Climate Change Global Warming Homework to Piss Off Your Teacher

Young-Woman-Crying-AP-640x480

If you are a young rebellious free-thinking independent truth-seeking student that is sick and tired of being force-fed by your teachers the junk science of climate change and global warming, this is the place for you. Are you sick and tired of this “settled science” not allowing debate and discussion? Force the issue and turn in a real scientific paper challenging the authoritarian rule of the “consensus.” Prove to your teacher how little they know about the subject.

Climate Change Global Warming Homework Paper #1: Isolating the Impact of CO2

Climate Change Global Warming Homework Paper #2: Climate Change Science Fair 

Climate Change Global Warming Homework Paper #3: CO2 Can’t Cause the Warming

Climate Change Global Warming Homework Paper #4: 4 Charts That Rule Out CO2

Climate Change Global Warming Homework Paper #5: NASA GISS Charts

Climate Change Global Warming Homework Paper #6: Understand the Oceans

Climate Change Global Warming Homework Paper #7: Trillions of Dollars Wasted

Climate Change Global Warming Homework Paper #8: Climate “Science” on Trial

Climate Change Global Warming Homework Paper #9: If Something is Understood

Climate Change Global Warming Homework Paper #10: How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate.

More Sources:

High School Climate Change Term Paper for Those Who Don’t Want to Follow the Herd
Climate Change Science Fair Project; CO2 and Global Warming

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Share with Students taking High School Science

Advertisements

19 thoughts on “Climate Change Global Warming Homework to Piss Off Your Teacher”

  1. Thanks for this wonderful series. I am carefully working through it. Incidentally, while building up background knowledge, I chanced on this video which pretty much kills CO2 voodoo in 9 minutes of sober physics. What I find hard to reconcile is the gentleman’s claim (in the video) that CO2 does contribute to warming (3°Centigarde of 33°Centigrade above the sub-zero earth temperature that would prevail, as he argues, in the absence of water vapour and CO2), when you repeatedly point out that all CO2 does is establish a lower boundary at -80°C. As far as I understand, you are saying CO2 can stop temperatures fall below -80° C but cannot make them exceed this threshold. If both of you are correct, how does CO2 contribute to 3° C of 33° C above zero?

    Like

    1. Yes, CO2 has a temperature of -80 degree C. You can test that at spectralcalc. That is pretty well defined physics and demonstratrable with an IR Thermoscope/Spectrascope. H2O absorbs CO2s IR signature, and far more of the IR spectrum.

      Like

    2. CO2’s absorption is not linear, it’s major impact is from 0 to 100 ppm, and then decays rapidly. Remember the Death’s temperature is about 300 degree K, so CO2 can be blamed for maybe 10% of the energy, but I assume that is a Ceteras Paribas example where all else is held equal. Also, astrounauts would freeze in the thermosphere, so just because it has a warm temperature doesn’t mean there is heat.

      Like

    3. I think the point you are missing is that the combined effect of CO2 and water vapour prevent those very low temps and the latter is vastly more significant as a greenhouse gas; the former trivial.

      Like

      1. That point is made multiple times, if not in this post, but others. CO2s black body temp is -80 degree C. It puts a floor in the temp of the Stratosphere. That can be seen in the MODTRAN outputs.

        Like

    1. 3:50 into the video he highlights the problem, H2O overlaps CO2’s absorption. In the realworld you never have CO2 and no H2O in the troposhpere…except Antarctica. Read “CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas, it has no dipole.”

      Like

    2. Unfortunately he forgets that most of the energy from the Earth’s surface is transmitted to the atmosphere via conduction, evaporation and convection. His analysis of the energy absorption of “greenhouse gases” is correct, but the atmosphere is not 33C warmer than otherwise because of the “greenhouse effect”. The Earth’s “temperature” (were there such a thing) is determined in a complex way by the “average temperature” at the outgoing radiation (ground plus atmosphere) and the adiabatic lapse rate.

      Like

      1. The 33K temperature difference between (a) the earth surface temperature in the presence of atmospheric greenhouse gases …and… (b) the earth surface temperature in the absence of atmospheric greenhouse gases comes from differencing two temperatures: (1) the measured average earth surface temperature (approximately 288K) and (2) a model temperature (255K) for an earth whose atmosphere is devoid of greenhouse gases. For this discussion, I accept the value of 288K for the measured average earth surface temperature. However, I believe the logic that leads to the 255K model temperature is fundamentally flawed because it uses an albedo value of 0.3 to compute the rate the earth absorbs solar energy and an albedo value of 0 to compute the rate the earth radiates energy to space. The flaw in the logic leading to the 33K temperature difference is that the 0.3 albedo value is, as I understand it, primarily a function of cloud cover; and if the earth’s atmosphere were devoid of water vapor (the primary greenhouse gas), there would be no cloud cover and the earth’s albedo would be closer to 0 than to 0.3. When computing the model temperature of the earth in the absence of atmospheric greenhouse gases, it is logically inconsistent to use an albedo value (0.3) that depends to a large degree on the presence of atmospheric greenhouse gases.

        Below is my understanding of the algorithm used to arrive at the 33K temperature difference. If I’m wrong and the methodology used to compute the 33K temperature difference (the 255K model temperature in the absence of atmospheric greenhouse gases) is nothing like the following, I’ll be happy to admit I’m in error. Not only that, I’ll learn something in the process.]

        (1) Solar energy from the sun is treated as radiation arriving from a black body spherical radiator having (a) the Sun’s approximate radius of 695,842,000 meters and (b) the Sun’s approximate surface temperature of 5,778K [http://www.bing.com/search?q=surface%20temperature%20of%20the%20sun&PQ=surface%20temperature%20of%20&SP=5&QS=AS&SK=AS4&sc=8-30&form=DLCBSS&pc=MDDC].

        (2) Using the values from (1), the radiated solar power density at a distance of 92,975,700 miles from the Sun (the approximate distance from the Sun to the Earth) is approximately 1,366.8 watts per square meter.

        (3) Treating the Earth as a sphere having a radius of 3,959 miles, the effective solar-energy-absorbing area of the Earth is approximately 1.275×10^(14) square meters.

        (4) From (2) and (3) above, the radiated solar power intercepted by an Earth-like sphere at an Earth-like distance from the Sun is approximately 1.743×10^(17) watts.

        (5) The Earth’s average albedo {i.e., the power ratio of (a) the electromagnetic radiation reflected by the Earth …to… (b) the electromagnetic radiation incident on the Earth is approximately 0.3 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo]}. The albedo of 0.3 is in large part due to atmospheric clouds [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo#Terrestrial_albedo].

        (6) From (4) and (5) the rate the Earth absorbs solar energy is approximately 1.220×10^(14) watts.

        (7) A spherical blackbody of radius 3,959 miles and temperature 253.5K will radiate energy at a rate of 1.220×10^(14) watts. Thus, if the Earth radiates like a blackbody (albedo of 0), the Earth surface temperature at which the rate the Earth absorbs solar energy will equal the rate the Earth radiates energy is 253.5K. Conclusion, 253.5K is the temperature of the Earth in the absence of atmospheric greenhouse gases. [Note: The cited article says the Earth surface temperature in the absence of atmospheric greenhouse gases is about 255K. The difference between 255K and 253.5K likely comes from using slightly different values for the various parameters: Sun radius, Sun surface temperature, distance from Earth-to-Sun, and Earth radius.] Using a temperature of 255K instead of 253.5K decreases the difference between the Earth’s measured temperature and the Earth’s temperature in the absence of greenhouse gases from 34.5K to 33K. I don’t take issue with this small difference of 1.5K. I do take issue with the method used to compute the 255K model temperature of the earth in the absence of atmospheric greenhouse gases.

        Specifically, Step (6) of the above methodology uses a value of 1.220×10^(14) watts for the rate the Earth absorbs solar energy. This rate is the product of (a) the rate (1.743×10^(17) watts) solar energy is incident at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere, and (b) 0.7 (i.e., 1 minus the Earth’s average albedo of 0.3). In Step (7), the temperature of the Earth in the absence of greenhouse gases is computed by finding the blackbody Earth surface temperature that equalizes the Earth’s input/output energy rates at 1.220×10^(14) watts. The problem with this approach is that in the absence of atmospheric greenhouse gases, the Earth absorbs solar radiation at a rate nearer 1.743×10^(17) watts than 1.220×10^(17) watts. The Earth surface temperature that balances an input/output energy rate of 1.743×10^(17) watts is approximately 277.2K, not 255K.

        The reason that in the absence of atmospheric greenhouse gases the Earth absorbs solar energy at a rate of 1.743×10^(17) watts is related to the Earth’s albedo. The measured albedo of 0.3 is in large part due to atmospheric clouds. Without clouds, the albedo would be closer to 0. Clouds are only present because water vapor exists in the atmosphere. Without water vapor, there would be no clouds. But water vapor is the principal greenhouse gas. Thus, in an atmosphere devoid of all greenhouse gases, there will be no atmospheric water vapor. In an atmosphere devoid of water vapor, there will be no atmospheric clouds. In an atmosphere devoid of clouds, the Earth’s average albedo will be approximately 0. For an albedo of 0, the “energy-rate-in equals energy-rate-out” surface temperature of the Earth is 277.2K, not 255K.

        Bottom line, to compute the value of the Earth’s surface temperature for an atmosphere devoid of greenhouse gases, I believe the commonly used methodology employs a critical parameter value (albedo of 0.3) that is appropriate for of an atmosphere containing significant amounts of water vapor (a greenhouse gas), but is inappropriate for an atmosphere devoid of greenhouse gases. If true, this is a fatal logic error. Thus, the claim that in the absence of greenhouse gases the Earth’s surface temperature would be 33K or so below the average measured temperature is at best misleading and at worst utter nonsense.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s