Two analyses that show AGW hypothesis to be contrary to known physics.

I will copy and paste two  posts that I made recently on Jo Nova's site recently.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/shock-climate-models-cant-even-predict-linear-rise/
as I think that they give the most complete answer yet to the impossibility of human contributions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere having any effect on 'global warming'. The first is a very difficult, technical and mathematical discussion but if you read it over to get a quick understanding of what it is saying I think that you will readily see that it points the way clearly towards the truth of the matter.

First post :
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Paul:

October 15th, 2010 at 11:18 am

I’m not sure whether this is the best place to post the information, but I have recently read a recent paper on the effect the so-called ‘green house’ gases have on the surface temperature.

Downloaded from this blog site : –
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Physicist: CO2 “Greenhouse Effect” is Already Saturated

The report, in .doc format, and 27 pages in length, closely analyses, at the molecular level, the physics of the transfer of energy from the earth’s surface, through the atmosphere until it is finally radiated back into space. As I am writing I have noticed that the author is resident in Australia.

Climate Change
(A Fundamental Analysis of the Greenhouse Effect)
By
John Nicol
jonicol@netspace.net.au

A few things stand out from this analysis and its conclusions : –

1. When a photon of infra-red radiation is absorbed by a CO2 molecule, this additional energy within the molecule is transferred into kinetic energy and warms the surrounding non-CO2 air molecules 99% of the time, leaving only 1% to be re-radiated as a photon of energy.

This was something that I had suspected but I could not find anywhere where the after-effects of the absorption of radiation by CO2 had been directly dealt with.

2. Nearly all absorption of the initial radiation from the earth’s surface is absorbed in the first few feet of the atmosphere, where 99% of the energy is shortly transformed into kinetic energy of the surrounding molecules at which time convection transports the energy to the top of the troposphere from whence it is radiated into space.

This was also something that seemed to be the case from simple observation of what happens on any sunny day, where the temperature of the atmosphere resists any surface-air warming from the infra-red radiation from the surface, with cooling air-currents transporting the energy to higher levels.

3. There is indeed a vanishingly small amount of back-radiation but it occurs only in the small window where the atmosphere is transparent to those parts of the infra-red radiation spectrum. Hence the amount of ‘back-radiation’, which is the essential mechanism of the ‘classical’ explanation of AGW, is not only close to zero, but is furthermore incapable of being increased by any further increases in atmospheric CO2 or other so-called ‘green house gases’ since these already are fully saturated.

This little bit of information closes the circle and leaves nothing left to be explained. To exaggerate this minimal, fixed amount of ‘warming’ into a scare of ‘Catastrophic Global Warming’ necessitating the dismantling of Western developed economies and the transfer of trillions of dollars to developing countries as repayment of a ‘carbon debt’, stands in all its stark nakedness of the ‘Emperor’s new suite’.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Then I discovered and posted about another similar analysis, without the difficult mathematics, which further confirms the same conclusion, that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide has nothing to do with increases in global temperatures.

Second post :
___________________________________________________________________________________________

Paul:

October 16th, 2010 at 8:33 pm

@john Brookes 69

I’ve taken another look at Dr Roy Spencer’s site and find that he does indeed concede that there is a greenhouse effect and argues for it. However I find his arguments rather confusing and unconvincing.

However I have found another site which, much more simply and clearly, disproves the greenhouse effect using basic physics, without the very difficult mathematics of the article I posted earlier. It is : –

The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the “Greenhouse Effect”.
Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.)
Consulting Geologist

First Uploaded ISO: 2009-Oct-13
Revision 4 ISO: 2010-June-25

Some former elements of this article such as the laser experiment, radiation budget commentary, and the UHI implications are to be later reproduced in an additional article concerning the mid-20th Century revival of the “Greenhouse Effect”. This notice will be removed when the new article is uploaded.
Abstract

This article explores the “Greenhouse Effect” in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. Arrhenius’ backradiation mechanism is identified as a key aspect of the “Greenhouse Effect” hypothesis. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its original proposition by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The “Greenhouse Effect” is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the “Greenhouse Effect” has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier’s Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius’ backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth’s surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both kinetic and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth’s surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the “Greenhouse Effect” hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of “Anthropogenic Global Warming”, which rests on the “Greenhouse Effect”, also has no real foundation.

1.0 Introduction: What on Earth Is the “Greenhouse Effect”?
Confusion and Lack of Thermodynamic Definition

Amongst his arguments he recounts an experiment, with greenhouses, one with glass and the other of halite, and shows that there is essentially no difference between them even though glass, which is opaque to infra-red radiation, is supposed to be able to retain more heat in the greenhouse than the sheet of halite, which is transparent to infra-red radiation. Thus the analogy of the atmosphere to a greenhouse as the basis for a belief in Anthropogenic Global Warming is shown, clearly, by a reproducible experiment, to be fallacious.

What more evidence do you need to see that the mechanism, the ‘greenhouse’ composed of atmospheric CO2, by which AGM is hypothesised to exercise its force, simply does not exist?

Paul 

Here's a link to another, slightly off topic, article that sets the background to this discussion.

Roy Hogue@90

Thanks for the affirmation. I am so accustomed to being ridiculed for my views that it is refreshing to have a positive comment! Thank you.

As to the quality of scientific research, in general, and of the field of medical research in particular, this article has some important information to convey that has a bearing on this whole debate on the claims of AGW.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science

That puts the claims of the IPCC into a good context in which to evaluate their credibility.

Paul

Once again, just copying and pasting from my post. The link is in the middle above.