Fallen snow

a glacier, showing the firn it's made from

Here’s a thread to discuss the migration of gases (or not!) through firn, or old snow, and the ramifications for past levels of atmospheric gases. When I discover how to move comments between threads, I’ll add the relevant comments from other threads.

37
Leave a Reply

avatar
20 Comment threads
17 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
2 Comment authors
Richard C (NZ)Pete Ridley Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Richard T, thanks for this although in my opinion the issue is centred on the ice lattice and not so much on firn or old snow i.e.next strata down (see my reply to Pete Ridley on this). Others may disagree of course.

I have emailed Tomoko Ikeda-Fukasawa, Associate Professor, Department of Industrial Chemistry, Meiji University, asking for an update on her work in this area since 2005 where she demonstrates by simulation that CO2 molecules diffuse a short distance (fraction of a nm) through the ice lattice.

She also found that CO2 molecules (and other gases) create their own pathway through the ice lattice by breaking the hydrogen bonds.

http://www.nanonet.go.jp/english/mailmag/2005/054b.html

This has huge implications for sampling and measurement of CO2 in ice cores if a proportion of CO2 molecules that were previously encapsulated in an air pocket that has been sampled have not been accounted for due to the diffusion.

Mike Palin is obviously not up to speed on this 5 year old research either.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Pete, in reply to your last March 21, 2011 at 11:26 am comment in the “It’s not warming thread”. As you can see I have also emailed Tomoko Ikeda-Fukasawa although I suspect that after a 5 year time lapse she may have moved on to other fields or a different position and that her email address may not be valid now but I’ll give it some time. There are obviously more pressing issues in Tokyo right now too. “I’m talking about the situation that arises in the firn at a time before “close-off” when the pores (that exist in the snow from the beginning) have been compressed until they are too small for the larger molecules” OK, I see that now although I’m not yet convinced that the cavities and pressure in the firn are sufficient to produce fractionation and migration at a sub-nanometer level i.e. you will have to expand or provide some reference material for your response:- Would not the nanometer diameter apertures only occur in ice .. ”, I think not. Huber et al 2006 deals with fractionation at the close-off level which is the firn/ice transition – not above.… Read more »

Pete Ridley
Guest

Hi Richard C(umming?), thanks again for spending the time to put together such a well-considered response. I can’t understand why you draw such a sharp dividing line between firn and “solid” ice. I see the change as being a very slow one during which at a low enough level in the ice sheet there will co-exist “solid” ice, in which molecules migrate through the ice lattice, along with firn in which pores link air pockets. Some of the pores will be so small that not all of the different types of gas molecules in the air mixture can pass, allowing only the smallest ones through, including CO2, but preventing N2, O2 and CH4. Other pores will be large enough for the whole air mixture to diffuse. I also hypothesise that both Fickian and Knudsen diffusion takes place, depending upon the size of those pores, with Fickian being relevant in the upper layers of firn and Knudsen at the approach to “complete” close-off and a gradual shift in emphasis down the ice sheet. If that notion is flawed then it should be easy to show how. I have sent another E-mail to Professor Fukazawa… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I can’t understand why you draw such a sharp dividing line between firn and “solid” ice. The sharp distinction as I understand is the close-off level, Below that is impermeable ice but Prof Ikeda-Fukasawa’s work seems to show that diffusion takes place over a limited area (approx 1.25nm x 1.25nm). Immediately above that level is the inclusion zone where as you say ice and firn coexist (Fig 1 page 63). The crystalline ice lattice is clearly defined for ice in the inclusion zone and below. Huber et al show a diagram (Fig 10 page 71) with annotation describing the dimensions of the hexametric box. in angstrom units (0.1 nm). The a x b axis dimensions are 4.511 Å x 4.511 Å (0.4511 nm x 0.4511 nm) but the distance between oxygen atoms is 0.275 nm leaving a 0.275 nm x 0.275 nm square aperture further obstructed by the hydrogen atoms. This means that a CO2 molecule must break the hydrogen bonds AND distort the structure to pass the a x b aperture (vertical direction) whether either 0.33 nm dia or 0.36 nm dia is assumed. In view of this mechanism, it is immaterial… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

This is the contact page for Meiji University, Department of Industrial Chemistry last updated 23/8/2008

http://www.isc.meiji.ac.jp/~chem/index-e.html

Tomoko Fukusawa’s latest address is:- fukazawaÅEisc.meiji.ac.jp

I have used an invalid address I think :- fukazawa@isc.meiji.ac.jp

I’ll try again using the 2008 address.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

This email went somewhere:- fukazawa@Eisc.meiji.ac.jp

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“ice and firn coexist (Fig 1 page 63).” – this reference is to Huber et al sorry.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Nope.

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

fukazawa@Eisc.meiji.ac.jp

Technical details of permanent failure:
DNS Error: Domain name not found

I didn’t get this message using fukazawa@isc.meiji.ac.jp but I haven’t received a response yet.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Effects of molecular diffusion on trapped gas composition in polar ice cores Ikeda-Fukazawa, T | Fukumizu, K | Kawamura, K | Aoki, S | Nakazawa, T | Hondoh, T Earth and Planetary Science Letters. Vol. 229, no. 3-4, pp. 183-192. Jan. 2005 Enrichment of nitrogen gas has been found from gas analyses of ice cores retrieved from deep parts of Antarctica. Neither climate change nor gas loss through ice cracks explain the enrichment. In order to investigate the mechanism of the gas composition change, we develop a model of gas loss caused by molecular diffusion from clathrate hydrates toward the ice-core surface through ice crystal. We apply the model to interpret the data on the gas composition change in the Dome Fuji ice core during the storage for 3 years at 248 K. The mass transfer coefficients determined using the model are 1.4×10-9 and 4.3×10-9 m;s-1 at 248 K for N2 and O2, respectively. The difference in the coefficient between N2 and O2 causes the change in the O2/N2 ratio of the trapped gas in the ice core during the storage. During the storage period of 1000 days at 248 K, the O2/N2… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

3-D Snow and Ice Images by X-ray Microtomography

ESRF Newsletter No 35: June 2001

Results on firn and ice

Fig. 3: 2- and 3-dimensional images of ice around the firn-ice transition: porosities appear in black in the 2-D images. The episcopy technique reveals that the pores are located at crystal boundaries. 3-D reconstructions from the 2-D slices give access to the real shape of the porosities.

http://www.esrf.eu/info/science/newsletter/jun01/snow.html#fig3

Pete, note that the 3D porosities are shown in a 3mm x 3mm cube. This demonstrates that the pore dimensions for firn (even at the transition zone) are measured in fractions of a mm (as opposed to fractions of a nm for ice) and that air is relatively free to move unhindered through the pores without fractionation into constituent gases above the transition (inclusion) zone.

Also this diagram showing the porosity of firn at 0.1m depth, 1m, 10m, 70m and 80m. Firm is very porous down to the top of the inclusion zone (70m in the diagram) allowing movement of air so that the sub-nanometer dimensions of air molecules are irrelevant over the first approx 70m range of firn. The sub-nanometer molecular dimensions only become critical once the firn crystallizes to ice.

comment image

Pete Ridley
Guest

Hi again Richard (C), I haven’t finished wading through your earlier comments but thought it best to keep abreast of your latest comments in case they change my responses. I appreciate how you are getting your teeth into this and you are helping me enormously to firm up my own ideas. Why can’t the supporters of the CACC doctrine approach the exchange of opinions on this issue in the same manner. First a typo correction. In your comment of March 22 at 4:18 pm you said 36 and 39nm instead of 0.36 & 0.39. Although you and I know what you meant others could be misled. Thanks for the links in your comment of March 22 at 7:26 pm to “3-D Snow and Ice Images by X-ray Microtomography” (http://www.esrf.eu/info/science/newsletter/jun01/snow.html#fig3) and the diagrammatic representation of progression of snow to firn to ice ) which presents a far clearer picture of what I was trying to describe in my previous comment. This comment is noteworthy “The transformation of the snow into ice can be very slow in polar regions (up to 3000 years) and it is very important to know precisely when and how the… Read more »

Pete Ridley
Guest

The “previous comment” to which I refer in the above comment was submitted about an hour ago but has not yet appeared, perhaps because of the numerous links that I included, so I repeat it here without some of the links and will send the remainder separately. Hi Richard (Threadgold), may I offer a belated thank-you for setting this up as a separate discussion thread. Hi Richard (C), you say “ .. I’m not yet convinced that the cavities and pressure in the firn are sufficient to produce fractionation and migration at a sub-nanometer level i.e. you will have to expand or provide some reference material for your response”. I do not understand why you are unable to envisage air molecules having kinetic diameters greater than around 0.33nm (e.g. N2, O2, Ar, CH4) being unable to pass through pores and channels in firn that are 0.33nm in diameter (the kinetic diameter of CO2). The simplistic ice sheet profile from top to bottom starts off with the highly open porous structure of the accumulated falling snow (NOTE 1) with a low density “New snowfall is typically between 7% and 12% but can be lower… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I don’t accept that “eyeballing” Fig. 3 gives a clear understanding of the structure of the pores and interconnecting channels at the nm level. Visualization must be in the context of the dimensions involved. 1 millimetre = 1×10^-3m or 1/1000th of a metre. 1 nanometre = 1×10^-9m or 1/1000,000,000th of a metre. “Pores” are in the millimetre dimension and describe interconnected cavities in firn i.e. they are a characteristic of firn hence the description of firn as “porous” with high “porosity” applicable over the top 70m down as far as the top of the inclusion zone. Below 70m (in the inclusion zone) the firn changes phase to ice and the previous characteristics are no longer applicable once firn has changed to ice. The ice crystalline structure is in the nanometre dimension and describes atomic bonds and molecular arrangement relative to other molecules. At the close-off horizon the transition from firn to ice (change of phase) is complete so that the resulting mass is “solid”. I also have a suspicion that when the authors talk about “pores” they are referring to what I call “air pockets”. No, definitely not. “Pores” are the interconnected cavities… Read more »

Pete Ridley
Guest

The issue of air molecule migration within the “solid” ice lattice after close-off is summarised in “Effects of Molecular Diffusion on Paleo-atmospheric Reconstruction from Polar Ice Core” by Tomoko Ikeda- Fukazawa and Takeo Hondoh (http://wwwice.lowtem.hokudai.ac.jp/project/abstracts.pdf” (listing 7 references by Fukazawa. They say “ .. the air molecules hop in the crystal by breaking hydrogen bonds in the ice lattice. The diffusion velocity with the breaking bond mechanism (BBM) is few orders larger than the estimate under the assumption of the interstitial mechanism”. I have no disagreement with your “ .. This means that a CO2 molecule must break the hydrogen bonds AND distort the structure to pass the a x b aperture (vertical direction) whether either 0.33 nm dia or 0.36 nm dia is assumed. In view of this mechanism, it is immaterial what CO2 dia is adopted because the CO2 molecule creates it’s own pathway anyway i.e. it’s not a sieving mechanism but a bond breaking and structure distorting mechanism that allows CO2 to pass, diffuse or migrate.. So that’s the ice situation. .. ” – but I’m interested in the situation in firn, not ice. On March 21 at 4:32pm you… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I do not understand why you are unable to envisage air molecules having kinetic diameters greater than around 0.33nm (e.g. N2, O2, Ar, CH4) being unable to pass through pores and channels in firn that are 0.33nm in diameter (the kinetic diameter of CO2). I cannot envisage it simply because the pores and channels in firn are in the millimetre dimension – not the nanometer dimension (see my explanation upthread). The comments that he makes are specifically addressing N2 v O2 but apply just as well to other air molecules. This is not relevant because the process is diffusion of AIR – not fractionated constituent gases. Yes, different gases will diffuse at different rates but it is still within an air mass. As I understand, O2 will diffuse 22x faster than CO2 so if anything, CO2 s a laggard. My interest in ice is as an air-filled “sponge” from the time that it forms as snow through to compression into firn before it becomes a block of ice (not even then a perfect ice crystal) This is where you have got it very wrong. Please see the definitions of “Ice” and “Firn” upthread.… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I think I’ve addressed all the points we agree and disagree on so it’s probably productive to move on. I have to say though, that I don’t think you will engender credibility by persisting with your notion of sub-nanometer criticality in firn which you have not yet proved BTW. I haven’t drawn a specific distinction within the firn as it transits into the “solid” ice state You will have to because they have entirely different characteristics and applicable measurement units – porous and sub-millimetre for firm, impermeable and sub-nanometre for solid ice. The issue in the bigger picture is that the ice core air pockets that have been sampled seem to be depleted of the smaller molecule gases including CO2, but by what factor for each? Law Dome – Carbon Dioxide Data http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-2455.html Historical CO2 record from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law_co2.txt 1900 296.7 1905 298.2 1910 299.9 1915 301.5 1920 303.2 1925 304.9 1930 306.5 1935 308.0 1940 309.3 1945 310.5 1950 312.0 1955 314.1 1960 316.9 1965 320.5 1970 324.7 1975 329.4 This series is then spliced to Mauna Loa data to provide the CO2 initialization… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“By what factor should the values be increased? 1.01? 1.1? 1.5?”

It would make even more sense if the factor was increased with time e.g.

1975 329.4 x 1.01

1935 308.0 x 1.05

1900 296.7 x 1.1

Pete Ridley
Guest

Hi Richard (C), it seems that you would prefer to drop the discussion on kinetic v collision diameter wrt molecular migration through firn and pursue another of Professor Zbiniew Jaworowski’s concerns, the air-ice-age difference estimates. This is another of several areas of uncertainty about the processes that can distort the attempts to reconstruct past atmospheric CO2 concentration from air “trapped” in ice for millennia. These different physio-chemical processes apply from the very start with the formation of snow. I said in my March 16 at 11:37 pm comment on the “It’s Not Warming You Nitwit .. “ thread (https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2011/03/its-not-warming-you-nitwit-its-cooling/#comment-45360) “ .. Professor Hartmut Frank wrote a forward to Jaworowski’s 1994 paper .. ”. In June Frank confirmed his support for Jaworowski, saying “ .. Jaworowski’s main argument is valid and will remain valid because it is based on simple, but hard physicochemical facts”. To that E-mail he attached a slide (from one of his recent presentations to graduates at Technical University in Gdansk) which he described as “ .. a simplified illustration of the major processes which are leading to changes of gas concentrations in the secondary bubbles (including and especially of carbon… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Whatever progress we make here will not change the fact that the Law Dome dataset CO2 ppm values are the accepted means of providing pre 1975 data for all the IPCC climate model simulations. There’s a mountain of results that have been churned out of supercomputers using Law Dome initialization but all the focus is on the output – not the input. What we and others are discovering is the uncertainty of the pre-1975 CO2 initialization data but what is the range? At this point I have no idea. The revelation is that this uncertainty has been evident for at least the last 17 years but it is not public knowledge and neither is the recent work. When the various issues are brought together it paints a very unflattering picture but the vested interests will do their utmost to maintain the status quo. Our aim should be I think to just list the uncertainties in a simple bullet point paragraph otherwise all that happens is that screeds of ineffectual writing is exchanged but for what? Re your hypothesis. You have completely ignored my challenge for you to provide proof of sub-nanometer criticality in… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Looking at the definitions I can find, Collision diameter is not even applicable to a molecule passing an aperture:-

Collision diameter: the distance between the centers of two colliding molecules when at their closest point of approach.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/collision+diameter

Kinectic diameter: the diameter of a pore needed to let that specific molecule pass.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7214719/description.html

Even the kinetic diameter is pore size – not molecule size, but it is the relevant constraint. Collision is another process entirely.

Kinetic diameter then (or thereabouts), is the applicable constraint for molecules passing through a solid ice matrix (lattice).

Pete Ridley
Guest

Mike, what I hear you saying when you reject size-dependent migration within the deep firn of the smaller atmospheric gases like CO2 and He is that at some stage in the compression of the firn there is a quantum drop in the size of the pores or channels. You appear to be saying that before this point all gases can move out of the air pockets and along channels (relatively) freely but afterwards none can migrate other than by forcing their way through the solid ice through H-bond breaking. To lay people like us this is counter-intuitive therefore you must have come across some evidence that such a quantum drop happens as you appear to suggest. I don’t recall you pointing to any such evidence during our exchanges so I must have missed it. Please would you say again how do you justify such an opinion. My hypothesis is based upon there being a continuous reduction in pore and channel size through compression (and possibly also by adsorption on their surfaces, particularly of CO2, but that is another process for later consideration) until any particular pore is completely closed off to all air… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“The firn density gradually increases with depth, and at 0.83 g/cm3, firn changes into solid ice” with no mention of any quantum change Pete, this is EXACTLY the quantum change, although in thermodynamics more often referred to as a phase change (change of state reserved for the solid-liquid-vapour changes). This is where the the characteristics of the substance change radically. The pore sizes at the top of the firm will be discernible to the naked eye and at the bottom near the inclusion zone will need a light microscope because the smallest firm pores are maybe 0.1 millimeter dia.. Note that total pore close-off horizon is considered to occur below the inclusion zone so closure of pores to a sub-nanometer dimension will be closer to the bottom of the inclusion zone than the top, the closure being as much the result of the firn-ice transition as it is to do with pressure. Pores in the solid ice molecular lattice are MUCH smaller and will not be discernible through a light microscope because the apertures are 0.00000036th of a millimeter in dia. You seem to have no conception of scale. By comparison, cloud nuclei… Read more »

Pete Ridley
Guest

Hi Richard (C), thanks again for you assistance in trying to resolve this issue of the gradual compaction of a porous column of ice grains within an ice sheet to the state of being almost a block of solid ice. As you are aware (and frustrated by) I find your claim that there is a sudden quantum drop in the porous nature of the firn from having mm-size air gaps (channels) linking larger air pockets to a state where this porous nature suddenly vanishes and the only channels available for air to pass through reduce to sub-nm very hard to visualise. In your comment of March 25 at 12:45 pm you refer to this as a phase change, which I also find hard to relate to since the little science that I have studied does not suggest that changing ice (the grains) to ice (the solid block) constitutes a phase change. I understand you to then speculate that the smallest pores (and channels linking air pockets?) at the bottom of the firn “ .. are maybe 0.1 millimeter dia. .. ” and that there is a sudden “ .. closure of pores to… Read more »

Pete Ridley
Guest

Hi again Richard (C). You may be interested in taking a look at the 2000 paper “Snow crystal imaging using scanning electron microscopy: III. Glacier ice, snow and biota” by Rango et al. (http://itia.ntua.gr/hsj/45/hysj_45_03_0357.pdf). Fig. 10 on page 368 provides a SEM micrograph of old glacier ice with an elongated air pocket (bubble) of length about 1mm with bulbs at each end of about 0.2mm diameter. Fig. 11 on 369 magnifies this view about 15 times (I may have this wrong because of an inferior sense of dimension) to show an area within the pocket having what the authors say “ .. appears to be mineral particulates adhering to the ice .. ”. Of course, being totally out of my depth, they look to me like a line of pores of only a few microns diameter and numerous tiny speckles which could be more pores of a few nanometers or less diameter. Figs. 13 & 14 provide excellent graphics of air pockets, the ice crystals that surround them and the channels that connect them. Althoug Dr. Rango has moved on to other areas of research I have E-mailed him about your quantum drop… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Posted at JoNova #17 http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/david-evans-carbon-modeler-says-its-a-scam/#comments Evidence for molecular size dependent gas fractionation in firn air derived from noble gases, oxygen, and nitrogen measurements Huber et al 2005 http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/Huber_closeoff_EPSL2006.pdf 6. Conclusions The enrichment of elemental ratios near the close-off region measured in the firn air from Devon Island and NGRIP, can be modeled assuming a constant close-off fractionation factor between closed off air and open pore composition during air enclosure. The strong similarities found at both sites indicate a universal physical process causing this close-off fractionation. Our model approach is able to explain and predict the general shape of the firn air profiles from various different sites. However, it fails when the firn density structure has impermeable layers that cause large non-diffusive zones at the bottom of the firn. This has to be implemented into a future model. The bottom of the firn is critical. This is the inclusion zone where firn transforms to solid ice. Close-off fractionation factors for different gases depend strongly on the diameter. Except they use an inappropriate diameter. They use collision diameter (molecules colliding with other molecules) when they should be using kinetic diameter (the aperture size that will… Read more »

Pete Ridley
Guest

Hi Richard (C), thanks again for another plug on Joanna Nova’s blog of “Another Hockey Stick Illusion?”. The more discussion the better about my hypothesis regarding the preferential fractionation of CO2 out of air “trapped” in ice over decades, centuries and millennia and the oversight of the “experts” regarding the relevance of kinetic not collision diameter when diameters of the pores and channels approach molecular size. Although I generally agree with how you have tried to summarise what I have been presenting here and elsewhere I suggest a couple of clarifications. First, you say that the fractionation through the small channels along the ice crystal boundaries is “ .. a simple sieving mechanism .. ” but it is not really a simple process within the ice sheet fabric due to chemical/physical complications. Even the “experts” in the subject like Professor Severinghaus, Dr. Huber, Professor Jaworowski, etc. find it less than “simple”. One of the possibilities that keeps coming to mind is the reduction in pore and channel diameter due to the adsorption of CO2 on the surface and the effect that this has on the migration of not only CO2 but other gas… Read more »

Pete Ridley
Guest

Hi Richar C, reference your comment of March 26 at 11:55 am and several previous ones, may I once again point out that ” .. CO2 collision dia 39nm, CO2 kinetic dia 33nm .. ” is two orders of magnitude too great. The commonly quoted sizes are 0.39nm and 0.33nm more often quoted in angstroms (Å).

Here’s a link to an excellent length convertor which includes nanometer (10 power -9 metres) to Angstrom (1 power -10)
http://www.convertworld.com/en/length/

Best regards, Pete Ridley

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Meanwhile at NZs preeminent warmist site, this is how “the science” is peddled.

Mike Palin March 28, 2011 at 3:53 pm

Well little Johnny, here’s how it works. CO2 acts as an important greenhouse gas by absorbing thermal (IR) energy radiated from Earth’s surface and re-radiating it in all directions, including back down toward the surface. (A YouTube video of this process:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo.) As a result, the surface temperature is higher than it would be if heated solely by incoming solar radiation. This permits our planet to have liquid water and sustain life rather be an icy ball in space.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talkin-open-thread/#comment-25304

Apparently CO2 has a magnificent capacity to replenish the heating effect of LWIR back to what it was as SW, this then heats the earth’s surface even more than what incoming solar SW can. A truly amazing trace gas and all that from only 0.00029ppm atmospheric concentrations.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Should have been “from only 0.00039 of the atmosphere.” but you get the gist.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

MattB at JoNova backed Palin’s statement. My response #204:- —————————————————————————————————————————— MattB #197 A jumper makes me hotter on a hot day Richard. No? No. The jumper prevents air circulation (is there a wind blowing?) so the heat that your body has already generated by metabolic means is unable to disperse but you have two heat sources – solar and metabolic (the earth’s internal heat source is hardly comparable to physical metabolism). So on a hot day, what makes you hot is the combination of factors: solar heat, body metabolism, no wind and unnecessary insulation. Also, on a hot day there is no heat gradient through the jumper, its hot on both sides. If it was a cold day with no wind and direct sunlight you would be able to take off your jumper to receive direct sunlight illustrating that not only does insulation prevent heat going out, it prevents heat coming in in the form of solar radiation (think bikini skiing in the Alps). I live at the beach and see this demonstrated especially at this time of year (Autumn). If there is no wind, you can take your shirt off and be… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

A very useful article in this vein.

Understanding the Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect

Joseph E. Postma (M.Sc. Astrophysics, Honours B.Sc. Astronomy)

Page 24 onwards being most useful.

Theory of the Greenhouse Effect vs. the Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect

http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Understanding_the_Atmosphere_Effect.pdf

AGW vs physics basically

Pete Ridley
Guest

Hi Richard C(umming) that certainly is an interesting article that you link to (March 29 at 5:04 pm) but I wasn’t convinced of its authenticity. For example Iwouldn’t expect a scientist to say “The Greenhouse Theory is the proposition that the atmosphere warms the surface of the Earth to a temperature warmer than it would otherwise be without an atmosphere, via a process called “back-scattered infrared radiative transfer”. .. The word “radiative” in “radiative transfer” means “of or pertaining to light”; “transfer” is referring to transfer of energy. So radiative transfer means the transfer of energy by light”. As I have said before, I’m a retired Chartered Electrical Engineer, not a scientist, but the small amount of science that I studied conflicts with what Postma says there. In my ignorance I understand that “radiative transfer means the transfer of any energy by radiation away from the source” not only by the limited range of E/M radiation within the band 4000 (violet) to about 7700 (red) angstroms. Related to this is Postma’s claim that “ .. A blackbody is simply exactly what it sounds like: an object which is completely black. The reason why… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I could have referenced G&T 2009 but the Postma article is more readable. G&T are far more explicit in their condemnation of the unphysical basis of AGW:- —————————————————————————————————————————— Falsi fication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Eff ects Within The Frame Of Physics http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf 5 Physicist’s Summary [relevant points] A thorough discussion of the planetary heat transfer problem in the framework of theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics leads to the following results: 1. There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fi ctitious atmospheric greenhouse eff ect, which explains the relevant physical phenomena. The terms “greenhouse eff ect” and “greenhouse gases” are deliberate misnomers. 6. Re-emission is not reflection and can in no way heat up the ground-level air against the actual heat flow without mechanical work. 7. The temperature rises in the climate model computations are made plausible by a perpetuum mobile of the second kind. This is possible by setting the thermal conductivity in the atmospheric models to zero, an unphysical assumption. It would be no longer a perpetuum mobile of the second kind, if the \average” fi ctitious radiation balance, which has no physical justi fication anyway, was given up. 8.… Read more »

Pete Ridley
Guest

I think that those who reject the scientific argument that increasing the global mean atmospheric CO2 concentration causes an (insignificant) increase in mean global temperature would benefit from reading the analyses carried out by Roger Taguchi (my comment of March 30th at 10:12 am). I Googled – “Joseph E. Postma” biography – and the first site up was Climate Realists (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7457&linkbox=true&position=2) with some interesting exchanges between Postma and others, particularly Stephen Wilde. The comment that impressed me most was “Posted by Bomber_the_Cat on Mar 29th @ 7:23 AM EDT: Joseph, this sort of nonsense is not very helpful to the sceptic cause. Your article, apart from being unsound, is best described as very rambling. Sorry, I tried to persist but gave up about page 28,; there is only so much nonsense you can absorb in one day”. What I found even more interesting were the bios of who are behind that blog, including Hans Schreuder (proposed PSI Executive Board Member and CFO) and Piers Corbyn (closely involved with PSI). Who should be on the Home–page but Tim Ball (“Slayer” and proposed PSI Chairman). Then, offering an article about him and “ .. the… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Pete, there is a large repository of peer-reviewed science already at this blog, you may wish to add what you think is useful. Either use the “Open Threads” button at the top of the blog page or use this INDEX:- https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/disproving-agw/#comment-26342 Topics in that index are as follows but you will find a different index using the Open Threads button:- Disproving AGW Controversy and scandal Climate Economics Politics Energy and fuel ETS and carbon taxes CO2 Climate science Atmosphere Water Vapour Temperature records Ocean and Heat Solar and Cosmic NIPCC IPCC science IPCC organisation IPCC politics UN News New Zealand Australia UK USA Europe Asia Pacific South America Africa Sea levels Polar regions, glaciers and ice Global warming Ocean acidification If you subscribe to the blog with Google reader you will keep up with comments to all posts and additions to Open Threads topics. One of my favourites under “Climate Science” A NULL HYPOTHESIS FOR CO2 Roy Clark, Ph.D. ABSTRACT Energy transfer at the Earth’s surface is examined from first principles. The effects on surface temperature of small changes in the solar constant caused by the sunspot cycle and small increases in downward… Read more »

Pete Ridley
Guest

Hi folks, sorry that I’ve neglected you all since Richard Cumming headed “ .. off to the kiwifruit harvest .. ”. A lot has been happening in w.r.t. the “fallen snow” issue in the last 6 weeks. On 13th April, after some further research into the structure of the firn in an ice sheet, I took my question to the Science Forum of “The Naked Scientists … a media-savvy group of physicians and researchers from Cambridge University .. ” (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/about-us/)”. The discussion is available (for now, until their adsmin team decide to remove all traces of me) under the thread title “Another Hockey Stick Illusion?” (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38675). I summarised my question as “why do paleo-climatologists use collision diameter in preference to kinetic diameter when considering the migration of air molecules through firn and ice?” and provided additional information to supplement the question. They were unable to answer my question so on 20th April I contacted Professor Eric Wolff of the British Antarctic Survey. Professor Wolff responded with several detailed and helpful comments, but I remained unconvinced. In his final submission on 2nd May, after having discussed my question with Professors Richard Alley and Jeff… Read more »

Post Navigation