Quote of the Week

Propaganda works!

what a thing to say

“44% think food and drink would be safer if it had no carbon or CO2 in it.”

 

 

 

Let us pause for a moment and recognise the deep ignorance of our beloved brethren and sistren around the world. Please remember all those wonderful people force-fed the illogical propaganda of their green masters and who now believe the following seven impossible things before breakfast.

Of the Australian public, and no doubt our own “public”

  • 93% think CO2 constitutes more than 1% of the atmosphere
  • 53% believe climate change causes tsunamis
  • 47% think CO2 is ‘pollution’
  • 44% think food and drink would be safer if it had no carbon or CO2 in it
  • 40% believe climate change causes earthquakes
  • 37% believe climate change causes volcanic eruptions
  • 37% think we should try to reduce carbon in the body

Nothing I might say could make it sound any better. But those people need your help…

161
Leave a Reply

avatar
49 Comment threads
112 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
9 Comment authors
Doug CottonRichard C (NZ)Richard TreadgoldBob DRon Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Interesting exercise but there’s a number of problems with it so I’ll take them point-by-point. 1) Re: “the question of how much energy is available for DLR to deliver”, you say:- Much of this energy is outside of the band the you say DLR should fall into but I suspect that these limits are arbitrary and do not reflect any particular physical limit. Wrong. The lower physical limit is around 3µm but because of the 3µm – 4µm overlap with the solar spectrum the solar/DLR division is conventionally 4µm. Viudez Mora shows the overlap in the inset in Figure 1 (how many times do I have to explain this division?). The upper 15µm limit is not so much physical but sensible. This is easily demonstrated just by inserting 15 in the upper limit of the BB calculator and calculating, then 16, 20, 50 and so on. You will see that it makes no difference to the Radiant emmittance i.e. the energy just is not there beyond about 15µm. 2) If you think that the fluxes (area under the curves) in the Barrow-Nauru plots are anywhere near the corresponding BB or GB curves, then… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

New Article Highlights Deficiencies In The Global Climate Models – Luo Et Al 2011 Jing-Jia Luo, 2011: Ocean dynamics not required? Jing-Jia includes the text [highlight added] “However, on decadal and longer timescales, ocean dynamics seem to be less important than was thought: the magnitude of the variance in SST in the climate mode observed by Clement et al.2 in their ocean-slab models is comparable to that observed in reality. When the authors coupled full ocean dynamics to the atmosphere in their models, this actually weakened the decadal and multidecadal variability by constraining the variance of tropical climate to interannual timescales.” “One limitation of the authors’s findings is that many of their climate models are severely flawed when simulating the period and magnitude of ENSO. The misrepresentation of ENSO dynamics in such models may preclude an accurate separation of dynamic and thermodynamic coupling effects. Moreover, most climate models erroneously predict the existence of an intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ) — a band near the Equator where the trade winds from the two hemispheres converge — in the South Pacific, in addition to the real one observed north of the Equator. This problem is known… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I’ll answer 3) myself using this Free Downloadable Blackbody Calculator in MS Excel format http://www.irapps.com/irt/free-downloadable-blackbody-calculator/ http://www.irblackbody.com/ It provides 2 plots with 2 curves each: watts/cm2/µm – watts/cm2/µm/sr (plot 1) and photon flux density – photon sterance (plot 2). Using the following parameters:- 14C, 14C, 0.83, 4, 15, 1 cm2 and 10 µm Plot 1, Peak radiance (multiplied by 10,000 to get m2):- 20 watts/m2/µm 6.64 watts/m2/µm/sr So yes DLR radiance using steradium units is a lot less than linear but its actually 2 different curves. I learned a lot here – thanks. The spreadsheet generates a whole lot of extra data in the blue box too but doesn’t give total power that I can see unfortunately. Plot 2, shows photon flux density and photon sterance with the curves skewed toward the upper limit. Problem being that energy-per-photon declines rapidly as wavelength increases so the power drops off in plot 1. This still doesn’t justify the use of BB curves as an approximation of real-world curves that exhibit far less total energy reaching the surface. OK so far but then it all goes pear shaped when I look at power in the solar spectrum… Read more »

Nick
Guest
Nick

Richard C, in response to your points:
1) If you change the band the radiant emmittance does not change because this is the emmittance for the whole spectrum. The band radiance (at the bottom, next to the band settings) on the other hand does change fairly significantly for the various settings you suggest.

2) Can you clarify the difference you see between the grey body plot and the Barrow-Nauru plots? I want to make sure we are discussing the same thing

3) W/m2/sr/µm x pi = W/m2/µm. There are 4pi sr in a sphere so there is pi sr in half a sphere (including cosθ reduction from Lambert’s cosine law). That is the bare bones and assumes some understanding of what a sr is (covered in your links). Let me know if you need further clarification.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Using the online BB calculator with values:-

5497C, 0.46, 0.1, 4, and 0.5 µm (solar spectrum)

Results:-

Peak spectral radiance: 1.20513e+07 W/m2/sr/µm

Even more crazy. 12,051,300 W/m2/sr/µm is out of the park compared to the 3,740,000 watts/m2/µm peak I got with the Excel.BB calculator and ridiculous compared to conventional 1800 watts/m2/µm BB peak and 1600 watts/m2/µm Obs peak solar values.

Something very dodgy going on with these BB calculators.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Nick, replying. 1) If you change the band the radiant emmittance does not change because this is the emmittance for the whole spectrum. The band radiance (at the bottom, next to the band settings) on the other hand does change fairly significantly for the various settings you suggest. Ah yes, I see. But the band to make Radiance equal to Band Radiance (101.856 W/m2/sr) has to be 2 – 1074 µm but then the plot is ridiculous (try it) – it’s just not sensible. This is BB theoretical – not real world measurable stuff. 2) Can you clarify the difference you see between the grey body plot and the Barrow-Nauru plots? I want to make sure we are discussing the same thing The difference I see is that the area under the curves (Obs vs GB) are nowhere near equal. Barrow & Nauru both have considerably less total area than GB. 3) W/m2/sr/µm x pi = W/m2/µm. There are 4pi sr in a sphere so there is pi sr in half a sphere (including cosθ reduction from Lambert’s cosine law). That is the bare bones and assumes some understanding of what a sr… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

In addition ,see my “What puzzles me” comment here:-

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2011/09/quote-of-the-week-3/#comment-68325

Comparing VM 1.1. to long-term average DLR fluxes, VM 1.1 would have to be a 20 x 12 rectangle to equal 240 W/m2 but the VM 1.1 DLR curve is nothing like that rectangle.

Just guessing, the area under the VM 1.1 DLR curve looks to be less than 100 W/m2. How do “snapshot” DLR spectra translate to the typical long-term average fluxes?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I will concede that theoretically in BB terms, there is DLR energy in the range say 15 – 50 µm that makes up the total flux but if measurement technology doesn’t detect it sensibly in the real world (and manufacturers don’t bother supplying instruments), how can it heat anything?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Worthwhile reading TF&K09 re the global average 333 W/m2 DLR estimate (enter pg 319 pdf) —————————————————————————————————————————- This leaves the downward and net LW radiation as the final quantities to be computed as a residual. […] However, after the adjustments noted above for LH and better accounting for the aerosols and water vapor in the absorbed solar radiation, our revision estimates are 333 and 63 W m−2 for the downward and net LW. […] Several other estimates of downward LW radiation are in the vicinity of 340 W m−2 (e.g., see ERA-40 in Table 1b) and Wild et al. (2001) have proposed that 344 W m−2 is a best estimate. These and other calculations are improved when performed with validated RRTM LW radiation codes (Wild and Roeckner 2006). However, Wild et al. (2001) note that considerable uncertainties exist, and especially that there were problems in accurate simulation of thermal emission from a cold, dry, cloud-free atmosphere, and a dependence on water vapor content. The latter may relate to the formulation of the water vapor continuum. It has been argued that downward LW radiation is more likely to be underestimated owing to the view from… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I think I’ve cracked it, conventional effective solar band radiance is 1 KW/m2 (1000 W/m2). Divided by Pi (3.142) gives 318 W/m2/sr So the effect of the sun at the surface is a GB (e 0.46) of T 170.5 C. This was arrived at iteratively by entering T values into the online BB calculator until I got band radiance 318 W/m2/sr. Solar GB T: 170.5 C = 1000 W/m2 (318 W/m2/sr) DLR GB T: 14 C = 307 W/m2 (98 W/m2/sr) So now I can enter T 170.5 (e 0.46) in the Excel BB calculator (e 0.46) because I’ve realized that total fluxes are given in the blue boxes; the black band in the RH blue box has radiant exitance (flux density) and radiance totals (along with photon totals). Solar GB T: 170.5 C = 0.101 W/cm2 x 10,000 = 1010 W/m2 (0.0322 W/cm2/sr = 322 W/m2/sr) DLR GB T: 14 C = 0.032 W/cm2 x 10,000 = 320 W/m2 (0.0102 W/cm/2/sr = 102 W/m2/sr) The solar values are in terms of real-world effective day-time (standardized) observations even though they are GB values with e 0.46 but the DLR values are not –… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Re 2)

I should have said above “Barrow & Nauru both have considerably less GB total area than BB”

The Nauru curve shows a BB curve (dotted line) at 300K = 27 C. The observed spectra is the GB curve but as I see it, the reduction in power, observed GB vs BB is much less than a factor of 0.83 corresponding to the assumed e value of 0.83 in the 14 C example and found theoretically here:-

http://www.vcrlter.virginia.edu/~bph/AW_Book_Spring_96/AW_Book_21.html

I estimate the reduction in power to be 40% at least, corresponding to a BB curve with e 0.6 at most i.e. 72% of the theoretical e 0.83.

Similarly, the Barrow curve shows a BB curve (dotted line) at 245 K = -28 C. The reduction in power, observed GB vs BB looks to be around 60%. This would correspond to a BB curve with e 0.40. This is nowhere near 0.83 as I see the plot.

I’m trying to convert the units returned by the Excel BB calculator into the same terms as the Petty Barrow-Nauru plot for comparisons of peak etc but I haven’t cracked it so far.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Even at theoretical e 0.83, water vapour makes up 0.66 of that value (see link last comment),. Therefore, WV makes up 80% of the DLR power flux (whatever it is), clouds and the other GHGs make up the rest. Problem being for AGW, DLR doesn’t seem to be increasing and may even be decreasing. “A study published online yesterday in The Journal of Climate, however, finds that contrary to the global warming theory, infrared ‘back-radiation’ from greenhouse gases has declined over the past 14 years in the US Southern Great Plains in winter, summer, and autumn. If the anthropogenic global warming theory was correct, the infrared ‘back-radiation’ should have instead increased year-round over the past 14 years along with the steady rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide”……”A trend analysis was applied to a 14-year time series of downwelling spectral infrared radiance observations from the Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI)…The AERI data record demonstrates that the downwelling infrared radiance is decreasing over this 14-year time period in the winter, summer, and autumn seasons but is increasing in the spring; these trends are statistically significant and are primarily due to long-term change in the cloudiness above… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Heating and cooling at the air-ocean interface is shown by Dr Roy Clark (an optics expert) here:- Figure 4, Energy Transfer at the Air-Ocean Interface http://venturaphotonics.com/GlobalWarming.html The Air-Ocean Interface Water is almost transparent to visible radiation and sunlight can penetrate down through clear ocean waters to depths of ~100 meters [Hale & Querry, 1973]. The light is absorbed mainly by the rather weak overtones of the water infrared vibrations and converted into heat. The oceans cool through a combination of evaporation and long wave infrared (LWIR) emission from the surface [Yu et al, 2008]. The First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy) does not require that the local solar and cooling fluxes balance on any time scale. Any flux difference is converted into a change in ocean temperature. Over most of the LWIR spectral region, the ocean surface exchanges radiation with the atmosphere. On average, there is a slight exchange heating of the atmosphere by the ocean. This net heat transfer depends on the thermal gradient or air -ocean temperature difference as required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. LWIR emissive cooling occurs within a relatively small spectral emission window in the 8… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Now I’ve cracked it. From Nasif Nahle’s “Observations on “Backradiation” during Nighttime and Daytime”:- “Insolation is the amount of solar power impinging on a given surface area of a planet. It is ~1000 W/m2 on Earth. Over real situations and locations, the energy absorbed and reflected by the atmosphere, and the amount of energy reflected by the surface are discounted from the total solar irradiance impinging on top of the atmosphere. It gives a theoretical value of 668.85 W/m^2. However, this value fluctuates due to the incident solar angle; therefore, a real measurement could be higher or lower than 668.85 W/m^2. From 668.85 W/m^2, only 535.1 W/m^2 is thermal radiation absorbed by the surface. 56% is stored by surface and subsurface materials, i.e. 309.43 W/m2, which causes a surface temperature of 24 °C.” This makes much more sense. So I should start with 309.43 W/m2, divided by Pi (3.142) gives 98 W/m2/sr. This is already discounted by mitigation of the atmosphere and reflection so there is no need to include an e factor in BB calculation i.e. find the effective BB T with e 1 that returns band radiance 98 W/m2/sr. Iteratively 21… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Nick, Andy (or anyone), some maths (Andy?). Prof Grant Petty, author of “A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation” that is the provenance of the Barrow-Nauru DLR plots under discussion, is being taken to task by Claes Johnson. Referring to communication with Petty, Johnson states:- In previous posts, in particular in How to Fool Yourself with a Pyrgeometer [linked] I have given evidence that Downwelling Longwave Radiation (DLR), which serves an important role in CO2 climate alarmism, is a fictitious phenomenon without physical reality. So what is the truth? Is DLR reality or fiction? Is CO2 alarm reality or fiction? Let us scrutinize the evidence put forward for the reality of DLR with an illustration from recent communication with Prof Grant W. Petty, who states: 1. We routinely MEASURE it using any of a variety of commercially available instruments (do a search on ‘Eppley pyrgeometer’, for example; 2. We routinely and accurately PREDICT its magnitude based solely on knowledge of the temperature, humidity, and cloud structure of the atmospheric column (as exemplified, for example, by a class project I and 15 other students had to complete as first-year graduate students, in which our fairly… Read more »

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

Quite correct, Richard. However, I believe the equation by Prof Petty originates from a special condition of two parallel surfaces, which (it could be argued) represents the Earth’s surface and atmosphere in the case of two simplified shells at T and T_b respectively, one inside the other.

Whether or not this simplification applies to the real world is another topic.

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

All of the above is why it is pretty hopeless trying to work out anything from first principles using fluxes – there are too many unknowns and assumptions.

This is why Hansen (2005), Trenberth (2009), Willis (2006), Knox & Douglass (2010), and Pielke Snr. (2005) agree that OHC is the only sensible measure of global warming, since it is a net effect.

Which is why the ARGO network was deployed in the first place.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

NOW you tell us! 🙂

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

🙂

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I’m in the process of reading word-for-word Nasif Nahles “Observations on “Backradiation” during Nighttime and Daytime” linked here:- http://principia-scientific.org/publications/New_Concise_Experiment_on_Backradiation.pdf It is not easy because it’s not the best essay and I see a couple of questionable statements that seem to me to be outright errors, nevertheless finally someone is investigating climate sciences’ assumed heating effect of DLR on the earths surface and it is instructive. He comprehensively dismembers Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiehl’s (TF&K09) “Earth’s Global Energy budget”. In particular: the estimated solar flux at the earth’s surface; the non-existent surface heating effect of DLR; and, found in respect to IR thermometers and radiometers that what is really measured when the devices are pointed towards a clear sky is radiation emitted by globules of air at high altitudes. Through a series of real time measurements of thermal radiation from the atmosphere and surface materials during nighttime and daytime, he demonstrates that DLR backradiation from a cooler atmosphere warming up a warmer surface is a myth that is 100% discredited by correct unbiased experimentation Required reading IMO. ****************************************************************************************************** Also see my comment up-thread (linked below) with the conclusion to a series of comments that:- “DLR… Read more »

Bob D
Guest
Bob D
Bob D
Guest
Bob D

Did you hear the one …

An Irishman, an Englishman and a South African walk into a
bar. It’s the airport departure lounge …

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

My apologies, back to our scheduled programming.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Heh, heh. Love it.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Yes, yes, quite. Brr-hem, brr-hem. Terribly OT, Bob, old chap. Mustn’t lose control, what? Yes, now, on with the motley.

Andy
Guest
Andy

This is the 146th comment on this thread. Is this a record?

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

Nope. This is.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Bob – to iterate is human, to recurse, devine.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Well done, you all — another new record!

Oops.

See Open threads as promised, which itself got 153 comments and mentions World of sceptical questions unfolds…, which got 161 comments, which seems to be the record. Although I haven’t made a proper search, so who knows? It might be a WordPress mystery.

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

Andy: IT humour, surely the bottom of the barrel! 🙂

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Nick, you say up-thread:- However a grey body gives a good fit as shown in the Nauru and Barrow links you presented. So if you put sensible values into http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php (say 14C, emissivity 0.83) then you will find that the peak spectral radiance is 6.7 W/m2/sr/µm (21W/m2/µm) which is similar to what we expect from the Mora paper. This gives a radiant emmittance of 323.796 W/m2 which is what you would expect from mainstream literature I expect the peaks to be similar but I disagree entirely that the observed radiance impinging on the earth’s surface is similar to the GB approximation. Sure, TF&K calculate a 333 W/m2 residual and the GB figure is similar but we can see from Barrow, Nauru and Viudez Mora that the observed flux is considerably less than the dotted BB curves and way less than what e 0.83 returns.. In addition, A) That 323.796 W/m2 is not the actual heating effect that results in energy stored by surface and subsurface materials, ocean in particular. B) In view of A), we have to arrive at a discount factor to apply to 323.796 W/m2 (or the actual flux) to get… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

There’s an addition (but a variation) to Bob D’s list:-

Nir J. Shaviv (2008); Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 113

Shaviv uses OHC, SST and SSL.

Links and article at WUWT “The oceans as a calorimeter and solar amplification”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/15/the-oceans-as-a-calorimeter/

“Evidently, the TSI cannot explain the observed flux going into the ocean. An amplification mechanism, such as that of CRF modulation of the low altitude cloud cover is required.

So what does it mean?

First, it means that the IPCC cannot ignore anymore the fact that the sun has a large climatic effect on climate. Of course, there was plenty of evidence before, so I don’t expect this result to make any difference!

Second, given the consistency between the energy going into the oceans and the estimated forcing by the solar cycle synchronized cloud cover variations, it is unlikely that the solar forcing is not associated with the cloud cover variation.”

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Bob, thanks for the input. Postma addresses the plane-parallel and P/4 issues in the body of “The Model Atmosphere”. From the summary:- To finish the summary, allow the author to paraphrase an email conversation while questions were generated from those who were reviewing this document. The author received a question regarding how the plane-parallel solar model explains the problem with what has been come to be known as the “P/4” (p-over-four) issue – this is the misapplication of mathematics to physics by which the standard model greenhouse denies the existence of day & night, and assumes that solar energy instantaneously impinges the entire surface area of the Earth at once, rather than just the daylit hemisphere. The author responded…….. http://principia-scientific.org/publications/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf Postma presents The Realistic Terrestrial System Model in The Model Atmosphere that surely must be a better representation than what consensus science (i.e. all the Universities – Postma links to 70 uses) adheres to. There is now a continuation and conclusion of the Johnson/Petty confrontation at Claes Johnson’s blog:- Petty on DLR 2 http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/10/petty-on-dlr-2.html Petty on DLR 3: Incorrect Science Exposed http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/10/petty-on-dlr-3-incorrect-science.html Johnson says in 3:- What to say? Well, Prof Petty shows… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Postma gets a solar input at the surface equivalent to T 30 C in “The Model Atmosphere” http://principia-scientific.org/publications/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf pg 10 pdf If we wish to determine the physically instantaneous solar input energy density (Wattage per square meter) and corresponding heating temperature, via the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, we must use the correct actually- physical geometry. Thus, with a day-light hemisphere of half the surface area of an entire sphere, we must write the hemispherical equilibrium equation as: Equations 21, 22 = +30 C And, We hold that the average solar radiative input heating is only over one hemisphere of the Earth, has a temperature equivalent value of +30 C, with a zenith maximum of +87.5 C, and that this is not in any physically justifiable manner equivalent to an instantaneous average global heating input of -18 C. And, Given that the average physical solar input on the day-lit hemisphere is equivalent to +30 C, with a maximum input of +87.50C, and the day-lit hemisphere does not actually achieve this temperature, but we know it must absorb that equivalent amount energy, we must ask: to where does the energy go if it does not show up… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Johnsons latest:-

Climate Alarmism Based on False Stefan-Boltzmann Law

http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/10/climate-alarmism-based-on-false-stefan.html

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Lobbed a bomb into comments at JoNova under the “There is a Greenhouse Effect on Venus” post.

I’ve provoked discussion on the same topic (heating effect) as is being pursued here, see:-

Comment #80

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/there-is-a-greenhouse-effect-on-venus/#comment-592914

Comment #14.3

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/there-is-a-greenhouse-effect-on-venus/#comment-593417

I’ve linked back to this post at CCG.

Negotiations are continuing.

BTW all. As you can see after Jo has changed her blog settings, we can now x-link directly to comments using the date-time bar at the top of the comment (as we can here at CCG). Very powerful and much improved.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Picked this up at the JoNova Venus thread:-

The Diurnal Bulge and the fallacies of the “Greenhouse Effect” – W. R. Pratt

http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2_files/The_Diurnal_Bulge_and_the_Fallacies_of_the_Greenhouse_Effect.html

Goes into top down heating of the atmosphere being greater in his case (some merit and some problems) than bottom up and that O2 and N2 being “IR inactive” is bogus because any substance above 0 K is emitting IR.

He shreds Kiehl and Trenberth’s 1997 Earth’s Global Energy Budget (the original) and says the 324 W/m2 (now 333) DLR backradiation is actually “the incoming electromagnetic energy which is absorbed and diffused by the last 30 km of the atmosphere and is energy which goes into heating the atmosphere” i.e. diffuse solar.

One problem with that is: diffuse solar occurs in the solar range – not the DLR range, but there’s indications from other cases (Siddons) that DLR is not solely from GHGs and clouds and must include a contribution from heated air (which may be the major contribution).The strongest being that Petty’s Nauru DLR plot shows radiation at 11µm but there’s no GHG absorption at that wavelength so no emission..

Very thought provoking article.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Have contacted Prof Nahle via Biology Cabinet for clarification re problems in his paper discussed in #80, 4.1.3 and 4.1.3.1

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/there-is-a-greenhouse-effect-on-venus/#comment-595082

Have asked him to reply there but don’t know when of if he will pick up the email.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Nasif Nahle has replied at JoNova:- ******************************************************************************************************** Author: Nasif Nahle Comment: Dear Richard, Effectively, I used averages of solar constant and insolation to calculate the amount of power absorbed by the surface applying the fundamental mathematical procedure used in astrophysics. I didn’t touch the problem of efficiency because it was not the purpose of the introduction to the experiment, but it is also essential to the theoretical issue. According to the concept, solar constant is an average of total solar irradiance received on each square meter at TOA. As the solar constant includes the whole spectrum of radiation emitted by the Sun, I calculated the amount of thermal radiation alone. Then again, as such amount of thermal radiation enters the atmosphere, I calculated the mitigation by the atmosphere, which includes radiation reflected and absorbed by the atmosphere before it impinge on the surface. The total is almost the same as dividing the solar constant by four because it is 0.51 of thermal radiation and 0.50 of mitigation by the atmosphere: (1365 W/m^2 * 0.51)* 0.5 = 348.075 W/m^2. These and the following numbers could change a bit, according to the value taken as… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands.

By Nasif S. Nahle
Scientist, University Professor and Director of Scientific Research Division at Biology Cabinet Mexico

Abstract
This assessment is a review of the common AGW argument on the carbon dioxide increasing the potential of the water vapor for absorbing and emitting IR radiation as a consequence of the overlapping absorption/emission spectral bands. I have determined the total emissivity of a mixture of gases containing 5% of water vapor and 0.039% of carbon dioxide in all spectral bands where their absorptivities/emissivities overlap. The result of these calculations is that the carbon dioxide attenuates the total absorptivity/emissivity of the water vapor, working like a coolant, not a warmer of the atmosphere and the surface

http://www.biocab.org/Mean_Free_Path.pdf

Doug Cotton
Guest

I have updated http://climate-change-theory.com to feature Prof Nahle’s new experiment which debunks the hypothesis that radiation from a cooler atmsophere can add further thermal energy to a warmer surface.
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/New_Concise_Experiment_on_Backradiation.pdf

This at last provides a repeatable experiment, supported by sound argument based on recognised physics, which debunks the greenhouse effect hypothesis.

PS There is also a serious problem measuring back radiation as explained here http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/118-thermometer-manufacturer-destroys-greenhouse-gas-warming-myth

Post Navigation