lördag 8 januari 2011

Climate Alarmism and Real Estate Bubbles


CO2 climate alarmism is based on the global energy budget by Kiehl and Trenbert shown above with a notable "backradiation" of 324 W/m2 adding to the 168 W/m2 absorbed by the Earth surface of the incoming radiation from the Sun, adding up to a radiation of 390 W/m2 and thermodynamics of 102 W/m2 from the Earth surface.

The picture thus displays a two-way circulation of energy between the Earth and the atmosphere of about 400 W/m2. Climate alarmism is based on the assumption that doubled CO2 will give a 1% change of this circulation causing "radiative forcing" of 4 W/m2, which by
Stefan-Boltzmann's radiation law is translated to a warming of 1 C, by feedback augmented to
and alarming 3 C.

the circulating flow of energy between Earth and atmosphere, is fiction without physical reality.

Let me here illustrate the nature of the fiction in a familiar example from real estate. Suppose you want to buy an old house that costs 390 (thousand dollars say) and requires 102 to put in shape, but that you have only 168 in your bank account at your disposal. Can you do it?

No problem, you say: I will just go to the bank and borrow 324 and I will be all set: I can buy the house and fix it and I will have a prestigious house to show to the world.

All this is fine, but there is something you should not forget: You don't own the house; more than half is owned by the bank, and thus you run a risk and the risk increases with the fraction owned by the bank. A small percentage change of the value of the house may erase your net savings. To send this message can be viewed as a a form of real estate alarmism, which may be motivated by the realities of the real estate business.

Do you see the analogy with the above energy budget? Yes, there is a close analogy, but there is an important difference: There is no bank in Nature where the Earth can borrow energy. The two-way circulating flow of energy between Earth and atmosphere is pure fiction. Nature cannot build speculation bubbles of energy based on "backradiation". Why? Because speculation bubbles are unstable and in Nature unstable processes cannot exist over time (except possibly by Divine Intervention).

19 kommentarer:

  1. I didn't know that photons were in the real estate business :)

    But seriously, isn't this pretty straight forward physics?

    The surface of earth is heated by the sun. Earths only way to loose energy is by radiating out into space, and by the first law, earth must radiate with a temperature that matches the energy input from the sun. But, this is true first after we have a steady state. Until then, energy is accumulated in the atmosphere. And the amount of accumulated energy depends on how "hard" it is for earth surface to loose energy to the atmospheres top layer.

    So, the analogy of a loan isn't correct. It never was a loan, it was an accumulation.

    SvaraRadera
  2. Can you spend 390 with an income of 168 without taking a loan?

    SvaraRadera
  3. The divine intervention could maybe be cast into a scientific form by observing that the gravitational field is most likely to increase the heat capacity of the gas, see Landsberg et al.

    http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v62/i8/p712_s1?isAuthorized=no

    But this of course requires no greenhouse gases.

    SvaraRadera
  4. If you have a conceptual problem with Kiehl and Trenberth's energy budget I recommend some of the posts on the blog scienceofdoom.com

    Especially the series that starts with:

    http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/26/do-trenberth-and-kiehl-understand-the-first-law-of-thermodynamics/

    There are also many posts regarding Downward Longwave Radiation - DLR (backradiation). Of especially great interest should be the posts regarding empirical measurements of DLR.

    SvaraRadera
  5. I know of this material. I have commented on measurements of DLR in
    http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/01/correct-interpretation-of-stefan.html

    SvaraRadera
  6. I saw your post but I considered it quite flimsy and hard to follow.

    Do you mean that DLR are nonexistent and all the empirical data is totally wrong?

    SvaraRadera
  7. It sounds like your model isn't falsifiable.

    We can't test your model since you doesn't approve of the instruments that disproves your model.

    SvaraRadera
  8. You have to understand how the instruments are designed in order to understand what de facto measure. It is not enough to read 324 W/m2
    on a scale. Do you understand the design of your DLR instruments?

    SvaraRadera
  9. Maybe you can be so kind to explain exactly what it is that you measure with such an instrument then?

    And how this measurement isn't compatible with the idea of radiation in the infrared frequency spectra.

    SvaraRadera
  10. As I said you essentially measure temperature though spectrum, but the connection to radiation of heat energy is ad hoc invented, by postulating
    a Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

    SvaraRadera
  11. Are saying that Stefan-Boltzmanns law is invalid?

    SvaraRadera
  12. This one: (SB) u(T) = a * T^4 (Where a = \frac{\pi^2 k^2}{15 \hbar^3 c^3}).

    Experimentally obtained by Stefan (1879).

    SvaraRadera
  13. This is if the exterior of the radiating body is at 0 K. You must take the temp of the exterior into account.

    SvaraRadera
  14. Ok, so it isn't 100% exact when a body isn't in a vacuum. Let me guess, you'r a mathematician and not a physicist...? ;-)

    A question for you. The refractive index of air is approximately n = 1.0003 in room temperature, so by what factor is (SB) corrected with?

    SvaraRadera
  15. What I am is obvious, but what are you?

    SvaraRadera
  16. Claes, You did not answer the question posed by "Anonym". By how much is SB corrected according to you?

    In your blog you are very keen on asking others to give exact quantitative answers to your questions, so surely giving an answer to this question is the proper scientific response required by yourself.

    /David

    SvaraRadera
  17. I don't understand the relevance of your question. I don't ask people people things without a reason. Speak out.

    SvaraRadera