Frank Wunderlich-Pfeiffer

We wouldn't need coal if we still had nuclear power plants running.

Yes. Of course. Germany did replace nuclear with coal.

Stop confusing the facts.

That's just not the sort of message that spreads like wildfire in this meme-saturated world of ours. And it's a complicated message.

Doubling CO2 causes a 1.2K temperature rise, but cleaning up the regular air pollution plus warming at the end of the little ice age did almost that much already.

Most of all:

The Greenhouse Effect - and not only that - is a very compelling reason that we should really try not to double CO2 in our atmosphere and find something else instead.

Not because it's the end of the world. But because it's a really good idea and it could be quite a hassle otherwise.

Trust watts per square meter, they really seem to be accurate for all I can tell. Just don't trust the Kelvins per Watt per Square meter at the surface, this is where the problems come in. If they were right, the earth would have to be much hotter today after getting warmed by the much lower albedo.

And make no mistake. The Greenhouse effect is real. It absolutely is. But the rise in temperature caused by it is much lower and gets reduced down to the regular thermal emission of a black body with the average temperature of the earth surface.

It really shows what is going on.

All the people who understand the physics are extremely pissed of by now, because all this violates thermodynamics and conservation of energy. But all they have is physics - facing millions of people with the firm belief that the fate of the world is at stake.

But it's actually really simple. The surplus of absorbed photons from the lower atmosphere is emitted not through thermal radiation in random directions, but through stimulated emission by photons coming from the lower atmosphere and thus going out into space.

Also, you really notice how he is twisting himself to explain the unexplainable of what is going on in the upper atmosphere. He even slips up and says it must be getting warmer ... trouble though is, that it isn't and the theory of very high warming hinges on the top of the atmosphere staying cold.

But of course, the bottom of the ocean can respond to more carbon (as organic matter) dropping to the ocean floor and either sequester or release it ... because there is life there. It's exactly the same as on the surface. Except the ocean floor is *really* good at getting covered in organic goo.

And it's an even worse story for his carbon cycle. Notice how there is no arrow going back and forth between marine sediment (the soil at the bottom of the ocean) and the deep ocean itself? He equilibrates volcanism of 100s of millions year old rock to current sediment equilibria!

He even says (slightly exaggerated) it's 150 year old physics. And it's true. The problem is that very basic, usually post-highschool, quantum physics wasn't invented at that time.

That's why all the math is done in wavelengths, as if light was a wave. It's not. But it was in 19th century physics.

Once you understand that the theory of the emission of the upper atmosphere in regards to climate change doesn't take account of quantum effects that were discovered in 1905 and 1916, you can't unsee it.

After this slide he says "lets go from theory to data" ....
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lApL...

YouTube video by New York Times Events Michael Oppenheimer and Stefan Rahmstorf | How Close is Climate to a Tipping Point?

Rahmsdorf is only just stopping short of saying "it's getting warmer because it's getting colder", but that is exactly the argument he is making here at 2:30 youtu.be/cJ1GVMWzWIE?...

Basically, people are quite mad at this model not because they don't believe in climate change, but because it contradicts basic physics and do very much believe that you can't break the laws of thermodynamics.

A lot of the time, it has to be said, their tone in unacceptable. But not their physics.

And no, I'm nowhere near the first to realize or say that and many people did so much with much more extra physics and math. E.g. here (the difference between red and blue gets made up by stimulated emission - the half the blue line is re-emitted towards earth) sealevel.info/vanWijingaar...

Btw. this is the point where you should really sit straight up in your chair and realize that something fishy is going on.

When you introduce an element that can do anything to any extend without saying what the real-world limits of this thing could be, you're doing something that isn't physics.

As it turns out, the big problem of the climate community isn't that the warming is unexpectedly high. It's unexpectedly low.

And it's that cognitive dissonance that's driving them crazy these days.

It's very human. They'll get over it.

And this result describes very well (within error of measurement) the rise in global temperature since 2003 by 0.6-0.7 K after "18% of a doubling of CO2" (375->425ppm) and a 0.9% increase in absorbed energy though lower albedo minus measured 0.8W/m^2 losses through heating up ocean and land.

That's how the upper atmosphere doesn't heat up and still releases the energy to outer space - because stimulated emission, unlike spontaneous/thermal emission - is directed (along the path of the photon causing the stimulated emission) and not random with half the photons going back to earth.

Basically, all the photons that can't be emitted by the upper atmosphere because it is too cold - which would create an energy imbalance heating up the upper atmosphere - get emitted through stimulated emission as soon as the next similar photon passes by the excited air molecule. And that's it.

Except that when CO2 doubles and the average square meter of earth that receives about 240 Watts at an equilibrium temperature of 288K will receive an additional 4 Watts per square meter (+1.66%), the average temperature rises by 0.41% or 1.2 K.

Well outside the IPCC range of estimates of 2-5 K.

... and that those excited molecules could be subject to stimulated emission (Einstein, 1916).

The result is that the surface of the earth rather boringly acts like a black body in equilibrium with the vacuum of space when it gets heated up by the greenhouse effect (which is real!).

It doesn't work, but Arrhenius is not to blame. He treated light as a wave and the atmosphere and as a thing that lets certain wavelengths through and other not.

It wasn't until 1905 that it was clear light is made up of photons, molecules struck with photons follow Boltzmann Statistics (1900) ...

The article describes Arrhenius' theory of the greenhouse effect and says (correctly) that this is still the foundation used in climate models.

The trouble is, this requires the atmosphere to be at a constant temperature - but the objection to Maxwell's has always been, that the Demon would heat up

I never quite understood the process of the greenhouse effect until I read this article and figured out why. (This figure doesn't show IR passing through the "atmospheric window".)

The atmosphere is a Maxwell's Demon choosing which photons to let through and which not.
pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/art...

Instead of merely leaving this statement there as if the words themselves were the problem,it would have been a lot better to think about the problem (which is a real, albeit long solved, problem) and give that firm reason that Watson didn't see:

Convergent evolution.

pre-writing a devastating obituary for your enemy is god-tier hating of a kind you don’t often see anymore. renaissance haterism. beautiful stuff.

It's almost chemistry!

#scnr

Right now, it's not accumulating more snow, but it offsets some of the melt and this offset factor is likely to grow as more moist air arrives at Greenland in the future.