14th August 2012.
If you feel that an open and public discussion is necessary, but has not happened yet in almost any respect of the supposed natural greenhouse effect, the greenhouse effect “theory” itself, nor it’s application to reality, ie man made global warming fears (AGW), then please join the open to all facebook group,There is no greenhouse effect. to increase the numbers demanding such a discussion take place ASAP.
The supposed natural Greenhouse effect.
We have all heard there is a greenhouse effect that keeps us warmer than we would otherwise be. We have been told there is an invisible atmospheric "blanket" that keeps in and reflects back heat to earth’s surface. That is why, as we have been told, we are warmer than we would otherwise be. We have been told time and time again about the greenhouse effect and how our emissions of greenhouse gases are affecting, and increasing, the natural greenhouse (GH) effect, which is resulting in man made global warming.
Currently, this is the GH effect as taught on the BBC (GCSE) bitesize web page. Please note the use of the word "trapped" in 3) - It is physically impossible to trap heat. Heat is energy in transit.
What are we teaching? "We" are teaching the physically impossible, as if it were the truth of the matter. http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesiz...rev6.shtml
It is obviously true that greenhouses do indeed keep their interiors warmer than they would otherwise be. This is due to the physical presence of a barrier, ie the walls and ceiling, that prevent the loss of sensible and latent heat (of water vapourisation), from inside the greenhouse to the atmosphere. Without the walls and ceiling the greenhouse interior would be no warmer than the surroundings. Literally without walls and ceiling there is no greenhouse. Patently, in the atmosphere there is no physical barrier to heat loss, this then seemingly begs the question is there a greenhouse type of effect (misnamed as such) in the atmosphere? In short, the consensus within climate science at present is that greenhouse gases absorb outgoing IR and "back radiate" (ie bounce it), back to the earth’s surface, which then warms the earth surface higher than received solar insolation (sunlight) could do alone. This is a possibility that climate science has spent many years and has expended much effort in trying to show, with as yet no proof whatsoever. However, is there another possible explanation?
Is the natural GH effect actually just the temperature difference due to gravity hence pressure? Is all the talk of imaginary "blankets" just a misdirection to avoid talking about gravity, and hence pressure differences? How could gravity be relevant? Most people will be aware that gases heat when compressed (ie, bicycle pump against your hand) and gases cool when expanded (ie aerosols are cold). Earth’s atmosphere has a pressure gradient from earth’s surface (1 atmosphere) to space (zero). Within earth’s atmosphere, due to pressure reduction with gained altitude alone the temperature of the air would decrease. Conversely, as air descends through earth’s atmosphere to the surface, as pressure increases, then the air temperature increases. How big an effect is this known and proven effect? Hans Jelbring in the late 1980s suggested that this effect, due to gravity and hence pressure alone, from the altitude where the air is on average -18°C to earth’s surface is 33°C. Unless someone intends to repeal the ideal gas law in the near future this means that, the question is not "Why are we warmer than we would otherwise be?" The question should be "Why is earth's near surface air temperature so often different to what it should be due to gravity alone (ie 15°C)?"
Several other commentators have also followed this line of enquiry. Harry Dale Huffman for example studied the temperatures found on Venus, in his blog post titled, Venus: No Greenhouse Effect.
" Surprisingly to most, there is no greenhouse effect at all, and you can prove it for yourself.
From the temperature and pressure profiles for the Venusian atmosphere, you can confirm that, at the altitude where the pressure = 1000 millibars, which is the sea level pressure of Earth, the temperature of the Venusian atmosphere is 66oC = 339K.
This is much warmer than the temperature at the surface of the Earth (at pressure = 1000 millibars), which is about 15oC = 288K. HOWEVER
Venus is closer to the Sun, and gets proportionally more power from it. Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun, on average, while Venus is only 67.25 million. Since the intensity of the Sun's radiation decreases with distance from it as 1 over r-squared, Venus receives (93/67.25) squared, or 1.91 times the power per unit area that Earth receives, on average. "
" Another way to look at the Venus/Earth data is this:
Venus is 67.25 million miles from the Sun, the Earth, 93 million.
The radiating temperature of Venus should be 1.176 times that of the Earth.
Without ANY greenhouse effect as promulgated by the IPCC, at any given pressure within the range of the Earth atmosphere, the temperature of the Venus atmosphere should be 1.176 times that of the corresponding Earth atmosphere.
at 1000 millibars (mb), T_earth=287.4 (K), T_venus=338.6, ratio=1.178
at 900 mb, T_earth=281.7, T_venus=331.4, ratio=1.176
at 800 mb, T_earth=275.5, T_venus=322.9, ratio=1.172
at 700 mb, T_earth=268.6, T_venus=315.0, ratio=1.173
at 600 mb, T_earth=260.8, T_venus=302.1, ratio=1.158
at 500 mb, T_earth=251.9, T_venus=291.4, ratio=1.157
at 400 mb, T_earth=241.4, T_venus=278.6, ratio=1.154
at 300 mb, T_earth=228.6, T_venus=262.9, ratio=1.150
at 200 mb, T_earth=211.6, T_venus=247.1, ratio=1.168
(Venus temperatures are +/- 1.4K, Earth temp. are from std. atm)
The actual ratio overall is 1.165 +/- 0.015 = 0.991 x 1.176. It does not vary from the no-greenhouse theoretical value at any point by more than about 2%. "And finally, Harry Dale Huffman writes:
" There is no sign whatever of a greenhouse effect on either planet. The fact that the temperature ratios are so close to that predicted solely by their relative distances from the Sun. "Stephen Wilde, is another commentator of note in regards to the ideal gas law and how it should have been applied in the present climatology GH and AGW dominated paradigm. In particular in an article titled, Atmospheric Composition, Planetary Surface Temperatures and How AGW Theory Fails To Observe The Laws of Physics..
" Removing that non-existent cooling effect from the AGW equation and replacing it with the actual warming effect will bring the numbers into balance with no need to propose any downward energy from GHGs in the air.
AGW theory relies on a gross misunderstanding of the effect of an atmosphere and of the non radiative processes as defined and quantified by the Ideal Gas Law.
The Ideal Gas Law Calculation.
The Ideal Gas Law can be found here:
in particular the equation: PV = nRT
The terms used in that equation are described in the article referred to in the link above.
Note that there is no term for the presence or absence of GHGs or their radiative characteristics.
Yet the Ideal Gas Law works without such a term. If the temperature of a planet’s surface were affected by the radiative characteristics of GHGs then the Ideal Gas Law would not work, it would have been falsified long ago.
The failure to appreciate that it is the Ideal Gas Law that governs the surface temperature of a planet with an atmosphere has led to the misapplication of the S-B Law "
It appears that Harry Dale Huffman has shown that distance from the sun governs the temperature that a planet observed from space will appear to be, in accordance with S/B Law. Stephen Wilde argues, and seemingly undeniably that pressure determines the temperature for a given altitude in accordance with the ideal gas law, or rather the pressure gradient due to the amount of atmosphere contained within the planets gravity field.
Will Pratt, appears to correctly combine the two views into one overall approach with the below excerpt from Posted by Will Pratt (Twitter) on Feb 29th 2012, 2:27 PM EST at the Climate Realists website.
Will Pratt wrote,
http://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/sounding?region=europe&TYPE=TEXT%3ALIST&YEAR=2011&MONTH=05&FROM=2912&TO=2912&STNM=08221 “Overall it appears that, gravity, and the amount of atmosphere, ie pressure, supplies a base amount of energy to the system (a planets atmosphere), this produces a lapse rate due to reducing pressure with altitude. ie, the ideal gas law states, for every altitude what the temperature should be (with no solar insolation). Any difference to this is what should interest us. HOWEVER, the difference IS the sum of ALL warming and cooling processes.
Furthermore, it appears that all planets obey the S/B Law as objects observed in space.
So, how each planet’s atmosphere works overall to obey the ideal gas law at it's surface, AND S/B Law as an object observed from space is the real question. How, with the planet’s atmosphere and it's composition, does the physics of the situation achieve this, as all planets appear to do? Each atmospheric composition, each differing distance from the sun and each differing gravity field will no doubt have differing answers. Applying the GH "theory" or principle to all planets (or any) is plainly just ridiculous.
We therefore need a new approach, a new paradigm, to help better understand the truth of what we observe.
Many will most probably dislike this approach as it puts all their sums out because they start from the wrong basis, ie S/B Law, which assumes when applied as it has been, a starting point of absolute zero, at every point within earth’s atmosphere. In short, earth’s near surface air temperature is not just a result of surface temperature, it is also a result of pressure, that, and the air temperature at every altitude, does not seem to be included by any explanation of how our climate system may work to date.
Is it possible to convert all air temperatures as pressure decreases with increasing altitude to one pressure? If this conversion is not done, (as appears to be the case at present), are we comparing apples with oranges, tangerines, pineapples, etc, etc, including sour grapes? Is it any wonder "we" (the consensus climate science, and most main stream climate sceptics) are reaching the wrong, and unphysical conclusions?
The Greenhouse effect "theory" as presently taught.
Arrhenius, Svente (1896). "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground." Philosophical Magazine 41: 237-76.
but Arrhenius produced a second and rarely quoted paper in 1906 reducing all his figures to such an extent that he in effect refuted his own earlier paper so many now erroneously "quote". ie,
Svante Arrhenius, 1906, Die vermutliche Ursache der Klimaschwankungen, Meddelanden från K. Vetenskapsakademien s Nobelinstitut, Vol 1 No 2, pages 1–10
Extracts online in - Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009), Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161v4[physics.ao-ph] (pdf pages 54 to 57) 4 Mar 2009
That said, Arrhenius suggested nothing like the present, as taught GH "theory". Is there a more modern person attributed with conceiving the GH "theory"? People such as Spencer Weart are "contenders", but he only recounts from a biased view point, it must be said, what has happened. Spencer Weart does not claim to have been the father of GH "theory". No, in short, no single person claims GH "theory" as theirs, unless one thinks it was Al Gore with his "Inconvenient truth". As early as 1909 Professor Woods had devised, run, and published an experiment that proved there was no such effect, whether it is named correctly or incorrectly. Only recently has Nasif Nahle re-run Professor Woods experiment, to much unfounded criticism, yet he got exactly the same results and conclusions that Professor Woods did, way back in 1909. This is a most peculiar situation, a "theory" so widely accepted, yet already disproven. In science the greenhouse effect "theory" is only a hypothesis, and in point of fact, it is a hypothesis that was disproven many, many years ago. The GH "theory" is a failed hypothesis, nothing more. That is why the word theory in this respect should always be put in speech marks. Undoubtedly at present we live in a world of greenhouse gas justified politics, all based upon a disproven "theory" that is actually a failed hypothesis with no "father". It would seem prudent then to look into what is the actual GH effect "theory". Alan Siddons did exactly this in 2010, he compiled the various versions of the GH effect "theory" as then being taught at,
Yale, Harvard, University of Washington, University of Massachusetts, University of Texas, he also included what is taught by, Gavin Schmidt of NASA, and prominent climate science sceptic, Richard Lindzen.
From all these sources Alan Siddons produced the following compilation of what is presently taught as greenhouse effect "theory".
I have somewhat simplified this illustration to the below plot
The earth at the top of it’s atmosphere constantly receives sunlight at a power of 1368W/m2. In reality this is an average, it rises and falls as the earth's distance varies due to earth's orbital eccentricity around the sun, and solar activity varies. That said, this variation is quite small in power (W/m2) of sunlight received terms. The variation is usually quoted as less than 1%, ie less than plus or minus 136.8W/2 from 1368W/m2. It is worth noting as such, but effectively we can ignore it.
GH "theory" starts by dividing the average power of sunlight received at the top of the atmosphere (1368W/m2) by 4. This is described by the "theory" as being because a globe has 4 times the surface area of the same diameter disc, which is mathematically speaking correct of course. Hence 1368W/m2 in reality is 342W/m2 at the start of GH effect "theory". In total energy received over 24 hours terms this is correct....But,
as the how to cook a chicken analogy shows in thermodynamic terms it is completely incorrect, AND a misapplication.
One of the best descriptions in this respect of the gross error of P/4 was coined by John O'Sullivan. John in effect said,
" When a recipe says roast a 3lb chicken for 1 hour at 200°C,as per,
a climatologist assumes that 4 hours at 50°C will produce the same result. "
The above how to cook a chicken analogy clearly shows how the greenhouse effect "theory" divorces itself from the thermodynamics of reality. We all know 200°C for one hour has a totally different effect thermodynamically speaking to 50°C for four hours, even if it is the same amount of energy as such.
In scientific terms the above analogy is somewhat incorrect. This is because the Celsius scale is used to describe cooking the chicken, when the Kelvin scale is used in Stefan Boltzman Law to describe the effect of IR. The analogy should be including Kelvin, as follows. 200°C equals an IR beam with a power of 2841.7 W/m2. So, the chicken would need an IR beam with a power of 2841.7 W/m2 for one hour to cook. If we divide this power of IR by four then what a climatologist is actually saying is that a chicken cooking for four hours in an IR beam of a power of 710.425 W/m2 is the same "thing", or effect. A beam of 710.425 W/m2 would "cook" the chicken at an induced temperature of 61.42°C for four hours. Such a "cooked" chicken would most probably give one food poisoning, because bacteria are not killed off at 61.42°C. The effect is not the same, it is not describing the same "thing" at all. The actual thermodynamics of the cooking have been removed from the situation because the power, and therefore induced temperature have been unrealistically reduced by P/4. Obviously this is an incorrect use of maths, it is maths determining the physics, when maths should only describe the physics when applied correctly to a given situation. P/4 then is an obviously incorrect application of the maths to the situation it is used to describe.
P/4 is ok for total energy received over one full rotation of a globe in space,
but not much else. That however is a meaningless "system" average as such, that does not apply in a useful way to any part of the system in earth’s case. In the same way that 61.42°C, or 50°C will not tell you anything about how to cook a chicken.
P/4 also establishes the principle that according to GH effect "theory" increased surface area reduces the power of IR received and therefore (because of S/B Law and black body) the power that can also be emitted by the receiving object.
The 340W/m2 at the top of the atmosphere is reduced by both reflection straight back into space, known as albedo, and by scattering and absorption within the atmosphere. These losses mean that 240W/m2 of sunlight is received, constantly, all over earth's surface, according to GH "theory".
According to the Stefan Boltzman Law a (perfect) black body receiving an IR input of 240W/m2 would warm up to a temperature of MINUS 18°C. The black body would also radiate IR at a power of 240W/m2. GH "theory" uses the S/B Law to state that earth's surface (GH "theory" treats earth as a perfect black body, as it does with ALL the parts of the climate system) receiving 240W/m2 warms to MINUS 18°C, because of sunlight. Some call GH "theory" the cold sun hypothesis for this very reason, the sun, supposedly only "warms" earth's surface to MINUS 18°C!!!
Earth's surface having been warmed to MINUS 18°C by direct sunlight, then radiates IR at a power of 240W/m2, in agreement with S/B Law for a black body. This emitted IR then warms the earth's atmosphere, as a whole, to MINUS 18°C. Then according to GH effect "theory" the atmosphere radiates both up and down 240W/m2. This is in contradiction to the principle established by P/4, the power should be halved, but it is not. The same power is, according to the "theory", radiated both up and down. This in effect has doubled the power and amount of the flow of IR. It is an accepted "principle" of GH effect "theory" and much of the accompanying radiative physics that power (W/m2) of IR emission EQUALS amount (Watts) of IR emitted. Either way, at this point the "theory" doubles the flow, in both power and amount terms. Energy is literally created from nothing.
Never the less GH "theory" uses a 2PP model and the IR emitted upwards by the atmosphere gives the object earth the appearance of MINUS 18°C when viewed from space. This is in agreement with S/B Law. BUT, what happened to the absorbed and reflected initial sunlight?
Some would have to be added to the atmosphere emitted outgoing 240W/m2, so the earth should appear hotter than it is, or should be. Some of this absorbed, scattered, or reflected IR would have to have raised the temperature of the atmosphere (if it is a perfect black body...) so the atmosphere should also be emitting more than 240W/m2.
According to the "theory" the initial reflected and absorbed energy simply disappears....GH effect "theory" creates energy, it also destroys energy, when it needs to.
All this is based upon the initial lowering of the temperature of earth's surface due to unphysically reduced sunlight received, by the use of P/4 to MINUS 18°C.
Why does the earth's surface NOT radiate at 480W/m2 according to GH "theory"??? According to S/B Law an object radiates at a power commensurate with it's temperature, therefore earth's surface MUST radiate at a power of 480W/m2. However if GH "theory" admitted this then it would have to admit that emitted IR would warm the atmosphere to 480W/m2, or rather 30°C. If this was the case the atmosphere would then also HAVE TO radiate at 480W/m2, so the surface would be receiving 240+240+480 = 960W/m2. The surface of earth would then have to radiate 960W/m2, heating the atmosphere to 960W/m2, which would.....etc, etc, etc.. You get the idea, it would be a run away effect.
WHY then does GH "theory" never explain this "slight problem" with the logic of the "theory"???
Contradictions within GH "theory" -
i) P/4 decreases power with increasing surface area BUT the atmosphere radiates at same power with twice the surface area?
ii) Atmosphere reflects, absorbs and scatters 100W/m2 BUT back radiation is 100% received at earth's surface?
iii) Earth's surface radiates at 240 W/m2 BUT earth’s surface does not radiate at 480 W/m2?
iv) "Initial" 340W/m2 input reduced to 240W/m2 at surface - missing 100W/m2 goes nowhere, energy is simply destroyed. BUT, 240W/m2 from surface becomes 240W/m2 to space, AND 240W/m2 to surface. Energy, if we accept power of emission = amount of emission, is simply created from nothing.
To be added later, what follows is a very rough plan.
AGW "theory" is the application of GH "theory" to reality, BUT it is a black body "reality" with no gravity or life on the planet represented. Not much like earth at all...
Will include Carl Brehmer’s CO2 bottle experiment showing CO2 radiative warming effect is a scam, and,
water vapour is a negative feedback experiment and proof.
In AGW “theory” reality is a completely black body "reality", a planet with no gravity, or life.
As black body figures have been measured (supposedly) in actual gray body reality then this disproves the AGW "theory" of itself
- black body figures can not be measured from gray bodies...
No gravity was easily accomplished by the use of a 2 parallel plane model structure - the atmosphere in such a model, because it is merely represented as a line, has no depth, therefore no pressure gradient...
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
H. L. Mencken.
" First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”