Among the issues most commonly discussed are individuality, the rights of the individual, the limits of legitimate government, morality, history, economics, government policy, science, business, education, health care, energy, and man-made global warming evaluations. My posts are aimed at thinking, intelligent individuals, whose comments are very welcome.

"No matter how vast your knowledge or how modest, it is your own mind that has to acquire it." Ayn Rand

11 February 2016

NOAA Fudges Temperatures in My Backyard to Bolster Failed Man-Made Warming Hypothesis

Tony Heller at Real Science has once again shown how our federal government through NOAA has provided a faked data plausibility for the failed catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis.  This example of NOAA data fudging is from my own backyard.  It is amazing what can be done to take advantage of very local urban heat island (UHI) effects.  Having taken advantage of UHI, NOAA then adds further corrections to temperature measurements to lower those of the past, when population densities were generally lower, instead of lowering recent measurements to compensate for increasing UHI contributions to present temperatures.  I wrote a post long ago showing that rural temperature measurements showed no significant temperature increase for a long time.

Of course, since the "settled", "consensus" physics said to cause carbon dioxide to warm the surface of the Earth is wrong, it is hardly surprising that the many special interests dependent upon the catastrophic man-made global warming fraud are manufacturing data to hide the lack of warming in the last 18 years.  It is disgusting that many scientists are active participants in this fraud.


Ronald Chappell said...

Submitted for your consideration:
From IPCC AR5 their calculation(Nastran)for the 'greenhouse' effect of CO2 is 1.67 watts/m2 reduction in CO2 radiation. This must be compensated for by increased radiation from the balance (H2O) of the atmospheric radiation which according to NASA's last budget is 64% of Solar radiation( .64*1367/4 = 218.7 watts/m2). Leaving out the high school algebra, Thus the effective radiation temperature of the Atmosphere must increase from 255C by delT to compensate for this deficit. Thus delT=(1.6/218.7)^(1/4)=.29 C
Earth Physics will continue to solve the energy balance as it does presently with but with the requisite temperature offset.
Earth Physics cannot enlist additional water vapor(WV) from the sea since it would cool the sea(planet). With constant WV the lapse rate will remain constant.
The lapse rate line including the surface must offset by this required +0.29 C as must the ocean and surface layer atmosphere temperature to maintain an unchanged energy flow. (Solar is constant)

Your friend, Arationofreason

Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D. said...

Can you clarify your question? Did the AR5 say that a doubling of CO2 would result in a reduction of CO2 radiation to space of 1.67 W/m2, or that CO2 in its concentration at the time caused a reduction of 1.67 W/m2 of radiation to space compared to the case of an atmosphere with no CO2, or that the present concentration compared to that in 1850 was causing a reduction of 1.67 W/m2?

If there are more CO2 radiators in the atmosphere above the primary water radiators, the temperature of each radiator will drop unless the upper atmosphere absorption of incoming solar radiation more than compensates for a higher rate of re-radiation of lower atmosphere heat. However, the drop in temperature will be slight to none since the CO2 radiating molecules are often in the tropopause or the stratosphere. Even a 1 or 2 K drop in temperature will not provide enough loss of radiation per emitter to keep up with the increased emission due to the doubling of the number of emitters. There is no way doubling the concentration of CO2 leads to less emission into space.

Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D. said...

If the CO2 concentration is doubled, there are more radiators outside the dense portion of the atmosphere, the troposphere. Some of the final radiant energy emitted by water vapor from altitudes of 5 - 8 km, will be emitted by CO2 from higher altitudes instead into space. The temperature of the CO2 molecules doing the added radiating will drop. But how much does the temperature have to drop that twice as many emitters emit less energy than is now emitted. Let us take the present temperature of the CO2 emitting into space as that of the tropopause, which in the U.S. Standard Atmosphere of 1976 is 216.65K.

The temperature T to which the CO2 temperature must fall is less than that given for an equal amount of radiation from twice as many radiators:

(216.65K)^4 = 2 T^4, so T = 182.18K

So the temperature drop required for a loss of radiation to space by twice as many CO2 radiators is more than 34.47K. That is a drop greater than the entire greenhouse effect claimed of 33K for all radiators, the most important of which is water vapor. This is not physical.

An increase in the CO2 atmospheric concentration may result in a cooling of the atmosphere above the troposphere, but not by enough to reduce the total radiation to space from the increased number of CO2 radiators. The cooling brought on by more emission from CO2 is offset by the added absorption of solar radiation by CO2 above the troposphere and by the fact that more CO2 is absorbing more of the radiation from water vapor. These effects warm the upper atmosphere, reducing any possible cooling due to having more CO2 emitters. This makes it even more unlikely that one can have a more than 34K drop in the temperature of the uppermost troposphere, the tropopause, and the stratosphere.