The final nail in the coffin of AGW comes from chemistry. The first two are in the previous post. (I am particularly partial to chemistry.) It lies in the term heat capacity and relative heat conductivity. (Gee, I love that kind of talk.)
Heat capacity is the amount of energy, or heat, that a body or substance can contain. The relative heat transfer rate is how fast the substance can move heat from itself to another body. Here is an example. Take two objects, one of iron and the other wood, Heat them in an oven for 10 minutes. Then pick up both pieces. Well, let's just imagine holding them.
Which will produce a more serious burn? Even without doing the experiment we know that the metal will produce a more severe injury. Metal holds more heat, pound for pound, than wood. And even though both were the same temperature, the iron will feel hotter and ultimately cause a worse burn due to the faster rate of heat transfer.
And now we find the real problem with AGW. Air has a much lower heat capacity than water. AGW, by the way, hinges on heat being trapped in the atmosphere by CO2 and then moving from the air into water to make the temperature of the oceans to increase. This increasing temperature will melt the ice caps, raise the mean temperature of the globe, and in general, make life on earth impossible. Extinction event!
We will discover that the basic link of air to water transfer seems to be in doubt. First, air cannot hold enough heat to increase the temperature of the water. Here are the details. (There are several references cited below for anyone who is interested.)
On a volume/volume basis, the ratio of heat capacities is about 3300 for water to 1 for air. This means that to heat 1 volume of water by 1°C it would take 3300 volumes of air that was 2°C hotter, or 1 volume of air that was about 3300°C (technically 3302 degrees) hotter or some combination of those numbers.
To complicate matters, we consider the amount of air compared to water on earth. Instead of doing the math, which you can read in the cited references, let's just summarize. The relative amounts of air heat capacity and water capacity means that to heat the entire ocean by one degree, the atmosphere would have to be between 3000 degrees and 4000 degrees hotter. The CO2 alarmists cannot propose a mechanism or method for the air to become so hot without destroying life on earth.
The problem is that the air has not increased in temperature to the extent that was expected by the CO2 concentration increments. Lacking that, we now have an alternative that the ocean is absorbing the heat and "storing" it for later, when it will unleash its havoc on the globe. Weak. It cannot heat the air higher than the ambient temperature at the air-water interface, in a "rebound" or delayed heat exchange.
One last impediment is that hot air does not transfer energy to water rapidly enough to cause the oceanic temperature gradients that are predicted. Here is another experiment. Heat a quart of water in the microwave until it boils. (100 Deg C) Then place it in an oven for 30 minutes and measure the temperature of the air and water.
Then heat the oven to 212 Deg F (100 C), turn off the oven, and place one quart of water into the oven. (Use the same containers for both experiments and the same oven to eliminate variables.) After 30 minutes measure the temperature of the air and water.
Even without doing the experiment, we know that the hot water in the oven will heat the air more than hot air will heat the water. What a bummer. "CO2-trapped" heat will not heat the oceans, even if we merely restrict our attention to the top 100 feet of water or so. We also know that warm water is lighter than cold air, so heating the top will not be an effective means of heating the entire body.
Even convection ovens prove the problem. Convection ovens do not use convection. Air must be forced to circulate in order to transfer heat to the cooler object. Oops, we hit another problem. When the ambient air temperature is lower than the water, no heat is transferred, down that is. In fact the cooler air is warmed by passing over the warmer water.
And a more pressing perplexing problem arises. When the supposedly warm air comes into contact with the cooler water, there will be some cooling of the air and concomitant warming of the water. And here our second "insurmountable" problem occurs. Warm water is less dense than cool water and thus it will not sink, but sit on top of the cooler water, acting as a bit of an insulator. (Some conductive heat transfer will occur, but that will exacerbate the problem because now there is a thicker layer of warm water between the warmth of the air and the cooler water.)
The same phenomenon will occur in reverse, in the air. When the air in contact with the water cools, it becomes more dense and the warmer air will continue to float on top of the cooler air, which is a pretty good insulator. The transmission of heat from air to water adds another impediment to the global warming scenario. The "science" of global warming seems to argue against this possibility rather than support it.
Science is certainly an inconvenient impediment to the proposed anthropomorphic global warming.
http://nov79.com/gbwm/htcap.html
https://scholarsandrogues.com/2013/05/09/csfe-heat-capacity-air-ocean/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/06/energy-content-the-heat-is-on-atmosphere-vs-ocean/
http://principia-scientific.org/chemistry-expert-carbon-dioxide-cant-cause-global-warming/http://
No comments:
Post a Comment