Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A blowout! at a Alarmist Blog
#1
Hello readers,

Here I post for the purpose of showing the point/counter point discussions covering the details of the “Kiehl-Trenberth” (K-T) diagram.

I start with Terry Oldberg (who is a member here):

Quote:Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 2010 article of Halpern et al (hereafter collectively referenced as “H”).

In the abstract to their article, H state that Gerlich and Tscheushchner (hereafter collectively referenced by “GT”) “…claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.” This statement is prone to being misunderstood for, as GT demonstrate in their 2009 article, the literature describes many such effects. In their article, GT claim to have falsified all such effects that had been described at the time of publication of this article.

One of these effects is described by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) at (
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/e...gases.html ). UCAR references this effect as “the greenhouse effect.” While GT claim to have falsified “the greenhouse effect,” H argue GT have done no such thing. In the following remarks I argue that H’s argument fails from its violation of a principle of logic.

The conflict between GT and H over “the greenhouse effect” of UCAR centers on the “back radiation” that is featured by the type of diagram which I’ll call a “Kiehl-Trenberth” (K-T) diagram after its inventors. In a K-T diagram, the back radiation is represented by an arrow with its tail in “greenhouse gases” and its head pointed at Earth’s surface. A caption states that the back radiation is “absorbed by surface.”

The back radiation has a magnitude. In UCAR’s K-T diagram, this magnitude is 324 watts per meter squared. In H’s K-T diagram, the magnitude has the different value of 333 watts per meter squared reflecting a recent update.

The K-T diagram asserts that the magnitude of the back radiation participates in a heat balance at Earth’s surface. In particular, the sum of the magnitudes of the incoming flows
equals the sum of the magnitudes of the outgoing flows. “The greenhouse effect” of UCAR results from the requirement for the outgoing flows to increase in the amount of any increase in the magnitude of the back radiation for the balance to be preserved. The magnitude of the back radiation increases with the concentrations of the greenhouse gases hence a monotonic increase in surface temperatures with time.

H argue that heat can flow as back radiation from colder matter in the atmosphere to hotter matter in Earth’s surface without violation of the second law of thermodynamics because the second law does not govern this flow. H assert it is only the
“net heat flow” that must be from the hotter to the colder matter under this law. The magnitude of the “net heat flow” is the difference between the respective magnitudes of the upward flow of radiation and the back radiation.

H’s argument employs an unusual and troublesome use of terms in the languages of thermodynamics and radiative physics in reference to concepts of the two fields. In the language of thermodynamics, the energy that flows across the boundary of a material body is referenced by the term “heat.” Under the second law, the “heat” flows only from relatively hot to relatively cold matter, for if it were to flow in the opposite direction, the entropy of the universe would spontaneously decrease. However, H’s “heat” flows also from relatively cold to relatively hot matter. To decode what it is that H are claiming by their argument, the reader must discover a mapping between H’s use of terms and the associated concepts.

In discovering this mapping, it is essential to have a symbol for the concept that is referenced by the word “heat” in the language of thermodynamics. Going forward, I’ll use the symbol “heat-t” for this purpose. As it is subject to the second law, H’s “net heat” must be an example of heat-t. As it is not subject to the second law, H’s “heat” must not be an example of “heat-t.”

From the fact that it flows from colder to hotter matter, it follows that the back radiation is not a flow of heat-t. If it is not such a flow, what concept is referenced by the term “back radiation” when H employ this term in their argument?

By the descriptor “radiation” and the context of the associated heat transfer problem, the back radiation must be an example of electromagnetic radiation. H assert that this radiation “flows.” The K-T diagram implies that the magnitude of this radiation participates in a heat balance at Earth’s surface. That it “flows” and participates in a heat balance implies the back radiation can be represented by a Poynting vector. Thus, one concludes that when the term “back radiation” is used by H, this term references a Poynting vector.

Radiation that can be represented by a Poynting vector matches the description of a flow of heat-t. Thus, the “back radiation” of H’s argument must be a flow of heat-t.

It has been proved that, in the terminology of H’s argument, the “back radiation” is a flow of heat-t and is not a flow of heat-t. On the basis of this contradition H’s argument logically fails, from its violation of the law of non-contradiction.

Gord later in the link replies:

Quote:Terry Oklberg’s post above was very well done.
——
The basic cause and effect of the Sun-Earth-Atmosphere system is:

The Sun heats the Earth and the Earth heats the atmosphere.

The Sun is the only energy source and the Earth and atmosphere are merely passive receivers of the Sun energy.

Now, some points about “Kiehl-Trenberth” (K-T) diagram:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hba...al.html#c1

Let’s look at Trenberth’s balance of energy at the Earth’s surface.

Incoming energy at the Earth’s surface:

1) Solar Energy = 168 w/m^2 (the ONLY energy source)
2) Back-radiation = 324 w/m^2 (comes from the atmosphere that is NOT an Energy source and gets ALL it’s energy ultimately from the SUN!)

Total = 492/w^2

The only energy source, the Sun, only provides 168 w/m^2 and the Back-radiation 324 w/m^2 exceeds this value, so energy was created violating the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Totaling these to give 492/w^2 is like having a Battery powering an electronic circuit and adding the watts received by a resistor to the watts the Battery supplies.

Outgoing energy at the Earth’s surface:

1) Thermals = 24 w/m^2
2) Evapo-transpiration = 78 w/m^2
3) Surface Radiation = 390 w/m^2

Total = 492 w/m^2

ALL the above MUST get ALL their energy from the only energy source, the SUN.
The Sun only provides 168 w/m^2 so energy was created again.
—————-
The important points are:

- The Back-Radiation of 324 w/m^2 is constantly required to heat the Earth’s surface to maintain a +15 deg C average temperature.
- This Back-Radiation is avaliable Day and Night.
- The Back-Radiation exceeds the Solar Energy of 168 w/m^2.
———————————
Parabolic Dishes are used to concentrate energy at a focal point.

These are used in applications ranging from Parabolic Microphones, UHF antennas, Microwave Antennas and Parabolic Mirror Solar Ovens.

The Parabolic Mirror Solar Ovens will concentrate visble light from the Sun as well IR Back-Radiation at it’s focal point to produce heating.

Remember the “Kiehl-Trenberth” (K-T) diagram has Solar Energy only at 168 w/m^2 and Back-Radiation at 324 w/m^2 (available Day and Night).

————————
Here is an experiment done by the Physics Dept. at Brigham Young Unversity that PROVES that Back-Radiation CANNOT heat the Earth.

Solar Cookers and Other Cooking Alternatives

“The second area of solar cookers I looked at was their potential use for cooling. I tested to see how effective they are at cooling both at night and during the day. During both times, the solar cooker needs to be aimed away from buildings, and trees.

These objects have thermal radiation and will reduce the cooling effects. At night the solar cooker needs to also be aimed straight up towards the cold sky. During the day the solar cooker needs to be turned so that it does not face the Sun and also points towards the sky.

For both time periods cooling should be possible because all bodies emit thermal radiation by virtue of their temperature. So the heat should be radiated outward.

Cooling should occur because of the second law of thermodynamics which states that heat will flow naturally from a hot object to a cold object.

The sky and upper atmosphere will be at a lower temperature then the cooking vessel. The average high-atmosphere temperature is approximately -20 °C.

So the heat should be radiated from the cooking vessel to the atmosphere.”

http://solarcooking.org/research/McGuire-Jones.mht
—-
This link shows that heating of the Earth’s surface cannot occur from the Back-Radiation of the colder atmosphere.

In fact, the article shows how to COOL items placed in the Solar Oven at NIGHT AND DAY!

All you have to do is point the Oven away from the Sun during the Day and the Oven will transfer heat from the WARM object in the Oven to the COOLER atmosphere!

It can even be used to produce ICE when the ambient air temp is +6 deg C!

“If at night the temperature was within 6 °C or 10°F of freezing, nighttime cooling could be used to create ice. Previous tests at BYU (in the autumn and with less water) achieved ice formation by 8 a.m. when the minimum ambient night-time temperature was about 48 °F.”

And, this also confirms the validity of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics….heat energy CANNOT flow from Cold to Warm objects.
—————————-
Summary:
——————
AGW theory and the Greenhouse Effect has been proven to violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Actual measurements confirm this.

If Back Radiation actually reached and heated the Earth as Trenberth shows, then Parabolic Mirror Solar Ovens would produce heating Day and Night!

Why do the AGW so called “scientists” not promote the use of Back-Radiation as a clean energy source available DAY and NIGHT and solve all our energy problems?

BECAUSE IT IS “NOT POSSIBLE” FOR BACK RADIATION FROM A COLDER ATMOSPHERE TO HEAT UP A WARMER EARTH…THAT’S WHY!

AGW/Greenhouse Effect has been presented to the public as some sort of ‘scientific fact’ when it is actually based on false science.

There are more comments by GORD in the LINK

Patrick make a few replies in support of the alarmist position,but for the most part fails to make a credible counterpoint against GORD.

If you continue reading Gords comments you will come across Christ Colose's editing comments,that are snotty and stupid.He is the owner of the blog,but he did not bother making any counter point replies to Gord.

He later Bans Gord and John O'Sullivan for the gall of posting unopposed civil comments there.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#2
From Halpern et al.2010:

Quote:It is legitimately hard to decide which of these four points is the most preposterous. Figure 1 is not meant to be a GCM, but an illustration of the vertical thermal energy flows from the sun, the surface and in the atmosphere. Each of the quantified energy flows in this diagram comes from experimentally measured global averages.

Note: "Figure 1" refers to the energy budget diagram in K&T 2009

This implies that "Each of the quantified energy flows in this diagram comes from experimentally measured global averages [of radiation fluxes]" (my addition). They do not; fluxes shown from the surface and GHGs are calculated, using a Stefan-Boltzmann equation which assumes perfect black-bodies with an emissivity of 1. This alone destroys Halpern's argument. If those fluxes had been measured, and agreed (even broadly) with K&T, there would be no argument on this point.

Earlier in Halpern:
Quote:We find that Gerlich and Tscheuschner obtain an absurd result by using a very unphysical assumption, that each part of the planet’s surface immediately cools or heats to reach an equilibrium with the locally impinging solar radiation, thereby neglecting the thermal inertia of the oceans, atmosphere and ground and all other heat transfer processes within the atmosphere and surface. Were this to be the case, all parts of the Earth would immediately drop to almost absolute zero at night, and the discrepancy between Earth's observed average temperature and the
average on this hypothetical Earth would be very large, over 100 K.

The logic in this argument eludes me. Can anyone elaborate? On a warm sunny day, surface and air temperatures rise steadily (at different rates, they have different specific heats), then begin to plateau in the early-mid afternoon (when heat transfer from surface to air above it levels off?), then both cool at different rates as the sun sinks lower. Sounds like some kind of equilibrium to me. In any case, the assertion that "Were this to be the case, all parts of the Earth would immediately drop to almost absolute zero at night", whatever process went on during the day, is itself preposterous. Halpern says "They make elementary mistakes [in doing so]". Who makes elementary mistakes?

However, it has to be admitted that Gerlich & Tscheuschner do make some elementary mistakes - they tend to over-complicate some aspects, and over-simplify others. Their paper is not a clear refutation of the greenhouse hypothesis, but does highlight some problems for the theory.

Finally, we're back to the most misunderstood aspect of heat radiation; the distinction between heat-flow and flux. Note that there's a difference between the two fluxes, surface to GHGs and GHGs to surface. The net flow is from surface to GHGs. That means no net warming from GHGs. It doesn't mean no effect on surface temperature due to the presence of GHGs. It means that GHGs "back-radiation" slows the cooling of the surface. If the cooling rate is reduced, and heat input continues, the surface will warm. It's the sun wot does it, aided by GHGs. K&T are not claiming that there's a net flow of heat from a cold to a hot body, but that heat-flow from the surface is reduced. This particular criticism is a straw-man argument. Understand that I'm not defending the greenhouse theory, I've already expressed major criticisms of it as a failed hypothesis elsewhere here, in particular the entire concept of a large back-radiation from GHGs - I'm defending this part of the theory against ill-informed criticism. I want to see the argument won with science, logic and reason, not quasi-scientific bluster.
Ernest Rutherford: "If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment."
Reply
#3
Quote:It means that GHGs "back-radiation" slows the cooling of the surface.

How can it slow down the the cooling of the surface when the cooling of the surface of OUTGOING radiation already happened?

Then we have Conduction and Convection to carry away energy from the surface as well.Do they have a "back-radiation effect?
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#4
(07-07-2010, 03:55 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:
Quote:It means that GHGs "back-radiation" slows the cooling of the surface.
Quote:How can it slow down the the cooling of the surface when the cooling of the surface of OUTGOING radiation already happened?

Because both hot and cooler bodies radiate. That from the cooler body replaces some of the energy lost by the hotter body. The net energy flow is the difference between the two fluxes. This is fundamental to understanding heat flow. I've elaborated on this elsewhere. Those who seek to "prove" that a cooler body has no effect whatsoever on a nearby hotter body are ignoring basic radiation theory.

Quote:Then we have Conduction and Convection to carry away energy from the surface as well.Do they have a "back-radiation effect?

That's a good point, not taken on board by the "energy budget" of K&T. If the surface is losing heat by other means than radiation - it is, and many scientists dispute the K&T figures for conduction/convection and evaporation as being too small, then it throws the calculations into disarray. A perfect black-body loses heat only by radiation, and obeys Plancks' Law and Stefan-Boltzman. An imperfect black-body radiates less, but still obeys the laws if emissivity (perfect=1) is taken into account. An imperfect black body which also loses heat by other means (the earths's surface) presents a difficult mathematical problem. The surface loses heat by radiation, evaporation, conduction/convection and conduction below the surface. The latter is responsible for "Greenhouse effect on the moon". All these processes meant that the surface cannot possibly radiate anything like the 300 or-so W/m² shown by K&T.

I came across an email yesterday Kevin Trenberth sent in response to a query. He stated that he'd assumed the atmosphere to be multi-layered, and the whole profile had to be considered from surface upwards. I've discussed my own conclusions that this is the case elsewhere. He said that it's only the lowest layer which radiates downward, and the uppermost layer (though very deep) radiates to space. However, that still doesn't explain why there's a big discrepancy between radiation to surface, and radiation to space.

Each layer must radiate the same both up and down. Air density, and therefore the amount of GHGs reduces with altitude. If the bottom layer is radiating upward, there's less GHGs in the layer above to absorb the radiation; some will get through to layers above, and so on. This would ultimately mean more radiation escaping to space than that coming from the topmost layer. IMHO his model of a layered atmosphere has a major flaw.
Ernest Rutherford: "If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment."
Reply
#5
Quote:Because both hot and cooler bodies radiate. That from the cooler body replaces some of the energy lost by the hotter body. The net energy flow is the difference between the two fluxes. This is fundamental to understanding heat flow. I've elaborated on this elsewhere. Those who seek to "prove" that a cooler body has no effect whatsoever on a nearby hotter body are ignoring basic radiation theory.

A very important point with another wrinkle to add. However much energy is absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere it can only radiate proportional to its temperature. With a mean lapse rate of 6.5C/km most of the atmosphere below the tropopause, which is itself at about -50C, is way below the surface temperature so the idea of half radiating back is way optimistic.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#6
(07-08-2010, 10:14 AM)Richard111 Wrote: However much energy is absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere it can only radiate proportional to its temperature.

Can I humbly suggest that may need a little more considering.
Particularly in the light of the specific heat figure differences for CO2 between
laboratory, and (chemists) mass based open, mixed atmosphere figures.

These figures are considerably different, as we have discussed on this forum before,
differences which the above quote would not seem to explain.

AND, how much of the "measured" 15 micron wavelength IR in the atmosphere is from CO2.?
It most definately is NOT all of it.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#7
(07-08-2010, 12:18 PM)Derek Wrote: Can I humbly suggest that may need a little more considering.
Particularly in the light of the specific heat figure differences for CO2 between
laboratory, and (chemists) mass based open, mixed atmosphere figures.

These figures are considerably different, as we have discussed on this forum before,
differences which the above quote would not seem to explain.

AND, how much of the "measured" 15 micron wavelength IR in the atmosphere is from CO2.?
It most definately is NOT all of it.

The two figures are not at odds; specific heat considers only the heat content of the gas. Radiation is defined by temperature, and how "perfect" the radiator (a gas can't be perfect) is.

If (as I believe) most absorbed IR is (almost) immediately converted to kinetic (therefore heat) energy, the specific heat is important in considering how much this energy is, and how it's transferred (as it must very quickly be) to other atmospheric gases.

IMHO those who subscribe only to the "specific heat" aspect and ignore the radiation aspect (and vice-versa) are effectively "cherry-picking" the science, The truth must lie somewhere between the two - both aspects are important, but don't exist in isolation.

As far as your last question goes, I'm not sure. What I see is scientists on both sides apparently "cherry-picking"; only considering aspects which support their case. If you're pro-greenhouse, play up radiation and play down GHG energy loss by conduction, play down convection and evaporation, ignore the fact that about 50% of the sun's radiation is SW IR and talk about "visible light" absorbed by the surface. If you're ant-greenhouse, claim that K&T show a cooler atmosphere "heating" a warmer surface (they don't), and mis-use radiation and heat laws to "prove" your point. Ignore radiation from gases entirely and just talk specific heats and latent heat.
Ernest Rutherford: "If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment."
Reply
#8
(07-09-2010, 12:24 AM)MostlyHarmless Wrote: If (as I believe) most absorbed IR is (almost) immediately converted to kinetic (therefore heat) energy, the specific heat is important in considering how much this energy is, and how it's transferred (as it must very quickly be) to other atmospheric gases.

Interesting thought. This implies ghg "back radiation" would be minimal.

As for heat transfer, I think it was Dan Pangburn who stated that "thermalisation", absorbed energy converted to kinetic energy, travelled at centimeters per second, where as convective heat travelled at meters per second.

I guess I am not the only one confused here. Any chance of a copy of "Atmospheric radiation for Dummies"?? Undecided
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#9
"Atmospheric radiation for Dummies" ... that will be the AGW version. You want the version called "Atmospheric radiation of Scientists".
"Correlation is NOT Causation"
Reply
#10
Ah, yes! Silly me. Big Grin
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#11
(07-09-2010, 02:31 PM)Richard111 Wrote: [quote='MostlyHarmless' pid='5786' dateline='1278660262']
If (as I believe) most absorbed IR is (almost) immediately converted to kinetic (therefore heat) energy, the specific heat is important in considering how much this energy is, and how it's transferred (as it must very quickly be) to other atmospheric gases.

Quote:Interesting thought. This implies ghg "back radiation" would be minimal.

Not minimal, but it would be reduced, as the GHGs would achieve just a slightly higher temperature with other gases (heat is shared rather than transferred).

Quote:As for heat transfer, I think it was Dan Pangburn who stated that "thermalisation", absorbed energy converted to kinetic energy, travelled at centimeters per second, where as convective heat travelled at meters per second.

I haven't looked into it, but that looks perfectly plausible to me. Distance between molecules in air is very small. Absorbing molecules have been said to lose their excess energy by collision in around 1/1000th. of a second, slightly longer as the air steadily gets thinner Km up.

Quote:I guess I am not the only one confused here. Any chance of a copy of "Atmospheric radiation for Dummies"?? Undecided

If anyone comes across this publication, would they please send a copy to me ASAP, and one to Kiehl & Trenberth. I'll refund all costs including postage and packing. I'm not sure they would.
Ernest Rutherford: "If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment."
Reply
#12
(07-09-2010, 12:24 AM)MostlyHarmless Wrote:
(07-08-2010, 12:18 PM)Derek Wrote: Can I humbly suggest that may need a little more considering.
Particularly in the light of the specific heat figure differences for CO2 between
laboratory, and (chemists) mass based open, mixed atmosphere figures.

These figures are considerably different, as we have discussed on this forum before,
differences which the above quote would not seem to explain.

AND, how much of the "measured" 15 micron wavelength IR in the atmosphere is from CO2.?
It most definately is NOT all of it.

The two figures are not at odds; specific heat considers only the heat content of the gas. Radiation is defined by temperature, and how "perfect" the radiator (a gas can't be perfect) is.

If (as I believe) most absorbed IR is (almost) immediately converted to kinetic (therefore heat) energy, the specific heat is important in considering how much this energy is, and how it's transferred (as it must very quickly be) to other atmospheric gases.

IMHO those who subscribe only to the "specific heat" aspect and ignore the radiation aspect (and vice-versa) are effectively "cherry-picking" the science, The truth must lie somewhere between the two - both aspects are important, but don't exist in isolation.

As far as your last question goes, I'm not sure. What I see is scientists on both sides apparently "cherry-picking"; only considering aspects which support their case. If you're pro-greenhouse, play up radiation and play down GHG energy loss by conduction, play down convection and evaporation, ignore the fact that about 50% of the sun's radiation is SW IR and talk about "visible light" absorbed by the surface. If you're ant-greenhouse, claim that K&T show a cooler atmosphere "heating" a warmer surface (they don't), and mis-use radiation and heat laws to "prove" your point. Ignore radiation from gases entirely and just talk specific heats and latent heat.

Please note bold section - must be quite pressure dependent I would of thought. ie, higher pressure more conduction, lower pressure less conduction.
This is a big one, worthy of further consideration..
If (as I believe) most absorbed IR is (almost) immediately converted to kinetic (therefore heat) energy

What about chemical bonds. ?
What about latent heat (OK that's only for the main active ingredient, water vapour). ?
What about reradiation. ?

I do like your last paragraph, which is not answering my last question as such, but does give a very interesting description of the present state of the matters under discussion.
I at least partially agree. I may incorporate it into my next piece.

I think we should all bear in mind that the discoverer of infra red radiation William Herschel,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Herschel
didn't he also write about the little men that lived on or just under the sun's surface.
Myabe it seemed sensible at the time, maybe not.
There again so did aether at one time................
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#13
(07-10-2010, 12:45 PM)Derek Wrote: What about chemical bonds. ?
What about latent heat (OK that's only for the main active ingredient, water vapour). ?
What about reradiation. ?

AFAIK, IR energy absorbed by both H2O (vapour) and CO2 is converted to what I'd call "bond deformation" (can't remember the proper term offhand). Experiments done in the laboratory use rarefied CO2 to represent the sort of concentration found in the atmosphere. The gas in the experimental vessels has to be pure CO2, as water vapour masks most of the CO2 absorption and oxygen and nitrogen complicate the distort the measurements further. The experiments show that CO2 both absorbs and re-radiates LW IR strongly. Greenhouse fans grab the results and dash off to program their models. Those with cooler heads realise that the experiments don't represent what happens in the "real" atmosphere.

In the lab, CO2 absorbs and re-radiates strongly, as I said earlier, and is able to do so because the distance between molecules is relatively large, and they have the time to re-radiate before the stored bond energy is transferred to other molecules during collisions. In the real atmosphere, that collision transfer is mostly what happens, at least relatively close to the surface. It's easy to deduce that the collision frequency should drop with increasing height, and radiation become more common, as the air gets thinner, and the distance between molecules (mean free path) increases.

This implies that the radiation-driven greenhouse effect is much smaller than claimed, and would also explain the strong radiation to space from the upper atmosphere. GHG fans claim that a portion of surface LW IR penetrates the almost IR opaque atmosphere (shown on the energy budget diagrams). This is needed to show that GHGs aren't saturated, so that an increase will have a warming effect. Off-topic but interesting is that if some surface IR does escape to space, it throws out their calculation of the temperature of the upper atmosphere, which is derived directly from the measured outgoing LW IR. Oversight is a human trait, but it seems it's not just the atmosphere that's almost opaque.

I haven't given latent heat much thought; the principle is familiar to me but the maths gets complicated, and as I have the attention span of a fruit-fly, and there's plenty of sexy science to concentrate my grey cells on, I've left it to others, even though it is important.
Ernest Rutherford: "If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment."
Reply
#14
(07-10-2010, 05:21 PM)MostlyHarmless Wrote: Experiments done in the laboratory use rarefied CO2 to represent the sort of concentration found in the atmosphere.
The gas in the experimental vessels has to be pure CO2,
as water vapour masks most of the CO2 absorption and oxygen and nitrogen complicate the distort the measurements further.
The experiments show that CO2 both absorbs and re-radiates LW IR strongly.

The experiments show what CO2 does on it's own ONLY.
It is a massive "assumption" applying these experimental results "as is" in a mixed, open real atmosphere.

There is no proof whatsoever (and obviously it has to be proved first) that they actually apply,
as they are directly, routinely, and unquestioningly applied by AGW / GCM climate models.
Infact the opposite seems to be the case.

(07-10-2010, 05:21 PM)MostlyHarmless Wrote: I haven't given latent heat much thought;
the principle is familiar to me but the maths gets complicated, and
as I have the attention span of a fruit-fly, and there's plenty of sexy science to concentrate my grey cells on,
I've left it to others, even though it is important.

Given the specific heat differencies are not particularly great, yet
the latent heat content / movements by H2O alone ARE MASSIVE BY COMPARISSON,
ie,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-803.html
Dave McK says,
So in our mole of air with but 1% H2O and a generous 500ppm CO2-

the water condensing radiates 0.18g * 2257.853776 kJ/kg = 406.41367968 J

while the CO2 radiates 0.021296g * 0.378 kJ/kg = 0.008049888 J

the ratio of 0.008049888/406.41367968 = .00001980712855516645290496438242332

or as much to say that water vapor in the example carries 50486.873814890343815963650674393 times more heat than the CO2 does.
And that’s just rain. If it turns to snow- multiply by 5-6.


I can only wonder at your statement.
" I haven't given latent heat much thought; "

"Pound for pound" or rather "molecule for molecule" the latent heat of water vapour is 50,486 times more powerful than CO2's radiative abilities,
and 250,000 to 300,000 times MORE if snow.
There is a lot of water in the atmosphere...........


A bit like driving at night (at great speed) along the edge of a precipice without headlights and at least one deflated tyre I'd have thought.......
(not to mention virtually all the wheel nuts are loose, about to fall off, the engine is spewing oil on at least three tyres, the selt belts don't work,
you ain't got insurance, no one knows your there, or where your going, and of course you've never driven a manual gear change car before....)
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)