Climate Discussion Group 2024, CDG2024
Discussion - Climate C3
October - November 2024
C3
For the RTC/HTC - where and when they apply
Dec. 6, 2024
Ned Nikolov
Gerald Ratzer, Darwin Throne, Australia –Canada - USA
Radiative Transfer Concept versus Thermodynamics
Gerald Ratzer:
As I said in a previous email about the Nikolov & Zeller papers – I am impressed by the result that the atmospheric pressure (not the composition) and the TSI, Total Solar Insolation, at TOA ,Top of the Atmosphere, are all that is needed to calculate the surface temperature for any planet or moon with a rocky surface. I believe this to be true for our solar system and the many others as well.
This is good Physics, but how important is the finding?
The RTC/HTC discussion shows that the Heat Transport Concept has many aspects from the circulation of the atmosphere and the oceans. These are changing from hour to hour in the air and on a seasonal basis for all the environments we live in.
I would prefer to say that auto-compression of the December 6, 2024
atmosphere is just one of the processes along with evaporation, conduction, convection, buoyance, and gravity that influences our weather. 30 years or more of dynamic weather will allow for some climate averages and estimates. One number a year is not in the same category.
Terigi and I would say the N&Z GMAT provides a baseline on top of which the dynamic and random weather processes take place.
Darwin Throne:
I recommend that you read Clark's paper Nobel Prize for Climate Model Errors which was recommended by one of the Clintel participants if you haven't already done so. His conclusions reflect my views.
The Radiation Theory of climate change is based on a false model that has been propagated since the early 60s starting with the Manabe work. He raises this question in his conclusion:
At present the average annual increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is near 2.4 ppm per year. This produces an increase in the downward LWIR flux from the lower troposphere to the surface approximately 0.034 W m-2 per year. How does this change the surface temperature of the Earth? The correct answer is that any temperature changes
are too small to measure. Nor can there be any effect on extreme weather events.
To which I reply: exactly so.
The Radiation Theory of climate change is based on a false model that has been propagated since the early 60s starting with the Manabe work. He raises this question in his conclusion:
At present the average annual increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is near 2.4 ppm per year.
This produces an increase in the downward LWIR flux from the lower troposphere to the surface approximately 0.034 W m-2 per year. How does this change the surface temperature of the Earth?
The correct answer is that any temperature changes are too small to measure. Nor can there be any effect on extreme weather events.
To which I reply: exactly so.
Ned Nikolov
I'd like to commend you for the correct understanding of our GMAT model published in 2017. Indeed, our discovery was that total atmospheric pressure and mean annual TSI completely determine/define the long-term, baseline global temperatures of rocky planets & moons in the Solar System. Variations in
December 6, 2024
Nov. 30, 2024
Tom Shula, Markus Ott USA Germany
cloud albedo and annual TSI cause departures of global temperature from that baseline value. These departures are described by Eq. 16 in our 2024 paper.
We now have an extension of the original GMAT model that describes baseline temperatures at several key latitudes in addition to the global mean. I'm currently working on a paper that will present the extended set of equations along with an update of the 2017 pressureTb/Tna curve based on new data for the baseline temperatures of Earth, Venus and Titan.
The most critical conclusion from our research is that the Atmospheric Thermal Effect (ATE) is not a radiative phenomenon as assumed for nearly 200 years, but a thermodynamic one, and that ATE is independent of atmospheric composition. This latter finding alone implies that non-condensing trace gases such as CO2 cannot in principle have a measurable impact on climate.
The “Missing Link” in the Greenhouse Effect
This paper by Thomas Shula and Marku Ott is comprehensiv and easy to understand. It challenges a lot of the current and historical thinking on climate science
Below are a few excerpts. Studying the whole paper at the link above is highly recommended.
December 6, 2024
Background
In his summary of a van Wijngaarden and Happer paperi, Andy May begins his discussion as follows:
“The phrase “greenhouse effect,” often abbreviated as “GHE,” is very ambiguous. It applies to Earth’s surface temperature, and has never been observed or measured, only modeled. To make matters worse, it has numerous possible components, and the relative contributions of the possible components are unknown.”
In an interview with Tom Nelsonii describing the issues with the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report and some of the issues with the climate models May says:
“…they are clearly in that stage of their modeling effort that every time they try and fix a mismatch, they break something else. It’s a sign that their models are missing some vital component of climate.”
For the past 33+ years since the first IPCC Assessment Report, the level of alarmism has continued to grow over this effect that has only been modeled and never measured. GHE has become ubiquitous in the Western lexicon, and many, if not most, of the prominent members of the “skeptic” community will defer to the belief that increasing CO2 causes “some” warming. It has so permeated our culture that now, when one searches the internet for “how a greenhouse works”, many sources claim that this is how garden greenhouses work as well. Surprisingly (and thankfully)
December 6, 2024
Wikipedia still points out that a garden greenhouse works by blocking convection, NOT via the GHE discussed in the context of climate change.
..
..
Part 1 - The Behavior of CO2 mixed with non-IR active gases.
.. ..
Part 2 - The Application of the Concept of Radiative Transfer in Climate Science
.. ..
Part 3 - How Heat from the Surface of the Earth is Transported into Space from the Ground Up ..
Part 4 - An Engineering Perspective on Climate –“Average”, “Balance”, and “Equilibrium”
Part 5 – Observations/Comments on Global Climate Models
Part 6 – Summary
Richard Lindzen since his retirement has become an outspoken critic of the growing climate alarmism that is being promoted in current society. While openly
December 6, 2024
skeptical regarding the potential impact of climate change, he grudgingly concurs as most do, that GHGs cause “some” warming. “Cancel culture” is a powerful force. One of our favorite quotes attributed to Dr. Lindzen is the following:
“What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.”iii
We have presented an alternative paradigm to explain how heat absorbed by the Earth’s surface is returned to space. The “missing link” in the GHE is the assumed spontaneous emission by GHGs in the lower atmosphere which is required for the radiative transfer mechanism to apply. Thermalization kills the upwelling radiation field from the surface, and the work of heat transport from the atmosphere to space is performed by convection until radiation from thermally excited emission (reverse thermalization) can escape to space at higher altitudes. GHGs are a conduit that converts surface radiation to sensible heat in the atmosphere. This decouples the surface radiation from the atmosphere. Outside of the atmospheric window there is no direct radiative energy transport from the surface into space. The heat energy is not “trapped”, it is simply slowed by the atmospheric “speed
December 6, 2024
limit” of convection. The Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) outside the atmospheric window is determined by the atmospheric composition and thermally excited emission as a function of altitude of the GHG species therein. Perhaps the greatest irony in all of this is that the so-called “Greenhouse Gases” facilitate heat transfer at the surface AND the top of the atmosphere, rather than hindering it.
Almost all the OLR outside of the atmospheric window is from water vapor. The contribution of other so-called GHGs is insignificant. This is apparent from the predominance of water vapor emission at low frequencies in the OLR spectrum. There are two reasons for this. First, water vapor is the most abundant GHG, generally making up 90% or more of all GHGs in the lower atmosphere. Second, because water begins condensing at a relatively low altitude, the low density of water vapor molecules enables the escape of photons from thermally excited emission at a much lower altitude than other GHGs. As shown in Koll and Cronin11, there is an approximately linear relationship between OLR and surface temperature over a wide range of terrestrial surface temperatures. While their “radiation-centric” analysis attributed this to other more complicated factors, it is more easily explained by recognizing that the convection generally follows Newton’s law of cooling which is a linear function of temperature. This also provides a natural negative feedback mechanism preventing “runaway” warming or cooling.
We posit that radiative transfer models were chosen for treatment of these phenomena
December 6, 2024
because they mirrored the conjectures of Arrhenius and Schwarzschild, and that they were tractable from a computational perspective. As indicated earlier in this work, they have become a de facto “standard of practice” in climate modeling. What those who chose this modeling approach failed to consider was that the works of Kirchhoff, Schwarzschild, and Arrhenius were conjectures without experimental support and preceded the modern understanding of the quantum behavior of IR active gas molecules. The early scientists assumed that there was a 1:1 relationship between absorption and emission by “bodies.” This is true under a limited set of conditions and was intended to apply to condensed matter in thermodynamic equilibrium. Climate modelers conflated this into a 1:1 relationship between absorption and emission at the atomic/molecular level. This is stated explicitly by Syukuro Manabe in his 2021 Nobel Prize acceptance speechiv, and this is a misapplication of Kirchhoff’s law that is deeply rooted in radiative transfer models. One might argue that because these models can reproduce measured OLR spectra with reasonable accuracy, they should be useful to provide some information regarding the behavior of the climate system. The work of vWH shows that spectra measured from various points on the globe with both moderate and extreme climate conditions can be reproduced qualitatively. This was explained in Part 2. For outgoing radiation, emission breaks out when the mean free path of the photon allows it. There is a catch, however.
December 6, 2024
Nov. 29, 2024
Tom Shula USA
These models require the presence of a “back radiation” component of the atmosphere radiating energy back to the surface. Because thermalization converts the radiation field from the surface to sensible heat, the energy for a downwelling radiation field is no longer available and the “back radiation is impossible.
Why Radiative Transfer is the Wrong Model for the Earth’s Atmosphere
For the entire article, see link above. For excerpts see below. -------------------------------------------------------
In this work I will explain how the scientific community came to and persists in the narrative of Anthropogenic Global Warming based on the Radiative Transfer Theory which results in the fictitious “Greenhouse Effect.”
Going back in history, Fourier, Tyndall, and now Eunice Foote are credited with “discovering” that CO2 absorbs IR radiation. While they may have contemplated the impact this could have on the atmosphere, it was Svante Arrhenius in 1896 who first tried to show that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere might have a warming effect on the Earth. He was motivated to do this because the world was coming out of the Little Ice Age and believed that by adding CO2 from industrial
December 6, 2024
activities it could help prevent future Ice Ages. At that time, the “Greenhouse Effect” was considered a positive thing.
..
..
Ten years later in 1906, in another part of Europe Karl Schwarzschild was trying to explain why the visible disk of the sun showed a darkening at the edges when observed from earth. While he is often credited with formulating the radiative transfer equation in one of the forms recognizable today, it was Arthur Schuster who formulated these equations including absorption and scattering terms. Schuster first published his work on stars in 1903. Schwarzschild introduced the concept of radiative equilibrium in his work.
..
..
If one lets these definitions sink in a bit, the obvious question is, “Why is the modeling of heat flow in the atmosphere based on a model of radiative equilibrium rather than convective equilibrium?” The answer is quite simple, and I think it’s the dirty little secret of the climate-industrial complex that they never talk about. Neither the mathematical tools nor the computing power required presently exist to solve the equations for a convective model, and they won’t exist in the foreseeable future. The climate-industrial complex would rather make up a scenario and claim they understand what is going on rather than admit it is a phenomenon that we cannot model with the tools at our disposal.
What the scientific climate community has done for the past 100 years is convince themselves that they can make “approximations” and provide a model based on December 6, 2024
the RTE. What are those approximations? Relative to a star, they assume that:
• The surface of the Earth is at a constant temperature and a constant altitude, despite the fact that the temperature can vary spatially by 80+C and the average height of the land mass is ~850m above sea level with significant geographic variation.
• That the earth is flat and receives a constant insolation of 340 W/m^2 despite the presence of a diurnal cycle and a temporal and spatial variance in insolation from 0 to 1340 W/m^2 in a 24 hour cycle.
• That CO2, a trace gas, controls climate even though H2O, water vapor, is on average 50 times more abundant than CO2 in the lower troposphere and is IR active over a much broader range of frequencies
• That radiative transfer is the primary method of removing heat from the surface, even though the troposphere is a strongly convecting layer and the energy transport is by mass flow.
• That the spectral solution produced by the RTE can provide information about energy balance. We now know that this solution only shows us what a well collimated radiometer would detect, as has been demonstrated. It cannot be used to infer the total energy flow, however.
The models used to “demonstrate” the “Greenhouse Effect” are not representative of the real Earth atmosphere. The “Greenhouse Effect” only exists in models and the minds of those who want to believe we can control the climate. It is 100% pseudoscience.
December 6, 2024 12
Nov. 29, 2024
Tom Shula USA
From my first writing in the climate foray, A Novel Perspective on the Greenhouse Effect, I leave with this which I realized a very long time ago.
“The radiation energy that the Earth absorbs from the Sun arrives at the speed of light. The Earth loses heat at a speed driven by convection in a process we call “weather.” Weather is the chaotic process by which the Earth’s atmosphere tries to continuously reach thermal equilibrium but never succeeds. The convection takes place continuously, but the speed at which heat is transported by convection is MUCH slower than the speed of light. This means that heat energy leaves the Earth more slowly than it arrives, and that is why the Earth is warmer than predicted by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.”
Modeling climate is complicated, but understanding what drives it is less so.
Photons and Photonic Confusion -
Below are a few excerpts from the above article. See the link above for the complete article.
There is in particular one problem whose exhaustive
solution could provide considerable elucidation. What becomes of the energy of a photon after complete emission? Does it spread out in all directions with further propagation in the sense of Huygens’ wave theory, so constantly taking up more space, in boundless progressive attenuation? Or does it fly out like a projectile in one direction in the sense of Newton’s emanation theory? In the first case, the quantum would no longer be in the position to concentrate energy upon a single point in space in such a way as to release an electron from its atomic bond, and in the second case, the main triumph of the Maxwell theory- the continuity between the static and the dynamic fields and, with it, the complete understanding we have enjoyed, until now, of the fully investigated interference phenomena- would have to be sacrificed, both being very unhappy consequences for today’s theoreticians.
..
Michael Mischenko in Directional radiometry and radiative transfer_ The convoluted path from centuriesold phenomenology to physical optics also extensively discusses the problems with the photon concept. His discussion begins on page 13 where are also illustrated various configurations associated with directional radiometry pertinent to his work.
You may be asking why this is important. In the RTT as applied in contemporary climate science, the onedimensional RTE uses spectral radiance as the energy source that interacts with the IR active gases in the atmosphere. In many treatments this is “translated” to a gas of photons, “particles” of electromagnetic energy that fly around at random in space being emitted and absorbed by IR active gas molecules. My favorite
December 6, 2024
Nov. 27, 2024
Tom Shula USA
descriptor, from van Wijngaarden and Happer GreenhousePrimerArxiv.pdf is “quasi-diffusional transport of thermal radiation in opaque spectral regions.” This leads to the concept of “trapping” or “slowing the progress” of photons, aka the “Greenhouse Effect.” We have all seen the animations of photons “bouncing back” to the surface.
As Mischenko has shown, it is not spectral radiance or “packets of light energy” that interact with particles, it is the electric and magnetic fields that interact with the particles. A “photon” is defined not by what it is, but what it does. It is convenient as a concept for the exchange of electromagnetic energy, but it does not share many physical attributes of matter particles.
..
..
While the use of the concept “photon” is convenient in many circumstances, it is important to keep in mind that electromagnetic radiation can exhibit “particle like characteristics”, it is not composed of physical particles. There exists no wave function for the position of a “photon.” In my next comments I will discuss Planck’s perspective on spectral radiance.
On Spectral Radiance And Its Meaning
The whole article is at the link above. See excerpts below.
----------------------------------------------------------------
December 6, 2024
In his book The Theory of Heat Radiation, Max Planck states:
“Heat may be propagated in a stationary medium in two entirely different ways, namely, by conduction and by radiation. Conduction of heat depends on the nonuniform distribution of the temperature in space.
Radiation of heat, however, is in itself entirely independent of the temperature of the medium through which it passes. It is possible, for example, to concentrate the solar rays at a focus by passing them through a converging lens of ice, the latter remaining at a constant temperature of 0◦ , and so to ignite an inflammable body. Generally speaking, radiation is a far more complicated phenomenon than conduction of heat. The reason for this is that the state of the radiation at a given instant and at a given point of the medium cannot be represented, as can the flow of heat by conduction, by a single vector (that is, a single directed quantity). All heat rays which at a given instant pass through the same point of the medium are perfectly independent of one another, and in order to specify completely the state of the radiation the intensity of radiation must be known in all the directions, infinite in number, which pass through the point in question; for this purpose two opposite directions must be considered as distinct, because the radiation in one of them is quite independent of the radiation in the other.” (Emphasis added)
To paraphrase the emphasized part of the quote, this says that it is not possible to measure the net flow of
December 6, 2024 16
Nov. 27, 2024
Tom Shula USA
radiation energy at any point without simultaneously measuring the direction and magnitude of radiation energy flow through that point from every possible direction.
Tom Shula’s background in climate related sciences.
See link above for full article. See below for excerpts
My academic training was in classical physics with an emphasis on theoretical and mathematical physics. Disillusioned by academia in graduate school and attracted by the 1970s allure of Silicon Valley I chose a path in industry.
Part of that included extensive experience in the design, development, and operation of equipment for the manufacture of semiconductors and disk drive components in vacuum. These are extreme environments where temperature control is critical and one learns quickly the relationships of radiation, conduction, and convection for transport of heat energy in a myriad of temperature and pressure regimes.
My first piece in the climate conversation, “A Novel Perspective on the Greenhouse Effect”, was borne from this experience. While well received by many, the criticisms have led me to a deep dive into radiative transfer theory which continues.
My singular focus, with Markus Ott, continues to be the
December 6, 2024
Nov. 26, 2024
Gerald Ratzer Canada
“Greenhouse Effect” which is no more than a failed conjecture which has only been modeled and “justified” by mathematical constructs that were developed for the analysis of stellar atmospheres but have no relevance to the earth’s atmosphere.
Here is the link to the CLINTEL Climate Conference in Prague.
Here are links to Gerald Ratzer’s paper, “Climate Concepts”.
- Abstract
- Actual slide presentation
Nov. 21, 2024
Gerald Ratzer
Canada
Climate Concepts – Abstract for CLINTEL Prague Climate Conference 2024
The Introduction to this conference presentation included a few slides to show the foundation for these concepts. The research was led by Douglas Lightfoot, with me as the coauthor. We collected our data using a cellphone and the AccuWeather website, which contains over a million locations with a surface weather station. The typical weather station is called a Stevenson Screen, which is a white box with slats to let the air pass through. Advanced versions are connected to the Internet and are read once an hour. Our research design was to see if high-level climate research could be done with just a cellphone and a laptop
computer. Just 20 locations around the world were chosen to cover as many different typical local climates as possible, including the polar, mid-latitude areas and the Tropics. The metadata for each location included the latitude, longitude, and elevation. Once a month all the local weather details, such as temperature and humidity were read and entered into an Excel spreadsheet. With just 20 locations and three or four numbers for each location – all 20 could be recorded in an hour. This meant that they were essentially done at the same time – before the next hourly reading would change the data values. This was repeated every month for a year –so in total 240 different sets of readings made up the main database. From this data, a set of six papers were submitted for peer review.
We assert that the surface (~2m) data (Temperature and Humidity) includes all the local physical effects from latitude, elevation, Sun angle, Sun's variability, proximity to oceans and lakes, clouds, Urban Heat Island effect (UHI), precipitation, wind, local albedo, and any recent volcanic action. Also included are any feedbacks and the interaction of the 99% non-GHG gases N2(78%), O2(20%), and Ar(1%), and the main GHGs of water vapour and CO2 (the remaining ~1%) make our weather.
From this data, we can calculate the enthalpy, which is the total heat in kilojoules per kilogram. This allows us to further find the enthalpy of any gas in the local air, provided we know its concentration and specific heat – which are readily available. Using this technique, we have written six papers which can be found here and in the references at the end of this Abstract. The link above is to the most recent of them (but also lists the other ones) which analysed all 61 greenhouse gases GHGs and showed that only Water
Vapour (WV) had a detectable warming effect. Other papers have shown that the warming from CO2 at 420 ppm is 0.00496°C and is too small to measure on a global basis. Doubling CO2 concentration to 800 ppm - the warming increase is still immeasurably small (~0.01°C). The link above also gives you access to “Suppl”, which is the supplemental data and all the details of the calculations in the Excel sheet.
Main Message
This research forms the background and foundation of the current presentation.
RTC – the Radiative Transfer Concept has been well studied.
The main source of our energy is the Sun, which emits energy as photons, that travel at the speed of light. These photons vibrate over a wide range of frequencies (colours). At the Top of the Atmosphere (TOA) about 1,366 watts/m2 of energy arrive. The albedo is 0.30 or about 30% of the incoming sunlight is reflected. About 240 watts/m2 arrives at the surface on average (~ quarter). At the surface about 2/3 cools by local heat and 1/3 by emitting radiation. When an individual photon arrives at or near the Earth’s surface, it can be scattered or absorbed by the dense, moist surface air. This process is called thermalization and converts the photon energy to heat energy. HTC or the Heat Transport Concept is the second part of understanding the internal processes of our weather and climate. HTC is just classical physics, governed by the four Laws of Thermodynamics. These are taught in high school and are much easier to understand than the quantum mechanics
December 6, 2024
Nov. 2, 2024
Douglas Lightfoot Canada
needed for RTC.
Conclusions
The presentation finishes with suggested Recommendations for Policymakers, some of which appeared in the Conference communiqué.
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. I hope this helps.
December 6, 2024
Oct. 16, 2024
Gerald Ratzer
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.
December 6, 2024
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.
December 6, 2024
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
The third law states that as a system approaches absolute zero temperature, its entropy approaches a constant
December 6, 2024
Oct.15, 2024
Ned Nikolov
Darwin Throne
Alex Newman
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
New Climate-Science Paradigm Presented at the Sentinel Report Hosted by Alex Newman Apr 22, 2023
6,
Oct. 14, 2024
Ned Nikolov
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.
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.
Focusing on radiative transfer and/or heat transports cannot and will not solve the problem of understanding ATE.
December 6, 2024
Oct. 14, 2024
Howard Cork
Hayden
Brian Catt
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 into the room (say 1500 W X 6 hours). How much does the temperature rise? Well, if we know the masses,
December 6, 2024
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 December 6, 2024
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
December 6, 2024
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, December 6, 2024
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
December 6, 2024
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 December 6,
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-
December 6, 2024
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
i The Greenhouse Effect, A Summary of Wijngaarden and Happer – Watts Up With That?
ii Andy May: Is AR6 the worst and most biased IPCC report? | Tom Nelson Pod #105 (youtube.com)
iii Quotations of the Day on Climate Alarmism…. | American Enterprise Institute - AEI
iv Syukuro 'Suki' Manabe's Nobel Prize lecture in physics (youtube.com)