One of the very best presentations you have published to date. It may have been one of the longer ones, but I’m watching it again as there is so much great in-depth explanation and information on this topic and the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis. I love it that he mentioned that there is NO TRAPPING of heat by GHG’s (predominantly water vapor) there is only a slowing of the cooling rate. And the mention that the heating arrives at the speed of light from the sun and the outgoing heat is at the rate of convection. It has to be this way so we don’t freeze. This is one I’m saving and sharing with others! Thanks Tom 👍
@BertWald-wp9pz
3 ай бұрын
Simply the best talk on the subject I have seen. The climate realists show minds trying to understand the evidence. The warmists too often smugly trawl out the same high school lecture as if this should convince everyone when often it is not even clear how they think the simplified explanation should be enough. Governments need to fund scientist who challenge conventions.
@JohanThiart
3 ай бұрын
Interesting. This matches what we learned at school and explains the trends that we observe. The explanation of the warming theory matches school and uni science.😮
@edwardriffle29
3 ай бұрын
Best analysis of heat transfer in the atmosphere ever. Thanks so much to Tom and Tom and Markus for great insights.
@climatebell
3 ай бұрын
This is a beautiful in-depth presentation that explains many of the problems I found with the literature as I tried to mature my understanding of the greenhouse effect from first principles. It provides good insight into why the climate change industry's approaches are either wrong or computationally useless in determining how much the Earth's temperature increases from an increase in GHGs.
@andyg5059
3 ай бұрын
Hi Rodney, great that you have seen this presentation as well. I wondered if this information changes any of the basic physics behind your GHG Lab spreadsheet at all? It would be great to see what effect, if any, those changes might make. Please keep up the great work!
@stevecloutier9414
2 ай бұрын
Tom’s and Markus’s analyses are highly thought provoking and plausible and highlight the complexity of the climate system. We don’t always know what we think we know. Great work gents. I will review many times. A discussion between Tom , Markus , Richard Lindzen , Happer & Wijngaarden, Christie , Spencer would be valuable & fascinating.
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
Thanks for the great feedback. We agree wholeheartedly and could easily extend that list to many more of Tom Nelson’s guests.
@stevecloutier9414
2 ай бұрын
@@ThomasShula I agree Tom , the list could & should include many others. The climate system and atmospheric component does have to be analyzed as a whole. As Richard Lindzen has said , it would be magical thinking to believe that CO2 alone amongst the myriad variables represents the climate control knob. Current climate policies are having a profoundly negative effect on global citizens. Most natural feedbacks as you’ve stated tend towards being negative. Great work , great talk , I recognize that tremendous effort has gone into it and commend you.
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
Thanks again, Steve. Ultimately, it’s the sun and the hydrologic cycle that drives everything. Aside from the evidence supporting it, it just makes sense.
@GreggStocker
3 ай бұрын
Brilliant! As an engineer who has worked on heat transfer problems this work is a fantastic examination of the 'actual' mechanisms for heat transfer from the surface rather than assuming SB law is applicable to a body with an atmosphere (ie not a black body).
@climatebell
3 ай бұрын
Very true - he did an in-depth critique of some of the supposed physics around climate change. I never liked the emissive atmosphere models and attributing blackbody computations from gases. At best they were abstractions that didn't reflect reality. I agree with him on the release of photons from GHGs higher up in the atmosphere.
@hermandejong4309
3 ай бұрын
The thermalization 50.000 times more likely then re-emitting the photon for CO2 at normal P and T. And for H2O roughly the same. That really smashes the idea of re-emitting these IR bands. This is by far the best talk I've heard here here on Tom Nelson's channel.
@AndrewMair
3 ай бұрын
Thanks so much for producing this. As a graduate physicist, I've tried for years to get a mental model for how the GHE was supposed to work at a basic level. At last, here is an explanation that actually makes sense. I really hope that it enables better debates on the basic mechanisms.
@SmallWonda
3 ай бұрын
There you go - we can't make sense on the nonsensical - no matter how smart we are! But, as a religious zealot you believe without question!
@neilnewinger3059
3 ай бұрын
@@SmallWonda Unlike the other believers, who do not even want to allow any discussion on the topic?
@dadesway
3 ай бұрын
@@neilnewinger3059 Neil, Judging what SmallWonder wrote initially, I suspect he was trying to say "Religious zealots (generally) believe GHE without question."
@geoffdaniell814
3 ай бұрын
By far the most comprehensive summary of the scientific evidence against the current science of climatology I have ever come across! An exceptional work well done!
@stevecloutier9414
3 ай бұрын
I would love to see a review of this discussion by Happer & Van Wijngaarden.
@roblouw1344
3 ай бұрын
To Tom Shula (and Markus): Thanks for a good presentation. I met Markus in person last month and will be meeting with Will Happer in September. I think you are misunderstanding Happer's work. He is very much in agreement with your analysis. Why don't you guys speak to him? He is very appeoachable and is on the same side of the argument as you. If you would like me to ask him specific questions please let me know. I am a retired Chemical Engineer with a good understanding of climate physics.
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
Still awaiting communication from you.
@torbjornripstrand1103
2 ай бұрын
@@ThomasShulaHi Thomas. Great presentation! I would like to Ask some questions and would like to do that per Mail. Can You give me your mailadress? Best regards Torbjörn
@thegeneralist7527
3 ай бұрын
Excellent presentation. The "greenhouse effect" never made any sense to me, and now I understand why. It was not consistent with known physics or historical observation.
@whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
3 ай бұрын
It is refreshing every time I see someone discuss the actual thermodynamics of the atmosphere. How about this paper: "The Effects of Infrared Absorbing Gasses on Window Heat Transfer: A Comparison of Theory and Experiment" 1989 It was found experimentally, that when a gas is allowed to convect, IR emission entirely offsets IR absorption from IR active gases. In fact, SF6 (a strong IR absorber/emitter) is outperformed by air when the gap between window panes is wide enough for significant convection. Only when convection is blocked do IR active gases have a net positive warming effect. This is the case for the stratosphere and thermosphere - essentially the window panes of the Earth atmosphere. These two layers have a gross warming effect from IR emission back towards the surface but it is minuscule compared to the gross cooling effect from absorbing solar radiation. When these layers are disrupted, such as the case with the stratosphere from the Hunga Tonga eruption, increased overturning of the layer allows IR cooling of the stratosphere but also increased solar warming of the troposphere with an increase of UV light reaching the troposphere.
@garybryant3385
2 ай бұрын
There cannot be any back radiation you don't have a favorable temperature gradient for that, there is only one and that is from the surface out to space.
@vrc1998
3 ай бұрын
Very good. Thank you Tom.
@quoque
3 ай бұрын
Definitely this presentation has depth and a lot of physics to think about. Good work. I really hope this hypothesis get studied carefully by skeptics.
@petermortimer3976
2 ай бұрын
Thank you very much Tom and Markus for this very informative presentation, it's the best so far. It's making my head hurt even on the 2nd viewing. Many more folk need to digest and discuss this information.
@andyg5059
3 ай бұрын
Fantastic presentation Tom and Markus! Eventually the CO2 myth must collapse, surely?
@egregius9314
Ай бұрын
What I don't understand is why Shell and Chevron in their internal documents from the 70s were convinced that global warming is real. I thought they had some pretty smart guys there.
@leggomuhgreggo
3 ай бұрын
"property of condensed matter" YESSS! I have been waiting for a critique of GHG which identifies this massive oversight with the establishment model. Very good stuff.
@carldavid1558
3 ай бұрын
Thanks Tom and Markus. A marathon effort. I have watched and rewatched Markus’s last presentations many times and I found them very useful. But this adds a lot more detail. I would be very interested in hearing from previous guests and getting their opinion. Judith Curry, Willie Soon and Ian Plimer , just to name a few. Thanks again.
@rikardengblom6448
3 ай бұрын
Very good. Thanks.
@mplaw77
3 ай бұрын
The same understanding and calculations I have made since Tom's podcasts presented both ideas of you two independent researchers and Yong, of Yong Tutition. I read the papers by the two Wills, and many others that I could access free online. Another learning opportunity came from "Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory by Alan Siddons, Tim Ball, John O'Sullivan, and Hans Shreuder
@ThomasShula
3 ай бұрын
I was not aware of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” but since your comment I was able to peruse some of it online and read some reviews. If you think this is a repeat of the work in that book or of van Wijngaarden and Happer, I think you are not understanding the message. Our argument is quite different and based on well established measurements of the radiative behaviour of GHGs in mixture with N2 and O2.
@fabricetoussaint9809
2 ай бұрын
One question about thermalization. If I understand correctly, we should not detect IR in the relevant bandwidth 10 to 12 meters abode the earth surface. I suppose, this could be measured easily from a balloon or a glider at different altitudes. Do you have any data confirming this, and if not, why could anyone undertake that task ?
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
A great question. It is important to keep a couple of things in mind. 1. The 50,000:1 ratio of thermalization to spontaneous emission does not mean that the spontaneous emission rate is reduced to zero. 2. There is also non-radiative excitation/reverse thermalization going on simultaneously, and while most of those will be thermalized, there will be some limited spontaneous emission there as well. In both cases, the emissions will be in random directions and from the lower atmosphere it is unlikely any will escape to space. I would posit that one could point the spectrometer in most any direction and detect some level of emission. There are ongoing experiments of this nature and indeed they detect radiation. I responded to a similar question in the thread with richbalance8404, just prior to this one. If you read my first reply to him, I think it will answer most of your question. If you have follow up questions reply in this thread and we will carry on from there.
@lapoguslapogus7161
2 ай бұрын
Another brilliant presentation hosted by Tom. The missing link is apposite; thermalisation explains perfectly why CO2's effect is negligible. Living in Scotland, a country synonymous with water vapour, this is something I have always been sure about, without being able to fully understand the complex physics of how and why, until now anyway. Shula unravells this complexity very well. I very much share Shula's frustation of the situation we in the west are in now; many sceptics wasted thousands of hours (and years) on blogs arguing amongst themselves about whether climate sensitivity was 2.5, 2 or 1.5C, when common sense (and 500 million years of climate history) suggested these mathmatical estimates were inflated by an order of magnitude. I remember arguing with luke-warmers like Matt Ridley and others on Bishop Hill 15 years ago that CO2's GHE was insigificant, but with little success. Looking back at this now a good analogy would be the medieval Vatican's scientific dilemma on how many angels could fit on a pin head. I have taken some screenshots of some the key slides for posting on X. Keep up the good work.
@dadesway
3 ай бұрын
This is the most comprehensive and clear account of basic energy transport in the Earth's atmosphere. The previous presentation given by Tom Shula on this channel showed the importance of thermalisation at the Earth's surface using the Perani gauge as a model . . . but this presentation from Tom and Markus takes us on a complete journey from Earth's surface to Top of the Atmosphere. Equipped with the ideas presented, it would be a fascinating thought experiment to describe what might happen to the energy transfer dynamics if the atmosphere were completely 100% carbon dioxide. Just a thought.
@fredneecher1746
2 ай бұрын
Are you thinking of the Venus effect? I have long wondered how to respond to the "runaway greenhouse" assertion that is usually made.
@dadesway
2 ай бұрын
@@fredneecher1746 Yes and no, Fred. My understanding is that Venus' high temperature is due to the denser atmosphere . . . regardless of whether it was pure N2 O2 or CO2. Essentially, the higher the pressure, the higher temperature - like when you go up a mountain, the pressure becomes less and the temperature decreases. (Roughly applying the Ideal Gas Law PV=nRT) When I thought about Tom and Markus' description I realised that in a 100% CO2 atmosphere the 666cm-1 IR transmitted from the surface would be absorbed/thermalised in exactly the same way within a few metres, so it would be little different from the present situation on Venus, (and on Earth) It would be convection as the main energy transfer process. I suppose I was looking for ammunition to use against those who see Venus as an example of a runaway green house effect.
@audioworkshop1
3 ай бұрын
Agreed... One of the best Tom!
@RossCarter-u9g
Ай бұрын
After your presentation, I've looked for papers on GHE to see where the logic seems to break down. For example this paper acknowledges the collisions, but doesn't acknowledge thermalisation. "According to the equipartition principle, molecular collisions maintain an equilibrium distribution of molecules in higher vibrational and rotational states. Many molecules occupy those higher-energy states, so even though the lifetime of the excited states is long, over a moderately small stretch of time a large number of molecules will decay by emitting photons. If that radiation escapes without being reabsorbed, the higher-energy states are depopulated and the system is thrown out of thermodynamic equilibrium. Molecular collisions repopulate the states and establish a new thermodynamic equilibrium at a slightly cooler temperature. That is how thermal emission of radiation cools matter in the LTE limit." - Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, 2011. BTW gliding is an easy way to appreciate the energy of convection.
@ThomasShula
Ай бұрын
You would find some kinship with Markus Ott who is an avid hang glider. I have yet to find a text on radiative transfer theory that discussed the non-radiative excitation and de-excitation processes and the impact on the actual dynamics of heat transport. In reading your excerpt from Pierrehumbert, I would argue that this explains quite well one of the reasons why LTE does not apply in the troposphere. LTE is not necessary for energy transport, but it is necessary for radiative transport theory which is dependent on the application of Kirchhoff’s law to apply. The “workarounds” for this always try to explain them away to get back to LTE. Van Wijngaarden and Happer used the descriptor “quasi-diffusional transport of radiation energy in opaque spectral regions” as an example. The root of the greenhouse effect is intrinsic in the simplistic one-dimensional “equilibrium” models that are used to describe the energy transport using radiative transport theory. This began with Arrhenius. The models assume constant irradiation 24 hr/day with no diurnal cooling cycle, as well as other non-physical (but “reasonable sounding”) assumptions. In the case of Arrhenius and later Manabe, the models led to a “radiative imbalance” at the TOA. Their answer to this was that in order to restore “radiative balance”, the temperature of the surface must increase. This is how the “greenhouse effect” was born.
@plumbthumbs9584
3 ай бұрын
Great lecture!
@HomeCinemaJunkie
2 ай бұрын
Epic presentationen - goose bump material.👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
@rikardengblom6448
3 ай бұрын
Many thanks for a great presentation about the energy flow. I have been thinking how to "undress" the climate alarmism with simple thought examples to make people think if it is reasonable that human activity can cause climate change. I googled up some numbers. The Sun´s total energy emitted to Earth´s athmoshere last year was approx 5 500 000 000 000 terajoules. Human activity comsumed approx 310 000 000 terajoules last year. Humany activity is then approx 0,00564% of the energy from the Sun. I haven´t taken in the albedo of the Eart which immediately radiates back approx 30% of the Sun´s energy. If we take away the albedo effect then human activity is approx 0,00801%. The question to ask is; What does common sense tells you? Can human activity alter the climate with 0,00801% energy influence? The people screaming about the CO2 emitted by humans and that it must have a positive feedback to the energy balance. Well, we have 0,04% CO2 in the atmosphere. 97% comes from nature itself. What does common sense tells you? Can human activity of approx 0,0012% (3% of 0,04%) alter the climate? Please challenge my simple calculations if you find them incorrect.
@Pablo-4t
2 ай бұрын
@ThomasShula…Roy Spencer wrote in his book ‘Climate Confusion’…”Even most meteorologists don’t realise…the existence of our weather depends on the greenhouse effect”. You brilliantly clarify how this works with CO2. But as convection mostly stops at night, even as the surface continues to radiate in the dark, could it be that direct absorption of sunlight by water vapour and it’s thermalisation is the main driver of convection?
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
To clarify, while we used CO2 as the “example” regarding thermalization, the same its true for all of the so-called “greenhouse gases.” Water vapor in particular is much more abundant than CO2 and it is also absorbing surface radiation and being thermalized. It may surprise you, but convection does continue at night over most places, albeit at a reduced rate. Water vapor does not absorb efficiently in the visible range, but liquid water does and sunlight will cause heating and evaporation at the surface. Water is the most important.
@nelsonvaliant1776
3 ай бұрын
Thanks for that enlightening presentation. I cannot believe how many Universities people, engineering organisations and government people are so indoctrinated with the current retoric. Can they not think and look at the logic. We have coral reefs that rise metres above sea level, what if we went back to before the formation of coal fields and just before the formation of plants that made the coal. What would the CO2 level be then, such a good start to a greening planet. What has sequested the large volumes of CO2? Consider large volumes of sealife requiring calciun carbonate shells, still ongoing. Shaking my head, on the day that NZ announced a climate crisis I was working in sight of a railway line and saw a trainload of Indonesian coal on its way to a thermal power station. Cheers
@christophergame7977
2 ай бұрын
It is true that water vapour and convective circulation are the great vehicles of atmospheric energy transport. But radiative transfer calculations should not be dismissed altogether. Radiative transfer occurs throughout the atmosphere.
@user-cl9uo1eq6q
2 ай бұрын
Tom Shula, very interesting talk. Could you clarify what process you are describing as "irreversible at 19:00? Presumably not thermalisation itself, since thermally excited emission is (as you note) "reverse thermalisation".
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
Regarding irreversibility, there is a difference between the existence of a reciprocal process (thermalization vs thermal excitation, for example) and irreversibility. In the context of this work, when the surface radiation is absorbed and thermalized converting it to sensible heat, the memory of the original radiation field is destroyed. Heat is the lowest form of energy and cannot be converted into another form of energy, radiation for example, without performing work. When the concentration of an IR active species at altitude is low enough that the photon generated by thermally excited emission can escape to space, the “work” of that collision has been converted into radiation and the energy escapes to space, resulting in cooling. If the photon were reabsorbed, there would be no net “work.”
@user-cl9uo1eq6q
2 ай бұрын
@@ThomasShula Thanks for your reply, much appreciated. I'm not clear what you mean by the "memory of the original radiation field" or its relevance to this model. My understanding is that heat exists in effectively 3 forms in this model (i) IR photons (radiation), (ii) bending vibration of CO2, and (iii) velocity of non-GHG molecules. These forms can transfer energy to each other with CO2 vibration acting as the intermediate state between IR photons and hot (i.e. fast) non-GHG molecules. The existence of the thermalisation pathway is key to you model as it provides "quenching" of excited CO2, but the reverse/reciprocal process is equally crucial since CO2 molecules need to be (re)excited at higher altitudes so that they can emit IR photons out into space. As long as these transfers happen freely in both directions, I'm not sure what "memory of the radiation field" implies. What I'm still unclear on is how this proposed mechanism eliminates "back radiation". The decay time of excited CO2 is not fixed but distributed probabilistically, so some will re-emit IR photons before they are thermalised/quenched, roughly half of which will be emitted downwards. The reciprocal process of thermally excited emission/reverse thermalisation will (re)excite CO2 molecules many times at low atmospheric levels (as you note, more than at high atmospheric levels because of the higher temperature) and each time there will be the possibility that the CO2 molecule will not be quenched, but will emit an IR photon. These IR photons, if they reach the earth/oceans will warm them, and the more CO2 there is, the more warming will occur.
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
I posted a more complete reply in the other comment thread where you posted a similar question, so I only left a partial response relevant to the irreversibility question here. Loss of memory has to do with the change of state. When the excited molecule is thermalized, there is no way to go back. Thermalization takes the quantized energy of the excited state and redistributes it as sensible heat in the pool of gas molecules. One cannot take that distributed heat and put it back together. If you drop a glass and break it, there is no natural process to make the pieces come back together. Here’s the full post from the other thread. My earlier comments regarding downwelling/“back radiation” are in the context of the radiative transfer models based on Schwarzschild’s seminal work of 1906. In this model, which is the basis of the GHE, there is a directed downward radiation field that is the result of “symmetric” absorption/emission of photons in the vertical atmospheric column. There will soon be a short video presentation from Markus Ott released on the Tom Nelson Channel explaining this in great detail from a thermodynamic perspective. The observed downwelling component of radiation is not the result of radiative transfer. As you pointed out, the competing processes of thermalization/thermally excited emission result in radiative emissions throughout the atmosphere. When looking up with the detector, we see the downwelling component of this. In a typical DLR spectrum one observes the expected wide band of emission from rotational states of H2O, and CO2 in saturation. The CO2 is in saturation because in addition to thermally excited emission and absorption of the surface thermal emissions, the CO2 band is also driven by absorption of photons from water vapor emission. From CO2 then, we see spontaneous emission from the states excited by H2O emission in addition to the emission from thermal excitation and the surface. There is additional emission by H2O at higher wave numbers, also driven by thermal excitation and possibly surface radiation. At the surface in most places, the H2O concentration far exceeds the CO2 concentration. Digressing for a moment, the comparison between the DLR spectrum and the OLR spectrum illustrates why the emphasis on CO2 is misplaced. I explained above how CO2 emission is saturated in the DLR spectrum. The same phenomenon explains the “notch” around the CO2 Q-branch in the OLR spectrum. In the upper troposphere, CO2 is also absorbing H2O emissions, but the concentration of H2O is much lower and cannot saturate CO2 so we see CO2 in absorption until we reach the mesopause where we see the tiny CO2 peak in emission at 667/cm. The peak of the H2O emission band overlaps the CO2 Q-branch. The observed absorption/emission behavior of CO2 is mostly driven by the emissions from H2O. H2O is the most important “greenhouse gas”. Based on observations, this downwelling component is significant, to be sure. However, (and I’ve not performed the spectral integration) I do not believe it is adequate to be the 84% of upwelling flux outside the atmospheric window that is shown in the K&T flux diagrams as predicted by the radiative transfer models. There is a bit of a “chicken and egg” dilemma that I’ve honestly not resolved in my own mind. That is, because the DLR is created by continuous non-radiative processes, is that energy from DLR that is absorbed by the surface already “cooked” into the surface temperature or does it need to be treated as a separate component? It may be a moot point as we have shown the energy transport between the surface and the upper troposphere is ultimately driven by convection. It’s also important to keep in mind that because of the strong absorption of CO2 and H2O, the DLR detected near the surface is all generated within a very short distance of the detector. This, again, is in contrast to the radiative transfer model. The primary effect of increasing concentrations of CO2 or H2O would have the effect of lowering the altitude where the process of thermalization of the surface thermal radiation is complete. The process for driving DLR is thermal excitation. That the radiation distribution has a Planckian characteristic is related to the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of velocities. Einstein alluded to this at the beginning of his 1917 paper “The Quantum Theory of Radiation”, and it was noted by Wien in his work on radiation theory. Regarding irreversibility, there is a difference between the existence of a reciprocal process (thermalization vs thermal excitation, for example) and irreversibility. In the context of this work, when the surface radiation is absorbed and thermalized converting it to sensible heat, the memory of the original radiation field is destroyed. Heat is the lowest form of energy and cannot be converted into another form of energy, radiation for example, without performing work. When the concentration of an IR active species at altitude is low enough that the photon generated by thermally excited emission can escape to space, the “work” of that collision has been converted into radiation and the energy escapes to space, resulting in cooling. If the photon were reabsorbed, there would be no net “work.”
@andyg6086
3 ай бұрын
oops .. I got the link to video from a comment on WUWT ! Hopefully Anthony will make a major post on it soon
@andyg6086
3 ай бұрын
Great talk :-)
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
Thank you to all for the many thoughtful comments in this thread, both past and future relative to this one. The theory of the greenhouse effect is very seductive. It is a MODEL, and it has become the de facto model via radiative transfer THEORY to describe how some believe heat is transported from the surface to space via the atmosphere. The earth system does what it does, and nothing can change that process. The only thing that can change is our perspective. We have simply put forward a different model that describes what that process is. It does not require “radiative transport”, which we have shown is not possible in the lower atmosphere. It’s all based on solid physics, there’s nothing “kooky” about it. It seems that on both sides, for a variety of reasons, few are willing to let go of the GHE. Some refuse to even look at the work. It is our hope that we can find a few in the skeptic community who will be willing to have a conversation so the we can get out of this rut we are in. If anyone can help facilitate those connections, it would be greatly appreciated.
@jacobh2714
3 ай бұрын
Thanks for this great and comprehensive presentation! I am afraid however that the level of detail is beyond the comprehension of our decision makers, who mostly lack the proper scientific education. Perhaps the presentation needs a "translation" to make it more accessible to laymen, and laywomen obviously.
@leomulcahy6483
3 ай бұрын
Agree. A lay translation would be very helpful. The original is excellent but a bit daunting.
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
Thanks for the feedback and your point is well taken. At this stage it’s necessary to go into great detail to convince those that can understand the physics. Trying to anticipate and address all of the potential objections. You would be amazed how many “skeptics” think the GHE is real. I am working on a condensed version that will try to counteract the “blanket over our planet” narrative with something more realistic, and focusing on the fact that CO2 is actually the source of abundance on the Earth.
@grahammerritt1329
24 күн бұрын
I enjoyed this presentation. For me it stands alongside Javier Vinos' work. Surface radiation to atmosphere > thermalisation > atmosphere convection and heat transport > dethermalisation > atmospheric radiation to space is a nice summary. I found the discussion of "modeled output OLR spectrum" from 58minutes difficult to follow. It seems to rely on the balance of (or lack of balance of) processes at different altitudes. I have to think about this graph alongside the early one showing convection "The response of the system will only change if the input to the system changes" - Vinos' book is about how the system response change is one of heat transport variation and it needs to include convection and heat transport as well as allowing for transport mode changes. With those mode changes modelling appears pointless l. "Water vapour as the primary conduit for shedding water to space" - how does this statement resolve with the fact that it is the polar regions that have net energy outflow from the planet and these regions have very, very dry atmosphere? The importance of convection (heat transport) stands out and this links nicely to Javier Vinos "solving the climate puzzle" addressing the variations in heat transport around the planet
@JA-ds2cc
3 ай бұрын
Elon Musk recently endorsing a carbon tax needs to see this presentation but I reckon he is compromised as EV salesman with taxpayer subsides as he could understand this excellent presentation as an engineer like I am. This was long but worth every minute to watch. Thank you!
@willfarnaby1962
2 ай бұрын
Tom Shula, I'm just wondering if there are specific reference that you could point out that discuss the emission behavior of gases and that specifically supports your argument regarding the distinction between spontaneous and stimulated emission, and thermal radiation? Your presentation and paper has prompted a lot of reading and reflection for me over the past few weeks, trying to better understand how the orthodox account of thermal radiation by earth's atmosphere came to be adopted. This approach is consistent with the way that thermal radiation from gases is dealt with in engineering contexts with which I'm familiar. I had wondered if in following up on this, I might find that my understanding was just out of date and that this view had been superseded since I got my relevant grounding. So far though, I haven't been able to find a source indicating that there has been a paradigm update in this area for engineering heat transfer applications. In fact, as far as I can tell, at least for the general type of industrial applications I'm most familiar with (inc. combustion process, pyrometallurgy, related gas handling), it looks like thermal radiation from gases assuming blackbody behavior remains the default assumption. In looking further into the treatment of thermal radiation from gases in the context of earth energy balance and climate, one source that I spent some time with was this 2011 article from Pierrehumbert: pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-abstract/1401/1/232/847642/Infrared-Radiation-and-Planetary-Temperature?redirectedFrom=fulltext (pdf available here: geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf). A couple of things stood out, and prompted my question above. First, the opening lines read: "In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22 × 1017 joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earth’s temperature to nearly 800,000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it." I think this illustrates pretty well how vulnerable "expert thinking" can be to entertaining physically irrelevant mental models, even if just for making a point. It's an obviously silly illustration, given radiative heat transfer would stop at a small fraction of this temperature, even if it was agreed there was pedagogical merit in the "zero heat rejection" thought experiment. Of more direct relevance for my question though, the article's closing section opens with the following, and then closes with the subsequent quote below: "The foundations of radiative transfer were laid by some of the greatest physicists of the 19th and 20th centuries-Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius, Kirchhoff, Ludwig Boltzmann, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Schwarzschild, Arthur Eddington, Milne, and Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar-plus many more whose names are not well known, even among physicists, but probably deserve to be." "There are indeed uncertainties in the magnitude and impact of anthropogenic global warming, but the basic radiative physics of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect is unassailable." From what I have been able to find to date, the case for treating emissions from earth's atmosphere as blackbody thermal radiation does seem to rely (to a great extent, if not entirely) on such appeals to authority. Believe me, I would be very happy to be proven wrong on this, given the implications. At the same time though, I haven't yet found a source that could be held up as a kind of "counter appeal to authority" in support of the case you make. If there are publications available from physicists of similar standing to the list above, or at least a publication track record that would be hard to dismiss, it might help a lot with getting more traction on this issue.
@ThomasShula
Ай бұрын
I understand your confusion and concern on this issue. First, I don't think you need to worry about whether or not the engineering work you do is "compromised" in any way. The issue at hand is subtle, but complex. I have had communications with a few who are involved in the "skeptic" community that insist on sticking with the radiation transfer model. They recognize that the non-radiative processes we describe in our models are taking place in the atmosphere. The radiative transfer models are able to produce a TOA spectrum that is consistent with observations. This is because they assume a Plank distribution of radiation in the troposphere. That works because the thermally excited emission of GHGs is produced by air molecules that have a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of velocities. In a paper from Einstein in 1919, he discusses the relationship between the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecular velocities and the Planck radiation distribution. He shows that in the limit of long wavelengths the excitation will result in radiation emissions that are very similar to the Planck distribution. However, the mainstream assumes that the emission is spontaneous and follows Kirchhoff's law of radiation. In one paper from van Wijngaarden and Happer they describe it as "quasi-diffusional transport of thermal radiation in opaque spectral regions." Think about that for a minute. How do you "transport" radiation in an "opaque spectral region"? The reason it is a subtle issue is because they can produce the TOA spectrum with their method, but the spectrum tells you nothing about the underlying mechanism. The mechanism is of utmost importance because their method is consistent with the GHE. Our model shows that the GHE cannot exist. There is no "general " reference I can offer you regarding the non-radiative processes in our model. For CO2, CH4, and N2O the references we cite from Siddles et al are most current. The search engines seem to avoid the topic in reference to the Earth's atmosphere. Most deal with astronomical applications or high temperatures. There is one source that explains the mechanism in the atmosphere reasonably well, though they get a bit of it wrong because there is a 20:1 difference in rate constants and they claim that the number of thermalizations/excitations are equal, but they are not. In the end they get right that about 5% of CO2 molecules are emitting at any time in the lower atmosphere. They also don't mention that between the surface and the top of the atmosphere these processes do not result in any net energy transport. Like others, convection is swept under the rug. Convection is THE process that transports the excited gas pool to the emission altitude. The link is here: geoexpro.com/recent-advances-in-climate-change-research-part-ix-how-carbon-dioxide-emits-ir-photons/ As I said before, this is not particularly relevant to high temperature engineering applications where there is significant radiative flux as you might deal with in your work. There, the radiative models that are used will continue to work just fine. It is at terrestrial temperatures involving relatively low energy processes, and particularly the so-called GHE that the "devil is in the details" so to speak. Markus and I are working on another presentation that will discuss some of this in detail and it should be up on Tom Nelson's channel within 7-14 days. If you have nor watched Markus' most recent video, it is a good precursor to that. I hope this has been helpful. As always, I encourage you to continue the exchange if you have further questions.
@e.swanson7769
Ай бұрын
@@ThomasShula Since you have already concluded that I've blindingly accepted the AGW consensus, I expect no reply from this post. But, your parroting of Markus Ott's claim that: "Because thermalization converts the radiation field from the surface to sensible heat, the energy for a downwelling radiation field is no longer available and the “back radiation is impossible" doesn't appear to work, as there are numerous measurements of downward CO2 emissions at the surface. You further claim that these emissions are the result of the excitation of CO2 molecules by the H2O molecules in the mix. As a skeptic, I find your claim to be dubious, as ground level measurements with spectrometers do show downward emissions from the 15 micron CO2 bands from the atmospheric layer above. I would expect that there' are likely to be other research with such instruments which would prove you wrong as well. That work is probably buried in reports published 40 to 50 years ago, which you may not be aware of. And, I have a copy of the book you referenced, "Atmospheric Radiation" by Goody and Yung, 1989 that I bought on eBay several years ago after the library at Harvard dumped it. FYI, there's a newer version, published in 1995. There are other tests available from Amazon, including those by Grant Petty (2006) and Craig Bohren (2006). You need to do your homework, instead of relying on blog posts, IMHO. But, I submit that your claims should be almost trivially easy to test. Just measure the spectral emissions of air at constant temperature with various levels of absolute humidity, including zero H2O. But, you are plowing ahead, like a puppy with a new chew toy to tear apart. However, your rush to spread your message smacks of a politically motivated disinformation campaign, instead of a carefully thought out scientific effort to find the truth of the situation.
@ThomasShula
Ай бұрын
@@e.swanson7769 You appear to be repeating the same claims regarding my position that are incorrect. I have explained that the downwelling radiation that we refer to in the work referred to a downwelling radiation field that is an artifact of the radiative transfer model. I have explained that the measured downwelling radiation is the downwelling component of a random radiation field that is produced by the thermally excited emission of “GHG” molecules in the lowest 10 meters or so of the atmosphere. I have provided for you links to actual measured spectra of the IR detected by an upward looking spectrometer at both the Arctic and Antarctic, and explained why they are different based on the different climatic conditions at the opposing poles. Your motivation appears to be something different than understanding, which by no means requires your agreement.
@e.swanson7769
Ай бұрын
@@ThomasShula Your reply misses the fact that the atmosphere should be considered as more than just one layer at the surface. That's because your "downwelling component of a random radiation field that is produced by the thermally excited emission of “GHG” molecules in the lowest 10 meters or so of the atmosphere" also results in similar upward emissions from that layer. Each layer above, if it's thick enough, will absorb the emissions from the layer below and the layer above, both of which would be intercepted by GHG molecules within the layer. Then, the excited molecules are "quenched" by collisions with the surrounding gasses. The atmosphere isn't one monolithic layer, but is best thought as multiple layers with decreasing temperature and pressure as one progresses to higher elevations. The layer-by-layer IR absorption and emissions result in moving thermal energy from lower to higher levels in parallel with the slower upward motion of convection. Your video and paper claimed this is impossible as you wrote: (p 11) “...“back radiation” from the upper atmosphere down to the Earth's surface is not possible since thermalization in the dense lower atmosphere acts as a “check valve” (for the GHG-frequencies) “. The measured downward emissions at the surface (which you now appear to accept) do obviously occur and the result called The Greenhouse Effect.
@ThomasShula
Ай бұрын
@@e.swanson7769That is what the radiative transfer models say. The DLR in those models is a mathematical artifact. The “downwelling radiation” we measure is the earthward directed component of a “photon gas” generated by collisional excitation of GHG molecules which has zero net energy flow. You are entitled to your belief. The process you described does not actually happen in the atmosphere. We explained that in our work. If you can refute our work without having to invoke that GHE as you describe it, provide an argument. Otherwise, we will have to agree to disagree.
@andyl147
2 ай бұрын
I have watched and studied the contents of this talk over and over again. I find it far and away the most convincing analysis of what is happening with our climate and the role of the so called GH gases. I find it so frustrating that there seems to be very little interest from anyone, let alone the scientific community and media about these issues. Other sceptical scientists seem to be working in there own silos on their own theories/projects and don't seem to be aware of other ideas, or at least tend to dismiss them. I mean you mention Happer and Wijngaarden's work here, then there is Shaviv and Svensmark with their cosmic ray work. Both parties tend to accept the basic premise of back radiation and GHE, they just dispute the major drivers of temp change and the magnitude of it. I work full time yet still find time to research everything I can on ALL ideas relating to GHE nearly every day. I am aware of most arguments and theories on both sides of the divide. I have a science background so I can follow most of the arguments, I'm just not at a high enough level to draw my own theories with any confidence. Why can't sceptical scientists have a dialogue between themselves and their ideas? Do they feel 'protective' of their own theories and not want to think they may be wrong? Or perhaps they do keep an eye out on other work but don't take the time to communicate why they think it is incorrect. I would love to see an open discussion between the likes of Happer/Wijngaarden, Shaviv/Svensmark, Soon/Connellys and you and Marcus so that all arguments and counters are aired. I think the work of Salby and Harde raises lots of questions which remain unanswered, I'm not convinced by the rebuttals I've seen. Until a common united rebuttal of why the GHE and global boiling is nonsense then the narrative will continue to have an easy ride. The forces opposing disaster are divided. If I hear one more so called climate sceptic say there is no denying the greenhouse effect but its effect is not too bad and dealing with it is too costly, I will scream.
@ThomasShula
Ай бұрын
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I share your frustration, and you have enumerated the issues well. With respect to the GHE in particular, I think the "cancel culture" discourages anyone who has a vested interest in participating in the conversation is afraid to challenge it. It has become a secular religion. The other problem is what the aftermath will be when the GHE is shown to be false.
@fredneecher1746
2 ай бұрын
If I've got this right, the CO2 is essential for getting the air itself to warm up via thermalisation, since without it the IR radiation would just go straight through and out into space. Thermalisation leads to the slow process of convection, and the slowness of this slows down the passage of thermal energy to space and so causes warming to occur in the troposphere that otherwise would by at -18C. Is that about right?
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
Yes, with the exception that the -18C is a hypothetical based on some flawed assumptions that couldn’t possibly occur on a planet that has a surface covered mostly with water. Also, it’s not just CO2. Water vapor is the biggest player because it’s the most abundant “GHG”. There is also heat transfer by conduction at the surface. You might consider watching Part 3 again. Apologies for the repeated edits to my reply, I felt my initial response was incomplete.
@fredneecher1746
2 ай бұрын
@@ThomasShula Thanks, Tom, I will.
@RossCarter-u9g
Ай бұрын
Your model provides the physical explanation for the quasi-adiabatic energy dissipation in the troposphere defined in the just published Ned Nikolov and Karl F. Zeller paper "Roles of Earth’s Albedo Variations and Top-of-the-Atmosphere Energy Imbalance in Recent Warming: New Insights from Satellite and Surface Observations" For me this, along with the calculation by Markus of the ~15 degree earth temperature with zero atmosphere provides a rather complete earth energy balance model. I was wondering whether it is possible to mathematically link the sensible heat quantities to the radiation fluxes measured at the TOA?
@brianmcdonald-xh7jl
3 ай бұрын
excellent - does this explain why climate models over estimate observed the tropospheric warming by a factor of x3. Is there an estimate sensitivity of the negative feedback and determine a more accurate ECS that may align with the observed warming in the troposphere?
@ThomasShula
3 ай бұрын
The climate models overestimate the warming because that is what they are designed to do. (sarcasm, but true). The “ECS”, which is a made up quantity based on the radiative transfer/forcing models, would be less than or equal to zero. So-called GHGs facilitate cooling, not hinder it. The negative feedback is best illustrated the graph from the Koll and Cronin paper which shows a linear relationship of OLR to near surface temperature from around 220-340K.
@andyg5059
3 ай бұрын
The IPCC's insistence on the sum of ther climate feedbacks being positive was always a glaring error for me. How could the climate have been so stable for literally billions of years without a net negative feedback?
@garybryant3385
2 ай бұрын
@@ThomasShula I found it interesting using Stefan's law to calculate the temperature of all the planets and our moon and how close the temperature were, including earth and Venus this is not allowing for atmosphere, its seems you dont need too, if you use the earth energy budget calc they have added Albedo to pre compensate for the atmosphere, this halves the emissivity and thus gives a colder temperature that then must be assumed to need GHG too bring the temperature back to normal, its fraud.
@martinleigh1960
2 ай бұрын
The concern for science’s future reputation has worried me for a while. When the world’s people wake up to being hoodwinked, i am afraid of the consequences
@eutectoid1
3 ай бұрын
Tom Shula for president!!! But does he deserve such a horrible thing? Excellent presentation.
@RossCarter-u9g
Ай бұрын
Have you seen the 2014 papers by Connolly and Connolly using an analysis of weather balloons to prove that the atmosphere is not in local thermal equilibrium (hence disproving the GHE hypothesis), and that the temperature distribution is completely independent of green house gas concentrations.
@ThomasShula
Ай бұрын
Yes, and as with almost all work that challenges the narrative they are, sadly, ignored.
@barrywilliams991
3 ай бұрын
I am not a scientist but I have the mindset of a scientist. I am certainly not a mathematician. I am not a skeptic that believes the planet is not warming. I am, however, capable of understanding human nature and evaluating the motivations of humans. I am also able to listen to well argued points of conjecture, examine fairly complex concepts and understand how things work. I am moderately above average intelligence and very curious and I think that gives me an edge when it comes to being analytical. I have watched this global warming lie for at least 2 decades and I was skeptical from the beginning. It always seemed to me that there were problems with the concept. Over the years of listening to clear explanations about the subject of global warming, I started to see the fallacies, false premises and misuse of science surrounding the whole conjecture. After watching this lecture which, by the way, lays out complex science in a very tractable manner, I am more certain than ever that "the science" is wrong. One thing I know from being a computer programmer is that I can make a computer program deliver any result. I once wrote a program that had the sun rising in the west and setting in the east. I had made an error that caused the sign of one variable to be flipped. I'm 71 and I don't expect to get much older. Frankly, I expected to be dead by now. I have made it my mission to get just one young person to change their mind about anthropogenic global warming. I've talked a lot about the subject but I don't know if I've accomplished that goal. Maybe one day before I die I'll point out one fact, recommend one lecture or effectively argue one point of conjecture that will make another person have an immediate epiphany that causes the veil to lift and allows them to see the truth. I have seen many presentations on Tom's channel and this one ranks among the best. Thank you Tom for all of your efforts.
@hermandejong4309
3 ай бұрын
I,m 72 and getting better all the time since I changed to a ketogenic diet 9 years ago. Take a look at MD Anthony Chaffee's channel.
@kjellamundsen1463
3 күн бұрын
Hi. Excellent presentation on CO2 and atmosphere. May I suggest Tom and Markus contact Joe Rogan podcast for a chat with him? Or even Jordan Peterson. It would be great! @joerogan
@kevinhachton9649
3 ай бұрын
Very interesting presentation. Have you measured the downwelling IR radiation spectrum and does it back your theory ?
@ThomasShula
3 ай бұрын
There is no downwelling IR to measure. It is a fictitious artifact of the radiative transfer models. This is explained in detail in Parts 1 and 2, and repeated in different forms throughout the presentation.
@kevinhachton9649
3 ай бұрын
Hello @@ThomasShulaand thank you for your answer. As an engineer with a background in statistical physics, quantum mechanics and thermodinamics I understand your point but as you said, science is all about confirming a theory with experimentation and measurements. With this in mind, I found some measured downward fluxes in "Radiation in the Atmosphere" (Kondratiev 1969) p.618 : their conclusion is that except in the transparency region, the measured downward fluxes is not negligible (actually it differ little from the blackbody radiation at the surface air temperature). This IS NOT in agreement with the lack of backradiation from active gases in the IR spectrum.
@maxberan3897
3 ай бұрын
@@ThomasShula What then is being measured by upward pointing radiometers such as at Zuhspitze? The spectra certainly resemble those you showed from vWH.
@ThomasShula
3 ай бұрын
@@maxberan3897 That’s a very good question. I’ve been to Zugspitze (though many years ago) and Markus and I have discussed that particular case at some length. They are measuring down welling radiation at the surface, but we need to remember that the surface there is at an altitude ok 3 kilometers. At that altitude most of the water vapor has condensed and you are seeing thermally excited emission from water vapor. Remember that the thermally excited emission will be distributed in random directions so that nominally half of the emission will be directed upward and half downward. If I remember the spectrum correctly, you can also see that some of it is absorbed by CO2. Does that answer your question?
@christophergame7977
2 ай бұрын
@@ThomasShula It doesn't show that maxberan3897 is mistaken. maxberan3897 is right: back radiation is real and substantial.
@Nuts-Bolts
3 ай бұрын
Less than 5 mins in and I have a question. At 4:51 he speaks of spontaneous emissions, so at 3:23 did he mean Gases do not emit *black* *body* thermal radiation? If not, what has the COBE satellite been measuring?
@ThomasShula
3 ай бұрын
Gases do not emit thermal radiation. The COBE satellite was designed to measure the postulated Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation that was created when the Big Bang occurred. According to the theory, that was before matter as we know it existed. It was not emitted by gases.
@andyg5059
3 ай бұрын
I think he must have meant that, since presumably all gases above 0 K will emit according to their emission spectra? I.e. even at very low temperatures there is a finite probability that collisions will excite a molecule and cause it to emit according to the emission mechanism (e.g. 15 um for CO2) even if the amount of energy emitted is very low (very few 15 um photons).
@garybryant3385
3 ай бұрын
Yes I was a bit stunned by that statement too,My understanding was that C02 was visible to infrared and would absorb and radiate at the same frequency.
@hermandejong4309
3 ай бұрын
A black body is a theoretical object. Even the Sun can be seen as a black body although it has lots of absorption lines and it is not one temperature. So if collisions or other forces between atoms or ions become more frequent and changes the energy faster then it can emit or absorb photons it behaves more like the theoretical black body.
@scottjones6921
3 ай бұрын
A gas cannot re-emit radiation of it has already lost that energy through collisions with other gases.
@Avianthro
3 ай бұрын
This is excellent work! An effort to apply science correctly and a much fuller recognition of the complexity of this phenomenon. It seems to me, however, that an even more complete look at the earth-atmosphere system should be pursued...one that does not start at the surface but rather at the upper limits of the atmosphere. What happens to insolation as it passes downward through the atmosphere is of course the critical input-precursor to what happens at the surface. and afterwards, and must not be neglected...What is a greater concentration of CO2 doing to incoming radiation? We know that CO2 is absorbing and then re-emitting some wavelengths more than others and so, is it not probable that greater amounts of CO2 may therefore actually be decreasing the total amount of radiation at the earth's surface. Next also, what about the thermal energy we release as waste heat from fuel (fossil and biomass) combustion and nuclear power plants? That seems to have received very little attention in research so far, and is likely to be a significant part of what's happening at the surface too.
@egregius9314
Ай бұрын
I don't get it. Why do you write/say: "Thermal Radiation is a property of *condensed matter* , i.e., solids and liquids. Gases do *not* emit thermal radiation." If gasses didn't have thermal radiation, we couldn't measure the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, or see someone's warm breath on an infrared camera. Every bit of scholarly text I can find says gasses have thermal radiation, like other forms of matter. Are you thinking of nonradiative decay using phonons instead, by any chance? Because that involves only condensed matter.
@Netsroht72
Ай бұрын
Do you have a infrared camera and see that yourself? If i Google for pictures, i cant find a single Photo of that. Even the much hotter Exaust-Gases of a Car cant be seen.
@ThomasShula
Ай бұрын
In simplest terms, the radiation generated by so-called GHGs in the atmosphere is driven by collisions and absorption of kinetic energy. This is a different mechanism from the thermal (black body) radiation from condensed matter which only emits from its surface. The atmosphere has no surface. The radiation spectrum of the atmosphere follows a Planck distribution because the velocities of the collision partners follow a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. This was explained by Einstein. Both distributions have the expression exp(hν/kT). The difference is subtle in some respects, but in the case of radiative transfer it means that the application of Kirchhoff’s law in this case is not valid. There will be a new video presented by Markus Ott on the channel soon which gets into the details of this and explains the true nature of the “back radiation” .
@carlospando-z2t
3 ай бұрын
I was looking for this kind of science for some time. Though the science is complex, you are putting it so clearly that it makes full sense. Thanks for this excellent work and compilation. But don't feel guilty, you shall be "debunked" very quickly by the absolute truth of Eunice Foote's experiments back in 1852
@andyl147
2 ай бұрын
I was wondering if you could clarify something for me. I follow the logic of your argument and I must say it is the most convincing theory I have yet seen. One question though. You say that no emission of radiation occurs from the excited CO2 molecules because of quenching. Thermalisation takes place for the excited CO2 molecules very near the surface before they have chance to emit radiation. This is based on a numbers game, namely the abundance of non CO2 molecules in the atmosphere which are nitrogen, oxygen etc. So what would be the effect of increasing the number of CO2 molecules on the outcome. Am I right in saying that if you doubled the amount of CO2(linked to the so called climate sensitivity) then the ratio of ground state CO2 molecules compared to other non CO2 molecules would still be tiny so it would make absolutely no difference to temperatures as it would just result in increased convection. But what would happen if the CO2 was increased by x10, x100, x 1000000? In these scenarios would there be back radiation? I know this is only a thought experiment as man could never increase the CO2 levels to such amounts. Thanks.
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
Great questions. First, to clarify, the competing processes of thermalization (de-excitation) and thermally excited emission do result in the emission of photons randomly throughout the troposphere. These photons are emitted in random directions and are re-absorbed over a short distance, but they are ubiquitous and the downward component of this flux is what is detected at the surface and was assumed to be the “back radiation” from the radiative transfer models. Brief “spoiler alert” here. Markus Ott and I have been working on a couple of new short videos that he will present soon explaining this phenomenon from both classical thermodynamic perspective and a quantum mechanical perspective. Using CO2 as an example, at current levels the absorption in the CO2 band results in 99.94% absorption less than 10m from the surface. If the CO2 concentration was doubled, that absorption would occur less than 5m from the surface. The amount of sensible heat to drive convection would not change, the conversion would just be completed at a lower altitude. That energy is limited by the radiation that is emitted by the surface which does not change. I hope this answers your questions.
@andyl147
2 ай бұрын
@@ThomasShula Thank you for taking the time to reply. I greatly appreciate it! I follow most of the logic and understand what you say if CO2 x2 is considered, but am still unsure what would happen in an extreme case, say if there was CO2 x 1000 000. Wouldn't a higher proportion of the excited CO2 molecules end up emitting a photon as there is a far less chance of colliding with "other" molecules .....thereby increasing the emitted radiation at any particular instant in time and decreasing the convection? Or would it simply be the case that the sensible heat would still not change and the absorption(99.94%) would occur less than 10/1000 000 m from the surface? I know it is a thought experiment.....just trying to get my head around the ideas. Thanks again.
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
As a practical matter, we couldn’t increase the concentration by more that about 2350 times because then the atmosphere would be 100% CO2. The thermalizing molecule doesn’t necessarily have to be different. In principle, a CO2 molecule can thermalized another CO2 molecule. Remember also that water vapor in general is far more abundant than CO2, and without it the “atmospheric window” would cover much more of the emission spectrum. I expect that even at a level of a few thousand ppm of CO2 the behavior would be similar. We could expect from water vapor absorption measurements that the behavior would be similar up to 20,000 ppm or so. Beyond that it is very much a “thought experiment” and I tend not to speculate about such scenarios when there exist measurements that describe the behavior under real conditions. One could argue that this is how the “greenhouse effect” came about, where Schwarzschild’s was applied to the Earth atmosphere which satisfies non of the original assumptions of Schwarzschild’s model.
@andyl147
2 ай бұрын
@@ThomasShula Thank you. This makes complete sense now. So good that you have engaged with the commenters on this video. I'm sure everyone appreciates it.👍
@grumnut1854
Ай бұрын
How then do they know the temperatures of Mars or Venus? Surely THAT'S a bit harder to work out than that of Earth.
@ThomasShula
Ай бұрын
Unless the temperatures have actually measured by probes, they cannot assert that they know the temperatures. Frankly, they are irrelevant to the issues here on earth.
@johnduggan8656
2 ай бұрын
The reason for the stridency and frantic hyperbole is that time is running out for them. It will soon become apparent that there is no crisis.
@GulangUK
3 ай бұрын
Do you have an estimate of the time delay, from ground to space ?
@ThomasShula
3 ай бұрын
A reasonable but difficult question. The energy transfer is not purely vertical. The energy in the troposphere is carried by all of the gases in the troposphere and it moves around a lot….that’s weather. There’s a net movement of heat upward, and then the so-called GHGs do the reverse of what they did at the surface. Instead of absorbing radiation, they emit it to space. In a sense, the time it takes is irrelevant. There is a constant loss of radiative energy to space which has an effectively infinite capacity to receive it.
@GulangUK
2 ай бұрын
Question on downwelling radiation ; In his presentation Happer shows a graph of measurements of DWR (using a pyrgeometer) at 12 minutes kzitem.info/news/bejne/l2aksIOBgIdkfqgsi=efcO8joACEgTsa-R . The wikipedia entry for pyrgeometer says “Since the mean free path of IR radiation in the atmosphere is ~25 meters, this device typically measures IR flux in the nearest 25 meter layer.” If “thermalization prevents back radiation from GHGs” as you assert (26 mins), then what is being measured In Happers graph ?
@jeffreyx73
2 ай бұрын
same Q. If the instrument is detecting the relatively warm clouds as they go go by, what is going on with that?
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
Thank you for that question. It’s something that I’ve been thinking about as well. I believe I have the answer. The pyrgeometer is an interesting instrument and I’m not fully convinced it measures the magnitude of the radiation correctly. It does not measure radiation directly. It measures the internal temperature of the unit, and assumes the sensor at that temperature is emitting outward as a black body. That is referred to as E(out). The sensor, which is a thermopile, will have a change in temperature according to the incoming radiation. The voltage output of the sensor is a function of temperature. The incoming radiation E(in) will add heat to the sensor offsetting some of the losses of the sensor’s self radiation. The total energy at the sensor is referred to as E(net). So, E(out) is inferred from the measured temperature and the S-B law. E(net) is measured at the sensor using a calibration algorithm. The downwelling radiation is E(in)=E(out)-E(net). I still have unanswered questions about the calibration methodologies that are to much to get into here, but it is clear that the instrument is measuring something. The additional radiation detected when clouds are present must be in the atmospheric window, where there is no absorption. My best guess is that it is emission by the clouds, though one might also argue that it is scattering of the upwelling radiation back to the surface. Liquid water is a pretty good absorber in that band.
@jeffreyx73
2 ай бұрын
@@ThomasShula thank you that's very interesting. Happer's plot shows about 80 W/m2 difference between clear and cloud. Do you think this is proportional to radiative power through the window?
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
@@jeffreyx73It’s a reasonable question, but as I said I’m not convinced of the precision/accuracy of the device. FWIW, if you read the Google entry on “Atmospheric Window”, it’s in the ballpark.
@climatesciencejournal
3 ай бұрын
Hi, excellent presentation. BTW, really interesting discussion on CO2 absorption with other gases, such as N2, which clearly has a profound effect. Also interesting is reverse thermalization, from which we can infer that energy absorbed by N2/O2, for instance by inelastic scattering, can exit also by radiation from "GHGs", which means they are facilitating radiation, i.e. cooling, what is absorbed by other channels. I'll makes some comments chronologically. 1) On your definitions page, you mention a contradiction. On the one hand, Wiki says correctly that all matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero radiates thermal energy. Then, in the first bullet, you present that "gases do not emit thermal radiation", which is incorrect. All K>0 matter radiates thermal energy, including gases. Gas molecules and their particles, especially electrons, emit radiation deriving from charges in motion. Perhaps you are challenging this idea and attempting to distinguish thermal radiation as emitted by liquids and solids from that of gases, but that does not work either. "Thermal" has often been distinguished from other electromagnetic radiation as being in the IR range, but I don't think that distinction is valid. All matter emits electromagnetic radiation at temperatures greater than 0K, including gases, causing cooling to equilibrium with the level of background cosmic radiation in deep space. The mechanisms that emit thermal radiation do indeed exist in gases, specifically electronic level changes. It simply cannot happen that an electric charge "revolving" about another charge will not create an electromagnetic wave with each "revolution": matter does not maintain its temperature ad infinitum if left on its own in space, instead it cools by emitting thermal radiation. Reviewing classical work, such as that of K A Saumk and W M Benesch is a good start. 2) You say "absorption is the process in which an atom/molecule interacts with a photon and absorbs its energy, producing an excited state". That's not correct, absorption is a process..., yes, but it is not the only process. Inelastic scattering is another process in which an atom/molecule interacts with a photon and absorbs its energy. Also, when absorption occurs, the velocity of a molecule can increase or decrease from inelastic scattering as momentum is passed from a photon, partially losing its energy and altering its wavelength. 3) Spontaneous emission does not necessarily result in the returning of an atom/molecule to its ground state, it can also return to a prior electronic level, for instance those emission wavelengths provided by the Rydberg-Ritz combination principle. 4) On collisions, there are many possible results of a collision between two molecules, the amount of energy transmission depends upon the angle of impact and the mass of the particles, as classical mechanics interacts with quantum states (quantum states determined as a function of the mass/charges of the atoms). In other words, all of a molecule's energy can be transferred in certain collisions to the other (your NRD), or it can be receiving all of it (NRE), but it is not necessary that a ground state of one molecule/atom be the result. Also, because of the equipartion theorem, it is possible that KE that is imparted by this process results in changes in rotation/vibration and do include radiative energy/heat transfer. Again, however, I say that nitrogen/oxygen molecules that are the 99% of the atmosphere are radiating IR energy by electronic level changes, and are the primary absorbers of inelastic scattering from both incoming solar radiation and outgoing IR, as my paper at our site explains and calculates for a 700nm photon, at ~35% through the 200km average path through the daytime troposphere. They are not only the primary stores of thermal energy, but the primary emitters of radiation, not the trace "GHGs".
