By Ken Haapala, President, (SEPP)
All 10 papers are here
http://www.sepp.org/science_papers.cfm
"... In the 1860s, John Tyndall used early spectroscopy to discover that certain atmospheric gases, which he called greenhouse gases, prevent land masses from going into a deep freeze at night, promoting life on this planet.
Yet, spectroscopy is largely ignored by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its followers such as global climate modelers who claim to be authorities on the influence of greenhouse gases.
*******************
A Better Way:
The UN IPCC and its followers including global climate modelers have been bogged down in trying to understand the greenhouse effects from a doubling of CO2 since the Charney Report of 1979 which claimed that a doubling of CO2 would result in a warming of 3°C plus or minus 1.5°C.
The claim was made without
supporting physical evidence.
The IPCC has followed suit, repeating
the unsupported claims in its six reports
covering over 30 years.
The science has stagnated.
The fact that the atmosphere is not warming
as the IPCC and its followers claim.
Ignoring this physical evidence is inexcusable.
Climate modelers, such as those with NCAR, claim they have advanced the understanding of extreme weather events based on global warming.
But as Ross McKitrick has shown, this claim is erroneous.
It is based on a misinterpretation of the Gauss-Markov theorem in statistics stating the set of assumptions that must be met before assuming that estimates are reasonably close to the actual numbers (realistic).
Unfortunately, hundreds of erroneous studies have been published repeating this error.
... the approach offered by Howard Hayden
is vastly superior to that used by the IPCC.
It does not require an understanding of weather or the need to separate climate change internal to the earth’s system from the greenhouse effect.
The approach calculates the greenhouse
effect as directly as possible.
Unfortunately, it requires the subtraction
of one large number from another large number,
with associated possible errors.
Direct measurement is not possible.
Yet, the Hayden approach is far more direct
than that used by the IPCC and its followers.
In Basic Climate Physics # 6,
http://www.sepp.org/science_papers/Climate%20Physics%206.pdf
Hayden gives graphs showing the Climate Constraint Equation under different conditions. This requires a bit of calculus. It shows the tremendous disparity between what the IPCC numbers say will happen with a doubling of CO2 (an increased “forcing” of 3.47 watts per square meter) with what the IPCC claims is the likely increase in temperatures (3°C).
However, using the widely accepted Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law, Hayden calculates how much radiation would have to increase to achieve various increases in temperatures that are commonly suggested.
An increase of 3°C requires an increase in surface radiation of 16.4 watts per square meter, not the 3.47 watts per square meter that the IPCC numbers show will happen.
The disparity is 12.7 watts per square meter.
In Basic Climate Physics # 7,
http://www.sepp.org/science_papers/Climate%20Physics%207.pdf
Hayden goes into the various scenarios the IPCC uses on carbon dioxide emissions now called Shared Socio-Economic Pathway (SSP), previously called Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP).
The IPCC now extends them only to 2050 rather than 2100.
Hayden then compares the IPCC’s work with the Climate Constraint Equation.
Regardless of what year it uses as the endpoint, 2050 or 2100, as Hayden states:
“Obviously, IPCC’s analysis of climate is woefully incomplete, if not egregiously in error.”
In Basic Climate Physics #8,
http://www.sepp.org/science_papers/Climate%20Physics%207.pdf
Hayden goes into the Adiabatic Lapse Rate, which is used by some to argue that there is no greenhouse effect.
The lapse rate is an idealized concept created for a Standard Atmosphere to describe the decline in temperature with altitude to the tropopause (where water freezes out).
The Tropopause is approximately 17 kilometers (11 mi) above the equatorial regions, and approximately 9 kilometers (5.6 mi) above the polar regions.
Thermal inversions can invert the lapse rate.
As Hayden demonstrates, the lapse rate cannot be used to explain away the greenhouse effect.
Basic Climate Physics #9
http://www.sepp.org/science_papers/Climate%20Physics%209.pdf
Hayden describes various feedback mechanisms.
Feedbacks are a confusion in many climate studies.
Probably the most notorious are claims of “tipping points” or points of no return.
Yet for millions of years, the Earth has gone from periods of extreme glaciation to periods of considerable warming without any evidence of experiencing tipping points.
As Hayden writes:
“So, the IPCC is saying that 3.71 W/m2 of heating begets 16.4 W/m2 of heating.
Heat produces 4.4 times as much heat.
That’s positive feedback for you, and there is no end in sight.
One unit of heat begets 4.4 units of heat, and each of the 4.4 units of heat begets 4.4 more units of heat, ... without end.
To repeat the obvious, CO2 does not cause the alleged positive feedback mechanisms; heat does.
Any heat from any cause does.
So why isn’t the planet boiling?
“Climate models have neither found a way to account for all the IR [infrared radiation] (especially the increase due to temperature rise) nor identified the negative feedback mechanisms that ultimately control the climate.”
In Basic Climate Physics #10,
http://www.sepp.org/science_papers/Climate%20Physics%2010.pdf
Hayden summarizes the previous essays, and highlights some of the deficiencies of the IPCC reports.
The most glaring deficiency is the absence of discussion in the IPCC reports of the Stefan-Boltzmann law that applies to all bodies in space.
The words appear in IPCC AR6 (2021) with some numbers but no discussion.
Hayden writes:
“but nowhere—repeat NOWHERE—is there any mention that the Stefan-Boltzmann law always applies to the surface.
Nor, more importantly, is the law actually applied to the model-predicted surface temperatures.”
The work of van Wijngaarden and Happer used the work of the famous physicist Max Plank to present the range of radiation that the Earth would emit without an atmosphere with greenhouse gases.
But the IPCC gets the work of Max Planck wrong in its description of what it calls “The Planck Response.”
As Hayden writes:
“Look up Planck Response on the internet and you find this line repeated ad nauseum:
“The Planck feedback is the most basic and universal climate feedback and is present in every climate model.
It is simply an expression of the fact that a warm planet radiates more to space than a cold planet.”
In Lesson #3, we proved that statement false with two examples.
(1) The earth with the same albedo but with either the presence or absence of the greenhouse effect (i.e., warmer or colder) emits exactly the same IR to outer space.
(2) Venus, with lead-melting surface temperature emits less IR to space than does the earth.”
It is the difference between the incoming and outgoing radiation that warms or cools the planet.
Hayden describes that the IPCC is addressing an unanswerable question then states:
“Turn that unanswerable question around and ask:
“If the temperature rises by some amount (ΔT),
how much more heat flux (ΔI) does it radiate?
The Stefan-Boltzmann law provides the unambiguous answer and does so with a slide rule instead of a supercomputer.
“IPCC’s goal (aside from frightening the public) is to determine the ECS, the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, which is the surface temperature rise (ΔTsurf) due to a doubling of CO2 concentration.
They are free to speculate, of course, but they are intellectually obligated to see whether their ECS makes sense.
All they have to do is to apply the Stefan-Boltzmann law to their predicted temperature rise.
“If they do so, they will find out that 16.4 W/m2 (for a 3oC) rise in radiative flux is violently in contradiction to the 3.71 W/m2 of ‘radiative forcing’ that their models say causes that 3oC temperature rise.
They are free to come up with an explanation, but they first have to apply the Stefan-Boltzmann law to their ECS.
Maybe in a few more decades, IPCC will make this discovery.”
*********** Which Biden Administration?
LNG: The contradictions of the Biden Administration are articulated in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal.
The editors write:
“The good news is that the U.S. finally agreed Friday to help Europe replace Russia as its main natural gas supplier.
The bad news is that President Biden is still telling U.S. gas producers he wants to put them out of business.
“It sounds crazy but listen to Mr. Biden’s remarks Friday.
‘We’re going to have to make sure the families in Europe can get through this winter and the next,’ he said in announcing the deal to provide 15 billion cubic meters of gas this year, though not all from the U.S.
“But he added ‘at the same time, this crisis also presents an opportunity’ that will ‘drive the investments we need to double-down on our clean energy goals and accelerate progress toward our net-zero emissions future.’
“The White House underlined the contradiction by saying the U.S. ‘will maintain its regulatory environment.’
More U.S. LNG exports will only be permitted to the extent they reduce emissions— for instance, by running on ‘clean energy.’
“The reality today is the U.S. doesn’t have enough LNG export capacity to replace the 170 billion or so cubic meters [bcm] that Russia sends Europe every year.
Much of the 124 bcm/year of exports that the U.S. can technically ship are tied up in long-term contracts with Asia.
“But EQT CEO Toby Rice said this month he thinks the U.S. gas exports could ‘easily’ replace Russian supply over a matter of years, and the U.S. has the potential to quadruple its gas production by 2030. EQT is the largest U.S. natural gas producer.
“One major obstacle is a shortage of pipeline capacity.
Several large pipelines and LNG export projects have been scrapped in recent years amid opposition from progressive states and green groups.
It can take four to five years to get a federal permit for a pipeline that can be built in six
unambiguous answer and does so with a slide rule instead of a supercomputer. (N.B.: If you include emissivities, the numbers change a little, but not enough to balance the Climate Constraint Equation in Lesson
4.)