• Home
  • Current News
  • WHY LUNAR HEATING/COOLING DISPROVES THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT THEORY ON EARTH

WHY LUNAR HEATING/COOLING DISPROVES THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT THEORY ON EARTH

Written by Alberto Miatello

Fresh scientific analysis of the heating and cooling rate of the moon has produced startling evidence to show that the greenhouse gas theory of global warming on earth is false. Italian researcher, Alberto Miatello presents a simplified version of his peer-reviewed and verified study to show that mainstream climate science has misunderstood a key function of earth’s climate system: its inherent cooling abilities. Principia Scientific International presents Miatello’s summary below:

 I have been asked to explain the main concepts of my article of 2012: “Lunar Cooling Refutes the Greenhouse Effect Theory”, without using too much mathematical symbolism and I am pleased to do that. 

earth sun moon

I know that many readers find calculations and math of many technical articles quite unpleasant (even when they are necessary to prove some ideas/assumptions) and it is also true that before writing down math and calculations, all the physicists think about the main concepts they want to prove.

Therefore, I am pleased to explain the main concepts of that article here. Also, because I have been persuaded that the study of our moon’s heating and cooling rate is probably one of the most powerful experimental tools to prove that the Greenhouse Effect Theory (GHE) is a bogus, pseudo-scientific theory. It is most unfortunate that for too many years now the “theory” has been upheld unquestioningly by the political class and media propaganda (with a silent indifference among the scientific establishment), but with no actual physical law supporting it.

Why the Moon?

Firstly, the Moon receives exactly the same quantity of solar irradiance (1367 W/m²) as Earth.

Secondly, the Moon has no atmosphere, whereas Earth is surrounded by nearly 10 km of Troposphere, that lower part of our atmosphere in which the main climatic phenomena and weather reactions are taking place.

Thus, the Moon offers the most splendid natural physical location in the Universe to make a comparison with Earth and to challenge the most important points that GHE advocates are promoting:

1. Questions:

a) Does our atmosphere really keep our Earth’s surface “warmer” by nearly 33°C?

b) What would happen if we “removed” our atmosphere? Would we really be “frozen” by the “cold” outer space, in the same way as the flowers inside a greenhouse would be, in a cold winter, after removal of the transparent plastic layers/tents of the greenhouse?

The main point that GHE supporters seem keen to try and hide is that here on Earth’s surface the highest temperature ever recorded (in the Death Valley, California, USA) was just 56°- 57°C, a meager highpoint when compared to the Moon’s equator where the temperature normally reaches 117°C (390K)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon. That is more than double the value, although – as we know – the quantity of solar irradiance is the same: 1367 W/m² in both places.

So, far from being totally “frozen” by the lack of atmosphere, our moon is “over-heated” by the same solar irradiance which is impinging Earth. The reason? Firstly, because Earth’s albedo (due to clouds + atmosphere + Earth’s surface) is 0.3, whereas the Moon’s albedo (due to regolith of surface) is just 0.12. This means Earth reflects away nearly 30% of the solar radiation, whereas our Moon reflects just 12%. Therefore, the Moon absorbs much more heat enabling it to reach a higher temperature.

However, in an attempt to disguise this “inconvenient truth”, GHE supporters are trying to put confusion in the minds of their readers. For instance, “Skepticalscience” tells its readers that on the Moon the temperature “drops almost immediately … in several hours” from 117°C to minus 110°C. They say it is “due to the absence of atmosphere (such as here on Earth) which (in their opinion) should “protect” our surface from the “cold” of outer space.

But this statement, as we have seen, is clearly wrong.

Far from its temperature “dropping almost immediately … in several hours”, we have observed that on the Moon it takes 14.75 terrestrial days = 354 hours (!), at the lunar equator, to “cool off” from the highest temperature (117°C = 390K) to reach the lowest i.e. -173°C = 100K

So, the cooling rate of the Moon is very much slower than that of Earth: the Moon’s surface is cooling at a rate of 290/354 = 0.8°C/hour, whereas here on Earth, on a warm summer’s night, at over 20°C in the ambient outside environment, we have calculated that a cubic meter of boiling water (100°C) would lose 64°C in nearly 12.7 hours, which is 5°C/hour, i.e. a cooling rate more than 6 times faster!

2. Cooling mechanism of the Moon

The reason why our moon cools so slowly, with respect to Earth, is due to the cooling of the Moon’s surface being through radiation only (because the Moon has no atmosphere). It is not cooled through radiation + conduction + convection of the gaseous masses as per our atmosphere.

As we know, convective heat transfer (i.e. transfer of heat from one place to another through the movement of fluids such as gases or liquids) is an effective and powerful way to remove heat from one place to another.

Because it has no atmosphere (i.e. no fluids surrounding its surface) our moon can cool off only via radiation. Radiation is a slow and steady transfer of heat through the emission of electromagnetic waves from the lunar surface, after solar heating, to the vacuum of space surrounding the Moon. It is no coincidence that our simple boiled water experiment above explains why the cooling rate of the Moon is at least 6 times slower than that of Earth, even on summer nights.

Now think of convective heat transfer and cooling of our atmosphere compared to the cooling of a car engine through a fan + water cooler.

Once the engine of a car has been sufficiently heated, an automatic device switches on a fan that blows air through the surfaces of the radiator whilst the cooler water is pumped around the interconnected coolant channels.

The car’s cooling system is a designed mixture of air + water convective + conductive to stop engines over-heating and is very similar to Earth’s atmospheric cooling mechanism whereby the water cycle of rain, hail or snow plus powerful winds, effectively removes and mitigates the heat that Earth receives from the Sun. Our atmosphere is actually a sort of “radiator” surrounding the “over-heated engine” of the Earth’s surface.

So, contrary to the claims of GHE supporters, our moon with no atmosphere, no water cycle and no convective cooling mechanism, is limited to cooling just through radiation; a slow and steady loss of heat by electromagnetic waves from an over-heated lunar surface to the vacuum of outer space.

3. Outer Vacuum Space is not cold!

Another misconception that “Skepticalscience” and many other GHE theory defenders are promoting is that the outer space surrounding Earth and the Moon is “cold.” They tell you that once the Moon is no longer heated by the Sun the “cold” outer space serves to quickly “freeze” the Moon’s surface.

As space scientists can tell you, this is plainly wrong.

Vacuum outer space is neither cold nor hot, because VACUUM space has NO TEMPERATURE:

Temperature is a macroscopic concept that is proportional to the average random

kinetic energy of the molecules of a substance. (b) Heat or thermal energy is the energy

that is exchanged between two bodies as a result of a temperature difference between

them. (c) Internal energy is the sum of the total random kinetic energy and the total

intermolecular potential energy of the molecules of a substance.”

(http://www.katsokos.com/pdf/PhysicsSolutions/Chapter%203/Chapter%203.1C.pdf.)

Therefore temperature, for climatic and meteorological purposes, can just refer to heat exchanges between macroscopic bodies, such as soils, sea and ocean waters, big masses of atmospheric gas, humans, animals, plants, etc.

In vacuum space, there is no macroscopic body, but just a few microscopic atoms or molecules per cubic meter and so vacuum space has no temperature at all.

And the number 2.7K, which is often mentioned as the “fossil temperature of space from the Big Bang” is not an actual temperature of the outer space, it is the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) just a feeble radiation spreading throughout the Universe, allegedly produced by the Big Bang some 15 billion years ago, or the “lowest” temperature that a body would reach when, after many weeks (no immediate freeze!), its whole thermal energy has been radiated away.

Thus, the Moon surface cannot be instantly “frozen” by the outer vacuum space around it, because outer vacuum space has no temperature and only allows matter to cool slowly.

4. No “greenhouse effect” for bodies surrounded by vacuum space.

And now we begin to understand why the “greenhouse effect theory” is a totally pseudo-scientific concept: the “greenhouse effect” is conceivable JUST for bodies surrounded by a colder mas of gas.

To correctly speak about a “greenhouse effect” we need 3 different bodies/surfaces/layers:

1) A warm surface/body, such as the warm interior of a greenhouse in winter season, or the warm surface of our skin, or the warm interior of an igloo in a polar environment.

2) A cold surface/diaphragm in close contact with the warm surface/body above, such as the plastic tents of the greenhouse, or the blanket on our skin in a cold room, or the snow walls of the igloo.

3) An even colder gaseous environment, around the cold surface/diaphragm above.

Then the cold surface/diaphragm 2) can “protect” the warm body below it (interior of the greenhouse, or human skin, or interior of the igloo) against the colder environment outside, by slowing down the cooling rate of the warm body, and thereby keeping more heat inside the warm surface/body 1)

But our “cold” atmosphere is NOT surrounded by a colder environment, as vacuum space is not cold and therefore the cooling mechanism of our Earth is that of a warm body (Earth’s surface, whose average temperature is around 14.5°/15.5° C) surrounded by a colder body (Troposphere/atmosphere whose average temperature is -18° C), and then … nothing! Just vacuum space that has no temperature.

Hence, we have just 2 layers: a warm body (Earth surface) surrounded by a colder gaseous body (atmosphere) and this has nothing to do with a “greenhouse effect” with 3 bodies/layers.

Therefore our atmosphere is just cooling and not heating our Earth’s surface, because we have just a colder atmosphere surrounding a warmer Earth surface. As such, heat is just flowing from a warmer (Earth’s surface) to a colder body the (atmosphere) according to the lapse-rate and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (heat naturally flows only from hotter to colder bodies).

And finally, I recommend readers review the evidence in the seminal “Moon paper” by Siddons, Hertzberg and Schreuder – http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon.pdf – and the research by Professor Nasif Nahle – http://www.biocab.org/Conduction_Boundary_Layer.html.

These analysts show that those who are upholding the GHE theory forget to take into account the release of heat stored during the day time that – after sun set – is released by the inner layers of the lunar regolith (just as does soil during the night here on Earth), which is a further factor of heating normally neglected by the supporters of the GHE.

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Trackback from your site.

Comments (105)

  • Avatar

    4TimesAYear

    |

    No temperature in outer space? There is radiation to be sure, which heats objects, but if you were able to survive a vacuum in the shadow of a planet and not receiving any radiation from the sun, absent any heat source, you would indeed be very cold. Cold is the absence of heat. For outer space it would be about 3 degrees Kelvin above absolute 0. http://www.outerspaceuniverse.org/what-is-the-temperature-of-outer-space.html

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    Greg House,
    The subsurface thermal effects on Venus have almost no contribution to the Venus temperature. It is due to the lapse rate and absorbing clouds and gases. The large outer planets like Jupiter also have high temperatures deep in their atmosphere due to lapse rate and absorbing gases, even with very low solar input.

    The point you miss is that whatever the level of input solar radiation, it is the balance of outgoing to input that causes the surface temperature, and since the wavelength of the incoming and outgoing are different the trapping of energy by radiation insulation causes the temperature to rise exactly like a layer of insulation over a person in bed warms their surface.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Andyj

    |

    So 565C on the surface of Venus makes me a liar? And 190C is not relatively cold?

    Same for the lapse rate which you deny exists? Amazing!

    How about you prove to us all that Venus is continually molten from nuclear processes over the ~5Bn years.

    The present gas mix ends your molten rock theory dead on its face.

    I suggest you are lying hard to attempt life in your dead AGW theory.

    It’s the fact The Sun acts on the higher clouds of Venus before rolling to the poles high pressure zones which heats the lower atmosphere which runs back to the equator and low pressure equator loses the gas to the sky. It’s a very simple system. That is apparently beyond you.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Andyj”]In fact to me, you are the first, last and only person to quote for Venus being so cold.[/quote]

    I did not say Venus was “so cold”.

    You know, at first I thought you were just incredibly stupid with your lapse rate causing warming, but now it looks like you are a liar, too.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Andyj

    |

    Again. You are wrong.
    Your calculation using the “laws” will be wrong on every other planet too. GIGO.

    One needs to find the temperature at around 0.1 bar. Then the surface temperature can be reasonably calculated for. If the depth to the surface is known.

    In fact to me, you are the first, last and only person to quote for Venus being so cold.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Andyj”]So think again whether your maths says 190C or circa 800C from more famous people who smoked the occasional wacky baccy.[/quote]

    Again, 191°C is the maximum the 2,650W/m^2 of Sunlight can possibly induce. S-B law.

    Now, if the temperature is in reality higher, then there must be a more powerful source of warming. Since there is no second invisible Sun, the heat can only come from within. There is no other option, provided the data (2,650W/m^2 from the Sun and 565°C on the surface of Venus) is correct.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Andyj

    |

    Your theory needs amending. not my problem. There is nothing empirical to suggest the heat is from the core.

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/jupiter-1.png
    Yes, Jupiter as an example. I suppose you are going to call it a proto star? Fair enough. More planets.
    http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS14/AllPlanetsT.jpg
    Note the similar temperature gradients.

    As usual with these types of graphs, they leave out what disproves their income stream. These babies of Venus.
    http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm
    Note the similar temperature gradients.

    If Venus was purely volcanic the heat distribution and thermal activity would be entirely different. (Note the similar temperature gradients.)

    So think again whether your maths says 190C or circa 800C from more famous people who smoked the occasional wacky baccy.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Andyj”]The lapse rate is the sole reason Venus is 565C because one bar pressure (~53Km up) its ~38C. Not too hot for over 2,650W/m^2 of Sunlight![/quote]

    Lapse rate making things hotter is a sheer nonsense, sorry.

    2,650W/m^2 of Sunlight can only induce 191°C, not more than that.

    If there is a higher temperature on the surface of Venus, then it comes from under the surface. There is no other option.

    P.S. Doug, before you say something, please just shut up. 🙂

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Andyj

    |

    D’oh!
    0.1 bar and down in altitude..

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Andyj

    |

    Words, words, words, eh?
    Yes, 0.1 bar and down is where planets have this fairly linear “global warming” zone.
    We both know any high pressure (anti-cyclone in the North) is sinking air. It gets heated as it compresses. Low pressure feels cool as the air climbs and clouds tend to form. When it rains, the clouds release heat at height and drop cool rain on us. The net effect is zero.

    A general statement of the weather, of course.
    The lapse rate is the sole reason Venus is 565C because one bar pressure (~53Km up) its ~38C. Not too hot for over 2,650W/m^2 of Sunlight!

    GW is not what people think it is.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    Andyj,
    I think we are talking past each other. By gradient, I am referring to temperature values. The gradient (derivative of temperature with height) may have a constant value (constant slope), at least in the lower part. I think you thought I meant the temperature gradient was not constant.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Andyj

    |

    On a graph it is flat but if you tell me its a slope I have to assume its a slope from the point it is taken from — which implies a graphical curve.
    What you imply on you second part is this.
    http://www.arm.gov/science/highlights/images/R00237_1.png

    Note the lower section.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    Andyj,
    The point I was making was not gradient vs flat, it is that a gradient is a slope, not a specific value. The actual temperatures on the gradient are determined by some process that determines a single actual value of temperature somewhere along the gradient. The gradient then allows determining the values of the temperature at other altitudes. With no absorbing gases, the ground level radiation out in balance with incoming solar radiation energy determines the value at ground level, and the gradient gives values through the atmosphere (as you pointed out, to at least 0.1 bar). With absorbing gases present, the average level of radiation to space is above ground due to the effective direct radiation heat transfer resistance, and determining that average effective altitude of radiation to space (which is then the balance location of incoming and outgoing radiation energy) allows the temperature to be determined at that level. Values above and below that level are found from the gradient.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Andyj

    |

    You are correct. It is a gradient. Never said it was flat. The rate is almost linear.

    I said :
    “All planets with an atmosphere exhibit a lapse rate which increases temperature almost linearly from 0.1 bar to the ground. Regardless of the gas mix.”

    Temperature *and* pressure lose almost linearly with height to the tropo would be a more apt definition.

    Sadly, this is lost on AGW believers with all the implications of increasing the gas pressure over the Earth. haha.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    Andij,
    The lapse rate is a GRADIENT, not a temperature level. The level is determined by the amount of absorbed energy and the average effective altitude of outgoing radiation. A thicker atmosphere would not be any warmer at the surface due to just being thicker unless there is absorption in the atmosphere. Otherwise the surface radiation to space would determine the surface temperature, not the thickness of the atmosphere. However, all known atmospheres have some absorbing gases (H2O, CO2, CH4, SO2, etc.), so the increasing thicknesses always do result in increasing surface temperature (e.g., Venus). Please note the absorption is required for the temperature increase.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Andyj

    |

    All planets with an atmosphere exhibit a lapse rate which increases temperature almost linearly from 0.1 bar to the ground. Regardless of the gas mix.

    OK, you are sounding like the man with your name now. Will take back the accusation.

    My take so far running very simple numbers is temperature increases with gas mass. Effectively lowering the QNH. We undoubtedly have altered it a statistically tiny bit but the seas warming a little since the LIA are venting far, far more.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    Andyj,
    If you have followed my comments here and other sites you would know that I think negative feedback likely reduce the CO2 alone effects, and that natural variation (long period ocean currents, solar activity, etc.) dominate any remaining variation. Nothing you state disagrees with my position. Get over it. There is an atmospheric greenhouse effect, and it is responsible for an average of 33C increase over no absorbing gases. Adding CO2 has so far shown no clear effect over other causes, but that is not any basis to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Andyj

    |

    Sadly it will only state your theory. Which has already been placed directly into question and your have not corrected yet.
    I’m thoroughly in tune with absorption by latency and retransmission of gasses to radiation. The net is zero.
    Let me help you with some empirical facts. Not theory.
    First what they found doubling of CO2.
    http://speclab.cr.usgs.gov/PAPERS.refl-mrs/giff/100dpi/fig3b1.gif

    This one is a beauty!
    http://www.arm.gov/science/highlights/images/R00237_1.png

    Note the tropo radiation in the top of the CO2 band. Retransmission is not what they thought it was.

    We can cut this short with one guy who took Hadleys data and removed all the “adjustments”.
    http://oi44.tinypic.com/29axhua.jpg

    Even so. Lets see how an extra 10% of CO2 has an effect on World temperatures. Tell you what, the tail does not wag the dog so will include CO2 variance.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1997/offset:-0.5/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/normalise/mean:12/detrend:0.81/offset:0.42/scale:10/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/normalise/mean:12/plot/wti/from:2000.85/offset:-0.5/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/normalise/mean:12/detrend:0.81/offset:0.42/scale:1

    OK. This being a great effect. Maybe CO2 has max’ed out?

    http://cosmoscon.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/co2-vs-temp.jpg

    Seems so. Lets check MODIS for total absorption.
    http://www.nebulousresearch.org/other/archibald/archibald-33.jpg

    You cannot buck reality with a theory.

    You cannot cook a cold chicken by simply leaving it in an insulated, mirrored box. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is all you need to know.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    Andyj,
    Please read my writeup at:
    docs.google.com/document/d/1WPeBO_Ra9mkhWjv0J0SNmyRzHFVE9zPP8xRDUpR08jc/edit?usp=sharing
    This explains the entire concept.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    Andyj,
    I’m the same as before. You made statements that show you do not understand the atmospheric greenhouse effect (which does result in back radiation), and made comments on self heating without an internal source of power. None of my statements were contradictory of the facts. I was sarcastic due to the tone of your reply. I don’t prefer to be that way, but repeated comments such as shown in this string have made me angry. Not all of them were from you, so I am sorry if I was a bit bitter.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Andyj

    |

    Glad to know you have been brushing up on the Second Laws of Thermodynamics. Now please apply this little fact to the absorption and (night time re-radiation) bands of CO2 onto the statements you have made previously.

    There is simply no back door way to increase atmospheric temperatures via radiation to latency from the same temperature or cooler source.

    Your recent statements above were completely outside of the Mr. Weinstein I read from years ago.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    Andyj,
    What is the internal energy source reheating the water in the pipe? You totally miss the point that a reflective surface does not heat, it traps some of the present heat. The only effect of running the water back in the pipe is that it would cool slower than otherwise (have you never herd of a thermos bottle?)

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    Pat Obar,
    When I say radiation, I am referring to EM radiation, which is a bunch of photons. EM energy is carried by the actual movement of individual photons, which can be in many directions at the same time, and each photon is distinct. They are absorbed both ways (depending on absorption coefficient). Net energy transfer (heat transfer) is the net resultant of the fluxes to a given surface, and is not the same as the individual fluxes, it is the difference, which always goes from hot to cold.
    EM energy is actually more complex than the simple description, since it has both wave and particle features, but the simple particle description is adequate for this discussion. The flux you describe is the NET FLUX.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Andyj

    |

    [quote name=”Leonard Weinstein”]Andyj,
    If the chicken had a continual internal heat supply, and the conduction losses through the box were less than the heat supply power, it would cook. Why don’t you show some more brilliant ideas that show your knowledge. I would hate to walk over a bridge you designed.[/quote]

    You are joking right? So run water in an insulated pipe with a polished inner bore. When it boils, it runs a steam engine. Then cool it back down into water and back through the reflective pipe to boil again. VIOLA!
    Perpetual motion!

    You fail to comprehend the simplest of the basics of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
    You are not L. Weinstein. You are an uneducated fraud.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    Andyj,
    If the chicken had a continual internal heat supply, and the conduction losses through the box were less than the heat supply power, it would cook. Why don’t you show some more brilliant ideas that show your knowledge. I would hate to walk over a bridge you designed.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Andyj

    |

    Wiensteins back radiation model.
    Place chicken in a box with a shiny inner faces.
    Leave chicken in until cooked.

    Being an engineer, this somehow never appealed to my sensibilities. :-*

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    #43 Leonard Weinstein 2014-07-17 08:13
    Leonard Weinstein, ScD Aerospace Eng, specializing in Fluid mechanics and Heat transfer, BSc Physics, NASA Langley Res Ctr 1962-2007, NIA 2007-2013

    #35 Leonard Weinstein 2014-07-16 08:36
    “I have given more detailed descriptions many times, but the description in #26 is clear.”

    Pat Obar,
    “Since the blog was about radiation I assume the viewers know what this is. However I will give a basic description. Radiation as I described it refers to electromagnetic radiation (Radio waves, microwaves, IR, visible, UV, x-ray, gamma rays). In particular, I am concerned with IR, visible, and UV here (solar and thermal wavelengths).”
    -snip-
    “The units of radiation (energy, power, or power/area) in SI units is Joules, Joules per sec, or Joules/m2/sec, depending on whether you refer to total quantity of energy, total energy per time, or energy per area per time. You measure it with light or thermal detectors, which are very well developed technologies. In my equations, I use energy per time per area.”

    Dr.Weinstein,
    Thank you for your explanation.
    In your explanation you avoid a definition
    If “radiation” is but a vector potential for that “undefined radiation”, such as radiative intensity, radiance, or irradiance, than yes your individual fantasy of “radiation” goes in all directions from any surface with no energy transfer.
    However if you refer to this physical, such “radiance” is measured but without detection of any such claimed radiative flux, which is always limitated by any opposing radiance.
    If however if radiation is defined as the actual transfer of “energy per time per area” from surface A to surface B. With surface A at a higher temperature than surface B. This enegy transfer is easily measured. This is called the Poynting flux a vector value of flux at every frequency, at every point in space. That vector points into only one of 4 PI steradians. There is absolutly no flux in an opposing direction.
    This is always true independent of how all electromagnetic fields are generated, and has nothing to do with thermodynamics.
    The use of the Schwarzschild two stream approximation, for an atmosphere that has no luminance, is truly a deliberate corruption of all science.

    Please define “radiation”.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    jsullivan

    |

    Case, the article points out that the temperature range of the moon (no atmosphere) is far greater than earth (with an atmosphere) thus indicating that it is the presence of an atmosphere that limits the temperature range. In short atmospheric gases serve to moderate temps.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Case SMIT

    |

    I’ve not read all the comments, but I imagine that someone has pointed out that the temperature of the earth is an atmospheric temperature, but how and where is the 117 degree temperature of the moon calculated seeing it has no atmosphere? The temperature of the soil on earth would be higher than the 56-57 degree quoted for Death Valley (depending on the receptivity of the particular surface)

    Reply

  • Avatar

    carlallen

    |

    [quote name=”Leonard Weinstein”]
    [i]”The point you clearly fail to understand is that the only factors that determine surface temperature are average solar intensity, albedo, atmospheric absorption of solar energy, surface absorption of solar energy, average location of outgoing radiation to space and environmental lapse rate.” [/i]

    You are forgetting about “work”. It has long been known that the internal energy (and therefore the temperature) of matter, including surface level air, can just as easily be increased by doing “work” on that matter as by adding “heat”. This reality is, in fact, the substance of the First Law.

    [i]change U = change Q – change W
    U = internal energy
    Q = heat
    W = work[/i]

    In ascending air “work” is done [b]by[/b] the air thus:
    [i]change U = change Q [b]-[/b] W[/i]

    In descending air “work” is done [b]on[/b] the air thus:
    [i]change U = change Q [b]+[/b] W[/i]

    If air was not compressible the troposphere would have the same thermodynamic structure as the oceans–cold at the bottom and warm at the top since gravity is continually attempting to striate the troposphere by its density. The operation of Charles Law causes warmed air to expand, become less dense and ascend skyward, while cooler, more dense, air is drawn downward. This simultaneous up-going and down-going movement of air through pressure differentials trigers what has been called the “adiabatic process”, which simply means “without heat”. Energy is transfered into or out of matter by mean other than “heat” and in this case that means is “work”.

    It is a common misperception that compressing air increases its temperature because the same amount of energy is crammed into a smaller space, but the fact is per the First Law “work” is a mode of energy [b]transfer[/b]–“work” transfers energy into and out of matter, including surface level air. Transfers energy from where?

    Quite literally, “work” transfers energy from ascending air to descending air thus creating an internal energy imbalance within the troposphere that is manifested as a temperature lapse rate. This lapse rate would be 9.8 C/km if “heat” where not also being transfered up the atmospheric column via convection, conduction, radiation and latent heat transfer, which together bring the average lapse rate down to ~6.4 C/km.

    Since the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is blind to the affect of “work” on the troposphere’s thermal structure it had to come up with an alternative explanation for it. It therefore asserts that “greenhouse gases” “trap heat” in the lower troposphere while at the same time “super cool” the upper troposphere.

    They thus they believe in a hypothesis that not only ignores the First law, but has a passive mode of energy transfer–IR radiation–causing a decrease in the troposphere’s total Entropy, which violates the Second Law. How can such a hypothesis possibly be true?

    Carl

    Reply

  • Avatar

    jsullivan

    |

    Carl, As Greg says, it may be a math symbol that is causing the system to misbehave. Please send me your full comment and I will try adding from this end. Thanks

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    Carl,

    the reason might have been a mathematical symbol you used in your comment.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    carlallen

    |

    I give up. My perspective on the IPCC’s hypothesis as expressed in AR4 will have to wait for another time on a different thread.

    Carl

    Reply

  • Avatar

    carlallen

    |

    Let me try once more:

    As you can see there is an inherent conflict within this hypothesis, because if the air at ~5.5 km in altitude is transmissive enough to let ~239 W/m^2 of IR radiation “escape” into space then its emissivity has to be be

    Reply

  • Avatar

    carlallen

    |

    My full comment got cut off when I posted it. So, let me complete the thought.

    As you can see there is an inherent conflict within this hypothesis, because if the air at ~5.5 km in altitude is transmissive enough to let ~239 W/m^2 of IR radiation “escape” into space then its emissivity has to be be

    Reply

  • Avatar

    carlallen

    |

    On your list of things that determine the mean surface temperature you mention the “average location of outgoing radiation to space”, which seems to echo this AR4 statement from the IPCC: [i]“. . . infrared radiation emitted to space originates from an altitude with a temperature of, on average, –19°C, in balance with the net incoming solar radiation . . . An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere, and therefore to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature.”[/i]

    This hypothesis contains two postulates:
    1) The OLR at the TOA originates at about 5.5 km in altitude (since the average temperature of the air at that altitude is about -19 °C.)
    2) An increase “greenhouse gas” concentration will force this “altitude of emission” to increase.

    This thesis evolved from the understanding that the transmissivity of the atmosphere increases as the air density decreases with altitude. Thus it is believed that at some particular altitude the air becomes transmissive enough for the IR radiation that cools the Earth to “escape” into outer space. According to the IPCC this occurs at ~5.5 km in altitude where the air is -19 °C.

    transmissivity + absorptivity/emissivity + reflectivity = 1.0

    As you can see there is an inherent conflict within this hypothesis, because if the air at ~5.5 km in altitude is transmissive enough to let ~239 W/m^2 of IR radiation “escape” into space then its emissivity has to be be

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    Ref #61 Leonard

    You got my list correctly. These are consequences of misguided promotion of Green House Gas Hunches. Ref Heartland Institute, US Senate and public knowledge.

    Of course I am unaware of your direct involvement, which is why I carefully explained they are part of the larger context I think you should be aware of and beware of. A correct application of a well known Precautionary Principle.

    Understanding and reconciliation in science are good. In the meantime I shall continue looking for a valid description of GHGH of sufficient engineering quality to build a thermostat.

    Alberto Miatello’s nice work indicates the search will be fruitless.

    All the best.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    Alberto,

    When comparing surface temperatures of Moon and earth, I suggest that the only useful comparison is between their [i]mean[/i] surface temperatures.

    From the Diviner project’s observations of temperatures all over the Moon’s surface, it appears that its mean surface temperature is about 197K.

    From terrestrial and satellite observations of temperatures all over the earth’s surface, it appears that its mean surface temperature is about 288K.

    So, [i]whatever the complexities of the earth’s atmosphere[/i], its aggregate effect is to raise the mean surface temperature by about 91K over what it would be if, like the Moon, the earth were an entirely dry and atmosphere-less body.

    The advantage of working with mean surface temperatures, rather than maxima and minima, is that they are largely independent of rotation rates.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    Leonard,

    Oops! At the end of the above comment I should, of course, have said that the effect [i]of doubling CO2[/i] is so insignificant that everyone (warmist or skeptic) should stop obsessing about it.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    Alberto,

    Nobody seems to be commenting on your article. You claim:

    We have just two layers: a warm body (Earth surface) surrounded by a colder gaseous body (atmosphere)…

    No! You have described a system that has THREE, not TWO, nested layers under steady state power transfer. These components are: (1) the constantly powered earth; (2) its passive energy-transferring atmosphere; and (3) the surrounding universe that acts as an infinite heat sink at temperature 3K.

    Without that vital third component, the intermediate component (the atmosphere) would have nowhere to sink its heat to. In such bizarre circumstances both the powered earth and its atmosphere would increase in temperature indefinitely.

    So your statement that our “cold” atmosphere is NOT surrounded by a colder environment, as vacuum space is not cold is misleading. Yes the vacuum itself is not cold (or warm, for that matter) but the surrounding universe as a whole nevertheless behaves exactly as a heat sink at 3K.

    As for the greenhouse theory, I’m with Leonard Weinstein. The radiation-absorbing gases such as water vapour and CO2 do act in theory as a weak radiation shield, impeding the flow of energy up through the atmosphere and thus raising the surface temperature. But in practice the effect is so insignificant that everyone (warmist or skeptic) should stop obsessing about it.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    Pierre,

    I am referring to the following when I ask what do these have to do with ME??

    “The idea of building a thermostat for Earth is the stupidest idea I have ever encountered, because it is impossible to build and, if it could be built, humanity has no way to reach consensus to decide how to set its setpoint.”

    “I regret to inform you any vanishingly small effect of CO2 on T will be of no consequence during the coming cooling period.”

    “The idea of spending $1 billion/day on research for something with overwhelming consensus the supporting science is settled is really stupid. Particularly when it is attempting a proven impossibility.”

    “The idea of using statistical correlations in lieu of rigorous chemical engineering models to predict Earth’s future temperature and climate is truly preposterous nonsense. Particularly without a physics based forecast of the input drivers.”

    “Pushing poor Africans to exchange free kindling wood for expensive solar & wind power is a crime against humanity.”

    “Choking and starving flora by curtaining their food, CO2, is a crime against Life on Earth.”

    “Corrupting science by fraud is a criminal offense. Doing it for financial gain is theft.”

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    Carlallen,
    I hate to disagree with such a bright person, but your understanding falls flat on all issues. The point you clearly fail to understand is that the only factors that determine surface temperature are average solar intensity, albedo, atmospheric absorption of solar energy, surface absorption of solar energy, average location of outgoing radiation to space and environmental lapse rate. The environmental lapse rate is not significantly changed with a small change in CO2 and water vapor, so if the CO2 and added water vapor do not cause an increase in temperature, then some negative feedback process has to be partially or mainly decreasing it. Actually, this should be expected, since most physical process that do not run away have negative feedback. Cloud variation of the albedo is the most likely cause here.

    Your misunderstanding of the emissivity effects make you go down a wrong path of thinking. The increased emissivity means the altitude where radiation eventually goes to space has to increase, since the absorption also increases, and the photons have to go higher to escape. The temperature at the eventual altitude of escape is determined by the energy balance, and the result is just to raise the altitude for a given temperature if that were true. The change in albedo drives it the other way and the final effect is small enough to be overwhelmed by natural variation (which cannot be predicted).

    I hope this clears up your misunderstanding.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    carlallen

    |

    Hi Leonard,
    Thank you for taking the time to explain more specifically what you mean by “atmospheric greenhouse effect”. The fact is the “atmospheric greenhouse effect” has failed to evolve into a “law” since there exist too many empirical observations that contradict it. Let me mention three such observations:

    1) The first observation that belies the truth of the “atmospheric greenhouse effect” hypothesis is the fact that high levels of water vapor within a climate system are associated with cooler rather than warmer surface air temperatures. Water vapor, according to the “atmospheric greenhouse effect” hypothesis is suppose to be causing some 20-25 C of surface warming all by itself yet when the humidity goes up within a very dry climate the mean surface level temperature drops.

    2) In your response you mention the atmosphere’s lapse rate. [i]“The actual effect requires that the atmosphere has a dropping temperature with increasing altitude, which does occurs due to the lapse rate, a result of decreasing pressure with increasing altitude.”[/i] If the “atmospheric greenhouse effect” where real water vapor would increase rather than decrease the lapse rate since the concentration of water vapor drops precipitously with altitude and is nearly gone by about 5 km. In other words, if there were an “atmospheric greenhouse effect” it would decrease with altitude at a faster rate within wet climates than in dry climates, this is not observed to happen.

    3) Your belief that water vapor acts like “radiation insolation” fails to acknowledge that when water vapor decreases the transmissivity of the atmosphere it simultaneously increases its emissivity. Let’s say for example that within a very dry climate the transmissivity of the atmosphere is 0.25 so that 60 W/m^2 of IR radiation is being emitted directly from the ground out into space through the “atmospheric window” and 180 W/m^2 is being emitted from the atmosphere out into space for a total of 240 W/m^2 of OLR at the TOA. Now let the humidity increase so that the transmissivity of the atmosphere drops to 0.15. Under this greater humidity only 36 W/m^2 of IR radiation will be emitted directly from the ground out into space through the “atmospheric window” while 204 W/m^2 will need to be emitted from the atmosphere out into space to maintain the 240 W/m^2 total OLR at the TOA.

    What changed is that the atmosphere is now emitting 204 W/m^2 of IR radiation out into space instead of 180 W/m^2. The “atmospheric greenhouse effect” hypothesis postulates that in order for the atmosphere to emit this extra 24 W/m^2 of IR radiation it has to become warmer thus ignoring the fact that the new, wetter atmosphere is now 0.10 more emissive and will thus emit that extra 24 W/m^2 of IR radiation at the same temperature as before.

    In other words the “atmospheric greenhouse effect” hypothesis believes that “greenhouse gases” can change the transmissivity of the atmosphere without simultaneously changing its emissivity, which makes it a false hypothesis.

    Carl

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    #53 Greg. No that is not my opinion. My reference to photosynthesis indicates as much.

    #54 Leonard. I implied no such thing. When you claim I made “nonsense statements” you have a duty to identify them and prove it.

    #55 Leonard. I agree. I keep my sweaters and jackets, just in case we are right.

    I shall do my best to have a wonderful day. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Reconciliation is good. Patience is a virtue.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    Carlaiien.
    I am going to reply to your question. The statement:
    The “greenhouse effect” refers to how gases in the atmosphere which absorb infrared radiation make the Earth warmer than it would be without them. It has nothing to do with the way greenhouses work to protect plants by trapping warm air in an enclosure. That’s just its name”
    is a correct statement. I use the term “atmospheric greenhouse effect”, to distinguish it from the “greenhouse effect”. The greenhouse effect uses a trapping of convection with a barrier. The atmospheric greenhouse effect is a more complicated process. I know this make for confusion, but the name has become entrenched, so has to be used to communicate.

    I went to the web site shown, and some of the comments made there are simply incorrect. The back radiation never heats the surface if the surface is warmer than the air (and it is warmer on average). The surface does absorb some back radiation energy, but heat transfer (which is NET energy transfer, and energy can flow both ways) is always from hot to less hot. This back radiation always exists if there are absorbing gases, but in essence they act as a radiation insulator, requiring convection and water evaporation to take over the burden of removing some of the NET input energy blocked from removal by radiation. This always results in the surface warming more than without the absorbing gases.

    The actual process of the atmospheric greenhouse effect increasing the surface temperature is not due to the atmosphere heating the surface, it is due to the atmosphere effectively partially insulating the surface from direct radiation to space so that it heats up some so that the final outgoing energy at the top of the atmosphere balances incoming solar energy. The actual effect requires that the atmosphere has a dropping temperature with increasing altitude, which does occurs due to the lapse rate, a result of decreasing pressure with increasing altitude.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    carlallen

    |

    [quote name=”Damian McGuiness”]
    [i]The “greenhouse effect” refers to how gases in the atmosphere which absorb infrared radiation make the Earth warmer than it would be without them. It has nothing to do with the way greenhouses work to protect plants by trapping warm air in an enclosure. That’s just its name” [/i][url]http://verydifferentearth.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/what-is-greenhouse-effect-and-how-does.html?m=1 [/url]

    I’m curious. Do you actually believe what is written at the web site that you link to in this post or did you cite that web site as an example of how the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis conflicts both with empirical observation as well as the laws of thermodynamics?

    Carl

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    I want to add one more thought, on the precautionary principle:

    Since we are likely approaching the end of the Holocene (based on duration of previous several interglacial lengths), and since there are several indicators that temperature is likely to drop over the next several decades (present trends, ocean cycles, solar low activity, etc,), it appears that we should take the precaution to prepare for the serious effect of a cooling climate (crop decrease, people dying of cold, etc).

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    Pierre,
    I may have to retract part of my apology. You made a number of nonsense statements and imply they are related to my position. Not a one is. I want to find the facts and correct information. You imply this search for the truth is bad because this forces large expenses, or worse. I do not support any wasted effort or expenses, and deplore what is being done in that direction.

    You imply the atmospheric greenhouse effect is either not valid, or not related to what I stated. There is nothing in what I stated that is not reasonable, and well supported. I clearly did not state that I thought there was CAGW and I clearly stated I thought that if there was any AGW it was not significant due to reduction by negative feedback (likely cloud variation) or overwhelmed by natural variation, and thus almost surely not a problem. This clearly implies not to waste huge efforts or expense on a non-problem.

    The effort of Ferenc Miskolczi was a good effort, but the SOD refutation I gave you the URL to, refutes it. In addition, the fact that temperature changes over long averaged) periods of time also refuted his theory, which would require no change without change in solar activity.

    Your statement:
    “There is no such thing in physics as radiant energy transfer by back-radiation from cold to hot. It is a misnomer. I already concluded you agree.” I do disagree with your version. This actually shows me you are one of those that does not understand the difference between radiant energy transfer, which does transfer both ways, and radiant heat transfer, which is NET radiant energy transfer.

    I have spent a lot of time trying to respond accurately to every question and claim that I could, but feel I am wasting my time. You have your opinions, I have mine.

    Have a nice day.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Pierre Latour”]When you apply S-B Law globally, you see increased emissivity requires a T decrease to emit constant 239 w/m2 of Earth surface that is incoming from sun.[/quote]
    Pierre,
    I’ve got a weird feeling that you might share the warmists concept of the Sun alone being able to heat the surface of our Earth to the maximum of -18°C on average. Is it correct in your opinion?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    Leonard Part 3/3
    When you apply S-B Law globally, you see increased emissivity requires a T decrease to emit constant 239 w/m2 of Earth surface that is incoming from sun. That says the three cooling mechanisms dominate the one warming mechanism, even as all are vanishingly small. Which is why I asked why you believe in AGW.

    I very much appreciate your close, “As to the argument to show my math, if I or anyone else could do that, the problem would be solved. Unfortunately, the problem is truly a wicked one, with much physics not well understood.” I am working on it, but the problem is not very important because we already have a satisfactory engineering evaluation answer: forget about it.

    Thanks for the LTE definition. I have never encountered that acronym in ChE or science literature. I learned about the concept in college chemistry. I am very well acquainted with the chemical engineering criteria for any system to be in equilibrium. Control systems call it steady-state, when rate of change of propertied like F, T, P, L & C are zero over time.

