By R. J. L.
The sun warms the surface of the earth, the then warm surface warms the atmosphere via convection, advection and conduction.
If you heat up a big pot of water on a stove, let it boil. Notice the water vapor, or steam, rising from the pot. Put your hand in the warm steam, how close to the surface are you able to lower your hand before the heat is too intense, or too hot?
The “greenhouse effect” would be equivalent to the steam adding even more energy to the boiling water, making it even hotter. But as you can see with your own eyes, the heat is only rising – and as it rises it cools. If you put a lid on the pot then you are getting closer to a greenhouse effect, – blocking convection.
Why is heat always rising? – Because of gravity.
If a uniform body of matter, liquide or gas has the same temperature it also has the same mass and, logically, would weigh the same. Temperature differences means mass differences and, of course, also a weight difference. Warm air expands, becomes lighter than the surronding, cooler air, and like a air bobble in water it’s being pressured from all sides, the only escape is to the side with the lowest pressure – up.
The graph shows how effective the sun is warming up the surface of the earth, that is not all, it also shows how effective the energy (heat) is being lost. The reason the warmer, higher levels of the atmosphere never can re-heat lower levels of the atmosphere is because of less mass (atmospheric expansion, molecules are farther apart) and less pressure, there’s never any exceptions – never, just impossible!
For the atmosphere to be heating up, the surface of the earth has to be heated first. Any changes in energy (heat) radiation from any altitude in the atmosphere are always originating from previous changes in temperatures of, or at the surface.
Temperature in the atmosphere is the result of energy previously recieved at the surface, it’s the effect of the sun’s radiation.
Atmospheric composition is totally and, to be honest, – utterly irrelevant as observations on all available planets, logic, physics and tests confirms.
What about radiation and “back-radiation”?
The term “back-radiation” used by activists is a misnomer. It is correct that everything over 0° Kelvin. is radiating energy, what the activists are failing to tell is at what effect? But even more importantly, over what distance?
Back to the example of boiling water and the rising steam. All that boiling hot steam is radiating energy (heat) in all direction, including downwards, it radiate the most when it is warmest. That would be immediately after it is evaporated from the surface of the boiling water, after that, it loses heat intensity (energy) very fast (try it with your hand in the steam, start high up and lower your hand).
This molecule is, of course not, alone. This rapid energy loss happens to all the molecules as they ascends from the boiling water, and here’s another important point suggesting the “back-radiation” story is false: The temperature difference from the warm surface to any layer of air above makes any downward radiation irrelevant, it can never re-heat the surface, – with altitude – even more impossible.
Some winters when the weather patterns allows cold air to being trapped in pockets at ground level, warm air can move above with deadly consequences – but, at the same time, totally failing to warm up the ground by “back-radiation.”
In fact, ice storms can happen everywhere, but only a few places has experienced it like Quebec, Canada.
Conclusion: “Back-radiation” – the foundation of the “Greenhouse” hypothesis doesn’t exist which, of course, also means that the “Greenhouse Effect” isn’t real either, it doesn’t exist.
Falsiﬁcation Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Eﬀects Within The Frame Of Physics
Gerhard Gerlich – Ralf D. Tscheuschner
The atmospheric greenhouse eﬀect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a ﬁctitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.
Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a ﬁrm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clariﬁed. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the ﬁctitious atmospheric green house eﬀects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned diﬀerence of 33 ◦C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsiﬁed.
Here i just jump to the conclusion, those interested can read the whole document by following the link at the bottom
A statistical analysis, no matter how sophisticated it is, heavily relies on underlying models and if the latter are plainly wrong then the analysis leads to nothing. One cannot detect and attribute something that does not exist for reason of principle like the CO2 greenhouse eﬀect. There are so many unsolved and unsolvable problems in non-linearity and the climatologists believe to beat them all by working with crude approximations leading to unphysical results that have been corrected afterwards by mystic methods, ﬂux control in the past, obscure ensemble averages over diﬀerent climate institutes today, by excluding accidental global cooling results by hand , continuing the greenhouse inspired global climatologic tradition of physically meaningless averages and physically meaningless applications of mathematical statistics. In conclusion, the derivation of statements on the CO2 induced anthropogenic global warming out of the computer simulations lies outside any science.
5 Physicist’s Summary
A thorough discussion of the planetary heat transfer problem in the framework of theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics leads to the following results:
1. There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the ﬁctitious atmospheric greenhouse eﬀect, which explains the relevant physical phenomena. The terms “greenhouse eﬀect” and “greenhouse gases” are deliberate misnomers.
2. There are no calculations to determinate an average surface temperature of a planet
• with or without an atmosphere,
• with or without rotation,
• with or without infrared light absorbing gases.
The frequently mentioned diﬀerence of 33 ◦C for the ﬁctitious greenhouse eﬀect of the atmosphere is therefore a meaningless number.
3. Any radiation balance for the average radiant ﬂux is completely irrelevant for the determination of the ground level air temperatures and thus for the average value as well.
4. Average temperature values cannot be identiﬁed with the fourth root of average values of the absolute temperature’s fourth power.
5. Radiation and heat ﬂows do not determine the temperature distributions and their average values.
6. Re-emission is not reﬂection and can in no way heat up the ground-level air against the actual heat ﬂow without mechanical work.
7. The temperature rises in the climate model computations are made plausible by a perpetuum mobile of the second kind. This is possible by setting the thermal conductivity in the atmospheric models to zero, an unphysical assumption. It would be no longer a perpetuum mobile of the second kind, if the “average” ﬁctitious radiation balance, which has no physical justiﬁcation anyway, was given up.
8. After Schack 1972 water vapor is responsible for most of the absorption of the infrared radiation in the Earth’s atmosphere. The wavelength of the part of radiation, which is absorbed by carbon dioxide is only a small part of the full infrared spectrum and does not change considerably by raising its partial pressure.
9. Infrared absorption does not imply “backwarming”. Rather it may lead to a drop of the temperature of the illuminated surface.
10. In radiation transport models with the assumption of local thermal equilibrium, it is assumed that the absorbed radiation is transformed into the thermal movement of all gas molecules. There is no increased selective re-emission of infrared radiation at the low temperatures of the Earth’s atmosphere.
11. In climate models, planetary or astrophysical mechanisms are not accounted for properly. The time dependency of the gravity acceleration by the Moon and the Sun (high tide and low tide) and the local geographic situation, which is important for the local climate, cannot be taken into account.
12. Detection and attribution studies, predictions from computer models in chaotic systems, and the concept of scenario analysis lie outside the framework of exact sciences, in particular theoretical physics.
13. The choice of an appropriate discretization method and the deﬁnition of appropriate dynamical constraints (ﬂux control) having become a part of computer modelling is nothing but another form of data curve ﬁtting. The mathematical physicist v. Neumann once said to his young collaborators: “If you allow me four free parameters I can build a mathematical model that describes exactly everything that an elephant can do. If you allow me a ﬁfth free parameter, the model I build will forecast that the elephant will ﬂy.” (cf. Ref. .)
14. Higher derivative operators (e.g. the Laplacian) can never be represented on grids with wide meshes. Therefore a description of heat conduction in global computer models is impossible. The heat conduction equation is not and cannot properly be represented on grids with wide meshes.
15. Computer models of higher dimensional chaotic systems, best described by non-linear partial diﬀerential equations (i.e. Navier-Stokes equations), fundamentally diﬀer from calculations where perturbation theory is applicable and successive improvements of the predictions – by raising the computing power – are possible. At best, these computer models may be regarded as a heuristic game.
16. Climatology misinterprets unpredictability of chaos known as butterﬂy phenomenon as another threat to the health of the Earth.
In other words: Already the natural greenhouse eﬀect is a myth beyond physical reality. The CO2-greenhouse eﬀect, however is a “mirage” . The horror visions of a risen sea level, melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are ﬁctitious consequences of ﬁctitious physical mechanisms as they cannot be seen even in the climate model computations.
The emergence of hurricanes and tornados cannot be predicted by climate models, because all of these deviations are ruled out. The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo-explanations, which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training. A good example are the radiation transport calculations, which are probably not known by many. Another example are the so-called feedback mechanisms, which are introduced to amplify an eﬀect which is not marginal but does not exist at all.
Evidently, the defenders of the CO2-greenhouse thesis refuse to accept any reproducible calculation as an explanation and have resorted to unreproducible ones. A theoretical physicist must complain about a lack of transparency here, and he also has to complain about the style of the scientiﬁc discussion, where advocators of the greenhouse thesis claim that the discussion is closed, and others are discrediting justiﬁed arguments as a discussion of “questions of yesterday and the day before yesterday”
25. In exact sciences, in particular in theoretical physics, the discussion is never closed and is to be continued ad inﬁnitum, even if there are proofs of theorems available. Regardless of the speciﬁc ﬁeld of studies a minimal basic rule should be fulﬁlled in natural science, though, even if the scientiﬁc ﬁelds are methodically as far apart as physics and meteorology: At least among experts, the results and conclusions should be understandable or reproducible. And it should be strictly distinguished between a theory and a model on the one hand, and between a model and a scenario on the other hand, as clariﬁed in the philosophy of science.
That means that if conclusions out of computer simulations are to be more than simple speculations, then in addition to the examination of the numerical stability and the estimation of the eﬀects of the many vague input parameters, at least the simpliﬁcations of the physical original equations should be critically exposed. Not the critics have to estimate the eﬀects of the approximation, but the scientists who do the computer simulations. Global warming is good . . . The net eﬀect of a modest global warming is positive.” (Singer).
26 In any case, it is extremely interesting to understand the dynamics and causes of the long-term ﬂuctuations of the climates. However, it was not the purpose of this paper to get into all aspects of the climate variability debate. The point discussed here was to answer the question, whether the supposed atmospheric eﬀect has a physical basis. This is not the case. In summary, there is no atmospheric greenhouse eﬀect, in particular CO2-greenhouse eﬀect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.
Science confirmed by observation:
What is causing temperature to fall, or rise:
There’s also other modulating forces influencing the climate like ocean temperature and currents, ENSO, volcanoes, water vapor, the Milankovitch cycle, solar cycles etc. All working on different time scales and intensity.
CO2 is just irrelevant.