by Berthold Klein
Table of Contents
Section 1. Mixing the energy
Section 2. Chasing Photons
Section 3. What happens in an IRag molecule (or any compound molecule)?
Section 4. Quality of Sun light
Section 5. Dr. Alan Carlin of the US-EPA -No effect of CO2
Section 6. All sources of Photons:
Section 7. What is the magnitude of the heating?
Section 8. Measuring temperatures:
Section9. How much variation ?
Section 10. The Demonstration
Appendix
Eine kleine Nacht Hypotheses of IR and other EM radiation from the Sky at night
___________________________________________
Section 3. What happens in an IRag molecule (or any compound molecule)?
Comment from Dr. Ed:
Berthold,
The first thing I notice is you assume the Earth’s radiation moves GHG electrons to a higher orbit. This is known to not be true. The IR does not have enough energy to do this. If the IR had such energy, then such IR would not care if a molecule were a GHG (meaning 3 or more atoms). It would excite all molecules.
GHG’s absorb IR in their vibrational states, not in their electron states. I think you need to revise your paper with this in mind. What do you think?
First response.
Hello Dr. Ed: I am basing my statements on my understanding of the Bohr model. I’ll restudy the work of Niels Bohr and if necessary I’ll include more of this technical work in my post.
As I do not believe that “ghg” effect exists I’ll prefer to use the scientifically correct term IR absorbing gasses-IRag’s.
We know that IRag’s as CO2 absorb multiple wavelengths of IR, thus we are not talking about a single molecule only absorbing a single photon(s) but actually each molecule can absorb multiple photons of many different wavelengths thus we are talking about the accumulated effect before the electron moves from one energy shell to a higher energy shell as this is my understanding of the Bohr model.
What happens inside the IRag’s molecule is not relevant to the supposed “ghg” effect. You have inspired me to do another section “What happens inside an IRag molecule”.
It may be a couple of days before I can get to this new section and rechecking the work of Niels Bohr and subsequent more recent modifications.
After rereading only one or two documents on the Bohr model and quantum physics it is obvious to me that this is only the tip of a needle that will lead to 100 or more years of advanced physics. The main conclusion that I jumped to is that the Bohr model is talking about all type of radiation and not just IR absorption.
Dr. Ed is probably correct in that IR itself (or a few wavelengths) would not impact the CO2 molecule with enough energy by itself to cause the electrons to jump from on electron shell to another. That is unless there are other factors causing the energy necessary to jump the electrons to a higher shell to be at a smaller threshold than the amount of absorbed accumulated IR energy.
It is my understanding that when a group of atoms combine into a compound that the attraction of the nuclei and the balance of forces including the sharing of electrons in-varies orbits that result in the compound having different properties that the parent atoms. The compound also have different radiation absorbing characteristic base on what is happening inside the molecule. All the IRag’s have somewhat different footprints as to what wavelengths are absorbed and the degree of absorption. Thus IR spectrophotometry works to identify many different compound at various different concentrations.
But it is time to look at the real world of radiation.
IR in the atmosphere is accompanied by many other levels of radiation including the visible light group and the UV group of wavelengths and others thus when radiation impacts a molecule it is like spraying it with a water hose and everything that is in the water.
Why is it that only molecules with 3 or more atoms absorb IR? It appears that the intermolecular forces are either stronger or weaker than in two atom molecules and thus the photons can impact the nuclease or interact with the bonding forces within the molecule. As any chemist knows that bonding forces vary greatly between compounds, one compound will ionize very easily and another will not.
Another characteristic of compounds is that if we perceive that it has color it absorbs certain wavelengths of light and reflects others. We also know UV radiation has an effect on almost any compound, there are very few that can resist the weathering effects of UV.
We know that UV can cause O2 molecules to combine into O3 (ozone), and UV can disinfect water,UV can fade pigments in most fabrics, and can cause polypropylene and polyethylene to deteriorate in very short amount of time unless they have UV stabilizers impregnated into them. The UV can cause “sunburn” that could lead to cancer and many other effects. The point is that all kind of radiation are present in the “Sunlight” entering the Earth’s atmosphere and having an effect. To look at only one type of radiation IR or one molecule CO2 without identifying what is the interaction of the others is not scientifically valid.
By this time you are wondering what the hell the last few paragraphs have got to do with the “greenhouse gas effect” probably nothing except that we can do experiments to prove what is happening in space ,to what is happening inside molecules and atoms but where the hell is a creditable experiment that proves that the “greenhouse gas effect” exists. If all the great minds that spend hours,days , months, years claiming that the “greenhouse gas effect”can not be demonstrated in the laboratory want us to believe that they are “experts on Climate change” should we believe them?
Life is sure complicated especially when we so over simplify things that it does not relate to the real world! When renowned Physicist like Freeman Dyson , Dr. Charles Anderson, Gerlich and Tscheuschner, Alan Siddons, etc, etc, etc, have provided the physics that prove that the “greenhouse gas effect”does not exist” only people that believe in Santa Claus and gremlin still believe in the “fairy tale of the greenhouse gas effect”
The world prefers to believe in lies,fantasies,and fairy-tale and listen to people who create the fairy-tale like Joe Romm, Michael Mann, Al Gore, IPCC, James Hansen, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Jame Cameron (Avatar fiction) many others. See the entry at “PCA-Public Comment Area@7.
Just look at TV for 30 minutes and switch a few channels most everything is a “story” even the news broadcasts.
Section 4. Quality of Sun light
To a photographer Sun light changes quality from morning to noon to sundown. To a physicist the Sun light is nearly a constant except when there is a solar flare that results in major increases in high energy particles in addition to the various wavelengths of electromagnetic energy.( recent data shows that there is changes in the intensity of UV with it increasing over the last 400 years-a short time in the life of the universe).
To a photographer the morning sun is very “warm” as it is dominated by reds and yellows, the noon sun is very “blue” approaching the K=5500 or more, the afternoon light is shifting back to the “warm” side with more of the reds& yellows, then the late afternoon or evening light is “cool blues” with only yellows and reds reflected from the clouds that are still illuminated by the sun as the portion of the earth where the photographer is standing turns away from the direct radiation of the sun. An answer to a young girls question to Albert Einstein in 1911 resulted in his paper “Why the sky is blue” The thing that makes this relevant to our concerns is what is happening to the UV and the IR radiation that is hitting the surface of the Earth as the earth is rotating . It should be expected that diffraction of these radiations will be greater in certain portions of the “day” and less at other times. The “heating” of the molecules in the atmosphere by UV and other electromagnetic radiation even after sun down makes all the gasses heat sinks .
The work “The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory” By Alan Siddons
elaborates on this in more detail.
Section 5. Dr. Alan Carlin of the US-EPA – No effect of CO2
G2@173, To Dr. Eric
Dr. Carlin has a B.S. in physics from Cal Tech to start, then add his advanced degrees from MIT at a time that was not corrupted by phonies like Joe Romm.
Dr. Eric is again doing what every AGW fanatics is judging a book by the Cover not looking at the contents.
Attached is the Executive summary that contains more useful and pertinent information than all of Dr.Eric’s entries combined.
Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act
By Alan Carlin
NCEE/OPEI
Based on TSD Draft of March 9, 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY by Alan Carlin Report March,16,2009-EPA
These comments are based on the draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act (hereafter draft TSD) issued by the Climate Change Division of the Office of Atmospheric Programs on March 9, 2009. Unfortunately, because I was only given a few days to review this lengthy document these comments are of necessity much less comprehensive and polished than they would have been if more time had been allowed. I am prepared, however, to provide added information, more detailed comments on specific points raised, and any assistance in making changes if requested by OAR.
The principal comments are as follows:
As of the best information I currently have, the GHG/CO2 hypothesis as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because it fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data. Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible conclusion based on current data. As Feynman (1975) has said failure to conform to real world data makes it necessary from a scientific viewpoint to revise the hypothesis or abandon it (see Section 2.1 for the exact quote). Unfortunately this has not happened in the global warming debate, but needs to if an accurate finding concerning endangerment is to be made.
The failings are listed below in decreasing order of importance in my view:
1. Lack of observed upper tropospheric heating in the tropics (see Section 2.9 for a detailed discussion).
2. Lack of observed constant humidity levels, a very important assumption of all the IPCC models, as CO2levels have risen (see Section 1.7).
3. The most reliable sets of global temperature data we have, using satellite microwave sounding units, show no appreciable temperature increases during the critical period 1978-1997, just when the surface station data show a pronounced rise (see Section 2.4). Satellite data after 1998 is also inconsistent with the GHG/CO2/AGW hypotheses
4. The models used by the IPCC do not take into account or show the most important ocean oscillations which clearly do affect global temperatures, namely, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and the ENSO (Section 2.4). Leaving out any major potential causes for global warming from the analysis results in the likely mis-attribution of the effects of these oscillations to the GHGs/CO2 and hence is likely to overstate their importance as a cause for climate change.
5. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility of indirect solar variability (Section 2.5), which if important would again be likely to have the effect of overstating the importance of GHGs/CO2.
6. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility that there may be other significant natural effects on global temperatures that we do not yet understand (Section 2.4). This possibility invalidates their statements that one must assume anthropogenic sources in order to duplicate the temperature record. The 1998 spike in global temperatures is very difficult to explain in any other way (see Section 2.4).
7. Surface global temperature data may have been hopelessly corrupted by the urban heat island effect and other problems which may explain some portion of the warming that would otherwise be attributed to GHGs/CO2. In fact, the Draft TSD refers almost exclusively in Section 5 to surface rather than satellite data.
The current Draft TSD is based largely on the IPCC AR4 report, which is at best three years out of date in a rapidly changing field. There have been important developments in areas that deserve careful attention in this draft. The list includes the following six which are discussed in Section 1:
• Global temperatures have declined—extending the current downtrend to 11 years with a particularly rapid decline in 1907-8; in addition, the PDO went negative in September, 2007 and the AMO in January, 2009, respectively. At the same time atmospheric CO2 levels have continued to increase and CO2 emissions have accelerated.
• The consensus on past, present and future Atlantic hurricane behavior has changed. Initially, it tilted towards the idea that anthropogenic global warming is leading to (and will lead to) to more frequent and intense storms. Now the consensus is much more neutral, arguing that future Atlantic tropical cyclones will be little different that those of the past. Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions under CAA • The idea that warming temperatures will cause Greenland to rapidly shed its ice has been greatly diminished by new results indicating little evidence for the operation of such processes.
• One of the worst economic recessions since World War II has greatly decreased GHG emissions compared to the assumptions made by the IPCC. To the extent that ambient GHG levels are relevant for future global temperatures, these emissions reductions should greatly influence the adverse effects of these emissions on public health and welfare. The current draft TSP does not reflect the changes that have already occurred nor those that are likely to occur in the future as a result of the recession. In fact, the topic is not even discussed to my knowledge.
• A new 2009 paper finds that the crucial assumption in the GCM models used by the IPCC concerning strongly positive feedback from water vapor is not supported by empirical evidence and that the feedback is actually negative.
• A new 2009 paper by Scafetta and Wilson suggests that the IPCC used faulty solar data in dismissing the direct effect of solar variability on global temperatures. Other research by Scafetta and others suggests that solar variability could account for up to 68% of the increase in Earth’s global temperatures.
These six developments alone should greatly influence any assessment of “vulnerability, risk, and impacts” of climate change within the U.S., but are not discussed in the Draft TSD to my knowledge. But these are just a few of the new developments since 2006. Therefore, the extensive portions of the EPA’s Endangerment TSD which are based upon science from the IPPC AR4 report are no longer appropriate and need to be revised before a TSD is issued for comments.
Not only is some of the science of the TSD out-of-date but there needs to be an explicit, in-depth analysis of the likely causes of global warming in my view. Despite the complexity of the climate system the following conclusions in this regard appear to be well supported by the available data (see Section 2 below):
A. By far the best single explanation for global temperature fluctuations appears to be variations in the PDO/AMO/ENSO. ENSO appears to operate in a 3-5 year cycle. PDO/AMO appear to operate in about a 60-year cycle. This is not really explained in the draft TSD but needs to be, or, at the very least, there needs to be an explanation as to why OAR believes that these evident cycles do not exist or why they are so unimportant as not to receive in-depth analysis.
B. There appears to be a strong association between solar sunspots/irradiance and global temperature fluctuations. It is unclear exactly how this operates, but it may be through indirect solar variability on cloud formation. This topic is not really explored in the Draft TSD but needs to be since otherwise the effects of solar variations may be mis-attributed to the effects of changes in GHG levels.
C. Changes in GHG concentrations appear to have so little effect that it is difficult to find any effect in the satellite temperature record, which started in 1978.
D. The surface measurements (such as HADCRUT) are more ambiguous than the satellite measurements in that the increasing temperatures shown since the mid-1970s could either be due to the rapid growth of urbanization and the heat island effect or by the increase in GHG levels. However, since no such increase is shown in the satellite record it appears more likely that urbanization and the UHI effect and/or other measurement problems are the most likely cause. If so, the increases may have little to do with GHGs and everything to do with the rapid urbanization during the period. Given the discrepancy between surface temperature records in the 1940-75 and 1998-2008 and the increases in GHG levels during these periods it appears even more unlikely that GHGs have as much of an effect on measured surface temperatures as claimed. These points need to be very carefully and fully discussed in the draft TSD if it is be scientifically credible.
E. Hence it is not reasonable to conclude that there is any endangerment from changes in GHG levels based on the satellite record, since almost all the fluctuations appear to be due to natural causes and not human-caused pollution as defined by the Clean Air Act. The surface record is more equivocal but needs to be carefully discussed, which would require substantial revision of the Draft TSD.
F. There is a significant possibility that there are some other natural causes of global temperature fluctuations that we do not yet really understand and which may account for the very noticeable 1998 temperature peak which appears on both the satellite and surface temperature records. This possibility needs to be fully explained and discussed in the Draft TSD. Until and unless these and many other inconsistencies referenced in these comments are adequately explained it would appear premature to attribute all or even most of what warming has occurred to changes in GHG/CO2 atmospheric levels.
These inconsistencies between the TSD analysis and scientific observations are so important and sufficiently abstruse that in my view EPA needs to make an independent analysis of the science of global warming rather than adopting the conclusions of the IPCC and CCSP without much more careful and independent EPA staff review than is evidenced by the Draft TSP. Adopting the scientific conclusions of an outside group such as the IPCC or CCSP without thorough review by EPA is not in the EPA tradition anyway, and there seems to be little reason to change the tradition in this case. If their conclusions should be incorrect and EPA acts on them, it is EPA that will be blamed for inadequate research and understanding and reaching a possibly inaccurate determination of endangerment. Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until about 2030 given the 60 year cycle described in Section 2) there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain much of the available data.
Finally, there is an obvious logical problem posed by steadily increasing US health and welfare measures and the alleged endangerment of health and welfare discussed in this draft TSD during a period of rapid rise in at least CO2 ambient levels. This discontinuity either needs to be carefully explained in the draft TSD or the conclusions changed.
This entry was posted in Greenhouse Effect. Bookmark the permalink.
Section 6. All sources of Photons
Another area that has never been considered is the other forms of radiation including Micro-waves, radio, gamma, and several others that can be detected as originating in space from the Sun or other interstellar space. Each is an energy stream of photons or subatomic particles,each can be converted into some heating of molecules and atoms.As I don’t claim to be knowledgeable about them all , this is the areas of physicists.
Visible light is just a small part of the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
Windows to the Universe original artwork.
The Electromagnetic Spectrum
Light is a form of electromagnetic radiation that is very familiar to us. However, there are several other forms of electromagnetic (EM) radiation, such as X-rays, radio waves, and ultraviolet and infrared “light”. Together, these different types of EM radiation make up the electromagnetic spectrum.
Each section of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum has characteristic energy levels, wavelengths, and frequencies associated with its photons. Gamma rays have the highest energies, the shortest wavelengths, and the highest frequencies. Radio waves, on the other hand, have the lowest energies, longest wavelengths, and lowest frequencies of any type of EM radiation. In order from highest to lowest energy, the sections of the EM spectrum are named: gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet radiation, visible light, infrared radiation, and radio waves. Microwaves (like the ones used in microwave ovens) are a subsection of the radio wave section of the EM spectrum.
Two high radiation regions surround Earth – the inner and outer Van Allen radiation belts.
Windows to the Universe.
Particle Radiation
One main type of radiation, particle radiation, is the result of subatomic particles hurtling at tremendous speeds. Protons, cosmic rays, and alpha and beta particles are some of the most common types of particle radiation.
Particle radiation can harm living creatures and can short out electronic circuits… so it is dangerous for humans and robots alike.
Protons and electrons are two of the most common types of particles encountered. Tear apart an atom of hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe, and you get a proton and an electron… hence the abundance of this type of radiation.
Strip the two electrons from the second most abundant element, helium, and you are left with a nucleon containing two protons and two neutrons. This helium-nucleus particle is called an “alpha particle”. Free electrons, when zipping around as radiation, are known as “beta particles”. A third type, gamma radiation, is not a particle but rather a high-energy form of electromagnetic radiation.
Neutrinos are bizarre particles that can pass through almost anything, even miles (kilometers) of solid rock. Because neutrino radiation rates may be able to tell us about the nuclear reactions at the core of the Sun, scientists have gone to great lengths to try to devise detectors that sense these elusive particles.
There is a second main type of radiation, which deals with the transfer of energy by waves from vibrating electric and magnetic fields. That type of radiation is called “electromagnetic radiation“.
Last modified June 22, 2005 by Randy Russell.