Logic and Reason Debunking Climate Pseudoscience

Written by Joseph E Postma

Boundary Condition Thought Envelope

The following diagram and math is what is taught at ivy-league universities in climate science and general physics programs. Harvard climate model In the many discussions I’ve had with advocates of climate alarm and its version of a greenhouse effect in the open atmosphere, it is always claimed to be a “toy model which nevertheless tells us important things about basic features of the atmosphere and climate“.

I hope people can understand that if the basic features which are believed in are incorrect, then it follows that the rest of the science done based upon the context of those false features will likewise be incorrect.  The problem would propagate.  The supposed ‘basic features’ one interprets or believes in establishes the paradigm, or the boundary condition envelope, within which subsequent interpretation and analysis will take place and be directed by.  Case in point is the Ptolemaic, Earth-centred conception of the system of planets, moon, and Sun: if you think that the Earth is the centre of the universe, are you subsequently going to have realistic ideas about the Earth and universe?

 Math of the Boundary Condition

The reasoning of the greenhouse effect diagram from above goes quite simply, as follows:

The temperature on the surface of the Earth is proportional to the energy received from sunlight plus the energy received from the atmosphere.

The energy received from the Sun is the Fs(1-A)/4 term, where Fs is the energy flux density from Sunlight, and A is the reflectivity of the Earth surface and so (1-A) is the portion of sunlight which gets absorbed and thus contributes to surface heating.

Typo alert:  The energy received from the atmosphere is the σT14 term; in the diagram, there should not be an ‘f’ in front of that term.  The typo is not mine, this diagram comes from Harvard University.  The temperature of the atmosphere, T1, is due to a fraction of the energy from the surface being absorbed into the atmosphere on that radiation’s way out to space.

And the energy at the surface, which is a result of the addition of the two above fluxes, is σT04.

As it is the surface temperature which is sought-after in this thought envelope, then the first two terms are added together so that:

1]                                   σTo4 = Fs(1-A)/4 + σT14

Again, what this says is that the temperature on the Earth’s surface, T0, is proportional to the sum of the energy from sunlight, and from the atmosphere.

Physics of the Boundary Condition

The first problem with the paradigm being established here is that it treats the atmosphere as a source of energy.  Is it?  The sun and its sunlight is surely a source of energy, but is the atmosphere an actual source of energy, or is it actually just a store-house of energy in as much as something that has a temperature holds internal thermal energy?

It is the latter.  The atmosphere is not a source of energy.  It has no chemical or nuclear or other processes going on inside it which produces heat, and it simply passively holds a temperature…a cooler temperature, typically, than the ground surface.

A second problem is that if sunlight is averaged over the surface of the Earth, then the power density of sunlight is this Fs(1-A)/4 term which has a temperature forcing value of -18°C.

Does that make sense to you?  If you think of sunlight, in your paradigm, as only being so strong so as to heat things up to -18 then how are you going to melt ice into water, create clouds and water vapor, get a sunburn, or scald your feet on hot sand at the beach?  Isn’t sunlight responsible for all those things?  It is.   But if your paradigm treats the strength of sunlight as only -18°C, then you need to invent something else to make up the deficit, and that is why the atmosphere is conjectured to be an additional source of energy.

So those are two problems which obviously have everything to do with each other.

Is this “toy model” telling us anything truthful about the atmosphere and climate?  Is it a simplification which nevertheless tells us something useful?  Or has it actually completely destroyed any connection to reality that our thought processes have developed thinking within the bounds of this paradigm?

It’s obviously the latter.  If this isn’t obvious to you, if it isn’t obvious to you that sunlight is not -18°C, and that the atmosphere is not a source of energy to make up for the cold sunshine, then I don’t know what to tell you.

This is not a starting point that has established some basic features of the atmosphere and climate.  This is a starting point that is divorced from reality in the most important and fundamental aspects of the physics of the atmosphere and climate.  We’re nowhere near reality.  The atmosphere as a source of energy?  Sunlight which is-18°C in power?  Sunlight averaged over the entire Earth’s surface at once so that there is no day & night?  Where the heck are we?  Where have we gone?  What is this place?  And now from here, we’re going to convince people of extrapolations from these foundations?  What?  Huh?  Why?

Why are people so taken in by this insanity?  I’ve talked to so many people about this, so many alarmists and their lukewarm supporters of bad science, and they just go insane, crazy, nuts, when you ask them to reconsider these foundations.  I just don’t understand what’s wrong with them.  How is it possible?  How can they believe these things?  How can they be so irrational, so incapable of examining their beliefs?  It’s mind-boggling.

They have not established a useful starting point in understanding reality.  They have established a fiction, from which only fiction can result.

Bad Physics = Bad Maths

Let’s go back to equation 1] and rearrange it so that it looks more like a standard conservation of energy equation, with external inputs all on one side (left) and outputs all on the other (right):

2]                           Fs(1-A)/4 = σT04 – σT14

Is that correct?  Is it good physics?  It says that the conservation of radiant energy from the Sun with the Earth is established by the difference between the temperature of Earth’s surface and Earth’s atmosphere.

Why would conservation of the energy from sunlight be determined by the difference between the Earth’s atmosphere and surface temperature?  I mean maybe a lay person has no clue what’s going on here, but I’ve talked to PhD’s in physics who think this is entirely reasonable.  It’s not!  It physically makes no sense at all.  Conservation of energy to outside the system is not established by an internal difference inside the system, but but by a sum of external outputs.

But then they ignore that and always go on to say that, if the temperature of the atmosphere increases, then the temperature of the surface must increase in order to maintain the same difference between terms on the right hand side.  And since the atmosphere is colder, then this proves that colder things can heat up hotter things.

What in the heck?  There are people with PhD’s in physics saying this. WTF?  To increase a temperature requires an input of heat, an inflow of heat, but heat only flows from hot to cold and so something cold can not heat up something hot!  Have these people lost their minds?  What insanity is at work here?

Let’s at least try to make their model and math make sense, and so we’ll add together the energy that makes it out to space from the surface, plus the energy from the atmosphere.  The energy flux from the atmosphere is σT14, but the source of this energy is the fraction absorbed by the atmosphere from the surface. Their math in their textbook then says that the atmosphere emits the energy is gained from the surface in two directions, and so

3]                                   fσT04 = 2σT14

where f is the fraction of energy from the surface absorbed by the atmosphere.  Therefore the energy making it to the outside of the system is the fraction which makes it outside directly from the surface, plus the fraction from the atmosphere which is directed outside, and so:

4]                         Fs(1-A)/4 = (1-f)σT04 + (f/2)σT04

This equation is actually identical to the one they had already at 1] if you do the necessary rearrangement, so is it going to be any better?  It says that a fraction ‘f’ of the energy flux from the surface doesn’t make it out to space, because some of it is absorbed by the atmosphere.  But then, only half of that energy makes it out of the atmosphere to outer space.  So, where did the other half disappear to?

If some radiation from the surface gets absorbed by the atmosphere on its way out, then that portion of energy needs to itself be fully emitted by the atmosphere to outerspace in order to account for all of the energy in question.  Their equation violates the law of conservation of energy because it only emits half of the energy absorbed by the atmosphere from the surface to outerspace.  That’s the worst violation you can make in physics.

Of course, their answer would be that the missing half of the energy goes back into the surface to increase its temperature.  This is the cold heating up hot thing again.  Sure, let’s say that.  Then what happens?  Then, once again, at a higher surface temperature, a fraction of the energy which is emitted from the surface to outerspace gets absorbed by the atmosphere, but only half of that energy makes it out.  So, what happens to the new missing half?  Again, following the logic, they would have to say that it goes back to the surface to heat it up some more.  And then the whole scheme would have to repeat itself once again.  It’s the classic runaway self-amplification problem, a geometric series, that had been exposed in this conception of a radiative greenhouse effect as non-physical and impossible ages ago.  High school students can identify geometric series such as this.  Why can’t scientists interested in the climate?

This is the most basic exercise in a recursive process and logic that you can possible get.  Why don’t they understand it?  How is it possible that they create this runaway, non-physical, recursive self-amplification process, but then in the next blink ignore the fatal logical conclusion of the process they invented?  How can people be so irrational?  How can they be so insane?  How can they create something that requires a certain intelligence level to understand, but then refuse to acknowledge the consequences of their creation which requires the same level of understanding to comprehend the error?  What is wrong with these people?

Escape from the Paradigm

Obviously, to avoid the infinite recursion problem, and to obey conservation of energy, then the energy absorbed by the atmosphere from the surface needs to be fully emitted to outerspace by the atmosphere.  There is no splitting by two of the radiation emitted by the atmosphere, for the atmosphere doesn’t lose energy in the downward direction: it’s an insulated boundary, there is no energy loss there.  Does the atmosphere emit energy toward the surface?  Sure, but it doesn’t leave, because the surface stops it.  It goes right back in to the atmosphere.  Does this mean that the cool atmosphere heats up the warmer ground, or heats up itself?  No, why would anyone even say something like that?  What is lost downward is instantly regained and so it causes no change.  To cause heating, increase in temperature, requires heat flow input, and heat flow only occurs from hot to cool, not the reverse, or between identical temperatures.  The only direction the atmosphere loses energy is towards outerspace, and it loses the exact amount of energy that it picks up from the surface.

Therefore:

5]                         Fs(1-A)/4 = (1-f)σT04 + fσT04

where σT14 = fσT04 (the temperature of the atmosphere is given by the fraction f of energy flux it absorbs from the surface), and equation 5] simply reduces to

6]                         Fs(1-A)/4 = σT04

This would normally mark a correction out of the false paradigm as we’ll see, however, again, none of these radiative greenhouse effect adherents are actually thinking about what they’re doing along the way.  Not the alarmists certainly, and not the lukewarm skeptics for the most part either.  They haven’t cared about any of the steps along the way…they’ve cherished every single error.  They’re in love with this false paradigm with its insane cognitive boundary conditions of a flat Earth with freezing cold sunshine too feeble to heat anything on its own above -180C and with the inert atmosphere as some magical source of energy it doesn’t actually produce.

Instead of feeling uncomfortable with cognitive dissonance, these pseudoscientific climate alarmists and their lukewarm supporters have made an absolute religion out of it.  And they seek to institute that religion into politics.  Get aware of the game they’re playing!

What is wrong with these people, and scientists?  On the one hand they say that math is just a tool of science and that observation and empiricism and the laws of science are what make up reality, but then immediately on the other hand as soon as they invent an equation that they’ve interpreted out of some pet model they like, they go absolutely insane insisting that math is infallible and that if math says that cool heats up hot, then be damned with the laws of physics and thermodynamics!

What is wrong with them…what is wrong with these people’s minds?  We should be putting these people on trial, and protecting society and our children from them.  We should be determining if these people are smart and putting us on, in which case they are morally culpable for the damage they’ve done to knowledge and logic, or if they’re stupid and they just don’t know what in the heck they’re doing, in which case they’re totally incompetent.  Either way, society needs to be protected from them.

The root of the problem is that scientists have become protected by specialization.  Society trusts what the specialists say they’re doing, but the truth is that that whole system can be compromised and hijacked either by intent or by stupidity because almost nobody checks on them, and almost nobody can check on them.  And then when the specialists are checked on, the entire specialist edifice moves in to protect them with claims of peer-review and “expertise” because all of their jobs depend upon not being closely inspected.  A system like this can never produce a meritocratic society, and merit can be entirely hijacked in just this way, all too easily.  The interesting question is whether it’s being done with intent, or out of incompetence.  The truth, I can tell you, is that it is being done with intent, although it does use a lot of incompetent stupid people for support, who go along with it for ideological and neo-religious reasons.

So why did equation 6], coming from the correct equation 5], reduce to such a simple equation?  It is because the equation is all about the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, and the S-B Law used in the context of non-solid surfaces (i.e. the atmosphere) can only be related to what is called an effective temperature.  This is 1st-year astronomy and physics.  A star for example doesn’t have a solid surface, so there’s no place to stick a theoretical temperature probe and take its temperature.  How far down into the stellar atmosphere do you go?  At what optical depth for which specific frequency do you denote as a surface?  You can’t do that objectively, and there isn’t any.  All you can do, is look at the total energy output from the star, giving a value for the flux F coming out of it, and so then, given the S-B Law, you derive what would effectively be the stars temperature if it was a solid hard surface.  But the truth is that the temperature of the star changes continuously with depth inside it, increasing as you go down inside its atmosphere, just like with Earth’s atmosphere.

The only thing that the S-B Equation can tell us about the Earth as an averaged-out system, is the Earth’s effective temperature.  Considering energy balance with the Sun, then the effective temperature of the Earth, if you add up all of its radiation when looking from outerspace, is effectively equivalent to-18°C.  And that’s what the Earth is!  That temperature has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the physical input of solar energy into the Earth and on the Earth’s surface.  Yet for climate pseudoscience, it establishes the basis of their entire paradigm for thinking about the Earth, with their attendant radiative greenhouse effect invented to correct the error.  But it isn’t a correction to an error, it is an error to correct an error.  You don’t correct an error by inventing something to fix it, you correct the original error by discarding the mental phase space which created it.

The diagram at the top of this post isn’t just from Harvard.  In my paper here in Appendix H, I list a random sample from a dozen institutions which use this same model for establishing the foundational principles for their idea of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.  How can they all be so stupid?  How can so many people not think about basic logic and reason?  How can so many climate scientists not understand basic physics and mathematics?  Why do they promote what is plainly false?

Ontological Heat Flow

The mathematical nature of heat flow was discovered by Joseph Fourier.

“There cannot be a language more universal and more simple, more free from errors and obscurities… more worthy to express the invariable relations of all natural things [than mathematics]. [It interprets ] all phenomena by the same language, as if to attest the unity and simplicity of the plan of the universe, and to make still more evident that unchangeable order which presides over all natural causes.”                                 – Joseph Fourier, The Analytical Theory of Heat

“Primary causes are unknown to us; but are subject to simple and constant laws, which may be discovered by observation, the study of them being the object of natural philosophy.

“Heat, like gravity, penetrates every substance of the universe, its rays occupy all parts of space. The object of our work is to set forth the mathematical laws which this element obeys. The theory of heat will hereafter form one of the most important branches of general physics.”                                                                – Joseph Fourier, The Analytical Theory of Heat

(sourced from: Hockney, Mike (2014-11-03). Causation and the Principle of Sufficient Reason (The God Series Book 21) (Kindle Locations 608-616). Hyperreality Books. Kindle Edition.)

Fourier mathematics is the true basis of heat flow.  The simple model that is used to establish the boundary condition of thought for climate alarm pseudoscience has nothing to do with Fourier mathematics or how heat flow actually works in reality.  Never mind using the correct mathematics, it doesn’t even use 16th Century knowledge of reality.  No one, in any time or age previous to these times, would have thought that a starting point for a conception of reality with sunlight being -18°C could be a rational position to take.

The correct, Fourier-based equation for heat flow in a column of atmosphere would look like this:

7]
therm ode

So can you see why the specialists can lie about the importance of their field, just so that they can keep a job, and additionally if they really desire it, scare the heck out of an unaware public and co-opt governmental infrastructure for their own nefarious ends?  Because few people can tell what the heck is going on with that equation let alone being able to solve or numerically compute it.  It is a radiative-convection-diffusion equation that accounts for the conductive, convective, and radiative flow of heat in a column of atmosphere…plus subsurface if you include that too in the numerical computation.

Within this equation 7] is couched the fundamental thermodynamic principles of the directionality of heat flow, and the related limitations of which way temperature can change and due to what physical effects that are present to affect it.  There is no radiative greenhouse effect produced or allowed with this ontological equation of heat flow.  It is as simple as that.  The colder atmosphere does not cause the warmer ground to become warmer still.  It is mathematical fact.  Not that we need something as absolute as mathematical fact to debunk the silly climate science greenhouse effect in any case!

 Parting Example

One other really great example of the stupidity of climate pseudoscience.  Did you know that what they call the surface temperature isn’t even the temperature of the surface?  What they call the surface temperature is actually an average of temperature measurement stations with thermometers that are about 4.5 feet (1.5m) above the surface, in the air.  This is an air temperature, not a surface temperature…they don’t even use English and basic definitions within language correctly!  How can you be so insane so as to call an air temperature the temperature of the surface of the Earth?  Those aren’t the same thing at all.

Just take a look at this video sequence of temperature data here:

{youtube}AoJM4taoNFo{/youtube}

Do you see the facts?  The surface temperature at 0m altitude goes way higher than the air temperature at 1.5m!  If the incompetent climate pseudoscientists actually used thesurface temperature, since that’s what they call it, they would need a radiative greenhouse effect several times stronger that what they think they need now!  How can the temperature of the surface pulse to over 700C when sunlight is only -18°C !?  Of course, if they actually made sense at any point in their idiotic narrative, it would expose them, and so, they make sure to never do or use anything that ever makes any sense.

