• Home
  • Current News
  • ‘Stack Theory’ Mathematics Paper Discredits Greenhouse Gas Climate Alarm

‘Stack Theory’ Mathematics Paper Discredits Greenhouse Gas Climate Alarm

Written by Hans Schreuder

In a detailed new mathematical study the actual atmospheric effect of infrared-active gases are examined for climatic impact. Principia Scientific International (PSI) researcher, Jef Reynen explores the so-called ‘stack model’ of earth’s climate and finds that it is possible to more accurately model climate without factoring in any ‘greenhouse gas effect.’  possible

His new paper, Lessons from a chicken wire stack on the Moon, re-examines a concept first addressed at PSI three years ago. Back then Reynen considered a finite difference one-stream-heat-flow formulation. More recently, he has employed the more transparent finite element method (FEM).

Due to the recurrent failures of computer simulations to model climate, Reynen’s more pragmatic approach employs the concept of a stack of chicken wire in a vacuum environment (that is, where convection is not possible) e.g. on the Moon. In a vacuum, the stack has a temperature and heat flux completely defined by the process of radiation, without convection. Conventional computer climate modeling disavows itself of the dominance of convection (e.g. wind impacts) and applies a far more radiation-obsessed approach; whereas in the reality of planet Earth, it is nearly the other way around. This, says Reynen, has been climate science’s great error.

In the Reynen model, a stack of grids represents the IR-active gases. Reynen refuses to talk about“greenhouse gases and their effect” because that’s a misnomer according to him and other PSI scientists. What can be described by this innovative new model is an explanation of the atmospheric effect that keeps our planet at a pleasant temperature – strictly in accordance with sound thermodynamic principles. This fits with original concepts from the earlier days of climate research, and the potential temperature already defined by Poisson and more recently by adiabatic lapse rates. That approach was abandoned by conventional climate science in a “wrong turn” made in the 1980’s in preference for the now increasingly discredited carbon dioxide-driven ‘greenhouse gas’ theory.

As Reynen and PSI colleagues insist, greenhouses in nurseries are warmer because the glass roof hinders the convective cooling! There is no enhanced radiative effect achievable in this glass house scenario and the notion of CO2 radiative warming is bogus.

As is shown by the stack model, the evacuation of heat from the planet is rather by convection from the surface of the planet to the upper layers and from thereon by radiation to outer space – thanks to the IR-active gasses with three or more atoms per molecule, like H20 vapor, CO2, CH4, O3, N20…

The stack in a vacuum absorbs nearly the full longwave (LW) radiation from the surface and in steady state emits it immediately. The net result is a temperature that is tens of degrees lower than the measured temperature distribution in an atmosphere of 99% O2 and N2 – on planet Earth. That temperature distribution is described with the environmental lapse rate ELR = – 6.5 K/km being between the dry adiabatic lapse rate DALR = -10 K/km and the saturated adiabatic lapse rate SALR = -5 K/km. These lapse rates follow from sound thermodynamic principles of adiabatic expansion, with or without moisture and the environmental lapse rate in between, from measurements.

What Reynen shows is that when the stack is ‘put’ in earth’s atmosphere, the IR-active trace gases do not cool to what is observed in a vacuum; the trace gases remain at the temperature of the atmosphere. No detailed heat transfer calculations are necessary; the heat capacity of the trace gases is negligibly small compared to that of the bulk of the 99% O2 and N2 of the atmosphere.

The IR-active trace gasses near the surface absorb little heat from the surface since they are at about the same temperature!

The evacuation of heat from the planet is carried out by convection from the surface to higher layers and from there on by radiation from IR-active trace gasses to outer-space.

The validation of the stack model i.e. the question whether a stack of chicken wire can represent the traces of IR-active gases, was carried out in a parameter study by varying the distribution of the thickness of the wires such that results of the analyses coincided with K&T type of studies (Kiehl, J. T. and Trenberth, K. E., 1997), based on the two-stream formulation of Schwarzschild, however ignoring the back-radiation and thereby the non-physical huge atmospheric absorption.

In this fascinating update, Reynen has compared the stack results with recent results of Ferenc Miskolczi, based on the two-stream Schwarzschild procedure, but ignoring the back-radiation and the huge atmospheric absorption. The findings are another mathematical proof against the existence of any supposed ‘greenhouse gas effect’ in our climate system.

