Comments by "Mark Pawelek" (@mark4asp) on "I Misunderstood the Greenhouse Effect. Here's How It Works." video.

Is it hot on Venus due to adiabatic compression of the atmosphere? Venus has 92 times as much atmospheric mass as earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process
3
That was the simplified version !!
2
This explanation of the greenhouse gas effect, GHGE, is factually biased, and misinforms. When explaining earth's cooling Sabine only talks about infrared radiation. But there are 3 ways heat is transported: conduction, convection, and radiation. Sabine takes her cue from the self-styled "Climate Consensus" (CC), who are the IPCC, and your government, and other authorities. They claim that, at the surface of earth, cooling is: W/m² 390 ------- 79% radiation (infrared) 24 --------- 5% convection and conduction 78 --------- 16% latent heat transport 492 ------- total In practice all that latent heat must be transported by convection. So the simpler version has 21% convection and conduction / 79% radiation (infrared). But their (CC) claim for 390W/m² of average infrared cooling, at the surface, is a massive exaggeration; achieved by misusing the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. In fact the operation of the Pirani gauge shows actual cooling of the surface immersed in an atmosphere will be 99.6% due to convection and conduction, with hardly any infrared [ see (3) ] When the Stefan-Boltzmann Law was derived, 150 years ago, experimental derivation measured cooling by objects in vacuum. Earth's surface is not in a vacuum. When, in face, objects cool immersed in air they cool way quicker. 250 times faster. -------------------------------------- IR radiation ---- Conduction/Convection Sea level ---- GHGE model --------- 79% ---- 21% 80+ km --------- 0.004 Torr ---------- 79% ---- 21% 76.2 km -------- 0.02 Torr ------------ 50% ---- 50% 33.5 km -------- 10 Torr -------------- 0.7% ---- 99.3% Sea level ------ 760 Torr ------------- 0.4% ---- 99.6% Eventually when the atmosphere is very rarified - at high altitudes - radiative emission will cause most cooling. ( in the Mesosphere !). GHGE "theory" says that a radiative imbalance causes the GHGE and this imbalance happens far below, close the top of the Troposphere! Our new understanding that heat transport below 76km is dominated by conduction & convection rules out GHGE warming of the surface. Since the theoretical surface warming is due to the ToT being higher for GHG with more CO2 in the atmosphere. See Hansen 1981. James Hansen's influential GHGE model (no doubt still used by many to calculate "radiative forcing" ) depends on radiation escaping at the ToT = Top of the Troposphere - about 10 km above our heads. So that model is clearly nonsense. Basic fact-checking tells us that at 10km the pressure is ~ 523 Torr, and the balance there is still close to what it is at the surface ( > 99.5% conduction/convection). Yet Hansen calculated his GHGE based on: "The basic physics underlying this global warming, the greenhouse effect, is simple. An increase of gases such as CO2 makes the atmosphere more opaque at infrared wavelengths. This added opacity causes the planet's heat radiation to space to arise from higher, colder levels in the atmosphere, thus reducing emission of heat energy to space. The temporary imbalance between the energy absorbed from the sun and heat emission to space, causes the planet to warm until planetary energy balance is restored." - Hansen et al, 1981. To summarize Hansen - the GHGE is due to the radiation window (to space) beginning at a higher (therefore cooler) place at the top of the troposphere. Because it's cooler there - energy is emitted with less energy! So a GHGE is ALL about where this atmospheric window to space opens. Is it 10km above (ToT) as Hansen modelled it, or is it +75km above where reality says it should be? Note: In earth's atmosphere: Troposphere ~ 0 - 10 km Tropopause ~ 10 - 20 km Stratosphere ~ 20 - 47 km Stratopause ~ 47 - 53 km Mesosphere ~ 53 - 84 km Mesopause ~ 84 km Thermosphere Citations: (1) Hansen et. al. 2011; Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 13421-13449. doi:10.5194/acp-11-13421-2011 https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1140 (2) Altitude/pressure conversion: https://www.sensorsone.com/altitude-pressure-units-conversion/ (3) Tom Shula: A Novel Perspective on the Greenhouse Effect https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS55lXf4LZk
1
@enderwiggin1113 Sabine H doesn't get to define the meaning of the GHGE. If she wants to publish a paper to influence climate scientists then nothing's stopping her. The modern idea of a GHGE derives from the application of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to determine radiative emissions from earth's surface - 390W/m² according to NASA's (wrong) calculations. This application is invalid because S-B Law cannot apply to earth's surface as it is not in a vaccuum. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS55lXf4LZk Sabine H entirely ignores this discussion. In addition alarmists also treat earth's surface as a black body which it is not. The emissivity of earth varies from 0.65 to 0.95. Nowhere is it = 1. A black body has an emissivity = 1. I calculate earth's average emissivity = 0.92 Which means: even by their own logic NASA are over estimating that 390W/m² claim by 8%. Fraud to the left of us, fraud to the right! BTW: GHGE is not a hoax - it is a fraud. There is a GHGE, but the size of the effect is fraudulently presented.
