Monday, 3 May 2021

AGW theory is based on two blatant 'diagonal comparisons' (Part 1)

The theory goes as follows:
1. Earth is 33 degrees warmer than it should be based in incoming solar radiation alone;
2. This is due to 'greenhouse gases' and 'trapped radiation';
3. Hence more greenhouse gases = higher temperatures.

Item 1. is based on the most outrageous Diagonal Comparison of all time. If this is not a valid comparison, then we need not concern ourselves with whether 2 and 3 are valid*.

The Hansen approach is:
1. Calculate the average effective (i.e. expected) temperature** of clouds, land and ocean surface. He just calculates one overall average temperature based on weighted average albedo (reflectiveness) of clouds, land and ocean surface, which is pretty close to the weighted average expected temperature of clouds, land and oceans separately. The key here is that land and ocean surface below clouds are ignored when calculating this expected temperature.
2. Compare that with the actual temperature of land and ocean surface... completely ignoring the actual lower temperatures of clouds.

A proper scientific comparison compares like with like!

So if you calculate the effective temperature of clouds, land and ocean surface (ignoring land and oceans below clouds), you have to compare it with the actual temperature of clouds, land and ocean surface (ignoring the land and ocean surface below clouds)... and you end up with a 'Greenhouse Effect' of +/- zero, zilch, nothing. Here are the numbers. (Cloud top altitude in pale blue as that is my best estimate and the variable most worthy of research or debate).

It all matches up nicely. Actual temperature ≈ expected temperature and outgoing infrared radiation ≈ incoming solar radiation. There is no 'missing radiation' or 'trapped radiation':
Tutorial on the Greenhouse Effect, this explains how it is calculated.
How high in the sky are clouds?
Scientists detect world's coldest cloud hovering over Pacific Ocean
What is Earth’s surface emissivity?

* The real explanation for the apparent 33 degree difference is far simpler. The most plausible reason for the recent slight increase in temperatures is Ozone Depletion, but these have been crowded out. Whether you understand or agree with these is irrelevant to the question of whether there is any evidence for 'greenhouse gases' causing 33 degrees of warming in the first place.

** Effective Temperature is the hypothetical temperature that a planet would have to be to emit as much radiation as it receives from its star, assuming 100% emissivity. But it is a good first approximation for the actual temperature for a fast-spinning planning planet with a thick atmosphere, like Earth.
The other Diagonal Comparison is that the official average surface temperature is NOT representative of average troposphere temperature, which is what we are interested in. Surface temperature measurements are 33 degrees warmer than the average temperature of the troposphere because measurements are weighted towards very low altitudes. This would not be so if Earth were covered with very high mountains. I'll cover that in Part 2, and then I'm done with this nonsense.


MrMC said...

If you are into these kind of calculations, RE below on BBC and endless other stories like this:

Trees planted by hospital treating Covid patient

NHS workers at Wales’ largest hospital are creating a woodland to offset the carbon emissions and waste that came from the machines needed to treat patients with Covid-19.

I would be interested to find out quite how much carbon trees give out in the evenings when they respire as oppose to photosynthesise, and, although probably they are still net carbon traps, when trees die or shed leaves what happens then ?
Peat bogs are meant to be better at keeping carbon trapped.

Mark Wadsworth said...

MC, clearly, trees lock in CO2 from the air when growing, and release most of it again when they die and rot.

They are wasting their time though. Trees are the natural vegetation of this island and most of Northern Europe. If you just leave well alone, you end up with loads of trees.

Bayard said...

MC, the biggest carbon trap by far is the fungi that live below the surface under grassland and other undisturbed ground. This was only discovered in 2014 and, needless to say, has not been incorporated in the Alarmists "you, too can help to save the world" religious canon, so we are all still told to believe in trees.

Mark the problem the Alarmists face is that they have to start from a point that disaster is looming and that disaster is being caused by CO2, because otherwise they don't have a ready made pandemonium of fossil fuel extractors and users to blame and a mechanism where everyone can do their bit to be saved. Everything else proceeds from that and the results are, as they have always been in history when anyone has started with a theory and sought to prove it, rather than started with phenonmena and sought a theory to explain them, complete bollocks.

Mark Wadsworth said...

B, well hooray for fungi!

Re second comment, a lot of Climate Deniers try and fight these people on their own ground and get bogged down in theological debates about how many photons can dance on the head of a CO2 molecule.

It's easier to go back to Book 1, Chapter 1, Verse 1 and show what a load of rubbish it is.

Dinero said...

I follow the logic. There are three surfaces and so all three surfaces , land , ocean and clouds have to be included in the calculation. What numbers did you use to calculate the cloud surface area.

MrMC said...

There is a lot of obfuscation around environmental issues in general, including pollution, I am led to believe from those "in the know" that the biggest output of dioxins in this country annually is bonfire night, lets ban that ?

As for asbestos, I recall a study testing the level near to a demolition site containing asbestos and they found levels were higher in the road. (this was a few yesrs ago of course)

Brake Pads and Asbestos

Asbestos was once considered the best material to build all sorts of brake pads and shoes. The entire American automotive industry began using asbestos in brake part manufacturing as early as the 1920s.

Although the dangers of asbestos fiber exposure became well known by the 1980s, asbestos brake installation continued in U.S.-built vehicles well into the 2000s. Brake components made with asbestos are still widely available on foreign, aftermarket products.

Cars, trucks, and buses weren’t the only vehicles with asbestos brake pads. Every sort of motion device required braking power.

Asbestos brake pads were utilized in:

Aircraft brakes including military and civilian airplanes
Railroad locomotives and freight cars
Ship drivelines, propeller and anchor systems
Heavy equipment like dozers, excavators and rock trucks
Cranes and hoist devices

Asbestos Exposure from Brake Pads

When asbestos materials have been installed and are inert, they’re considered stable and relatively safe.

The danger of airborne asbestos fiber exposure happened when asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) were disturbed or became old and friable. Crumbling asbestos or worn fibers discharged tiny asbestos fibers into the atmosphere.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Din, everybody says 2/3 clouds, look it up. The surface underneath is 2/3 ocean/water and 1/3 land => 6/9 to 2/9 to 1/9 as stated in the workings.

MC, blue and brown asbestos are REALLY bad and were banned decades ago, thankfully. White asbestos is a completely different mineral and is relatively harmless.

It's like confusing 'lime' (green lemons) with 'lime' (a calcium-containing inorganic mineral composed primarily of oxides, and hydroxide, usually calcium oxide and/ or calcium hydroxide).
I assume that brake pads are or were made out of white asbestos.

Dinero said...

2/3 clouds and 2/3 ocean . The same in ratio, They would still be the same in ratio in the new ratio calculation about 2/5 clouds and 2/5 ocean. However I think you need to re-do it using the actual surface area. The surface area of the sphere that the clouds occupy is grater than the surface area of the land and sea.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Din, wot?

It's 2/3 clouds, that leaves 1/3 for visible land and ocean.

Of that 1/3 visible, 2/3 is ocean = 2/9 and 1/3 is land = 1/9.

Dinero said...

No I think you'll find that the Clouds ocean and land constitute a surface area that is greater than the ocean and land. It is a sphere within a sphere, two layers.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Din, sure, but we talking a percent of a percent and I have better things to do.

Dinero said...

It is not a percent of a percent. The area of ocean and land and clouds is 2/3 larger than the land and ocean area alone. Disregarding the altidue of the clouds increasing the circumference the new ratios are 40% Cloud 42 % ocean and 18% Land.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Din, I am looking at the effective emitting layer. Land or ocean under cloud simply doesn't count, ignore it.

Bayard said...

"The danger of airborne asbestos fiber exposure happened when asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) were disturbed or became old and friable. Crumbling asbestos or worn fibers discharged tiny asbestos fibers into the atmosphere."

This is another myth, promulgated to support the asbestos stripping industry which has stripped all the blue and brown asbestos and needs people to believe that white asbestos is a hazard to health, too. In truth, all inert dusts are a hazard to health. It doesn't matter what you make brake pads out of, the dust therefrom will harm your lungs if you breathe too much of it, especially if you bugger up your lungs' self-cleaning mechanism by smoking.
In a test carried out by Swansea University, no asbestos fibres were found to be released into the atmosphere when white asbestos cement sheeting (the form in which the vast majority of white asbestos is found) was crushed to a powder.

Mark Wadsworth said...

B, "another myth, promulgated to support the asbestos stripping industry". Yup.

MrMC said...

Asbestos in Brakes: Exposure and Risk of Disease AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE 45:229–237 (2004)

Mark Wadsworth said...

MC, all fine dust is bad for you, be it from chalk, white asbestos, flour, coal, sawdust...

MrMC said...

Yes, its called pollution, my original point

Mark Wadsworth said...

MC, yes, pollution = bad, CO2 = irrelevant.

Bayard said...

Mark, flour is OK long term, because the body can break it down. I suspect the same is true about sawdust and even limestone dust. Silica, carbon and clay-based dusts OTOH are not good for you. Obviously too much of any kind of dust in the short term can choke you to death.

Bayard said...

MC, that's another advantage of electric cars, they don't need brake pads to brake, nor do they have clutches.