Greenhouse model is incorrect but climate problem remains
Abstract – In this article it is demonstrated, given the calculated heat capacity of the atmosphere, that the heat released from the worldwide energy consumed is more than sufficient to achieve the measured increase in the global temperature.
If the same calculation method were applied to the alleged net radiation density due to the greenhouse effect, the global temperature would have risen by 15 C0.
Definition of the global temperature
The global temperature is calculated as the average temperature, measured in a few thousand stations throughout the world. The measurements take place at a height of 1.5 to 2 meters above the earth’s surface.
The global temperature is therefore the temperature of the atmosphere at that height. For that
reason, the heat capacity of the atmosphere is considered to be the most crucial parameter in the
assessment of the greenhouse model.
Heat capacity of the atmosphere
The heat capacity of the atmosphere, expressed in J/K, determines how much the atmosphere rises in temperature, given the net heat supplied. Here “net” is defined as the difference between the supplied and removed heat. In Appendix II it has been calculated that the capacity referred to is 5 * 1021 J/K.
Heat balance of the atmosphere
The atmosphere absorbs the heat that is generated directly above the surface of the earth and, in part, releases it to the universe and to that surface by means of radiation resp. convection.
Apparently there has been a balance between absorbed and released heat for many centuries, but this balance has been severely disrupted for about 200 years. See blue graph in figure 1.
This disturbance has an increase in the global temperature with a time-dependent gradient as shown in Table I. These values can be derived from ref. [1]. (1mK = 0.001 C0)
From consumed energy to thermal energy
The thermodynamic law of conservation of energy leads to the consequence that all globally consumed energy is ultimately converted into thermal energy. Also in the case kinetic energy is generated, such as for example with propulsion.
This kinetic energy is, through friction with the medium in which the propulsion takes place, or through the friction in the machine itself, inevitably converted into thermal energy. If the propulsion leads to an increase in the potential energy of the vehicle, for example in the case
of an aircraft, or a car driving up a mountain, this form of energy is still converted into heat as soon as the vehicle returns to its original height. Since, on average, all vehicles around the world return in this way, it must be said that all consumed energy has been converted into thermal energy.
Direct heating since 1810
Based on the result that 13{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the heat released in 2010 from global energy consumption is enough to explain the increase in global heating in that year, this 13-87 rule and of what in ref. [1] and [2] is presented, a graph of this heating over the past 200 years is made in terms of both calculated and measured gradient. Both expressed in mK/year.
By “calculated gradient” is meant: the increase in the global temperature per year, calcul
ated on the basis of 13{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the average power used in the year in question.
The curvature of the “calculated gradient”, resulting from the term year 42.27, is clearly visibly greater than the one of the “measured gradient”, resulting from the term year 31.65.
In Appendix III it is shown that if for the “calculated gradient” also 31.65 is chosen as the curvature
(which means that the curvature of the graph of the consumed energy must be chosen as 32.65) the
graphs in figure 2 exactly match each other.
But the credibility of the associated graph of the consumed energy does not appear to be affected.
Appendix IV provides a reflection on the direct heating of the oceans.
References
[1] http://vixra.org/abs/1601.0313 Relation Between CO2, Global Temperature and World Population
[2] http://vixra.org/abs/1610.0091 Relation Between CO2, Global Temperature and Energy Consumption
For the appendices and full paper please visit: http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0132v2.pdf
Trackback from your site.
Squidly
| #
B S !!!
There has been no such “disruption” .. this article is beyond stupid.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Yes indeed Squidly, I agree BS writ large.
It’s that Fig 1. junk that gives the lie away.
All very artistic! I presume someone will have a reference for it — and, will it be, no doubt, another bunch of uncorrelated disparate sources nailed onto the modern instrumental temperature measurements with no logic or rationality (just like the infamous ‘Mann’s nature trick’).
Still it is done in pretty colors. 🙂
So please Sjaak Uitterdijk please explain that very unrepresentative graph of Fig 1., and the rational for HOW it was concocted. It’s very unconvincing!
And while we are here, (and disregarding your FAKE fig 1.), please tell why you believe temperatures and climate should not vary? Why shouldn’t temperatures shoot up and down — unless you didn’t know its quite usual, the averaging that naturally happens with most proxy sources hide these extremes.
