Source: email
Why Radiative Transfer is the Wrong Model for the Earth’s Atmosphere
Tom Shula
November 29, 2024
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 1986 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 activities it could help prevent future Ice Ages. At that time, the “Greenhouse Effect” was considered a positive thing. Arrhenius’ conclusions were based on measurements made with very crude instrumentation of the day and all his calculations had to be done by hand. He used a crude one-layer model, and concluded that a doubling of CO2 could increase the mean temperature by 5-6 C. His paper can be found at On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground. The paper encompasses almost 50 pages, and it is not an easy read. It received much criticism from his peers and was not generally accepted at the time. This was before formal peer review as we know it today. His ideas persisted in some circles, and Arrhenius, Fourier, Tyndall, and Foote are now viewed as folk heroes of a sort by those that worship at the altar of man-made global warming.
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. Specifically, his first paper addresses the question of whether a radiative equilibrium or an adiabatic (convective) equilibrium can better reproduce the limb darkening of the solar disk that we observe on earth. Because it is cited by modern supporters of the “Greenhouse Effect”, it is important to understand Schwarzschild’s methodology. Please watch Ott/Shula: The second law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect on the Tom Nelson channel.
It is important to keep in mind that Schwarzschild was trying to understand the structure of a star, our sun. It is reasonable to assume for his purpose that the sun is spherically symmetric and that its energy flow is continuous with negligible variation in time. His exploration of radiative equilibrium required a highly stable structure where temperatures vary uniformly and continuously as a function of radius, and energy transfer is by radiation only with no movement of physical material. Nonuniformity would lead to convection, which is not allowed in radiative equilibrium. The construction of Schwarzschild’s equilibrium in a stellar atmosphere is what we would refer to as a boundary value problem, where given fixed conditions for top and bottom of the atmosphere under consideration, and with certain assumptions of how the energy (presumed to be spectral radiance) is propagated, one can solve for the profile of energy flow from the bottom to the top.
Schwarzschild only published 3 papers on the topic of radiative equilibrium in stars. They were important in furthering the understanding of stellar structure. Several other scientists continued this path. One of the most notable was Arthur Milne who wrote extensively and in the conclusions of one of his papers wrote notably, “The misunderstandings on the subject of
solar absorbing atmospheres have been due in some measure to a failure to realise that the terrestrial atmosphere offers no analogy.”
It is Schwarzschild’s concept of “radiative equilibrium” and the radiative transfer equation (RTE) that is at the heart of misdirection in modern climate science. Milne’s observation is profoundly pertinent but completely ignored. It is a reasonable approach to understanding stars, but not for the Earth atmosphere.
The entire climate modeling regime is based on implicit assumptions that for the Earth there is a “proper” set of climate conditions that prior to the industrial revolution was stable and undisturbed by mankind. Further, that the industrial activities of man have created a dangerous imbalance caused by increasing levels of CO2, a trace gas, and that to save the world from dangerous warming we must drastically curtail the activities that increase CO2, and in fact strive to reduce the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. The models that produce these scenarios are based on the RTE.
Before discussing the differences between the conditions on earth and the conditions on stars, consider these definitions from Curtis Mobley, the author A Short History of Radiative Transfer theory:
Radiative Equilibrium: Radiative equilibrium refers to a state of matter in which there are no methods for transfer of thermal energy other than radiation. That is, convection and conduction play a negligible role. In this case, the net flux of radiation is constant.
Convective Equilibrium: Convective equilibrium is the state attained by a fluid in which the rate of energy generation is exactly balanced by the rate at which energy is transported away by convection (rising and falling currents of gas or liquid) so that each point of the fluid remains at constant temperature. Earth’s atmosphere and ocean, and the inner regions of some stars are in convective equilibrium.
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 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.
Furthermore, the Earth atmosphere is never in equilibrium If it was, there would be no weather. No wind, No rain, NADA. The phrase “atmospheric equilibrium” makes no sense.
The atmosphere is open. There is nothing to stop heat from escaping to space.
Heat transport by radiative transfer and heat transport by convection are incompatible/mutually exclusive.
Water, and the hydrologic cycle, regulate the planet temperature. When temperature rises, there is more evaporation, and the higher concentration of water vapor radiates more energy to space. The opposite occurs when temperature falls. It is La Chatelier’s principle at work.
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.