Posted by: erl happ | July 16, 2011

The origin of climate change

Over the last several years I have worked  to understand the origins of climate change.  My conclusion is that the temperature at the surface of the Earth is affected by the presence or absence of clouds that reflect short wave energy from the sun back into space. The presence and density of cloud is a simple function of the temperature of the troposphere that is affected by the ingress of ozone, a potent greenhouse gas that absorbs long wave infrared radiation from the Earth. Ozone is injected into the troposphere  in high latitudes due to the coupling of the stratosphere and the troposphere that occurs most strongly in winter in polar regions. It is carried towards the equator by the counter westerlies producing a tell tale pattern of sea surface temperature change. The amount of ozone injected into the troposphere is a function of the strength of the polar night jet that introduces nitrogen oxides from the mesosphere into the stratosphere. Nitrogen oxides erode ozone in the stratosphere. The primary control of the ozone content of the stratosphere (and its temperature) is via the poles where the night jet varies in its activity with atmospheric pressure. Initially atmospheric pressure changes according to solar activity. Atmospheric processes then amplify the change.

You can see how I have come to that conclusion by downloading the paper that is available here:

It is my conclusion that human activity has made little or no contribution the increase in the temperature of the lower troposphere and the warming that has been experienced is localized, temporally uneven and reversible.



  1. Working my way thru it, and passed around a few dozen copies. Possibly some will generate informed commentary/critiques.

    Haven’t gotten to any mention of the CFC/O-Hole scambalooza yet. Be interested to see what you have to say if anything.

  2. Thanks Brian. It’s pleasing to look forward to the prospect of some informed comment.

    As for the CFC/O-Hole, its actually a night jet activity hole and the more enlightened researchers have realized that what they call ‘dynamical processes of unknown origin’ are more important than they first realized. So, they are a way off realizing what is going on but at least they are aware that they don’t know as much as they thought they knew.

    But, are they motivated to look further? I don’t think it’s politically possible.

  3. Erl, it is nice to see your site here. I am just reading through it. Your comments at Tallbloke’s blog appear logical and informitive. please see my post here in relation to one of your comments and respond if you will.

    Thanks, you all are helping me learn.

    • Hi David,
      I noticed your comments on WUWT and you made a lot of sense to me. All that you say in that comment makes sense to me but i am not a trained physicist.

      Re: “At what point of mass does the 3d moving atmosphere registers a higher T then the 2d surface? I do not know. I do however think that the more mass you have per m2, the higher the specific heat per m2 will be once the increased heat capacity is filled.”

      I would not think a higher tempererature would be possible unless the gas moves from a warm to a cool surface, in which case its heating capacity increases with density. In a real planet with day/night and latitudional variation the denser atmosphere must raise the general background temperature.

  4. If you spend a few minutes reading my paper and at least the abstract of the paper published by the American Institute of Physics (cited in reference (8) in my reference [13]) you might understand what happens in the atmospheric physics of both Earth and Venus.

    I’m still waiting for a satisfactory alternative explanation from anyone in the world regarding the Venus surface temperature.

    Pressure does not maintain high temperatures all by itself, anywhere, not even on Venus. So forget that “explanation.”

    My paper is up for PROM (Peer Review in Open Media) for a month, so feel free to publish a rebuttal or debate it with some of these members of PSI. Such a review system far outstrips the “peer-review” system used for typical pro-AGW publications.

    Doug Cotton

  5. All should read the breaking news here, from which I quote:

    ” This story is huge. America’s prestigious National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and related government bodies found no greenhouse effect in Earth’s atmosphere. Evidence shows the U.S. government held the smoking gun all along – a fresh examination of an overlooked science report proves America’s brightest and best had shown the White House that the greenhouse gas effect was not real and of no scientific significance since 1979 or earlier.”

    For those who have been following the research by myself and others from among nearly 200 members at Principia Scientific International, I’d like to draw your attention to an Appendix now added to my current paper.

    Have a Happy Christmas everyone!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: