Monday, July 14, 2014

Black Bodies

your site will not allow my full empirical disproof of AGW to be published. So I will just put this link here -
- as a place marker and screen shot it.

That little empirical experiment that even highschool kids can build demonstrates the difference between a UV/SW “selective surface” and a “near blackbody”. It demonstrates why the sun alone is heating the oceans above their theoretical blackbody temp of -18C. DWLWIR is not involved. The very foundation of the entire AGW hoax depends on claiming the oceans to be a “near blackbody” and that the atmosphere slows their cooling rate. And this claim is false. It is this that utterly disproves not just AGW but the idea of a net radiative GHE as well.

The full empirical proof has several thousand words, multiple empirical experiments and around 20 diagrams and experiment photos, but your site won't allow me to post it.

This screen shot allows me to be the first to say -
The oceans are a UV/SW selective surface not a near blackbody.
The sun alone heats the oceans.
Given 1 bar pressure, the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is cooling of the oceans.
The net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is therefore cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.
AGW is therefore a physical impossibility.

Now play fair Christopher. Allow me to publish all the empirical proof.

  1. AGW empirically disproved – part 1

    disproving AGW is simple, and the disproof can be empirically demonstrated. AGW depends on the unproven hypothesis of a net radiative “greenhouse effect” raising the surface temperature of our planet 33C above its theoretical blackbody temperature of -18C. But there is no net radiative GHE on our ocean planet.

    Does this mean there is an error in current radiative physics? No. The two layer radiative model that is the foundation of global warming claims works. You can even build an empirical model -
    - The target plate in chamber 1 reaches the higher equilibrium temperature. But this has no relationship to the reality of our planet. Standard S-B equations work for matt black plates separated by vacuum. They don’t work when coupling between “layers” in occurring via non-radiative transports. They don’t work on moving gases. They certainly don't work on semi transparent surfaces and they don't work on materials cooled by evaporation.

    And it is the last two points that are the killer for not just AGW but the very idea of a net radiative GHE on our planet.

    All of the AGW hoax can be disproved by just correctly answering one very, very simple question -
    “given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans warming or cooling?”

    The radiative GHE hypothesis stands or falls on this question as 71% of the planets surface is covered in ocean. If the net effect of the atmosphere over the ocean is cooling, AGW and the radiative GHE hypothesis are both disproved. Why? Because if the net effect of the atmosphere over 71% of the planets surface is cooling, the atmosphere in turn needs a cooling mechanism. The only effective cooling mechanism for the atmosphere is radiative gases. If, given 1 bar pressure, the atmosphere is cooling the oceans, then AGW, as you requested, is disproved.

    So is our atmosphere warming or cooling our oceans? The AGW hypothesis states that DWLWIR slows the cooling rate of the oceans allowing the average 240 w/m2 received to heat them above -18C to 15C.

    Can DWLWIR slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool? The answer is no. Not to any measurable degree. This can be shown by the simplest empirical experiments -
    I have been running multiple versions of this experiment since 2011 -

    Just fill the sample containers with 40C water under the strong and weak LWIR sources. You will note no divergence in their cooling rate. Repeat, but this time float a square of LDPE film onto the surface of each sample. Now, when evaporative cooling is prevented, the sample cooling rates diverge. Incident LWIR, even if emitted from a cooler material, can slow the cooling rate of most materials. It just doesn’t work for liquid water that can evaporatively cool.

    But if DWLWIR is not keeping our oceans above -18C what could be doing it? The oceans are a “near blackbody” aren't they? An average 240 w/m2 of incident solar radiation should only result in a temperature of 255K (-18C). Well the simple answer is that the oceans are not a near blackbody, they are what is known to engineers (but not climastrologists) as a “selective surface”.
  2. AGW empirically disproved – part 2

    So what is the difference between a “near blackbody” and a “selective surface”, and why does it matter? Here we will cover empirical experiments dealing with semi-transparent selective surfaces.

    Are you seated comfortably Christopher? Then let's begin, let's begin 1965.
    In 1965, researchers at Texas A&M were experimenting with solar storage ponds. While “salt gradient” won the day, some initial research was into freshwater evaporation constrained ponds -
    - They found an interesting thing. Despite making layer 2 matt black and absorbing more SW and UV, the pond didn't heat as well. Layer 2 clear and layer 3 black worked far better. If layer 2 was black, they found temperatures just millimetres below could be 30C lower than surface. If there was no DWLWIR on such a solar pond with layer 2 matt black, then average surface temperature would indeed be -18C. But layer 2 clear and layer 3 black is a game changer. Without atmospheric cooling, regardless of DWLWIR, surface Tmax would top 80C.

    Let's examine SW selective surfaces a little further -
    Here is the experiment being run under intermittent SW simulating diurnal cycle -

    The experiment is simple. Expose both blocks to equal SW radiation. Say about 1000 w/m2 for three hours. Block A now has a higher average temperature by about 20C. Try again with 1000 w/m2 of IR. No average temperature difference. Both blocks have the same ability to emit LWIR, the same ability to absorb both SW and IR. The only difference is the depth of SW absorption. And for materials with slow internal non-radiative transport this matters a lot.

    But acrylic blocks in that experiment are static. No convective circulation. Maybe that will save AGW? No -
    Here two insulated matt black tubs of water are used. One tub has clear water, the other water dyed black so light will not visibly penetrate 2mm depth. Exposed to SW, tub A with the clear water reaches the higher average temperature, and the higher surface temperature.

    Christopher, there is no way around it. The selective surface effect is what is keeping the oceans 33C above theoretical blackbody temp of -18C not DWLWIR as claimed by the Church of Radiative Climastsrology.

    So there you have it Christopher, the proof, via the scientific method of empirical experiment, showing that AGW is a physical impossibility. DWLWIR cannot be slowing the cooling rate of the oceans. Due to the selective surface effect of transparent water exposed to SW, the sun alone has the power to heat the oceans to 80C or beyond, were it not for atmospheric cooling. And the atmosphere as you know has only one effective cooling mechanism – radiative gases. Therefore global warming due to human emissions of CO2 is a physical impossibility, because the net effect of radiative gases in the atmosphere of our ocean planet is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.

    Here's the simple facts of climate on our planet, Planet Ocean. -

    The sun heats the oceans.
    The atmosphere cools the oceans.
    Radiative gases cool the atmosphere.

    Just think Christopher, if you had spent $5000 on building this -
    - you might have been $25,000 better off.

    The good news is that paying out $30,000 USD to end the whole AGW thing and getting back to real environmental problems is a bargain.

    Christopher, time to pay the man.


    I think you submitted this same argument in a previous submission that I have already responded to, but I will address it again, considering how much work you put into typing all of this up.

    Your premise is that the Sun is responsible for heating the oceans and the atmosphere actually cools it. This is fairly close to the reality, but, as they say, the devil is in the details.

    When you say the atmosphere is 'cooling' the oceans, just what do you mean by that? Is the atmosphere acting as some kind of refrigeration system? The reality is the oceans are cooling because they are radiating infrared radiation back into space and losing heat through evaporation. Greenhouse gases absorb that IR and then re-radiate it. The difference is that when it is radiated by the oceans it is all going upwards, to some extent. But, when it is re-radiated by the greenhouse gases it goes in a random direction, so some will go up and some will go down. Some will work its way up higher into the atmosphere. Some will work its way back down and be absorbed again by the ocean. This prevents the IR radiation from escaping as rapidly as it would otherwise be able to. As a result, the oceans are cooling down at a slower rate. However, the incoming energy from the Sun is still coming in at the same rate. This means they have the same amount coming in, but less going out. This leads to a net warming, even with atmospheric cooling taking place.

    Look at it this way. Your body temperature is about 37 degrees C. If you are standing outside without a coat on a day where the outside temperature is 10 degrees C, you will be cooling down. And, if you are standing outside without a coat on a day where the outside temperature is 35 degrees C you are still cooling down. In both cases, the air temperature is lower than your body temperature and you are losing energy to the atmosphere, but there is a great deal of difference between a day that is 10 degrees C (50 degrees F) and one that is 35 degrees C (95 degrees F).  The difference is how fast you are losing energy (outflow) versus energy inflow (your body generating heat from the food you consume).

    It is not enough to say the atmosphere is 'cooling' the oceans. To be scientifically accurate, you need to say that the oceans are cooling through IR radiation and evaporation and the atmosphere is slowing that rate of cooling by slowing the flow of energy. The important point is not that the oceans are radiating energy, the issue is the rate of energy loss. If they are losing energy faster than they are absorbing it, they will get colder. If they are absorbing energy faster than they are losing it, they will heat up. Either way, they are still losing energy, but are they losing it slower or faster than they are absorbing it?

    You have left out that part of the equation from your calculations. How fast is the energy coming in from the Sun relative to the flow rate of energy going out? Just like being hot on a day when the air temperature is actually less than your body temperature, the rate of energy loss is vitally important. What we are doing with our greenhouse gas emissions is to slow the rate of outward energy flow while the inward energy flow rate remains the same. This results in more energy being stored in the system and that causes the temperature to rise.

    You then state the basic facts that prove your claim is not valid:

    The sun heats the oceans.
    The atmosphere cools the oceans.
    Radiative gases cool the atmosphere.
    Correct, but incomplete. You completely neglected to include that rate of cooling factor in the atmosphere cooling part. As mentioned above, the atmosphere does not 'cool' the oceans, it is just the layer the outgoing radiant energy has to pass through in order for the oceans to cool, but the atmospheric temperature is cooler than the ocean temperature, so we will accept that statement for the purposes of this conversation.

    However, we cannot accept that you did not include the rate of flow for the outgoing energy and that is a fatal flaw in your argument. Not all outgoing flow rates are equal and we are changing the outgoing flow rate in our atmosphere with greenhouse gases.

    Your work is fairly good and would have been better if you had include all of the terms involved. As it stands, you did not prove man made global warming is not real.

No comments:

Post a Comment