Monday, August 13, 2007

Warning: Math

For all the global warming critics who always say things like "I want you to find one just one paper that refutes what Al Gore says!" I've got one thats pretty good.

Unfortunately, unless you've taken a heat transfer course it'll probably be muck to you. At any rate, take it on faith that I followed the calculations, and they're correct.

The essence of the paper / exercise is that CO2 can't physically absorb-reject enough heat to cause the changes that are being attributed to it. This also means that it can't be the instigator in the so-called 'water vapor feedback' cycle that everyone loves to talk about.

An excerpt:

Considering the whole mixture of air the Δq by Solar Irradiance absorbed-emitted by the mixed air would only be 0.734 W/m^2*K (0.175 th-cal). From this quantity, the CO2 can store 0.012 W/m^2*K (0.003 th-cal) by radiation for only one second, which is equivalent to 0.01 °C.

The maximum change observed in the tropospheric temperature occurred in 1998, and it averaged 0.52 °C throughout the year. The discrepancy, regarding the change caused by carbon dioxide is -0.51 °C.

To cause a variation in the tropospheric temperature of 0.62 °C (registered in 1998) required 1627.6 ppmv of CO2, a density of atmospheric CO2 that has never been recorded or documented anywhere in the last 420000 years. (Petit et al. 1999)

The total change in the tropospheric temperature of 0.62 °C was only given for the duration of one minute of one year (1998) since 1850; however, CO2 has increased the tropospheric temperature by only 0.01 °C. From where did the other 0.51 °C come from?
If you like math, go for it.

I think its time for global warming global climate change supporters to start backing their stuff up with cold, hard, math.