As we are still getting out of the LIA it is quite normal, natural even, for the global temperature (AND atmospheric CO2 levels) to rise, or do you, Sjaak Uitterdijk, think global temperature shouldn’t vary, that the world should stay as it was at the end of the LIA, with all the human hardship that entails?
Reply
Sjaak Uitterdijk
| #
Never seen such a high density garbage.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
So, Sjaak Uitterdijk you have no reference or explanation for Fig 1. No rational scientific evidence for it being true, or how it’s been cobbled together. All you have done is offer the same old insult and distract just like so many other pseudo-scientist.
My guess (and it is only a guess) is that modern temperature records have been joined onto tree-ring data (probably from the Mann papers) and then joined with something like ice-core data. All very, very unscientific, all very fake.
If this is not the case then please Sjaak Uitterdijk explain how this imaginative piece of nonsense was concocted.
If you can’t explain Fig 1 then it ain’t science. And you’re no scientist.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
If your Fig 1. relies on tree-ring data please be aware of things which can affect ring width. They are are:
The age of the tree. The rate of growth varies through the life of the tree.
Weather. In addition to temperature, ring growth is also affected by precipitation and changes in wind direction/ average speed, and levels of sun light.
Previous years. If a tree has grown vigorously in one year it is likely to grow vigorously in following years and vice versa.
Atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is necessary to growth and increased levels of carbon dioxide can lead to enhanced growth.
Competition. Other trees nearby or other plants can rob a particular tree of nutrients or light.
Parasites and infections and diseases. Non-lethal infection by viruses or bacteria, or infestation by insects, molds or fungi can slow the growth of the tree.
The emboldened item is an example of natural averaging.
Also note that the tree-ring data for all of the 20th-21st century does NOT show the same temperature uplift that the instrumental data shows.
See http://www.climatedata.info/proxies/tree-rings/files/stacks-image-9ae3a2c-800×492.png
and
http://www.climatedata.info/proxies/tree-rings/files/stacks-image-9e88423-798×546.png
Reply
Sjaak Uitterdijk
| #
Apparently you are not smart enough to realize that the extremely sudden, given the scale of figure 1, increase (I repeat: increase) of the global temperature, perfectly synchronizes with the explosive increase of the world population, in combination with an explosive growth of consumed energy.
tom0mason
| #
More distraction and insults, quite normal with today’s anti-scientific academics.
You still have not answered the question — where did you get that Fig 1 and how was it put together — by kreging many disparate, non-uniform, and uncorrelated records?
~~~~~~~~
On your latest point …
“increase (I repeat: increase) of the global temperature, perfectly synchronizes with the explosive increase of the world population, … blah, blah… blah ”
Oh, so you are smart enough to equate correlation to mean causation without any evidence what so ever. Your assumptions are the truth, eh? No evidence needed? How very, very unscientific.
Charles Higley
| #
One has to question his heat capacity of the atmosphere, as he does not appears to address the dynamic heat engine of convection of warm moist air and the water cycle. The atmosphere is not a static entity and is indeed quite dynamic. With the disparate energy consumption between the north and south hemispheres and how consumption and heat release effects vary with the seasons, it appears quite difficult to work the “science” the way he does.
Reply
Sjaak Uitterdijk
| #
Apparently you don’t realize that all this dynamic behaviour has been smoothed by averaging the temperature over as well the total surface of the earth as over a period of one year, resulting in one ( I repeat one!) variable, called global temperature.
That gives the scientific right to consider the heat capacity of the atmosphere as one static parameter.
Reply
Sjaak Uitterdijk
| #
Please, have a better look at figure 1.
Is your comment the only reason to qualify my article as “beyond stupid”?
If you do have more reasons, please identify them unambiguously.
Sjaak
Reply
Al Shelton
| #
Sjaak… Try this from PSI: https://principia-scientific.com/hydro-flask-challenge-anthropogenic-climate-change/
Reply
Sjaak Uitterdijk
| #
As soon as someone proves that I made at least one significant error in my article, I will withdraw it immediately.
Reply
Al Shelton
| #
You say…”the only solution to the climate problem is to reduce energy consumption.”
Since when is there a climate problem? There is no climate problem Sjaak.
And if there is then, it is natural and your solution will have no effect.
Reply
JR Ft Laud
| #
Thanks Al. And that is the real crux of the discussion!!
Reply
Sjaak Uitterdijk
| #
“Since when is there a climate problem? There is no climate problem Sjaak.”
Since when are you blind as well as deaf.
Reply
Chris Marcil
| #
200 years ago a man lit a camp fire. The heat from that fire is not in the atmosphere, it went into space. It so about 200 years ago.
Reply
Sjaak Uitterdijk
| #
Indeed, not all that heat. Only 13% of it.
Reply
Mark
| #
Whenever I see a Scientist who starts talking about Population Control, I start thinking about Mengele et al. How about we use technology to make our energy use more efficient? Just like we used technology and science to increase yield per acre of food??? There is this nasty undercurrent in the intelligentsia all the way back to Margaret Sanger and Eugenics that certain populations need to be reduced to deal with “poverty”. Read that as lets stop certain people from having kids, How about Swifts’ advice of Eating The Irish?? Not to mention that .85 degree increase is not a disaster. Please look at the effects Ice Ages had on humankind as opposed to warming trends. This “Climate Change” is all about Hate Big Oil, Hate Western Civilization, Treat Humans as a Cancer on Mother Earth, unless you are Al Gore, HE gets a pass. Ridiculous.
Reply
Sjaak Uitterdijk
| #
Dear Mark,
Without any “population control” the amount of people will, within 40 years, be doubled.
Try to imagine its influence on nature and thus on mankind, instead of comparing “Scientist who starts talking about Population Control” with Mangele and his practices.
You apparently haven’t understood history very well.
Reply
rod
| #
“6. … This can only be achieved with a reduced world population, with as spin-off: less poverty.”
Oh goody, maybe we can have euthanasia! And just think, we’ll be improving everybody’s standard of living. It’ll be just like getting rid of the undesirables in 1930s Germany. Yesss… Heinrich would be so prroud of you.
But you know… if Alyssa Milano would get her followers to plug their vaginas, it might could work out okay.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Is the next move to soften the consensus folk up so that are treated as that great Fabian G.B. Shaw advocated?
https://youtu.be/WgpaKkrZex4
Fabians and Fabianism is what gave that gave the 1933 German National Socialist Workers Party ( “der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei , led by A. Hitłer) the fig-leaf of respectability when they advocated and performed mass murder based on irrational prejudice.
Reply
Peter
| #
This makes a lot of sense, solar energy stored in fossil fuels, most thermodynamic cycles are around 37% to 45% efficient, with further energy conversion losses for transmission. Waste heat returns solar energy stored in fossil fuel back to atmosphere.
Makes a lot more sense than trying to measure back radiation. I can see my reflection in a glass pane with my thermal camera, it doesn’t make me feel warmer, I cannot see back radiation at all.
Reply
Andrew Tilley
| #
So, then, what accounts for the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period and every other inter-glacial period of global warming when temperatures were often much higher than today? Bonfires? Heating caused by Doc Brown’s DeLorean? Or maybe it was something entirely natural, such as cyclical variations in the Sun’s activity in combination with the periodic changes in the eccentricity of the Earth’s elliptical orbit about the Sun? Just a wild guess.
Reply
Sjaak Uitterdijk
| #
What am I supposed to do with the addition: ” Just a wild guess.”?
Up to now I have barely seen any comment on the scientific content of my article. A lot of yelling and swearing because of the outcome of the theoretical research. And that under the flag of Principia Scientific International!
Hopefully the intellectual level of these commentators is not representative of that of the average reader.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Sjaak,
A problem with your article is the data. A thermometer is designed to measure the kinetic energy of a liquid not a gas. The kinetic energy of 100 C steam is far greater than 100 C water (540 calories/gram). The temperature readings of the atmosphere do not give an accurate picture of the flow of energy.(See my article in PSI “THE TEMPERATURE OF THE ATMOSPHERE”)
You fail to include water in your consideration. The water in the atmosphere contains far more energy than the gas molecules. As more heat is added to the Earth more heat is absorbed by water. Compare the energy received from the sun and water content of the atmosphere at the equator with the energy and water content at other latitudes. As the Earth’s energy rises more water absorbs the energy as nano droplets and the change in temperature moderates.
Herb
Reply
Atmospheric Scientist
| #
Herb Rose wrote quite incorrectly: “The kinetic energy of 100 C steam is far greater than 100 C water.” It is nothing of the kind. Temperature is based on the MEAN kinetic energy PER MOLECULE for solids, liquids and gases, and this mean is thus the same for 100 C water and 100 C steam.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Doug,
Explain where the 540 calories/gram needed to convert 100 C water into !00 C steam goes. Energy cannot be created or destroyed so it can’t just disappear. According to your definition a steam engine would work just as well on hot water. Instead of complete faith in Einstein and Wikipedia look at reality. Molecules of water have more motion (kinetic energy) than molecules in ice, molecules of steam have more kinetic energy than molecules of water.
Herb
Reply
Sjaak Uitterdijk
| #
Herb,
My article on vixra has just been extended by a numerical calculation of the heat capacity of the atmosphere, based on a height dependent temperature in the range 0 – 120 km.
It may take 1 to 2 days before the related version 3 is shown at vixra
Reply
Andrew Tilley
| #
Well, you could start by answering the questions and then look up the word sarcasm.
Reply
Carbon Bigfoot
| #
Comic relief of the week. You can’t argue with a sick mind. His name is fake—it is probably Griff from WUWT. The name reminds me of the character in the Lil’ Abner comic strip—the guy that walks around with a Thunder Cloud over his head JOE BTFSPLK
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Carbon Bigfoot,
He’s real enough just look here for more of his version of science http://www.vixra.org/author/sjaak_uitterdijk
Reply
Sjaak Uitterdijk
| #
Please comment on the content or shut up.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Sjaak Uitterdijk, just in case you didn’t notice, you are not in charge of me or this blog site so please keep your comments civil. I believe that it is pertinent that readers here see what other papers you have written as it will give them some perspective on where you’re coming from. And IMO you’re from a psychologically very dark place — Malthusian.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
No doubt Sjaak Uitterdijk would have liked to have this paper publish here too …
The World Population in the Past and in the Future.
with it’s conclusion —
For this is the erroneous rational you use for publishing your ‘Greenhouse model is incorrect but climate problem remains’ paper.
You Sjaak Uitterdijk are nothing but an unreconstructed Malthus believer, or at least a believer in the forever wrong predictor of doom Professor Paul R. Ehrlich. Populations naturally decline when they suffer great calamity ( you seem to be indirectly advocating such). Your population numbers contain no error bars and no caveats about uncertainty, no science just your opinion on a solution for what you perceive as a problem..
However it has been shown many times that populations naturally decline when they reach a level of economic prosperity. A prosperity that makes excessive procreation a hindrance to progress and not an asset to surviving.
Also as the great modern scientific philosopher pointed out in his seminal TV work ‘The Ascent of Man’, it was not gas, or the state, or even the soldiers that murdered the Jew in the Nazi death camps. It was a belief. An ignorant and arrogant dogma that the world could be ordered and number, the tic-toc certainty of ‘the system’.
Or maybe you prefer Richard Feynman, he explained so well, pseudoscience has all of the attributes of scientific type methodologies with none of the rigor.
Pseudoscience offers instant answers with none of that complicated validation or verification against the observed evidence.
Pseudoscience is never unsure, uncertain, or unknowing.
Pseudoscience is a triumph of the ego and hubris over observation.
As far as I can see your ideas and methods on this matter fall squarely into Professor Feynman definition.
So please reconsider your ideas about human population and what you believe (for that is all you have) is wrong with it.
Reply
Sjaak Uitterdijk
| #
A tsunami of words not having anything to do with the article under consideration. Congratulations.
Apparently you consider the messenger more important than his message.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
You Sjaak Uitterdijk, appear to believe that your assumptions as I have questioned (earlier)have not been answered by you. How did you make Fig 1 as shown above, and where is your evidence that human population rise has caused a rise in CO2 levels?
This leads me to wonder “Why are you so Malthusian in your outlook?”
Maybe you have not realized how malevolently Malthusian your outlook appears. That is my reason for questioning your intent, your lack of logic.
For you as population has risen and so has CO2, and you’ve very unscientifically linked these two as if one causes the other. There is NO evidence given, NO numbers, no observations, just that this is how it has happen.
No! Your assertion is invalid! Linking population and CO2 level rise without evidence is a unscientific nonsense and you are probably (I say this as there is no evidence to base a judgement on) very, very wrong.
Reply
Al Shelton
| #
Thanks for that TomO………………. perfect.
Reply
Atmospheric Scientist
| #
This article is way off track. So how will the author explain the natural cooling that will start when solar activity is low for a few decades?
As one who has studied atmospheric physics extensively, written a peer-reviewed paper in 2012 proving the “greenhouse” conjecture wrong and made a world-first discovery in the field in 2013, never proven wrong by anyone, despite over 100,000 visiting my climate websites, I urge you to visit my website http://whyitsnotco2.com and view my 15-minute video linked therein and study my three papers with the help of a qualified physicist or two. Many physicists now know that claims about carbon dioxide warming us are based on false science. Climatologists (not qualified in physics) have ignored or misapplied no less than three long-established laws of physics. What I have written is correct: they are seriously mistaken. You can easily observe that the main “greenhouse” gas water vapour makes rain forests cooler than deserts, not 50 degrees hotter as climatology “physics” implies they should be. All climate change is natural and mostly caused by variations in cosmic ray intensity which in turn affects cloud formation and thus surface temperatures.
Reply
Atmospheric Scientist
| #
There are some very elementary mistakes in this article. Firstly, as Prof Claes Johnson explained, there is absolutely no thermal energy transferred into the surface by way of radiation when the source (in the atmosphere) is colder than the target, namely the warmer surface. Secondly, the author completely overlooks the fact that some of the energy used by mankind comes from recently received solar energy, such as with hydroelectric power, solar panels and wind turbines, whilst some comes from energy that created coal and oil many years earlier. But more importantly, such energy will merely find its way to Space by conduction and convection into the atmosphere and radiation. What happens is totally different. I have indicated in my comment above where you can learn about the correct physics.
Reply
Sjaak Uitterdijk
| #
I claim, based on the physical law, I repeat: based on the physical law that all consumed energy will be converted to heat energy, that all such generated heat energy by mankind thus heats the atmosphere, because that is the place where it happens.
My article proves, by means of “physical” calculations, that the amount of this generated heat energy is large enough to heat the atmosphere to the temperature it does have now.
Show me what is wrong with these calcualtions.
Reply
Peter
| #
Come on people, waste heat in thermodynamics is a pretty simple concept, yet you don’t seem to be able to grasp it, too caught up in your own dogma.
Reply
Sjaak Uitterdijk
| #
Peter,
You address your message to everyone. Please be more specific. Who does not grasp what and why not?
Sjaak
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi People,
I repeat what physicists of far greater achievements than anyone I find writing articles, or comments, on PSI have written.
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong.” (Einstein)
“Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty—some most unsure, some really nearly sure, but none absolutely certain. Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don’t know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question—to doubt—to not be sure.” (Richard Feynman)
Einstein gave us: E = mc^2 Feynman was part of a team, based upon that idea, which designed the ‘atomic’ bombs which worked the first, second, and third time it was tested. Yet, both Einstein and Feynman tell other scientists that this idea of Einstein has not been proven to be ‘the truth’.
So, I must conclude that anyone who pretends to prove any ‘scientific idea’ to be the truth is not a scientist after the example of these two men.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
E=mc^2 is not the basis of the atomic bomb but the hydrogen bomb.
The atomic bomb is the result of an uncontrolled chain reaction that releases neutrons which destroy the nuclei of larger atoms (uranium & plutonium) releasing the binding force holding the nucleus together producing energy.
A hydrogen bomb is where the nuclei of smaller atoms (hydrogen, lithium) are forced together forming a larger element and converting mass into energy.
Because both the destruction of the nucleus of an atom and the creation of the nucleus of an atom produce energy we should be able to produce unlimited energy by splitting the nucleus of a helium atom into two deuterium atoms then use some of that energy to fuse two deuterium atoms into a helium atom releasing more energy.
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
It is my understanding that the mass of the products of both types of bombs is always less than the mass of the reactants of both types of bombs. Which reduction of mass produces a great deal of energy according to E=mc^2.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Sjaak Uitterdijk
| #
That physicist, “of far greater achievements than anyone ………………” committed scientific fraude, as proven in: http://vixra.org/abs/1811.0277, “Special Theory of Relativity Based on Fraudulent Science”.
And that same sphysicist raped Galilei’s principle of relativity, as shown in: http://vixra.org/abs/1611.0111, “Einstein’s and Galilei’s Principle of Relativity”.
In both cases you don’t need an experiment to prove these statements.
If you want to disprove my statements you need to comment on the contents, I repeat: on the contents, of these articles.
I repeat: on the contents of these articles.
Reply
Sjaak Uitterdijk
| #
I don’t know how to delete this comment.
Reply
Sjaak Uitterdijk
| #
That physicist, “of far greater achievements than anyone ………………” committed scientific fraude, as proven in: http://vixra.org/abs/1811.0277, “Special Theory of Relativity Based on Fraudulent Science”.
And that same sphysicist raped Galilei’s principle of relativity, as shown in: http://vixra.org/abs/1611.0111, “Einstein’s and Galilei’s Principle of Relativity”.
In both cases you don’t need an experiment to prove these statements.
If you want to disprove my statements you need to comment on the contents, I repeat: on the contents, of these articles.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Your current argument (not) is already shown to be not very scientific in that —
At no point have you shown shown how Fig 1. was concocted. It is by inspection just nonsense. To show otherwise require you to show how it was constructed.
At no point have you shown any evidence that human population increase has caused the observed increase in atmospheric CO2.
On both of these matters you have only offered distractions, personal nastiness, and appeals to try and shut me up. Without this evidence I do not see that you can have a scientific case for population control as you advocate.
Reply
Sjaak Uitterdijk
| #
If you don’t like figure 1, just skip it, it is only for information.
The relevance of the article is that I prove that global heating is caused by direct heating as a result of consumed energy. By mankind of course.
Show me where my evidence is wrong by commenting the content.
Otherwise: shut up.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
I do not have to shut up, as I’ve already pointed out to you principia-scientific·org is not your site, it is an open site welcoming to all commenters.
As usual you have nothing. Your entire alarmism about the population is predicated on that Fig 1. being correct, however you admit you can not substantiate it.
” I prove that global heating …” — NO YOU HAVE NOT. Without you Fig 1. having validity you have zip.
Also of note is that many studies point out that the Medieval Climate Optimum had temperature at least as warm as now. Back then the temperature rise would not appear to be a result of human activities. So how can you, Sjaak Uitterdijk, say that this current very slight warming is due to humans? If the temperature can rise quite naturally back then, with little or possibly no human input, have you ‘proved’ (a very unscientific term) that it is not that same case now? You have not, is the answer – you ‘prove’ nothing as you have no answer for how Fig 1. was manufactured.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
We have exited the LIA and since then (about 1850) this planet has only warmed by about 1°C, that is not, by any measure, either rapid or unusual amount of warming. I would consider another 1°C and a doubling of CO2 levels over the next 100 years to be quite normal, quite natural. However this planet’s temperature is only maintained by the sun and the radiations it pour down on us, the moment that radiation lessens then we will cool. many studies show that this solar minimum will impact on the climate — making it cooler over the coming 3-5 years. Some studies indicate that the cooling will proceed over a longer timescale giving us perhaps a Dalton or Maunder minimum type of climate. If these projections are correct then nature will ensure two things
(1) an end to any perceived global warming,
(2) population decline due to the adverse weather conditions.
Reply
Nick Schroeder
| #
One of the heated issues underlying greenhouse theory is whether space is hot or cold.
It is neither.
By definition and application temperature is a relative measurement of the molecular kinetic energy in a substance, i.e. solid, liquid, gas. No molecules (vacuum), no temperature. No kinetic energy (absolute zero), no temperature. In the vacuum of space the terms temperature, hot, cold are meaningless, like dividing by zero, undefined.
