• Home
  • Current News
  • The Four Known Scientific Ways Carbon Dioxide Cools Earth’s Climate

The Four Known Scientific Ways Carbon Dioxide Cools Earth’s Climate

Written by Dr Pierre Latour PE

co2

Experts from the ‘hard’ sciences are again revealing how climate ‘scientists’ have gotten it wrong about the role of carbon dioxide (CO2) in climate.

 

Dr Pierre R Latour, a renowned American Chemical Engineer, shows how four known mechanisms and three laws of nature prove why CO2 cools, not warms, our atmosphere. Moreover, it may be shown that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the supposed world authority deferred to by governments, lacks a rigorous mathematical description for their so-called ‘greenhouse gas theory.’

CO2 Affects Several Temperatures in Different Ways

Here we develop the physics, chemistry and biology to quantify the effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) on Earth’s temperature. There are five mechanisms and three different temperatures involved.

Four show a small cooling effect, one warms surface and cools upper atmosphere with no net bulk effect. I am unaware of a rigorous mathematical description of the greenhouse gas theory that purports to do this and show a warming affect. After decades of research attempts, promoters cannot reduce greenhouse gas theory (GHGT) to mathematics of science and engineering.

Stefan-Boltzmann Law of Radiation

If non-radiating O2 is exchanged for absorbing/emitting CO2, the emissivity, e, of a planet to space must increase. While emissivity of CO2 is less that global emissivity, it is greater than the O2 it replaced by “fossil fuel” combustion. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law of Radiation is

I = σ e (T/100)4

If e increases with CO2 at constant I, T goes down. Therefore, CO2 causes global cooling.

This is true for all bodies of matter, no matter the composition, rotation speed or weather.

I = radiating intensity, irradiance, power of any radiating body, w/m2, of its spherical surface, measured by Earth satellite spectrophotometers to be about 239. It is only a transfer rate when surroundings do not radiate, at 0K. Outer space at 3.7K radiate with very low intensity.

T = temperature of radiating body, K, estimated for Earth to be 4.60C + 273.15 = 277.75

σ = Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law constant, 5.67

e = emissivity of radiating body, fraction 0 < e < 1. e varies with composition. Perfect radiator black body e = 1, radiates a given intensity at lowest possible temperature. Colorful Earth radiator e = 0.70827 emits given intensity at temperature higher than black body.

I = 5.67*0.70827(277.750/100)4 = 5.67*0.70827*59.51 = 5.67*42.152 = 239.0

If doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 ppmv increases emissivity 0.001 from 0.70827 to 0.70927, T would drop -0.098C from 4.600C to 4.502C.

I = 5.67*0.70927(277.652/100)4 = 5.67*0.70927*59.43 = 5.67*42.152 = 239.0

Conservation of Energy of Atmosphere

1st Law Thermodynamics: Input Rate = Output Rate + Accumulation rate. At steady-state, Accumulation Rate = 0 and this ordinary differential equation becomes an algebraic one.

Absorption of solar + absorption of thermals and evaporation from surface + absorption from surface radiation = radiation to space

79 + 97 + 23 = 199 w/m2

Since CO2 absorption spectrum overlaps solar spectrum tail a small amount at two wavelengths, the 79 value would increase a small amount with CO2; a cooling effect on surface neglected by greenhouse gas theory. Some climatologists say CO2 affects the rate of heat transfer from surface by thermals and evaporation, 17 + 80 = 97, but I shall neglect that controversial effect here. However, once quantified, this model structure can assess the effect on global temperatures. An additional 161 is transmitted through atmosphere from sun to surface, 1 is retained by surface. 160 is transferred from surface up: 40 is transmitted through atmosphere as radiation from surface directly to space, 97 is transferred to atmosphere by convection and evaporation and 23 is absorbed from surface radiation.

Total incoming is 79 + 161 = outgoing 199 + 40 + 1 = 240. Transfer to space = 239.

These global energy flows come from the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram, as promoted by the UN’s discredited IPCC.

Radiant Energy Transfer Law

The rate of radiant energy transfer between radiating body 1 and radiating surroundings 0 is

I1 – I0 =σ [e1 (T1/100)4 – e0 (T0/100)4]

(I am neglecting complicated geometry effects here.) For transfer from Earth to space, I shall assume surroundings at T0 = 3.7K, neglecting starlight, so

I – Is = 5.67 [0.70827 (277.75/100)4 – 1.0 (3.7/100)4] = 5.67 [0.70827*59.51 – 1.0*0.00000187] = 5.67[42.152 – 0.000002] = 239.00 – 0.000010626 = 239.00.

So there is no problem equating Earth’s radiation intensity to space with its radiant heat transfer rate to space. Intensity only equals radiant energy transfer rate when T0 = 0.

If this is applied to transfer from surface 1 to atmosphere 0, rate I1 – I0 is constant (I1 actually drops a little when incoming drops due to increased atmospheric CO2 absorption), and e1 is constant, then when e0 increases with CO2, either T1 must increase to overcome increased resistance to heat transfer by increased e0 (as postulated by GHGT and the only possible warming mechanism I can find), or T0 must decrease. They both change in such a way as to reduce global T from S-B Law.

In the unusual situation where surroundings do not obey Kirchhoff’s Law, absorptivity = emissivity, a0 = e0, because surroundings has energy transfer by means other than radiation, like thermals plus evaporation = 97 from surface to atmosphere, one cannot replace e0 with a0.

Inserting appropriate values (T1 = 14.85C, T0 = -18.15C, e1 = 0.1615 and e0 = 0.167) gives:

I – Is = 5.67 [0.1615 (288/100)4 – 0.167 (255/100)4] = 5.67 [0.161*68.797 – 0.167*42.283] = 5.67[11.111 – 7.061] = 62.998 – 40.037 = 22.961 = 23.

Note surface emissivity = 0.1615, radiates I = 63, 40 directly to space and 23 absorbed by atmosphere. While pure water has e = 0.96, ocean phytoplankton absorb solar power, reducing its emissivity. Emissivity of atmosphere seen from surface = 0.167. Emissivity of atmosphere to space is 0.830 because it receives 97 by convection and evaporation and does not obey Kirchhoff’s Law: emissivity = absorptivity.

For atmosphere component,

199 = 5.67*0.830 (255/100)-4

Note surface radiates directly to space with effective emissivity = 0.1025.

40 = 5.67*0.1025 (288/100)4

Now we can find weighted average global emissivity from atmosphere and surface

e = (0.831*199 + 0.1025*40)/239 = 0.708

which confirms the initial assumption precisely.

I realize these average emissivity values may not be acceptable to some, but they do fit the observed data and are hard to determine from first principles.

At first glance, assuming I1 – I0 and T0 are constant, increasing CO2 increases heat transfer resistance,e0, so surface radiating T1must increase to accommodate. This could be the basic claim of GHGT and yetCO2decreases atmospheric T0and global radiating T. The amounts depend on the effect of CO2 on emissivity of the atmosphere.

Lapse Rate

This is consistent with the slope of T vs altitude in troposphere, lapse rate = -g/Cp (universal gravity constant / heat capacity) because kinetic energy of gas decreases as its gravitational potential energy increases with altitude, by energy conservation law.

Increasing CO2 increases atmosphere Cp because CO2Cp> O2Cp, making the slope less negative. It rotates counterclockwise about its radiating centroid T near 5 km and -18C (which decreases a bit by transfer rate to space). This causes lower atmosphere T to increase and upper atmosphere T to decrease.

Conservation of Energy of Earth

1st Law Thermodynamics: Input rate = output rate.

(1 – alb) S/4 + IO = I – Is + P

S = solar radiation intensity, 1365 to 1370 w/m2 incident disk or 1365/4 to 1370/4 w/m2 of incident sphere

Albedo = reflectivity, fraction, mostly by clouds, estimate 0.7. Some say CO2 affects albedo through cloud formation; this could be a significant cooling effect.

Is = intensity of surrounding space = 0.000010626 @ 3.7K = negligible

P = energy absorbed by plant photosynthesis

IO = sum inputs (core, volcanoes, fires) minus other outputs, negligible

Rearranging and substituting gives the overall relationship:

I = (1 – alb) S/4 – P = σ e (T/100)4

Dividing by σ e gives the overall relationship for T:

I/σe =(T/100)4 = (1 – alb) S/4σe – P/σe

If S increases, T increases. If alb, e or P increase, T decreases. All we need to do is find the effect of CO2 on alb, e and P to quantify its effect on T. Easy to show increasing CO2 causes increases in e and P, decreasing T.

If Earth were a perfect black body emitter and P = 0,

(1 – 0.3) 1366/4*5.67*1.000 = 42.1605 = 2.5484 or T = 254.8K = -18.33C

Actually Earth’s surface is a colorful 0.612 emitter using surface T = 15C

(1 – 0.3) 1366/4*5.67*0.612 = 68.8897 = 2.8814 or T = 288.1K = 14.95C

The difference 14.95 – (-18.33) = +33.3C is the difference between colorful Earth’s radiating surface temperature and its theoretical black body equivalent when radiating at same intensity, 239.

James Hansen, Al Gore and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), among others, mistakenly declared this 33C to be the greenhouse effect.

With a corrected emissivity value for radiating 239 at T = 4.6C, e = 0.708, corresponding black body would radiate at T = 273.15 – 18.35 = 254.80

I = 5.67*1.0(254.803/100)4 = 5.67*1*42.152 = 5.67*42.152 = 239.0

This means the so called greenhouse effect is 4.60 – (-18.35) = +22.95C, not +33C.

Photosynthesis

Organic molecules are made by living flora by photosynthesis chemical reaction of xCO2 + 0.5yH2O + sunlight = CxHy + (x+0.25y)O2, catalyzed by chlorophyll, according to biology. CxHy are hydrocarbon molecules: sugars, starches & cellulose, and which decay slowly to oil, gas, peat, tar and coal along with decaying fauna residue. CxHy can be natural gas, CH4, methane.

Surface does not obey Kirchhoff’s law either,a0 = e0, because of this non-radiation chemical energy transfer mechanism.CO2 is green plant food driving the cycle of flora – fauna life. Flora make O2 for us fauna. Fauna make CO2 for flora.

Reaction rate, consumption of CO2 and incident solar energy, P is

P = k*p*Ss [CO2][H2O]exp(-E/RT1)

p = pressure at leaf, atm

Ss = sunlight impinging on green surfaces, w/m2<160. = a(1 – alb)S/4, a = absorptivity

[CO2] = atmospheric composition, vol % = 0.0390

[H2O] = atmospheric composition, vol %

T1 = temperature of surface leaf, K

k = kinetic rate constant

So increasing [CO2] will increase P and reduce T, cooling. Increasing S or T1 will have the same effect.

So the sensitivity of T to CO2 depends on which temperature you are talking about: T, T1, T0. And what the net effect of all relevant mechanisms is. It is easy to see why there is so much confusion and controversy.

Combined System Effects

With an increase in CO2, solar absorption by atmosphere increases a bit to 79+ and surface absorption decreases a like amount to 161-. Therefore, surface radiation drops a like amount to 63-. And its T1 drops to 14.85-. With increased e0 the transfer rate from surface to atmosphere by absorption decreases to 23-. And since the atmosphere T0 decreases to -18.15-, the net radiation rate from atmosphere to space must drop to 199- = 79+ + 23- + 97, because CO2 is a better absorber of surface spectrum than solar spectrum. Direct transmittance from surface to space would increase to 40+ such that the total to space remains 199- + 40+ = 239.0, satisfying overall energy balance.

Therefore increasing CO2 causes decreases in surface T1 = 14.85-, atmosphere T0 = -18.15-, and global T = 4.60-. There is no CO2 global warming mechanism. There are at least four global cooling mechanisms. This refutes UN IPCC claim doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 causes Earth’s T to increase 1.2C to 2.5C.

Back-radiation

Greenhouse gas theory to support the notion of global warming, postulates heat transfer from cold atmosphere down to warm surface, heating surface further. The Kiehl-Trenberth diagram says back-radiation transfer rate is 333, which is 2.1x that impinging surface from the sun, 161. This extraordinary value defies common experience.

I have shown the existence of any back-radiation would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics; heat only transfers from hot to cold or from high intensity radiators to lower intensity radiators. If back-radiation existed, it would lead to creation of energy, a violation of the First Law of Thermo, constituting a perpetual motion machine of the first and second kinds, which is impossible, but just what AGW proponents need to support their perpetual global warming idea.

Measuring temperature

While climatologist, Dr Roy Spencer says satellites measure Earth’s global temperature, their spectrometers actually measure radiation intensity, I = 239, a pole to pole, day/night, season/season average. Roy must assume a corresponding emissivity, e, to infer or deduce an estimate of T. Since e is hard to determine from first principles physical properties of dissimilar surface + atmosphere and is likely to change, particularly with CO2, using satellite inferred T is fraught with error. He must get distance between radiator and spectrometer accurately, which is not easy for a 50 km thick atmosphere and rocky mountains.

T is a point property of matter indicating its kinetic energy. We have no way in physics to average T over different phases and compositions of matter. You can’t even calculate the average T of your moving car: engine, cylinders, a/c, radiator, exhaust, body, interior, tires. Wouldn’t mean much if you could.

By the way, how are global temperature maps constructed? If they are from closely spaced thermometers, averaged daily, that would be meaningful. But if from spectrometers, how are emissivities of ocean, desert, jungles, cities, mountains, ice and clouds assigned to each point of radiating intensity, for a corresponding S-B radiating T? And averaged over sphere?

Careful study of Spencer’s writings indicates he equates/confuses radiation intensity with radiant heat transfer rate, which have the same units, w/m2. The former is given by S-B Law for intensity, irradiance, radiance, power, exitance, emission. The latter is driven by a difference in intensities between two radiators or a radiator and its surroundings. Both are vectors with direction, not scalars. The former intensity, I, is not called radiant heat transfer rate because it isn’t.

When two facing plates are radiating at each other with equal intensities in opposite directions, there is no radiant heat transfer between them and their temperatures remain constant. (Note if emissivities differ when I1 = I0, so will radiator Ts. Chrome and wood on a beach have different steady temperatures, chrome is hotter because its emissivity is low and reflectivity is high, radiating with same I as high emissivity, colder wood.) The walls of my office radiate, but no heat transfers between them.

Chemical engineers design and operate radiant/conductive/convective furnaces with chemical reactions for a living. You can’t control something unless you can measure it or reliably infer it from measurements and known constants of nature.

Cause and effect

Just because [CO2] and T may be correlated over significant periods does not mean one causes the other; a third input may drive them both. Solar irradiance is not constant and dominates all other influencers of T.

Solubility of CO2 in water, beer, soda, Champagne and oceans decreases with temperature. Cooling drives CO2 from the atmosphere into the ocean; warming drives it back out. A simple energy balance on oceans confirms the measured 800 year lag of [CO2] following T, following S; a well-known inconvenient truth for Al Gore’s embarrassing Academy Award movie misnomer.

There is no known mechanism in the literature quantifying any effect of [CO2] change on climate change.

Thermostat

The notion of building a thermostat to adjust fossil fuel combustion rate to control the temperature of the Earth was shown to be unmeasurable, unobservable and uncontrollable by control systems mathematical analysis in 1997, before Kyoto Protocol. In other words, it can never work.

Empirical models

It is acceptable engineering practice to infer fundamental constants/properties like an emissivity or reaction rate constant by measuring related variables and using one of these laws of physics to deduce it. Resulting law has predictive power so long at the property does not change. This know-how is particularly useful for rigorous differential equations accounting for dynamics of mass and energy accumulation rates. Stability analysis shows no tipping points.

But to fit arbitrary algebraic polynomial, exponential, sine, log or hockey stick equations to measured transient data is unacceptable since it is well known in chemical control systems engineering that they will have no predictive power.

The UN IPCC use of such models confirms they have no greenhouse gas law built on accepted physics and engineering and should be summarily dismissed. Calling for more research funding after repeated failures is compelling evidence the science and engineering of global warming and climate change is far from settled. In fact, this brief essay should settle the matter, save money and delight those practicing the scientific method.

I used only three laws of nature here: S-B Law, 1stLaw of Thermo and Chemical Reaction Rate Law. And 10th grade algebra. World has been spending $1 billion per day for a decade on global warming/climate change research to quantify the effect of fossil fuel combustion production of CO2 on Earth’s temperature. A large government is shutting down its coal industry in 2014 on the mistaken belief CO2 causes great harm, when it is benign and net beneficial. This paper proves it is all unnecessary, worthless.

Global cooling

Since Earth is warming half the time and cooling the other half, reputable climatologists report a consensus of imminent, significant, prolonged global cooling, and the effect of increasing CO2 on temperature is vanishingly small, be prepared. Invest in energy production from oil, gas, coal and nuclear. For goodness’ sake.

