Climate Discussion Group 2024, CDG2024
Discussion - Climate C7
October - November 2024
C7 Atmospheric Physics, including auto compression.
Nov. 30, 2024
Gerald Ratzer USA
Darwin,
I am sorry to hear you are disillusioned with the Climate Discussion Group.
I agree it is not reasonable or professional to comment on a paper you have not read.
In case it is not clear –I support the work of N&Z and think that having found a simple relation that works for 6 very different rocky planets and moons is impressive. Unfortunately, Ned is very insistent that people understand that his new papers are a major contribution to Climate Science and are more important than most others. His communication skills turn many people off and distract from the excellence of his work.
This week has seen a flurry of papers and emails from Tom Shula and his colleague Marcus Ott. Several of the posts are online and the next Newsletter has many more links. The Shula/Ott papers are the best explanation I have seen on November 30, 2024 1
the distinction between Radiative Transfer and Heat Transport. They directly address the work of Wijngaarden and Happer and point out why the GHE is not a real effect. Look at C3 at this link.
Some of us are asking about a continuation next year – that would be easier to manage. If you have any thoughts – let us know.
Gerald.
Nov. 25, 2024
Darwin Throne Australia Dear Gerald,
Thank you for setting up the discussion group. Unfortunately, it's been no different than other efforts to seriously discuss what drives climate change. Lots of speculation but nothing of substance. The Clintel conference in Prague was just another example of the same thing. I can't believe the discussion that ensued prior to the conference. There wasn't a single email that I read that had any scientific credibility. People criticized Dr. Nikolov's paper without having even read the paper! I liken it to arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It just doesn't matter.
It is not possible to have a rational discussion about climate change without physics and math. Climate change is not a philosophical discussion yet we see papers claiming that CO2 is good for the planet and that is supposed to show that burning fossil fuels is okay. Of course CO2 is good for the planet. We'd be dead without it. This is not science, it's opinion and it's not a revolutionary idea. Be the way, Dr. Nikolov has a PhD in ecological modeling. The state of the Climate Change debate today is really
November 30, 2024
rather silly. There are only two Climate Change models in the world today: the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) model and the Nikolov-Zeller (NZ) model. The IPCC model is based on complex computer programs that try to simulate the global weather. The NZ model is based on the Ideal Gas Law and the Stefan-Boltzmann Laws which have been well-known for over 150 years. Everything else is speculation because there are no models of the form T= f(name your variables). For example, has anyone produced a formula T=f(CO2 concentration)?
The IPCC models have been wrong for over 40 years and did not predict the global warming over the last 24 years especially the warming in 2023. NASA's Gavin Schmidt claimed that we are in new territory because the vaunted IPCC models could not predict the warming in 2023. That's not new information; they've always been wrong.
The NZ model states that the global temperature is controlled by atmospheric pressure and solar radiation, which is based on well known laws of physics, as you well know. Twenty four years of CERES satellite data on solar radiation confirm the accuracy of the NZ model in predicting the warming that we’ve seen. They have developed a formula that has very high accuracy (about 99%) based on CERES satellite data. Why is there not a real debate about the NZ model? If the math or physics is wrong, we should know but if not then we should just move on and realize the
climate changes for reasons we don't fully understand but burning fossil fuels is not a cause for alarm. Destroying western economies for a belief system is really crazy.
The arguments about radiative heating due to CO2 absorption of radiation, the changing of the rate of rotation of the earth, cosmic ray influence on the albedo, the oscillation of the CO2 molecule, etc. are just speculations if not accompanying by a physical formula with real world data. What has happened to physics?? The claim by Professor Happer in his paper that the atmosphere would be isothermal without Greenhouse Gases is absurd. The atmosphere is a gas system that obeys the ideal gas law and exhibits a lapse rate as do all planets with an atmosphere. GHGs have nothing to do with that. I seriously doubt that the quantum effects of solar radiation on CO2 atoms control our climate.
Climate change is not a philosophical discussion. Any discussion about why the climate changes should be accompanied by formulas based on proven math and physics not just computer models that depend on "tuning" to match history or speculations based on CO2 absorption of LWR.
I recommend you read this page on our website: https://www.climate-veritas.com/? page_id=29
It describes work done by Professor John Kleppe that shows very strong correlation between the Hallstatt cycle, the Gleisberg cycle and the 22 year flipping of the sun's magnetic field and precipitation in the Tahoe Basin. It even shows correlation with ENSO cycles. I think it's highly probable that these effects also affect
November 30, 2024 4
Nov. 23, 2024
Tomas Furst, Ned Nikolov, Karl Zeller, Valentina Zharkova
Czechia, UK
USA
Earth's temperature as Svensmark has postulated based on his research on galactic cosmic rays. But, Professor Kleppe is a lone researcher in Reno, NV so nobody pays any attention especially since his expertise is in communications and signal processing not "climate science". Professor Kleppe has spent about 20 years researching the precipitation history of the Lake Tahoe basin. He discovered the mega drought in CA that occurred about 1,000 years ago. I've known Professor Kleppe for about 40 years. He's a brilliant guy.
Einstein did not know about relativity until he thought about it and even he had trouble getting a professorship.
Best regards, Darwin
CLINTEL Prague Conference - Discussion 2
Karl Zeller:
What my colleague Dr. Nikolov and his esteemed coprotagonist Professor Zharkova seem to be incapable of grasping is that they are arguing apples and oranges.
Apples: longer times scales where a quasi equilibrium can be determined; larger space scales like a planetary global mean parameter, etc.
Oranges: smaller times scales with no equilibrium where colliding molecules and vibrational frequency make a difference; smaller space scales where absorbing photons are accounted for, etc.
November 30, 2024
Our discovery (that implies a theory): long term surface temperature of any celestial body with a surface and a tangible atmosphere is determined by solar input energy and atmospheric mass.
Then added on: using the equation that comes with the discovery it appears that shorter term small deviations in that global temperature are determined by observed changes in albedo.
Tomas Furst
In my opinion, much confusion comes from not using "equilibrium" and "steady state" carefully.
The atmosphere is far from equilibrium.
A system may be far from equilibrium, although all time derivatives of all quantities are zero!
Valentina Zharkova
Ned,
I would say to you: 'watch my lips'thermodynamic equilibrium does not exist in the radiation field!. You actually raised the stock of the IPCC models since they are no complete dummies, they at least considered the exchange of the solar radiation with molecules and absorption and reemission November 30, 2024
Nov. 8, 2024
Ned Nikolov
USA
between r the various molecules afterwards. They are one step if not two steps ahead of you dear..
To: Milan Šálek Hi Milan,
In our 2017 paper, we show that the interplanetary P-T relationship we've discovered, meets the formal requirements of a new macrolevel physical law... Did you know that all laws of physics we currently use, have been inferred from empirical measurements using statistical curve fitting? The Dimensional Analysis adopted in our 2017 paper is a classical method for deriving new physical relationships & laws from data.
As to why "skeptics" such as Lindzen and Curry believe in the absurd 19th-Century greenhouse theory, you need to ask them and review their knowledge of Thermodynamics. There are NO "distinguished scientists". There are only "distinguished ideas" that have repeatedly been verified and validated by observations (which is what made them "distinguished" in the first place).
I have a hard time understanding why people still prefer to accept the opinions of some perceived "experts" about a new concept instead of spending time to study that concept in detail for themselves. If we are to make progress in climate science, we need to deprogram ourselves from the unproductive habit of blindly following the "experts", and adopt a rational approach of critical thinking and independent inquiry. We all have witnessed the disaster that unfolded during the COVID pandemic as a result of following "the
November 30, 2024
experts".
Here is my prediction: Climate skeptics will never be successful in defeating the "climate actions" pushing insane & destructive energy policies unless an orchestrated effort is made to expose the hollow core of the entire "climatism" enterprise, which is the faulty 19th-Century "greenhouse" theory.
Cheers, - Ned
Oct. 30, 2024
Ned Nikolov USA Dear Václav Procházka,
Please. consider that, in physical sciences, the truth is not found by consensus or through beliefs held by the majority, but by objective analysis of observed data. Modern observations and established laws of thermodynamics refute the 19th-Century "greenhouse" theory claiming that the thermal effect of Earth's atmosphere is due to IR radiative properties of some trace gases. In terms of physical laws determining the climate on Earth, our planet is NO different than any other rocky planetary body in the Solar System. To understand these fundamental premises, please study the following publications and watch the video:
1. Paper: Nikolov & Zeller (2017) New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model
2. Paper: Nikolov & Zeller (2024) Roles of Earth’s Albedo Variations and Top-of-the-Atmosphere Energy Imbalance in Recent Warming: New Insights from
November 30, 2024
Oct. 30, 2024
Ned Nikolov USA
Satellite and Surface Observations
3. Video: Demystifying the Greenhouse Effect
It's crucial to realize that historically, the belief in the warming effect of the so-called "greenhouse gases" is based on incorrect interpretation of simple lab experiments, lack of understanding of atmospheric thermodynamics by climate scientists focused exclusively on IR radiative transfer in the atmosphere, mindless repetition of unsupported conjectures by generations of researchers for decades, and faulty computer models starting with the work of Syukuro Manabe in 1960s.
Again, understanding a new paradigm like the ones we've discovered requires time to carefully study it!
Thank you, -Ned Nikolov
To: Milan Šálek
Hi Milan,
I understand your hesitation, since it's really difficult to accept (comprehend) the idea that a science theory, which has been around for nearly 200 years and which is supported by thousands of researchers and international organizations such as UN and IPCC, might be fundamentally wrong.
Yet, as scientists, we must follow the evidence no matter where it leads us.
In our latest paper, we show numerically using CERES data that there is absolutely no "greenhousegas" signal in the recent warming. We also show that there are no detectable positive (amplifying) feedbacks in the real system, and that the ocean heating was most likely caused by the increased planetary absorption of sunlight penetrating 100+ m in the ocean, the same forcing that has also caused the surface warming.
The "greenhouse" theory of climate change is an unphysical concept violating the laws of Thermodynamics, which was first proposed as a pure conjecture in the 19th Century before the discovery of the Gas Law. If you read the 1896 paper by Svante Arrhenius, you will realize that the fundamental premises of the modern Greenhouse Theory can all be traced backed to this publication, and were not backed by any reliable global observations. In fact, this highly revered Arrhenius article is so poorly written that it would likely not pass a normal peer review today!
I recommend watching this educational video from 2021 that explains the historical roots of the "greenhouse" concept and its
Oct. 28, 2024 (b)
Ned Nikolov USA
physical insolvency from a modern thermodynamics perspective:
Demystifying the Greenhouse Effect
It's really inexcusable for us to continue regurgitating an unfounded 19th-Century conjecture in our datarich & information-laden 21st Century!
Regards, -Ned
Nikolov
Hi Gerald,
I agree with what Darwin said below.
It's been full 10 years since we showed that the simple form of the S-B law is not applicable to spherical objects for a mathematical reason know as Hölder's inequality between integrals, and we derived a correct spherically integrated formula for computing the true global average temperature of airless planetary bodies. See this 21-page paper: Volokin & ReLlez (2014).
BTW, in his email to you, Uli Weber does not present the correct argument for why the simple S-B equation is not applicable to spherical bodies. Please send to Mr. Weber the link to our 2014 paper.
Regarding our most recent paper discussing the effect of Earth's decreasing albedo November 30, 2024
Oct. 28, 2024 (b)
(measured by CERES) on the planetary warming since 2000, here is the direct publisher's link: https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7418/4/3/17
Thank you!
-Ned Nikolov
Darwin Throne USA Hi Darwin,
There has been an ongoing discussion among Clintel members and the CO2 Coalition members on this topic.
This is part of the educational aspect to this discussion group.
There are many people and sources that think our weather and energy balance can be described by averages. John, for one, says NO, and is very vocal on this idea.
He would like to understand the truth about weather and climate without all the Mathematics, equations and integral signs.
This should be possible.
This is why classical Physics and Thermodynamics are as important as Radiative Transfer and Quantum Mechanics. The RTC versus HTC is the central theme of the CDG2024 technical discussion.
I argue we need both - RTC for photons that travel at the speed of light, through the vacuum of space - and HTC for a slow movement of heat like the Gulf Stream.
Thank you again,
Gerald.
On 2024-10-28, Darwin Throne wrote: Gerald,
I'm not sure how to respond to this post so I'm responding directly to you.
In C2 (Thermodynamics) on the 25th October, there are two posts worthwhile to consider. The first is from Uli Weber and explains the problem with a flat disk and dividing by 4 for an average, is not acceptable input to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation
This problem has been solved by Nikolov and Zeller in their paper published in 2014: " On the average temperature of airless spherical bodies and the magnitude of Earth’s atmospheric thermal effect" It addresses the thermal conductivity of the sphere and the dark side issues that Uli raises. This is a spherical solution to the solar radiation effect on rocky bodies. It shows that the real warming by the atmosphere is 90 degrees K not 33 and it's not due to greenhouse gases. There are several follow on papers that expand on this paper which are summarized on my website www.climate-veritas.com.
There are also links to the rest of NZ's research papers except the most recent one which I have attached. It clearly shows that atmospheric pressure and solar radiation control our climate, not greenhouse gases and
the 24 years of CERES radiation data confirm this. It also shows the sensitivity of the climate to changes in albedo and TSI. Something the flawed IPCC models can't do.
MIT is holding a debate on the economics of NetZero. They have foolishly accepted the IPCC models so climate debate is not part of the discussion only how much we should spend to mitigate a problem that doesn't exist.
Best regards,
Darwin Throne
Oct. 28, 2024 (a)
Robert Ian Holmes
Australia
Prof Ratzer,
I think I need to contribute to this discussion. I have a PhD in climate science/mitigation awarded on the 7th December 2018.
First; there is no such thing as a class of gases which can cause anomalous warming in a troposphere.
Second; this means that there can be no such thing as 'greenhouse gases' or a 'greenhouse effect'.
Third; the difference between the effective temperature and the measured temperature for Earth, is a presence of atmosphere effect and not a 'greenhouse effect' cause by a separate class of gases.
Fourth; The wrong null hypothesis of climate change has been used since the 1980's.
This is explained in my 2018 paper; https://www.academia.edu/113418252/
Thermal_Enhancement_on_Planetary_Bodie
s_and_the_Relevance_of_the_Molar_Mass_
Version_of_the_Ideal_Gas_Law_to_the_Nu
ll_Hypothesis_of_Climate_Change
An excerpt from that paper;
"The existing null hypothesis of climate change simply assumes that there exists a 33C ‘residual’ warming effect [66], which in ⁰ turn is assumed to be 100% produced by GHG in the lower troposphere [24]. More assumptions are that once CO is emitted by ₂ humans to the atmosphere, it remains there for ‘hundreds of years’ [24]; another assumption is that the ice core record for CO₂ is correct (and not the plant stomata record) and therefore that the CO concentration in ₂ 1750 (the so-called pre-industrial level) was 280ppmv, and a final assumption is that all of the increase from this assumed 280ppm to the measured present level is anthropogenic. It is proposed here that most or all of these assumptions are incorrect. The residence time for CO is first shown to be incorrect; it is in ₂ fact just 4yr [65,69,70,71].
