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 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 a thermodynamic analysis, which will identify the the primary means of thermal energy transfer to and storage by 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.”
Please enter your email so that we can update you when the new book is out, and to download the free paper:
Note the outstanding peer reviews below, presented anonymously, which you are also encouraged to do to [email protected] in the present politically-charged “climate” of climate science.
"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
You will only receive quality content.