Heh. In response to a ridiculous claim making the rounds (I get comment bombed at WUWT daily with that nonsense) which I debunked here: A misinterpreted claim about a NASA press release, CO2, solar flares, and the thermosphere is making the rounds
Dr. Roy Spencer employs some power visual satire, that has truth in it. He writes:
How Can Home Insulation Keep Your House Warmer, When It Cools Your House?!
<sarc> There is an obvious conspiracy from the HVAC and home repair industry, who for years have been telling us to add more insulation to our homes to keep them warmer in winter.
But we all know, from basic thermodynamics, that since insulation conducts heat from the warm interior to the cold outside, it actually COOLS the house.
Go read his entire essay here. <Sarc> on, Roy!
UPDATE: Even Monckton thinks these ideas promoted by slayers/principia/O’Sullivan are ridiculous:
Reply to John O’Sullivan:
One John O’Sullivan has written me a confused and scientifically illiterate “open letter” in which he describes me as a “greenhouse gas promoter”. I do not promote greenhouse gases.
He says I have “carefully styled [my]self ‘science adviser’ to Margaret Thatcher. Others, not I, have used that term. For four years I advised the Prime Minister on various policy matters, including science.
He says I was wrong to say in 1986 that added CO2 in the air would cause some warming. Since 1986 there has been some warming. Some of it may have been caused by CO2.
He says a paper by me admits the “tell-tale greenhouse-effect ‘hot spot’ in the atmosphere isn’t there”. The “hot spot”, which I named, ought to be there whatever the cause of the warming. The IPCC was wrong to assert that it would only arise from greenhouse warming. Its absence indicates either that there has been no warming (confirming the past two decades’ temperature records) or that tropical surface temperatures are inadequately measured.
He misrepresents Professor Richard Lindzen and Dr. Roy Spencer by a series of crude over-simplifications. If he has concerns about their results, he should address his concerns to them, not to me.
He invites me to “throw out” my “shredded blanket effect” of greenhouse gases that “traps” heat. It is Al Gore, not I, who talks of a “blanket” that “traps” heat. Interaction of greenhouse gases with photons at certain absorption wavelengths induces a quantum resonance in the gas molecules, emitting heat directly. It is more like turning on a tiny radiator than trapping heat with a blanket. Therefore, he is wrong to describe CO2 as a “coolant” with respect to global temperature.
He invites me to explain why Al Gore faked a televised experiment. That is a question for Mr. Gore.
He says I am wrong to assert that blackbodies have albedo. Here, he confuses two distinct methods of radiative transfer at a surface: absorption/emission (in which the Earth is a near-blackbody, displacing incoming radiance to the near-infrared in accordance with Wien’s law), and reflection (by which clouds and ice reflect the Sun’s radiance without displacing its incoming wavelengths).
He implicitly attributes Margaret Thatcher’s 1988 speech to the Royal Society about global warming to me. I had ceased to work with her in 1986.
He says that if I checked my history I should discover that it was not until 1981 that scientists were seriously considering CO2’s impact on climate. However, Joseph Fourier had posited the greenhouse effect some 200 years previously; Tyndale had measured the greenhouse effect of various gases at the Royal Institution in London in 1859; Arrhenius had predicted in 1896 that a doubling of CO2 concentration would cause 4-8 K warming, and had revised this estimate to 1.6 K in 1906; Callender had sounded a strong note of alarm in 1938; and numerous scientists, including Manabe&Wetherald (1976) had attempted to determine climate sensitivity before Hansen’s 1981 paper.
He says, with characteristic snide offensiveness, that I “crassly” attribute the “heat-trapping properties of latent heat to a trace gas that is a perfect energy emitter”. On the contrary: in its absorption bands, CO2 absorbs the energy of a photon and emits heat by quantum resonance.
He says the American Meteorological Society found in 1951 that all the long-wave radiation that might otherwise have been absorbed by CO2 was “already absorbed by water vapor”. It is now known that, though that is largely true for the lower troposphere, it is often false for the upper.
