A Re-evaluation of Greenhouse Effect Evidence
Aleksandr Zhitomirskiy
The proofs of the greenhouse effect hypothesis described in the literature are discussed. It is shown that the three proofs proposed in the First Report of the IPCC cannot be considered substantiated. The notion of the greenhouse effect of water vapor is not supported by comparing temperatures in places with dry and humid climates. No laboratory experiment has shown that, under the same conditions, a greenhouse gas heats up more than a non-greenhouse gas. The hypothesis of the greenhouse effect contradicts the theory of heat capacity and the molecular-kinetic theory of gases.
Introduction
Most modern researchers consider the main cause of the current climate changes is an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel. Carbon dioxide is seen as a particularly important, but not the only greenhouse gas responsible for the so -called greenhouse effect, which ensures the retention of additional heat in the atmosphere and, therefore, the heating of the Earth. However, in a logical chain: human activity an increase ⤍ in the concentration of carbon dioxide warming, an important point has been ⤍ missed: the proof that an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases causes an increase in temperature. In monographs and textbooks on atmosphere physics, not to mention scientific publications, there is no description of the physical essence of the greenhouse effect and facts confirming its existence.
Naturally, speaking of a greenhouse effect, first of all, it is necessary to clarify the definition of the effect itself and greenhouse gases. For example, the chemistry textbook for universities says [1, p.781]:
“The troposphere is transparent to visible light but not to infrared radiation... Water vapor and carbon dioxide absorb much of the outgoing radiation from Earth/s surface. In doing so, they help to maintain a livable uniform temperature at the surface by holding in, as it were, the infrared radiation, that we feel as heat. The influence of H2O, CO2, and certain other atmospheric gases on Earth's temperature is called the greenhouse effect because these
heat-trapping gases act much like the glass of a greenhouse. Correspondingly, these gases are called greenhouse gases”.
Based on this definition, it can be assumed that the following could serve as proof of the existence of the greenhouse effect: a) natural processes demonstrating a correlation between temperature and the concentration of greenhouse gases; b) physical experiments confirming such dependence; c) theoretical conclusions based on physical laws. Below I will try to analyze all this evidence.
Correlation between temperature and concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
When considering this problem, a number of questions arise, the main of which are: a) what factors, in addition to greenhouse gases, affect temperature? b) does the presence of a correlation between the indicated values mean a causal relationship? c) how to establish what is the cause and what is the effect?
In 1938, G.S. Callendar, based on temperature measurements at 200 meteorological stations and calculations of the coefficients of absorption of radiation by carbon dioxide and water vapor, stated that the "mean temperature" due to the artificial production of carbon dioxide increases by 0.003 °C/year [2]. The statistical significance of determining the value of the average temperature and the influence of other factors on the temperature are not considered in this article.
In the Policymakers Summary of the First Report of the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the correlation between the concentration of carbon dioxide and methane with the average global temperature is considered as one of the three proofs for the existence of the greenhouse effect [3, p.22] :
“Thirdly, measurements of ice cores going back 160,000 years show that the Earth's temperature closely paralleled the amount of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere (see Figure 2). Although we don't know the details of cause and effect, calculations indicate that changes in these greenhouse gases were part, but not at all, of the of the reason for the large (5-7 oC) global temperature swings between ice and interglacial periods”.
Figure 2 (p. 23) mentioned in this quote demonstrates an approximate
correspondence between the maxima and minima in the graphs of temperature and gas concentration versus time in the specified period. However, taking into account the scale on the time axis (the distance between adjacent marks is 20,000 years), it is practically impossible to determine the accuracy of this correspondence and, most importantly, whether a change in gas concentration precedes a change in temperature or vice versa. If the change in concentration were primary, then it is completely unclear what reasons it could have caused before the advent of civilization. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 160,000 years has varied in the range from 180 to 290 ppm (0.018 - 0.029%) and during this time a number of maxima and minima have been found on the graphs, including two large temperature jumps, about 10 and about 12 °C. At present, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has reached 420 ppm, that is, almost one and a half times more than the maximum in the period under review, and the change in temperature over the past 150 years, corresponding to this change, is, according to the IPCC, only about 1°C.
