"Using the numbers published by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Physicist Howard Hayden continues to develop a quite simple model explaining the maximum upper bound that increasing greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, would cause if they are doubled.
This TWTW describes another step in the process.
The papers will be posted on the SEPP website within three weeks.
Using a different approach, the Right Climate Stuff Team of Apollo veterans used an upper bound analysis.
It is as rigorous a type of scientific analysis as that which got the US to the moon.
Climate Science A Better Way – Equations:
The Earth’s climate system involves two fluids (atmosphere and water) of different viscosity (resistance to change), interacting with irregular surfaces, on a spinning planet unevenly heated by the sun.
This gives rise to perplexing nonlinear mathematical problems, which involve the Navier-Stokes equation.
In over 150 years, there has never been an exact solution, and there is no proof that a solution is even possible.
The Clay Mathematics Institute called a solution one of the seven most important open problems in mathematics and has offered $1 million as a Millennium Prize for a solution.
Despite having spent tens of millions of dollars climate modeling has stagnated.
Based on observations of atmospheric temperatures, the climate modelers following the IPCC procedures make estimates that are far too high, leading to false assertions of a climate crisis.
What is involved can be called the weather machine, the complex motion of the two fluids involved in convection, moving heat from the tropics to the polar regions and to space, thereby cooling the Earth.
A further problem is the notion used by the IPCC and the modelers of an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS).
Equilibrium in this case does not mean that the equator and the North Pole are at the same temperature;
ECS refers to the eventual average temperature of the earth following a doubling of CO2 concentration.
No one has ever yet established an equilibrium climate on this ever-changing planet.
Yet, as they produce no solutions to these problems, climate modelers continue to increase their claims of what they would like the solution to be, whether it bears any resemblance to actual facts or not.
From the standpoint of astronomy, all planets are in equilibrium in the sense that they absorb heat from the sun and radiate the same amount of heat into space.
The equation is called the Planetary Heat Balance, and it uses only two variables—the Total Solar Irradiance and the albedo (reflectivity) of the planet—to tell us that quantity of heat.
Planet Earth absorbs and radiates 239 watts per square meter of surface.
The surface of the planet, however, radiates more infrared than the planet radiates into space.
The well-established Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law tells us that the average emission from the surface is 398 watts per square meter.
The numerical difference between these two emission values is (at long last) given a symbol G by the IPCC, which also assigns the name greenhouse effect.
The atmosphere is ultimately responsible for the greenhouse effect, which turns out to be 159 watts per square meter (using IPCC-approved numbers).
Hayden’s calculation amounts to equating the outgoing IR (surface radiation minus greenhouse effect) to the radiation to space from the Planetary Heat Balance equation
to obtain what he calls the Climate Constraint Equation.
The equation derives entirely from the conservation of energy and is therefore universal.
The equation cannot make predictions of future climate, but any correct climate model must satisfy the equation.
The processes by which the atmosphere reduces the infrared from the surface to the amount that goes to space are very numerous and very complicated.
Atomic / molecular / optical scientists van Wijngaarden and Happer have calculated the greenhouse by working with a third of a million spectral lines of five greenhouse gases (including CO2)
and have thereby duplicated spectral measurements made from satellites.
They have also repeated the calculation for doubled CO2 and found that the increase in the greenhouse effect due to that increase is about 3 watts per square meter.
(IPCC has long used 3.7 watts per square meter.)
As an example, Hayden discusses IPCC’s “most probable” temperature rise due to CO2 doubling (the ECS) of +3 degrees C.
With this temperature rise, the surface must, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law,
radiate about 16.5 more watts per square meter.
Since the additional greenhouse effect due to CO2 doubling is only 3.7 watts per square meter (IPCC’s value), how does the IPCC account for the 12.8 W/m2?
(Spoiler alert: they don’t.)
If their models were correct, some combination of increased greenhouse effect from other gases and a decrease in albedo (say, by increasing the cosmic ray flux as Svensmark suggests) would be required.
IPCC, however, does not recognize their quandary.
They attribute about 80% of the increased temperature to CO2, and assert that the albedo will increase, rather than decrease."
Total Pageviews
Tuesday, February 22, 2022
Physicist Howard Hayden: The atmospheric processes that impede the infrared heat from the surface that goes up to space are very complicated.
Source: