Water Vapor and Gravity Act Together to Warm the Earth

It is commonly said that greenhouse gases cause the Earth's surface temperature to be 33K warmer than it would be without these infrared-active gases.  This is based on the idea that the total solar insolation presently absorbed by the Earth, both surface and atmosphere, would all be emitted from the surface as thermal radiation and emitted directly to space if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law for thermal radiation, the surface temperature is then said to be 255 K.  No correction is made for the fact that without greenhouse gases, the solar radiation lost to space by reflection would be less.  There is no correction either for the fact that most of the solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere would be absorbed by the surface instead.  Let us make these corrections here to derive a more realistic total greenhouse gas effect as a starting point for understanding how water vapor and gravity together cause the Earth to be as warm as it is.

Reference is made to two NASA Earth Energy Budget diagrams to determine the reflections from the atmosphere, clouds, and the surface:

Despite the long-standing claim that the science is settled, it is interesting to note that these two NASA energy budgets, representing the settled science as they do, do not agree.

The first one says the sum of the solar radiation reflected by the atmosphere and clouds is 23%, while the second one says that sum is 26%.  The first one says the surface reflection is 7%, while the second one says it is 4%.  The first one says that 48% of the incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the surface, while the second one says that 51% is absorbed.  The first NASA energy budget says that 23% of the solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and does not separate out the percentage absorbed by clouds.  The second energy budget says the sum of the incoming solar absorbed by the atmosphere and clouds is 19%.  Let us bear these differences in mind as we look at the following NASA Earth Energy Budget that states that the Earth is warming due to 0.6 W/m² , which is only 0.18% of the incoming solar radiation.  With several percentage differences in the long settled science, it is fascinating that NASA can peer through the uncertainties to see a warming Earth due to only 0.18% of the solar radiation.  Among other things, NASA makes the claim that this 0.18% is not due to changing solar output.

In the third NASA energy budget, the solar radiation reflected by clouds and atmosphere is 22.6% and that reflected from the surface is 6.7%, in close agreement with the first energy budget.  Now the problem is that a portion of the reflection from the atmosphere is due to reflection off nitrogen and oxygen molecules.  Some is also due to reflection off haze due to water vapor.  To estimate the added solar insolation absorbed by the surface when greenhouse gases are eliminated from the atmosphere, it is necessary to know the reflection from haze, which would not exist but for water vapor.  There is no certain value for the added solar radiation incident on the surface and no agreement among the three diagrams on the fraction of that which will be reflected.  Such is the settled science.  I will work with an estimate that 22% of the top of the atmosphere solar radiation is added to that incident on the surface in the case of no greenhouse gases.  I will then assume that of the solar radiation incident on the surface, 12.3% is reflected.  This value is from the third diagram where 22.9/(22.9 + 163.3) = 0.123.

22% of 340.4 W/m² is 74.9 W/m² , which is all but 2.1 W/m² of the 77.0 W/m² reflected into space from the atmosphere in the third diagram.  The 77.1 W/m² adsorbed by the atmosphere in that diagram does not happen with no greenhouse gases either. Consequently, the solar radiation incident on the surface is increased to 338.3 W/m² .  Of this, 12.3% is reflected, so 296.7 W/m² is adsorbed by the surface.  This is 133.4 W/m² more than the 163.3 W/m² adsorbed by the surface in the third NASA Earth energy budget and 56.8 W/m²  more than is now absorbed by both the atmosphere and the surface.  This is no small addition to the absorbed energy, though proponents of the catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis frequently claim that greenhouse gases have little effect on adsorbed solar radiation.  Some will say that I have no business removing the reflection from clouds, but I cannot understand how one can have clouds without the most important greenhouse gas of all, namely water vapor.

Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann equation we have for the surface temperature with no greenhouse gases:

P (W/m²) = 296.7 W/m² = σ T⁴ = (5.6697 x 10^-8 W/m²K⁴) T⁴, so T= 269.0 K,

which is only 19.0K less than 288.0 K, not the usually quoted 33K less.  The original greenhouse effect is only 19.0/33.0 = 0.576 times the scale we are usually told it is.  This is one of the means by which it is exaggerated in the settled science.

The role of water vapor is huge.  Gravity creates a gradient in atmospheric gas molecule kinetic energies and therefore in their temperature.  This gravity-induced temperature gradient will not have a large effect on the surface temperature unless there is a large atmospheric emission of energy to space from a substantial altitude.  Water vapor is the primary provider of both the required energy at substantial altitudes in the atmosphere.  It helps that the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere falls off rapidly in the upper troposphere, so that water vapor with its relatively wide range of radiating frequencies can readily radiate most of the Earth's adsorbed solar radiation from the upper troposphere into space.

Water vapor critically reduces the direct emission of surface emitted thermal radiation to space.  In summary, it does this in three key ways:

• Water vapor absorbs most of the two-thirds of the surface thermal emission of infrared radiation that is absorbed in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide and the other infrared-active gases also participate in this function as minor partners.

• The creation of water vapor reduces the surface emission of infrared radiation at the surface as a competing surface cooling mechanism by soaking up heat in the process of water evaporation.  This is a result of energy conservation.  Energy that goes into evaporating water cannot also go into photon emission. Carbon dioxide plays no role in this mechanism at all.

• The condensation of water vapor at substantial altitudes in the troposphere provides a large store of energy to be radiated from the upper troposphere into space.  There is no corresponding role for carbon dioxide.

The fact of the large emission of radiation by infrared-active molecules at the top of the troposphere also allows thermals to come into play as a means of reducing surface radiation emission and as a feed of energy to the upper troposphere from whence it can be radiated into space.  It is then this radiation to space from the upper troposphere that determines the temperature of the upper troposphere.  This in turn allows the gravitational temperature gradient to increase the surface temperature relative to the temperature of the upper troposphere from which most of the Earth's thermal radiation into space is emitted.

Without greenhouse gases, the gravity-induced temperature gradient still exists, but the temperature anchor has to be the Earth's surface since it is the only possible source for thermal radiation to space.  The infrared-active gases do provide substantial warming of the Earth's surface, but contrary to the usual claim that it is due simply to absorbing surface emitted thermal infrared in the atmosphere, it is really due to all three of the bulleted mechanisms above.  Only water vapor plays a role in two of the three critical mechanisms and it is very dominant in the remaining mechanism. When this is understood, it is clear that water vapor is a much more dominant actor in the warming of the Earth than is recognized in the general settled science viewpoint.  When only the first bulleted mechanism is said to be the reason for a warmer Earth, carbon dioxide seems to play a bigger role than it really does.

The partnership of water vapor with the temperature gradient in the atmosphere due to gravity provides us with a much warmer Earth.  This partnership is completely lost in the so-called settled science.  To learn more about the gravity induced temperature gradient in the troposphere, see mgh, Not Just Greenhouse Gases, Provides a Warm Earth.  When the water vapor and gravity partnership is properly understood, the very minor role of carbon dioxide is better understood.  When that is understood, the wrongheadedness of catastrophic man-made global warming is understood.

The Unsettled Science of Global Warming Revealed by the Climate Models

The last 15 or so years of stasis in the global temperatures, is making it very obvious that the settled science we are told is so well-known and so well-executed in the climate models is full of holes.  Yet, Obama and many others claim that 97% of scientists are blind to these obvious problems.  Well no, 97% of scientists are not that blind and that claim of settled science and a consensus on it is hogwash.

Dr. Roy Spencer recently discussed a plot of the early fits and later predictions of 44 climate models for the lower troposphere temperatures for comparison with the University of Alabama Huntsville and the RSS satellite observations.  The plot was provided by John Christy based on data from the KNMI Climate Explorer.  Dr. Spencer's post was entitled Global Warming Slowdown: The View from Space.

The plot of the 44 climate model results for the temperature in the lower troposphere with comparison to the UAH and RSS satellite observations:

The heavy black line is the average of the 44 climate models.  The UAH satellite measurements are in blue and the RSS measurements are in red.  Both the UAH and RSS satellite measurements are now at lower temperatures than any of the 44 climate models predicted.  To be sure, a few models might say that they are still within their expected errors.  However, it is an obvious conclusion that the settled science of climate represented both by the average and by the wide dispersion of the results, is a myth cultivated by a tireless propaganda machine.

It is likely that most of the developers of these models believe in catastrophic man-made global warming due to man's emissions of carbon dioxide from his use of fossil fuels.  That belief is pretty much a requirement to get funding from governments around the world to develop these models.  This must certainly result in a significant bias of the average result of these models.

The UAH lower troposphere measurement has risen compared to the zero baseline temperature only 33% of the rise predicted by the model average.  The RSS lower troposphere measurement has risen only 28% as high as the model average.  Saying that climate science is settled in this case is like saying that the average of 44 models for the gravitational acceleration at the surface of the Earth is 32.1 m/s^2, but those doggone measurements keep coming up 9.8 m/s^2.  Despite that difference, there is a consensus among scientists that the science of gravity is well-understood and settled science!  It is not important whether the gravitational acceleration is 32.1 or 9.8 m/s^2 when we measure out gold for sale!

The settled science is also so well-known that the predicted temperature change in the lower troposphere for 2025 for the highest prediction based on the well-known and settled science is 2.63 times the lowest predicted change.  Even a non-scientist should be able to easily see that this implies a great disagreement in the science between these model-builders.  It implies a large uncertainty about the science the respective models believe they know well enough to try to incorporate into their models.

In fact, there are many uncertainties that are actually known and many others that may well be unknown.  Predicting the future solar insolation is not all that well known.  The effects of aerosols and of blown dust are not well-known.  The factors that change the degree cloud cover and type of clouds over time are not well-known.  These models have a bias toward assuming that radiation transport of energy in the lower troposphere is greater than it actually is.  They underestimate the energy transport effects of water evaporation and of air convection.  They do not understand the cycles in the oceans sufficiently well.  Thermal inputs from ocean vents and volcanoes and from solar wind and electromagnetic field effects are not well-known.  The large numbers of bacteria in the atmosphere came as a recent surprise.  How do they affect solar insolation and longwave IR scattering?  The non-human sources of CO2 are still not well-understood and this affects predictions of natural CO2 emissions over time.  For that matter, the amount of man's CO2 emissions over time and the time that CO2 remains in the atmosphere is not well-known in these climate models either.

So how do these government-funded and coddled global warming alarmist scientists, most of the print media, and the Obama administration get away with claiming that the science of catastrophic man-made global warming is settled?  How can they believe and expect anyone else to believe that 97% of scientists are on-board with this hogwash?

They ought to be laughed at were the consequences not so dire.  But, they advocate so many limits on our freedoms and so much economic damage in the name of this scientifically bogus theory that it is hardly a laughing matter.  What is more, it is very harmful to the respect that real science should be given.

Earth Surface Cooled from 1982 to 2006 According to Satellite Data

As is now generally known, there has been no warming of the Earth's surface since 1998 at least.  Prior to that time, we were informed that there had been a rapid warming of the Earth's surface and that it was caused by increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere due to man using fossil fuels.  The 2007 IPCC 4th Report still insisted that for 25 years the Earth had been warming.  A newly published study using satellite temperature sensing specifically for detecting the Earth's surface temperature and minimizing that of the atmosphere above the surface, shows that the Earth's surface, contrary to reports, actually cooled from 1982 to 2006!

The paper is entitled Meteosat Derived Planetary Temperature Trend 1982-2006 by Andries Rosema, Steven Foppes, and Joost van der Woerd and was published in Energy & Environment, Vol. 24, No. 3 & 4 2013.  They were very surprised to find the cooling trend they reported.

Earlier satellite data analyses, originated by investigators at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, used microwave sensors to infer the temperature from microwave emissions from oxygen molecules.  Microwaves of different energies originated from various layers of the atmosphere.  One set of data originated from an altitude of about 17 km.  Another at an altitude of about 3 - 4 km.  Then by looking at data taken at oblique angles of incidence, they inferred a temperature from an altitude of about 0.8 km.  However, none of this data actually the Earth's surface temperature.  Initially, this data on the lower atmosphere had shown a small cooling effect, but after many corrections were applied, the data yielded an increase of temperature of about 0.1 C/decade in the troposphere.  The troposphere is the bottom about 10 to 11 km of the atmosphere and its temperature is not at all necessarily in direct proportion to the surface temperature.  Indeed, increased cloud cover, water vapor, and CO2 in the atmosphere may cause an increase in the troposphere temperature even as it cools the surface temperature.

The Rosema, Foppes, and van der Woerd study used the infra-red radiation at 10.5 to 12.5 micrometers wavelength to directly measure the surface temperature of the Earth.  The copy of the paper incorrectly says mm instead of micrometers.  This infra-red radiation is in the mid-infra-red part of the electromagnetic spectrum, but close to the beginning of the far infra-red.  The atmosphere is highly transparent at these wavelengths, provided there are no clouds.  There is a minor effect due to water, but none due to CO2.  The minor water absorption does add a small temperature component from the lower atmosphere to the larger component directly from the Earth's surface.  This is nonetheless a huge improvement over the oxygen emission microwave emissions which have no surface component at all.  The effects of clouds were filtered out of the data.  The daily planetary temperature was approximated as the average of noon and midnight temperatures.

Such satellite measurements are critically important.  The land surface temperature record is highly contaminated by urban heat island effects and by the bad sites chosen for weather station measurements.  Very mysterious and undocumented changes to the raw data have been made to various time period sets of data.  See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, for instance.  The authors of this study note that 10% of their own country, the Netherlands, is now hardened surface.  Changes to ground cover, vegetation, or water surface coverage do have local effects on the surface temperature.

Indeed, they point to data for the area of the confluence of the Euphrat and Tigris Rivers in SE Iraq which showed a sudden warming when Saddam Hussein drained the extensive marshes there.  With less water in this warm area, less evaporative cooling occurred and water vapor absorbed less incoming solar insolation up in the atmosphere, so the average temperature increased.  They found another small area with warming in NW Tanzania.  There, they believe that major mining increases led to a decrease in vegetation and then a reduction in evapotranspiration.  The loss of that cooling caused surface temperatures to increase.  They also noted a cooling effect near Lake Chad and Lake Nasser in their data which they attribute to the growing size of those lakes.

From 1982 to 2006, an ocean location west of France showed a temperature decrease of 0.78 C/decade.  A location west of Senegal in the Atlantic showed a temperature decrease of 0.48 C/decade, which is less a decrease because of ocean upwelling in this area.  More generally, they report that the Atlantic Ocean, Africa, and Europe show a negative surface temperature trend from zero to 2 C/decade.  They observed that the greatest temperature decreases were in regions with greater cloud cover.  In particular, the temperature decrease over desert areas was smaller.

Increased cloud cover is correlated with increased humidity of the air.  More water vapor and more clouds both result in a lower surface temperature.  While it is harder to separate out the effect of CO2 from the overwhelming effects of water vapor, increased atmospheric CO2 probably will also increase the cooling of the surface, as I have argued.  In any case, the IPCC claim that a small surface temperature increase due to added CO2 will cause a much larger temperature increase due to more water vapor, is absolutely and clearly nonsense.