Precautionary Principles

Be careful. Look before you leap. Do no harm. Think before you speak and write. Play it on the safe side. Better safe than sorry. Know what you are saying and doing. Do not frighten people unnecessarily. Supply relevant, valid evidence for every claim; lest they be dismissed as frivolous. Perform an accurate scientific, engineering and economic analysis before devising a plan and implementing it. Provide performance measures and fulfill them. Be prudent & frugal. Be a fiduciary with other people’s money. Foresee unintended consequences. Analysis comes before synthesis, always. Avoid attempting the impossible. Avoid building perpetual motion machines, in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo. Learn from your mistakes, admit them, apologize, accept consequences and reconcile with Nature and Nature’s God (TJ, 1776). Honesty is the best policy. Seek truth. Skepticism is a wise starting position.

Since I can’t find a mathematical description of a consensus greenhouse gas theory, I call it a greenhouse gas hunch. After all, CO2 is green plant food. No self-respecting environmentalist would consider depriving Earth’s flora of its sustenance. Even for personal political or financial gain. Would they?

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Trackback from your site.

Comments (51)

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    Doug,

    You are getting a little tedious and more than a little patronising. I think Pierre is correct when he says that you never properly read what anybody else says.

    You still don’t seem to appreciate that I AGREE WITH YOU that energy absorbed by the atmosphere [i]at any height[/i] (top, middle, base, anywhere) re-distributes so as to maintain the familiar isentropic profile up the atmospheric column. And I LIKE THE LAKE EXAMPLE in your book (all of which I have read, by the way, and MOST OF WHICH I AGREE WITH).

    What I have been trying to engage with you over (obviously unsuccessfully) is the precise mechanism whereby this atmospheric energy diffusion process occurs without violating the 2LT (as I interpret it). If you don’t like my explanation (or my interpretation of the 2LT), so be it. I don’t much like your explanation, which I find assertive rather than educative.

    So let us put that minor disagreement on one side since we BOTH DO AGREE that the isentropic energy re-distribution DOES OCCUR and instead move on to the substantial question of Pierre’s blog article:

    [i]To what quantitative extent (if at all) is the surface temperature of the earth affected by the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere?[/i]

    Although you have asserted in your book that CO2 only has a minor cooling effect of perhaps 1/10th degree C, you have not proved it. If we cannot keep resolutely on that topic, we are surely wasting our time.

    David

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    Well apart form your observation that “equilibriate” might not be the best verb to describe the development of an iso-entropic as opposed to an iso-thermal state, I think your response is unhelpful.

    If you feel that the equations of heat transfer (both thermal and radiative) don’t work in a vertical dimension subject to gravity then you should tell us all what alternative equations you propose.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    Doug,

    If we must discuss the minute details of what is actually going on when additional energy enters a gravitational air column, I do like your rain and lake analogy at #90.

    Ignoring frictional effects, the extra weight of the rain that lands initially at the middle of the lake causes an immediate (almost but not quite as strong) balancing up-thrust. This prevents the rain equibriating across the lake in zero time.

    As time goes by, the consequent (almost but not quite as strong) balancing reactive up-thrusts spreading progressively throughout the lake likewise hold portions of water above the eventual average lake height, but (being always weaker than the corresponding diminishing down-thrusts) do so to a lesser and lesser extent, until eventually all the water in the lake is at the same (increased) level and the isentropic condition of the lake is re-established.

    I see nowhere in this scenario where the upward reactive forces are ever larger than the corresponding downward forces.

    Likewise, in the case of regions of the atmosphere that absorb energy directly from the Sun), I see nowhere where the heated areas receive increased kinetic energy from lower temperature areas, the relevant transfer equations being P = A.k.(T1^4 – T0^4) for each radiant transfer and P =A.k’.(T1 – T0) for each thermal transfer, in both cases from higher T1 to lower T0 regions.

    Yet the atmosphere does indeed equilibriate, exactly as you have argued and exactly as everyone who has studied elementary atmospheric physics already knows it does.

    David

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    Doug,

    Briefly…

    Re. your #87 comment, we are in agreement that the fraction of the Sun’s energy flow that is absorbed by the atmosphere (78Wm-2) causes the temperature profile in the atmospheric column to be higher than it would otherwise be.

    Because the temperature of the atmosphere is higher (whilst still being cooler than the surface) the rate of flow of energy (both radiative and non-radiative) from surface to atmosphere is [i]lower[/i] than it otherwise would be.

    Consequently the surface temperature is [i]higher[/i] than it otherwise would be.

    Be content with that. The rest is a relatively unimportant discussion about the best words to use when describing the process whereby the energy absorbed in the atmosphere re-distributes itself so as to maintain the isentropic steady state condition.

    David

    Reply

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    Pierre tries to claim that the emissivity of Earth’s surface is only as in this quote …

    “Note surface emissivity = 0.1615”

    Elsewhere he tries to imply that ocean emissivity is somewhat lower than 0.98. It is not, and published papers put it at around 0.984. Given that the oceans make up about 70% of Earth’s surface, it is impossible for the mean emissivity of the whole surface to be only 0.1615. Furthermore, if he has ever pointed an IR thermometer at the ground he should know that it gives reasonably accurate temperatures if programmed at about 0.95 emissivity. It certainly would not do so using 0.1615. Pierre does not understand radiation and how and when it transfers thermal energy, or how and why the thermal energy transfer rate is slowed by opposing radiation.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    David Cosserat
    Good work. As you can see, Doug’s style it to move on and throw stuff at the wall to see if anything sticks. His ability to learn is crippled. No point responding unless the spirit moves you.

    Greg House
    What contradiction is that?
    I fail to see the validity or relevance of your elephant analogy claim.

    Jeff Temple
    Catastrophic global warming promoters often adopt nefarious debating tricks when their claims are falsified by science and logic. You misrepresented my use of one of your references to explain your AGW error in 2009, creating a straw man, and falsely accuse me of being a cheat, with low moral and technical standards with no credibility so my essay should be dismissed. Character assassination it frowned upon as unprofessional in scientific, engineering, medical, finance, law, business, liberal arts and intellectual discourse. No apology expected.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    Doug
    Since you moved to new criticisms of my essay, I assume you accept all my rebuttals so far; a sign of scientific progress.

    9. While emissivity of pure water is 0.96 and snow is 0.8 to 0.9, you cannot dispute surface of ocean reflects and scatters incident solar radiation and phytoplankton consume some that is transmitted through surface. Emissivity depends on all energy transfer mechanisms affecting surface energy balance. To equate oceans to a glass of water is a simplification. Can you derive average emissivity of Earth’s radiating surface from its physical properties? If so how?

    10. It seems you are unaware of the science of chemistry.
    Fossil fuel combustion reaction is:
    CHn + (1+0.25n)O2 = CO2 + 0.5nH2O + heat
    where n = 4 for methane; about 2 for petroleum; 1 for coal; 0 for carbon; and about average 2 for collection of fossil fuels.

    So 1+0.25n molecules of O2 in air is exchanged for 1 molecule of CO2. I assumed carbon combustion for 1 for 1, but a better assumption would be 1.5 O2 for 1 CO2, which would increase emissivity and decrease T even more. If CO2 increases by 100 ppmv or about 0.00010 mol%; O2 decreases by 150 ppmv or about 0.00015% of the composition of air. (Done rigorously, the compositions still add to 100% of course. Round-off error is negligible.)

    11. You say “I simply do not accept that CO2 only displaces O2 and not N2” That is not a very scientific statement. N2 is inert; not involved. Later you say “If we consider about 12,500 molecules of air without any CO2 and then add 5 molecules of CO2, about 4 molecules of nitrogen will be displaced and about one molecules of oxygen displaced. “ That is not so because the N2 doesn’t go anywhere. I trust you understand these two corrections from HS chemistry. Your next three paragraphs do not represent what I said or science. Creating straw men is not allowed.

