The temperature lapse rate in the atmosphere is not caused by conduction, convection or gravity, as physicists claim. It would be caused by radiation from saturated greenhouse gases.

What is meant by temperature lapse rate is the change in temperature with altitude. It is said to be linear, meaning the same rate at all points. Supposedly, an "adiabatic effect" causes temperature to decrease with height due to lower pressure. It doesn't explain how heat is replaced as it is lost.

Physicist claim conduction is the cause. It's totally absurd. Conduction is extremely slow, as air is a strong insulator for heat conduction. Conduction would be so slow that other influences would create much variation rather than the close linearity that is found.

Vertical convection would not be the cause of the lapse rate, as there is no large-scale vertical convection in the atmosphere other than cumulous clouds, which are rare. Cumulous clouds do no follow the same gradient as the lapse rate, because their chimney effect creates extreme temperature variations.

If there were significant vertical convection in the atmosphere, it would destroy clouds and result in a homogeneous haze at the top of the troposphere. Clouds stay in place showing that there is no vertical convection acting upon them.

To assume that vertical convection creates the laspe rate in a very slow manner, so it is not highly visible, would not be true, because about 91% of the solar energy entering the earth leaves from the atmosphere, according to NASA, requiring very rapid replacement of energy in the atmosphere. My estimate is that 96% of the earth's energy leaves from the atmosphere.

Instead of conduction or convection, it would be radiation which creates the temperature lapse rate of the atmosphere. Radiation would cover the large distances very rapidly resulting in a highly uniform gradient, as is observed.

The most likely way radiation creates the gradient would be due to absorption by saturated "greenhouse gases." Saturated greenhouse gases would do approximately the same thing as conduction but at a speed of about a million times faster.

To clarify, first is the concept of saturation. It means the first ten percent of the greenhouse gases used up all radiation available to them, so more of such gases does nothing more. All significant greenhouse gases saturated long ago.

Carbon dioxide absorbs all radiation available to it in about 10 meters. Water vapor, in 20-50 cm, depending upon humidity. A rough average for all greenhouse gases would be one meter.

This means radiation moves energy from one molecule to another in one meter steps. Conduction moves energy from one molecule to another in one nanometer steps. The steps are a billion times larger for radiation between saturated greenhouse gases. But re-radiation is slower than conduction. If it is a thousand times slower, the process is still a million times faster for covering the same distance.

So radiation between saturated greenhouse gases would move heat upward about a million times faster than conduction. Greenhouse gases are only relevant to absorption, while emission would involved all of the molecules in the atmosphere, as heat is rapidly exchanged between them. And then about half of the radiation would be relevant, as about half goes around greenhouse gases and radiates into space.

If radiation moves heat upward that fast, would not the atmosphere be totally uniform instead of cooling with altitude? Physicists attribute the gradient to adiabatic effect, which means temperature decreases with pressure. That concept is absurd for the atmosphere, because it is a one time effect, not a continuous effect. As energy is lost, it must be replaced, and the replacement process is unrelated to the adiabatic effect.

Instead, the gradient would be due to the fact that about half of emitted radiation goes into space, and about half gets re-absorbed by greenhouse gases nearby. This means energy is being lost (reduced by half) each step of the way as it moves upward. The amount lost might not be exactly half, but a gradient would result from whatever the proportion is.