Layman struggles with Science

[Derek]

Exactly the chart I was thinking of SST.
Where is the 0% absorption window for outgoing IR ?

I can see bands of less absorption, but no transparent window wavelengths as such.

This is also an appropriate time to thank SST for recently sending me this link,
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/defend...thods.html
Defending statistical methods
The Reference frame. Luboš Motl's blog.

This is an excellant read, and very very informative, it has changed / strengthened my view of "things".

Some relevant excerpts here,
" There surely exist whole scientific disciplines that are trying to find tiny, homeopathic signals that can be
hugely overinterpreted and hyped because the researchers are usually rewarded for such statements, regardless of their validity
(or at least, they don't pay any significant price if the claims turn out to be wrong). "

and,
" In fact, statistical methods have always been essential in any empirically based science.
In the simplest situation, a theory predicts a quantity to be "P" and it is observed to be "O".
The idea is that if the theory is right, "O" equals "P". In the real world, neither "O" nor "P" is known infinitely accurately.

Why? Because observations are never accurate, so "O" always has some error, at least if it is a continuous quantity.
And "P" is almost always calculated by a formula that depends on other values that had to be previously measured, too.
So even the predictions "P" have errors. "

and,
" If the calculated probability that the "pattern" in the data could have been explained by chance - and by the null hypothesis - is really tiny,
e.g. 10^{-6}, then your data give you a strong evidence that the null hypothesis is wrong.
If you say that it's wrong, your risk of having made a wrong conclusion - the so-called "false positive" or "type I error" - is only 10^{-6}.
So it's sensible to take this risk. "

and,
" However, if the probability of getting the pattern by chance, from the null hypothesis, is substantial, e.g. 10%, then
your data only provide you with a very weak hint that a new effect could exist.
If you use the standards of hard sciences, you should say that your data can't settle the question in either way.

Of course, it is always possible that if you make such a conclusion, you have made another kind of error, the "type II error",
also known as the false negative.
But what Tom Siegfried seems to misunderstand is that this is a common situation that you simply can't avoid in most cases.
The data, with their limited volume and limited accuracy (and assuming a small size of the new effect), simply can't settle the question in either way. "

and,
" bad scientists may calculate confidence levels incorrectly. They may choose unrealistic null and/or alternative hypotheses:
in systems theory, a wrong choice of the null hypothesis is sometimes referred to as the "type III error".
And they may misinterpret what their test has really demonstrated and what it hasn't.
They may hold completely unrealistic beliefs about the odds that a "generic" hypothesis would pass a similar test so
they can't place their calculation in any proper context.
Sometimes, they think that by falsifying the null hypothesis, they're proving the first alternative hypothesis that they find convenient to believe
(one can't prove it in such a way, you would have to falsify all other possible alternative theories first!).
Quite typically, such people only blindly follow some statistical recipes that they don't quite understand.
So it's not shocking that they can end up with mistakes. "

Why do I mention this now. ?
What does the chart we have all looked at so often actually show. ?
What ideas is it based uopn, what measurements, and more importantly WHERE are those measurements taken and how. ?
All of a sudden "things" are not quite as "clear" as they appeared to be I would suggest.

Two obvious points that spring out at me,
1) the solar input, and IR output plots where are they measured.
From a satellite presumably.
2) The total absorption and individual gases absorption plots where are they measured. ?
They sure as eggs is eggs ain't measured from the cloud base looking down are they........

Statistics ain't plots, but plots are pictures of figures.
Just what figures are we picturing the situation with. ?
Are they reliable, and from what "viewpoints". ?
They surely can not be as they imply, or can they be as portrayed. ?

[Richard111]

SST, thanks for the reminder to look through your charts.

CO2 solubility in water grabbed my attention! Since most seawater is about 3.8C (highest density) this equates to about 3 grams of CO2 per litre!!! There is a lot of CO2 down there at the bottom of the ocean!

Derek, the lowest IR absorption is centered on 10um. I don't think there is an 0% absorption band for IR, as, just like any other electromagnetic radiation, it is subject to scatting through the N2/O2 molecules of the atmosphere. Nasif Nahle pointed out that a photon is unlikely to travel more than 1,700 metres before encountering a molecule. I've not seen any calculations for how much "heat" goes into the atmosphere from this scattering effect. There must be some as this derives from the total IR bandwidth of outgoing radiation from the surface, minus of course, what is absorbed and thermalised in the lower levels by CO2 itself.

And for a final bang on my drum; on a clear night with low humidity and minimum wind, temperatures can drop dramatically. This can happen during any season and in any part of the world. Just Mother Gaia letting you know she has left her window open.

[Derek]

(10-16-2010 12:03 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  Nasif Nahle pointed out that a photon is unlikely to travel more than 1,700 metres before encountering a molecule.

what is absorbed and thermalised in the lower levels

Says it all to me.
Clear skies do not stop conduction, or convection. Clouds however, may well reduce or effectively stop convection,
I'll continue my thoughts elsewhere.

[Sunsettommy]

Quote:Exactly the chart I was thinking of SST.
Where is the 0% absorption window for outgoing IR ?

I can see bands of less absorption, but no transparent window wavelengths as such.

There is no fully open window in IR area.But it is close (10%) and when the photons are moving at around 135,000 per second a number does leave without stopping.

What about the saturation level of N2,O2 and other energy absorbing gases (by conduction) in the atmosphere?

There are only a limited number of molecules against a flood of incoming radiation every second.What percent of the incoming radiation are fully blocked besides IR?

[Derek]

SST - You may well have missed my points in regards of the plots,
and what they actually show / supposedly measure.
Which is the REAL point of the lobus link, I gratefully mention on this thread.

My thoughts will go elsewhere (and are),
probably the "E" thread on this forum, but not just yet.

btw - SST please email me, I'll bring you on a confidentially only basis "upto date",
as much as I can / should.

[Sunsettommy]

Derek,

I was responding to what Richard 111 wrote:

Quote:Derek, the lowest IR absorption is centered on 10um. I don't think there is an 0% absorption band for IR, as, just like any other electromagnetic radiation, it is subject to scatting through the N2/O2 molecules of the atmosphere. Nasif Nahle pointed out that a photon is unlikely to travel more than 1,700 metres before encountering a molecule.

and to what you wrote:

Quote:Exactly the chart I was thinking of SST.
Where is the 0% absorption window for outgoing IR ?

I can see bands of less absorption, but no transparent window wavelengths as such.

That is why I wrote this:

"There is no fully open window in IR area.But it is close (10%) and when the photons are moving at around 135,000 per second a number does leave without stopping.

What about the saturation level of N2,O2 and other energy absorbing gases (by conduction) in the atmosphere?

There are only a limited number of molecules against a flood of incoming radiation every second.What percent of the incoming radiation are fully blocked besides IR?"
==============================================================================
Has anyone ever wonder why we seem to fall within a TIGHT boundary between the high and low temperature range for the last 600 million years?

Only about a 10 degree C range is all we seem to get.

CHART

and,

CHART

[Sunsettommy]

(10-16-2010 01:50 PM)Derek Wrote:  SST - You may well have missed my points in regards of the plots,
and what they actually show / supposedly measure.
Which is the REAL point of the lobus link, I gratefully mention on this thread.

My thoughts will go elsewhere (and are),
probably the "E" thread on this forum, but not just yet.

btw - SST please email me, I'll bring you on a confidentially only basis "upto date",
as much as I can / should.

I am out of town till tomorrow afternoon.Then I can check the e-mails to see what you sent me.

[Derek]

(10-16-2010 03:19 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  "There is no fully open window in IR area.But it is close (10%) and when the photons are moving at around 135,000 per second a number does leave without stopping.

One of the points I am trying to make in this thread, about this specific point is,
10% over what distance. ?
As I understand, Motl asks / suggests,
1) Is the hypothesis good enough to be tested.
2) Is the test relevant to test the hypothesis in the way it is intended / portrayed to.
3) Are the measurements accurate enough for the test.
4) How accurate are the measurements, and are the measurements of what it is that is supposed to be tested.
5) Given problems 1 to 4 would any statistical analysis be relevant anyway.
6) Given 1 to 5 does the scientist understand the statistics he / she is using, and are they relevant or sufficiently stringent enough to produce a reliable / repeatable result, we can have confidence in.

(Problems 3 and 4 listed above sound very similar, but in climate science in particular
there are great differences in the subtleties.)

In this particular instance I am asking is there a 3 and 4 problem/s listed above.
Would 10% absorption in a flask of a certain physical length, gas concentration, pressure, temperature, tell us what it is that is portrayed in the chart, to be telling us.
I distinctly think not, if indeed they are flask measurements.

[Richard111]

In Post: #107 above I posted a pic from a Tom Vonk post over at WUWT that illustrates the kinetic energy distribution of N2 molecules in the atmosphere at different temperatures.
In Post: #117 I voice my frustration at failing to find any values for the energy levels on the X axis. At last I have found a reference.

Kinetic Theory of Gases: A Brief Review

Scroll down the page and you will see the M-B curves for N2 at room temperature (blue) and then reduced by a factor of 2 (red). I have no idea what value is assigned to "room temperature" but assume it will be in the region of 20C thus the red trace will be for about 10C. For those who want to play with the maths there is a link to a PDF of the complete page at the bottom.



We see that N2 molecules at "room temperature" have an peak kinetic energy value of around 400 metres per second. Reducing the temperature by a factor of 2 shows peak kinetic energy drops to around 300 metres per second. Seems impressive but remember if you double the temperature you increase the energy 16 times! (temperature raised to the fourth power) Works both ways. (2^4=16, 16^0.25=2)

Now consider the troposphere temperature gradient. As you rise above 2000 metres the temperature drops below freezing and more, down to about -60C at the tropopause. So I think I can safely assume the MAJORITY of the molecules in the atmosphere, this includes CO2 molecules, will have peak kinetic energy levels of around 100 metres per second or less. I keep saying "peak" because I don't know how to calculate the average energy level under those curves.

Reading Chapter 19 - Computational Blackbody Radiation (location 3146) in the Kindle version of Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory I quote:

Quote:1.3 Blackbody Radiation in Words
A blackbody acts like a transformer of radiation which absorbs high-frequency radiation and emits low-frequency radiation. The temperature of the blackbody determines a cut-off frequency for the emission, which increases linearly with temperature: the warmer the blackbody is, the higher frequencies it can and will emit. Thus only frequencies below cut-off are emitted, while all frequencies are being absorbed.

I watched a demonstration of that effect on TV the other day when a blacksmith showed how he hardened and tempered the working point of a pickaxe. He paid carefull attention to the COLOUR OF THE METAL before quenching. A very visible indication of frequency cut-off as temperature fell.

This tells me that there must be a temperature level at which CO2 can no longer radiate at 15 microns (lowest emitting frequency) unless it is fortuitously stimulated by collision with other gas molecules. If this is the case and the cut-off frequency for CO2 is around or below 273K (0C) then the concept of "backradiation" by CO2 in the atmosphere is just pie in the sky.

So the question might be: What is the temperature of a blackbody which is NOT radiating any frequency higher than 15 microns?

[Derek]

Stunning work Richard111, I doubt I am alone in digesting it presently.

" So the question might be: What is the temperature of a blackbody which is NOT radiating any frequency higher than 15 microns? "

One thing does spring to mind, the differences between a gas and a solid emitting IR.

And, OK, so this is the second thing that springs to mind,
would this
" If this is the case and the cut-off frequency for CO2 is around or below 273K (0C) "

possibly (at least partially) explain the other (smaller) frequencies of CO2 gas emissions. ?

[Richard111]

I haven't posted much lately because I feel that AGW is no longer about climate control but about people control.

For what its worth I would like to comment on CO2 in the atmosphere. Caveate: I have no scientific training whatever and I won't bother with
citations as they are easy enough to find for yourself.

It is reported that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is approaching 400ppmv. This means for every 2,500 air molecules one of them
will be CO2. Thus you could say for every 2,500 cubic metres of air there will be the equivalent of 1 cubic metre of CO2. At 15C and pressure of
1.013 bars that will amount to 2.5469x10^25 molecules. Using Avogadro's number you can calculate the MASS of the CO2 molecules in that MASS of
2,500 cubic metres of air. Do the sums, you will be surprised.

Now lets stand that 2,500 cubic metres of air on end to give us a column two and a half kilometres tall on a 1 square metre base. As we travel UP
the column, pressure and density will drop, so TEMPERATURE WILL DROP! Look up dry adiabatic lapse rate and pay attention to the combined effects of potential energy and gravity.

