Temperatures Faked   Global Warming Home Page      
Radiataive Transfer Equations 
 
Fudge Factor
 
Saturation
 
      
Gary Novak

Global Warming Home

   Alphabetical   
Page List

Trapping Heat

Dilution Factor

Radiative Transfer Equations

Fudge Factor

Saturation

Factor Of 40

Stefan-Boltzmann

Secondary Effects

Temperature Effects

Equilibrium in Atmosphere

Temperature Measurements

Hurricane Math

IPCC Propaganda

Firing Scientists

Acid in the Oceans

Heinz Hug Measurement

Methane is Weaker

Greenhouse Gas Mathematics

No Back Radiation

Changing Weather

Oceans not Rising

220x10-12 °C

Heating 2,500°C

Published not as Science

Fake Ice Core Data

The Cause of Ice Ages and Present Climate

Recent History

Natural Log Curve

The Disputed Area

The Water Vapor Fraud

A Fake Mechanism

What about Argo

The Concept of Distance

Precipitation

A Look at Modeling

Conduction Heat


      

 
▼▼▼  

 
 Temperature Effects cannot be 
 Determined from Radiative
 Transfer Equations
 

Calculating 1°C, Below ▼    

It's extremely strange that radiation was calculated, when there is no method of converting radiation into temperature. The radiation was calculated using radiative transfer equations with the results expressed as the three component fudge factor. From this, the primary effect of carbon dioxide heating the atmosphere is supposedly determined.

escape radiation

To model temperature increase due to CO2, a primary effect is the starting point, and then secondary (feedback) effects are added. The primary effect is described as "radiative forcing due to CO2 without feedback," which is the fudge factor, and this is converted to a temperature with a "conversion factor." The result is said to be 1°C for doubling CO2 in the atmosphere. The simple math is this:

Primary Effect (Fudge Factor)

5.35ln2 = 3.708 W/m² = 1°C.

The fudge factor is, 5.35 times the natural log of the increase in CO2, which is 2 for doubling CO2. It yields 3.708 W/m² upon doubling CO2 in the atmosphere. Getting 1°C is a mystery which is revealed by applying the Stefan-Boltzmann constant as shown below.

The fudge factor is promoted as an unquestionable law of physics upon which all else in global warming is based. It is the primary effect from which secondary effects are modeled. Only the secondary effects are in question. The calculation is total fakery.

While conservatives oppose the concept of global warming, they claim the calculation of the primary effect through radiative transfer equations is flawless physics, while global warming is not occurring because of clouds. It shows that conservatives are not producing a better analysis but trying to protect another power structure by pretending that physics is flawless science.

What this means is that climatologists claim that the primary effect upon doubling carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will heat the atmosphere by 1°C, and then modeling is used to determine secondary effects, which supposedly add 2°C for a total of about 3°C. The primary effect is not questioned, supposedly being an absolute law of physics, and only the secondary effects are studied and argued.

A source for this claimed law of physics cannot be determined. A quote for it comes from Stefan Rahmstorf, "Anthropogenic Climate Change: Revisiting the Facts." P34-53 in "Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto," by Ernesto Zedillo. 2008, where he said this: "Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m²) would result in 1°C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed." Rahmstorf's citation is this: "IPCC, Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report." There is nothing resembling the Rahmstorf claim in the IPCC reports.

Inquiring scientists cannot find a source for the calculation which Rahmstorf refers to. Attempts to explain it result in endless complexity and confusion. The simple reason is because there is no way to determine temperature from radiation in the atmosphere.
 
Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant

Climatologists use the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (SBC) to derive the temperature of 1°C from the 3.7 watts per square meter, because only the SBC shows a relationship between radiation and temperature. Physicists claim the relationships go both ways— from temperature to radiation, and from radiation to temperature. But reversing the SBC is not valid for the atmosphere, because it only applies to surfaces. Radiation is emitted much more readily from a transparent gas than from an opaque solid.

The SBC is this:

     W/m² = 5.670373 x 10-8 x K4

The global average, near-surface temperature is said to be 15°C. Average emissivity is said to be 0.64.

°C
°K
W/m²
after
emissivity
15
288
390.105
249.667
16
289
395.551
253.153
difference
  5.446
  3.486

3.708/3.486 = 1.064°C

The number 3.708 represents watts per square meter for doubling the amount of CO2 in the air as calculated from the three component summary of the radiative transfer equations, which I call the fudge factor. Therefore, doubling the CO2 supposedly creates the same number of W/m² as a 1°C temperature increase, which is 3.7 W/m².

The result is the desired 1°C for the primary effect of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere, as if climatologists could calculate such things with extreme precision. They claim about 1% error on this factor. However, the SBC shows about 20 times too much radiation at normal temperatures. (later evidence indicates the SBC is 40 times too high, not 20 times.) Reducing the radiation in the SBC by a factor of 20 shows this:

°C
°K
W/m²
after
emissivity
15
288
19.505
12.483
16
289
19.778
12.658
difference
  0.273
  0.175

3.708/0.175 = 21.189°C

The result shows 20 times as much temperature increase as climatologists claim, when the SBC is corrected for too much radiation. None of these results are real, as the claimed radiation (3.708 W/m² upon doubling CO2) was contrived for the purpose of eliminating the significance of saturation. With saturation, no radiation change would occur to increase temperatures as global warming.

In addition to the quantitative absurdities, it is not valid to reverse the Stefan-Boltzmann constant as a method of determining temperature, and there is no other method of getting temperature out of any scientific calculation. Temperature is determined by the total energy dynamics of changing systems, with heterogeneity in complex systems. The forward direction of the SBC looks only at a definable surface, while the reverse of the SBC is influenced by the total dynamics. Yet the result of the radiative transfer equations is translated into the temperature of the near-surface atmosphere based upon a claimed reduction in emission at the top of the troposphere.

What this shows is that climatologists started at the end point of 1°C being the desired near-surface temperature increase upon doubling CO2 in the atmosphere, but correcting the math (SBC) shows 20 times more than they would have wanted for a result.

Ocean Fraud: Notice that the calculations above show a fixed relationship between the 3.7 W/m² and 1°C. These numbers have existed since the seventies. Myhre et al stated in 1998 that these numbers were only off by 15%. It means there is no place for subtracting ocean heat in these calculations.

Recently, the explanation for the "pause" is that measurements of ocean heat were re-adjusted, and the missing heat was found. Then the claim emerged that 90% of the heat caused by CO2 ended up in the oceans. If so, that 90% must be subtracted from the 1°C claimed, because it is a calculated total. But no subtracting for ocean heat is being done in the claims for air temperature increases.

If the oceans are absorbing 90% of the heat produced by CO2 in the atmosphere, the primary effect in the near-surface atmosphere needs to be reduced from 1°C to 0.1°C upon doubling the amount of CO2 in the air. This result would be irrelevant, because the social concern has been that the temperature should not go up to 2°C.

Such contradictions cannot be resolved, because there is no real science. The numbers are contrived by starting at the desired end points, which leaves no space for changes afterwards.

Perhaps more importantly, why did the oceans just start to absorb heat from the atmosphere when the pause began in 1998? Why weren't the oceans absorbing the heat before then? The surface area of the oceans has not changed significantly. If something is causing variations in the ability of oceans to absorb heat, how reliable are any of the temperature measurements?

There are no real answers to these absurd questions, because there is no real science to the subjects. The claims are totally fabricated.

The real reason for the temperature pause which supposedly began in 1998 is that temperature measurements were contrived by lowering earlier measurements and increasing recent measurements. That process can only be done once. One of the tricks was to discard cold-reading stations, which was a one time process.

So, how real is the error in the Stefan-Boltzmann constant? Saying that a cold basement wall at 15°C is giving off 390 w/m² is totally preposterous. Physicists are not exactly saying otherwise, they are saying that it also absorbs that amount, so you do not notice anything. But that claim is absurd also, because biological process, and other complexities such as ice melting, would be sensitive to the difference between emission and absorption, and skin cells would be fried by that much energy being absorbed, regardless of how or when it is re-emitted.

Before absorbed radiation can be re-emitted, it must first be converted into heat, which means molecules vibrating. Those vibrating molecules increase in their chemical reactivity as their temperature increases. Biological systems will not tolerate significant increases in temperature without being destroyed.

Biology is like a thermometer which can tell the difference between radiation absorption and emission. If a cold basement wall were emitting 390 w/m², you wouldn't be able to get near it without skin cells being rapidly heated and damaged.

It means there is no mysterious cancellation of the high absorption and emission indicated by the SBC, and it means climatologists started at a desired end point and contrived the method of getting there. It's the only thing they do in climatology, because the randomness and complexities of climate cannot be reduced to scientific analysis.

Another problem with such an analysis is that the SBC is not appropriate for the purpose. It relates to the surface of an opaque solid. But the temperature in question is the near-surface air temperature. A transparent gas radiates in a vastly different manner than the surface of an opaque solid.

The absurdity of the Stefan-Boltzman constant shows up in an extreme way in the attempts to create an energy flow chart for the planet, described here.
 
Calculating the relationship between radiation and temperature is totally impossible due to infinite complexities. One of the problems is that radiation being absorbed by a molecule is partially re-emitted at black body wavelengths. How the energy is distributed before being re-emitted determines the temperature increase. No theory can say how the energy is distributed.

This image shows how energy is re-distributed when radiation is absorbed by carbon dioxide.

Bumping and Emitting

When a molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs fingerprint radiation (the only thing in question) it increases in vibratory motion, which is heat. As it bumps into surrounding molecules (mostly nitrogen gas), it imparts some motion, which reduces its own motion, while increasing the motion of the other molecule.

The vibrating motion of molecules sends out waves of infrared radiation. As the molecular motion decreases, the intensity of the radiation and its frequency get lower.

The amount of such bumping and re-emitting that must occur to lose the energy gained by absorption depends upon how strong the radiation is that is absorbed, which is determined by the temperature of the emitting molecules. Emissions from the surface of the earth into the atmosphere would go from warmer to colder. For short distances in the atmosphere, the emitting temperature would be about the same as the absorbing temperature.

Earth Radiation

Absorbed radiation (fingerprint radiation) is weaker than emitted radiation (black body radiation), because 8% of black body radiation is fingerprint radiation absorbed by CO2. In the above image, 8% of the horizontal distance is CO2, as tested during the early fifties.
 
The average wavelength of radiation emitted by all molecules including CO2 at near-surface temperatures would be around 25 microns, which is about the center of the graph above. In emitting radiation at 25 microns, there are 83 femto seconds for each initial bump. (frequency equals velocity over wavelength. Time equals inverse of frequency) (The speed of light is 3x108 meters per second.) (3x108 ÷ 25x10-6 = 12x1012, inverse = 83x10-15).

A small amount of energy would be spread to nearby molcules before being radiated away. A CO2 molecule would lose about half of its gained energy in one half cycle as it bumped a nearby molecule (usually nitrogen). It would then impart half of its excess energy into the molecule it bumps. One half of one half equals one fourth of the increased energy being imparted into the bumped molecule. The bumped molecule would do the same thing and impart one fourth of its added energy into the molecule which it bumps.

This means that three fourth of the energy picked up by CO2 is radiated away, while one fourth if added to nearby molecules. The energy cannot spread significantly before being radiated away by a small number of molecules. This is why there is no such thing as trapping heat in the atmosphere.

Where then do the 3.7 watts per square meter come from? They are the difference between the amount of radiation assumed to go into space based on the calculations of the radiative transfer equations and the amount entering the earth from the sun. Who cares where or how that difference in radiation creates heat. It has to create heat someplace.

One of the problems is that the calculations are not direct enough to do a comparison between calculated radiation at the top of the atmosphere and the total energy entering from the sun. The differences are extreme and render all such analysis so absurd that any result has to be a predetermined contrivance.
 
The radiative transfer equations must start with some radiation which goes through the atmosphere and ends up in outer space. graphThere is nothing resembling a starting point for such an analysis. No radiation or heat on planet earth has an identifiable or quantifiable starting piont other than the total entering from the sun. Implicitly, the radiation at the starting point is that which is emitted from the surface of the earth. No one has a clue as to what that quantity would be, and it is almost irrelevant to the process.

The NASA energy budget claims 41% of the heat on the surface of the earth leaves as radiation. It's a preposterous guess. Only white hot metals give off 41% of their energy as radiation. Cooling fans would never be used if that much radiation were emitted from a cold and rough surface with wind blowing over it. The real number would be closer to 1-3% on land, very little from oceans. The Kiehl-Trenberth model shows 79%. That model is forced into a ridiculously high number, because the Stefan-Boltzmann constant was applied, and it is in error. There is about a 100% difference between these two official sources. How reliable can the radiative transfer equations be in picking some such starting point?

But the problem is even worse due to the fact that very little of the radiation in the atmosphere gets there by radiating from the surface of the earth. Most heat gets into the atmosphere through conduction, convection and evaporation from the surface, and quite a bit from solar energy. Kiehl-Trenberth says 29% of the solar energy enters the atmosphere rather than striking the earth's surface. The NASA model says 19%.

Much of the energy in the atmosphere is converted into radiation, as all matter emits radiation in proportion to its temperature. How fast the transformation of energy occurs is anyone's guess. In other words, the application of radiative transfer equations involves no ability to determine how much radiation is coming from where or going to where. And yet the equations are portrayed as being so precise in their latest rendition that they could determine that earlier calculations were only off by 15%.

     radiation

TOP    
 

 

top