There are quite a number of Climate Sages, who say they are skeptical, adding almost sotto voce that the heating by Greenhouse Gases is exaggerated. I met one this evening, an engineer retired and a most avid reader of science fiction. He has over 350,000 books and reads something like 2,000 books a month.
Did I mishear? Anyway since he was an engineer of ejector seats for aircraft I engaged him in conversation. Eventually I showed him on my smartphone a picture of ‘Climate for the Layman‘ by none other than Yours Truly.
That was the moment I declared I was a Climate Skeptic, whereupon he declared that he was one too and that all that business about Greenhouse Gases was exaggerated.
So I asked him a simple question, did he believe that hot air rises. Oh yes! No hesitation. I put it to him that heat was a transfer of kinetic energy. Again, he was an engineer – he understood that at once.
So then, if he understood those two factors, how was it that he even remotely imagined that Greenhouse Gases could in any way cause any heating? I must have missed something. Although it was late at night I determined to read a Warmists website in order to see the truth. Was I, an out and out sceptic, was I after all completely mistaken about man made Global Warming after all?
So I read this site. It made the point that atmospheric CO2 had increased greatly. Yup, we have to agree on that, although the site failed to mention that the totality of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide still only amounted to 0.04{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of atmospheric gases.
The site said that the Sun sent in energy, and the amount that the Earth gave back was less than came in. Who am I to doubt that these great scientists have the ability to measure the amounts of energy in and out, with the use of satellites etcetera? Nevertheless I felt obliged to look up the definitions of energy, since I am inclined to think and write in terms of radiation.
Well I quickly learned about potential energy, kinetic energy, and thermal energy, and how it is measured in joules and newtons.
Now the interesting part of the argument was that it was based largely on probability, and there no claim that Greenhouse Gases generated heat. So far so good. However the next explanation did cause me to think deeply, especially when I was lying snug in bed under a duvet.
The Greenhouse Gases they claimed acted like blanket to prevent heat loss. Instinctively I pulled the duvet up to cover my shoulders. Heat loss is a subject dear to heart, since at my age of 88 I feel the cold terribly.
The argument about the blanket seemed pretty good. These gases kept the Earth a whole lot warmer than we would otherwise be. Now cynical Skeptics might argue that the Eastern seabord of the USA is preternaturally cold, but against that Sidney in Australia is having its hottest days ever. Does that balance things out? You see, I try to be fair handed.
However can one really say that a gas, Greenhouse or otherwise, can in any way resemble a blanket? Even though a duvet may have some tiny holes in the material, it simply has a certain material continuity that is well proven by millions of people to prevent heat loss. After all they are used every day all over the Planet to prevent heat loss during the hours of sleep.
However there is one argument that is a clincher. If heat is to be prevented from escaping to Outer Space, this blanket of Greenhouse Gases, and in particular Carbon Dioxide, needs to be continuous and impenetrable. Why is that impossible?
It is impossible for the very reason that gases that are warmed at sea level rise up and expand, and the gaps between the molecules get greater and greater. When we add to this that the totality of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere, from all sources – human and natural – amounts to a mere 0.04{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of atmospheric gases, then the argument that this gas forms a blanket needs to be laughed to high heaven. Only people who are highly suggestible could ever believe this scientific twaddle.
However there is one Greenhouse Gas that is visible to the naked eye most every day, and that is cloud cover, frozen water vapour. Why do the lefties of this Planet and all the demagogues of Hollywood’s tinsel town, why do they not march, demanding a curb to Water Vapour, the most prolific Greenhouse Gas?
The answer is that these pseudo scientists would look more ridiculous than ever. Why? There are several reasons. The first is that it is next to impossible to quantify Water Vapour and therefore to blame mankind for its existence. The second is that it it is clear to a child that clouds impede the entrance of solar radiation and thus cause cooling.
No, the fact is that blaming the Greenhouse Gases for causing warming in any way at all, just makes no sense. Some people get hypnotised by the fact that figures like James Hansen claim there is this famous Greenhouse Effect, and this is magnified by a politician in the person of Al Gore.
