Directory Tree
Show Files
Show Images
Show File Info
Show Summaries
Post a Comment
Add a Note
Show Notes



Branch: .

./-Notes (1y 25w , 0 files)
./-comments.html (1y 25w 6d ago, size: 206 bytes)
./-summary.html ( 28w 3d ago, size: 3817 bytes)

Untitled Page

The ClimArc Archives

Now moved to Brindabella Archives at this site

Not long ago, like many others, I thought it was likely that the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by burning fossil fuels was building up in the Earth's atmosphere and causing the increased global temperatures experienced over the last century. Being a scientist, trained to base my views on data rather than the opinions of others, I started to look deeper. The more I looked, the less certain I became.

The only relevant data we have is the small rise in temperatures the Earth has experienced over the last two centuries – about 1 to 2 Cº – and rising CO2 levels. I eventually came to the conclusion that the temperature increase was just the ending of The Little Ice Age – an historical fact – and we were in what the historians have called a ‘climate optima’ like the previous Medieval, Roman, and Minoan warm periods when humans, and Life on Earth generally, thrived.

Looking at the Earth's carbon cycle, it became obvious that the mere 1% we have added with our total industrial era emissions was not upsetting the carbon cycle and that other factors were determining atmospheric CO2 levels.

I was also surprised to realise how little public discussion and serious debate this issue had received, given the extreme measures that were being proposed. We were being told by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that we had to ‘decarbonise’ our energy use – a massively costly act of deliberate self-harm if not justifiable. There are two links in the chain of logic that supported this conclusion. The first was that our industrial CO2 emissions were the primary cause of increasing atmospheric CO2. The second link was that the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere controlled surface temperatures.

I am now convinced that the IPCC is wrong on both counts, and that the counter-measures the UN have pushed on us are ill-considered and failing. Those countries that have pursued this course are now facing industrially crippling energy prices and supply uncertainty. We need to act quickly to prevent further damage.

My latest research is summarised in the article Radiative Delay in Context. Its abstract reads:

It is said that radiative gasses (RGs, or greenhouse gasses) trap heat radiated from the Earth's surface causing it’s temperature to rise by 33 K above the theoretical temperature with no atmosphere. The word ‘trap’ is misleading. RGs delay the radiative transmission of heat from surface to space.
I estimate this delay and conclude that its average impact on atmospheric temperatures, the Radiative Delay Effect (RDE), is in the order of 0.15 [0.1 to 1] K. This result is then placed in the broader context of atmospheric thermodynamics where it complements recent work on the air-surface interaction. The combination leaves no significant role for carbon dioxide.

./Academic Publications.html (1y 40w 3d ago, size: 2611 bytes)
./ClimateCausalChain.html ( 10w , size: 4576 bytes)
./DSE ( 10w 5d ago, 2 files)
./DSE/DSE.html ( 10w 5d ago, size: 4163 bytes)
./DSE/DSE copy.html ( 10w 6d ago, size: 4003 bytes)
./EA-Thermostat.html ( 18w 2d ago, size: 3960 bytes)
./EnergyAndAtmosphereRevisited.html ( 4w 6d ago, size: 84721 bytes)
./Hall of Infamy.html (2y 25w 6d ago, size: 8788 bytes)
./IPCC-CO2 ( 14w 3d ago, 5 files)
./IPCC-CO2/-Notes ( 14w 3d ago, 0 files)
./IPCC-CO2/-comments.html (2y 28w , size: 209 bytes)
./IPCC-CO2/-summary.html ( 28w 3d ago, size: 1224 bytes)

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.

./IPCC-CO2/IPCC-CO2.html ( 14w 2d ago, size: 45626 bytes)
./IPCC-CO2/IPCC-CO2.pdf (1y 50w 4d ago, size: 888177 bytes)
./OCM ( 10w 5d ago, 5 files)
./OCM/OCM.html (1y 31w 6d ago, size: 134066 bytes)
./OCM/ (1y 14w 5d ago, size: 158555 bytes)
./OCM/plots (1y 34w 4d ago, 2 files)
./OCM/plots/OCM-AirPlot-DsTLS.gif (1y 34w 5d ago, size: 11011 bytes)
./OCM/plots/OCM-AirPlot-TSL.gif (1y 34w 5d ago, size: 9195 bytes)
./RadiativeDelay ( 10w 5d ago, 1 files)
./RadiativeDelay/RadiativeDelayInContext180818.pdf ( 31w 2d ago, size: 244143 bytes)
./RadiativeTransfer ( 10w 5d ago, 1 files)
./RadiativeTransfer/RadiativeEnergyTransfer.html ( 11w , size: 4144 bytes)
./Thermostat.html ( 8w 2d ago, size: 6573 bytes)
./dai ( 13w 1d ago, 72 files)
./dai/-Notes (2y 25w 4d ago, 0 files)
./dai/-comments.html (2y 27w 6d ago, size: 528 bytes)
./dai/Diurnal-Smoothing-Effect.pdf ( 27w 5d ago, size: 238052 bytes)
./dai/Energy&Atmosphere (1y 49w 3d ago, 5 files)
./dai/Energy&Atmosphere/-Notes (2y 25w 4d ago, 1 files)
./dai/Energy&Atmosphere/-Notes/note by dai-20160917-191651.html (2y 27w 2d ago, size: 369 bytes)
./dai/Energy&Atmosphere/-comments.html (2y 28w , size: 312 bytes)
./dai/Energy&Atmosphere/-summary.html ( 28w 3d ago, size: 585 bytes)

This article 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.

./dai/Energy&Atmosphere/Energy&Atmosphere.pdf (1y 49w 3d ago, size: 798684 bytes)
./dai/IPCC-CO2 (1y 50w 4d ago, 5 files)
./dai/IPCC-CO2/-Notes (2y 25w 4d ago, 0 files)
./dai/IPCC-CO2/-comments.html (2y 28w , size: 209 bytes)
./dai/IPCC-CO2/-summary.html ( 28w 3d ago, size: 1224 bytes)

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.

./dai/IPCC-CO2/IPCC-CO2.html ( 14w 2d ago, size: 45678 bytes)
./dai/IPCC-CO2/IPCC-CO2.pdf (1y 50w 4d ago, size: 888177 bytes)
./dai/Other ( 13w 1d ago, 37 files)
./dai/Other/Climate PP (2y 25w 4d ago, 6 files)
./dai/Other/Climate PP/-Notes (2y 25w 4d ago, 1 files)
./dai/Other/Climate PP/-Notes/note by dai-20160917-191552.html (2y 27w 2d ago, size: 351 bytes)
./dai/Other/Climate PP/-comments.html (2y 28w , size: 306 bytes)
./dai/Other/Climate PP/-summary.html (2y 28w 1d ago, size: 104 bytes)

This is an early overview article looking at things and events that have influenced my views on climate.

./dai/Other/Climate PP/Climate - A Personal Perspective.html (2y 25w 5d ago, size: 78033 bytes)
./dai/Other/Climate PP/Climate-PP.pdf (3y 51w 1d ago, size: 636413 bytes)
./dai/Other/ClimateTruth&Certainty (1y 22w 1d ago, 2 files)
./dai/Other/ClimateTruth&Certainty/ClimateTruth&Certainty.html (2y 26w , size: 17007 bytes)
./dai/Other/ClimateTruth&Certainty/ClimateTruthAndCertainty.pdf (2y 26w 6d ago, size: 131955 bytes)
./dai/Other/Fusion (2y 25w 4d ago, 2 files)
./dai/Other/Fusion/Fusion-FF.html (2y 26w , size: 11163 bytes)
./dai/Other/Fusion/Fusion-FiascoOrFinesse.pdf (5y 16w 3d ago, size: 76430 bytes)
./dai/Other/LapseRates ( 13w 1d ago, 5 files)
./dai/Other/LapseRates/-Notes (2y 25w 4d ago, 1 files)
./dai/Other/LapseRates/-Notes/note by dai-20160917-192819.html (2y 27w 2d ago, size: 352 bytes)
./dai/Other/LapseRates/Lapse Rates.html (2y 26w , size: 11534 bytes)

Determination of the gravitational lapse rate

Determination of the gravitational lapse rate

Dai Davies

The fundamental dynamic process in the energy dynamics of the atmosphere is the creation of the lapse rate – the rate that the temperature drops with increasing altitude in the troposphere – below the tropopause marked by a dotted line in Figure 1 where the Earth curve follows a straight line. The tropopause is not a fixed height. It can vary from close to zero altitude at the poles to over 20 km at the equator. It varies in time, and thunderstorms can push it up locally. A typical height is said to be 11 km.

Some people think that the lapse rate is entirely due to radiative gasses (aka greenhouse gasses) and without them the atmosphere would have a constant temperature all the way up – be isothermal. The Postmodern view of the radiative dynamics of the atmosphere is based on this assertion.

It is a plausible first assumption, since we know that hot air rises. We might even expect to have cold air at the bottom and hot at the top, except that the atmosphere is mainly heated from the bottom. The problem is that these views are based on thermodynamics for laboratory conditions, which generally ignores gravity because the effect of gravity over small height changes is negligible. 

Figure 1: Atmospheric temperatures (1)

There are several definitions of lapse rate and some confusion in their use, so I'll start by giving definitions as I prefer to use them:

The ALR is usually calculated from the thermodynamics of a parcel of air rising up through the troposphere. Air can't be adiabatic. Adiabatic means no energy is lost or gained by the gas parcel, which excludes radiative gasses which would transfer infrared energy in and out of the parcel, so the ‘dry’ is superfluous. The ALR applies only to an idealised mixture of gasses such as nitrogen and oxygen that are not radiative at atmospheric temperatures, so it is a theoretical abstraction. It provides the foundation of the actual lapse rate, which is modified by the addition of RGs. Thermodynamics gives a formula for calculating the lapse rate:

Γth = g/cp(E1)

Where g is the gravitational acceleration and cp is the specific heat of air at constant pressure – a measure of the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of the gas. 

I find the derivation of this formula too opaque. It hides the basic physics, which has caused a great deal of confusion and controversy (note b). After being resolved over a century ago, the issue has surfaced again in recent years in an effort to exaggerate the role of radiative gasses. 

In this essay I go down to the level of individual molecules and give an alternative derivation for the ALR. The basic physics is simple. If you throw a ball into the air its energy can be given as the sum of its energy of movement – its kinetic energy, EK – and its gravitational potential energy, EP, minus energy lost to friction with the air, which can be ignored if the ball is in a vacuum. It moves up until all its energy is potential energy, then starts to fall and regain it. 

E = EK + EP = mv2/2 + mgh(E2)

Where m is the mass of the ball, v is its velocity or speed, h is its height, and g is the gravitational acceleration. 

An insight into the lapse rate problem can be gained from the fact that a ball falling in a vacuum from a hight of 11 km has a velocity at ground level of 464 m/s, which is precisely the mean velocity of air molecules at 20 Cº (2), and 11 km is a typical hight of the tropopause. This, and the suggestive g in E1, was the starting point that prompted me to try the following analysis. 

Between collisions, the molecules that constitute air behave just like the ball. Having a molecule falling in a vacuum may not seem relevant when we're considering the atmosphere, but between collisions with other molecules they actually are all falling in a vacuum, or close enough for a simple analysis. All the molecules are following a parabolic path and gaining a little downward energy between collisions. Those moving down will gain kinetic energy, and those moving up will lose it. This produces a gradient with the average kinetic energy of molecules decreasing with increasing altitude – in other words, a temperature gradient.

Eventually our falling molecule will hit other ones, and the energy it has gained in falling will be passed on to them. The gravitational energy will be thermalised – added to the random motion of other molecules, to their kinetic energy, until an equilibrium is established. 

If you want to skip the detail, go to E5. The next step is the most technical one because we aren't dealing with billiard balls colliding. We have to divide the added energy among all the degrees of freedom of the molecules, f. This is the standard equipartition rule dictated by entropy – the energy will distribute between all possible modes for storing it. Nitrogen and oxygen have 5 degrees of freedom at atmospheric temperatures. That's 3 for the directions of motion and 2 for rotational motions – spin and tumbling – rotation around the axis joining the two atoms doesn't count. I'll call this fm

During a collision we also have to consider the resulting energy distribution between the two colliding molecules. That's four nuclei and around 30 electrons. This needs to be seen from a quantum mechanical perspective as the transient formation of a four atom molecule which passes – slowly by atomic standards – through a sequence of vibrational and rotational quantum states as it tries to form then breaks up – a process which determines the final distribution of energy between the molecules, and gives 2 more degrees of freedom, fc.

The temperature of a gas is related to its kinetic energy by:

EK = fkT/2(E3)

where T is the temperature and k is Boltzmann's constant. The energy gained by a molecule falling a distance ∆h is mg∆h (the deltas indicating related changes) so partitioning this among the available degrees of freedom we get:

∆E = mg∆h = fk∆T/2(E4)

After a little manipulation we have the temperature gradient or lapse rate as:

Γg = ∆T/∆h = 2mg/(fm + fc)k(E5)

Plugging in some numbers, m is taken as the average mass of nitrogen and oxygen in air weighted by their relative proportions of 79:21. 

Comparing the two approaches, using a value for g adjusted slightly for a mean troposphere altitude of 5.5 km reduces it by about 0.8% from the usual surface value, and cp is taken as the measured value of 1.0035.

E1 gives 9.73 Cº/km. 

E5 gives 9.66 Cº/km.

Within 1% difference they are close, given that the real world doesn't usually comply exactly with simple physical theory. 

Next, I demonstrate the theoretical equivalence of the gravitational lapse rate and the conventional derivation, so if the theoretical value for cp is used in E1 the two approaches give exactly the same result. 

Equating Γth with Γg  – for those who are comfortable with some simple algebra and cryptic physics. I'm assuming a perfect monomolecular gas.

Starting with E5: Γg = 2mg/(fm + fc)k.

Substituting M/NA for m, where M is the molecular mass of the molecule and NA is Avagadro's number gives:

Γg = 2Mg/NA(fm + fc)k(E6)

Substituting R/NA for k, where R is the gas constant, gives:

Γg = 2gM/(fm + fc)R(E7)

Now looking at the conventional derivation in E1: Γth = g/cp

We can derive a theoretical value for cv starting with cvm, the molecular heat capacity:

Combining cvm = fmR/2, cpm = R + cvm, and cp = cpm/M gives:

cp = (fm + 2)R/2M(E8)

Substituting this in E1 we get: 

Γth = 2gM/(fm + 2)R(E9)

So with fc = 2 in E7 we have: 

Γg = Γth(E10)

The two derivations for the adiabatic lapse rate are theoretically equivalent. That these two distinct approaches can be shown to reduce to the same dependence on g provides strong confirmation of the role of gravity in the base lapse rate. 

The addition of radiative gasses produces, effectively instantaneous, energy transfer by radiation over average distances of tens of metres at ground level, increasing to kilometres through to infinity – to outer space –  at the tropopause as the air gets thinner.


  1. Robinson T.D., Catling, D.C., Common 0.1 bar tropopause in thick atmospheres set by pressure-dependent infrared transparency, Nature Geoscience Letters, 8 December 2013 


./dai/Other/LapseRates/LapseRates.html ( 13w 1d ago, size: 11663 bytes)
./dai/Other/LapseRates/Lapse_Rates.pdf (2y 27w 6d ago, size: 159006 bytes)
./dai/Other/Natural Cycles (2y 25w 4d ago, 4 files)
./dai/Other/Natural Cycles/-Notes (2y 25w 4d ago, 0 files)
./dai/Other/Natural Cycles/-summary.html (2y 27w 2d ago, size: 157 bytes)

Plot from the southern Sea Surface Temperature modelling.
See the SST images archive in the images branch. A description of this project is forthcoming.

./dai/Other/Natural Cycles/Natural Cycles.html (2y 25w 6d ago, size: 6850 bytes)
./dai/Other/Natural Cycles/Natural Cycles.pdf (2y 27w 6d ago, size: 116959 bytes)
./dai/Other/Sea Surface Temperature (1y 19w 5d ago, 9 files)
./dai/Other/Sea Surface Temperature/-Notes (2y 25w 4d ago, 0 files)
./dai/Other/Sea Surface Temperature/-summary.html (2y 27w 6d ago, size: 109 bytes)

Forthcoming article: a technical description of the SST modelling discussed in the article Natural Cycles.

./dai/Other/Sea Surface Temperature/model plots (2y 25w 3d ago, 6 files)
./dai/Other/Sea Surface Temperature/model plots/SST-model.gif (4y 16w 2d ago, size: 31354 bytes)
./dai/Other/Sea Surface Temperature/model plots/SignalR150125.131703_1S2.gif (4y 9w 1d ago, size: 23758 bytes)
./dai/Other/Sea Surface Temperature/model plots/SignalR150201.132651_1S2.gif (4y 8w 1d ago, size: 33859 bytes)
./dai/Other/Sea Surface Temperature/model plots/SignalR150203.135529_1S2.gif (4y 7w 6d ago, size: 26642 bytes)
./dai/Other/Sea Surface Temperature/model plots/SignalR150206.143143_1S3.gif (4y 7w 3d ago, size: 27222 bytes)
./dai/Other/Sea Surface Temperature/model plots/SignalR150206.143851_1S3.gif (4y 7w 3d ago, size: 27366 bytes)
./dai/Other/Soils (2y 25w 4d ago, 2 files)
./dai/Other/Soils/Soils.html (2y 26w , size: 23896 bytes)
./dai/Other/Soils/Soils.pdf (2y 26w 6d ago, size: 144418 bytes)
./dai/Politics (1y 50w 1d ago, 6 files)
./dai/Politics/-Notes (2y 25w 4d ago, 1 files)
./dai/Politics/-Notes/note by dai-20160917-191342.html (2y 27w 2d ago, size: 357 bytes)
./dai/Politics/-comments.html (2y 28w , size: 209 bytes)
./dai/Politics/-summary.html (2y 28w 1d ago, size: 601 bytes)

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.

./dai/Politics/ClimatePolitics.html (2y 26w , size: 17656 bytes)
./dai/Politics/ClimatePolitics.pdf (2y 28w 4d ago, size: 115087 bytes)
./dai/RadiativeDelay ( 29w 6d ago, 10 files)
./dai/RadiativeDelay/-Notes (1y 14w 1d ago, 4 files)
./dai/RadiativeDelay/-Notes/dai 170815-20171217-114349.html (1y 14w 1d ago, size: 688 bytes)
./dai/RadiativeDelay/-Notes/dai 171103-20171217-125452.html (1y 14w 1d ago, size: 988 bytes)
./dai/RadiativeDelay/-Notes/dai 171217-20171217-113601.html (1y 14w 1d ago, size: 2118 bytes)
./dai/RadiativeDelay/-Notes/dai 171217-20171217-131651.html (1y 14w 1d ago, size: 887 bytes)
./dai/RadiativeDelay/RadiativeDelay170828.pdf (1y 30w , size: 209259 bytes)
./dai/RadiativeDelay/RadiativeDelay170828.xlsx (1y 30w , size: 112865 bytes)
./dai/RadiativeDelay/RadiativeDelayInContext170828.pdf (1y 30w , size: 304598 bytes)
./dai/RadiativeDelay/RadiativeDelayInContext180818.pdf ( 31w 2d ago, size: 244143 bytes)
./dai/RadiativeDelay/RadiativeDelayUpdates.html (1y 20w 3d ago, size: 676 bytes)
./dai/ ( 26w 3d ago, size: 29157171 bytes)
./imagesRD ( 26w , 7 files)
./imagesRD/RedWave25.png ( 26w , size: 855 bytes)
./imagesRD/RedWave50.png ( 26w , size: 929 bytes)
./imagesRD/molBlue.png ( 26w 4d ago, size: 899 bytes)
./imagesRD/molGreen.png ( 26w 4d ago, size: 899 bytes)
./imagesRD/molOrange.png ( 26w 4d ago, size: 894 bytes)
./imagesRD/molRed.png ( 26w 4d ago, size: 899 bytes)
./imagesRD/molRingY.png ( 26w 2d ago, size: 6032 bytes)
./ ( 26w 3d ago, size: 7843 bytes)
./molecular-RD.html ( 26w , size: 11675 bytes)
./ ( 26w 3d ago, size: 29157171 bytes)