Understanding Natural Climate Change

Carbon dioxide has nothing to do with climate change. Its overall effect is less than 0.1 degree and is actually a net cooling effect, just as the main so-called "greenhouse gas" water vapor also cools us according to what we can deduce from established laws of physics, as explained in my website http://whyitsnotco2.com and my linked papers, videos, blog and book. All climate change is natural and follows various superimposed cycles that appear to have a strong correlation with solar activity and planetary orbits.  Why is this so?


There is now compelling evidence that cosmic rays assist in the formation of clouds. Clouds affect temperatures because they reflect some solar radiation back to Space and shade parts of the surface. There are reasons why cosmic ray intensity varies, one such reason being that an increase in solar activity expands the heliosphere and this reduces the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the inner Solar System, this leading to there being less cloud cover on Earth and thus warmer temperatures. 


Perhaps the most notable natural cycle is one of approximately 1,000 years that had peaks in the Medieval Warming Period (MWP), the Roman Warming Period (RWP) and also about 3,200 years ago. The peaks have actually been getting cooler as shown in the first graphic below that should be read right to left. Between the MWP and the present we had the "Little Ice Age" when sunspots were at a minimum. We can expect another such minimum somewhere between the years 2400 and 2600. The current warming period should peak later this century with temperatures only about half a degree warmer than the present.


Superimposed on the 1,000-year cycle is another cycle of about 60 years. Prior to about 1998 than cycle was warming for 30 years causing alarm among climatologists who blamed it all on carbon dioxide. However, since 1998 the 60-year cycle has been declining whilst the 1,000 year one is still rising. The net effect has been a mere 0.05 degree between the moving-average peaks in 1998 and 2017 as seen in the monthly data published on Dr Roy Spencer's website, the February data being reproduced in the second graphic below with my comments added.


But what is fascinating is the fact that the graphic at the top of my website shows these two superimposed cycles even though it is entirely derived from data relating to planetary orbits. The source of this graph is here and I postulate that the magnetic fields from planets somehow affect the intensity of cosmic rays reaching Earth. 


As explained in my first article "Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Effect" the reason why the Earth's surface is hotter than the upper troposphere has to do with the fact that gravity acting on air molecules forms a non-zero temperature gradient (aka lapse rate) and it has nothing to do with radiation from the cold atmosphere supposedly adding thermal energy to the already-warmer surface as is clearly implied in NASA energy diagrams. The first of these diagrams showed no "back radiation" but contained a glaring error, namely that the solar radiation shown was nowhere near enough to explain the observed surface temperatures. So climatologists guessed that the extra energy must be coming via radiation from the cold atmosphere, and hence their assumption that radiation from carbon dioxide contributed to warming. But in fact the radiating properties of so-called greenhouse gases like water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane reduce the magnitude of the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient and thus cool the surface.


All climate change is natural and completely beyond the control of mankind.












Gerrilea Added Mar 21, 2018 - 8:32am
Doug C-- Thank you for sharing this important analysis.  I suspect more and more people are understanding the "errors" with the models employed by current "academia".  Nice to see some real science once again.
Thomas Sutrina Added Mar 21, 2018 - 8:35am
Great Article.  I have commented about the little ice age and the Medieval Warming Period putting ~ 1200 year cycle.   Krakatoa Volcano eruption gives an idea of the time constant of the atmosphere to sudden changes  ~ three years and also an idea of how much has to be dumped into the air at high altitudes.  The ocean time constant is ~ 100 years.   Top soil has a lag of about half a year and as one goes deeper the fluctuation decreases.  Frost depth is a measure of the decrease.  
Great article.
Bill H. Added Mar 21, 2018 - 10:42am
Welcome Doug-
I would be curious to hear your explanation why the current global warming event is occurring at a rate about 10 times faster than any prior event within the last 65 million years (according to a report out of Stanford University), and the rate of average temperature increase coincides almost exactly with the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial age.
Gerrilea Added Mar 21, 2018 - 11:58am
Bill H-- Oddly most do not know that O2 levels are at historic levels planetwide.
We stand at 19%, in some cities, like in China, where EPA rules don't exist, its critical at 12-17%.  Just 10,000 yrs ago O2 levels were at 28%. 75 million years ago it was at 35%.
Hummm.....correlation does not equal causation. OR does it?  I guess it depends on your motive and agenda.
Bill H. Added Mar 21, 2018 - 12:07pm
Gr - No motive or agenda - just curious how others see this.
Ian Thorpe Added Mar 21, 2018 - 12:29pm
Gerrilea, don't know about you but I get bored with the people, usually warmageddonists and subscribers to every other pseudo - scientific scare story, who constantly remind us that correlation does not prove causation. They forget that neither does it prove there is no causal link between certain events, thus becoming guilty of the opposite logical fallacy.
As you put it so well, correlation does not prove causation, or does it.
Gerrilea Added Mar 21, 2018 - 12:42pm
Ian T--- You know, life used to be so much easier...when I told what your opinion was and you mindlessly agreed.
Dang it!
Dino Manalis Added Mar 21, 2018 - 12:44pm
 We exhale carbon dioxide, that's natural, but there are other kinds of carbon which pollute the environment and harm life.  Our climate is evolving, like everything else!
Even A Broken Clock Added Mar 21, 2018 - 1:10pm
Once again, your charts have what looks like the right third of the chart totally cut off. Does anyone else have this problem?
I must admit that I have more than a little bit of difficulty swallowing the stated premise that gravity acting on air molecules is the cause for the adiabatic lapse rate of the atmosphere. I think physicists would have a field day finding ways to refute this assertion.
Thomas Sutrina Added Mar 21, 2018 - 2:24pm
The data is based on having something to measure.  Tree rings provide an idea of temperature, moisture in the air, sun, etc.   The next thing to measure is ice.   Glaciers and the pole ice packs are the two sources.  The ice traps carbon dioxide.  Carbon has a version that is radioactive and decays at a very slow rate.  So that rate of decay is used to measure time.  That assumes that the ratio of radioactive carbon is fixed.   The thickness of ice is limited.  The south pole ice pac is over a mile and a quarter thick.  Also understand that the poles is very dry and very little ice is added each year.    
Bill H. Added Mar 21, 2018 - 5:28pm
EABC - The "missing portion of the chart" trick has been used many times before. Notice there are also no charts correlating the exact tracking of atmospheric CO2 content to average temperature rise.
Doug Cotton Added Mar 21, 2018 - 5:29pm
Author's response:
The only reliable (and the most accurate) temperature data is from satellites in recent decades. Refer to the chart in the article which shows only one-twentieth of a C degree of warming between the peaks in the running average in the 19 years from 1998 to 2017. It was in 1998 that the superimposed natural 60-year cycle peaked and, as I predicted in 2011, the current hiatus will continue until at least 2027. Long-term cooling for about 500 years can be expected to start later this century after no more than about half a degree of warming above current temperatures. I'm afraid to have to advise you that land-based temperature data is being manipulated to show greater warming than has actually occurred. I also refer you to the long-term chart where it is clear that there has been cooling over the last 7,000 years or so and that we are nowhere near the warmer temperatures even 3,200 years ago.
In regard to the physics, I have referred you to the detailed explanation based on the Kinetic Theory of Gases and the Second Law process of maximum entropy production in my 2013 paper "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" which, along with my other two papers (including the peer-reviewed "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics") are here and also linked from my climate websites and blog which, in total, have had over 100,000 visitors. I will happily debate the physics with any reader who has studied thermodynamics in a degree level course as taught in the Physics Department of any recognized university. 
The "atmospheric physics" taught by climatologists in first-year climatology courses disregards or misapplies no less than three long-established laws of physics.  The troposphere would not have been isothermal in the absence of "greenhouse gases" like water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane because such a state could not be a state of maximum entropy as there would be unbalanced energy potentials due to there being greater mean particle gravitational potential energy at higher altitudes.  
The greenhouse gas water vapor does not do most of their "33 degrees" of warming supposedly achieved by radiation from the cold atmosphere somehow causing heat transfer into the warmer surface. But that is what NASA energy diagrams incorrectly imply happens, as I have shown in the text under their diagram in the article.  In fact, as my study showed, water vapor causes surface cooling by reducing the magnitude of the temperature gradient (lapse rate) as is well known. It could not simultaneously raise the surface temperature because then the temperature of the upper troposphere would have to be raised by far more in order to make the temperature gradient less steep. This is very obvious, as is the fact that regions with higher concentrations of water vapor have lower temperatures than drier regions at similar latitude and altitude, as in the study in the Appendix of my 2013 paper.
If you have further questions, please await the resubmission of my first article that was deleted, or read my latest paper "Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis" which includes solid empirical evidence that force fields create temperature gradients, just as the brilliant 19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt explained in 1876 and which I have proved to be correct using the laws of physics.
Pardero Added Mar 21, 2018 - 5:50pm
Doug Cotton,
I am pleased and grateful that a physicist takes the time to educate us on such a timely issue. I am getting to the point where 'climatologist' identifies an agenda driven person. I am relieved that true science is able to cut through all the murky pseudo-science.
Doug Plumb Added Mar 21, 2018 - 6:04pm
@Ian Thorpe re "As you put it so well, correlation does not prove causation, or does it. "
If there is a correlation, and the datasets are dependent then the system can be causal or non causal. Wrt the peaks in CO2 and temp lead or lag, causation can be determined from time domain data easily (simple correlation or convolution of time shifted data). If the CO2 precedes the temperature increase we can conclude that CO2 may be a cause of increase in temperature. If temperature leads CO2 we can assume that the rise in temperature causes and increase in CO2 and not the other way around. It would make sense that temperature would cause a rise in CO2 due to life and increased rate of breathing /metabolism quantity (plants and animals).
As far as I know, CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years.
Your ideas seem to be in line with Marc Moranno somewhat - in that it is cyclical and outerspace space dependent (he says dust/clouds I think). I forget everything I learned in Thermo except for steam engines (I'm an EE)
Thomas Sutrina Added Mar 21, 2018 - 6:06pm
The snow pack on top of the south pole is about 30 feet thick.  I know this and the thickness of the Ice at the south pole because I participated in the design of the drilling equipment for Ice Cube a Neutrino 1 km X 1 km X 1km array of photo multipliers frozen into the ice at the pole.  Hot water was used to drill holes almost to the rock below and the array was put as deep as possible into the ice. 
Doug Plumb Added Mar 21, 2018 - 6:08pm
Thanks for not BS ing us.
Doug Cotton Added Mar 22, 2018 - 12:02am
Yes Nicholas.  
I have been told by Dr Roy Spencer (scoring an "own goal") that the 324W/m^2 figure for downwelling radiation was simply calculated by difference, and not actually measured.  
The NASA diagram (fourth graphic at the foot of my article) clearly implies that they are "explaining" a mean surface temperature of about 288K by adding to the solar flux about twice as much back radiation and then deducting non-radiative surface cooling to get a net figure 390W/m^2 which, for a uniform flux day and night from a sun delivering about three times as much flux as our own Sun uniformly over the whole globe (somehow!) would give a nice uniform temperature of 288K if that net total is bunged into a Stefan-Boltzmann calculation. Trouble is, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is derived from the integral of a single Planck function representing blackbody radiation from a single source, not multiple sources in the atmosphere plus the Sun. Wien's Displacement Law would also have to be violated, as would the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is time for physicists to have the guts to take a public stand and point this out to the authorities.
The trouble is that, until my paper in 2013 explained the non-radiative process I called "heat creep," (which nobody else appears to have written about) physicists had no alternative explanation as to what was really happening and how the required extra thermal energy actually gets into the surfaces of planets like Earth and Venus, or to the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus where it's hotter than Earth's surface despite there being no solid surface and no solar radiation reaching down there. The day when climatologists use their fictitious, fiddled physics to correctly explain the required input of thermal energy down there, then I will give up. That day will never come.
Flying Junior Added Mar 22, 2018 - 2:33am
If climate change is not being driven by carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, why is the denial crowd so anal about proving otherwise?
Dave Volek Added Mar 22, 2018 - 1:47pm
Nice to get a different perspective. I believe in AGW, but I'm not convinced 100%. I'm not sure the consequences will be as severe as the advocates say, but humanity will make adjustments.
I have been working with a fellow who spends a lot of time in Churchill Manitoba. He says the ice pack ain't what it used to be. Things are changing up there.
"Carbon taxes" are a scam, especially their "Cap & Trade" ponzi  scheme.
Cap & Trade is good for the financial derivatives industry, indeed. I'm pretty sure it won't accomplish much because it requires monitoring of the industries that say they will reduce carbon emissions. Maybe I should promise to hold my farts inside and get a rebate!
But yes, put a tax on carbon products. In time, consumers will alter their decisions for less carbon consumption.
Gerrilea Added Mar 22, 2018 - 8:04pm
Doug V--- No thanks, you don't need to rip me off claiming you're saving the world, when you aren't.  Besides I don't think I should be punished for merely existing.  Since the majority of the world's population lives in abject poverty and keeping me that way will not change what little I actual do....do.
AND back to the point, CO2 doesn't do squat besides make plants grow bigger.  If it causes the Earth to warm up...fabulous....I'd really enjoy the climate the dinosaurs lived in, on average, a balmy day of 74* with a light breeze...sounds like....wait for it....EDEN...that lasted 400 million years.
Think of the things humanity could accomplish in that time.  We spend the majority of our lives, working to survive another day...throw in the brutal winters and we've wasted 5 months out of each year (up here in Buffalo NY) and have to repeat it all over again.  Imagine a  never ending summer? 
Would we have to learn to recycle water better, sure.
Would we have to learn to replace what we use, yep.
Could we move off this planet once we stopped fighting the oil wars, most definitely.
TPTB cannot have us being energy independent.  Did you know in Florida they'll take your home from you if you aren't connected to their electrical system, their water system and sewer system?
Did you know that 20+ yrs ago GM had an electric car that got 90 miles per charge and they trashed it claiming no one wanted it.  EVEN THOUGH they had millions lining up to get one.  That one invention would have ended 60% of our GHG emissions, worldwide.
They want as perpetual tax slaves, period.
Bill H. Added Mar 22, 2018 - 10:14pm
FJ - The oil industry has been preaching their "science" for some time. They certainly don't want people to believe that the byproduct of their main product may be responsible for climate change. Just like the tobacco industry didn't want people to believe that smoking was bad for your health.
Gerrilea Added Mar 23, 2018 - 4:03am
Bill H-- could you provide links to this "oil science"?
Maurice Strong, the father of the UN's IPCC was an oil man and Rockefeller protégé.
Do I need to draw a diagram showing you how "climate change" became the newest weapon to control the masses with?
Doug Cotton Added Mar 23, 2018 - 4:21am
To Bill H and others who still believe "greenhouse gases" warm us, even if only to a small extent, when in fact correct physics may be used to prove they cool the Earth's surface:  
The issue is not the oil industry: it is the academic institutions seeking funding with the fictitious, fiddled physics which, if correct, could be used to "prove" rainforests should be over 50 degrees hotter than dry deserts at similar latitude and altitude because they have about three times as much of the greenhouse gas water vapor. My study in the Appendix of my 2013 paper showed the opposite, namely that wetter regions are cooler.
How could you apply their false "science" about radiation supposedly doing what physicists know it doesn't do, and use their "radiative forcing" to explain why the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus is hotter than Earth's surface, despite the fact that there is no solar radiation reaching down there?  
How do you use the false "science" of climatology to explain how new thermal energy gets into the surface of Venus each Venus "day" and raises the temperature of a location on the equator from 732K to 737K over the course of four months on the sunlit side, compensating for similar cooling on the dark side?
Nobody else has explained the actual heat transfer mechanism involved which I proved occurs (based on the laws of physics and copious evidence) in my 2013 paper "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" at https://ssrn.com/author=2627605 using the Kinetic Theory of Gases and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That is where you should start if you wish to debate the physics.
With respect, I often wonder why so many people who have not studied physics to degree level feel it appropriate to write about atmospheric physics and climate change and include assertive statements about greenhouse gases like water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane supposedly warming us. They are merely citing climatologists who devised what has become the biggest deception in history because they ignored physics that was known in 1876 about gravity forming the tropospheric temperature gradient and then they incorrectly assumed back radiation was doing it by somehow violating no less than three long-established laws of physics.  It's all wrong, folks!
Flying Junior Added Mar 23, 2018 - 5:37am
Doug Cotton,
Carbon dioxide.  Great stuff.  See the third grade.  Flowers.  Stamens.  Pistils.  Seeds.  Respiration.  Forests.  Ocean life.  Fish, amphibians and mammals.  Reptiles and birds.  Dinosaurs.  Pachyderms.  Duck-billed Platypi.  Ponds.  Polliwogs.
Organic matter.  Hydrocarbons.
Thank you for being a valuable contributor to the WB.
Flying Junior Added Mar 23, 2018 - 5:42am
What exactly is an independent researcher into atmospheric and sub-terrestrial physics?  I have known of the AGU since 1963.
I have been reading the Science page on the NYT since 2007.  Do I qualify?
What is sub-terrestrial physics?
Gerrilea Added Mar 23, 2018 - 7:32am
Flying J---"sub-terrestrial" is under the ground???  Or physics that we can't see, like atoms...
Doug Cotton Added Mar 23, 2018 - 11:46am
Flying Junior:  The major discovery of the "heat creep" process that I made back in 2013 also enables us to understand what is the main source of energy that keeps the outer crust, mantle and core at the temperatures they are, and the core of the Moon over a thousand degrees hotter than its surface, even though there has been plenty of time to cool off. If you're interested you may read my papers that are the result of several years' full-time unpaid private research on my part all for altruistic reasons because this carbon dioxide scam is costing lives. There are also my websites such as this which have, in total, been viewed by over 100,000 because word is getting out that they contain the correct physics which refutes the climatology false physics. You may wish to watch the linked videos also, and then please feel free to discuss the content if you understand the physics of thermodynamics, maximum entropy production and radiation.
Mike Haluska Added Mar 23, 2018 - 1:19pm
Bill H - the answer to your statement is embedded in it:
"Notice there are also no charts correlating the exact tracking of atmospheric CO2 content to average temperature rise."
Key word here . . . CORRELATING!  For the umpteenth time, correlation is NOT the equivalent of causality - it's not even close.  Ponder this while "Global Warming" buries your home in snow.
Gerrilea Added Mar 23, 2018 - 1:46pm
Doug C--- I've tried to stay on top of this discussion on "climate change" and the alleged, AGW theories for over a decade.  I've seen different theories where they say earth's magnetic field controls/directs where cosmic rays impact and form cloud cover thus effecting climate change.  Your theory seems very similar.
That said:
Have you considered the effects of human created radiation?  They are trying to create a 5g network that will be even more powerful.  We have thousands, if not millions of microwave towers all over the planet in an endless quest higher communication speeds.
How does all this extra radiation that we are pumping into the atmosphere change it?  Studies are leaking out showing real physiological changes when using cellphones and I suspect they'll continue to claim "cellphone use doesn't hurt you" BUT how does it effect the environment/atmosphere?
The H.A.A.R.P. array in Alaska and the various other "haarp" arrays around the world are experimenting in how to use climate as a weapon.
Dave Volek Added Mar 23, 2018 - 1:55pm
I spent about an hour with your website. Incorporating gravity into the thermodynamics of the earth (and other planets) was in interesting approach. I can't claim that I understand your work, but it is interesting to read it.
Doug Cotton Added Mar 23, 2018 - 4:38pm
Mike:  Well said. In science one should not even start to look for correlation if the basic hypothesis is not in keeping with established laws of physics. That has been my main point all along.  It is so easy to prove climatology "science" wrong when you understand how force fields like gravity (and centrifugal force in a vortex cooling tube) create a non-zero temperature gradient as they act on molecules in motion between collisions. As we know from the Kinetic Theory of Gases, absolute temperature is proportional to mean particle kinetic energy. We also know that entropy is maximized when there are no unbalanced energy potentials. For that state (called thermodynamic equilibrium) the sum of particle gravitational potential energy (PE) and kinetic energy (KE) must thus be homogeneous at all altitudes in an "ideal" column of the troposphere. Hence, because the PE increases with altitude, the KE (temperature) decreases. All this was explained by physicist Josef Loschmidt in 1876 - years before irrelevant experiments in a lab supposedly blamed carbon dioxide.  I say irrelevant because the temperature difference caused by gravity was of course not detectable in such experiments. It can be proven to exist using the Second Law of Thermodynamics which tells us that entropy will tend towards a maximum, and it can be verified with data from other planets and with vortex cooling tubes: see my comment on the Wikipedia "Talk" page dated 2 April 2014.
Dave:  Maybe the above will help. I also suggest viewing my 10 minute video watched by over 4,300 since 2012.
Gerrilea:  The low frequency radiation cannot warm the troposphere for the same reason that microwave ovens don't warm those plastic bowls. The process whereby they warm water molecules is not normal absorption but a resonating process requiring the frequency to match the natural frequency for rotating those molecules. (See the Appendix of my peer-reviewed paper on Radiation here.)
Flying Junior Added Mar 23, 2018 - 7:46pm
Good for you, Doug.  Bulletproof stuff.  I'm not going to be able to debate you.  You are a cut above.  You should have an ally in Mike H.  He's a nice guy but we have crossed swords.  Good luck making any converts.  Us Roger Revelle guys are set in our ways.  I was considering doing a multi-part series on the art of preaching to the choir myself.  If I get around to it, the first installment will be important research going on at the University of Hawaii.
AGW or no, there is no getting around the fact that carbon-caused acidification of our oceans, particularly the coastal ecosystems such as coral reefs, is extremely harmful to marine life.  Maybe you can get around to writing a few papers refuting this truth as well.
I'd be interested to know what is the terrible, "harm," being caused by the carbon dioxide global warming, "scam."  Green energy?  Conservation of petroleum resources?  Too many windmills?  Not enough coal?
It's not every day I meet an altruist.
Doug Cotton Added Mar 23, 2018 - 8:34pm
Flying Junior:  The oceans are slightly alkaline (meaning pH > 7), and "ocean acidification involves a shift towards pH-neutral conditions rather than a transition to acidic conditions." (Wikipedia)  An increase in carbon dioxide assists agricultural production and thus food supply in developing countries for example. Using corn for ethanol rather than food can also lead to starvation. Billions of dollars are being wasted because of the false "science" and could have been better spent on humanitarian aid that could have saved lives. In fact, governments are diverting funds from such aid into so-called "green" energy production. The issue is, however, that it is criminal to promulgate false claims that lead to misappropriation of taxpayer dollars and higher energy costs that can cause poverty. Greenhouse gases can only cool and that is why the greenhouse gas water vapor does just that, as we can observe. Get back when you find a published study that refutes mine in the Appendix of my 2013 paper and book. In anticipation of further questions, may I suggest you read the latest paper where you may find relevant answers.
Katharine Otto Added Mar 23, 2018 - 9:48pm
Doug C.,
Interesting article, much over my head, but I've always believed the "climate change" issue was a politically trumped up excuse for wasting taxpayer money.  Even if mankind is contributing to changing climate, I suspect it's negligible and not close to crisis proportions.  
I am concerned about the environment, though, especially the build-up of environmental toxins, like plastics.  I wonder if the focus on the bogus issue of "climate change" is a diversionary tactic to prevent people from addressing the real poisons we are dumping on land, water, and in air on an ongoing basis.
Tamara Wilhite Added Mar 23, 2018 - 10:29pm
It was warmer during the Medieval Warming Period than today, but that's been edited out of Wikipedia and other sources because it doesn't fit the narrative that says hate industrialization, hate Western civilization.
Doug Cotton Added Mar 23, 2018 - 11:11pm
Katharine and Tamara:  Well said.  Be assured that long-established physics can be used to show why all greenhouse gases can only cool the Earth's surface because of the temperature-leveling effect of inter-molecular radiation that reduces the magnitude of the temperature gradient (aka lapse rate) that is brought about by gravity. Without such gases that gradient would be about 9.8 C degrees per kilometer but, mostly due to water vapor, its magnitude on average is reduced to less than 7 C degrees per kilometer. Hence, in order to maintain radiative balance with incoming solar radiation (as tends to happen automatically) you need to imagine the graph of temperature against altitude rotating about a (roughly) central point, acquiring a less steep gradient and thus producing lower supported temperatures at the surface. Even on Venus the carbon dioxide actually does the same and leads to less-hot surface temperatures. The critical issue is "How does the required thermal energy get into the surface?" and that is answered in  2013 my paper on Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures here.
Flying Junior Added Mar 24, 2018 - 1:50am
Nice meeting you.
Spartacus Added Mar 24, 2018 - 3:52am
Hi Doug.  Wondering what you think about the snowball-earth theory.
I think this is a pertinent question because that theory postulates that, at the time, 600M years ago, there were not enough (if any) life with oxidative-respiration.  O2 became the predominant gas due to the only life on earth being autotrophic bacteria, thereby almost completely removing atmospheric greenhouse gas at that time (beside water vapor).  It wasn't until another few millions of years that oxygen "breathing" bacteria became plethoras, bringing the atmosphere into its modern-day composition.  The seeming paradox with snow-ball earth theory and your "CO2 as atmospheric cooling agent" theory could use some explanation.  As well, this snowball-earth event is the ONLY example we may have where life did, in fact, change earth's global climate dramatically.
I for one, with a considerable review of the snowball-earth theory, think that it is much more plausible than the AGW theories now pushed by western Marxism predominant now in academia.  
Doug Plumb Added Mar 24, 2018 - 6:38am
I'm no scientist, I know a little about philosophy of science and a little about data. My areas of knowledge applicable here are political science, ethics and laws. These pro AGW people have been caught too many times to be believed. The policy papers, The Next Global Revolution and the Report From Iron Mountain explain what this AGW movement is all about. Its got nothing to do with saving the earth or mankind.
I've also asked a large number of qualified scientists in private if they believe this nonsense. They indicate that publically they must to keep their jobs and leave it at that, some give a little snicker as if I should know better than to even ask.
The fact is that the scientists aren't saying it. Their editors and the press are saying that scientists are saying it. Signatures are often compelled, if not explicitly then implicitly.
Doug Plumb Added Mar 24, 2018 - 6:40am
re "I'd be interested to know what is the terrible, "harm," being caused by the carbon dioxide global warming, "scam."  Green energy?  Conservation of petroleum resources?  Too many windmills?  Not enough coal?"
Earth worship will be the new religion. This is a very dangerous religion.
Doug Cotton Added Mar 24, 2018 - 9:58pm
William S:  I know of no planet that does not absorb some incident solar radiation in its atmosphere. Wherever there is some absorption of solar radiation in the troposphere creating a mean temperature at some altitude, then the temperature of the troposphere and any surface below that altitude will get progressively warmer at lower altitudes due to the effect of gravity as it maximizes entropy. For more detail proving how gravity does this please read my 2013 paper Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures. There is no point in considering a hypothetical Earth without even any ozone, for example.  NASA diagrams show 19% of incident solar radiation being absorbed by Earth's atmosphere and clouds, and yet less (the equivalent of only 15%) of upward radiation from the surface being absorbed by the atmosphere. That is where NASA scores an own goal and it is thus totally contradictory for climatologists to say the atmosphere is transparent to incident solar radiation and opaque to upward radiation from the surface.  In any event, radiation of any kind impinging on Earth's surface is not the primary determinant of the global mean surface temperature. For more detail please read my 2012 peer-reviewed paper Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics and also the writings of Prof Claes Johnson cited in that paper. What climatologists don't realize is that only a portion of the electromagnetic energy in radiation is converted to thermal energy unless the target is at absolute zero (0K) and only if the target is cooler than the effective temperature of the source of radiation after attenuation due to distance and any prior absorption such as in higher levels of the atmosphere. Separate fluxes from different sources (like the atmosphere and the Sun) cannot be compounded in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations as climatologists do and as is obvious in the NASA graphic I have shown in the article.
Doug Plumb: You'll find in my 2016 paper Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis a reference to geothermal power. That, I believe, is the long-term solution providing unlimited energy while ever the Sun shines. To understand why readers will need to study my 2013 paper.
Nicholas Schroeder:  Firstly, please read the head post in detail and study the graphics, then also read all my comments on this thread. Nothing gets hotter than a blackbody for any given incident flux of radiation from an effectively hotter source. A polished silver spoon placed in the Sun is all you need to see why. The mean solar radiation impinging on Earth's surface is about 168W/m^2 and that flux cannot (of its own) raise the mean surface temperature above 233K which is -40°C. Try your calculations for the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus where the solar radiation can only maintain a mean temperature of about 60K in the methane layer that absorbs most of it near the top of the troposphere. You need to explain the temperature of 320K at the base of that troposphere of Uranus where no solar radiation reaches and there is no solid surface. I can explain it within 20 degrees or so using my "heat creep" hypothesis which also works for all other planets and is thus supported by copious evidence. Please study all my papers, especially the 2013 one, and perhaps tell your friends at PSI, where Claes Johnson, Hans Jelbring and I used to be members but do not wish to be now because of the false physics they promulgate.
Spartacus Added Mar 24, 2018 - 10:30pm
Doug,  In any event, radiation of any kind impinging on Earth's surface is not the primary determinant of the global mean surface temperature. 
I'm sorry but this is not related to my question.  My question has everything to do with CO2 being a net cooling factor as you say.  What you are claiming is in contradiction to history (if a snowball-earth theory is indeed correct).
Doug Cotton Added Mar 25, 2018 - 2:42am
William S:   I am only explaining what is the correct application of the laws of physics to temperatures in planetary atmospheres and sub-surface regions down to the core. (History is not physics.)  I was indeed explaining why the "Snowball Earth" conjecture is incorrect because of the effect of gravity on the tropospheric temperature gradient.  For a start, an Earth with an atmosphere that was completely transparent to solar radiation (if it were possible) might as well have no atmosphere at all, and so it would have temperatures reaching almost as hot as the maximums on the Moon that are over 120°C where the Sun was overhead. besides, it wouldn't have any water vapor (as you said no greenhouse gas) and so there wouldn't be any snow. I'd like you to read my 2013 paper which discusses the physics pertaining to maximum entropy production by gravity and the resulting "heat creep" process which I first explained in that paper.
Doug Cotton Added Mar 25, 2018 - 3:00am
Nicholas Schroeder:  Geothermal power plants can be located almost anywhere and, as explained in my latest paper, machines drill two boreholes down to about 8Km to 10Km (where temperatures are often over 200°C (due to the "heat creep" process that I discovered and explained back in 2013) and the holes are then joined at the base. Then they pump water down one hole and steam comes out the other, driving turbines and the pump for the first hole. This takes up very little surface area - far less than a wind farm - and it gives reliable power at all times. I have no objection to coal, but geothermal power may be cheaper anyway once the holes are drilled. The Earth's energy diagrams in my article were produced by NASA and contain the errors that I have explained. NASA climatologists do not understand or even know about the effect of force fields like gravity and centrifugal force in redistributing thermal energy until maximum entropy (thermodynamic equilibrium) is attained with its non-zero temperature gradient.
Doug Cotton Added Mar 25, 2018 - 3:10am
Nicholas Schroeder:  In regard to means, the mean temperature achieved by a variable flux (such as solar) will always be less than the mean temperature attained by a uniform flux equal to the mean of that variable flux.  That is a mathematical fact due to the T^4 in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. Hence your assertive statement that means are "dumb" is refuted and you may wish to explain that to Joseph Postma at Principia Scientific International. As for Venus, the mean solar radiation reaching its surface is about one-eighth of the solar flux reaching Earth's surface. So how would you explain the fact that a location on the Venus equator rises in temperature from about 732K to 737K over the course of four months on the sunlit side, having inevitably cooled by the same five degrees on the dark side?  I have explained with valid physics how and why the required new thermal energy gets into the Venus surface, and it is not by either solar radiation or radiation from the less-hot atmosphere. You cannot show me any other correct explanation anywhere in world literature.
Doug Cotton Added Mar 25, 2018 - 3:29am
Nicholas Schroeder (continued):  In regard to your calculations which use a low value for emissivity to calculate temperatures higher than a blackbody would reach for any given flux, I have already pointed out that this simply does not happen, the reason being that, if they have low emissivity (such as 0.02 for a polished silver spoon) then they reflect close to 98% in this case. Hence you have to first adjust the flux to that which is not reflected (2%) and only then apply the emissivity. That is why most items in direct sunlight at noon when and where the Sun is nearly directly overhead will be warmed to very approximately the same temperature, with some variation due to color and other properties. So I believe you should acknowledge your error and tell Joseph Postma about his similar error. In summary, nothing gets hotter than a blackbody for any given (uniform) radiative flux and, if the flux is variable (though with a mean equal to the uniform flux) then the achieved temperature is even lower. My statement that the mean solar flux of about 168W/m^2 impinging on Earth's surface could only create a global mean surface temperature even colder than the blackbody temperature of 233K (which is about -40°C) is thus a correct statement.  Radiation of any kind is not the primary determinant of global mean surface temperatures for any planet with such a surface and a significant atmosphere, because of the effect of gravity on the tropospheric temperature gradient and the resulting "heat creep" process explained in my papers.
Spartacus Added Mar 25, 2018 - 9:18am
Doug:  History is not physics.
I'm diverging from my original question because apparently, you are avoiding addressing directly.  That statement overshadows at the moment.  Holy cow!
This is a really odd statement from someone who claims to be a scientist.  Data is always historical . . . happened in the past.  Sometimes the data is recent, sometimes it is from billions of years ago.  If you really are a scientist, you would know this. 
Let's say you are educated in science and actually are involved in some active research . . . then you know that theorists develop the hypothesis and research scientists actually collect historical data either through experimentation or finding data from earth's historical records (sometimes these are the same scientist).   I'd say you are a theorist that has no clue how the other half of science actually validates hypothesis to generate theories (with historical data).
I would also add that you appear to be careful in choosing your words so I assume you did not err in that statement.
Spartacus Added Mar 25, 2018 - 9:37am
By the way Doug, there is a simpler way to understand atmosphere with regard to heat retention:
A rock and a fur covered rock have the same exact temperature sitting in the day-time sun.  The only advantage for having fur (if you are a rock) is when the radiation source changes (day to night), the rock with the fur retains more heat through the night.  However, this doesn't mean the rock just keeps getting hotter and hotter the following days.
You can do this experiment at home.
For our planet, the atmosphere is like the fur.  It is a temperature regulator, not a temperature generator.  Greenhouse gases are even better regulators (insulators).  This is why the snowball earth is compelling because the planet lost a significant portion of its ability to regulate temperature seasonally.  This led to increased glacier growth globally.  I'm not convinced the entire planet was covered in ice.  However, glaciers were probably the predominant feature at that time.
Learn about history Doug and try to keep it simple if you are communicating to the general public.  This is not a science forum.
Doug Cotton Added Mar 25, 2018 - 4:22pm
Nicholas and William: 
I have been discussing the input of thermal energy into Earth's surface, that being what determines the temperature to which it rises each day, even in regions that are under thick cloud cover.
I am not disputing estimates of mean outward radiative flux from the Earth's surface. But the calculations showing that inward direct solar radiation impinging on the surface is insufficient are at the foot of the fourth graphic in my article and in comments above. Nor am I disputing historical records of temperatures, natural cycles in which are the subject of this article.
The "heat creep" process which supplies all the required energy to raise the surface temperature of Venus by five degrees on the sunlit side (and most of such energy on Earth) is proven to exist in my 2013 and 2016 papers and to be a direct corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is observed in all planetary systems (even beneath any solid surface) and no other alternative explanation using established physics (in which I have a degree) has ever been explained anywhere in world literature.
On Venus, for example, the direct solar radiation to the surface is less than 20W/m^2 and yet the temperature is about 735K.  At the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus there is no solid surface and no solar radiation reaching down there and yet it is about 320K - hotter than Earth's surface, the necessary input of thermal energy being entirely due to the "heat creep" process that I have proven to exist both from theory and (historical) empirical records of temperature data. What explanation do you have?
So this discovery of the "heat creep" process (which supports temperatures even down to the core of planets and moons such as our own) is of profound importance because it explains what climatologists were never able to do with established physics in which I have a degree that adequately covered the required theory pertaining to maximum entropy production and Kinetic Theory. 
Spartacus Added Mar 25, 2018 - 6:07pm
Doug,  What explanation do you have?
Venus is much closer to the sun than the earth.  Like that isn't completely obvious. 
Venus also has much more "insulation" in that it has more greenhouse gases.  Yet all this insulation is really doing is REGULATING the surface temperature of Venus . . . CO2 is not making the surface hotter or colder.  It is impossible for insulation to make anything hotter or colder (unless the body is internally generating more heat).
Since Venus is closer to the sun, it has more internal stress at its molten core due to gravitational gradients & movement through the sun's magnetic fields.  This produces some additional friction . . . some internal heat generation.  However, this internal heat generation source is very small compared to the radiation it receives from the sun.  I don't have references for this . . . I'm too lazy right now.
Science today is making this issue way more complicated than it needs to be.  Especially the comparison to Venus.  There is no good comparison there yet you continue to focus on other planets when our own earth, the one you are standing on, has a history of climate that can be studied. 
Oh, that's right . . . "History is not physics."  ~Doug.
Spartacus Added Mar 25, 2018 - 6:34pm
Just to be clear, Doug.  I'm not disputing your heat-creep theory.  As far as I have read, it could be a great theory in understanding how a fluid insulating layer (like a CO2 atmosphere) mechanically works internally.  Fluid dynamics on a planetary scale.  I can accept that.
However, there are statements you have been making in the article that don't make any sense at all:
"CO2 is a cooling factor in earth's climate
"History is not physics."
These are not correct statements at all.
Spartacus Added Mar 25, 2018 - 9:01pm
Actually, if you look at SURFRAD data more W/m^2 IR leaves the surface than returns which creates cooling. CO2 = IR therefore CO2 = cooling.
Yes, Nicholas.  There are fluid dynamics at work bringing heat energy away from the surface of the earth.  CO2 is a direct agent.  But this has nothing to do with lowering or raising global mean temperature long-term.
Maybe we have all missed each other's point in this dialogue . . . 
It seems to me this author has made some direct statements correlating (or implying) lower global mean temperatures to rising CO2 levels.  And comparing earth to venus.  This is like the anti-argument to AWG theory.  But both arguments are wrong.
CO2, H20 water vapor, methane, etc are an insulation layer regulating global temperatures daily and seasonally.  I say "regulating", but in a more mathematical sense, this insulating layer (our atmosphere) is decreasing the standard deviations of a temperature difference between any two specific locations on earth's surface.
I agree with the author on many other points like the moral implications of terrible science.  I agree with him that there are celestial explanations for the earth's rising and falling temperatures.  This has to be correct unless the earth is, somehow, internally generating more heat at its core.  
Doug Cotton Added Mar 25, 2018 - 9:04pm
William:  You asked what explanation I have.  I'm sorry, but I don't have time to copy here several pages, complete with the necessary diagrams from my 2013 paper entitled Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures which you may now download free here.  I rank in the top 10% of authors at SSRN based on downloads, so perhaps you can join the hundreds who have already read the paper without anyone ever finding fault in the physics.
Doug Cotton Added Mar 25, 2018 - 9:30pm
William (cont'd):  If you do download all my papers be sure to read the study in the Appendix of the 2013 paper and perhaps spend a day doing a similar study yourself, because the results show quite clearly that an increase in the greenhouse gas water vapor does indeed reduce the daily variation in temperatures (such as in a rain forest) but it also reduces the mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures, thus very clearly cooling the surface. The physics that I used to explain this is in the body of the paper and has to do with the well-known fact that an increase in water vapor reduces the magnitude of the tropospheric temperature gradient (aka lapse rate) and thus lowers the supporting temperature at the surface. The existence of the supporting temperature is easily verified by the well-known fact that, after a hot sunny day, the rate of cooling slows down almost to zero in the early pre-dawn hours, rather than being perhaps 3 or 4 degrees per hour all through the night, as it may have been in the late afternoon. The last nail in the AGW coffin is this:  if water vapor really did do most of their "33 degrees" of surface warming, then a rain forest with about three times the concentration of locations with average concentrations at similar latitude and altitude would be at least 50 to 80 C degrees hotter than those other locations.  It isn't.  So climatologists are using fictitious, fiddled physics, as those of us (including Nicholas) with a correct understanding of the relevant physics know full well. 
Doug Cotton Added Mar 25, 2018 - 9:51pm
Nicholas:  You are right in most of what you say.  However, you do not appear to have grasped the explanation in my 2013 paper as to how it is gravity that tends to set up and maintain the non-zero temperature gradient in the troposphere. This would be about -9.8K/Km in the absence of IR-active molecules (water vapor, carbon dioxide etc) but it is reduced in magnitude (as I have explained) due to the temperature leveling effect of inter-molecular radiation between like molecules. We know this happens and is clearly detected in Earth due to water vapor and in Venus due to carbon dioxide because the actual magnitude of the gradient is less than the calculated value that is based on the quotient of the acceleration due to gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases. The reduction in the magnitude of the gradient causes the thermal profile (graph) of temperature against altitude to rotate about a roughly central point and thus have lower temperatures at the surface. The rotation must be about such a central point in order to maintain radiative balance with the insolation. Because the "heat creep" process is tending to attain maximum entropy (with the sum of molecular gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy being then homogeneous over altitude) we can understand how it is that the supporting temperature ultimately determines the mean surface temperature a little above its value because of temporary warming by direct solar radiation in just a small portion of the Earth's surface at any one time when the Sun is nearly directly overhead around noon on a clear day in or near the tropics.
Doug Cotton Added Mar 25, 2018 - 9:52pm
William:  Please also read my reply to Nicholas just above.
Spartacus Added Mar 25, 2018 - 10:04pm
Doug:  the results show quite clearly that an increase in the greenhouse gas water vapor does indeed reduce the daily variation in temperatures (such as in a rain forest) but it also reduces the mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures
This makes 100% sense to me.  No dispute.  I did read the abstract in your first paper.  Nothing there I would there dispute either.
Samantha Chin Added Mar 26, 2018 - 2:59am
It is good to have a qualified physicist to expound the truth of the climate changes.
Doug Cotton Added Mar 26, 2018 - 9:00am
Nicholas:  If you don't wish to read my explanation (based on physics) as to why the main greenhouse gas water vapor causes surface cooling (not warming as climatologists claim) then we should leave it at that, because I am only here to discuss established physics (and what we can deduce from such) with those who are interested in seeking the truth, rather than reiterating the false science of climatology that I have studied very extensively and pinpointed the serious errors therein. Lab experiments are not relevant because the effect of gravity is negligible therein. The simplified equation for entropy is only correct in a horizontal plane, as is the Clausius corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The biggest stumbling block of all for climatologists has been their lack of understanding of the prerequisites for certain equations in physics to be applicable, especially those that disregard the effect of gravity, such as that you quote.  The global mean solar radiation reaching Earth's surface (168W/m^2) has no significantly greater warming effect than the radiation from a nearby iceberg at -40°C. That's just a fact based on correct physics. Your fundamental assumption that direct solar radiation makes the mean surface temperature 55 degrees hotter and thus more like 15°C has no grounding in science. So from what temperature is your imaginary "blanket" slowing the cooling?
Doug Cotton Added Mar 26, 2018 - 9:16am
William and Nicholas:  The claims by climatologists that carbon dioxide warms us to the extent they say depend entirely upon there being assumed to be further consequent warming by water vapor, it being about 50 times the concentration of carbon dioxide. So, they say, if carbon dioxide causes a little warming then there will be more evaporation and thus more water vapor and (supposedly) more warming still - much more they say. Their problem is that correct physics allows us to understand how and why water vapor cools the surface, and that is confirmed by studies such as mine in my 2013 paper here. Not even the CSIRO in Australia can produce empirical evidence of either water vapor or carbon dioxide actually warming the surface. Nor could I produce evidence of carbon dioxide cooling or doing anything because its concentration of a mere 0.04% means its effect is infinitesimal, certainly less than 0.1 degree that is most probably cooling. But even if it warmed that much, then the extra water vapor would have a far greater cooling effect. It is just as well that water vapor does cool us because otherwise, with the steeper "dry adiabatic lapse rate" the mean surface temperature would obviously be several degrees hotter. All this is in my 2013 paper, so please save my time and study it if you have sufficient understanding of entropy and thermodynamics such as is taught in undergraduate courses in the Physics Departments of recognized universities throughout the world.
Maureen Foster Added Mar 26, 2018 - 10:58am
If Carbon Dioxide is “actually a net cooling effect” then it sounds like you agree that it has something to do with climate change.  Look, nobody disputes that the climate is in a state of flux.  So as you formulate your arguments to refute the alarmists, you should concede that very simple point.  From there comes the issue of determining whether or not humans have altered the trajectory or severity of climate change.  That’s a really tall task and they know it, hence the decision to change the argument from global warming to climate change.
What troubles me about this post is that by making scientific arguments to prove the climate isn’t changing, you play right into their trap.  You see, they have more data and more scientists on their side of the debate.  You’ll simply never be able to refute all the data they will throw at you.  So while I give you an A for effort and presentation, I think you need to approach the argument from the angle of cost versus benefit. 
Make them justify whatever crazy expense they impose on society with data on how much it will cause the climate not to change.  If nothing else, it will be humorous to watch them perform a cost benefit analysis on this “problem.” 
Doug Cotton Added Mar 26, 2018 - 3:11pm
Maureen:  I have not made "scientific arguments to prove the climate isn't changing" so I don't have to refute all the data they throw at me, except to make the point that they have in fact been manipulating the land-based data in order to exaggerate warming. The article contains a graphic showing only 0.05 degree of warming in 19 years (in the accurate satellite measurements) and it explains how and why all climate change is governed by extra-terrestrial events such as solar activity and the effect on cosmic rays due to magnetic fields from the planets. So please read my article and papers before commenting, or at least all my comments above, because I have stated that the effect of all the existing carbon dioxide is far less than 0.1 degree and likely to be a net cooling effect for the same reason that, using established physics, we can understand the observation that the main so-called "greenhouse gas" water vapor cools Earth's surface by a few degrees, especially where its concentration is greatest. My study in my 2013 paper (Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures) confirmed that, and this single fact is enough to refute all their claims about carbon dioxide causing significant warming, because such claims depend entirely on their parallel assumption that water vapor also supposedly does most of their incorrect claim about "33 degrees" of warming and thus provides positive feedback. 
Spartacus Added Mar 26, 2018 - 6:52pm
Doug, I'm not sure why you are lumping both Nicholas and me together in your response.  We both had different questions.
I do not have any technical questions regarding the claims and findings in your paper.  Only questions related to your comments here that are not in your paper.
Doug Cotton Added Mar 26, 2018 - 11:15pm
William:  You wrote of me "this author has made some direct statements correlating (or implying) lower global mean temperatures to rising CO2 levels."   With respect, you appear to misunderstand me because I have not based my "heat creep" hypothesis on any correlation relating to carbon dioxide measurements. In response to FOI questions to the CSIRO they were not able to produce any evidence of actual warming. Instead they have refused to even look into what I have explained and so I shall be taking the matter further.
Do you understand how heat creep functions and its fundamentally important role, and how IR-active gases reduce the magnitude of the gravitationally-induced tropospheric temperature gradient, thus cooling the surface?  A key point in my response to both of you above was "correct physics allows us to understand how and why water vapor cools the surface" and so I'd like to keep to discussing this point and the related physics in my papers.  
I apologize for anything in my comment to you both that was already known by yourself, though I don't believe my comments here are not in accord with the physics in my papers as I think you implied. 
Spartacus Added Mar 27, 2018 - 1:04am
Doug,   Do you understand how heat creep functions and its fundamentally important role, and how IR-active gases reduce the magnitude of the gravitationally-induced tropospheric temperature gradient, thus cooling the surface?
I understand it as best I can from a spectator's viewpoint.  I am not directly involved in any climate research whatsoever.  This puts me clearly on the receiving end of this science. 
I have my own hypothesis on global climate dynamics based on my science education (at a state university).  With that education, I have a pretty solid understanding of thermodynamics, heat transfer, and fluid dynamics.  With a second degree in electrical engineering, I have a pretty rounded understanding of our physical world.
What you are stating with regard to gravitationally induced tropospheric temperature gradients makes sense to me.  There are mechanisms, convection & radiation heat transfer between the surface of the earth and the atmosphere.  I don't doubt this.  
Fluid dynamics on a very large scale, gravity is going to play a huge part in producing convective currents taking heat away from the surface and up to the stratosphere.  I get all this.  No dispute with you on any of this either.
The things that I reflect upon, in reviewing your paper, are basic things that I know:  Like the inverse relationship between air's thermal conductivity and humidity.  This seems to negate your claims somewhat but on the other hand, without looking at the data myself, I am pretty sure that most of the heat transfer from the surface of the earth to the air is done via IR radiation.
For me, again, I can only review the details, cursory, in spite of my advanced education in the sciences.    Otherwise, I would be on some other website reviewing climate papers rather than this general public forum.
I could be completely wrong, Doug, in my first reaction to two of your statements here.  I apologize for this.  It seemed that you extrapolated what appears to be a correct theory of regional heat transfer between the earth and the atmosphere, and correlated this with GLOBAL results such as annual global temperature (rising or falling).
We see these same incorrect conclusions drawn by the politicized AGW climate scientists.  They take a regional, or small physical phenomena, and blow it up into grand overstatements about climate change.  One example is the "greenhouse effect",  or the "CO2 in a jar experiment".  Or even worse is when these AGW "scientists" reference Venus only to bring a new level of hysteria to the general public.  We know so little about the atmosphere of Earth. . . let alone VENUS! haha
The bottom line, that I see, is that the climate is so complex, has so many different physical dynamics and properties, it is not just one or two things influencing the global thermostat up or down on an annual basis.  Literally, a thousand different factors that produce the climate we experience locally every day.
The conclusions which I have drawn is that all greenhouse gases do is buffer climate conditions on our planet.  These gases do not raise or lower the global temperature in the small concentration variations produced by carbon fuels. 
There is this huge negative feedback system called empty space which half our planet is exposed to every day. . . its temperature is minus 270.5 degrees Celsius.  I say more greenhouse gases the better.  Going out on a limb, more greenhouse gases correlates to less extreme weather.  Wow!   This is so contrary to what the AGW community wants us to believe but I believe this will be one of the paradigm changes to climate science in the next 100 years when the AGW religion has drawn its last political sword.
I have to weigh my experience and education against public statements when political forces (a religion) are saying things that are not making sense.
I could be completely wrong, but I feel compelled to make some kind of judgment based on my education in science and life experiences.  The bottom line is I am not disputing your technical conclusions . . . never was. 
Keep up the good work!
Doug Cotton Added Mar 27, 2018 - 5:08am
William:  I'll try to point out where I feel you don't understand the "heat creep" hypothesis which is the only science that can be used to explain what happens in all planets and moons above and below any solid surface, even down to the core. For example, do you understand how the solar energy maintains the temperatures in the core of our Moon that are over 1,000 degrees hotter than the surface? Those temperatures do not require any nuclear or radioactive processes: the temperatures will only decline if the solar flux impinging on the Moon's surface declines in billions of years from now. If you don't understand how and why these temperatures are maintained  then I would ask you to study the pages about "heat creep" and the diagrams in my 2013 paper
You wrote  "I am pretty sure that most of the heat transfer from the surface of the earth to the air is done via IR radiation."  In fact radiation would only dominate non-radiative surface cooling if the surface temperature were of the order of 100°C or greater. The NASA diagram in the article shows (350+40-324) = 66W/m^2 of net radiative surface cooling and (24+78) = 102W/m^2 of non-radiative cooling. 
Your description of what gravity does is not what I have described in the heat creep process wherein gravity is merely tending to restore the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (maximum entropy) with its associated non-zero temperature gradient. The natural (or "free") convective heat transfer moves in all directions away from a new source of thermal energy that has disturbed the above equilibrium state. This is shown in the "heat creep" diagrams. 
Doug Cotton Added Mar 27, 2018 - 5:46am
William and others:  The concept that the surfaces of planets like Earth and Venus (with significant atmospheres) are warmed to observed temperatures by direct solar radiation impinging on those surfaces is false. That leaves climatologists with no valid explanation as to why the mean surface temperature is as observed, rather than colder than -40°C, that being all that the direct solar radiation of 168W/m^2 could achieve. To explain an observed mean surface temperature one needs to have a hypothesis (based on the laws of physics) that explains the required input of thermal energy:  I have; they haven't. For example, how do you explain the required input of thermal energy needed to maintain temperatures of 320K (hotter than Earth's surface) at the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of the planet Uranus? There is no solar radiation reaching down there and no solid surface either. Nor is there evidence of any significant energy loss due to cooling of the core. In fact the core probably warms when the orbit of the planet takes it closer to the Sun. Start by noting that all that the solar radiation reaching the top of that troposphere can do is to warm the methane layer that absorbs nearly all of it to about 60K or even less.
I pose these questions in order to encourage readers to think about such issues, for then they may turn to my explanation that does indeed explain the required "heat creep" process and the resulting temperatures.  It is an explanation based on a correct understanding of the physics pertaining to maximum entropy production (MEP) that produces all natural processes.  
Climatologists completely ignore MEP and so they incorrectly assume that the troposphere would have been isothermal in the absence of IR-active gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide, thus needing radiation from the cold atmosphere to somehow cause heat transfer into the already-warmer surface, or so they think. Radiation doesn't do that: gravity does - as explained here
Dave Volek Added Mar 27, 2018 - 12:58pm
Just been thinking a bit more on your gravitation potential energy concept.
The gases near the surface do not have  as much GPE as the upper atmosphere, but they are under a higher pressure. And substances with a higher pressure have a "compression potential energy." So if we were to do an energy balance, we would need to consider the kinetic energy (temperature), gravitational potential energy (height), and compression potential energy (pressure).
Just a thought.
Doug Plumb Added Mar 27, 2018 - 9:45pm
re "a reference to geothermal power. That, I believe, is the long-term solution providing unlimited energy while ever the Sun shines. To understand why readers will need to study my 2013 paper."
Agreed. What about tidal? Compressed air storage/ wind?
Doug Cotton Added Mar 28, 2018 - 8:29pm
Doug Volek:  With respect, you need to study the Kinetic Theory of Gases.  Pressure is proportional to kinetic energy (and density) and so you would be double counting. Please read my papers before commenting on the detail of the physics.
Doug Plumb: Tidal is being investigated but does not seem to be taking off as far as I know, presumably because of cost. Compressed air storage is only for small amounts of energy. Pump hydro can store far more energy, but storage is only needed for energy supplies such as solar and wind. Wind power has a lot of problems including psychological influences due to noise and the fact that they have to close down in high winds, such as those that left South Australia with blackouts. There is not enough land in densely populated areas like Europe to generate all power needs with wind and/or solar, or to grow enough to produce biofuels. Geothermal can be located close to where the power is needed with no significant danger or environmental threats, and there is also a reduction in energy loss as happens over long distances if there are many geothermal plants all close to where they are needed.
Doug Cotton Added Mar 28, 2018 - 8:32pm
Sorry, that should have been Dave Volek above. Strictly speaking, pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density.
Doug Plumb Added Mar 28, 2018 - 11:22pm
Doug, Its good to have someone around that understands this "green" stuff. So much bullshit, you would almost think that bullshit was the color green and not brown.
Dave Volek Added Mar 30, 2018 - 11:15am
Doug Cotton
My thermodynamics is not up to snuff to support or discredit your hypothesis. But I did find it interesting. No time to get up to speed.
When all these CO2 scares first started 20 or so years ago, I asked myself "Wouldn't the Plant Kingdom like an increase in CO2?".
Now this idea is being introduced in discussion of global warming. 
Doug Cotton Added Apr 10, 2018 - 8:56am
Yes Dave.  Sorry about the late response as I've been very busy for a week or two with a move. There is evidence that the planet is indeed greener due to the natural increase in carbon dioxide that has probably been the result of the natural warming that all but ceased in 1998 and is not likely to start again until after 2028, followed by about 500 years of cooling starting later this century. Carbon dioxide is not the cause of any warming because established physics, when correctly understood and applied, allows us to deduce that all that greenhouse gases can do is to cool the surface of Earth, as we can easily see that water vapor does.
Rusty Smith Added Apr 19, 2018 - 11:27am
The problem with most of the "evidence" of man made global warming is that it's usually relatively short term observations made in ignorance of the earth's longer term history.    There are huge and very long cycles that the earth has gone though which are much more severe than those we see now, and most people don't even consider them.  
One day in the future they will experince the next ice age and wish we could return to the warmest part of this warm period, global warming and all.
David Hilton Added Apr 20, 2018 - 7:04am
Doug, you know and I know that the people are being brainwashed by the climate change lobby, why ?, because it`s a mega bucks earner, it has become a global industry.
Mike Haluska Added Apr 23, 2018 - 11:22am
If Energy Corporations produced gaseous cotton candy as a by-product of combustion, the "progressives" would have spent $500 billion of taxpayer money waging war on cotton candy.   
Doug Cotton Added May 2, 2018 - 9:07pm
Hopefully one day they will learn from this "cotton" and realise that surface temperatures are not determined primarily by radiation at all, but rather by gravity setting up a stable equilibrium non-zero temperature gradient, as it does in every planetary troposphere in accord with calculations we can make based on physics we know.  https://ssrn.com/author=2627605
Koshersalaami Added Nov 29, 2018 - 8:39am
Carbon has nothing to do with climate change?
Take five minutes and watch this