SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,966
- 280
So I have recently been in a discussion, if you could call it that, with some of our local warmers on the topic of the greenhouse effect…and got a predictable, but damned good look at exactly what sort of people warmers are.
I went out and found some bare bones, stripped down models of the greenhouse effect…I brought in graphics from the atmospheric sciences departments of Harvard, Penn State, and the University of Washington…and it was agreed, before the discussion began that the graphics I brought were in fact “stripped down, bare bones, simplest possible models of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect”…by the way it took more than 30 posts of hemming, hawing, and equivocating before they would even acknowledge that the graphics depicted the basic model of the greenhouse effect. They do, in fact, depict the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science...
The discussion centered around a graphic from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department because it gave the most complete picture of the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect. The university started with a very basic graphic depicting the earth with no atmosphere using this graph…and I should note, that any claims of incoming solar radiation, or radiation emitted by the earth, or atmosphere are claims made by climate science...not me. I am simply pointing out what the graphics say.
Let me say first, that if you are building a model, and you begin with errors, or incorrect assumptions, those errors will be present throughout your model and will corrupt any conclusion, or extrapolation you derive from the model, and it will fail....if you are designing a wing on the assumption that airflow is not necessary to create lift your model is going to fail...if you begin designing a building with the assumption that concrete weighs 2 pounds per cubic yard, your model is going to fail...if you design a .45 ACP handgun with the assumption that the ammunition is going to create a chamber pressure of 5000psi, your model is going to fail and you are probably going to loose some fingers if not your whole hand. It is essential in any modeling process, that your model, from its most basic element reflect reality if you have any hope of approaching reality when your model is done.
As you can see in the graphic above, it shows that the model begins with no atmosphere...just incoming radiation and outgoing radiation. It is based on a sort of average where rather than showing the actual incoming radiation from the sun at the top of the atmosphere which is about 1370 wm2 and when you subtract for the albedo, the actual solar input is closer to 960 wm2 with an effective radiating temperature of about 88C at the equator at noon, they show a solar input of 239.7 wm2...which works out to a radiating temperature of about -18 degrees. And we have the earth absorbing that 239.7 wm2, denoted by the black arrow...and then emitting the same 239.7 wm2. The equation at the bottom of the page shows this...with an emitting temperature of 255K...which is -18C...
The incoming radiation from the sun doesn't warm the atmosphere as the atmosphere is mostly invisible to the incoming short wave radiation from the sun...
So we begin with a model of the earth, represented as a flat disk receiving a solar input of 239.7 wm2 Note that the actual solar input is closer to 960 wm2...to get the radiation down to 239.7wm2, they have to move the earth 2x further away from the sun than it actually is. So we have a flat earth 2x further away from the sun than it actually is as the basis for the model of the greenhouse effect. The earth then, according to the model, absorbs that radiation and radiates out at -18C... Begin with false assumptions, and you will end with false assumptions...
The basic model of input and output is then made more complicated by an atmosphere denoted in this graphic...
We start right off the bat with some fundamental thermodynamic errors beginning with the fact that you must add the radiative flux from the atmosphere to the radiative flux from the earth (which came from the sun) to get the earth to a temperature higher than -18C. Temperatures from two cold sources (according to the graphic) combining to result in a temperature higher than either. That is shown in the equation at the bottom...T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67 x 10^-8) = 303K or 29.85C.
This results from a misuse of the Stefan Boltzman law...(239.7 + 239.7) does not reflect a correct use of the Stefan Boltzman Law... The Stefan Boltzman law says that for a given surface temperature (T) you get a surface flux F=sigmaT^4...and no valid use of the Stefan Boltzman law will give you a temperature of nearly 30C from two objects radiating at -18C.
In thermodynamics temperatures/fluxes never add...REPEAT..you never add two temperatures together to get a higher temperature...you subtract which gives you HEAT....Heat is defined as the spontaneous flow of energy from one object to another caused by the temperature difference between the two objects...that is to say the resulting temperature from the flow of energy between any two...or any number of objects for that matter will always be somewhere between the temperature of the warmest object and the temperature of the coolest object...the resulting temperature from the flow of energy between objects WILL NEVER be a temperature higher than that of either of the objects...
Once agin....if you build your model on false assumptions, and erroneous use of physical laws, your model will never reflect reality...
We didn't really get into this in the "discussion" on the other thread(s) because the conversation descended into little more than hooting by those of the warmer persuasion...and due to their inability to actually read the graphics and understand what they were saying, there were many claims that the statements being made by the graphics were actually my statements and my claims...
But in the graphic, the greenhouse effect is taking credit for the temperature gradients in the atmosphere..that is to say, that the greenhouse effect is being given credit for the fact that the closer to the surface you get, the warmer the atmosphere is and inversely the higher you go, the cooler the atmosphere is...this is evident because the diagrams depict that the radiation from the atmosphere is what causes the surface to warm...note back to the first graphic...with no atmosphere...the earth was radiating at a temperature of -18 degrees...
The problem with this claim is that the lapse rate, while it exists, has a cause that is entirely independent of the claimed greenhouse effect....The adiabatic lapse rate is accurately calculated without using any reference to radiation at all...
If the greenhouse effect induced its own additional lapse rate...which it would have to since climate science is claiming that radiation from the atmosphere is what causes the earth to be warmer than -18C...then the lapse rate should be higher than the adiabatic lapse rate which is calculated with no reference to radiation at all...it isn't...
The measured dry lapse rate is -10 degrees kelvin per kilometer...the measured wet lapse rate is -6.5 degrees kelvin per kilometer...
Look again at that sentence....THE MEASURED DRY LAPSE RATE IS -10K/km....THE MEASURED WET LAPSE RATE IS -6.5K/km....
Doesn't look like much does it? Doesn't look like the arrow through the heart of the radiative greenhouse effect...but it is...aside from all the errors before...this one fact completely refutes the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...WHEN THE STRONGEST GREENHOUSE GAS (WATER VAPOR) IS PRESENT (WET LAPSE RATE) THE LAPSE RATE DECREASES!!!! WHICH LEADS TO COOLER SURFACE TEMPERATURES......NOT WARMER.
So let the hooting begin anew...show us all once again, how badly you misinterpret the graphics, or completely fail to even grasp what they are saying...
I went out and found some bare bones, stripped down models of the greenhouse effect…I brought in graphics from the atmospheric sciences departments of Harvard, Penn State, and the University of Washington…and it was agreed, before the discussion began that the graphics I brought were in fact “stripped down, bare bones, simplest possible models of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect”…by the way it took more than 30 posts of hemming, hawing, and equivocating before they would even acknowledge that the graphics depicted the basic model of the greenhouse effect. They do, in fact, depict the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science...
The discussion centered around a graphic from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department because it gave the most complete picture of the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect. The university started with a very basic graphic depicting the earth with no atmosphere using this graph…and I should note, that any claims of incoming solar radiation, or radiation emitted by the earth, or atmosphere are claims made by climate science...not me. I am simply pointing out what the graphics say.
Let me say first, that if you are building a model, and you begin with errors, or incorrect assumptions, those errors will be present throughout your model and will corrupt any conclusion, or extrapolation you derive from the model, and it will fail....if you are designing a wing on the assumption that airflow is not necessary to create lift your model is going to fail...if you begin designing a building with the assumption that concrete weighs 2 pounds per cubic yard, your model is going to fail...if you design a .45 ACP handgun with the assumption that the ammunition is going to create a chamber pressure of 5000psi, your model is going to fail and you are probably going to loose some fingers if not your whole hand. It is essential in any modeling process, that your model, from its most basic element reflect reality if you have any hope of approaching reality when your model is done.
As you can see in the graphic above, it shows that the model begins with no atmosphere...just incoming radiation and outgoing radiation. It is based on a sort of average where rather than showing the actual incoming radiation from the sun at the top of the atmosphere which is about 1370 wm2 and when you subtract for the albedo, the actual solar input is closer to 960 wm2 with an effective radiating temperature of about 88C at the equator at noon, they show a solar input of 239.7 wm2...which works out to a radiating temperature of about -18 degrees. And we have the earth absorbing that 239.7 wm2, denoted by the black arrow...and then emitting the same 239.7 wm2. The equation at the bottom of the page shows this...with an emitting temperature of 255K...which is -18C...
The incoming radiation from the sun doesn't warm the atmosphere as the atmosphere is mostly invisible to the incoming short wave radiation from the sun...
So we begin with a model of the earth, represented as a flat disk receiving a solar input of 239.7 wm2 Note that the actual solar input is closer to 960 wm2...to get the radiation down to 239.7wm2, they have to move the earth 2x further away from the sun than it actually is. So we have a flat earth 2x further away from the sun than it actually is as the basis for the model of the greenhouse effect. The earth then, according to the model, absorbs that radiation and radiates out at -18C... Begin with false assumptions, and you will end with false assumptions...
The basic model of input and output is then made more complicated by an atmosphere denoted in this graphic...
We start right off the bat with some fundamental thermodynamic errors beginning with the fact that you must add the radiative flux from the atmosphere to the radiative flux from the earth (which came from the sun) to get the earth to a temperature higher than -18C. Temperatures from two cold sources (according to the graphic) combining to result in a temperature higher than either. That is shown in the equation at the bottom...T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67 x 10^-8) = 303K or 29.85C.
This results from a misuse of the Stefan Boltzman law...(239.7 + 239.7) does not reflect a correct use of the Stefan Boltzman Law... The Stefan Boltzman law says that for a given surface temperature (T) you get a surface flux F=sigmaT^4...and no valid use of the Stefan Boltzman law will give you a temperature of nearly 30C from two objects radiating at -18C.
In thermodynamics temperatures/fluxes never add...REPEAT..you never add two temperatures together to get a higher temperature...you subtract which gives you HEAT....Heat is defined as the spontaneous flow of energy from one object to another caused by the temperature difference between the two objects...that is to say the resulting temperature from the flow of energy between any two...or any number of objects for that matter will always be somewhere between the temperature of the warmest object and the temperature of the coolest object...the resulting temperature from the flow of energy between objects WILL NEVER be a temperature higher than that of either of the objects...
Once agin....if you build your model on false assumptions, and erroneous use of physical laws, your model will never reflect reality...
We didn't really get into this in the "discussion" on the other thread(s) because the conversation descended into little more than hooting by those of the warmer persuasion...and due to their inability to actually read the graphics and understand what they were saying, there were many claims that the statements being made by the graphics were actually my statements and my claims...
But in the graphic, the greenhouse effect is taking credit for the temperature gradients in the atmosphere..that is to say, that the greenhouse effect is being given credit for the fact that the closer to the surface you get, the warmer the atmosphere is and inversely the higher you go, the cooler the atmosphere is...this is evident because the diagrams depict that the radiation from the atmosphere is what causes the surface to warm...note back to the first graphic...with no atmosphere...the earth was radiating at a temperature of -18 degrees...
The problem with this claim is that the lapse rate, while it exists, has a cause that is entirely independent of the claimed greenhouse effect....The adiabatic lapse rate is accurately calculated without using any reference to radiation at all...
If the greenhouse effect induced its own additional lapse rate...which it would have to since climate science is claiming that radiation from the atmosphere is what causes the earth to be warmer than -18C...then the lapse rate should be higher than the adiabatic lapse rate which is calculated with no reference to radiation at all...it isn't...
The measured dry lapse rate is -10 degrees kelvin per kilometer...the measured wet lapse rate is -6.5 degrees kelvin per kilometer...
Look again at that sentence....THE MEASURED DRY LAPSE RATE IS -10K/km....THE MEASURED WET LAPSE RATE IS -6.5K/km....
Doesn't look like much does it? Doesn't look like the arrow through the heart of the radiative greenhouse effect...but it is...aside from all the errors before...this one fact completely refutes the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...WHEN THE STRONGEST GREENHOUSE GAS (WATER VAPOR) IS PRESENT (WET LAPSE RATE) THE LAPSE RATE DECREASES!!!! WHICH LEADS TO COOLER SURFACE TEMPERATURES......NOT WARMER.
So let the hooting begin anew...show us all once again, how badly you misinterpret the graphics, or completely fail to even grasp what they are saying...
Last edited:
