concentrations in our atmosphere.
  15. If I get it right the greenhouse effect works as an insulator and diminishes the heat loss of the earth.

    So far I am unaware that any unidirectional insulator exists or is even possible.

    Therefore the greenhouse effect has also to diminish the incoming energy from the sun which heats the earth.

    As a portion of the incoming energy gets converted into forms of energy that are not radiative (kinetic, chemical, electric) that is not trivial the logical conclusion is that the incoming radiative energy needs to exceed it's outgoing counterpart.

    As incoming and outgoing radiation is (more or less) equally effected by the insulation it is quite hard to see how the result could be a warming of the earth.
  16. h-j-m, almost all incoming solar irradiance is at short wavelengths where the atmosphere is (mostly) transparent. In contrast, almost all outgoing emitted radiation is at longer wavelengths, portions of which are absorbed by CO2, water vapor, CH4, and other greenhouse gases.

    This difference between incoming and outgoing radiation is essential to understanding how the greenhouse effect works.

    If you want to know more, a good place to start is Science of Doom, which has an excellent series of posts explaining the fundamentals of the greenhouse effect.
  17. "So far I am unaware that any unidirectional insulator exists or is even possible."

    (sound of a vinyl record scratching to a halt)

    1. Infrared radiation is emitted by the surface.
    2. The radiation--or, rather, radiation at certain frequencies--eventually makes it into the stratosphere and is absorbed and emitted in all directions by molecules of CO2, H20, and CH4.
    3. Some of the radiation is eventually emitted into space, because that's one direction.
    4. Other directions include all versions of "sideways"--and perhaps right into another molecule of CO2.
    5. Down is also another direction.

    The radiation eventually reaches the top of the atmosphere and is emitted into space (the only way it can leave). The visual, though not physical, analogy is the pinball machine. The atmosphere is a huge pinball machine, and GHG are bumpers (gravity has little effect in this machine). The more bumpers the machine has, the longer, on average, the ball takes to reach the boundary. Another analogy is the dam. The atmosphere is a dam. It doesn't block water, because the water eventually reaches the top and flows over, but when the water reaches the point of flowing over, the same amount of water that flows into the lake behind the dam equals the same amount of water that flows over the top.

    Yet there is the fact of the lake. And if we build the dam higher, then the lake gets deeper, but eventually the same amount of water will once again begin to flow over the top. We live in the lake.

    CO2 does not absorb UV radiation, so incoming solar radiation isn't slowed by it.
  18. Re #12 Daniel Bailey, as you say "No net energy can flow from a cold body to a hot body."

    And "It simply means more energy flows from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere than in the reverse direction."

    It is this "net energy flow" from hotter place to colder one that means that it is losing energy in and cooling down, not just 2nd Law but 1st Law also.

    Just incase you thinking of saying that CO2 slows down the heat transfer rate like an insulator (which it isn't); you can have any insulator you like but it cannot reverse the direction of energy tranferring from a warm surface to colder one.
  19. Re damorbel: You have me a bit mystified; reading over my comment at 12 and then yours at 18 I fail to see what point you're trying to make. If you have one, please rephrase it so that my slow gray matter can understand it. Thanks!
  20. Damorbel #18: "...you can have any insulator you like but it cannot reverse the direction of energy tranferring from a warm surface to colder one."

    Which would only be relevant if there wasn't this thing called the Sun constantly transferring energy to the planet's surface. Decrease the rate at which that energy leaves the system (by adding greenhouse gases) and you get incoming energy + retained energy... which is obviously greater than incoming energy alone.
  21. Ned and DSL,

    Before writing my post I checked the irradiative composition of sunlight. I would advise you to do the same before posting a reply.
  22. h-j-m, only a tiny fraction of exoatmospheric solar irradiance is in the thermal infrared range. The vast majority of it is visible and near-IR.

    I have no idea what you think you're seeing, but if it differs from what I just said, then you're probably misunderstanding something.
  23. Ned, what I am seeing is this:

    Solar Spectrum


    Though I don't know what you are looking at.
  24. h-j-m, that graph doesn't even show the longwave infrared region -- it only goes to 2.5 micrometers.

    The wavelengths corresponding to emitted thermal radiation from the Earth are in the 8-14 micrometer range.
  25. Ah, perhaps you were confused by the label "infrared" on that graph? It's referring to the near-IR and shortwave IR range. Not the thermal part of the spectrum where the Earth and its atmosphere emit radiation.
  26. Here's a breakdown, h-j-m.
  27. h-j-m, you should definitely check out the post that DSL links to. Note, in particular, this graph:


    Courtesy Science of Doom


    What that shows is that there's almost no overlap between the spectral ranges of downwelling solar irradiance and upwelling terrestrial thermal IR radiance.

    Increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere reduces the transparency of the atmosphere to longwave radiation, but not to shortwave radiation. This is how the greenhouse effect works, in a nutshell.
  28. I don't get it!

    Are you saying that solar IR radiation does not heat the earth?
    If so, then why should visible light be able to do so?

    Or do you mean that incoming IR radiation does not get absorbed by green house gases? Then the diagrams both of wikipedia as well as from Science of Doom show that as well.

    So, what's your point guys?
  29. The point is that there pretty much is no solar IR radiation. It's minuscule compared to the visible / near-IR range. Look at the graph from SoD I posted in the previous comment.

    To go back to the beginning of this discussion, you said "As incoming and outgoing radiation is (more or less) equally effected by the insulation it is quite hard to see how the result could be a warming of the earth. "

    The point is that incoming and outgoing radiation are in completely different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, and thus they aren't equally affected by greenhouse gases.

    Does that explanation help?
  30. Re #19 Daniel Bailey. Energy can only flow from a high temperature place to a lower temperature place. The surface of Earth is always hotter than the atmosphere above. As you say there is a net transfer of energy from the surface to the upper atmosphere, that is to say the upper atmosphere, which loses energy to deep space at 2.7K, is a net gainer of energy from the surface.

    The energy the upper atmosphere gains energy (net) from the surface preventing the (upper atmosphere) temperature from dropping to the (2.7K) temperature of deep space.

    The surface, as you may now realise, is a net radiater of heat to the atmosphere via longwwave IR radiation; the surface loses a lot more heat by convection of air and evaporation/condensation of water. To keep the surface temperature (more or less) stable the surface gets heat from the Sun via many different routes. The tropics are where most of the Sun's heat comes in, heating the atmosphere and sea water. This tropical heat is transported to the poles by air and water currents. Some of this heat is radiated directly from the tropics and some at intermediate distances on the way to the poles. Of course some heat also arrives from the Sun away from the tropics.

    The whole business of heat transport is governed by local and global temperature differences, starting with the 5780K of the Sun and finishing in deep space at 2.7K.

    There are a number of curiosities; it is posible using a magnifying glass or a mirror to make a local concentration of the Sun's energy on a spot but the maximum temperature you will get is 5780K. If you use an arc lamp with a temperature >5780K to boost this spot and your lens is still focussed on the Sun, the Sun will now be heated, just a little, by your lamp.
  31. h-j-m - Visible light has more energy per photon than IR does. UV has even more. There's plenty of energy in the visible portion of sunlight to heat the earth. And the atmosphere is almost totally transparent to visible light.

    Thermal IR, on the other hand (5-30 micrometers) does not pass through the atmosphere very well, due to greenhouse gases.
  32. damorbel - Excellent post, very correct in all respects. And at equilibrium the energy radiated to space equals the energy received from the sun.

    In reference to greenhouse gases - these slow the transport of energy from the surface to space. They effectively reduce the emissivity of the Earth, meaning that for the same energy radiated the Earth has to be at a higher temperature, as per the Stefan–Boltzmann law, where power radiated scales with emissivity (e) and T^4.



    Power = emissivity * SB constant * area * T^4
  33. More reply to h-j-m, who wrote: Are you saying that solar IR radiation does not heat the earth? If so, then why should visible light be able to do so?


    The very, very small amount of solar IR radiation does heat the Earth. But it's dwarfed by the much larger amount of visible light.

    Let's put some numbers to this. Assume we have 100 units of incoming solar radiation, distributed as follows:

    * 99 units of visible, near-IR, and shortwave IR
    * 1 unit of longwave IR

    Outgoing radiation from the Earth is also 100 units (because it's in balance with the incoming radiation from the sun), but distributed as follows:

    * 0 units of visible, near-IR, and shortwave IR
    * 100 units of longwave IR

    Now, let's say you introduce some substance into the atmosphere that absorbs longwave IR but transmits visible, near-IR, and shortwave IR.

    That will slightly reduce the 1 unit of downwelling solar irradiance, producing a tiny cooling effect. On the other hand, it will also reduce the 100 units of emitted terrestrial longwave radiation, producing a much larger warming effect (about 100 times larger, in fact).
  34. Re damorbel: On the cell right now, so I'll leave you with this to chew on for now: How then, when in the freezer section of a grocery store, can one see the energy from the lights coming from the cold interior of the display cases? Also, Google back radiation (Hint: Science of Doom website or over at Chris Colosse's place).
  35. Re #34 Daniel Bailey. "the energy from the lights coming from the cold interior". Nice try!

    What kind of lights? Oil lamps, LEDs, lasers, gas discharge, gas incandescent, electric incandescent, fluorescent, quartz halogen? You will have to be a bit more specific!
  36. Are you attempting to be funny or do you honestly think that there are some lights that you can't see because of the temperature surrounding the bulb?
  37. KR, thank you for mentioning the energy level, it just comes in handy.

    Ned, if you don't agree to the widely accepted definition of IR radiation then I don't know how talk to you.

    Now, if you look at the Science of Doom page you will find:

    As a proportion of total solar irradiance

    # Total energy from 0 – 0.75μm 54% – all energy up to infra-red
    # Total energy from 0 – 4μm 99% – all “shortwave”

    Now that leaves us 99% - 54% = 45% of total solar irradiance in the infra-red range. I would hardly call that minuscule.

    If you think that you can not compare radiation in this range with that of thermal infra-red then you are perfectly right.
    The main difference is, as KR has pointed out that the energy of a particle gets higher the shorter the wavelength. So you can figure out what's the difference between a infra-red photon at 1500 nm trapped by water vapour and one at 10000 nm trapped by CO2.
  38. Re #31 #32 KR "Thermal IR, on the other hand (5-30 micrometers) does not pass through the atmosphere very well, due to greenhouse gases."

    In a sense you are correct. Very little heat gets into the atmosphere by radiation from the surface because the temperature difference between the surface and the atmosphere is not very great, not only that, transfer of heat into gasses by radiation depends not only on temperature difference but the type of gas (all gasses absorb and emit some radiation) but the density is important also, more gas, more absorption and emission.

    Most heat gets into the atmosphere by evaporation from the sea, a lesser amount by convection over land and sea.

    Once in the atmosphere most heat is radiated into deep space by CO2 and H2O.

    Some heat is radiated directly from the surface into deep space via the 'windows' in the combined spectra of CO2 and H2O. All the heat leaving the planet goes by these 'radiation into deep space' processes, there is no other way!

    The temperature difference between the atmosphere of planet Earth and deep space is very large, about 200K and given that the heat tranfer is proportional to T^4 then radiation becomes very effective.
  39. Re #36 "Are you attempting to be funny?"

    Give the guy in #34 a break! Perhaps he is thinking of a candle in a deep freeze, you might find a candle in a deep freeze was too hard to get it lit!
  40. h-j-m, forget about the terminology, which is just confusing you. Here's what you originally wrote: "As incoming and outgoing radiation is (more or less) equally effected by the insulation it is quite hard to see how the result could be a warming of the earth. "

    But incoming and outgoing radiation are in completely different wavelength ranges. CO2 absorption affects one of these ranges, but not the other. Thus, your assumption that they must be "equally affected" is understandable but wrong.

    OK?
  41. damorbel - In regards to energy magnitudes of IR, evaporation, and convection, you are unfortunately incorrect. It's a common misconception, though.

    Please take a look at Trenberth 2009, "Earth's Global Energy Budget", in particular Figure 1. Surface IR runs at about 396 W/m^2, evaporation/latent heat at 80 W/m^2, thermals at 17 W/m^2, averaged over the globe. IR is the primary avenue of energy leaving the surface. Now, 333 W/m^2 comes back down from the atmosphere as backradiation, along with 161 W/m^2 from the sun, but given that all incoming energy becomes surface temperature, you can't just difference the IR flows.

    Currently the difference between incoming and outgoing is something like +0.9 W/m^2, hence the observed global warming.
  42. Ned, thanks, that sounds better.

    It is not the terminology that confuses me but your use of it.
    As I understand it infra-red is rather large radiation spectrum that then had been subdivided for more precise meaning (near infra-red and thermal infra-red being two of them).

    Of cause you are right, I should have written "If incoming and outgoing radiation is (more or less) equally effected by the insulation it is quite hard to see how the result could be a warming of the earth."

    But unfortunately so far I have not found any comment about the green house effect on incoming radiation.

    Sorry, but you are wrong, take a closer look a the solar spectrum diagrams and you will see there is an effect on incoming radiation as well for H2O and CO2. More prominent with H2O but it is there.
  43. h-j-h, see this Global Heat Flows" diagram.
  44. Can someone please remove post 43 and change the posting software so that the comment field returns blank after a post is submitted.
    Thanks.

    KR, I just saw your post stating:

    Currently the difference between incoming and outgoing is something like +0.9 W/m^2, hence the observed global warming.

    I don't know what the correct numbers would be, but don't you think that we might need some of that energy to drive the climate system (winds, ocean currents, rainfall etc.). A lot of chemical processes need energy. Last, but not least is the biosphere of this planet depending on energy. All these energies won't show up at outgoing radiation. I'm not sure but there might be even more to be added to that difference due to the entropy implied in thermodynamics.
  45. h-j-m writes: Ned, thanks, that sounds better.

    Thanks!

    It is not the terminology that confuses me but your use of it.
    As I understand it infra-red is rather large radiation spectrum that then had been subdivided for more precise meaning (near infra-red and thermal infra-red being two of them).


    Sorry, I work with this stuff every day in my job, so I may be a bit casual in how I talk about it.

    The term "infrared" is ambiguous, because it is used to refer to a very broad range of the EM spectrum ... but there are hugely important differences in the origins and behavior of "infrared" radiation within the Earth's atmosphere.

    You asked a very natural question -- if greenhouse gases warm the Earth by blocking outgoing (emitted) radiation, shouldn't they also correspondingly cool the Earth by blocking incoming (solar) radiation?

    The answer to that question is one of the key principles of the greenhouse effect: given the current composition of the atmosphere, adding greenhouse gases has little direct effect on the wavelengths that comprise 99% of the downwelling solar radiation (visible, near-infrared, and shortwave infrared ... i.e., everything below 3 micrometers). However, it does have a significant direct effect on the wavelength range that comprises > 99% of the outgoing emitted radiation from the Earth (longwave infrared).

    So, to first order, adding CO2 to the existing atmosphere directly reduces outgoing radiation but doesn't directly reduce incoming radiation. That produces the warming effect.

    Notice all those "directs" and "directlys" in there? That's because the indirect effects of greenhouse gases include some feedbacks (involving water vapor and changes to cloud-albedo) that do influence incoming short-wavelength irradiance. This is the largest source of uncertainty in IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity. But these feedbacks are secondary effects and are almost certainly not large enough to counter the effects of CO2 warming.

    See here for a discussion of water vapor and here for a comparison of the magnitude of different forcings such as CO2 vs clouds.
  46. In another comment, h-j-m also writes: A lot of chemical processes need energy. Last, but not least is the biosphere of this planet depending on energy. All these energies won't show up at outgoing radiation.

    Well, all the processes that you mention were occurring in the past, too. Unless there's some change that's caused the biosphere or the oceans or whatever to suddenly start storing more energy than they were able to do so before, you wouldn't expect this to have any effect on the observed energy balance of the planet.

    In any case, though, this isn't really relevant to the question of whether the greenhouse effect is somehow a violation of the second law of thermodynamics (it isn't) or of whether greenhouse gases must have the same effect on incoming and outgoing radiation (they don't).

    If some mysterious chemical or physical process were discovered to have soaked up a lot of additional energy within the climate system, it would just imply a larger planetary radiative imbalance. The observed warming of the surface and atmosphere would still be a concern ... and in fact we'd have to worry about what would happen if your mysterious process X ever stopped absorbing excess solar radiation.
  47. Damorbel wrote: "Energy can only flow from a high temperature place to a lower temperature place."

    Interesting.

    How exactly do you explain sunlight traveling from space (very cold) to the Earth (much warmer) in your world?

    As explained before, the greenhouse effect acts like insulation. Think of a house in winter. If you've got a heating system (the Sun) but no insulation (greenhouse gases) then the heat escapes quickly and the house (planet Earth) stays cold. If you add insulation then the heat can't escape as fast and the maximum temperature which the heating system can maintain increases even though the amount of heat it puts out hasn't changed. No violations of the laws of thermodynamics... just an every day phenomenon that we have all experienced.
  48. Damorbel wrote: "Energy can only flow from a high temperature place to a lower temperature place."

    One of my favorites. Ice is invisible to Damorbel.

    Damorbel, your post #38 suggests that you think the atmosphere is fairly uniform in temperature from surface to top. After all, no energy can move from a colder place to a hotter place. Yet instrumental observations show a cooling stratosphere and a warming troposphere. How does your physics account for this?
  49. Ugh - when I say "uniform in temperature," I mean it uniformly decreases in temp from bottom to top.
  50. When I started writing on this thread it was caused by the repulsive argument in it's lead article. It should be obvious that the main reason for any insulation to raise temperatures is due to an energy source within the insulation. Therefore the analogy is outright wrong. Which of cause leaves the lead article without any argument.

    Nevertheless the subject is somewhat fascinating and I started thinking about it a lot. Finally I had to come to the conclusion that greenhouse theory indeed violates the second law of thermodynamics.

    Now, here is why.

    My argument has two parts. The first part deals with infra-red radiation, heat with respect to the second law of thermodynamics. The second part rests on the assumption that the digram about global energy flows by Trenberth, K. E. and Kiehl, J. T. (at it's latest version on american meteorological society March 2009 page 4) reflects the greenhouse theory.

    Part 1.
    The second law of thermodynamics states (repeating the quote from the lead article) "Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature". Now, it should be obvious that this says nothing about directions. In essence it says that heat hitting a body that is as warm or warmer than the heat's source it can not heat up that body further.

    Further more, if heat hits a body at a lower temperature than it's source it will not be able to heat this body up to the exact temperature of it's source as this would constitute a perpetual motion machine which the laws of thermodynamics don't allow for.

    As infra-red radiation constitutes a form of heat transport the same rules have to apply here. So it needs a closer look at infra-red radiation and how it transfers heat. Now that's simple, it is absorbed by matter transferring all it's energy to it. If that higher energy level renders the absorbing matter unstable it gives the excess energy up by again emitting radiation.

    Part 2:
    Unless I screwed something horribly up in part 1 the conclusion is as follows:

    Due to the second law of thermodynamics infra-red radiation is bound to hit matter it can not transfer it's energy to. As it obviously cannot be destroyed there is but one alternative, it needs to be reflected.

    Now let us look at the mentioned diagram and look for the reflection of infra-red radiation.



    Sorry, I can't see any, All infra-red radiation except for the part heading to space gets absorbed and in consequence transfers energy. As for me, that clearly violates the second law of thermodynamics.

1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  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

TEXTBOOK

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

THE DEBUNKING HANDBOOK

BOOK NOW AVAILABLE

The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2014 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us