WSJ: It’s Always Exxon’s Fault- Why climate warriors keep returning to the same whipping boy

It’s Always Exxon’s Fault

Why climate warriors keep returning to the same whipping boy.

By 

HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.

Oct. 27, 2015 6:52 p.m. ET  THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

39 COMMENTS

In 2009, the New York Times was forced to issue a 328-word correction (a retraction in all but name) because a reporter, assailing an industry group, could not distinguish the proposition “the greenhouse effect exists” from the proposition “any and all environmentalist proposals for dealing with a possible human influence on the greenhouse effect must be met uncritically.”

Here we go again, in the form of an exposé of Exxon by the website InsideClimateNews.org, echoed by the Los Angeles Times and other media organs. See if you can follow the logic exhibited in the ICN series.

Because Exxon concerned itself with how a warming Arctic might affect the safety of its pipelines and drilling structures there, Exxon is a hypocrite on climate change.

Because Exxon refrained from developing an Indonesian gas field that would have meant releasing or capturing a large amount of associated carbon dioxide, Exxon is a hypocrite on climate change.

Exxon, in the early 1980s, adapted then-existing climate models to estimate that a doubling of atmospheric carbon would lead to a temperature increase of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius. Then as now the company also judged such models not reliable enough to serve as the basis for large and costly policy actions. So Exxon is a hypocrite.

Here’s the interesting part. These studies took place 35 years ago. In completely unrelated comments, nobody’s idea of a “denier,” Harvard’s Martin Weitzman, co-author of the book “Climate Shock,” recently complained about the lack of climate modeling progress in “35 years.” He cited the U.N. climate panel’s latest temperature forecast, which is identical (i.e., unimproved in precision) to Exxon’s three decades earlier.

Through six installments ICN kept promising the goods on how Exxon’s public advocacy conflicted with its private understanding of climate change. The series essentially delivered nothing.

An Exxon spokesman is quoted as saying, “The risk of climate change is real and warrants action.”

Exxon’s CEO in the 1990s, Lee Raymond, the villain of the series, is quoted as saying, “Many people believe that global warming is a rock-solid certainty. But it’s not.”

The company’s position on a carbon tax is that . . . it should be revenue neutral.

The real smoking gun isn’t the Exxon revelations but the climate community’s hysterical reaction to them. Veteran campaigner Bill McKibben and Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders demand the Obama administration launch a criminal investigation.

A Washington Monthly writer, in a blog post for the psychiatric textbooks, delivers himself of this remarkable paragraph: “ExxonMobil’s deceit continues to this very day. The company still insists that it supports federal revenue-neutral carbon tax legislation. How can we possibly take their word for it, after the company spent years attacking the abundant scientific evidence pointing to the critical need for such legislation?”

Just spend a minute parsing that one.

ICN calls its Exxon series “the road not taken.” Were its reporters really the free thinkers they imagine themselves to be, however, they would put aside such crass exercises in orthodoxy enforcement. They would investigate exactly when and how the climate movement itself made its ill-advised turn toward frantic exaggeration, false certainty and vilification of anybody who raises scientific caveats.

They’re right: Exxon was once a respected participant in the debate. It wasn’t Exxon that equated its opponents to holocaust deniers. The $16 million that Exxon spent between 1998 and 2005 to support organizations that pointed out the inadequacies of climate models would have bought less than 1% of the media attention Al Gore was getting at the time.

Talk about a road not taken. A calmer discussion based on uncertainties, risks and benefits might long ago have allowed the introduction of a modest carbon tax in the only way it would be politically salable—by using the proceeds to reduce taxes on investment and work.

Washington might have set itself a clear if modest agenda to fund basic battery research, rather than squander taxpayer dollars on Tesla and Solyndra.

All this might have been below-the-fold, inside-the-paper news, rather than turning climate science into another polarizing proxy for irreconcilable left-right partisan differences on economics.

But the truth is, people like Mr. McKibben can’t afford practical, meaningful progress—because it would be unnoticeable and undramatic. Modest tweaks to incentives, then seeing how energy technology and the energy economy adapted over time, would not fulfill their need for a pressing global crisis that casts them as moral warriors (well-funded ones) whose victory over deniers and climate criminals is always just around the corner—and must remain so in order to keep the money, media attention and political fealty flowing.

Why Tyndall's experiment did not "prove" the theory of anthropogenic global warming

Many warmists cite Tyndall's 1861 experiment as "proof" of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory, but in fact the experiment demonstrated only that CO2 and H2O are IR-active molecules capable of absorbing and emitting infrared radiation, nothing more. 

Of course, CO2 does indeed absorb and emit very low-energy ~15 micron infrared radiation, equivalent to a "partial blackbody" at a temperature of 193K (-80C) by Wien's Law. However, radiation from a true or "partial" blackbody cannot warm the much warmer atmosphere (with an "average" temperature of 255K (-18C), equivalent to the equilibrium temperature of Earth with the Sun), nor the even warmer Earth surface at 288K (15C).

Yet the Arrhenius radiative greenhouse theory falsely assumes that "backradiation" from the 193K CO2 "partial blackbody" can warm the Earth surface temperature from the 255K equilibrium temperature with the Sun by 33K up to 288K. This would require a continuous and dominating heat transfer from cold to hot, thus requiring an impossible decrease of entropy, and therefore a gross violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which requires entropy to increase from any transfer of heat). 

In contrast, the alternative 33C gravito-thermal greenhouse theory of Poisson, Helmholtz, Maxwell, Boltzmann, Carnot, Clausius, Feynman, US Standard Atmosphere, International Standard Atmosphere, the HS greenhouse equation, et al instead fully explains the 33C 'greenhouse effect' on Earth, as well as on all 7 additional planets for which we have adequate data. 

As we can see from the diagram of Tydall's apparatus below, it consists of a horizontal sealed tube containing the gas to be studied. Unlike the actual 100km Earth atmosphere, Tyndall's apparatus does not allow any vertical convective cooling as is found in the real Earth atmosphere. In fact, increased greenhouse gases accelerate convective cooling in the troposphere. Tyndall's apparatus artificially prevents this convective cooling, just like a sealed greenhouse does, but which does not happen in the real atmosphere. 

Furthermore, as physicist William Happer points out, the probability of CO2 transferring quanta of energy in the troposphere via collisions instead of emitting a photon is one billion times more likely. This transfer of energy via collisions to the remaining 99.06% of the atmosphere causes acceleration of convective cooling by increasing the adiabatic expansion, rising, and cooling of air parcels. Convection dominates radiative-convective equilibrium in the troposphere by a factor of ~8 times and thus cancels any possible warming effect of the low-energy CO2 backradiation upon the surface. 

Further, the presence of IR-active gases in the atmosphere only delays the ultimate passage of IR photons from the surface to space by a few seconds, and is easily reversed and erased during each 12 hour night, and explains why 'greenhouse gases' don't 'trap heat' in the atmosphere.

For these reasons, Tydall's experiment does not in any way prove the Arrhenius radiative greenhouse theory. In contrast, the alternative 33C gravito-thermal greenhouse theory of Poisson, Helmholtz, Maxwell, Boltzmann, Carnot, Clausius, Feynman, US Standard Atmosphere, International Standard Atmosphere, the HS greenhouse equation, et al instead fully explains the 33C 'greenhouse effect' on Earth, as well as on all 7 additional planets for which we have adequate data. 

TyndallsSetupForMeasuringRadiantHeatAbsorptionByGases_annotated.jpg ‎

Tyndall's Setup For Measuring Radiant Heat Absorption By Gases (source: Wikipedia)

This illustration dates from 1861 and it is taken from one of John Tyndall's presentations where he describes his setup for measuring the relative radiant-heat absorption of gases and vapors. The galvanometer quantifies the difference in temperature between the left and right sides of the thermopile. The reading on the galvanometer is settable to zero by moving the Heat Screen a bit closer or farther from the lefthand heat source. That is the only role for the heat source on the left. The heat source on the righthand side directs radiant heat into the long brass tube. The long brass tube is highly polished on the inside, which makes it a good reflector (and non-absorber) of the radiant heat inside the tube. Rock-salt (NaCl) is practically transparent to radiant heat, and so plugging the ends of the long brass tube with rock-salt plates allows radiant heat to move freely in and out at the tube endpoints, yet completely blocks the gas within from moving out. To begin the measurements, both heat sources are turned on, the long brass tube is evacuated as much as possible with an air suction pump, the galvanometer is set to zero, and then the gas under study is released into the long brass tube. The galvanometer is looked at again. The extent to which the galvanometer has changed from zero indicates the extent to which the gas has absorbed the radiant heat from the righthand heat source and blocked this heat from radiating to the thermopile through the tube. If a highly polished metal disc is placed in the space between the thermopile and the brass tube it will completely block the radiant heat coming out of the tube from reaching the thermopile, thereby deflecting the galvanometer by the maximum extent possible with respect to blockage in the tube. Thus the system has minimum and maximum readings available, and can express other readings in percentage terms. (The galvanometer's responsiveness was physically nonlinear, but well understood, and mathematically linearizable.)

In one of his public lectures to non-professional audiences Tyndall gave the following indication of instrument sensitivity: "My assistant stands several feet off. I turn the thermopile towards him. The heat from his face, even at this distance, produces a deflection of 90 degrees [on the galvanometer dial]. I turn the instrument towards a distant wall, judged to be a little below the average temperature of the room. The needle descends and passes to the other side of zero, declaring by this negative deflection that the pile feels the chill of the wall." (quote from Six Lectures On Light). To reduce interference from human bodies, the galvanometer was read through a telescope from across the room. The thermopile & galvanometer system was invented by Nobili and Melloni. Melloni measured radiant heat absorption in solids and liquids but didn't have the sensitivity for gases. Tyndall greatly improved the sensitivity of the overall setup (including putting an offsetting heat source on the other side of the thermopile, and putting the gas in a brass tube), and as a result of his superior apparatus he was able to confidently reach conclusions that were quite different from Melloni's concerning radiant heat in gases (book ref below, in chapter I). Air from which water vapor and carbon dioxide had been removed deflected the galvanometer dial by less than 1 degree, in other words a detectable but very small amount (same ref, chapter II). Many other gases and vapors deflected the galvanometer by a large amount -- thousands of times greater than air.

As a check on his system's reliability, Tyndall painted the inside walls of the brass tube with a strong absorber of radiant heat (namely lampblack). This greatly reduced the radiant heat that reached the thermopile when the tube was empty. Nevertheless the percentage absorptions by the different gases and vapors relative to the empty tube were largely and essentially unchanged by this change to the absorption property of the tube's walls. That's excluding a few gases and vapors such as chlorine that must be excluded because they tarnish brass, changing its heat reflectivity. As another test of the reliability of the system, the long brass tube was cut to about a quarter of its original length, and the exact same quantity of gas was released into the shorter tube. Thus the shorter tube will have about four times higher gas density. It was found that the percentage of radiant heat absorbed by or transmitted through the gas relative to the empty-tube state was entirely unchanged by this (even though the two tubes don't have equal empty-tube states). Varying the absolute quantity of the gas in the tube causes corresponding changes in the absorption percentages, but varying the density doesn't matter, nor does the absolute value of the empty-tube reference point.

The emission spectrum of the particular source of heat makes a difference -- sometimes a big difference -- in the amount of radiant heat a gas will absorb, and different gases can respond differently to a change in the source. Tyndall said in 1864, "a long series of experiments enables me to state that probably no two substances at a temperature of 100°C emit heat of the same quality [i.e. of the same spectral profile]. The heat emitted by isinglass, for example, is different from that emitted by lampblack, and the heat emitted by cloth, or paper, differs from both." Looking at an electrically-heated platinum wire, it is obvious to the human eye that the heat's spectral profile depends on whether the wire is heated to dull red, bright orange, or white hot. Some gases were relatively stronger absorbers of the dull-red platinum heat while other gases were relatively stronger absorbers of the white hot platinum heat, he found. For his original and primary benchmark in 1859, he used the heat from 100°C lampblack (akin to a theoretical "blackbody radiator"). Later he got some of his more interesting findings from using other heat sources. E.g., when the source of radiant heat was any one kind of gas, then this heat was strongly absorbed by another body of the same kind of gas, regardless of whether the gas was a weak absorber of broad-spectrum sources. In the illustration above, the radiant heat that is going into the brass tube comes from a pot of simmering water; the heat radiates from the exterior surface of the pot, not from the water, and not from the gas flame that keeps the water at a simmer. An alternative illustration with a modified setup taken from the same book (page 112) is shown below. The main difference is that the heat source is separated from the brass tube by open air, which eliminates the need for circulating cold water cooling at the interface between heat source and brass tube.

New paper "has profound implications for current mathematical climate models," convection, airflows, & effects of trees on climate

A new paper published in Hydrology and Earth System Sciences challenges the "consensus" view and finds the primary cause of atmospheric circulations and airflow is water vapor condensation and not buoyancy. According to the author's laboratory experiments,

"The experimental results therefore provide evidence that condensation and not buoyancy is the major mechanism driving airflow, thus lending strong support to one of the main tenets of the [Biotic Pump Theory]."

The "Biotic Pump Theory"

"maintains that the primary motive force of atmospheric circulation derives from the intense condensation and sharp pressure reduction that is associated with regions where a high rate of evapotranspiration from natural closed-canopy forests provides the "fuel" for cloud formation. The net result of the "biotic pump" theory is that moist air flows from ocean to land, drawn in by the pressure changes associated with a high rate of condensation. "

The authors conclude,

"The general implications are that the great forests of the world play a fundamental role in air mass circulation through providing water vapour via evapotranspiration, and are therefore the “fuel” for a high rate of cloud condensation. Airflow circulation is the net result, bringing the rain to the deep interior of continents. The Biotic Pump theory suggests that the hydrological role of rainforests is by far their most important climatic contribution, and that large-scale deforestation may well be as detrimental in its consequences for the well-being of the planet as are greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, it may be that in macro-climatological terms whether forests are net absorbers or emitters of greenhouse gases is relatively insignificant compared to their hydrological role."

Experimental evidence of condensation-driven airflow
P. Bunyard1, M. Hodnett2,a, G. Poveda3, J. D. Burgos Salcedo4, and C. Peña5
1IDEASA, Universidad Sergio Arboleda, Bogotá, Colombia
2Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, UK
3Department of Geosciences and Environment, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Medellín, Colombia
4Corporación para la Investigación y la Innovación – CIINAS, Bogotá, Colombia
5Facultad de Matemática, Universidad Sergio Arboleda, Bogotá, Colombia
aretired

Received: 20 Aug 2015 – Revised: 30 Sep 2015 – Accepted: 05 Oct 2015 – Published: 27 Oct 2015

Abstract. The dominant "convection" model of atmospheric circulation is based on the premise that hot air expands and rises, to be replaced by colder air, thereby creating horizontal surface winds. A recent theory put forward by Makarieva and Gorshkov (2007, 2013) maintains that the primary motive force of atmospheric circulation derives from the intense condensation and sharp pressure reduction that is associated with regions where a high rate of evapotranspiration from natural closed-canopy forests provides the "fuel" for cloud formation. The net result of the "biotic pump" theory is that moist air flows from ocean to land, drawn in by the pressure changes associated with a high rate of condensation. 

To test the physics underpinning the biotic pump theory, namely that condensation of water vapour, at a sufficiently high rate, results in an uni-directional airflow, a 5 m tall experimental apparatus was designed and built, in which a 20 m3 body of atmospheric air is enclosed inside an annular 14 m long space (a "square donut") around which it can circulate freely, allowing for rotary air flows. One vertical side of the apparatus contains some 17 m of copper refrigeration coils, which cause condensation. The apparatus contains a series of sensors measuring temperature, humidity and barometric pressure every five seconds, and air flow every second. 

The laws of Newtonian physics are used in calculating the rate of condensation inside the apparatus. The results of more than one hundred experiments show a highly significant correlation, with r2 > 0.9, of airflow and the rate of condensation. The rotary air flows created appear to be consistent both in direction and velocity with the biotic pump hypothesis, the critical factor being the rate change in the partial pressure of water vapour in the enclosed body of atmospheric air. Air density changes, in terms of kinetic energy, are found to be orders of magnitude smaller than the kinetic energy of partial pressure change. 
The consistency of the laboratory experiments, in confirming the physics of the biotic pump, has profound implications for current mathematical climate models, not just in terms of predicting the consequences of widespread deforestation, but also for better understanding the atmospheric processes which lead to air mass convection.

Select excerpts:

Atmospheric convection, which leads to air mass circulation, is generally considered to result from the lower atmosphere acting as a heat engine, with the kinetic energy for convection deriving from differences in temperature, according to the general principle that hot air rises and cold air sinks. However, as Makarieva et al. (2013) point out, when hot air rises in the lower atmosphere it cools because of expansion and when the same, but now cooler, air sinks it heats up, such that the overall gain or loss in kinetic energy is zero. The same cooling and heating happens when air expands and forces air elsewhere to compress; there is no net energy gain to do work. In other words, a strict application of the first law of thermodynamics to the atmosphere would yield a rate of kinetic energy generation equal to zero. Instead, the same authors (2013) present the notion that the potential energy, derived from an outside source (the Sun), is stored in the evapotranspiration of water which, on condensing, converts into kinetic energy, and so drives the process of air mass convection. During daylight hours closed-canopy forests pump more than double the quantity of water vapour per square metre of surface compared to the ocean in the same latitude, the net result being that condensation in cloud-forming over the forest causes surface air to flow upwards, thereby generating low pressure at the surface which, in turn, establishes an ocean-to-land pressure gradient (Makarieva et al., 2013, 2014). By means of evapotranspiration, rainforests, whether in the equatorial tropics or in boreal regions during summer months, feed the lower atmosphere with water vapour, up to some 3 % of atmospheric pressure, and thereby provide the source material for cloud condensation. The partial pressure change, with the corresponding kinetic energy release, drives convection, according to the biotic pump theory (BPT). From that point of view, it is the hydrological cycle, including water evaporation and condensation, which drives convection and therefore the circulation of the air masses. That is in sharp contrast to the orthodox view of convection and air mass circulation, which explains the movement of the air mass through latitudinal differences, helped on by the release of latent heat. 

The proposition that a high rate of evapotranspiration from forested regions is a prime mover of major air mass convection has remained contentious. Meesters et al. (2009) rejected the BPT on the grounds that the ascending air motions induced by the evaporative/condensation force would rapidly restore hydrostatic equilibrium and thereby become extinguished. In reply Makarieva et al. (2009) pointed out that condensation removed water vapour molecules from the gas phase and reduced the weight of the air column. That removal must disturb hydrostatic equilibrium and make air circulate under the action of the evaporation/condensation force (Makarieva, 2009). The mass of an air column is equal to the number of air molecules in the column multiplied by their molecular masses. When the number of air molecules in the column is preserved, its weight remains unchanged and independent of density. Hence, heating of the air column does not change its weight. In contrast, condensation changes the number of gas molecules in the air column and instantaneously reduces the weight of the air column irrespective of the effects it might have on air density (Makarieva, 2009). In effect, the BPT states that the major physical cause of moisture fluxes is not the non-uniformity of atmospheric and surface heating, but that water vapour is invariably upward-directed as a result of the rarefaction of air from condensation (Makarieva, 2013). The BPT, therefore, maintains that the air pressure sustains its disequilibrium because of the reduction in total weight of the air column as condensation occurs, that being a continuous process as the ascending moist air cools. In fact, when the initial bulk air pressure in the lower atmospheric levels no longer equals the bulk weight of the air column, the initial hydrostatic equilibrium of air as a whole is disturbed and an accelerating upward motion is initiated in the air column. This upward motion of expanding and cooling moist air sustains the continuous process of condensation and does not allow the hydrostatic equilibrium of air as a whole to set in. The motion continues as long as there is water vapour in the rising air to sustain condensation (Makarieva, 2009). Within the concept of the biotic pump it is the physical mechanism of condensation which drives the upward airflow in the lower atmosphere by removing molecules from the air column, and thus generates the surface horizontal winds, such as the Trade Winds. 

Conclusion 

This paper describes a series of experiments, in a specially-designed structure, to test the physics of condensation and its potential to cause airflows. The results have provided data for a careful analysis of the physics involved, showing that condensation and the subsequent release of kinetic energy from the partial pressure change do indeed account for the observed airflow. The experimental results therefore provide evidence that condensation and not buoyancy is the major mechanism driving airflow, thus lending strong support to one of the main tenets of the BPT. The results are significant and unambiguous. At least at the laboratory scale, using only conventional physics, such as is employed in climatological studies, the primary force driving convection appears to be the kinetic energy released in the implosive events which take place during condensation, with a sudden reduction –  > 1200-fold – in the air volume of one gram-molecule of water vapour (18 g) as it transforms to liquid and ice. Air density changes are shown to be orders of magnitude less important in convection processes compared to partial pressure changes on condensation. The macro-physics of the experiment is not fundamentally different from that in the lower atmosphere at large. The same laws apply and are widely used by hydrologists, meteorologists and climatologists. Those opposed to the biotic pump theory should therefore re-consider their position and take into account that the physics underlying the theory may not only be correct, but that it operates in the atmosphere at large. 

The general implications are that the great forests of the world play a fundamental role in air mass circulation through providing water vapour via evapotranspiration, and are therefore the “fuel” for a high rate of cloud condensation. Airflow circulation is the net result, bringing the rain to the deep interior of continents. The Biotic Pump theory suggests that the hydrological role of rainforests is by far their most important climatic contribution, and that large-scale deforestation may well be as detrimental in its consequences for the well-being of the planet as are greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, it may be that in macro-climatological terms whether forests are net absorbers or emitters of greenhouse gases is relatively insignificant compared to their hydrological role. 

New paper finds Gleissberg cycle of solar activity related to ocean oscillations, land temperatures, & extreme weather

A new paper published in Advances in Space Research, finds,

"The recent extended, deep minimum of solar variability and the extended minima in the 19th and 20th centuries (1810–1830 and 1900–1920) are consistent with minima of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycle (CGC), a 90–100 year variation of the amplitude of the 11-year sunspot cycle observed on the Sun and at the Earth. The Earth’s climate response to these prolonged low solar radiation inputs involves heat transfer to the deep ocean causing a time lag longer than a decade."

The authors find,

"The spatial pattern of the climate response [to the Gleissberg solar activity cycle]... is dominated by the Pacific North American pattern (PNA). The Gleissberg minima, sometimes coincidently in combination with volcanic forcing, are associated with severe weather extremes. Thus the 19th century Gleissberg minimum, which coexisted with volcanic eruptions, led to especially cold conditions in United States, Canada and Western Europe."

The paper shows clear evidence in the first graph below of a significant, sustained increase of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) from 1700 to the late 20th century, coincident with the end of the Little Ice Age ~1850 and the global warming observed during the 20th century. 

The paper is coauthored by Joan Feynman (sister of the famous physicist Richard Feynman).

Total Solar Irradiance in top graph shows a significant increase of solar activity since 1700. Second wavelet graph shows periodicity (red areas) corresponding to the 90-100 year Gleissberg cycle of solar activity. Bottom graph shows smoothed Gleissberg cycles since 1700. 

Second graph solid line shows Total Solar Irradiance correlates with observed land temperatures (dashed line). 

The Earth’s climate at minima of Centennial Gleissberg Cycles

• Alexander Ruzmaikin^, , 
• Joan Feynman

The recent extended, deep minimum of solar variability and the extended minima in the 19th and 20th centuries (1810–1830 and 1900–1920) are consistent with minima of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycle (CGC), a 90–100 year variation of the amplitude of the 11-year sunspot cycle observed on the Sun and at the Earth. The Earth’s climate response to these prolonged low solar radiation inputs involves heat transfer to the deep ocean causing a time lag longer than a decade. The spatial pattern of the climate response, which allows distinguishing the CGC forcing from other climate forcings, is dominated by the Pacific North American pattern (PNA). The CGC minima, sometimes coincidently in combination with volcanic forcing, are associated with severe weather extremes. Thus the 19th century CGC minimum, coexisted with volcanic eruptions, led to especially cold conditions in United States, Canada and Western Europe.

Related: 

New paper argues current lull in solar activity is consistent with a Gleissberg Cycle minimum

Jupiter emits 67% more radiation than it receives from the Sun -only explanation is the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect, not greenhouse gases

An article published at The Conversation asks Is the Red Spot shrinking superstorm evidence of climate change on Jupiter?, and indeed finds that this and other observed changes are evidence of climate change (of unknown cause) on Jupiter. 

The article incidentally notes that,

"We do know that Jupiter emits 67% more radiation than it receives from the Sun. This is due to an internal heat source, which is thought to drive much of Jupiter\'s weather, including, presumably, the Great Red Spot. The heat likely is generated by the gradual contraction of matter under Jupiter's enormous gravity."

Warmists claim gravity cannot be the cause of any so-called "greenhouse effect" (or the "gravito-thermal greenhouse effect") on Earth, Jupiter, nor any other planet, yet overwhelming observational evidence for every planet in our solar system (with adequate observational data - 8 planets at this point) clearly demonstrates that surface and atmospheric temperatures are a sole function of gravity/mass/pressure and independent of greenhouse gas concentrations. 

In the case of Jupiter, a gas planet composed almost entirely of the non-IR-active, non-greenhouse gases hydrogen and helium, there is no solid planetary surface nor greenhouse gases to allegedly "trap" solar radiation, yet Jupiter has an "internal heat source" that causes a thermal enhancement ("gravito-thermal greenhouse effect") resulting in emission of 67% more radiation than it receives from the Sun. The only possible explanation of this is gravity, not radiative forcing from the Sun nor greenhouse gases, and hence the mass/pressure/gravity gravito-thermal greenhouse effect of Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, Boltzmann, Helmholtz, Feynman, US Std Atmosphere, the HS greenhouse equation is corroborated on 9 planets.

Likewise, the ice planet Uranus has recently been observed to have storms at the top of the atmosphere radiating at blackbody temperatures hotter than required to melt steel. In addition, 

"the base of the troposphere on the planet Uranus is 320K, considerably hotter than on Earth [288K], despite being nearly 30 times further from the Sun. The base of the troposphere on Uranus is 320K at 100 bars pressure, despite the planet only receiving 3.71 W/m2 energy from the Sun. By the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, a 320K blackbody radiates 584.6 W/m2. This is 157.5 times the energy received from the Sun, due to the atmospheric temperature gradient produced within a planetary gravity field. The temperature at the base of the troposphere is determined by the ideal gas law PV=nRT, where pressure from gravity and atmospheric mass raise the temperature at the base of the troposphere from the equilibrium temperature with the Sun of Uranus of 89.94K to 320K, regardless of the atmospheric mixture of greenhouse gases."

Once again, the only possible explanation of both of these phenomena on Uranus is the Maxwell et al gravito-thermal greenhouse effect, thus bringing the number of planets for which very strong evidence exists to a total of ten. 

On Venus, we know from the NASA Fact Sheet:

Venus Atmosphere

Surface pressure: 92 bars = 92000 mbar 
Surface density: ~65. kg/m3 = 65000 g/m3
Scale height: 15.9 km
Total mass of atmosphere:  ~4.8 x 1020 kg
Average temperature: 737 K (464 C)
Diurnal temperature range: ~0 
Wind speeds: 0.3 to 1.0 m/s (surface)
Mean molecular weight: 43.45 
Atmospheric composition (near surface, by volume): 
    Major:       96.5% Carbon Dioxide (CO2), 3.5% Nitrogen (N2) 
    Minor (ppm): Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) - 150; Argon (Ar) - 70; Water (H2O) - 20;
                 Carbon Monoxide (CO) - 17; Helium (He) - 12; Neon (Ne) - 7

We can easily calculate the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect surface temperature of Venus using the ideal gas law 

T = PV/nR = 92000/(65000/43.45*0.083144621) = 739K 

which is within 2K (or 2C) of NASA observations of 737K as noted above, leaving essentially no room for any sort of Arrhenius radiative greenhouse effect on Venus. Note below also, the blackbody temperature of Venus is 184.2K, therefore mass/gravity/pressure alone has thermally enhanced the surface temperature of Venus by a factor of

737K/184.2K = 4 times

Thus, the Arrhenius radiative greenhouse effect is falsified on the basis of observations and first physical principles, and the only possible alternative greenhouse theory of Maxwell et al confirmed. 

Bulk parameters Venus vs. Earth

                                   Venus          Earth     Ratio (Venus/Earth)
Mass (1024 kg)                      4.8676         5.9726         0.815 
Volume (1010 km3)                  92.843        108.321          0.857
Equatorial radius (km)            6051.8         6378.1          0.949     
Polar radius (km)                  6051.8         6356.8          0.952
Volumetric mean radius (km)        6051.8         6371.0          0.950
Ellipticity (Flattening)            0.000          0.00335        0.0  
Mean density (kg/m3)               5243           5514            0.951 
Surface gravity (eq.) (m/s2)        8.87           9.80           0.905 
Surface acceleration (eq.) (m/s2)   8.87           9.78           0.907 
Escape velocity (km/s)             10.36          11.19           0.926
GM (x 106 km3/s2)                   0.3249         0.3986         0.815
Bond albedo                         0.90           0.306          2.94
Visual geometric albedo             0.67           0.367          1.83  
Visual magnitude V(1,0)            -4.40          -3.86             -
Solar irradiance (W/m2)            2613.9         1367.6          1.911
Black-body temperature (K)          184.2          254.3          0.724 
Topographic range (km)               15             20            0.750 
Moment of inertia (I/MR2)           0.33           0.3308         0.998
J2 (x 10-6)                         4.458       1082.63           0.004  
Number of natural satellites          0              1
Planetary ring system                No             No

Thermal enhancement or gravito-thermal greenhouse curve for 8 planets

Is shrinking superstorm evidence of climate change on Jupiter?

in Global 2015-10-20 18:01:08 229 Views

Andrew Coates is Professor of Physics, Head of Planetary Science at the Mullard Space Science Laboratory, UCL. 

(CNN) It makes our most turbulent terrestrial storms look like mere pipsqueaks. But remarkable new Hubble footage shows that Jupiter\'s Great Red Spot -- an anticyclonic storm system twice the size of Earth -- is shrinking and turning orange. Is this evidence of Jovian climate change? And could the planet\'s violent storm finally be giving way to more clement conditions, at least by Jupiter\'s dramatic standards?

Jupiter, the largest planet in our solar system, is a gas giant dominated by hydrogen with some helium and smaller amounts of other gases, a mixture that resembles the composition of the early solar nebula and results in some staggeringly beautiful weather. The planet\'s cloud systems, which counter-rotate in zones and belts, with eastward and westward winds reaching 100 meters per second, are among the solar system\'s most spectacular sights and come in a blaze of different colors -- red due to ammonia, white due to ammonium hydrosulphide, and brown and blue due to additions to water ice.

A raging storm

But one of the most recognizable and persistent features of Jupiter\'s atmosphere is the Great Red Spot (GRS). Swirling around the planet\'s southern hemisphere, it covers a huge 10 degrees of latitude. (2-3 times the size of Earth)

This vast anticyclonic (high pressure) storm system has been observed raging for perhaps 350 years -- the first likely observations were reported in 1664-1655 by Robert Hooke and Gian-Dominique Cassini. It is cooler than its surroundings, rotates anticlockwise with a four to six day period, and is located between zonal winds moving at 100 meters per second.

The Great Red Spot\'s stability over such a long period of time is remarkable. A fluid instability would disappear in a few days to weeks, as in the case of the scars caused when several fragments of the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 struck Jupiter in 1994 -- so an energy source must be powering it. Models have been suggested, but none fully explain the Great Red Spot: is it really a hurricane, a shear instability, an eddy or a solitary wave?

Inside the pressure cooker

We do know that Jupiter emits 67% more radiation than it receives from the Sun. This is due to an internal heat source, which is thought to drive much of Jupiter\'s weather, including, presumably, the Great Red Spot. The heat likely is generated by the gradual contraction of matter under Jupiter\'s enormous gravity. In the planet\'s deeper layers, for example, hydrogen enters a liquid metallic state and the pressure is 3m atmospheres.

We also know that after years of relative stability, the Great Red Spot is now changing. Since 2012, Hubble observations as part of the Outer Planets Atmospheres Legacy (OPAL) program have shown that the spot has been shrinking -- and that the rate of shrinkage has increased in recent years. The latest measurement, published by Amy Simon and colleagues, show a further reduction of 240km, although this rate of shrinkage is less than in preceding years and there are not enough observations yet to know if this is a periodic feature as seen with Neptune\'s great dark spot.

It is not just a matter of size, however. The Hubble results also show that the spot\'s shape is continuing its evolution from oval to circular, and that a new wispy filament, spiralling inwards and driven by winds of at least 150 meters per second, has developed within the Great Red Spot. The core region has also been shrinking, consistent with the overall trend, and is also becoming less distinct. It is also now deep orange in color.

Jovian climate change

There are other changes in the Jovian atmosphere, too. The Hubble observations show a new wave structure about 16 degrees north of Jupiter\'s equator, in a region of cyclones and anticyclones. It is similar to the only previous observation of such a structure by Voyager 2 in 1979 and may herald the birth of a new cyclone there.

It\'s clear that Jupiter\'s atmosphere is changing, and the Great Red Spot is evolving. The question is: why? Is the Great Red Spot fizzling out, or oscillating over time?

The jury is still out, but continued observations by the annual OPAL campaign, combined with in-situ measurements of the atmospheric dynamics and interior structure, may yet reveal intriguing new clues. The JUNO polar orbiter will also reach Jupiter in July next year and doubtless offer answers of its own.

Jupiter\'s mysterious Great Red Spot may be shrinking, then, but the world will be talking about Jupiter\'s weather for a good while yet.

New paper explains the ~1,500 year climate cycle on basis of astronomical variables, not CO2

A potentially important paper published today in Climate of the Past Discussions finds the well-known ~1500 year cycle of "abrupt climate change" can be explained on the basis of astronomical variables that create a "high-frequency extension of the Milankovitch precessional cycle." 

According to the authors,

"The existence of a ~ 1470 year cycle of abrupt climate change is well-established, manifesting in Bond ice-rafting debris (IRD) events, Dansgaard–Oeschger atmospheric temperature cycle, and cyclical climatic conditions precursory to increased El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) variability and intensity. This cycle is central to questions on Holocene climate stability and hence anthropogenic impacts on climate. To date no causal mechanism has been identified, although solar forcing has been previously suggested."

"Here we show that interacting combination of astronomical variables related to Earth's orbit may be causally related to this cycle and several associated key isotopic spectral signals. The ~ 1470 year climate cycle may thus be regarded as a high frequency extension of the Milankovitch precessional cycle, incorporating orbital, solar and lunar forcing through interaction with the tropical and anomalistic years and Earth's rotation."

Warmists claim that the current warm period is not explainable on the basis of solar activity nor astronomical variables, but this paper and many others suggest otherwise, that the current warming period is entirely explainable as a result of natural variability, and for which anthropogenic CO2 plays little to no role.

An astronomical correspondence to the 1470 year cycle of abrupt climate change
A. M. Kelsey1, F. W. Menk2, and P. T. Moss1
1School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia
2Centre for Space Physics, School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Faculty of Science and Information Technology, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia

Received: 09 Sep 2015 – Accepted: 22 Sep 2015 – Published: 20 Oct 2015

Abstract. The existence of a ~ 1470 year cycle of abrupt climate change is well-established, manifesting in Bond ice-rafting debris (IRD) events, Dansgaard–Oeschger atmospheric temperature cycle, and cyclical climatic conditions precursory to increased El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) variability and intensity. This cycle is central to questions on Holocene climate stability and hence anthropogenic impacts on climate (deMenocal et al., 2000). To date no causal mechanism has been identified, although solar forcing has been previously suggested. Here we show that interacting combination of astronomical variables related to Earth's orbit may be causally related to this cycle and several associated key isotopic spectral signals. The ~ 1470 year climate cycle may thus be regarded as a high frequency extension of the Milankovitch precessional cycle, incorporating orbital, solar and lunar forcing through interaction with the tropical and anomalistic years and Earth's rotation.

Related:

The Physical Evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle

Friday, September 30, 2005

by S. Fred Singer & Dennis T. Avery

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary
2. Introduction
3. The Ice Cores
4. Seabed Sediments
5. Lake Sediments
6. Cave Stalagmites
7. Fossilized Pollen
8. Boreholes
9. Tree Rings
10. Mountain Tree Line Elevations
11. Glacier Advances and Retreats
12. Miscellaneous Climate Proxies
13. Summing Up the Worldwide Physical Evidence
14. Notes
15. About the Authors

Lapse Rates for Dummies or Smarties, With & Without Greenhouse Gases

Some commenters have claimed that a theoretical pure Nitrogen (N2) Earth atmosphere without any IR-active 'greenhouse gases' could not have a lapse rate nor a Maxwell et al gravito-thermal greenhouse effect.

However, many prior posts have shown this to be false for a number of reasons, including two posts quoting the Feynman lectures on statistical mechanics of a Boltzmann Distribution pure N2 atmosphere, and the HS post, "Why Greenhouse Gases Don't Affect the Greenhouse Equation or Lapse Rate," which also calculates a pure N2 Boltzmann Distribution for Earth. 

We will now use a couple of illustrations for smarties or dummies to understand why the so-called 'greenhouse gas' water vapor cools, not warms, the Earth surface by up to ~25C via changes in heat capacity (Cp) alone (not even including additional cooling from latent heat transfer or clouds). We will also show why a pure N2 atmosphere without any greenhouse gases would have a surface temperature ~25C warmer than the present, due to a much steeper lapse rate.

Recall that the dry adiabatic lapse rate formula is a very simple, linear relationship whereby the change in temperature (dT) with change in height from the surface (dh) is solely dependent upon the gravitational acceleration constant (g) divided by the heat capacity of the atmosphere at constant pressure (Cp):

dT/dh = -g/Cp

And note that change in temperature dT is inversely related to change in heat capacity (Cp). Since water vapor has a much higher heat capacity Cp than air or pure N2, addition of water vapor greatly decreases the lapse rate (dT/dh) by almost one-half (from ~9.8K/km to ~5K/km), thereby cooling, not warming, the surface by up to 25C. 

In our hypothetical 1st atmosphere consisting only of N2 plus addition of < 1% water vapor, we assume the addition of water vapor creates a wet adiabatic lapse rate of 5K/km, the same as the wet adiabatic lapse rate on Earth. By calculating the center of mass as the HS Greenhouse Eqn does, and calculating the fixed 255K equilibrium temperature between the Earth and Sun, we can then calculate the entire tropospheric temperature profile from the surface to tropopause, and replicate the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere model:

Thought experiment 1 of a N2 atmosphere with < 1% GHG water vapor. Note for easy illustrative purposes only, the actual numbers are rounded slighly, e.g. the actual height of the center of mass is ~5.1km rather than 5.0 km, and the actual dry adiabatic lapse rate is ~9.8K/km, not 10K/km.

Note in the above "greenhouse atmosphere," there is a ~33C "greenhouse effect" from the 255K center of mass to the ~288K surface, as well as an even larger "anti-greenhouse effect" of negative 35K from the 255K center of mass to the ~220K top of troposphere. Thus, gravity has not added any energy to the atmospheric system; gravity has simply redistributed the available energy from the only source the Sun, more towards the surface and less towards the top of the troposphere. That is the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect of Poisson, Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, Boltzmann, Feynman, US Std Atmosphere, HS greenhouse eqn et al, and has no dependence whatsoever upon IR emission/absorption from greenhouse gases.

Now lets consider a hypothetical Earth atmosphere without any greenhouse gases, consisting solely of pure N2. We again use the dry lapse rate equation above, since obviously N2 is affected by gravity (g) and has a heat capacity (Cp). In this pure N2 Boltzmann distribution, the lapse rate can thus be calculated as ~10K/km, essentially the same as our present atmosphere dry lapse rate (9.8K/km). 

For illustrative purposes only, the atmospheric mass of a pure N2 atmosphere is close to that of our present atmosphere, and thus the center of mass is also located near ~5km in the troposphere. However, since the lapse rate is much steeper in a pure N2 atmosphere, the "greenhouse effect" is about 50K from the 255K center of mass to 305K surface, and the "anti-greenhouse effect" is also ~50K from the 255K center of mass to the ~205K top of the troposphere, producing a ~100K temperature gradient from the surface to top of the troposphere:

Thus, we find the net effect of the addition of < 1% 'greenhouse gas' water vapor was to cool, not warm the surface of an N2 atmosphere by up to ~25C. 

Thus, the Arrhenius radiative greenhouse theory (which confuses the cause with the effect) is once again demonstrated to be unphysical and falsified, and the Maxwell et al gravito-thermal greenhouse effect once again vindicated. One and only one of these two competing greenhouse theories can be correct, otherwise the observed effect would be double (66C) that observed (33C). The Maxwell et al theory is the only option which does not violate any laws of thermodynamics.