492 W/m2 (nature) vs. 1 W/m2 (humans). Who's in control here?

Question

Let's all do a thought experiment. How much is the planet warmed naturally?

168 W/m2 by solar radiation and 324 W/m2 from the atmosphere, according to the IPCC[1].

168 324 = 492 W/m2.

Humans supposedly add 1.6 W/m2 to the atmosphere[2]. 0.6 W/m2 is emitted by the atmosphere back into space. 1 W/m2 is emitted back to Earth.

Now for the fun part.

Go out and buy a 1-Watt Sylvania miniature light bulb[3], and a 260 gallon fish tank[4]. (1 cubic meter ~ 260 US gallons). Fill it with water. Now try to heat it with your mini-light bulb. Guess what?

You can't.

Human emissions won't heat a fish tank, let alone the oceans.

This is the paradox that the INFAMOUS Dr. James E. Hansen pondered in 1976[5]. 1 W/m2 doesn't heat a thing.

In addition, for anyone interested, Hansen reveals his true agenda when he flat out calls capitalism the DEVIL (A "Faustian bargain")[6]. He is directly responsible for much of the current hysteria, panic and confusion.

[1] http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch01.pdf page 96

[2] http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf page 4

[3] http://www.servicelighting.com/Sylvania-38891-PR2-B3-5-Miniature-Incandescent-Light-Bulb

[4] http://www.theaquariumfinatic.com/wst_page5.php?idx=46&file=images/DSC03060.jpg&&ID2=IS5ZxM

[5] http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2004/2004_Hansen.pdf page 4

[6] http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/dai_complete.pdf

Answer 1

<<Now for the fun part.

Go out and buy a 1-Watt Sylvania miniature light bulb[3], and a 260 gallon fish tank[4]. (1 cubic meter ~ 260 US gallons). Fill it with water. Now try to heat it with your mini-light bulb. Guess what?

You can't.  Human emissions won't heat a fish tank, let alone the oceans.>>

the problem is, it's not a comparable situation.

i absolutely guarantee, if you perfectly insulate the fish tank, and use 1 watt to heat it, it will heat up.

leave it out on a table, and obviously it will lose heat to the air around.

so, it would appear that the earth receives 400 watts/sq meter, and retains 1 of them.

over time, that leads to heating.

currently we don't see it because for the most part, the ocean absorbs it with little obvious change, since water has such a high specific heat.

around the poles, we see ice melt.

if you stick a thermometer in the water, it'll be about freezing.

32 degree ice is the same temp as 32 degree water.

however, when there is insufficient ice to absorb the energy, then there'll be heating.

Answer 2

First, the total solar forcing at the surface is around 350 W/m^2.  The 500 W/m^2 figure you have is solar + downwelling longwave forcing from the radiative active gases and clouds.  But despite the 500 W/m^2 downwelling figure, the net amount the planet has to radiate back out to space is 350 W/m^2 (the difference of course is that 170 W/m^2 or so of that downwelling flux is the upwelling longwave flux from the surface).  The Earth is already in balance with most of the downwelling longwave flux, it is the additional downwelling 1.6 W/m^2 from CO2 that is the issue.  It's important to understand that distinction.  

I'll repost this here too.  

Your fishtank example isn't correct physically. Below is a correct physical system, with a ballpark estimate of the true temperature rise from an increase in radiative forcing of 1.6 W/m^2.

Take a 1-m by 1-m by 1-m tank that is well-mixed, perfectly insulated, and covered with a special cover that prevents evaporation and convective heat loss from the surface. The only way this tank can lose heat is by longwave radiative cooling, which oddly, is the only way the Earth can lose energy, since there is no mass loss to space that would support off-planet latent heat transfer or convective heat transfer. Now, assume that tank is humming along taking in 350 W of shortwave radiation and radiating back out 350 W of longwave radiation. That means the tank is at 280.3 K. Now all of a sudden you reflect back onto the tank 1.6 W of the outgoing longwave flux. That means that the tank now has to radiate the 350 W of shortwave energy *and* the 1.6 W of longwave. This will cause the tank temperature to rise to 280.6 K, so the temperature will rise by 0.3 K, which is fairly consistent with the temperature rise we have seen globally over the last 25 years or so.

All the rest is obfuscation, the basic physics are relatively simple.

edit:  Now you're making me chuckle.  I apologize for showing you how a small forcing on top of a large total flux leads to an increase in temperature.

Answer 3

Apparently, the temp guy's never read the IPCC report.  That 1.6 is cumulative, not per individual.  THAT'S the power of knowledge.  And as I've stated from day one, the Sun is the driving force of climate change.  Solar activity picks up, temperatures rise.  Activity drops, we experience a cooling effect.  You don't have to know the mechanics to see the link, but you better know them if you wish to discredit it!

Answer 4

I can't disagree with (Dana's), logic he's just missing one fundamental premise. Time is a factor with retention, it's not included nor annotated. Nor have I read or heard any mention of this in any study. That excites me. Now I have something to do.

ed: (gcnp58), take two cubes of ice, place them at opposite ends. Add some salt, oxidation, a little reduction some alga and then see what you come up with. How could it be a constant? Maybe a little periodical thermal boost every so often. Then a refreeze with a thaw would also be nice. Maybe some compression beyond the coffee table would have a factor.

Answer 5

1) You're confusing terms.  The figures you cite are incoming radiation, not radiative forcing.  In fact...

2) If you'd gone 2 pages further in your second link (to page 4), you would have seen the radiative forcing chart.  The radiative forcing from CO2 alone is 1.66 W/m^2.  The solar radiative forcing is 0.12 W/m^2 - more than an order of magnitude weaker.

This should help you understand the difference:

"Radiative forcing is the change in the balance between radiation coming into the atmosphere and radiation going out."

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/04.htm

That's the issue - the planet will warm if there is more incoming than outgoing radiation.  It doesn't matter how much radiation is incoming, as long as the same amount is leaving, the planet won't warm (unless there's some sort of internal variation).

3-4) It's 1.6 Watts per *square* meter of Earth, not per *cubic* meter of water.

5) You neglect to mention that Hansen continued to explain the resolution of that apparent paradox.

"This seeming paradox has now been largely resolved through study of the history of the earth’s climate, which reveals that small forces, maintained long enough, can cause large climate change. And, consistent with the historical evidence, the earth has begun to warm in recent decades at a rate predicted by climate models that take account of the atmospheric accumulation of human-made greenhouse gases."

That's kind of a glaring omission, don't you think?

6) Did you even read that paper?  Here is what Hansen says...

"Ominously, the data show that human effects have been minimized by a Faustian bargain: global warming effects have been mitigated by air pollutants that reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. This Faustian bargain has a time limit, and the payment is now coming due."

"Figure 20. The Faustian bargain. Humans have enjoyed the fruits of the industrial revolution and avoided a large cost in climate change, as aerosol cooling has mitigated greenhouse warming. Payment comes due when humanity realizes that it cannot tolerate the further exponential growth of air pollution that would be needed for continued mitigation of global warming."

He doesn't say anything about capitalism.  As a matter of fact, Hansen is a political moderate.  One of his proposed solutions to global warming is to enact a carbon cap and trade system, and use the money not for some socialist/communist/whatever your'e suggesting program, but *give it directly back to the American people*.  Yeah, that's a helluva anti-capitalism agenda he's got there.

*edit* It would take me a whole other post to explain why your additional details are wrong.  For starters, you are confusing terms, you're comparing incoming radiation (i.e. solar 168 W/m^2) to radiative forcing (1.6 W/m^2 net anthropogenic).  Apples and oranges.  As I pointed out, the solar radiative forcing is not 168, but 0.12 W/m^2.

As for the light bulbs, if you leave them on constantly for years on end, you'd better believe they'll heat the water.

Answer 6

OMG.....can you cut and paste any more please.....

Okay  of course my radiant temperature of 98.6 degrees is not going to heat any thing!!!!! MY INDIVIDUAL 1 W/m2 isn't going to heat jack!!!  Hansen was measuring at the individuals level...more precisely a single human heat element.

But there is an easy tangible  way to disprove Hansen's claims and his math.

EASY BAKE OVEN....you can bake a cake with just the heat from a light bulb the very same thing you can do with an electric oven...gas stove...open flame in your fire pit...

how about the radiant heat index you know..." its so hot outside you can cook an egg on the sidewalk"

You see Hansen wasn't quite forth coming and didn't really apply thermal heat radiation to his applied theory...you know..all those things humans contribute and use.

I love when people who have no idea about the actual scientific means of a proposed conclusion and think its the actual truth. Trickery is deception, knowledge and reason are the cure.