Sunday, 6 April 2014

"Critical Remarks about Anthropogenic Global Climate Warming"

Via Critical Thinking.

Abstract: The greenhouse effect has being widely concerned around the world, and it is nearly defined as the physical mechanism that greenhouse gases absorb and emit infrared radiation.

However, this definition is deviation from the original physical fact, because the Earth’s atmosphere is not equal to a greenhouse with glass roof. And because the main constituents (such as nitrogen, oxygen) of the atmosphere don’t absorb infrared radiation, the temperature of the whole atmosphere cannot be elevated.

Here, by analysing the cardinal mistakes of the current atmospheric physics, the very physical mechanism of the greenhouse effect is discovered. Only the intermolecular collisions can cause the absorbed energy to be shared with the other, non-IR-active, gases, so that the whole atmosphere is warmed.

The absorption and re-radiation of greenhouse gases can make the radiant energy be reserved in the atmosphere in longer period of time, so that the greenhouse effect is maintained and enhanced. The phase change radiation and its proofs are introduced into the atmospheric physics, which shows that the heat diffusion equation of vapour condensation and the cloud formation on adiabatic expansion are false.

The greenhouse effects of water vapor and carbon dioxide are compared, which shows that the effect of carbon dioxide is so little as to be ignored and the effects of cloud cannot only be covered under the concept of feedbacks. The urban heat island effect is reasonably explained. The possibility of the global warming predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is evaluated to be impossible.


Anonymous said...

Ooh I say, an article just for me:)

1. 'Greenhouse' is indeed a bad analogy but once the terminology sticks it's easier to go with the flow for the purposes of public discussion.

2.Gases that absorb the energy share this energy via collisions with other gases [thermalisation], so that all of the different gases like N which don't absorb infra red [allowing for different strata etc]are at the same temperature.

3. As for the big water vapour teeny weeny CO2, ergo insignificant CO2
argument... this is legendary on the web but just blinds people with 'common sense' and diverts their minds from complexity. Common sense in this case is what Einstein referred to as 'a set of prejudices acquire by the age of 16' [or something akin], the complexity i refer to is the non trivial nature of non-linear processes [dynamic real world].

Anyone wanting to better understand this is [not sure anyone is actually] obligated to go beyond 'common sense innit' arguments about big water vapour teeny weeny CO2 and could do worse than check this out. CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Three It's part of a eight series long look into vapour/clouds/CO2 and whilst one can stick with common sense notions for comfort they won't aid understanding one iota.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Paul yes, especially for you.

Have you read the linked paper yet?

"'a set of prejudices acquire by the age of 16' [or something akin]"

Fair do's but up to the age of 40 or so I just went along with the "CO2 is bad" theory, which piggy backs on the undoubtedly true theory that "pollution is bad" (i.e. lead, CFC, toxins, smog etc).

It wasn't until I bothered looking more closely at the theory that "CO2 causes temperatures to rise" that I decided it was hokum. That is quite different from the viewpoint that "Pollution does not matter" (when it clearly does).

Dinero said...

Its odd that the term greenhouse gas was ever coined as there is no comparison with the incorrect principle of trapped infrared or the correct one of trapped rising warm air. So there is no connection with greenhouses.

A K Haart said...

Oddly enough, CO2 in the thermosphere is thought to have a significant cooling effect.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Din, some sources say that the original chap who realised two centuries ago that the pressure of the atmosphere increased surface temperatures called it "the greenhouse effect", which is fair enough as shorthand, but it need go no further than that.

AKH, nice one.

“Unfortunately, there’s no practical way to harness this kind of energy,” says Mlynczak. “It’s so diffuse and out of reach high above Earth’s surface. Plus, the majority of it has been sent back into space by the action of CO2 and NO.”

Anonymous said...

Just a quick one this. The CO2 as a coolant in the thermosphere is a bit of a 'nothing happening here' moment in the history of the denier camp.
Anthony Watts [prolific blogger and denier]does not believe in man made warming and he deals with this one here:A misinterpreted claim about a NASA press release, CO2, solar flares, and the thermosphere is making the rounds
Proof if there ever was, if you want to find good solid evidence against CO2 as a warmer, it's eazy peezy lemon squeezy. All there on line. No scientific knowledge required!

Anonymous said...

Some more thoughts on the Zhou stuff.
I've had a peep at the paper but I won't pretend that I can read a paper like that and evaluate it in a few hours. Maybe a couple of weeks!
Still a valuable shortcut to reading any/every paper that gets published [and dying in the process] is to check out what other people in the field [which I'm obviously not]have to say. Now Zhou I never heard of but he's published papers with his professor [Tung] and these have basically been dissected online. Skeptical Science [pretty much a pro Anthropogenic GW site, with almost all experts among their number have entered into a discourse with Professor Tung. The site has also allowed Prof Tung to post two articles explaining his [and his doctoral student, Zhou's] views, to be aired.
Now his stuff is heavy into maths so the issues raised are ALL technical. Suffice is to say I think anyone would see just by taking a quick look at the dialogue that his work is contentious/arguable and needs to be read with some caution. The central issue in Skeptic Science's words:"Tung and Zhou 2013 is the latest attempt to blame a large part of Earth's warming on the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which is a long-term fluctuation in N. Atlantic sea surface temperatures" [which he maintains is natural]. Anyhow here are the links for anyone that gives a toss, to the discussion and Tung's additional explanatory piece[s].

1 SkepticScience discussion and introduction to paper.

2.Guest post by KK Tung, who requested the opportunity to respond to the SkS post Tung and Zhou circularly blame ~40% of global warming on regional warming by Dumb Scientist. See discussion below Tung's article.