@ThomasShula
3 ай бұрын
Hi Kevin. Thanks for your comments. My response: 1. I meant to add a comment to the definition of thermal radiation but apparently forgot. If you go back to the work of Kirchhoff and others that followed, the principles were defined that way…condensed matter. The continuum of a thermal radiation spectrum is a property of the behavior of bound particles where oscillations can take on any value, hence emit at all frequencies. Unbound atoms and molecules can only emit at quantized levels which result in the distinct spectrum by which, among other things, we can identify them. As I explain in the work, this has been conflated in “climate science” to be applied to individual atoms/molecules. Show me how a mass of CO2 molecules can emit a Planck spectrum. 2. My definition of absorption does not exclude any of the other processes you enumerate. I was just defining absorption for the benefit of those that perhaps have less of a technical background. I frankly don’t understand why you bring it up as an issue. 3. Of course, but in the context of the exhibition of these concepts, returning to the ground state is a)the only transition of consequence and, b) makes it simpler to understand without confounding the point with a lot of information that isn’t relevant to the argument. 4. Of course there are many types of collisions and outcomes. Most of them are uneventful and irrelevant. In the case of non-radiative deactivation of CO2 at sea level, the ratio is 100000/7000000000 = 0.0014% Again, the non-event collisions have no effect on the atmospheric dynamics. I would be curious how you conclude O2 and N2 can emit IR radiation, and if they can emit it, they can absorb it as well. I’m not familiar with any physics that supports that. The 200 km path through the troposphere only occurs when the sun is at very low angles near sunrise and sunset. This work does not address incoming radiation anyway. Our concern is with correcting the misconceptions regarding how energy absorbed by the surface is transported and returned to space via radiation.
@climatesciencejournal
3 ай бұрын
@@ThomasShula Hi, Tom, Generally, my comments derive from the prevailing idea that N2 and O2 do not absorb/emit IR, which is simply ludicrous. Consider, if you were to put a 25dC mass of N2 in space, constrained by a non-conductive field of some sort (I have thought about it, a bit of a difficult experiment so at this point closer to a thought experiment), would it stay the same temperature indefinitely? No, it would radiate as long as its temperature was above absolute zero. That is why this definition is important, and why I disagree per 1) above. The continuum as seen from only electronic level changes has been well-documented, with quantum emissions interspersing a continuum, partly deriving from scattering, and also Rydberg-Ritz combination principle, and the multiple vibrational/rotational states of their representative ground and various excited electronic states. Keeping the numbering, 2) I bring up the issue because of the magnitude of the energy being absorbed by inelastic scattering in comparison with the tiny contribution by the “greenhouse gases”, which is trivial relatively. N2 and O2 are by far the largest absorbers of IR by inelastic scattering. Sadly I cannot provide links or images via these comments, although I have shown that “Roughly 36% of a photon’s energy is absorbed by N2 and O2 each daytime as the Sun passes overhead”, using one example calculation. This also holds for energy leaving the planet. 3) I’d disagree that it is the only transition of consequence, but if it’s just a simplification, you should qualify it as such so that your comments are strictly valid. Again, O2 and N2 both emit/absorb IR radiation not by vibration/rotations, but by electronic level changes, in addition to inelastic scattering. And the 200km path through the troposphere is the _average_ path a solar or upwelling photon makes during the daytime (Sun) or full-day (upwelling), from 12km to 395km at the horizon, a point which has not been generally understood, leading to a miscalculation of the magnitude of the role of inelastic scattering. As I explain, the "...attenuation of thermal energy by air molecules explains why you can look directly at the Sun as it rises or sets, even though the distance of the Sun relative to the Earth has negligible reduction (being so far away), by reducing thermal energy, when you could not look at it directly at noon."
@jeffreyx73
2 ай бұрын
if the laws as they are known apply only to condensed matter (liquids and solids), is it safe to say the effective radiating surface observed from space includes the clouds, not the water vapour? Additionally, considering water vapour is an IR active gas, is it safe to say that the same species of IR active gases can thermalize their own?
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
I would expect that the spectrum does include the clouds, but only the tops of the clouds. The tops of the clouds are subject to incoming radiation and reflect much of it, but IR is a tiny component of the incoming radiation so I would not expect to see anything in the satellite IR spectrum that is indicative of clouds. Regarding your thermalization question, yes, a molecule can be thermalized by a molecule of the same species. If you think about Heinz Hug’s experiment described in part 1 in the case of CO2 alone, the CO2 would likely saturate at a lower level of absorption that what was observed. I think that Siddles, Wilson, and Simpson measured CO2-CO2 thermalization but I don’t have the paper handy right now. The same would be true of H2O.
@oldgrumpus8523
3 ай бұрын
Tom Shula makes many interesting points, but it seems to me that he has not fully understood the equations of radiation transfer used by Wijngaarden & Happer. Radiative transfer depends on the temperature profile of the atmosphere, i.e. the background lapse rate, which is taken as an input to the radiative transfer calculations, and which has been set by convective processes in the troposphere. The TOA spectra from the W&H radiative transfer model fit satellite observations over different climate regions very well. The W&H estimate of changes in TOA flux (a.k.a. radiative forcing) in response to CO2 doubling (an ECS of circa 3 W/m2) is before considering the atmospheric system response. The atmospheric response to changes in radiative forcing and the impact on surface temperature is the key question. The answer depends on whether other atmospheric dynamics (convection, evaporation, changes in lapse rate, cloud formation) contribute important negative feedbacks that substantially mitigate the surface temperature effect of the radiative forcing (as per the recent lecture by John Clauser, for example) or whether the feedback is positive (as per IPCC postulates). The fatal flaw in the IPCC narrative is that they over-simplify (as Tom points out) and substantially ignore or dismiss the negative feedbacks.
@ThomasShula
3 ай бұрын
I appreciate your comments and I have studied many of van Wijngaarden and Happer papers in great detail. In the essay that is the basis of this presentation, I mention that the work they have done is a tremendous work from the perspective of computational mathematics. Have you read Schwarzchild’s work? This is the basis of radiative transfer THEORY. It requires a radiation “flow” in a cascade of photon emission and absorption. Returning to Part 1 of the presentation, the thermalization excited so-called GHGs in the first few meters of the lower atmosphere converts the radiation from the surface to sensible heat, so there is no upwelling radiation field to drive radiative transfer in the atmosphere. Energy transport via radiation in the troposphere is a fiction, and “radiative forcing” is a false concept. The spectra match because at the TOA the radiation into space is coming from spontaneous emission by the so-called GHGs, but that emission is driven by thermal excitation (collisions), not excitation by photons. This is difficult to accept if you have been convinced that radiative transport in the troposphere is real, but it is only a model and does not represent what is actually happening. I suggest that you download our essay from Tom Nelson’s Substack where you can examine our exposition in a bit more detail.
@oldgrumpus8523
3 ай бұрын
@@ThomasShula Consider the equations of radiation transfer that are used by W&H in the calculation of radiation transfer in clear skies. (See section 4.1 of Atmosphere and Greenhouse Gas Primer, arXiv 2303.00808.) Equations (69) to (71) incorporate the phenomena of thermalisation and reverse thermalisation that you describe. Specifically, ∂I/ ∂τ incorporates the absorbtion of radiation by each layer of atmosphere according to its optical depth for each frequency line considered, i.e. thermalisation. And, B incorporates the emission of radiation by each layer of atmosphere according to its temperature and the resulting Planck intensity, i.e reverse thermalisation. This is modulated by the spectrum of emission lines shown in Figure 2 (further details are given in arXiv:2006.03098). There is no claim that radiation transfer is the whole story. Cloudy skies are outside the scope of the treatment, as is the question of the atmospheric response to changes in instantaneous forcing, “…no one knows just how the complicated climate system of Earth’s atmosphere and oceans will respond to the small forcings” (page 28). Also, as per the end of section 3 in arXiv 2303.00808, the W&H analysis reflects the fact that, “Radiative heat transport is negligible compared to convective heat transport below the tropopause”. Which I think is the point that you are trying to articulate.
@ThomasShula
3 ай бұрын
@@oldgrumpus8523I am familiar with and have read and pondered many of Happer and van Wijngaarden’s papers on this topic, and in fact referred to the “Primer” paper you referred to in Part 3 of the presentation. With respect to your comments: Equation 69 is the basic form of Schwazschild’s radiative transfer equation. It has nothing to do with thermalization. Equation 70 is the Planck function which describes the emission of a blackbody as a function of temperature. It has nothing to do with reverse thermalization. Please review and understand the introductory definitions and Part 1 of our work. If you have questions about it I will be happy to address them, but the questions need to be informed. I would welcome a discussion with you, but simply arguing that vW&H are saying the same thing will get us nowhere. Please download our work from Tom Nelson’s substack, or request my email address from him and contact me directly. Links to references are included, and I can provide a translation of Schwazschild’s paper if you do not read German. It is impossible to absorb all that we have presented in a single pass. I respect your position and expect it will be more common than not. The paradigm has been in place for 125 years, but what we are showing is that energy transport via radiative transfer is impossible. To fully address your comments would require my reiterating the first three sections of the presentation. All of the answers are there. Please take the time to understand our message, and then we will be able to have a conversation.
@YawnGod
3 ай бұрын
Nice.
@e.swanson7769
2 ай бұрын
Tom Shula, Your presentation asserts that it's impossible for CO2 molecules to emit IR radiation in the downward direction toward the surface. Well, the scientific evidence disproves that claim, as downward IR radiation at the surface has been measured for decades and high resolution spectrometers clearly show that CO2 emits some of that radiation from the 15 micron bands. There are many reports in the scientific literature which documents these data, which you can easily find with a web search. Yesterday, I posted another comment with links to several, but the post vanished, so I.m not going to try that today. Try a search like this: [atmosphere downward infrared radiation] for some references. BTW, I don't use google for my searches.
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
I just replied to another thread on this topic, so here is the response. My earlier comments regarding downwelling/“back radiation” are in the context of the radiative transfer models based on Schwarzschild’s seminal work of 1906. In this model, which is the basis of the GHE, there is a directed downward radiation field that is the result of “symmetric” absorption/emission of photons in the vertical atmospheric column. There will soon be a short video presentation from Markus Ott released on the Tom Nelson Channel explaining this in great detail from a thermodynamic perspective. The observed downwelling component of radiation is not the result of radiative transfer. As you pointed out, the competing processes of thermalization/thermally excited emission result in radiative emissions throughout the atmosphere. When looking up with the detector, we see the downwelling component of this. In a typical DLR spectrum one observes the expected wide band of emission from rotational states of H2O, and CO2 in saturation. The CO2 is in saturation because in addition to thermally excited emission and absorption of the surface thermal emissions, the CO2 band is also driven by absorption of photons from water vapor emission. From CO2 then, we see spontaneous emission from the states excited by H2O emission in addition to the emission from thermal excitation and the surface. There is additional emission by H2O at higher wave numbers, also driven by thermal excitation and possibly surface radiation. At the surface in most places, the H2O concentration far exceeds the CO2 concentration. Digressing for a moment, the comparison between the DLR spectrum and the OLR spectrum illustrates why the emphasis on CO2 is misplaced. I explained above how CO2 emission is saturated in the DLR spectrum. The same phenomenon explains the “notch” around the CO2 Q-branch in the OLR spectrum. In the upper troposphere, CO2 is also absorbing H2O emissions, but the concentration of H2O is much lower and cannot saturate CO2 so we see CO2 in absorption until we reach the mesopause where we see the tiny CO2 peak in emission at 667/cm. The peak of the H2O emission band overlaps the CO2 Q-branch. The observed absorption/emission behavior of CO2 is mostly driven by the emissions from H2O. H2O is the most important “greenhouse gas”. Based on observations, this downwelling component is significant, to be sure. However, (and I’ve not performed the spectral integration) I do not believe it is adequate to be the 84% of upwelling flux outside the atmospheric window that is shown in the K&T flux diagrams as predicted by the radiative transfer models. There is a bit of a “chicken and egg” dilemma that I’ve honestly not resolved in my own mind. That is, because the DLR is created by continuous non-radiative processes, is that energy from DLR that is absorbed by the surface already “cooked” into the surface temperature or does it need to be treated as a separate component? It may be a moot point as we have shown the energy transport between the surface and the upper troposphere is ultimately driven by convection. It’s also important to keep in mind that because of the strong absorption of CO2 and H2O, the DLR detected near the surface is all generated within a very short distance of the detector. This, again, is in contrast to the radiative transfer model. The primary effect of increasing concentrations of CO2 or H2O would have the effect of lowering the altitude where the process of thermalization of the surface thermal radiation is complete. The process for driving DLR is thermal excitation. That the radiation distribution has a Planckian characteristic is related to the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of velocities. Einstein alluded to this at the beginning of his 1917 paper “The Quantum Theory of Radiation”, and it was noted by Wien in his work on radiation theory. Regarding irreversibility, there is a difference between the existence of a reciprocal process (thermalization vs thermal excitation, for example) and irreversibility. In the context of this work, when the surface radiation is absorbed and thermalized converting it to sensible heat, the memory of the original radiation field is destroyed. Heat is the lowest form of energy and cannot be converted into another form of energy, radiation for example, without performing work. When the concentration of an IR active species at altitude is low enough that the photon generated by thermally excited emission can escape to space, the “work” of that collision has been converted into radiation and the energy escapes to space, resulting in cooling. If the photon were reabsorbed, there would be no net “work.”
@e.swanson7769
2 ай бұрын
@@ThomasShula Mr. Schula, Your reply suggests that the measured downward IR radiation in the CO2 bands is due to the effects of H20 emissions being absorbed by the CO2 molecules, causing emissions to occur in the main bands around 15 microns. But, what happens when there's almost no H2O in the surface layer of the Atmosphere, as might occur in desert regions or high latitude regions in winter? Measurements of the spectra from downward emissions have been made for those conditions and the CO2 bands d in fact appear. I think that refutes your claims regarding downward emissions from CO2 molecules. SEE: "MEASUREMENTS OF THE RADIATIVE SURFACE FORCING OF CLIMATE", Evans and Puckrin "Downward longwave irradiance uncertainty under arctic atmospheres: Measurements and modeling", Marty, et al., JGR 2002 "Measurements of the downward longwave radiation spectrum over the Antarctic Plateau and comparisons with a line-by-line radiative transfer model for clear skies", Walden et al., JGR 1998
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
What I stated is that in the case of downwelling radiation near the surface, CO2 emissions are being driven by three different factors. 1. Thermal (collisional) excitation, 2. Excitation via absorption of surface radiation, and 3. Excitation due to absorption of water vapor emissions. The same could be said of water vapor emissions with reciprocal absorption of CO2 by H2O. At a modest altitude of 10 meters or less, virtually all of the surface emissions have been absorbed and thermalized and (2) is no longer a factor. Likewise, beyond the tropopause the condensation of water vapor has left the path open for water vapor emissions to radiate out to space. At this point, almost all of the excess radiation has left the atmosphere, and we are left with only process (1), thermal excitation of CO2 only. Your observation that the concentration of water vapor in the polar regions is very low, with Antarctic winter being the most extreme example, is correct. You will find an example spectrum of DLR in the Antarctic in this paper: acp.copernicus.org/articles/19/7927/2019/acp-19-7927-2019.pdf What is noteworthy relative to a DLR spectrum in a temperate zone is that the water emission is less dense, and while we still see CO2 in emission, it is not saturated. The peak has a “slump” rather than a dome. This is what we would expect to see with a reduced level of H2O emission. While the H2O level in this environment is very low relative to a temperate zone, it’s still probably on the order of a few hundred ppm, similar to CO2. And H2O is a prolific emitter in the rotational bands. Some refer to the TOA spectrum over Antarctica as exhibiting a “reverse greenhouse effect.” In fact, the same process is taking place but because the relative concentrations of CO2 and H2O and temperature are very different, we see the CO2 peak in the spectrum “break out” above the H2O band. Most of the energy, however is still being radiated by water vapor. Regarding the desert, I live in one and there is far more water in the air than one might think. The capacity of the air to hold water increases rapidly temperature. If you compare the TOA spectra of the Sahara vs the Mediterranean, There is far more energy being emitted by H2O in the desert case. I hope this addresses your questions.
@e.swanson7769
2 ай бұрын
@@ThomasShula Since your reply, including the report to which you linked, didn't address my question, my answer is NO. And, your mention of water vapor over desert where you live doesn't explicitly refer to situations with low absolute humidity. From what little I have learned from my limited investigation, at very low humidity levels, there's still downward emissions from the main CO2 bands around 667 cm-1. This would imply that those CO2 emissions don't depend on excitation from H2O vapor.
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
@@e.swanson7769 I have revisited your earlier comments, and the only question I found was, “But, what happens when there’s almost no H2O in the surface layer of the Atmosphere, as might occur in desert regions or high latitude regions in winter?” I’m not sure what you mean by “almost no H2O”. In most places, H2O accounts for 90-98% of the so-called “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere. This means that in most places the H2O concentration will be 20-50x the concentration of CO2. An exception would be near the poles, particularly Antarctica in winter where there is no solar input. That is why I sent you the link which shows a spectrum from an upward looking detector there. There the concentration of H2O is probably as low as it gets on the planet, but it is substantive as is reflected in the spectrum. Here it is again, ANTARCTIC in winter. (Links here because I can’t post photos in comments) share.icloud.com/photos/0faiTrbro306fY-ViEpMfeGdQ Below is a similar spectrum, but from the ARCTIC in winter. Note that the horizontal scales are different. share.icloud.com/photos/09bXAp3Rw3Y0fS-yjw0QGhJZA In both cases, the water vapor rotational bands start around 300/cm and fully overlap the CO2 Q-branch band up to the atmospheric window at about 800/cm. There is additional water vapor emission from about 1300/cm onward, though it is difficult to discern in the Antarctic case due to S/N ratio and other measurements that are superimposed. There’s a big difference in the amount of water vapor and the emission strength. The Arctic never gets as cold as the Antarctic, largely because the atmospheric circulations bring a lot of water vapor there. Regarding desert water vapor, as an example, at 10% relative humidity the water vapor concentration is 3 times greater at 110F as compared to 73F, and it is a substantial amount of water vapor in either case. You will not find a valid explanation of this in the context of radiative transfer/GHE literature. The spectrum is not the result of a downwelling radiation field that is an artifact of the radiation transfer equation. It is the result of the 3 concurrent processes explained in my earlier comment. As I indicated in the earlier comments , in the Antarctic case the CO2 emission is not fully saturated. There is some “slump” at the edges of the peak. In the Arctic case it is flat. This is because in addition to the higher temperature there is much more water vapor, and the peak water vapor emissions overlap CO2 and can drive it to saturation. It is my sense that you want to understand this, and I hope this helps. I hope it gives you a better perspective regarding the abundance of water vapor.
@andyg6086
3 ай бұрын
Video is on WUWT now
@ThomasShula
3 ай бұрын
I’ve not found it on WUWT. Do you have a link?
@leggomuhgreggo
Ай бұрын
Haha "stimulated emission" nice
@alidavanschoonderwoerddenb1118
3 ай бұрын
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
@effexon
3 ай бұрын
they could calculate human fossil fuel addition of CO2 to climate. it is imperfect like anything. based on known oil and natural gas reserves, it would be simple to calculate released additional CO2 and rough estimate of size of atmosphere to estimate ppm amount. Sure nobody can estimate how much temperature goes up or down or seas release(or plants tie in them when they grow more in some places on earth due to added CO2 amount in air) but this one piece could be estimated.
@BillLikos
2 ай бұрын
On the surface looking up spectrometer data , ie pg 223 Atmospheric Rad Petty, clearly show a peak at 15 micron at near surface temp
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
Sorry, but I’m unclear on what you are trying to communicate here.
@BillLikos
2 ай бұрын
@@ThomasShula Rephrasing in the form of a question, Have upward looking spectrometers observed "back radiation" at 15 micron ? Possible answer is that they have but it is very low intensity due to the low temperature. I guess an example of this is CO2 absorption lines are detected at room temps/pressure, CO2 emission lines are observed in flames. To detect emission lines at room temps would require cooling the detector. Thanks
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
Thanks for the clarification. My apologies for the lateness of this reply. I’ve been on a short holiday with F&F and I’ve only had bits of time here and there. In the meantime, I was able to locate Petty’s book. I’ve not seen it before, and I’m grateful that you pointed it out. The other text that I’m familiar with is much older. Thermalization reduces the spontaneous emission of the various so-called GHGs by 4 to 5 orders of magnitude near the surface. There is still spontaneous emission from collisional excitation occurring, but at a greatly reduced rate. Most of those excited states will also be thermalized. The photons that are emitted will travel as much as a few meters before they are reabsorbed, and if there is a detector in the way there is a high probability that many of them will be observed in the detector. They are, however short lived and will be quickly reabsorbed in the lower troposphere. Looking at the spectra, we see rotational band water vapor emission in both cases at the high wavelength end on the left. In the downward looking case it is cut off, probably because of some instrumental limitation. This water vapor band completely overlaps the 15 micron CO2 band, and in fact peaks near the center of the CO2 band. The water vapor bands are effectively the same magnitude whether you are looking up or down, because the spontaneous emission induced by collisional excitation will be in random directions. It is slightly higher looking, probably because the concentration is still much higher at the surface in arctic night than at 20km. For the downward looking detector, we see the typical spectrum in the literature. When the water emissions start to overlap the CO2 band, the CO2 absorbs the radiation from H2O in that part of the spectrum. The CO2 will then be thermalized, and the energy recycled into the pool of gas. There is the tiny CO2 emission peak because there will always be a population of CO2 molecules that can spontaneously emit by the mechanisms already explained. In the spectrum looking up from the surface, that is, the component of the radiation directed downward, there are a number of factors that come into play. First, thermalization is incomplete. In the first few meters above the surface some molecules will experience photon absorption/spontaneous emission transitions due to surface emissions. That is probably a measurable contribution. Second, there is a temperature dependence for excitation. The radiative transfer models attribute it to photon absorption and emission according to a Planck like distribution (“blackbody”) function. It can also be explained by thermally excited emission, which has a temperature dependent component. In slide 21 of our presentation we explain this temperature dependence for the CO2 excitation. The gas molecule energies have energies following a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. The fraction of molecules with sufficient energy to excite the CO2 vibration are 1.3% at -53C (mesopause), 3% at 15C, and 4% at 30C. This means that there will be considerably more thermally excited emission near the surface compared to the cooler high atmosphere. The rate of thermal excitation near the surface will be 2-3 times greater. Many of these thermally excited molecules will emit photons and will be detected. For water vapor, which has a much broader emission band at lower energies the fraction of molecules in the atmosphere that can excite them is much higher. It is important to remember that the these photons are produced from thermal excitation (collisions) using energy that is effectively “recycled” from the heat pool of the atmosphere. They don’t not contribute to any net heating or cooling of the surface. It is the downwelling component of a process that is radiating in all directions. Also, because of the rapid attenuation in these bands, it is produced only in the first few meters of the atmosphere above the surface. My interpretation of the upward looking spectrum that you referred to is that due to the higher thermal excitation rates near the surface plus the excitation driven by the upwelling surface radiation, the abundant water vapor bands are being saturated. The CO2 is absorbing some surface radiation as well, but it will also absorb the emissions from water vapor that overlap the Q-branch at 667/cm as well as the rotational side bands. This can saturate the CO2 band as well. It is still generated by thermal energy from the atmosphere, so there is no net change to the atmospheric energy. There is an interesting paper essd.copernicus.org/articles/13/4303/2021/essd-13-4303-2021.pdf Where they measure downwelling radiation on a mountain peak where water vapor concentrations are very low, and the same phenomenon is observed. I think that as long as the measurements are made by an upward looking instrument in the troposphere this will be observed. A couple of related comments. As much as we hear that “water is the most important greenhouse gas” narrative, in the general discussion it has become nothing more than a platitude. This is unfortunate. As our work shows, it is the only so-called GHG that matters. It is overwhelmingly abundant relative to the others, and it has much broader absorption/emission bands. At this point I have read much of the relevant chapters in the Petty text. I also searched the book for various terms including “thermalization”, “non-radiative”, and others looking for any reference to non-radiative mechanisms for excitation and deexcitation of the IR active species. This further reinforces my observation that while those who tout radiative transfer models will also give lip service to some of these non-radiative processes, they do not take them into account in their models, meaning they either do not understand the impact or they don’t believe they are relevant. I hope this answers your question, and if you have others I’ll do my best to respond as time allows.
@BillLikos
2 ай бұрын
@@ThomasShula Thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions. I really am trying to understand. I believe I understand your explanation of the upward looking observations, Maxwell/Boltzman. However, Petty provides a Planck function curve at surface temperature that fits the data quite well. Could this be caused by something in the optical path serving as a black body source i.e. window or beam splitter (I don't think the mirrors could), and ambient air, containing water vapor and CO2, is absorbing the radiation before reaching the detector ? If this is true, would the few tiny spikes appearing above the ambient temperature Planck curve be the H2O/CO2 emissions ? Thanks again for your time and patience.
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
Happy to respond, Bill. It’s an insightful question but the answer is pretty straightforward. The kinetic energy of the gas molecules in the air follow a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. I failed to mention in my earlier comment it is quite similar in shape to the Planck distribution of thermal radiation. It should not be surprising, then, that it has a shape similar to the Planck curve. Does that make sense?
@thomaspaaruppedersen6781
3 ай бұрын
46:30: the equipartition of energy is only valid for sensible heat. Water vapor has an enormous amount of latent heat as well, which came from absorption of solar energy from the surface, mostly from the oceans. The latent heat of water vapor is many times higher than it sensible heat. The latent heat of water vapor at 100°C is equivalent to heating water 525K (°C), whereas temperature change in the atmosphere is on the order of maximum 100 from a hot swamp in the sun to the top of the troposphere. This comment does not invalidate their conclusions!
@ThomasShula
3 ай бұрын
Thanks for reinforcing that concept. Of course, the equipartition applies to primarily kinetic energy. The latent heat of water vapor is another source of energy that is converted to sensible heat when the water condenses as discussed in the slide at 46:55. You are correct that it is a major source of energy and perhaps I should have emphasized that as the average reader may not appreciate what a significant source of energy it is. It further reinforces the point that water is the primary carrier of energy transport in the atmosphere.
@thutomoof
2 ай бұрын
Great content - but needs a re-write to make it more accessible and punchy. Few people have the concentration to understand the details here.
@fredneecher1746
2 ай бұрын
Maybe. I found there was enough repetition of key points to make the central message clear.
@SmallWonda
3 ай бұрын
1:53 - But if the heat left the planet at the same rate of arrival, wouldn't we be in really dire straits?
@g0rd0nfreeman
3 ай бұрын
Wow
@BillHickling
2 ай бұрын
If the much-fabled OLR back radiation is not in fact real, because the energy intercepted by CO2 is in fact thermalised in the surrounding gases, the climate models are blown clean out of the water!!
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
Yes. They are based on a process that cannot exist in the atmosphere.
@christophergame7977
2 ай бұрын
@@ThomasShulaIt's a pity you don't correct your mistake here.
@edsznyter1437
3 ай бұрын
At 2:28: "Gases do not emit thermal radiation." Is this true? Wikipedia redirects the definition of Thermal motion to Kinetic theory of gases. Not that we should trust Wikipedia on anything, but you started there. Also, you define Spontaneous Emission as moving from an excited state to a ground state. Doesn't a hydrogen at n=3 emit a visible photon transitioning to n=2, which is not the ground state, of course? Sigh ... we're only at 2:28/1:53:13.
@whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
3 ай бұрын
I think that slide needs corrected to say that gases "do not emit an IR spectrum based on temperature"
@ThomasShula
3 ай бұрын
I would suggest that you study carefully the concept of thermal radiation. Thermal radiation is emitted as a continuum because in condensed matter there are mechanisms for electronic, molecular, and lattice vibrations that emit radiation over a continuum of frequencies rather than quantized states. A grain of sand can emit thermal radiation but a gas made of unbound molecules cannot. They can only emit at quantized energy levels. While the OLR spectrum at the top of the atmosphere may appear continuous, it is actually a series of quantized levels that make not all be distinct because of the limits of spectral resolution and the signal to noise ratio of the measuring instrument. Regarding hydrogen, that is a very different case. Those are transitions in the optical spectrum at much higher energies. The vibrational and rotational states of so-called GHG molecules occur at much lower energies, and as a practical matter transitions are between a single excited state and GHE ground state.
@SolvingTornadoes
3 ай бұрын
@@ThomasShula Tom: Thermal radiation is emitted as a continuum because in condensed matter there are mechanisms for electronic, molecular, and lattice vibrations that emit radiation over a continuum of frequencies rather than quantized states. Jim: I don't see how (or why) emissions that are a continuum (from condensed matter) are radiation while those that are quantized (from a gas) are not radiation. Aren't they both radiation?
@christophergame7977
2 ай бұрын
@@whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaI agree that gases in general do not emit full black body radiation, but they do emit radiation according to the temperature. The Planck black body formula provides what is known as the 'source function' for the gas emissions. Thomas Shula likes to say that such radiation is not thermal radiation. It is his privilege to define his words as he pleases, but we are not bound by that.
@whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
2 ай бұрын
@@christophergame7977 Actually they do not emit radiation according to Plank's Law. In fact, gases can have a decrease in emissivity when temperature is increased at certain ranges. Gases absorb/emit narrow thermal radiation bands respective of their frequencies of molecular vibrations, the Doppler effect, and collision broadening.
@roblouw1344
3 ай бұрын
To: Tom Nelson: Could you please provide me with Tom Shula's (if he agrees) email address?
@tomnelson2080
3 ай бұрын
Ok. Please email me (my address is on this channel's "About" page).
@ThomasShula
3 ай бұрын
Fine by me.
@martinklawinski2933
2 ай бұрын
Gases don't emit thermoradiation? That's wrong.
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
Actually, it is correct. This is why the first two slides covered some definitions. Thermal radiation is a property of condensed matter and is the result of electronic, molecular, and lattice oscillations that are not constrained to particular energy transitions and so emit a continuous spectrum. So-called “blackbody radiation.” That is what the surface of the earth emits. In gases, the molecules are not bound to each other and they are constrained to only absorb/emit at specific quantized energy levels. This is commonly misunderstood.
@christophergame7977
2 ай бұрын
@@ThomasShula Thomas Shula likes to say that radiation from gases is not 'thermal radiation'. Of course, he is free to define his words as he pleases, but that does not compel everyone to use his definitions. In quantum theory, a 'continuous' spectrum is composed of so many lines, so closely spaced, that we can hardly discriminate them.
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
It’s not my definition. An alternative definition is “Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation emitted by the thermal motion of particles in matter.” The point here is that it is radiation emitted by thermal motion, not transitions between quantized states. I provided the definition because they are often conflated which leads to misunderstanding.
@martinklawinski2933
2 ай бұрын
@@ThomasShula The sun is radiating and it's formed by gas, not condensed matter.
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
@@martinklawinski2933 A fair comment. Since in our environment we deal with relatively modest temperatures, I left out the other state which I have seen vaguely described as “hot dense gases” which we old apply to the sun’s photosphere which is the only source of energy input to the Earrh. In that case, the temperatures are sufficiently high that electrons can be stripped from their nuclei by thermal excitation only. This leaves the electrons and nuclei in a state that can gain and lose energy independent of the quantum levels in their bound state, and so emit a continuous spectrum of radiation.
@terryfoster842
3 ай бұрын
Why are the scientists afraid to speak out about climate change?,what are they afraid of?.
@SolvingTornadoes
3 ай бұрын
Unemployment.
@christophergame7977
2 ай бұрын
It is good to hear you vigorously criticise the use of the word 'equilibrium' in the present context. The word 'equilibrium' has a multitude of meanings, and, unqualified', is mostly too vague for the present context. The term 'forcing' is a vicious invention of "climate science", and is a widely used vehicle for gravely muddled thinking.
@johnnywarbo
3 ай бұрын
Hey Tom, what a fascinating and very informative presentation and such in depth complexity. Have you ever thought of doing a podcast on Yong Tuition which coincidentally portrays his latest post about the exact same subject. Thank you to all involved.
@tomnelson2080
3 ай бұрын
Thanks. Yong has been my podcast guest twice (#93 and #113). You can search my podcast summaries page to find past guest names and topics: tomn.substack.com/p/podcast-summaries
@johnnywarbo
3 ай бұрын
Oh, that's embarrassing (for me). Thanks Tom l will track them down.
@miked5106
2 ай бұрын
Tom, Tom, Tom!!!! if 0.042% of the atmosphere is CO2, and only 1 of 50,000 of those molecule will emit a photon, then for all intent and purposes then there is no back radiation. (0.00042× 1/50000 photons emitted). it might as well be zero.
@christophergame7977
2 ай бұрын
It is a pity that you comply with the common practice of speaking of 'transport of heat by convection'. The preferable terminology is to speak of 'transport of energy by convection'. This distinction was drawn by Maxwell, and is a good one. I urge you to follow it. Heat is transferred by radiation, conduction, and friction. There is a small but not ignorable upwards transfer of energy in the atmosphere by radiation with absorption, thermalization, and thermal excitation and further emission; it is not common practice (that I know of) to calculate the rate of this form of energy transport, because it is quite complicated to do so. Not all calculations of atmospheric radiative transfer are one dimensional; good atmospheric radiative transfer calculations take into account radiation into every direction, which is three dimensional. Again, such calculations are complicated. It is a big mistake to say that back radiation does not occur. The atmosphere very substantially radiates back to the condensed matter surface. Though it is a little less than it, the atmospheric back radiation is nearly as great as the atmospheric absorption of surface emitted radiation. This is fully consistent with the vast majority of energy transport within the atmosphere being by convective circulation (including so-called 'advective' circulation). It is also fully consistent with the vast majority of energy transfer from the condensed matter surface to the atmosphere being by evaporation and conduction. You say "all but a very small fraction of OLR comes from water vapour." The fraction of OLR that is radiated directly from the condensed matter and cloud is around 14%. It is a matter of choice whether one calls 14% 'a very small fraction'. You say that the atmospheric "water vapour molecules radiate through thermally excited emission". To me, that makes it natural to say that the atmosphere emits thermal radiation, though you like to define it as not doing so, because you like to insist that thermal radiation be restricted to radiation from condensed matter. Radiation from condensed matter can be more or less perfectly blackbody.
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
You contributed 6 paragraphs here. Quick reply’s on each. 1. Three methods of heat energy transport: conduction, convection, radiation. Convection can transport sensible heat or latent heat, but only heat. Friction is not a method of heat transport, it is a method of creating sensible heat by putting work into a system. 2. You basically described the method by which energy is transported from the surface to space as we present it in our work. Then you stated why it is not modeled that way. That’s a very concise summary of what we have presented. 3. All of the radiative transfer models that led to the incorrect postulate of AGW based on the imagined GHE are one dimensional static models using global averages and calculating equilibrium for various scenarios. It continues today. 4. You may have a point on the back radiation and I am reconsidering what the magnitude could be. That being said, it is all recycled energy from thermalization and thermally excited emission and so does not play any role in energy transport. 5. I think you missed the “outside of the atmospheric window part. 6.Radiation from thermally excited emission is not thermal radiation. You have made many comments on this thread. While I would like to respond to all, your focus seems to be on bringing up points from the standard narrative. I don’t have enough time to keep responding to things that for the most part are explained in our work. I suggest you download a copy of the paper from Tom Nelson’s substack page.
@christophergame7977
2 ай бұрын
@@ThomasShula Thank you for your response. I guess you will call me an idle academic, lacking the practical virtues of an engineer. But here goes. In the days of the caloric theory, people such as Laplace and Lavoisier thought of 'heat' as a constitutuent of a body, something that could be transported with the body. Benjamin Thompson and others, about 1800, showed that 'heat' described a process, as it entered into a body. The modern thermodynamic definition of heat is 'energy in transfer into a body from its surroundings, by means other than thermodynamic work or transfer of matter.' Heat enters a body by microscopic paths, mainly conduction, radiation, and friction. Some engineering texts prefer to stick with the caloric theory notion. Sad to say, at present, the Wikipedia article on heat is controlled by a Wikilawyer who seems to have read only one textbook (written by a quantum mechanics author), and by a telephone engineer. They use the caloric theory definition. As to your (1.): Maxwell pointed out that convection transports internal energy, not heat. I can see that you prefer the caloric theory. That is your privilege. I note that you have changed your wording from 'transport of heat' to 'transport of heat energy'. I see that as a step in the right direction. As to your (2.): ok. As to your (3.): You seem mainly to refer to what is often called 'the forcing and feedback formalism'. I agree that it is vicious rubbish. As to your (4.): I am glad to see that you are reconsidering back radiation. It seems to me that you dismiss the work of Schwarzchild on radiative transfer in gases. I accept that it is a highly specialised topic, the province of physicists such as van Wijngaarden and Happer. That it is used by warmists does not invalidate it; they get the big picture wrong, but not every detail. I think you might reconsider your dismissal of it, because it is well established in physics. The temperature of the atmosphere is around that of infrared radiation. The atmosphere is semitransparent to such radiation. You are of course free to insist on not calling such radiation 'thermal'. Very roughly speaking, taking the condensed matter surface as nearly enough a black body at those wavelengths, when you do the Schwarzschild radiation calculation on radiosonde data, you will find that the thermal radiation from the surface that is absorbed by the atmosphere exceeds back radiation from the atmosphere to the surface by a little fraction. This is because, on the relevant average, the atmosphere is a little cooler than the surface. This applies mainly outside the atmospheric window. This is why, as you say, net radiative transfer from surface to atmosphere plays only a little (you say no) part. As to your (5.): The 14% is mainly window radiation. As to your (6.): Of course you are free to define 'thermal radiation' as you please. As to your general dismissal of my comments, I suggest that, to win the debate, we may do well to allow the warmists their valid parts. That may increase our chances of persuading them about their errors. For us to insist on our own errors will likely lead them to dismiss what we have got right. Perhaps most warmists are of the climatism religion, and are scarcely open to reason. Such is life. At present, that religion is winning hands down in the political sphere. A disaster for us all.
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
I expect that you probably have not downloaded our essay which is the basis of the presentation. I suggest you try to absorb that content before we continue any discussion. I think that if you actually read the paper, you might rescind at least part of your most recent remarks. Link: tomn.substack.com/api/v1/file/f08770ad-92c4-4884-890b-f969794b1a26.pdf
@christophergame7977
2 ай бұрын
@ThomasShula I will download and read your essay, and reply.
@christophergame7977
2 ай бұрын
@ThomasShula Dear Thomas Shula, I have now read your paper and written comments into it in a Microsoft Word document. Your paper is pretty much what I have commented on above, much of it just as in your KZitem. My views are unchanged. I am not a sceptic. I am a denier. I have studied the matter for about 15 years. I find your article pretentious in part, and naïve, and likely to be unpersuasive to true believers. I think your article will grievously mislead readers who don't know much about the topic. Consequently, overall, I think your paper detrimental to our shared goal of debunking warmism. I am glad that you are reconsidering. I look forward to your revised views.
@christophergame7977
2 ай бұрын
You insist that only condensed matter emits thermal radiation while gases do not. One can define words as one pleases. To me and many others, it seems odd to insist that radiation from gases be excluded by definition from thermal radiation. Radiation from gases depends largely on their temperatures. Their radiation is determined by several factors, such as their density and chemical constitution. Their temperature is a factor, manifest in what is known as the 'source function', which is a version of Planck's law of thermal radiation. Gases have emissivities and absorptances. Of course, everyone accepts that full black body radiation most often depends on the presence of a black body. Thermal radiation from gases is usually not full black body radiation. To get truly full black body radiation took years of careful experimentation, and was only achieved by the end of the nineteenth century. Practically as soon as it had been achieved, Planck discovered his law of thermal radiation. The Wikipedia definition seems a bit odd to me, when it attributes thermal radiation to the motion of particles in matter. I would say that the radiation comes immediately from the excitation energies of particles themselves, at least in gases, though the energy passes from the collisions of the particles into their excitation energy.
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
Your comment on the Wikipedia definition only reinforces your expressed lack of understanding on this issue. Perhaps you training in physics is limited. It is important to be precise in the language in these matters. It is in no small part the casual conflation of these processes that has led to the creation of the non-existent GHE.
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
Your comment on the Wikipedia definition only reinforces your expressed lack of understanding on this issue. Perhaps you training in physics is limited. It is important to be precise in the language in these matters. It is in no small part the casual conflation of these processes that has led to the creation of the non-existent GHE.
@christophergame7977
2 ай бұрын
@@ThomasShula Dear Thomas Shula, thank you for your response. As for the Wikipedia definition, it seems to confound the Planck distribution for radiation with the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution for particles of matter. In local thermodynamic equilibrium, they fit hand-in-glove, but when local thermodynamic equilibrium does not prevail, as for example in the thermosphere, those distributions do not hold. I won't take up your condescending remark about my limited training in physics. But I will reply to your remark about the non-existence of the greenhouse effect. People play around in defining the greenhouse effect. Whether it exists or not depends on how it is defined. Perhaps you will tell me your definition of it. So far, your response has been mainly innuendo that I am ignorant, but you haven't actually presented a reasoned argument.
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
I’ll try to unpack your comment as politely as I can. Thermal radiation, which idealized is black body radiation, is a property of matter that emits radiation in a continuous spectrum. It primarily applies to condensed matter because in condensed matter the electrons, molecules, and lattices are not restricted to the quantized levels of individual atoms/molecules. In some cases, like the atmosphere of the sun, it can be applied to gases. That’s because the temperature is high enough that the protons and electrons move about independently. A grain of sand or a speck of dust can emit thermal radiation. A free atom or molecule cannot. This is a very old definition. Again, it is far too often misunderstood and/or misapplied. The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution applies mostly to the distribution of velocities in the volume of a gas. To your credit, you are one of very few I have encountered that understands LTE is not possible in the troposphere, or any connecting atmosphere for that matter. Regarding the GHE, the simple fact that there is no “official” definition of it should be enough to at least atouse suspicion. I won’t try to define the GHE because it does not exist. Changing the concentration of the so-called GHGs will not cause the temperature of the planet to rise. The facilitate cooling, not hinder it.
@christophergame7977
2 ай бұрын
@@ThomasShulaThank you for your response. You continue to condescend to me. I didn't say that local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) doesn't hold in the troposphere . I said it doesn't hold in the thermosphere. Up there, sunlight is very important, and gas molecules collide rarely, so that LTE doesn't prevail. In the troposphere, nearly enough, LTE does prevail. I think you are reconsidering your position on this topic?
