This is a key step in the Climate Debate

Determining the ‘exact’ Blackbody temperature of the planet is the first step in determining what the “greenhouse’ effect is; for without that value all else is either speculation or based on an unreliable value. This leads us to a quandary since the plant is a global spinning around a titled axis and with an elliptical orbit around the sun Figure 1 which is the source of virtually all the energy that heats the planet. Clearly with these facts there cannot be one temperature for the planet and so an average can be very misleading and lead to false conclusions.

Traditional calculations of the planets black body temperature ignore the variables which then lead one to assume a steady state situation verses the real dynamic situation that drives climate. To justify this assumption a general statement that the variances are too small to have any meaningful effect are promoted. I some cases with fewer variables this might be true but in this case I think not.

These are the main Variables:

1. The sun has a cycle of about eleven years and that gives a small variation in the suns output of about 1%
2. The planet has an elliptical Orbit that varies by 3.34% or 4,999,849 miles
3. The axial tilt of the planet is 23.4 degrees which causes winter and summer to alternate between Aphelion and Perihelion about every 10,000 years
4. The planet is a sphere so only one side faces the sun at any given moment
5. The sun’s energy reaches the planet on a line drawn from the center of the sun to the center of the planet which only intersects the equator twice a year
6. The energy from the sun is concentrated around this line
7. The planet is a sphere so the suns radiation drops off in all directions from this line by a Cosine factor to zero at the edge 90 degrees from the center line
8. The spin and tilt of the planet means that the center line moves up 23.4 degrees and down 23.4 degrees during the course of one orbit
9. That movement means the distribution of energy also moves
10. The distribution of land and ocean are not uniform on the planet
11. The albedo of the planet is a variable not a constant
12. Energy from the core adds a small amount of energy
13. Tidal forces from the sun and the moon also add some energy
14. Energy is carried North and South from the hot spot centered on the line by the atmosphere and the ocean
15. The Coriolis Effect along with tidal forces drive thermal transfer north and south at an angle and these are then main contributors to the climate

Figure 1, the Earth’s orbit

Figure 2, orbital changes in solar flux

There are three sources of energy that determine the climate on the earth: the radiation from the sun which is said to be 1366 Wm2 The actual value based on the orbital range is from 1414.4 Wm2 in January to 1323.0 Wm2 in July Figure 2 and there is also an eleven year sun spot cycle with a range of 1.37 Wm2. The hot core of the planet adds ~0.087 W/m2 and the gravitational effects of the moon and the sun (tides) adds another ~.00738 Wm2. Of these three the sun’s radiation is by far the most important but considering all three the range during an eleven year solar cycle is from a high of ~1415.3 Wm2 to a low of ~1322.4 Wm2 so a more accurate mean would be 1368.34 Wm2.

The energy emitted by the planet must equal the energy absorbed by the planet and we can calculate this using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Which is the energy flux emitted by a blackbody is related to the fourth power of the body’s absolute temperature. The tidal and core temperatures are added after the albedo adjustment.

E = σT4
σ = 5.67×10-8 Wm2 K sec
A = 30.6% (the planets albedo, this is not a constant)

σTbb4 x (4πRe2) = S πRe2 x (1-A)
σTbb4 = S/4 * (1-A)
σTbb4 = 1368.24/4 Wm2 * (1-A)
σTbb4 = 342.16 Wm2 * (1-A)
σTbb4 = 254.36 Wm2

Earth’s Blackbody temperature                      Earth’s surface temperature

Tbb = 252.23O K (-20.92O C) low                  Ts = ~287.75O K (14.6 O C) today
Tbb = 254.36O K (-18.79O C) mean
Tbb = 256.54O K (-16.51O C) high

The difference between the Blackbody and the current temperatures is what we call the ‘greenhouse’ effect that averages 33.36O Celsius (C), today, although the range is from 35.52O C to 31.11O C from variations in the 11 year solar cycle. Despite this variation in incoming solar flux the planet’s temperatures is very stable. Other factors are also important in doing climate work such as the solar energy is concentrated between about +/- 30 degrees of the equator maybe a bit more. And the heat from the core and probably the tides is concentrated where the crust is the thinnest under the oceans and this concentration of energy core heat and tides) combined with Coriolis forces is probably what drives the ocean currents. In my opinion these other important factors are not being considered properly in the climate models.

We also know from geological studies Figure 3 that the planets temperature has been relatively stable over the past 600 million years with a mean of about 17O C or 290O Kelvin (K) and with a range of plus or minus 5O K or C based on the information in Figure 3. During the past 250 million years CO2 concentrations have ranged from a low of ~280 ppm (a historic low)in 1800 to the present low of 400 ppm to a high of over 2,000 ppm probably averaging around 1,500 ppm. There was only one other period in the past 600 million years with CO2 this low. Going back further CO2 was estimated to be as high is 7000 ppm, but we will ignore that for now.

This means that whatever the processes are that relate to determining the thermal balance of the planet they must work within this range to be valid. Although Figure 3 shows a range of 10O C it would be prudent to spend resources to determine these values with as great accuracy as possible. We’ll assume a mean of 16O C with a range from 10O to 22O C as being more reasonable. Also we are now in one of only three cold periods which are very rare in the past 600 million years and if we count that partial dip 150 million years ago that means that there is probably a 150 million year cycle there; maybe one of those first determined my Milutin Milankovic.

Figure 3, Geological temperatures and Carbon Dioxide

Additional discussion as to the so called “greenhouse” effect must start with the important correction that this process is not a true greenhouse effect, since it is not the same process that occurs in a greenhouse used to grow food. The actual process that occurs is based on the structure of the atoms involved and how they interact with the various frequencies of visible and infrared radiation that are in play on the planet. However at this point in time there is no way to correct for the misuse of the words so we are stuck with it and all the complications that therefore arise in trying to properly discuss the issue with lay people and even some with technical knowledge.

The greenhouse effect occurs within the earth’s atmosphere and the main constitutes of wet air, by volume ppmv (parts per million by volume) are listed in the following table. Water vapor is 0.25% over the full atmosphere but locally it can be 0.001% to 5% depending on local conditions. Water and CO2 are mostly near the surface not in the upper atmosphere so the bulk of the greenhouse effect must be close to the surface.

                                   Gas Volume Percentage
Nitrogen (N2)                                 780,840 ppmv   78.8842%
Oxygen (O2)                                   209,460 ppmv   20.8924%
Argon (Ar)                                          9,340 ppmv    0.9316%
Water vapor (H2O)                             2,500 ppmv     0.2494%
Carbon dioxide (CO2)                            400 ppmv     0.0399%
Neon (Ne)                                          18.18 ppmv     0.001813%
Helium (He)                                         5.24 ppmv     0.000523%
Methane (CH4)                                    1.79 ppmv      0.000179%

There are only two of these gases that are relevant to determining how that 33O C (today) happens. That is not to say the others do not contribute but that at the present concentrations of Water H2O and Carbon Dioxide CO2 they are the main determinants. And since we know the range of temperatures that have existed geologically then we have set the range which these to gases must interact in, meaning that any set of equations or models or theories that predict values outside this range must be suspect based on geological evidence.

Also it must be kept in mind that the solar flux falls on a spot centered on a line drawn from the center of the earth to the center of the sun and because of the 23.5O axial tilt of the planet this “Hot” spot moves up and down as the planet moves though its orbit. Because of the shape of the planet the intensity falls off quickly as we move north and south and east and west according to a cosine factor so the heat energy is mostly over oceans near the equator where the atmosphere is the densest.

The first image below Figure 4 shows a recent distribution of water across the planet and it is clearly concentrated over the oceans close to the equator and that results in the heat imbalance and therefore movement north and south as shown in the second image Figure 5.

Figure 4, water vapor concentrated near the equator

Figure 5, basic heat flows from the equator north and south

The next two images show how that energy is moved by the water Figure 6 and the atmosphere north and south from the equator Figure 7.

Figure 6, Ocean currents

Figure 7, Atmospheric heat flows

In summary we now know that the Blackbody temperature of the planet is a variable.

Tbbl   = 252.23O K (-20.92O C) low at Aphelion
Tbbm = 254.36O K (-18.79O C) and the yearly mean
Tbbh  = 256.54O K (-16.51O C) high at Perihelion

Therefore the ‘greenhouse effect must also be a variable.

Ts = ~287.75O K (14.6O C) today

Ghl =   Tbbl + Ts    = 35.52O C
Ghm = Tbbm + Ts = 32.39O C
Ghh =  Tbbh + Ts   = 31.11O C

The range in temperature just from orbital changes is therefore 4.41 O C which is significantly more than the warming that the IPCC claims has happened. These are hard numbers based on the solar flux which is known and the orbital parameters of the Earth that are also known. The large variances come from the Stefan-Boltzmann Law; which is the energy flux emitted by a Blackbody is related to the fourth power of the body’s absolute temperature. The fourth power in the equation magnifies the small variation in solar flux significantly.

Homogenized Anomalies

NASA makes an attempt at determining the World’s temperature each month and publishes the result around the middle of each month in various reports one of which is called the Land Ocean Temperature Index, or LOTI. This table of values is published back to January 1880 and the lasted version includes temperatures though April 2014, or 1,600 values. However, rather than publish an actual temperature they first establish a base of 14.0 degrees Celsius and then using a complex algorithm determine a value higher or lower than the 14.0 degrees Celsius base in hundredths of a degree which they call an anomaly, i.e. 13.5 degrees Celsius would be -50 and 14.5 would be +50. Each month when the new table is created using this process called “homogenization” NASA recalculates all the temperatures all the way back to January 1880.

After several years of studying the published values, sometime in early 2013 as I remember it, a major change was noticed in the 2012 published values from those in earlier periods. Previous to this minor changes of a few hundredths of a degree were commonly observed in the LOTI data but they just appeared to be random or rounding changes, which would be normal in a process like NASA uses, so they were ignored. The reason is that a few pluses and a few minuses would mostly cancel out and could be ignored as having no real affect. What was observed was something much different and so an in depth analysis was made of the entire set of 13 available tables and then by entering all the data for 8 of them plus 5 new ones into a spreadsheet which created a table with now over 22,000 values, which could be reviewed.

To simplify the analysis the data for the 13 reports was looked at in ten year blocks e.g. January 1880 to December 1889 which would be 120 values and an average determined; this would eliminate any random or rounding changes. This was done for the period January 1880 through December 2009 creating a Table of 169 values which were placed into an Excel Chart. What should have been observed would be a more or less horizontal line across the Chart for each time block for the average value of the NASA anomaly for that period. Instead what was observed were major shifts mostly down meaning colder in a large number of the ten year time blocks all occurring during 2012; meaning that a programming change must have been made that shifted around entire blocks of temperature anomalies. This has to be intentional and not random.

Rather than show all 13 plots four new ones were created to show where the major change was and they are plotted here as 1900 to 1919, 1920 to 1939, 1940 to 1959 and 1960 to 1979 each plot containing 240 values for each of the 13 NASA LOTI reports. Virtually all the 13 original time blocks showed this kind of shift, some up and some down in values, but since many overlapped it was hard to track the individual plots and this simplified version shows the core of what was done with the temperatures without the distraction of too many plots.

It’s obvious that there has been a major shift in the values shown in NASA table LOTI during these four 20 year periods totaling 80 years; shown in the area contained in the blue oval with the question mark. What appears to have been done is to make the 1900 to 1919 period .15 degrees colder; make the 1920 to 1939 period .1 degree colder; make the 1940 to 1959 period about .05 degrees colder and them make the 1960 to 1979 period about .025 degrees warmer. While doing this they made the 1960 to 1979 period warmer than the earlier 1940 to 1959 period such that the look of the data fit the narrative of the alarmist message being promoted by Hansen and Gore of dangerous anthropogenic global warming which was the original message being promoted at the time. The data after the 2012 change shows a very clear ~.35 degree progressive warming, red arrow, from 1900 to 1979 compared to less than ~.2 degrees prior to 2012, black arrow, and it also gets rid of the 1940 to 1959 warm period which doesn’t match the overall message being promoted.

It’s hard to image how this change could come about without conscious effort being applied to make this the end result; it’s just too convenient to be by chance.

Sir Karl Raimund Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian and British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. He is considered one of the most influential philosophers of science of the 20th century, and he also wrote extensively on social and political philosophy. The following quotes of his apply to this subject.

If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories.

Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.

… (S)cience is one of the very few human activities — perhaps the only one — in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected

What really going on with the Climate?

The analysis and plots shown here are based on the following: first NASA-GISS temperature anomalies (converted to degrees Celsius) as shown in their table LOTI, second James Hansen’s Scenario B data, which is the very core of the IPCC Global Climate models which was based on a CO² sensitivity value of 3.0 degrees Celsius, lastly, a plot based on an alternative climate model designated the ‘PCM’ climate model based on a sensitively value of .65 degrees Celsius. To smooth out large monthly variations a 12 month running average is used in all the plots. This information will be shown in four tables and updated each month as the new data comes in.

The first plot, UL is a plot of the NASA temperature anomaly converted to degrees Celsius shown in red with a black trend line added. There has been a very clear reversal in the upward movement of global temperatures since about 2001 and neither the UN IPCC nor anyone else has an explanation for this. Since CO² has continued to increase at what could be argued an increasing rate this raises serious doubts about the logic programmed into all the IPCC global climate models.

The next plot UR, also in red, shows the IPCC estimates of what the Global temperature should be, based on Hansen’s Scenario B, with the NASA actual temperatures’ subtracted from them. Therefore this plot represents a deviation from what the Climate “believers” think the temperature should be; with a positive value indicating the IPCC values are higher than actual and a negative value indicating the IPCC values are lower than actual. A black trend line is added and we can clearly see that the deviation from expected is increasing at an increasing rate. This makes sense since the IPCC models project increased temperatures based primarily on the increasing level of CO² in the earth’s atmosphere. Unfortunately, for them, the actual temperatures from NASA are trending down since other factors are in play, therefore each year the gap between them widens. Since we have 12 years of observations’ showing this pattern it becomes hard to justify a continuing belief in the IPCC climate models, there is obviously something very wrong.

The next plot LL shown in blue is based on the equations in the PCM climate model described in previous papers and posts here and since it is generated by “equations” a trend line is not needed. As can be seen the PCM, LL, and the NASA, UL, trend plots are very similar the reason being that in the PCM model there is a 68.2 year cycle that moves the trend line up and then down a total of .30 degrees Celsius (.0044 degrees Celsius per year); and we are now in the downward portion of that trend which will continue until around 2035. This short cycle is clearly observed in the raw NASA data in the LOTI table going back to 1880. Because there is also a long trend, 1052.6 years with an up and down of 1.36 degrees Celsius (.0013 degrees Celsius per year) also observed in the NASA data; there is a net cooling of .0031 degrees Celsius per year going up right now. After about 2035 it will reverse and be a net increase of .0057 degrees Celsius. These are all round numbers as both curves are sine curves.

The last plot LR in blue uses the same logic as used in the UR plot, here we use the PCM estimates of what the Global temperature should be with the NASA actual temperatures’ subtracted from them. A positive value indicates the PCM values are higher than actual and a negative value indicates the PCM values are lower than expected. A black trend line was added and it clearly shows that the PCM model is tracking the NASA actual values very closely. In, fact since 1970 the PCM model has rarely been off by more than +/- .1 degrees Celsius and has an average trend of almost zero error, while the IPCC models are erratic and are now approaching an error rate of +.5 degrees above expected.

The IPCC models were designed before a true picture of the world’s climate was understood. During the 1980’s and 1990’s CO² levels were going up and the world temperature was also going up so there appeared to be correlation and causation. The mistake that was made was looking at only a 20 year period when the real variations in climate move in much longer cycles. Those other cycles can be observed in the NASA data but they were ignored for some reason. By ignoring those trends and focusing only on CO² the models will be unable to correctly plot global temperatures until they are fixed.

The purpose of this post is to make people aware of the errors inherent in the IPCC models so that they can be corrected.

Sir Karl Raimund Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian and British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. He is considered one of the most influential philosophers of science of the 20th century, and he also wrote extensively on social and political philosophy. The following quotes of his apply to this subject.

If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories.

Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.

… (S)cience is one of the very few human activities — perhaps the only one — in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected

Water the climate stabilizer

This post is an “opinion piece” although I believe it is based on sound principles and the conclusion is probably not all that far off from what we actually have with the planets climate.

What so many people forget when they are discussing the subject of Climate Change or Anthropogenic Climate Change is that the primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is Water, just plain old H₂O at .25% or 2,500 ppm. The Carbon Dioxide CO₂ that so many are extremely worried about is only a minor player at only .04% or 400 ppm. The how that these two interact in our atmosphere along with incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared (IR) is what keeps the atmosphere of the planet 33 degrees Celsius warmer than it would be without these two gases. In other words the planet would be an ice ball and probably devoid of life without them.

When studying climate in relationship to Water and the various other trace gases such as CO_2, Ozone, and Methane one finds that there are only a few bands (frequencies) of visible (incoming) or Infra red radiation (outgoing) where the trace gases could affect water which is the repository of the heat making up that 33 degrees Celsius of warming.   Ozone absorbs ultra violet which is very important to us but does not interact with the water or the Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere so it can be dismissed for considerations involving changes in global temperature. Methane at present levels is only 1.8 ppm and so even though it could be a factor at higher levels it can also be dismissed; and so for all practical purposes that only leaves Water and Carbon Dioxide to consider for changes in the climate with the variations of these gases in the atmosphere.

When we look at charts showing the radiation transmitted by the atmosphere or absorbed by it. It would seem that the ratio of absorption of energy by Carbon Dioxide to Water is about 1 to 6 or in other words 16.7% CO₂ and 83.3% H₂O. Since we know that there is energy in the H₂O in the atmosphere from absorbing visible and Infra red energy and that can be determined to be 33 degrees Celsius that distribution logic tells us that 5.5 degrees Celsius is related to CO₂ and 27.5 degrees is related to H₂O.   Based on these numbers we can generate sensitivity plots. Those plots make sense from observations of the atmosphere when all things are considered in proper context.

We’ll look at CO₂ first and we find that from many peer reviewed papers the sensitivity values for CO₂ have been moving down from the original National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 1979 Charney report of 3.0 degrees Celsius being the most likely to now most being less than 2.0 degrees Celsius. There are even a few studies below 1.0 degrees Celsius such as .68 degrees Celsius Harde and .64 degrees Celsius Lindzen. If we pick .65 and plot the resultant curve we find that 400 ppm intersects the CO2 plot at 5.5 degrees warming which just happens to be the same value that we got looking at the radiation absorption and transmission Charts. In my work I came up with .65 degrees Celsius as well because it was the value that made my model work; so obviously I have no problem with this value.

The following Chart shows the relationship that we just described.

With the Carbon Diode subject now settled (here) that leaves water to be studied and this is a little more complex. Everyone agrees that water is the primary greenhouse gas because of the large amount of heat that it can hold, from Wikipedia we have the following three statements:

Waters heat capacity is the highest of all common liquids and most solids and it prevents extreme changes in the planets temperature i.e. it is a great heat moderator.

Waters latent heat of fusion is also the highest of all common solids and liquids its thermostatic heat regulating effect is due to the release of heat when freezing and the absorption on melting.

Waters latent heat of vaporization is the highest of all common substances so it is immensely important in the transfer of heat in and between the ocean and the atmosphere which makes it a driving force in climate and weather.

We know following the logic used here that 5.5 degrees Celsius was the amount of increase in the atmosphere from Carbon Dioxide and so if we subtract that from 33 degrees Celsius we get a remainder of 27.5 degrees Celsius. That must then be the amount contributed by the water itself to the process and we can make another chart showing the contribution due to water. To make the chart we have water at 2500 ppm and we know the amount of increase in temperature must be 27.5 degrees Celsius so what sensitivity value will produce that curve? The following plot shows that if the sensitivity value of water is approximately 2.45 than we get the required value as shown in the following Chart.

This process makes sense since if the numbers were reversed and we made Carbon Dioxide have a sensitivity of 3.0 degrees Celsius (as the IPCC claims it is) than the warming from CO₂ would be 27.9 and there would be no room for the water as there would only be 7.1 degrees available for the water.  These numbers are almost the same as what was developed here but reversed between the CO₂ and Water so it has to be one way or the other. However, since we know the absorption bands of the CO₂ and Water and we know the distribution on energy coming in and gong out we also know that this is not possible.

Therefore this paper must be a close approximation of the actual situation in the atmosphere and the IPCC value that they use of 3.0 degrees Celsius must therefore be wrong.