How the GW myth is perpetuated

Zipperfish

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
Locutus said:
Why Greenhouse Gases Don't Affect the Greenhouse Equation or Lapse Rate


Some commenters on the greenhouse equation believe that greenhouse gas radiative forcing controls the adiabatic lapse rate, and claim without any mathematics or evidence, that that's allegedly how greenhouse gases control the Earth surface temperature. We'll now show the reasons why this claim is incorrect:

1. The adiabatic lapse rate equation is

dT = (-g/Cp)*dh

where

dT = change in temperature
dh = change in height
g = gravitational constant
Cp = heat capacity at constant pressure

Thus change in temperature from the lapse rate is dependent upon 3 variables that have no dependence whatsoever upon radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. None.



more

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why Greenhouse Gases Don't Affect the Greenhouse Equation or Lapse Rate
Click to expand...


Interesting. g = 9.8 m/s^2. C(p) for air is around 1000 J/kg-deg C. That works out to about 9.8 deg C/km. However the observed lapse rate is 6.4 deg C/km.

It's all gone horribly horribly wrong, Locutus!
 
Tonington

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Zipperfish said:
Interesting. g = 9.8 m/s^2. C(p) for air is around 1000 J/kg-deg C. That works out to about 9.8 deg C/km. However the observed lapse rate is 6.4 deg C/km.

It's all gone horribly horribly wrong, Locutus!
Click to expand...

Because the atmosphere is not dry, and certainly not made of 100% nitrogen...the actual lapse rate can never exceed the adiabatic lapse rate, but it can be a lot less than the adiabatic lapse rate. Water vapour moves up in convective currents, the water vapour condenses into liquid water, and the resulting work gives off latent heat, reducing the actual lapse rate from the theoretical adiabatic lapse rate. If the water vapour did not condense and give off the resulting latent heat, and remained as a gas, the adiabatic process would mean the air cools, as the pressure drops, and the lapse rate would be closer to the adiabatic lapse rate.

Put another way, the adiabatic lapse rate can't change. It's an idealized model... though over very dry areas of the earth it will approach the adiabatic lapse rate. We know that's not a realistic model of the planet though, because most parcels of air contain water vapour, and as the air rises and the pressure changes, it does work, and thus gives off heat. This is just one example of how the actual lapse rate is affected by other terms.

The actual lapse rate is considerably more complex. The control or modulation of the actual lapse rate by greenhouse gases isn't the same thing as saying greenhouse gases control the adiabatic lapse rate. Greenhouse gases increase the radiating height or for those who like to google, the 'effective emission height' of the atmosphere. Of course that's not part of the adiabatic lapse rate, because the physics involved don't have anything to do with the change in pressure with height! Though height is involved ;) To really go in depth with this topic, you need to look into MODTRAN radiative transfer code.

Moreover, I'd love to see the paper or science that this fellow is trying to debunk that argues that greenhouse gases change the adiabtic lapse rate. That's just not the physics involved, it's ludicrous, and anyone that actually is suggesting that, clearly doesn't know a thing about this topic. Arguing this strawman is foolish, very few people would argue that rising water vapour doesn't condense, produce clouds, and warm the atmosphere. So are clouds impossible? Obviously not. Why does the temperature profile of the atmosphere change over the tropics? Lots of clouds and convection in the tropics...
 
Locutus

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
46
48
66
simon scando ‏@SCANDOY

The phrase Climate Change is a phrase devised by so called “Renewable Energy” industry with prime @Greenpeaceafric






Greenpeace Africa ‏@Greenpeaceafric

@SCANDOY ..renewable energy over time. Take a look at our Energy [R]evolution report here for more: http://www.greenpeace.org/africa/en/News/news/The-Advanced-Energy-Revolution-Report/ …





simon scando ‏@SCANDOY

Energy has no sector. Fact since 1850, @Greenpeaceafric




more from this smart dude: https://twitter.com/SCANDOY




and here's a goodie:

Global Warming Goofiness Around the Globe | Watts Up With That?
 
waldo

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Locutus said:
Click to expand...

well done... on par with your usual dredging finds!
UNFCCC - United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change --- created in 1992

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change --- created in 1988​
 
Locutus

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
46
48
66
waldo said:
well done... on par with your usual dredging finds!
UNFCCC - United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change --- created in 1992

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change --- created in 1988​
Click to expand...



pssst...hey bonehead, over here:


The term ‘climate change’ has its origins further back in time. In 1956, the physicist Gilbert Plass published a seminal study called "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change". In 1977 the journal Climatic Change made its first appearance. Within another decade, the term ‘climate change’ was in common use, and embedded in the name of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was formed in 1988.


The theory of peak oil was published in 1956.[23] In the 1970s environmentalists promoted the development of renewable energy both as a replacement for the eventual depletion of oil, as well as for an escape from dependence on oil, and the first electricity generating wind turbines appeared. Solar had long been used for heating and cooling, but solar panels were too costly to build solar farms until 1980.[24]


They didn't change the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'

Renewable energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you eediot. *nods to Captain's avatar
 
captain morgan

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
waldo said:
what? No cartoon? I provided an update that countered a post extract member Locutus put forward... he in turn, went even further in countering his own initial post. He either felt inspired by my correcting-self and wanted to further correct himself... or he knew what he initially posted was inaccurate and he purposely misinformed.
Click to expand...


The conspiracy guy is far more appropriate... Read your drivel below for the motivation.


waldo said:
since you knew it wasn't true... the only eediot is you for posting something you knew to be false. Your purposeful intent to misinform is noted!
Click to expand...
 
Zipperfish

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
Tonington said:
Because the atmosphere is not dry, and certainly not made of 100% nitrogen...the actual lapse rate can never exceed the adiabatic lapse rate, but it can be a lot less than the adiabatic lapse rate. Water vapour moves up in convective currents, the water vapour condenses into liquid water, and the resulting work gives off latent heat, reducing the actual lapse rate from the theoretical adiabatic lapse rate. If the water vapour did not condense and give off the resulting latent heat, and remained as a gas, the adiabatic process would mean the air cools, as the pressure drops, and the lapse rate would be closer to the adiabatic lapse rate.

Put another way, the adiabatic lapse rate can't change. It's an idealized model... though over very dry areas of the earth it will approach the adiabatic lapse rate. We know that's not a realistic model of the planet though, because most parcels of air contain water vapour, and as the air rises and the pressure changes, it does work, and thus gives off heat. This is just one example of how the actual lapse rate is affected by other terms.

The actual lapse rate is considerably more complex. The control or modulation of the actual lapse rate by greenhouse gases isn't the same thing as saying greenhouse gases control the adiabatic lapse rate. Greenhouse gases increase the radiating height or for those who like to google, the 'effective emission height' of the atmosphere. Of course that's not part of the adiabatic lapse rate, because the physics involved don't have anything to do with the change in pressure with height! Though height is involved ;) To really go in depth with this topic, you need to look into MODTRAN radiative transfer code.

Moreover, I'd love to see the paper or science that this fellow is trying to debunk that argues that greenhouse gases change the adiabtic lapse rate. That's just not the physics involved, it's ludicrous, and anyone that actually is suggesting that, clearly doesn't know a thing about this topic. Arguing this strawman is foolish, very few people would argue that rising water vapour doesn't condense, produce clouds, and warm the atmosphere. So are clouds impossible? Obviously not. Why does the temperature profile of the atmosphere change over the tropics? Lots of clouds and convection in the tropics...
Click to expand...

Thanks Tony. I actually understood this--I've got quite a bit of thermo under my belt, unlike whoever writes that hockey schtick blog. The thing that slays me is that this was pointed out to the writer repeatedly in the comments section--the adiabatic lapse rate is an idealization (like a perfect blackbody, or an ideal gas). So the fact that an idealization depends only on three variables doesn't mean the actual lapse rate will only depend on those three variables.

The term adiabatic means "no heat transfer" so it's not exactly groundbreaking science to say that the adiabatic lapse rate doesn't depend on radiation (which is a mechanism of heat transfer).
 
waldo

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Walter said:
Great article.
Doubling Down On Climate Alarmism - Forbes
Click to expand...

why so, Walter? Cause it's a fine dose of the confirmation bias you were seeking this evening... is that it Walter? :mrgreen:

but hey now! About your linked article's author... why, uhhh... that's the Robert Bradley that worked for Enron for almost 2 decades... why he was the speech writer for the top dog Ken Lay himself. Geez Walter... that's awful close to the head of all that corruption that brought Enron down! Oh my! Of course, Bradley is an avowed denier holding positions with the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, amongst others... And Walter, imagine that... your 'great article's author' has absolutely no scientific background... which clearly makes him, in your apparent estimation, just the guy to speak about "climate alarmism"!
 
Tonington

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
taxslave said:
But they got all the ones that were warmer.
Click to expand...

I see some dark blue there too...

Time for some fun with facts:

UAH satellite derived temperature trend (1979 start date): 0.138 ± 0.067 (2 sigma) °C per decade. Thus the 95% confidence interval of the trend is 0.071-0.205 °C per decade.

NOAA thermometer network and ocean temperature network derived temperature trend (1979 start date): 0.146 ± 0.038 (2 sigma) °C per decade. Thus the 95% confidence interval of the trend is 0.108-0.184 °C per decade.

The satellites cover almost the entire globe every 24 hours. The two trends overlap. No significant difference. This has been discussed here before, the temperature is auto-correlated in time and space, so you don't need to sample 100% of the globe, not even 50%...if there were a need to do so, you would expect to see big differences between the NOAA GHCN data, and the satellites. There isn't.

You can calculate the trends for yourself easily with the app on a University of York webpage here:
Chemistry, The University of York
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom