Debunking the AGW Theory?

[BethesdaWX]

A very interesting paper was just completed by Nasif S. Nahle and other 20 international scientists, and is already causing quite a Stir and Rumble.

If these basic laws of physics are correct, then they may have debunked AGW. I'm not smart enough to understand all this yet, I'm only a student of climatology.

They hope to have it further peer reviewed and published.

http://johnosullivan....com/35681.html

http://www.biocab.or...n_Free_Path.pdf

Obtaining the correction factor for the overlapping emissive bands of H2Og and CO2g:

To obtain the total emissivity of the mixture of water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we need to know the equilibrium partial pressure of the mixture of water vapor and carbon dioxide. The formula for obtaining the equilibrium partial pressure (ζ) of the mixture is as follows:

ζ = pH2O / (pH2O + pCO2) (Ref. 5)

Where pH2O is the partial pressure of water vapor in a proportion of 5% in the atmosphere –which is an instantaneous measurement of the water vapor, and pCO2 is the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide.

Known values:

pH2O = 0.05 atm

pCO2 = 0.00039 atm

Introducing magnitudes:

ζ = pH2O / (pH2O + pCO2) = 0.05 atm / (0.05 atm + 0.00039 atm) = 0.9923

Therefore, ζ = 0.9923

Obtaining the total emissivity of a mixture of water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere:

Now let us proceed to calculate the magnitude of the overlapped radiative emission bands of the water vapor and the carbon dioxide. To do this, we apply the following formula:

ΔE = [[ζ / (10.7 + 101 ζ)] – 0.0089 (ζ)^10.4] (log10 [(pH2O + pCO2) L] / (pabsL) 0)^2.76 [Ref. 5]

Known values:

ζ = 0.9923

pH2O = 0.05 atm

pCO2 = 0.00039 atm

(pabsL)0 (absolute pressure of the mixture of gases on the Earth’s surface) = 1 atm m

Le = (2.3026)) (Aas / μa) = 7000 m

Introducing magnitudes:

ΔE = [(0.992 / 110.892) – (0.0089 * (0.992)^10.4] * (log10 [(0.05 atm + 0.00039 atm) 7000 m] / (1 atm m)0)^2.76 (Ref. 2)

ΔE = [0.00076] * (13.21) = 0.01

Therefore, the correction addend for the overlapping absorption bands is 0.01

Consequently, the total emissivity of the mixture water vapor and carbon dioxide is as follows:

E mixture = ECO2 + EH2O – ΔE = 0.0017 + 0.4 - 0.01 = 0.3917

Total Normal Intensity of the energy radiated by the mixture of gases in the air:

Therefore, the total normal intensity (I) (or the spectral radiance over wavelength) caused by the mixture of water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is:

I = Emix (σ) (T)^4 / π (Ref. 5 and 6)

I = 0.3997 (5.6697 x 10^-8 W/m^2 K^4) (310.95)^4 / 3.1416 = 67.44 W/m^2 sr

By way of contrast, the spectral irradiance over wavelength caused by the surface (soil), with a total emissivity of 0.82 (Ref. 1 and 5), is as follows:

I = Esurface (σ) (T)^4 / π (Ref. 5 and 6)

I = 0.82 (5.6697 x 10-8 W/m^2 K^4) (330 K) / 3.1416 = 203 W/m^2 sr

Following Dr. Anderson’s recommendation (which I mentioned above in the abstract) I calculated the overlapping bands of a mixture of water vapor (4%), carbon dioxide (0.039%) and Oxygen (21%).

The calculation for a mixture of atmospheric Oxygen (O2), Water Vapor (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is as follows:

ζ = pO2 / (pO2 + pCO2) = 0.21 atm / (0.21 atm + 0.00039 atm) = 0.9981

ζ = pO2+CO2 / (pHO2 + pO2 + CO2) = 0.9981 atm / (0.9981 + 0.05 atm) = 0.9523

Consequently, the equilibrium partial pressure of the mixture of Oxygen, Water Vapor and Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is 0.9523

And the change of the total emissivity of the mixture is:

