G12. Carbon Dioxide: An Innocent Bystander in Climate Change

by Bryce Johnson

Abstract

An atmospheric radiation transport code, SpectralCalc™ (1) has been used to predict carbon dioxide’s contribution to earth heating.  The code predicts that doubling atmospheric CO2 raises its temperature by only 0.22 degrees C.  This temperature rise is very much lower than “conventional” predictions which indicate at least a 1 C rise for doubling (2). The code shows that increasing CO2 by a factor of eight would trigger a 0.86 C rise while an increase of 0.72 C would be manifest by only a 30 percent increase in water vapor.

Thirty percent is a typical daily variation in the amount of water vapor (3, 4).  At the current rate of increase, 2000 years would be required to achieve an increase of a factor of eight in CO2. Another statement of the comparison would be that it takes carbon dioxide 2000 years to affect the temperature as much as water does in one day. It is doubtful that such a small increase as 0.22 C (the doubling effect) could trigger any “feedbacks” (effects caused by the heating which modify its result) which are considered by climate-change proponents to be the cause of most of the CO2 generated effects because they are claimed to be positive (increase the effect).

Conventional wisdom on global warming is contradicted by two additional findings. These are: 1) there is negligible contribution to earth warming at high attitudes; and 2) the dominant source of radiation to outer space from the atmosphere (which is its cooling mechanism) is from low, rather than high altitudes. These plus the altitude variation of ghg energy deposition from Figure 4 give ample evidence that ghg heating of the atmosphere is a low-altitude phenomenon.

The two known analyses (5, 6) have reported results comparable to this study use the same code or a similar method,

There is no reason to consider that carbon dioxide has anything but a negligible impact on earth warming.

Caveat

Results and conclusions contained herein are dependent on the accuracy and adequacy of the SpectralCalc computer code.  Requests for documentation of its accuracy and for a review of this study for appropriate use of the code from GATs, Inc., the owner of the code, have gone unanswered. The code is proprietary and unavailable for outside checking.  The code has been used for a number of years and has had adequate opportunity for “debugging” and comparison with observations.  The description provided for users indicates it produces valid and accurate results, but results of check runs have not been provided

The SpectralCalc™ Code and Greenhouse Effect

The greenhouse effect is the absorption by a molecule of a quantum (specific amount) of radiation energy and its immediate conversion to local heat energy.  It occurs only in the infrared (IR) portion of the electromagnetic-wave spectrum (energy distribution).  Its wavelength range is about 4 to 80 microns.  It is produced by heated substances and when it is absorbed it produces heat.

The SpectralCalc code was designed for calculating radiation transmission and its interaction with matter.  It is ideal for characterizing the greenhouse process and it has a built-in library of digitized greenhouse-gas and atmospheric data at successive concentric virtual spherical shells about the earth and a capability to accurately calculate transmission and absorption probabilities of specified radiation (uniquely characterized by its energy or its wavelength) between any two points in the atmosphere with properties altered at the boundaries of the individual shells traversed by the radiation.  Its universality and accuracy provides a unique probe of major concerns of earth warming.  Because it calculates only one path at a time an additional calculation is required to determine the radiation from a surface area.  Microsoft’s Excel™ spreadsheet is used in this study for this calculation.  .

“Saturation” effects are included in SpectralCalc. Saturation is the case where the infrared (IR) radiation has encountered enough IR absorbing molecules to remove all the energy of a specific set of wavelengths so that additional molecules of the absorber cannot increase absorption at these wavelengths.  Saturation is a significant factor in limiting the possible ghg heat of a given absorber. It is exhibited by both H2O and CO2 and they are synergistic (the saturation of the two together is more than the sum of each of their individual values). It is likely that the low absorption values produced with this code are due to its detailed and accurate characterization of saturation and this observation is also expressed in Reference 6.  Appendix A contains a description of the application of SpectralCalc in determining the fractional greenhouse gas (ghg) absorption of carbon dioxide.

Technical Approach

The following approximations simplify the calculation without compromising the results.

  • The only source of IR radiation (the exclusive source of greenhouse effect) is from the Earth.  The sun’s fraction of IR radiation is too small to matter.
  • Water and carbon dioxide can be considered the only ghg contributors to the atmosphere. Other ghg contributors are negligible compared to these.
  • Clouds and precipitation can be ignored. This assumption assures a conservative result since liquid water and ice absorb more IR than water vapor and their absence augments the fraction attributable to carbon dioxide which is conservative for this analysis.
  • Exclusion of feedback effects avoids complicating the analysis and, because of their controversial nature, adds confidence to the results.

The analysis is completed with two ratios:

  • The ratio of carbon dioxide ghg atmospheric heating to that of water ghg heating, and
  • The ratio of ghg heating of the atmosphere to total heating of the atmosphere.

The first ratio requires extensive use of the SpectralCalc code.

The second of these ratios is available from any number of earth-atmosphere energy balances (such as those shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3).

Determination of CO2 Contribution to Atmospheric Temperature

If the ratio of atmospheric absorption with added carbon dioxide to that without the added carbon dioxide (i.e., that with the current level of carbon dioxide) is designated as c and the ratio of ghg heat addition to total atmospheric heat addition as g, then the fraction of carbon dioxide ghg heating to total greenhouse heating is c/(1+c) and the fraction of carbon dioxide heat to total heat is gc/(1+c).   Since radiation to outer

space is the only way the atmosphere can lose heat, the heat transfer equations for the total atmosphere with and without the added carbon dioxide heat are respectively written with the Stefan-Boltzmann equation as

(1)                          e s(Tw4 – To4)   =  H(1 + gc/(1+c))

(2)                          e s(Two4 – To4)   =  H

Where e, s are the atmospheric emissivity and Stefan-Boltzmann constant, respectively.  Subscripts w, wo and o designate “with” and “without” added carbon dioxide, and “outer” space, respectively. H is the heat transfer rate without the additional CO2 . The T values are in units of absolute temperature, normally as degrees Kelvin.  Division of Equation 1 by Equation 2 and approximating To as 0, reduces to

(3)                         Tw =   Two(1 + gc/(1+c))1/4

The temperature of the atmosphere is generally considered to vary from 288K at the earth’s surface to 255K at the “top of the atmosphere” where most radiation to outer space is considered to be emitted.  The definition of top of the atmosphere is arbitrary.  There really is no unique “top” and radiation directly to outer space is emitted throughout the atmosphere.  Little difference is seen in the added temperature to the atmosphere between using the “warmest” or the “coldest” of atmospheric temperatures as Two in the above equation.  This means that the distribution of heat within the atmosphere has but a small effect on greenhouse heating. Figure 6 shows that the atmosphere is not preferentially cooled from high-altitude radiation.  In fact, the opposite is true.

Atmospheric Heat Balance

Figure 1 is the atmosphere-and-earth heat balance produced by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  This is useful as a point of comparison for the analysis presented here. It is the basis for the IPCC analysis of global warming, but has been subject to some valid criticism. The surface radiation emission shown as 396 w/m2 is very nearly the same as the prediction by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for the accepted standard surface temperature of the earth at 288K which is 390 w/m2.  The back radiation absorbed by the surface matches the so-called “downwelling” radiation produced by the heat of the atmosphere (6, 7).  The other  heat fluxes are approximately the same as those of depicted in the figures 2 and 3 diagrams, which depict only net heat flows for each type crossing the the atmospheric boundaries, as Figure 1 does for all but IR heat at the earth’s surface.

Figure 1.  IPPC Energy Budget (8)


Figure 2. Atmospheric Energy Balance by U. S. Weather Service (9)

Figure 3.  NASA Earth-Energy Budget (10)

When using the earth’s surface temperature as the starting point for IR calculation the back radiation is accounted for because of its effect on the surface temperature.  The small imbalance of 0.9 w/m2 is not valid.  It is an apparent attempt to illustrate a “warming earth” by the IPPC.

