A Tale of Two Versions

Written by Joseph E Postma

There They’re Their

Spoken language can be confusing because you can have words which sound exactly the same but mean totally different things.  Such words are called homophones, as found in this section title.  At the very least, and if you’re very familiar with the language in question, the differentiation is implicitly understood given the context.  If you don’t understand the language that well then help is provided by a differentiation of the spelling, but this doesn’t help if you’re not reading it.

Bass Lead Wind

Things can get even more confusing for first-time literates when the words don’t sound the same but are spelled the same:  I caught the bass by singing bass (whatever works I guess!); Lead the bird to fill it with lead; Wind the coil in the wind.  These words are called homographs.

The Greenhouse Effect The Greenhouse Effect

There are two versions of “the greenhouse effect” and, obviously, they use both the same spelling and the same pronunciation.  Such words (or phrases I guess) are called homonyms.  However, few people are aware of any distinction in the case of “the greenhouse effect”.  Let us enlighten ourselves, therefore.

The first version of the greenhouse effect is that which is found in a real greenhouse.  For, why would we have such a thing called “greenhouse effect” if it weren’t for the behaviour of a real greenhouse?  This version of the greenhouse effect comes out of traditional science and physics and denotes the effect found typically inside a glass-ceiling greenhouse where the ceiling prevents what would have been natural atmospheric convection, otherwise found in the open atmosphere.  That is, when a surface is heated, the air in contact with it heats by conduction (and radiation but generally this is a much weaker component of the heating at the contact boundary between the surface and the air), and then the warm air rises because it is less dense, and cool air falls from above to replace it.  This is a natural and automatic process in the open atmosphere.  A real greenhouse prevents convection because it traps the warmed air inside the enclosure and in contact with the surface heating it; the warm air is unable to ascend away and cool air is unable to descend and replace it, because of the glass roof.  Thus, the air inside the greenhouse continues to rise in temperature, and the maximum temperature that could theoretically be achieved inside the real greenhouse is the temperature of the maximum solar heating being absorbed by and within the greenhouse.  Any gas trapped inside a real greenhouse can be considered a “greenhouse gas”, although the term is rather passive, and moot.real greenhouse effect

The second version of the greenhouse effect is that postulated by climate science, and it is an alternative description of the warming process known for a real greenhouse.  In this second version, a real greenhouse and the open atmosphere operate the same way, rather than the opposite way.  Instead of warm air being trapped, the alternative “climate science greenhouse effect” says that radiation is trapped, and since radiation is trapped then the inside must get warmer than the outside.  The same process happens in the atmosphere because “greenhouse gases” trap radiation just like the ceiling of the real greenhouse traps radiation.  In this case, the temperature inside the greenhouse can become hotter than the maximum solar heating temperature.  That is important for the climate science greenhouse effect because climate science thinks that the solar input to the Earth is too cold to ever heat anything above -18C in temperature on its own.Alternative version of GHE

Labeling

Now that we’ve learned about the two types of greenhouse effect – the one for the real greenhouse and the alternative one for climate science – it would be nice to label them differently so that they are easier to distinguish and put into the correct context.  Since the greenhouse effect of a real greenhouse is about trapping air, which is physical material, let’s call the greenhouse effect of a real greenhouse the “physical greenhouse effect“.  And then, since the alternative greenhouse effect of climate science is about trapping radiation, let’s call it the “radiative greenhouse effect“.

 OK, Now What?

Okay, so, we have two versions of the greenhouse effect.  Are we supposed to do something with this?  Well yes we are!

Logically, we can have A) either one or the other version describes the actual operation of a real greenhouse, or B) both versions describe the actual operation of a real greenhouse and the atmosphere.  Recall that there is an important logical and physical difference between the two versions.  In the physical greenhouse effect, a real greenhouse operates oppositelythe way the open atmosphere operates; in the radiative greenhouse effect, a real greenhouse operates the same way that the open atmosphere operates.

If option B is in play, if it is real physics, then it will lead to the same “empirical observable” as if only the radiative greenhouse effect is in operation from option A.  However, if only the physical greenhouse effect is real and in play, then option B is invalid together with the radiative greenhouse effect.

Let me simplify that.  In other words, we can test which greenhouse effect is real, or if they’re both real.  It is an important test because each version of the greenhouse effect says the opposite thing about how a greenhouse and the open atmosphere operates, and, they use different physics and different maths.  (I will not get into the maths here to keep this article readable for non-math people.)  If you want to be perfectly logical, and you should be, it is not really possible for both versions of the greenhouse effect to be real since they contain a mutual contradiction regarding how the open atmosphere operates; however, most people wouldn’t accept that because it is too logical, and so, at best, we can be gracious and allow that perhaps both versions are in play at the same time.

Simplifying further, what it comes down to is a difference in the “empirical observable” that either version predicts.  This is standard science of course – form a postulate, make a prediction, test the prediction.  So easy, right?  It is most of the time.  The two versions of the greenhouse effect operate differently and predict different things about temperature.  What was the empirical observable that is different between the two versions?

In the physical greenhouse effect, the temperature inside the greenhouse can not exceed the temperature of the maximum solar heating.  In the radiative greenhouse effect, the temperature inside the greenhouse can exceed the temperature of the maximum solar heating.

Results

This is actually centuries-old knowledge, because R.W. Wood performed the relevant experiment in 1909 and found that the temperature inside the greenhouse did not exceed that of the maximum solar heating.  A summary can be read here.  I too performed a similar experiment (paper here, where you can see the maths in gory detail, and the details of how to properly perform the experiment) on the ground surface of Earth itself, with the postulate that the radiation trapped inside the atmosphere should induce a temperature on the surface higher than the maximum solar heating, as per the radiative greenhouse effect.  What I found was that the maximum ground surface temperature was only equal to the maximum solar heating temperature, and so the radiative greenhouse effect postulate was not confirmed.  By default these results only support the physical greenhouse effect, and the radiative greenhouse effect becomes a failed hypothesis for both a real physical greenhouse and the atmosphere.

Recall that there is a very good reason for why climate science postulated an alternative version of the greenhouse effect, based on radiation.  It is because climate science thinks that the heating power from sunshine is too cold to heat anything above -18C, (or -40C in some climate science energy budgets).  So, a rather simple associative postulate was formed imagining that the atmosphere might do “something” like what a greenhouse does, to make the air warmer than what they thought sunshine was capable of doing.  However, this needed to be a radiative effect rather than a physical effect because, basically, sunshine, which is radiation, needed to be made stronger.

It was, at the least, a logical stretch to try to redefine the physical greenhouse effect or to create an alternative version of it, but the attempt was certainly an obvious one to take given the position climate science had put itself in with this previous postulate of solar heating being too cold.  The logical propagation goes back from the radiative greenhouse effect being incorrect, to the previous postulate that solar heating is so feeble.  By incorrectly modelling the solar heating as so cold, there was no possible way, by simple logical propagation, that any math, science, or physics based on that postulate would subsequently be correct or represent reality.

Of course, solar heating is not so cold.  It is much, much hotter than -18C, (or -40C).  After-all, a real greenhouse gets so hot because of solar heating!  And most people are familiar with a hot sidewalk, or hot sand at the beach, and all manner of things which are heated to high temperature by the action of sunlight.

In fact, the strength of the action of sunlight is the most important physical force on planet Earth in its own right.  If sunshine were really only capable of heating anything to -18C, then it wouldn’t be able to melt ice into water or cause water to evaporate into vapor and form clouds; i.e., create the water cycle.  Just look at any typical picture of of a cumulonimbus cloud:cumulonimbus cloud

It takes a huge amount of heat and high enough temperatures to be able to send that much mass of water that high into the atmosphere!  Sunshine could never do this if solar heating was only -18C…the water would never even be melted from ice in the first place.

Modern Philosophical Analysis

In modern philosophical parlance, what climate science did was create a simulacrum of reality.  The theory of simulacra is, I think, the most important knowledge any person can have in the modern world where access to information is so readily available.  By necessity, if you care for a rational world based in reason, this comes with the fundamental requirement of being able to and having to evaluate the truth of all this information.  Information is only that, and the term does not connote truth or value; information always needs to be evaluated.  One of the best books to read to familiarize yourself with the theory of simulacra is called “Hypersex” by Adam Weishaupt – don’t worry about the title, the book is tame, mostly, and is a wonderful read.  You can also read Jean Baudrillard’sbook Simulacra and Simulation, but Hypersex is much more fun, and its only $4.

Basically, a simulacrum is copy, a simulated copy, which while appearing to be the same thing as the original, does not actually contain the essence of the original.  A good example of this is, of course, the movie The Matrix, where all of reality is simulated by a computer program and all the people’s minds trapped inside the computer program can’t tell the difference, can’t tell that their reality is not real.  (Well, most people can’t tell…there are a small few who can “see through the matrix”.)

The climate science version of the greenhouse effect, the radiative greenhouse effect, is probably a perfect, modern, real-world practical example of the creation of a simulacrum, which had all of the potential to entirely replace the original, and real, physical version of the greenhouse effect.  And just like the Matrix, only a few people are able to see through it.  Once you can understand the simulacra of the climate science greenhouse effect, you can begin to identity a very large number of other and related examples of simulacra within all of alarmist climate science; for example, the claim that the ice-core record shows that CO2 increases cause temperature increase, when it is actually the other way around…the simulacrum is hidden simply by never plotting the graphs at high resolution, or by never putting the graphs on the same axes!  Another example is when carbon dioxide is vilified as a pollutant, when it is the greenest environmentally-friendly gas that exists because it is fundamental plant food, and the basis of all life!

The importance of this “greenhouse” example to modern science, to intellectualism in general, to the state of the entire human condition, is monumental.  If humanity, intellectualism, academia, etc., ever required a practical lesson in rational critical thinking, it is provided by the climate alarm and hysteria which comes directly and solely out of the simulacra version of the greenhouse effect of climate science.  This is not a simple lesson.  It is the most profound development that can have possibly occurred in modern scientific times, because if the lesson is not learned, then it guarantees that humanity is not capable of rationally and scientifically surviving in this universe.  Humanity may survive in other ways, surely, but the rational scientific option for humanity’s future, the option of rationally fixing the things which need fixing, rationally developing what needs to be developed, rationally finding peace and prosperity, etc., will be cut off, because humanity will have no guarantee that its science and knowledge corresponds to reality.

Such a guarantee doesn’t exist, in any case, but humanity will be helped tremendously by learning this lesson, and it will be harmed tremendously by not.  What it means is that a large fraction of practicing scientists do not have a critical rational faculty as part of their mental schema, or at least they do not have one which they actively exercise.  This is therefore a stupendous state of affairs for the academic establishment, because it issupposed to be what academia is all about.  It indicates a profound, and fundamental, philosophical and pedagogical crisis in modern academia.  That crisis is fully and satisfactorily described by the “God Series” of books found under the author Mike Hockney.

Climate alarm environmentalist policy is all about global austerity, about making energy more unaffordable and inaccessible to persons and countries of low monetary income.  That is the future which awaits if the lesson of the radiative greenhouse simulacrum is not learned.  Things could end up like, say, “The Hunger Games”, where the monetarily “wealthy”, the plutocratic rulers of society, live in luxury and abundance while everyone else lives in destitute poverty.  Why does Al Gore get to fly around in private jets and own multiple mansions when he is one of the leading exponents for climate alarm environmentalist policy which otherwise lambastes such luxury?  Why, because he can afford the “carbon credits”, of course.  And YOU can’t!  So don’t complain if you can’t afford it.  Just like “President Snow”, from those “Hunger” movies, “Welcome! We salute your courage and your sacrifice and we wish you Happy Hunger Games!”.  

Almost the entire set of linguistics surrounding climate alarm environmentalism revolve around how we need to “sacrifice” to “save the planet”.  And lo-and-behold, population reduction is one of the main themes!  See here for a short list of quotations (near the end of the article) from alarmist environmentalists calling for the outright killing of large numbers of people.  ”Do you mean to tell me that you have a problem with an American citizen practicing Capitalism in this country!?“, Gore angrily retorted to a senate hearing when questioned on the conflict of interest of promoting austerity for the general populace when he himself stood to make billions of dollars from carbon credit trading austerity schemes.  Can you believe these people!?  It’s called the “Chicken Little Strategy” for world domination…a literal application of the children’s “Chicken Little” story; perhaps this says just as much about the state of general human intelligence as it does the goals of the plutocratic rulers.

All of these things regarding greenhouses have been very well known for some time and are likewise easy to understand.  You can be assured that anyone who doesn’t allow the climate science version of the greenhouse effect to be questioned and analyzed is defending and protecting the policies that the alarmist environmentalist austerity measures are meant to harm humanity with.  People will do this for one of two reasons: 1) they’re too stupid to understand, 2) they’re compromised either or/and morally, socially, financially, etc.  It is quite easy for the plutocrats to generate support for their policies – they merely buy support in the media in programmatic and editorial support, buy coverage and spin of their policies, sell them as something that looks like a “good cause”, and to never allow the fundamental basis of their philosophy to be questioned, and to attack anyone who does.  All that.  It is easy, and powerful in aggregate.  

Much more difficult is being a Neo in the Matrix that can see through it all; the convenience and strength of this, however, is that it only takes One, to expose the lie, and destroy the system of simulacra.

Read more from Joe Postma at: climateofsophistry.com

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments (41)

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Kristian”]Greg,

    You didn’t include the “For a very specific reason” part. I wonder why.[/quote]

    “For a very specific reason”? This changes everything! [b]Everything[/b]! [b]EVERYTHING[/b]! (kidding)

    Sorry for me not speculating about this mysterious “very specific reason”. I prefer sticking to the point.

  • Avatar

    Kristian

    |

    [quote name=”Greg House”]Taking us to Venus is one of the favorite warmists tricks[/quote]

    Greg,

    You didn’t include the “For a very specific reason” part. I wonder why.

    The reason apparently went right past you.

    It is also a favorite warmist trick to not address what the opponents are actually saying, but rather make up one’s own versions of it. And then spend all one’s time picking on those.

    You’re pretty good at this tactic, aren’t you, Greg?

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Kristian”]I brought Venus into this discussion. … if you’re looking for ‘alarmist zealots’, then I’m afraid you’re gonna have to look elsewhere …[/quote]

    Taking us to Venus is one of the favorite warmists tricks.

  • Avatar

    Kristian

    |

    Truthseeker,

    I brought Venus into this discussion. For a very specific reason. So, was that post of yours directed at me?

    Sorry, if you’re looking for ‘alarmist zealots’, then I’m afraid you’re gonna have to look elsewhere …

    Read rather what I’m writing about Venus and its supermassive atmosphere.

  • Avatar

    Truthseeker

    |

    Whenever anyone brings Venus into the discussion, I always like to refer them to this simple like to like analysis that simply disproves the notion that the composition of an atmosphere affects the ambient temperature of that atmosphere.
    [url]http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html[/url]
    Of course the alarmist zealots invariably fall into the trap of dismissing the source or the author and avoid discussing the data and methodology that it contains.

  • Avatar

    Kristian

    |

    [quote name=”Greg House”]Yes, you are, by saying “atmospheric WARMING effect”.

    Or what else is your “atmospheric WARMING effect” supposed to warm, if not the surface?

    The question was rhetorical, of course.[/quote]

    Sigh.

    Greg, READ WHAT I’M WRITING. My posts are right here on this very thread for everyone to read. So stop making up strawmen to argue against.

  • Avatar

    JP

    |

    The biggest effect is not really thermal capacity, but latent heat storage. As I showed in that one paper, latent latent heat release is a real source of heat which keeps things warmer overnight than otherwise. The maximum effect was +17K above the baseline without latent heat, but the integrated effect summed over all mass quantities was something like +60K. Basically, latent heat is a barrier, because it sits there absorbing energy but at constant temperature, preventing temperature from changing. IF you have enough energy to punch through, and you live in an energy environment that is strong enough to mostly live [i]above[/i] that latent heat barrier, then that barrier acts like a floor, and preferentially holds you on top of if you try to cool past it, hence you stay warmer than otherwise. It works the other way round though if you live in an energy environment too weak – then the barrier acts like a ceiling and it doesn’t let you warm above it, thus your average temperature is cooler than otherwise. For the Earth, our distance from the Sun provides an energy environment that exists just above the water latent heat barrier, thus creating an environment warmer than otherwise. This is of course why liquid water oceans permanently exist. There is something like 120 years of solar energy stored just in the latent heat of the oceans…meaning if the Sun turned off the oceans wouldn’t freeze for 120 years…and that would still be after having to wait for them to shed their thermal capacity heat of liquid water energy above 0C.

  • Avatar

    Kristian

    |

    Venus’s atmosphere holds about 100 times as much mass as Earth’s atmosphere does. This doesn’t mean that the air at surface level is 100 times denser. It is around 20-25 times denser. The mean tropopause level on Venus is almost 5 times higher than on Earth. So a volume of surface air on Venus at the same temperature as a similar volume of surface air on Earth would ideally exert an outward (upward) pressure 20-25 higher than the Earth volume. But, this upward pressure would be faced with a DOWNWARD pressure 90-100 times higher than on Earth. The opposite situation is true on Mars.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Kristian”]no higher than -41C (raised from the lunar -75C) – based on the ~165 W/m^2 evened out solar flux.[/quote]

    This is a favorite warmists fiction: “165 W/m^2 evened out solar flux”. Now you are using that?

    Thank you anyway, this is very revealing.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Kristian”]Of course it is a matter of heat capacity.[/quote]

    Really? No heat capacity can raise the temperature above the level of the black body.

  • Avatar

    Kristian

    |

    [quote name=”Plchampness”]The difference, I suspect is due to the very large heat capacity of the Earth compared to the moon, which in turn is almost entirely due to the existence of water on the Earth. The Moon is much more like a [b]Black body[/b] than the Earth is. Having such a limited heat capacity in the dry lunar soil, the Moon radiates it’s excess heat away almost immediately during the day, leaving only a small amount to raise the night time temperature. (…) On Earth the oceans not only store a massive amount of heat, but they also move it around.[/quote]

    Of course it is a matter of heat capacity. That’s what I’m saying. Energy is ‘forced’ to pile up inside the system whenever more is coming in within a certain period of time than what is able to escape it. And that’s how and why it warms. It doesn’t warm according to any S-B flux/temperature relationship, it warms from the amount of energy being stored within the system.

    Water not only reduces cooling rates during the night, it also reduces heating rates during the day. In fact, water is in effect the sole reason why the global surface of the Earth on average ends up absorbing just 55% of the solar heat that the global surface of the Moon absorbs on average during say a year. Mainly because of clouds, but also because of atmospheric absorption of incoming solar radiation.

    Our atmosphere spreads the heat, yes. And this would raise our average global surface temperature above the Moon’s. But NOT to 288K. If this were only about spreading the solar heat around, then the global average surface temperature could reach no higher than -41C (raised from the lunar -75C) – based on the ~165 W/m^2 evened out solar flux.

    No, you need actual storage of energy. And like you said, on Earth, this happens mainly in the oceans.

    But the oceans give away its energy through evaporation first and foremost. With no atmosphere on top, nothing would impede the free escape of energy through evaporation. Nothing to hold the energy stored. In fact, like you said, there would be no oceans. The reason Earth can keep oceans in the first place is … the atmosphere. The heavier the atmosphere, the harder it will be for water to evaporate from the surface of the oceans given equal solar input, hence the more solar energy will be stored and the higher the oceanic surface temperature will be. It simply NEEDS to be higher in such a situation in order for the evaporation rates to match the rates of solar energy absorption.

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Cool, it worked!

    (Kind of like an IQ test–I was worried….)

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Testing.

    (First time here.)

  • Avatar

    Mike

    |

    Regarding the questions raised on the subject of Venus and its atmospheric temperature, this was addressed rather neatly in an article that appeared in Principia a short while ago, which concluded that:

    “All of this shows that temperatures on Venus have nothing to do with an alleged GHE or IR radiation “trapped” by gases, mostly being CO2. In reality, the enormous gravitational pressure, gas density at the surface, and the
    atmospheric lapse rate, representing the distribution of thermal energy as a function of the atmospheric mass and energy flow from the surface to space, are in full agreement with the 2nd LoT.”

    See section 8 of the article by Alberto Miatello at http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE.pdf

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Kristian”]
    No, Greg, I am NOT saying that the atmosphere is a source of heat to the surface. I am NOT saying that the atmosphere heats the surface.[/quote]

    Yes, you are, by saying “atmospheric WARMING effect”.

    Or what else is your “atmospheric WARMING effect” supposed to warm, if not the surface?

    The question was rhetorical, of course.

  • Avatar

    Kristian

    |

    [quote name=”Greg House”]No, you implied that it would heat the surface of a planet above the temperature induced by the Sun. So you took us to Venus.

    The first thing that must come to mind is that it is very hot inside Venus and therefore the temperature on the surface is so high. Joe told you that, I told you that, but no, you chose to ignore that, you need an “ATMOSPHERIC warming effect”.

    Since the atmosphere itself is not a source of energy, there can not be any “atmospheric warming effect”. Your alleged “atmospheric warming effect” can only be a self-heating of the surface, which is impossible.[/quote]

    I can’t be bothered having a discussion with people who seemingly purposefully misunderstands and misrepresents what I’m saying.

    No, Greg, I am NOT saying that the atmosphere is a source of heat to the surface. I am NOT saying that the atmosphere heats the surface. Stop putting words in my mouth and read what I’m actually saying. OR, you could simply not comment on it …

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Kristian”]What I’m saying is that there still and clearly IS an ‘atmospheric warming effect’ on the surface of a planet.[/quote]

    No, you implied that it would heat the surface of a planet above the temperature induced by the Sun. So you took us to Venus.

    The first thing that must come to mind is that it is very hot inside Venus and therefore the temperature on the surface is so high. Joe told you that, I told you that, but no, you chose to ignore that, you need an “ATMOSPHERIC warming effect”.

    Since the atmosphere itself is not a source of energy, there can not be any “atmospheric warming effect”. Your alleged “atmospheric warming effect” can only be a self-heating of the surface, which is impossible.

  • Avatar

    Plchampness

    |

    [quote]What I’m saying is that there still and clearly IS an ‘atmospheric warming effect’ on the surface of a planet. This effect simply isn’t a radiative one.[/quote]
    Perhaps,you are right here Kristian. You did refer to the Moon in an earlier reply and noted that the [b]Average[/b] temperature of the Moon is less than the average temperature of the Earth. This is a problem that Roscoe has spent a lot of time on. The difference, I suspect is due to the very large heat capacity of the Earth compared to the moon, which in turn is almost entirely due to the existence of water on the Earth. The Moon is much more like a [b]Black body[/b] than the Earth is. Having such a limited heat capacity in the dry lunar soil, the Moon radiates it’s excess heat away almost immediately during the day, leaving only a small amount to raise the night time temperature. Even so there is enough stored heat in the soil to raise the average lunar temperature above the expected average black body temperature, as explained in a recent article on this site; “Green house Effect on the Moon”.
    On Earth the oceans not only store a massive amount of heat, but they also move it around. Of course oceans can’t exist without an atmosphere so I suppose that we have to treat oceans and atmosphere together. When we finally understand enough to do the Heat flow analysis, that Jo referred to the answers may become clearer.

  • Avatar

    JP

    |

    Well its a good question Kristian. On the one hand, the lapse rate combined with the radiative surface seems to provide the correct answers wherever it is applied. For all intents and purposes this could be “good enough”.

    On the other hand, that still isn’t a real heat flow analysis. There has been no true heat flow modeling of the atmosphere and surface done at all. I’ve been looking at this for years now and have never seen what actually needs to be done. Heat flow is a real-time problem involving differential equations, in this case a partial differential equation of space and time, with time-dependent forcing, and equation parameters. You don’t have to do the entire Earth at once as some massively coupled system, and this is impossible anyway; you just need to do columns of soil and atmosphere and play with it to see what is doing what. Certainly, such equations never would have cold heating hot or cold causing hot to become hotter, or any of that climate science greenhouse stuff. Actually what such an analysis might just show, is, the “first hand” analysis stated firstly above. That’s probably what it would end up reducing to anyway.

  • Avatar

    Kristian

    |

    [quote name=”Greg House”]Kristian, what happens to Venus or not does not change the very unfortunate for the warmists circumstance that the IPCC “greenhouse effect” (which is self-heating of the Earth surface by it’s own heat) is impossible. Such a process does not exists and you apparently know that, otherwise you would not have tried taking us to Venus. Whatever explanation of the relatively high temperature there whoever gives, it can not be the IPCC “greenhouse effect” because physically this thing does not exist.[/quote]

    Greg,

    I’m not sure what you’re arguing for or against here. We all agree that there is no and can be no radiative GHE. That’s not what I’m talking about at all. That’s a settled case (if ever there were one).

    What I’m saying is that there still and clearly IS an ‘atmospheric warming effect’ on the surface of a planet. This effect simply isn’t a radiative one. (Radiatively, an atmosphere would rather act to cool the surface below it.) And it doesn’t require transferring heat from the (cooler) atmosphere to the (warmer) surface to work.

  • Avatar

    jsullivan

    |

    Mike, Joe, thanks for the heads up on the typo- now corrected.

  • Avatar

    EPNichols

    |

    My question to the so-called climate experts is how CO2 works as a refrigerant? Are we to believe that the contents of a CO2 based refrigeration system are actually heating up? AGW is nothing more than a scam and scientists should be ashamed to be used for such political purposes. Most people have never thought about how a greenhouse functions and this is what they count on.
    The simply amazing thing is this idea was discredited more than 100 years ago and we are still dealing with it. Moreover the experiment is repeatable thus it is not left to speculation that CO2 can warm the atmosphere.

    If this were even remotely true production would be immediately transformed since we could purportedly produce more energy than we consume. Great analysis here I agree there are two definitions of the greenhouse effect however the actual definition does not apply to the atmosphere. Next they will tell us we can cook a turkey with ice cubes! (I am being facetious it is hard to resist.) Thank you for all of great work and effort to expose this nonsense it is very important that people know the truth.

  • Avatar

    JP

    |

    should be “directly calculated” not “directly directly”.

  • Avatar

    JP

    |

    Actually the environmental lapse rate of 6.5 can be directly directly just from gravity, but when also factoring in the release of latent heat from the water vapor present when the air is not dry. Given the average vapor content of the air, the latent heat release lowers the lapse rate from 9.8 to to the average of 6.5.

    I agree that radiative gases cool the Earth…that is the definition of being able to radiate, if the other option is not being able to radiate.

  • Avatar

    Plchampness

    |

    The cause of the environmental lapse rate in the trOposphere seems to be a matter of dispute. If the lapse rate is due to gravity, then we expect a lapse rate of 9.8C, but it is only 6.5C on average.

    If Dr Rob Brown (at Duke Uni) is correct, when he says that the equlibrium state is isothermal, then the lapse rate can be envisioned as a thermal gradient betweeen surface heating at the bottom and radiative heat loss at the top. If that is the case then radiative gases (H2O and CO2)should be cooling the earth.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    Kristian, what happens to Venus or not does not change the very unfortunate for the warmists circumstance that the IPCC “greenhouse effect” (which is self-heating of the Earth surface by it’s own heat) is impossible. Such a process does not exists and you apparently know that, otherwise you would not have tried taking us to Venus. Whatever explanation of the relatively high temperature there whoever gives, it can not be the IPCC “greenhouse effect” because physically this thing does not exist.

  • Avatar

    JP

    |

    The lapse rate is of course the temperature gradient of the atmosphere. The hottest is at the bottom, coolest at the top, average in the middle. If you combine Venus’ radiating surface with the lapse rate, then you get its surface temperature. Same maths works for Earth too. It’s quite simple. The radiating surface is by definition neither the bottom nor the top of the atmosphere.

    Venus’ ground surface isn’t heated by insolation since hardly any direct insolation gets down that far. On Earth it does relatively easily. The physics which cuts through these differences is that of the radiating surface combined with the lapse rate.

  • Avatar

    Kristian

    |

    Joe, you say: “The temperature at the surface of Venus is due to the lapse rate, the 90km thick atmosphere.”

    How is it ‘due to’ the lapse rate? The lapse rate doesn’t set the surface temperature of a planet, Joe. The surface isn’t heated top down through the tropospheric column. The surface heats first, then the surface-heated air travels upward along the lapse rate to set the tropospheric temperature profile.

    And no, Joe, I am not claiming that the surface temperature sets or creates the lapse rate. It is you who are claiming that the lapse rate somehow sets the surface temperature.

    Take the surface temp and the tropopause temp of Venus. According to your ‘law of averages’, the emission temperature of Venus as seen from space should be located somewhere between those two physical temperatures. Is it? Try Mars.

  • Avatar

    JP

    |

    [quote]”This something ‘setting a ceiling’ on how fast energy is able to escape the surface at a certain surface temperature is … the atmosphere. The Moon doesn’t have one. The Earth does.”[/quote]

    Again, this describes the climate science version of the greenhouse effect, which doesn’t exist.

  • Avatar

    JP

    |

    [quote]”It’s like with your real greenhouse. The reason things warm inside it is that more energy enters the system than what manages to escape it within a certain period of time. So energy piles up. …”[/quote]

    No, that is not how a real greenhouse works. What this describes is the climate science version of the greenhouse effect, which doesn’t exist, and is not what occurs in a real greenhouse. No “greenhouse effect” is responsible for planetary surface temperatures in open atmospheres.

  • Avatar

    Kristian

    |

    This something ‘setting a ceiling’ on how fast energy is able to escape the surface at a certain surface temperature is … the atmosphere. The Moon doesn’t have one. The Earth does.

    The heat ejected by the surface has to move the atmosphere up and away in order to escape (in a way, it has to do ‘work’ on it). And it has to do so as fast as the heat comes in. The atmosphere pretty much acts like a conductive insulating layer around the Earth’s global surface, where the ‘conduction’ of heat from the surface to the ToA is performed by ‘convection’.

    The faster the conduction of heat away from the surface, through the atmospheric column and up to the tropopause, where it finally escapes to space via radiation, the more efficient the surface cooling process.

    So what controls the ‘fastness’ of heat conduction? 1) Surface heating, 2) the temperature gradient from surface to tropopause, and 3) the weight of air pressing down on the surface-heated air from above, effectively, surface atmospheric pressure. Increase 1) but keep 2) and 3) constant and the tropopause rises, because the buoyant acceleration from the surface increases. Increase 3) but keep 1) and 2) constant and the tropopause drops (relative to the atmospheric mass), because the buoyant acceleration from the surface against the weight of the atmosphere is reduced.

    2), the lapse rate, remains the same, but if 3) is increased, the surface-heated air travels upward along it (through the conductive layer that is the troposphere) more slowly.

  • Avatar

    Kristian

    |

    It’s like with your real greenhouse. The reason things warm inside it is that more energy enters the system than what manages to escape it within a certain period of time. So energy piles up.

    Something would prevent energy from escaping as fast as it entered on Earth, at an average global surface temperature as low as on the Moon. So energy would pile up. Until balance was reached between IN and OUT, at a higher average temperature level than on the Moon.

    Earth’s surface simply could not rid itself of its absorbed energy as fast as it came in if the average global surface temperature was -75C (like on the Moon), -41C og -18C.

    The temperature of Earth’s surface would thus increase as it continuously stored up some of the energy it absorbed from the Sun.

  • Avatar

    JP

    |

    “Climate science thinks that the average solar input of energy over a certain period of time”

    – can not induce a temperature above -18C. The presence of an atmosphere does not equate to greenhouse effect.

  • Avatar

    JP

    |

    Hi Kristian. The temperature at the surface of Venus is due to the lapse rate, the 90km thick atmosphere. Possibly also geothermal activity. It is not due to the radiative greenhouse effect since that effect doesn’t exist, of course. If it doesn’t exist in experiments on the Earth, then it doesn’t exist elsewhere. It is neither the physical greenhouse effect (since Venus doesn’t have a solid ceiling) nor the radiative greenhouse effect (since this doesn’t exist) which causes Venus’ high surface temperature. The term “greenhouse effect” should be dissociated from Venus and all atmosphere’s in general.

  • Avatar

    Kristian

    |

    You also state:

    “In this case, the temperature inside the greenhouse can become hotter than the maximum solar heating temperature. That is important for the climate science greenhouse effect because climate science thinks that the solar input to the Earth is too cold to ever heat anything above -180C in temperature on its own.”

    Well, not exactly. Climate science thinks that the average solar input of energy over a certain period of time to the Earth is too small to maintain an average global surface temperature of +15C on its own.

    And it is. Just look at the Moon. All solar flux. A fair bit larger than on Earth. Still, its global surface is much colder than Earth’s, on average.

  • Avatar

    Kristian

    |

    (This comment was deemed too long, so I’ll split it up.)

    Joe, you say:

    “In the physical greenhouse effect, the temperature inside the greenhouse can not exceed the temperature of the maximum solar heating.”

    On Venus, the physical temperature at and near the surface far exceeds the temperature of ‘maximum solar heating’. If by ‘maximum solar heating’ you mean the physical temperature directly derived from the S-B equation based on the maximum solar flux. Well, even if the full solar flux at Venus’s distance from the Sun (2611 W/m^2) were to strike its surface, this would not be able, according to the S-B equation, to raise its surface temperature higher than 190C. In reality, though, it happens to be at 464C.

  • Avatar

    JP

    |

    Yes definitely Mike, I’ll let the mod/editor know. Thanks.

  • Avatar

    Mike

    |

    In the last paragraph under “The Greenhouse Effect The Greenhouse Effect” it is stated: “That is important for the climate science greenhouse effect because climate science thinks that the solar input to the Earth is too cold to ever heat anything above -180C in temperature on its own.”
    Shouldn’t that last temperature be -18C?

  • Avatar

    Dr Martin Hertzberg

    |

    More is involved than just heating by sunlight in the dynamics of cumulonimbus cloud formation, Heat of condensation of water vapor adds to the buoyancy force couple that causes further growth of the cloud. The cloud particles further increase the atmospheric emissivity so that once the sun begins to set, radiative losses from the cloud tops to free space adds further to the unstable lapse rate.Tthat is the reason why maximum thuderstorm activity occurs during the evening hours.

  • Avatar

    JP

    |

    Cheers Kent. Glad to see there are others out there using their critical rational faculties too! 😉

  • Avatar

    Kent Clizbe

    |

    That’s it in a nutshell.

    A complete, logical, scientific, and philosophical evisceration of the fraud.

    Thanks.

Comments are closed