• Home
  • Current News
  • New Paper Exposes Long-standing Data Fudge by Climate Scientists

New Paper Exposes Long-standing Data Fudge by Climate Scientists

Written by

New independent climate analysis reveals what may be the greatest flaw in modern climate science- a simplistic over-reliance on the assumption of steady state atmospheric conditions. New research from France employs a two-way formulation for heat evacuation by radiation from the planet rather than the standard one-dimensional ‘greenhouse gas theory.’ 

ipcc scrutiny It reveals that convection plays a more dominant role than radiation in our climate and that number fudging by so-called climate “experts” may be the only truly discernible extent of “man-made” global warming.

In a new paper, Diurnal Variations of Heat Evacuation from a Rotating Planet,’ submitted to open peer review at Principia Scientific International (PSI), Joseph Reynen, a retired Dutch scientist living in France, puts standard climate science calculations under the microscope and reveals that for too long the “experts” used an outdated guesstimating process relied on before the modern era of accurate computing.

Reynen’s study is yet further validation to what an increasing number of independent scientists are saying is a major error by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC gave an uncritical free pass to an assumed physical interpretation from a pre-computer era approximation which put a great emphasis on a fixed artificial energy absorption rate instead of actual absorption for the real energy flux coming from our sun.

As Reynen delves into the technicalities he explains, “In the beginning of the 1900’s computers were not available and by splitting-up the radiation in up-ward and down-ward components, and introducing a co-ordinate transformation with the so-called optical thickness concept, analytical solutions were possible, although in the form of integrals. Quadrature techniques were available at that time to evaluate numerically those integrals, with no need for computers.”

But that assumption of fixed solar energy flux has been blown apart by the latest physical measurements by satellite and by rigorous ground-based analysis from experts from the “hard” sciences. Indeed, the scope of Reynen’s paper is not to give detailed results for diurnal variations of the sun power, but rather to demonstrate that one-dimensional steady state models based on the one-way heat flow concept of Swedish professor, Claes Johnson is an accurate tool to show the very small influence of infrared-sensitive gases for the global and annual mean heat budget of the planet.

The innovative open peer review process being pioneered by PSI encourages anyone with an insight of specialist training from the “hard” sciences to cast a critical eye over papers such as this astonishing one from Reynen. “Although we are excited by Jef’s findings we always let our knowledgeable readers be part of the review process” says PSI CEO, John O’Sullivan. “Unlike the biased establishment science journals we do our peer-review in public and papers such as these stand or fall by the judgment of the wider scientific community, not by a secret, hand-picked clique,” adds O’Sullivan, who highlights where readers will find some of the most fascinating details of Reynen’s paper.

In figure 1, taken from [1, 2, 4 in Reynen’s paper] readers can see where the implementation of the one-way heat flow finite element model has been described in detail, it has been shown that the evacuation of heat from the planet surface in steady-state is not by radiation but rather by convection.

In diurnal transients radiation has more effect.

Radiation is of course also in steady state conditions the mechanism to evacuate the heat to outer space from higher levels of the atmosphere by means of the IR-sensitive gases with 3 or more atoms per molecule.

It has been shown in [2, 4] that doubling the concentration of the IR-sensitive CO2 from 0.04% to 0.08% is causing a mere 0.1 °C increase in surface temperature, the so-called CO2 sensitivity.

Readers are encouraged to study Reynen’s paper and either add their comments in the comments section at the end of this article or to submit more detailed critiques to info@principia-scientific.org.

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments (27)

  • Avatar

    JWR

    |

    I say always “look for pairs” which seems to be the same as “if you can see them” and ‘if they can see you”. I call it a finite element with two nodes!

    It is a pity that you do not want to put your work to be seen by others, or those who you pay do not want that your ideas become known.
    Please do not forget to send me the link to the 1960 paper of Carl Sagan.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”JWR”]I never used HiTran.
    You seem to have positive opinion about it,
    [/quote]

    The HiTran database is the only comprehensive source for atmospheric attenuation by wavelenth and distance of “flux modulation” including both
    absorption and scattering, (specular transmission of such modulation). Important for determining “if you can see them” and if “they can see you”. This often determines the outcome. If you are wrong the Generals often have you hung for treason. It’s his fault not mine!

    Your Climastrologists mistakenly use that data
    “for radiative absorption of flux”. At equilibrium the atmosphere absorbs no radiative flux. Every parcel of atmosphere must radiate more EMR to space than received from below as its temperature is already higher than would be by EMR alone. There is no delay, except for those WV molecules desperately shedding or accumulating energy peddling in every direction to return to equilibrium. Because of the rapidity of EMR the whole atmosphere continually re-thermalizes with a time constant of less than 10 minutes. The exitance accumulates all the way to 220km everywhere.

    “You said somewhere that you use also a “stack” model to interpret your measurements.
    Do you have a link to that work?”

    I do not! All of my writings belong to those that paid for such! They can publish if they wish. I have remembrances of my techniques, still mine. That is all I have. I refuse to give away what I have already sold! :sigh:

  • Avatar

    JWR

    |

    I never used HiTran.
    You seem to have positive opinion about it.
    You said somewhere that you use also a “stack” model to interpret your measurements.
    Do you have a link to that work?
    Yhank you,

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”JWR”]PART2
    Pat OBar
    “But nobody gives the real dependence of absorption of the traces of the IR-sensitive
    gases on the wavelength.”

    The HiTran data base gives an exact line by line
    absorption for the “amplitude modulation” of the radiative flux. This “amplitude modulation” is that that insists that the gas “not be in thermodynamic equilibrium at that modulating frequency. Again this has nothing to do with any attenuation of the actual one way flux.

    Answer of JWR
    I have not used HiTran, I use black wires to represent the traces of IR-sensitive gases in the atmosphere. Read my ref [1] to see how I adapted the distribution of the grids to get answers corresponding to K&T, but without the back-radiation[/quote]

    Can you not read? your claim “But nobody gives the real dependence of absorption of the traces of the IR-sensitive gases on the wavelength.” is completely false. That database has been verified for all wavelengths and distances by measurment. It applies only to amplitide modulation of flux not to the flux itself! If the air column is in thermodynamic equilibrium, there is no attinuation of any electromagnetic flux. This absorption or non-absorption of EMR is the sole reason for the rapid recovery to thermodynamic equilibrium of the whole atmosphere. Time constant less that 10 seconds.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    #3 Pat Obar 2014-08-07 23:58

    Specific errors:

    (“In [2] a FEM (finite element method) implementation is presented for the same model
    with the same results as [1] concerning OLR and sensitivity of CO 2 : doubling the
    concentration from the present 0.04% to 0.08% would give an increase of 0.1 °C.”)

    “Your FEM obviously uses the HiTran database that has nothing to do with atmospheric absorption of thermal electromagnetic flux while the atmosphere is in local thermodynamic equilibrium which is governed by Kirchhoff’s laws of radiation, no absorption is possible. If anything increased CO2 must increase radiative exitance from the stratosphere.”

    [quote name=”JWR”]PART2
    Answer from JWR
    No, I do not use HiTran.
    I simulate the IR-sensitive gases in the atmosphere with grids of “black” wire. The cross-section of the black wire is called “f” : I call it the absorption coefficient of a grid. Sometimes the grid is called a “transparent” surface.
    The distribution of the grids has been obtained by comparing the OLR and the window with K&T type papers. I find with a higher concentration below 2000m that the total ftot =sum(f(i)) =0.86. [/quote]

    Ok you do not use HiTran. You insted use the misuse of HiTran by Trenberth. You could do much better by picking something other than 0.86 out from any toilet. Then you claim verification of your nonsense “model” by comparision to the same trash. Where does your model have anything to do with the atmosphere of this Earth? You are but modeling a broken model! Where are your measurements?

    [quote]CO2 in the first paper was considered as water vapor. In a later FEM version CO2 distribution was supposed proportional to density. But still monochromatic.[/quote]

    -snip much nonsense of a monochromatic Stefan Boltzmann equation, which is not that equation-

    [quote] Pat Obar
    “Only 59 W/m^2 leave the surface as LW radiation, 53 through the atmospheric window
    straight away to outer space and a mere 6 W/m^2 LW radiation is absorbed by the
    atmosphere.”

    Answer from JWR
    We find for ftot=0.86 and Ts=288 and ELR=-6.5 K/km
    q(1)=59 =qwindow +qatmLW
    qwindow=(1-ftot)*epsilon*sigma*Ts^4=53

    Pat OBar
    Again only climastrology. No part of the surface has 100% emissivity at any frequency,even to normal, nor is that surface ever Lambertian. Emissivity drops off greatly with angle from normal. The best average radiative flux from the surface is 13 W/m^2 to space and another 19 W/m^2 to the 2/3 but much higher temperature cloud bases. All through the 8-13.5 micron window.

    JWR
    In reference [1] of the paper I present results with different epsilon.
    Please give references for your statements.
    I have given the way how I construct the matrix K, how I use ELR etc etc. You call pushing my argumentation. Yes I have arguments not just numbers with no references [/quote]

    My numbers are from “my” mesurement of this surface and this atmosphere. I need no model!
    If you do not like my measurements, send your measurements and we can discuss any differences.

  • Avatar

    JWR

    |

    JWR; No, I do not use HiTran.
    Pat Obard

    So from were do you get the temporal, spatial, spectral attenuation of this atmosphere All has been carefully measured.
    You seem to prefer your own fantasy!

    Dear Pat
    I tell you that I don’t use HiTran.
    And still you are saying that one can’t trust HiTran. While further on you say that is OK

    Onc more, I started to model the atmosphere as a stack of “black” wires.
    The grid has a cross-section
    f(i)*deltaz(i).
    It is a monochromatic model and I use Stefan-Boltzmann to define the heat transport between the grids and between the grids and outer space.
    I validated it with published results, the validation is described in my ref[1]

    Jef

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”JWR”]Dear Pat

    Ice ages are on a different timescale.
    When we start such a discussion we risk to get lost, I am not a geologist.
    My model uses the proposal of Stefan Boltzmann for heat transport by radiation and the proposal of Fourier for heat transport by conduction.
    The two proposals have been verified by experimentalists on different scales, time and length.
    FEM gives the possibility to use various geometries, Once such a model has been built m one can test it. Does it go to SS conditions or if nothing is changed does it remain at the global and annual mean. etc

    Traces of gases which are IR-active have an influence on the surface temperature or is it only the gravity? Indeed that are not only philosophic questions.
    Suppose that there were no IR-sensitive gases. The atmosphere is transparent and the surface temperature (annual and global mean) would be T=(240/sigma)^0.25.
    In that case is there a lapse rate due to dry adiabatic expansion, or is the temperature in the atmosphere isothermal , and corresponding to the surface temperature.
    I do not have a definite answer.
    But the situation is such that we have IR-sensitive gases which take over for 86% the role of the surface to evacuate heat by radiation.
    In that case, and ,measurements confirm it, there is a lapse rate due to adiabatic expansion/compression.
    In conclusion since conduction by the Fourier law, radiation by the Stefan Boltzmann law and lapse rate (for an ideal gas and gravity from Newton)) are well established phenomena, and FEM is only a technique to communicate with computers, your opinion that it is just fantasy is not credible.

    Greetings, Jef[/quote]
    OK, Your insane hand waving also has no credibility

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”JWR”]PART2
    Answer from JWR

    No, I do not use HiTran.

    So from were do you get the temporal, spatial, spectral attenuation of this atmosphere All has been carefully measured.
    You seem to prefer your own fantasy!
    ————————————–

    Can you never get away from your fantasy, to what is measured? Both are wrong! Now what Guy? Perhaps kitty kats rule, maybe!

    Pat Obar

    Jeff, “Only 59 W/m^2 leave the surface as LW radiation, 53 through the atmospheric window7i9
    straight away to outer space and a mere 6 W/m^2 LW radiation is absorbed by the
    atmosphere.”
    ASnd you got these

    Answer from JWR
    We find for ftot=0.86 and Ts=288 and ELR=-6.5 K/km
    q(1)=59 =qwindow +qatmLW
    qwindow=(1-ftot)*epsilon*sigma*Ts^4=53

    Pat OBar
    Again only climastrology. No part of the surface has 100% emissivity at any frequency,even to normal, nor is that surface ever Lambertian. Emissivity drops off greatly with angle from normal. The best average radiative flux from the surface is 13 W/m^2 to space and another 19 W/m^2 to the 2/3 but much higher temperature cloud bases. All through the 8-13.5 micron window.

    JWR, (“But nobody gives the real dependence of absorption of the traces of the IR-sensitive
    gases on the wavelength.”)

    Pat OBar
    The HiTran data base gives an exact line by line
    absorption for the “amplitude modulation” of the radiative flux. This “amplitude modulation” is that that insists that the gas “not be in thermodynamic equilibrium at that modulating frequency. Again this has nothing to do with any attinuation of the actual one way flux.”

    Answer of JWR
    I have not used HiTran, I use black wires to represent the traces of IR-sensitive gases in the atmosphere. Read my ref [1] to see how I adapted the distribution of the grids to get answers corresponding to K&T, but without the back-radiation[/quote]

    You claim something of some nonsense something.

    All EMR of any type has been carefully described
    analytically by Maxwell’s equations. If you wish vectors, use the translations by John Poyinting.

    Your title of “Diurnal variations of heat evacuation from rotating planet” has nothing to do with your claims of proper FEM. All is your fantasy.

  • Avatar

    JWR

    |

    Dear Pat

    Ice ages are on a different timescale.
    When we start such a discussion we risk to get lost, I am not a geologist.
    My model uses the proposal of Stefan Boltzmann for heat transport by radiation and the proposal of Fourier for heat transport by conduction.
    The two proposals have been verified by experimentalists on different scales, time and length.
    FEM gives the possibility to use various geometries, Once such a model has been built m one can test it. Does it go to SS conditions or if nothing is changed does it remain at the global and annual mean. etc

    Traces of gases which are IR-active have an influence on the surface temperature or is it only the gravity? Indeed that are not only philosophic questions.
    Suppose that there were no IR-sensitive gases. The atmosphere is transparent and the surface temperature (annual and global mean) would be T=(240/sigma)^0.25.
    In that case is there a lapse rate due to dry adiabatic expansion, or is the temperature in the atmosphere isothermal , and corresponding to the surface temperature.
    I do not have a definite answer.
    But the situation is such that we have IR-sensitive gases which take over for 86% the role of the surface to evacuate heat by radiation.
    In that case, and ,measurements confirm it, there is a lapse rate due to adiabatic expansion/compression.
    In conclusion since conduction by the Fourier law, radiation by the Stefan Boltzmann law and lapse rate (for an ideal gas and gravity from Newton)) are well established phenomena, and FEM is only a technique to communicate with computers, your opinion that it is just fantasy is not credible.

    Greetings, Jef

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”JWR”]@Pat Obar
    You claim that I do not answer your claims about scientific errors in my papers.
    But you just make statements.
    I explain in detail, in 4 papers , what I do.
    The best way to tell you the difficulties I have with your statements, I have copied the complete blog, and I give you an answer line by line.
    I risk that the comment will be too long, in that case I am going to split it up in more 3 parts:PART 1, PART2, PART3

    Joseph or Jeff,
    As you wish. Let us start again with some understanding!

    “Any how thank you for your interest. I understood that you are an astrologist, and it is a pleasure for me to hear for the first time from an astrologist that you agree with me that the two-way heat flow formulation can be helpful in calculations but no physical interpretation should be given to it.
    JWR”

    I have interest in all of your papers. I am not an astrologist, only an observer of your writing. I have opinions, no knowledge.

    I use the term Climastrologist only in the most derogatory terms! These arrogant academics have clearly demonstrated that they cannot find their own gluteal muscles with one or more upper appendages. They always start with their heads!

    PART 1
    Comment by Greg House
    “The author claims “doubling the concentration of the IR-sensitive CO2 from 0.04% to 0.08% is causing a mere 0.1 °C increase in surface temperature, the so-called CO 2 sensitivity.”

    “I am asking a simple question and expect a clear and short answer: what is the physical mechanism of this alleged CO2 effect?”

    “Just hope that it will not turn another “write and run” type of article.”
    ——————————————–
    There is no physical mechanism resulting in the alleged CO2 effect! Fantasy only!

    The Climastrologists cannot even explain why they assume that radiative transfer influences the internal energy of this Earth! Solar radiation does seems to create all forms of interesting weather. Does some agglomeration of surface temperatures have any relationship to the enternal energy? Is it weather or internal energy that decides ice age, or warm period? Do the arrogant accademics even have any plan for determining such?
    ———————————————–
    Do you have any response to the above? I have no interest in your error prone FE model that only decribes your model of fantansy and non physical. Where are your measurements that verify such fantasy of planet Earth.

    To be continued.
    Best wishes, Pat.

  • Avatar

    JWR

    |

    PART 3

    Pat Obar

    “T(z)=Ts +ELR*z”

    This is no good for the transmission of flux through and the additional exitance provided by that parcel of any atmosphere at its own equilibrium temperature. The ELR is of no help as the actual temperature and barometric pressure vary with altitude, from Sun side to night side, and at every latitude. I thought you were considering a “rotating” planet.

    Quoting JWR:
    @ Pat Obar #3

    I started to use grids of fine gauzes as a generalization of the one-slab models as taught in climate classes of Universities.
    But I used the one-way heat flow formulation.
    See my ref [1] which was by the way my first paper inspired by the more fundamental papers of Claes Johnson. At that time I wrote the balances as finite difference equations.
    It is not what you call ”write and run” paper!
    Afterwards I used the finite element method to write down the same equations in a more elegant way.
    Indeed, the basic idea is to look for pairs of surfaces and apply the one way heat radiation formulation from warm to cold, formulated by Stefan Boltzmann.

    To Joseph Reynen,
    I said nothing of ”write and run paper”. Check with Greg on that.

    Answer JWR
    Indeed Greg wrote that, I made the mistake probably you started to quote Greg.
    Sorry for my misinterpretation

    Pat Obard
    What I commented on was the scientific errors in your paper referenced in this article,You seem to be onlypush no other papers. You fail to address “any” of my listed errors and contradictions in your paper. There are many more. You seem to be only pushing
    your own writings, just like Doug Cotton! Please address your errors?

    Answer JWR
    At least I am pushing my papers with arguments in detail.
    You claim ‘scientific errors” in my papers, but you hardly mention them, you make statements without any references.

    Pat Obard
    quote]I found out that the stack model gave the same results as K&T type of IPCC authors, see my reference [1], but with one difference: there is no back-radiation of heat from “warm to cold”, it was sufficient to subtract from the 390 Prevost type of surface flux (epsilon*sigma*Tsurface^4), which was claimed to be absorbed by the atmosphere , the back-radiation of 324 (K&T, van Dorland and Miscolkszi gave about the same numbers, see my reference [1])

    None here at PSI need any reminder of the nonsense use by Carl Sagan in his 1960 paper of the Schuster-Schwarzschild two stream approximation, for the non-luminous Venus atmosphere.

    Answer JWR
    I studied the Schwarzschild approach given in “Science of Doom” and I wrote about it.
    Finally you seem to agree with me!
    I did not know Carl Sagan, I looked up his biography in Wikipedia, to find out that he was an astronomer and many other things. Finally, you give here a reference, but I cannot find it. If you have a more detailed one then “the 1960 Sagan paper“, please give me the link.

    To be continued.
    Best wishes, Pat.

  • Avatar

    JWR

    |

    PART2
    Answer from JWR

    No, I do not use HiTran.
    I simulate the IR-sensitive gases in the atmosphere with grids of “black” wire. The cross-section of the black wire is called “f” : I call it the absorption coefficient of a grid. Sometimes the grid is called a “transparent” surface.
    The distribution of the grids has been obtained by comparing the OLR and the window with K&T type papers. I find with a higher concentration below 2000m that the total ftot =sum(f(i)) =0.86.
    CO2 in the first paper was considered as water vapor. In a later FEM version CO2 distribution was supposed proportional to density. But still monochromatic.
    The heat transport between two grids with absorption f(i) and f(k) is defined by Stefan Bolltzmann:

    q= f(i)*viewfactor(i,k)*f(k)*(theta(i)-theta(k)) , where theta=sigma*T^4 (see my ref[3])

    The viewfacor (i, k) represents the factor by which the flux is hindered by other grids “j” between grids “i” and “k”: viewfactor(i,k) = 1-f(i+1)-f(i+2)…-f(k-2)-f(k-1)
    For adjacent layers view factor(i, i+1)=1.
    The finite element technique of assembling gives the relation q=K*theta, representing nods, which is a linear relation between q and theta, K is a matrix of dimension nods x nods with components depending on the absorption coefficients f(i) of the grids.

    Pat Obar

    “Only 59 W/m^2 leave the surface as LW radiation, 53 through the atmospheric window
    straight away to outer space and a mere 6 W/m^2 LW radiation is absorbed by the
    atmosphere.”

    Answer from JWR
    We find for ftot=0.86 and Ts=288 and ELR=-6.5 K/km
    q(1)=59 =qwindow +qatmLW
    qwindow=(1-ftot)*epsilon*sigma*Ts^4=53

    Pat OBar
    Again only climastrology. No part of the surface has 100% emissivity at any frequency,even to normal, nor is that surface ever Lambertian. Emissivity drops off greatly with angle from normal. The best average radiative flux from the surface is 13 W/m^2 to space and another 19 W/m^2 to the 2/3 but much higher temperature cloud bases. All through the 8-13.5 micron window.

    JWR
    In reference [1] of the paper I present results with different epsilon.
    Please give references for your statements.
    I have given the way how I construct the matrix K, how I use ELR etc etc. You call pushing my argumentation. Yes I have arguments not just numbers with no references

    Pat OBar
    “But nobody gives the real dependence of absorption of the traces of the IR-sensitive
    gases on the wavelength.”

    The HiTran data base goves an exact line by line
    absorption for the “amplitude modulation” of the radiative flux. This “amplitude modulation” is that that insists that the gas “not be in thermodynamic equilibrium at that modulating frequency. Again this has nothing to do with any attinuation of the actual one way flux.

    Answer of JWR
    I have not used HiTran, I use black wires to represent the traces of IR-sensitive gases in the atmosphere. Read my ref [1] to see how I adapted the distribution of the grids to get answers corresponding to K&T, but without the back-radiation

  • Avatar

    JWR

    |

    @Pat Obar
    You claim that I do not answer your claims about scientific errors in my papers.
    But you just make statements.
    I explain in detail, in 4 papers , what I do.
    The best way to tell you the difficulties I have with your statements, I have copied the complete blog, and I give you an answer line by line.
    I risk that the comment will be too long, in that case I am going to split it up in more 3 parts:PART 1, PART2, PART3

    Any how thank you for your interest. I understood that you are an astrologist, and it is a pleasure for me to hear for the first time from an astrologist that you agree with me that the two-way heat flow formulation can be helpful in calculations but no physical interpretation should be given to it.
    JWR

    PART 1
    Comment by Pat Obar
    The author claims “doubling the concentration of the IR-sensitive CO2 from 0.04% to 0.08% is causing a mere 0.1 °C increase in surface temperature, the so-called CO 2 sensitivity.”

    I am asking a simple question and expect a clear and short answer: what is the physical mechanism of this alleged CO2 effect?

    Just hope that it will not turn another “write and run” type of article.

    There is no physical mechanism resulting in the alleged CO2 effect! Fantasy only!
    The Climastrologists cannot even explain why they assume that radiative transfer influences the internal energy of this Earth! Solar radiation does seems to create all forms of interesting weather. Does some agglomeration of surface temperatures have any relationship to the enternal energy? Is it weather or internal energy that decides ice age, or warm period? Do the arrogant accademics even have any plan for determining such?

    #3 Pat Obar 2014-08-07 23:58
    “Although we are excited by Jef’s findings we always let our knowledgeable readers be part of the review process” says PSI CEO, John O’Sullivan. “The innovative open peer review process being pioneered by PSI encourages anyone with an insight of specialist training from the “hard” sciences to cast a critical eye over papers such as this astonishing one from Reynen.” OK John,
    Joseph Reynen has done fine analysis, he still depends way to much on the nonsense claims of esteemed academic climastrologists and the politicaly based IPCC blurbs. He has all theory and computer models, with no measurement.
    Specific errors:

    “In [2] a FEM (finite element method) implementation is presented for the same model
    with the same results as [1] concerning OLR and sensitivity of CO 2 : doubling the
    concentration from the present 0.04% to 0.08% would give an increase of 0.1 °C.”
    “Your FEM obviously uses the HiTran database that has nothing to do with atmospheric absorption of thermal electromagnetic flux whi the atmosphere is in local thermodynamic equilibrium which is governed by Kirchhoff’s laws of radiation, no absorption is possible. If anything increased CO2 must increase radiative exitance from the stratosphere.”

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”JWR”]@ Pat Obar #3

    The stack model is a monochromatic one, the heat transfer between two pairs is equal to the surface between two Planck curves corresponding to the two temperatures, from the warm surface to the cold one.[/quote]

    Never with unknown emissivites and a dissapative media between the two surfaces. On this planet there is only a radiative atmosphere to disperse accumulated “entropy”
    to space. No surfaces are required, only a cross sectional area at every location in this atmosphere. Every water molecule in the atmosphere radiates “some” EMR to space. None is absorbed by the atmosphere at radiative thermodynamic equilibrium. From each WV molecule, all is accumulated to become total exitance. This total matches total absorbance of Solar radiance to less than one kiloJoule per day, every day!

    [quote] In my reference [4] paper, I have given the equations for the case that the surface between to Planck curves is subdivided in to lines of water vapor, COo2, CH4 etc. I certainly will take into account to use HITRAN to find a line by line frequency dependence. The fact that for steady state conditions only 6 Watt/m^2 is leavinf the surface as longwave to be absorbed by the atmosphere (and 53 through the atmospheric window) yields a monochromatic model sufficient to see the very small influence of 0.04% of CO2 as compared to 3.5% of water vapor.[/quote]

    This is one specific point I raised in #3. Hitran cannot be used “ever”, to determine attenuation of electromagnetic flux at any wavelength while that radiative atmosphere is at local radiative equilibrium.

    [quote]I preferred to deal first with the objection that the stack model could only deal with the global and seasonal average situation, with the result the lasy paper “Diurnal variation of heat evacuation from a rotating planet”.[/quote]

    I have made no objection to the stack model, I use it myself. I use it for understanding of my own measurements, rather than garbage from some computer program. Where are your measurements of this physical?

    [quote] The stack model is of course based that absorption and emission is based on the variation of temperature as is defined by the environmental lapse rate. I cannot judge your claim that also the pressure is involved!
    I leave it to readers of this post to express their opinion on that claim of yours.[/quote]

    There is never any column of atmosphere that has an “Environmental Lapse Rate”, because of the title of your paper “Diurnal variations of heat evacuation from rotating planet”. More that 75% of exitance from the atmosphere is in the space hemisphere in the direction of the Sun.

    [quote] In fact that is the scope of the public peer review of the PROM concept, more people should be involved.[/quote]

    Indeed , let us see how those, you, and your mentors respond.

    Best wishes, Pat.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”JWR”]@ Pat Obar #3

    I started to use grids of fine gauzes as a generalization of the one-slab models as taught in climate clases of Universities.
    But I used the one-way heat flow formulation.
    See my ref [1] which was by the way my first paper inspired by the more fundamental papers of Claes Johnson. At that time I wrote the balances as finite difference equations.
    It is not what you call ”write and run” paper!
    Afterwards I used the finite element method to write down the same equations in a more elegant way.
    Indeed, the basic idea is to look for pairs of surfaces and apply the one way heat radiation formulation from warm to cold, formulated by Stefan Boltzmann.[/quote]

    Joseph Reynen,
    I said nothing of ”write and run paper”. Check with Greg on that. What I commented on was the scientific errors in your paper referenced in this article,You seem to be onlypush no other papers. You fail to address “any” of my listed errors and contradictions in your paper. There are many more. You seem to be only pushing
    your own writings, just like Doug Cotton! Please address your errors?

    quote]I found out that the stack model gave the same results as K&T type of IPCC authors, see my reference [1], but with one difference: there is no back-radiation of heat from “warm to cold”, it was sufficient to subtract from the 390 Prevost type of surface flux (epsilon*sigma*Tsurface^4), which was claimed to be absorbed by the atmosphere , the back-radiation of 324 (K&T, van Dorland and Miscolkszi gave about the same numbers, see my reference [1])[/quote]

    None here at PSI need any reminder of the nonsense use by Carl Sagan in his 1960 paper of the Schuster-Schwarzschild two stream approximation, for the non-luminous Venus atmosphere.

    To be continued.
    Best wishes, Pat.

  • Avatar

    JWR

    |

    @Greg House #11
    I indeed thought your question was real, since those believing in two-way formulation and thereby back-radiation of heat often come up with your type of question.
    The surface heat flux is 168 W/m^2.
    And not the Prevost type of flux q=sigma*288^4 = 390. And compensated by 324 back-radiation of heat from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface.
    Please do not make remarks “shame on you”. We do not advance the discussion with such remarks.
    Just admit that you are a back-radiation believer! And your “cold air” is sending heat to the warm surface, a crime against the 2nd Law.
    In my reference {1} I compared the one-way with the two-way heat flow formulation. Study that paper.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”JWR”]As concerns your question how I mary together 168W/m^2 and Ts=288, dear Greg it is the same answer. …[/quote]

    In your answer I can find only hot air and no relevant physics, which is understandable, since those 2 things do not fit together. My question was, of course, rhetorical.

    All I can say is shame on you.

  • Avatar

    JWR

    |

    @Greg House #9
    Thank you for your interest. The physics is simple: one way heat flow by radiation! In the SB equation: for T1>T2
    q(1 to 2)=epsilon*sigma*(T1^4-T2^4), and q(2 to 1)=0.
    That is all!
    See my reference [1] to see that the two-way heat flow formulation gives rise to spurious absorption. Universities should stop to teach the two-way heat flow models in climate clases.

    As concerns your question how I mary together 168W/m^2 and Ts=288, dear Greg it is the same answer.
    The surface is not sending a Prevost type of flux as if the service were looking to outer space.
    Only the flux through the window is of the Prevost type i.e straigt to outer space. The remaining 168-53= 115 is not even sed as LW, only 6 W/m^2 LW are going to be absorbed in the atmosphere and the remaining 109 by convection.
    Thes figures coincide with those of the K&T authors.

    But please Greg, start to read my first paper [1] where everything is explained in detail.
    In that paper it is also shown that the two-way heat flow formulation of IPCC authors gives rise to spurious absorption.
    Two-way heat flow in climate clases should be forbidden, we teach the students the wrong things.
    In particular when it is sold as “quantum physics”.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    @JWR #5&#8

    In my #1 I asked: [i]”I am asking a simple question and expect a clear and short answer: what is the physical mechanism of this alleged CO2 effect?”[/i] You failed to answer that.

    Therefore your references to “model” are just hot air with no relevance to real science called “physics”. One can not built a physical model without knowledge of the underlying physical mechanism.

    My second question would be this. In you paper you refer both to the Earth surface absorbing on average 168 W/m² and to the temperature of the surface being on average +15°C. Please explain, how those 2 things fit together.

    You certainly know that the IPCC claims the “back radiation from greenhouse gases” to fill the gap, but you do not, right? So, what is it, physically, in your understanding?

  • Avatar

    JWR

    |

    @Greg House

    The stack model uses the one-way heat flow formulation while the one-slab model taught at universities uses the two-way heat flow formulation, with the back-radiation.
    In my very first paper [my reference 1] I show that the two-way one-slab models taught at Universities gives spurious absorption. In a later paper [my reference 2] I give a FEM approach to model the stack.
    As concerns the explicit question of Greg House, and backed up by Pat Obar:
    The IR-sensitive gases are represented by the stack of gauzes. They have a temperature of the 99% bulk of the atmosphere (O2 and N2) with a measured temperature which can be expressed by means of the environmental lapse rate: ELR = -6.5 K/km.
    If the stack would not be in an atmosphere , the stack would be cold, a figure is given in my reference [1] where a stack is put in a vacuum or assuming that the cold stack (IR-sensitive gases) is not heated up by the atmosphere by molecular collision, ( thermal diffusion). This is already a very interesting result, because also in the comments of this blog people assume that the IR-sensitive gas CO2 is warmer then the atmosphere.

    So the stack are the IR-sensitive molecules: mostly water vapor and the traces of other IR-sensitive gases such as CO2 give only a very small contribution.
    The stack has a height dependent temperature of the bulk of the O2 and N2 molecules defined by the lapse rate.
    The global and annual mean surface is 15 C = 288 K. The surface is trying to radiate through the stack which has a window of 14%, a figure obtained by equating the the OLR trough the stack and through the window to 240 W/m^2. Results are compared with those of K&T type papers, by subtracting their back-radiation with their huge absorption in the atmosphere. (this validation is given in my reference [1], where comparisons are made with K&T, van Dorland of KNMI and Miskolczi).
    The various grids absorb heat from the surface and grids underneath, and emits heat to higher grids and to outer space! It turns out that for the given temperature distribution, the emission upwards is higher then the absorption! But in the global and annual mean we are in SS conditions and the heat balance should be satisfied: the difference is given to the various axial stations by convection of sensible and latent heat from the surface.
    The stack represent the IR-sensitive gases with molecules with three or more atoms:
    mostly water vapor and about 1% on volume basis CO2, with a distribution which is different. So indeed CO2 augments a tiny bit the effect of water vapor about 0.1% since water vapor has a 10 times bigger IR- sensitivity
    If one extends the model above TOA=10 km, the lack of water vapor and the presence of CO2 would decrease the sensitivity of CO2, since the IR-sensitive gases are needed there to evacuate the heat of the planet to outer space.
    But it is not the scope of a skeptic to make such more refined analyses which would make the CO2 sensitivity still lower then 0.1 C.

  • Avatar

    JWR

    |

    @ Pat Obar

    I started to use grids of fine gauzes as a generalization of the one-slab models as taught in climate clases of Universities.
    But I used the one-way heat flow formulation.
    See my ref [1] which was by the way my first paper inspired by the more fundamental papers of Claes Johnson. At that time I wrote the balances as finite difference equations.
    It is not what you call ”write and run” paper!
    Afterwards I used the finite element method to write down the same equations in a more elegant way.
    Indeed, the basic idea is to look for pairs of surfaces and apply the one way heat radiation formulation from warm to cold, formulated by Stefan Boltzmann.

    I found out that the stack model gave the same results as K&T type of IPCC authors, see my reference [1], but with one difference: there is no back-radiation of heat from “warm to cold”, it was sufficient to subtract from the 390 Prevost type of surface flux (epsilon*sigma*Tsurface^4), which was claimed to be absorbed by the atmosphere , the back-radiation of 324 (K&T, van Dorland and Miscolkszi gave about the same numbers, see my reference [1])

    The stack model is a monochromatic one, the heat transfer between two pairs is equal to the surface between two Planck curves corresponding to the two temperatures, from the warm surface to the cold one.
    In my reference [4] paper, I have given the equations for the case that the surface between to Planck curves is subdivided in to lines of water vapor, COo2, CH4 etc. I certainly will take into account to use HITRAN to find a line by line frequency dependence. The fact that for steady state conditions only 6 Watt/m^2 is leavinf the surface as longwave to be absorbed by the atmosphere (and 53 through the atmospheric window) yields a monochromatic model sufficient to see the very small influence of 0.04% of CO2 as compared to 3.5% of water vapor.
    I preferred to deal first with the objection that the stack model could only deal with the global and seasonal average situation, with the result the lasy paper “Diurnal variation of heat evacuation from a rotating planet”.

    The stack model is of course based that absorption and emission is based on the variation of temperature as is defined by the environmental lapse rate. I cannot judge your claim that also the pressure is involved!
    I leave it to readers of this post to express their opinion on that claim of yours.
    In fact that is the scope of the public peer review of the PROM concept, more people should be involved.

  • Avatar

    JWR

    |

    @John Marshall
    Yes indeed convection is the major mechanism/
    I am afraid not to agree with your statement that CO2 is always hotter.
    I refer to my reference {1}, my very first paper on the subject, where I put a stack of IR-sensitive molecules in a vacuum, or in an atmosphere with no heat tansfer between the traces and the bulk of O2 and N2.The IR-sensitive gases are getting cold, they emit more then they receive from the warm earth.
    This is important John that you realize this result from the stack model: the IR-sensitive gases are kept warm by the bulk of the atmosphere, and the bulk of the atmosphere has a temperature defined by the lapse rate!

  • Avatar

    JWR

    |

    @Greg House
    The stack model is a stack of the one-slab examples taught in climate clases at the major part of Universities. But the stack model uses the one-way heat flow formulation while the one-slab model taught at universities uses the two-way heat flow formulation, with the back-radiation.
    In my very first paper [my reference 1] I show that the two-way one-slab models taught at Universities gives spurious absorption. In a later paper [my reference 2] I give a FEM approach to model the stack.
    As concerns the explicit question of Greg House, and backed up by Pat Obar:
    The IR-sensitive gases are represented by the stack of gauzes. They have a temperature of the 99% bulk of the atmosphere (O2 and N2) with a measured temperature which can be expressed by means of the environmental lapse rate: ELR = -6.5 K/km.
    If the stack would not be in an atmosphere , the stack would be cold, a figure is given in my reference [1] where a stack is put in a vacuum or assuming that the cold stack (IR-sensitive gases) is not heated up by the atmosphere by molecular collision, ( thermal diffusion). This is already a very interesting result, because also in the comments of this blog people assume that the IR-sensitive gas CO2 is warmer then the atmosphere.

    So the stack are the IR-sensitive molecules: mostly water vapor and the traces of other IR-sensitive gases such as CO2 give only a very small contribution.
    The stack has a height dependent temperature of the bulk of the O2 and N2 molecules defined by the lapse rate.
    The global and annual mean surface is 15 C = 288 K. The surface is trying to radiate through the stack which has a window of 14%, a figure obtained by equating the the OLR trough the stack and through the window to 240 W/m^2. Results are compared with those of K&T type papers, by subtracting their back-radiation with their huge absorption in the atmosphere. (this validation is given in my reference [1], where comparisons are made with K&T, van Dorland of KNMI and Miskolczi).
    The various grids absorb heat from the surface and grids underneath, and emits heat to higher grids and to outer space! It turns out that for the given temperature distribution, the emission upwards is higher then the absorption! But in the global and annual mean we are in SS conditions and the heat balance should be satisfied: the difference is given to the various axial stations by convection of sensible and latent heat from the surface.
    The stack represent the IR-sensitive gases with molecules with three or more atoms:
    mostly water vapor and about 1% on volume basis CO2, with a distribution which is different. So indeed CO2 augments a tiny bit the effect of water vapor about 0.1% since water vapor has a 10 times bigger IR- sensitivity
    If one extends the model above TOA=10 km, the lack of water vapor and the presence of CO2 would decrease the sensitivity of CO2, since the IR-sensitive gases are needed there to evacuate the heat of the planet to outer space.
    But it is not the scope of a skeptic to make such more refined analyses which would make the CO2 sensitivity still lower then 0.1 C.

  • Avatar

    John Marshall

    |

    Many, including me, have stated that convection is the major heat loss mechanism from the surface.

    Since there is no mechanism for CO2 to heat the surface, it is always hotter than the atmosphere, the sensitivity must be 0.

    This is covered well by Joe Postma’s papers on the subject.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    “Although we are excited by Jef’s findings we always let our knowledgeable readers be part of the review process” says PSI CEO, John O’Sullivan. “The innovative open peer review process being pioneered by PSI encourages anyone with an insight of specialist training from the “hard” sciences to cast a critical eye over papers such as this astonishing one from Reynen.” OK John,
    Joseph Reynen has done fine analysis, he still depends way to much on the nonsense claims of esteemed academic climastrologists and the politicaly based IPCC blurbs. He has all theory and computer models, with no measurement.
    Specific errors:

    “In [2] a FEM (finite element method) implementation is presented for the same model
    with the same results as [1] concerning OLR and sensitivity of CO 2 : doubling the
    concentration from the present 0.04% to 0.08% would give an increase of 0.1 °C.”
    Your FEM obviously uses the HiTran database that has nothing to do with atmospheric absorption of thermal electromagnetic flux whi the atmosphere is in local thermodynamic equilibrium which is governed by Kirchhoff’s laws of radiation, no absorption is possible. If anything increased CO2 must increase radiative exitance from the stratosphere.

    “Only 59 W/m^2 leave the surface as LW radiation, 53 through the atmospheric window
    straight away to outer space and a mere 6 W/m^2 LW radiation is absorbed by the
    atmosphere.”
    Again only climastrology. No part of the surface has 100% emissivity at any frequency,even to normal, nor is that surface ever Lambertian. Emissivity drops off greatly with angle from normal. The best average radiative flux from the surface is 13 W/m^2 to space and another 19 W/m^2 to the 2/3 but much higher temperature cloud bases. All through the 8-13.5 micron window.

    “But nobody gives the real dependence of absorption of the traces of the IR-sensitive
    gases on the wavelength.”

    The HiTran data base goves an exact line by line
    absorption for the “amplitude modulation” of the radiative flux. This “amplitude modulation” is that that insists that the gas “not be in thermodynamic equilibrium at that modulating frequency. Again this has nothing to do with any attinuation of the actual one way flux.

    “[b]T(z)=Ts +ELR*z[/b]”

    This is no good for the transmission of flux through and the additional exitance provided by that parcel of any atmosphere at its own equilibrium temperature. The ELR is of no help as the actual temperature and barometric pressure vary with altitude, from Sun side to night side, and at every latitude. I thought you were considering a “rotating” planet.

    This is a start. I will continue to read. I hope my points are helpfull! 🙂

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Greg House”]The author claims [i]”doubling the concentration of the IR-sensitive CO2 from 0.04% to 0.08% is causing a mere 0.1 °C increase in surface temperature, the so-called CO 2 sensitivity.”[/i]

    I am asking a simple question and expect a clear and short answer: what is the [b]physical mechanism[/b] of this alleged CO2 effect?

    Just hope that it will not turn another “write and run” type of article.[/quote]

    There is no physical mechanism resulting in the alleged CO2 effect! Fantasy only!
    The Climastrologists cannot even explain why they assume that radiative transfer influences the internal energy of this Earth! Solar radiation does seems to create all forms of interesting weather. Does some agglomeration of surface temperatures have any relationship to the enternal energy? Is it weather or internal energy that decides ice age, or warm period? Do the arrogant accademics even have any plan for determining such?

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    The author claims [i]”doubling the concentration of the IR-sensitive CO2 from 0.04% to 0.08% is causing a mere 0.1 °C increase in surface temperature, the so-called CO 2 sensitivity.”[/i]

    I am asking a simple question and expect a clear and short answer: what is the [b]physical mechanism[/b] of this alleged CO2 effect?

    Just hope that it will not turn another “write and run” type of article.

Comments are closed