The Generation Professionals Group is for utility professionals who work in biomass, coal, gas/oil, hydro, natural gas, or nuclear power generation fields. 

Post

Eliminating all Man-Made CO2 -- Earth gets Warmer?

Bob Ashworth's picture
Sr. VP

Mr. Ashworth is a chemical engineer and has presented over 50 technical papers on fuels and fuel related subjects. Relating to the subject of global warming, he has written two papers, "CFC...

  • Member since 2004
  • 143 items added with 32,001 views
  • Feb 2, 2010 12:00 pm GMT
  • 1882 views

Do you realize that CO2 emissions created by man's activities, combustion of fuels, etc. (called anthropogenic emissions) is miniscule compared to the emissions of CO2 from nature? Table 1 was developed by the IPCC. It shows annual CO2 emissions to the atmosphere from both nature and man and how much of the CO2 emitted is re-absorbed by nature.

Using the table above in combination with a total concentration of 385 ppmv of CO2 seen in the atmosphere in January 2008, one sees that the increase in CO2 caused by all of man's activities amounted to only 11.5 ppmv. The amount of CO2 from man is a mouse milk quantity compared to nature's emissions. If we eliminated all anthropogenic CO2 emissions, we would go back to the level we had in January 2003. Oh yes, when it was warmer then than it is now. Isn't this the first thing one would look at when evaluating the effect of man-made CO2; that is if they had any common sense? It is clear that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has nothing to do with the earth temperature. If there is an effect it is so small it is not worthy of discussion.

Global warming advocates say that CO2 builds up in the atmosphere over a 50 to 250 year period, but this is not true. Figure 1 below shows that the CO2 concentration oscillates based on the growing season in the Northern Hemisphere. The ratio of land to ocean in the Northern Hemisphere is about 1 to 1.5 and in the Southern Hemisphere is 1 to 4. Therefore, the Northern Hemisphere with much more land mass has a growing season that dominates the Southern Hemisphere growing season with respect to absorption of CO2.

Does a correlation exist between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the earth's temperature? No! Does an increase in CO2 cause the earth's temperature to increase? No! Figure 1 below was developed by Joseph D'Aleo, certified meteorologist. Even a non-scientist can see there is absolutely no correlation between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and the earth's temperature. If there were a correlation, they both would rise and fall together. The CO2 has been on a continuous upward trend - not true for the earth's temperature.

In Figure 1, each year around April, increased CO2 absorption by plants in the Northern Hemisphere starts reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere and the reduction continues until around mid to late August when plants start to go dormant. The cycles occur on a regular yearly basis and the swing in CO2 concentration is in the 5 to 8 ppmv range. If CO2 stayed in the atmosphere for long periods before being consumed, the season to season cyclic effect would not be seen. It is clear that nature reacts very fast in its consumption of carbon dioxide.

The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. Two sets of temperature measurements are shown, one set by NASA's Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) for the troposphere and the other by the UK's Hadley Climate Research Unit for the land and sea. Both show declining temperatures over time even as CO2 has increased from 366 ppmv in January 1998 to 385 ppmv by January 2008. Note that the land-sea and lower troposphere temperatures in January 2008 were some 0.7 Degrees C cooler than in January 1998.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Thank Bob for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member
Discussions
Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Jim Beyer's picture
Jim Beyer on Feb 18, 2010
Jeff,

I can follow G & T easily enough. I think the original submission was probably in crayon. But I'm not going to take the time to dispense with each of its 117 pages. Tell you what, I'll look it over and find the core. If you can agree that's the substantive portion, I can take it from there.

I can and will withdraw my "faith" as you call it, should the facts present themselves. A guy on Green Car Congress handed my *ss to me because I didn't understand scale height. (I do now, and I thank him for that.)

No, the photons are not emanating from the center of the earth. Or the center of the sun. But they are emanating normal to the curved outer surfaces of these spheres. Since these normals, if traced backward, all meet at the spheres' center, it's AS IF the flux is coming from the center of the spheres. It's an assumption that is perfectly valid mathematically for all regions outside the surface of the spheres. This is reflected in the equation for the effective temperature of the earth: Te = Ts*sqrt(Rs/2Ao) Where Ts = temperature of the sun, Ao = distance from sun to the earth, and Rs = radius of the sun.

