Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Climate change in chunks

President Obama told Rolling Stone that climate change will be "one of my top priorities next year," but that "we may end up having to do it in chunks, as opposed to some sort of comprehensive legislation." What would that look like? Glenn Hurowitz offers up some ideas. He leaves out funding for innovation, however, which will need to be the key to any strategy in which we're not pricing carbon down to acceptable levels.

By Ezra Klein  | October 1, 2010; 3:55 PM ET
Categories:  Climate Change  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Midterm demographics cont'd
Next: When good policies look bad

Comments

The 10:10 campaign to cut emissions is going well in the UK. If nothing more, the propaganda is interesting (eg. http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdkU6U2G4z ).

Posted by: rmgregory | October 1, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

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

Although the "Greenhouse Effect" is of crucial importance to modern climatology and is the putative cornerstone of the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis, it lacks clear thermodynamic definition. This forecasts the likelihood that the name is misapplied. Even general descriptions of the "Greenhouse Effect" may seem confused when compared to one another. In the first year university geology text by Press & Siever (1982, p. 312) we read:

The atmosphere is relatively transparent to the incoming visible rays of the Sun....

Posted by: stanlippmann | October 1, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

"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."

Isolated from thermal contact? Yes, the vacuum of space insulates the Earth via the mechanisms of conduction and convection, but not at all by radiation, which operates most efficiently through a vacuum. If vacuum prevented radiative heat transfer, there would be no way for the sun to heat the Earth, and we'd be a frozen iceball.

The whole premise of this article is baloney, and its author has no credentials beyond a BS (http://cv.geologist-1011.com/), yet it is widely circulated. More and more people reject the virtually unanimous conclusion of experts (global warming is real, evolution is real, Stimulus created millions of jobs, etc.) in favor of the illogical rantings of loudmouths. This is not healthy for our society.

Posted by: suehall | October 2, 2010 12:00 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company