Chapter 7 of the same IPCC report [3] provides facts that refute the notion that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration can cause temperature changes. The authors describe glacial-interglacial cycles that have occurred on a time scale of 100,000 years and due to astronomical factors. In the 20th century, where the change in temperature is attributed by the IPCC to rising concentrations of carbon dioxide, unequal temperature change is found in the Northern and Southern hemispheres, cooling of the Northern Hemisphere occurred between the 1940s and the early 1970s. Authors of this chapter note that the rise in temperature in the last century has been irregular, while the concentration of carbon dioxide has risen regularly. They conclude: “Because we do not understand the reasons for these past warming events it is not yet possible to attribute a specific proportion ol the recent, smaller, warming to an increase of greenhouse gases”. [3, p.247] .
When it comes to the influence of a particular factor, it is understood, firstly, that all other factors affecting this parameter are known, and secondly, that these factors are either constant, or their role can be evaluated independently. The temperature of the Earth's surface and the surface layer of the atmosphere is constantly changing in time and in different places. The reasons for these changes are numerous: fluctuations in solar activity, changes in the tilt of the earth's axis, changes in the intensity and direction of sea currents, volcanic
eruptions, unpredictable changes in the movement of air masses, etc. In this case, it is obvious that it is practically impossible to distinguish the role of the "greenhouse effect" in the change in the Earth's temperature against the background of other variable factors. This is evidenced by many facts, for example, a significant difference in average annual temperatures in years with approximately the same CO2 content in the atmosphere. It can be concluded that, in itself, the parallelism between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature does not prove the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide.
Comparison of planetary temperatures as proof of the greenhouse effect
This evidence was also formulated in the IPCC First Report [3, p.44]:
«Secondary, we know that the composition of the atmosphere of Venus, Earth and Mars are very different, and their surface temperatures (shown in the table below) are in general agreement with those calculated on the basis of greenhouse effect theory”.
Undoubtedly, we know that the composition of the atmosphere of these planets are very different. But we also know that these planets receive different amounts of solar energy and the total atmospheric pressure on them differs many times over. In addition, the surface temperature depends on the nature of the substance on the surface, more precisely, on its ability to absorb and reflect radiation. In this regard, the Earth, over 70% of the surface of which is covered with water, is incomparable with Mars.
Let's see what factors determine the high temperature on Venus. The solar day on Venus lasts 117 Earth days. The axial tilt of the Earth and Venus, which determines the change of seasons, is also significantly different: 23.4o and 2.6o , respectively; then, Venus is the planet with permanent summer. The predominant role of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Venus, along with the presence of an admixture of sulfuric acid, indicates intense volcanic activity, which may contribute to additional heating of the planet.
The atmosphere of Mars also cannot serve as an example for confirming the greenhouse effect. The low temperature on Mars in comparison with the Earth is quite explainable by the greater distance from the Sun, by the absence of water
and a very low total atmospheric pressure. At the same time, the amount of the greenhouse gas CO2 on Mars is just much greater than in the Earth's atmosphere. Indeed, the partial pressure of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is 0.04% of 1 atm, i.e. 0.0004 atm. and in the atmosphere of Mars 95% of 0.006 atm. As you can see, the almost 15-fold excess of the partial pressure of the greenhouse gas does not manifest itself in any way.
In 2017, R. Holmes [4} drew attention to the fact that both the atmosphere of the Earth at a pressure of 1 atm and the atmosphere of Venus at a pressure of 92 atm are described by the ideal gas equation. He showed that on the basis of experimental values of gas density at certain temperature and pressure, it is possible to calculate the temperature of the atmosphere from the pressure value on the basis of this equation. Although the Earth's atmosphere is 99% "nongreenhouse" gases (nitrogen, oxygen and argon), and the atmosphere of Venus contains about 96% "greenhouse" carbon dioxide, the ideal gas equation applies in both cases. It follows that the temperature of the atmosphere is determined by the total pressure, and not by the special properties of the greenhouse gas.
An additional confirmation of this can be the atmosphere of Jupiter, where, in principle, there can be no talk of a greenhouse effect, since the main components of the atmosphere are the non-greenhouse gases hydrogen and helium, and due to the distance from the Sun, heating by solar rays is very insignificant. However, the temperature on Jupiter varies from 128 K on the inner surface of the clouds to 10,000 K near the planet's core due to superhigh pressures: https://planetfacts.org/temperature-on-jupiter/ .