Comments (51)

  • Avatar

    Planetary Physics

    |

    Yep, and the solar constant is measured as that flux passing through a plane which is at right angles. Turn the plane to an angle of 45 degrees and what would have passed though each square meter of the orthogonal plane now strikes an area which is larger, so the flux per square meter of the rotated plane is less.

    Elementaru physics.

  • Avatar

    Planetary Physics

    |

    [i]”The real measurement for the incoming solar radiation at the TOA is 1360w/sq.m. It’s real and it’s measured.”[/i]

    Of course. It’s called the solar constant. You can read about it here …
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant

    What has that to do with the physics you still don’t understand?

    Is the South Pole in summer the same temperature as the Equator?

  • Avatar

    Planetary Physics

    |

     
    [i]”from the satellites [b]looking down[/b].”[/i]

    Yep. Looking down at 90 degrees or, if not, adjusting by the sine of the angle because they know their physics.

    LOL LOL LOL

    And why did you say it’s colder at the South Pole in summer than at the equator? Or didn’t you, because the same 340W/m^2 gave you the same answer. Bother! LOL

  • Avatar

    DJ Cotton

    |

    Mack’s 340W/m^2 (calculated by forgetting to multiply by the sine) would only support a true black body’s temperature at about 5C. The Earth’s surface is not a true black body, so neither you nor I know how much colder it would be, but it would be significantly colder than 5C. Hence your conjecture that 340W/m^2 is what warms the surface to existing temperatures is proven incorrect by empirical evidence

  • Avatar

    DJ Cotton

    |

     
     
     

     

    [b]Moderator: For every comment deleted I will post a comment on some other climate blog pointing out errors in PSI articles that continue to promulgate the IPCC hoax that radiation alone determines planetary temperatures.[/b]

     
     

     

     

  • Avatar

    DJ Cotton

    |

    [b]Moderator:[/b] Again I remind you that [b][i]what I write is valid physics[/i][/b], as this retired physics educator and many at a climate meeting I spoke at last night agreed …

    [i]”Doug Cotton shows how simple thermodynamic physics implies that the gravitational field of a planet will establish a thermal gradient in its atmosphere. The thermal gradient, a basic property of a planet, can be used to determine the temperatures of its atmosphere, surface and sub-surface regions. The interesting concept of “heat creep” applied to diagrams of the thermal gradient is used to explain the effect of solar radiation on the temperature of a planet. The thermal gradient shows that the observed temperatures of the Earth are determined by natural processes and not by back radiation warming from greenhouse gases. Evidence is presented to show that greenhouse gases cool the Earth and do not warm it.”
    [/i]
    John Turner B.Sc.;Dip.Ed.;M.Ed.(Hons);Grad.Dip.Ed.Studies (retired physics educator)

  • Avatar

    DJ Cotton

    |

    [b]Moderator:[/b] Before you delete the above valid critique of the false claims made in this article I suggest you reflect upon what you are doing turning PSI into a farce that (like SkS) merely deletes comments that oppose its agenda. What I write is valid physics and not one PSI member has proved me wrong with valid physics. The Second Law works only one way – towards maximum entropy. Even you should know that.

  • Avatar

    DJ Cotton

    |

    [i]”The findings are another mathematical proof against the existence of any supposed ‘greenhouse gas effect’ in our climate system.”[/i]

    Sadly that’s not “a proof” because there are planets without surfaces wherein all incident solar radiation* is initially absorbed by IR-active gases which then transfer thermal energy to other molecules. They don’t have to achieve this in a day. It has happened over the lifetime of the planet – billions of years. How else could you explain the observed temperatures? More detail [url=http://whyitsnotco2.com]here[/url].

    * except that which is reflected of course

  • Avatar

    DJ Cotton

    |

    [b]Just re-pasting another important previously deleted comment …[/b]

    At least within our Solar System we know that …

    (1) All planets and satellite moons have an effective radiating temperature that reduces with distance from the Sun.

    (2) All planets and satellite moons that have a significant atmosphere exhibit a troposphere in which temperatures increase downwards with a temperature gradient closely related to (and usually between 65% and 95% of) the quotient of the acceleration due to gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases in that troposphere. Temperatures exceed the effective radiating temperature below a particular altitude.

    (3) However, solar radiation is attenuated as it enters the troposphere and so, at lower levels its intensity is often insufficient to raise the existing temperatures. Thus one might expect cooler temperatures at lower levels, not warmer ones.

    (4) Much, if not all of the energy required to maintain the temperature gradient (which is built from the top down, not the opposite) gets down there from regions that can be warmed by the Sun, and it is convective heat transfer that is the process which achieves this in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as explained [url=whyitsnotco2.com]here[/url].

    (5) All planets and satellite moons have core temperatures well above the maximum temperatures at the base of their tropospheres or at their solid surfaces if any. It is the same thermodynamics working in solids and liquids which explains the temperature gradient and energy flows beneath any solid surface. Internal energy generation or long-term cooling off does not explain planetary core and surface temperatures, nor the temperature gradients and profiles which get down to the radiating temperature at just the right altitude. This is not a coincidence.

    Earth’s climate has nothing to do with carbon dioxide and its surface temperature cannot be explained with radiation calculations.

  • Avatar

    DJ Cotton

    |

    [b]Moderator:[/b] Before you delete this valid critique of the false claims made in this article I suggest you reflect upon what you are doing turning PSI into a farce that (like SkS) merely deletes comments that oppose its agenda. What I write is valid physics. The correct approach would be to allow the author of the article the opportunity to debate the issue with me in the spirit of true science.

    [i]”The findings are another mathematical proof against the existence of any supposed ‘greenhouse gas effect’ in our climate system.”[/i]

    Sadly that’s not “a proof” because there are planets without surfaces wherein all incident solar radiation* is initially absorbed by IR-active gases which then transfer thermal energy to other molecules. They don’t have to achieve this in a day. It has happened over the lifetime of the planet – billions of years. How else could you explain the observed temperatures? More detail [url=http://whyitsnotco2.com]here[/url].

    * except that which is reflected of course

  • Avatar

    DJ Cotton

    |

    [i]“The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. … if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”[/i]
    —Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, [i]The Nature of the Physical World[/i] (1927)

    Until readers recognize that all forms of energy (including gravitational potential energy) play a role in entropy and thus in determining the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (which the Second Law tells us will evolve) then you are barking up the wrong tree with radiative heat transfer theory as your only concept in your beliefs about temperatures on all planets and satellite moons. The reason is [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]here[/url].

  • Avatar

    Mack

    |

    “time scales involving billions of years” says Doug Cotton.
    Aaahahahaha. Yeah Doug. We’ve got people worried about the climate in 100 or so years time, but trust us, we are not going to bite our nails to the core, worried by an academic crackpot “educating” us about the climate in a billion years.

    • Avatar

      DJ Cotton

      |

      Your comprehension leaves something to be desired. I was talking about the lifetime of the planet to date you clot.

      • Avatar

        Mack

        |

        “I was talking about the lifetime of the planet to date (you clot)” says Doug Cotton.
        Yeah sure, the lifetime of this planet to date has left us, on the whole, with a planet wide, even temp just below its surface. The climate and all its temperature variations goes on above the hard surface. The Earth’s core temperatures have no effect on this worth considering you crank.

        • Avatar

          DJ Cotton

          |

          [i]”The Earth’s core temperatures have no effect on this worth considering you crank.”[/i]

          Of course they don’t. See if you can find any such claim in my website [url=http://whyitsnotco2.com]here[/url].

          The terrestrial heat flow is only of the order of 70 milliwatts/m^2 and so it cannot possibly keep the surfaces (at the interface with the atmosphere) at the observed temperatures. Neither can direct solar radiation do so, as is obvious on Venus, but also the case on Earth because the thin water surface is transparent. That’s why the water surface does not reach 70C in direct sunlight in the tropics.

          Next time you accuse me of saying something, it might be best if you copy directly from my [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]website[/url] and don’t quote out of context either. You have no clue as to what is explained therein.

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            “Neither can direct solar radiation do so” says Doug Cotton
            Sorry to disappoint…solar radiation is quite sufficient to do so .Solar radiation impinging on the Earth’s surface, anywhere, in the amount of about 340w/sq.m. averaged over the year is exactly the right amount to keep this Earth at the present real temperatures we have.
            btw I don’t give a monkeys what you say about Venus and any other planets….apples and oranges ..got it.?

          • Avatar

            DJ Cotton

            |

            “340w/sq.m. averaged over the year”

            That is not the average solar radiation entering the surface over the whole globe, because you have forgotten that you need to multiply by the sine of the angle of incidence, as anyone qualified in physics (such as myself) will tell you.

            The surface of the Earth is not a black body, and so you do not have any way of knowing its temperature with radiation calculations.

            Now run off because I’m dealing with bigger fish (like Monckton) on other major blogs where at least my comments don’t get deleted by Moderators who haven’t a clue about physics but like to patronize the likes of Postma and Latour, because, after all, they were among the founders of PSI, and so must be right. This is rapidly becoming a backwater blog that is further destroyed by the likes of yourself airing your conjectures about direct solar radiation heating planetary surfaces such as those of Venus and Earth.

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            “That is not the average solar radiation entering the surface over the globe, because you have forgotten that you need to multiply by the sine of the angle of incidence…” says Doug Cotton.
            No you ignorant clown, you haven’t listened to a word I’ve said. The solar radiation entering the surface IS that average of about 340w/sq.m. You don’t “need to multiply by the sine of the angle of incidence” because you are dealing with an AVERAGE. Listen you dope,you know what the concept of an average is, don’t you? Now get your head around this if you can you clot. It’s a YEARLY GLOBAL AVERAGE. Pull your head away from the teaching crap you’ve been drawing on the blackboard your whole life…the little circles of the Sun and Earth., and try and conceptulise what this YEARLY GLOBAL AVERAGE looks like. I have. It covers the whole globe and is NON DIRECTIONAL. Something like a one yearly coat of paint. Got it?
            “Now run off” says Doug Cotton
            No ,you’re the one who needs to sod off and get enlightened, by reading everything here..
            http://jennifermarohasy.com/author/nasif-s-nahle/
            “my comments don’t get deleted by Moderators who have’t a clue about physics” says Doug Cotton,
            Ever wondered why your comments are deleted? Just look at this site..it’s being spammed by an hysterical loon. YOU.

          • Avatar

            DJ Cotton

            |

            The solar radiation entering the surface IS that average of about340w/sq.m. You don’t “need to multiply by the sine of the angle of incidence”

            [b]Garbage.[/b] You need to multiply by the sine of the angle of incidence at every single location. You calculate an average after doing so. In practice you use integration.

            [b]In any event, the maximum temperature for a perfect black body receiving 340W/m^2 is 278.2K which is about 5C.[/b]

            But the surface is losing energy by evaporative cooling and sensible heat transfer whilst the Sun is trying to warm it. So not even your incorrect 340W/m^2 would explain a 15C mean. You’re more than 10 degrees under the mark.

            [b]Answer the three questions and show me your calculations for the North Pole then.[/b]

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            “Garbage”…blah blah blah” says this academic teaching twat Doug Cotton.
            You can calculate anything you like until the cows come home,but if it doesn’t agree with real measurements, it’s bullshit. The real measurement for the incoming solar radiation at the TOA is 1360w/sq.m. It’s real and it’s measured. It’s a YEARLY GLOBAL AVERAGE and therefore CANNOT BE DIVIDED down.
            NOT by 4..NOT by anything. Got it?
            Now this 1360w/sq.m attenuates down through the thermosphere, the meso, tropos, and any other sphere you may think of, then through the clouds to the surface. So what do we read with instruments at the Earth’s surface.? We only have land based measurements by upward looking radiometers. If the readings from these radiometers are interpreted correctly and collated correctly (therein lies plenty of room for misinformation from the AGW people) they will, in fact, provide a real yearly global average in the vicinity of 340w/sq.m. arriving at the surface. (Quite frankly I don’t think that any scientist has bothered to get together with any other scientist to confirm these real readings, such is the controversy of AGW) A person taking these readings over time, quickly becomes aware that a global average would
            be nowhere near your 161,163,168 w/sq.m.
            O dear, how sad for you Duggie boy, there there, never mind ,Ive got a bit of good news for you…the 340 w/sq,m looking up by the radiometers EQUALS an average of 340w/sq.m readings from the satellites looking down. Therefore there’s NO RADIATIVE GREENHOUSE EFFECT.
            So you can blather on to me about angles and sines until you’re blue in the face, but it’s water off a duck’s back, Quack Quack Cotton
            Quack as in the “greenhouse” theory
            Quack as in your “gravitational-thermal” theory

          • Avatar

            Planetary Physics

            |

            340W/m^2 raises a perfect blackbody only to 5C. For a surface losing energy by sensible heat transfers, you need considerably more to get it to 15C. That comes from downward convective heat transfer.

            You and PSI members still can’t explain this …

            All planets and satellite moons exhibit a temperature gradient based on -g/Cp which actually runs from the center to the tropopause. So why is it that the temperature gets down to the right level (in radiative balance with the Sun) at just the right altitude. Is it coincidence? No. It is because the temperature profile builds up from the level where there is radiative balance down towards to core, by downward convective heat transfer.

            You can’t prove me wrong without proving the Second Law wrong. Your problem is just that you don’t take the trouble to read, understand and think about it.

            whyitsnotco2.com (now in English and German)

            Chairman
            “Planetary Physics” group of physicists

          • Avatar

            Planetary Physics

            |

            “The real measurement for the incoming solar radiation at the TOA is 1360w/sq.m. It’s real and it’s measured. It’s a YEARLY GLOBAL AVERAGE and therefore CANNOT BE DIVIDED down.
            NOT by 4..NOT by anything. Got it?”

            Yep. Just as in an article I wrote three years ago. Never in dispute. Totally and utterly correct for the radiation passing through a plane orthogonal to the Poynting vector.

            And when it strikes the surface at the North Pole in summer we multiply by the sine of the somewhat acute angle before we apply S-B calculations which never give the right answer anyway because the surface is not a black body.

            You’re not learning very well are you? Most of my physics students from the last 5 decades learnt better than you do.

          • Avatar

            Planetary Physics

            |

            The difference in radiative balance at TOA rarely extends outside the range of ±0.5% and this is because the whole Earth+atmosphere system is a good approximation of a black body. This fact is mentioned on our group’s website climate-change-theory dot com and it helps confirm that surface temperatures are not determined primarily by radiation, as explained on that website now visited by over 2,630 and watched on my linked video by over 2,360.

          • Avatar

            Planetary Physics

            |

            The Earth does not send all the solar energy received back in the direction of the Sun and none in any other direction. So they make a measurement and then calculate the total in all directions, making use of trigonometry of course. You continue to expose your lack of understanding of how radiative flux is calculated.

          • Avatar

            Planetary Physics

            |

            When the radiometers “look up” towards the Sun from the TOA they measure over 1360W/m^2, not one-fourth of that as you make out.

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            “When the radiometers’look up’ towards the Sun from the TOA” says Doug Cotton.
            You’ve got yourself all confused again Duggie boy. The radiometers don’t look up towards the Sun from the TOA…the SATELLITES do! I feel like I’m speaking to a 6 yr old.
            Now settle yourself down very quietly and try to understand what I’m going to say…right, are you ready?..
            The satellites sit out in space at the TOA and look up. What they read is the incoming solar radiation arriving at the TOA and proceeding through the TOA. As I’ve repeatedly explained to you, is that this reading is a yearly global average, and as such, cannot be buggerised around with and divided down. It must be regarded as COVERING the WHOLE GLOBE at the TOA. You cannot just select one instant in time,draw incoming arrows from the sun and say this and that can be calculated. Right?
            Right now, this 1360w/sq.m proceeds through the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface,( being attenuated all the way) Now the reality is, we have got land based radiometers looking up to read what the this radiation is when it strikes the surface. If these readings are interpreted correctly and collated correctly they read approx 340w/sq.m. yearly global average at the surface.
            Now the satellites also look down..down to the Earth’s surface..and what do these satellites read? Hey presto! they read about a yearly global average of about 340w/sq.m. too ! Wow, the 340w/sq.m. of the radiometers on the ground looking up EQUALS the 340w/sq.m. of the satellites looking down. Therefore there’s NO RADIATIVE GREENHOUSE EFFECT.
            End of story there now Doug my boy.

          • Avatar

            Planetary Physics

            |

            Well I’m glad you agree with what I’ve been saying for years that there is no radiative greenhouse effect. How could there be when radiation from a colder atmosphere does not transfer thermal energy into a warmer surface?

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            Right Doug, we both that there’s no radiative greenhouse effect…but there is this one discrepancy we have over your substituted “Gravitational-Thermal” hypothesis. As I’ve tried to hammer home to you is that there IS SUFFICIENT solar radiation coming to the Earth’s surface to keep us at the nice global temps. we have here on this planet. So come out of the “Insufficient Solar” brigade Doug. You don’t want to be in that brigade. You know the 161,163,168watt/sq.m. is insufficient. Everybody knows that it’s insuffient to prevent the oceans from freezing up. How crazy is that!

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            Doug,
            I hope you now understand and realise what I’ve said here.
            This “greenhouse” theory is one of the worst, most disgraceful pieces of science in the history of modern times. People, in the future, are going to look back at these Trenberth Earth Energy Budget cartoons and muse..Einstein was right; human stupidity is infinite, esp. collective human stupidity.
            The whole concept that the “ATMOSPHERE prevents the OCEANS from becoming FROZEN” is an insult to human intelligence. It’s cloud-cookoo land stuff, it’s not reality. This “Greenhouse” thing is still being feed to young, receptive, innocent ears,in schools and universities, who hang upon every word of the authoritative teacher.
            The simple deception has gained such magnitude and monstrosity that to counter it with facts and reality is now labeled “anti-science”…and seemingly rightly so..reality and simplicity wrt this “greenhouse” theory appears to make a mockery of human intelligence and science itself.
            Everybody needs to come to their senses.

          • Avatar

            DJ Cotton

            |

            Q.1 Does the North Pole in summer get warmed just as much as the Equator when there are no clouds? After all, it’s close enough to the same distance from the Sun and receives sunlight 24/7 whereas the Equator does so only for about 12 hours a day.

            Q.2 Why and how does the Earth’s surface warm by day when there is thick cloud cover for several days and nights blocking nearly all the insolation?

            Q.3 The Moon’s maximum temperature is about 123C but its minimum is below -200C. What is the average of these and how could Earth’s surface be hotter when half the insolation is absorbed or reflected before it gets to the surface?

        • Avatar

          DJ Cotton

          |

          [i]”a planet wide, even temp just below its surface”[/i]

          Source please. [url=http://www.everythingselectric.com/forum/index.php?topic=189.0]Here[/url] are some temperatures in a 9Km deep borehole in Germany.

          [i]”300C – the set limit of current technology – would be reached at about 10,000 m – much shallower than originally predicted.”[/i]

          I’ll leave it to you to find similar temperatures in polar regions. It is you making such ridiculous claims, not me.

          • Avatar

            Mack

            |

            “ridiculous claims” says Doug Cotton
            Sorry, not ridiculous to claim that ground temps at depths of about 4 to 6 ft stay at a constant 50 to 55deg F all year round. (areas of permafrost may be different, but lets not be pedantic)
            You go tearing off down boreholes. Nah,sorry, no climate down there bright boy.

            .

          • Avatar

            DJ Cotton

            |

            So what? We all know that, because mean surface temperatures from one year to the next are also fairly constant, and that’s because the Sun’s radiation is fairly constant.

            I have studied hundreds of borehole measurements. Even from deep underground (around 5Km to 10Km down) the plot extrapolates nicely to the surface temperature above. But there is considerable variation for different latitudes.

          • Avatar

            Planetary Physics

            |

            But very different at different latitudes as your first comment implied was not the case.

            So what, anyway? I am not saying there’s significant seasonal variations underground. Why would there be? This has nothing to do with what I have written at [url]http://whyitsnotco2.com[/url]

          • Avatar

            Planetary Physics

            |

            Underground temps vary with latitude. But so what? That has nothing to do with the cause of natural climate cycles, as is explained in English and German on our group’s website http://climate-change-theory.com

  • Avatar

    DJ Cotton

    |

    In the troposphere of Uranus all the energy that is absorbed is absorbed by IR active gases, mostly methane which makes up about 2% of that region and above in the Uranus atmosphere. So this disproves the article’s main contention that there must be a surface absorbing solar radiation and then transferring thermal energy to the atmosphere by sensible heat transfer. The article ignores time scales involving billions of years in which thermal energy (absorbed from solar radiation) has accumulated in every planet’s atmosphere, crust, mantle and core.

  • Avatar

    DJ Cotton

    |

    Convective and conductive heat transfer happens in all solids, liquids and gases. When molecules (such as in a gas) cluster together there is no net loss of gravitational potential energy, nor of total kinetic energy. So suspended water droplets still have ample transnational kinetic energy to cause possible net upward movement as they collide with other molecules and clusters thereof. They don’t drag the other 98% or so of air molecules along with them, although, quite independently, those other molecules may also have net upward or downward motion resulting from the convective heat transfer process that is the basis of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. No wind of any form is required.

    • Avatar

      DJ Cotton

      |

      Spell checker caught me out again: “transnational” should of course be translational kinetic energy.

    • Avatar

      Mack

      |

      “No wind of any form is required” says Doug Cotton.
      Unfortunately, in the real, world there is wind and plenty of it..tough luck for you Doug..living in your own academic bubble gives you a sealed bubble brained mentality.

      • Avatar

        solvingtornadoes

        |

        [quote name=”Mack”]”No wind of any form is required” says Doug Cotton.
        Unfortunately, in the real, world there is wind and plenty of it..tough luck for you Doug..living in your own academic bubble gives you a sealed bubble brained mentality.[/quote]
        Yeah, LOL. I saw that too. He’s so inane it’s hard to take him seriously. “No wind required.” What does that even mean?

        Moist air is heavier than dry air. It moves from the bottom of the troposphere to the top. And it is observed doing this in the context of updrafts in storms (wind). What some bozo thinks is required is irrelevant. Updrafts happen. And they aren’t caused by convection/buoyancy as meteorologists would have us believe, speaking of bozos . . .
        http://cadiiitalk.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-hubris-of-physics.html

        • Avatar

          DJ Cotton

          |

          “No wind required.” The meaning is quite clear [url=http://whyitsnotco2.com]here[/url].

        • Avatar

          DJ Cotton

          |

          [i]”Updrafts happen. And they aren’t caused by convection/buoyancy as meteorologists would have us believe”[/i]

          Correct.

          Which confirms that convective heat transfer does not involve wind, as I said.

          Apples and oranges.

        • Avatar

          DJ Cotton

          |

          Wind is not convective heat transfer.

          Convective heat transfer is not wind.

      • Avatar

        DJ Cotton

        |

        That’s so kind of you to inform me that there is wind in the real world. /sarc

        Tell me when you’ve learnt the physics pertaining to convective heat transfer, because that is what I was writing about – not wind. I thought I made that clear enough for any intelligent reader to understand.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    Hans Schreuder:
    “The evacuation of heat from the planet is carried out by convection from the surface to higher layers and from there on by radiation from IR-active trace gasses to outer-space.”

    Jim McGinn (Solving Tornadoes):
    I don’t disagree with this articles main point that IR active gases function to lower the earths temperature (especially in the upper atmosphere) and have no known tendency to increase temperature whatsoever/anywhere. And I believe it is fairly obvious that H2O is the primary element that transports the lion’s share of the heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere. Warm moist air is pulled from the surface as far up as the top of the troposphere where it cools and falls back to the ground as cool rain. But this uplift (observed in storms) has nothing to do with convection/buoyancy. Warm moist air is always heavier than dry air. So, convection/buoyancy is impossible. The notion that moist air is lighter than dry air is nonsense based on the absurdity that moist air contains steam (monomolecular H2O). A popular misconception is that steam can persist in our atmosphere at temperatures below the boiling point of water. In actuality this is physically impossible. Steam can only exist at temperatures above boiling point of H2O. The moisture in moist air is not in the gaseous state. So there must be another mechanism to describe how moisture is pulled up to the top of the troposphere–a mechanism that has nothing to do with buoyancy/convection
    For more follow this link:
    http://wp.me/p4JijN-5A

    • Avatar

      Rosco

      |

      “Warm moist air is always heavier than dry air. So, convection/buoyancy is impossible”

      Bullshit

      “Note! Water vapour in air will replace the other gases and reduce the total density of the mixture. Dry air is more dense than humid air!”

      “Humid air containing water molecules as liquid – droplets – may be more dense than humid air containing water only as vapour. “

      The Engineering Toolbox AND ALL of reputable science disagrees with your opinion.

      Note that “Humid air containing water molecules as liquid – droplets” – often called clouds – somehow manage to stay aloft !

      How is that possible if the dry air below isn’t more dense – because density naturally decreases with altitude ??

      How is that possible if the warmer air below isn’t convecting above the warmer surfaces causing an “updraft”.

      I always love clowns that think they know it all and make a joke of themselves by posting absurdities !

      I’ll rely on reputable references thanks !

      • Avatar

        solvingtornadoes

        |

        ST:
        “Warm moist air is always heavier than dry air. So, convection/buoyancy is impossible”
        Rosco:
        Bullshit. “Note! Water vapour in air will replace the other gases and reduce the total density of the mixture. Dry air is more dense than humid air!”
        ST:
        Actually that is an urban myth. It would be true if there was any such thing as cold steam. But that too is but a myth:
        http://solvingtornadoes.com/?s=cold+steam
        Rosco:
        Humid air containing water molecules as liquid – droplets – may be more dense than humid air containing water only as vapour.
        ST:
        May be?
        Rosco:
        The Engineering Toolbox AND ALL of reputable science disagrees with your opinion.
        ST:
        LOL. How reputable is a website that repeats hearsay?
        Rosco:
        Note that “Humid air containing water molecules as liquid – droplets” – often called clouds – somehow manage to stay aloft !
        ST:
        That’s right. And if the assumptions underlying the (absurd) convection model were true, as you suggest, these *heavier* clouds would be falling out of the sky. Right?
        Rosco, before you respond to this question look up Avogadro’s law and do the math.
        Rosco:
        How is that possible if the dry air below isn’t more dense – because density naturally decreases with altitude ??
        ST:
        You obviously don’t understand any of this well enough to present a coherent argument.
        Rosco:
        How is that possible if the warmer air below isn’t convecting above the warmer surfaces causing an “updraft”.
        ST:
        Due to the activity of the jet stream. See my website for more details: http://www.solvingtornadoes.com . IMO, it’s shortsighted to start from the assumption that the only force that is operational in the atmosphere that can possibly cause uplift is buoyancy. The atmosphere is not that simple.

  • Avatar

    DJ Cotton

    |

    The paper reads …

    [i]The mismatch between emission and absorption is delivered to the various stations of the stack by convection of latent and sensible heat from the surface and the SW absorption by the atmosphere.[/i]

    Until PSI and others compare their hypotheses with what happens on other planets, like Venus and Uranus, their hypotheses all have no general credibility.

    On Venus, only regions in the upper troposphere and above where temperatures are less than about 400K can have their temperatures raised by incident insolation.

    This paper has not explained how the necessary thermal energy gets into the lower troposphere of Venus and actually raises the surface temperature (at any given location on the equator) by about 5 degrees over the course of 4 months of sunlight. I have explained how the happens at [url]itsnotco2.com[/url]

    • Avatar

      DJ Cotton

      |

      I have explained how this happens at [url]whyitsnotco2.com[/url]

  • Avatar

    DJ Cotton

    |

    In physics “convection” is a term used for “convective heat transfer” which includes both diffusion and advection, but only adiabatic processes. Hence it does not include wind. You do not get the gravitationally induced temperature gradient from wind, only from convective heat transfer. Hence the statement [i]”Conventional computer climate modeling disavows itself of the dominance of convection (e.g. wind impacts)”[/i] demonstrates a lack of understanding as to how the Second Law of Thermodynamics functions and leads to a density gradient and a temperature gradient.

    Furthermore, it is wrong to assume that the Sun always warms a planet’s surface with its radiation, leading to upward convective heat transfer from the surface. That does not happen on Venus whilst Uranus has no surface at the base of its nominal troposphere. It only happens in some locations on Earth and is not the main source of thermal energy input to the thin transparent surface layer of the oceans.

    This comment is continued [url=http://whyitsnotco2.com]here[/url].

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    Tell the world.
    OK I know how to do that when the MSM will not recognize the paper.

Comments are closed