Earth is NO Greenhouse
Warming alarmists claim: “Earth’s atmosphere acts like the glass in a greenhouse.” This is false.
Glass is largely transparent to incoming solar radiation which warms whatever is inside the greenhouse.
If the greenhouse had no walls (like the atmosphere), warmed greenhouse air would rise by convection, escape out via the open sides, and heavy cooler air near to the ground would flow in to take its place.
This open “Greenhouse” would stay close to outside temperature.
What causes a real greenhouse to warm is the solid transparent roof and the closed walls.
The glass roof welcomes incoming solar radiation but the solid enclosure prevents this warmed inside air from escaping.
In a real greenhouse, operators shut vents to prevent warm air from escaping (or open them when they wish to lower the inside temperature).
They also pump CO2 into their greenhouses to encourage plant growth (but the Anti-Greens want to starve plants by restricting CO2).
Earth’s atmosphere has no firm roof or walls. Solar heating at the surface just causes that hot air to rise and it cools either by radiation or adiabatic expansion. It is replaced by cooler air.
Earth is not a greenhouse.
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.
bill
| #
The press and the global warming crowd deliberately suppress the fact that ANTARCTICA has had record cold, snow and ice accumulation for decades. Even the last few years, ANTARCTICA cold, snow and ice have hit record numbers.
The number of catastrophic hurricanes and tornadoes has dwindled the last couple of decades.
The oceans have not risen appreciably other than the normal waxing and waning of ice melt and evaporation cycles. If you try to google it, the first few pages will be pro global warming but when you drill down to the more reputable “scientific” sites it says no global warming. Also droughts, cold snaps, and weather extremes are the rule all throughout recorded history. There are records clear back to the 1400’s verifying this fact. One has to dig for this data because the political and globalists agenda has big-tech, the leftist media, et al working at sequestering real facts as the “Brown Shirts” did for Hitler. Most folks don’t even go past the first page and these hyena Globalists at google know this.
Lastly, look up the sun-spot cycle which is an eleven year cycle. The weather patterns on earth are affected profoundly by this cycle.
They try to explain it away with all kinds of mental gymnastics but it doesn’t pass the smell test. Funny one never hears of this, but then again suppression of reality by ideologues is commonplace.
The so-called doomed Great Barrier Reef is thriving and growing.
Reply
Mark Green
| #
Thank you. Spread the word: There is no climate emergency.
Reply
Lit
| #
I usually ask, how do you cool an air-cooled engine? By cold air absorbing the heat from the hot surface of the cylinder.
How is the GHE claimed to work? By cold air absorbing the heat from the hot surface of the solid planet, which is claimed to make the surface hotter.
In both cases it´s the same process, the same cold atmosphere absorbs the heat from a hot surface. But in the case of the GHE, the opposite effect on temperature is claimed to be the result.
Nobody can argue against the fact that all objects we see ON the surface are cooled by the cold atmosphere. It´s easily demonstrated. If everything ON the surface is cooled by the atmosphere, then the atmosphere must also cool the surface itself.
And then we can go further into the cooling features of the planet, like the massive oceans, on average 3700m deep and with an average temperature of 3C. Always circulating, transporting heat away from the equator to the mega ice blocks at the poles. The ocean lies on the thinnest parts of the crust, providing enormous cooling from the hot interior.
Imagine how hot this molten ball of rock would be without the cold atmosphere and oceans. If you add just the heat transfer from surface to atmosphere, which is the rate of cooling(~150W/m^2), the surface emission would be 385+150W/m^2=535W/m^2(311K).
So, if you would remove the cooling of the atmosphere which is the same rate as the transfer from surface to atmosphere (σ(287^4-255^4)), the surface would be 24C hotter. If you remove the cooling of the oceans the surface would surely be much hotter than that.
Remember, we stand on a crust that´s so thin it´s less than 1% of the volume. The rest is molten/plastic red hot rock. We´re walking on eggshell floating on the hot mantel.
Some idiots think that there´s only 90mW/m^2 coming from beneath, even though surface emission is 385W/m^2. Everything emitted by a body depends on the internal state, this is what Planck says in reference to Prevost. 90mW is the rate of transfer between two near points inside the crust at different depths, that says nothing about the rate of transfer from the solid body into the surroundings. The rate of transfer to the surroundings is 385W/m^2+ the heat transfer/cooling of the atmosphere. At minimum 535W/m^2, and it all comes from beneath our feet.
Just to be clear I´ll cite Planck, if anyone disagrees about emission from a body being solely dependent on the internal state.
Page 8:
But the empirical law that the emission of any volume-element depends entirely on what takes place inside of this element holds true in all cases (Prevost’s principle).
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
It holds in ALL CASES. Which means that the whole 385+150W/m^2 comes from within the solid Earth.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Lit’
The Earth is water cooled as water on the surface absorbs 600 calories/gram then takes that heat up into the atmosphere and releases it into space.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Lit and PSI Readers.
Lit wrote: “Nobody can argue against the fact that all objects we see ON the surface are cooled by the cold atmosphere. It´s easily demonstrated. If everything ON the surface is cooled by the atmosphere, then the atmosphere must also cool the surface itself.”
I don’t argue, I observe and it is easy to to measure the temperatures of surfaces with an IR thermometer like those used to measure the temperature of your forehead. Hence, we know that surfaces radiate IR radiation according to the surfaces’ temperatures. Hence, we must reason, based on observation (measurement), that surfaces are heated by solar radiation during the daytime and cooled by emitting IR radiation during the daytime so that the surface temperature does not become even greater during the daytime..
Hence, these surfaces can be said to warm the atmosphere during the daytime and cool the atmosphere during the nighttime. Only in the stratosphere (ozone system) is the atmosphere directly warmed by the solar UV (ultraviolet) radiation.
However, near the top (about 86km elevation) of the mesosphere ice clouds are at times observed. The source of this water is not clearly known. Is it water molecules which diffuse up to this elevation from the oceans or are these clouds previous comet tails?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
schutzhund
| #
AWAKE
NOT WOKE!
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
In a 1904 experiment, to test how much heat transfer was radiant, Professor R. W. Wood constructed two identical blackened and insulated cardboard boxes, one covered with glass and the other with a clear plate transparent to IR radiation.
To equalize warming in the boxes, he placed a pane of glass above them to block incoming solar IR. The boxes warmed to equivalent final temperatures. Upon blocking incoming solar energy, the IR-transparent box cooled by less than one Celsius degree in 65.
Outside greenhouses atmospheric air gets very cool mainly by convection. Wood’s experiment showed that “greenhouse gas” transferred only trivial radiant energy (that >1°C in 65).
Wood, R.W., Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse, 1904; Philosophical magazine (London, Edinburgh and Dublin Philosophical Magazine), 1909, vol.17, p319-320. (Communicated by the Author.)
Reply
Tom O
| #
In the 1970s, when we had the “ice age scare,” just prior to the solar cycle that caused lots of warming, the claim was that CO2 was cooling the planet, which is why we had to curtail the use of carbon fuels. After all, CO2 was used as a coolant at one time.
As you walk the long chart that Gore walked, if you could actually match one graph to the other, it was obvious that as it warmed, the CO2 level increased. also obvious was that the CO2 continued to increase well after the temperature started down. I believe that was the driving reason behind the ice age scare – the planet was cooling, and we were adding CO2 to the atmosphere and that would only cool it faster, just like the ice cores suggest.
I still believe that, by the way, and that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will drive the temperature down over time – that appears, after all, what God intended – a self regulating system for the planet to keep it from getting too warm, although it didn’t keep it from getting too cold. Possible reason for that might be that too much heat would drive the atmosphere to high and would be lost of time, whereas too cool just shrinks the living zone. Thus, as we use carbon fuels to keep us warmer as it gets colder, it will be aiding the cooling, causing it to cool more, but we still survive, at least for a while, if we choose.
The planet does appear, now, to be getting cooler, the Sun appears, at this time, to be shifting its energy output so the planet isn’t being warmed as much. You can, therefore, make a case for moving to alternative energy sources, so not to add to the cooling, but the shift would have to be to something that can reliably take the place of carbon fuels. That won’t be 30 year life span windmills and solar panels that can’t produce the energy to replace themselves. That obviously leads us towards nuclear sources, and not towards fuels such as hydrogen that would cost more energy than they can deliver.
Reply
Alan Stewart
| #
This is all so painfully stupidly simple. If the earth’s atmosphere was a form of man made greenhouse then the sun’s heat energy would not escape and this truly would be the barren ‘Third Rock from the Sun.’
A proper analogy would be as a porous fishnet allowing the insolation in and heat out. Atmospheric gases are measured in parts per million. So let’s say there are 1,000,000 openings in our net. We are told that Carbon dioxide, methane and now nitrous oxide block heat from escaping. Their present quantities are estimated at ~415, 1.8 and 0.0311 ppm respectively. (416.8311 total).
We are told that that total, just over .0416% that block heat escaping is enough to raise temps 1°C. (actually it is 280 to 415 for Co2 – 135ppm – .0135%) 135 blockages out of 1,000,000 created the rise.
Give me a break you WOKE loons!!!!!!!!!!
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
Al Gore must have been walking backward. CO2 levels in the atmosphere follow temperature change on all time scales geological to current. They are the effect not cause of temperature change. In Gore’s Antarctic ice core display, CO2 levels lag temperature by an average 800 years. . (Petit, Jean-Robert, et al., “Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core, “ ResearchGate, Nature, January 1999.) Half a dozen studies confirm a current 9- to 12-month delay of CO2 concentrations following temperature change. See Humlum, O. et al..,” Global and Planetary Change, v. 107, Aug. 2013. Half a dozen papers confirm the delay, including one intended to disprove it. . See Humlum, O. et al..,” Global and Planetary Change, v. 107, Aug. 2013, pp. 226–228. Any rise or fall in CO2 levels would only show its tardy, temperature-neutral presence. It doesn’t and can’t change anything.
. Today’s approximately 400 ppmv of atmospheric CO2 is 0.04% of our atmosphere. The IPCC estimates people’s contribution to this at 5%. In $1,000, 0.04% is 40.ȼ, with people’s share 2ȼ.If you check it out, CO2 doesn’t warm, it cools – by radiating away incoming solar and outgoing earth-emitted radiation, as satellite images show; by interacting with solar radiation overwhelmingly at a -80°C a 15-micron peak radiation band, and generally greening and cooling the planet.
Reply
James
| #
In any case, greenhouses have a single glass roof. Not two; anyone tested what happens if we put a second glass over the first? No doubt the inside temperature increase would double, from say 30C to 60C, like a sauna at full power. Ha ha. The fact that such simple experiments are never done can only mean no one thinks there’s an atmospheric greenhouse effect. We also carefully avoid looking for such an experiment, you never know we might find one. It’s just a joke on simpletons, like homeopathic medicine: the job description is separating fools from their money.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and PSI Readers,
James asked: “In any case, greenhouses have a single glass roof. Not two; anyone tested what happens if we put a second glass over the first?
The answer is YES. (https://principia-scientific.com/solving-global-warming-de-saussure-device-paradox/)
Have a good day reading about de Saussure’s HOT BOX. Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and PSI Readers,
As I reread what I wrote, I judge “I” cannot improve my essay. Maybe someone else could. However, elsewhere I have been critical of Horace for terminating his experiment once the maximum interior temperature began to decrease. He could have let his hotbox sit out overnight, if the sky was cloudless, then read its interior temperature as soon as there was enough light to read the thermometer’s temperature. I must admit that have never done what I propose that Horace could have.
In the essay I mentioned using a modified Suomi, Staley, Kuhn (SSK) net radiometer which had been invented by Suomi to measure the upward IR radiation being emitted by the Earth’s surface and the downward IT radiation being emitted downward from the atmospheric matter above during the nighttime when there was no solar radiation.
However, Suomi’s net radiometer became obsolete because at the same time the USA had successfully placed its first satellite in orbit and Suomi began to invent another instrument for the next available attempt. “The first successful meteorological instrument on an orbiting satellite was the Suomi radiometer, which flew on Explorer 7, launched Oct 1959. The Suomi radiometer was developed by Verner Suomi and colleagues at the Univ. of Wisconsin, and designed for measuring solar and infrared radiation.” (https://faculty.fiu.edu/~hajian/MET4410_5412/MET4410_5412_Lec2.pdf)
While composing this comment I see for the first time that Suomi’s net radiometer could settle the controversy about the existence of downward IR from the atmosphere. Then I remember for years there have been such a project funded by the USA government. (https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html)
The Most Obvious Is Most Difficult To See. (JLK). And I have just supported this wisdom. The same instrument measuring the Upwelling Infrared Radiation is being used to measure the Downwelling Infrared Radiation.
Have a good day studying the Surfrad Data, Jerry
Reply
Jacque L Millard
| #
I worked in a greenhouse for years we used a double layer of plastic for the cover there was air continually being forced between the layers helped to cool in summer and warm in winter
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Jacque,
Thank you for this information. Some questions. What was the latitude? Was the sky generally cloudless during the summer and generally cloudy during the winter? What was the general maximum greenhouse temperature during the summer and during the winter? What was the general minimum greenhouse temperature during the summer and winter?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Jacque and PSI Readers,
Jacque, this comment is not intended to be critical of your comment. It is merely to be critical of myself for not understanding “we used a double layer of plastic for the cover there was air continually being forced between the layers”. Clearly, us that the transparent ‘roof’ of the greenhouse was being supported by air continually being forced between the two layers to make up any air slowly leaking from between the two layers.
Instead, I leaped to the conclusion that air was continually being blown into one end of the two layers and out of the other end of the two layers. Which didn’t make any sense as I couldn’t understand how this would have “helped to cool in summer and warm in winter”. Hence, my previous questions, whose answers, are critically important to properly understanding the critical information of your comment.
I am quite certain that you did observe that summer sky’s were generally cloudless and the winter skies were generally cloudy for in R.C. Sutcliffe’s 1966 book, Weather and Climate, he wrote: “Clouds which do not give rain, which never threaten to give rain but which dissolve again into vapour before the precipitation stage is ever reached, have a profound effect on our climate. This is obvious enough we only think of the difference between a cloudy and a sunny day in summer or between an overcast and clear frosty night in winter.”
Sutcliffe did not specifically describe that the ‘average ‘temperature’ of a sunny day and clear night during any season is generally less than the average ‘temperature’ of an overcast day and and an overcast night during any season.
The reason being that clouds have a far greater influence upon invisible (to human eyes) IR radiation than they do upon the visible solar radiation. We term this influence ‘radiation scattering’. Which, recently before 1966, had just been explained by Richard Feynman (The Feynman Lectures On Physics, 1963). So, Sutcliffe had an excuse for not being aware of what Feynman simply wrote about the phenomena of radiation scattering. But physicists, chemists, meteorologists, climatologists, today, have NO EXCUSE to ignore what Feynman wrote more than half a century ago.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Editors and PSI Commenters,
Why no comments about the Surfrad data to which I linked? There is detailed (readings every minute) meteorology data as well as the radiation data.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers and Commentors
No one has yet commented about the data of NOAA’s SURFRAD PROJECT. One must not ignore its existence unless one wants to PROVE one is a FOOL. Where are you Herb? and Joseph (the engineer) who claims to understand WHAT SCIENCE IS?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply