An Einstein Thought Experiment on Climate Change

For the Climate Change “Experts” to be correct, Mother Nature has to be wrong. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) is just that, Catastrophic. The theory is that Anthropogenic CO2 is basically a doomsday bomb. From the geologic record, we know this is nonsense, and that Mother Nature has produced CO2 in vastly greater quantities than Man could ever hope to produce and life thrived. CO2 is, after all, the molecule on which all organic based life is derived. For some reason, the climate “experts” seem to believe that the physical properties of Anthropogenic CO2 somehow differ from those of Naturally produced CO2, they don’t.

How then, would Einstein go about disproving the myth of CAGW? He would use a “thought experiment.” Einstein solved the theory of relativity by simply watching a clock while riding a train and imagined what things would be like if the train was traveling near the speed of light. We will do the same here in regards to climate change.

The Achilles Heal of the Climate Alarmists is that their “theory” treats the atmosphere almost like a closed system. That is why they focus on global temperature. The argument is that CO2 is “trapping” heat in the atmosphere, resulting in a gradual increase in temperatures. This assumption isn’t even close to true, the atmosphere has no insulated ceiling, thus freely allowing energy to enter and exit. Most importantly, energy is in flux, and different wavelengths of Electro-Magnetic Radiation have different physical properties. The key to the thought experiment is to then demonstrate the climate system in a thought experiment. To do this we will use the giant water bucket popular at water parks.

Energy is in flux, it enters the system at a certain rate, and it leaves the system at a certain rate. You can fill your car up with gasoline in 10 minutes with a large flow capacity hose, and then slowly allow fuel to drain out through a low flow capacity fuel injector and drive your car for hours. The climate alarmists use a linear model for the climate theory. The Sun’s energy is constant they say, CO2 increases, CO2 reduces the outgoing Longwave Infrared Radiation, therefore temperatures increase. That is their theory in a nutshell. It is a masterpiece in sophistry.

The problem they have with that theory is the energy flux of the atmosphere is highly nonlinear. Energy accumulates in the oceans during a “La Niña”, and then is belched out into the atmosphere during an “El Niño. The energy flux is absolutely enormous, with the ocean temperatures varying up to 4°C over a cycle, and therein lies the problem.

(Source) (Source)

Sea “surface” reaches down about 100m. (Source)

The difference between day and night temperatures of the oceans can also vary greatly. BTW, note how the very surface is COOLER than the water immediately below it. That is evidence CO2 and wind are actually working to COOL the oceans because the wavelengths CO2 absorbs don’t penetrate the surface of the oceans. (More below)

diurnal sea temp

(Source)

Enormous amounts of energy are required to warm the oceans, and enormous amounts of energy are released when the oceans cool. The specific heat of water is 4.186 joule/gram °C, where a joule is a W*Sec. The marginal contribution of Anthropogenic CO2 (Difference between 270 and 410 ppm) is a whopping 0.94 W/m^2. (Source)

co2 anthropogenic

That means that Anthropogenic CO2 can warm 1gm of water 1°C every 4.186/0.94 or 4.45 Seconds over an area of 1 m^2. A m^3 of water weighs 1,000,000 gms. It would take 4,450,000 seconds, or 1,250 hours or nearly 2 months for Anthropogenic CO2 to warm a m^3 of sea surface water  1°C. To put things in perspective, at high noon on a clear day, the oceans are being bathed by 1,000 W/m^2 by incoming solar radiation. (Source) It only takes the sun 1.16 hours to warm the oceans as much as Anthropogenic CO2 does in 1,250 hours. On a cloudy day, the incoming solar radiation may only be 100 W/m^2, so the variations are enormous, yet still dwarf the contributions of anthropogenic CO2. A similar example could be done using the time it takes CO2 to replace the energy lost from just one cloudy day.

Here is the best evidence I’ve found that the sun is warming the oceans, not CO2. The warming trend has occurred along with a decrease in cloud cover over the oceans. Note how both charts of Low-Level Clouds and Temperatures “kink” or “dog-leg” around 1999. CO2 shows no relationship with temperature at all, but water vapor does.

With that background, we can now design the Einstein Thought Experiment. Assuming Mother Nature isn’t an imbecile, we would have to assume that she built safety valves in her system to ensure no catastrophic events ever happen. She did that is various ways 1) the El Niños act as pressure valves and 2) CO2 shows a logarithmic decay in its absorption of 13 to 18µ Long Wave Infrared Radiation (LWIR). The Water Park Giant Tipping Bucket is a great demonstration of how the climate system works, and why CO2 is truly irrelevant. The Bucket is filled by an enormous pipe that can fill a 1,000-gallon bucket in about 10 minutes, so the flow rate is about 100 gallons/minute. The major fill pipe is the solar radiation of 1,000 W/m^2 in the climate system. CO2’s contribution to the climate system would be like hanging a garden hose over the side of the bucket with a flow rate of about 0.1 Gallons/minute. By the time CO2 has poured 1 gallon into the giant bucket, the bucket pours all CO2’s water out and things start all over again. Because the bucket is continually dumping out all the accumulated water/energy, CO2’s contribution can never actually “accumulate” in the atmosphere. There simply isn’t enough time between cycles for CO2 to have a material impact.

There is also one additional twist to the above thought experiment. CO2 shows a logarithmic decay of its absorption between 13 to 18µ LWIR. To understand this, imagine that the garden hose isn’t drooped across the top, but is piped in at the bottom of the bucket. At first, when the bucket is empty, CO2’s water easily flows into the system, but as more and more water gets into the bucket, the back pressure grows, and less and less CO2 water is piped into the bucket. Eventually, no additional CO2 water will make it into the bucket, no matter how much CO2 water is in the filling tank. 0 to 410 ppm CO2 added 7.85 W/m^2 to the system, doubling CO2 from 410 to 820 will only add an additional 1.88 W/m^2.

If you think of the bucket filling and overflowing without tipping as a catastrophic event, there is no way for CO2 water to ever prevent the bucket from tipping, so it can never cause a catastrophic event. As long as El Niños exist, CO2 will never be able to cause a catastrophic event.

There appears to be another safety valve Mother Nature created that I don’t fully understand, but it highlights how many aspects of the climate are counter-intuitive. When the incoming solar radiation is REDUCEDthe amount of radiation that actually reaches the earth’s surface actually INCREASES.

The solar radiation coming to the Earth (and individual hemispheres) is reduced (Fig. 2). The anomaly value of the solar radiation coming to the Earth surface (in respect to the mean for 1961 – 1990) from 1850 to 2013 is 3.49Е+07 J/m2. The difference of solar radiation coming to the equatorial zone and polar regions of the Earth (and hemispheres) is increased for this period by 5.83Е+07 J/m2 (relative to the mean for 1961 – 1990). The SST temperature on the Earth and individual hemispheres is increased.

(Source)

Additionally, in reality, CO2 is more likely to cause surface evaporation. The latent heat of evaporation is 2.26 j/g, so CO2 is more likely to pull heat away from the ocean surface than to add to be because H2O readily absorbs 13 to 18µ LWIR likely triggering evaporation. The following chart demonstrates that 13 to 18µ LWIR doesn’t penetrate the oceans to any depth, so those factors combined with a blowing wind aiding evaporation further makes the case that CO2 cools the oceans, it doesn’t warm them. Visible radiation clearly penetrates and warms the oceans, especially very high energy blue light.

Lastly, climate alarmists make it sound as if all W/m^2 are created equal, they aren’t. A W/m^2 of blue light is likely to warm the deeper oceans, a W/m^2 of 13 to 18µ LWIR will never reach that depth. A W/m^2 from an LED Flashlight will travel to outer space without warming anything. Only when a W/m^2 is absorbed and converted to thermal energy does a W/m^2 result in an increase in temperature, and different wavelengths have different absorptive properties.

The above article would make a great High School Science Fair Demonstration.

Post Publish Edit: This seems to validate the theory detailed above…and we’re not climate scientists or experts.

An ocean of inconvenient truth
The estimated increase in ocean heat content during 1990-2015 is the same as that between 1921–1946, according to a study in the PNAS. Change in atmospheric CO2 was ~70 ppm (1990-2015) vs. ~10 ppm (1921-1946). (Source)

More evidence CO2 does not warm the oceans. Ocean temperatures have not increased with an increase in CO2. (Source)

sst

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Advertisements

This is Why Solar Doesn’t Work in Canada

(Source)

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

This is How You Get Everyone to Agree on Global Warming; Brainwash and Rob People of Critical Thinking Skills

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Fact Checking Chuck Todd of Meet the Press

U.S. Media Bans Scientific Dissent – Claim Wildfires, Floods, Droughts, Hurricanes Are Human-Controlled

What does the (banned) scientific evidence say?
1. Most of the U.S. has been cooling overall since the 1930s
2. Climate models, media wrong on the emissions-extreme weather link
3. No evidence that humans have unleashed climate “tipping points”
4. Extreme weather events have not increased
5. U.S. (and global) hurricane frequency, intensity have decreased
6. U.S. (and global) flooding events have decreased
7. U.S. (and global) drought events have decreased
8. U.S. (and global) wildfire frequency have decreased
9. Financial losses/deaths from extreme weather have decreased
10. 90% of the Holocene had more retreated/absent glaciers than today
11. Antarctic Peninsula has been cooling and gaining mass this century
12. Since 1958, Greenland/Antarctica melt contribution to sea levels is just 1.5 cm
13. More global land area above sea level today than in the 1980s
14. 89% of the globe’s small islands have stable or growing shorelines
15. Long-term (80+ years) global sea level rise acceleration not significant

Chuck Todd works as both a reporter, host, and censor. How does someone in the press keep his job after such a decision?

(Source)

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Visual Demonstration of How H2O Vapor Dominates the GHG Effect

h2o 1

The above graphic is of a “Looking Up” from the surface calculation from MODTRAN. (Source). Note that the Water Vapor Scale is set to 0.00. CO2 is clearly the dominant GHG in the absence of H2O. Note the 89.176 W/ m^2 for all GHGs combined less H2O. Now look at what happens when H2O is added to the mix. Note how the W/m^2 jumps to 369.264 W/m^2.

h2o 2

Now, both of the above graphics are for 400 ppm CO2, about the current level. Let’s take a look at what it looked like Pre-Industrial Era. The CO2 added by man adds 0.94 W/m^2.

h2o 3

Now if we change the setting to looking down from 0.1 km, and compare 270 ppm to 400 ppm CO2, we see that Anthropogenic CO2 results in a 0.00 W/m^2 change in outgoing IR Heat Flux. That is because CO2 absorbs LWIR between 13 to 18µ at a lower level than H2O, but H2O does eventually capture all the LWIR between 13 to 18µ just at a higher altitude. You can test that using the GasCell at SpectralCalc. (Source)

h2o 4

Here is a GasCell for H2O. It basically absorbs most of the 13 to 18µ/Wave Number 666 by about 50 meters.

gas cell 1

Here is the Gas Cell for CO2. It absorbs most by about 30 cm.

gas cell 2

One last chart to clear up some confusion. I often post that -80°C ice will emit LWIR with a peak of 15µ. Here is the chart. The LWIR absorbed by CO2 is consistent with a temperature of -80°C. The point is to highlight how low energy this radiation is relative to the grand scheme. Yes, the W/m^2 matters no matter what the wavelength, but the physical properties of the wavelengths matters as well.

black body 1

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Understanding the W/m^2 of CO2; The Flux Conundrum

The entire foundation CAGW is based upon is that the change in outgoing LWIR “trapped” by manmade CO2 will have catastrophic consequences. There are serious problems with that concept, but to understand the flaws, one must understand the basics.

CO2 absorbs, radiates and “thermalizes” LWIR between 13 and 18µ, that is the only mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change. CO2, through the “thermalization” or conversion of EM radiation to kinetic/heat energy, warms the atmosphere. Thermometers don’t measure EM radiation, they measure the kinetic energy of the atmosphere.

What then is a Watt? A Watt is a flow of energy, much like a hose may be a 40 gallon/hour hose. Under a certain pressure, a hose may allow 40 gallons to flow through it in an hour. The bigger the hose the greater the flow or “flux.” Using that analogy, a Watt is defined as a unit of Power equal to 1 Joule/second.

What then is Power? Power is the rate at which work can be done or energy per unit of time.

What then in Work? Work, in physics, is a measure of energy transfer that occurs when an object is moved over a distance by an external force at least part of which is applied in the direction of the displacement. If the force is constant, work may be computed by multiplying the length of the path by the component of the force acting along the path.

What is a Force: Force = MA or Mass x Acceleration, this is Newton’s 2nd Law

What is a Joule? A Joule is a unit of work or energy equal to the work done by a force of one newton acting through a distance of one meter.

Okay, now that we have the basics, let’s go take a look at how all this comes together. We will use MODTRAN to do the calculations. (Source)

We will start with MODTRAN set to:

  1. Looking down from 70km
  2. Tropical Atmosphere
  3. No Clouds or Rain
  4. Ground Temperature of 299.7°K

Using those initial settings, if I change CO2 to 0.00 ppm I get an outgoing Upward IR Heat Flux 329.7 W/m2.

If I then change the CO2 to the Pre-Industrial 270 ppm I get an Upward IR Heat Flux 300.404 W/m2. This means that 29.3 W/m^2 less energy is leaving the atmosphere by the height of 70 km relative to when CO2 was 0.00 ppm.

If I then change the CO2 to the current level of 410 ppm I get an Upward IR Heat Flux 298.394 W/m2. This means that 31.31 W/m^2 less energy is leaving the atmosphere by the height of 70 km relative to when CO2 was 0.00 ppm.

Man’s contribution to the energy balance is therefor the difference between Per-Industrial and current levels of CO2. The net contribution by man, assuming that he is 100% responsible for the additional CO2, is a whopping 2.01 W/m^2. From that, we learn man’s contribution to the energy balance attributed to CO2 is 2.01/31.31, or about 6.4%.

Once again, all those numbers can be checked using MODTRAN (Source)

Now, the argument goes that CO2 is the cause of warming because it is a constant additional 2.01 W/m^2. Because it is a constant amount of additional radiation, and CO2 only increases as long as man continues burning fossil fuels, the climate has no choice but to continue to warm, thus the name CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING.

That sounds really scary until you understand that W/m^2 is a flux. Climate alarmists act as if the energy gets “trapped” in the atmosphere. That is pure nonsense, it is always working its way out to outer space. Energy is like a river flowing from the surface to outer space. Green House Gasses act like small dams in the energy river slowing this flow. The sun heats the earth during the day, energy is inflowing, and then at night, the energy flows back out to outer space.

That is the basic concept, but remember that this is an inflow/outflow model, and many things other than GHGs can alter that dynamic. CO2, as noted above, is responsible for 2.01 W/m^2, but what does that really mean?

The latent heat of fusion of ice is 337 joules/gram

The specific heat of water is = 4.186 joule/gram °C which is higher than any other common substance.

The CO2 provided 2.01 W/m^2 could melt 1 gm of ice every 168 seconds (337/2.01). Every m^2 in the Arctic would have 1 gm of ice melt if the temperature is 0.00°C or above due to anthropogenic CO2. Does that seem very alarming? Considering the period of time the Arctic is ever above 0.00°C is very short. There are 3785.4118 gms in a Gallon. So it would take 168 x 3785.4118 = 634,668.55 seconds, or 10,577.81 minutes, or 176.30 hours for the marginal CO2 to melt a single gallon of ice over a m^2. Trust me, CO2 isn’t going to melt the Arctic at that rate.

How about the oceans? The vast oceans are enormous. CO2 can warm 1 gm of ocean 4.186/2.01 =  2.08 seconds. That means CO2 can warm a gallon of ocean 1°C every 1819.91 seconds or 30.33 minutes. There are 264.172 gallons in a m^3, so 1 gallon represents the very top 0.39 cm of the m^3 of ocean. It would take 129.408 hours to warm the entire m^3 by 1°C, and this assumes no cooling due to evaporation.

Now that we have that background, let’s look at other factors. Set MODTRAN to 410 ppm CO2, and change the settings to cumulous clouds. The Upward IR Heat Flux is 269.726 W/m2. The clear sky has Upward IR Heat Flux 298.394 W/m2, so the difference is 28.668 W/m^2, or 14x the radiative impact of Anthropogenic CO2. 1 day of cloud cover is the equivalent of 14 days of Anthropogenic CO2.

That, however, isn’t the biggest problem for the climate alarmists. Remember, W/m^2 is a Flux. Temperatures rise and fall as energy enters and leaves the system. That means once a temperature is reached below a previous low temperature, past energy has been removed. The best analogy I can think of is a safety valve on a boiler. Pressure (temperature) builds to a point to trigger the safety valve, and once triggered, gas is released to lower the pressure. Once the valve is triggered all the previous energy/pressure gets released, then the whole process starts all over again.

Now, imagine the boiler has 2 hoses leading into it, one that has a flow rate of about 40 gallons an hour (Water Vapor) and another that has a flow rate of about 1 gallon per hour (CO2). Both hoses are turned on high, so 41 gallons per hour of water are sent into the boiler. The water boils and reaches a point that triggers the safety valve. Steam leaves the system and the water level drops. Water then flows back into the boiler and the process starts all over again. Temperature is analogous to pressure. The pressure never reaches a level above the trigger point. All the 1 gallon per hour hose does is help speed the cycle up by a slight amount, it does not result in higher pressures.

CO2 and the energy it provides 2.01W/m^2 has well-defined warming rates and energy flow. If it takes 129.408 hours to warm m^3 of water by 1°C, if that water cools by 1°C, it will take another 129.408 hours to get back to where it started. If temperatures fall below a previous temperature bottom, all the previous energy has been lost. That is why these references to Pre-Industrial CO2 are nonsensical, as is average temperature. If one day has a low-temperature of 18°C and the next day is 15°C, all the historic impact of CO2 has been removed.

How is this relevant? Well, the climate system acts like the boiler with a safety valve. The safety valves are called El Niño and La Niña. Incoming visible radiation warms the oceans, the temperatures increase, and eventually, the oceans belch out a bunch of energy in the form of El Niño and the temperatures drop resulting in a La Niña, then the entire cycle starts all over again. From the temperature charts, it is obvious that El Niños drive the climate, not CO2.

How, if CO2 was the cause of the warming, could current temperatures be BELOW the level of temperatures in 1987? How could temperatures ever fall? Clearly, from the above chart, temperatures remained in a range between 1979 and 1997 storing up energy from visible radiation. The oceans then belched out accumulated energy in the 1998 El Niño, and temperatures then remained in a range until the 2016 El Niño. The rates at which CO2 could warm the oceans and replace the energy lost through an El Niño are fixed and quantifiable, and there simply isn’t enough time for CO2 to replace the energy lost through an El Niño.

Now, in reality, looking down from 70km isn’t very useful. What we are really interested in is how CO2 impacts the lower atmosphere where the Arctic Ice and glaciers are. To do that, change the setting on MODTRAN to “Looking Up” from 0.00 km (The Surface). This gives one the reading of the IR Heat Flux coming back to the surface. When you enter those settings, the Downward IR Heat Flux is 369.264 W/m2 for 410 ppm and Downward IR Heat Flux 368.322 W/m2 is for 270 ppm, so in reality, the relevant amount of energy associated with Anthropogenic CO2 isn’t the 2.01W/m^2 used above, it is actually less than 1/2 that value at 0.94 W/m2. Basically, every time period mentioned above should be more than doubled.

But wait, just what does 0.94 W/m2 really mean in the grand scheme of things? Is this amount of energy really material to the system, even over very long periods? Not really. Daylight has a peak irradiance of the surface of around 1,000 W/m^2 on a clear day. This means that 1 hour of peak solar radiance is the equivalent of 1,000 hours of Anthropogenic CO2’s irradiance. (Source) That is actually a low value. Wikipedia places the value at 1,120 W/m^2. Considering just the Northern Hemisphere and various factors, that value can drop to 300 W/m^2 in the winter, 150 on a cloudy Winter day, and 50 on a foggy winter day. (Source) The day to day, hour to hour, season by season variations of energy reaching the surface of the earth are enormous, dwarfing the impact of even a constant 0.94 W/m2. A single sunny HOUR can add more energy to the system than nearly 2 months of Anthropogenic CO2.

That, however, isn’t the important aspect. Remember, W/m2 is a flux. A single cloudy HOUR in the summer, when W/m^2 drops from 1,120 W/m^2 to 600 W/m^2, will release the amount of 21 days of Anthropogenic CO2 back radiation. It would take 21 days for CO2 to replace the energy lost from just 1 HOUR of clouds in the summer. Climate alarmists make it sound as if the energy budget can go nowhere but up, which is complete nonsense. The climate system has release valves, and the rate of energy replacement by Anthropogenic CO2 is so small and slow that it is immaterial in the grand scheme of things.

The oceans control the climate. They are the Earth’s hypothalamus or thermostat. Define the oceans and you define the climate. Our climate models shouldn’t be modeling the atmosphere, they should be modeling the oceans if they truly want to model the climate. As noted above, it takes Anthropogenic CO2 129.408 hours to warm m^3 of water by 1°C using the inflated value of 2.01W/m^2. Daylight can warm that same amount of water in 14 minutes. 14 minutes of clouds can remove the amount of 64 hours of the effect of Anthropogenic CO2. Once again, because the energy replacement rate of CO2 moves at glacial speed, it is like a Tortoise in a race against a Hare. By the time Anthropogenic CO2 even starts to replace the energy lost by a single cloudy day, another one hits. That is why temperatures don’t travel in a straight line like atmospheric CO2 does. Once temperatures drop below the previous low levels, the system resets, and all previous contributions from Anthropogenic CO2 are lost to outer space.

Because of the time rates associated with CO2, Anthropogenic CO2 simply can’t be the cause of temperature volatility, and it certainly can’t be the cause of increasing temperatures. There is nothing about CO2 that regulates the amount of energy lost through an El Niño. Once a previous temperature low is exceeded, the system simply resets, and any impact of historical CO2 is lost.

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Dow Drops 660 Points Day Nancy Takes Power; Markets off Nearly 20% Since Election

pelosi

What is the easiest way to stop the Trump Economic Juggernaut? Elect Democrats. They can screw up anything. Democrats wiped out nearly 2 years of gains since the election. This past election was very expensive to those who have 401(k)s. The Wall costs $5 Billion, investors have lost trillions because Democrats want to make it a political issue.

snp 500 election

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment