Adiabatic Lapse Rate Refutes Climate Alarmism
In this video I demonstrate that despite whatever ambiguous argument advocates wish to use to explain the radiative greenhouse mechanism, they all have the same effect, which is to cause a temperature gradient with altitude in the atmosphere
However, the value of the lapse rate can be calculated independently, and precisely, via adiabatic physics alone, which therefore indicates that there is no empirical room available for any further temperature-modulating effects from a radiative greenhouse effect.
This is especially pertinent given that the derivation of the radiative greenhouse mechanism claims that it should be entirely responsible for the temperature lapse rate, but is then found to not have any contribution at all.
Of course, the radiative greenhouse mechanism does not have any contribution because it does not exist, because it is a concept founded upon pseudoscientific non-ontological mathematical premises.
See more here climateofsophistry
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.
Maurice Lavigne
| #
Hi Joe, I was expecting you to work thru that math of how much solar radiation our sphere absorbs, but you jump straight into the adiabatic lapse rate as a counter argument instead. Although I fully agree that the later fully explains ours, and other planets atmospheric temperature, which is not news, your counter argument to the flat earthers should be the calculation of solar input?? Or did I miss something?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The energy of molecules does not decrease with altitude, it is the number of molecules (mass) transferring energy that decreases with increasing altitude. If the kinetic energy of the molecules were 0 K what would be the volume of the atmosphere? 0, it would be a layer on the surface of the Earth. Stop thinking that a thermometer is measuring the mean kinetic energy of the molecules. It is measuring the momentum of the molecules striking it, not radiated energy..If you want to see the energy of the molecules in the atmosphere take the recorded temperature at an altitude and divide it by the density at that altitude, to get the energy/constant number of molecules. Instead of the ridiculous flow of energy depicted by the recorded temperature you will graph showing the kinetic energy increasing in a straight line in the troposphere (where water moderates the temperature) and in an exponential increasing line at higher altitudes.
Reply