The main reason for the existence of climatic regions on our planet is the tilting of the Earth's vertical axes and the elliptic rotation of the Earth around the sun. This causes the amount of incoming solar radiation to vary throughout a year. As a result we have four seasons each lasting around 90 days. For a seasonal overview see this extra terrestrial irradiation image (opens in a new window).
As said, the orbit of the Earth around the sun is not a perfect circle, this too is causing variations in the seasons and weather. It is more like an elliptical and during January the Earth is closest to the sun (perihelion). And even this ellipse is also not stable causing more changes in the incoming solar radiation (insolation).
Also variations in the output of the sun (energy) will too have an effect on our climate in the long term.
In this text, and the previous article, we will delve a bit deeper to understand the result of all these variables and we will see the effects on our climate realizing that real climate science can never be settled as we learn more and more each day.
Our atmosphere consists of a layer of gases surrounding our planet and it is kept there solely by its gravity caused by the Earth's magnetic field. It contains some 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, 0,93% Argon, 0,041% Carbon Dioxide (CO2), minute amounts of other gases and a variable amount (on average between 0-4%) of water vapor (resulting in clouds and rain). This complete mixture is known to us as air.
Wikipedia: "Existence of the greenhouse effect as such is not disputed. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F), without which Earth would be uninhabitable".
Well maybe... I would say that daily exposure to the sun due to the rotation of the planet keeps us warm in combination with 70% of the surface being water (stabilizing the warmth), controls the climate more than you think. Any gas in the atmosphere only just serves to slow down the infrared radiation from the Earth back into the cold space. As heat energy always flows from warm to cold, trying to attain thermodynamic equilibrium or high entropy. Put differently: energy flows from high energy density (warm) to lower energy density (cooler), like water can not flow uphill on its own, energy will never go from a lower density to a higher density.
In fact: The Earth is not a greenhouse, or a closed system. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the action of heat trapping gases but rather stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection.
Our atmosphere is always in the process of absorbing and discharging heat via the atmosphere and the oceans. If it retained heat all life on Earth would die. Even on a hot summers day, it will cool at night. Deserts, too, are often cooler at night. As for carbon dioxide, it is a trace gas in the atmosphere at some 0,041% (410 ppm), but it is also the gas which all vegetation requires. In turn, vegetation gives off oxygen while we humans and other animals exhale carbon dioxide, completing the cycle.
"In our open-to-space atmosphere, the excellent radiating properties of all so-called 'greenhouse gases' serve to cool the atmosphere, never to warm it. Any and all gases in our atmosphere cool the planet, either by absorbing solar radiation on its way to the surface or by taking energy away from the surface but at no stage can any gas add energy.
In reality, it is the oxygen and nitrogen that act as 'greenhouse gases' - they retain heat much longer than the gases now labeled such."
(Source: Hans Schreuder, Final Analysis: Climate Change - Man-made or not? ) and Principia Scientific on the CO2 global warming coffin .
Convection moves energy around in the atmosphere, but it cannot shed energy to space. Conduction depends upon thermal contact with other matter and since space is essentially a vacuum, conduction cannot shed energy to space, this leaves only radiative emission. The only way our planet can shed energy is via radiative emission to space. Read more about this process in this post from Morpheus on CAGW scam and the paper on Climate Sanity.
As science is never settled we include some more research as backup for our claims: climatic effects of man made CO2 and explain why CO2 can not regulate temperature and alternative theory to anthropogenic carbon dioxide effects in our climate.
Another paper states that: "It appears that the long-term growth in the atmospheric CO2 concentration is driven not by anthropogenic emissions, but instead, by static effectiveness of the sinks, which because of the seasonal effects, appears to not be keeping up with increasing temperature-driven emissions.". Read more in the article: Contribution Of Anthropogenic Co2 Emissions To Changes In Atmospheric Concentrations .
More proof that CO2 follows temperature.
Being the chaotic system our atmosphere is, scientists still try to model it in computer simulations to be able to predict it. But now it seems that those "climate modelers stubbornly using generation after generation of models that exhibit too much surface and tropospheric warming". More information in Climate models overstate warming .
Climate models produce too much warming compared to observations from the past fifty years, the period in which warming and the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere were most rapid. The discrepancy ranges from more than 40 percent for global surface air temperatures, about 50 percent for global lower atmospheric temperatures, and even a factor of two to three for the United States in summer. This discrepancy is never mentioned when those same models are used as a basis for policy decisions.
What is also not mentioned when discussing climate models is that they are based on the assumption that there are no natural sources of long-term climate change. The models must be "tuned" not to cause climate change, and then human influence is added in the form of a very small, roughly 1 percent change in the global energy balance.
From the paper by Roy Clark, PhD we read: The energy transfer processes that determine the surface temperature of the earth have been oversimplified using the concept of an equilibrium climate. The time dependence was removed and replaced by average values. Physical reality was abandoned in favor of mathematical simplicity. Climate science has been replaced by climate algebra. Read more here: Science or Algebra.
The same happens on a cloudy day, it just stays cooler and apparently warmer at night. But if the cloudiness continues for days it will eventually cool off due to the lack of incoming energy from the sun. So water vapor controls the temperature much more than any other trace gas. The best that four molecules in 10000 can do is fractionally slow down warmth on its way back to space, thus it remains warmer a little bit longer.
From our meteorological studies we know that in a high pressure system the air descends and heats up by compression, much like a bicycle air pump does. Now, scientific study has shown that the temperature in our atmosphere is to a large extent dependant on atmospheric pressure and not of its composition, see (Planetary Temperature). This study was able to model and calculate the temperature on several planets very accurately due to this compression heating caused by total air pressure.
To suggest, however, that climate change is influenced by too much carbon dioxide lacks all scientific merit. There simply is not enough CO2 in our Earth's atmosphere to have any measurable impact and levels have been higher without increased temperatures in the past.
Scientific research (source: Professor Murry Salby) has proven that CO2 levels follow temperature change than the other way around. The same effect can be seen with warm air, this can contain more water vapor than cold air. It has also been shown that CO2 increases are logarithmic, see image, read more in the article from CO2isLife here.
An excellent presentation from Prof. Salby can be seen in the next YouTube video: Atmospheric Carbon, 18 July 2016, University College London . In this presentation he debunks, in a very clear way, the premise that anthropogenic CO2 causes climate change once and for all.
A paper published by Wijngaarden and Happer (2021) concluded that "Doubling the current concentrations of the greenhouse gases CO2, N2O and CH4 increases the forcings by a few percent for cloud-free parts of the atmosphere". So, increasing these gases hardly have any effect on global temperature at all. Read more in their paper here: Greenhouse Molecule Potency, or for an WUWT article here: Abate CO2 emissions to cut global warming? .
Put another way: "CO2 is 1 out of every 2,500 atmospheric molecules, humans are responsible for 1 out of every 10,000 molecules at most. CO2 absorbs 15-micron LWIR which is consistent with the energy emitted by a black body of -80 °C. Anyone that thinks that marginally increasing the kinetic energy of 1 out of every 2,500 molecules can materially impact the kinetic energy of the other 2,499 molecules simply need to use their brains. Science looks at the marginal impact, and the marginal impact of increasing CO2 from 300 ppm to 400 ppm is truly negligible and it decreases on a logarithmic scale."
In ScienceDaily (July 29, 2011) Dr. Spencer concedes, "The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show. There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans." The second law of thermodynamics would explain this.
An article in WUWT (July 2021) Willis Eschenbach wrote that: "The important takeaway from all of this is that there is no physics-based requirement that surface temperatures per force must change when the level of CO2 and other greenhouse gases increases or decreases. The surface temperature may indeed change to restore the TOA radiation balance, but contrary to the endless claims of the alarmists, there is no physics that requires that it does so.". Read more here: Keeping things in balance .
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has used a number of computer models which have tried to project the climate in the future. After a number of years it seemed that they were completely wrong and that actual observations showed something completely different. See the image to the right and move your mouse over for more detail.
A very nice presentation on the relative amounts of carbon dioxide, methane and water in our atmosphere can be seen in this YouTube video on 'CO2 contributed by human activity by 1ElisaPardo', click here .
Written by EAI.
Experimental Aircraft Info
