torsdag 31 januari 2013

Why Modern Physicists Don't Question CO2 Alarmism

Physics can be viewed as the science of its instruments, with each instrument more or less intimately tied to the phenomen being recorded by the instrument, or the other way around. Each new particle accelerator is supposed to discover new particles, by instruments designed to discover new particles, like CMB discovered by very sensitive CMB-cameras or the Higgs discovered by the Large Higgs Collider LHC.

In classical physics there was a sharp distinction between the observer and the observed, but with the development of quantum mechanics the observer and the observed were put into the same boat, with now the observer deciding over the observed "collapse of the wave function".

In this new physics the idea of an objective reality independent of observation was given up, which opened to free invention of new phenomena made real by observation by suitable instruments.

This may explain why DLR as the scientific basis of CO2 alarmism,  which could never pass the needles eye of classical physics, was accepted by modern physicists and physics societies as it was so clearly demonstrated by DLR-meters.

Modern physicists thus allowed climate science and CO2 alarmism to grow without questioning the physics, without understanding that a cuckoo chick was put into the nest of science ready to kick out real physics. Maybe today this insight is slowly emerging...

The Birth of the BIG BLUFF of CO2 Alarmism

                          The IRIS satellite reporting outgoing longwave radiation OLR

The previous post revealed that the basic argument of CO2 alarmism in the form of "downwelling long wave radiation" DLR from the atmosphere to the Earth surface of size 300 W/m2, is supported by specific DLR-meters designed to report measurements of DLR. A DLR-meter is based on a DLR-meter Formula producing DLR from measurements of net radiation between the Earth surface and the atmosphere. 

The DLR-meter Formula was first formulated by the meteorologist Anders Ångström, chief of
Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute SMHI 1949-54, when in A Study of the Radiation of the Atmosphere (1915) reporting measurements using a pyrgeometer designed by his father Knut Ångström made during expeditions to Algeria in 1912 and California in 1913 to study "nocturnal radiation to the sky" from the Earth surface:
  • It was found the water vapor exerted a very marked influence on the nocturnal radiation to the sky.
  • From the observations it was possible to arrive at a logically founded mathematical expression for this influence. 
  • The outgoing radiation of a blackened body in the night must be regarded as the sum of several terms: the radiation from the surface toward space given by Stefan's radiation law (E_c), the radiation from the atmosphere to the surface E_a...with effective radiation: 
  • J = E_c - E_a.
  • If the observed effective radiation is not more than 100 W/m2 when at 15 C one has E_c ~ 400 W/m2, it must be that 300 W/m2 is radiated to the surface from some other source of radiation; in the case of the Earth this other source of radiation is probably to a large extent its own atmosphere...ignoring the fact that a small fraction of it is due to the stars and the planetary bodies.
We see here how Anders Ångström expresses net "effective" radiation as the difference of two gross quantities:  
  • E_c = sigma T_s^4 radiation from surface to outer space (according to Stefan-Boltzmann bypassing the atmosphere)
  • E_a radiation from the atmosphere to the surface ("back radiation")
What Ångström wanted to measure was E_a, by measuring J by the pyrgeometer and reporting
  • E_a = J + sigma T_s^4 = DLR-meter Formula.
Notice that Anders Ångström introduced E_c as the radiation from the surface to outer space according to Stefan-Boltzmann, which however has no physical meaning since the surface is in radiative contact with the atmosphere and not directly with outer space at 0 K.

Ångström claimed that the outgoing radiation E_a "must be regarded" to satisfy E_c - E_a = J and thus E_a = J + sigma T_s^4. But this "must be" lacks physics rationale, which is evident from the fact that Ångström offered no motivation other than "must be" which is no motivation. 

Ångström thus introduced the non-physical quantity E_c and then from this non-physical quantity constructed another non-physical quantity E_a = J + E_c, by measuring the physical quantity J.

The scientific mistake committed by Anders Ångström is so elementary that it has not been identified as an error but instead has come to serve CO2 alarmism as the prime evidence of massive warming of about 300 W/m2 of the Earth surface by the atmosphere. 

To understand that the DLR-meter Formula lacks physics rationale is in principle simple, since it only requires to understand that the quantity E_c as the radiation from the Earth surface to outer space lacks physical meaning, because the atmosphere is between the Earth surface and outer space. 

But to understand how it is possible that the elementary mistake by the meteorologist Anders Ångström has not been identified during 100 years of modern physics, is more difficult. 

It seems that meteorology in its birth in the beginning of the 20th century from thermodynamics and radiation physics, was searching for a place in science and found this by inventing specific instruments for measuring specific phenomena such as "nocturnal radiation to the sky". This strategy is today taken to its extreme by massive measurements of DLR coordinated and standardized by the World Meteorological Organization WMO. Climate science is this way made into the King of Sciences but
  • Pride goeth before a fall.
The discovery that the King is naked is imminent.

onsdag 30 januari 2013

The BIG BLUFF of CO2 Alarmism: DLR

Inside this building the False Stefan-Boltzmann Law of two-way radiative heat transfer underlying CO2 alarmism was fabricated.

The road to CO2 alarmism paved by IPCC is covered with fabricated stories of hockey-stick temperatures, melting glaciers and suffering ice-bears. But these stories can be viewed as minor bluffs compared to the BIG BLUFF of "Downwelling Longwave Radiation DLR" as radiation from "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere with a proclaimed warming effect of the Earth surface of about 300 W/m2, almost twice as much as the 170 W/m2 of absorbed shortwave radiation from the Sun, and a specific "radiative forcing" of about 3.7 W/m2 from doubled CO2 with an alarming warming of 3 C.

The BIG BLUFF is documented in Guide to Meteorological Instruments and Methods of Observation (2008) issued by World Meteorological Organization WMO by the stipulation to measure DLR = L-arrowdown using a DLR-meter (pyrometer, bolometer, radiometer) as follows:
  • DLR = V/K + sigma x T_s^4 = DLR-meter Formula
where sigma = 5.67 10^-8 is Stefan-Boltzmann's constant, T_s is measured temperature of the DLR-meter, V is the voltage reading of the thermopile as the effective recording element of the DLR-meter and K is a sensitivity coefficient determined by calibration, as expressed in the following excerpts from Chapter 7 of the Guide:

The DLR-meter Formula has a the form
  • DLR = sigma T_a^4 = V/K + sigma T_s^4 = Net-Input + ULR
  • ULR = sigma T_s^4 = "Upwelling Longwave Radiation" from the DLR-meter
  • DLR = sigma T_a^4 = "Downwelling Longwave Radiation" from the atmosphere
  • Net-Input = V/K = net absorbed radiation by the DLR-meter 
which is supposed to be a reformulation of Stefan-Boltzmann's Law 
  • Net-Input = sigma (T_a^4 - T_s^4) = True Stefan-Boltzmann Law
of the form
  • Net-Input = sigma T_a^4  -  sigma T_s^4 = False Stefan Boltzmann Law,
  • sigma T_a^4 = Net-Input + sigma T_s^4  = False Stefan Boltzmann Law, 
obtained by algebraic reformulation of the True Stefan-Boltzmann Law. But the seemingly innocent algebraic reformulation leads to a False Stefan-Boltzmann Law, because the algebra has no physical meaning: 

To rewrite Net-Input as the difference of the gross quantities sigma T_a^4 and sigma T_s^4 has no physical meaning, since sigma T_a^4 is the radiance from the atmosphere into a surrounding at 0 K and sigma T_s^4 is the radiance from the DLR-meter into a surrounding at 0 K, and this is not the physics of the interaction between atmosphere and DLR-meter described by sigma (T_a^4 - T_s^4) according to the True Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

WMO refers to a False Stefan-Boltzmann Law expressing simultaneous two-way heat transfer between
two bodies in radiative contact, gross heat transfer from warm minus gross heat transfer from cold,
while the True Stefan-Boltzmann Law expresses one-way net heat transfer from warm to cold. 

WMO thus prescribes to use of a False Stefan-Boltzmann Law when measuring DLR and thus fabricates physics, which is false physics. The bluff in giving the unphysical algebraic reformulation of the True Stefan-Boltzmann Law, a physical meaning as DLR measured by DLR-meters, has such big dimension that it has become a truth not questioned by even strong critics of CO2-alarmism. 

This means that critics of CO2 alarmism have been diverted to focus efforts on revealing little lies, while the BIG BLUFF has been left free to fool the world that massive DLR from greenhouse gases with "radiative forcing" of 3.7 W/m2 of doubled CO2, is threatening to over-heat the globe. 

That it is a False Stefan-Boltzmann Law, obtained by a non-physical algebraic manipulation of the True  Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which underlies CO2 alarmism, is so unbelievable, that it has become a truth, like a bluff poker bet which so high that it cannot be matched. The bet is maintained by requirements of universal calibration in the hands of WMO, which effectively makes it impossible to question the false physics:
  • These instruments should be calibrated at national or regional calibration centres by using black- body calibration units. Experiments using near-black-body radiators fashioned from large hollowed blocks of ice have also met with good success. The calibration centre should provide information on the best method of determining the atmospheric irradiance from a pyrgeometer depending upon which of the above recommendations are being followed. 
The fact that in our time a False Stefan-Boltzmann Law by universal calibration can be twisted into a true physical law, can only be understood as an exodus of physicists from physics.

The concept of "man-made" global warming as evidenced by DLR-meters is by WMO taken to an unprecedented level in the history of science by 
  • promoting cooperation in the establishment of networks for making meteorological, climatological, hydrological and geophysical observations, as well as the exchange, processing and standardization of related data, and assisting technology transfer, training and research..
To understand that this is a BIG BLUFF requires understanding of the True Stefan-Boltzmann Law which can only be properly understood by understanding the elements of its mathematical proof.  A proof of the True Stefan-Boltzmann Law and a further discussion of the False Stefan-Boltzmann Law, is presented in Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation and in Computational Blackbody Radiation from Slaying the Sky Dragon.

The BIG BLUFF of DLR is so cleverly concocted that even clever critics like Lindzen, Singer, Monckton, Spencer,  WUWT and many others, have been been fooled.

PS Here is the terminology postulated by WMO with an abundance of symbols with arrows up and down supposedly representing (non-physical) two-way heat transfer in "downward" and "upward" radiation:

Recall that to make a lie convincing, make it big and make incredible; the bigger and the more incredible, the more convincing: To motivate the Iraq war, Bush presented evidence that Saddam was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, like long-distance rockets with nuclear heads ready to be launched, and the utter improbability of anything like that made the lie into a truth which could be used to start a war. WMO is now using the big improbable story about DLR to motivate a war on climate.

Notice that what WMO effectively does is to rewrite 0 = 1 - 1 and then use algebra to get 1 = 0 + 1 or DLR =  Net + ULR with DLR = 1, Net = 0, and ULR = 1, which miraculously generates DLR = 1 from observing Net = 0, or DLR = 10 by rewriting 0 = 10 - 10, or DLR = 100....

The innovative idea of creating values from nothing has created fictional financial markets, which we now see imploding under the weight of realities, and fictional science will also eventually meet reality.

tisdag 29 januari 2013

Mr Double-Speak LB Repeats a Zero Message

Mr Double-Speak Lennart Bengtsson uppmärksammas på Uppsalainitiativet för sin slutreplik på DN Debatt om global uppvärmning, där LB skriver:
  • Vi bedömer att sannolikheten är låg för en temperaturökning på fyra grader då flera studier under senare år pekar mot en mindre klimatkänslighet än vad som antogs i IPCC-rapporten från 2007.
  • Men redan en ökning på 2-3 grader motiverar kraftfulla motåtgärder.
  • Det betyder en ökad sannolikhet för att vi genom utsläppsbegränsningar ska kunna undvika att jordens medeltemperatur stiger med mera än två grader. 
  • .... vi menar ... att man måste undvika bristfälligt underbyggda påståenden. 
  • Även en befarad uppvärmning till år 2100 på 2-3 grader ger ett fullgott skäl för att vidta kraftfulla motåtgärder.
LB hyllas även på Stockholmsinitiativet för sin insiktsfulla balanserade hållning till stöd för IPCC: LB tror inte på 4 graders uppvärming, men befarar 2-3 grader vilket är "fullgott skäl" för "kraftfulla motåtgärder" dvs "utsläppsbegränsningar"som "ska kunna undvika att jordens medeltemperatur stiger med mer än 2 grader". 

En befarad global uppvärmning om 2 grader skulle alltså med "kraftfulla motåtgärder" kunna begränsas till en uppvärmning om högst 2 grader. Men är det verkligen meningsfullt med "kraftfulla motåtgärder", som ju kostar mycket pengar, om effekten skulle vara så obetydlig?

Skulle det inte se bättre ut med en befarad uppvärmning om 4 grader, som med "kraftfulla motåtgärder" skulle kunna begränsas till 2 grader? Eller hur LB?

måndag 28 januari 2013

Lapse Rate by Gravitation: Loschmidt or Boltzmann/Maxwell?

Will an atmosphere under the action of gravity assume a linear temperature profile with slope equal to the dry adiabatic lapse rate? Loschmidt said yes, while Boltzmann and Maxwell claimed that the atmosphere would be isothermal. Graeff (2007) has made experiments supporting Loschmidt and so it is natural to seek a theoretical explanation. 

Consider a horizontal closed insulated tube filled with still air at uniform temperature. Let the tube be turned into an upright position. Alternatively, we may consider a vertical tube with gravitation gradually being turned on from zero, or a horizontal tube being rotated horizontally starting from rest. During increasing gravitational force the air will be compressed and knowing that compression of air causes heating, we expect to see a temperature increase. How big will it be? Well, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that under adiabatic and isentropic transformation (no external heat source and no turbulent dissipation):
  • c_vdT + pdV =0   
where c_v is heat capacity of air under constant volume, dT is change of temperature T, p is pressure and dV is change of volume V. Recalling the differentiated form of the gas law pV = RT with R a gas constant
  • pdV + Vdp = RdT
and the equilibrium equation in still air with x a vertical coordinate 
  • dp = -g rho dx or Vdp = - gdx
where g is the gravity constant, rho = 1/V is density, we find
  • (c_v + R) dT = -gdx or c_p dT/dx = - g, 
where c_p = c_v + R is heat capacity under constant pressure.

We thus find still air solutions with a dry adiabatic lapse rate dT/dx= - g/c_p = - g with c_p = 1 for air, as a consequence of compression by gravitation, using
  1. work by compression stored as heat energy
  2. pressure balancing gravity (hydrostatic balance).
A corresponding family of stationary still air solutions is given by (assuming x = 0 corresponds to the bottom of the tube):
  • p(x) ~ (1 - gx)^(a+1)
  • rho(x) ~ (1 - gx)^a
  • T(x) ~ (1 - gx)
with a >0 a constant. In the absence of heat conduction such solutions may remain as stationary still air solutions. We thus find support of Loschmidt's conjecture of still air solutions with the dry adiabatic lapse rate, in the absence of heat conduction. In the presence of (small) heat conduction, it appears that a (small) external source will be needed to maintain the lapse rate. Of course, in planetary atmospheres external heat forcing from insolation is present.

Returning the tube to a horizontal position would in the present set up without turbulent dissipation, restore the isothermal case. Turning the tube upside down from the vertical position would then establish a reverse lapse rate passing through the horizontal isothermal case.

Further, it seems that without heat source, the isothermal case of Boltzmann/Maxwell will take over under the action of heat conduction, with p(x) ~ exp( - cx) and rho(x) ~ exp ( - cx) with c>0 a constant.  

For the Euler/Navier-Stokes equations for a compressible gas subject to gravitation, see Computational Thermodynamics and the chapter Climate Thermodynamics in Slaying the Sky Dragon.

söndag 27 januari 2013

CO2 Alarmism Based on Deception of False Stefan-Boltzmann Law

                               Measuring DLR as gross heat flux from the atmosphere to the Earth surface.

CO2 alarmism is supported by measurements of "downwelling long wave radiation DLR" or "back radiation" as flux of heat energy from the atmosphere being absorbed by the Earth surface. The measurements are made using specific instruments designed for the specific task of measuring DLR, which can be named DLR-meters and which supply concrete instrumental evidence of a substantial effect on global climate of the atmospheric trace gas CO2, referred to as a "GreenHouse Gas GHG effect" viewing "CO2 as a GreenHouse Gas".

A DLR-meter reports a heat flux of about 300 W/m2 from the atmosphere to the Earth surface, to be compared with about 170 W/m2 as shortwave heat flux from the Sun. DLR overpowers the Sun with a factor 2.

There are several different DLR-meters, such as pyrgeometer, bolometer and interferometer, all calibrated to show consistent DLR measurements. A pyrgeometer pointed to the sky reports DLR using the formula:
  • DLR = U_emf/S + sigma x T_i^4 = Pyrgeometer Formula,
where U_emf is measured voltage of a detector in the form of a thermopile, S is a thermopile sensitivity factor, T_i is measured pyrgeometer temperature and sigma = 5.67 x 10^-8 is Stefan-Boltzmann's constant.

The Pyrgeometer Formula can be seen as a reformulation of an energy balance of the form
  • U_emf/S = sigma x (T_a^4 - T_i^4) = Stefan-Boltzmann's Law 
where T_a is the temperature of the atmosphere recorded by the thermopile detector and DLR = sigma T_a^4. Normally T_a < T_i so that U_emf/S is negative.

We understand that sigma x (T_a^4 - T_i^4)  is the net heat flux between the atmosphere and pyrgeometer according to Stefan-Boltzmann's Law, effectively a net flow from the warmer pyrgeometer to the colder atmosphere, a net heat flux which recorded by the pyrometer detector as U_emf/S, which may be of size  - 40 W/m2 to be compared with the gross DLR of 300 W/m2, almost 10 times as big, from the atmosphere to the Earth surface, as recorded in the Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget underlying CO2 alarmism:

We see that  DLR = sigma x T_a^4 is the radiance of a blackbody of temperature T_a into a surrounding at 0 K, while the DLR terminology suggests that it is the radiance from the atmosphere to the pyrgeometer representing the Earth surface. This change of meaning is the deception behind CO2 alarmism.

We understand that measuring U_emf and T_i knowing S, makes it possible to determine the temperature T_a of the sky towards which the pyrgeometer is pointed, by Stefan-Boltzmann's Law.

But the pyrgeometer as DLR-meter does not report the measured net heat flux sigma x (T_a^4 - T_i^4), but instead the gross heat flux  DLR = sigma T_a^4, as if
  • sigma x (T_a^4 - T_i^4) = sigma x T_a^4 - sigma x T_i^4 = DLR - sigma x T_i^4,
as if the net heat flux sigma x (T_a^4 - T_i^4) can be expressed as a difference between two gross heat fluxes: as the difference between sigma x T_a^4 as the heat flux from the atmosphere into the instrument and sigma x T_i^4 as the heat flux from the instrument.

The one way net heat flux effectively measured by the pyrgeometer is thus translated into DLR as gross heat flux from the atmosphere according to the Pyrgeometer Law as an algebraic reformulation of Stefan-Boltzmann's law of the form
  • sigma x (T_a^4 - T_i^4) = sigma x T_a^4 - sigma x T_i^4 = False Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
The translation is presented as something so completely natural that no argument is required as motivation. What can be more natural than the algebra behind what we refer to as the False Stefan-Boltzmann Law? Yet the algebraic manipulation has no correspondence in physics and thus the False Stefan-Boltzmann is a fabricated law without real physics. To rewrite net one-way heat flux as the difference of two gross two-way heat fluxes, is arbitrary and lacks physical meaning. The concept of DLR has no physical meaning, the False Stefan-Boltzmann Law is a false physical law, and using concepts without physical meaning is not physics, but pseudo-science like astrology.

To decode CO2 alarmism requires decoding DLR and the Pyrgeometer Formula as a False Stefan-Boltzmann's Law.  The deception is made by such a simple trick that it is difficult to decode. It illustrates the old truth that if you are going to lie, make it simple and big, the simpler and bigger the more convincing.

Summary: The World Meteorological Organization WMO specifies a standard for DLR-meters based on the Pyrgeometer Formula corresponding to a False Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Manufacturers like Kipp&Zonen fabricate pyrgeometers which record DLR according to the preconceived specification of WMO, which are used to give instrumental evidence of DLR as support of CO2 alarmism.

Putting a DLR-meter into a satellite and pointing it towards the Earth records outgoing long wave radiation OLR as the radiance from the Earth + atmosphere, which gives instrumental evidence of an effect of "blocking of outgoing radiation" by CO2 of size 40 W/m2, with a "radiative forcing" of 3.7 W/m2 from doubled atmospheric CO2, which is by IPCC presented as the core evidence of the warming effect of CO2. Again it is fabricated evidence obtained using a specific instrument design for the specific purpose of identifying a warming effect of CO2.

The fabrication of evidence in support of CO2 alarmism in the form of DLR and OLR as measured by DLR-meters, appears as the biggest scientific bluff all times. Even hardheaded critics of CO2 alarmism have been fooled by DLR-measurements. The success of the bluff comes from putting up a bet so high that it cannot be met. How could you ever think of challenging a DLR of the double power of the Sun? And if you cannot question DLR, then it can remain as a fact with massive instrumental evidence in support of CO2 alarmism.

The fact that a DLR-meter effectively measures temperatures but reports radiance, is covered up by describing the output from the instrument as "products". This is the same form of deception deliberately fabricated to sell financial "products" to innocent people and institutions, "products" with only fictional "values" presented as real values. The tragical fate of the modern homo sapiens sapiens is to be transformed by governmental disinformation into a homo non-sapiens.

fredag 25 januari 2013

Scientific Basis of CO2 Alarmism = 0

The above graph shows the spectrum of the outgoing longwave radiation OLR from the Earth with atmosphere into outer space as computed by the software Modtran. The result is a "radiative forcing" delta F = 3.39 W/m2 as the difference of the area under the green curve with the preindustrial level of CO2 of 300 ppm, and the blue curve with projected doubled CO2. The idea is that doubled CO2 makes the ditch in the spectrum around the wave number 667 connected to the absorption/emission spectrum of CO2, somewhat broader (from green to blue curve) with reduced OLR and a warming "radiative forcing" of 3.39 W/m2.

The whole machine of CO2 alarmism propagated by IPCC is based on this single number signaling a warming effect of 3.39 W/m2 from doubled CO2. Take this number away and the warming effect of doubled CO2 is gone and with that CO2 alarmism.

We see that the  3.39 W/m2 is of the order of 1% of a total of about 260 W/m2. We understand that the curves are computed using a model which can only be described as very simple and crude as compared to the complexity of global climate. We understand that there are no measurements accurate enough to support any "radiative forcing" of a few W/m2. In addition, as shown in previous posts, the whole ditch of warming in the spectrum measured by satellite is most likely a misleading artifact.

We understand that from scientific point the "radiative forcing" of 3.39 W/m2 from doubled CO2 has no value, since model predictions without support from reality cannot be viewed as real science, only fiction.

The "radiative forcing" of 3.39 W/m2 was invented by IPCC as the key basic scientific evidence of the warming effect of CO2. But this argument has no scientific value. And without a basis in science the whole machine of CO2 alarmism disintegrates under its own weight. This is what now is happening.

What is strange is that CO2 alarmism critics like Lindzen, Spencer and Monckton have allowed themselves to be misled to believe that the 3.39 W/m2 of "radiative forcing" invented by IPCC, is science.

In this sense IPCC has been successful, but it does not take long time for a rational mind to free itself  and understand that this is not science and thus understand that the scientific basis of the IPCC CO2 alarmism = 0.

onsdag 23 januari 2013

Fabrication of the "CO2-Climate Problem"

The scientific basis of CO2 alarmism is supposed to be the following spectrum of "downwelling longwave radiation DLR" presented as a "product" of the Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer AERI:

The part of the spectrum marked in red is connected to the absorptivity/emissivity around wavenumber 667 and 2200 of CO2, with that around 667 most prominent. The area under the curve represents the DLR or "back radiation" and we see that area under the CO2 part is almost as big as that under H2O as if the trace gas CO2 has the same warming effect as water vapor.

In a sequence of recent posts on DLR I have decoded the spectrum understanding that it is a fabricated "product" of the team behind AERI from temperature measurements by the interferometer: The sensitive interferometer thermometer measures the temperature of a tiny fraction of CO2 around wave number 667 and the AERI team then fabricates a major warming effect of the atmosphere from the presence of CO2 as the red part of the curve associated with CO2.

Seeking a history of AERI leads back to the project SPECTRE Experiment shaped by ICRCCM sponsored by the US Department of Energy DOE and and the World Meteorological Organization, with ICRCCM having a "role as lead agency for investigating the CO2-climate problem". The starting point of SPECTRE was identification by ICRCCM (1988) that measurements of DLR could vary with 30-70 W/m2 out of a total of 200 - 400 W/m2, while the estimated impact of CO2 could be at most 4 W/m2.

To prove that the "CO2-climate problem" was a real problem, better instruments were obviously needed, and so the SPECTRE Experiment got started and eventually produced radiance spectra like that above with a major role given to CO2. As with AERI the SPECTRE team measured temperatures but fabricated spectra, according to the wish of the contractor: Undeniable instrumental evidence of the reality of the "CO2-climate problem", marked in red to emphasize the alarm.

tisdag 22 januari 2013

DLR Fiction Documented in 10 Year Report of AERI

We have identified the main evidence supporting CO2 alarmism as the radiance spectrum produced by the AERI interferometer used by the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement project ARM, as shown in the previous post. Let us see if the information supplied in the report 10 Years of AERI Data from the DOE ARM Southern Great Plains Site supports a claim that data is fabricated to serve CO2 alarmism. We read in the report:
  • One set of AERI summary products from the ARM archive includes wavenumber averages over very narrow regions of the IR spectrum; three in the LW band (675-680 cm-1, 700-705 cm-1, 985-990 cm-1) and three in the SW band (2295-2300 cm-1, 2282-2287 cm-1, and 2510-2515 cm-1). 
  • These wavenumber ranges are a measure of near surface air temperature, elevated air temperature, and IR window temperatures, respectively. 
  • Both radiance and equivalent blackbody brightness temperature are included in the ARM data archive for these summary products. 
  • The 675-680 cm-1 brightness temperature product is near the center of the carbon dioxide absorption band at 15 μm. 
  • The 2295-2300 m-1 brightness temperature product is similarly located within the 4.3 μm carbon dioxide absorption band. The 15 μm and 4.3 μm wavelengths are nearly opaque, making them good measures of the mean temperature within the first 30 meters of air above the instrument. 
We see that AERI delivers "summary products": temperature and radiance. We see that the "temperature product" is direct measurement of temperature claimed to be a good measure. This is believable. To measure temperature is not so difficult even at distance. We understand that the "radiance product" is something "fabricated" from temperature using a "formula". We see that the authors of the report admit that radiance data is fabricated by using the term "product". Here is an example of the "temperature product":

The "formula" is Planck's radiation law for radiation into a surrounding at  0 K, which is not applicable in the present cases because "downwelling longwave radiation" from the atmosphere is not emitted into a surrounding at 0 K. There is no reason to believe that the fabricated "radiance product" has anything to do with reality. There is good reason to believe that we the people are decieved by government scientists. But if science can be used to decieve, science can also be used to reveal deception.

Here is a picture of AERI as acronym of the suggestive name Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer, which in fact is an infrared thermometer:

What is the Purpose of Measuring DLR?

          Many pyrgeometers measuring net balance, while reporting gross input as DLR. Why?

When you in science measure something using some instrument, there must be a purpose of making the measurement. You would not buy an expensive instrument without purpose and without users, scientists would find no motivation for designing and constructing the instrument, and manufacturers would not find any incentive to produce without any demand.

Let us see what purpose we find in a typical publication of calibration of pyrgeometers designed for measuring downwelling longwave radiance DLR from the atmosphere to the Earth surface:
  • Accurate measurements of the broadband longwave irradiance at wavelengths between 3.5 and50 microns are important for understanding the total energy balance at the earth’s surface. 
  • Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program has acquired more than 100 pyrgeometers, a type of radiometer used for these measurements, for deployment in the Solar and Infrared Stations, SKYRAD, GNDRAD, and METRAD platforms at the Southern Great Plains (SGP), Tropical Western Pacific, ARM Mobile Facility installations, and the Unmanned Aerospace Vehicle program. 
  • Proper calibration of these pyrgeometers is essential for producing accurate measurements of downwelling and upwelling longwave irradiance consistent with ARM research goals. 
  • Between 2002 and 2004, all SKYRAD, GNDRAD, Solar and Infrared Stations, and BRS pyrgeometers were calibrated using the then newly-developed National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Pyrgeometer Blackbody Calibration System.
  • Recent results of data analyses by the Broadband Heating Rate Profile, including the Longwave Quality Measurement Experiment comparisons involving the Atmospheric Emitted Radiation Interferometer (AERI), indicated a significant and consistent pyrgeometer measurement bias of about -12 Wm-2 ± 5 Wm-2 under clear-sky conditions. 
  • By March 2006, the resulting BCR-01162, Remove Pyrgeometer Calibration Bias, returned all pyrgeometer calibration values for field measurements to the original EPLAB thermopile sensitivities and dome correction factors set to 4.0 as originally deployed until the pyrgeometer calibration issues could be resolved. 
OK, we read that DLR is important for understanding the total energy balance of the Earth's surface, and that DLR is not easy to measure because elaborate calibration is needed to reach even very modest accuracy.

But if you are interested in the energy balance of the Earth's surface, you know that shortwave energy E_in from the Sun is absorbed and that the surface radiates longwave energy E_out to the (normally) colder atmosphere and to outer space. The energy balance is expressed as B= E_in - E_out as a net difference between E_in and E_out, and it is of obvious interest to seek to measure E_in and E_out to understand the energy balance.

But it would be meaningless to introduce a fictional quantity DLR which would be added and subtracted to the balance
  • B = E_in + DLR - E_out - DLR = (E_in +DLR) - (E_out + DLR) ,
which you would seek to measure with some elaborate equipment to understand B. It would be meaningless since
  • B = E_in - E_out, 
and that is all there is to say about the balance, and that can be measured. Adding and subtracting DLR and measuring DLR would be meaningless for you as a scientist and the operation of adding and subtracting DLR would have no physical correspondence; (E_in and DLR) and (E_out + DLR) would lack physical meaning.

How can you then understand that there is a whole industry of instrument manufactures and scientists who get together to measure DLR? It is clear that the need of measuring DLR comes from the scientists as the customers.

Why are then climate scientists interested in documenting E_in + DLR by measuring DLR? Because these climate scientists are alarmists and they seek signs of alarm. Suppose now with a proper design of the pyrgeometer it turns out that (E_in + DLR) can be made much bigger than E_in, say with a factor 3, so that
  • (E_in + DLR) = 3 x E_in 
which would correspond to realistic data with E_in = 150 W/m2 and DLR = 300 W/m2. The energy balance would then be inflated by a factor 3. A perturbation to the net balance would then be magnified with a factor of 3, which could mean a change from harmless global warming of 1 C to alarming 3 C.

The trick of inflating the net energy balance by introducing the fictional quantity DLR, is cheap but has big scope. The fact that it was not directly decoded when it appeared as climate alarmism developed into our time, can only be explained by a mass exodus of scientists from rationality.

In business, it is illegal to artificially inflate the incoming money by creating invoices without reality behind which are balanced by invisible bills.

Is it OK in science? Who carries the responsibility? Is it Kipp&Zonen selling pyrgeometers reporting DLR? Is it the World Meteorological Organization asking for such instruments by refereeing to some old formula written by a now dead scientist supposedly setting a standard?

I have the itching feeling that I have met this before in academics. Something is seriously wrong, but no one is responsible. All physicists and mathematicians are on permanent vacation from reality.

Here is the energy balance of the Earth according to NASA: Yellow = E_in, Red = E_out without any DLR:

NASA would see no reason to buy any instrument for measuring DLR.  Why is ARM wasting tax money for this purpose?

Here is the purpose indicated in red supposedly showing the warming effect of CO2 in a DLR spectrum delivered by AERI: 
  • The atmospheric emitted radiance interferometer (AERI) measures the absolute infrared spectral radiance (watts per square meter per steradian per wavenumber) of the sky directly above the instrument.

When faced with this spectrum how could you ever question that the trace gas CO2 changes the energy balance of the Earth? Isn't the parts marked in red undeniable evidence? No, it is not. It is fiction. If you have followed this thread then you understand that the spectrum is constructed from temperature, measured by AERI as an infrared thermometer. The spectrum is a deliberate fake construction intended for the purpose of selling CO2 alarmism. ARM is selling the story of DLR, while NASA does not even know that it exists.

Radiative Heat Flow vs Fluid Flow

To remove some of the mystery surrounding the radiative energy balance of the Earth + atmosphere, it is useful to think of a fluid model consisting of two connected water reservoirs 1 and 2 at different altitudes A_1  > A_2 , with inlet I_1 to 1 (from rain in the mountains) and outlet O_2 from 2 into the ocean. We assume that the flow of water F_12 in the connecting water pipe is proportional to the pressure pressure drop A_1 - A_ 2 and the pipe diameters normalized to 1, so that

  • F_12 = C x (A_1 - A_2)     (*)
where C is a positive coefficient. In equilibrium in stationary state we have by conservation of water
  • I_1 =  C x (A_1 - A_2) = O_3.
By measuring A_1, A_2 and O_3 the constant C can be determined to give the formula (*) for prediction of F_12 from measurements of A_1 and A_2, which can be used for planning purposes.

We understand that this can be viewed as a simple model of the radiative heat transfer between the Earth surface as 1, the atmosphere as 2, with A_1 the temperature of the surface, A_2 that of the atmosphere and C a coefficient of emissivity/absorptivity between the surface and atmosphere.

We see that in this model there is no DLR or back radiation: The flow of water is always one-way from higher to lower level. To get back flow pumps have to be introduced, but Nature does not have such pumps.

måndag 21 januari 2013

Mr Double-Speak LB Speaks Out

Lennart Bengtsson ansvarig för KVAs nuvarande uttalande till stöd för IPCC förnyar idag på
DN Debatt sitt stöd, samtidigt som Världsbankens klimatrapport med en temperaturhöjning om 4 C lite försiktigt ifrågasätts: 
  • Vi vill med detta inlägg på inget sätt förringa problemet med den globala uppvärmningen och dess möjliga följder. 
  • Vi vill endast varna för missriktad information som kan få till följd att forskarnas trovärdighet kan komma att ifrågasättas och att åtgärder blir felprioriterade. 
  • Vetenskapsakademien har inte minst i sina analyser av energifrågorna utgått från att arbetet med att minska koldioxidutsläppen ska ha hög prioritet i den globala politiken och att mycket stora investeringar måste göras för att ersätta de fossila bränslena med hållbara alternativ.
  • Vi anser att medierna i stället för att blåsa upp resultaten från enstaka publikationer borde ge särskild vikt åt den internationella fackorganisationen IPCC, som av världssamfundet fått till uppgift att fortlöpande ge sammanfattande synteser av en stor mängd forskningsresultat om klimatet och att sätta enskilda rapporter som den från Världsbanken i ett övergripande perspektiv.
  • Då en uppvärmning på 4°C under innevarande sekel är ytterst oroande är det viktigt att försöka bedöma hur rimlig en så kraftig uppvärmning är. Enskilda modellsimuleringar har räknat fram en global uppvärmning till år 2100 på 6°C eller ännu mer, men dessa har bedömts som mycket osannolika av FN:s klimatpanel (IPCC 2007).
  • Sammanfattningsvis menar vi att en temperaturökning med så mycket som 4°C under detta århundrade är mycket osannolik. Det finns inte heller någon grund för påståenden att tropiska orkaner har blivit mer extrema eller vanligare.
Som vanligt hyllas detta av TCS som nyansering av debatten och kritisk vetenskap värdig en Kunglig Akademi och ett Världssamfund i IPCCs trygga händer, och förstås DNs kritiska klimatrapportering styrd av Karin Bojs.

PS En sida av LBs janusansikte visas på Uppsalainitiativet. LB går hem i alla läger. Notera frågan till LB i kommentar # 65 till TCS artikeln.

Assessment of Fictional DLR

If you belong to the small group of scientists who have understood that the postulated downwelling longwave radiation DLR from the atmosphere to the Earth surface which major warming effect, is all fiction based on an incorrect reading of Stefan-Boltzmann's Law as expressing two-way heat flux between bodies in radiative contact (which does not include WUWT, Spencer, Monckton,...), then you have to struggle against massive postulated evidence of DLR of about 300 W/m2, which is more than the shortwave radiation from the Sun of about 180 W/m2 absorbed by the Earth surface. You have to struggle against assessments of DLR reported in e.g.
where you find the following data:

We can here read estimations of DLR by various formulas (Brunt, Brutsaert,..) supported by pyrgeometer measurements giving massive evidence of DLR of about 300 W/m2 with a warming effect of nearly two Suns.

To believe that this is reality, requires some self-deception, and you should not read the preceding posts including How to Fool Yourself with a Pyrgeometer. But an instrument is an instrument and if it is reporting 300 W/m2, it must surely mean something, probably something substantial since it is so powerful, or...

To understand that DLR is all fiction, requires an understanding of the correct physical form of Stefan-Boltzmann's Law and its proof. If you want to understand, you can find the Law and its proof in Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation.

The last sequence of posts on DLR has led us to the Swedish physicist Knut Ångström (1857-1910) as the inventor of an instrument reporting gross two-way energy transfer including DLR upon measurement of net energy transfer or temperature difference. On the web site of Ångström  Laboratory still in operation, we read about Knut:
  • Son to (the physicist) Anders Jonas Ångström, devoted a great deal of his research to solar radiation, especially the solar constant. He was a very skilled constructor of scientific instruments and the pyrheliometer, used for measurements of the solar radiation intensity, was adopted as an intenational standard in 1905.
Yes, Knut Ångström was skillful, maybe even too skillful for the realities of this world. But Knut Ångström was critical to the major warming effect of atmospheric CO2 suggested by Arrhenius and so had at least one leg on the Earth surface.

PS Even the Sky Dragon seems to believe in the instrumental DLR fiction of the pyrgeometer, or...

The Ångströms: Inventors of Pyrgeometer and DLR

The Swedish meteorologist Anders Ångström (1888-1981), son of the physicist Knut Ångström, son of the famous physicist Anders Jonas Ångström founder of spectroscopy, reported in A Study of the Radiation of the Atmosphere (1915) measurements using a pyrgeometer, designed by his father (1905),  of "effective radiation" E_eff between the atmosphere and the Earth surface with
  • E_eff = E_in - E_out 
  • E_out = blackbody radiance from surface to space = sigma T^4 with T surface temperature
  • E_in = DLR = downwelling long wave radiance from atmosphere to surface,    
where sigma is the constant of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law of blackbody radiation. 

The pyrgeometer equipped with a thermocouple reads a voltage U_emf  from which R_eff is computed as U_emf/S, where S is a sensitivity factor determined by calibration to a reference. The voltage is proportional to the difference between the temperature of the surface and that of the atmosphere as measured by the pyrgeometer detector. 

Anders Ångström thus reported in 1915 measurements of a quantity named DLR or "back radiation" according to the formula
  • DLR =  U_emf/S + sigma T^4         (*)
defining DLR by an instrument reading of U_emf/S and Stefan-Boltzmann's Law for blackbody radiation into a surrounding at 0 K. The formula (*) defining back radiation = DLR through an instrument, is presented as a basic pillar of the greenhouse effect GHE with the trace CO2 given the capability to change DLR with a warming effect on the Earth surface. 

Anders Ångström constructed his pyrogeometer from an idea of two-way heat flux E_in and E_out, while understanding that only the net flux E_eff could effectively be measured.  But to determine DLR = E_in from (*)  E_out had to be known and Ångström then simply assumed that E_out = sigma T^4 as if the Earth surface was radiating like a blackbody into a surrounding of 0 K.  Since this is obviously not the case Ångström made an ad hoc assumption about E_out without physical basis, and then reported DLR with a terminology suggesting a physical meaning. But the DLR determined by (*) lacks physical meaning because E_out lacks physical meaning. 

Anders Ångström thus opened to an unphysical misconception of two-way radiative heat transfer, while according to Stefan-Boltzmann there is only one-way heat transfer from warm to cold. Anders was not a physicist like his father Knut, and evidently lacked some understanding of the physics of the pyrgeometer.

The unphysical science by Anders Ångström opened to give the atmospheric trace gas CO2 an unphysical warming effect which was later efficiently exploited by climate alarmists.  

To understand that a pyrgeometer reporting DLR in W/m2, while effectively recording a temperature difference,  is reporting fiction without physical basis, requires going to the bottom of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and its proof. Since very few people are willing to do so, a constructive debate is lacking. 

Both climate alarmists and most of their critics have been misled by Anders Ångström and take for granted that there is something named DLR of some physical meaning which can be connected to CO2 which is evidenced by pyrgeometers. And without critics, climate alarmism continues to oppress humanity, without reason in physics.

söndag 20 januari 2013

Arrhenius vs Ångström vs Stefan-Boltzmann

In our search for the origin of the misinterpretation of Stefan-Boltzmann's Law behind DLR and GHE as two-way heat transfer, we were led to the Swedish meteorologist Anders Ångström. In 1900 his father Knut Ångström expressed strong criticism of the possible warming effect of CO2 suggested by Svante Arrhenius (1896).  In his article Arrhenius referred to Stefan-Boltzmann's  Law with one-way radiative heat transfer from a body temperature T1 to a body of lower temperature T2 being proportional to (T1^4 -T2^4), as illustrated in the following clip with the important qualification of emission into empty space corresponding to T2=0:

Arrhenius thus used a correct version of Stefan-Boltzmann's Law with one-way heat transfer from warm to cold without DLR, while Anders Ångtröm suggested an empirical formula for DLR reminiscent of an incorrect two-way form of Stefan-Boltzmann's Law. Climate alarmism eventually picked up CO2 from Arrhenius and DLR from Anders Ångström.

(this post has been updated)

The Inventors of DLR and thus GHE

Tracing the history of the corner stone of the greenhouse effect GHE in the form of downwelling long wave radiation DLR from the atmosphere to the Earth surface with a supposed warming effect from in particular CO2, leads to
where we find the following empirical formulas:
  • DLR = (a - b 10^(-ce)) sigma T^4 (Anders Ångström)
  • DLR = (a + be^0.5) sigma T^4 (Brunt)
where T is temperature and e is the vapor pressure at a 2m level above the Earth surface, and a, b and c are coefficients determined by calibration with some reference. These formulas appear to be conceived as variations of Stefan-Boltzmann's Law R = sigma T^4, expressing the radiation from a blackbody of temperature into a background at 0 K.

Ångström and Brunt thus introduced a quantity later named DLR, which could be computed according to a formula expressing a heat flux from the atmosphere to the Earth surface, which was later picked up by Brutsaert (1975) and others and formed into GHE with the effect coming from DLR and CO2. 

At the origin of climate alarmism we find three Swedes: Arrhenius(1896), Anders Ångström(1925) followed by Bert Bolin as founder of IPCC.  All three have passed away and can no longer be held responsible, but their living active followers are.

PS Knut Ångström (1900) questioned (father of Anders) the warming effect of CO2 claimed by Arrhenius (1896), but his son Anders contributed to GHE by his empirical formula for DLR.  

Making the Fiction of DLR Real

The existence of downwelling long wave radiation DLR from the atmosphere to the Earth surface is supposedly evidenced by radiometers such as pyrgeometers and bolometers and by direct estimation of the emissivity of the atmosphere by a formula depending on temperature and vapor pressure, in both cases with coefficients determined by calibration with some chosen reference.

A pyrgeometer determines DLR as
  • DLR = U_emf/S + sigma x T^4 with T the temperature of the instrument,
where U_emf is a voltage recorded by the pyrgeometer detector and S is a sensitivity coefficient determined by calibration and sigma is the constant of Stefan-Boltmann's radiation law.

The first direct estimation by formula was given by Brunt (1932):
  • DLR = (0.605 + 0.0048 x e^0.5)  sigma  T^4, 
with T the temperature  and e the vapor pressure 2m above the Earth surface and was followed by variations by Brutsaert (1975) and many others.

We see that in both cases DLR is determined from an ad hoc Ansatz of a certain form with certain coefficients to be determined by certain calibration. We understand that the Ansatz defines DLR ad hoc by formula and calibration, but the physical nature of DLR remains hidden since the Ansatz is ad hoc without physical basis. 

Confusion arises when DLR by its suggestive name is given the physical nature of a flux of energy from atmosphere to the Earth surface. The greenhouse effect GHE is based on this confusion which magically transforms the fiction of DLR into reality.

Note that both formulas include Stefan-Boltzmann laws only valid in a surrounding of 0 K, which is not the case, and thus are ad hoc False Stefan-Boltzmann laws without physical meaning.

lördag 19 januari 2013

Circular Reasoning of Climate Alarmism

The circular reasoning described in the previous post can be illustrated by the following example:

Suppose a government with a governmental institution GI has an agenda to redistribute the wealth in society and to this end presents a formula of the form:
  • Input (salary) = Net Value Produced + Output (societal value) 
  • Output = sigma x T^4 
  • T = level of testosterone
  • sigma is a (positive) constant.
Suppose the government to convince people about the rationality of the redistribution, opens to private business to manufacture an instrument reporting Input (salary), which is based on the above formula with direct measurement of T through a cheap blood test and of course Net Value Produced, which is easy to measure. The government can then with support from GI referring to the instrument, motivate redistribution of wealth in an objective scientific way. Right?

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
  • 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.

torsdag 17 januari 2013

Bolometer Fiction of OLR and DLR

Berkeley Bolometer tells us:
  • A bolometer (or calorimeter) is a detector for radiation or particles. We use bolometers to detect light in the far-infrared and mm-waves. These detectors typically function as follows: An absorber of heat capacity C is thermally connected to a heat reservoir at temperature T0 by a weak thermal link G. The absorber sees the power of the incoming light Psignal and an electrical bias power Pbias and hence has a temperature T=T0+ (Psignal+Pbias)/G>T0. If the incoming power Psignal changes and Pbias stays constant the temperature T will change. A bolometer works by measuring this change of T with a thermometer which is directly attached.
A bolometer thus records absorbed net heat energy per unit time using as sensor a temperature dependent resistance. What is primarily recorded is thus temperature from which net absorbed power can be determined through the thermal link. If the bolometer also reports gross incoming radiance (DLR), this is based on a Planck formula specifying what is to be considered as gross outgoing radiation from the detector. But this formula represents a misconception of Planck's law as describing two-way gross heat transfer. The OLR and DLR reported by a bolometer is thus fiction, as is that reported by a pyrgeometer.

onsdag 16 januari 2013

Fiction (or Fraud) of Infrared Radiance Sensing

The existence of a greenhouse effect GHE is being documented by the reading of an infrared detector supposedly recording a radiance spectrum (in W/m2 per wave number). The radiance spectrum of outgoing long wave radiation OLR over Sahara measured by the IRIS satellite shown above as the black curve has a ditch around wave numbers 667 with reduced radiance characteristic of an emission temperature of 220 K.

The ditch is connected to the absorption/emission spectrum of CO2 which peaks at 667 with a total effect of about 10% reduction of OLR. The infrared detector thus reports a substantial effect (10%) of the atmospheric trace gas CO2 on the radiation balance of the Earth as if the presence of a small amount of CO2 (0.036%) in the atmosphere could "block" up to 10% of the radiation from the Earth represented by the ditch.

The scientific evidence of the "warming effect" of atmospheric CO2 is thus the radiance spectrum produced by an infrared detector (pyrgeometer, bolometer, interferometer) , and to understand the validity of this evidence, we have to understand the design of an infrared detector. 

In a sequence of posts on infrared thermometers connecting to an earlier sequence on the myth of back radiation, I have shown that what the infrared detector effectively detects is the temperature of an object in radiative contact with the detector. It is like a fever thermometer put into your mouth recording the temperature of the interior of your mouth by direct contact, only acting at distance by radiative contact. You don't try to measure the variation with time of the flow of heat energy from your mouth into the thermometer by carefully recording exactly how the temperature increases to its final maximal value with time, because you don't know what to do with this information and since it obviously can depend on how the thermometer is positioned, you see no meaningful use of such a measurement. In short, measuring temperature is possible and meaningful, while measuring heat flow is difficult and of questionable value.  

The fact that an infrared detector in principle is a thermometer detecting temperature is acknowledged in e.g. Exploration of the Solar System by Infrared Remote Sensing by Hanel et al:
  • One class of thermal detectors depends on the temperature rise in the detector element caused by the absorption of infrared energy. The resulting temperature difference between detector element and surrounding heat sink is then registered by electronic means. Detectors based on this principle are called thermal detectors; they are more or less sophisticated thermometers. 
A infrared detector thus detects temperature, in the above radiance spectrum a temperature of 220 K around wave number 667 from the presence of atmospheric CO2 of temperature 220 K in radiative contact with the sensitive infrared detector in the IRIS satellite looking down to the Earth and detecting a trace gas absorbing/emitting in a narrow frequency band.  

But an infrared detector not only reports temperature, but also radiance and to properly understand the reported radiance spectrum, the step from temperature reading to radiance spectrum must be understood. 

The above graph shows how this done: The dotted curves show the spectra of an ideal blackbody at different temperatures. We see that the recorded temperature of 220 K is translated to radiance as if the atmosphere with the trace gas CO2 was an ideal blackbody of temperature 220 K in the range of the ditch. 

But this an ad hoc assumption. The emissivity of the atmosphere with the trace gas CO2 is not equal to that of an ideal blackbody (=1), but is unknown. And there are no independent measurements of the emissivity of the atmosphere that can compensate this lack of knowledge.

The emissivity is unknown and thus the radiance spectrum constructed from temperature detection is an artificial spectrum which does not describe reality. The ditch in the spectrum around wave number 667 is an artifact of an ad hoc assumption without connection to reality. It is likely to be scientific fraud, because of lack of connection to reality.

The fraud is rooted in an incorrect conception of two-way heat transfer between two bodies in radiative contact including heat transfer from a cold atmosphere to warm Earth surface named backradiation or downwelling long wave radiation DLR. This comes from a misconception of Planck's radiation law as expressing two-way heat transfer of energy (in W/m2), while the correct Planck's law expresses one-way heat transfer from warmer to colder.

The GHE was invented when in the 1960s thermal detectors reporting radiance were appearing on the market, such as the Kipp and Zonen pyrgeometers measuring temperature and reporting radiance. It can be seen as an illustration of the old fact that if you are going to lie, make it big to make it credible. To give a trace gas a big effect is a big lie.

It is interesting to ponder if Kipp and Zonen can be sued for fabrication radiance spectra without connection to reality. Or is it the chief scientist responsible for the science Kipp and Zonen are referring to, who should be sued? And who is this scientist? What to do if it turns out that this person is dead?

PS The correct Planck law for one-way radiative heat transfer E between two blackbodies 1 and 2 of temperature T_1 and T_2 with T_1 bigger than T_2, is given by
  • E = sigma x (T_1 - T_2) = net transfer of heat energy from 1 to 2
where sigma is a constant. The incorrect Planck law for two-way heat transfer underlying GHE, takes the form
  • E = E_1 - E_2 = net transfer of heat energy from 1 to 2 
  • E_1 = sigma x T_1 = gross transfer of heat energy from 1 to 2
  • E_2 = sigma x T_2 = gross transfer of heat energy from 2 to 1. 
The incorrect Planck law makes it possible to invent gross heat transfer from 1 to 2 by measuring net transfer, combined with an ad hoc assumption about the gross transfer from 2 to 1, which is not measured.

If now GHE is based on an incorrect interpretation of Planck's law, the question is who is to blame? Is it Planck who formulated his law so that misinterpretation is possible? Is it the scientist who first published a misinterpretation Planck's law? If these people are no longer with us, is it a scientist who today repeats the misinterpretation printed in a book, without properly checking that what is printed by a now dead scientist is correct?  Is it a scientist claiming that because it is printed in a book, it can be taken as correct? Is it the scientist responsible for the above radiance spectrum? 

PS2 Searching for the origin of the fiction of recording OLR or downwelling longwave radiation DLR, we are led to Brunt (1932) who proposed the following formula for computing the emissivity epsilon of a cloudless atmosphere:
  • epsilon = a + b x e^0.5,
where e is water vapor pressure and a and b are two parameters determined by calibration. Another formula without parameters was suggested by Brutsaert (1975):
  • epsilon = 1.24 x (e/T)^1/7,
where T is the atmosphere temperature. Many other more or less complicated formulas including parameters to be determined by calibration, have later been suggested. The estimated value of epsilon would then be used to declare that DLR = epsilon x sigma x T^4 according to an incorrect two-way heat transfer Planck formula. All these formulas are nothing but wild guesses to be fitted to measurements of temperature and water vapor pressure, with the objective of delivering estimation of radiance, which cannot be measured directly. They represent fiction or fraud depending on how you view the role of a scientist.

måndag 14 januari 2013

Pyrgeometer Fiction of DLR and OLR

To understand the fiction of the DLR and OLR underlying CO2 alarmism supposedly evidenced by a pyrometer, as discussed in the previous sequence of posts, the following example can be helpful:
Suppose you check your bank account and discover that you have $1 as the net when you have received your net income and paid your bills. Not so bad. Suppose now you have forgotten how big your income was and you ask if from the present status of your bank account ($1), it is possible to figure out this number. If you can't, consider the following advice offered by the financial consultant of your bank:
This is relatively simple. Assume that your expenditures were $999, then your income was $1000 because you have $1 left. If you give it to me as consultant fee, then you will be even.
But you are left with a feeling that something in the argument is not convincing: Suppose you instead assume that your expenditures were only $99, then your income would be only $100, which is way to little for someone with your credentials. On the other hand, if you assume that you have spent $9999, then you would have had the impressive income of $10000, which is more than you ever dreamed of. </
After some thought you understand that you have been fooled by the bank financial expert and you want your $1 back: Clearly, it is impossible to tell what A is from the knowledge that A - B = 1, unless you know B.
The pyrometer does the same trick as the bank consultant: It measures temperature difference as bank net balance and reports total DLR and OLR as total income. In both cases it is guess work which is not worth of $1.
The guess work of the pyrgeometer is the outgoing radiation according to the formula sigma x T^4 which is Planck's law for radiation into surrounding space at 0 K. But the temperatur of the outside of the pyrgeometer is not 0 K, and so the outgoing radiation from the pyrgeometer as sigma x T^4 is only fiction. This is the myth of backradition discussed in detail on this blog.

söndag 13 januari 2013

Business and Physics: Perfect Match

The existence of the greenhouse effect GHE is supposedly being evidenced by measurements of downwelling longwave radiation DLR and outgoing long wave radiation OLR obtained by e.g. pyrometers fabricated by Kipp and Zonen described as follows:
  • The CG4 pyrgeometers are used for the measurement of upwelling and downwelling components of LW irradiance (in W m-2). The instruments are sensitive to infrared radiation in a wavelength range of 4.5 to approx. 40mm, and have a field of view of 180o, with a cosine response.
This is the perfect match between business and politics: Business sells an instrument which measures DLR and OLR and thus delivers evidence of GHE to politicians in need of a cause. The fact that the DLR and OLR is fiction resulting from an incorrect interpretation of Planck's radiation law, is not made clear by physicists, because they are fully occupied with the greater fiction of string theory and multi versa.

What Does a Pyrgeometer Measure?

A pyrgeometer is presented as follows on Wikipedia:
  • a device that measures the atmospheric infra-red radiation spectrum that extends approximately from 4.5 µm to 100 µm.
A pyrgeometer consists of the following major components:

  • thermopile sensor which is sensitive to radiation in a broad range from 200 nm to 100 µm

  • A silicon dome or window with a solar blind filter coating. It has a transmittance between 4.5 µm and 50 µm that eliminates solar shortwave radiation.

  • A sun shield to minimize heating of the instrument due to solar radiation.

The thermopile measures a voltage U_emf and then computes incoming radiance E_in according to the formula

\ E_{in} = { \ U_{emf} \over \ S }+ {\sigma * \ T^4}

where sigma is a known constant and T the measured temperature of the pyrometer with sigma x T^4 = E_out outgoing radiance and S is a sensitivity factor determined by calibration.

A thermopile is described as follows on Wikipedia as:
with a thermocouple 
  • consisting of two conductors of different materials (usually metal alloys) that produce a voltage in the vicinity of the point where the two conductors are in contact. The voltage produced is dependent on, but not necessarily proportional to, the difference of temperature of the junction to other parts of those conductors.
The input U_emf to the computation of the radiation E_in  is thus a voltage, and not energy, a voltage depending on the difference of the temperature of the radiating object and the instrument.

The pyrometer thus effectively measures the temperature of a radiating object, and then through a very simple formula, with a constant obtained by calibration, reports radiance. 

I show in How to Fool Yourself with a Pyrgeometer that the reported radiance is fiction, obtained from temperature by a simple formula. But reality is not that simple.

The key step to the fiction, is the translation of the measured voltage to fictional energy through the fudge factor S.

The problem with the relation E_in - E_out = U_emf/S with U_emf the measured voltage, is that what is de facto measured is a difference, while the quantity of interest E_in = E_out + U_emf/S is critically depending on E_out, which is not measured and thus unknown and as such subject to speculation, and on the constant S supposedly being determined by some form of calibration. Altogether, E_in may be more fiction than reality.

lördag 12 januari 2013

Options and GHE

The options market based on the Black-Scholes formula created a fictional financial market which has led into the present economical crisis. Similarly, the GHE based Planck's radiation formula has created a fictional climate change market adding to the crisis. In both cases a simple mathematical formula is given a universal validity way beyond its original meaning and realities of this world. In both cases the root of the trouble is an inflated belief in formalities resulting from a misconception of mathematics.