Based on the foregoing, we can conclude that a comparison of the temperature and composition of planetary atmospheres does not prove the existence of a greenhouse effect.
The role of water vapor in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas
Among natural greenhouse gases, the IPCC calls water vapor the "biggest contributor" to the greenhouse effect [3, p.22]. From the point of view of physics, this is quite understandable, since the greenhouse effect is attributed to the ability of certain gases to absorb infrared radiation, and the infrared spectrum of water vapor covers a larger region of wavelengths than carbon dioxide [1, p.781]; the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere also many
times exceeds the concentration of carbon dioxide. However, the IPCC does not list water vapor as a greenhouse gas because "its concentration in the troposphere is determined internally within the climate system, and, on a global scale, is not affected by human sources and sinks” {3, p.23]. The quoted statement is highly controversial, since human activity has a very significant effect on the content of water vapor in the atmosphere: the construction of hydroelectric power plants along with reservoirs, the drainage of swamps, the use of water for irrigation, the combustion of natural gas, oil products, "environmentally friendly" hydrogen, etc.
The greenhouse effect of water vapor has already been discussed for explanation of the difference between day and night temperatures in deserts [1, p.781]:
“In very dry desert climates, where the water vapor concentration is unusually low, it may be extremely hot during the day but very cold at night. In the absence of extensive layer of water vapor to absorb and then radiate part of the infrared radiation back to Earth, the surface loses this radiation into space and cools off very rapidly”.
In fact, it is not the water vapor concentration that is "unusually low", but the relative humidity, which is defined as the ratio of the partial pressure of water vapor present in air to the value needed for saturation. For example, in the Sahara Desert on a summer day, the air temperature can reach 40 °C with a relative humidity of 25%. From the experimental data on the temperature dependence of the water vapor pressure, it follows that at 40 °C the water vapor pressure at saturation is 55.3 Torr and, therefore, at 25% relative humidity it will be 13.8 Torr. Since the concentration for a gas can be defined as the ratio of the partial pressure to the total pressure, the concentration of water vapor in this case will be 13.8/760 = 0.0182, or 1.82 %. This concentration of water vapor corresponds to 100% relative humidity at 16 °C. For comparison: temperature in Paris is 1 o C, relative humidity 95%, atmospheric pressure 744 Torr. These conditions correspond to H2 O concentration of 0.63%, that is 3 times less than in Sahara. Consequently, the explanation of the effect of water vapor proposed in this textbook is incorrect, not to mention the fact that the effect of other greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, is not manifested in any way.
The mentioned difference between day and night temperatures in the desert has a simple physical explanation, which has nothing to do with the greenhouse
effect. Sand has low thermal conductivity and heat capacity (much lower than for wet soil), so during the day at the same value of solar radiation the sand is heated to a much higher temperature. Since the cooling rate depends on the temperature difference, after sunset, the sand cools very quickly. The absence of vegetation, which absorbs and partly reflects down the thermal radiation coming from the ground, and also partly delays the upward flow of warm air, also promotes accelerated heat loss.
Water vapor is distributed unevenly in the lower layer of the atmosphere. At the same latitude, there are areas with a humid and dry climate. Therefore, you can compare the temperature in places where approximately the same amount of solar energy falls at different concentrations of water vapor in the atmosphere. Temperatures and average annual precipitation for different locations are available on the website timeanddate.com (climate and weather averages) for the period 1985-2015. It can be assumed that the average annual precipitation is correlated with the average concentration of water vapor. For example, Thessaloniki (Greece) and New York (USA) are located at the same latitude (40.7 o N). Average elevation in both cases is less than 100 m. Average precipitation in New York (24.35 inch) is much greater than in Thessaloniki (5.33 inch). At the same time, the average temperature is higher in a place with a drier climate: 60.7 o F in Thessaloniki, 55.7 o F in New York. This and other similar examples show no correlation between temperature and the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere, that is, they do not support the hypothesis of a water vapor vapor effect.
Is there a laboratory experiment confirming the greenhouse effect?
Since the essence of the greenhouse effect is “the influence of H2O, CO2, and certain other atmospheric gases on Earth's temperature”,then a demonstrative experiment can only be one that shows the difference between greenhouse and non-greenhouse gases. Therefore, neither the de Saussure experiment described in Fourier's work [5], nor modern "school experiments" demonstrating the heating of air in glass vessels by solar radiation, can serve as proof of the greenhouse effect. A review of numerous experiments on the greenhouse effect, with a description of their physical essence, is given in the article by G. Gerlich and R.D.Tscheishner [6, pp. 29-34], where it is shown that these experiments
do not prove the existence of this effect. After 2009, descriptions of experiments were published, where the heating of air and carbon dioxide is compared in devices of various designs under the same conditions [7-9]. In no case the heating of CO2 to a higher temperature than air was not found.
Comparison of average global temperature and effective temperature of the Earth as a proof of the greenhouse effect
This proof is formulated in the First IPCC Report as follows: “Firstly, the mean temperature of the Earth's surface is already warmer by about 33oC (assuming the same reflectivity of the earth) than it would be if the natural greenhouse gases were not present” [3, p.22]. It does not specify how the value of 33 о С is calculated and why it is determined by the presence of natural greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Therefore, it is necessary to consider these issues in detail.
The value of 33 °C is the difference between the average global temperature of the Earth (15 °C) and the so-called effective temperature (-18 °C) calculated on the application of the Stefan-Boltzmann law to the Earth. Speaking about these quantities, it is necessary to keep in mind both their physical meaning and the reliability of their calculation.
Average global temperature (AGT) is the arithmetic mean of numerous temperature measurements at different locations on the Earth's surface at different times. AGT does not correspond to the temperature of any real physical body, moreover, the concept of AGT contradicts the real picture of the physical state of the Earth. In reality, the temperature continuously changes in time from one mini-section of the surface to another, due to the fact that different places receive different amounts of solar energy and at the same time reflect and absorb this energy differently. This explains the existence of different climatic zones and subzones on Earth, which in no way corresponds to the idea of average global temperature.
The numerical value of AGT depends on the distribution of temperature measurement sites on the Earth's surface. The accepted value of 15 °C is determined by the fact that most of the world's weather stations are concentrated in Western Europe and the USA. According to NASA, “the global mean surface air temperature for the period 1951-1980 was estimated to be 14
oC, with an uncertainty of several tenths of degree”(https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/decadaltemp.php) . IPCC (2nd Report, 1996) estimates the same value as 15 oC “excluding Antarctica”. (The area of Antarctica is about 30% larger than Europe). Apparently, due to the unreliability of the AGT value, it is no longer mentioned in the later IPCC reports, where it is only about temperature changes, but not about its absolute value.
Calculation of the “effective” temperature is based on the application to the Earth of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation relating the energy radiated by an ideal black body, E, to its absolute temperature T: E = σ T4 , where σ is a constant equal to 5.67×10-8 W/(m2 K4). To calculate the temperature T from this equation, it is necessary to find the amount of radiated energy E and determine how much the Earth corresponds to the physical definition of a black body. The accepted value of the effective temperature of 255 K (-18 °C) corresponds to the value of the radiated energy E = 240 W/m2. With the same value of E, if we assume that the deviation of the Earth from that described by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is taken into account by the average (?) emissivity of the surface ε = 0.94, the value of the effective temperature is 259 K [10].
The value of the average energy radiated by the Earth is calculated from the value of the total flux of solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere (solar constant), using the following assumptions : a) the energy incident on a unit of the Earth's surface is equal to one quarter of the solar constant; b) the absorbed energy is equal to the product of the incident energy by (1 - A), where A is the average planetary albedo of the Earth. Dividing the solar energy flux by 4 is based on the notion that “The solar radiation flux FS is intercepted by the Earth over a disk of cross-sectional area πR2 E representing the shadow area of the Earth” and “The mean solar radiation flux absorbed per unit area of the Earth's surface is FSπR2 E(1-A)/4πR2 E = FS(1-A)/4”. [11, p.122]. Both these assumptions are incorrect. Firstly, solar radiation does not fall on an imaginary disk with the area πR2 E (dissecting the globe?), but on a hemisphere, where it is distributed unevenly depending on the geographical latitude and time of day. Secondly, real surface area of the Earth is not equal to 4πR2 E , but it is much larger due to mountains, gorges, ravines, uneven ground, vegetation, waves on the surface of the water, etc. This energy, equal to 1/4 of the solar constant (as we see, incorrectly), is
partially reflected from the Earth's surface, partially absorbed, which is taken into account by the reflection coefficient (albedo) A. The calculation of the effective temperature [3, 10, 11] is based on the planetary (averaged?) albedo of the Earth A= 0.3. In reality, the albedo value is different for each mini-section of the surface and changes with time, because it depends on the nature of the substance of which the object consists (physical and chemical properties, color) and the angle of incidence of radiation on the object. For example, the albedo of sand is about 0.35, ice and snow 0.7-0.9, and grass cover 0.18 – 0.25. The albedo of water strongly depends on the angle of incidence of the sun's rays. When this angle is greater than 40°, the water albedo is 0.06-0.1, at 10° this value increases to 0.5, and during sunrise and sunset, when the rays are almost parallel to the water surface, the albedo reaches 1.0 (https://www.eeducation.psu.edu/earth103/node/1002 ). Hence it is obvious that the concept of the average albedo of the Earth has no physical meaning. Based on the foregoing, the amount of absorbed energy 240 W/m2 calculated by dividing the solar constant 1366 by 4 and multiplying by 0.7 (1-0.3) cannot be considered reliable. In addition, it must be taken into account that the StefanBoltzmann equation includes not absorbed, but radiated energy. These values do not coincide, because part of the absorbed energy is irreversibly consumed during phase transitions (melting of ice and snow, evaporation of water). It is also important that different parts of the surface absorb and give off heat at different rates, depending on the thermal conductivity and heat capacity of the substances: for example, water gives off heat much more slowly than sand. These factors cause an imbalance between the absorbed and radiated energy. Finally, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation itself was derived for an ideal absolutely black body. It is obvious that not only does the Earth as a whole fail to meet the definition of a black body, but the various regions differ from each other. Thus, comparison of the average global and "effective" temperature of the Earth is, in fact, a comparison of numbers that have no real physical meaning and are found on the basis of controversial assumptions. There is no evidence that the difference between these numbers is due to any real causes, including the "greenhouse effect".
Is the greenhouse effect justified by the laws of physics?
According to the hypothesis of the greenhouse effect, the decisive role in the absorption of heat by the atmosphere is played by greenhouse gases, the molecules of which are capable of absorbing infrared radiation. At the macrolevel, physical theory should be expected to provide a scientific substantiation of the relationship between the ability to absorb infrared radiation and the thermophysical characteristics of a substance. At the molecular level, it is necessary to find out how the absorption of infrared radiation affects the kinetic energy of the translational motion of molecules, which, according to the kinetic theory of gases, determines the temperature.
G. Gerlich and R.D.Tscheuschner [6] considering the physical essence of the greenhouse effect, showed the inconsistency of the idea of the reverse radiation of greenhouse gases with the second law of thermodynamics. They also noted the absence of general physical laws for heating processes in glasshouses and the hypothetical atmospheric greenhouse effect and drew attention to the fact that models describing the supposed absorption and transfer of heat by greenhouse gases do not take into account the thermal conductivity of gases and the effect on heat transfer of interfaces solid - gas and liquid – gas.
Comparison of physical concepts substantiating the hypothesis of the greenhouse effect with the theory of heat capacity does not require complex mathematical calculations. First of all, let us recall the well-known fact that heat is absorbed by all components of the atmosphere, both greenhouse and nongreenhouse gases.
The amount of heat energy absorbed by each air component is determined by its heat capacity. The heat capacity of a substance is determined by the structure of its molecules. It is slightly dependent on temperature and in no way depends on the external electromagnetic field, i.e. on ability to absorb infrared radiation. Heat capacity is the amount of heat energy that is necessary to raise the temperature of a unit of amount of a substance by 1 K. Since the processes of heat absorption and infrared radiation are determined by the properties of molecules, 1 mole can be taken as a unit of the amount of a substance, and the main heat capacity equation has the form:
q = n Cp ΔT, where n is the amount of moles of a substance, Cp is the molar heat capacity at constant pressure , and ΔT is the difference of temperatures. The volume (molar) concentrations of the main components of the atmosphere in terms of
dry air and the corresponding molar heat capacities are:
Gas Molar concentration, % Molar heat capacity. J/(mole K)
Since it follows from the above equation that the temperature difference is inversely proportional to the heat capacity, the same amount of heat must heat the carbon dioxide to a lower temperature than the "non-greenhouse" components of the air. The molar heat capacity of the other main greenhouse gas (water vapor) at the same temperatures is 33.5, therefore, water vapor will also be heated to a lower temperature than air. The concentrations of other greenhouse gases (methane, nitrous oxide, etc.) in the atmosphere are so small that they cannot change the total heat capacity of air by a measurable amount. It follows that, according to the heat capacity equation, an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases should lead to heating of the atmosphere to a lower temperature, and not to a higher one, which contradicts the hypothesis of the greenhouse effect.
Let us consider the correspondence between the hypothesis of the greenhouse effect and the kinetic-molecular theory of gases. According to this theory, the average kinetic energy of the translational motion of gas molecules Ekin = mu2 /2 is directly proportional to temperature. The average speed of molecules u is defined as [1, p. 417]
u = (3RT/M) 1//2 , , where R is the universal gas constant, M is the the molar mass. Dividing R and M by the Avogadro number NA, we get the relationship between kinetic energy and temperature for single molecule:
Ekin = 3 kB T/2, where Boltzmann constant kB = R/NA = 1.38*10-23 J/K. Hence it follows that to change the temperature of an ideal gas by 1 K, it is necessary to transfer to the molecule an additional kinetic energy of 2.07*10-23 J.
To adjust the hypothesis of the greenhouse effect with the kinetic-molecular theory, it is necessary to assume that this additional energy is imparted to the molecules of greenhouse gases by the absorbed infrared radiation. (It remains unclear what causes non-greenhouse gases to heat up, but the greenhouse effect
hypothesis does not answer this question). The energy corresponding to the absorption bands of greenhouse gases in the infrared spectrum can be calculated using the Planck equation: this is a value of the order of 10-20 J per molecule for one absorption band, i.e. three orders of magnitude above. The transformation of the absorbed energy of infrared radiation into the kinetic energy of molecules should have led to anomalously strong heating of the greenhouse gas, for example, in the cell of an infrared spectrometer, which has never been observed.
Conclusion
The hypothesis about the greenhouse effect created by atmospheric gases, the molecules of which are capable of absorbing infrared radiation, was based primarily on the fact that the relative warming on Earth in the last 100-150 years coincided with the industrial revolution associated with the combustion of fossil fuels and, accordingly, with the growth concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The facts show that temperature changes in the past occurred without the participation of mankind. The parallelism between the average temperature of the Earth and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere can be easily explained by the fact that with increasing temperature, the solubility of CO2 in water decreases and, accordingly, its content in the atmosphere increases. Therefore, an increase in temperature causes an increase in the concentration of a greenhouse gas, and not vice versa.
As evidence of the greenhouse effect, the IPCC considers the difference in the average temperatures of the Earth, Venus and Mars, due to allegedly different CO2 content in the atmospheres of these planets. In reality, the temperature on the planets is determined by astronomical factors (distance from the Sun, axial tilt and rotation speed of the planets), thermophysical properties of substances on the surface of the planets, as well as the total amount of gas in the atmosphere (gas temperature is related to pressure). Therefore, the difference in planetary temperatures in itself cannot serve as evidence of the greenhouse effect.
Water vapor, according to the greenhouse effect hypothesis, is the main greenhouse gas, since its absorption bands in the infrared spectrum cover a larger range compared to carbon dioxide and its average concentration in the atmosphere is much higher. However, no evidence of the greenhouse effect of
water vapor is found: a) a large difference between day and night temperatures in deserts can be explained by the low heat capacity and thermal conductivity of sand along with the absence of clouds and vegetation; b) the average temperature in places with a dry climate, as a rule, is higher than in places with a humid climate at the same geographical latitude.
The well-known claim that the difference between the global average temperature and the so-called effective temperature of the Earth (33 K) is due to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is based on incorrect premises. First, the average global temperature of the Earth is not a physical parameter, but a statistical value, moreover, it is determined incorrectly, without taking into account the uneven distribution of stations on the Earth's surface and the statistical error of averaging. Secondly, the calculation of the "effective" temperature is based on the application to the Earth of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, derived in physics for an ideal absolutely black body. In reality, any mini-section of the earth's surface differs from its neighbor in terms of its ability to reflect and absorb solar radiation and, therefore, differs in different ways from a completely black body. Therefore, the value of the radiated energy averaged over the entire Earth, used to calculate the effective temperature, cannot be considered reliable, just like the effective temperature itself. Finally, there is no evidence that the difference between the two unreliable numbers (global mean temperature and effective temperature) is due to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
All physical theories are confirmed either by the results of observations or by experiment. There is not a single laboratory experiment that confirms that a greenhouse gas is heated to a higher temperature than a non-greenhouse gas taken in the same amount and absorbing the same amount of thermal energy. On the contrary, such an experimental result would contradict the heat capacity theory, since the molar heat capacity of the main greenhouse gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, etc.) is greater than the heat capacity of nongreenhouse gases (nitrogen, oxygen, argon).
The greenhouse effect hypothesis contradicts the molecular kinetic theory of gases. According to the molecular kinetic theory, the gas temperature is directly proportional to the kinetic energy of the translational motion of molecules, i.e. depends only on their mass and speed. The absorption of infrared radiation affects the energy of vibrational or rotational transitions in the molecule, which
are associated with the movement of electrons in the molecule itself, but not with its movement in space. There is no experimental or theoretical evidence that a change in the energy of vibrational and rotational transitions can change the kinetic energy of translational motion.
Thus, no reliable evidence of the greenhouse effect hypothesis has been found.
References
1. Th.L.Brown, H.E. LeMay, Jr. a.o. Chemistry. The Central Science. Pearson Education. 2009. ISBN 978-0-13-235-848-4. 1117 pp.
2. G.S.Callendar. The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature. - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 64, 223-240, 1938. http://climatepositions.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/qjcallender38 .pdf
3. Climate Change. The IPCC Scientific Assessment. 1990. 414 pp. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_r eport.pdf
4. R. I. Holmes. Molar mass version of the ideal gas law points to a very low climate sensivity. - Earth Sciences, 6 (6), 157-163, 2017. http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo? journalid=161&doi=10.11648/j.earth.20170606.18
5. J.Fourier. Memoire sur les temperatures du globe terrestre et des espaces planetaries.- Memoir de l'Academie Royale de sciences dr l'Institute de France.YII, 570-604, 1827. Translated by R.T.Perlmutter, Sept. 2004. Chicago. http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/Fourier1827Trans.pdf
6. G. Gerlich, R.D.Tscheuschner. Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics. - International Journal of Modern Physics, B. vol.23, pp.275-364, 2009. https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v2.pdf
7. A.Watts. Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing at simple CO2 experiment.https://wattsupwiththat.com/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simpleco2-experiment/
8. J.-E.Solheim, T.Eriksen, Y.Engebretsen. The Greenhouse Effect – a high school experiment. Conference: The London Conference on Climate Change: Science on Geoethics, Sept.8-9, 2016. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308334675_The_Greenhouse _effect_-_a_high_school_experiment
9. T.O.Seim, B.T.Olsen. The Influence of IR Absorption and Backscatter Radiation from CO2 on Air Temperature during Heating in a Simulated Earth/ Atmosphere Experiment. - Atmospheric and Climate Sciences,
Vol.10, No.2, April 2020, pp. 168-185.
10. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx? paperid=99608
11. Bob Wentsworth. Mathematical proof of the greenhouse effect. -Watts Up With That. June 4 2021.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/04/mathematical-proof-of-thegreenhouse-effect/ 12.D.J.Jacob. Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry. Harvard University. 1999.
https://www.academia.edu/29578747/INTRODUCTION_TO_ATMOSP HERIC_CHEMISTRY?email_work_card=view-paper (p.122)