Select the OCM.html file to run it now, or download the OCMdemo.zip file.
This article, Energy and Atmosphere, looks at the energy dynamics of the Earth's atmosphere. Since the role of radiative
gasses has become a political issue that is undermining the stability of industrial
economies and denying the many benefits of cheap and reliable energy to billions of people, the
precise nature of the energy dynamics of our atmosphere has become a trillion dollar question.
It shows a new derivation for the adiabatic temperature lapse rate in the atmosphere.
It also points to a possible explanation for why the Earth's water thermostat cuts in so suddenly at 30 Cº.
The IPCC and the Carbon Cycle
We are told by the IPCC that CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are causing atmospheric CO2 levels to rise and that these are causing global warming. Of the two links in this chain of reasoning this article addresses the first.
I show that the IPCC view of the carbon cycle is fundamentally flawed in many ways, and is not supportable at any meaningful level of confidence. This is not esoteric science to be left to specialists or ‘great minds’. Any numerate person who cares to look and think can understand the insignificance of our total industrial era CO2 emissions at less than 1% of the carbon cycle and our annual emissions at just 5% of the air-sea fluxes.
Note by: dai: Sunday 17th of December 2017 11:43 AM, EAT
RadiativeDelay170815.xlsx: Corrected cell D23 back to to pointing to E23 so humidity updates with typical/tropical change.
Now uses surface scaled H2O and CO2 densities in mfp calculation in column F. This was a significant theoretical oversight but the impact on the result is not particularly significant. The update reduces the delay induced temperature rise from 0.25 K in RadiativeDelay170813.xlsx down to 0.15 K in RadiativeDelay170815.xlsx. Values and plots in the pdf files will be updated when time permits.
Note by: dai: Sunday 17th of December 2017 12:54 PM, EAT
A Note on Publication
I have no intention of submitting this work to an academic publication for several reasons:
I've been a long-standing critic of the legacy press. The journal articles in my list of publications were submitted by co-authors. It's processes are opaque and subject to corruption. It has always been parasitic in that it has held a monopoly on material generally funded from the public purse, and now, with internet publication virtually free, it is redundant.
Journals' peer review process is not part of the scientific process, as some claim, but a subediting role of the publication process. Scientific review is an ongoing post-publication process. I am submitting my work for open public discussion and criticism.
As far as I can see, the assumption that I am contradicting, that the greenhouse/delay effect sets Earth's surface temperatures, has itself never been publicly justified. Now that it is publicly challenged, it is up to those who support it to provide some quantified justification.
I consider the physics in this work to be at the level of an undergraduate assignment. It's significance is political, not scientific.
Note by: dai: Sunday 17th of December 2017 11:36 AM, EAT
A Climate Challenge
The fundamental assumption at the base of the climate consensus view is that blocking of radiated energy by radiative (greenhouse) gasses is the only factor raising the Earth's mean surface temperatures to current levels. For the past decade, at least, there has been an alternative explanation in the thermal buffering provided by our atmosphere and ground over the daily temperature cycle.
This can be seen most simply in the DIVINER temperature data for the moon. Rather than dropping to around -270 C near the absolute zero of space, as it would if the surface was a perfect thermal insulator, it drops to around -150 C at sunset then slowly down to below -270 C over the lunar night as the ground cools. During the day it rises to around 100 C, or lower than it would if the surface wasn't absorbing heat.
Due to the nonlinear relationship between radiated energy and temperature, E = aT^4, a temperature drop of, say, 1C during the day drops radiated energy far more than the same increase in temperature increases radiation at night. The mean surface temperature rises to regain radiative balance over the daily cycle. This is basic undergraduate physics and simple spreadsheet models give good agreement with observation.
Calculation for the Earth is more complex due to the varying nature of our surface, but simple calculations show that this effect, alone, is capable of fully accounting for our suface temperatures.
Because the GHE is not the only game in town, the original assumption needs justification. To remain plausible and scientifically valid it needs quantification. Those supporting the IPCC position need to show that the buffering effect is less than 1% of the generally accepted values of 60-100 C, and that the GHE is 200 times greater than the 0.14 C I calculate it to be.
Posted as comment in WUWT 171122:Radiative Heat Transfer by CO2 or “what’s the quality of your radiation?
Note by: dai: Sunday 17th of December 2017 01:16 PM, EAT
A Note to Critics
I welcome any serious comments that help to improve, or disprove, my results. Comments can be added here with the "Post a Comment" option in the upper right function panel. They can be anonymous. In scientific debate it is content that matters, not identity.
Comments of the form, "you haven't included ..." should be accompanied by some reasoned justification of significance and some attempt at quantification. Claims that the effects discussed here are already included in IPCC related climate models should be accompanied by specific references to public code (i.e. line numbers) and associated documentation.
The effort I expend in replying to comments will depend on my assessment of the effort reflected in the comment.
The article Radiative Delay in Context challenges a core assumption of the contemporary climate science consensus, that the Greenhouse (or Radiative Delay) Effect is the sole mechanism by which the Earth's atmosphere raises the Earth's surface temperature above that which would exist without an atmosphere.
In it I show that the Radiative Delay heating of the atmosphere is negligible, and a well established alternative mechanism arising from atmospheric buffering over the diurnal temperature cycle is capable of producing the temperatures we experience.
The role of Carbon Dioxide is shown to be negligible.
This is a personal view of the political nature of the CO2 scare from an environmentalist who has watched on in dismay at the extreme politicisation of the environment. I watched the takeover of the environment movement since the 1970s by the extreme left acting with motives that have nothing to do with reducing our environmental impact.
Moving forward we see the actions of the totalitarian left in the United Nations and associated NGOs forming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and how this has perverted the already corrupted nexus between science and public policy.