"This TWTW will conclude its discussion of the video presentation by William van Wijngaarden explaining his work with William Happer to the Irish Climate Science Foundation on the global temperature impacts of increasing water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone, nitrous oxide, and methane in the atmosphere.
This work uses the high-resolution transmission molecular absorption database (HITRAN), which is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters, specifications, used to simulate and predict the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere.
In the 1860s, John Tyndall correctly recognized that certain atmospheric gases keep the land masses of the earth from going into a deep freeze at night, naming them greenhouse gases.
Yet, modern climate scientists largely ignore his work, which was not precise, and the work of modern scientists studying the atmosphere.
As van Wijngaarden presents, an important characteristic of these gases is that they quickly become saturated,
meaning their effectiveness in absorbing, and emitting photons, electromagnetic energy in the infrared frequencies, is quickly diminished as their concentration increases.
In the current atmosphere, the effectiveness of adding a few molecules of water vapor or carbon dioxide is diminished by over 1000 compared to adding them to an atmosphere that has not greenhouse gases.
As a result, the long-term projections / predictions of impacts from increasing greenhouse gases favored by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its climate modelers are scientifically meaningless and completely mislead the public.
These projections / predictions can be considered to be tools of propaganda.
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical (AMO) physicist Howard Hayden. Hayden looks at the overall results of the work of van Wijngaarden and Happer and compiled a series of essays
using basic physics, all-inclusive physics, explaining the importance of their work and the limitations it places on global climate modeling.
In ignoring what is occurring in the earth’s atmosphere, the climate modelers are creating an artificial world far different than the physical one, that may be best suited for their political aims.
*******************
Power of an Additional Molecule:
About 20 minutes into his UTUBE presentation, van Wijngaarden gives the method used to check the results of the Wijngaarden & Happer model against independent physical evidence, taken by the Nimbus 4 Satellite.
Hayden extends this checking by also using observations taken over Guam, in the tropical Pacific.
This type of testing of results of the model against independent physical evidence is the heart of the Scientific Method, yet is not done by modelers for NCAR, NOAA, and NASA-GISS.
Yet, NCAR, NOAA and NASA-GISS model results are used to justify a false climate crisis, which is resulting in severe economic damage to the US.
Van Wijngaarden then goes into another significant contribution in understanding the physics of greenhouse gases – how the power per molecule of each greenhouse gas is reduced with additional concentrations of that gas.
In Physics terms, this is called saturation. Van Wijngaarden gives a laymen’s definition:
... a homeowner who is painting a dark wall with a white or light paint will notice it takes several coats to properly do the job, but there is little difference between the 10th and 11 coats.
About 24 minutes into the presentation, van Wijngaarden presents a slide showing Radiative Forcing,
which is the heat flux from the surface of the Earth calculated at 288.7 degrees K for the current atmosphere with water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, nitrous oxide.
The net upward flux (heat flow towards space) increases with altitude to about 10 km (6 miles), then the increase slows, diminishes, until about 20 km (12 miles) altitude, after which the net heat flow becomes almost vertical (doesn’t change) with increasing altitude.
He also shows the small changes in the heat flux for an atmosphere with CO2 concentrations of 200 parts per million volume (ppm) and 800 ppm.
These are compared with the heat flux assuming no atmospheric gases.
Then, van Wijngaarden becomes a bit more technical introducing a slide titled “Power per Molecule equals Forcing divided by Column Density.”
He points out that both water vapor and carbon dioxide are strongly saturated in today’s atmosphere.
Now, it requires the addition of over a thousand molecules of water vapor into the atmosphere to have the same greenhouse effect that would have occurred by adding one molecule to a hypothetical atmosphere with no water vapor.
... In 1979, the Charney Report stated that whatever modest warming carbon dioxide (CO2) is causing will be greatly amplified by a warming caused by increasing water vapor.
The report concluded that a doubling of CO2 will cause an increase in temperatures of 3°C plus or minus 1.5°C.
This estimate was largely due to the urging of climate modelers involved.
It is based on speculation, not physical evidence.
Van Wijngaarden and Happer provide the physical evidence contradicting the assumption.
As van Wijngaarden points out, the physical evidence of a global increase in water vapor is ambiguous. [El Niños add water vapor to the atmosphere, particularly over the Arctic, but it appears to drop out over time, and the tropics are already saturated with water vapor.]
Van Wijngaarden also points out that water vapor does not strongly overlap with other greenhouse gases, an error TWTW has made.
Overlap means two gases absorb electromagnetic radiation in the same wavelengths, competing with each other.
He also points out that the influence of methane (CH4) overlaps with nitrous oxide (N2O), each reducing the effectiveness of the other.
The physical evidence and as well as the modeling being tested against independent physical evidence presented by van Wijngaarden and Happer point out significant errors in global climate modeling.
These errors extend from the IPCC to its followers such as NCAR, NOAA and NASA- GISS.
For years, the evidence of atmospheric temperature trends compiled by University of Alabama at Huntsville have shown that climate modeling greatly overestimates the influence of CO2.
Now, we have physical evidence showing why.
No wonder that once respected western scientific journals do not wish to publish such papers.
The journals are more interested in political conformity than in advancing science.
***************
Basic Climate Physics:
Howard ‘Cork’ Hayden is writing a series on Basic Climate Physics, meaning all-inclusive physics that pertains to the subject of climate.
He uses the approach used by van Wijngaarden and Happer and the numbers established by the IPCC to establish an upper bound for calculations by climate modelers on temperature change from a doubling of carbon dioxide.
Even though some may disagree with IPCC numbers, as Hayden does, there should be no disagreement with those numbers by climate modelers who follow IPCC procedures.
Posted on the SEPP website, Hayden’s first two papers established a Planetary Heat Balance and how the greenhouse effect can be easily calculated without the need for calculations of fluid dynamics, weather, and similar complications.
Essay # 3 deals with the IPCC’s inept physics and its misunderstanding of the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law that has been well known and accepted since the middle-to-late 1800s.
This misunderstanding dates back to the First IPCC Assessment Report (FAR, 1990) and is repeated in the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6, 2021).
The amount of radiation the surface of a planet in heat balance emits to space is not dependent on its temperature, but on the amount of solar radiation it receives.
For example, Venus is closer to the sun than earth and is much hotter, but it emits only 156 watts per square meter compared to earth emitting 239 watts per square meter.
This is because the clouds over Venus, the (albedo) reflect about 75% of the energy it receives whereby the Earth’s albedo (clouds, ice, etc.) reflect only about 30%.
Essay # 4 reviews the three prior essays, and using basic algebra obtains a basic equation describing the greenhouse effect that applies to all planets that have a surface (excludes gaseous planets without a surface).
Hayden then illustrates the components of the equation on the widely accepted Keith-Trenbreth diagram, also used by the IPCC.
He points out that climate models that do not produce values for all four components of the equation; greenhouse effect, temperature of the surface, intensity of the sun and albedo; are woefully incomplete.
In Essay #5, Hayden uses the law of conservation of energy to develop an energy constraint of climate and climate models.
The greenhouse effect, G in his equations, is the difference between the radiation from the surface and the radiation to space.
With a Planetary Heat Balance, the radiation from the surface must equal the radiant energy absorbed from the sun, (incident energy minus reflected energy).
For values, Hayden prefers those calculated by van Wijngaarden and Happer but uses those calculated by the IPCC.
Hayden then calculates the poorly named Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity used by the IPCC, 3°C.
He shows that using the IPCC value of “radiative forcing” (from a doubling CO2) of 3.7 watts per square meter results in a mere 2.3% increase in the greenhouse effect from 159 to only 162.7 watts per square meter.
The question is how can a doubling of CO2 simultaneously result in 3.7 watts per square meter of radiative forcing and a surface temperature rise of 3°C that increases surface radiation by 12.8 watts per square meter?
Hayden has asked this question to a number of climate “experts,” but none has provided an answer."
#1
http://www.sepp.org/science_papers/Climate%20Physics%201.pdf
#2
http://www.sepp.org/science_papers/Climate%20Physics%202.pdf
#3
http://www.sepp.org/science_papers/Climate%20Physics%203.pdf
#4
http://www.sepp.org/science_papers/Climate%20Physics%204.pdf
#5
http://www.sepp.org/science_papers/Climate%20Physics%205.pdf
Total Pageviews
Monday, March 21, 2022
The Week That Was in Climate Science, by Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
Source: