The Radiative (Climate Pseudoscience) Greenhouse Effect
Written by Joseph E Postma
For those who still have a difficult time with why the basis of the climate science version of the greenhouse effect, which creates political alarmism, is a fraud, THIS IS WHY!! (and yes that is me yelling!):
Are they really that stupid to not understand it? That is exactly what their model is pretending to do:
Now let’s look at this realistically in terms of power and heat:
So, we have heat (power) coming in from the Sun (left cord). This warms up the ground surface (supplies power to power bar). Heat comes out of the surface and goes into the atmosphere (power goes from the plug to the black extension cord). Heat then goes from the atmosphere back to the surface (power goes from the black extension cord back into the power bar). This doubles the amount heat (power) provided by the Sun (input cord). If you plug in another extension cord to one of the free receptacles, you will have twice the power.
Of course, that doubled heat or power should now go back into the atmosphere (first black extension cord), and come back and cause more heating again. This is of course ignored for convenience…the process arbitrarily stops at one cycle because if you simply follow the logic, the scheme betrays its sophistry. Hence, ignore the logic.
Do GCM’s Model a Flat Earth?
That in climate science General Circulation Models (GCM) use a spherical rotating Earth is a red-herring – that’s not the point. Such models do not, and cannot, contain a radiative greenhouse effect as promulgated, in any case.
The point is that the origin of the meme of the radiative greenhouse effect is found with these one dimensional (1-D) models such as the K-T diagram (Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget), and these “models” have nothing to do with reality because they contradict basic physical reality. And hence this radiative greenhouse effect meme is not based in reality, i.e. it is wrong.
There is no other origin of the meme of the radiative greenhouse effect than these reality-violating 1-D models, and the defence of these 1-D models by people who are unable to admit what is wrong with them, precisely because they do not comprehend how they violate physical reality, indicates that we’re dealing with a very obvious form of pseudoscience, or just very, very bad science.