Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
  • Jun 21 - Mark Hodgson on
    COP 23
  • Jun 20 - Mark Hodgson on
    COP 23
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > An experimental demo of GHE.

RKS ^.^

Rhoda specified the GHE not the real world I hereby ban you from this thread for defying Rhoda!

Aug 17, 2012 at 11:26 PM | Dung>>>>

Ah, I get it now!

Neither of us really regards GHE as being representative of the real world.

I'm so slow on the uptake - I really must remove my head from my arse.

I'll take a break and give others a chance to contribute.

best regards,

Aug 18, 2012 at 12:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

From Wikipedia:-

Greenhouse gases

Main article: Greenhouse gas
By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect on Earth the four major gases are:[18][19]
water vapor, 36–70%
carbon dioxide, 9–26%
methane, 4–9%
ozone, 3–7%
The major non-gas contributor to the Earth's greenhouse effect, clouds, also absorb and emit infrared radiation and thus have an effect on radiative properties of the atmosphere.

So CO2 contributes between 9 - 26% of the 33K warming.

A bit of a wide estimate, can't these well funded climate scientists do better than that - how on earth do they calculate the effects of CO2 on climate change with crude data such as these?
At least it gives us an idea of what temperature changes to look for in our experiment.

[Note: Lunar Diviner data show that the figure of 33K is wrong and the actual Atmospheric Thermal Effect is, in reality, close to 133K. but let's stick to the IPCC propaganda for our test purposes.]

Aug 18, 2012 at 5:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

[Note: Lunar Diviner data show that the figure of 33K is wrong and the actual Atmospheric Thermal Effect is, in reality, close to 133K. but let's stick to the IPCC propaganda for our test purposes.]

Aug 18, 2012 at 5:35 AM | RKS>>>>>

Correction - The enhancement in temperature due to the presence of atmosphere has now been calculated at 90.3K from Lunar Diviner empirical data. [not 133K as I mistakenly said earlier]

Still almost 3 times higher than the IPCC estimate!

Ref:-

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/ned-nikolov-implications-of-diviner-results-for-the-s-b-standard-equation/

Aug 18, 2012 at 6:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

BBD is welcome here, to propose an experiment or to critique others' proposals. If the claim is that no experiment CAN show GHE, well, my sceptical case is proven. No, let's do it in steps. Show me back radiation in the lab. If the case then depends on the height of the atmosphere or the change in lapse rate, we'll have to see that too. I don't quite know how to commission a satellite though.

Aug 18, 2012 at 10:13 AM | Registered Commenterrhoda

BBD has already ruled himself out - his word "Quite how you mock up a working demo of the troposphere in your garden shed is, I'm not embarrassed to admit, beyond me."

How do you intend to decide which proposed experiment is capable of proving, or disproving GHE by direct laboratory measurements?

I'm looking forward to more people making a positive contribution to the thread but this blog, unlike Tallbloke, is a little short on basic scientific discussion.

Plenty of interesting politics, temperature stats, hand waving and general gossip, but the last thread that discussed an experiment to show back radiation went dead in double quick time after going round in ever decreasing circles.

Best of luck.

Aug 18, 2012 at 10:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

I dont see what was wrong with this experiment by a Prof Nahle: (please excuse the verbiage)