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Feb 18, 2010
Jeff: "By your own admission you can't follow the math in the scientific papers." -- I've never said that. I can follow the math as well as pretty much anyone else who entered honours math, physics and chemistry at U of T. What I do admit to is not having the perserverence of Jim to follow the endless links you post to silly nonsience attempts to dispute obvious physics.
Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Feb 18, 2010
obviously "silly nonscience" -- don't have the patience to proofread either.
Don Hirschberg's picture
Don Hirschberg on Feb 19, 2010
“The problem is profligate consumption by a small minority of the world's population.”

That small minority is very small indeed. I have been trying to think of one person I know or have ever known who belongs in that group as I don’t mingle with junketing public servants, Wall Street wheeler dealers, NBA players, Al Gore, those in the dope business or entertainment stars.

India has exceedingly low per capita energy consumption and I am sure the 300-400 million without electric service go to bed happy in the knowledge they are not in the profligate group . Indians who have air conditioning use them. Those with cars use them. Just as I do. But because I am an American I am profligate. How specious can an argument get?

But wait, India’s population is growing rapidly and will soon exceed China’s, and a middle class that can afford air conditioning and cars is burgeoning, raising the energy demand dramatically without reducing the number of people without electric service. Again, population is THE problem.

Jeff Presley's picture
Jeff Presley on Feb 19, 2010
Len, Yeah, those guys got their physics Phd's in Cracker Jack boxes, versus yours, wait a minute YOU don't even HAVE a physics degree, let alone a Phd do you? We know you got admitted into "honors" courses, we have no idea whether you actually passed them. At least Ferdinand is man enough to admit he didn't do so well at first, I suspect you're compensating for something. You demand from me proof, then ignore any and all proof I provide, you've been a complete and utter waste of time, I won't respond to another of your requests, you're the clown. BTW I was never a project manager, I was a co-founder and vice president of the semiconductor business. It was sold nearly a decade ago, and it is an odd's on bet that our chips are somewhere on your desk devices right now.

To everyone else, let's see, the climate chief of the IPCC has just been fired, IPCC's Pachauri still refuses to resign, but his days are clearly numbered, there will be further fallout from the CRU business, Jones has already lost his position there. As Sutherland said in his paper, these climate scientists have given the rest of science a bad name, now they'll have to take their just desserts.

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Feb 19, 2010
You present scientific argument so rationally Jeff! (ha ha)
Don Hirschberg's picture
Don Hirschberg on Feb 20, 2010
Fred, and whatever Pulsers might still be around: Perhaps the most common error made by those proposing or seeking solutions to big and real problems is that they fail to start from here and now. The slate cannot be wiped clean, nor can the deck be shuffled again and re-dealt. Such a pity. What a kll joy.

I hate to recite the problems associated with our dismal here and now situation. They are legion and I cannot think of one that is not getting worse (with the possible exception of shale natural gas situation that gives us more time.)

As we are about to tick over to 7 billion without even the hint of population control in the offing I am afraid we have passed the point of a solution, we are over the cliff in free fall. I don’t much like being wrong but in this case I hope I am wrong.

Our civilization is the child of fossil fuels, a one shot deal. We are nearing the end of a potlatch.

For 50 years I had been optimistic about fusion energy. Alas, today even if we were could build fusion plants I’m afraid it’s already too late. And fission plants have become so expensive that how can those who could never afford electricity from coal expect to afford electricity generated in plants costing perhaps 10 times as much?

We hear how science and technology will save us. Science and technology has produced fission energy and no other significant sources of energy. Our increased production of green energy has been swamped by population growth and increased demand so we are still building coal plants like crazy.

It is far too late for a bucolic world which might be idyllic for maybe 0.3 billion people or so – but we have 23 times that many today.

Science (and simple arithmetic) is as much about telling us what is impossible as it is about telling us what is possible. No body ever says that.

Edward Reid, Jr.'s picture
Edward Reid, Jr. on Feb 21, 2010
Gentlemen,

In the "run up" to Copenhagen (prior to Climate-gate), there emerged what I have referred to elsewhere as the "three legged stool" of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change (AGCC).

The first "leg" consists of a massive, if messy, reduction in global annual carbon emissions toward zero global annual carbon emissions. The "350" crowd would also require efforts to extract sufficient anthropogenic carbon from the atmosphere to return the atmospheric carbon concentration to 350 ppm. However, AFAIK, there is no clear statement of a unique GOAL and TIMEFRAME for this effort.

The second "leg" requires the end of animal husbandry globally to eliminate the methane emissions resulting from that activity. This "leg" was posited most openly by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. (I will make no effort here to estimate the incremental effect of a change from animal protein to legume protein in the global diet on methane emissions.)

The third "leg" is population control, advocated in the US by presidential advisers John Holdren and Cass Sunstein (and here by Don), among others. For the US, this is a relatively simple, if politically hazardous, exercise. Eliminating illegal immigration into the US and returning the currently resident illegals to their countries of origin would stabilize our population within two generations. The problem is not so easily controlled in much of the rest of the world, particularly in Muslim countries or countries with large Muslim populations.

The "seat" of the stool is global governance, advocated by early drafts of the ill-fated Copenhagen Accords and by the president of the EU. This global government would have the power to tax, to mandate, to penalize and to distribute wealth.

I would venture that few outside the ruling classes have envisioned this "stool" on their own; and, even fewer have had it clearly explained to them.

I believe that this "stool", had it been successfully assembled in Copenhagen, would have been the ugliest piece of very expensive furniture ever constructed anywhere.

The actual Copenhagen negotiations clearly showed a world divided into three "camps": the indefensibly guilty (US, Canada, EU, etc.); the unassailably growing (China, India, etc.); and, the piteously aggrieved (Africa, island nations, etc.). The deal which didn't get done would have had the unassailably growing take the necessary technology from the indefensibly guilty at no cost, while the piteously aggrieved would take the indefensibly guilty's money to salve their wounds. For some reason, this was not perceived as leading to "...and they lived happily ever after".

The above may sound rather cynical. It probably is rather cynical. That is likely because watching the process unfold has left me rather cynical. This comment thread has done nothing to dispel my cynicism. Neither has the past three months of "guidance" from the AGCC community. My condition may well be irredeemable.

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Feb 21, 2010
I think it a grave assault on our planet's future to use an assault on science to resolve a political problem.
Edward Reid, Jr.'s picture
Edward Reid, Jr. on Feb 21, 2010
I think it is an equally grave assault on science to do sloppy science and attempt to hide that sloppy science in the service of politics.

I think it is also an assault on science to politicize the results of scientific investigation in the surreptitious pursuit of a new world order.

I think it is also an assault on science for politicians to create and promulgate doomsday scenarios unsupported by the science.

The sceptics, for all of the abuse they have received, have functioned as the BS meter when it comes to what has now degenerated to "Anthropogenic Global Wierding".

Edward Reid, Jr.'s picture
Edward Reid, Jr. on Feb 21, 2010
Science has been mugged while scientists stood by and watched!
Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Feb 21, 2010
The sceptics would do welll to invest in some BS meters of their own.
Edward Reid, Jr.'s picture
Edward Reid, Jr. on Feb 21, 2010
Honor all of the FOIA requests. Then we'll talk about it.
Edward Reid, Jr.'s picture
Edward Reid, Jr. on Feb 21, 2010
Fred,

Please provide a list of the technologies which meet your "spend much less" and "economic" criteria.

Perhaps we could provide copies of the list to China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, etc. which are currently investing $ billions in the "same old stuff", which will then be around for another 50-60 years.

Ed

Don Hirschberg's picture
Don Hirschberg on Feb 21, 2010
Ed comments: “I will make no effort here to estimate the incremental effect of a change from animal protein to legume protein in the global diet on methane emissions.”

I’ve always thought I was pretty good at making “calculations without data”, i.e. getting some kind of number. Not in this case. I can’t get started. It’s a real stinker.

But it does put me in mind of some playful sorts who ran human effluvium through the mass spectrometer back in the 50’s(?). Lots of methane of course but also a variety of organic sulfur molecules. I’m afraid what the subject had eaten is lost to science forever.

Edward Reid, Jr.'s picture
Edward Reid, Jr. on Feb 21, 2010
Don,

I love to perform before an audience which likes my material. :-)

Ed

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Feb 21, 2010
Ed: It appears that you have solid scientific proof that taking earth atmosphere's CO2 content above 500 ppmv GHG equivalents will NOT cause anyone any problems. I'd love to make and FOIA request for THAT proof.
Jeff Presley's picture
Jeff Presley on Feb 21, 2010
Ed, I've always respected you, there are some others here who have lost my respect, by being snarky and not even following a single link, like this one about climate folk retracting their peer-reviewed paper on rising sea levels. It appears with all the spotlights and magnifying glasses out there, they're a bit more hesitant to play the "sky is falling' card.

