No such thing as “Greenhouse effect”

No such thing as “Greenhouse effect”

In the image above (courtesy of CERN) add up the five figures at the top of the outgoing arrows. Was any energy left behind (trapped)?
Greenhouse Gasses.

A greenhouse works by trapping air at ground level. Its function is similar to that of hair or animal fur in that it traps the air close to the source of the heat. The air gets warmed by the reflected heat from the ground but instead of rising up into the atmosphere under the influence of convection, it is trapped by the glass. To lower the temperature in a greenhouse, roof vents are opened allowing the warm air to rise. But there is a very important difference. The atmosphere like animal fur regulates temperature in both directions were as greenhouses simply increase temperature. The function of a greenhouse then, is the prevention of convection in order to increase temperature. This is a key point because in the open, free flowing atmosphere there is nothing to prevent convection and therefore there is no greenhouse effect.

It therefore follows that in the open atmosphere greenhouse gasses do not exist. In-fact the only time it is accurate to call a gas a greenhouse gas is of course when the gas in question is located inside a greenhouse. Anything else is fallacious. A fallacious argument with the intent to deceive, also known as sophistry.

Any one using the term "GREENHOUSE GAS" in reference to atmospheric gasses is either subject to, or party to deception for the following reasons:

No substance can trap heat.

All gasses are gasses by virtue of the fact that they have all absorbed large amounts of heat (infrared or long-wave energy) If they had not they would not be gasses but instead would remain as ice.

Any substance that absorbs heat will re-emit that heat equally (see the Stefan-Boltzman law). The only characteristic that can distinguish one gas from another in terms of energy absorption is conductivity, or the amount of energy a particular gas or substance will absorb and re-emit compared to another. This is referred to as thermal conductivity. The amount of energy a substance can absorb is exactly inversely proportional to the amount of energy it will re-emit.

Gasses in the atmosphere are continuously being mixed and as we all know are usually considered and collectively referred to as Air. This mixture of gasses or Air react to the influences of temperature as a combined substance, almost identical to a liquid ocean. When the mixed gasses near the Earths surface absorb heat, they rise (convection) as with a liquid ocean. In order to imply that a gas in the atmosphere displays the same characteristics as a gas inside a greenhouse, this processes of mixing and thus of convection have to be ignored. Hence the need for such fallacious terms as "greenhouse gas" and "greenhouse effect".

In his piece "In Defense Of The Greenhouse Effect", Dr. Roy Spencer Ph.D. uses this sophistic trick with blatant disregard for reality and truth. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/ I am using two paragraphs as examples of the specific points which expose this deliberate act of deception. As I have said, in order to imply that there are gasses in the atmosphere that behave as "greenhouse gasses" or "layers of blankets", it is necessary to imply that these gasses exist separately and are unaffected by the forces of convection which are responsible, among other forces, for mixing and stirring them. Even though Spencer talks about convection in the piece he continues to lead the reader towards an understanding that gasses are trapped and remain in layers, quote:

"Even though the physical process involved in this is radiative, the greenhouse blanket around the Earth is somewhat analogous to a real blanket, which we all know tends to hold heat in where it is being generated, and reduce its flow toward the colder surroundings. A blanket – real or greenhouse — doesn’t actually create the separation between hot and cold…it just reduces the rate at which energy is lost by the hot, and gained by the cold."

Of course air most definitely does not behave like a blanket and instead of holding heat where it is generated at ground level, (as it would inside a greenhouse) it immediately causes the gas to convect high up into the atmosphere were the heat is re-emitted into space never to return. So in fact Dr Spencer, mixed atmospheric gas or AIR if you prefer, is instrumental to global temperature regulation, actually increasing the "flow towards the colder surroundings". The opposite of what Spencer has here claimed. This is a clear example of SOPHISTRY.

Dr. Spencer continues:

"Another way the objection is voiced is that a layer of the atmosphere that absorbs infrared energy at a certain rate must then also emit it at the same rate, so how can that layer “trap” any energy to warm? This misconception comes from a misunderstanding of Kirchoffs Law, which only says that the infrared opacity of a layer makes that layer’s ability to absorb and emit IR the same. The actual rate of infrared absorption by a layer depends upon that opacity AND the temperatures of the emitting layers above and below, but the rate of emission depends upon the the same opacity and the temperature of the layer itself. Therefore, the rate of infrared flows in and out of the layer do not have to be equal, and if they are not equal, the layer will either warm or cool radiatively."

Again this nonsense in this second paragraph attempts to evoke the imagery of atmospheric gas layers where there simply are none. Statistical thermodynamics says that "temperature" is not really defined for individual molecules, but rather is a property associated with large collections of atoms and molecules vibrating and (in the case of fluid/gasses) colliding (mixing) with each other.

So because atmospheric gasses are indeed well mixed in the atmosphere, they therefore respond to temperature as a whole unified substance. Of course the most immediate and most powerful reactionary response of any gas, (particularly a mixture of gasses) to heat absorption, is rapid convection. This process of convection is the very powerful process responsible for moving/transporting the heat at ground level, high up towards the outer atmosphere and ultimately out into space. A process which can only be accurately described as temperature regulation.

The essence of the AGW fraud relies then, on the false implication of separate atmospheric gas layers, and without this false premise or fallacious argument of layers, the whole crooked theory cannot exist.

As can be seen in these two paragraphs from the piece, Dr. Spencer blatantly attempts to imply that the atmospheric gasses exist in layers like a blanket. When in-fact these gasses actually behave like an ocean of mixed liquid, mixing and stirring continuously under the influence not just of convection, caused by gas pressure changes, the result of atmospheric temperature variation, but also all the other powerful influences responsible for mixing the gasses in the atmosphere.

Dr. Roy Spencer is a climatologist and as such cannot plead ignorance to the fact that warm air always rises or that the individual gasses do not separate out into respective layers of oxygen, nitrogen and CO2 etc. "In Defense Of The Greenhouse Effect" is full of disconnected contradictions and laced with circular logic. It is yet another clear example of sophistry (fallacious argument with the intent to deceive).

CO2 The Blog

Monday, 2 November 2009