However, any molecular substance capable of kinetic energy (ISS, space walker, satellite, moon, earth) placed in the energetic radiative pathway of the spherical expanding solar photonic gas at the earth’s average orbital distance will be heated per the S-B equation to an equilibrium temperature of: 1,368 W/m^2 = 394 K, 121 C, 250 F.
Like a blanket held up between a camper and campfire the atmosphere reduces the amount of solar energy heating the terrestrial system and cools the earth compared to no atmosphere.
This intuitively obvious and calculated scientific reality refutes the greenhouse theory that has the atmosphere warming the earth and no atmosphere producing a frozen ice ball at -430 F.
No greenhouse effect, no CO2 global warming, no man caused nor cured climate change.
Reply
Nick Schroeder
| #
One popular geoengineering strategy proposed for countering imaginary global warming/climate change is reducing solar heating by increasing the earth’s albedo.
This increase is accomplished by various physical methods, e.g. injecting reflective aerosols into the atmosphere, spraying water vapor into the air to enhance marine cloud brightening, spreading shiny glass spheres around the poles with the goal of more reflection thereby reducing the net amount of solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere and surface and cooling the earth.
More albedo and the earth cools.
Less albedo and the earth warms.
BTW back-of-the-envelope suggests a 1% change in albedo changes the surface temperature about 1 C.
No atmosphere means no water vapor or clouds, ice, snow, vegetation, oceans and near zero albedo.
Zero albedo and much like the moon the earth bakes in that 394 K, 250 F solar wind.
These geoengineering plans rely on the atmosphere cooling the earth and expose the error and delusion of greenhouse theory which says the atmosphere warms the earth and with no atmosphere the earth becomes a -430 F frozen ball of ice.
A failure of greenhouse theory means no CO2 global warming and no man caused or cured climate change.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Sjaak,
All objects both absorb and radiate heat trying to reach equilibrium. The Earth absorbs energy from the sun, stores some that energy in fossil fuels, plants, etc. and radiates the remaining heat to achieve equilibrium with the energy revived from the sun. When the Earth contains more energy than that received by the sun, whether from volcanoes, forest fires, or human conversion of stored energy it will result in the Earth increasing the amount of energy radiated at night to re-establish equilibrium with solar energy. There may be a temporary increase in the heat of the Earth but there is no long term increase in heat as the laws of thermodynamics say that any increase in heat will result in an increase in the heat radiated by the Earth.
Herb
Reply
Atmospheric Physicist
| #
As one who has studied atmospheric physics extensively, written a peer-reviewed paper in 2012 proving the “greenhouse” conjecture wrong and made a world-first discovery in the field in 2013, never proven wrong by anyone, despite over 100,000 visiting my climate websites, I urge you to visit my website http://whyitsnotco2.com and view my 15-minute video linked therein and study my three papers with the help of a qualified physicist or two. Many physicists now know that claims about carbon dioxide warming us are based on false science. Climatologists (not qualified in physics) have ignored or misapplied no less than three long-established laws of physics. What I have written is correct: they are seriously mistaken. You can easily observe that the main “greenhouse” gas water vapour makes rain forests cooler than deserts, not 50 degrees hotter as climatology “physics” implies they should be. All climate change is natural and mostly caused by variations in cosmic ray intensity which in turn affects cloud formation and thus surface temperatures.
Reply
Atmospheric Physicist
| #
As one who has studied atmospheric physics extensively, written a peer-reviewed paper in 2012 proving the “greenhouse” conjecture wrong and made a world-first discovery in the field in 2013, never proven wrong by anyone, despite over 100,000 visiting my climate websites, I urge you to visit my website http://whyitsnotco2.com and view my 15-minute video linked therein and study my three papers with the help of a qualified physicist or two. Many physicists now know that claims about carbon dioxide warming us are based on false science. Climatologists (not qualified in physics) have ignored or misapplied no less than three long-established laws of physics. What I have written is correct: they are seriously mistaken. You can easily observe that the main “greenhouse” gas water vapour makes rain forests cooler than deserts, not 50 degrees hotter as climatology “physics” implies they should be. All climate change is natural and mostly caused by variations in cosmic ray intensity which in turn affects cloud formation and thus surface temperatures.
Reply