The new ‘null’ hypothesis of climate change being put forward here, is that in the case of
Earth, solar insolation provides the ‘first’ ~255*Kelvin – in accordance with the black body law [14]; this being the ‘effective’ or the ‘base’ level. And a gravitationally induced thermal gradient caused by auto-compression and convection provides the ‘other’ ~33*Kelvin, termed the ‘residual’, to arrive at the known and measured average global temperature of 288 Kelvin. The ‘residual’ is not hypothesised to be provided by anomalous warming from greenhouse gases, because if it was, it would not make sense that the Venusian temperature at 1atm correlates exactly with Earth’s temperature at the same pressure, when insolation differences are allowed for."
Fifth; Proof that there is no GHE on Earth or anywhere else is contained in my 2019 paper;
https://www.academia.edu/95127712/
On_the_Apparent_Relationship_Between_T
otal_Solar_Irradiance_and_the_Atmospheri
c_Temperature_at_1_Bar_on_Three_Terres
trial_type_Bodies
An Excerpt from that paper;
Proof there is no 'GHE' on Earth or anywhere else;
T1=(TSI) x T2 ∜
Where; November 30, 2024
T1=planet temp Kelvin at 1 bar
TSI=relative TSI
T2=planet temp Kelvin at 1 bar
Example;
Calculating Earth's surface temp from Venus; Te=0.523 x Tv ∜
Te = 0.850 x 340
Te = 289.1 Kelvin
=There is no 'GHE'.
My series of Climate Change YouTube videos explain most of this;
https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=4ZKI40d5YHs&t=1s
https://www.youtuClimate Science 1; There is No "Greenhouse Effect"be.com/watch? v=3biTbgx_l3c&t=1s
https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=1Y_n283fYbc&t=1s
https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=WNEQo6lk9ko&t=1s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbQKviHT5I&t=1s
https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=9EkKsuCmdpw&t=1s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8MY4lUkn0&t=1s
What all this means is that changes in CO2 or CH4 levels of the order seen, can have no measurable impact on global temperatures, or November 30, 2024
Oct.15, 2024
Ned Nikolov
Darwin Throne
Alex Newman USA
on climate changes.
Best Regards, Dr Robert
Ian Holmes
The real physics of climate change
Oct. 14, 2024
Ned Nikolov USA
New Climate-Science Paradigm Presented at the Sentinel Report Hosted by 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.
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
Oct. 14, 2024
Howard Cork
Hayden
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.
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
November 30, 2024 19
Brian Catt UK, USA
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, 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)
November 30, 2024
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.
November 30, 2024
Here are ten lectures covering a whole course on Climate Physics by Professor Howard Cork Hayden
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 reserach 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 decribe 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
November 30, 2024
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 say 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 enegy 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). November 30, 2024
Oct. 13, 2024
Darwin Throne USA
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 directly to the feedback calculations at the end. Back up one section if not.
But it's beyond a climate mudeller. 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.climate-veritas.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
November 30, 2024
Oct. 12, 2024
Karl Zeller
USA
influences the El Nino/La Ninja cycles. This work is unprecedented and has been ignored by the climate change community.
Best regards, Darwin
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 Earh’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 verses 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 peerreviewed published paper
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/ articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
that explains this math error made by all
November 30, 2024
Oct. 12, 2024
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 thru 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
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.
Oct. 10, 2024
Richard Lindzen USA
Oct. 10, 2024
Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller USA
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.
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
Oct. 10, 2024
Richard Lindzen
USA
Oct. 1, 2024
Ned Nikolov USA
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 groundbased monitoring systems over the past 24 years.
Roles of Earth’s Albedo Variations and Top-of-the 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 review 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
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?
November 30, 2024
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/ nikolov-zeller-misrepresentation-of-criticalsatellite-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