Re: OT: Pinch me ! Scientists prove there is no greenhouse effect. IPCC commits hari kiri (I wish)
- From: don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Don Klipstein)
- Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 06:27:32 +0000 (UTC)
In article <46B9817E.E073316F@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Eeyore wrote:
Found elsewhere....
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the
traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and
which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a
fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump
driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but
radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the
second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.
Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a
widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such
mechanism is real and stands on a rm scienti c foundation.
An actually active heat pump that depends on "free energy" can't exist.
A "greenhouse" is merely something that adds impedance to radiative
cooling of a planet surface to outer space. This is typically layer of a
material that is largely transparent to incoming radiation but largely
opaque to outgoing radiation due to different wavelengths involved each
way and the "greenhouse material" being largely transparent to the
incoming radiation and largely opaque to the outgoing radiation.
In the extreme case of a "greenhouse material layer" being 100%
transparent to incoming radiation and 100% opaque to outgoing radiation
(both absorbing and reradiating), the planet surface is warmer with the
greenhouse layer than without by a factor of 4th root of 2. Planet
surface radiates twice as much with the greenhouse layer as without.
Greenhouse layer also radiates double what a non-greenhoused planet
surface does - half to outer space, half to the planet surface.
Multiple greenhouse layers can caompound this more, with limitation
being caused by wide radiation spectrum bandwidths and smaller
temperature differences between radiation steps causing greenhouse
layers to be have incoming-radiation-transparency and
outgoing-radiation-transparency to become more equal to each other.
The "2nd law" only requires *net flow* of thermal radiation to be from
warmer to cooler. Planet surface must be cooler than the sun no matter
what if only source of planet surface heating is the sun. Greenhouse
material layers with thermodynamic interactions involving only thermal
radiation to/from sun and planet surface must be cooler than the planet
surface.
In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying<temperature of a planet,
physical principles are clari ed. By showing that
(a) there are no common
physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the
ctitious atmospheric greenhouse e ects,
(b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface
(c) the frequently mentioned di erence of 33 C is a meaningless number
calculated wrongly,
(d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately,
(e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical,
(f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to
zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsifed.
Discuss.
A) sounds to me at this moment like something that contradicts itself
without doing more work to explain how it can be true or how it is false.
B) through D) only argue about degree of warming of a planet surface by
a greenhouse layer rather than argue that a greenhouse layer (such as
CO2 or water vapor in the atmosphere or a glass roof) cannot warm the
planet surface.
E) radiation balance is a physical requirement of thermal equilibrium
(where all objects have heat income rate and heat outgo rate being equal)
when all heat transfer is by radiation.
On our planet, convection does some heat transfer (both ways, but more
outward) from surface to lower levels of the atmosphere and (more equally)
between nearby layers of the atmosphere - and far from everywhere at any
time and constantly hardly anywhere at most. Some layers of the Earth's
atmosphere largely lack convection - notably most of the stratosphere.
This means atmospheric absorption of radiation and re-radiating of
absorbed radiation is a *Big Thing*.
F) thermal conductivity merely mitigates rather than negates "greenhouse
effect" by water vapor, CO2, or a glass hemispherical "bubble". Friction
involving the atmosphere merely shifts a bit of heating by the atmosphere
to where wind sheer is greatest or where wind encounters friction with the
surface - normally lower on the list of effects of the atmosphere on heat
transfer and on heat flow from hotter objects/areas to cooler
objects/areas. A tiny bit of frictional heating somewhere could sometimes
be caused by a wind caused by a cooling mechnism, as in a bus stop shelter
in Chicago could be warmed by wind friction to a fraction of a degree
warmer than the air upstram, to either side, or above even with no warm
bodies in place to add heat. I still see that phenomenon requiring energy
(detracting from kinetic energy of the wind), and only occurring to an
extent that does not invalide *net* flow of heat from hotter objects to
colder ones.
- Don Klipstein (don@xxxxxxxxx)
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Building an AVR (or PIC) based Digital Video Recorder (DVR)
- Next by Date: Re: OT: Pinch me ! Scientists prove there is no greenhouse effect. IPCC commits hari kiri (I wish)
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: Pinch me ! Scientists prove there is no greenhouse effect. IPCC commits hari kiri (I wish)
- Next by thread: seminar
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