    12. If you study the derivation of Lapse Rate (Joe Postma, Claes Johnson) you will find the heat capacity property is a molar basis, not mass basis, because it invokes perfect gas law, PV = nRT. If you multiply your mass basis values from Tool Kit by molecular weight, you will find molar basis Cp of CO2 > Cp of O2. To help you understand use atomic weights O = 16, C = 12.011, H = 1.008 to find mol wt O2 = 32; CO2 = 44.011. Molar Cp O2 = 0.915*32 < molar Cp CO2 = 0.819*44.011. In fact Cp CO2 / Cp O2 = 36.045/29.28 = 1.231 or 23.1% greater. I correctly said the heat capacity of CO2 is greater than the O2 it displaces. QED. The reaction mass balance is (12.011 + 2*1.008) + 1.5(16*2) = (12.011 + 2*16) + 1*(2*1.008 + 16) = 14.027 + 48.00 = 44.011 + 18.016 = 62.027. 13. I agree if Earth’s surface radiated whole 161 with asphalt emissivity, 0.93, its temperature would be 235.066K. If emissivity

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    Doug,

    Thank you for taking the trouble to reply so comprehensively to my comments. I have a busy week ahead so I cannot continue to discuss at length. Briefly:

    On your #77, I think we will just have to agree to disagree on your assertion that heat can diffuse from a cooler to a warmer region of the atmosphere. Most people reading this would assume that violates the 2LT. My explanation at #75 (3rd paragraph), which you have simply ignored, of how the incoming 78Wm-2 from the Sun that is absorbed in the atmosphere causes it to be warmer, does not violate the 2LT. But at least we agree that diffusion takes place and that it elevates the surface temperature. Progress perhaps?

    On your #78, you continue to speak of an energy flow of 333Wm-2 eve though I have shown repeatedly that, if one interprets the Trenberth figures from the point of view of classical thermodynamics, the 333Wm-2 and 390Wm-2 figures are [i]potentials[/i] not flows. Replace them by their difference, a [i]flow[/i] of 63Wm-2 upward, and everything falls into place. (I don’t care what Hansen or Trenberth did, said, or intended.)

    You then bang on again about ‘back radiation’ (meaning energy flowing from a cooler body that is absorbed by a warmer body) as if I haven’t repeatedly asserted (as have Pierre and Claes) that it doesn’t exist. Doug, WE AGREE WITH YOU! (In the statistical thermodynamics interpretation, photo streams do pass both ways, but the resulting energy flow is still the difference between them: in the earth’s case, exactly the same 67Wm-2.)

    On your #79, we are agreed that the Venus atmosphere is mainly warmed by the 97% of solar radiation that is absorbed by it. So there is no disagreement there.

    On your #80, all you have done is to repeat Claes Johnson’s theory. As I have said repeatedly, even using his interpretation of what is going on at a micro physical level, the energy flow between surface and atmosphere [i]still works out at 63Wm-2[/i].

    On your #81, again you use the 333Wm-2 radiative potential as if it were an energy flow. So you are fighting a straw man by saying it cannot be boosted to 333Wm-2. Of course it can’t. It isn’t a flow!

    On your #82, this is another straw man. It is irrelevant what Trenberth says or believes, or thinks, just so long as the figures in the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram can be interpreted sensibly and used correctly in discussion here.

    On #83, once again we both agree that the incoming 78Wm-2 absorbed within the earth’s atmosphere is indeed responsible for warming it. We just don’t yet agree on the precise mechanism. As I said before, that’s progress.

    David

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    Doug,

    I can’t keep up!

    (5) At #73 you ask how the energy gets down to the base of the Uranus troposphere. If, as you say, no solar radiation gets down there (and also assuming there is no heating from below), then the surface temperature is all maintained by diffusion as I have discussed in (4) above.

    Standard thermodynamics. What exactly is your problem?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    [i]…continued from above[/i]

    (4) At #70 you say: [i]…you too only have 161W/m^2 into the surface and that’s not enough.[/i]. At #71 you say: [i]…You have nowhere near enough direct solar radiation being absorbed in the thin transparent surface layer of the oceans even to keep them above freezing point.[/i]

    This is all rubbish. In addition to the 161Wm-2, the remaining incoming energy flow of 78Wm-2 absorbed by the atmosphere keeps it at a higher temperature than it would otherwise have had. Consequently the temperature differential between atmosphere and surface is smaller than it otherwise would have been. And so, according to the standard radiative transfer equation P = A.k.(T1^4 – T0^4), a warmer atmosphere T0 (even though cooler than the surface T1) will [i]slow down the rate at which the surface transfers heat[/i]. So the earth’s surface will have a higher temperature than if the atmosphere had not absorbed that additional 78Wm-2.

    I do not agree with your characterisation of this process as “transferring energy from cooler to warmer regions” as you also claim at #71. Quite the reverse. The CO2 and H2O molecules that absorb the incoming 78Wm-2 at various levels up the atmospheric column thereby acquire more kinetic energy than the non-absorptive molecules at those same levels. Consequently the energy equilibriates ‘sideways’ by diffusion. Additionally, increased thermal energy at a given level may diffuse vertically, [i]always from a hotter region towards a cooler one[/i], in order to maintain the pressure-induced lapse rate.

    If that is what you call ‘heat creep’ then who exactly is arguing with you?

    In the end, the observed reality is:

    (a) 161+78 = 239Wm-2 is the total incoming radiation absorbed by the earth system (surface + atmosphere).

    (b) This level of incoming radiation maintains the surface at a mean temperature of 288K.

    (c) No heat anywhere ever flows from cooler to warmer places.

    In other words, it’s absolutely standard classical, statistical, or even Claes Johnsonian thermodynamics.

    David

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    Doug,

    You have now made several points all of which need brisk rebuttal:

    (1) At #69, referring to Pierre’s article you say: [i]…So he still adds the back radiation (because he agrees with K-T) when calculating the surface temperature supposedly warmed by both solar radiation and back radiation.[/i]

    I have scanned Pierre’s article yet again and cannot see anywhere where he supports back radiation, meaning heat transfer from a cooler to a warmer body, as you have implied. On the contrary he agrees with my analysis (which I note you have ignored in your responses so far) that the 396Wm-2 upward and 333Wm-2 downward radiation figures in the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram are [i]radiative potentials[/i] and not energy transfer rates. They need to be offset against one another, providing a net energy flow rate of 63Wm-2. See Pierre’s response at #62 para 8 containing the statement: [i]No, I said surface radiates 63…[/i].

    (2) At #70 you say: [i]…even the slowing of radiative cooling need not be a warming effect.[/i]

    That is sloppy language. Are you, or are you not, in agreement with Pierre and me that increasing atmospheric CO2 has a NET surface cooling effect, consisting of (i) a small warming effect due to it acting as an additional radiative shield to energy flow, and (ii) a larger cooling effect due to there being more molecules radiating to space?

    (3) At #70 you also say: [i]…my March 2012 paper…also explains the importance of what Claes Johnson explained, because it wipes out the K-T assumed contribution by back radiation supposedly adding thermal energy to the surface[/i].

    No it doesn’t. There is nothing to wipe out. Firstly, the K-T figures, when interpreted correctly according to classical thermodynamics in the way I have described in (1) above (and at least twice earlier in this blog trail) produce a 63Wm-2 NET upward energy flow. Secondly, statistical thermodynamics produces a 63Wm-2 NET upward energy flow. And thirdly Claes Johnson’s interesting alternative statistical theory also produces a 63Wm-2 NET upward energy flow. There is not a sliver of a difference between them.

    [i]continued below…[/i]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    Doug,

    Thanks for your response at #64 in reply to my comments at #60 and #61.

    (1) You say: [i]I’m not in agreement that slowing that component of surface cooling which is due to radiation will lead to higher surface temperatures. You are not considering all the non-radiative input and output as explained in my book and my paper on radiated energy.[/i].

    I never said it would. You missed out my following comment: [i]…this very small theoretical CO2 warming effect is more than offset by CO2’s other major role as a radiative coolant to space.[/i] That is Pierre’s thesis as laid out in his article above, with which I agree. In physics one should always try to separate out each constituent contributor to a phenomenon, not ignore or deny the inconvenient components as some people such as the Slayers have attempted to do. I assume you agree with that.

    (2) I note that you have not responded to my other assertion at #60 that Claes Johnson’s theory, whilst interesting, is not relevant to the issue at hand. It would be good to hear your response because there is a lot of confusion about its relevance to the global warming debate (I say none).

    (3) You say: [i]In your next comment you don’t seem to be aware that the whole AGW argument hinges upon their false assumption that they can explain the surface temperature by adding together the solar flux and the back radiation flux and bunging the total into S-B calculations.[/i]

    I am well aware that many people keen on promoting the cause of AGW alarmism do all sorts of false calculations, including the one you mention. However, my point at #61 was to challenge the notion that the Kiehl-Trenberth figures (suitably interpreted as I have done) cannot therefore be used as placeholders in rational discussions between physicists and engineers such as ourselves. Of course they can. Once it is understood that the 390Wm-2 and 333Wm-2 figures are radiative [i]potentials[/i], and not energy transfers, the whole energy transfer picture falls into place and is self-consistent and useful.

