# We Should Heed Geophysicists Before Climate Scientists

Written by Norm Kalmanovitch

Time to get back to basics and proper scientific definitions. In matters of global temperature change first we should address the Geophysics and then Climatology in that order!

Geophysics is the scientific discipline under which the processes that control global temperature fall. Climatology is the scientific discipline under which the study of global temperature changes falls.

I am a geophysicist so I get the first word on what, and especially what doesn’t control global temperature changes.

Outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) has been measured by satellites since 1979 increasing from 231W/m2 in 1980 to 233W/m2 today with an average of roughly 232W/m2 over the past 38 years.

Energy balance requires that net incoming energy equals outgoing energy which means that total solar irradiance (TSI) minus albedo must be equal to outgoing longwave radiation.

TSI as measured on the old scale is 1366W/m2 but since this is incident energy and therefore relative to the cross sectional area of the Earth (πr2)

OLR is measured relative to the entire earth surface (4πr2) so to equate these we need to divide TSI by 4.

This gives us a value of 341.5W/m2 for TSI equated to OLR

Since net incoming energy must equal outgoing energy we get the equality of

341.5W/m2 minus albedo equals 232W/m2 requiring an albedo value of 109.5W/m2 or 32.06%.

If there was no atmospheric insulation slowing down the rate of cooling according to the Stefan Boltzmann law the earth’s surface would be heated to the temperature of 252.91 K which would radiate the 232W/m2 into space as observed with OLR measurements.

The actual average surface temperature as determined by the proxy of near surface air temperature is 14.15°C or 287.30 K.

The reason that this 287.30 surface temperature is 34.39°C warmer than the calculated effective radiating temperature of 252.91 K is that atmospheric insulation slowed down the rate of cooling, forcing a higher and higher surface temperature that would overcome the atmospheric insulation enough to allow OLR of 232W/m2.

This insulation is provided mostly by the roughly 50% variable cloud cover present at any given time and by water vapour in the atmosphere.

The insulation is also provided by CO2 in the atmosphere which is responsible for about 10% of the insulating effect. Once CO2 in the atmosphere reaches the 300ppmv concentration level there is virtually no further insulating effect and since the atmosphere is now above the 400ppmv CO2 concentration level, there is no detectable change in atmospheric insulation from CO2 which remains at the same roughly 10% of the total atmospheric insulating effect; regardless of how great the increase in CO2 concentration.

What can be taken from this simple explanation is that CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to insulation and insulation slows down the rate of cooling (or warming) and therefore does not cause warming (or cooling)!

At the current CO2 concentration level of over 400ppmv further increases in CO2 concentration (regardless of source) have virtually no additional insulating effect and therefore have no further effect on slowing down the rate of cooling!

Us geophysicists are rather simple folk and need to bring things down to basics and ‘first principles’ such as energy balance and the Stefan Boltzmann Law without having to bring in complications such as whether the Earth radiates like a blackbody or if we need to correct the Stefan Boltzmann constant “σ” for emissivity.

By simply staying true to first principles, we can easily prove the ludicrous conjecture of CO2 emissions causing dangerous global warming to be completely false.

Our only failure is calling this surface temperature minus effective radiating temperature geophysical metric for atmospheric insulation “the greenhouse effect” which appears to have confused everyone into believing that this is an effect when it is merely the subtraction of a theoretical temperature value from a measured surface temperature value!

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027.

## Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

• ### jerry krause

|

Hi Norm,
You wrote: “The actual average surface temperature as determined by the proxy of near surface air temperature is 14.15°C or 287.30 K.”
How can the actual surface temperature be determined by the proxy of near surface air temperature? Doesn’t the actual surface temperature need to be actually measured? Please consider the actual measurements of actual surface temperatures and the actual measurements of near surface air temperatures which have measured by NOAA’s USCRN project at Mercury NV as reviewed in the posting. (https://principia-scientific.org/record-temperature-result-of-cloud-revised-updated/)

I have more questions about what you wrote; but before submitting these questions I would like to learn what your response to these simple questions might be.

