A Challenge to Climate “Skeptics” regarding the application of Radiative Transfer Theory and the GHE
Tom Shula
February 14, 2025
As can be shown from fundamental physical principles, I claim:
1. That the natural long wave radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface (outside of the so-called “atmospheric window”) is completely absorbed by IR active molecules, and that those excited states of said IR active molecules are completely deactivated by collisions with non-IR active molecules converting the absorbed surface radiation into sensible heat. All the IR-Active molecules are involved in this absorption, most likely proportionate to their concentration and absorption cross sections.
2. That because this surface radiation has been fully absorbed and converted into sensible heat, it CANNOT be propagated as radiation through the atmosphere. The absorbed surface radiation field and any thermodynamic memory of it has been destroyed.
3. That within the atmosphere, again excluding frequencies in the “atmospheric window”, there exists a natural, self-generated radiation field driven by non-radiative excitation and de-excitation of IR-active molecules via collisions, in accordance with Einstein’s “The Quantum Theory of Radiation” (1917).
4. That the measured spectrum of this self-generated radiation field will have the characteristic of a Planck radiation curve containing only the emission frequencies of the IR-active gases. (And the atmospheric window, which is understood to be independent of the self-generated field.)
5. That the local characteristic of the measured spectrum is a function of the local temperature, pressure, and the relative concentrations of the several IR-active species with emissions in range of the detector at any point in the atmosphere.
6. That this process results in a continuous exchange of energy between atmospheric molecules and the self-generated field, but no transport of radiation energy unless the radiation escapes to space.
7. That in the lower troposphere, the processes of non-radiative deexcitation and absorption prevent the escape of radiation from the atmosphere to space.
8. That in the mid and upper troposphere, condensation of water vapor results in a significant decrease of free water vapor molecules, resulting in a significant decrease of the absorption of radiation at the active frequencies for water vapor molecules
9. That simultaneously to 8, the reduced pressure at altitude results in a lower density of all molecular species in the atmosphere resulting in a reduced rate of non-radiative de-excitation.
10. That because of 8 and 9, when both absorption and deexcitation rates of water vapor are sufficiently reduced some of the excited water vapor molecules emit radiation that is not absorbed and escapes to space. Because the water vapor spectrum has a broad range of frequencies, intensities, and excited state lifetimes, the emission of water vapor occurs in almost the entire atmospheric IR band over a broad range of altitudes as simulated by Harde. (2013)
11. That because of the broad spectral range and number of emission lines, and its abundance in the atmosphere relative to other IRactive gases, almost all the radiation energy released to space is from water vapor emissions.
12.That because the highly active Q-branch of carbon dioxide overlaps the emission spectrum of water vapor, and carbon dioxide is still subject to non-radiative de-excitation at the tropopause, absorption of some of the water vapor emissions by carbon dioxide create the “notch” in the IR spectrum in the band from 14-16 microns. This
energy absorbed by carbon dioxide is continuously recycled to the atmosphere as sensible heat through non-radiative de-excitation.
13.That emission by carbon dioxide becomes possible near the mesopause, where the low density of the atmosphere has reduced the non-radiative de-excitation to a sufficiently low rate that emissions of carbon dioxide can escape to space. This is seen as the tiny peak at the bottom of the 14-16 μm “divot” in the atmospheric spectrum.
14.That there should be no expectation of a “radiative equilibrium” in any isolated atmospheric column on the planet. Energy is necessary to drive global circulation creating our weather. If all energy was released via radiation, there would be no energy to drive our weather. It is well understood that there are locations at high altitudes and equatorial extremes where radiation to space exceeds the surface radiation flux. The Earth maintains its “balance” in many ways via the hydrologic cycle in addition to radiation.
15.That similar processes occur for ozone and other IR-active gases, but they are excluded from these claims in the interest of brevity.
16.That water in its many manifestations via the hydrologic cycle, solar irradiance, and gravitation are the drivers of atmospheric dynamics on our planet.
17.That carbon dioxide, via the carbon cycle together with water, is the source of life on our planet, and the impact of carbon dioxide on weather and climate, if any, is insignificant.
Radiative transfer and “radiative equilibrium” are misguided and misleading concepts when applied to the dynamics of the Earth’s Atmosphere. There is no radiative transfer, no radiative forcing, and no “greenhouse effect” needed in the above claims regarding how the Earth moderates its temperature. They are not necessary when the fundamental principles are considered.
The “parameters” of radiative transfer theory such as “spectral intensity” and “optical depth” are proxies that evolved in the field of radiometry when
the fundamental properties and processes of radiation were not well understood. To this day, in certain applications, they are adequate. In other applications, such as energy transport in the Earth atmosphere, they hide the underlying fundamental physics.
When a paper attempting to explain the Earth’s atmospheric dynamics via radiative transport states, “But for frequencies in the center of the Q-branch of CO2, one finds optical depths of order τ0=500,000.”, one should take pause. That is not radiation that can be transported “through” the atmosphere. (τ0 is “optical depth”.)
The process described in the claims is not amenable to modeling and prediction. Convection gets in the way. That does not justify the use of over simplified, parameterized, radiation-based models that have nothing to do with real atmospheric dynamics.
There needs to be an epistemological reckoning in the climate community. The invalid models that have persisted for so long have failed in their predictive capability, and they will continue to do so. They are based on false premises.
In the meantime, they have led to fear, hysteria, violence, and now the dismantling of western economies and decaying liberty and quality of life for average citizens.
It is time for this to come to an end.
I await with curiosity attempts to refute these claims.