Global warming is caused by ozone depletion, not greenhouse gases

peterlward wrote:
Thinking of radiation as waves or particles or wave-particle duality is pervasive in physics and has a long rich history that I have researched in great detail. It also has problems. This is all very carefully laid out.

peterlward wrote:
When you heat matter, the bonds in matter oscillate as some frequency.

peterlward wrote:
The higher the temperature, the higher the frequency and the higher the amplitude.

peterlward wrote:
When the body reaches thermal equilibrium, the spectrum of these frequencies is shown by Planck's law.

peterlward wrote:
Motion of charge at these frequencies and amplitudes on the surface of matter, induces an electromagnetic field transmitting those frequencies and amplitudes. The frequencies propagate through space without change. The amplitudes radiate and therefore are decreased by 1 over the square of the distance traveled.

peterlward wrote:
Everything you see is frequency.

peterlward wrote:
Each molecule oscillates at some color.

peterlward wrote:
These oscillations travel through air to the rods and cones of your eyes where they cause resonant oscillations of certain cells.

peterlward wrote:
These cells send neurologic signals to your brain.

peterlward wrote:
This is what Einstein called spooky action at a distance: Oscillations over here cause oscillations over there with no physical thing seen between here and there.
This is quantum entanglement.

peterlward wrote:
What is traveling in between is frequency. It allows you to see.

peterlward wrote:
Your ear works much the same way.

http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/book/export/html/156


Hydrogen chloride released by volcanoes can cause drastic reductions in ozone if concentrations reach high levels (about 15-20 ppb by volume)(Prather and others, 1984). As the El Chichon eruption cloud was spreading, the amount of HCl in the cloud increased by 40% (Mankin and Coffey, 1984). This increase represents about 10% of the global inventory of HCl in the stratosphere. Other large eruptions (Tambora, Krakatau, and Agung) may have released almost ten-times more HCl into the stratosphere than the amount of chlorine commonly present in the stratosphere (Pinto and others, 1989). At least two factors reduce the impact of HCl, chlorine appears to be preferentially released during low-levels of volcanic activity and thus may be limited to the troposphere, where it can be scrubbed by rain. Hydrogen chloride may also condense in the rising volcanic plume, again to be scrubbed out by rain or ice. Lack of HCl in ice cores with high amounts of H2SO4 (from large eruptions) may indicate ambient stratospheric conditions are extremely efficient at removing HCl. Thus, most HCl never has the opportunity to react with ozone. No increase in stratospheric chlorine was observed during the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo.

peterlward wrote:
Yes but it is the oscillations of the acoustic signal that induces oscillation in the cilia of your ear. The frequencies are much lower and the receivers are much larger, being hairs while the receivers in your eye are cells. It is the frequency that is being sensed, not the wavelength. I explain this in the lecture.

peterlward wrote:
You say it [the stimulation of the retina by visible light] is not quantum entanglement. it is exactly what the mathematics of quantum entanglement id trying to understand.

Wikipedia - Quantum Entanglement

Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently—instead, a quantum state may be given for the system as a whole.
Measurements of physical properties such as position, momentum, spin, polarization, etc. performed on entangled particles are found to be appropriately correlated. For example, if a pair of particles is generated in such a way that their total spin is known to be zero, and one particle is found to have clockwise spin on a certain axis, then the spin of the other particle, measured on the same axis, will be found to be counterclockwise. Because of the nature of quantum measurement, however, this behavior gives rise to effects that can appear paradoxical: any measurement of a property of a particle can be seen as acting on that particle (e.g. by collapsing a number of superimposed states); and in the case of entangled particles, such action must be on the entangled system as a whole. It thus appears that one particle of an entangled pair "knows" what measurement has been performed on the other, and with what outcome, even though there is no known means for such information to be communicated between the particles, which at the time of measurement may be separated by arbitrarily large distances.

Wikipedia - Photoreceptor cells

A photoreceptor cell is a specialized type of neuron found in the retina that is capable of phototransduction. The great biological importance of photoreceptors is that they convert light (visible electromagnetic radiation) into signals that can stimulate biological processes. To be more specific, photoreceptor proteins in the cell absorb photons, triggering a change in the cell's membrane potential.
The two classic photoreceptor cells are rods and cones, each contributing information used by the visual system to form a representation of the visual world, sight. The rods are narrower than the cones and distributed differently across the retina, but the chemical process in each that supports phototransduction is similar.[1] A third class of photoreceptor cells was discovered during the 1990s:[2] the photosensitive ganglion cells. These cells do not contribute to sight directly, but are thought to support circadian rhythms and pupillary reflex.

peterlward wrote:
You seem to assume that if I disagree with the commonly accepted understandings I am de facto wrong.

peterlward wrote:
But you are not willing to look at the details and think about them.

peterlward wrote:
Good science is not done by opinion and belief although both have a big role in what a person decides to think about.

peterlward wrote:
There are drops in ozone, increases in depletion, following most eruptions. Pinatubo was the largest eruption since 1912 and the major drop in ozone concentrations after Pinatubo was noted by many authors at the time including Gleason et al., 1993.

The lack of physical connection is between the molecule you are looking at and the rods and cones in your eyes. We do not see light in transit. We only see the source. The rods and cones sense frequency.

Wikipedia - Quantum Entanglement

Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently—instead, a quantum state may be given for the system as a whole.
Measurements of physical properties such as position, momentum, spin, polarization, etc. performed on entangled particles are found to be appropriately correlated. For example, if a pair of particles is generated in such a way that their total spin is known to be zero, and one particle is found to have clockwise spin on a certain axis, then the spin of the other particle, measured on the same axis, will be found to be counterclockwise. Because of the nature of quantum measurement, however, this behavior gives rise to effects that can appear paradoxical: any measurement of a property of a particle can be seen as acting on that particle (e.g. by collapsing a number of superimposed states); and in the case of entangled particles, such action must be on the entangled system as a whole. It thus appears that one particle of an entangled pair "knows" what measurement has been performed on the other, and with what outcome, even though there is no known means for such information to be communicated between the particles, which at the time of measurement may be separated by arbitrarily large distances.

At moderate latitudes the stratosphere is situated between about 10–13 km (33,000–43,000 ft; 6.2–8.1 mi) and 50 km (160,000 ft; 31 mi) altitude above the surface, while at the poles it starts at about 8 km (26,000 ft; 5.0 mi) altitude, and near the equator it may start at altitudes as high as 18 km (59,000 ft; 11 mi).

The ozone layer or ozone shield refers to a region of Earth's stratosphere that absorbs most of the Sun's UV radiation. It contains high concentrations of ozone (O3) relative to other parts of the atmosphere, although it is still very small relative to other gases in the stratosphere. The ozone layer contains less than ten parts per million of ozone, while the average ozone concentration in Earth's atmosphere as a whole is only about 0.3 parts per million. The ozone layer is mainly found in the lower portion of the stratosphere, from approximately 20 to 30 kilometres (12 to 19 mi) above Earth, though the thickness varies seasonally and geographically.[1]

peterlward wrote:
The warming in 1991-1992 is caused by ozone depletion and has nothing to do with SO2 and the aerosols except that the full effect of the aerosols was probably not in force by Jan 1992. The aerosols take months to form and spread, not years.

peterlward wrote:
Spectroscopy in the late 1800s was incredibly advanced.

peterlward wrote:
The experimental work reported by Samuel Pierpont Langley and many others was thorough and meticulous.

peterlward wrote:
Part of the problem today, is that this kind of careful experimental work has not been done for a long time.

peterlward wrote:
The Ångström-Koch experiment was straight-forward but not documented in much detail.

peterlward wrote:
It is a very sad event for science that this type of straight-forward measurement has not been done more recently.

peterlward wrote:
I can predict quite confidently that this experiment would show the same results if done today.

Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius's calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid. A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, another scientist in Sweden, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption — that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little difference.(7*)

Still more persuasive was the fact that water vapor, which is far more abundant in the air than carbon dioxide, also intercepts infrared radiation. In the crude spectrographs of the time, the smeared-out bands of the two gases entirely overlapped one another. More CO2 could not affect radiation in bands of the spectrum that water vapor, as well as CO2 itself, were already blocking entirely.(8)

These measurements and arguments had fatal flaws. Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that the absorption had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure, but a modern calculation shows that the absorption would have decreased about 1% — like many a researcher, the assistant was over confident about his degree of precision.(9*) But even if he had seen the 1% shift, Ångström would have thought this an insignificant perturbation. He failed to understand that the logic of the experiment was altogether false.

7) Ångström, Knut (1900). "Über die Bedeutung des Wasserdampfes und der Kohlensaüres bei der Absorption der Erdatmosphäre." Annalen der Physik 4(3): 720-32. published online 308(12): 720-32 (2006) [doi: 10.1002/andp.19003081208]

8) Ångström, Knut (1900). pp 731-732, Abbot, Charles G., and F.E. Fowle, Jr. (1908). "Income and Outgo of Heat from the Earth, and the Dependence of Its Temperature Thereon." Annals of the Astrophysical Observatory (Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC) 2: 159-176,333-75. Weber, Louis Russell, and H.M. Randall (1932). "The Absorption Spectrum of Water Vapor Beyond 10." Physical Review 40: 835-47.

