- Time is an illusion.
- If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.
- You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.
- Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
- The only reason for time is so that everything doesn’t happen at once.
- I never made one of my discoveries through the process of rational thinking.
- Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better.
- Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live.
- Imagination is the highest form of research.
- Am I, or the others crazy?
- The only real valuable thing is intuition.
- If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.
- For an idea that does not first seem insane, there is no hope.
- When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than any talent for abstract, positive thinking.
- I believe in intuitions and inspirations...I sometimes FEEL that I am right. I do not KNOW that I am.
- A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
- A true genius admits that he/she knows nothing.
- The only source of knowledge is experience.
- The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.
- Truth is what stands the test of experience.
- If I could do it all again, I'd be a plumber.
- Imagination is more important than Knowledge.
- I asked myself childish questions and proceeded to answer them.
- I don't pretend to understand the universe — it's much bigger than I am.
- I know quite certainly that I myself have no special talent; curiosity, obsession and dogged endurance, combined with self-criticism, have brought me to my ideas.
- I am not a genius, I am just curious. I ask many questions. and when the answer is simple, then God is answering.
- Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.
- The man with the greatest soul will always face the greatest war with the low minded person.
- I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious.
- I didn't arrive at my understanding of the fundamental laws of the universe through my rational mind.
- Something deeply hidden had to be behind things.
- Why is it that no one understands me and everybody likes me
- The gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge.
- To invent something, all you need is imagination and a big pile of junk.
- In the matter of physics, the first lessons should contain nothing but what is experimental and interesting to see. A pretty experiment is in itself often more valuable than twenty formulae extracted from our minds.
- The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science.
- Beyond the realms of what we see, into the regions or the unexplored limited only by our imaginations.
- Nonsense, seems to sum up everything.
- In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this religious feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.
- Equations are more important to me, because politics is for the present, but an equation is something for eternity.
- In scientific thinking are always present elements of poetry. Science and music requires a thought homogeneous.
- Logic will get you from A to B, but imagination will take you anywhere.
- If you can't explain something simply, you don't understand it.
tisdag 26 mars 2013
måndag 25 mars 2013
In 1922 the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Bohr and at the same time with a one-year delay the 1921 Prize was given to Einstein. The pressure to give Einstein the Prize had mounted in the aftermath of the First World War with Einstein rising as a symbol for German-British reconciliation, but relativity theory skeptics had been dominating the Nobel Committee, until in 1922 two of them (Hasselberg and Granquist) passed away and were replaced the strong proponents of modern physics Oseen and Siegbahn. The 1922 Prize came out from a battle between to following key actors:
- Gullstrand (against Einstein),
- Arrhenius (against Einstein),
- Oseen (for Einstein), new member of the Committee 1922.
- Time and space can be described variously, but even if absolute time can- not be measured, thereof one cannot deduce that that time in its essence is relative, or even that it is advantageous to describe time a relative.
- (Einstein’s thought experiments concern)...relativity that lies entirely outside the realm of experience and can therefore only be embraced by belief.
- Relativity theory has the character of an article of faith rather than a scien- tific hypothesis, and in accordance with the doctrine’s own needs Nature is rearranged so that any falsification is unthinkable.
- It cannot be denied that Einstein’s idea (the law of the photoelectric effect) was a stroke of genius. However, it was natural and lay close to hand after the results of Leonard’s, J-J- Thompson’s and Planck’s great contributions. When it was formulated it was only a tentatively poorly developed hunch, based on qualitative and partially correct observations. It would look peculiar if a prize was awarded to this particular work.
- Convincing the other three members that Einstein’s “law” was a fundamental law of Nature, and that Bohr’s atomic theory directly rested on it, he managed to pilot the two cases through unproven waters into a new and safe harbor where fundamental laws and constants still counted as benchmarks.
- It was formally decided that an official clarification should be inserted into Einstein’s diploma saying that the prize had nothing to do with his special and general theories of relativity.
- The one who pulled the theory of heat radiation out of that isolation (black- body radiation), the first one to show that the magnitude of (Planck’s constant) h has a radical significance for the whole of atomic physics, is Einstein.
- This, the very first of his contributions to quantum theory is the one that reaches deepest, his proposition that the emission and absorption of light occurs in such a way that light quanta with energy hν are emitted and ab- sorbed. The law of the photoelectric effect was an immediate application of this proposition...an analysis which in its originality and penetrating mind has few equals in theoretical physics.
- The validity of Einstein’s original proposition regarding the quantum character of absorption and emission of light (at its microphysical interface with matter) quantitatively expressed in his law of the photoelectric effect was one of the prerequisite conditions on which Bohr built his atomic theory. Almost all confirmations of Bohr’s theory and with it all spectroscopic confirmations are at the same time confirmation’s of Einstein’s law.
- The Einsteinian proposition and Bohr’s content-wise identical frequency conditions are currently one of the most certain laws that obtain in physics.
- For his services to theoretical physics, in particular for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect (P + W = hν).
- ...without taking into account the value which will be accorded your relativity and gravitation after these are confirmed in the future (in a cover letter).
Swedish physicists kept a skeptical attitude to Einstein’s relativity well into the second half of the 20th century as expressed by Hannes Alfven (1908-1995), Nobel Prize in Physics 1970:
- Many people probably felt relieved when told that the true nature of the world could not be understood except by Einstein and a few other geniuses who were able to think in four dimensions. They had tried to understand science, but now it was evident that science was something to believe in, not something which should be understood.
fredag 22 mars 2013
Einstein expressed his relation to mathematics as follows:
- Do not worry too much about your difficulties in mathematics, I can assure you that mine are still greater.
- So far as the theories of mathematics are about reality, they are not certain; so far as they are certain, they are not about reality.
- Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself any more.
Einstein's math teacher the great mathematician Minkowski called him a "lazy dog", and Einstein had to rely on the help of his friend Grossmann, mathematician but not physicist.
The basic example is the Lorentz transformation as the basis of the special theory of relativity, postulating how to measure space and time depending on observer velocity. As acknowledged by Einstein's friend Max Born, special relativity has no physical model and thus is not about reality:
- Length contraction and and time dilation (of special relativity) are ways of regarding things and do not correspond to reality.
But did Einstein ever understand general relativity?
PS An example of the confusion created by Einstein with definitions being mixed up with statements about physics, is given in a recent post by Lubos, who after a lengthy response to a comment by me refuses further discussion.
onsdag 20 mars 2013
In the scientific discussion on global warming by a CO2 "greenhouse gas effect", we find the following main positions:
- Alarmist: Doubled CO2 will cause warming of an alarming 3 C.
- Skeptic: The effect of doubled CO2 is much smaller than 3 C, probably so small that it cannot be observed.
- Denier: There is no real evidence indicating that doubled CO2 can caused any observable warming.
tisdag 19 mars 2013
The scientific method is the basis of modern society with the basic requirement that a scientific theory as an expression of the scientific method, must allow making observable predictions.
The theory stating that the Earth rests on the backs of four invisible turtles the presence of which cannot be observed, is not a scientific theory. Controling an airplane by throwing dice is not a scientific approach and will not work, because the outcome a dice throw is not predictable.
The requirement of prediction connects to the mathematical concept of wellposedness formulated by the French mathematician Jean Leray in the 1930s: A mathematical model with certain output from certain input data, is said to be wellposed if small changes in input data result in small changes in output. The model is said to be illposed if small changes in input can result in large changes in output.
The rationale is that output from an illposed model in general carries no relevant information, since small changes in input, which cannot be controlled, can give widely different outputs making prediction impossible. An illposed mathematical model therefore does not represent a scientific theory.
In principle, climate science can be viewed as a mathematical model of the thermodynamics of the Earth-atmosphere system, in the form of the Navier-Stokes equations. It was this model that led Leray to his study of wellposedness, motivated by the fact that the Navier-Stokes equations in general have turbulent solutions with pointwise values being very sensitive to small perturbations, thus being pointwise illposed. But meanvalues show to be insensitive and thus the Navier-Stokes equations show to be wellposed in an appropriate meanvalue sense, as developed in Computational Turbulent Incompressible Flow.
Climate science based on the NS equations may thus be capable of making predictions, although the computational technology required to model the whole Earth-atmosphere, lies far into the future.
Climate science is obsessed by a task of finding evidence of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming CAGW from CO2 emissions, which means finding a large effect of global warming of 3 C from the small change of an increase of the concentration of atmospheric CO2 from the present 390 ppm to 600 ppm. CAGW is thus based on an illposed model and as such cannot be viewed to have scientific support. To be able to predict the effect of a change of 0.02% CO2, a very high precision climate model must be used, and such a model is not foreseeable.
Sekr Staffan Normark
Lennart Bengtsson, som är huvudansvarig (Ref 1) för KVAs Uttalande: Den Vetenskapliga Grunden för Klimatförändringar 22 sept 2009, har nyligen i media (Ref 2) uttryckt en ändrad hållning från stöd till skepticism vad gäller den CO2 alarmism som IPCC framför.
Svensk klimatpolitik vilar ytterst på KVAs uttalande i linje med IPCC, och skulle se annorlunda ut om KVA i likhet med Lennart Bengtsson ändrade sitt uttalande från stöd till IPCC till skepticism.
Min fråga till KVA är nu: Avser KVA att revidera sitt uttalande i linje med Lennart Bengtssons ändrade hållning, eller kommer uttalandet att kvarstå, som grunden för svensk klimatpolitik.
prof em i tillämpad matematik KTH
Ref 1 http://www.theclimatescam.se/2013/03/18/vad-ar-det-som-pagar/#comment-327981
Ref 2 http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.se/2013/03/lennart-bengtsson-global-climate-change.html
Svar meddelas när det inkommer.
PS When climate skeptics state that for sure they understand very well that there is a CO2 greenhouse effect, as any knowledgable scientist must do, they refer to the radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m2 with 1 C warming from doubled concentration, but then forget that this effect has very weak scientific support. They seem to get caught in an argument stating that even if the effect is too small to ever be detected, the effect is undeniably real as an expression of the line spectrum of CO2.
But this means violating the essential principle of science to not give a negligible effect a major role, which is required in order to be able to make meaningful predictions as the goal of science.
måndag 18 mars 2013
To get perspective on the state of physics today it is instructive to recall the beginning of modern physics marked by the special theory of relativity presented by the young Einstein in 1905 as a revolution away from the absolute space and time of Newtonian mechanics shared by all observers, into relativistic mechanics with each observer carrying his own space-time under an assumption of a common constant speed of light.
Many-Minds Relativity argues that special relativity is a formal mathematical theory without physical interpretation defined by the Lorentz transformation connecting measurements of space and time by different observers in motion, as opposed to the Galilean transformation of Newtonian mechanics.
The argument is that the Lorentz transformation has no physical realization, as pointed out by Lorentz and Born among others, while the Galilean transformation describes real physics. The fact that special relativity is a non-physical theory comes out as contradictions such as the twin paradox and the ladder paradox.
In Newtonian mechanics based on Galilean transformation different observers share a common perception of space and time (absolute space and time), but have different perceptions depending on motion (e.g. Doppler effect). Newtonian mechanics is thus relativistic as a many-minds theory on a shared basis of absolute space and time, with the possibility of using different coordinate systems connected by Galilean transformation.
- Newtonian mechanics is like a democratic society with citizens sharing common values while being allowed to have different opinions.
- Relativistic Einsteinian mechanics is like a dictatorship with citizens sharing nothing while being required to have opinions dictated by the dictator.
lördag 16 mars 2013
We are now ready to take the final step in the evaluation of the main scientific evidence underlying CO2 alarmism, which consists of outgoing long wave radiation OLR spectra produced by a combination of mathematical software (Modtran) and measurement of the line spectrum of atmospheric CO2 (IRIS interferometer).
The warming effect or "radiative forcing" of CO2 is seen as the area of the ditch in the OLR spectrum in the wave number band 550 - 800 containing the line spectrum of CO2 around the main resonance 667, which by Modtran is predicted to increase by 3.7 W/m2 upon doubling of the concentration of CO2 to 600 ppm from preindustrial level of 300 ppm, which is commonly translated to a global warming of 1 C. Starting from the present level of 395 ppm Modtran predicts a global warming of 0.5 C from radiative forcing of 2 W/m2.
Global warming of 0.5 C is too small to be observed and thus cannot give rise to alarm. In any case CO2 alarmism starts from 1 C warming from doubled CO2, which is then inflated to 3 C by postulated feedback effects for which scientific evidence is missing.
The scientific evidence of the warming effect of CO2 thus boils down to the Modtran prediction of 3.7 W/m2 upon doubling to 600 ppm as the increase of the ditch area. Inspection of the OLR spectrum produced by Modtran shows that bottom of the ditch is connected to temperature 220 K which is the minimum temperature of the troposphere with top at 10 km and the constant temperature in the tropopause between 10 and 20 km. The increase in ditch area is thus seen to come from the shoulders of the spectrum around wave number 600 and 800 containing weak spectral lines of CO2.
This effect can be studied by the Gas-Cell Simulator by Spectral Calc with a free version online, which is similar to Modtran. Spectral Calc shows to produce atmospheric CO2 spectra with a simple dependence on the parameter p x L, where p is the partial pressure of CO2 (bar) and L is the path length (m). The switch from transparency to opaqueness shows to occur for p x L ~ 1, which indicates that the effective emission altitude on the shoulders could increase by 1000 m upon doubling of CO2. With a lapse rate of 6 C/km and a width of the shoulders of 100, this can be estimated to a radiative forcing of the same size as the 3.7 W/m2 by Modtran.
We have now decoded the radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m2 from doubled CO2 predicted by Modtran as the result of a very simple model of line broadening of the weak spectral lines of CO2 on the shoulders of the line spectrum around the main resonance 667. The effect could as well be 2 W/m2, or 1 W/m2, in which case CO2 alarmism would have nothing to start from.
Increasing CO2 beyond 600 ppm lifts the effective emission altitude of the main resonance of CO2 at 667 into the warmer stratosphere with a cooling effect, which may dominate the warming effect from the shoulders. The same evidence in the form of Modtran predicting 1 C warming by an increase from 300 ppm to 600 ppm, thus may give cooling under further increase.
It is mind-boggling to realize that the scientific basis of CO2 alarmism asking for a complete transformation of human civilization into a carbon-free society, consists of simple ad hoc model of broadening of a CO2 line spectrum predicting global warming of 1 C from radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m2 by doubled CO2, which could as well be instead 0.5 C, too small to be observed.
The mantra of 3.7 W/m2 will certainly be repeated in the upcoming IPCC 5th report as the foundation of the house of cards of CO2 alarmism. The time of reckoning is here as soon as leading climate skeptics (finally) realize and articulate the weakness of the 3.7 W/m2 card.
PS1 World Leading Swedish Meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson is now switching from warmist to skeptic and will have to retract his support to IPCC expressed in a statement by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which will change Swedish climate politics.
PS2 The falling house of cards is now creating head lines in the press.
torsdag 14 mars 2013
The warming effect of CO2 is expressed by the ditch in the spectrum between wave numbers 550 and 800, with the bottom of the ditch associated with the emission temperature 220 K occurring in the tropopause. This is the minimum temperature of the atmosphere and thus gives maximal warming effect of CO2. Running Modtran with different concentration of CO2 from 50 ppm to 1000 ppm puts the bottom of the ditch at 220 K with the central resonance at 667 climbing to higher temperature reflecting emission from the stratosphere.
Modtran/IRIS translates a line spectrum to a continuous spectrum with the CO2 warming effect expressed as the area of the ditch in the spectrum between 550 - 800. The area depends on the bottom of the ditch anchored at 220 K for CO2 concentrations larger than 50 ppm, and on the width which is slightly increasing with increasing concentrations. The warming effect of doubled CO2 from 300 ppm then comes out to be 3.7 W/m2, which serves as the starting point of CO2 alarmism. This effect is not directly measured but comes from a model of line broadening in a translation of a line spectrum to a continuous spectrum.
In an upcoming post I will scrutinize the line broadening model. To prepare, note that the emission altitude and thus temperature is determined by the fact that the atmosphere above that altitude is essentially transparent to the chosen wave number. Increasing CO2 concentration will then mean increasing altitude and then cooling above the tropopause as seen for 667. The key question of OLR can thus be reduced the tractable problem of transparency at sufficient altitude without resolving the complex heat transfer within the atmosphere. This makes it possible to decode fabrication of artificial warming if present.
onsdag 13 mars 2013
The OLR spectrum shows the continuous spectrum radiated from the Earth surface through the "atmospheric window" for wave numbers 800 - 1200, and the jagged line spectrum of H2O for wave numbers up to 550, and the ditch 550 - 800 attributed to CO2, which is the evidence of CO2 warming.
The spectrum in the ditch with it's flat bottom at 220 K, is constructed in a two-step procedure:
- Identification of a line spectrum from the presence of CO2 (Hitran, interferometer).
- Translation of the line spectrum to a continuous spectrum defining atmospheric irradiance (Modtran modeling).
lördag 9 mars 2013
- air, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen: 0
- carbonic oxide: 12
- carbonic acid: 18
- nitrous oxide: 29
- olefiant gas: 53.
The evidence of global warming from increasing concentration of atmospheric CO2 as a "greenhouse gas" in support of CO2 alarmism propagated to the world and its political leaders by IPCC and governmental institutions, consists of
- Direct observation of global temperature and CO2 concentration.
- But the last 15 years with no global warming under rising CO2 gives no reason for CO2 alarmism.
- Modtran/Hitran as a combination of model theory and laboratory measurement serves as the main evidence of "radiative forcing" of 3.7 W/m2 from doubled CO2 to 600 ppm commonly translated to a global warming of 1 C.
- But Modtran gives a "radiative forcing" from the present 390 ppm to 600 ppm of only 2 W/m2 translated to a warming of 0.5 C, which is so small that it cannot be observed.
- The Modtran model results are either unreliable with no predictive value (most likely), or reliable with no reason for alarm.
fredag 8 mars 2013
We see in the lower plot that water vapor H2O is concentrated to the lower troposphere, while CO2 is spread out through the whole atmosphere.
The OLR spectrum in red shows the effect of water vapor as emission in the lower troposphere at a temperature of about 250 K for wave numbers smaller than 550, and the effect of CO2 as emission in the upper troposphere at a temperature of about 220 K for wave numbers in the range 550 - 800.
What determines the effective emission temperature/altitude and thus the OLR spectrum, is the transparency of the atmosphere above the effective emission altitude. If CO2 was concentrated to the lower troposphere the effective emission temperature in the band 550 - 800 would be higher with an increase of OLR and thus a smaller warming effect from CO2.
The key question of the effect of increasing CO2 to 600 ppm from the present 390 ppm, is thus the effect on the transparency of the atmosphere in the band 550 - 800 in the upper troposphere and tropopause. Modtran shows this effect to be
We see a warming of 2 W/m2 as an effect of a slightly wider/deeper ditch for wave numbers 550 - 800 including the main resonance of CO2 at 667.
We observe that the 2 W/m2 is about half of the basic postulate of CO2 alarmism of 3.7 W/m2 upon doubling from 300 ppm, and that these 2 W/m2 come out from a very subtle change of transparency with small broadening of the ditch in the CO2 spectrum for emission at 240 - 250 K, on the "shoulders" of the CO2 spectrum around 667. Experimental support of this effect is missing, and the effect may just be an artifact of an ad hoc assumption in Modtran with emissivity simply scaling with path length.
- The effect of H2O as greenhouse gas GHG is seen in the OLR spectrum as a substantial decrease of effective emission temperature in the lower troposphere for wave numbers smaller than 550.
- The 2 W/m2 of "radiative forcing" from doubled CO2 is the result of a subtle effect of line broadening on the shoulders around 667 at low pressure and long path length. The warming effect of 2 W/m2 is commonly translated to a global warming of 0.5 C, which is to small to be observed.
- Modtran shows a substantial effect of water vapor and a negligible effect of CO2.
- Modtran is presented as the main evidence of a possibly alarming global warming from doubled CO2, but if anything Modtran shows that the effect is too small to be observed and thus cannot be alarming.
torsdag 7 mars 2013
We see that the sparse line spectrum of CO2 for 100 m with high transmittance (bottom) is turned into a band spectrum for 10000 m with low transmittance (top) as an effect of line broadening by increasing path length. This is the line broadening behind the radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m2 as the only hard evidence of CO2 warming.
We can thus focus the scientific analysis of the basis of CO2 alarmism to the question of line broadening of CO2 as a trace gas with concentration of about 0.04%, as shown by Spectral Calc (or Modtran):
- main 667 line is fully absorbing (transmittance = 0) with width 2 for L = 10 m
- weak lines in the band 600 - 700 have almost full transmittance for L = 100 m
- weak lines in the band 600 - 700 have reduced transmittance for L = 1000 m
- weak lines in the band 600 - 700 have no transmittance for L = 10000 m.
PS The model assumption is that transmittance depends on p x L, where p is total pressure (bar) and L is path length (m), with almost full transmittance if p x L < 20 and little transmittance if p x L > 200. The formula can be tested experimentally in laboratory for L ~ 10 but in applications to the atmosphere L = 1000 - 10000 and the question is if the simple proportionality to L is valid for such large values.
onsdag 6 mars 2013
The theoretical model of blackbody radiation as radiation through a peephole of an empty cavity (with soothed walls) is independent of the mass of the cavity (which is zero). This model property reflects a passive quality of (blackbody) radiation as emission of what is absorbed, no more no less.
A solid body like a glowing lump of iron has a full continuous blackbody spectrum covering all frequencies, while a gas has more or less thin line spectrum as discussed in a previous post on radiation of solid vs gas.
The wave model of blackbody radiation analyzed on Computational Blackbody Radiation represents a solid body consisting of a lattice of atoms capable of coordinated vibration emitting infrared radiation with a continuous spectrum of wave lengths several orders of magnitude larger than atomic dimensions. The model can be seen as a set of oscillators with small damping in equilibrium with external forcing with resonance frequencies covering all frequencies (up to a cut-off scaling with temperature).
Restricting this model to a set of oscillators with only selected resonances gives a model of a gas which does not appear to have the capacity of coordinated vibration on scales larger than atomic scales. The line width of the model is about 1 Hz.
The warming effect of 0.039% atmospheric CO2, as observed in the previous post, results from the continuous ditch in the Modtran OLR spectrum in the whole interval 550 - 800 around the main resonance at wave number 667, and is (very surprisingly so) comparable to the warming effect of 2% water vapor as the main "greenhouse gas".
The continuity of the Modtran OLR spectrum in the ditch comes from considerable broadening of the line spectrum of CO2 as an effect of a 10000 m thick troposphere. With a path length of only 1000 m the spectrum would be sparser and the CO2 warming effect maybe 10 times smaller.
So here is the question: Does a 10000 m thick atmosphere radiate like a solid with a continuous spectrum, while a 1000 m thick atmosphere radiates like a gas with a line spectrum?
Hint: If continuity of the OLR spectrum requires coordination over lengths much larger than molecular, does a 10000 m thick atmosphere offer more coordination than a 1000 m thick?
PS1 Hottel charts tabulate air emissivity using the product p x L as parameter, where p is the partial pressure of CO2 and L the path length, where thus a small partial pressure/concentration can be compensated by a large path length. In experiments the path length can be of size a few meters and the question is if the p x L dependence can be extrapolated to thousands of meters?
PS2 It is not easy as outsider to judge the validity of software like Modtran/Hitran since both models and programing is complex. But if software results contradict reason, then something may be seriously wrong and if something is seriously wrong then it may be possible to identify what it is.
PS3 Compare with How Deep is the Ocean?
To get perspective, let us use the online model of Modtran to compare the present 0.039% of CO2 with a typical value of 2% water vapor (by volume). We get the following OLR spectrum for a 1976 USA standard atmosphere with 1.7 ppm CH4, trop. ozone 28 ppb, strat ozone scale 1:
We see the effect of water vapor as the area between the blue to the red curve for wave numbers smaller than 550 and the effect of CO2 as the comparable area between 550 and 800, thus with an effect of 0.039% of CO2 comparable to that of 2% water vapor. More precisely, Modtran gives the following OLR numbers:
- CO2 = 390, water vapor 2%: 248 W/m2
- CO2 = 0, water vapor 0%: 337 W/m2
- CO2 = 390, water vapor 0%: 304 W/m2
- CO2 = 0, water vapor 2%: 273 W/m2
Modtran thus attributes a warming effect of the CO2 molecule which is at least 20 times more powerful than that of water vapor!!
We can now summarize the recent posts on Modtran as follows:
- Modtran is the main hard evidence of the warming effect of CO2.
- Modtran appears to inflate the warming effect of CO2 by factor more than 20.
- CO2 = 390, water vapor 2.5%: 259 W/m2
- CO2 = 0, water vapor 0%: 337 W/m2
- CO2 = 390, water vapor 0%: 304 W/m2
- CO2 = 0, water vapor 2%: 286 W/m2
PS2 The comparison of 0.04% of CO2 vs 2% water vapor does not take into account the fact that the concentration of water vapor falls off with altitude while that of CO2 does not. If included this reduces water vapor to 0.5% that is about 10 times as much as CO2. The factor 20 then gets replaced by 5, which is still remarkable. Compare with a later post.
måndag 4 mars 2013
CO2 global warming alarmism is based on a prediction of "radiative forcing" of 3.7 W/m2 upon doubling of CO2 concentration from preindustrial level of 300 ppm to 600 ppm, obtained by the radiative transfer model Modtran available online.
Here is the "back radiation" or downwelling long wave radiation DLR from the atmosphere to the Earth surface predicted by Modtran looking up from the ground through a standard atmosphere with water vapor scale = 0 combined with 1 ppm CO2 (top) compared with 0 ppm CO2 (bottom):
We see a "radiative forcing" effect on the ground of 11 W/m2 by increasing the CO2 concentration from 0 ppm to 1 ppm represented by the peak in the radiation spectrum around the main resonance at wave number 667 in the top graph.
With water vapor scale = 1 (%), we see a corresponding increase of the "back radiation" or DLR from 226.5 to 231.7 W/m2, with in this case a "radiative forcing" of 5 W/m2 from just 1 ppm of CO2.
Modtran thus assigns 1 ppm of CO2 an effect of "radiative forcing" of 5 - 10 W/m2, as a result of considerable broadening of the line spectrum at 667, visible as the peak in the upper graph.
This is another view of the drop in outgoing longwave radiation OLR noted in a previous post of 6 W/m2 by changing CO2 from 0 to 1 ppm.
Modtran assigns 0.0001% of CO2 a warming effect of 5 - 10 W/m2? Is this reasonable? Can we believe in what seems so utterly unreasonable?
Is it really possible that 0.0001% of CO2 can give a fully transparent atmosphere of O2/N2 molecules an absorptivity/emissivity > 2%, with thus an amplification factor of 20.000 from 0.0001% to 2%?? Is it possible that a 1 g fly can lift 20 kg? Try Modtran yourself to find an answer.
If it is not possible, then CO2 alarmism rests on an impossibility.
PS1 Here is the input to Modtran from Hitran for the main resonance at wave number 667:
Notice the sparsity of the radiation spectrum (per CO2 molecule) away from an interval around wave number 667 of width 2 - 3, from which Modtran evidently is able to make a big deal.
We have now traced the proclaimed scientific evidence of CO2 global warming to the interplay between Hitran and Modtran, which may help to focus the discussion. Remember that the "radiative forcing" of 3.7 W/m2 from doubling of CO2 produced by Modtran, is the key scientific evidence of CO2 global warming alarmism. Maybe the time has now come to seriously judge its validity.
PS2 Here is a Spectral Calc computation of transmittance of 1 ppm of CO2 over 1000 m (top) and 10000 m (bottom) at 0.5 bar total pressure:
We see absolute transparency for 1000 m except in the interval around 667 - 669 and a slight reduction of the transmittance by increasing the thickness from 1000 m to 10000 m. We see that Spectral Calc attributes an increase of atmospheric absorptivity of about 1% from the shoulders of 667 - 669 from 10000 m of 1 ppm of CO2 at 0.5 bar total pressure. This is 3 times smaller than the result by Modtran predicting a warming effect of 5 - 10 W/m2 for 10000 m of 1 ppm CO2, which is not present for only 1000 m. A very subtle phenomenon indeed.
We understand that Modtran aims at capturing a needle in a haystack and as a model with limited accuracy has to choose between taking the whole haystack along with the needle or missing the needle completely.
PS3 Swedish archaeologist Johan Norberg remarks that
- the Swedish idiomatic expression “att göra en höna av en fjäder” translates as “to create/make a hen out of a feather". It basically means to make up facts about something we know very little of, to blow things out of proportions.
PS4 The above Hitran spectrum is the input to Modtran, which adds (pressure) line-broadening to produce the Modtran spectrum. It is natural to ask if all the spectral lines on the shoulders away from 667 will be fully activated in broadened form by IR radiation from the Earth surface. The spectral lines represent possible resonances rather than actual resonances and the net effect after passage through the entire thickness of the atmosphere, may well be impossible to assess by computation. Since experimental verification of such a subtle phenomenon also seems impossible, what remains is Modtran model prediction which cannot be assessed experimentally and thus cannot be counted as science. Yet this serves as the basis of CO2 alarmism with the 3.7 W/m2 of "radiative forcing" from doubling as the key number. But the number 0.37 W/m2 is much more plausible and with this number there can be no CO2 alarmism.
PS5 Note the recent guest post on WUWT on Categorical Thinking as thinking without quantity, which says that since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, even if drowned by H2O, then CO2 will have a warming effect, even if this effect is so small that it can never be measured, and thus humanity must reduce its emissions to the atmosphere by drastic means, even if the the effect of the reduction can never be observed. This is not scientific mathematical thinking which is all about quantity.
fredag 1 mars 2013
CO2 global warming alarmism is based on a postulate of "radiative forcing" of 3.7 W/m2 from doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2 from preindustrial level of 300 ppm, with an associated warming effect of about 1 C, which after postulated positive feedback becomes an alarming 3 C. Without the radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m2, CO2 alarmism collapses to zero.
The radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m2 upon doubling of atmospheric CO2 is based on radiative transfer models based on models for absorption/emission spectra, but direct atmospheric experimental verification is lacking.
Even more conspicuously, laboratory measurements of absorptivity/emissivity of air with the low concentrations of CO2 present in the atmosphere which could support the 3.7 W/m2, are very sparse as evidenced here. The early work by Tyndall (1860s) and Arrhenius (1896) still remain as main references.
What is readily available on the web are many examples of school projects where young people are guided to supply the experimental evidence of CO2 warming which is lacking.
PS1 The main reference beyond Tyndall and Arrhenius is Hottel/Leckner with the following typical chart showing the emissivity of CO2 depending on temperature and partial pressure p_CO2 x L (atm-m), where p_CO2 = 0.00039 the partial pressure of CO2 at a total pressure of 1 atm and L is the optical thickness of CO2 which is about 1 m around the main resonance at wave number 667.
Th 3.7 W/m2 of "radiative forcing" from doubled CO2 may well be the biggest scientific "hockey stick" ever fabricated, so cleverly concocted that even prominent climate skeptics have been convinced.
PS2 Here are two Spectral Calc computation showing that the optical thickness of air with 390 ppm CO2 at a total pressure of 1 bar, is about 1 m at main resonance 667 (top graph: length = 1 m, bottom graph: length = 10 m), with a line broadening of about 2 cm^-1 in accordance with the near-resonance of Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation.
For when propositions are denied, there is an end
of them, but if they bee allowed, it requireth a
new worke. The Essais of Sr. Francis Bacon, London, 1612
The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it. George Orwell
Nothing is created by coincidence, rather there is reason and necessity for everything. Leukippus, 5th Century BC.
De Omnibus Dubitandum
More Blogs by CJ
Presentations by CJ
Upcoming Books by CJ
New Google Books by CJ
Books by CJ
- 2nd law (1)
- 2nd law of thermodynamics (24)
- 3rd Nobel Symposium (3)
- absolute simultaneity (1)
- Academic Rights Watch (3)
- aeroacoustics (1)
- AIAA (75)
- Anders Ångström (3)
- aniconism (1)
- arrow of time (7)
- atmosphere spectrum (1)
- atom model (18)
- augmented reality (1)
- azar (4)
- Bergson (3)
- Bert Bolin Centre for Climate Research (4)
- big (1)
- Big Bang (1)
- big bluff (16)
- Big Physics (2)
- black body radiation (100)
- BodyandSoul (37)
- bolometer (8)
- boundary layer (3)
- bruno (1)
- butterfly effect (1)
- censorship (4)
- CERES (7)
- CFD (16)
- Chandrasekhar (2)
- chaotic system (1)
- CJ70 (1)
- clay problem (23)
- climate models (9)
- climate politics (122)
- climate science (139)
- climate sensitivity (61)
- climate simulation (69)
- climate skeptic (9)
- climategate (19)
- CMB (4)
- CO2 (28)
- conduction vs radiation (1)
- constructive physics (3)
- Copenhagen Interpretation (1)
- copernicus (1)
- cosmological model (1)
- cosmological principle (4)
- cosmology (24)
- crisis in physics (3)
- critical thinking (1)
- dAlembertgate (6)
- dark age of science (1)
- dark energy (10)
- dark matter (9)
- definition as fact (1)
- definition vs physical fact (3)
- Deleuze (1)
- digitaliseringskommissionen (2)
- Dirac (1)
- direction of time (4)
- Discussion Forum (1)
- DLR (73)
- DN (1)
- Dr Faustus (5)
- dynamical system (1)
- economical crisis (5)
- Einstein (28)
- Einstein's equation (1)
- emission spectrum (1)
- emissivity (24)
- emissvity (1)
- engineering education reform (43)
- entropy (2)
- Equivalence Principle (4)
- Euler equations (3)
- extended Newtonian gravitation (4)
- faint sun paradox (2)
- Fakultetsnämnden KTH (5)
- False-SB (17)
- FEniCS (5)
- Feynman (1)
- Final Solution (2)
- finite element (2)
- finite element quantum mechanics (9)
- finite precision computation (21)
- fluid mechanics (20)
- fred singer (10)
- free will (5)
- Freedom Fest (3)
- Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (16)
- galileo (1)
- Glenn Research Center (4)
- Google Books (1)
- gravitation (25)
- greenhouse effect (136)
- Hamsten (1)
- Hans Rosling (2)
- Hawking (1)
- Heisenberg (1)
- Helium mystery (1)
- Helmholtz Reciprocity (2)
- Higgs mechanism (2)
- Hubble's Law (3)
- häggström (1)
- Högsta Förvaltningsdomstolen (29)
- ibook (4)
- iducation (3)
- infrared thermometer (14)
- instant action at distance (2)
- interactive computation (1)
- interviews (21)
- IPCC (33)
- IPCC Trick (12)
- IR camera (6)
- Judy Curry (10)
- Kammarrätten (37)
- Karolinska (1)
- Kiehl-Trenberth (1)
- Kirchhoff's law (4)
- Klimatupplysningen (3)
- Knut Ångström (1)
- Kodcentrum (1)
- kollegialt lärande (4)
- KTH (16)
- KTH-gate (74)
- KTH-gate2 (29)
- KTH-gate3 (55)
- KTH-studenter (1)
- Kutta-Zhukovsky (1)
- KVA (21)
- KVAs klimatuttalande (7)
- Laplace demon (5)
- lapse rate (8)
- Lennart Bengtsson (32)
- LIGO (3)
- lindzen (7)
- logical fallacy (1)
- lord monckton (2)
- Lorentz transformation (3)
- Macchiarini (2)
- Magnus effect (1)
- many-minds physics (8)
- many-minds relativity (17)
- Margot Wallström (2)
- matematik-IT (81)
- mathematics (37)
- mathematics education (132)
- mattekomissionen (1)
- Mattelyftet (20)
- Maxwell's equations (1)
- Michelson-Morley (2)
- millikan (1)
- modtran (13)
- MOOC (1)
- MST (6)
- Muir Russell Inquiry (7)
- mysticism of modern physics (18)
- myth of backradiation (121)
- N=NP? 2nd Law (1)
- NADA (8)
- Navier-Stokes (7)
- new quantum mechanics (19)
- New View on gravitation (22)
- Newton's 2nd law (1)
- nobel prize (2)
- numerical analysis (2)
- Ockham's razor (3)
- Offentlighetsprincipen (16)
- OLR (17)
- P = NP? (3)
- P=NP? 2nd law (1)
- peer review (1)
- Penguin logic (3)
- periodic table (3)
- phlogiston (4)
- photoelectric effect (6)
- photons (12)
- physical quantum mechanics (54)
- physics (46)
- physics illusions (12)
- piano acoustics (7)
- Planck's constant (20)
- Planck's Law (36)
- poker (1)
- Popper (2)
- Prandtl (11)
- Prandtl Medal (8)
- principle of least action (3)
- pry (1)
- pyrgeometer (14)
- pyrgeomter (1)
- QED (2)
- Quantum Contradictions (66)
- quantum mechanics (120)
- radiating atom (18)
- radiative forcing (10)
- radiative heat transfer (27)
- RealQM (23)
- relativity (5)
- repo rate (3)
- resonance (9)
- Riksbanken (3)
- roy spencer (12)
- Royal Society (5)
- Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (103)
- Sagnac effect (1)
- Schrödinger's equation (30)
- Schwarzschild (3)
- science (45)
- scientific method (1)
- secret of separation (7)
- seminars (1)
- shorttime vs longtime accuracy (3)
- simulation technology (38)
- simultaneity (1)
- Sky Dragon (22)
- SMHI (2)
- spiral galaxy (1)
- SR (1)
- stability-wellposedness (1)
- Standard Caculus (18)
- Stefan Löven (10)
- Stefan-Boltzmann's Law (36)
- stellar aberration (2)
- string instruments (3)
- string theory (1)
- SULF (2)
- svarta hål (1)
- svensk klimatpolitik (16)
- Svenska Matematikersamfundet (4)
- Svenska Mekanikdagar (5)
- SVT (5)
- teknikdelegationen (7)
- theory of flight (153)
- theory of relativity (49)
- theory of sailing (7)
- TheoryOfEverything (1)
- thermal imaging (4)
- thermodynamics of global climate (36)
- tim ball (1)
- turbulence (13)
- tyndall (1)
- Ulf Danielsson (1)
- uncertainty principle (10)
- Unicorn (1)
- von Neumann (1)
- wave-particle duality (2)
- wellposedness (1)
- Wien's displacement law (1)
- Zeno's arrow paradox (3)
- Öppna Göteborg (1)
- ► 2016 (96)
- ► 2015 (104)
- ► 2014 (183)
- Einsteinian Contradictions 4
- Einsteinian Contradictions 3
- Einsteinian Contradictions 2
- The Alarmist-Skeptic-Denier Hierarchy
- Scientific Principles of Climate Science?
- Brev till KVA: Grunden för Svensk Klimatpolitik?
- The Fabrication of CO2 Alarmism Decoded 4
- Einsteinian Contradictions 1
- The Fabrication of CO2 Alarmism Decoded 3
- The Fabrication of CO2 Alarmism Decoded 2
- The Fabrication of CO2 Alarmism Decoded 1
- Tyndall's Experiment as Basis of CO2 Alarmism
- Summary of Non-Evidence of CO2 Global Warming
- CO2 vs H2O as GreenHouse Gas: No Alarm
- Hard Evidence of CO2 Warming Missing
- How Thick is the Atmosphere?
- Hard Evidence of CO2 Warming Inflated by Factor 20...
- Modtran: One Fly Lifting 20 Kilo
- Evidence of CO2 Warming Supplied in School Project...
- ▼ mars (19)
- ► 2012 (207)
- ► 2011 (238)
- ► 2010 (240)