Have a good day, Jerry

• ### Norm K

|

Hi Jerry
Surface temperature changes too much too quickly to allow any sort of reasonable average of the billions of changing individual segments of the land surface area
Air temperature five feet above the surface as measured in weather stations is a lot more stable and therefore can provide a reasonable proxy
The greenhouse effect is of no real use as a metric for atmospheric insulation because knowing what the atmospheric insulation is does not serve any useful purpose
This is why the greenhouse effect is determined from estimates of TSI and albedo giving a value of 33 deg C instead of being determined from empirical measurement of OLR and surface temperature
Bottom line without any actual use for the geophysical metric of the greenhouse effect it’s precise value does not need to be determined
The only reason the greenhouse effect was brought into the climate issue was to sucker the public into believing that a crisis existed referencing the so called run away greenhouse effect on Venus
Just another case of BBB (bullshit baffles brains)
You and I are not baffled but our politicians are so our more important job is to educate the BS Baffled minions
Best
Norm K

• ### jerry krause

|

Hi Folks,

There it is folks. John O’Sullivan (editor of PSI) is right. I need to learn to write better and ramble less because the readers of PSI cannot understand what I write.

But just in case John might be wrong about all PSI readers, I will continue to make my inane comments until he shuts them down.

Have a good day, Jerry

• ### geran

|

Jerry, I have no idea what John is trying to teach you, but it might be as simple as this:

1) Decide if your comment is really needed, or just another ego blast.
2) If needed, make your comment as succinctly as possible.
3) Before hitting the “submit” button, did you adhere to 1) and 2)?

• ### jerry krause

|

Hi Geran,

Was your comment really needed?

I really consider that it is not good science to use air temperatures as if they are surface temperatures. Did you go to the link provided to see how different actual measured surface temperatures can be from actual measured air temperatures?

Have a good day, Jerry

• ### geran

|

Jerry, I was responding to your comment. You did not mention any “air” or “surface” temperatures in your comment.

Why are you tossing out a “red herring”?

That’s what egotists do when they get trapped.

• ### Squidly

|

“Insulation” ??? .. hahahaha … give me a break. … pfffttt..

• ### Squidly

|

I am curious. If CO2 is an insulator, then why do skating rinks in Canada, virtually all of them, use CO2 as a coolant? … saving more than 50% of energy costs doing so.

I know the answer to this question, do you? … FYI, the answer completely refutes your assertion that CO2 is an “insulator”. A real world empirical example that destroys your article.

• ### Joseph A Olson

|

Gases make lousy Insulation, hence thermos bottles use a vacuum to reduce convection, but this does not effect EMR radiation. Absorption is a billionth of a second transfer of energy resulting in a Kinetic Energy gain by the absorpting molecule, and emission of a lower energy, longer wavelength photon. Delayed heating happens with incoming TSI and delayed cooling happens with OLR, see

“Unmasking Climaclownology” interview with Dr James Fetzer

https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=3URHD6HR6DU7

• ### Herb Rose

|

Hi Norm,
I have a question about the radiation of the internal heat of the Earth. Don’t volcanoes and geothermal heat add to the amount of heating radiated into space? Wouldn’t you expect that in order for the Earth’s crust to form the Earth must radiate a little more heat than it receives from the sun?
I am not sure if this added heat is significant, since the difference is small and would become less significant with distance, but isn’t there a difference between radiating heat and losing heat. in order for an object, like the Earth, to lose heat that heat must be transferred to another object according to the conservation of energy principle. Isn’t the insulation of the Earth done by the vacuum of deep space not by the atmosphere?

Thanks, Herb

• ### Joseph A Olson

|

YES….variable volcanism is intentional understated by at least an order of magnitude, and 100% of this energy flows through the biosphere, see

“Volcanic CO2” by Timothy Casey at Geologist-1011

“Earth’s Missing Geothermal Flux” at FauxScienceSlayer

“Corollation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming” by
Dr Arthur Viterito at Principia Scientific International