Climate Discussion Group 2024, CDG2024
Discussion - Climate C3
October - November 2024
C3 For the RTC/HTC - where and when they apply
Nov. 2, 2024
Douglas Lightfoot Canada
To: Howard Cork Hayden
Howard:
I have done a lot of thinking about your questions about the dips in the radiation profile.
You are right. They are not caused by thermodynamics. The radiation profile is authentic, accurate, and reproducible.
And so are the cross-sections of water and carbon dioxide. These are related to collisions between molecules.
The Sun sends enormous energy to the Earth, and it would overheat except for the dynamic cooling action of water vapor. Within this context, radiation profiles and cross-sections have little effect on the Earth's cooling.
Do they have any effect on the warming? Most likely, they do not. A slight change in the Sun’s energy flow to Earth, combined with a subtle change in the cooling, would overwhelm both.
The attached document gives more explanation.
Oct. 16, 2024
Gerald Ratzer
I hope this helps.
Regards,
Doug
See technical explanation at link below.
Factors affecting Earth’s temperature
There is a well-defined boundary at the Top Of Atmosphere, TOA for heat. Only radiation exists in space.
In the vacuum of space, there is no medium for heat. In space, photons pass by at the speed of light, but the concepts of slow heat and thermodynamics have no medium in which to operate.
An astronaut in a spacesuit in space has a warm side facing the Sun, and the other side, facing away from the Sun, is very cold.
If there is no gas, liquid or solid, there is no heat in space or a vacuum.
The TOA separates the world of photons and the world of heat with molecules with vibrational bonds and rotational modes of a gas.
Photons can penetrate the TOA right down to the Earth's surface, so they add to the complexity of our atmosphere and its physics.
In the Prague 2024 presentation, Climate Concepts, I point out that the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Ideal Gas
Laws are taught in most high schools.
I can recite them in 4 sentences, and are relatively easy to understand.
Zeroth Law - Thermal equilibrium; heat flows from hot to cold; concept of temperature and thermometers.
First Law - Energy in a closed system cannot be created or destroyed, but can be converted from one form to another; e.g. potential energy to kinetic energy.
Second Law - the entropy of a closed system increases; increasing chaos.
Third Law - There is an absolute zero temperature, and you can't get there! (Requires infinite work/energy) (See below).
On the other hand, in the Radiation Transfer Concept, RTC, photons, Quantum Mechanics, Stefan Boltzmann, SB laws, Planck's Law, Schrödinger's Equation, Schwarzchild equations, and matrix math - are not taught in high schools, but in specific Physics courses at the university level. This is why even the most well-educated people in the world cannot cope with the papers from Will Happer and Will Wijngaarden.
So the Internal atmospheric processes can be well explained by the Ideal Gas Laws and thermodynamics, Heat Transport Concept (HTC).
These are the main cause of our weather.
I think the point I make in the Prague slides is clear - we need both RTC and HTC.
In simple terms, RTC covers the long range distances in space and HTC works well for the internal processes of our
weather.
There is some overlap - but the distinction is useful. Gerald.
========== AI Summary ===============
The four laws of thermodynamics are fundamental principles that describe the behavior of heat and energy in physical systems. Here's a concise overview of each law:
## Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics
The zeroth law states that if two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they are in thermal equilibrium with each other[1][2]. This law establishes the concept of temperature and allows for the use of thermometers.
## First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law, also known as the law of conservation of energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only converted from one form to another [1][2] [3]. In a closed system, the change in internal energy is equal to the heat added to the system minus the work done by the system.
## Second Law of Thermodynamics
The second law states that the total entropy of an isolated system always increases over time[1][2][3]. It introduces the concept of entropy and explains the direction of natural processes. One common formulation is that heat does not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer body.
## Third Law of Thermodynamics
Oct.15, 2024
Ned Nikolov
Darwin Throne
The third law states that as a system approaches absolute zero temperature, its entropy approaches a constant minimum value[1][3]. This law provides a reference point for the determination of absolute entropy and implies that it's impossible to reach absolute zero temperature in a finite number of steps.
These laws form the foundation of thermodynamics and have wide-ranging applications in physics, chemistry, and engineering.
Citations:
[1]
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theor etical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/ Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemis try)/Thermodynamics/ The_Four_Laws_of_Thermodynamics
[2]
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
[3] https://byjus.com/physics/thermodynamics/
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
[5] https://physicsforidiots.com/physics/thermodynamics/ <<< !!!
[6] https://www.britannica.com/science/laws-ofthermodynamics
[7] https://www.chadsprep.com/chads-general-chemistryvideos/3-laws-of-thermodynamics-definition/ [8]
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/cellularenergetics/cellular-energy/a/the-laws-of-thermodynamics
Alex Newman Apr 22, 2023
Dr. Ned Nikolov and Mr. Darwin Throne discuss a new climate-science paradigm emerging from NASA planetary data at the Sentinel Report hosted by Alex Newman (an award-winning journalist & educator). New research looking at Earth's climate from a cosmic perspective has produced unexpected results about the physical nature of the atmospheric "greenhouse effect", which has been assumed to be well known for nearly 190 years. The new findings have profound implications for the current climate theory and our understanding of climate drivers while also suggesting an alternative approach to the present, costly international efforts aimed at reducing industrial carbon emissions.
Oct. 14, 2024
Ned Nikolov
Dear Gerald,
What's missing from this proposed climate discussion is the direct thermodynamic effect of atmospheric pressure on the global surface temperature. As we have shown in our published research, the nature of the Atmospheric Thermal Effect (ATE), currently known under the incorrect name "greenhouse effect", is a form of adiabatic (pressureinduced) heating, which has nothing to do with atmospheric composition and IR radiative properties of gases. The IR radiative transfer in the atmosphere is simply a BYPRODUCT of atmospheric temperatures that are set by solar heating (a diabatic process) and pressure (a quasiadiabatic process). So, the IR LW radiation is an EFFECT of ATE, not a driver of climate and certainly not a cause of the "greenhouse effect". The climate theory has confused cause and effect.
Oct. 14, 2024
Howard Cork
Hayden
Brian Catt
Focusing on radiative transfer and/or heat transports cannot and will not solve the problem of understanding ATE.
We need to move away from the silly 19th-Century concept that the "greenhouse effect" is due to impeding of radiative cooling to Space. The CERES satellite data clearly show that there is no slowing-down of the cooling and no "heat trapping" by trace gases. The atmosphere warms the surface by enhancing the absorbed solar energy adiabatically through the force of air pressure.
Please review these key references for details on the above concept: Nikolov & Zeller (2017) and Nikolov & Zeller (2024)
Regards, Ned Nikolov,
PhD
Physical Scientist
Hi Brian,
Many thanks for sending your paper, which will require considerable attention. I have attached a bunch of stuff to clog up your PDF library.
The climate literature has much ado about the “climate sensitivity” expressed in ºC/(W/m2). To me, this is a backward approach, as I shall explain.
Imagine a perfectly insulated conference room with walls, floors, tables, chairs, bouquets of flowers, pitchers of water, slide projectors, and so forth. We will assume that there are no people in the room. There is one electric heater in the room. Now imagine that we turn on the heater to put some quantity of heat November 2, 2024
into the room (say 1500 W X 6 hours). How much does the temperature rise? Well, if we know the masses, specific heats, and heats of vaporization of anything and everything in the room, we can calculate the temperature rise. It’s a big bookkeeping exercise.
Now imagine adding a heat flux (of say, 2 W/m2) to the earth’s surface. What does that do to desert sand, rocky mountains, forests, jungles, the oceans, shallow puddles of water, fields of green grass, bare soil, snow, ice, and so forth? Get out your supercomputer.
Now, turn both questions around! Suppose that the temperature of either the conference room or the earth’s surface increases by 1ºC. How much more IR does it radiate? You can figure that out using the Stefan-Boltzmann law and a slide rule.
Simplicity, however, is not the primary issue. You will find that climate scientists (a.k.a. modelers) never apply the Stefan-Boltzmann law to their predicted temperature rises. If they did, they’d quickly find that their predictions are nonsense.
It should be a trivial matter to take the supercomputer output (presumably printed so it would not be necessary to run the model again) of any model (say) 40 years into the future to make a heat-balance diagram, but no so-called climate scientist has ever done it. They would be required to use the S-B law to calculate the heat radiated from the surface and would quickly discover that the heat-balance diagram would not balance.
As regards evaporation, the process removes heat from the surface and deposits it in the atmosphere. It has no effect on the heat balance of the planet until there is a good explanation of how it affects either the IR to space, the albedo, or both. It is absolutely necessary to distinguish between internal and external processes.
Aside: When two H2O molecules come together in the atmosphere, they generally do not stick together, because the energy of attraction (combined with the KE of the molecules) is greater than can be absorbed into internal processes. However, one H2O molecule colliding with a droplet of water can easily attach to it. Condensation is greatly enhanced by the presence of dust, cosmic-ray ion tracks, etc. (Consider how cloud seeding works to cause rainfall.) In any case, condensation involves energy release, and I suppose usually by IR from water droplets.
Incidentally, about 60% of the quantity of IR from the surface goes into space. Now, precisely what is meant by “radiative forcing”? Suppose CO2 doubles: the “radiative forcing” is 3.7 W/m2, and it is limited to a slight widening of the net absorption spectrum in the CO2 band—or is it intended to be the overall increase in the net absorption of IR? (As usual, the IPCC uses sloppy, ambiguous terminology.) But in AR6, they seem to use “radiative forcing” of all effects to be panspectrum: “Throughout this Report, the five illustrative scenarios are referred to as SSPx-y, where ‘SSPx’ refers to the Shared Socio-economic Pathway or ‘SSP’ describing the socio-economic trends underlying the scenario, and ‘y’ refers to the approximate level of radiative forcing (in watts per square metre, or W m–2) resulting from the scenario in the year 2100.”
Even if the effective “radiative forcing” needed to be the calculated value divided by 0.6 to account for 60% of the IR from the surface getting to space, it would still be inadequate to account for the increase in surface IR due to the rising temperature.
Cheers, Cork
Howard "Cork" Hayden corkhayden@comcast.net
A Must-Read: Energy: A Textbook, $25 at www.energyadvocate.com and www.valeslake.com 785 S. McCoy Drive Pueblo West, CO 81007
Chromoergic psychosis: The delusion that energy has a color, usually green.
From: Brian R Catt <brianrlcatt@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2024 8:47 AM
To: corkhayden@comcast.net; tdonze@aol.com
Cc: Eduard Harinck <harinck.eduard@planet.nl>
Subject: How about this as a definition of the Earth's Energy Balance Control System?
Dear Profs
Like you, I also like real physics applied to measured facts. to climate “science” made up in models with key bits missing.
I prefer the way science used to be done before models were invented, and the theory had to describe the observations of nature, the way I still do it.
I can’t get on with models that fit the observations to the theory du jour.
I am an engineer with a physics degree and experience in all sorts of research and latterly technology that works, sold for real money.
So I only believe what is based on real measurements and proven physics that can be demonstrated in real life. So not in models, because they don’t describe the observations, they deny them, so the observations are wrong. Really?
I can now explain the physical reality of why 1.6W/m^2 is not a problem to Earth’s energy balance control system as we can now characterise it from what we know.
Using S-B , and also evaporation. If evaporation varies at 7% per deg K global average temperature it has twice
the cooling effect of S-B’s 3.3W/m^2K on the amount of LWIR radiated to space. We have 86.4W/m^2 of latent heat being released as radiation in the Tropopause - that’s 6W/m^2 K before you start on S-B feedback.
Obs or what?
I am in an exchange with Trenberth on this. He says WV feedback mostly varies by 2% per degree, and in a book says the latent heat goes back into the system on its release as radiation to cause further warming, whereas it all leaves for space in his energy balance. Can’t do both. Except in climate science.
You really can’t make it up like they can. NASA says WV varies by 7% per deg K when calculating the added GHE amplification of change by WV - while ignoring the much larger cooling effect. I wonder who is right.
I prefer the engineering tables… but am checking the extremes at 4C and 30C over the 10-90% RHI, to be sure, as the Irish say…..
What do I want?
Would you scan my calculations regarding the activating of the static energy balance according to the natural variability I attribute to its dominant variables please?
This is also on SSRN, but that version has some editorial problems with content (the data is still OK, I just wanted it out there with the IP protected by SSRN).
Thanks if you can run an eye over it, if you are a rude empiricist as I am you only need a calculator, a pen and the back of an A4 envelope, no models required.
If you know the NASA energy balance you can go
Oct. 13, 2024
Darwin Throne
directly to the feedback calculations at the end. Back up one section if not.
But it's beyond a climate modeler. You have to be able to do the maths without a computer.
I have my Tutor's CASIO fx-83ES
Thanks if you can give some feedback. I want to get it as error free as I can before too many read it.
Brian
Brian RL Catt CEng, CPhys, MBA, MCIM
I would like to post this website that I created to explain Nikolov and Zellers model of how atmospheric pressure and solar radiation affect climate change: www.climateveritas.com The site is mainly based on their papers but incorporates other information as well.
I would also like to emphasize this page of the site https://www.climate-veritas.com/?page_id=29
This page describes the work of Professor John Kleppe that shows a very good correlation (R2=0.63) between changes in the various magnetic effects on the sun and the precipitation record in the Lake Tahoe Basin. It accurately identifies the drought in the 30s and the 250 year drought in California from the year 1,000. There is also very strong evidence that solar magnetic activity influences the El Nino/La Ninja cycles. This work is unprecedented and has been ignored by the climate change community.
Best regards,
Oct. 12, 2024
Karl Zeller
Hello back! :)
In order to make any progress with this group at all, I propose that we all absolutely must start at the same baseline or very close to it. There are several basic pieces to such a baseline and the very first being to revisit and correct the erroneous but well known and widely accepted effective temperature of Earth, 255K. This effective temperature Te is calculated from the Stefan-Boltzmann Law: given Earth's measured global mean surface temperature of ~288K (15C) the missing 33°C (aka the greenhouse effect) referred to in the CDG24 intro is calculated (288-255). The application of the Stefan-Boltzmann law to a flat disc yielding 255K versus a fully integrated sphere (yielding ~198K) turns out to be a major mathematical error called Hölder’s Inequality. Ned Nikolov & I (Volokin & reLlez, 2014; using fake names to trick the editor & reviewers into providing an honest unbiased review) have a peer-reviewed published paper
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/ articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
that explains this math error made by all climate scientists. It proves that Earth’s greenhouse effect is ~89K meaning that Earth’s mean surface temperature sans atmosphere would be ~89K colder (not 33K) and that is the correct starting point for discussing the greenhouse effect. We also renamed the correct
89K greenhouse effect as the ATE, atmospheric thermal effect as a beginning for adding thermodynamics to the discussion. (Btw, as a matter of interest, we quantify Earth's ATE as 288/197 = 1.46 or approximately 46% warmer and use that approach to compare with other celestial bodies.)
I expect that this will take an unwelcome effort for several of the members of this group. However understanding the data and the logic behind the ATE concept (verses the 33K fake news) underlies our planetary and recent albedo papers that both prove with separate types and sources of data that the current greenhouse gas theory is bogus.
Please, let’s get everyone on the same page with this basic starting understanding. Ned & I have been through this many times with colleagues and without being on the same page we have always quickly gotten lost in the multitude of climate related weeds.
Karl
Oct. 12, 2024 Gerald Ratzer Hi Karl,
Good to hear from you.
One of the reasons we started this discussion is to find out why the "Missing 33C" does not work. Members of this organizing group all agree that using SB on a flat disk does not capture the complexity of our atmosphere.
Also, the correct conditions for the SB formula is that the "Black Body" radiator should radiate into a vacuumnamely space.
So two of the requirements are not met in the last sentence. There are more.
We can and will post your comments - but expecting everyone to agree and be on the same page is unrealistic.
In my slide presentation on the website (you can search by my unusual family) is that we need both the RTC (Radiative Transfer Concept) and the HTC (Heat Transport Concept).
In the Introduction, I state we are interested in when and where each of HTC and RTC apply and how they interact.
For instance, I can say for sure that RTC applies in the vacuum of space, while HTC certainly does not.
Photons can travel at the speed of light in space, while heat needs a medium (gas, liquid or solid) to move heat around.
I say a good example of HTC is the Gulf Stream at about 4 knots.
So your email will be posted and we can look for the feedback.
If it contains ad hominem attacks - I will block it. We want a civil discussion - even if we disagree on some points.
Thanks for your contribution.
Gerald.
Oct. 10, 2024
Richard Lindzen
October 10, 2024
Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller
Actually, we are not looking at ‘average temperature’. Averaging Mt. Everest and the Dead Sea makes no sense. Instead, we average what is called the temperature anomaly. We average the deviations from a 30-year mean. The figure shows an increase of a bit more than 1°C over 175 years. We are told by international bureaucrats that when this reaches 1.5°C, we are doomed. In all fairness, even the science report of the UN’s IPCC (i.e. the WG1 report) and the US National Assessments never make this claim. The political claims are simply meant to frighten the public into compliance with absurd policies.
What is climate? 2024
Past studies have reported a decreasing planetary albedo and an increasing absorption of solar radiation by Earth since the early 1980s, and especially since 2000. This should have contributed to the observed surface warming. However, the magnitude of such solar contribution is presently unknown, and the question of whether or not an enhanced uptake of shortwave energy by the planet represents positive feedback to an initial warming induced by rising greenhouse-gas concentrations has not conclusively been answered.
Our analysis revealed that the observed decrease of planetary albedo along with reported variations of the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) explain 100% of the global warming trend and 83% of the GSAT interannual variability as documented by six satellite- and ground-based monitoring systems over the past 24 years.
Roles of Earth’s Albedo Variations and Top-of-the
October 10, 2024
Richard Lindzen
Atmosphere Energy Imbalance in Recent Warming 2024
The one-dimensional picture of the greenhouse effect and the role of carbon dioxide in this mechanism dominates current depictions of climate and global warming. We briefly reviewed this picture. We then discuss the shortcomings of this approach in dealing with the threedimensional climate system. One problem is determining what temperature on the real Earth corresponds to the temperature in the one-dimensional treatment. This, in turn, leads to the traditional recognition that the Earth has, in fact, many climate regimes at present. Moreover, there have been profound changes in the temperature difference between the tropics and polar regions over millennia, but at the same time the temperature of the tropical regions has remained little changed.
An Assessment of the Conventional Global Warming Narrative 2022
Oct. 1, 2024
Ned Nikolov
Dear Gerald & John,
Thank you for accepting Darwin's contribution. Here is an interview we gave to Alex Newman (an investigative journalist):
https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=fTEafIG9Ii8
In this regard, I'd also like to submit to the discussion group this recent technical article, which we published on a blog about IPCC's misrepresentation of satellite data in the latest WG1 Report on the Physical Basis of Climate Change:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2024/07/26/ni kolov-zeller-misrepresentation-of-critical-
satellite-data-by-ipcc/
We are currently working on an Open Letter to the authors of Chapter 7 of the IPCC 2021 WG1 Report that will be published in a major news outlet. The Letter will request that the authors issue a public statement acknowledging several major omissions & data misrepresentations in Chapter 7, which collectively invalidate the IPCC's central conclusion that increasing concentrations of anthropogenic GHGs have been the main driver of global warming since 1979.
- Ned