Why greenhouse gas radiative forcing doesn't explain Earth's energy budget

We have previously demonstrated that the atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure theory of the 33C greenhouse effect explains Earth's surface temperature and the temperatures throughout the troposphere, rather than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

We have also demonstrated why the atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure theory of the greenhouse effect also perfectly explains the observed greenhouse effect on Titan, the closest Earth analog in our solar system, and the only planet other than Earth with an atmosphere comprised of mostly non-greenhouse gases (Titan: 98.4% Nitrogen, 0.1% hydrogen, and only 1.5% greenhouse gas methane compared to Earth's 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide).

We now address three additional reasons why the conventional anthropogenic CO2 warming theory is flawed due to incorrect assumptions regarding the energy budget. In contrast, the mass/gravity/pressure alternative greenhouse theory is entirely compatible with Earth's energy budget, physical laws, and observations. 

The radiative greenhouse theory is commonly represented by the Earth energy budget devised by Kiehl and Trenberth as shown in this diagram from their 2008 publication:

Trenberth, Fasullo, Kiehl 2008 Earth energy budget shows "atmospheric window" transmitting only 40 W/m2 from the surface directly to space

which shows an "atmospheric window" where the greenhouse gases don't significantly absorb/emit infrared radiation, and thus most of this radiation travels directly from the surface to space unimpeded by greenhouse gases, or any radiative forcing as a result. 

The "atmospheric window" of radiation direct to space falls between 8-12 micron wavelengths, as shown in the figures above and below, which includes the peak emission wavelengths (~8-11 microns) from Earth, thus ~80% of these peak emissions from Earth pass directly to space without being absorbed or emitted by greenhouse gases, thus don't contribute to radiative forcing. 

Blue curve shows the Planck curve assuming Earth radiated as a true blackbody, with peak emissions located at ~10 microns, which is at the middle of the 8-12 micron "atmospheric window" that is not absorbed/emitted by greenhouse gases.

However, according to the Trenberth et al Earth energy budget above, only 40 W/m2 passes through the "atmospheric window," i.e. only 10% of the 396 W/m2 radiative surface emissions in his energy budget.

The Planck–Einstein relation is a formula integral to quantum mechanics, and states that the energy of a photon (E) is proportional to its frequency (ν). The constant of proportionality, h, is known as the Planck constant:

and since frequency v is inversely related to wavelength λ by

v = c/λ where c = speed of light

therefore

E = hc/λ

thus, the shorter the wavelength/higher the frequency of a photon, the higher the energy it contains.

Therefore, the highest energy photons at the short 8-12 micron wavelengths emitted from Earth's surface fall within the direct atmospheric window to space without any interaction with greenhouse gases.

We can get a sense for the huge effect just a few microns change in wavelength has on the corresponding blackbody emission temperature by plotting the peak blackbody emission wavelength in microns vs. the peak emission temperature of a blackbody determined by Wien's Displacement Law, which shows the emission temperature at the beginning of the atmospheric window at 8 microns is 89C, dropping all the way down to -31.7C at the end of the atmospheric window at 12 microns, a temperature change of 120.7C.

The catastrophic greenhouse gas CO2, however, absorbs and emits line spectra centered around 15 microns, so what does Wien's displacement law calculate for a blackbody (which CO2 is not) emitting at 15 microns? Whoa, a toasty peak emission temperature of minus 80C:

Thus, the radiative greenhouse theory makes the absurd assumption that CO2 radiating at a blackbody temperature of -80C contributes 20% of the radiative greenhouse effect and heats the Earth by 6.6C from the equilibrium temperature with the Sun of -18C to -11.4C. How can a cold body radiating at -80C cause a hotter body at -18C to warm by 6.6C or at all? Pictet's experiment 214 years ago, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the principle of maximum entropy production, Planck's law, the Pauli exclusion principle, and quantum mechanics all prove it cannot. CO2 radiating at an equivalent blackbody temperature of  -80C cannot possibly account for 20% of the ~33C greenhouse effect to cause 20% of the warming from -18C to 15C.

Further, even within the CO2 equivalent -80C blackbody emission peak at 15 microns [line spectra range ~13.5 - 17 microns], the CO2 and water vapor absorption/emission spectra significantly overlap such that almost 70% is independently due to water vapor and thus would be completely unaffected by increased CO2. Thus, despite overwhelming evidence that CO2 cannot significantly warm the planet, if you still believe the radiative greenhouse theory and reject the alternate mass/pressure greenhouse theory, the overlapping spectra of CO2 with water vapor prove CO2 is a bit player at most:

Shaded area shows difference between CO2 and water vapor absorption/emission spectra

Blowup of above figure. Area with asterisk is absorbed by CO2 only, remainder below overlaps with absorption spectra of water vapor.

Another huge flaw in Trenberth's energy budget is the false assumption that infrared radiation from greenhouse gases can heat the oceans, and just as effectively as the land surface. This is disproven by both theory and observations, since IR can only penetrate the ocean surface a few microns to cause evaporative cooling of the ocean skin surface, not warming. Since the oceans cover 70% of the Earth's surface, this problem alone suggests the radiative greenhouse theory is exaggerated by at least 70% (not even considering the cooling effect of evaporation and that evaporation results in clouds and further cooling).

These are only three of many fatal flaws of conventional radiative greenhouse theory. There is one and only one explanation for the entire ~33C greenhouse effect that satisfies all physical laws and is in accordance with millions of weather balloon and satellite observations, the atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure greenhouse theory. 

Derivation of the entire 33°C greenhouse effect without radiative forcing from greenhouse gases

We will derive the entire 33°C greenhouse effect using the 1st law of thermodynamics and ideal gas law without use of radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, nor the concentrations of greenhouse gases, nor the emission/absorption spectra of greenhouse gases at any point in this derivation, thus demonstrating that the entire 33C greenhouse effect is dependent upon atmospheric mass/pressure/gravity, rather than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. Secondly, we will show why multiple observations perfectly confirm the mass/gravity/pressure theory of the greenhouse effect, and disprove the radiative forcing theory of the greenhouse effect.

Note, this physical derivation is absolutely not suggesting the ~33C greenhouse effect doesn't exist. On the contrary, the physical derivation and observations demonstrate the 33C greenhouse effect does exist, but is explained by a different mechanism not dependent on radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. Also note, it is impossible for both explanations of the greenhouse effect to be true, since the global temperature would have to increase by an additional 33C (at least) above the present. You cannot have it both ways. We will show how the mass/gravity/pressure theory causes the temperature gradient and that the emission spectra of greenhouse gases seen from space are a consequence rather than the cause of that temperature gradient. 

This derivation uses very well-known physical principles and barometric formulae possibly first described by the great physicist Maxwell in 1872, who demonstrated that the atmospheric temperature gradient and greenhouse effect are due to pressure from Earth's gravitational field, not radiative forcing. Maxwell makes no mention of any influence of radiation as the cause of the temperature gradient of the atmosphere, but rather relates temperature at a given height to pressure. He discusses the convective (dominated) equilibrium of the atmosphere in his book Theory of Heat, pp. 330-331:

"...In the convective equilibrium of temperature, the absolute temperature is proportional to the pressure raised to the power (γ-1)/γ, or 0,29..."

Twenty four years later, Arrhenius devised his radiative forcing theory of the greenhouse effect, which unfortunately makes a huge false assumption that convection doesn't dominate over radiative-convective equilibrium in the lower atmosphere, and thus Arrhenius completely ignored the dominant negative-feedback of convection over radiative forcing in his temperature derivations. Johns Hopkins physicist RW Wood completely demolished Arrhennius' theory in 1909, as did other published papers in 1963, 1966, 1973, (and others below), but it still refuses to die given its convenience to climate alarm.

We now know from Robinson & Catling's paper in Nature 2014 (and others) that radiative-convective equilibrium on all planets with thick atmospheres in our solar system (including Earth of course) is dominated by convection/pressure/lapse rate in the troposphere up to where the tropopause begins at pressure = 0.1bar. When P < 0.1 bar, the atmosphere is too thin to sustain convection and radiation from greenhouse gases takes over to cause cooling of the stratosphere and above. 

Since Maxwell's book was published in 1872, many others have confirmed that the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric mass/pressure/gravity, rather than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, including Hans Jelbring, Connolly & Connolly, Nikolov & Zeller, Mario Berberan-Santos et al, Claes Johnson and here, Velasco et al, Giovanni Vladilo et al, Heinz Thieme, Jacques Henry, Stephen Wilde, Alberto Miatello, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Verity Jones, William C. Gilbert & here, Richard C. Tolman, Lorenz & McKay, Peter Morecombe, Robinson and Catling, and many others, so this concept is not new and preceded the Arrhenius theory. 

Step 1: Derivation of the dry adiabatic lapse rate from the 1st Law of Thermodynamics and ideal gas law:

First, the basic assumption can be adopted that the atmosphere, in hydrostatic terms, is a self-gravitating system in constant hydrostatic equilibrium due to the balance of the two opposing forces of gravity and the atmospheric pressure gradient, according to the equation:

 dP/dz = - ρ × g (1)

where ρ is the density (mass per volume) and g the acceleration due to gravity. This equation, from a mathematical point of view, can be derived by considering the hydrostatic equilibrium function as a system of partial derivatives depending on P and ρ and considering all three spatial dimensions:

 ∂P/∂x = ρ × X, ∂P/∂y = ρ × Y, ∂P/∂z = ρ × Z (2)

As, within a fluid mass in equilibrium, pressure and density does not vary along the horizontal axes (X and Y), the related partial derivatives equal zero. But, in the remaining vertical dimension, the partial derivative is non-zero, with density and pressure varying inversely as a function of fluid height (density and pressure decrease with increasing height relative to the bottom) and, considering gravitational force as a constant connected to the measure of density, thus equation (2) can be derived.