The net energies crossing the earth and outer atmosphere boundaries are similar for these balances, but the ratio of greenhouse absorption to that radiated directly to space is much larger for the NASA balance than for the other two.  In order to avoid underestimating the effect of carbon dioxide the NASA balance is used for determining the g value of Equation 3.

Calculations

The only inputs required for the analysis are the 288 K, for the earth’s surface temperature, the heat flux from the sun (341.3 w/m2 ) and the distribution of solar radiation entering the system among the various absorbers and reflectors. In calculating IR absorptions with varying amounts of atmospheric CO2 the SpectralCalc™ code accepts as input the fractions of all IR absorbers in the atmosphere as determined by those listed in the U.S. Standard Atmosphere which is included with SpectralCalc and controlled by the user with an input multiplying factor. These are used to assess the fractional IR absorption and transmission at a given limited wavelength interval between any two points in space as long as the code’s calculation capability is not exceeded.  If it is exceeded the scope of the calculation can be reduced to match the code capability. For this analysis only water and carbon dioxide are used and the values between the earth’s surface to outer space are calculated at various angles. The output of the code is the probability of absorption and transmittance from a unit source at an emitting surface to a receiving surface. Source units are normally watts/m2 per steradian.

It was found that an average angle with the vertical was adequate for approximating the result from integrating over the unit hemisphere of emission from a flat surface. The approximation avoided many time-consuming SpectralCalc runs.  It was found that 60 degrees produced the appropriate result. The accuracy of using a single angle is enhanced by the fact that the results are in terms of ratios which tends to cancel the effects of the error in the approximation.

Results were calculated for water vapor only and for carbon dioxide only in an otherwise standard atmosphere to illustrate their saturation synergism. They capture 16 percent less IR radiation acting together than they would if they could act independently. To determine the effect of added CO2, runs were made with the current level and twice, four times and eight times that level of CO2 with an otherwise standard-atmosphere. The fractional increase caused by each added ratio was then used in Equation 3 to determine the associated atmospheric temperature increase. The g value in Equation 3 is based on the NASA balance is 15/64 or nearly 25 percent.  The NASA balance is used because it has the highest ratio of greenhouse heating to total heating of the atmosphere and thereby produces the greatest conservatism.

An additional calculation was made with a standard atmosphere and a 30 percent increase in water vapor concentration to demonstrate that the effect was much greater than that of doubling carbon dioxide.

Other determinations using the code were the altitude distribution of ghg heat deposited in the atmosphere, the back radiation and “out” or upward radiation from the heat of the atmosphere and a determination of the source distribution for the “out” or “upwelling” radiation. The altitude distribution shown in Figure 4 demonstrates the insignificance of high altitudes in greenhouse heating. The altitude distribution of ghg heat deposition simply sums the absorption between increments of altitude for the wavelength increments and plots them at the altitude of the midpoint of its increment

The back and out radiation results are shown in Figure 5, which is of interest but has no bearing on carbon dioxide’s contribution to atmospheric heating.  Figure 6 shows the altitude distribution of the radiation sources that cool the atmosphere.  The results indicated in Figure 5 are the exact opposite of the assumptions that have been used to date.  It is fortunate that the distribution has only a secondary effect of carbon dioxide’s heating effect.

The results shown in Figures 5 and 6 require that a source magnitude be determined for the altitude points where upward and downward radiation is to be calculated.  This magnitude is proportional to the product of moles per meter3 and radiance for the specific interval of wavelength used in the SpectralCalc code. The moles per meter3 are proportional to ratio of absolute pressure to absolute temperature according to the perfect gas law.  These values for each altitude are from the U. S. Standard Atmosphere data library of SpectralCalc.  The emittance value at the midpoint of the altitude increment is assumed to be the average for the increment The radiance of the wavelength increment is determined from the Planck spectrum of the blackbody radiation at the temperature of its altitude.  The emittance past the altitude of the “top of the atmosphere” and that into the surface of the earth from the source at that altitude are calculated by SpectralCalc. Example calculations are in Appendix B.

Figure 5 values are from plotting upward and downward emittance values at each wave length increment and plotting against the wavelength at the midpoint of the increment. Figure 6 values are the sum of values of emittance at the top of the atmosphere (modeled at 30 km) from all the wavelength increments producing such emittance from the midpoint of a given altitude increment. These sums are then plotted at the midpoint of the altitude increment to produce Figure 6.  The values so plotted are assumed to be the average emittance per km in the increment.

Results

Table 1 summarizes the steps leading to determining the effect of added carbon dioxide.  The number listed with the absorber is the factor applied to the standard-atmosphere values to determine its concentration.  These values are extremely low compared to prior published results with the exception of References 5 and 6 which are comparable.

All three values lie within 0.2 C with each other for doubling atmospheric CO2.  NASA ‘s latest estimate (2) is roughly eight times the result shown here.  The commonality between references 5 and 6 and this study is the use of detailed tracking of the radiation at specific paths through the atmosphere with altitude dependent parameters made possible with large computer codes such as SpectralCalc.

These calculations apparently show much more saturation by molecules in the atmosphere than those of previous ones.  Also it shows that carbon dioxide whose absorption spectrum is dominated by two large peaks is subject to more saturation than the relatively smooth shape of water absorption with lower peak values.

The comparison of water and carbon dioxide acting alone (the first two columns of Table 1) shows that water’s individual absorption is more than three times as effective as that of carbon dioxide. But this ratio does not represent that of the pure cross sections because the code varies the concentration with altitude.

Figure 4 shows the deposition of greenhouse heat as a function of altitude and indicates the negligibility of greenhouse effect at high altitudes.

Figure 4

Figure 5 is a spectrum of the upwelling and downwelling radiation from the atmosphere as calculated with SpectralCalc. The upwelling radiation was calculated as 80 percent greater than downwelling.  Because it does not impact the goal of this study it has not been rechecked or reviewed.  It is similar to the measured spectra of downwelling radiation.  It has been included to illustrate the versatility of SpectralCalc.

Figure 5.  Spectra of Upwelling and Downwelling Radiation

Figure 6. Magnitude vs. Altitude for Sources of Atmospheric Radiation Cooling

Figure 6 shows where the radiation comes from that cools the atmosphere. It definitely does not come from near the “top of the atmosphere,” as alleged by both sides of the global warming debate.  It should be not be a surprise. The larger source at low elevations more than compensate for greater transmission values at high elevations. Figure 6 adds to the evidence that greenhouse heating is a low altitude phenomenon.

Appendix A  SpectralCalc™ Application for GHG Modeling

The best illustration of SpectralCalc’s capability in ghg calculations is with the results of its use.  The following figures are from the computations of absorption in atmosphere for the earth’s IR with different combinations of water vapor and CO2 concentrations and within the wavelength ranges indicated at the bottom of the figures. Absorption is plotted, but the transmittance is listed on the lower right. Figures A.1-1, A.1-2 and A.1-3 are at  standard-atmosphere concentrations of water and carbon dioxide in the wavelength range of 16-to-18 microns.  Fractional areas above these curves are the mean transmittance for that micron range and fractional areas below are the mean absorption. A.1-1 is for carbon dioxide only and the fact that the spectral lines are truncated at a probability of 1 indicates some saturation. The top graph on this figure is a logarithmic plot of the absorption of all molecules in the atmosphere that absorb in this range.  They are color

Figure A.1 Absorption in Atmosphere of only Std. Atm. CO2

Figure A.2 is for water vapor by itself.

Figure A.2  Absorption in Atmosphere of only Std. Atm. H2O

Figure A.3.  Absorption of Std. H2O + Std. CO2 in Atmosphere

These three figures illustrate both saturation and its synergism.  Note that carbon dioxide by itself is capable of absorbing over 55 percent of incident radiation in this range.  (Absorption is 1 – transmittance, as listed on the lower right of the graph). But when combined with water vapor it can contribute only 5 percent. This is because water almost completely saturates absorption in this micron range.  Beyond 22 microns there is no more carbon dioxide absorption and water completely saturates the absorption to beyond 100 microns and is the main reason that water completely dominates ghg absorption.

Table A.1-1 is a summary of the SpectralCalc results that are used in Table 1 of the main report. In the row of GHGs, c is for carbon dioxide and h is for water.  The numbers associated with these letters are the multipliers for the standard atmosphere values of these gases. The entries are the products of the radiance values for the wavelength range as determined from the blackbody sub-program of SpectralCalc and the absorption probability.  They were calculated by the atmosphere paths sub-program which produced the three figures above.

The last row of the table provides the input values for the absorptions listed in the first row of Table 1 of the main report. Note that twenty four wavelength increments were required to span the total range of the earth’s IR at 288 K.  A similar table was constructed for the transmittances.

Table A.1-1 Summary of SpectralCalc Calculations

Appendix B.  Calculation of IR Transport Within the Atmosphere

Table B.1 is a summary of one of 24 such calculations that provide the inputs for Figures 5 and 6.  For Figure 6 the sums of the up and the down transmissions are each plotted against the midpoint of the associated wavelength increment produce the spectra shown.  For Figure 7 the up transmission values for each altitude increment are divided by the depth of the increment to obtain transmission per kilometer and this is plotted at the midpoint of the altitude increment.  The up transmission is to 30 km which is well into the stratosphere.  Each of these plots starts with a source term at the emission point.

References

  1. SpectralCal.com of GATS, inc.
  2. Page, Lewis, New NASA model: Doubled CO2 means just 1.64°C warming,
  3. Dai, A. and J. Wang, et. al., 2002: “Diurnal variation in water vapor over North  America and its implications for sampling errors in radiosonde humidity” J. Geophys. Res., http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/PW-diurnal.pdf
  4. Wang, J. and A. Dai et al., 2002: “Diurnal variation in water vapor and liquid water profiles from a new microwave radiometer profiler”  http://www.radiometrics.com/wang_ams02.pdf
  5. Petschauer, Richard J., http://climateclash.com/2011//01/09/g5-carbon-heat-trapping-a-critique/
  6. Harde, Hermann,  Helmut-Schmidt-Universitat, Hamburg, http://climateclash.com/2011/03/06./g11-how-much-co2-really-contributes-to-global-warming
  7. Wang, J. and J. A. Curry, 2008: “Relative humidity variations in the tropical Western Pacific and relations with deep convective clouds” http://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf08/extended_abs/wang_j.pdf?id=73
  8. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/publications/annrpt25/3_2_9.pdf
  9. Trenberth, Kevin E. et al  “Earth’s Global Energy Budget,”  BAMS, March 2009.
  10. http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmos/energy_balance.htm

Acknowledgments

The author is indebted to Dr. Ed Berry and Mr. Neil Brown for advice and encouragement and to Dr. Berry for publishing a draft on his website for review.

About the Author

Bryce W. Johnson is a retired Professional Engineer in the State of California and has earned the following degrees:  BS/ME, University of Idaho; MS/NE, North Carolina State University and PhD/ME, Stanford University.  His career spanned 47 years research in nuclear power and nuclear weapons.  The last 32 years were as a research scientist for Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC).

 



(13354)

Comments

  1. 1
    Berthold Klein says:

    Response to Dr. Johnson P.E.-While I agree with the title and bottom line of this post there are several technical errors that must be corrected. What Dr. Johnson has shown by a different approach is what was shown by R.W.Wood in 1909, by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner in 2009 and Alan Carlin of US EPA in March 2009. Also the work of John Tydall in 1860’s agrees that CO2 effects are insignificant.

    The first technical error relates to the statement that there is not enough Long wavelengths IR in inbound Solar radiation to saturate the CO2 or other IRags in the atmosphere. Anyone that looks at a solar radiation graph they can see that none of the wavelengths go to zero. Yes there are dips at specific wavelength. Now this leads into the next technical errors that are represented by the Fig’s I, 2, and 3. These cartoons are a bad joke. Let’s start with the fact that as the earth turns the side facing the sun is continually being heated. Only the side of the earth in the shadow- facing away from the sun is showing the “cooling”.
    If you look at the archives December, 2010 G3 “The Greenhouse gas effect does not exist” The appendix Eine kleine Nacht Hypotheses of IR radiation from the Sky at night. It’s obvious that the only time that The IR from earth might exceed the IR from the sun is during the 4 to 6 hours in the shade from the earth. This can be modified by sun light (including IR) being reflected by the moon. I have done about a year worth of IR reading at night that need to be converted but do seen to support the Hypotheses.

    To use the irrational term “greenhouse gases” in a technical paper has to be criticized- as is pointed out by G&T in the abstract –the effect does not exist.
    To be technically correct we should use IR absorbing gasses- IRags.
    Abstract
    The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional
    Works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861 and Arrhenius 1896 and is still supported in global
    Climatology essentially describes a fictitious mechanism in which a planetary atmosphere
    acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but
    radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of
    Thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost
    all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for
    granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In
    this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are
    clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming
    phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there
    are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the
    frequently mentioned difference of 33 _C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,
    (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a
    radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to
    zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified
    Eine kleine Nacht Hypotheses of IR radiation from the Sky at night.

    Solar radiation is impacting the planet continuously the only reason we have night is because the planet is rotating thus part of the surface does not receive direct radiation after 9:00 solar time.

    Due to the fact that the planet rotates on an axes that is inclined to the path around the sun in the summer the north pole will receive “light” for 24 hours a day. Most of this is direct light but after midnight much is due to refraction in the atmosphere.

    Now let’s look at the rest of the planet. While the surface does not receive Solar radiation 24/7 the atmosphere does. Obviously the atmosphere is many miles greater than the planet, and it is still receiving “light” after the ground directly below is in the shade.
    As the “light” both visible and IR are refracted by the atmosphere (See Albert Einstein’s Why the Sky is Blue” some will be sent into space and some will be directed to the surface. The “light” will strike the surface at various distances passed the visible horizon because of the various wavelengths of “light”. There are probably bands of this radiation striking the surface. If the radiation is IR it will heat the surfaces that it is absorbed by or reflected it can heat other surface that it strikes.
    The bands of radiation are probably poorly defined because clouds cause absorption , reflection and refraction that will scatter the “light” As clouds are a heat “sink” of energy they can radiate IR as the contents of the ”cloud” change phases from liquid to ICE or absorb IR and go back to liquid or gas. While one side of a cloud could be heating at the same time the other “side” could be cooling. A very complex set of physics and thermodynamic phenomenon.

    Now let’s talk about measuring IR at night- it is coming from everywhere. Plants are obviously living things therefore they are producing IR from both oxidation and by radiation as “hot bodies” Any structure or thing is radiating both Hot body and radiators from the contents.

    By using a hand held IR thermometer it is possible to measure incoming IR from the ”sky”. As the thermometer is calibrated in temperature units degrees C or F it would be necessary to convert them to units of energy/area to be most accurate.
    Observations have shown that aiming the IR thermometer vertically up perpendicular to the surface the lowest readings are obtained. As temperature readings of -19 F have been shown usually after midnight on a very clear sky with atmospheric temperature in the 70’s F. Just above the horizon to avoid including ground vegetation the reading can be in the + 30’s. When measuring reflection and radiation from clouds- reading in the 50’s and 60’s can be observed. Obviously if you can see the clouds you are getting visible light as well as IR.
    Direct reading of the sky where there are no clouds will vary greatly –if the sky is very dark blue the reading are very low. If the sky has some thin clouds and are various colors at sundown the temperatures can be in the 50’s or 60’s.
    Concussion
    IR radiation is present in the atmosphere at all times. The source can be from many different items including refracted, reflected, radiated and generated. This has been happening as long as we have an atmosphere. Even late at night when the surface is opposite the sun there could be” Sun Light” reaching the surface by refraction and reflection.

    Berthold Klein P.E.
    Environmental Engineer 47+ years
    August 15,2009

    The diagram for this is in G3.

    .

  2. 2
    Leonard Weinstein says:

    Overall I think this was a very good piece. I do not use SpectralCalc computer code, so can’t comment on the results from that, but the results seem plausible to me. There are a couple of points I would like to make here, but may have more later.

    The first is in response to Berthold Klein. While Earth’s atmosphere is a far more complex one in some respects than Venus’s, nevertheless I use the example of Venus to verify that there is a significant greenhouse gas effect. Without long wave radiation absorbing gases and aerosols in both atmospheres, radiation to space would occur only from the surface, and the temperature would only depend on net solar flux absorbed. This temperature for Venus would be relatively modest for that condition. Due to the very high density of the atmosphere on Venus, and the large thickness, only a modest fraction of composition of absorbing gas and aerosols result in a short absorption path of the radiated long wave energy from the surface. The mixing of the atmosphere due to planetary dynamics assures a near adiabatic atmospheric condition, so the adiabatic lapse rate is established through the atmosphere. The short absorption path near the surface means that the final radiation to space will occur mainly at a fairly high altitude for Venus. The effective altitude for radiation to space for Venus is about 50 km. The effective temperature at the effective altitude (which is actually an integrated average) is determined by the balance of incoming and outgoing radiation levels. The lapse rate time altitude plus the effective temperature gives the surface temperature, which is then much higher than with no absorbing gases or aerosols. This is a greenhouse gas effect, and is very large for Venus. Notice I said a modest amount of absorbing gas and aerosols would result in a large temperature increase. However, increasing the fraction of absorbing gas would raise the effective altitude for radiation out some, and thus raise the ground temperature slightly more. The main greenhouse gas effect for Venus occurs with the first few percent composition of absorbing gas, and increases slightly as fraction increases, and eventually asymptotes at higher fractions. It is clear that there is a need for a reasonable amount of the absorbing gas to get the large surface temperature increase.

    Earth is significantly different than Venus in that the density at the surface and thickness are far smaller (about 1/90th surface density and about 1/10th thickness). Also the absorbing gases are a very much smaller percent fraction. The presence of large amounts of surface water also have a large effect. This results in radiation to space occurring at much lower altitudes, and being spread over a larger fraction of the atmosphere. The result is a much smaller atmospheric greenhouse gas effect. I don’t know if Bryce’s analysis is totally correct, but it seems reasonable.

    The one big issue I have with all of these analysis has to do with the fact that the planets are rotating, and the insolation varies with latitude. The solar input only occurs when the planet is facing the Sun. Rotation and different latitudes result in large variations in radiation in and out at different locations and times. Since radiation is strongly non-linear (4th power), I am not sure simple average assumptions do a good job.

  3. 3
    Leonard Weinstein says:

    Bryce,
    I am curious why you get 0.22 C per doubling, while “conventional wisdom” gets 1.2 C. I thought SpectralCalc™ was used to get the 1.2 C. Do you know the assumptions that were used that were different?

  4. 4
    Berthold Klein says:

    Dr. Leonard apparently you missed the following article that shows that when NASA was controlled by real scientist like Dr. Abe Silverstein, and not political nuts, that they do not agree with you about the Existence of the”greenhouse gas effect” on Earth or on Venus.
    “Climate Realists Article
    http://climaterealists.com/5783
    ALAN SIDDONS HEADLINE STORY JOHN O’SULLIVAN NASA
    NASA in Shock New Controversy: Two Global Warming Reasons Why by John O’Sullivan, guest post at Climate Realists
    Thursday, May 27th 2010, 3:06 PM EDT
    Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
    NASA covered up for forty years proof that the greenhouse gas theory was bogus. But even worse, did the U.S. space agency fudge its numbers on Earth’s energy budget to cover up the facts?

    As per my article this week, forty years ago the space agency, NASA, proved there was no such thing as a greenhouse gas effect because the ‘blackbody’ numbers supporting the theory didn’t add up in a 3-dimensional universe:

    “During lunar day, the lunar regolith absorbs the radiation from the sun and transports it inward and is stored in a layer approximately 50cm thick….in contrast with a precipitous drop in temperature if it was a simple black body, the regolith then proceeds to transport the stored heat back onto the surface, thus warming it up significantly over the black body approximation…”

    Thus, the ‘blackbody approximations’ were proven to be as useful as a chocolate space helmet; the guesswork of using the Stefan-Boltzmann equations underpinning the man-made global warming theory was long ago debunked. If NASA had made known that Stefan-Boltzmann’s numbers were an irrelevant red-herring then the taxpayers of the world would have been spared the $50 billion wasted on global warming research; because it would have removed the only credible scientific basis to support the theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide changed Earth’s climate.

    But, until May 24, 2010 these facts remained swept under the carpet. For the Apollo missions NASA had successfully devised new calculations to safely put astronauts on the Moon-based on actual measured temperatures of the lunar surface. But no one appears to have told government climatologists who, to this day, insist their junk science is ‘settled’ based on their bogus ‘blackbody’ guesswork.
    NASA’s Confusion over Earth’s Energy Budget

    But it gets worse: compounding such disarray, NASA, now apparently acting more like a politicized mouthpiece for a socialist one world government, cannot even provide consistent numbers on Earth’s actual energy budget.

    Thanks to further discussion with scientist, Alan Siddons, a co-author of the paper, ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon,’ it appears I inadvertently stumbled on a NASA graph that shows the U.S. space agency is unable to tally up the numbers on the supposed greenhouse gas “backradiation.” Why would this be?

    In its graphic representation of the energy budget of the Earth the agency has conspicuously contradicted itself in its depiction of back-radiation based on its various graphs on Earth’s radiation budget.

    As Siddons sagely advised me, “This opens the question as to WHICH budget NASA actually endorses, because the one you show is consistent with physics: 70 units of sunlight go in, 70 units of infrared go out, and there’s no back-flow of some ridiculous other magnitude. Interesting.”

    Climate Sceptic Scientists’ Growing Confidence

    Thanks to Siddons and his co-authors of ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon,’ the world now has scientific evidence to show the greenhouse gas theory (GHG) was junk all along.

    As the truth now spreads, an increasing number of scientists refute the greenhouse gas theory, many have been prompted by the shocking revelations since the Climategate scandal. The public have also grown more aware of how a clique of government climatologists were deliberately ‘hiding the decline’ in the reliability of their proxy temperature data all along.

    But NASA’s lunar temperature readings prove that behind that smoke was real fire. Some experts now boldly go so far as to say the entire global warming theory contravenes the established laws of physics.

    How NASA responds to these astonishing revelations may well tell us how politicized the American space agency really is.”

    ##############################################################

    Short bio: John O’Sullivan is a legal analyst and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain. Visit his Website: http://www.suite101.com/profile.cfm/johnosullivan

    As I have pointed out that the three figure 1,2,3 are cartoons and bad jokes. If a wide black line were drawn vertically down the center and presented as two different cartoon for each it would be obvious that the data on the right side of fig 1r is bogus as the back radiation can not come even close to being correct.
    You recognize that presenting the dynamic conditions on earth -being a rotating body on a 2 dimensioned graph results in Hugh errors.
    While your love affair with the atmospheric lapse rate has a little to do with heat movement in the atmosphere the work of Dr. Johnson sure indicates that radiation has a lot more to do with the balancing of temperatures on this planet. The side facing the sun and the side facing away and the transition zones in between.
    When more and more physicists agree that the “greenhouse gas effect “ is a hypotheses that has never been proven by creditable experimental data ,it is time to look at my experiment shown in G3. If you find any errors in its content and results let us know.
    Berthold Klein P.E. Environmental engineer.

  5. 5
    Bryce Johnson says:

    Bryce Johnson · 0 seconds ago · Reply · Delete
    I am responding to comments by Bethold Klein and Leonard Weinstein to my Paper G12. Thanks to you both for your reviews and your kind words about the effort. In regards to Klein’s comments about the variation of solar radiance with latitude, it seems to me that has been taken care of in the three cartoons that list 341.3 w/m^2 as the solar irradiance. If you start with 5780 C as the temperature of the surface of the sun, use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to determine total radiance from the sun’s surface and then attenuate is geometrically by the ratio of the square of the sun’s radius to the square of the distance to earth to get total irradiance on the earth the result is 1366 watts/m^2. But there is a factor of 2 decrease because one-half of the earth is in darkness. There is another one-half because the averagte cosine of the incidence angle over earth’s hemisphere is one-half and the total diminution factor at the earth-atmosphere system is one-fourth which producdes the 341.3 value.

    In response to Leonard’s question about why my value of temperature increase for doubling is not close to the value of near 1 C as are conventional values, other commentor outside of the Climate Clash web site have suggested that it is because others have used the Modtran code. When I have regained sufficient fortitude to embark on another calculation, I will try to compare Modtran and SpectralCalc.

    Bryce

  6. 6
    Berthold Klein says:

    Bryce: Your response at (5) may have been prepared before my post at (4) was available but my concern is primarily with the right side of Fig.1. The number of 333 w/sq. m of backradiation is absurd. This number is almost equal to the amount of inbound energy from the sun of 341 w/sq m /second (it appears by unit analysis that the time factor is missing from all of the references). If this 333 watts/ sq.m/sec was even close to being truly, the earth would never cool down during its rotation through the dark side and the earth would be in a runaway temperature loop no mater how much CO2 was in the atmosphere. As the IPCC uses this cartoon regularly to murder the real science it is clear that it is junk science as is stated in my post at (4).
    I do not have a problem with the inbound 341 watts/sq.m/second but I have seen values as low as 250 watts /sq.m /second at the surface. This number may have a greater loss from the UV absorbed by O2 when it is converted to O3. Also there may be a significant amount of microwave energy absorbed by O2 (see Roy Spencer’s use of microwave radiation from O2 to measure atmosphere temperature) Cloud will also absorb microwave energy and be converted to heat. (Microwave ovens etc.)
    As the Bohr model has been modified with more knowledge of physics it has not been shown to be wrong so I’ll go out on a limb and say that when water vapor(gas) absorbs IR or UV or microwave energy the water vapor does not heat.(energy is confined to intermolecular activity)
    Thus heating of clouds (liquid and solid) in the atmosphere by solar energy does have effects on the weather.
    Base on your information and many other references from Angstrom (1903) to R.W.Wood (1909) and many other physicists, my statement that the “greenhouse gas effect” is a fairy-tale stand on a very solid foundation while there is no creditable experimental data that shows that the”greenhouse gas effect” exists.
    As all real scientists know that to convert a Hypothesis to a theory we need lots of creditable experimental data by many different scientists who share the data for true peer review.
    Bryce: it appears that we are in agreement and the only difference is that we should eliminate the poor phrase “greenhouse gas” and start using IR absorbing gas-IRag.

  7. 7

    @6 Berthold,

    Watts should not be divided by seconds as you suggest:

    This number is almost equal to the amount of inbound energy from the sun of 341 w/sq m /second (it appears by unit analysis that the time factor is missing from all of the references).

    A Watt is a unit of power, or energy per unit time. To get units of energy we must multiply Watts by a unit time. This is why our electric bill is in units of kilowatt-hours.

  8. 8

    @5 Bryce,

    If the difference between your climate sensitivity result of 0.22 C and the conventional result of about 1.0 C is due solely to ModTran versus SpectralCalc, then this begs the following questions:

    1. Is there any significant difference in your methodology and the conventional methodology outside of whether you would be using ModTran or SpectralCalc?

    2. What are the significant differences in the methodologies inside ModTran and SpectralCalc?

  9. 9

    @6 Berthold,

    I do not understand your comment:

    I’ll go out on a limb and say that when water vapor(gas) absorbs IR or UV or microwave energy the water vapor does not heat.(energy is confined to intermolecular activity)

    If a water molecule absorbs an IR photon then this must “heat” the water molecule. This heat can be contained in the internal vibrations between the atoms of the water molecule or in the speed of the molecule.

  10. 10
    Berthold Klein says:

    Dr. Ed Thanks for the correction on 7. I’m still thinking about 9 as my understanding of the Bohr model would not cause an increase in the molecular velocity. I did some test of this when I did by experiment with Mylar balloons but I did not have a good control of “humidity” inside the balloon. . I’ve thought of a way to do this, now I’ll do some testing.

  11. 11
    Berthold Klein says:

    Hello Dr. Ed and others on this web-site: I have just done phase I of my experiments to either prove or disprove the validity of My interpretation of the Bohr Model-namely that when “water vapor ” absorbs radiation it does not “heat -increase the speed , of the other gases including the “water molecule” in the atmosphere.
    To do this I have to measure temperature ( multiple devises) and as I’m working in a confined space a Mylar balloon the pressure. Another indicator of increased Speed in the atmosphere is a change in pressure.
    I will prepare a more complete experimental description and results shortly. The first phase while needing a few modifications, Indicates that when water vapor, CO2 and Air in the balloon does not “heat” when exposed to the radiation of the Sun.

    The experiment is being monitored by a friend with extensive background starting with meteorologic training by the Navy. He does not believe in Mann-made global warming but does question if my experiments will show that Bohr’s model is applicable to “water vapor”
    This is what science is about -hypotheses, experimental testing and review of results.

  12. 12
    Leonard Weinstein says:

    Berthold,
    You appear to be hung up on some use of words. What I and many others call the atmospheric greenhouse effect is just a commonly accepted phrase for the fact that IR absorbing gases and aerosols effectively act as partial radiation insulators, and thus convection plays a significant role in transporting surface absorbed energy to altitudes where it is radiated to space. The average effective altitude of outgoing radiation to space combined with adiabatic lapse rate determines the surface temperature. That is all there is to it.

    The argument on back radiation vs not back radiation (and amount of back radiation) is a red herring. In an extreme case such as Venus, the atmospheric radiation absorption is so effective, that even though the surface radiation out is huge, the effective net radiation heat transfer near the surface is very small, and convection totally dominates. This means back radiation there almost equals the surface outgoing radiation. Back on Earth, there is back radiation but not (generally) back heat transfer from this radiation (convection makes this so). The exception is when the atmosphere is significantly warmer than the ground. Radiation (in all directions) from warm IR absorbing gases is real, but back radiation does not cause a greenhouse gas effect. It is a result of the atmospheric greenhouse gas effect.

  13. 13
    Berthold Klein says:

    Response to Dr. Leonard Weinstein: You are correct that I am stressing a point about semantics. The physics and thermodynamics is what it is -we can not change it. The way we explain it to the public – the lay person, the politicians, the religious leader, the environmental wackos, is where the use of words is extremely important. The fact that all the gases of the atmosphere are “heat sinks” the O2.(19.8 %), The N2 (78%),the H2O(approx. 6% max.), and insignificant effects of 400 ppm of CO2 and 2-3ppb of CH4 as is discussed in The Hidden flaws of the Greenhouse theory” by Alan Siddons.
    The general public has been brainwashed to think that there is this terrible effect “the greenhouse gas effect “ that causes cars to heat to temperature in excess of 140 degrees F that can kill children and pets left in closed cars. This is the image that is in the minds of many people. The next image that the environmental wackos have created is that of “ climate change” where deserts will become furnaces and the arctic becomes Gulf of Mexico paradises with palm trees,and polar bears basking in the sun sucking on ICE tea. This is what “greenhouse gas effect” and the hoax of “Mann-made global warming “ means . To continue to use a set of terms- that has nothing to do with reality is foolish. That is why the EPA,IPCC,Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and so many other groups are able to get away with the lies they tell. People are rightly concern with the environment ,but the groups named ignore the facts of science. They want to believe in fairy-tales. Just look at the fantasy and fiction that is broadcast every minute of every day on television radio and movies.
    We are defeating our own cause by using word or phrases that have no real scientific meaning.
    The continual references to Venus is one of these fictions. CO2 while at near 95% of the atmosphere at a pressure of 10 time that of earth is not the cause of the high temperature of the planet. This ignores the fact that above the layer of CO2 is a cloud cover of sulfuric acid. It is more complete a cover that the water clouds of earth. It has to be at a temperature of at least 550 F just to be in the vapor state and again it is probably refluxing between the vapor and liquid states just like water vapor on earth refluxing between vapor, liquid and solid phases. The NASA in their forty year old report has shown that there is no such thing as a “greenhouse gas effect”.
    As you worked for NASA for many years , were you aware of this Report?

  14. 14
    Leonard Weinstein says:

    Berthold,
    Keep in mind that many here, including me, are skeptics of a serious atmospheric greenhouse gas effect. However, that does not detract from the real facts as I have quoted them. The real issue here for Earth is FEEDBACK to amplify warming, not that CO2 can cause some warming.

    As to Venus, the atmosphere is 92 (not 10) times the pressure, and 10 times as thick. However, the super high density and presence of 95% CO2, and some significant other gases (including some water vapor) result in ALMOST ALL of the surface radiation up being absorbed and re-radiated (omnidirectionally) in very short distances compared to the cloud cover. Even if there were no cloud cover, the temperature would be close to the same (hot at the surface), as long as there were enough absorbing gases to act as radiation partial insulation. If there were neither absorbing gases or clouds, the surface would be cool, but due to the high density, it would take only a modest amount of absorbing gases to have a large warming effect. That NASA paper was not correct if it said what you claim.

  15. 15
    Leonard Weinstein says:

    Berthold,
    If the only absorbing and radiating surfaces were the ground and the clouds, and the atmosphere were totally transmitting the IR radiation, the ground would, at a maximum, only radiate a bit more up as the cloud radiated down (due to some cloud transmission of sunlight). This would make the surface only slightly warmer than the cold clouds! Venus would be colder than Earth!!

  16. 16
    Berthold Klein says:

    Dr. Leonard Weinstein: you question the 40 year old NASA report-here is the reference that I have to it. I have included this in several other locations in the “Clash”
    Climate Realists Article
    http://climaterealists.com/5783
    ALAN SIDDONS   HEADLINE STORY   JOHN O’SULLIVAN   NASA  
    NASA in Shock New Controversy: Two Global Warming Reasons Why by John O’Sullivan, guest post at Climate Realists
    Thursday, May 27th 2010, 3:06 PM EDT
    Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
    NASA covered up for forty years proof that the greenhouse gas theory was bogus. But even worse, did the U.S. space agency fudge its numbers on Earth’s energy budget to cover up the facts?

    As per my article this week, forty years ago the space agency, NASA, proved there was no such thing as a greenhouse gas effect because the ‘blackbody’ numbers supporting the theory didn’t add up in a 3-dimensional universe:

    “During lunar day, the lunar regolith absorbs the radiation from the sun and transports it inward and is stored in a layer approximately 50cm thick….in contrast with a precipitous drop in temperature if it was a simple black body, the regolith then proceeds to transport the stored heat back onto the surface, thus warming it up significantly over the black body approximation…”

    Thus, the ‘blackbody approximations’ were proven to be as useful as a chocolate space helmet; the guesswork of using the Stefan-Boltzmann equations underpinning the man-made global warming theory was long ago debunked. If NASA had made known that Stefan-Boltzmann’s numbers were an irrelevant red-herring then the taxpayers of the world would have been spared the $50 billion wasted on global warming research; because it would have removed the only credible scientific basis to support the theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide changed Earth’s climate.

    But, until May 24, 2010 these facts remained swept under the carpet. For the Apollo missions NASA had successfully devised new calculations to safely put astronauts on the Moon-based on actual measured temperatures of the lunar surface. But no one appears to have told government climatologists who, to this day, insist their junk science is ‘settled’ based on their bogus ‘blackbody’ guesswork.
    NASA’s Confusion over Earth’s Energy Budget

    But it gets worse: compounding such disarray, NASA, now apparently acting more like a politicized mouthpiece for a socialist one world government, cannot even provide consistent numbers on Earth’s actual energy budget.

    Thanks to further discussion with scientist, Alan Siddons, a co-author of the paper, ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon,’ it appears I inadvertently stumbled on a NASA graph that shows the U.S. space agency is unable to tally up the numbers on the supposed greenhouse gas “backradiation.” Why would this be?

    In its graphic representation of the energy budget of the Earth the agency has conspicuously contradicted itself in its depiction of back-radiation based on its various graphs on Earth’s radiation budget.

    As Siddons sagely advised me, “This opens the question as to WHICH budget NASA actually endorses, because the one you show is consistent with physics: 70 units of sunlight go in, 70 units of infrared go out, and there’s no back-flow of some ridiculous other magnitude. Interesting.”

    Climate Sceptic Scientists’ Growing Confidence

    Thanks to Siddons and his co-authors of ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon,’ the world now has scientific evidence to show the greenhouse gas theory (GHG) was junk all along.

    As the truth now spreads, an increasing number of scientists refute the greenhouse gas theory, many have been prompted by the shocking revelations since the Climategate scandal. The public have also grown more aware of how a clique of government climatologists were deliberately ‘hiding the decline’ in the reliability of their proxy temperature data all along.

    But NASA’s lunar temperature readings prove that behind that smoke was real fire. Some experts now boldly go so far as to say the entire global warming theory contravenes the established laws of physics.

    How NASA responds to these astonishing revelations may well tell us how politicized the American space agency really is.

    ##############################################################

    Short bio: John O’Sullivan is a legal analyst and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain. Visit his Website: http://www.suite101.com/profile.cfm/johnosullivan

  17. 17
    Leonard Weinstein says:

    Berthold,
    Approximations such as AVERAGE radiation in and out are just that, APPROXIMATIONS. Once the much more complex situation of day and night (planetary rotation), variation with latitude, air, ground, and water storage, etc, are included, the totals (MEASURED) will be off. Also, the storage terms at fixed locations are only approximations on Earth due to complex ocean currents and ice melting or freezing, and even wind. Since radiation is a 4th order term this is not at all surprising.

    On Venus, the strong winds move storage (almost all in the atmosphere) around, so it also is complex. However, on Venus, the atmospheric greenhouse gas approach gives a very good average answer. On Earth, there is also a reasonably good average answer. The local albedo variation on the Moon and the effect of rotation (very slow on the Moon), deep ground storage, etc., make a simple approximation poor.

    So what. Get over the nonsence you are supporting.

  18. 18
    Berthold Klein says:

    Dr. Weinstein: I’m not quite sure what you are trying to tell us. But one thing I leaned from doing lab work for my Masters Thesis and 47 + years of engineering is that the real importance is in the details and that averages are like a bikini – they cover up the vital information.
    My point is that there is no experimental information, no creditable experiments that show that the Fairy-tale concept of “greenhouse gases” or the “greenhouse gas effect” exists. Yes there are three atom(or more) molecules that absorb IR radiation and we know that all molecules and atoms will radiate IR radiation just do to their being at a temperature above absolute zero. There is no measured data that shows that any of the IRag radiates more IR than non IRag gases at the same temperature.
    Where is your creditable experiment and data that proves the “greenhouse gas effect”
    When I read the work and reporting by such physics as Freeman Dyson, Dr. Charles Anderson, Allan Siddons, Gerlich and Tscheuschner, Thieme and others- they have shown why the “greenhouse gas effect” does not happen -the concept violates most of the Laws of physics and thermodynamics. When experimental work I have done is consistent with the expected negative results that the “greenhouse gas effect’ does not exist I have no reason to “Get over the nonsense you are supporting”
    List of references:
    The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
    Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
    B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
    Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
    Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.

    Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
    that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
    R.W.Wood
    from the Philosophical magazine (more properly the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, if you’re interested.
    The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
    By Alan Siddons
    from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST

    The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.

    “In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”

    After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current pretend president.
    Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.

    The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted – they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.

    Web- site references:
    http://www.americanthinker.com Ponder the Maunder
    wwwclimatedepot.com
    icecap.us
    http://www.stratus-sphere.com
    SPPI
    many others are available.

    The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
    —Albert Einstein

    Dr. Weinstein I am sure you have seen this list before because I have placed it on many other posts. It seen that your “arrogance“ has prevented you from learning from any of these other physicists.

  19. 19
    Berthold Klein says:

    The following is from G11@post 6. It is consistent with some of my most recent Mylar balloon tests.

    6 Mike Webb says:
    April 21, 2011 at 7:49 pm
    I wonder if the author includes the observation that CO2 is a coolant when mixed with water vapor: “Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands” at http://www.biocab.org/Mean_Free_Path.pdf

    In post 18 above I stated that there is no greater IR from radiated IRags than non-IRags. I’d like to see this tested. The test could be done with an IR spectrophotometer. I do not have the equipment but I think the following would work.
    At constant or controlled temperature-1. Pass CO2 thought the spec with the IR light source off. 2. Detect the IR from the CO2- 3. Pass the CO2 thought an IR source then pass the CO2 to the spec. 4. Do the same with other IRags.
    I have only had other give me IR spec analysis. If someone that has operated an IR spectrophotometer would comment I’d appreciate it.

  20. 20
    Leonard Weinstein says:

    Berthold,
    I respect that you are seeking the experimental “truth” on the transmission issue. However There is something you need to consider. The main outgoing radiation that is not from clouds or radiated direct from the ground (or oceans) to space occurs at a fairly high altitude. The temperature drops with increasing altitude, so that most water vapor condenses out to drops (source of clouds) by 5 km. The remaining water vapor above the main condensation continues to drop at increasing altitude at the very low temperatures of about -43C at 10 km. The saturated vapor partial pressure of water at -43C is about 0.1 torr, and the atmospheric pressure at 10 km is about 210 torr. The CO2 % stays nearly constant since it is not condensible at those temperatures. The initial partial pressure of 390 ppm stays about the same at altitude, so the partial pressure of the CO2 at 10 km is about 0.1 torr. i.e. the CO2 gas dominates water vapor above 10km at present levels. Increasing CO2 will lower the altitude slightly where it is dominate.

    Your experiments look at ground level effects, which do not significantly matter.

  21. 21
    Berthold Klein says:

    Dr. Weinstein: While the information you provided @ 20 is informative How does it show that the “greenhouse gas effect” exists?
    If the “greenhouse gas effect” can not be demonstrated at ground level conditions or simulated under controlled laboratory test chambers- why would it exist in the atmosphere?
    I’m sure that you agree that a Hypotheses has to be proven by experimental data before it can be a theory or a “law of Physics”.
    Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is being constantly challenged and tested and modified but the modifications have been relatively minor considering the magnitude of what have been proven true and accurate. Where is the creditable experimental work showing anything about the “greenhouse gas effect”? Why would any scientist believe that the Hypotheses of the Greenhouse gas effect has been implied to exist by circumstantial evidence and most of this “evidence has been shown to be fraudulent” because people like Michael Mann, Jim Jones and James Hansen have Mann-ipulated the data.

  22. 22
    Leonard Weinstein says:

    Berthold,
    The optical absorption and emission spectra of water vapor, CO2, an many other gases has been measured in the lab to great precision. Please quit making statements where you do not seem to know the facts. Please keep in mind that the back radiation (which is real) is NOT the same as back heat transfer. That is probably the source of your confusion.

  23. 23
    Berthold Klein says:

    Dr. Weinstein: Here is a reference that does not agree with your thoughts.
    Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science
    onsdagen den 2:e februari 2011
    Judy Curry and “BackRadiation”
    In the comment Febr 1 12:28 to the thread on Slaying the Sky Dragon on Judy Curry’s blog, Judy asks me:
    Do you dispute that if you put an infrared radiometer on the surface of the earth and point it upwards, that it will measure an IR radiance or irradiance (depending on how the instrument is configured)? Go to http://www.arm.gov for decades worth of such measurements. And that this infrared radiation comes from IR emission by gases such as CO2 and H2O and also clouds? If you say yes, well this is what people are calling back radiation (a term that I don’t use myself). If you say no, then I will call you a crank – all your manipulations of Maxwell’s equation will not make this downwelling IR flux from the atmosphere go away.
    I address this question in Section 7.4 of my Sky Dragon article Computational Blackbody Radiation, and Judy’s question indicates that she has not read my article. I explain there that an IR camera (infrared radiometer) directed to the sky measures the frequency of incoming light and computes by Wien’s displacement law the temperature T of the emitter, and then by Stefan-Boltzmann’s law Q = sigma T^4 associates a “downwelling IR-flux from the atmosphere” of size Q.

    The IR camera thus measures frequency/temperature which by SB is translated to “downwelling IR-flux” or “backradiation”. So everything hinges on this translation. Is it
    correct?

    Is it correct to use SB in the form Q = sigma T^4? No, because this law gives the radiated
    energy from a blackbody into an environment of 0 K. But the Earth surface is not at 0 K,
    but even warmer than the atmospheric emitter. The translation Q = sigma T^4 is thus incorrect in the sense that it indicates a fictitious “downwelling IR flux from the atmosphere” obtained by an erronous translation.

    Judy calls me a “crank” because I say “no to downwelling IR flux from the atmosphere”.

    Let me then remind Judy that just saying “crank” does not mean that I am a crank in reality, and just saying “downwelling IR flux from the atmosphere” does not mean that in reality there is anything like that. Right Judy?
    Upplagd av Claes Johnson kl. 00:39
    Etiketter: black body radiation, greenhouse effect, Judy Curry, myth of backradiation
    The responces and replies are available on Claes Johnsons web site.

  24. 24
    Leonard Weinstein says:

    Berthold,
    There are types of radiometers using bolometers which DIRECTLY measure heat in. They give the same result. Playing with words like Claes Johnson and you have been doing gives ammunition to those criticizing most skeptics.

    I have a courtesy copy of Slaying the Sky Dragon. I respect Claes Johnson and his effort. However, I disagree with some of his and a few others on their conclusions, including the misrepresentations of the back radiation issue.

  25. 25
    Berthold Klein says:

