Neutral Fact Finder Claims to Fully Explain Global Warming and Accuses NASA of Distorting and Withholding Climate Data

SAN JOSE, Calif., Jan. 16, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- The following is the opinion of Kelleher & Associates Environmental Mgmt LLC.

Dear President Trump and other interested parties:

My prior news release on December 6, 2017, titled "Neutral Fact Finder Pinpoints the Primary Source of Arctic and Global Warming" includes an introduction section that is not repeated here. This is a follow-up to that release and it serves to explain exactly what has been causing climate change making good use of NASA's Ozone-Watch Website maps and other NASA imagery. When I refer to NASA above and below, I am including NOAA.

I am starting off by showing some select seasonal samples of the state of the earth's stratospheric ozone layer in 2017 versus what it looked like in 1979. The following links are for NASA Ozone-Watch Website maps for the southern hemisphere for July in the continuous darkness of the polar winter and for the northern hemisphere for October in mid-fall: Ozone July 1979, SH: https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/Scripts/big_image.php?date=1979; Ozone July 2017, SH:https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/Scripts/big_image.php?date=2017-07&hem=S; Ozone Oct 1979, NH: https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/monthly/monthly_1979-10_NH.html; Ozone October 2017, NH: https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/monthly/monthly_2017-10_NH.html.

Three things are obvious: (1) as of July/October 1979 which was near the start of solar cycle 21, ozone depletion was already underway within both polar regions and in both hemispheres within a thin swath of latitudes just shy of 30 to 35 degrees; (2) as of July/October 2017, there is about a 30 percent additional seasonal ozone depletion in the southern hemisphere concentrated in the polar region and about a 20 percent additional seasonal depletion in the northern hemisphere; (3) the depletion in the northern hemisphere is much more dispersed and primarily impacts the southeast half. I explain this under Finding 5.

Findings

1. By modeling so-called greenhouse-gas effect as "back-radiation" that re-warms the earth's surface, NASA is severely distorting climate data ? The greenhouse gas theory argues that today's climate change is due to warming that occurs due to carbon dioxide gas (CO2) high up in the atmosphere absorbing in the very weak 15-17 micron far-infrared bandwidth. The theory holds that CO2 will absorb this very weak radiation as if each CO2 molecule was a blackbody (perfect absorber/transmitter of radiant energy) and that it will spontaneously emit infrared radiation of unspecified wavelengths in all directions with half returning to warm the earth's surface. The concept that energy emitted from weak far-infrared radiation emitted from the earth can double warm the earth's surface is highly problematic in itself. Another glaring problem is that the theory appears to wantonly violate the first and second laws of thermodynamics (conservation of energy and the tendency toward disorder/entropy). It argues that CO2 molecules are capable of not only absorbing and re-emitting far-infrared radiation with very little energy loss, but can create energy in the process. My understanding of the heat transfer laws is that once a far-infrared photon is absorbed by CO2, it stops moving and releases all its energy; end of story. This explains the specific heat of CO2 gas which is listed in engineering handbooks as about 0.85 KJ/L at the global mean surface temperature of 59 degrees F (15 C). This value is predicted by its IR absorption spectrum and has been verified experimentally. The fact that CO2 has a documented specific heat value for the earth's surface disproves the greenhouse gas theory as far as I am concerned. Accordingly, I am offering an alternative explanation for global warming that makes more sense to me.

The earth's surface is warmed to what is considered its ambient temperature primarily by incoming shortwave radiation (SWR). This includes the less energetic of the hot high-energy ultraviolet bandwidths, 0.1 to 0.4 microns, but falling off quickly at less than 0.3. It also includes the visible bandwidths at 0.4 to 0.7 microns, and the most energetic of the near-infrared bandwidths at 0.7 to 1.5 microns, but falling off quickly at greater than 0.8. Most of the SWR that is not reflected by the surface is absorbed and converted to heat near the surface. This results in significant evaporation. Some of the warming is from downwelling infrared radiation absorbed in the lower atmosphere during periods of low or no zenith or dense cloud cover which is a very important factor in the Arctic.

The collective data is telling us that the warm mid-wavelength and long-wavelength infrared (IR) electromagnetic radiation emitted from slightly warmed land or sea in the 3 to 15 micron bandwidths immediately enters a boundary layer at the earth's surface where it is in dynamic thermal equilibrium with molecules of warmed humid air. This happens because most of the IR radiation is readily absorbed by the near-surface water-vapor molecules in the majority of the earth's blackbody wavelengths of interest (3.5 to 25 microns). There is a gap between 5 and 8 microns which atmospheric CO2 does not cover either. The wavelengths that are not absorbed by humid air are primarily above 15 microns in the weak far-infrared range and include a narrow band centered at 15 microns that is absorbed by CO2. The IR radiation that is absorbed by water vapor is immediately converted to heat energy in the boundary layer. Since CO2 readily absorbs Infrared at ambient surface-air temperatures, I believe the same holds for CO2 given its specific heat of 0.85 KJ/l. I give this no importance in climate change, however, given that the specific heat of water vapor is about 2 KJ/L and levels of CO2 in warm humid air are about three orders of magnitude lower than water vapor. Thus, CO2's effects on the specific heat of air at the ground surface are justifiably ignored. I would expect the CO2 boundary layer to be thicker than that for water vapor.

Because warm humid air slowly rises and cool air sinks (heat transfer by convection), the biosphere is warmed primarily from the ground up. The boundary-layer effect is the combined result of the normally elevated concentration of water vapor near and extending into the land or water surface and the very high heat-retaining capacity (enthalpy) of warm humid air including its latent heat of evaporation. It takes a lot of IR radiation giving up heat to increase the temperature of water.

This leads me to the conclusion that the warming that is occurring in the Arctic can only be explained by the warming of the boundary layer. This points to increases in incoming shortwave radiation entering the lower atmosphere. This could be SWR absorbed by the surface and emitted upward as infrared. It also could be SWR absorbed by the lower atmosphere and emitted downward as infrared during periods of low amounts of SWR reaching the surface. As explained below, it is a combination of both.

Liquid water which comprises about 71 percent of the earth's surface absorbs all the shortwave radiation that enters it to considerable depths creating an enormous reservoir of heat energy in the oceans. For this reason, the amount of heat energy coming out of the oceans on any given day in a given area can far exceed what enters during the same day in that same location. This is clearly a major factor in Arctic warming and sea-ice loss. Most of the IR radiation received by the lower atmosphere that enters the boundary layer is emitted from the surface of the oceans where the air is very humid and includes water droplets.

2. NASA has been understating the importance of proxy data that reveals that climate change is due to solar forcing and not CO2 increases

In a paper titled, Unusual Activity of the Sun during Recent Decades Compared to the Previous 11,000 years, S. K. Solanki, et al, (NATURE, vol 431, Oct 28, 2004) have reached the following conclusions from data obtained from high-precision carbon 14 analyses on decadal samples of mid-latitude tree-ring chronologies: "According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years (now about 80 years) is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago [and also at the very end of the last Ice Age 11,000 to 11,100 years ago]. We find that during the past 11,400 years the sun spent only in the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode." There are countless research papers reiterating these findings and conclusions all pointing out that CO2 has not been a factor in global warming over the past 11,000 years. As explained below, we are currently witnessing how solar forcing occurs.

3. Since December 2010, NASA has been grossly understating and thereby dangerously misleading the public on the importance of incoming UV radiation to current global warming and human health ? In December 2010, NASA announced that it had upgraded its satellite space-weather-monitoring systems in mid 2003 to measure solar spectral irradiance as well as solar total irradiance and had made a "surprise" discovery regarding the makeup of incoming shortwave radiation in its all-important 0.1-to-0.8 micron bandwidth. When the difficult-to-understand announcement is interpreted correctly, NASA has been advising us that by relying just on total-irradiance data for the above bandwidths and applying an assumption that it was primarily in the visible range, its scientists had been drastically underestimating the amount of high-energy UV radiation entering the earth's outer atmosphere, especially during the active phases of recurring 11-year solar cycles.

Specifically, NASA discovered that shortwave UV radiation entering the upper atmosphere in 2004-05 during the last three years of solar-cycle 23's maxima was an astonishing 4 to 6 times higher than what had been assumed, and that the visible bands were about half of what had been assumed. The near infrared was about as expected. According to the announcement, the UV wavelengths that were dramatically higher fell primarily in the range of 0.20 to 0.35 microns which includes the entire bandwidth of dangerous UV-B (0.28 to 0.32 microns) and about half of the even more dangerous UV-C (0.10 to 0.28 microns). The range also includes a significant slice of UV-A which has a range of 0.32 to 0.4 microns. UV-A is considered less harmful to humans, but still of concern.

There is nothing about these dangerous "climate consequences" mentioned in the above NASA announcement. Instead, NASA quoted and quasi-endorsed the following opinion of an understandably confused government climatologist among its conclusions: "If these SIM measurements indicate real solar variations, then it would mean you could expect a warmer surface during periods of low solar activity . . . It would also imply that the sun's contribution to climate change over the last century or so might be even smaller than currently thought, suggesting that the human contribution to climate change may in turn be even larger than current estimates."

In reality, what NASA should be stating in the interests of public safety regarding "climate consequences" is that the surprise findings show that the strength of the earth's ozone layer is a much more important factor in climate change than had been previously assumed and modeled. This follows from the fact that ozone absorbs UV in rate-limiting fashion in the range of 0.17 to 0.35 microns which covers all the dangerous wavelengths involved.

4. NASA has been grossly understating the amount of direct solar-related ozone depletion that has occurred in the polar areas during the last four solar cycles ? From the SIM spectral irradiance data provided on the following NASA webpage, I roughly estimate that a massive 40 percent of incoming short-wave energy within the all-important 0.1 to 0.8 micron shortwave bandwidth is UV and that about half the UV (20 percent) is UV-A and the rest (20 percent) UV-B and C. SIM Spectral Irradiation, May 14, 2003: http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data/sorce_ssi_l3.

Assuming this is correct and that the ozone absorbs a nominal 30 percent of the UV and none of the visible or near infrared, which is very conservative, we can make some quick estimates of increases in incoming shortwave radiation resulting from documented ozone loss that tentatively establishes cause and effect.

Looking at the NASA Ozone-Watch Website maps for the northern hemisphere for the entire period 1979 to 2017, I am estimating that the column ozone within the western half of the Arctic circle decreased between October 1984 to October 1994 from about 320 DU to 280 DU (say 10 percent) and from October 1994 to October 2004 to about 250 DU (say 20 percent). Thus, if these ozone decreases resulted in corresponding increases that are applied to just 30 percent of the total shortwave radiation entering the troposphere, the total solar irradiance increases would be about 0.3 percent per year from 1980 through 2004, all of it in the UV bands. Please take note that the depletion is occurring during the Arctic's period of documented accelerated seasonal warming.

Looking at the NASA ozone-watch maps for the southern hemisphere, I estimate that between August 1980 and August 1990 the column ozone over the entire Antarctic circle decreased from about 280 DU to 250 DU (say 10 percent) and from August 1980 to August 2000 to about 200 DU (say 30 percent). Thus, if these ozone decreases resulted in corresponding increases that are applied to just 30 percent of the total shortwave radiation entering the troposphere, the total solar irradiance increases would be about 0.3 percent by year from 1980 through 1990 increasing to about 1 percent per year through 2010, all of it in the UV bands.

Moreover, some medium-sized and most large-sized solar flares include solar-proton events (SPEs) which are also called coronal mass ejections (CMEs). Over a certain size, SPEs directly destroy ozone, virtually shredding the impacted sections of the stratospheric ozone layer over both polar circles for periods of time measured in weeks to a few months. These relatively short periods of time, however, can become protracted during periods of high solar-flare incidence. Standing out in this regard are the number of gigantic X category solar flares striking earth over an approximately one year period in 1989-90 (eight), 2003 (twelve) and 2013-14 (nine). These periods correlate closely with periods of accelerated Arctic warming and sea-ice decline.

5. NASA has been grossly understating the amount of indirect ozone depletion that has occurred in the northern hemisphere during the last four solar cycles particularly in the lower latitudes on the southeast side ? NASA has reported that medium to very large solar flares, particularly those associated with CMEs, heavily ionize air molecules in the thermosphere, mesosphere and upper stratosphere creating extremely high levels of various species of reactive nitrogen molecules (NOy). The most important of them are the gaseous nitric oxides NO and NO2 (collectively NOx) which destroy ozone in catalytic fashion in producing the nitrate radical (NO3) which can revert to NOx in visible light. The ozone destruction by NOx does not require UV energy or extreme temperatures and can and does take place during the long polar nights.

The ionization products also include nitrous oxide (N2O) and nitric acid (HNO3). Both react with UV radiation to form NOx. The HNO3 also reacts with water to form NO3 and can react with vapor-phase sulfuric acid and water to form aerosols. The NOy species are partially dispersed through the upper atmosphere during the winter when the polar vortex is spinning counterclockwise at its peak. They sink toward the bottom of the stratosphere to variable degrees throughout the year further depleting the mid stratospheric ozone layer along the way. The NOy that accumulates in the lower stratosphere is dumped into the upper troposphere primarily in late March or April when the polar vortex stalls and then reverses direction in weakened fashion.

While this secondary effect augments ozone destruction, the situation in the Arctic would be much more severe if not for the fact that much of the elevated NOy in a weakened/decaying clockwise-rotating polar vortex is swept into regions of lower latitudes on the southeast side of the hemisphere by a climate system that is coupled to weakened vortexes. It is referred to as the North Atlantic Oscillation.

I am pointing to a tell-tale area of seasonally severe ozone depletion that peaks in September through December that further identifies the source of global warming. It is located along a swath of lower latitudes comprising the rim of the area involved in the North Atlantic Oscillation. It curls southwest out of the North Atlantic and extends westerly through northern Florida and across southern Louisiana and Texas between roughly 25 to 30 degrees north. It then curls up to the northwest through southern Arizona and California and out into the eastern Pacific Ocean between 30 to 35 degrees north. The swath of ozone-rich stratospheric air that was displaced from these lower latitudes can be seen rotating northeasterly into the Arctic where it is just beginning to replenish the heavily depleted Arctic ozone layer on the northwest side of the hemisphere. This is why most of the ozone depletion in the northern hemisphere is on the southeast side.

There is similar seasonal depletion at the corresponding latitudes in the southern hemisphere that peaks in February through May but it encompasses most of the earth, presumably the combined effect of South Atlantic and South Pacific oscillations.

6. NASA has been sitting on important data that shows that increased levels of incoming shortwave radiation have been warming the Arctic troposphere during the last three solar cycles ? The seasonal ozone depletion is allowing more UV-B and C radiation into the troposphere during the documented period of accelerated Arctic warming (late summer and fall). This is a period of declining solar zenith and increasing low cloud cover. Under these conditions, it is reasonable to assume that most of the extra UV-B and C that is entering the troposphere is absorbed in the dense cloud layers explaining why it is not being detected at high levels at ground surface. I am flagging this as the primary source of the well-documented seasonal downwelling of IR thermal energy that has been observed since 1989 in the Arctic biosphere during that same period and extending into the Arctic winter. There is another factor at work during this same period.

Confirming what is said above the seasonal secondary effect of NOx formation in the Arctic, here is what NASA scientists associated with its Goddard Space Flight Center had to say in 2011: "The background Arctic troposphere has a mean O3 of 60 ppbv and NOx of 25 pptv throughout spring and summer . . . Air masses associated with stratosphere/troposphere exchange are present throughout the mid and upper troposphere during spring and summer. These air masses, with mean O3 concentrations of 140?160 ppbv, are signi?cant direct sources of O3 in the Arctic troposphere. In addition, air of stratospheric origin displays net O3 formation in the Arctic due to its sustainable, high NOx (75 pptv in spring and 110 pptv in summer) and NOy (800 pptv in spring and 1100 pptv in summer). The air masses in?uenced by the stratosphere sampled during ARCTAS­B also show conversion of HNO3 to PAN.. . ."Q. Liang, et al:"Reactive nitrogen, ozone and ozone production in the Arctic troposphere and the impact of stratosphere-­troposphere exchange;" Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 13181?13199, 2011.

What NASA scientists could also have pointed out when summarizing the results of the ATCTAS mission, is that nitric acid (HNO3) also reacts with sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and water (H2O) to form aerosols that contribute to cloud formation, and that ozone, HNO3, PAN and H2SO3/HNO3/H2O aerosols individually and collectively absorb UV radiation as heat energy. This includes UV radiation coming down from above or reflected up from below making it difficult for any to escape. The net effect is significant warming of the upper and mid Arctic troposphere during the spring and summer continuing on into the fall during which time the PAN, nitrates and aerosols are descending into and further warming the lower troposphere as they absorb UV radiation.

7. NASA has been sitting on important data that reveals that the sharp increase in Arctic surface warming/sea ice decline that commenced in 2002 is attributable to the very high incidence of a category of exceptionally powerful CMEs that are referred to as ground level events (GLEs) ? These ultra-powerful CMEs arrive at earth's outer atmosphere led by waves of extremely fast-moving solar cosmic rays (SCRs) that are so powerful that they not only directly shred the portion of the stratospheric-ozone-layer through which they pass, but also strongly ionize the overlying and underlying columns of atmosphere all the way down to the ground surface presumably creating elevated levels of aerosols in the lower troposphere. Although the direct GLE impacts last just short periods of time typically measured in hours, the formation of very high levels of NOy has profound lasting effects measured in years. They create signature spikes of elevated nitrate in multiple snowpack layers (Dreschhoff, et al "Ultra high resolution nitrate in polar ice as indicator of post solar activity,"Solar Physics, 177: 365-74, 1998).

According to NASA, GLEs consist of CMEs with a proton flux of above 100 million electron volts (MeV). The extraordinary tally for GLEs entering the earth's atmosphere during the years 2000 through 2003 is as follows: Year 2000-7/15/00=24,000; 11/9/00=14,800; Year 2001 ? 4/3/01=1,100; 9/25/01=12,900; 10/2/01=2,360; 11/6/01=31,700; 11/24/01=18,900; Year 2002 ? 4/21/02=2,520; - Year 2003 ? 10/29/03=29,500; 11/2/03=1,570.

Conclusions

The global warming and rapid sea-ice melting and glacial retreat that has occurred since the late 1980s, is the predictable result of an unusually long period of unusually high levels of solar activity since the mid-1930s over solar cycles 17 through 24.

The sun seems to be calming down and hopefully the warming and melting will soon end. I am praying that the rapid warming and glacial retreat will not be followed by rapid cooling and extensive glaciation.

Recommendations

Because NASA has concluded that CO2 is a pollutant, I strongly recommend that the Trump administration have the EPA review this news release and the question of the source of global warming with the assistance of a panel of unbiased private-sector environmental engineers.

People all over the world should closely track NASA's Ozone-Watch Websites and take appropriate measures to protect themselves from ozone-depletion-related UV radiation.

I warrant that I have conducted my investigations impartially and believe my conclusions are sufficiently supported by valid scientific evidence to stand up in a court of law.

Disclaimer ? This press release contains the personal opinions of an American citizen based on his understanding of technical data and his experience as a neutral court consultant. Despite my professional standing, I am not claiming to be a professional engineer nor a consulting engineer given where I reside. California, unlike the rest of the country, does not grant licenses to environmental engineers given a long-standing preference by its licensing board to rely primarily on state-registered geologists to protect the state's lands, indoor air and waters. 

Sincerely,

Brian T Kelleher
Principal, Kelleher & Associates Environmental Mgmt, LLC
San Jose, CA 95121
[email protected]
408-677-3307

SOURCE Kelleher & Associates Environmental Mgmt LLC