The “Greenhouse Effect” Hypothesis—Much Ado About Nothing

Written by Carl Brehmer

To understand the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis do this experiment:

  1. Schedule a transfer of $100 from your checking account to your savings account.

  2. Schedule to occur simultaneously a transfer of $100 from your savings account to your checking account.

  3. Then check the balance on both accounts to see if either was affected by this action.

Unless your bank has some serious accounting problems you will find that the effect of this action will be “null” or zero—the balance in both accounts remained the same. This experiment reveals a question that is at the heart of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis debate. Did the bank actually do the transfers or did they just leave the money where it was? Yes, those transfers will appear on your bank statement, but nothing changed; the effect of this action was “null”.

Now do this second experiment:

  1. Take a radiometer down into an empty cellar that is in a state of thermal equilibrium at 12C and let the emissivity of each wall be 0.95.

  2. Take readings of all four walls.

  3. Take temperature readings of all four walls at the same time to see if the temperature anywhere is changing?

You will find that the readings on the radiometer when pointed at all four walls is ~356 W/m2 and that the temperature of all four walls remains constant throughout. Here again is a question that is at the heart of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis debate. Are the walls of the empty cellar constantly exchanging ~356 W/m2 of energy with one another or is all of the internal energy within walls just staying where it is seeing as how there is no change in the temperature of the walls? Those who believe in the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis insist that the west wall is transferring 356 W/m2 of energy to the east wall, while the east wall is transferring 356 W/m2 of energy to the west wall and the north wall is transferring 356 W/m2 of energy to the south wall while the south wall is transferring 356 W/m2 of energy to the north wall.

Key Point: Even if this exchange of Prevost’s Energy is real and not imaginary its effect is “null”. That is, an equal exchange of energy between two bodies of matter will not affect the temperature of either.

Let’s now take a look at the Trenberth, et al Earth’s Global Energy Budget diagram which has been used extensively as proof of the existence of an atmospheric, radiative “greenhouse effect”.

psi 10

Figure 1. The global annual mean Earth’s energy budget for 2000 to 2005 (W m–2). The broad arrows indicate the schematic flow of energy in proportion to their importance.  From Trenberth et al (2009).

As you can see, there are two numbers highlighted on this diagram. The first is 396 W/m2 of “surface radiation” and the other is 333 W/m2 of “back radiation”. Based on these numbers the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis asserts that there is, on average, globally a 333 W/m2 continuous exchange of energy occurring between the surface and the atmosphere, but unlike the bank transaction and the empty cellar experiments above the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis insists that this exchange does not have a “null effect”. Rather the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis claims that this 333 W/m2 exchange of energy via IR radiation between the surface and the atmosphere is causing a 33 C increase in the temperature of the surface!

. . . the Earth . . . radiates . . . primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum. Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.” IPCC, AR4

When [greenhouse gases] absorb the energy radiating from Earth’s surface, microscopic water or greenhouse gas molecules turn into tiny heaters— like the bricks in a fireplace, they radiate heat even after the fire goes out. They radiate in all directions. The energy that radiates back toward Earth heats both the lower atmosphere and the surface, enhancing the heating they get from direct sunlight.” NASA

. . . our atmosphere absorbs some of the infrared heat radiation [from the surface], and some of the trapped heat is reradiated downward to warm the planet’s surface and the air immediately above it.” Tufts University

. . . infrared radiation [from the surface] is absorbed by the greenhouse gases and clouds in the atmosphere and then re-emitted in all directions . . .

Some of the re-emitted energy remains within the atmosphere or returns to the surface and warms the lower atmosphere and surface.” American Chemical Society

Some of this terrestrial radiation is trapped by greenhouse gases and radiated back to the Earth, resulting in the warming of the surface known as the greenhouse effect.” Harvard

When there are greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere, some of the radiation emitted by the earth is absorbed again before it escapes to space. This radiation absorbed by the atmosphere can then pass back down to the surface, warming it further.” Berkeley

The atmosphere, heated by the absorption of Earth radiation by these greenhouse gasses, in turn radiates heat back to the Earth’s surface increasing the Earth’s surface temperature.” Columbia

The heating of the ground by sunlight causes the Earth’s surface to become a radiator of energy in the longwave band . . . This emission of energy is generally directed to space. However, only a small portion of this energy actually makes it back to space. The majority of the outgoing infrared radiation is absorbed by the greenhouse gases . . .  

Absorption of longwave radiation by the atmosphere causes additional heat energy to be added to the Earth’s atmospheric system. The now warmer atmospheric greenhouse gas molecules begin radiating longwave energy in all directions. Over 90% of this emission of longwave energy is directed back to the Earth’s surface where it once again is absorbed by the surface. The heating of the ground by the longwave radiation causes the ground surface to once again radiate, repeating the cycle described above, again and again, until no more longwave is available for absorption.” Physical Geography

What all of these definitions of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis have in common is the notion that when the surface exchanges energy with the atmosphere via IR radiation the result—the effect—is an increase in the temperature of the surface. This is like believing that when you transfer funds from your checking account to your savings account and then back again that action will increase the balance of your checking account or that a continuous exchange of energy via IR radiation between the walls of an empty cellar will cause the temperature of the walls to steadily increase. Even though these definitions of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis all violate two of the four laws of thermodynamics—the first and the second—they are still being taught by government agencies, institutions of “higher learning” and certain science organizations.

Conclusion

 Even if there is a continuous exchange of energy via IR radiation between the surface and the atmosphere as the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis asserts, such an exchange can have nothing but a “null effect”. The “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is therefore much ado about “nothing”. In fact, it shouldn’t even be called an “effect” since “nothing” is “caused” by it, in the real world that is; in the physical world that is separate from the imagination. Within the imagination of course anything is possible.

No doubt there will be those who say that this article misrepresents the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis and that the real “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is something else. If so, reread that above quotes; they all say that an exchange of energy via IR radiation between the surface and the atmosphere causes the temperature of the surface to increase.

Comments (19)

  • Avatar

    Jerry L Krause

    |

    Hi Carl,

    Hopefully, you will respond to these comments, as well as to my previous comments. As I have written before, you are the only person I have encountered that routinely refers to actual experiments (observations). And I have shared much of my background which seems to make me different from the many who seldom base their comments upon actual observations. However, I have to ask: What purpose is served by reviewing what is being taught at our (USA) most ‘elite’ universities?

    I never learned much, if anything, from sitting in a lecture room, listening to a professor. I learned by reading a textbook written by someone qualified by their achievements in the subject of the textbook, answering the questions asked as part of a homework assignment and solving the problems presented as part of a homework assignment. You became part of my self-imposed homework assignment because you referred to actual experiments (observations). This because you were a mystery person and still somewhat are. However, I now know without any doubt who you are, where you live, and what you do beside write your articles and comments.

    Most know that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was an author of the Sherlock Holmes mysteries. But I do not know how many know that many chemists of my age respected the chemical knowledge (applied science) of Doyle. Clearly Doyle taught forensic scientists that little details matter and that “There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.” In your first response to a comment I had made, you referred to a town which at that time had little importance to me. This because you were a stranger who was questioning what I had commented upon. Because I was doing homework and reviewing what you had previously written, the name of this town was the clue which positively defined who you are.

    I was doing this homework because I just read your article: Greenhouse Gas Confusion Magnified By Misuse Of Infrared Thermometers Published on February 1, 2013 (PSI) From this article it is clear you question the ability of radiometers to measure downwelling IR from the atmosphere, which is a central issue of my comment with regards to this article.

    However, at the beginning of our first dialogue the measurement of diffuse solar radiation (DSR) at the Desert Rock Nevada (DR) Surfrad site was the issue and you had written: “Needless to say, the nearly threefold increase in diffuse solar radiation present on June 30th, 2013 over the prior year’s date had nothing at all to do with thin clouds in the upper troposphere. Beyond that your post offers no explanation of how thin clouds in the upper troposphere can increase diffuse solar radiation by nearly 300% without there being an equal and corresponding decrease in direct solar radiation, especially since collectively cloud cover is responsible for 2/3rds of the Earth albedo. That is, clouds decrease the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface; they do not increase it as your post suggests.” (05/07/2016 at 2:34am Slayer-double–victory at Climateofsophistry.com)

    Relative to this comment, I did not suggest that thin clouds increase the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface. That assumption is entirely yours. I referred to the DSR for two reasons which maybe were not clearly identified previously. The first was that, to my knowledge, the value of DSR is not influenced by the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The second, upon which I believe we might be able to agree, is that the value of DSR is certainly influenced by the presence, or absence, of atmospheric cloud.

    But at the time of our previous dialogue, I did not ask the question: How is it that minimum value of DSR ever observed at DR near the summer solstice is about, say, 60 watt/m^2 when the sky appears to be cloudless? A follow-up question would be: Should not any increase in the value of DSR be attributed to the nearly invisible ‘thin’ cloud regardless of its altitude? You referred to a haze caused by smoke from a forest fire. I consider smoke (haze) qualifies as being cloud—particles (matter) in the atmosphere other than gas molecules.

    At the time of our previous dialogue, I had not studied the DSR data shortly before sunrise to see what the value of twilight DSR might be. For we have long understand that twilight is visible DSR that has been scattered by atmospheric molecules high in the atmosphere before actual sunrise. And I have little doubt that you do not know that solar radiation incident upon the top of the atmosphere is composed of invisible ultra violet radiation (UV), visible radiation (VR), and invisible infrared radiation (IR). And I have little doubt that you do not know that there is a scattering theory which predicts that the atmospheric molecules scatter photons of the shortest wavelengths most strongly and I am sure you know that, of the three radiations, UV is shorter than VR than IR. As relative to VR we observe that blue light (shorter wavelength than red light) is scattered much more strongly than red light and it seems to follow that the invisible IR is scattered even less strongly than visible red light. Hence, I can understand (explain) how it is that the value of twilight observed shortly before sunrise is so much less than 60 watt/m^2. Sunrise at the DR site is not ‘natural’ because there is a ridge to the east of the Surfrad site which ‘shades’ the lower portion of the atmosphere above the site from the direct solar radiation for some time after which the sun is predicted to rise above a smooth spherical surface. But this is a detail which I consider does not need to be addressed at this time.

    So, at this point, it seems a mystery as to why the minimum value of DSR ever observed at DR near the summer solstice at midday is about, say, 60 watt/m^2 when the sky appears to be cloudless.

    But it should not be mystery if you would consider the thoughts of other scientists, more knowledgeable than myself, which I have reviewed and which you have seemingly ignored (not responded to). I will briefly do so again.

    1. These results, obtained first by Wilson and broadly confirmed by many later experimenters, have a very important bearing on natural meteorology, not because supersaturation occurs in the atmosphere but because it does not occur: why is it that in the atmosphere condensation to clouds invariably happens as soon as normal saturation is reached? The answer is that the natural atmosphere, however clean it may appear to be, is always supplied with a sufficient number of minute particles of salts, acids or other substances which serve just as well as liquid water in capturing water molecules from the vapor. These are the ‘nuclei of condensation’, and are effective as soon as the air becomes even slightly supersaturated.” (R. C. Sutcliffe, Weather and Climate)

    2. “That is to say, the scattering of water in lumps of N molecules each is N times more tense than the scattering of the single atoms. So as the water agglomerates the scattering increases. Does it increase ad infinitum? No! When does this analysis begin to fail? How many atoms can we put together before we cannot drive this argument any further? Answer: If the water drop gets so big that from one end to the other is a wavelength or so, then the atoms are no longer all in phase because they are too far apart. So as we keep increasing the size of the droplets we get more and more scattering, until such a time that a drop gets about the size of a wavelength, and then the scattering does not increase anywhere nearly as rapidly as the drop gets bigger. Furthermore, the blue disappears, because for long wavelengths the drops can be bigger, before this limit is reached, than they can be for short wavelengths. Although the short wave lengths scatter more per atom than the long waves, there is a bigger enhancement for the red end of the spectrum than for the blue end when all the drops are bigger than the wavelength, so the color is shifted from the blue toward the red.” (Richard Feynman, The Feynman Lectures On Physics) .

    Condensation nuclei are reasoned to be always present in the atmosphere. They are invisible to our eyes. In Table 3, pp 52, of his book, the smallest cloud droplets which Sutcliffe considers has a diameter of 10 microns. Have you ever literally seen this single droplet? I haven’t. But I can see a ‘collection’ of them. So, I can pose a question: How dense do these cloud droplets need to be for one to be able to see the collection? Or, How thick a layer does this collection need to be?.

    I had started to write a 3rd quote but stopped because our focus is VR and not IR, which is invisible regardless the size of the collection of particles (cloud droplets or condensation nuclei) which might scatter IR. I now do so to introduce the word—thin.

    3. “Long-wave radiation from the earth, the invisible heat rays, is by contrast totally absorbed by quite a thin layer of clouds and, … .” (R. C. Sutcliffe, Weather and Climate)

    Is thin referring to the density of droplets in the cloud? Or, Is thin referring to a very shallow layer of droplets whose density is not a factor? Or, Are both possible factors of a thin cloud? Possibly as an answer to all three questions. Could a cloud be so thin that we cannot easily discern the VR with our eyes but an instrument, a radiometer, could with its ‘sensors’ (detectors)? Possibly because the radiometer’s sensors can also detect IR which might be scattered more strongly (intensely) than VR.

    Now I consider that cloud droplets of such low density might be invisible to my eye and be the cause of the minimum DSR. However, visible clouds come and go so it is possible that invisible clouds come and go. But there is observed a minimum DSR. But there is always enough condensation nuclei to prevent the atmosphere from becoming supersaturated with water vapor. Hence, they do not come and go. So, I consider that condensation nuclei, significantly larger than atmospheric molecules but significantly (?) smaller than the smallest cloud droplets are the particles which scatter the minimum value of DSR. Now, I can imagine that the sizes of the condensation nuclei could be related to the atmosphere’s dewpoint so there is a range of minimum DSR values. And I can imagine that the number density of condensation nuclei can vary with the result that there can be a range of minimum DSR values. So what I consider does not invalidate certain ideas of others. But I do consider that which I have just reviewed to be more fundamental than such detailed considerations. Of course, this claim depends upon one’s definition of fundamental.

    Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    Jerry L Krause

    |

    Hi Greg and Carl,

    Finally, can you tell of a prediction of the greenhouse effect which can be tested by experiment (observation)? I can tell you of observations which greenhouse gases in the atmosphere cannot explain that cloud in the atmosphere does explain.

    Go to http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html and look at the downwelling IR, the upwelling IR, and the air temperature (not really essential) as it is the general result of the difference between the two IR’s observed for Fort Peck 6/23/16; Table Mountain 6/23/16; Desert Rock 6/23/16; Bondville 6/24/16; Sioux Falls 6/24/16 and the many others. There is no way to explain the minimal differences between the two IR measurement but they are the result of cloud cover. Which establishes the fact that clouds strongly return the upwelling radiation from the earth’s surface back to the surface. It does not matter what mechanism by which clouds accomplish this. It is seemingly observed.

    Hence, the 33oC result is established to be due to cloud and not greenhouse gases. Case closed.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      Jerry L Krause

      |

      Hi Greg and Carl,

      You know I am in the habit of not proofreading well. So, ‘There is no way to explain the minimal differences between the two IR measurement but they are the result of cloud cover.’ should be: There is no way to explain the minimal differences between the two IR measurement by the presence of greenhouse gases but they are clearly the result of cloud cover.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        Jerry L Krause

        |

        Hi Greg,

        And thank you Greg. For I only just saw the above obvious fact because of your insistence that 33oC was not a prediction.

        Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    Jerry L Krause

    |

    Hi Carl,

    Beside knowing that have done your own experiments and have studied the data of the Surfrad project, of atmospheric soundings, and the data of the weather service at airports, and at one time worked with radiometers I know nothing more about your background experiences. From my experience of participating on blogsites which question, or do not question, the hypothesis of the “greenhouse effect”, I have come to the conclusion that my approach to this topic seems quite different from many of those who do, as you do, question the validity of this hypothesis. So what follows is my considerations of how it is that my approach is different from that as a physicist because of the way I have been taught as a chemist.

    I have already drawn to your attention what Richard Feynman (The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol I pp 42-8,9,10) taught about Einstein’s laws of radiation. Which he summarized: “Thus, Einstein assumed that there are three kinds of processes: an absorption proportional to the intensity of light, and emission proportional to the intensity of light, called induced emission or sometimes stimulated emission, and a spontaneous emission independent of light.”

    What I did not do was to go back to Chapter 37 titled Quantum Behavior. In its second paragraph I read: “We would like to take up as our next subject the problem of the behavior of relatively large pieces of matter—their mechanical and thermal properties, for instance. In discussing these, we will find that the “classical” (or older) theory fails almost immediately, because matter is really made up of atomic-sized particles. Still, we will deal only with the classical part, because that is the only part that we can understand using the classical mechanics we have been learning. But we shall not be very successful. We shall find that in the case of matter, unlike the case of light, we shall be in difficulty relatively soon. We could, of course, continuously skirt away from the atomic effects, but we shall instead interpose here a short excursion in which we will describe the basic ideas of the quantum properties of matter, i.e., the quantum ideas of atomic physics, so that you will have some feeling for what it is we are leaving out. For we will have to leave out some important subjects that we cannot avoid coming close to.

    “ “Quantum mechanics” is the description of the behavior of matter in all its details and, in particular, of the happenings on an atomic scale. Things on a very small scale behave like nothing that you have any direct experience about. … “

    Now, the hypothesis of the “greenhouse effect” begins with the absorption of certain wavelengths of radiation by small atmospheric molecules. So, at this beginning Feynman has clearly stated that we must study this case by quantum mechanical considerations instead of the classical physics reasoning I read being used in most all the writings about this hypothesis that I have read. Could this be because, by Feynman’s admission in his preface, only about 24 of the 180 students who began the physics course at Caltech, clearly benefitted from The Feynman Lectures on Physics.

    In 1950, the first edition of Linus Pauling’s textbook—College Chemistry—was published.
    In 1964 the 3rd edition of College Chemistry was published. In the preface of this 3rd Ed. Pauling, along time chemistry professor at Caltech, wrote: “During the last decade the science of chemistry has continued to change. Descriptive chemistry, the tabulation of the observed physical and chemical properties of substances, is still an important part of chemistry; with each passing decade, however, it becomes possible to correlate these facts in terms of theory in a more and more satisfactory manner.

    “The theories of greatest value in modern chemistry are the theories of atomic and molecular structure, quantum theory (quantum mechanics), and statistical mechanics. I believe that the concepts involved in these theories can be learned by the beginning student of chemistry sufficiently well for him to apply them in correlating and understanding the facts of descriptive chemistry. Moreover, the fundamental experiments upon which these theories are based can be understood by the beginning student. The theories in their detailed mathematical treatment can then be studied later.”

    One different I notices between others and myself is the others rush to theoretical mathematical discussions and argumentation while I try to focus on observations and the experimental results of physicists. Now, a fact is I graduated with a B.A. degree with a major in chemistry in 1963. The year before Pauling 3rd Ed. was published. Hence, I went to graduate school not knowing what a wave function or a quantum number was.

    However, before Pauling began to write introductory chemistry textbooks, he had written the ‘scholarly’ book—The Nature of The Chemical Bond. In the preface of its 1st Ed (1938) he began: “For a long time I have been planning to write a book on the structure of molecules and crystals and the nature of the chemical bond. With the development of the theory of quantum mechanics and its application to chemical problems it became evident that a decision would have to be made regarding the extent to which the mathematical methods of the theory would be incorporated in this book. I formed the opinion that, even though much of the recent progress in structural chemistry has been due to quantum mechanics, it should be possible to describe the new developments in a thorough-going and satisfactory manner without the use of advanced mathematics.”

    Thank you Professor Pauling. I quickly learned about wave functions, boundary conditions, and quantum numbers. And I, in advanced physical chemistry, even solved the hydrogen atom problem just as Schrödinger had. So I learned about quantum mechanics and I embraced it because it explained that the atom had geometry which chemists had already determined, by experimentation, must be the case. While I have never known another chemist teach this, but I know some beside myself had to have looked at a snowflake and have decided atoms must have a geometrical structure. However, before the quantum mechanical model of the atom was proposed, there no theories of the atom which had any geometrical features.

    But, Feynman, a physicist, could not avoid using the advanced mathematics of quantum mechanics to teach his students about this new physics with the result only about 24 of 180 were skilled enough in mathematics to make this necessary step into quantum mechanics.

    I have just learned that I do not understand the basics. But I know Feynman taught: “ “Quantum mechanics” is the description of the behavior of matter in all its details and, in particular, of the happenings on an atomic scale. Things on a very small scale behave like nothing that you have any direct experience about.” Since I have never read about Einstein’s laws of radiation in the context of the hypothesis of the “greenhouse effect”, there must be, according to Feynman, a lot us who do not understand the basics.

    Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    Carl, there is indeed some analogy, but it is not scientific to prove something by analogy.

    You should directly demonstrate what is wrong with the “greenhouse effect”, which you failed to do, and only then maybe give an example with money. I said maybe, because climate liars would thankfully switch the debate to other analogies and the readers would get lost. This happens all the time.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    hhhh

  • Avatar

    Jerry L Krause

    |

    Hi Carl,

    You wrote: “Rather the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis claims that this 333 W/m2 exchange of energy via IR radiation between the surface and the atmosphere is causing a 33 oC increase in the temperature of the surface!” The latter portion of your statement is the prediction of the “greenhouse effect hypothesis” which can be tested.

    I thought I had previously brought the following to the attention of PSI readers. But after searching my files and sent emails I find I have not. I must warn you and any reader of this: anytime I state I think something it is code for I DON’T KNOW!

    R. C. Sutcliffe in Weather and Climate (1966) had written: “Meteorology is not a fundamental physical science, that is to say it is not concerned to develop the basic laws of nature … .” This in the third page of his text. But four chapter later, The Microphysics of Clouds, he wrote: “These results, obtained first by Wilson and broadly confirmed by many later experimenters, have a very important bearing on natural meteorology, not because supersaturation occurs in the atmosphere but because it does not occur; … .” After a long, long time I finally saw that this what Sutcliffe had innocently written was a critically important physical law. Which, physical laws, are the foundation upon which modern science has been built. And for reader who might not be familiar with what a physical (or scientific) law is; it merely is a summary of something which has been observed to occur time after time with no exceptions. It is not a hypothesis which attempts to explain how (why) a given physical law exists. And the physical law can exist without any explanation.

    I repeat: physical laws are the foundation upon which modern science has been built. So, I was terribly excited because I had discovered that meteorology did have a basic law of nature.

    I did restate this law a bit more directly and simply: The atmosphere’s temperature can never be less than its dewpoint temperature. The atmosphere’s dewpoint temperature, which is based upon water vapor’s density in any element (small volume) of the atmosphere, is just as a fundamental property of the atmosphere as is the atmosphere’s temperature.

    Hence, this law, which I found no one else recognizing, fixes the minimum temperature of the atmosphere to the density of water vapor in the atmosphere. Now, in this case the explanation of the law is simple. For it commonly known that when water vapor condenses the latent heat of condensation is released to counter act (to replace?, not sure what the best term should be) the emission of radiation that has been cooling the atmosphere (no, the condensation nuclei) or the surface upon condensation begins to occur.

    Condensation nuclei because Sutcliffe first asked: “Why is it that in the atmosphere condensation to clouds invariably happens as soon as normal saturation is reached?” And he wrote: “The answer is that the natural atmosphere, however clean it may appear to be, is always supplied with a sufficient number of minute particles of salts, acids or other substances which serve just as well as liquid water in capturing water molecules from the vapour. These are the ‘nuclei of condensation’, and are effective as soon as the air becomes even slightly supersaturated.” And he immediately continued and I do not because for too long I overlooked his next comment. “As a matter of fact, there are many observations of clouds in air whose relative humidity is considerably below 100 per cent, evidence of nuclei which are hygroscopic, but methods of measurement within natural cloud are not sufficiently refined to prove that even slight supersaturation ever occurs.” For I had tried to identify the presence of clouds and their altitudes by studying the data of atmospheric soundings and I found the clouds I clearly observed were present at the time of the sounding did not even produce a measured relative humidity 90 per cent. Which for the longest time I attributed to instrumentation problems.

    I was terribly excited to have discovered that meteorology had this physical, but my excitement did not last, for I have been unable to convince anyone of it importance. So I ask you Carl, does this experimentally established physical law, as stated, for the earth’s atmosphere simply refute the prediction of the “greenhouse effect hypothesis”, which predicted a 33 oC increase in the average temperature of the earth’s surface?

    Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      Jerry, 33°C is not a prediction and has never been. You should really find out first what you are talking about. You seem to have a scientific background, but unfortunately fail to understand basic things.

      • Avatar

        Jerry L Krause

        |

        Hi Greg,

        If 33 oC is not a prediction, what is it.? Certainly you must be able to inform me because evidently you do understand basic things.

        Have a good day, Jerry

        • Avatar

          Greg House

          |

          Well… it’s a tough case apparently… Look, if I say 2+2=5, is it a prediction?

          Or just tell us, why is this 33°C thing a prediction to you? Who predicts what?

        • Avatar

          Jerry L Krause

          |

          Hi Greg,

          In case you haven’t noticed, you did not tell me why 33 oC is not a prediction. You just gave me an example of that you cannot add.

          Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            It was climate science math, Jerry. You really need to study the subject a little bit. And look up the word “prediction” in a dictionary, it will help probably.

        • Avatar

          Jerry L Krause

          |

          Hi Greg,

          I just miss wrote. My question to you was and still is: If 33 oC is not a prediction, what is it? Were you implying it was a math error?

          Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            You really do not know what they mean by this 33°C difference? Or just kidding?

            It is not a prediction, Jerry, because it is not predicted in any way. Per definition.

            Now share with me what you know about that 33°C thing. I guess not much, but still. We need a starting point and your active participation to help you.

        • Avatar

          Jerry L Krause

          |

          Hi Greg,

          You keep telling me 33 oC is not a prediction. And I have now twice asked: If it is not a prediction, what is it? The ball is still in your court and the question I ask has nothing to do with the definition of prediction.

          Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            So Jerry, you have no idea apparently what they mean by this nonsensical 33°C “greenhouse effect”. You are not kidding. Why do you feel the need to comment on the “greenhouse effect” issue then, if you do not understand their key point?

        • Avatar

          Jerry L Krause

          |

          Hi Greg,

          You keep telling me 33 oC is not a prediction. And still ask: If it is not a prediction, what is it? The ball is still in your court. And if, as you claim you know the basics and I do not; it seems you should be able to answer my question. 33oC is not something I made up. And you are right that I do consider it a key point and you seem to be trying to make that key point go away. It cannot go away because it has been cited so many times by so many people.

          Have a good day, Jerry

        • Avatar

          Jerry L Krause

          |

          Hi Greg,

          You really should not criticize people for not understanding the basics when you cannot explain that the 33oC is merely the result of a calculation and therefore not a prediction. Then the question becomes: The result of what?

          Svante Arrhenius, after using the proposed albedo of that time to reduce the average quantity of solar radiation being absorbed by the earth-atmosphere system relative to the average solar radiation being intercepted by the earth-atmosphere he then proceeded to calculate the effective temperature of the blackbody earth’s radiation needed to balance the radiation being absorbed, assuming there was nothing to hinder the transmission of the radiation through the atmosphere to space. I have little doubt that you are not familiar with these facts.

          But immediately after calculating this difference which is now generally accepted as 33oC; he hypothesized that the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was totally responsible for it. Again, I have little doubt that you are not familiar with this fact.

          I have recently written an article, titled: The Horace de Saussure Hot Box, in which I presented information about it and presented my understanding of what Horace observed. To which there have been no responses (comments). Does the fact that he observed a maximum temperature of 230oC in its interior refute the greenhouse effect? Is it purely coincidence that this temperature is near the maximum observed on the insulated layer of the moon’s surface when there is no cloud to reduce the incoming solar radiation and there is no cloud nor greenhouse gases to hinder the transmission of the radiation being emitted by its surface toward space?

          Finally, can you tell of a prediction of the greenhouse effect which can be tested by experiment (observation)? I have more to consider relative to this issue, but for now this seems adequate.

          Have a good day, Jerry

Comments are closed