Basic Evidence of Low Emissivity of CO2

A basic estimate of the radiative forcing of CO2 as atmospheric trace gas from its main resonance at wave number 667, can be obtained as follows from Planck's Law in the form

• R(n,T) = gamma T n^2 for n < 4T,

where n is wave number, T ~ 300 K is temperature and R(n,T) is radiation per unit of wave number and gamma is a constant. The total outgoing long wave radiation OLR from the Earth surface at temperature T assuming the atmosphere to be transparent,  is then equal to the integral of R(n,T) over 0< n < 4T:   

• OLR = gamma * 64/3 T^4 .

Adding the trace gas CO2 will block radiation in an interval around 667 ~ 2T of width 1 (motivated on Computational Blackbody Radiation as a basic phenomenon of near-resonance), with a blocking effect B given by

• B = gamma * 4 T^3 . 

The emissivity of an atmosphere with CO2 as trace gas can then be estimated as the relative blocking effect B/OLR = 12/64 T < 0.001 of the main resonance at 667.

This is similar to the estimate 0.002 presented in a previous post, with the doubling resulting from the weaker spectral lines away from the main resonance.

Notice that the blocking effect of the main resonance of CO2 is in principle independent of concentration, which can be seen as an extreme form of logarithmic dependence with full effect at saturation already for small concentration.

The radiative forcing corresponding to an emissivity of 0.002 will be smaller than 0.5 W/m2 (as 0.2% of a total of about 200 W/m2), which is a factor 10 smaller than the 3.7 W/m2 serving as the basis of CO2 alarmism predicted by Modtran.

With the emissivity from the main resonance at 667 very small, the 3.7 W/m2 must result from the Modtran models of line broadening for spectral lines on the "shoulders" of the spectrum away from 667. CO2 alarmism thus critically depends on theoretical models of a phenomenon, which is so subtle that experimental evidence appears to be impossible.    

Basis of CO2 Alarmism = Modtran = 0

As CO2 global warming alarmism is losing momentum in the absence of any warming since 15 years with politicians turning to other nobel causes, it may now be possible to question the very basis of this movement which has threatened to throw humanity back to stone-age by tough regulations to  "decarbonize" society.

The scientific evidence of the warming effect of the trace gas CO2 consists of theoretical predictions of the "radiative forcing" effect using models for radiative transfer such as Modtran based on spectral data from the data base Hitran. A version of Modtran can be run on the web, which makes it possible to test its performance, as we did in a previous post.

Modtran gives a "radiative forcing" of 3.7 W/m2 upon doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 300 ppm to 600 ppm. This serves as the starting point of CO2 global warming alarmism by giving the trace gas CO2 a substantial warming effect as a powerful "greenhouse gas" GHG. Experimental evidence of this is effect is lacking. Without the 3.7 W/m2 produced by Modtran, there would be no IPCC and no CO2 alarmism.

Can we then trust the Modtran prediction of radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m2?

Well, Modtran as radiative transfer model is a very simplistic model of the complex atmosphere. Modtran is further supposed to model the effect of a very small cause since CO2 is an atmospheric trace gas, and to capture a small cause requires high accuracy. The scientific warning signs are thus blinking for Modtran.

Let us here check how Modtran reacts to very low concentrations of CO2 from 0.001 ppm to 1 ppm as an extension of previous posts. We get for a standard atmosphere with CO2 as the only greenhouse gas present, the following total outgoing long wave radiation OLR in W/m2 for different ppm of CO2:

• OLR = 397.524 for 0 (ppm CO2)
• OLR = 397.524 for 0.001
• OLR = 397.21 for 0.01 
• OLR = 396.582 for 0.05 
• OLR = 395.64 for 0.1
• OLR = 392.814 for 0.5
• OLR = 390.616 for 1 (ppm CO2).   

We see a radiative forcing of  0.3 W/m2 from 0 to 0.01 ppm, 2 W/m2 from 0 to 0.1 ppm and  7 W/m2 from 0 to 1 ppm. This is a substantial effect from a cause as small as one part in 100 million. It is hard to believe that this effect can be viewed as a scientifically evidenced real effect.

This test gives yet another reason to question Modtran as the basic scientific evidence of a global warming effect of CO2, for both climate alarmists and skeptics who have accepted Modtran as truth.

If climate skeptics would dare to take the step to question Modtran, that could very well be the final nail in the coffin of IPCC.

IR-Photons as Optical Phonons as Waves

In climate science it is common to view radiative heat transfer as a two-way flow of IR-photons particles carrying lumps of energy back and forth between e.g. the Earth surface and the atmosphere.

This view lacks physics rationale because it includes heat transfer by IR-photons not only from warm to cold, but also form cold to warm in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The usual way to handle this contradiction is to say that the net transfer is from warm to cold, and so there is no violation of the 2nd Law. But this requires the two-way transfer to be connected which is in conflict with an idea  independent two-way transfer.

On Computational Blackbody Radiation I present a model of radiative heat transfer which is based on a wave equation for a collection of oscillators with small damping subject to periodic forcing solved by finite precision computation. Fourier analysis show that the oscillators in resonance take on a periodic motion which is out-of-phase with the forcing, which connects to optical phonons as wave motion in an elastic lattice with large amplitude (as compared to acoustical phonons with smaller amplitude).

Optical phonons typically occur in a lattice composed of two atoms of different mass, one big and one small, which connects to the radiation wave model with small damping.

We thus find reason to view IR-photons as a wave phenomenon similar optical phonons, rather than as "particles".

The radiation wave model includes two-way propagation of waves but only one way transfer of heat energy as an effect of cut-off of high frequencies due to finite precision computation.

Difference between Climate Skeptics and Deniers

Climate skeptics like Lindzen, Singer and Spencer (and Monckton and WUWT and Lubos...) are skeptical to CO2 alarmism, but they are all eager to state that they understand that CO2 is a greenhouse gas GHG with in principle a warming effect (even if this effect is so small that it can never be observed). They are skeptical to all of the dogmas of CO2 alarmism of melting ice caps, rising sea level, bad weather and threatened ice bears, but there is one thing for which the skepticism is missing: CO2 as a GHG with some warming effect. Maybe 3.7 W/m2 upon doubling.

People questioning the warming effect of CO2 are called "climate deniers" and they are not highly valued by neither climate alarmists nor climate skeptics.

What is then the difference is between climate skeptics and climate deniers? Why are climate skeptics not skeptical to the capacity of CO2 to cause warming, when they are skeptical to just about everything else coming from the climate alarmist camp?

I think the answer is credibility, scientific credibility. If you like a denier questions everything from IPCC including CO2 as a GHG, then you could easily be viewed as a crank that does not understand anything at all and therefore can question everything. Like a fool asking more questions than many wise men can answer.

And you don't want to be (viewed as) a crank. To send the signal that your are not a crank, it may be a good idea to pretend to understand the deep physics of the spectrum of CO2 based on deep quantum mechanics by saying that you very well understand that certainly CO2 is a GHG, because advanced computer codes like Modtran produce spectra which can be interpreted this way.

The difference between climate skeptics and deniers thus seems to be that skeptics gain credibility by pretending to understand something, which may be incorrect, while deniers lose credibility by admitting to not to understand, what possibly cannot be understood.

PS Here is a recent statement by Spencer representative of a skeptics view on the radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m2 from doubled CO2:

• I’m just saying I think the no-feedback temperature response is pretty sound…although I admit it must be computed based upon theory, and can’t be observationally verified.

CO2 Radiative Forcing by Modtran/Hitran??

The warming effect of atmospheric CO2 as a "greenhouse gas" is evidenced by the atmospheric radiative transfer computer code Modtran based on the high-resolution transmission molecular absorption data base Hitran, while direct observational evidence is lacking. CO2 alarmism is thus based on Modtran/Hitran.

In a previous post I noticed that Modtran assigns 1 ppm of CO2 a radiative forcing or warming effect of 6 W/m2. A very big effect from a very small cause! It is indeed very difficult to believe that one CO2 molecule per one million of O2/N2 molecules can change anything observable. This is like changing one grain of sand in the above picture!

Clive Best shows in The CO2 GHE Demystified using a radiative transfer model similar to Modtran a radiative forcing effect upon doubling of CO2 from 300 ppm to 600 of 3.52 W/m2 in close correspondence with the 3.7 W/m2 put forward by IPCC. The radiative forcing is shown to result from an increase of the effective altitude of radiation around wave numbers 600 and 750, which are far out on the "shoulders" of the CO2 spectrum centered at the main resonance 667.  This is again a big effect of a small cause, since the spectrum on the shoulders is very sparse. The model further shows that the main emission from the band around 667 without shoulders occurs from altitudes of 30-40 km in the very thin stratosphere.

In both cases CO2 is attributed strong absorptivity away from the main resonce at 667, with very sparse spectral lines depending on concentration. Both results are most remarkable as a big effect of a small cause and as such call for a thorough investigation of the validity of the underlying radiative transfer model as concerns the effect of an atmospheric trace gas.

2nd Coming of the 2nd Law

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has remained as a main mystery of physics ever since it was first formulated by Clausius in 1865 as non-decrease of entropy, despite major efforts by mathematical physicists to give it a rational understandable meaning.

The view today is, based on the work by Ludwig Boltzmann, that the 2nd Law is a statistical law expressing a lack of precise human knowledge of microscopic physics, rather than a physical law independent of human observation and measurement. This view prepared the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics as the basis of modern physics.

Modern physics is thus focussed on human observation of realities, while classical physics concerns realities independent of human observation. To involve the observer into the observed makes physics subjective which means a depart from the essence of physics of objectivity. A 2nd Law based on statistics thus comes along with many difficulties, which ended Boltzmann's life, and it is natural to seek a formulation in terms of classical physics without statistics.

Such a formulation is given in Computational Thermodynamics based on the Euler equations for an ideal compressible gas solved by finite precision computation. In this formulation the 2nd Law is a consequence of the following equations expressing conservation of kinetic energy K and internal (heat) energy E:

• dK/dt = W - D
• dE/dt = - W + D
• D > = 0,  

where W is work and D is nonnegative turbulent dissipation (rates). The crucial element is the turbulent dissipation rate D which is non-negative, and thus signifies one-way transfer of energy from kinetic energy K into heat energy E.

The work W, positive in expansion and negative in compression, allows a two-way transfer between K and E, while turbulent diffusion D >= 0 can only transfer kinetic energy K into heat energy E, and not the other way.

We compare dE/dt = - W + D or rewritten as dE/dt + W = D as an alternative formulation of the 2nd Law, with the classical formulation found in books on thermodynamics:

• dE + pdV = TdS = dQ
• dS > = 0, 

where p is pressure, V is volume (with pdV corresponding to W), T is temperature, S is entropy and dQ added heat energy.

We see that D >= 0 expresses the same relation as dS >= 0 since T > 0, and thus the alternative formulation expresses the same effective physics as the classical formulation.

The advantage of the alternative formulation is that turbulent dissipation rate D with D >= 0 has a direct physical meaning, while the physical meaning of S and dS >= 0 has remained a mystery.

The alternative formulation thus gives a formulation in terms of physical quantities without any need to introduce a mysterious concept of entropy, which cannot decrease for some mysterious reason. A main mystery of science can thus be put into the wardrobe of mysteries without solution and meaning, together with phlogistons.

Notice the connection to Computational Blackbody Radiation with an alternative proof of Planck's radiation law with again statistics replaced by finite precision computation.

For a recent expression of the confusion and mystery of the 2nd Law, see Ludwig Boltzmann: a birthday by Lubos.

PS1 The reason to define S by the relation dE + pdV = TdS is that for an ideal gas with pV = RT this makes dS = dE/T + pdV/T an exact differential, thus defining S in terms of T and p. The trouble with S thus defined, is that it lacks direct physical meaning.

PS2 Lubos refers to Bohr's view of physics:

• There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature...

This idea has ruined modern physics by encouraging a postmodern form medieval mysticism away from rational objectivity as the essence of science, where the physical world is reduced to a phantasm in the mind of the observer busy counting statistics of non-physical micro states.

PS3 Recall that statistics was introduced by Boltzmann to give a mathematical proof of the 2nd law, which appeared to be impossible using reversible Newtonian micromechanics, followed by Planck to prove his law of radiation, followed by Born to give the multidimensional Schrödinger equation an interpretation. But this was overkill. It is possible to prove a 2nd law and law of radiation using instead of full statistics a concept of finite precision computation as shown in Computational Thermodynamics and Computational Blackbody Radiation, which maintains the rationalism and objectivity of classical mechanics, while avoiding the devastating trap of reversible micromechanics.  

Dysfunctional Peer Review of New Science?

The scholarly peer review system may be functional for normal science or puzzle solving routine science in the sense of Kuhn, but is not well suited to handle non-normal new science challenging an existing paradigm. This is because any new idea poses a threat to existing normal science and as such often meets overly negative reviews by referees without sufficient knowledge of the novelty. Correct new science may thus get rejected without good reasons,  but is also possible that incorrect new science can get accepted by uncritical referees.

Furrther, incorrect normal science may be perpetuated by the peer review system, because incorrect normal science can only be questioned by new science.

In short, the peer review system is not suitable to handle new science, because either (i) good articles are rejected on bad grounds, or (ii) bad articles are accepted without good grounds. 

An example of new science is given by the article New Theory of Flight presented on The Secret of Flight. The article was rejected by AIAA Journal and is now under review by Journal of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics JMFM. 

JMFM has a difficult case to handle: Referees from normal science of fluid mechanics are not eager to touch the article and if so the review will be negative because the existing paradigm is challenged. On the other hand referee's from outside the fluid mechanics community under AIAA may not be able to give a credible review.

The normal science of flight as an example of an incorrect theory formulated 100 years ago, which has survived as normal science in the absence of a correct theory, carried by the peer review system and AIAA.

One option in such a case would seem to be to publish the article without peer review and then open to discussion with participation from normal science.

PS The peer review system has been eroded by in particular IPCC using peers to uncritically promote publication of articles supporting IPCC's climate alarmism and to selectively stop publication of articles not supporting this message. 

IR Photons as Phlogistons

A photon is as elementary particle the carrier of the electromagnetic force. 

