Climate Science: What doesn’t work and why
Written by Nicholas Schroeder BSME PE
Richard Phillips Feynman was an American theoretical physicist who observed that if experiment and observation don’t support your theory, the theory is wrong. Let us look at the consensus climate theory: the radiative greenhouse gas effect;
1) 288 K – 255 K = 33 C warmer with an atmosphere than without is nonsense.
2) Upwelling/downwelling/”back” radiation warming the surface is thermodynamic rubbish.
3) The radiative greenhouse effect is as incorrect as phlogiston, luminiferous ether and cold fusion.
After analyzing numerous USCRN data sets, i.e. SOLRAD, AIR and SOIL temperatures for several US locations, I have the following general observations. As the earth rotates below the sun both AIR (1.5 m) and SOIL (5, 10, 20 cm) temperatures increase swiftly and close together.
As the sun sets the AIR cools rapidly because of its low thermal mass and becomes cooler than the SOIL. The SOIL, because of its high thermal mass, cools slowly and becomes and remains warmer than the AIR throughout the night until rotating once more into the sun light. I could find no evidence in the physical data that the AIR ever warms the SOIL to any significant degree. I also could find no evidence that the SOIL loses heat rapidly because of the 396 W/m^2 upwelling LWIR. These observations of actual physical evidence contradict RGHE theory.
What does work and why:
The earth’s albedo, which exists because of the atmosphere, reflects away 30% of the incoming irradiation COOLING the earth same as that shiny reflective cardboard panel placed behind a car’s windshield.
The earth’s albedo without an atmosphere would be similar to the moon’s, 0.12. The amount of energy hitting bare regolith would increase by 21%, blazing hot on the lit half and bitter cold on the dark.
The atmospheric blanket of molecules out to 32 km creates a thermal gradient between the surface and ToA (32 km) same as the insulated walls of a house per the equation Q = U A dT. Above 32 km and no molecules energy can only radiate into space.
The energy that leaves must equal the energy that enters to maintain any given temperature. If the albedo reflects away more energy, the atmosphere cools. If the albedo reflects away less energy, the atmosphere warms.
Because of the elliptical orbit, Q at perihelion is 1,415 W/m^2 warmer and at aphelion is 1,323 W/m^2 cooler, a range of 92 W/m^2 or +/- 3%. If Q ranges +/- 3% and dT = 100 C that would be a +/- 3 C variation – just because of the elliptical orbit.
Because of the tilted axis, the irradiation at any given point on ToA fluctuates 700 W/m^2 from which comes summer and winter. If dT = 100 C that fluctuation would create a 13 C range from summer to winter.
The relative influence of the GHGs that constitute 0.04% of the atmosphere is essentially zero.
Now, you can defend RGHE and the three points I dispute above by explaining how they actually really work.
You can explain where my theory is in error e.g. I used an equation for an over-thruster instead of a flux capacitor.
Simply saying I’m wrong, unqualified, not a “climate” scientist, not “peer” reviewed, outside the 100-year consensus or various epithets, denier, trouble maker, anti-science, assorted other excuses to dodge the science, etc. ain’t gonna cut it.
Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE
Read more at writerbeat.com