Archive for January, 2013

It’s Not the Heat. It’s the Humidity

January 20, 2013

Climatologists pay too little attention to the role water plays in earth’s energy system, including the way water vapor affects air temperature. Water’s potential to affect air temperature is well established in science. As I have noted in previous posts the ability of CO2 to affect temperature is highly questionable.
Those who spend much time in greenhouses know that they are often very humid places because water evaporates from plants and from surfaces that get wet when the plants are watered. Meteorologists typically refer to the water vapor content of the air as relative humidity which is how close the air is to holding as much water vapor as it can hold at its current temperature.

Unfortunately many climatologists waste so much time on the nonexistent impact of radiation on air temperature that they don’t provide sufficient emphasis to the significant impact of water vapor on air temperature. Those who want to blame climate changes on humans ignore the fact that the combustion of hydrogen containing fossil fuels increases the amount of water vapor in the air. Other human actitivies such as watering yards, washing cars and operating public fountains also add water to the atmosphere.

Water has some special thermal characteristics that can significantly affect atmospheric temperatures. Water heats and cools signicantly slower than other components of the atmosphere. Water vapor needs to absorb over four times more heat energy than the same mass of other air molecules to raise its temperature the same amount.

Thus as the water vapor content of the air increases the atmosphere will heat and cool slower than when the air is drier. This process tends to keep the temperature from rising as high during the day or cooling as much at night, although the increase in the overnight low may lead to an increase in the daytime temperature because the air doesn’t have to heat as much to reach a higher temperature. In equatorial areas deserts have higher maximum temperatures and lower minimum temperatures than jungle areas where the humidity is higher.

Water vapor possesses what physicists have traditionally called “latent” heat. Latent heat refers to the heat energy water molecules must absorb to go from a solid to a liquid (heat of fusion 80 calories/gram) or a liquid to a gas(heat of vaporization 540 calories/gram). This energy isn’t reflected in the temperature of the water vapor. However, when water vapor condenses back to a liquid, or freezes, the release of this latent heat can raise the temperature of the air. A gram of water vapor releases enough heat energy when it condenses to raise the temperature of 2 kg of air by 1 C.

At approximately 65 F water vapor in the atmosphere holds as much heat energy as the rest of the atmosphere. This condition explains why dew points above 65 F are associated with the strongest thunderstorms.

Physicists define a “calorie” as the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of a gram of water 1 C. 27 C (82 F) is the same temperature as 300 Kelvin [the absolute temperature scale]. At 300 K water vapor has 300 calories of heat from its temperature and 620 calories of latent heat.

The dew point is the temperature at which water vapor will condense on objects or aerosals. The dew point normally is the lowest temperature the air will fall to. As the water vapor content of the air increases the dew point rises and the air doesn’t get as cool at night.

The situation is more complex than I am presenting it in this post. I . The important facts to consider are that increases in humidity can raise the low, or minimum temperature, and limit the high, or maximum temperature, each day. In areas where significant snowfall occurs, the increase in low temperature can increase the melting of snow and ice by keeping the temperature above freezing for longer periods of time.

I recently came across a 10 year old study done by David R. Easterling of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., indicating that humidy had increased and, as should have been expected, the minimum temperature had been increasing and the difference between the minimum and maximum daily temperatures, diurnal temperature range (DTR), had been declining.

The potential impact of changes in atmospheric water vapor are real science. Water vapor holds a substantial amount of heat energy. The only potential impact climatologists can find for carbon dioxide is the highly questionable claim about absorbing and re-radiating low energy IR. But then, if would be difficult for the politicians behind the global warming scare to make a case for getting rid of water.

And the Snow Flies … Jerusalem?

January 12, 2013

Would you believe an 8 inch snowfall in Jerusalem? How about Israeli President Shimon Peres making a snowman?

The childern of Jerusalem are enjoying throwing snowballs while drivers slip and slide on the treacherous roads. On Mount Herzl the heavy snow caused numerous historic trees to fall including some that were over 50 years old. Over 100 trees have fallen in the city as a whole . Some power lines are also down. Highways leading to and from Jerusalem were closed due to the snow.

The storm system has also brought freezing temperatures to Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Global Average Temperature an Impossibility

January 11, 2013

The following is a news release from the University of Copenhagen in March, 2007. I’ve decided not to put it in my own words because I agree with Professor Andresen, and want the article to reflect his views rather than mine. He is the professor not me.

Discussions on global warming often refer to ‘global temperature.’ Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada.

It is generally assumed that the atmosphere and the oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years. The reason for this point of view is an upward trend in the curve of measurements of the so-called ‘global temperature’. This is the temperature obtained by collecting measurements of air temperatures at a large number of measuring stations around the Globe, weighing them according to the area they represent, and then calculating the yearly average according to the usual method of adding all values and dividing by the number of points.

Average without meaning

“It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth”, Bjarne Andresen says, an an expert of thermodynamics. “A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate”.

He explains that while it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average ‘global exchange rate’.

If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.

Many averages

A further problem with the extensive use of ‘the global temperature’ is that there are many ways of calculating average temperatures.

Example 1: Take two equally large glasses of water. The water in one glass is 0 degrees, in the other it is 100 degrees. Adding these two numbers and dividing by two yields an average temperature of 50 degrees. That is called the arithmetic average.

Example 2: Take the same two glasses of water at 0 degrees and 100 degrees, respectively. Now multiply those two numbers and take the square root, and you will arrive at an average temperature of 46 degrees. This is called the geometric average. (The calculation is done in degrees Kelvin which are then converted back to degrees Celsius.)

The difference of 4 degrees is the energy which drives all the thermodynamic processes which create storms, thunder, sea currents, etc.

Claims of disaster?

These are but two examples of ways to calculate averages. They are all equally correct, but one needs a solid physical reason to choose one above another. Depending on the averaging method used, the same set of measured data can simultaneously show an upward trend and a downward trend in average temperature. Thus claims of disaster may be a consequence of which averaging method has been used, the researchers point out.

What Bjarne Andresen and his coworkers emphasize is that physical arguments are needed to decide whether one averaging method or another is needed to calculate an average which is relevant to describe the state of Earth.

Global Warming Greenhouse Theory Disproved a Century Ago

January 10, 2013

The claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) can increase air temperatures by “trapping” infrared radiation (IR) ignores the fact that in 1909 physicist R.W. Wood disproved the popular 19th Century thesis that greenhouses stayed warm by trapping IR. Unfortunately, many people who claim to be scientists are unaware of Wood’s experiment which was originally published in the Philosophical magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320.

Philosophical Magazine might not sound like the name of a science publication, but a century ago leading scientists published their discoveries in it.

During the early 19th Century many physicists supported the theory postulated by Benjamin Franklin that heat involved some type of fluid. The theory became known as “caloric theory”. Joseph Jean Baptiste Fourier’s theory that the atmosphere was heated from infrared radiation from the ground was a variation of caloric theory with IR functioning as the “fluid”. Fourier believed greenhouses were heated by trapping this radiation.

Physicists in the early 19th Century were attempting to develop theories to explain the nature of atoms and their properties such as heat. Physicists theorized that atoms were the smallest particles of matter.

By the end of the century a new theory of heat, called “kinetic theory”, was being developed that suggested heat was the motion, or kinetic energy, of atoms. However, Fourier’s theory that IR heated the atmosphere particularly by interacting with carbon dioxide and water vapor continued to have support.

In 1897 J.J. Thompson overturned the popular theory of the atoms being the smallest particles of matter by reporting his discovery of the electron and predicting two other types of charged particles he called protons and neutrons.

Wood was an expert on IR. His accomplishments included inventing both IR and UV (ultraviolet) photography. In 1909 he decided to test Fourier’s theory about how greenhouses retained heat.

Wood constructed two identical small greenhouses. The description implies the type of structure a gardener would refer to as a “cold frame” rather than a building a person could walk into.

He lined the interior with black cardboard which would absorb radiation and convert it to heat which would heat the air through conduction. The cardboard would also produce radiation. He covered one greenhouse with a sheet of transparent rock salt and the other with a sheet of glass. The glass would block IR and the rock salt would allow it to pass.

During the first run of the experiment the rock salt greenhouse heated faster due to IR from the sun entering it but not the glass greenhouse. He then set up another pane of glass to filter the IR from the sun before the light reached the greenhouses.

The result from this run was that the greenhouses both heated to about 50 C with less than a degree difference between the two. Wood didn’t indicate which was warmer or whether there was any difference in the thermal conductivity between the glass sheet and the rock salt. A slight difference in the amount of heat transfered through the sheets by conduction could explain such a minor difference in temperature. The two sheets probably didn’t conduct heat at the same rate.

The experiment conclusively demonstrates that greenhouses heat up and stay warm by confining heated air rather than by trapping IR. If trapping IR in an enclosed space doesn’t cause higher air temperature than CO2 in the atmosphere cannot cause higher air temperatures.

The heated air in the greenhouses couldn’t rise higher than the sheets that covered the tops of the greenhouses. Heated air outside is free to rise allowing colder air to fall to the ground.

Atmospheric CO2 is even less likely to function as a barrier to IR or reflect it back to reheat the ground or water than the sheet of glass in Wood’s greenhouse.

The blackened cardboard in Wood’s greenhouses was a very good radiator of IR as is typical of black substances. The water that covers 70% of earth’s surface is a very poor radiator and produces only limited amounts of IR as is typical of transparent substances. Water releases heat through evaporation rather than radiation.

The glass sheet provided a solid barrier to IR. Atmospheric CO2 is widely dispersed comprising less than 400 parts per million in the atmosphere. Trapping IR with CO2 would be like trying to confine mice with a chain link fence.

Glass reflects a wider spectrum of IR than interacts with CO2. The glass sheets reflected IR back toward the floor of the greenhouse. CO2 doesn’t reflect IR.

