Are we "all" right for the wrong reasons, or

[Derek]

wrong for the right reasons...

OK, I have to admit it, I have been following a line of thought (since Autumn 2009) that suggests there is no greenhouse effect at all.
I'm wrong, there is a greenhouse effect of sorts.
Mind you the greenhouse effect as such is wrongly named as there is no roof stopping convection, so I'm right really...

I have recently been relooking at the physics of CO2, just at a general overview level,
and several misconceptions and misunderstandings have been put in different lights so to speak.
1) I had understood that space is cold. No it isn't.
How can nothing have a temperature. ?
Yes, anything in space can emit IR (heat) thermal radiation,
untill it has nothing left to emit, ie, absolute zero, but
space enables that to happen (by offering no resistence), not causes it.
Space has no temperature itself, and does not know the temperature of anything in it,
space is temperature "neutral".
This "bombshell" to me at least, lead me to realise that the earth merely radiates IR according to it's temperature,
which is completely different to earth being insulated from cold space by the greenhouse effect.
The understanding that space is cold, and the greenhouse effect insulates the earth,
implies that increasing the insulation, ie greenhouse gases, would raise earth's temperature as it looses less heat. - WRONG..

GHGs may well effect earth's temperature to some degree or other, but,
that this will raise earth's temperature is a completely different idea.
If space is temperature neutral then rasiing earth's temperature will
raise the amount of IR it emits, so increasing the losses.

2) GHG's trap heat in the earth's atmosphere. - WRONG (except for water),
and is actually physically impossible for CO2.
Yes, GHGs temperature is increased by absorbing IR, but,
almost all GHGs loose this by either / or / and conduction to other atmospheric constituents, or emit IR cooling them again.
In no way is the heat trapped in GHGs, at absolute best it's movement is merely slightly delayed,
but trapped or retained - never.

Water vapour is different it has changes of state in the atmosphere and on the earth's surface
at temperatures and pressures found upon the earth, no other GHG does this.
The changes of state involves latent heat and whilst no change of state occurs this latent heat IS trapped by water vapour.
ie, evapouration requires heat, it cools where the water evapourates from (endothermic),
and condensation releases heat (exothermic).
From evapouration to condensation water vapour (gas) has trapped the latent heat required for the change of state,
this also happens similarly for the change of state from (liquid) water to (solid) ice.
Water apparently on average takes about 11 days in the water cycle, so
the absolute longest on average any heat can be trapped by water vapour in the atmosphere is less than 11 days.

3) Given the above (starting understanding of) points it is easy to follow on to the idea there is no so called (wrongly) "greenhouse effect" all.
For example it would be easy to confuse yourself that CO2 has a lower specific heat content and capacity
than either nitrogen or oxygen (ie almost all the atmosphere) if you read these figures.
Heat Capacity.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/spesif...ity-gases-
cp
(kJ/kg K)

Carbon dioxide...... CO2........0.844
Nitrogen................N2........1.04
Oxygen.................O2........0.919

Thermal Conductivity.
Thermal conductivity (10 x Btu/Hr-.Ft.-F)

C02 = 8.62 Carbon Dioxide

N2 = 13.93 Nitrogen

02 = 14.05 Oxygen

Given these figures you might also think as I did that it follows that,

1) CO2 has a lower heat conductivity than N2 and O2.
ie, CO2 tends to recieve heat from the 2,500 N2 and O2 molecules to it's 1.

2) CO2 has a lower heat capacity than N2 and O2.
ie, CO2 looses it's heat (because it can radiate IR) faster than N2 and O2 becuase of it's lower heat capacity than N2 and O2.

This would seem to suggest that -
N2 and O2 conduct heat to CO2, and CO2 looses the heat from N2 and O2 by IR,
because of the combination of CO2's physical properties as discussed, namely, lower thermal conductivity and lower heat capacity than N2 and O2.

1) CO2,
i) Slows the rate of heating of the atmosphere.
ii) AND increases the rate of cooling of the atmosphere.

2) CO2 is a powerful heat entropy catalyst within the atmosphere.

3) IR emitted by CO2 has a specific frequency, in the atmosphere the IR of this frequency is NOT neccesarilly,
or even at all above the initial saturation level of CO2 (about 30 metres some suggest) "back radiation".
BUT, you'd be WRONG, as I was.
Why. ?

The devil is in the detail, the above figures compare the heat capacities / conductivity for the same weights of gases.
Given the atomic weights of the gases,
http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/circpdffol...5thru8.pdf
C = 12, O = 16, and N = 14, then,
CO2 = 44, N2 = 28, and O2 = 32, the same weights of gases compared have
very differing numbers of molecules in them. When worked out on a per molecule (molar) basis
CO2 does actually have the larger heat capacity, and lower thermal conductivity,
the exact opposite of the original figures impression.

This sort of thing can lead to a real sense of fustration when trying to find things out, or
just trying to understand what the heck people are talking about in all things climate....

The above has lead me to realise that there is some sort of greenhouse gas effect,
but is it a major influence upon climate, remembering that CO2 is only 1 part in 2,500 in the atmosphere. ?
It seems at such levels CO2 puts new meaning on the term a "hard worker".....

4) I have also been trying to understand IR radiation budgets, with little success..
The main "quantity" used in IR budgets is W / m2, or watts (of energy) per metre squared.
Using this W / m2 "quantity" IR budgets have flows going all over the place, up, down, sideways, etc, etc.
But what do they mean, well the heat goes from here to there in that amount seems to be the implied impression.
Errr, not in reality it don't, not in that manner.
Atmospheric GHG "Back radiation" is the best example that springs to mind,
apparently it suggests that CO2 and water vapour radiate heat back to the earth's surface warming it more than the sun could do on it's own.
One rather massive and obvious problem with this suggestion, the atmosphere is cooler than the earth's surface,
so the back radiation is cooler than the earth's surface.
We all know and see in every day life around us that cooler things DO NOT warm warmer things,
so how can back radiation from the atmosphere warm the earth's surface. It simply can not.
Furthermore the IR budgets do not take into account the relative tmeperatures of the energy flows they supposedly describe,
surely this omision on it's own invalidates ALL IR budgets. ?

The other obvious problem with IR budgets is that they should have
great big inbalances in them from latent heat movements.
Where water evapourates, there is an energy loss, and where it condenses there is a great big energy input,
but yet the IR budgets seem to balance...........
I can only suggest that IR budgets do not take into acount latent heat movements.
Is this possibly important. ?
Apparently latent heat movements are an order of magnitude LARGER at least than radiation heat movements.
How has this been missed, it beggars belief, unless again the devil is in the detail and I am about to find out..

I would suggest from the above brief descriptions that there are many more examples we have all come across,
where what does not seem right, is not right, but we have been informed in such a way, or
our knowledge is at a level that it is not immediately apparent,
how, what, where or why....
Wrong for the right reasons, or right for the wrong reasons you might say.

Other examples invited please.