ChE Models Earth’s Temperature Response to Fuel Combustion

Written by Pierre R Latour, PhD Chemical Engineer

Internationally renowned Chemical Engineer, Pierre R Latour, details why government academics have failed to successfully model the planet’s climate.  Showing precisely where climate scientists have ignored specialists from industry, Latour herein expertly signposts the way to a better understanding of that complex atmospheric thermostat.

Situation. Climatologists, astrophysicists and UN IPCC scientists have taken a piecemeal approach1, 2, 3 to forecasting sensitivity of temperatures to CO2, emphasizing data correlations (that cannot prove causality), radiation absent radiant energy transfer laws, ad hoc atmospheric feedbacks, and the simplifying black body radiator assumption, emissivity = 1. So far they estimate global warming, 0.5C < CS < 2.2C, where CS is temperature change for a doubling of CO2 from current 400 to 800 ppmv. The consensus is CS < 0 is impossible, without proof.

Engineering approach. Here is how chemical process control systems engineers model a chemical process to determine the effect of CO2 on Earth’s temperatures. This is needed to design a temperature controller, thermostat, for any system.

Simplify complex three-dimensional system of Navier-Stokes partial differential equations which is known to be difficult to solve4, with a uniform, well-mixed (lumped-parameter) system.

Start with instantaneous mass and energy conservation laws for atmosphere and surface; four equations.

Rate of accumulation in system + output rate = input rate

These four coupled ordinary differential equations give the relationship and response of T and [CO2] for atmosphere and surface to any change in specified inputs or forcing functions: solar, volcanoes, combustion, de-forestation, clouds. S(t), V(t), C(t), DF(t). Inputs may be any functions of time, like step, ramp, sine, exponential, impulse or actual.

MCp dT/dt + sum energy outputs = sum energy inputs, watts

V d[CO2]/dt + sum CO2 outputs = sum CO2 inputs, moles/sec

Include energy, mass and chemical transport rate laws: radiation, convection, fluid flow, diffusion, reaction kinetics, electricity, gravity. Most of these are known. The system is nonlinear. Chemical process control system engineers developed commercial methods for controlling dynamic multivariable systems like this in 1980’s.

Rate Laws. Rate laws for flow of matter and energy take the form of a driving force = potential difference: pressure for fluid flow, temperature for thermal heat by conduction and convection, composition for chemical species, voltage for electric current, intensity for radiant energy transfer.

Rate of radiant energy transfer from point 2 to 1 is I2 – I1 > 0, where intensity of radiation is given by S-B Law I2 = 5.67 ε (T2/100)4, T is radiator temperature, K, e is emissivity, 0 < ε < 1 and I2 is intensity, w/m2.

Photosynthesis reaction in presence of plant chlorophyll is CO2 + H2O = O2 + starch, cellulose and sugars.

Rate of photosynthesis reaction consumption of atmospheric CO2 by plants with chlorophyll, moles CO2 consumed/day, is K A [CO2] [H2O] I exp(-E/RT)

[CO2] is concentration of CO2 in air, mol CO2/mol air, 0.000400

[H2O] is concentration of H2O in air, humidity, moles H2O/mol air, 0.02

I is solar radiation intensity, avg 160 w/m2

T = leaf temperature, deg K, 273 + 25

E is Arrhenius activation energy, cal/g mol, known since 1928

R is ideal gas constant, 1.987 cal/g mol – K

A is leaf area, m2, hard to estimate for jungles and oceanic phytoplankton

K is specific reaction rate constant, moles/joule * 60*60*24 sec/day, known since 1928

This says the rate is linearly proportional to molar concentrations of CO2, H2O, sunlight intensity and increases nonlinearly with T. This equation links the atmosphere’s energy and CO2 mass balances with the surface, they interact nonlinearly.

So as either of these four factors increases, the rate of their consumption increases, tending to reduce each of them until consumption equals production and new steady state is reached. This is a natural negative feedback stabilizing mechanism on the atmosphere’s CO2, moisture content and temperature. It indirectly reduces the radiation emissivity and radiation rate from Earth’s surface while increasing its absorptivity. The amount of cooling by photosynthesis increases with global warming T and [CO2]. Of course rate does increase A, which increases rate, another, slower, positive feedback mechanism that is limited by other factors, like flora density, land area and deforestation.

The GHGT is based incorrectly on radiation energy transfer rates alone4, ignoring cooling effects like photosynthesis.

Physical properties. Assign appropriate physical properties, rate constants and any empirical constant coefficients. Emissivity of gas mixtures is difficult because it depends on composition, pressure, density and temperature and atmosphere is not homogenous with altitude, due to gravity gradient.

Solutions. These equations can be easily solved by numerical integration, giving responses Ta(t), Ts(t), [CO2]a(t) and [CO2]s(t) for specified inputs. But system engineers can learn much about the responses and how the interacting system works without numerical solutions by examining the rates.

First normalize the equations to standard mathematical form

τa1 dTa/dt  + Ta + f1(Ta) = sum F1 in, F’s are independent of Ta.

Four τ parameters are time constants, residence times or approximately linear first order lag times (to reach 1 – 1/e = 0.632 of final value).

Physically they are inventory/throughput rate or residence time. They depend on size of system and reciprocal rates out. (Big systems with small rates have large τ.) Energy time constant for atmosphere circulation is about 5 years1 (Salby) and for surface, mostly ocean circulation, about 800 – 1000 years. For CO2 they are about the same. The coupled system lag of CO2 to T from 420,000 year data set5 is measured to be about 800 years. (Long term CO2 depends on ocean T, T does not depend on CO2.)

Analysis. Consider increasing anthropogenic CO2 from fossil fuel combustion. It is actually ramping up since 1900 about 21 ppmv/decade1 with sine wave amplitude 6 ppmv superimposed by annual variations in flora consumption of CO2 by photosynthesis. Salby1 recently showed about 30% of the rise is anthropogenic; the rest is natural, naturally.

To study how this system works, assume a sudden step change in combustion and CO2 input and follow the transient and final steady-state response. The steady-state solution can be computed directly by setting derivatives to zero and solving the four coupled algebraic equations.

Studying the coupled system, we can discern a simplified description of how it works. As CO2 increases, atmosphere and hence global emissivity immediately increases, decreasing atmosphere’s radiating Ta by S-B Law and surface Ts because some solar is absorbed by CO2 at 2-3 and 4-5 microns and re-radiated to space. Photosynthesis consumes CO2, sunlight and water, cooling surface that emits less intensely. CO2 diffuses to ocean at slow rate because its partial pressure increased and mass transfer coefficient across vapor liquid interfaces is small. CO2 remains in liquid phase because solubility of CO2 in water decreases with T.

The system is stable and reaches a new equilibrium steady-state point after the increased CO2 input, with only slightly more CO2 in atmosphere and ocean, and slightly lower T’s.

The dominate mechanisms as CO2 input increases follow.

1. Atmospheric [CO2] steps up, say 100 ppm, from 400 to 500.
2. Short term (5 years) atmosphere absorptivity and emissivity increases, atmospheric radiating T drops by S-B Law.
3. Ocean surface CO2 partial pressure increases, mass transfer driving force = partial pressure P[CO2] – Henry Law vapor pressure, vp (or fugacity) increases, CO2 diffuses into solution, [CO2] and emissivity drops a bit, T increases a bit by S-B Law. This is a significant stabilizing feedback mechanism counteracting the postulated [CO2] increase.
4. Photosynthesis rate increases with [CO2] & T, so [CO2] drops another bit, T increases another bit. Another stabilizing feedback mechanism.
5. New steady state [CO2] < +100 input, T decrease very small.
6. Longer term (800 years) ocean T drop is small. Solubility increases and vp decreases, driving force to solution increases again, ocean CO2 content increases, CO2 is withdrawn from atmosphere, [CO2] drops a bit further at very slow rate, almost to starting point. T increases another bit by S-B Law, almost to starting point.
7. Steady-state gain or sensitivity ΔT/Δ[CO2] is the final net of these – and + rates.  Likely ΔT/Δ[CO2] < 0 is vanishingly small. This value depends on the parameters of numerous rate laws, important ones were mentioned.
8. Step [CO2] down, say -100 ppm and the same mechanism works to give a similar small result; it will not be exactly the same as +100 ppm because the rate laws are nonlinear.

Such a vanishingly small process gain or sensitivity, whether >0 or <0, calls for a powerful manipulated input variable with wide range to counteract unwanted deviations from any desired controller setpoint target for Earth’s T (which human institutions lack the knowhow to set properly even if they could) in the face of uncontrollable and unmeasurable input disturbances. Since fossil fuel combustion accounts for only 30% of [CO2] increase, no such human adjustable manipulated variable exists. Should the gain switch from – to + unknowingly, the negative feedback controller becomes positive and unstable until its sign is switched to negative feedback again.

This is the basis of my 1997 proof this system in unmeasurable, unobservable and uncontrollable, hence a human managed thermostat for Earth will never work, thank God. Yet government scientist and UN IPCC continue to waste \$1 billion/day of humanity’s treasure trying to do the impossible since 1990, building that thermostat, with a greenhouse gas theory that constituted a perpetual motion, energy creating, global warming machine. Pure nonsense. Greatest fraud of all time.

Thermodynamics. Some GHGT promoters claim radiation is not subject to the second law of thermodynamics. They are wrong.

The energy of the radiation which is at equilibrium within an enclosure depends only on the volume and the wall temperature T. It is known also that the pressure of the radiation is equal to one-third of the energy per unit volume. The energy u and entropy s per unit volume of the radiation are given by u = α T4 and s = (4/3) α T3, where α is a constant.” 6

Second Law says entropy S = dQrev/T of an adiabatic/closed system cannot decrease. Second law applies to radiation, mass transfer by diffusion of chemical species6. It applies to GHGT as well7. I proved7 GHGT back-radiation heat transfer from cold CO2 to warmer surface violates Second Law of Thermodynamics and leads to energy creation, a violation of First Law of Thermodynamics and an impossible perpetual motion machine to drive global warming in perpetuity. Which is why I am a GHGT skeptic, denier and cynic. GHGT promoters threaten me and call me terrible names.

Chemical engineers apply the laws of thermodynamics, chemistry, physics and biology to commercialize chemical products and build process plants to manufacture them. It borders on the bizarre that they are barred from offering their services to academic meteorologists and politicians struggling since 1990 to model Earth’s atmosphere for the purpose of building a thermostat, which engineers have proven to be impossible and hence uneconomic.

Conclusion. The chemical process control engineering modeling approach is given, revealing the mechanism involved for CO2’s effect on T. While the system is complex, many qualitative characteristics can be discerned. The net long term effect is vanishingly small, in the neighborhood of zero. If anything, it is probably on the cooling side. The system has strong natural feedback mechanisms; it is very stable.

Studying pieces of the system alone, like radiation, energy flows, photosynthesis, ocean capture cannot give the complete model or valid results. Statistical fitting of historic data to empirical computer models are provably known to have no predictive capability. Even using data to validate or invalidate hunches or assumptions is not possible unless all inputs are considered. That effort for this system is worthless.

Acknowledgments

Prof Tim Ball provided valuable insights and comments. Lord Christopher Monckton provided a critical peer-review of reference 3.

References

1. Salby, Murry, “Physics of Atmosphere & Climate”, 2012 and talk, “Control of Atmospheric CO2”, London, 17Mar2015, published 24Jun2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCya4LilBZ8#t=56
2. Monckton, Christopher, “I Only Ask Because I Want to Know”, WUWT, 27Jun2015. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/27/i-only-ask-because-i-want-to-know/   (Latour blog at 1152, 27Jun2015)
3. Latour, Pierre R, “Professor Singer Finds CO2 Has Little Effect on Global Temperature V2”, PSI, 21May2015. http://www.principia-scientific.org/professor-singer-finds-co2-has-little-affect-global-temperature-v2.html
4. Gerhard Gerlich & Ralf Tscheuschner, “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics V4”, Int.J.Mod.Phys.B23:275-364, 6Jan2009.  http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
5. Gore, Al, “Inconvenient Truth”, Apr2007.

http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Crisis-Global Warming/dp/0670062723/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1435690354&sr=8-1&keywords=Al+Gore%2C+Inconvenient+Truth

1. Denbigh, Kenneth, “The Principles of Chemical Equilibrium”, Cambridge U Press, 1961, pg 105.

Latour, Pierre R, “No Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still”, PSI, 20Nov2013. http://www.principia-scientific.org/no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still.html

• Retired Physics Educator

|

Several comments that contained sound science have been deleted above.

The greatest single problem I found among my physics students was the propensity to use formulas, equations and laws of physics without understanding the prerequisites needed for these to be applicable.

For example, Dr Latour (not being qualified in physics as I can detect) quotes an expression for entropy which very clearly ignores the fact that (and I quote from [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_potential]here[/url]) “certain forces, such as gravity, are typically disregarded” and this was explained to him in one of the deleted comments. The linked website (which is [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]here[/url]) explains the significance of this in the climate debate and I recommend reading such.

[b]Gravity does act upon air molecules in our atmosphere and, with a correct understanding of the entropy maximization implied by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it can indeed be understood how thermal energy is transferred downwards by diffusion and convective heat transfer to warmer regions, because in that process entropy can increase.[/b]

There is no violation of the Second Law, which is all about entropy maximization, not heat transfer supposedly only from warmer to cooler regions. That is not always the case in a force field, as modern experiments with centrifugal force have clearly demonstrated.

It is not back radiation which supplies the thermal energy required to raise Earth’s surface to observed temperatures: it is the above-mentioned downward diffusion and convective heat transfer (by molecular collisions) which does so.

[b]This is a major breakthrough in our understanding of surface temperatures.
[/b]

• Daniel Marks

|

Apologizing for implying that youth is related to naivety, I am trying to point out that each of you are trying to model a system of non-linear relationships using digital (that is, discrete) methods. While you are differing between you as to who is using the more robust systems of equations, or the more relevant correlations and causations, you all seem to agree that the modeling method itself has not yet resolved all the problems encountered.
When I offered that your youth’s perspective might be adversely influencing your approach, it is from my perspective of having modeled fluid flows for the Air Force Logistics Command at Wright-Patterson in 1965 through 1967. We used FORTRAN 2d and we were just upgrading to FORTRAN IV back then. When I completed my work in Aerospace Engineering at the University of Cincinnati, there was word that the newest and greatest software just arrived, called FORTRAN V. But, before our work with the then-latest IBM equipment, two 7044s direct-coupled as front-end loaders to two 7094s, the parameters of high-speed high altitude flight were modeled using analog computers.
I digress. What we were doing was linear and finite compared to what you guys are doing. You are not only trying to model non-linear relationships, but also those having inputs affected by the related equations’ outputs. Your problem is more analogous to the N-body problem of orbital mechanics. No easy solution; and using digital equations, most likely impossible to solve.
Compare the digital with the analog methods, much like comparing an abacus with a slide rule.
With your digital technology, you quibble over the accuracy, or relative accuracy, of the input variables and outputs. And it is found that the outputs are disproportionately affected by the initial conditions.
But, using analog methods, one can immediately answer two important questions: first, is the solution within the correct order of magnitude, and second, does the output move in the expected direction given a change in input?
Recall, a slide rule may not give you the exact answer, but it does immediately tell you a relevant answer and whether or not the model is tending toward a predictable solution at any time in the process.
All these differences being argued as to exactly how hot is the air at how high an altitude, or how high is the sea, or how much ice has that glacier, or what is the concentration of certain gases . . . all of these are analog values that are being converted to digital in order to model an analog system using digital methods. Maybe the older method is the truer method. Is there any one of you old enough to produce a breadboard, use an operational amplifier to multiply, or even to use a slide rule? Although I cannot say that I am the authority on the climate topic nor its best resolution, I can say that if analog modeling has not been tried, maybe it should be.

• Daniel Marks

|

Squid,

I like your style. That site did have the very thing:
Crystal Globe (M)
Item# CO38080
Regular price: \$49.95
Sale price: \$39.96
It has the global etched on the inside somehow.
Tell me, please, has the “2112” any connection to the Rush album?
That is their finest, in my opinion.

• Squid2112

|

[quote]Tell me, please, has the “2112” any connection to the Rush album?[/quote]
[b]Indeed sir[/b]

• Squid2112

|

I also have a particular fondness for “A Farewell To Kings” and “Caress Of Steel”, some of their finest work.

• Doug

|

Daniel

“Fluid flows” have nothing to do with the temperature gradient (aka lapse rate) in a planet’s troposphere, so forget models which rely on such, because they ignore the effect of gravity upon entropy. And if you don’t understand why consideration of entropy is so vitally important in this whole debate, then you know where I have suggested you start reading [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]here[/url] on my latest climate website which has been visited by over 10,000 this year, or my [url=http://www.amazon.com/Why-Its-Carbon-Dioxide-After/dp/1478729228]book[/url].

• Daniel Marks

|

To Greg House, et. al.,
The weather patterns that repeat over the course of time and across the zones of a given planet could be considered to be that planet’s global climate. Of course, the modeling of said systems need to consider that equatorial parameters are distinguished from polar parameters, just as the substances that comprise Venus’s atmosphere differ from Mars’s or Earth’s.
But, no one has yet addressed the potential of the analog computer. Herein lies the beauty, if you will: since each planet’s system has essentially equilibrated to a steady state solution, within its own parameters, a rational mind has to conclude that there are feedback mechanisms in play. If the feedback mechanisms are modeled along with the system input parameters and substance values, then it will not matter if our initial conditions are wrong – the models may approach their long-term solution by various paths, but, if the models are valid, they will evolve to the correct solutions for each set of conditions that are on-going – regardless of the path taken from the initial conditions. That is the nature of feedback loops.
I suspect that the discussion being undertaken in this web log is by a younger set of people, youths unfamiliar with analog technology. It is gratifying, at least, that the discussion is in whole sentences instead of texting crutches and name-calling. My hat is off to each of you for that.

• Squid2112

|

Daniel,
[quote]I suspect that the discussion being undertaken in this web log is by a younger set of people…[/quote]
Might want to rethink that, this coming from a Computer Scientist / Software Engineer of more than 30 years in the field. Most here are similar.

• Doug

|

Daniel

I turn 70 this year – so that’s about 50 years’ experience with physics education – how old are you?

If by “a rational mind has to conclude that there are feedback mechanisms in play” you are implying that radiation from the atmosphere is what maintains a planet’s surface temperature, helping the Sun to raise that temperature well beyond the level that Stefan Boltzmann calculations yield for the insolation, then I disagree for the reasons [url=http://whyitsnotco2.com]here[/url]. If you think that any models built upon the false assumption that radiation can be used to explain a planet’s surface temperature are likely to yield realistic results, think again: consider the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus, for example, where it’s hotter than Earth’s surface but no direct solar radiation is involved.

• Doug

|

Where you are mistaken, Pierre, is in your cited equation for entropy.

[b]The equation you quote
entropy S = dQrev/T
is not correct in regard to molecular motion and heat (kinetic energy) transfer in a vertical plane in a gravitational field.[/b]

That is why you need to study my paper [i]”Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures”[/i] which you assertively claimed was incorrect without any detailed explanation or right of reply. As a result, PSI threw out the baby with the bath water. Big mistake!

• Pierre Latour

|

Doug,
The equation I gave from a reputable source was used to prove radiation is subject to Second Law of Thermodynamics, which you promote ad nausea.

I have corrected this logical faux pas habit of yours many times.

You just push stuff that is well known for > 50 years, as your great intellectual discovery. Telling me my not reading it is a big mistake, is a big mistake.

Freedom of speech allows you to repeat yourself. Which you are fond of doing. I am free to not read it.

• Doug

|

Pierre

Yes, the equation is correct if radiation is the only heat transfer process involved, which is not the case in a planet’s troposphere.

If you had studied my [url=http://whyitsnotco2.com]website[/url] and linked 2013 paper you would have realized that the effect of gravity on entropy (due to the variation of molecular gravitational potential energy) is overwhelmingly relevant to the issue regarding energy supply to a planet’s surface. For non-radiative heat transfer your “reputable source” is only relevant in a horizontal plane in a gravitational field, just as the Claudius statement is also only strictly correct in a horizontal plane for exactly the same reason, namely that entropy is not just a function of the kinetic energy of molecules but also the gravitational potential energy.

I don’t think I can make it much clearer than that, Pierre, in a short comment like this. That is why I recommend that you make a serious study of my material before you put your foot in it again and try to accuse me of publishing incorrect physics or stuff that has been known for 50 years. This just proves to me that you have no knowledge of what is in my paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” that you supposedly read two years ago. Did you even notice the word “Core” in the title?

The physics I have published is correct and no doubt well beyond the scope of a course in Chemical Engineering done many years ago. Furthermore, it is not at all “well known” – let alone for 50 years.

• Doug

|

[b]\$5,000 REWARD[/b]

This reward still remains unclaimed, despite 10,000 visitors to my website launched in January this year.

To claim it you need to present correct alternative physics that explains (as I do) how the required thermal energy gets into planetary surfaces in order to raise the temperature on the sunlit side, and to produce a study with methodology similar to mine but showing the opposite result for water vapor, and also a centrifugal force experiment contrary to the one in which “heat creep” was proven to occur.

http://whyitsnotco2.com

• Daniel Marks

|

I suggest to the various readers who are contributing to this discussion a different idea, different from those of which I am so far familiar. The task of modeling global climate presents insurmountable barriers in the non-linear differentials equations; the various solids/liquids/gasses and particulates; the interfaces between the latter; the medium itself – a rotating, spherical, tilted, object with solar radiation impinging upon one side; etc., etc. . .
May I suggest the feasibility of a model in this simpler manner, using analogue computer breadboards and feedback loops, rather than digital equations trying to numerically analyze step functions or whatever simplifying assumptions are being used today?
If we could do this using analogue technology rather than digital, getting readouts via graphs or oscilloscopes, on a smaller scale, could we not get results that might prove usable with an enlargement-to-scale via similitude vehicles, as is done with Reynolds number analogies for wind tunnel testing of scale models when applied to real prototype aircraft in the atmosphere?
My thought is that using analogue computers, we do not need to “solve” the non-linear differential equations. We only need to put them into circuits that behave in like manner. And, obviously, there is no one answer – there is the continuum of output that should mirror the model world, within and wherever the scaled currents find their flow.
Any ideas here?

• Doug

|

Daniel. It’s all about determining what temperature a planet’s surface should be expected to be and whether such temperatures should be expected (by valid physics) to rise or fall as percentages of water vapor and other gases vary. Until you and others understand that such surface temperatures are not determined by radiation, you are thinking within an incorrect paradigm that has been inflicted upon the world by the likes of James Hansen and his mates with incorrect understanding of radiation and thermodynamics.

Do you understand why increasing water vapor leads to lower surface temperatures?

Do you understand why the temperatures at the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus are hotter than Earth’s surface?

It’s all to be found at …
[url]http://climate-change-theory.com[/url]

• Greg House

|

[quote name=”Daniel Marks”]The task of modeling global climate presents insurmountable barriers in the non-linear differentials equations;[/quote]

I am afraid there is no such a thing as global climate. There are climate zones. Different climate zones. Putting “average temperatures” of different climate zones together does not make any practical sense at all. “Greenhouse effect” does not exist. “Global temperature” is nonsense. All that was clear before the climate science went political, so the climate science as such has never made sense, I am afraid. Not to mix up with working on improvement of weather forecasts, this is indeed an important task.

• Squid2112

|

I could hardly agree with you more Greg. Modeling such systems, in my view, simply is not possible to any valuable accuracy. Certainly not at our current state of technology, and doubtful any time soon (hundreds of years).

• Pierre Latour

|

Doug,

I did not say that. Leonard Weinstein did.

I don’t believe it either. And told Weinstein so, above.

I just said radiation doesn’t explain everything and you accuse me of the opposite.

You need to read more carefully to avoid spouting obvious falsehoods. Looks bad.

You seem to have a vendetta against people who happen to post on PSI, an unreasonable prejudice.

You forgot I agreed with some of your conclusions. I recently sent you a private email on it.

• Doug

|

[b]Pierre, Leonard (and others):[/b]

[b]In fact all PSI members and just about everyone involved in debating the physics of planetary tropospheres needs to think outside the square.[/b]

You see, as I have explained in the above comments, we simply [b][i]cannot[/i][/b] explain a planet’s surface temperature with radiation calculations, and nor can we quantify the net transfer of thermal energy by non-radiative processes into or out of the surface. But the good news is that we don’t have to do so in order to determine what we would expect a planet’s surface temperature to be.

Unless we understand the actual process whereby a planet’s surface temperature is determined, we have no hope of understanding why, for example, increasing the concentration of water vapor actually leads to a lower surface temperature, as my study showed, not a temperature that the IPCC thinks is increased by about 30° due to back radiation from (mostly) water vapor.

Now, once you recognize that water vapor must be cooling the surface (because it makes the temperature gradient less steep) then of course you are left with the need to explain just why the mean surface temperature is about 33K hotter than the planet’s radiating temperature. And to do that you need to explain the possibility of other energy input that is not coming from radiation. That is what I have been the first in the world to do, based solidly on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

[b]Consider studying what I have written one day, because, when you understand it, it will blow your mind, just as it was a “Eurika” moment for me about three years ago.[/b]

[url]http://whyitsnotco2.com[/url]

• Doug

|

Pierre

My “vendetta” is motivated by the desire to save lives and money wasted by the billions because of the propagation of false physics which assumes that (because the Sun’s radiation to the surface does not explain the temperature) back radiation helps the Sun to warm the surfaces of Earth, Venus etc. You can see that I also criticize the irrelevant physics which Roy Spencer propagates, as in [url=http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/#comment-194796]this[/url] comment.

• Pierre Latour

|

Mr. Cotton,

1. I share your noble motive. I suspect all PSI authors do. It goes without saying.
2. Providing your motive is to change the subject, a well-known rhetorical gambit. Sometimes useful when you lost the argument.
3. Your motive does not justify your long running vendetta against PSI authors like me.
4. Your vendetta against PSI authors does not support your noble motive, it diminishes it.
5. I doubt you will understand this rebuttal. It is so logical.

After your apology, you proceeded to say “implicit in your top post, Pierre, is the underlying assumption that back radiation (which is mostly from water vapor) is what causes the Earth’s surface to be about 33 degrees warmer that the radiating temperature. You refer, for example, to “Rate of radiant energy transfer” whereas, in fact, you both need to think outside the square.”

The first sentence is wrong. That assumption is neither underlying nor overlying, explicit nor implicit, to the material of my article or my position. Further it is irrelevant and I don’t believe it because it is based on black-body radiator assumption, a poor assumption. Your example quote of mine does not support what you falsely attribute to me.

You talk about the surface temperature after I stated my article was about Earth’s radiating temperature from S-B Law. You forbid me to discuss that. Because you are right, so you say.

I am getting tired of correcting you mistakes for free, especially when you repeat the same ones so often.

• Doug

|

Pierre.

I also talk about the Earth’s radiating temperature as is obvious in my website, my video, my two peer-reviewed papers and my book [i]”Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All”[/i] easily found on Amazon. I put my money where my mouth is, spending over \$3,000 on that book and many thousands of hours of unpaid time for which there has been a very significant opportunity cost.

There are no mistakes in the hypothesis I put forward because it is developed directly from the most significant law of physics of all, namely the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

[b]You have not correctly understood maximum entropy production, whereas that has been my specialized area of study for years.[/b]

Furthermore, my hypothesis explains all energy flows and all temperatures, not only on Earth but other planets as well.

PSI has no alternative hypothesis that stands up to empirical testing. My hypothesis is, in contrast, supported by evidence as outlined in the website [url]http://climate-change-theory.com[/url]

That hypothesis, Pierre, is the only hypothesis in the world which …

(a) obeys the laws of physics

(b) provides a method of calculating planetary tropospheric and surface temperatures

(c) is supported by evidence of such temperatures and by evidence such as that in published experiments pertaining to centrifugal force fields.

Your article provides no method for calculating Earth’s surface temperature (let alone that of Venus) and no explanation of the required energy flows that would be necessary to support the calculated temperature.

How about you set out clearly some alternative hypothesis that does this, because, until PSI recognises that what I have explained is correct physics, they have nothing that the world will heed.

In a nut-shell, how convincing do you really think your article is when it does not explain why the surface temperature is hotter than the radiating temperature and how the required thermal energy gets there?

• Doug

|

By the way, the hit counter on that website just passed 10,000 (since January this year) a few hours ago because people are talking about it. If you think you can point out mistakes, then of course you need to quote what is in that website and the linked papers.

• Doug

|

You, [b]Pierre[/b], have never ever proved wrong the physics presented in my website and linked papers. If you think you have, then you should be able to pinpoint where you think I go wrong in the development from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or why you think entropy would decrease in cases where I have explained why it increases, notably in natural convective heat transfer – which is always driven by increasing entropy, by the way.

I am not getting tired of correcting your mistakes for free, Pierre, and I will continue to do so while ever I live and campaign against the radiative forcing conjecture that you, like James Hansen, still believe in.

