Climate Change

Climate Change – Models vs. Observations

/ Marshall Atwater / Leave a comment

History of Climate Change

Many of the Presidential candidates called Climate Change (formerly Global Warming and now being changed to Climate Emergency) an “existential problem” that demands immediate action to dramatically curtail the increase in global surface temperatures.  When non-scientists refer to climatic change today, they are referring to the Androgenic Global Warming (AGW) portion of Climate Change that tends to increase surface temperatures.  AGW is hypothesized to be the result of burning fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and thereby increase the greenhouse effect that warms the earth.  The particular problem of climatic change is really an old and familiar one.  Each generation seems to espouse some theory for the changing climate.  President Jefferson wrote about warming during his lifetime. Within my lifetime, climate change has been blamed on nuclear tests, atmospheric aerosol pollution, and now emission of carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels for energy.   

Actually, from the standpoint of meteorology, the weather is always changing, never static. The atmosphere is a restless medium undergoing all sorts of transitory variations-not only on an hourly or daily scale, but also on weekly, monthly, yearly, decadal, and greater scales up to the ice ages. Meteorologists are engaged in modestly detecting and predicting some of these variations over periods of a week or two. We would indeed be surprised if there were no major natural changes taking place even of the order of a year, two years, or even a century or longer.  

There are many theories about natural causes of geologic temperature changes that focus on changes in the solar output, or in changes to the earth’s solar orbit.  The last ice age peaked about 25,000 years ago and ice covered New England up to a mile thick with a significant lowering of the oceans.  Obviously, Man did not end the ice age because he had fires in the caves. 

Now, let’s concentrate on the past thousand years.  The early estimates of the global temperature indicated a Medieval Warm period starting about 1000 AD when the Viking farmers settled Greenland for more than 300 years and Vikings landed in Labrador and Newfoundland. This was followed by a cold period from 1450 to 1850 that is known as the Little Ice Age.  Certainly, there are historical accounts from the colonial period and the American Revolution on the extreme cold of this period.  For example, the Connecticut River often froze from October to May in the 17th century and the bitter cold at Valley Forge. What caused these changes?  The first thermometers were developed in 1709 and widescale surface temperature readings started in the late 1800s.  Recent analyses showed the following features:

  • Global temperatures rose about 0.9°F in two periods: 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 2000.
  • A period of cooling occurred from 1940 to 1970
  • There was a pause with nearly constant temperature during the 15 years 2000-2015 
  • Warmer years occurred from 2015 to 2018 with a strong El Nino.

Now, Man is trying to forecast the future climate based on the theory that emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels for energy will increase the warming to catastrophic levels by 2100.

Climate Models

The climate change theory that increased carbon dioxide results in a catastrophic increase in the earth’s temperature is modeled using climate models. Solar radiation from the Sun warms the Earth and infrared radiation emitted by the earth cools the planet. When long term incoming and outgoing radiative transfers are in balance, the global temperature will be unchanged.  The transfer computations are relatively well known and depend on the vertical concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other minor gases for both the incoming solar radiation and the emitted infrared radiation.  However, the computations are complex and time consuming and the cloud data are difficult to include. Extensive radiation computations were added to meteorological forecasting models to develop climate models.  Radiative effects on atmospheric temperature are only one of many factors in temperature changes.

Universities and government institutes in many countries developed over 30 climate models in the 1990s that made projections of the climate until 2100 and are updated about every five years.  Energy use based on fossil fuels increased after World War II due to increased industry and population.  Carbon dioxide increased from 280 ppm in 1945 to 415 ppm today.  Climate models initially estimated the global temperature increase of 6°F with plus or minus 50% error in 2100.  The model results differ by 3 to 1.

A comparison of the model temperature results with observations show three major points:

  • Failure to match 20th century changes. The models were simulated for 30 year periods 1910-1940 and 1970 to 2000. There are only small statistical differences between the rate of warming between the periods.  Climate models failed to simulate the natural warming duri g 1910-1940 when the carbon dioxide was constant.
  • Divergence of model results in the early 21st century.  Statistically significant global warming of the surface stopped for the first 15 years.  The models failed to predict any period of 10 years in which the temperature would not rise with increasing carbon dioxide. 
  • Models are warmer than current observations. Overall, the climate models forecast temperatures that are higher than the observations for the last 20 years.  Currently all models predict more warming than observed. 

The results should give some indication to the lack of accuracy of the models on their 10 to 30 year forecasts and whether their forecasts for 100 years will be scientifically defensible.

What is causing the errors in the climate models that cause them to overestimate global warming?  Three major problems are well known:

  • Problem 1.  Water Vapor Changes.  The models predict the atmosphere will contain additional atmosphere water vapor.  Water vapor is highly variable in the atmosphere in both horizontal and vertical dimensions and may differ from the model’s assumptions.
  • Problem 2.  Cloud coverage changes.  The simulation of clouds in climate models remains challenging. There is very high confidence that uncertainties in cloud processes explain much of the spread in modelled climate sensitivity. Nevertheless, biases in cloud simulation lead to regional errors on cloud’s radiative effect of several tens of watts per square meter.  Climate scientists have downplayed these biases because they are mainly looking for carbon dioxide as the sole cause of the observed warming.
  • Problem 3.   Omission of long-term oceanic cycles.  Scientists know various long-term cycles such as ENSO, North Atlantic Oscillation, (NAO), and Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) influence the global average temperatures, but are not generally a predicted element in the global models.
  • Problem 4.  Solar activity is assumed constant in the models.  Sunspots increased during the past century from the lows during the little ice age.  Since 2000, the number of sunspots declined to low levels.  If the low activity continues, will the global temperature be reduced during the coming decades? While the output is nearly constant, one theory is that the solar activity indicated by sunspots may alter cosmic rays which may affect the formation of clouds. 

While modelers always think their models are representative, the models need to be verified using independent data. 

Climate Observations

The most common indicator of climate change is the global temperature that is computed monthly by several agencies in different countries. The global temperature is a calculated number based on stations on land, with some observations over the oceans, where each station represents the temperature measurement over wide areas of earth.  Since the 1970s, satellites have been used to estimate the lower atmospheric temperature. There are many problems with the calculated global average temperature that need to be considered.  Sites with temperature readings are opened and closed, and sites may be moved.   Missing data is often a problem at the sites.  Over time, the surroundings of the site may change and the temperature will change, such as increased urbanization. Changes in instrumentation may result in changes in temperature when accuracy is increased.  Some of the remote sites have a large weight in assessing small changes and any inaccuracies at the sites would be magnified. The calculations since 1880 have moved less than the distance on a thermometer that represent 2°F. 

While the global temperature can be used as an indicator of climate change, the actual temperature within a region provides the actual influence on the environment.  The surface warming over northern continents is largest in the middle to high latitudes. It is more pronounced in winter–spring and notably smaller in summer–autumn. In much of the eastern US, the summertime maximum trends are zero or slightly cooler in the past 75 years. One expects fewer very cold days in the winter (less than 10°F in New England) with minimal changes in the summer. 

Alarmists indicate there will be more severe weather such as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, and wild fires.  Far ranging effects, such as reduction in polar ice and rising sea levels could make changes that affect plant and animal life around the planet. When severe weather occurs, it is often said “that you can see the climate changes occurring.”  However, if one looks at the meteorological data, it is difficult to discern any changes in severe or extreme weather in the last 75 years.  The evidence for any changes in severe weather is very difficult to detect due to its sporadic nature.  It is necessary to look at long term trends in the weather.

Prime examples include Hurricanes Katrina in New Orleans in 2005 and Sandy in New York in 2012 because of their extreme damages.  Current examples include the midwestern floods and high number of tornadoes in May 2019.  Yet they were just ‘weather events’ that had occurred in the region previously.  Their high damages increased from a larger population living in these areas. Hurricanes are fairly common in Louisiana.  Major hurricanes in the northeast were reported as early as 1635 with the last major hurricane in 1938 that killed more than 600. 

In the case of hurricanes, a WMO Task Team report on human effects on tropical cyclones in 2019 stated “Human activities may have already caused changes in tropical cyclone activity that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of these changes compared to estimated natural variability, or due to observational limitations.”  So, should we worry about nondetectable changes yet?

NOAA examined the frequency of tornadoes and strong tornadoes since 1950 and found  a slight negative trend in the frequency of tornadoes. What weather events, if any, can be related to the emission of carbon dioxide or to the recent climate changes?  According the IPCC report in 2014 on extremes

  • There is a lack of evidence on the sign of the trend in magnitude and frequency of floods.
  • There is no evidence of trends in hail and thunderstorms.
  • No evidence of trends for floods or droughts since the middle of the 20th century on a global scale.

Rising sea level changes are possibly the biggest danger caused by the projected global warming.  Many millions of people live within a few meters of sea level around the world. Some entire nations, such as Maldives and Bangladesh are within a couple of meters from sea level.  Sea levels has been rising for more than 200 years at between 1 and 2 mm per year  (6-8 inches increase in the 20th century). A recent paper predicted that the increase by 2100 would be up to 2 meters (80 inches or 2000 mm) with the water coming from the melting of the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets.  In order to get a projected rise of 2 meters the rates will need to accelerate to record levels within the next few years by a factor of at least 10.  Are the climate scientists the Noah of our age or will it be just another spurious prediction?  So, when will the flood start? 

Proposed Solutions

The major assumption that the projections of the climate models are correct led the countries to sign the Paris Climate Agreement to limit the temperature to less than 2°C (preferably 1.5°C) above the 1800 temperature before the Industrial Revolution. (So was the warming in the 1800-1950 period due to CO2?).  ALL solutions to the problem are to drastically reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by industrialized countries from oil, natural gas and coal for energy uses by 20% by 2020 and to nearly zero prior to 2050. There are fewer reductions for the developing countries including China and India. 

Climate change is a hot political issue in many parts of the world and the possible solutions are heavily political.  There is a continuing concerted effect by the governments to demonstrate to the world that global warming is due to emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and will cause a number of cataclysmic effects.  The Global Warming debate has entered the political arena and many politicians like the solutions in that the government may raise large sums of money implementing changes.  And in many respects, it has taken the form of a religion in which “This is the way to save the planet.”  

There are many problems in implementation for these goals and countries have been trying to solve the problem for the past 25 years, without much success.  Most solutions use wind and solar energy as replacement sources for fossil fuel for electrical generation with little mention of nuclear energy.  The major problems with wind and solar are the intermittent nature of these sources for most locations.  Only areas with high wind reliability, such as the southern Plains and off-shore provide sufficient steady winds to generate reliable electricity. The major problem with solar is the lack of sufficient storage facilities to provide energy when the sun is not available at night and during cloudy days and the lower availability in the northern latitudes.  In order to maintain electric grid reliability, many fossil fuel plants have to be ready to replace energy shortfalls. 

The reductions proposed for energy use are projected to cause massive disruptions to the global economies by the mid 21st century if high reliability of electricity is not maintained. Most solutions do not discuss the drastic changes in the life styles that would be necessary.  Fossil fuels would be heavily restricted for transportation, heating and cooling and for industry.  House temperatures would be reduced in winter and increased in summer with higher costs. Some have proposed a massive insulation effort for residences in the nation.

Most proposals are general and fail to show the effects that will be imposed on the general population. An American Congressman proposed elimination of air travel.  A  British Labor leader proposal to reduce wages by 75% for a 10 hour work week.  The climate plans of Ireland and other European counties propose gasoline and diesel cars will not be sold after 2030.  Ireland’s plan is to pack the population into “higher density” cities which will ‘revolutionize’ people’s lifestyle and behavior.  Other proposals include zero or one child families and reduction of meat in the diet.  It is difficult to see where all the required money will be obtained or whether the current economic and social  systems can survive.

Yet, we now have 75 years of observations of weather and climate data and are half way to 2100 to draw conclusions on the possible climate from the observations. The most likely outcome appears to be a slight warming of the winter months.  The current question is whether we need to upend our economy to forestall catastrophic changes that are foretold in the models, but not apparent in the observations. 

The application of the theory needs to follows the rules of the scientific method.  In particular, the theory of AGW needs revision as the models used around the world are consistently showing overwarming.  The magnitude of the global warming is largely unknown after numerous ‘revisions’ of the global temperature data.  The increased presence of extreme weather is not supported by meteorological data.  Climate theory cannot be exempted from verification because most of the work is funded by governments.

Any major change in the global economies aimed at affecting climate will probably have little effect on the climate, but will impose an unneeded expense on the poor and in many parts of the world the poor will be denied electricity. There is certainly not enough evidence that would require the energy supply using carbon to be shut down with a resultant change in the way Man lives within the next 20 years.  When does someone say “The emperor hath no clothes!” 

Vertical Absorption of Ground Emitted IR by Carbon Dioxide

/ Marshall Atwater / Leave a comment

Infrared radiation emitted by the earth needs to balance the incoming solar energy to keep the climate in equilibrium.  Radiation is emitted by the surface.  However, before it reaches space, it is absorbed within the atmosphere by carbon dioxide and water vapor.  The amounts of energy absorbed depends on the concentration of CO2 and water vapor, often called greenhouse gases.  The absorption results in a temperature increase with IR energy emitted in both upward and downward directions or converted into other forms of energy.  The radiation calculations are well defined and many models have been developed for the calculations.  Here we will use an early model developed by the author that were used in early meteorological mesoscale models (Atwater, 1971).  More recent models may use line by line calculations.

The ground is the input source of IR to the atmosphere.   There is very little that is written on the vertical absorption regarding the surface flux which is dependent on the path length of the absorber.  The emission of IR and conversion to other energy forms at the various levels will not be examined here.

The results for the surface transmission (1-absorption) are shown in the following graph for total CO2 and water vapor transmittance (CO2=280ppm) and for carbon dioxide transmittance at 280ppm and 560ppm for the lowest 300 m..  It is assumed that the carbon dioxide absorbs 18.5% if the total spectrum.

ir-absorption

 

The results show that about half of the surface IR radiation is absorbed within 150m (about 20 mb) of the ground, both for the total spectrum and the CO2 portion of the spectrum.  With the increase CO2 concentration, half of the energy in the CO2 spectrum is absorbed within 50m of the surface and 2/3 are absorbed by 300 m .  More than 99% of the CO2 spectrum is absorbed by 7000m.

The amount of radiation absorbed in each of the lowest layers is shown in the following table.

Layer Thickness  mb Layer Thickness  m Top of Layer m Radiation Differential W/m2
1 8 8 3.2
2 18 26 .5
3 26 52 .2
4 34 87 .07
4 35 121 .04
4 35 156 .01
5 44 200 -.01

Most of the increase in absorbed radiation is in the first 8 meters of the ground with much of the remaining radiation in the next layer.  About 90% of the increased absorption due to a doubling of the carbon dioxide occurs within 26 m (about 3 mb) of the ground.  Above about 175 meters, the absorption of the ground flux is reduced due to reduction of infrared flux reaching the levels.

In most climate models the lowest layer is often 10mb thick with the increased absorption assumed to occur in a much deeper layer.  In an earlier paper, Raisanen (1996) did a study of the vertical resolution needed to minimized errors in climate models for radiation calculations and found a number of systematic errors near the surface when the layers were thickened.  He attributed this to sharp differences in temperature in the region rather than the rapid absorption near the surface of both water vapor and carbon dioxide.  Models with layers too thick may not properly account for conversion of radiant energy to convective energy.  The impact on climate models should be further investigated.

Atwater, M.A., 197l:  The Radiation Budget for Polluted Layers of the Urban Environment.  J. Appl. Meteor., 10, 205-14.

Raisanen, P, 1996: The effect of vertical, resolution on clear sky radiation calculations: tests with two schemes.  Tellus, 48A,403-423.

 

 

 

 

 

New England Temperature Trends 1965-2015

/ Marshall Atwater / Leave a comment

Global warming has been occurring since the Little Ice Age in the 1600s.  Recently, it appears that 2015 is one of the warmest years for the global average surface temperature.  El Niño occurred in 2015 and contributed to some of the increase in 2015.  The late 1960s was the coolest period in the last half of the 20th century.    The average global temperature increased 1.0°C (1.8°F) during the period.

First order airport stations are selected from each of the New England states.  The data was processed for 1965 to 2015 and includes minimum and maximum temperature and precipitation.  The daily data was processed and averaged over monthly, seasonal, and annual periods.  Each station was processed independently and regression coefficients were calculated using Excel.   Metadata for each of the sites were examined to determine changes in station locations.  The results for the regression coefficients are shown in the table in °F/decade.

Table:  Regression coefficients in °F/decade for seasonal Minimum and Maximum temperature.

Winter Spring Summer Fall
Station Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Caribou .954 .577 .401 .208 .305 .125 .577 .680
Portland 1.073 .676 .524 .490 .628 .038 .586 .464
Burlington 1.470 1.028 .786 .774 .696 .333 .656 .805
Concord 1.222 .651 .486 .460 .589 .151 .576 .550
Boston .427 .449 .398 .285 .295 (.017) .295 .302
Providence .788 .710 .453 .502 .465 .244 .634 .391
Hartford .636 .691 .190 .301 .280 (.108) .389 .281
Bridgeport .595 .466 .472 .511 .470 .244 .203 .172

 

The station with the largest increasing trends is Burlington.  Examination of the time series of temperature show large increases starting in 1973 and in 2008.   A review of the metadata for the station show the station moved 55 feet to a lower elevation in Jan 1973.  A new terminal for the airport opened in Oct 1973.  The terminal was further expanded in 2008.  Substantial suburban homes and the central developed area are to the west of the airport.  These sudden increases were due to the urban heat island effect from the increased activity at the airport and development surrounding the airport.

Bridgeport is located on the shores of Long Island Sound and is heavily influenced by the temperature of water in the Sound.  Temperature data is available for the Sound starting in 1976 and increases 0.6°F per decade.  This accounts for much of the trends at Bridgeport when compared to Hartford and also appears to be an influence on the Providence results.

The results show that the temperatures are summarized as:

  • generally increase more rapidly at night than during the daytime in northern New England.
  • In southern New England, the temperature rates are nearly the same during the cooler months.
  • During the summer, all night temperature trends are increasing more rapidly than during the daytime.
  • In general there is little temperature change in the summertime maximum temperature trends with southern New England showing a net cooling over the past 50 years away from Long Island Sound.
  • The winter temperatures are rising faster than the global temperature

Climate Change in Connecticut

/ Marshall Atwater / Leave a comment

For the past quarter century, global warming have been the subject of many scientific studies that relate to its causes and the resultant effects.  An often cited study in Connecticut showed the large reduction in shade tobacco  production was highly correlated with the increase in the global temperature.   However the tobacco have no idea what the global temperature is when compared to the local climate. Often studies use the global warming models to provide the local data at a proposed future date to determine local effects.  However, the climate models lack verification and the study on possible effects are what “could happen.”

It was decided to look at the climate in Connecticut over the past half century.  Data was obtained for Bradley International Airport that represents interior areas and Bridgeport Sikorsky  Airport  on the coast. The period chosen was a period in which missing data was not a factor in the analysis.  Bradley Airport was developed after World War II and had several periods of missing data in the 1950s.  Therefore the period of analysis selected was December 1960 to February 2016.  The seasons chosen will follow the meteorological seasons where winter is December thru February.  Both sites are first order NOAA weather stations and are well maintained.  Temperatures were examined on a seasonal basis for both the maximum and minimum daily  observations.

The mean annual temperature increased 2.1°F during the period.  A running average showed relative warm temperatures in the 1970s with gradual increases after 1990.  Years with maximum temperatures were 1973, 1991, 1998, 2006, 2010 and 2012.  However, variations of 3 to 4°F occurred within two years numerous times throughout the period.   The temperatures were then examined on a seasonal basis for the maximum and minimum temperatures

The winter of 1960-61 was the coldest winter during the period with the minimum temperature 5 days  below -18°F and only 7 days that remained above 32°F.  There were 18 days below zero and 28 days between 0 and 10 days.   The minimum temperature show a 5°F increase over the period with  relatively high temperature in the mid 1970s and about 2000, after which they tended to decline.  The warmest winters were 1997-8, 2001-2, 2011-2 and 2015-6.  Year to year variations were often 6-8°F.

It should be noted that the minimum temperatures are primarily affected  by the amount of water vapor in the air.  The winter maximum temperatures increase 4.5°F during the period with the warmest in 2001-2.  Average temperatures became cooler in later years.

The highest summer night minimum temperature occurred in the 1970s with a value of 63.5°F.  The temperatures then cooled until the 1990s with warmer temperatures at the current time with a total increase of 2,1°F.  The daytime maximum temperature was highest in the 1970s and gradually cooled in late years with a net cooling of 0.2°F during the period.  This period of net cooling in the summer maximum temperatures extends over most of interior New England.  Year to year changes in the temperature varies about 4°F with 85°F for the summer maximums.  The average number of days above 90°F decreased about 1.6 days during the period with a similar increase in the number of 80 degree days.

Bridgeport is located directly on the shore of Long Island Sound and is heavily influenced by  its temperatures.   Available temperatures for the Sound show that the temperature increased by 2.1°F from 1976 to 2011.  The increase is similar to other observations along the Southern New England coast.  The temperatures at Bridgeport increased at about the same rate as the water temperatures.

The net effect of climate changes can be summarized as follows.

  • Temperatures at night are warming faster than the day. A previous study showed there are fewer days of very low temperature in recent years.
  • Winter temperatures have cooled since 2000
  • Maximum summer time temperatures show no increase during the period 1961-2015 with a small decrease in 90 degree days

The effect on the inhabitants would be slightly reduced winter heating bills.  I would expect minimal long term effects on the plants or animals in the region with a larger effect resulting from the larger year to year changes in temperature.

 

 

 

Eliminating Dissent to Global Warming Policies

/ Marshall Atwater / Leave a comment

Recently, a number of efforts to silence dissent to Anthropocentric Global Warming polices have been undertaken by members of Congress and the Department of Justice.  There are proposals to sue any person or corporation that says the global warming is not occurring because “97 per cent of scientists agree” that global warming is a major problem and will result in sea rise and more severe storms.  It should be noted that all scientists (except 2, namely Copernicus and Galileo) also agreed that the earth was the center of the universe in the 1500s.  The theory that Man is controlling the weather through carbon dioxide is being propped up with data reanalyses, unverified models and politicians.  Many of the politicians are starting to sound like the Freedom of speech only belongs to those that agree with them.  And the politicians say that they know best.

I have often felt that the large amount of money that has been spent on climate models in the past decade have failed to result in any useful model that can improve the forecast for the next season or the next year.  Then you have a better change of estimating the effects in 75 years when all the model developers have long since died.

Laws to change climate

/ Marshall Atwater / Leave a comment

During the Democratic  debate last night, both candidates said we need laws to prevent climate change.  They seem to think that the government can write laws that will alter keep the climate. the same as today.   They assume that carbon (in reality, carbon dioxide) is altering the temperature of the planet.  They propose laws to restrict carbon from being burned in power plants.  However none of the current climate models are accurate enough to predict how much the earth cooled as a result of the laws.  It will just be a guess.

When I was studying ozone concentrations in  Connecticut, I proposed a law that the government eliminate all temperatures above 90 degrees in Connecticut.   Then all the high ozone days would be eliminated in the state.  At least, if this could have been enforced, the results would be obvious.

Price on Carbon Response

/ Marshall Atwater / Leave a comment

A recent letter to the editor was published by the Hartford Courant promoting carbon fees and dividends to solve the ‘problem of climate change’.  The writer claimed that a 1% increase in the possible atmospheric moisture last year caused a extreme snowstorm that left 31.9 inches of snow in eastern Pennsylvania and caused tornadoes in Florida.  I wrote the following letter in response and it was published in the on line letters to the editor by the Hartford Courant.

I was glad in reading Janet Heller letter on 2/19/2016 that the carbon fee and dividend will cool the atmosphere and end the danger of flooding and storms.   Had the 1% increase in atmospheric moisture not occurred, we would have gotten only 9.9 inches of snow instead of 10 inches on Monday. And it would be ¼deg cooler this weekend (  when it was 15 deg below zero) without the recent warming induced by the El Nino.

I’m sure that history is wrong about bad weather before carbon dioxide started to increase after World War II, like the 1938 hurricane or the 1888 blizzard in New England. And the transfer of money from the affluent to the poor will allow the poor to have candles for their night light. And meteorologists may need new jobs as the fees will control the weather.

Carbon Dioxide Saturation

/ Marshall Atwater / Leave a comment

Carbon dioxide saturation is the fact that most of the infrared radiation emitted at the surface that will be absorbed by the atmosphere is done in the lowest atmospheric layers. Computations show that one third of the absorption occurs within 25 feet of the surface, 80 % occurs within 800 feet and 99% within the first mile of the surface. Any radiation that is emitted in the wavelength of absorption by CO2 has to be reradiated at higher levels. Thus the amount emitted depends on the carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere and its temperature.

With increased CO2, the radiation at the surface will be absorbed closer to the surface. With the atmospheric reradiation, there will be a small increase during the day and a slight decrease, due to temperature inversion conditions, at night. This is the opposite of what is observed in the past 50 years with nighttime temperatures rising more than the day time temperature.

One question that is widely known is that the climate models are predicting temperatures higher than observed. I have not seen any mathematical analyses that are concerned with the large amount of radiation observed by the carbon dioxide within 1000 feet of the surface. Most of the vertical layers in the atmospheric models have 30 to 50 layers for the atmosphere with the lowest layer being 400 to 1000 feet in thickness.

November is “The Sky is Falling” Month

/ Marshall Atwater / Leave a comment

As the world moves to the UN climate change conference in Paris at the end of the month, you can expect one or two articles to appear each day to demonstrate how the use of carbon by our evil ways is adversely affecting the environment in many ways.

A current story on CNN reports on a story published by the National Bureau of Economic Research is the climate change is killing our sex drive. They showed using data from 1931 to 2010 that days over 80 Deg F results in a 0.4% reduction in births 9 months later. They project that the increasing number of hot days from 30 now to 90 in a warmer climate could mean about 100,000 fewer births in the U.S. Among the things proposed is that the high temperature impair sperm function. They did not include any statistics on the effects of air conditioning, or report on how the birth rates are affected in Africa, where the temperature is warmer.

Another story is that LaGuardia Airport in New York needs to be rebuilt to accommodate up to 6 feet of sea level by 2100.   New York State officials are creating sea level rise regulations to help coastal communities prepare for the increase, which is to be a major impact from climate change. If greenhouse gas emissions are unchecked, most of the US population could be affected by the rising water. Seeing this is 75 years off, shouldn’t we be seeing an increasing sea level of about an inch per year rather than less than an inch per decade for the past century? Or will the increase occur after 2090 when we can’t rebuild quick enough when the flood starts.

On Nov 9, the headline said ‘Report: Climate Change could push 100M into extreme poverty by 2030.” The report says agriculture will be disrupted and will cause malaria and other diseases to spread. It further states the impacts will be borne by the poor that are not prepared to deal with climate shocks such as rising seas or severe droughts. Thus the solution is to send billions of dollars from the wealthy countries to the poorer countries.

I would expect an article or two each day this month about what “could” happen at some time in the future with very few specifics. Check the article to see whether anything is said to indicate the background of the article and whether there is any real science involved. Most are just some proposed hypothesis for a future in the mind of the reader.

For persons that accept these stores as accurate predictions of the future, I have a couple of bridges for sale.

Review of National Geographic “Cool It” Issue

/ Marshall Atwater / Leave a comment

The NGS has jumped the shark in preparing the Cool It issue in support of a new treaty at the Paris Conference in December. They prepared the issue based on a rise in temperature that exceeds 10F in 2100, even higher than the upper limits projected by the IPCC in its latest report. There is no science in the issue but they project a utopian solution to the problems.

They state the West Antarctic Glacier is near collapse and will raise the oceans by more than 4 feet in the next several centuries. They don’t indicate if CO2 ceases whether it will continue.

They show dramatic increases in weather events in the past 20 years. They say floods have increased by a factor of 3 and that local and regional storms have increased 5 time since 1980 in 2014. Looking at IPCC data, they seem to be from another planet.

There is a proposal for solar and wind by 2050 in US with 78 million roof top systems, 49,000 solar plants, 156,000 off shore wind turbines, and 328,000 land base turbines. This would need land equal to North Carolina. The cost is estimated at $47,000 for each American.   Fossil fuels would not be used after 2035 and gasoline cars would no longer be made. And the electric cost will be reduced by 5%.

They further propose a house that has 89 ft2 and recommend its wide use in urban areas. They propose transportation be walking or by bicycle and to use trains for long distances.