El Nino To The Rescue?

Image: The Psychology of Climate Doom: How Narrative Outpaces Nuance

Related: No, the AMOC Isn’t in Danger of Collapsing

• European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”

• The Climate Scaremongers: How The UK Govt Made 25,000 Winter Deaths Disappear – Excess winter deaths contradicted the global warming narrative—so they stopped publishing it

• The Freedom to Eat Meat

Video: Tony Heller
The US is experiencing the worst springtime drought on record, but the weather seems to be changing and the change may be due to a rapidly developing El Nino

Who’s afraid of the big bad El Niño wolf?

Earth Energy Imbalance: The Sun versus CO2

Energy (heat) is transported from the surface of the earth to the top of the Troposphere by convection, not radiation. The atmosphere lose energy (heat) by radiation, not convection due to the lower part of the atmosphere’s density, which is the reason the “Black Body Surface” of the earth is not the actual surface of the earth. The scientific explanation is captured in the comment below (not all links works – yet):

Comment is posted under an article at CFact.org by LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

While radiation is the primary way the Earth cools, this cooling doesn’t happen directly from the dirt or water into the vacuum of space.

Which implies some way other than radiation…

In point of fact, the bulk dry atmosphere (consisting ~99.957% of N2 (a homonuclear diatomic), O2 (a homonuclear diatomic) and Ar (a monoatomic)) has an Adiabatic Lapse Rate of ~9.8 K km-1.

Given that the ALR is ‘anchored’ at the altitude where radiative and convective energy transport processes balance out, that means it’s in the upper atmosphere… that’s where the atmospheric temperature gradient starts. Gravitational auto-compression blue-shifts the atmospheric temperature as one descends the gravity well.

We know the planet’s emission curve is roughly analogous to that of an idealized blackbody object emitting at 255 K. And we know the ‘effective emission height’ at that temperature is ~5.105 km.

9.8 K km-1 * 5.105 km = 50.029 K atmospheric temperature gradient + 255 K ALR starting point = 305.029 K surface temperature

You’ll note that much-higher surface temperature is caused by the monoatomics and (to a lesser extent) homonuclear diatomics.

Monoatomic have no vibrational mode quantum states and thus cannot emit IR under any circumstance. In an atmosphere consisting of entirely monoatomics, the atoms could pick up energy via conduction (by contacting the surface) just as the polyatomics currently do in our atmosphere, they could convect, just as the polyatomic currently do in our atmosphere… but once in the upper atmosphere, they would be utterly unable to radiatively emit that energy to space. The upper atmosphere would warm, which would translate down through the lapse rate to a warmer surface. Because the surface would have to radiatively emit that energy, rather than the atmosphere moving it away from the surface, then emitting it higher in the atmosphere, that means the surface would have to warm (a higher surface radiant exitance implies a higher surface temperature in accordance with the S-B equation).

The same goes (to a lesser extent) for homonuclear diatomics… they have a net-zero electric dipole which must be perturbed (usually via collision) in order to radiatively emit… except collisions occur exponentially less frequently as altitude increases due to air density decreasing exponentially with altitude.

Then we come to the radiative polyatomics… the only atmospheric molecules capable of easily shedding energy from the atmosphere to space. Water vapor, which the warmist leftist libtard commie morons claim is the most-effective “greenhouse gas (due to backradiation)” is actually such an effective net atmospheric radiative coolant that it acts as a literal refrigerant (in the strict ‘refrigeration cycle’ sense) below the tropopause:

The refrigeration cycle (Earth) [AC system]:
A liquid evaporates at the heat source (the surface) [in the evaporator], it is transported (convected) [via an AC compressor], it gives up its energy to the heat sink and undergoes phase change (emits radiation in the upper atmosphere, the majority of which is upwelling owing to the mean free path length / altitude / air density relation and the energy density gradient) [in the condenser], it is transported (falls as rain or snow) [via that AC compressor], and the cycle repeats.

That’s kind of why, after all, the humid adiabatic lapse rate (~3.5 to ~6.5 K km-1) is lower than the dry adiabatic lapse rate (~9.81 K km-1).

6.5 K km-1 * 5.105 km = 33.1815 K temperature gradient + 255 K = 288.1815 K surface temperature

So in reality, far from the most efficient “greenhouse gas (due to backradiation)” as the warmist leftist libtard commie morons claim, water actually cools the surface by 16.8475 K, on average.

That 6.5 K km-1 is the Average Humid Adiabatic Lapse Rate. That 33.1815 K temperature gradient and 288.1815 K surface temperature is what the climatologists try to claim is caused by their “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)“… except it’s not. It’s caused by the Average Humid Adiabatic Lapse Rate, and that has nothing to do with any “backradiation“, nor any “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)“, nor any “greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))“.

The Adiabatic Lapse Rate is caused by the atmosphere converting z-axis DOF (Degree of Freedom) translational mode (kinetic) energy to gravitational potential energy with altitude (and vice versa), that change in z-axis kinetic energy equipartitioning with the other 2 linearly-independent DOF upon subsequent collisions, per the Equipartition Theorem. This is why temperature falls as altitude increases (and vice versa).

CO2 is the same (to a lesser extent, because while H2O has latent heat capacity and the ability to radiative emit, CO2 only has higher DOF and the ability to radiatively emit as compared to the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics).

CO2 is a net atmospheric radiative coolant at all altitudes except for negligible warming right at the tropopause.

https://i.imgur.com/b87xKMk.png
The image above is from a presentation given by Dr. Maria Z. Hakuba, an atmospheric research scientist at NASA JPL.

https://i.imgur.com/gIjHlCU.png
The image above is adapted from the Clough and Iacono study, Journal Of Geophysical Research, Vol. 100, No. D8, Pages 16,519-16,535, August 20, 1995.

Note that the Clough & Iacono study is for the atmospheric radiative cooling effect, so positive numbers at right are cooling, negative numbers are warming.

In short, the climatologists have misattributed their completely-fake “backradiation” as the cause of the atmospheric temperature gradient which is actually caused by the Adiabatic Lapse Rate and its associated gravitational auto-compression (the blue-shifting of temperature as one descends a gravity well in an atmosphere).

We cannot have two simultaneous but completely different causes for the same effect (one radiative energy… the wholly-fictive “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)“; and one kinetic energy… the Adiabatic Lapse Rate). If we did, we’d have double the effect. One must go. And the one which must go is the mathematically-fraudulent “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)“.

That leaves only the Adiabatic Lapse Rate. And we can calculate the exact change in temperature gradient (and thus surface temperature) for any given change in concentration of any given atmospheric gas.

For instance, the “ECS” (ie: the change in Adiabatic Lapse Rate) of CO2 is only 0.00000190472202445 K km-1 ppm-1 (when accounting for the atoms and molecules which CO2 displaces)… which is overpowered ~36.15:1 by radiative cooling due to increased emitters per parcel of air.

So as one can see, it’s all nothing more than a complex mathematical scam. I’ve unwound that scam above.

If you’re curious about the temperature change for any given change in concentration of any given constituent atmospheric atomic or molecular species, see the PatriotAction URL above. I’ve reverse-engineered the adiabatic lapse rate (ALR), deriving each gas’s contribution to the ALR from the concentration of each constituent gas. I’ve included the equations, so you can confirm the maths yourself.

In short, the “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)” doesn’t exist and is physically impossible (energy does not and cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient). That leaves only the Adiabatic Lapse Rate.

https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711