That Bogus Greenhouse Gas Whatchamacallit Effect
NASA Scientist James Hansen Arrested, August 29, 2011Image via Wikipedia
Red-faced global warming policymakers are now back tracking as independent experts increasingly discredit the cornerstone of climatology: the greenhouse gas effect (GHE).
One such whistleblower is Dr. Pierre R Latour who explains adroitly below how his NASA colleague, septuagenarian Dr. James Hansen, concocted a mythical 33°C [91.4°F] atmospheric greenhouse gas global warming phenomenon.
NASA's global warming guru, Dr. James Hansen, will go down in history as climate science's Bernie Madoff for his pivotal role in touting the GHE hypothesis. This is no imprudent comparison - just “follow the money” as they say. It was Hansen’s now legendary doomsaying pronouncements to the U.S. Congress in 1981 that spawned a hundred billion dollar, thirty-year government Ponzi scheme (Madoff scammed ‘only’ $50 billion).
None who sat on that congressional committee appear to have been aware that in 1951 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) had already condemned the GHE to the trashcan of failed theories.
When Cooking the Numbers Ain’t Ok
Now retired, former DuPont and NASA Chemical Engineer, Latour is unconstrained in his opinion,” The 33°C are whatchamacallits. This greenhouse gas effect does not exist.”
Dr. Latour is one of many experts old enough to remember that in 1981 James Hansen stated the average thermal T (temperature) at Earth’s surface is 15°C (ok) and Earth radiates to space at -18°C (ok). From that he declared the difference 15° - (-18°) = 33°C (arithmetic ok) to be the famous greenhouse gas effect.
This is not ‘ok’ to more astute analysts critical of Hansen’s number fudging. They say Hansen’s math is very seriously awry because there is no physics to connect these two dissimilar numbers.
Latour recounts his altogether more conventional if less alarmist explanation for what is actually happening with our climate. Apologies to those of you not of a scientific or engineer disposition but hereon in is where we need to get somewhat technical.
The professional engineer registered in Texas and California and from Houston clarifies, “Thermal T is a point property of matter, a scalar measure of its kinetic energy of atomic and molecular motion. It’s what thermometers measure and it decreases with altitude. The rate of thermal energy transfer by conduction or convection between hot Th and cold Tc is proportional to (Th – Tc).”
Dr. Latour then explains that radiation t is a point property of massless radiation, EMR, a directional vector measure of its energy transmission rate per area or intensity, w/m2, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is measured by pyrometers and spectrometers.
False Atmospheric Heating Assumptions of Climate Scientists
Solar radiation t increases with altitude. Black bodies are defined to be those that absorb and radiate with the same intensity and corresponding t. Real, colorful bodies reflect, scatter, absorb, convert and emit radiant energy according to the nature of the incident radiation direction, spectrum and body matter reflectivity, absorptivity, emissivity and view factors. The rate of EMR energy transfer from a hot body, th, is Q, w = 5.67Ae(th + 273)4. But it may not be absorbed by all bodies that intercept it, as GHG theory assumes. In particular, hotter radiating bodies do not absorb colder radiation and reemit it more intensely, as GHG back-radiation theory assumes.
The Houston engineer reminds us that above Earth’s stratosphere, thin air T is rather cold, about -80°C. Yet solar radiation t is rather hot, about 120°C. So spacesuits have thermal insulation and radiant reflection. He points out, “The difference, 200°C, is meaningless. On a cold, clear, winter day on snowcapped mountains, dry air T = -10°C and radiation t = 50°C. I can feel them both.”
Where the Difference Between ‘T’ and ‘t’ was Missed
Much of GHE theory fails to make clear distinctions between these two different kinds of temperature, T and t. One temperature, t, is analogous to velocity, 34 km/hour north; the other, T, is analogous to density, 1 kg/liter.
“So 34 km/hour - 1 kg/liter is indeed 33 whatchamacallits by arithmetic, but nobody will ever know what a whatchamacallit is because velocity and density are not connected by nature,” bemoans Dr. Latour.
He further explains, “To clarify this enormous intellectual flaw, take boiling point of water is 100°C (true) and freezing point is 32°F (true), subtract 100 – 32 = 68 (correct arithmetic) and declare atmospheric pressure is 68 psia. The declaration is false because a) the difference between C and F has no meaning, b) there is no physics to connect 68 to pressure, psia, and c) atmospheric pressure is actually 14.7 psia.”
Thus we can see that the 33°C greenhouse gas effect that has everybody so upset and is researched ad nausea to death is not an effect, merely an easily explained pair of facts.
“Therefore, it is quite true the 33°C greenhouse gas effect defined by Dr. Hansen in 1981 as thermal T = 15°C at surface minus radiant t = -18°C to space is whatchamacallit nonsense,” according to Dr. Latour.
How Greenhouse Gas Theorists Compare Apples to Eggs
Latour assures us that since this is irrefutable logic, no experiment is called for. In other words, everybody knows you can’t compare apples to eggs; except, that is, unless you’re a Greenhouse Gas theorist like Hansen.
The sage Texan advises, “Logic trumps nonsense; that is why humans invented it around 400 B.C. No one needs to prove or disprove the existence of whatchamacallits. They are not even imaginary. There is no greenhouse in the sky.”
Planetary atmospheres reflect, scatter, transmit, absorb, emit and diminish stellar radiation intensity at the surface according to Beer-Lambert Law, 121°C incident to Earth’s stratosphere to 15°C at surface. Thermal T of atmospheres increase as gravity compresses gas and converts potential energy to kinetic energy closer to the surface from -80°C in the stratosphere to 14.5°C at the ground. Therefore atmospheres cause the surface to be colder than it would be if the atmosphere were thinner or non-existent. The more O2 (oxygen) is exchanged for higher heat capacity CO2 (carbon dioxide), the colder the surface radiation intensity temperature. Atmospheres are refrigerators, not blankets.
Dr. Latour continues, “GHG theory postulates back-radiation from cold atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the surface, heating it more.” He is in agreement with the ‘Slayers’ group of skeptics who says that violates Second Law of thermodynamics (energy can only be transferred from hot to cold bodies).
Hansen’s hokum led climate science to ‘create’ additional GHE energy, a violation of the First Law of thermodynamics (energy conservation). Latour now joins experts, astrophysicist, Joe Postma, Dr. Matthias Kleepsies and Professor Nasif Nahle in vociferously declaring that the infant science of climatology has spawned an impossible perpetual motion machine; a device that man-made global warming promoters have exploited to promote the nonsense of eternal global warming. Together these highly credentialed specialists from diverse fields, collectively referred to as the ‘Slayers’, are building a compelling body of evidence.
Seven Fine Facts Frustrate Hansen’s Folly
Latour reminds us “CO2 does not trap radiation; like all molecules, it absorbs some incident radiation according to its absorption spectrum and promptly emits it according to its emission spectrum. Moreover, CO2 is not a pollutant; it is inert green plant food. CO2 should not be curtailed, starving Earth’s flora.
As independent science professors are proving, minor solar driven global warming from 1974 to 1998 has stabilized this century. CO2 has nothing to do with global warming; it actually cools Earth. Arctic ice does not melt because of global warming, increasing T; it melts when the average T > 0, at rate proportional to T, no matter whether T is increasing or decreasing.”
Dr. Latour will be causing quite a stir among government climatologists with his essay of seven scientific facts (33°C whatchamacallit, no blanket, no back-radiation, CO2 no trap, CO2 inert food, no AGW, ice melts).
Each of Pierre Latour’s seven deadly facts slay James Hansen’s CO2 sky dragon and refute GHG and the man-made global warming sham. What Dr. Latour presents is robust and verifiable science.
But the unassuming Latour doesn’t claim his analysis is cutting edge or requiring any special peer review because what he presents is well known to professional physicists and engineers; ”it does not merit a research paper, or research, or experiments.”
As the man-made global warming cult collapses the 'science' of human caused global warming is being condemned just as emphatically as Wall Street's sub-prime mortgage scam. Thus Latour’s final words of advice are succinct and to the point: “Logic just needs clear definitions and common sense, not government spending and regulation.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John O’Sullivan is coordinator and coauthor of Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.
Below is Dr Latour’s original essay:
GHG Theory 33C Effect Whatchamacallit
Pierre R Latour, PhD, Houston, January 15, 2012
GHG Theory was invented to explain a so-called 33C atmospheric greenhouse gas global warming effect. In 1981 James Hanson1, 2 stated the average thermal T at Earth’s surface is 15C (ok) and Earth radiates to space at -18C (ok). Then he declared the difference 15 - (-18) = 33C (arithmetic ok) is the famous greenhouse gas effect. This is not ok because there is no physics to connect these two dissimilar numbers. The 33C are whatchamacallits. This greenhouse gas effect does not exist.
Here is the science for what is happening. Thermal T is a point property of matter, a scalar measure of its kinetic energy of atomic and molecular motion. It is measured by thermometers. It decreases with altitude. The rate of thermal energy transfer by conduction or convection between hot Th and cold Tc is proportional to (Th - Tc).
Radiation t is a point property of massless radiation, EMR, a directional vector measure of its energy transmission rate per area or intensity, w/m2, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is measured by pyrometers and spectrometers. Solar radiation t increases with altitude. Black bodies are defined to be those that absorb and radiate with the same intensity and corresponding t. Real, colorful bodies reflect, scatter, absorb, convert and emit radiant energy according to the nature of the incident radiation direction, spectrum and body matter reflectivity, absorptivity, emissivity and view factors. The rate of EMR energy transfer from a hot body, th, is Q, w = 5.67Ae(th + 273)4, where A is radiating area and e is emissivity fraction. But it may not be absorbed by all bodies that intercept it, as GHG theory assumes. In particular, hotter radiating bodies do not absorb colder incident radiation and reemit it more intensely, as GHG back-radiation theory assumes.
Above Earth’s stratosphere, thin air T is rather cold, about -80C. Yet solar radiation t is rather hot, about 120C. So spacesuits have thermal insulation and radiant reflection. The difference, 200C, is meaningless. On a cold, clear, winter day on snowcapped mountains, dry air T = -10C and radiation t = 50C. I can feel them both.
Much of GHG theory fails to make clear distinctions between these two different kinds of temperature, T and t. One temperature, t, is analogous to velocity, 34 km/hour north; the other, T, is analogous to density, 1 kg/liter. So 34 km/hour - 1 kg/liter is indeed 33 whatchamacallits by arithmetic, but nobody will ever know what a whatchamacallit is because velocity and density are not connected by nature.
To clarify this enormous intellectual flaw, take boiling point of water is 100C (true) and freezing point is 32F (true), subtract 100 - 32 = 68 (correct arithmetic) and declare atmospheric pressure is 68 psia. The declaration is false because a) the difference between C and F has no meaning, b) there is no physics to connect 68 to pressure, psia, and c) atmospheric pressure is actually 14.7 psia. That 33C greenhouse gas effect that has everybody so upset and is researched ad nausea to death is not an effect, merely an easily explained pair of facts.
Therefore, it is quite true the 33C greenhouse gas effect defined by James Hanson in 1981 as thermal T = 15C at surface minus radiant t = -18C to space is whatchamacallit nonsense. Everybody knows you can’t compare apples to eggs; except perhaps Greenhouse Gas theorists. Since this is irrefutable logic, no experiment is called for. Logic trumps nonsense; that is why humans invented it around 400bc. No one needs to prove or disprove the existence of whatchamacallits. They are not even imaginary. There is no greenhouse in the sky.
Planetary atmospheres reflect, scatter, transmit, absorb, emit and diminish stellar radiation intensity at the surface according to Beer-Lambert Law, 121C incident to Earth’s stratosphere to 15C at surface. Thermal T of atmospheres increase as gravity compresses gas and converts potential energy to kinetic energy closer to the surface, -80C in stratosphere to 14.5C at surface. Therefore atmospheres cause the surface to be colder than it would be if atmosphere were thinner or non-existent. The more O2 is exchanged for higher heat capacity CO2, the colder the surface radiation intensity temperature. Atmospheres are refrigerators, not blankets.
GHG theory postulates back-radiation from cold atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the surface, heating it more. This violates Second Law of thermodynamics (energy can only be transferred from hot to cold bodies), leading to creation of energy, a violation of the First Law of thermodynamics (energy conservation), and the impossible perpetual motion machine AGW promoters need to cause eternal global warming.
CO2 does not trap radiation; like all molecules, it absorbs some incident radiation according to its absorption spectrum and promptly emits it according to its emission spectrum. CO2 is not a pollutant; it is inert green plant food. CO2 should not be curtailed, starving Earth’s flora. Minor solar driven global warming from 1974 to 1998 has stabilized through 2011. CO2 has nothing to do with global warming; it actually cools Earth. Arctic ice does not melt because of global warming, increasing T; it melts when the average T > 0, at rate proportional to T, no matter whether T is increasing or decreasing.
This essay has seven scientific facts (33C whatchamacallit, no blanket, no back-radiation, CO2 no trap, CO2 inert food, no AGW, ice melts), each of which refute GHG and AGW. It has not been peer reviewed because it is well known to professional physicists and engineers; it does not merit a research paper, or research, or experiments. Logic just needs clear definitions and common sense, not government spending and regulation.
- Hansen, J, Johnson D, Lacis A, Lebedeff S, Lee P, Rind D & Russell G, “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”, Science, Vol 213, n 4511, pp 957 - 966, August 28, 1981.
- Hansen, J, Fung I, Lacis A, Rind D, Lebedeff S, Ruedy R & Russell G, “Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model”, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 93, n D8, pg 9341 - 9364, August 20, 1988.
Add comment
Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.
PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.
Comments
But yes, you are correct in saying that we did not start this trend, and we have no control over the global climate.
We are also in the Holocene. Possibly to be called the anthroprocene.
Quoting Gator:
More proof that you do not read.
Funnily enough, all scientists have and will conjure up all these so called hypthesisssssss just to get GOV funding....Meaning the poor non-attentive,ignorant, uneducated tax paying voters out there need these people to make them feel informed to say the least.....Do i make sense , well i guess i don't have to because everyone seems to have beleived the buffoons way before i dropped out of school knowing that CO2 is necessary for plant life and our, hmmmm, whats that thing we need that all vegetation produces???? Oh thats right OXYGEN!!!!! DAMNED SIMPLE SCIENCE AND I'M THE DROP OUT.....? The earth is a finely balanced lifeform and it has control not us.......LEARN YOU SIMPLETONS, we live on this earth not control it! They are not DELUDED they are after YOUR TAX DOLLARS..... Look at how 1 big shake wiped out 1 part of japan....all with a simple rush of water....Tell me how the hell will these climate freaks ever stop that?????? I could go on with common sense but hey I haven't got the Bachelor or Doctorate certificates to prove them wrong. The earth lives and breathes on its own. Politicians live out of your back pocket and sweat....food for thought!
The military had to study the effect of infrared in high humidity in Vietnam. The missles wouldn't work unless they chose the right infrared frequencies that water vapor wouldn't block.
Much to your dislike co2 drives the H20 content of the atmosphere. H20 is the short lived gas in the atmosphere and CO2 is the long lived gas. Hansen wasn't even the first one to come up with that its old. During world war 2 the military began intensive studies on the upper atmospher to understand co2 then.
Explain where CO2 drives that process. Is it what causes water to vaporize? Or is it what causes the vaporized water to condense back to liquid form (therefore no longer a gas)?
Water vapor is a "short lived gas" due to the above, H2O is not. H2O is just water and it is a liquid.
Now explain how CO2 drives that and get your science and terms correct before hand.
Really
www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
Here it is.
CO2 traps heat,
water evaporates
water is a GHG
more evaporation
earth is 70% water on the surface.
Wrong again.
Water is a liquid.
Ice is a solid (frozen water)
Water vapor is a gas (vaporized water)
Water is not a GHG.
You continue to confuse water with vaporized water.
You have yet to explain how CO2 causes that water to vaporize, or how it causes the vapor to condense back to liquid. It must be one of the two since you made the claim CO2 drives it.
