Table of contents for Greenhouse Experiment

  1. Home Science Experiment Disproves Global Warming Theory
  2. More Data Disproving Global Warming
  3. Model of Global Warming
  4. Greenhouse Quiz
  5. Maxpower Datasheet Experiment 2

Today I repeated the greenhouse experiment reported yesterday. The weather conditions were more favorable, being still and sunny in the initial period, but became more thermally towards the end. I also replaced the plastic flour container with a solid glass jar. Whereas yesterday the temperatures inside the sealed jar only reached 66% of the predicted theoretical maximum, today they got to 60C (red line), within 82% of the theoretical maximum (black dashed line). The theoretical maximum is the ratio of 1.107 times the outside temperature (blue line), which raised to the fourth power gives a ratio of 1.5 radiant heat, inside vs outside.

As with yesterday, the red line before the break is the temperature inside the dry clear container. After the break is the temperature after addition of a few mls of water to the bottom of the container. Here, there is a clear effect from the water. Rather than increasing the temperature, the added water reduced the temperature and increased the variability. I believe this shows the increased capacity of the saturated air to cool the surface of the jar.

So why does this disprove global warming? I will make it as simple as possible, and paring the logic down to its essentials, and comparing with Miskolczi and the standard theory.

As I see it, there are two main constraints. The first is Miskolczi’s equation 28:

Su=OLR*(1+τ+e-τ)/2 (M28)

M28 (black line) replaces two equations in the standard theory, one for the air Sa=OLR*(1+τ)/2 (blue line), and one for the ground Sg=OLR*(2+τ)/2 (red line). These are quite similar in form, showing the relationship of temperature with increases in optical depth τ. While Miskolczi has one, the standard theory has two with a discontinuity at the surface. When plotted it can be seen that at the optical depth of the Earth’s atmosphere of around two, the difference between the standard atmosphere (blue line) and Miskolczi’s predicted temperature (black line) is not too great.

While I believe this represents in increase in elegance and accuracy over the standard theory, it does not in itself disprove global warming. This could be (and is) interpreted to say that temperatures increase with the addition of an increase in optical depth τ such as an infra red absorber like CO2.

However, that does not take into account the second equation, that acts as a constraint, preventing a rise in temperatures. This is expressed by Miskolczi’s equation 8, is the maximum (black line) shown in the experiment.

Su=3OLR/2 (M8)

While a great deal of discussion of Miskolczi’s theory has revolved around Kirchhoff’s law and the virial theorem, I believe this equation can be derived from simple conservation relations. If you imagine an average atmospheric temperature E, radiation is propagating both up and down with an equal intensity of E/2. For balance of energy, Su=F+E/2 and F=OLR. But E is the atmosphere absorbed energy, equal to F. So Su=3OLR/2.

Miskolczi’s contention, and the experiment above provides more experimental proof, is that the earth’s surface is at the maximum greenhouse effect, predicted theoretically at 1.5 times the incoming radiation. Elementary calculations show that this ratio expressed as temperatures (1.107) is the current level of Earth’s temperature due to greenhouse effect. As the earth is already at the maximum greenhouse effect, it is energetically constrained from increasing any more due to increases in CO2 levels, runaway feedback etc.

Standard models of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) such as those at RealClimate don’t appear to recognize equation M8 as an energetic constraint. They appear to believe that equations like M28, where changes in the optical depth or emissivity of the atmosphere will change average global temperature, operate freely.

The experiment shows the negative feedback effect of water. While the increase in water vapor that occurs with an increase in temperature might look like a positive feedback, the additional effects of water in changing state, transporting heat vertically and horizontally far outweigh any additional warming, and result in a net cooling.

Constant optical depth is a result of combining these two relations M28 and M8.

2 =τ+e-τ;

The result of 1.84 can be verified with an equation solver like QuickMath here. In other words, the only way for radiative and energy relationships to be satisfied is for optical depth to be constant over the long term. Experimental data here suggests this is the case in the earth’s atmosphere, however it must be kept in mind that these data have fairly high uncertainties.

So that’s it in a nutshell. AGW requiring continuously increasing temperatures with increasing CO2 is inconsistent with equation M8. Theory and experiment (trivially) shows M8 to be correct. Therefore, AGW is disproved.

Previous in series Next in series