Q: Will Ocean Acidity extinct calciferous ocean organisms? A: No it can't and won't

Over the previous 1 billion years, earths oceans have steadily become more alkaline - not "more acidic". [ alkalinity is the opposite of acidity ] Oceans were far more "acidic" hundreds of millions of years ago when many of these CaCO₃-shelled creatures (calciferous organisms) were evolving. According to the people who invented this acidification scare these calciferous creatures could never have evolved - because the oceans back then were far too acidic for them to exist!

CO₂ was once plentiful on earth. Where is it go?

pH of oceans can vary from 8.2 to 7.4 depending on time of year, and latitude. Normal range is 8.2 to 7.9. So a few measurements, carefully cherry-picked to show a statistical increase will basically be statistical fraud. Yet most of the time, there's no attempt to even bother doing that. They simply declare ocean acidification as fait accompli. Because no will dare call them out. They rely on intellectual terrorism - baiting people as climate skeptics - as the did with Ian Plimer - See: "Heaven and Earth". I mention Ian because he's one of the few skeptics to cover the acidification scare - in that book. Unfortunately he doesn't cover it very well. He should've put more charts and tables in his book and fewer citations!

Most of the carbon - in the carbon cycle - is present as limestone. This carbon was once in the ocean. It has been sequestered away over hundreds of millions of years; often as calciferous creatures die, and fall to the ocean bottom.

Q: Where did the carbon go?

A: It became limestone.

Over hundreds of millions of years, calcium carbonate as been deposited from oceans to make limestone.

Earth's crust is now about 0.25% limestone. Earth's crust mass ~ 2.77 * 10^22 kg. Leaving limestone = 6.925e+19 kg = 6.925e+07 Gt = 69,250,000 gigatonnes. Let's compare the limestone to the amount of other carbon in the carbon cycle. Assume 13% of the limestone is carbon.

Carbon on earth's crust is:

9,003,000 Gt	Limestone
38,000 Gt	in oceans
5,000 Gt	all fossil fuel reserves on earth

So I calculate there's > 2 orders of magnitude (200 ×) more carbon in limestone, than everywhere else on earth's crust.

So the reason why there's little calcium carbonate available to make carboniferous microorganisms might be because it's nearly all been seqestered away as limestone!! Nowt to do with supposed "acidification".

Global carbon cycle

This diagram, above, has no limestone in it because once CO₂ becomes limestone it's no longer available on earth. This is called Sequestration. In fact, we're now living close to a CO₂ famine. Plants need at least 150ppm CO₂ in the atmosphere to even grow. If the CO₂ levels fall much lower the viability of plant life on earth will be at risk. As animals eat plants - the viability of all life on earth may be at risk with too little CO₂

There's no greenhouse gas effect. How did climate alarmists get it so wrong?

The greenhouse gas effect is a myth. Most of my evidence is from Tom Shula :

• 1. The climate modellers tell us that most surface cooling at the surface of earth is done by radiation.
• 2. In reality (our real world), it's likely 99.6% of surface cooling is done by convection and conduction, with only 0.4% due to raditative emission of infrared.
• 3. Q: How did modellers make such a blunder?
  • 3.1. A1: They never debate their critics. The demonize critics. So they developed a culture of group-think designed to demonize critical, skeptical and new ideas.
  • 3.2. A1: They begin their models with a number of wrong assumptions. The first wrong assumption is that the body of earth (land and sea) can be treated as a "black body". So enabling them to use Stefan-Boltzmann Law to calculate radiative emissions. In fact, the body of earth (land and sea) cannot be treated as a black body because it is covered with an atmosphere.
    
    Look back in time to read Stefan and Boltzmann's experiments. Notice how Stefan and Boltzmann did all their experiments on "black bodies" in a vacuum. Their "Law" does not apply to bodies bathed in a gas - such as an atmosphere. I can't help but notice how even undergraduate level physics textbooks often elide this. Because gas (convection and conduction) cools the so-called black-body far more quickly than radiation alone! The conductive/convective cooling will then change how the "black body" cooling works. Gas cools by conduction and convection. The Stefan-Bolzmann Law has nothing to say about convection and conduction. Alarmists misused the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Accidentally, and recklessly? - maybe. That was their first error. Their other errors follow on from their first blunder.
    
    

The Pirani Gauge - precludes a "climate crisis"

The diagram above was published in 1997 by Kiehl and Trenberth. It's the prototype, copied, and slightly modified many times; similar to energy-balance diagrams provided by NASA, IPCC, and every climate alarmist. Its constant use made it cannon law, part of the bible of climatism. Even so-called "climate deniers" such as Judith Curry, Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen Bjørn Lomborg, Michael Shellenberger, and William Happer seem to accept a version of the diagram.

This model of earth's energy budget has core assumptions embedded in it which must lead to a climate crisis panic. It's part model/speculation, and part fact. Numbers relating to solar radiation are factually correct. It shows earth is (on average) warmed by 168 + 67 W/m² of sunlight. 168W/m² warming the surface, 67 W/m² warming the atmosphere. But there's a paradox! They (Kiehl and Trenberth) show earth's surface emits: 390 W/m² of infrared! That is 2.32 × more radiant energy emitted than the sun warms us with!

Is this:
Q: Magic?
Q: The Science?
A: No. It's Mathematical models gone wrong.

That 390 W/m² of infrared cooling earth is derived from the misapplication of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to earth's surface; using the Law in a context it does not apply to. Even when I apply the Stefan-Boltzmann Law I get 359 W/m² of infrared radiation cooling earth! Only 2.14 times more than the sunlight warming us!, but still way more than the sunlight warming us.

So the issue is not only their alarmism (390 + 78 >> 168), but mine, and everyone's alarmism (359 + 78 &g;&g; 168). But 359 + 78 should equal 168 !)

Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to model the amount of radiation emitted by earth must lead one to alarmism. This is the fundamental trick climatism plays on us. It cons us into believing in back-radiation. This back readiation is added to balance the solar warming with natural cooling.

solar warming	+ back radiation warming	=	radiative cooling	+ convective and conductive cooling	+ latent heat transport
168 W/m²	+ 324 W/m²	=	390 W/m²	+ 24 W/m²	+ 78 W/m²

Back-radiation (324 W/m²) is added to balance the equation so that both sides (of the = sign) total: 492 W/m². The left must balance the right hand side

The only numbers in the top chart which are measured or relate to facts are:

• solar warming = 168 W/m²
• latent heat transport = 78 W/m²

The other numbers are either estimated, calculated of fudged to balance the left with the right hand side of the equation.

324 = 390 + 24 + 78 - 168
So: logically, if the radiation calculated according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is correct, we must add 324 of back radiation to balance the heat of the sun against cooling to space. Because we know the climate is approximately stable year to year. So the climate crisis is a consquence of balancing a bad equation!

What is this back-radiation?

The back-radiation is associated with the greenhouse gas effect, hypothesized to warm earth's surface.

In this video, physicist Tom Shula explains why climate models which calculate the so-called greenhouse gas effect are in error.

Summary:

• Alarmist climate models assume, 79% of earth's surface cooling is by emission of infrared radiation. These models assumes the earth is a black body (with emissivity = 1), or close to a black body with emissivity ~ 0.92) The Pirani gauge is an instrument, invented in 1906, used to measure vacuum. It has a filament, a circuit to keep the filament at a constant temperature (called a Wheatstone bridge), and a variable power source. Like earth's surfacec shows how emissions from its (assumed) black body filament vary according to air pressure. When in a vacuum the pirani filament requires 0.4 Watts to keep it at it; . Tom explains how and why. This (79%) assumption is made by applying The Stefan-Boltzmann Law to discover the intensity of radiation emitted, on average, by earth. Using the average earth surface temperature of 15°C gives 359W/m² (watts per square metre) of radiation emitted (my calculation, or 390W/m² - according to IPCC voodoo theory. [I assume earth has an average emissivity = 0.92]. Kiehl, Trenberth, and IPCC voodoo theory assume earth has an emissivity = 1. That earth's surface is a black body emitter.. This is MORE radiation than earth gets as sunlight!, 390 - 168 = 222 W/m² more!.
• This extra radiation they explain by back-radiation. The diagram also shows earth being warmed by 324 W/m² of back-radiation.
  
  The back-radiation, is added to balance the infrared emission (390 W/m²) they calculate!
• The back-radiation is explained by greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. These greenhouse gases are said to absorb most of the outgoing infrared, and re-emit it isotropically (in all directions) so that much of it is directed back to the surface.
• So the theory of back-radiation warming earth's surface - the so-called greenhouse gas effect - is an artifact of the misuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law - applied in the wrong context. When we accept that actual emissions at the surface are closer to 2W/m² than the claimed 390W/m², then there's no need for back-radition. No back-radiation means no greenhouse gases, GHGs warming the surface. No significant GHGE means no climate crisis. According to the empirical evidence of the Pirani gauge - earth's emissions of infrared are not 390 W/m², not 359 W/m² (my calculation), but will be only about 1 W/m². The rest of the cooling will be by conduction, aided by convection. With no back-radiation needed in this revised, empirically correct, model.
• The assumptions made in these alarmist climate models derive from the Stefan-Boltzmann Law - discovered (invented?) 150 years ago, but miss-applied by some scientists - out-of-context. It's out of context because it only applies in special circumstances. For example, there are a number of good, old, books, which describe those special circumstances where the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is valid; such as Max Planck's Theory of Heat Radiation. In contrast, modern physics undergraduate textbooks entirely gloss over the special conditions under which the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is valid. Physics students are given laws (written on tablets of stone?) with no explanations of when the law is invalid, or not - and the special experimental conditions - especially when the student is just doing a physics minor. Because modern physics is owned by armchair theorists who believe they know (or can debate) everything about everything.
• The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is only valid when applied to substances in a vacuum. It is invalid when applied to earth's surface; which, of course, is bathed in a gas - our atmosphere.
• The atmosphere allows convective and conductive cooling of earth's surface. Such cooling causes 99.6% of surface cooling. Conductive cooling at the surface is much faster than radiative cooling. Shula says that for each photon of radiation emitted at earth's surface, there will be 100,000 molecular collisions with air molecules. These collisions are the mechanism by which heat conduction by air happens. This far more efficient (therefore speedier) conductive cooling is revealed by the behaviour of the Pirani gauge.
• An effect of conductive/convective cooling is to alter the conditions under which radiation can be emitted (according to Shula).
• These facts refute the climate alarmist models for the greenhouse gas effect upon which the climate crisis dogma is founded. The basic model of the greenhouse gas effect - derived by Manabe, Hansen & Co is, therefore, a nonsense model. Refuted by science, but still used by careerist scientists to scare Joe Public into obeidence to a new Evironmental, anti-humanist, pseudo-religion.
• The full form of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law (when it's applied to non-black bodies) is:
  M = ε × σ × T⁴
  where:
  M = radiant emittance (power of infrared radiation (heat) emitted)
  ε = epsilon = the emissiivity of the substance.
  - Earth's emissivity varies from 0.65 (desert) to 0.95 (water and ice) but averages at about 0.92
  - A black body emitter (only exists in theory) has an emissivity = 1
  σ = sigma = The Stefan-Boltzmann constant ~ 5.67 × 10⁻⁸ W x m^-2 x K^-4
  T = temperature (in Kelvin)
• This is how a climate alarmist would apply it.
  M = ε × σ × T⁴
  M = 0.92 × 5.67 × 10⁻⁸ × (273+15)⁴
  M = 0.92 * 5.67 * 10^−8 * (273+15)^4
  paste this (below into a spreadsheet cell:
  = 0.92 * 5.67 * 0.00000001 * 288^4 (semi-realist version)
  = 359 W/m²
  = 1 * 5.67 * 0.00000001 * 288^4 (black body version)
  = 390 W/m²
  Because all power calculations are done in W/m²; we use that form of the law.

Emprical measurements - made from space - above the ToA (Top of the Atmosphere) - show ~ 238 W/m² of cooling to space by infrared radiation.

Emprical measurements (and calculations) show ~ 240.5 W/m² of sunlight warming earth and its atmosphere (using the NASA diagram).

It seems that NASA have 240.5 W/m² of sunlight warming earth, but facts show only 238 W/m² of cooling to space. Leading us to conclude that earth gets more heat than it loses, so the climate must be warming. For all we know - it may be warming, and certainly has warmed over the last hundred years. But this warming is easily explained by 3 natural climate cycles all coming together at the same time! (as shown in 2017 by )

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

There's no Greenhouse Effect

If an atmospheric greenhouse effect existed for CO₂, it will be possible to measure the ‘back-radiation’. It will show up in both the ther...

• 

  Greenhouse gas effect is not a scientific concept

  We can understand the failure of the Greenhouse gas effect, GHGE, in explaining climate when we realize it's junk science. We're t...
• 

  Falsification of the Greenhouse Gas Conjecture / Model

  “ I have never been convinced that there is ANY fingerprint of anthropogenic warming. ” — Dr Roy W. Spencer “ ... any increase in the ca...
• 

  Reply to Ken Rice (provisional)

  Ken Rice posted in reply to Ronan Connolly's summary of his first 3 papers on climate. "Yes, but if there is no greenhouse...

Search This Blog