    (4) Referring to the entirely separate issue of how the energy flow from the Sun reaches a planetary surface, I am content with the fact that in the case of the Earth it arrives in the form of SW radiation at an estimated rate of 161Wm-2 as per Kiehl-Trenberth. The balancing upward energy flow is 97Wm-2 non-radiative and 63Wm-2 radiative, the latter figure calculated as already discussed (my point 2 at #40).

    You may well be right that in the case of planets with radiatively very dense atmospheres their surfaces are mainly kept warm by thermal contact and not largely (or at all) by the Sun’s incoming radiation. But energy transfers on such planets are NOT the topic of Pierre’s article.

    David

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    Pierre, ever thought of contradiction between your discovery and the well known property of CO2 called specific heat?

    One can likewise discover four factors explaining why elephants can fly so well: the can wave their ears, they are very strong etc.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    Doug
    Since you moved to new criticisms of my essay, I assume you accept all my rebuttals so far; a sign of scientific progress.

    6. You say “You used e = 0.708. A grey body with that emissivity radiating 161W/m^2 would have a temperature of 251.653K.” I say: Interesting but irrelevant. I used e = 0.70827 for real globe radiating 239 to space with corresponding S-B T = 277.75K = 4.6C. No “buts” about it.

    7. I correctly compared the Cp of CO2 with the O2 it replaced. To compare it with air as you did would be incorrect. Exchanging O2 for CO2 does increase the Cp of air. This causes measurable warming below the atmospheric centroid around h = 5 km and cooling above; but does not affect the bulk average T of whole atmosphere. Euclid geometry.

    8. No, I said surface radiates 63 with average e1 = 0.1615 and average T = 288K. You don’t seem to understand the K-T diagram. 17 + 80 is transferred from surface to air by non-radiation mechanisms.

    If you are keeping score it is now Latour 9; Cotton 0. I admire your persistence. When I find you have found me in error somewhere; I will be pleased to acknowledge it.

    Pat Obar
    You are catching on.

    I think he is the fellow who claimed last year to have discovered a new law of heat transfer on Venus, which he called “heat creep”. And it explains Earthly global warming. He is so proud of his discovery he thinks it merits a Nobel Prize, even as his struggled with mathematical quantification and peer-review. It looks like the well-known chemical engineering laws of heat transfer to me: conduction, convection and radiation. Revising nomenclature is not science.

    David Cossaret
    Good thinking.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    Doug,

    Re. your comments at #59 above:

    1. You are right to criticise the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram for misleadingly mixing radiative energy transfers and radiative potentials, thereby doubtless confusing a generation of climate change students.

    All the values in the diagram are the authors’ best estimates of the net energy transfers (radiative and non-radiative) except for the two surface/atmosphere radiative potentials 396Wm-2 upwards and 333Wm-2 downwards. The difference, 63Wm-2, is the net energy transfer upwards (which then splits into 40Wm-2 to space and 23Wm-2 that is absorbed by the atmosphere).

    Once this confusion is sorted out in your mind, you will see that there are no instances where heat is transferred from a cooler to a warmer body and the energy transfer numbers can be used sensibly as placeholders for further discussion.

    2. None of the above has any bearing that I can see on your theory of how a planet’s surface receives its energy from the Sun, particularly in dense atmospheres such at that of Venus where the amount of incoming radiation that actually reaches the surface is negligible.

    David

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    Doug,

    Re. your comment at 19:06 above, I agree 100% with your shrewd remarks.

    Re. your comment at 19:14 above, I know for sure that Claes Johnson adheres to the general understanding that (ignoring thermal transfer effects) a radiating object (e.g. CO2 gas) introduced between a constant radiating power source P at steady-state temperature T1 (e.g. the earth’s surface) and a constant temperature sink at fixed temperature T0 (e.g. the rest of the universe at 2.7K) will raise the temperature T1 of the power source in accordance with the standard engineering equation for radiative power transfer, namely P = A.k.(T1^4 – T0^4).

    I know this is so because I checked it with Claes during my discussions some months ago with Slayers whose alternative view was that there would be no change at all in T1 under the circumstances described.

    So it seems that you, and I, and Claes Johnson, and Pierre Latour are all in agreement that an increase in atmospheric CO2 would [i]in theory[/i] raise the Earth’s surface temperature to a higher steady-state level (although in practice this rise would be too small to be perceptible in the practical conditions of the Earth’s atmosphere.)

    Of course Pierre’s argument in the article we are discussing here (which I also agree with) is that this very small theoretical CO2 warming effect is more than offset by CO2’s other major role as a [i]radiative coolant to space[/i].

    You quote from Claes Johnson’s paper concerning his interesting theory of what is actually going on at the micro statistical level, namely that photons travelling from a cooler to a warmer body are not absorbed at the warmer surface (as standard statistical thermodynamics theory holds) but are ‘deflected’ away. This is certainly an interesting debate for theoreticians but does not alter the mathematics of the equation for radiative power transfer quoted above and so is not really relevant to the discussion here. It is simply a third way (the other two ways being classical thermodynamics and modern statistical thermodynamics) of looking at the same issue and arriving at the same radiative transfer equation.

    David

    Reply

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    If Pat Obar wishes to submit a paper to PSI explaining radiated heat transfer in some other way than that described by myself and Prof Claes Johnson he could of course do so. But he finds it easier to write childish comments without substance on threads like this.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Doug”]Regarding Obar’s “please demonstrate or reference any measurements or reference to measurements of what you claim!”

    That’s all in my peer-reviewed PSI paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” Engineers confirm what is in the paper in all their standard calculations. The two parallel plate experiment is well documented in physics literature. It’s referred to in my paper which describes the resonance process in line with the writings of Prof Claes Johnson.[/quote]

    Your papers have no measurments whatsoever! all you have is fantasy! More Doug Cotton bull shit.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Doug

    |

    Now according to this* the emissivity of the oceans is about 0.984.

    So if you think you can work out the ocean surface temperature from the solar radiation of 161W/m^2 striking it then SBL gives you 231.77K.

    If the mean temperature of about 70% of Earth’s surface were 231.77K then I suggest we’d have a serious problem surviving. Thanks heavens for gravity.

    * http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/JO/pdf/5001/50010017.pdf

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    Doug
    Wrong again. I did not include the 78 absorbed in atmosphere in the 160 transferred from surface up. I included it in the 199 emitted by atmosphere to space. Copying from the K-T diagram in front of my eyes, just as I said. In harmony with FLOT. You have trouble reading the written word. Score: Latour 6; Cotton 0.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    David Cosserat
    All three of your points describe my position well.

    To whom it may concern
    Euclid of Alexandria invented geometry. Published in “Elements”, 310BC. It used to be taught in 9th grade.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Greg House”][quote name=”John Marshall”]Assumed from the surface but it is not from the surface but 5-6Km above, using the lapse rate.[/quote]

    John, forget this “5-6Km above” sheer nonsense, lapse rate etc. The matter is very simple, just focus. They say in a nutshell that the temperature on the surface is higher than the most powerful source of heat available (sun) can possibly induce (considering the distance etc). Which is unbelievably dumb. It is like saying put 2 and 2 together and you’ll get 5.

    The whole trick is to obfuscate this simple matter. Just throw away all the obfuscation out of your mind and the matter will become crystal clear.[/quote]
    You must be an idiot!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”John Marshall”]Assumed from the surface but it is not from the surface but 5-6Km above, using the lapse rate.[/quote]

    John, forget this “5-6Km above” sheer nonsense, lapse rate etc. The matter is very simple, just focus. They say in a nutshell that the temperature on the surface is higher than the most powerful source of heat available (sun) can possibly induce (considering the distance etc). Which is unbelievably dumb. It is like saying put 2 and 2 together and you’ll get 5.

    The whole trick is to obfuscate this simple matter. Just throw away all the obfuscation out of your mind and the matter will become crystal clear.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    John Marshall

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”John Marshall”]I do not see why Dr. Latour works with the internal exchanges of energy, according to K&T, because the 1st law works only with total energy in = total energy out. internal system exchanges have no relavence [/quote]

    Partial quote sorry!
    The first Law only applies to a closed system, never to an open system like “Earth and its atmosphere”. You claim “total” energy,but somehow want to limit that to radiative energy.
    Dr. Latour, correctly shows that increasing CO2 increases atmospheric emissivity,thus increasing radiative exitance at any temperature. There is no way that increasing CO2 can increase temperature or internal energy.
    If you want global warming look elsewhere.[/quote]
    The Earth, as a planet rotating on its axis, is a closed system. It may be ”open” at the TOA but that is part of the system boundary. It is the TOA where the energy escapes from.
    I do not want to limit the energy exchanges to radiative only but these are exactly what the alarmists limit themselves to. There are other inputs but these are very minor compared to that from total solar irradiance. I was comparing like for like but my energy figures are more like those that we can actually measure. This is how models should be constructed, around reality not to justify a theory that cannot work like the K&T abortion in AR4/5[quote name=”Greg House”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]Greg,
    …Your claim of some maximum temperature is as much BS as
    [/quote]
    Pat, you claim that my claim is BS is BS. 🙂 But enough nice talk.

    That “blackbody temperature of the earth” thing warmists and Pierre are talking about IS maximum temperature the Sun can possibly induce on earth. Sorry to upset you. More exactly, it is supposed to be the maximum temperature.

    The problem is that warmists and Pierre do not see any problem to claim that the real temperature is HIGHER (in absence of a more powerful source than the Sun!).

    But you can join the club as well, if you wish. :cry:[/quote]
    The Climateers surface temperature is calculated on the 240W/m2 radiated from the planet. Assumed from the surface but it is not from the surface but 5-6Km above, using the lapse rate. the K&T diagram uses 161W?m2 at the surface which is a temp. of below -40C giving the rediculous result that they do not even know what surface or temperature to use.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”David Cosserat”]Pierre,

    Congratulations on your ‘LaTour-de-force’, rendered in your usual robust style. There is much there to contemplate.

    1. I greatly approve of your use of actual figures from the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram in the face of the usual sophistic opposition. People who criticise this pragmatic engineering approach (much less off-putting to most people than lots of algebra) should be challenged to come up with their own better figures. In my experience they never do.

    2. As you have pointed out elsewhere, the controversial Kiel-Trenberth 333Wm-2 figure is of course a downward radiative [i]potential[/i], not an energy flow. This is entirely offset by the upward 396Wm-2 figure, also a radiative [i]potential[/i]. Only the net difference (63Wm-2 upward) represents the transfer of radiative energy from the cooler surface to the slightly warmer atmosphere. This is in full conformance with the 2LT. So at the macro level of classical thermodynamics, there has never has been any ‘back radiation’ concept and there is certainly no need for any such concept now. (Even at the micro level of statistical thermodynamics, where photons are regarded as passing in both directions, only the net transfer is accounted as energy transfer. So the result is exactly the same, namely 63Wm-2 of heat transferred from the warmer body to the cooler body.)

    3. You say [i]At first glance, assuming I1 – I0 and T0 are constant, increasing CO2 increases heat transfer resistance,e0, so surface radiating T1 must increase to accommodate.[/i]. I agree with this. It is indeed a simple consequence of the standard equation used by generations of engineers solving real life heat transfer problems. Postma and his followers are simply wrong on this narrow point, as I have now proved through experimentation. However, I also strongly suspect that this minor CO2 warming effect is outweighed by CO2’s essential cooling function towards the TOA, which is the main thrust of your analysis.David[/quote]

    David, Does your post have any relevance to that of Dr.Latour? All vour your spouting seems orthogonal to that of Dr. Latour. What ever are you trying to express!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    Pierre,

    Congratulations on your ‘LaTour-de-force’, rendered in your usual robust style. There is much there to contemplate.

    1. I greatly approve of your use of actual figures from the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram in the face of the usual sophistic opposition. People who criticise this pragmatic engineering approach (much less off-putting to most people than lots of algebra) should be challenged to come up with their own better figures. In my experience they never do.

    2. As you have pointed out elsewhere, the controversial Kiel-Trenberth 333Wm-2 figure is of course a downward radiative [i]potential[/i], not an energy flow. This is entirely offset by the upward 396Wm-2 figure, also a radiative [i]potential[/i]. Only the net difference (63Wm-2 upward) represents the transfer of radiative energy from the cooler surface to the slightly warmer atmosphere. This is in full conformance with the 2LT. So at the macro level of classical thermodynamics, there has never has been any ‘back radiation’ concept and there is certainly no need for any such concept now. (Even at the micro level of statistical thermodynamics, where photons are regarded as passing in both directions, only the net transfer is accounted as energy transfer. So the result is exactly the same, namely 63Wm-2 of heat transferred from the warmer body to the cooler body.)

    3. You say [i]At first glance, assuming I1 – I0 and T0 are constant, increasing CO2 increases heat transfer resistance,e0, so surface radiating T1 must increase to accommodate.[/i]. I agree with this. It is indeed a simple consequence of the standard equation used by generations of engineers solving real life heat transfer problems. Postma and his followers are simply wrong on this narrow point, as I have now proved through experimentation. However, I also strongly suspect that this minor CO2 warming effect is outweighed by CO2’s essential cooling function towards the TOA, which is the main thrust of your analysis.

    David

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Greg House”][quote name=”Pierre Latour”]I did not invent that 33C greenhouse gas effect; J Hansen did, Science, 28Aug1981. It has little physical significance for me. I merely used his definitions and determined the value was more like 23C. Answer to GH question addressed to me is no.[/quote]

    Come on, Pierre. Your 23°C is equally physically impossible as Hansen’s 33°C. Even if you further “improve” it and get just 0.0000001°C instead, it still will be physically impossible.

    If you still do not understand, what is wrong with that calculation, I am sorry for you, but you still can go the easy way and reject it as apparently wrong because the result is physically impossible. What about that?[/quote]

    Greg, You have no evidence for your claims of physically impossible. You cannot even define EMR and why it “may” cause some things to increase in temperature. A true troll!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Doug”]Pat what you wrote “EMR only goes in the direction of lower field strength or lower radiance” is not correct. Imagine several spherical bodies in space at different temperatures. Each sends out EM radiation in all directions. Each body does not “know” what other bodies are out there and what their temperatures are. To understand heat transfer by radiation I suggest you read my PSI paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” and also the cited paper by Prof Claes Johnson.[/quote]

    D(umshit) Cotton,
    You are out of your mind. please demonstrate or reference any measurements or reference to measurements of what you claim! EMR flux “is” and must be limited by any opposing field strength at that frequency. Show where Claes Johnson claims anything else?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    5. I have reason to believe my essay was peer reviewed, but that does not guarantee it is correct. Which is why I welcome correcting my mistakes.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    Greg House
    I didn’t claim GHGE was “possible” or not. Since it is just a definition, it cannot be wrong, just meaningless. I just corrected the values Hansen used in his famous meaningless definition.

    No. I am skeptical of global warming because physics at the beginning of my essay says CO2 causes Earth’s global radiating T to decrease according to S-B Law. That means cooling, not warming. That is the main point of my essay. Sorry you missed it. Your logic is in error.

    Doug
    1. S-B Law says the temperature of a body relates to intensity of radiation it emits, not what it absorbs. I agree with S-B.
    2. If the slope of the atmospheric temperature profile is –g/Cp, and displacing lower Cp O2 with higher Cp CO2 increases atmosphere’s Cp, Euclid says the profile rotates counterclockwise. I agree with Euclid.
    3. In second section I stated “161 is transmitted through atmosphere from sun to surface” which is directly from K-T diagram. So we agree. So why be disagreeable?
    4. I did not use 1366/4 = 341.5 for incoming to atmosphere and surface; I adjusted it for albedo in the third section (1 – 0.3)*1366/4 = 239 = 78 absorbed by atmosphere and 161 incident to surface, according to my ref K-T diagram. So your claim is not correct.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Pierre Latour”]I am skeptical of catastrophic global warming[/quote]

    Why I am not surprised…

    Pierre, you are not skeptical of “global warming”, you are just skeptical of it being catastrophic, right?

    I mean, people who do not believe in unicorns at all would not say “I am skeptical of unicorn’s ability to fly”, would they? So, my logical conclusion is that you do believe in global warming. Besides, I can not recall you saying you do not.

    Could you please explain why you believe in “global warming”?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Pierre Latour”]I did not invent that 33C greenhouse gas effect; J Hansen did, Science, 28Aug1981. It has little physical significance for me. I merely used his definitions and determined the value was more like 23C. Answer to GH question addressed to me is no.[/quote]

    Come on, Pierre. Your 23°C is equally physically impossible as Hansen’s 33°C. Even if you further “improve” it and get just 0.0000001°C instead, it still will be physically impossible.

    If you still do not understand, what is wrong with that calculation, I am sorry for you, but you still can go the easy way and reject it as apparently wrong because the result is physically impossible. What about that?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    Bloggers 2/2
    The troposphere temperature profile through the bulk of non-ionized planetary gas phase atmospheres is linear with slope –g/Cp. The equation is T – To = – (h – ho) g/Cp where the centroid is at altitude 0 < ho < h max = 12 km for Earth and To is its bulk average thermal T at ho. This is easily derived from FLOT, KE + PE = TE = constant. Acceleration of gravity, g, depends on mass of planet, and Cp depends on atmosphere composition. ho max increases with amount or thickness of atmosphere and To is close to S-B radiating temperature needed to radiate incoming solar power absorbed back to space, with appropriate emissivity, e. Of course thin ionosphere makes the analysis a bit more complicated, but the main event is not difficult to model and quantify. Since Cp of CO2 > Cp of air, slope rotates counterclockwise with increasing CO2, causing lower atmosphere to warm and upper to cool. To remains unchanged with Cp, but it and whole line drops due to S-B cooling effect. In the limit of no atmosphere, h max = 0 = h and T = To = T surface. g and Cp don’t matter.

    I ignored H2O because everyone agrees it is the dominant radiating gas, we can’t do much about it, and they are more interested in the effect of CO2.

    I gave you my numerical calculations of the S-B Law to show consistency and help you detect any errors. You can check them with an inexpensive multiplication calculator.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    Dear bloggers, 1/2
    Thank you for your interest, reasoning, thoughtful responses, and professional conduct. Thanks Mervyn. I do not understand why I am labeled a “warmist” since I am skeptical of catastrophic global warming and calmly and coolly work to get it right either way, from nature. I see I failed to reconcile some of you. Can’t please everybody. Live and learn. Only a few stooped to name calling, smears and misrepresenting what I wrote. In 2008 I gave one some laws of chemical engineering that upset him; he carries his anger to this day.

    My opening was the main contribution: according to S-B Law, when emissivity of any body increases, emitting with same intensity, I, determined independently by energy balance, its corresponding radiating T decreases. (A black body with emissivity 1.0 emits the same intensity with the lowest possible T. Which is why it is called a perfect radiator.) Since fossil fuel combustion exchanges a few of Earth’s non-IR radiating O2 molecules for an equal number of IR radiating CO2 molecules, atmospheric and global emissivity increases a bit. Therefore, from 10th grade algebra, fossil fuel combustion decreases global radiating T. QED.

    Now if you want to say CO2 causes Earth to radiate more intensely to space and T increases instead, even with higher emissivity, all you need to do is show where the increased energy out came from, with all due respect to the SLOT. Combustion heat release might do a bit of it, but AGW promoters neglect it, because the amount is negligible.

    I adopted the well-known K-T diagram for energy flows through the atmosphere and simply corrected the transfer by back-radiation from cold atmosphere to hot surface at 333 w/m2 to zero, with all due respect to the SLOT. Since K-T says nothing about CO2 or emissivities, I thought I would extend their work. While the emissivities are hard to estimate from compositions, pressure & temperature, the ones I used worked out rather well. Surface radiates average 63 at 14.85C; atmosphere transmits 40 and absorbs 23; atmosphere emits 23 + 176 at -18.35C. Global ensemble surface and atmosphere emits to space average 239 at 4.60C.

    I did not invent that 33C greenhouse gas effect; J Hansen did, Science, 28Aug1981. It has little physical significance for me. I merely used his definitions and determined the value was more like 23C. Answer to GH question addressed to me is no.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Charles Higley

    |

    I have trouble with the evaluation of the atmosphere having a +22 or +33 deg C warming effect. Remember that the global climate models ALL have sunlight 24/7 (no night time) and the planet’s temperature without an atmosphere would be the same as the SUNNY side of the moon, 123 C.

    If the surface temperature without an atmosphere is 123 C and the surface with an atmosphere is 15C, then the atmosphere clearly cools the surface, giving the surface more ways (conduction, evaporation, and convection) to shed heat to altitude. The cooling effect is 108 deg C.

    As Mizkolski has shown, when CO2 increases, water vapor decreases and the overall effect, if there is any is canceled, particularly as water vapor is claimed to be a 20-fold better “greenhouse ga” than CO2.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”John Marshall”]
    The Earth, as a planet rotating on its axis, is a closed system. It may be ”open” at the TOA but that is part of the system boundary. It is the TOA where the energy escapes from.
    I do not want to limit the energy exchanges to radiative only but these are exactly what the alarmists limit themselves to. There are other inputs but these are very minor compared to that from total solar irradiance. I was comparing like for like but my energy figures are more like those that we can actually measure. This is how models should be constructed, around reality not to justify a theory that cannot work like the K&T abortion in AR4/5[/quote]

    I appreciate your frustration with the ClimAstrology nonsense, and they use no measurement of heat flux. This planet even this planet and its atmosphere can never be considered a closed system. A closed system can have “no” energy exchange across system boundries. Earthlings have no idea of all energy exchanges between earth and the rest of the solar system. EMR exchanges may be but a wee part of the internal energy of Earth.
    It does indeed provide “interesting” weather and much entropy to be discarded via EMR to space. Is the surface and atmospheric temperature an indication of anything except entropy to be discarded? Why are these temperatures above 6.8 Kelvin? What work can that sensible heat do in this vicinity?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    John Marshall

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”John Marshall”]I do not see why Dr. Latour works with the internal exchanges of energy, according to K&T, because the 1st law works only with total energy in = total energy out. internal system exchanges have no relavence [/quote]

    Partial quote sorry!
    The first Law only applies to a closed system, never to an open system like “Earth and its atmosphere”. You claim “total” energy,but somehow want to limit that to radiative energy.
    Dr. Latour, correctly shows that increasing CO2 increases atmospheric emissivity,thus increasing radiative exitance at any temperature. There is no way that increasing CO2 can increase temperature or internal energy.
    If you want global warming look elsewhere.[/quote]
    The Earth, as a planet rotating on its axis, is a closed system. It may be ”open” at the TOA but that is part of the system boundary. It is the TOA where the energy escapes from.
    I do not want to limit the energy exchanges to radiative only but these are exactly what the alarmists limit themselves to. There are other inputs but these are very minor compared to that from total solar irradiance. I was comparing like for like but my energy figures are more like those that we can actually measure. This is how models should be constructed, around reality not to justify a theory that cannot work like the K&T abortion in AR4/5

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JeffTemple

    |

    With respect, you have missed the point, just as I have asked Dr Latour on several previous occasions. As part of his arguments in the earlier debate, Dr Latour took quotations from reputed people, using these to support his arguments, but in taking these quotations he changed the sense, by selectively deleting key words. He had this published in a reputable journal, and then refused to offer corrections or an apology. The credibility of someone who cheats in this way, in my opinion, is zero, and removes credence from any future work. Mistakes can be made by all of us, but cheating is surely not acceptable behaviour, and such people deserve the distain they receive. Dr Latour, you know you cannot argue against this specific charge, so please apologise now, although all I expect is more nonsense and deviation, which speaks of your standing.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”JeffTemple”]Dr Pierre Latour has been caught out before manipulating data to support his utterly ridiculous claims. Some may call this cheating. This can be seen on http://ccd4e.org/drpierre_latour_and_jeff_temple/. Read exchange 2 points 12 and 16 for just 2 examples of how he manipulated work by reputed authorities to his own advantage by changing quotations. This was not science, this was abuse, for which he has yet to apologise or offer corrections.

    Dr Latour has no credibility, and is best left unread.[/quote]

    Your accusations are false. From your reference

    “He said that “the system cannot be measured,” referring to a global temperature. Climate scientists do not measure a “global temperature,” but instead use deviations from historic averages, from a massive number of stations. This is an extremely accurate and reliable method of measurement.”

    Dr.Latour is correct An average of temperatures is not a temperature, but nonsense. Deviations of nonsense, are still nonsense. The system cannot be measured! You claim you reliably measured nonsense, never a asystem. Only a scam!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Greg House”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]Greg,
    …Your claim of some maximum temperature is as much BS as
    [/quote]
    Pat, you claim that my claim is BS is BS. 🙂 But enough nice talk.

    That “blackbody temperature of the earth” thing warmists and Pierre are talking about IS maximum temperature the Sun can possibly induce on earth. Sorry to upset you. More exactly, it is supposed to be the maximum temperature.

