A Scientific
Examination of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)
Fact: The Earth’s
temperature has been flat (or declined slightly) for the last 17-plus years in
spite of CO2 rising from 363.71 ppmv in 1997 to over 400 today.
Fact: From ice core
reconstructions, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere lags
temperature rise from 200 to 1000 years (800 is often used as an accepted
figure).
These two facts alone suggest that CO2 is not a
major factor in global warming, let alone AGW, however there is more to the
picture.
In 1981 James Hansen of NASA fame stated that there was a
greenhouse effect that raised the earth’s temperature by 33°C from -18° C to
the accepted surface temperature of +15°C.
The earth’s black body radiation temperature is -18°C and the commonly
accepted surface temperature value is 15°C, so where’s the problem? Well, black body radiation is a vector
quantity and surface temperature is a scalar quantity so the two can’t be
subtracted from each other. Thus the “greenhouse
effect” was created from a mathematical sin!
How do we resolve this?
At approximately 5 km about the earth’s surface the air temperature is
-18° C and using the4 ideal gas law, the accepted adiabatic lapse rate of -6.5°
K/km times 5 km yields roughly -32.5° K for a surface temperature of 288° K or
15° C at the surface. BTW, it is
interesting to note that using the adiabatic lapse rate of -10.68° K from an
altitude of 50 km on Venus where the atmospheric pressure is essentially the
same as earth’s , and the temperature is about 0° K yields the Venusian surface
temperature of about 500° C. So, it
seems there is no “runaway greenhouse effect” on Venus.
According to climate scientists, the global warming resulting
from increasing CO2 (and other greenhouse gases – GHGs) in our
atmosphere depends on “back radiation” where part of the absorbed IR emissions
from the earth’s surface are radiated back to the surface increasing the earth’s
surface temperature. Such a warming if
it occurred would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that
you can’t transfer heat from an object, a CO2 molecule, to a warmer
object, the earth’s surface. If this
were possible you could heat your warm coffee to hot coffee by placing it in a
thermos which has a much more efficient reflection system.
Given the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
of 400 ppmv, it seems logical that a CO2 molecule which increased its
temperature by absorbing IR radiation would most likely shed its added heat by “rubbing
elbows” so to speak with its 2500 gaseous neighbors that are not GHGs in the
atmosphere. It isn’t clear to me whether
convection or pumping out a photon is a “preferred” method for a CO22
molecule to rid itself of heat gained by absorbing IR radiation from the earth’s
surface.
In 1909, R. W Wood performed experiments to determine how
greenhouses function. His results showed
that the function of the glass (or other transparent covering) is to prevent
convection of the heated interior gas from mixing with the external cooler gas,
thus greenhouses work by isolating the interior from a convective exterior. There is no such layer in the earth’s
atmosphere, so using the term, “greenhouse effect,” is a misapplication of how
greenhouses actually work.
Climate scientists have claimed for years that the sun’s
effect on earth’s climate is too small to measure, yet they seem to be changing
their view of late. It is curious that
we have just come out of a sunspot minimum, and the Maunder Minimum and the
Dalton Minimum both occerred during the Little Ice Age.
Lastly, none of the climate models incorporate the oceans
effect on temperature and climate, yet it is well known in the southwest US where
I live that El Nino cycles are good for increased moisture and temperature
reduction, while La Nina cycles which (I hope and pray) we are just exiting
cause extreme temperatures and drought.
These cycles have existed for centuries and are totally independent of
the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
The ocean as a heat reservoir is over 2600 times the atmosphere,
surrounding the planet, yet it is not even included in the climate modeling.
For these reasons, I conclude that AGW is an artifact of man’s
imagination and misapplication of science.
Response:
Mr. King failed with his first statement:
Mr. King then states, referring to two previous claims,
Mr. King then goes on to say,
Mr. King then gets into a circular argument. He states,
Continuing,
What is happening is the surface is emitting heat in the form of IR radiation. If no atmosphere was present, this radiation would go off into space. But, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb IR radiation and then reemit it in a random direction. As a result, some is going up and some is going down. If the downward radiation reaches the surface (instead of being absorbed by another molecule) then the surface will absorb the IR photon and this will keep it from cooling down as quickly as it would without the atmosphere.
The air is cooler than the surface and is not heating up the surface, it is insulating it. And, this is not a violation of the second law. The air is not a body and neither is the surface. If Mr. King's logic was correct then it would be impossible to keep warm with a coat or a blanket on the bed.
He is almost correct about the thermos. If you put warm coffee in a thermos with a more efficient reflecting surface it won't get hotter, but it will stay warm longer. Does he really need someone to tell him this? Why do we have ice chests and thermoses if not to keep the temperature steady?
He returns to the realm of physics with the statement,
It is true the term 'greenhouse effect' is a misnomer. The reason is because it was thought greenhouses worked by allowing light in, having it heat the interior and then trapping the IR radiation from leaving because it couldn't pass through the glass. This is a true statement and is part of the heating process of greenhouses, but keep in mind that conversation above about collisions. Most of the heating in the greenhouse is going to be transferred to O2 and N2 molecules by collisions. There are much more of them than CO2, so a high percentage of the heat ends up there and would then be dissipated by the wind if the greenhouse did not keep it in place.
Despite the misnomer, the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere is very real. And, yes, we do have a constraining top due to gravity.
Then, he just couldn't resist one more false statement,
You did not prove man made global warming is not real.
Examination of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)
Fact: The Earth’s
temperature has been flat (or declined slightly) for the last 17-plus years in
spite of CO2 rising from 363.71 ppmv in 1997 to over 400 today.
Fact: From ice core
reconstructions, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere lags
temperature rise from 200 to 1000 years (800 is often used as an accepted
figure).
These two facts alone suggest that CO2 is not a
major factor in global warming, let alone AGW, however there is more to the
picture.
In 1981 James Hansen of NASA fame stated that there was a
greenhouse effect that raised the earth’s temperature by 33°C from -18° C to
the accepted surface temperature of +15°C.
The earth’s black body radiation temperature is -18°C and the commonly
accepted surface temperature value is 15°C, so where’s the problem? Well, black body radiation is a vector
quantity and surface temperature is a scalar quantity so the two can’t be
subtracted from each other. Thus the “greenhouse
effect” was created from a mathematical sin!
How do we resolve this?
At approximately 5 km about the earth’s surface the air temperature is
-18° C and using the4 ideal gas law, the accepted adiabatic lapse rate of -6.5°
K/km times 5 km yields roughly -32.5° K for a surface temperature of 288° K or
15° C at the surface. BTW, it is
interesting to note that using the adiabatic lapse rate of -10.68° K from an
altitude of 50 km on Venus where the atmospheric pressure is essentially the
same as earth’s , and the temperature is about 0° K yields the Venusian surface
temperature of about 500° C. So, it
seems there is no “runaway greenhouse effect” on Venus.
According to climate scientists, the global warming resulting
from increasing CO2 (and other greenhouse gases – GHGs) in our
atmosphere depends on “back radiation” where part of the absorbed IR emissions
from the earth’s surface are radiated back to the surface increasing the earth’s
surface temperature. Such a warming if
it occurred would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that
you can’t transfer heat from an object, a CO2 molecule, to a warmer
object, the earth’s surface. If this
were possible you could heat your warm coffee to hot coffee by placing it in a
thermos which has a much more efficient reflection system.
Given the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
of 400 ppmv, it seems logical that a CO2 molecule which increased its
temperature by absorbing IR radiation would most likely shed its added heat by “rubbing
elbows” so to speak with its 2500 gaseous neighbors that are not GHGs in the
atmosphere. It isn’t clear to me whether
convection or pumping out a photon is a “preferred” method for a CO22
molecule to rid itself of heat gained by absorbing IR radiation from the earth’s
surface.
In 1909, R. W Wood performed experiments to determine how
greenhouses function. His results showed
that the function of the glass (or other transparent covering) is to prevent
convection of the heated interior gas from mixing with the external cooler gas,
thus greenhouses work by isolating the interior from a convective exterior. There is no such layer in the earth’s
atmosphere, so using the term, “greenhouse effect,” is a misapplication of how
greenhouses actually work.
Climate scientists have claimed for years that the sun’s
effect on earth’s climate is too small to measure, yet they seem to be changing
their view of late. It is curious that
we have just come out of a sunspot minimum, and the Maunder Minimum and the
Dalton Minimum both occerred during the Little Ice Age.
Lastly, none of the climate models incorporate the oceans
effect on temperature and climate, yet it is well known in the southwest US where
I live that El Nino cycles are good for increased moisture and temperature
reduction, while La Nina cycles which (I hope and pray) we are just exiting
cause extreme temperatures and drought.
These cycles have existed for centuries and are totally independent of
the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
The ocean as a heat reservoir is over 2600 times the atmosphere,
surrounding the planet, yet it is not even included in the climate modeling.
For these reasons, I conclude that AGW is an artifact of man’s
imagination and misapplication of science.
Response:
Mr. King failed with his first statement:
Fact: The Earth’sContrarians get this claim by cherry-picking specific starting and ending points in the surface temperature. But, if you don't cherry-pick you get a very different result. But, more importantly, global warming includes the entire globe, not just the surface, and 93% of the warming is taking place in the oceans. Look at this graph:
temperature has been flat (or declined slightly) for the last 17-plus years in
spite of CO2 rising from 363.71 ppmv in 1997 to over 400 today.
 |
| Source: NOAA |
Mr. King then states, referring to two previous claims,
These two facts alone suggest that CO2 is not a major factor in global warming, let alone AGW, however there is more to the picture.We already saw one of those 'facts' wasn't anything close to being a fact, so that is enough to invalidate this claim. But, that isn't necessary. Mr. King provides nothing in the way of logic or science to even suggest that this is a true statement. As it turns out, it is a completely false one, as is discussed here.CO2 is, in reality, the principle driver in global warming.
Mr. King then goes on to say,
Well, black body radiation is a vector quantity and surface temperature is a scalar quantity so the two can’t be subtracted from each other. Thus the “greenhouse effect” was created from a mathematical sin!I wonder what textbook he used to come to the conclusion that black-body radiation is a vector. My textbooks on modern physics all make it clear that black-body radiation is a scalar. This line of thought (or, lack thereof) is invalid.
Mr. King then gets into a circular argument. He states,
At approximately 5 km about the earth’s surface the air temperature is -18° C and using the4 ideal gas law, the accepted adiabatic lapse rate of -6.5° K/km times 5 km yields roughly -32.5° K for a surface temperature of 288° K or15° C at the surface.The reason the temperature at 5 km is -18 degrees C and there is a lapse rate of -6.5 degrees C/km is because the surface temperature at the surface is 288 K, not the other way around. He is trying to say the reason the stove is hot is because of the temperature at some distance above it will increase as we get closer to the stove. No. The air is hot because it is being heated by the stove. In the case of Earth's atmosphere, the stove is the surface which is heated by the Sun.
Continuing,
According to climate scientists, the global warming resulting from increasing CO2 (and other greenhouse gases – GHGs) in our atmosphere depends on “back radiation” where part of the absorbed IR emissions from the earth’s surface are radiated back to the surface increasing the earth’s surface temperature. Such a warming if it occurred would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that you can’t transfer heat from an object, a CO2 molecule, to a warmer object, the earth’s surface. If this were possible you could heat your warm coffee to hot coffee by placing it in a thermos which has a much more efficient reflection system.No! NO! NO!
What is happening is the surface is emitting heat in the form of IR radiation. If no atmosphere was present, this radiation would go off into space. But, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb IR radiation and then reemit it in a random direction. As a result, some is going up and some is going down. If the downward radiation reaches the surface (instead of being absorbed by another molecule) then the surface will absorb the IR photon and this will keep it from cooling down as quickly as it would without the atmosphere.
The air is cooler than the surface and is not heating up the surface, it is insulating it. And, this is not a violation of the second law. The air is not a body and neither is the surface. If Mr. King's logic was correct then it would be impossible to keep warm with a coat or a blanket on the bed.
He is almost correct about the thermos. If you put warm coffee in a thermos with a more efficient reflecting surface it won't get hotter, but it will stay warm longer. Does he really need someone to tell him this? Why do we have ice chests and thermoses if not to keep the temperature steady?
He returns to the realm of physics with the statement,
Given the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere of 400 ppmv, it seems logical that a CO2 molecule which increased its temperature by absorbing IR radiation would most likely shed its added heat by “rubbing elbows” so to speak with its 2500 gaseous neighbors that are not GHGs in the atmosphere. It isn’t clear to me whether convection or pumping out a photon is a “preferred” method for a CO22 molecule to rid itself of heat gained by absorbing IR radiation from the earth’s surface.Yes! This is actually the principle way the oxygen and nitrogen molecules get heated because those molecules are too small to absorb IR radiation. The 'preferred' method depends on the density of the gases. When a molecule absorbs and reemits a photon, it happens very quickly (millionth's of a second, or less). If two molecules bump into each other before that happens they will transfer energy via the collision. This is more likely to happen as the gas gets more dense. Molecules near the surface, where the atmosphere is denser, are more likely to transfer energy this way than molecules high up (where the air is less dense). But, remember, it is a two-way street. Once a nitrogen or oxygen molecule gets this extra energy it can give it back via another collision.
It is true the term 'greenhouse effect' is a misnomer. The reason is because it was thought greenhouses worked by allowing light in, having it heat the interior and then trapping the IR radiation from leaving because it couldn't pass through the glass. This is a true statement and is part of the heating process of greenhouses, but keep in mind that conversation above about collisions. Most of the heating in the greenhouse is going to be transferred to O2 and N2 molecules by collisions. There are much more of them than CO2, so a high percentage of the heat ends up there and would then be dissipated by the wind if the greenhouse did not keep it in place.
Despite the misnomer, the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere is very real. And, yes, we do have a constraining top due to gravity.
Climate scientists have claimed for years that the sun’s effect on earth’s climate is too small to measure, yet they seem to be changing their view of late.I am not aware of even a single scientists of any variety that claims this. The reason we have climate is because energy is coming in from the Sun. No Sun, no energy, no climate, no weather. Pure and simple.
Lastly, none of the climate models incorporate the oceans effect on temperature and climate,Where in the world did he get this idea? Not only are oceans included in the models, but they are the most important component after sunlight. How bizarre! Did he really think climate scientists were going to read this and say, 'Doh! I knew we forgot something all this time!'?
Then, he just couldn't resist one more false statement,
These cycles have existed for centuries and are totally independent of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.No, this is not true. Read my post on the subject here.
You did not prove man made global warming is not real.
No comments:
Post a Comment