Study: CO2 NOT causing climate change

Written by PSI Staff

New study shows that the trace gas CO2 found in the atmosphere cannot be shown to cause anything other than small changes in Earth’s surface temperature. co2 graphic

Independent climate researcher Jef Reynen has submitted a detailed study for open peer review at the independent science body, Principia Scientific International (PSI). Titled CO2 Has Hardly Any Effect on Surface Temperate’the study is presented for full open peer review. Reynen, who has a strong mathematics background and relies extensively on numerical analysis, has also helpfully provided herein a layperson’s guide to his paper, paraphrased below.

According to the paper’s findings climate changes are due to other physical phenomena – not carbon dioxide – and such changes have always taken place and will continue to do so despite the recent claims at the UN’s Paris climate summit (COP21) to ‘limit’ global warming to two degrees.

CO2 Has Hardly Any Effect on Surface Temperature‘ tells us, “Besides CO2 is not a poisonous gas, on the contrary, it has beneficiary properties for mankind because it is a fertilizer: if the concentration would become less than half of the present 400 ppm (0.04%) the vegetation on the planet would disappear, and consequently animals and human beings. In nursery greenhouses the concentration of CO2 is augmented in order to ameliorate the production of plants.”

As witnessed at the Paris climate summit (December 2015) the IPCC (International Panel of Climate Change) under the auspices of the United Nations, continues to promote the increasingly discredited view that traces of CO2 are causing a dangerous increase in the planet’s temperature.

In Paris UN lobbyists succeeded in persuading nearly 200 nations to agree to sign up to limit the use of so-called fossil fuels. Critics have condemned the UN agreement as anti-industrial and a curb on global wealth creation enjoyed for the last 150 years.

In earlier papers the author has discussed the matter using mathematical techniques programmed on a computer. In ‘CO2 Has Hardy Any Effect on Surface Temperature’  Reynen avoids use of the complex mathematics so that more people will consider the message, which focuses on clear, concise facts.

The so-called greenhouse effect, a misnomer

The bulk of the atmosphere consists of 80 % nitrogen N2 and 19% oxygen O2.

The remaining 1% are traces of other gases.

Gases consisting of molecules with three or more atoms are IR-active (infra red active): they absorb and emit IR-radiation, also called LW (long wave) radiation, related to not too high temperatures.

The sun at high temperature is emitting SW (short wave) radiation which is absorbed by the atmosphere and by the surface of the planet, and the heat is re-emitted as LW radiation.

In the so-called greenhouse effect it is assumed that the atmosphere with traces of IR-active molecules trap the heat of outgoing LW radiation.

A comparison is made with greenhouses in nurseries. That is a misnomer, those greenhouses stay warm because the glass roof is transparent to incoming SW solar radiation and the glass roof keeps the warm air inside the greenhouse.

Heat losses by convection are avoided due to the glass barrier.

Reynen, along with many scientists at Principia Scientific International (PSI) says the ‘greenhouse gas effect’ is a serious misnomer and we should henceforth speak about the atmospheric effect of traces of IR-active (infrared active) molecules.

A roof of chicken wire, not a single one but many layers of fine grids

As a demonstration, Reynen shows that by replacing the glass in a greenhouse by gauze, allowing convection, brings us closer to reality in the simulation of the play between surface and atmosphere. He says, “In particular when we take a stack of grids to model the IR-active trace gases in the atmosphere, convection can take place from the surface and at higher heights the IR-active molecules emit heat to outer-space.”

Reynen used a global annual mean heat balance as validated by defining input parameters from the data of the astronomer Ferenc Miskolczi who uses the two-stream formulation, en vogue in astronomy. But Ferenc Miskolczi does not interpret back-radiation as a heat flux nor the Prevost type of LW surface radiation. In fact Ferenc Miskolczi claims that the two values are about equal.

Reynen observes, “We found 79 W/m^2 LW surface flux, 60 through the window and 19 W/m^2 absorbed. We conclude that the stack model is validated by the data of Ferenc Miskolczi obtained by analyzing world wide weather balloon measurements using the spectroscopic line-by-line computer program HARTCODE. “

An important point which Ferenc Miskolczi has made is that a mono-chromatic model describes reality very well, because water vapor is the dominant IR-active trace gas with resonance frequencies spread over the complete spectrum.

That explains also why the mono-chromatic treatment in the present stack-model gives excellent results.

Ferenc Miskolczy concludes that CO2 hardly has any effect on the surface temperature.

Surface Temperature Sensitivity from CO2

In Reynen’s study, in order to take into account any possible effect of CO2, the sensitivity study of the surface temperature from CO2 is carried out on a model with a height of 30 km.

He says, “Indeed for the global annual mean heat budget a model with a height of 11 km or even lower is sufficient since anyhow the effect of CO2 is about 0.1% of the effect of water vapor, which will be confirmed by the results of a stack of 30 km high.

Reynen insists his latest analysis is conclusive:

because it is sufficient to argue that the influence of CO2 is less than 0.1% of the total effect of the IR-active trace gasses H2O+CO2; the concentration of CO2 is about 1% of the concentration of water vapor and in the spectrum CO2 resonance frequency is a single line and water vapor has resonance frequencies along the total spectrum, giving another factor 10 or more.”

As such the effect of CO2 is around 0.1% of that of H2O.

We continue, however, to give a further sensitivity analysis by means of the stack model and evaluate the forcingCO2 in more detail,” adds the author.

The analysis gives results, which contradict explicitly IPCC authors.

CONCLUSION

PSI is inviting interested scholars to participate in the open peer review of Reynen’s compelling study. Here we have shown a simplified version helpful to the layperson. The earlier papers on the subject have been replaced by a kind of presentation around 10 slides. Reynen adds, “It is hoped that a broader group of people receives the message: CO2 is a fertilizer, it will give increased vegetation to feed the growing world population.”

Like an increasing number of scientists Reynen finds that the doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration from 400 ppm to 800 ppm will have no dangerous impact on climate. Here he gives an increase of the surface temperature of dTs = 0.032 C. A further increase towards the optimum of 1600 ppm, from the agriculture point of view, gives a surface temperature increase of dTs = 0.1 C.

In short, IPCC authors have misinterpreted the results of the spectroscopic computer program MODTRAN.

Instead, independent analysts such as Ferenc Miskolczi use the spectroscopic line-by-line program HARDCODE and find hardly any influence of CO2 on the surface temperature.

Acknowledgment

The author wants to thank in particular Claes Johnson who inspired him to write this paper. The author interpreted his ideas by writing Stefan-Boltzmann always for a pair of surfaces: it opens the concept of standing waves.

The efficient help of Hans Schreuder to edit and to host my papers on his site and give them a broader distribution is appreciated as well as the suggestions by the peer reviewers which Hans has called upon.

Thanks also to John O’Sullivan at Principia Scientific International for the publication of this paper.

References

[1] http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/IR-absorption_updated.pdf

[2] http://principia-

scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM_REYNEN_Finite_Element.pdf

or also in

http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Finite_Element.pdf

[3] http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Planckabsorption.pdf

or also in

http://principia-

scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM_REYNEN_Planck_absorption.pdf

[4] http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Prevost_no_back-radiation-v2.pdf

[5] http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/vacuum.pdf

[6] http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/sensitivity.pdf

[7]http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/surface_emission.pdf

[8] http://www.seipub.org/des/Download.aspx?ID=21810

[9] http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Reynen-MATLAB-listing.pdf

[10] http://claesjohnson.blogspot.fr

/[11] http://claesjohnson.blogspot.fr/search/label/Schwarzschild

[12] http://folk.uio.no/gunnarmy/paper/myhre_grl98.pdf

 

Trackback from your site.

Comments (19)

  • Avatar

    Ronald Chappell

    |

    An approach to determining CO2 AGW through fundamental physics. Theme, modeling the random chaotic atmosphere will always remain beyond our computational ability therefore we must bypass this limit by appealing to nature for the natural solution to the determining the AGW temperature rise.
    I am appealing to the greater community of renowned experts to develop this proposed theory to the extent of acceptance in scientific Journals to achieve acceptance in the broader scientific community.

    Exploring the IPCC  AR-5 CO2  Greenhouse (Yes Virginia, there may be a greenhouse effect)
     
    Introduction
     
    Theme:
    Doubling CO2 which may have an IR blanketing effect on the upper atmosphere adds no energy to the earth system and therefore will cause essentially no change in the shape and function of the natural random chaotic atmosphere in balancing a constant solar energy input with the IR radiation output to space.
     
    Assuming the latest ‘greenhouse’ conjecture put forth by the IPCC specifically; that the increase altitude at which the CO2 portion of the IR spectrum is colder than before the CO2 doubling occurred is valid:
    An AGW thought experiment is proposed to investigate the climate effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 in a century:
    It must be a thought experiment which isolates the change in CO2 and holds all energy inputs constant since we cannot control for all of the unknown variables which confound our attempts at verification measurements and attributing measured temperature changes such as:
     
    “The problem with AGW  is that climate models have to deal with many more variables than weather models. They have to model all of the variables that weather models should contain including for instance Solar activity including  cosmic ray cloud effects and minor changes in radiation intensity, plus: (for instance)
    • Land biology
    • Sea biology
    • Ocean currents
    • Ground freezing and thawing
    • Changes in sea ice extent and area
    • Aerosol changes
    • Changes in solar intensity
    • Average volcanic effects
    • Snow accumulation, area, melt, and sublimation
    • Effect of melt water pooling on ice
    • Freezing and thawing of lakes
    • Changes in oceanic salinity
    • Changes in ice cap and glacier thickness and extent
    • Changes in atmospheric trace gases
    • Variations in soil moisture
    • Alterations in land use/land cover
    • Interactions between all of the above
    • Mechanisms which tend to maximise the sum of work and entropy according to the Constructal Law.”
     
    However we can devise a simple thought experiment which holds all other ill-defined  as well as unknown energy modulation variables constant to evaluate the effect of the CO2 input variable on an otherwise constant earth energy climate model.
     
    CO2 Greenhouse:
    In this reference the IPCC Figure SPM5.1 as well as others published by the IPCC AR-5 WG-1 attributes a reduction of~1.85 watts/m2 IR radiation to space due to a doubling of the CO2 blanket thickness at the top of the troposphere.  Although there may be reasonable arguments about where exactly in altitude and temperature lapse rate curve some or all of the CO2 spectrum is effectively radiating, assume for purposes of this discussion that  100% of this conjecture is true . It therefore represents the maximum CO2 “greenhouse”  quoted from the latest effect calculated by NASA .
     
    A Constant input Power Model:
    How does the climate respond to the conjecture of this blanket effect of CO2 doubling at the top of the troposphere where it will radiate 1.85 watts/m2 less IR to space from the edges of the 15 u band?   Obviously the earth must heat up to provide a temperature increase in the water vapor to increase its radiation by this amount to drive the earth energy toward a steady state average balance. While the driving force is the increase in CO2 of 1%/year, the earth  will always respond to catch up with a required atmospheric temperature increase, otherwise the earth’s  mass temperature would continue to rise without any compensating  energy balance in radiation to space.  A warming scenario based on the steady state solution is described here.
     
    Paradigm shift:  To isolate the CO2 GH effect from all other variables, remembering the Law of Conservation of Energy, in this scenario nature has no additional (or reduced) energy to work with and thus will continue with the hydrologic solution which has evolved over the millennia to balance the constant solar power by  shifting the missing CO2 GH radiation over to a compensating increase in water vapor radiation.
     
    Model approach:
    Since CO2 increase adds no additional energy to the system:
    Our challenge is to understand how the climate will adjust to the absolute energy balance requirement.  Calculating changes in the spatial and temporal changes in conduction, convection and radiation in the random chaotic atmosphere have proven to be more challenging than we can ever hope to address with our limited computing power not to mention limited understanding of the detailed spatial and temporal physics of cloud formation in the hydrologic cycle.  Perhaps the correct approach is to let the natural system recalculate and re balance as it has done for millennia  and observe the result.
       As the CO2 accumulates blocking the  calculated reduction in IR spectrum by an increment of ~20 milliwatts/m2 each year over the coming century, the earth will accumulate this energy raising its surface temperature  and the surface strata atmosphere temperature by dT/year . Thus the atmospheric water vapor will increase its radiation an average 20 milliwatts/m2 each year to the some 235 watts/m2 which it is already radiating to space.
     
     Since in this experiment the solar input to the earth including cloud effects, volcano and all other energy inputs (some of which are listed in the introduction) to the earth are held constant to allow us to concentrate on the effect of CO2  ‘forcing’ alone,  the energy flux into the earth and from the surface to the atmosphere is thus constant. This requires that the average surface/atmosphere temperature gradient is constant and unchanged as required by a constant energy flux albeit at an increasing temperature of both surface and atmosphere of dT/year.  Most of this energy transfer remains the constant evaporation rate of water containing its latent heat of vaporization.   The surface radiation which remains constant through the constant surface/atmospheric strata temperature gradient  continues to be captured at the same constant rate and is immediately thermalized by the GH gasses.    The atmosphere temperature lapse rate curve moves ‘to the right ‘ by dT each year along with the surface temperature increase so that by the end of the century it will be displaced by 100dT higher temperature causing the constant water vapor pressure will radiate an additional ~1.85 watts/m2 to space.
     
    Climate physics:
    Since the lapse rate is constant, the cloud behavior/conformation, water content, vertical temperature profile, energy release ed not change and indeed will have no additional energy(water vapor) input to do so.  Since its condensation level is a function of temperature, clouds will start at an average altitude increasing by dz=dT/6.5C/km each year so that by the end of the century the clouds need not change in form, size. extent, temperature or temperature gradient but be 100dz=100dT/6.5C/km higher occupying exactly the same temperature gradient as before the 100 dT shift in atmospheric temperature started.  Since the clouds have no  change in energy or in temperature gradient they will radiate IR in exactly the same fashion but into an atmosphere which has a reduced water vapor pressure(increased altitude) and so radiate upward more efficiently.  The clear atmosphere water vapor will have exactly the same water vapor pressure gradient as before but each year will radiate at a temperature dT higher throughout all altitudes.  In other words nothing need be changed except the altitude of the clouds which have exactly the same temperature profile and conformation as before except at an increased altitude dz.  We see that the natural atmosphere solution (that we have described as random chaotic) which nature has developed over the millennial to maintain energy balance will require no  change except that cloud height will rise by dz each year to maintain their vertical temperature profile and that clear air fixed water vapor pressure gradient will be radiating at an increased temperature, dT each year.
     
    For illustration; some calculation of the average energy flow and temperature changes of a one dimensional average temperature and radiation model is shown.
     
    A very minor energy balance adjustment;
    Since the surface temperature will increase by 100dT by the end of the century, the radiation through the IR window will increase thus requiring slightly less (~10%) water vapor energy radiation reducing the overall atmospheric temperature increase requirement to slightly less than that  described below.
     
    Temperature increase;
    Raising a 255K black body atmosphere which seems to be favored by NASA) by 100dT= .5K will increase the radiation to space calculated from the Stephen-Boltzmann radiation equation by 1.886 watt/m2 which will suffice to balance the loss due to the CO2 blanket at the end of the century .
    Thus the 20 milliwatts/m2 yearly increase in water vapor radiation will require an increase of dT=5 millideg C/year * for a century to balance the CO2 blanket accumulation over the century. (* Yes, we know that dT is a 4th root function of power  but at these small incremental of the base temperature of 255K it  is within ~5% of linear and matters little in understanding the big picture)
     
    Change in nominal cloud base (and top) altitude is; dz=.005/6.5 = .77 m/year or 100dz= 77 m/century.
    To state the obvious, the earth  need not employ any new different or complex physics (indeed there is no increase or change in energy flux (vaporization rate) to power any change).  The earth and atmosphere temperature will increase by the required 0.5K over the century to shift the required 1.85 watts/m2 missing from the CO2 blanket to the water vapor radiation budget.
     
    Stating the law of conservation of energy in this context:
    Again stating the obvious; (although the back radiation/positive water vapor feedback is disproven physics) for those who  choose to retain this paradigm in their thinking,  there is no additional energy flow (constant gradient) therefore no additional water vaporization  and thus whatever the present day situation re. water vaporization/radiation is, there can be no change,  whatever one might believe re. water vapor/radiation feedback there is no additional power to drive an increase in such a  ‘loop’.
     As always, any tendency to raise the  surface strata temperature  above(below) normal would reduce (increase) the temperature gradient thus limit any change in energy flow(most importantly WV).   With a constant energy flow available this is a self-limiting and unchanged constant average surface strata gradient at the new nominal steady state average earth  surface and atmospheric temperature of 288 +.5 K. (15.5C) and average atmospheric radiation temperature of 255+.5K.
     

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Jef Reynen

    |

    Greg
    I do not understand your claims that the global and annual mean heat budget(fig 4)
    does not satisfy the first law.
    343 W/m^2 is arriving as SW from the sun of which 103 is reflected as SW.
    The remaining 240 are absorbed by the atmosphere and the surface, and 240 is leaving the atmosphere as LW.
    Do you agree with figure 4, apart from the fact whether we can or cannot speak about global and annual mean values.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      Like I said, you are hopeless. I have explained what is wrong with your… well… “science” already. Boring… and sad.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Jef Reynen

        |

        Greg, in your 8 comments you have not explained anything.
        You are only giving names, not well educated!
        If you want to continue with this strategy, I will continue to answer you:
        give me a link to a paper in order that I can find out what you try to say, with you
        8 empty comments.
        So please give your comment on figure 4.
        If you do not understand figure 4, admit it.
        It is the result of the one-stream formulation, saying that the evacuation from heat from the surface is not that much by radiation but rather by convection. Radiation remains of course the mechanism from the higher layers of the atmosphere to outer space.

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    How did the fact that observations of spectra of the hydrogen atom lead to the currently accepted electron orbital theory ?

    And why is it continually stated that certain gases do not emit IR simply because they are diatomic ?

    I thought my lecturers were teaching that an electron jumps from a lower energy orbit to a higher energy orbit when it absorbs energy. This energy can be from all causes – collisions between atoms/molecules, absorption of a photon etc.

    When an electron drops from a higher energy orbit to its preferred energy state electromagnetic radiation is emitted.

    The lecturers went further to say that the absorption of electromagnetic energy only occurred when the quanta was sufficient to result in the electron jump otherwise it had no effect.

    Has all of this science developed empirically by observation and theory simply been discarded ?

    If so why do they still teach it ?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Jef Reynen

      |

      Rosco,
      This is beyond my knowledge.
      I do know however,that the present thepry of the IR absorption/emission of molecules with more then 3 atoms, is based on the vibration modes of the atoms within the molecules.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    So, Jef, NO PHYSICAL MECHANISM in your reply to my comment, exactly as I expected. Warmists present their “back radiation” nonsense at least, but you do not have anything at all. You just call some gases “IR activ”. Are they supposed to be an INDEPENDENT additional source of heat, Jef? Or do they produce energy out of nothing? I hope you do not think so.

    OK, since there is no physical mechanism, your “forcing” can only be a result of a misconception you adopted elsewhere. let’s figure it out together, Jef. Let’s start with the question: in your “An atmospheric effect is calculated of 360-240 =120 W/m^2 due to the presence of IR-active molecules”, what are those 360 and 240 and what do they mean to you?

    Please do not refer the readers and me to your papers, give a clear answer here.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Jef Reynen

      |

      Dear Greg,
      The 360 W/m^2 represent the Prevost flux, the LW flux from the surface of the planet if no IR-active were present. It follows from the SB relation
      Prevost=eps^sigma*(Ts^4-zeroK^4) =360 for eps=0.923 (and =390 for eps=1.) Discussion point remains eps, also because it is related to albedo and for eps=1 everything is taken into account by albedo, or reflection of SW radiation.
      The 240 is the OLR. outgoing LW radiation, for the present water vap0r and CO2 content.
      The difference is the what IPCC calls the forcing due to IR-active gases.
      It correspond to 33 K: the atmospheric effect in degrees K (or C) due to IR-active gases.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Greg House

        |

        Jef, you poor thing, we’ve had it like 100 times on this site, unfortunately only in the comments part. OK, let me make your misconception clear for the readers, in plain English.

        So, both warmists and some prominent “skeptics” commit the following outrageous unscientific mistakes that lead them to the “greenhouse effect” and the “atmospheric effect” accordingly. Firstly, despite their education, they derive average temperature from average radiation, which is bad already on the high school level, since the dependency is not linear. But let us overlook that for the debate’s sake. The much more serious thing is that they claim that the surface of the Earth is 33°C warmer than the Sun can possibly induce considering the Sun being the only independent source of energy. The problem is that this 33°C difference violates the Law of Conservation of Energy, since the warmer surface must radiate away more energy than it gets from the Sun. Actually, a 0.00000001°C “difference” would be equally outrageous.

        The funny thing is, that so many people without any specific education understand that within like 5 minutes. The real problem starts however when they refuse to believe, that all those thousands “climate scientists” (including some skeptical ones I mentioned before) can be that stupid to overlook the obvious. Of course, some of the “experts” are really evil with their political agenda, but I guess It started with the “greenhouse/atmospheric effect” long before the whole thing went political, maybe decades before that. It was born out of stupidity, apparently. Right, stupid professors, this is not a contradiction. It must be something wrong with the system that makes it possible.

        Well, normally, if a person somehow arrives at an absurd result, he starts looking for mistakes, misunderstandings etc. Let’s see, if Jef is capable of that.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Jef Reynen

          |

          Greg,
          It is difficult to discuss with you.
          You jump from one thing to another.
          So let me explain you how I came to the stack model.
          I saw some 5 years ago the K&T global and seasonal mean energy budget, with a huge back radiation of heat and a hyge absorption of heat by the atmosphere.
          The back-radiation of heat, from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface of the planet is a violation of the 2nd Law.
          Inspired by Claes Johnson, I started to look in the errors and concluded that it was due to the two-stream formulation of Schwarzschild of 1906, proposed to climatologists by the late famous astronmist Carl Sagan.
          I followed the argumentation to look for pairs of emitters and ab sorbers and to write down the heat transfer by radiation according to Stefan Boltzmann:
          q=sigma*(T1*4-T2*4) for T1>T2 and
          q=0 for T1<T2
          That is all.
          With finite element techniques it was easy to assemble layers (i,j) , in parallel and in series, not only adjacent layers but layers far apart, even layers with a node in outerspace with temperature zeroK.
          The ground node with a temperature Ts and the
          other nodes with a temperature Tz = Ts +ELR*z.
          Here ELR is the measured environmental lapse rate ELR = -6.5 K/km.
          It is important to know that in the stack model, we do not calculate temperatures, we take the measured temperature profile of the standard atmosphere.
          By taking Ts =288 K, the average global and seasonal temperature as is used by IPCC,
          I started to analyse the evacuation of heat for different absorption coefficients of the 50 layers in a model of 10 km height.
          That was a parametyer study to find a distribution which gave the 240 W/m^2 as published by different IPCC authors and others. This parameter study (you can find it in my papers) gave that the total absorptioncoefficient of the atmosphere is ftot=0.83 and a window of 17%.
          In the computer runs we always start with a ftot nearly zero, giving OLR(fot=0)= Prevostflux=eps*sigma*Ts^4 , up to to the equilibrium point with OLR(fotot)=240.
          We observed an atmospheric effect of
          390-240=150 W/m^2 for eps =1 and
          360-240=120 W/m^2 for eps =0.923

          We did not find a back-radiation of heat, of course not, we started with the correct formulation of SB , always for a pair of emitters and absorbers: the basic finite element.

          Dear Greg, if we want to discuss any further, please tell me why you are easy with an explanation of the back-radiation of heat, as you stated in your comments: I have told you how I got rit of it, by applying the one-stream formulation.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            Come on, Jef, I’ve never been “easy with an explanation of the back-radiation of heat” and never stated it in my comments. Please, do not lie.

            As for your “paper”, we do not need to go in circles. It does not matter, where you have borrowed the misconception your “model” is based on, by the IPCC or else where. Anyway, you have enriched the PSI collection yet by another BS masterpiece, congratulations on you and the PSI.

  • Avatar

    Jef Reynen

    |

    More explanations are given in plain English in the non-mathematical paper
    http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Sensitivity_overview.pdf
    B y error the link to this paper has not been included, an error which will be corrected.
    We start from the measured temperature distribution, as given in the paper for the standard present atmosphere.(figure1).
    For this temperature distribution the OLR is defined: it turns out that the evacuation of heat from the surface is mainly by convection.
    An atmospheric effect is calculated of 360-240 =120 W/m^2 due to the presence of IR-active molecules, molecules with three or more atoms. such as H2O, CO2…
    Changing the atmospheric temperature a bit, by translating the temperature profile a bit, gives a different atmospheric effect. Figure 1 , the measured temperature distributions in three different climate zones show that indeed the lapse rate remains constant for different boundary conditions.
    The variation in the atmospheric effect, also called forcing, enables to define the amount of translation of the standard temperature profile
    0.032 K/400 ppm= 8e-5 K/ppmCO2.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    “Reynen, along with many scientists at Principia Scientific International (PSI) says the ‘greenhouse gas effect’ is a serious misnomer and we should henceforth speak about the atmospheric effect of traces of IR-active (infrared active) molecules”
    ==============================

    OK, we have renamed it. Now please tell me, by which physical mechanism are those gasses supposed to warm the surface or the air 2 meters above the surface. All I know about CO2 is a)the change in specific heat of the air it causes, but this accounts for something between 0.0001 and 0.001 C°, considering the present concentration, and b)it blocks some solar IR from reaching the surface, so the result should be lower and possibly negative (cooling). You number is 0.032°C. Will you please account for the PHYSICAL mechanism please? No models, PHYSICS please.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Jef Reynen

      |

      In your last comment , in a previous thread, you accused me of telling lies.
      I could not answer it in that thread, so I take your first comment in the previous thread, to answer, and I am paraphrasing your statement:

