Ned Nikolov sends exciting news. He’s been invited to co-edit a special issue of ‘Climate’ jounal, carried by high impact factor open access publisher MDPI; the world’s largest and fastest growing open access publisher. He has now issued the call for papers.
A special issue of Climate (ISSN 2225-1154): “Natural Drivers of Climate Change: New Frontiers”
This special issue belongs to the section “Climate and Environment“.
UPDATE: Deadline for manuscript submissions now : 30 June 2023 |
Special Issue Information
Dear Colleagues,
We would like to welcome contributions for a Special Issue in the MDPI journal Climate focused on natural drivers of the Earth’s climate. Results from Atmosphere/Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) highlight the critical role of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in determining the course of future climatic change. These models, rooted in theory, do not successfully simulate natural phenomena such as ENSO, PDO and AMO. However, recent published research suggests that the natural forcing of climate may have been underestimated and that the lack of proper representation of such forcing in models may be highly consequential for climate projections. For example, studies have shown that cloud albedo has decreased over the past 40 years, and the resulting increase of surface solar radiation is a significant contributor to the observed warming (Herman et al. 2013; Hofer et al. 2017; Pfeifroth et al. 2018; Pokrovsky 2019; Delgado-Bonal et al. 2020; Dübal & Vahrenholt 2021). At the same time, the inability of AOGCMs to predict changes in cloud albedo has been recognized as a leading source of uncertainty in climate projections (Williams et al. 2020; Ceppi & Nowack 2021).
Observations and experiments have shown that cloud formation is likely affected by the galactic cosmic ray flux, which is modulated by the Sun’s magnetic activity (Svensmark et al. 2016, 2021). This begs the question: Are observed changes of cloud albedo a feedback response to the CO2-induced global warming, or a primary driver of climate on a multidecadal time scale? Other research has revealed a surprising and not yet fully understood relationship between global temperature and the Earth’s global seismic activity in the mid-ocean spreading zones. Over the past 40 years, global temperature has shown a higher correlation with seismic activity than it has with atmospheric CO2 (Viterito 2019, 2022). The same research also found a high correlation between global temperature and the rate of annual migration of the North Magnetic Pole (Viterito 2017). These results point to a substantial natural forcing not represented in AOGCMs.
The theme of this Special Issue is research addressing measurable natural drivers of climate change that operate on time scales from decades to millennia. Topics of interest include the impacts of cloud albedo, solar variability, changing ocean currents, subaerial and submarine volcanic activity, aerosol loading, geomagnetic dynamics, and Earth–Sun plasmoelectric connections (Birkeland currents) on climate. Also of interest are analyses of global datasets that are currently used to assess the changes of the Earth’s climate over the past 170 years. Highly prioritized for inclusion are studies that are empirical in nature and not solely reliant on complex theoretical models. The aim of this Special Issue is to advance our fundamental understanding of natural climate drivers. Original research articles and reviews are welcome.
We look forward to receiving your contributions.
Dr. Ned Nikolov
Dr. Arthur Viterito
Guest Editors
MDPI call for papers here: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/climate/special_issues/natural_driver_climate
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Topics of interest include the impacts of cloud albedo, solar variability, changing ocean currents, subaerial and submarine volcanic activity, aerosol loading, geomagnetic dynamics, and Earth–Sun plasmoelectric connections (Birkeland currents) on climate.
. . .
Although not qualified to write papers on the subject, I find Birkeland currents an interesting topic.
— https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/suggestions-46/#comment-177988
‘Results from Atmosphere/Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) highlight the critical role of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in determining the course of future climatic change.’
Of course they do. It was programmed in. It’s not an output; it’s designed in.
And, for God’s sake, define ‘climate change!’
‘Natural Drivers of Climate Change’
Without a definition of ‘climate change,’ this is gibberish.
Gamecock really ought to read the following two sentences following the one he quotes.
“These models, rooted in theory, do not successfully simulate natural phenomena such as ENSO, PDO and AMO. However, recent published research suggests that the natural forcing of climate may have been underestimated and that the lack of proper representation of such forcing in models may be highly consequential for climate projections.”
And perhaps another couple of minutes reading would have got him to this point:
“Highly prioritized for inclusion are studies that are empirical in nature and not solely reliant on complex theoretical models.
As far as “defining ‘climate change'” is concerned, shouldn’t the magnitude and character of change be something that emerges from the study of data, rather than a pre-conceived definition?
‘Scientists around the world are united in their belief that greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide, are leading to a warming planet’… asserts the link below:
JUNE 24, 2022
Review suggests current global efforts are insufficient to limit warming to 1.5°C
https://phys.org/news/2022-06-current-global-efforts-insufficient-limit.html
But sadly (?)… ‘given current circumstances, there is almost zero chance that the 1.5 degrees Celsius goal will be met. They note that to meet that goal, emissions would have to fall by approximately 43% by 2030—instead, emissions levels are still rising. They suggest the primary barriers to success are the lack of a proper global technological system and the political will to effect change. They conclude that the world is simply not seriously committed to reaching the 1.5 degrees Celsius goal.’
– – –
Time to break out of such obsolete ways of thinking.
‘the world is simply not seriously committed’ — because many are just playing the game or pretending to, to get along or maybe get some handouts.
@oldbrew:
The widespread belief that “greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide, are leading to a warming planet” is entirely based on climate computer models rather than empirical observations! These models include processes postulated by the 19th-Century “greenhouse” theory, which a-priori assumes that an open, convective atmosphere can “trap” radiant heat due to the presence of some IR-absorbing trace gases. There is no evidence that such trapping is occurring in reality, or that it’s even physically possible in an open system. Confusing IR radiation absorption with “heat trapping” is a gross mistake made by generations of scientists for nearly 200 years! In fact, the very definition of the “Greenhouse effect” as a difference of IR fluxes between surface and the top of the atmosphere is nonsensical, since such flux difference shows no relationship to the actual warming of the surface due to the presence of an atmosphere. I discuss this in my video:
[…] Ned Nikolov: Call for papers – Special Issue of MDPI’s Journal ‘Climate’. […]
‘As far as “defining ‘climate change’” is concerned, shouldn’t the magnitude and character of change be something that emerges from the study of data, rather than a pre-conceived definition?’
‘the magnitude and character of change’
Change of what? What are the units of climate change?
Still waiting for a definition. So far, you say something is going to change, and we’ll find out what it is when the study is done.
My point is that ‘climate change’ is an undefined, nebulous concept. It’s has no meaning except what’s in the heads of people, and EVERY PERSON has a different definition. Probably intentionally after the term was used to replace global warming. The problem with global warming is it can be measured. Climate change cannot.
See, ‘climate’ means the generalized weather of an area or region. No area or region on earth has had any change to its generalized weather in over a hundred years. ONLY if you come up with some funny definition of ‘climate change’ does it then become possible, as there are no changing climates. None. Anywhere. We spend trillions to fight ‘climate change,’ but there is none. If we are going to have a real fight, let’s have a real goal.
Gamecock – there are some measureable signs or trends in some places e.g. seasonal sea ice, snow line altitudes, glaciers, sea level rise, to name some, but different regions are likely to give different results.
Isn’t the argument more about causes than whether anything happened at all?
@Gamecock,
Climate change is NOT at all “an undefined, nebulous concept“. There are many metrics that are used to quantify “climate change”. One of the most common are changes of the average global surface air temperature. Being an intensive physical property of matter, temperature is directly related to the energy content of the system without depending on the system size. Also, temperature is a common parameter of change that can be studied for the past, present, and future as a continuum. Other markers of climate change such as precipitation, atmospheric humidity and sea level while available to measure in modern times, may be difficult to accurately reconstruct for the past due to a lack of reliable proxies.
Please excuse my presumption in offering this simplest imaginable repudiation of the AGW.
The AGW requires the GE to be responsible for the ATE, which is impossible because that would be a violation of Charles’ Law – which tells us that the reduction of tropospheric volume attributable to Gravity must enhance the temperature – as with any and every compressed adiabatic gas body.
I have made tis point several times, but the penny hasn’t dropped yet, please stop and think just for a moment about what I just offered.
None of you give a definition of ‘climate change.’
Who would trust this MDPI journal, after they published this paper “Centennial Total Solar Irradiance Variation“, Dewitte et al (2022), which concludes with a redefining of grand solar minima away from earlier established objective standards by I. G Usoskin. From the Dewitte paper:
“The analysis of the 11 year running mean TSI reconstruction confirms the existence of a 105 year Gleissberg cycle with grand minima occurring in the beginning of each century.” -Dewitte
In other words Dewitte et al unnecessarily reassigned the term ‘grand minima’ away from the very low 30year average sunspot number I.G. Usoskin et al established, and subsequently gave to the 105y Gleissberg cycle. Dewitte et al managed to reference no less than 6 Usoskin papers from 2001-2006, but not the one that mattered from 2007.
Usoskin et al (2007) identified the Maunder Minimum as the last grand minima, from Table 1:
Table 1. Approximate dates (in -BC/AD) of grand minima in
the SN-L series (see text).
No. center duration comment
1 1680 80 Maunder
2 1470 160 SpÄorer
3 1305 70 Wolf
Usoskin, I.G., Solanki, S.K. and Kovaltsov, G.A. (2007) Grand Minima and Maxima of Solar Activity: New Observational Constraints. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 471, 301-309.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20077704
MDPI has muddied the waters and make it possible for people to falsely claim we are in a ‘grand minima’ now, when in fact solar activity is now 2x the Usoskin-defined objective standard. ‘grand’ means thousand, not every hundred or so years. That MDPI allows this is Orwellian in my opinion.
Also, I’m not very optimistic about anything Ned Nikolov edits in the MDPI journal, as his biases are on open display right here in the paragraphs written above in the call for the special collection, where Nikolov is openly steering prospective authors into supporting his own climate [mis] conceptions, particularly about cosmic rays, clouds, and TSI. I very much doubt he will accept manuscripts that contradict what he has already written about in his own paper(s), so what this special collection will likely be is ‘confirmation’ of Ned’s peculiar biases. Is that MDPI’s objective?
Gamecock: None of you give a definition of ‘climate change.’
I agree with you that Earth has a multitude of climates in different geographical regions. I disagree with your statement that they don’t change. Masses of evidence shows they do.
I also agree with Ned’s comment about global temperature being an indicator of overall climate change. However, it’s only been possible to measure that with any accuracy since the advent of the satellite age, so there hasn’t been much change to measure yet, and it may well be the case that the maximum millennial variation on a timescale of tens of thousands of years is no more than a few degrees.
Harsh criticism from Bob Weber there! I hope Ned offers a cool response after due consideration.
The easiest disproof of the AGW is that Gravity and Charles Law must increase Atmospheric temperature, whereas the AGW requires then ATE to be the result of the GE. sic transit AGW!
@bobweber,
You seem eager to criticize things before you have even experienced them. Calm down and try to be rational. The theme of this Special Issue is “Natural Climatic Drivers”. This includes all factors that are observable and not just inferred from theoretical models. The focus is on empirical evidence supporting verifiable mechanisms of climate control. As we pointed out in the Introduction to this Special Issue, there is lots of evidence now that the climate models either poorly represent or completely miss natural processes of fundamental importance to climate.
I’m not married at all to the idea that cosmic rays are the sole control of cloud albedo variations. There is observational evidence that cosmic rays do have an impact on cloud formation, but I believe there is a lot more to the story that needs to be investigated. We as Guest Editors are fully open to any research and conclusions that are supported by empirical evidence and observed data, period! This approach stems from my own experience – 15 years ago, I was a firm believer in the radiative “Greenhouse” theory. I even used to have heated debates with skeptics trying to defend IPCC’s conclusions. It was the analysis of new data that changed my mind, and ultimately led to the discovery of the adiabatic (non-radiative) nature of the Atmospheric Thermal Effect (ATE) (Nikolov & Zeller 2017).
If you have a testable hypothesis based on observations, please feel free to submit a paper. We are looking for NEW concepts, NEW insights, and NEW paradigms. That is the purpose of this Special Issue!
Bond et al 1997
Please distribute widely to any earth scientist who may know where this has been publicized:
to those who might: no harassment please — just links to the historical material for careful inspection
According to the work of Nir Shaviv galactic cosmic ray levels have been relatively stable during the present scientific era, so the changes in cosmic ray levels that produce the muons that reach the low cloud base are at present due to solar magnetic effects. Muons produce the clouds, muons are produced by cosmic rays hitting molecules in the atmosphere, 60 percent of these muons are produced from high energy cosmic rays that are not effected by the magnetic field of the Earth or the Sun and vary due to the Galactic Orbit of the Solar System which varies the surface temperature of the Earth by 10 Kelvin and produces ice age epochs every 145 million years as the Sun passes through the more denser concentration of stars in the Galactic spiral arms increasing the level of cosmic rays, we are at present in an ice age epoch caused by our presence in the Orion armlet. 37 percent of the muons are subject to varying intensity due to the Suns magnetic field which varies the surface temperature of the Earth by 1 Kelvin. Only 3 percent of the muons that reach the low level clouds are from low energy cosmic rays that are blocked by the Earths magnetic field. A one percent decrease in Galactic cosmic rays causes a 0.13 Kelvin increase in Global temperature. By early 2018, the scientist who had proven that Climate Change is caused by Galactic Cosmic Rays regulating the Earth’s Cloud Albedo, Professor Henrik Svensmark, was invited to speak in the Committee rooms of the Houses of Parliament on Tuesday, March 13, 2018. I also remember some bad incidents such as the creation of a fake rebuttal of the Svensmark theory using low energy cosmic rays, and the head of the CLOUD experiment at CERN, Jasper Kirkby, called in by the CERN Director-General Rolf-Dieter Heuer, who told Kirkby not to interpret the cloud-chamber results, because the official position is that the aim was not to prove that clouds are sensitive to cosmic rays, but only to see whether or not they could be. But the CLOUD experiment only confirmed the explanation of how cosmic rays cause cloud formation has been complete and proven since Henrik Svensmarks cloud chamber results in 2006. Kirkby said “I’m an experimental particle physicist, okay? That somehow nature may have decided to connect the high-energy physics of the cosmos with the earth’s atmosphere—that’s what nature may have done, not what I’ve done”
4670 year cycle correction: Anyone (whether scientist or not)
Excellent initiative – I’ll try to work on an article (as time allows) with a title something like:
Converting ocean excitability to climate oscillations via chaos dimension-reducing effects of internal feedbacks and astrophysical periodic forcing
@Paul Cottingham,
I find the politicization of climate science disgusting & repugnant! It has pushed us back into the Dark Ages.
Largest climate change was when Sahara became desert, which started about 5000 years ago.
Some people blame humans, but it occurred in every recent interglacial period.
In terms of absolute magnitude, the largest climate change occurred over the past 51 My, when the global temperature plummeted some 16 C, and the Earth transitioned from an ice-free planet to an ice-capped planet.
Dear Ned,
May I beg you to consider this simplest of rebuttals of the Anthropogenic Theory (AGW) not least because it falls out of your own work, but is overlooked in its own terms, perhaps because of its simplicity, that’s why I have picked up on it in order to restore it to you.
The AGW depends on the GE being entirely responsible for the ATE, whereas Charles Law dictates that Compression by Gravity must enhance atmospheric temperature.
This invalidates the AGW.
If you accept this point then all that is needed is for IPCC to be challenged on their omission of temperature Enhancement due the effect of gravity on the troposphere from their theory.
The AGW cannot withstand this objection and it is easier for public comprehension than the more sophisticated arguments employed.
Please allow this thought your serious consideration.
@Pete Rogers:
Hi Pete,
Charles Law only states that, under constant pressure (such as at the Earth’s surface), the gas volume is proportional to the average gas temperature. This law does not refer to gravity, and therefore cannot be used to “prove” that ATE depends on gravity.
In order to link ATE to gravity, one has to point out these facts:
1) The average surface atmospheric pressure (P) on any planet is only a function of atmospheric mass (M), the planet’s surface area (A), and the gravitational acceleration (g): P = (M/A)*g;
2. Observations show that the relative ATE defined by the Ts/Tna temperature ratio is fully explained across a wide range of planetary bodies only by P, and requires no knowledge of atmospheric composition (Nikolov & Zeller 2017)
Thanks for your reply Ned. Everything I do in climate science is rational, btw. I’ll look for you to maintain the attitude you expressed in your response. Best of luck in this job.
At this time before writing/submitting a paper to whatever journal, I’m considering writing a formal response to MDPI regarding the Dewitte et al paper. Given that you are now editing for this journal, what is the process to do so? Thanx in advance.
Thanks for your reply Ned, I am most grateful for it, but something seems to be missing if you will forgive me for observing.
If pressure was less then the troposphere would be bigger so each of the more numerous layers comprising it would be cooler because the thermal energy per metre layer (or whatever measure) would be divided between more of them.
Determining compression by conferring weight to the Troposphere, as it does, any particular force of Gravity is responsible for its own particular ATE is it not?.
Pete,
No, lower pressure means smaller troposphere and vice versa. That’s in the basic equations of atmospheric thermodynamics!
Gravity by itself does not imply anything about the magnitude of ATE. That’s because ATE is a function of both gravity and atmospheric mass. Without atmospheric mass, ATE = 0 for any gravity.
Ned, You are very kind and I greatly appreciate your patience.
What I am struggling with, if you will excuse me for troubling you further, is how it can be that gravity being less and therefore the weight of the atmosphere lower: that auto-compression is not reduced and the volume of the troposphere increased as it then takes a taller column of air than before to provide a pressure of 10KPa does it not?
What is wrong with this observation please?
I understand that the Tropopause would be lower, so thanks for that direction, but the troposphere would be less compressed would it not, meaning that there would be less thermal energy per unit volume and therefore the temperature lower too?
Pete,
The pressure level, where the tropopause occurs, tends to be a conservative value across planets with relatively thicker atmospheres. It’s about 0.1 – 0.2 bar. So, for the same surface pressure, the tropopause will occur at higher altitude on a planet with weaker gravity compared to a planet with stronger gravity.
If the gravity is fixed, then a higher mean surface pressure will push the tropopause to a higher altitude than would a lower surface pressure.
That’s it!
The altitude (Z) of a pressure level depends on surface pressure (Po), surface temperature (To), gravity (g), and the lapse rate (L) and is given by the 3rd (last) formula in this video segment:
Pete,
Yes, when you have a lower surface pressure for the same distance from the Sun, the global surface temperature will be lower compared to a situation where the surface pressure is higher. Pressure and temperature go in the same direction when the solar heating is fixed, although the relationship between pressure and temperature is non-linear.
However, higher surface pressure can be associated with lower surface temperature on bodies located at different distances from the Sun, and thus receiving different amounts of solar radiation. That’s because the effect of pressure on temperature is only relative, not absolute. For example, Titan has about 50% higher atmospheric surface pressure than Earth, but Titan is MUCH colder than Earth, because it receives nearly 100 times less solar radiation than Earth.
Dear Ned,
Thank you, I see that clearly, though I may have put my point poorly as it was supposed to look at something slightly adjacent to that, so excuse my attempt to clarify
Perhaps the following is my error, but I am not sure why, so please confirm.
My understanding is that any degree of compression experienced by an adiabatic gas body leads to a level of temperature increase in proportion to the loss of volume because the unchanged thermal energy content is divided between fewer units of volume
Am I talking out of my hat?
Pete Rogers
Pete,
An adiabatic compression does reduce the gas volume, but it also increases the gas’ internal kinetic energy (defined by the product PV), which is why the temperature of the gas increases as well. It’s a common mistake made by many (including some climate scientists), who think that an adiabatic compression does not change the gas internal energy. It does!
During an adiabatic process, what remains constant is:
PV^gama = Constant,
but the energy PV increases, because the pressure rises more than the volume decreases. Take a look at this Wikipedia page for details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process
Looks interesting…
Earth’s and Venus’ average temperature at 1 bar using the Charged Atmosphere and Faraday’s Constant
by John Politis
First published June 28, 2022
Click to access farad.pdf
Dear Ned,
Thanks for the further guidance.
I am trying to understand properly as it seems that I have a lot of “crow” to eat in front of my friends who believed me unfortunately.
I obtained my original understanding from a Mining Safety Engineer, who said that the thermal gradient in the troposphere shows that as we ascend and pressure reduces so does temperature and vice versa, continuing underground where the lengthening column of air above adds further pressure causing greater temperatures than at the surface. He claimed that pressure enhances temperature due to volume lost to compression and the greater thermal energy per unit volume that results as there are fewer units then to divide the unchanged total energy between.
