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.
Gary Hladik says:
April 26, 2013 at 12:06 pm
Myrrh says (April 26, 2013 at 1:28 am): “We cannot feel Light as Heat.”
As for “feeling” light, stand in sunlight coming in through a glass window. Feel the heat? Most glass blocks infrared, yet you still feel the sun.
..
As an experiment, you can buy a pane of glass guaranteed to transmit no infrared, put it between you and the sun, and see if you still feel the heat.
But of course, all these companies making windows to block out the heat rays from the Sun but maximising visible light to bring down the costs of air conditioning, shucks, they must be ignoramuses. They should be selling blinds to block out visible light to keep the room cool..
You do the experiment.
“…and your visible light from the Sun cannot raise the temperature of matter.”
Then a green laser shouldn’t be able to pop a balloon, right?
So the Sun is a laser??!
Unenhanced Visible light is what we get from the Sun. Visible light from the Sun works on the tiny electronic transition level, not on the bigger molecular vibrational level.
Rub your hands together, that is mechanical energy vibrating the molecules in your skin heating them up which is kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is heat. Average kinetic energy is temperature.
Visible light from the Sun cannot do this. Radiant heat from the Sun can and does do this.
The radiant heat from our millions of degrees hot Sun heats up our skin and penetrates into our bodies several inches, heating up the water in us, heating up our blood and flesh and bones by vibrating the molecules.
We cannot feel visible light from the Sun, we do feel radiant heat from the Sun and this radiant heat is the Sun’s thermal energy in transfer by radiation, which is thermal infrared aka longwave infrared.
Near infrared is not thermal. Thermal infrared is thermal.
Thermal means “of heat”, longwave infrared is the electromagnetic wave of heat. We can feel it is hot.
We cannot feel the smaller photons of near infrared and it is classed in with Light and not Heat, with Reflective and not Thermal.
Please read again the quote I gave from NASA, which comes from traditional real world physics. It contradicts you.
The heat we feel from the Sun is thermal infrared, longwave infrared.
Visible light from the Sun is not capable of heating matter. It gets bounced around all over the sky in reflection/scattering by the electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen when these electrons absorb it and are briefly energised and then coming back to their ground state they emit the same energy they took in, hence our blue sky. The more energetic blue visible light from the Sun is bounced around more. Visible light is not big enough to move the whole molecules of nitrogen and oxygen into vibration, which, is, what, it, takes, to, heat, something, up.
This real heat longwave infrared from the Sun has been excised from the AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect Illusion Energy Budget and the shortwaves of mainly visible they have put in its place cannot heat up matter- you have no heat from the Sun in your world.
Which means you have no global warming problem..
Kristian,
No matter how many times you repeat your arguments, it does not make them right. Here are a couple specific things to consider:
1) You seem to be using a heater that maintains 290 K, not 400 W/m^2. For the bare planet, both are the same. But when you add a shell, you are in effect saying that the heater cannot get any warmer than 290 K even with other power inputs.
Try this … Planet A has 400 W/m^2 heaters that warm Planet A to 290 K. Planet B has 200 W/m^2 heaters that warm Planet B to 244 K. Now suppose I take these “cooler heaters” from Planet B and move them to Planet A. What will be the new temperature of Planet A? The energy from these “cooler heaters” will help warm Planet A to 321 K. The 400 W heaters, with this power boost, can now reach a higher temperature. Just like the 400 W/m^2 heater in the “shell scenario” can warm the planet above 290 K with a boost from the photons that is absorbs.
Adding a 400 W/m^2 heater to another 400 W/m^2 heater IS an 800 W/m^2 heater, and can provide the same heat as a single 800 W/m^2 heater, whether those are two electric heaters or two nuclear heaters, or one electric heater and one IR heater.
2) The Carnot cycle has NOTHING to do with this example. There is no cycle. There is no work being done. Drop the Carnot cycle discussion.
3) Draw a picture of your system. Every “surface” (above the heaters) should have a net outward flux of 400 W/m^2 reaching it from below and leaving it from above. For example, the inner surface of the shell has 800 W/m^2 of power up from the surface and 400 W/m^2 back down = 400 W/m^2 net upward flux at the inside of the surface and 400 W/m^2 conducted upward through the shell. This will also guarantee that every “object” has a net flux of 0 (exactly as much enters as leaves).
Kristian says:
April 27, 2013 at 10:14 am
it cannot maintain its temperature AND warm the shell at the same time
If the shell receives 400 and emits 200 to space and 200 back to the sphere, it is in perfect thermodynamic equilibrium and the shell doesn’t warm or cool.
Myrrh says:
April 27, 2013 at 12:04 pm
Myrrh, it may be a long time ago that I have been involved in radiation, but no matter the wavelength of any radiation, if it is absorbed by the skin (or an object), it is felt as heat (or will heat up that object), simply because its radiation energy is transferred into vibrational energy, thus heat. Only if all (visible or invisible) wavelengths are reflected in a mirror or by absolute white objects, these don’t heat up.
Reposting minus possible problematic words..
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
April 26, 2013 at 8:50 am
Myrrh says:
April 25, 2013 at 4:52 pm
Myrrh, diffusion works for all molecules, no matter their specific weight. Diffusion is in fact Brownian motion at molecular scale. Wind and convection is what brings CO2 to long distances and height, up to the stratosphere. But the movements of real molecules of real gases in the real world is what keeps CO2 in the mixture.
Ferdinand – AGWScienceFiction doesn’t have real gas molecules. So Brownian Motion is not applicable.
They use Brownian motion “explanations” because they don’t have convection, if they explained convection they wouldn’t have the AGW Greenhouse Effect, so they have to avoid it. They avoid it by saying their gases are ideal, and then the rest is just adding confusion by giving explanations which ‘appear’ to explain well mixed, but when you break it down you can see it’s not applicable.*
What I am trying to explain here is that AGWSF has substituted “ideal” gas for real gas, ideal gas has no properties – it does not have volume, it does not have attraction, it does not have weight, it is not subject to gravity – because it is not real. Ideal gases are imaginary hard dots of nothing with no mass so nothing for gravity to act on. It remains a useful beginning point in calculations but only makes sense when all the missing properties and processes are added back in.
This is a great source of confusion in these discussions, when those from traditional physics and applied science don’t know this is what they have done in AGW fisics…
AGWSF have empty space instead of our real world atmosphere which is composed of real gases, not ideal.
Here, real world gases with volume is how we can hear sound:
http://www.mediacollege.com/audio/01/sound-waves.html
“Note that air molecules do not actually travel from the loudspeaker to the ear (that would be wind). Each individual molecule only moves a small distance as it vibrates, but it causes the adjacent molecules to vibrate in a rippling effect all the way to the ear.”
This is not the “empty space with molecules miles apart” of the AGW SF ideal gas narrative, but a medium created by the juxtapositions of molecules with volume squashed together by gravity.
They have no sound in their impossible world, so they can’t hear anyone of this..
This is our real atmosphere, real gases with volume under gravity. These real gases expand when heated and become lighter than air and rise, they condense when they get cold, become heavier than air and sink. This is basic bog standard meteorology, this is how we get our winds, by differential heating of volumes (packets) of air.
This is how we get our rain, by heated water evaporating and rising because less dense lighter than air carrying that heat away from the surface, and when it reaches the colder heights the real gas water vapour releases its heat and condenses into liquid water or ice, and precipitates out, it rains.
That is the Water Cycle, the “greenhouse gas” water vapour takes heat away from the surface into the colder heights of the troposphere, this is how we get our weather. Rain is carbonic acid, because real gases have attraction and water and carbon dioxide are greatly attracted to each other – water has a residence time of 8-10 days in the atmosphere, and carbon dioxide in that is fully part of it.
I am also trying to point out that there is no internal joined up logic in their explanations, they use “ideal gas diffusion by their own molecular momentum travelling at great speeds through the empty space atmosphere of ideal gas bouncing off each other in elastic collisions and so thoroughly mixing”, and, they use Brownian Motion which is applicable to particles in volumes of fluid, gas or liquid, and ideal gases have no volume, and, they use “turbulent mixing by winds” – none of these are applicable in the real world of real gases.
I’ve just come indoors, there is not a breath of wind outside – as I look out of the window the tops of the trees are still, as I look into the sky the clouds are not moving. Brownian motion hasn’t moved the dust on my desk.. The major wind systems do not cross hemispheres, there is no “global mixing by turbulent winds”. They don’t have winds anyway! Because winds are volumes of atmosphere moving, and they have only empty space. Because to get wind you have to have real gases which can get lighter and heavier than air which separate out.., which means heat transfer by convection, etc.
etc.
These are AGWSF “memes” to explain “well mixed” which their fictional fisics based on ideal gas is incapable of producing.
They have no rain in their carbon cycle because it spoils their AGW narrative, not that any of them have noticed the whole of the real Water Cycle is missing.., but they couldn’t have it anyway with their gases which go straight from the surface to empty space..
How do they get clouds with all the ideal gas molecules miles apart from each other bouncing off each other at great speeds?
Their Earth and its atmosphere is a complete and utter fiction, it is created by sleights of hand mixing and removing and renaming and lots of other techniques, manipulations using terms from physics.
*AGWSF introduced this into the general education system some time ago, they began by teaching new infant/junior level teachers who weren’t specialised, and it’s these which began the classroom “explanations of well mixed” by opening bottles of scent and saying it was Brownian motion which spread the perfume, and by pouring coloured ink into water to show that this was “how carbon dioxide thoroughly mixes by diffusion so it can’t be unmixed”. These, in the real world of real gases, are by spread convection currents.
A good explanation:
“Separation diffusion from convection in gases
“While Brownian motion of multi-molecular mesoscopic particles (like pollen grains studied by Brown) is observable under an optical microscope, molecular diffusion can only be probed in carefully controlled experimental conditions. Since Graham experiments, it is well known that avoiding of convection is necessary and this may be a non-trivial task.
“Under normal conditions, molecular diffusion dominates only on length scales between nanometer and millimeter. On larger length scales, transport in liquids and gases is normally due to another transport phenomenon, convection, and to study diffusion on the larger scale, special efforts are needed.
“Therefore, some often cited examples of diffusion are wrong: If cologne is sprayed in one place, it will soon be smelled in the entire room, but a simple calculation shows that this can’t be due to diffusion. Convective motion persists in the room because the temperature inhomogeneity. If ink is dropped in water, one usually observes an inhomogeneous evolution of the spatial distribution, which clearly indicates convection (caused, in particular, by this dropping).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion
The confusion is deliberate, only some/one who knew real world physics very well indeed could have come up with this complex, subtle, manipulation.
Kristian says (April 27, 2013 at 8:40 am): “[major snippage] It is actually easier to follow this line of thought with the Carnot cycle (above):”
Perhaps it is. I see Ferdinand Engelbeen has “taken one for the team” and addressed some of your points, so let’s go with the Carnot Cycle as an analogy to problem 1023 (I actually like tjfolkert’s money analogy, and may use it in future, if only I can come up with a plausible T^4 spending algorithm, where T = “treasury”.) 🙂 I see tjfolkerts has tried another approach now, but despite his disapproval, I think the Carnot analogy can be useful.
Equilibrium state 1: The “Hot Reservoir” is analogous to the sphere of problem 1023, and we’ll assume it has a constant power input of 400 watts, i.e. Qin = 400 = Qh before we fiddle with the analogy. The “Engine” corresponds to the shell, and at the start the engine/shell (50% efficient) is losing Qc = 200 as “waste” and doing W of useful work, e.g. powering a 200 watt light bulb in Detroit. Do we all agree that the “system” input is 400 W and the “system” output is 400 W (Qc + W = 400)? (If anyone is confused, just put a “black box” around the reservoir and engine, then look at the black box input and output.)
OK, now we disconnect Detroit and instead connect the engine output to the reservoir/sphere. Now the reservoir/sphere is getting 600 W (Qin = 400 + W). Since there are no losses shown between reservoir/sphere and engine/shell, the engine/shell (50% efficient) can now do 300 W of useful work and loses 300 W to “waste”. But now the reservoir/sphere is getting 700 W (now W = 300, Qin still 400). And so on until we reach…
Equilibrium state 2: Qin is still 400, Qh = 800, W = 400 (now routed to the reservoir/sphere) and Qc is 400. Qc (output of engine/shell) is the only output from the “system”, but unlike Kristian’s flawed analysis of problem 1023, system input = system output, in accordance with the First Law of Thermodynamics. (Again, if anyone is confused, put a black box around the reservoir/sphere and engine/shell). There is no perpetual motion machine and no magical destruction of energy as in Kristian’s view of problem 1023.
Myrrh says:
April 27, 2013 at 12:36 pm
Myrrh, a long discours to prove what?
In the real world, real measurements show that CO2 rapidely mixes with air and is distributed all over the world within +/- 2% of full scale, from ground level to the lower stratosphere (except for the first few hundred meters over land). Even when some 20% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is exchanged with other reservoirs over the seasons. No matter if that happens via diffusion, convection, winds, storms,…
I call that well mixed.
For the AGW effect, the +/- 2% differences don’t matter at all, as even a CO2 doubling has little effect…
Myrrh says (April 27, 2013 at 12:04 pm): “So the Sun is a laser??!”
Green light is green light. The laser is more intense than green light from the sun, but according to you, green light has no heating ability, so intensity shouldn’t matter. BTW, the sun can also pop a balloon through a magnifying glass, even if you put a pane of glass over the magnifier (or if the magnifier is made of IR-blocking glass).
BTW, how do you see “visible” light if it has no energy to initiate chemical reactions in your retina?
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
April 27, 2013 at 12:27 pm
Myrrh says:
April 27, 2013 at 12:04 pm
Myrrh, it may be a long time ago that I have been involved in radiation, but no matter the wavelength of any radiation, if it is absorbed by the skin (or an object), it is felt as heat (or will heat up that object), simply because its radiation energy is transferred into vibrational energy, thus heat. Only if all (visible or invisible) wavelengths are reflected in a mirror or by absolute white objects, these don’t heat up.
It must be a very long time ago and you’ve misremembered, in fact, I’d say you have in the meantime picked up the AGWmemes ..
The AGWScienceFiction meme is put in place to confuse light with heat from the Sun in order to be able to claim that all downwelling longwave infrared from the atmosphere comes from their “backradiation from the upwelling longwave infrared of the heated surface”, the meme “shortwave in longwave out”.
To this end, to avoid mentioning longwave infrared heat from the Sun and ‘convince’ that shortwaves have the same power to heat matter, they have also put in place the meme “all electromagnetic energy is the same and all creates heat on being absorbed”.
This is simply not true, firstly as I’ve given, it takes the vibration of whole molecules to heat something up and visible light isn’t even, in the real world, heating up the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere where their electrons actually do absorb visible. Water is a transparent medium and visible doesn’t even get in to play with the electrons, but is transmitted through unchanged, so it can’t be heating the ocean.
But crucially, what they have done with this meme is taken out all the differences between wavelengths in order to push their meme that “all create heat on being absorbed”, the properties and the processes for which these were given different names.., so they can’t explain photosynthesis or sight, for example. In real world physics energy converts to other energies and not heat; in photosynthesis this is conversion to chemical energy, in sight to nerve impulses. Their physics really is faked, it can’t explain the natural physical world around us.
There’s a bit on this under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_and_translucency
If you scroll down to:
“Electronic: Transitions in electron energy levels within the atom (e.g., pigments). These transitions are typically in the ultraviolet (UV) and/or visible portions of the spectrum.
Vibrational: Resonance in atomic/molecular vibrational modes. These transitions are typically in the infrared portion of the spectrum.
UV-Vis: Electronic transitions”
The second and third possible outcomes are how visible gets absorbed by the electrons of nitrogen and oxygen and reflected/scattered, and how visible is transmitted through transparent mediums such as water, not even getting to the electrons because not absorbed at all.
Further:
“Infrared: Bond stretching
“Normal modes of vibration in a crystalline solid
“The primary physical mechanism for storing mechanical energy of motion in condensed matter is through heat, or thermal energy. Thermal energy manifests itself as energy of motion. Thus, heat is motion at the atomic and molecular levels.
…
“When a light wave of a given frequency strikes a material with particles having the same or (resonant) vibrational frequencies, then those particles will absorb the energy of the light wave and transform it into thermal energy of vibrational motion. Since different atoms and molecules have different natural frequencies of vibration, they will selectively absorb different frequencies (or portions of the spectrum) of infrared light. Reflection and transmission of light waves occur because the frequencies of the light waves do not match the natural resonant frequencies of vibration of the objects. When infrared light of these frequencies strikes an object, the energy is reflected or transmitted.”
Near infrared is reflected, it is in the category Reflected not Thermal. As used in near infrared cameras, they work on the same principle as visible light cameras, they capture the reflected near infrared. But again, as the NASA quote tells it, these are not hot anyway. It takes a great deal of heat to heat up matter, we know this every time we cook or stand in front of a fire to get warm.., how can something that is not hot warm us up?
AGWSF has effectively destroyed our natural understanding of what heat is. This is, truly, tragic.
Insulation inhibits or resists heat transfer. It helps keep your house temperature stable. Warmer than the cold outside in winter, and cooler than the hot outside in summer.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
April 27, 2013 at 1:16 pm
Myrrh says:
April 27, 2013 at 12:36 pm
Myrrh, a long discours to prove what?
That the AGW Greenhouse Effect is an illusion created out of fake fisics.
In the real world, real measurements show that CO2 rapidely mixes with air and is distributed all over the world within +/- 2% of full scale, from ground level to the lower stratosphere (except for the first few hundred meters over land).”
Gosh, let’s see it..
Since Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air it will be found mainly in the first few hundred metres..
.. and of course it is being continually washed out of the atmmosphere with the rain cycle, every 8-10 days..
Ever wondered why it is a trace gas when so much of its produced? Double it it’s still a trace gas.
Here, read about real carbon dioxide: http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2005/05_06_02.html
“Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a colorless, nearly odorless gas that is denser than air. While toxic at very high concentrations, it can kill at lower concentrations by displacing oxygen, causing asphyxiation.
..
“Usually the large amounts of carbon dioxide released by Kilauea get dispersed by winds so we can breathe nice, healthy, oxygen-rich air on the caldera floor. Because CO2 is heavier than air, it doesn’t readily rise into the atmosphere and, instead, tends to pool in low areas.”
Denser than air, means that it is heavier and so displaces air. Does not readily rise in air, because it is heavier than than air. The dust on your desk will not spontaneously diffuse into the atmosphere because it is heavier than air and does not readily rise in air. This is real gases and particles under gravity.
AGWSF’s pretend ideal gas carbon dioxide is not subject to gravity.
Real gases and real processes and real heat in conjunction with gravity is how we get our weather.
Even when some 20% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is exchanged with other reservoirs over the seasons.
The atmosphere is not a “reservoir”, carbon dioxide is heavier than air it cannot defy gravity to accumulate for hundreds and thousands of years, even if it wasn’t being washed out continually and brought back to the surface as rain.
Rain is carbon dioxide – next time it rains go stand in it, be thankful that this natural Water Cycle exists as your feel the carbon dioxide drenching you as carbonic acid.
Mildly disinfecting you..
All the AGWSF fisics is faked. They are charlatans who claim to teach the Carbon Cycle and miss out rain.
“Reservoirs” is an AGWSF meme, to confuse, to distract from this natural Carbon Cycle which in traditional real world physics tells you carbon dioxide gets washed out of the atmosphere in the Water Cycle – which residence time in the atmosphere is 8-10 days.
That’s how rocks get weathered, how your iron garden furniture rusts..
This is an example from Columbia University – the AGW corruption of education. No mention of rain. Either the writer is regurgitating this nonsense mindlessly, or he knows that carbon dioxide forms carbonic acid in the atmosphere and not just at surface water, and is deliberately lying.
http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm
No matter if that happens via diffusion, convection, winds, storms,…
They don’t have any of that.., no winds, no weather, no storms, because no convection. They don’t even have diffusion as their ideal gas molecules bounce each other into outer space, because, since you’re talking real world, there isn’t an invisible container around our real Earth keeping their ideal gas molecules from flying off forever as they are not subject to gravity, so your carbon dioxide measurements are irrelevant to them.
I call that well mixed.
AIRS concluded that “Carbon Dioxide was not at all well-mixed, but lumpy” – so where did you get your data contradicting them?
And, their conclusion was based on all their data, including top and bottom of troposphere which they haven’t released.
Sincere apologies, I missed out a close italics when I split one of your paragraphs – it’s late here, time for bed.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
April 27, 2013 at 1:16 pm
Myrrh says:
April 27, 2013 at 12:36 pm
Myrrh, a long discours to prove what?
That the AGW Greenhouse Effect is an illusion created out of fake fisics.
In the real world, real measurements show that CO2 rapidely mixes with air and is distributed all over the world within +/- 2% of full scale, from ground level to the lower stratosphere (except for the first few hundred meters over land).”
Gosh, let’s see it..
Since Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air it will be found mainly in the first few hundred metres..
.. and of course it is being continually washed out of the atmmosphere with the rain cycle, every 8-10 days..
Ever wondered why it is a trace gas when so much of its produced? Double it it’s still a trace gas.
Here, read about real carbon dioxide:
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2005/05_06_02.html
“Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a colorless, nearly odorless gas that is denser than air. While toxic at very high concentrations, it can kill at lower concentrations by displacing oxygen, causing asphyxiation.
..
“Usually the large amounts of carbon dioxide released by Kilauea get dispersed by winds so we can breathe nice, healthy, oxygen-rich air on the caldera floor. Because CO2 is heavier than air, it doesn’t readily rise into the atmosphere and, instead, tends to pool in low areas.”
Denser than air, means that it is heavier and so displaces air. Does not readily rise in air, because it is heavier than than air. The dust on your desk will not spontaneously diffuse into the atmosphere because it is heavier than air and does not readily rise in air. This is real gases and particles under gravity.
AGWSF’s pretend ideal gas carbon dioxide is not subject to gravity.
Real gases and real processes and real heat in conjunction with gravity is how we get our weather.
Even when some 20% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is exchanged with other reservoirs over the seasons.
The atmosphere is not a “reservoir”, carbon dioxide is heavier than air it cannot defy gravity to accumulate for hundreds and thousands of years, even if it wasn’t being washed out continually and brought back to the surface as rain.
Rain is carbon dioxide – next time it rains go stand in it, be thankful that this natural Water Cycle exists as your feel the carbon dioxide drenching you as carbonic acid.
Mildly disinfecting you..
All the AGWSF fisics is faked. They are charlatans who claim to teach the Carbon Cycle and miss out rain.
“Reservoirs” is an AGWSF meme, to confuse, to distract from this natural Carbon Cycle which in traditional real world physics tells you carbon dioxide gets washed out of the atmosphere in the Water Cycle – which residence time in the atmosphere is 8-10 days.
That’s how rocks get weathered, how your iron garden furniture rusts..
This is an example from Columbia University – the AGW corruption of education. No mention of rain. Either the writer is regurgitating this nonsense mindlessly, or he knows that carbon dioxide forms carbonic acid in the atmosphere and not just at surface water, and is deliberately lying.
http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm
No matter if that happens via diffusion, convection, winds, storms,…
They don’t have any of that.., no winds, no weather, no storms, because no convection. They don’t even have diffusion as their ideal gas molecules bounce each other into outer space, because, since you’re talking real world, there isn’t an invisible container around our real Earth keeping their ideal gas molecules from flying off forever as they are not subject to gravity, so your carbon dioxide measurements are irrelevant to them.
I call that well mixed.
AIRS concluded that “Carbon Dioxide was not at all well-mixed, but lumpy” – so where did you get your data contradicting them?
And, their conclusion was based on all their data, including top and bottom of troposphere which they haven’t released.
Myrrh says:
April 27, 2013 at 1:38 pm
Myrrh, you must read everything that is written in your references, not only what you like.
About UV-vis light photons aborbed at electron level:
Several things can happen then to the absorbed energy as it may be re-emitted by the electron as radiant energy (in this case the overall effect is in fact a scattering of light), dissipated to the rest of the material (i.e. transformed into heat),…
In the case of an opaque colored material, only the color frequencies are re-emitted, the rest is dissipated as heat.
Even water is only partially transparant to radiation: from a fraction of a mm for heat waves to several hundred meters for blue light waves. But there it ends: the ocean water surface is heated mostly by visible light, less by heat waves… See for different depths reached by different frequencies sheet 6 of:
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/geo4xx/geos412/OcSci07.PhysProps.pdf
Myrrh says:
April 27, 2013 at 3:57 pm
Since Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air it will be found mainly in the first few hundred metres..
In the first few hundred meters over land, you can find much higher and much lower levels, depending of nearby sources and sinks. In a forest: high levels at night (up to 600 ppmv), low levels during the day (down to 250 ppmv, a lot below the 400 ppmv in the bulk of the atmosphere). Simply because the mixing time is longer than the source or sink speed. The same for volcanic vents.
That is for 5% of all air mass where CO2 is not well mixed.
If you measure in Hawaii at sealevel or at 3,400 m height at Mauna Loa, you will find the same levels of CO2 within 1 ppmv.
Rain is carbon dioxide
Rain is water, with very little CO2 in it, even less if SO2 and NOx are present as stronger acids. Further, CO2 in rain comes from where the clouds were formed, not from near ground. Thus that CO2 needs to go up first… And where most water evaporates (equatorial oceans), CO2 goes in the atmosphere too from the deep ocean water upwelling.
AIRS concluded that “Carbon Dioxide was not at all well-mixed, but lumpy
Have a look at their scale of CO2: +/- 8 ppmv worst case, +/- 2% of full scale, I call that well mixed, taken into account that 20% of all CO2 in the atmosphere moves in and out within a year. They may call that “lumpy”, just to show how good that their satellites are…
Gary, Tim (and Ferdinand),
Yawn,
Interesting to see what we’re up against. Complete blockage.
I’m done here 🙂
Kristian says (April 27, 2013 at 5:33 pm): “I’m done here :-)”
I’m not surprised. Being proved wrong by your own analogy is tough to take. You can take this as a learning experience, or hide under a rock.
Kristian says:
Yeah…You are up against people who actually understand some physics. Must be a bummer.
Pay no attention to joelshore. He is just miserable because the planet is falsifying his religious belief system.
Kristian,
Just for the sake of curiosity, is it your belief that what you are arguing for in this thread is in agreement with what is said in widely-used and respected introductory physics textbooks or, rather, is it your belief that the textbooks have it wrong too?
Kristian says:
This is kind of fascinating from a PER (Physics Education Research) point of view. PER has found that students, even once they have learned Newton’s Laws, still tend to fall back on an Aristotlean viewpoint, which includes notions that a force must be supplied to keep an object moving.
Our friend Kristian has come up with an analogous view with energy: Energy must in net be supplied just to keep an object at a certain temperature. And, energy can just sort of get used up and disappear…It doesn’t have to be conserved.
“RACookPE1978 says:
April 27, 2013 at 2:44 am
No.
You don’t need any physical experiment or “Einsteinium thought games” to find a fundamental problem with these infinitely-continuing CHG discussions:
From above:
So sunlight is 1360 watts per square meter at top of atmosphere and by time reaches earth surface it’s around 1000 watts per square meter- losing about 360 watts per square meter.
For simplicity, let’s assume those values are correct.”
Well it is correct. There some variations- so it’s not precise.
One can get a bit more than 1000 watts per square at the surface at sea level when sun is at zenith. One will also get a lot less, if sun is not at zenith. Since sun never at zenith in Germany
it will always be less than 1000 watts per square meter in Germany. Or at 9 am it will a lot less than 1000 watt per square meter [anywhere].
“Now. If every second of every day, 360 of Trenberth’s 1360 watts DON’T penetrate a supposedly “completely transparent” atmosphere, but since their energy does arrive at top-of-atmosphere but doesn’t arrive at bottom-of-atmosphere, then how do those 360 watts get “lost” from the earth’s overall system?”
As said roughly 100 watts is absorbed by greenhouse gases, mostly H2O. Though some of it could due to water droplets rather than H2O gas
“Clearly, they ARE absorbed by the oxygen, nitrogen and argon and dust and aerosols, and ARE re-radiated by those same gasses and dusts and solids. However, just as clearly, they ARE also ignored by the CAGW community because their theory does not allow such inconsistent, inconvenient maths.”
They are absorbed by dust and aerosols- anything solid generally absorbs all wavelengths- so few feet of thick smoke or miles of very thin smoke does absorb visible wavelengths.
But oxygen, nitrogen, and argon are fairlly transparent gases to visible light [as is CO2- as is most types of gases]. But things which are transparent are also reflective- window pane can quite reflective, as can a calm lake be seen to perfectly reflect mountains when sunlight at the right angle.
So a clear atmosphere can reflect some sunlight, but it probably diffusing and scattering most of it.
If in a house with lights on and it’s dark outside, the windows will reflect the lights in the house- the windows will appear be somewhat mirror like. Of course if there a light outside then you see whatever is lit outside [and not see the reflection of inside lights]. Point is a window always has some reflection, but with the more light outside it’s overwhelms such reflections.
” Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
April 27, 2013 at 12:27 pm
Myrrh says:
April 27, 2013 at 12:04 pm
Myrrh, it may be a long time ago that I have been involved in radiation, but no matter the wavelength of any radiation, if it is absorbed by the skin (or an object), it is felt as heat (or will heat up that object), simply because its radiation energy is transferred into vibrational energy, thus heat. Only if all (visible or invisible) wavelengths are reflected in a mirror or by absolute white objects, these don’t heat up.”
Reflective material or white objects to do absorb a small amount light [or sunlight] and do warm up. Reflective material also don’t emit heat [emit IR light] very well. And since they don’t absorb and don’t emit much, they can get quite warm- if in a vacuum [in atmosphere the loss of heat from convection of air not effected by how shiny something is].
joeldshore says (April 27, 2013 at 6:46 pm): “Our friend Kristian has come up with an analogous view with energy: Energy must in net be supplied just to keep an object at a certain temperature. And, energy can just sort of get used up and disappear…It doesn’t have to be conserved.”
I hoped he might see his error if the problem could be presented in more familiar terms, i.e. the reservoir/engine diagram he suggested as an analogy, but he gave up before working through it.
*sigh* “How do I reach these keedz?”
dbstealey says:
April 27, 2013 at 6:04 pm
Pay no attention to joelshore. He is just miserable because the planet is falsifying his religious belief system.
I do disagree with Joel Shore on the real effect of a CO2 doubling, but that doesn’t mean that I should disagree with him on every other item. In fact, the skeptic community is its own enemy and lacks credibility due to attacking those items where the science is rock solid: that CO2 levels increased due to human emissions and that an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere induces some increase in temperature, all other things being equal.
Where the real discussion is, is in the feedbacks of this initial increase in temperature. That makes a hell of a difference in the result of a CO2 doubling near the end of the current century: largely beneficial (what I expect from a temperature increase around 1°C) to problematic (up to 4.5°C according to the high IPCC range). Nature seems to agree with me (or more likely, nature doesn’t listen to me, simply does what it likes to do).
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
April 27, 2013 at 4:13 pm
Myrrh says:
April 27, 2013 at 1:38 pm
Myrrh, you must read everything that is written in your references, not only what you like.
About UV-vis light photons aborbed at electron level:
Several things can happen then to the absorbed energy as it may be re-emitted by the electron as radiant energy (in this case the overall effect is in fact a scattering of light), dissipated to the rest of the material (i.e. transformed into heat),…
In the case of an opaque colored material, only the color frequencies are re-emitted, the rest is dissipated as heat.
Of course I’ve read it, but I can now spot the AGWScienceFiction’s indoctrination of fake fisics memes.
You can’t rescue your fake fisics by scrabbling around trying to find any mention of “heat”. The Sun is not a laser, real world industries make windows to maximise visible light and keep out longwave infrared from the Sun in order to keep rooms cool… So, “dissipated as heat” means what in context that visible light is not hot is not a thermal energy and can’t move whole molecules into vibration WHICH IS WHAT IT TAKES TO HEAT SOMETHING UP?
You’re not doing yourselves any favours if you keep avoiding confronting the fakery. You have lost all sense of heat, of the difference between hot and cold and what something hot does.
Because you have no grasp of properties and processes, because of the AGW meme that “all electromagnet energy is the same and all create heat when absorbed” you can’t follow my argument.
I’m trying to point out how the sleights of hand have been done by giving you information from real world traditional physics. So first of all, read again that NASA quote I gave, it contradicts the AGWSF Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget, of the KT97 and all its ilk, do you understand the enormity of what I’m saying here?
Traditional physics still teaches that the heat we feel from the Sun is the longwave infrared, the thermal infrared wavelength/photons. Traditional physics still teaches that near infrared is not thermal, it is not hot. What kind of heat do you think something that is not hot is giving to matter on being “absorbed”?
Visible light from the Sun is actually, physically real world being absorbed by the electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen in our atmosphere, which is practically all of our atmosphere, how much are these molecules being heated by absorbing visible light? Why isn’t this figure in the GreenhouseEffect energy budget?
The different wavelengths/photons/particles have different properties and processes. You ignore that this is first of all a blatant lie because the processes of sight and photosynthesis show that visible light energy doesn’t convert to heat but to electric impulses and to chemical energy of sugars in these different processes.
Do you really think that “dissipates into heat” is capable of the intensely heating the physical matter of land and water at the equator, physically raising their temperature, physically making them so hot that they heat the air above them to such a great extent that massive volumes of the hot real gas air expand and rise and move to the cold poles – the beginning of our all our great wind and weather systems?
Visible light does not work on the thermal vibrational level which is what it takes to heat matter. Visible light is too tiny to move whole molecules into vibration. This is simply a real physical fact.
Your page 6 of the link you gave – what do you think it is saying by “absorption is wavelength specific” when traditional physics teaches that water is a transparent medium for visible light because it does not absorb visible but transmits it through unchanged, because visible doesn’t even get in to play with the electrons of the molecules of water? Do you really think the scrabble for nanoscale examples of “dissipated heat” from other causes which is so totally insignificant is going to change the basic physical reality that visible light is unable to enter into molecules of water? That’s what transparent means, it doesn’t even get in to the electrons to be reflected/scattered, but is transmitted through unchanged. As in diamonds and glass.
Because this fake fisics manipulation has been successfully introduced into the general education system unless you know what traditional physics, that actually works, says about it you are going to get confused by the presentation of information skewed by these memes designed to confuse, which is now ubiquitous. These sleights of hand are now the “official” version and words like “light”, your page 6, and “absorbed” are part and parcel of this, playing with meaning to confuse.
Visible light does not get absorbed by the molecules of water, but “absorbed” is used by AGWSF to confuse to fit in with the basic fake fisics meme that “all electromagnetic radiation creates heat when absorbed”. Here, in the ocean, the general word absorbed is used to give the impression that visible light from the Sun is actually physically heating the water, but it physically can’t, visible light attenuates for a variety of reasons. It isn’t physically absorbed in the physics sense by the molecules of water.
And even when it is being physically absorbed by particles to be reflected/scattered, this isn’t physically moving the whole molecules of the particles into vibration which is what it takes to heat them up.
Look again at your page 6, the heading is “light” in which they have included heat waves, the box below is specifically about visible light and it says “near shore absorption is greater for green and yellow due to particulate matter”
There would be no life in the ocean if water absorbed visible light – no photosynthesis. The beginning of our Carbon Life Food Chain.
When you can see the tricks that are being played by this clever tweaking of real physics, then the “explanation” that “blue visible light heats the deeper water because it travels further” will make you laugh, or cry.
As I’ve said, this AGWSF fisics is now the official version for the general public, to university level and taught by all the science bodies and in encyclopaedias and so on. It is not easy to penetrate that to see how the fakery was created.
Even water is only partially transparant to radiation: from a fraction of a mm for heat waves to several hundred meters for blue light waves. But there it ends: the ocean water surface is heated mostly by visible light, less by heat waves… See for different depths reached by different frequencies sheet 6 of:
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/geo4xx/geos412/OcSci07.PhysProps.pdf
Water absorbs heat, is an excellent absorber of heat energy. Water in the ocean absorbs the direct heat from the Sun which is the thermal infrared, the longwave infrared, the Sun’s direct radiant heat which we can feel is hot, which heats up matter, which we can feel heating us up – which has been excised from the AGWSF’s GE Energy Budget.
Visible light from the Sun is not hot, it is not a thermal energy, we cannot feel it as heat, it does not warm us up, it is not heat, but light.
Leaving aside the arguments about what visible can and cannot do for the moment, my main point is that the AGWSF’s Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget has substituted shortwave light for longwave infrared heat from the Sun and claims visible heats the land and water and longwave infrared heat doesn’t get through TOA or that the Sun produces insignificant amounts of it, as I said to DavidHoffer here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/24/spencer-slays-with-sarcasm/#comment-1288275
You cannot ignore that this is not just me saying it, I have given a quote from a traditional physics page from NASA which says the heat we feel from the Sun is longwave infared, thermal infrared, and that we cannot feel the shortwave near infrared as thermal.
This is utterly at odds with the AGWSF energy budget. This is not me saying it, this is NASA saying it. You cannot ignore this. Either NASA is right here and you are wrong, or you are right and NASA is wrong. NASA here challenges your claim.
You, and you generic here, must deal with this.
NASA used to teach:
“Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared.
“Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all – in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are the ones used by your TV’s remote control.”
Deal with it.