|
19 March 2012
Image via Wikimedia
By John O'Sullivan
Prominent climatologists still insisting the greenhouse gas theory is real are under a sustained assault from critics in an ongoing private debate being waged by email and blogs. An increasing number of experts from specialist sciences have come forward to present compelling evidence that climate science either misrepresents, or misunderstands certain physical effects.
One of the most outspoken of the current defenders of the greeenhouse gas effect (GHE) is climatologist, Dr Roy Spencer. Spencer has been backed in his beliefs by a fellow scientist, Lubos Motl in a private email debate earlier last week. To challenge Motl and Spencer on their errors the following question was put to them: “So do we agree that the vacuum of space inhibits heat energy loss?” Lubos replied, “Not really.” Spencer made no comment.
Motl sought to defend Spencer's astonishing claim that outer space is “cold” and the atmosphere of Earth acts “like a blanket to keep our planet warmer than it would otherwise be.”
Space Scientists Say Climatologists Wrong About Space Science
But from the field of space engineering and astrophysics (including current leading NASA experts) has come proof of how climatologists have misunderstood a critical aspect of the physics of space to sustain belief in the junk science of the so-called greenhouse gas effect.
It is this erroneous “blanket effect” that is the crux of GHE faux physics and the cause of the current disconnect in understanding between climate science analysts and the REAL experts - astrophysicists and space engineers. It was soon put to Lubos (and Roy) that they need not take the word of experts associated with the Slayers or Principia Scientific International (recently recruiting 20 more science experts), they could try NASA’s.
For example, Geoffrey A. Landis who is a space scientist at the NASA John Glenn Research Center working on Mars missions and “advanced concepts and technology for future space missions" makes a definitive clarification:
"A few recent Hollywood films showed people instantly freezing solid when exposed to vacuum. In one of these, the scientist character mentioned that the temperature was "minus 273"-- that is, absolute zero.
But in a practical sense, space doesn't really have a temperature-- you can't measure a temperature of a vacuum, something that isn't there. The residual molecules that do exist aren't enough to have much of any effect. Space isn't "cold," it isn't "hot", it really isn't anything.
What space is, though, is a very good insulator. (In fact, vacuum is the secret behind thermos bottles.) Astronauts tend to have more problems with overheating than keeping warm"
Apollo 17 Lunar Rover Dangerously Overheats in Spencer's “Cold” Outer Space
It was put to Lubos and Roy that during the Apollo 17 Apollo mission we had a superb demonstration of how, during an unfortunate accident, the vacuum of space acted as a perfect insulator almost causing the moon mission to be aborted. This was due to over-heating of the Moon Rover. This novel four-wheeled, two-astronaut vehicle was driven for three days on the lunar surface becoming increasingly caked in dust reducing the effectiveness of it's heat-dissipating design.
Moon Rover's batteries dangerously over-heated because a fender had broken off exposing the carefully designed reflective surfaces such that they became dust-covered and could no longer effectively dissipate the build up of received solar energy. As NASA’s Mission Summary shows, only an emergency remedial fix rectified this potential catastrophe.
This over-heating problem in the temperature-free vacuum of space also impacted the astronauts. Their carefully designed heat dissipating suits also had to be constantly wiped clean of the moon's heat-absorbing dust.
Boeing Corporation Also Say Spencer is Wrong
But then consider the approach of the Boeing Corporation, leaders in the field of designing specialist equipment for the International Space Station (ISS). Boeing has to specifically address the constant problem of heat build up in the ISS due to the perfect insulating properties of vacuum space that Roy and his GHE religionists would have you believe is “cold.” The spokesmen for GHE religionists just don't want to heed what Boeing's 'Active Thermal Control System (ATCS)' or NASA experts like Landis are telling them.
Indeed, if Spencer and Motl insist on sticking to the fallacy that outer space is extremely “cold” and light from the sun is “hot,” then it would be concomitant that the temperature of sunlight would quickly deteriorate as it passes through space. Yes, the ENERGY of sunlight does decline with distance, but this is simply due to the inverse square law. An added temperature effect would invalidate that law, but nothing of the sort has been observed. This suggests either that space has no temperature or that light has no temperature. Or both.
Now it was put to Lubos (and Roy) that absent a better explanation from them, such evidence proves the point that vacuum space inhibits heat energy loss from Earth and this directly impacts what they have misinterpreted as the greenhouse gas effect. This is because the built-in fallacy of this ‘theory’ is that so-called greenhouse gases act like a 'blanket' to keep our planet’s surface warmer than it would otherwise be. But the whole time what is actually happening is that our dynamic 'wet' atmosphere is working (in day time) to keep our planet cooler than it would otherwise be, very much like those ATCS's designed by Boeing. Otherwise, without our atmosphere, the average day time temperature on Earth would rival that of our moon (around 107°C (225°F)). But does a particular psychological barrier impede such understanding?
The world awaits to see how these staunch defenders of faux theory respond. But it's been a week now and all we have from Roy and his supporters is his latest Alabama Two Step dodge; rather hastily assumed by WUWT's Anthony Watts as the final word on the matter. However, it appears Watts, Spencer and Motl don't converse much with space scientists.
********
John O'Sullivan is the co-founder and coordinator of Principia Scientific International
Comments
When we examine the work of Alan Siddons in his paper “The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory” it is obvious that all the gases that make up the earths atmosphere do act as “heat sink” that does effect the temperature of the earth. To say that a minute fraction of the atmosphere controls the Kinetic energy of the total mass is stupid.
I have tried to communicate with Dr. Roy Spencer on many occasions and find that the illness of “egomania” seem to be endemic in the both the AGW crowd and some groups of “semi Skeptics” The previous article by John O'Sullivan “
The Three Basic Personality Types of Greenhouse Gas Believers
Address personality problems that interfere with real scientific communication.
theendofthemystery.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
I'm a mathematician and civil Engineer, (water eng, hydrology etc)so my atmospheric physics isn't that strong, but it seems simple, concise and logical to me.. atmospheric temperature is controlled only by incoming radiation and atmospheric pressure under the ideal gas laws.
Would like to see any comments that might help make even more sense of the issue.
No amount of CO2 is going to affect the actions of convection, because it is governed by the ideal gas laws which are independant on the composition of the gas. If a parcel of gas becomes "warmer" it must become less dense, therefore must rise. The warmer it gets, the faster the convection. The whole system is aimed at balance.
been perplexed about Apollo 13 and it's ability to throw off the full brunt of the suns radiation, and then some, after it was powered down to end up almost as cold as a refrigerator. Did the command module and the LEM really have the capacity to reflect that much radiation even without the protection of the Van Alan belts. Was the only heat they had to worry about internal heat to get rid of? Obviously the build up of CO2 was not going to boil them alive in what was more of a self contained greenhouse, then our planet.
My question is...if space is nearly a vacuum, how does heat escape into space? Frankly, I always thought space was "cold", but it makes total sense that it is neither hot nor cold. But if there are few molecules to exchange with, how does heat leave the planet?
Thanks, in advance...
radiant energy does not require air like atmospheric conduction and convection do
since we have convection on an incredible scale. The suns radiation that passes through our atmosphere then radiates back out really never makes it to the vacuum of space because it's way way dispersed/cooled down by the time it get to 30 35 thousand feet up... it's already -50 -60 degrees. The idea of back radiation from higher up is crazy to me. In an atmosphere like ours heat has only one way, until it's no more, and that up.
The small atmospheric pressure only allows for a certain temperature at a high altitude. Its all controlled by the combined gas law PV/T = Constant
If we use a set volume of air, T (in kelvin degrees) changes with P so long as enough air is present. If no air is present, ie a vacuum, the whole thing becomes undefined, hence the temperature in space is undefined.
EG
A plane flying at an altitude of 8km takes in dry air at -40C.
(The dry lapse rate is -9.74C/km)
-40 - -9.74 x 8 = 37.9C that's not a very comfortable temperature in a plane !!
I hope that explains the concept.
As Alan siddons wrote a couple of years ago:
"[M]eteorologists acknowledge that our atmosphere is principally heated by surface contact and convective circulation. Surrounded by the vacuum of space, moreover, the earth can only dissipate this energy by radiation. On one hand, then, if surface-heated nitrogen and oxygen do not radiate the thermal energy they acquire, they rob the earth of a means of cooling off -- which makes them "greenhouse gases" by definition. On the other hand, though, if surface-heated nitrogen and oxygen do radiate infrared, then they are also "greenhouse gases," which defeats the premise that only radiation from the infrared-absorbers raises the Earth's temperature. Either way, therefore, the convoluted theory we've been going by is wrong."
www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html
If space, as vacuum, is such a good insulator, how does heat escape the closed system that is our planet? I understand all of the "cooling" effects our planet has, but isn't that just heat transfer? With the constant bombardment from the sun,where does all the heat go?
One of the best explanations I have heard indicated that the temperature of our atmosphere was determined, not by the makeup of its gases, but by the total mass or density of the atmosphere. Venus is hotter, not because it has a higher CO2 level, but because it has a denser atmosphere.
I assume a portion of the energy from the sun is re-radiated back into space in essentially the same form it came in. However the heat that is "deposited" in our system (for lack of a better word), must escape the system somehow.
Sorry to be so dense, but being unable to explain this to a layperson affects my ability to make the anti-AGW case.
Thanks.
Venus'is surface temp is way hotter because the ideal gas laws allow the much higher surface atmospheric pressure to hold a lot more heat. In the same pressure range in Venus's atmosphere as in Earth's atmosphere, Venus is almost exactly the temperature it would be given its relative distance from the sun.
I have tried to contact more that 50 major universities to try to find some that are teaching the truth about the science and even MIT has not been telling the truth. They are taking significant grand from government and industry to do “research” on “climate change” or energy efficient process and they don't want to upset their gravy train.
MIT is the home of the Union of corrupt scientists and Richard Luntz . The Union of corrupt scientists is funded by George Soros and has no intention of telling the truth. Richard Luntz is a “semi-skeptic “ but fails to look at the real science.
Joe C. your best bet is to read this web-site , read Slaying the Sky Dragoon and the references attached to the Experiment that Failed***.
Keep asking your questions!!!
“Ok, you will have to pardon my ignorance and believe me when I say I am vehemently opposed to the AGW pseudo-religion, but this is still very unclear to me.
1. If space, as vacuum, is such a good insulator, how does heat escape the closed system that is our planet? I understand all of the "cooling" effects our planet has, but isn't that just heat transfer? With the constant bombardment from the sun,where does all the heat go?
2. One of the best explanations I have heard indicated that the temperature of our atmosphere was determined, not by the makeup of its gases, but by the total mass or density of the atmosphere. Venus is hotter, not because it has a higher CO2 level, but because it has a denser atmosphere.
3. I assume a portion of the energy from the sun is re-radiated back into space in essentially the same form it came in. However the heat that is "deposited" in our system (for lack of a better word), must escape the system somehow.
Sorry to be so dense, but being unable to explain this to a layperson affects my ability to make the anti-AGW case.”( rearranged for reference)
Answers to Joe C.
1. The earth and it's atmosphere is not a “closed system” it is in a constant state of flux. As you noted the system is receiving incoming radiation and cosmic particle bombardment from space.
Out bound is IR and other forms of electromagnetic radiation. There is bound to be some atoms and molecules also escaping into space ( an unmeasured value).
The atmosphere is receiving meteorites continually and sometime very heavy shower of the same.
It has been well established that the earth is receiving energy on one side at a time(rotating) Most if not all is lost back to space during the other half of the 24 hr. rotation . The energy is “lost” into space by all forms of electromagnetic radiation-but principally IR,and microwave from the gases and from the surface. A part of the heat is stored in the “heat capacity of all the gases”. As the gases move through the troposphere energy is lost to turbulence as wind, thunderstorms, raining, snowing, tornadoes,hurricanes, the weather. I have not seen a proper total energy balance done by anyone.
We know that if you look at a specific location on the surface the temperature returns from a high temperature at 1:00 pm-3:00pm (solar time) to a seasonal low by the next morning at 5:00 am. It has been established that because of radiation and other means that energy losses would be 5 times the values of incoming Energy Intensity and still return to the same baseline. www.stratus-sphere.com
2. There are many factors as indicated above -it is not that simple. Two of the best papers I have read as to why Venus is hot are: The Earth and Man: Setting the Stage and ("The End of the Mystery"),Venus: No Greenhouse Effect. by Harry Dale Huffman Independent research physical scientist, author Both are very heavy reading but are backed up by science.
3. Answered in (1) & (2) above .
As far as low pressure if you look at temps from the troposphere to the thermosphere to the exosphere, looking at those temp swings that pressure is not the only reason for lower temps.
Exactly where the breakdown of atmospheric matter, even as little as at 100km up is enough to register no heat from ether direction at -120 degrees-ish...then from there the temp rises as there is not enough matter in the exosphere to push off the suns radiative heat at a fast enough rate to stay cool.
I'm guessing the space shuttle is skirting along low earth orbit for this reason 250km any higher it may not be able to push off the heat fast enough. from say 5miles up clear to the thermosphere there's just enough matter in the atmosphere to dissipate heat with convection effectively.
does that make sense?? I give up.
Makes total sense. I have studied just enough physics, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics to be dangerous. Most of it makes "common sense" to some degree (with the exception of quantum mechanics- not only counterintuitive, but inconceivable.)
However, I think it is vital that those who DO understand the physics involved find ways to convey that in laymen's terms. The better the general populus understands the concepts and principles at work, the faster the GHE and AGW boondoggles will be relegated to the ash heap of history.
Know that these blogs are read by many more people than those who post. It is fine that the discussions often migrate to levels above those of the average college educated person, but you all will be doing a great service to the "cause" by taking a moment to translate for the masses of "great unwashed" that are hungry for relatable facts to bolster their beliefs...
Thank you, again...
www.geo.mtu.edu/~scarn/teaching/GE4250/PlattStutz08/Ch3.pdf
The math gets a little heavy but you should get a little more insight to quantum mechanics.
Thank you, BK, for your article on quantum mechanics. You were right, it was a tough slog for one such as myself, Still, I am sure I am better for having tried...
I'll check with a professor who knew of my professor of physics. This professor pointed out that CH4 can not be as powerful an IR absorber as CO2 because it molecular structure prevents it. ( I will have to get more details before I can explain this)
globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1103-post-10140.html#pid10140
Huffman mentions this point in his blog.
refers to it as a lubricant for energy transfer iirc.
I'm still working on a diagram to go with my experiment. A co-worker is doing it in CAD when he has time.
Yeah i think you explained only 60% of where the energy from the sun goes to, along with the significant amount that mentioned escapes back into space in the form of radiation.
The other 40% goes to.. guess what, Look in a mirror you see some of it. You.. To support the biosphere you need a lot of energy. This is basic stuff you learn in Primary School. The food cycle. How much energy does it take to keep 7B humans moving daily at 5000KJ each. Now factor in every other animal, plant, and insect.
But contrary to popular belif where the idea is to decrease your foot-print by eating vegetable and less meat to protect the environment. All you achieve is contribute to global warming.
The higher energy it took to produce that steak on your plate. The better, as significantly more energy would have consumed during its development. Ie a cow wandering around the field consumes energy. It eats grass that has grown and developed from energy from the sun. Now the grass has got Eaten, the grass will needed to expended additional energy replacing lost foliage. All this is taking away Solar energy within the Earth.
Without the biosphere the Earth heat up significantly. With a too large and diverse biosphere that all complete for the limited energy from the sun your may end up with an ice age. When too much heat energy is transformed into growth and movement.
Another major factor is the Earths molten inner core. It is mainly Nickel-Iron and undergoes a turbulent flow. This is the way that celestial bodies loose their energy from the sun. How much energy do you think is lost moving several million tonnes of viscous iron/nickel around 400km. Sure some of this heat energy comes from pressure, and from gravity movement between the Earth and the Sun, moon, and the universe in general. But most of this expended energy comes from the sun.
Other energy losses include oceanic flows such as the one in the Atlantic
A point you referenced was the molten core which just surfaced again in Italy with it's favorite volcano irrupting- while those in Iceland are quite a the moment. No one seems to measure the earth temperature and changes under the glaciers caused by lava changes below them.
I know that the irruption of Mount St. Helena effected weather for about a year after the irruption. The effect has been attributed to dust and sulfides in the atmosphere. The results was a cooling effect. The amount of CO2 does not seem to have had an effect. AS we point out there should be none from the IRag's aka GHG
If anyone out there is knowledgeable about the effect of large bodies of water/ice absorbing microwave and cosmic particles and I assume some heating what is the magnitude of it?
RSS feed for comments to this post