Greenhouse Gas Theory is False

Written by Dr. Pierre R Latour

Pierre R Latour, PE, PhD Chemical Engineer, July 11, 2013

I wish to provide you with sound scientific and chemical engineering analysis of the faults with the Greenhouse Gas Theory, GHGT, proposed to drive Anthropogenic Global Warming and Climate Change, AGW & CC, especially as it pertains to CO2. I want to arm you for this huge, ongoing debate. I seek and receive no financial support from any government, business or organization; I finance my own work in retirement.

For the life of me I cannot get a solid, consistent grip on the underlying physics supporting the notion first proclaimed by James Hansen, Science, 1981, atmospheric CO2 has any quantitatively verified effect on Earth’s temperature. It is the duty of AGW & CC promoters to provide it, not skeptics like me. So I claim political leaders promoting GHGT have not explained the physics and quantified the effect to my satisfaction. They make claims and charges with little or no relevant evidence to back it up. In American law courts these are called frivolous claims and dismissed (thrown out). When their expensive schemes collapse due to foreseeable engineering consequences, their claim they are unintended consequences rings hollow.

While it is not my job as skeptic, I will offer eight objections to their GHG Theory, each of which falsify it. It is their job to prove me wrong. I will present my assertions in simple terms with justifications; I have detailed chemical engineering mathematical analysis verified by experiment to support them.

  1. GHGT science is settled, consensus is established, skeptics and deniers are crackpots. Wrong.

  2. GHGT effect 15C – (-18C) = 33C is wrong.

  3. GHGT says atmosphere acts like a blanket. False.

  4. CO2 is green plant food.

  5. GHGT neglects the effect of absorbing CO2 on incoming solar irradiance.

  6. Kiehl-Trenberth Energy Budget back radiation is false.

  7. Thermostat adjusting fossil fuel combustion will never work.

  8. Modeling temperature data is worthless.

GHGT science is settled, consensus is established, skeptics and deniers are crackpots. Wrong. Claim is irrelevant to truthfulness of GHGT. Consensus for GHGT is very small, limited to UN IPCC and a few governments. Consensus it is false is stronger. There is nothing wrong with being skeptical or a denier, taught in universities since Athens, 420BC. Appeal to authority was overturned when Francis Bacon inaugurated the Age of Reason in 1600. Just because UN IPCC report editors say so does not make is so, in spite of EPA. They both have a conflict of financial interest. I get to think and speak for myself.

GHGT effect 15C – (-18C) = 33C is wrong. Correct value is 15.0C – 15.0C = 0C. Nothing to it. Hansen, Science, 28Aug1981, incorrectly assumed Earth radiates as a black body with emissivity = 1.0, took satellite readings of its average intensity, 239 w/m2 of surface, and deduced from Boltzmann equation, K = 100(P/5.67e)0.25, it radiates at -18C. K = 100(239/5.67(1.0))0.25 = 254.8K – 273.1 = -18.3C.

While measuring average annual thermal temperature day-night, pole-to-pole is difficult, there is consensus it is about 15C. So Hanson declared the difference, his now famous GHGT effect, GHGTE = 33C, a discrepancy due to his so called greenhouse gases H2O and CO2. While calculating or measuring Earth’s emissivity is difficult, it is certainly < 1, so radiating T > -18C and GHGTE < 33C.

Global Climate Model says emissivity of Earth surface – atmosphere system is about 0.612. If so, corresponding global T for 239 w/m2 average emitted to space would be K = 100(239/5.67*0.612)0.25 = 288.1 – 273.1 = 15.0C. GHGT = 0C. QED.

GHGT says atmosphere acts like a blanket. False. Electric blankets do warm you, nonelectric blankets don’t. Blankets, jackets and clothing reduce the rate of heat transfer between your body and air by reducing heat transfer coefficient. That may make you feel better or worse, depending. The rate of heat transfer by conduction is q = UA(Th– Tc). Wool blanket heat transfer coefficient U < silk U. Confusion arises when GHGT defenders assert a blanket analogy that fails to specify whether q is constant or Th is constant. Human body releases energy of oxidation by IR radiation, thermal conduction/convection and perspiration. Normally Th = 37.0C, held constant by internal thermostat adjusting oxidation rate q, metabolism. So when you put on a blanket, U decreases and so does q. You may feel better if (Th– Tc) is large, but not if it is small or < 0. When that happens you take it off to keep q > 0.

For atmosphere to empty space U = 0 so q = 0 for any (Th– Tc). The blanket analogy is falsified.

CO2 is green plant food. GHGT does not account for plant photosynthesis chemical reaction, a cooling effect. The reaction consumes solar energy, CO2 and H2O to make O2 and sugar, starch, cellulose, carbohydrates and hydrocarbons. The rate of reaction increases with temperature, humidity and CO2 concentration, published in 1924. Most of it occurs by ocean algae, tropical jungles and Siberian forests. So as CO2 increases, photosynthesis absorption of solar radiation increases, cooling Earth. Biology counts as much as radiation physics. Most commercial greenhouses, like Walt Disney World, inject CO2 to promote growth. Denying Earth’s living flora their food, CO2, choking and starving them, is a monstrous crime against them, dependent fauna, humanity, life as we know it and our Mother Earth. It should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in the World Court, The Hague.

GHGT neglects the effect of absorbing CO2 on incoming solar irradiance. I see some overlap between CO2 absorption spectrum left side and solar incident spectrum right side at 2.0 and 2.8 micrometers with 28% of CO2 absorbing power. So first 100 ppm does absorb some incoming and emit it back to space. That would divert radiant energy to and from surface, cooling surface a bit. The Earth system emits to space at same rate with slightly higher emissivity due to introduction of CO2, so it must radiate at a lower T. That’s cool. The second 100 ppm would divert less due to Lambert-Beer Law, and cool Earth a lesser amount. The fourth 100 ppm would have a much smaller cooling effect, law of diminishing returns. Determining the effect of CO2 on average absorptivity / emissivity of 100 km thick atmosphere takes some work to quantify those little bits. I am reconciled with nature for now. I think the whole 400 ppm today causes about T4 – T0 = – 0.5C or so. The next 100 ppm, 400 to 500 would cause an additional -0.01C. Always < 0C. Not enough to get excited about. No tipping points. All is calm, all is bright.

You want a simple explanation for the GHGT effect? There it is. One short paragraph, fits on a bar napkin.

Kiehl-Trenberth Energy Budget

 More importantly, it depicts the basic mechanism of GHGT; back-radiation energy transfer from cold atmospheric CO2 absorbed by surface, the wide beige down arrow at far right, 333 w/m2. Which I proved should be zero, below. Which feeds the wide surface up arrow 396, which should be 396 – 333 = 63. If you add 17 + 80 = 160 and assume Earth surface accounting for photosynthesis has emissivity = 0.412, you find K = 100(160/5.67*0.412)0.25 = 287.7 – 273.1 = 14.6C in agreement with measurements. Atmosphere alone emissivity is about 0.83 and the surface plus atmosphere combo emissivity is 0.612.

The GHGT does not follow the rate of radiant energy transfer law used commercially by chemical engineers: Q/σ = ET4 – at4. Heat transfers in only one direction, not simultaneously in two. (John H Perry, Ed, “Chemical Engineer’s Handbook”, Section 6, Hoyt C Hottel, Radiant-heat Transmission, pg 484, eqn (3), McGraw-Hill, 1950.

E = emissivity of radiating surface. Varies with its temperature, roughness and if a metal, degree of oxidation. Large variations are possible in a single material.

a = absorptivity of atmosphere. Depends on factors affecting emissivity and in addition on the quality of the incident radiation, measured by its distribution in the spectrum. One may assign two subscripts to a, the first to indicate the temperature of the receiver and the second that of the incident radiation.)

GHGT invented the back-radiation mechanism unknown to physics, transferring heat from a cold body to a warmer one, warming it further. In Nov 2011 I proved if it did, it would be a perpetual motion machine; just what promoters need to drive global warming in perpetuity. That violates of the Second Law of Thermodynamics quantified by famous engineer Sadi Carnot in 1824. I actually proved for a step change in GHGT back radiation, presumably due to increased CO2, the sequence converges to a new steady-state and a finite amount of energy is created (which is impossible). I actually derived the rate of creation from the physical properties:

Es = (K*F0 + f0)(1 + K)k/(1 – kK).

K is the fraction of radiation from the first bar absorbed by the second colder bar, 0 < K < 1.

k is the fraction of re-radiation from the second bar absorbed by the first hotter bar, 0 <= k < 1.

Starting radiation rates are given: F0 > 0 and f0 => 0.

Since the denominator is 0 < (1 – kK) < 1, it follows that for any K > 0 and k > 0, the numerator term (1 + K)k > 0, and Es > 0.

Es = 0 if and only if the fraction of back-radiation k = 0.

Therefore GHGT is false because back-radiation = 0. This means you must change the famous GHGT K-T Global Energy Flows diagram right side beige arrow down from 333 to zero and up arrow from 396 to 63 w/m2 of Earth surface. Just use correct absorptivity’s and emissivity’s and it all fits known physics and observations.

This was done to refute a well-known argument by GHGT partial skeptic, partial defender Dr Roy Spencer, “Yes Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Ones Even Warmer Still”.

Thermostat adjusting fossil fuel combustion will never work. A thermostat is a temperature controller adjusting energy input to a system, like a house, refrigerator and car. Earth’s atmosphere is a chemical process system. Chemical process control systems engineers like me (PhD, PE in Texas & California) design feedback control systems. Our profession has mathematical criteria for modeling and evaluating dynamic, multivariable control systems to insure measurability, observeability, controllability, stability and performance. I proved before Kyoto Protocol was promulgated in 1997 that Earth’s thermostat adjusting fossil fuel combustion was not measurable, not observable and not controllable. It will never work. No matter how much money is spent on research. Because I know and can prove it. I can prove area of every circle radius R in the universe is Pi*R*R. Easy. BTW no US Congressman is licensed to practice control systems engineering.

Modeling temperature data is worthless. Systems engineers proved long ago one cannot prove or disprove cause and effect from correlated measurements alone. All the discussion about CO2 and T data is utterly irrelevant to the issue does CO2 affect T and if so why and how much? Only science and systems engineering can answer that. UN IPCC statistical models have no predictive power for this reason. If I said all the data since 1492 says every rooster always crows 3.14159 minutes before sunrise appears, without explaining the underlying physical mechanism, you may accept correlation but must reject the conclusion roosters cause sunrises because you know they are not the cause, for sure.

While this essay may seem long and complicated, it proves beyond any reasonable doubt with eight smoking guns, GHGT is false, AGW and CC fears are unfounded and the whole issue is a monumental fraudulent hoax for power and money. Law schools would call this an indictment, trial and conviction. My brief essay is nothing compared to CO2 Cap & Trade Bills.

Tags: , , , ,

Comments (41)

  • Avatar

    Vince Massimino

    |

    Dr. Latour: if the upper atmosphere cools significantly, as was reported during the last solar minimum, wouldn’t that increase the density of matter in that part of the atmosphere, increasing the rate at which energy is transferred back into space?

  • Avatar

    ewiljan

    |

    Dr. Latour,
    I like your paper overall, as it encourages
    folk to think, not believe,. Another nit with your No.2. GHGT effect 15C – (-18C) = 33C is wrong. It is indeed. But you use the same fake science as Jimmy Hansen did to show your point. =9″Pick a number and find some unrelated
    measurements and coefficients, that verify your chosen number. Near earth orbit satellites in no way measure the energy radiated per square meter from the earth and its atmosphere. A satellite in orbit furhher
    than that of the Moon would be required to measure the radiation from the Earth. Even then it would be a calculation not a measurement.

  • Avatar

    DougCotton

    |

    Pierre Latour has suggested that I have presented nothing new in my [url=http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-COTTON_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures.pdf]paper[/url] and that, if I am going to criticise assumptions he has made, then I need to present an alternative hypothesis. That is what I have in fact done in Sections 4 to 9 which conclude with these paragraphs quoted in the “reply” below this comment, because long comments are not accepted.

    • Avatar

      DougCotton

      |

      [i]The pre-determined plot mentioned above is maintained by the process of diffusion with its resulting “heat creep” which transfers thermal energy absorbed by the atmosphere in all directions, including downwards towards the base of the atmosphere. This lowest region of the troposphere then “supports” the surface temperature, preventing it getting much colder at night.[/i]

      [i]Of course, on Earth the Sun does heat the surface to higher temperatures during the day, but the close surface temperatures slow down all the radiative and non-radiative cooling processes. The surface could not have reached the observed mean temperature without this “ratchet” effect whereby the temperature of the base of the atmosphere is pre-determined, and then this temperature supports the surface temperature and makes it easy for the Sun to warm the surface with additional temporary energy which comes and goes each day and night. Energy “creep” up the thermal gradient provides our answer as to how sufficient energy gets into the surface of Venus, and also [b]explains Earth’s surface temperature without any need for any radiative greenhouse conjecture.[/b][/i]

      • Avatar

        ewiljan

        |

        I certainly hope ([b]Snipped the rest of the personal attack[/b])

        [b]Administrator note[/b]: You need to back off on the personal stuff.

        • Avatar

          ewiljan

          |

          Doug Cotton’s use of the term “Heat Creep”
          is his alone I hope. His includerd discreption
          clearly violates the second law of thermodynamics. It kis truly as false as “Back radiation”.
          Administrator claims “personal attack”

          • Avatar

            DougCotton

            |

            It is [b]based[/b] on the process described in statements of the Second Law. You haven’t for one moment pinpointed any error in my paper based on physics. Show me why you think thermodynamic equilibrium would not be restored when it is disturbed.

          • Avatar

            Doug Cotton

            |

            The re-establishing of thermodynamic equilibrium as heat spreads in all directions over the thermal plane is precisely what the Second Law of Thermodynamics says will evolve spontaneously. If you prefer mid-19th century physics then that’s your prerogative, but physics has come a long way since Clausius.

          • Avatar

            ewiljan

            |

            [quote name=”Doug Cotton”]The re-establishing of thermodynamic equilibrium as heat spreads in all directions over the thermal plane is precisely what the Second Law of Thermodynamics says will evolve spontaneously. If you prefer mid-19th century physics then that’s your prerogative, but physics has come a long way since Clausius.[/quote]

            Doug I am glad that you are back from your funk!
            However heat is dissapated in exactly the way Clausius described! The transfer of heat energy in each direction is proportional to the difference in temperature potential in that direction. There is no heat creep, just
            like there is no back radiation. That is what Clausius said and he ment just that. Of course he was talking about temperature being the “only” potential.
            Once you get into the three potentials of temperature, pressure, and gravitational things change. Now spontanious. changes to total potential, among the three,
            however those potentials may apply. A mass thrown up comes back down. Heat goereeeeeeeeeeeegfs to a lower temperature. The mass of gas goes to the lower pressure. About any large mass like a planet. gravitational potential can create both of the other two potentials, and always opposes and balances them. This is called thermostatics. Think man! What does that do! Gravitation is potential. Toss a spinning gryo up in the air an see what happens. This is a linear potential reacting with a rotational potential.

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    You ended your 15Jul13 personal email to PSI and me in bold with “Until other PSI “senior” members come to grips with this, they will never have a valid, universal explanation for planetary temperatures, above or below any surface. They will continue to make PSI just as much a propagator of pseudo physics as are your warmists.”

    These are emotion driven claims without proof, bordering on name calling. Thinking people reject such statements as frivolous. It is meaningless drivel. Does not strengthen your argument; weakens it.

    I admire your energy and persistence; your ability to learn and communicate needs more work. I hope this helps other bloggers studying your writings.

    Cheers, Pierre R Latour

    • Avatar

      DougCotton

      |

      Well, where else but in my paper is there any PSI literature providing such a universal explanation of planetary atmospheric, surface, crust, mantle and core temperatures?

      Show me some paper from 50 years ago which explains the downward transfer of thermal energy to warmer regions – because if such a paper exists why hasn’t it been used years ago to demolish the greenhouse conjecture? Instead we see strenuous efforts on blogs like WUWT to try to disprove Loschmidt and Jelbring regarding the gravitationally induced temperature gradient. GH advocates realise their GH conjecture is demolished by the gravity effect, so they try their hardest to rebut it, but overlook the reasons why they are wrong as explained in the last paragraph of Section 14.

      Show me some paper from 50 years ago which explains why the temperature gradient in Earth’s outer crust does not determine which way the net thermal energy is actually flowing, let alone how much.

      • Avatar

        ewiljan

        |

        [quote name=”DougCotton”]Show me some paper from 50 years ago which explains why the temperature gradient in Earth’s outer crust does not determine which way the net thermal energy is actually flowing, let alone how much.[/quote]

        Are you now back to the “caloric” and “corpuscular”, thermal energy is actually flowing, Indeed? Need you self destruct before God and everybody?

        • Avatar

          DougCotton

          |

          No I am not. What I am saying is in my paper.

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    The temperatures are set by the gravitationally induced temperature gradient in a planet’s troposphere, and the heat transfer to the surface is achieved by re-establishing thermodynamic equilibrium as per the process described in the Second Law. Correct; we agree. It’s all in your paper which I do understand. It is elementary. To say publically I failed to understand your paper just because you were unhappy with my review smacks of sour grapes. You failed to understand what physicists and engineers already understood 50 years ago; so you present nothing new. All you did is introduce your own language to explain the obvious.

    To criticize me now for not discussing Venus or Uranus in my little essay is unfair. To say I can’t do something because I didn’t, when we are strangers, is pretty arrogant on your part. An author is free to select his topic and focus on it. If GHGT is applied to Earth by promoters; I can refute it on Earth if I want to.

    • Avatar

      DougCotton

      |

      You are not understanding Section 9 which completely does away with any “need” to explain temperatures using radiative flux. There is no Solar radiation reaching down into the depths of the Uranus atmosphere – yet it keeps getting hotter and hotter with decreasing altitude due to what I called “heat creep” which it appears you now agree happens, but many other PSI members dispute.

      We both agree the GH conjecture is wrong for the reasons you state, and others I state. But you took it further and suggested how the Erath’s surface temperature could be explained. It is that explanation I am rebutting, because the temperature cannot be calculated that way. It can be calculated from the supporting temperature discussed in Section 9 and resulting from the gravitationally induced temperature gradient. Furthermore, so can Venus and Uranus temperatures be explained this way – not your way.

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    But then you say “not even like one with emissivity around 0.6”. A claim without foundation. Since physics defines a black body to be one with absorptivity = emissivity = 1.0, you reveal a lack of understanding of the language of physics here. It is merely a definition! I have pointed this out to you on other occasions as one of your bad habits. You write in your own language so others don’t know what you are talking about.

    You say I am wrong without saying where and what you believe to be correct. It is called thin air. What do you mean by a “ridiculously low emissivity”? Why ask whether I would assume it when I made no arbitrary assumption, I took the value from a reliable source. You don’t read well or comprehend what you read. I have mentioned that to you before also. Slow down.

    A polished silver object on Earth’s surface does not increase to hundreds of degrees by the Sun just because its emissivity is very low because conductive and convective heat transfer losses to air simply increase to compensate. Correct; we agree. If it were in empty space near the Sun, like Venus or Mercury, it would indeed be raised to hundreds of degrees by the Sun just because there is no possibility for conductive or convective heat transfer losses. It takes a high temperature to emit with sufficient intensity from low emissivity bodies. This is clear from ninth grade algebra analysis of S-B Law. Which shows your sentence is not coherent.

    • Avatar

      DougCotton

      |

      Your cited Wikipedia reference says “This is because the above equation represents the effective radiative temperature of the Earth (including the clouds and atmosphere)” making it quite clear that the figure 0.612 refers to the weighted mean emissivity of the surface and atmosphere. Hence the temperature deduced also applies to both – and it’s nonsense.

    • Avatar

      DougCotton

      |

      But then you used blackbody-type calculations, just changing emissivity. That’s what the IPCC authors do, and it’s their biggest mistake to assume temperatures can be calculated just from the radiative component of cooling, whilst totally disregarding the non-radiative component which is using up two-thirds of the energy in the case of Earth’s surface.

      Regarding the silver object, that’s not the point, and besides it would reflect most sunlight. The Moon has no atmosphere and it has a mean temperature lower than Earth’s mean surface temperature, even though the Moon’s surface obviously receives more Solar radiative flux. Are you going to assume the Moon’s emissivity is far higher than that for the Earth’s surface? You’d be on shaky ground assuming such.

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    To Doug Cotton,

    You neglected to tell everyone you invited me to review the development of your paper with a raft of email debates earlier this year, and I was recruited to prepare a review of the final version. You neglected to reveal I provided some useful suggestions which you accepted and some you rejected because you did not understand them. I see you repeated a few prior mistakes here so I will attempt to help once again.

    I can so correct and explain Earth’s surface temperature by reducing the emissivity. The data fits. It is a standard method of science for empirical or hard to determine parameters like emissivity of Earth’s surface. I used the accepted value for surface emissivity = 0.612 from the Standard Model at Wiki. If you don’t like it, you have a duty to explain why and develop a better one from first principles, which I do not have the resources to do, because I have an idea of what is involved.

    I agree the surface acts nothing like a black body and said so. I took pains in my essay and our numerous private correspondences to explain why; photosynthesis among other things. So why introduce something everybody already knows and you know I agree with? Answer, you employ red herrings. You have a bad habit of doing this, which I have pointed out to you before.

    • Avatar

      DougCotton

      |

      No the data doesn’t fit. You used emissivity for the whole “Earth – atmosphere” system and deduced the mean temperature for the whole system (including atmosphere) should be 15.0C. The atmosphere is far colder than the surface, so we know the mean temperature is far lower than 15C for the whole system. Even if you got the “right” result, that does not prove your assumptions are right. If your concepts (borrowed from IPCC authors) that temperatures of planetary surfaces could be calculated using SBL, then try it on Venus. Then try it for any altitude in the Uranus atmosphere. It doesn’t work on either of these planets, and it only takes one case to prove you and the IPCC wrong about the possibility of calculating planetary temperatures from radiative flux. Conduction and evaporative cooling do two-thirds of the cooling of Earth’s surface (according to NASA net energy diagrams) and so emissivity must be no more than one-third. Radiative flux may well be making it look like emissivity is higher, but not all radiative flux from the surface is transferring thermal energy from the surface, as Claes Johnson would agree.

  • Avatar

    DougCotton

    |

    Look closely at what Pierre Latour has calculated with his pseudo physics borrowed from IPCC authors who think they can calculate Earth’s surface temperature using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

    Latour writes: [i]”emissivity of Earth [b]surface – atmosphere [/b] system is about 0.612. If so, corresponding global T for 239 w/m2 average emitted to space would be K = 100(239/5.67*0.612)0.25 = 288.1 – 273.1 = 15.0C”[/i]

    So he deduces that the mean temperature of Earth’s “surface + atmosphere” should be 15.0C.

    Apart from the three significant figure “accuracy” one finds it hard to believe that the mean of both the surface and the atmosphere could be anything like 15C when that is assumed to be the mean temperature of the surface, whilst we know the weighted mean temperature of the atmosphere is far colder.

  • Avatar

    DougCotton

    |

    [b]Pierre Latour:[/b]

    You can’t just “correct” or “explain” the Earth’s surface temperature by reducing the emissivity. The surface acts nothing like a black body – not even like one with emissivity around 0.6. This is because about two-thirds of the actual heat transfer between the surface and the atmosphere is by non-radiative processes. So that energy is not available for radiation.

    To prove why you are wrong about this, Pierre Latour, you need only consider the surface temperature of Venus. Are you going to assume a ridiculously low emissivity in order to explain its temperature? Would a polished silver object on Earth’s surface be raised to hundreds of degrees by the Sun just because its emissivity is very low? Hardly. Conductive losses simply increase to compensate.

    The whole “explanation” of planetary surface temperatures simply cannot be done with radiative concepts and SBL calculations. The temperatures are set by the gravitationally induced temperature gradient in a planet’s troposphere, and the heat transfer to the surface is achieved by re-establishing thermodynamic equilibrium as per the process described in the Second Law. It’s all in my paper which you failed to understand.

    • Avatar

      ewiljan

      |

      Doug Cotton,
      Dr.Pierre Latour Understands all of the crap you are pushing with your fake theory. He took your paper apart with little effort. The variation is spectral and spatial emissivity can indeed set equilibrium temperature the O2 in earths thermosphere demonstrates that 1000 Ke3lvin because the O2 can only radiare ir the UV. Your gravity crap has somew merit, but not by the way you arrogantly promote it. Why don’t you fix your own paper before you Insult those that disagree with your fantiesy. Your
      attempted re- definition of the second law to fit your kenetic theory is a good example of your fantisy. Learn som thermodynamics!!

      • Avatar

        DougCotton

        |

        My comment was addressed to Pierre Latour. Neither he nor yourself can explain the temperatures of 320K on Uranus at the base of its theoretical troposphere, that is 350Km below the TOA. No application of SBL to any assumed Solar radiation reaching down there will explain the temperatures there, let alone further down.

        Engineers will tell you that Earth’s surface would have to be about 100C before radiative heat loss surpasses non-radiative heat loss. So go and work out the surface temperature from non-radiative losses – after all, why use radiative losses which are in the minority. Isn’t this all about majorities – consensus – like majorities of seven, for example, at PSI all of whom, like you, Ewiljan, haven’t a clue about the physics I’ve used to explain all planetary temperatures, but must defend their own papers and articles, just like the above. Who are the physicists who reviewed this article before publication?

