American Chemical Society’s Climate Change Spin Exposed

Qualified American Professional Engineer (PE) Nicholas Schroeder posts a telling analysis exposing some of the flaws in the American Chemical Society’s publicity spin in support of the ‘greenhouse gas theory.’

The ‘theory’ is the scientific cornerstone that ‘proves’ humans are dangerously warming our climate.

Schroeder writes on his blog:

I was studying the ACS Climate Change toolkit sections on the single and multilayer theories (what I refer to as the thermal ping-pong ball) of upwelling/downwelling/”back” radiation and after seeing a similar discussion on an MIT online course (specifically says no transmission) have some observations.

I’ve been following the climate debate since 1989 and have a reading list of books, papers, and downloads that runs two pages long. My BSME, PE and 35-year career means I understand them

These multi-layered models make no reference to conduction, convection or latent heat processes which leads me to conclude that these models include no molecules, aka a “non-participating media,” aka a vacuum.

This is a primary conditional for proper application of the Stefan-Boltzmann Blackbody Ideal (S-B BB ideal) i.e. ε = 1.0, equation.

When energy strikes an object or surface there are three possible results: reflection or ρ, absorption or α, transmission or τ and ρ + α + τ = 1.0.

The layered models use only α, which according to Kirchhoff is equal to ε. What Kirchhoff really means is that max emissivity can equal but not exceed the energy absorbed.

Nothing says emissivity can’t be less than the energy absorbed. If α leaves as conduction/convection/latent (macro effect, non-thermodynamic equilibrium) than ε will be much less than 1.0.

These grey bodied layered models then exist in a vacuum and are 100% non-reflective, i.e., opaque, surfaces, i.e., just like the atmosphere. NOT!

So the real atmosphere has real molecules meaning a “participatory” media and is 99.96% transparent i.e. non-opaque.

Because of the heat flow participating molecules, only 63 W/m^2 of the 160 W/m^2 that made it to the surface leaves the surface as LWIR.

63 W/m^2 and 15 C / 288 K surface give a net effective ε of about 0.16 when the participating media is considered. (BTW “surface” is NOT the ground, but 1.5 m ABOVE the ground per WMO & IPCC AR5 glossary.)

So the K-T diagram is thermodynamic rubbish, earth as a ball in a bucket of hot mush is physical rubbish, the Δ 33 C w/ atmosphere is obvious rubbish, the layered models are unrelated to reality rubbish.

The atmosphere is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, is a closed system and as a consequence neither Stephan Boltzmann nor Kirchhoff nor thermodynamics can be abused the ways the GHE theory applies them.

What support does the GHE theory have left besides rabid minions?

I see no reason why GHE theory gets a free pass on the scientific method. Check out:

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html
http://www.mhtl.uwaterloo.ca/courses/ece309_mechatronics/lectures/pdffiles/summary_ch12.pdf (example 12.4)
http://writerbeat.com/articles/14306-Greenhouse—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-
http://writerbeat.com/articles/15582-To-be-33C-or-not-to-be-33C

The condition of thermodynamic equilibrium is necessary for the statement because the equality of emissivity and absorptivity often does not hold when the material of the body is not in thermodynamic equilibrium.

In non-equilibrium systems, by contrast, there are net flows of matter or energy. If such changes can be triggered to occur in a system in which they are not already occurring, it is said to be in a metastable equilibrium.

Crossposted from PSI

Read more at writerbeat.com

Trackback from your site.

Comments (5)

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    Do remember that these models are designed to have a certain conclusion rather than honestly designing the model and seeing what the result was. In order to force a pre-determined conclusion, errors have to be made.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    rakooi

    |

    IF this article and its author are ACCURATE….
    It should be Published / Peer reviewed and
    the AUTHOR will be world famous
    the TALK OF THE WORLD….
    but, of course, he has not Peer Reviewed or Published or Lectured to respected groups………cause it is BUNK ! !

    TODAY, nearly 1 million legit. scientists world wide are working on this issue and the thousands+ challenges to our world, our economies, our populations , farmlands and civilization.
    …..Instead we have an article written by a NON SCIENTIST ! AGAIN!
    John O’Sullivan is a UK-based climate denialist blogger, writer and the sole active director of Principia Scientific International – a membership group promoting fringe views on climate change science and role of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. O’Sullivan, a former school teacher, claims the greenhouse effect caused by …

    Reply

    • Avatar

      David Lewis

      |

      I notice you found nothing wrong with what the article said.

      In climate science (it really isn’t a science) peer review is a joke. It is like having the fox guard the hen house. Don’t forget that the original article about polar bears was peer reviewed yet the bears are thriving.

      Rather than being science, the climate change movement is a political one. Politics trumps science.

      Many things should have been reported, such as Climate Gate II, but the main stream news media sensors out anything unfavorable to the climate change movement.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    The inability to state an argument concisely is
    the hallmark of a liar.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover

    |

    Its all about regulating the way we all live like it caves or mud huts coweing in the corner during every eclypes and making that seasonal sacrifice of a virgin or child like the pagans did or a POW like the Aztecs and Incans did

    Reply

Leave a comment