fredag 3 februari 2017

Unphysical Basis of CO2 Alarmism = Hoax

CO2 alarmism is based on an unphysical version of Stefan-Boltzmann's Law and associated Schwarzschild equations for radiative heat transfer stating a two-way radiative heat transfer from-warm-to-cold and from-cold-to-warm with net transfer as the difference between the two-way transfers.

This is expressed as "back radiation" from a colder atmosphere to warmer Earth surface in Kiehl-Trenberth's Global energy budget (above) and in Pierrehumbert's Infrafred radiation and planetary temperature based on Schwarzschild's equations, presented as the physical basis of CO2 alarmism.

In extended writing I have exposed the unphysical nature of radiative heat transfer from-cold-to-warm as violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, see e.g.
Massive two-way radiative heat transfer between two bodies is unphysical because it is unstable, with the net transfer arising from the difference between two gross quantities, and the 2nd law says that Nature cannot work that way: There is only transfer from-warm-to-cold and there can be no transfer from-cold-to-warm. Radiative heat transfer is always one-way from-warm-to-cold.

CO2 alarmism is thus based on a picture of massive radiative heat transfer back-and-forth between atmosphere and Earth surface (see above picture), as an unstable system threatening to go into "run-away-global-warming" at slightest perturbation.  But there is no true physics behind this picture, only alarmist fiction. 

Real physics indicates that global climate is stable rather than unstable, and as such insensitive to a very small change of the composition of the atmosphere upon doubling of CO2. There is little/no scientific evidence indicating that the effect could be measurable, that is be bigger than 0.5 C.

Note that climate models use Schwarzschild's equations to describe radiative heat transfer and the fact that these equations do not describe true physics is a death-blow to the current practice of climate simulation used to sell CO2 alarmism.

So, when you meet the argument that Pierrehumbert is an authority on infrared radiation and planetary temperature, you can say that this is not convincing because Pierrehumbert is using incorrect physics (which also comes out by the fact that he forgets gravitation as the true origin of the very high temperature on the surface of Venus and not radiation).

If now CO2 alarmism is based on incorrect physics or non-physics, then it may be fair to describe it as "hoax".

Think of it: Suppose that "scientific consensus" through MSM is bombarding you with a message that the Earth has to be evacuated because there is imminent fear that the "sky is going to fall down" because Newton's law of gravitation says that "everything is pulled down". Would you then say that "since it is said so it must be so" or would you say that this is a non-physical misinterpretation of Newton's law?  Think of it!

The edX course Making Sense of Climate Science Denial is a typical example of the CO2 alarmism  based on the incorrect physics of "back radiation", which is forcefully trumpeted by the educational system,  as illustrated in the following key picture of the course:

1 kommentar:

  1. In a post by Dr. Roy W. Spencer at his blog:
    The Warm Earth: Greenhouse Effect, or Atmospheric Pressure?
    I gave the following comment:
    I agree with most of what you have written in this post Dr. Spencer, but I have problems with a few statements, and I quote:
    “So, cold objects can actually make warm objects even warmer still!”
    In my opinion, not if you only considers the two plates you use as an EXAMPLE.  However, as you also write, the colder plate affects the “energy LOSS” of the warmer plate, i.e. the cooling rate of the warmer plate.
    Now, if you have a constant energy transmitting heat source (e.g. an electrical heater or the sun) heating the warmer plate, then the temperature of the warmer plate will increase because the colder plate reduces the cooling rate of the warmer plate.  So the radiation from the cold plate does not directly heat the warmer plate, but only indirectly if there is a heat source in the system (a third object).
    All objects with a temperature emit infrared radiation (IR), so why doesn’t the radiation from the cold to the warm heat the warm?  Because the radiation from the cold towards the warm is annihilated by the opposite warm radiation with the same frequencies, and thus also reducing the effective cooling radiation from the warm object.  The cold plate acts as insulation.
    In the sun – atmosphere - earth system, the atm is the colder plate, acting as insulation, and if the insulation effect increases, the earth’s temperature will go up.
    I accept Tyndall’s conclusion that CO2 is a heat trapping gas, absorbing some IR and converting this to heat of the CO2 molecule and surroundings.  But, why isn’t CO2 used in windows? Tests have showed that CO2 isn’t so efficient after all.  Some more CO2 in the atm should make the atm warmer.  This “hot spot” has not been observed.  A warmer atm should reduce the cooling rate from the earth surface, and thus cause global warming/AGW. 
    But hellooooo, what is the insulation effect of 100 ppm more CO2 in the atm since before the industrial age, or the 15 ppm observed as “man-made”?
    100 ppm more CO2 will be as increasing the insulation of a house by 100 ppm more thickness of mineral wool, and this will be impossible to detect.  Also you, Dr. Spencer, has tried to measure the effect of increased CO2 in the atm, and according to your book “The Great Global Warming Blunder”, you have not been able to detect any effect of CO2 on global temperature.
    The effect of CO2 is miniscule compared to the other processes that determine the global temp. (sun, gravity, atm composition, convection etc.).  Forget AGW.  It is the largest scientific scandal of history (larger than the Piltdown man).
    I also don’t like the term “greenhouse effect” since the atm is anything but a convection blocking greenhouse.  I would prefer the term “atmospheric effect”, including the gravity effect etc.  However, CO2 makes the earth green, so may be it can be some truth in it.
    Dr. Spencer didn't object to my comment, so I understands that we agree.
    Prof. Johnson; I understand that my view and comment also agrees with Your view, implicating that Dr. Spencer actually shares Your view.
    Prof. Johnson; Your comment to this is highly appreciated.