Science got mugged and real science got a black eye. My worst fear is that once the actual stinky stuff hits the fan, be it due to whatever cause, "scientists" will be held in such disrepute that they won't be any help even if all humanity desperately needs them. There really is no reason to respond to Len's outbursts, if you or I were to receive $10-15Billion per YEAR from government agencies to study something, I believe you and I would be more than happy to respond long before we received freedom of information act requests, but you and I are honest brokers, versus what Phil Jones and "team" have become.

In 2002 when Steve McIntyre emailed Phil Jones asking for weather station data, so began the tribalism among scientists that led to 'climategate' Another link Len won't touch with a 10 foot pole Remember, the Guardian's Fred Pearce (author of this article) is PRO AGW as is the vast majority of their editorial staff! They must have been chewing their own hands off to mention this "innocuous" statement by Dr. Mann: mike p.s. I know I probably don't need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I'm providing these for your own personal use, since you're a trusted colleague. So please don't pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of "dirty laundry" one doesn't want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things...

Yup, scientists worried about "dirty laundry" aren't scientists, they're houskeepers? lol

Don Hirschberg's picture
Don Hirschberg on Feb 22, 2010
To get a handle on the problem Ed raised about the effects of getting more protein from legumes instead of from meat I found a large and compressive literature on the internet devoted to all aspects of flatus.

I had (without really giving it much thought) wrongly assumed one human fart was pretty much the same as another. So I was very surprised to learn that most people, 2/3rd, don’t make methane. So, the difference is in the DNA. Non methane maker parents produce non methane making children.

Nitrogen is the major constituent. We swallow much air. Beans have some hard to digest sugars that get eaten by bacteria in the gut releasing lots of CO2. Anyway, I didn’t want to leave the false impression of the importance of methane.

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Feb 22, 2010
"There are two competing analyses of what "climategate" means. One sees it as the mob entering the lab – the story of a malicious attempt to disrupt, cross-question, belittle and trash the work of mainstream scientists. This may or may not have been the motivation for the original hack, but it has certainly been the motive of some who have driven the news agenda since.

The second analysis sees it as democracy in action – the outcome of an entirely laudable effort by amateur scientists and others outside the scientific mainstream"

...

"But as (CRU's work) comes under assault, it is worth remembering that it does not directly touch on other key issues like the physics of climate change, forecasts of future climate change and so on. Even if all the work of CRU were revealed as entirely phoney, which is far from being true, it would not demonstrate climate change was a hoax, or even much alter predictions of future climate."

You should read the articles you link to yourself, Jeff.

Edward Reid, Jr.'s picture
Edward Reid, Jr. on Feb 22, 2010
"Ed: It appears that you have solid scientific proof that taking earth atmosphere's CO2 content above 500 ppmv GHG equivalents will NOT cause anyone any problems. I'd love to make and FOIA request for THAT proof."

Len,

You really should stop jumping to conclusions based on appearances. I certainly made no such assertion above, nor in any other comment stream on this site.

Ed

Jeff,

Thanks. I try. Some days I'm more trying than others. :-)

Ed

Don,

You obviously took my concerns about a legume-based diet more seriously than I did. (I am a methane producer, by the way, and most definitely NOT a good candidate for a "miracle fruit" diet.) :-)

Ed

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Feb 22, 2010
BTW, Jeff: That whole stupid "Climategate" cluster.. is entirely based on agreeing that Mann's conclusions regarding warming in the late 20th century are wrong. Many, including commentors on the Guardian article, claim that the 2006 Wegman report confirms this, but it doesn't.

See this link:

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward.

Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium."

They then make an aside mention that certainty for proxy data prior to AD1600 is not as good as the rest, but DOES NOT CHANGE MANN'S ORIGINAL CONCLUSION SUBSTANTIVELY.

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (2006) Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (BASC) - The National Academies Press

Some honesty would be appreciated. And that McIntyre character. As a scientist?

Edward Reid, Jr.'s picture
Edward Reid, Jr. on Feb 22, 2010
Len,

"Plausible" is a long way from "undeniable".

