söndag 13 februari 2011

A formal disproof of the Greenhouse Effect, with the help of Jupiter.

Some of the readers of this blog might wonder if it is necessary to provide any more disproof of the GE. In any case, by now there are at least 367 proofs of Pythagora's theorem, so I thought I could contribute with disproof nr 368 of the Greenhouse Effect. It is not entirely my own, I think it has been suggested before. For this purpose we will take a closer look at Jupiter.

In the article "Rethinking the Greenhouse Effect" by Alan Siddons, it is shown among other things that at 1 bar of pressure, all planets have temperatures much larger than a blackbody temperature estimate would yield. Facts of this kind are important in the search for the correct explanation for the heating impact of the atmosphere. The question I now ask is whether there is information contained in this data with which we can immediately rule out the old theory, that is the existence of any radiative greenhouse effect at all. 

The gas giant Jupiter has a multifaceted "atmosphere", but below 1 bar of pressure it is almost entirely composed of hydrogen and helium (Alan may correct me if I'm wrong). And the amazing thing is that below this pressure the temperature decreases. Ok, so what? In previous posts I have argued and demonstrated that

Thus, the greenhouse hypothesis is falsified. This disproof has the character of a mathematical proof in the sense that each step is simple, but in the end you reach a conclusion that was maybe not obvious from the beginning. But it is not lengthy nor complicated, it could be understood by any scientist who is willing to listen.

3 kommentarer:

  1. Wrong,
    The lower atmosphere is heated internally and from absorbed solar radiation. The lapse rate caused by adiabatic expansion of rising gas, driven by a combination of buoyancy from the lower atmosphere, and by planetary rotation mixes the atmosphere enough to maintain the adiabatic lapse rate. If there were no mixing, the gradient would tend toward isothermal, but just looking at the super storms at lower elevation should make the degree of mixing clear.

  2. To add to my previous comment, If Earth had an atmosphere only of Hydrogen and Helium at 1 bar at the surface, radiation to space would be from the surface. However, conduction heat transfer from the surface to the gas, followed by convection of the gas through the atmosphere would still heat the lower atmosphere, and mixing caused by variations in temperature day to night, and over different latitudes and with planetary rotation, would likely be enough to maintain the adiabatic lapse rate (from rising and falling gas adjusting to adiabatic conditions) rather than tend to isothermal. The gas thermal conductivity (even for Hydrogen and Helium) is so small compared to convective heat transfer, that it does not take much mixing to maintain the adiabatic lapse rate.

  3. Who cares? CO2 has nothing to do with climate change.

    What we are witnessing is what mother nature has been doing for billions of years. If I am wrong, please provide one peer reviewed paper that rules out natural variablilty as the cause of recent climate change.