Once Again, Skeptics do the Math that Warmists Won't Do....

[SSDD]

This time it is Dr Pierre R Latour phD chemical engineering (let the character assassination begin). Rather than simply assuming that because CO2 is called a greenhouse gas that it must cause warming, like a true scientist he goes back to the basics to actually see whether CO2 causes warming.

Contrary to warmist dogma, adding a radiative gas to an atmosphere does not reduce it's ability to radiatively cool itself. Dr Latour mathematically replaces non radiative O2 in the atmosphere for CO2 and finds that the emissivity of the planet increases....

I = σ e (T/100)4

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

I = intensity of any radiating body, w/m2, of its spherical surface, measured by Earth satellite spectrophotometers to be about 239.

T = temperature of radiating body, K

σ = Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law constant, 5.67

e = emissivity of radiating body, fraction 0 < e < 1. Perfect radiator black body e = 1, radiates a given intensity at lowest possible temperature. Colorful Earth radiator e = 0.612 emits given intensity at temperature higher than black body.

I = (1 – albedo)S/4, conservation of energy, in = out, neglecting photosynthesis, volcanoes.

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.

Substituting: I = (1 – alb) S/4 = σ e (T/100)4

Dividing by σ e: (T/100)4 = (1 – alb) S/4 σ e = I/σ e

If S increases, T increases. If alb or e increase, T decreases.

If Earth were a perfect black body emitter,

(1 – 0.3) 1366/4*5.67*1.000 = 42.16 = 2.5484 or T = 254.8K = -18.33C

Actually GHGT promoters say it is a colorful 0.612 emitter,

(1 – 0.3) 1366/4*5.67*0.612 = 68.890 = 2.8814 or T = 288.1K = 14.95C

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

J Hanson, Al Gore and EPA mistakenly declared this 33C to be the greenhouse gas effect.

Double radiating atmospheric CO2 concentration and emissivity to space increases a small amount, say 0.001 to 0.613.

(1 – 0.3) 1366/4*5.67*0.613 = 68.777 = 2.8804 or T = 288.0K = 14.83C.

So global sensitivity is 14.83 – 14.95 = -0.12C, global cooling. Controversy resolved by elementary algebra; no need for $1 billion/day research to prove the impossible, global warming. If you disagree with Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law of physics, used successfully since 1884, take it up with them, not me.

Latest estimate of emissivities fits observation of radiation intensity to space from globe and surface.

Three S-B equations, plus energy conservation equation, Is + Ia = Ig, plus emissivity combo assumption eg = (es*Is + ea*Ia)/(Is + Ia) is five equations with 9 unknowns. Specify four unknowns from measurement; Ts, Ta, Ig, Is, and solve for remaining five unknowns: Ia, es, ea, eg, Tg.

To estimate CS, must estimate the effect of doubling [CO2] on ea and Is. Then resolve for Ia, eg, Ts, Ta, Tg.

For example, assume [CO2} from 400 to 800 ppm, ea from 0.82811 to 0.82911 and Is from 40 to 39.9. Result is:

CO2 400 ppm Intensity Emissivity S-B Temperature

Surface 40 0.10233 15.000

Atmosphere 199 0.82811 -18.000

Globe 239 0.70664 4.760

CO2 800 ppm

Surface 39.9 0.10233 14.820

Atmosphere 199.1 0.82911 -18.045

Globe 239 0.70778 4.648

Change

Surface -0.1 -0- -0.180

Atmosphere 0.1 0.001 -0.045

Globe -0- 0.0012 -0.112

CO2 increases emissivities, 0.828 and 0.707, slightly. Surface intensity, 40, drops as atmosphere absorptivity increases and atmosphere intensity, 199, increases by that amount. Total intensity, 239, is fixed by energy balance. So radiating temperature of surface 15.0C drops, global 4.6C drops and atmosphere -18.0C drops. My assumptions give CS = -0.112C.

The difficult part to quantify this is to estimate the effect of CO2 on atmospheric emissivity and absorptivity. In any case the effect is cooling, CS < 0. This is one of the ways radiating gases like CO2 affects global cooling. Global warming by CO2 induced radiant energy transfer does not exist, even if you call it a greenhouse gas.

Since heat capacity, Cp, of CO2 is greater than the heat capacity of the O2 it displaced by the oxidation reaction, increasing CO2 increases heat capacity of the atmosphere. This rotates the temperature vs altitude profile counterclockwise about its centroid, at about 5 km and -18C, since its slope for any planet is –g/Cp, easily derived from conservation of energy, SLoT, as kinetic energy is converted to potential energy with altitude, cooling. While bulk average global atmospheric temperature is unaffected, lower altitude air warms and upper altitude cools. Surface would warm accordingly.

There are several mechanisms for CO2 to affect temperatures; I have identified two warming and four cooling. My best guess net is -0.5C < CS < 0.3C. No wonder data regression can’t find it.

I have always contended that the climate sensitivity to CO2 was zero...seems that the math says that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is less than zero. When you warmist cultists get through with the character assassination, perhaps you might point out any errors that he has made.

 

[Crick]

The movement begins to feed on its own. Roy Spencer, an actual scientist, decided to criticize Principia Scientific International, one of the most crap-ridden denier blogsites in existence, in the process of explaining the greenhouse effect to idiots like SSDD who would very much like to believe it isn't real. Dr LaTour, a vice president at PSI, attempts to rebut Dr Spencer.

Since its inception, the primary raison d'etre of PSI has been to claim that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas but that it actually cools the planet. They also claim that childhood vaccines are “one of the largest most evil lies in history.”

I'm going to grab a ringside seat and watch the fun. SSDD, doesn't it ever bother you to have to rely on obvious fringe whack jobs for supporting material?

Oh... I guess it wouldn't look that way to you, would it.

 

[SSDD]

Predictably, the character assassination has begun by the true deniers....now how about you show where the math error is. Failing to show any error in the work is failing to rebut it and as a result, it stands. We both know that Spencer won't go to the math...he gets his ass kicked every time he does....neither will any warmist cultist because the real science shows that AGW is a fraud...if you aren't allowed to operate on assumptions, tampered data, and outright lies, you can't operate at all...

So where is the error in the calculations above?

 

[Crick]

Where is the error in Roy Spencer's work? He was first.

Why don't you summarize Spencer and then show us how LaTour has falsified him.

 

[SSDD]

Where is the error in Roy Spencer's work? He was first.

Why don't you summarize Spencer and then show us how LaTour has falsified him.

The error spencer made is that he assumes that CO2 will cause warming when it will not. The climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less.

 

[IanC]

Cotten is backed into a corner at Jeff ID's blog over this stuff. These guys simply refuse to answer basic questions on physics and just return over and over again to their talking points. I think they learned the method from climate science apologists.

 

[SSDD]

Latour's work is indecipherable gibberish. Let us know when he can put it into a form that isn't indecipherable gibberish. Nobody is going to waste time with such babble.

He's also a crank who thinks photons intelligently choose not to radiate towards colder objects. That's all you really need to know.

Here's a thought, SSDD. Go step by step through it, and summarize what's going on. Show that _you_ supposedly understand it. After all, if you can't be bothered to go through it and explain what he's doing, you can't expect anyone else to be bothered.

And do the work for you so that you can start to understand what is happening? I am laughing in your duplicitous face...if there is an error in the work, then point it out.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Latour's work is indecipherable gibberish. Let us know when he can put it into a form that isn't indecipherable gibberish. Nobody is going to waste time with such babble.

He's also a crank who thinks photons intelligently choose not to radiate towards colder objects. That's all you really need to know.

Here's a thought, SSDD. Go step by step through it, and summarize what's going on. Show that _you_ supposedly understand it. After all, if you can't be bothered to go through it and explain what he's doing, you can't expect anyone else to be bothered.

And do the work for you so that you can start to understand what is happening? I am laughing in your duplicitous face...if there is an error in the work, then point it out.

They wont because they cant.. The current empirical evidence shows us that a 0.0 to 0.4 deg C per doubling of CO2 MIGHT be possible but at current it sits at 0.0 with current cooling trend.

 

[Crick]

The error spencer made is that he assumes that CO2 will cause warming when it will not. The climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less.

So you believe all the thousands of experiments showing that CO2 absorbs infrared are incorrect? You believe that this absorption spectra is incorrect:

Yes? Do you think all the different people who've produced these data are all conspiring to lie to us?

Gee, that's a reasonable position.

 

[SSDD]

Of course CO2 absorbs infrared....but for you, that is where science stops....CO2 also emits that infrared...it doesn't warm up...and it emits at a wavelength that can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule....it has no power to cause warming...it is magical thinking to believe that CO2 causes any warming at all beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere... Simple absorption and emission do not equal warming although the entire hoax is based on an assumption that it does...an assumption with zero empirical evidence for support.

 

[mamooth]

The direct measurements of backradiation show that your crank theory is laughable.

 

[SSDD]

The direct measurements of backradiation show that your crank theory is laughable.

There are no direct measurements of back radiation at ambient temperature because it doesn't happen....every instrument used to measure "back radiation" is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...

 

[TheOldSchool]

Republican science class:

 

[SSDD]

Republican science class:

The greenhouse effect and resulting AGW hypothesis as stated by climate science is magical thinking..atmosphere warming the ocean...atmosphere warming the land...hell, to believe climate science, you must believe that the surface of the earth absorbs twice as much energy from the atmosphere as it does from the sun....do you believe that to be the case?

 

[mamooth]

Given direct measurements show that, of course any sensible person believes it. Only denier kooks deny directly observed data.

 

[jc456]

Given direct measurements show that, of course any sensible person believes it. Only denier kooks deny directly observed data.

so Manmoth, got that experiment to prove your point? You remember the one right? Or do you need me to repeat again? I'll leave it up to you. WiNNiNg

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Warmers can end the debate by posting the experiment that controls for 400PPM of CO2

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Given direct measurements show that, of course any sensible person believes it. Only denier kooks deny directly observed data.

...when you add in all the warming eaten by the deep ocean

 

[SSDD]

Given direct measurements show that, of course any sensible person believes it. Only denier kooks deny directly observed data.

Again..there are no, and never have been any direct measurements of back radiation at ambient temperature any more than there have been photos of unicorns and dragons...none of them exist.

 

[jc456]

Republican science class:

disprove this: