Global Temperature Anomalies Confirm Greybody Equilibrium
When we look at a daily global temperature plot of anomalies for a day-time compared with an historical average, in this case where the data is from NOAA’s GFS (resolution 22 km), temperature anomalies from the 40-year period 1980-2020, we can see that warm regions approximately equal cool regions.
By flipping through this images, you can see that the anomalies work out to very little change in the global temperature because hot areas equal cool areas.
So the next time your local news station is exclaiming about how hot the weather is, take a look at the global view, for they may be cherry-picking their data.
Both Nitrogen (N2) and Oxygen (O2) Absorb and Emit in the Infrared Spectrum
These two molecules, which combined make up about 99% of the atmosphere, absorb and emit photons in the near- and mid-IR spectrum, not by molecular vibrations or rotations, but by electronic level changes. That means that they too are “greenhouse gases”, contrary to what is taught about the “greenhouse gas” theory.
When an electron absorbs precisely the energy difference between the level it is in and any higher level, it can move up to a higher level. This is a different form of absorption than when a molecule absorbs a photon that matches is vibrational or rotational frequency, and hence can increase to that frequency, generally distributed over the various degrees of freedom (a mixture of rotational, vibrational, and translational motion) for the molecule.
After an electron has risen to a higher level, it will eventually return to a lower level, at once or through a series of steps, emitting a photon that similarly has precisely the energy difference between the higher level and the ending energy level of the electron. Such as spectrum is below, for example, showing the spectrum of infrared energy emitted by nitrogen gas (this actually extends to up to 8 microns, well into the mid-IR range of Earth’s spectrum).
Each of these various bumps shows photons leaving N2 molecules as electrons drop towards molecules’ ground state. A similar, although not necessarily exactly equal (because of the Rydberg-Ritz combination principle) absorption spectrum is necessary to “feed” the energy that is released in determinate quanta of this molecule, according to the Boltzmann distribution.
Increases in energy by the N2 molecule can also occur from inelastic Rayleigh scattering over the approximately 200km average travel from the multiple interactions a photon makes through the troposphere during sunlight, (see more in the CSJ paper here).
Why is Climate Science Slow to Adopt the Standard Model of Physics?
Per the historically new standard model of physics, photons interact with electrons and neutrons. This understanding is more recent than the views of Arrhenius, whose early 20th-century papers are the basis of today’s discredited Greenhouse Gas theory, and the former are outside the scope of the expertise of most academics.
Because photons do transmit forces to electrons and neutrons, sunlight transmits force to the primary molecules of N2 and O2 that make up 99% of the atmosphere.
This occurs via Rayleigh scattering and has not been adequately quantified until now (see here).
Photons, traveling at 900,000-times the velocity of atmospheric molecules, increase the velocity of nitrogen and oxygen, which is a fundamental influence on atmospheric temperature, per the mainstream kinetic theory of gases.
This transfer of thermal energy via momentum is the way in which N2 and O2 store by far most of the thermal energy in the air (troposphere).
The 0.04% trace gases, formerly known by the “greenhouse gas” misnomer, do indeed store energy via increased vibrations, which energy, however, is only stored momentarily.
Anyone who wishes to argue with the standard model, and the nature of photons, is welcome to (that knowledge also may be advancing), otherwise, they are evading well-verified scientific understandings.
The scientific community has not yet processed the implications of the standard model on their theories of atmospheric thermal energy storage.
A More Likely Causal-Correlation Theory...
The correlation between sunspots and Earth temperatures is more than cursory. When solar activity increases, as demonstrated by an increase in sunspot numbers, this means there are higher solar winds blown across the planet. More solar winds shield Earth from cosmic radiation, arriving from the rest of the galaxy. Cosmic rays have been shown to ionize air molecules, causing water aerosols to attract one another and thus agglomerate more readily, forming larger droplets. This has been confirmed, and increased cloud cover results from more cosmic rays.
Thus, when there are more sunspots, the earth is shielded from cosmic radiation, there is not as much cloud cover, and thus more of the sun’s photons arrive on the surface, increasing temperatures. With fewer sunspots –> more cosmic radiation passes to create more clouds, and these clouds reflect solar energy, keeping the planet cooler.
What is the Climate Science Journal?
We have a problem. Science, specifically climate science, has been corrupted for political reasons. The funding provided by governments sets the direction for most academic research, and governments often have politicized and faction-supported agendas.
“Since about 2014 or so, the public debate on climate change has become less ‘scientized’, with economics, social justice and raw politics taking center stage.
Dr. Judith Curry, 2019
What is the effect of this corruption? Temperature data has been altered, irrationally justified, in order to conform to a “global warming” representation. The evidence shows the world has not been warming, so the data has been changed.
The scientific press has gone berserk. Not only have they altered the data, they denounce science itself:
“…the only way to really find out if phenomena like sunspots and solar wind are playing a larger role in climate change than most scientists now believe would be to significantly reduce our carbon emissions. Only in the absence of that potential driver will researchers be able to tell for sure how much impact natural influences have on the Earth’s climate.”
Scientific American, 2009
Really? The only way to find out of sunspots or solar wind have a substantial impact on Earth’s climate? So the task of science is to give up trying to study alternative approaches and the impacts of potentially devastating solutions in advance? We are to go ahead and implement a drastic international program of change, even if it means destroying economies, infrastructure, lives and standards of living to “significantly reduce carbon emissions”, because we cannot tell otherwise?
Rubbish! We can tell in other ways, and that should be the task of rational, competent scientists. Many capable scientists are already showing that when fewer sunspots cause lower solar winds, more cosmic radiation enters the planet’s atmosphere, and that causes more precipitation, cooling the planet. And there are other ways to study the phenomena, and are finding that the Sun is the primary cause of Earth’s constantly-changing climate.
We cannot let humanity lose science–it is the foundation of all the technology and infrastructure that 7.5 billion people require to survive. When academics en masse abandon integrity, when it becomes stylish to be dishonest, then we put our world in peril.
Science is not a popularity contest. Just because a thousand people agree with an idea does not make it a sound idea. It is a question of accuracy of representation, and that thousand people can be less interested, biased, or unaware of competing knowledge.
Science needs lots of views, and competition among them with freedom of speech.
The Climate Science Journal is about restoring integrity to the study of climate change. Please consider supporting our project by buying one of the our books or eBooks, or making a donation.
Today’s mainstream press presents a Global-warming emergency, while referring to it as the watered-down “climate-change”. But is this an accurate portrait of reality? The question is which conclusion should we draw: more accurate records because of technology, or that it’s getting both warmer and cooler (which is very unlikely)? Let’s look at some alternative evidence,
How the Barycentre Forces Differ: The Sun is not the centre of the solar system. The barycentre of the solar system, however, is. Both the Sun and the Earth revolve around it, generally not the centre of the Sun. This means that the motions of the two bodies around the barycentre may significantly affect the Earth-Sun distance, and
Reasons Irrational: The editors of Science retracted Valentina Zharkova’s paper, which can be viewed in its original form here. The paper is significant because it shows that the influence of the larger planets on the distance between the Earth and the Sun is not negligible. That means this distance changes, effecting Earth’s climate. It appears to
Arctic and Antarctic Pole Ice Cover is Roughly the Same What is the actual state of ice cover at the poles? Firstly, “climate” is about gradual changes in weather that occur beginning at 30-year timespans. We only have just over that many years of satellite data, giving us the capacity to even identify climatic trends.
Fires: What is the evidence? The chart below shows fires in South America, compared to the 2001-2018 averages. There are increases, and decreases. But importantly, the numbers only go back to 2001. Why? We just now have the technologies in place to monitor the global environment in a publicly accessible way. These measurement, visualization and
Plenty of snow, with the Northern-hemisphere snow mass doubled, but who needs it? All-weather-skiing Video Candide Thovex The Northern Hemisphere, because it has twice as much land mass as the Southern Hemisphere, has greater influence on the Earth’s climate and temperatures. About 40% of the surface of the Northern Hemisphere is landmass, with about 60% covered
"You have found a promising approach to demonstrate successfully that the long suspected culprits of global warming, e.g. CO2, CH4, are actually not !"
Rutgers University, New Jersey
B.A. Cornell University, New York
"…seems to be path-breaking research in the domain. The paper reads nice and the science involved is analogous and clear. This paper is a hallmark and would benefit the advances in science, government planning as well as policy makers for the next course of action. I congratulate you for this great work and thank for giving me an opportunity to read it and enlighten myself."
PhD, Atmospheric Sci and Meteorology, IISc
M.Sc., Geophysics, ISC
BSc., (Hons) Physics, Delhi U
"An alarmist bias in Global Warming Research has corrupted the academic/scientific community"
Dr. Roy W. Spencer
University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Principal Research Scientist at UoA
Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center
"I have studied your paper during the weekend and I am impressed by your brilliant analysis and convincing argumentation. This looks like a very original thought process and one that does deserve broad dissemination."
B.Sc. (Hons) Mech. Eng.
C.P. Eng. (Chartered Prof. Eng.)
Former Project Manager, CERN
Why Support Science?
While leftists finance global-warming alarmism in an attempt to confiscate €25 trillion from the Paris Accord climate agreement, and use the always changing climate as an excuse to nationalize more of economies, who supports honest science challenging this pseudo-science?
Many people say talk to the oil companies. But most oil companies will not touch the global warming issue: because their interests lie in selling hydrocarbons, they appear to be biased no matter what they say. So they have invested generally in renewable energy, and it is no longer a primary issue to them which side wins, or what the future holds, as they are covered either way.
But what about science? Do you personally care whether scientific progress continues, and humans learn more about nature so that we can actually solve real problems? If you care about humanity, then you should care about science.
Again, science needs lots of views, and competition among them with freedom of speech. Please consider supporting our project by buying one of the our books or eBooks, or making a donation.
The Climate Science Journal Allows Anonymous Reviews, and Paper Presentations
The use of pseudonyms has a long history in science and philosophy, as a means of evading retaliation by those who are threatened by the advance of human knowledge and understanding, including:
- Nicolaus Copernicus (who first put forward his theory of heliocentrism anonymously),
- Galileo (writing as Lothario Sarsio Sigensano),
- Isaac Newton (as Jehovah Sanctus Unus)
- John Locke (his Two Treatises on Government was published anonymously)
- Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (as Lewis Carroll) and
- François-Marie Arouet (as Voltaire)
Climate Science Journal
Copyright ©2017-2023 Climate Science Journal
All Rights Reserved