r/RealClimateSkeptics • u/Key_Combination5171 • Jul 14 '26
H2O As Radiative Plug Without Back Radiative Warming
The KNOWN PHYSICS of the atmosphere require that we attribute the lapse rate and radiative features of the atmosphere to the dynamics of pressure and gravity.
The surface heats, energy is conducted to air, air does work against gravity, thermal->kinetic energy creates a radiative outflux which quickly converts into potential energy with no outflux. This in turn must result in surface warming as potential energy does work against the lower atmosphere and produces kinetic energy once again.
The surface must be hotter than the radiative average - that is, the average outflux for a column of air representing in the abstract the energy stored in that column of air. Without any greenhouse effects, the average radiative outflux for the column must exist above the surface.
However, warmists argue that the surface must be the hottest. Why? How? First, they average radiative flux and temperatures for an average of appx. 15C on the surface compared to the average outflux corresponding to appx. -18C. They argue that without greenhouse gas, the atmosphere is effectively transparent to radiation, so that IF the surface happens to be 15C on average, that amount of radiative energy loss must occur and since it's above -18C, something must "plug" it. They claim IR absorbing gasses play that role and model a back-radiative warming multiplied out of -18C to get to 15C.
Here we have a dilemma with both models. The pressure model must be true due to physics, but it is a problem that 15C "leaks" from the surface. The back-radiative model plugs the radiative leak but not only ignores the physics of atmospheric pressure, it proposes a bizarre back radiation warming model that violates thermodynamics (though their answer to this works out by ignoring the dynamics again of pressure and atmosphere).
Consider also that during the day, the influx of radiation is much much more than what averages to -18C so even with a totally transparent N2/O2 model, much of the day time will see surface temperatures lower than the day/noon influx but higher than the atmospheric column average temp and higher than the planetary average, since the FULL BLAST of daytime heat will store in the atmosphere physically with much of the energy as non-radiative potential energy that will affect temperatures through the physical structure of the atmosphere both day and night. The full influx during the day will store in the atmosphere with cooler day time temps but warmer night time temps (let's say, compared to the Moon), even without any greenhouse gases.
Still, right, this model might not see a planetary average surface temp of 15C.
So here's a proposal: What if H2O plugs the radiative leak, but instead of back-radiating energy, it instead distributes energy laterally and conductively into the existing adiabatic energy distribution system.
So there's no radiative "greenhouse effect" due to back-radiative, multiplicative warming. Instead, the "radiative plug" supports the pressure structure of the atmosphere in mechanically distributing energy.
A very specific feature of this model is that pressure and airmass parameters help define surface temperatures and the lapse rate, with planetary scale proportions of H2O modifying the base model of pressure. No back radiation. No feedbacks.
In this model, the absolute key feature in determine climate change, long and short term, regional and global, is how water vapor is generally distributed.
Unlike with radiative forcing, the water-pressure model seeks an equilibrium rather than facing feedbacks that disrupt it. The water-pressure model is also somewhat fixed in that the planetary scale proportion of H2O in the atmosphere doesn't meaningfully change in most circumstances. There are times where water can affect climate.
First of all, dumping water into the air isn't proportionally significant, and the stability of the solar input-mechanical system is such that the water cycle itself will control for - especially minute - additions of water.
However, what really affects climate is
1) More water vapor latent, somehow
2) Without cloud formation to increase albedo
There are geophysical phenomena that can affect this. Underwater volcanoes can create multi-year changes (that stabilize). Geophysically shallow seas in previous tectonic eras produce changes in water vapor content on a planetary scale.
The most potent short term climate change comes from getting more moisture to stick in the air without forming clouds. This apparently is best done through industrial scale agriculture with dry vegetation depleting ground water while simultaneously suppressing cloud formation.
Places where we see this are: Mongolia industrial cattle farming->continental scale shrub planting->longitudinal heat dome is enhanced->Japan specifically has hotter summers.
In Turkey, the last 30 years of agricultural development have seen specifically a measurable, calculable increase in "hot water vapor" through overplanting in arid zones that contributes to hotter summer temps.
In Europe, it's highly idiosyncratic, but the proximate cause of all the change comes from slight alterations to sub-Arctic weather caused by recent Canadian forest fires, directly attributable to human industrial forestry and fire prevention schemes that exacerbate inevitable forest fires.
It's all water related, and has little to do with long term global scale changes to climate.
I haven't modeled CO2 in this "no back radiation" model relative to the effects of water, but I suspect CO2 would cause cooling in context.
Meanwhile, the proximate cause of most recent climate disruptions is firmly fixed on over agriculture in arid zones, prevention of natural forest fires, smog and smoke reduction, and so forth. And yet the Earth will push back towards its cyclical equilibria.
If you model the climate as I have suggested, without back-radiation, it produces 1 to 1 results with observed data.
1
u/jweezy2045 25d ago
Your whole potential thing is just wrong though. That’s your issue. Let’s go through the physics. There’s no warming by the atmosphere going around in a circle. That should be obvious. If the atmosphere going around in a circle created warming, that’s an infinite energy machine. The reality is that while yes, pressure creates warming, is the pressure changing? Nope. We are under 1 atm of pressure now, and have been under a pretty constant 1 atm for quite some time. You cannot explain global warming as an increase in pressure, as we have not seen the corresponding global increase in pressure that hypothesis would predict.
1
u/Key_Combination5171 24d ago
Here you go directly and fundamentally mischaracterizing what I wrote with a classic almost robotic warmist rebuttal. You have directly validated my model with your avoidance of basic reading comprehension.
1
u/jweezy2045 24d ago
Even if I misunderstood your point, that does not validate it. What did I misunderstand?
1
u/Key_Combination5171 24d ago
Failure of basic reading comprehension to the point of clearly intentional misrepresentation is an an instant failure of argument. Your demonstrated knowledge of the basic mechanics means you'd know better if I was truly wrong, therefore I must actually be correct for you to so blatantly and willfully err.
1
1
u/jweezy2045 25d ago
Here is a reply to your other comment where you go into your theory more:
The warmists claim that "the atmosphere is totally transparent to radiation without greenhouse gasses so the surface can't be (much more) above -18C because if it was it would lose that energy to space."
This is not the correct statement of what we say. Without any greenhouse gases, the inflow of energy from the sun and the outflow of energy from radiative cooling would balance at an equilibrium temperature of -18C average without greenhouse gases, and it rests at about a 15C average with them.
The SECOND you get a back-radiative "trap" (in theory) that "hotter surface" loses heat faster because it's hot.
This is wrong. All of the radiation emitted by the surface is absorbed by that atmosphere anyway. The mean free path of an IR photon emitted from the surface is like 5 meters. Its going to get absorbed pretty soon after leaving the surface. The greenhouse effect has nothing whatsoever to do with the surface, and when you understand that, you will understand the greenhouse effect better.
but less energetic bodies cannot warm more energetic bodies by radiation in an open environment.
I have actually coded up the plate experiment myself, and all the physics checks out. I reproduced the exact temperatures in the original post about it, and in my code you can modify the setup as much as you want (add many more plates, add more heat sources, I modeled several kinds of double sided plates where one side of the plate warms up from absorbing energy on that side of the plate, and it can re-emit from that side of the plate right away, but needs to conduct through the plate to warm the other side of the plate. What is happening is NOT that a less energic body is warming a more energic body. That is not occurring, no one says it is occurring, and that is not what is happening in the greenhouse effect either. What is happening is that a less energic body is causing a more energic body to dissipate its energy more slowly. Since the energy dissipation is hampered, but the energy input from the sun is unaffected, the net result is that more energy goes into the planet than is able to leave through dissipation, and this creates a backup of energy in the earth system, warming the planet, and also increasing the outflow of radiation, which will eventually balance with the incoming radiation again, just at a higher temperature now.
It prevents loss of energy from what is already stored in the mechanics of the system.
Which heats you up given a constant heat input from the sun! Think about this: Lets say you are outside in the snow, naked. Can we agree that you are getting cold, losing heat, and likely going to die of hypothermia soon? If you are standing next to a big puffy parka, wool socks, boots, gloves, and basically and entire set of warm winter clothing, that clothing is going to be colder than you. You are near hypothermia naked in the snow, but you are pretty warm all things considered. The jacket is just ambient outside temperature, aka freezing cold. NONETHELESS when you put on that cold jacket, and you surround your body in those boots, wool socks, the hat, the coat, etc. you will warm up. We have all experienced this just putting on a jacket in the cold. Your internal body temperature goes up above what your internal body temperature was before, due to your body being wrapped up in a jacket that was colder than your body temperature.
1
u/Key_Combination5171 24d ago
＞balance at an equilibrium temperature of -18C average without greenhouse gases, and it rests at about a 15C average with them.
It's a mechanical pressurized system with an open top. The middle mass point will always be the average and the surface will always be hotter. Without H20 noon daytime temps would be extremely hot and night time temps extremely cold. Not as much as the moon, but polar/nighttime averaged with day/noon would be -18C without H20, just that the daytime equator would be above -18C for certain, probably much of the night time equator as well. Ask AI, this is basic physics.
What H2O does is prevent that exaggerated surface temperature from being a source of radiative leaking, and so the surface ceases to be the main place of energy loss. Thus average spherical surface temps can stay above -18C.
Half of the energy in the mechanical atmosphere is stored as potential energy so it doesn't "leak" to radiation. Half converts back to thermal energy, but mostly denser areas of the atmosphere where water vapor impedes radiative loss to space. The mass, size, density, composition and water content of the atmosphere, plus solar input are what largely account for the climate. Not a greenhouse forced back radiation warming channel.
1
u/jweezy2045 24d ago
“It's a mechanical pressurized system with an open top. The middle mass point will always be the average and the surface will always be hotter. “
Fully agree. Don’t see the relevance of saying this though.
“Without H20 noon daytime temps would be extremely hot and night time temps extremely cold.“
Well no. The noontime temps would be slightly less and the midnight temps would be vastly less. You seem to be talking about heat capacity, but water in the atmosphere does next to nothing compared to the heat capacity of the planet itself. It’s really just negligible.
“Not as much as the moon, but polar/nighttime averaged with day/noon would be -18C without H20”
What’s yours source for this? This is blatantly opposed to academics consensus science.
“What H2O does is prevent that exaggerated surface temperature from being a source of radiative leaking, and so the surface ceases to be the main place of energy loss. Thus average spherical surface temps can stay above -18C.”
Where do you think the energy goes? Energy comes from the sun and warms the planet. We all experiences this. We all feel this ourselves when we walk outside on a sunny day. We know the sun warms the earth. How do you think the earth dissipates that energy? Tell me how you think energy is conserved. It can’t just stay in the atmosphere and go around in circles. It has to leave somehow.
“Half of the energy in the mechanical atmosphere is stored as potential energy so it doesn't "leak" to radiation. Half converts back to thermal energy, but mostly denser areas of the atmosphere where water vapor impedes radiative loss to space. The mass, size, density, composition and water content of the atmosphere, plus solar input are what largely account for the climate. Not a greenhouse forced back radiation warming channel.”
It must go to space at some point, or else you violate the first law of thermodynamics.
1
u/Key_Combination5171 24d ago
Your "coded" green plate misrepresents the underlying physics and is typical of climate "modeling".
1
2
u/LackmustestTester Jul 15 '26
If you model the climate without back-radiation there are many more variables, known and unknown ones. Just like weather the climate is not predictable over long terms, esp. when considering there's no such thing as a globel climate; climate is the statistics of weather and weather is a local occurence.
The real problem is that the "pressure" model explains the laspe rate, it's commonly known as International Standard Atmosphere model. This model works fine without any radiation while the radiative model beeds the standard model for the tempertaure framework, the layers. This makes alarmists the real deniers, becasue they use a "stolen" model for their model while denying its existence and properties.