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.]