9) Koch had only a thermocouple to measure heat across the entire infrared spectrum. He accurately reported that about 10% of the radiation from a 100°C black body was absorbed in his tube, and that at lower pressure at most 9.6% was absorbed, whereas in fact it must have been about 9%. For the modern calculation I thank Raymond T. Pierrehumbert.

peterlward wrote:
While spectral physicists at the time had not detailed the spectral lines of CO2 and H2O that we know today, their results do not depend on this. They simply measured the temperature change or lack of temperature change. And the change was minimal.

peterlward wrote:
You then launch into a whole lot of rationalization that has been published by many. Ångström's work has not been refuted.

peterlward wrote:
I do not have to rely on Angstroms work but I note that it is the only direct attempt to measure temperature change in the atmosphere due to CO2.

peterlward wrote:
As I explain later in the video, the radiation absorbed by CO2 increases the internal energy of the CO2 molecules. Getting from that to increased temperature of a gas is a very inefficient process.

peterlward wrote:
Based on this and other physics that I explain, I can predict quite confidently that this experiment done today would show that the temperature of the gas will not be increased much. Do the experiment. Prove me wrong.

peterlward wrote:
As for critical questions, these have not been evaluated in detail with regard to climate change and more particularly greenhouse gases, which is the context of this slide.

peterlward wrote:
I have been told by some good climatologists that they know of nobody who has looked at these questions in the detail I have. If you know some work and can give me references, I would be happy to modify my statements. Again, the context is greenhouse gases, not general physics or chemistry.

peterlward wrote:
As for the depiction of Planck's law, frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength, so you have it backwards.

peterlward wrote:
Secondly the scales are normally logarithmic for good reason. I show the frequency and wavelength scales on most of my plots quite intentionally and I have converted most to have frequency increase on the X-axis so that the high-energy is to the right.

peterlward wrote:
It is the high energy that gets absorbed in the atmosphere. It is also frequency that we measure, not wavelength.

peterlward wrote:
Wavelength is determined mathematically.

peterlward wrote:
I show on the website many different plots of Planck's law actually calculated from the law itself for different purposes.

It is abundantly clear from plots of Planck's law, that a hotter body radiates more spectral radiance at each frequency and that the frequency of the peak spectral radiance is higher frequency. If you do not see and understand this from the plots, you need to study them more carefully. It is fundamental to thermodynamics that heat flows from hot to cold.

peterlward wrote:
Heat does not flow between two bodies at the same temperature (First law of thermodynamics).

peterlward wrote:
If you put on lots of sweaters or coats, you will lose heat more slowly and you will feel hotter, but your body temperature of 98.6 will not increase unless new thermal energy is added to the system.

peterlward wrote:
A body cannot warm itself. If you do not believe this, you need to study some thermodynamics.

peterlward wrote:
The reason most scientists think CO2 warms the air is that the radiation codes used in all models and calculations assume that heat, power, watts per square meter are functions of amplitude and in effect bandwidth and they overestimate the importance of absorption of greenhouse gases.

peterlward wrote:
For radiation in space, thermal energy is frequency times the Planck constant. Once you understand this, it is physically impossible for greenhouse gases to have much effect warming Earth compared to ozone depletion. And once you understand this, you find that all observations of global warming begin to make much more sense.

peterlward wrote:
I am currently working on a short paper on "The physics of global warming" that explains the physics succinctly. It is quite clear. I am also refreshing my understanding of thermodynamics with an excellent course by Jeff Grossman at MIT (The Great Courses; Thermodynamics: Four laws that move the universe. I highly recommend it.

peterlward wrote:
You need to put more energy into understanding the physics than writing scornful posts that are quite uninformed and do not reflect well on you.

peterlward wrote:
You say "molecules that have absorbed photons, emit photons." That is absolutely untrue although it is widely assumed. Molecules of CO2 in the mid-infrared do not emit energy because electronic transitions do not occur at these energy levels. Furthermore a molecule of CO2 has little thermal mass, is not a black body, and the energy absorbed is a very small amount of the energy contained in the radiation field.

peterlward wrote:
Look, this kind of very unprofessional mindless dribble is wasting my time and the time of any of the few people who are still following this thread. If you want to have any positive effect on Climate Debate, you need to do due diligence. You need to read, understand, and think carefully about the Science before shooting your mouth off. I have laid out my understanding of the Science very carefully in many different ways and levels of detail, most of which you refuse to read. If your comments are to be of any value to anyone, you need to become informed and to think them through and then explain rationally why you think things are different. I cannot hold your hand at every step of your very reluctant discovery process. You need to have an open mind and to do the work to justify your conclusions. That is how Science works.

I go to great length to explain and illustrate the fact that explosive volcanoes deplete ozone causing short-term warming but as the sulfuric-acid aerosols form and grow large enough to reflect and scatter sunlight, they cause a NET cooling. Robock's data documents the warming quite clearly in late 1991 and early 1992 in northern winter. Ozone depletion is greatest during polar winter partly because that is when the total ozone column is greatest.

peterlward wrote:

My PhD was first and foremost in seismology and I understand seismic and acoustic waves in rich detail. But waves are a property of solid matter and compressed fluids and they cannot occur in space. This is explained in the video and in the text. Can you prove otherwise? Many scientists tried for many decades and have not been successful. We have lots of mathematics that describes waves in space, but we do not observe waves in space.