For a precise calculation involving the valid parameters, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics can be used:

 Δ U = Q – W (3)

where U is the total internal energy of the system, Q its heat energy, and W the mechanical work the system is undergoing. Applying this relationship to Earth's atmosphere, yields:

 U = C(p)T + gh (4)

where U is the total energy of atmospheric system in hydrostatic equilibrium and equal to the sum of the thermal energy (kinetic plus dissipative and vibro-rotational), the specific heat C(p) multiplied by the temperature T plus the gravitational potential energy, with gravitational force g at height h of the gas. In this case, because the force of gravity has a negative sign as the system is undergoing work, the potential energy ( -g × h) can be equated to the mechanical work (-W) that the system undergoes in the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

Based on this equation, the atmosphere's "average" temperature change can be found for any point with the system in equilibrium; for now and for simplicity, weather phenomena and disturbances at specific locations are not considered because, with the system in overall hydrostatic and macroscopic equilibrium, any local internal, microclimatic perturbation by definition triggers a rebalancing reaction. In fact, to calculate the energy change of the system in equilibrium (here U is constant) as a function of temperature and height change, differentiation yields: 

dU = 0 = C(p)dT + gdh,

which becomes: 

dT/dh = -g/C(p), or dT = (-g/C(p))dh.  [Dry adiabatic lapse rate equation]

This is a splendid equation, describing precisely the temperatures’ distribution of a gas (as the air of Earth’s atmosphere) in hydrostatic equilibrium between the 2 forces of the lapse-rate (preventing the collapse of the atmosphere at the Earth’s surface) and gravity (preventing the escape of the atmosphere in the void of space). 

In other words, temperature variation (dT) is a function of altitude variation (dh), whose solution at any point of height (h°) and for any temperature (T°), can be found by integrating as follows:

∫dT = -g/C(p) × ∫dh (5)

and whose solution is:

 T - T° = -g/C(p) × (h - h°)   (6)

where:

T – T° = ∆ T (or dT) = Interval of temperatures
g = Gravitational acceleration constant = 9.8 m/s^2
h – h° = ∆ h (or dh) = Space interval (vertical) in the atmosphere
Cp = heat capacity at constant pressure

Step 2: Determine the height at the center of mass of the atmosphere

We are determining the temperature gradient within the mass of the atmosphere using a linear function of atmospheric mass (the lapse rate), therefore the equilibrium temperature is located at the center of mass. The "effective radiating level" or ERL of planetary atmospheres is located at the approximate center of mass of the atmosphere where the temperature is equal to the equilibrium temperature with the Sun. The equilibrium temperature of Earth with the Sun is commonly assumed to be 255K or -18C as calculated here. As a rough approximation, this height is where the pressure is ~50% of the surface pressure. It is also located at the approximate half-point of the troposphere temperature profile set by the linear adiabatic lapse rate, since to conserve energy in the troposphere, the increase in temperature from the ERL to the surface is offset by the temperature decrease from the ERL to the tropopause.

Fig 1. From Robinson & Catling, Nature, 2014 with added notations in red showing at the center of mass of Earth's atmosphere at ~0.5 bar the temperature is ~255K, which is equal to the equilibrium temperature with the Sun. Robinson & Catling also demonstrated that the height of the tropopause is at 0.1 bar for all the planets in our solar system with thick atmospheres, as also shown by this figure, and that convection dominates over radiative-convective equilibrium in the troposphere to produce the troposphere lapse rates of each of these planets as shown above. R&C also show the lapse rates of each of these planets are remarkably similar despite very large differences in greenhouse gas composition and equilibrium temperatures with the Sun, once again proving pressure, not radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, determines tropospheric temperatures. 

Step 3: Determine the surface temperature

For Earth, surface pressure is 1 bar, so the ERL is located where the pressure ~0.5 bar, which is near the middle of the ~10 km high troposphere at ~5km. The average lapse rate on Earth is 6.5C/km, intermediate between the 10C/km dry adiabatic lapse rate and the 5C/km wet adiabatic lapse rate, since the atmosphere on average is intermediate between dry and saturated with water vapor. 

Plugging the average 6.5C/km lapse rate and 5km height of the ERL into our equation (6) above gives

T = -18 - (6.5 × (h - 5)) 

Using this equation we can perfectly reproduce the temperature at any height in the troposphere as shown in Fig 1. At the surface, h = 0, thus temperature at the surface Ts is calculated as

Ts = -18 - (6.5 × (0 - 5)) 

Ts = -18 + 32.5  

Ts = 14.5°C or 288°K

which is the same as determined by satellite observations and is ~33C above the equilibrium temperature with the Sun.

Thus, we have determined the entire 33C greenhouse effect, the surface temperature, and the temperature of the troposphere at any height, entirely on the basis of the 1st law of thermodynamics and ideal gas law, without use of radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, nor the concentrations of greenhouse gases, nor the emission/absorption spectra of greenhouse gases at any point in this derivation, demonstrating that the entire 33C greenhouse effect is dependent upon atmospheric mass/pressure/gravity, rather than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

The greenhouse gas water vapor does have a very large negative-feedback cooling effect on the surface and atmospheric temperature by reducing the lapse rate by half from the 10C/km dry rate to the 5C/km wet rate. Increased water vapor increases the heat capacity of the atmosphere Cp, which is inversely related to temperature by the lapse rate equation above:

dT/dh = -g/Cp

Plugging these lapse rates into our formula for Ts above:

Ts = -18 - (10 × (0 - 5)) = 32C using dry adiabatic lapse rate

Ts = -18 - (5 × (0 - 5)) = 7C using wet adiabatic lapse rate [fully saturated]

showing a cooling effect of up to 25C just from changes in the lapse rate from water vapor. Water vapor also cools the planet via evaporation and clouds, and which is confirmed by observations. Water vapor is thus proven by observations and theory to be a strong negative-feedback cooling agent, not a positive-feedback warming agent as assumed by the overheated climate models to amplify warming projections by a factor of 3-5 times. 

What about CO2? At only 0.04% of the atmosphere, CO2 contributes negligibly to atmospheric mass and only slightly increases the heat capacity Cp of the atmosphere, which as we have shown above, is inversely related to temperature. CO2 would thus act as a cooling agent by slightly increasing troposphere heat capacity. Increased CO2 also increases the radiative surface area of the atmosphere to enhance outgoing radiation to space, analogous to putting a larger heat sink on your microprocessor which increases radiative surface area and convection to cause cooling. 

It is well-known that CO2 and ozone are the primary cooling agents of the stratosphere up to the thermosphere, but even the warmist proponents are unable to agree on a coherent explanation why CO2 would assume the opposite role of a warming agent in the troposphere. As the mass/gravity/pressure greenhouse theory shows, and just like water vapor, CO2 also acts to cool the troposphere, and the rest of the atmosphere by increasing radiative surface loss and outgoing radiation to space. 

Millions of weather balloon observations confirm that there is no greenhouse gas-induced "hot spot" in the mid-upper troposphere, which is the alleged "fingerprint of AGW." The 2nd law of thermodynamics principle of maximum entropy production also explains why such a "hot spot" will not form. However, observations do show a cooling of the stratosphere over the satellite era, which would be consistent with increased CO2 increasing outgoing radiation to space. Observations also show an increase of outgoing longwave radiation to space over the past 62 years, which is entirely consistent with increased outgoing radiation from greenhouse gases and a decrease of "heat trapping", the opposite of AGW theory. 

In essence, the radiative theory of the greenhouse effect confuses cause and effect. As we have shown, temperature is a function of pressure, and absorption/emission of IR from greenhouse gases is a function of temperature. The radiative theory tries to turn that around to claim IR emission from greenhouse gases controls the temperature and thus pressure and heat capacity of the atmosphere, which is absurd and clearly disproven by basic thermodynamics and observations. The radiative greenhouse theory also makes the absurd assumption a cold body can make a hot body hotter, disproven by Pictet's experiment 214 years ago, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the principle of maximum entropy production, Planck's law, the Pauli exclusion principle, and quantum mechanics. There is one and only one greenhouse effect theory compatible with all of these basic physical laws and millions of observations. Can you guess which one it is?

Update: The atmospheric center of mass assumption in step 2 above also appears to be applicable to Titan, the closest Earth analog with a thick atmosphere in our solar system. For Titan, the surface temperature is 94K, equilibrium temperature with the Sun is 82K, and surface pressure is 1.47 bar. 

Thus, the center of mass of the atmosphere is located at ~1.47/2 = ~0.74 bar, which observations show is where Titan's atmospheric temperature is ~82K, the same as the equilibrium temperature with the Sun. I have added the notations in red to Robinson and Catling's graph below:

Update 2: Some still claim the ERL is set by radiative forcing, but this is false because:

1) A purely radiative model of the atmosphere without convection sets the ERL too high, at ~7km instead of ~5 km where observations show it is located. At 7km altitude, observations show the temperature to be 242K instead of the equilibrium temperature of 255K.

Solely radiative "greybody" model of the atmosphere without convection shown in blue. I have added in red the actual temperatures from the US Standard Atmosphere calculator. Note how the purely radiative model is up to 20K hotter, e.g. at the top of the troposphere, than the observations show. This is because convection dominates and "short-circuits" radiative forcing in the troposphere to cause cooling.

2. Observations show no correlation between tropopause height and troposphere temperature 1980-2004:

Open symbols show no relationship between tropopause height and troposphere temperatures

That's because, as Robinson and Catling have shown, the height of the troposphere and the adiabatic lapse rate that extends from the 0.1 bar tropopause all the way to the surface is controlled by pressure, not temperature nor radiative forcing from greenhouse gases:

"At higher pressures [P > 0.1 bar], atmospheres become opaque to thermal radiation, causing temperatures to increase with depth and convection to ensue. A common dependence of infrared opacity on pressure, arising from the shared physics of molecular absorption, sets the 0.1 bar tropopause"

3. We have already shown that temperature is a function of pressure, and radiance and emission spectra from greenhouse gases are in turn a function of temperature, not the other way around.  

The Climate Scam’s Meltdown: Corruption is now systemic in climate science

A superb essay by Australian marine biologist Walter Starck published at Quadrant Online exposes how

"The rent-seekers, opportunists, third-rate academics, carbon-market scam artists and peddlers of catastrophic prophecy can see the alarmist bubble deflating, so they're trying harder than ever to sustain the scare. Problem is, Mother Nature isn't cooperating"

The Climate Scam’s Meltdown

By Walter Starck

This doesn’t mean the climate change “debate” will stop, the news media will cease reporting weather as a dire threat, or that the true believers will no longer be obsessed by it. However, the ultimate arbiter, climate itself, has made clear its decision by ceasing to warm for over 18 years. Despite the ongoing use of fossil fuels, a proclaimed 95% certainty of 97% of scientists and the high-powered projections of the world’s most advanced climate models, the climate has refused to pay the slightest heed.

Contrary to all the confidence and predictions of alleged experts, storms are no more intense nor frequent, while droughts, floods and sea levels have declined to confirm alarmists’ barely concealed hopes of disasters. The simple fact is that the alleged experts and their high-powered models were wrong. The climate has ceased to warm and, with little or no greenhouse warming, the entire theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), aka Climate Change (CC), aka Global Warming, aka Extreme Weather, is left with no basis.

The debate over CC has been unique in the history of science in that its proponents have largely abandoned the primacy of evidence and openly declared methodology in favour of self-proclaimed authority backed by their own confidential methods and models. It is also unique in that the alarmists refuse to directly address their arguments, preferring to ignore, censor and personally denigrate them. In a few instances in the early part of the public debate, the proponents attempted direct debate with their critics but came away looking decidedly second-best and they soon refused any further direct discussion. With no convincing answers to the uncertainties and conflicting evidence raised by their opponents they simply chose to ignore them, declare the science “settled” and anoint themselves as the only experts. All who disagreed agree were deemed to be fools, knaves and/or in the pay and pocket of Big Energy.

With a naive and compliant news media steeped in the same politically correct, left wing academic indoctrination as the researchers, the latter enjoyed a near monopoly on favourable news coverage. Self-serving publicity releases were regurgitated undigested beneath the by-lines of environmental “reporters”, who eagerly reduced themselves to unquestioning stenographers.

Yet even as the alarmists’ received kid-glove treatment in the mainstream media, the Internet has been a very different story. Not only did the climate alarmists have no advantage online, the thinking public was increasingly looking to the Web as their primary source for news. This digital realm was outside any particular control or influence, open to the airing of opposing argument and evidence. It was also a forum for the exposure of malpractice, regularly producing exposes which would shatter the façade of scientific expertise and propriety the alarmists had erected around themselves. Think here of how Wattsupwiththat demolished the charlatan Michael Mann and his infamous hockey stick, and the Climategate emails revealed the lengths professional warmists are prepared to go in order to silence sceptics, not least by debasing the conventions of the peer-review process.

In retreat, climate alarmists are now trying to deny the lack of warming while fiddling the temperature record in an effort to “prove” it is continuing. Their ever-more imaginative explanations — the heat is hiding at the bottom of the ocean; trade winds are skewing sea-temperature readings — increasingly smack of desperation. Making matters worse for the alarmists, there is increasing evidence that the global climate has not only ceased to warm but may actually be starting to cool. Severe, often record-breaking winter weather demands more and more undeclared “adjustments” to the temperature record are being exposed. Overwhelmingly these serve to reduce past temperatures and increase more recent ones without which the lack of warming would be more obvious.

When such changes to the record have been discovered and questioned the response has been to waffle about “homogenization” and “world’s best practice” or to suggest such corrections are needed because, say, the Japanese bombed Darwin, a weather was moved and, therefore, the coastal city’s temperature record must be reconstructed by drawing on numbers from Daly waters, far inland. These explanations, however, are inevitably long on hypothetical context and galling deficient in specific explanations for their justification.

More broadly a similar pattern of response has also been made in various other instances wherein malpractice in climate science has been exposed. At first the problem is denied, then it is dismissed as being of no importance and, finally, the attempt is made to justify it as excusable error. In the more egregious instances, when the scandal is no longer in the news, the miscreant may then be given some prestigious award, thus certifying the unimportance of any misdeeds. To any thinking observer, all this, when combined with a noticeable lack of any disavowal by colleagues, can only confirm the corruption now systemic in climate science.

Currently the recent US/China agreement is being touted as an important breakthrough in the battle against climate change. In reality it amounts to a non-binding agreement to do nothing different before 2030. Until then China is free to continue increasing emissions while the US agrees to continue to reducing its own in line with the reductions already achieved and further anticipated through the ongoing switch from coal and oil to natural gas. For China this agreement affords cost-free relief from diplomatic pressure over their increasing emissions. On the US side it provides President Obama the excuse of diplomatic obligations to invoke his executive authority to implement various measures unlikely to receive approval from a Republican-controlled Congress. As ratification by the Congress would be required for any binding climate agreement and such approval is likely to be lengthy or never, the blank cheque for the exercise of executive authority may remain useful for some time.

The reality is that the threat of catastrophic climate change has almost certainly been vastly exaggerated. At pre-industrial levels of CO2 the back-radiated IR energy in the absorption bands of this gas was virtually all absorbed within a few tens of metres of the surface. More CO2 only concentrates the initial absorption a bit closer to the surface but the mixing at that level still quickly distributes the heat energy through a much larger volume of the lower troposphere while, at the same time, also increasing transport of heat away from the surface by enhancing evaporation, which in turn can be expected to increase cloud cover. How much actual warming may result is highly problematic. Empirical evidence is now indicating that any such warming is probably much less than has been estimated by the alarmists — probably so little as to be over-ridden by other natural variables. The only significant effect attributable with any confidence to increased CO2 thus far has been a marked greening of arid regions and an increase in agricultural yields.

With or without any agreement or government initiatives, economics, technological developments and demographic changes will in due course inevitably reduce the demand for fossil fuels and replace them with other and cleaner sources of energy. Thorium- and fusion-reactor developments are showing increasing promise of providing effectively unlimited cheap and clean energy within a few decades. For domestic use, solar voltaic technology is beginning to become competitive with mains electricity, with further gains in cost effectiveness near certain in the near future. Major advances in storage technology are also well underway and expected to become commercially available within a few years. Better cheaper solar technology to power homes and vehicles is likely to drive the beginning of mass uptake within a decade. This will be impelled by cost effectiveness, with subsidies unnecessary. Indeed, such support risks doing more harm than good if it diverts development and uptake from the best and most efficient technologies emerging from a complex, rapidly changing and impossible-to-predict scientific frontier.

An argument is often made that the climate-change threat must be real because a conspiracy involving an overwhelming majority of the world’s scientists is simply not credible. This is disingenuous in that the climate threat, as exemplified by the IPCC’s scare machine, is far from representing a scientific consensus, even a majority. Global scientific opinion on this matter is highly mixed with the alarmist position concentrated in Europe and the Anglosphere. Even here thousands of dissenters exist, including many highly qualified and respected researchers with very relevant expertise.

The core alarmist proponents only comprise a few dozen, mostly third-rate, academics whose scientific reputations are minimal outside of climate alarmism. They co-opted the niche, little known interdisciplinary field of climatology, proclaimed themselves to be the world authorities, declared a global crisis, received lavish funding to research it and gained global attention. They have been aided and abetted by sundry fellow travellers who see advantage for various other agendas. A conspiracy does not require secret planning. It can be implemented just as easily with a wink and a nod when the aims and methods are apparent to all the participants. It is time to recognise the climate scam for what it is: a conspiracy to defraud on a monumental scale.

Although climate itself is presenting its irrefutable opposing argument, failed prophets never willingly concede defeat until their mouths are stopped with the dust of reality. In this instance gob-stopping reality seems likely to take the form of severe winter weather leading to a widespread collapse of electrical power in an overloaded grid suffering from the underinvestment, malinvestment, restraints and neglect. All these stem from years of misguided climate policies. Until the crunch comes, the rent-seekers and their useful idiots in the press will rant and rage without pause, their livelihoods and careers hanging on their ability to perpetuate the hoax they foisted on the rest of us.

As so often, Shakespeare said it best: “A tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

A marine biologist, Walter Starck has spent much of his career studying coral reef and marine fishery ecosystems

Thing of the Past Departure from Normal October 2014 Edition

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_vis.php?ui_year=2014&ui_month=10&ui_set=2

...just wait until the November data is complete

h/t Willie Soon

Scientist proved 214 years ago that a cold body cannot make a hot body hotter, proved opposite

A paper published in the American Journal of Physics describes the simple experiment of Pictet in 1800, demonstrating that a cold body cannot make a hot body hotter, in fact quite the opposite. It wasn't until 51 years later in 1851 that Lord Kelvin & Clausius introduced the 2nd law of thermodynamics to explain the theory behind this phenomenon, requiring a one-way transfer of heat only from hot to cold that is necessary to maximize entropy production. 

