The very existence of the tropospheric vertical temperature gradient nullifies the possibility of a greenhouse effect

Scientists such as Luboš Motl believe a greenhouse effect exists in the atmosphere because of the existence of a negative vertical temperature gradient, which averages -6.5C per kilometer of altitude (adiabatic lapse).

Tropospheric negative vertical temperature gradient (right)

Why David Evans' greenhouse effect definition can't work

On the Jo Nova website is a recent attempt to portray a greenhouse effect:

Source: New Science 6: How the Greenhouse Effect Works and “four pipes” to space

Why Tyndall's experiment does not prove the greenhouse effect

Jump to: The experiment to prove the greenhouse effect

The number one experiment quoted as proof of the greenhouse effect is Tyndall's experiment.  Specifically the absorption experiment described in his 1861 Bakerian lecture to the British Royal Society.^[1]

In Tyndall's experiment various gases are introduced into the gas observation chamber and it is noted that some gases ("greenhouse gases") absorb more "calorific rays" (infrared) than others. This absorption is referred to as "proof of a greenhouse effect".

It was the result of several months work on his part. But in fact Tyndall's experiment shows nothing more than that EMR from a warmer object is absorbed by a colder one. Such absorption is not proof of a greenhouse effect.

In order for Tyndall's experiment to prove the greenhouse effect it would have been necessary to measure a gain in overall heat in the objects of the experiment, particularly in the emitting and absorbing objects.  But this did not happen in the experiment, could not have happened, and was not even attempted to be measured.

 

Tyndall's experiment

Why backradiation has no warming effect

We are told by greenhouse theorists that backradiation from the sky warms the ground -- 33C warmer than it would otherwise be without the greenhouse effect. In greenhouse theory, backradiation from the sky is recycled and counted again. For example:

 

NASA "radiation budget", or as I call it: "how to count energy twice"

 

Some insist that it's not the backradiation that does the warming, it's that light (EMR) is "slowed down" or "trapped" by the greenhouse layer. But even if EMR is trapped optically by the greenhouse gas layer it continues on its merry way in an energy sense.

Even if EMR is trapped by absorption, every photon that is absorbed by the greenhouse gas layer is matched by one that is emitted. This must be so per Kirchhoff's Law, unless the gas layer is changing in temperature. It will change in temperature from time to time, but not overall, not in a way that energy can be gained.

The Fallacy of the Greenhouse Effect 4

(Index)

In this part I rebut English/Irish physicist John Tyndall's claim to an atmospheric greenhouse effect.

In 1861 Tyndall presented a quantification of the EMR absorption of various gases in a lecture to the Royal Society of London [1].  Depicted in Fig 1 is a rig he worked on for several weeks.

Figure 1: Tyndall's Experiment

The Fallacy of the Greenhouse Effect 3

(Index)

In this part I rebut Joseph Fourier's 1827 paper Dissertation on the Temperature of the Terrestrial Globe and the Planetary Spaces, often attributed as being the first mention of an atmospheric greenhouse effect. 

Fourier does not in fact claim an atmospheric greenhouse effect for the earth; rather he offers a thought experiment that if our atmosphere were to have something like a layer of glass high in it, it would have a greenhouse effect.  The mention is very brief and the idea that such dense layers in the atmosphere could exist is not substantiated and is not pursued any further by Fourier, presumably because the notion is clearly unrealistic. 

The fallacy of the greenhouse effect 2

Part 1 Part 2 (Index)

In part 2 I rebut some of the claims to an atmospheric greenhouse effect using the concepts introduced in the first part.

Given the Earth's distance from the Sun and the Sun's electromagnetic radiation (EMR) Earth should by conventional calculations be about -18C temperature on average. However Earth's surface temperature is 15C on average -- a difference of 33C. Many have resorted to the notion of a greenhouse effect to explain this difference.

To the various greenhouse claims I have heard:

The fallacy of the greenhouse effect

Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 (Index)

An object can warm through the absorption of electromagnetic radiation (EMR). However, an object passively warmed can't warm the object providing the warmth. Were this to be so energy could be multiplied for no extra input merely by having objects mutually radiate EMR. But there is no such temperature multiplication because the amount mutually exchanged cancels. It does not add as is required by greenhouse theory.

The reason that an object can be heated by EMR on earth by the sun is because the sun is warmer than the earth.  The idea of the greenhouse effect is that the cooler, upper layers of air are able to warm a warmer ground by backradiation. But this can not happen.

Greenhouse theory would even require that the backradiation from the earth to the sun warms the sun by a small (if practically imperceptible) amount. This is impossible too because a cooler object can not warm a warmer one unless work is done.  But greenhouse gas, not having an energy source, can not provide this work nor can the earth provide work to the sun.