3.This is part 2 of a guest post by KK Tung with discussion to follow [4pages!].

For a separate discussion on the AMO issue at the core of Tung and Zhou's argument see Tamino here.

The discussion [and Tung's eagerness to engage does confirm that he regards the bloggers as equals] does illustrate better than reading any single paper the complexity involved. It's got nothing to do with common sense notions or 'baby physics'...whatever that is.

Graeme said...

"Anthony Watts [prolific blogger and denier]does not believe in man made warming"

It might be easier to believe climate alarmists if they were actually honest and reliable people rather than liars. How about this quote from WUWT:

"Yes, the world has warmed 1°F to 1.5°F (0.6°C to 0.8°C) since 1880 when relatively good thermometers became available. Yes, part of that warming is due to human activities, mainly burning unprecedented quantities of fossil fuels that continue to drive an increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels. The Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect is a scientific fact!"

DBC Reed said...

What is all the fuss about?It is "undoubtedly true" that we will have to get rid of all the air pollution: in the process of doing so we will get rid of the factors that may induce global warming as well.

Mark Wadsworth said...

DBC, it's not me making a fuss. Clearly, taxing petrol to get road use down and reduce trade deficit is a good thing, that'll reduce pollution a bit, and if that happens to reduce CO2 emissions, well so be it, can't be any harm in it, I suppose.

(These nonsense super taxes on industry and super-subsidies to windmills are a load of crap, of course. Wealthier societies are less polluting, per unit of output.)

But there is an upper limit on the amount by which CO2 can increase the average temperature and we are very close to it anyway. In itself, CO2 is nothing to worry about.

Mark Wadsworth said...

G, thanks for back up.

For convenience, here is the link to the WUWT article.

Anonymous said...

Gramme. If I read you right you called me a liar. Its true that I didn't represent Watts views on global warming accurately. He apparently does accept warming but rejects the idea that it is significant. I don't think that has much impact on my point about the high levels/thermosphere co2 since he clearly is on the skeptical side of the debate on warming/anthropogenic.Even you should be able to figure the difference between making an honest mistake and a deliberate falsehood.
Nonetheless you might think about your own deliberate falsehoods/statements made in error/slurs regards tamino as being a deceptive piece of work...based on...ERM...well we don't know. That's deniers on the blogosphere for you I guess.

Anonymous said...

Not too concerned whether you post this as no one now likely to look in but managed to read some of that glickstein WUWT link just now(been busy). Firstly he's talking opinions not facts. His .8 degree warming Since 1880 is nonsense and seems to fit his agenda. Did you think him a credible source? Most of his charts appear little more than a put up job. That aside your assertion that "co2 is nothing to worry about" is not reassuring Mark, since it appears to be reliant on your own knowledge of baby physics(your term)and web articles by unpublished academics with the exception of Tung/Zhou and unless you want to say different, I don't believe you have done more than lift the abstract of the paper you quoted, off the web. I don't blame you for that but its a harsh reality that the subject is far more complicated than baby physics will allow.Whilst I'm willing to be persuaded by weight of evidence it seems all on here bar DBC are minds made up and on the basis of a natural bias against establish!ent/institutional structures etc (which I have real sympathy with). but certainly not science or the spirit of enquiry. Ergo, faith based/religion...useless. Shame.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Paul: "web articles by unpublished academics"

No, I read that IPCC summary thingy and drew the obvious conclusions.

They say that CO2 can reflect warmth, and even using their logic and measurements, it is quite clear that there is an upper limit to the extent to which this can happen, we are close to that point anyway and there is no "tipping point", the incremental effect of having more CO2 gets less and less until it tails off completely.

Anonymous said...

Mark, since you've been quite specific on a couple of points I looked at the link but think that you're simply throwing your hands up and saying 'I don't get how CO2 can cause much more of a problem than it has' so I'll assume it can't [or, 'I'll stick to the physics'].

You accept that CO2 is a 'warmer' [despite hedging/getting impressed enough by AK Haart's post on the cooling effect of CO2 in the thermosphere by quoting Nasa comments after misconstruing them, but let's ignore that]. You accept that a portion of infra red is re emitted back down to the surface albeit not the majority of it.

What 'I' don't specifically get is why you think there is no 'tipping point'. We've got good records of CO2 levels in the atmosphere going back 400kyearsago from ice cores. Roughly 300parts per million was about the limit in what appeared as a cycle from 300ppm at peak down to sub 200ppm at base. The last sub200ppm being during the last glacial [circa 20kya]. Now we've headed 'naturally' back to that 300ppm into the last millenium and only since the indus rev' onwards to 400ppm and above with a certainty that we are heading substantially higher in the next decade or two at least.
So already unchartered territory in the last million years.

So on the basis that more CO2 will cause 'somewhat' more heat to be directed towards the surface the issue will be twofold.
Once major countervailing factors to warming like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation abates and heat energy is once again transferred to land surfaces rather than ocean [currently acidifying due to co2] and the reduced albedo effect of the already diminishing northern ice sheets and sea ice gets added to the pot we would expect to see significant increases in land temps even with relatively unchanged CO2. With warmer air temps we can expect higher water vapour levels in atmosphere [hence more extreme weather] and CO2 from that which is stored currently in oceans. This will also accelerate warming to some extent. These are all linked and positive feedback mechanisms that historically high CO2 levels can feed into. Add in the huge reservoir of CO2 that resides currently in the oceans that will expel the stored CO2 and huge methane/co2 deposits in Siberian [et al] permafrost, the tipping point is probably already in the past. It's about mitigation now, that's it.