Dienstag, 31. Januar 2017

How the radiative process in the atmosphere is working


Here a very simple explanation of the process:
The earths surface is radiating IR rays towards space, but only 15-30% are leaving undisturbed (through a so-called atmospheric window). At certain wavelengths they are not absorbed by CO2 & Co.
If one radiative active molecule (water vapor, CO2, methane) is hit by an IR ray, it gets added some plus energy. Every molecule is vibrating and hitting other molecules and transporting energy to others – much quicker than they re-emit radiation. Through steady radiation that part of the atmosphere gets heated up a small bit.
At the same time all radiative molecules above 0 Kelvin are emitting IR radiation – at a certain wave length and in an average direction. Which means 50% up / 50% down. The Backward radiation from the lowest layer of the atmosphere goes down to the surface, the other IR rays are going up to the next layer of the atmosphere. There the above mentioned game starts again, and so on.
We must consider that nearly everything above 0 Kelvin (-273°C) is radiating – also the earths surface, the ocean surface and the clouds. The earths surface is always radiating more than the atmosphere or the clouds. So there is always a net transfer of heat towards space.
Only O2 and N2 – the 99% of the atmospheres molecules – are not radiating and not absorbing IR rays. But they can receive and distribute heat energy by contact with neighboring molecules. Additionally, moving masses of air can transport heat – mostly upwards.
Clouds (water droplets) are different from water vapor und are even more absorbing. In fact, they behave like a blackbody. Like a black matte painted sheet metal they are absorbing all IR radiation throughout the whole wavelength spectrum. And they are emitting radiation the same way in all directions.
On the top of the troposphere (about 5 to 10 kilometers above ground) the atmosphere gets thinner and there is nearly no water vapor. So CO2 is radating mostly undisturbed towards space, as the distance between the molecules is large.
These are just the rules how radiation is working. I have not written anything about amounts and figures. There are also a lot of variables and additional regulating effects.
In short: IR radiation from the surface is not reflected by CO2. Its a bit more complicated.

Sonntag, 29. Januar 2017

Wie stark ist das Grönlandeis seit 1900 geschmolzen?

Hier wieder mal ein Graph, der das wichtigste über den oft erwähnten Verlust an Grönlandeis zeigt:


https://s19.postimg.org/vubfmdf8z/Greenland_ice_mass2.png

Nun ja, von dem Ganzen ist noch recht viel da.

Und wohlgemerkt: Es geht um den Eispanzer auf Grönland, bis zu 3000m dick. Nicht um das Meereis.

Die Meereisausdehnung in der Arktis hatte tatsächlich abgenommen. Aber seit 12 Jahren steigt es wieder an.


http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/mean:13/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/mean:13/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/last:144/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/trend

Das Meereis um die Antarktis ist seit 38 angewachsen. Das Meereis in der Arktis hat sei 12 Jahren eine steigende Tendenz.

Und nun noch das Festlandeis der Antarktis:


https://s19.postimg.org/fqrsmq8oj/Antarctic_ice_mass2.png

Dort ist 10 mal soviel Eismasse.

Donnerstag, 19. Januar 2017

One common misconception about thermodynamics and infrared radiation

Just another comment about the "there is no radiative greenhouse effect" meme caught my eyes.
It was in the comment section of a very informative interview with William Happer about climate change.

"Joseph E Postma says   

January 10, 2017 at 10:12 pm

There is in fact no radiative greenhouse effect at all. Climate science is so far off the mark that it is founded upon a concept which doesn’t even exist."

This was my answer to Joseph Postmas comment:



This argumentation does much harm to the skeptics issue. The simple fact is that nearly all matter above 0 Kelvin is radiating energy in form of infrared radiation, including CO2, water vapor and methane, which are members of the atmospheric gasses.

If theses gasses are radiating in all directions, whichever temperature above 0 K they have, a certain amount will go back to the earth's surface. Thereby they will slow the net transfer of heat from the surface to the space.

One common misconception is that " due to the laws of thermodynamic colder materials cannot heat up warmer materials, therefore colder CO2 cannot heat up the surface" - which in turn would insist that no colder item is allowed to send infrared radiation towards a warmer item.

The reality is: If a certain colder surface radiates 40 w/m² towards a warmer surface which radiates 100 w/m², the net flow is 60 w/m² towards the colder surface. This is exactly how thermodynamics work.

Just think about these gold or aluminium plated emergency blankets. If you wrap one around yourself in a cold surrounding you are getting warmer. The blanket is colder than you, but it radiates back some amount of heat towards your warmer body.

For a more elaborate explanation how radiation is working, just read at my blog:

http://klimawandler.blogspot.de/2017/01/why-co2-and-downwelling-radiation-is.html

For easy access here my example from that post:


  • There is a stove in a cold room, giving out a certain radiative energy.
  • Now take a black matte painted solid sheet around in a certain distance from the stove. It will be heated up and radiate towards to stove and the rest of the room. The stove will be hotter to a certain extend. This is what a cloud does, being close to the properties of  a blackbody.
  • Now take away the solid sheet and put there a black matte one with holes punched in, so that about two thirds of the area is covered. So this is now also heated by the stove, but to a lesser extend, and also the stove gets not so much hot than with the solid sheet. This is what water vapor is doing, leaving through some radiation.
  • Now take another black sheet with lots of holes punched in, covering only one quarter of the whole area. Now the re-radiation is much lower, and the stove stays only a small amount hotter. This is what CO2 is doing in the atmosphere.
  • Now try to get the whole picture: CO2 is always there in a quite even distribution. This is the sheet with the big holes. Water vapor is not evenly distributed. So it compares to a second sheet behind it,with differently big holes. Clouds are not always there, but if, they are covering the certian area completely.
  • We see: CO2 has a small function in the radiative play. So it doesn't really matter that much.
  • But: All three components of the atmosphere are re-radiating some amount of heat, thus slowing the cooling of the "stove". They are cooler than the stove and they are not heating up the stove. There is always a net flow of heat towards the cold room. Sometimes more, sometimes less, and always within the laws of thermodynamics.
  • Dienstag, 17. Januar 2017

    Wie waren die Temperaturen die letzten 20.000 Jahre? Teil 2

    Josh hat auch eine Übersicht gestaltet, zusammen mit Quellenangaben.

    Wie waren die Temperaturen die letzten 20.000 Jahre? Teil 1

    Hier eine schön illustrierte Übersicht von Javier. Der Winkel der Erdachse hat auch einen Einfluss.

    temperaturetimelineb

    Was bewirkt ein steigender CO2-Gehalt der Luft?

    clip_image012








    Der Wärmeeffekt von CO2. Eine Grafik von David Archibald.

    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/clip_image0121.jpg

    Der Gehalt an CO2 wird in ppm (parts per million) gemessen, in millionstel Teilen. 1000 ppm ist ein Promille. CO2 und andere Klimagase nehmen die Energie von Wärmestrahlen auf und strahlen diese Energie wieder in alle Richtungen ab - also auch zurück zur Erdoberfläche. Dadurch kühlt die Erde nicht zu weit ab.

    Die ersten 20 ppm sind die entscheidenden. Danach nimmt die Wirkung von zusätzlichen CO2 immer mehr ab. Erst ab einem Gehalt von 150 ppm ist Pflanzenwachstum möglich. 180 ppm hatten wir in der Eiszeit. In Gewächshäusern wird bis zu 1500 ppm CO2 eingesetzt, um besseres Pflanzenwachstum zu ermöglichen.

    Momentan sind wir bei 400 ppm. Jeder weitere Anstieg um 100 ppm erhöht die Temperatur um 0,1°C. Das sind allgemein anerkannte Werte in der Wissenschaft.

    Der Weltklimarat IPCC geht von höheren Werten aus. Dazu kommt man aber nur, wenn man den Wasserdampf-Effekt mit einbezieht: Höhere Temperaturen durch CO2 lassen mehr Wasser verdunsten. Wasserdampf ist ein Gas mit stärkerer Klimawirkung und führt theoretisch zu einer weiteren Temperaturerhöhung.

    In der Praxis führt aber mehr Wasserdampf zu mehr Wolken, die wiederum mehr Sonnenlicht abhalten und eine weitere Temperaturerhöhung verhindern. Mehr Wasserdampf führt auch zu mehr Regen und Schnee, wodurch die Menge an Wasserdampf in der Luft begrenzt wird.

    Sonntag, 15. Januar 2017

    Wie schnell steigt der Meeresspiegel? 1,5 mm pro Jahr.

    Wir bekommen von den Medien verschiedene Aussagen über den Meeresspiegelanstieg. Und auch darüber, ober er schneller ansteigen wird.

    Doch wie sieht es in der Realität an den Küsten aus?

    Dave Burton hat versucht, eine objektive durchschnittliche Kalkulation der verschiedenen Meerespegel zu machen. Das Problem ist, dass das Land an manchen Stellen steigt, und an anderen sinkt. Er nahm sich alles Stationen vor, die länger als 50 Jahre Aufzeichnungen hatten. Dann strich er die 40 Stationen mit dem geringsten Anstieg und 30 mit dem höchsten Anstieg. Übrig blieben 155 Stationen mit einem durchschnittlichen Anstieg von 1,48 mm/Jahr. Das sind 15 cm in hundert Jahren.

    Seit mehreren Tausend Jahren steigt nun schon der Meeresspiegel - und zwar einfach aus dem Grund, dass wir aus der Eiszeit kommen, und die Eismassen langsam schmelzen. Bei der letzten Eiszeit lag der Meeresspiegel rund 150 Meter tiefer als jetzt.

    Dave Burton schreibt auf 

    http://sealevel.info/avgslr.html#conclusion

    "So I tried another approach, this time explicitly eliminating "outliers." I started with just the "50+ year" stations, but excluded the 40 stations with the lowest rate of sea-level rise (including most of those experiencing falling sea-level), and the 30 stations with the highest rate of sea-level rise (including most of those experiencing severe land subsidence, like Galveston, which is built on sinking fill dirt). The resulting average and median rates of sea-level rise (calculated from 155 stations) are both 1.48 mm/yr:

    http://sealevel.info/NOAA_AllStationsLinearSeaLevelTrends_2015-08_50yr_less_high30_and_low40.xls
    or http://sealevel.info/NOAA_AllStationsLinearSeaLevelTrends_2015-08_50yr_less_high30_and_low40.htm



    The Secrets of the Faith of a True Believer

    Johannes Herbst

    including possibly some satirical expressions 


    The question and title of a former article here on WUWT was:

    "Can the Left adapt to the Trump era? Watch their climate activists for clues."

    I went trough the thread and found a lot of Rights or skeptics who even doubted if Trump will do something against the CAGW (catastrophic man-made global warming) meme. As there were no big clues what will happen, here is my humble opinion about the situation.


    The Lefts

    Just lets talk about the active Lefts: Scientists and teachers, young supporters and activists, media, politicians, party followers and green industry. They are not so much, but they are special: They have a big faith.

    This faith is not founded on facts; the Lefts will even not listen to real facts if they do not fit to their belief. But they will everything embrace what will support their faith.

    Yes, it is a strong faith. This faith ist not build upon facts. It is build on a story, one of the biggest and most told stories in this world: The story from Paradise.

    The story from salvation of the nature and of mankind living in it in harmony with all creatures. But the paradise is not yet here, we see it just from a distance, or we grasp here and there a piece oft it.

    And there are enemies who endanger the comming paradise: Egocentric guys and bad industries which are threatening to destroy it. But there are also heroes who are prepared to fight against the the bad guys and destroyers of the promised land.

    Yes the left believers have already fought against the highest of the enemies and his demonic supporters. It seems that those have won, but the fight is not yet over. The true believers will continue, and if necessary in the underground as members of a resistance group. At least they feel like that.

    Just because Trump has won the election, they will not give up, and even commands and violence will not destroy their will. When necessary, they even will suffer for their good cause.

    So the scientists and teachers, the politicians, the press and other media, the activist groups and supporters, and their internet community will continue and not give in.

    This was a description how hard-core lefts are oriented.

    Okay, there are others, who just not believe in the climate stuff, and much more who are not interested in it at all. And than there are opportunists who will ever do what brings a benefit.


    The Rights

    The Rights may be right in many points, but they have a problem: They are against the big good story, they are not positive and they are nay-sayers. And very often they are cynical and angry and - at least as the Lefts perceive it - they are hateful.

    And the Rights have another problem: They have no big story. A story has power - strong power - and can only be overturned by another good story.

    So what will Trump do? Will he as a president openly declare, that CAGW is a lie and tat he will reverse everything which is connected to it? True, he said this once, but then he said it was a joke.

    If he would openly oppose to CAGW and other left issues, there would be an open fight. And that is not his aim. I think he wants to make deals and not to divide the nation. So he will focus on goals which he can achieve easily. And during doing that, here and there he may correct something, together with other issues. Possibly including the chance for an open, free discussion. No big fight, but easy going.

    And what to do with the believers of the big story? A wrong scientific theory normally will last as long the gurus of it get retired or until they die. Possibly we will get some support from nature, and get a very long pause of warming or even a cooling. For a real believer this is no problem. He will adapt his story. Like many religious groups have postponed the end of the world several times, they will also have explanations.

    The hardcore green believers are possibly few, but they have key positions and they are the opinion makers. And they will not easily be overturned.

    Thinking in new direction

    But again - what shall we do with them? I think we need another big story. A positive, encouraging story - the story of the real paradise, starting here and now. And there must be visible success which fits to the story: Less poverty, more jobs, wealthy communities, and a blooming and growing nature.

    Not only in America, even in other parts of the world. Not the usual development aid, which only helps the rich there, but support for other Nations to get wealthy as a whole.

    Let's paint this picture and share it in an open, positive way. We see that the new social media can be distributors of new messages and stories, but not with the whole content. But they can point out to web sites, groups and video channels which step deeper into the the new story. In a convincing and encouraging way.

    The problem is: Such positive and encouraging sites and channels are not easy to find. What can be found are sites with ranting and whining guys who talk about "the other side" as enemies. One example: I like to visit Breitbart, because I get there a lot of concise news about not so often heard stories. But when it goes to the comments, then what to read there is sometimes hard to bear. It is not fair and often even racist and hateful. Instead of using a unifying "we", they use the splitting "us and they". When we want to convince others we can only do in a fair, friendly and inviting atmosphere. And possibly a comment section is not always the best idea if you want to maintain a positive atmosphere.

    When it comes to facts in websites and videos, then we often see lengthy videos of lectures with sensational titles and boring content. Or very long and for laymen not easy to understand articles. And endless discussions about physics, which should have been settled years ago. We need short and clear explanations, possibly in the form of courses and FAQs. We need fair statements about things we do not know. We need short video clips of few, say three minutes, which keeps up the interest to click for the next ones. We need videos with the ability to go viral and to reach out to everybody.

    If this other big story and its positive outcome will be visible, then even the hardcore-lefts will start to think different.

    I am not sure, if the Rights and the Skeptics are prepared for this. Long times they have been the oppressed ones. Possibly they have to learn a new role. I think Trump is a good example: Hard fighting when necessary, but relaxed and generous when the goal is achieved.

    Johannes Herbst is a former German Green who went skeptic. He worked as self-employed Handicraft Master and vocational trainer. He founded and worked on a Craftsmen School for small-scale Renewable Energies in Tanzania, East Africa for seven years. At the time being he is designing and building long-lasting and affordable Houses. He is married and has five children.

    82% aller Wissenschaftler stimmen überein, dass sich die Welt in einer Abkühlungsphase befindet und weiter abkühlt-

    Zumindest war das so in den 70er Jahren, nachdem die Temperatur seit den 30er Jahren um knapp ein halbes Grad gefallen war.



    https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IyercsPh4kU/Vw1k5OXanrI/AAAAAAAACQ8/CHBGrimE2sodt5smg_NH5GtTlcCqK45dQCLcB/s400/global%2Bcooling%2B1977.PNG

    23 vom 28 Wissenschaftlern, die dazu Studien veröffentlicht hatten, gingen damals von einer weiteren Abkühlung aus.

    Samstag, 14. Januar 2017

    Why CO2 and downwelling radiation is not against the laws of thermodynamics

    There is a common misconception that CO2 doesn't radiate back to earth, because it is against the law that no cooler body can heat up a warmern body. So I was forced to write a short explanation on wattsupwiththat.com
     https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/10/the-william-happer-interview/

    My reply was to this comment:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/10/the-william-happer-interview/#comment-2393740

    "Great post, but why would CO2 cause any warming at all? Unless you agree with the GHE theory, which I doubt, this claim of “only 1C warming” is not valid within the laws of thermodynamics."

    This "CO2-warming-is-against-laws-of-thermodynamics meme" does a great harm to the skeptics reputation, because it ignores simple radiation physics.

    Just to get the idea:

    • There is a stove in a cold room, giving out a certain radiation energy.
    • Now take a black matte painted solid sheet around in a certain distance from the stove. It will be heated up and radiate towards to stove and the rest of the room. The stove will be hotter to a certain extend. This is what a cloud does, being close to the properties of  ab blackbody.
    • Now take away the solid sheet and put there a black matte one with holes punched in, so that about two thirds of the area is covered. So this is now also heated by the stove, but to a lesser extend, and also the stove gets a little hotter. This is what watervapour is doing, leaving through some radiation.
    • Now take another black sheet with lots of holes punched in, covering only one quarter of the area. Now the re-radiation is much lower, and the stove stays only a small amount hotter. This is what CO2 is doing in the atmosphere.
    • Now try to get the whole picture: CO2 is always there in a quite even distribution. This is the sheet with the big holes. Water vapour is not evenly distributed, So it compares to a second sheet behind it,with differently big holes. Clouds are not always there, but if, they are covering the certian area completely.
    • We see: CO2 has a small function in the radiative play. So it doesn't really matter that much.
    • But: All three components of the atmosphere are re-radiating some amount of heat, thus slowing the cooling of the "stove". They are cooler than the stove and they are not heating up the stove. There is always a net flow of heat towards the cold room. Sometimes more, sometimes less, and always within the laws of thermodynamics.