Evidence please. Not rhetoric or personal beliefs.
I will not accept papers affiliated with Hansen or Schmidt. If it is as you say there should be plenty of evidence from other sources.
Wow. Are you for real. With a doubling of co2, it is expected to increase temperature 1.2*C. John Tyndal got that back in 1861. CO2 vibrating at infrared frequencies is 150 years old. H2O will evaporate due to increased co2. H20 is the feedback on this.
H2O is the stronger GHG than co2 and co2 regulates the amount of H2O in the atmosphere because it is the stable atmospheric gas and H2O is not. CO2 will stay in the atmosphere for centuries.
OR Robert do you need proof of that.
Basic Robert, very basic.
Many decades of published peer reviewed science research have revealed that CO2 does not stay floating around in the atmosphere for very long.They have known short residence times since the 1950's.Here are a sample of published papers by list showing them:
They are published "peer reviewed" science papers that appear in major science journals.Such as Nature and Science.
Revelle & Suess [1957] 7 years
Broecker [1963], recalc. by Broecker & Peng [1974] 8 years
Keeling [1973b] 7 years
Broecker & Peng [1974] 8 years
Segalstad (1992) 5.4 years
The CO2 residence times in the atmosphere as shown in the above sample list.Came from this SOURCE.
They range from 2 years to 25 years.But most of the results are around 5-7 years.
Quote:The atmospheric residence time (i.e. lifetime; turnover time) of CO2 has been quantified based on measurements of natural radiocarbon (carbon-14) levels in the atmosphere and the ocean surface; the changes in those levels caused by anthropogenic effects, like "bomb carbon-14" added to the atmosphere by nuclear explosions; and the "Suess Effect" caused by the addition of old carbon-14-free CO2 from combustion of fossil fuels; and the application of gas exchange theory to rates determined for the inert radioactive gas radon-222. The results from these measurements are shown in Table 2, mainly based on the compilation by Sundquist (1985), in addition to the solubility data of Murray (1992), and the carbon-13/carbon-12 mass-balance calculation of Segalstad (1992). Both of the last two recent methods happened to give a lifetime of 5.4 years based on completely different methods.
www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm
What the science says...
Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of around 5 years in the atmosphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they're simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of extra CO2 that remains in the atmosphere stays there on a time scale of centuries.
Enough SkS BS!
.. .. . . Bwah-HAH-Hah-ha-ha-ha
That's a good one. What other inanne humore related to the subject area can you come up with?
An important thing to note regarding residence of CO2 in the atmosphere is that, while CO2 is chemically neutral, it IS however physically reactive. It washes out of the air easily when it rains or snows, particularly when it is expressed as exhaust gas from tail pipes, smokestacks, etc. The Global Warming Collective loves to make claims about how many tons of CO2 are produced by humans by all various sources, thinking or hoping to make the world believe, that it all stays in the atmosphere till sometime after we're all dead.
Well, this is pure bullsh!t. A good half of it goes straight to the ground within an hour on days when precip is falling. Most of the rest of settles out over hours, days, weeks, month, then a few years.
You know, that 'acid rain' we were all told would kill the planet.
H2O's been evaporating for a while RG - it's called the hydrological cycle.
"H20 is the feedback on this"
Let's see:-
Total Column Water Vapour
climate4you.com/images/TotalColumnWaterVapourDifferentAltitudesObservationsSince1983.gif
Relative Humidity
climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericRelativeHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
Specific Humidity
climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
RG theory - meet fact.
page 9
NASA satellites are incredibly good at measuring humidity. Shows increase at about 1.6% per decade. Water vapor will increase at a rate of 6.5%/*C
Gee, I wonder why all the models fail?
Pg 9 shows a 1.2%/decade rise (not 1.6) in over-ocean-only Total Water (not humidity) 1987-2006. But if you look at 2002-2006 you will discover that over-ocean-only TW declined 2002-2006. This is consistent with the TCWV plot I provided that shows little discernible trend in TCWV this century to Dec 2009.
Total Column Water Vapour
climate4you.com/images/TotalColumnWaterVapourDifferentAltitudesObservationsSince1983.gif
Now let's look at NOAA ESRL humidity again (my links up-thread were bad)
Relative Humidity
climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericRelativeHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
Specific Humidity
climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
Your theory really does met with some inconvenient data doesn't it RG?
Then you say (according to models):-
"Water vapor will increase at a rate of 6.5%/*C"
If TCWV has not increased at that rate this century so far (see TCWV plot above), what are the odds of it not doing so at all?
I do note that your reference states on pg 7 "Wind Drives Evaporation". This is progress RG because it eliminates CO2 forcing as an evaporation driver at the ocean surface. That just leaves radiation and conduction in which CO2 must act for Hansen's (undefined) ocean heat build-up mechanism.
So where's the CO2 "forcing" acting at the ocean surface in respect to radiation and conduction RG? What's happening at nanometer (molecular), micrometer, millimeter and metre levels?
Or haven't you got the foggiest clue (like Hansen)?
RSS Satellite Product
Goddard Satellite/Rain Gauge
Product (GPCP)
From Hilburn and Wentz, 2007, J. Appl. Meteor. Climate
(mm/day/decade)
Global trend over ocean
1.8 % per decade
slide 5
Humidity is going up.
If you read the other slides they are talking correcting the problem with the UAH tropospheric records. When humidity goes up, that is a direct connection to higher temperature. Especially in a 70% water world.
www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html
CO2 will drive the water vapor higher, with water vapor being the feedback to co2.
You demonstrate by introducing precipitation, the planet's climate modulator (the hydrological cycle) at work. Water stays resident in the atmosphere on average around 9 days but the modulating effect means that figure varies shorter and longer. Water just doesn't build up in the atmosphere increasingly.
Your NASA reference is merely model based and the observations of TPW,RH and SH disprove the posited feedback effect (it's BS).
Global temperature has no correlation with TCWV, RH or SH (see NOAA ESRL links above).
I also challenge your own correlation with the real world given the extraordinary disconnection of your reasoning with observations of it.
Oh well so much for the models.
Only 1000 mb/hPa could be described as increasing but from 2007-Dec 2011 1000 hpa has decreased.
climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
Personally I don't blame the models, I blame the idiots that conform to the IPCC RF methodology and configure their models accordingly.
i30.tinypic.com/fdsmc2.gif
increase in rain
from increase in WV
otherwise you can't have an increase of rain
Trenberth has been calling out 4% since 1970 and we have 5% since 1850.
Snowfall increases during winters from extra WV above the warmer oceans.
The gulf of Mexico was about 2 F, 1F from human warming.
www.skepticalscience.com/humidity-global-warming.htm
Above is a discussion from several papers on increasing humidity.
Its common sense to me that WV would increase in the atmosphere due to temperature.
But we are looking at global trends in temperature (rising late last century, stasis this century) and WV levels (all pressure levels falling except 1000 hPa rising until mid 2000s then falling). See the NOAA ESRL plots.
Trenberth is only looking (selectively) at 1000 hPa but unfortunately (for him) the recent 1000 hPa trend since mid 2000 is falling.
As for snow, Steven Goddard explains:-
"According to Think Progress, the record snow in Anchorage this year is due to more moisture in the air from global warming. It is simple enough to demonstrate that this is incorrect.
During the first 13 days of January, the average dew point in Anchorage has been -16C, which corresponds to a specific humidity of 1.3 g/m³. They have received snow on nine of the thirteen days, and the average temperature has been -14C.
www.wunderground.com/
During the first thirteen days of January last year, Anchorage received no snow. The average dew point was -7C, which corresponds to a specific humidity of 2.7 g/m³ – more than twice as much as this year. The average temperature was -5C.
www.wunderground.com/
Summarizing : Anchorage is getting record snow in 2012. There is less than half as much moisture in the air as last year, when they received no snow through the first half of January. Temperatures are averaging 9C cooler in 2012 than they did in 2o11.
There can be no question that the snow is due to the cold air, yet Think Progress continues to lie about this."
Again, here's TCWV, RH and SH:-
climate4you.com/images/TotalColumnWaterVapourDifferentAltitudesObservationsSince1983.gif
climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericRelativeHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
All falling except 1000 hPa RH and SH that are the only plots correlating remotely with temperature but take a look at the absolute measures.
However, if we look at RSS satellite era (1978/12-present) temperature, only 1000 hPa SH comes close to mimicing temperature and then only tenuously.
junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.html
The positive WV feedback is awol.
"Global temperatures are continuing to increase." [doesn't he look at RSS?]
'World not quite as hot in 2011 - scientists'
www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world-not-quite-as-hot-in-2011-scientists/story-e6frfku0-1226249093953
H/T Tom Nelson tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/after-global-temperatures-failed-to.html
The amount of WV the atmosphere can hold increases with temperature. Increase temperature with the same amount of WV and the relative humidity will drop.
Now you would have to actually understand the science rather than just spamming talking points to do that but you could at least try and fake it.
Are you seriously as dense as you portray yourself here or is it just an act?
So what? This a strawman argument (if it could be described as an argument at all), a mere "random factoid" as Robert puts it. No-one is disputing that warmer air CAN hold more WV (least of all me).
Refer back up to my previous 2 commnts up-thread to see what the real issue is - global temperature series, global WV series, and the posited AGW WV feedback (none happening as per AGW script)
To claim that humidity is decreasing requires you ignore a multitude of independent reanalyses that all show increasing humidity. It requires you accept a flawed reanalysis that even its own authors express caution about. It fails to explain how we can have short-term positive feedback and long-term negative feedback. In short, to insist that humidity is decreasing is to neglect the full body of evidence.
Figure 1: Various reanalyses showing the trend in specific humidity from 1973 to 2007 in the tropics (Dessler 2010 also looks at the Northern and Southern extra-tropics - only the tropic data is shown here for simplicity and as it shows the greatest contrast between Paltridge 2009 and the other reanalyses).
Figure 2: Short-term (a) and Long-term (b) plots of the slopes of the regression between specific humidity and surface temperature, in the tropics. Trends are divided by the average specific humidity over the entire time period, so they are expressed in percent per degree K.
#############################
Specific humidity The mass of water vapor per unit mass of air, including the water vapor (usually expressed as grams of water vapor per kilogram of air).
###################################
In terms of specific humidity, its evident that it is increasing
But when presented with global metrics you seem to adopt an ostrich approach - why is that RG?
Interesting point of view. How does LaTour demonstrate this eith evidence?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
They sure do renewable guy.
Just what exactly IS Hansen's mechanism (the "extraordinary evidence" - undefined in Hansen et al 2011) for a GHG effect being the "dominant role" in OHC build-up as he states in H11?
Is it a LWIR heating effect? The literature of medical laser physics says no (Segelstein, Hale and Querry, Wieliczka etc). Hansen says ocean heating is a solar mechanism in H11 so he says no too.
Or is it an insulating "skin" effect that prevents heat escaping from the ocean surface as posited by Real Climate but unsupported by reference to literature? Again, medical laser physics says no (as above) and so does 'Cool-skin and warm-layer effects' Fairall 1996.
So what's the "extraordinary evidence" renewable guy (i.e. put-up or shut-up)?
More here:- climatechangedispatch.com/home/9799-that-bogus-greenhouse-gas-whatchamacallit-effect#comment-33057
galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/black_body_radiation.html
Except that you didn't answer the question in respect to Hansen's OHC build-up mechanism.
No answers RG?
Particularly this one
www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9790-please-global-warming-alarmists-stop-denying-climate-change-and-science#comment-33100
Medical Laser Physics and climate? Odd.
I have posted before about deep ocean heating.
The medical laser physics that I cite (and it's rigourous, replicable, expert and extensive) deals specifically with an effect that climate science has not even STARTED to deal with. That is, the heating effect by radiation on material - water in this case. The physics (it's all-encompassing RG) shows by experiment that LWIR from GHGs+clouds (conventionally 4-16 microns) only has an effective penetration of 10 microns below water surface.
You say:-
"I have posted before about deep ocean heating"
OK, so how does CO2 "forcing" heat the deep ocean RG (if you're an expert on the topic)?
And why do climate models ignore an estimated 2 PJ of heat being pumped into the ocean mainly at 2000-2500m by hydrovents?
From this article the cool skin layer is heated up by the sun, becoming a warm boundary between the ocean and the atmosphere.
################
from article
Once the gradient has changed, all heat leaving the ocean thereafter has to negotiate its way through the layer. With the gradient lowered, the ocean is able to steal away a little bit more from heat headed for the atmosphere. It is in this ever-present mechanism that oceans are able to undergo long-term warming (or cooling).
#######################
from article
Under cloudy conditions, the cloud cover radiates more heat back down toward the ocean surface than happens under clear sky conditions. So the mechanism should cause a decline in skin temperature gradients with increased cloud cover (more downward heat radiation), and there should also be a decline in the difference between cool skin layer and ocean bulk temperatures - as less heat escapes the ocean under increased atmospheric warming.
##########################
With an ever increasing co2 being emitted into the air, this surface layer insulation helps to force heat into the lower oceans. When the temperture gradient is decreased the ocean is less able to release its heat to the atmosphere.
Herein lies the foolishness of regurgitating everything you read at SkS, especially this that someone else (Rob Painting) has regurgitated from Real Climate (www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/)
Unfortunately, neither is cognizant of the physics. Neither places the effective depth of the 4-16 micron GHG+clouds LWIR (0.01mm - SKS 0.1 to 1mm, RC top 1mm) and neither states the absorption coefficient at the effective depth (1000 - absorption DECREASES 1000 times as compared to no decrease at 1 micron wavelength/10mm depth in the solar range).
omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/water/gif/hale73.gif
RC and SkS offer no literature to support their story but Fairall et al 1996 'Cool-skin, warm-layer' recognize the (negligible) downwelling flux in the net up-down sum.
In short, there's nothing to stop ocean cooling by either evaporation (wind driven), radiation or conduction.
Please set aside a quiet moment, preferably beside the seaside (as I live) to ponder the galactic stupidity of a 0.01mm (10 micron) thermal insulator "skin" on a turbulent ocean surface.
You've tied yourself to a bogus notion RG. Even if there was a grain of truth (there isn't), an insulator does NOT "force heat".
You have nothing new to offer me, unless you can provided even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent or any global climate changes.
Everyone but you!
RG, do you really think I have not seen every bit of the alarmist claptrap you have provided? Because I have.
"The ancient Chinese warrior Sun Tzu taught his men to "know your enemy" before going into battle. For if "you know your enemy and know yourself," he wrote, "you need not fear the result of a hundred battles." But, Sun Tzu warned, "If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat."
I was a regular at SkS until they started censoring my comments. For years the only information you could get on climate change was the alarmist mantra. I have read it all.
You, on the other hand, are unfamiliar with the most basic concepts of science, much less climate science.
You ignore the Scientific Method, and Ockham's Razor at the expense of your own intellect.
I studied both sides of the issue from an educaterd position from the start. Climate change is something I studied at a major university, and before the 'experts' conveniently changed their tune from warning of the next ice age, to global warming.
So if you have been paying attention, you just learned that I started on this long journey of knowledge even before there was the myth of AGW. I saw the consensus go from cooling to warming. Where were you? Why were you not calling the warmists deniers, for denying the current ice age?
Oh, that's right! You are new here!
See if I'm right about this (recalling from my remote sensing chapter during the LandSat day) . . .
Satellite measurements of water vapor on the globe are good for determining the extent and relative abundance of water vapor in the atmosphere geographically, but not so good for determining actual water vapor content concentrations locally or regionally. To get an accurate sense of water vapor content at any location, the best method continues to be at the surface or from within the atmosphere itself, i.e., by balloon or other air-borne device.
In any case, the refusal by the Libs to recognize water vapor for what it is infuriates me. THAT is the true denial in this entire discussion. To ignore the role of water vapor is to be willingly ignorant about the planetary greenhouse. But of course, as an open system, the earth's atmosphere isn't really a greenhouse is it?
Surface measurements, aircraft and balloon data collection are the cornerstone and validation of RS atmospheric science.
One of them even provided a link to material which supported a prior quote by Gator as his rebuttal to that prior quote.
Not a very bright group.
Anyway, hope things are well for you, waiting on Eddie Bauer to open so I can get a new parka, old one doesn't fit quite right any more and it's friggin' cold out there.
Hey Robert! As we well know, because he admitted as much, that party does not even read what is presented to him.
How intellectual, how inquisitive!
Of course having the backing of the New World Order doesn't hurt either.
[2] G. Gerlich and R. D. Tscheuschner, "Reply to "Comment on 'Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effect within the Frame of Physics'" by Joshua B. Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur Pl Smith, Jorg Zimmermann", Int. J. Mod. Phys. B, vol. 24, p. 1333 (2010)
These two papers are classic. Problem solved. There is no "greenhouse effect". It's unphysical nonsense.
“Flawed data” is not the half of it. Not even close. www.real-debt-elimination.com/real_freedom/Propaganda/Global_Warming_Myth/global_warming_spinning_a_convenient_lie.htm
Yes, climate scientists have been patsies to defraud most of the people of the world. Check the attendance at Kyoto and Copenhagen. All of that based on one simple lie.
Now go read before you let yourself look ... well ... like not the brightest rocket.
Actually is the whole ball of wax. And the whole world is is on it.
geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
This explains a great deal of how bodies radiate heat back off of themselves.
The simple fact is CO2 is absorbent in a small range of frequencies. When the light coming directly from the Sun hits it, only a very tiny amount is absorbed and then re-emitted, so most of the energy makes it to the surface to heat the earth. Once the surface heats up, it begins radiating in a different set of frequencies. Instead of most of the energy being in the visible spectrum, it is now mostly in the infra red spectrum. This part of the spectrum is where CO2 does the most absorbing.
So the energy being radiated back to space is a different form to the energy coming directly from the sun, and is thus more capable of being absorbed and re-emitted by CO2.
The "Greenhouse Gas" theory simply says that the difference between the two forms of energy results in more energy that is emitted by the surface being bounced back to the surface, than energy emitted from the Sun is bounced back to space, resulting in energy being trapped in the earth/atmosphere system. The more CO2, the more energy trapped in the system.
Imagine a bucket sitting under a tap with a hole in the bottom. The tap is running constantly and represents the Sun. The metal of the bucket is the atmosphere while the area it contains is the surface of the earth. The hole in the top represents the inflow of energy from the Sun, the hole in the bottom represents the outflow of energy from the surface, and CO2 represents a build up of sediment that blocks the holes making them smaller.
The more CO2 to block the holes, the smaller the holes get, lowering the rate water can flow through them. The difference is the hole that represents incoming energy is huge, so CO2 can't have much affect on the flow rate, while the hole that represents outgoing energy is small, allowing CO2 to have a greater affect on the flow rate.
Water pours in the top and it leaks out the bottom. If the bottom hole is large enough, all the water leaks out almost as soon as it goes into the bucket, and the bucket never fills up. Make the hole smaller, allowing less water to escape, and the bucket begins to fill. If the escaping flow rate is lower than the incoming flow rate, eventually the bucket will overflow.
This difference in flow and thus the build up of water in the bucket is what we call "global warming".
Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent or ant global climate changes.
Imagine CO2 and water vapor as many small holes in the roof of the greenhouse. They might not make much difference during the day with the high energy input, but at night there's gonna be cooling.
It's N2 and O2 that are real greenhouse gases as they have no emission spectrum in visible or IR at normal temperatures. They heat by conduction from the warmed Earth surfaces and cannot lose energy except by back conduction to the surfaces or to CO2 and water vapor.
The definition of GHGs in Wiki is specifically tailored to lead the user to CO2 and water when, in fact, these are not GHGs and cannot trap heat.
And that in a nutshell is what is wrong with AGW, it is all based upon wild theoretical assumptions instead of empirical evidence. Models instead of observations.
We do not live in either a bucket, or a greenhouse! And as you stated Charles, CO2 like its dreaded cousin water vapor, absorbs and releases heat. Witness a thunderstorm and then try and tell me so called 'greenhouse' gases cannot transport heat up and out of the atmosphere.
And as Dr Nahle points out...
My assessment demonstrates that there will be no increase in warming from an increase of absorptivity of IR by water vapor due to overlapping spectral bands with carbon dioxide. On the overlapping absorption spectral bands of carbon dioxide and water vapor, the carbon dioxide propitiates a decrease of the total emissivity/absorptivity of the mixture in the atmosphere, not an increase, as AGW proponents argue
Stick a fork in it, it's done!
That is a big wrong. Black body theory is the most successful of the physics theorys.
geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
Don't tell me big fella. You aren't going to accept this. Your keen bullshit detector is on. Sorry, the science community is behind this a 100%.
Do you understand blackbody theory? Do you understand the discrepancies between it and the temperatures on earth vs mars vs venus since you would obviously ignore pressure, distance, and other factors in the place of CO2 as the cause of the temperatures even though by content that doesn't explain the temperatures we actually observe.
Now provide proof that CO2 is (and I quote you) "the most successful of the physics theories" when we have so many to choose from.
We don't need a bullshit detector with you RG, we just need to see your name.
If you want to see my source, the program does not allow coping. page 5
Energy Balance and Surface Temperature
Venus is 730K and otherwise would be a mere 231 K.
Mars:
Surface pressure: 6.36 mb at mean radius (variable from 4.0 to 8.7 mb depending on season) 6.9 mb to 9 mb (Viking 1 Lander site)]
Surface density: ~0.020 kg/m3
Scale height: 11.1 km
Total mass of atmosphere: ~2.5 x 1016 kg
Average temperature: ~210 K (-63 C)
Diurnal temperature range: 184 K to 242 K (-89 to -31 C) (Viking 1 Lander site)
Wind speeds: 2-7 m/s (summer), 5-10 m/s (fall), 17-30 m/s (dust storm) (Viking Lander sites)
Mean molecular weight: 43.34 g/mole
Atmospheric composition (by volume):
Major: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - 95.32% ; Nitrogen (N2) - 2.7%; Argon (Ar) - 1.6%; Oxygen (O2) - 0.13%; Carbon Monoxide (CO) - 0.08%
Minor (ppm): Water (H2O) - 210; Nitrogen Oxide (NO) - 100; Neon (Ne) - 2.5; Hydrogen-Deuterium-Oxygen (HDO) - 0.85; Krypton (Kr) - 0.3; Xenon (Xe) - 0.08
Now Earth:
Surface pressure: 1014 mb
Surface density: 1.217 kg/m3
Scale height: 8.5 km
Total mass of atmosphere: 5.1 x 1018 kg
Total mass of hydrosphere: 1.4 x 1021 kg
Average temperature: 288 K (15 C)
Diurnal temperature range: 283 K to 293 K (10 to 20 C)
Wind speeds: 0 to 100 m/s
Mean molecular weight: 28.97 g/mole
Atmospheric composition (by volume, dry air):
Major: 78.08% Nitrogen (N2), 20.95% Oxygen (O2),
Minor (ppm): Argon (Ar) - 9340; Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - 380; Neon (Ne) - 18.18; Helium (He) - 5.24; CH4 - 1.7;
Krypton (Kr) - 1.14; Hydrogen (H2) - 0.55
Finally Venus:
Surface pressure: 92 bars
Surface density: ~65. kg/m3
Scale height: 15.9 km
Total mass of atmosphere: ~4.8 x 1020 kg
Average temperature: 737 K (464 C)
Diurnal temperature range: ~0
Wind speeds: 0.3 to 1.0 m/s (surface)
Mean molecular weight: 43.45 g/mole
Atmospheric composition (near surface, by volume):
Major: 96.5% Carbon Dioxide (CO2), 3.5% Nitrogen (N2)
Minor (ppm): Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) - 150; Argon (Ar) - 70; Water (H2O) - 20; Carbon Monoxide (CO) - 17; Helium (He) - 12; Neon (Ne) - 7
Why is Mars not hotter than the Earth? It has CO2 as a primary gas (95.32%) while the Earth only has it in parts per million as a minor component.
Looks like CO2 isn't all you claim it is.
As others have noted here, you seem to really suck at science.
While I'm sure you'd believe that I don't.
We are talking also about Venus remember?
For two planets with similar CO2 concentrations the temperature variance doesn't support the claim.
Distance from the sun, orbital path, atmospheric density, period of rotation, etc.
Numerous factors you (and others) don't consider determine the temperature, not how much CO2 is present.
Apparently the slight deviations in the Earth's axial tilt and orbit that result in the seasons here isn't sufficient for you to grasp that distance from the sun is far more crucial than CO2 concentrations.
Your inane bullshit doesn't provide any evidence indicating CO2 has a damn thing to do with it.
You notice that number you gave for the pressure? That has more to do with the temperature than your CO2 bogey man.
Learn to friggin' think.
This might change if enough gas or gases were added to the atmosphere and did not dissipate, such that the pressure on Mars were to increase significantly. Then the molecules of CO2 in the Martian atmosphere would be at least a bit closer crowded together and could hold radiant and infrared energy for a long time before it escapes.
Earth hit this frequency absorption saturation probably about 50 to 100ppm of CO2 ago. Even by doubling or even quadrupling the CO2 content of our atmosphere, only a very small amount of added heat-holding potential could arise--less than 1 degree F. And earth's atmospheric pressures have remained remarkably stabled for hundreds of millions of years and longer.
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html
Arguing outside the article means you haven't read it either. So why are you here?
I meant to say provide proof that the black body theory is "the most successful of the physics theories."
Hard not to think of CO2 when dealing with you. Even harder to understand how you can be so in love with it and afraid of it at the same time.
such is you opinion.
You are all bluster and clueless about science. You are interesting though. How are you holding out?
Natural variability rules the day, again.
WTF? Does this guy ever read anything?
I studied blackbodies as part of my formal training. I stated above the blackbody is used for theoretical analysis. I have stated this and then RG the spewer comes along and leaves his trail of nonsense again.
What a waste.
I have nothing to prove, I contend nature is doing what it has always done.
You claim a new magical gas rules the climate, prove it or shut up.
That is what I keep asking you about. I hear the bluster, now let's see the science.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate, or how we got here.
One must first disprove NV before one can move on to blaming other drivers.
Period.
he does a big big rant and calls me a looser. CO2 is known right on down to the hair on a knat's a$$. It blocks heat.
Other wise we wouldn't have the preindustrial climate that we had either. The earth would be on average around 32*F average instead of around 59F.
You are a liar RG, so don't feel bad if I don't fall for your bullshit.
Try again.
I doubt I will ever reach your proof level. Above is a demonstration visually of co2 blocking heat from a candle.
Lyeing is the intent to say one thing and knowing otherwise. What I present is my intention of what I believe the reality of AGW is. I use the mainstream science as I understand it.
He's refuting every peer reviewed scientist in the world on co2 ghg. That's incredible. He's got it all backwards. TO convince the science community he has to write his paper based in reproducible evidence. This article does not even get off the ground.
What's this bull? . . . "CO2 is known right on down to the hair on a knat's a$$. It blocks heat."
What the hell?!! The whole gig with the Global Warming Collective is that it traps and holds heat.
You really are a lunatic. Your arguments are completely circuitous. What a waste of time you are!
Gator is as bullheaded as they come. His emotions are more to dominate than to have an intellectual discussion. He doesn't really understand good decorum.
Try again.
Could be hazardous to your health.
You're focusing on community consensus again and that has proven to be a primary block to good scientific thinking.
You know folks I am beginning to wonder if within this debate there has been some sort of mass identity crisis happening. I mean, I am beginning to think that you guys really think you are qualified as scientists to discuss this science in detail. And draw conclusions no less! Reminds me of what's happening in the spiritual world as well. Everyone thinks they are a Shaman these days. Eagle flies over your head and by your own appointment you are suddenly a shaman. As for you science guys, of which there are many; know what GHG stands for and suddenly you are a scientist.
I actually wrote a very well researched paper on desertification for one of my climatology classes. I based it upon all the latests opinions from governemnt research and universiity studies, and it was completely wrong.
I learned my lesson. Question is, will you ever learn?
What do we know about Danny?
Quote:Yes Doctor, we get it. By your own admission, you are a know nothing with verbal diarrhea.
Danny thinks he gets to label everything in his own little world.
And trying to define the accomplishments of those whom you do not know, is foolish.
I guess you missed the part where I graduated with a degree.
And missed the part where followintg authority lead to a disaster.
Some people are simply incapable of learning, it is known as 'wilfull ignorance'.
Now, if you are through personally attacking me, and wish to quit denying yourself an education, got any science you wish to learn?
They did'nt get their money's worth.
Found that paper yet?
Projection again. Sad,
Unfortunately it is true and a common pattern with Mark Moranno. He publishes the email addresses of climate scientists on his web and they get a torrent of hate email. Its highly intimidating. Being mean just isn't the way to work out our differences. Here is a wonderful christian woman who recieved the same thing. It's uncalled for and should be stopped.
www.skepticalscience.com/Katharine-Hayhoe-labour-of-love-inspires-torrent-of-hate.html
Thanks!
You are a poor excuse for the right. No science.
Projecting again, because you cannot provide even a single paper that proves me wrong.
Sucks to be you!
Still no science to disprove NV.
Keep bloviating, it really helps 'The Cause'.
BTW others. I've just browsed through Hansen et al 2011 'Energy Imbalance' trying to find his mechanism for OHC buidup - couldn't find it. The first sentence of the abstract states:-
"Improving observations of ocean temperature confirm that Earth is absorbing more energy from the sun than it is radiating to space as heat, even during the recent solar minimum."
Next sentence:-
"This energy imbalance provides fundamental verification of the dominant role of the human-made greenhouse effect in driving global climate change."
Big leap.
I suspect that the undefined GHG "effect" at the ocean surface is the bastardized cold-skin layer physics touted by Real Climate and repeated by Skeptical Science officionados but without reference to any supporting science. Stupendously bogus IMO.
Thread here if anyone's interested:-
www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/01/a-case-of-the-blind-leading-the-climatologists/#comment-77008
Also 'Losing Your Imbalance', Willis Eschenbach
wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/30/losing-your-imbalance/
Hansen completely ignores the approximate 2 PJ of heat per second being pumped into the ocean mainly at 2000-2500m by hydrovents.
are you guys thinking that co2 is the only gas responsible for the global warming? Seriously? have you learnt nothing in school? go and read about CFC's understand about the polar vortex the reactions that form withing the ozone layer, especially those with Haloalkenes read first than think. Understand the process guys dont blindly allow others do the debate for you. One side says there's global warming and the other says there's no such thing blah blah blah....
Understand this, we humans play a very important role in this planet. with a population of 7 billion and counting you seriously believe we have no effect on this planet? Than please describe to be how is it we are able to cut down almost every single forest there is in this planet, create industrial factories around the world and here most of you saying we dont do anything to change anything? The earth is going through its cycle?
Is your body just going through a cycle when you have cancer?
Just read before you say anything and understand the underlying message.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate, or how we got here.
Don't be a hypochondriac.
Further, the bucket is an example of conservation of matter, water. Solar radiation energy Poyntang vector is not conserved in that form as it penetrates the atmosphere and surface; it is reflected, scattered, absorbed, transformed into other energy forms (thermal molecular motion), and reemitted with different spectra and direction. So its intensity and corresponding S-F temperature is diminished on the way down. Diminished means cooled. Likewise the low intensity IR radiated by Earth is diminished on the way out. It is not trapped in the common definition of that word. The more CO2, the colder the surface. The surface of Venus would get warmer if its atmosphere were thinner.
Gator, Gustav, whiteeaglesoaring and Richard C NZ seem to get it. I note some who do not understand my essay get upset and respond with uncivil prose, naturally.
I proved the fraction of cold, scattered IR from the surface absorbed and reemitted by any gas like CO2 cannot be reabsorbed by Earth’s surface, heating it further. This falsified another flaw in GHG theory: CO2 back-radiation causes AGW.
www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/185-no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still
Yea, stupid is a good description for you.
Altering the environment is different than altering nature.
For example the flow of lava from a volcano could be diverted from its normal course down a slope, thereby altering the environment. However the erupting lava cannot be made hotter or cooler thereby altering the natural properties of the lava.
I'd love to see you make a river flow backwards. Let us know when you can.
Tricks with a camera don't count.
And hey, quit calling people stupid. You can say their comment is stupid, but don't be calling the person stupid, not nice. You folks here seem to have a bad habit of that.
You said:
Quote:So according to you we are all stupid right? That being the case why are you insulted?
You want to come here being a smart ass, don't expect nice.
This article is so full of comical errors it's laughable. Where to begin?
The article says:
> Yet solar radiation t is rather
> hot, about 120°C.
This statement, right there, tells you this engineer does not understand physics. Solar radiation is across a wide spectrum of wavelengths. And you can't apply the Stefan-Boltzmann law to radiation in space because it is not a blackbody -- it's the Sun that is the blackbody.
All of you would benefit by spending your time reading a textbook like Pierrehumbert's than wasting your time here.
Oh, never mind.
galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/black_body_radiation.html
geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html
Sorry Gate. You are all fluff and no stuff.
I have asked for the better part of a week for one paper to prove me wrong and all you do is piss and moan.
Science please.
It states (and the italics and bold text are in the original):
Quote:Wow, where have we heard that before?
Ummm... Oh, Gator when he said:
Quote:Idealized body, idealized body...
Repeat it until you understand its meaning.
Looks like there is more stuff in Gator's comment than in your fluffy retort.
You are in your comfortable little cocoon here so you can create your own little denier world. Take your views to people in physics. See where it gets you.
Not real bright are you?
But you can read this:
www.ualberta.ca/~pogosyan/teaching/ASTRO_122/lect4/lecture4.html
Notice that under the picture of the sun it states:
Quote:Just so we are sure you understand, they say The Sun radiation not the Sun itself, is almost a black body NOT is a black body.
You can also look here:
www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
Where it states:
Quote:You can also go here:
www.nat.vu.nl/environmentalphysics/REAL%20Experiments/Heat%20radiation/Radiation_Theory.html
Where it states:
Quote:Now as the Sun does exist in nature, yet black bodies don't exist in nature, the Sun cannot be a black body can it?
Too complicated for you?
But hey, thanks for your expert opinon...I mean...you are an expert, right?
None of them support the claim that "the sun is a black body."
That is the claim that was made and which has been shown to be false.
Perhaps you need a course or two in reading comprehension.
No surprise there.
Quote:Then please stop posting, you are a parrot, and I'm no fan of mindless rhetoric.
You have no clue what you are speaking of, but at least you admit it!
Let me point out another thing and that is the reason this sort of thing happens with you science guys. It's because you are not here to advocate, to seek truth, or even to defend or promote you possiton. Instead, you are here to 'act' like a scientist because you get a kick out of it. How do i know this? Because I've seen it about a hundred thousand times on these sort of sites.
Quote:So which is it. Are you well informed, or a liar?
It is quite clear that nothing you say has any basis in truth. You make whatever claim is convenient for your argument at that point, and then shift when necessary. Just like the IPCC, and those frauds.
You admit to knowing nothing, and then attack those whom you do not know as being ignorant on the subject. Again typical alarmist nonsense. Empty rhetoric.
Unlike your uninformed arse, I have studied ice ages for over 35 years. I actually paid for, attended and passed climatology courses at a major university 25 years ago.
It is really this simple Danny, there is nothing unusal or unprecedented aboout our current climate or how we got here.
Natural variabilty can explain everything we see globally.
And please remeber...
Danny Heaim at 2012-01-18 02:52 says...
Quote:
BTW, these "claims" I've been making, what are they? I don't remember making any actual claims here, but I may have, could you point them out please?
Since you cannot even comprehend even your own postings, here goes...
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:One of my fav's! And it goes really well with the next 'convenient' claim!
Quote:Quote:Quote:Pure nonsense from a known liar.
Go ahead, make my point again!
Youn are blind or a liar.
Where's my paper? Prove me wrong.
You are just this puffy puffy guy. Where is the content of your
vigorous accusation that AGW is wrong. Everything I have said about you not knowing science seems to be coming true.
Prove me wrong.
I have, time and time again.
We all have.
This is not a contest of who can hold their breath the longest.
I still contend that our climate is simply changing as it has for billions of years. I have billions of years of precedence and have nothing to prove.
You, on the other hand, contend that the properties of CO2 have changed, and that we should throw out billions of years of empirical evidence in favor of an unproven hypothesis.
Prove your point, or move on.
You must first show that this climate change is not natural, and then that natural forces are not rwesponsible for driving climate.
Get to it.
Figure 6: Annual averages of the surface temperature data with the effects of solar and volcanic activity and ENSO removed by Foster and Rahmstorf (2011)
#####################
The variablity has been removed by Foster and Rahmstorf.
Seems there are a lot of variables involved in that "variability" most of which continue to be ignored or are just plain unaccounted for.
Quoting Baa Humbug:
They also know solar effects (even though the "thousands of scientists" who worked on IPCC AR1,2,3 and 4 state their scientific knowledge of solar effects is low) and subtracted that.
Hmmmm, clever pair this F&R. Nice graph.
By the way renewable guy, did I tell you I've put the Sydney Harbour Bridge up for sale. Interested?
Back where they were in 1659:-
junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/HadCET_an.html
This is the source where I got the Foster and Rahmstorf(2011)
NOAA "Adjustments" Added to Raw.
*Yes it is true that above the stratosphere solar insolation is about 1350Wm2. If a body (such as an astronaut) was to intercept that EMR, that body would be 120DegC.
But there isn't a ring of bodies above the stratosphere. EMR continues Earthward unimpeded. Therefore the statement Quote:doesn't make sense.
It could also be argued that the thin air above the stratosphere is -80DegC because air is mostly transparent to solar insolation.
Yes CO2 is a coolant, and our atmosphere would be much warmer without it and there should be mathematical ways to show this.
I'd also like to see a clearer explanation of the difference in T and t. Not everybody knows what "point property" is.
But all in all my respects to Dr Latour for delving into this in a toxic climate (no pun intended).
*Yes it is true that above the stratosphere solar insolation is about 1350Wm2. If a body (such as an astronaut) was to intercept that EMR, that body would be 120DegC.
But there isn't a ring of bodies above the stratosphere. EMR continues Earthward unimpeded. Therefore the statement Quote:doesn't make sense.
It could also be argued that the thin air above the stratosphere is -80DegC because air is mostly transparent to solar insolation.
Yes CO2 is a coolant, and our atmosphere would be much warmer without it and there should be mathematical ways to show this.
I'd also like to see a clearer explanation of the difference in T and t. Not everybody knows what "point property" is.
But all in all my respects to Dr Latour for delving into this in a toxic climate (no pun intended).
*Yes it is true that above the stratosphere solar insolation is about 1350Wm2. If a body (such as an astronaut) was to intercept that EMR, that body would be 120DegC.
But there isn't a ring of bodies above the stratosphere. EMR continues Earthward unimpeded. Therefore the statement Quote:doesn't make sense.
It could also be argued that the thin air above the stratosphere is -80DegC because air is mostly transparent to solar insolation.
Yes CO2 is a coolant, and our atmosphere would be much warmer without it and there should be mathematical ways to show this.
I'd also like to see a clearer explanation of the difference in T and t. Not everybody knows what "point property" is.
But all in all my respects to Dr Latour for delving into this in a toxic climate (no pun intended).
Mods please erase.
What the heck we doing slumming around a place like this? It's like doing missionary work in hell, a little late for salvation, perhaps?
Good night all and good luck.
How can a fool who has no solid science and doesn't understand the principles involved here have any hope of "blowing . . . out of the water" those who rely on the truth of science and what is really known about the atmosphere of earth and its interactions with solar radiation, planetary orbits, ocean dynamics and other earthly processes.
Discussing these points with RG has been like trying to explain the nature and cause of lightning with the bunny rabbits in my backyard. I can inundate them with facts, but they just do not have the capacity or even the willingness to absorb facts or gain understanding.
I fight this battle now not so much anymore because I'm concerned about proving that human-caused global warming isn't real. I have to make sure that the rest of the public does not get fooled by the hype and scare tactics so that get led to taking measures that doom our modern means of living.
The work of hell is what I am attracted to. How is New Mexico?
By this we can conclude that your tireless efforts to promote AGW, claim SkS is a reliable scientific source, etc. is the work of hell. Must be as you are so attracted to them.
Not that we needed you to admit it.
If Junkscience is right, enter into the science fray with evidence.
He's not doing it. He's just being a critic but not really a player.
When you can realize others question authority, they ask "why" and don't simply accept the reason because of the responders credentials you might make some progress.
But it is so much easier for you to simply label everyone who disagrees with you isn't it?
When I get questions from peoplebased in science telling me prove co2 causes warming, that is so well worked out that even the skeptics accept it such as Lindzen and Spencer. You guys are deniers. Recent warming since 1979 has reached attribution. If you have read my posts on some of the other articles I have covered that clearly.
Lying again I see. All we get from you are arguments from authority, not "clear and substantiated answers."
Well, in your mind since you accept any drivel from John Cook as "substantiated" what more should we expect from you?
That's a rhetorical question Danny, you have studied those haven't you?
AGW/IPCC junk science that hadn't been much discussed before. What with the Climategate emails revealing the lies and manipulation hidden by climate "scientists" and the debunking of Michael Mann's hockey stick pseudoanalysis, AGW has proved to be just another hoax flung at the world to see what will stick.
www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9799-that-bogus-greenhouse-gas-whatchamacallit-effect#comment-33244
Figure 2: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).
######################
The earth is not the ideal black body, I will agree with that. But from what I can see the scientists use this extensively. This curve is based on black body radiation. The dips in the curve show where the satellites are missing the spectrums being blocked by the several different GHG's.
"A trend analysis was applied to a 14-year time series of downwelling spectral infrared radiance observations from the Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI)...The AERI data record demonstrates that the downwelling infrared radiance is decreasing over this 14-year time period in the winter, summer, and autumn seasons but is increasing in the spring; these trends are statistically significant and are primarily due to long-term change in the cloudiness above the site." [P. Jonathan Gero and David D. Turner 2011]
That leads to the question of what modulates cloudiness? One hypothesis: The Solar Wind Modulated Cosmic Ray Flux Effect.
Fig 2 (prominent at SkS and your font of knowledge I'm sure) is irrelevant unless you can prove that the GHGs are an effective heating agent at the surface - especially the ocean surface.
That proof has not been forthcoming.
The skin layer is addressed enough for my satisfaction. I wondering if you opened up the article to see. Then besides the skin layer itself, there is further discussion of the skin layer and how it affects the retention of heat in the ocean. Its actually the skin layer
that keeps the heat in the ocean.
Ocean cooling by evaporation, radiation and conduction is uninhibited. The cool-skin does not even exist for periods, usually around noon, when solar insolation is overwhelming.
I read the Real Climate spin when the GHG influence was mooted (without support from conventional physics) and Rob Painting's recent SkS article on it just adopts the original RC article but there's been no scientific proof (physics proof that is) of GHG insulation meantime.
I've already provided the specific physics that discounts GHG influence (also presented to US Congress by Dr Roy Clark but ignored). If it is your want to bury your head in the sand (the ostrich approach) in the face of it then there's nothing I can do about that.
As this blog quotes at top of page:-
"The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance" - Albert Einstein
Quote:Hansen does not subscribe to the RC/SkS skin insulation effect from what I can gather in H11 at least and furthermore disagrees with Trenberth on the "missing energy" in H11 too (BIG news).
Seen at HT (Cranking it out):-
Quote:The same skin effect discussion was carried out in the NZ public domain in comments under the first of 2 articles in the Dominion Post (Wellington capital paper and website):-
'Global warming a modern-day myth'
BRYAN LEYLAND
www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/business/6220264/Global-warming-a-modern-day-myth
'Extreme is the new normal'
JIM SALINGER
www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/6229217/Extreme-is-the-new-normal
My contributions are as "Nonentity". As you can see, the warmist faction did not fare very well in either threads.
This issue is not going away and along with Dr Latour's explanation will be increasingly scrutinized by un-blinkered, un-biased expertise from outside of climate science. CS will not come out of this in good standing.
So T = 15C at surface minus radiant t = -18C = -33Hn
This should avoid any confusion with actual temperature in degrees Celsius.
Danny Heim 2012-01-18 00:35
Glad you recognize the significance of my analysis of GHG theory flaws.
You claim your research for 3 minutes found that all my conclusions were wrong. Did you understand the reference site I provided? If so you would know reflectivity, absorptivity and emissivity are indeed fractions, fundamental to analysis of radiative heat transfer, essential for chemical engineers to design, build and operate radiant – convective furnaces and forges throughout the chemical, petroleum and power industries for a century.
My subsequent researches for 2 minutes of your reported findings revealed mine are right after all and yours are wrong. Jurisprudence developed by Romans, English, Napoleon and US Supreme Court determine claims without relevant evidence may be properly disregarded as frivolous. See how easy it is to illuminate AGW thinking?
You have my undying gratitude sir.
The reason I am not famous yet and you just discovered this rather obscure website and my Whatchamacallit essay reviewed by John O’Sullivan is because I just discovered the flaw and rushed it to you with peer review as fast as I could. If you knew the GHG theory literature, you would know it is restricted to a few climatologists attempting to develop the fledgling science of meteorology.
Chemical engineers are not allowed to contribute because they are experts at analysing chemical process systems like Earth’s atmosphere mathematically with well-known science like physics, chemistry, biology, fluid mechanics, radiation, thermodynamics and energy transfer. Engineers and physicians evaluate the validity of scientific research with the highest standards before adopting it to build plants, machines and products to help people prosper.
Elementary. I like to learn, then teach, in that order. I hope this does not upset you. Rest assured I made no money from AGW.
You have criticized fellow bloggers for lack of credentials satisfactory to you. What are yours?
Erinome 2012-01-17 16:21
You misunderstand. My 120C indicator of the solar power vector impinging on Earth’s outer atmosphere and moon surface at 1366 w/m2 comes directly from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for radiation intensity.
120.8 + 273.2 = 100*(1366/5.67)0.25
At the sun’s radiating surface
5505 + 273.2 = 100*(6.321*107/5.67)0.25
At Earth’s surface
14.5 + 273.2 = 100*(388.5/5.67)0.25
Earth & atmosphere radiates
-18.0 + 273.2 = 100*(240.5/5.67)0.25
Sun is indeed a black body radiator. Atmospheres cool all planets, by Beer-Lambert Law. This is all well known. Your comments do not refute my essay.
I am gratified you get it.
Richard C NZ 2012-01-20 15:59
Your suggested name for the GHG 33C effect, Hansen’s (Hn), is a valid whatchamacallit.
The blog software did not accepot my equation exponents correctly. Here is another version for you.
120.8 + 273.2 = 100*(1366/5.67)^^0.25
At the sun’s radiating surface
5505 + 273.2 = 100*(6.321*107/5.67)^^0.25
At Earth’s surface
14.5 + 273.2 = 100*(388.5/5.67)^^0.25
Earth & atmosphere radiates
-18.0 + 273.2 = 100*(240.5/5.67)^^0.25
Please keep up the good work, You might want to correct your conversion of 33 deg.C to 59 deg. F, since it is a temperature difference, not an actual temperature.
Great to have your words of support, many thanks. Since Latour proved 15C thermal – (-18C) radiant = 33C whatchamacallits, metric, my 59F thermal – (-0.4F) radiant = 59F whatchamacallits, English, is a valid corollary.
This shows Latour’s finding is valid in Great Britain and USA. I hope you find that a fair and reasonable explanation.
All the best,
John