Politics and Greenhouse Gases

American Thinker ^ | November 27, 2009 | John McLaughlin

[neverdem]

Advocates and sympathetic politicians claiming that man-made global warming from use of carbon-based energy sources mandates international controls on economically prosperous nations were already worried that their victory is slipping. Now another blow has been struck against the basic "science" used to support their case. Following an extensive theoretical analysis, two German physicists have determined(pdf) that the term greenhouse gas is a misnomer and that the greenhouse effect appears to violate basic laws of physics.

To briefly review, the entire argument for immediate political action on carbon-based emissions rests upon three premises, formulated over the last twenty years by scientists affiliated with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

1. The planet is experiencing worldwide atmospheric warming, threatening life as we know it.

2. This warming is unprecedented because average worldwide temperatures for at least a thousand years have shown no significant variation until the last seventy years, which correlates with a thirty-percent increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) gas generated by industrial activity.

3. Invoking a "greenhouse effect" model, the IPCC claims that CO2 exhibits a property involving special characteristics of long-wave energy absorption and radiation with altitude (called "radiative forcing") which accelerates near-surface warming and, as the CO2 quantity increases, spells planetary disaster unless reversed.

In an AT article posted September 27, I laid out the case for why the first two premises were flawed, if not outright fraudulent. Now, the IPCC "consensus" atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming has been shown not only to be unverifiable, but to actually violate basic laws of physics.

The analysis comes from an independent theoretical study detailed in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205 references) paper prepared by two German physicists(pdf), Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner, and published in several updated versions over the last couple of years. The latest version appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics. In the paper, the two authors analyze the greenhouse gas model from its origin in the mid-19th century to the present IPCC application.

The Greenhouse Model

The paper initially tackles the concept of thermal conductivity of the atmosphere (vital for any discussion of radiative heat transfer) and how it is affected by carbon dioxide, which, they point out, is a trace gas. The current estimated concentration of CO2 is 0.04% by volume and 0.06% by mass. Gerlich and Tscheuschner show that even if CO2 concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change more than 0.03% -- within the margin of measuring error.

The authors then devote nearly twenty pages to a detailed theoretical and experimental model analysis of the classic glass greenhouse. This model posits that glass surrounding a large volume of air allows solar radiation to pass through to heat the greenhouse surface and then selectively blocks resulting infrared energy from escaping. However, calculations show that no property of glass can adequately explain the temperature rise. Normal glass assumed in the model just cannot selectively screen and filter sufficient radiation energy by spectral absorption or reflection. Thus, assumption of a dominant radiative heating model must be incorrect.

Gerlich and Tscheuschner rely on referenced experimental evidence to show what is really going on. The dominant heat transfer mechanism is not radiation, but convection. Experimental evidence shows a greenhouse interior warms merely because the glass physically traps interior rising air, which then becomes warmer and warmer relative to air outside the greenhouse, which conversely can rise and cool unimpeded.

If the classic glass greenhouse model is obviously wrong, then this raises suspicions about the atmospheric "greenhouse effect" itself. The authors examine definitions of "greenhouse effect" by three respected sources (the Dictionary of Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Astronomy; the Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics; and Encyclopedia Britannica Online). They show how each uses ill-defined global concepts (such as "mean temperature"), confuse infrared radiation with heat (they're different), incorrectly describe the physics inside a glass greenhouse, and use other terms unsupported by the laws of physics.

Surprisingly, the authors find that the term "atmospheric greenhouse effect" does not occur in any fundamental work or text involving thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory. They then attempt to fill that void. They first derive the generalized equations a computer would have to solve to calculate an average radiative temperature for a rotating smooth globe without oceans (half exposed to the sun and half not) and inclined relative to the sun (as is Earth). They show that for a globe the size of Earth, even this simple non-convection model would be unsolvable by the most powerful computers available today or for the foreseeable future -- not only because of the quantity of calculations required, but also because of the impossibility of setting the initial boundary conditions at every point needed to even begin the calculation process.

Relevant Atmospheric Physics

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 -- even for small-space regions and small-time intervals -- because of the inhomogenities of each fluid involved and relevant solid, liquid, and gaseous phases to be considered.  The real world is just too complex.

