Does The Green House Gas Effect Really Exist?–Part 2

The previous posting,  “Does the Greenhouse gas effect really exist–Part 1”,  looked at measured radiation of longwave infrared (IR)  that demonstrated the greenhouse gas effect.

There is another way to demonstrate the  greenhouse gas effect using the SURFRAD data.  I have selected SURFRAD data for the year 2016 for the Sioux Falls, South Dakota and Desert Rock, Nevada sites

Some thoughts about the following charts 1B and 3B.  These charts plot  the radiation data—both solar short wave and the Earth’s longwave IR plus the net Solar and net longwave IR.

Charts 2B and 4B show air temperature, wind speed, relative humidity and albedo.  These data are not used in the analysis but might prove valuable to someone interested in deriving a better understanding of the energy balance.

Figure 1B Monthly Means Sioux Falls SD:  Radiation Chart For 2016

Different from the earlier chart in Part 1 which showed a 24 hour continuous plot of data, the following 4 charts are the daily data in a given month combined and  the mean extracted for each data set.

Data from 4 monthly means were used—March, June, Sept, and Dec. to develop the table that follows.  The data used in the Table that follows was  derived by scaling the Figures 1B and 3B—Hence all data ends in a “0” or  “5”as anything else would be a level of accuracy it would not deserve. ( I had hoped that SURFRAD would provide me with their numbers, but so far have not gotten anything.)

It is possible to derive temperatures from w/m² radiation.  I used the formula      w/m²/ 5.67X10^-8= T^4   assuming a black body.

0°C=32°F=273°K   100°C=212°F=373°K

Earth’s assumed average global temperature is 288°K.

The intention here is to convert radiation data to temperature.

Figure 2B  Monthly Means Sioux Falls SD: Climate Variables 201

And the monthly means for Desert Rock for the year 2016:

Figure 3B Monthly Means Desert Rock NV: Radiation Chart 2016

Figure  4B  Monthly Means Desert Rock: Climate Variables 2016

    Table  1B  GHGs Modify Temperatures.

The w/m² data from the figures 1B and 3B were entered into the table and converted to K°.  The upper half of the Table is data from the Sioux Falls SURFRAD site and the lower half was data from Desert Rock SURFRAD.

Standout things from the table:

• The Upwelling long wave surface temperature was almost an exact match with the air temperature at Sioux Falls.  While  that relationship  was not as exact at Desert Rock,  it generally correlated.  Compare the temperatures highlighted in light green.
• If the air temperature was controlled by the net solar radiation it  would be substantially below the measured air temperature at both sites, and well below the Earth’s average assumed global temperature.   (In several cases, my numbers do not close the loop so there may have been several net solar  periods that may have been as high or higher than 288K.)
• The key thing to note is that the upwelling and downwelling IR temperatures were all greater than the Solar temperatures, thus demonstrating that the GHG effect was happening.
• While this chart contains some errors as the data was scaled from the charts,  I do not believe when or if I get the official numbers , they would make my conclusions significantly different.
• The long wave IR and the air temperatures (at these GHG  conditions) correlate pretty well with net solar input.

Why is there a controversy about GHGs?

The problem with some examinations, in my opinion, are done using steady state averages.   The dynamic  SURFRAD  data show the accumulation of solar energy due to the retarding of the energy  release to space caused by the  GHGs that would not be  obvious using average steady state assumed values.

Other examinations choose to ignore the obvious upwelling and downwelling that are measured by SURFRAD.  There are many other locations around the world that gather the same data and they show the  downwelling of IR from GHGs.

I am not a physicist, but the explanation that they  provide says  that photons are massless, radiant energy that can be sent from a lower temperature source to a higher temperature source.  The issue is the net effect of the system which is satisfied by the hot surface radiation being returned to cold space.  That is the best I can do regarding thermodynamic’s  2nd law. And again, it seems obvious that is what happens.

I recommend that you look at the SURFRAD site by clicking here.

Final thoughts:

I believe that the GHGs do raise the Earth’s temperature.  It is convincing at the ground level.   But there are a  number of natural forces that are known to counterbalance the GHG effect.  The research into natural causes of heating and cooling have been neglected (mostly purposely, it seems.) and this imbalance needs to be corrected.

I am still a skeptic relative to the warmer’s climate sensitivity. They are still holding to the concept that a doubling of CO2 will increase temperature one degree and that it will raise the atmospheric content of water vapor so that two more degrees of warming will occur—-3 degree rise would be the consequence of a doubling of CO2,  It is not happening and some studies indicate that it is three times too high.

I can not understand how any scientist can standby silently when the models continue to make repeated forecasts that are so far off from the real world.

cbdakota