@armynyus9123
3 ай бұрын
Before I watch it: Will it explain, how an emitter of IR radiation can further heat up, simply by mirroring back its *own* thermal radiation? That's what the GHE hypothesis claims, correct? Or is my understanding of Physics too naive? I not unsuccessfully studied Physics 2 decades ago, but with focus on QED stuff and not Thermodynamics. But still - to me this sounds like a violation of *a lot*, I've learned back then, incl. a few conservation laws, Stefan Boltzman (which says, if I remember correctly, "Black body radiation only depends on T and not on emissivity of the environment, plus second law, ...). And if i'm too naive: What would be the name and the formula of that effect and who discovered it? Discovered, in the strict sense - not hypothetically guessed around.
@GulangUK
3 ай бұрын
yes, there is no back radiation as a co2 molecule cant hang on to an excited state long enough to emit a photon. collision with non IR molecules take the energy.
@ThomasShula
3 ай бұрын
GulangUK is correct.
@christophergame7977
2 ай бұрын
@@armynyus9123 The back radiation doesn't further heat up the condensed matter surface, but it does reduce its rate of cooling, compared with what would happen if there were no back radiation. The back radiation is a little less than the radiation from the condensed matter surface that is absorbed by the atmosphere. Consequently, there is only a little net radiative transfer from surface to atmosphere. Surface cooling is mainly by evaporation, less by conduction, even less by net radiative transfer.
@user-cl9uo1eq6q
2 ай бұрын
@@GulangUK That's not true. There will be some back radiation as some excited CO2 molecules will emit a photon very quickly. The time for this "decay" is not fixed but spread probabilistically over time.
@GulangUK
2 ай бұрын
@@user-cl9uo1eq6q I was explaining the theory not agreeing with it. here is my question; Question on downwelling radiation ; In his presentation Happer shows a graph of measurements of DWR (using a pyrgeometer) at 12 minutes kzitem.info/news/bejne/l2aksIOBgIdkfqgsi=efcO8joACEgTsa-R . The wikipedia entry for pyrgeometer says “Since the mean free path of IR radiation in the atmosphere is ~25 meters, this device typically measures IR flux in the nearest 25 meter layer.” If “thermalization prevents back radiation from GHGs” as you assert (26 mins), then what is being measured In Happers graph ?
@richbalance8404
2 ай бұрын
If there is no back radiation, what is it that was measured and reported in Feldman et al 2015? I'm afraid your claims have already been scientifically falsified if you can't provide an answer to this question. Keep in mind that not only did they measure it, but they measured the radiation was increasing yearly at a fixed rate that appears to match CO2 increases.
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
Thanks for the great comment! Since you appear to have a keen interest in this, I suggest you download our documents from Tom Nelson’s substack at: tomn.substack.com/p/tom-shula-and-markus-ott-the-missing I suggest the essay first, as it contains a few details not in the presentation. It will be helpful for your reference relative to my comments below. I have tried to fully address your comment and so it is somewhat lengthy. The concept of the GHE is seductive and it has been with us for a long time. One must look at the energy transport process from a different perspective to get past it. The Feldman et al paper is an interesting work. Non-radiative excitation and de-excitation processes take place continuously in the atmosphere. Thermalization outpaces spontaneous emission at a rate of ~50,000:1 at STP, but there are lots of molecules in the atmosphere so you can point a detector in any direction and see some level of emission. As stated in our work, the measured spectrum will be an indication of the composition of the atmosphere as viewed by the instrument. It is not surprising to see a signature of the so-called GHGs in the spectrum when you are looking up. One must be careful, however, of the inferences that can be drawn from that spectrum. The radiative transfer theory is based on transport of energy by a photon flux that is maintained by a combination of absorption and “Planckian” spontaneous emission. The assumption in the GHE is that the radiative component of energy is conserved in the process, and that ultimately some of it is emitted upward at the TOA and some is emitted downward near the surface, so called “back radiation.” The flux of photons emitted by the Earth’s surface is certainly blackbody like, and emitted spontaneously. It is Planckian in nature. Referring back to Part 1 of our presentation and further explained in Part 3, this photon flux (that part which is in the GHG bands) is almost fully absorbed within several meters of the surface. These photons are then almost immediately thermalized by all of the gas species (predominately O2 and N2), converting their rotovibtational energy to sensible heat which raises the internal kinetic energy (temperature) of the atmosphere. This a continuous process. The conversion of this energy to sensible heat does not preclude continuous non-radiative excitation and de-excitation throughout the atmosphere, but because the energy of the surface flux has been converted to sensible heat, the memory of the surface flux has been lost. The radiation energy emitted by the surface no longer exists. There will be some generation photons by non-radiative excitation that are emitted, and if you try to detect them you will see them, but ultimately they will all be thermalized until the conditions for escape to space as described in our work are met. That the AERI system is detecting radiation is not in dispute. However, the radiation it detects is not Planckian in nature. It is radiation that is the result of thermal excitation that has not been thermalized and resulted in spontaneous emission. One must also keep in mind that for the downwelling emission observed, there is also an equivalent upward emission, so it is a zero sum situation insofar as energy transport is concerned. We would concede that there is some component of this downwelling radiation that will terminate at the surface of the Earth and be absorbed, but statistically it would have to originate from the first 20-30 meters or so of the atmosphere and the energy is insignificant in the context of the overall energy transport. Regarding the results and conclusions of Feldman et al: As a side note, there are many of the spectra in the paper that are calculated rather than measured. That being said, what they have done is demonstrate effectively that one can detect the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere based on measurements of downward directed radiation in the atmosphere. This is not a surprise since the GHGs are undergoing constant non-radiative excitation and the resulting emission will carry their signature. From the perspective of the measurement itself, it is an impressive piece of work. I have experience with extracting signals from noisy data and this is not an uninformed compliment. On the other hand, that they can measure the changing concentration of CO2 is all they have demonstrated. It does not prove the GHE nor does it prove that there is significant energy transport via radiation in the atmosphere. We discuss in detail why the radiative transfer model is invalid in part 2 of our work. Their leap from increasing CO2 to increasing “radiative forcing” is based on what has become an almost axiomatic belief in radiative transport and the GHE. It is not a given.
@wolkenbummler
2 ай бұрын
In one of the next videos I will deal with this contradiction in more detail. Yes, the back radiation is measurable, but it generates no real energy flux through the whole troposphere. I know that sounds strange. It is compareable to Newtons "actio est reactio". Best regards Markus Ott
@richbalance8404
2 ай бұрын
@@ThomasShula ... Your extended description agrees much more closely with my own views. However, the downwelling IR does exist and is important. It cools the surface. This cancels out any warming from increased absorption at the edges of the 15µm bands. How does adding energy cool the surface? The key is in understanding how the surface and atmosphere interact. A long ignored aspect of this process is conduction. Conduction is ignored because it works both directions and therefore is assumed to be a minor player. In reality, vast amounts of energy are passed back and forth. All gases are involved, not just GHGs. Another factor is the weak photons emitted by CO2 do not penetrate beyond the surface skin. They affect the same part of the surface as conduction. The last key element is the photons originate low in the atmosphere as you indicated. When a photon is sent to the surface the low atmosphere cools and the surface warms, temporarily. This changes the "equilibrium*" being managed by conduction. As a result, the net flow of conducted energy is slightly increased from the surface to the atmosphere. Essentially, the 2nd Law keeps the energy flow balanced. This alone prevents surface warming. However, the photon has a high probability of being absorbed by water. This increases the amount of evaporation before conduction comes into play. The latent energy of the newly created water vapor molecule was removed from the surface/atmosphere. This is the cooling I mentioned. This only comes into play when CO2 reaches saturation. Probably less than 100 ppm. CO2 does have a warming effect at very low concentrations. This is the first part of a two part process. The second part is related to what the added water vapor does. Turns out it eventually leads to a reduction in high altitude water vapor which allows more energy to be lost through the water vapor spectral bands. The net effect of both of these processes is to increase precipitation without any warming.
@ThomasShula
2 ай бұрын
I am quite pleased that you responded so that we can continue this conversation. I think that we may be in agreement in some aspects of this. Allow me to continue. I have some thoughts regarding your response. If you’ve not yet downloaded our essay from Tom Nelson’s Substack, it would be helpful for you to be able to describe how your views differ from ours. . We address conduction in Part 1 and in more detail in Part 3. It is a major part of transferring energy from the surface to the atmosphere. However, conduction occurs in a very thin layer nearer the surface, typically on the order of a few millimeters at most. Above that, it is convection that is transporting the heat upward. Perhaps when you are referring to conduction you mean convection? As I read your description of what you believe is happening in the atmosphere, I’m having some difficulty following it. To start, in your view where does the downwelling IR come from? Since you feel there are some specific differences between our perspectives, and I’m having a bit of difficulty following your view on how the energy is transported, I have a suggestion. We provide a detailed description in Part 3 of how the energy from the surface is transported to space. Check out the process as we describe it, and then explain at each step how you believe it is different from that. Is that reasonable?
@richbalance8404
2 ай бұрын
@@ThomasShula ... After reading part 3 of your paper, it still appears to me that you believe lower atmospheric IR emission by GHGs is almost completely eliminated by delays associated with molecular excitation. "Due to the rapidity of thermalization, in this region there is almost no radiation in the GHG bands present" So exactly what is it that an IR thermometer measures? I see around 340 watts/m2 (5 C) when I point my IR thermometer at a clear sky. This is almost exactly what's shown in energy budget diagrams. I also referenced Feldman 2015 et al that claims to be measuring CO2 emitted IR. Gero/Turner 2011 also shows results from IR measurements at the surface using an AERI instrument. You appear to be claiming that only convection can move energy away from the lower atmosphere. If you were correct then we shouldn't be able to measure 340 watts/m2 of IR at the surface. If I had to guess (I'm not a physicist), I'd venture excitation via collisions does not exhibit the same delay as excitation via IR absorption. This would mean IR energy absorbed in the lower atmosphere is thermalized but would not eliminate kinetically induced excitation/emission. And, it would keep Kirchhoff's Law intact. So, how is my view different? My view agrees that almost all surface IR is thermalized very low in the atmosphere and removes any information about the source of the energy. My view disagrees in that I allow IR emission by GHGs both upward and downward. That energy has a very short path before reabsorption. Hence, any downward directed energy reaching the surface comes from very low in the atmosphere. The lower atmosphere is often referred to as the turbulent boundary layer (TBL). Winds are constantly moving air molecules around. This, along with conduction, work to create a near equilibrium temperature between the TBL and the surface. Conduction is constantly moving energy back and forth kinetically in accordance with the 2nd Law. Since the IR energy absorption by the surface originates from low in the TBL, the energy participates in the overall equilibrium process. Any change in downward IR is matched by an opposite change in conducted energy back into the TBL according to the 2nd Law. While conduction only operates right at the surface, air turbulence assures that energy is mixed with the rest of the TBL. That's why the downward energy from increasing CO2 concentrations cannot cause warming. The one caveat to this scenario comes from evaporation. Downward directed IR will often strike a surface H2O molecule (70-80% of the time) and occasionally induce evaporation. This removes energy from the surface and creates a new water vapor molecule. I also agree that convection is the main source of energy transfer from the TBL upwards. However, there is also IR energy being radiated upward. The total energy radiated upward in well mixed GHGs spectral bands is independent of concentration due to Kirchhoff's Law and the changes in density. Hope this clears up where we agree and disagree.
@christophergame7977
2 ай бұрын
Yes, the AOGCMs are hopelessly unfit for purpose. A harmfully misleading huge waste of money.
@SolvingTornadoes
3 ай бұрын
There is no convection in earth's atmosphere. In fact the flow associated with storms and Hadley cells HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH CONVECTION. Convection is superstition, not unlike CO2 forcing. This fact in conjunction with the fact that Tom Shula made reference to convection 3 or 4 times is the only part of this presentation that was not highly accurate. This is the most thorough, easy to understand, and clearly presented debunking of global warming that I have ever seen. I don’t think it can be done better. And I have been at this a lot longer that most in that I have been disputing AGW since 2006. So my opinion counts. Moreover I am the world’s number one expert on the physics of storms and atmospheric flow. But I didn’t come here to brag. I came here to throw praise on the presentation presented here. Nevertheless, if Tom had asked me I would have advised that he not bother. AGW has been debunked many times. Over and over again. The reason it persists is because it really isn’t science, it is religion. Moreover there are now thousands or even millions that know it isn’t really science. Tom, you are much too talented to waste your time on this trivial issue. James McGinn / Genius / Solving Tornadoes
@whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
3 ай бұрын
roflmao thanks needed the laugh
@ThomasShula
3 ай бұрын
James, thank you for the positive feedback. I am aware of some of your positions and have read your feedback on other presentations. I will have to respectfully disagree with you regarding convection. It is by far the predominant form of heat transfer in the troposphere and without it we would have no wind, no weather. You are entitled to your beliefs. Regarding the value of the effort, perhaps it will have an impact, perhaps not. If we all just give up and let things ride as you suggest, we will all be living in climate tyranny in the not too distant future. I have chosen to make an effort to
@fredneecher1746
3 ай бұрын
@@ThomasShula I appreciate your sustained effort to debunk the alarmist nonsense. The actual effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is their sole claim to science, is something I have been trying to get to grips with. This presentation helps enormously.
@philerator
3 ай бұрын
If you put on polarized sun glasses and look up at clouds from underneath, you see rising air currents in the clouds. Thst's convection, isn't it?
@SolvingTornadoes
3 ай бұрын
@@ThomasShula Tom: James, thank you for the positive feedback. I am aware of some of your positions and have read your feedback on other presentations. I will have to respectfully disagree with you regarding convection. Jim: Well, okay. And, as somebody that once believed in this dull-witted model I understand where you are coming from. You don’t really have a disagreement. You have an irrational belief in what you don’t understand and can’t explain. Show us the empirical data for the existence of convection (as a force in the atmosphere). You can’t. Nobody can. The truth is that meteorology is supremely confused about the physics of storms. This is why they are so evasive. Tom: It is by far the predominant form of heat transfer in the troposphere Nonsense. The flow and ensuing mixing that takes place in the troposphere, and that is somewhat correlated to storms and jet streams, quite obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with convection. Storms are caused by vortices that grow along moist/dry wind shear boundaries. You are entitled to your beliefs. Sorry to burst your bubble. Meteorology has always been pretending to believe in and support the convection model of storms. The fact is they never discuss it. The subject is taboo to them.
Пікірлер: 276