Understanding the Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect
Joseph E. Postma
(M.Sc. Astrophysics, Honours B.Sc. Astronomy)
March 2011
[Abridged by Andrés Valencia]
Introduction
It should be pointed out immediately that the "Greenhouse Effect" is indeed a theory - it is not a benign empirical fact, such as the existence of the Sun, for example. As a theory it has a scientific development which is open to inspection and review.
Therefore from this point on, the "Greenhouse Effect" will be referred to as the "Greenhouse Theory", indicative of the fact that it is a proposition which needs to be supported by observation and which also needs to agree with other well-established laws of physics.
This is analogous to the theory of gravity: just like the atmosphere, no one questions that gravity exists, obviously. What we do question is the theory that describes how it works, and just like Einstein's theory of gravity which breaks down and fails under certain conditions, and isn't compatible with some other branches of physics, we can examine if the Greenhouse Theory also breaks down and fails under the conditions it is supposed to describe.
This distinction needs to be stressed because many scientists, who really should know better, will make the claim that the effect of the Greenhouse Theory is a "scientific fact", when in reality a scientist should understand that there is no such thing as a scientific fact, but only scientific theories.
What scientists attempt to do is create theories which can describe the way these facts of reality work, in a logical way, and in a way consistent with other scientific theories.
The Greenhouse Theory is the proposition that the atmosphere warms the surface of the Earth to a temperature warmer than it would otherwise be without an atmosphere, via a process called "back-scatter
The greenhouse theory says that if greenhouse gases increase, the Earth will become hotter
- Thermodynamics says that the only source of heating is from the Sun, with the Laws of Thermodynamics then setting up a temperature distribution going from warm-to-cold off of the ground, with the average temperature obviously found in-between the ground and outer space. The Earth cannot be out of equilibrium with the Sun in the long term because the Sun is the only source of heat for the ground + atmosphere aggregate (assuming negligible geothermal effects). The Earth cannot emit more energy than it absorbs, nor can it less, in the long run. The only way to heat or cool the Earth in the long run is to change the amount of solar energy which is absorbed. This can only be achieved by a long-term change in brightness of the Sun, a change in Earth's albedo or atmospheric extinction, a change in Earth's orbital parameters, etc. Thermodynamics does not say it can be done by greenhouse gases, because these gases do not change the input energy. If you do not change the absorbed input energy, you cannot change the output energy, and increases in "greenhouse gases" do not change the amount of absorbed input energy.
The greenhouse theory says that greenhouse gases act like a greenhouse around the Earth
A real greenhouse gets warm because the glass ceiling prevents atmospheric convection. Like sand on a beach, the surfaces inside a greenhouse get warm from the solar energy. The air which is in contact with the surfaces inside the greenhouse then also warms by conduction, and then tries to convect and expand and cool. The glass ceiling prevents this however, and so the warm air stays inside the greenhouse. The greenhouse will therefore warm up to the temperature corresponding to however much total solar energy is being absorbed by the surfaces inside it. And so in fact, a real greenhouse actually prevents the atmosphere from doing what it naturally wants to do, which is cool itself. We build greenhouses because they do the opposite of what the atmosphere actually does.
Therefore, calling back-scattered radiative amplification a "greenhouse effect" is not even an accurate name for the theory in the first place, in any way. Supposed "greenhouse gases" in the free atmosphere do not replicate the behaviour of the solid glass boundaries in a greenhouse, nor do the glass boundaries cause heating by trapping radiation. The atmospheric greenhouse effect is therefore based on a theory which a real greenhouse doesn't do! The abuse of logic in this theory is offensive. If the completely infrared-opaque solid glass barriers of a real greenhouse do not cause the heating inside of it by reflecting or trapping infrared radiation, then why would merely partial absorption from a trace gas (CO2 accounts for only 0.04% of the atmosphere by concentration) in the turbulent free atmosphere be able to do what a real greenhouse cannot--