McIntyre is a statistician. His critiques have focused on misapplication of statistical techniques. I have seen no convincing refutation of his critiques.

Ed

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Feb 22, 2010
If you're hanging your hopes on the likes of that, give up now.
Jim Beyer's picture
Jim Beyer on Feb 22, 2010
I realize no one cares about this sub-thread anymore, as flatulence is much more amusing.

But in looking over Gerlich and Tscheuschner's paper: "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics", I've noticed the following:

It was very hard to figure out what the paper is about, until I found where they said the purpose of the paper is to show there is NO fundamental CO2 greenhouse effect in physics, and (thus) there is NO fundamental principle behind this CO2 greenhouse effect, and finally, it is NOT physically correct to consider radiative heat transfer as the fundamental mechanism controlling the weather setting thermal conductivity and friction to zero.

How do they do this?

Well, they basically say the Stephan Boltzmann equation for used for indicating planetary heating by the sun is inaccurate. Then they say it's impossible to determine the average temperature of the planet anyway, so no one knows what the temperature is, let alone what it is supposed to be.

The then try to leverage this uncertainty to disprove the greenhouse effect. Example:

"Disproof: The concept of the Earth’s mean temperature is ill-defined. Therefore the concept of a rise of a mean temperature is ill-defined as well."

I can appreciate the determining the mean temperature of the earth is problematic and may even be impossible to measure with any accuracy. But that doesn't constitute "dis-proof" that under certain situations, a system can become warmer than in other situations.

It's after this point, I start to get lost, and not due to my intellectual shortcomings. G & T seem to acknowledge that the planets do not all heat up according to S-B, so something must be causing the added heat. But this "something" cannot be CO2, because they can't stomach the re-radiation of heat from the sky to the ground (even though this can and would occur if a cloud became warmer than the ground beneath it).

In the end, they just don't like the concept of a greenhouse effect by CO2. While G & T may acknowledge that the earth is warmer than S-B should indicate, they make no effort to figure out what that additional mechanism might be (but they are sure it is not CO2).

The extensive bibliography of footnotes cites other skeptics of AGW, including Jaworowski and E-G Beck. Bad science in support of more bad science.

In the end, it's really not hard to disprove G & T. If you can allow that SOME temperature measurement (even very broadly defined) is possible, then you will see that Venus is much hotter than it should be, even accounting for its distance from the sun. What discriminates Venus from the Earth and Mars? It's much thicker atmosphere. Rather than discussing Venus and Mars in detail, G & T prefer to discuss pans heating on a stove.

Venus Earth Mars Distance from Sun (A.U.) 0.72 1 1.52 Flux, W/m2 2643 1370 593 Albedo 0.8 0.3 0.22 Effective Temperature, K 220 255 212 Actual observed Temp, K 730 288 218 Greenhouse Effect, K 510 33 5

Jeff Presley's picture
Jeff Presley on Feb 22, 2010
Len, there is MUCH more to Climategate than ONE item you mentioned. I did in fact inveigle you into following a link, because I TOLD you the Guardian was pro AGW, you just had to go look. I admit the author is strident in his claims, I can accept that. Unlike the AGW side, I see no need to silence critics, which is EXACTLY what the "team" was caught red-handed doing in the climategate emails. The important thing here is you actually managed to follow a link and read a little, for that I am grateful. Now I don't expect you to follow a Watts link, or something referring to Singer, Christy or others quite yet, but small progress is small progress. BTW Len; I and hundreds of others in the comments section on the bottom of that article complained about the author's complete one-sidedness in his statements and the subsequent articles tone it down a bit, albeit less than is honest. Sort of like watching politics on MSNBC, you just have to take it for granted that there's a lopsidedness to the presentation. Needless to say, you didn't click on the link about the authors backsliding on their ocean rise article published last year, I don't expect you to allow too many goblins in your religions view.

The fundamental issue remains. Climategate showed that there WAS in fact a gate, and the CRU and the others on the "team" including geographically disperse institutions including Penn, NASA and others WERE in OBVIOUS fact colluding, colluding on IPCC "reviews" colluding on denial of access to data, colluding on attacking publications that DARED to print anything remotely negative towards their AGW religion. This is all fact, this is all proven in dozens and dozens of emails per subject above. They were the gatekeepers of the data, the methods and the models, and CONTRARY to established scientific norms, they REFUSED to relinquish said data, including under FOIA even though they are PUBLICLY funded! That is completely unacceptable, it is contrary to science and it HAS given science a bad name.

You would be unwise to attack McIntyre his methods and approach and even his funding are beyond reproach, unlike YOUR side, caught with their hands in the cookie jar including shaking down oil companies for funding with threats of how the data would "come out" if it were not forthcoming. What McIntyre and others asked for should have been granted immediately, if not sooner. Everyone should recall the cold-fusion imbroglio wherein scientists from Utah thought they discovered this wonderful new thing. But THEY unlike the AGW "team" DID release their methods as is REQUIRED by scientific first principles and unfortunately for them, other scientists were unable to replicate their findings. The gatekeepers in AGW do NOT relinquish their data, their methods or their models so others are NOT able to replicate ANYTHING, and yet we're expected to believe in them. I'm sorry, but that's just not science, that's religion.

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Feb 22, 2010
Jeff: "unlike YOUR side" -- See, there's your problem in this, Jeff. This whole mess is all caught up in "sides". Pro, Anti - AGW. In fact, I'm not on ANY side, just as the science. Neutral, making up my own mind based solely on the science. You should try it.
Jeff Presley's picture
Jeff Presley on Feb 22, 2010
So "neutral" you refuse to even READ anything from the "other" side. Yeah, sell me a bridge next there bucko, you're about as "neutral" as MSNBC
Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Feb 22, 2010
Closer to BBC there, Jeff.
Jeff Presley's picture
Jeff Presley on Feb 23, 2010
Ok, Len I accept that, you're only as biased as the BBC. Of course they're about as biased as you can get so... I don't supposed you know what hoisted by your own petard means eh?
John Shotsky's picture
John Shotsky on May 3, 2010
If man-made CO2 were removed from earth's atmosphere, it would probably not be detectable. But what if ALL CO2 were removed from earth's atmosphere. And while we're at it, let's remove the rest of the greenhouse gases too, all except water vapor.

What would happen? This is where the warmers get it all wrong. Greenhouse gases do indeed absorb radiation, but the thermal laws say that anything that absorbs thermal radiation will also emit it at the same level of emissivity. In other words, once absorbed, it will emit photos of its own. In fact, gh gases are always emitting photons because they always have kinetic energy.

So we know that gh gases emit radiation, and we can say that 50% of that radiation is directed to space, and the other 50% is directed toward earth. This is true whether it is incoming sun energy or radiated energy from the earth's surface, or from another radiating gh gas molecule.

So far, so good. Now, we also know that all of the energy received from the sun must be radiated back to space in order to maintain radiative balance. Never mind the avenues for the moment, it is unimportant. On average, every day, the same amount of energy received from the sun is radiated back to space from all radiative elements, including gh gases.

So, there is one more thermal law that must be remembered. The amount of radiation from any given object is proportional to its temperature. The warmer it is, the more it radiates. So, we can say the average temperature of the earth is due to the radiation from the surface to space, plus the radiation from gh gases to space. So, I assume everyone is still with me, and knows that I've been quoting thermal laws, not hypotheses.

So, what would happen if all the gh gases were removed from the atmosphere? The answer should be obvious - the earth would have to warm up in order to radiate more - the amount it radiated before, plus the now extinct radiation from greenhouse gases. And, if the earth increases in surface temperature, the rest of the atmoshpere, made up of inert (non radiation absorbing or radiating) gases, so THEY TOO would warm. Earth would warm until a new equilibrium was reached, such that the earth's surface alone would radiate back to space the amount that was received each day.

THAT is what is wrong with the AGW hypothesis - it violates the thermal laws, the ideal gas laws, and plain common sense.

And for those talking about 'reradiation', consider what happens when you step into the shade during a sunny day - you are cooled, because you are not receiving direct thermal radiation. Try that at night. Put up a shield of any substance, including anything with the lowest possible emissivity, such as styrofoam. See if youi can create 'shade' at night. You can't even do it in the presence of low lying clouds full of energy. That is because it is not RADIATED energy that controls air temperature at night, but the conduction of air molecules between the surface and clouds. No clouds, no warming from them, resulting in cooler surface air. John

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on May 4, 2010
John: I agree with you. Another thing, if you removed all CO2 from the atmopshere, all of the plants on earth would die and there would be no oxygen for the AGWers to bereath

Pages

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »