FEniCS as Global Climate Simulator?!

                                           Radiation Budget according to NASA IPCC

This is an outline of my talk at FEniCS 10 May 10-12 at KTH based on

• On Atmospheric Circulation
• Variable Density Turbulent Incompressible Flow
• Temperature Sensitivity of a Basic Climate Model
• Greenhouse Gases without Greenhouse Effect

Question:

• Can FEniCS save humanity from Global Warming?
  

Global Circulation Models = GCM = NAVIER-STOKES eqns for Ocean-Atmosphere:

• convection
• evaporation-condensation: phase change
• turbulence: diffusion, dissipation
• radiation (black-body: absorb SW emit LW)
• conduction
• atmosphere: compressible
• ocean: incompressible variable density salinity
• full 3d (vertical convection)
• insolation
• rotation.

IDEAL for FEniCS!! IDEAL for UNICORN!!

Variable Density Turbulent Circulation: Movie 1   Movie 2

 (Johan Jansson/Hoffman)

                             CASE STUDY of SCIENCE in OUR TIME

Postulate of Climate Alarmism: (rock solid undeniable basic physics)

• dQ = 4 dT
  

Stefan-Boltzmann's Radiation Law: 

•    Q= c T^4                Q = 288 Watts/m2      T= 288 K

Differentiation: 

• dQ = 4c T^3 dT = Q/T 4dT = 288/288 4 dT = 4 dT
  

Basic Climate  Sensitivity: 

• Doubled CO2: dQ = 4 Watts/m2: dT = 1 C Basic
  

• "Radiative Forcing" 2 - 4 W (estimated)
• 5.35 log(C/C_0) ad hoc
• CO2 280 - 380 (1900 -2000): 0.7 C : 2.8 W

IPCC Prediction Global Warming: 

• 1 C gives 3 C by positive feed back: Alarm! 
  

Alarm: 

• 1% of Q (4 W)  gives 1% of T (3 C) from SB + feedback
  

Reality Check:

• without atmosphere T = 273 or T = 255 K
• with atmosphere T = 288 K 
• effect of full atmosphere  + 15/45 C
• effect of 1% atmosphere = 0.15/0.45 C

IPCC 3 C = 10-20 times too big!   3 C instead of 0.15 C!

Observation ERBE: dQ = 8 dT      dT = 0.5 C  instead of 3 C!

Is SB incorrect? 

• No, but too simplistic as climate model: Convection...missing.

Conclusion:

• No CO2 Alarm ?! 
  
• FEniCS?! 
• Real Climate Sensitivity?! 
• FEniCS Mission!
• Obama Cap and Trade EPA Global Emision Control? 

Ref: Lord Monckton Apocalypse? NO   

Conventional Greenhouse: 

• Absorb SW Radiation
• Block Convection

"Greenhouse" Gases: (rock solid undeniable basic physics)

• Absorb SW Radiation
• Absorb-Emit LW Radiation = "Blanket"

Atmospheric Blanket Layer Effect:

• Absorb  f x Earth Re-emit  f/2 x Earth Down   +  f/2 x Earth Up-Out

• Total Out (1- f + f/2) x Earth = (1 - f/2) x Earth

• T_Earth = 2^(1/4) T_Atmos = 1.2 x T_Atmos

• T_Atmos 255 K     T_Earth = 30 C Wrong!

• Radiation Blanket Model Too Simplistic

• Gerlich: Falsification of CO2 Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect 2009

Model of Radiation: Radiation Budget of Layer at height z:

                                  E(z+h) - 2 E(z) + E(z-h)

Radiation ~ Conduction: From Hot to Cold 

Constant lapse rate:

• Temperature  ~ (1 - z)    observed
• Pressure ~ (1 - z)^3         observed
• Density ~ (1 - z)^2           observed

PS1 BodyandSoul Mathematical Simulation Technology EBook

PS2 My question to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences concerning its statement that 

• "the effect of greenhouse gases is well established"

has not been answered. Conclusion? 

Once it was "well established" that the Earth is flat, but the scientific evidence was lacking...

To say that something is "well established" is not a scientific argument, even if a Scientific Academy so believes...

What does FEniCS say? Are we allowed to continue to breath?