      >Warmists present their “back radiation” nonsense at least, but you do not have anything at all”

      Dear Greg, what is wrong with you?
      If you do not understand my papers, fare enough, I do my best to get rid of the mathematics. But even there you are obsessed.
      Give me a reference of your papers in order that I understans better what is your interpretation of the climate discussion.
      My interpretation is clear: CO2 is not the cause of climate change.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Greg House

        |

        We were asked to peer review you masterpiece, which I did.

        As for whether you lied or not, OK, I am ready to assume instead that you are incapable of understanding the simple text you quoted from my comment. If it is a comfort to you, it is fine with me. Although I do not really believe that someone can be that stupid. But you can choose, it’s up to you.

        As for my interpretation of the climate discussion, it is easy to understand just on the basis of the comments I made on this thread. But it is not about me, remember? It is about your “paper”.

        As for your conclusion, it is only partly right, because it still implies the climate change nonsense. But your argumentation about CO2 is totally wrong, it is based on an absurd physically impossible “atmospheric effect” (hey, 33°C, remember?).

        But please, keep fighting, the readers need some fun.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Jef Reynen

          |

          The atmospheric effect of 120 (or 150 when you take eps=1) is due to watervapor. In my paper I do not use 33 dgrees, I only mentioned it to show that as concerns watervapor the numbers are within the experimental results.
          I think it are peanut arguments, when you continue to claim that you do not understand IR-active, in fact sometimes I use IR-sensitive.
          Further you continue to speak about hidden heat sources!
          In my global and annual mean heat budget the LW surfalce flux is 79, of which 60 through the window and 19 to be absorbed by the atmosphere. What I think you called hidden heat sources in the model, are the 101 Watt/m^2 convection of sensible and latent heat.
          Finally you say that you have been invited to ‘”peer review ” the paper, but you even did not read it, since the questions you asked are clearly and explicitly explained in the paper.
          Greg, please try to serioudly “peer review” the paper, and come with serious questions.
          The scope of the PROM papers is to have discussions on the non-sense of climate change by CO2.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            There is neither atmospheric effect of 120 W/m² nor atmospheric effect of 33°C. It does not matter whether you express it in (additional) temperature or in (additional) radiation. It does not exist for the physical reason I gave above.

            Hence your model based on a non-existing effect is nonsense. Nobody needs to read what else you wrote in your paper, it is done already. It is like if you start a mathematical paper with 2+2=5.

            And please do not put words in my mouth. Thank you.

        • Avatar

          Jef Reynen

          |

          Greg, you claim that there is no atmopheric effect of 120 W/m^2. Probably we do not speak about the same thing.
          I explain what I understand with the atmospheric effect.
          If there were no IR-sensitive molecules in the atmophere, the OLR(ftot=0)=390 for eps=1 or OLR=360 for eps=0.923. For a surface temoerature of Ts=288.
          Do you agree?
          If you say that there is not such thing as an average temperature, I might more or less agree with you.
          But it is a concept that is used to claim that CO2 is dangerous. To fight that claim, I use the same concept of global and annual mean temperature
          .
          The value of OLR=240 is another generally accepted item.
          I know that it is different to measure and that a special satellite is going to be launched in 2016 to measure the variation of OLR, globally variation and annual variation.
          The difference of the two values 120 for eps=0.923 or 250 for eps=1, and Ts=288K is the atmospheric effect due to IR-active gases which are gases with more than 3 atoms per molecule, mainly H2O (95%) , CO2(4%) and other traces of CH4, O3, N2O…
          My point is that the contribution of CO2 is small as compared to the contribution of H2O with many resonance lines spread over the complete spectrum.
          If Greg says that the atmospheric effect does not exist, in particular not of CO2 and that the corresponding surface temperature increase is much smaller than 0.032 K/2xCO2, all the better. Please Greg, give the links to your papers.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            Again, like I said, there can not be ANY difference, neither 120 nor 0.000001, because it violates the Law of Conservation of Energy. But you just won’t get it. Such a hopeless case. It takes ordinary unbiased people a few minutes to get it, like I said, but not the “climate scientists”. Unbelievable stupidity, what can I say.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.