SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,966
- 280
All you hard core warmers can move along...there is nothing for you to see here. You will believe even after the AGW hoax and the greenhouse hypothesis as it exists now has been swept into the dustbin of failed hypotheses. Nothing anyone can say will ever convince you. Even if your high priests stated today that they were wrong, you would claim that the Koch brothers had bought them.....so move along.
You luke warmers are the ones this post is for. You believe in the same magic as the warckaloon warmers but just think the magic is much weaker than they believe it is. The fact is that that there is no magic. Positive feedbacks from a gas in the atmosphere by the mechanism described by the greenhouse hypothesis and the AGW hypothesis are simply not possible. The magic doesn't exist.
Here are a series of articles which mathematically explain the temperature on earth without the need of magic feedbacks, no matter how weak. Read and begin to see and stop believing in magic or pull up stakes and just move over to the wackaloon camp, get yourself a cardboard sign proclaiming that the end is near and worship gaia or whoever is the earth deity du jour.
Modeling of the Earth’s Planetary Heat Balance with an Electrical Circuit Analogy
A paper published in the Journal of Electromagnetic Analysis & Applications by Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, one of Russia's leading solar physicists, uses an electrical circuit analogy as a model of Earth's planetary heat balance.
Simple electrical circuit analogies have also been used by other papers to demonstrate that radiative-convective equilibrium in the troposphere is "short-circuited" by convection dominating over the radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, and thus implying minimal impact from changes of CO2 concentrations on surface temperatures.
Illustration of an electrical circuit analogy to radiative-convective equilibrium in a planetary atmosphere. Pressure and heat capacity set the resistance [opacity] to infrared transmission illustrated as the resistor Rc above. GHGs set the resistance [opacity] to infrared transmission illustrated as the resistor Rt above. As noted, "Resistance Rc corresponds to convection "shorting out" the radiative resistance Rt, allowing more current [analogous to heat in the atmosphere] to escape. If the resistance [IR opacity] of Rt increases due to adding more greenhouse gases, the resistance [IR opacity] of Rc will automatically drop to re-establish balance and thus the current through the circuit remains the same, and analogously, the temperature of the surface of the planet remains the same and self-regulates. Source
Dr. Abdussamatov's more sophisticated circuit analogy includes the additional "components" of surface and atmospheric "capacitors" analogous to the thermal inertia of atmosphere, land, and oceans. The paper finds Earth's "thermal inertia constant" to be ~8.5 years, and that perturbations in energy balance require about 3 thermal inertia values ~3*8.5 = 25.5 years to reach a new steady-state condition.
Analysis of the circuit using differential and simultaneous equations finds that for typical values corresponding to the present climate system, "a decrease of atmospheric transparency (for example, as result of the growing of the greenhouse gases concentration) causes increasing of the heat power emitted by the atmosphere to space, and this heat power increases faster than the heat power absorbed by the atmosphere from the surface radiation." i.e. increasing greenhouse gas concentrations at the present levels in the atmosphere causes increased cooling, not warming, of the surface.
Read more HERE
Derivation of the entire 33°C greenhouse effect withoutradiative forcing from greenhouse gases
We will derive the entire 33°C greenhouse effect using the 1st law of thermodynamics and ideal gas law without use of radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, nor the concentrations of greenhouse gases, nor the emission/absorption spectra of greenhouse gases at any point in this derivation, thus demonstrating that the entire 33C greenhouse effect is dependent upon atmospheric mass/pressure/gravity, rather than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. Secondly, we will show why multiple observations perfectly confirm the mass/gravity/pressure theory of the greenhouse effect, and disprove the radiative forcing theory of the greenhouse effect.
Note, this physical derivation is absolutely not suggesting the ~33C greenhouse effect doesn't exist. On the contrary, the physical derivation and observations demonstrate the 33C greenhouse effect does exist, but is explained by a different mechanism not dependent on radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. Also note, it is impossible for both explanations of the greenhouse effect to be true, since the global temperature would have to increase by an additional 33C (at least) above the present. You cannot have it both ways. We will show how the mass/gravity/pressure theory causes the temperature gradient and that the emission spectra of greenhouse gases seen from space are a consequence rather than the cause of that temperature gradient.
Read More HERE
Why increased water vapor decreases the lapse rate by half to cause surface cooling of up to 25.5C
First a figure from a paper describing the conventional radiative greenhouse theory:
The conventional radiative GHE explanation, which even in the conventional explanation shows the ~5K/km wet adiabatic lapse rate compared to the ~9.8K/km dry adiabatic lapse rate causes surface cooling. The flaw in this conventional theory is that the ERL is set by greenhouse gases rather than the center of mass of the atmosphere.
Now that same figure annotated to show why the ERL height is set at the center of mass of the atmosphere by gravity/pressure, not greenhouse gases, and why the wet adiabatic lapse rate from the ERL to the surface causes surface cooling:
Read More HERE
The Greenhouse Equation predicts temperatures within 0.28°C throughout entire troposphere without radiative forcing from greenhouse gases
In this continuing series of posts on the greenhouse equation, we will now calculate and plot the tropospheric temperature profile as a function only of the balance of radiative forcing from the Sun and gravitational forcing upon atmospheric mass, and without any contribution from greenhouse gas radiative forcing. We will see that the greenhouse equation reproduces observations and the 1976 standard atmosphere database within 0.28°C at every height from the surface all the way to the ~11,000 meter average height at the top of the troposphere.
The greenhouse equation in essence determines the temperature based upon the balance of gravitational potential energy and radiative forcing from the only source of energy, the Sun, and is unique for each height from the surface to top of the troposphere. The greenhouse equation maintains the balance of solar/radiative and gravitational/convective equilibrium, and there is one and only one temperature that maintains this balance for each height in the troposphere.
Note the only radiative forcing considered by the greenhouse equation is from the Sun, and nothing from greenhouse gases. The solar forcing warms the surface, which causes all gases to convect, rise, and expand, and which keeps the atmosphere inflated against the force of gravity, and these forces balance at every local height to maintain a horizontal local equilibrium at that particular height. Note the overall atmosphere is not in equilibrium, which is what drives this whole process of convection/adiabatic lapse rate/and the tropospheric temperature gradient.
Read More HERE
Why the atmosphere is in horizontal thermodynamic equilibrium but not vertical equilibrium
Willis Eschenbach and others claim to have refuted the greenhouse equation and gravitational greenhouse theory on the basis that the atmosphere is not in equilibrium, and others have claimed the theory predicts an atmosphere without greenhouse gases would be isothermal and in equilibrium.
Both of these "proofs" and strawman arguments fail because the troposphere is in horizontal equilibrium due to gravity and center of mass at a particular latitude, but is in complete vertical disequilibrium due to convection and the lapse rate between the surface vertically rising to the tropopause. Further, if an atmosphere was 100% non-greenhouse gases, it would still be subject to gravity and convection calculated by the greenhouse equation, and thus absolutely not isothermal. A container of pure nitrogen with a heat source at the bottom would definitely convect, and convection is what controls the lapse rate and vertical temperature profile in the troposphere.
Read More HERE
The Greenhouse Equation predicts 1% change in cloud cover changes global temperature by 1°C
The albedo terms in the greenhouse equation can be used to determine the effect of an increase or decrease of cloud cover upon the global temperature, and finds a 1% change up or down in cloud cover/albedo produces a 1°C temperature change at the surface. This indicates the Earth temperature is quite sensitive to swings in global cloud cover or other albedo sources, such as the well-known global dimming that produced the ice-age scare of the 1970's, which was followed by global brightening since, and which is likely responsible for much of the warming since the 1970's.
Climate models are unable to skillfully model clouds and thus albedo, and use a rough assumption of a 30% global average albedo. If we decrease albedo by 1% from 0.30 to 0.29, the greenhouse equation predicts an increase in surface temperature from 288.433°K to 289.457°K, an increase of 1.024°C warming, mathematically verifying what Dr. Roy Spencer writes in his book,
Read More HERE
Quick and dirty explanation of the Greenhouse Equation and theory
Here's a quick and dirty explanation of the greenhouse equation, which I hope will be helpful to understand the theory behind it.
In the first post of this series we derived the following equation from the 1st law of thermodynamics and ideal gas law to calculate the temperature at any height in the troposphere:
T = Te + (lapse rate)*(h - he) (1)
where
T = calculated T at height (h), or (s) used in equation below
Te = equilibrium temperature with the Sun (a constant)
lapse rate = -g/Cp = -gravity/heat capacity at constant pressure
he = height at the average "effective radiating level" or ERL, where T= equilibrium Te with the Sun
Since we are calculating the gravitational greenhouse effect on the mass of the atmosphere, in order to conserve energy, one-half of the gravitational potential energy of the atmosphere has to be above the center of mass and one-half below. This point is at 1/2 of the surface pressure after a logarithmic adjustment for pressure and density with altitude. Since the surface pressure in atmosphere units is by definition = 1 atmosphere, in the greenhouse equation log(P/2) = log(1/2) below.
Read More HERE
Why Greenhouse Gases Don't Affect the Greenhouse Equation or Lapse Rate
Some commenters on the greenhouse equation believe that greenhouse gas radiative forcing controls the adiabatic lapse rate, and claim without any mathematics or evidence, that that's allegedly how greenhouse gases control the Earth surface temperature. We'll now show the reasons why this claim is incorrect:
1. The adiabatic lapse rate equation is
dT = (-g/Cp)*dh
where
dT = change in temperature
dh = change in height
g = gravitational constant
Cp = heat capacity at constant pressure
Thus change in temperature from the lapse rate is dependent upon 3 variables that have no dependence whatsoever upon radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. None.
Note temperature is inversely related to heat capacity (Cp), thus, water vapor increases heat capacity but this decreases temperature by up to 25C as we calculated in the first post of this series, due to the lapse rate changing from a dry to a wet adiabatic lapse rate. This proves water vapor acts as a negative-feedback cooling agent.
Read More HERE
How Gravity continuously does Work on the atmosphere to control pressure & temperature
Some commenters claim gravity is not continuously performing thermodynamic Work upon the atmosphere to generate the thermal gradient from the continuous compression/expansion of gas parcels or packets continuously moving up and down within the lower atmosphere. This is the source of the 33C gravito-thermal greenhouse effect, so we will now demonstrate why this misconception is incorrect by using the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (law of conservation of energy), ideal gas law, and barometric formulae.
Beginning with the 1st Law of Thermodynamics:
where
is change in internal energy
and
are quantities of heat supplied to the system by its surroundings and of work done by the system on its surroundings, respectively.
When a system expands [e.g. the inflation of the atmosphere by solar radiative forcing] in a fictive quasistatic process, the work done by the system on the environment is the product, +P dV, of pressure, P, and volume change, dV, whereas the work done on the system is -P dV. Using either sign convention for work, the change in internal energy of the system is:
Read More HERE
The Greenhouse Equation
A recent series of Hockey Schtick posts
have derived the entire ~33°C greenhouse effect as a consequence of gravitational forcing rather than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, and entirely independent of radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. We have also determined the effective radiating height (average) or ERL in the troposphere (where T = the equilibrium temperature of Earth with the Sun), and found the ERL to be located as expected at the center of mass of the atmosphere if the ERL height and temperature are a function of mass/gravity/pressure rather than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.
We now join the gravitational greenhouse effect to the only source of energy that the Earth receives, the Sun, and show that solar shortwave radiative forcing plus gravitational forcing calculates the Earth's surface temperature, ERL height and temperature, and the entire tropospheric temperature profile perfectly, without any contribution from greenhouse gas forcing, nor dependence on greenhouse gas concentrations, nor dependence upon emission/absorption spectra from greenhouse gases.
We show that the entire 33°C greenhouse effect that raises Earth's equilibrium temperature with the Sun of -18C or 255K up to +15C or 288K at the surface, and the temperature at any height in the atmosphere from the surface to top of the troposphere (above which the atmosphere is too thin to sustain convection), can be fully explained by the following equation, which I'm calling "the greenhouse equation":
Read More HERE
Debunking Myths & Strawmen about the Gravito-Thermal Greenhouse Effect & Radiative Greenhouse Effect
This post will be continuously updated with a list of all posts concerning the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect, the derivation and use of the greenhouse equation of the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect, as well as numbered responses to common objections.
This is in lieu of constantly repeating information in responses to new comments here & elsewhere, to link to the numbered list below referring to a specific post which addresses the argument in question for or against the two competing 33C greenhouse effect theories (because one and only one of these greenhouse theories can be correct, otherwise Earth would be at least 33C warmer than present):
1) The Arrhenius radiative greenhouse effect theory (the catastrophic man-made CO2 global warming theory)vs.2) The Maxwell gravito-thermal greenhouse effect theory
1] The Greenhouse Equation
2] How Gravity continuously does Thermodynamic Work on the atmosphere to control pressure & temperature
3] Why Greenhouse Gases Don't Affect the Greenhouse Equation or Lapse Rate (debunks claim that greenhouse gases are necessary for convection or a lapse rate to occur or that greenhouse gas radiative forcing can affect the lapse rate)
4] Quick and dirty explanation of the Greenhouse Equation and theory
5] The Greenhouse Equation predicts 1% change in cloud cover changes global temperature by 1°C
6] Why the atmosphere is in horizontal thermodynamic equilibrium but not vertical equilibrium (debunks claims that the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect assumes thermodynamic equilibrium in all three x, y, and z planes).
7] The Greenhouse Equation predicts temperatures within 0.02°C throughout entire troposphere without radiative forcing from greenhouse gases
8] Why increased water vapor decreases the lapse rate by half to cause surface cooling of up to 25.5C
9] Derivation of the effective radiating height & entire 33°C greenhouse effect without radiative forcing from greenhouse gases
10] Derivation of the entire 33°C greenhouse effect without radiative forcing from greenhouse gases
11] French scientist explains why the greenhouse effect is primarily due to atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure
12] Modeling of the Earth’s Planetary Heat Balance with an Electrical Circuit Analogy
13] Why can't radiation from a cold body make a hot body hotter?
Answers these queries:
15] Why the ideal gas law, gravity, & atmospheric mass explain the entire 33C greenhouse effect
16] Why Earth's climate is self-regulating & independent of man-made CO2
17] New paper demonstrates climate models don't even have the 'basic physics' of the greenhouse effect correct
Read More HERE
You luke warmers are the ones this post is for. You believe in the same magic as the warckaloon warmers but just think the magic is much weaker than they believe it is. The fact is that that there is no magic. Positive feedbacks from a gas in the atmosphere by the mechanism described by the greenhouse hypothesis and the AGW hypothesis are simply not possible. The magic doesn't exist.
Here are a series of articles which mathematically explain the temperature on earth without the need of magic feedbacks, no matter how weak. Read and begin to see and stop believing in magic or pull up stakes and just move over to the wackaloon camp, get yourself a cardboard sign proclaiming that the end is near and worship gaia or whoever is the earth deity du jour.
Modeling of the Earth’s Planetary Heat Balance with an Electrical Circuit Analogy
A paper published in the Journal of Electromagnetic Analysis & Applications by Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, one of Russia's leading solar physicists, uses an electrical circuit analogy as a model of Earth's planetary heat balance.
Simple electrical circuit analogies have also been used by other papers to demonstrate that radiative-convective equilibrium in the troposphere is "short-circuited" by convection dominating over the radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, and thus implying minimal impact from changes of CO2 concentrations on surface temperatures.
.jpg)
Illustration of an electrical circuit analogy to radiative-convective equilibrium in a planetary atmosphere. Pressure and heat capacity set the resistance [opacity] to infrared transmission illustrated as the resistor Rc above. GHGs set the resistance [opacity] to infrared transmission illustrated as the resistor Rt above. As noted, "Resistance Rc corresponds to convection "shorting out" the radiative resistance Rt, allowing more current [analogous to heat in the atmosphere] to escape. If the resistance [IR opacity] of Rt increases due to adding more greenhouse gases, the resistance [IR opacity] of Rc will automatically drop to re-establish balance and thus the current through the circuit remains the same, and analogously, the temperature of the surface of the planet remains the same and self-regulates. Source
Dr. Abdussamatov's more sophisticated circuit analogy includes the additional "components" of surface and atmospheric "capacitors" analogous to the thermal inertia of atmosphere, land, and oceans. The paper finds Earth's "thermal inertia constant" to be ~8.5 years, and that perturbations in energy balance require about 3 thermal inertia values ~3*8.5 = 25.5 years to reach a new steady-state condition.