        • Avatar

          ewiljan

          |

          You Doug Cotton have used no physics at all in your mad magasine. I like Dr. Latour have no desire to explain thermal gradiants on Uranus or Venus. I only intend to help you recognize the fake science you claim. All temperatures on this planet can be explained without reference to fake back radiation or other fake science.
          Non radiative heat losses to what Doug Cotton? heat energy cannot spontaniously transfer to any higher temperature as this would violate 2LTD. Everyone elses 2LTD not your fake one. Non-radiative heat transfer can only be to the colder atmosphere where it is all converted to sensible heat and radiated outward to even colder space by those molecules that can radiate at their own temperature. All works as it should with the added CO2 radiating a bit more further cooling the atmosphere and the surface.

      • Avatar

        DougCotton

        |

        He did not “take my paper apart” one iota. He didn’t even address the main physics in the core of the argument from Sections 4 to 9. All he did was put forward his own conjectures, very much like what he has written in this article. I repeat – not one sentence of his “review” actually addressed the physics that I explained based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

        This issue will probably be central to my book and maybe get some space on Watts Up With That and other blogs, where I’m sure they will be keen to expose this “pseudo physics” being written by a “senior” member of PSI and somehow getting through the PSI-review system.

        • Avatar

          ewiljan

          |

          No need to address what you call “the core”
          The point is to simply reject your core nonsense. Dr. Latour took your paper apart by pointing out all of the vast speculation in your Mad magazine.
          I understand that Anthony Watts has baned you from even posting on WUWT. you are running out of places to pedal your fake science.

      • Avatar

        DougCotton

        |

        Remember, Ewiljan, you admitted you had no credentials in physics, but you were entitled to ask questions. Well you are back on the track of just making unsupported assertive statements which very clearly display your lack of knowledge of physics. For example, it was not me who wrote the modern statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which I merely quoted in my paper: it was physicists who realised that the Clausius statement was inadequate, incomplete and outright wrong when applied to heat transfer in a vertical plane in a gravitational field. Until other PSI “senior” members come to grips with this, they will never have a valid, universal explanation for planetary temperatures, above or below any surface. They will continue to make PSI just as much a propagator of pseudo physics as are your warmists.

        • Avatar

          ewiljan

          |

          Remember Doug Cotton you know nothing of my credentials. I only posted that I needed no credentials to ask questions. The Doug Cotton Modern fake 2LTD. The Rudy Clausius satement is clear concise with no system constrants. It has never ever ben falsified.It is almost a definition of spontanious. You are the “warmist” here using all the same techniques. Fake science and lies. The Blackboard has also banned you from posting there. Getting the idea that perhaps you should stop posting.

          • Avatar

            DougCotton

            |

            What is “fake” about the statement of the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics]Second Law of Thermodynamics[/url] which (in Wikipedia) which I use and which reads …

            [i]”An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system.”[/i]

          • Avatar

            Sunsettommy

            |

            DELETED the comment

          • Avatar

            Doug Cotton

            |

            You could always try editing the statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in Wikipedia if you think those physicists who worded it were in error. It is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics]here[/url] and it reads [i]”An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system.”[/i]

            This version of the law leads to a different outcome to the Clausius statement in a vertical plane in a gravitational field. A temperature gradient evolves by the process described in the above statement, and some other members of PSI are fully aware of, and in agreement with this, namely Latour, Jelbring and Postma. Ask them if they believe Loschmidt was right.

  • Avatar

    John Marshall

    |

    The K&T diagram is nothing like reality because it models a flat earth with no night/day cycle. Measured surface insolation is near 1000W/m2 with a radiative equilibrium temperature of 88C. The ”average” insolation over the sunlit hemisphere is 5ooW/m2 with a RET of 33C. This does not take into consideration gravity imposed adiabatic compressive temperature gains. Surface radiated energy is within the emission spectral ensemble of CO2/water vapour so how can it be adsorbed to re-radiate to ”heat” the surface.

    • Avatar

      DougCotton

      |

      John – it is not compression which is the mechanism whereby the gravitationally induced temperature gradient evolves spontaneously. High pressure does not maintain high temperatures, and high temperatures can exist without high pressure – as in the thermosphere. The Ideal Gas Law tells us only that pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density – nothing more and nothing less.

      What happens is explained in Sections 4 to 9 of my [url=http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-COTTON_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures.pdf]paper[/url].

      • Avatar

        ewiljan

        |

        Doug Cotton again you lie. Compression in a ridgid adiabatic barrier will indeed retain high temperature indefinately. with the potential split between pressure and temperature. The only question in the troposphere is “if” that same gravitational potential can also reduce or nulify the otherwise spontanious defusion of heat upward which would tend to a isotherem. The term isotherm completly destroys your fake idea that tempereature is only a measure of kenitic energy.

        • Avatar

          DougCotton

          |

          There is a huge radiative outflow of energy from the 730K Venus surface. How does “pressure” cause a balancing inflow of non-radiative energy from the atmosphere to the surface? The energy obviously comes from the Sun because the surface warms by 5 degrees in the Venus day and cools by 5 degrees in the Venus night. But the energy which must enter the surface to warm it 5 degrees is not primarily from radiation, because the only radiation which supplies energy amounts to a mere 10W/m^2 from direct Solar radiation that gets through the Venus atmosphere. None of the radiation from the atmosphere transfers thermal energy to the hotter surface in order to make it get 5 degrees hotter still.

        • Avatar

          Doug Cotton

          |

          Normally someone who has studied physics would know how to spell the words kinetic and diffusion. I suggest you look up Kinetic Theory in Wikipedia and edit that article where it says temperature is proportional to the mean kinetic energy of the molecules and a function only of such. When your changes to the Second Law and Kinetic Theory appear in Wikipedia let me know.

          • Avatar

            bwebster

            |

            Doug,

            … “ewiljan” cannot even spell rigid (“ridgid”?!).

            I suspect in this case that sloppy spelling is an indication that sloppiness probably extends to his intellectual process (to use the term loosely).

  • Avatar

    ewiljan

    |

    Thank you Dr.Pierre R Latour,
    I have read this and your critique od Doug Cotton’s paper. I agree with both. I have
    only two nits to pick.
    !. Blanket stuff. The atmosphere does indeed limit the heat energy radiated by the surface to cold space because the atmosphere is not 100% transmissive. This is measured every day by measuring surface Solar spectrum. The Clowns have not shown where an increase in 100 ppm CO2 has changed “that” ie any measureable way.

    2. Rooster Stuff. Data since 1492 says every rooster always crows 3.14159 minutes before sunrise appears, May very well suggest, not prove, that the Rooster does affect sunrise. Without explaining, the earethlings only valid statement can be “I do not know”.
    Trying to resolve the “Rooster conjecture”, over many beer, and some cute chicks, may be fun.

    • Avatar

      Benny Alminde

      |

      [quote name=”ewiljan”]Thank you Dr.Pierre R Latour,

      2. Rooster Stuff. Data since 1492 says every rooster always crows 3.14159 minutes before sunrise appears, May very well suggest, not prove, that the Rooster does affect sunrise. Without explaining, the earethlings only valid statement can be “I do not know”.
      Trying to resolve the “Rooster conjecture”, over many beer, and some cute chicks, may be fun.[/quote]
      [quote name=”ewiljan”]Thank you Dr.Pierre R Latour,
      I have read this and your critique od Doug Cotton’s paper. I agree with both. I have
      only two nits to pick.
      !. Blanket stuff. The atmosphere does indeed limit the heat energy radiated by the surface to cold space because the atmosphere is not 100% transmissive. This is measured every day by measuring surface Solar spectrum. The Clowns have not shown where an increase in 100 ppm CO2 has changed “that” ie any measureable way.

      2. Rooster Stuff. Data since 1492 says every rooster always crows 3.14159 minutes before sunrise appears, May very well suggest, not prove, that the Rooster does affect sunrise. Without explaining, the earethlings only valid statement can be “I do not know[/quote]

      Gen 8:22 “While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, Cold and heat, Winter and summer, And day and night Shall not cease.”

      • Avatar

        DougCotton

        |

        Yes Benny. The Creator gives insight about His creation to those who know Him. And, after all, He should know how it all works.

        But how about not repeating ewiljan in large type – what he writes is bad enough in small type. Now we have the rooster crowing thrice above – a reference which you will recognise but they may not.

Comments are closed