Outgoing Longwave Radiation OLR from the Top of the Atmosphere ToA is measured by a CERES satellite looking down on ToA equipped with a sensor as one end of a thermocouple with its other end kept at a steady temperature generating a voltage scaling with the temperature difference at its ends.
The CERES instrument is calibrated by determining a gain factor from sensor temperature to radiance letting the instrument look at a black body of known temperature $T_B$ with assumed Planck radiation $\sigma T_B^4$ while recording the sensor temperature. With the gain factor so determined the instrument reports radiance from ToA from a reading of sensor temperature. This is the simplest form of calibration assuming linearity. Very primitive technique, where the details of the instrument do not matter. It is like measuring intensity of rainfall using your hands to collect water calibrated to a faucet. The accuracy is at best 1 W/m2 or 0.4% of the same size as estimated Earth Energy Imbalance from CO2.
A pyrgeometer measuring Downwelling Longwave Radiation from the atmosphere to the Earth surface also uses a sensor as one end of a thermocouple with the other end kept a base temperature, and also measures a voltage scaling with temperature difference. The calibration is here different because the outgoing radiation from the sensor can no longer be included in the calibration process, but has to be supplied through a Planck formula $\epsilon\sigma T^4$ with $T$ sensor temperature and $\epsilon$ sensor emissivity. The accuracy is at best 5 W/m2 again too big to detect global warming if present.
OLR and DLR are thus measured in a similar way, but with different forms of calibration the difference being that OLR faces empty space ay 0 K, while DLR faces the Earth surface. The accuracy is not enough to decide any size of global warming, although it is claimed that trends can be detected.
In both cases Planck's Law in the form $\sigma T^4$ is used, which in the case of DLR is incorrect because the correct form is $\sigma (T^4-T_E^4)$ with $T_E$ Earth temperature expressing negative DLR.
Summary: Measurements of OLR and DLR are made to detect global warming. The accuracy of the instruments is not good enough to detect any warming if present. DLR measurements can be questioned since an incorrect Planck Law is used. OLR and DLR as radiance as process variable fluctuate and as such are difficult to measure.
EEI is a cornerstone of global warming alarmism, and so measuremennt of EEI has become a prime task for instrument technology, which does not seem to have delivered. The effect of EEI on surface temperature is unknown and impossible to measure and DLR is a misconception based on an incorrect form of Planck's Law.
ChatGPT on objective of CERES:
CERES connects to global warming because it:
-
Measures the planetary energy balance directly at TOA.
-
Detects changes in OLR and OSR (reflected shortwave) caused by greenhouse gases, aerosols, clouds, and ice.
-
Provides the evidence that Earth is currently taking in more energy than it loses — the physical basis of global warming.
ChatGPT on objective of measuring DLR :
- Provide a direct measure of the atmosphere’s infrared emission to the surface, essential for closing the surface energy budget, quantifying the greenhouse effect, tracking climate change, and validating models.
Inlägg
There are two forms of the S-B equation:
SvaraRaderahttps://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
[1] Idealized Blackbody Object form (assumes emission to 0 K and ε = 1 by definition):
q_bb = ε σ (T_h^4 - T_c^4)
= 1 σ (T_h^4 - 0 K)
= σ T^4
[2] Graybody Object form (assumes emission to > 0 K and ε < 1):
q_gb = ε σ (T_h^4 - T_c^4)
Stefan's Law:
T = 4^√(e/a)
We can plug Stefan's Law:
T = 4^√(e/a)
...into the traditional Stefan-Boltzmann equation for graybody objects:
q = ε_h σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
... which reduces to the energy density form of the S-B equation:
q = ε_h * (σ / a) * Δe
Canceling units, we get W m-2.
W m-2 = (W m-2 K-4 / J m-3 K-4) * ΔJ m-3
NOTE: (σ / a) = W m-2 K-4 / J m-3 K-4 = W m-2 / J m-3.
That is the conversion factor for radiant exitance (W m-2) and energy density (J m-3).
The radiant exitance of the warmer graybody object is determined by the energy density gradient and its emissivity.
Energy can't even spontaneously flow when there is zero energy density gradient (ie: at thermodynamic equilibrium):
σ [W m-2 K-4] / a [J m-3 K-4] * Δe [J m-3] * ε_h = [W m-2]
σ [W m-2 K-4] / a [J m-3 K-4] * 0 [J m-3] * ε_h = 0 [W m-2]
Or, in the traditional form of the S-B equation:
q = ε_h σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
q = ε_h σ (0) = 0 W m-2
... it is certainly not going to spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.
AGW / CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, due to CO2) is a provable hoax, nothing more than a complex mathematical scam. The 'scientists' shilling for AGW / CAGW are either uneducated, deluded or nefarious commies.
Energy does not and cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient, thus "backradiation" (ie: energy spontaneously flowing up an energy density gradient) is physically impossible, thus the "greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)" is physically impossible, thus "greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))" are physically impossible, thus "AGW / CAGW (due to greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)))" is physically impossible, thus all of the offshoots of AGW / CAGW (eg: carbon footprint, carbon credit trading, carbon capture and sequestration, net zero, degrowth, banning ICE vehicles, climate lockdowns, replacing reliable baseload electrical generation with intermittent renewables, etc.) are all based upon that physical impossibility.
Should any of those uneducated, deluded or nefarious commie 'scientists' claim that "backradiation" (ie: energy spontaneously flowing up an energy density gradient) is possible, then they must also claim that water can spontaneously flow up a pressure gradient (uphill); or they must also claim that different forms of energy obey different physical laws. Neither is true, thus in making such a claim they'd only expose themselves as being nothing but uneducated, deluded or a nefarious commie.
Remember that:
SvaraRadera1) All action requires an impetus...
2) That impetus will always be in the form of a gradient of some sort...
3) All spontaneous action is down the slope of that gradient.
"Backradiation" purports to spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient (from cooler (lower energy density) atmosphere to warmer (higher energy density) surface).
Do remember that a warmer object will have higher energy density at all wavelengths than a cooler object:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240422125305if_/https://i.stack.imgur.com/qPJ94.png
... so there is no physical way possible by which energy can spontaneously flow from cooler (lower energy density) to warmer (higher energy density). 'Backradiation' is nothing more than a mathematical artifact conjured out of thin air due to the climatologists misusing the S-B equation in their Energy Balance Climate Models, which I prove using the Kiehl-Trenberth 'Earth Energy Balance' graphic, which is a graphical representation of the mathematical results of their Energy Balance Climate Model.
https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711
Subsequent EBCMs claim 398 W m-2 surface radiant exitance, which isn't even physically possible at their claimed 288 K surface temperature, even if one treats the surface as an idealized blackbody (emissivity = 1, emission to 0 K) to artificially inflate radiant exitance. The climatologists had to keep bumping up the numbers to sustain their alarmist narrative, and they've now verged into physical impossibilities.
Now, with the AGW / CAGW hypothesis disproved, that leaves only the Adiabatic Lapse Rate (ALR).
SvaraRaderaThat's why the climatologists hijacked the Average Humid Adiabatic Lapse Rate, claiming that the atmospheric temperature gradient caused by the ALR's gravitational auto-compression (that blue-shifting of temperature as one descends a gravity well in an atmosphere, in accord with the Ideal Gas Laws) was actually caused by their "AGW / CAGW (due to greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)))".
The climatologists know that "backradiation" is physically impossible, thus their "greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)" is physically impossible... but they had to show it was having an effect, so they hijacked the Average Humid Adiabatic Lapse Rate.
We know the planet's emission curve is roughly analogous to that of an idealized blackbody object emitting at 255 K. And we know the 'effective emission height' at that temperature is ~5.105 km.
6.5 K km-1 * 5.105 km = 33.1815 K temperature gradient + 255 K = 288.1815 K surface temperature
That 6.5 K km-1 is the Average Humid Adiabatic Lapse Rate. That 33.1815 K temperature gradient and 288.1815 K surface temperature is what the climatologists try to claim is caused by their "greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)"... except it's not. It's caused by the Average Humid Adiabatic Lapse Rate, and that has nothing to do with any "backradiation", nor any "greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)", nor any "greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))".
The Adiabatic Lapse Rate is caused by the atmosphere converting z-axis DOF (Degree of Freedom) translational mode (kinetic) energy to gravitational potential energy with altitude (and vice versa), that change in z-axis kinetic energy equipartitioning with the other 2 linearly-independent DOF upon subsequent collisions, per the Equipartition Theorem. This is why temperature falls as altitude increases (and vice versa).
With the AGW / CAGW hypothesis proven to be nothing more than the result of conflating idealized and real-world, akin to conflating fantasy and reality:
https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711
... that leaves only the Adiabatic Lapse Rate... and we can calculate the exact change in lapse rate (and thus surface temperature) for any given change in concentration of any given atmospheric gas.
{ continued... }
Idealized dry gas molar heat capacity lapse rate:
RaderaIf we take ϒ = 1.404, g = 9.80665 m s-2, R = 8.31446261815324 J mol-1 K-1 and M = 28.9647 g mol-1, then:
dT / dh = -0.4/1.404 * (((28.9647 g mol-1) * 9.80665 m s-2) / 8.31446261815324 J mol-1 K-1) = -9.7330377706482238008458858152373 K km-1
The stated molar isobaric heat capacity for dry air is Cp = 7/2 R
7 / 2 * 8.31446261815324 J mol-1 K-1 = 29.10061916353634 J mol-1 K-1
∴ Molar Heat Capacity / 7 * 2 = Specific Gas Constant
dT / dh = -0.4/1.404 * (((Molar Mass) * 9.80665 m s-2) / Specific Gas Constant) = Specific Lapse Rate
The below data is taken from the model atmosphere I constructed in my paper at:
https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711
... to calculate the Specific Lapse Rates below:
(N2) 9.433973828324 K km-1 * 0.780761158 +
(O2) 10.680770320623 K km-1 * 0.20944121395198 +
(Ar) 18.84692989579 K km-1 * 0.00934 +
(CO2) 11.683426182319 K km-1 * 0.00043 +
(Ne) 9.5205114453312 K km-1 * 0.0000182 +
(He) 1.8883738683977 K km-1 * 0.000005222 +
(CH4) 4.4080355942551 K km-1 * 0.0000018 +
(Kr) 39.225663804284 K km-1 * 0.000001 +
(H2) 0.6859482857817 K km-1 * 0.00000055 +
(NO2) 12.127952596066 K km-1 * 0.00000033698 +
(N2O) 11.18181671295 K km-1 * 0.00000033671 +
(Xe) 61.282460659191 K km-1 * 0.0000000869565217391 +
(CO) 9.4393555726775 K km-1 * 0.00000008 +
(SO2) 15.757493460485 K km-1 * 0.000000015 +
(O3) 12.001569302138 K km-1 * 0.0000000003 +
(I2) 45.728742264382 K km-1 * 0.00000000009 +
(SF6) 30.187357269247 K km-1 * 0.0000000000115 =
(N2) 7.36568033074394 +
(O2) 2.23699350189356 +
(Ar) 0.176030325226679 +
(CO2) 0.00502387325839717 +
(Ne) 0.000173273308305028 +
(He) 0.00000986108834077279 +
(CH4) 0.00000793446406965918 +
(Kr) 0.000039225663804284 +
(H2) 0.000000377271557179935 +
(NO2) 0.00000408687746582232 +
(N2O) 0.00000376502950541739 +
(Xe) 0.00000532890962253648 +
(CO) 0.0000007551484458142 +
(SO2) 0.000000236362401907275 +
(O3) 0.0000000036004707906414 +
(I2) 0.00000000411558680379438 +
(SF6) 0.000000000347154608596341 = 9.78397288330931 K km-1
See that result above? That's the Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate. We've reverse-engineered the Adiabatic Lapse Rate, teased out the contribution to the ALR of each gas according to its concentration, then cumulated those contributions to arrive at the ALR again, as a double-check of the maths.
Now, obviously, if we're serious about reducing surface temperature, we want to choose the gas which has the greatest impact upon temperature (and the least impact upon life) when we remove it. Something with a high Specific Lapse Rate and a high concentration, but which is not biologically useful.
Obviously, we cannot remove N2... there's far too much of it, we'd have nowhere to store all of it.
Obviously, we cannot remove O2... we need it to breathe.
But Ar has no biological purpose (so removing it won't harm flora nor fauna), it is the third-highest contributor to the ALR, and it has a high enough concentration that its removal would have a perceptible effect upon temperature.
{ continued... }
If the climate alarmists were serious about reducing temperature, they'd advocate for removing all Ar... it serves no biological purpose, it's used in industry so we need stocks of it, it has a higher concentration than CO2 and thus its removal would have a measurable effect upon temperature, its removal wouldn't destroy all life on the planet (as CO2's total removal would) and its removal would lower the lapse rate (and thus cool the surface) by:
Radera(Ar) 18.84692989579 K km-1 * 0.000001 = 0.00001884692989579 K km-1 ppm-1
(Ar) 18.84692989579 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.009340 = 0.8986348102821 K
But wait! We also have to account for the atoms and molecules which that Ar displaces. We'll do the calculations for the three most-prevalent atomic or molecular species.
N2 | 28.0134 g mol-1 | 29.12 J mol-1 K-1 | 9.4339738283240 K km-1
(N2) 9340 ppm * 0.780761158 = 7292.30921572 ppm
(N2) 780761.158 ppm + 7292.30921572 ppm = 788053.46721572 ppm
(N2) 9.433973828324 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.780761158 = 37.6017980884478 K
(N2) 9.433973828324 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.78805346721572 = 37.9529988825939 K
(N2) 37.9529988825939 K - 37.601798088447 K = 0.351200794146905 K warming
O2 | 31.9988 g mol-1 | 29.38 J mol-1 K-1 | 10.680770320623 K km-1
(O2) 9340 ppm * 0.20944121395198 = 1956.18093831149 ppm
(O2) 209441.21395198 ppm + 1956.18093831149 ppm = 211397.394890292 ppm
(O2) 10.680770320623 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.20944121395198 = 11.4198518271666 K
(O2) 10.680770320623 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.211397394890292 = 11.5265132432324 K
(O2) 11.5265132432324 K - 11.4198518271666 K = 0.106661416065799 K warming
CO2 | 44.0095 g mol-1 | 36.94 J mol-1 K-1 | 11.683426182319 K km-1
(CO2) 9340 ppm * 0.00043 = 4.0162 ppm
(CO2) 430 ppm + 4.0162 ppm = 434.0162 ppm
(CO2) 11.683426182319 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.00043 = 0.0256468729841176 K
(CO2) 11.683426182319 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.0004340162 = 0.0258864147777892 K
(CO2) 0.0258864147777892 K - 0.0256468729841176 K = 0.0002395417936716 K warming
0.8986348102821 K - 0.351200794146905 K - 0.106661416065799 K - 0.0002395417936716 K = 0.440533058275724 K decrease in lapse rate
Removing all Ar would decrease the lapse rate (and thus surface temperature) by 0.440533058275724 K.
{ continued... }
Conversely, removing all CO2 would only reduce the lapse rate (and thus surface temperature) by:
Radera(CO2) 11.683426182319 K km-1 * 0.000001 = 0.000011683426182319 K km-1 ppm-1
(CO2) 11.683426182319 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.000430 = 0.0256468729841176 K
But wait! We also have to account for the atoms and molecules which that CO2 displaces. We'll do the calculations for the three most-prevalent atomic or molecular species.
N2 | 28.0134 g mol-1 | 29.12 J mol-1 K-1 | 9.4339738283240 K km-1
(N2) 430 ppm * 0.780761158 = 335.72729794 ppm
(N2) 780761.158 ppm + 335.72729794 ppm = 781096.88529794 ppm
(N2) 9.433973828324 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.780761158 = 37.6017980884478 K
(N2) 9.433973828324 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.78109688529794 = 37.6179668616258 K
(N2) 37.6179668616258 K - 37.6017980884478 K = 0.016168773178002 K warming
O2 | 31.9988 g mol-1 | 29.38 J mol-1 K-1 | 10.680770320623 K km-1
(O2) 430 ppm * 0.20944121395198 = 90.0597219993514 ppm
(O2) 209441.21395198 ppm + 90.0597219993514 ppm = 209531.273673979 ppm
(O2) 10.680770320623 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.20944121395198 = 11.4198518271666 K
(O2) 10.680770320623 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.209531273673979 = 11.4247623634523 K
(O2) 11.4247623634523 K - 11.4198518271666 K = 0.00491053628570093 K warming
Ar | 39.948 g mol-1 | 20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 | 18.846929895790 K km-1
(Ar) 430 ppm * 0.00934 = 4.0162 ppm
(Ar) 9340 ppm + 4.0162 ppm = 9344.0162 ppm
(Ar) 18.84692989579 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.00934 = 0.898634810282194 K
(Ar) 18.84692989579 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.0093440162 = 0.899021223250616 K
(Ar) 0.899021223250616 K - 0.898634810282194 K = 0.000386412968421901 K warming
0.0256468729841176 K - 0.016168773178002 K - 0.004910536285700930 K - 0.000386412968421901 K = 0.00418115055199277 K decrease in lapse rate.
Removing all CO2 would decrease the lapse rate (and thus surface temperature) by 0.00418115055199277 K.
{ continued... }
"No one is advocating for removing all CO2 from the atmosphere! That's just ridiculous! That would kill all life on the planet!", some loon will invariably screech.
RaderaAssume they draw CO2 down from 430 ppm to 280 ppm (150 ppm decrease). That would reduce the lapse rate (and thus surface temperature) by:
(CO2) 11.683426182319 K km-1 * 0.000001 = 0.000011683426182319 K km-1 ppm-1
(CO2) 11.683426182319 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.000430 = 0.0256468729841176 K
(CO2) 11.683426182319 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.000280 = 0.0167002893850068 K
(CO2) 11.683426182319 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.000150 = 0.00894658359911077 K
But wait! We also have to account for the atoms and molecules which that CO2 displaces. We'll do the calculations for the three most-prevalent atomic or molecular species.
N2 | 28.0134 g mol-1 | 29.12 J mol-1 K-1 | 9.4339738283240 K km-1
(N2) 150 ppm * 0.780761158 = 117.1141737 ppm
(N2) 780761.158 ppm + 117.1141737 ppm = 780878.2721737 ppm
(N2) 9.433973828324 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.780761158 = 37.6017980884478 K
(N2) 9.433973828324 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.7808782721737 = 37.6074383581611 K
(N2) 37.6074383581611 K - 37.6017980884478 K = 0.00564026971329668 K warming
O2 | 31.9988 g mol-1 | 29.38 J mol-1 K-1 | 10.680770320623 K km-1
(O2) 150 ppm * 0.20944121395198 = 31.416182092797 ppm
(O2) 209441.21395198 ppm + 31.416182092797 ppm = 209472.630134073 ppm
(O2) 10.680770320623 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.20944121395198 = 11.4198518271666 K
(O2) 10.680770320623 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.209472630134073 = 11.4215648049407 K
(O2) 11.4215648049407 K - 11.4198518271666 = 0.00171297777410118 K warming
Ar | 39.948 g mol-1 | 20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 | 18.846929895790 K km-1
(Ar) 150 ppm * 0.00934 = 1.401 ppm
(Ar) 9340 ppm + 1.401 ppm = 9341.401 ppm
(Ar) 18.84692989579 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.00934 = 0.898634810282194 K
(Ar) 18.84692989579 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.009341401 = 0.898769605503737 K
(Ar) 0.898769605503737 K - 0.898634810282194 K = 0.000134795221542916 warming
0.00894658359911077 K - 0.00564026971329668 K - 0.00171297777410118 K - 0.000134795221542916 K = 0.00145854089016999 K decrease in lapse rate.
Reducing CO2 from 430 ppm to 280 ppm would decrease the lapse rate (and thus surface temperature) by 0.00145854089016999 K.
-------------------------
About 1/1000th of a degree. For trillions of dollars wasted. That also happens to be the sum total of the effect of the CO2 atmospheric concentration increase (which is comprised of natural and anthropogenic CO2) to date from preindustrial times... so negligible as to be immeasurable. And from that immeasurably tiny change, trillion dollar scams have been spun.
So while trillions of dollars are being squandered on the non-solution of removing CO2, the above represents a lucrative business opportunity which would absolutely show profound effects upon the climate, and would provide industry with plentiful Ar gas as an additional income stream, without killing industry (and potentially all life on the planet) as would the restriction of CO2.
And do remember, removing CO2 removes the predominant upper atmospheric radiative coolant, which means the upper atmosphere warms, which translates down through the lapse rate to a warmer surface... whereas the total removal of all Ar would reduce the dilution by Ar of the radiative polyatomics, increasing the number of polyatomic radiative emitters per parcel of air, thus increasing the propensity for that parcel to radiatively emit, thus increasing radiative cooling to space of that parcel, thus cooling the upper atmosphere, which would translate down through the lapse rate to a cooler surface (eventually, after the gargantuan thermal capacity of the planet was worked through).
SvaraRaderaI am constantly surprised by the amount of information accessible on this subject.
SvaraRaderaWhat you presented was well researched and well written to get your stand on this over to all your readers.
SvaraRaderaThanks a lot my dear. I think this is an informative post
SvaraRaderaand it is very beneficial and knowledgeable.
SvaraRaderaI must say you have written a great article.