AGW empirically disproved for $30,000 USD – 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 ...in 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 -
http://oi62.tinypic.com/1ekg8o.jpg
- 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 -
http://oi61.tinypic.com/or5rv9.jpg
Here is the experiment being run under intermittent SW simulating diurnal cycle -
http://i61.tinypic.com/2z562y1.jpg
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 -
http://oi62.tinypic.com/zn7a4y.jpg
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 -
http://i42.tinypic.com/315nbdl.jpg
- 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.
Response:
Let's begin with the "one very, very simple question": “given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans warming or cooling?”
There is nothing simple about this question and posing it that way is an attempt to trap any responder. The reason this is not simple is because the greenhouse effect is not that simple. Is the atmosphere heating the oceans? No, it isn't. The oceans are being heated by the Sun. Then, what does the atmosphere have to do with it? The atmosphere acts as a blanket and prevents the heat being radiated as IR light from going off into space. If there were no atmosphere, the IR emitted by the surface of the planet (including the ocean surface) would simply radiate into space and be gone. But, we do have an atmosphere and that atmosphere has gases that absorb IR radiation. When the molecules of these greenhouse gases (CO2, water vapor, methane and nitrous oxide are the principle ones) are hit with a photon of IR radiation, it will absorb the photon and then almost immediately reemit it. What has changed is the direction of the photon. When emitted by the surface the photons were traveling upwards away from the surface. After being absorbed and remitted it will be traveling in a random direction. That means half will have some amount of velocity upwards and some will have some amount of velocity downwards (the rest of the velocity vector will be horizontal). But, it can then be absorbed by yet another molecule and the process repeats itself. This will occur over and over until the photon is able to bypass all the molecules of greenhouse gases and escape to space. As a result of the greenhouse gases, the atmosphere prevents the surface of the planet from cooling down as quickly as it would without an atmosphere.
So, we can see that it is not a "very, very simple question" at all.
Your entire premise is based on the idea that the atmosphere cools the ocean surface, so AGW can't be real. Then explain this. Your body temperature is basically 37 degrees C. If the air temperature is 35 degrees C, is the air cooling you or heating you up? The answer is that it is cooling you down because the air temperature is lower than your body temperature. It sure won't feel like it, though. Why not? That's because it isn't cooling you down as quickly as air at 20 degrees C would. As a result, the temperature around your body is building up because it is not transporting energy away as fast as what you are radiating out.
This is exactly how the atmosphere works. Yes, it is cooling the surface, but the Sun is heating it at the same time. If the atmosphere cools it more quickly than the Sun heats it up, then the temperature drops. If the atmosphere cools it less quickly than the Sun heats it up, the temperature goes up.
As for the evaporation rate, it is the primary cooling mechanism and it goes up as the temperature goes up. Water at 35 degrees C evaporates faster than water at 10 degrees C. This then increases the amount of water vapor in the air, which is an excellent greenhouse gas.
So, by slowing the rate that IR radiation is allowed to escape, the greenhouse gases cause the surface to heat up more than they cool down, which in turn leads to increased evaporation, which will then trap more heat, leading to more warming.
There is nothing in your submission that even challenges any of that science.
Your submission did not prove man made global warming is not real.
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
GHE Is a Hoax
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Christopher,
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 -
http://i44.tinypic.com/2n0q72w.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/33dwg2g.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/2wrlris.jpg
- 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 -
http://i42.tinypic.com/2h6rsoz.jpg
I have been running multiple versions of this experiment since 2011 -
http://i47.tinypic.com/694203.jpg
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”.