Climate Change – still an unverified hypothesis!

The history of Earth and all geological or climatic records tell us that ‘change’ happens all the time. Everything changes! Heraclitus of Ephesus (535-475 BCE) said: “Everything flows” or “No man ever steps in the same river twice”. Especially time and weather are changing permanently and nobody can stop it. The adaption to the very different weather regimes and therefore climates on Earth and climate changes is of outstanding importance for the health and well-being of mankind.
Regardless of what happened in the past or will happen today or in future, we know we will never be free of weather and weather-related disasters. We know that we can’t alter the General Circulation. The take-away lesson from this situation should be that our society must continue to become more weather-ready. First of all we need better and longer ranging weather forecasts. All numerical weather forecasts are initially based on ‘good data’. Nevertheless the margin of error increases from day to day, the further out we project. Our ability to create even five-day forecasts is relatively limited and ranges between 60 and 80 percent, dependant of the four seasons and the region on Earth. Only if we improve the weather forecasts drastically can we better protect us against truly disastrous weather events. It’s not climate, it’s the weather which affects directly agriculture and the value chain deriving from it!

The Sun, its radiation energy and the weather
The Sun is the single noteworthy source of heat for the Earth’s atmosphere. Solar energy is the great engine that drives the winds and the ocean currents, generates the weather, and makes the Earth a livable place for human beings.
Since solar radiation is the single important source of atmospheric heat, its distribution over the Earth is of outstanding significance in understanding weather and climatic phenomena, more especially those associated with temperature. The solar energy is the ultimate cause of all changes and motions of the atmosphere. Certainly the Sun and the radiation influx is the single most important control of Climate.
In order for a better understanding of the problem of insolation distribution, imagine for the moment that the absorbing, scattering and reflecting effects of the Earth’s atmospheric layers do not exist. Under that condition the amount of solar energy that any portion of the Earth’s surface received would depend primarily upon two factors: 1. the intensity of solar radiation, or the angle at which the rays of sunlight reach the Earth. 2. the duration of solar radiation, or length of day. Because an oblique solar ray is spread out over a larger surface than a vertical one, it delivers less energy per unit area.
Other than length of day an dangle of the Sun’s rays, the less important factors determining the amount and distribution of solar energy at the Earth’ surface are: a) the fluctuations in solar output of radiation and b) the varying distances of the Earth from the Sun at the several positions in its orbit. Thus in January the Earth is only 147 million kilometers from the Sun and receives 1416 W/m2, while in July the distance is 152 million kilometers and the insolation 1320 W/m2. Compared with the theoretical mean value, the ‘solar constant’ of 1368 W/m2, only the changing distance provokes a ‘radiation forcing” of 0.53 W/m2 per day. The ‘solar constant’ is not constant and changes day by day because of the elliptical way of the Earth around the Sun.
In addition I will mention that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says in the 1995-Report “Climate Change 1995 – The Science of Climate Change” that the CO2 concentrations have increased from about 280 ppm in pre-industrial times to 358 ppm in 1994. This ascent has lead to a ‘radiation forcing’ of nearly 1.6 W/m2 in 150 years. This is a rise of 0.0106667 W/m2 per year or 0.0000292 W/m2. What does it mean? The degree of inclination of the Earth’s axis and its parallelism, together with the Earth’s shape, its rotation on its axis and its revolution around the Sun are the primary factors for the different distribution of the solar energy over the Earth with its attendant change of seasons.
The solar energy and its absorption at the Earth’s surface
It is at the Earth’s surface where the solar energy is absorbed and then heats the ground. Therefore the Earth itself becomes a radiating body, but at very much lower temperature than the Sun, so that the wavelengths of radiation are longer. The radiation of the Earth with its temperatures between -50 and +50 degrees Celsius remain invisible. The Sun is the source of all energy for Life on Earth but the atmosphere is warmed by its heated surface. Important is the fact that the atmosphere doesn’t receive its heat by the invisible long wave radiation but through conduction and convection.
It is obvious, therefore, that preliminary to a discussion of heating and cooling of the atmosphere, it is necessary to understand the comparative reactions of solar energy of the various kinds of terrestrial surfaces, and consequently their heating properties. It is clear that those surfaces which absorb greater amounts of the solar energy are the ones which will heat most quickly, and cool most quickly because of the Stefan Law. Absorption and emission of heat depend on the fourth order of the absolute temperature, S = σ T4. A body which will heat most quickly will cool most quickly.
Of fundamental importance in understanding the differential heating and cooling of land and water is the fact that solid ground heat exchange depends upon molecular heat conduction, while the heat exchange in ‘fluids’ such as water and air is largely the result of dynamic convection or vertical turbulence and the horizontal air mass transport by advection, by the winds. A great influence on the ground temperatures has the evaporation and therefore the humidity. Moreover, in the case of a vegetation surface a considerable proportion of the insolation is consumed in evaporating water transpired by the plants, which process prevents an excessive heating of the vegetation surfaces.
When IPCC declares, “on average, for the Earth as a whole, the incoming solar energy ist balanced by outgoing terrestrial radiation”, IPCC is wrong. The theoretically postulated radiation equilibrium between Sun and Earth doesn’t exist practically. Worse, it is physically impossible. Nearly 30 percent of the Sun’s energy is ‘lost” by the evaporation and transpiration of water by the oceans and plants. The evaporation of water cools the surface, but the energy isn’t lost. The energy is stored as latent energy in the water vapour and will be released when rising air cools and condensation occurs with the building of clouds.
There is no ‘balance’ between solar radiation and terrestrial radiation
The primitive and oversimplified climate models neglect not only the nearly 30 percent of the solar energy which is invested in the maintenance of the global water cycle. The climate experts neglect also the fact that a great part of the shortwave solar energy is converted by plants in chemical energy and is stored up in biomass. The amount of energy is calculated to be nearly 1022 Joule which is 40 times greater than the need of mankind on primary energy. The so-called ‘balance’ between incoming solar energy and outgoing terrestrial radiation doesn’t exist.
All physical events can be regarded as transformations of energy from one form to another, or as transferences of energy from one body or system to another. For example, if you do work in raising a weight, this is attributable to the consumption of chemical energy stored in your muscles, which was derived by a series of chemical changes from vegetable food, either directly or via the flesh of a herbivorous animal. The vegetables built up their store of energy from that radiated by the sun via photosynthesis. The continuous supply of solar radiation is furnished by the destruction (or conversion) of mass as protons and neutrons combine to form helium nuclei.
Remember, the electric lighting of a factory may be supplied by a dynamo driven by a river, the source of which a few miles away is several hundred feet higher than the factory. It is fed by the generous rainfall of the surrounding hills, and the chain of energy conversions is starting again with the Sun. Similarly, all other physical changes can be traced back to the same prime source, the Sun.
It is more than astonishing or surprising, that despite the ‘Age of Enlightenment’ in the scientific community of climate experts the traditional belief in a benign ‘Balance of Nature’ is still widely held. The politicians too belief in that principle which Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) as the last ‘universal genius’ (Denis Diderot) called the “Prästabilisierte Harmonie”, the ‘Pre-established Harmony’. Neither the weather nor the climate as a set of weather data averaged over temporary ups and downs are stable by definition.
In his book “The discovery of global warming” (2008) Spencer R. Weart writes concerning the ‘Balance of Nature’: “This view of Nature – suprahuman, benevolent, and inherently stable – lies deep in most human cultures. It was traditionally tied up with religious faith in the Godgiven order of the universe, a flawless and imperturbable harmony. Such was the public belief, and scientists are members of the public, sharing most of the assumptions of their culture. Once scientist found plausible arguments explaining how the atmosphere and climate would remain unchanged within a human timescale – just as everyone expected – they stopped looking for possible counterarguments.”
The Earth’s weather system is so irreducibly complicated that we will never grasp it completely, in the way that one might grasp a law of physics. Therefore debates about climate change are normally very confusing. In order to hide their ignorance and inability to resolve a complex question, scientists tend to oversimplify the problem. They work with inadmissible models which falsify the reality. This made Svante Arrhenius 1896 with his hypothesis that the changing CO2 content of the atmosphere made the ice ages come and go. He tried to explain this by comparing the Earth with its covering of air to a box covered with a plane of glass. He postulated that for heat rays, the gas was as opaque as a plank of wood. The heat energy is transferred into the air itself rather than escaping into space. Arrhenius defended this hypothesis although he knew that CO2 absorbs radiation only in specific bands of the spectrum. By 1910 the scientific community knew by experience Arrhenius’ speculation was altogether wrong.
Some well known physical laws
In the year 1609 Johannes Keppler (1571-1630) stated three laws concerning the motions of the planets round the Sun. The first was: Each planet describes an ellipse, with the Sun in one of its foci. Later 1668 Isaac Newton (1642-1726) formulated the Law of Universal Gravitation. It says that spheres are attracted by a force inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Analogous laws of force are found in electrostatics and in magnetism. There is no doubt: All bodies attract each other with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
The same rule is valid for the intensity of radiation. This intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance to a point-source of the radiation. This means that the intensity of radiation is changing with the distance between Earth and Sun. Therefore the ‘solar constant’ cannot be constant. This is a physically inadmissible model simplification. The intensity of radiation received on an oblique surface is proportional to the cosine of the angle which the ray makes with the normal to the illuminated surface. This means that the Earth as a rotating globe is stronger warmed in the hot equatorial regions than in the frigid polar zones. Temperature differences create pressure gradients and these generate air movements.
The driving force for the atmosphere is the unequal absorption of solar energy at the real Earth’s surface and the differential warming. But what is happening now? First there is the simple model assumption, that there is a thermal equilibrium between the shortwave solar and the long wave terrestrial radiation. Murray S. Salby in his book “Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics” (1996): “This basic principle leads to a simple estimate of the mean temperature of the planet.” But this “basic principle” does not exist in reality!
Salby: “The Earth intercepts a beam of shortwave radiation of cross-sectional area πr2” and then the shortwave flux is “distributed across the globe as it spins in the line of the beam”. Since the surface area of a globe is four times greater than a circular area with the same radius, the energy flux of the Sun is divided by four. This means that by simple calculation with the aid of the Stefan-Boltzmann law S = σT4 the solar energy is uniformly distributed over the Earth. There is no day no night no season on Earth. The Earth is a disk, like the disk of the moon or the sun. Each point receives exactly the same amount of solar energy. With a flux of 1372 W/m2, reduced by an albedo of 0,30 or 412 W/m2 the remaining radiation of 960 W/m2 is divided by 4 and the equivalent black body temperature for the Earth will be 255 K or -18° Celsius.
On this very simple calculation is based the ‘greenhouse effect’. The trick with the fluctuation between disk and globe is accepted by the IPCC and only some scientists have the courage to swim against the scientific mainstream. The calculation is bare of all geometrical and physical laws. Who on Earth can divide the globe like an apple in two parts for that the sun can shine on the “cross-sectional area”. Each photo of a satellite demonstrates that the sun illuminates always a hemisphere and not a disk. At the equator we have 12 hours day and 12 hours night.
Richard Kerr wrote in Science 265 (1994) in an article “Climate Modeling’s Fudge Factor comes under Fire”: “in climate modeling, nearly everybody cheats a little.” But the biggest and most impudent tissues of lies remain overlooked and unnoticed. But sometimes a little impulse is sufficient to induce an avalanche. The ‘greenhouse effect’ is not at all an scientific error, it’s a planned well sophistic lie!
Oppenheim, 15. August 2012 Dr. Wolfgang Thüne

Comments are closed.

© 2012 DerWettermann.de. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.