A phonon is as collective elastic excitation in a lattice of atom or molecules the carrier of sound, referred to as a "quasiparticle". 

A phonon is a collective sound wave while a photon is a "light particle". In a previous post I considered  an acoustic model of radiative heat transfer between the Earth surface and the atmosphere and outer space, in the form of a string instrument with energy transfer from string to soundboard to surrounding air.

It is common to describe infrared radiative heat transfer between two bodies as a two-way flow of IR photon particles carrying "energy quanta" back and forth between the bodies. I have argued that this view is non-physical in the sense that energy is supposed to be carried not only from warm to cold, but also from cold to warm which is in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. 

To understand that the particle view is non-physical, it is illuminating to consider a model of the string instrument where the concept of phonon wave is replaced by "phonon particle" as an acoustic counterpart to a photon particle. A "phonon particle" would thus be a form of elementary particle as "sound particle" and "carrier of sound (force)".  

We would then view the sound produced by the string instrument as consisting of a two-way flow of phonons between string and soundboard and between soundboard and surrounding air. In this model the sound of the surrounding air would send phonons to the soundboard which would send phonons to the string. This would be in violation with our experience reflecting the 2nd law, that it is the string which makes the soundboard vibrate, which makes the sound wave in the air. 

We understand that a phonon particle model of a string instrument is non-physical as violation of the 2nd law and thus misleading.

In the same way an IR photon particle model of infrared radiative heat transfer is non-physical as violation of the 2nd law and thus misleading. Yet this model underlies the idea of "backradiation" from the cold atmosphere the to warmer Earth surface, which is a central part of CO2 alarmism.
  

Such a photon theory postulating heat transfer by photon particles without mass, charge, color, odor or taste, can be compared with the phlogiston theory postulating that in all flammable materials there is present phlogiston, a substance without color, odor, taste, or weight that is given off in burning.

Notice that because of the long wave length of infrared radiation, and IR-photon is similar to a phonon and thus is better described as collective wave phenomenon than as discrete particle. Compare with previous post on the subject.

PS There is a connection between optical phonons as large amplitude out-of-phase wave vibration of a lattice of two different atoms with different mass (as compared to acoustic small amplitude in-phase vibration), and the analysis of blackbody radiation on Computational Blackbody Radiation with incoming and outgoing radiation out-of-phase (also characteristic of a string instrument designed to give large amplitude output).

Summary of Big Bluff of Warming Effect of CO2

CO2 alarmism fostered by IPCC is based on a proclaimed "heat trapping" or "radiation blocking" effect of CO2 as atmospheric trace gas causing a "radiative forcing" of 3.7 W/m2 upon doubling of preindustrial concentration into 600 pm from todays 390 ppm.

The evidence of substantial  "radiative forcing" of CO2 presented by IPCC consists of spectra of outgoing longwave radiation OLR and downwelling longwave radiation DLR produced by instruments specially designed to measure DLR and OLR.

In a recent sequence of posts on DLR and OLR as parts of Big Bluff, I have given evidence that

• DLR-measurement is based on a formula without physical reality.
• OLR-measurment shows non-physical strong emissivity of CO2 in the 600 - 800 band.    

The main reason of CO2 alarmism as a proclaimed warming effect of CO2 supposedly supported by measurement of DLR and OLR, thus evaporates upon inspection into fabricated evidence without real physics, only fictional invented physics.

In this fabrication governmental institutions use instruments and software designed by commercial companies according to governmental specifications, to fabricate instrumental evidence of non-existing physics, such as DLR.  The scale of this scientific fraud is unprecedented, with the DLR-Pyrgeometer Formula as a glaring example of unphysical fabricated physics.

Of course you may argue that because the fraud is unprecedented, it simply cannot be true that it is fabricated evidence, and thus it must be correct science. But this is not a scientific argument: The fact that the scale of the (possibly) fabricated evidence is beyond comparison, does not make it true.     

String Instrument as Model of Blackbody Radiation 2

Connecting to an earlier post we consider, as a model of radiation from a gas, a string instrument consisting of a vibrating string spanned over bridges on a soundboard with

• soundboard = radiating gas
• forcing of soundboard by vibrating string through bridges  = incoming radiation
• sound waves generated by vibrating soundboard   = outgoing radiation.

A string instrument has the following properties illustrating basic aspects of radiation from a gas:   

1. string is plucked into vibration 
2. string vibration over a sequence of frequencies (harmonics) = incoming radiation 
3. soundboard vibration in resonance with string vibration through bridges
4. soundboard vibration generates sound waves in surrounding air = outgoing radiation. 

We note in particular the following aspects of the soundboard = radiating gas:

• passive: when picking up the string vibration by resonance = incoming radiation
• active: when generating sound waves = outgoing radiation. 

Together gives the soundboard the role of passive mediator of string vibrations into sound waves, for selected frequencies. The flow of energy is from string to soundboard to surrounding air, without "backradiation" with the soundboard feeding energy into to string. 

A radiating gas of low temperature like the atmosphere has a similar passive function of transferring heat energy by infrared radiation from the Earth surface into outer space, for selected resonance frequencies of "greenhouse gases". The heat transfer is one-way from a warm Earth surface into outer space passively mediated by atmospheric "greenhouse gases", without "backradiation" from cold atmosphere to warm Earth surface.

Recall that CO2 alarmism is based on downwelling longwave radiation DLR as "backradiation" from the atmosphere to the Earth surface, measured by special DLR-meters fabricated according to a formula defining DLR in terms of temperature. But the formula is non-physical and the measured DLR has no physical reality.

The above discussion describes a periodic state with the string continuously being fed energy so that a sustained sound is generated. The dynamics of the model includes momentary input of energy into the string by plucking followed by transfer of energy from the string into the soundboard followed by transfer of energy into sound waves. The analog dynamics of radiation can be described as follows:

• start-up with the string and soundboard at rest: Earth surface and atmosphere at 0 K 
• plucking of string: Earth surface is heated (during daytime by the Sun) 
• vibrating string makes soundboard vibrate by resonance: Earth surface heats atmosphere by radiation 
• vibrating soundboard generates sound waves: atmosphere radiates to outer space 
• string loses energy without renewed plucking = Earth surface is cooling during night. 

A good instrument is made so that the string energy is transferred into the soundboard at rate giving the plucked note a sustain of proper duration, which is in principle controled by the masses of the string and soundboard, the tension of the string and the stiffness of the soundboard.     

Illuminating Model of Global Energy Balance

The radiative heat transfer from the Earth surface to outer space via the atmosphere can for resonant frequencies of the atmosphere be illustrated in a simple water flow model for two connected containers,  with container 2 representing the Earth surface with the water level H_2 representing temperature, and container 1 representing the atmosphere of height/temperature H_1 < H_2 with an outlet representing outer space.

If the channel connecting 2 with 1 has the same dimension as the outlet of 1 and the channel flow Q is proportional to level difference, we have by conservation of water, normalizing the constant of proportionality to one:

• Q = H_2 - H_ 1 
• Q = H_1

and thus Q = 0.5 x H_2. We compare with the situation with container 2 directly pouring into outer space (no atmosphere) which would give the double outlet flow  2 Q = H_2, as illustrated on top right. This would correspond to non-resonant frequencies for which the atmosphere is transparent.

