1

Critical Remarks

about Anthropogenic Global Climate Warming

Shaoxiang ZHOU School of Energy, Power and Mechanical Engineering, North China Electric Power University, Beinonglu 2, Zhuxinzhuang, Changping District, Beijing (102206), P.R. China Email Address: zsx@ncepu.edu.cn Tel and Fax: 8610-61772825

2

Abstract: The greenhouse effect has being widely concerned around the world, and it is nearly defined as the physical mechanism that greenhouse gases absorb and emit infrared radiation. However, this definition is deviation from the original physical fact, because the Earth’s atmosphere is not equal to a greenhouse with glass roof. And because the main constituents (such as nitrogen, oxygen) of the atmosphere don’t absorb infrared radiation, the temperature of the whole atmosphere cannot be elevated. Here, by analysing the cardinal mistakes of the current atmospheric physics, the very physical mechanism of the greenhouse effect is discovered. Only the intermolecular collisions can cause the absorbed energy to be shared with the other, non-IR-active, gases, so that the whole atmosphere is warmed. The absorption and re-radiation of greenhouse gases can make the radiant energy be reserved in the atmosphere in longer period of time, so that the greenhouse effect is maintained and enhanced. The phase change radiation and its proofs are introduced into the atmospheric physics, which shows that the heat diffusion equation of vapour condensation and the cloud formation on adiabatic expansion are false. The greenhouse effects of water vapor and carbon dioxide are compared, which shows that the effect of carbon dioxide is so little as to be ignored and the effects of cloud cannot only be covered under the concept of feedbacks. The urban heat island effect is reasonably explained. The possibility of the global warming predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is evaluated to be impossible.

Key Words: Greenhouse Effect, Cloud Droplet, Heat Diffusion, Phase Change Radiation, Newton’s Law of Cooling, Adiabatic Expansion, Cloud Feedbacks, Global Warming

1. Introduction In the IPCC Fourth Assessment Reports (AR4), the following statement (PACHAURI et

al., 2008) can be read: “Greenhouse gases effectively absorb thermal infrared radiation, emitted by the Earth’s surface, by the atmosphere itself due to the same gases, and by clouds. Atmospheric radiation is emitted to all sides, including downward to the Earth’s surface. Thus greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system. This is called the greenhouse effect.” This is the formal and acknowledged explanation about the greenhouse effect.

However, it is known that the greenhouse effect is originally expressed as the physical mechanism warming a greenhouse with glass roof. The above explanation is therefore deviation from the basic physical fact. In fact, the greenhouse effect is generally described as the following: The glass roof of the greenhouse allows the radiant energy from the Sun in, and the energy is absorbed by the plants, soil, and other objects in the greenhouse. Much of this absorbed energy is converted to heat which warms the whole greenhouse, but the radiant heat from inside is trapped by the glass. Later, scientists pointed out that it is also very important that the glass roof doesn't allow the heated air to rise and mix with cooler air outside. Nevertheless the absorption and re-radiation of greenhouse gases which is the sole physical mechanism of the atmospheric greenhouse effect is substantially insignificant in the glass roof greenhouse. So, the following footnote (ANDREWS, 2010) can be read: “The term ‘greenhouse effect’ is a misnomer, however, since the elevated temperature in a greenhouse does not primarily depend on the similar radiative properties of glass, but rather on the suppression of convective heat loss.”

But the key question is not whether this term ‘greenhouse effect’ itself is appropriate, but rather how the absorption and re-radiation of greenhouse gases elevates the temperature of the whole atmosphere, because the main constituents (N2, O2, and Ar) of the atmosphere can neither absorb nor emit the infrared radiation. Therefore, the above physical explanation about the greenhouse effect is very questionable. In fact, the following statement (PACHAURI et al.,

3

2008) can be read in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Reports: “At present, cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates.” This statement shows that something related to “cloud” should be researched.

It is known that the water evaporation is one kind of refrigeration effect, which is just like the cooling effect of alcohol cotton ball on a person’s skin. Since about 70% of the Earth’s surface is covered by seawater, it is a simple scientific truth that the air temperature on the Earth’s surface should mainly depend on the sea water evaporation. In other word, the detected air temperature on Earth's land surface is not global. And the ocean can therefore be taken as a buffer of the temperature change (MARSHALL and PLUMB, 2007). For example, La Niña is associated with cooler than normal water temperatures in the Equatorial Pacific Ocean, and El Niño is associated with warmer than normal water. These are also consistent with the following statement (SOLOMON et al., 2008) in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Reports: “Cloud changes are dominated by ENSO. Widespread (but not ubiquitous) decreases in continental DTR have coincided with increases in cloud amounts.” But why does the diurnal temperature range (DTR) decrease with the increasing of cloud amount? This question should be just one of uncertainties of cloud feedbacks.

Generally, the cloud forms due to water vapour condensation, which means that the precipitation is coming on. The increases in cloud amounts mean that more vapour condenses, so that more latent heat is released. And the latent heat becomes one of important heat resources in the atmospheric system. This is consistent with the following statement (HOUGHTON et al, 2002; KIEHL and TRENBERTH, 1997) in the IPCC Third Assessment Reports: “The amount of precipitation also constitutes a measure of the latent heat release within the atmosphere. The long-term global mean precipitation of 984 mm/yr implies a vertically integrated mean heating rate of 78 Wm−2.” However, although this latent heat is so huge, although the water vapour condensation or the form of cloud is global and the cloud cover is about 40% of the globe (MANTON, 1983), the affecting range of the latent heat has never been discussed and the latent heat itself has even being excluded beyond the greenhouse effect, which should be the essential reasons resulting in uncertainties of cloud feedbacks.

Figure 1 Global Surface Map with Clouds

Cited from: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Global_Surface_Map_with_Clouds_jpg

These questions should involve the theoretical fundamental of the atmospheric physics

and therefore become the aim of this paper.

2. The Cardinal Mistakes of Current Atmospheric Physics

4

2.1 The Diffusion Equation of Heat away from A Droplet Surface When B.J. Mason, the famous meteorologist, began to discuss the droplet growth by

condensation and the releasing of latent heat, he made the following restrictive statement (MASON, 1975): “Let us first consider the growth of a stationary, isolated, single droplet about a hygroscopic nucleus in an infinite atmosphere maintained at constant temperature and supersaturation.” He concluded that “Nearly all this heat is lost from the droplet surface by conduction through the air.” In accordance with his conclusion, the rate of diffusion of heat away from the droplet surface is (MASON, 1975; MANTON, 1983)

00d 4 ( )d r

q r k T Tt

π ∞= − (1)

where t is time, k is the thermal conductivity of air, 0r

T is the temperature of the droplet surface and T∞ is the temperature far away from the droplet.

It is known that the condensation of water vapor is an isothermal and isotonic process which is called as the first order phase change / transition. But the visible temperature difference (

0rT T∞− ) occurs “in an infinite atmosphere maintained at constant

temperature”, which shows that his statement and conclusion are obviously contradictory each other.

The following equation is widely used to express the increasing rate of the droplet mass in the current atmospheric physics (ANDREWS, 2010; MASON, 1975; WALLACE and HOBBS, 2006; MANTON, 1983)

00

d ( )d

v vrl

r Dt r

r rr ∞= − (2)

where D is the diffusivity of water vapor in air, 0r is the radius of droplet, lr is the density of water, vr∞ is the density of vapor far from the droplet, and

0

vrr is the density of vapor at

the surface of the droplet. Equation (2) shows the mass balance in the process of cloud droplet growth and the

source of water vapor, but it cannot tell us how the latent heat is diffused far from the cloud droplet. Because both the temperature and pressure gradients can result in the movement of molecules, Equation (2) can be established only under the default isothermal and isobaric conditions (i.e. the restrictive statement made by B.J. Mason).

Figure 2 The Condensation in the classical atmosphere physics Figure 3 The Condensation in engineering heat transfer

Combining Eq.1 with Eq.2, the vapour condensation on the droplet surface can be

illustrated by Figure 2. The orientation of the heat flow is obviously in an opposite direction of the vapour condensation. But such a phenomenon has never occurred in any engineering condensation process, and both the heat flow and the molecule movement are always in the same direction in all engineering processes (çENGEL, 2002), as shown in Figure 3. From the

5

viewpoint of Heat Transfer, the temperature of the cloud droplet surface is required to be higher than that of the surrounding air in order for the latent heat to be diffused away. But if so, the condensation of water vapor should be impossible due to the limit of the second law of thermodynamics.

From the viewpoint of Heat Transfer, the temperature of the cloud droplet surface is required to be higher than that of the surrounding air in order for the latent heat to be diffused away. But if so, the condensation of water vapor should be impossible due to the limit of the second law of thermodynamics.

In fact, it is known that the condensation of water vapor at a certain altitude is a spontaneous thermodynamic process. The cloud droplet floats in the atmosphere and moves together with the surrounding air. The condensation of water vapor is the isothermal phase change process (çENGEL, 2002; çENGEL and BOLES, 2002; ZHANG and ZHOU, 2010; ZDUNKOWSKI and BOTT, 2004). So, as the water vapor comes from the moist air containing the cloud droplet, the following situation is impossible: the condensation of water vapor heats the cloud droplet and increases its surface temperature to higher than that of the surrounding air. Therefore, the derivation of Equation (1) is theoretically insufficient, and it is contradictory to the second law of thermodynamics.

In addition, beyond the position far from the droplet, there is no low temperature external heat source or sink which is often required in any engineering heat transfer process except those abiding by Newton’s law of cooling. In fact, Equation (1) is the same form as Newton’s law of cooling (çENGEL, 2002). Behind this law, the heat capacity of the surrounding air is required to be the infinity (as mentioned in B.J. Mason’s statement), namely that the energy content of hot body is diffused into the surrounding air and does not change the air’s temperature (i.e. T∞ ≈ constant). As a support to this law, it is easily calculated and discovered that the burning heat of the global fossil fuel consumption in a year at present can only increase the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere by about 0.086°C. [The global fossil fuel consumption in a year at present is 1.08477×1013 kgoe oil equivalent (BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2013); the burning heat is 4.5417×1017kJ (=1.08477×1013kg ×10000kcal/kg× 4.1868kJ/kcal); the mass and specific heat capacity of atmosphere are respectively 5.26×1018kg (MARSHALL and PLUMB, 2007) and 1.005kJkg-1°C-1

(MARSHALL and PLUMB, 2007); if the burning heat is absorbed by the atmosphere, the temperature will increase by 0.086°C(=4.5417×1017kJ/(5.26×1018kg×1.005 kJkg-1°C-1)].

However, the latent heat [L=2500kJkg-1 (MARSHALL and PLUMB, 2007; ANDREWS, 2010)] of the annual mean precipitation of about 984 mmyr-1 (HOUGHTON et al, 2002; KIEHL and TRENBERTH, 1997.) is about 1.254×1021kJ (=0.984×4π×63700002×1000 ×2500), and is about 2760 times that of the fossil fuel. It can increase the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere by about 237°C. But this is obviously impossible, which means that Equation (1) cannot be applied to express the latent heat diffusion of water vapor condensation in the atmosphere.

So, we have the following predicament: the water vapor can spontaneously condense in the atmosphere, but the latent heat cannot be released out by conduction through the air. Therefore, it can be concluded that the latent heat can only be emitted away from the droplet surface in the form of radiant energy. In fact, Potter and Hoffman first reported an unconventional radiation phenomenon (called as phase change radiation) accompanying phase change of water vapor condensation in 1968 (POTTER and HOFFMAN, 1968), as shown in figure 4. Their data show strong emission bands at 1.537 and 2.10 microns. The band at 2.1μm is from two to one hundred times as intense as blackbody, depending on the vigor of boiling near the bottom of the water column.

6

Figure 4 Relative intensity of the phase transition luminescence from water

Iφ, intensity from the boiling water; Ibb, intensity from the black body

V. Tatartchenko and his partners also reported the characteristics of phase transition radiations during crystallization processes (TATARTCHENKO, 2008; 2010; PEREL'MAN and TATARTCHENKO, 2008). And the phase change radiation study had drawn significant research attentions in past decades (POTTER and HOFFMAN, 1968, TATARTCHENKO, 2010, 2011, 2012, PEREL'MAN and TATARTCHENKO, 2008, WANG and BREWSTER, 2010, MESTVIRISHVILI et al., 1977, SALL' and SMIRNOV, 2000). These results should be regarded as the proofs of water vapour condensation.

Furthermore, Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) and Very Low Frequency (VLF) radio waves existing everywhere around the Earth were found highly responding with the condensing characteristic of water vapor: the noise levels are higher during summer than in winter (HARWOOD, 1958; HORNER and HARWOOD, 1956), higher at night than daytime (HORNER and HARWOOD, 1956), higher at sea than on land (BANNISTER, 1984), and higher than average near sunset and lower in the mornings (HORNER and HARWOOD, 1956). At any time of a day, the average noise decreases with increasing frequency; the lowest noise level in a day occurs in the morning, and the overall diurnal change is greater if the frequency is higher (HORNER and HARWOOD, 1956). At low frequencies, atmospheric radio noise in a tropical belt is generally more impulsive in character than in temperate zones (IBUKU, 1966). Those are very valuable natural phenomena and show that the atmospheric radio noise comes primarily from the vapor condensation and the weather change in the atmosphere. In other word, the phase change radiation of water vapor condensation is real. Of course, the frequencies of the phase change radiation of water vapour condensation might change with the temperature, which needs and is worth to be further researched.

Except the above analyses, the most important key is that no observed data can support Equation (1), thus it can be concluded that this fundamental formula in the current atmospheric physics is wrong.

2.2 The Cloud Formation on Adiabatic Expansion The cloud formation on adiabatic expansion (or moist adiabat) is a very important

fundamental result of the current atmospheric physics. From the above analysis, it can be concluded that this is fundamentally incorrect due to the radiative transfer of the latent heat. However, in order for this cardinal mistake of the current atmospheric physics to be clearly recognized, a brief confirmation is especially given here.

Important thermodynamic property relation starts from the second dT s equation

7

d d dh T s v p= + (3) For the ideal gas, we have

d dph C T= (4) If the thermodynamic process under consideration is an adiabatic expansion, ds =0, we

can write d dpC T v p= (5)

From the property equation of the ideal gas ( Rpv T= ), we have d d dp v Tp v T+ = (6)

Using Equation (5), we can write d 1 R dd

p p

T v ppT T C C p

= ⋅ ⋅ = ⋅ (7)

From Mayer’s formula ( -C =Rp vC ) and /C =kp vC , we obtain d 1 d d

k kRv p v pv p T= − ⋅ = − ⋅ (8)

For a steady adiabatic expansion as shown in figure 5, /Ac v const= , hence, d d d 0A c vA c v+ − = (9)

Here, A is the sectional area through which the gas flows; c is the velocity at which the gas flows through the sectional area.

From the first law of thermodynamics, we have 2

d d d2c h v p= − = − (10)

i.e. 2

d dc v pc c= − (11)

It means that c will increase (or the gas will accelerate) when the pressure p decreases. The speed of sound at the local ( kRa T= ) and Mach number /M c a= , Equation (9) can be turned into

22

d d(1 )A v pMA c= − (12)

If the gravitational potential energy of the gas is additionally considered, Equation (12) should be turned into,

22 2

d d g(1 ) dA v pM lA c c= − − (13)

where, l is the gravitational altitude, g is the gravitational acceleration. Because dp <0 (and dl >0), when M <1, dA <0, which means that the adiabatic

expansion of subsonic gas flow can only be realized in a converging nozzle. But there is not such a condition in the atmosphere, so the adiabatic expansion is impossible. In fact, any thermodynamic process must be accomplished in the particular structure and there is no exception.

It is known that the adiabatic expansion is only applied to approximately express the actual process in the current atmospheric physics. But because this mistake is fundamental and methodological and has directly resulted in the wrong cognition to the atmospheric

M<1 dp <0dc>0

Figure 5 The steady adiabatic expansion

8

greenhouse effect, it should not be ignored yet. 2.3 The Physical Mechanism of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect

Now, it is not difficult for us to understand why “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates.” Obviously, the vapour condensation (phase transition) radiation makes the latent heat transmit far away and have the larger range of effect beyond our past imagination. And the radiation (which also belongs to atmospheric radiation) should be “emitted to all sides, including downward to the Earth’s surface”. As a result, it can be called as a sort of greenhouse effect. However, because of the above two mistakes of the current atmospheric science, the vapor condensation has never being thought to be associated with the atmospheric greenhouse effect. This should be another important deficiency of the current atmospheric science.

But as discussed in the foreword, the main constituents of air (N2, O2, and Ar) can neither absorb nor emit the infrared radiation so that the radiant energy (which should include the vapour condensation radiation) emitted by greenhouse gases impossibly elevates the temperature of the whole air. Therefore, the absorption and emitting of greenhouse gases should not be defined as the whole of atmospheric greenhouse effect yet. In accordance with the theory of Heat Transfer (çENGEL, 2002), only the intermolecular collisions can cause the energy absorbed by the greenhouse gases to be shared with the other, non-IR-active, gases, so that the whole air is warmed.

Even though the absorption and emitting of greenhouse gases cannot directly warm the whole air, they are also very useful to the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Because the absorption and emitting of greenhouse gases can be transformed each other, the radiant energy can be reserved in the atmospheric system in longer period of time. Therefore, the absorption and emitting of greenhouse gases are the heat reservoir in the atmospheric system. In a word, the very atmospheric greenhouse effect is consisted of the intermolecular collisions as well as the absorption and emitting of greenhouse gases.

Further, under the condition of single phase, when a substance absorbs heat, its temperature will rise and vice versa. Because the heat capacity ( pCr ) represents the amount of heat required to change the temperature of a given volume of gas, the heat capacities of greenhouse gases should be directly proportional to their own contributions to the greenhouse effect. Therefore, we cannot only concern the densities (or concentrations) of greenhouse gases as usual. Their specific heat capacities (Cp) are also very important.

3. Comparison of the Greenhouse Effects between Vapor and CO2 Clausius-Clapeyron equation was often applied to express the dependence of saturation

pressure on saturation temperature T in the current atmospheric physics (MASON, 1975; MARSHALL and PLUMB, 2007; ANDREWS, 2010; WALLACE and HOBBS, 2006; MANTON, 1983).

2

dd

s s

v

p LpT R T

= (14)

where sp is the pressure of saturation vapor, L is the latent heat of vaporization, Rv is the gas constant for water vapor, Rv = MR /M, here M is the molecular weight of water and MR is the general gas constant.

The sea water and atmosphere at sea level can be regarded as in the equilibrium state, as expressed by Clausius-Clapeyron equation. In fact, any non-equilibrium thermodynamic potential between them necessarily results in the heat transfer or substance migration (such as water evaporation, the primary step of weather and climate change), so that a new equilibrium will tend to be established. Figure 6 and Figure 7 show that the air at sea level is in the

9

saturated wet state (the thermodynamic equilibrium). If the latent heat of vaporization (L) is assumed as a constant, the saturated pressure of

the vapor at sea level can be calculated by integrating Equation (14) (MARSHALL and PLUMB, 2007; ANDREWS, 2010; MANTON, 1983),

00

1 1( )exp[ ( )]s sv

Lp p TR T T

= − (15)

where T0 is a constant reference temperature. If the moisture air is approximately treated as the ideal gas, according to Dalton’s laws of

partial pressures (p =Σpj), the density of each gas can be calculated, ( )j

jv

p TR T

r = (16)

Obviously, the density of saturated vapor at sea level can be calculated according to the equilibrium temperature.

Figure 6 Aerial picture of Horns Rev offshore wind farm in Denmark

http://www.flickr.com/photos/vattenfall/with/5908955574/

Figure 7 The photograph of the sound barrier being broken by a US Navy Jet

The photograph of the sound barrier being broken by a US Navy jet as it crosses the Pacific Ocean at the speed of sound just 75 feet above the ocean. The photo taken by John Gay won First Prize in the science and technology division of the World Press Photo 2000contest. (John Marshall and R. Alan Plumb, 2007)

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/earth-atmospheric-and-planetary-sciences/12-003-atmosphere-ocean-and-climate-dynamics-fall-2008/labs/lab1-07/)

The specific gas constants (Rv) for water vapor and CO2 are 461 JK−1 kg−1 and 189

JK−1kg−1 respectively. The specific latent heat (L) of water vapor at 0 °C is 2500 kJkg−1. Assuming the average temperature of the atmosphere on the Earth’s surface is 15 °C (MARSHALL and PLUMB, 2007), the density of saturated vapor at sea level in the atmosphere is 12.896 gm-3. In accordance with the Industrial Formulation 1997 for the

10

Thermodynamic Properties of Water and Steam released by the International Association for the Properties of Water and Steam (IAPWS), the density of the saturated vapour at the temperature of 15°C is 12.84 gm-3. The absolute error is therefore 0.056g m-3 and relative deviation is 0.436%. The concentration of CO2 has increased to about 390 ppmv by now, i.e., its density is 0.692 gm-3.

The specific heat capacities (Cp) of water vapor and CO2 at constant pressure are 1850JK−1kg−1 (ANDREWS, 2010) and 845JK−1kg−1 (çENGEL, 2002) respectively. The ratio of

2 2CO H O( ) / (70% )p pC Cr r⋅ is equal to 0.036, which means that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is insignificant comparing to that of water vapor at sea level. Here the percentage coefficient (70%) implies that the water vapour over the Earth’s land is not included.

Figure 8. Dawn mist rising from Basin Brook Reservoir, White Mountain National Forest, July 25, 2004.

Photograph: Russell Windman (John Marshall and R. Alan Plumb, 2007).

Figure 9 The mist rising from Kanas Lake, the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region

09:22 am (Beijing Time), Aug. 16, 2009.

In addition, since leaving the sea or lake, the evaporated water vapour has a tendency of condensation, and some fogs above the surface of the water can often be seen in the morning, as shown in figure 8 and 9. In fact, there are huge visible clouds in the atmosphere (the cloud cover is about 40% of the globe (MANTON, 1983)). Of course, there should also be a mass of invisible cloud droplets which are scattered among the whole troposphere. The precise amount of cloud droplets suspending in the atmosphere is difficultly evaluated. But we have known that the Earth's average annual rainfall is huge and reaches up to about 5.107×1017kg (=0.984×4π×63700002×1000) (HOUGHTON et al, 2002; KIEHL and TRENBERTH, 1997). The specific heat capacities (Cp) of liquid water and ice at 0 °C is 4217 JK−1kg−1 and 2106

11

JK−1kg−1 respectively (ANDREWS, 2010). These liquid or solid cloud droplets have the huge heat capacities, thus they can also produce the great greenhouse effect.

As a contrast, here the total masses of carbon dioxide are calculated. The following equation is used to calculate the fraction of carbon dioxide total mass in the atmosphere (çENGEL and BOLES, 2002).

j jj

j j

x My

x M=Σ

(17)

where jx and jM are respectively the molar fraction and the molar mass of gas j in the atmosphere.

Table 1 Some gases in the atmosphere (DAVID G. ANDREWS, 2010)

Gas Volume mixing ratio Molar mass Distribution Nitrogen, N2 0.78 28.02 Well-mixed Oxygen, O2 0.21 32.00 Well-mixed

Carbon dioxide, CO2 386ppmv 44.01 Well-mixed Water vapour, H2O ≤0.03 18.02 Maximum in troposphere

Ozone, O3 ≤10ppmv 48.00 Maximum in stratosphere Argon, Ar 0.0093 39.95 Well-mixed

In the atmosphere, the molar fractions and the molar masses of some gases are shown in

table 1 (ANDREWS, 2010). Therefore, the fraction of carbon dioxide total mass in the atmosphere is about 0.0593% [=0.000390×44.01/(0.78×28.02+0.21×32.00+ 0.000390×44.01+0.0093×39.95), and water vapour is not considered]. The total mass of carbon dioxide is about 3.117×1015kg (≈0.0593%×5.26×1018kg). Namely the Earth's average annual rainfall is about 161 times as the total mass of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Those can also greatly decrease the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

Furthermore, the vapor condensation mainly occurs in the troposphere. Compared to the Earth’s radius, the troposphere is very thin. But, because the Earth is global, it should be reasonable for us to assume that not less than 45% of the latent heat emits towards the Earth’s surface and other 55% towards outer space. Its radiation intensity towards the Earth’s surface would be about 45%×78 Wm−2=35.1 Wm-2. Obviously, this greatly enhances the atmospheric greenhouse effect. And the changes of both the precipitation and cloud cover would directly change the effect. Besides, the cloud droplet itself, the surrounding droplets and other greenhouse gases in a certain range can all absorb and re-radiate the energy, the greenhouse effect resulted in by the phase change radiation should therefore be enhanced. In conclusion, compared with water vapor, the greenhouse effect of CO2 should be ignored.

In fact, the effects of the water vapour and cloud on the atmosphere are not only those yet. It is known that the water vapour can absorb the more solar energy than carbon dioxide (MARSHALL and PLUMB, 2007), as shown in figure 10.

“This figure (Fig.10) shows the solar radiation spectrum for direct light at both the top of the Earth's atmosphere and at sea level. The sun produces light with a distribution similar to what would be expected from a 5525 K (5250 °C) blackbody, which is approximately the sun's surface temperature. As light passes through the atmosphere, some is absorbed by gases with specific absorption bands. Additional light is redistributed by Rayleigh scattering, which is responsible for the atmosphere's blue color.

These curves are based on the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)

12

Terrestrial Reference Spectra, which are standards adopted by the photovoltaics industry to ensure consistent test conditions and are similar to the light that could be expected in North America. Regions for ultraviolet, visible and infrared light are indicated.” This figure was prepared by Robert A. Rohde as part of the Global Warming Art project.

Figure 10 Solar Radiation Spectrum

Cited from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png

Figure 11 also shows the absorption bands in the Earth's atmosphere (middle panel) and the effect that this has on both solar radiation and upgoing thermal radiation (top panel). Individual absorption spectrums for major greenhouse gases plus Rayleigh scattering are shown in the lower panel.

Figure 11 Radiation Transmitted by the Atmosphere

Cited from: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission_png This figure was prepared by Robert A. Rohde.

Both the Earth and the Sun emit electromagnetic radiation (e.g. light) that closely follows a blackbody spectrum, and which can be predicted based solely on their respective temperatures. For the sun, these emissions peak in the visible region and correspond to a temperature of ~5500 K. Emissions from the Earth vary following variations in temperature

13

across different locations and altitudes, but always peak in the infrared. The bulk of emissions from the Earth radiate from within the colder regions of the atmosphere rather than from the surface directly, and give the Earth an average emission temperature of about 250 K (-20 °C) (Kiehl and Trenberth 1997).

The position and number of absorption bands are determined by the chemical properties of the gases present. In the present atmosphere, water vapor is the most significant of these greenhouse gases, followed by carbon dioxide and various other minor greenhouse gases. In addition, Rayleigh scattering, the physical process that makes the sky blue, also disperses some incoming sunlight. Collectively these processes capture and redistribute 25-30% of the energy in direct sunlight passing through the atmosphere. By contrast, the greenhouse gases capture 70-85% of the energy in upgoing thermal radiation emitted from the Earth surface. This disparity is a major factor in creating the greenhouse effect, whereby thermal energy is trapped near the Earth's surface warming the planet.

From Fig. 10, the radiant energy from the Earth is more absorbed by the water vapour. And the cloud (including liquid droplets and ice crystal) can absorb both the solar energy

and thermal radiation from the Earth’s surface, so that it is heated, melted, evaporated or sublimated. In fact, while a sheet of cloud is flying over our head by daylight, we can easily observe the cloud decreasing even disappearing with the naked eye, as shown in figure 12. The evaporation and condensation in the atmosphere should be transformed each other. As a result, the latent heat can take a greater role. Namely the water vapour and cloud become the important heat resources so as to further enhance the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

Figure 12 The pictures of cloud disappearing after raining

Because the latent heat is released in the form of the phase change radiation, and because

the forming and increasing of cloud mostly occurs during night, the diurnal temperature range (DTR) decreases with the increasing of cloud amount. In other word, the effects of the cloud on the atmosphere and climate cannot be covered under the concept of “feedbacks”.

Figure 13 shows the solar energy absorption of the ice on the glass of the window in the winter morning.

In addition, the heat transfer between the Earth’s surface and the atmosphere is persistently proceeding. The transferred heat should come from the solar radiation, geotherm and the IR radiation of greenhouse gases. But it is known that the temperature of the Earth’s surface quickly decreases out of the solar radiation, the effect of IR radiation of the greenhouse gases should be limited.

14

Figure 13 The solar energy absorption of ice

4. The Mechanism of Urban Heat Island Effect “The well-known urban heat island effect actually takes place at night” (Kalnay and

Cai, 2003). And the similar result was obtained by Chinese researchers (Ping Yang et al., 2013), as shown in figure 13.

Figure 13 The annual-averaged diurnal cycle of mean temperature in urban and rural areas in Beijing

Why does the urban heat island effect have such a characteristic? The current

atmospheric physics cannot present a reasonable explanation yet. In fact, with the development of economy and industry and the increasing of world population, the consumption of energy and water resources is rapidly and simultaneously increasing year by year. It is known that the fossil fuels generally contain hydrogen and water, so that considerable water vapors are released in the burning process of these fuels, especially the natural gas. In addition, the industrial cooling commonly consumes a good deal of water, and almost all of the discharged heat is turned into the latent heat of water vapor. For example, the average efficiency of thermal power plants around the world is below 40%, so that over 50% of the fuel energy is transferred into the latent heat of water vapor in the moist cooling tower. Both the municipal utilities and the inhabitant life consume abundant water, and the visible part of the water is also turned into water vapor. Therefore, all the above factors necessarily result in the increasing of water vapor content in atmosphere over the cities, which means that more latent heat is released from the condensation of these vapours at night.

The condensing radiation of the extra vapor, mostly at night when temperature is low, can greatly enhance the greenhouse effect, which is obviously a new mechanism of urban heat

15

island effect and is the reason why the urban heat island effect actually takes place at night. Furthermore, the effect of evaporation and condensation resulted from the agriculture irrigation should also be reconsidered.

5. Evaluating the Global Warming Possibility predicted by IPCC It is known that an incorrect theory necessarily results in wrong conclusions. Here based

on the above results, the possibility of anthropogenic global warming predicted by the IPCC is briefly evaluated.

But in accordance with the current atmospheric science, the global climate warming is regarded as the inevitable result of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The following prediction in IPCC Fourth Assessment Reports (Solomon et al., 2008) can therefore be read: “A range for equilibrium climate sensitivity – the equilibrium global average warming expected if CO2 concentrations were to be sustained at double their pre-industrial values (about 550 ppm) – was given in the TAR as between 1.5°C and 4.5°C.” “… with a best estimate value of about 3°C.”

In fact, if the average temperature increases from 15°C to 18°C, the densities of saturated vapor increases from 12.896gm-3 to 15.491gm-3, namely that the net increment of vapor in the atmosphere is 2.595gm-3. When the concentration of CO2 reaches 550ppm, its density will be only close to 1g/m3. Obviously, the net increment of vapor is over 2.595 times the total quantity of CO2. Even though the vapour over the land is not considered, the net increment of vapor is also 1.8 (≈70%×2.595) times the total quantity of CO2. However, it is universally acknowledged that the vapor is the most important greenhouse gas among all greenhouse gases in the Earth (Marshall and Plumb, 2007; SOLOMON et al., 2008), and the above comparison also shows that the greenhouse effect of CO2 can be ignored. Such an anthropogenic global warming predicted by IPCC is therefore quite impossible.

6. Evaluation of Global Warming Data in the IPCC Third Assessment Reports

In the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), the global climate warming was described as the following statement: “Since the 1950s both daily maximum and minimum temperatures are available over more than 50% of the global land area. These data indicate that on average the mean minimum temperature has increased at nearly twice the rate of the maximum temperature, reducing the daily temperature range by about 0.8°C over these areas. ” (HOUGHTON, et al., 2002)

In fact, 50% of the global land area accounts for only 15% of the Earth’s surface area, thus it is not reasonable to conclude that such a partial air temperature change is global. And such a change characteristic of the daily temperature range (DTR) cannot be reasonably explained based on the existing greenhouse effect mechanism. Besides, “these data” just shows that the detected global warming is mainly caused by the night-time warming and seems profoundly associated with the condensing characteristic of water vapour in atmosphere, because the condensation of water vapour mainly happens at night. If the precipitation increases, the night-time greenhouse effect of the phase change radiation also necessarily increases. In fact, the evident increment of annual precipitation was mentioned more than once in IPCC Reports, such as “Widespread increases are likely to have occurred in the proportion of total precipitation derived from heavy and extreme precipitation events over land in the mid- and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.”

16

Table 2 The Average Daily Temperature Ranges of Main Cities from North to South in China from 1951 to 1980 (LIN ZHIGUANG, ZHAN JIACHENG, 1985)

City January April July Annual Harbin [°C] 11.6 13.0 9.9 11.7 Beijing [°C] 11.2 12.9 9.3 11.4 Wuhan [°C] 8.7 8.7 7.6 8.6

Guangzhou [°C] 8.6 6.6 7.4 7.6

In fact, both the precipitation and the water vapor in atmosphere are visibly increasing with the fast natural warming from winter to summer. In this process of the climate warming, the nightly temperature similarly increases exceeds the pace of temperature increases during the day, namely the daily temperature ranges during summer is smaller than that in the winter, as shown in Table 2. Moreover, from north to south, e.g. from Harbin to Beijing, to Wuhan and to Guangzhou, such a phenomenon is more and more prominent, and is consistent with the local precipitation characteristics. Here, it should be emphasized that the situation is quite different in April. In this month, Guangzhou in south of China is always in rainfall season. Thus the city’s daily temperature range is less than that in both January and July; simultaneously, Harbin and Beijing in North China are generally in wind season and their weather is very dry, thus their daily temperature ranges are larger than that in January, namely that the rate of day temperature increase is obviously higher than the nightly one; and weather in Wuhan is moderate because it is in the middle of China. It is not related to CO2, because the annual change of CO2 concentration is very small. And the characteristic of the annual climate change should be universal around the world.

7. Conclusions Both theory and experiment show the latent heat of vapor condensation is emitted in the

form of radiant energy. And the two fundamental results of the current atmospheric physics, the diffusion equation of heat away from a droplet surface and the cloud formation on adiabatic expansion, are wrong.

Because the main constituents (such as nitrogen, oxygen and argon) of the atmosphere do not absorb the infrared radiation, the radiant energy emitted by greenhouse gases cannot increase the temperature of the whole atmosphere. But absorption and emitting of greenhouse gases can make the infrared radiation be reserved in longer period of time and become the heat reservoir of the atmospheric system. And only the intermolecular collisions can cause the energy absorbed by greenhouse gases to be shared with the other, non-IR-active, gases, which should be the sole possible physical mechanism which the greenhouse gases warms the whole air. This is the very physical mechanism of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

The radiant energy of vapour condensation in the atmosphere should be in all directions, which can greatly enhance the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Both the cloud and water vapour can absorb the solar energy, the thermal radiation from the Earth’s surface and the radiant energy of water vapour condensation in extent. And the absorbed energy can be transferred into the latent heat. Therefore, both the water vapour and cloud are the important heat resources as so to produce and enhance the atmospheric greenhouse effect. The effects of the cloud on the atmosphere cannot only be covered under the concept of feedbacks. Even though the carbon dioxide can also absorb and emit the radiant energy, its greenhouse effect can be ignored by comparison.

While the condensation, desublimation or freezing mostly occurs during night, the latent heat is emitted and the cloud amount necessarily increases. Therefore, the reasons that the diurnal temperature range (DTR) decreases with the increasing of cloud amount and the urban heat island effect actually takes place at night can also reasonably be explained. All above

17

those are the brand new viewpoints about the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Because the water vapor in the atmosphere mainly comes from the evaporation of oceans,

the global climate change is mainly dominated by natural factors and the anthropogenic global climate warming resulted from the increasing of CO2 concentration should be a wrong conclusion. Therefore, the global warming possibility predicted by IPCC is evaluated to be impossible.

The analyses and discussions in this paper show that the current atmospheric physics has the fundamental errors. Therefore, many aspects of the global climate change should further be researched.

References A.N. MESTVIRISHVILI, J.G. DIRECTOVICH, S.I. GRIGORIEV, M.E. PEREL'MAN, 1977:

Characteristic radiation due to the phase transitions latent energy, Physics Letters 60A. 2, 143–144.

B.J. MASON, 2010: Clouds, rain and rainmaking (Second edition, 1975). Cambridge University Press. 198p.

BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2013: http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp /pdf/statistical-review/statistical_review_of_world_energy_2013.pdf. 48p.

CORE WRITING TEAM, PACHAURI, R.K. AND REISINGER, A. (EDS.), 2008: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report: Annex II: Glossary E-I. Cambridge University Press. 104p.

DAVID G. ANDREWS, 2010: An Introduction to Atmospheric Physics, Second Edition. Cambridge University Press. 237p.

F. HORNER and J. HARWOOD, 1956: An Investigation of Atmospheric Radio Noise at Very Low Frequencies, IEEE Xplore. 2147R, 743-751.

HOUGHTON JT, DING Y, GRIGGS DJ, M. NOGUER, P.J. VAN DER LINDEN, X. DAI, K. MASKELL, C.A. JOHNSON, 2002: IPCC Third Assessment Report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Cambridge University Press. 880p.

J. HARWOOD, 1958: Atmospheric Radio Noise at Frequencies between 10kc/s and 30kc/s, IEEE Xplore. 2619R, 293-300.

JOHN M. WALLACE, PETER V. HOBBS, 2006: Atmosphere Science, second edition. Elsevier Inc. 504p.

JOHN MARSHALL and R. ALAN PLUMB, 2007: Atmosphere, Ocean, and Climate Dynamics: An Introductory Text. Elsevier Academic Press. 344p.

KIEHL, J.T. and K.E. TRENBERTH, 1997: Earth’s annual global mean energy budget. Bull. Am. Met. Soc. 78, 197-208.

KUO-TING WANG, M. QUINN BREWSTER, 2010: Phase-transition radiation in vapor condensation process, International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer. 37, 945–949.

M.E. PEREL'MAN, V. TATARTCHENKO, 2008: Phase transitions of the first kind as radiation processes, Physics Letters A. 372, 2480–2483.

MJ MANTON, 1983: The physics of clouds in the atmosphere. Rep. Prog. Phys. 46, 1393-1444.

OLU IBUKU, 1966: Structural Aspects of Atmospheric Radio Noise in the Tropics, Proceedings of the IEEE. 3, 361-367.

PETER R. BANNISTER, 1984: Summary of ELF Propagation Validation System Effective Noise Measurements, 1976 to 1978, IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering. 3, 196-201.

PING YANG, GUOYU REN, WEIDONG LIU, 2013: Spatial and Temporal Characteristics

18

of Beijing Urban Heat Island Intensity, Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology. 52 (8), 1803-1816.

SOLOMON, S., D. QIN, M. MANNING, Z. CHEN, M. MARQUIS, K.B. AVERYT, M. TIGNOR and H.L. MILLER (eds.), 2008: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Cambridge University Press. 996p.

S.A. SALL', A.P. SMIRNOV, 2000: Phase-transition radiation and the growth of a new phase, Technical Physics. 7, 849–853.

V. TATARTCHENKO, 2010: Infrared characteristic radiation of water condensation and freezing in connection with atmospheric phenomena. Earth-Science Reviews 101, 24–28.

V. TATARTCHENKO, 2011: Infrared characteristic radiation of water condensation and freezing in connection with atmospheric phenomena; part 2: New data. Earth-Science Reviews 107, 311–314 .

V. TATARTCHENKO, YIFAN LIU, WENYUAN CHEN, P. SMIRNOV, 2012: Infrared characteristic radiation of water condensation and freezing in connection with atmospheric phenomena; Part 3: Experimental data. Earth-Science Reviews 114, 218–223.

W.R. POTTER, J.G. HOFFMAN, 1968: Phase transition luminescence in boiling water: evidence for clusters. Infrared Physics. 8, 265–270.

WILFORD ZDUNKOWSKI, ANDREAS BOTT, 2004: Thermodynamics of the Atmosphere, Cambridge University Press. 268p.

YUNUS A. çENGEL, 2002: Heat Transfer: A Practical Approach, Second Edition. McGraw-Hill Companies. Inc. 896p.

YUNUS A. çENGEL, MICHAEL A. BOLES, 2002: Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach, 4th Ed., Mcgraw-Hill Companies. Inc. 1010p.

ZHANG XUEWEN, ZHOU SHAOXIANG, 2010: Introduce of Hydrology in the Air (Chinese), China Meteorological Press. 177P.

Supplementary Materials 1 The Conflict between TAR and AR4

In IPCC fourth assessment report (AR4), “The global average DTR has stopped decreasing. A decrease in DTR of approximately 0.1°C per decade was reported in the TAR for the period 1950 to 1993. Updated observations reveal that DTR has not changed from 1979 to 2004 as both day- and night time temperature have risen at about the same rate.”

Obviously, this statement (covered yellow) is conflict with that (covered yellow) in above TAR. Why???

2 The Unimaginable Difference For unknown reasons, the IPCC Web falsified (?) the datum of the TAR, thus we

necessarily encounter the above conflict between TAR and AR4. Such an unimaginable difference is shown in the following copies.

WHY???

19

at: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/052.htm

However，

At: http://www-iam.nies.go.jp/aim/india0210/papers/ipccreports/workinggroup1/051.HTM http://www-iam.nies.go.jp/aim/india0210/papers/ipccreports/workinggroup1/051.HTM

20

Copied from the following PDF document downloaded from the IPCC’s web site.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-02.pdf