    The problem is that warmists and Pierre do not see any problem to claim that the real temperature is HIGHER (in absence of a more powerful source than the Sun!).

    But you can join the club as well, if you wish. :cry:[/quote]

    Greg,If the Earth wers a black-body its temperature would be 291 Kelvin. Earth is not a black-body What is the temperature of the body I described? You seem to be in the ClinAstrologists camp with your non-science!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Leonard Weinstein, ScD”]I could refute each point of this nonsense again, but that is a waste of my time (I and several others have done so several times already, and yet you repeat the same junk). Clearly you or any of the supporters of this junk science simply do not get it. I will make two short points here as a sample of why you don’t get it:
    1) Radiating gases also absorb!!![/quote]

    Never while in radiative equilibrium. Kirchhoff’s laws. Show what part of the atmosphere not in such equilibrium?

    [quote]2) Heat transfer can only go from hot to cold, but energy goes both ways (thus back radiation is real)!!![/quote]

    EMR only goes in the direction of lower field strength or lower radiance. It is alway proportional to some difference in potential.
    Demonstrate any flux in an opposing directions.

    [quote] If you persist in bad science as done here, you are giving the supporters of CAGW and even AGW ammunition to call real skeptics like me as being on the same side with such wrong thinking, and detracting from real arguments.[/quote]

    Dr. Weinstein,
    It is you that must “persist in bad science” as practiced by ClimAstrologests.
    It is obvious that you are unaware of Maxwell’s equations, or Kirchhoff’s laws of radiation. These subjects even your Dr. Feynman failed to address in his lectures. As long ths these profound and well known errors/lies persist, there are no other arguements.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    tom0mason

    |

    The part I find poor is that bland phrase –
    energy in = energy out.
    Sorry NO!
    This is a LIVING planet, the various billions of processes that nature does constantly is to stop energy in = energy out or does nobody see the obvious?
    Nature in ALL it’s processes attempt to hold on to as much energy as it can for as long as it can. Certainly with sunlight it trys very hard. In the Lab energy in = energy out OK but out in a planetary view it’s a big fat NO.
    Coal, oil, natural gas, peat what are they but stored sunlight? Sunlight from when? Ocean heat is stored sunlight but from when? Forest are stored sunlight… – get the idea.
    When the vast ocean currents overturn, they can take in or expel huge quantities of energy into/out of the atmosphere that have nothing to do with the current intake of solar energy. So while that process happens energy in ≠ energy out.
    So sunlight energy comes in and is held, retained, stored, delayed for maybe minutes or centuries but some, a variable amount, is NOT coming out.

    The energy balance is far more complicated than global energy flows shown Kiehl-Trenberth IPCC cartoon. For one thing the time element is missing and without it the IPCC calculations with never be correct.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Doug

    |

    [b]Leonard Weinstein [/b]and others.

    You wrote [i]”heat transfer can only go from hot to cold.”[/i]

    Well tell me how the required net energy input gets into the surface of Venus while its temperature is [i]rising[/i] over the course of its 4-month-long day.

    Yes that is true for radiation, but it is not true regarding heat transfer from cooler to warmer regions which is restoring the state of thermodynamic equilibrium – which state has a non-zero temperature gradient in a planet’s troposphere – due to gravity.

    If you think I’m wrong, then there’s a [b]$5,000 reward on offer[/b] if you can correctly refute the physics in my book [i]”Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All”[/i] and produce a study of real temperature data that uses similar methodology to my study in the book but somehow shows water vapour warms as much as the greenhouse conjecture suggests it must do.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Greg,
    …Your claim of some maximum temperature is as much BS as
    [/quote]
    Pat, you claim that my claim is BS is BS. 🙂 But enough nice talk.

    That “blackbody temperature of the earth” thing warmists and Pierre are talking about IS maximum temperature the Sun can possibly induce on earth. Sorry to upset you. More exactly, it is supposed to be the maximum temperature.

    The problem is that warmists and Pierre do not see any problem to claim that the real temperature is HIGHER (in absence of a more powerful source than the Sun!).

    But you can join the club as well, if you wish. 😥

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Mervyn

    |

    Dr Latour has presented a very interesting article that deserves much consideration.

    One thing we all should have learnt by now is to always keep an open mind. It amazes me when people feel they must rubbish articles that challenge their fixed views, or make personal attacks against scientists who are simply trying to provide a realistic explanation of something.

    Readers are reminded of another paper titled “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Framework of Physics” (2009) by Dr Gerhadt Gerlich and Dr Ralf Tscheushner that also challenged the greenhouse effect supposition.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein, ScD

    |

    I could refute each point of this nonsense again, but that is a waste of my time (I and several others have done so several times already, and yet you repeat the same junk). Clearly you or any of the supporters of this junk science simply do not get it. I will make two short points here as a sample of why you don’t get it:
    1) Radiating gases also absorb!!!
    2) Heat transfer can only go from hot to cold, but energy goes both ways (thus back radiation is real)!!!
    If you persist in bad science as done here, you are giving the supporters of CAGW and even AGW ammunition to call real skeptics like me as being on the same side with such wrong thinking, and detracting from real arguments.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Greg House”][quote]Written by Dr Pierre Latour PE: “the so called greenhouse effect is … +22.95C, not +33C.”[/quote]

    Pierre, since I am pretty sure that 99,99% readers will not go through your article, let me ask you this simple question. In your understanding, the temperature of the surface of the earth is by 23°C higher than the Sun can possibly induce, right, just not by 33°C? 😮

    Do I need to tell you that such a thing is physically impossible, exactly like the warmists’ 33°C?

    Never mind, congratulations on officially joining warmists pseudoscience club.[/quote]

    Greg,
    Please state the temperature of the earth and its atmosphere if the emissivity from 0.25-2microns, is 0.6 and at 2-100 microns is 0.3 if you can? Your claim of some maximum temperature is as much BS as the claims of ClimAstrologists who attribute surface temperature via falsified processes.
    Dr. Latour was “only” showing the effect of atmospheric CO2. With more CO2, more emissivity at 14.6 micron, and the surface and atmosphere temperature “must” decrease. Go back to politics, you have no clue on science!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote]Written by Dr Pierre Latour PE: “the so called greenhouse effect is … +22.95C, not +33C.”[/quote]

    Pierre, since I am pretty sure that 99,99% readers will not go through your article, let me ask you this simple question. In your understanding, the temperature of the surface of the earth is by 23°C higher than the Sun can possibly induce, right, just not by 33°C? 😮

    Do I need to tell you that such a thing is physically impossible, exactly like the warmists’ 33°C?

    Never mind, congratulations on officially joining warmists pseudoscience club.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Martin Hodgkins

    |

    I don’t think even you lot get it yet. There is one bunch of nutters telling us that they understand it all with squiggly maths and big computers and we know they are talking shite because none of their predictions has come true. Now we get the second wave of know alls who know equally nothing about our wonderful world’s climate but seek to impress us all with yet more squiggly maths and another bunch of sycophants say yes, yes, yes. In my day climate was understood by paleo millions of years and was NOT silly inadequate atmospheric modelling. Jeees.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”John Marshall”]I do not see why Dr. Latour works with the internal exchanges of energy, according to K&T, because the 1st law works only with total energy in = total energy out. internal system exchanges have no relavence [/quote]

    Partial quote sorry!
    The first Law only applies to a closed system, never to an open system like “Earth and its atmosphere”. You claim “total” energy,but somehow want to limit that to radiative energy.
    Dr. Latour, correctly shows that increasing CO2 increases atmospheric emissivity,thus increasing radiative exitance at any temperature. There is no way that increasing CO2 can increase temperature or internal energy.
    If you want global warming look elsewhere.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    John Marshall

    |

    I do not see why Dr. Latour works with the internal exchanges of energy, according to K&T, because the 1st law works only with total energy in = total energy out. internal system exchanges have no relavence to the overall picture especially since the K&T figures are a fiddle to justify the GHE and wrong anyway because at the temperature generated by the 161W/m2 is below -40C so the atmosphere would have zero water vapour to act as a GHG.

    The total in is 1370W/m2 corrected for albedo and diffusion to a total of 960W/m2 arriving at the surface subsun point. This is averaged over a hemisphere, because the planet rotates to give 12hour periods of darkness/zero input, giving 480W/m2 input versus 240w/m2 radiated from the WHOLE planet surface. This agrees with the 1st law. 2nd law violations WITHIN the system are NOT permitted so no flows of heat from cold to increase a hot temperature, no GHE.

    Reply

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.