Carbon dioxide and energy policy (Gary Young) USofA

ENERGY POLICY AND MYTHS ABOUT CARBON DIOXIDE Gary A. YOUNG 12/05/07

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: No rational energy policy can occur until the GLOBAL WARMING role of CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) is well understood. The intent of this paper is to find a direct physics answer to the question of if increasing CO2 causes global warming. It is based on “counting molecules and photons” and calculating what happens given the known physical properties of CO2 and the “greenhouse” causing infrared light emitted from the earth. The complexity is that the physics is not understood concerning what exactly happens when light is captured by CO2. It can however, be determined that the effects of additional CO2 are limited by physical phenomena and these limits can be calculated and they are far less significant than many other natural phenomena driving global warming.

The earth is undeniably warming. However, the primary culprit is not carbon dioxide or the specific issue of anthropogenic carbon dioxide; that 3.2% of CO2 caused by humans, and, more specifically, the 23% of the anthropogenic CO2 generated in the US. The controlling science is the total number of CO2 molecules above the earth’s surface and the extent that CO2 molecules absorb and sometimes re-emit infrared energy.

The “greenhouse” effect is caused by infrared heat energy re-radiated from the earth and captured by various gases of which CO2 is only one. This energy, together with direct sunshine, warms the air creating global warming. It is important to understand that the number and energies of infrared photons emitted from the earth are limited by physics. It will be shown that the earth’s atmosphere already contains far more carbon dioxide then is necessary to absorb all the infrared heat radiating from the earth. While more CO2 could theoretically increase temperatures, it can be shown that the effect is negligible.

The Kyoto Protocol addresses only “industrial” gases, primarily carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane. Water vapor is the most powerful of the major green house gases, but it is not mentioned in the very flawed Protocol. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is now about 380 parts per million (0.038%), and is “held responsible” for 72 percent of Kyoto warming. Methane, CH4, mostly naturally occurring, is considered 21 times more potent than CO2, but because of its low concentration, it accounts for only 7% of Kyoto warming. Nitrous oxide (N2O), also mostly naturally occurring, is 310 time more potent than CO2, but its low concentration keeps its warming effect down to 19%.

These numbers are partly a product of the perceived “Potency” of the gas. Potency is the product of persistence in the atmosphere and ability of the gas to absorb infrared radiation emitting from the earth.

Professor Richard S. Lindzen, from MIT, testified before a committee of the United States Senate, May 2, 2001. He made it is clear that the whole Kyoto process in which he participated was deeply flawed, technically embarrassing, mired in politics, and had a heavy dose of "hate America" from most of the rest of the World's participants. It was as H.L. Menchen so concisely stated:

1

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populance alarmed (and hence clamoring to be led to safety) by menacing them with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

BACKGROUND: Nature releases 30 times more carbon dioxide than man. So why has the concentration in the atmosphere risen from about 280 ppm before the industrial age to 380 ppm today?

Correlation is not cause and it cannot all be from man. One possibility may be the ultimate “carbon cycle” which is driven by “plate tectonics” where sub-ducted limestone is heated to destruction and the released CO2 vented out volcanoes and other geological features. Another may have to do with the solubility of CO2 in the ocean. Right now, the oceans are absorbing more then they are releasing The oceans have a capacity to hold an additional 38,000 BILLION tons compared to the 150 billion ton increase in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial age.1 Increasing CO2 may simply be a convergence of reasons that the earth does periodically.

Returning to the primary question; "Does CO2 drive temperature, or is it the other way round?" Both have synchronously fluctuated many times and widely over at least the last 600,000 years as shown in the plot provided by Professor Robert H. Essenhigh, Ohio State University. 2

Figure 1

1

U. Siegenthaler and J. L. Samiento, 1993. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and the Sea, Nature, 365:119 This chart may be found at: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ec/Co2-temperatureplot.png/800px-Co2-temperature-plot.png 2

2

The correlation of CO2 to temperature is approximately 10 parts per million (ppm) for each degree centigrade. This can be determined by analysis of some of the Vostock ice core samples. See THE MYTH THAT CO2 LEVELS WERE STABLE AND LOW UNTIL INDUSTRIALAZIATION starting on page 18 about the limitations on ice core analysis.

However, Data from just the medieval warming and little ice age periods are as follows: CO2 concentration Temp. difference Minimum readings 183.9 ppm -8.49 deg C Maximum readings 299.5 ppm +3.26 deg C The temperature range is 11.75 degrees C and the range of CO2 is 115.6 ppm. This is a huge variation in temperature over the last 1500 years and the variation of CO2 is also greater since pre-industrial times.

Of interest is the correlation with the Sahara being wet and green, the last such time ended about 10,000 years ago. If the immense Sahara was again wet and green, there would be even more water vapor available for global warming.

HOW THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT WORKS “Greenhouse” is a misnomer. There is no physical barrier like a roof of a greenhouse.

Some global warming is vitally necessary for life to exist on earth because if there were no warming, the average surface temperature of the earth would be about zero degrees F. This would in turn mean that while the equatorial regions would be above freezing, the poles would have permanent massive ice packs and life as we know it could not exist.

In the absence of experimenting with a parallel earth, we have to look elsewhere, such as Mars. True, Mars is further from the sun then earth and therefore receives less solar energy. According to Davison E. Soper, Institute of Theoretical Science, University of Oregon, Eugene OR ., Mars has about three times as many molecules of CO2 above each square meter of surface than does the earth, but Mars has a lot less (about 1%) of everything else. We know how much carbon dioxide there is on Mars by using the absorption characteristics of light. The Martian atmosphere is very dry, but in cold weather, water frost can be found on the surface. More interesting, there is CO2 ice on the polar caps where most of it evaporates in summer. At the low Martian atmospheric pressures, carbon dioxide snow means that the temperature must be about 80 to 90 below zero. Mars could really use a good greenhouse effect, but despite the high levels of CO2, there isn’t as much effect as we see on earth probably because of the very low levels of water. Even more interesting is that over the last 30 years, Mars seems to be warming.i Why Mars is a far better model for Earth then Venus is because the atmospheric pressures and temperatures on Venus are far higher. High pressures and temperatures cause CO2 to behave quite differently then the in the atmospheres on Earth or Mars.

Understanding the energy balance of the earth: Fortunately, there is a long history of scientifically analyzing the physical properties of gasses and light. It is also well known how much light energy is absorbed by various gases under nearly all conditions. The “peak” on the left in Figure 2 is the incoming energy the earth receives from direct sun light. The “peak” on the right in Figure 2 shows 3

the amount of energy the earth radiates back into space. Measurements from satellites show that the earth radiates a consistent average of 235 watts per square meter. Most of the earth’s radiation is in the form of infrared “photons” ranging in wave length from two microns to about 27 microns. These wave lengths are in the portion of infrared energy that is “absorbable” by a number of greenhouse gases and that “trapped” energy in turn causes global warming.

Figure 2

Notes: A. Micron (micro-meter) size wavelength photons sound small, but they are large compared to the “sub-micron” structures on the integrated circuits found in consumer electronics. This greenhouse warming creating light consists of 3 to 27 micron wavelength light which are more than a hundred times larger then the structures on current generation integrated circuit chips. We will see that light as “photons” make things a lot more complex.

B. The two scales on the chart show how vastly more energetic the sun is compared to the earth. The light energy radiated from the sun is 300,000 times greater then the infrared light energy radiated from the earth.

C. At the top of earth’s atmosphere, the average energy of incoming sun light is just about perfectly equal to the average energy leaving the earth.

Converting light to atmospheric heat: Greenhouse causing gases include Carbon Dioxide, Water Vapor, Methane, Oxides of Nitrogen, and Oxygen as both Ozone and the O2 molecules. There are other industrial gases that also cause warming. Figure 3 is a “high level” visualization of

4

which wavelengths of infrared light are absorbed by various green house gases. It is the absorption of specific infrared light that causes causing greenhouse warming.

Figure 3

An absorptivity of zero means no absorption while a value of one means compete absorption. The dominant absorbers of infrared radiation are water vapor (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2). Oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) are powerful absorbers of much of the sun’s ultraviolet radiation, but they also absorb infrared greenhouse causing infrared radiation at around 10 microns in wavelength.

HITRAN is an acronym for High-Resolution Transmission Molecular Absorption database.3 The end note concerning HITRAN data charts on pages XX and YY distinguish between spectral lines and the above chart showing absorption peaks. The distinction is that they are measurements of different physical phenomena; light as waves verses light as photons. Spectral lines show the ability of the gas to absorb infrared photons of given wavelengths, and are charted to show absorption cross sections (the probability of absorption). The absorption peaks shown in Figure 3 above show the overall effect of the absorption in the general region of the wavelengths of IR energy of 3

HITRAN started as an Air Force project. Goggle HITRAN and numerous resources are available. There will be more on HITRAN in a few more pages

5

concern. The general region is important because the small spectral lines within ±1 micron of 15 microns, page XX, have an absorption cross section large enough to cause 100% absorption in the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere. This is why the absorption peak at 15 microns is flat on the top. A flat top means that there is 100% absorption for a 2 micron range of IR wave lengths that occur just about exactly where the earth radiates the most. The 4.3 micron absorption peak exhibits similar properties.

The “bell shape” of the absorption data is a clue that the physics behind gases absorbing the energy by light is a lot more complex then it first appears.

The mechanism of absorption is that an incoming photon at just the right frequency is “captured” by the CO2 molecule and turned into mechanical energy. Absorption causes the molecule to “vibrate in a specific harmonic resonance.” Once the absorbing molecule is vibrating, it may promptly eject a similar photon, but more likely, it will transfer this additional mechanical motion to other atmospheric molecules. The process can happen as fast as one ten billionth of a second. When the excited CO2 molecule “bumps” into adjacent oxygen and nitrogen molecules (or even dust particles), energy is transferred, which then cause these other components of the air to vibrate more. This mechanical energy transfer and resulting greater vibration in neighboring molecules is heat.

An excited CO2 molecule already in specific harmonic resonance cannot capture another photon of the same specific energy corresponding to the harmonic resonance. Once the excited CO2 molecule transfers enough energy to “fall out of harmonic resonance,” It is then ready and able to capture another incoming photon if it is of the right energy.

Most of the conversion from infrared energy to heat happens close to the earth’s surface where atmospheric pressure is higher and air molecules are both more numerous and in closer physical proximity to excited CO2 molecules. These factors mean that it takes less time for an excited CO2 molecule to transfer heat and be ready to capture another photon then it would at high altitude. Thus, a molecule of CO2 can capture photons and transfer the heat billions of time a second, but it is limited by the supply of suitable photons.

Thereafter, the warmed lower layer of atmosphere is subject to convection, winds and other means of circulation of the heat, so the result is warming of the whole atmosphere.

CO2 is a symmetrical molecule and vibrates in only a few specific harmonic modes when stimulated by infrared light. The most prevalent mode occurs around the 15 micron wave length and is a simple accordion like stretching and contraction of the molecule. The width of the absorption “peak” is because there are hundreds of spectral peaks clustered around 15 microns. The second mode happens when photons about 4.3 microns in wave length are absorbed. That mode looks much like the executive toy with suspended-ballbearings-on-strings. In this case, only three balls, the two oxygen and one carbon atoms.

The harmonic motion is first having one end of the molecule bounces in and out then the other end. This mode contributes about 20% of carbon dioxide affect. The third mode is a torsion twisting harmonic and happens at a wave length from 2 to about 3 microns and contributes only 2% of the adsorption heating effect. Visualizing the above figures 2 and 3 charts together, it can be seen that only a portion of the green house infrared spectrum actually excites carbon dioxide meaning that CO2 cannot capture all IR emissions.

6

Scientific measurements are not perfect. For example, the more current measurements in the end notes on page XX, show that what were once thought to be single spectral lumps are actually made up of hundreds of individual spectral lines. Even these lines may contain multiple smaller spectral lines. Further, the bases of spectral lines appear to flare in width. These sloping sides are called “shoulders” or “wings.” The shape could simply be limitations of current measurement techniques, real, or partly both.

MORE CO2 WILL MAKE LITTLE DIFFERENCE IN GLOBAL WARMING! According to Richard S. Lindzen at MIT, when the affect of water vapor is included in the greenhouse gas effect, then all anthropogenic (man responsible) carbon dioxide released produces less than 0.1 % of the greenhouse effect. Using the physics approach to “counting molecules; counting photons” and then analyzing what happens to these molecules based on the principals of physics indicate why little CO2 warming will occur.

Counting the molecules: The number of molecules of CO2 can easily be found starting with the weight of the air in the atmosphere at sea level which is 14.7 psi, or equivalent to 10,100 kg per square meter. Air is Nitrogen, Oxygen, water vapor, and trace gases including 380 parts per million of carbon dioxide. By using the molecular weights of the various components of air, the number of CO2 molecules in a one meter square column stretching to space is about 7.9 x 10^25. (Scientific notation for 79,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, a really large number) Counting the photons: The primary wave lengths of infrared light emitted by the earth and that excites CO2 is about 10% of the spectrum of infrared light, but it is nearly centered in the spectrum where the earth radiates the most. Inspection of the data from the figures 2 and 3 charts shows that CO2 is capable of absorbing only about a third of the spectrum of the energy radiated by the earth surface. Note that water vapor couples with about 75% of the spectrum and “competes” in much of the same part of the spectrum where CO2 absorbs energy.

It can be seen in Figure 4, the 1997 energy balance chart by Kiehe and Trenberth, that about 90% of the energy earth radiates is absorbable by all the greenhouse gases. Of the 390 watts of radiation the earth emits at the surface, 40 watts goes directly into space through the atmospheric “window” because no gases can capture it. Of particular note is that 324 watts are the “back radiation” from the greenhouse gas re-emitting photons that are in turn directed back to the earth’s surface. The “back radiation” is an important consideration because the phenomenon greatly mitigates the “shoulders effect” when CO2 concentrations change.

7

Figure 4

The Kiehe and Trenberth model is a hypothesis and not a scientific certainty which means that it may be wrong. In the mean time, it is as good as any until it is replaced with a better model or verified. It will take years of consistently repeatable experimentation before the hypothesis becomes a “law” of science.

The infrared wave length of 14 microns, which is close to where the earth radiates the most, was picked as representative of the energy of the earth’s surface radiation. We know from the laws of physics that these photons have an energy of 1.34 X 10^-20 Joules (0.0000000000000000000134 Joules, a really small number). If we further assume that ALL 350 watts of the absorbable surface radiation energy is concentrated at this wave length, then we have an emission from the surface of about 2.6 X 10^22 photons per second per square meter of the earth’s surface.

The “capture cross section” of CO2, (the apparent size of the molecule that is able to couple with 15 micron wave length photons) is well documented in physics and is 5 X 10^-22. square meters. Therefore, ignoring water vapor and other gases, in order to capture ALL the IR energy emitted by a square meter of the earth requires (only!) 2 X 10^21 molecules of CO2.

The earth’s atmosphere already has at least 40,000 times this required number of CO2 necessary to capture the earths IR energy. That result means that adding more CO2 could not make a difference in global warming.

Even though the count the molecules analysis could explain why Mars doesn’t seem to have CO2 related warming, it seemed too easy. A search was made to see who else

8

supported the molecule by molecule and photon by photon analysis. This search was surprisingly difficult for six months. In June 2006, a retired British physicist, Aubrey E Banner, posted a very similar analysis on http://forum.physorg.com/, a site hosted by Physics Forums. In support of the above analysis, he used the same critical values. His approach was focused on how much energy could be absorbed by current levels of CO2.

His conclusion was nearly identical: “The energy of a 14 micron infrared photon is 1.34 x 10^-20 Joules, --- and so the 2 x 10^21 molecules providing the absorption coverage can absorb the energy the earth emits. ----- There are already 8 x 10^25 molecules which could absorb 40 thousand times the energy the earth emits.”

Both Banner and I ignored the issue of how many times in one second a molecule of CO2, being greatly diluted in the atmosphere, will accept another photon. A molecule of CO2 is able to “relax” and again absorb a photon in as little as 10 ^-10 per second. Since Banner’s and my absorption analysis was made for only one event a second and for all energy concentrated at 14-15 microns, the calculation of having 40 thousand times more CO2 based on only absorbing one photon a second seemed very conservative.

QUANTUM MECHANICS CAN GET STRANGE: Because if the “bell shape” of the curves in figure 2 and 3 are real, Banner and I wanted to see if these effects on CO2 could still cause global warming. We asked help from Dr. Paul Ronney of the University of Southern California.4 Dr. Ronney, who first validated our basic count the molecules approach, then added: “---HOWEVER, on the "shoulders" of the absorption peak, where the atmosphere is neither completely transparent nor completely opaque, more CO2 absolutely will increase the absorption and thus affect the earth's radiative energy balance.” In short, there was thought to be a significant global warming effect as CO2 increased because of the shoulders of the absorption peaks.

Physical measurement techniques have improved over the last 40 years and scientists discovered that there are actually very many absorption peaks in what once looked simple. Their findings are contained in the very useful HITRAN database mentioned before. Harvard University maintains the data base and many other universities such as University of Southern California and others have it available. The database is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters including millions of spectral lines for 38 molecules that can be found in the atmosphere.ii The part of the data base spectrum of interest for global warming is maintained by Dr. Ronney. The first set of graphs in endnote (ii) shows many more spectral lines for CO2 right around the absorption peaks.

For a wide range of pressures, temperatures and wave lengths, the HITRAN data shows over a million such peaks for carbon dioxide and 1.4 million peaks for water. The second chart just expands what is in the 1.4 micron absorption peak for CO2. iii At room temperature and one atmosphere, a low concentration of CO2 in nitrogen has over 900 spectral peaks between about 3.398 to 4.402 wave lengths. What that means is that if an incoming photon does not almost exactly match wave length, it is not captured, but if it matches, it has a high probability of being captured.

4

Dr. Ronney has a HITRAN spread sheet available at: http://vpl.ipac.caltech.edu/spectra/co2pnnlimagesmicrons.htm

9

In his book, Dr. Modest 5, discusses at great length all the things that happen to the CO2 absorption spectra. For instance at higher pressures and temperatures, more spectra appear. This is one reason that the atmosphere on Venus is not a good model for Earth.

Dr. Modest also discusses spectra broadening from molecular collisions and Doppler broadening (from molecules moving towards or away). Of most importance is his discussion and analysis of various models including narrow band models, wide band models, something called the Elsasser Model, statistical models and various combinations of models. At this point, the critical reader understands that the existence of many models is precisely because there is not a single definitive understanding of exactly how photons are absorbed by gases. What solutions exist are only models which have varying accuracies depending on pressures and temperatures. Further, there is no single absolutely correct model or answer to absorption of the earths radiated energy.

Why definitive solutions seem absent: The most likely answer is that no one scientific community owns the problem. The HITRAN data base started with an Air Force study of the electromagnetic spectrum. The first purpose of the infrared portion of the study was to be able to detect high flying enemy airplanes from their heat signature. With the base re-alignment process of the 1990’s, the Air Force laboratory responsible for the data, located in Cambridge Massachusetts, was closed. Harvard University stepped in to mind the HITRAN data base. Their approach was to “farm out” portions of the spectrum to interested academic communities. Minding the infrared portion of the spectrum was taken on by the mechanical engineers because of their interest in heat transfer. This interest is because mechanical engineers work with Radiative heat transfer issues for things such as furnaces, boilers, engines and other machines that rely fully or in part on radiating energy. Generally, ME’s are interested in what happens at high temperatures and pressures which can be very different from what happens at the low pressures and temperatures involved with atmospheric science. So a possible root cause for not effectively using this data on the global warming problem is that there just doesn’t seem to be much communication between the keepers of the data and the potential users of the data such as climatologists, physicists and atmospheric scientists.

The pursuit of a direct proof based on the laws of physics has become the examination of a number of different models that could possibly explain the “shoulders” effect. These models are primarily differentiated by regions of pressure, temperature and frequency of light wherein the various models are predictive. It now seems obvious, but why many models even exist is because the fundamental physics isn’t understood.

THE BOX MODELOF PHOTON ABSORBTION BY CO2: The “Box Model” as described by Modest appears to be the most appropriate tool to analyze the issue of shoulders at the specific temperatures and pressures of the Earth’s atmosphere. The model does provide a specific explanation how more atmospheric CO2 could increase global warming.

5

2003 Michael F. Modest, of The Pennsylvania State University; RADIATIVE HEAT TRANSFER, Second Edition, published by ACADEMIC PRESS, 2005.

10

The “shoulders” are the parts of the spectral lines that are not precisely vertical, but somewhat bell shaped as can be seen on nearly all graphs. Many phenomena in nature can be described as part or all of a sine wave shape.iv However, some portion of these flared shapes may be the inability of the measurement instrumentation to precisely measure and print the shapes.

The following simplified Banner Box Model is designed to help those not steeped in science to understand the concept. For clarity of presentation, the analysis is based on a 100% absorption box being exactly 2 microns wide. The analysis focuses on what would happen to global temperatures if CO2 doubled from the 260 parts per million levels seen prior to the industrial age to 520 ppm sometime in the future.

Banner model of low level infrared absorption cross sections of carbon dioxide Figure 5

Box ABCD represents a simplified and theoretical flat topped infrared absorption peak of CO2. With reference to the HITRAN data, end note number (ii), takes the case of the large peak at almost exactly 15 microns, which has an absorption cross section of approximately 5×10^-22 m^2. (Note that the HITRAN vertical axis is in centimeters not meters.) This spectrum shows small absorption peaks extending about 1 micron on either side of the major peak, and the smallest that can be seen is at a level of about 10^-23 m^2. The result is a flat top (meaning where absorption is 100% probable.) peak extending from 14 microns to 16 microns. At pre-industrial revolution concentrations of 11

260 parts per million by volume of CO2, there is provision for 100% absorption down to cross sections of (1.0/5.6×10^25) m^2, i.e. about 2×10^-26 m^2.

The real HITRAN spectra do not show any adjacent spectral peaks beyond 1 micron on either side of the 15 micron line. However, the absence of peaks may be because they are too small to measure with current techniques, or if indeed there are no such peaks, the result would be vertical sides to the area of the absorption peak in the diagram, box EFCD, which means that extra CO2 could not enhance the Green House Gas effect.

There is the possibility that smaller peaks may exist within one micron on either side of the box. The exact values do not really matter, but if they existed, they would produce sloping sides to the flat topped peak, which for illustrative purposes have been simplified as straight lines, AD and BC, extending into the adjacent 1 micron sections and increasing the area of the box. If smaller peaks beyond one micron exist, they would have truly insignificant effects.

Modeling the effects of doubling CO2 concentration in the atmosphere: Original peak, at pre-industrial CO2 concentration: The wavelength axis is comprised of 0.1 micron elements, giving ten steps per one micron element. The power absorbed by the peak ABCD is given by the area under the peak and so, for arbitrary units with 10 units of height corresponding to the 100 % absorption level, (the flat top of the peak); the original area is 300 area units.

Final peak, after doubling CO2 concentration: Suppose that the CO2 concentration is now doubled to 520 ppm from pre-industrial levels. The flat top cannot go any higher because it is already at the 100% absorption level. However, the first 0.1 micron element can double from 1 height unit to 2 height units, a net increase of 1 height unit, and similarly for the next elements up to and including the fifth one. The increases are shown by the short vertical lines at the left.

But the last set of 5 elements cannot double because they are already limited by being 100%. Their increases are shown above the vertical lines. This results in an increase of 25 units each side for a total increase of 50 units, with the final peak having an equivalence of 350 units. (This simple model of 20 point, 10 on either side, has been verified by a 1000 point calculation with substantially the same results.)

From the Earth’s emission spectrum (Planck distribution) as seen from space and with the Earth in radiative balance at a surface temperature of 288.0 degrees K and emitting 390 watts per meter from the Kiehe Trenberth model. It can be found that the power from a wavelength element of 1 micron, at 15 microns, is 7.43 Watts per square meter. This is equivalent to 100 units in the diagram. So a power increase of 50 units in real terms is 3.72 Wm^-2.

Therefore, (final power) / (initial power) = 393.72 / 390.0 = 1.009538. Hence, the Absolute temperature of Earth’s surface increases by a factor which is defined by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law or (1.009538)^0.25, i.e. 1.002376. So the Earth’s surface temperature becomes 288 X 1.002376 or 288.68 degrees absolute, an increase of, less

12

than 0.7 degrees C or about 1.2 degree F for doubling CO2. Note that even this simple conservative model yields only a 0.7 degree C rise which is less then a number of alarmist findings of 0.9 degrees C and higher.

This model can be simplified with an empirical formula: Surface Temp Rise = 1.19 x ln(CO2 factor). For a factor of 4, which is 1120 parts per million, the rise would be 1.53 degrees C. But, is the model right? The answer is no so what follows is a better model.

More realistic box model with sinusoidal shoulders: In the real physical world, few things are “square cornered.” The second Banner diagram in the end notev represents the case that if shoulders existed, they would have sinusoidal shoulders and tails. This model is similar but more mathematically complex because of the sinusoidal sides and the use of 1000 points per side.

The table starts with the pre-industrial level of CO2 because the earth has very rarely experienced this low a level of CO2 before. The CO2 increase factor column represents the multiples of the 9.5 ppb minimum necessary concentration to capture all greenhouse photons that correspond to the parts per million concentration under the Notes column.

The Earth’s surface temperature is in absolute (Kelvin) adjusted slightly to be exactly 288 degrees Kelvin when the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 was at 280ppm.

The CO2 increase factor: Notes: Earth surface Temp., degrees K: 29,477 pre-industrial 280ppm 288.00 40,000 present day 380ppm 288.23 58,954 doubled 560ppm 288.45 117,908 4x pre-industrial 288.67 235,816 8x pre-industrial 288.79 471,632 16x pre-industrial 288.84 943,264 (32x); 8960 ppm.

288.87 1,886,528 64x pre- industrial 288.89 3,773,056 (128x); 36% of atmosphere 288.89 These results are ‘worst case’ limits of the shoulders effect for many reasons. Three reasons include: assuming HITRAN spectral absorption lines which have not yet been detected, assuming that available CO2 molecules only absorb once a second, and ignoring the absorptive properties of other gases.

This model indicates that today’s increase in CO2 resulted in a less than quarter degree contribution to world temperatures which is much less than alarmists claim. Further, doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels would result in a further temperature increase of only 0.22 degrees C. These results are also curiously in congruence with the 0.4 degrees

13

rise for the doubling of CO2 that Dr. Sherwood B. Idso discovered with his eight natural experiments.6 A glaring inconsistency in the model: The model shows a 0.45 degree increase in just one doubling from 280 to 560 ppm. The point where CO2 concentration is just enough to absorb all the IR energy is at an atmospheric concentration of only 9.5 parts per billion. Between 9.5ppb and the point in the last century when the CO2 concentration reached approximately 311 ppm, the CO2 concentration would have theoretically doubled 15 times. (9.5 X 10^-9 X 2 ^15). The presented model also shows virtually no change in temperature between the 6th and 7th doubling of CO2 concentrations starting with the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm. The model is clearly non-linear and if we “backed up” the model to the 9.5 ppb starting point to account for the prior 15 doublings, it quickly becomes clear that the results would be negative numbers which make no sense at all.

If the model were further simplified by somehow assuming that the first fifteen doublings were each limited to 0.45 degrees, it would still mean the shoulders effect alone for CO2 would be about 7 degrees C. Since the total greenhouse effect is only about 33 degrees, attributing 21% of it to just the shoulders effect on only CO2 doesn’t make any sense either. One way that sense could be made is if the real world shoulders effect is actually far smaller then the model meaning that the model isn’t very good. The model does however, provide a way to see that the shoulders effect is very limited and defined.

Why the shoulders effect is very little: The box models are based on assuming that overall, 50% of re-emitted photons to go up higher in the atmosphere and 50% is re-absorbed by the earth. Eventually, sufficient absorption/re-emission occurred at a high enough altitude that some photons escape into space. A better assumption of where the photons go is the Kiehe & Trenberth model, Figure 4, on page 8. The model shows that 324 watts per square meter of the back radiation from the greenhouse gases go back to the earth. The total energy the earth absorbs also includes the 168 watts from incoming solar radiation, or 492 watts.

Visualize the 324 watts being “recycled” photons. Then visualize the 168 watts of “new” photons contributing to 24 watts for convective cooling, 78 watts for evaporating water and 40 watts radiated back to space. That balance leaves 26 watts of surface radiation that did not get promptly recycled to earth by back radiation and instead, went up.

Complicating the mater is the 67 watts of energy of incoming solar radiation that is directly absorbed by the atmosphere. It is suspected that the majority of this energy is the form of much more energetic shorter wave ultraviolet light that is absorbed by oxygen and ozone. When one of these excited O2 or O3 molecules transfers their energy to other air molecules, the result can be one to several lower energy long wave greenhouse causing infrared photons being created and emitted. Some of these photons are of the correct energy to escape into space in the Atmospheric Window. That is likely the source of the additional 30 watts as shown the Kiehe & Trenberth model.

Sherwood B. Idso, CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential change. CLIMATE RESEARCH, Vol. 10: 69-82, 1998 6

14

A key concept about the incoming solar radiation is that the energy is indeed captured in the ozone layer high in the atmosphere. If CO2 concentrations increase, there is higher probability that excited oxygen molecules will transfer energy to these additional CO2 molecules. By virtue of being high in the atmosphere, these CO2 molecules also have a higher probability of emitting photons directly into space without further capture and thus causing a net cooling of the atmosphere which would not have happened if the CO2 concentration was lower. Aubrey Banners’s analysis of this effect is in the end note.vi The evapo-transpiration of water results in 78 watts being released into the atmosphere from the latent heat of water condensing into rain or snow. It is suspected that this latent heat is released in the form of longer wave IR photons which have little interaction with CO2. At any rate, this energy is mostly released where the atmosphere is not very cold because the colder the air, the less water it holds. In large part, this is why the upper atmosphere is very dry. With the exception of major storm cells, absorption of IR photons by water vapor mostly happens by 3,000 meters and is all but over by about 10,000 meters. At even these altitudes, it is very highly probable that all greenhouse causing photons, re-emitted by water vapor, are eventually absorbed by CO2 because the concentration of CO2 is a lot more consistent up to the very top of the atmosphere.

Convective overturn, the 24 watts of thermals shown in figure 4, can send warmed air quite high into the atmosphere. Some storm cells can reach 20,000 meters and despite adiabatic cooling, this energy combined with the effects of latent heat could potentially release some greenhouse causing photons higher in the atmosphere. However, these photons are also likely longer in wave then will be absorbed by CO2.

The analysis now leaves the 24 watts of un-accounted surface radiation photons that did not get recycled back to the earth. Banners second box model yield results that are far smaller then before. This is because it can be assumed that while 324 watts went back to the surface, only 24 watts worth of photons became involved with the greenhouse effect.

Therefore, the shoulders effect occurs for the photons that went up and for a CO2 concentration that doubles, the result is about a 0.09 degrees C temperature increase.

Aubrey Banner also argues that the shoulders effect may be very little because with 40,000 times more CO2 then is necessary to capture all greenhouse causing photons, 93% of all the absorbable photons emitted by the earth are absorbed very close to the Earth’s surface. The important concept is that the majority of all these photons are returned to the surface.

Conclusion on CO2 causing global warming “Facts

do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” —Aldous Huxley

It is not known if in either the 15 or 4.3 micron regions, any additional small absorption peaks exist outside the range of full absorption that occur around the principal peaks.

This is because of limitations in available HITRAN data. If there are no such peaks, then it is difficult to see how additional atmospheric carbon dioxide can have any enhanced greenhouse effect (GHG). If such small peaks do indeed exist, they could cause an 15

enhanced GHG effect. Thus, a doublings of CO2 would produce an increase in Earth’s surface temperature, but of only about half a degrees C in the worst case scenario.

Then there are the issues that 40,000 times more molecules of CO2 already exist than is required to absorb all the infrared energy the earth emits. Further, each molecule of CO2 is capable of being reused many times each second. It would seem that this enormous over subscription of extra molecules could completely dominate and trivialize any “shoulders” issue and all forcing issue by the interaction of water and temperature.

It is clear that the science is unsettled, but the odds favor “Occam’s Razor;” the simplest explanation is probably correct. However, he did say “probably.”

Doubling CO2 will not cause no significant global warming. In the six sigma worst case of forcing functions actually being present, warming would be no more than 0.9 degrees C. All the temperature rise calculations are far less then climate alarmists have issued. Further, the warming is far less than natural variations.

1. The physics applicable to the energy balance of the earth is well understood and easily calculated. The infrared photons of light at the right wave lengths that are emitted from each square meter of surface of the earth per a given time period that are capable of causing the greenhouse effect are limited in number. Each of these photons has a specific energy. It is the capture of these greenhouse causing photons that increases molecular motion (heat) of atmospheric gases. It is the sum total increase in the motion of all the molecules in the atmosphere that we call greenhouse warming.

2. The earth’s atmosphere already contains about 40,000 times the CO2 necessary to capture all the global warming photons the earth emits. The “capture cross section” of a molecule of CO2 at each wave length of light is well understood. Water vapor and “industrial gases” such as methane also compete with CO2 in capturing greenhouse causing photons. For purposes of argument, if these other gases did not exist, it would require only about 9.5 parts per BILLION of CO2 to capture all the greenhouse causing photons emitted by the earth and that is using each CO2 molecule only once a second.

If these first two understanding were the end of the story, it would be easy to make the argument that more atmospheric CO2 would make no difference in temperature.

Unfortunately nature is not that simple.

3. The exact quantum physics mechanism of photon capture is not fully understood because more CO2 can theoretically result in an increase in temperature. The HITRAN data base indicates that spectral absorption lines have dimensions that change with temperatures, pressures and concentrations if the concentrations are relatively low. These changes appear as a broadening on the “shoulders” (sometimes called “wings”) of the spectral lines. It is the broadening of the shoulders with pressure and temperature that are thought by some to cause global warming even thought the absorptive ability of the present levels of CO2 and water vapor are a 100,000 times more then necessary.

16

It seems that every generation of more capable laboratory instrumentation reveals that what once looked like solid spectral lines are actually made up of many finer lines and spaces. The spaces are much smaller then the wave length of the light. Considering light as “waves,” mean that it would still be captured. However, light as a photon particle means that the photon would have some probability of slipping through the spaces in the area of the shoulders and not be captured by that particular molecule of CO2 4. There are repeated claims by the alarmists that since the industrial revolution, the increase in global warming from anthropogenic CO2 has been about one degrees C. Since there is recognition that there is approximately enough CO2 to absorb the IR energy, then it is reasoned that the increase has to be from the shoulders effect. There are claims that a doubling of CO2 from the pre industrial level would result in an 2 or more degree increase. Some scientists have offered a more reasonable 0.9 degree increase. The arguments seem to share a common assumption that the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm for CO2 was somehow pristine and the starting point for the shoulders effect.

A more rational starting point (ignoring water vapor and the industrial gases) for having “just enough” CO2 should be the 9.5 parts per billion of CO2 that is just capable of capturing all the infrared. Doubling the “just enough” level of CO2 from 9.5ppb has essentially occurred about 15 times, which is a factor of 32,768 times, to about 310 parts per million. The alarmists’ analysis is flawed if each time the concentration doubled; the atmosphere’s temperature went up 0.9 degrees C. It would mean the shoulders effect alone accounts for nearly half of the total greenhouse effect and that just makes no sense.

5. The science behind the absorption in the shoulders effect is not yet understood well enough to be reduced to a “law” of science. This point is likely one reason other scientists have not published. The engineering approach is to “model” the effect in order to provide “limits” to how much effect the eventual “law” will cause. Where a scientist would prefer to be absolutely correct, an engineer would be reasonably satisfied with data that fell in a range between the three-sigma high and low limits. In this case, the sigma interval appears to be non-liner, but at about 380 ppm, it is approximately 0.09 deg. C. The limit of the greenhouse effect of CO2 between now and the point where increasing CO2 concentrations reach 560 ppm does not exceed 0.45 degrees C and very probably much less.

The 0.45 degree limit comes from the very conservative second box model. It is a coincidence that the third box model based on the Kiehe & Trenberth energy balance yielded a 0.09 degree value with a subsequent plus three sigma value of 0.45 degrees C. The models ignored other greenhouse gases including water vapor. If these were included, it would mean that at one absorption per second there is over 100,000 times the number of photon absorbing molecules then there are photons to be absorbed. Molecules can absorb/re-emit and/or transfer energy at rates of up to billions of time a second. This means that the models are likely overstated by a factor of millions. That in turn means that the greenhouse warming effect of doubling CO2 is very probably closer to zero than to even the 0.09 degrees C of the third model based on the Kiehe & Trenberth energy calculations.

17

6. The overall conclusion is that increasing CO2 will NOT increase global warming in any significant way.

• The controlling physics shows that at present concentrations, CO2 simply does not have the properties to further increase warming.

• Politically driven remedies to limit increasing CO2 will have virtually no effect on global warming.

• Costs of trying to limit CO2 would cost mankind trillions of dollars, significantly depress living standards for billions, and be totally wasted.

CONTENTIOUS CONFLICT: The original intent was to address issues that impacted the creation of a rational energy policy. Little did I know that it would take more then two years and thousands of hours to reach a working understanding about carbon dioxide. Fortunately, this understanding is shared by at least a hand full of people. In the performance of due diligence, it was discovered that there are great passions, junk science and wrong answers presented as fact. Finding, examining, and creating meaningful arguments are hard. It requires time, energy, patience and the application of intelligence. The CO2 issue is of high concern to many because if the conclusions are wrong, we screw up our home. These factors are why there is so much yelling and so little arguing when it comes to important matters such as global warming. This section is to address a number is issues that just don’t make scientific sense.

The process of convincing others that what they previously believed is wrong very is difficult. The following quote captures is the basic process of “un-freezing, change, and re-freezing” in order to convince others that CO2 is not the culprit in global warming.

“Every argument with an evaluative conclusion must, in order to be valid, have at least one evaluative premise. (This is known as Hume's Law.) To persuade somebody to accept a conclusion, you must use only premises that he or she accepts. If your interlocutor rejects one of your premises, including the evaluative one, your argument gets no grip on him or her (although it might get a grip on someone else, with different beliefs and values). You will to have to back up, as it were, and argue for the premise that your interlocutor rejects. This new argument will also need to have at least one evaluative premise. If your interlocutor rejects it, you will have to back up and argue for it—and so on, until you find common ground. The idea is to show your interlocutor that he or she has inconsistent beliefs. The only leverage a philosopher has is the principle of noncontradiction.” Keith Burgess-Jackson7

7

Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D., Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of

Texas at Arlington, where he teaches courses in logic, ethics, philosophy of religion, philosophy of law, and social and political philosophy

18

THE MYTH THAT CO2 LEVELS WERE STABLE AND LOW UNTIL INDUSTRIALAZIATION: The conventional wisdom is that CO2 concentrations have been very stable, change slowly with time and that the pre-industrial concentration of 280 parts per million is some sort of “pristine” number. The issue is that the pre-industrial revolution concentration of CO2 is somehow just, right, and normal, and higher concentration since are the aberration. In reality, pre-industrial revolution concentrations of CO2 were already oversubscribed by a factor near 27,000. Further, the earth has seen far higher concentrations and in the end, it dropped to present level and here we are.

The favored analysis has been ice core data. Ice core data is not a product of exact measurement. One problem is that ice core data is not capable of showing short duration changes in CO2 concentrations because the entrapped CO2 has the ability to defuse into adjacent layers of ice. Another problem is that bacteria can live and metabolize in ice if not too cold. What the bacteria metabolize is CO2, reducing concentrations. Yet another is that under pressure trapped gasses behave quite differently.

Some scientists claim that about 650 million years ago, the Earth completely froze over with a mean surface temperature of 42 degrees F below zero. Their proof is boulders dropped by glaciers found throughout all the continents. These claims don’t make sense.

• It would mean that there would be virtually no CO2 in the atmosphere. It takes only 9.5 ppb of CO2 to have the full greenhouse effect. Curiously, all the carbon bearing coal, petroleum, natural gas as well as most of the limestone on earth is younger then 650 million years. To freeze over, the 33 degree C greenhouse effect would have to completely stop. To do that, ALL CO2, water vapor and industrial gases would have to be chemically combined, absorbed or sequestered within the earth. There no logical physical process that would cause all carbon to be completely removed from the environment, nor any direct proof that it happened.

• Ozone is also formed from ultraviolet light. UV energy in the incoming sun light is absorbed by oxygen and even more so by ozone molecules. The left peak in Figure 2, page 4, indicates that there is enough energy to prevent the earth from getting that cold. A more reflective earth would actually create more energy absorbing ozone.

• Plate tectonics have cycled the continents well north and south at various times.

We know that continents can drift quite far in a few tens of millions of years and that it is virtually impossible to discriminate a few tens of millions of years in 650 million. We know that great glaciers can develop and recede in a few tens of thousands of year. The more logical answer is that glaciations were not simultaneous and didn’t need to be to drop rock everywhere.

• Active volcanoes release sequestered carbon dioxide. Volcano activity and plate tectonics would have to cease for tens of millions of years. For that to happen, the interior of the earth would have to be cooler then now. A cooler core could not happen without suspending radio active decay of the elements, which is not possible. Further, the moon was perhaps 50,000 miles closer to earth then. The rock of the earth’s mantel rises and falls like the water in the ocean, just not as

19

much. A closer moon would mean higher tides. The tidal motion creates friction in the earth’s mantel which generates heat which would have been more at that time then now. More internal heat then would mean that there would have been more volcanic action and “faster” tectonic plate movement.

In the past, the earth had far more than present levels of atmospheric CO2. For example, the concentration at the time of the dinosaurs was in the range of 7,000 parts per million.

We can see from the ice core sample data in Figure 1, page 2, that the earth CO2 and temperature varied a lot in the last 600,000 years.

Figure 6 Global alarmists portray that somehow, the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 was a constant and pristine 280 ppm. It simply is not true. As stated above, ice core data is not reliable without careful analysis. Part of why ice core data is a problem was given

by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. His testimony and the paper 8 from which the chart was extracted clearly shows that ice core samples show a very wide range of CO2 concentrations. Jaworowski also complained at a conference in Vienna this last spring that the IPCC scientists, such as Callendar and Slocum listed in his figure 2 above, “cherry picked” data from ice core studies. Specifically, the circled data points on the chart were chosen to support the fraud ignoring findings of CO2 concentrations that were higher than current levels.

The next logical question is if there is confirming data by other means which would confirm or deny that CO2 levels have been reasonably stable, smoothly increasing, or varying widely as shown in the Jaworowski plot. Indeed, CO2 concentrations have changed a lot as is shown in the following graph, figure 7 by George Beck9 8

Zbignew Jaworowski, M.D., PhD., D.Sc.CO2: THE GREATEST SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL OF OUR TIME; EIR, SCIENCE, March 16, 2007. The chart is from a statement written for the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2, March 19, 2004.

9

Ernst-George Beck, 180 YEARSS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL METHODS; ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, Vol. 18, No2. 2007

20

Figure 7

Beck researched the records and diaries of various scientists who attempted to directly measure atmospheric CO2 concentrations with the best apparatus available at the time.

Further, Beck studied their apparatus and methodology to check for valid and reliable results. He then factored for the shortcoming of the equipment and methodologies, and then smoothed out the data. His data results relatively closely match Jaworowski’s and show that CO2 actually varies widely.

It is very clear that it is a myth that CO2 levels were steady and consistently low during pre-industrial times and have been steadily rising since.

A LOOK AT CO2, WATER VAPOR AND TEMPERATURE RLATIONSHIPS: Many climatologists see “forcing” relationships between CO2, H2O and temperature.

Figure 1 on page 2 shows CO2 and temperature tracking. The question is which is forcing the other. The following analysis follows Arrhenius’s calculations10 which describe the potential relationship between CO2 and temperature: Arrhenius, S, 1901, Ueber die Wärmabsorption durch Kohlensäure, Annalen der Physik Bd 4. 1901, p690-705.

10

21

dE=[alpha]ln([CO2]/[CO2}orig), where alpha is 5.35 11 Where the Greek letter alpha is derived from historic computations of the earth’s surface temperatures, E is change in “forcing” meaning one variables influence on another variable, and orig is the original concentration of CO2.

Applying the mathematical derivative of Stefan-Boltzmann results in: dT/dE = 1/(4[sigma] T^3); which then becomes T=[alpha]ln([CO2]/[CO2}orig)/(4[sigma] T^3) The following calculation describes the temperature increase when Carbon Dioxide is doubled at a temperature of 15 degrees C, which is 288.16 degrees absolute, or a bit above 59 degrees F. dT=5.35ln2/(4*5.6705E-08*(288.16^3)) = 0.6833 centigrade for a doubling of CO2 !

It is likely coincidence that the answer is close to Banner’s very simple and visual square shoulder box model. This is also in part because data for ancient temperatures used for the Arrhenius calculation have been found to be generally grossly overestimated.

However, something is going on because there is clear evidence of a linear affect as shown by real data presented in the Hans Errin graph, figure 8 which matches the "unknown linear effect L" of Douglas and Clader.12 However, this may simply be a greatly expanded portion of the data presented in figure 1 page 2. The graph could also fit well as an extension of the results consistent with both the work of Jaworowski and Beck.

The slope of the Errin graph is actually less then several rates of change found by Beck.

Figure 813

11

Myhre, G., E.J Highwood, K.P Shine and F. Stordal, 1998, New Estimates of Radiative Forcing Due To Well Mixed Greenhouse Gases, Geophys. Res Lett. 25, 2715-2718. There is a link http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm 12 Douglass, D.H. and B.D Clader, 2002, Climate sensitivity of the earth to solar irradiance, Geophys. Res Lett. vol 29, no. 16, 10.1029/2002GL015345 13 Erren, Hans, 2002, How does CO2 respond to temperature? http://members.lycos.nl/ErrenWijlens/co2/howmuch.htm as taken from: Keeling, C.D. and T.P. Whorf. 2002. Atmospheric CO2 records from sites in the SIO air sampling network. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change.

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.

22

An interesting observation is the Vostock ice core samples seem to indicate a discontinuity between ancient times and now. This is the far greater discontinuity then the 85 year shift between Mauna Loa and Vostock found by Jaworowski (ref. foot note 8). If the forcing function had been linear all these years, the earth should now be from 6 to 10 degrees C warmer with our present concentration of CO2.

The problem with making definitive arguments with empirical data is that while it may be repeatable over periods of time, it may not be repeatable every time and for all time. It is not necessarily cause and effect. A clue may be that the sinusoidal box model is far more likely to actually occur in nature.

Water vapor feedback, or rather the myth of forcing: Water vapor in the atmosphere is thought by some to enhance (force) the effect of CO2 in the issue of global warming. It was Arrhenious that first came up with a factor of 1.3. He calculated the number him in 1901 and it was confirmed in 1997 by Ramanatan and Vogelmann.14 The calculation starts with assuming 3.7 W/m2 for CO2 doubling and the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, which gives a value of 0.6833 degrees C warming.

Therefore, including the water feedback gives 0.6833*1.3= 0.888 degrees.15 It is also interesting, but this calculation seems to fit what Douglas Hoyt empirically calculated as a range of 0.5 to 0.9 degrees C for doubling CO2 in the presence of water vapor.16

Ramanathan, V. and A.M. Vogelmann. Greenhouse effect, atmospheric solar absorption and the Earth's radiation budget: From the Arrhenius/Langley era to the 1990s. AMBIO, 26(1):38-46, 1997 15 Ibid Erren, 2002, and posted. http://www.home.zonnet.nl/erren21/co2/arrhenius1901/ 14

Hoyt, Douglas, 1997, Effects of Doubling Carbon Dioxide from 300 ppm to 600 ppm, http://users.erols.com/dhoyt1/annex5.htm 16

23

The problem with looking at the various forcing functions on a molecule by molecule basis is that molecules have no way to collude in order to mug the next passing photon for its energy. The photons are themselves limited in number in any given time interval.

That means that the total energy is limited and once the energy of one photon has been captured and turned into heat, it is game over for that bit of energy. CO2 alone can capture 40,000 times more photons then are GHW photons available. Water vapor is far more abundant and can capture most of the same photons at least a half million times over considering how many times the same molecule can capture photons each second.

The Arrhenius approach seems to validate only the least likely of Banner’s three models.

It appears that these many versions forcing models all rely on the same flawed assumptions, namely endless photons or photons that magically “recover” their energy.

One way to make these models work is visualizing the photons being treated like the ball in a game of volleyball where they gain/regain energy with each volley. The other way is photons have to be emitted from an unlimited source like the power that lights a light bulb. What happens in the real world is that each photon gets its energy just once upon creation and once that energy has been absorbed, the photon is gone and the energy is now turned into heat energy confined very locally to just a few near by molecules. It takes another newly created photon emitted from the earth to further transfer energy from the earth and that means that means the earth cools slightly because the photon is emitted.

The earth receives more energy from direct sunlight or back scatter. By day the sunlight has a net warming effect because more photons are absorbed then are emitted. At night, the absence of sunlight means more photons are leaving then arriving from back scatter, and so the earth cools. The effect is readily observable by December hunting in the dry high desert of NW Colorado where the temperature can drop 60 or more degrees F between 4PM and 5 AM. The number of greenhouse causing photons emitted are a function of the absolute temperature to the fourth power, T^4. That means that by the coldest part of the day only about half the photons are being emitted then are during the warmest part of the day.

OTHER PROBLEMS WITH “POPULAR” GLOBAL WARMING ISSUES Prof. Lindzen noted that the climate models in use about 2001 relied on large computer model “cells” that were 10,000 square kilometers. Major storms, which occur regularly in “tornado alley,” easily fit into those size cells, which mean that the data is base limited and not very statistically significant resulting in flawed results. These models will stay flawed until science can create and process whole earth models with cell sizes of about one square kilometer or smaller. While models will and are improving with ever greater computer power, numerous authors of current papers still use the flawed 2001 data to “prove” their points.

In the research process of reviewing many technical papers, it was noted that many authors used the same set of data on carbon dioxide that did not seem to originate from the HITRAN data base. Their data was traced back to a Department of Defense study on “Pure CO2 at High Pressures and Temperatures in Cylindrical Containers.” This

24

particular study was recognized as pertaining to high power carbon dioxide lasers. Using that data instead of the appropriate HITRAN data for understanding how low pressure, low temperature and much diluted CO2 behaves in the atmosphere is “sloppy science.”

Why it is sloppy is that when under low pressure, the “free” paths of orbiting electrons in the molecules are undisturbed and the result is a thin crisp spectral spike. Under high pressures, such as occur in lasers and on Venus, the electrons get distorted in their paths and at high temperatures they get much more agitated. The results are spectral broadening which does not happen in the cooler temperatures and lower pressures of the atmosphere.

Another issue is that the earth is in some sort of “run away” mode. However, the earth has had higher concentrates of CO2 at least three times in the last half million years and the earth responded by lowering concentrations.

Professor Essenhigh stated in an e-mail that he thinks that the atmospheric “persistence” for CO2 is more like 5 years instead of the 100 years most commonly used by those supporting Kyoto. Anyone who drinks carbonated beverages knows that CO2 dissolves in water. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is fairly uniform. In the mid and western United States, dust devils, storm cells and even tornados are common and are striking visuals of vertical currents that mix the atmosphere. Seasonal variation of CO2 coming from the crop cycle in Asia crosses the Pacific and can fist be measured in Hawaii and still be measured in California. By the time this air reaches Colorado, having tumbled over the Coast and Rocky mountain ranges, the seasonal variation is all but undetectable. CO2 easily dissolves in water, so how could the same CO2 molecules hang around the atmosphere for 100 years?

An interesting observation can be made from the slope of the annual variations of the Hans Erren chart, figure 8, which are the very pronounced seasonal changes in CO2 concentrations measured in Hawaii. The rate of change in the downward slope of the annual variation of CO2 coming over the pacific from Asia is much greater then would be expected if the persistence of CO2 in the atmosphere were anywhere close to the 100 year Kyoto value. There are two possible conclusions. One is the CO2 persistence is far less then 100 years and the other is mixing of wind currents from northern and southern hemisphere. I can find no data that these hemispheric winds mix this consistently and uniformly, or for that matter, even if they do it yearly. The El Nino, La Nino oscillations alone should have destroyed the near perfect regularity shown in the chart. The more likely outcome is that CO2 persistence is closer to Professor Essenhigh’s figure of 5 years.

There may be problems with the Kiehl /Trenberth model as well. Energy coming from the sun and IR energy radiated from the earth is easily measured from satellites and it is remarkably uniform. IR energy that originates at the earth’s surface is highly variable depending on latitude, season, weather, and if from deserts, forests, or water, and of course, day and night. This is because the energy of the light is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature of the emitting surface. At issue with many of the black body, grey body and even shoulders models is that when cold or at night, once a

25

photon leaves the surface of the earth, the energy isn’t replaced until the sun shines. In the meantime, the surface gets colder and progressively fewer photons are emitted.

Once a photon excites a CO2 molecule, the molecule is more likely to collide with other air molecules then it is to re-emit another photon. Transference of even a little energy stops the harmonic vibration of the molecule such that CO2 cannot re-emit a similar photon, but may allow it to absorb another of precisely the right wave length. What likely happens is that energy is transferred to the air, water vapor and aerosols, which warms them and causes them to emit a longer wave IR photon. There is thought that North African dust clouds that possibly trigger hurricanes may also have a greater roll in capturing the longer wave infrared energy then once thought. The sum of energy transfer process happens over and over until the energy is very uniformly mixed in the upper atmosphere where it eventually escapes into space.

Climatology models seem to rely on a “combination effect” of having both CO2 and water vapor. There is almost no hard physics behind this assumption. What coupling function occurs is relative ease of molecules in harmonic vibration transferring energy to each other. This phenomenon is not the same as is used in climatology models.

There is not a single monolithic set of climate models. An interesting observation by Dr. William Gray is presented in the following graphic that shows the extent of unrelated coupling of water and CO2. 17 This is a substantially different viewpoint from that of some IOCC researchers.

17

Dr. William M Gray, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. In a paper titled: HURRICANES AND CLIMATE CHANGE: Assessing the Linkages Following the 2006 Season and presented Oct. 11, 2006 for: the Washington Roundtable On Science and Public Policy, at the George C. Marshall Institute

26

Figure 7. A comparison of moist energy sources and sinks (in Watts/m2) of condensationevaporation-rainfall in comparison with the energy gains due to CO2 since the industrial revolution (~1.2 Watts/m2) and for a doubling of CO2 by the late 21st century.

This different viewpoint may be best explained by a 2003 Michael Crichton quote Dr. Gray’s used in his paper: Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus…”

Based on the physics of this paper, even the figure of “4.2” for doubling CO2 is suspect.

There are some nasty industrial gasses we absolutely want to control because of their ability to trap more heat and, at lower elevations, make smog. For those gases and aerosols arising from our transportation system, the catalyst converter systems and closed loop operations of modern automobile engines control them very well.

It would be very useful to have a “great mind” such as an Einstein, working on the issues.

Global warming issues are very complex and require both practical and theoretical knowledge. Because the issues have become so political, the world may not “recognize” an Einstein type. Prof. Lindzen may be that Einstein in that he has been at three major universities and has published extensively on the issue, but unfortunately, the left has savaged him because he is independent minded and “politically incorrect.”

WATER VAPOR IS THE PRIME CULPRIT

27

Water vapor is THE major greenhouse gas. If we called it di-hydrous mono-oxide, it would sound more like the culprit that captures many more frequencies of IR energy because of its strange molecular shape. The two hydrogen atoms are not in a straight line, but are separated by 135 degrees. The odd shape allows more modes of resonant vibration including the two listed for CO2 plus torsion and twisting motions. Depending on the mode, the ability of water to capture IR photons ranges from 0.8 to 4 times greater than for CO2. The amount of water vapor in the air is very dependent on temperature, which is why 99% of the water is in the lower 75% of the atmosphere. Warm tropical air can hold up to 4% water. Assuming an average concentration of 1% for the whole atmosphere, that is still about 15 times more water vapor than carbon dioxide and because captures IR photons on an average between 1.3 and twice as well, the effect of water is likely about 30 times that of CO2.

Global air circulations have a combination of humid and dry air masses. For example, the southwestern US was dry desert because of the circulation of depleted marine air over coastal mountains resulting in adiabatic warming as it spread east. Damming the Colorado River stopped the annual flow of about 14 million acre feet of water that once drained into the Sea of Cortez. It now evaporates and the resultant vapor has the greenhouse infrared capture affect as would the CO2 from burning 750 million tons of coal. There are dozens of similar projects around the world and the total of these projects may be an explanation of part of the present warming.

Other scientists think the opening of the Artic Ocean may be a natural driver, cyclic in nature and primarily responsible for the present warming. The largest mover of earth’s energy is the thermohaline cycle, (THC). These deep ocean currents vary over long cycles and may have more to do with warming then any other factor. Others think the earth has significant self regulation abilities such as increasing clouds with increased ocean temperatures thus shading the earth and cooling it back down. Then there is the theory that dry regions on the earth let more IR energy escape, but that would not seem reasonable considering the over abundance of CO2 and large areas like the Sahara being much more humid in the past. The inconvenient truth is that we really know so little.

The findings of this paper in no way condone letting CO2 increase with reckless abandon. There are just too many other side effects we should not want to experience.

Just two examples include massive algae blooms depleting oxygen in the ocean and too rapid plant growth that may mean less nutrient uptake and subsequent poorer diets for herbivores and subsequently ---us.

The bottom line is that carbon dioxide is not a driver behind global warming. That fact opens the options to creating a more logical and workable energy policy.

GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES AND ENERGY POLICY An issue is governments spend money all the time to force outcomes on “false” big pictures. For example, we have probably spent $5 Trillion on the war on poverty and the result is the same approximate level of poverty. If we had spent that $5 Trillion on really good energy ideas with a focus on capital investments, we would now have these capital improvements and probably less poverty. The brute force of government cannot and will

28

not be effective to force a shift to less efficient energy alternatives. Wisdom dictates that Colorado should be cautious about expending state resources that are not certain to yield benefits in proportion to the outlay within a reasonable time frame. Yet we have many Colorado programs that subsidize technically “dumb” and economically poor energy alternatives. The ethanol subsidy for instance just goes out the tail pipe. A far better approach would be to use the funds to provide the seed capital for a more rational 50 year energy plan.

Colorado is blessed by a central location, natural resources, a well educated population, well ranked universities and leading edge institutions like the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden. These factors can help Colorado take a leadership position in the creation and implementation of a more rational energy policy. For instance, the project to use wind power to directly make hydrogen makes a lot of sense. Colorado energy assets are mainly hydrogen deficient fuels such as oil shale and coal. A cheap source of hydrogen could lead to higher yields of fuels made from shale and coal.

Later in the series will be a discussion of building very large nuclear complexes to provide the electricity to separate hydrogen from water. In the age of terrorism, these should be remotely located, but close to heavily armed people. Fort Carson is particularly well suited because the Army wants to expand into a new area down the Arkansas valley thus freeing up some of the old area that would be good for reactors.

Colorado is also centrally located from the standpoint of power distribution, natural gas distribution, communications links, and – for the distribution of H2 gas to the coal and shale deposits where --- synthetic gasoline could be refined. This latter point is part of the “big picture” for Colorado. Further, there are huge areas of the Rio Grande valley that could be ideal for solar collectors to supplement the nuclear. The idea is that while energy is everybody’s business, Colorado is far better suited then most states to take the lead.

29

END NOTES: i

Other planets in our solar system are experiencing global warming:

NASA scientist Lori Fenton reports that Mars has warmed by around one-half degree Celsius in the last three decades, which likely contributes to the very noticeable retreat of Mars’s southern polar ice cap. There have been more dust storms which reduce reflectivity and therefore possibly increase absorption which may drive warming. The question is what drives the increase in dust storms.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, director of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, observed “The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars. Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance.” The problem with this observation is that we have been measuring the sun’s output from satellites for the last 30 years and do not detect significant change in solar irradiance from the infrared to the deeper UV spectrum.

Pluto is warming. University of Hawaii astronomer David Tholen and his colleagues report that even though Pluto was closer to the Sun in 1989, they are not surprised by a warming that began this year. “It takes time for materials to warm up and cool off, which is why the hottest part of the day on Earth is usually around 2 or 3 p.m. rather than local noon,” Tholen said. “This warming trend on Pluto could easily last for another 13 years.”

They predict Pluto’s temperature will rise two degrees Celsius before its next cooling trend.

The hottest part of the day argument is not valid. Energy leaves the planets literally at the speed of light, and the issue is the overall temperature of the whole planet. The whole earth does not heat up two hours past noon, only that portion in direct sunshine where the incoming energy exceeds the outgoing energy. The portion of the planet not in direct sunlight continues to lose net energy until it rotates back into sunlight. The same thing happens on Pluto.

MIT researchers say that Neptune’s largest moon, Triton, has heated up significantly (two decrees C), since 1989, when the Voyager space probe sent back readings. Astronomer James Elliot and colleagues from MIT, Lowell Observatory and Williams College report, “At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming. Percentagewise, it’s a very large increase.” Triton’s atmosphere appears “darker” now then it did in 1989. It is possible that volcanism may be causing more light to be absorbed. It is also possible that it appears darker simply because the warming caused darker stuff to go into the atmosphere.

Jupiter is growing a new red spot. Imke de Pater and Philip Marcus of the University of California, Berkeley, report that “The storm is growing in altitude,” which indicates a temperature increase in that region. The researchers think that, near term, the temperature on Jupiter may increase as much as six degrees Celsius in large areas.

30

Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, said the earth was experiencing a natural period of reduced cloud cover due to fewer cosmic (gamma) rays entering the atmosphere. This theory is based on the laboratory observations that disturbances caused by gamma rays passing through the atmosphere cause nucleation points for water vapor to condense into water droplets. Gamma rays are deflected from the earth by the effect of solar emissions and the earth’s magnetic field. If either is stronger, more gamma rays would be deflected which in turn would cause less clouds, less reflected sun light and global warming.

Unfortunately for this theory, the data shown below for the strength of the earth’s magnetic field would seem to indicate that more cosmic rays should be hitting the earth now then in the past few thousand years. This is because the chart indicates that we are in a period of dropping strength of the earths magnetic field. The reduced shielding effect would “let in” more gamma rays. However, it can be seen that the changes in the earth’s magnetic field happen to slow to correlate with only a 30 year decrease in gamma rays. It is more likely that the number and intensities of gamma rays coming towards the earth are changing much more quickly then the earth’s magnetic field changes.

The other part of the gamma ray issue is how much do gamma rays vary over tim?

Prof. Nir J. Shaviv, Associate Professor of Physics, Racah Institute of Physics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, article The Milky Way Galaxy’s Arms and Ice-Age Epochs and the Cosmic Ray Connection, http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/, may provide the answer. The first graphic shows the concept of how solar activity and galactic cosmic rays interact to cause changes in the earth’s temperature.

The second graphic shows large variations in cosmic rays striking the earth over large geological time periods as the solar system swings through the galaxy. The scale of this chart cannot account for a period as short as the last 30 years. We have satellites in orbit 31

to measure gamma rays, but their primary use is looking for “bursts” indicating such things as exploding super novas. I have been unable to tell if the overall flux of gamma rays striking the atmosphere over the last 30 years is increasing or decreasing.

Long term variations in cosmic rays striking the earth:

In conclusion, the warming of these other planets is statistically significant because many are involved and because of the weak arguments for attributing local causes why each is warming. Something is happening solar system wide and it isn’t driving SUV’s.

32

ii

This set of graphs shows absorption of CO2 at the 2, 4.3, and 15 micron wave lengths.

Note that the vertical scales vary by 1000 to one. Spectral values are from a hundred to a thousand times greater in the first and last, fourth graphs then on the others.

Of interest is that the closer you look, the more spectra can be found. The graph below is just a small piece of the second graph from the top shown in end note ii above. iii

33

iv

The bottom two graphs above are interesting in that more spectral lines show up when both the temperature and pressure increases. Further, the expansion of the wave length scale show that the spectral lines begin o show substantial flaring into the sinusoidal shape.

34

vi

Photon Absorption and Emission at High Altitudes

Aubrey Banner, 11/11/07

Hypothesis: More carbon dioxide produces further cooling Let C = total number of carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere A = total number of oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the atmosphere b = proportion of carbon dioxide molecules excited by absorption of photons n = proportion of carbon dioxide molecules excited by intermolecular collisions a = proportion of oxygen and nitrogen molecules excited by intermolecular collisions s = proportion of emitted photons escaping to space w = number of photons escaping to space through the “window”, plus the “wings”

1. Earth’s atmosphere before the industrial period No. of CO2 molecules excited by absorption = bC No. of CO2 molecules excited by collision = nC No. of O2/N2 molecules excited by collision = aA Therefore, total no. of (CO2/O2/N2) molecules excited = (b + n)C + aA When sufficently excited by absorbing energy, all these molecules emit photons.

No. of photons escaping to space = s[ (b + n)C + aA ] + w …………………. (Eq. 1) Cooling No. of photons returning to the atmosphere = (1 – s)[ (b + n)C + aA ] ……… (Eq. 2) Heating Therefore, net cooling effect is given in terms of photons by (Eq. 1) – (Eq. 2) Net cooling effect = s[ (b + n)C + aA ] + w – (1 – s)[ (b + n)C + aA ] Hence, net cooling effect = (2s – 1)[ (b + n)C + aA ] + w …………………… (Eq. 3) All these variables are positive, and s will always be greater than 0.5 because SPACE is the infinite sink for photons.

Therefore, the expression in (Eq. 3) is always positive Always positive means a COOLING in the pre-industrial atmosphere.

2. Earth’s atmosphere since the Industrial Period Let k = the increase factor in CO2 concentration.

No. of CO2 molecules excited by absorption = kbC 35

No. of CO2 molecules excited by collision = knC No. of O2/N2 molecules excited by collision = aA Therefore, total no. of (CO2/O2/N2) molecules excited = k(b + n)C + aA No. of photons escaping to space = s[ k(b + n)C + aA ] + w ………………..… (Eq. 4) Cooling No. of photons returning to the atmosphere = (1 – s)[ k(b + n)C + aA ] ……… (Eq. 5) Heating Therefore, net cooling effect is given in terms of photons by (Eq. 4) – (Eq. 5) Net cooling effect = s[ k(b + n)C + aA ] + w – (1 – s)[ k(b + n)C + aA ] Hence, net cooling effect = ( 2s – 1 )[ k( b + n )C + aA ] + w ………………… (Eq. 6) As before, s > 0.5, and so the net cooling effect is positive.

That is, a COOLING.

3. Change in the cooling effect due to increasing CO2 by a factor k The increase in the cooling effect is given by (Eq. 6) – (Eq. 3).

Increase in cooling = ( 2s – 1 )[ k( b + n )C + aA ] + w – [(2s – 1)[ (b + n)C + aA ] + w] Hence, increase in cooling = ( 2s – 1 )( k – 1 )( b + n )C ……………………… (Eq. 7) All these variables are positive. k is greater than 1 because of increasing CO2, and s is always greater than 0.5, as before.

Therefore, the increase in the cooling effect is positive.

This means that increased CO2 produces a positive increase in the COOLING effect from a constant flux of greenhouse causing photons by radiating more IR photons into space.

4. What happens if there is an attritional heating effect, H, in terms of more greenhouse causing photons being added to the high atmosphere?

This increase effect must be subtracted from the cooling effect in Eq. 6.

Therefore, overall cooling effect = ( 2s – 1 )[ k( b + n )C + aA ] + w – H Suppose that H is greater than ( 2s – 1 )[ k( b + n )C + aA ] + w, while k = 1.

This gives a negative cooling effect, i.e. a constant heating effect.

Also, suppose that k now begins to increase, i.e. more CO2. If H stays constant, k will attain a value for which this heating effect becomes zero. Further increase in k will make the expression positive, which is then a cooling effect.

This seems to reflect what is currently happening in the real atmosphere.

36

The following chart was designed to show that gama ray bursts can be tracked by “listening” in on radio frequences. The interesting side issues is that the strength of incoming radiation varies significantly between night and day. The lower energy by day is because of the interaction of the solar wind and earth’s magnetic field do a better job of shielding. The other significant finding is the incoming power of this radiation can vary by a factor of four or more.

What it all means is that Gama rays could have the power to vary greatly including causing cloud formation to vary greatly. In short, increasing Gama radiation could easily cause global warming.

37