Because of the changing density it is a pain to work out the average amount of CO2 per cubic metre so I will take the pressure temperature
density for the 1,500 metre altitude which is 2.2x10^25 molecules. Applying Avogadro we find there is about 1,600 grams of CO2 (minus a few
decimal points) in our cubic metre of CO2. Think about that, 1,600 grams in over 3,000,000 grams of air (yes, THREE MILLION, I'm being casual with
the numbers, its worse than that!) in our 2,500 metre column of air.

Now lets look at another property of molecules in the air. At STP the empty space between all those molecules in 1 cubic metre of air adds up
to 99.9% of the volume of that 1 cubic metre! So if we crunch up all the CO2 molecules in our 1 cubic metre of CO2 we will have 0.1% solid CO2, or
the volume of 1 litre (1 thousandth of a cubic metre).

1 litre is a cube of 10 centimetres a side. So the surface area of the cube is 6 hundreths of a square metre. Bear with me now. Lets roll that
CO2 out into a sheet 2 square metres in area but now just 1/2 a millimetre thick. That will have a surface area of over 4 SQUARE METRES!

Lets heat both masses equaly, the cube and the sheet, to any temperature above ambient air temperature and allow them to cool. Which mass cools
fastest? Bingo! You're right! The mass with the greatest surface area will cool faster. But that mass of CO2, all 1,600 grams, is actually a
GAS! Thus EVERY MOLECULE IS THE SURFACE OF THAT GAS FOR COOLING!

So we see that CO2 gas in the atmosphere can cool VERY quickly. This means it can readily absorb radiant heat (IR) and very quickly pass this
energy to the surrounding air molecules and warm them up. Oooo.... this is looking bad! So how much energy is being absorbed? Actually not much.

The spectroscopic fingerprint of CO2 gas is just 3 narrow bands of IR. Of the three bands only the 15 micron band has much energy. The figures vary
so I will take the worst case. 8%. Yes, 8 percent of the upwelling IR radiation leaving the ground could be absorbed by CO2.

It looks like 92% of surface radiation is passing straight through the atmosphere and CO2 is absorbing 8% and warming the air. But it is claimed
the CO2 is warming the ground with back radiation! How much? At least half! Wow! 100% radiation is leaving the surface and 4% is coming back!
And THAT is WARMING the surface? Pull the other one.

Lets look at radiation from the atmosphere. It is a well documented fact that all chemical elements above absolute zero (-273C) will radiate in
the infra-red band. So how can any gas at, say -100C, radiate anything? Good question. The answer was was found by two chaps, Maxwell and
Boltzmann, about 140 years ago using statistical analysis. The Maxwell-Boltzmann kinetic energy distribution curves are very much in use
today in the chemical engineering industries where researchers need to know how different mixtures of gases will behave at different operating
temperatures.



Look at these M-B curves. They are disarmingly simple. They look almost like bell curves, only they are not. The right hand descending portion of
the curve, moving towards increasing energy levels, never actually reaches zero. Likewise the left hand descending portion of the curve
never reaches zero energy. The peak of the curve indicates the highest number of molecules at the kinetic energy shown on the X axis. As
temperature drops, energy drops, and the peak moves to the left and grows taller indicting more molecules now have less kinetic energy.
Look at the right hand portion of the curve. It shows less and less molecules are aquiring more and more energy until they are sufficiently
energised to fire off some IR. This applies at any temperature.

If we assume the area under the curve represents the volume of molecules in 1 cubic metre of air, we see that not all the molecules have the same
energy. What we refer to as the temperature of the air is the average kinetic energy of ALL the molecules in that parcel of air.

Now we need to know the level of kinetic energy CO2 needs to have to radiate anything in the 15 micron band. I have noted it seems to be in
the order of 600 metres per second. Thus for an M-B curve for an average temperature of 15C, the peak of the curve will be centred at about 400
metres per second. Looking at the curve we will see that only a small amount of area under the curve is to the right of the 600 metre per
second mark, (about 20%) thus only 0.04% of that small volume will have CO2 molecules with sufficient energy to radiate IR.

When CO2 absorbs IR it is highly unlikely to re-radiate that IR unless it happens to be already near the required energy level. Thus CO2 is indeed
warming the lower atmosphere and adding to the convective upward movement of the air already warmed by contact with the surface. Any increase in
the already miniscule "backradiation" is vanishingly small. How small? Think one fifth (20%) of 4% which is 0.8% of the 390W/m^2 from the ground.

I am unable to believe CO2 in the atmosphere has any impact on climate.

[Richard111]

I was able to talk my local library into getting hold of a copy of Perry's Chemical Engineers Handbook 8th Edition. The book, which is huge, actually comes from the British Library, and at no charge to me!!!

Well, now I have it in my hot little hands, I find sadly, that most of it it so far over my head as to be almost useless to me.

All the info is about very high temperature stuff. I found this graph of emissity of CO2 and H2O interesting but note the temperature is at 1,500 degrees Kelvin!!! Rather warmer than anything recorded in our current atmosphere.



You can clearly see the CO2 fingerprint of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns. There is considerable broadening at the 15um band, understandable at this temperature if the level of CO2 is much higher than our 395ppmv. I would dearly love to see this graph when temperature is at say 300K.

The bit that really caught my interest is the H2O line (dashed line). It almost completely swamps the CO2 except for the 4.3um band.

Thus it would appear that "backradiation" from H2O equals or exceeds the "backradiation" from CO2 in the 2 - 20 micron bands and we know CO2 does not appear anywhere else in the infrared band but H2O appears many more times towards the 100 micron band.

So it seems to me any "backradiation" is almost entirely from H2O unless the relative humidity is very low which happens only at the poles and the desert areas.

Why is there no legislation to control water vapour in the atmosphere?

[Derek]

Richard111,
That plot looks so familiar.
Then I remembered Part 1 of my MLO investigations, on this now quite old thread.
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-702.html
The plots in Part 1 are presumably quite close to the 300K you mention..
http://s53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/De...hotos/MLO/

ie,

[Richard111]

(04-03-2011 11:58 AM)Derek Wrote:  Richard111,
That plot looks so familiar.
Then I remembered Part 1 of my MLO investigations, on this now quite old thread.

Umm, ahh, yes, quite. The graph I showed has a baseline in microns so the CO2 band at 15um is wavenumber 666cm^-1 (actually 666.7 but it tickles my mischief bone) 2.4um is 4166.67cm^-1(off the scale) and 4.3um is 2325.6cm^-1. I think I can make out the 4.3um peak but the 15um peak seems smaller, and of course the graphs are mirrored.
For those who struggle with wavenumbers and microns the conversion follows:

um to cm^-1 . . 10,000 divide by microns(um) = wavenumber(cm^-1)

cm^-1 to um . . 10,000 divide by wavenumber(cm^-1) = microns(um)

Below is a graph that shows IR with both microns and wavenumbers.



Several points caught my attention with this; first the highest temperature band is 270K or -3C !!! next the 4.3 and 2.4 micron bands are off the scale possibly because the radiation levels are too low to show up. And last but not least these two graphs are centered on the 10 micron window, from about 13um to 8um.

Quite how to interpret the information to corelate with levels of "backradiation" to the surface is still beyond me. But it does seem to show that only the 15um band is having any effect at all. When you consider that the IR band is from 3 to 100 microns there aint much happening at 15 microns really.

[Derek]

(04-04-2011 05:47 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  When you consider that the IR band is from 3 to 100 microns there aint much happening at 15 microns really.

Do you remember Brego's comments in regards of what frequency / wavelength liquid water (clouds) radiates at....
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-655.html

Seems to be going up and away, but not down and supposedly warming to me..

Also, have you seen Noor Van Andel's latest paper yet (mischief - I know you have..),
in that he shows the stratosphere cooling, and makes the observation that is
the only shown effect of CO2 upon climate to date, increased cooling, high up, (where I might note CO2 has the time to radiate)..
Seemingly what radiates down, gets absorbed and reradiated upwards untill it escapes.
Oh, and then there is Nasif Nahle's paper on mean free path length of a photon.
Yup, it seems water and it's abundance in the atmosphere does have quite an effect,
at blocking movement down, and increasing radiation up and away,
with the help of CO2 high up in the atmosphere, as has been observed.
Something along these lines I think,

[Richard111]

I found this interesting. LINK

[Sunsettommy]

(04-05-2011 01:30 PM)Richard111 Wrote:  I found this interesting. LINK

Once anyone get beyond the TSI levels.Will see that the Sun DOES have a large effect on the changeable climate.

[Richard111]

(04-05-2011 02:18 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  Once anyone get beyond the TSI levels.Will see that the Sun DOES have a large effect on the changeable climate.

Yes. This is a different budget figure but I can't get the figures to add up.
The energy bars seem to be proportionate to the energy level so it was the unnumbered little bar labled "Greenhouse effect" that caught me attention. It is smaller than the bar labled "29% lost as latent and sensible heat" and since they are both the same colour I assume a relationship.

To me this says the "greenhouse effect" can't be computed and/or is lost in the total heat transfer process. My hearing is bad so I didn't catch the explanation, about 2 minutes before the capture time, on the video. Also I was too distracted staring at the graphic.

[Sunsettommy]

Quote:He also notes that while the total solar irradiance (TSI) only varies by about .1% over a solar cycle, the solar UV varies by about 10% and that secondary effects on cloud formation may vary up to 30% over solar cycles.

That 10% increase in UV bands is a distinct increase in energy inflow.

[Richard111]

Over at Jennifer Marohasy's blog there is a lively discussion between Nasif Nahle and one neutrino involving formula at close quarters applied with much emissivity and a minimum of absorbtivity. Some of the supporting cast include cementafriend and cohenite. There are many more.

Although it is interesting reading the math is way over my head and is not helping my understanding of how things work, especially the trace GAS carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

So I thought I would write a comment here describing the level of my confusion and hopefully some kind reader might provide a link or links that will show me the way to enlightenment.

I wish to talk only about the carbon dioxide molecule, CO2, which floats about in the atmosphere, (well mixed) at a ratio of about 1:2,500 (400ppmv) with all the other molecules.

These CO2 molecules are quite lonely little things that spend their time bashing into and being bashed in turn by the much more numerous N2 and O2 molecules plus the occasional Ar molecule and other stuff. While all this bashing is taking place the molecules are exchanging kinetic energy and ramping up and down with regard to their local air temperatures, see my posts 129 and 131 above about the M-B kinetic distribution. At some stage a CO2 molecule will aquire enough energy to fire off a photon of IR energy. But is this purely a function of kinetic energy? Or are the high speed bashes changing the "state" of the molecule as well as the speed?

Have a look at this LINK to get some idea of what the molecule gets up to.

Quote:Because CO2 has more than two atoms, it can vibrate several different ways. These different types of motion occur at different frequencies.
The frequencies of these motions may be calculated based upon the mass of the atoms and the strength of the bonds. Much like the motion of a spring is calculated in a physics class. The animations that are presented here are based upon this type of calculation.

We see that the CO2 molecule can vibrate and/or rotate with asymetric stretch; symetric stretch(not IR active); vertical bend and horizantal bend(degenerate mode with same motion as vertical bend but rotated by 90 degrees) and each state appears to be frequency dependant such that absorbing a frequency specific photon will induce a particular "state".

First question: by absorbing energy and aquiring a new "state" has the kinetic energy of the molecule changed? (speed increase/decrease?).
Second question: if the newly aquired "state" is allowed to decay naturally the molecule will emitt a photon equal to the one it absorbed but how long is the decay time in relation to molecular collisions in the atmosphere? (this time will vary with air density)
Third question: if absorption has only changed the "state" of the molecule how is the increased energy transfered during collisions, is the molecule now in a more "bouncy" state?

I could go on and on but to simplify my thoughts it would appear that GHG molecules absorb more than they radiate at low altitude thus warming the lower air levels. At higher altitude the GHG molecules appear to radiate more than they absorb thus cooling the upper air.

Remember that air density at 7,000 metres is half sea level density so distance travelled between molecular collisions is doubled and it is also possible that the mean speed is also reduced. (lower temperature)

The fact that GH gases warm the lower atmosphere has no effect on the adiabatic lapse rate which is due to earth's gravity. The convective motion UPWARDS increases which is an INCREASE IN COOLING. Check out dry adiabatic lapse rates in deserts, equitorial zones and polar regions. There is a huge temperature range but lapse rates are the same.

I am unable to find any reason whatsoever for the claimed effect of GH gases warming the surface.