Why do these scientists and politicians not even begin to get it right? Because the Earth and the Oceans warm the atmosphere by Conduction and not the other way round. The atmosphere does not and cannot warm the Earth. The gases do not generate heat. On the contrary they scatter incoming radiation, so are a visible cooling influence.
Furthermore the gases of the atmosphere by Convection carry warmth upwards and away to Outer Space. Everybody with a modicum of scientific knowledge knows that hot gases rise up. A child knows that by watching the flames in a wood burning stove or a bonfire. Hot air rises by Convection and as it rises up and gets thinner it cools.
This is evidenced by our senses. We do not need to ask a Professor of Physics or a Meteorologist to confirm what we can see and feel. Indeed so many of these so – called scientists are just Black Magicians who seek to confuse us with their arcane verbiage.
There is only one entity that could possibly warm the Globe and that is the mighty Sun, that is reckoned to be some 6,500C and is 3,600 times more massive than this whole Planet. In the face of this how is it that so many people could fall for the risible proposition that Mankind has in its power to warm the Globe by the emissions of Carbon Dioxide?
How is it that otherwise intelligent people should fall for all the codswallop about Climate Change? It is a matter of supreme arrogance that Man who lives on this Planet for an average of three score years and ten can understand the massive climatic changes that have taken place over millions of years.
Climates and climate systems the world over have been changing and evolving for millions of years. To imagine that Mankind has in these last few years been able to warm the Planet and to change the numerous different climates on this Planet is simply a delusion, delusional.
And why are people so easily deluded and led astray? That is another subject altogether.
Another excellent essay except how could you write: “However there is one Greenhouse Gas that is visible to the naked eye most every day, and that is cloud cover, frozen water vapour?”
I agree that cloud is the blanket and so did R. C. Sutcliffe, a meteorologist, who in his 1966 book, Weather and Climate, wrote: “Clouds which do not give rain but which dissolve again into vapour before the precipitation stage is ever reached, have a profound effect on our Climate.”
But Anthony you know that cloud is not vapor so why did you ever write that it was? Why did you did you imply we could see a cloud droplet when we both know we have never seen a single cloud droplet. We know we only see the presence of cloud droplets when there millions or billions of cloud droplets somewhat uniformly, diffusely, ‘concentrated’ in large space relative to their tiny sizes. And since they are so small (tiny), why do we even see them then?
Richard Feynman, when teaching his students at Caltech, asked almost the same question: “Why do we ever see the clouds? Where do the clouds come from? Everybody knows it is the condensation of water vapor. But, of course, the water vapor is already in the atmosphere before it condenses, so why don’t we see it then? After it condenses it is perfectly obvious. It wasn’t there, now it is there. So the mystery of where the clouds come from is not really such a childish mystery.”
With this introduction Feynman briefly shared his theoretical understanding of the natural phenomenon known as the Tyndall Effect (Scattering) by colloidal particles. Whose result he summarized: “That is to say, the scattering of water in lumps of N molecules each is N times more tense than the scattering of the single atoms. So as the water agglomerates the scattering increases. Does it increase ad infinitum? No! When does this analysis begin to fail? How many atoms can we put together before we cannot drive this argument any further? Answer: If the water drop gets so big that µfrom one end to the other is a wavelength or so, then the atoms are no longer all in phase because they are too far apart. So as we keep increasing the size of the droplets we get more and more scattering, until such a time that a drop gets about the size of a wavelength, and then the scattering does not increase anywhere nearly as rapidly as the drop gets bigger. Furthermore, the blue disappears, because for long wavelengths the drops can be bigger, before this limit is reached, than they can be for short wavelengths. Although the short wave lengths scatter more per atom than the long waves, there is a bigger enhancement for the red end of the spectrum than for the blue end when all the drops are bigger than the wavelength, so the color is shifted from the blue toward the red.” (The Feynman Lectures On Physics, pp 32:8,9)
So I know how it is that cloud droplets scatter radiation much more strongly the water molecules and more importantly I know that ordinary cloud droplets with a diameter of 20 microns scatter shortwave infrared and longwave infrared radiation much, much more strongly than they scatter visible radiation. I know this because I can read. However, it seems few have read that which I have just quoted. But they can be excused even if they had read it because Feynman never told his students the name of the natural phenomenon he theoretically explained.
But now Anthony, if you read this, and anyone else who reads this should know what I claim to know.
If climate was music then —
It’s governed by the beat solar cycles and planetary movement, it’s pitched by the tuning of water cycle, and accompanied by the choir of everything else.
It does not make pretty music, as the beat is not always regular, and pitching is approximate — slurring from one tuning temperament to another, as the many sections of choir each attempt to keep up with the changes.
jerry krause
| #
Hi Anthony,
Another excellent essay except how could you write: “However there is one Greenhouse Gas that is visible to the naked eye most every day, and that is cloud cover, frozen water vapour?”
I agree that cloud is the blanket and so did R. C. Sutcliffe, a meteorologist, who in his 1966 book, Weather and Climate, wrote: “Clouds which do not give rain but which dissolve again into vapour before the precipitation stage is ever reached, have a profound effect on our Climate.”
But Anthony you know that cloud is not vapor so why did you ever write that it was? Why did you did you imply we could see a cloud droplet when we both know we have never seen a single cloud droplet. We know we only see the presence of cloud droplets when there millions or billions of cloud droplets somewhat uniformly, diffusely, ‘concentrated’ in large space relative to their tiny sizes. And since they are so small (tiny), why do we even see them then?
Richard Feynman, when teaching his students at Caltech, asked almost the same question: “Why do we ever see the clouds? Where do the clouds come from? Everybody knows it is the condensation of water vapor. But, of course, the water vapor is already in the atmosphere before it condenses, so why don’t we see it then? After it condenses it is perfectly obvious. It wasn’t there, now it is there. So the mystery of where the clouds come from is not really such a childish mystery.”
With this introduction Feynman briefly shared his theoretical understanding of the natural phenomenon known as the Tyndall Effect (Scattering) by colloidal particles. Whose result he summarized: “That is to say, the scattering of water in lumps of N molecules each is N times more tense than the scattering of the single atoms. So as the water agglomerates the scattering increases. Does it increase ad infinitum? No! When does this analysis begin to fail? How many atoms can we put together before we cannot drive this argument any further? Answer: If the water drop gets so big that µfrom one end to the other is a wavelength or so, then the atoms are no longer all in phase because they are too far apart. So as we keep increasing the size of the droplets we get more and more scattering, until such a time that a drop gets about the size of a wavelength, and then the scattering does not increase anywhere nearly as rapidly as the drop gets bigger. Furthermore, the blue disappears, because for long wavelengths the drops can be bigger, before this limit is reached, than they can be for short wavelengths. Although the short wave lengths scatter more per atom than the long waves, there is a bigger enhancement for the red end of the spectrum than for the blue end when all the drops are bigger than the wavelength, so the color is shifted from the blue toward the red.” (The Feynman Lectures On Physics, pp 32:8,9)
So I know how it is that cloud droplets scatter radiation much more strongly the water molecules and more importantly I know that ordinary cloud droplets with a diameter of 20 microns scatter shortwave infrared and longwave infrared radiation much, much more strongly than they scatter visible radiation. I know this because I can read. However, it seems few have read that which I have just quoted. But they can be excused even if they had read it because Feynman never told his students the name of the natural phenomenon he theoretically explained.
But now Anthony, if you read this, and anyone else who reads this should know what I claim to know.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
tom0mason
| #
If climate was music then —
It’s governed by the beat solar cycles and planetary movement, it’s pitched by the tuning of water cycle, and accompanied by the choir of everything else.
It does not make pretty music, as the beat is not always regular, and pitching is approximate — slurring from one tuning temperament to another, as the many sections of choir each attempt to keep up with the changes.
Reply