The total thermal energy content should be unchanged due to the 1st Law he said, but the content of each of the fewer volume units would be greater and the temperature higher.
When you say that an adiabatic compression does reduce the gas volume, but it also increases the gas’ internal kinetic energy (defined by the product PV), which is why the temperature of the gas increases, that strikes me as the same thing – that heat energy per unit volume is increased due to the smaller volume containing it.
Am I wrong again here? I am certainly confused.
Pete,
The effect of pressure on temperature is through the increased FORCE of pressure, not the decreased volume due to compression! That’s an important distinction. Force directly relates to energy and temperature, because Energy = Force*Distance, and temperature is an intensive property of energy. Gas volume has no direct relationship to energy and/or temperature meaning that a certain energy content and temperature can be associated with a range of volumes.
For example, if we move Earth to the orbit of Venus without changing the atmospheric mass, the average air pressure on the surface will remain the same and so will the relative ATE (1.45). However, the volume of the atmosphere will expand considerably due to a higher solar heating, and the surface air density will decrease appreciably.
“However, the volume of the atmosphere will expand considerably due to a higher solar heating, and the surface air density will decrease appreciably.”
The surface air temperature increases, appreciably.
But not immediately.
Land areas surface air will increase immediately.
Ocean surface increases evaporation immediately and ocean surface temperature
controls global air temperature.
Before ocean surface temperature increases much, global water vapor has to
increase first.
Before ocean surface warms much you have more clouds over the tropical ocean.
And then globally more clouds.
The intense sunlight when sun nearer zenith will kill life unless under water or it is cloudy.
Deserts will become wet. Deserts will be where there no clouds when sun is close to being
at zenith.
Land will quickly get lethal, ocean life will not effected much within centuries of time.
If interested in life on Land, it depends on how cloudy Earth gets.
Another ‘alternative’ view, with a science experiment…
Role of Atmospheric Convection in Global Warming (2019)
J. Marvin Herndon
‘A drastic reduction in particulate-pollutant emissions will be followed by a rapid and drastic reduction in global warming, as tropospheric pollution-particulates fall to ground in days to weeks, thus increasing atmospheric convection efficiency and potentially providing a radical solution to the global climate crisis.
. . .
Human activity is indeed causing global warming, but not principally by greenhouse gas emissions. Particulate pollution emissions are, instead, likely the main cause of ongoing global warming.’
Click to access Role-of-Atmospheric-Convection-in-Global-Warming.pdf
– – –
Saw this for the first time yesterday. One website calls the author ‘a serial conspiracy theorist’.
Short article about his theory here:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/air-pollution-not-greenhouse-gases-is-the-main-cause-of-global-warming-300723484.html
@oldbrew
This paper by Herndon (2019) is just another reincarnation of the silly old idea that an open convective atmosphere can trap heat. This time, however, the “heat trapping” is attributed not to greenhouse gases, but to a reduced rate of convection supposedly caused by an altered (reduced) lapse rate as a result of polluting the atmosphere with particulate matter. According to the authors, the warming in recent decades was caused by a reduced convective cooling on a global scale, which is thermodynamically absurd!
Not only there is a total lack of empirical evidence from global observations that convection has been impeded for the past 40 years, but satellite data and measured surface solar radiation fluxes clearly suggest that the observed warming since 1982 was due to a reduction of low-level clouds and the overall cloud albedo of Earth.
Trenberth’s latest offering…
Knowing the Earth’s energy imbalance is critical in preventing global warming, study finds
July 4, 2022
‘Distinguished scholar at the National Center of Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and highly cited lead author Kevin Trenberth together with climate scientist and co-author Lijing Cheng have made a new complete inventory of all the various sources of excess heat on Earth. He studied energy changes from the atmosphere, ocean, land, and ice as climate system components from 2000 to 2019 and compared this to the radiation at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere to find the imbalance.’
https://phys.org/news/2022-07-earth-energy-imbalance-critical-global.html
This is funny! I had an email exchange with Kevin Trenberth last September. As an expert in Earth’s energy budget, he could not (or would not) answer this simple question: What amplification mechanism is responsible for converting 240 W m-2 absorbed solar radiation by the Earth-atmosphere system into 343 W m-2 down-welling LW radiation at the surface?
One of the classical mistakes made by scientists like Trenberth, who blindly trust the 19th-Century “Greenhouse” theory, is to think that the so-called “radiation imbalance” at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) drives the surface climate. It doesn’t!! This radiation imbalance, if it exists, is a mere consequence of climate change, not a driver of it… So many concepts in the current climate theory are just backward to physical reality. The TOA “radiation imbalance” is one of them…
The sooner they give up foolish ideas like ‘preventing global warming’ and ‘fighting climate change’ the better. But it seems it could be a long wait 🙄
@oldbrew:
Foolish ideas are supported by fools or intellectually corrupt individuals protecting selfish interests. Unfortunately, climate science does not have a shortage of either… 🙂
Dear Ned,
I have been scratching my head so sorry for the delay.
Thank you for your explanation 2/7 as to how it is that gravity is not implicated in the ATE which I followed, but it did not deal with the mechanical point raised by the Mining Safety Engineer (a pretty serious profession) so can you help by direct address to pinpoint the error – which I cannot find – rather than giving a substitute explanation please?
Here is this the chain of reasoning in which i have been unable to identify an error so I cannot reject it, can you help?
The weight of the atmosphere determines its pressure and weight is simply the result of gravity acting on mass so if gravity were less the weight would be less so the pressure would be less so the atmosphere would be more voluminous.
The thermal energy content would be the same according to the 1st Law, so less per unit volume and the temperature lower accordingly.
Ned et alia: I seem to have a problem getting this printed on the Net, But my researches of recent years have included the works of Maxwell (LOTD etc. etc.
On page 232 of his The Theory of Heat “Radiation” He notes that ” Radiant Heat agrees with Light in always moving in straight lines. It is not therefore propagated by Diffusion etc etc..
He goes on to note that RH does not heat clear air but can be focused to light flames. And much more…. So, the ideas of Arrhenius and Mann are long disproven. As honest folk knew of course, already.
Amazon is now reprinting his works……Brett Keane, New Zealand, now in the Moon Race….
Dear Ned,
Since its surface pressure depends on the weight of the atmosphere and the weight of the atmosphere depends on the force of gravity it must follow that the size of the atmosphere depends on the force of gravity. If gravity was less forceful, for kinstance, the atmosphere would be more voluminous, but containing the same amount of thermal energy according to the 1st Law and therefore the amount per unit volume would be less and therefore the temperature lower.
I can see nothing false in this argument which – being so – means that gravity enhances atmospheric temperature.
Whilst your compelling argument to the contrary converted me, the fact that it did not identify any false link in the argument above, skince ylou provided an alternative rather than the rebuttal of any of the particulars here, I am stuck with its logic because your theory does nothing to break it.
For this argument to be broken one of the folllowing links that make it up must be untrue, so can you explain which one it is and what is false about it please?
1. Gravity determines the weight of the atmosphere
2. The weight of the atmosphere determines the pressure of the atmosphere
3. The pressure of the atmosphere determines the extent of compression
4. The extrent of the compressioin determines the volume of the atmosphere
5. Regardless of the extent of compression the thermal energy contained within the atmosphere will be constant acclording to the 1st law of thermodynamics.
If there is no false link amongst these 5 then it must be the case that gravity is very much involved in the ATE.
Help me out here – no substitute theory please before first identifying the false link with explanation. please
I would deeply appreciate the help.
Brett Keane – re. radiant heat, this commercial site says:
‘Like the sun, radiant heat moves in straight lines’
http://radiantheating.co.uk/index.html
Update 18/3/23: link seems dead, see here instead:
The radiant heat waves travel in straight lines unless deflected by some reflecting surface.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/radiant-heat
Old Brew re Trenberth see this post https://cementafriend.wordpress.com/2015/09/. Trenberth knows his cartoon budget is false.
Wow, with Tucker Carlson on Fox a couple of days ago the ice is cracking up on every side!
Over 3,300 reads and never proven wrong – see the link above.
“I’ve noticed that many science students and graduates from recent decades become “formula” people without understanding the limitations and conditions under which such expressions are applicable. This has led to scientists like Drs Jelbring, Nikolov and Zeller all publishing papers in which they point out a kind of correlation (not linear) between pressure and temperature in planetary tropospheres, but then they incorrectly deduce that it is high pressure that is maintaining high temperatures such as at the surface of Venus. They think this is a result of the Ideal Gas Law (IGL) but they confuse cause and effect. For example, people know from undergraduate physics that the IGL tells us that pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density. So, if we have a sealed, perfectly insulated cylinder full of gas and, using an inserted electric element, we raise the temperature (by adding kinetic energy to the gas molecules and making them move faster between collisions) then, since the density remains constant, the pressure will indeed increase in proportion to the absolute (K) temperature. For temperature to increase we must have a source of energy which raises the mean kinetic energy of the molecules. If some external source of energy is used to increase the pressure then what it is really doing is increasing the density and/or the temperature. So the increase in pressure is just a result of external energy being applied that may well have increased only the temperature. The point is that it was not the increase in pressure that caused the increase in temperature but vice versa. The relevance of this is that we see many attempts to explain why the surface temperature of planets is greater than that which direct solar radiation to the surface could achieve. So some people say the high pressure is causing the temperature to be hotter. That is simply not the case. Correlation does not imply cause. What actually happens occurs at the molecular level in every small parcel of air at every altitude, as was explained by the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt in 1876 but totally ignored by climatologists. As a direct result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which says entropy will tend towards a maximum (by diminishing unbalanced energy potentials) we find that gravity forms a stable density gradient in the troposphere of every planet. Simultaneously it forms a temperature gradient, this being represented by the same state of maximum entropy which in physics is called thermodynamic equilibrium.”
Cotton’s article is just gibberish! The guy does not understand Thermodynamics, the difference between isobaric and isochoric systems, or the meaning of a cosmic continuum…
What we’ve published is not a “theory”, but a discovery based on modern NASA data, i.e. an empirical fact that requires a theoretical explanation. The “greenhouse” concept, on the other hand, is a theory, because it was proposed as a conjecture (mind construct) in the absence of global and/or planetary data. Some of the conjectural premises of this concept (such as the claimed “heat trapping” by trace gases in a convective atmosphere) are thermodynamically absurd and have never been verified by observations.
Here is a video that Cotton and all other science deniers should watch and think deeper about the conundrums of modern climate science:
Ned, thanks for video. I have managed to download it. I agree with most of it although you do not mention the point I made above about the radiation window. That kills that argument about back radiation which is of course in breach of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. CO2 is not a greenhouse gas as you say but a necessary gas for plant growth.
Your explanation of the bottle experiment is fine. The atmosphere is an open system which allows dispersal of localised heat input by convection. A couple of further points. The bottle that has 80% CO2 also has lots of water vapor which also absorbs radiation. Earth radiates with a frequency centred around 10micron (from Wien’s displacement law -temp around 291K) From the Earth surface CO2 only absorbs radiation around 14.8micron (from Wien’s law about 196K) from where it radiates to space as measured by satellites. The high temperature infrared lamp going by color radiates at a temperature around 1470K or a peak wavelength about 2micron. CO2 also absorbs/emits radiation at 4.2 micron (equiv 696K ) and 2.3 micron (eqiv. 1035K) In the bottle with high CO2, radiation is being absorbed which is not emitted from the Earth surface by both CO2 and water vapor. It is a false experiment over several areas of thermodynamics.
As you also say absorption of radiation by CO2 has nothing to do with the temperature on Venus.
Another thing which no doubt you understand is that the lapse rate continuous underground in deep mines. I have been down the Mt Isa mine (Qld) where air conditioning is required for normal working and a mine in Brunswick Canada (about 10,000 ft down) where it is cold above and air drawn in for ventilation keeps temperature down. This is a support for your theory and it is possible to make measurements for calculations. In cold areas and dry areas the lapse rate is closer to the abiotic lapse rate of 9.8 C per km. My wiki states the average environmental lapse rate is 6.5C/km
A nice initiative – thanks for sharing this important news.
Reblogged this on Odyssey and commented:
Ned Nikonov at Tallbloke’s blog is sharing a call for paper on climate drivers, inviting solid science to counter establishment catastrophist pseudoscience. Deadline for submissions is 30 June 2023.