The series of elementary errors he here perpetrates, delivered with an unbecoming, cranky arrogance, indicates the need for considerable elementary education on his part. I refer him to Dr. Spencer’s excellent plain-English account of how we know there is a greenhouse effect.
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (April 18, 2013)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you Dr, Spencer for your response to my comment. I think it is likely that we agree in real principle but we are not communicating clearly in the context of your comment. A cooler object cannot HEAT a warmer object. This violates the Second Law of thermodynamics. However if we take an object of high temperature X and surround it with some insulative gas (ie ~GHG) it’s rate of cooling will necessarily decrease due to the lower rate of radiative heat transfer. However it cannot have it’s temperature go up as a result of adding some cool gas surrounding it…To be more clear, I will go back and reread all of the source material that led into this discussion so that we are not talking past each other or that I am misunderstanding the context of your statement. I appreciate your efforts in all of these matters Dr., Spencer I believe this is one of the most critical paths to leading to a proper understanding of Atmospheric dynamics.
I can see that many folks here as usual have flown off the handle on this topic. This is not the way to a clear picture of what really happens from a systematic description of the real physical world. Not once in any of my mathematics, chemistry or physics courses, have I seen quantitative mathematics described as “hand waving” or “complete and utter non-sense”. Perhaps I am biased having come from an aerospace background to Dr. Latour’s statements on this matter, but the folks who responded to my comment have not made any statement of principle to refute anything he has said, so I take it the assault on character is the only response they are willing to expend energy on. This is not a solution. IF you have a clear statement to be made, please enlighten us. I am more than willing to listen to a good rationale response.
My goal is to understand the physics properly- this is to say, what is reality- exactly, in cold calculated mathematical terms that are capable of predicting system behavior in order to design and operate hardware inside that system, be it outer space, under the ocean or inside the earth’s crust on the end of a drilling rig. Too many folks here are just bent on smashing people down and playing king of the mountain. This is unfortunate. I have an engineering degree, I spent a decade building hardware that has to fly in space. I have a grasp of the physics, but too many people here are playing the angry genius game and it is pathetic. IF you want to right the ship, SHOW US that you are right in the Scientifically principled sense please. Stop insulting people and SHOW US.
Gary Hladik says, April 25, 2013 at 12:35 pm:
“”Kristian says (April 25, 2013 at 4:06 am): “The system is radiating out power to its surroundings twice as fast as soon as the surrounding shell is removed, Gary. The sphere isn’t.”
When the shell is snatched away (along with its insulating effect), the sphere is the system.”
Yes. It is NOT the system when the shell is in place. Hence my quoted words.
“As Dr. Spencer points out, you need to know both the heating rate and the cooling rate.”
Absolutely not. When it comes to radiative heat transfer (BBs in vacuums) the surface temperature of an object is set by the absorbed heat flux. This flux sets a specific corresponding emission temperature which in turn directly determines the emitted heat flux, equal in power density to the absorbed one. ABSORBED HEAT –> EMISSION TEMPERATURE –> EMITTED HEAT. The emitted heat is a function of the temperature which is a function of the absorbed heat. The emitted heat flux does not in any way affect the temperature of the emitting object, no more so than the temperature dictates the absorbed heat flux. In other words, at steady state (dynamic equilibrium) ‘the cooling rate’ is always equal to ‘the heating rate’: Q = Q’ + Q” = Q/2 + Q/2 (J = (J – J1) + J1 = J/2 + J/2 if you will …).
“According to problem 1023, the system was in equilibrium with a cooling rate of J1, which is half of the sphere’s cooling rate J. Snatch away the shell and instantly the cooling rate doubles. Same power input, double cooling rate, the temp must go down. This is basic thermodynamics.”
Apparently not basic enough. You keep mixing up the system and the sphere. The flux leaving the surface of the sphere is always J, with or without shell. The ‘system’ flux to the surroundings is J with sphere alone and J1 (J/2) with shell surrounding it. How can this be? J from the sphere is intersected by the shell, splitting it, like a Carnot engine coming in between a hot and a cold reservoir. The shell (or the engine) ‘takes’ some of the heat flux for itself. How? The shell gets heated, the engine does mechanical work. The rest? Goes out to the cold reservoir as heat loss.
