Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics
David Naugler
http://people.freenet.de/klima/indexe.htm
Contribution to the discussion about Climate Change:
Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics
by Dipl.-Ing. Heinz Thieme
Deutsche Version siehe: http://people.freenet.de/klima/index.htm
The relationship between so-called greenhouse gases and atmospheric
temperature is not yet well understood. So far, climatologists have
hardly participated in serious scientific discussion of the basic
energetic mechanisms of the atmosphere. Some of them, however, appear
to be starting to realise that their greenhouse paradigm is
fundamentally flawed, and already preparing to withdraw their theories
about the climatic effects of CO2 and other trace gases.
At present, the climatological profession is chiefly engaged in
promoting the restriction of CO2 emissions as a means of limiting
atmospheric warming. But at the same time, they admit that the
greenhouse effect - i.e. the influence of so-called greenhouse gases
on near-surface temperature - is not yet absolutely proven (Grassl et
al., see: http://www.met.fu-berlin.de/dmg/dmg_home/Treibhaus_Statement_lang.html
). In other words, there is as yet no incontrovertible proof either
of the greenhouse effect, or its connection with alleged global
warming.
This is no surprise, because in fact there is no such thing as the
greenhouse effect: it is an impossibility. The statement that
so-called greenhouse gases, especially CO2, contribute to near-surface
atmospheric warming is in glaring contradiction to well-known physical
laws relating to gas and vapour, as well as to general caloric theory.
The greenhouse theory proposed by the climatological fraternity runs
as follows: Outgoing infra-red radiation from the earth's surface is
somehow re-radiated by molecules of CO2 (mainly) and also O3, NO2, CH4
in the atmosphere. This backradiation produces warming of the lower
atmosphere. To convince the public of the greenhouse effect,
composites of temperature measurements since the 19th century are
exhibited that show a certain warming. Measurements of the CO2
content of the air also show a rise in recent decades. Climatologists
then claim that the CO2 rise has caused the temperature rise (see:
http://earth.agu.org/eos_elec/99148e.html).
A second source of misconceptions about the relation between
temperature and the CO2 content of air arises from an erroneous
explanation of conditions on the planet Venus. The Venutian
atmosphere is 95% CO2, and its near-surface temperature is
approximately 460oC (see also:
http://www.uni-erlangen.de/docs/FAU/fakultaet/natIII/geol_appl/klima1.htm
). What climatologists overlook is that atmospheric pressure at the
surface of Venus is 90 bar, and that it is this colossal pressure that
determines the temperature.
Strict application of physical laws admits no possibility that tiny
proportions of gases like CO2 in our atmosphere cause backradiation
that could heat up the surface and the atmosphere near it:
1. The troposphere cools as altitude increases: in dry air, at a rate
of around 1oC per 100m; under typical atmospheric humidity, by around
0.7oC per 100m. This cooling reflects the decrease of atmospheric
pressure as altitude increases. Higher is cooler, both by day and by
night.
2. Backradiation of the heat radiation outgoing from the earth's
surface would only be possible by reflection, similarly to the effect
of aluminium foil under roof insulation. But the CO2 share in our
atmosphere cannot cause reflection in any way. Within homogeneous
gases and gas mixtures no reflections occur. As is well known in
optics, reflection and even refraction occur only at the boundaries of
materials of different optical density, or at phase boundaries of a
material or a material mixture (solid-liquid, liquid-gaseous,
solid-gaseous). Thus it occurs with suspended water drops or ice
crystals, or at the boundary between surface water and air - but never
within homogeneous materials, e.g. air, water, glass.
3. If outgoing thermal radiation from the earth's surface is absorbed
in the atmosphere, the absorbing air warms up, disturbing the existing
vertical pattern of temperature, density and pressure, i.e. the
initial state of the air layers. It is well known that warmed air
expands and, because it is then lighter than the non-warmed air around
it, rises. The absorbed warmth is taken away by air mass exchange.
Just this occurs with near-surface air that is warmed by convection
from earth's surface, vegetation, buildings and so on. For the same
reason the windows of heated rooms are kept closed in winter –
otherwise the warm air would escape.
These facts are slowly but surely dawning on climatologists. Grassl
and others state (see above) that radiation absorbed by CO2-molecules
will warm the atmosphere if no other reactions occur in the physical
(in particular dynamic) processes in the earth/atmosphere system. In
these "idealised conditions", they say the greenhouse effect would be
inevitable. Such "idealised conditions" must obviously include the
proviso that air is stationary. It is really quite absurd that even
now something so obvious as that hot air rises is not properly taken
into account by the climatological profession. When air is heated up
locally, it ascends and the warmth is removed. It also expands with
decreasing atmospheric pressure at higher altitude, and cools so that
no remaining warming can be observed. The warmth taken over by the
absorbing air is transported toward the upper troposphere. The
greenhouse effect does not occur.
The same process applies to individual CO2-molecules that absorb
outgoing radiant heat from the earth's surface or from lower layers of
the troposphere. These individual molecules remain at the same
temperature as their surroundings. Due to the high density of
molecules in the troposphere, an immediate exchange of absorbed
radiated energy takes place by convection with the surrounding
molecules of air. The CO2-molecules in the air are not isolated and
therefore cannot reach a higher temperature than their environment.
If energy is absorbed, the molecules in the immediate vicinity will
warm up.
4. A prerequisite for any type of heat transfer is that the emitter is
warmer than the absorber. Heat transfer is determined by the ratio of
the fourth powers of the temperatures of the emitting and the
absorbing bodies. Because temperature is uniform within minute
volumes of gas in the air, and temperature decreases with increasing
altitude, back transfer to near-surface air of radiation from higher
CO2-molecules is impossible. In fact, this is just as impossible as
it is to use a to cooler heat radiator to heat up a warmer area.
5. The energy discharge from the troposphere takes place at its upper
boundary layer, at the transition of the atmosphere from its gaseous
state to a state approaching a vacuum. Only in this zone do gases
start to emit even small quantities of energy by radiation. The other
energy transfer mechanisms - thermal conduction and convection - which
at denser pressure are far more efficient than radiation, no longer
operate because of the low density of the atmosphere there. But from
the surface where man lives and up to 10 to 17km altitude (depending
on geographical latitude), gases transfer the small quantities of
energy they might acquire from absorbed radiation by convection and
conduction - not by radiation.
The climatologists derived the theoretical foundation of the
greenhouse hypothesis from the concept of radiative equilibrium over
the entire gas area of the atmosphere, right down to the earth's
surface. But the fundamental premise of radiative equilibrium - a
balance of incoming and outgoing radiation - is correct only as long
as it is limited to the vacuum-like zone of the upper atmosphere. In
the lower regions of the atmosphere, the heat balance is essentially
determined by thermal, i.e. thermodynamic equilibrium, which includes
the thermodynamic characteristics of the components of the atmosphere
as well as their changes in status.
6. From the upper atmosphere down to earth's surface, air pressure
rises continuously. The determinant of atmospheric pressure is the
mass and the weight of that part of the atmosphere above the point in
question. And as pressure increases, so does temperature. The rise
in temperature is caused by the thermodynamic characteristics of the
main components of the atmosphere, i.e. N2 and O2. Everyone knows
that compression causes gases to warm: the effect is noticeable even
when inflating bicycle tires. The atmosphere is no different.
The relations between temperature, pressure and volume within the gas
area of an atmosphere are determined by the following equations:
General gas equitation p x v = R x T
Adiabatic change of state p x v k = constant
or T x v k -1
= constant
k = relation of the specific thermal values cp to cv
Estimates of the effects of CO2 concentrations on air temperature are
often – as mentioned before – derived from conditions on Venus. If
one assumed that the atmosphere of Venus was similar to that of the
earth, rather than being 95% CO2, and that it still had a pressure of
90 bar, then the surface temperature would be about 660°C, i.e. about
200°C more than at present. The difference arises from the somewhat
smaller k value for triatomic as against biatomic gases (k Air:
1.4; k CO2: 1.3).
Thus it would actually be somewhat colder on earth if our atmosphere
consisted of CO2 rather than air.
7. A special feature of our atmosphere is its water content. Water
occurs in three states. The solid and liquid forms (clouds) show
radiation characteristics completely different from gases: they
reflect radiation. Thus only water in its liquid or solid states shows
qualities to some extent comparable to a greenhouse (i.e. mimicking,
however locally, the effect of fixed and airtight glass or foil).
Naturally clouds do not prevent vertical air exchange. Moreover
condensation and solidification of the water in air releases
substantial amounts of heat, which largely determines the temperature
of the lower atmosphere. By contrast, the heat transport and storage
characteristics of trace gases like CO2 are negligible factors in
determining air temperature.
An interesting sidelight is that human life and most human activities
add humidity to the lower atmosphere. Examples include the spread and
intensification of agriculture; irrigation; hydraulic engineering,
i.e. dams and reservoirs; burning of fossil fuels; other water use by
humans, e.g. in industrial production processes; as well respiration
by humans and livestock. It could therefore be assumed that the water
content of the atmosphere has increased over the last 100 years. And
the resulting cloudier skies, especially at night, would lead to a
measurable increase in near-surface air temperature. But
climatologists have largely neglected the possible influence on
temperature of changes in the water content of the atmosphere.
Conclusion
Commonly held perceptions of the climatic relevance of CO2 and other
so-called greenhouse gases rest on a staggering failure to grasp some
of the fundamentals of physics. Correct interpretation of the Second
Law of Thermodynamics and sound appreciation of the necessary physical
conditions for emission of radiation by gases lead to the
understanding that within the troposphere no backradiation can be
caused by so-called greenhouse gases. Therefore it is not at all
correct to speak of a thermal effect of these gases on the biosphere.
The thermal conditions in our and any atmosphere are determined by its
pressure and the mass of its main components. Higher concentrations
of CO2 in our atmosphere – at least until they reached 2% (a 60-fold
increase) and thus became injurious to health – would endanger neither
the climate nor mankind. To avoid further misunderstanding, the terms
greenhouse effect and greenhouse gases should be avoided in describing
the functioning of the atmosphere. A more correct term would be
atmosphere effect. The operation of this effect is described in "The
Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect" at
http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/atmos.htm.)
