|
| Subject: Re: [LPNY DISCUSS] does this video succinctly explain global warming? |
| From: "Bob Armstrong bob@cosy.com [lpny_discuss]" <lpny_discuss@yahoogroups.com> |
| Date: 2018-06-29 16:36 |
| To: lpny_discuss@yahoogroups.com |
Hey Bob,This video on youtube seemed pretty direct and simple and scientific as to AGW.let me know what you think:inFact: Two Simple Proofs of Global Warming
I tend to think there is some mischief in the explanation of how the different gases 'block' the escape of radiative heat.Seems to me that they would have to release it, otherwise we would keep warming ad infinitum.GT~~~ LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF NEW YORK ~~~
~~~~~~ http://www.ny.lp.org ~~~~~~
Replied :
Dunning is better than most . And he's right about the collapse of WTC Building 7 . ( The NIST report is far more thorough , tho . His treatment by contrast verysuperficial . )
But , note , he is non-quantitative . And , even tho better than most , superficial . First , the total variation over the century has been little above noise . Here it is vs CO2 on a 0 based graph : http://cosy.com/Science/CO2vTkelvin800.jpg . Here it is vs US annual temp ranges . Beer's Law explains why additional CO2 at these levels has so little effect .
To say GHGs "trap" heat is like saying a rock or any other non totally transparent substance "traps" heat . The equation for equilibrium for any absorption=emission spectra is given by my equation , http://cosy.com/Science/ComputationalEarthPhysics.html#EqTempEq . The thrust of my Heartland talk was the quantitative absurdity of trying to explain Venus's surface temperature as a spectral effect .
I only last week in a YouTube of Hansen learned of James Hansen' original paper , the real argument which rather circularly proposes that higher CO2 raises the effective radiative surface of the planet to where it's colder thus reducing the amount of radiation "trapped" and raising the temperature below . All with no testable equations . And positing a heat gradient which many have pointed out to deaf ears and blind eyes over now decades violates the basic thermodynamic law that heat flows from hot to cold . ( I put it in terms of the 2nd yr calc Divergence Theorem : the average temp of the interior can't be hotter than that of the surface . )
It's only since my Heartland talk I learned a growing number of analyses show planetary temperature gradients to be quantitatively ( I emphasize that because noquantitative equations exist for the GHG paradigm ) explained by the trade-off of gravitational and kinetic energy . I've just added a box at http://cosy.com/#PlanetaryPhysics with my recent realization how bloody simple understanding the gravitational gradient .
| It's
surprisingly easy to understand : Particles moving "up" in a
gravitational field slow down , ie: cool ; those moving down speed up ,
ie: heat . It is only a matter of working out the equations for all matter including atmospheres . Photons themselves heat ( blue shift ) in a gravitational well . |
Gravity , not some GHG spectral "heat trapping" is why our surface , ie: bottom of atmosphere temperature is about 9% hotter than our radiative equilibrium and Venus's more than 225% even its gray body temperature -- which corresponds to the total energy supplied by the Sun to its orbit .
The paradigm as a whole is false . Both sides . Except for a growing number who recognize that gravity cannot be left out of the total energy balance equations .
--
WRT humans being the source of the increase in the molecule which is visibly greening the biosphere , David Crisp who runs the OCO-2 satellite program shows rather conclusively it is human sources . The interesting observation is how much the biosphere is increasingly absorbing . Patrick Moore considers this to be all that's saving us from eventual CO2 starvation of all life .
--
Bob A
Peace thru Freedom
Honesty enforced thru Transparency ,
--
Peace thru Freedom
Honesty enforced thru Transparency ,
 |
|
--
 |
|
||||