Bullet to the head of the AGW hoax?

[citizenzen]

Wait and see what? If physical laws change to accomodate AGW theory?

What will you do when more evidence arises [assuming that it does] that proves Global Warming is real... even worse, that it is human caused?

What would that say about your understanding—or lack thereof—of physics, and other things?

If the opposite occurred, and GW was proven to be a false alarm, I would happily accept that conclusion. While you, no matter how great the evidence presented, will refuse to acknowledge it, and cling to the belief that everybody else is wrong except you.

It's a terrible position to stake out. I'm glad that I'm not the one cornered by it. We'll see how well it works out for you.

 

[citizenzen]

What evidence? Which evidence are you speaking of? Evidence that exists or evidence that you wish and hope comes into existence? Show me some evidence.

Here, you batty old coot...

Woods Hole Research Center

Warming of the Earth > Scientific Evidence

Through the study of ancient ice cores from Antarctica it is possible to compare atmospheric concentrations of the dominant greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere with temperature variations over the past 400 thousand years of the earth's history (Fig 1). A visual comparison of the two trends indicates a very tight connection between their performance, with fluctuations in one plot almost exactly mirrored in the other for more than 400 thousand years. But suddenly in the 1800s, as the Industrial Revolution takes off, atmospheric CO2 concentrations begin an unprecedented upward climb, rising rapidly from 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) in the early 1800s to a current level of 376 ppmv, 77 ppmv above the highest concentrations previously attained in the course of the preceding 400 thousand years.​

There's more. But I don't want to duplicate the whole thing.

Now you can tell me why all the people at Woods Hole have their heads up their behinds while you, a crackpot, desperately unhappy in life and in love biochemist alone possesses the truth.

Go on... you know you want to.

 

[citizenzen]

I'll make you a deal palerider...

You tell me exactly how and why Global Warming violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and I'll take your finding to an expert in the field and see what they have to say about it.

I'll post their opinion of your theory right in this thread... whether it refutes your claim, or backs it up. So please, give me details.

And don't worry... you can always hide behind your anonymity.

 

[OldTrapper]

I didn't hate Ronnie, I felt sorry for him. Doing anything blindly can cause unexpected effects--even planting trees. Your "green project" story needs a link for us to look at since you have little credibility after your Doctorate of Theology hoax.

Not only do trees not produce as much pollution as man, they produce ozone which is also caused by lightning. Ozone is not a big problem until you mix it with other pollutants in the air that people breathe. Bear in mind that no one has shown that ozone from trees caused any problem for people until it was mixed with manmade pollutants.

Are you livin' and learnin', DOT?

LOL, now you are ignoring the link I provided already which speaks of polluting trees, and the damge they can do.

Obviously you are not learning, and your credibility was gone long ago when you decided lies, and perverting the comments of another, would pass for "intellect".

 

[palerider]

What will you do when more evidence arises [assuming that it does] that proves Global Warming is real... even worse, that it is human caused?

If I see actual evidence, then I will accept it. I am a scientist. Evidnence will not be forthcoming however, because physical laws of nature would have to change.

What would that say about your understanding—or lack thereof—of physics, and other things?

You are asking what if the moon were made of cheese questions. I understand the chemistry and physics and the laws that govern them. AGW is a hoax and the only one who is going to be disappointed is you because you misplaced your faith. Not to worry though, I am sure that something else will come along in which you can misplace it again. My bet is overpopulation.

If the opposite occurred, and GW was proven to be a false alarm, I would happily accept that conclusion.

No you won't. When confronted with hard evidence against the theory, you only harden your faith.

 

[palerider]

Here, you batty old coot...

Woods Hole Research Center

Warming of the Earth > Scientific Evidence

Through the study of ancient ice cores from Antarctica it is possible to compare atmospheric concentrations of the dominant greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere with temperature variations over the past 400 thousand years of the earth's history (Fig 1). A visual comparison of the two trends indicates a very tight connection between their performance, with fluctuations in one plot almost exactly mirrored in the other for more than 400 thousand years. But suddenly in the 1800s, as the Industrial Revolution takes off, atmospheric CO2 concentrations begin an unprecedented upward climb, rising rapidly from 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) in the early 1800s to a current level of 376 ppmv, 77 ppmv above the highest concentrations previously attained in the course of the preceding 400 thousand years.​

Your article blows it in the first sentence. In the first sentence they prove that they have a terribly flawed understanding of greenhouse theory, and therefore any arguement they build upon it is going to be flawed as well. You can't start from a position of misunderstanding and build a rational argument.

CO2 is not the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Not even close. Here is a breakdown of the importance of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and the green sections show mankind's contribution.

Here is the IPCC's list of greenhouse gasses. Note that the primary greenhouse gas is not even listed.

Concentrations and their changes Radiative Forcing
Species 2005 Change since 1998 2005 (W m–2) 1998 (%)
CO2 379 ± 0.65 ppm +13 ppm 1.66 +13
CH4 1,774 ± 1.8 ppb +11 ppb 0.48 -
N2O 319 ± 0.12 ppb +5 ppb 0.16 +11
CFC-11 251 ± 0.36 ppt –13 0.063 –5
CFC-12 538 ± 0.18 ppt +4 0.17 +1
CFC-113 79 ± 0.064 ppt –4 0.024 –5
HCFC-22 169 ± 1.0 ppt +38 0.033 +29
HCFC-141b 18 ± 0.068 ppt +9 0.0025 +93
HCFC-142b 15 ± 0.13 ppt +6 0.0031 +57
CH3CCl3 19 ± 0.47 ppt –47 0.0011 –72
CCl4 93 ± 0.17 ppt –7 0.012 –7
HFC-125 3.7 ± 0.10 ppt +2.6 0.0009 +234
HFC-134a 35 ± 0.73 ppt +27 0.0055 +349
HFC-152a 3.9 ± 0.11 ppt +2.4 0.0004 +151
HFC-23 18 ± 0.12 ppt +4 0.0033 +29
SF6 5.6 ± 0.038 ppt +1.5 0.0029 +36
CF4 (PFC-14) 74 ± 1.6 ppt - 0.0034 -
C2F6 (PFC-116) 2.9 ± 0.025 ppt +0.5 0.0008 +22


Next, your link shows a scale that is not readable as the time span is too large and the graph is deliberately too small. Expand the graph so that you can see the actual correlation between temperature rise and CO2 and you will see that increasing CO2 lags behind temperature change by 800 to 1,000 years. Evidence that rising CO2 is an effect, not a cause. You are providing smoke and mirrors, not actual science.

Note: I am limited to 4 images per post so I am not going to be able to post the entire series of expanded graphs. I will give you a link to the site so that you can see them all if you like.

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph/

There's more. But I don't want to duplicate the whole thing.

I am sure that there is. But it is all fraud. It is based on data that the scientists themselves have since admitted to using tricks and fudge factors on. The graphs showing anthropogenic temperature forcings are particularly interesting since climate science at this time has no idea whether forcings are postive or negative. Those graphs are purely speculative.

Now you can tell me why all the people at Woods Hole have their heads up their behinds while you, a crackpot, desperately unhappy in life and in love biochemist alone possesses the truth.

Easy. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

And I love your impotent ad hominems. They are admissions of defeat.

 

[palerider]

I'll make you a deal palerider...

You tell me exactly how and why Global Warming violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and I'll take your finding to an expert in the field and see what they have to say about it.

I'll post their opinion of your theory right in this thread... whether it refutes your claim, or backs it up. So please, give me details.

And don't worry... you can always hide behind your anonymity.

Here. Gerlich & Tscheuschner have done it better than I could, and they have been peer reviewed within the uncorrupted physics community. Your "expert" may want to publish his or her critique and have it peer reviewed by a credible branch of science if they can disprove this analysis.

By the way, I am not interested in your "expert's" opinion. If he or she believes it is mistaken, I want detail.

http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/23/2303/S02179792092303.html

If you are unable to access that copy, you can try this one from Cornell University. It is a long read, 115 pages but the abstract should be easily understood even by someone who claims scientific ignorance such as yourself

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

 

[citizenzen]

Here. Gerlich & Tscheuschner have done it better than I could...

Thank you for providing that. I will use it to delve further into this issue.

And believe me (although you won't) if GW is false, then I'm the happiest guy in the world. If GW were an asteroid on a collision with the Earth, why would I want it to hit? Obviously I wouldn't.

So again, thanks for the paper. It will be most helpful (the abstract was pretty straight forward, as was the summary).

You bitter, batty, old coot.

 

[palerider]

I am neither bitter, nor batty. I am maybe, and old coot although I see my self as becoming more of a codger.

By the way, global warming is not false. Neither is global cooling or climate change in general. What is false is that mankind has anything at all to do with either.

 

[citizenzen]

So I did a search of your paper in Physics Forums, where I am a member (as I said, I am a fan) and here's some excerpts from the thread...

This is just another straw man argument.

First they suggest that the earth is in radiative equilibrium.
Equilibrium by definition implies no overall change.
Then they go on to "prove" that the earth isn't really warming.

So, no real surprise here. Misrepresent the science and then "prove" that it is wrong. Classical straw man.

• • •

Suggesting that the earth is in radiative equilibrium is a straw man.

• • •

Did I understand correctly, that these guys are claiming the atmospheric greenhouse effect to be violating the second law of thermodynamics? So they are not claiming, that the magnitude of atmospheric greenhouse effect would have been estimated incorrectly, but that the atmospheric greenhouse effect itself is impossible? Looks like extreme incompetence to me.

• • •

A heat pump? NO, they have the concept of the greenhouse effect reversed. It does not produce heat, it slows the dissipation of heat to space. The atmosphere cools off more slowly by the presence of molecules absorbing terrestrial infrared radiation. The atmosphere is constantly radiating away heat energy in accordance with the Second Law. Without continued solar irradiance the atmosphere cools, greenhouse effect or not.

• • •

It's incredible to me that this paper actually managed to get published; albeit in a low impact journal, and as an invited "review" article which apparently does not have the same peer-review procedures as research articles. The subject matter is a poor fit with the journal; I very much doubt that this paper could ever have survived a normal peer review process. But there you go. I'm speculating. All we can really know for sure is the content of the paper as given.​

 

[citizenzen]

This guy has some specific issues with it...

It's incredible to me that this paper actually managed to get published; albeit in a low impact journal, and as an invited "review" article which apparently does not have the same peer-review procedures as research articles. The subject matter is a poor fit with the journal; I very much doubt that this paper could ever have survived a normal peer review process. But there you go. I'm speculating. All we can really know for sure is the content of the paper as given.

I claim it is riddled with errors. Rather than attempt a comprehensive rebuttal, I'll single out limited specific errors in the paper.

Here's my first.

From the arxiv preprint, top of page 65, we read:
According to the consensus among global climatologists one takes the -18oC computed from the T4 average and compares it to the fictitious Earth's average temperature of +15oC. The difference of 33oC is attributed to the natural greenhouse effect. As seen in Equation (83) a correct averaging yields a temperature of -129oC. Evidently, something must be fundamentally wrong here.
What the authors describe as the "correct" calculation is bizarre. It comes from section 3.7.4.

First, they consider the energy per unit area for each part of the globe coming from the Sun. This is done correctly. Hence the portion of the Earth which is directly facing the Sun is given a full solar constant. Higher latitudes have this scaled by the cosine. The back of the globe (night) has no radiation at all.

They compute the solar constant as σ.57804/2152, which comes to 1369 W/m2; about correct. They use a factor of 0.7 for ε (table 12 on page 64) which corresponds to the effect of albedo. Hence the incoming solar radiation is treated as 958.4 W/m2 for a plane surface facing the Sun; a reasonable figure.

They then contrast two ways to proceed. One way is to integrate the incoming energy of the surface of the globe, and then calculate a temperature which can be given to the whole globe that would radiate out that same amount of energy again. Another way to proceed is to take each point on the globe individually as having the temperature to radiate away what it receives from the Sun at that point; and then average this over the whole globe. They call this second method the "correct" method. Their so-called correct method gives a temperature of 0K absolute to the night of the planet, and a temperature of about 360K, or 87C, to the portion of the globe facing the Sun.

The authors' so-called "correct" calculation is indeed calculating an average temperature, obtained by integrating an imputed temperature over the whole globe. This integration over the surface gives a value of about 144K, or -129C for the average temperature imputed to the simple model of a globe.

The feature of this imputed temperature is that it is just what is required to radiate (as a blackbody) the radiation coming from the Sun at every point. Now this is of course not a physical model of the Earth. Points on a planet do not instantaneously achieve thermodynamic equilibrium with the Sun's incoming radiation; even the Moon, with no atmosphere and very little heat transport across the surface, does not instantly reach absolute zero on the night side! The calculation provided by the authors can be sensibly understood is a lower bound on average temperatures; assuming radiative balance with the Sun. With any sharing of heat energy around the globe, while maintaining energy balance with the Sun, will give a higher average temperature. (You can show this with Holder's inequality, also used by the authors on page 65).

Now the other extreme model is to calculate a temperature such that if every point on the globe has that same temperature, then the globe remains in energy balance. This is the calculation that the authors disparage as "incorrect". Here, you calculate the average amount of energy radiated per unit area, and find the temperature this corresponds to. This is also called the "effective" temperature. It is equal to 20.5*1.25 (1.768) times the authors' "physical" temperature. (Compare equations 81 and 83). This works out to about 255K, or -18C. You can see the numbers -129C and -18C compared in table 12.

The proper implication of these numbers is that if you integrate temperatures over the surface of a globe which is radiating away the same energy it receives from the Sun, you'll get a value more than -129C and less than -18C.

Of course, if you integrate over the Earth's surface in reality, you get a number that is substantially more than -18C! It really doesn't matter whether you integrate temperature, or the fourth power of temperature. Whichever is chosen, you'll get an average of more than -18. That is… the Earth's surface is radiating more than what is required to balance solar radiation. But this IS the effect called "atmospheric greenhouse"!

Physically, this is because we have an atmosphere, which is heated from the surface. The atmosphere is (by thermodynamics) cooler than the surface, and the radiation that escapes into space is mostly from this cooler atmosphere. This is (by the first law) in long-term balance with solar radiation. The atmosphere radiates in all directions, of course. It radiates out into space, and also down to the surface; and this means the surface gets more energy. There's the solar energy (most of which passes through the atmosphere just fine) plus also the energy radiated from the atmosphere. The surface is in balance with this total… which is more than what you'd have without an atmosphere. This is what is called the atmospheric greenhouse… a poor choice of terms given that the physics is quite distinct from a glass greenhouse; but it is certainly physically real.

At the end of section 3.7.6, page 66, the authors make two claims. The speaks of a physically incorrect assumption of radiative balance. That's ludicrous. By the first law, there is necessarily a long term balance between the energy arriving from the Sun and being radiated from the planet. It is a physically correct implication that the Earth radiates an amount of energy into space that is equivalent to that of a blackbody at -18C.

The second claim speaks of effective radiating temperature being higher than measured averages. That is correct, and the authors are the ones who do not take this into account. The measured averages over the surface of the Earth are much more than -18C. Therefore the surface is radiating more than what you would get from a globe at -18C! Therefore the energy being radiated from the Earth's surface is MORE than the energy you get from the Sun. That IS the greenhouse effect, right there.

Good grief. It staggers me that this got published, but so be it. I am pretty sure it was an invited paper which was not given the kind of thorough technical review that usually maintains the quality of a journal.​

 

[citizenzen]

More from that same dude...

That, and also the assumption that there is no transport of heat from one part of the planet to another. Now of course, they know quite well that this is only a simplified model. They don't suggest that there really is an absolute zero of temperature on the reverse side, and that is not my criticism.

What they do has its own rather curious meaning. Effectively, what they are doing is to take the energy arriving from the Sun, and average the energy to the power 0.25 over the globe. With any redistribution of energy -- either by the fact that it takes a bit of time to heat up and cool down, or by the fact that heat transports from one region to another -- the average of energy to the power 0.25 will increase. The number they get is thus a strong lower bound on temperature of a globe with uneven temperatures, but radiating at each point as a blackbody.

The other approach is to average energy over the globe. (You can then get a temperature from this energy by Stefan-Blotzmann, which is called Teff). The key point is that there is a very useful feature of averaging the energy. Because of the first law, any redistribution will continue to have the SAME average energy. It's not a lower bound, or an upper bound, but an invariant.

That's why Teff is a far more useful quantity.

If you do take a simple mean temperature over the whole surface, you are bound to get a smaller value than Teff. The authors correctly point this out as well, but completely fail to grasp its relevance. When you integrate temperatures over the Earth's surface, you get a value GREATER than the expected -18 of Teff. That is, the surface is significant warmer than we should expect from the solar input alone. The difference is the effect of an atmosphere, and it is called "atmospheric greenhouse". But it's not like a glass greenhouse; it is a consequence of the fact that the atmosphere is warmed from the surface.

It up within the atmosphere where you find the temperatures corresponding to the effective temperature from solar radiation. This is cooler than the surface, because it is warmed from the surface. Hence, the surface is warmer than the effective radiating temperature of the planet... warmer than it would be without an atmosphere that absorbs energy from the surface. And no; that is not a contradiction of the second law, which appears to be another error made in the paper.​

 

[citizenzen]

more...

Lunar Surface Temperatures
Temperatures on the Lunar surface vary widely on location. Although beyond the first few centimeters of the regolith the temperature is a nearly constant -35 C (at a depth of 1 meter), the surface is influenced widely by the day-night cycle. The average temperature on the surface is about 40-45 C lower than it is just below the surface.

In the day, the temperature of the Moon averages 107 C, although it rises as high as 123 C. The night cools the surface to an average of -153 C, or -233 C in the permanently shaded south polar basin. A typical non-polar minimum temperature is -181 C (at the Apollo 15 site).

The Lunar temperature increases about 280 C from just before dawn to Lunar noon. Average temperature also changes about 6 C betwen aphelion and perihelion.

From:
http://www.asi.org/adb/m/03/05/avera...peratures.html

Without the atmosphere effect this is what the earth would be like. That is from the solar input alone. So the atmosphere effect restricts the incoming and outgoing warmth.

• • •

That's a great example, Mike!

The moon rotates much more slowly than the Earth, and so the temperatures should actually come fairly close to those given by what Gerlich and Tscheuschner prefer.

The solar constant is about 1370 W/m2. The albedo of the moon is roughly 0.12, and so the surface face on to the Sun should tend to absorb about 1205 W/m2.

Using Stefan-Boltzmann, these correspond to temperatures of 394K (121C) and 381K (109C).

That's pretty dashed close to the daytime numbers you have quoted of 107 (av) and 123 (peak)! The peak would be a dark spot face on to the Sun, with near complete absorption. The 107 is about right for the central daylight region, given albedo 0.12.

The night side does not drop to absolute zero. But since the energy varies as the fourth power of temperature, we have the radiation from the lows you have mentioned as follows:

-153C radiates about 12 W/m2. -181C radiates about 4 W/m2. And -233C radiates about 0.15 W/m2.

Cooling tails off, of course, as the rate of energy radiation drops; and these temperatures have fallen so far that the radiation is less than 1/100 of the peak full daylight value. So in fact the Moon is pretty dashed close to the distribution that is used by Gerlich and Tscheuschner. This is no surprise. If the Moon was made of iron (conducts heat well) and rotated rapidly, then we should expect all the temperatures to equalize or close to it, which would lead to temperatures around -3 C. (The Teff for albedo of 0.12). The value calculated by Gerlich and Tscheuschner's method would be around -120C. However, because the darkside of the moon has temperature significantly above absolute zero, their method works out as a very strong lower bound. The average lunar temperature should be between these values of -12OC and -3C, as there is no greenhouse effect to warm things up.

The page you have cited is not consistent on mean surface temperatures. It speaks of -35 below the regolith, and a surface that is 40 to 45 cooler. That's a mean surface of -75 to -80. But the related page at the same site http://www.asi.org/adb/02/05/01/surf...mperature.html specifically gives -23C as a mean surface value. I don't know what's wrong there. But theoretically, -3C should be an upper bound on the mean surface temperature obtained by integrating temperature over the surface. -23C sounds like a credible value for an average surface temperature. It is equal to mid point of the average day and the average night temperature as given by another page: http://www.solarviews.com/eng/moon.htm.

Since there is such variation in temperature from point to point, we should expect the average value, whatever it is, to be significantly less than Teff of -3C. And because the night side is well above absolute zero, we should expect the average to be substantially more than -120C.

This is in contrast to the surface of the Earth, which (fortunately for us!) has an atmosphere to keep things warmer. The effective value of the planet of -18C is actually expressed high in the atmosphere, while the "atmospheric greenhouse" effect keeps things on the surface with a much warmer average of about 15C.​

 

[citizenzen]

That's all I'll provide for now. I haven't yet found anybody defend your paper. Instead, they all trash it pretty thoroughly. But there are more pages to the thread and I will check them out.

But I think you can see why your boys didn't win the Nobel prize or why we didn't see headlines in the news trumpeting the end of Global Warming.

Anyway, back to digging...

 

[citizenzen]

I can't help myself. Here's one more...

Just to underline what I mean above, the second law means that the flow of energy from a hot object to a cold one must be greater than the flow of energy back from the cold object to a warm one. It does not mean there's no flow at all from cold to hot. So even though the atmosphere is warmed from the surface, there is still some energy flowing back against the overall flow.

By the second law, the flow from Earth's surface into the atmosphere has to be more than the flow from the atmosphere into the surface. Typical numbers on Earth are that about 470 W/m2 go from surface to atmosphere, while about 340 W/m2 come back. Added to this is solar energy flowing from space into the surface, and into the atmosphere. Typical numbers are 160 W/m2 to the surface, and 80 W/m2 to the atmosphere. For the energy flowing back out into space, typical numbers are 210 W/m2 going into space from the atmosphere, and about 30 W/m2 coming direct from the surface.

These numbers are roughly average values, to about single figure accuracy. It's intended as a simple first order picture, not a fully accurate account. You can drill down into endless further details for what goes on in different latitudes, in the ocean or the land, in day or in night, or in different seasons and weather conditions. But over all, the following very basic features are not in any doubt at all, and follow easily from basic thermodynamics. Any credible estimate of energy flow on Earth must have these features.
The flux of energy inwards is the same as the flux outwards, Drilling down into more detail, there are small imbalances as heat gets absorbed, but physical measurement has the net imbalance as small. For example, there is at present a small net flux of energy into the ocean which is of the order of magnitude one W/m2 or so. It's an open research question to measure this more accurately, to measure the variations from place to place and from season to season. From day to day, there is a quite substantial flux into and out of the ocean, with the ocean taking up heat in the day and giving it back at night.

• The surface gets more of its energy from the atmosphere than from space.
• The energy received from space is mostly absorbed at the surface.
• The majority of energy radiated into space comes from the atmosphere.
• The atmosphere gets most of its energy from the surface.
• There's more energy flowing from the surface to the atmosphere than there is coming back from the atmosphere to the surface.
• The total flux at the surface is substantially greater than the total flux from space. This is why an atmosphere leads to a warmer average surface temperature.

​