It is completely incomprehensible and unjustified to imagine that
mankind can or must protect the climate by attempting to control trace
amounts of CO2 in the air.
The above article is an adapted translation of articles that appeared
in the German periodicals Elektrizitätswirtschaft No. 20/1999 and
Fusion No. 1/2000
For more on "Atmospheric Backradiation", one of the presuppositions of
the greenhouse theory, see
http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/backrad.htm
Also available: "Does Man Influence Climate?" at
http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/Influence.htm
You can contact the author at heinz....@gmx.net
Page originally created 16.08.2000, English translation revised by
S.Scott, July 2003
Ian St. John
"David Naugler" <dnau...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:c6bcfffa.03102...@posting.google.com...
> From:
> http://people.freenet.de/klima/indexe.htm
>
> Contribution to the discussion about Climate Change:
Meaningless noise does not 'contribute'.
> Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics
Wrong. It is not in dispute that greennhouse gas hypothesis ( greenhouse
effect warming ) is responsible for a surface temperature that is at least
33C warmer than a block body radiation would allow. THAT is the fundamental
physics.
>
> by Dipl.-Ing. Heinz Thieme
Who? And what the heck in Dipl-Ing?
>
> The relationship between so-called greenhouse gases and atmospheric
> temperature is not yet well understood.
Depends on what you mean by 'well understood' and who you mean. This guys
seems lost.
> So far, climatologists have
> hardly participated in serious scientific discussion of the basic
> energetic mechanisms of the atmosphere.
I think that the IPCC effort of synthesising tens of thousands of individual
papers and thousands of individual climatologiest counts as a 'serioud
scientific discussion' which this post clearly isn't.
> Some of them, however, appear
> to be starting to realise that their greenhouse paradigm is
> fundamentally flawed, and already preparing to withdraw their theories
> about the climatic effects of CO2 and other trace gases.
Fantasies too? Or delusions?
>
> At present, the climatological profession is chiefly engaged in
> promoting the restriction of CO2 emissions as a means of limiting
> atmospheric warming. But at the same time, they admit that the
> greenhouse effect - i.e. the influence of so-called greenhouse gases
> on near-surface temperature - is not yet absolutely proven (Grassl et
> al., see:
http://www.met.fu-berlin.de/dmg/dmg_home/Treibhaus_Statement_lang.html
> ). In other words, there is as yet no incontrovertible proof either
> of the greenhouse effect, or its connection with alleged global
> warming.
The reference does not dispute the greenhouse effect. In fact the "results"
from the reference are:
"Result: It is scientifically clearly proven that the radiant fluxes in the
system earth/atmosphere change by the increase the climaticrelevant trace
gases. Without consideration of the feedback with the complex climatic
system this would lead with security to a heating up of the earth's surface
and the troposphere. "
The feedback question, of course, was the purpose of the IPCC 2001 report
which clearly established that the climate feedbacks did not diminish the
additional greenhouse effect from increases in GHGs. In 1999, when this was
written, that part was two years in the future.
P.S. since this is a good document, by qualified scientists, I will discuss
it rather than the meaningless noise from Heinz Thieme suggessing that the
existence of convection prevents the greenhouse effect that we KNOW is
occuring. The fault is obviously in his education. It is really written to
dispell two errors used by the denialists to try to confuse the public.
---------------------- Translated from German by Google ---------------
Statement of the German meteorological society to the bases of the
greenhouse effect
The basis of the anthropogenen greenhouse effect:
Changed radiant fluxes in the atmosphere
Preface: The text of this statement became of Mr. Professor Dr. H. Fischer
(Karlsruhe) under co-operation of other radiation specialists (in particular
Professor Dr. H. Grassl, Geneva; Professor Dr. H. Quenzel and Dr. P. Koepke,
Munich) of the German meteorological society compiles.
It is indisputable that the anthropogene greenhouse effect could not be
unquestionably proven yet. However a set of indications for a anthropogene
heating up is already present. Still there are however discussions over
different feedback processes in the complex climatic system. Since lately
several publications of so-called climatic critics in newspapers and as
books appeared, which doubt even the changes of the radiation balance of the
system earth/atmosphere, the following statement was written. It is to be
described, how due to the concentration increases the climaticrelevant trace
gases in the atmosphere and occur as consequence a heating up of the
troposphere it must change the rivers of electromagnetic radiation if is
presupposed that thereby no other changes are caused with physical (dynamic
in particular) and chemical processes in the system earth/atmosphere. Under
these idealized conditions the anthropogene, additional greenhouse effect is
inevitable.
As starting point first the radiation balance of the earth without
atmosphere is described. In this case the solar radiation breaking in
unweakened on the earth's surface is partly absorbed and partly reflected.
The absorbed portion is converted into warmth and must be radiated in the
equilibrium in the infrared spectral region again. Under these circumstances
a middle temperature of approximately -18°C from simple model calculations
at the earth's surface [ footnote 1 ] results.
With inclusion of the atmosphere the solar radiation breaking in at the
earth's surface is weakened only little, since the atmosphere is to a large
extent permeable in the visible spectral region. In the infrared spectral
region against it the radiation now to a large part of the atmosphere (in
particular of gases such as H 2 O, CO 2, O 3 ) is absorbed and radiated from
this - however according to its temperature, emitted by the soil - again in
all directions. Only in so-called window areas (in particular in the large
atmospheric window in the wavelength coverage from 8 to 13 m m) the infrared
radiation of the soil can escape partly directly into space. The infrared
radiation emitted downward by the atmosphere (the so-called Gegenstrahlung)
increases the energy input of the earth's surface. An equilibrium can adjust
itself only if the soil temperature increased and so that by the Planck law
a increased radiation becomes possible. This undisputed natural greenhouse
effect leads to a middle earth's surface temperature of +15°C.
On this basis also the anthropogene additional greenhouse effect can be
explained. By the concentration increase the climaticrelevant trace gases
(CO 2, O 3 (Trop. ) , CH 4, N 2 O, FCKW ), caused by humans, the
permeability of the terrestrial atmosphere [ footnote 2 ] degrades itself.
The large atmospheric window becomes closer by the additional absorption in
the wings of the 15 m m CO 2 gang and the 7.63 m m CH 4 - and/or 7.78 m m N
2 o-gang. Its permeability decreases, if the absorption in the gangs of
ozone, which FCKW and the CO 2 (10.4 m m-gang) increase within the window.
As consequence the earth's surface can deliver less energy to space (see
natural greenhouse effect) and must itself, in order to achieve, warm up a
new energy equilibrium.
Outside of the atmospheric windows the atmosphere emits infrared radiation.
This radiation can escape only then directly into space, if between this
emitting atmosphere layer and the exosphere only a certain number of
molecules absorbing in the regarded spectral region is present. The quantity
of these molecules and thus the height of the mainly emitting atmosphere
layer depend on the strength of the absorption coefficient in the regarded
spectral region. With a concentration increase the absorbing gases and thus
a stronger absorption shifts this emission level in the atmosphere upward
footnote 3 ]. In the troposphere (approx. 0-10 km height) this means
because of the temperature decrease with the height that in the appropriate
spectral region first less infrared radiation to space it can be transferred
and an equilibrium requires a higher temperature of the associated
atmosphere layer; i.e. not only the earth's surface but also the troposphere
warm up.
In spectral regions with particularly strong absorption of the atmosphere
(e.g. in the center of the 15 m m CO 2 gang) this emission level already is
in the lower stratosphere. Since within this elevator range the temperature
with the height increases again, the argumentation turns around. If the
emission level is shifted into a larger height, then the stratosphere in
this spectral region radiates itself because of the higher temperature more
energy and must inevitably cooling. This effect, which was proven by
measurements, is an experimental proof for the correct understanding of the
radiation processes in the atmosphere.
The above statements were confirmed by exact computations with the radiation
transmission equation by different groups of scientists in the international
framework. The which is the basis radiation transmission theory is physical
common property and is undisputed among all specialists. The accuracy of the
results with the application of the radiation transmission to the atmosphere
depends today primarily on the accuracy of the input parameters (e.g.
spectroscopic data).
In particular the absorption bands of CO 2 were examined in the last years
in the detail by laboratory measurements, so that their spectroscopic data
very well admits us are. For this reason the changes of the radiant fluxes
can be computed with a change of the CO 2 of content of the atmosphere with
high accuracy (within the per cent range). For the other climaticrelevant
trace gases the uncertainty is larger with the spectroscopic data, but
nevertheless inaccuracy is throughout smaller than 10 %.
The change of the infrared radiant flux is by the changes of concentration
the climaticrelevant trace gases with equivalent CO 2 a doubling approx. 4
W/m 2 [ footnote 4 ]. "it means equivalents CO 2 doubling" that the effect
corresponds to that on the radiant flux with increase different trace gases
of a duplication CO 2 concentration. The 4 W/m 2 are in the comparison to
the entire infrared radiant flux into space of approx. 240 W/m 2 relatively
few, however they are sufficient in an atmosphere without consideration of
the feedback effects in the climatic system for a rise in temperature of
clearly more than one degree.
A further argument for the correctness of the above explanations results
from the successful use of the remote sensing procedures for the derivative
of atmospheric parameters. From satellite measurements within the range that
CO 2 gangs today e.g. vertical temperature distributions are derived. It can
be shown that errors make the regulation of temperature distributions with
the quality necessary (error smaller than 2 K) impossible of 10 % in the
radiances. With the today versatile application of the remote sensing for
the study of the atmosphere therefore the high quality of the calculations
with the radiation transmission equation is in practice proven.
In the following now central statements of the so-called climatic critics is
to be entered with two. Many different are already disproved by above
remarks. It is maintained on the one hand that a heating up of the earth's
surface by the anthropogenen additional greenhouse effect that 2. Main
clause of thermodynamics would contradict, there "warmth not from a colder
(i.e. atmosphere) to a warmer body (i.e. earth's surface) to flow cannot".
The anthropogene additional greenhouse effect stands for 2 for the following
reason in agreement with that. Main clause of thermodynamics: For the
heating up of the earth's surface naturally all radiant fluxes, thus also
the solar radiant fluxes of the hot sun, must be considered. During the day
the earth's surface by the solar radiation and the infrared radiant flux
from the atmosphere are warmed up. At the night the warmer earth's surface
cools down with the radiation exchange with the colder atmosphere, however
this with an atmosphere absorbing more strongly by additional greenhouse
gases more slowly will take place (in principle the same effect as in the
cloudy case).
The second statement reads: "the absorption in the 15 m m-gang is already so
strong that an increase that CO 2 concentration the permeability of the
atmosphere no longer changed and so that no influence is to be expected. The
change in the wings that CO 2 gang is so small after estimations that it
could not play a role ".
The radiant fluxes in the center that CO 2 gang have no influence on the
tropospheric heating up, but they lead CO with 2 increase to a
stratosphaerischen cooling (see above). With the estimation of the effect of
the wings of the 15 m m-CO the climatic critics make 2 gangs directly
several errors. Particularly seriously inaccuracy in the wing area that CO 2
gang and the much too small spectral dissolution affect themselves with the
measurement made by a climatic critic. In addition during the transmission
of the laboratory measurements on the atmosphere this was accepted simply as
homogeneous. The absorption bands the climaticrelevant trace gases exhibit -
with exception of the FCKW - under tropospheric conditions a line spectrum,
i.e. there are many micro windows between the lines. In these micro windows
the CO 2 increase affects naturally the infrared radiant flux.
The narrowing of the atmospheric window by the increase of the CO2 can be
simply proven by exact radiation transmission calculations. The
illustration shows a transmission spectrum for a vertical atmospheric way in
middle widths in the range between 10 m m and 15 m m. with transmission 1
can the radiation emitted at the earth's surface into space escape
unhindered, has it however the value 0, then the entire radiation of this
wavelength is absorbed within the atmosphere. At the abscissa both the
wavelength in m m and the wellenzahl (1/Wellenlaenge) are indicated in cm-1.
While in the range above 13 m m the strong absorption band of the CO2 is
recognizable, the transmission takes values between 0,7 and 0,9 on in the
range below 13 m m (continuum absorption causes) by weak absorption
different trace gases as well as. A doubling of the CO2-Gehalts in the
atmosphere from 368 ppmv to 736 ppmv (broken curve) changes the spectrum
only within ranges from CO2-Absorptionsbanden, in which the transmission
took not yet to small values. An acceptance of the transmission is in the
range of the flank of the CO2-Bande with 13 m m and also within the range
between 10,1 m m and 10.8 m m to therefore determine (Nebenbande of the
CO2). In the lower part of the illustration the difference between the two
spectra is represented.
Result: It is scientifically clearly proven that the radiant fluxes in the
system earth/atmosphere change by the increase the climaticrelevant trace
gases. Without consideration of the feedback with the complex climatic
system this would lead with security to a heating up of the earth's surface
and the troposphere. The actual, scientifically provocative debate concerns
itself with the question, to what extent the different feedback processes
strengthen or absorb the radiation-conditioned heating up.
Adresse: Deutsche Meteorologische Gesellschaft
Sekretär: Herr Arne Spekat
Institut für Meteorologie, FU Berlin
Carl-Heinrich-Becker Weg 6-10
12165 Berlin
7. Juli 1999
Josh Halpern
David Naugler wrote:
>From:
>http://people.freenet.de/klima/indexe.htm
>
>Contribution to the discussion about Climate Change:
>
>Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics
>by Dipl.-Ing. Heinz Thieme
>Deutsche Version siehe: http://people.freenet.de/klima/index.htm
>
Most of this is simple misdirection, however let me comment on some
false statements Dipl. Ing. Thieme has committed to paper. This being a
target rich environment, I will limit myself here to two points. Others
should feel welcome to comment in areas of their expertise, we could
then send a package of the best comments to Dipl. Ing. Thieme and
the journal he published in. SNIP...
>2. Backradiation of the heat radiation outgoing from the earth's
>surface would only be possible by reflection, similarly to the effect
>of aluminium foil under roof insulation. But the CO2 share in our
>atmosphere cannot cause reflection in any way. Within homogeneous
>gases and gas mixtures no reflections occur. As is well known in
>optics, reflection and even refraction occur only at the boundaries of
>materials of different optical density, or at phase boundaries of a
>material or a material mixture (solid-liquid, liquid-gaseous,
>solid-gaseous). Thus it occurs with suspended water drops or ice
>crystals, or at the boundary between surface water and air - but never
>within homogeneous materials, e.g. air, water, glass.
>
Dipl. Ing Thieme has not, evidently, heard that molecules can absorb
infrared light, and emit infrared light. They emit that light
equally in all directions, which accounts for much observed
backradiation.
