Modern climate science is constructed on a foundation of belief.
Svante Arrhenius is known as the “godfather” of the CO2 greenhouse effect. Today’s climate models are still based on his 1896 thought-experiment calculations of CO2’s imagined capacity to warm Earth’s surface (71% water) out of a frozen solid state by tens of degrees.
His one-dimensional model “assumed a state of equilibrium” for all other climate factors except CO2. In other words, the model does not account for changes in albedo, insolation, cloud cover, or relative humidity (Anderson et al., 2016). Instead, these climate parameters remain perpetually constant.
“The calculations involved balancing the radiative heat budget (thereby assuming a state of equilibrium), namely solar radiation arriving at the Earth’s surface (including the effect of albedo from clouds and the Earth’s surface)…”
“He assumed constant relative humidity within the atmosphere…”
“The cloud fraction remained fixed, as did the relative contributions of land, sea, ice, and cloud to overall albedo.”
Thus, the Arrhenius conceptualization is rooted in an assumed “state of equilibrium” that does not exist in reality. An imaginary world.
Image Source: Anderson et al., 2016 and Arrhenius, 1896
Even those who rigorously defend and extol Arrhenius’s work admit his model is so primitive it cannot even represent heat transfer processes.
“The simplicity of the model meant that there was no possibility of representing changes in heat transport…”
Arrhenius even claimed moon temperatures are almost equal to Earth temperatures in his 1896 paper.
“Now the temperature of the moon is nearly the same as that of the Earth.”
He also claimed doubling CO2 levels (300 to 600 ppm) warms the ocean 5-6°C, and tripling CO2 results in an 8-9°C warmer ocean surface. There is no real-world observation supporting an assertion that doubling or tripling the CO2 in the air above a body of water results in these temperature changes.
To top it off, the “godfather” of modern climate science surmised it would take 3,000 years to double the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
“Arrhenius remarked that a doubling of CO2 would occur three-thousand years hence.”
Imaginary-world models are untestable and thus unfalsifiable. The unfalsifiability of a claim necessitates it is no more than a belief.
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]
1896! In other branches of science, research and experiments move the understanding, and science advanced. Maxwell, Plank, Bohr, Heisenberg, Einstein, Feynman, Higgs, and others moved our knowledge. The Carbon Dioxide meme appears to have been shunted to a siding – going nowhere.
Planck and Einstein said the Arrhenius idea was nonsense.
The modern version of CO2-induced AGW is not based on Arrhenius, but rather that more CO2 in the air raises the effective emission altitude of IR [from CO2] and as temps cool with altitude in the troposphere and emission power is inversely proportional to temperature, said emissions are insufficient from said higher EEA and thus the temperature below “has to” increase to “push” emissions sufficient for energy in = energy out.
That seems irrefutable. But it doesn’t say how much surface temperature is needed say from doubling CO2 in the air. RK Reinhart (2017) worked it out that for doubling CO2 from 400 to 800ppm the surface temperature response would be no more than 0.24C. In other words, zilch.
He did not include feedbacks in his paper, but what would be the point?
RK Reinhart’s calculations still lend credence to the warmist narrative.
In reality, CO2 is a net atmospheric radiative coolant at all altitudes except immeasurably negligible warming right at the tropopause.
In reality, CO2 is the predominant net atmospheric radiative coolant above the tropopause, and the second most-predominant net atmospheric radiative coolant (behind water vapor) below the tropopause.
You’ll note the warmists claim water to be a “greenhouse gas (due to backradiation)”… they are diametrically opposite to reality… which is something you’ll increasingly find of their claims now that you know to look for it. Because the easiest lie to tell is an inversion of reality… they needn’t invent entirely new physics to explain and describe their claims, and most people are too scientifically-illiterate to discern between reality and flipped-causality inverted-reality, which is why the warmists continue to get away with their scam.
https://i.imgur.com/b87xKMk.png
The image above is from a presentation given by Dr. Maria Z. Hakuba, an atmospheric research scientist at NASA JPL.
https://i.imgur.com/gIjHlCU.png
The image above is adapted from the Clough and Iacono study, Journal Of Geophysical Research, Vol. 100, No. D8, Pages 16,519-16,535, August 20, 1995.
Note that the Clough & Iacono study is for the atmospheric radiative cooling effect, so positive numbers at right are cooling, negative numbers are warming.
Thus, a higher concentration of radiative polyatomics in the atmosphere means a higher capability of radiative emission to space for any given parcel of air, which means greater radiative cooling to space.
The monoatomics (which have no vibrational mode quantum states and thus cannot radiatively emit IR) and (to a lesser extent) homonuclear diatomics (which have a net-zero electric dipole which must be perturbed (usually via collision) and thus can’t easily emit IR, especially at increasing altitude where collisions occur exponentially less frequently) dilute the radiative polyatomics.
