Physicist Richard Feynman Discredits Greenhouse Gas Theory

Written by hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk

The great physicist Richard Feynman adds to three other giants of physics, Maxwell, Clausius, and Carnot, who have explained the “greenhouse effect” is solely a consequence of gravity, atmospheric mass, pressure, density, and heat capacities, and is not due to “trapped radiation” from IR-active or ‘greenhouse’ gas concentrations.

In his paper Feynman gives his thought experiment example (Feynman clearly states in the 6th paragraph it is “in thermal equilibrium – unlike our atmosphere”). Feynman explicitly states in that same paragraph that this thought experiment is “without the winds and other kinds of disturbance,” including CONVECTION, which as he later shows completely dominates radiative-convective equilibrium. Thus discrediting the supposed Co2-focused radiative greenhouse gas effect.

Feynman begins to explain in the 7th paragraph and for the remainder of the entire paper why our atmosphere (and he only assumes the atmosphere is comprised of non-greenhouse gases N2 & O2) “is not an isothermal atmosphere” due to the thermodynamic work done by gravity upon all gases.

Only one 33C greenhouse theory can be correct, either the 33C Arrhenius radiative greenhouse theory (the basis of CAGW alarm and climate models) or the 33C Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot/Feynman gravito-thermal greenhouse effect, since if both were true, the surface temperature would be an additional 33C warmer than the present. As we have previously shown, the Arrhenius greenhouse theory confuses the cause (gravito-thermal) with the effect (radiation from greenhouse gases).

In addition, the US Standard Atmosphere, the International Standard Atmosphere, the HS ‘greenhouse equation,’ Chilingar, et al derive the observed atmospheric temperature profile without use of a single greenhouse gas radiative transfer equation or calculation, and using the same basic atmospheric physics discussed by Feynman in his lecture below.

Feynman does not make a single mention of radiation, radiative transfer, greenhouse gases, CO2, nor does he derive any radiative transfer equations to derive the atmospheric temperature profile, and instead utilizes the barometric and statistical mechanics formulas necessary to describe the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect of Maxwell et al (who Feynman quotes extensively below).

Feynman demonstrates that the conservative force of gravity does indeed do continuous thermodynamic Work upon the atmosphere (a common false argument by those who do not accept the gravito-thermal GHE theory is that gravity allegedly can’t do Work upon the atmosphere), and describes gravitational potential energy (PE) accumulated as air parcels rise/expand/cool, which is then exchanged for kinetic energy (KE) as the air parcel descends/compresses/warms, creating the temperature gradient & greenhouse effect.

Link for online reference to International Standard Atmosphere.

Read more at hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk

*****

[Principia Scientific International’s observation: What is actually interesting is that Feynman DOES acknowledge that our atmosphere is not in thermal equilibrium, and that therefore the subsequent derivations do not truly apply to our atmosphere – what is interesting is that this is what all textbooks do!  We have read Feynman’s exact presentation in numerous textbooks and worked through the exact same derivations and Feynman got them from whoever he was taught from and whatever textbook he was using. In physics we all like to learn the “ideal” situation, but then we seem to forget that we acknowledged that the situation we derive doesn’t actually apply.  Our atmosphere is not in thermal equilibrium].

Trackback from your site.

Comments (2)

  • Avatar

    Dense

    |

    “thus the temperature is a function of and an effect of gravity/molecular mass, not the other way around from greenhouse gas “radiative forcing” or “backradiation.” Irradiance or “backradiation” from greenhouse gases is in turn a function of the 4th power of temperature (by the Stefan Boltzmann equation), not the cause of the temperatures to begin with.”

    I don´t think temperature is a function of anything, everything is a function of temperature. Solid mass starts glowing at the same temperature, the draper point, that is confirming that emitted power and temperature is a general independent relationship. And the emission is dependent on temperature as well as absorption.

    I never see it mentioned, but the early discoveries and theories stated that the emitted radiation depends on the bodys temperature only. There is no way around the fact that the only independent energy involved is temperature. The body absorbs depending on temperature and emits depending on temperature. Not being a blackbody just make it less distinct.

    The atmosphere would be accurately defined as a body that is the opposite of the internal state, which is the words of Prevost, and I´m not going to argue.
    The atmosphere is not part of the internal state, and therefore we know it is not cause of the earth surface temperature, or more correctly the surface flux density.

    It is based on the observation that earth doesn´t align with a blackbody that absorb the solar constant… after 30% is removed by albedo.

    Maybe not use albedo in the first run? There is energy missing and someone removed albedo before we started. If it is a blackbody, use emissivity, earth albedo is an effect of the human eye, mostly or entirely it corrects for human sight in the visual part.

    And when arriving at a much lower temperature, we shouldn´t listen to people that use their failed calculation to doubt the theory and throw it out. Probability of the calculation being wrong is very high, don´t claim the coldest body in the entire system to be the heat source just yet. It is not like it is the only solution, just the last one and least likely.

    I´m not sure how it relates to quantum physics, or if it has to. Except that we don´t use quantum physics for bulk properties, arguments of photon counting and all “directions” is not really relevant. There is no help in quantum physics for a theory of a greenhouse without glass and air that is blankets, where you can add dry ice to the system where energy supply is constant and limited, and things heat up!

    I´m making a tin foil hat now, cause the greenhouse theory is very unlikely to be a coincidence. Someone made this theory of blankets in the atmosphere with great care to make a complete opposite of the main theory of radiation.

    Reply

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.