EXPLAINING THE CLIMATE FRAUD


Ventura Photonics Climate Post 19, VPCP 0019.1, Jan. 7, 2023


Roy Clark


Download .pdf File



Introduction


Mainstream climate science has been thoroughly corrupted and has degenerated beyond scientific dogma into the Imperial Cult of the Global Warming Apocalypse. Melodramatic prophecies of the global warming apocalypse became such a good source of research funding that the scientific process of hypothesis and discovery collapsed. Irrational belief in the climate warming results generated by fraudulent large scale climate models has replaced scientific logic and reason. Physical reality has been abandoned in favor of mathematical simplicity. Our so called climate ‘scientists’ have been playing computer games in an equilibrium climate fantasy land for over fifty years. They have chosen to live in a fictional realm of forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity to CO2. Eisenhower’s warning about the corruption of science by government funding has come true. It is time to dismantle a multi-trillion dollar fraud.


The climate energy transfer processes that determine the surface temperature are complex and it is not easy to penetrate through the simplistic nonsense of forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivities to the underlying physics. In the following series of short articles, various aspects of climate physics and the climate fraud will be considered in more detail. The topics covered are:


1.0 Radiative Forcing and the Global Mean Temperature Record

2.0 The History of the Climate Models

3.0 The Rise of the Imperial Cult of the Global Warming Apocalypse

4.0 The Role of the AMO in Setting the Surface Temperature

5.0 A ‘CO2 Doubling’ does not Change the Energy Balance of the Earth

6.0 ‘CO2 Doubling’ does not Heat the Oceans

7.0 A ‘CO2 Doubling’ does not Heat the Land Surface

8.0 The Energy Budget of the Earth

9.0 The Attribution of Climate Change to Human Causes

10.0 Lorenz Instabilities


Only the first topic will be included in this post. The full set of topics can be downloaded as a .pdf file using the link above.



1.0 RADIATIVE FORCING AND THE GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE RECORD


1.1 Overview

  • • A radiative forcing is a change in flux at the top of the atmosphere (TOA).
  • • It is assumed that such a forcing changes the ‘radiation balance’ of the earth.
  • • An increase in atmospheric ‘greenhouse gas’ concentration initially produces a slight decrease in LWIR flux emitted to space at TOA within the spectral region of each specific ‘greenhouse gas’.
  • • A ‘greenhouse gas’ radiative forcing also produces a slight increase in the downward LWIR flux from the lower troposphere to the surface.
  • • Other ‘radiative forcings’ such as an increase in aerosol concentration can increase the scattered solar flux returned to space at TOA.
  • • An elaborate time series of ‘radiative forcings’ has been constructed and is used by the climate models to create the ‘global mean temperature record’ derived from weather station and ocean temperature data.
  • • The increase in ‘global average temperature’ produced by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, usually from 280 to 560 parts per million (ppm) is used as a reference and called a ‘climate sensitivity’ to CO2.
  • • The ‘radiative forcing’s are also modified by an elaborate scheme of ‘feedbacks’ that are needed to make the climate models create the desired temperature record.
  • • In reality, the LWIR ‘radiative forcing’ produced by an increase in greenhouse gas concentration does not change the energy balance of the earth. Any slight heating of the troposphere is radiated back to space by wide band LWIR emission.
  • • The downward LWIR flux to the surface cannot heat the oceans or the land surface.
  • • There can be no ‘CO2 signal’ in the global mean average temperature record.
  • • The ‘equilibrium’ climate models are fraudulent, by definition, before the first line of computer code is even written because of the assumptions used to simplify the climate energy transfer.
  • • There are no forcings or feedbacks, nor is there a climate sensitivity to CO2.


Mainstream climate science has degenerated past scientific dogma into a rather unpleasant ‘Imperial Cult of the Global Warming Apocalypse’. The climate modelers have abandoned physical reality and chosen to play computer games in an equilibrium climate fantasy land of forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity to CO2. The false message of the Apocalypse has then been used to build today’s multitrillion dollar climate fraud to save the world from a nonexistent problem. The introduction to Chapter 7 of the Working Group 1 Report in the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Climate Assessment, AR6, WG1 ‘The Earth’s energy budget, climate feedbacks, and climate sensitivity’ [IPCC, 2021] starts:


This chapter assesses the present state of knowledge of Earth’s energy budget, that is, the main flows of energy into and out of the Earth system, and how these energy flows govern the climate response to a radiative forcing. Changes in atmospheric composition and land use, like those caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and emissions of aerosols and their precursors, affect climate through perturbations to Earth’s top-of-atmosphere energy budget. The effective radiative forcings (ERFs) quantify these perturbations, including any consequent adjustment to the climate system (but excluding surface temperature response). How the climate system responds to a given forcing is determined by climate feedbacks associated with physical, biogeophysical and biogeochemical processes. These feedback processes are assessed, as are useful measures of global climate response, namely equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and the transient climate response (TCR).


This was conveniently summarized by Knutti and Hegerl [2008].


When the radiation balance of the Earth is perturbed, the global surface temperature will warm and adjust to a new equilibrium state.


In reality, there is no ‘equilibrium state’ and no forcings, feedbacks or climate sensitivity to CO2. The ‘standard perturbation’ used by the climate modelers is a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration from 280 to 560 parts per million (ppm). Radiative transfer analysis shows that this produces an initial decrease in long wave IR (LWIR) flux at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) near 3.7 W m-2 in the spectral region of the CO2 emission bands [IPCC, 2013]. Changes in flux at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) are called ‘radiative forcings’. Detailed calculations have been provided by Wijngaarden and Happer [2022]. Although it is not discussed as part of radiative forcing, for ‘greenhouse gases’, there is also a similar increase in the downward LWIR flux from the lower troposphere to the surface [Harde, 2017, Clark, 2013]. The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and the transient climate response (TCR) are the presumed increases in ‘global average temperature’ produced by a CO2 doubling for various prescribed climate modeling conditions. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution about 200 years ago, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by approximately 140 ppm from 280 to 420 ppm [Keeling, 2022]. This has produced a decrease in LWIR flux at TOA near 2 W m-2. The calculated values vary slightly depending on the surface temperature and relative humidity used. The changes in CO2 concentration are shown in Figure 1.1a and the changes in total flux are shown in Figure 1.1b.






Figure 1.1: a) the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 1800 [Keeling, 2022] and b) calculated changes in atmospheric LWIR flux produced by an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 0 to 760 ppm.



Figure 1.2 illustrates the basic fraud underlying the equilibrium climate models. Figure 1.2a shows the global mean temperature change and CMIP5 climate model simulations using both ‘human’ and ‘natural’ radiative forcings. Figure 1.2b shows the global mean temperature change and CMIP5 climate model simulations using just ‘natural’ forcings. Figure 1.2c shows the time evolution of the radiative forcings using in the climate models for the calculations in Figures 1.2 a and 12b [Terando et al, 2020, NCA4, 2017, IPCC. 2013]. Simple inspection of the observed ‘global mean temperature change’ in Figures 1.2a and 1.2b reveals a peak near 1940 and a minimum near 1910. This is from the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) [AMO, 2022]. Between 1940 to about 1970 the AMO was in its cooling phase. There is a second, similar warming phase that started in the 1970s. In addition there is a natural linear warming trend of approximately 0.3 °C (0.54 °F) per century related to the recovery from the Maunder minimum or Little Ice Age (LIA) [Akasofu, 2010]. Superimposed on the recent AMO warming since 1975 are various bias and ‘adjustments’. The bias terms include urban heat island effects and changes in the mix of weather stations used to create the global average. The fraction of cooler rural stations has decreased leaving more of the warmer urban stations [D’Aleo and Watts, 2010]. In addition, the raw data used in the global record has been ‘adjusted’ using homogenization techniques to correct for ‘bias’. These manipulations and adjustments have created a false warming in the ‘global mean temperature record’ [Andrews, 2017a, 2017b, 2017c]. There is no part of the global temperature increase that can be caused by an increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2.





Figure 1.2: a) global temperature record and climate model results including both ‘human’ and ‘natural’ factors, b) global temperature record and climate model results including ‘natural’ factors only and c) radiative forcing terms used in the CMIP5 climate model ensemble.



The radiative forcings shown in Figure 1.2c are pseudoscientific nonsense. The greenhouse gas ‘forcings’ at TOA are produced by small increases in absorption at many different levels in the atmosphere. In order to evaluate the atmospheric warming effects, the small amount of heat absorbed at each level has to be converted to a change in the rate of cooling. For the tropical atmosphere, the tropospheric cooling rate for net LWIR emission is in the range 2.0 to 2.5 K per day [Feldman et al, 2008]. For a CO2 doubling, the maximum change in this cooling rate is a slight warming of +0.08 K per day at an altitude near 2 km [Iacono et al, 2008]. At an average lapse rate of -6.5 K km-1, an increase in temperature of +0.08 K is produced by a decrease in altitude of 12 meters. This is equivalent to riding an elevator down 4 floors. Radiative forcings from ‘greenhouse gases’ cannot change the surface temperature. Total and band averaged LWIR cooling rates are shown in Figure 1.3a and the change in tropospheric cooling rates produced by a CO2 ‘doubling’ from 287 to 574 ppm at mid latitude are shown in Figure 1.3b.





Figure 1.3: a) total (10 to 3250 cm-1) and band-averaged IR cooling rate profiles for the Tropical Model Atmosphere on a log-pressure scale and b) tropospheric heating rates produced by a CO2 ‘doubling’ from 287 to 574 ppm at mid latitude.



At the ocean surface, the penetration depth of the LWIR flux into the surface is less than 100 micron (0.04 inches) [Hale and Querry, 1973]. Here it is fully coupled to the wind driven evaporation or latent heat flux. Within the ±30° latitude bands, the sensitivity of the latent heat flux to the wind speed is at least 15 W m-2/m s-1 [Yu et al, 2008]. The entire 2 W m-2 increase in downward LWIR flux from the observed 140 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is dissipated by an increase in wind speed of approximately 13 cm s-1. The IPCC AR6 WG1 report gives the 2019 ‘total anthropogenic forcing’ as 2.7 W m-2. This is dissipated by an increase in wind speed near 18 cm s-1. A ‘CO2 doubling’ would be dissipated by an increase in wind speed of approximately 25 cm s-1. At present, the average annual increase in CO2 concentration is about 2.4 ppm. This produces an increase in downward LWIR flux to the surface of 0.034 W m-2 which is dissipated by a change in wind speed of approximately 2 mm per year. This is discussed in more detail in Section 6.0 below.


Various ‘feedback’ effects are also presumed to interact with the radiative forcings. Positive feedbacks amplify the forcings and negative feedbacks reduce the forcings. In particular, the initial warming produced by ‘greenhouse gas (GHG) forcings’ is supposed to be amplified by a ‘water vapor feedback’. The initial warming is presumed to increases the water vapor pressure which in turn amplifies initial GHG heating. Since the increase in surface temperature from the GHG forcing is too small to measure, there is no measurable change in water vapor pressure and no feedback.


Figure 1.4a shows Figure 1.2b with the positive phases of the AMO, the recovery from the LIA and the bias/adjustment terms indicated. Figure 1.4b shows the radiative forcings from Figure 1.2c with LWIR components indicated. The 2 W m-2 level of latent heat flux produced by an increase of 13 cm s-1 in wind speed is also shown. The modeling of the ‘natural factors’, the blue line in Figures 1.2b and 1.3a is the fraudulent removal of the AMO and the bias/adjustment terms from the ‘global mean temperature record’. In addition to ‘greenhouse gas forcings’ that produce an initial decrease in the LWIR flux at TOA, other forcings such as aerosol scattering are included in the mix of forcings. These are presumed to scatter sunlight back to space and produce cooling. The aerosol terms, particularly ‘volcanic aerosols’ are used to ‘tune’ the forcings so that the models match the ‘global mean temperature record’.





Figure 1.4: a) The global mean temperature record and ‘natural’ forcings from Figure 1.1b with the warming phases of the AMO, the temperature recovery from the LIA and the bias and adjustments to the global record indicated and b) the radiative forcings from Figure 1.1c indicating the CO2 and other GHG forcings and the 2 W m-2 latent heat flux produced by an increase of 13 cm s-1 in the wind speed in the ±30° latitude bands.



There is also another part to the climate fraud that has to be considered. The large scale global circulation models (GCMs) require the solution to very large numbers of coupled nonlinear equations. The modeling errors grow with time and the output can become unstable [Lorenz, 1963]. Today’s climate models have no predictive capabilities over the time scales required for climate change analysis. They are simply ‘tuned’ to give the desired result. They have been ‘tuned’ using a fraudulent set of radiative forcings to match the ‘global mean temperature change’. This is discussed in Article 10.0 below (see the .pdf file).


References


References are included as part of the .pdf file