Simple musings on the complex climatic system
A new paper by Koutsoyiannis and Tsakalias (in review)
We have submitted a new paper for review in which we revisit fundamental issues of climate and examine relevant questions from scratch, using fundamental physical laws.
The abstract reads (with emphasis put on a main finding):
Our revisit of fundamental issues of climate challenges the notion and term of the “greenhouse effect”, and attempts a scientific reevaluation using minimal assumptions, such as Newton’s laws, maximum entropy and gas spectroscopy. It replaces terms like “greenhouse gas” with “radiatively active gas” (RAG) and “greenhouse effect” with “atmospheric radiative effect” (ARE). While ARE exists in several planets’ atmospheres, on Earth it is primarily driven by water vapor and clouds, with CO₂ playing a minor role (especially anthropogenic CO₂ which represents 4% of total emissions). Equilibrium thermodynamics, via entropy maximization or molecular collision simulation, leads to an isothermal atmosphere at about 250 K (the average temperature of the troposphere and stratosphere) irrespective of RAG presence or not. It is the troposphere’s 6.5 K/km temperature gradient, partly shaped by moist adiabatic processes, that drives the atmosphere away from this equilibrium and warms the surface to about 288 K on average, with ARE (mainly water vapor and clouds) contributing to the warming, but only when this gradient exists. The temperature gradient varies spatially and temporally and, since 1950, has weakened in the tropics and grown in the polar areas, resulting in a decrease of the surface equator-to-pole gradient, as expected in global warming conditions.
A characteristic figure is the following, which visualizes the text in bold in the abstract.
Specifically the figure shows that, contrary to popular belief, the presence of radiatively active gases (commonly referred to as greenhouse gases) would not warm the atmosphere to livable conditions (currently about 288 K or 15 °C), but would leave it at the equilibrium temperature (somewhat higher that 250 K or minus 23 °C) as depicted by the blue line in the graph. It is the vertical temperature gradient (else known as the lapse rate) of 6.5 K/km that does the job of warming Earth’s surface. And this gradient is not related to the chemical composition of the atmosphere, not to gravitational compression, as commonly thought, but to the continuous changes in the Earth that cause the atmosphere to move out of equilibrium.
The Discussion and Conclusions section reads:
The political origin of the climate agenda has contaminated the scientific vocabulary with popular slogans that are not appropriate scientific terms, including “greenhouse effect” and “settled science”, which are examined in this paper, as well as many more (“climate crisis”, “climate emergency”, “climate destabilization”, “climate destruction”, “climate catastrophe”, “climate apocalypse”, “climate existential threat”, “global boiling”, “global burning”, all of which expressions are found in papers indexed in Google Scholar as the reader can readily verify).
The research presented here shows that we do not live in a greenhouse and that science cannot be settled. Rather, it is useful to revisit even the most fundamental topics related to climate. This has been attempted in this study in the simplest possible way and using the fewest premises, such as Newton’s laws, the principle of maximum entropy and the spectroscopic properties of gases. Additionally, non-scientific jargon has been replaced by scientific terminology, the main examples being that “greenhouse gas” has been replaced by “radiatively active gas” (RAG, comprising water vapor—WV—and non-condensing radiatively active gases—NC RAG) and the term “greenhouse effect” with “atmospheric radiative effect” (ARE).
The conclusions of the analyses presented here can be summarized as follows:
There is an empirically verified ARE in the atmosphere, not only on Earth but also on the other planets. On Earth, ARE is dominated by WV and clouds, with CO₂ playing a very minor role—let alone human added CO₂ which represents only 4% of the total emissions to the atmosphere.
Equilibrium thermodynamics clearly show (either using the principle of maximum entropy, or stochastic simulation of molecule collisions) that Earth’s atmosphere would be isothermal at the equilibrium, with or without RAGs. In an isothermal atmosphere the temperature would be slightly higher than 250 K, a value which represents the vertically average temperature of the standard atmosphere over the troposphere and stratosphere.
The fact is that the atmosphere is not isothermal. Rather, the troposphere has a vertical temperature gradient of about 6.5 K/km, which is imprinted in the standard atmosphere. The gradient is resultant of macroscopic changes that drive the atmosphere out of equilibrium. While the moist adiabatic changes play a role in shaping this gradient, they cannot fully predict real atmospheric conditions.
The mean surface temperature of 288 K, also imprinted in the standard atmosphere, is much higher than the equilibrium temperature. While ARE plays a role in yielding this temperature (mostly WV and clouds), the critical factor is the vertical temperature gradient, without which the ARE alone would not be able to increase the equilibrium temperature.
Given the importance of the atmospheric temperature gradient, along with the fact that it is not a universal constant since it varies with space and time, it is useful to monitor and analyze its changes. The data show that since 1950 the gradient has weakened in the tropics and grown in the polar areas resulting in decrease of the surface equator-to-pole gradient, as expected in global warming conditions.
A final reminder worth stressing is that in complex systems, such as the climatic system, observational data are the only scientific test bed for making hypotheses and assessing their validity. The real-world data do not agree with the mainstream “climate science” (a euphemism for sophistry).
The entire paper in preprint form is attached here.
It can also be accessed through ResearchGate and the NTUA/Itia site. The latter also contains additional information including a spectacular video with simulation of molecules collisions.
By making the preprint public, we are seeking reader feedback on the paper. We welcome any comments, corrections, and suggestions that readers may have to improve our paper.
To tackle the terminology used by the decarbonisation-deindustrialisation-renewables lobby is excellent. Culture and politics are formed by how humans communicate with each other, and the terms used by that lobby have become part of the propaganda everyone has been oppressed by for decades. Thank you for exposing it, and thank you for the clarity of your explanations about what has been a much-corrupted science.