You see, before the shell came in place, the power from the sphere’s internal heat source went into heating the sphere only (one object). With the shell, that same power flux now goes into heating and maintaining the temperature of TWO objects, not just one. Hence the reduced system flux to the surroundings.
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/2012-10-31_AnExperimentToDemonstrateThePlausibilityOfTheGreenHouseGasEffect.pdf
Kristian says (April 25, 2013 at 2:35 pm): “The flux leaving the surface of the sphere is always J, with or without shell. The ‘system’ flux to the surroundings is J with sphere alone and J1 (J/2) with shell surrounding it. How can this be? J from the sphere is intersected by the shell, splitting it, like a Carnot engine coming in between a hot and a cold reservoir. The shell (or the engine) ‘takes’ some of the heat flux for itself. How? The shell gets heated, the engine does mechanical work. The rest? Goes out to the cold reservoir as heat loss.”
So according to you, at equilibrium the power input to the system (including shell) is J, and the system output (from shell) is J1 = J/2. Unless you’re somehow destroying energy (and violating the First Law), the “system” temperature must rise until the system output is J. You’ve violated your own condition that the system is in equilibrium.
“Conjecture? Since when are the First Law of Thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law “conjecture”? You don’t believe your own reference? 1023 says the shell cools at a rate J1, half the rate J of the inner sphere. If the system is in equilibrium (no temp change), J1 must be the same as the power input to the sphere. The sphere cools at rate J = 2*J1, but it receives J1 from its power source plus J1 from the shell (look at the diagram), so it’s in equilibrium, too.” ~Gary
1023 says:
(a) At radiative equilibrium, J – J₁ = J₁ or J₁ = J/2. Therefore T₁⁴ – T⁴/2, or T₁ = ∜T⁴/2 = T/∜2
(b) The heat shield reduces the total power radiated to half of the initial value. This is because the shield radiates a part of the energy it absorbs back to the black sphere.
Take the Sun and a Dyson sphere 1 AU wide.
At 1 AU the power radiated by the Sun, J = 1366 W/m², so the sphere would radiate J₁ = 683 W/m² inward and outwards.
So your position is then that the Sun, a ball of hydrogen and helium so massive it has a self-sustaining thermonuclear fusion reaction in the core… is going to be warmed by the 683 W/m² radiated back inwards from the shell towards the surface until the temperature rises sufficiently for the shell to receive 2732 W/m² and then emit 1366 W/m² outwards?
But… if 683 W/m² coming back in from the shell was able to raise the temperature of the Sun… wouldn’t 1366 W/m² coming back in from the shell do the same thing?
…
While we’re at it, what is the “rate of cooling” of a main sequence star?
Peter C says (April 25, 2013 at 2:44 pm): [snip]
Peter, check out Willis’s article on the R W Wood experiment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/06/the-r-w-wood-experiment/
Whoops, meant “Dyson sphere with a radius of 1 AU”.
Gary Hladik says, April 25, 2013 at 2:26 pm:
“Aaaaaand the imaginary second law of thermodynamics strikes again!”
Please, read the whole post before commenting.
Gary Hladik says, April 25, 2013 at 3:03 pm:
“So according to you, at equilibrium the power input to the system (including shell) is J, and the system output (from shell) is J1 = J/2. Unless you’re somehow destroying energy (and violating the First Law), the “system” temperature must rise until the system output is J. You’ve violated your own condition that the system is in equilibrium.”
You’re still not reading what you’re commenting on, Gary.
Matt in Houston says:
Correct.
Correct.
Incorrect. The temperature of the Earth is determined by the need to balance the energy coming in and the energy going out. If you surround the Earth by some cool gas, then you reduce the energy going out and the Earth responds by heating up until it is again emitting as much energy out as before.
One way to look at this: That gas may be cool but absolute zero (or 3 K) is much colder. That gas is helping to keep the Earth warm by insulating it from the much colder outer space.
I have invested a lot of time and effort trying to have a rational discussion with Pierre Latour (and Joseph Postma and company). It is not possible. They are engaged in active deception and sophistry (even if it is self-deception so that they actually believe what they are saying, which is hard for me to believe, but could be true given the ability of otherwise intelligent people to be incredibly obtuse when they actively don’t want to understand something). After a while, one has to call a spade “a spade”.
Reed Coray:
I am replying to your post at April 25, 2013 at 2:07 pm.
I tried to help by removing a confusion. Clearly, your post I am answering shows I failed. Sorry.
The matter has nothing to do with the words of any authority: it is about how the world works.
And I will not get bogged-down in detailed discussions of coffee pots, thermos flasks, and etc.. Instead, I will try to explain the over-arching principle which applies to all the illustrations. I will then present the simplest analogy I have imagined.
1.
Heat flows from a hotter object to a colder one. So, the hotter object gets colder (i.e.its temperature falls) unless it is supplied with a source of heat.
2.
When supplied with a source of heat the temperature of the hotter object will rise unless it loses heat to a colder object.
3.
If the temperature of the hotter object does not change (i.e. is constant) then the rate at which the hotter object loses heat is a function of how much heat is supplied to it and the temperature difference between it and the colder object.
4.
A restriction to the transfer of heat from the hotter to the colder object reduces the rate at which heat is lost from the colder object. But the supply of heat remains constant. Therefore, the hotter object gets even hotter (i.e. its temperature rises) until its temperature difference with the colder object again establishes a loss of heat equal to the heat input.
As an analogy, consider a bath tub supplied with water by a tap (US: faucet) and with no plug in its exit to a drain.
In this analogy,
the bath is like the hotter object,
the water from the tap is like the input of heat,
the drain is like the colder object,
the flow of water through the plug-hole to the drain is like the transfer of heat, and
the level of water in the bath is like the temperature of the hotter object.
If the water supply from the tap is constant then the bath establishes a level of water which remains constant.
Now inhibit the loss of water through the plug-hole by covering part of the plug-hole.
(This is akin to inhibiting the loss of heat from the hotter object by putting insulation between it and the colder object).
The water level in the bath rises until the difference in pressure difference between water in the bath and in the drain pushes the water through the reduced plug-hole at the same rate as the supply of water from the tap.
(This is akin to insulation raising the temperature of the hotter object).
It does not matter how or with what you inhibit water flow from the bath to the drain: if the flow through the plug hole is restricted then the water level of the bath rises unless its water supply is reduced.
Similarly,
It does not matter how or with what you inhibit heat flow from the hotter object to the colder object: if the flow through the the route to the colder object is restricted then the temperature of the hotter object rises unless its heat supply is reduced.
And this is true for all heat flows from hotter to colder objects.
So, insulation in the walls of a house raises the temperature in the house in the same basic way as greenhouse gases in the air raise the temperature of the Earth’s surface.
I hope the issue is now clear. If not, then I apologise because I do not think I can simplify it further.
Richard
Oh yeah…I should perhaps add one more point to my last post: The strict sense in which a colder object cannot heat a warmer object is that the heat (net energy flow) must be from the hot object to the colder object. So, no, adding some cold gas around the Earth and causing the temperature to rise does not mean that the colder gas has heated the Earth: the net flow of energy is still from the Earth to the colder gas. You have just made it harder for energy to leave the Earth, i.e., the Earth has to maintain a higher temperature at its surface in order to radiate away the energy at the rate it is receiving it from the sun.
AGW is a physical impossibility. Those on this thread debating the physics of radiative gases are looking in the wrong place. Radiative physics is fine. The critical mistakes in the “basic physics” of the “settled science” are in fluid dynamics and gas conduction.
Under a non radiative atmosphere the average land surface temperature will be lower. However a non radiative atmosphere would be dramatically hotter.
In a non radiative atmosphere there would be no strong vertical convective circulation.
An atmosphere in a gravity field which the gases are free to move is more easily conductively heated than it is conductively cooled by the surface.
Some of the critical mistakes of the climate scientists are
1. Failing to consider the critical role of radiative gases in tropospheric convective circulation.
2. Failing to correctly model conductive and convective energy transfer in moving gases in a gravity field.
3. Failing to understand that conductive heating of the atmosphere by the surface is set by surface Tmax not surface Tav.
Reed Coray says:
I think Roy Spencer’s statement is fine. If one tries to phrase any statement in such a way that it cannot possibly be misinterpreted (if that is even possible), then one ends up writing something that is more like a legal document than a scientific one and one needs a lawyer to interpret it.
And, I fail to see how Roy’s statement is going to lead to incorrect conclusions with societal impact unless there is some push that I am not aware of in our society to put greenhouse gases into Thermos bottles. As regards the greenhouse effect on the Earth, Roy’s statement is correct.
jkoeldshore writes “No…You don’t get it. If the total number of CO2 molecules doubles, the atmosphere becomes more opaque and the ERL moves up to a new level where the number of CO2 molecules is less (so the total opaqueness above it is still the same). ”
I think I do get it. And I described it to you but you justy parrotted back the standard reasoning why the ERL increases based on a constant opacity. If the there is more radiation because there are more CO2 molecules with sufficient energy at the same temperature then surely that means more radiation from that altitude escapes. Afterall the amount of captured radiation above is a probability based on the number of molecules (ie that opacity)…and as far as I can tell operates for each molecule trying to escape. Add more and more must escape surely?
If this reason is wrong then how about explaining the physical reason I’m wrong rather than parroting back something you’ve heard. How about showing me YOU understand why because if the number of molecules above must be constant then there must be a physical explanation for that.
Matt in Houston says (April 25, 2013 at 2:26 pm): “I have a grasp of the physics, but too many people here are playing the angry genius game and it is pathetic. IF you want to right the ship, SHOW US that you are right in the Scientifically principled sense please. Stop insulting people and SHOW US.”
Why do you think that Latour & co. refuse to SHOW us they’re right by performing an actual experiment? Note that the burden of proof is on them, because all the textbooks and all the physicists say they’re wrong. Why do they handwave instead of doing the work that (in their minds) would get them a Nobel Prize, for starters? Why do you let them get away with handwaving when a relatively simple experiment would prove them right?
Kristian says (April 25, 2013 at 3:08 pm): “Please, read the whole post before commenting.”
I did. Did you?
Kristian says (April 25, 2013 at 3:11 pm): “You’re still not reading what you’re commenting on, Gary.”
Oh, but I did. I read very carefully, multiple times, because I couldn’t actually believe I was reading what I thought I was reading. Here, your words:
“The ‘system’ flux to the surroundings is J with sphere alone and J1 (J/2) with shell surrounding it. How can this be?”
Indeed! How can this be unless 1) you’re destroying energy, or 2) the system isn’t in equilibrium? What do you think I’m missing here? Specifically.
TimTheToolMan;
If the there is more radiation because there are more CO2 molecules with sufficient energy at the same temperature then surely that means more radiation from that altitude escapes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Joel Shore steered you correctly. Your assumption that more CO2 molecules = more radiation from a given altitude is incorrect. The energy into the system always equals the energy radiated out. Adding more CO2 molecules changes the average altitude at which any given photon escapes, and hence the amount radiated at any given altitude DOES change. But the average across the atmospheric air column as a whole stays exactly the same (at equilibrium).
TimTheToolMan,
Maybe this will help.
Suppose that back when the CO2 concentration was 300 ppm, that 1/2 of the IR photons from 12 km up were able to escape to space — the rest being absorbed by CO2 molecules above 12 km. (these are not meant to be accurate numbers, but rather are hypothetical numbers for the sake of discussion).
Now bump the CO2 up to 400 ppm. There will indeed be more photons being created at 12 km altitude by more CO2 molecules. BUT less than 50% of them will escape to space because there are a lot more CO2 molecules above 12 km than there were before. We might have to go up to 12.5 km altitude before 1/2 of the emitted photons can now escape. The escaping photons now come from a higher altitude on average, And that higher altitude will be colder, so the net effect is LESS photons emitted to space from the atmosphere.
joeldshore says:
April 25, 2013 at 3:19 pm
Thanks for the clarification, I was about to start hand waving and jumping around. =)
I appreciate the response. And I agree with it, however that was not the context of the comment I was making, hence the confusion. I suspect the conditional assumptions that people have in their minds is a large part of the problem in sorting all of this out into a standard model that accurately describes the mechanics of the earth system. Assumptions in these problems must be crystal and precise or they cannot be reworked by others to the same ends= more confusion and jumping around.
I don’t know what your relationship with Dr. Latour is but I believed him to have a cordial relationship discussing this matter with Dr. Spencer, which was why I asked for them to invite him. My readings of his material have not shown me any animosity in the discussion, however I know some folks are just not meant to be “friends”, lol. C’est la vie.
As I stated previously my end goal, as I would hope everyone here has, is an accurate and precise understanding of the physics of the system. Basic physics (including Quantum mechanics) allows us to form boundary condition problems (ie, lots of simplistic assumptions to make the problem tractable) to test the hypotheses that people are bandying about so we can attempt to verify and validate them. This is not really a simple thing, the earth atmosphere system is not a simple static system and many years have been spent by men far more brilliant than I (not that I am), attempting to resolve them down to principled mathematical descriptions, however in the case of the earth it is intractable in reality at this point as far as I can tell (GCMs anyone?) or someone would have demonstrated the right from the wrong in an unquestionable fashion. This discussion is all good stuff in my opinion, it is the only way to a clear understanding of reality. IT is what we need, hopefully in a more cordial manner than not. Hahahaha!
“Indeed! How can this be unless 1) you’re destroying energy, or 2) the system isn’t in equilibrium? What do you think I’m missing here? Specifically.” ~Gary
Well, in my above Sun/1 AU radius Dyson sphere example, the sphere is gaining a net of 683 W/m² from the Sun and losing 683 W/m² to space, isn’t it?
Oh, I forgot, is it supposed to make the Sun hotter when it does that?
Matt in Houston says:
I originally pronounced this correct, but the more that I think about it and the problems it seems to cause for some people, the more I think it is best said to be “correct but ambiguous and prone to misinterpretations”. A better statement of the 2nd Law is the one that Flanders and Swann use in their song ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb2kBFqrZx8 ) : “Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body”.
The reason this statement is better is it makes it clearer that the issue is with the direction of the net flow of energy, whereas the statement about a cooler object not heating a warmer object can be misinterpreted to mean that a cooler body cannot in any way cause a hotter body’s temperature to increase over what it would be in the absence of the cooler body. That interpretation is flat-out wrong.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
April 25, 2013 at 2:25 pm
Think one moment further: why should the dust on your desk or the sand of the Sahara travel thousands of km through the air, with a density some 100 times that of air and CO2 at only 1.5 times heavier would sink out?
As I said, one of the ways for carbon dioxide to move is from one place to another within the wind system, this is work being done to change the norm, just as, carbon dioxide can become lighter than air when heated because heated real gases expand becoming less dense therefore lighter than air under gravity, the heat is doing the work of changing the norm of carbon dioxide being heavier than air.
It is not always windy, it is not always hot…
It is simply a fact that AGW has substituted the imaginary “ideal” gas, pre Van der Waals, for the real gases of our real atmosphere. Out of the descriptions of the imaginary “ideal gas”, AGW has created an imaginary atmosphere.
The “ideal gas” has no mass, real gases have mass, therefore there is nothing for gravity to work on in the imaginary AGW atmosphere.
That’s why the imaginary AGW atmosphere is “empty space with ideal gases miles apart from each other travelling at great speeds under their own molecular momentum bouncing off each other in elastic collisions and so thoroughly mixing”.
Empty space is not an atmosphere.. The AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect is built on imaginary fisics, it does not have an atmosphere, it goes straight from the surface to empty space.
It does not have any weather, weather cannot be created out of “ideal gas” with no mass, no volume, no weight, no attraction, not condensable and not subject to gravity.
Winds and weather are created by gases which have real properties and processes under gravity, which expand when heated and become less dense and so lighter because gravity gives real gases weight. Real gases condense when cold, becoming heavier. This is how we get our areas of high and low pressure – high pressure colder heavier, low pressure hotter lighter. The real Earth has a real gas atmosphere, a heavy volume of fluid gas (gases and liquids are fluids), weighing down on us, exerting pressure on us, because being pulled by gravity, of a stone per square inch, a one ton weight on your shoulders, constraining the speed of molecules. Empty space populated by massless ideal gas has no weight because it has no volume and so no voume of other gases to constrain its own molecular momentum.
Using concepts of properties and process from real world traditional physics to explain this fictitious ‘atmosphere’ to pretend that it is real, simply can’t be done. There is no joined up logic in the meme explanations from AGWSF.
I’ve given the example that they cannot make the claim that “carbon dioxide accumulates for hundreds and thousands of years”, because their gases are not subject to gravity, they have long gone into outer space…
So Likewise in your “Brownian motion” meme:
Lookup “Brownian motion” works as good for dust and feathers or sand as for CO2 molecules (or even for far heavier CFC molecules reaching the stratosphere…).
You look up Brownian motion.. And tell me how ideal gases without volume in empty space have anything to do with it. And tell me how Brownian motion can move carbon dioxide hundreds of miles when its scale is nanometres..
What is capable of moving feathers and dust and carbon dioxide hundreds of miles and the scent from the bottle opened in the classroom or ink poured into a glass of water, is not diffusion by ideal gas mollecular momentum nor Brownian motion of particles constrained by the voluminous fluid they are in jiggling them around, they are moved by convection currents. Volumes of fluid on the move.
Convection currents are volumes of gas and liquids on the move, called winds in our atmosphere and currents in our ocean.
The ideal gas of AGW has no volume, there is nothing to move en mass..
The fictional world of the AGW Greenhouse Effect has no sound because its ideal gases have no volume. They cannot form a medium through which sound can travel.
There is no sound in empty space.
So they have no wind or weather in their world, because they have no atmosphere..
Our atmosphere is the volume of real gases around our Earth pulled in by gravity.
We do not have empty space around us, but a heavy voluminous ocean of the real gas Air, that expands and condenses.
So which world are you living in?
Matt in Houston: I don’t really disagree with anything in your latest comment except this statement:
I think this notion that science that goes against strongly-held beliefs will be accepted if only the evidence is strong enough is shown to be incorrect if one looks at the resistance by a large part of our society (including some who are scientists) to evolution / Big Bang Theory. I think there is reasonable hope that this will happen within the scientific community, e.g., no major scientific organizations dispute evolution, the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed literature supports it, etc. However, in the larger community, strong resistance continues, including claims of persecution and bias against scientists who disagree with evolution, etc. Does any of this sound familiar?
richardscourtney says: April 25, 2013 at 3:15 pm
What you said is simple enough, and I agree with everything you said. If relative to heat leaving the Earth/Earth atmosphere system greenhouse gases increase the thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere without affecting the rate heat enters the Earth, then I agree, greenhouse gases will cause the temperature of the Earth in energy-rate equilibrium to be higher than the temperature of the Earth in energy-rate equilibrium without the greenhouse gases. The questions (issues) are then “(a) Does the presence of atmospheric greenhouse gases have an effect on the rate energy enters the Earth, and if so which way and by how much; (b) Does the presence of atmospheric greenhouse gases increase/decrease the thermal insulation of the atmosphere, and if so which way and by how much; and (c) considering both of these effects, is the energy-rate equilibrium temperature of the Earth higher or lower in the presence/absence of greenhouse gases? I don’t know the answers to any of these questions. But the statement that “Greenhouse gases reduce the rate at which heat flows from higher temperatures to lower temperatures” cannot by itself be used to argue that atmospheric greenhouse gases increase atmospheric thermal insulation because the statement is not universally true.