>Grassl and others state (see above) that radiation absorbed by
>CO2-molecules will warm the atmosphere if no other reactions occur
>in the physical (in particular dynamic) processes in the earth/
>atmosphere system. In these "idealised conditions", they say
>the greenhouse effect would be inevitable. Such "idealised
>conditions" must obviously include the proviso that air is
>stationary. It is really quite absurd that even now something
>so obvious as that hot air rises is not properly taken
>into account by the climatological profession. When air is heated up
>locally, it ascends and the warmth is removed. It also expands with
>decreasing atmospheric pressure at higher altitude, and cools so that
>no remaining warming can be observed. The warmth taken over by the
>absorbing air is transported toward the upper troposphere. The
>greenhouse effect does not occur.
>
1. Convection is considered
2. It does not overcome the effects of radiative absorption and emission
Convection accounts for about 24 W/m2 from the surface, evaporation
about 78, and thermal radiation about 390 W/m2. Note that
convection and evaporation are net. The radiation is balanced
by radiation from the atmosphere back to the surface of ~ 324 W/m2
for a net of 65 W/m2 for radiation.
With regard to the energy balance of the Earth's atmosphere
From sun: 342 W/m2
Reflected by clouds 77 W/M2 leaving 265 W/m2
Reflected by surface 30 W/M2 leaving 235 W/m2
Absorbed in atomsphere 67 W/m2
Absorbed by surface 168 W/m2
Total absorbed 235 W/m2
Now since there is a radiative balance, 235 W/m2 have to leave
the earth, and they have to leave the earth as longwave, IR,
radiation (convection and conduction don't work in the vacuum
of space). So we need to have 235 W/m2 leaving the top of the
atmosphere. Of that 235 W/m2, about 40 sneaks through all
of the atmospheric absorptions, scatterings, etc, directly
from the surface to space.
The surface emits 390 W/m2, of which the 40 make it to space
directly, so 350 W/m2 are absorbed in the atmosphere by
greenhouse gases, principally water vapor and CO2, but
including such things as CH4, CFCs, etc.
Convection carries 24 W/m2 from the surface, and latent
heat from the condensation of water vapor in clouds removes
about 78 W/m2 from the surface. One cannot neglect the
role of radiation in the atmosphere
Sorry, you can't do that.
324 W/m2 of energy are radiated back to the surface from thermally
excited greenhouse molecules. BTW they get a (small) part of their
thermal energy from convection and latent heat
All of this too and fro of energy, heats the top of the atmosphere,
until it is at a temperature hot enough that it can radiate 195 W/m2
Obviously, that much energy is not transferred by convection,
which only removes 24 W/m2 from the surface, or from latent heat
which removes 78 W/m2. SNIP....
>The same process applies to individual CO2-molecules that absorb
>outgoing radiant heat from the earth's surface or from lower layers of
>the troposphere. These individual molecules remain at the same
>temperature as their surroundings. Due to the high density of
>molecules in the troposphere, an immediate exchange of absorbed
>radiated energy takes place by convection with the surrounding
>molecules of air. The CO2-molecules in the air are not isolated and
>therefore cannot reach a higher temperature than their environment.
>If energy is absorbed, the molecules in the immediate vicinity will
>warm up.
>
Ah, this too has been dealt before, so we can again recycle the answer.
Let's talk about what is omitted. After CO2 absorbs the IR
radiation (mostly in the lower lying bends at ~700 cm-1) the
energy is degraded to thermal motion by collisons. HOWEVER, a
small but significant number of CO2 molecules in the ground
state, ground vibrational level are also excited to the first
vibrational level by collisions. The rate of radiation
from this level is much lower than the rate for de-excitation
by further collision. (by rate of radiation we mean the
inverse of the average time it would take for an isolated
CO2 molecule to emit IR radiation). Therefore the system
is described as being in local thermodynamic equilibrium,
and you can easily find the proportion of molecules in
the first excited state by applying Boltzmann statistics.
[% in v=1] / [% in v=0] = 2*exp(-Evib/kT) where Evib = 667 cm-1,
kT at 295 K ~ 208 cm-1 The ratio will be about 0.08
and the percentage of CO2 found in the upper level will be 7.5%
of the CO2 in the air. This goes down as the atmosphere cools.
For example, at ~ 200 K (which is about as cold as it gets in the
troposphere) the percentage of CO2 in the vibrationally excited
state is about 3.5%
The radiation emitted by these CO2 molecules is exactly
at the frequencies that CO2 absorbs (same thing for water
vapor) absent small shifts for pressure and temperature
broadening.
Since the broadening is stronger at the surface and grows
smaller with altitude, a small proportion of the radiation
emitted by CO2 lower down, can sneak out if emitted
in the wings of the broadened lines, but that is a more
complicated story.
To be continued.
josh halpern
Steve Schulin
"Ian St. John" <ist...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> ... what the heck in Dipl-Ing?
"Dipl. Ing." means Engineer with a diploma, a degreed engineer roughly
equivalent to a Bachelor of Science (Engineering) degree.
Steve Schulin
> "David Naugler" <dnau...@sfu.ca> posted, in part...
> >
> > http://people.freenet.de/klima/indexe.htm
> > ... Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics
> > ... by Dipl.-Ing. Heinz Thieme
> ...
> > At present, the climatological profession is chiefly engaged in
> > promoting the restriction of CO2 emissions as a means of limiting
> > atmospheric warming. But at the same time, they admit that the
> > greenhouse effect - i.e. the influence of so-called greenhouse gases
> > on near-surface temperature - is not yet absolutely proven (Grassl et
> > al., see:
> http://www.met.fu-berlin.de/dmg/dmg_home/Treibhaus_Statement_lang.html
> > ). In other words, there is as yet no incontrovertible proof either
> > of the greenhouse effect, or its connection with alleged global
> > warming.
>
> The reference does not dispute the greenhouse effect. ...
The reference does seem to quite clearly verify, in the first sentence
after the Preface paragraph, his particular claim in citing the
reference. His claim was "... they admit that the greenhouse effect -
i.e. the influence of so-called greenhouse gases on near-surface
temperature - is not yet absolutely proven..."
The sentence in the translation you provide is "It is indisputable that
the anthropogene greenhouse effect could not be unquestionably proven
yet."
> ... In fact the "results"
Captain Compassion
Why isn't the upper atmosphere warming?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke
"In this world, which is so plainly the antechamber of another, there
are no happy men. The true division of humanity is between those who
live in light and those who live in darkness. Our aim must be to
diminish the number of the latter and increase the number of the
former. That is why we demand education and knowledge." -- Victor Hugo
"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other
is wrong, but the middle is always evil." -- Ayn Rand
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam
Joseph R. Darancette
res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net
Josh Halpern
Steve Schulin wrote:
Not quite. The US/British systems and the German are not the same.
It is more akin to a Masters Degree in Engineering. At least in the
sciences
you have to do a year of research and publish a thesis. There are no
Bachelors
degrees in Germany.
josh halpern
Josh Halpern
Captain Compassion wrote:
> Steve Schulin wrote:
>
>
>>"Ian St. John" <ist...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>... what the heck in Dipl-Ing?
>>>
>>>
>>"Dipl. Ing." means Engineer with a diploma, a degreed engineer roughly
>>equivalent to a Bachelor of Science (Engineering) degree.
>>
>>
>
>Why isn't the upper atmosphere warming?
>
>
Because the ozone layer is thinning. Heating of the stratosphere is
controlled by ozone concentration
josh halpern
Roger Coppock
one wastes times arguing with him. As the Bible
warns, "Don't argue with a fool, lest you become one."
Radiative forcing is quite real. It has been measured
from satellites and other high altitude platforms many
times. For an example of one such measurement, please
see:
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfview.cgi?username=24874
--
"One who joyfully guards his mind
And fears his own confusion
Can not fall.
He has found his way to peace."
-- Buddha, in the "Pali Dhammapada,"
~5th century BCE
-.-. --.- Roger Coppock (rcop...@adnc.com)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Ian St. John
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
news:steve.schulin-766...@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
> In article <3Uznb.2853$Nm6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > "David Naugler" <dnau...@sfu.ca> posted, in part...
> > >
> > > http://people.freenet.de/klima/indexe.htm
> > > ... Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics
> > > ... by Dipl.-Ing. Heinz Thieme
> > ...
> > > At present, the climatological profession is chiefly engaged in
> > > promoting the restriction of CO2 emissions as a means of limiting
> > > atmospheric warming. But at the same time, they admit that the
> > > greenhouse effect - i.e. the influence of so-called greenhouse gases
> > > on near-surface temperature - is not yet absolutely proven (Grassl et
> > > al., see:
> > http://www.met.fu-berlin.de/dmg/dmg_home/Treibhaus_Statement_lang.html
> > > ). In other words, there is as yet no incontrovertible proof either
> > > of the greenhouse effect, or its connection with alleged global
> > > warming.
> >
> > The reference does not dispute the greenhouse effect. ...
>
> The reference does seem to quite clearly verify, in the first sentence
> after the Preface paragraph, his particular claim in citing the
> reference. His claim was "... they admit that the greenhouse effect -
> i.e. the influence of so-called greenhouse gases on near-surface
> temperature - is not yet absolutely proven..."
And yet the paper was built around proving that it was. But I guess the
'cut and paste' set cannot actually use their minds for anything like
reading and comprehending.
What he was saying with that statement was that the greenhouse effect
warming was a natural consequence in a stable atmosphere, i.e. nothing else
changes and he goes on to demonstrate how this is true. However, since this
was 1999, the messy reality of the Earths climate had not been confirmed as
being warming as predicted, given that there was still a possibility of some
unknown effect countering the change from the GHE warming.
> The sentence in the translation you provide is "It is indisputable that
> the anthropogene greenhouse effect could not be unquestionably proven
> yet."
In 1999. Do you not have a calender??? The final proof of the GW theory did
not come until 2001 and the IPCC TAR. This established that there was no
'Factor X' to confound the physics. Prior to this there had to be caution in
the claims since the matter was not yet clear, beyond the fact that the
physics all stated that the greenhouse effect SHOULD result in warming.
After the TAR, the lack of a Factor X cleared up the hesitation.
