Politics and Greenhouse Gases

American Thinker ^ | November 27, 2009 | John McLaughlin

[FreedomPoster]

FYI, see my previous post regarding them.

[neverdem]

Thanks for the link.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[PeaceBeWithYou]

Awesome.

BTTT

[grey_whiskers]

Does anybody want to check my math above?

I've done better than that, I've done the math on your checks.

Exxon Mobil is paying you! /Gore-bot>

(Seriously, the only issue I see is that the solar irradiation is 365 days / year: a hurricane lasts what-- a week or ten days? So 10 days * 1 year / 365 days = .0274 years. Include the 1% factor, and each hurricane transposts .00274 of the average annual solar irradiation.

Which actually does a lot to refute "The Day After Tomorrow" and its monster cyclones, doesn't it...?

(Hint: in order for NYC etc. to freeze solid, what is the rate at which energy must have been
a) transported to the upper atmosphere
b) then radiated out to space

The mind reels.

Cheers!

[maryz]

those pushing AGW nonsense, though I doubt many even attempted to read it.

Do you s'pose if we sent the link to Boxer and Kerry, they'd read it? Can they read???

[PapaBear3625]

Seriously, the only issue I see is that the solar irradiation is 365 days / year: a hurricane lasts what-- a week or ten days? So 10 days * 1 year / 365 days = .0274 years. Include the 1% factor, and each hurricane transposts .00274 of the average annual solar irradiation.

Yes, thanks. So where the negative feedback mechanism comes in, is that warmer oceans would extend the hurricane season, and also there would be more hurricanes running at a time, causing more heat to be dumped to the upper atmosphere.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

More ammo for Inhofe...

[AndyJackson]

I hate to bear bad news, but Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner are self-evidently a couple of cranks, writing nonsense.

In their referenced paper, they state: From known thermal conductivities (Table 5), isochoric heat capacities, and mass densities the isochoric thermal diusivities of the components of the air are determined (Table 6). This allows to estimate the change of the eective thermal conductivity of the air in dependence of a doubling of the CO2 concentration, expected to happen within the next 300 years (Table 7). It is obvious that a doubling of the concentration of the trace gas CO2, whose thermal conductivity is approximately one half than that of nitrogen and oxygen, does change the thermal conductivity at the most by 0; 03% and the isochoric thermal diusivity at the most by 0:07 %

This is sophistry. There are three mechanisms of heat transfer, conduction, convection, and radiation. Conduction in the atmosphere is irrelevant. Convection gives us weather. It is radiation that determines the heat transfer between space, earth, and clouds or CO2. Conductivity has nothing to do with it, and computing the change in the thermal conductivity of air with the change in C02 is a meaningless and irrelevant calculation.

In fact, here is a plot as seen from space of the earth's atmospheric opacity.

What is important is that gases in the atmosphere block the radiation to empty space of nearly 100% of the infrared. THAT is the greenhouse effect that this author claims does not exist.

That does not stop these idiots from going on to say Furthermore it is implied that the spectral transmissivity of a medium determines its thermal conductivity straightforwardly. This is a physical nonsense as well

These authors are speaking nonsense. The thermal conductivity and spectral transmissivity of a medium are two entirely unrelated phenomenon, and it is these authors who, as quoted above, choose to conflate the two.

The problem is that the conjecture of human generated greenhouse gases on climate is an open scientific question. The physical basis for concern is real enough. The only question is whether the magnitude of the effect, in comparison with all the complex offsetting phenomena, is significant in comparison with other sources of variation. The hypothesis is neither established by overwhelming evidence, nor is it refuted by overwhelming evidence.

For Freepers to claim that the question is anything other than open is to engage in the charlattanism, sophistry and self-delusion of the GCC advocates.

[AndyJackson]

A technically correct discussion of solar irradiation, atmosphereic absorbtion, the "greenhouse" effect, and so forth is in this article by a ME professor at Drexel Monitoring Solar Radiation and Its Transmission Through the Atmosphere

Unlike the swindling gobbledygook of the subject article, this is readily comprehended by anyone with a couple of semesters of physics or engineering. [hint, the ability to explain something simply in science and engineering is a sign that the author knows what he is talking about]

[AndyJackson]

One trouble with the papers on global warming that I've seen is that the theories focus on static behavior.

This is simply wrong, and there are a lot of scientists working on sophisticated models who are pretty smart. Here is an example of the sophistication of an ocean and sea ice model being developed at Los Alamos using the largest computers in the world.

The criticism that these models lack the fidelity and completeness necessary to model long term climate effects is fair, and the researches will tell you that problem.

The claim that these are "static models" is so far off base as to be laughable. It shows your stupidity and not the researchers stupidity.

Again whether human activities are affecting climate is an open scientific quesiton, but do not make yourself look ridiculous by claiming that all the folks working on this problem are stupid. Obviously the CRU folks are corrupt, and apparently incompetent. Not everyone is. Many are good and open minded scientists trying to solve a problem.

[neverdem]

Thanks for the link.

[AndyJackson]

Gerlich and Tscheuschner next show that even the simplest forms of the special equations needed for a true analysis of magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD) relationships involved in planetary atmospheric heating cannot be solved

Again these guys are sophistic swindlers. MHD equations are mostly irrelevant to problems in atmospheric heating. The important relations are radiation transfer equations, and if you are worried about the simultaneous hydrodynamic equations then the field is called radiation hydrodynamics. For atmospheres, because the radiation flow is at the speed of light, and the convective flow is at most tens of meters per second, the two problems are largely decoupled. The real problems are the uncertainties involved with the physics of clouds and how to model them.