This at last provides a repeatable experiment, supported by sound argument based on recognised physics, which debunks the greenhouse effect hypothesis.

PS There is also a serious problem measuring back radiation as explained here http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/118-thermometer-manufacturer-destroys-greenhouse-gas-warming-myth

By Nasif S. Nahle
Scientist, University Professor and Director of Scientific Research Division at Biology Cabinet Mexico

Abstract
This assessment is a review of the common AGW argument on the carbon dioxide increasing the potential of the water vapor for absorbing and emitting IR radiation as a consequence of the overlapping absorption/emission spectral bands. I have determined the total emissivity of a mixture of gases containing 5% of water vapor and 0.039% of carbon dioxide in all spectral bands where their absorptivities/emissivities overlap. The result of these calculations is that the carbon dioxide attenuates the total absorptivity/emissivity of the water vapor, working like a coolant, not a warmer of the atmosphere and the surface

http://www.biocab.org/Mean_Free_Path.pdf

Effectively, I used averages of solar constant and insolation to calculate the amount of power absorbed by the surface applying the fundamental mathematical procedure used in astrophysics. I didn’t touch the problem of efficiency because it was not the purpose of the introduction to the experiment, but it is also essential to the theoretical issue.

According to the concept, solar constant is an average of total solar irradiance received on each square meter at TOA. As the solar constant includes the whole spectrum of radiation emitted by the Sun, I calculated the amount of thermal radiation alone. Then again, as such amount of thermal radiation enters the atmosphere, I calculated the mitigation by the atmosphere, which includes radiation reflected and absorbed by the atmosphere before it impinge on the surface. The total is almost the same as dividing the solar constant by four because it is 0.51 of thermal radiation and 0.50 of mitigation by the atmosphere: (1365 W/m^2 * 0.51)* 0.5 = 348.075 W/m^2. These and the following numbers could change a bit, according to the value taken as solar constant and coefficients.

From 348.1 W/m^2, we have to discount the amount of solar thermal radiation reflected by the surface, but after it has impinged on the surface, not before. After reflection by the surface, the amount of thermal energy is 324 W/m^2. After that, I calculated the amount of thermal radiation absorbed by the surface, which is also another average, i.e. ~240 W/m^2.

The flaw on other calculations consists on dividing the solar constant by four to include mitigation by the atmosphere and to isolate thermal radiation, i.e. solar irradiance that can be transformed into thermal internal energy.

However, after doing such division and calculations, they discount them once again, so it is not a division by four, but a division by eight; hence their unphysical results and their need of mistaking thermal energy transport as the greenhouse effect, which is not physical in the way they explain it. Actually, the thermal energy transport by the air molecules is the so called greenhouse effect, but the interest is placed on other things except on science. As McKelly suggests, reality is quite different to theory.

Just to give an example, the number of possible collisions of carbon dioxide with other molecules of the same species or of other species is 3.53 x 10^5 x^-1. The latter means that the molecule of carbon dioxide can move for about 0.15 meters before it collides into another molecule, and that the time it takes between collisions is 0.00283 milliseconds. However, the time the molecule of carbon dioxide takes to emit radiation is 120 picoseconds. Therefore, it is more possible that carbon dioxide cools other molecules by collision than warming them by radiation. The latter is well explained by redshift after radiation, which draws another impossibility regarding the absorption of the energy emitted by carbon dioxide molecules by other molecules of the same species, or by Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon.

Regarding the globules of air, it was demonstrated by experimentation during a windy night. Backradiation became chaotic as the wind speed increased or decreased, which is impossible to happen because thermal radiation has not gravitational mass, but inertial mass. The most feasible conclusion is that what we are measuring is not backradiation, but stationary energy of globules of air; otherwise, the increase of change of temperature with time would not be possible because the emittance of air remains constant at 0.201 under such conditions.

All the best,

Nasif

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/there-is-a-greenhouse-effect-on-venus/#comment-596792 (#80.4.1.3.3.)

Author: Nasif Nahle
Comment:
Dear Richard… I’m just now in hurry and leaving out. I’m working on a paper on the issue you propose. However, I will come back in a couple hours to explain some generalities of this issue. I’m sure you’ll find them interesting.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/there-is-a-greenhouse-effect-on-venus/#comment-596808 (#80.4.3.1.)

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/there-is-a-greenhouse-effect-on-venus/#comment-595082

Have asked him to reply there but don’t know when of if he will pick up the email.

The Diurnal Bulge and the fallacies of the “Greenhouse Effect” – W. R. Pratt

http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2_files/The_Diurnal_Bulge_and_the_Fallacies_of_the_Greenhouse_Effect.html

Goes into top down heating of the atmosphere being greater in his case (some merit and some problems) than bottom up and that O2 and N2 being “IR inactive” is bogus because any substance above 0 K is emitting IR.

He shreds Kiehl and Trenberth’s 1997 Earth’s Global Energy Budget (the original) and says the 324 W/m2 (now 333) DLR backradiation is actually “the incoming electromagnetic energy which is absorbed and diffused by the last 30 km of the atmosphere and is energy which goes into heating the atmosphere” i.e. diffuse solar.

One problem with that is: diffuse solar occurs in the solar range – not the DLR range, but there’s indications from other cases (Siddons) that DLR is not solely from GHGs and clouds and must include a contribution from heated air (which may be the major contribution).The strongest being that Petty’s Nauru DLR plot shows radiation at 11µm but there’s no GHG absorption at that wavelength so no emission..

Very thought provoking article.

I’ve provoked discussion on the same topic (heating effect) as is being pursued here, see:-

Comment #80

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/there-is-a-greenhouse-effect-on-venus/#comment-592914

Comment #14.3

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/there-is-a-greenhouse-effect-on-venus/#comment-593417

I’ve linked back to this post at CCG.

Negotiations are continuing.

BTW all. As you can see after Jo has changed her blog settings, we can now x-link directly to comments using the date-time bar at the top of the comment (as we can here at CCG). Very powerful and much improved.

Climate Alarmism Based on False Stefan-Boltzmann Law

http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/10/climate-alarmism-based-on-false-stefan.html

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf

pg 10 pdf

If we wish to determine the physically instantaneous solar input energy density (Wattage per square meter) and corresponding heating temperature, via the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, we must use the correct actually- physical geometry. Thus, with a day-light hemisphere of half the surface area of an entire sphere, we must write the hemispherical equilibrium equation as:

Equations 21, 22 = +30 C

And,

We hold that the average solar radiative input heating is only over one hemisphere of the Earth, has a temperature equivalent value of +30 C, with a zenith maximum of +87.5 C, and that this is not in any physically justifiable manner equivalent to an instantaneous average global heating input of -18 C.

And,

Given that the average physical solar input on the day-lit hemisphere is equivalent to +30 C, with a maximum input of +87.50C, and the day-lit hemisphere does not actually achieve this temperature, but we know it must absorb that equivalent amount energy, we must ask: to where does the energy go if it does not show up immediately in the kinetic temperature? Generally, it must obviously be said that the energy goes into other “non-thermal” degrees of freedom within the system, and these would be both macro and micro phenomena, such as latent heat, evaporation, and convection in the macro case, and intramolecular degrees of freedom in the micro case. Both of these phenomena will release heat back into the environment as the internal energy is released while the relevant physical ensemble cools, under less or zero solar insolation, and so the dark-side of the Earth is able to radiate the rest of the absorbed energy away such as to achieve a relatively stable long-term balance. Thus, day-time and night-time average temperatures are highly modulated or “smoothed out” as compared to a non-atmosphere planetary body, as can be confirmed by comparison of the Earth to the Moon. The effect of additional degrees of freedom in the system is to slow the rate of heating in the day time and thus lower the day-time temperature, while heat loss at night will be slowed and follow the standard expectation dependent upon the thermal capacity of the system, minus the residual heat input from condensation and other sources, etc. The difference in daily temperature extremes in comparing a desert to a rain-forest are a good example of the effect of the strongest so-called greenhouse gas, water vapour. With CO2 having a lower thermal capacity than even than that of air, and an intra-molecular radiative heat-loss mechanism (as opposed to merely an inter-molecular radiative loss mechanism, as found in non-greenhouse gases), and no latent heat or condensation abilities, it might very well act to increase the efficiency of cooling in the atmosphere compared to if it were not present at all. Certainly the proxy records indicate that the planet tends to re-enter ice-ages after the atmospheric CO2 content is driven upwards by previous interglacial temperature increase (CO2 concentration is driven upwards by oceanic outgassing).

And (pg 16 pdf),

Once this paradigmatic illogic is exposed it becomes all the easier to question various qualitative and quantitative aspects of the standard model GH. One of the first is the implicit, and as we have seen systemically tautologous conjecture, that “back-radiation” from GHG’s increase the surface temperature of the Earth or slow its rate of cooling. If this behaviour (a source raising its own temperature by having its own radiation fall back upon it) is the result of a fundamental physics property of GHG’s and atmospheres which contain them, then a higher concentration of GHG and a higher flux of radiation which interacts with it, should result in higher temperatures. Such a physically real scenario is found in the comparison of day-time desert and tropical conditions at similar latitude: the desert which is nearly devoid of the strongest GHG, water vapour, easily reaches 50 C – 60 C, whereas the tropical region saturated with water vapour only reaches into the 30’s C. This is in direct contradiction to an expected universal physics of a GHG back-radiation phenomenon.

So it’s 30 C minus non-thermal actions. Maybe my estimate of the solar heating agent being a BB T 21 C is not that far off the mark.

To finish the summary, allow the author to paraphrase an email conversation while questions were generated from those who were reviewing this document. The author received a question regarding how the plane-parallel solar model explains the problem with what has been come to be known as the “P/4” (p-over-four) issue – this is the misapplication of mathematics to physics by which the standard model greenhouse denies the existence of day & night, and assumes that solar energy instantaneously impinges the entire surface area of the Earth at once, rather than just the daylit hemisphere. The author responded……..

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf

Postma presents The Realistic Terrestrial System Model in The Model Atmosphere that surely must be a better representation than what consensus science (i.e. all the Universities – Postma links to 70 uses) adheres to.

There is now a continuation and conclusion of the Johnson/Petty confrontation at Claes Johnson’s blog:-

Petty on DLR 2

http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/10/petty-on-dlr-2.html

Petty on DLR 3: Incorrect Science Exposed

http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/10/petty-on-dlr-3-incorrect-science.html

Johnson says in 3:-

What to say? Well, Prof Petty shows a common trait of climate scientists, to get upset and scream instead of discussing science.

And,

It would be good for the discussion if Prof Petty was willing to read my proof and reflect about the potential danger of blindly applying a physical law without proper understanding of the conditions for the validity of the law, without understanding the rationale of its justification.

Prof Petty shows his lack of understanding fundamentals of science by exclaiming:

* What kind of free invention is it to use a physical law on a system it wasn’t derived for?

This is precisely what I am talking about: You are not as a scientist allowed to apply a law to a situation for which it is not intended/derived for. If you do that, you may cause great damage and you may be responsible.

Nir J. Shaviv (2008); Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 113

Shaviv uses OHC, SST and SSL.

Links and article at WUWT “The oceans as a calorimeter and solar amplification”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/15/the-oceans-as-a-calorimeter/

“Evidently, the TSI cannot explain the observed flux going into the ocean. An amplification mechanism, such as that of CRF modulation of the low altitude cloud cover is required.

So what does it mean?

First, it means that the IPCC cannot ignore anymore the fact that the sun has a large climatic effect on climate. Of course, there was plenty of evidence before, so I don’t expect this result to make any difference!

Second, given the consistency between the energy going into the oceans and the estimated forcing by the solar cycle synchronized cloud cover variations, it is unlikely that the solar forcing is not associated with the cloud cover variation.”