ΔE = [(ζ/(10.7 + 101ζ)) – (0.0089 (ζ)^10.4)] * (Log10 [(pH2O + pCO2 + pO2) L] / (pabsL)0)^2.76 [Ref. 5]

ΔE = [(0.9523/(10.7 + (101 * 0.9523)) – (0.0089 (0.9523^10.4))] * [(3.261)^2.76]

ΔE = [0.00891 – (0.00535)] * [(3.261)^2.76]

ΔE = [0.00356] * [26.1] = 0.092916

And the total emissivity of the mixture of gases in the atmosphere is:

E mixture = ECO2 + EH2O – ΔE = 0.0017 + 0.4 + 0.004 - 0. 0.092916 = 0.3128

The emissivity of the water vapor decreased by 0.0872 units. Evidently, the mixture of oxygen, carbon dioxide and water vapor, at current conditions of temperature and partial pressures, causes a sensible decrease of the total emissivity of the mixture of air.

CONCLUSION

The general conclusion is that by adding any gas with total emissivity/absorptivity lower than the total emissivity/absorptivity of the main absorber/emitter in the mixture of gases makes that the total emissivity/absorptivity of the mixture of gases decreases.

In consequence, the carbon dioxide and the oxygen at the overlapping absorption spectral bands act as mitigating factors of the warming of the atmosphere, not as intensifier factors of the total absorptivity/emissivity of the atmosphere.

This assessment demonstrates that the effect of an increased warming caused by an increase of absorptivity of IR by water vapor due to overlapping spectral bands with carbon dioxide does not happen in nature.

On the overlapping absorption spectral bands of carbon dioxide and water vapor, the carbon dioxide propitiates a decrease of the total emissivity/absorptivity of the mixture in the atmosphere, not an increase, as AGW proponents argue 1, 2, 3.

Applying the physics laws of atmospheric heat transfer, the Carbon Dioxide behaves as a coolant of the Earth’s surface and the Earth’s atmosphere by its effect of diminishing the total absorptivity and total emissivity of the mixture of atmospheric gases.

Dr. Anderson and I found that the coolant effect of the carbon dioxide is stronger when Oxygen is included into the mixture, giving a value of ΔE = 0.3814, which is lower than the value of ΔE obtained by considering only the mixture of water vapor and carbon dioxide.

[stellarfun]

The c. v. of the author.

http://www.biocab.or...Curriculum.html

I am suspicious of anybody who states they went to Harvard and writes that they attended University of Harvard. NO ONE who ever went to Harvard says that they attended University of Harvard.

The c.v. such as it is of Charles Anderson, PhD, who advised Mr. Nahle.

http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/

Finally, the quickest way to get a paper rejected at a peer-reviewed journal is to publish it in advance.

[LakeEffectKing]

and even if he had attended Harvard, it's irrelevant--he's a biologist, not a physicist. furthermore, Biology Cabinet is a made up organization, not a research institute.

another biologist and someone openly biased, to boot.

this John O'Sullivan person isn't a scientist, so I'm not sure why he's being used as an expert.

not that this crap had any chance of making to through any serious peer review cycle.

honestly why does this kind of crap get posted here?

The hypothesis, data, and testing methodology, along with derived conclusions SHOULD be the stand alone reason for publication or not, via peer review.....any other reasoning for rejection is strictly political and has no place in science.

Unless one has an inherent understanding of the material within, in order to validate or invalidate said article, the opinion as to whether it should be published or not is quite unimportant.....(ie blah, blah, blah)

[BethesdaWX]

The hypothesis, data, and testing methodology, along with derived conclusions SHOULD be the stand alone reason for publication or not, via peer review.....any other reasoning for rejection is strictly political and has no place in science.

Unless one has an inherent understanding of the material within, in order to validate or invalidate said article, the opinion as to whether it should be published or not is quite unimportant.....(ie blah, blah, blah)

Exactly.

Trix sometimes gets caught up in details that don't matter, but are morally important to her.

And its not like this is new physics or anything.

[BethesdaWX]

The c. v. of the author.

http://www.biocab.or...Curriculum.html

I am suspicious of anybody who states they went to Harvard and writes that they attended University of Harvard. NO ONE who ever went to Harvard says that they attended University of Harvard.

The c.v. such as it is of Charles Anderson, PhD, who advised Mr. Nahle.

http://objectivistin...t.blogspot.com/

Finally, the quickest way to get a paper rejected at a peer-reviewed journal is to publish it in advance.

So, you're saying he's lying about attending Harvard?

Really all of this is irrelavent.

[Snow_Miser]

Bethesda, in addition, the main author of this paper, was originally a Climate Alarmist before he found these findings.

Professor Nasif Nahle found something deeply troubling about the man-made global warming theory (AGW). He explains, “I started out wanting to debunk those deniers of science.”

Nahle had originally believed that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) were warming the atmosphere until he found an incorrect assumption within the greenhouse effect hypothesis.

Invited to attend a televised debate on the Indonesian Tsunami that addressed whether global warming was a factor in that catastrophe, Nahle checked the validity of calculations relating to the combined reactions of certain atmospheric gases to solar radiation in the so-called greenhouse effect. “That was when I saw it was junk science.”

: Greenhouse Gas Theory Discredited by 'Coolant' Carbon Dioxide

[BethesdaWX]

uh, legitimate science is more than just a moral imperative to only me.

Well your definition of "legitimate science" is on serious crack. "Hey, lets look at the Bios of 5 out of the 20 scientists, and claim the science must be bad". Then we have Jim Hansen, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, who are not only all on huge Funding, but are all political activists (Hansen) to the Green party. And you expect them not to be Biased?

In your world, counter hypothesis are useless, new science would be dead immediately. AGW itself is a hypothesis, because it relies on claims of positive feedback mechanisms within the climate system to trapped LW radiation in tandom with incoming SW radiation, (hi vs lo frequency).

[Snow_Miser]

Sad. The warmingistas can't discredit this new paper, so they start attacking a reputable scientist for going to Harvard.

[BethesdaWX]

? if he can't be trusted to present true bona fides regarding his education, how on Earth can you assume the science is legit?

Ok If I attend Harvard and become a climatologist, and then I say, "I went to the university of Harvard" in my paper, then my paper is automatically pigsh*t.

Are you kidding me? Talk about conspiracy and paranoia at its best.

[BethesdaWX]

Bethesda, in addition, the main author of this paper, was originally a Climate Alarmist before he found these findings.

: Greenhouse Gas Theory Discredited by 'Coolant' Carbon Dioxide

Yes, but Oxygen is apparently required to create that effect, if he is correct.

I don't believe him, or dis-believe him, I'm simply waiting for a rebuttal to get a cleared issue.... but yeah this paper is being posted everywhere. If there is a rebuttal, I'm sure we'll hear about it.

[Snow_Miser]

I don't believe him, or dis-believe him, I'm simply waiting for a rebuttal to get a cleared issue.... but yeah this paper is being posted everywhere. If there is a rebuttal, I'm sure we'll hear about it.

I agree! Let's wait and see first what the CAGW proponents have to say first... but so far they aren't really making such a good rebuttal by attacking someone because he went to Harvard.

[BethesdaWX]

do you have any understanding about how to evaluate sources?

that's what the peer review system is for.

bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt. wrong. I actively seek out new science for my press to publish, in fact, and work with people who are publishing cutting edge, peer-reviewed science. however, the junk science you champion in this thread does no one any good.

You're not making any sense, these laws of physics aren't "new" science, they've been around. Take a paper by Jim hansen, for example, and see WHO reviewed it. If they are all Pro-AGW reviewers, then toss it out the window. Hansens testimony to Congress wasn't based on Peer reviewed "data".

But this is a side issue anyway, when basic laws of energy transfer and therodynamics are questioned by AGW, and the predictions of AGW begin to falter as they have in the past decade, the Null hypothesis, which had never been rejected, needs to be re-tested.

[BethesdaWX]

he's a biologist and didn't attend Harvard.

why can't anyone parse simple facts?

Did he say he attended Harvard? If he did, then end of discussion.

This paper is not based of "his" data of any kind, but a group of 20 scientists, many PHD's, with physics training.

These scientists are listed in the Link.

[BethesdaWX]

you are way over your head with this stuff.

Nah, I think you're just high on something.

