## Tuesday, September 22, 2015

### 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.

## Monday, September 21, 2015

### WSJ: Moonbeam leads way on lowering living standards; wants to reduce energy use of Californians to North Koreans today

How to Lower U.S. Living Standards

The drastic ‘80 by 50’ goal would reduce the energy use of Californians to that of North Koreans today.

President Obama and energy advisers atop the Energy Department’s solar-panel-equipped Washington, D.C., headquarters in March.

By ROBERT BRYCE  Sept. 21, 2015 7:01 p.m. ET

California Gov. Jerry Brown has a vision: When it comes to greenhouse-gas emissions, he wants his fellow Californians to emulate North Koreans. Meanwhile, many of Mr. Brown’s fellow Democrats—including President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders—will settle for putting Americans on a par with residents of Mexico.

That’s the essence of the climate-change agenda of America’s most prominent Democrats. They have pledged to cut carbon-dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050, (aka 80 by 50). Their plan will take those emissions to levels that are common today in countries far poorer than the U.S.

Earlier this month, by a margin of two votes, the California Assembly rejected SB 32, a bill that would have required the state to achieve 80 by 50. Pushing this bill was the state’s Democratic leadership, including Gov. Brown, Senate President Kevin de León, and the state’s U.S. senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. President Obama has repeatedly endorsed 80 by 50. In early 2009, he said he was setting “a goal for our nation that we will reduce our carbon pollution by more than 80 percent by 2050.”

With the exception of Virginia’s former Sen. Jim Webb, all of the candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for president have called for 80 by 50. Mrs. Clinton endorsed 80 by 50 during her first run for the White House. In 2013, Mr. Sanders joined Ms. Boxer to introduce an 80-by-50 bill. In 2014, Martin O’Malley issued an executive order while governor of Maryland endorsing 80 by 50.

All of this overlooks an essential question: What would 80 by 50 mean for individuals? According to the International Energy Agency, the world per capita average for carbon-dioxide emissions is 4.51 tons a year. Residents of California are responsible for the emission of about twice that amount, 9.42 tons a year. Assuming that the state population doesn’t increase, an 80% cut means the average Californian would be emitting 1.88 tons by 2050.

In other words, those future Californians will be asked to emit less carbon dioxide than do current residents of North Korea. In 2012, according to the IEA, the average North Korean was responsible for 1.83 tons of carbon dioxide. Per capita GDP in North Korea: \$1,800 a year.

Achieving 80 by 50 on a national basis will be similarly painful. In 2012 per capita carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. totaled 16.15 tons. Achieving 80 by 50 would mean each resident of the U.S.—where per capita GDP is \$54,600 a year—would emit 3.23 tons annually. That’s less than Mexicans, who emit 3.72 tons and have a per capita GDP of about \$10,400 a year.

How might 80 by 50 work? Wind and solar energy can’t do the trick. Even ignoring their gargantuan land-use requirements, their incurable intermittence, and the fact that we can’t store large quantities of electricity, those two forms of energy production cannot provide the enormous amounts of energy we need at prices we can afford. James Hansen,one of America’s highest-profile climate scientists, has made that point, saying that “renewable energies are grossly inadequate for our energy needs now and in the foreseeable future.”

Nuclear energy is doing more to cut carbon-dioxide emissions than any other form of energy, but Democratic politicians and their allies at Greenpeace and the Sierra Club refuse to even mention it. A recent Gallup poll found that only 24% of Democratic voters support nuclear energy.

What would 80 by 50 cost? None of the Democrats has provided a cost estimate, but we can get an idea by looking at Germany, which has set a goal of getting 80% of its energy from renewables by 2050.

Germany has already spent \$100 billion on subsidies for renewables and its environment minister, Peter Altmaier, has estimated that hitting its 80 by 50 target will require spending another \$1.3 trillion over the next two decades. The U.S. economy is four times as large as Germany’s, and U.S. energy consumption is seven times as large. Reaching 80 by 50 in the U.S. would likely cost more than \$5 trillion. For reference, the cost of ObamaCare over the next decade is projected at \$1.2 trillion.

In short, America’s highest-profile Democrats, including the leading contenders for the White House, have endorsed a climate agenda that will cost far more than ObamaCare. Yet not one of them or their green allies have provided a credible plan—meaning one that doesn’t include lots of nuclear energy—for achieving such draconian reductions without wrecking the economy. These Democrats can’t provide a scenario for achieving 80 by 50—a plan that is affordable and technically viable—for a simple reason: Such a scenario doesn’t exist.

Mr. Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, is the author of “Smaller Faster Lighter Denser Cheaper: How Innovation Keeps Proving the Catastrophists Wrong” (PublicAffairs, 2014).

"Dark" North Korea as seen from satellites at night, and apparently soon to be Moonbeam CA:

## Saturday, September 19, 2015

### Why 'greenhouse gases' don't 'trap heat' in the atmosphere

Optical and electronic engineer KevinK, a frequent contributor to the Hockey Schtick, posted an excellent comment a couple days ago on the WUWT post How Reliable are the Climate Models, and with which I fully agree, and have elevated to a post here.

KevinK elegantly explains why the Arrhenius radiative greenhouse effect essential to the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) is fictional, and confuses the actual cause (the 33C gravito-thermal greenhouse effect of Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, Boltzmann, Feynman, US Standard Atmosphere, the HS greenhouse equation, et al) with the effect (IR absorption and emission from IR-active 'greenhouse gases').

KevinK

Mike Jonas writes:
“Carbon Dioxide (CO2) : At last we come to something which is quite well understood. The ability of CO2 to absorb and re-emit a specific part of the light spectrum is well understood and well quantified, supported by a multitude of laboratory experiments.
Yes indeed this is not in doubt. However, the result of this phenomenon in the climate is still very much in doubt. Especially with regard to the “average” temperature. Aside from the fact that an “average temperature” has no useful meaning. I’m reminded of the old observation that if one of your feet is in ice water and the other is in boiling water you are “on average” quite comfortable overall.
Here is where the alleged “GHE” breaks down. There are numerous examples of human designed optical systems (aka applied radiation physics) that exhibit “back radiation”. Including the optical integrating sphere and the multi layer optical interference filter. In both cases “back radiation” certainly exists, but it can be difficult to measure. In neither case does the “back radiation” alone cause the source to “reach a higher temperature”.
In the specific case of an optical integrating sphere the interior surface of the sphere (highly reflective) becomes a “virtual light source”. This concept of a virtual source is somewhat specific to the optical engineering community. It helps with understanding (and predicting) the paths that photons will follow through a system. However (and this is a very big however) it DOES NOT predict the energy present at any point in the system.
In the case of an optical integrating sphere with an incandescent filament (aka a light bulb) inside this “back radiation” merely delays the elapsed travel time of the photons flowing through the system. This is a result of the photons “bouncing back and forth” inside the sphere until they find an “exit port”.
This is known as the “transient response” of an optical integrating sphere.
This is a somewhat obscure but still well understood concept. If you inject an input “pulse” of light (off, then quickly on, then quickly off again) this transient response function will create a “stretched” pulse of output light. Specifically this square input pulse is no longer a square output pulse since some photons will quickly find an exit port and others will “bounce near and far” before exiting the sphere.
The gaseous atmosphere of the Earth is quite like an optical integrating sphere in this regard. The photons arriving from the Sun and being converted to emitted IR radiation (still a form of light or electromagnetic radiation and following all of the same rules/laws) simply bounce “back and forth” between the atmosphere and the surface. All this bouncing merely delays the flow of energy through the system as the energy alternates between light energy and thermal energy.
Given the dimensions of the atmosphere (about 5 miles high) and the velocity of light (still considered quite speedy) this alleged “GHE” merely delays the flow of energy (arriving as sunlight) through the system by a few tens of milliseconds. The specific delay for any given photon is of course described by a statistical distribution.
Since the period of the arriving light is about 24 hours this delay of a few tens of milliseconds has no effect on the “average temperature” at the surface of the Earth.
Another example of “back radiation” and its practical uses is the multi layer optical interference coating. This is the highly engineered coating on most modern optical lenses. It appears slightly purple when observed off-axis. The purpose of this coating is to reduce reflections from the surface of a lens.
These coatings have greatly improved the quality of photographs and videos by increasing contrast and reducing “ghost images” (images that are created by the individual surfaces inside a modern optical lens).
These coatings function by delaying “following photons” by a time equivalent to a fraction of the wavelength of the arriving light. By creating exactly the correct delay interval the reflected light is exactly “out of phase” from the arriving light and destructive optical interference occurs. This moves the optical energy to a location inside the optical lens where it is no longer subject to surface reflections.
Both of these “applied radiation physics” effects/techniques have been applied for decades and are quite well understood.
The alleged “radiative greenhouse effect” merely delays the flow of energy through the system and has no effect on the “average temperature”. It does change the response time of the gases in the climate. Since the gases have the smallest thermal capacity of all the components present (Oceans, land masses, atmosphere) the idea that they are controlling the “average temperature” is quite ludicrous.
Modeling these radiative effects in the climate is probably impossible. The required spatial distances are sub-micron the the time steps necessary are in the nanosecond range. There would need to be a increase of computing power of about ten orders of magnitude to even begin to attempt this.
There is of course a gravitational greenhouse effect whereby the effects of gravity acting on the gases in the atmosphere of the Earth predict quite well (see the US standard atmosphere model last updated in 1976) the temperature of the atmosphere of the Earth with no use of radiative effects at all.
It is quite sad that all this effort has been wasted on modeling the “unmodelable”.
Cheers, KevinK.

• Bubba Cow

I would like you and george e smith to elevate this to a post and send to Anthony.
• KevinK

Bubba, thank you.
I did submit a somewhat whimsical explanation of this delay line effect to Anthony several years ago.
I have submitted a more detailed explanation to other climate science sites as well.
The “radiative greenhouse effect” is merely a form of hybrid optical/thermal delay line. It has no effect on the “average” temperature at the surface of the Earth.
Cheers, KevinK
• Mike Jonas

KevinK – Your comment is at a greater level of detail than my article, so as suggested would be better as a separate article. I note your “Since the gases have the smallest thermal capacity of all the components present (Oceans, land masses, atmosphere) the idea that they are controlling the “average temperature” is quite ludicrous.“, but to my mind the GHG theory whereby some outgoing IR is in effect turned back and thus affects surface temperature is at least prima facie credible [HS Comment: No, that's not credible, radiation from cold blackbodies cannot ever warm/increase the temperature/frequency/energy of hotter blackbodies, ever, proven by Planck's Law of Blackbody Radiation and Quantum theory]. I’m prepared to work with this version (even though, just like everything else, science may one day overturn it) while there are such glaring errors elsewhere.
•
KevinK,
I think that is the best comment I have read here in several weeks at least. (a high complement considering the quality of the comments here)
I do hope that you will offer that comment as a post, that it is posted, and that then the moderation allow a full and complete debate on all parts of it. There are many of us who think the mass of the atmosphere along with gravity is the main reason for the misnamed “green house effect” along with H2O in all its phases.
~ Mark
• MarkW

If this delaying of the photon by a few milliseconds has no impact on the “average temperature”, please explain the well documented phenomena of heat retention on humid nights compared to dry one. [HS Comment: See

### Why are cloudy nights warmer? Not from greenhouse gas 'back-radiation']

• KevinK

The thermal capacity of water is much greater than CO2.
This is why the main purpose of indoor air conditioning is to remove the water vapor first and then secondarily reduce the temperature of the now dryer air.
• MarkW

Kevin, Liquid water yes, because of it’s much greater density. However the difference between water in the vapor stage and CO2 is much, much smaller.
Regardless, the warming affect of water occurs even when it is the air aloft that is damp and the air at the surface is dry. IE, clouds.
[HS comment: No many papers prove the net effect of clouds is cooling, although they can reduce convective cooling somewhat, but which has nothing to do with radiative forcing. In addition, increased water vapor increases the heat capacity Cp of the atmosphere, which decreases the lapse rate, which COOLs the surface].
• MarkW

Has anyone calculated the average delay for a photon that is within one of CO2 absorbtion bands?
I strongly suspect that it is more than a few milliseconds. Given that the direction of the photon when it is re-emitted is random, it could be down as easily as up, if it is sideways, it will have many miles of dense atmosphere to traverse compared to up.
• Gloria Swansong

At about 22 minutes, Dr. Happer shows the “xylophone effect” on a CO2 molecule.https://youtu.be/gMdYmAo08O4
Here is an email exchange between Dave Burton and Will Happer concerning the issue of “re-emitting” a photon v. collisions with other molecules in the air, mostly N2 of course:
A portion of their discussion:
After hearing Will’s lecture, Dave asks:
1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.
2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).
Did I understand that correctly?
Will replies: [YES, PRECISELY. I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]
Dave: You didn’t mention it, but I assume H2O molecules have a similar decay time to emit an IR photon. Is that right, too?
[YES. I CAN’T IMMEDIATELY FIND A SIMILAR PAPER TO THE ONE I ATTACHED ABOUT CO2, BUT THESE TRANSITIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY STUDIED IN CONNECTION WITH INTERSTELLAR MASERS. I ATTACH SOME NICE VIEWGRAPHS THAT SUMMARIZE THE ISSUES, A FEW OF WHICH TOUCH ON H2O, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT INTERSTELLAR MOLECULES. ALAS, THE SLIDES DO NOT INCLUDE A TABLE OF LIFETIMES. BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TRACK THEM DOWN FROM REFERENCES ON THE VIEWGRAPHS IF YOU LIKE. ROUGHLY SPEAKING, THE RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENTS SCALE AS THE CUBE OF THE WAVELENTH AND INVERSELY AS THE SQUARE OF THE ELECTRIC DIPOLE MATRIX ELEMENT (FROM BASIC QUANTUM MECHANICS) SO IF AN ATOM HAS A RADIATIVE LIFETIME OF 16 NSEC AT A WAVELENGTH OF 0.6 MIRONS (SODIUM), A CO2 BENDING MODE TRANSITION, WITH A WAVELENGTH OF 15 MICRONS AND ABOUT 1/30 THE MATRIX ELEMENT SHOULD HAVE A LIFETIME OF ORDER 16 (30)^2 (15/.6)^3 NS = 0.2 S.
Dave: So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, not by re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)?
Will: [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]
Dave: In other words, the very widely repeated description of GHG molecules absorbing infrared photons and then re-emitting them in random directions is only correct for about one absorbed photon in a billion. True?
Will: [YES, IT IS THIS EXTREME SLOWNESS OF RADIATIVE DECAY RATES THAT ALLOWS THE CO2 MOLECULES IN THE ATMOSPHERE TO HAVE VERY NEARLY THE SAME VIBRATION-ROTATION TEMPERATURE OF THE LOCAL AIR MOLECULES.]
• HS comment: Whether the true delay is microseconds to minutes makes little difference, since a 12 hour night can easily erase & reverse this "radiative heat trapping," with no net effect on a daily, annual, or multi-decadal basis whatsoever.
• There can only be one and only one 33C greenhouse effect: 1) the 33C Arrhenius radiative GHE, or 2) the 33C Maxwell et al gravito-thermal GHE, otherwise the greenhouse effect would be double (66C) that observed. Clearly, overwhelming evidence, such as the above, favors the gravito-thermal GHE by lightyears.

# The Cloud feedback

by Cederlöf. Google translation from the Stockholm Initiative site
In the comments to my last post, led the signature "Slabadang" me on an interesting track. He claimed that the clouds varied in tune with the solar radiation. If this would be the clouds would have a negative feedback and thus balance the climate. I downloaded the satellite data from CERES to check his data.
Below is how the global cloud cover varies with the global solar radiation. The reason that solar radiation varies over the year is that the Earth is in an elliptical orbit around the sun. When we in the northern hemisphere has winter, we are therefore closest to the sun. However, it is the angle to the sun which means we have winter.

The global cloud cover and solar radiation variation over the year. The cloud cover is an average of the years 2000 to 2014.
So it is a poor correlation between cloud cover and solar radiation if you look at the Earth as a whole. However piling a completely different picture up if you instead look at the two hemispheres:

The cloud cover and solar radiation variation over the year in the northern hemisphere.

The cloud cover and solar radiation variation over the year in the northern hemisphere.
For the two hemispheres, there is thus a very good correlation between solar radiation and cloud cover. The reason that you can not see any correlation globally is likely that these variations are so much less that they drown out the noise of the large variations in the hemispheres.
It is thus clear that cloud cover increases when solar radiation increases. Then the sun's rays do not reach the earth's surface and then counteracts the clouds changes. The same must therefore apply to the carbon dioxide effect. When it increases, the clouds that counteract the temperature change. Here we have again an example that there is a negative feedback and not a positive feedback that the whole scare propaganda in climate science based.
Note also that the clouds are much larger in the southern hemisphere than it is in the northern hemisphere. The reason for this is that there are more clouds over the oceans, and there's a lot more sea in the southern hemisphere.
Climate sensitivity
It is thus more clouds in the southern hemisphere, and the temperature is also lower. Looking at 1000hPa level (near surface), the average temperature of the southern hemisphere 14.4C and for the northern hemisphere 16.5C. After millions of years of energy storage in the oceans of the southern hemisphere, then the temperature is still much lower. One can not interpret it otherwise than that the oceans hold temperature. A major reason for this must be that the clouds in the southern hemisphere allows the sun's rays do not reach the earth's surface.
In the southern hemisphere, the average cloud cover 65.5% and in the northern hemisphere 57.6%, according to CERES-date. If the average solar radiation is 237W / m2 can then southern hemisphere approximately 7.9% of 237W / m2 = 18.7W / m2 less sun than the Northern Hemisphere. Now this is probably a little high counted for even if the cloud cover is 100%, the clouds themselves to radiate towards the Earth's surface.
The difference in temperature between the southern and northern hemisphere is thus 2.1c and the difference in solar is about 18.7W / m2. It allows every Watt / m2, equivalent to about 0.11 degree. A doubling of carbon dioxide levels will provide approximately 3.7W / m2, it therefore corresponds to approximately 0.4 degrees (climate sensitivity). Now I have probably figured a little low, since the change in insolation probably figured a little high, and there may also be other reasons that the temperature between the hemispheres differ. But it is still very far from the many degrees of climate sensitivity horror forecasts suggest. I have previously calculated the climate sensitivity of about 0.3 degrees by looking at seasonal variations (here).