Climate Change, Radiation, Logic and Mathematics
Written by Hans Schreuder
Skeptic scientists expose errors in the science of man-made global warming alarmism while governments get set to gather for a political outcome in the crucial December UN climate summit in Paris.
While talking heads and lobbyists demand global reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), mathematical flaws and scientific anomalies in the greenhouse gas theory, the backbone of climate ‘science’, is highlighted by below by experts from other fields of scientific endeavour.
Hans Schreuder, a leading figure behind Principia Scientific International herein sets out key concerns aamong independent researchers:
“The essence of mathematics lies in its freedom.” – Georg Cantor
That “freedom” apparently allows mathematicians to calculate whatever they like in an energy budget, so long as they maintain input = output; hence they see no issue with giving the atmosphere the “power” to radiate more energy into the system than the Sun does, so long as they can “prove” that the earth’s surface is kept warmer by this illusionary “greenhouse effect” in order to balance the books and maintain input = output.
Let’s analyse this view for example: “One instance is attributing the high surface temperature of Venus to a “runaway greenhouse effect” – when that temperature is perfectly well explained by basic adiabatic processes – as the outcome of the pressure exerted by the huge Venusian atmosphere. And just basic logic seems often to be overlooked.”
Let’s look at Venus’ adiabatic process then, as that is the secondary reason for its atmosphere being as hot as it is at the base of the atmospheric column.
Most important question to ask at all times is this: “Where does the heat come from in the first place?”
Pressure alone does not create heat; pump a tyre up all you want, it will have cooled to ambient temperature if left alone.
So, whilst the adiabatic process will help maintain a temperature within an atmosphere, there is still the need to add “new” heat to the system to prevent the gas column from cooling down. If Venus’ surface was not as volcanic as it has been proven to be, the entire atmosphere would by now have cooled down and with it the surface.
If there is no “new” heat added at the bottom of the adiabatic process then the entire gas column has no option but to cool, considering that the gas column radiates heat into space at all times, so heat is lost all the time and without a source of heat at the base of the column, the whole column will have to cool, by definition.
Adding radiative heat to the top of the gas column has no effect on the bottom of the column, unless the column is so thin as to not have a noticeable adiabatic and external heat from above the column directly reaches the bottom of the column, thus warming the surface directly via radiative transfer of energy; there is no way at all that a more buoyant gas molecule can sink down into a more dense collection of gas molecules. Radiatively transferring energy downwards presents the problem of an equilibrium temperature being reached long before the bottom of the column is reached, especially so if the column is the size of Venus or even in a column of radiatively reactive water as in our own earthly oceans.
The surface temperature with a transparent atmosphere would end up as direct consequence of the solar energy reaching that surface; in Venus’ case, where no solar energy reaches the surface due to its dense atmosphere, the surface would continue cooling until somewhere along the gas column an equilibrium was reached between solar radiative energy input and gas column’s radiative energy output.
Thus, on Venus, as on Earth, it is the surface that warms the gas column whilst the adiabatic process recycles this heat, losing at the top of the gas column and gaining at the surface not just by being compressed but by taking energy off the surface, provided of course that the surface is warmer than the gas! It’s gravity versus specific gravity that drives the adiabatic process, which in itself does not create heat, it merely recycles it by expanding and contracting the same gas mass.
The surface of Venus has been shown to be mostly smooth, caused by recent and active volcanism; that activity means that the surface is constantly renewed and is thus close to the temperature of molten rock, yet well below the measured surface temperature. This process is in turn driven by the gravitational forces which in turn are driven by its proximity to the Sun; same as on Earth but to a lesser degree, thankfully.
The surface of Venus will be hot due to the underlying active volcanism at the surface of the planet and not due to its hot atmosphere. The cart does not pull the horse, not in the case of Venus and not in the case of Earth.
Additionally, the formula for adiabatic “heating” on a rocky planet with a gaseous atmosphere is looking at the phenomenon in a mirror. The atmosphere cools with increasing altitude, it does not warm with decreasing altitude. Same result, different way of looking at the reality. Where is the source of the gas column’s energy – top or bottom?
On earth, as on Venus, it all starts and finishes with the presence of our Sun, the main driver of our climate, either directly as on Earth or indirectly through the volcanic activity as on Venus. All other influences are secondary and a consequence of the solar influence in the first place, including the amount of gamma rays reaching Earth.
Carbon dioxide or any other gas has no function in making Earth or Venus “warmer than it should be”, these gases in fact help to remove heat off the surface and take it to higher altitudes, i.e. they cool the surface. Comparisons with our Moon are plenty, but a 14-day lunar day or night do not bear comparison with terrestrial day or night! See below for an essay on the Moon; Earth without an atmosphere would be substantially warmer than it is now, not cooler!
If you follow-through any kind of “greenhouse effect” version, it all comes down to counting the same energy twice over.
Given the convective cycling in the air column, then the column will have a temperature gradient as per the adiabat. If this air column is then to be characterized with an average temperature, that average temperature will therefore physically be found near the middle altitudes of the column, and the bottom will be necessarily warmer than that average. Very simple mathematics and incontestable logic here: the bottom has to be warmer than the average – no GHE required.
In short, ANY mention of ANY kind of GHE in ANY kind of open-to-space atmosphere is not valid.
Why is there so much resistance to abandoning the notion that there is a “greenhouse effect” in our atmosphere that “makes earth warmer than it would otherwise be?” Such an effect has never ever been proven to exist, yet the lack of it has been proven over and over again.