Radiative Coolants: polyatomics
The Actual ‘Greenhouse Gases’ (in the strict ‘actual greenhouse’ sense, not in the fake ‘greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)’ sense of the warmists: monoatomics, homonuclear diatomics
The warmists misuse the S-B equation in their Energy Balance Climate Models (EBCMs), using the Idealized Blackbody Object form of the S-B equation upon real-world graybody objects. It was Stefan who first conceived of the Idealized Blackbody Object form of the equation, Boltzmann fleshed it out later to include the Graybody Object form. Hence why it’s known as the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
I’ve taken it one step further… I’ve derived the Energy Density form of the S-B equation… and that proves that energy does not and cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient, thus “backradiation” is physically impossible.
The idealized blackbody form of the equation assumes emission to 0 K by the very definition of idealized blackbodies.
[1] Idealized Blackbody Object form (assumes emission to 0 K and ε = 1 by definition):
q_bb = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
= 1 σ (T_h^4 – 0 K)
= σ T^4
[2] Graybody Object form (assumes emission to > 0 K and ε < 1):
q_gb = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
This is how climatologists conjure "backradiation" out of thin air by misusing the S-B equation in their Energy Balance Climate Models, and how they "measure" it via pyrgeometers and similar such equipment:
https://i.imgur.com/V2lWC3f.png
Climatologists misuse the S-B equation, using the idealized blackbody form of the equation upon real-world graybody objects. This essentially isolates each object into its own system so objects cannot interact via the ambient EM field. It assumes emission to 0 K, and it thus artificially inflates radiant exitance of all calculated-upon objects. Thus the climatologists must carry these incorrect values through their calculations and cancel them on the back end to get their equation to balance, subtracting a (wholly-fictive due to the assumption of emission to 0 K) 'cooler to warmer' energy flow from the (real but too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) 'warmer to cooler' energy flow.
That wholly-fictive 'cooler to warmer' energy flow is otherwise known as 'backradiation'. It is nothing more than a mathematical artifact due to the misuse of the S-B equation. It does not and cannot exist. Its existence would imply rampant violations of the fundamental physical laws (energy spontaneously flowing up an energy density gradient in violation of 2LoT).
The S-B equation for graybody objects isn't meant to be used by subtracting a wholly-fictive 'cooler to warmer' energy flow from the real (but too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) 'warmer to cooler' energy flow, it's meant to be used by subtracting cooler object energy density from warmer object energy density to arrive at the energy density gradient, which determines radiant exitance of the warmer object. This is true even for the traditional graybody form of the S-B equation, because Temperature (T) is equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density (e) divided by Stefan's Constant (a) (ie: the radiation energy density constant (J m-3 K-4)), per Stefan's Law.
Note that Stefan's Law is different than the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
e = T^4 a
a = 4σ/c
e = T^4 4σ/c
T^4 = e/(4σ/c)
T^4 = e/a
T = 4^√(e/(4σ/c))
T = 4^√(e/a)
We can plug Stefan's Law:
T = 4^√(e/a)
…into the traditional Stefan-Boltzmann equation for graybody objects:
q = ε_h σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
… which reduces to the Energy Density form of the S-B equation:
q = ε_h * (σ / a) * Δe
Canceling units, we get W m-2.
W m-2 = (W m-2 K-4 / J m-3 K-4) * ΔJ m-3
NOTE: (σ / a) = W m-2 K-4 / J m-3 K-4 = W m-2 / J m-3.
That is the conversion factor for radiant exitance (W m-2) and energy density (J m-3).
The radiant exitance of the warmer graybody object is determined by the energy density gradient and by the object's emissivity.
Energy can't even spontaneously flow when there is zero energy density gradient (ie: at thermodynamic equilibrium):
σ [W m-2 K-4] / a [J m-3 K-4] * Δe [J m-3] * ε_h = [W m-2]
σ [W m-2 K-4] / a [J m-3 K-4] * 0 [J m-3] * ε_h = 0 [W m-2]
Or, in the traditional form of the S-B equation:
q = ε_h σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
q = ε_h σ (0) = 0 W m-2
… it is certainly not going to spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.
Now that they've conjured "backradiation" out of thin air, they then claim via handwavium that this "backradiation" causes the "greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)".
Then they commit scientific fraudery in claiming that polyatomics are "greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))".
You will note that it's always polyatomics… they had to use radiative molecules to get their "backradiation" scam to work… monoatomics have no vibrational mode quantum states and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR in any case; and homonuclear diatomics have a net-zero electric dipole which must be perturbed via collision in order to emit (or absorb) IR, except collisions occur exponentially less frequently as altitude increases due to air density exponentially decreasing with altitude.
