<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>That Bogus Greenhouse Gas Whatchamacallit Effect</title>
		<description>Discuss That Bogus Greenhouse Gas Whatchamacallit Effect</description>
		<link>http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/192-that-bogus-greenhouse-gas-whatchamacallit-effect</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 10:44:06 --500</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/192/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>David B Russell says:</title>
			<link>http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/192-that-bogus-greenhouse-gas-whatchamacallit-effect#comment-511</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I noticed a minor typo. The 33 deg C is a temperature difference, and is equal to 59.4 F, not 91.4 F.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David B Russell</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2013 06:05:50 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/192-that-bogus-greenhouse-gas-whatchamacallit-effect#comment-511</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Pierre R Latour says:</title>
			<link>http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/192-that-bogus-greenhouse-gas-whatchamacallit-effect#comment-348</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Barry Bird. Useful comment. I learned something from it too. I recently proved the GHG theory back-radiation assumption that violates the Second Law, energy transfers only from hot to cold, leads naturally as a consequence to creation of energy, a violation of the First Law as well. http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/185-no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still Study my definitions and concluding equation for the change in radiation rate from the GHG back-radiation assumption: Es = [(1+k)*K*F0 + (1+K)*k*f0]/(1-kK) - K*F0 = (K*F0+f0)(1+K)k/(1-kK). Since the denominator is 0 less than (1 – kK) less than 1, it follows that for any K greater than 0 and k greater than 0, Es greater than 0. Es = 0 if and only if k = 0. k is the fraction of back-radiation. This is an example of the classic mistake made by those who attempt to engineer things that violate the Second law, perpetual motion machines. That is your killer argument #2. Bird seems to have missed the main point of this Whatchamacallit essay, the bogus vector math 33C GHG effect is your killer argument #3. I do not know how many strikes the CO2 Sky Dragon gets. I agree science requires only one. GHG promoters actually claim a bias to perpetual global warming, which needs a perpetual motion machine to sustain it. It seems reasonable to suspect they invented this PMM to justify their AGW claim. QED. I agree the higher heat capacity is hardly significant; it only affects the transient response lag time to changes is thermal heat inputs and outputs. CO2 “traps” a bit of heat, with higher internal energy/mol-C, a cooling effect. Some physicists tell me the Second Law applies to the universe as a whole, open or closed, contracting, expanding or accelerating. Anyway the thin atmosphere wrapping Earth is bounded by solids and liquids on one side and empty space on the other, closed to mass and heat transfer, not radiation. It scatters, reflects, attenuates and absorbs/reradiates radiation intensity penetrating in either direction, from sun or Earth, provided it is intense enough.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Pierre R Latour</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:16:55 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/192-that-bogus-greenhouse-gas-whatchamacallit-effect#comment-348</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Barry Bird says:</title>
			<link>http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/192-that-bogus-greenhouse-gas-whatchamacallit-effect#comment-347</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Arguments have to be good to successfully demolish the well-established green house gas theory. Some seem to me to be good, others questionable, and that weakens the case. The argument that heat cannot pass from cold to hotter bodies, thus decreasing entropy, which is against the second law of themordynamics looks like a killer argument to me. The heated ground can radiate to the colder atmosphere above it, but the reverse cannot happen, and surely this putative reverse radiation is what constitutes the greenhouse effect. However the paper then goes on to say that energy is created, violating the first law. They are only saying that existing heat is radiated back, as I understand it, not that more is created. This part seems wrong to me and unnecessary. The second law is violated. That is quite enough - although the law only applies to closed systems. That issue ought to be addressed. The paper also says that the atmosphere acts to attenuate the incoming solar radiation, according the Beer-Lambert law. This sounds good to me. It is evidenced in the oceans, the way light only penetrates to a certain depth, and the heat of the Moon's sunlit surface in the absence of an atmosphere, the Moon being at the same distance on average from the Sun as the Earth, and so receiving the same level of radiation. This provides the explanation of the moderating effect of the atmosphere that we experience: it is not due to some greenhouse effect. I would say that yes, the atmosphere is a refrigerator during the day, but at night it is a blanket, impeding the loss of heat by radiation. However the paper then goes on to say that the atmosphere is heated by adiabatic compression, as you get in deisel engines. That may have been true once, but that must have been a long time ago and the heat would have dissipated by radiation and convection long ago. The temperature can only be maintained by solar radiation. The higher heat capacity of CO2 is hardly significant! Nevertheless this is a useful article. I learnt something from it.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Barry Bird</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:51:39 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/192-that-bogus-greenhouse-gas-whatchamacallit-effect#comment-347</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