Subsequently, quantum theory also explained why a lower temperature/frequency/energy body cannot increase the temperature of a higher temperature/frequency/energy body, because all of the higher frequency quantum microstates of the hotter body are already filled and cannot be raised higher by lower energy photons from the lower temperature/frequency/energy body. 

Although radiation between a hot and cold body is bidirectional, heat transfer is always one way only from hot to cold, as transfer of heat from cold to hot requires an impossible reduction of entropy (without work input) forbidden by the 2nd law. 

Pictet's experimental setup was simple as shown in Fig 1 below and described in the following comment by Rosco:

Two polished concave metal mirrors A & B focus radiation from a cold body C to a warmer body D [a thermometer], which causes a decrease in temperature of D below the starting ambient room temperature.

Rosco says: 2014/11/20 at 1:50 PM 

The really funny thing is that centuries ago Pictet conducted an experiment in radiation using polished concave metal mirrors. Each mirror was placed far enough from each other such that conduction/convection played little part in the experiment. 

He initially placed a hot object at one focus and a thermoscope at the other focus.
The thermoscope indicated a temperature increase due to IR. He allowed for equilibrium with room temperature to reestablish. 

He then placed a cold object – a container of snow/ice at the focus and – viola - the thermoscope indicated a temperature decrease. 

He introduced a “new” energy source – the flask of snow/ice – emitting say 235 W/sqm at say minus 18 C so remote from the thermoscope that the low conductivity of air played no part in either the hot or cold energy transfer BUT he PROVED that cold does not heat hot – quite the reverse occurred. 

Modern physics explains this phenomenon by claiming the mirror screens the thermoscope from say up to 50% of the radiation from other objects in the room and the thermoscope is then radiating more to the flask than it gets back from the flask and hence decreases in temperature. 

This explanation sounds reasonable but fails to account for the fact that the air around the thermoscope was unable to maintain equilibrium with the thermoscope? 

BUT any way you care to spin this the radiation from a cold object always results in a decrease in temperature of a hotter object. 

This has been known for centuries until climate science invented their fantasies.

__________________________________

Full paper

Indeed, Pictet's experiment also explains why solar cookers are used today in the 3rd world as coolers/refrigerators, by simply pointing a solar cooker away from the Sun to clear sky during the day or night causes the focal point temperature to decrease by increasing the heat loss from the hotter focal point to the colder [ave -18C] atmosphere. Experiments show a solar cooker can even be used to produce ice when the ambient air temp is +6 deg C:

“If at night the temperature was within 6 °C or 10°F of freezing, nighttime cooling could be used to create ice. Previous tests at BYU (in the autumn and with less water) achieved ice formation by 8 a.m. when the minimum ambient night-time temperature was about 48 °F.”

Experimental data & paper proving this phenomenon.

How to make your own solar cooker/cooler

Flashback: Climate scientists said warming decreases lake-effect snows

...but have conveniently changed their tune with the recent record-breaking lake-effect snow in the Buffalo area to claim global warming increases lake-effect snowfall. Four papers below collected by commenter Kenneth Richard find otherwise:

Global warming causes lessmore snow

Kenneth Richard November 19, 2014 at 11:33 PM

The record lake-effect snow in the Buffalo area (November 18-20, 2014) has been said to be caused by global warming...because less ice cover due to warming means more precipitation events in the form of snow...or so it's claimed.

But scientists have, in the past, concluded that global warming causes reduced lake-effect snow, not increases in lake-effect snow:

1) "Trend Reversal in Lake Michigan Contribution to Snowfall" [2012]

A general increase in LCS [lake-contribution snowfall] from the early 1920s to the 1950–80 period [during the 1970's ice age scare] at locations typically downwind of the lake was found. Thereafter, LCS decreased through the early 2000s, indicating a distinct trend reversal that is not reported by earlier studies. The reasons for this reversal are unclear. The reversal is consistent with observed increasing minimum temperatures during winter months after the 1970s, however.

2) CLIMATE CHANGE AND LAKE-EFFECT SNOW

Thus, there may be little change in the frequency of heavy lake-effect snow in the Lake Superior snowbelt and a substantial decrease in the southern Lake Michigan and Lake Erie snowbelts. Air-temperature [warming] was found to be the primary determining factor in reducing the frequency of heavy lake-effect events in this study...Anticipated regional impacts of climate change on lake-effect snow patterns – suggest almost no change [in lake-effect snowfall] in the northernmost belts but approximately a 50% decrease in southernmost belts.

3) Assessment of Potential Effects of Climate Change on Heavy Lake-Effect Snowstorms Near Lake Erie

...Surface conditions favorable for heavy lake-effect snow decreased in frequency by 50% and 90% for the HadCM2 and CGCM1 [models], respectively, by the late 21st Century. This reduction was due almost entirely to a decrease in the number of occurrences of surface air temperature in the range of −10 to 0°C, which in turn was the result of an increase in average winter air temperatures.

4) Another one, from 1971, that says that global cooling (during the 1970's ice age scare) contributed to increased lake-effect snowfall during the 1940s to 1970s, and global warming (during the 1920s and 1930s) contributed to decreased lake-effect snowfall.

Lake effect snowfall to the lee of the Great Lakes, its role in Michigan

Evidence suggests that lake effect snowfall has significantly increased during the past several decades, particularly in Southern Michigan and Northern Indiana. While the observed changes cannot be definitively ascribed to any single factor, it seems likely that a general cooling of winter temperatures may be partially responsible for this climatic change. [M]any of the snowfall time-series curves for the lake stations show downward trends during the 1920’s and 1930’s, at the height of the recent warm period, and the more recent snowfall increase has coincided with a general world-wide cooling which has occurred in the last several decades [1940s-1970s]. Recent evidence derived from [isotope] analysis of ice core samples on the Greenland ice cap indicates a continuance of this cooling trend for another 20 or 30 years [through the 1990s].

Related: Handy Guide to How Global Warming causes Lessmore Snow

New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Tibet

A paper published today in Quaternary Research finds another non-hockey-stick in Tibet, and also finds an inverse relationship between temperature and lake levels on the Tibet plateau. 

One of many simplistic memes is that "warmer means wetter," since warmer air can hold more water vapor, but this is only one side of the "equation." If warming causes both more evaporation and more precipitation, either of these could dominate to cause a net wetter or drier climate. In the case of this lake in Tibet, increased evaporation dominated over precipitation during warmer periods. According to the authors, the lake levels declined due to increased evaporation dominating during warm summers. 

The paper joins hundreds of others demonstrating that the hydrological cycle is far more complex than assumed by model simulations, which are unable to directly or skillfully simulate the hydrological cycle/convection/evaporation/clouds/etc and instead rely upon fudge factor "parameterizations" for these critical aspects necessary to skillfully project climate change. 

Looking at only one side of the equation and ignoring or not fully considering the opposing negative-feedbacks is unfortunately rampant in climate science, including the false assumption that radiative forcing dominates over negative-feedback convection in the troposphere, which in-turn has led to a gross exaggeration of greenhouse warming. 

Top graph shows another non-hockey-stick temperature reconstruction over the past 17,200 years, with temperatures higher during the Medieval Warm Period ~1100 years ago, Roman Warm Period ~2000 years ago, and during the Holocene Climate Optimum~6000-4000 years ago as compared to the end of the record [left side of graph]. Horizontal axis is thousands of years before the present.
Bottom graph shows an inverse relationship between temperature and lake levels over the past 4000 years.

Deglacial and Holocene archaeal lipid-inferred paleohydrology and paleotemperature history of Lake Qinghai, northeastern Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau

• Huanye Wang^a, b, c, 
• Hailiang Dong^d, e, 
• Chuanlun L. Zhang^f, g, 
• Hongchen Jiang^h, 
• Zhonghui Liuⁱ, 
• Meixun Zhao^j, 
• Weiguo Liu
• 
  

We investigate the distribution of archaeal lipids in a 5.8-m-long sedimentary core recovered from Lake Qinghai to extract regional hydroclimate and temperature signals since the last deglaciation for this important region. The paleohydrology was reconstructed from the relative abundance of thaumarchaeol (%thaum) and the archaeol and caldarchaeol ecometric (ACE) index. The %thaum-inferred lake-level record was extended to deglaciation, showing three periods (11.9–13.0, 14.1–14.7 and 15.1–17.2 cal ka BP) with relatively higher lake levels than those during the early Holocene. The ACE record demonstrates three periods (10.6–11.2, 13.2–13.4 and 17.4–17.6 cal ka BP) of elevated salinity when the lake was shallow. Filtered TEX₈₆ record based on archaeal lipid distributions corresponded to relatively higher lake levels, implying that a certain lake size is required for using the TEX₈₆ paleothermometer. At 1–4 cal ka BP, the reconstructed temperature fluctuated significantly and correlated negatively with inferred lake level, indicating that lake temperature and hydrological change might be coupled during this period. We attribute this co-variance to the importance of summer temperature in controlling evaporation for this arid/semi-arid region. Moreover, our results indicate that archaeal lipids have potential in reconstructing paleoclimate patterns from lacustrine sedimentary cores, but the data should be interpreted with care.