1
There are lots of good books about the climate - written by a whole load of people - with very diverse backgrounds. I did about 2 or 3 hours climate science reading every day for about 2½ years (mostly during my absurdly long commute). There are also key papers you need to read.
1
There is no significant greenhouse effect in earth's climate system. The confusion over the GHE began with the IPCC and their energy balance diagrams. The IPCC claim earth's surface cooling is: ______________________ W/m² . . % Infrared radiation . . . . . . 398.2 . . 79 Conduction/convection 18.4 . . . . 4 Latent heat . . . . . . . . . . . 86.4 . . . 17 IPCC say 79% of cooling at the surface is due to emission of infrared radiation and 21% due to conduction, convection, and water latent heat. The IPCC told a bold lie. In reality, earth's surface cooling is no more than 0.4% due to radiation. Earth's surface overwhelmingly cools by conduction and convection. Tom Shula explans this, and explains how the behaviour of the Pirani gauge means there can be NO meaningful role for radiation cooling the surface, nor lower atmosphere (troposphere and tropopause). Tom Shula's: explantation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS55lXf4LZk
1
@enderwiggin1113 The IPCC numbers are senseless and evidence free - in fact - contradicted by what we learn about how the Pirani gauge works. Yet you're complaining about me not substracting back-radiation (which is 99% fictional). Did you ever complain to the IPCC about them making their numbers up off the top of their heads?
1
@enderwiggin1113 Please source the detailed breakdown then, with a citation. For: - radiation - conduction/convection - latent heat transport too (if you want) According to NASA GISS, average OLR = 398 W/m². Their cooling numbers: 398.2 W/m² - infrared radiation 86.4 W/m² - latent heat (of water) 18.4 W/m² - 'thermals' (conduction and convection?) They also say: 340.3 W/m² - back-radiaton, therefore 57.9 W/m² - net radiative cooling But those figures are disputed by me, and many other people. The are armchair physics. Modelled numbers with no emprical validation. 35 years of 'climate crisis'; costing us several $ trillions so far. Complete disinterest in validating those numbers shows the people behind them are fraudsters.
1
@enderwiggin1113 You are cheating by giving a net number. Because you already did a lot a modelling trickery and stage magic to get your the that 30% number. 398.2 W/m² - infrared OLR (radiation) - 340.3 W/m² - back-radiaton, therefore 57.9 W/m² - net radiative cooling
1
@enderwiggin1113 Watch out! Cavemen are on the prowl today.
1
@enderwiggin1113 The Stefan Boltzmann Law can be misinterpreted in many ways. It's an empirical fact that at 1 amosphere pressure and ~ 65C, the sensor in the Pirani gauge looses 250 times more energy via conduction and convenction (of air) , ~100mW campared with with its radiative losses (0.4mW). You can do that experiment with a Pirani gauge yourself. You better do so - as you are in reality denial, and you'll only believe it if you see it for yourself.
1
@enderwiggin1113 No Nobel prize for Tom Shula. The Nobel committee only give the prize to establishment arse-lickers.
1
@enderwiggin1113 "What you have checked yourself?" <- Good point. Everything climate alarmists tell me about the climate is lie built on lie, model built on model. All of it carefully tuned to give the maximum catastrophe effect. None of their countless projections of doom and apocalypse ever materialize. That sounds like fraud to me. In contrast, I'll give Tom Shula the benefit of the doubt, for now. I'm eager to hear what more established skeptics have to say; such as Curry, Lindzen, Happer, Nikolov, Zeller, Stallinga, Soon, Connollys, Rex Fleming, Yong Zhong, Scafetta, ... If any proper scientists raise an issue I'll consider that.
