Thursday, November 15, 2012

Heat Streams One Way Not Two: How Greenhouse Gas Physics Fails

Heat Streams One Way Not Two: How Greenhouse Gas Physics Fails

Author // John O'Sullivan
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) coined a new term that confounds the established laws of physics. This term is “back radiation” heating. It is a conjured up mechanism upon which a 21st Century international pseudo science is based - atmospheric physics. But whereas radiation goes where it likes, heat only streams one way - from warmer to cooler as per actual physical laws. Strict adherence to such laws is what distinguishes the science of Principia Scientific International from that of the IPCC and this is perfectly embodied in a telling new paper by Jef Reynen.
Wikipedia, ever among the least reliable references for anything, assures us that “Atmospheric physics is the application of physics to the study of the atmosphere.” Wikipedia's entry on this issue makes no mention of latent heat and much mention of radiation. Critically, we see no mention whatsoever of conduction or convection, the predominant modes of energy transport in any gas. We have for decades been subliminally steered away from the abiding truth in science, that the miraculous element: water is the key to climate – not radiation. Water does this via latent heat, the true “trapping mechanism” of incoming solar radiation. But the IPCC hides that pea under the thimble and instead tells us there is a two-way energy stream called “back radiation” that is the key. However, you will find “back radiation” nowhere in any texts on thermodynamics. It doesn't exist in real science.
Notwithstanding their oversight Dutch researcher Jef Reynen, in his new paper 'Atmospheric absorption by IR-sensitive molecules,' uses a parameter study to test how this obsession with “back radiation” stands up under closer examination. Inspired by Professor Claes Johnson, Reynen performs an experiment to see whether the IPCC’s “back radiation” model can possibly add to, or delay energy transit in Earth's atmosphere. Applying MATLAB to solve the simultaneous equations Reynen analyzed the difference between one-stream heat flow by radiation formulation and the two-stream formulation, as is used by the IPCC. The findings are astonishing and his new paper is set to be another milestone in the inevitable march back to REAL scientific inquiry about our climate.
Reynen first identified that a 'one slab' model, with simple back-of-the-envelope algebra can be shown to be reliable, while any attempt to show a two-stream heat flow (the IPCC’s “back radiation” formulation) will give spurious absorptions, even though temperature distributions for the two formulations were the same.
He found that IPCC software (not real world data) relying exclusively on the two-stream formulation, points to huge absorptions and thereby huge values for back-radiation of heat from colder to warmer temperatures. Reynen analyzed the IPCC's one-slab (two-stream) model and developed a multi-layer model based on the one-stream for heat flow by radiation formulation.

15 comments:

  1. Yo Hockey Schtick, stop publishing crap like this on your blog. It does a disservice for all the legitimate papers that you do bring attention to.
    Simple example: two blackbody radiative heaters facing each other, one is 1000 watts, the other 500 Watts. They are both radiating "heat" ie IR energy at each other at the same time. However, the 500 Watt one will eventually overheat and burn out, sooner that the other one anyway because the net flux is one way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yo YFNWG, you are confusing radiation [which is bidirectional] with heat [which only flows one way from hot to cold]. Radiation from a cold body cannot heat a warm body because those quantum states in the warm body are already filled.

      Suggest you read Joe Postma's posts on the fallacy of the GHE

      http://climateofsophistry.com/author/sophistryslayer/

      Delete
    2. I have read Mr. Postma's works but think Mr. Postma is confused in his own terminology sofistry.
      The greenhouse theory deals with radiative properties of gases. At the crux, the issue is whether the CO2 molecule can absorb and emit LW radiation. If so, then increased concentrations of "greenhouse" gases increase the scattering, including back scattering, of the outgoing LW radiation. I am of the opinion the additional CO2 in the atmosphere has a non-zero effect but is swamped by natural influences.

      Delete
    3. No doubt CO2 absorbs & emits IR at about 15 microns, which by Wien's displacement law corresponds to a blackbody at -80C.

      IR from a blackbody at -80C cannot warm a blackbody at 15C [Earth] because all of the quantum states for a blackbody at -80C are already filled in the blackbody at 15C. Therefore, more CO2 will not cause warming.

      Delete
    4. I think you need to reread Wien's displacement law.
      Does CO2 only absorb and emit IR at -80C? No.
      Is the atmosphere at -80C? Only at the top.
      Where is most of the atmospheric CO2? In the lower troposphere.
      Is the earth's surface all 15C? No.
      Let's not confuse the issue with theoretical scenarios.

      Delete
    5. Satellite and laboratory data show CO2 has an emission maximum at ~15 microns. Calculate it here yourself, a perfect blackbody emitting at 15 microns has a temp of -80C

      http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/p_thermo/wien

      Delete
  2. The Trenberth cartoon shows the atmosphere is a perpetual motion machine that generates 39% energy amplification:

    OLR = 239 Wm-2
    "Back radiation" = 333 Wm-2

    Perpetual energy amplification = (333-239)/239 = .39

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/BAMSmarTrenberth.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not that I agree with Trenbeth diagram but I think you're reading that wrong. The 239 is TOA value. The surface OLW is 396W/m2. So the net LW radiation is outgoing. 396-333=63 W/m2.

      Delete
    2. No doubt the surface has more LW radiation outgoing than incoming. However, just because radiation is bidirectional does not change the fact that heat only flows one way from hot to cold [2nd law of thermo]

      What I am also pointing out is that the Trenberth cartoon shows the atmosphere radiates 239 to space and 333 to Earth, thereby acting as a perpetual motion machine. Radiatively active gases cannot "trap heat" nor "generate heat"

      Delete
    3. Again, sophisty with terminology. Heat, temperature and energy are very closely related but different.

      Lets put it this way. The Earth has higher heat content than the atmosphere. Therefore the net longwave radiation flow is heating the atmosphere. Better?

      By deliberately ignoring solar energy absorption in the atmosphere component, one may think the atmosphere is creating energy. But Trenbreth (or any other legit scientist) is not suggesting that the atomsphere is generating heat.

      Delete
    4. "Therefore the net longwave radiation flow is heating the atmosphere. Better?"

      No doubt the warmer Earth heats the atmosphere. However, the colder atmosphere does not heat the Earth. Heat only flows one way from hot to cold, which is the point of this post. "Heat flow" is proper terminology used for that unidirectional process whereas "radiation flow" is not used, as radiation is bidirectional and all bodies above absolute zero radiate.

      Even though cold bodies radiate to hot bodies, this lower-energy-level radiation does not heat the hot body. The lower-energy quantum states are already filled in the hot body. Heat flow from cold to hot would reduce entropy, which is also prohibited by the 2nd law.

      BTW the mythical "hot spot" predicted by climate models would also require an impossible reduction in entropy prohibited by the 2nd law.

      Delete
    5. "Lets put it this way. The Earth has higher heat content than the atmosphere. Therefore the net longwave radiation flow is heating the atmosphere. Better?"

      The Earths liquid and solid surface may absorb more EMR the the atmosphere but that doesn't mean the temperature of the solid liquid surface will be higher than the air above it.

      In fact geographically speaking, there are few areas where that is the case. Mostly the opposite is the case. Hence the need to place Stevenson Screens at 4' above the ground.

      70% of the Earths surface is ocean. There is little in the way conductive heating of the atmosphere by the oceans.

      The atmosphere is mostly heated by incoming EMR.

      Delete
  3. "Wikipedia's entry on this issue makes no mention of latent heat and much mention of radiation. Critically, we see no mention whatsoever of conduction or convection, the predominant modes of energy transport in any gas." I wasn't aware of this. Extraordinary. Doesn't seem to mention pressure differentials either.
    One of my specialities (for about 30 years) has been climate-responsive design, mostly concerned with the tropics, where heat is the problem and cold is a novelty. Sure, there are issues with radiation, eg materials like masonry that absorb insolation and re-radiate it (to interiors as well as exteriors) after sunset. If you get things wrong, some materials will remain warm for 7 months of the year.
    As MS points out, "The Trenberth cartoon shows the atmosphere is a perpetual motion machine that generates 39% energy amplification:". Exactly.
    If Trenberth was right, the place where I live (19° 11' 38"S, 146° 40' 31"E) would be uninhabitable.

    ReplyDelete
  4. http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/67-the-greenhouse-gas-blanket-that-fails-to-warm-the-world.html

    The Greenhouse Gas Blanket that Fails to Warm the World
    PSI shows that the 50-year focus on radiation by climatologists was a blind alley. The Sun is the only driver of the system, and everything else is a response. The atmosphere is not a secondary source of energy and only latent heat, via the hydrological cycle “traps” energy. So it isn’t the “greenhouse gas effect” it’s actually the latent heat effect. As PSI researchers have found, there is a natural lapse rate distribution of temperature in the atmosphere that has nothing to do with the cold atmosphere heating itself up. A cold temperature cannot heat up its own cold temperature by heating up another warmer object. The analysis of Professor Johnson and Douglas Cotton affirms that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/09/commitment-studies-belie-consensus-claim-that-a-persistent-high-level-of-temperature-forcing-cannot-cause-continued-warming/#comment-1194771

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.