In Support of the A in AGW

[jc456]

Hans Jelbring: The Greenhouse Effect as a function of atmospheric Mass

"PREFACE by Hans Jelbring 2-1- 2012
My 2003 E&E article (peer reviewed) was strictly applying 1st principle physics relating to a model atmosphere. Very strong conclusions can be made about such a model atmosphere and less strong ones about our real atmosphere. This was not discussed for reaching a maximum of simplicity and clarity approaching an educated but laymen audience. However, an investigating professional climate scientists should just reach one of three results; a) my logic is wrong, b) the major part of the Greenhouse Effect is always at hand in any (dense) atmosphere and c) any of the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics or the ideal gas law is invalid. It turned out that there was a fourth option: My article could be ignored by the establishment which it has been during 8 years. This seems to be a significant result relating to the moral of leading climate scientists in western countries. If my conclusions are correct it would have had far reaching impact on climate science and climate politics in 2003. It might still have for a number of reasons.

THE “GREENHOUSE EFFECT”
AS A FUNCTION OF ATMOSPHERIC MASS
Hans Jelbring 2003

ABSTRACT
The main reason for claiming a scientific basis for “Anthropogenic Greenhouse
Warming (AGW )” is related to the use of “radiative energy flux models” as a
major tool for describing vertical energy fluxes within the atmosphere. Such
models prescribe that the temperature difference between a planetary surface and
the planetary average black body radiation temperature (commonly called the
Greenhouse Effect, GE) is caused almost exclusively by the so called greenhouse
gases. Here, using a different approach, it is shown that GE can be explained as
mainly being a consequence of known physical laws describing the behaviour of
ideal gases in a gravity field. A simplified model of Earth, along with a formal
proof concerning the model atmosphere and evidence from real planetary
atmospheres will help in reaching conclusions. The distinguishing premise is that
the bulk part of a planetary GE depends on its atmospheric surface mass density.
Thus the GE can be exactly calculated for an ideal planetary model atmosphere. In
a real atmosphere some important restrictions have to be met if the gravity induced
GE is to be well developed. It will always be partially developed on atmosphere
bearing planets. A noteworthy implication is that the calculated values of AGW,
accepted by many contemporary climate scientists, are thus irrelevant and
probably quite insignificant (not detectable) in relation to natural processes
causing climate change."

 

[IanC]

Hans Jelbring: The Greenhouse Effect as a function of atmospheric Mass

"PREFACE by Hans Jelbring 2-1- 2012
My 2003 E&E article (peer reviewed) was strictly applying 1st principle physics relating to a model atmosphere. Very strong conclusions can be made about such a model atmosphere and less strong ones about our real atmosphere. This was not discussed for reaching a maximum of simplicity and clarity approaching an educated but laymen audience. However, an investigating professional climate scientists should just reach one of three results; a) my logic is wrong, b) the major part of the Greenhouse Effect is always at hand in any (dense) atmosphere and c) any of the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics or the ideal gas law is invalid. It turned out that there was a fourth option: My article could be ignored by the establishment which it has been during 8 years. This seems to be a significant result relating to the moral of leading climate scientists in western countries. If my conclusions are correct it would have had far reaching impact on climate science and climate politics in 2003. It might still have for a number of reasons.

THE “GREENHOUSE EFFECT”
AS A FUNCTION OF ATMOSPHERIC MASS
Hans Jelbring 2003

ABSTRACT
The main reason for claiming a scientific basis for “Anthropogenic Greenhouse
Warming (AGW )” is related to the use of “radiative energy flux models” as a
major tool for describing vertical energy fluxes within the atmosphere. Such
models prescribe that the temperature difference between a planetary surface and
the planetary average black body radiation temperature (commonly called the
Greenhouse Effect, GE) is caused almost exclusively by the so called greenhouse
gases. Here, using a different approach, it is shown that GE can be explained as
mainly being a consequence of known physical laws describing the behaviour of
ideal gases in a gravity field. A simplified model of Earth, along with a formal
proof concerning the model atmosphere and evidence from real planetary
atmospheres will help in reaching conclusions. The distinguishing premise is that
the bulk part of a planetary GE depends on its atmospheric surface mass density.
Thus the GE can be exactly calculated for an ideal planetary model atmosphere. In
a real atmosphere some important restrictions have to be met if the gravity induced
GE is to be well developed. It will always be partially developed on atmosphere
bearing planets. A noteworthy implication is that the calculated values of AGW,
accepted by many contemporary climate scientists, are thus irrelevant and
probably quite insignificant (not detectable) in relation to natural processes
causing climate change."

I think it is funny that jc is the one championing this cause after all the times I have encouraged SSDD to do the same.

Energy storage via potential energy in a gravity field is an important facet of our climate system. It is the framework that all other factors act on. But gravity and atmospheric mass are already in equilibrium. It is other smaller factors that make the finishing touches.

 

[IanC]

The next leg of AGW is measurements of radiation absorption and emission by different materials, whether as single substances or as compounds.

There have been thousands of experiments, thousands of results, logged in thousands of texts and reports, that quantify the findings.

Does anyone really dispute this information?

 

[IanC]

Report of a new study stating the obvious over at WUWT. Spring comes sooner in areas affected by UHIE. Well, duh! Who hasn't noticed that before?

 

[Olde Europe]

We might start with some observed, measured, quantified data supporting the claim that a 100ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 causes X change....we might start by some actual repeatable laboratory experimentation...we might start with something other than an unsupported assumption.

For laughing out loud. The Greenhouse Effect is recognized for 150 years, and experiments on the heat-trapping properties of CO2 have been conducted for more than half a century. Here's a nice run-down of that history.

The short answer is, the earth radiates about 0.6 to 1 W/m² less energy than it takes in (yes, that's actual measurements from satellites measuring the planet's radiation), and this reduction in irradiance is concentrated around spectra / wavelengths that match the resorption patterns of the major greenhouse gasses. This excess energy represents, in the form of heat, the earth's heating trend, mostly warming up the oceans storing north of 90% of the excess heat.

"It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow."

Bingo.

I wonder does the greenhouse hypothesis not even come close to predicting the temperature of any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere.

Part of the SS as brought forward by SSDD. How about a link, and, if I may ask, to a reputable source, not to some obscure page on some obscure right-wing blog out of the denialist blabbosphere, please.

The rest of your questions have been answered on this thread, and I am not going to reiterate any of that just to discover that we've been throwing information at a brick wall, and that - after weeks - nothing sticks.

 

[Olde Europe]

I think it is funny that jc is the one championing this cause after all the times I have encouraged SSDD to do the same.

What does this...

My article could be ignored by the establishment which it has been during 8 years. [...]​

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author thanks Inventex Aqua ab, Ekero, Sweden for the financial support without which this paper would not have been produced and two brave anonymous peer reviewers making the publication a fact.​

... tell you?

Oh, and did you understand the climate model he cooked up in his paper? The one with no energy influx, and no energy out-flux, no clouds, no water vapor, no changes in albedo etc. etc. etc.? Did that make any sense to you?

 

[IanC]

The satellite measurements of incoming and outgoing radiation are done by different instruments, and over differing time ranges. The information is then pieced together with a difference of 0.65w as a best guess calibration.

You can observe the increases and decreases with respect to time but to claim that they can accurately measure the difference between the two down to a fraction of a watt is absurd.

 

[IanC]

I think it is funny that jc is the one championing this cause after all the times I have encouraged SSDD to do the same.

What does this...

My article could be ignored by the establishment which it has been during 8 years. [...]​

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author thanks Inventex Aqua ab, Ekero, Sweden for the financial support without which this paper would not have been produced and two brave anonymous peer reviewers making the publication a fact.​

... tell you?

Oh, and did you understand the climate model he cooked up in his paper? The one with no energy influx, and no energy out-flux, no clouds, no water vapor, no changes in albedo etc. etc. etc.? Did that make any sense to you?

Please, go ahead and explain it to us in your own words. We are all looking forward to it.

There have been several debunking of the Greenhouse Effect. They typically depend on line fitting and circular reasoning that simply outputs what they input as an assumption.

But I will certainly discuss it with you if you hold up your end by showing you have even a basic understanding of the claim.

 

[IanC]

I think it is funny that jc is the one championing this cause after all the times I have encouraged SSDD to do the same.

What does this...

My article could be ignored by the establishment which it has been during 8 years. [...]​

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author thanks Inventex Aqua ab, Ekero, Sweden for the financial support without which this paper would not have been produced and two brave anonymous peer reviewers making the publication a fact.​

... tell you?

Oh, and did you understand the climate model he cooked up in his paper? The one with no energy influx, and no energy out-flux, no clouds, no water vapor, no changes in albedo etc. etc. etc.? Did that make any sense to you?

Perhaps I misunderstood your comment.

Are you attacking the peer review system? It is meant to catch flagrant mistakes in data and methodology not to argue the merits of the underlying idea.

Peer review in climate science has been quite poor over the last few decades, at least when it applies to welcome papers from the right side of the consensus.

 

[Olde Europe]

But I will certainly discuss it with you if you hold up your end by showing you have even a basic understanding of the claim.

I really have no interest in discussing this crackpot nonsense. Greenhouse effect as a function of gravity / density, with no influence from the composition of the atmosphere, based on a "model" that is quite like the atmosphere on earth, except for pretty much every characteristic attributed to that "model" atmosphere? I guess, that "peer reviewed" paper is being consistently ignored by the "establishment" for a reason, and a damned good one.

