Friday, April 24, 2015
Still Obsessing On Climate Sensitivity
Bishop Hill and ClimateAudit have both given space to the latest round of obsessing about CO2 "climate sensitivity", by scientist Nic Lewis. I respond to the following quote in Lewis's latest posting:
"Since the climate system takes many centuries to equilibrate..."
Translation: None of us know--and really don't believe we CAN know, for "many centuries" yet--what we are talking about with regard to the "climate system", and particularly with regard to man-made climate change due to our fossil fuel use.
What I have discovered, with my 2010 Venus/Earth temperature-versus-pressure comparison, is:
The Standard Atmosphere model--and especially, the physics behind it, which assures a stable vertical temperature gradient--rules (as the real, global average, or mid-latitudinal, state) over all other processes and conditions in the atmosphere (being precisely confirmed by the Venus/Earth comparison).
The troposphere is fundamentally warmed, and the stable Standard Atmosphere structure maintained, only by direct absorption of incident solar radiation, not at all (beyond transient and local effects--known as "weather") from the planet's surface.
The CO2 climate sensitivity due to absorption by atmospheric CO2 of long-wavelength radiation from the surface is precisely zero, because that energy is simply "falling down" the globally(!) predominant vertical temperature gradient towards outer space.
Any CO2 climate sensitivity due to absorption by atmospheric CO2 of incident long-wavelength radiation from the Sun is also zero, because that energy merely goes to MAINTAIN the globally predominant vertical temperature gradient.
Today's climate scientists are chasing local (even quantum-mechanical) causes and effects, and know nothing of what I would call the overall design of the atmosphere--which I say again, is stable against all of the supposed causes and effects being considered by today's (clearly mis-educated) academics.