The proper way to contain the high concentration of IRag’s is in a thin walled material that will not
absorb the IR and heat. Important note: The thin walled material is a better conduction of thermal
energy. A factor to be considered is the thermal conductivity of Mylar, which is 0.154808 W/m K by Dr.
Nahle based on his experiment verifying the work of R.W. Wood. The experiment used crystal clear
Mylar balloons about 3mil thick. They are available in various sizes. Several 20-inch major diameter
balloons were chosen for this study
Section 6: Setting up the experiment
STEP ONE: Fill the balloons with the various IRag’s and one balloon with dry air as a control.
STEP TWO: Let the balloons reach ambient temperature. If you are going to use sunlight let balloon
temperature adjust outside in the shade (minimize IR absorption ahead of testing). (a clue).
STEP THREE: Use an IR thermometer to check the temperatures of each balloon, use a digital
thermometer that reads to 0.1 degree C to check air temperature in the shade. Record data. Do not
forget this measures two different phenomena. [Note: Digital thermometers measure thermal energy,
while IR thermometers measure thermal radiation emitted by the system].
STEP FOUR: Take a large black mat board or a large black cloth or sheet, and lay it on the ground in
the sun. Use the IR thermometer to check the temperature rise in the sun. Record the data. When it
appears to reach a maximum then go to step 5. [Note: DuPont Duco #71 wrought iron black paint has
an absorptivity of 0.98. It would make a very good absorber]. The black mat board is used to absorb
as much IR as possible that supposedly “back-radiates” from the IRag in the balloon. This is not to
simulate a “black-body”. Having done some IR measuring of objects in a hot car, the color of the object
has a significant effect on the IR readings. Use of bi-metal digital thermometers has to be set so they
do not absorb IR and heat, because of the IR radiation absorption.
STEP FIVE: Suspend the balloons over the black background (about 1 foot above) and measure the
temperature of the balloons’ surface and internal gases with the IR thermometer. Dr. Latour explains
that this is doubly necessary to measure both because the properties of IR thermometers are to “see”
the IR impinging on the sensor bases on the optic of the instrument. The sensor integrates the IR
energy to a reading. Thus both the Mylar, and the contents are projecting IR radiation in all
directions .The instrument which reads a range of IR frequencies is not able to differentiate between
IR from the surface, from the gas inside the balloon and the background IR passing through the
balloon. Thus it is necessary to determine IR reading based on the instrument “seeing” through the
balloon for one set of readings. Another set of readings would be from an adjacent position but not
through the balloon.
Note: In multiple tests there were no differences in the readings. This indicated that the IRag’s in the
balloons stayed at ambient air temperature. The IRag’s did absorb IR but did not “heat” the gas (an
important clue!).
To put a bi-metal digital thermometer either on or inside the balloons would give erroneous readings
because the metal of the thermometer would absorb IR and heat up no mater what the temperature of
the IRag was.
The study by Anthony Watts of weather stations throughout the US shows how easy it is to get junk
readings from improperly constructed temperature recording devices.
STEP SIX: Measure the temperature of the black background in the “shadow” of each of the balloons
also measure the temperature of the black background outside of the “shadows”(projection) of the
balloons.
Section 7: Results: Examining the Clues
Now lets repeat the Critical factors-The clues and note the result of the test:
Item 1.The IRag’s absorb the IR radiation and thus prevent it from escaping into space reducing the
rate of earth and atmospheric cool- it causes the air to be warmer.
Results and explanation: The air between the balloons and the black background did not
change temperature. It did not get hotter thus normal IR radiation cooling of the black mat was
occurring. The 100% CO2 or the high concentration of other IRag did not “hinder” normal cooling by
the loss of energy to space. This has been confirmed by the work of Dr. Roy Spencer and satellite IR
measurements showing significant losses of “heat”/radiation to space. Far more IR radiation escapes
than is stated by the IPCC in any of their reports.
Item 2.The IRag’s will “back radiate” IR radiation to earth to cause increased heating of the surface.
Results and explanation: The black background did not change temperature either in the
“shadow” or outside the “shadow”. The temperature of the black background heated to 20 to 30
degrees F above ambient before the balloons were placed over the black background. When this was
done outside in bright sunlight the black background heated to 130 to 140 degrees F. Similar
temperature can be measured from black asphalt. Air temperatures were 90 to 95 degrees F.
The experiment was also performed indoors with a 500-watt power shop light (see below; the black
background showed the temperature increased from 70-72 degrees Fahrenheit to 100 -110 degrees
Fahrenheit. Again when measuring the temperatures of the black background with the IR thermometer
there was no measurable temperature difference anywhere along the surface of the black mat: no sign
here of “back-radiation”.
Item 3. The IRag’s will heat up by the absorption of the IR radiation thus heating the air.
Results and explanation: The balloons did not warm any warmer than ambient. The IRag’s in
the balloons will not warm because that would be a violation of the basic physics described by the
Bohr Model. A statement of basic physics that shows that absorption of IR by CO2 or other IRag does
not increase the kinetic energy of the molecules (heat). (See note in Preamble)
Item 4. The IRag’s have different levels of “back-forcing”. Having asked believers in greenhouse gas
“physics” I’ve had no answer as yet). It is merely assumed that “someone” has reviewed the amount of
IR that a particular molecule (CH4, NO2,) absorbs by a spectrophotometer analysis then comparing
this to the absorption of CO2. (I have not seen any experimental data that the “back-forcing” relates to
absorption).
Results and explanation As there was no temperature difference under any of the balloons,
there was no stronger “back-forcing” caused by the IRag’s absorbed more IR radiation thus “backforcing”
more radiation. An IRag has an emissivity characteristic of the molecule not the absorption of
more IR radiation.
Item 5.The higher the concentration of IRag’s the greater the amount of “back-radiation” the higher the
“global atmospheric temperature will become.
Conclusion of test results: Based on the failure of all the previous portions of these tests which
were done with very high concentrations of IRag’s to demonstrate the GHGE, it is valid to say that
increasing CO2 or other IRag’s in the atmosphere will have NO temperature EFFECT.

Aug 18, 2012 at 2:16 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Aug 18, 2012 at 2:16 PM | Dung>>>>

Well spotted.

I've seen this experiment referred to by MDGNN and others over at Tallbloke but never got to read it in detail. Seems pretty conclusive, but a lot of the AGW zealots seem to try to pass him off as some sort of crank,using silly phrases like him being a 'red dragon' or other childish epithets.

I've seen some pretty useful tables by him on emissivity for CO2 and other GHG's at various atmospheric concentrations.

The best we can do is to keep spreading information about the science to refute AGW as much as we can, and to keep on mentioning it with references to the scientists and their work.

Let's see what Rhoda thinks.

Aug 18, 2012 at 4:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

RKS

My Error; Nahle was not the one who carried out this particular experiment

The Experiment that Failed which can save the World Trillions:
Proving the “greenhouse gas effect” does not exist!
By Berthold Klein P.E (January 15, 2012)
Edited by John O’Sullivan, incorporating comments by Dr. Pierre Latour, Professor Nasif Nahle,
Edward J. Haddad Jr. P.E, Ganesh Krish, and others.

Aug 18, 2012 at 7:24 PM | Registered CommenterDung

OK, any critiques of the Dung/Klein methodology? Why would it not work? Or, how could greenhouse effect work in the atmosphere and fail to show up in this scenario?

This looks like a candidate to me, but what do I know?

Aug 18, 2012 at 8:27 PM | Registered Commenterrhoda

rhoda

BBD is welcome here, to propose an experiment or to critique others' proposals. If the claim is that no experiment CAN show GHE, well, my sceptical case is proven.

All you've uncovered so far is that the increasing altitude of effective emission is going to be a b*ugger to get right on the bench. So, I propose computer models ;-) These are fun, safe and ideally suited to building a working demo of the troposphere in a garden shed. What's not to like? :-)

Aug 18, 2012 at 11:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD, I am trying to step through the hypothesis. It can fail at any stage, although I propose to accept basic radiative theory, that CO2 will absorb the radiation in one band and emit in another. Probably in all directions even though it offends my newtonian mind. Now, we need sunlight on various concentrations of CO2 and to measure temp changes and radiation changes between the surface and the CO2 vessel (I suppose some sort of vessel is unavoidable). That is doable in the lab. Then we have to go outside. IF the consensus theory is that there isn't anything I can see or measure let's stop now, the exercise is pointless. If the consensus view is that I must rely on models which produce NO checkable output but mere speculation, then it amounts to faith. Which I do not have.


Just as an aside, how high exactly IS the TOA which is supposed to rise? What is the measurable effect on lapse rate?

Aug 19, 2012 at 10:17 AM | Registered Commenterrhoda

Rhoda for once I agree with BBD, (actually that's not true, I agree with him quite a lot, right up to the point where he becames Private "We're Doomed, I tell you" Frazer and starts handing out tracts from SkS) it's not possible to build such a model to derive empirical evidence, at least with today's technology. It is therefore impossible to derive empirical evidence to support the theory. So handwaving is the order of the day, with large doses of scaremongering to frighten the witless.

Aug 19, 2012 at 10:45 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

BBD

I agree that it is impossible to simulate effects in the earth's atmosphere in a lab. However it should be possible to isolate one aspect of those effects by one so called greenhouse gas and replicate that effect in a lab or a controlled experiment.

Aug 19, 2012 at 5:07 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Equipment: A thing with an adjustable uniform heat source above ambient. A spectroscope. A thermocouple. Carbon dioxide gas. A shed.

Method: Place the thermocouple on the thing and suspend the spectroscope above it at a distance. Fill the shed with carbon dioxide after stepping outside. Adjust the heat source until it shows dips in the absorption bands of carbon dioxide. When the thermocouple shows steady state, record temperature and spectrum. Ventilate the shed, wait for thermocouple steady state, repeat measurements.

I haven't bothered to do this as emptying the shed would be a nightmare and in any case, as the heat source and surface area of the shed are constants, so will be the thermocouple reading.

Aug 19, 2012 at 6:20 PM | Unregistered Commenterssat

rhoda

Just as an aside, how high exactly IS the TOA which is supposed to rise? What is the measurable effect on lapse rate?

As I understand it, attempting to define the exact height of effective emission isn't going to help. Nor will insistence on an exact quantification of the effect on lapse rate (although I expect there are studies investigating both).

What matters is that the laws of physics require that the layer by layer absorption/re-radiation of OLR by GHGs warms the entire troposphere if the atmospheric fraction of GHGs is increased.

The warming troposphere expands, raising the height of effective emission (insert preferred definition of TOA here). The big but is that this also reduces the *efficacy* of emission because atmospheric temperature and density are reduced. So energy starts to accumulate in the climate system, as it must. The surface warms as a consequence of the entire process, not the discrete DLR from CO2.

Last time I linked a good review of this you accused me of being Chris Colose :-). I can only repeat that I'm not (why would CC use a pseudonym anyway?), and I'm going to post the same link both in the hope that you will revisit it, and for anyone else new to this discussion.

To conclude: I don't think you can model a vertical section of the atmosphere from surface to TOA on the lab bench unless you do it in a computer, which doubtless explains why this is the standard approach.

To *me*, Arctic ice melt, weakening at the shear margins of embayed West Antarctic ice shelves and the summer Greenland albedo flip are further excellent evidence that the accumulation of energy in the climate system is having a marked effect. I appreciate that you disagree, but do not understand why unless you have an emotional or political (ie non-scientific) motivation.

Aug 20, 2012 at 7:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

So, you are saying there is no way to see it, and no way to prove it. You show me effects which are not even demonstrably those of warming and you want me to accept the attribution you put on it. In effect, while denying me proof, you demand faith. That pretty much makes your beliefs (if indeed you do believe) indistinguishable from religion. And I would not mind that, I could take it or leave it, but others who follow the same religion want to impose it on me.

How wonderful it would be if someone from the warmist side would come here and even attempt some sort of test, or present best evidence, by which I mean an actual measurement of greenhouse AGW taking place. Anyone? If this were truly happening you would be able to show me something.

Logically, I should not take absence of evidence as evidence of absence. But rhetorically, I can't help it. Where is the beef?

Aug 20, 2012 at 8:04 PM | Registered Commenterrhoda

BBD

It is pretty hard to prove that anything is happening when temperature seems to be flatlining. However this does not disprove the GHE, what it does do is prove it is not always the dominant factor (if indeed it exists) ^.^

Aug 20, 2012 at 8:39 PM | Registered CommenterDung

"However this does not disprove the GHE"

Nothing does, because the falsifiability of GHE has never been described. Another non-scientific aspect which leads one to the faith hypothesis.

Aug 20, 2012 at 9:06 PM | Registered Commenterrhoda

rhoda

So, you are saying there is no way to see it, and no way to prove it. You show me effects which are not even demonstrably those of warming and you want me to accept the attribution you put on it. In effect, while denying me proof, you demand faith.

I've mentioned before that it's not *my* attribution we are discussing :-). As for things we can see, the relevant scientific fields have reached consensus that the change in OHC, SST, GAT and the cryosphere are strong evidence that the climate system is warming. How are these observed phenomena 'not even demonstrably' the effects of energy accumulating in the climate system? I don't understand why you say this.

The laws of physics and an extensive body of work deriving from them has resulted in a related scientific consensus that CO2 is the most likely explanation for the observations.

Accepting the multi-disciplinary scientific consensus that has only slowly emerged after decades of investigation is not, to me at least, an act of faith. I'm persuaded by probability, not moved by faith ;-) And to be fair, I didn't 'demand' acts of faith or anything else from you in my last comment.

Aug 20, 2012 at 10:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

OK, so no one likes my shed. Perhaps something a little more sciency: a back radiation detector mounted in the Atacama and another on the moon. I haven't bothered to do this either as just getting to the Atacama would be a nightmare and in any case, the readings from both would be zero.

Aug 21, 2012 at 7:12 AM | Unregistered Commenterssat

BBD, that is not enough. You see, what you are doing is to use the data we have as a support for the consensus (I'd dispute some of that, but never mind) but not to propose any test or any data which would get us further alomg the road. I can only conclude that you (or the consensus, as I don't want to make you personally responsible) don't want to propose anything or make a falsifiable prediction which may be tested in the short term because falsification is not your intent. asically you believe and you don't want to tke the risk of disturbing that belief or obscuring the consensus with unwelcome uncertainty. Faith. That is what it is. Any new data which arises will be dismissed out of hand if it is inconvenient or interpreted in a way to reinforce the consensus if it is neutral or pro. Regardless of your personal opinions and tactics, that is what the consensus people do. There is no spirit of scientific enquiry, nothing is done to jeopardise the theory.

Aug 21, 2012 at 9:46 AM | Registered Commenterrhoda

ssat, I reckon Klein's mylar balloons are more rigorous than your shed. But we need the critiques or endorsement of a warmist before we can proceed. It is my opinion that they dare not put it to the touch. When your commitment to a theory is so much that you daren't do an experiment that might cause you to rethink, you are not in science-land any more.

Aug 21, 2012 at 9:50 AM | Registered Commenterrhoda

rhoda

BBD, that is not enough. You see, what you are doing is to use the data we have as a support for the consensus (I'd dispute some of that, but never mind) but not to propose any test or any data which would get us further alomg the road.

The consensus arose from the data, not the other way around. That the consensus exists at all demonstrates that the evidence is sufficient to persuade credentialled experts across a large number of fields that AGW is real. Without the slightest implied disrespect, I contend that evidence sufficient to give rise to a scientific consensus should be sufficient for an Oxfordshire housewife and that if she feels otherwise it is not because the evidence is lacking. There must be another reason.

Once again, I'm obliged to point out that insisting on impossibly high standards of evidence or 'proof' is simply a rhetorical device. Others here may not see what you are doing, but rest assured, I do :-)

Which reminds me - you didn't answer what I regard as an important question. Here it is again:

As for things we can see, the relevant scientific fields have reached consensus that the change in OHC, SST, GAT and the cryosphere are strong evidence that the climate system is warming. How are these observed phenomena 'not even demonstrably' the effects of energy accumulating in the climate system? I don't understand why you say this.

There is no spirit of scientific enquiry, nothing is done to jeopardise the theory.

Climate research is characterised by an absence of the 'spirit of scientific enquiry'? Please. That's an unfounded assertion (smear, actually) arising from a mistrust of climate science tantamount to conspiracy theory. This is what I mean by a political or emotional rather than an objective position based on assessment of probability.

This returns us to the other reason that must be presumed to drive your scepticism, since it certainly isn't a lack of evidence. Is your motivation here political or emotional? Until we sort this out, we won't get anywhere.

Aug 21, 2012 at 12:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Your question? Well, you suggested in the first instance ice and ice shelf effects. We have been measuring the ice properly for about thirty years and in tht time it has gone up and down. We don't know the limits yet, as before that we have few records and anecdote. That's not enough to detect anything. And the ice shelf? It will break off every so often. Warm or no. And the antarctic warming evidence is equivocl to say the least. As is every other piece of evidence in your question-begging set. Now, some of it mught be fine as corroborative stuff. But so far it is not best evidence, none was proposed on my thread. And it is not experimental proof or disproof, no experiment was proposed that could test the hypothesis.

IF there was a spirit of scientific enquiry, warmists would be right here suggesting how they might improve their case by seeking better evidence or data which was less dodgy. But they are not here. I am asking for proof (or falsifiability) and all I get is hand-waving. You cannot defend (successfully) a reluctance to seek out the truth. That you attempt to do so is an indication that to you the comfort of the consensus is more important.


Are you really telling me that the AGW hypothesis cannot be proven by scientific methods, and cannot be falsified. That it has no viable predictive power in the short term in any measurable quantity? Is that the verdict of you all? Anybody apart from BBD willing to give it a shot?

Aug 21, 2012 at 12:41 PM | Registered Commenterrhoda

rhoda

Your question? Well, you suggested in the first instance ice and ice shelf effects. We have been measuring the ice properly for about thirty years and in tht time it has gone up and down.

So do I take it that you agree that everything else I listed - OHC, SST, GAT and the rest of cryospheric change - *is* indicative of warming?

As for the behaviour of the ice shelves buttressing the WAIS, this is from the link I provided:

Reporting in the Journal of Glaciology, the UTIG team found that the extent of ice shelves in the Amundsen Sea Embayment changed substantially between the beginning of the Landsat satellite record in 1972 and late 2011. These changes were especially rapid during the past decade.

And:

“Anyone can examine this region in Google Earth and see a snapshot of the same satellite data we used, but only through examination of the whole satellite record is it possible to distinguish long-term change from cyclical calving,” says MacGregor.

You appear to be mistaken on all points. The observed change (weakening at the shear margins leading to reduction in the thickness and extent of marine ice shelves) began during the period of observation and is beginning to accelerate. It's not cyclical. And nobody's claiming the this is being caused by surface warming. It's upwelling warm water melting the shelves from below.

IF there was a spirit of scientific enquiry, warmists would be right here suggesting how they might improve their case by seeking better evidence or data which was less dodgy.

We've been through this already. The case is *made* rhoda. That's what 'scientific consensus' means. 'Dodgy' data? That's just conspiracy theory chatter. Here in the real world, the evidence is sound enough and extensive enough to allow the formation of a cross-disciplinary scientific consensus. So what you say is clearly misleading, indeed clearly *wrong*. And insisting as a rhetorical device on impossible standards of evidence or 'proof' is a dead end. It railroads the conversation, as you know perfectly well, which is why you are doing it (and refusing to respond when called out for it).

This begs the question of motive. I did mention that until we get to the bottom of what motivates you to deny the scientific consensus and claim (incorrectly) that the data are 'dodgy' etc we won't get anywhere. This should be increasingly obvious, even to you.

So, is it emotional, or political?

Aug 21, 2012 at 2:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD