The Evidence has Not Confirmed the Greenhouse Gas Theory
(in its application to models or climate)
The Climate Science Journal and its referenced papers provide evidence and explain why and how thermal energy is stored in the atmosphere, and present a general challenge to climate scientists to become more thoroughly acquainted with quantum physics, so they may understand that heat transfer issues are intimately intertwined with quantum mechanics and electrodynamic theory—the fundamental nature of photons and their interaction with molecules.
Does thermal energy storage have no relevance to the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere? Yes, of course it does, and evaluating the thermal heat capacity of the atmosphere should corroborate any other approach grounded in soundly reasoned and demonstrated theoretical physics. As discussed below, carbon dioxide (CO2) has a lower specific heat capacity than either nitrogen or oxygen (N2 or O2), which means less thermal energy is stored on a per molecule basis with each 1˚C change in temperature. Yet, CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, thus how can it affect the 99% of the atmosphere comprised of N2 and O2? An increase in CO2 concentration necessarily results in less capacity to store thermal energy, whatever its channel, whether level change through absorption or velocity increase through photon impact.
The climate analysis using “energy balance” or “energy budget” approaches, championed by NASA, for example, concentrate mostly on radiation, ignoring conduction, which is the primary means of thermal energy transfer to the Earth’s atmosphere. Classical thermodynamics and molecular physics demand that conduction, radiation and convection all be considered in a scientific assessment of any physical system, and this fundamental approach has been missing in climate science today.
“Clearly any leadership that might lead climate science out of this morass would have to come from outside the community of climate scientists and probity would need to come from outside of the field of climate science.”
The global average temperature, presumably accurately calculated in the same way for the last 140 years (otherwise it is not very scientific), is a measure of thermal energy storage—that is what temperature is a measure of. Addressing the specific heat capacity of the various molecules is the correct method of ascertaining their independent effects upon temperature.
The prevailing theory is that surface radiation is trapped by “greenhouse gases” disproportionately, but that theory does not stand up. Is radiation from the surface only stored by “greenhouse gas” molecules? The answer is no, both N2 and O2 also absorb and radiate in infrared spectrum, as NIST (US’s National Institute of Standards and Technology) data shows here, and here, as well as through increased molecular velocities.
It appears as though many climate scientists subscribe to the Ritz-Carlton theory of conferences, rather than the Rydberg–Ritz combination principle. The latter explains that radiation is absorbed and emitted also by combinations of level energies/wavelengths.
When we start to ask about thermal energy storage, as in specific heat capacity, we see that CO2 does not actually vibrate to instigate additional storage of thermal energy until it reaches very high pressures, as discussed in this paper, so high that they are not natural on our planet’s atmosphere. Vibrations of molecules as a degree of freedom for energy storage depend upon pressure and temperature, and in general vibrations are not the primary degree of freedom for energy storage in atmospheric gases at all, as that occurs primarily in translations—the velocities of molecules, as per the long-prevailing Kinetic Theory of Gases.
In addition, there is a means of ascertaining actual changes in the Earth’s absorption, which reflects changes in chemical composition of its surface or atmosphere, without relying upon speculative or subjective computer models. The Earth’s albedo (a measure of the proportion of total radiation reflected by the planet), in all its nuances, can be measured from space to determine the changes in absorption of solar and cosmic radiation (how much the Earth is warming or cooling).
Yet NASA has fundamentally corrupted the data from their albedo measuring satellites, providing measurements only of a cloudless Earth (yes, really, by creating a tapestry of a cloudless-only surface, ruining the data and making the satellites basically worthless for what should be their primary purpose). Thus, at this time we do not have access to the relevant scientific data to evaluate the holistic state of our planet, with this quite all-encompassing, precise and obvious measure. The Climate Science Journal asked NASA, through JPL, and found they “cannot” provide unadulterated albedo data.
And Now for Something Completely Different...
“It’s a record snow year, we’ve never had this much snow before”
The Basic Argument Challenging the Greenhouse Gas Theory
The prevailing “Greenhouse Gas Theory” holds that some atmospheric gases that make up less than 1% of the atmosphere, CO2, CH4, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and water vapour are “greenhouse gases”, because they have more atoms per molecule and therefore store more thermal energy in their vibrations than the primary gases N2 and O2. Even anthropogenic global-warming skeptics accede to the Greenhouse Gas theory:
The new Greenhouse Functionality theory shows the above statement is patently false:
“N2 gas is by far the most substantial store of thermal energy in the atmosphere.”
The Greenhouse Functionality Theory
N2 gas stores approximately 78% of all thermal energy by increased molecular velocities, rather than vibrations, which latter store is negligible for gases, per the Kinetic Theory of Gases, although contrary to the Equipartition Theorem.
When photons, including those in the infrared wavelengths, pass through molecules of all the gases in the atmosphere, they transfer momentum, and in so doing warm them by increasing their velocity, and altering the energy of photons, as Rayleigh made clear in his 1899 paper.
Thus, the 99% of the atmosphere comprised by N2 and O2 absorbs infrared radiation as well as other wavelengths with increased gas molecule velocities. The evidence for this is in Rayleigh scattering, which does not favour the so-called “greenhouse gases” at all, and shifts all the wavelengths longer, as energy is absorbed.
Molecular vibrations are generally ignored in mainstream gas engineering applications, as a consequence of the vibrations being converted into velocity increases upon impact with other gas molecules. Vibrating gas molecules thus dissipate energy just as a vibrating tuning fork slowly reduces its amplitude over time.
CO2 Only Really Matters on Jupiter or Venus!
Because the specific heat capacity is dependent upon both temperature and pressure, all is not well for the Greenhouse Gas theory. Greenhouse gases do not absorb energy in all EM radiation wavelengths at all temperatures equally, as the above graph shows. Empirical evidence confirms that the specific heat capacity for diatomic gases does not follow the equipartition theorem—it is not distributed equally among the various degrees of freedom.
It is accurate that N2 and O2 are diatomic (having only 2 atoms), where as the so-called “greenhouse gases” have more atoms (for instance, CO2, which has 3 atoms). The extra atoms provide more connections, or more degrees of freedom for vibration. But the implications of this physical reality only kick in at very higher pressures and temperatures, not at those found naturally on our planet. At sea-level Earth air pressures of 1 atmosphere or less (at higher altitudes) and temperatures less than 60˚C, CO2 has a lower specific heat capacity than both N2 and O2, as shown below:
This means that CO2 stores less thermal energy for a given increase in temperature, than N2 and O2. CO2 in addition only constitutes 0.04% of the atmosphere, so it stores slightly less thermal energy on a per molecule basis, and massively less on an atmospheric basis. CO2 is less of a “greenhouse gas” than either N2 or O2 while on the planet Earth.
Part of the problem causing this misunderstanding is an invalid assumption prevalent today, at the basis of the Greenhouse Gas theory, which is that thermal energy, specifically in the infrared wavelengths, is absorbed primarily through vibrations of molecules, rather than their velocity, as most other scientists incorrectly assume, for example:
“The momentum of atmospheric photons is too small to allow any significant portion of their energy to go directly into translational kinetic energy of the molecules that absorb them.”
However, heat is transferred to the main atmospheric gases primarily by increasing the speed of their molecules, not by their vibrations. Mathematical confirmation of the quantity of momentum available for transfer to molecules by photons shows that the above assumption is invalid.
Photons travel at the speed of light, imparting momentum and increasing the velocity of molecules travelling often greater than the speed of sound (the speed of light is about 900,000 times greater than the speed of sound).
Vibrations have little to do with thermal energy storage at Earth’s atmospheric pressure, as the attached paper shows mathematically and proves scientifically. The prevailing Greenhouse Gas theory is thus invalid, and cannot responsibly be used as the basis for laws, political action, or other science.
Furthermore, the amount of energy radiated by the Earth, and “trapped” by “greenhouse gases”, is tiny compared with that radiated by the Sun. Later a graph on a scale of Watts/m2 will be shown, which makes very clear how disparate are the energies emitted by the Sun compared to the Earth, but for now, the following chart explains:
"You have found a promising approach to demonstrate successfully that the long suspected culprits of global warming, e.g. CO2, CH4, are actually not !"
Rutgers University, New Jersey
B.A. Cornell University, New York
"…seems to be path-breaking research in the domain. The paper reads nice and the science involved is analogous and clear. This paper is a hallmark and would benefit the advances in science, government planning as well as policy makers for the next course of action. I congratulate you for this great work and thank for giving me an opportunity to read it and enlighten myself."
PhD, Atmospheric Sci and Meteorology, IISc
M.Sc., Geophysics, ISC
BSc., (Hons) Physics, Delhi U
"An alarmist bias in Global Warming Research has corrupted the academic/scientific community"
Dr. Roy W. Spencer
University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Principal Research Scientist at UoA
Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center
"I have studied your paper during the weekend and I am impressed by your brilliant analysis and convincing argumentation. This looks like a very original thought process and one that does deserve broad dissemination."
B.Sc. (Hons) Mech. Eng.
C.P. Eng. (Chartered Prof. Eng.)
Former Project Manager, CERN
Science is never “settled”. Knowledge is always subject to further discovery, re-evaluation, and falsification with new evidence or understandings. The “consensus” is never a substitute for evidence and/or better, more valid theory, because knowledge does not derive its epistemic stature from how many, or who, endorses it. An appeal to authority, whether of renown or in numbers, is a logical fallacy.
Galileo, for instance, failed peer-review so miserably that he was given house arrest for the remainder of his life. Yet he is considered as the father of modern science, because he showed, among other things, that heavier objects do not fall faster, by timing their rolls down inclined planes. The knowledge was there to validate for anyone, but genuine scientists see through their own eyes, and think for themselves, and in doing so may increase immeasurably human conceptual understanding.
“The number of people that can reason well is much smaller than those that can reason badly. If reasoning were like hauling rocks, then several reasoners might be better than one. But reasoning is not like hauling rocks; it is like racing, where a single, galloping Barbary steed easily outruns a hundred wagon-pulling horses”
Humans do warm the planet with every field plowed, parking lot paved, or roof-top constructed, as these activities cause more solar energy to be absorbed by the surface. We also warm the Earth by burning hydrocarbon fuels, and even with nuclear energy. Solar panels, by absorbing more energy than might be reflected, can also warm the planet. Any changes our civilizations make that affects the Earth’s albedo (a measure of how much light hits the surface and is reflected without being absorbed), alter how much thermal energy is stored in the atmosphere.
The good news is that at the end of every day, this new thermal energy escapes into space, so that by the following morning, temperatures have dropped 10˚C to 50˚C (between daily low and high), demonstrating how quickly thermal energy can be radiated from the atmosphere by the primary gases N2 and O2 (see link for N2).
CO2 does not warm the planet. That is a fact, whether the world chooses to acknowledge it or not is irrelevant, as explained below and in the Papers.
Atmospheric CO2 rises in concentration when the oceans warm, as its solubility in water is lowered (the oceans warm from many causes, including, but not limited to, subsea volcanic activity, nuclear reaction variations in the Earth’s core and mantle, decreases in cosmic radiation and consequent reductions in the aerosols that form clouds, solar distance variations as the Sun and Earth revolve separately around the Solar System barycentre, and predominantly solar radiation variations, some of which derive from magnetic and possibly other cycles or influences).
The Climate Science Journal is established to restore integrity to the field, and make explicit the scientific foundations of climate change in a “climate” of individual respect, freedom of expression, and positive hope for the advancement of human understanding.
The above chart explains how the momentum transfer to the velocity of molecules shifts the entire spectrum of solar radiation received by the Earth to the right, as longer wavelengths (lower frequencies) have lower energies. The chart originally showed how water vapor, CO2 and other gases were absorbing photons (through their vibrations, presumably), but that is not the only way electromagnetic energy is absorbed. It also is absorbed by shifting the wavelength when photons impact molecules, especially N2 and O2, which make up 99% of the atmosphere, by increasing their velocity.
What About the CO2?
The above chart explains that as the temperature of the ocean water increases, the solubility of CO2 (the amount of dissolved CO2 the water can retain) declines about 2.6% for each 1˚C increase. Because the oceans contain about 50-times the amount of CO2 as the atmosphere, if the entire oceans’ water temperature increased 1˚C, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would increase a colossal 130%.
However, generally only the top ~5% surface of the ocean waters warm (unless it is geothermal warming), and phytoplankton quickly consume much of the CO2 in photosynthesis to subsequently serve at the basis of the food chain for most of the oceans’ animal life.
The endothermic reaction of photosynthesis consumes thermal energy, actually cooling the water. Likewise, additional CO2 in the atmosphere is used by plants in endothermic photosynthesis, also cooling the air, as a benign negative feedback mechanism that keeps the Earth’s temperatures more stable.
Thus, CO2 in the air is increased primarily by ocean water warming, as an effect of global warming, rather than a cause.
As humans add more CO2 to the air by combusting hydrocarbon fuels (warming the air), they increase the amount available for plants (cooling the air). The CO2 does not itself “warm the air” as a product of combustion. “Warming the atmosphere” means that the thermal energy in the atmosphere is increased. The idea that CO2 (0.04% of the atmosphere), through increased vibrations, stores more thermal energy than N2 or O2 (99% of the atmosphere), through increased velocity, is ludicrous, and contrary to mainstream, historically validated physics, in spite of its near universal endorsement by today’s politicized “scientists”.
What About the Temperatures?
The above chart shows that contrary to popular misconception, the planet may be warmer in the Holocene Period (the last 11,650 years), but it is not warmer than during the last 5 million years. In fact, the above chart shows a general cooling trend, and shows local cycles suggesting a cause by some kinds of feedback mechanisms.
And Current Temperatures?
Today’s mainstream press presents an emergency situation with climate, based upon claimed temperature rises. Is this claim factual? Below are links to some current news articles that challenge the global warming premise, showing the opposite, that temperatures are cooling.
October, 2019 Record Cold in 11 US States
And below shows the substantial cooling of temperatures going on in the US, for example, all-time record coldest temperatures in 11 states across the west of the US, since 1895:
More than 300 Cold Temperature Records Broken in 11-2019
“The most severe early November cold snap in more than a century has plowed over the East Coast, where record low temperatures were set in the majority of population centers Wednesday morning”
From the National Weather Service in the US
What About the Arctic Ice?
Many news media have claimed that the ice in the Arctic is declining dramatically, which is simply false. The following charts are from the Danish government’s site, here.
The above chart shows that although ice in the Arctic melts and breaks off from glaciers in the Spring and Summer to form icebergs, it returns again each Winter, and as of last year, was entirely within measured historical standards, which began in earnest in 1981.
What About the Grand Solar Minimum?
Grand Solar Minimum?
This decline in temperatures may be because a possible Grand Solar Minimum, which you can read more about here, and will later be a topic under the “Papers” menu link.
The above chart suggests the question: “Do sunspots provide us information that can help us ascertain the Sun’s changes that alter the Earth’s climate?”. In the chart at the right, we see a decline, as if there were an emerging Grand Solar Minimum, which happened in cooler times in the past, such as the Maunder Minimum above. Some scientists have found a basis for the sunspot number in magnetic field cycles, and research and verification in this area is underway.
An excellent video by NASA on the Sun’s influence on the Earth is here.
The Climate Science Journal Allows Anonymous Reviews, and Paper Presentations
The use of pseudonyms has a long history in science and philosophy, as a means of evading retaliation by those who are threatened by the advance of human knowledge and understanding, including:
- Nicolaus Copernicus (who first put forward his theory of heliocentrism anonymously),
- Galileo (as Lothario Sarsio Sigensano),
- Isaac Newton (as Jehovah Sanctus Unus)
- John Locke (his Two Treatises on Government was published anonymously)
- Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (as Lewis Carroll) and
- François-Marie Arouet (as Voltaire)
© Copyright 2019 The Climate Science Journal. All Rights Reserved.