Post by Carl Brehmer
—–
Here are two graphs that demonstrates why the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is false.
This graph was created using raw weather balloon data on a day when the ground level humidity called the “mixing ratio” in Las Vegas was about 1 g/kg and the ground level “mixing ratio” in Little Rock was about 16 g/kg.
Little Rock ground level water vapor concentration = 16,000 ppm
Las Vegas ground level water vapor concentration = 1,000 ppm
Carbon Dioxide concentration = 400 ppm
The blue line is the water vapor concentration above Little Rock from ground level to ~30 km in altitude. The red line is the water vapor concentration above Las Vegas from ground level to ~30 km in altitude. The yellow line is the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If there were a “greenhouse gas” mediated “greenhouse effect” one would see it most clearly at ground level in Little Rock since the concentration of water vapor at that location is much higher than the water vapor concentration in Las Vegas–and not by just a little bit. Totaled together the “greenhouse gas” concentration in Little Rock is 16,400 ppm while the “greenhouse gas” concentration in Las Vegas is 1400 ppm. This is a doubling of the concentration of “greenhouse gases” 5 times, which would in theory enhance the “greenhouse effect” 500%.
According to the “radiative forcing” hypothesis doubling the concentration of “greenhouse gases” should cause a 2-4 °C increase in the temperature. Since Las Vegas and Little Rock lie roughly along the same latitude and therefore receive equivalent amounts of sunlight each day, if the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis were true we would see a 10-20 °C increase in the ground level air temperature in Little Rock compared to Las Vegas where the “greenhouse effect” is 500% weaker. Beyond that, because of the precipitous increase in water vapor concentration as one descends from 5 km to ground level above Little Rock, one would see an equally precipitous increase in the “greenhouse effect” as one descends. This would manifest itself as an acceleration in the lapse rate compared to the dry air above Las Vegas. Again, as one descends from 5 km above Little Rock to the ground and the concentration of water vapor increases precipitously, if the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis were true the “greenhouse effect” would consequently become precipitously stronger during the descent, which would cause the underlying lapse rate to accelerate precipitously.
What do we see in the real world?
What we see in the real world is neither of the above. Far from there being a 10-20 C increase in ground level air temperatures in Little Rock there is actually a significant decrease in the ground level air temperature. Also, there is a significant decrease (not an increase) in the lapse rate below 5 km in altitude where the concentration of water vapor is the highest. This second graph is of actual temperature readings taken from weather balloon soundings above Las Vegas and Little Rock—a four day average of the temperature at 700 meters, 6 km and 12 km.
Important point: These readings are 100% in sync with the universally recognized observation that the presence of water vapor in the air causes a decrease in the lapse rate—the rate at which the temperature of the air changes with altitude.
Within today’s scientific community there exists two competing notions. On the one hand you have the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis which would have you believe that water vapor “traps heat” in the air, which would manifest itself in two ways: 1) higher ground level air temperatures and 2) an increased lapse rate below 5 km in altitude. What we see in the real world is this; 1) the average ground level air temperatures in humid climates are lower than in arid climates that lie along the same latitude and 2) as one descends from 5 km to the ground in humid climates the concentration of water vapor increases precipitously, yet there is no sign of an increased “greenhouse effect” that is trapping more and more thermal energy, which would accelerate the lapse rate. Instead we see the opposite. As one descends into a humid climate the lapse rate decelerates—becomes less pronounced—than it does in arid climates.
That the “scientific community” continues to cling desperately to its belief in the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis in the face of this universally-acknowledged, empirical observation that falsifies it is puzzling.
—–
[JP Comment: In one of my earlier papers I had made the point that if there was a radiative greenhouse effect increasing the temperature of the atmosphere as one descends, then the observed lapse rate should already be greater than what is calculated from the simple -g/Cp derivation. Yet, the observed dry lapse rate is equal to the non-GHE derived dry lapse rate of -g/Cp, and the addition of water vapor, which is supposed to be the strongest greenhouse gas, lowers the lapse rate, not increases it.
Really basic empirical observations already debunk the radiative greenhouse hypothesis.]
Climate of Sophistry 
I would like to tell you of my latest book, “Human Caused Global Warming”.
The Biggest Deception in History.
Available on ‘Amazon.ca’ and ‘Indigo/Chapters’.
Trial date for Dr Michael Mann vs Dr Tim Ball, February 20th, 2017.
http://www.drtimball.com
Someone ought to calculate the total volume of CO2 in the atmosphere at 400ppm & 800ppm, convert that to the number of molecules, subtract the two, then determine how much energy each molecule would need to hold to enable the global atmospheric temperature to rise by 2 degC. I bet it would not be a viable number.
Thanks Dr. Ball – link to the book: https://www.amazon.com/Human-Caused-Global-Warming-Deception-ebook/dp/B00RDNGSBC
Just bought it!
Yes that would be a good exercise ilma630 – basically need to calculate how hot they would have to be in order to heat the rest of the atmosphere to a new equilibrium temp 2 degrees higher. Given that CO2 is one part per 2500, then it would have to be on the order of a thousand times hotter than the gas which surrounds it.
In fact Joe, that CO2 would be glowing in the UV.
IF CO2 had this claimed powerful back radiation capability then surely the experimentally derived thermal conductivity should be higher than that of air which apparently neither absorbs nor radiates IR.
The fact that CO2 has a substantially lower thermal conductivity must surely dismiss any notion of a “powerful” back radiation effect.
Ordinary air is ~160% more thermally conductive than CO2.
CO2 is a better insulator than ordinary air but at 0.04% this is negligible. Even steam has a lower thermal conductivity that ordinary air although how this occurs at 25 C is ambiguous.
Experimentally CO2 does NOT display any powerful radiative emission effect at ambient temperatures and 100% concentration – thermal conductivity proves this.
After all, it is absorbing and radiating IR continuously during the experimental derivation of thermal conductivity – or is the ability to respond to requests to stop this behaviour during the experimental derivation simply another of CO2’s mystical powers ?
Joe, used part of you response in a debate at http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/kerry-hell-continue-anti-global-warming-efforts-43500926 so your column is very helpful. Would welcome some reinforcements there though.
Many thanks. Let’s see what B-K KnightRider says to that. 🙂
This is so much a scam I can’t believe anyone would say they think any of it was ever possible.
The earth is – confirmed – in vacuum.
The earth is lit by the sun.
You can not suspend a cold nitrogen bath around a rock otherwise in vacuum, illuminated by a fire, with the rock’s own temperature and infrared stream directly dependent on light from the fire,
suspend refractory insulation in the bath between the fire and rock,
such that
less and less light,
gets into the rock,
and through this cause more and more light, to ooze out of it.
You can not take a rock in vacuum lit by the sun,
and put enough GHG in to block 1% of energy arriving at the surface – creating 1% surface energy density reduction,
and add more until you block 5% of the light to the surface,
and on until you block 10%,,
until you have the situation as now where 25,000 ppm water and 400 ppm CO2 average,
block about 20% of all sunlght. They refract it away, the same way the heavy blanket like coats of firemen, refract light from fire away from the fireman’s back.
You do not add,
more and more refractory insulating material to the fireman’s blanket like coat,
so the fireman’s back will get hotter and hotter, as you suspend more and more refractory insulation, between the fire, and his back.
The scam is that outright fraudulent.
Claiming you can add more and more refractory material
causing less and less surface energy density on a sun lit rock
and make more and more surface energy come out of it,
is on-it’s-face violation of simplest, of thermodynamic law. End of fuggin’ story, really.
Every single word
of every single paper
by every single grants/rebates/incentives taking thief,
that claims it’s even POSSIBLE for green house gases to heat the planet,
is a bald faced lie so un physical and absurd it’s most voracious defenders, lapse into babbling incoherency when presented with such simple elementary refutaion of their entire scam.
And I ought to know because I’ve put a lot of em into that condition.