However, they are able to show that MHD-type equations offer no terms corresponding to absorption of electromagnetic radiation, do not include equations for "radiative transfer," and give no indication of the point where the concentration of carbon dioxide would even enter into the computations. Further, they go on to show that any mechanism whereby CO2 in the cooler upper atmosphere could exert any thermal enhancing or "forcing" effect on the warmer surface below violates both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

There are too many different transfer phenomena (radiative transfer, heat transfer, momentum transfer, mass transfer, energy transfer, etc.) and types of interfaces (static or moving) between solids, fluids, gases, plasmas, etc. for which no applicable scientific theory nor ability to determine boundary conditions exists. "Hence, the computer simulations of global climatology are not based on physical laws," the authors conclude (their emphasis). "Nevertheless, in their summaries for policymakers, global climatologists claim that they can compute the influence of carbon dioxide on the climate."

Dr. Roy Spencer, in his book Climate Confusion, points out how man-made global warming alarmists attempt to mislead the public by claiming that global CO2 emissions total about 50 billion tons per year while failing to acknowledge that the total weight of the atmosphere is 5 quadrillion tons. In other words, the 50 billion tons adds to 5 million billion tons, or a mere 10 parts per million -- relatively speaking, a trivial change each year.

Spencer shows how with oceans covering nearly seventy percent of Earth, water vapor and ocean currents totally dominate our global climate. He attributes oceanic and atmospheric circulation in the North Pacific as the dominant modern climate forcing mechanism. As for infrared radiation, Gerlich and Tscheuschner agree with earlier studies that water vapor is responsible for most of the IR absorption in the Earth's atmosphere. Thus, any infrared radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide represents only a tiny part of the full IR spectrum and is affected little by raising CO2 concentration.

Gerlich and Tscheuschner state without equivocation that there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect which explains the relevant physical phenomena. They call the terms greenhouse effect and greenhouse gases "deliberate misnomers" and a "myth beyond physical reality" and conclude:

The point discussed here was to answer the question, whether the supposed atmospheric effect has a physical basis. This is not the case. In summary, there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO2-greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy. 

Thus, scientific support for the man-made global warming hoax slowly collapses while politicians rush to lock in massive international wealth-redistribution in its name. Those pesky "greenhouse gases" just don't behave in a politically correct manner.

[RC2]

I believe that this statement “Those pesky “greenhouse gases” just don’t behave in a politically correct manner”, should be changed to read “Those pesky “greenhouse gases” just don’t behave in a politically wealth distribution manner”.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Mr Ramsbotham]

Experimental evidence shows a greenhouse interior warms merely because the glass physically traps interior rising air, which then becomes warmer and warmer relative to air outside the greenhouse, which conversely can rise and cool unimpeded.

I think I proved this to myself a couple of years ago when I built a backyard shed. Rather than closing in the soffits, I simply used window screen fabric between every other set of rafters. Based on experience with closed sheds, I expected the structure to get very hot in the summertime. I was surprised, however, to find that the interior never got hotter than the outside temperature. No doubt it's due to the air circulation cased by the open soffit space.

[MrB]

One bright point, even thought the left may not even “admit that it is an admission” -

they are now saying that we must have the radical “carbon reducing” (ie, LIFESTYLE reducing) policies put in place anyway.

They are admitting that this was the goal and the whole point of the “climate change” crap in the first place.

HAMMER ‘EM ON IT.

[DrDavid]

"Hence, the computer simulations of global climatology are not based on physical laws," the authors conclude (their emphasis). "Nevertheless, in their summaries for policymakers, global climatologists claim that they can compute the influence of carbon dioxide on the climate."

The computer models created by CRU are attempts to fit the historical temperature data statistically. Then they extrapolate the fit into the future.

[neverdem]

In other words, there's probably more fraudulent science here than just the fudging of data in the CRU's climategate.

Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate Research

BBC's paleo-news site finally runs a real scoop story on Climategate's Michael Mann

Will Climate Scandal Be a Tipping Point?

Climategate: White House Involvement in Scandal Will Make It Harder for MSM to Ignore

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[Kimberly GG]

Yep...they are all over the morning cable shows poo pooing this as little more than a few rogue scientists and that proven studies go back to the 80s and 90s. They are not going to let this die...the green elitists have far too much invested. Protests around the world wouldn’t stop them. Obama WILL proceed as planned.

[maryz]

Gerlich and Tscheuschner sound like my idea of scientists! Wonder if AlGore would like to challenge them to a debate?

Oh, wait -- they're physicists, not climatologists . . . does that disqualify them from this discussion??? ;-)

[bereanway]

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 — even for small-space regions and small-time intervals — because of the inhomogenities of each fluid involved and relevant solid, liquid, and gaseous phases to be considered. The real world is just too complex.

However, they are able to show that MHD-type equations offer no terms corresponding to absorption of electromagnetic radiation, do not include equations for “radiative transfer,” and give no indication of the point where the concentration of carbon dioxide would even enter into the computations. Further, they go on to show that any mechanism whereby CO2 in the cooler upper atmosphere could exert any thermal enhancing or “forcing” effect on the warmer surface below violates both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.”

*******

Well clearly these two upstarts didn’t get the memo that the science is settled. And the rest of us are just ignorant deniers who are hopelessly lost so what would be the point of releasing the sacred data and models. That would only confuse the unenlightened.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks neverdem.

[DrDavid]

Well clearly these two upstarts didn’t get the memo that the science is settled. And the rest of us are just ignorant deniers who are hopelessly lost so what would be the point of releasing the sacred data and models. That would only confuse the unenlightened.

The science actually gets in the way of AGW theory speculation. The climatologist aren't really doing science, they are data fitting. When you disagree with them, it demonstrates that you don't understand the topic.

[Gandalf_The_Gray]

The computer models created by CRU are attempts to fit the historical temperature data statistically. Then they extrapolate the fit into the future.

Empirical models (logarithmic, polynomial, power series, or exponential) can be made to reproduce any amount of historical data (curve fitting). It is an exercise in mathematics to generate such equations by calculating numerical coefficients that have no real world relationships with the phenomenon being modeled (average temperature, or the Dow average for instance). Only a fool would would bet that the same model can predict the future as they do not represent cause and effect and therefore they can only reflect the past (data that was used to formulate them).

Regards,
GtG

[PapaBear3625]

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

I haven't seen anything in the climate models that I've seen that go into the effects of hurricanes and thunderstorms. An average hurricane releases heat energy at the rate of 50 to 200 exajoules (10¹⁸ J) per day, transporting heat from the ocean surface to the upper atmosphere where it can be more easily radiated away. The warmer the oceans get, the more hurricanes we'll have, and the more heat gets radiated away in a negative-feedback system.

To put this in perspective, wiki says the total solar energy the earth gets is 1.7 * 10¹⁷ Watts. A watt is 1 joule/sec, so the daily energy is 3600 * 24 * 1.7 * 10¹⁷ = 1.5 * 10²². If a hurricane transports between 5 * 10¹⁹ and 2 * 10²⁰ joules/day to be radiated away in the upper atmosphere, this seems to be a pretty decent amount of energy, on the order of 1% of the total the earth receives. I would think that honest global warming theories would need to take into account this negative feedback system?

Does anybody want to check my math above?

[denydenydeny]

In summary, there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO2-greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.

The reaction from the AGW cult will be that the authors are "only" physicists, not *cue heavenly choirs* climatologists.

Essentially the response is "It's a climatologist thing, you wouldn't understand."

[neverdem]

Essentially the response is "It's a climatologist thing, you wouldn't understand."

But neither is Dr. James Hansen. He's an astronomer, not a climatologist.

[GOPJ]

Following an extensive theoretical analysis, two German physicists have determined(pdf) that the term greenhouse gas is a misnomer and that the greenhouse effect appears to violate basic laws of physics.

LOL - great find, neverdem.

[maryz]

Thanks for posting this! The original paper apparently came out last January . . . but I guess it didn’t pass the
AGW “peer review” test . . . :(

[Just mythoughts]

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.htm

Interesting that all this was birthed back in 1988 by the UN and to follow the evolution of where liberals intend to make this world become.

[FreedomPoster]

Very, very interesting.

I came across the technical article by the Germans that is referenced here about a year ago. While I haven’t been active in the heavy duty aspects of their paper for some years, I do have a strong background in thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, and thermophysical properties of materials, enough to at least follow along with the paper (versus being totally overwhelmed, as I’m sure most are).

It was my take at the time that it was a compelling arrow to the heart of AGW theories based on CO2 emissions. I have been linking others to it, especially those pushing AGW nonsense, though I doubt many even attempted to read it.

I am glad to see they are continuing their work despite the opprobrium I am sure they have been getting from some quarters.