• Home
  • Current News
  • Open Letter to Professor Michael Raupbach Director of the Climate Change Institute

Open Letter to Professor Michael Raupbach Director of the Climate Change Institute

Written by Dr Judy Ryan & Dr Marjorie Curtis

Dear Professor Raupach,

On Thursday 4th September we attended an event hosted by the Fenner School of Environmental Science which was held in conjunction with the ANU Climate Change Institute. The title of the event was “Climate Change- Why facts and Opinion are both important”.  CO2 innocent

This letter is to inform you of our concern regarding what the MP3 recording http://fennerschool.anu.edu.au/news-events/event-recordings/climate-change-why-facts-and-opinions-are-both-important   evidences as an underlying political agenda directed against the Abbott Government.  Both the petition and invitation to join a protest march on the 21st September are clearly a political agenda and have no place in a science forum. 

As the recording evidences, the presentations by Professor Smithson, Ms Bruer and Dr Will Grant were littered with seemingly unfounded misrepresentations. The recording also evidences what appears to be an attempt to seize the high moral ground and use it to provoke antagonism against the Abbott Government amongst University and High School Students.  Let us remind you that the Abbott Government was overwhelmingly voted in and given a mandate to remove the carbon tax and all its dysfunctional hangers on.

Professor Raupach my question to you (1.06.33 on the recording)  quote“……when you talk about carbon pollution and carbon emissions you are, actually I think it was Will, referred to it as carbon dioxide, which is what the full word is. It is carbon-dioxide emissions.  Carbon dioxide has two states: its gaseous state and its solid state, which is dry ice. How can it be either a pollutant or a warming agent?

To quote your response (1.07.23):- 

It is not a pollutant any more than water is a pollutant…………”

Professor Raupach, how long have you been aware that the Carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil fuel power plants are not a pollutant?

With your strong science background, it is reasonable to assume that you have known that basic scientific fact since High School.  Therefore, in the interests of scientific integrity, why have you never questioned the accuracy of the term “carbon pollution”. 

The promulgation of this term has mislead the Australian people for a significant ongoing period of time, by omission of relevant information.  It has resulted in the creation of a perceived problem where there was none. It appears to have then assisted in the exaggeration of effects from this erroneously perceived problem.  

Black’s Law Dictionary defines fraud as:-  a false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.

Professor Raupbach we refer to the second part of your response to my question now,

To quote “……….So the fact that there is a greenhouse effect is absolutely a given and the fact that it makes earth habitable is a given. The fact that we can change it by altering the composition of some of these gases in the atmosphere is also by now very, very well established.

Surely you are aware that the Greenhouse Effect in the lower atmosphere is only an hypothesis, which many scientists challenge. Are you aware that the evidence supports the null hypothesis, i.e there is no Greenhouse Effect in the lower atmosphere.

Here is NASA’s evidence that carbon-dioxide actually acts as a coolant in the outer atmosphere. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/solarstorm-power.html. It is 4 minute video, well worth watching. But, just  in case you are disinclined to view the video consider this quote from it :-

“Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total (kWh of Energy) back into space.

The term “Greenhouse Effect” was coined for the whole atmosphere by the French scientist Fourier in 1824. It has always been only an hypothesis. It came from the works of early pioneers such as Lavoisier who described oxygen in 1824. Later, an attempt was made to measure the infra red properties of some gasses by Langley in the 1890’s using equipment he designed himself. He was followed by Arrhenius, using the same type of equipment.  Arrhenius thought he was measuring the infra red properties of carbon dioxide, but it turned out that Langley’s equipment was actually only capable of measuring the properties of water vapour. So, from honest errors during the 19th Century comes the modern concept of the Greenhouse Effect in the lower atmosphere.   

It has failed testing on a number of occasions, the most notable being the famous experiment by Robert Wood in 1909.  http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Note_on_the_Theory_of_the_Greenhouse.pdf 

Wood’s experiment has been recently replicated by Nasif Nahle   http://www.biocab.org/Experiment_on_Greenhouses__Effect.pdf who concluded that:- 

(1)The “greenhouse” supposition has been comprehensively disproved by scientists as long ago as 1909 by physicist Professor RW Wood, and was later discarded by the distinguished Nobel Prize winner in physics, Neils Bohr.

(2) In 100 years no one has disproved Professor Woods’ practical, replicable, experiment. He proved selective transmission in greenhouse glass does not magically create more heat.  

Evidence of another kind indicates that whilst the ANU Climate Change Institute is located at the ANU it is a non-government organisation with global connections. It claims that its “Climate Scientists” are experts in their field. 

Therefore we ask you Professor Raupach, as the Director of the Climate Institute and an expert in the field of Climate Science to provide (1) the evidence that supports the claimed established knowledge that there is a Greenhouse Effect in the lower atmosphere, and (2) that carbon-dioxide is a warming agent.

As you are an expert you will have this information in your head so we look forward to an early enlightenment.  Please click reply all when you respond.

Regards

Dr Judy Ryan & Dr Marjorie Curtis

Comments (7)

  • Avatar

    Mervyn

    |

    The question is will ‘Professor Ratpack’ respond to this seriously accurate letter?

  • Avatar

     D o u g

    |

    Perhaps the most compelling evidence supporting what can be deduced from the Second Law of Thermodynamics that downward convection occurs in a planet’s troposphere (in order to restore thermodynamic equilibrium) is the temperature of the ocean surface.

    It is obvious that there must be a transfer of significant amounts of thermal energy from the surface (at, say 18C) in the tropics to the colder floor of the ocean. It is also obvious that this is a one-way downward process, because the temperature differential is always there and the temperature gradient quite steep in the thermocline region.

    So the energy has to escape from the lower tropical oceans and it can only do so in the polar regions where such temperatures (around 4C) are found near the surface.

    But how does the thin transparent surface layer of the ocean receive sufficient energy input in order to both send some energy back to the atmosphere and space by way of radiation, and some at night by non-radiative processes, and also to send some down into its depths in non-polar regions? It cannot possibly acquire all the necessary energy by radiation because it is nothing at all like a black or grey body (being transparent) and most of the solar energy is being absorbed below the surface layer. The back radiation doesn’t even enter the surface layer, and it’s no use saying that it slows radiative cooling, as it does, because how would the surface get to the observed temperature in the first place? Well it does receive the required energy, because it doesn’t cool right down, but the energy into the surface comes from the base of the troposphere by non-radiative convection, diffusion and conduction at the interface.

  • Avatar

     D o u g

    |

    Perhaps the most compelling evidence supporting what can be deduced from the Second Law of Thermodynamics that downward convection occurs in a planet’s troposphere (in order to restore thermodynamic equilibrium) is the temperature of the ocean surface.

    It is obvious that there must be a transfer of significant amounts of thermal energy from the surface (at, say 18C) in the tropics to the colder floor of the ocean. It is also obvious that this is a one-way downward process, because the temperature differential is always there and the temperature gradient quite steep in the thermocline region.

    So the energy has to escape from the lower tropical oceans and it can only do so in the polar regions where such temperatures (around 4C) are found near the surface.

    But how does the thin transparent surface layer of the ocean receive sufficient energy input in order to both send some energy back to the atmosphere and space by way of radiation, and some at night by non-radiative processes, and also to send some down into its depths in non-polar regions? It cannot possibly acquire all the necessary energy by radiation because it is nothing at all like a black or grey body (being transparent) and most of the solar energy is being absorbed below the surface layer. The back radiation doesn’t even enter the surface layer, and it’s no use saying that it slows radiative cooling, as it does, because how would the surface get to the observed temperature in the first place? Well it does receive the required energy, because it doesn’t cool right down, but the energy into the surface comes from the base of the troposphere by non-radiative convection, diffusion and conduction at the interface.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    Michael Raupbach

    Why are the tropical oceans still cold in the depths? Why don’t they become isothermal like you think the troposphere would have been without that most-prolific of all greenhouse pollutants, water vapour sending all that warming back radiation back to the surface to warm it to a higher temperature than it was when it sent the original radiation and cooled in doing so.

    Well the tropical oceans are colder in the depths because the poles act as a heat sink. Isothermals (such as 4 degrees C) are deep down in the tropics, but break out at the surface in the polar regions.

    So too would the atmosphere be colder at the base for the same reason. If the whole globe were paved in black asphalt the surface would be about 235K – nearly 40 degrees below freezing. You can work it out yourself with an on-line Stefan Boltzmann calculator as [url=http://calculator.tutorvista.com/stefan-boltzmann-law-calculator.html]here[/url] using solar radiative flux of 161W/m^2 and emissivity 0.93.

    So there is a lot of thermal energy entering the ocean surface in non-polar regions, moving downwards through the thermocline and exiting in the polar regions.

    But why is the thin transparent ocean surface so hot? Before you say it’s the back radiation, I have to tell you that radiation from colder regions does not penetrate the warmer ocean surface more than a few nanometres. It is “pseudo scattered” because it merely raises electrons to higher energy states and then those electrons immediately drop back and emit an identical photon. The electro-magnetic energy is not converted to thermal energy, and so it does not raise the temperature.

    In fact there is a gravitationally induced temperature gradient (aka lapse rate) in any planetary troposphere, and thermal energy absorbed from solar radiation in the upper troposphere can flow up that sloping thermal profile restoring thermodynamic equilibrium as it does so, and even entering the oceans. Water vapour reduces the temperature gradient (fortunately) making the surface about 10 to 12 degrees cooler. Carbon dioxide makes it another 0.1 degree cooler for the same reason.

  • Avatar

    D o u g

    |

    Good on you Judy and Marjorie. Have you, or will you send this to Tony Abbott and most other Australian politicians? I have sent many emails and copies of my book [i]”Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All”[/i] in the back of which is a study of 30 years of temperature data from three continents which shows with statistical significance that more moist regions have lower mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures than drier regions at similar latitudes and altitudes. You are welcome to cite this study, and the book is on eBay Australia.

    This single fact that water vapour cools is sufficient to disprove the radiative greenhouse conjecture, which depends heavily upon the false assumption that the flux of backradiation transfers about double the thermal energy that the Sun does into the surface.

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    A well written letter. It pulls no punches.
    That is the way it should be.
    I doubt that Professor Raupach will reply.
    Please keep us posted.
    Thanks

  • Avatar

    Plchampness

    |

    Good one Marjorie and Judy!

    Still waiting fro Greenhouse reply.

Comments are closed