|Tropospheric negative vertical temperature gradient (right)|
But this thing that supposedly enables the greenhouse effect is also the thing that dis-enables it. For if greenhouse absorption really was occurring in the upper troposphere, and emission really was less than absorption, then the heat accumulated would diminish the vertical temperature gradient until it no longer existed. This in turn would cancel out the original greenhouse absorption.
Greenhouse theorists like Luboš only consider elements like the passage of EMR from a warmer object to a cooler one in isolation. They don't take the thought experiment a step further and consider what happens to the heat accumulated.
The accumulated heat should warm these upper cooler layers, hence cancelling out whatever greenhouse absorption initially occurred.
What we find in reality is that emission always equals absorption in the upper layers of the troposphere, hence there is no "heat trapping" and no greenhouse effect.
The rules of nature are such that EMR absorption, emission or re-emission doesn't generate any energy. Have EMR reverberate a million times over if you like: free energy still can not be generated by "backradiation".
As it happens EMR does reverberate around the universe infinitely. And gradually, very slowly, it equalises all temperatures in it. Yet not one joule of extra energy is generated overall by this process.
If greenhouse "heat trapping" really were occurring, a hot zone (hotspot) would form in the atmosphere. But no such hotspot is observed:
|Source: Jo Nova.|
In the stratosphere the temperature gradient is in the order you'd expect: hot air with less density stays on top, with cooler layers underneath. And very little mixing in the vertical direction. In the troposphere the situation is reversed.
For some reason in the troposphere warmer air stays toward the bottom and cooler layers are on top. A constant overturning of air sees surface heat energy convect from the surface toward the top of the troposphere. I propose this is one of the main energy dissipation mechanisms of the troposphere.
In summer this vertical overturning of air is greater than in winter. It's an overturning that helps regulate surface temperature, keeping earth with the goldilocks range suitable for life, and overwhelms any alleged greenhouse effect.
Cooler atmospheric layers should tend toward the bottom of the troposphere not the top. In my opinion no existing explanation, either in conventional or alternative science, is adequate to explain this topsy-turvy situation.
I believe that we should look outside current scientific convention for the answer and consider whether energy is being liberated or destroyed in the atmosphere to maintain this bizarre situation of a negative tropospheric temperature gradient.
This 33C warming could happen internally as a function of the rotation of the earth leading to homopolar electrical generation. Or it could be energy from a circuit from the sun that comes in the form of the protons of the solar wind.
Every planet in the solar system has this vertical temperature gradient and vertical overturning of air. This gradient is called an "adiabatic lapse" but I'm not sure it is adiabatic.
Jupiter is about twice as warm as it should be given the EMR coming from the sun. Here to it seems to me some sort of solar electricity, or internal generation, is producing the extra energy of Jupiter's excess warmth. I think it's unlikely after so many billions of years of Jupiter's existence that its gravitational contraction can be the reason for Jupiter's energy surplus.
There is an active ongoing circuit of electricity going from Jupiter to one of its moons Io, indicating much electrical activity in the Jupiter system. I believe the same applies for the solar system as a whole. Electricity appears to play a major role in celestial affairs, a fact not presently recognised in the Newtonian-based attraction-only model of celestial mechanics.
The conventional explanation for the atmospheric lapse (vertical temperature gradient) is that gravitational potential energy is being exchanged for heat energy. This explanation isn't satisfactory to me because there is no mechanism ever defined or described to perform this energy conversion.
In the ideal gas laws heat can be obtained by compressing a volume of gas. But energy must be applied to achieve such a compression. And anyway such compression doesn't occur in the atmosphere, which is open.
Ideal gas laws only work if packets of air are thermally insulated from one another, hence "adiabatic", which they aren't. There is thermal contact of every molecule of air with every other one and this means there should be no vertical temperature gradient at all – the bottom layers should've warmed the top ones long ago.
Even the greenhouse effect should warm these upper cooler layers until they equal bottom layers in temperature and thereby eliminate the vertical temperature gradient. If the greenhouse effect had any warming power it would have eliminated this gradient long ago.
Here's my theory: I believe that the vertical electric field of the troposphere, which is huge, on the order of 140 volts per meter, which is somewhat concomitant with this vertical temperature gradient, is involved in the production of the gradient.
The bottom of earth's atmosphere is negatively charged with respect to the top:
The sun is positively charged (this is me saying this – not a fact presently conventionally recognised) and emits positively charged protons in the form of the solar wind. The sun is a point source of positive charge. A unidirectional current (another theory that opposes the mainstream) goes from the sun into the planets of the solar system.
Planets are negatively charged (I don't know how – by universal default?) and attract, and neutralise, the positive stream of protons coming from the sun. The sun being a source of protons and positive charge (a violation of conservation of charge principle).
As electrons are precipitated by planets they neutralise the solar wind coming from the sun and liberate a bit of energy, making earth's atmosphere about 33C warmer at the surface than it would otherwise be.
|Electric Universe-based energy liberation model|
The sun's solar wind is neutralised in earth's atmosphere with the heat accumulating more so toward the bottom of the troposphere and producing the 33C warming greenhouse theorists attribute to the greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect theory is one of those errors-de-cul-de-sac that science goes through every so often. It stems from a faulty analogy with a blanket a human wears for warmth. Blankets and roofs of greenhouses work by blocking convection, not by EMR absorption and re-radiation.
You can't "slow down" EMR in a way that gives you more energy or makes you warmer than you would otherwise be. Nor does having more backradiation impinging on you from cooler objects make you warmer.
In order for the universe to survive and not end in infinite heat death, it is necessary that mutual EMR, flying around the universe ad infinitum between objects, can't generate any energy. The greenhouse effect supposes that energy can be generated in such a way.
Heat being trapped in a way that can increase your temperature is a major prevailing scientific misnomer of our day. If such energy generation could happen, the universe would have ended in an infinite heat death long ago.
But more importantly for the climate debate: if the greenhouse effect were true, there would be no vertical temperature gradient in the troposphere.
The lack of atmospheric warming these past 18 ½ years; lack of hotspot; lack of OLR decline; and lack of stratospheric cooling provide empirical evidence against the greenhouse effect. But the very existence of the vertical temperature gradient is its biggest disproof.
If warming can really be obtained by backradiation, where are all the free energy machines to harness this energy generation effect and liberate us from the need to burn fossil fuels for energy? These machines don't exist, and the free-energy generation effect of the greenhouse effect also doesn't exist.
Some people like David Appell claim that nowhere in greenhouse theory does it say that energy is generated for free. Well no of course they don't explicitly state that, because then it would be instantly apparent how illegitimate greenhouse effect theory is.
The only way to make an object warmer without the addition of energy is to reduce its emissivity, and CO2 doesn't reduce earth's emissivity it increases it. CO2 helps the radiation of EMR to space. Therefore free energy generation, while it may not be explicitly stated in typical greenhouse effect depictions, is implied.
The Tyndall experiment is one of those dank, dusty old areas of climate science that warmists occasionally refer to. If there was really any proof for a greenhouse-free energy generation effect being obtained in that experiment, don't you think this would be the smoking gun they harped on about all day long as proof of clima-geddon?
There's a thermometer in the heat source to measure whether water's at the boiling point (Leslie Cube heat source – see diagram above). But the increments on it are too course to measure any heat gain from the tube's backradiation.
And it couldn't measure it anyway because any excess "greenhouse heat dividend" would be lost in making the water boil a little faster – the greenhouse heat to be measured simply boils away into the laboratory.
This is why Greenies and AGW-scientists only half-heartedly refer to the Tyndall experiment. Because that experiment is like a never-never land in which they fear to tread. For proper scrutiny of that experiment exposes the utter lack of experimental proof for this magical greenhouse effect.