Posted on 07/09/2017 7:14:54 AM PDT by rktman
A new scientific paper contends the entire foundation of the man-made global-warming theory – the assumption that greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere by trapping heat – is wrong.
If confirmed, the study’s findings would crush the entire “climate change” movement to restrict CO2 emissions, the authors assert
Some experts contacted by WND criticized the paper, while others advised caution.
Still others suggested that the claimed discovery represents a massive leap forward in human understanding – a “new paradigm.”
The paper argues that concentrations of CO2 and other supposed “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere have virtually no effect on the earth’s temperature.
They conclude the entire greenhouse gas theory is incorrect.
Instead, the earth’s “greenhouse” effect is a function of the sun and atmospheric pressure, which results from gravity and the mass of the atmosphere, rather than the amount of greenhouse gases such as CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere.
The same is true for other planets and moons with a hard surface, the authors contend, pointing to the temperature and atmospheric data of various celestial bodies collected by NASA.
So precise is the formula, the authors of the paper told WND, that, by using it, they were able to correctly predict the temperature of other celestial bodies not included in their original analysis.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I haven’t read the entire article but it should be very simple to test this new theory. If the heating is due to the density of the atmosphere and not greenhouse effect, the temp of a test chamber should be the same independent of light intensity. In other words, see if the temp is different when its light or dark.
There are no concentrations of CO2. The current accepted concentration is 402 parts per million (.000402). This number is measured on Mauna Loa Volcanoe, which incidentally spews vast amounts of CO2.
How terribly unprogressive.
Sorry, there is no cheating PV=nRT. n and R are constants. If pressure rises, temperature HAS to rise. This is very basic physics and there is no cheating it. I am an engineer, not a scientist, so I will be happy to have a physicist correct me if I am wrong. In that absence, I am hanging my hat on PV=nRT.
You are absolutely correct that the lowest level of the atmosphere experiences the highest pressure. You can climb mount Everest and see that the air is very low pressure there compared to air at sea level.
But that is not the question is it? The question is, what is causing the CHANGES to planetary temperature. And according to this study, the change comes from increased solar activity causing the atmosphere to increase in pressure. The air at sea level will still be the most dense, but now it is at a higher pressure than when the solar radiation hit.
You can’t cheat PV=nRT.
Sorry, there is no cheating PV=nRT. n and R are constants. If pressure rises, temperature HAS to rise. This is very basic physics and there is no cheating it. I am an engineer, not a scientist, so I will be happy to have a physicist correct me if I am wrong. In that absence, I am hanging my hat on PV=nRT.
You are absolutely correct that the lowest level of the atmosphere experiences the highest pressure. You can climb mount Everest and see that the air is very low pressure there compared to air at sea level.
But that is not the question is it? The question is, what is causing the CHANGES to planetary temperature. And according to this study, the change comes from increased solar activity causing the atmosphere to increase in pressure. The air at sea level will still be the most dense, but now it is at a higher pressure than when the solar radiation hit.
You can’t cheat PV=nRT.
Repeated ice ages with warm intervals between always proved the Hockey Stick graph wrong and suggested the IPCC models were junk. You can go back a lot further than the once lush Sahara Desert to see the massive swings in temperature earth has experienced — suggesting the man-made warming theory was a hoax all along.
But the thing is, these researchers have discovered the possible mechanism for the changes. That is hugh and series.
I'm not arguing that PV=nRT isn't a valid law. My point is that the gas law is NOT the driver of the theory in the OP.
-- And according to this study, the change comes from increased solar activity causing the atmosphere to increase in pressure. --
That's what I disagree with. The mass of the earth's atmosphere hasn't changed, and the area underneath it hasn't changed, so how can the pressure on the fixed area that mass acts against, change? I think you are adding the gas law to the study, when the study doesn't operate on that principle.
Better to read, less clutter. Though I run NoScript etc., I often look for a “print version” when offered. Thanks again.
Dates back to 2011, so not exactly new, perhaps improved. The Obama minions wouldn’t let them publish as government employees, so they released a paper under pseudonyms (names spelled in reverse), were called out on that basis—thus paper retracted. Links in chronological order.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-theory-of-climate/
The paper as submitted/published (2014) before their ruse discovered:
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
Recent discussion:
The most recent published paper:
Height of altitude/density of atmosphere at the orbital altitude of the ISS changes in relation to the solar energy output. The atmosphere expands vertically with addition of heat energy. The pressure rise is small with the most pronounced effect a vertical expansion of the Earth’s gas envelope.
The most variable factor in solar output is within the UV spectrum (15%) tied to sunspot and flare production at solar maximum. During solar maximum the ISS suffers more drag from the Earth’s atmosphere, resulting in an increased rate of drop in it’s orbital altitude. More effort is directed toward orbital correction from resupply missions during these periods of the Sun’s activity peak.
Good summary.
As an engineer, this makes a lot more sense to me than the assumption that a miniscule minor gas component is driving global temperature.
Good summary.
As an engineer, this makes a lot more sense to me than the assumption that a miniscule minor gas component is driving global temperature.
President Trump was right again.
He probably stayed up late studying the mathematics of planetary thermodynamics as described in the article.
Then schooled Merkel.
***Eventually, their true identities were discovered, and so, the journal, Advances in Space Research, retracted the paper, though the editors acknowledged that the retraction was “not related to the scientific merit of the study.”***
So in essence, the editors are admitting that they retracted the paper due to political reasons, not scientific ones. I’m glad that they have at least come clean about the reason.
We did titration in chemistry where we counted the drops of one chemical in another and like on drop 389 the fluid was still clear and then on drop 390, it all turned red or some other color. So we both know that a tiny change can make for a tipping point that produces a large result.
But like you, when I heard the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and realized it was a TRACE gas, and that man has only produced some 4% of that minuscule trace gas, it didn’t take much reasoning to conclude it was not likely to be the tiny portion man adds to that trace gas that has been causing the warming.
Add that to the fact we have been in and out of ice ages without man producing any CO2, and you have to be either downright stupid or in denial to think Man has the capacity to change the earth’s temperature signficantly and permanently over time. It is the height of arrogance or stupidity.
With liberals, it is just a delicious lie they want to believe because mother Gaia is their religion and they want to see man, especially America, as the earth’s enemy.
So then you disagree with this new study. Because it is not my conclusion that atmospheric pressure rises with increased solar activity, it is the conclusion of the 2 researchers who published the study this article discuses.
And they found that to be not only true with the 6 planets they studied, but even when they modeled a planet or moon hey had not studies, real observed temperatures for that planet or moon conformed to their model.
That is pretty damn impressive.
I’m just trying to understand the mechanism behind what they have discovered and all I can come up with is PV=nRT.
For you to say you cannot see how pressure can increase against the area of a mass — well take that up with the 2 researches of their study. Because that is exactly what they are saying.
So I guess you are skeptical of their conclusions because you still don’t believe it is possible for the air to increase in pressure as a whole, not just by wind and local air currents. Their conclusion is exactly that — the suns heat increases a planets atmospheric pressure warming the planet.
If you don’t wan’t to believe the result of this study, that is fine. I believe it and I’m just trying to understand how the increased pressure occurs. Energy input excites molecules and has to lead to all that Nitrogen and Oxygen in the atmosphere trying to move away from each other and spread out as they absorb all that energy. The inability to do so increases the overall pressure.
Even if the energy absorption of all that Nitrogen and Oxygen simply causes the molecules to rise higher in the atmosphere, then gravity is still going to cause it to impart more pressure on the system as a whole than when all that Nitrogen and Oxygen in the air is cooler. Same with all the other gases and trace gases.
I don’t see how you cannot see this.
From the first day I heard the CO2 theory, I knew we were in trouble. We’ve had success in reducing SO2 and NOx, so.... They expected the same success. The uninformed would think CO2 is no big deal.
It IS a big deal. The BIGGEST deal.
If the CO2 theory is correct, mankind is screwed.
Fortunately, I have never believed it. Nor do I know ANY engineers (in the US) that believe it.
So which formula explains the pressure increase in the open atmosphere of earth? PV=nRT might be for a closed system or a contained system. I was assuming that the inability of the atmosphere to rise above the Exosphere pretty much makes the earth’s atmosphere behave as if it is contained and is a closed system.
Is my assumption wrong?
Btw... That may be the best summary of my own reasoning that I have ever read! :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.