I don't find the debunking article persuasive. It says, "Imagine you take a blob of warm air from the surface up to some height... this transformation has to change the temperature of the air in the blob."

No it doesn't.

The nearest it gets to supporting that claim is, "It turns out to be very easy to derive an equation that says that the temperature decreases by 10 degrees C per about 1000 m of height with no vertical motion. That explains why the air above the surface is colder than the air at the surface."

I'd like to see the assumptions of deriving that equation. Without seeing how the equation is derived we can't jump straight to the "That explains why" part. I guess the equation he's talking about assumes the atmosphere is static and is simply deals with how the upper atmosphere is colder because it can radiate into space, whereas the lower atmosphere can only exchange radiation with warm ground or the cold-but-still-warmer-than-space upper atmosphere. If so, it says nothing about what happens when you "move a blob of warm air".

Maybe building these things is not feasible or maybe the effect is not significant, but it doesn't look physically impossible to me.