Read more by Joe Postma at climateofsophistry.com

Comments (25)

  • Avatar

    jsullivan

    |

    [quote name=”the Griss”]Ahhh.. much more readable. 🙂

    Nevertheless, if the PSI guys put these things in web posts, they should make sure they do it properly, or they risk looking amateurish.

    Just saying. :sigh:[/quote]

    Thanks for pointing out the subscript errors. Now corrected.

  • Avatar

     D o u g. 

    |

    Correction: #13 should read ..

    Raising the radiating altitude (which CO2 may do by no more that 2 metres) does not necessarily cause the surface temperature to be [b]higher[/b], because radiating molecules also lower the temperature gradient, [b]this having a larger cooling effect.[/b]

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C o t t o n 

    |

    And no, Joseph, you can’t use your Fourier based equation in a vertical column in a gravitational field: you can only use it in a horizontal plane. Your expression for entropy only takes into account variations in temperature (molecular kinetic energy) and completely fails to account for variations in gravitational potential energy which also affect entropy. You could not, for example, deduce when the stabilised density gradient would form, which it does when entropy is maximised and thus thermodynamic equilibrium is attained. This epitomises the problems associated with mathematical expressions for entropy which ignore some energy potentials and don’t focus upon what happens to bring about a state with no unbalanced energy potentials.

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C o t t o n 

    |

    And Leonard – what you gloss over is the fact that they do indeed add the back radiation flux (more than the solar flux) to that solar flux which is only about 163W/m^2 into the surface. They had to do this so that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation gave the right temperature. Likewise on Venus.

    But, what they and you can’t answer is how does the Venus surface receive the net thermal energy input that is required to actually raise its temperature from 732K to 737K over the course of its 4 months of sunshine at any particular location on its equator?
    [b]
    You see, neither you, Leonard nor Joseph Postma has an answer do you?[/b]

    But I do (as I have published) and that’s the big difference between my paradigm and yours.

  • Avatar

     D o u g. 

    |

    At TOA the solar constant is about 1,362W/m^2. On average 30% is reflected by clouds, but not on a clear day of course. Then 21% is absorbed by the atmosphere. So on a clear day with the Sun directly overhead in the tropics we could get 1,076W/m^2 which has a radiating temperature of 371.15K – almost the boiling point of water. But so what? In reality the Sun does not have sufficient time to reach that temperature during the day, and much of the energy is being lost immediately by non-radiative processes.

    What we learn from this is that, whatever radiative flux we use, the actual surface temperature will not be as high as the radiative temperature and could be 50 degrees less in cases like this. The mean flux reaching the surface is only 163W/m^2 which is obviously far less, and this flux could not raise the surface temperature even to the radiating temperature of 231K.

  • Avatar

     D o u g 

    |

    Oh, and don’t forget Jo Postma that the thin surface layer of the oceans (say the first 1m) is mostly transparent to that solar radiation which then penetrates and warms colder waters several meters further down. (So 70% of Earth’s surface does not act like a black or grey body because it doesn’t meet the definition of such.) Some of the new energy in the upper thermocline will transfer downwards to cooler regions and only find the light of day after following isotherms to polar regions. That will complicate your integration somewhat. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a hypothesis like mine which [i]does[/i] give the right answers for Earth and all planets and moons?

  • Avatar

     D o u g 

    |

    The mean solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface is only 163W/m^2 after 30% reflection by clouds and 21% absorption by the atmosphere. The radiating temperature for that (if the Earth were a flat disc) is only 231.55K so, although the averaging technique is inaccurate, you have a long way to go to explain a mean of 288K with your concept that direct solar radiation could explain it. Sure, on a clear sunny day an asphalt surface could receive sufficient radiation from a Sun nearly directly overhead to raise it to 55°C, but it won’t raise the South Pole to that, nor the night time temperatures anywhere. Let’s see your integration over the whole surface.

  • Avatar

     D o u g 

    |

    Now, Jo Postma, go and try your conjecture that direct solar radiation is what explains a planet’s surface temperature on Venus, or better still the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus where it’s hotter than Earth but there’s no surface or solar radiation down there.

    Eventually you’ll have to concede that I’m right in what I explain in my book [i]”Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All”[/i] about all such planets. Try reading it and understanding thermodynamic equilibrium and why it’s the same as hydrostatic equilibrium.

  • Avatar

     D o u g 

    |

    Postma wrote “which has a temperature forcing value of -18°C”

    No it doesn’t. Without GH gases we would have no clouds reflecting 30% back to space.

  • Avatar

     D o u g 

    |

    JP: I should have said “the atmosphere does no such thing …”

    However, note that the [url=http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/carbon-dioxide-d_974.html]specific heat of CO2[/url] is less than the weighted mean specific heat of the other main [url=http://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_Cp_Cv.html]air molecules[/url]. So it would become warmer in a real green-house with more CO2. However, what they normally add is still a minute portion ~0.1% of the air in a real greenhouse, so an unnoticeable effect temperature-wise.

  • Avatar

     D o u g 

    |

    JP wrote: [i]”A real greenhouse works by preventing convective cooling.”[/i]

    It does no such thing. It radiates and in the process transfers thermal energy only ever from warmer lower regions in the troposphere to higher cooler regions and/or to space. This is explained in my PSI paper on [url=http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf]Radiated Energy[/url].

    Water vapour between double glazing [b][i]reduces[/i][/b] the insulating effect. So too in the troposphere, and empirical data shows water vapour does indeed cool, not warm as Pierrehumbert and other the IPCC authors want you to be gullible enough to believe despite any empirical evidence.

  • Avatar

     D o u g 

    |

    We have …

    “climate science” instead of “atmospheric physics”

    “lapse rate” instead of “temperature gradient”

    “hydrostatic equilibrium” instead of “thermodynamic equilibrium”

    “convection” instead of “wind” in some cases

    and those mysterious “pockets of air” which cannot possibly hold together whilst molecules dart about at 500 metres a second between collisions.

    It’s all a world of its own with “fissics” that cannot possibly explain why the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus is hotter than Earth’s surface, despite being 30 times further from the Sun.

    [b]The whole paradigm of radiative forcing is wrong; it is the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient which props up the surface temperature, not back radiation from the colder troposphere.[/b]

  • Avatar

     D o u g 

    |

    Leonard: Raising the radiating altitude (which CO2 may do by no more that 2 metres) does not necessarily cause the surface temperature to be lower, because radiating molecules also lower the temperature gradient.

    The hiatus is explained by the fact that, whilst the 934-year cycle in the inverted plot of the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and all the planets is still rising for another half century, the superimposed 60 year cycle is in the middle of its 30 year downward trend, so there’s a slight net cooling until we get about half a degree of warming between 2029 and 2058. Thereafter the world will experience 500 years of long term cooling with superimposed 60 year cycles as always. Also, water vapour produces clouds which increase albedo.

    Carbon dioxide has nothing to do with it. Pierrehumbert’s “explanation” of warming from 255K to 285K is wrong because he forgot that a planet without water vapour would have no clouds reflecting 30% of the insolation. Without clouds or GHG the Earth’s surface would receive 341W/m^2 for which the radiating temperature is 278K not 255K.

    Furthermore, empirical evidence from 30 years of temperature data from three continents shows that the most prolific GH gas, water vapor, cools rather than warms. That completely debunks the GH conjecture.

  • Avatar

    Hilton Ratcliffe

    |

    Thank you, JP. That is a very clear explanation using first principles.

  • Avatar

    JP

    |

    Great example Hilton. A real greenhouse works by preventing convective cooling. It traps the warmed air inside and so it can’t rise away to be replaced with cool air from above or from the sides etc. That is the only way a real greenhouse functions, and it is a prevention of what the open atmosphere does. A real greenhouse and the climate pseudoscience greenhouse are precisely the opposite in physical function.

    An increase in CO2 inside a greenhouse causing a drop in temperature can be explained by the additional internal degree of freedom that CO2 has compared to O2 and N2. With an additional internal degree of freedom, it requires additional energy for CO2 to come to same temperature as O2 and N2.

    There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas [i]at all[/i]. A real greenhouse traps any gas and prevents it from convecting. It’s not the gas that matters, it’s the ceiling, the enclosure.

  • Avatar

    Hilton Ratcliffe

    |

    Let’s get back to basics: How does a real greenhouse work, for example an agricultural greenhouse or a car with the windows closed? By what mechanism does the internal temperature grow to exceed the surrounding ambient temperature? Can this work in an open body of gas? What happens when we open the car windows?
    Professor of agricultural engineering Gert Venter of the University of Pretoria found that introducing CO2 to agricultural greenhouses (done routinely to stimulate plant growth) coincides with a correlated drop in internal temperature. He has data from more than 30 hydroponinc tunnels world-wide that show this correlation. The final question I ask is: If CO2 is a greenhouse gas, why doesn’t it cause hydroponic tunnels to warm up?

  • Avatar

    bud444@ntlworld.com

    |

    JP,actually N2 and O2 do emit,obviously,and there is a recent paper out which is not to hand right now,which gives some values.Will post when I find it.Busy painting the kitchen at the moment.

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    @ Leonard W.
    I take it that you do not agree with the hypothesis that the make-up the atmosphere determines surface temp.

    Oh BTW thanks the Griss, for bringing up the point of -180/-18.
    I was confused about that.

  • Avatar

    JP

    |

    Leonard the error isn’t ours, it is all the people, climate alarmists and such, who write about the greenhouse effect in the way we have exposed as being a fraud and extremely bad science. Take your issues up with them, not us. We’re not the ones responsible for creating their bad science, they are, and we, like you, are debunking it, because in debunking it it proves their paradigm as pseudoscience. And because their goals are bad for science, reason, and the future of humanity.

    If you have yet another alternative version of the greenhouse effect, tell the alarmists about it. As it is your version isn’t the complete picture. First of all, with a natural and required lapse rate, which arises simply out of conservation of energy concerns, then a column with a lapse rate must have a maximum temperature, an average, and a minimum. It is simple mathematical law that the bottom of the column must be warmest part, the middle the average, and the top the coolest, with only diffusive exchange of energy. Therefore the bottom of the atmosphere must be warmer than the average, quite naturally, requiring and not being a greenhouse effect in any sense of the term. And of course that term only applies to a real greenhouse which functions the opposite way that the open atmosphere does. Also, 99% of the atmosphere doesn’t emit, N2 and O2 don’t emit, and so with such low emissivity, then the atmosphere can retain heat very efficiently. Of course, water vapour allows it to emit, and therefore what are called greenhouse gases are actually a mean for cooling. And finally, there is a real way to compute heat flow mathematically in any case, and that math is what should be used, and when it is used, there is no conception of a greenhouse effect anywhere. Of course, all of this has simply been produced to make people argue about nothing while the sophists get on with their hijack of world and national governments.

    Anyway, the point is is that it is THEIR extremely bad science, and they base THEIR science on idiotic foundations.

  • Avatar

    the Griss

    |

    Ahhh.. much more readable. 🙂

    Nevertheless, if the PSI guys put these things in web posts, they should make sure they do it properly, or they risk looking amateurish.

    Just saying. :sigh:

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    There is a misunderstandings of the so called atmospheric greenhouse effect by the author of the present blog as repeated here (and which continues to be repeated in this site). You simply don’t get it. The absorbing gases in the atmosphere are a source of back radiation to the ground, but this is not a source of NET energy adding to the surface temperature. It is effectively a consequence of radiation insulation due to absorbing gases, which require other processes to transport some of the ground energy up from the surface before it eventually radiates to space (convection and evapotransporation), as I have described several times previously at this blog, and it’s net effect is to move the average location of radiation to space from the surface to a higher altitude above the surface. This increase in altitude of radiation out, combined with the lapse rate, causes the increase in surface temperature.

  • Avatar

    the Griss

    |

    sorry, that should be Joseph, not Doug..

  • Avatar

    the Griss

    |

    Doug, you need to learn to use “character map” (a windows accessory) to put in your ‘degree’ signs.

    eg -18°C… NOT -180C
    (I assume that’s the value you mean)

  • Avatar

     D o u g 

    |

    Pierrehumbert made the huge mistake of reducing solar radiation by 30% for a non-GHG planet, forgetting there would not be any clouds reflecting that 30% of solar radiation back to space and shading the real planet. Hence the 255K figure is wrong and the radiating temperature of the surface of this dry rocky planet sans water, CO2 etc would be 278K.

    He also failed to realise that his “hydrostatic equilibrium” is one and the same as the state of thermodynamic equilibrium which the Second Law says will be approached as entropy increases until there are no unbalanced energy potentials.

Comments are closed