Mistakes made by the Consensus
CO2 increase from 1800 to
2001 was 89.5 ppmv (parts per million by volume). The atmospheric carbon
dioxide level has now (through October, 2014) increased since 2001 by 28.1 ppmv
(an amount equal to 31.4% of the increase that took place from 1800 to 2001)
(1800, 281.6 ppmv; 2001, 371.13 ppmv; October, 2014, 399.23 ppmv) while the average
global temperature trend has been flat 1. This is outside of the
‘limits’ asserted by the ‘Consensus’ of the Climate Science Community 2.
So how did the Consensus get it so wrong?
The scientists in the Consensus apparently don’t understand some
of the science very well, stubbornly refuse to acknowledge some science or may
not even be aware of some relevant science.
Here are some of the issues:
1. Global Climate Models
Climate
Scientists use huge mathematic models that are intended to simulate climate
over the entire globe. The mathematic models are very computationally intensive
and are run on powerful computers. These so-called Global Climate Models (GCMs)
divide the atmosphere into about 100,000 or more contiguous blocks which may
also be called elements. For example, the Hadley Center
model named HadAM3 is a 73 by 96 grid with 19 levels for a total of 133,152
elements. HadGEM1 has four times as many. The number of elements is limited by
the practical consideration of computer run time. The programs are somewhat
compromised because they necessarily use strategies such as parameterization of
some phenomena and also use algorithms to suppress numerical computational
artifacts such as aliasing and computational instability.
The known laws of
physics and some approximations are applied to calculate energy interchange
between the elements. Once everything balances at a particular time, the
program advances by a specific time interval and repeats the process. This
works great if you know exactly where you started (initial conditions) and have
perfectly determined what causes change. Neither of these is true for the GCMs.
To be true for
initial conditions, all properties at every point in the atmosphere would need
to be specified which is clearly impractical. Instead, properties must be
interpolated and extrapolated from the comparatively few known measurements and
then smeared over the elements. Wikipedia has an extensive discussion of
climate models at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model . Caution is advised when consulting
Wikipedia on controversial subjects because article content can be controlled
by administrators and might exhibit their biases.
To perfectly
determine how things change, requires exact application of the physical laws to
each of the elements. Again this is impractical (e.g. some of the phenomena
take place in less volume than an element) so some of the phenomena, such as
convection and cloud behavior, are approximated using human-determined
parameterization. One of the acknowledged sources of greatest uncertainty in
GCMs is the parameterization of cloud behavior. The high sensitivity of average
global temperature (AGT) to tiny cloud changes is readily demonstrated 10.
Climate
Scientists are apparently unaware of the inherent limitations of the climate
models that they use. Inherent in this type of modeling (approximation of
initial conditions and time-step progression with approximate application of
physical laws) is that the longer the program runs, the greater the uncertainty
in the results. Although the GCMs are pretty good at predicting weather for up
to a few days they are useless for predicting climate for years. This has been
demonstrated in the total failure of GCMs to predict the apparently flat and
even declining AGT trend since about 2001.
Thus the
so-called global climate models are effectively global weather models. It is
woefully naïve to assume that all that is needed to turn a global weather model
into a global climate model is to run it longer.
The GCMs were
expanded in an attempt to account for the influence of oceans in
Atmospheric/Oceanic Global Climate Models (AOGCM). However, these models have
suffered from poor definition of initial conditions especially temperature
distribution in the oceans and a paucity of attention to the various natural ocean
oscillations.
Both the GCMs and
AOGCMs fail to incorporate thermalization and also their results are distorted
by artificial enhancement by the users of the influence of increased
atmospheric carbon dioxide.
2. Thermalization
An observed characteristic of gases is that significant
absorption of EMR takes place only at certain discreet wavelengths. Emission
takes place only at these same discreet wavelengths. (Theory and extremely fine
measurements have revealed that the absorption and emission ‘lines’ are
actually narrow statistical distributions resulting from pressure broadening
and other factors)
Some gases are called greenhouse gases (ghg) because absorption
and emission of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) occur at wavelengths of
terrestrial EMR. EMR absorption for CO2 at very low total pressure
is at 15 microns, at low total pressure is in the range 14-16 microns and at
sea level conditions, further pressure broadening increases this to mostly
within 13-17 microns. EMR from the planet is mostly in the range 5-100 microns.
Thus CO2 can absorb photons in only a small portion of terrestrial
EMR. [All EMR energy in a microwave oven appears as heat but the physical
process (which involves liquids and solids) is entirely different from that
described here for gases.]
When a molecule of ghg absorbs a photon of EMR (EMR can be
considered to be in packets called photons) it experiences a step increase in
energy. If the molecule then bumps in to another molecule before it has emitted
a photon, its energy changes to a lower level and the probability that it will
emit another photon is greatly reduced. According to the kinetic theory of
gases, molecules bouncing off each other causes pressure and thermal conduction
in the gas mixture.
When a photon is absorbed but not emitted, the energy of the
absorbed photon has been thermalized which warms the atmosphere. The warmed air
rises. The rising air is exploited by soaring birds and sailplanes. Air falls
elsewhere, recognized by pilots and passengers as air pockets and micro-bursts.
The common observation of thermalization is a greater temperature range
night-to-day with lower absolute humidity.
Thermalized energy carries no identity of the molecule that
absorbed the photon. That is, thermalized energy from water vapor, CO2,
or any other ghg warms the atmosphere according to the energy in the absorbed
photon, irrespective of the molecule that absorbed it.
After a photon (which has the necessary wavelength) has been
absorbed by a carbon dioxide or other ghg molecule, but prior to it bumping in
to another molecule, the ghg molecule is at an energy level where it has a
higher probability of emitting a photon. The wave length of the photon that it
emits (if it emits one) is one of the characteristic spectral wavelengths for
the molecule.
It should be apparent that a time interval must pass between
absorption and emission by any molecule. If that time interval were zero there
would be no evidence that the photon had been absorbed and no ghg effect. The
amount of time that passes between absorption and emission is very short but it
must be more than zero (one assessment is 10 microseconds). The amount of time
that passes between contacts of molecules in a gas is much less. The
Hyperphysics calculator 12 calculates approximately 0.0001 microsecond.
Thus, at sea level conditions, it might take approximately
100,000 times longer to emit a photon than to thermalize the absorbed energy.
Even if the absorption-emission time is much less, if the photon is absorbed
just before the molecule impacts another molecule, thermalization will take
place. Thus, initially, some and eventually most, if not all, absorbed EMR is
thermalized near the emitting surface. The thermalized EMR warms the air
producing convection currents.
In the wavelength range of significant terrestrial
radiation, water vapor at approximately 15,000 ppmv has more than 400
absorption lines (absorption opportunities) per molecule in the range 18-100
microns compared to only one at 15 microns for CO2. Thus at low to
medium altitude, the thermalized energy is reverse-thermalized to water vapor
molecules which can only emit photons at wavelengths that other mater vapor
molecules can absorb. The tiny increase in absorption opportunities due to a
100 ppmv CO2 increase, about 1 in 60,000, has no significant effect
on climate.
The fact that nitrogen and oxygen do not radiate at
terrestrial wavelengths demonstrates that reverse-thermalization, back to the
ghg, must occur at high altitudes. In reverse-thermalization the jostling from
non-ghg molecules imparts energy to ghg molecules. The higher energy increases
the probability that the ghg molecule can emit a photon.
The population gradient of ghg molecules (declining with
increased altitude) and increased molecule spacing at extremely high altitudes results
in all absorbed EMR being radiated to space.
The TOA radiation distribution includes radiation from ghg
(some that got excited by reverse- thermalization and some directly by radiation
from other ghg or the surface) and some directly from the surface through the
‘window’ or between the absorption lines of ghg. TOA measured radiation
profiles 13 differ according to the underlying location and absolute
humidity.
Clouds are another source of EMR escaping the planet.
Approximately half of the planet is covered by clouds all the time. The liquid
or solid water in clouds approximates ‘black body’ (Plank spectrum) radiation
with an emissivity of approximately 0.5. Water vapor is greatly diminished
above clouds so much of cloud radiation goes directly to space.
Failure to
identify and account for thermalization is a major deficiency of the 1997 Kiehl
& Trenberth chart which has been relied on heavily by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This chart is shown in the fourth IPCC report
at AR4WG1, Chapter 1, page 96. A 2008 update to this chart can be seen at http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/an-update-to-kiehl-and-trenberth-1997/
. It also fails to indicate thermalization. None of the IPCC reports (including
the 5th) mention thermalization (sometimes spelled thermalisation).
The Kiehl and
Trenberth (K & T) charts erroneously imply that all radiation, which was
absorbed close to the ground and re-radiated, penetrates substantially to high
altitude and also that all radiation from high altitude gets all the way to the
ground. Both of these implications are misleading. With thermalization, EMR flux
initially declines logarithmically with distance from the emitting surface.
At
intermediate altitudes the combination of thermalization,
reverse-thermalization (effectively all to water vapor) and vertical convection
results in a net effective thermalization of approximately 12%.
A rough
analysis 3 using an improved Kiehl and Trenberth type graphic and assuming
effective 12% thermalization produces the results shown in the following table.
The three
assessments of energy flow are presented below; all are in units of watts/m2.
Item
|
Symbol 3
|
K & T 1997
|
K & T 2008
|
With thermalization
|
Incoming solar radiation (insolation)
|
Q
|
342
|
341
|
341
|
Reflected solar radiation
|
R
|
107
|
102
|
105
|
Energy radiated from earth’s surface
|
U
|
390
|
396
|
386
|
Surface radiation absorbed by the atmosphere
|
350
|
356
|
||
Back radiation from absorbed
radiation near surface
|
I
|
324
|
333
|
304
|
Absorbed IR that is
thermalized
|
H
|
42
|
||
IR from surface directly to space
|
J
|
40
|
40
|
40
|
IR emitted by atmosphere to space
|
N
|
165
|
169
|
110
|
IR emitted from clouds to space
|
P
|
30
|
30
|
86
|
Energy transported to atmosphere via convection
|
F
|
24
|
17
|
17
|
Energy transported to
atmosphere via latent heat
|
G
|
78
|
80
|
80
|
Solar radiation directly absorbed by atmosphere
|
67
|
78
|
||
Solar
radiation directly absorbed by clouds and atmosphere
|
B
|
75
|
||
Back
radiation from clouds that reaches the ground
|
K
|
18
|
||
Solar
radiation absorbed by surface
|
E
|
168
|
161
|
161
|
At extremely high altitudes, reverse-thermalization to CO2
and ozone produces the spike centered at the characteristic absorption/emission
lines that is observed in graphs of TOA radiation.
3. Feedback
A feature of GCM (and AOGCM) applications is feedback
factor. In the phenomenon referred to as the ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’
increased temperature causes increased water vapor in the atmosphere which
further increases temperature. Feedback factor relates to the ratio of
temperature with feedback to temperature with no feedback. The result with
positive feedback is a greater increase (or decrease) than would have occurred
if there were no feedback.
Positive feedback is a part of the Global Warming Theory
which posits that a small temperature increase from increased carbon dioxide is
amplified by the increase in water vapor that the small temperature rise
causes. The existence of life on this planet demonstrates that feedback is not positive.
Warren
Meyer in the form of a video clip at http://www.climate-skeptic.com/tag/feedback
shows projected scenarios that have been calibrated by past measurements with
various assumptions of feedback factor and demonstrates that feedback can not
possibly be as high as must be assumed for GCMs to predict significant global
warming.
Proxy data from ice cores show temperature trend direction
changes. Apparently some climate scientists do not fully understand Feedback
Control Theory. It dictates that temperature trend direction changes are not
possible if NET feedback from average global temperature is significantly
positive. GCMs do not predict significant Global Warming unless feedback is
assumed to be strongly positive.
Without human-caused global warming there can be no
significant human-caused global climate change.
4. Safe Carbon Dioxide Level
Included in the erroneous scary stories that have been
circulated (and not refuted by Climate Scientists) are concerns about health
and also about fears of the atmospheric carbon dioxide level reaching a
‘tipping point’ leading to runaway warming. The federal standard for the allowable
level of carbon dioxide in the air that we breathe is that it should not be
more than 5000 parts per million by volume (ppmv). Another study, found using
the Google search link http://www.logico2.com/Documents/ACGIH%20recommendations%20for%20CO2.pdf
corroborates this as a safe conservative level. Still another reference reports
that performance of normal healthy males (e.g. in a submarine) is not degraded
at levels up to 20,000 ppmv. Some greenhouses artificially increase the carbon
dioxide level to about 1500 ppmv to enhance plant growth. The seasonally
corrected atmospheric level in October, 2014 was 399.23 ppmv 4.
Runaway warming at elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide
levels is refuted by the determination 5 that during the late
Ordovician period the planet plunged into the Andean-Saharan ice age when the
atmospheric carbon dioxide level was over ten times the present.
5. Lack of Correlation
The complete lack of correlation between temperature and CO2
level for over 500 million years is evident in a graph 5 available
on the web. Note also from this graph that, for nearly all of the past, the
atmospheric carbon dioxide level has been higher, usually several times higher,
than it is at present.
Many Climate
Scientists have not noticed, ignored or bizarrely rationalized climate
determinations from the past and even measurements made since the thermometer
was invented. During the last and previous glaciations, atmospheric CO2
increase often lagged temperature increase by hundreds of years. CO2
decrease also often lagged temperature decrease by hundreds of years. The lag
is apparent in data determined from ice cores. Graphs of the reported data are
shown in a March, 2008 paper 6. An event can not have been caused by
another event that FOLLOWED it.
As shown on the first graph 6, average global
temperatures for over a century have trended down, then up then down, then up
then down, while average annual atmospheric CO2 levels have always
risen since 1800.
Lack of correlation implies lack of causation. (Not proven because
unidentified modulating factors might exist.)
6. Measured Data.
Thermometer
measurements of average global temperature are reported as far back as 1850 by four
agencies. Reported values are the differences between some fixed value, usually
an average between predetermined dates, and the measured value. The differences
are called anomalies. The actual temperature is the anomaly added to the fixed
reference value. Numerical data and graphs of the average global temperature
anomalies are widely available on the web.
The normalized average
of four reporting agencies is graphed in Figure 2 of a paper 7 made
public 9/16/13. Billions of dollars have been spent in failed attempts to
write GCMs and train them to calculate the measured data for extended time
periods.
Contrary to the
‘Consensus’ approach, an analysis was started with the measured data. An
equation was derived using the first law of thermodynamics and some logic. A
seminal discovery was that the time-integral of sunspot numbers, properly
reduced by radiation from the planet, and modulated by an approximation of
ocean cycles, resulted in a graph with a shape very similar to the observed
temperature run-up trend that has been called Global Warming.
Analysis of the
PDO and ENSO combined with thermal capacitance calculations showed that the
energy stored in the oceans is approximately 20 times times that stored in the
atmosphere. This revealed that the oceans must be accounted for in any rational
assessment. The up-trends and down-trends of the PDO are each about 32 years
long. The up-trends and down-trends of all the oceans are included in a factor called
ESSTA, for Effective Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly, with 32-year-long trends
and amplitude to be determined. The amplitude of the ESSTA has turned out to be
appproximately 2/5 of a degree C.
Using the first
law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy), observations on the sunspot
number anomaly time-integral and ESSTA, an equation was derived that calculates
AGT for the period of accurate global temperature measurements. A refined
version of the equation, included in a paper 7, calculates
measured temperatures with an
excellent coefficient of determination of 0.90 irrespective of whether the
influence of atmospheric CO2 is included or not. A refinement
11 of this paper extends the calculations back to 1610 and slightly
increases accuracy.
7. Sunspot number effect
Total Solar Irradiation,
TSI, varies slightly with sunspot number. The amount of variation is tiny (only
about 0.1%) which has caused many climate researchers, who have mistakenly only
looked at TSI, to discount sunspots as having anything to do with earth’s
climate.
Various papers have been written
that indicate how the solar magnetic field associated with sunspots can
influence climate on earth. Decreased sunspots are associated with decreased
solar magnetic field which decreases the deflection of and therefore increases
the flow of galactic cosmic rays 8 on earth.
Henrik Svensmark, a Danish physicist, found that
increased galactic cosmic rays caused increased low level (<3 km) clouds. An
abstract of his 2000 paper is at http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v85/i23/p5004_1 . Marsden and Lingenfelter also
report this in the summary of their 2003 paper 9 where they make the
statement “…solar activity increases…providing more shielding…less low-level cloud cover… increase surface air temperature.” This
has been further corroborated by the CLOUD experiments at CERN.
These papers associated the increased low-level clouds with increased
albedo leading to lower temperatures. Increased low clouds would also result in
lower AVERAGE cloud altitude and therefore higher average cloud temperature.
Although clouds are commonly acknowledged to increase albedo, they also radiate
energy to space so increasing their temperature increases radiation to space which
would cause the planet to cool. Increased albedo reduces the energy received by
the planet and increased radiation to space reduces the energy of the planet. Thus
the effects work together to change the AGT of the planet.
Simple analyses 10 indicate that either an increase of approximately
186 meters in average cloud altitude or a decrease of average albedo from 0.3
to the very slightly reduced value of 0.2928 would account for all of the 20th
century increase in AGT of 0.74 °C.
The mechanism sequence for the influence of sunspots on
earth’s AGT appears to be: Fewer sunspots; reduced solar magnetic shielding;
increased galactic cosmic rays penetrating the atmosphere; increased low-level
clouds. Increased low-level clouds result in increased albedo and lower average
cloud altitude; higher average cloud temperature; increased cloud-to-space
radiation. Increased albedo and higher average cloud temperature both cause
planet cooling. The opposite, more sunspots, produces higher AGT. TSI is
complementary but is a much smaller contributor.
Others have looked at just amplitude or just time factors
for sunspots and got poor correlations with AGT. The good correlation comes by
combining the two, which is what the time-integral does. Note that a low
but broad solar cycle may have just as much cumulative influence on AGT as a
high but brief one. Both magnitude and duration are accounted for by using the
time-integral of sunspot numbers.
The energy leaving the planet is accounted for by the
average of sunspot numbers. Thus the net effect on AGT is the time-integral of
the sunspot number anomaly. The sunspot number anomaly is defined as the
difference between the sunspot number in a specific year and an average sunspot
number for several years.
References:
9. Marsden & Lingenfelter
2003, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
60: 626-636 http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N16/C1.php
12. Mean time between molecule
collisions http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/frecol.html
13. Barrett, ‘Greenhouse
molecules, their spectra and function in the atmosphere’, Energy & Environment, Vol. 16, No. 6, 2005. http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/barrett_ee05.pdf