Note! for best printed results, read tips for printing. For corrections and suggestions, e-mail the author.
-- Seafriends home --  -- Rev:20100416,20110702,20110906,20120302,20131110,

Astronomy, geothermal heat flow, Venusian heat flow

Basic facts about Venus and Mars are compiled in http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html and http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html

The data on these sites are compared with corresponding parameters on earth.

According to textbooks on astronomy it is generally assumed that the inner planets (Earth, Venus, Mars among them) are formed from the debris of a dying star (presumably a supernova explosion) some 5*10^9 years ago. On earth only a very few naturally radioactive mother nuclides (from potassium, rubidium, thorium, uranium) have survived this long time, all with half life times above 10^8 years. These nuclides and their daughter nuclides generate a geothermal heat flow of round about 0.2 W/m² on average, naturally unevenly distributed over the surface of earth. Because of the same astronomical origin it is safe to assume that the Venusian heat flow is in the same order of magnitude and thus negligible compared to the energy by insolation. (No "young planet", no impact whatsoever. Note that an impact would hit the outer planets Saturn and Jupiter with much higher probability because of their sheer size and gravity). This was stated correctly by your colleagues. Correct is also that the black body radiation temperature of Venus is lower than earth's, because of the higher albedo (see link venusfact).

Calculation of lapse rate, kinetic gas theory, basic thermodynamics

Basic thermodynamics of a planet with atmosphere can best be understood by an experiment of thought:

1. Imagine a planet-like star without rotation and with a nitrogen atmosphere, located in space without any short or long wave background radiation, and heated from the inside with 240 W/m². By Stefan-Boltzmann's law one calculates the surface temperature of the star to be 255 K (the famous temperature of earth without a greenhouse effect). But what is the temperature or temperature distribution of the atmosphere? Molecules moving upwards are slowed down by gravity (this means a cool-down in kinetic gas theory), those moving downwards are speeded up (which means a warming). By the movement potential energy (Epot) is transformed in kinetic energy (Ekin) of molecules and vice versa.

A more detailed analysis shows that also rotational energy (Erot) - in the case of molecules made up of 2 atoms - has to be taken into account. If you wait long enough, the atmosphere of the motionless star would be without motion by itself and its energy evenly distributed. You can write for the total atmospheric energy (Etot):

Etot = Epot + Ekin + Erot (1)

Any layer of the star's motionless atmosphere has the same energy Etot; but because Epot varies with altitude, also Ekin (i.e. temperature) varies with altitude. With some thermodynamical transformation you get from (1)

dT/dz = -g/cp (2)

which is identical with the equation one finds in textbooks on meteorology for the dry (or sometimes called theoretical) adiabatic lapse rate. dT/dz is the temperature gradient of the atmosphere, g is the star's gravitational acceleration and cp is the specific heat of the atmospheric gas at constant pressure (in this example cp incorporates the sum of Ekin and Erot). Applying this knowledge to above example with earth parameters g = 9.78 m/s² and cp = 1005 J/(kg*K), one calculates dT/dz = - 0.0097 K/m or the well known ~ -1K/100m. For various theoretical reasons the experimentally determined dry adiabatic lapse rate of earth is somewhat lower with 0.75K/100m, but in the same order of magnitude. Border temperature conditions are 255 K at the surface and 0K as temperature of space, from which one gets a formal thickness z of 26 km of the atmosphere.

2. As a second example, imagine the same motionless star heated from inside, nitrogen atmosphere, no background radiation from space, but by some experimental trick the lower 10 km of the atmosphere densely covered with fog and clouds. After waiting long enough, the atmosphere would again be motionless. One now has introduced very many black body radiators in the lower atmosphere. Seen from space, one would still measure the radiation of a 255K black body, but this time the radiation originates from the top of the cloudy part of the atmosphere, i.e. from an atmospheric altitude of 10 km. What is the temperature distribution of the atmosphere? To the energies of equation (1) radiation energy (Erad) must be added, either positive for absorbed energy or negative for emitted energy (Eradabs and Erademi).

Etot = Epot + Ekin + Erot + Erad (3)

Compared to example 1 nothing does change above the cloud cover, because no energy can be absorbed or emitted there. Obviously an atmospheric layer within the fog or clouds is sandwiched by and absorbs black body radiation from a warmer layer below and a cooler layer above, in stationary state emitting the average in both directions. This is why in a motionless atmosphere the radiation term averages to zero, and the lapse rate is the same within or outside the clouds. The point is however: The altitude of effective radiation to space has been shifted to an altitude of 10 km, and the lower foggy atmosphere adds another 97 K from the 255K-10km layer to ground. Ground temperature in example 2 would be 352 K, uncomfortably hot, though only heated by 240 W/m². Note that this has nothing to do with greenhouse gases, just with very simple and straight-forward physics, thermodynamics and black body radiation. Before discussing an example 3 (Venus), some additional information.

Venusian atmosphere and spectroscopic properties of CO2

As can be seen from above link, partial pressure of CO2 in the Venusian ground atmosphere amounts to ~89 bar and ground temperature to 737 K on average. The "critical point" data of CO2: p(crit.) = 72.9 bar; T(crit.) = 304 K (handbook of physics). A substance beyond the critical point is neither gas nor fluid, though in general referred to as supercritical fluid. It surely is not a gas and very surely not a trace gas. It is very important to note that the evaporation enthalpy of a substance beyond the critical becomes zero; this means there exists no cooling effect by evaporation, which is a very important energy transfer and cooling mechanism on earth. Though I have never seen the absorption or emission spectrum of a supercritical fluid, it seems safe to me to assume that such a substance behaves like a black body, not like a line or band absorber (cf. a very moist atmosphere, where water - far away from its critical point - starts behaving like a black body). Anyhow, it definitively does not make sense to extrapolate spectroscopic data of a trace gas to its supercritical conditions. And it definitively does not make sense to directly compare the physics of atmospheric band radiation (greenhouse gases) with the black body radiation of fog or clouds.

Back to Venus. According to a handbook of astronomy the top of clouds of Venus is in an altitude of about 65 km, at a pressure level of 0.2 bar. Actually the altitude of the atmosphere can be optically seen, because at the transition zone of day and night the scattered twilight looks like a sickle reaching in the night zone. Day temperature at 65 km is about 300 K, night temperature slightly below 200 K (with question mark, I cannot read the figure more precisely). Black body radiation temperature is 232 K. So there will be an above cloud greenhouse effect, but nothing overly exiting.

3. As a third example, imagine a planet-like star without rotation and with a 3-atomic atmosphere, located in space without any short or long wave back ground radiation, and heated from the inside with 163 W/m². By Stefan-Boltzmann's law, neglecting the greenhouse effect, one calculates the surface temperature of the star to be 232 K (I hope that NASA has calculated correctly; I did not check this one). Now modification by some experimental trick: the lower 65 km of the atmosphere densely covered with fog and clouds. After waiting long enough, the atmosphere would again be motionless. One now has introduced very many black body radiators in the lower atmosphere. Seen from space, one would still measure the radiation of a 232 K black body, but this time the radiation originates from the top of the cloudy part of the atmosphere, i.e. from an atmospheric altitude of 65 km. What is the temperature distribution of the atmosphere? (Sorry for this one; it is just the ease of copying).

Because no greenhouse effect (no net energy transfer) exists between atmospheric layers of very similar temperature, equation (2) can still be applied, at least in good approximation. Venus parameters for equation (2): g = 8,87 m/s²; cp = 1294 J/(kg*K) at 1 bar and 4166 J/(kg*K) at 84 bar (handbook of physics; hopefully you can see from these data alone that a supercritical fluid is not a gas). dT/dz with 1 bar data: -6.9K/km; delta T over 65 km of cloudy layer: 449 K. Surface temperature of Venus 449 + 232 = 681 K. dT/dz with 84 bar data: -2.2K/km; delta T over 65 km: 138 K. Surface temperature 370 K. Ok, this one is really too low, but it should be kept in mind that only a small fraction of the near ground atmosphere is supercritical. Also my top of the clouds altitude is presumably not very precise. Anyhow, the point of this message is that it does not make sense to attribute these ground temperatures to a greenhouse effect of trace gases. The physical reason is outlined above, quantifying the experimental observation rather satisfying.

I close this communication with a temperature emission spectrum of earth and mars, one of my favourites (ordinate radiation temperature, abscissa wave number). Note that the CO2-forcing of mars and earth (the integer of the triangle and trapezoid, respectively) are of about the same size. Here the distance of the planet to sun makes on important part of the difference. Not so with Venus. The important thing with Venus is the huge z in the dT/dz term, causing a huge delta T. By the way, could anybody provide me with an emission spectrum of Venus, comparable to the one below? I have also seen spectra from Jupiter and Saturn, but never from Venus.

Hartwig Volz

The flip side of the entrenched incompetence in science today is that all it takes is scientific competence to make revolutionary discoveries, or fundamental corrections to current dogma. Being a competent physicist rather than an incompetent climate scientist (which 97% of them demonstrably are), I was able recently to post an answer on yahoo.com to a question about the greenhouse effect on Venus, an update to which I give here:

Surprisingly to most, there is no greenhouse effect at all, and you can prove it for yourself.

From the temperature and pressure profiles for the Venusian atmosphere, you can confirm that, at the altitude where the pressure = 1000 millibars, which is the sea level pressure of Earth, the temperature of the Venusian atmosphere is 66ºC = 339K.

This is much warmer than the temperature at the surface of the Earth (at pressure = 1000 millibars), which is about 15ºC = 288K. HOWEVER

Venus is closer to the Sun, and gets proportionally more power from it. Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun, on average, while Venus is only 67.25 million. Since the intensity of the Sun's radiation decreases with distance from it as 1 over r-squared, Venus receives (93/67.25) squared, or 1.91 times the power per unit area that Earth receives, on average.

Since the radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the radiating temperature of Venus should be the fourth-root of 1.91 (or the square-root of 93/67.25) = 1.176 times that of the Earth. Furthermore, since the atmospheric pressure varies as the temperature, the temperature at any given pressure level in the Venusian atmosphere should be 1.176 times the temperature at that same pressure level in the Earth atmosphere, INDEPENDENT OF THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INFRARED ABSORPTION in the two atmospheres. In particular, the averaged temperature at 1000 millibars on Earth is about 15ºC = 288K, so the corresponding temperature on Venus, WITHOUT ANY GREENHOUSE EFFECT, should be 1.176 times that, or 339K. But this is just 66ºC, the temperature we actually find there from the temperature and pressure profiles for Venus.

[Note: The derivation of the radiating temperature above is for absolute temperature, in degrees Kelvin (K), so the 1.176 factor relates the Kelvin temperatures, not the Celsius temperatures.]

So there is no greenhouse effect. You have just proved that climate science is utterly wrong to think otherwise. This is the scandal that so many "experts" in climate science, and all the scientific authorities, will not face. Listen to the physicists that tell you there is no greenhouse effect; they know without having to go to the Venus data -- and I am one of them. The continuing incompetence on this vital point among so many scientists, for more than a century, is amazing, and tragic. Here is a table more precisely comparing the temperatures at various pressures in Earth's atmosphere (the standard atmosphere) with the corresponding temperatures in Venus's atmosphere. (updated 12/02/10)

My uncertainty in finding T_Venus from the graphs is +/- 1.4 K, so any error less than about 1.2 K (in the last column) is negligible. I don't know why the comparison falters slightly between 600 and 300 mb, or why it improves suddenly at 200 mb (~60 km altitude), but the Venus cloud top is given as 58 km, between the 300 and 200 mb levels.

The Venus atmosphere is 96.5% carbon dioxide, and supposedly superheated due to a runaway greenhouse effect, yet that portion of it within the pressure bounds of the Earth atmosphere is remarkably like the Earth in temperature. This is student-level analysis, and could not have been neglected by climate scientists, if they were not rendered incompetent by their dogmatic belief in the greenhouse hypothesis. (Again, the overwhelming extent of fundamental incompetence exhibited by scientists today is the real underlying story.) This result also flies in the face of those who would say the clouds of Venus reflect much of the incident solar energy, and that therefore it cannot get 1.91 times the power per unit area received by the Earth -- the direct evidence presented here is that its atmosphere does, in fact, get that amount of power, remarkably closely. This in fact indicates that the Venusian atmosphere is heated mainly by incident infrared radiation from the Sun, which is not reflected but absorbed by Venus's clouds, rather than by warming first of the planetary surface. (It also indicates that the Earth atmosphere is substantially warmed the same way, during daylight hours, by direct solar infrared irradiation, and that the temperature profile, or lapse rate, for any planetary atmosphere is relatively oblivious to how the atmosphere is heated, whether from above or below.) This denies any possibility of a "greenhouse effect" on Venus (or on Earth), much less a "runaway" one. This has already been pointed out recently by physicists Gerlich and Tscheuschner, who have written succinctly, "...since the venusian atmosphere is opaque to visible light, the central assumption of the greenhouse hypotheses [sic] is not obeyed." Yet they are ridiculed by climate scientists, who thus behave like spoiled children who refuse to be chastised by their parents.

Another way to look at the Venus/Earth data is this:

Venus is 67.25 million miles from the Sun, the Earth, 93 million.

The radiating temperature of Venus should be 1.176 times that of the Earth.

Without ANY greenhouse effect as promulgated by the IPCC, at any given pressure within the range of the Earth atmosphere, the temperature of the Venus atmosphere should be 1.176 times that of the corresponding Earth atmosphere.

The facts:
at 1000 millibars (mb), T_earth=287.4 (K), T_venus=338.6, ratio=1.178
at 900 mb, T_earth=281.7, T_venus=331.4, ratio=1.176
at 800 mb, T_earth=275.5, T_venus=322.9, ratio=1.172
at 700 mb, T_earth=268.6, T_venus=315.0, ratio=1.173
at 600 mb, T_earth=260.8, T_venus=302.1, ratio=1.158
at 500 mb, T_earth=251.9, T_venus=291.4, ratio=1.157
at 400 mb, T_earth=241.4, T_venus=278.6, ratio=1.154
at 300 mb, T_earth=228.6, T_venus=262.9, ratio=1.150
at 200 mb, T_earth=211.6, T_venus=247.1, ratio=1.168
(Venus temperatures are +/- 1.4K, Earth temp. are from std. atm)

The actual ratio overall is 1.165 +/- 0.015 = 0.991 x 1.176. It does not vary from the no-greenhouse theoretical value at any point by more than about 2%.
There is no sign whatever of a greenhouse effect on either planet. The fact that the temperature ratios are so close to that predicted solely by their relative distances from the Sun tells us that both atmospheres must be warmed, overall, essentially in the same way, by direct IR solar irradiation from above, not by surface emissions from below. Keeping it simple, the atmospheres must be like sponges, or empty bowls, with the same structure (hydrostatic lapse rate), filled with energy by the incident solar radiation to their capacity to hold that energy.

There is no greenhouse effect on Venus with 96.5% carbon dioxide, and none on the Earth with just a trace of carbon dioxide.

The finding of the great design of the "gods" immediately confronts science with the fact that our most popular and hotly-defended theories in the earth and life sciences are fundamentally wrong. Plate tectonics is laughably wrong, since the landmasses of the Earth are shaped and distributed according to a clear and precise, dodecahedral design; evolution is not even a theory, it is a misplaced metaphysical principle of human learning, wrongly applied to physical reality because scientists refuse to recognize design as design, or to believe anyone smarter than us once trod the Earth.

The intellectual climate today is so bad, however, that no one in science is interested in learning fundamental new knowledge. Learning a scientific specialty is hard--the hardest part is memorizing a lot of terms, and keeping their essential relationships clear in the face of complex, deteriorating arguments. For example, no biologist I am aware of knows any more that "evolution" properly means "change in a given direction"; they are too full of the supposed success of undirected evolution.

The point I am getting to is that when science gets off track, there are always clues, perhaps small but clear, that it is off track. When it is really wrong-headed, as it has become since Darwin's day, you can find instances of blatantly ridiculous results being promulgated as the best science consensus. The prime example of this at the moment is the global warming controversy.

I have not addressed global warming in an article before now, because I don't fancy myself a universal polymath: Climate science is not my field. So I won't bother putting up yet another article that supposedly sets everyone straight on climate science, or global warming in particular. If you study the many different points of view presented online, from qualified scientists, you should find that climate science is, in fact, not a robust science. It is mired in fundamental controversies and incompetence, and poisoned beyond immediate cure by one-sided politicization that fans hysteria among the unknowing public.

What I will do is put before you just one example of a ridiculous result from climate science that I, as a physical scientist, have observed, and which I have not seen other scientific critics bear down on as they should. I think, indeed, that they don't know that it is ridiculous, and I don't know yet whether that thought is a misapprehension on my part, or scientists in general have been rendered simply stupid by the wrong-headedness of their general paradigm, of undirected evolution of all that we see in the universe--not just the life on Earth, but the Earth itself, for example (and of course, the solar system beyond, which I have proved to my own professional satisfaction is part of the great design I found and verified).

Here it is, the little point of ridiculousness I currently marvel over: The "atmospheric greenhouse effect" at the heart of the bad science put out by the "consensus", touted by the United Nations IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), is summarized in the following illustration, of the supposed "energy budget" of the Earth's surface and atmosphere:

Earth's Energy Budget, from Trenberth and Kiehl, 1997
This illustration purports to show how the initial power incident on the Earth from the Sun is divided among the many processes going on in the atmosphere, and between the atmosphere and the Earth's surface. It all looks straightforward enough, but then when you look closely you see something strange, off on the right side: The radiation coming off the surface is huge, and there is an almost equally huge "back radiation" from the atmosphere to the surface. To a physicist--or at least to this physicist--that strange, gigantic loop of energy between the atmosphere and the surface appears unphysical, out of all proportion to the rest of the diagram.

And we don't have to get into detailed physical theory or wordy explanations to pin down what's wrong with it: The power coming off the surface (the number 390) is larger than the incident power from the Sun (342). (The power shown as “back radiated” by the atmosphere is about as large as that from the Sun, too.)

Just that one fact is enough for me to see that the "climate science" of the U.N. and the consensus of (so we are told) 97% of all climate scientists--is absurd. No part of the "global energy budget" can be greater than the incident energy. Either their numbers are wrong, or the model being illustrated is wrong. Period, full stop. You don't have to know, or explain to the world, what is really going on, or why there has been recent "global warming". Just know their explanation is nonsense, basic physics absolutely and undeniably forbids it. Everything else you read is either other scientists trying to show they know what is really going on (which obviously no one does at this point, entirely), or scientists or their followers trying to defend the indefensible, with complex, technical and always wrong-headed arguments.

Of course, that unphysical loop of excess energy is just what they are calling the "greenhouse effect". And it is garbage, and all the scientists who deny that, or refuse to see it for what it is, should be drummed out of science, or at least be required to undergo re-education. Because they are worse than first-year students, who are generally at least open to learning the hard truth.

I am more concerned with the new knowledge I have found, however, and how it relates to the current incompetence across all of science. The harder I have tried to put forward my new knowledge, the more widespread and confrontational has been the public exhibition of epidemic incompetence in science. I know, as a fact, that the Earth was deliberately put together, in exquisite detail, and that it was changed, wholesale but not fundamentally, less than 20,000 years ago. I know the logical hysteria to which so many scientists have been driven by their wrong-headed paradigm, is what we are seeing in the promulgation of "runaway climate change". This same hysteria is behind the closed-minded defense of current theories, and the simplistic and relentless presentation of them to the public as facts, across all the physical sciences. Through such hysteria and continual, vain argument, dogma is being revealed to mankind as merely divisive, and like sand, upon which true and lasting knowledge cannot be built.

Greenhouse gas theory of global warming is refuted in momentous Mexican lab experiment. Results mean epic fail for doomsaying cult and climate taxes.

Professor Nahle of Monterrey, Mexico backed by a team of international scientists has faithfully recreated a famous experiment from 1909 to confirm that the greenhouse effect cannot cause global warming.

Astonishingly, the 1909 greenhouse gas experiment first performed by Professor Robert W. Wood at John Hopkins University hadn’t been replicated for a century. This despite over $100 billion spent by the man-made global warming industry trying to prove its case that carbon dioxide is a dangerous atmospheric pollutant.

The analogy had been that greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2) act like the glass in a greenhouse trapping heat in Earth’s atmosphere and if they build up (due to human industrial emissions) the planet would dangerously overheat.

Nahle Nails Shut Climate Scare Coffin
At the Biology Cabinet laboratories Professor Nahle was able to confirm the astounding findings: Wood was right all along. After peer-review the results confirm that the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ is solely due to the blockage of convective heat transfer within the environment in which it is contained i.e. as in this case, a lab flask.
Indeed, it is the glass of the lab flask (or ‘greenhouse’) that caused the “trapped” radiation all along. The flask (or greenhouse) being what scientists refer to as a ‘closed system’; while Earth’s atmosphere isn’t closed at all but rather open to space allowing heat energy to freely escape.
Nahle’s findings shoot holes in claims of Professor Pratt of Stanford University whose own replication of Wood’s experiment was touted as the first official reconstruction of Wood’s test for a century. Pratt claimed he had disproved Wood’s findings.

“This is the reason that I decided to repeat the experiment of Professor Pratt to either falsify or verify his results and those of Professor Wood,“ says the Mexican professor at the Biology Cabinet.
The Monterrey science research institute also recreated Wood’s test into the effect of longwave infrared radiation trapped inside a greenhouse. Unlike Pratt it found that Wood’s findings were correct, absolutely valid and systematically repeatable. The Bio Cab man affirms, “ the greenhouse effect does not exist as it is described in many didactic books and articles.”

Put simply, one of the aforementioned professors has their reputation perilously on the line and Nahle is gunning for an explanation from his U.S. Rival. A clue to the outcome: Pratt isn't even qualified in science - he's a (warmist) mathematician specializing in computers.

Satellite Records Back Up Mexican Findings
Professor Nahle’s findings will come as no surprise to anyone who is up to speed with the other big climate story that has raised huge doubts over any so-called greenhouse effect. NASA now admits global warming just isn’t happening despite ever-rising levels of CO2.
Laughably, the once illustrious U.S. space agency is blaming no warming this century on China. The rapidly industrializing nation is emitting so much sulfur dioxide that it is “cooling” our planet, they say.

Back Story of Greenhouse Gas Mythology
Professor Wood’s science held sway until the mid 1930's after he proved that on average, the blockage of convective heat transfer with the surroundings causes an increase of temperature inside the greenhouses of 10.03 °C with respect to the surroundings temperature.
After World War Two interest in the GHE was briefly resurrected again. But the American Meteorological Society shot this down in 1951 after it reviewed all the available data and produced the "Compendium of Meteorology" appearing to kill off the cultist claims.
However, fearmongers were finally able to resurrect the notion of a GHE in the mid 1980's when a certain ‘science adviser’ to Margaret Thatcher, Christopher Monckton (not then a Lord), helped promote the idea so as to aid the defeat of Britain’s striking coal miners.

Three Sides in the Climate Argument and Two are Wrong
Lord Monckton has fastidiously stood by his position that there is GHE despite prominently publishing his own findings that it just isn’t there. He finds himself on one of three sides at war in the great global warming debate and only one can be right.
Monckton along with other skeptics such as Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer have been labeled ‘lukewarmists’ for their stubborn adherence that there must be ‘some’ warming, however small caused by CO2. They are unlikely climate bedfellows with the likes of Professor Pratt and are opposed to the ‘Slayers’ group of GHE skeptics of which Professor Nahle has become increasingly prominent.

Another rising star of the Slayers group of scientists, Joe Postma concurs with Nahle’s results and says, “I will never be convinced of a radiative greenhouse effect without experimental proof. As it is, I have proven how the standard application of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which ostensibly explains the greenhouse effect is a complete fiction and tautology.”

Strident Slayers Begin Global Science Association
Postma and Nahle join long-standing GHE skeptics, Alan Siddons and Hans Schreuder as they prepare to formally launch a new global research association, Principia Scientific International (PSI) recruiting untold numbers of conscientious scientists sickened by endemic corruption within science.
Nahle’s new paper buttresses Siddons’ arguments and is earmarked to set the tone of the ‘no holds barred’ style of PSI, which will be set up as an independent (non-governmental) organization eschewing political interference. With a mission to uphold the scientific method with objectivity and transparency Nahle and his PSI compatriots insist empirical experimental research as the only means to prevail over dogmatic (government financed) junk science.
The new organization will be looking for other challenges once the mainstream finally accepts that it has slayed the climate fraud. But Siddons insists, “greenhouse theory and its associated alarmism only persist because of a stubborn refusal to question the following two assumptions below.

Assumption One: Gases that absorb infrared light thereby block infrared light.
Reality: Such gases radiate, i.e., “scatter” or spread out the light they absorb, thus releasing light in all directions rather than blocking it.

Assumption Two: Blocking the exit of light while allowing free entry will increase the temperature of an irradiated object.”
Reality: The light an object emits is a function of its temperature; its temperature is not a function of the light it emits. Accordingly, if incoming light raises an object to a certain temperature, the object will remain at that temperature whether it emits light to its surroundings or not. Any temperature increase in a confined condition is only due to reduced convective cooling.”

Such clear cut and plain-speaking objectivity, plus a wholesale return to the traditional scientific method, is the only acceptable paradigm for this emerging intellectual and scientific force.
-------------------------------------

Proving the “greenhouse gas effect” does not exist!
By Berthold Klein P.E November 16, 2010 revision 11-19-2010 REVISED STARTING JULY 4,2011

PREAMBLE: After hearing from a Ph. D in mechanical engineering and a teacher of environmental studies that they could not follow this experiment it is necessary to rewrite this experiment. It is necessary that anyone that can read to be able to understand this experiment and what it means. I made a mistake in the first edition as it is created as I thought about it and did the experiment. This edition is for everyone -the man on the street who would suffer the most by government “1984 Big Brother” control and the Ph. D in social studies or science.

I have been communicating with some ordinary people and some Ph. D's and I realize that my mission is a “Mission Impossible” being able to read does not mean that the reader can comprehend and that having a Ph. D means that their ego and arrogance will get in the way of comprehension. I will do my best with the help of those that edit the new version , so here goes.
Before this is released it will have been reviewed and edited by knowledge individuals most will have minimal science education but do understand that the “Greenhouse Gas effect” does not exist.

There are several words or terms used in this revision that need some explanation:

IR= infrared radiation is a form of radiation (invisible light also know as heat rays) that is present in sun light and is also radiated by every body of mater whether it is a gas, a liquid or a solid. If it is a living thing it will radiate more IR that if it is an inanimate object because of its temperature.

IRag= Certain gases will absorb different wavelengths of radiation (a characteristic of the light ) depending on the construction of the gas. Some gases do not absorb IR , their construction will not allow them to absorb the IR, they may absorb other forms of radiation but as was said above they still radiate IR. Many other materials including water will absorb IR. These should not be included in the term IRags. The words “greenhouse gas effect” has never been proven by creditable scientific experiments and therefore will only be used when absolutely necessary.

Water/l/v/s=Water has some very important characteristic that are important to earth and to live on earth. Because of earth's fortunate location in the universe, its temperature varies from a low of -90 F to a high 130 F+. But in the majority of the earth temperatures are between 0 F to 100 F. and water can change from a gas at all temperature, to a liquid at 32F(0C) or above, and a solid below 32 F.(0 C). Many people who pretend to be scientists choose to ignore these facts and call Water/l/v/s a “greenhouse gas” As we go through this experiment it will become clearer why this is bad science.

CO2= a gas that is breathed out by every living mammal and most other living creature, it is absorbed by plants and algae and is them converted back to oxygen which we need to live. Most process that produce mechanical movements and electrical energy convert fossil fuels to CO2 (carbon dioxide) A very important and necessary part of live on this planets.

CH4= methane a part of “natural gas” used to heat homes, cook food and run engines as cars, buses and trucks, etc. It is present in the ground along with oil but is only present in the air (atmosphere) at very tiny amounts. (part per billion) While millions of tons of this gas escape into the atmosphere most of this is destroyed by interaction with Ozone (O3) and UV a very active radiation present in sunlight. (this reaction is documented by a paper in the EPA library) The Methane that is formed by bacteria is almost everywhere. Its from swamps, rice paddies, bottom of oceans, lakes and streams, decaying leaf piles etc. It is a part of natures process of recycling.

NO2= a gas formed by nature when there is lightening. It is also formed in any high temperature burning including engines. The gas is washed out of the atmosphere in every rainstorm. It is used by plants, and is very necessary for their growth.

To demonstrate if the “greenhouse gas effect exists it is necessary to define it.

The hypotheses of the “greenhouse gas effect” is the process where a combination of IR absorbing gases including Water/vapor/liquid/solid, CO2.CH4. NO2 and others are super insulation and cause the atmosphere to be 33 degrees warmer than would be explained by the “black body temperature” A term developed by a renowned physicist as a theoretical way to compare radiation. There are only a few materials and conditions that approach these theoretical properties. (The earth and its atmosphere is not one of them.).

How is this done? The hypothesis says that the IRags absorb the IR radiation then it is “back radiated to earth causing the earth to be warmer by the resonating of this heat energy.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of the magic caused by the “greenhouse gas effect” as has been said the truth is in the details therefore anyone that wants to get into more of the details, please join in.

As others have not started to define “The greenhouse gas effect” lets start with what are the “features that should be testable!” Because water/liquid, vapor, solid (H2O /lvs) is different than gases IRags as CO2 ,CH4, NO2 and others gases - the IRags will be dealt with first.

Critical features:

1. The IRags absorb the IR radiation and thus prevent it from escaping into space, reducing the rate of atmospheric cooling - it causes the air to be warmer.
2. The IRags will “back radiate” IR radiation to earth to cause increased heating of the surface.
3. The IRags will heat up by the absorption of the IR radiation thus heating the air.
4. The IRag's have different levels of  “back-forcing”. Thus CO2 is supposed to be from 23 to 70 times more “back radiation “ and CH4 (methane) is 1000 times that of CO2. Having asked others how this is determined, (no answer yet), it is assumed that someone has reviewed the amount of IR that a particular molecule absorbs by a IR spectrophotometer analysis then comparing this to the absorption of CO2. (I have not seen any experimental data that the “back-forcing” relates to absorption). This is a very important feature of the “ghg effect”
5. The higher the concentration of IRags the greater the amount of  “back-radiation”, the higher the temperature of the Earth and “global atmospheric temperature will also increase.
6. The concentration of CO2 found in million year old Ice cores can be used as proof that the “ghg effect” exists. When there is no experimental data that proves that the “ghg effect” exists.
7. Where does this lead?

What experiment could be performed to “prove” that the ''greenhouse gas effect exists.

All the AGW point out it is impossible to simulate what actually happens in the atmosphere therefore they propose using computer models. The problem with “computer models'' is that unless all the factors that affect the atmosphere are included into the program, it is “garbage in garbage out”. When this is tried there are no computers made that have sufficient capacity to handle all of the factors. Many of the factors are not even fully know yet. Then the big guess is what are the factors to include and which are really of minor importance and can be left out and still get usable results. To date no one has come up with the “right model”. More than 20 different “models of weather /climate program have been published and not one has been successful in predicting the weather a year from now, let alone a hundred years from now.

Using the list of “critical factor” lets see if there are some ways of indicating if the concept may exist.

To use the concentration of IRags in the atmosphere for testing does not work, otherwise there would not be the controversy that exists today. In the field of engineering and research there is the use of “scale models” or models with similar factors that can be either up sized or down sized. That are either similar in behavior or can be proportioned to a larger or smaller series of events that relate to an actual set of events. That generate data that can be compared to known conditions or events.

As the amount of heating that is supposed to be added by the “greenhouse gas effect” is in the order of fractions of a degree per year - (some claim the change to be 1 to 3 degrees/ year), we need a more dramatic experiment to show that the concept actually exists. If the experiment at a much higher concentration does demonstrate the effect then the concept does exist. If the concept does work at high concentration then it can be tried with lower and lower concentrations until a threshold of effects is reached. However if the concept does not work at high concentrations of IRags then the concept of the theoretical “greenhouse gas effect “has been proven to be a fraud.

Some numbers are needed now: By definition 10,000 ppm is 1%, therefore 100 % equals 1 million parts per million (1x10+6) . Another way to put it is if there are 1 million soldiers in the army and only one has a gun, he better have a lot of bullets if he is going to defend the country. The atmosphere is supposed to contain 400 ppm (round number) therefore a concentration of 100% CO2 is 2500 times that of what is in the atmosphere. If the effect exists it should be much easier to measure and demonstrate that “back radiation” is causing a heating effect on the earth.

Now it is claimed that CH4 has from 23 to 70 times the effect of CO2, thus using the lowers figure by using a concentration of 100 % CH4, the effect should be 57500 times stronger that using CO2. It is claimed that NO2 is 100 times more powerful that CO2 thus it should cause 250,000 times the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.

As CH4 is found to be about 2ppB (2E-9)in the atmosphere, a concentration of 100 % CH4 should give a result that is 5 X 10 + 10 times what exists in the atmosphere.

Now if CH4 has 23 times the effect of CO2 another longer chain hydrocarbon molecule will be even more powerful thus the proposed experiment shown below was done with 100 % butane.

The experiment shown below substituted “natural gas” a mixture of 70% CH4 about 29% CO2 and the remainder is H2 and other trace gases. This is readily available for test purposed from any natural gas stove. Now 100 % CO2 is available for several sources, but one that is not too expensive is from any paint ball supply store, another is from a supplier of dry ice. Do not use Alka Seltzer as you have to put this in water to get the CO2 thus you have a mixture of CO2 and water and water vapor – you are not testing the effect of CO2 only. Discussion of H2O/lvs in the atmosphere will follow later.

The natural gas mixture should have a combined effect of less that 100% CH4 by a weighted average of 70% CH4+ 29% CO2or 3.500000725X10+9 times the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. If this occurs the temperature increase must be measurable.

How does the experiment contain the high concentration of the IRags for this test? Having reviewed several experiments that contained the IRags is glass containers then they measures the increase in temperature of the gas which had increased, they claimed this increase was due to the “ghg”effect, they are absolutely wrong. The cause of the temperature increase was due to the heating of the glass by its absorbing the IR and the glass heating. (A Master's thesis (peer reviewed) with this information is available on request). Another failure of these tests were their including a black cardboard inside the containers, thus additional heating of the IRags from conduction of heat from the black cardboard. (They created a Greenhouse effect-confined space heating)

The proper way to contain the high concentration of IRags is in a thin walled material that will not absorb the IR and heat. The experiment used crystal clear mylar balloons. They are available in various sizes, several 20 inch diameter (major diameter) were chosen. If you want you can use larger ones to contain larger numbers of IRag molecules.

Now lets discuss the experiment.

1. Fill the balloons with the various IRags, and one with dry air as a control.
2. Let the balloons reach ambient temperature. If you are going to use sunlight let it adjust outside in the shade.
3. Use an IR thermometer to check the temperatures of each balloon, use a digital thermometer that reads to 0.1 degree to check air temperature in the shade. Record data.
4. Take a large black matte board or a large black cloth or sheet and lay it on the ground in the sun. Use the IR thermometer to check the temperature as it rises in the sun. Record the data. When it appears to reach a maximum then go to step 5.
5. Suspend the balloons over the black background (about 1 foot above) and measure the temperature of the balloons initially. Record the temperature.
6. Measure the temperature of the black background in the “shadow” of each of the balloons; also measure the temperature of the black background outside of the “shadows” of the balloons.

Now lets repeat the Critical factors and note the result of my test to the critical factor.
Critical features:

1. The IRags absorb the IR radiation and thus prevent it from escaping into space reducing the rate of atmospheric cool - it causes the air to be warmer. The air between the balloons and the black background did not change temperature.
2. The IRags will “back radiate” IR radiation to earth to cause increased heating of the surface. The black background did not change temperature either in the “shadow” or outside the shadow. The temperature of the black background heated to 20 t0 30 degrees above ambient before the balloons were placed over the black background. When this was done outside in bright sun light the black background heated to 130 to 140 degrees F. Similar temperature can be measured from black asphalt. When the experiment was done with the 500 watt power shop light (see below) inside the black background went from ambient of 70-72 degrees to 100 -110 degrees. Again when measuring the temperatures of the black background with the IR thermometer there was no measurable temperature difference anywhere along the surface.
3. The IRags will heat up by the absorption of the IR radiation thus heating the air. The balloons did not become any warmer than ambient. The IRags in the balloons will not warm because that would be a violation of the Bohr Model.
4. The IRags have different levels of “back-forcing”. Having asked others how this is determined, (no answer yet), it is assumed that someone has reviewed the amount of IR that a particular molecule absorbs by a spectrophotometer analysis then comparing this to the absorption of CO2. (I have not seen any experimental data that the “back-forcing” relates to absorption). (an assumption based on The Bohr model however a time factor is needed). As there was no temperature difference under any of the balloons, there was no stronger “back-forcing” because the IRag absorbed more IR radiation.
5. The higher the concentration of IRags the greater the amount of “back-radiation” the higher the “global atmospheric temperature will become. (were is the experimental data )
6. The concentration of CO2 found in million year old Ice cores can be used as proof that the “ghg effect” exists. When there is no experimental data that proves that the “ghg effect”exists.

Specifications of the IR thermometer: model: MTPRO laser-Micro Temp; temperature range: -41degree C/F to 1040 degrees F. IR range 5 to 16 nm. Angle of view D:S =11:1 cost about $60.00. many other models available.

I have thought about several refinements, but it would not change the bottom line that the “ghg effect” is a fairy-tale.

I'm sure that the AGW's will not believe this proves that the “greenhouse gas effect does not exists , therefore I challenge them to come up with an experiment that they claim “proves the existence of the “greenhouse gas effect”.

As an alternate light source the experiment has been performed with an incandescent light. By using a 500 watt shop power light which because of the temperature of the filament approach the spectral characteristics of the Sun light ( should have more long wave IR because of a lower temperature) It was place one(1) meter away from the balloons to avoid conduction and convection heating of the balloons. As is stated above there was no difference in the final results.

Now lets talk about water( H2O/lvs):

Yes H2O/lvs has a major effect on weather conditions, where I'm at in Northern Ohio it just started to rain, if it gets any colder we will have snow or sleet. Of course tomorrow it may be sunny and clear. As is said in the Great Lakes region if you don't like the weather wait 15 minutes and it will change. Now the “climate” has not changed for the last 300 years just ask the Indians.

Any way lets look a H2O/lvs in the atmosphere : If its clear the humidity can be from near 0 % relative humidity to 100%. Now if it 's cloudy the “relative Humidity” can vary from 30 to 100% depending on temperatures. Now we know that the air temperature where the clouds are forming is at or below the “dew point”, now as the H2O vapor cools to form clouds there is a release of energy (heat of condensation), if the general air temperature is low enough (below freezing) more energy is released as ice or snow is formed. This energy has to be dissipated either as IR radiation or as lightning or probably high winds or tornado.

This is only one phase of the complex weather conditions when H2O/lvs is being evaluated another is the solar heating of clouds both day and night. During the day the warming of the top of clouds is obvious but it is also relevant that in spite of significant solar absorption the “clouds “ have not absorbed enough radiation to convert the water or solids back to vapor; there is probably a rapid turbulent exchange of energy in both directions from evaporation/ sublimation to condensing, to freezing. This is why “climatologists” can not get the correct “sign” on the “forcing”, as it is a constantly changing set of conditions, none are wrong and none are correct.

Now lets add the next variable - solar heating at night of the clouds. Having taken IR radiation measurements at night for the last year at many different times by solar time it is apparent that when the sun goes down below the visible horizon, the clouds are still receiving solar energy. This has been confirmed by both measurements and visible lighting (multiple colors) of the clouds. The clouds and the atmosphere cool until about 2:00 am when there is measurable increases in cloud temperatures and air temperatures. This warming continues until daylight is visible. The degree of warming is related to the time of year and what is happening with the jet stream and arctic storms.

There are other factors that are being monitored by real astrophysics researcher that are showing that Solar flares, and different type of radiation have an effect on cloud formation,this is only a beginning of learning about our atmosphere.

There is no way in the world of fairy-tales that CO2 can have an effect on weather or “climate”.

The nice thing about this experiment is that it can be done by high school physics classes or freshmen college physics lab classes . It would teach a very important lesson in that “not all experiments have to have a “positive” end result to be meaningful”.

Mann-made global warming is a hoax,because the “greenhouse gas effect” is a fairy -tale.

Berthold Klein P.E.

November 19, 2010
List of references:
The paper "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics" by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.

Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
R.W.Wood from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory By Alan Siddons from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 - 09:10:34 AM CST

The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.
“In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”

After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and that the ghg effect does not exist. After that, Niels Bohr published his work and received a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current pretend president.

Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” – one fact out-does 1 million “scientist, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.

University of Pennsylvania Law School ILE, INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS
A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School, and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania
RESEARCH PAPER NO. 10-08 Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination, Jason Scott Johnston, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, May 2010
This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:
http://ssrn.
Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv: 'There is no direct evidence showing that CO2 caused 20th century warming, or as a matter of fact, any warming' link to this paper on climate depot.
Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory [Kindle Edition] by Tim Ball, Claes Johnson, Martin Hertzberg, Joseph A. Olson, Alan Siddons, Charles Anderson, Hans Schreuder, John O'Sullivan.

Web- site references:
www.americanthinker.com Ponder the Maunder
wwwclimatedepot.com
icecap.us
www.stratus-sphere.com
SPPI
The Great Climate Clash -archives December, 2010 , G3 The greenhouse gas effect does not exist.( not yet peer reviewed).
many others are available.

The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that man-made global warming is the World's larges Scam!!! The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted,  they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb." - Benjamin Franklin

• Ignoring scientific data that is contrary to the central conclusions.
• Failure to rigorously test hypotheses using physical observations.
• Assuming results are evidence of cause.
• Assuming a poor correlation is evidence of cause.
• Assuming a thorough knowledge of the climate system.
• Assuming that calculations involving variables with a low level of understanding can produce results embodying a high level of understanding.
• Assuming projections from unverified models are scientific knowledge.
• Not considering the history before 50 years ago"

(Alternative) Summary for Policy Makers:
(found at Heliogenic Climate Change)

1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.
2. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems that render them useless for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.
3. All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally.
4. Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting.
5. There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming.
6. Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper siting, and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades further overstates warming.
7. Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed longer term warming is 30-50% from heat-island contamination alone.
8. Cherry-picking of observing sites combined with interpolation to vacant data grids may make heat-island bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming.
9. In the oceans, data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Comprehensive coverage has only been available since 2003, and shows no warming.
10. Satellite temperature monitoring has provided an alternative to terrestrial stations in compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record. Their findings are increasingly diverging from the station-based constructions in a manner consistent with evidence of a warm bias in the surface temperature record.
11. NOAA and NASA, along with CRU, were the driving forces behind the systematic hyping of 20th-century “global warming”.
12. Changes have been made to alter the historical record to mask cyclical changes that could be readily explained by natural factors like multidecadal ocean and solar changes.
13. Global terrestrial data bases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends or VALIDATE model forecasts.
14. An inclusive external assessment is essential of the surface temperature record of CRU, GISS and NCDC “chaired and paneled by mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.”
15. Reliance on the global data by both the UNIPCC and the US GCRP/CCSP also requires a full investigation and audit.”

Full Report at Science and Public Policy Org http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.html

Among some of the facts that came out: These Scientists urged each other 'to present a "unified" view on their theory of man-made climate change, calling it an important "common cause." They also advised each other on how to adjust data so it wouldn't compromise their hypothesis, discussed ways to keep opposing views out of leading Science journals,  and gave tips on how to "hide the decline" of temperature in certain inconvenient data.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf - Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts (2010): Surface temperature records: policy-driven deception? (200 pages) "..so much fiddling and dishonesty have been going on that it is impossible to say whether warming has occurred at all". Surface temperature recordings are in a terrible mess. Important read.
 

• Nov 12, 2003: “The Sun Goes Haywire – Solar maximum is years past, yet the sun has been remarkably active lately. Is the sunspot cycle broken?” http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/12nov_haywire.htm
• Oct 18, 2004: “Something strange happened on the sun last week: all the sunspots vanished. This is a sign, say scientists, that solar minimum is coming sooner than expected.” http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/18oct_solarminimum.htm
• May 5, 2005: “Solar Myth – With solar minimum near, the sun continues to be surprisingly active.” http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/05may_solarmyth.htm
• Sept 15, 2005: “Solar Minimum Explodes – Solar minimum is looking strangely like Solar Max.” http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/15sep_solarminexplodes.htm
• Aug 15th, 2006: “Backward Sunspot – A strange little sunspot may herald the coming of one of the stormiest solar cycles in decades.” http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/15aug_backwards.htm
• Dec 21, 2006 “Scientists Predict Big Solar Cycle – Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one.” http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm
• Dec 14, 2007 “Is a New Solar Cycle Beginning? – The solar physics community is abuzz this week. ” http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/14dec_excitement.htm
• Jan 10, 2008: “Solar Cycle 24 – Hang on to your cell phone, a new solar cycle has just begun. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/10jan_solarcycle24.htm
• March 28, 2008: “Old Solar Cycle Returns – Barely three months after forecasters announced the beginning of new Solar Cycle 24, old Solar Cycle 23 has returned.” http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/28mar_oldcycle.htm
• July 11, 2008: “What’s Wrong with the Sun? (Nothing) – Stop the presses! The sun is behaving normally.” http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/11jul_solarcycleupdate.htm
• Sept. 30, 2008: “Spotless Sun: Blankest Year of the Space Age - Sunspot counts are at a 50-year low – We’re experiencing a deep minimum of the solar cycle.” http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30sep_blankyear.htm
• Nov. 7, 2008: The Sun Shows Signs of Life – I think solar minimum is behind us” http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/07nov_signsoflife.htm
• April 1, 2009: Deep Solar Minimum – We’re experiencing a very deep solar minimum – This is the quietest sun we’ve seen in almost a century” http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
• May 29, 2009: “If our prediction is correct, Solar Cycle 24 will have a peak sunspot number of 90, the lowest of any cycle since 1928 when Solar Cycle 16 peaked at 78,” http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29may_noaaprediction.htm
• June 17, 2009: “Mystery of the Missing Sunspots, Solved? The sun is in the pits of a century-class solar minimum, and sunspots have been puzzlingly scarce for more than two years.” http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/17jun_jetstream.htm
• September 3, 2009: “Are Sunspots Disappearing? – The sun is in the pits of the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century. Weeks and sometimes whole months go by without even a single tiny sunspot. The quiet has dragged out for more than two years, prompting some observers to wonder, are sunspots disappearing? http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/03sep_sunspots.htm
• September 29, 2009 “Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High – In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we’ve seen in the past 50 years,” says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech. “The increase is significant, and it could mean we need to re-think how much radiation shielding astronauts take with them on deep-space missions.” http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29sep_cosmicrays.htm
• March 12, 2010 “NASA – Solar ‘Current of Fire’ Speeds Up – the top of the sun’s Great Conveyor Belt has been running at record-high speeds for the past five years. ” http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/12mar_conveyorbelt/
• July 15, 2010 “A Puzzling Collapse of Earth’s Upper Atmosphere – This is the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years” http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere/
• Sept. 21, 2010: “Solar Storms can Change Directions, Surprising Forecasters” http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/21sep_zigzag/
• Dec. 13, 2010: “Global Eruption Rocks the Sun – A global eruption on the sun has shattered old ideas about solar activity.” http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/13dec_globaleruption/

My question to NASA, is the sun still “behaving normally” and what exactly is normal behavior for a 4.6 Billion year-old G-type Main Sequence Star?

Exclusive Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.

Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN's IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.
Click here to find out more!

One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.

The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is astonishing rebuke to international pressure, and a vote of confidence in Japan's native marine and astronomical research. Publicly-funded science in the West uniformly backs the hypothesis that industrial influence is primarily responsible for climate change, although fissures have appeared recently. Only one of the five top Japanese scientists commissioned here concurs with the man-made global warming hypothesis.

JSER is the academic society representing scientists from the energy and resource fields, and acts as a government advisory panel. The report appeared last month but has received curiously little attention. So The Register commissioned a translation of the document - the first to appear in the West in any form. Below you'll find some of the key findings - but first, a summary.
Summary

Three of the five leading scientists contend that recent climate change is driven by natural cycles, not human industrial activity, as political activists argue.

Kanya Kusano is Program Director and Group Leader for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology (JAMSTEC). He focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Using undiplomatic language, Kusano compares them to ancient astrology. After listing many faults, and the IPCC's own conclusion that natural causes of climate are poorly understood, Kusano concludes:

"[The IPCC's] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonic increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis," he writes.

Shunichi Akasofu, head of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska, has expressed criticism of the theory before. Akasofu uses historical data to challenge the claim that very recent temperatures represent an anomaly:

"We should be cautious, IPCC's theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis. "

Akasofu calls the post-2000 warming trend hypothetical. His harshest words are reserved for advocates who give conjecture the authority of fact.

"Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth... The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken."

Key Passages Translated
What is the source of the rise in atmospheric temperature in the second half of the 20th century?

Shunichi Akasofu [Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)

Introductory discussion.
Point 1.1: Global Warming has halted

Global mean temperature rose continuously from 1800-1850. The rate of increase was .05 degrees Celsius per 100 years. This was mostly unrelated to CO2 gas (CO2 began to increase suddenly after 1946. Until the sudden increase, the CO2 emissions rate had been almost unchanged for 100 years). However, since 2001, this increase halted. Despite this, CO2 emissions are still increasing.

According to the IPCC panel, global atmospheric temperatures should continue to rise, so it is very likely that the hypothesis that the majority of global warming can be ascribed to the Greenhouse Effect is mistaken. There is no prediction of this halt in global warming in IPCC simulations. The halt of the increase in temperature, and slight downward trend is "something greater than the Greenhouse Effect," but it is in effect. What that "something" is, is natural variability.

From this author's research into natural (CO2 emissions unrelated to human activity) climate change over the past 1000 years, it can be asserted that the global temperature increase up to today is primarily recovery from the "Little Ice Age" earth experienced from 1400 through 1800 (i.e. global warming rate of change?0.5?/100).

The recovery in temperatures since follows a naturally variable 30-50 year cycle, (quasi-periodic variations), and in addition, this cycle has been positive since 1975, and peaked in the year 2000. This quasi-periodic cycle has passed its peak and has begun to turn negative.

(The IPCC ascribes the positive change since 1975, for the most part, to CO2 and the Greenhouse Effect.) This quasi-periodic cycle fluctuates 0.1 degrees C per 10 years, short term (on the order of 50 years). This quasi-periodic cycle's amplitude is extremely pronounced in the Arctic Circle , so it is easy to understand. The previous quasi-periodic cycle was positive from 1910 to 1940 and negative from 1940 to 1975 (despite CO2 emissions rapid increase after 1946).

Regardless of whether or not the IPCC has sufficiently researched natural variations, they claim that CO2 has increased particularly since 1975. Consequently, after 2000, although it should have continued to rise, atmospheric temperature stabilised completely (despite CO2 emissions continuing to increase). Since 1975 the chances of increase in natural variability (mainly quasiperiodic vibration) are high; moreover, the quasiperiodic vibration has turned negative. For that reason, in 2000 Global Warming stopped, after that, the negative cycle will probably continue.

Regarding the current temporary condition (la Nina) JPL observes a fluctuation of the quasiperiodic cycle [JSER editor's note: this book is is still being proofed as of 12/19]. So we should be cautious, IPCC's theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis.

They should have verified this hypothesis by supercomputer, but before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for "truth". This truth is not observationally accurate testimony. This is sidestepping of global warming theory with quick and easy answers, so the opinion that a great disaster will really happen must be broken.

It seems that global warming and the halting of the temperature rise are related to solar activity. Currently, the sun is "hibernating". The end of Sunspot Cycle 23 is already two years late: the cycle should have started in 2007, yet in January 2008 only one sunspot appeared in the sun's northern hemisphere, after that, they vanished completely (new sunspots have now begun to appear in the northern hemisphere). At the current time, it can clearly be seen there are no spots in the photosphere. Lately, solar winds are at their lowest levels in 50 years. Cycle 24 is overdue, and this is is worrisome.

So, have there been other historical periods with an absence of sunspots? As a matter of fact, from 1650 to 1700 approximately, there were almost no sunspots. This time period has been named for the renown English astronomer Maunder, and is called the Maunder Minimum.

There is a relationship between transported energy and the light emissions from the photosphere and sunspots. It was thought that times of few sunspots are times of lower energy. Satellites were launched in 1980 to research this, and results were contrary to expectations. It became clear that these times were more energetic than periods of high sunspots. Periods of low sunspots have vigorous solar activity. The total change during sunspot cycles is usually .0.1%, from the Maunder Minimum to today the increase is .05%. The Maunder Minimum fell in the middle of the period of 1400-1800, the Little Ice Age, and it was theorized that this was due to a cut in solar emissions. The theory is that solar activity began to increase after that, and from 1800 global warming increased and recovery from the Little Ice Age began.

But sunspot change and climate change are not clearly correlated. Rather, the cycle was not the punctual 11 years, scientific research indicates that climate change is related to that change. Furthermore, according to the IPCC's computational investigation, this energy increase does not significantly contribute to global warming. But then, the IPCC insists that current global warming correlates to CO2, solar influence is estimated as minimal, this calculation should be redone. This 0.1-0.5% is an enormous sum of energy. The energy of solar emissions is not just light from the photosphere. Solar winds cause geomagnetic storms, yet comparisons of solar wind and light energy to particle emissions are rarely carried out. Research into the relationship between geomagnetic storms and climate change has been undertaken for almost 100 years. However, because during this time, this simple correlation has not been seen, no conclusion has been reached. The super-hot temperatures of geomagnetic storms higher than 100 kilometers have increased, and the chances of the stratospheric and tropospheric transference are low.

Through the 11 year sunspot cycle, ultraviolet rays vary considerably, the ionosphere and ozone layer are affected. Whether or not this affects the troposphere is unknown. More research is necessary. On the other hand, cosmic rays continuously fall, it seems that they constantly seed comparatively low clouds. The solar system may shield us somewhat from Geomagnetic storms caused by solar winds, so called "magnetic clouds" may shield us from extrasolar cosmic rays, so solar activity and climate are in a complex relationship.

In this way, climate change and solar activity's relationship is inconclusive. It is necessary to increase research efforts into the relationship between Earth's climate fluctuations and solar activity.
 

Predicting the Future with Numerical Simulation
Kanya Kusano, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology (JAMSTEC)

Numerical simulation by forecast models are generally classified as theoretical models and empirical models. The former follows universal laws and carries out predictive calculations, the latter makes models that are thought to be realistic from data of phenomenon. These two methods cannot be strictly differentiated, generally experiential methods gradually become theoretical methods, finally becoming the generally accepted dogma.

Celestial mechanics originated in astrological prediction of solar and lunar eclipses, calendars were experiential predictions; mechanistic theory evolved when we reached an era of accurate computation. Consequently, the predictability of celestial mechanics became extremely high and practical estimates gave way to proof. Similarly, modern Global Climate Models still largely dependent on empirical models. Fundamental principles, therefore must resolve very complex physical/chemical/biological processes and phenomenon. That is why many artificial optimization operations (parameterization tuning) are needed, or we will not be able to reproduce the phenomenon. Because of this, besides mathematical accuracy, the people who construct models' choice of processes and optimum operating guidelines will have large scale effects on the calculated results.

1. Scientific Understanding and Uncertainty
When constructing models, if our scientific understanding is poor, we are not able to capture the model. But we should pay attention to the importance of the naturally occurring processes when our scientific understanding is not yet clearly decided.

In the IPCC's 4th Evaluation Report, a few potentially major processes were discussed; but [since] scientific understanding was too low to decide, the evaluation of these was omitted. In order to scientifically understand the uncertainty of accurate estimates according to the potential importance of these processes, "the cause of lack of scientific understanding and uncertainty" must be assessed.

Finally, uncertainty estimates should be included. For example, the effect of variances in cosmic ray activity on clouds, caused by sunspot activity, solar flares accompanied by energetic protons striking the upper atmosphere and generating NOx and ozone effects [*], etc., are not sufficiently understood and incorporated into the models.

Also, there are great uncertainties in reproducing historical TSI (Total Solar Irradiance), TSI fluctuation and spectral change related climate sensitivity estimates are inadequate.

2. The limits of modeling aerosols and clouds
The indirect effect of aerosols and aerosol generation as the greatest uncertainty is becoming widely recognized, but fundamental, naturally spontaneous (especially oceanic) aerosols are not yet well understood. Dimethyl sulfide (DMS: CH3SCH3) of biological origin is thought to be a primary source of sulphuric aerosol formation over oceans, but the process of cloud cores forming from DMS is not sufficiently understood. According to recent physical models, the percentage of involvement of cosmic ray ionization processes is not well understood.

Furthermore, the types of aerosols and the ways they affect climate systems are not well understood. The increasing number of aerosols, in this case, augments precipitation, but if it increases too much, water droplet diameter will decrease and cloud generation will be renewed, and the albedo will be changed significantly. Thus, the fine-scale physical processes of clouds causing feedback in geological climate fluctuation now clearly points at this as a decisively material effect.

However, the discussion of the properties and life span of aerosols in clouds in the IPCC 4th Evaluation Report is inadequate.

3. Predictability and estimation rules
The 4th Evaluation Report is confident of the reliability of its assessment that previous data does not differ from its model. But a more effectively persuasive assessment of its predictive ability has not come forth. This is like the ancient Greek Thales predicting solar eclipses, future predictions should be tested in practice. Again, by means of short metaphase models and domain models, future information feedback can be isolated in hindcast experiments (reproducing the past according to the model) and quantitatively compared to long term climate predictions assessments.

4. Conclusion: Anthropogenic global warming theory still hypothetical
To summarize the discussion so far, compared to accurately predicting solar eclipses by celestial mechanics theoretical models, climate models are still in the phase of reliance on trial and error experiential models. There are still no successful precedents. The significance of this is that climate change theory is still dominated by anthropogenic greenhouse gas causation; the IPCC 4th Evaluation Report's conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to continuously, monotonously increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis; it will be necessary investigate further and to evaluate future predictions as subject to natural variability. ®

[Translation by Charles Eicher.]

I am often amused by claims that we understand Earth’s climate system, are able to accurately measure its behavior, eliminate all potential variables except CO2 as the primary driver of Earth’s temperature and make predictions of Earth’s temperature decades into the future, all with a high degree of confidence. I have been studying Earth’s climate system for several years and have found it to be a ridiculously complex, continually evolving and sometimes chaotic beast. Furthermore, our understanding of Earth’s climate system is currently rudimentary at best, our measurement capabilities are limited and our historical record is laughably brief. To help demonstrate the complexity of Earth’s climate system I have been compiling a list of all of the variables potentially involved in Earth’s climate system. This is a work in progress so additions, recommendations, corrections, questions etc. are most welcome. Once I develop this further and polish it up a bit I plan to convert it into a new WUWT Reference Page.

1. Earth’s Rotational Energy;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6h.html

results in day and night; http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_rotation_cause_day_and_night

causes the Coriolis Effect; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect

imparts Planetary Vorticity on the oceans; http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter12/chapter12_01.htm

and manifests as Ocean Gyres; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_gyre

the Antarctic Circumpolar Current; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Circumpolar_Current
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conveyor_belt.svg

and Arctic Ocean circulation: http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=441&cid=47170&ct=61&article=20727
http://www.john-daly.com/polar/flows.jpg

Earth’s Rotational Energy influences Atmospheric Circulation; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation

including the Jet Stream; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream

Westerlies; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westerlies

Tradewinds; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_wind

Tropical Cyclones; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone

Tornadoes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado

and Polar Vortices; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex

which “are caused when an area of low pressure sits at the rotation pole of a planet. This causes air to spiral down from higher in the atmosphere, like water going down a drain.”
http://www.universetoday.com/973/what-venus-and-saturn-have-in-common/

Here’s an animation of the Arctic Polar Vortex in Winter 2008 – 09; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIXfYTSmBg0&feature=player_embedded

Earth’s Rotational Energy drives Plate Tectonics;

“By analyzing the minute changes in travel times and wave shapes for each doublet, the researchers concluded that the Earth’s inner core is rotating faster than its surface by about 0.3-0.5 degrees per year. That may not seem like much, but it’s very fast compared to the movement of the Earth’s crust, which generally slips around only a few centimeters per year compared to the mantle below, said Xiaodong Song, a geologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and an author on the study.
The surface movement is called plate tectonics. It involves the shifting of about a dozen major plates and is what causes most earthquakes. “ which result in Earthquakes;

most Volcanoes; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano

and Mountain Formation; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_formation

which can influence the creation of Atmospheric Waves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_wave

Plate Tectonics also drive Wilson Cycles; http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/fichter/Wilson/Wilson.html

“Cycles of ocean basin growth and destruction, known as Wilson cycles, involving continental rifting, seafloor-spreading, subduction, and collision.”; “Climate change on ultra-long time scales (tens of millions of years) are more than likely connected to plate tectonics.”
” Through the course of a Wilson cycle continents collide and split apart, mountains are uplifted and eroded, and ocean basins open and close. The re-distribution and changing size and elevation of continental land masses may have caused climate change on long time scales.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html

and the Supercontinent Cycle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent_cycle

Lastly, Rotational Energy is the primary driver of Earth’s Dynamo; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory

which generates Earth’s Magnetic Field; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field

and accounts for the Earthy behaviors of Magnetosphere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere

2. Earth’s Orbital Energy, Elliptical Orbit around the Sun (Eccentricity), Tilt (Obliquity) and Wobble (Axial precession):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_orbital_energy
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6h.html

creates seasons; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season

which drives annual changes in Arctic Sea Ice; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j8SGs_gnFk&feature=player_embedded

and Antarctic Sea Ice; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHvrjX7AP-8&feature=player_embedded

the freezing and melting of which helps to drive the Thermohaline Circulation; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation

On longer time frames changes to Earth’s orbit, tilt and wobble called Milankovitch cycles; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

may be responsible for the periods of Glaciation (Ice Ages); http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm

that Earth has experienced for the last several million years of its climatic record: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

3. Gravitation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation

The gravity of the Moon and Sun, Earth’s rotation, Earth’s orbit around the Sun, Earth’s tilt, Earth’s wobble and the Moon’s orbit around Earth act in concert to determine the constantly evolving Tidal Force on Earth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force

This tidal force results in that result in Earth’s Ocean Tide; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide
http://www.themcdonalds.net/richard/astro/papers/602-tides-web.pdf

Atmospheric Tide; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_tide

Magma Tide: http://www.springerlink.com/content/h7005r0273703250/

Tidal forces vary based Lunar Phases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_phase

Lunar Precession; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_precession

Lunar Node; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_node

Saros cycles; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_cycle

and Inex cycles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inex

The combined cycles of the Saros and Inex Cycles can be visualized here:
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/image/SEpanoramaGvdB-big.JPG

Earth’s gravity;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection#Gravitational_or_buoyant_convection
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=205

in concert with Tidal Forces, influence Earth’s Ocean Circulation;
which influences Oceanic Oscillations including El Nino/La Nina; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o-Southern_Oscillation

the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Decadal_Oscillation

the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO) and; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Multidecadal_Oscillation

the Indian_Ocean_Dipole (IOD)/Indian Ocean Oscillation (IOO); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean_Dipole

Gravity Waves; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave

which may be partially responsible for the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-biennial_oscillation

“on an air–sea interface are called surface gravity waves or Surface Waves”; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_wave

“while internal gravity waves are called Inertial Waves”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_waves

“Rosby Waves; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rossby_waves

Geostrophic Currents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostrophic

and Geostrophic Wind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostrophic_wind

are examples of inertial waves. Inertial waves are also likely to exist in the core of the Earth”

4. Solar Energy;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy

results is Solar Radiation/Sunlight; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation

which varies based upon 11 and 22 year cycles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

Total Solar Irradiance (TSI); http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/solarirrad.html

appears to fluctuate “by approximately 0.1% or about 1.3 Watts per square meter (W/m2) peak-to-trough during the 11-year sunspot cycle”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

Solar Energy also drives the Hydrological/Water Cycle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrological_cycle

as Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) causes evaporation; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation

that drives cloud formation; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud

results in precipitation; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precipitation_%28meteorology%29

that results in the Water Distribution on Earth; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_distribution_on_Earth

creates surface runoff; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runoff_%28water%29

which result in rivers; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River

and drives erosion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erosion

Solar energy is also “The driving force behind atmospheric circulation is solar energy, which heats the atmosphere with different intensities at the equator, the middle latitudes, and the poles.”: http://www.scienceclarified.com/As-Bi/Atmospheric-Circulation.html

Atmospheric Circulation; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation

including Hadley Cells; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell

Ferrel Cells; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation#Ferrel_cell

Polar Cells and; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_cells

Polar Vortexes:

Solar energy is also a driver of the Brewer-Dobson Circulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewer-Dobson_circulation

Atmospheric Waves; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_wave

including Atmospheric Tides: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_tide

as well as evaporation and condensation may help to drive changes in Atmospheric Pressure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/10/24015/2010/acpd-10-24015-2010.pdf

Solar Ultraviolet (UV) radiation; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet

appears to varies by approximately 10% during the solar cycle; http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solarcycle-sorce.html

has been hypothesized to influence Earth’s climate; http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/05/courtillot-on-the-solar-uv-climate-connection/

and variations may influence the breaks down of Methane;
(Source TBD)

however Leif argues that, "This is well-trodden ground. Nothing new to add, just the same old, tired arguments. Perhaps a note on EUV: as you can see here (slide 13) http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2008ScienceMeeting/doc/Session1/S1_03_Kopp.pdf the energy in the EUV band [and other UV bands] is very tiny; many orders of magnitude less than what shines down on our heads each day. So a larger solar cycle variation of EUV does not make any significant difference in the energy budget.
Leif Svalgaard says: April 5, 2011 at 7:54 pm

Infrared Radiation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared

Solar – Wind; http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast13dec99_1/

Solar – Coronal Holes; http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/chole.html

Solar – Solar Energetic Particles (SEP); http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/sep.html

Solar – Coronal Mass Ejection;
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMF75BNJTF_index_0.html
http://www.ratedesi.com/video/v/8AuCE_NNEaM/Sun-Erupts-to-Life-Unleashes-a-Huge-CME-on-13-April-2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A783VS52QNw&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDZj1CmsJ64&feature=player_embedded

Solar Magnetosphere Breach; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd9DXTRqY94&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVqWH5Qlg8Y&feature=player_embedded

Solar Polar Field Reversal; http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast15feb_1/

Solar Sector Boundary; http://science.nasa.gov/heliophysics/focus-areas/magnetosphere-ionosphere/

Solar Grand Minimum;
Leif Svalgaard says: February 6, 2011 at 8:26 pm
If L&P are correct and sunspots become effectively] invisible [not gone] it might mean another Grand Minimum lasting perhaps 50 years. During this time the solar cycle is still operating, cosmic rays are still modulated, and the solar wind is still buffeting the Earth.” “It will lead to a cooling of a couple of tenths of a degree."

Solar Influences on Climate: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009RG000282.pdf

Statistical issues about solar–climate relations: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Yiou-565-2010.pdf

5. Geothermal Energy;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy

especially when released by volcanoes; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano

which have been shown to influence Earth’s climate;
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

including in the infamous Year Without a Summer; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

which was partially caused by the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1815_eruption_of_Mount_Tambora

and is called a Volcanic Winter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter

Geothermic Energy can also warm the atmosphere through Hot Springs; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_springs

Or warm the ocean through Hydrothermal Vents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_vent

Which can be a factor in Hydrothermal Circulations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_circulation

6. Outer Space/Cosmic/Galactic Influences;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy

including Asteroids; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid

Meteorites; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorite

and Comets; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet

can all significantly impact Earth’s climate upon impact.

It has been hypothesized that Galactic Cosmic Rays; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_cosmic_ray
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray

modulated by Solar Wind, may influence cloud formation on Earth:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/04/a-link-between-the-sun-cosmic-rays-aerosols-and-liquid-water-clouds-appears-to-exist-on-a-global-scale/

Galactic Magnetic Fields also result in the; http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Galactic_magnetic_fields

Galactic Tide; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_tide

which may influence the hypothesized Oort cloud; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_Cloud

“Besides the galactic tide, the main trigger for sending comets into the inner Solar System is believed to be interaction between the Sun’s Oort cloud and the gravitational fields of near-by stars or giant molecular clouds.”

7. Magnetic Forces;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field

Earth Core Changes: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42580

“appears to be generated in the Earth’s core by a dynamo process, associated with the circulation of liquid metal in the core, driven by internal heat sources”

Moving Poles; http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/GeomagneticPoles.shtml

Magnetosphere; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere

including movement of Poles: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091224-north-pole-magnetic-russia-earth-core.html

8. Atmospheric Composition
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Water
Argon
Carbon Dioxide
Neon
Helium
Methane
Hydrogen
Nitrous Oxide
Ozone
Aerosols
Particulates, especially Black Carbon/Soot
Sulfur, Sulfur Dioxide and Sulfuric Acid
etc.

9. Albedo
Clouds
Aerosols
Snow
Ice
Water
Particulates, especially Black Carbon/Soot

10. Biology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology

Plant - endothermic photosynthesis etc.
Bacteria – TBD
Fungi – TBD
Protozoa – TBD
Chromista – TBD

Animal – Anthropogenic including:
Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, Ozone
Particulates, especially Black Carbon/Soot, Aerosols
Icebreakers/Arctic Shipping/Fishing/Cruise-Line Transits
Contrails
Nuclear Power Generation – Including Ships
Land Use Changes – Including De and Re-Forestation
Urban Heat Islands
Run Off From Asphalt/Urban Heat Islands
Fossil Fuel Energy Generation Waste Heat
Sewage/Wastewater Treatment Discharge
etc.

Animal – Non-Anthropogenic including Plankton etc.

General summaries of the potential variables involved in Earth’s climate system;
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7y.html
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/whatfactors.pdf

Radiative forcing is a purely fictional concept that was introduced in its current form by Manabe and Wetherald in 1967.

Manabe, S. & R. T. Wetherald, J. Atmos. Sci. 24 241-249 (1967), ‘Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity’. The paper is available at: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm6701.pdf

Here are the modeling assumptions taken directly from the second page of that paper. They are still used explicitly in the large scale climate models. [This is the input garbage before the gospel gets created.] The radiative convective equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity should satisfy the following requirements:

1) At the top of the atmosphere, the net incoming solar radiation should be equal to the net outgoing long wave radiation.
2) No temperature discontinuity should exist.
3) Free and forced convection, and mixing by the large scale eddies, prevent the lapse rate from exceeding a critical lapse rate equal to 6.5 C.km-1.
4) Whenever the lapse rate is subcritical, the condition of local radiative equilibrium is satisfied.
5) The heat capacity of the Earth’s surface is zero.
6) The atmosphere maintains the given vertical distribution of relative humidity (new requirements).

There is no such thing as climate equilibrium.
The short term net flux is never in balance.
There is no ‘local radiative equilibrium’ anywhere in the troposphere.
The heat capacity of a real surface is never zero.

The ‘equilibrium surface temperature’ calculated by the climate models is not a measurable climate variable.
Also, the empirical ‘radiative forcing constants’ are ‘calibrated’ using the meteorological surface air temperature (MSAT) not the real surface temperature.
Every single result derived from the use of radiative forcing since 1967 is nothing more than climate astrology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy0_SNSM8kg

If these numbers are in the right ballpark the whole Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming scare just evaporates.

On average world temperature is ~+15 deg C. This is sustained by the atmospheric Greenhouse Effect ~33 deg C. Without the Greenhouse Effect the planet would be un-inhabitable at ~-18 deg C. The Biosphere and Mankind need the Greenhouse Effect.

Just running the numbers by translating the agents causing the Greenhouse Effect into degrees centigrade:
• Greenhouse Effect = ~33.00 deg C
• Water Vapour accounts for about 95% of the Greenhouse Effect = ~ 31.35 deg C
• Other Greenhouse Gases GHGs account for 5% = ~1.65 deg C
• CO2 is 75% of the effect of all accounting for the enhanced effects of Methane, Nitrous Oxide and other GHGs = ~1.24 deg C
• Most CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, more than ~93%
• Man-made CO2 is less than 7% of total atmospheric CO2 = ~0.087 deg C
• the UK contribution to CO2 is 2% equals = 1.74 thousandths deg C
• the USA contribution to CO2 is ~20% equals = 17.6 thousandths deg C

So closing all the carbon economies of the Whole World could only ever achieve a virtually undetectable less than -0.09 deg C. How can the Green movement and their supporting politicians think that their remedial actions and draconian taxes are able to limit warming to only + 2.00 deg C?

So the probability is that any current global warming is not man-made and in any case such warming could be not be influenced by any remedial action taken by mankind however drastic.

As this is so, the prospect should be greeted with Unmitigated Joy:
• concern over CO2 as a man-made pollutant can be discounted.
• it is not necessary to damage the world’s economy to no purpose.
• if warming were happening, it would lead to a more benign and healthy climate for all mankind.
• any extra CO2 is already increasing the fertility and reducing water needs of all plant life and thus enhancing world food production.
• a warmer climate, within natural variation, would provide a future of greater opportunity and prosperity for human development. This has been well proven in the past and would now especially benefit the third world.

Nonetheless, this is not to say that the world should not be seeking more efficient ways of generating its energy, conserving its energy use and stopping damaging its environments. And there is a real need to wean the world off the continued use of fossil fuels simply on the grounds of:
• security of supply
• increasing scarcity
• rising costs
• their use as the feedstock for industry rather than simply burning them.

The French long-term energy strategy with its massive commitment to nuclear power is impressive, (85% of electricity generation). Even if one is concerned about CO2, Nuclear Energy pays off, French CO2 emissions / head are the lowest in the developed world.

However in the light of the state of the current solar cycle, it seems that there is a real prospect of damaging cooling occurring in the near future for several decades. And as power stations face closure the lights may well go out in the winter 2016 if not before.

All because CO2 based Catastrophic Man-made Global Warming has become a state sponsored religion.

And now after “Splattergate” thanks to the 10:10 organisation everyone now knows exactly how they think.

Splattergate is classic NOBLE CAUSE CORRUPTION. It is probably the most egregious piece of publicity ever produced in the Man-made Global Warming cause. This short film shows doubting schoolchildren being blown up and having their entrails spread over their classmates because they may have been less than enthusiastic about the CAUSE. So any misrepresentation is valid in the Cause and any opposition however cogent or well qualified is routinely denigrated, publically ridiculed and as we now see literally to be terminated.

Carbon dioxide absorbs all infrared radiation available to it by the time radiation travels 10 meters from its point of origin (http://nov79.com/gbwm/hnzh.html#ten). Doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can do nothing more than shorten the distance to 5 meters. Shortening the distance is not increasing the heat.

The first attempt by climatologists to rationalize saturation was to claim saturation does not occur on the shoulders of the absorption peaks, because few CO2 molecules have the unusual stretched bonds which absorb at those wavelengths. After numerous attempts to explain such a mechanism failed, the rationale shifted to the upper atmosphere, where saturation supposedly does not occur. Contradictions go from bad to worse in the upper atmosphere.

The most important fact about global warming is that the subject was contrived without a scientific mechanism being known. It means there was no scientific reason for contriving the subject. There still is no known mechanism, while everything on the subject continues to be contrived.

The near-earth explanation fails due to extremely thin CO2 concentrations on the shoulders of the absorption peaks. Shoulder molecules spread miniscule amounts of heat over long distances resulting in no significant temperature increase.

If 5% of CO2 molecules are assumed to have shoulder characteristics, they would be spread over 20 times as much distance as the other 95%.   Not only do they represent 1/20th the heat captured by CO2, but they produce 1/20th as much temperature change with each unit of heat, since they are spread through 20 times as much atmosphere. Multiplying 1/20 times 1/20 equals 1/400th as much temperature change as the other 95% of the CO2.

The total temperature increase resulting from doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is said to be 1°C. Does this mean shoulder molecules are doing this? If so, the other 95% must have increased the temperature by 400°C. How do climatologists resolve these contradictions? They don't. Which is why this subject is not science; it's religion and politics-religion because 97% of the scientists could not be wrong, and politics because energy systems are destroyed and economies are bankrupt imposing the fraud upon everyone.

Actually, this shoulder effect is pre-saturation logic. After saturation, no heat change exists for either the main 95% of the CO2 or the 5% on the shoulders. In both cases, the distance reduces to half as CO2 concentration doubles. Reducing the distance is not increasing the heat. Where then does 1°C temperature increase come from? It doesn't exist. But if it is created by shoulder molecules, then the other 95% has to increase by 400°C.

Shifting the explanation to high in the atmosphere creates additional absurdities. The first problem is that there is no way to get high enough in the atmosphere to get around saturation. Climatologists picked 9 km up as a means of staying within the troposphere. At that height, the atmospheric density is 30% of that at sea level. This means distances increase by a factor of 3.3 for absorption of radiation. Changing the distances is not increasing the heat.

Another problem with the upper atmosphere is the temperature would have to increase 24°C to radiate enough energy back to increase the temperature of the near-surface atmosphere by 1°C. No temperature increase due to CO2 has been detected in the upper atmosphere.

The basis for 24°C is this: (Assuming a mass of air at 9 km height must heat an equal mass of air near the surface of the earth by radiating energy downward.) Since half of the radiation would go upward and half downward, the required temperature must be increased by a factor of 2. Since 30% of infrared radiation goes around greenhouse gases, the temperature must be increased by a factor of 3.3. Sometimes a range is given as 15-30% for radiation going around greenhouse gases. If it's 15%, the temperature increase high in the atmosphere must be 48°C rather than 24°C.

According to the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (http://nov79.com/gbwm/sbc.html), matter at a temperature of -43°C emits 40% as much radiation as matter at near-surface temperatures. So the temperature increase at 9 km up must be divided by 0.40, or multiplied by 2.5.

About 30% of radiation would be reflected at sharp angles, which means the temperature increase at 9 km must be divided by 0.70. The result is (2 x 3.3 x 2.5) ÷ 0.70 = 24°C.

Climatologists have crazy ways of getting rationalistic numbers, but they never produce the same ones twice, and the results never stand up to criticism. The usual error is ignoring major effects. Then they bury most of their math in models and do not allow other scientists to see what they are doing. The models are now in conflict with an absence of temperature increase over the past 15 years.