They then use that to claim certain of those polyatomics cause AGW / CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, due to CO2), from which springs all the offshoots of AGW / CAGW: net zero, carbon footprint, carbon taxes, carbon credit trading, carbon capture and sequestration, degrowth, total electrification, banning ICE vehicles, replacing reliable baseload generation with intermittent renewables, etc.
They then commit scientific fraudery in their claim that the "greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)" causes the atmospheric temperature gradient.
In point of fact, that atmospheric temperature gradient is caused by the Adiabatic Lapse Rate (ALR)… and the climatologists hijacked the ALR to make their blather seem to make sense.
Except "backradiation" is physically impossible. Energy does not and cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.
Thus the "greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)" is physically impossible.
Thus "greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))" are physically impossible.
Thus "AGW / CAGW (due to greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)))" is physically impossible.
Thus all of the offshoots of AGW / CAGW are based upon a physical impossibility.
The climatologists know that "backradiation" is physically impossible, thus their "greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)" is physically impossible… but they had to show it was having an effect, so they hijacked the Average Humid Adiabatic Lapse Rate.
We know the planet's emission curve is roughly analogous to that of an idealized blackbody object emitting at 255 K. And we know the 'effective emission height' at that temperature is ~5.105 km.
6.5 K km-1 * 5.105 km = 33.1815 K temperature gradient + 255 K = 288.1815 K surface temperature
That 6.5 K km-1 is the Average Humid Adiabatic Lapse Rate. That 33.1815 K temperature gradient and 288.1815 K surface temperature is what the climatologists try to claim is caused by their "greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)"… except it's not. It's caused by the Average Humid Adiabatic Lapse Rate, and that has nothing to do with any "backradiation", nor any "greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)", nor any "greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))".
The Adiabatic Lapse Rate is caused by the atmosphere converting z-axis DOF (Degree of Freedom) translational mode (kinetic) energy to gravitational potential energy with altitude (and vice versa), that change in z-axis kinetic energy equipartitioning with the other 2 linearly-independent DOF upon subsequent collisions, per the Equipartition Theorem. This is why temperature falls as altitude increases (and vice versa).
In short, the climatologists have misattributed their completely-fake "backradiation" as the cause of the atmospheric temperature gradient which is actually caused by the Adiabatic Lapse Rate and its associated gravitational auto-compression (the blue-shifting of temperature as one descends a gravity well in an atmosphere).
We cannot have two simultaneous but completely different causes for the same effect (one radiative energy… the wholly-fictive "greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)"; and one kinetic energy… the Adiabatic Lapse Rate). If we did, we'd have double the effect. One must go. And the one which must go is the mathematically-fraudulent "greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)".
That leaves only the Adiabatic Lapse Rate. And we can calculate the exact change in temperature gradient (and thus surface temperature) for any given change in concentration of any given atmospheric gas.
For instance, the "ECS" (ie: the change in Adiabatic Lapse Rate) of CO2 is only 0.00000190472202445 K km-1 ppm-1 (when accounting for the atoms and molecules which CO2 displaces). And even that doesn't take into account the radiative cooling effect of having a higher concentration of polyatomic emitters in the atmosphere… we can't really mathematically model that at this time.
In short, it's all nothing more than a complex mathematical scam.
https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711
With respect, here where you go wrong: “In reality, CO2 is a net atmospheric radiative coolant at all altitudes except immeasurably negligible warming right at the tropopause.”
In the lower tropopause the energy absorbed by CO2 and other GHGs is immediately thermalized, meaning transferred to the other [99% non-radiation2, non-GHGs]. When I say immediately I mean “before re-radiating.” It’s the re-radiating function that produces the cooling effect.
Thus GHGs only act as coolants where the air is thin enough that thermalization doesn’t happen first.
Dr. Roy Clark has an extensive review of Arrhenius and Manabe:
“A Nobel Prize for Climate Model Errors”
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Clark-2024-Nobel-Prize-Errors.pdf
“A thermal
engineering analysis of the interactive, time dependent surface energy transfer processes that de
termine the surface temperature demonstrates that it is impossible for the observed increase in
atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1800 to have caused any unequivocal change in surface temperature.”
[…] From No Trick Zone […]
[…] Related: 130 Years Later: The CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Still Only An Imaginary-World Thought Experiment […]
James R Fleming, “Arrhenius and Current Climate Concerns: Continuity or a 100-year Gap?” EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 79, no. 34 (Aug. 25, 1998): 405, 409-10. Reprinted in Earth in Space (Nov. 1998): 11-14.