I think I have seen you reference the like before, and found it to be off-the-wall crank science. The paper made absolutely no sense to me, and I just wanted to ask whether you actually put credence in that. Seemingly you do, and so... knock yourself out.

 

[Wuwei]

But I will certainly discuss it with you if you hold up your end by showing you have even a basic understanding of the claim.

I really have no interest in discussing this crackpot nonsense. Greenhouse effect as a function of gravity / density, with no influence from the composition of the atmosphere, based on a "model" that is quite like the atmosphere on earth, except for pretty much every characteristic attributed to that "model" atmosphere? I guess, that "peer reviewed" paper is being consistently ignored by the "establishment" for a reason, and a damned good one.

I think I have seen you reference the like before, and found it to be off-the-wall crank science. The paper made absolutely no sense to me, and I just wanted to ask whether you actually put credence in that. Seemingly you do, and so... knock yourself out.

If I may interject, I already analyzed this in a different thread since it is such a popular "alternate" model. The theory by Hans Jelbring 2003 is very similar to the theory of Nikolov and Zeller. They both rely on adiabatic heating. The following is a copy and paste of what I wrote the thread, "In support of the A in AGW."
-------------------------------

Adiabatic heating occurs as a reversible process when work is done. According to the authors the work is the gravitational force. In experiments the adiabatic process must take place before any heat can dissipate otherwise it is not reversible. If it's done quickly there is not enough time for any energy to transfer as heat to or from the system.

Here is an example: your hand pump gets hot when pumping up a tire due to adiabatic compression. If you wait, heat will dissipate and the pump will cool down. At that point the process is no longer adiabatic.

In order for the atmosphere to be in an adiabatic condition. All the air must start out, say, a few hundred miles above the earth. When the air falls to the earth it will be compressed most at the lowest levels and be the hottest. At higher levels the pressure will be less and the atmosphere will be cooler according to the ideal gas law. That is the temperature profile the authors are referring to, and as they claim, is perhaps similar to the profile of planets.

However, what the authors fail to include is the fact that without external energy, the atmosphere will eventually even out to a uniform temperature after the initial adiabatic heat is dissipated. Our atmosphere does not do that. The reason of course is that there is thermal energy continually being pumped into the system from the sun; the earth warms; and radiates LWIR, etc.​

-----------------------
I will be very disappointed if I don't get a "funny" rating from JC.

 

[Olde Europe]

If I may interject, I already analyzed this in a different thread since it is such a popular "alternate" model. The theory by Hans Jelbring 2003 is very similar to the theory of Nikolov and Zeller. They both rely on adiabatic heating. The following is a copy and paste of what I wrote the thread, "In support of the A in AW."

I recall having read your text, and, as far as I can tell, we agree. The crackpot (Jelbring) has joined the leading European propaganda institute to spread denialist lies, the Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie (European Institute for Climate and Energy), a propaganda outfit associated with CFACT, and the Heartland Institute. He could hardly have chosen nicer - and more revealing - company if he had chosen to snuggle up on one of the Koch's laps. I consider that, speaking in terms of scientific stature, to be tantamount to suicide.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[SSDD]

I think it is funny that jc is the one championing this cause after all the times I have encouraged SSDD to do the same.

Ian, Jelbring is arguing that atmospheric mass is the reason for the so called greenhouse effect.....which one of us rejects a radiative based greenhouse effect in favor of one based on atmospheric mass? Here...from his conclusions...

The main conclusion, derived from the model atmosphere of this paper, is the fact that there has to exist a substantial greenhouse effect (GE ) which is mass dependent and which will develop independently of the amount of greenhouse gases in any real planetary atmosphere. The generally claimed importance of “greenhouse” gases rests on an unproven hypothesis (ref 1). The hypothesis is based on radiative models of energy fluxes in our
atmosphere. These are inadequate, since radiative processes within the atmosphere are poorly described, convective energy fluxes are often inadequately described or omitted, and latent heat fluxes are poorly treated. The whole GE in these models is wrongly claimed being caused by “greenhouse gases”. The considerations in this paper indicate that effects of the greenhouse gases, other radiative effects, and convection effects all might modulate GE to a minor unknown extent.

Contrary to your claims, it is me who has been encouraging you to give up your radiative greenhouse effect fantasy in favor of a hypothesis that is actually supported, and predicted by the laws of physics.

Energy storage via potential energy in a gravity field is an important facet of our climate system. It is the framework that all other factors act on. But gravity and atmospheric mass are already in equilibrium. It is other smaller factors that make the finishing touches.

If the atmosphere were a static column of air, the temperature would reach equilibrium...they are not, however static and as such, the process never stops...there is no radiative greenhouse effect...the atmospheric sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less.

 

[SSDD]

The next leg of AGW is measurements of radiation absorption and emission by different materials, whether as single substances or as compounds.

There have been thousands of experiments, thousands of results, logged in thousands of texts and reports, that quantify the findings.

Does anyone really dispute this information?

Absorption and emission do not equal warming

 

[SSDD]

For laughing out loud. The Greenhouse Effect is recognized for 150 years, and experiments on the heat-trapping properties of CO2 have been conducted for more than half a century. Here's a nice run-down of that history.

Guess you are unaware that professor Wood questioned that greenhouse hypothesis and proved it wrong within a year of its presentation...and it remained buried in the dust bin of history till the AGW scam began where it was brought out, dusted off and pushed on people with no critical thinking skills where it remains doing its intellectual damage today.

It has, as you said, been 150 years....so quantify it for me if it is such well established, settled science.

Bingo.

You forgot the next sentence where it said that energy would not move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...and is heat a form of energy or is heat the "fingerprint" of energy moving from one place to another?

Part of the SS as brought forward by SSDD. How about a link, and, if I may ask, to a reputable source, not to some obscure page on some obscure right-wing blog out of the denialist blabbosphere, please.

No need...you wouldn't question your faith if God himself told you that the greenhouse hypothesis was bullshit.

The rest of your questions have been answered on this thread, and I am not going to reiterate any of that just to discover that we've been throwing information at a brick wall, and that - after weeks - nothing sticks.

Actually, they haven't...but it is interesting that you believe what has been posted is an answer...

 

[SSDD]

spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area would constitute a perfect refrigerator....it is telling you, if you had half a brain that energy doesn't move spontaneously from hot to cold.

It is amazing that you don't recognize the self contradiction of that statement. It says spontaneous flow of heat... and then you immediately say it tells you something about energy. What you don't understand is that heat is a form of energy, but energy is not always heat. You are conflating the two.

Whoooo hoodoo..caught me in a typo...got a special victory dance for when you catch typos and spelling errors?...and maybe a special little routine when you catch a punctuation error?....catching the bastards using a comma when they should use a semicolon?

And is heat a form of energy or is heat the "fingerprint" of energy moving from one place to another?

I'm certainly aware of what the second law means. Radiation exchange between two objects does not ever violate the second law which involves spontaneous heat exchange.

Except that isn't what it says..it is nothing more than your interpretation...

 

[SSDD]

Now you are really showing your lack of understanding - to think that refrigeration with pumps and freon has anything to do with radiation between objects. Yes they both follow the second law, but with an entirely different process.

You really are behind the curve aren't you?....those pumps are providing the work necessary to make energy move from cold to warm...without them, energy can't move in that direction...are you really this ignorant or are you just being obtuse?

You are so confused about radiation and refrigeration that you again try to divert your lack of understanding to AGW. I am not talking about AGW here. I'm talking about basic radiation physics. You are misrepresenting that, and that is pure intellectual fraudulence.

It is the flawed radiation physics that climate science is working with that are the reason that the models are failing so miserably....the atmospheric sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less...refrigerators, CO2...rocks rolling down hill..they are all slaves to the second law and energy simply won't move spontaneously from cold to warm.

 

[SSDD]

But I will certainly discuss it with you if you hold up your end by showing you have even a basic understanding of the claim.

I really have no interest in discussing this crackpot nonsense. Greenhouse effect as a function of gravity / density, with no influence from the composition of the atmosphere, based on a "model" that is quite like the atmosphere on earth, except for pretty much every characteristic attributed to that "model" atmosphere? I guess, that "peer reviewed" paper is being consistently ignored by the "establishment" for a reason, and a damned good one.

Funny thing is that that crackpot theory accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even predict the temperature here without a fudge factor...

I think I have seen you reference the like before, and found it to be off-the-wall crank science. The paper made absolutely no sense to me, and I just wanted to ask whether you actually put credence in that. Seemingly you do, and so... knock yourself out.

Of course it doesn't..but magic CO2 multipliers make perfect sense...Got it.

 

[SSDD]

-------------------------------

Adiabatic heating occurs as a reversible process when work is done. According to the authors the work is the gravitational force. In experiments the adiabatic process must take place before any heat can dissipate otherwise it is not reversible. If it's done quickly there is not enough time for any energy to transfer as heat to or from the system.​

Failure right out of the gate....all thermodynamic processes in nature are irreversible...

SECOND LAW

Any process either increases the entropy of the universe - or leaves it unchanged. Entropy is constant only in reversible processes which occur in equilibrium. All natural processes are irreversible.

http://web.pdx.edu/~bseipel/The Laws of Thermodynamic2.pdf

Heat can never pass spontaneously from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible.