Shrinking the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect closer to reality
Mainstream climate science claims that without an atmosphere, Earth’s surface temperature would be, on average, below freezing. It would be about 33 degrees C colder than it is with an atmosphere.
Actually, they claim that without ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHGs) that would be the case. Someone at NASA even made this ridiculous statement:
Remove carbon dioxide, and the terrestrial greenhouse effect would collapse. Without carbon dioxide, Earth’s surface would be some 33°C (59°F) cooler.
Ha ha! I’m sure they meant to say GHGs, not CO2, but let’s laugh at NASA for employing someone secretly biased like this.
There’s a link on that site to UCAR (Center for Science Education): The Greenhouse Effect. Here we read:
Without the greenhouse effect, Earth’s temperature would be below freezing.
— UCAR
Clicking on that link:
Without any heat-trapping greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, Earth would be a frozen ball of ice.
You can learn lots more details about the math at our Calculating Planetary Energy Balance & Temperature web page.
— UCAR
Great, we finally got to the meat. I was looking for this math page, but apparently it’s gone now from UCAR and links to an archive.org page.
Maybe they are embarrassed? Anyway, here’s how this “iceball” theory works:
The math is mostly fine (Earth is not a perfect Sphere), but the real problem is the choice of 0.31 albedo. Most of the albedo comes from the atmosphere itself!
And also this albedo value is only useful in observing Earth from space. ~30 percent of incoming shortwave solar radiation is indeed reflected from the Earth onto an observing satellite.
But this is NOT a metric for figuring out how much solar radiation reaches the surface, which is what is in question. And so this entire calculation is utterly superficial and meaningless.
Some have suggested to use the Moon’s albedo to simulate Earth’s surface temperature without an atmosphere. Moon’s albedo is about 0.12, and the standard calculation method would yield:
$ qalc -t '1361*(1-0.12)/4=5.670367e-8*x^4'
x ≈ 269.5674246 # (x = Temperature in Kelvin)But the moon is the moon, and it’s not like the Earth, at least I don’t think.
Let us look at an Energy Budget diagram to see what the proper parameter is:
CERES Energy Budget (2005-2015)
So 23 W/m2 is reflected at the surface, and that’s from (23+164)= 187 W/m2 that makes it past the atmosphere. 23/187 = 0.1229…
Ah, so that is indeed very close to the moon. Not a bad assumption.
Then again, 23 out of a total of 340 was reflected at the surface. Maybe the 187 is irrelevant? Can I be sure that the surface would not have rejected the same as the atmosphere? No, really, can I? I don’t know, but I don’t think so. If I’m right, then the surface albedo would be 23/340 = 0.0676.
This gives me more confidence:
The lunar average Bond albedo (at normal solar incidence) A is 0.12 (Vasavada et al. 2012). This is in agreement with the mean value of 0.122 found by Saari & Shorthill (1972).
Vasavada et al. (2012) derived a mean albedo of 0.07 for mare and 0.16 for highland surfaces from measurements taken by the Diviner Lunar Radio Experiment. In a NASA summary of the Moon’s bulk parameters19, the Bond albedo is given by 0.11 and the geometric albedo by 0.12
Mares are generally smooth and flat and take up ~16 percent of moon’s surface. On Earth, our equivalent of lunar mares would be the oceans, and any body of water in general. Water bodies have a small albedo, like 0.06 … similar to lunar mares. But our “mares” take up 71 percent of our surface. This fact alone makes me confident Earth’s surface albedo is much lower than the moon.
Moving on…
The main problem with the mainstream no-atmosphere formula shown above is that it lacks EMISSIVITY, which is a huge mistake. Here’s the correction:
Now things get interesting.
What is the emissivity of the moon? This paper suggests it is definitely somewhere between 0.92 and 0.97. But this is computed from a narrow set of channels. Such an analysis on Earth also leads to a high result: 0.97-0.98, whereas the actual emissivity is found in my previous article: What is Earth’s Surface Emissivity? : 0.93643.
I would even bet that the moon’s albedo is just one minus its emissivity.
For Earth, let’s go back to the energy budget … 23/340 is 0.067647.
1 minus 0.067647 is 0.932353
0.932353 and 0.93643 are too close to be a coincidence. I think they are saying the same thing:
Screw albedo and emissivity, and just assume Kirchoff’s Law of Radiation for this type of calculation? This implies:
S/4=σT⁴
A more accurate S/4 value is taken from my previous article: 339.22
$ qalc -t '339.22=5.670367e-8*x^4'
x ≈ 278.1106181If we take the surface outgoing longwave radiation from CERES: 399.56 (Average, year 2020), we get …
$ qalc -t '399.56=5.670367e-8*x^4'
x ≈ 289.7294947And the difference is about 11.62 degrees C
Now that is much less of a “greenhouse effect” than the fantastical 33 or 34 degrees claimed by mainstream climate scientists!
Without the atmosphere, the average temperature would be nearly 5 degrees C
See more here: phzoe.com
Header image: New Scientist
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.
Geraint HUghes
| #
What albedo and emissivity for the Earth did you assume? Sounds like you are saying something similar Martin Herzberg, in that the cold earth fallacy is wrong as the wrong emissivity and wrong albedos are being used to calculate 255k.
Reply
Geraint HUghes
| #
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EE20-1_Hertzberg.pdf
This link will explain what i am talking about. If you look at the graph you can see the different temperature ranges for each of the e and a values. Using common sense you can see that assuming 255k is just stupidity in action, as they have selected values which are untrue in order to “invent” the RGHE. We all know RGHE is a false effect which can not be replicated in real life.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The contention that reflection from clouds reduces the energy coming to the Earth is nonsense. The water in clouds scatter visible light in all directions but most of it remains in the Earth system.
Clouds form when water condenses. This condensation is the result of energy absorbed at the surface of the Earth being radiated into space. The Earth sweats and cools by losing energy. If it were not for this air conditioning by water the Earth would be like the moon, 234 degrees in the light, -230 degrees in the shade.
Atmosperic gases are lousy at absorbing and storing energy.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
I’m not saying only 164 W/m^2 reaches the surface as energy budget shows.
“in all directions but most of it remains in the Earth system”
Uhm, the clouds are not the surface, and if, at random, half the radiation goes to space … it didn’t go to the surface. QED
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Zoe, Would you be up for coming onto TNT Radio Live sometime to talk about your analysis?
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
No, sorry, John. I have a speech impediment, and sound like a retard. That’s why I employ people to talk for me, and command them via text.
That’s how I ended up so smart.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoe,
The Earth is not just the surface but includes the atmosphere. The visible light is not absorbed in the atmosphere, including the water in clouds, and water is not radiating the energy coming from visible light. The light is scattered by refraction. Because of the light coming from the sun and being dispersed at a low altitude most of goes down.
95% of the UV is being absorbed by the N2 and O2 in the atmosphere and being converted to IR. If the 5% reaching the surface can burn your skin off the energy absorbed in the atmosphere is producing a lot of heat that is not measured at the surface.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You just wrote: “Clouds form when water condenses.” What ‘water” are you referring to? Because in the past I seem to remember that you and James McGinn claimed that there were no water molecules (gaseous matter) in the atmosphere to condense to liquid or solid matter.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Water exists in the atmosphere as micro droplets of liquid crystals. You’ve been shown the water phase chart that shows at sea level gaseous water cannot exist below 100 C.
Here’s how it works, Jerry. Water comes out of a teapot as an invisible gas. It then cools creating liquid water droplets On further cooling these droplets disappear. It is not because they have absorbed the 540 calories/gram to convert back to a gas. They are forming liquid crystal. This is how phase changes occur. On cooling a gas goes to a liquid then to a solid.. If that solid is a liquid crystal it has 2 melt points, one when ice melts and the other when the crystal breaks apart releasing energy. The kinetic energy of the atmosphere increases with increasing altitude (UGL). The melt point for water liquid crystals is above 100 c but below the boiling point of water where it converts to a gas.
This why nitrogen and oxygen with molecular weights of 28 and 32 permeate all the levels of the atmosphere while Argon and CO2 with molecular weights of 40 and 44 are confined to the troposphere. Water with a molecular weight of 18 should permeate the layers of the atmosphere but doesn’t because it never converts to a gas in the troposphere.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hi Herb,
As I explain in Part One (link below), H2O molecules are solvents of (up to) 25% of each other’s polarity, This means the more they surround each other and form hydrogen bonds the more the force holding them together drops to zero, making them very liquidy. It also means that in smaller configurations in which they do not completely surround each other (on all for sides of the tetrahedron) some of the polarity remains. Therefore in smaller configuration (let’s say below 25 molecules per droplets) the average polarity is high, making them hard or even crystalline (as you suggest).
The Most Devastatingly Subtle Misconception in the Whole Dang History of Science, Part One
https://youtu.be/-cLI_nlEbJ4
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
I believe that water is not just covalent bonds but splits to form hydroxyl and hydrogen ions. It is the hydroxyl ion that combine with other water molecules to form a crystal. As heat is absorbed and more hydroxyl ions are created the crystal walls grow thicker. It is the increasing of the negative charge of this crystal shell that causes water to rise in the atmosphere.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
I believe that water is not just covalent bonds but splits to form hydroxyl and hydrogen ions. It is the hydroxyl ion that combine with other water molecules to form a crystal. As heat is absorbed and more hydroxyl ions are created the crystal walls grow thicker. It is the increasing of the negative charge of this crystal shell that causes water to rise in the atmosphere.
James:
Extravagant evidence opens the door to extravagant explanations. In this respect I do agree with what you are suggesting. But your model goes way too far. If what you are saying here is true then we have greatly misunderstood covalent bonds (including Coulomb’s law). You have the right spirit but you are looking at the wrong thing. The issue here doesn’t involve misunderstanding covalent bonds. It involves failing to properly understand hydrogen bonds in water.
To understanding the phenomena associated with H2O you have to first understand that with H2O there is an inverse relationship between the comprehensiveness of connectedness of H2O molecules to each other and the strength of this connectedness. And to understand this you have to first understand that
a.) H2O molecules are solvents of up to 25% of each other’s polarity, by way of hydrogen bonds, and
b.) they can each form up to four hydrogen bonds, one each, with up to four neighbors, in a tetrahedral arrangement.
This understanding sets the stage for understanding the variability of hydrogen bonding that underlies the anomalies of H2O and it doesn’t require us to revise our understanding of covalent bonding.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
James McGinn
| #
Jerry Krause:
. . . you and James McGinn claimed that there were no water molecules (gaseous matter) in the atmosphere . . .
James McGinn:
Wrong again, Jerry. Pay attention. The claim is that the moisture in clear moist air involves invisibly small droplets of H2O, not gaseous H2O, the latter being a notion that involves superstition, dullwittedness and deliberate ignorance of H2O phase diagram. Accordingly, condensation does not involve a phase change–it itself being a notion that involves superstition and dullwittedness–but the combining of smaller droplets into larger, more visible, droplets.
Here is a video that explains all of this and related popular delusions:
The Most Devastatingly Subtle Misconception in the Whole Dang History of Science, Part Two
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry, Herb, James and readers with too much time on their hands.
Some observations of micro droplets versus gaseous state of water.
Wetsuits made for surfing have a steamer model (full suit) called the smoothy (smooth suit). This is a slick rubber external surface where the water runs off as compared to a double lined suit which has an external fabric lining.
The fabric surface holds water and is known to be a colder suit because of the water evaporating off the surface cools the suit compared to the smoothy where the water runs off the surface avoiding the evaporative cooling.
This phenomenon is also observed at dawn and dusk in overcast conditions when direct sunlight is not hitting the black rubber smoothy and directly warming.
Next observation. On a clear frosty frozen ground winter night it is cold. If during the middle of the night a cloud bank moves across the sky the air temperature increases in temperature,
These temperature effects of evaporation and condensation are considered to be through the phase change of water.. If micro droplets of water are not a phase change then the temperature changes observed can only be explained that water has become a gas. Evaporation, condensation.
Water boils at 100 degrees celsius but that does not preclude the evaporation of water at the equator at lesser temperatures.
Any comments?
Reply
Moffin
| #
The formation of fog does not cause warming.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Moffin,
Fog forms because the liquid crystals lose heat converting back to a liquid.
The question is why does water not condense at a lower altitude (like fog) when the temperature rapidly drops with increasing altitude?
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Good point.
Smaller, more invisible nanodroplets of H2O have higher average polarity and, therefore, a slighter heat capacity than do the larger, more visible, droplets in fog. (Note: this all follows from the inverse relationship I discuss in other posts on this thread. See link there too.)
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
The reason cloudy nights are warmer than clear night is because the water droplets in the cloud contain more energy than the air molecules and that energy is transferred (by convection) increasing the heat at the surface. (Water does not reflect heat.)
I maintain there is a phase change when water evaporates It changes from a liquid to a liquid crystal. (See Dr. Gerald Pollack’s book “The Fourth Phase of, Water” showing how this crystal (called the Exclusion Zone) grows when ir radiation is absorbed.
The phase change of matter goes from gas to liquid to solid. According to Jerry for water the phase change goes from gas to liquid to gas to liquid to solid. Nonsense. Cooling steam does not absorb more than 540 calories/gram to convert from a liquid mist to a gas.
Water can evaporate from ice (sublimation) because localized energy can grow a crystal and evaporate before that heat is transferred through the water.
You do know that sea level at the equator is 22 km higher than sea level at the poles as measured from the center of the Earth? This means a smaller force of gravity (measured from the center of the Earth) and a lower boiling point just as there is a lower boiling point at higher altitudes where gravity is weaker.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hi Matt,
I completely get your point, but it involves a misconception. The misconception is that evaporative cooling involves breakage of hydrogen bonds. Actually evaporative cooling, in part, requires that droplets remain large enough to maintain the elasticity of hydrogen bonds that is the basis of H2O’s high heat capacity. Smaller droplets are hard, inelastic, and therefore cannot carry away much heat. In other words, the high heat capacity of H2O requires loose bonds between H2O molecules that have low average polarity, which only happens in larger droplets. Ironically, and even though it is impossible, if the evaporation did involve individual H2O molecules (gaseous H2O and/or smaller droplets that have higher average polarity) not much heat would be carried away by the evaporation process since gaseous H2O has a very low heat capacity.
See the third section of this video where I discuss H2O heat capacity and the mechanism thereof which involves an inverse relationship between comprehensiveness of connectedness and strength of connectedness:
The Most Devastatingly Subtle Misconception in the Whole Dang History of Science
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Herb and James.
Thank you for the replies. That is enough to give me some homework to do for a while.
Regards. Matt
Reply
Alan
| #
Forget all this, just look at the surface temperature of the Moon facing the Sun. The atmosphere doesn’t keep us warmer, it keeps us cooler but helps in distributing energy around the surface.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Copy/pasting capitlized my sigma:
S/4=ΣT⁴
I hope that was the case and not intentional.
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Hi Zoe, if you’d like to tell me how it should appear, I will try and correct it.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
As it does on my site, as is standard:
S/4=σT⁴
Small greek letter sigma
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Looks like someone has already corrected it 🙂
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Herb and James disagree with not only me, but with many other scientists who agree with the conventional science which I espouse [hope this is the correct word]. But a fact which cannot be questioned is WE BOTH cannot be correct. So each reader of what we have written must either ignore both of our ideas or choose sides.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Ronald
| #
Global warming, ahem- climate change, big bangs, black holes, dark matter, space-time, an expanding universe, covid-19, sars-cov-2, viruses in general etc… all exist within the same realm- fraud inspired imagination.
We are most certainly living the dream….
Reply
lloyd
| #
So we live in Keanu Reeves’ Matrix, Gotcha!
Reply
Lit
| #
A cold shell of air around the solid planet will cause heat transfer from the surface to air. The rate of heat transfer is added to emissive power to get the total amount of heat needed to keep temperature at ~288K. So, σ(288^4+288^4-255^4)=540W/m^2 is required to keep surface temperature at 288K with a cold atmosphere present. The surface is cooled by convection, conduction from the atmosphere, and on top of that emits radiation at 288K. If you remove the atmosphere conduction and convection disappears as means of cooling. Then all the heat must be emitted only as radiation and the surface will emit 540W/m^2 at a temperature of 312K(38,9°C). The surface would be 24°C hotter without an atmosphere cooling it.
Reply
Lit
| #
And here´s the fun part, the surface emits 4πr^2540W/m^2. How can that be solved with only 1361W/m^2 from the sun? Only if we don´t assume that earth receives solar heat as a disc πr^2, and instead use the hemisphere 2πr^2. Which is logical, because if Earth received solar heat as a disc, Earth´s shadow would be a straight tube, but it´s not, it´s a cone. If the shadow is a cone then Earth must receive heat on the hemisphere, not as a disc. With albedo of 0.25 the surface receives 2πr^2TSI0,75=2πr^21020W/m^2. That would give surface emission at (2πr^2*1020W/m^2)/4πr^2=510W/m^2.
510W/m^2 is pretty close to what I claim is needed(540W/m^2) to keep surface temperature at 288K when it´s cooled by an atmosphere at 255K.
Reply
Lit
| #
Formatting got weird in the post above, sorry. And the albedo I use is only geometric, the amount that falls off due to the shape of the sphere. The albedo used in the GHE is bullshit and it´s a product of temperature(snow, ice etc), not a cause.
Reply
Terence M
| #
Being a metal worker I was hoping after reading the article and the comments to clear up the uncertainty re GHG’s especially the relative contributions of water vapor vs CO2. I might have missed it.
Reply