Big Climate Bash
Ed Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics
On February 3, I presented an explanation of climate change that easily proves human CO2 does not cause the increase in atmospheric CO2, and therefore does not cause climate change.
I invite all who attended to comment here on my climate seminar of February 3.
In addition, now we have some new comments that focus on radiation that I welcome because they are all good comments worthy of discussion.
Thank you all for your participation on this website.
Hope it goes well. I also hope it will be videoed and available for us later. I would like to send the link to my County Commissioners.
Ed, Good Luck! Hope for SRO! Best… Stein
CO2 does NOT even have the capacity to be a “greenhouse” gas.
High levels of CO2, in the lower atmosphere, when mixed with “dry” warm air….. they…….”BOTH”….”rise” ..and when “they” do they expand and cool rapidly. Sooo…. I ask you…. where is the “greenhouse effect”… of “trapping” warm air….. and…… causing….”global warming”.
Mix in Mother Nature’s greenhouse gas…..being….water vapour gas…. and the scenario changes…… but has NOTHING to do with CO2
Ed is too afraid to go there, its the weakest link in the whole shebang the enhanced radiative greenhouse effect, and they run a mile from it, its almost as if they are ALL controlled opposition gatekeepers John.
Even AI gets it when it is forced to follow logic and not it’s programming bias John.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2024/01/03/retard-mode-chatgpt-vs-gabs-basedai-which-is-actually-based/
Please record the session for us not able to get there! I live in Australia!
Thanks
Huw Bowe
Thermalization and saturation of CO2.
Joseph Reynen 01/02/2024
In reference [1] the long wave (LW) heat transport through a stack of gauge of chicken wire of 30 km high in a vacuum is analyzed.A gauge(i) is characterized by the position z(i) and an absorption coefficient f(i), much smaller than 1.The coefficient f(i) represents the ratio of the surface area of the wires of the mesh to the total surface.
The layers have a given temperature T(i) in degree Kelvin ºK. We define ftot = Σf(i).
With σ = 5.67e -8 W/m²/ºK^4 the heat flux φ(i → j) in W/m² becomes:
φ(i → j) = σ*f(i)*window(i , j)*f(j)*(T(i)^4 -T(j)^4) for T(i) > T(j ) and φ(j → i) = 0
This is the classic Stefan Boltzmann relationship.In a stack with N layers, there are N(N-1)/2 pairs (i , j). For N = 90 layers in a stack, the Stefan Boltzmann relation is therefore applied 4005 times.
It appears according to [1]:
– when the variable density of traces water vapor H2O in the air, as a function of the height z(i), is used for f(i) and for the temperature the measured values T(i) ºK, the LW heat transport in a stack with a height of 11.5 km agrees with the results of fundamental physics for an atmosphere with only traces of water vapor H2O.
– when the variable density of traces of coal dioxide gas CO2 is used for f(i) in a stack of 30 km high, one finds a heat transport consistent with that of fundamental physics with only traces of the infrared-active gas CO2.
What has been called the saturation of CO2 since 2015 — for ftotCO2 > 1 i.e. > 400 ppm for a stack 30 km high— can be demonstrated transparently with a to zero going “window” for overlapping pairs of gauge elements.The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) silences the phenomenon of saturation under the motto science is settled.
In the stack model of LW radiation, the phenomenon of thermalization of CO2 can be introduced, whereby the LW radiation at CO2 frequencies from the surface at lower heights is converted into heat which is then sent towards the universe with the broad band of H2O frequencies as LW radiation [2].The phenomenon thermalization of CO2 is also kept silent by the IPCC under the motto science is settled.
The analysis of heat transfer with the Stefan-Boltzmann relation for 4005 pairs of mesh is based on the finite element method, FEM. Lay persons in that field can skip that part of the paper [1] and start with Figures 3 and 4 regarding the normalized temperature distribution and the normalized
concentrations of the infrared-active gases, water vapor and carbon dioxide gas.Figures 5 and 8 show results of the stack model for atmospheres with only traces of H2O vapor and with only CO2 gas, respectively.
Figure 8a shows temperature increases for ftotCO2 = 0 to 1 — or 400 ppm for an air column 30 km high , without thermalization. These results parallel those of James Hansen’s of June 23, 1988 Congressional hearing in Washington DC, hosted by then-Senator Al Gore, with “defective” air conditioning and open windows. Figure 8a for ftotCO2 = 0 to 1 represents the so-called greenhouse theory of IPCC in 1988. By extrapolating to higher ppm values, IPCC has continued to give the alarming fake messages.
Figure 8b for ftotCO2 from 0 to 4, or 1600 ppm, shows the effect of saturation, but without thermalization. These results correspond to those of Happer [3], also with saturation but without thermalization of the infra-red active traces of CO2 gas.
Figure 9 shows the results like in figure 8a for ftotCO2 = 0 to 1, but now with thermalization of the infra-red active traces of CO2 gas.
Figure 10 and Table 1 in [1] show the final results with temperature increases due to ftotCO2 from 0 to 4 — or 1600 ppm for an air column of 30 km high — including thermalization and saturation.Conclusion of [1]:
thanks to the phenomena thermalization and saturation of the infra-red active CO2 gas there is hardly any further temperature increase since the 400 ppm CO2 concentration of the year 2015.
Appendix
The phenomenon of thermalization was analyzed by Pangburn [2] in 2016. Pangburn’s work was in 2023 the reference to thermalization for the author of [1].
It now appears that the renowned German institute EILKE [4] has already provided a detailed description of the phenomena of saturation (Hug, 1998) and thermalization (Nelson, 2012).
References
[1] Reynen,
https://principia-scientific.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/SaturationIVnew.pdf.
[2] Pangburn,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316885439_Climate_Change_Drivers.
[3] Happer,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA1zUW4uOSw.
[4] EILKE,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbNNhLqhWPg
Hi Joseph,
Thank you for your comment. You subject is related to the work of Ferenc Miskolczi, whose post is here:
https://edberry.com/greenhouse-gas-theories-and-observed-radiative-properties-of-the-earths-atmosphere/
and to the post by Cork Hayden, here
https://edberry.com/climate-physics-basics/
I will tell Ferenc and Cork about your comment.
Ed
Let’s begin with the spectrum of IR leaving the surface of our planet. It is a smooth blackbody spectrum, the shape of which was measured in the mid-to-late 1800s and calculated theoretically by Planck in 1900. By contrast, the IR emitted to space consists of a jagged spectrum with parts considerably reduced at wavelengths characteristic of H2O, CO2, O3, and others. There is no way — repeat, NO WAY — to explain the net 40% reduction in the IR intensity, and the very nature of the IR spectrum going to space without invoking the radiative properties of those gases.
In that regard, the lapse rate has been cited many times as being the cause of the warmth of the surface: typically 288 K at the surface, but 255 K (“blackbody temperature” for a body whose outgoing spectrum does not fit the Planck curve). But the lapse rate is simply a differential equation; dT/dz = -g/c_p (or lower for humid air). It does not specify the starting or ending points. With no greenhouse effect, but with the same lapse rate, why would the surface temperature be 288 K? Why not 255K? Why not 100K? Why not 1,000 K? The lapse rate cannot tell us. (Stefan-Boltzmann can.)
Additionally, any model that does not explain the nature of the jagged spectrum is worthless for explaining the phenomena by which (A) the amount of IR is reduced and (B) how and why the smooth spectrum became jagged.
There is an important lesson to be learned by looking at the spectrum over Guam measured by the Nimbus satellite in 1970. In the CO2 part of the spectrum, there is a peak in radiated intensity at about 15 microns wavelength, the very same location as the strongest IR absorption. In 1990, the IPCC produced its first Assessment Report, and it featured a “theoretical” graph of the expected IR to space which showed a reduction to zero of 15-micron IR to space. They clearly did not understand the nature of molecular dynamics. (For that matter, they were ignorant of the data produced 20 years previously.)
The molecules in air move at roughly the speed of sound, and they are small fractions of a millimeter apart. Collisions happen with incredible frequency. They can de-excite molecules which have absorbed IR and are in excited vibrational/rotational states. They can also excite molecules to those states. The excited states are populated proportional to exp(-E/kT) — with higher populations of excited states at higher temperatures. Typical percentages in the atmosphere for the relevant energies are in the few-percent range. That 15-micron peak of radiation to space is caused by IR emission from molecules excited by collisions — at high-enough altitude that the emitted IR is not absorbed by other CO2 molecules. (A strong absorber is a strong radiator on a wavelength-by-wavelength basis.)
Therein lies the problem with the layer model. The 15-micron radiation at sea level has a mean free path of a trifling 20 centimeters. The layer model says that it should be gone entirely before it even reaches the one hundred meters of altitude. However, it is the strongest line in the CO2 spectrum to space. Without molecular dynamics included, there is no useful model.
Interestingly, there is a theoretical curve in the Guam data. It was calculated from the known spectra of H2O, CO2 and a couple of very minor gases, but they left out O3. The curve fits everywhere except in the O3 absorption region. Importantly, van Wijngaarden and Happer have done calculations with high-resolution spectral data (HITRAN), and done so for a wide range of concentrations of each gas. They find a trivial increase in temperature for doubling CO2.
Reynen:
I studied your comment and article on the Stack or finite element method that is used for flux computation.
I can not see clearly how you can implement the true anisotropy, the true spherical refractive geometry,
and the presence of the cloud cover in the real radiation field. What I can suggest is a numerical
comparison of the fluxes from your and my calculations for an atmosphere – let us say the USS 76 – and
see if we agree. W may also compare this to the fluxes from the MODTRAN code (http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran_home#plot ).
I do not explicitly deal with the saturation and thermalization effects, I only assume that the atmosphere
is in LTE (up to 70 km altitude). If we agree with the test case above, then we move forward to study the CO2 effect.
Ferenc Miskolczi