Introducing 1 (atmosphere) between 2 (Earth surface) and outer space thus reduces the flow with a factor 2, the reduction coming from requiring the water to pass two channels instead of one. 

The model exhibits the following fundamental aspects of heat transfer in the Earth-atmosphere system: 

• One water flow from high (2)  to low level (1): One-way heat transfer from warm Earth surface to colder atmosphere: No "back radiation".
• 1 as passive mediator between 2 and outer space reduces the flow: Decrease of outgoing long wave radiation OLR for resonant frequencies of the atmosphere. No decrease for non-resonant frequencies.
• 1 is a passive mediator in the sense that whatever it absorbs from 2 is emitted into outer space. 

The total reduction of OLR or "radiative forcing" caused by radiation through the atmosphere, is then determined by the denseness of the resonant frequencies of the atmosphere. The trace gas CO2 has a very sparse spectrum which gives small "radiative forcing" (small emissivity), as shown in previous posts.  

Summary: 

1. Warming effect of the atmosphere, acting as a passive intermediate "blanket" between the Earth surface and pure space, for resonant frequencies. 
2. Non-warming effect for non-resonant frequencies.
3. Total warming effect dependent on denseness of resonant frequencies.
4. One-flow of heat energy from warm to cold.
5. Not two-way flow of heat energy carried by "photons" traveling back and forth.

For a new approach to radiative heat transfer connecting to this post, see Computational Blackbody Radiation.

CO2 alarmism is based on the hypothesis that the spectrum of the atmosphere with CO2 as a trace gas is dense in the entire wave number band 600 - 800, with a suggested "radiative forcing" of 3.7 W/m2 upon doubling of the concentration from preindustrial level to 600 ppm.

But the spectrum of CO2 as atmospheric trace gas is not dense but very sparse except in the narrow band 667 - 669, and thus the basis of "radiative forcing" of 3.7 W/m2 appears to be grossly incorrect, probably a factor 10 too big. Without this "radiative forcing" of 3.7 W/m2 CO2 alarmism collapses.

Radiation of Solid vs Gas

A solid like a glowing lump of iron shows a continuous radiation emission spectrum in accordance with Planck's radiation law, while a gas shows an emission/absorption line spectrum with resonances at specific wave lengths, as illustrated above. What is then the difference between a solid and a gas, which generates different spectra?

The analysis presented on Computational Blackbody Radiation suggests the following answer:  A solid can be modeled as continuous web or string of atoms which by collective vibration can generate a full sequence of harmonics with frequencies  n ranging over the natural numbers n =1,2,3..., with higher frequencies like 10000, 10001, 10002, ... practically generating a continuum.

The acoustic analog is a vibrating guitar string capable of generating all harmonics corresponding to  n =1, 2, 3, ..., because it can macroscopically be viewed as a continuum governed by a wave equation over a continuum of real numbers.

In this perspective a gas would be modeled instead as a finite collection of oscillators, each oscillator with a specific resonance frequency, thus with a discrete line spectrum. The coupling between molecules in solid allowing collective coordinated vibration generating a continuous spectrum, would thus be missing in a gas with the effect that the gas spectrum would be restricted to a discrete set of molecular resonances.

In short: The strong coupling of atoms in a solid allows collective coordinated vibration over a continuum of resonances, while the free flying atoms of a gas can only sustain discrete atomic or molecular resonances. In general the total emissivity of a solid is big and of a gas small.

For perspective, recall in particular the previous post on radiation and radiative heat transfer as a resonance phenomenon rather than an an exchange of energy carrying photons.
    

Low Emissivity of Atmospheric CO2: Hottel and Leckner

According to measurements by Hottel and Leckner the total emissivity of the Earth's atmosphere with its present concentration of 0.039% CO2 (without water vapor), can be estimated to be smaller than 0.002.

This means that out of the total outgoing long wave radiation of 240 W/m2 less than 0.5 W/m2 can attributed to CO2.

This is almost factor 10 smaller than the "radiative forcing" of 3.7 W/m2 by doubling to 0.06% from 0.03%,  which is the basis of CO2 alarmism.

This is in direct contradiction to the prediction by Modtran in the previous post of 6 W/m2 from 0.0001% CO2.

The low emissivity of low concentration CO2 reflects the extreme sparseness of its emission spectrum.

PS. More of the same here.

Modtran: High Emissivity of 1 ppm CO2!

The uchicago modtran solver produces the following outgoing long wave radiation OLR spectra for a dry atmosphere with varying concentrations of CO2: 0 ppm, 1 ppm, 400 ppm and 600 ppm:

We see an effect of reducing OLR from 379 W/m2 to 373 W/m2 by adding 1 ppm CO2 to a carbon free atmosphere: Thus a warming effect of 6 W/m2 by adding 0.0001% CO2 to a dry atmosphere!!

We see warming effect of about 2 W/m2 by increasing CO2 to 600 ppm from present 400 ppm.

We see the effect of 6 W/m2 from the ditch in the spectrum (second graph from top) centered at the main resonance of CO2 at wave number 667, developing by adding just 1 ppm of CO2!

We thus see a very big effect from a very small cause, which directly triggers sound scientific skepticism: If one grain of salt can change the world, then either 10 grains will end it, or the effect quickly saturates maybe to no effect by adding more. Since the first option is absurd, only the second is thinkable and this is the IPCC logarithmic saturation effect: 6 W/m2 from 0 to 1 ppm, and 2 W/m2  from 400 to 600 ppm.

We compare with the absorption spectrum for 1000 m of 1 ppm CO2 computed by spectralcalc showing extreme sparsity of the absorption away from the narrow interval 667-669:

We thus find good reason to question the spectra produced by Modtran which serve as the main scientific evidence of a warming effect of CO2.

Low Emissivity of Atmospheric CO2

Recent posts suggest a low emissivity of atmospheric CO2 away from its main resonance at wave number 667.  To check let us compute the transmittance of a transparent atmosphere at 225 K after adding 400 ppm CO2 over a distance of 100 m at a pressure of 200 mb using the free version of the commercial software SpectralCalc to get the following spectrum with a blowup around 667:

We see that the transmittance is zero in the narrow interval 664 - 668, where 400 ppm CO2 makes the atmosphere opaque, while outside this interval the transmittance is low only in a small portion of the spectrum. In other words, the total emissivity of 400 ppm CO2 is very small which means that CO2 has a very limited capability to "block radiation" from the Earth surface, thus contradicting typical OLR spectra with full blocking in the interval 600 - 800.

Further, changing to 600 ppm gives almost the same transmittance spectrum, signaling small radiative forcing from doubling of the preindustrial concentration of CO2:

PS Further evidence is given by Ed Caryl.

String Instrument as Model of Blackbody Radiation

A string instrument like a guitar or piano offers a conceptual model of blackbody radiation which can help to remove the mystery surrounding this phenomenon. The sound of a string instrument is generated by plucking strings in contact through bridges with a soundboard which generates sound waves in the surrounding air.  The basic mathematical model takes the form:

• wave equation for soundboard + acoustic damping force = string force,

where the acoustic damping force models the sound force output from the instrument and the string force is the force on the soundboard transmitted from a plucked string through bridges. 

The analysis presented on Computational Blackbody Radiation shows the following fundamental relation as a consequence of resonance between sound board and string: 

• output sound energy = string energy 

which is to be compared with a case of non-resonance:

• output sound energy < < string energy.

We see that a soundboard in resonance with a string transmits the full string plucking energy into output sound energy, while in the case on non-resonance only a small fraction is transmitted, see PS below for some more details.

In blackbody radiation this phenomenon comes out as high emissivity in the case of resonance and low emissivity in the case of non-resonance. 

For example, CO2 has a main resonance at wave number 667, which gives high emissivity for wave numbers close to 667 independent of concentration, but low emissivity away from 667.

CO2 alarmism is based on high emissivity of atmospheric CO2 in the whole wave number band 600 - 800, which however most likely is an incorrect assumption.

PS The analysis on Computational Blackbody Radiation exhibits a phenomenon of near-resonance under small acoustic damping with the string force being in-phase with the soundboard displacement (and thus out-of-phase with the soundboard velocity), as the key to a good instrument with string and soundboard working together to produce a good sound.   

Behöver Mattekommissionen KTHs Rektor?

Investors vd Börje Ekholm, Per Adolfsson vd Microsoft, Tobias Krantz chef för utbildning Svenskt Näringsliv och KTHs rektor Peter Gudmundson m fl meddelar på Brännpunkt SvD 15/2 att Sverige behöver Mattekommissionen:

• Vi anser att svenska elevers matematikkunskaper är en avgörande fråga för Sveriges tillväxt och våra framtida möjligheter att bli en kunskapsnation i världsklass. Därför startar vi Mattekommissionen – ett brett samverkansinitiativ med elva representanter från utbildningsväsendet, forskningen och näringslivet som har som mål att höja alla elevers kunnande och intresse för matematik.
• Genom samverkan, påverkan och konkreta aktiviteter vill Mattekommissionens uppnå följande tre huvudmål:
• Stärka svenska elevers matematikkunnande och öka intresset för matematikintensiva utbildningar så att Sverige kan leva upp till EU-överenskommelsen om ökad antagning till naturvetenskapliga och tekniska studier.
• Lyfta svenska elevers lägstanivå i matematik, att inte nå de grundläggande kunskapskraven i matematik begränsar individens möjligheter i yrkesliv och privatliv.
• Stärka det översta kunskapsskiktet så att de högpresterande eleverna får möjligheten att utveckla sitt intresse för matematik och naturvetenskap.
• Regeringens satsning på Matematiklyftet räcker inte för att råda bot på de stora utmaningar som vi står inför. Mycket återstår att göra för att nå upp till en acceptabel nivå vad gäller lärarnas utbildning, fortbildningsmöjligheter och undervisning i matematik så att eleverna får en mer kreativ, kontextualiserad och laborativ lärmiljö.

Det är samma KTH-rektor som ht 2010 medelst en mediakampanj sågade Mathematical Simulation Technology MST mitt under pågående testkurs på KTH, beskrivet som KTH-gate,  och därmed stoppade alla försök att reformera en i ofruktbara former stelnad matematikutbildningen vid KTH, och i Sverige.

Det är samma KTH-rektor som 2010 utfärdade totalförbud att använda MST på KTH därför att MST erbjöd "eleverna en mer kreativ, kontextualiserad och laborativ lärmiljö" vilket hotade status quo, och som upprepade denna bannbulla ht 2012.

Studenter och näringsliv behöver en modern reformerad matematikutbildning, men KTH levererar en omodern utbildning och motarbetar reform. KTH utgör en bromskloss för den förnyelse av innehåll och form av matematikundervisningen som skulle vara möjlig om matematik kopplades med IT, och som skulle vara Sverige till gagn.

Vad vill alltså KTHs rektor tillföra Mattekommissionen?

Fabricated Evidence of GHE from CO2

The blogosphere offers many attempts to explain the CO2 greenhouse effect GHE, since it is not well explained in the scientific literature and it is the basis of CO2 alarmism. We find on Barret Bellamy Climate The GH effect of CO2 the following outgoing long wave emission OLR spectra with varying concentrations of CO2 as a trace gas (from 0 to 1000 ppm with 390 the present level) computed by Modtran:

 

Figure 2APortions of the emission spectra of the atmosphere with varying concentrations of CO₂(in ppmv as indicated in each portion). The portions of Planck curves are for comparative temperatures; from the top downwards the curves are appropriate for the temperatures 300 K, 280 K, 260 K, 240 K and 220 K. The horizontal axis gives the wavenumbers in cm^-1

 

Figure 2BPortions of the emission spectra of the atmosphere with varying concentrations of CO₂(in ppmv as indicated in each portion). The portions of Planck curves are for comparative temperatures; from the top downwards the curves are appropriate for the temperatures 300 K, 280 K, 260 K, 240 K and 220 K. The horizontal axis gives the wavenumbers in cm^-1

We see the ditch around the main resonance at 667 widening as the concentration of CO2 is increasing. We see that the effect from the present 390 to a doubling of preindustrial level to 600, is very barely noticeable as a slight widening of the ditch. Barrett Bellamy offers the further remarkable information about the total emissions:

• The spectral portions show only the emissions from water vapour and CO2when it is present. Consider the emission when CO2 is absent and assume that the global mean temperature is 280 K (7°C). The radiance to space is estimated to be 286.2 W/m2, considerably greater than the value required for radiative balance (235 W/m2). 
• Adding just 1 ppmv of CO2produces a noticeable effect and the Q branch of the spectrum is particularly obvious. The estimated radiance to space is 281.7 W/m2, a reduction of 4.5 W/m2. Such an atmosphere would be radiating less energy to space and the system as a whole would be warmer. Even 1 ppmv of CO2has a warming effect!

We read that even 1 ppm (0.0001%) of CO2 added to a carbon free atmosphere would have a warming effect or "radiative forcing" of 4.5 W/m2. Amazing! 

We read that the total effect of the present 390 ppm of CO2 is about 50 W/m2, about 20% of the total forcing from the Sun. Remarkable. (It is stated that Modtran with 390 ppm gives OLR of 258.7 W/m2 to be compared with 235 for radiative balance, suggesting that something is wrong).

Both 4.5 W/m2 for 1 ppm and 50 (or 28) W/m2 for 390 ppm signal a big effect of CO2 as a trace and thus serve as the chief scientific evidence of the existence of a GHE from CO2. Not surprising it is also claimed that doubling to 600 would give a radiative forcing of about 4 W/m2, which fits with the canon  defined by IPCC.

But is the evidence credible? Well, the numbers are computed by the commercial software Modtran marketed by Spectral Sciences Incorporated. The numbers are not supported by direct observation. The numbers are surprisingly big and against all forms of physics intuition of the possible effect of an trace gas: 4.5 W/m2 from 1 ppm simply seems impossible! 

In a sequence of posts on OLR I have questioned to ability of a small presence of CO2 to block the radiation from the Earth surface in the entire interval 600 - 800 represented by the ditch. The analysis of blackbody radiation presented on Computational Blackbody Radiation suggests that CO2 even as a trace gas can absorb and emit radiation in a narrow band around its main resonance at 667, but that the emissivity is small away from 667. The analysis thus gives mathematical support of the intuitive conviction that 1 ppm of CO2 cannot cause a radiative forcing of 4.5 W/m2. 

We are thus led to suspect that Modtran does not give a correct description of atmospheric radiation, and therefore that the main evidence of a GHE from CO2 is fabricated incorrect evidence. 

A similar attempt to justify a GHE from CO2 is given on The Science of Doom.  It is a remarkable that the most serious attempts to prove GHE are those made by amateur bloggers.

It is also remarkable that virtually nobody seems to be willing to question the evidence of GHE supplied by Modtran, as if Modtran cannot be questioned. Maybe it is like Coca Cola,which with its secret recipe cannot be questioned.

Mathematics Reform Initialized in Estonia

WSJ reports on reform of mathematics education combining the power of the human brain and the computer:

• Jon McLoone is Content Director for computerbasedmath.org, a project to redefine school math education assuming the use of computers. The company announced a deal Monday with the Estonian Education ministry to trial a self-contained statistics program replacing the more traditional curriculum.
• Schoolchildren in 30 schools in Estonia may be able to escape this misery, as they will shortly be embarking on a pilot for a new way of learning mathematics, computer-based mathematics, that reduces the emphasis on computation — doing sums — and increases the emphasis on understanding the uses of mathematics in real-world examples (“should I insure my mobile, how long will I live, or what makes a beautiful shape”).
• Estonia has been at the forefront of education reform. Last year it rolled out a trial to teach children from as young as seven robotics and how to program.

This is a signal to launch Mathematical Simulation Technology.

The "Hockey Stick" of the OLR Spectrum

As CO2 global warming alarmism is now losing credibility after 15 years of stationary temperatures and emerging fear of a coming ice age, it becomes possible for the first time scrutinize the core scientific evidence of the warming effect of CO2, which has been accepted by leading skeptics including Lindzen, Spencer, Singer and WUWT, namely the ditch between wave number 600 and 800 in the outgoing long wave radiation OLR spectrum produced by the IRIS and AIRS infrared spectrometers carried by satellites:

It is difficult to question evidence of this form, which bears the sign of hard physics as precise numbers produced by elaborate expensive instrumentation, because it requires knowledge of both instrument and processing of directly measured data, which both can be hidden in difficult technicalities.

Therefore the ditch in the spectrum, interpreted as a warming effect or "radiative forcing" from atmospheric CO2, has served CO2 alarmism as an "undeniable scientific fact" which cannot be questioned, with a warming effect of about 1 C upon doubling of atmospheric CO2. To refer to the spectrum has come to signify a deeper insight carried by both alarmists and skeptics, hidden to ordinary people not used to read spectra.

To question this "undeniable scientific fact" makes you into a "denier" destined to dwell on one of the lowest levels of Dante's Purgatorium.

In any case I have done so in a sequence of posts on OLR and I have come to the conclusion that the ditch in the spectrum attributed to CO2 is a misrepresentation of reality, or fabrication of fake evidence, similar to that of the "hockey stick", which started the fall of global warming alarmism.

I hope that skeptics are now read to question the OLR spectrum as the key evidence of CO2 warming with the same ardor as in the case of the hockey stick. Physicists have a special responsibility because the OLR spectrum is physics and not climate science.

But to be honest, very few seem to be interested in discussing the OLR spectrum, as if it is given once and for all by some superhuman intellect and thus beyond human understanding and scrutiny. But it is fabricated by people like you and me, and since it is the very basis of CO2 alarmism maybe some day someone will picks the thread. Since the first "hockey stick" attracted so much attention, may this new "hockey stick", if it is a "hockey stick", will deserve some as well.

Anyway, here are the key questions:

• How was the OLR spectrum produced? 
• What was directly measured by the sensors, and what was computed in post processing?
• Does the spectrum describe reality with radiation "blocked" by CO2?

These are precise scientific questions which can be answered by using basic physics and mathematics, if only there is an interest in doing so. Alarmists are not interested but skeptics should be.

Maybe Fred Singer will then find reason to reconsider his message:

• I am opposed to those who criticize the global warming scare, basing it on what I consider to be incorrect physics. CO2 is certainly a greenhouse gas and should produce some increase in atmospheric temperatures but it is so small we cannot detect it.

Singer is convinced that "CO2 certainly is a greenhouse gas", probably because he takes for granted that the OLR spectrum is correct science.  Singer is a physicist and should be able upon close inspection to tell if it is or not.  

If it is impossible to detect that "CO2 is a greenhouse gas", then it would be incorrect physics to declare that in any case "CO2 is a greenhouse gas". If ghosts cannot be detected, then it is not correct physics to nevertheless declare that "there certainly are ghosts" but they are "so small we cannot detect them". Right Fred?

PS1 WUWT reports:

• Following last night’s State of the Union Address in which the president pledged to implement a job-killing climate change agenda, U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-3) today introduced legislation to prohibit the United States from contributing taxpayer dollars to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 
• “The American people should not have to foot the bill for an international organization that is fraught with waste, engaged in dubious science, and is promoting an agenda that will destroy jobs and drive up the cost of energy in the United States,” Luetkemeyer said. “Unfortunately, the president appears to be ready to fund these groups, revive harmful policies like cap and trade, and further empower out of control federal regulators at a time when we should be doing everything possible to cut wasteful spending, reduce regulatory red tape, and promote economic growth.”

Apparently, Luetkemeyer has read the OLR spectrum and understood that the science is dubious...

PS2 Fred does not seem to be willing to answer my question about the reality of the OLR spectrum, but I think the question asks for an answer.

OLR Spectra Decoded as Fake!?

Consider the following outgoing long wave radiation OLR spectrum delivered by the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder AIRS flying on the Aqua satellite:

The graphs show the brightness temperature as function of wave number, with the brightness temperature the temperature of a blackbody with the same radiance at a given wave number as that recorded by the spectrometer (in principle bolometer) sensor, with in particular a zoom of the wave number interval 645 - 685 containing the main resonance at 667 of CO2.

We see a low brightness temperature of about 220 K and a peak at the main resonance at 667 of 250 K.  Both these brightness temperatures are lower than the temperature of 295 K in the atmospheric window between 800 and 1200, as if the sensor has recorded the presence of CO2 both at the tropopause (220 K) and in the middle of the troposphere (250 K).

We understand that a bolometer sensor measures radiance calibrated to blackbody radiance and thus cannot distinguish between low emissivity/high temperature and high emissivity/low temperature. This means that the assignment of brightness temperature is influenced by an unknown emissivity, which explains why the assigned brightness temperature is high at the main resonance 667 for which the emissivity is high, and low in the weak resonances surrounding the main resonance for which the emissivity is low. But it does not make sense that CO2 radiates from different temperatures for different frequencies, because all frequencies are assumed to have the same temperature.

The spectrum constructed is thus an artificial spectrum reflecting the sensitivity of the bolometer, which may be chosen so that resonances of CO2 are picked up before the continuous spectrum from the Earth surface, and then are assigned brightness temperatures according to radiance, as shown above. The weak resonances with low total emissivity of CO2 away from 667,  are then assigned a low brightness temperature (220 K) at full emissivity, as if all of the radiation from the Earth surface was blocked in the whole interval 600 - 800.

The OLR spectrum delivered by AIRS is thus an artificial spectrum constructed so as to hide that away from the main resonance 667, CO2 has small emissivity and thus cannot block all of the radiation from the Earth surface (even under doubled concentration from preindustrial level).

OLR spectra delivered by AIRS (and IRIS) are viewed as the key evidence of "heat trapping" or "radiation blocking" by atmospheric CO2. If these OLR spectra show to be fakes misrepresenting physics, the main scientific argument of CO2 alarmism evaporates.  So what does true science tell: fake or not fake?

PS To help discussion, recall the sparseness of the CO2 spectrum around 667 as pictured in the previous post.

Model of Atmosphere with CO2 shows Small Emissivity

Computed transmittance of atmosphere with CO2 with main resonance at wave number 667. Notice that the atmosphere is effectively transparent, except in a small interval around 667. The effect of CO2 is thus small.

Here is a another argument indicating that the effect of the atmospheric trace gas CO2 on the radiation balance of the Earth is small.

We recall the model of blackbody radiation studied on Computational Blackbody Radiation as a collection of oscillators with small damping with equal oscillator internal energy T representing temperature, with oscillator resonance frequencies n varying from 1 to a cut-off set at T and each oscillator radiating

• E_n = gamma T n^2    

where gamma is a universal constant, which is Planck's law. Summing over n from 1 to T, we obtain the total radiance

• E = sum_n gamma T n^2 = sigma T^4 

which is Stefan-Boltzmann's law with sigma = gamma/3. In the case of only one resonance frequency n = T, the radiance would be reduced to  

• e = gamma T T^2 = gamma T^3 ~ E/T

with the reduction factor 1/T. 

The radiance of an atmosphere which is fully opaque over the entire spectrum would radiate E, while an atmosphere opaque only for a specific frequency near cut-off T, would radiate e ~ E/T with a reduction factor  1/T. 

We conclude that the emissivity of transparent atmosphere with a trace gas like CO2 with only a few isolated resonances, would scale like 1/T and thus be small as soon as T is bigger than say 100 K.  

We thus find theoretical evidence from a basic model that the emissivity of the Earth's atmosphere with the trace gas CO2 would be small, and thus that CO2 would have little effect on the Earth's radiation balance.

Note that the sparseness of CO2 as a trace gas, gets expressed as a spareseness of absorption spectrum rather than small mass fraction because of the universality of blackbody radiation as being independent of the mass of the oscillators.

Story of Vanishing Evidence of CO2 Warming

In the late 20 century as the cold war was coming to an end, the fear of nuclear war was replaced by a fear of anthropogenic global warming caused by emissions of CO2 from burning of fossil fuels.

Governments united under UN gave massive support to science for producing evidence of global warming by CO2, evidence which governments could use to motivate a special tax on CO2, which would lead society into a new world without CO2-emissions, with lots of tax money to be spent by politicians.

Scientists started, with great enthusiasm stimulated by generous government grants, searching for evidence of a warming effect of CO2 in the form of a  "greenhouse effect" with CO2 named "greenhouse gas" because of its capability of absorbing and emitting infrared radiation at isolated specific frequencies, because of its unsymmetric molecular structure, as observed in an early study by the Swedish Nobel Laureate Svante Arrhenius from 1896.

But finding evidence was difficult because CO2 is an atmospheric trace gas (now 390 ppm) and it is always difficult to find evidence of a big effect from a small cause, because this can only happen in unstable systems and such systems have no permanence allowing study.

An idea which developed was that doubling of CO2 would cause a "radiative forcing" of extra 2 - 4 W/m2 to be added to the 240 W/m2 received from the Sun, which was connected to a global warming of 1 C. Of course 1 C would be barely noticeable, but that was the best that could be squeezed out of CO2 alone, but with feedback from the system under "radiative forcing" from doubled CO2, the warming could be inflated to 3 C, which would enough to motivate a tax on CO2 to save the world.

The whole story of global warming by CO2 then rested on finding evidence of "radiative forcing" of  2 - 4 W/m2 from doubled CO2 and scientists were ordered to construct instruments for recording radiation spectra, which could show this effect.

But this turned out to be virtually impossible, because 2 - 4 W/m2 was too small to be measured: It required an accuracy below 1% which was impossible to achieve in practice. The difficulty of a big effect from a small cause showed its real face.

To counter this "small cause - big effect" syndrome, new physics of "back radiation" was invented showing a warming of 300 W/m2 of the Earth surface from the colder atmosphere as a big cause, but the new physics violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics and thus belonged to fiction.

What then remained of scientific support of CO2 alarmism based on observation, was a recorded global warming 1970 - 1998 of 0.5 C, which was connected to an increase of atmospheric CO2 from 330 to 370 ppm during the same time.

But this connection disappeared during 1998 - 2013, which went by without global warming, while CO2 continued to increase to 390 ppm.

The evidence of global warming by CO2 has thus today crumbled to nil,  which presents a difficult case for the new report by IPPC under UN in charge of CO2 alarmism, to be presented in September. Without scientific support, a CO2 tax cannot be motivated and the whole BIG BLUFF project of unprecedented  dimensions, collapses.

... and All the King's Horses and all the King's Men Couldn't put Humpty together again...

This is a summary of a study I was led into starting in 2009 and I have reported on this blog.

Radiative Heat Transfer as Resonance Phenomenon

The analysis of blackbody radiation exposed on Computational Blackbody Radiation suggests that radiative heat transfer is a phenomenon of near-resonance between bodies communicating through electromagnetic waves combined with a phenomenon of high-frequency cut-off, which effectively leads to one-way heat transfer from warm o cold.

Vieving radiative heat transfer this way removes the non-physical aspects which appear when viewing radiative heat transfer as a two-way exchange of photon particles carrying heat energy back and forth from warm to cold and from cold to warm. The latter view is common in e.g. climate science with in particular downwelling long wave radiation DLR from a cold atmosphere supposedly warming the Earth surface. The non-physical aspects concern the idea of infrared photons and violation of the 2nd law in heat transfer from cold to warm.

The model analyzed on Computational Blackbody Radiation consists of a system of bodies with each body consisting of a set of oscillators subject to small radiative damping, which communicate by sharing a common force carried as an electromagnetic wave. In equilibrium the bodies share a common temperature and there is no heat transfer between the bodies.

Each body is like a radio receiver/sender communicating with the other bodies through resonance transmitted by a  force carried by electromagnetic waves, thus interacting over distance by resonance.

If one body is heated (e.g. internally), then its oscillator amplitude increases and so the corresponding balancing force and the residual force is transmitted to the other bodies which in resonance restore force balance reaching a common temperature. The result is that the heated body transfers heat energy to the surrounding colder bodies, by resonance over distance.

With this view, the functioning of an infrared thermometer can be understood as a set of oscillators which by resonance assumes the same temperature as a target at distance.

Similarly a selective infrared thermometer can be conceptualized as an oscillator with a specific resonance frequency with capability of at distance measuring at the temperature of a body with the specific resonance. It will operate like a sensitive radio sensitive receiver which can tune in on a weak sender at a specific frequency.

The Interferometric Reflectance Imaging Sensor IRIS carried by the Nimbus 4 satellite can be seen as such a selective infrared thermometer capable of measuring the temperature of the atmospheric trace gas CO2 through its main resonance at wave number 667, which produced the following spectrum supposedly demonstrating the warming effect of CO2 as the ditch around 667:

But as discussed in previous posts on emissivity, it is not all clear that the above spectrum constructed from measuring the temperature of the trace gas CO2 describes the emission spectrum of the Earth + atmosphere in the range of resonance of CO2. Most likely, it does not.

PS Here is a transmittance spectrum of CO2 from Scienceofdoom computed with spectralcalc illustrating the sparseness of the absorption away from 667. It does not seem plausible that the transmittance of a O2 - N2 atmosphere with a trace of CO2 is close to zero in the whole interval 600 - 800.

Here is a close-up of computed transmittance through 1 m atmosphere with typical CO2 concentration at 0.1 bar showing the sparseness of absorption:

Inflated Modtran Effect of Atmospheric Trace Gases

What is the effect of the atmospheric trace gas CO2 (390 ppm or 0.039%) on global climate? The answer by IPCC consensus is given in the following graph:

which shows the spectrum of the outgoing longwave radiation OLR from the Earth with atmosphere as computed by the software Modtran on the basis of certain satellite measurements.

The idea is that the ditch in the spectrum in the wave number interval 600 - 800 can be attributed to the main absorption line at 667 of CO2.  The total effect is then supposed to be the area between the Planck curves for 288 K and 220 K in the interval 600 - 800, which comes out to be about 40 W/m2. The total "radiative forcing" of atmospheric CO2 is thus supposed to be about 40 W/m2 (disregarding overlap with H2O),  which by Stefan-Boltzann's Law can be connected to a temperature rise of about 10 C.  The total effect of CO2 as the main cause of the ditch, would thus be global warming of 10 C. (With half the ditch attributed to CO2, the effect would be 5 C,  which by Lindzen is cut down to 2.5 C without disclosing the reason). PS With 20 instead of 40, and half of 20 attributed to CO2 one would get 10 W/m2 and thus Lindzen's 2.5 C.

If CO2 was complemented by other trace gases together covering the whole spectrum, the warming effect would be 288 - 220, that is a whopping 68 K, from the mere presence of trace gases.

Is this reasonable? Is it possible that trace gases, making the atmosphere opaque for certain wave numbers, can make the full atmosphere opaque over the entire spectrum?

No, it does not seem to be reasonable, as detailed in an earlier discussion, which means that the above spectrum computed by Modtran does not seem to describe reality.

Yet the Modtran spectrum is the very basis of CO2 alarmism as the core evidence that the presence of of a trace gas can cause substantial global warming.

So there is the question: Can the presence of trace gases make the atmosphere fully opaque?

AGW vs WMD

NASA is now spending big money on projects such as CERES to find instrumental evidence of anthropogenic global warming AGW, but finds nothing. It is similar to the fruitless efforts by CIA to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction WMD in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Is this an expression of paralyzed US politics?

LB Överger IPCC: När Kommer KVAs Avbön?

Katternö-tidningen rappoterar att Lennart Bengtsson är på god väg att överge den CO2 alarmism han tidigare har har framfört för som ansvarig för KVAs uttalande till stöd för IPCC:

• Temperaturhöjningen är så liten att någon knappast skulle märka den, om inte vi meteorologer hade upplyst om saken.
• Jag vill snarare jämföra med katolska kyrkans medeltida avlatsbrev, vilket var ett effektivt sätt att få en förskrämd allmänhet att betala för att undslippa helvetets fasor. Dåtidens katolska kyrka visade här stor skicklighet. Vi får vara tacksamma att Luther lyckades få stopp på detta oskick, åtminstone i våra protestantiska trakter.
• Jag är inte bara surprised, jag är astonished!
• Att oroa sig för att Antarktis är på väg att smälta är nästan på samma nivå som att oroa sig för att jorden och Venus kan komma att kollidera inom så där en miljard år [vilket vissa modellberäkningar visar].

Nu väntar vi bara på att LB skriver om KVAs uttalande från stöd till avståndstagande från IPCCs CO2 alarmism. När kommer detta LB? Sveriges folk och regering väntar på besked för att kunna gå vidare! 

Kanske t o m LB skulle kunna börja uppskatta en person som jag, och inte bara anse att det jag skriver  är "rappakalja" enligt tidigare uttalande i DN? Kanske klockan har gått ett varv.

CERES and Radiative Forcing

      The Earth's energy budget according to CERES showing unphysical "back radiation" of 340 W/m2
'
An overview of the CERES project is given in CERES, a review: Past, present and Future (2011):

• The Clouds and Earth Radiant Energy System (CERES) project’s objectives are to measure the reflected solar radiance (shortwave) and Earth-emitted (longwave) radiances and from these measurements to compute the shortwave and longwave radiation fluxes at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) and the surface and radiation divergence within the atmosphere. The fluxes at TOA are to be retrieved to an accuracy of 2%. 
• The first objective of CERES is to measure OLR radiances to an accuracy of 1% and reflected solar radiances to 2%. The global mean OLR flux is approximately 240 W/m2, so the requirement is 2.4 W/m2 accuracy. Likewise the global mean reflected flux is 100 W/m2, thus the requirement for shortwave flux is 2 W/m2.

We compare the accuracy of 2-3 W/m2 with by IPCC supposed "radiative forcing of  CO2" of 1.8 W/m2 and "total anthropogenic radiative forcing" of 1.6 W/m2 during 1750-2005 and 3.7 W/m2 from doubled CO2. 

We conclude that the accuracy of CERES even at the lower level of 1% for OLR, would not be good enough to detect effects of "radiative forcing" by CO2. 

That the "radiative forcing" of doubled CO2 would be 3.7 W/m2 is a wild guess by IPCC without experimental support, which serves as the following cornerstone of CO2 alarmism:

• Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. 

Here the "easy undisputed calculation" is dQ = 4 dT, where dQ is "radiative forcing" and dT corresponding global warming as a differentiated form of Stefan-Boltzmann's Law Q = sigma T^4. 

The number 3.7 or 4 W/m2 is so chosen by IPCC that the global warming would be 1 C, according to the "easy undisputed calculation", which is not too big to not be possible and not too small to be negligible. The basic argument of CO2 alarmism is that with feedback 1 C can become 3 C which is alarming. 

The whole idea of "radiative forcing" lacks sound physics basis since the forcing comes from the Sun and only from the Sun, and this is reflected by the fact that it cannot be discovered by instruments measuring physical phenomena, that is, it is fiction of a BIG BLUFF.

PS CERES is selling itself e.g. on a video telling us

• When you add greenhouse gasses such as CO2 and methane you change that radiation balance on the top of the atmosphere and you change the amount of outgoing radiation so that imbalance means more energy in the system...part of it goes into the ocean...and part of goes into actually warming the Earth...all of those things should give you a coherent picture of how things are changing as we warm the climate...

The purpose is obvious: Use CERES to show global warming by radiative forcing from CO2. The only trouble is that CERES shows nothing of this sort...all attempts to measure radiative forcing by CO2 seem to fail miserably...the scale of the BIG BLUFF with its organized governmental science support, is really impressive...