It seems this is considered something of a 'key study', as it was presented to me as evidence for a greenhouse gas effect; AKA man-made climate change and anthropogenic global warming, AGW.
The difference between the nominal global mean surface temperature (TS = 288 K) and the global mean effective temperature (TE = 255 K) is a common measure of the terrestrial greenhouse effect (GT = TS – TE = 33 K).
<- This statement in Lacis' paper is a not true. I will call it a straight lie because the reasons why it's not true have been explained to Lacis et al, time and again. Yet they continue to use their priveledge, as scientists or academics to mislead in the academic literature by, essentially publishing speculation. There is no 'terrestrial greenhouse effect' = 33 K.
By 'terrestrial greenhouse effect' they mean two things:
- warming of earth's surface by +33K above what it would otherwise be (without the effect)
- the cause of this 'warming' being ONLY due to "radiative gases" such as CO2, H2O, ... in earth's atmosphere which are able to absorb and emit infrared radiation due to electron orbital transitions.
This, above quote, is a speculative statement made by Lacis and co. There is no empirical science in their paper to show it. They did no empirical work to arrive at their conclusion. It's speculation. They made it u, or rather, they repeated other people's speculations.
Besides direct solar heating of the ground, there is also indirect longwave (LW) warming arising from the thermal radiation that is emitted by the ground, then absorbed locally within the atmosphere, from which it is re-emitted in both upward and downward directions
<- They don't cite a single source to show any "indirect longwave warming of the 'ground'". Once again they made it up. It is not science. There isn't a single study they refer back to which empirically shows what they claim. BTW: by 'ground' they mean earth's surface. Don't forget that 70% of earth's surface is water. But I'll let them off here; after all they clearly wrote their paper in a hurry for maximum rhetorical effect.
This radiative interaction is the greenhouse effect, which was first discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 verified by John Tyndall in 1863 (3), and quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896
<- Yet more lies, Joseph Fourier did not 'discover' a greenhouse effect in 1824. Tyndall verifies nothing, Arrhenius quantified nothing. None of these 3 men did any experimental or empirical work to show earth's surface warmed due these so-called greenhouse gases. They just announced it. A bit like the mythical planet X, or the mammal population where COVID-19 was supposedly living before it crossed over to humanity. Pure speculation. It does not matter how many experts and scientists speculate. The speculation of 1 million scientists is not more true than that of one. Speculation is just word salad. It is not 'science'. It becomes science when a hypothesis is testable. When the hypothesis is written in such a way that experiments and tests are implied such that projections of the idea can be compared to the real world when both are subject to the same circumstances.
These studies established long ago that water vapor and CO2 are indeed the principal terrestrial GHGs. Now, further consideration shows that CO2 is the one that controls climate change.
<- Yet another lie. CO2 does not control 'climate change'. No study done even attempts to show that. Lacis does not cite such a study.
CO2 is a well-mixed gas that does not condense or precipitate from the atmosphere. Water vapor and clouds, on the other hand, are highly active components of the climate system that respond rapidly to changes in temperature and air pressure by evaporating, condensing, and precipitating. This identifies water vapor and clouds as the fast feedback processes in the climate system.
<- That last paragraph was almost honest; but has an error and a lie in it. Lacis says:
Water vapor and clouds, ... respond rapidly to changes in temperature and air pressure by evaporating, condensing, and precipitating.No. Clouds do not evaporate in any meaningful way. Evaporation of liquid water happens at the surface.
This identifies water vapor and clouds as the fast feedback processes in the climate system.
<- Lacis added the word feedback out-of-the-blue. Like a magician, he conjures 'feedback' into his system by just saying it. Not with any science, or experiment. He made it up (again)
We'll pause here because in the next sentence they say "experiment" - which is a scientific term. To be treated seriously. Prior to that everything else in the first side (displayed above) is speculation and modelling layered on top of more speculation & modelling. It is "not even wrong"; because it is not even science.
Note: For the purpose of this refutation
- Lacis - means Lacis et al - all the authors. We summarize it with Lacis because he's the corresponding author.
- 'greenhouse effect', GHE, 'greenhouse gas effect', GHGE, both mean the same thing. They are supposed due to these greenhouse gases, GHG, mainly CO2 and H2O. The words are, essentially owned by the climate alarmist political party of which Lacis is a typical example.
Why is earth's surface warmer?
Earth is warmer at the surface, due to our atmosphere, because of adiabatic compression. First described by James Clerk Maxwell in the 19th century in his book "Theory of Heat". To put it simply. Gravity causes the atmosphere closer to the surface to be more dense, than that further away. The ideal gas law: PV = nRT describes this. Rearranging for T
T = P • V / (n • R). R is a constant and n is the number of atoms. T = temperature, P = pressure, V = volume. The more dense the atmosphere, the warmer it is.
Adiabatic compression is found on all planets and moons with a thick atmosphere. Denser atmosphere is warmer. It is densest when closest to the surface. When a mine shaft is dug the Lapse rate continues and temperature continues to increase below the surface level as the air gets denser still. Whether the shaft is covered, or not, it is warmer than the surface. When covered, there can be no backradiation warming it! Just the adiabatic compression. With a greenhouse gas effect, how would be air below a covered mine shaft be irradiated with back-radiation?
Adiabatic compression leads to a Lapse rate in the planet/moon's troposphere.
Many of the warmest places on earth are found below sea level on land in depressions; at locations such as the Dead Sea, Death Valley, Dallot (Afar depression in Ethiopia).
Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius can all be forgiven for not knowing about the atmosphere's of planets and moons. Activist scientists such as Lacis et al cannot be forgiven.
In the diagram above, some of these solar system bodies have next to no greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, others such as Venus are nearly all greenhouse gas. Venus's atmosphere is 96% CO2, and its atmospheric mass is 95 times earth's. Yet it's greenhouse gas effect, if any, doesn't give it a significantly different Lapse Rate to any other planet. Venus is very warm because it has a very thick atmosphere. Even though Venus has a quarter million times more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere than earth, there is no greenhouse gas effect there - just strong adiabatic warming at the surface.
| million km from sun | atmospheric composition | |||
| Neptune | 4474 | 80% hydrogen, 19% helium, trace methane | ||
| Uranus | 2871 | 82.5% hydrogen, 15% helium, trace methane, water and ammonia | ||
| Titan | 1400 | 95% nitrogen, 5% methane | ||
| Saturn | 1400 | 75% hydrogen, 25% helium, trace methane & water vapour | ||
| Jupiter | 778 | 73% hydrogen, 25% helium, trace: methane, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide | ||
| Earth | 93 | 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, ~0.5% water vapour, trace: carbon dioxide | ||
| Venus | 68 | 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% Nitrogen, trace: sulfur dioxide: 150ppm, Argon 70ppm; Water: 20ppm, Carbon Monoxide: 17ppm |
Greenhouse gases are written in salmon/pink
Mars is not shown as the surface atmosphere is below 0.1bar. It should not show a Lapse rate.
Only Titan and Venus have significant 'greenhouse gas'.
Titan is a moon of Saturn. Titan has more greenhouse gas than Saturn. But why is Saturn's Lapse rate more pronounced than Titan's?
No comments:
Post a Comment