1
@enderwiggin1113 Because your argument contradicting facts are worth nothing. The Pirani gauge is a scientific instrument meeting precise standards. Your "what about the backradiation from ..." fails because the gauge itself does not care about back-radiation. When you get a sensor you use the sensor - you do not attack another sensor to the sensor - as you think we should do.
1
@enderwiggin1113 I suggest you study how the Pirani gauge works to understand it. If you have a better gauge - as you seem to think you have - write a patent - or, if you want to be nice, send a letter or paper to the people who make these gauges.
1
You do not use it by trying to measure radiative loss by the enclosure. One measures raiative loss by the sensor - because - it is a sensor.
1
@enderwiggin1113 But is wrong. And scientists in the early twentieth century never bothered with a greenhouse gas effect. That did not begin until the cult began within atmorpheric modellers.
1
@enderwiggin1113 Red herring. You keep adding red herrings. If Dines 1917 used a Pirani gauge, tell us. I am only talking about Pirani gauge. Because it is a simple thing, which works in a known way. If you can explain the behaviour of the Pirani gauge at 1 atmosphere without it cooling overwhelmingly due to conduction and convection - then explain away.
1
@enderwiggin1113 Logic, theory, and whatabouts do not prove emprical facts wrong. You keep ingnoring the fact that the Pirani gauge is a simple instrument, and it's operation falsifies the 'climate crisis' by showing the greenhouse effect is insignificant as the amount of real radiation was overestimated 250 times over.
1
Thanks for all the replies below. I've tried to improve my refutation above. Please disagree with that instead.
1
@enderwiggin1113 Why the IPCC subtract back-radiation - so will I.
1
@enderwiggin1113 0.4% due to radiation is shown by the Pirani gauge. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law cannot by applied to earth's surface - as the Law was derived by measuring cooling of bodies in a vacuum but earth's surface is bathed in an atmosphere. Just a Sabine ignored convection and conduction above - so did the IPCC - and so do you (it seems).
1
The politics is the only thing to see. The climate agenda has always been about replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar.
1
Thanks Sabine; compared to most people you're the 'real thing' - a genuine nice person; although somewhat mistaken re: the GHE
1
"The surface warms and emits infrared radiation" <- (1) Yes; but the amount of infrared emitted is a tiny fraction of what the IPCC & 'climate consensus' claim. You cannot show us empirical data to validate those IPCC and modeller numbers. Those numbers are armchair physics and ridiculous. Outgoing infrared radiation is exaggerated 200 times over. Over 2 orders of magnitude. "The radiation is trapped, by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere" <- (2) This no longer matters; due to point (1) The most important greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide. <- (3) This no longer matters; due to point (1) "The outgoing infrared radiation heats the atmosphere from below." <- (4) The amount is insignificant; due to point (1). The atmosphere is warmed by conduction and convection. In reality, proven by the behaviour of the Pirani gauge, the vast majority of surface cooling is done by conduction and convection; Not by radiation. Of course some radiation is present in thermal equilibrium with kinetic energy according to a complex 'thermalization' process. Watch Tom Shula's video to understant point (1). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS55lXf4LZk
1
@larrymorley2579 "Excess warming" does not happen in the first 20 m. The problem with the greenhouse effect is it was exaggerated 200 times over. Tom Shula shows, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS55lXf4LZk, that the surface is mainly cooled by conduction and convection - not by radiation. That conduction and convection do 250 times more surface cooling than radiation. That's just an inconvenient fact of physics for you. Cooling mostly by conduction and convection (at the surface) also explain why earth's surface doesn't get very cold at night; because infrared travels at the speed of light. Of course, regarding the final cooling to space - that's all radiation. But radiation doesn't dominate conduction and convection until the stratosphere; 40 miles above your head.
1
@enderwiggin1113 That makes sense. But why does EVERY planet/moon with an atmosphere show a lapse rate (positive temperature increase) as the atmosphere increases in density? https://pasteboard.co/EBhZimHOZu6E.png
1