Convection Is Instability and Does Not Rule

Believers in the global-warming "greenhouse effect" (of increasing temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, CO2) keep coming back to the idea that convection rules in the troposphere, and provides for the "adiabatic" lapse rate that really controls the global mean surface temperature. A commenter at wuwt wrote yesterday that "It is a fact that greenhouse gases increase convection cooling which reduces the lapse rate. Hot air rises which causes colder higher air to fall. That is convection cooling." My response:

So-called "convective cooling" does not take place over the full range of the troposphere at once (it comes under the general heading of "localized, transient weather"), so it cannot change the lapse rate over that full range (which means it cannot do it at all)--in fact, it can only act, insofar as it is able, which is not much, to destabilize (destroy) the lapse rate structure; but my 2010 Venus/Earth temperatures comparison shows that there is no such destabilization--and no global warming "greenhouse effect" due to increasing atmospheric CO2--all the way from 0.04% CO2 (Earth) to 96.5% (Venus). The empirically determined Standard Atmosphere, which the Venus/Earth comparison precisely confirms, indicates the specific heat (Cp) obtaining in the troposphere (=10.5 R/2, from the defining pressure vs. temperature equation ln (P/P0) = 5.2559 ln (T/T0), with 5.2559 = Cp/R) is just 50% higher than the specific heat at constant pressure of a diatomic ideal gas (7 R/2). This is too precise and simple a relationship to be a coincidence, which is what blaming it upon the accidental concentrations of "greenhouse gases" or even just water/water vapor changes (as consensus "experts", who call it the "adiabatic lapse rate" instead of the correct "hydrostatic lapse rate", do) amounts to. Why is the effective specific heat of the tropospheric atmosphere so precisely just 1.5 times that of a diatomic ideal gas? That is the question that the many upholders of the idea that "convection rules in the troposphere" probably need to confront--so that they can finally drop that idea, because it simply is not true on the global scale (represented by the global mean surface temperature). I know this is beyond the imaginations (not to mention expertise) of anyone but really good physicists (whose thinking takes no heed of a consensus, or ruling academic theory, in the presence of definitive contrary evidence)--and I have been surprised to find none even of such physicists, since becoming aware of the global warming debate 5 and 1/2 years ago--but the Venus/Earth comparison simply demands a general rethinking of the supposedly settled physics everyone keeps spouting, without the slightest thought that they could be wrong (yet they ARE wrong, as the Venus/Earth comparison clearly shows). The sad state of the official global temperature records--which includes outright fraud on the part of the "expert authorities" behind those records--underlines the general incompetence and underlying dogmatic intransigence of all the academic theorists, that makes all the debates insufficient to uncover the true physics involved.

It's interesting, too, that Venus, with 2400 times the concentration of CO2 in its atmosphere as Earth's, has a larger lapse rate, not a "reduced" one compared to Earth's, contrary to the above commenter's claim.

Venus Again

I have submitted the following comment to the Steven Goddard site, where the subject of Venus's hot surface is erupting again:

Convection does NOT dominate in the global troposphere, the constant vertical temperature lapse rate (temperature gradient) does; that is the stage upon which weather (and climate) plays its part. Convection just drives the weather (primarily horizontally), it does not create or maintain the vertical lapse rate--the hydrostatic condition does that (and Jerry Gorline needs to understand that his derivation above is even more easily, and effectively, done as: mcΔT= -mgΔx, as provided by the hydrostatic condition). The stable lapse rate means heat rises naturally "down" the temperature gradient--convection would only destabilize such a precise structure, and so cannot dominate, rather that structure dominates, on the global scale (too many--incompetent "experts" and lay citizens alike--in the global warming debate continue to be confused by local and transient effects that have no global effect).

The critical piece of evidence remains (I brought it out in November 2010) that the Venus/Earth tropospheric temperatures comparison shows that essentially the only difference in temperatures in the two atmospheres, at points of equal pressure over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, is due to the difference in distance from the Sun--and that is a PRECISE quantitative fact above and below the Venus cloud layer (so clouds don't affect the global lapse rate structure either, nor does planetary albedo, at least for Venus and Earth, because that great difference between them also has no effect (obviously, unless you want to try to explain how these various effects DO matter, but add up to PRECISELY zero in the comparison of Venus and Earth). The only explanation for this is that both atmospheres are warmed by direct absorption of incident heat (infrared) energy from the Sun (so, for example, it doesn't matter that they have quite different reflections of VISIBLE light--albedos--or that little light reaches the Venus surface to heat it--atmospheric warming, to the ruling temperature lapse rate structure, has already occurred. So I concur with Jason Calley, that the astronomers are not experts--or really, all that competent--in their attempts to understand, and in their claims to fine new discoveries. (Nor do I claim to have all the answers myself. Nor am I as interested in the climate field as are most of those engaging in the unending "debate", which consists of vainly lobbing theoretical points past each others' unheeding heads, in an insane controlling political environment to boot.)

Incompetent Skeptics IV: Dr. Judith Curry

The climate depot site has a link to a puff piece on Judith Curry and her views on climate change/global warming. The following is my response:

This is a puff piece, based entirely on a friendly, personal view of Dr. Judith Curry. But the climate change debate is not about any person, especially any academic who basically accepts the climate science as sound and, as they like to say in their own best interests, "settled". Those who have involved themselves in the debate--who have studied the science behind it, and the arguments about that science--are strung out over the full range, from complete acceptance of the academic science to complete rejection of it. A layperson must either choose an "authority" to believe in, blindly, or seek out the definitive facts that tell for or against climate science theory--for that is what they are getting from all sides, predigested theory presented, smoothly and easily, as fact.

I am a 65-year-old physicist by education and long experience, in the academic and high-tech industrial sectors, and in presenting my view to laypersons, I take the latter route, of uncovering the definitive facts that anyone can appreciate. I uncovered the definitive fact that disproves the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect, and any need to worry about a "runaway global climate" at all, nearly 3 years ago, in November 2010 (see here).

When I found that definitive fact against the greenhouse effect, I knew the consensus climate science was not just wrong, it was in fact incompetent (for what I had done should have been done 20 years earlier, when the relevant data, on the atmospheric temperature and pressure profile of Venus, was obtained by the Magellan spacecraft. That it was not done at the time is a gross error by climate scientists at the time, and that it has been dismissed even after I pointed it out in November 2010 is a gross crime against all of science and the trust of the public that we scientists are both competent and honest.) In late November, when I first tried to inform Judith Curry and her blog readers of the definitive fact of the Venus/Earth temperature ratio--which depends only upon the two planets' distances from the Sun, and no additional "greenhouse effect" at all, despite Venus's atmosphere having over 2400 times the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide as does Earth's atmosphere (Venus 96.5%, to Earth's 0.04%)--the following telling exchange took place:

Judith Curry:

"whether atmospheric gases such as CO2 (and H20, CH4, and others) warm the planet is not an issue where skepticism is plausible."

Harry Dale Huffman:

"The issue is whether they warm by absorbing incident solar radiation, or by absorbing secondary LW [longwave, i.e., infrared] radiation from the surface. I say the former, and there is no bouncing and amplifying of heat between the surface and the atmosphere."

In other words, I identified for her the mistaken belief she (and every other climate scientist) was nursing, that the atmosphere is warmed, on the global scale, from the surface, when in fact it is warmed, to its stable, equilibrium vertical temperature structure, by direct absorption of incident solar infrared radiation.

No climate scientist, including Judith Curry, has ever shown the slightest interest in or serious consideration of the fundamental corrections to climate science dogma that are provided by the definitive fact of the Venus/Earth temperature ratio. Yet any STUDENT of climate science could have done what I did, and seen what I saw.

So, as nice as Dr. Curry may be, she is--as is every other climate scientist or academic who defends the science behind the "global warming" scare--simply and unavoidably incompetent. And to put this in the proper context (because I know that charge of general incompetence among the "experts" sounds flamboyant and hyped to the unwary), I suggest the reader here also read the short article, "The System Is Broken: Incompetent Science and Insane Politics".

The System Is Broken: Incompetent Science and Insane Politics

The Steven Goddard site has a post on "It must be the CO2" (he rightly ridicules the idea), and the following is my response:

My Venus/Earth temperatures comparison (the key of which is to do the comparison at points of equal pressure in the two atmospheres, and over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures) established that the Standard Atmosphere model for Earth--as developed over many years of temperature measurements around the globe, and well-known for over a century--agrees precisely with the actual vertical temperature distribution on Venus as measured on ONE DAY (October 5, 1991) by the Magellan spacecraft: The temperature vs. pressure (T-P) curves of the two planets are essentially the same, when they are corrected for the difference in incident solar radiation, due only to the two planets' different distances from the Sun AND NOTHING ELSE (which, first of all, immediately and completely disproves the carbon dioxide "greenhouse effect", since Venus has over 2400 times the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide as does Earth, yet that difference has no effect on the T vs. P curve).

Most fundamentally, however, my Venus/Earth comparison establishes that the Venus atmosphere must be always in equilibrium (if October 5, 1991 on Venus agrees precisely with the many years of temperature measurements, throughout Earth's atmosphere), and further, that the Earth's atmosphere is also always in near-equilibrium--on the global scale, with minor local and transient variations, due to day and night, wind, and weather--with that equilibrium being well and truly represented by the Standard Atmosphere model.

Beyond that, my Venus/Earth comparison (which, as competent scientists should already know, is the definitive correction to climate science now) establishes that both atmospheres are warmed by direct absorption of incident solar radiation, not from the separately warmed planetary surface. Again, that is on the global scale; obviously, there are local and transient effects, again the main players being day vs. night (with many cities, in particular, being urban heat islands, which often see a local temperature inversion developing overnight, in the lowest 1 km or so of the atmosphere, as the surface cools faster than the near-surface tropospheric temperature lapse rate structure can handle) and local weather (due to uneven heating of the daylit surface, as a function of latitude, or incident solar angle, for example).

So unless there is a change in the strength of the incident solar radiation--in particular, in that portion that is directly absorbed by the atmosphere (which incompetent critics of my Venus/Earth comparison can't seem to get into their heads, preferring instead to claim I "failed to consider the difference in albedo")--the ruling Standard Atmosphere model (as precisely confirmed by my Venus/Earth comparison) assures us there can be no change in the global mean surface temperature.

Promulgators of the multidecadal ocean oscillations theory, on top of a presumed warming since the minimum temperature of the Little Ice Age (around 1680, in the expositions I have read) have shown their theory matches the global mean temperature record since that time (while the "greenhouse" theory does not). In the context of what my Venus/Earth comparison has demonstrated about the constancy of the global Earth atmosphere, however, and in view of the uncertainties in the temperature records (especially with the fraudulent adjustments to some of those records that have been uncovered, by Steven Goddard, and even myself), one has to wonder if any scientific confidence at all should be placed in those temperature records; in particular, as I have commented numerous times, if the climate scientists have not really been measuring the true global mean temperature with their sampling algorithms, but have instead merely been unintentionally measuring a proxy for the multidecadal oscillations (the ocean covers 71% of the globe they are trying to sample, after all), that would explain the observed strong correlation of global temperature and ocean oscillations, and even the modest 1° or so of supposed global warming over the last century may be fictitious; until recently, I was amused by the fact that some scientists were saying (as if it were common knowledge) that the global mean surface temperature (GMST) was around 14.7°C, when for a century the Standard Atmosphere has given that temperature as 15°C--higher than the supposed current temperature, despite a century of supposed warming. (However, lately I have seen efforts being made to counter my miniscule but definitive ridicule, with the inner cadre of "consensus" climate scientists claiming the GMST is 15.7°C. So I know they are listening to me, and working hard to stay ahead of the ridicule they so rightly deserve. But the 15.7°C claim is still at odds with the definitive(!) Venus/Earth comparison, because the latter confirms 15°C, not 15.7--that is how precise the comparison is.)

All of this, of course, is happening in the immediate context of a political war, being waged by what I call the Insane Left, upon all those they want to demonize and marginalize in the public mind. The majority of voices you gather information from, particularly the mainstream media (but even the "lukewarm skeptics" in the climate debates), are incompetently and/or fraudulently pretending the system is working as it should--but it is not, and reality and recognition of the objective, scientific truth were the first victims in the war. You cannot stop the insanity if you will not recognize it as insanity, if people will not recognize the system is broken.

Changes in Arctic and Antarctic Ice Area Do Not Affect the Global Mean Temperature

Steven Goddard has a post stating that changes in the Antarctic sea ice area affect the shortwave (SW) radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, thus suggesting that could contribute to global warming or cooling. This of course assumes that the atmosphere is warmed, at least partially, by heat from the solar-warmed surface; virtually all scientists today believe this. The following is my response:

In my seminal Venus/Earth temperatures comparison, that temperature ratio is a constant--at points of equal pressure in the two atmospheres, and over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures--which is precisely explained by the ratio of their distances from the Sun, and nothing else: No CO2 greenhouse effect (Venus's atmosphere has 96.5% CO2, Earth only 0.04%); no albedo effect (Venus's albedo is 0.7 or more, Earth's only 0.3); no surface effect (Venus's surface is all solid crust, Earth's 71% ocean).

The reason why the Venus/Earth temperature ratio depends only upon the solar distances, is because both tropospheres--in the above-stated range of pressures--MUST be warmed by incident solar radiation, not from the surface (in fact, they must both absorb the same physical fraction of the incident solar radiation). So the Venus/Earth comparison, as properly done by me over 2 years ago, not only disproves the hypothesis that increasing atmospheric CO2 increases the global mean surface temperature, it also revolutionizes science's understanding of how the Earth atmosphere is warmed--just like all the other planetary atmospheres, it is warmed by direct absorption of incident solar radiation. That direct warming by the Sun is distributed according to the essentially hydrostatic, vertical pressure gradient--pressure increasing with depth in the atmosphere, and thus temperature increasing with depth (the negative lapse rate structure, which is clearly the stable, predominant condition determining the temperatures in the troposphere, according to the Standard Atmosphere model, used in and confirmed by my Venus/Earth analysis).

And because the surface does not warm the atmosphere, except locally and transiently, changes in the reflectivity of the Earth's surface, as well as changes in the cloud cover, do NOT affect the ruling lapse rate structure or the global mean temperature.