Earth surface temperature +33C GHG or laws of thermodynamics ?
Sirius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
extract :
Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about
33 °C (59 °F).[18][C] The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which
causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide
(CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent
[not in citation given]; and ozone (O3), which causes 3–7 percent.[19]
[20] Clouds also affect the radiation balance, but they are composed of
liquid water or ice and so are considered separately from water vapor and
other gases.
http://www.tech-know.eu/NISubmission/pdf/Politics_and_the_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf
The major IPCC claim is that greenhouse gases are the sole reason why the
average surface temperature of earth is 33 oC warmer than the temperature
at an average altitude of around 4000 m, where the infrared photons
prefer to leave our planet. (Seen from Mars the temperature of earth is
-18 oC). The pertinent question is: do greenhouse gases raise the global
temperature 0.1, 10 or 100% of the observed 33oC? There are many
indications that the first alternative is the most probable. Let us
mention a few ways the IPCC “greenhouse gas” claim can be debunked.
alanm...@yahoo.com
> Which of the two is true ? Why ?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
> extract :
> Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about
> 33 °C (59 °F).[18][C] The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which
> causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide
> (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent
> [not in citation given]; and ozone (O3), which causes 3–7 percent.[19]
> [20] Clouds also affect the radiation balance, but they are composed of
> liquid water or ice and so are considered separately from water vapor and
> other gases.
>
> The major IPCC claim is that greenhouse gases are the sole reason why the
> average surface temperature of earth is 33 oC warmer than the temperature
> at an average altitude of around 4000 m, where the infrared photons
> prefer to leave our planet. (Seen from Mars the temperature of earth is
> -18 oC). The pertinent question is: do greenhouse gases raise the global
> temperature 0.1, 10 or 100% of the observed 33oC? There are many
> indications that the first alternative is the most probable. Let us
> mention a few ways the IPCC “greenhouse gas” claim can be debunked.
An AGWer, if he had any mathematical ability, like Tamino or
Gavin Schmidt, would argue that
on an non-AGW earth, the lapse rate would still be 9.8 C per
kilometer, but the surface temperature would only be 255 K.
Of course none of the AGW true believers on this site have any
mathematical ability, or ability in logic. Their replies will be,
"kook site", "in the pay of big oil, and "all AGW skeptics are
creationists".
Note that the flux from the sun is 342 watts/square meter. Due
to reflection from clouds, only
240 or so watts/square meter gets to earth's surface. Thanks to AGW,
the NET effect is an increase to about 390 watts, so global warming
is not as effective as AGWers make out. What the
greenhouse gases giveth, clouds taketh away, leaving only a slight
warming effect- A. McIntire
I M @ good guy
Have you bought the Long Johns for when
AGW ends?
chemist
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 06:47:39 -0700 (PDT), "alanmc95...@yahoo.com"
YES
Bill Ward
That link provides one of the simplest, best explanations I've seen of
the "greenhouse" effect and the reason the IPCC dogma has to be wrong.
It should be required reading for politicians, as the physical principles
involved are so basic they should be known even by them.
I highly recommend it to anyone who genuinely wants to know why AGW is
bogus. I wish I'd seen it a couple years ago - it would have saved me a
lot of time trying to figure it out on my own.
The only thing missing is the reason IR photons "prefer to leave our
planet" at the average 4000m altitude. That does get into the radiative
properties of WV and the resulting LWIR optical density.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
I highly recommend"
thats a joke....
kdt...@earthlink.net
<spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
> (.)
> / /
> / / _
> / / (.)
> / / / /
> / / / /
> ( )_( ) ( )_( )
>
> Sceptics AWGers- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are dead wrong. AGWers or nondeniers are totaly limp and
dysfunctional.
Their viagra and pretense at potency is based upon their communal
agreement and repitition of meaningless phrases about thermodynamics,
temperature etc., and their falsification and omission of pertinent
facts.
Even so, they are paddling furiously to get out into the middle of
shit creek, since they are such beleivers in their own lies.
HAHAHAHAHAhahahahahHAHAHAHhahahaha
KD
Ouroboros Rex
> Which of the two is true ? Why ?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
> extract :
> Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of
> about 33 �C (59 �F).[18][C] The major greenhouse gases are water
> carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9-26 percent; methane (CH4), which
> causes 4-9 percent [not in citation given]; and ozone (O3), which
> causes 3-7 percent.[19] [20] Clouds also affect the radiation
> balance, but they are composed of liquid water or ice and so are
> considered separately from water vapor and other gases.
Massive scientific evidence.
>
> http://www.tech-know.eu/NISubmission/pdf/Politics_and_the_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf
> The major IPCC claim is that greenhouse gases are the sole reason why
> the average surface temperature of earth is 33 oC warmer than the
> temperature at an average altitude of around 4000 m, where the
> infrared photons prefer to leave our planet. (Seen from Mars the
> temperature of earth is -18 oC). The pertinent question is: do
> greenhouse gases raise the global temperature 0.1, 10 or 100% of the
> observed 33oC? There are many indications that the first alternative
> is the most probable. Let us mention a few ways the IPCC "greenhouse
> gas" claim can be debunked.
Lone nut.
You decide.
kdt...@earthlink.net
> Which of the two is true ? Why ?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
> extract :
> Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about
> 33 °C (59 °F).[18][C] The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which
> causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide
> (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent
> [not in citation given]; and ozone (O3), which causes 3–7 percent.[19]
> [20] Clouds also affect the radiation balance, but they are composed of
> liquid water or ice and so are considered separately from water vapor and
> other gases.
>
> The major IPCC claim is that greenhouse gases are the sole reason why the
> average surface temperature of earth is 33 oC warmer than the temperature
> at an average altitude of around 4000 m, where the infrared photons
> prefer to leave our planet. (Seen from Mars the temperature of earth is
> -18 oC). The pertinent question is: do greenhouse gases raise the global
> temperature 0.1, 10 or 100% of the observed 33oC? There are many
> indications that the first alternative is the most probable. Let us
> mention a few ways the IPCC “greenhouse gas” claim can be debunked.
Bunch of shit to give the loons of AGW any credibility. They are
climatologists because they have NO mathematics at all, and opted for
this field of no direct science and no complex mathematics where they
can sit and bully real scientists with their name calling of
'deniers', republican shills, and flunkies of the Exxon Devil.
Radiational energies according to Boltzman-Stefan equation, must be
averaged according to 'root mean fourth-power', or 'mean root fourth
power'.
Just look at the actual energies of the temperatures of 255K and 287K.
T^4 x 5.67E-8 = Wm-2
Wm-2 / 5.67E-8, fourth root = degK
255K =239.7418 Wm-2
287K = 384.6898 Wm-2
The average of these, A + B / 2 = 312.2158 Wm-2
The temperature for 312.2 Wm-2 is 272.4K
The average of 255 and 287 is 271,
This is a difference of 1.4C
The energy for 271K is,, 305.816Wm-2
312.2158 - 305.816 =
6.3998 Wm-2
THIS IS A DIFFERENCE OF
6.3998 Wm-2
The change in energies from 255K, to 287K is also an increase of
energy of 60%, which is not possible that this is caused by water
vapor and CO2 in the atmosphere.
Any calculations of AGW for their 33C supposed effect from natural
greenhouse gases is at least this far off even their own reckoning.
This ERROR, in the value of 6.4 Watts, is far greater than the values
from the IPCC and Hansen for anthropogenic 'forcing', which they
derive merely for the benefit that these numbers can be calculated on
one hand.
God knows what they do with their other hand while on the public
payroll.
KD
alanm...@yahoo.com
> Sirius wrote:
> > Which of the two is true ? Why ?
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
> > extract :
> > Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of
> > about 33 °C (59 °F).[18][C] The major greenhouse gases are water
> > vapor, which causes about 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect;
> > carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9-26 percent; methane (CH4), which
> > causes 4-9 percent [not in citation given]; and ozone (O3), which
> > causes 3-7 percent.[19] [20] Clouds also affect the radiation
> > balance, but they are composed of liquid water or ice and so are
> > considered separately from water vapor and other gases.
>
> Massive scientific evidence.
>
>
>
> > The major IPCC claim is that greenhouse gases are the sole reason why
> > the average surface temperature of earth is 33 oC warmer than the
> > temperature at an average altitude of around 4000 m, where the
> > infrared photons prefer to leave our planet. (Seen from Mars the
> > temperature of earth is -18 oC). The pertinent question is: do
> > greenhouse gases raise the global temperature 0.1, 10 or 100% of the
> > observed 33oC? There are many indications that the first alternative
> > is the most probable. Let us mention a few ways the IPCC "greenhouse
> > gas" claim can be debunked.
>
>> Lone nut.
You confirmed my prior prediction:
kdt...@earthlink.net
On Sep 17, 10:09 pm, "alanmc95...@yahoo.com" <alanmc95...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> Note that the flux from the sun is 342 watts/square meter. Due
> to reflection from clouds, only
> 240 or so watts/square meter gets to earth's surface. Thanks to
> AGW,
> the NET effect is an increase to about 390 watts,
Why do you partake in this false analysis?
The solar constant is 1368Wm-2. To divide the recieving disk by the
spherical surface area ,for the value of 1/4 is very limited in it's
application.
If the energy were applied uniformly and all points on the surface
were the same temperature, this may have more value, to attribute the
energy of the input to 342Wm-2.
But this is not the case. If you attribute a quantity of energy per
second, to this value in relation to surface area, of course this
remains the same according to the Law of the Conservation of Energy,
but to attribute any 'average' temperature to this derivative is
falsly done, since the average of the energies is not directly
proportional to the average temperatures.
The calculation of 33C is entirely invalid, since the actual average
temperature will be much lower, and the energy to boost the average by
33C is much greater than the consideration done by the climatology
analysis.
This analysis, which is repeated even by those who claim to be anti-
AGW is far too simplistic and is completely bogus.
In beginning this analysis of the earth's temperature for recieved
radiation, one should look at the moon. It is in the same solar
constant, only without any atmosphere at all.
http://www.asi.org/adb/m/03/05/average-temperatures.html
One see's that the relevance of surface radiating area of 4pi, is
irrelevant. At 1 meter depth, the temperature remains constant. There
is no connection with area's in dark, to area's in light, for which
any 'average temperature' means anything.
And in actuality, the radiating surface area is much greater due to
the mountains and roughness of the surface. The radiation energy
leaves the surface at c, and does not return.
Temperatures are according to how much radiation is being recieved and
the angle at which any surface is to the incoming radiation from the
sun. When an area goes into shade, it is recieving very little input
radiation. It radiates the energy stored in the heat capacity of the
substance, and as the energy is lost from the surface, energy from
within the substance is conducted to the surface and lost as
radiation.
The earth is different. The atmosphere does not allow about 400Wm-2 of
radiation from the sun to reach the surface, almost all of this
infrared. The fraud of AGW hides this fact, and only refers to the
sun's energy as 342Wm-2, and will not give the value recieved in a
solar collector at the surface after the energy has passed through the
atmosphere.
Because the N2 and O2 are NOT TRANSPARENT to infrared radiation, the
atmosphere also slows the loss of heat energy when the surface is not
recieving solar radiation.
The moon maintains a constant temperature at 1 meter depth, although
the surface in dark radiates almost all of it's energy into space,
because of the poor rate of conduction through the basalts of the
moon.
For Boltzman-Stefan equation, 1370Wm-2 equates to 121C. About what the
high temperature is on the moon. This is allowing none for albedo, but
one must consider that in this radiation field, one has the radiation
energy being recieved from the sun, and the energy being absorbed and
radiated from the moon.
A piece of blackened steel perpendicular to the sun's radiation and
with it's back well insulated, will reach a temperature of about 121C
within several minutes, and will not increase it's temperature after
this regardless of the time it is in the radiation.
Once the temperature is reached in the steel which radiates equivalent
to the density of energy being recieved, equilibrium will be reached,
and temperature will no longer change.
Another important point which AGW does not include in it's theoretical
application, which in fact entirely debunks their outlay is the
consideration of the earth's elliptical orbit. This brings the earth
to a closer point and farther point in it's orbit which does
dramatically affect the intensity of the sun's radiation. You can see
from my reference, that this causes the average temperature on the
moon to vary by 6C.
This is important because it means that the southern hemisphere
recieves more radiation energy. The earth is closest to the sun in
January. This means that the oceans in the south absorb more energy.
This causes the convection of the 'conveyor', particulary the movement
of water from the Indian Ocean to the north atlantic, of which the
gulf stream is part.
This convection causes cyclic effects in climate, most importantly in
Europe of which recent warming is MUCH more pronounced thant the rest
of the world. The medieaval warm period and little ice age are
evidence of the cycles caused by the differential in heating of the
two hemispheres.
In order for AGW to have any valid theoretical outlay, it must
encompass this very clear and simple fact of the greater solar
insolation of the S hemisphere, of which at present it has absolutely
NO accounting.
KD