The Sun’s direct radiation to the surface of Earth or Venus, let alone the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus, is nowhere near sufficient to cause the mean temperature to rise on the sunlit side, as it does do on these planets. Such warming is compensating for the inevitable cooling on the dark side. Simple S-B calculations should convince you that you will never get anywhere assuming you can calculate planetary surface temperatures from radiative flux.

[b]You can’t explain, for example, how the required thermal energy gets into the surface of Venus, because you think only within the paradigm of radiative forcing.[/b]

But the Sun’s radiation can only raise the temperature where it is less than about 400K which is only in the upper troposphere of Venus and above. That radiated energy then becomes thermal energy, but only up there in the upper troposphere. Over the course of four months of sunshine some of that warmed gas passes on its extra kinetic energy to molecules at lower altitudes and so there is apparent heat transfer downwards from cooler to hotter regions because, and only because, entropy is increasing for the reasons I have shown. If you cannot reproduce from memory the diagrams at the foot of the Home page [url=whyitsnotco2.com]here[/url], then you have never understood the physics I have correctly explained.

[b]Such physics is the most vital science in the whole climate debate, and no one has ever proved me wrong by studying what I have written and finding fault therein, even though there have now been over 10,000 hits on the above linked website this year.[/b]

• Doug

|

[b]Pierre, Leonard (and others):[/b]

[b]In fact all PSI members and just about everyone involved in debating the physics of planetary tropospheres needs to think outside the square.[/b]

You see, as I have explained in the above comments, we simply [b][i]cannot[/i][/b] explain a planet’s surface temperature with radiation calculations, and nor can we quantify the net transfer of thermal energy by non-radiative processes into or out of the surface. But the good news is that we don’t have to do so in order to determine what we would expect a planet’s surface temperature to be.

Unless we understand the actual process whereby a planet’s surface temperature is determined, we have no hope of understanding why, for example, increasing the concentration of water vapor actually leads to a lower surface temperature, as my study showed, not a temperature that the IPCC thinks is increased by about 30° due to back radiation from (mostly) water vapor.

Now, once you recognize that water vapor must be cooling the surface (because it makes the temperature gradient less steep) then of course you are left with the need to explain just why the mean surface temperature is about 33K hotter than the planet’s radiating temperature. And to do that you need to explain the possibility of other energy input that is not coming from radiation. That is what I have been the first in the world to do, based solidly on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

[b]Consider studying what I have written one day, because, when you understand it, it will blow your mind, just as it was a “Eureka” moment for me about three years ago.[/b]

[url]http://whyitsnotco2.com[/url]

• Pat Obar

|

Just the same Doug smelly Cotton socks, having no science, and nothing but Bull Shit! 🙂

• Doug

|

You, Leonard, really need to study the work of Prof Claes Johnson and my peer-reviewed paper that was based on such and published on several websites (including this site) in March 2012. It is linked at the foot of the “Evidence” page [url=http://whyitsnotco2.com]here[/url].

Not only is the mean solar radiation into Earth’s surface only about 168W/m^2 but then over 100W/m^2 is shown in those energy diagrams as being transferred out of the surface by non-radiative processes. Then they totally incorrectly add the back radiation flux of 324W/m^2 to the solar flux (less these non-radiative losses) and that’s how they get the 390W/m^2 figure that they realized would be necessary to explain a mean of 15°C for Earth’s surface temperature. Of course even the 324W/m^2 figure had to be fiddled to get the “right” answer the wrong way.

It is wrong, wrong, wrong to assume that the back radiation helps the solar radiation to warm the surface, especially when the solar radiation penetrates the ocean surface layer whilst the back radiation is just pseudo-scattered – as explained by Claes Johnson, Professor of Applied Mathematics.

And yet Pierre still thinks all can be explained by radiation.

• Doug

|

Pierre

Your statement “There is no violation of the 2nd law by having energy back radiated and absorbed by the ground, as long as this back radiation (on average) is less than the energy radiated up from the surface” is incorrect.

The back radiation is not thermalized in a warmer surface and cannot raise the temperature of that surface. Nor can the Sun’s direct radiation on average warm the surface to the observed values globally.

You cannot explain how a planet’s surface temperature actually (usually) rises during the sunlit hours if you try to explain such with radiation calculations. For Earth there is also sensible heat transfer involved. How the required thermal energy actually gets into a planet’s surface is explained in only one correct way that I have documented in my paper and book and this website and there’s a \$5,000 reward for proving me wrong that no-one has been able to claim in 16 months.

It is well known that back radiation from a cooler region to a warmer water surface does not penetrate such a surface, so how could it raise the temperature of the ocean surface? Oh, you say, the back radiation just slows the rate of radiative cooling. Yes, well it might, but it does not slow non-radiative cooling. And how does the ocean surface get to the observed temperature in the first place? You cannot explain such temperatures with the solar radiation of just 168W/m^2 striking the surface and, in any event, penetrating the top few meters of the ocean, now can you? You have to admit that the peak temperature of the ocean surface (warmer than the water below and the atmosphere above) requires an input of far more thermal energy than that which direct radiation supplies, and the majority of the required energy into the surface does not come from radiation of any kind.

I’ve given you links to my correct explanation in comments above, and you cannot prove me wrong. No-one ever has.

• Doug

|

[b]To PSI MEMBERS and others:[/b]

Your founder John O’Sullivan continues to remove the correct physics which I explain on this (and other climate blogs) and at [url]http://whyitsnotco2.com[/url] thus denigrating this blog to those like Skeptical Science wherein comments which prove their favorite authors wrong are promptly deleted – as you can see on this thread.

I will continue to point out errors in the PSI propaganda regarding radiation determining planetary surface temperatures, because it does not do so. No PSI member has proved wrong what I have presented.

So I’ll re-post the deleted comments repeatedly …

• Pierre Latour

|

Daiel Marks
I did not use Navier-Stokes equation because they are too complicated and unnecessary for the issue I chose to discuss. I merely mentioned them to explain why simplification is in order. Ref 4 specifically mentioned and gave the Navier-Stokes equation (135) on page 83, the general expression for Newton’s Law of conservation of momentum, basic to fluid mechanics. It is decidedly not relevant to my topic. So Ref 4 was appropriate.

Leonard Weinstein
I think I understand the lapse rate and have written on it. I agree with your first paragraph. But lapse rate doesn’t describe everything in the world. Neither does radiation alone. I chose a different subject and approach which includes them.

I see an inconsistency in your second paragraph, which is irrelevant to my article.

I agree with your third paragraph, which confirms my article. I did not include it because it is not my chosen subject. Almost goes without saying.

I have given my analysis of back-radiation hypothesis of GHGT. You seem to not understand it.

With such credentials, you should know I didn’t “wave Navier-Stokes” at anyone. I refrain from waving my PhD credentials around. Maybe you have a sensitive nerve about N-S. Or you have a dispute with Ref 4.

I agree with your closing “The issue is not mainly due to N-S but radiation physics, solar effects, clouds, ocean currents, etc. which are not well understood at all.” This is precisely why I simplified the problem as chemical engineers must do to build and operate plants to make stuff. Engineering is an art; apply science to improve welfare of fellow man.

This whole GHGT debate needs reconciliation and closure. Thank you for clarifying my issue. I am grateful for your comments and my opportunity to reply.

• Daniel Marks

|

Doug, Leonard & Clean,
I was asking the author (I thought) where the Navier-Stokes equations were being used. Was not the author Dr. Latour?
Yet Leonard sounds angry, like he thinks someone is trying to upstage him (“don’t wave Navier-Stokes at me”).
I think we ought to address our notes to each other in the future so we’ll better understand the threads.
Me – I just wanted to see how the N-S equations were used in the model.
Can anyone help me?

• Doug

|

Daniel, you are right in pointing out the N-S equations are not used, and they never could be used to correctly explain the lapse rate (temperature gradient) because such is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (ie maximum entropy) in a force field like gravity or a centrifugal force field. By definition, there is no further net energy or mass transfer across any internal boundary when such a state is attained in an isolated system, so [b]fluid dynamics has nothing to do with the temperature gradient in a planet’s troposphere.[/b] Please read my other comments above and the linked site and papers.

• CleanEnergyPundit

|

Who needs ‘backradiation’ when one tries to consider the ‘forest’ instead of tree leaves?
As in this back-of-the-envelope calculation http://tinyurl.com/ot2hlp4 in the light of this: http://tinyurl.com/pvzva68

• Leonard Weinstein

|

You continue to misunderstand the lapse rate. There is a temperature GRADIENT caused by the effect of gravity and specific heat of the atmosphere (modified by transport of moisture to altitude where it releases its heat of vaporization as it condenses to clouds). This gradient does not establish any level of the value of temperature. That level comes from the effective altitude (an average of radiation from the surface, from the radiation absorbing gases in the atmosphere eventually radiating to space, and to clouds and aerosols radiating to space). This effective altitude is assigned a temperature so that radiation from this modeled altitude(it is not a real location, but an effective average)to space matches the absorbed energy from the Sun to the ground and atmosphere. This determines a unique average temperature at the effective altitude. The effective lapse rate times altitude to this location plus the temperature calculated at this average location determines the surface average temperature.

There is no violation of the 2nd law by having energy back radiated and absorbed by the ground, as long as this back radiation (on average) is less than the energy radiated up from the surface. Heat transfer is the NET energy transfer, and not the individual energy transfers. The so called greenhouse heating is real, and only depends on the energy balance from the Sun, the properties of the atmosphere, and average altitude of radiation directly to space.

The so called feedbacks (increased water vapor, aerosols, and cloud variation) are the real issue of the problem, and appear to be small or even negative, so the CO2 effect alone is not a problem. This is not what you discuss at all.

I have given analysis of back radiation at this site many times, and you seem to not understand it.

My ScD is in Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer (along with a degree in Physics), so don’t wave Navier Stokes at me. The issue is not mainly due to N-S but radiation physics, solar effects, clouds, ocean currents, etc. which are not well understood at all.

• Doug

|

Your statement [i]”There is no violation of the 2nd law by having energy back radiated and absorbed by the ground, as long as this back radiation (on average) is less than the energy radiated up from the surface”[/i] is incorrect.

[b]The back radiation is not thermalized in a warmer surface and cannot raise the temperature of that surface. Nor can the Sun’s direct radiation on average warm the surface to the observed values globally.[/b]

You cannot explain how a planet’s surface actually (usually) rises during the sunlit hours if you try to explain such with radiation calculations. For Earth there is also sensible heat transfer involved. How the required thermal energy actually gets into a planet’s surface is explained in only one correct way that I have documented in my paper and book and [url=http://whyitsnotco2.com]this[/url] website and there’s a \$5,000 reward for proving me wrong that no-one has been able to claim in 16 months.

• Doug

|

It is well known that back radiation from a cooler region to a warmer water surface does not penetrate such a surface, so how could it raise the temperature of the ocean surface? Oh, you say, the back radiation just slows the rate of radiative cooling. Yes, well it might, but it does not slow non-radiative cooling. And how does the ocean surface get to the observed temperature in the first place? You cannot explain such temperatures with the solar radiation of just 168W/m^2 striking the surface and, in any event, penetrating the top few meters of the ocean, now can you? You have to admit that the peak temperature of the ocean surface (warmer than the water below and the atmosphere above) requires an input of far more thermal energy than that which direct radiation supplies, and [b]the majority of the required energy into the surface does not come from radiation of any kind[/b].

I’ve given you links to my correct explanation in comments above, and you cannot prove me wrong. No-one ever has.

• Doug

|

You, Leonard, really need to study the work of Prof Claes Johnson and my peer-reviewed paper that was based on such and published on several websites (including this site) in March 2012. It is linked at the foot of the “Evidence” page [url=http://whyitsnotco2.com]here[/url].

