Satellites Indicate Forcing Error
Modelers such as James Hansen theorize that the primary cause of global warming is a multiplying factor called forcing. In other words, carbon dioxide will supposedly heat the planet a small amount, and then the increased heat will be multiplied due to more water vapor entering the atmosphere. Increasing the heat through a secondary effect is called positive forcing, and reducing the heat is called negative forcing.
In a recent publication (July 14, 2009. Geophysical Research Letters), Lindzen and Choi evaluated satellite measurements of radiation emitted into space with comparisons to sea surface temperature. They found that as sea surface temperatures increase, more radiation is emitted rather than less. Positive feedback theorized less radiation would be emitted, since more would be trapped.
Lindzen and Choi show a negative feedback (forcing) rather than positive. Since the increase in radiation was short-wave, it points to sunlight reflected off increased clouds, though the data does not indicate the cause. Modelers theorized a reduction in long-wave radiation due to increased water vapor absorbing more radiation.
To put this subject into perspective, this study adds a tidbit of evidence to the common sense and science of the subject which show that the theory of modelers is absurd to a point of fraud. Common sense indicates that if slight increases in temperature could be multiplied (A factor of 3 to 6 is often assumed by modelers.) thermal runaway would occur, and the climate would have locked at maximum or minimum temperature a long time ago due to natural temperature influences.
There is also a scientific fraud in applying the Stefan-Boltzmann constant to the gaseous atmosphere, when it is only applicable to solid surfaces (and is not accurate for that). The Stefan-Boltzmann constant says so much radiation is given off by a surface at a given temperature. But gasses do not have a surface. They radiate from all points within them, which promotes far more radiation than occurs with solids.
Since the atmosphere is cooled by radiation from all points within it, cooling occurs throughout the atmosphere. But this is only possible if the radiation is not blocked by greenhouse gasses, or if it is only blocked over such a long distance that only one or two cycles of absorption and re-emission occurs. I theorize that nitrogen and oxygen, which make up 99% of the atmosphere, absorb and re-emit for two cycles (perhaps traveling 10 kilometers the first cycle, depending upon wavelength), but I have not seen data on this. Extremely dilute greenhouse gasses would have a similar effect.
The point is that this dynamic of widespread radiation cools the atmosphere over its entire height. Climatologists assume otherwise. They assume that the cooling of the atmosphere is due to expansion of the gas. But expansion requires convection. Convection in the atmosphere is extremely limited and erratic and does not explain the temperature gradient. At atmospheric scale there is very little mixing of air, as demonstrated by heat inversions, where cold air will overlay warmer air. So convection cannot explain the temperature gradient with height in the atmosphere.
Based on these two errors—inappropriate use of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and false assumptions about convection—climatologists assume there is a zone high in the atmosphere where all of the radiation is emitted for cooling the planet.
When viewing these questions in an open and rational way, could not any idiot see that the climatologists have to be wrong? If all of the cooling were occurring in a narrow zone high in the atmosphere, how does the rest of the planet get cooled? What keeps the narrow zone from getting extremely cold before other areas are cooled? After the initial cooling of the narrow zone, would not the temperature change cause the zone to shift changing the location of the emitting point, sort of like a zipper moving the emission point lower? But since convection is poor, the whole process would stop as the assumed zone got colder.
They refer to the absurd emission zone as "the characteristic emission level," as if it actually existed. The zone supposedly moves upward as greenhouse gasses trap more heat below it.
The zone is assumed to be about 5 kilometers of height in the atmosphere, because that is where the temperature is usually -19°C or -2°F. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant says a surface will emit 235 watts per square meter at -19°C, and the earth must emit an average of 235 W/m² to get rid of the amount of heat that the sun adds to the earth.
Lindzen and Choi. July 14, 2009. Geophysical Research Letters - (750Kb, PDF)
We should revisit occasionally what the proper role of government is. As the constitution was a good sense of direction, we need a core set of principles to add in order to deal with the future.
So many want to engineer society, remove risk, assist certain groups, rather than let individuals thrive and raise communities. Why?
Is Democracy where we all "get it good and hard" or is it the best means to a free society?
Should we roll with the special interests, or make the government achieve its proper role, what is that role, and how to do this?
When do deficits and governments become too large?
Government is becoming more elitist while trying to sell corrections to problems it created, what makes this possible?
This could also be inserted into the field above, or erased
Currently as a society, we are having a most difficult time discussing political issues. What is driving this? And why a rebirth in political culture would be a good thing.
Are "markets" dead as some would conjecture? Or is free enterprise what got us here?
At the heart of economics there are several possible economic schools of thought, the essence of these schools of thought and how they relate to our lives.