Analysis of the circuit using differential and simultaneous equations finds that for typical values corresponding to the present climate system, "a decrease of atmospheric transparency (for example, as result of the growing of the greenhouse gases concentration) causes increasing of the heat power emitted by the atmosphere to space, and this heat power increases faster than the heat power absorbed by the atmosphere from the surface radiation." i.e. increasing greenhouse gas concentrations at the present levels in the atmosphere causes increased cooling, not warming, of the surface.
Read more HERE
Derivation of the entire 33°C greenhouse effect withoutradiative forcing from greenhouse gases
We will derive the entire 33°C greenhouse effect using the 1st law of thermodynamics and ideal gas law without use of radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, nor the concentrations of greenhouse gases, nor the emission/absorption spectra of greenhouse gases at any point in this derivation, thus demonstrating that the entire 33C greenhouse effect is dependent upon atmospheric mass/pressure/gravity, rather than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. Secondly, we will show why multiple observations perfectly confirm the mass/gravity/pressure theory of the greenhouse effect, and disprove the radiative forcing theory of the greenhouse effect.
Note, this physical derivation is absolutely not suggesting the ~33C greenhouse effect doesn't exist. On the contrary, the physical derivation and observations demonstrate the 33C greenhouse effect does exist, but is explained by a different mechanism not dependent on radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. Also note, it is impossible for both explanations of the greenhouse effect to be true, since the global temperature would have to increase by an additional 33C (at least) above the present. You cannot have it both ways. We will show how the mass/gravity/pressure theory causes the temperature gradient and that the emission spectra of greenhouse gases seen from space are a consequence rather than the cause of that temperature gradient.
Read More HERE
Why increased water vapor decreases the lapse rate by half to cause surface cooling of up to 25.5C
First a figure from a paper describing the conventional radiative greenhouse theory:
The conventional radiative GHE explanation, which even in the conventional explanation shows the ~5K/km wet adiabatic lapse rate compared to the ~9.8K/km dry adiabatic lapse rate causes surface cooling. The flaw in this conventional theory is that the ERL is set by greenhouse gases rather than the center of mass of the atmosphere.
Now that same figure annotated to show why the ERL height is set at the center of mass of the atmosphere by gravity/pressure, not greenhouse gases, and why the wet adiabatic lapse rate from the ERL to the surface causes surface cooling:
Read More HERE
The Greenhouse Equation predicts temperatures within 0.28°C throughout entire troposphere without radiative forcing from greenhouse gases
In this continuing series of posts on the greenhouse equation, we will now calculate and plot the tropospheric temperature profile as a function only of the balance of radiative forcing from the Sun and gravitational forcing upon atmospheric mass, and without any contribution from greenhouse gas radiative forcing. We will see that the greenhouse equation reproduces observations and the 1976 standard atmosphere database within 0.28°C at every height from the surface all the way to the ~11,000 meter average height at the top of the troposphere.
The greenhouse equation in essence determines the temperature based upon the balance of gravitational potential energy and radiative forcing from the only source of energy, the Sun, and is unique for each height from the surface to top of the troposphere. The greenhouse equation maintains the balance of solar/radiative and gravitational/convective equilibrium, and there is one and only one temperature that maintains this balance for each height in the troposphere.
Note the only radiative forcing considered by the greenhouse equation is from the Sun, and nothing from greenhouse gases. The solar forcing warms the surface, which causes all gases to convect, rise, and expand, and which keeps the atmosphere inflated against the force of gravity, and these forces balance at every local height to maintain a horizontal local equilibrium at that particular height. Note the overall atmosphere is not in equilibrium, which is what drives this whole process of convection/adiabatic lapse rate/and the tropospheric temperature gradient.
Read More HERE
Why the atmosphere is in horizontal thermodynamic equilibrium but not vertical equilibrium
Willis Eschenbach and others claim to have refuted the greenhouse equation and gravitational greenhouse theory on the basis that the atmosphere is not in equilibrium, and others have claimed the theory predicts an atmosphere without greenhouse gases would be isothermal and in equilibrium.
Both of these "proofs" and strawman arguments fail because the troposphere is in horizontal equilibrium due to gravity and center of mass at a particular latitude, but is in complete vertical disequilibrium due to convection and the lapse rate between the surface vertically rising to the tropopause. Further, if an atmosphere was 100% non-greenhouse gases, it would still be subject to gravity and convection calculated by the greenhouse equation, and thus absolutely not isothermal. A container of pure nitrogen with a heat source at the bottom would definitely convect, and convection is what controls the lapse rate and vertical temperature profile in the troposphere.
Read More HERE
The Greenhouse Equation predicts 1% change in cloud cover changes global temperature by 1°C
The albedo terms in the greenhouse equation can be used to determine the effect of an increase or decrease of cloud cover upon the global temperature, and finds a 1% change up or down in cloud cover/albedo produces a 1°C temperature change at the surface. This indicates the Earth temperature is quite sensitive to swings in global cloud cover or other albedo sources, such as the well-known global dimming that produced the ice-age scare of the 1970's, which was followed by global brightening since, and which is likely responsible for much of the warming since the 1970's.
Climate models are unable to skillfully model clouds and thus albedo, and use a rough assumption of a 30% global average albedo. If we decrease albedo by 1% from 0.30 to 0.29, the greenhouse equation predicts an increase in surface temperature from 288.433°K to 289.457°K, an increase of 1.024°C warming, mathematically verifying what Dr. Roy Spencer writes in his book,
Read More HERE
Quick and dirty explanation of the Greenhouse Equation and theory
Here's a quick and dirty explanation of the greenhouse equation, which I hope will be helpful to understand the theory behind it.
In the first post of this series we derived the following equation from the 1st law of thermodynamics and ideal gas law to calculate the temperature at any height in the troposphere:
T = Te + (lapse rate)*(h - he) (1)
where
T = calculated T at height (h), or (s) used in equation below
Te = equilibrium temperature with the Sun (a constant)
lapse rate = -g/Cp = -gravity/heat capacity at constant pressure
he = height at the average "effective radiating level" or ERL, where T= equilibrium Te with the Sun
Since we are calculating the gravitational greenhouse effect on the mass of the atmosphere, in order to conserve energy, one-half of the gravitational potential energy of the atmosphere has to be above the center of mass and one-half below. This point is at 1/2 of the surface pressure after a logarithmic adjustment for pressure and density with altitude. Since the surface pressure in atmosphere units is by definition = 1 atmosphere, in the greenhouse equation log(P/2) = log(1/2) below.
Read More HERE
Why Greenhouse Gases Don't Affect the Greenhouse Equation or Lapse Rate
Some commenters on the greenhouse equation believe that greenhouse gas radiative forcing controls the adiabatic lapse rate, and claim without any mathematics or evidence, that that's allegedly how greenhouse gases control the Earth surface temperature. We'll now show the reasons why this claim is incorrect:
1. The adiabatic lapse rate equation is
dT = (-g/Cp)*dh
where
dT = change in temperature
dh = change in height
g = gravitational constant
Cp = heat capacity at constant pressure
Thus change in temperature from the lapse rate is dependent upon 3 variables that have no dependence whatsoever upon radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. None.
Note temperature is inversely related to heat capacity (Cp), thus, water vapor increases heat capacity but this decreases temperature by up to 25C as we calculated in the first post of this series, due to the lapse rate changing from a dry to a wet adiabatic lapse rate. This proves water vapor acts as a negative-feedback cooling agent.
Read More HERE
How Gravity continuously does Work on the atmosphere to control pressure & temperature
Some commenters claim gravity is not continuously performing thermodynamic Work upon the atmosphere to generate the thermal gradient from the continuous compression/expansion of gas parcels or packets continuously moving up and down within the lower atmosphere. This is the source of the 33C gravito-thermal greenhouse effect, so we will now demonstrate why this misconception is incorrect by using the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (law of conservation of energy), ideal gas law, and barometric formulae.
Beginning with the 1st Law of Thermodynamics:
where
When a system expands [e.g. the inflation of the atmosphere by solar radiative forcing] in a fictive quasistatic process, the work done by the system on the environment is the product, +P dV, of pressure, P, and volume change, dV, whereas the work done on the system is -P dV. Using either sign convention for work, the change in internal energy of the system is:
Read More HERE
The Greenhouse Equation
A recent series of Hockey Schtick posts
- Derivation of the entire 33°C greenhouse effect without radiative forcing from greenhouse gases
- Derivation of the effective radiating height & entire 33°C greenhouse effect without radiative forcing from greenhouse gases
- Why greenhouse gas radiative forcing doesn't explain Earth's energy budget
have derived the entire ~33°C greenhouse effect as a consequence of gravitational forcing rather than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, and entirely independent of radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. We have also determined the effective radiating height (average) or ERL in the troposphere (where T = the equilibrium temperature of Earth with the Sun), and found the ERL to be located as expected at the center of mass of the atmosphere if the ERL height and temperature are a function of mass/gravity/pressure rather than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.
We now join the gravitational greenhouse effect to the only source of energy that the Earth receives, the Sun, and show that solar shortwave radiative forcing plus gravitational forcing calculates the Earth's surface temperature, ERL height and temperature, and the entire tropospheric temperature profile perfectly, without any contribution from greenhouse gas forcing, nor dependence on greenhouse gas concentrations, nor dependence upon emission/absorption spectra from greenhouse gases.
We show that the entire 33°C greenhouse effect that raises Earth's equilibrium temperature with the Sun of -18C or 255K up to +15C or 288K at the surface, and the temperature at any height in the atmosphere from the surface to top of the troposphere (above which the atmosphere is too thin to sustain convection), can be fully explained by the following equation, which I'm calling "the greenhouse equation":
Read More HERE
Debunking Myths & Strawmen about the Gravito-Thermal Greenhouse Effect & Radiative Greenhouse Effect
This post will be continuously updated with a list of all posts concerning the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect, the derivation and use of the greenhouse equation of the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect, as well as numbered responses to common objections.
This is in lieu of constantly repeating information in responses to new comments here & elsewhere, to link to the numbered list below referring to a specific post which addresses the argument in question for or against the two competing 33C greenhouse effect theories (because one and only one of these greenhouse theories can be correct, otherwise Earth would be at least 33C warmer than present):
1) The Arrhenius radiative greenhouse effect theory (the catastrophic man-made CO2 global warming theory)vs.2) The Maxwell gravito-thermal greenhouse effect theory
1] The Greenhouse Equation
2] How Gravity continuously does Thermodynamic Work on the atmosphere to control pressure & temperature
3] Why Greenhouse Gases Don't Affect the Greenhouse Equation or Lapse Rate (debunks claim that greenhouse gases are necessary for convection or a lapse rate to occur or that greenhouse gas radiative forcing can affect the lapse rate)
4] Quick and dirty explanation of the Greenhouse Equation and theory
5] The Greenhouse Equation predicts 1% change in cloud cover changes global temperature by 1°C
6] Why the atmosphere is in horizontal thermodynamic equilibrium but not vertical equilibrium (debunks claims that the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect assumes thermodynamic equilibrium in all three x, y, and z planes).
7] The Greenhouse Equation predicts temperatures within 0.02°C throughout entire troposphere without radiative forcing from greenhouse gases
8] Why increased water vapor decreases the lapse rate by half to cause surface cooling of up to 25.5C
9] Derivation of the effective radiating height & entire 33°C greenhouse effect without radiative forcing from greenhouse gases
10] Derivation of the entire 33°C greenhouse effect without radiative forcing from greenhouse gases
11] French scientist explains why the greenhouse effect is primarily due to atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure
12] Modeling of the Earth’s Planetary Heat Balance with an Electrical Circuit Analogy
13] Why can't radiation from a cold body make a hot body hotter?
Answers these queries:
- Can radiation from a cold body increase the temperature of a warmer body?
- Are the Stefan-Boltzmann and Planck Laws applied correctly in calculating the greenhouse effect?
- How can radiation from a cold body not be thermalized [cause an increase in temperature] of a warmer body?
- How does quantum mechanics explain why a cold body can't make a warm body warmer still?
- How do photons "know" how to do this?
- Does water vapor warm or cool the planet?
- Do clouds warm or cool the planet?
- Why are cloudy nights warmer?
- Do clouds cause 25% of the radiative greenhouse effect theory as claimed?
15] Why the ideal gas law, gravity, & atmospheric mass explain the entire 33C greenhouse effect
16] Why Earth's climate is self-regulating & independent of man-made CO2
17] New paper demonstrates climate models don't even have the 'basic physics' of the greenhouse effect correct
Read More HERE
Last edited:
