## torsdag 12 mars 2015

### Comparison of Two Basic Models of the Greenhouse Effect

Let us compare the two models of the "greenhouse effect" from the previous post.

The too-simple-model is used to predict the following "basic postulates of global warming":
• Postulate1: "Total greenhouse effect" = 33 C.
• Postulate2: "Added greenhouse effect" of global warming of 1 C from doubled CO2.
Here Postulate2 results from a differentiated form of Stefan-Boltzmann $dQ=4dT$, from an estimated "radiative forcing" of $dQ=4 W/m2$ from doubled CO2 from an estimated 10% broadening of the "ditch" the CO2 OLR-spectrum.

The value of a model depends on what data is used as input and what is the realism of the model. Let us compare the too-simple-model with the not-too-simple-model from these points of view. We have:

1. Too-simple-model for "total greenhouse effect":
• data1: 15 C ground temperature.
• model1: Stefan-Boltzmann for blackbody.
• output1: Total greenhouse effect = 33 C.
2. Too-simple-model for "added greenhouse effect":
• data2: $dQ=4 W/m2$ from estimated 10% change of the CO2 "ditch".
• model2: Differentiated form of Stefan Boltzmann $dQ=4T$.
• output2: 1 C added warming by doubled CO2.
3. Not-too-simple-model for "total and added greenhouse effect":
• data3: 15 C ground temperature at 5/6 closed window. Earth surface emissivity = 0.7.
• model3: Stefan-Boltzmann for fully open window.
• output3: Total greenhouse effect = 2 C.  Added effect 10% of total = 0.2 C.
We see that both data2 and model2 rely on estimates of small changes, while both data3 and model3 are based on gross quantities. We understand that gross quantities in general are more reliable than changes of gross quantities, since relatively speaking gross quantities are less affected by perturbations than changes thereof.  Further, data3 includes more information than data2. The not-too-simple model thus includes more relevant information than the too-simple-model and thus may be expected to be more reliable.

The estimate of the "total greenhouse effect" of 2 C thus can be expected to be more reliable than both postulates of global warming, in particular more reliable than Postulate2 as the foundation of CO2 global warming alarm.

PS1 Concerning the absolute madness of strangling Western economies by costly meaningless reductions of CO2 emissions, read about the US-China deal set by Obama.

PS2 GWPF questions the CO2 alarm sent by the Royal Society, but does not question Postulate2 as the very basis of the alarm. But if the 1 C of Postulate2 is replaced by 0.2 C on better scientific grounds, then no further questioning is needed. It is strange that skeptics like Lindzen et al, who are able  to question just about everything the Royal Society says, are unable to question Postulate2. It appears that Postulate2 serves as a dogma so strong that questioning is unthinkable. This is how a true dogma can persist to hold its grip. Questioning is unthinkable. And if questioning is unthinkable, then a dogma with weak scientific support can continue to serve as the truth.