Five Science Questions: a Quiz Part 2
Did you hear the one about the 33 degrees greenhouse effect? Have you ever wondered how this theory came about?
Scientists wondered what the temperature of the surface of the earth would be if the earth was warmed only by the sun (it isn’t) and if there was no atmosphere (there is), and no water cycle (which there is).
The obvious place to look would be our near neighbor, the moon, which has no atmosphere and is the same distance from the sun as our earth. Remember however that the moon has no oceans or clouds and takes 27.3 days to rotate on its axis.
Stefan-Boltzmann Equation: R = .T⁴
Using the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation which equates the emission of radiation R, and temperature T, they calculated that the surface temperature of the earth should be minus 18 degrees Centigrade and given that the measured surface temperature averages about 15 degrees then the 33 degree difference must be due to the mythical greenhouse effect.
The earth is of course a sphere, the surface of which is roughly 30% land and 70% ocean, rotating on its axis every 24 hours, and on average has about 65% cloud cover at any given time. Land and water have hugely different heat retaining properties, and clouds have a net cooling effect.
The earth is strongly irradiated by sunlight around the middle with minimal irradiation at the top and bottom, and nil irradiation on the dark side for 12 hours a day. The inside of the earth is warmed (to 5,200 degrees C) by both nuclear breakdown and geo-magnetic forces as witnessed when a volcano spews out molten rock (lava).
Calculating the maximum achievable temperature of the surface of this sphere using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation we would need to factor in the angle of incidence as this affects the intensity of irradiation, and remember that a sphere has four times the surface area of a flat disc of the same diameter.
Instead of doing this the scientists concerned merely took the maximum solar irradiation, currently 1361 Watts/sq metre at the top of our atmosphere, and divided by four to get an average. This sounds fine except for a little curiosity of mathematics.
T = ⁴√R/σ
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation states that temperature of a blackbody surface is equal to the fourth root of radiation in Watts per sq metre/Stefan-Boltzmann constant, sigma. A blackbody is a theoretical object that absorbs and also emits radiation perfectly. It doesn’t actually exist.
Does ⁴√(A+B) = ⁴√A + ⁴√B?
So the model used to calculate the minus 18 degree hypothetical temperature was based on the earth being a flat disc which was uniformly irradiated by sunlight on both sides simultaneously with no day or night, no clouds, no internal heat source, no account for internal energy transfer or storage, and no oceans!
Any wonder they got an artificially low number that had no basis in reality, and then had to explain why it didn’t match the observed temperature.
Alan Siddons is one of the lead authors in the excellent publication Slaying the Sky Dragon in which he gives a very good account of why this 33 degree greenhouse effect is a mathematical and physical myth (13).
Don’t you think it’s curious that the 33 degree greenhouse effect was based on a flat earth model yet they refer to those of us who question the popular climate change theory as flat earthers!
Define irony.
Unfortunately there is another major problem with trying to calculate the theoretical temperature of the surface of the earth using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
This formula is used to calculate the temperature of a hypothetical blackbody surface when subjected to irradiation, but when we listen to the night time news we are told that the maximum temperature in Sydney today was 24 degrees Centigrade.
Is this the temperature of the ground in Sydney? No! It’s the temperature of the air measured 1.2 to 1.5 metres above the ground in a white, slatted timber box called a Stevenson Screen.
The ground and the air above it have different temperatures so which scientific formula is used to calculate the temperature of a gaseous mixture at different pressures? The Ideal Gas Law!
Ideal Gas Law PV=nRT
To borrow a line from Indiana Jones: They’re digging in the wrong place!
If we re-jig the original Law and get rid of volume and introduce molar mass and density we come up with the Molar Mass version of the Ideal Gas Law where T=PM/Rd and T is temperature, P is pressure, M is Molar Mass, R is the gas constant, and d is density.
The use of this formula in calculating the near surface temperature of celestial bodies with a dense atmosphere within our solar system was demonstrated brilliantly by Robert Holmes in his 2017 paper (14). Holmes showed that by using only three variables, atmospheric pressure, density, and mean molar mass he was able to calculate the near surface temperatures of seven celestial bodies in our solar system to within 1.2 percent.
That is a stunning result. But, you might ask, how is it possible to do these calculations without knowing solar radiation, angle of incidence, albedo (reflection) etcetera? Holmes states that these parameters are in fact “baked in” to the Ideal Gas Law, and he is correct. Why is that?
Pressure: the Sum of all Forces
It is because of the nature of pressure. Pressure is merely a measure of the force of atoms and molecules interacting with a surface. Whether those atoms or molecules are being energized by gravity, solar radiation, electromagnetism or any other source of energy is not important. The end result is what we know as pressure.
Similar papers have been presented by Chilingar et al 2008 (15), Nikolov and Zeller 2017 (16), Khilyuk et al 2003 (17) and others. Holmes 2017 paper shows that the individual radiative properties of the constituent gases make no difference whatsoever to the temperature.
It’s all based on Pressure.
- Do greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere or cool the atmosphere?
What a ridiculous question. Everyone knows that greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere. Well, do they?
A greenhouse gas is defined as a gas molecule that is particularly efficient at absorbing long wave radiation. In this context we are usually referring to water vapour H2O, carbon dioxide CO2, and Methane CH4, although all gases absorb and at the same time emit radiation to a greater or lesser degree, in accordance with Planck’s Law and Kirchhoff’s Law.
Firstly, NASA tells us that about 23 percent of solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere before it reaches the surface of the earth. What happens to this radiation?
There are only three possible things that can happen. It can be converted to kinetic energy ie heat, it can be converted to chemical energy by creation of Ozone O3 after splitting Oxygen molecules, or it can be absorbed and re-radiated mostly back to space.
It is interesting to note that the Stratosphere, where most of the earth’s ozone resides becomes warmer as you move away from earth and towards the sun. Every child knows that it gets warmer as you move nearer to the fire so this tells us that the Stratosphere is predominantly warmed by incoming solar radiation (18).
The fact that any radiation is absorbed or sent back to space means that the atmosphere is reducing solar energy reaching the earth’s surface, thereby cooling the earth. The more molecules there are in the atmosphere absorbing and sending radiation back to space can only have a cooling effect on the earth.
Secondly, we live and fly airplanes in the Troposphere, the lower 10 kilometres of the atmosphere, and George Chilingar and his associates (15) tell us that the earth’s surface warms our Troposphere by three principal mechanisms, that is by convection (67 percent), condensation of water vapour (25 percent), and by radiation (7 percent).
Water vapour is by far the most significant greenhouse gas. The concentration of water vapour at the equator is about 4 percent reducing to 0.04 percent at the poles, whereas CO2 is about 0.04 percent over the whole globe. Furthermore water vapour has a vastly greater spectrum of absorption (and emission) than does CO2 and its effect dwarfs that of CO2.
Overall CO2 is a very minor player in heating the earth’s atmosphere, an effect that actually decreases exponentially as the concentration increases.
Greenhouse gases are a portal to space
So there are three major mechanisms by which the surface of the earth warms the Troposphere however there is only one effective means by which energy leaves our earth atmosphere system and that is by radiation. Greenhouse gases are a portal to space!
Their effect is increased by both concentration and temperature in accordance with the Stefan Boltzmann Law which tells us that radiation emitted is proportional to temperature to the fourth power. This mechanism makes a “runaway greenhouse effect” impossible!
The third mechanism has to do with plants. They bask lazily in the sun spending their day converting CO2 and water H2O, into oxygen O2 and carbohydrate CHO, and all of this fuelled by sunshine. This is of course the process of photosynthesis and is part of the greatest backscratching arrangement on earth.
CO2 + H2O ß à O2 + CHO
This is the single most important equation in all of Biology. Plants produce oxygen and carbohydrates which keep us alive every minute of the day, and in return we help them with a little bit of CO2. Carbohydrates feed all of the herbivores on earth and ultimately the carnivores as well.
CO2 is essential plant food and anyone who thinks it’s a pollutant needs to go back to school.
Did you know that the breath you are currently exhaling contains 100 times more CO2 than the air you just inhaled? That doesn’t sound too poisonous to me.
Plant matter not only feeds the whole world but it eventually breaks down and gets buried and after a few aeons we dig it up as coal, oil, and natural gas. Yes, fossil fuels. Fossil fuels, or more correctly hydrocarbons, are basically stored sunlight.
So what happens if you increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere? Plants love it! Every horticulturalist knows that. They actually pump CO2 into greenhouses dramatically increasing the growth of the plants inside.
Satellite imagery can also measure the amount of green vegetation on planet earth. It’s called the Leaf Area Index and it has increased by about 14% over a period of thirty years.
Basically plants are using solar radiation and converting it to stored chemical energy.
More CO2, more plants, more solar energy stored
Any mechanism that reduces the amount of incoming solar radiation reaching earth, or takes solar energy and converts it to chemical energy, or enhances the emission of radiation back to space from the earth’s surface is going to have a cooling effect on earth.
Fourth, what does atmospheric Physics tell us? Robert Holmes in his 2017 paper demonstrated that increasing atmospheric CO2 would reduce the mean molar mass of the atmosphere thereby causing a reduction in temperature, although it would be miniscule and therefore a non-measurable effect (14).
Holmes concludes that “This work leads directly to the conclusion that a small change in any single atmospheric gas, such as a doubling of the carbon dioxide level (CO2) from the ‘pre-industrial’ 0.03 percent to 0.06 percent can have no measurable positive or negative effect on atmospheric temperature”.
Chilingar et al (15) also used an adiabatic (pressure related) model of the atmosphere and they suggested that increasing atmospheric CO2 would cause a minute increase in atmospheric pressure and concluded that “the increase in the surface temperature at sea level caused by doubling of the present-day CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will be less than 0.01 C, which is negligible in comparison with natural temporal fluctuations of global temperature”.
Going back to the Molar Mass version of the Ideal Gas Law we get T = PM/Rd where T is temperature, P is pressure, M is molar mass, R is the gas constant, and d is density. There are three variables on the right hand side of this equation.
So which has the greater effect when we add more CO2 to the atmosphere? Does pressure increase and raise the temperature (Chilingar) or does mean molar mass fall and reduce the temperature (Holmes)? In either case they both agree that the effect would be negligible.
The problem here is that as soon as you change one parameter this will almost certainly affect other parts of the equation. Experiment or observation will most likely give us the answer.
We all know from our own experience that higher humidity (water vapour) in the air reduces the maximum temperature and raises the minimum temperature. Arid climates are generally hotter during the day and colder at night compared to humid locations at the same latitude and elevation.
Why is that? Very simple. Assuming that there is no difference in cloud cover in the two regions it is because of the huge heat capacity of the water vapour compared to dry air so it does not get as hot during the day, and at night the water vapour holds more heat energy and it stays warmer.
Water vapour is the predominant greenhouse gas on the planet yet the maximum temperatures drop when we increase the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. How is that possible?
Simple. The greenhouse gas theory is wrong.
Finally, what does Mother Nature think about the effects of increasing greenhouse gases? The graph below shows the levels of CO2 and methane CH4 during the Holocene period which is our current interglacial period (19).
You will notice that as the earth’s temperature has fallen during the Holocene, CO2 and methane levels have risen. Oops!
Greenhouse gases cool the earth!
So, do humans have any effect on the earth’s climate? Surprisingly, we do but only on a very local level that has nothing whatsoever to do with greenhouse gases or fossil fuels. The effect is known as the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect and it is caused by building cities.
If you have an area of natural vegetation it will consist of various trees, shrubs, and grasses. Everyone knows that if you were to go on a picnic you wouldn’t sit in the middle of a car park or an aerodrome, but you would head for a nice shady park and sit on the grass under a tree.
Plants not only reflect solar radiation, they also absorb it and use it for growth. Furthermore they are able to cool themselves by the same mechanism that we do. They perspire through their pores (stomata) using evaporation of water to lose excess heat.
On the other hand if the same area of land is developed into a city it will consist of lots of concrete and bitumen. These substances soak up a huge amount of heat which takes a lot longer to dissipate. Concrete doesn’t perspire!
If you want to experience the urban heating effect first hand take your shoes and socks off on a hot summer day and stand on a grassy footpath. Then go and stand on the nearby bitumen or concrete and see how long you last!
The urban heating effect starts as soon as a town has a population in the hundreds with a temperature rise of about one degree Centigrade compared to the surrounding countryside. With a population in the thousands the temperature rise is about two degrees, population in the tens of thousands gives a temperature rise of roughly three degrees etcetera.
Once you get huge capital cities with millions of residents it is very common to have a local climate 5-6 degrees warmer than nearby rural areas (20).
This is one reason why it has been very easy to convince so many people that human caused climate change is a real thing. In developed countries about 90 percent of people live in cities which have slowly become warmer over many decades.
As far as they are concerned the world has in fact become warmer. At least their part of the world has become warmer.
The UHI effect is also demonstrated very clearly when comparing long term temperature readings from city and rural areas. Readings taken in rural areas have shown minimal if any warming over the last 150 years compared to city based readings which have shown a warming trend.
Weather stations in cities are usually located in city centres and airports. Airports are huge expanses of concrete and get hot as blazes, particularly when you add the effect of airplane exhaust!
Remember that only 30 percent of the surface of the earth consists of land, and cities make up a bit over 1 percent of that land. As far as they are concerned, the rest is rural.
The two graphs below show the temperature trend in Sydney (population 4.9 million) and the small rural town of Bourke (population 2,600) over the last 140-160 years and it is obvious that whereas the big city has become warmer, the small country town has in fact cooled (21,22).
This is the Urban Heat Island Effect.
The satellite based lower troposphere temperature readings are not influenced as much by the urban heating effect as they can sweep vast areas of land and sea usually twice a day, and far from the madding crowds.
Conclusions:
- The earth’s climate has always changed and most of those changes have been much more dramatic than anything seen in the last few hundred years
- There is no scientific data on any time frame that shows a rise or fall in atmospheric CO2 followed by a corresponding change in temperature. Where a positive correlation exists the data show without exception that temperature changes first, and CO2 follows.
- An object at minus 40 degrees centigrade (the atmosphere) cannot warm an object at 15 degrees Centigrade (the earth). This violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
- There is no 33 degrees greenhouse effect. It is mathematical rubbish.
- Greenhouse gases have a net cooling effect on the earth.
Finale:
How has humanity coped with the gentle warming of earth over the last hundred years or so? Pretty well as it turns out.
It had been predicted that humans would die in their millions from starvation, disease etcetera if the planet warmed. History shows the opposite. History shows that during warmer times humans have generally thrived and civilization has advanced.
In the last hundred years or so the population of humans on earth has trebled, life expectancy has doubled, and deaths from natural disasters have dropped by 95% which shows how clever we are at adaptation.
In the last 50 years global production of wheat and rice has trebled and production of corn has quadrupled. These three crops provide nearly 50% of food energy for all the humans on earth.
Most amazingly, since the year 2000 global deaths from malaria, one of the biggest killers of people on earth, have declined by 50%. Where are the headlines?
In the last 200 years the percentage of people worldwide living in extreme poverty has dropped from 90% to less than 10% today. This is wonderful.
What about those pesky polar bears? Their numbers have increased two-three fold in the last 60 years. It’s amazing what happens when you stop hunting animals for trophies!
All in all we’re doing very well.
Complementary question:
What does the future hold? As the baseball player Yogi Berra famously stated “it’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future”.
This final graphic below shows a direct comparison of the past four interglacial periods (23). I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about which way we are headed.
Postscript:
This paper is written for people with a basic understanding of science and where the traditional conflict in a science based paper arises, that is whether to write for scientists or lay people, I have erred strongly on the side of the lay person. Besides, I’m a pretty basic science geek myself.
All of the graphics in this paper have been downloaded from the public domain and are not my original work. They are used here under the Fair Use provisions for private study and educational purposes. I have attempted to attribute all of the graphics and my apologies are extended in advance to the various authors of these if I have taken too much liberty.
Header image: AzerNews
1. Roderick Eaton MBA, DMS, MCMI, FIET (UK), Melksham, Wiltshire, UK.
2.
I asked three colleagues to review the paper and offer critique etcetera and all three did so but when I emailed them back to ask for permission to list their names only one has so far replied (Rod Eaton) and I have left a blank space there anticipating a further reply which has not been forthcoming.
About the author: Robert Bourke is a recently retired country Doctor who lives with his wife and a miniature Poodle called Charlie in Toowoomba, in regional Australia. Toowoomba is known as the garden city and when Robert is not in the garden shoveling manure he likes to read about serial killers and ride his motorbike.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
slandermen
| #
“Did you hear the one about the 33 degrees greenhouse effect? Have you ever wondered how this theory came about?”
Yup, and I concluded it’s a typical threemasonry construct for deception.
Reply
slandermen
| #
I hate to have to explain this.
But say, in Abrahamic idiocy, you have 3 aspects chasing each others’ tails for perpetual war.
Though I guess they didn’t quite account for the monstrosity that results.
I only post Perpetual War because I think it might be marginally more addictive than Suffering for the Conquered.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Robert got question #3 wrong. He correctly points out that the temperature of the atmosphere is a result of pressure and that pressure is a result of the momentum of the gas molecules striking the thermometer. (The barometer is also measuring the momentum of the gas molecules striking it. A warm air mass has a high barometric pressure while a cool air mass has a low pressure. Since a gas expands when heated how can a less dense gas with fewer molecules per unit area have a greater mass than a cooler/denser air mass with more of the same molecules per unit area?) Because the thermometer is registering the energy resulting from collisions it obeys the conservation of momentum (M1V1 + M2V2 = M1V3 = M2V4). The masses do not change and the object with the greater energy (velocity) will transfer energy to the object with less energy REGARDLESS OF MASS. Since temperature is a product of both mass and energy it is quite possible for a light high velocity gas molecule to transfer energy to a more massive object even if that more massive object has more kinetic energy (higher temperature). The oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere are absorbing the uv (All object absorb radiated energy.2nd law) and converting it to kinetic energy. These gas molecules transfer energy to the surface of the Earth which is why the Earth cools during a solar minimum when there are few solar flares emitting uv.
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
RGHE is a lie, we need to get my demonstrations made, 1000’s of them for distribution all around the world so everyone can see them.
Reply
richard
| #
1200ppm in green houses.
Reply
slandermen
| #
Dude, do you think they’ll even attempt that?
They think 17 virus particles that are basically entirely passive, and diminished through physical processes involving things that actually have ATP function and significantly more energy capacity kills them.
But at least, this wild alpha female pigeon even flies and sits on my shoulder, out of her own volition. That’s why I believe pigeons are smarter than humans.
Reply
slandermen
| #
I mean I’ve only taken like one sort of porno video of her. But before this, she actually flew towards me and sat on my shoulder, even climbed up my robes. She’s fucking weird like that. I think it’s because I had black robes on.
Btw, pigeons/birds struggle with light intensity midday, or with reflective surfaces. I noticed that kinda quickly. Coz they’re horrified if they can actually see me. But also, because I gave them food a few times, like say, a pile of oats. They don’t recognize it. But…if you scatter it it, suddenly they see.
Anywhere, here’s a coronal pigeon video:
https://bucket.growdiaries.com/static/post/video/87897/90923_grow-journal-by-sir-isocustomquantum-hack-codes_cnv.mp4
I tried hey, people are too stupid too understand my right boot.
Reply
slandermen
| #
An example, this guy, he makes some music. He calls himself Famine. That’s a rad name. I called myself blight once, and even before that, QorpsE. Qualitatively Essential. Not…numerous iterations of… what’s that other QE shit you know? Anyway, not that.
So anyway, about that guy….
Ace. Some faggot on a sputnik site was like “Don’t give fascist a platform…this is shit”. But he was masked, vaccinated AND a voter.
Listen to fodder of the shoah, it’s the fucking best riffs ever.
Reply
slandermen
| #
“Listen to fodder of the shoah, it’s the fucking best riffs ever.”
Just imagine you used all your “power” to abuse children, women and peddle bullshit and I didn’t. I was just lifting the corners of my mouth.
Reply
Alan
| #
I don’t accept that the surface temperature was calculated as -18C. The effective emission temperature of the Earth was calculated at -18C and this is somewhere in the atmosphere. It was then assumed the sun could only heat the Earth’s surface to the same temperature. That assumption is based on the Earth being in thermal equilibrium but that means energy in = energy out. The climate alarmists created a new law of physics call conservation of temperature – temperature in = temperature out.
Reply
slandermen
| #
That’s actually a really good point, Alan. And I almost never agree with you because I believe you’re stupid.
You see, conservation of termperature is not about either energy in or out, but stability. Equalizaation. But I guess you’ve never considered symplectic integration.
Anyway, the point you make about the energy being input into Earth from the Sun, might actually not be expelled so much as such, coz you have stupid idiot limited fractional human product of earth sort of brainfart perspective. And perhaps you would notice energy is matter, and that’s how the Sun makes the Earth grow.
Reply
slandermen
| #
Maxwell made the same mistake with consider the aether as a constant, when it’s a variable, relative to distribution, but he had limited observation. I don’t.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Editors and PSI Readers,
If either of you had read ‘Dialogues Concerning Two New Science’, written by Galileo Galilei as published by Louis Elzevir in the Italian language (1638) or as translated to the English language by Henry Crew & Alfonso de Salvio (1914), you could read that Elzevir wrote a Preface to Galeleo’s book.
In this Preface Elzevir wrote: “For, according to the common saying, sight can teach more and with greater certainty in a single day than can precept even though repeated a thousand times.”
Robert Bourke writes ‘a precept’, which by his own admission Alan Siddons had recently written (“Alan Siddons is one of the lead authors in the excellent publication Slaying the Sky Dragon in which he gives a very good account of why this 33 degree greenhouse effect is a mathematical and physical myth (13).”).
And, if you have been a regular reader of PSI articles and comments since its inception about 8 years, you would know what Bourke has been generally written is a detailed argument (precept) that has been repeated by various authors nearly a thousand times. For these authors, like Galileo, believed that ARGUMENT (rational reason) had a ROLE to play in the SCIENCE which he demonstrated in his book.
However, it is a historical FACT the Galileo refused to accept the careful naked-eye measurements of the astronomer Tycho Brahe and the rigid mathematical analysis of Brahe’s data the disclosed that the orbits of the planets’ motions about the Sun had an ELLIPTICAL SHAPE instead of the CIRCULAR SHAPE which Galileo reasoned (BELIEVED???).
However (again), Galileo did describe his several experiments of simply dropping bodies of significantly different weights (masses) from varying high places which ABSOLUTELY PROVED that Bodies Twice as heavy did not fall Twice as FAST. However (again), unless one ACTUALLY READS what Galileo wrote, you cannot know that he always acknowledged (in his descriptions of his experiments) that the LIGHTER body was observed to strike the ground slightly later than the HEAVIER. And he didn’t waste the ink describing to his readers that this was due to the RESISTANCE of the AIR upon the motion of a moving BODY (EXPERIMENTAL ERROR THAT NEVER CAN BE AVOIDED). Which he addressed by writing: “I greatly doubt that Aristotle ever tested by experiment whether it be true that two stones, one weighing ten times as must as the other, it allowed to fall, at the same instant, from a height of, say, 100 cubits, would differ in speed that when the heavier had reached the ground, the other would not have fallen more than 10 cubits.”
Here, I do not see this as an argument for an experiment had been done and its result was unquestionably that Aristotle couldn’t have observed the consequence of his IDEA!!!
If one goes to the data of the following links: (http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html) and (https://raws.dri.edu), one will never find an experimental result when and where the measured air temperature is ever less than the air’s dew point temperature measured at the same time. Hence, this data ABSOLUTELY REFUTES the consequence of the GREENHOUSE EFFECT IDEA due to the atmosphere’s (air’s) carbon dioxide gas.
FOR THE MEASURED AIR TEMPERATURE CAN NERVER BE LESS THEN THAT MEASURED!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
crackpot
| #
Pressure is not the sum of ALL forces. Pressure in psi is simply the weight in pounds of a 1”x1” column of air above you. You can calculate 14.7 psi at sea level integrating mass over altitude in standard atmosphere tables if you want to check. All surface pressure depends on is the total mass of the [thin] atmosphere and the size and mass of the planet. It doesn’t matter how close the planet is to the sun, or what the mix of gases in the atmosphere is.
So, given the planet size & mass and the atmospheric mass, the effects of the sun, nuclear heating, water cycles, etc on air temperature are manifest through density, not pressure.
Anyway, I’m nit-picking. What really matters is that the “greenhouse gas effect” is not just small – it is completely imaginary. It is impossible for the Earth’s surface to “pull its temperature up by its own bootstraps” by even the slightest bit, even if the atmosphere were somehow 100% reflective, nor can any gas do what the solid roof and sides of real greenhouse do – block convection. I still call a bison a buffalo, but it is just silly to call CO2 a “greenhouse gas.” Gas is not glass.
Reply
Karma Singh
| #
Despite the few quibbles in the comments above, I’m convinced but, then, I was anyway because I did my OWN research instead of kow-towing to “experts”.
Blessed be
Karma Singh
Reply
TL Winslow
| #
The secret word for today is quiet. Stop listening to the outrageous lies of the IPCC lie machine that are just trying to get your money, and see through their barge of academic papers confusing the simple physics to keep your alarmed enough to want to “sacrifice” for their cause..
The simple physical fact is that atmospheric CO2 has almost the same radiation as a piece of dry ice, and weaker, with monochrome radiation at 15 microns rather than a complete Planck black body radiation spectrum that peaks there. The temperature of dry ice is -80C (really a little warmer), so its radiation is the same as an that from an iron bar chilled to -80C, which can’t heat anything at any range. There is nothing else to this outrageous lie that atmospheric CO2 can cause global temperatures to rise. Its radiation bounces back and forth among atmospheric CO2 molecules, and some bounces harmlessly off Earth’s surface until it’s dissipated by entropy and joins the heat death of the Universe. Meanwhile the Sun heats the Earth’s surface only to a range of about -50C to +50C, and atmospheric CO2’s -80C radiation absorption wavelength lets surface thermal IR pass by untouched, proving that it has no effect on the weather or climate, and that its concentration doesn’t matter, so CO2 emissions are no threat.
The IPCC trolls can only shout that I’m spreading “misinformation” and call for me to be silenced leftist-style, but can never produce a scientific refutation, because they’ve politicized science to serve their agenda and scientific truth trumps politics.
Help me wake up the general public to the simplicity of the physics with simple slogans like “CO2’s -80C radiation can’t melt an ice cube”. Just Say No to the IPCC and its -80C.
https://www.quora.com/Without-greenhouse-gases-in-the-atmosphere-would-Earth-be-able-to-dissipate-enough-heath-to-stay-cool/answer/TL-Winslow
I’ve been spending thousands of hours creating a complete refutation of every IPCC while teaching real physics. It’s suffering shadow banning by the IPCC octopus and the message is slow to spread, but the caravan marches on while the dogs only bark.
http://www.historyscoper.com/newrealclimatesciencecourse.html
Reply
Max DeLoaches
| #
Recently posted on NOAA’s site focuses on solar irradiance, while excluding galactic cosmic ray, clouds, high energy protons via the solar wind, the magnetic poles excursion, and etcetera. It mentions and downplays the Milankovitch cycles.
Climate change: incoming sunlight
Author:
Rebecca Lindsey
August 24, 2021
https://climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-incoming-sunlight
It is no wonder their climate models, which this whole hoax is based on, are all worthless.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
The 33 degree difference in temperature claimed by ‘Greenhouse Gas Theorists’ is a simple deception.
They fool people with a math and logic trick.
Incoming solar radiation to a flat pancake peaks (at noon) to about 960 watts/sq-m. The Earth is a sphere, thus, the ‘average’ energy spread across HALF of the sphere (in daylight) is about 480 watts/sq-meter.
Using Stefan-Boltzmann equation, 480 watts average yields a temperature of 30 deg Celsius. The reality proof of this is the temperature of the oceans. The Tropical oceans = 26-29 C. Arctic oceans = 0 c.
Average = 15 C.
Average temperature of Earth = 15 C.
Average outgoing is indeed about 240 watts/sq-m, as the surface of a sphere is four times that of a disc.
This equates to a temperature of -18 C, which is the same temperature as the tops of our clouds. Clouds emit radiation to space.
Mystery solved.
Reply
Bob Armstrong
| #
And the pressure is in adiabatic balance between the kinetic , thermal , and the energy of gravitational force acting on the mass of the atmosphere above .
Gravity computes as a negative balancing the equations .
Reply