"In his talk “Yes! Follow the Science!...And You Discover That IPCC Ignores the Inconvenient Science” Howard Hayden takes the audience through logical steps
and shows that the IPCC science and the global climate models used are self-contradictory.
They lead to absurd conclusions.
[In the talk he expresses all infrared radiation in units of thermal watts per square meter (W/m2).]
Hayden focuses on broad results, and states simple facts:
Fact 1.
Heat coming from the sun equals the heat being radiated into space. (There may be a changing, but trivial imbalance.)
Fact 2:
Surface radiation (infrared radiation) depends on surface temperature.
There is a well- tested formula, the Stefan-Boltzmann law discussed in last week’s TWTW for this.
The IPCC ignored the formula until 2021, and still does not apply it to the surface where it is absolutely necessary.
The intensity of the radiation is a constant times the temperature raised to the fourth power.
Fact 3:
The greenhouse effect is the difference between the heat radiated from the surface and the heat radiated into space.
It was not until the 2021 report that the IPCC recognized that the greenhouse effect is the difference between the heat radiated from the surface and the heat radiated into space.
For over thirty years it has reported the results of global climate models without recognizing this important physics.
Hayden’s method is to do the physics first, then do the math, not vice-versa.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law is a constraining equation for climate reality.
Going outside of it becomes fantasy.
The IPCC models produce imaginary results.
If the surface temperature of a planet increases surface emissions must increase provided that the solar intensity and albedo (reflectivity) remain constant.
Further, the IPCC confuses the surface of a planet with the top of the atmosphere of a planet when it states, “a warmer planet radiates more energy to space.”
It is only what comes off the top of the atmosphere that goes into space.
Thanks to space age technology, we can now measure what comes off the top of the atmosphere.
Hayden compares the radiation from the Earth’s atmosphere with that from Venus.
Many have claimed the high temperature on the surface of Venus is an example of runaway greenhouse.
Indeed, the surface of Venus is far hotter than that of Earth with a temperature of 737K (867 F), capable of melting lead, compared to 289K (60.5F) for Earth.
Yet the atmosphere of Venus emits less radiation to space than the atmosphere of Earth (156 W/m2, compared with 239 W/m2).
This is because even though Venus gets far more intense sunlight, much of the sun’s energy is reflected by the atmosphere and does not reach the surface.
The hotter surface of Venus is due to a very strong greenhouse effect from CO2, CO, SO2, and H2O at the high atmospheric pressure at the surface, ninety-three times greater than the Earth’s atmospheres.
The IPCC claims the average temperature increase from a doubling of CO2 will be 3 oC.
Using the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which the IPCC now recognizes but apparently does not understand, this would result in an increase surface radiation of 16.5 W/m2.
Yet the IPCC continues to discuss “radiative forcing” as if it will be significant.
Using the model and calculations advanced by van Wijngaarden and Happer, which have been tested and validated by physical evidence, Hayden shows IPCC’s “’radiative forcing’ due to CO 2 doubling of 3.7 W/m2 – is a mere 2.3% nudge with a dramatic name.”
As Hayden explains, the IPCC recognizes the Stefan-Boltzmann law, but ignores it.
“In other words, IPCC’s models have an inherent self-contradiction ...
OR A DEATH SPIRAL” And “IPCC considers two possible ways out of this conundrum The Modern Math Solution: 3.7 = 16.5 for very large values of 3.7, or
The Headline-Grabbing Solution: Over 4X amplification of heat! Disaster Looms!”
He concludes:
“Heat begets heat -- Explains why we don’t exist “This baked in physics-defying nonsense is the pillar of IPCC climate models
It is the source of terabytes of climate horror stories flooding the news media and – worse yet – leading science journals.”
Total Pageviews
Monday, November 15, 2021
"Follow the Science!"
Source: