Another inherent contradiction in the "logic" of "climate science".

If you follow the Consensus' logic, it leads to two possible, completely opposite conclusions on what happens to the "mean radiating altitude" and the Greenhouse Effect (using the flawed Consensus definition) if the surface temperature goes up... depending on the reason why surface temperatures go up.

Let's not do Diagonal Comparisons, let's assume surface temperature goes up by 3 K. In Case 1 it's because of more CO2; and in Case 2 it's because of less cloud cover. In each case, I am following Consensus logic and Consensus rules of the game

Here goes...

Constants in Case 1 and Case 2:

Earth has a certain amount of solar radiation coming in (minus amount reflected back to space - depends on albedo).
Earth has to radiate the same amount of radiation back to space.
Lapse rate can be calculated independently as 6.5 K/km.
To get things to balance on Earth, the values for the "mean radiating altitude" aka the "mean absorbing altitude" are as follows:
Altitude - 5 km
Temperature - 255K
Radiation absorbed/emitted by that layer - 239 K/Wm2 (342 W/m2 gross adjusted for 0.3 albedo = 30% sun light reflected back to space and 70% x 342 W/m2 absorbed).
Hard surface temperature - 288 K.
Check - "the Greenhouse Effect", using the Consensus definition is either simply 288 K minus 255 K = 33 K, or you can calculate it as 5 km x 6.5 K/km = 33 K.

Case 1 - higher surface temperature means higher "mean radiating altitude" and a larger Greenhouse Effect

We change one variable:
Average surface temperature goes up by (say) 3 K, from 288 K to 291 K.
Reason - this is caused by an increase in CO2. Cloud cover unchanged.
Lapse rate is fixed, so at each altitude, temperatures go up by 3 K.
If you want to find the altitude at which temperature is 255 K, you know have to go up to 5.5 km altitude (higher than our base case).
Check - 291 K surface temperature minus 5.5 km x 6.5 K/km lapse rate = 255 K.
The "Greenhouse Effect" using the conceptually flawed Consensus definition has gone UP and is now 291 K minus 255 K = 36 K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This is part of the Holy Canon of Climate Change.

Today's Lesson is from Hansen et al, 1981, page 1, column 3:

"the greenhouse effect of gases and clouds... cause the mean radiating level to be above the surface"

So the higher The Greenhouse Effect, the higher the "mean radiating level".

Amen.

Case 2 - higher the surface temperature means lower "mean radiating altitude" and a smaller Greenhouse Effect

We change one variable:
Average surface temperature goes up by (say) 3 K, from 288 K to 291 K.
Reason - this is caused by there being no cloud cover at all (as happened in the UK in April and May this year). CO2 levels unchanged.
So albedo falls to 0.15, so 85% of sun light is absorbed.
Radiation absorbed/emitted at "mean radiating altitude" - 291 W/m2 (342 W/m2 gross adjusted for 0.15 albedo = 15% sunlight reflected back to space and 85% x 342 W/m2 absorbed)
This pushes up temperature of "mean radiating altitude" from 255 K to 267 K.
Lapse rate is fixed, so at each altitude, temperatures go up by 3 K.
If you want to find the altitude at which temperature is 267 K, you have to go up to 3.7 km altitude (lower than our base case).
Check - 291 K surface temperature minus 3.7 km x 6.5 K/km lapse rate = 267 K.
The "Greenhouse Effect" using the conceptually flawed Consensus definition has gone DOWN and is now 291 K minus 267 K = 24 K.

Which is yet more evidence that the whole thing is nonsense

The Consensus view appears to hinge on Case 1 being correct, that higher surface temperature means that the "mean radiating altitude" and the The Greenhouse Effect will be higher (I have no idea why they make such a big thing out of this, but hey, the Gospel according to St James [Hansen] says so).

My problem is that if you make all the same assumptions, only you change the reason for the temperature increase to something pretty easily measurable and inarguable (less cloud cover) the "mean radiating altitude" and The Greenhouse Effect will be lower.

This illustrates that the Consensus logic is completely wrong somewhere and their way of measuring the Greenhouse Effect is conceptually flawed.

The only way to reconcile the two Cases is to accept that The Real Greenhouse Effect is dictated solely by the thickness/mass of the atmosphere and is entirely independent of the constituent gases. In Case 1, the surface temperature and hence everything else is unchanged. In Case 2, yes, temperatures go up by 3 K, you don't need to be a genius to work that out. I just told you they did and why.