    Also thanks for Miskolczi references. I remain your student.

    Would you at least agree the AGW science is not yet settled, the consensus is thin, the fear is small and the original Precautionary Principle from Herodotus says: “First, do no harm”?

    BTW, with a BS ChE from VPI (VaTech), 1962 and father-in-law who served Air Force at Langley AFB, I am familiar with where it is and what goes on there. VPI aeronautical engineering, next to chemical engineering, had a wind tunnel, gift from Langley. Langley had one of the largest in world at that time. Chris Craft went from VPI to Langley to MSC. Walt Cunningham, Harrison Schmidt and Eugene Cernan share my reservations about GHGH.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    Leonard Part 2/3
    If you look at radiant heat transfer rate law, you will see emissivity of atmosphere increases a bit when non-radiating O2 is exchanged for radiating CO2. That introduces a slight increase in energy transfer resistance and hotter radiating surface T must increase to transfer energy at same rate to atmosphere and space. (There is no such thing in physics as radiant energy transfer by back-radiation from cold to hot. It is a misnomer. I already concluded you agree.) I understand this effect to be the so-called greenhouse gas warming effect. Tough to quantify, but small. It neglects the small absorption of incoming solar spectrum overlapping CO2 absorption spectra, causing atmosphere to absorb/radiate a bit more intensely and reduce incident radiation to surface, causing it to radiate less intensely, a cooling effect. It also neglects photosynthesis, a surface cooling effect. So you have one small heating effect and three cooling effects in different temperature zones. None have been quantified to my satisfaction; probably because determining effect of CO2 concentration in air on emissivity is a bit complicated. (Deliberately picking one mechanism favorable to your theory and neglecting three unfavorable ones is negligence. Negligence can be a crime.)

    You say these are “connected” somehow, without explanation. I certainly agree with you dT/d[CO2] is not exactly zero, always. That would be impossible to prove.
    TBC

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    Ref #47, 48, 49 Part 1/2
    Leonard,
    Thank you for your replies. Apology accepted. Good move. I also have the same human deficiency.

    I added some comments to provide readers context for my serious interests in your descriptions of the GHGH (Green House Gas Hunch.). They were intended to tell you what is going on these days. Even if you didn’t understand the points I made, I am glad you did not attempt to refute them. Which raises the question, why are you promoting/defending the GHGH that is used to justify more research spending at $1 billion/day in a nefarious control scheme?

    I find the general literature on GHGH sloppy, incoherent and inconsistent. Explanations use incorrect engineering terms. After all engineering is the customer of scientists who want to help their fellow man. If you expect a professional chemical process control systems engineer to build a thermostat for Earth on your explanation of your GHGH, you have a lot of work to do since it is impossible. Won’t work because system is unmeasurable, unobservable and uncontrollable and if it were mankind has no consensus method for setting setpoint. Engineering standards to elevate a hunch to a theory and then a law of nature I can stake my career on are much higher than a simple peer-reviewed paper in Science.

    If your idea of GHGH includes dry lapse rate = -g/Cp for slope of T vs h line through troposphere to 12 km, easily derived because kinetic energy is converted to potential energy with h, and Cp increases with exchange of higher Cp of CO2 for lower Cp of O2, ok so far. If the pivot point is centroid, at about h = 5 km, then introducing CO2 makes slope less negative; lower altitudes warm, upper altitudes cool, bulk average would not change much. No greenhouse effect here.

    TBC

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    Pierre,
    A good reference to detailed analysis of Ferenc Miskolczi’s papers can be found at:
    http://scienceofdoom.com/?s=+Ferenc+Miskolczi
    This is a six-part discussion with a lot of comments, including from Ferenc. It goes into much more detail than I possibly either had time for, but even more important, detail I was not fully capable of doing (I am not capable of generating atmospheric absorption code, and even am somewhat limited in my Maths, even though I had a great deal and did well in it, but lack recent practice for much of it). This does not mean I can’t follow others development, just that I am limited from doing a separate formulation. I think SOD’s analysis is quite clear.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    Pierre,
    LTE is Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium. Absorbed (and radiated) photons of suitable wavelength cause the molecules to gain or lose energy in vibration mode. redistribution of modes and transfer of this excess by collision with other molecules adds (or removes) average thermal energy to the surrounding gas. Since there is a velocity range in molecular motion (Maxwellian distribution), some collisions add more energy than the molecule can retain, so a photon is emitted in the radiation out mode. LTE simply says that the local distribution is very near equilibrium. Since collisions occur at atmospheric conditions very frequently, this is a very good assumption.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    Pierre,
    First, I apologize to you. I have an age related decreasing memory, and I did not recognize your name and thought you were one of the people I have been responding to that keeps insisting there is no back radiation. My mistake.
    I will respond to the following point later in this write-up.
    “If you are trying to explain your GHGH at Climate Clash G8 to me, you failed: http://climateclash.com/g8-co2-cannot-cause-any-more-global-warming/
    For the rest of the comments, keep your claims to only what I say! Many of the other statements you made have nothing to do with me, and if they are from you, I have no idea why they are there. What point were you trying to make?

    In response to the first point at climate clash, I made clear that I thought NEGATIVE FEEDBACK would reduce any small CO2 effect, and allowed it might be between 0 and 0.5 C per doubling, but I thought it would not be exactly 0. It is the albedo change due to clouds that would be the most likely cause of negative feedback. That does not change the MECHANISM of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, which is the effective average location at TOA where radiation to space occurs, and the lapse rate. The argument in http://climateclash.com/g8-co2-cannot-cause-any-more-global-warming/ Ferenc Miskolczi’s Saturated Greenhouse Effect Theory in no way contradicted that, although he used absorption length as the variable, rather than location of effective TOA and lapse rate. There is no way he can claim the absorption length does anything independent of the effect of the lapse rate and location of TOA. If negative feedback from change in albedo due to self-correcting changes in clouds exactly compensated for increased altitude of TOA, we would exactly agree in that conclusion (but not reason). I claimed that I thought it unlikely it was an exact balance, but could be very close, and still result in the measured results, and have not been disproved. Most feed-backs in nature and electrical circuits, etc., do not exactly compensate, but can be close. It is clear he would be wrong for an atmosphere with no water, and the exactitude of negative feedback is NOT derivable from first principals as he seemed to imply. Miskolczi’s assumptions are not directly related to how the water, land, atmosphere, clouds, and chaos effects do cause temperature to vary, and it is not possible to claim that no part of that is due to CO2.

    As to the argument to show my math, if I or anyone else could do that, the problem would be solved. Unfortunately, the problem is truly a wicked one, with much physics not well understood. I think Miskolczi is wrong, since there are large temperature variations (about 2 C during the Holocene, and 10 C or more during glacial periods), and his theory would only allow them if the solar intensity changed, which it doesn’t do enough. HIS THEORY WOULD NOT ALLOW THIS!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    Ref #32, 35
    Leonard,
    You simply claim your explanation is correct, accepted by unnamed scientists, without evidence. American jurisprudence allows everyone to assess it as frivolous. In fact I found some scientists who disagree with you.

    What is wrong with “persistence in my beliefs” until you convince me I am in error? I hold high standards for my beliefs and knowledge and recommend the same to you. Your assertion indicates you are unable to support your claim.

    You accuse me of misunderstanding the difference between heat transfer and radiation transfer; just from one brief blog! That is an unfounded and bogus charge. You even admit you “can’t help me if I remain ignorant on that issue”; a sad commentary on your teaching ability. What does LTE stand for?

    I readily admit I do not understand the greenhouse gas hunches in all their forms. I have been struggling with it since 1997. Which is why I asked some questions to help you out. Which you failed to answer. To be ignorant is not a crime.

    You denigrated me and my simple S-B analysis without refuting it.

    You are the teacher promoter; I am your student, customer.

    If you are trying to explain your GHGH at Climate Clash G8 to me, you failed: http://climateclash.com/g8-co2-cannot-cause-any-more-global-warming/

    The idea of building a thermostat for Earth is the stupidest idea I have ever encountered, because it is impossible to build and, if it could be built, humanity has no way to reach consensus to decide how to set its setpoint.

    I regret to inform you any vanishingly small effect of CO2 on T will be of no consequence during the coming cooling period.

    The idea of spending $1 billion/day on research for something with overwhelming consensus the supporting science is settled is really stupid. Particularly when it is attempting a proven impossibility.

    The idea of using statistical correlations in lieu of rigorous chemical engineering models to predict Earth’s future temperature and climate is truly preposterous nonsense. Particularly without a physics based forecast of the input drivers.

    Pushing poor Africans to exchange free kindling wood for expensive solar & wind power is a crime against humanity.

    Choking and starving flora by curtaining their food, CO2, is a crime against Life on Earth.

    Corrupting science by fraud is a criminal offense. Doing it for financial gain is theft.

    Pierre R Latour, PhD, PE TX & CA, Chemical Process Control Systems Engineer

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    #44 Paul,
    If you read my comments and go to my analysis I gave a connection to, you can understand the correct physics of the issue. The blog these comments are on is just bad science and is wrong. The Lunar orbital path and the lack of atmosphere on our moon is not proof of anything other than it gives expected results, and contradicts nothing once the local conditions are correctly considered.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Paul Williams

    |

    I’m reading through the comments and there seems to be a question surrounding the effects of the moon’s orbit as it relates to the merits of this article?

    Does the moon’s orbit underscore or undermine the gist of this article?

    Thanx, Paul

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    Pat Obar,

    Since the blog was about radiation I assume the viewers know what this is. However I will give a basic description. Radiation as I described it refers to electromagnetic radiation (Radio waves, microwaves, IR, visible, UV, x-ray, gamma rays). In particular, I am concerned with IR, visible, and UV here (solar and thermal wavelengths). There are other types of radiation, including particle radiation (alpha particles, etc.), but I am not including them. The units of radiation (energy, power, or power/area) in SI units is Joules, Joules per sec, or Joules/m2/sec, depending on whether you refer to total quantity of energy, total energy per time, or energy per area per time. You measure it with light or thermal detectors, which are very well developed technologies. In my equations, I use energy per time per area.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    hum drum

    |

    [quote]Why the Moon?
    […]
    Secondly, the Moon has no atmosphere, whereas Earth is surrounded by nearly 10 km of Troposphere, that lower part of our atmosphere in which the main climatic phenomena and weather reactions are taking place.[/quote]

    The moon does not act as an experimental control for the earth – to do so, it would require an atmosphere very similar to earth’s without the CO2, and a similar albedo.

    About the only thing in commmon between earth and moon is average insolation.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Mervyn

    |

    A well presented article of logic and common sense based on real data (rather than on computer models). Well written.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    #35 Leonard Weinstein 2014-07-16 08:36
    “I have given more detailed descriptions many times, but the description in #26 is clear.”

    Dr.Weinstein,
    In your paper referenced in #26 I can find no definition for the word “Radiation” Could you please define that word as you use it here and in your paper? What are the proper SI units for such and what instruments are used to measure such?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    KuhnKat

    |

    Leonard, you are funny. I was definitely wrong about the moon’s orbit, yet, you also call me wrong about the radiation. You then go on to do a more detailed description of what I claimed, that the atmosphere is a MODERATOR!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Unfortunately you then also go on to try and sell us the BS about it being practically radiation only through the atmosphere with the fabled Back radiation being the big dog.

    Well, which experts are we to believe?? I have read several who claim that in the lower troposphere IR is not the driver as the energy carried by the IR is transferred through collisions far faster than it could possibly be reemitted. Who also point to the fact that more heat causes more convection for cooling and that more IR simply adds to this effect.

    Which experts are right Leonard?!?!?!

    According to these other experts RTE isn’t significant until the tropopause or so where the atmospheric density is reduced enough and there is little to no water vapor so that collisions are a lower frequency than the average time to emission.

    Sorry Leonard, not only is there a conflict with the experts stories, BUT, there is a conflict with the actual observations. NOAA released 10 years of their USCRN data that does not need adjustment recently. According to this high quality, spatially correct network the US has cooled about .4c in those 10 years. Comparing that to the other land estimates from GISS, NOAA, HADCRUT, and BEST we find a rather stark difference. In fact, a difference so extreme that the only conclusion is that THERE HAS LIKELY BEEN NO WARMING SINCE THE 30’s!!!

    So, from an atmospheric CO2 level of about 310ppm in the 30’s to 400ppm now, there has been no measurable effect from CO2. Of course even if your experts are right this is not surprising. The IR bands are saturated by water vapor over much of the earth outside the poles. We do see some variation in temps from the poles where CO2 COULD have some effect, BUT, since we do not have records that go back far enough we cannot know if it has anything to do with CO2 or is just normal variation in the system.

    So maybe there is some validity to your view and there is some validity to my view. And maybe we have it all wrong.

    Again, the primary noticeable function of the GHG’s, atmosphere, and oceans, is a MODERATING effect!! Keeping the coldest levels warmer and preventing the peaks.

    Whether your THEORY and physics are correct or not is totally meaningless at this point. The overall model results are totally made up garbage, there is no Gorebull Warming, and y’all need to take a long vacation and then move on before the idiot politicians collapse the world economy with their moronic CONTROL FREAK policies.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    KuhnKat

    |

    Let me begin with a mea culpa. I was totally wrong about the moon’s orbit. Leonard is most correct on that due to the moon having an orbit of ~27 days and not being in the ecliptic.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    Rosco and others,
    There is no independent entity called cold. Cold is the absence of heat, not the presence of something. In space there is a low background radiation present. If a thermometer were placed in space and not near a planet or Sun, the radiation would be partially or fully absorbed by the thermometer, and the matter of the thermometers would radiates some energy out. If the thermometer were a black body, the balance of out to absorbed would give a reading of 2.7 K. That is called the effective temperature of space. This in not the same as a commonly defined temperature (temperature of a gas, liquid, or solid), but that is only due to narrow definitions, and does not change the physics. That is the driving temperature for radiation transfer from the Earth’s atmosphere.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    Rosco & others,
    The Lunar cooling rate is slow because as the Moon slowly turns relative to the Sun, the solar input only slowly decreases with increasing angle to the surface (it takes 15 days for a Lunar day). If the sunlight were suddenly cut off at the Lunar equator (say by a spot going into a shadow from a mountain) the cooling would be many times the Earth cooling rate. You just have your physics wrong.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    #32 Pierre
    My description is in fact the same as the present one that is accepted by scientists, and is correct. The presentation and emphasis of different write ups may vary from author to author, but the content is the same. Those that use back radiation as cause rather than effect are even correct based on their choice of some definition of terms, but I use classical definitions. In all cases, the average altitude of radiation to space and the lapse rate determine the atmospheric greenhouse effect, and back radiation is a necessary component of such systems.
    I have given more detailed descriptions many times, but the description in #26 is clear. I could go over all relevant physics till the moon turns blue, but if you persist in your beliefs you would not accept my description. I have claimed that CO2 with no other changes causes a small increase. Natural variation, and possibly negative feedback (clouds, etc.), mask any small effect, and make the net result not detectable for CO2, but this does not mean there would be no effect at all.

    You continue to misunderstand the difference between heat transfer and radiation transfer. I can’t help you if you remain ignorant on this issue. Your comment on emissivity causing cooling shows your misunderstanding quite well. You need to look at LTE and the effect of raising the altitude of location of radiation to space, along with lapse rate, not cooling like you describe.

    Leonard Weinstein, ScD Aerospace Eng, specializing in Fluid mechanics and Heat transfer, BSc Physics, NASA Langley Res Ctr 1962-2007, NIA 2007-2013

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    I agree with Alberto that the cooling rate of the Earth’s surfaces can exceed the radiative cooling rate of the Moon.

    Firstly many people see the temperature diagrams for the Moon but perhaps forget they are scaled in lunar days or hours not Earth hours.

    Secondly experiments show that in an atmosphere radiation is responsible for approximately 64% of the temperature change in still air reducing to 38% in a convection situation.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    I completely agree with Alberto about space has no temperature – to claim it is cold is absurd.

    But even if you believe it is cold it certainly not apply anywhere in the vicinity of Earth.

    The space surrounding Earth is “awash” with powerful solar radiation – ~1367 W/sq. m..

    At Mars NASA reports 589 W/square metre solar radiation with a heating potential of 319 K or about 36 C on a body absorbing most of it.

    To claim the space around Earth is cold is ridiculous and factually and demonstrably wrong

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    Leonard Weinstein. #23, #26, #27
    Thank you for your unique description of the greenhouse gas effect. I shall include it in my long list of different descriptions of those various hunches. Which write-up do you prefer and why?

    Might I ask you to describe your understanding in the language of physics and engineering: mathematics?
    Since you are describing radiant energy transfer, could you provide the laws of radiant energy transfer that quantify the effect you have in mind?
    You say it is a combination of a movement of a radiation location with lapse rate. What causes the movement and how fast is it? Could you write the lapse rate function you mentioned?
    I understand water vapor forms clouds; but I am skeptical that CO2 does. Evidence please.

    How does your understanding of GHGT prove how and how much CO2 affects global warming?
    I confess I cannot understand your description. And I can’t understand how it supports your notion I “show nothing by continuously repeating wrong statements”.

    Is this back radiation you mentioned energy transfer from cold upper atmosphere to warmer surface? Provide the governing rate law please.
    (You did a nice job proving “there was no back heat transfer” so we agree the correct answer is there is no such thing as energy transfer by back radiation:
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WPeBO_Ra9mkhWjv0J0SNmyRzHFVE9zPP8xRDUpR08jc/edit?pli=1

    I also agree with you UN IPCC Reports are mostly nonsense.

    BTW: If non-radiating O2 is exchanged for absorbing/emitting CO2 by fossil fuel combustion, emissivity, e, of planet to space must increase.
    I = σ e (T/100)4 = (1 – albedo) S/4 = (1 – 0.3)*1366/4 = 239 w/m2 Earth’s surface = 5.67*0.612(288.1/100)4. So T = 14.95C

    If e increases with CO2 at constant I, T goes down. Therefore CO2 causes global cooling. According to S-B Law of radiation physics.

    Pierre R Latour, PhD ChE, NASA MSC, 1967-69

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    Changes in Earth’s albedo are in my opinion the most significant driver in temperature changes, global warming or climate change or whatever.

    I cannot support the back radiative greenhouse effect.

    I cannot deny the evidence of the Nimbus satellite charts that our atmosphere reduces the temperature the “Earth” radiates to space – but that in no way suggests a “greenhouse effect” as climate science claims.

    I prefer Wood’s completely sound Physical explanation that the heat transferred to the atmosphere remains there due to the low radiating power of gases.

    Anything else seems to be arrant nonsense – but what would I know ?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    Climate science postulates DWLR of the order of 324 W/square metre – at least according to Trenberth et al.

    This is supposedly “recycled” energy initially emitted by the Earth’s surfaces and absorbed by GHGs thus re-emitted to cause further surface warming.

    I do not believe that is possible.

    CO2 absorbs energy in 3 bandwidths of the infrared – 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometres. These wavelengths represent the peak emission of a body with a temperature of 1073 K, 673 K and 193 K.

    H2O absorbs in almost all of the infrared bandwidths.

    If there is down welling long wave infrared radiation it simply must be coming from the solar radiation – especially in the case of CO2.

    The IPCC postulate as much as 20 % of the incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and almost exclusively by H2O – CO2 is less than 0.04% after all.

    Apparently the hottest surface temperature measured by Landsat is of the order of 70.7 C – 343 K in the Lut desert of Iran.

    This shows that our atmosphere actually reduces the heating effect of the Sun – with an albedo of 30% 87 C is the calculated maximum.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    Greg House,
    You seem to not understand that this comment section is in response to the present blog, not the IPCC. All comments are to explain why this blog is wrong. I don’t care what your opinions are as they are irrelevant to this discussion. I have explained why the present blog is wrong, and I have explained on other blogs why I disagree with most of the conclusions of the IPCC, but not all of the science.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Leonard Weinstein”]Greg House, … and I claim the back radiation is …[/quote] I do not care, as I just said. You can claim whatever you want, it is irrelevant, only the IPCC claims are relevant, because the governments base their climate policies on the IPCC reports, not yours.

    I guess you have some reading comprehension issues?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    Greg House,
    The IPCC description of energy balances is basically correct. The only difference I have is their attributing the heating as due to back radiation, and I claim the back radiation is a result of the overall process (read my discussion in #26).

    Please do not make statements as what IPCC says, as I disagree with most of their nonsense. If you want to argue science, do so don’t use straw men arguments.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    @23 LW…
    So then a cooler body[me] can warm up a hotter body [the campfire]??
    I thot cold cud not heat hot.?
    Heat flowed “downhill” only ?
    If not then the fire gets hotter [a little] and then I get hotter[a little] etc., etc,. until I turn to ash?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    @#23 Leonard Weinstein

    You can invent whatever effects and explanations you want, all that does not matter, because no government in the world refers to you. They refer to the IPCC.

    The IPCC made very clear statements about how the “greenhouse effect” is supposed to work, see my links above, and you can not obfuscate that it was apparently a fraud, probably the greatest one in the history of science.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    Greg House, there have been many write-ups of the basis of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. It is a combination of movement of the average location of radiation to space to a location above the surface due to absorption of some of the radiation from the ground in the atmosphere (and clouds) and eventual radiation at the higher altitudes to space. This is combined with the atmospheric lapse rate (which is purely a function of average specific heat, gravity and latent heat transfer of water vapor to clouds). There is back radiation that always goes with these conditions. It is a result, not cause of the higher average temperature. If you can’t understand this, you show nothing by continually repeating wrong statements.

    Al, it would be hotter, but not by much for this case.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    @Greg…………
    Picture this:
    You are out camping.
    You are sitting beside you campfire.
    The fire is heating the front of your body.
    Now! Does that heat from the front of your body radiate back and make your campfire hotter?
    rsvp.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    John OS

    |

    [quote name=”Leonard Weinstein”]Moderator, my last comment did not display. Please check.

    Thank you[/quote]
    Leonard, our system doesn’t show any comments from you awaiting posting. Please try again, if all else fails submit to me directly on john@principia-scientific.org and I will ensure your comments appear.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    Moderator, my last comment did not display. Please check.

    Thank you

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    Greg House,
    Why do you insist in repeating your ignorance on the subject. If you ever read any of my descriptions of the planetary greenhouse effects, you would know there is back radiation, and it is associated with the effect of raising temperature, but not by HEATING by back radiation (it can’t due to laws of radiation). What it does is DECREASE net radiation from the surface directly to space 9compared to a surface with no atmospheric greenhouse effect), requiring evaporation and convection to remove some of the excess energy. This energy is deposited to the atmosphere at a higher altitude before it can escape to space. The lapse rate (a real property of atmospheres with sufficient mixing), along with the average location of radiation to space, does the rest. This average location is just the integrated average, and actually corresponds to radiation from many location from the surface and atmosphere to space, but an average can be found.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Leonard Weinstein”] this would result in an average temperature without any atmospheric greenhouse effect that is about 33C lower than actually measured.[/quote]…which means exactly what climate liars say: the actual temperature is 33°C higher than the sunshine can possibly induce. Of course, they do understand that that would require a more powerful than the Sun source of energy which is not there, so they “create” it on paper as “back radiation from greenhouse gases”. As I said, it goes like that in the IPCC reports: the “greenhouse gases” intercept the IR radiation produced by the surface of the Earth and return it [b]DOUBLED [/b](!) back to the surface, thus causing warming (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1-figure-1.html). An absolutely obvious fraud.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    I need to clarify one more point:

    The rotation and spreading of solar energy, and ocean and atmosphere storage, on the Earth, result in in it approaching closer to a body with AVERAGE solar energy being better distributed rather than local peak solar energy dominating, as on Luna. The average solar energy is 1/4 the peak value (the plan form area of Earth divided by the total surface area). Given the albedo to incoming radiation and average radiation coefficients of outgoing thermal energy, this would result in an average temperature without any atmospheric greenhouse effect that is about 33C lower than actually measured.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    #10 Kuhn kat and #12 GEbreaker
    You two show that you do not understand radiation and thermal physics.
    #10, the Moon goes around the Earth in a MONTH, not a day, so it faces the Sun a half month and away a half. the radiation to the Earth and Moon is about 1370 W/m2, this results in an equilibrium temperature about 390 K (assuming absorption and emission coefficients are close, radiation out = radiation absorbed). This is what was measured! This is the approximate Lunar equatorial temperature at near noon on the Moon.

    #10 & #12: The reason it does not get that hot on Earth is two fold: Earth has an atmosphere and water layer, and Earth rotates much faster (1/day). The atmosphere and oceans spread the heat out and rotation prevents too much local accumulation. If you think about it, seasons are due to the small change in day length and Sun angle as the tilted Earth goes around the Sun, and even that small change has a fairly large effect. The oceans and atmosphere have a profound effect on storing and spreading the energy compared to the moon.

    The issue of Lunar cooling rate is straightforward radiation physics. Since most of the Moon has a thick dust layer, which is very good insulator, the surface responds fairly quickly to changes in input energy. Since the radiation out is proportional to [T(hot)4-T(cold)4] and radiation from space is at a level corresponding to just a few degrees K (i.e., negligible), the hot temperature is effectively all that matter for cooling. At the maximum temperature, the radiation out approaches the 1370 W/m2 level and if the sunlight is no longer input, the cooling only is determined by the thermal mass of the hot layer, which is small due to being dust. It cools very fast at first. As it cools, the absolute temperature of the surface radiates less, and at 1/3 the peak temperature (about 130 K), the cooling rate is about 0.012 times as fast as peak cooling. In fact this is not exactly what happens, due to the rotation changing the Sun angle slowly before going into Lunar night, so the hot surface actually is prevented from the rapid cooling by a slow decrease in solar input, not sudden stop.

    Are there any other issues either of you have?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”GHEbreaker”]@Greg House

    1) First of all, supporters of GHE are almost always repeating that GHE keeps Earth surface 33K (or 33° C) WARMER than without atmosphere, so what you wrote is not correct, although I admit that many GHE supporters change things more than a cameleon changes color of skin.

    2) “Making the surface warmer than the Sun allegedly can possibly do” as you wrote, is the same as saying that atmosphere is an heating factor, whereas atmosphere is actually a COOLING FACTOR.[/quote]

    Alberto,

    the climate liars do repeat that on blogs ans elsewhere, right, but that is just a trick to distract from what the IPCC in fact said. And no, keeping warmer and making warmer are different things. Keeping warmer by preventing cooling by air e.g. is possible (blanket, coat etc), but making warmer by “back radiation” is impossible.

    The climate policy around the world is based on the IPCC reports, not on what some people on blogs say. The governments refer either to the IPCC directly or to agencies that in turn refer to the IPCC ones. That means that by focusing on blog postings you are essentially fighting straw men. This is what they want. By the way, it had been my mistake for a long time, too.

    So, what we need is to focus on the physically impossible “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC in their reports and learn how to make this apparent fraud clear to everyone, in particular to politicians and journalists, that is without references to complicated things this group is unable to understand.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    The Duke

    |

    Can someone answer my questions above please?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GHEbreaker

    |

    @Damien Mc Guinness

    Frankly speaking, i’m sick to read things such as: “ah, what you describe is not GHE!”
    And what’s GHE?
    Gehrlich and Tscheuschner reported DOZENS definitions of GHE, so please, it’s time you clarify your own ideas!
    When you write:
    “It has nothing to do with the way greenhouses work to protect plants by trapping warm air in an enclosure. That’s just its name”

    Ah really, just the name, Damien?
    Are you really trying to get out of troubles with this petty excuse?
    But I heard other persons saying that GHE can be compared to the blanket, and then when you prove that blanket is not like our atmosphere, they say that GHE is not well understood by us!

    IT’S AGES THAT I’M HEARING GHE SUPPORTERS SAYING THAT GHE IS “ANOTHER THING”!
    PLEASE, IT’S TIME YOU CHANGE YOUR BROKEN RECORD, IT DOESN’T WORK ANY MORE!

    And when you write: “The “greenhouse effect” refers to how gases in the atmosphere which absorb infrared radiation make the Earth warmer than it would be without them.

    But that’s exactly what I described in my article: GHE would mean – in your well known opinion – “Earth warmer than it would be without atmosphere”

    Because maybe you did not realize it: atmosphere is made of GASES, not of hippogrifs.

    So, please, don’t kid me by “scrambling the glasses” as we use to say!

    Finally, regarding my qualifications, as a law graduate, maybe you ignore that I studied Law for 4 years to get a degree, but then I studied Physics, Math, Thermodynamics, Mechanics, and technical topics, for at least 20 YEARS, as I managed an engineering and export company.

    Probably it is not clear to you that a degree is not a life sentence, I took my degree when I was 23, exactly 30 years ago, but then I could study many other things.

    Is there a law prohibiting someone to study SEVERAL topics, and not just one?
    No, as far as I know, but maybe I’m missing something.

    Maybe persons as you ignore that Leibnitz ( inventor of Calculus along with Newton) was a LAWYER. But that did not prevent him to study many other topics!
    And you ignore that Hadley (who discovered the cells of atmosphere circulation) was a LAWYER. And Pierre Fermat (one of the greatest mathematicians) was a LAWYER.
    And Arthur Cayley, inventor of Matrix calculus, one of the greatest mathematicians, who held the Lucasian chair at Cambridge University, the most prestigious university chair in GB, occupied by Newton, was a LAWYER and worked as a LAWYER for 14 years, before changing and shifting to math.

    Why don’t you start studying and learning something more, instead of boring me with your useless remarks regarding my qualifications?

    My qualifications are enough to tell you: “you’re rejected in Physics Damien!”

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Damian McGuiness

    |

    Look I’m not sure if what I’m about to say is on topic here but
    The whole article doesn’t talk about the GHE at all? Well
    Obviously it does in the way that it says the words but it talks about the GHE as being a system on 3 layers (referring to above article “To correctly speak about a “greenhouse effect” we need 3 different bodies/surfaces/layers”) that’s not the GHE. “The “greenhouse effect” refers to how gases in the atmosphere which absorb infrared radiation make the Earth warmer than it would be without them. (It has nothing to do with the way greenhouses work to protect plants by trapping warm air in an enclosure. That’s just its name” http://verydifferentearth.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/what-is-greenhouse-effect-and-how-does.html?m=1
    Don’t get me wrong he’s totally proven to me that the vacuum of space has no temperature well not really because it doesn’t explain this? “The definition of T is that 1/T= dS/dU |V, where S is the entropy and U is the internal energy. The thermal radiation has U and it has S. When it’s got a thermal spectrum, it has a defined T. We measure that T in various ways, but perhaps the most obvious is by measuring the spectrum. The temperature of remote space, for example, is 2.7255 +/- 0.0006 K.
    I don’t see what the problem is.
    Mike W.”
    (published on 04/15/12)” https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1046
    Look I’m not a climateoligest so I may have missed something here but then agin neither is the guy who wrote this original article? “Don’t waste to much time reading it. Alberto Miatello is exclusively publishing with Principia Scientific International [if the website is ever down try the Google cache] and his qualification is being a law graduate.” http://denierlist.wordpress.com/2012/11/19/alberto-miatello/

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GHEbreaker

    |

    @Leonard Weinstein

    Sorry, but what YOU wrote is nonsense, because you totally disregarded the concept of THERMAL INERTIA (= heat stored by surfaces)

    1) A planet (Earth) that rotates 15 times faster than another (Moon), while receiving the SAME solar irradiance, should be much HOTTER than the slower one, simply because the cooling time (night) of the first is shorter, and there is no time enough to cool off. On the contrary, it does not take too much for soils to reach a peak of temperature, when exposed to solar heat. So, the cooling time is much more important than the heating time, and this is the concept of THERMAL INERTIA.
    SHORTER COOLING TIMES ARE LEADING TO HIGHER TEMPERATURES, FOR BODIES RECEIVING THE SAME SOLAR IRRADIANCE.
    You can have a better idea of this by thinking about a roasted chicken. If you want to roast it faster you have to rotate it faster. If a planet/sphere rotates 1 ring/second, for instance, there would be NO TIME at all to cool, and so higher temperatures are being reached by faster rotating bodies.

    @Greg House

    1) First of all, supporters of GHE are almost always repeating that GHE keeps Earth surface 33K (or 33° C) WARMER than without atmosphere, so what you wrote is not correct, although I admit that many GHE supporters change things more than a cameleon changes color of skin.

    2) “Making the surface warmer than the Sun allegedly can possibly do” as you wrote, is the same as saying that atmosphere is an heating factor, whereas atmosphere is actually a COOLING FACTOR.

    3) OK for your critic about the DOUBLE of energy “sent back” by the atmosphere.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    KuhnKat

    |

    Greg House,

    since we already have shown that the atmosphere MODERATES the temperature of the planet how are you going to PROVE the Green House effect again??

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You really need to rethink what you are trying to say. The expert Climatologists make the 33c claim. Are you smarter than Trenberth, Hansen et. al? I am not, but then again, I am not allowing my agenda to actually set what I am trying to prove like they are. Where do you fit??

    “Again, it is not just about keeping warmer, it is about making the Earth’s surface warmer than the Sun allegedly can possibly do.”

    We have measurements that show the moon gets far hotter than the earth. What are you trying to say again?!?!?!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Reply

  • Avatar

    KuhnKat

    |

    Leonard,

    This is embarrassing.

    1) The moon keeps the same face to the earth. It orbits the earth in about 1 day. That means it rotates in respect to the sun in about 1 day.

    2) temp causes emission of radiation to the 4th power. That means the hotter something gets the emissions increase to the 4th power of the increase. Since the moon heats to a much higher temp its radiation and cooling will be initially much faster until it gets closer to the temp of the earth. WHY does the moon get so much hotter?? Because there is no atmosphere to reflect and absorb the energy.

    3) exactly.

    4) you haven’t explained why because you got the physics wrong.

    So, we agree that the atmosphere and oceans actually MODERATES the temperature of the earth.

    Wanna try that debunking again champ??

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Kirk

      |

      [quote name=”KuhnKat”]Leonard,

      This is embarrassing.

      1) The moon keeps the same face to the earth. It orbits the earth in about 1 day. That means it rotates in respect to the sun in about 1 day.
      [/quote]

      Best reply ever. At first I thought you might be serious, but no one is [b]that[/b] stupid. Nice job.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    The article above does not refute the “greenhouse effect” for many reasons, including those given by Leonard Weinstein. His #6 confirms that we need warmists like a forest needs wolves.

    Worse, the “greenhouse effect” is misrepresented in the article, I mean this: [i]”Does our atmosphere really keep our Earth’s surface “warmer” by nearly 33°C?”[/i]. Again, it is not just about keeping warmer, it is about [b]making [/b]the Earth’s surface warmer than the Sun allegedly can possibly do. Such a warming requires however a more powerful source of energy than the Sun. Last time I checked there was none.

    The most easiest way to debunk the IPCC “greenhouse effect” is to focus on how it is supposed to work according to their reports, then it becomes obvious that it is impossible. Again, it goes like that: the “greenhouse gases” intercept the IR radiation produced by the surface of the Earth and return it [b]DOUBLED [/b](!) back to the surface, thus causing warming (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1-figure-1.html). This nonsense does not even require any further comment, because it is absolutely obvious. Seems to be the greatest fraud in the history of science.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Martin Hodgkins

    |

    I don’t think you can really compare the temperature on the Moon to the Earth. We don’t measure the actual ground temperature on the Earth do we?(we measure air temperature). Astronauts and the ISS need coolant to move the heat from the hot side to the cool side. Here on the Earth we would be fried like bacon in a microwave without the atmosphere to cool us. It works like the coolant and convects (even better). The point is if you actually stood on the dark side of the Moon just after sunset you would freeze pretty damn quick regardless of how fast the heat radiated from the warm surface. It just isn’t the same thing is it.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    OK. Where is the rebuttal to Leonard W.z?
    If available.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Leonard Weinstein

    |

    This post is total nonsense. I can disprove it piece by piece if desired, but lets start with the first few facts:
    1) The Moon rotates relative to the Sun in a month, not a day as Earth does. This means it heats for 15 times as long and cools 15 times as long each cycle. It should get hotter and colder.
    2) The albedo of 0.3 for Earth and 0.12 for the Moon mean the Moon gets 1.25 times the absorbed solar energy. A small but significant gain.
    3) the atmosphere (and oceans) moves much of the Earths absorbed energy from low to high latitudes and smears it from day to night. The Moon does not.
    4) Using the total time for the Moon’s drop in temperature is a joke. Look at the INITIAL rate when it first starts to cool for comparison.

    I could go on and on, but I think you get the gist.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    John Marshall

    |

    Whilst the ”official” surface temperature maximum is from Death Valley this was actually measured at a height of 1.5m which is much cooler than the ”actusl” surface. Measurements in the Namibian desert have surface temperatures of in excess of 70C nearer the possible 88C from SB. I have measured excess of 55C in the Arabia desert but this was not ”official” since the thermometer was hand held in the shade of an aircraft wing.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    The Duke

    |

    And sorry, one more question. I was just reading this:

    http://www.space.com/16344-alien-planet-atmosphere-star-eruption.html

    Sounds like gibberish. Especially the term ‘evaporating atmosphere’. What do these ‘experts’ mean by this?! Isn’t that what atmosphere IS to begin with, evaporatING water?! How can evaporation evaporate?!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    The Duke

    |

    Isn’t this explanation a bit conflated in parts, i.e. aren’t what we really taking issue with here the mechanism(s) by which atmosphere(s) are produced and maintained to begin with?

    I mean even if the earth would be warmer WITHOUT an atmosphere, then the cooling of earth doesn’t occur BECAUSE of an atmosphere, rather, the various other ways the earth cools (convection, conduction, perhaps due to water etc?) ends up producing a chemical atmosphere that’s gravitationally pulled back to and around the earth’s surface and thus ends up as a self-sustaining “cyclical” system (as least it’s perpetually cyclical for as long as humans/organisms’ lifespans are concerned).

    So basically what’s really at stake here, as I see it, are the proposed mechanisms behind atmosphere formation, no?

    Is water magic because it not only helps form organic compounds (life) but regulates planetary temperatures at the crucial surface level?

    Also how does oceanic evaporation impact on the greenhouse theory? I mean we know evaporation occurs more rapidly/strongly in hotter regions. Are they saying that this water becomes a “heat trap” too? So in the new context, it’s having the opposite effect: the earth is already warmer at those regions, and evaporation is helping to cool the surface temps.

    In a sense, is the global weather system not just cooling earth’s surface, but redistributing the collective heat across the earth more evenly, like a convector radiator inside a home?

    Thanks!

    —Luke Duke, Amateur Scientist

    Reply

  • Avatar

    FauxScienceSlayer

    |

    The “Slaying the Sky Dragon” science text has discussions of these Lunar conditions and brought up the subject of the average mass and core temperatures of the Moon in email threads among top scientists. The Lunar poles stay a constant 44 K, and the quoted above, predawn Lunar equatorial temperature only applies to the narrow equatorial belt. The angle of incidence with latitude changes cause a rapid decrease in temperature away from the equator., even at Lunar noon.

    This bring up the next question, WHY IS EARTH’S MINIMUM TEMPERATURE SO WARM ? ? ?

    The coldest ever surface temperature was -89.2 C at Lake Vostok, Jan 2013, while drilling through 4,000 meters of ice, into a WARM POOL OF WATER. The Earth’s core temperature of 7,000 F, recently bumped to estimated 8,000 F is NOT left over heat of origin, but is the product of variable rate fission of over 2 million cubic miles of Uranium and Thorium in the Earth’s mantle. Fission reactions are governed by temperature, pressure and particle bombardments. Earth’s fissionable material is partially protected by a varying magnetosphere from varying solar and cosmic particle bombardments. One of the manifestations of Earth’s fission is volcanism, which varies and a new research paper on the direct relationship to Earth’s temperature was discussed at the Heartland ICCC meeting in Las Vegas, July 7 – 9, 2014 by limited parties.

    Expect the Earth fission/climate link to be definitely established when this research has passed it’s current peer review and is published. The concept that Earth’s fission is THE ultimate baseline temperature factor was first presented in “Motive Force for All Climate Change” published at ClimateRealist.com in May 2009. There is a review of the ICCC conference and additional rebuttal to AGW in “Mommie, Can We Play Obombie Truth Origami” at the FauxScienceSlayer site. We have been systematically LIED to in an extent beyond accidental errant scientific misconduct. There is a reason that the Darth BIG Warmists and the Luke LITTLE Warmists will NOT debate the Obie NO Warmists. In a three sided debate, two sides are WRONG. All empirical evidence supports the Obie model of reality. Expect a paradigm shift on Earth science orthodoxy in the very near future.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    Beautiful explanation.
    It has never been a doubt in my mind that the water cycle mainly cools the earth and the GHE is bunk.
    This easy-to-read article is perfect.
    I can pass this along to all the believers in the GHE
    Thanks.

    Reply

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.