## Sunday, 10 April 2022

### Greenhouse effect, what greenhouse effect?

I know I keep posting the same thing, but I always end up with long posts, I'm trying to whittle it down to the basics, so each subsequent post gets a bit shorter (hopefully). When it's short enough, I will email it as a question to Climatologists, or pester them in the comments. Greta says 'follow the science' and I have done.
-------------------------------
To quote from James Hansen et al, ca. 1980:

The effective radiating temperature of the earth, TE , is determined by the need for infrared emission from the planet to balance absorbed solar radiation... [insert complicated looking formula which is actually quite simple]... this yields TE = 255 K. The mean surface temperature TS is 288 K. The excess, TS - TE, is the greenhouse effect of gases and clouds, which cause the mean radiating level to be above the surface.

The actual definition of 'effective temperature' is correct and the part we need to focus on. And let's accept his assumptions (nobody has ever seriously challenged them) that average mean sea-level temp = 288K; the weighted average albedo of clouds and cloud-free oceans/land = 30%; and so average absorbed solar radiation (which has to be matched by outgoing LW) = 238 W/m2

The sleight of hand is the 255K result. This is completely incorrect, whether by accident or design, but is taken as Gospel by Climatologists to this day. To arrive at 255K you have to assume uniform surface; all at the same temperature; and with 100% emissivity. All of which is completely unrealistic.

And we mere Earth dwellers assume that "surface" means ocean surface or land - but as far as incoming and outgoing radiation is concerned, it's a combination of clouds and cloud-free oceans/land (there is a separate cycle between clouds and the oceans/land below them). Climatologists skip back and forth between both definitions of "surface" as it suits them.

Here's the proper way of calculating it:
* Cloud altitude 5km, temp 256K, emissivity 70%, two-thirds of surface as seen from space. Emitted LW = 170 W/m2.
* Oceans/land, temp 288K, emissivity 96%, one-third of surface as seen from space. Emitted LW = 375 W/m2.
* Weighted average LW emissions = 238 W/m2, which balances absorbed solar radiation.
* As a check, cloud temp and sea-level temp are different by exactly the amount you'd expect, given a gravity-induced lapse rate of 6.5 K/km, adjusted for latent heat of evaporation (which reduces it from hypothetical 10 K/km to 6.5 K/km).

Conclusions:
1. Earth is - by definition - at the correct effective temperature, because LW emitted by clouds and cloud-free oceans/land ("the surface") = absorbed solar.
2. No radiation goes missing on the way out or is trapped by Greenhouse Gases.
3. Therefore, using his definitions, the greenhouse effect = zero, not 33 degrees.
4. He mentions "the greenhouse effect of gases and clouds". In truth it's just clouds. There is no need to factor in "gases" (by implication C02) as there is no discrepancy left to explain.
5. And of course the "mean radiating level" is above sea-level, but it is not "above the surface". It IS the surface (as seen from space).
-----------------
Yes, I am perfectly aware that all my inputs (cloud altitude and temp, emissivity etc) are just mid-points of ranges of estimates. Nobody will ever know the exact figures, although they could be firmed up a lot by using weather balloons with IR thermometers at lots of different locations and latitudes and different times of day. The more data we have, the better.

This would cost a tiny fraction of the \$ billions they spend on 'climate models' and hunting round for evidence with satellites and expeditions to the South Pole. However conscientious the measurements and however rigourous the analysis, there will always be margins of error and uncertainty. But I am sure, you could get to +/- a few W/m2 or a few degrees K of my above zero-conclusion. And Greenhouse Gas Theories that are built on what is basically margins of error and uncertainty wouldn't really be sound science, would it?

James Higham said...

Well there we are, this Monday morn. Now I know.

JH, this is important!

Lola said...

I really appreciate these tutorials. I am like you, I like to understand things. It was always a deep suspicion of mine that CO2 = MMGW was bollocks but I seriously lack the time to look deeply into it. I now have the basic arguments of the nonsense when next I am challenged.

L, I didn't really have the time either but all the little inconsistencies and contradictions were irritating the Hell out of me. So I kept peeling away layers of bullshit until I got to the Big Fat Lie that is the foundation of it all.

It's taken me two years of mulling, digging, learning, to get this far. Because I started at the wrong end. Which is bloody annoying. All the months I spent peeling away the upper layers were a complete and utter waste of time.

That's the power of this Big Fat Lie about 33 degree difference - everybody takes it for granted, including me until recently.

Lola said...

MW. Well, thank you anyway.

In truth there is so much today that is based on one or more basic lies (my 'favourite' is that 'inflation' is the rise in prices, not the a priori arbitrary expansion of money and credit) that it's all to easy just to give up.

Bayard said...

"To quote from James Hansen et al, ca. 1980:"

Bloody hell, has this nonsense really been going on that long?

B there were anti-CO2 campaigners much earlier than that, maybe back to the 1960s? Fair enough, everybody's entitled to their opinions.

I'm not sure when the Diagonal Comparison Big Fat Lie compare apples with oranges bollocks started, Hansen's is just the oldest and most famous one I can find.

Is it really only me who's finally seen through it? Or were my peers simply cancelled?

Bayard said...

Mark, one day someone will write a history of the Great Man-Made Global Warming Hoax and all will be revealed. Considering the level of indoctrination, not only of the world's youth, but also people who really should know better, it could be some time before that happens.

B, it will be, but if I can speed that up by a single day, it will have worth it. What we need is a few million like minded, it could happen next year...

Lola said...

MW -Yes. You are correct. Every other 'denier' has been cancelled. If you are a scientist and you try and raise a grant for research into CO2 you'll only get the money if you support the lie.

But it's not just in the CO2 bollox that people get cancelled. I, me, a bloke in the countryside and my mate have been 'cancelled' from being able to present our anti regulationism arguments to the TSC.

So, yes. If you can see the cobblers of CO2 other must also see it.

Bayard said...

Mark, well the expression "Greenhouse Effect" dates back to 1937, according to my etymological dictionary.

L, I thought so.

B, the "CO2 causes warming" goes back to the 1800s based on entirely spurious experiments and has been debunked and revived many times since. It will probably never die. I just don't like being lied to time and time again.

Lola said...

MW 'you don't like being lied to time and time again'!!! Well, you're in the wrong country and wrong century then. :-)