• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

RealClimate

Climate science from climate scientists...

  • Start here
  • Model-Observation Comparisons
  • Miscellaneous Climate Graphics
  • Surface temperature graphics

Blog – realclimate.org – All Posts

Can a blanket violate the second law of thermodynamics?

20 Sep 2016 by Stefan

One of the silliest arguments of climate deniers goes like this: the atmosphere with its greenhouse gases cannot warm the Earth’s surface, because it is colder than the surface. But heat always flows from warm to cold and never vice versa, as stated in the second law of thermodynamics.

The freshly baked Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts has recently phrased it thus in his maiden speech:

It is basic. The sun warms the earth’s surface. The surface, by contact, warms the moving, circulating atmosphere. That means the atmosphere cools the surface. How then can the atmosphere warm it? It cannot. That is why their computer models are wrong.

This is of course not only questions the increasing human-caused greenhouse effect, but in general our understanding of temperatures on all planets, which goes back to Joseph Fourier, who in 1824 was the first to understand the importance of the greenhouse effect.

The atmosphere acts like a blanket which inhibits heat loss. In fact according to Roberts’ logic, a blanket could also not have a warming effect:

It’s simple. The body warms the blanket. This means that the blanket cools the body. So how can the blanket warm it? It cannot!

The answer is simple. The warm body loses heat to the cold air. The blanket inhibits and slows this heat loss. Therefore you stay warmer under a blanket.

The Earth loses heat to the cold universe. The atmosphere inhibits this heat loss. Therefore, the surface remains warmer than it would be without the atmosphere.

It is true that the surface loses heat to the atmosphere – but less than it would otherwise lose directly to space. Just as I lose less heat to the blanket than I would otherwise lose to the air, without blanket.

Of course, in neither case is the second law of thermodynamics violated. The heat always flows from warm to cold – just more or less effectively. The processes of heat transfer are quite different – for the blanket it is mainly heat conduction, for the greenhouse effect it is thermal radiation. The climate deniers claim that the colder atmosphere cannot radiate thermal radiation towards the warmer surface. This is of course nonsense. The cool Earth also sends thermal radiation towards the hot sun – how would thermal radiation leaving Earth know how warm the surface is that it’s going to hit? It’s just that the sun sends more radiation back to us  – the net flow is from hot to cold. More is not implied by the second law of thermodynamics.

Thanks to two Germans (Gerlich and Tscheuschner of the TU Braunscheig – deeply embarrassing for this university), the absurd claim that the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics even made it into an obscure physics journal – obviously there was no peer review to speak of. The bizarre article was promptly demolished by some US physicists. Just recently I read the claim again in an article of coal lobbyist Lars Schernikau – with such fairy-tale beliefs of its representatives, one is not surprised by the decline of the coal industry.

The thermal radiation from the atmosphere toward the ground, which allegedly cannot exist, is of course routinely measured, including its increase (see e.g. Philipona et al. 2004, 2012).

And you can even feel it. Those who sometimes sit outside in the garden after dark know this. Under a dense, low cloud layer you do not nearly get cold as fast as on a clear starry night. This is due to the thermal radiation coming from the clouds. They are colder than our body, but warmer than the night sky in clear air.

Roberts said: “Like Socrates, I love asking questions to get to the truth.”  Perhaps he will ponder my answer next time he sits in his garden at night, or slips under a blanket.

P.S.

Here is the energy balance diagram for our Earth, explained in IPCC FAQ 1.1. The “Back Radiation” makes the greenhouse effect. It is larger than the solar radiation reaching the ground, and measured by a global radiation measurement network.

faq-1-1-figure-1

References

R. Philipona, “Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect”, Geophys. Res. Lett., vol. 31, 2004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018765

R. Philipona, A. Kräuchi, and E. Brocard, “Solar and thermal radiation profiles and radiative forcing measured through the atmosphere”, Geophys. Res. Lett., vol. 39, pp. n/a-n/a, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2012GL052087

Filed Under: Climate Science

What is new in European climate research?

18 Sep 2016 by rasmus

The EMS 2016 Venue
The EMS 2016 Venue

What did I learn from the 2016 annual European Meteorological Society (EMS) conference that last week was hosted in Trieste (Italy)?

[Read more…] about What is new in European climate research?

Filed Under: Climate conference report, Climate Science, Communicating Climate, RC Forum, Reporting on climate

Predicting annual temperatures a year ahead

16 Sep 2016 by Gavin

I have a post at Nate Silver’s 538 site on how we can predict annual surface temperature anomalies based on El Niño and persistence – including a (by now unsurprising) prediction for a new record in 2016 and a slightly cooler, but still very warm, 2017.

[Read more…] about Predicting annual temperatures a year ahead

Filed Under: Climate Science, El Nino, Instrumental Record, statistics

An update on mid-latitude cyclones and climate change

6 Sep 2016 by rasmus

Why is it so hard to say what the future North European climate will look like? A recent review paper by Shaw et al, 2016 explains the reason in persuasive terms.

[Read more…] about An update on mid-latitude cyclones and climate change

References

  1. T.A. Shaw, M. Baldwin, E.A. Barnes, R. Caballero, C.I. Garfinkel, Y. Hwang, C. Li, P.A. O'Gorman, G. Rivière, I.R. Simpson, and A. Voigt, "Storm track processes and the opposing influences of climate change", Nature Geoscience, vol. 9, pp. 656-664, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/NGEO2783

Filed Under: Climate Science

Unforced variations: Sep 2016

1 Sep 2016 by group

To come this month: Arctic sea ice minimum, decisions from the IPCC scoping meeting on a report focused on the 1.5ºC target, interesting paleo-climate science at #ICP12 and a chance to stop arguing about politics perhaps.

Usual rules apply.

Filed Under: Climate Science, Open thread

Australian silliness and July temperature records

16 Aug 2016 by Gavin

Some of you that follow my twitter account will have already seen this, but there was a particularly amusing episode of Q&A on Australian TV that pitted Prof. Brian Cox against a newly-elected politician who is known for his somewhat fringe climate ‘contrarian’ views. The resulting exchanges were fun:
[Read more…] about Australian silliness and July temperature records

Filed Under: Climate Science, El Nino, Instrumental Record

Unforced variations: Aug 2016

1 Aug 2016 by group

Sorry for the low rate of posts this summer. Lots of offline life going on. ;-)

Meantime, this paper by Hourdin et al on climate model tuning is very interesting and harks back to the FAQ we did on climate models a few years ago (Part I, Part II). Maybe it’s worth doing an update?

Some of you might also have seen some of the discussion of record temperatures in the first half of 2016. The model-observation comparison including the estimates for 2016 are below:




It seems like the hiatus hiatus will continue…

Filed Under: Climate Science, Open thread

Unforced variations: July 2016

1 Jul 2016 by group

A week is a long time in politics climate science: Nonsense debunked in WaPo, begininngs of recovery in the ozone hole, revisiting the instrumental record constraints on climate sensitivity…

Lots of lessons there.

Usual rules apply.

Filed Under: Climate Science, Open thread

Boomerangs versus Javelins: The Impact of Polarization on Climate Change Communication

7 Jun 2016 by mike

Guest commentary by Jack Zhou, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University

For advocates of climate change action, communication on the issue has often meant “finding the right message” that will spur their audience to action and convince skeptics to change their minds. This is the notion that simply connecting climate change to the right issue domains or symbols will cut through the political gridlock on the issue. The difficulty then lies with finding these magic bullet messages, figuring out if they talk about climate change in the context of with national security or polar bears or passing down a clean environment to future generations.

On highly polarized issues like climate change, however, communicating across the aisle may be more difficult than simply finding the right message. Here, the worst case scenario is not simply a message failing to land and sending you back to the drawing board. Instead, any message that your audience disagrees with may polarize that audience even further in their skepticism, leaving you in a worse position than you began. As climate change has become an increasingly partisan issue in American politics, this means that convincing Republicans to reject the party line of climate skepticism may be easier said than done.
[Read more…] about Boomerangs versus Javelins: The Impact of Polarization on Climate Change Communication

Filed Under: Climate Science

Unforced Variations: June 2016

1 Jun 2016 by group

June already? Cripes…

Usual rules apply.

Filed Under: Climate Science, Open thread

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 36
  • Page 37
  • Page 38
  • Page 39
  • Page 40
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 137
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Search

Search for:

Email Notification

get new posts sent to you automatically (free)
Loading

Recent Posts

  • Melange à Trois
  • Unforced variations: July 2025
  • Unforced variations: Jun 2025
  • Predicted Arctic sea ice trends over time
  • The most recent climate status
  • Unforced variations: May 2025

Our Books

Book covers
This list of books since 2005 (in reverse chronological order) that we have been involved in, accompanied by the publisher’s official description, and some comments of independent reviewers of the work.
All Books >>

Recent Comments

  • Atomsk's Sanakan on Melange à Trois
  • Atomsk's Sanakan on Melange à Trois
  • MA Rodger on Unforced variations: July 2025
  • William on Unforced variations: July 2025
  • Pedro Prieto on Unforced variations: July 2025
  • Pedro Prieto on Unforced variations: July 2025
  • Pedro Prieto on Unforced variations: July 2025
  • Jon Kirwan on Melange à Trois
  • Pedro Prieto on Unforced variations: July 2025
  • Pedro Prieto on Unforced variations: July 2025
  • Pedro Prieto on Unforced variations: July 2025
  • David on Unforced variations: July 2025
  • David on Unforced variations: July 2025
  • Ron R on Unforced variations: July 2025
  • William on Unforced variations: July 2025
  • patrick o twentyseven on Unforced variations: July 2025
  • Barry E Finch on Unforced variations: July 2025
  • Killian on Unforced variations: July 2025
  • patrick o twentyseven on Unforced variations: July 2025
  • Susan Anderson on Predicted Arctic sea ice trends over time

Footer

ABOUT

  • About
  • Translations
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Page
  • Login

DATA AND GRAPHICS

  • Data Sources
  • Model-Observation Comparisons
  • Surface temperature graphics
  • Miscellaneous Climate Graphics

INDEX

  • Acronym index
  • Index
  • Archives
  • Contributors

Realclimate Stats

1,369 posts

11 pages

244,527 comments

Copyright © 2025 · RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.