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!):

infinite power

Are they really that stupid to not understand it?  That is exactly what their model is pretending to do:

GHE fig 1
See the “atmospheric layer”?  That’s the cord going back into the plug (surface), to make the plug provide more power, i.e., have higher temperature.  Let’s see it again:
GHE fig 2
Again, there’s the atmosphere (cord), going back into the plug (surface) to make the plug provide even more power (have higher temperature). A fancy diagram with straight lines and numbers on it seems to really be able to confuse, and convince, pseudoscientists into believing anything.

Now let’s look at this realistically in terms of power and heat:

GHE fig 3

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.

Tags: , , , ,

Comments (27)

  • Avatar

    WWDJ

    |

    In short I provided all of the scientific evidence to show that the 2nd law is not broken. And that we are concerned with IR and therefore bond stretching and not the bumping of Electrons to a higher state by UV.

    I am not going to type out my entire explanation again until I see that it will not be deleted.

    • Avatar

      D o u g C o t t o n

      |

      I’m happy to discuss why it’s not carbon dioxide after all, so please read my comment just posted at the end of [url=http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-echo-chamber-effect-misleading-people-on-climate-change.html#comment-11180][b]this[/b][/url] thread.

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      [quote name=”WWDJ”]

      In short I provided all of the scientific evidence to show that the 2nd law is not broken. And that we are concerned with IR and therefore bond stretching and not the bumping of Electrons to a higher state by UV.
      Indeed The second law only states that “energy” cannot be spontaneously transferred in any direction of higher potential! You only wish to confuse such law with your inane fantasy!

      I am not going to type out my entire explanation again until I see that it will not be deleted.[/quote]

      OK please explain why your post should not be deleted, as an example of complete incompetence!

      • Avatar

        WWDJ

        |

        [quote name=”Pat Obar”]

        OK please explain why your post should not be deleted, as an example of complete incompetence![/quote]

        Do whatever you like.

        If you give a fool a fact, he will call you a fool.

        Your gibberish is the tripe of a fourth graded. Yet I spoke to you politely, though it is obvious that you use other people’s words to support your denial.

        Perhaps you should understand what you are trying to talk about, so that you don’t sound so stupid to those of us that have degrees.

        P.S. the above is an insult, as I am tired of interacting with a retard.

        • Avatar

          Pat Obar

          |

          [quote name=”WWDJ”][quote name=”Pat Obar”]

          OK please explain why your post should not be deleted, as an example of complete incompetence![/quote]

          Do whatever you like.

          If you give a fool a fact, he will call you a fool.

          Your gibberish is the tripe of a fourth graded. Yet I spoke to you politely, though it is obvious that you use other people’s words to support your denial.

          Perhaps you should understand what you are trying to talk about, so that you don’t sound so stupid to those of us that have degrees.

          P.S. the above is an insult, as I am tired of interacting with a retard.[/quote]

          I did not know a degree in stupidity was granted! From where did you receive such a degree?

          • Avatar

            WWDJ

            |

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”]

            I did not know a degree in stupidity was granted! From where did you receive such a degree?[/quote]

            Sure they have degrees in stupidity. They say “Masters in Climate Change Denial”.

            You received your degree in stupid when you slid out of your mothers vagina with an extra chromosome.

            Unlike you I will never win a gold medal at the special olympics, but I will find contentment in the knowledge that I am not mentally retarded.

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            “I will find contentment in the knowledge that I am not mentally retarded.”

            Your on this site clearly demonstrate that you have no knowledge of any sort! 😆

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            Your writings on this site, clearly demonstrate that you have no knowledge of any sort! 😆

  • Avatar

    WWDJ

    |

    I posted a long reply, but it was deleted.

    I hope the admin is reviewing it and not excluding it because there is a narrative of denial established on this site.

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    People use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in all sorts of inappropriate ways to support the “greenhouse effect” unproven hypothesis.

    From Planck curves – which is the accepted science defining a radiative flux – it is easy to see that a hot object is continually emitting not only significantly more energy than a cooler object but it also emits at higher energy “photons” – if you like – where the cooler object does not emit any at all.

    The argument about whether one can force an object to increase in temperature by summing 2 fluxes from cooler objects seems to me to be absolutely stupid !

    This argument is akin to filling an object with low energy until it “swells” in temperature such that it emits higher energy “photons” – sort of like pushing long enough on a large object which you cannot move but if you push long enough you will move it.

    What a joke.

    Pat is absolutely correct when he quotes Einstein’s photoelectric effect. Text books explain thia as an electron in a photoelectric sensitive material with incident “photons” either absorb all of the energy or none at all !!

    The absorption is dependent on the incident energy and the ability to overcome the “work function resistance”.

    Einstein’s ideas on this are accepted as fundamental.

    Bohr’s model of the hydrogen atom is explained in a similar manner. Electrons absorb all of the incident energy or none at all leading to the typical line spectra of gases!

    This is fundamental science but when it comes to the “greenhouse effect” all flies out the window.

    [b]The theory of CO2 absorption bands due to flexing and bending is completely wrong in at least one prediction. Theory says there should be an absorption band at wavenumber 1537 which doesn’t exist ![/b]

    I always thought if you wanted to make something hotter you had to supply more energy than it was losing !

    Place hundreds of ice cubes in a thermally insulated container of air and the temperature of everything in the container will decrease – surely ?

    • Avatar

      WWDJ

      |

      Where do you guys get your information? You are applying theories completely incorrectly.

      For arguments sake lets take your claim that the Greenhouse effect breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You argue that the cooler atmosphere cannot heat the a warmer Earth. Of course a cooler object cannot transfer energy to a object with more energy. An ice cube doesn’t make water boil. Where you make your mistake is, that it is the sun that is heating the Earth. Visible light travels through greenhouse gas. When visible light hits the Earth, some is reflected as visible light and goes straight back out into space. Some is emitted as IR. And IR cannot travel through Greenhouse gases as easily as light. So Greenhouse gas simply slows the heat loss.

      In an analogy, putting on a jacket in the winter simply slows the heat loss from your body. It does not suck heat from the air.

      Radiative forcing can be measured by using satellites to directly measure the difference between incoming energy from the sun and outgoing radiation from the Earth.

      Photons are emitted in all directions, at various wavelengths. The statistical mean of the emitted photons can also be measured.

      Please elucidate on your claim of the 1537 wavenumber. Do you mean transmittance versus wavenumber in regard to stretching vibration?

      Please remember we are talking about InfraRed. Ultraviolet bumps electrons to higher states. IR causes various vibrations of bonds.I am only pointing this fact out because people look at the entire spectrum when they consider the spectral lines. We are concerned with the IR.

  • Avatar

    WWDJ

    |

    Perhaps I am on the wrong site. Above we have a person who denies basic science.

    “Radiative Forcing does not exist”? Wow.
    How can I present anything to you, if you don’t believe the most basic elements of science.

    Does IR exist? Does Gravity?

    • Avatar

      solvingtornadoes

      |

      [quote name=”WWDJ”]Perhaps I am on the wrong site. [/quote]

      Yes, be careful. A debate might break out. Then what would you do?

      • Avatar

        WWDJ

        |

        [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”WWDJ”]Perhaps I am on the wrong site. [/quote]

        Yes, be careful. A debate might break out. Then what would you do?[/quote]

        I am happy to debate the science. But when people deny scientific principles, how can a debate be rational?

        If I said, “CO2 has one carbon and two oxygen atoms”, and someone replied, “No it doesn’t” There isn’t anything more to say.

        I would be happy to have my knowledge tested by a denier. But come at me with something other than nonsense.

        • Avatar

          Pat Obar

          |

          [quote name=”WWDJ”]I am happy to debate the science. But when people deny scientific principles, how can a debate be rational? [/quote]

          Indeed, please show that you have any knowledge of scientific principles? Recite even one. You display only religious fanaticism!

          [quote] I would be happy to have my knowledge tested by a denier. But come at me with something other than nonsense.[/quote]

          This is so easy!
          1)Please demonstrate “any” evidence That EMR flux is proportional “only” to the T^4 of the emitter, independent of environment?

          2) Please demonstrate “any” evidence that any EMR absorbing gas in this atmosphere “ever” absorbs EMR flux to space in any way that measurable in any change of energy state of that gas?

          3) Please demonstrate “any” evidence of EMR flux propagating in a direction of higher opposing radiance at that frequency?

          Three strikes your OUT! You display nothing but religious fantasy! Time to discard third grade illusions and come up with something measurable!! 😆

          • Avatar

            WWDJ

            |

            [quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”WWDJ”]I am happy to debate the science. But when people deny scientific principles, how can a debate be rational? [/quote]

            I have displayed scientific principle. You denied the existence of radiative forcing.

            [quote] I would be happy to have my knowledge tested by a denier. But come at me with something other than nonsense.[/quote]

            This is so easy!
            1)Please demonstrate “any” evidence That EMR flux is proportional “only” to the T^4 of the emitter, independent of environment?

            Three strikes your OUT! You display nothing but religious fantasy! Time to discard third grade illusions and come up with something measurable!! :lol:[/quote]

            LOL. There you go again trying to baffle people with bullshit. Please use the proper scientific terms. I have no idea what you are trying to say and seem to be trying to introduce Electromagnetic induction and Faraday’s Law into climate change.

            UV bumps electrons to a high state. IR influences the bonds. Wag, Bending, etcetera…

            Regarding your statement “MMGW is a religion”. I have to ask you if you think that Ocean Acidification is happening as well? Or is that part of the Hoax?

          • Avatar

            Pat Obar

            |

            [quote name=”WWDJ”][quote name=”Pat Obar”][quote name=”WWDJ”]I am happy to debate the science. But when people deny scientific principles, how can a debate be rational? [/quote]

            I have displayed scientific principle. You denied the existence of radiative forcing.

            [quote] I would be happy to have my knowledge tested by a denier. But come at me with something other than nonsense.[/quote]

            This is so easy!
            1)Please demonstrate “any” evidence That EMR flux is proportional “only” to the T^4 of the emitter, independent of environment?

            2) Please demonstrate “any” evidence that any EMR absorbing gas in this atmosphere “ever” absorbs EMR flux to space in any way that measurable in any change of energy state of that gas?

            3) Please demonstrate “any” evidence of EMR flux propagating in a direction of higher opposing radiance at that frequency?

            Three strikes your OUT! You display nothing but religious fantasy! Time to discard third grade illusions and come up with something measurable!! :lol:[/quote]

            LOL. There you go again trying to baffle people with bullshit. Please use the proper scientific terms. I have no idea what you are trying to say and seem to be trying to introduce Electromagnetic induction and Faraday’s Law into climate change.

            UV bumps electrons to a high state. IR influences the bonds. Wag, Bending, etcetera…

            Regarding your statement “MMGW is a religion”. I have to ask you if you think that Ocean Acidification is happening as well? Or is that part of the Hoax?[/quote]

            Please show any evidence of your nonsense!
            Where are the physical measurements of “radiative forcing”
            A computer model is never science. nor can it have any scientific principles

            “IR influences the bonds. Wag, Bending, etcetera…” show any of such nonsense! The work function for bending or elongation is way way above that that may be provided by any IR EMR flux.
            The only possible effect is a change in sensible heat, and more of that is always transferred in a direction of a lower temperature. You have no evidence of your fantasy!!! 😆

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”WWDJ”]You are responding with long winded hyperbole and insults. I cannot believe that you have any understanding of the science, but rather are trying to comprehend the work of others and restate it in your own word.[/quote]

    You claim I am using hyperbole! You present no evidence of the correctness of your drivel!

    [quote] Your statement that the formula for radiative forcing drivel shows that you have very little knowledge but are a motivated thinker who wishes to believe a false reality. [/quote]

    I beg your pardon? I made no statement of “radiative forcing” which does not exist!

  • Avatar

    WWDJ

    |

    A Photon is a quantum of electromagnetic energy. If you look at a spectrograph for CO2 you can see the wavelengths, in the IR, which are absorbed by the molecule.

    The CO2 absorbs IR energy, vibrates, emits a photon of IR, then stops vibrating.

    This happens over and over again. From one CO2 molecule to the next. Passing the energy in all directions. Since a molecule randomly emits a photon, that photon can go in any direction.

    It is the redirection to the surface of the Earth that creates a surplus of energy in the system.

    The more CO2, the more redirections a photon of IR will go through. This radiative forcing is a logarithmic calculation and takes into account the saturation effect.

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      [quote name=”WWDJ”]A Photon is a quantum of electromagnetic energy. [/quote]

      What total nonsense! the electromagnetic radiation is a continuum of fourspace energy density, increasing with frequency.

      With Einstein’s photoelectric effect, we notice the work function of any mass needed to promote an action in the absorption of electromagnetic flux. In the case of nickel to get the action of emitting an electron, that energy density must be greater than 2ev at the speed of light. 0.5 micron wavelength or less. There is no such thing as a photon. All depends of the absorber mass and the work function for that action. In the case of conversion to sensible
      heat that work function is indistinguishable from zero!

      [quote]If you look at a spectrograph for CO2 you can see the wavelengths, in the IR, which are absorbed by the molecule. [/quote]

      At 14.4 microns That energy density is 0.07 ev.
      Each one of those would increase the temperature of one CO2 molecule by 17 zeptokelvin.

      [quote]The CO2 absorbs IR energy, vibrates, emits a photon of IR, then stops vibrating.[/quote]

      Not at all. The CO2 molecule is continuously radiating all that it can, given its temperature and cross sectional area but only in a direction of lower radiance for that 14.4 micron wavelength (outward)!

      [/quote]This happens over and over again. From one CO2 molecule to the next. Passing the energy in all directions. Since a molecule randomly emits a photon, that photon can go in any direction.[/quote]

      Who actually spouts this drivel? Do you have any evidence that this is true?

      [quote]It is the redirection to the surface of the Earth that creates a surplus of energy in the system. [/quote]

      Who actually spouts this drivel? Do you have any evidence that this is true?

      [quote]The more CO2, the more redirections a photon of IR will go through. This radiative forcing is a logarithmic calculation and takes into account the saturation effect.[/quote]

      Who actually spouts this drivel? Do you have any evidence that this is true?

      • Avatar

        WWDJ

        |

        You are responding with long winded hyperbole and insults. I cannot believe that you have any understanding of the science, but rather are trying to comprehend the work of others and restate it in your own word.

        Your statement that the formula for radiative forcing drivel shows that you have very little knowledge but are a motivated thinker who wishes to believe a false reality.

        Also suggesting that photons are not emitted in random directions is silly to the extreme. Please do your research, I should not have to explain why a statement is silly.

        The most basic formula for radiative forcing for CO2 is DeltaF = 5.35 ln(C/Co) W/m-2.

        In the future, if you could speak politely,instead of trying to baffle me with bullshit, I would be happy to discuss the topic further.

        5 and 10 dollar words are not needed to present such a straight forward idea.

  • Avatar

    WWDJ

    |

    Your analogy has one problem. The Earth is not a closed system. The energy comes from the sun in the form of visible light. The light energy is then radiated from the Earth as IR. The 2nd law is not broken. The heat is not moving from the cooler upper atmosphere back to the warmer ground. The heat loss is being slowed because CO2 molecules emit photons in all directions.

    Therefore the more CO2 that there is, the more often IR will be absorbed and photons emitted. The more often the photon are emitted, the longer they will remain in the atmosphere before eventually being randomly directed to space.

    Putting on a jacket allows our heat loss to be slowed. Which enables us to retain the energy in our bodies. While we are warmer, we are not breaking the second law. We are simply retaining the heat we generate. If the jacket is too thick, we retain a surplus of energy. ie, we get hot.

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      [quote name=”WWDJ”]The heat loss is being slowed because CO2 molecules emit photons in all directions.[/quote]

      Do you have any evidence if this”all directions?

      [quote] Therefore the more CO2 that there is, the more often IR will be absorbed and photons emitted. The more often the photon are emitted, the longer they will remain in the atmosphere before eventually being randomly directed to space. [/quote]

      What “they” will remain in the atmosphere?
      Do you have any evidence if this”randomly directed to space?
      Do you even have a definition of a “photon”?

    • Avatar

      D o u g C o t t o n

      |

      The radiation from the Sun (a mean of 168W/m^2 that is absorbed by the surface) is nowhere near sufficient to raise the surface temperature to observed levels. The correct explanation is linked from my comments [url=http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-echo-chamber-effect-misleading-people-on-climate-change.html#comment-11180][b]here[/b][/url].

  • Avatar

    FauxScienceSlayer

    |

    “We cannot order men to see the truth, or prohibit them from indulging in error” ~ Max Planck, 1936

    In his EU-2014 presentation, “On the Validity of Kirchoff”, Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille, Professor of Radiology and Physical Chemistry shows that Planck SPIKED everyone of his tests with a Carbon sample, creating the Planck Constant, that does not exist. Not only is Kirchoff’s Law questionable, so too are Planck, Stefan and Boltzman. All of radiative Physics is in error, including the photo-shopped data, cherry picked “laws” of the AGW meme.

    youtube.com/watch?v=3Hstum3U2zw

  • Avatar

    richard2

    |

    I am not a scientist but this was my observation.

    Great fun, cheap and you can do it at home.

    We had on open fire at home, I would sit with half my face facing the fire , so one side warm the other cool.

    I had a copper spoon/bowl with a handle. If you angled it at the cool side of the face you could reflect the heat from the fire and obviously feel this heat. Reflected against the warm side of the face there was no increase in warmth, you could angle it on angle it off, no change.

    My interpretation is – if there is back radiation it will show no increase in temp on the earth surface unless the back radiation is more than the upward radiation.

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Thanks for coming up with this example.

    Keep up the great effort. You get frustrated because there are some that do not (want to) see you points. But, there are many more of us that get it, and appreciate such simple examples.

    Over on Dr Spencer’s site, I tried to come up with a simple example of how you could add energy to a system, yet still not increase the temperature. I used a glass half full of water at 100º. Then, I add half a glass of water that was at 50º. So, I “added” energy to the system, but did not raise the temperature. Several commenters indicated that my example was flawed because I had also added mass!

    I believe they got the point, but merely threw out a smoke screen to confuse the issue. As you are well aware, that happens all the time.

Comments are closed