At the time of Wood’s experiment, it was believed that CO2 and other gas molecules became hotter after absorbing IR.

Four years later Niels Bohr reported his discovery that the absorption of specific wavelengths of light didn’t cause gas atoms/molecules to become hotter. Instead, the absorption of specific wavelengths of light caused the electrons in an atom/molecule to move to a higher energy state. After absorption of light of a specific wavelength an atom couldn’t absorb additional radiation of that wavelength without first emitting light of that wavelength. He called the amount of energy absorbed and emitted as a “quantum”. (Philosophical Magazine Series 6, Volume 26 July 1913, p. 1-25)

Unlike the glass which reflects IR back where it comes from, CO2 molecules emit IR up and sideways as well as down. In the time interval between absorbing and reemitting radiation, CO2 molecules allow IR to pass them by. Glass continuously reflects IR.

Those who claim that CO2 molecules in the atmosphere can cause heating by trapping IR have yet to provide any empirical scientific evidence to prove such a physical process exists. The experiment by R.W. Wood demonstrates that even a highly reflective covering that reflects a broad spectrum of IR cannot cause heating by trapping IR in a confined space. There is no way CO2, which at best only affects a small portion of the IR produced by earth’s surface, can heat the atmosphere by trapping IR.

Contrary to the lie repeated in news stories about climate, science doesn’t say that CO2 is causing higher temperatures by trapping IR. Empirical science indicates that no such process exists in this physical universe.

The Greatest Scam in History

January 2, 2013

The residents of California are about to become victims of what Weather Channel founder John Coleman has accurately called “the greatest scam in history”. They will be paying higher energy bills to help carbon traders get richer.

In the 1990’s the corrupt Enron company began paying scientists and purported environmental groups to support the outright lie that slight increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide could increase atmospheric temperatures. Enron also supported politicians who were willing to go along with this scheme. Enron’s goal was to get governments to establish a system for trading what the company called “carbon credits”.

Companies producing carbon dioxide have to pay for “carbon credits” to do so . These carbon credits can then be traded by speculators just like stocks and bonds. More on Enron and carbon trading later.

I’ve posted numerous articles on the global warming fraud over the last several years. I’m going to repost some of them to make it easier for readers to find them. Because of their age, some of the articles they link to may no longer be available on the web. I’m going to post them as is for now, but may rewrite some of them with new links later.

One fact many people don’t understand about science is that science has long had an attraction for con artists. A few centuries ago “scientists” called “alchemists” would get wealthy nobles to finance their research by claiming to be working on a way to turn metals like lead into gold .

As a college undergraduate, I initially started studying math and physics before making the mistake of thinking I could help politicians find solutions to social problems by studying the social sciences. I didn’t realize politicians weren’t particularly interested in actually solving social problems. My physics course work included the study of light. Physics is the science that deals with energy such as heat and electromagnetic radiation or light.

The physics of climate is relatively simple. It isn’t necessary to understand quantum physics to understand climate unless you want to study the peculiar characteristics of water molecules such as why ice(solid water) floats on liquid water. It’s the complex interaction of various factors, including cycles like el Nino / la Nina, that makes climate complicated. The study of climate inspired development of the math/science field of chaos theory which applies to a variety of subjects including human behavior. Those of you who invest in the stock market might want to investigate applications of chaos theory.

My interest in human behavior includes human interaction with the physical environment. There are actions humans take that can impact climate, but production of carbon dioxide isn’t one of those actions. For example, humans can cause desertification by eliminating trees. The draining of wetlands in Florida has increased the potential for freezing weather in the state. The increased danger of freezing weather potentially threatens the orange crop that plays a major role in Florida’s economy.

The claim by global warming alarmists that slight changes in the amount of the very minor, but essential, atmospheric gas, carbon dioxide can significantly change temperature is absurd. CO2 comprises less than 0.04% of the atmosphere. The only change in CO2 that could impact temperature would be if CO2 levels dropped below the amount necessary to support plant life. Plants store solar energy in the form of the electron bonds holding complex carbon molecules together. This process reduces the amount of solar radiation converted to heat.

Those who claim CO2 causes warming by trapping infrared radiation (IR) ignore the fact that physicist R. W. Woods disproved the theory that “trapping” radiation causes heating in greenhouses or the atmosphere over a century ago.

My knowledge of human behavior helps me understand how otherwise intelligent individuals can support the nonsense that a minor gas like CO2 can control climate. Many people support the claim that CO2 causes warming because they are profiting from trading carbon credits or are being paid by carbon traders. Natural gas companies like the late Enron company can gain a competitive advantage over coal because coal has a higher carbon content than natural gas

Others have reverted to primitive religious beliefs. They want to believe that humans can “control” climate because they are scared by the idea that climate is beyond control. In effect, many of them believe that if unfavorable weather events it means they have offended the “weather gods”. Global warming believers use the equivalent of the word “heretic” to describe those who disagree with them. Terms like “denier” and “contrarian” labels those who use the terms as childish. The terms brand those who use them as religious fanatics rather than scientists.