## lördag 19 januari 2013

### GHE Fabricated by Kipp&Zonen and WMO

The scientific basis of climate alarmism is the greenhouse effect GHE, and the scientific evidence of GHE consists of measurements by in particular Kipp&Zonen pyrgeometers, with model CGR 4 described by the manufacturer as follows:
• CGR 4 has been designed for scientific measurements outdoors of downward atmospheric long-wave radiation with extremely high reliability and accuracy.
• CGR 4 provides an output voltage that is proportional to the net radiation in the far infrared (FIR). By calculation, downward atmospheric long-wave radiation is derived. CGR 4 has an integrated temperature sensor to measure the housing temperature.
We read that the pyrgeometer measures a voltage proportional to net absorbed radiation, from which "by calculation"  a quantity named "downward long-wave radiation DLR" is derived, which Kipp&Zonen connects to GHE by:

The basic idea is that GHE results from "atmospheric re-emission" by in particular CO2 as a "greenhouse gas", the effect of which is seen in as a warming from DLR of about 4 W/srm2 per micrometer at a wavelength of 15 micrometer where the trace gas CO2 is emitting/absorbing.

Kipp&Zonen describes the functioning of its best seller CGR 4 Pyrgeometer as follows

We read that DLR = L_d is computed from Formula 2, where
• U_emf is detector output as a voltage
• 5.67 x 10^-8 x T_a^4 is Stefan-Boltzmann's law for irradiance into a surrounding of 0 K.
• T_b is recorded detector temperature
• S is a sensitivity factor determined by calibration.
Formula 2 is supposed to have the form
• Gross Detector Input = DLR = Net Detector Absorption + Gross Detector Output
where
• Gross Detector Output = 5.67 x 10^-8 x T_a^4.     (False Stefan-Boltzmann Law)
Evidently DLR = Gross Detector Input critically depends on Gross Detector Output and thus on the formula defining this quantity, which is supposed to be a Stefan-Boltzmann Law for the detector. But the form of the Stefan-Boltzmann's law used requires the temperature of the radiative surrounding of the detector to be 0 K, which is not the case.

The evidence of the GHE supplied by Kipp&Zonen pyrometer is thus based on a False Stefan-Boltzmann Law. The consequences for climate alarmism, and Kipp&Zonen are far-reaching.

Evidently, Kipp&Zonen can be sued for using a False Stefan-Bolzmann Law, in a case that cannot be lost...

PS The crucial Formula 2 is taken from Guide to Meteorological Instruments and Methods of Observation issued by the World Meteorological Organization  (section 7.4.3 formula (7.17)). No scientific reference to (7.17) is given by WMO.  So Kipp&Zonen uses a formula issued by WMO without scientific support. Who is then responsible? I think this is an interesting case concerning the responsibility of scientists and scientific institutions, and commercial actors relying on the science. It is clear that in medicine or building technology, there are those who are held responsible. It must be so also in atmospherics science. I will ask WMO for the scientific source and report the answer.

PS2 WMO states on section 7.4.3: Over the last decade, significant advances have been made in the measurement of terrestrial radiation by pyrgeometers, which block out solar radiation. Nevertheless, the measurement of terrestrial radiation is still more difficult and less understood than the measurement of solar irradiance.

Can WMO be sued for distributing science which is admittedly not understood?

PS3 Note the circular argumentation being used: WMO can verify the validity of a formula claimed to be valid by WMO, even if it is not understood,  by referring to measurements made by a Kipp&Zonen pyrgeometer constructed from the formula. Any formula can be validated this way.

#### 14 kommentarer:

1. Do you have anything other then your own theory that says that the Stefan_Boltzmann law is false?

2. The correct version of SB is correct. The false version is incorrect. Kipp&Zonen use the false version.

3. According to what? Experiments?

4. There is no experimental support for the false version.

5. Is there any experimental falsification?

6. While your'e at it.

Is that version prohibited by local energy conservation?

7. There is no scientific support, experimental or theoretical, of the false SB. Period.

8. There is a comment missing. The most important one.

I write it again.

Is there any experiment that falsify it?

9. Since the formula as stated is meaningless, it cannot be falsified.

10. Claes, this matter has been discussed here in your blog years ago and I can´t see that you have any new arguments to raise. You then said rhat the two-way SB law was false and now you repeat it. Do you remember that we prooved to you that it is not false?!

11. Not false? It is meaningless, and what is important is that it is misleading.

12. Anonym and Lasse,

please limk to experimental or empirical evidence that Claes is wrong.

13. Suppose you have a sphere with inside surface acting like a blackbody. Let it´s temp be 0´K.
No e-m waves inside. Raise it´s temp. Acc to the Claes one way heat theory there can´t be any e-m waves inside at any temp. Acc to the two way theory all the surface inside radiates (emits e-m waves) acc to the SB-law. The one way theory leads to an unphysical result.

14. Stefan-Boltzmann did not speak about two-way heat transfer. It was invented by meteorologists like Anders Ångström making his way in science by recording DLR using an instrument invented by his father Knut, maybe to please a demanding father. You can play with your models but you will not be able to find real evidence of two-way heat transfer, because it violates the 2nd Law by allowing a reversible universe.