Its obvious you need to look at who reviewed it to take into account Bias. If there are no "skeptics", or at least neutrals with no funding risking tenure, in the review process, then toss it.

Its not that hard to fathom.

[BethesdaWX]

nope. he doesn't list any of his degree granting institutions, in fact.

Then why was the Harvard issue even brought up?

It was mention "I went to the university of Harvard". and since "university" was included, people came up with some crazy ideas.

[BethesdaWX]

are you following any of the conversation in this thread?

Slow down.

I'd prefer to discuss the SCIENCE, because thats what this forum is for. The univerwsity attended, backgrounds, etc, are not Important.

[BethesdaWX]

it's kind of funny that you are presuming to lecture me on the peer review process and how it works.

Which is why I think you're loaded.

Its obvious that if all the reviewers are pro AGW, with large funding grants, then the aspect of Bias comes into play.

[BethesdaWX]

if the people writing it aren't qualified, it's not science. that's the point. it's a glorified blog. if this guy had anything legit to add to the discussion he wouldn't be going this route.

Are you Talking about John O Sullivan?

He is the Owner of the Blog, he didn't conduct the Study

http://www.biocab.or...n_Free_Path.pdf

[BethesdaWX]

really? explain to me how the funding process works and how the peer review process works. obviously I'm clueless about those aspects of science.

Even that is not necessary, its very simple. Look at who Peer reviewed the Paper. If the reviewers are all Pro AGW, risking tenure, with roots in their field, then the aspect of Bias Plays in.

Its that simple.

[BethesdaWX]

good grief.

Kind of like picking 1 scientist out of 20 and bashing him in unknown credentials instead of the science?

Good Grief Indeed.

[BethesdaWX]

how do you find out who reviewed the paper?

also, how are the reviewers assigned?

I should just re-post my previous quote here.

[BethesdaWX]

I read your posts. I'm asking you to show the proof of what you are claiming. how are reviewers assigned, and how do you find out who reviewed a particular paper?

What am I "claiming" that isn't already publibly available?

Just because someones qualifications match the Author's does not deter the aspect of Bias. In fact, it potentially enhances them.

[BethesdaWX]

then link me up, please.

huh?

Why do you quote snippets of my posts?

[BethesdaWX]

if the information on who reviewed which paper is publicly available, please provide the information where it can be accessed.

because you edit them after you post them and add to them, and I can't reply to what doesn't yet exist.

What paper are you talking about?

My edit took 5 seconds.

If the list of reviewers are not available, then there is a serious problem. But first, what paper are you referencing?

[BethesdaWX]

you keep referencing Jim Hansen and peer review. I assumed you were talking about his papers.

still, the laws of space and time dictate that I cannot respond to things not yet written.

uh, wait. you stated, several times, that the lists of who reviewed a paper are publicly available: http://www.americanw...post__p__638473

and now you're saying the lists aren't publicly available. so which is it?

Can you read english? Can you read at all?

1) I was giving an example of a potential circumstance, not one of his papers, or I would have listed the paper.

2) No, I was referring to how the peer review system works. All of that is available online, you don't need to be part of the peer review system to understand the Pros and Cons of the System

Making inferences is a major requirement to understand literature, so I'm surprised you're even able to communicate thoroughly online.

[A-L-E-K]

Bethesda was demolished

[mappy]

Dammmmmnnnnnnnnn

Trixie: 100000 x infinity

BethesdaWX: 0

[BethesdaWX]

yes, I can, thank you though for your concern.

I'm curious as to why you immediately assumed that his papers don't get an unbiased peer review. what is your reasoning?

what is available online?

I do the best I can with what I have. I appreciate your encouragement.

1) I didn't

2) Information on the peer review system

[BethesdaWX]

Dammmmmnnnnnnnnn

Trixie: 100000 x infinity

BethesdaWX: 0

It wouldn't be that way if She debated the actual Science with me. I'm not a Guru on Paper Publication, but I'm smart enough to know its irrelavent at this time.

The argument we're having doesn't prove or disprove the vailidity of the Science, since the paper is has not been accepted or rejected to this point.

If it gets rejected, we'll hear about it.

[H2O]

To quote the movie The Untouchables: "Here endeth the lesson"