*US Standard Atmosphere Model & Observations Prove Maxwell's Mass/Gravity/Pressure Theory of the 'Greenhouse Effect' is Correct & Falsifies Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW).*

We now show why the hundreds of rocket and atmospheric scientists, physicists, and aeronautical engineers who created the gold standard and final 1976 version of the US Standard Atmosphere Database (created during the ice age scare of the 1970's and just one decade prior to the global warming scare of the 1980's) in effect were "deniers" of any significant "radiative forcing," "heat trapping," or "radiative imbalance" from

*any*greenhouse gases in their physical chemical calculations of the temperature profile of Earth's entire atmosphere from the surface all the way to the edge of space at ~100 kilometers altitude.
In fact, the 241 page document provides overwhelming physical proof from physical chemistry and physics that the average annual temperatures at any altitude are controlled solely by molecular density, molecular weights, gravity, mass, pressure, etc. without

*any*consideration of alleged "radiative forcing" or "heat trapping" from either natural or man-made CO2, nor any "radiative forcing" nor radiative considerations from any other gases including water vapor*(now alleged to be the so-called 'primary greenhouse gas')*whatsoever. The essential-to-CAGW claims of "radiative forcing," "heat trapping greenhouse gases," and "radiative imbalance from greenhouse gases" did not exist in 1976, and first appeared on the scene more than a decade later with James Hansen and the first IPCC 1990 report.
These pioneering atmospheric scientists calculated the effects of CO2 on the basis of the tiny 0.03-0.04% in the atmosphere (and thus contribution to molecular mass of the total atmosphere only ~0.03-0.04%) and found it to be so tiny and insignificant, that they removed CO2 from their 1-D model of the atmosphere completely. Their model was then used to calculate the US Standard Atmosphere database at every altitude from the surface to 100 km, and then overwhelmingly verified with millions of observations from weather balloons, research flights, rocket launches, etc. and found to accurately reproduce the temperatures on an annual basis at every altitude 0-120km within Earth's atmosphere, while

*completely omitting any mass, radiative, or any other effects from CO2 whatsoever.*
In physics, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is essential to calculate radiative emissions as

The Standard Atmosphere document indicates the

dT/dh = -g/Cp

where

dT = change in temperature with height

dh = change in height/geopotential altitude

g = gravitational acceleration constant = 9.8 meters/sec/sec

Cp = heat capacity at constant pressure (1 atmosphere constant pressure at the surface)

the temperature at any height or geopotential altitude is

*a function of temperature (to the fourth power)*, but*does not appear even one single time in any of the calculations*in the 241 page US Standard Atmosphere description document or in their atmospheric model calculations. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, which is absolutely essential to any*radiative*calculations from greenhouse gases or any gases or solid bodies also*does not even appear once i*n the extensive tables of constants and definitions used in all of the calculations of the standard atmosphere, proving*radiative*considerations from any greenhouse gases are completely unnecessary to determine the average temperatures anywhere from the surface to the edge of space, and also that greenhouse gases have no*radiative*influence whatsoever upon the ~7 different lapse rates that occur in each of the ~7 different levels of the atmosphere from the surface to space.The Standard Atmosphere document indicates the

*only*effect of water vapor upon the troposphere lapse rate is to reduce it from 9.8C/km to 6.5C/km on average, solely due to the high heat capacity Cp (1.865 Joules per gram per degree Kelvin) of water vapor compared to all of the other atmospheric gases. Per the lapse rate equationdT/dh = -g/Cp

where

dT = change in temperature with height

dh = change in height/geopotential altitude

g = gravitational acceleration constant = 9.8 meters/sec/sec

Cp = heat capacity at constant pressure (1 atmosphere constant pressure at the surface)

the temperature at any height or geopotential altitude is

*a function of*and*inversely related to heat capacity Cp*. Thus any increase of Cp from water vapor will decrease the lapse rate and thus temperature at any height including at the surface (up to 25.5C as we previously calculated). This has absolutely nothing to do with "radiative forcing" from any greenhouse gases including water vapor itself.
The first 6 of these linear lapse rates are shown in figure 3 below, and calculated entirely on the basis of geopotential altitude (a measure of gravitational potential energy PE) vs. molecular-scale temperature [defined in the scan below of page 9 as the mean molecular weight at that geopotential altitude], which has absolutely nothing to do with any alleged "heat trapping" or "radiative forcing" from any greenhouse gases:

And we previous demonstrated with the greenhouse equation that we can exactly duplicate the 1976 US Standard Temperature database and model without even knowing anything about the surface temperature or greenhouse gases in advance, entirely based upon solar radiation at the Earth's surface, gravity, mass, and pressure of the atmosphere, proving no measurable effect from CO2.