    Dr. Weinstein : you are correct there is a problem that is primarily semantics. But there is also a problem with physics. The problems with what we call a set of measurements is an individuals understanding and upbringing-example Pop verse Soda for a carbonated drink. This is probable the problem with atmospheric IR radiation verse “back radiation”. We both know that when you use an IR detector (as a hand held IR thermometer or any other type of sensor that detects the photons hitting the earth in the correct frequency(wave length) we get readings. These reading can very greatly depending on atmospheric conditions. The conditions that effect these reading are “air temperature, humidity, cloud cover, rainfall, angle at which the sensor is aimed, which quadrant of the sky is being measured , time of day, season of the year. Having done this type of measuring for about a year ( found that many researchers have been doing the same thing)- the following conclusions can be made. The down radiations from a clean cold cloudless winter sky. is significantly different than the down radiation from a cloudy or partially cloudy summer sky. Depending on the type of cloud- thus the elevation above the surface- the results will be different. I could go on about cumulus, stratus, and others, each has a different characteristic set of IR/temperature reading. This is to be expected as sometimes the clouds are all water droplets, sometime they are ice crystals and sometime times they are a mixture. These can change while you are taking the readings. I’ve had cloud appear in a totally clear sky, then other clouds will disappear while watching. Just the fact that I am able to see the clouds at night tells me that light is being reflected /transmitted from the lower surface, and it tells me that some wavelengths are being absorbed. I could go on for hours about the different conditions observed like ground temperatures verse air temperatures verse plant temperatures , verse concrete temperatures , verse asphalt temperatures measure with both IR thermometer and bimetal thermometer at the same time and location. The main difference between IR and Bimetal reading is due to IR emissivity. Both are correct but different.
    Now lets talk about IR from the atmosphere. Is it the radiation that is expected because of the fact that the source of the radiation is not at absolute zero , is it reflected IR from surfaces as clouds or interfaces between layers in the atmosphere as stratosphere and troposphere? Is it refracted IR do to the bending of radiations as described by Einstein in his paper “Why the sky is blue” If it is the same frequency/wave length as the long wavelengths that are generated by the earth because of its temperature can we tell what is its source?
    The point that has to be determined is “Does the emission spectra of CO2 or any other IRag change when it is radiated by IR verses a test done on non-irradiated IRags? I have only started to look up a few of the hits that I get from Goggling “emission spectra of gases” there were 710,000.of them. The question is are there 2 or more “emission spectra of gases” depending on the duration of exposure to different intensities of IR or is there only one set ?

    Dr. Weinstein ,you say I should not venture into areas that I don’t know about. Well if I don’t I can not learn – isn’t this what it is all about learning “What is fact and what is fiction what has been tested and what is Hypotheses and needs to be tested”>
    Maybe you can give me some more Key words that will show the “emission spectra of gases” especially the IRags.
    I question if there are two of more types of “emission spectra of gases” because if there were how would you be able to calibrate an IR spectrophotometer? Obviously an IR spectrophotometer uses the principle of measuring absorption of IR but if there is significant IR emitted from the sample gases (IRags) would that interfere with the results?

  26. 26
    Leonard Weinstein says:

    Berthold,
    Continual efforts to learn are great. Speculation is OK once. Taking a position is a different issue. I am not going to go back and forth a lot more on this particular issue. The variability of measured backradiation is a fact and depends on a lot of factors (clouds, air temperature, humidity, etc), and is a 3-D time varying factor. The claims made by me and some others use simple average values, and obviously are not meant to be perfect, just representative of the causal factors. Absorbing gases present in relatively small quantities absorb upward IR radiation and the energy is almost immediately transferred to the surrounding non absorbing gases by collisions and mode redistribution. However, the surrounding non absorbing gases have a velocity distribution, and by collisions of the higher velocity ones with the absorbing few molecules, energize them so that they radiate IR. The incoming and outgoing radiation are in balance, and this is called LTE. That is the basis for the back radiation. If more radiation is absorbed than emitted, the surrounding gas heats up until LTE is restored. Since buoyancy (convection) causes warm gas to rise, the unbalance in the atmosphere is always small. It is the lapse rate combined with the altitude (effective average) that heats the ground.

  27. 27
    Berthold Klein says:

    Dr. Leonard Weinstein: I have not responded to your last response to me because I was hoping you would look at it again and correct your own errors. The response is nonsense. The statement violates the Bohr model and it contradicts itself. “If more radiation is absorbed than emitted, the surrounding gas heats up until LTE is restored. Since buoyancy (convection) causes warm gas to rise, the unbalance in the atmosphere is always small. It is the lapse rate combined with the altitude (effective average) that heats the ground.”
    If I have to explain why this is nonsense, lets start with the fact that the ground will be warmer that the atmosphere to start with ,it has been heated by solar radiation to start then we are concerned with the cooling phase.
    I will never convince you that the “greenhouse gas effect” just can not exist so you can continue to live in your world of fairy-tales.
    My experiment demonstrates that your believe in even a small effect does not exist.

  28. 28
    Berthold Klein says:

    If anyone is still following this web-site here is some recent info worth noting:
    HEADLINE STORY JOHN O’SULLIVAN SOLAR CLIMATE CHANGE SOLAR NEWS WORLD TEMPERATURES
    John O’Sullivan: Top Scientist Says new Solar Wobble to Prolong Global Cooling
    Tuesday, May 31st 2011, 1:37 PM EDT Co2sceptic (Site Admin) As a new solar minimum takes our planet towards global cooling an increasing number of scientists give credence to a new theory blaming our Sun’s wobble.

    It started in 2007 when scientists saw that gravitational forces in our solar system may have a huge impact on Earth’s climate. Professor Ivanka Charvátová, CSc. from the Geophysical Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, explains why there is suddenly so much interest in her theory in an exclusive interview with klimatskeptik.cz.

    Professor Charvátová calls it Solar Inertial Motion (SIM) and she claims it will have serious impacts on our climate. She says a predictable “wobble” of our Sun called barycenter shift alters Earth’s weather patterns. Few climatologists have yet studied this phenomenon. But the evidence supporting Professor Charvátová’s SIM theory is becoming ever more compelling.

    Our Wobbling Sun

    Increased international interest in the SIM ‘wobble effect’ began after Australian scientist Dr. Richard Mackey published a paper addressing the effects of the barycenter shift in The Journal of Coastal Research in 2007. Mackey drew inspiration from the work of the late Rhodes Fairbridge.

    Click source to read FULL report from John O’Sullivan

  29. 29
    blouis79 says:

    Help. Can anybody here point me to experimental verification of the “backradiation” effect, ideally with quantifiable theoreotical prediction? I have been asking elsewhere and the only reference I was told was Tyndall 1860ish. Sadly, Tyndall did not measure backradiation, only loss of transmission, which he called “absorption”.

  30. 30
    Berthold Klein says:

    blouis79 says: Hello you are looking for something that does not exist. Read my “The greenhouse gas effect does not exist.” The part you want is the Test that proves that the Hypothese failed > The part is stored in the archieves December , 2010 under my name. If you have trouble finding it let me know and I’ll reprint the relevent details.

  31. 31
    Berthold Klein says:

    Additional info: G3. The Greenhouse Gas Effect Does Not Exist
    you want to look at section 10 The Demonstration. If you find a problem with what is presented I’ll be happy to exchange info.
    This experiment can be duplicated and if you get any different results let the world know.
    Berthold Klein P.E.

  32. 32
    Richard Petschauer says:

    The following comment is in regard comment #29 from Blouis79.
    Here are some references on “back radiation”, theory and measurements

    Brutsaert, W., (1975): On a derivable formula for longwave radiation from clear skies: Water
    Resources Research, Oct 1975, 11, No 5: 742-744

    Long, C. N.: (2004) The next generation flux analysis: adding clear-sky LW and LW cloud
    effects, cloud optical depths, and improved sky cover estimates, Fourteenth ARM Science Team Meeting Proceedings, Albuquerque, New Mexico, March 22-26, 2004

    Long, C. N. and D. D. Turner: (2008) A method for continuous estimation of clear-sky
    downwelling longwave radiative flux developed using ARM surface measurements, Jour. Geophsical Res. Vol 113, D18206, 2008.

    Also there are many infrared thermometers available on the internet, some for less than $100. They are widely used in industry and by maintenance technicians. But, they are not accurate for gases since they assume the emission fills the wavelength band of a black body, so they “read” a lower temperature when pointing up into the clear sky. My experience is that they will show a temperature about 100 F below what the surface is. However, they work very well with clouds. For low ones, I have read them at only about 5 F cooler than the surface. They operate by reading the number of photons caused by the emissions of the target being viewed. Yes there are such photons leaving any object above absolute zero. The presence of a warmer body nearby does not shut off this photon stream, although it may send a stronger one to the colder object. Another example: I use mine to measure the temperature of my refrigerator by pointing it at the interior walls that are colder than the instrument. It works fine.

    No correctly understood laws of physics are being violated. These “laws” are written and interpreted by men, not handed down by some gods on high.

Leave a Reply