Try UNDERSTANDING the paper, not just parroting one statement in it. For
example, the next paragraph I quote clearly shows that the greenhouse effect
physics is clear and expected to produce a warming. If I say "barring a
miracle, the sun will rise at 5:46 tomorrow. Does this mean that I expect
the sun will NOT rise at 5:46 tomorrow or is it just being careful not to
make godlike pronouncements that I cannot guarantee? The IPCC finally proved
that there was no miracle ( yet, no knowing what will happen tomorrow ).
Titan Point
>
>
> Captain Compassion wrote:
>
>> Steve Schulin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Ian St. John" <ist...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>... what the heck in Dipl-Ing?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>"Dipl. Ing." means Engineer with a diploma, a degreed engineer roughly
>>>equivalent to a Bachelor of Science (Engineering) degree.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Why isn't the upper atmosphere warming?
>>
>>
>
> Because the ozone layer is thinning. Heating of the stratosphere is
> controlled by ozone concentration
>
> josh halpern
Crap Josh, just crap. Yet another post hoc fallacy.
Josh Halpern
Titan Point wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 01:09:44 +0000, Josh Halpern wrote:
>
>
>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Why isn't the upper atmosphere warming?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Because the ozone layer is thinning. Heating of the stratosphere is
>>controlled by ozone concentration
>>
>>
>
>Crap Josh, just crap. Yet another post hoc fallacy.
>
>
Dear lord, such temptation. Care to tell us why the atmosphere warms from
the tropopause at about 10 km up to about 50 km? Would not happen to
be absorption by ozone would it? If you decrease the ozone what happens?
josh halpern
Captain Compassion
<j.ha...@incoming.verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>Captain Compassion wrote:
>
>> Steve Schulin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Ian St. John" <ist...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>... what the heck in Dipl-Ing?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>"Dipl. Ing." means Engineer with a diploma, a degreed engineer roughly
>>>equivalent to a Bachelor of Science (Engineering) degree.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Why isn't the upper atmosphere warming?
>>
>>
>
>Because the ozone layer is thinning. Heating of the stratosphere is
>controlled by ozone concentration
>
So the upper atmosohere is cooler then it should because of the lack
of the greenhouse gas O3 but the surface is warmer than it should be
because of the greenhouse gas Co2.
Wouldn't there be increased convection?
>josh halpern
>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>"Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke
>>
>>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke
"In this world, which is so plainly the antechamber of another, there
Josh Halpern
Captain Compassion wrote:
>Josh Halpern <j.ha...@incoming.verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Steve Schulin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ian St. John" <ist...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>>>>
>>>Why isn't the upper atmosphere warming?
>>>
>>>
>>Because the ozone layer is thinning. Heating of the stratosphere is
>>controlled by ozone concentration
>>
>>
>>
>So the upper atmosohere is cooler then it should because of the lack
>of the greenhouse gas O3
>
Actually it is the electronic transition of O3 in the UV, not the
vibrational
bending, which warms the stratosphere, but then you would not be trying
to confuse stuff would you?
>but the surface is warmer than it should be
>because of the greenhouse gas Co2.
>
>Wouldn't there be increased convection?
>
>
>
Across the tropopause, nah.
(The temperature gradient between the
tropopause and the hottest part of the stratosphere would decrease
if there is less ozone.)
josh halpern
David Ball
Compassion) wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 01:09:44 GMT, Josh Halpern
><j.ha...@incoming.verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Captain Compassion wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Schulin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ian St. John" <ist...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>... what the heck in Dipl-Ing?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>"Dipl. Ing." means Engineer with a diploma, a degreed engineer roughly
>>>>equivalent to a Bachelor of Science (Engineering) degree.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Why isn't the upper atmosphere warming?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Because the ozone layer is thinning. Heating of the stratosphere is
>>controlled by ozone concentration
>>
>So the upper atmosohere is cooler then it should because of the lack
>of the greenhouse gas O3 but the surface is warmer than it should be
>because of the greenhouse gas Co2.
>
>Wouldn't there be increased convection?
>
Actually, one of the things that is likely to happen as GW
proceeds is that the atmospheric lapse rate will change. In the case
of the stratosphere, cooling there is unlikely to cause an increase in
convection as the stable layer at the tropopause is extremely stable.
By definition, the tropopause is:
The main features of the WMO tropopause definition are as follows:
* The first tropopause (i.e., the conventional tropopause) is
defined as the lowest level at which the lapse rate decreases to 2
K/km or less, and the average lapse rate from this level to any level
within the next higher 2 km does not exceed 2 K/km.
* If above the first tropopause the average lapse rate between any
level and all higher levels within 1 km exceed 3 K/km, then a second
tropopause is defined by the same criterion as under the statement
above. This tropopause may be either within or above the 1 km layer.
* A level otherwise satisfying the definition of tropopause, but
occuring at an altitude below that of the 500 mb level will not be
designated a tropopause unless it is the only level satisfying the
definition and the average lapse rate fails to exceed 3 K/km over at
least 1 km in any higher layer.
A fractional decrease in stratospheric temperatures is not
going to be sufficient to have much impact on deep convection by
altering the height of the tropopause and that is where such
stratospheric cooling would be expected to have an impact.