tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5523187630006791166.post1294752639566383332..comments2024-03-26T17:03:03.877+00:00Comments on Climate Lessons: First you scare ‘em, then you snare ‘em – how the UEA treats 13 and 14 year oldsJShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08534451304039918947noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5523187630006791166.post-42260935013441996882012-02-12T16:17:24.778+00:002012-02-12T16:17:24.778+00:00The back of an envelope reasonings beloved by alar...The back of an envelope reasonings beloved by alarmists start with comparing the atmosphere to a greenhouse and are therefore immediately misleading. Then they use a planet of uniform surface, of infinite thermal conductivity, of no rotation, of no seasons and of energy exchanges exclusively involving radiation. Their planet is a virtual surface somewhere between the real one and the tropopause, and that they can link it to the real one's temperatures within even 20 to 50C is a marvel. But to use this crudeness to detect, define, and defend a change of a degree or two is silly beyond belief. The prominence of political activists, geographers and computer modellers in the alarmist camp is grounds for helping explain why such crude computations are taken as much more than ballpark guestimates since they need them for their scaremongering. For them, it looks like hard science. That has still to be 'settled' and I welcome your work as evidence of that. It is nearly 40 years since I studied atmospheric physics, and I do try from time to time to get back into it, and clarify my own thinking about the role of radiation in the system.JShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08534451304039918947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5523187630006791166.post-56076377526727135932012-02-12T08:07:39.538+00:002012-02-12T08:07:39.538+00:00Here is a simple proof in 10 easy steps why the Gr...<b>Here is a simple proof in 10 easy steps why the Greenhouse Effect is a physical impossibility.</b><br /><br />(1) The IPCC claim that radiation from a cooler atmosphere slows the rate of cooling of the (warmer) surface, thus leading to a greenhouse effect.<br /><br />(2) The "rate of cooling" is a 24 hour worldwide mean, so wherever the Sun is warming the surface (any sunny morning) the rate of warming would have to be increased by whatever process is slowing the rate of cooling.<br /><br />(3) Thus extra thermal energy must be added to the surface by such radiation in order to increase the warming rate in the morning and slow the mean rate of cooling calculated from both day and night rates.<br /><br />(4) Now the Second Law of Thermodynamics relates to heat transfer which is not the same as energy transfer. Radiated energy can be two-way, but heat transfer between two points is always one way and it is invalid to split such heat transfer into two opposite components and try to apply the Second Law to each. Physics doesn't work that way.<br /><br />(5) Hence, the surface <i>cannot</i> warm faster in the mornings due to such an imaginary heat transfer, because that would be clearly breaking the Second Law no matter what. Nor can it slow the rate of cooling because of (4). And in general you would expect the same process to happen whether the surface is warming or cooling.<br /><br />(6) So, those photons from the cooler atmosphere are not being converted to thermal energy in the warmer surface, as Prof Claes Johnson proved in <i>Computational Blackbody Radiation</i>.<br /><br />(7) Hence the effect of the photons being either reflected or scattered is that there is no impact on the surface at all.<br /><br />(8) It is also clear that there is no significant transfer by diffusion or conduction from the atmosphere to the surface because the surface absorbs more solar insolation than the lower atmosphere, and we observe that the atmosphere is generally cooler and even cools faster at night than the surface.<br /><br />(9) So it really does not matter even if extra thermal energy is trapped higher up in the atmosphere because it does not affect what we call climate, and any such energy cannot make its way back to the surface, except possibly an insignificant additional amount in precipitation.<br /><br />(10) Hence there is no valid physical way in which backradiation or absorption by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause a significant atmospheric greenhouse effect.<br /><br />If I haven't convinced you, read this paper <i>Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics</i> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf<br /><br />Doug Cotton<br />http://climate-change-theory.comDoug Cottonhttp://climate-change-theory.comnoreply@blogger.com