No Greenhouse Effect Here

In a previous article, I determined the average surface temperature of Earth without an atmosphere using a collection of equal-area pieces of our planet. What’s interesting is that many places, on average, are hotter without the so-called greenhouse effect than with it! And it’s not a small amount of places!

The following are latitude bands and the amount of area (km2) that have higher shortwave input than longwave output:

$ . ; lats

+1.25 540799
-1.25 1390626
-3.75 2081970
-6.25 2320620
-8.75 2555916
-11.25 2786508
-13.75 2856622
-16.25 3793286
-18.75 4958656
-21.25 6501264
-23.75 7253134
-26.25 7659135
-28.75 7587944
-31.25 7734300
-33.75 8095815
-36.25 8432349
-38.75 8445865
-41.25 8211184
-43.75 7806290
-46.25 7617951
-48.75 7182576
-51.25 6887621
-53.75 6502608
-56.25 5873052
-58.75 4387233
-61.25 2404670
-63.75 538307

$ . ; lats | awk '{A+=$2}END{print A}'


A latitude band is the latitude shown +/- 1.25 degrees.

The total area is 142,406,301 km2, which is nearly 28% of the entire Earth !

Data for all 6596 cells can be downloaded here. Where 3rd column is positive is what I’m discussing.

Common sense tells us that if the radiation-based greenhouse effect doesn’t work for nearly 28% of the planet, it probably doesn’t work anywhere at all.

Nearly the entire anti-greenhouse effect shown here is in southern hemisphere oceans.

That’s all. Enjoy 🙂


# Zoe Phin, 2022/07/06
# File:
# Run: . ; download ; short | avg ; long | avg

grab() { wget -qO- $1 | od -An -tf4 -v -w4 --endian=big; }
download() {
    wget -O grid
    grab "" >
    grab "" >
    grab "" > sw.dn
    grab "" > sw.up
    grab "" > lw.up
avg() { awk '{S+=$1;N+=1}END{printf "%.5f\n",S/N}'; }
short() { 
    paste sw.dn sw.up | awk '!/*/{
        printf "%.5f\n", ($1*(1-$3/$2)/$4/5.670367E-8)^0.25
long() { awk '{ printf "%.5f\n", ($1/5.670367E-8)^0.25}' lw.up; }	
compare() {
    short > .sh; long > .lo
    sed 1,2d grid > .ta
    paste .sh .lo .ta | awk '{
        printf "%.3f %.3f %+8.3f %d %+6.2f\n", $1, $2, $1-$2, $10, $8-90
lats() {
    compare | sed \$d | awk '$3~/+/{L[$5]+=$4} END {for(l in L)print l,L[l]}' | sort -rn

Published by Zoe Phin

46 thoughts on “No Greenhouse Effect Here

  1. The greenhouse gas effect is *not* defined as the difference between shortwave input to the surface and longwave output by the surface. I have no idea why you think this post is relevant.


    1. Do you believe the surface would be warmer (averaged day/night) with an atmosphere filled with GHGs than without?

      Well, this doesn’t work at 28% of places.

      Yes, the GH effect has two different definitions/contexts. When one is debunked, it’s switched to the other.

      The other definition is so stupid, that one can also call the top kilometer layer of dirt the greenhouse effect. Why? Because there is a temperature difference between 1km below and the surface.


  2. What you are looking at is the result of advection. It has nothing at all to do with the greenhouse effect.

    Advection is the ceaseless horizontal transport of energy, by the ocean and the atmosphere, from the tropics where most of the energy enters the planet, to the poles where it is much freer to leave the planet. Here’s a graphic of the locations.

    The amount of energy involved in this flow is stupendous. It is a constant flow of about 20 petawatts. This is about 1,000 times the flow of primary energy consumed by humans.

    Tom’s point is correct. “The greenhouse gas effect is *not* defined as the difference between shortwave input to the surface and longwave output by the surface.”

    You are looking at the greenhouse effect as modified by horizontal advection of stupendous amounts of energy. That’s something very different.



    1. Oh, as if I didn’t know this lame argument wouldn’t be used.

      You didn’t even look at MY data: 98%+ Southern Hemisphere Oceans.

      “You are looking at the greenhouse effect as modified by horizontal advection of stupendous amounts of energy.”

      No. The horizontal advection can explain it all. You’re just getting the GH effect involved for NO reason.

      The GH effect should work everywhere. Look at its design. Who cares if there is horizontal heat transfer? You have constant access to GHGs for your back radiation heating. How do they fail to not enhance every place as compared to not having an atmosphere?

      Now be productive and demonstrate how lateral heating COULD explain surface temperatures without needing GHGs. Can you pursue your own anti-thesis? A real scientist could.


    2. Look at the moon, Willis. The average hottest places are Rocks and dirt next to rocks. The rocks are performing horizontal heat transfer to the dirt all around. And all this without letting themselves be colder than the sun could make them. If the rocks disappeared it would be colder in that spot.

      Does that help?


    1. Willis, what is missing from your research is a valid model of the Earth with an atmosphere but not GHGs. Can you construct such a model?

      You should remove the GH effect of water vapor in this model and see how much advection alone can explain.

      Best regards, -Z


  3. In areas with inverted lapse-rate, the greenhouse-effect purportedly leads to cooling. Antarctica is not on you list…. another indication that the greenhouse effect may indeed be very feeble???


      1. The poles are where the ocean warms the world. It’s also where the ocean is warmed.
        When poles are covered in thick polar sea, the frozen ocean doesn’t warm the world, but since ocean isn’t dumping heat into the polar region, the ocean is cooled a lot less and other factors which warm the ocean [which include oceanic geothermal heat] the average temperature of ocean increases.

        And when ocean warms enough {warms back again] and with Earth orbital changes [Milankovitch cycles]] which cause Ocean surface waters to become warmer [low angle of sunlight on surface ocean waters]. it melts the polar sea, and again warms the polar region. And destroys land glacial ice with lots of rain. And rain melting snow, causes flooding, We had a lot flooding because we have a lot glacial ice. This massive flood also effected global climate, but it did cool the ocean, much. But would have had large affect upon global air temperature.


        1. I thought Antarctica was chlorine-spewing volcano-dotted land–not ocean–under all that ice and snow. I also find graphs that sea level rises linearly as rivers wash uranium-bearing silt into them, the way they do behind dams. It all seemed so real… either that or the sockpuppet is unreal.


  4. There is no greenhouse effect on Venus, either.

    The only thing interesting about Earth is why is it so cold- lately.
    Lately in terms of last few years, lately in last couple of centuries, and lately in terms of
    last couple million years.
    The last couple million of years has been called an Ice Age.
    But this was just the coldest period in longer Ice Age, which is called
    the Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
    Ice Age or ice house global climate which defined having have a polar ice sheet and a cold ocean
    and in last couple, Earth’s largest Island, Greenland also got a ice sheet.

    So, now we have ice sheet in both polar regions. And related what called the Milankovitch cycles
    we have glacial and interglacial periods.
    And the previous interglacial periods have been warmer than interglacial period we are in, called
    Holocene period.
    Anyhow, we in the latter part of Holocene, and it was warmer in the earlier part of Holocene, and we have
    had about 5000 year trend of gradual cooling- with many centuries long dips and rises.
    With last dip called the Little Ice Age.

    Of course our polar bear was around when Earth was much warmer and these warmer periods lasted
    many thousands of of years {with there being no polar sea ice]. And during summer time in early part of
    Holocene, it also no sea ice. And lasted few thousands years. And also Sahara Desert was green during
    this time. Or our green Sahara disappeared about 5000 years ago.
    And it always greens when in the warmest time of interglacial period.


    1. No matter if we found the answer to why it is cold now, we are still left with the question: would it be colder still, had we not increased the amount of CO2 from 280ppm to 415ppm.


      1. The increase from 280 to 415 ppm has been an immeasurable amount. Some are very confident it’s been .2 C or more.
        But there are so many factors which can change air temperature.
        It is said more than 90% of global warming is warming the entire ocean and entire ocean average temperature has increased by about .05 C over last 50 years.
        So, our ocean has been said over our average temperature is about 3.5 C and so it’s increased to about 3.55 C.
        But we have not really measured the temperature of ocean, it could be it’s 3.4 or 3.6 C.

        But terms of heat, the ocean holds 1000 times the heat per 1 C change than the atmosphere or .05 C amount of warming ocean is equal to 50 C increase the atmosphere in terms heat added to Earth global climate.
        But as some have said, the heat is “lost in the ocean”.
        But rather than lost, I think the ocean average temperature is global climate’s temperature.
        Or an ice house global climate has cold ocean, and a cold ocean can ocean which has average ocean temperature of 6 C or more.
        But a 6 C ocean is suppose to be the end of the world, we probably have not had a 6 C ocean in the last 10 million years.
        It is claimed that warmest part of past interglacial periods, had a ocean of 4 C or more.
        If our ocean was 4 C, it would mean a ice free polar sea ice in the summer and the Sahara desert would be more green.
        Many think of it the other way around, IF the Sahara desert was made green [add water to the desert] it could increase global air temperature by more than .5 C.
        We have already greened deserts, California desert produce a lot food. LA was and is desert, Southern and Central California has been greened. And many people resent that this has happened, or against adding even more water to desert. It’s kind of like the book, Dune.. Or more dams are bad.
        Or California is example recent land changes which have some effect upon global air temperature {and might have made some small immeasurable effect on average ocean temperature}

        But we no where close to an ocean which is about 4 C. It takes a very long time to warm the ocean buy .5 C.
        But early in our Holocene, many thousands years, our ocean could been close to being 4 C.
        Or everyone knows we have past our peak temperature, and some people, imagine increased Co2 level could give
        the Holocene a “double peak. And it doesn’t look like that is happening.
        But if it did, I think it would be good thing. Or greening Sahare should increase global air temperature, but that seems to me, it would be a good thing.
        But I think there could cheaper way to warm our world than greening Sahara with lots of water added, or nature can add a lot more water than humans could cheaply do.
        But it would take a long time to warm ocean which in turn, greens the Sahara desert- and just adding water could be done faster.


        1. I have many weird ideas of how to warm our ocean.
          And in addition [and related to weird ideas] that we should make ocean settlements.

          And due to our mad man, Elon Musk wanting a city on Mars. An direct effect of this scheme,
          is it will cause there to be ocean settlement. Or if Musk does 1/2 the stuff he wants, we will have
          ocean settlement. And ocean settlements could be almost as important as a city on Mars.

          But since that kind of future can be seen, I think it would better to start on ocean settlements, now.
          Or get ahead of the curve, so to speak.
          Or waiting for Musk, might seem quite odd, but we don’t have to wait for this to happen.


  5. “Do you believe the surface would be warmer (averaged day/night) with an atmosphere filled with GHGs than without?”

    Obviously. Do us all a favor and calculate the following from your model. Total shortwave energy absorbed in a day. Total longwave emitted in a day. Average global temperature.

    This is the case if ALL LWR emitted by the surface is able to travel directly to space. If there is a resistance to that free flow of radiation from the surface to space then the surface must warm in order to pass the same amount of LWR out.


    1. Zoe’s “evidence” in this post is that energy into surface from shortwave is not all returned by surface as long wave. But she is reporting on real Earth, whose surfaces are not in equilibrium. So obviously and empirically as Willis described, much of the absorbed energy is distributed to matter below the surface skin—notably the oceans’ vast depth and breadth of water, since shortwave penetrates rather deep. That quantity of energy will not be radiated out of surface, because it is not excess of equilibrium. So Zoe’s “evidence” has zero relevance to the existence of the greenhouse gas effect.


    2. Alex, my reply to you was in addition to your excellent point that the surface is ejecting as long wave, not just the energy it gets from shortwave, but also energy it gets from long wave coming from greenhouse gases. The sum of those of course is larger than just the incoming from shortwave. My additional point is that even that total LW + SW absorbed will not all be emitted by the surface, as long as the surface has sub-skin matter at lower energy than the skin.


      1. Tom, you know that doesn’t explain what I show. What I show is that it’s colder in some places with having an atmosphere, specifically mostly the southern oceans. Willis’ calculation is actually completely differrent – something I knew and could’ve done long ago.


        1. Zoe, your claim literally is “The following are latitude bands and the amount of area (km2) that have higher shortwave input than longwave output.” If you mean something else you need to explain it there.


        2. This is what Willis essentially shows:

          Notice that mine is completely different? I have a deficit running from roughly the equator to the antarctic circle.

          I presumed people would be smart enough to see the difference from this well known phenomena!


        3. “It’s colder in some places.” Of course there is drastic local variation across the Earth. In no way does that mere fact undermine the existence of the greenhouse gas effect.


        4. Zoe, you persistently dodge the initial, and critical, fact that your evidence of SW > LW out in a planet that has sub-skin energy lower than skin energy, has nothing to do with demonstrating the existence of greenhouse gas effect.


        5. No I have not delved into a different topic. SW in > LW out as evidence against the existence of the greenhouse gas effect is literally your entire claim of this post of yours above all the comments. Your claim is false as in “not even wrong.”


        6. The opposing side hasn’t presented anything but affirming-the-consequent fallacy: this is happening and we have GHGs.

          Here’s a “good” argument you could have used:

          On Venus, your calculations would fail everywhere. It’s always warmer with the atmosphere. On Earth, we don’t have enough GHGs, so some places are actually colder with their presence.


        7. Again you dodged the fact that your SW into surface > LW out of surface is entirely irrelevant as evidence of whether a greenhouse gas effect exists. You seem to be barely comprehensibly claiming it is evidence against your own novel and bizarre straw person claim “Greenhouse gas effect emits enough LW that is absorbed by the surface so that, when combined with the SW absorbed by the surface, that total absorbed energy 100% compensates for the absorbed energy that is distributed from the surface’s skin to matter below that skin, and it does that so for 100% of the Earth’s surface 100% of the time, so that LW out from surface is equal to or greater than SW in to surface for 100% of the Earth’s surface 100% of the time.” Congratulations on being original. I have never seen that particular bizarre claim by anyone ever. There is zero reason for anyone to claim that straw person claim to be true. So you have knocked down your own bizarre, unique straw person. You have done nothing that in any way is evidence regarding the existence of the greenhouse gas effect that scientists actually claim, and you have done nothing that in any way is evidence regarding even the magnitude of the greenhouse gas effect that any scientist anywhere ever has claimed.


  6. “This is the case if ALL LWR emitted by the surface is able to travel directly to space.”
    It said 40 watts of 240 watts, goes directly to space.
    If there was same amount water vapor and same average temperature, but there was zero CO2
    how much of increase would go to directly to space?
    I think the 40 watt would increase to 45 watts.

    And water vapor prevents more than CO2.
    Or we have about 40,000 ppm of water vapor in Tropics compared +400 ppm of CO2.
    And if they was 400 ppm of water vapor [dry mars has 210 ppm of water vapor, btw} then
    with equal amounts, water blocks more than CO2, And the rest of world average of water vapor
    is about 3000 ppm- or no where in world do we have less than 400 ppm of water vapor.
    Anyhow my number is 45, what you say it would be?
    Of course everything without CO2, animals and plants would die and lowest level of CO2 which has occured
    has been 180 ppm, which barely enough to feed plants. And which occurred about 20,000 years ago.
    Or we in an ice house global climate which has low levels of CO2 and 400 ppm is a low level of CO2.

    Another question if our CO2 was 800 ppm how much lower would amount going to space directly be, then about 40 watts on average. Less than 38 watts per square meter [again assuming water vapor remains about the same.
    Related to this, is how much effect weather and amount water vapor in the air, effect seeing infrared objects in space.
    Or Telescope look in IR, go to top of mountain to see better.
    And obviously in orbit is much much than anywhere on the Earth’s surface.


  7. This analysis depends on the quality of grid temperature data.
    In fact. there is too little grid data.
    Data are defined as accurate measurements.

    What actually exists are mainly adjusted data.
    After adjustments, data no longer exist.
    What you have are numbers that have been changed
    by humans guessing what the data would have been
    if measured correctly i the first place.

    In addition, there are a significant number of grid cells
    that contain some or all guesses — infilling.

    Considering the low quality of the existing surface temperature data
    and the perceived integrity of the people collecting
    those data, and doing the infilling, this analysis proves nothing.

    Real science starts with an analysis of data quality, and whether
    that quality is sufficient to answer the question being studied.
    No data quality analysis here.


  8. Zoe-I’m arguing with some clown on Twitter who’s only response to your posts is “no science credentials”. Obviously if they could refute your data “credentials” would be irrelevant. I saw somewhere where you listed them. Could you repeat? Thanks


    1. My physics credentials? Not much. And it was a long time ago:

      Got a perfect score in SAT Math. I got a 5 in AP Physics C. Got 28 AP credits at a top 5 university. Took 5 physics and astronomy courses at university while getting my Economics degree. 1 course shy of a minor.

      Graduated magna cum laude overall in only 3 years.

      I don’t remember everything in physics, as I went to work on wall street. The literal street itself.

      Work paid for a masters degree in computational finance from a top 30 university.

      I’m good at programming. I’m great at predicting the market. I’ve done a ton of research on various industries, including energy.

      I left wall street and started my own businesses.

      I kept this brief.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. This is Zoe’s blog and I’m surprised no one mentions geothermal heat may be part of the equation … 🙂


      1. Heat can be “lost” in the ocean for thousands of years.
        Over a thousand years of time it is not small.
        Or for more than 50 years, more than 90% of global warming has been “lost” in ocean and it’s an .05 C of ocean warmth. It seems one lose .5 C of ocean warmth for a thousand years.
        Also ocean has kinds of ocean waves. And ocean completely covered by a few meters polar sea ice, doesn’t have waves. And without convection heat transfer, ocean water or any water is very good insulation.
        And with a still solar pond with salt gradient, 80 C water can under 30 C water. Or solar ponds can useful to “trap a lot of heat”.
        Anyhow, above the frozen surface of a ocean, air temperature can be -50 C. But that is not possible if surface of ocean is liquid. Or liquid ocean prevent air above it to get very cold and frozen ocean doesn’t warm or lose heat to atmosphere.
        Or glacial periods are when oceans near polar regions lose heat for thousands of years. Geothermal heat is one part of what warms the oceans. And 1 degree change in ocean average temperature has huge effect upon global climate- as compared to atmosphere 1 C of ocean is equal to heat of 1000 C atmosphere.
        And is why one can massive “global warming” when Earth is the coldest depths of glaciation period.
        It’s magical trick. Global climate is about how warm the average temperature of the ocean. and ocean can be the warmest when land in covered in ice.
        Or Snowball Earth is impossible because of oceanic geothermal energy. Though also not possible because 40% of Earth is tropics and tropics get more than 1/2 of sunlight reaching 100% of earth surface. But if more 1/2 of ocean surface was sea ice it increases effect of geothermal heating.
        [[And if more than 1/2 ocean were sea ice, it would wreck surfing]]


        1. ‘Or for more than 50 years, more than 90% of global warming has been “lost” in ocean”

          Accurate ocean temperature measurements began with ARGO floats
          about 20 years ago. Not 50 years ago. 90% must be a wild guess.


  10. Some work came in and I am behind on the arguments. There is a huge difference between the northern and southern hemispheres which is relevant to claims that coolant and hairspray gases, not volcanoes, eat ozone where only 1/9 of humanity lives. Now that Petr Beckmann is dead, mainly Zoe and Tony Heller tie their arguments to measurements–physics–and generate charts to illustrate specific context. I need to search out the episode I missed.


  11. “Throughout Earth’s climate history (Paleoclimate) its climate has fluctuated between two primary states: greenhouse and icehouse Earth. Both climate states last for millions of years and should not be confused with glacial and interglacial periods, which occur as alternate phases within an icehouse period and tend to last less than 1 million years.There are five known Icehouse periods in Earth’s climate history, which are known as the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Late Paleozoic, and Late Cenozoic glaciations.”

    So, we are in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age which started 33.9 million years ago.
    What is an Age:
    A period in the history of the earth, usually shorter than an epoch.
    The Ice Age.
    What is an epoch:
    A unit of geologic time that is a division of a period.
    (geology) A subdivision of an era, typically lasting from tens to hundreds of millions of years, see Appendix: Geologic timescale.

    When will the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, end?
    No one knows.
    But Late Cenozoic could end and the Ice Age could continue:
    Wiki: The Cenozoic [‘new life’} “is Earth’s current geological era, representing the last 66 million years of Earth’s history. It is characterized by the dominance of mammals, birds and flowering plants, a cooling and drying climate, and the current configuration of continents. ”
    So AI could be a new [and significant] lifeform. Or dinosaurs could regain dominance. The world could become less dry and cold- or more than 1/3 of total land area is desert. So if we only had 1/10th of land area being desert and remained this way. That would be significantly less dry and less cold. Also an aspect of dry and cold conditions are having grassland instead of forests. So maybe 1/6th of total land being desert and 3 or 4 times as much forests area.
    And/or reduction of scrub forests which are replaced by tree forests.
    This happens during interglacial periods, or when the Holocene was in it’s warmer period: Holocene Climate Optimum. Wiki:
    “The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period that occurred in the interval roughly 9,000 to 5,000 years ago BP, with a thermal maximum around 8000 years BP. It has also been known by many other names, such as Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Megathermal, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, Hypsithermal, and Mid-Holocene Warm Period. ”
    The Sahara Desert was green- mostly grassland with forests, river, and lakes [which no longer exist] .
    And great forest, the Northern forest: “The Russians traditionally call it “Taiga”. Was much larger.
    But interglacial period are relatively short warm period and most last 2 million years has more frozen wasteland and more desert conditions.
    Though 20 million ago was ice house climate {in an Ice Age] which was much warmer “all the time”, they we are now and during the Holocene Climate Optimum.
    Anyhow, short answer is our ocean average temperature is 3.5 C and it would have become about 10 C.
    And only way that could happen within say 2000 years is if Humans cause it. And humans would need to do more than simply having higher CO2 levels. They would have attempt to warm the ocean.

    People claim human have warmed the ocean by about .05 C in last 50 years, at rate {if that is actually true] it’s going to take a lot more then 2000 years.
    And to quote NASA: “In fact, more than 90 percent of Earth’s warming during the past 50 years has gone into the ocean. ”

    But for “end of world warming”, or CAGW type stuff, an increase of ocean by .5 C [ ten times more than .05 C}
    would be dramatic- ice free polar sea ice and a lot of greening of Sahara and the Taiga growing bigger.
    Or .5 C will make us a lot less of a dry world. But everyone one knows we going back to glaciation period. The .05 added will not make much of different, though .5 C added will add thousands of years.


  12. Another excellent analysis and conclusion! Would it be possible to get the following conc the hotter 28% of earth surface:
    • the average calculated temperature
    • the average (W/m^2) solar insolation and corresponding surface albedo.
    • the average percentage air albedo?
    I ask you because in my own analysis based on a point estimate using intersecting ortogonal cosinus curves latitudinally and longitudinally, I estimated an average insolation of almost 833 W/m^2 as for +/- 30° N to S (approx. 50% of earth surface area) during daytime (12 hours, nearly correct), before air albedo, using 1370 W/m^2 at TOA. Using your data it would be possible to calibrate my own estimation of daytime potential average warming from the sun.


  13. The classic bait-switch move when alarmists say GHG, mainly CO2, traps heat. Then when it’s shown not to, they switch the definition to hotter-than-otherwise be. Thus allowing any temperature anywhere to be proof of trapped heat.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: