No Special Greenhouse Gas Effect on Earth, Venus or Mars
Australian Physical Chemist uses standard science to test whether ‘greenhouse gases’ – key to the theory behind man-made global warming – really can have any greenhouse effect on other planets.
Dr Peter J Carson (University of Adelaide) shows that careful comparison of the different concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) on Earth, Venus and Mars determines that any supposed ‘greenhouse gas effect’ has no relation to the amount of atmospheric CO2.
Dr Carson’s analysis, set out below and linked here, is a compelling debunk of the claims that adding more CO2 into the atmosphere will alter the temperature of a planet’s surface. In effect, Carson shows that the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is false.
Venus, Earth and Mars …. Game, Set and Match! Greenhouse Effects on the Rocky Planets
[As the innermost planet Mercury has no atmosphere and therefore no greenhouse, only the other three rocky planets Venus, Earth and Mars are appropriate here.]
Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory (AGW):
Proposes that the only greenhouse gases are the specialgreenhouse gases (GG) – those that can capture infrared radiation (IR) directly, such as carbon dioxide and methane. A planet’s observed surface temperature (OBS) is greater than its calculated StefanBoltzmann temperature (SB) – ie heat from the Sun – because ‘greenhouse gases’ are alleged to trap some of the planet’s radiated heat increasing the observed temperature by
∆ OBS = SB + ∆ (1)
AGW assumes that ∆ is the greenhouse effect, G, and that it increases with CO2
ie G = f( PCO2)
but just what particular function that might be depends on which AGW expert is using the data!
There are many shown in the IPCC reports. Prominent global warming alarmist, Al Gore, seems to favour linear,
G ∝ PCO2.
Although Mars has only a small atmosphere, it is 95{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} CO2 – similar to Venus’ 96{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} the product (Pressure* {154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}CO2) is 14x greater than Earth’s. According to AGW, Mars should have a larger greenhouse than Earth; instead it’s much less!
No special greenhouse gases: (see Chapter 1B: Click Greenhouse re-examined to view 3 page (.pdf)):
A planet’s greenhouse effect, G is proportional to its pressure, and (Chapter 2) a planet’s surface also receives extra heat from its Interior, (which in turn is the sum of the tidal heat, Interior radioactive decay heat and heat left over from the planet’s formation) producing the larger observed temperature, OBS.
OBS = (SB + IntT) + G (2)
where OBS ≡ observed temperature of the planet’s surface,
SB ≡ calculated Stefan-Boltzmann temperature
IntT ≡ Interior Temperature, the contribution of Temperature coming from the planet’s Interior heat, (in turn, IntT = tidal + radio-active + residual).
From Chapter 1B, the greenhouse trapped heat is proportional to
*** the atmosphere’s density (ie P) – or more accurately than needed here, to the product C*P where C is atmosphere’s specific heat,
*** and to each planet’s surface temperature so that,
G = k*P*(SB + IntT) (k is the same for all the rocky planets).
Then, OBS = (SB + IntT)*(1+k*P) (3)
Testing AGW vs non-AGW:
These two propositions can be tested with the rocky planet data (Table 1).
AGW proposes that ∆=OBS-SB (Row 6) is the greenhouse effect, G and therefore ∆/PCO2 is constant. (Row 7):
Clearly, AGW is a long way wrong.
No special greenhouse gases:
Row 10 is better, even though it is only the greenhouse effect, ∆ ∝ P total being considered. It is assumed in this row that IntT = 0, demonstrating the values depart when IntT becomes relatively more significant, eg Mars where G ≈ 0.
However, we can do much better than that! Row 11 is eq 3 where the planet’s interior heat (IntT) supplements the greenhouse effect, ie ∆ = G + IntT. The greenhouse proportionality is the same for each planet, validating this proposal.
…………………………………………………………………………………..
The calculations involved.
Justification:
- They are similar sized planets with similarly active interiors.
- As they were formed at much the same time, 4·6 billion years ago, their residual heats and radio-active decays are similar.
- The effect of tidal heating is similar. Earth has a Moon, the Moon’s tidal effect being approximately twice that of the Sun’s, which somewhat balances Venus’ closeness to the Sun. (Anyway, tidal heating is small. Mercury has the largest tidal heating of the rocky planets but ∆=OBS-SB including tidal, residual heats and radio-active heat, still only totals about 3K.)
Now we have 2 equations with only 2 unknowns, IntT & k.
This returns IntTV = IntTE = 27·6 – falling well within the limits from Fig 1of 33K > IntTE > 12 K – and k=0·01928:
k can then be used for Mars to give IntTM = 6·0 returning a value for G ≈ 0, matching expectations for a planet with such low pressure.
The greenhouse effects (G) constant for each planet are:
Venus: 475 K
Earth: 5.5 K
Mars: 0.02 K
However, Figure 1 shows IntTE is variable – when measured over thousands of years.
[AGW does not allow for a significant IntT but Row 7 shows this is wildly inaccurate. Even if one includes IntT (Row 9) producing (Row 8), the end result is still wrong. Even if the proposed functional relationship between G & PCO2 is non-linear, Mars cannot have G intermediate between Venus and Earth as expected by AGW.]
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The greenhouse effect (G) is proportional to an atmosphere’s total pressure.
2. G for each planet is therefore constant.
3. Vostok shows a planet’s geologically released internal heat, IntT varies with time.
4. G is unrelated to an atmosphere’s carbon dioxide density. AGW is wrong.
*****
Chapter 1B is validated by #1 & #2 and Chapter 2 by #3.
*****
i American Chemical Society: https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/planetarytemperatures.html
Lyatt Jaeglé: Similar data are provided in website http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/notes_greenhouse.html
Read more at pjcarson2015.wordpress.com
Trackback from your site.
Zoomer
| #
Please update this article because the links no longer work
“pjcarson2015.wordpress.com is no longer available.”
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Zoomer,
Have you noted the date of the article to which you refer?
I make this comment because of the article’s title. While I was reading PSI articles and comments in 2017 I have no memory of the article and I am not willing to admit that I, because of my present state of forgetfulness, have forgot it. For I agree totally with the title and now read the article as I comment.
After reading, I must admit I do not understand what Dr. Peter Carson wrote. So I take the opportunity to give my two cents worth. Gas molecules do not absorb infrared radiation (IR). First because an IR photon does not have sufficient energy to decompose a a gas molecule. and secondly gas molecules have no surface from which radiation can be emitted because of its temperature. So if a molecule does absorb an IR photon the excited state of molecule’s electronic structure immediately emits the energy of absorbed IR photon. Maybe what I am proposing might be consider observed a type of light scattering.
Next I will deal with the formation of the ozone molecule which does warm the atmosphere. We know the oxygen molecule is decomposed into two oxygen atoms by very high energy ultraviolet photons. And we initially proposed that the very reactive oxygen atom reacted with an oxygen molecule to form the ozone molecule. The problem with this simple two particle collision to form the ozone molecule is why there appears to be no ozone molecules in the mesospher.
So the reasoning became there needed to be a three body collision for the third body to carry away the excess energy which would immediately decompose the excited ozone molecule. And it is the excess energy of this third particle which warms the stratosphere’s atmosphere. I did not propose this reaction mechanism; I am only reporting what I have read.
Have g good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The greatest number of electrons an atom or molecule has on its surface is 8 so if this “surface” does not absorb Ir for neon or argon how can any molecule absorb IR? Energy is attracted to mass, which is in the nucleus. Electrons repel energy which means certain wavelengths are reflected and not absorb and the energy being radiated by the nucleus are in certain wavelengths giving every element a unique spectrum regardless of how many electrons are on its surface.
CO2 and larger gas molecules do absorb wavelengths from the IR spectrum depending on their bonds.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I know it is useless to write to Herb but I do not want him to confuse others who have never studied atoms beyond grade 12. The only thing in a modern atom that could be considered to have a surface is the nucleus which has 99.999% of the atom’s mass. And the nucleus is very, very tiny relative to an atoms volume where the electrons are in constant motion as they move through empty space.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Zoomer and other Reades,
I will report that the low overcast is emitting IR radiation down toward the earth’s surfaces so the earth’s surface emits the nearly the same IR radiation upward the measured morning air temperature isn’t changing.
Have a good day
Reply