Visit us on Facebook

Visit us on Facebook

The Greenhouse Defect - The most disruptive site on climate science

The Greenhouse Defect

The most disruptive site on climate science

After exploring the relevant pieces finally has come the time to put them all together. I have dealt with a number of mistakes, all having pivotal impacts on ECS estimates. Oddly enough, all these mistakes produce biases in the same direction, that is overheating the planet due to CO2 emissions. To provide an oversight let me recapitulate the main points.

 

The Lambda Mistake

 

Lambda, as a conversion factor of radiative forcing or feedback to temperature, is assumed to be 0.3. The figure is derived from the assumption a surface at 288K would emit 240W/m2 into space, as 1 / (((289/288)^4 -…

The “lapse rate feedback” is the other component of vapor feedback, and it is negative by nature. In order get a comprehensive understanding of vapor feedback as whole and ECS estimates, we need to explore it. The orthodoxy seems not just to lack an understanding of its magnitude, but also of its nature.

 

As discussed in the first part of this article the radiative effect of a 6.5% increment of vapor will only result in 0.5W/m2 forcing, rather than common estimates of 1.5-2W/m2. Forcing? Yes, if we would assume an endogenous increase in vapor that would be a forcing, if we assume an…

The inclined reader of this site may have recognized things go a bit different here. To those who think to know “climate science” it may look like alien technology. I do not give much on opinions, not even my own. Neither I like to ask questions I can not answer. Rather I enjoy some narcissist pleasure over exploring and providing answers, simply because I can. You know greyhounds need to run, geniuses need to solve. It is the most natural thing. For sure “climate science” requires some deep penetrating, laser sharp analysis as opposed to some dilettante theory building, or “polar bears are…

As an undisputed basic fact of climate science, vapor is the most significant GHG, providing a strong feedback to any (exogenous) forcing. Regrettably this “fact” is utter nonsense and it only has been undisputed because no one had the brain to get it right. Let us change this for good.

 

I have dealt with this issue before, yet in order to discuss vapor feedback, we should have a deeper look on it. And I must admit in the course of doing so, it provided me with some interesting insights I did not expect. Let us first recall what Gavin Schmidt says about the GHE of vapor, since it pretty much…

In this article I am going to analyze CO2 forcing estimates, put them into perspective, account for the major flaws there, and finally produce an accurate estimate. It is quite a significant achievement I would think, as for the first time in the history of “climate science” this kernel of climate modelling will be done correctly. Brace for impact!

 

It is one of the most profound questions of climate science. What is the ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity) for any delta in CO2. Practically this term is commonly used on a doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, though it could be…

Ok, this is a purely theoretical article and probably it could not get any more boring than this. Also it should be totally unnecessary to even explain such a basic logic. One could make it a simple question within an IQ test, so at least the article will be short. Yet on the other side there are two reasons making it totally necessary to explain. First of all, most people fail on some IQ test questions, which is the reason why not everyone has at least some 145 IQ, a minimum requirement to do science I would say. Also having many unqualified scientists will not be compensated by…

The fun has not yet ended, we will continue discuss “greenhouse defects”, yet the time has come to turn serious, dead serious on the subject of ECS estimates. Insights have consequences, and all the mistakes “climate science” has made with the GHE do translate into ill-fated climate projections. No supercomputer in this world can fix stupid, and so we are going to learn how climate projections are magnitudes off, as they are all rotten in their core. Take this as an introduction.

There is nothing exciting here to be revealed, just a few notable details to round up our understanding of the physics. If you should ever look up the GHE of CO2 you would need to be very lucky to find any consistent answer. For instance wikipedia will tell you CO2 contributes 9-26% to the GHE, as.. “It is not possible to assign a specific percentage to each gas because the absorption and emission bands of the gases overlap.. Clouds also absorb and emit infrared radiation and thus affect the radiative properties of the atmosphere”

The Atmosphere Effect, that is including the LW radiative effect (or albedo effect) and the SW radiative effect (“GHE”), has an integrated magnitude of only about 8K. In this article I will discuss why that is, how we get to the result, and why no one seems to know about it.

 

Alright, this might be a bit confusing, and certainly it has caused plenty of confusion, in a “science” of confusion. The term “greenhouse effect” is problematic as we all know, since what it refers to does not work like a greenhouse. Beyond the naming issue, the question is what it actually refers to, as it is used…

A couple of years ago I had an enlightening experience. It was a hot summer day in my home town, temperatures scratched the 35°C mark in the afternoon. There is not much heat island effect, since the town is a) not large enough and b) is bit stretched out with a lot of green in between. Thus in the late night temperatures would safely fall below 20°C, somewhere around 15-17°C typically, that is during peak summer.

 

That night however, it was on a weekend, was different. Just after sunset a thick cloud cover moved up. There was no thunderstorm, no rain, just a solid cloud cover. I went out…

Alright, now this might be a bit sophisticated, even by the standards of this site. I mean those standards are obviously light years ahead of NASA and the basket of all other deplorables, and so that should mean something at least. Yet, since I am doing my best to make smart things simple, rather than making stupid stuff complicated, I am positive there will be a path forward. And yes, the wording may be a bit hyperbolic, but then again, actually not really.

In the first part of this article we learned the concept of the cloud radiative effect is based on a blunder, underestimating the significance of clouds and overstating that of GHGs. Here in the 2nd part we going to sort out how this plays out in the real world.

 

Alright, so we need to recapitulate what we have learned so far. Starting out with the bogus claim of GHGs providing some 33K (equivalent to 150W/m2) to the surface temperature of Earth, we had to find it is based on improper simplifications. Clouds are not GHGs and the surface is not even close to being a perfect emitter. Both…

Whatever you think to know about clouds within the climate system, this would be about the right time forget it all. Common data products on cloud forcing are nothing but junk science. Here is why.

 

This is one of those things people just can not imagine and even if you happen to see it with your own eyes, you have a hard time trusting your senses. And once you realize it is true, you sink into your chair and think OMG! It is certainly redefining reality and alienating from society, or at least "science".

If you go out and explore you might find the unexpected. If you are smart and explore, you might find what you expect, but no one else can imagine. Ok, what I did was to start climate research from the scratch and do the most reasonable, logical thing one could only imagine. I looked up weather records for statistical analysis. How are clouds and temperatures statistically correlated?

 

In meteorology cloud cover is usually described with oktas as a unit of measurement.12 Accordingly 0 oktas represent a completely clear sky, while 8 means overcast. In the (usual) case of doubt, the rule is to…

First of all let us simplify a couple of terms, which might otherwise cause confusion. There is albedo, reflectivity, absorptivity and emissivity. In climate science they somehow all mean the same thing. Albedo literally means the same thing as reflectivity, it really makes no difference. Then according to Kirchhoff's law absorptivity = emissivity at any respective wavelength. And since transmissivity is usually and rightfully ignored in this discipline, both absorptivity and emissivity respectively are just the inversion of albedo or reflectivity. So absorptivity = emissivity = 1 - albedo = 1…

While the data itself may be sound, the samples published are usually hand-picked to support a certain, deceiving narrative. Then with the sub text, the explanations hereto, the gloves are off and there are no more limits to deception and lies. Let us discuss another example, this time with a desert climate.

Emission spectra as seen from satellites, or modelled with modtran, are probably among the most profound evidence for Earth's greenhouse effect. They visualize not just how greenhouse gases reduce emissions, but also which GHGs do that and to what extent. However, these data are highly deceptive as they get matched against the erroneous benchmark of a perfectly emitting surface. And it seems everyone falls for the trick.

A straight forward answer would be, we do not really know. There are a couple of issues which make it hard to simply measure emissivity, and that is not just true for Earth, but also for the Moon for instance. Just like within the visible light, the optical properties of the surface within the LWIR range can be very diverse. Just think of the different colors you see when you look outside. What we perceive as colors are effectively different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation within the relatively tight spectrum of visible light. The fact that surfaces have all these different colors…

I was a bit reluctant to write this article, since it is certainly a horribly annoying issue. There are no insights to be gained here, at least not with regard to climate science. It is only about cleaning up a horrible mess. The only thing making it worthwhile is in pointing out how stupid people are. And with people I mean "experts".

The position of the IPCC on the cloud radiative effect (CRE, also frequently named cloud forcing CF) is simple and straight forward: By enhancing the planetary albedo, cloudy conditions exert a global and annual short-wave cloud radiative effect (SWCRE) of approximately –50 W m–2 and, by contributing to the greenhouse effect, exert a mean longwave effect (LWCRE) of approximately +30 W m–2, with a range of 10% or less between published satellite estimates

Saving the planet is one of the harder jobs. Feel free to support ;)