Please share far and wide!

Thursday, December 3, 2015

Greenhouse Gas? It is a heat blocker, a moderator, or a "greenhouse"

http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/

1.0 Introduction: What on Earth Is the "Greenhouse Effect"?

Confusion and Lack of Thermodynamic Definition

Although the "Greenhouse Effect" is of crucial importance to modern climatology and is the putative cornerstone of the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis, it lacks clear thermodynamic definition. This forecasts the likelihood that the name is misapplied. Even general descriptions of the "Greenhouse Effect" may seem confused when compared to one another. In the first year university geology text by Press & Siever (1982, p. 312) we read:
"The atmosphere is relatively transparent to the incoming visible rays of the Sun. Much of that radiation is absorbed at the Earth's surface and then reemitted as infrared, invisible long-wave rays that radiate back away from the surface (Fig. 12-14). The atmosphere, however, is relatively opaque and impermeable to infrared rays because of the combined effect of clouds and carbon dioxide, which strongly absorbs the radiation instead of allowing it to escape into space. This absorbed radiation heats the atmosphere, which radiates heat back to the Earth's surface. This is called the 'greenhouse effect' by analogy to the warming of greenhouses, whose glass is the barrier to heat loss."
This explanation is fundamentally confusing because it is seemingly contradictory, as impermeable

materials cannot absorb on the minute to minute timescale that applies to the "Greenhouse Effect", even if such an impermeable material has a very high fluid storage capacity or porosity. According to Press & Siever's explanation above, the atmosphere is relatively impermeable due to the presence of clouds and carbon dioxide, which are part of the atmosphere. How then, can the part of the atmosphere that makes it impermeable to infrared, simultaneously facilitate infrared absorption? Moreover, the idea of thermal permeability is a product of the 19th century pseudoscientific notion that heat was actually a fluid (called "caloric"). This led to a great deal of misunderstanding amongst the scientifically illiterate when it came to the findings of Fourier (e.g. Kelland, 1837). We may compare this description of the "Greenhouse Effect" with that of Whitaker (2007, pp. 17-18), which lacks the misplaced 19th century usage:
"The incoming solar radiation that the earth absorbs is re-emitted in the form of so-called infra-red radiation - this is where the vital 'greenhouse effect' begins. Because of the chemical structure of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, they absorb the infra-red radiation from the Earth, and then emit it, into space and back into the atmosphere. The atmospheric re-emission helps heat the surface of the Earth - as well as the lower atmosphere - and keeps us warm."
This explanation describes the "Greenhouse Effect" as "vital", perhaps because, as Whitaker points out, it warms the earth's surface. Wishart (2009, p. 24) explains that this "Greenhouse Effect" is useful for a completely different reason:
"The Moon is another excellent example of what happens with no greenhouse effect. During the lunar day, average surface temperatures reach 107ÂșC, while the lunar night sees temperatures drop from boiling point to 153 degrees below zero. No greenhouse gases mean there's no way to smooth out temperatures on the moon. On Earth, greenhouse gases filter some of the sunlight hitting the surface and reflect some of the heat back out into space, meaning the days are cooler, but conversely the gases insulate the planet at night, preventing a lot of the heat from escaping."
In Wishart's explanation above, the Greenhouse Effect" is no longer a warming mechanism but a thermal buffer that moderates the extremes of temperature.

15 comments:

  1. When the sun heats up your pool during the day, the water absorbs sunlight energy all day proportional to "heat capacity" you know that having an MS and taking basic thermo. Qin = mCp*deltaT where delta T is the diff between average ambient temp and water by conduction abd convection via Nusselt number and radiation (not ionizing) where solar heat flux is about 1 kw/m^2. Pretty simple. At night as the sun goes down the direction of heat flow is reversed as delta T is reversed and the stored energy in water does work on colder ambient air by convection. The pool water gives up its stored energy as a functio of density of air, Grashoff number and deltaT to the ambient. Yet if you put the pool cover on it as an nbsulator, it keeps the stored energy in the water and Qout =0. Think of the earth as a giant swimming pool and CO2 and other atmospheric particulates as the pool cover. Sure there is absorbtion wavelength of as E = h*c/lambda. Wavelengh of air, 70% nitrogen is a function of density and temperature via kT. As lamda decreases E increases because h and c, Plancks constant h and the speed of light c are fixed. So wavelength is affected by CO2 concentration which limits energy release at night. Energy balance and first law of Thermo is conserved. Second Law is met, and Third law dS > dQ/T means entropy always goes as work on system . Q can be < or > 0 depending if energy is turned into work. If Q in > Q out then atmosphere does negative work. Pumping CO2 in the atmosphere without wavelength shift is counter to laws of Physics and not having negative work when dQ/T < O in irreversible system would violate Laws of Thermodynamics. Climate deniers either dont understand physics and Thermodynamics, or think CO2 in atmosphere has no effect on wavelength. The latter violates the laws of physics as well.

    ReplyDelete
  2. However in this case tge Earths pool cover never comes off. Its on 24/7 and the addition more CO2 makes it more an insulator. Same with CO and auto exhaust, and CH4 with cow/human flatulence. So yes I have eaten many cows worth of neat in my life, and I probably fart more than the average person so says the Mrs and kids. 7 billlion farters and exhalers. Lots of wavelength adjustment going on. People and their actions are a major cause as is fossil burning. Humankind has exoinentially increased from 1 billion to over 7 billion in 100 years and will be 10 billion by 2050. Global warming will not decrease as long as human population exponentially increases. Give China and India and Third World where population increase/fossil is most and watch population stabilize and global warming decrease.

    Farting still an issue but not as much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Global warming ----sheesh, even Al Gore is smart enough not to call it that anymore. There is no warming, look at the data shit head.

      http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2014/08/global-warming-real-information-from.html

      Delete
  3. It will be written, if not allready done, that the antinuclear movement has in their tactics and strategy, inadvertently caused a shift building more fossil plants and thus contributing to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. It will be written if not allready done, that the transfer of activism from antinuclear missile to antinuclear energy in the 70s sustained fears from world wide anhillation when no such effect is plausible for energy.

    Antinuclearism, born from socialist antigovernment movements has been outed at COP21.Thinking people all over the world are pushibg back at antinuclearism as wronhthink, wrongscience.

    One only needs to look at massive smog iver Chiba and India to understand why nuclear energy projects are moving forward there.

    Germany is burning more coal. Fail.

    Antinuclearism has not lead to solar being adopted for baseload. Rooftop solar cant power all industry.

    Nuclear 2.0 is here stronger and evolved, because antinuclearism couldnt kill it as a religion. And as Nietche said "that which diesnt kill me makes me stronger".

    So look for nuclear to really move forward the next 20-50 years to reverse climate change and CO2 influence. I wont be here in 50 years unless singularity or life extension tech comes to be. But I will have had a small part in it. As my work outlives me, my legacy to humanity will live on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You shit head, solar can take care of everything, and nuclear lies, fail and poison us again and again.

      Sociopaths look always for a free ride, a free lunch, and thus they flock like moths to nuclear. yet it is not a free lunch

      It is the most expensive lunch one could have

      Even if solar was not a totally viable method....nuclear would still be far too costly,

      Delete
    2. When total used fuel recycle goes into production then 1) long lived actinides are used for their fission content and 2) the antinuclear canard of 100,000 year storage goes away.

      Cmon your reply was just invective.

      Delete
    3. Solar is only 1 kw/m2 when its working. Cloudy day today. Im jetsetting Wed.into rain. Fission is 200MeV/atom. You do the conversion and tell me the power density ratio. This is why nuclear is so good. Powers 5 million people with a facility covering 100 acres. How many acres for 5 million for solar? Include capacity factors. Cmon you can do this on a spreadsheet. Ratio is like 100,000

      Delete
    4. That stupid arse canard about power density.

      Hint---it goes on the roof! Zero lost space, infinitely better than nuclear, if you want to play the density game.

      game over, stock win

      Delete
    5. Rooftop solar that displaces baseload for millions is the real canard. You cant deny the power density as it comes from nature. #quantum #mechanics.

      Delete
  4. Poison Density is greater also for nukes. That's the main point... and what reactor EVER was able to use waste for fission? you referring to Liquid flourine cooled? you referring to the thorium (AKA U233) reactors? These are failures from the 60s... what? You gonna say something about how nukes are carbon free again? how is that possible when they off-gas so much during fuel production and during refueling. Give me tonnage on C14 released, either gasous as methane\CO2 or in solid\liquid filtration solutions, by each and every nuke plant then you may continue your drivel. PS what does the salt waste from your precious 'new' tech do? oh yeah off gas all kinds of shit, and isnt there papers written exposing that the thorium salt fuel waste is still dominated by actinide cycle for its looong life?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yeah, I love the trolls that pretend that a 300 year half life "is nothing"

      sheesh, the chance of the human race being around 300 more years is about .01% with nuclear on the scene.

      Delete
    2. Actually toxcity of nuclear effluent is less than coal. The main thing is that even with major accidents, the world wide consequences of nuclear have been vastly overblown. This is because the most severe source terms that are unrealistic were used in safety analysis models.Millions have not been proven to have died from nuclear. Hitchens Razor says the onus is on your side to prove, not mine to disprove as you make tge greater claim.

      Delete
    3. Actinide recycyle in situ is coming. The tech has already been demonstrated.

      Delete
  5. Whats the half life of cyanide? Ebola virus? Infinity. We can store books and historic documents for a thousand years no prob.Visit Trinity College in Dublin and check out the Book of Kells. JSN ready for another trip.

    ReplyDelete
  6. where was the tech demonstrated.. that french Industrial demonstration reactor? No 'wasteless' technology exists. And please explain how if the air around the 'book of kells' gets out of containment it will kill someone. I love how you come on with lil quips and 'Orange to Grenade' comparisons.

    ReplyDelete

Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments