|
Another view of the greenhouse effect
Recently, while browsing on sci.physics, I came upon the following
very interesting article on the supposed greenhouse effect. I thought I
would share it with all of you. I haven't gone through his math and
physics in detail, but his claims certainly sound reasonable.
Fortunately, the author has given permission for unlimited distribution,
provided some simple guidelines are adhered to. I have adhered to them.
Joe Harris
[email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From
shelby!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!comp.vuw.ac.nz!dsiramd!
a
ctrix!paul Fri Jan 12 19:26:05 PST 1990
Article 10910 of sci.physics:
Path:
portia!shelby!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!comp.vuw.ac.nz!d
siramd!actrix!paul
>From: [email protected] (Paul Gillingwater)
Newsgroups: aus.conserve,sci.skeptic,sci.physics,sci.environment
Subject: Another view on the Greenhouse effect
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 20 Dec 89 07:51:17 GMT
Reply-To: [email protected] (Paul Gillingwater)
Organization: Actrix Networks, Wellington, New Zealand
Lines: 1190
Xref: portia sci.skeptic:1904 sci.physics:10910 sci.environment:3848
This article was provided courtesy of Warren Johnston, sysop of
the Transmission Tower BBS, Wellington, NEW ZEALAND (ZL2UFK). It
was derived from an international packet radio broadcast. The
text has been slightly reformatted to accomodate a different BBS
structure, and a few obvious typos have been corrected.
Paul Gillingwater
Sysop, SpringBoard BBS (3:771/110 Fido)
USEnet: [email protected]
Path: ZL2WA!ZL2AHK!VK2EHQ!VK2OP!VK4BBS!DU1EAG!DU1JMG!VK7BBS
Date: 15 Dec 89 21:14:00 Z
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
----------------
This paper runs to about 20 pages, 80 columns. It was written on
an Amiga 500, but should be accessible on any machine.
It is a follow-up article to my book `The Greenhouse Trap',
and puts the view that greenhouse warming predictions have been
exaggerated by a factor of 10 (ten). Such a claim needs sound
backing, given the hype we have all been exposed to. That is the
purpose of this article which concentrates on the very core of
the greenhouse issue, namely radiation and its effect on tempera
ture.
This article may be freely posted on bulletin boards, passed
around, and generally subject to debate and criticism. (I take it
as easily as I give it).
However, copyright remains with me, John L. Daly, and the
article should not be altered in any way during circulation. My
name as author should remain on any printed copies, as should
this notice.
John L. Daly
30 Dyball Street
Hadspen 7290
Tasmania
Phone/Fax (International) 61-03-93-6596
THE GREAT GREENHOUSE FRAUD
--------------------------
The modern science of misinformation
by John L. Daly
Copyright 1989 by John L. Daly
John L. Daly
30 Dyball Street
Hadspen, 7290
Tasmania, Australia
Phone/Fax (003) 93 6596
-----------------------------------------------------------
MATHEMATICAL CONVENTIONS
Please note: As it is not possible to print mathematical formulae
in their usual form with this equipment, the following convention
should be followed in reading the text
c - means `to the power of...'
c(1/4) - means `the fourth root of...'
PI - means the circular constant 3.1428
* - means `multiplied by...'
w/sq.m - means `watts per square metre'
Other symbols such as `=' and `+' are the same as those in stand
ard use.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"A spectre is haunting the world ...the spectre of a global
apocalypse by heat wave."
These were the opening words of my recent book `The Green
house Trap - why the Greenhouse Effect will NOT end Life on
Earth", published by Bantam Books (Transworld Publishers), Syd
ney, in October 1989 (ISBN no. 0-947189-77-7). In that book,
intended for the general public, I presented the case against the
exaggerated predictions of global warming advanced by prominent
pro-greenhouse scientists. The strong interest generated by the
book has focused attention to the very heart of the Greenhouse
debate, namely Radiation Theory, or the relationship between
greenhouse gases, energy flows in the atmosphere, and the conse
quences these have for future global temperature. It is to this
vital core of the issue that this paper is directed.
The purpose of this article, therefore, is to prove that
global warming predictions arising from the Greenhouse Effect of
between 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C. (1) have been grossly exaggerated
by A FACTOR OF 10. We will adopt both observational evidence and
physics to support this statement. The doomsday predictions of
global apocalypse by heat-wave originate with computer simula
tions or `models' of the Earth's climate, which recreate in a
crude form how the Earth's climate would react if atmospheric
carbon dioxide (CO2) were doubled from its preindustrial level of
280 parts per million. (It is now 350 ppm).(2)
THE MODEL WORLD
---------------
The world of a computer climate model is like something out
of the `Twilight Zone'. So let us first imagine what such a world
is like.
Firstly, all the land is divided up into large rectangular
blocks of about 300,000 square kilometres each. This coarse
resolution results in Great Britain and Tasmania not appearing in
the model at all, as they are not large enough to fill a block.
The oceans are similarly divided into large blocks. The atmos
phere is represented by 9 vertical blocks stacked above the
surface blocks.(3)
Even with super-computers, it is not possible to simulate
heat movements in the oceans in the form of the great ocean
currents which spread heat around the globe. It is also not
possible to simulate the effect of cloud albedo feedback, where
changes in the extent of cloud can change the amount of sunlight
reflected back to space. These two variables exert an iron grip
on the Earth's real climate, but the models somehow pretend they
don't exist, or represent them as fixed quantities such as
oceans of stagnant water.(4)
The cycle of day and night is not represented. Rather, the
model world is bathed in a 24-hour twilight, where solar energy
is averaged around the whole globe simultaneously (5). If the
models concerned do not settle down to the correct present global
temperature of 15 degrees Celsius when first run, the modelers
simply `turn up' or `turn down' the Sun until the desired start
ing temperature of 15 degrees is achieved (6). This is called
`tuning'. The fact that such tuning is needed at all indicates
that the models inability to settle to the correct temperature,
even when other variables are correctly set, demonstrates just
how inaccurate and crude these models really are.
The computer models suffer from two effects not seen in the
real world. One is the so-called `Butterfly Effect', where very
small changes in climate variables in one place can fan out and
become greatly magnified, with the result that `the fluttering of
a butterfly in Peking can cause tornadoes in the USA!' (7). (This
effect, peculiar to computers, has spawned an entirely new branch
of science aptly called `Chaos Theory' (8)). The other phenomenon
is the `Brick-Wall Effect', which compares the effect of stopping
a fast car in either 5 seconds or 5 milliseconds. In the former
case, the car stops safely. In the latter case, the sudden brick-
wall stop results in a total wreck. Similarly, in the case of
computer models of climate, CO2 is doubled, not gradually as in
the real world, but suddenly in one stroke (9). Naturally the
model world reacts violently, no doubt assisted by the Peking
butterflies.
THE REAL WORLD
--------------
Most of the major climatic variables can be quantified either
by direct measurement, or averaging out thousands of disparate
data items.
The most important variable is radiation from the Sun. The
sun's heat is the ultimate cause of our climate, and so our
evaluation of the climate must start here. According to the
`Solar Max' satellite, energy from the Sun at the top of the
atmosphere is 1,368 watts/sq.m. Of course, the sun shines only on
the day side of the Earth, while the angle of incidence of its
rays varies with latitude, and so we need to determine a global
average of the sun's radiation.
What we do here is to divide the surface area of the Earth
(4*PI*Rc2) by the area of the Earth's cross-section (PI*Rc2)
which catches the sun's rays.
Global solar average = (PI*Rc2)*1,368 = 1,368 = 342 w/sq.m
-------------- -----
4*(PI*Rc2) 4
We do not even need to know the Earth's radius, R, because it
becomes self-cancelling in the equation, thus leaving us with a
simple division by 4 of the solar radiation, or `solar constant'
as it is called.
What happens to this solar constant is illustrated in fig.1.
This diagram represents a one-dimensional vertical circulation
model which has been in general use by climatologists for many
years. The energy values used vary from one scientist to another
(by up to 20% in many cases!), but this model is essentially
common to all of them, including those making the doom predic
tions. For this reason, we shall use this general scheme on the
basis that the best way to disprove a theory is to start with
data employed in that theory.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXX
OUTER SPACE (100)
Albedo SUN Infrared Radiation from Earth
(30) (100) (66) (4)
H H H H
----H--------H---------------------H---------------H-------
H H H H
/H\ \H/ /H\ /H\
H H H H
H H .-------------H---------------H------.
H H : 66 4 :
H H : :
H====<===H : Atmospheric Absorption :
H===>=====>25 Layers (150) :
H : :
H : :
\H/ : 6 23 100 88 :
H ---#--------*-------H------------H--
H # * H H
H # * H Greenhouse H
H /#\ /*\ H Effect H
\H/ # * /H\ \H/
H # * H <- -> H
H # * H H
H # * H H
------------\H/---------/#\------/*\-----/H\----------\H/--
(133) 45 6 23 100 88
H # * H H
Solar to Thermals Evap'n Surface and
Surface recycled rad'n
SURFACE OF THE EARTH
FIG.1
ATMOSPHERIC ENERGY FLOWS (SUN = 100 = 342 w/sq.m)
-------------------------------------------------
(Based on estimates by Dr. Stephen Schneider of USA)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXX
The vertical model is divided into three sections - outer
space near the Earth, the atmosphere, and the Earth's surface. In
some models, the atmosphere is divided into stratosphere and
troposphere, but using one atmosphere only does not basically
alter the energy/temperature relationships which is the main
subject of this discussion. We will use the 3-sector model for
ease of description.
Solar radiation at the `Top Of the Atmosphere' (or `TOA' for
short) is shown as 100 energy units, while all other energy flows
are shown as proportions of those 100. Remember from above that
100 units equals 342 watts/sq.m (ie. 1 unit = 3.42 w/sq.m). As
for estimates for the actual energy flows, these vary widely from
one researcher to another, so we shall use the estimates given by
the leading proponent of global warming, Dr. Stephen Schneider
(10).
Of the initial 100 solar radiation units, 30 are lost by
direct reflection from clouds, ice, and from the surface itself.
A further 25 units are absorbed in the atmosphere by gas mole
cules, cloud droplets, and dust and thus add heat to the
atmosphere. Finally a total of 45 units reaches the surface by
either direct or diffused solar radiation which represents the
main surface heat input.
In response to this initial heating, the surface sends heat
back to the atmosphere and to space by four general routes.
Firstly global air movement undergoes vertical circulation, with
heat being carried by convection from the surface to the upper
atmosphere. In doing so, the main part of the greenhouse effect
is by-passed. Secondly, ocean evaporation results in a loss of
latent heat by the oceans, cooling them, while the resulting
removed heat reappears up in the clouds during condensation.
Again this process enables surface heat to be removed to the
upper atmosphere by-passing the greenhouse effect yet again.
Thirdly, some radiation from the surface escapes directly to
space via the `radiation windows', regions of the infrared spec
trum which are not subject to any greenhouse absorption (green
house gases do not absorb the whole spectrum, but absorb only in
narrow bands. This results in gaps being left between the absorp
tion bands of one gas and another. These gaps enable some radia
tion from the Earth to escape directly to space without interfer
ence) (11). Finally, radiation of 100 units from the Earth is
subject to greenhouse absorption, and 88 units being recycled
back to the surface, adding to surface heating.
It should be noted that in order for the temperature to
remain stable, ingoing and outgoing energy flows should always be
equal. This is a fundamental law of physics, referred to as
`thermal equilibrium'. Thus the total energy flow at the surface
is 133 units in, and 133 units going out. Similarly the atmos
phere has an input of 150 units and an output of 150 units. Outer
space itself has 100 solar units going into the Earth/atmosphere
system, and 100 units reemerging in the form of reflected solar
rays or reradiated infrared rays.
If an imbalance occurred in any of these areas, temperature
would change until energy inflows and outflows became equal
again. Thus if the greenhouse reradiation of 88 units from the
atmosphere to the surface was increased by 1 unit due to greater
concentration of greenhouse gases, the whole system would be
unbalanced resulting in a realignment of all the energy flows
until balance was restored, but this time at a slightly higher
temperature.
The whole crux of the greenhouse problem is therefore in
radiative transfer of energy, and the temperatures we can expect
from any changes which may result.
CALCULATING GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
------------------------------
This is not as difficult as it first appears.
There is a law of physics known as the `Stefan-Boltzmann
Law', which says that temperature varies as the fourth root of
energy. What this means in English is that it takes very large
changes in radiated energy to effect quite small changes in
temperature. For example, if the Sun's radiation intensity was
doubled (i.e. 100% increase), global temperature would rise by
only 18% from its present level.
Using the Stefan-Boltzmann law, we get the following equation -
( E )
T = (---) c(1/4)
( k )
(where E is energy (watts/sq.m), T is temperature (Kelvin), and k
is the Boltzmann constant)
The Boltzmann constant is 5.67*10c8 w/sq.m Kc-4, a quite daunting
number to use on a calculator. However,
( 1 )
(----------)c(1/4) = 64.8
( 5.67*10c8)
and so all we actually need to do to calculate temperature is to
find the fourth root of E, and multiply by 64.8 (ie. T =
Ec(1/4)*64.8). To calculate the temperature at the TOA we simply
use the figure of 342 watts/sq.m for the global average of solar
energy (as shown above), and deduct a further 30% from this to
allow for direct reflection of solar rays from bright features
such as ice (This is called `albedo' and 30% or so is a generally
agreed estimate of this phenomenon). This leaves us with a net
solar input of 239 w/sq.m which becomes `E' in our equation (i.e.
E = 1368 less 30%, divided by 4)
Thus T = 239c(1/4)*64.8 = 254.8 deg K. = -18.2 deg C.
Without any greenhouse gases to warm us up, the Earth would
freeze over with a temperature like that. While the temperature
at the TOA (Top Of the Atmosphere) is therefore around -18 deg C.
(12), we know that the OBSERVED temperature near the surface is
+15 degrees. Thus, the greenhouse gases are responsible for an
overall gain of 33 degrees, and therefore prevents the complete
freeze-over that would otherwise occur in the absence of any
absorbing greenhouse gases.(12)
Of the cocktail of greenhouse gases, WATER VAPOUR IS BY FAR
AND AWAY THE MOST IMPORTANT, contributing about 66% to the green
house effect, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) contributing a further 25%,
while the minor gases (methane, ozone, nitrous oxide etc.)
contribute 9% between them.
The critical issue is therefore -
DOES INCREASED CO2 OR OTHER GASES INCREASE ENERGY FLOWS?
IF SO, WILL GLOBAL TEMPERATURES INCREASE SIGNIFICANTLY?
In answer to these questions, we will again use the green
house proponents own estimates as a starting point, on the as
sumption that these estimates will represent the `worst case'
scenarios, and that the true situation is almost certain to be
much more moderate.
THE COMPUTER MODELER'S ASSUMPTIONS
----------------------------------
The computer model simulations of climate are mathematical
representations of the key climatic variables. Most of the com
plex programming involved is used to perform hundreds of thou
sands of calculations for each of the grid blocks of the Earth.
It is obvious that if these calculations employed faulty mathe
matical formulas, then such errors would afflict the entire
model, the same errors being repeated possibly millions of times.
In such an event, using a bigger computer with greater reso
lution, and elaborate graphics, would really make no difference
to the situation if key formulae were incorrect or inaccurate.
Such inaccuracies would of course be quickly acted on by the
Butterfly and Brick-Wall Effects, thus exaggerating the initial
errors.
The modelers make two crucial universal assumptions. That is,
these assumptions permeate every smallest part of the model -
1) If CO2 is doubled, energy flows will increase by 4 w/sq.m
2) `Temperature sensitivity' is 1 degree Celsius per w/sq.m.
(13)
From this, we can see that doubling CO2 would cause model global
temperatures to rise by 4 degrees (ie. 4 * 1). Most models around
the world agree on a figure around 4 degrees.
It is interesting to note that a few years ago, it was as
sumed by these same modelers that doubling CO2 would increase
energy flows by 2.5 watts/sq.m (14). That figure has been revised
upward recently to 4 w/sq.m (15). During the same period, the
continued refinement of the models has seen some moderation of
the original predictions. However, by revising this particular
figure, the original predictions have been restored in all their
alarming glory.
It might be asked, are these estimates and assumptions based
on sound physics and/or observations? It would appear that they
have discounted observation, because field work by Newell &
Doplick of MIT who measured the results of increased energy flows
near tropical sea surfaces, indicates that for every extra
watt/sq.m. applied to the surface of the Earth, temperature would
increase only 0.1 degree (16), not 1 degree as assumed by the
modelers.
Further work by another field researcher, Prof Sherwood Idso
of Phoenix, Arizona (17), found that experiments involving surges
in atmospheric water vapour (water vapour being the most active
greenhouse gas) resulted in temperature increases of 0.196 degree
per watt/sq.m over land. The same Prof Idso also tested atmos
pheric response to low-level heat blanketing by dust, and found
that the `response function', as he called it, was 173 degree per
watt/sq.m., again over land.
Just to make sure of the validity of these results, Idso
performed another, more ambitious test using 105 stations across
the USA to measure changes in temperature and energy flows caused
by the annual variation in the Sun's radiation received at the
Earth's surface. The result of this elaborate test was 0.185
degree per watt/sq.m for land-based stations, and 0.092 degree
per w/sq.m for Pacific coast stations, (indicating that energy
flows involving the sea result in temperatures only half as great
as those over land, due most likely to the cooling effect of
evaporation).
In view of the fact that oceans cover 70% of the Earth, the
lower `response function' or `temperature sensitivity' of the
ocean areas would result in a globally averaged sensitivity of
only 0.113 degree per watt/sq.m. This is clearly at complete
variance with the assumptions of the modelers who employ a figure
of 1 whole degree per watt/sq.m in the mathematical formulations
of the computer. If the modelers first assumption (ie. that
doubling CO2 would increase energy flows by 4 W/sq.m) was cor
rect, the observed sensitivity of 0.113 degree per w/sq.m would
result in a global temperature increase of only 0.45 deg, not 4
degrees, - a massive difference.
We could look at this problem yet another way. From fig.1 we
see that the greenhouse effect results in a recycling back to the
Earths surface of 88 energy units. Since 1 unit = 3.42 w/sq.m,
the 88 units actually equals 301 watts/sq.m. If we multiply that
by the global temperature sensitivity figure of 0.113 degree
given above, we arrive at an overall temperature gain of 34
degrees due to greenhouse action. In fact, we know that the
actual temperature gain is 33 degrees, a difference of only 1
degree between the two. Had the greenhousers' assumption of 1
degree per w/sq.m been correct, global surface temperature would
now be 283 deg C., a patently ridiculous outcome.
From this, we can confidently conclude that the modelers
assumption of 1 degree per watt/sq.m is quite wrong, and that the
true figure is closer to 0.1 degree per w/sq.m, ie. only a tenth
of what the modelers assume.
We should not forget that the other assumption by the model
ers that doubling CO2 will increase energy flow by 4 w/sq.m may
also be an over-estimate.
If their earlier estimate of 2.5 w/sq.m is used, along with the
0.113 degree figure for sensitivity, we arrive at an overall
temperature increase for the Earth of only 0.28 degree, not 4
degrees.
Strong though the above argument is, there is no need to pin
the argument against major global warming upon these observations
alone. We will adopt another, more conclusive approach, later in
this discussion. But first, let us examine the work of two major
proponents of greenhouse warming, Prof Ann Henderson-Sellers and
Russell Blong, both of Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
They are the co-authors of a book titled -
`The Greenhouse Effect - Living in a warmer Australia'
(Published by New South Wales Univ. Press, Sydney, 1989)
"SOUND PHYSICS"
---------------
The above work by these authors has been cited by many green
house scientists as a definitive explanation of global warming
arising from Greenhouse. The books' preface claims significant
input by many scientists, including Keith Colls (Regional Direc
tor of the Bureau of Meteorology), Dr Peter Mitchell, Dr David
Rich, Dr Peter Crabb, Dr Helen Cleugh, Associate Professor Peter
Curson, and Associate Professor Snow Barlow (18). The book was
further recommended by Dr Barry Pittock, head of the Atmospheric
Division of the CSIRO (19).
In short, this work carries a veritable overkill of academic
and scientific authority, and could be expected therefore to
reflect the `sound physics' claimed by the authors.
Instead, we find some important errors of physics, so elemen
tary that they would be ruthlessly shot down if written by anyone
other than an academic. Yet these are the very people whose doom
predictions we are asked to believe. We shall now examine those
errors in detail.
"The absorbed solar radiation is equal to the sunlight which
reaches Earth (actually equal to 1,370 watts per square metre)
less the amount of sunlight which is immediately reflected back
to space by bright snow-caps, ice and clouds (about 30 per cent).
The balance between the absorbed sunlight and the emitted heat
gives for an atmosphereless Earth, a surface temperature of only
-18 degrees C." (from Page 10 of their book).
Leaving aside quite how an `atmosphereless Earth' could
possibly have snow and clouds, their figure for solar radiation
of 1,370 w/sq.m is certainly near enough correct. Furthermore,
they promptly assume, quite reasonably, that reflectivity, or
`albedo', of ice etc. would cause a loss of 30% of solar radia
tion back to space. This would leave us with an effective solar
input of 1,370 - 30% = 959 w/sq.m. Since this comes down only on
one side of the Earth, we need to divide this figure by 4 to
obtain a globally averaged figure (as shown on p.2). The result
is just over 239 w/sq.m It is this figure which must then be used
in calculation of global temperature.
However, a significant error becomes evident on p.16 where
they give a figure for globally averaged solar radiation, after a
30% deduction for albedo, of 387 w/sq.m.
This figure of 387 is patently wrong since it would imply a
solar constant of 387*4 = 1,548 w/sq.m, plus 663 (restoring the
30% albedo deducted earlier) giving a solar constant of 2,033
w/sq.m. This contradicts their own correct figure for that above
as 1,370 w/sq.m. They are apparently unaware of the simple mathe
matical contradictions involved. However, if we insert this
incorrect 387 figure into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation we get an
interesting result -
T = 387c(1/4)*64.8 = 287.4 deg K. = 14.4 deg C.!
This is almost exactly the present surface temperature of the
Earth, complete with greenhouse effect, not the TOA temperature
of -18 degrees which they state is the answer. They clearly seem
confused between the two energy values and temperatures, and what
they represent, or how they are calculated.
"Atmospheric scientists understand radiative transfer very
well. The theory is based on sound physics." (Page 12).
The `sound physics' theme is repeated again on page 13. -
"The greenhouse prediction is based on the sound physics
which explains how radiators warm us in our houses and also how
the Sun, which is a radiator itself, warms our planet. It is this
physics AND NOT OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE (my emphasis) which tells
us how the greenhouse effect works."
It should be noted that most of the laws of physics which
they refer to were themselves the result of painstaking observa
tion and experiment, such as the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. The above
statement also suggests that the modelers have decided in advance
to disregard all observational evidence, such as those of Newell
& Doplick or Prof. Idso, and to base their entire work on a
theoretical framework only. This is not `sound physics' at all,
since all theory must ultimately be supported by observation
and/or experiment. When the two are in conflict, it is the theo
ries and not the observations which are discarded.
Here is another example of the authors' use of `sound phys
ics'.
"If we had no atmosphere on the planet, the amount of radiant
energy emitted, measured in watts per square metre (w/sq.m) is
387. Actually...the amount of energy finally emitted...from the
Earth is only 239 w/sq.m".
Again, the error of 387 is repeated. However the 239 w/sq.m
referred to is their estimate of the infrared radiation from the
Earth resulting from the heat-trapping action of the existing
greenhouse effect. As it happens, this figure of 239 is quite
correct (we calculated it on p.4), and if we refer to fig.1,
infrared reradiation from the Earth is 66 + 4 = 70 units, which
is equivalent to 239 w/sq.m.
So why the quibble?
Basically, it is because although they quote the correct
figure, their interpretation as to its meaning is clearly faulty.
In fact, even if the Earth had no atmosphere at all, the re-
radiation would still be 239 w/sq.m. The greenhouse effect has no
influence on that figure at all. We can prove this as follows -
The solar constant is 1,370 w/sq.m (confirmed by satellite).
Since the authors deducted 30% from this as their estimate of
albedo earlier (a reasonable estimate (20)), this leaves us with
959 w/sq.m effective solar radiation. To get a globally averaged
figure, we simply divide this by 4, giving us 239.75 w/sq.m.
Since the Earth must be in thermal equilibrium with the sun at
all times, an atmosphereless Earth must radiate an equivalent 239
w/sq.m in order to balance incoming solar radiation. If we now
fill the Earth with a thick atmosphere, complete with greenhouse
gases, the answer is still the same, the Earth/atmosphere system
must emit 239 w/sq.m at the TOA, as shown in Dr Schneider's data
in fig.1 simply in order to maintain thermal equilibrium.
The error clearly stems from the author's own statement that
an atmosphereless Earth would emit 387 w/sq.m even after the 30%
reflection of solar radiation was deducted. In other words, these
particular experts are just pulling numbers out of a hat from a
variety of sources without checking whether the numbers them
selves, or their interpretation of what they represent, make any
sense.
But it gets worse.
The authors, having incorrectly insisted that an atmosphere
less Earth radiates 387 w/sq.m, and that the greenhouse `causes'
this to be `reduced' to only 239 w/sq.m, they then conclude,
incredibly, that the greenhouse effect `retains' 387 - 239 = 148
w/sq.m! If we take this to the ultimate absurdity, even an atmos
phereless Earth would somehow `retain' this 148 w/sq.m, since we
have seen that such an Earth must radiate the same 239 w/sq.m due
simply to the need to balance the globally averaged, albedo
adjusted, solar constant.
If the author's physics appears not so sound, let us see how
they treat basic climatology.
"It is important to recognize that the negative feedbacks can
only dampen the (greenhouse) effect. They cannot reverse it."
(Page.44)
The `negative feedbacks' referred to here are effects such as
increased cloud reflectivity (albedo), snow/ice albedo, and
changes in the albedo of landforms such as deserts which can all
change in reaction to a global warming, causing a dampening of
that warming. In effect, they assume that all such feedbacks are
only temporary restraints, but without any ability to determine
long-term climate or reverse a warming.
Such a conclusion is quite wrong. It is well recognised that
one result of global warming would be enhanced cloud cover, and a
possible shifting of the main rain-bearing depressions to higher,
colder latitudes (21), a phenomenon first postulated in the
1930's by Sir George Simpson, and which I dubbed `The Simpson
Effect' in my book. In this situation, we could expect a buildup
of surface snow and ice in Arctic permafrost areas which are cold
and arid, but presently ice-free. Once ice is laid down, albedo
increases markedly and thus has a permanent cooling effect on all
future climate. How else do they imagine ice ages can maintain
their icy grip for tens of thousands of years in spite of a
largely unchanged radiation from the sun?. Other landform changes
such as expansion of deserts, or the major alteration of ocean
current patterns (eg. if the Bering Strait closed due to falling
sea levels) can also have permanent long-term effects on tempera
tures.
Finally, the authors, Prof Ann Henderson-Sellers & Russell
Blong, assume that science is a democracy. In other words, truth
amounts to nothing more or less than a general consensus among
scientists. They frequently mask their suspect physics by citing
this alleged consensus. Majority rule has historically always
been an unreliable basis for establishing truth.
Given these elementary errors in their book, it is evident
that their grasp of physics, radiation theory in particular, is
not as `sound' as they claim. And yet many other scientists were
cited by them as providing input to the book, raising questions
about these other scientist's understanding of the subject matter
as well. Unfortunately, public policy is now being shaped on the
basis of temperature predictions by these very `experts'.
THE LUKEWARM GREENHOUSE
-----------------------
We will now proceed to show that the Greenhouse Effect will
not cause a global heat wave, that the much vaunted warming will
at worst amount to only 0.6 degree Celsius, and almost certainly
much less, over the next 300 years. We may even see a fall in
temperatures over that same period. It's all a matter of `sound
physics' and some straightforward calculation.
First of all, why 300 years?
Most greenhouse doom predictions assume that CO2 will be
double its preindustrial level within 40 to 50 years. This is
based on the assumption that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere
are not only rising, but that the rate of rise will itself accel
erate, due to increased use of fossil fuels. However, the actual
measurements of CO2 at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and Cape Grim, Tasma
nia, indicate that CO2 has been rising at a steady, linear rate
since 1957 when detailed measurements first began. CO2 has thus
risen by 25% over the last 100 years, and at the present linear
rate of increase will take about 300 years to achieve an actual
doubling.
An acceleration of this rate now seems unlikely as we would
have seen evidence of it by now. Also we now know that vegetation
and marine plankton are increasing their consumption of CO2 due
to its enrichment in the atmosphere (22) (CO2 is after all, a
fertilizer, not a pollutant), thus raising the distinct possibil
ity that the rate of increase may decline rather than accelerate.
So, 300 years is a reasonable estimate of a doubling of CO2.
In assessing the temperature effects of doubling CO2, our
starting point will be the well-proven Stefan-Boltzmann Law,
namely - Temperature varies as the fourth root of Energy, or -
T = Ec(1/4)*k (as described earlier).
For the purpose of this exercise, we will use the energy flow
estimates of the chief modeler, Dr Stephen Schneider, shown in
fig.1, and accept for now the modelers claim that doubling CO2
will result in an increase in energy flow of 4 w/sq.m.
To begin with, we see in fig.1 that the energy flow at the
surface is 133 energy units, or 455 w/sq.m. Call this quantity
`e'. We also know that if we double CO2, the energy flow will
increase (according to the modelers) by 4 w/sq.m to 459 w/sq.m.
Call this quantity `E'. We also know that the present temperature
at or near the surface is 15 degrees C. or 288 degrees Kelvin
(Kelvin is simply Celsius + 273). Call this quantity `t'. All we
need now is to calculate the new, higher temperature which we can
call `T'.
The formula to determine T is given by,
T = (1 + (E-e))c(1/4) * t
-----------
e
Entering the values above,
T = (1 + (459-455))c(1/4) * 288 = 288.63
---------------
455
(Note that because we are only comparing two levels of energy, we
do not need to use the Boltzmann constant in the equation, but
only determine the fourth root of the actual energy change).
Converting to Celsius, this becomes 15.63 degrees, an in
crease of only 0.63 degree. Remember, this is the MAXIMUM in
crease in temperature possible due to a radiative energy increase
of 4 w/sq.m. and even assumes that the present greenhouse effect
is 100% efficient (which it isn't of course). In practice, there
fore, such an increase would be subject to negative feedbacks
such as cloud albedo and evaporative cooling over the oceans,
radiation leakages through the radiation windows, and WOULD THUS
BE REDUCED in the real world to considerably less than half that
amount.
Of course, the figure of 4 w/sq.m for a CO2 doubling is
relatively recent. A few years ago, the modelers were using the
more modest (and more realistic probably) figure of 2.5/sq.m. So
we can apply that figure to our equation to see the outcome there
-
T = (1 + (457.5-455))c(1/4) * 288 = 288.39 deg K. (or 15.39
------------ deg C.)
455
This time we get an increase of only 0.39 degree.
It was stated earlier that the `temperature sensitivity'
assumed by the modelers was a temperature increase of 1 deg per
watt/sq.m. This is confirmed in Prof. Henderson-Sellers & Russell
Blong's book on page 41. However looking at the results above,
based on `sound physics' (the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is about as
sound as you get in physics), we can easily see what the real
temperature sensitivity should be, namely 0.63/4 = 0. deg per
w/sq.m in the first case, or 0.39/2.5 = 0.16 deg per w/sq.m in
the second case. Either way, it works out at only 0.16 deg per
w/sq.m.
It is immediately apparent that these sensitivity figures
agree very closely with the observed sensitivities over land
reported by Prof Idso, thus justifying much more confidence in
his results, obtained the hard way in the field. Since these
calculations do not allow for feedbacks, we can only conclude
that evaporation effects over the oceans, and cloud albedo in
creases, will result in a global sensitivity figure considerably
less than the 0.16 deg per w/sq.m calculated, closer to Idso's
0.1 degree global sensitivity estimate.
THE PRO-GREENHOUSE SCIENTISTS HAVE THEREFORE EXAGGERATED
THE TEMPERATURE PREDICTIONS BY A FACTOR OF 10 !
It would be generous indeed to call this a mere mistake. An
error of this magnitude, coupled with the media hype and public
denunciation of informed criticism, turns this whole affair into
something of a public fraud.
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE
-------------------
As stated earlier, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have
risen by 25% in the last 100 years, which means of course that if
the modelers are right, we should already see a significant
warming attributable to Greenhouse only.
In fact, some of the climate models have been run using 1890
or thereabouts as a starting point, to observe the effect of
increasing CO2 by 25% (23). With the modelers assumption that
doubling CO2 causes an increase in energy flow of 4 w/sq.m, it
follows that a 25% rise would cause an increased flow of about 1
w/sq.m. Since the models also assume that temperature sensitivity
is 1 degree per w/sq.m, the result is that these same models
predict that Earth SHOULD have warmed up by a full 1 degree in
the last 100 years, due to Greenhouse alone.
During that same 100 years, the sun has been hotter and more
active than it was previously (24). The fact that the sun can get
hotter in this way has been proved by the Solar Max satellite
which observed variations in solar flux of up to 0.25% over a
mere 4-year period (25). Due to greater solar activity, there
fore, we could expect an increase in global temperature of per
haps 0.3 degree once cumulative feedback effects were allowed
for. The suns ability to do this is proved by the fact that the
Earth plunged into the `Little Ice Age from 1650 to 1710 during a
period of solar cooling, known as the Maunder Minimum, when the
sunspot cycle simply stopped altogether (26). A period of intense
solar activity, such as we have had in the 20th century could
therefore be expected to have the reverse effect and warm the
Earth. Fig.2 compares solar activity and global temperature since
AD 1600 and shows a good correlation between them.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXX
] ##
+0.4 ] ### #
] ##### #
] GLOBAL TEMPERATURES ###### ##
+0.2 ] (changes in 0.1 deg C.) ##########
] ###########
] # ###########
0 ]........................##.........#....##########
] # # # ### #### #############
] ## ## ### ##### ###################
-0.2 ]# #### ############### #####################
]## ##### ######################################
]######## ########################################
-0.4 ]#########_##########################################
1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950
c c c
Little Dickensian Modern
Ice Age Winters Era
#
200 ] SOLAR ACTIVITY #
] (as per sunspot count) ###
] #### #
150 ] # ##### #
] ### # ########
] # #### ## ### #########
100 ]# # ##### ######## ##########
]### ### ###### #####################
]#### ########## #####################
50 ]##### ############ ######################
]##### #####################################
]###### ######################################
0 ]#######_______######################################
1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950
c c c
Maunder Dickensian Modern
Minimum Winters Era
FIG.2 SUNSPOTS & GLOBAL TEMPERATURES SINCE AD 1600
A close correlation is evident between them.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XX
Allowing for both the 25% increase in CO2, and the hotter
sun, we should be warmer now by about 1.3 degrees compared with
100 years ago.
But we're not.
It has recently been necessary to revise past temperature
data from cities, due to a recently discovered phenomenon called
the `Heat Island Effect', which as the name suggests, causes city
temperatures to become higher than the surrounding countryside,
due to localised heat trapping within inner cities. This trapping
is caused by exposed concrete, and petrochemical pollution from
motor vehicles. The effect has only become really significant
since the 1960's with the urban growth and increase in vehicle
numbers which has taken place. The worlds cities only occupy 0.1%
or less of the Earth's surface area, but if most temperature
readings are taken there, we get a false view of global climate.
Thus, we can only rely on rural or marine temperature data to get
an accurate picture of temperature changes over the last 100
years.
This was done in a study by the US National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration in March 1988, who concluded that
there had been no overall increase in temperature in the USA this
century (27). Even Dr Schneider conceded that globally, the rise
in temperatures this century is only about 0.4 degree Celsius
(28). This small increase can be mostly accounted for by the
hotter sun, with perhaps a 0.1 degree contribution attributable
to Greenhouse, consistent with the observed and calculated global
temperature sensitivity of 0.1 deg per w/sq.m.
It is also worth noting that global temperature actually fell
by about 0.25 degree from around 1939 to the mid-1970's (29),
even though CO2 was rising steadily during that period. Such a
fall in temperature would have been quite impossible if the
temperature sensitivity of the Earth was 1 deg per w/sq.m as
claimed by the modelers. While this cooling was well documented
(many books, articles and papers were published about it), it is
something of an embarrassment for current greenhouse theory. For
this reason, Henderson-Sellers & Blong used a temperature graph
in their book of the last 100 years which presented this period
of cooling as a mere `leveling off' of temperatures, not an
actual cooling. Thus, not only are they attempting to reshape
our perception of the future, but they have also sought to re
shape our understanding of the past as a possible means to ob
scure what is clearly adverse evidence to their theory.
Apart from the sun and the greenhouse effect, one other key
climatic variable has to be considered over our 300 year time
scale. It is now known that ice ages are caused by variations in
the Earth's orbital geometry as it goes round the sun. The
`Milankovich Mechanism', as it is called (named after the Yugo
slav scientist who first calculated the orbital mechanism accu
rately) (30), indicates that we will be in an ice age 5000 years
from now, where global temperatures will be 5 degrees less than
today. On a linear average, this represents a decline in global
temperature of 0.1 degree per century, or 0.3 degrees over the
300 year time scale of CO2 doubling.
Since we have seen that temperature increases due to Green
house will be considerably less than 0.5 degree over the same
period, we can see that the final result might be a slight warm
ing, or even a cooling, of one or two tenths of a degree - hardly
cause for concern. If, as is likely, the sun should moderate it's
present high level of activity and enter an extended cooler
period as it did in the 17th and 19th centuries, we would end up
with a significant overall cooling.
Most modelers are very defensive about the lack of observa
tional evidence for their predictions. The long time lag of the
oceans in collecting heat are cited as reasons for the failure of
the present climate to indicate a clear greenhouse warming. This
time lag is generally considered to be about 20 years (31), which
would still enable a greenhouse warming to clearly show itself by
now. They are now belatedly claiming that perhaps the ocean time
lag may be more like 80 to 100 years (32). Even 500 years has
been suggested! (33). The strong global cooling trend since mid-
1988, wiping out the gains of the alleged `warm' 1980's has not
helped their cause either.
We find therefore that the greenhouse modelers reject obser
vational or historical evidence, (as explicitly stated by Hender
son-Sellers & Blong), and are now invoking longer and longer
ocean temperature time-lag as an excuse for the lack of green
house warming so far. Their primary mistake has essentially been
to rely on poorly understood theory alone, to the exclusion of
the full range of observational data available. There is even a
sense where they have somehow come to imagine that the strange
`Twilight Zone' world of their computer models is more real than
the real world outside.
While the models themselves use enormous programs and are
heavily mathematical, it should not be imagined that this guaran
tees accuracy. The use of mathematics, while essential in
science, does not in itself make a theory `right', since many of
the equations used carry variables such as `x' or `y' etc. whose
values may be only guessed at. It is also very common for experts
to use complicated mathematical expressions to lend greater
authority to their theories, and effectively `blind the lay
public with science'. The Boltzmann Constant is a good example of
this, since its original formulation on p.4 would deter many
people, but when expressed as `64.8' for use in the temperature
formula, it loses most of its mystique.
The pro-greenhouse scientists also avoid any obligation to
prove their theories, relying instead on a combination of media
hype, dubious claims to `scientific consensus', and dire warnings
of "believe us, or else...". The media are not noted for adher
ence to proved fact, while the supposed `consensus' is in no way
proof either. As for doomsday warnings, they are not new. In the
mid-1970's, the post war cooling, mentioned earlier, prompted
dire predictions about an impending ice age (34). Also in the
1970's, the approaching `grand alignment' of the planets resulted
in scientific warnings about a Los Angeles super-quake caused by
the `Jupiter Effect' (35).
Interestingly enough, some of the current players in the
greenhouse scare are themselves veterans of previous discredited
scares, such as Dr John Gribbin of `Jupiter Effect' fame, and
Nigel Calder, promoter of the `snowblitz' ice age scare (36).
Even Dr Schneider wrote a glowing testimonial to another `ice
age' book of the 1970's, called, appropriately, `The Cooling'
(37).
CONCLUSION
----------
Much of this article has been a criticism of the expertise of
those scientists making doomsday predictions of temperature. They
are now falling over themselves to outdo each others hysterical
forecasts of the coming heat wave and floods, and their tempera
ture estimates have become a squalid `think-of-a-number-and-
double-it' game. On this theme, I can only quote from my book,
`The Greenhouse Trap'
"The danger is that society is becoming intellectually intim
idated by the burgeoning numbers of academic `experts' in every
walk of life, as if the mere possession of degrees and doctorates
automatically guaranteed competence in a particular field... The
hysteria over the Greenhouse Effect illustrates this tendency
very clearly, since society has been assailed with alarmist
predictions with no real evidence presented by the self-styled
greenhouse experts. The only reason they are taken at all seri
ously is because they possess all the necessary doctorates,
degrees, professorships and directorships necessary to silence or
intimidate any critics."
While the pro-greenhouse scientists and lobbyists pay lip
service to `public debate' on this issue, it is evident from
their words and actions that they only want the public to act as
passive spectators in a one-sided debate, as was indeed the case
with the taxpayer-funded `Greenhouse '88' conference. They view
their role as self-appointed `educators' of the public, even
though they clearly employ the most insidious techniques of
partisan propaganda. `The Politics of Fear' is what Prof Patrick
Michaels called it.
Finally, we should be aware of three major vested interests
who need continued public belief in greenhouse warming. One is
the `Green' movement, whose forest closure campaigns have been
greatly assisted by fraudulent predictions of global warming due
to CO2. The second is the nuclear power industry, whose future
after the Chernobyl disaster was very bleak indeed. Then they
discovered the greenhouse effect, equating `clean' nuclear power
with saving the world from a heatwave catastrophe. Now, thanks to
Greenhouse, nuclear power is `respectable' again. The third major
interest is the scientific bureaucracy, whose scare stories about
Greenhouse has loosened the public purse considerably with major
government grants being given to climate research, especially to
the computer modelers to buy bigger and more expensive models.
(As shown earlier, it makes little difference how big the models
become if the mathematical assumptions permeating the model are
incorrect or even deliberately exaggerated)
The last thing any of these vested interests want is for
someone to come along and disprove the heat-wave predictions,
since any public skepticism or doubt about Greenhouse would
threaten their very future. It is for this reason that the green
housers have carefully cultivated an image of scientific `unanim
ity' about the temperature predictions, and have avoided real
public debate on the issue, since the mere existence of debate
implies lack of unanimity.
However, an open debate is badly needed, with direct input
from the numerous scientific critics of Greenhouse and the lay
public. It is to that aim that this paper is directed.
REFERENCES
----------
1) "The Changing Atmosphere" - Toronto Conference Statement,
1988
2) Personal communication with Cape Grim Baseline Stn,
Tasmania, 1989
3) Schneider, Stephen H. "Climate Modeling", Scientific
American, p.74
4) ibid p.75
5) Henderson-Sellers, A. & Blong, R. "The Greenhouse Effect
- Living in a warmer Australia", Univ. of NSW Press,
Sydney, 1989, p.61
6) ibid p.60
7) Braddock, R. "Evidence of the Greenhouse?", paper,
Griffith Univ. Brisbane, 1989, p.4
8) Percival, Ian. "Chaos. A science for the real world", New
Scientist, 21 Oct 89
9) Daly, J. "The Greenhouse Trap - why the Greenhouse Effect
will NOT end Life on Earth", Bantam Books, Sydney, 1989,
p.122
10) Schneider, S. "The Greenhouse Effect: Science and
Policy", Science, 10 Feb 1989, p.772
11) Sellers, W.D. "Physical Climatology", University of
Chicago Press, 1965. p.20
12) ibid from (5), p.10
13) ibid p.16 & p.41
14) Idso, Sherwood. "Carbon Dioxide - an alternative view"
from "The Breathing Planet" Basil Blackwell/New
Scientist, Oxford, 1986
15) ibid from (5) p.16
16) ibid from (14), p.255
17) ibid p.253-260
18) ibid from (5), preface
19) personal communication with `New Woman' magazine, 1989
20) Bryson, R.A. "All Other Factors Being Constant...A
reconciliation of several theories of climatic change",
Weatherwise, vol.21, no.2, 1968, pp.56-62.
21) Strahler, A.N. "Environmental Geoscience", Hamilton
Publishing, Santa Barbara, 1973, p.146
22) Woodward, I. "Plants in the Greenhouse World", New
Scientist, no.21, 6 May 1989
23) ibid from (10), p.773
24) Waldemeier, M. "Sunspot Activity in the Years
1610-1960", also "Sunspot Activity in the Years
1961-1975", Schulthess, Zurich
25) Pasachoff, J. "Contemporary Astronomy", CBS College
Publishing, USA, 1985, p.143
26) ibid p.141
27) Karl, T., Baldwin, R., & Burgin, M. "Time Series of
Regional Seasonal Averages of Maximum, Minimum, and
Average Temperature across the USA", National Oceanic &
Atmospheric Administration, Asheville, N.C., USA, March
1988
28) ibid from (10), p.771
29) Ponte, L. "The Cooling", Prentice Hall, N.J., USA, 1976
30) Milankovich, M. "Mathematical Climatology and
Astronomical Theory of Climate Change", Borntraeger,
Berlin, 1930
31) Noyce, P. "The Greenhouse Project", Habitat, Dec 1987,
sea level chart p.14
32) ibid from (5) p.48
33) ibid p.48
34) Hoyle, Sir F. "Ice!", Hutchinson, London, 1981
35) Gribbin, J. & Plagemann, S. "The Jupiter Effect",
Vintage Books, New York, 1975
36) Calder, N. "The Weather Machine", Viking Press, New
York, 1975
37) ibid from (29), testimonial on back cover.
Hello all readers,
Hopefully, a better understanding of the greenhouse
affect and its causes will be appreciated from the recent Radix
split file called [README.R95] if you have a copy of all 37 parts
then you can use Radix 95 to re-assemble these [SPLIT files] back
into the original README file.
For those interested, there is a follow up to this paper. Anyone
interested in a complete Arc'ed copy {LZH crunching} can do so by
asking me VK7BBS @VK7BBS and I will try to accommodate your re
quests.
Merry Christmas Happy New Year 1990
>From Andre Everts VK7AE 5BDXCC #2373
SysOp @VK7BBS #TAS.AUS.AU
|
|