• Doug

|

Not only is the mean solar radiation into Earth’s surface only about 168W/m^2 but then over 100W/m^2 is shown in those energy diagrams as being transferred out of the surface by non-radiative processes. Then they totally incorrectly add the back radiation flux of 324W/m^2 to the solar flux (less these non-radiative losses) and that’s how they get the 390W/m^2 figure that they realized would be necessary to explain a mean of 15°C for Earth’s surface temperature. Of course even the 324W/m^2 figure had to be fiddled to get the “right” answer the wrong way.

It is wrong, wrong, wrong to assume that the back radiation helps the solar radiation to warm the surface, especially when the solar radiation penetrates the ocean surface layer whilst the back radiation is just pseudo-scattered – as explained by Claes Johnson, Professor of Applied Mathematics.

And yet Pierre still thinks all can be explained by radiation.

• John Marshall

|

The Lapse Rate has nothing to do with the GHE. Lapse Rate is due to adiabatic temperature change imposed by gravity due to gravity and is a change of molecular KE.

The GHE is a mythical process that violates the laws of thermodynamics and Planck.

• carlallen

|

Dear Leonard,

There is a difference between disagreeing with what you assert and not understanding what you say. As you explain in your post the standard “greenhouse effect” hypothesis asserts that surface level air temperature is determined by three [b]“effective”[/b] values:

“effective” lapse rate x “effective” altitude of emission + the Earth’s “effective” radiating temperature = average surface temperature

All three of these “effective” values are artificial and obscure the actual thermodynamic workings of the atmosphere

Working with an “effective” lapse rate obscures the fact that even on cloudless days (when water vapor is not condensing into clouds) water vapor decreases the lapse rate because it enhances net intra-atmospheric up-going radiation heat loss rate. So, even absent latent heat transfer water vapor, which is presumed to cause some 22-25 K of surface level warming, actually causes a decrease in surface level air temperatures.

Working with an “effective” altitude of emission obscures the fact that an increase in the the concentration of “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere actually decreases the altitude from which the atmosphere emits IR radiation out into space decreases. This, again is because they enhance the net intra-atmospheric up-going radiation heat loss rate. You see, even though “greenhouse gases” increase the emissivity of the overall atmosphere, that effect is amplified in the warmer lower atmosphere because the amount of IR radiation that is emitted by matter is relative to the fourth power of its Temperature. Thus, the amount of IR radiation that surface level air emits is relative to the fourth power of 288 K, while the amount of IR radiation that the air at the tropopause emits is relative to the fourth power of 213K. This enhances the net intra-atmospheric up-going radiation heat loss rate.

Working with an “effective” Earth radiating temperature obscures the fact that you cannot determine the actual temperature of matter by the amount of IR radiation that it emits without knowing its emissivity. The Earth’s “effective” radiating temperature of -18 °C is based on the assumption that the emissivity of the Earth/atmosphere ensemble is 1.0. This not the real emissivity of the Earth/atmosphere ensemble. The starting number therefore upon which the Earth’s [b]33 °C[/b] “greenhouse effect” is based is unreal.

“greenhouse effect” = Average surface level air temperature – Earth’s “effective” radiating temperature.

Also obscured is the fact that “greenhouse gases” increase the emissivity of the atmosphere. As you know, this causes the air to emit more IR radiation at a lower (not higher) temperature. The overall construct of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis has “greenhouse gases” decreasing the emissivity of the Earth/atmosphere ensemble. It falsely asserts that an increase in the concentration of “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere makes the Earth/atmosphere ensemble “effectively” less emissive, which, in turn, requires its temperature to increase in order to continue emitting the same amount of outgoing IR radiation. The opposite is true.

Carl

• Pat Obar

|

“There is no violation of the 2nd law by having energy back radiated and absorbed by the ground, as long as this back radiation (on average) is less than the energy radiated up from the surface. Heat transfer is the NET energy transfer, and not the individual energy transfers. The so called greenhouse heating is real, and only depends on the energy balance from the Sun, the properties of the atmosphere, and average altitude of radiation directly to space.”

There can be no generation of electromagnetic flux at any frequency or in any direction of higher radiance at that frequency.

“My ScD is in Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer (along with a degree in Physics), so don’t wave Navier Stokes at me. The issue is not mainly due to N-S but radiation physics, solar effects, clouds, ocean currents, etc. which are not well understood at all.”

Please tell us the number of hours of study, or hands on experience “you” have in electromagnetic field theory or anything else to do with electromagnetic radiative flux? Such is never ‘heat’ energy! Why make absurd claims of any ‘back radiation’ or that you have any idea of the amount of radiative flux even in a direction of lower radiance! 🙂

• Daiel Marks

|

The mention of the Navier-Stokes equations references footnote 4 of the original article: “Simplify complex three-dimensional system of Navier-Stokes partial differential equations which is known to be difficult to solve4, with a uniform, well-mixed (lumped-parameter) system.”
The footnoted article is: Gerhard Gerlich & Ralf Tscheuschner, “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics V4”, INT.J.MOD.PHYS.B23:275-364, 6Jan2009. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

Research of the footnoted article does not seem to use the Navier-Stokes equations anywhere that I could locate.

I am not quibbling with your presentation, just wanting to verify it. Please advise where you are using the Navier-Stokes equations as you have noted.

• Doug

|

Yes, well as you say [i]”solar radiation intensity, avg 160 w/m^2″[/i] and Stefan Boltzmann calculations for that flux yield a very cold -41°C. So your rate of cooling (regardless of what you think affects such rate) is totally irrelevant because the Sun’s direct radiation to the surface cannot possibly explain the observed temperatures on Earth, let alone on Venus.

[b]Radiation striking a planet’s surface is not the primary determinant of the temperature of such. The vast majority of the required input of thermal energy to maintain the observed surface temperatures does not enter the surface as a result of radiation striking that surface. What does happen is explained [url=http://whyitsnotco2.com]here[/url] and you won’t find it anywhere else in world literature.[/b]