The "Greenhouse Equation" calculates temperature (T) at any location from the surface to the top of the troposphere as a function of atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure and radiative forcing from the Sun only, and without any radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. Note the pressure (P) divided by 2 in the greenhouse equation is the pressure at the center of mass of the atmosphere, where the temperature and height are equal to the equilibrium temperature with the Sun and average "Effective Radiating Level" or ERL, respectively. |

Some commenters still doubt this is possible and conveniently claim [without any mathematical or observational proof whatsoever] as a last resort that greenhouse gases somehow control the lapse rates in each atmospheric layer. The US Standard Atmosphere and millions of confirming observations prove this is false, demonstrated by the

*linear*kinematic velocity graph shown from the US Standard Atmosphere report below (from page 19 also scanned further below), which shows an almost perfect

*linear*relationship between geopotential altitude and kinematic velocity from the surface to space, calculated entirely without any radiative forcing whatsoever and confirmed by observations.

Greenhouse gas concentrations of the primary greenhouse gas water vapor and other greenhouse gases including methane, ozone, (and even CO2 to some extent) vary tremendously from the surface to the ~100 km edge of space, thus if "radiative forcing" from water vapor or any other greenhouse gases had anything to do with the cause of temperatures at any altitude, the kinematic viscosity would be

*nonlinear instead of linear,*and the dynamic viscosity profile would not match the temperature profile (but the standard atmosphere shows it does).

And the physical definitions and units below show radiance has nothing to do with any of these physical calculations nor interrelationships:

Physical definitions and units of kinematic viscosity, dynamic viscosity, mass density, weight and how they are related. None are defined on the basis of radiance or "radiative forcing" |

This proves that only kinematic viscosity effects, not radiative effects, of any gases including greenhouse gases, are what determine the kinematic temperatures at all locations, not "greenhouse gas radiative forcing." The only true source of radiative forcing is the Sun, not greenhouse gases which are mere passive IR-radiators & heat sinks, which help to cool the atmosphere by radiative loss to space, just like a bigger heat sink on your microprocessor does.

After all of the above calculations were made by the US Std Atm scientists, the final calculation of the coefficient of thermal conductivity in W/(mK) was as their final step and determined solely as a function of geometric altitude/mass/density/viscosity. The document specifies below (page 20) that their ultimate calculation of the coefficient of thermal conductivity was the effect and not the cause of geometric altitude/mass/density/viscosity exclusively, and thus not "radiation trapping" nor any radiative calculations from any greenhouse gases whatsoever. The profile of these curves also nearly match the US Std Atmosphere temperature and dynamic viscosity graphs above indicating their direct relationship as gravity/mass the cause of and not the effect of any radiative forcing whatsoever.Therefore, this provides the ultimate physical and observational proof that Maxwell's (33C) mass/pressure/gravity "greenhouse theory" of the (7) atmospheric temperature gradients is absolutely correct, thus falsifying the radiative greenhouse theory that is essential to the CAGW hypothesis.
It is now absolutely clear that the greenhouse-gas radiative "greenhouse" theory has simply
confused cause with effect. The Maxwell mass/gravity/pressure 33C "greenhouse theory" was proved physically and verified with the millions of observations of the 1976 US Standard atmosphere physical and modelled derivation and confirming observations, proving that temperatures everywhere from the surface to space are due to solar radiation plus the effect of atmospheric mass/gravity, thereby excluding any significant radiative effects from greenhouse gases (other than radiative cooling effects essential for the atmosphere to lose heat to space, i.e. the opposite of "trapping heat"). Only one of these two competing 33C "greenhouse effect" theories can be true, you simply cannot have it both ways, because if you did, the Earth would be 33C warmer at the surface than the present (in addition to multiple violations of physical laws).
In our next post we will show why the radiation spectra of Earth seen from the ground and space are
the effect of and not the cause of the entire atmospheric and surface profiles. |

CO2 and water vapor concentrations to number/mass density of the atmosphere are both so small they were calculated and then removed from consideration in the 1-D model of the atmosphere that perfectly reproduces the observations all the way to space. |

## 1976 version of the US Standard Atmosphere

This is the most recent version and differs from previous versions only above 32 km:

Subscript b | Geopotential altitude above MSL ^{[3]} | Static pressure | Standard temperature (K) | Temperature Lapse Rate | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

(m) | (ft) | (pascals) | (inHg) | (K/m) | (K/ft) | ||

0 | 0 | 0 | 101325 | 29.92126 | 288.15 | -0.0065 | -0.0019812 |

1 | 11,000 | 36,089 | 22632.1 | 6.683245 | 216.65 | 0.0 | 0.0 |

2 | 20,000 | 65,617 | 5474.89 | 1.616734 | 216.65 | 0.001 | 0.0003048 |

3 | 32,000 | 104,987 | 868.019 | 0.2563258 | 228.65 | 0.0028 | 0.00085344 |

4 | 47,000 | 154,199 | 110.906 | 0.0327506 | 270.65 | 0.0 | 0.0 |

5 | 51,000 | 167,323 | 66.9389 | 0.01976704 | 270.65 | -0.0028 | -0.00085344 |

6 | 71,000 | 232,940 | 3.95642 | 0.00116833 | 214.65 | -0.002 | -0.0006096 |

Additional scans from the US Std Atmosphere proving all of the points above:

I've said elsewhere that all the different actual lapse rates within the vertical temperature profile of an atmosphere must net out to the 'ideal' lapse rate determined only by mass and gravity in order for the atmosphere to be retained.

ReplyDeleteWhenever the actual lapse rates net out to anything different to the 'ideal' lapse rate then convection changes in order to negate any such disequilibrium.

It is worth to make us realize once again how these calculations are important for spaceflight and whether they are still in use. If so, then we have a contradiction to the theory of greenhouse gases.

ReplyDeleteHS, thanks for a thought-provoking article.

ReplyDeleteHowever, when you say:

>>>>>This proves that only kinematic viscosity effects, not radiative effects, of any gases including greenhouse gases, are what determine the kinematic temperatures at all locations, not "greenhouse gas radiative forcing.>>>>

i fear you are reversing the calculations. You seem to think that because the the log of the kinematic viscosity graph versus altitude somewhat resembles a straight line, that this means that there is no

"significant "radiative forcing," "heat trapping," or "radiative imbalance" from any greenhouse gases."Nothing could be further from the truth. The problem is that you have the situation backwards. The kinematic viscosity shown at the bottom of page 19 is calculated from the temperature of the standard atmosphere, not the other way around.

This is because at a given pressure (or "geopotential height"),

the kinematic viscosity of a given gas is purely a function of temperature, and temperature is NOT a function of kinematic viscosity. To be more precise, the dynamic viscosity Āµ, is a function of temperature alone plus two constants beta and S.Āµ = beta * T^3/2 / (T+S)

where T is temperature in kelvins.

So the dynamic viscosity Āµ is calculated from the OBSERVED temperatures. It is not derived from first principles.

The kinematic viscosity, in turn, is the dynamic viscosity divided by the density. The density of the air above the US drops off as exp(-altitude_km/7.44). So it is calculated from the previously determined dynamic viscosity, which in turn was calculated from the observed temperature.

So what the authors of the US Standard Atmosphere paper have done is to calculate the kinematic viscosity based on the temperature, and graphed the log of kinematic viscosity versus altitude. It turns out that it graphs somewhat as a straight line, which should come as no surprise given the above equation. However, it does in fact vary significantly from a straight line. It doesn't look like a lot, but that is a log plot on the right so every unit is ten times as large.

And it is the SHAPE of that line that is unknown. Without knowing the exact shape of the line, you cannot make the inverse calculation from kinematic viscosity to temperature.

I say that because if you take a straight-line kinematic viscosity and you use that to calculate the other way, you get dynamic viscosity equal to kinematic viscosity times density. But with respect to altitude, density and kinematic viscosity vary inversely to each other. So you will get a straight line for the variation of dynamic viscosity with altitude ... in total contradiction to the actual graph of dynamic viscosity versus altitude shown at the bottom of page 19.

So no, we absolutely cannot calculate the temperature structure of the atmosphere from first principles as you propose. Instead, all of the graphs in your paper are calculated based on a long-term average of the OBSERVED variations of temperature and pressure over the US.

Sorry, but it can't be done the way you think.

Best regards,

w.

Thanks Willis,

DeleteThe US Std Atmosphere did calculate the dynamic and kinematic viscosities on the basis of temperature, and the temperatures were in turn calculated on the basis of pressure/mass/gravity. After they derived their gravito-thermal mathematical model, it was then verified with million of observations, so I don't agree with your statement that the dynamic viscosity is "calculated from OBSERVED temperatures." It was calculated by first principles using gravity/mass/pressure/density/specific heats/etc. which then provided T, which then provided the viscosities. Obviously, that's why the shape of the dynamic viscosity graph looks almost the same as the derived temperature profile graph.

The main reason for showing kinematic viscosity is a semi-linear function of gravity/mass/pressure is because I'm constantly being told that all the US Std Atm is is a curve-fitting exercise to observations. That is false and it is clear from that 241 page document and physical derivation that the entire atmosphere 1D mathematical model was derived from first principles and then verified with millions of observations.

Best regards,

MS/HS

Also should have said that kinematic viscosity is a linear function of geometric altitude, rather than pressure/mass/gravity, thanks for pointing that out.

DeleteDimensional Analysis (posted above and below) relates mass/pressure/weight and dynamic/kinematic viscosities:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CD6yAwO2nTU/VeTuc_G3guI/AAAAAAAAHWg/yXNc9dCg4iM/s1600/kinematic%2Bviscosity%2B%2Bdynamic%2Bviscosity%2B%2Bmass%2B%2Bpressure%2B%2Bdensity%2B%2Btemperature%2B%2B%2BWolfram%2BAlpha.png

Actually there's over 30 dimensionless combinations between just mass/pressure/kinematic viscosity alone!:

DeleteI think that overwhelmingly proves the point that the 3 are un-questionably intimately related upon first principles, and from which the physical quantities of pressure and temperature may then be derived.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=kinematic+viscosity%2C+mass%2C+pressure

MSAugust 31, 2015 at 5:08 PM

DeleteThanks Willis,

The US Std Atmosphere did calculate the dynamic and kinematic viscosities on the basis of temperature, and the temperatures were in turn calculated on the basis of pressure/mass/gravity. After they derived their gravito-thermal mathematical model, it was then verified with million of observations, so I don't agree with your statement that the dynamic viscosity is "calculated from OBSERVED temperatures."

Thanks, MS, but I fear you've misread the document. Here's how they say that they calculated the temperature. Here's the first part of their statement:

Traditionally, standard atmospheres have

defined temperature as a linear function of height

to eliminate the need for numerical integration in

the computation of pressure versus height. This

Standard follows the tradition to heights up to 86

km, and the function Tm versus H is expressed as

a series of seven successive linear equations.Now, note several things. First, there are seven successive layers in the US Standard Atmosphere (visible in their Figure 3). The temperature is calculated as a series of seven similar linear equations, with different tuned parameters for each equation. These parameters control the trend and the height of each layer.

Second, there is no derivation of these parameter values from first principles. They are rounded off values which have been fitted to the known heights of the layer boundaries like the tropopause, and the known trends of each layer.

Third, they say clearly that the definition of temperature as a linear function of height is simply a

tradition, one which this study follows.So I fear that your claim of "first principles" is totally contradicted their statement that the linear relationship of T with H is NOT calculated from first principles, but is done because of "tradition". And why is it done that way?

Because it simplifies the further calculations greatly. As they explain:

... when Tm is expressed as alinear function of H, the resulting differential

equation has an exact integral. Under these conditions,

the computation of P versus H becomes a

simple process not requiring numerical integration.

>>> Continued because your site only allows 4,096 characters ... and I don't tweet, even at that length ...>>>

COMMENT PART DEUX

DeleteSo according to the authors, they assume temperature is linear with height because a) while not true, it is not far from the truth, and b) it makes the calculations simpler. Which makes perfect sense ... but which is also about as far from calculating temperature from "first principles" as you can get.

They go on to say:

The general form of these linear equations is

Tm = Tm,b + Lm,b * (H-Hb) (23)

with the value of subscript b ranging from 0 to 6

in accordance with each of seven succe.ssive layers.

The value of Tm,b for the first layer (b = 0) is

288.15K, identical to T0, the sea-level value of T,

since at this level M = M0. With this value of Tm,b

defined, and the set of six values of H, and the six

corresponding values of Lm,b defined in table 4, the

function Tm of H is completely defined from the

surface to 84.8520 km. (86 km)."

Note that the temperatures in the seven different sections are completely defined by the parameters T0 (ground temperature), the seven altitudes of the changes in temperature H0 through H6, and the seven lapse rates Lm0 through Lm6. Note also that these parameters are not calculated anywhere in their paper. They are the simplified and rounded averages of countless observations of the atmosphere over the US. So for example in Figure 4, the temperature takes a very sharp turn at the tropopause at exactly 11,000 metres, and the lapse rate goes to exactly 0.0 ... obviously, those are not calculated values. As far as I know the height of the tropopause and its thickness are a) not nice round numbers like 11,000 metres, and 0K/metre, and b) not calculable from first principles, and c) they don’t have nice sharp corners at even thousand-meter altitudes.

So no, the temperature of the US Standard Atmosphere is absolutely not calculated from first principles. The paper itself says that even its calculation of temperature as a linear function of height is done solely because of tradition, which is enough to disprove your claim right there ... and by tradition it is a parameterized set of seven linear equations, one for each of the seven atmospheric layers, with the parameters obviously NOT calculated from first principles, but carefully chosen rounded-off values that match the real atmosphere as closely as is reasonable and can still be mathematically tractable.

My regards to you,

w.

Apologies Willis, I just now noticed that the 2nd part of your detailed reply was published, lost in moderation somehow, but now remedied :-)

Delete"Now, note several things. First, there are seven successive layers in the US Standard Atmosphere (visible in their Figure 3). The temperature is calculated as a series of seven similar linear equations, with different tuned parameters for each equation. These parameters control the trend and the height of each layer.

Second, there is no derivation of these parameter values from first principles. They are rounded off values which have been fitted to the known heights of the layer boundaries like the tropopause, and the known trends of each layer.

Third, they say clearly that the definition of temperature as a linear function of height is simply a tradition, one which this study follows."

The seven lapse rates, as verified by observations, are relatively linear in all the atmospheric layers, so this is a valid assumption, especially since the lapse rate eqn. is

dT/dh = -g/Cp

and since Cp is close to a constant for each layer, the linear assumption is entirely reasonable. Obviously Cp varies significantly between the 7 layers due to much different compositions, etc., but they did derive the Cps of the constituent layers, so the use of the 7 linear lapse rates is justified both on first principles and on the basis of observations.

"Note that the temperatures in the seven different sections are completely defined by the parameters T0 (ground temperature), the seven altitudes of the changes in temperature H0 through H6, and the seven lapse rates Lm0 through Lm6."

It's true that they start with the assumption of Ts = 15C, and they say they had to do so because by official international agreement Ts is defined as 15C!

That's why I came up with the HS greenhouse equation, which doesn't know the Ts in advance, only the 255K equilibrium T with the Sun located exactly at the center of mass, "proving" that it is not necessary to observe the surface T to determine the gravito-thermal GHE.

Getting back to US Std, yes they start from surface T, and as I discussed above the linear rate rate function/assumption is reasonable in each layer, so they just connect those 7 line segments/lapse rates together. This is to be expected of course to not have a discontinuity.

"obviously, those are not calculated values"

They are calculated values. If you look at the ~150 pages of their computer model printout at the end of the doc for every single 200 feet increment from 0-100km it is clear that all of the values they determined were calculated using the perfectly reasonable linear lapse rate assumptions due to the change of Cp in each layer.

Willis, even though the US Std didn't do it, the one contribution I've made to this endeavor is to show that by triangulating the ERL at the center of mass, one can calculate the temperature profile without knowing any temperature in advance other than Te=equilibrium T with the Sun=255K= a constant, thus "proving" the gravit0-thermal GHE can be derived from first principles using a single equation!

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=greenhouse+equation

Thanks very much for your input Willis, very helpful as always!

My best regards,

MS/HS