CO2 Greenhouse Theory Questionable – Atmospheric Pressure Enhancement Overrules Back Radiation
Back radiation does NOT heat greenhouses, and re-emitted back-radiation does NOT heat Earth's atmosphere, contrary to what the widely accepted greenhouse theory teaches.
Truth Right Under Our Noses
We, of the human race, have grown up under a vast ocean of air that encompasses our home planet. We call this ocean of air "the atmosphere". Since genetics has directed our brains to adapt to this ocean, we have never developed the need to be conscious of air pressure on every square inch of our skin. We, thus, forget that air, like other matter, has mass.
Immense volumes of air have immense masses, hence immense weights. Gravity, of course, is what causes the extraordinary mass of Earth’s air to have weight. We deal with atmospheric weight (or pressure) reflexively, without thinking about it. This weight of air, nonetheless, exists as a constant force within the atmosphere we breathe. The entire extent of Earth's air exerts its force over the whole circumference of the globe, throughout its total vertical thickness, from full pressure (sea level) at the bottom of the troposphere to one one-thousandth of sea-level pressure at the top of the stratosphere. How easily we forget this vast source of pressure!
Another thing we easily forget is Earth's primary source of heat, the Sun.
Many of us have failed to realize important, basic connections between the Sun's energy, the atmosphere's mass, and the Earth's gravity.
From Astro To Terrestrial Physics
Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. & Karl Zeller, Ph.D. ... remind us:
"The thermal effect of pressure is vividly demonstrated on a cosmic scale by the process of star formation, where a gravity-induced rise of gas pressure boosts the temperature of an interstellar cloud to the threshold of nuclear fusion."
Is such a thermal-enhancing pressure effect operating at a planetary scale?
Heinz Thieme (2010), a German engineer,... writing about atmospheric physics ...,answers this question in the affirmative:
“Thus, gravity essentially determines the temperature conditions within an atmosphere.”
In an ... article on back radiation ...,Thieme (2010) has also pointed out:
“An assessment conducted in the light of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the principles of vector algebra of the key greenhouse theory concept of ‘atmospheric back radiation’ suggests that it is simply a mirage.”
Imagine someone suddenly coming to realize that Earth is spherical instead of flat and NOT the center of the universe, after believing differently for many years. Imagine someone suddenly coming to realize that Earth circles around bigger centers, that circle around still bigger centers, in a universe that has NO center, or, alternately, in a universe where every point is equally its center. Such realizations are shocking, and they signal crucial changes in a world-view or paradigm.
In a similar way, the realization that Earth's atmosphere heats by atmospheric pressure enhancement, instead of by back-radiation, might be equally shocking to people who have always believed in the greenhouse theory. A change in world-view is precisely what Nikolov and Zeller suggest, as they emphasize the fact that Earth's lower troposphere emits 44% MORE radiation toward Earth's surface than the TOTAL solar flux absorbed by the ENTIRE Earth-Atmosphere System.
These researchers note specifically that radiative heat transfer alone CANNOT explain this effect, since the heat-storing capacity of air is negligible (in agreement with Thieme). The question, thus, arises, "How does the lower atmosphere contain MORE kinetic energy than the Sun provides?"
Perhaps an even more pressing question is, “Why do so many people still believe that the greenhouse effect is what they believe it is, in the face of clear evidence that does NOT bear out the greenhouse theory’s claims?”
The major claim of the greenhouse theory is that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations cause increases in Earth’s average temperature.
Evidence, however, shows that accelerating rates of atmospheric CO2 concentrations exist simultaneously with decelerating rates of global temperature change:
Mathematical Problems With The Current Greenhouse Theory
A number of respectable people still endorse the same old energy-balance diagrams and the same old beliefs that emphasize the importance of so called “greenhouse gases”, particularly the gas carbon dioxide (CO2). Close examination of the mathematics, however, seems to reveal significant problems with these beliefs:
The current Greenhouse Theory calculates magnitude of atmospheric warming INCORRECTLY.
The current Greenhouse Theory fails to account properly for convection.
Nikolov and Zeller apparently have caused quite a stir with their paradigm-shocking publications, from which the present HubPages article draws its information. As might be expected, the work of these two researchers has attracted many, detailed criticisms, to which the authors have provided ... detailed replies ... .
The conclusions of their original paper, thus, remain firm:
- Global surface temperature is independent of greenhouse or back radiation.
- Solar heating and air pressure provide the pool of atmospheric kinetic energy that warms Earth.
- Changes in the rate of surface convective cooling completely counterbalance variations in downward long-wave radiation, because this is how the Earth-atmosphere system conserves its internal energy.
- Changes in atmospheric chemical composition CANNOT change the total kinetic energy of the Earth-atmosphere system; hence, chemical composition CANNOT alter the magnitude of atmospheric warming.
More by this Author
The popular CO2 Greenhouse Theory lacks experimental and theoretical foundations.
An infamous challenge to the CO2 greenhouse effect deserves another look.
A three-compartment cage made from sturdy fence wire provides ideal support for three tomato plants in a garden plot dedicated only to tomatoes, measuring ten feet by four feet.