I have likely mentioned a few times in this ongoing series that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is based on “tautologous”, illogical math. In this post I will demonstrate and explain clearly what is meant by that, converting the math to much simpler words that anyone will be able to follow. I’ll show the math, but I’ll convert it to a simple word-equations.
In my paper from last year, I presented the standard flat-earth model of “heat flow” which climate pseudoscientists use to create the appearance of a greenhouse effect. This is a model which is found in actual textbooks that climate pseudoscientists use to teach each other and their students how the GHE works. Criticism of the flat-earth model can be found between pages 7 & 15 of that paper. References to various flat-earth models can be found in Appendix H of this most recent paper, and diagrams can be found on pages 72 & 73 of it.
There are many example of the flat-earth model creating the GHE, and this one below is representative. Because it comes from a professor at Harvard University, we Slayers have come to call this the “Harvard Model GHE”:
In the textbook, all the numbers and figures in the diagram gets put into an equation as thus:
This equation is “supposed” to be a representation for the energy balance coming in and out of the system. In words, it says: “The incoming solar energy is equal to the output from the surface plus the output from the atmosphere”. Now that sounds totally legitimate, doesn’t it? And it would be, except that the parameters of the equation don’t actually function in a logical way. One big point is that the power of solar heating is reduced to one-quarter of it’s actual real-time value, and day & night have been utterly rejected as being a significant part of the climate! This is what sets up the subsequent tautology, and the fraudulent creation of the greenhouse effect.
An entirely equivalent way to write the equation, in terms of the energy (and hence temperature) which is found at the surface (after all, the equation is supposed to tell us the surface temperature, not the temperature of the incoming sunlight which we already know), is:
What this equations says, is: ”The surface energy (temperature) is equal to the incoming solar energy plus the energy from the atmosphere”. This is more to the point of what we actually want. But here’s the catch: see the last term on the right-hand-side of the equation? In the “Harvard Model”, this term gets replaced with another one, such that:
which says that the energy/temperature of atmosphere is caused (exclusively) by absorption of a fraction (f/2) of the energy radiated from the surface.
When you make the substitution, the equation now reads:
which therefore says that:
“The energy/temperature of the surface is caused by the incoming solar energy, plus the energy/temperature of the surface.”
So do you now see the problem? Do you see the self-referential tautology? The energy/temperature at the surface is caused (in part) by the energy/temperature of the surface adding to itself! It is generating its own temperature, and all you have to do is adjust “f” until it works out. It says that any temperature is possible to self-generate, no matter how small the actual input is. It is an equation for over-unity production of work, the most basic violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics. There is no actual thermodynamics or heat-flow in this equation whatsoever, but climate pseudoscientists use it for teaching themselves how they think the climate must operate! It is much more difficult to detect this problem when it is written in the way the Harvard Model textbook presents it, and that is likely for good reason. I didn’t specifically write this all out in last year’s paper, so, now you see here it is: a temperature is increasing its own temperature. That is exactly what the equation says. You can go through pages 7 to 15 of last year’s paper to see further breakdown of the errors of the “Harvard Model”.
This relates precisely to the discussion of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem written about in the last post. The Incompleteness Theorem applies just as much to the language of mathematics as it does for “spoken” language. You can write down a far greater number of equations that are false, than those that are true, but the false equations aren’t typically any easier to identify than the true ones. Similar to the statement “this sentence is a lie”, the above equation is likewise meaningless because, even though it can be written down, and stated, it doesn’t actually obey basic logic and physics. It is the nature of a “complete system” that it will allow “incomplete” statements; such are easier to identify in the more intuitive “natural” language, but doing it in math is a far greater challenge because math is so unintuitive (for most people, including me).
However, it is not like this entire scenario is unknown or new to science! In my “Copernicus paper” I drew a comparison between the Ptolemaic Earth-centred universe, to that of the flat-Earth math of the GHE. It has been well-known, for thousands of years no less, that sets of mathematics can be arranged to represent the appearances of any physical system, while not actually representing the internal physics of the system in any way whatsoever. This is well known! Competent scientists understand this stuff implicitly. There is a difference between physics and mathematics: even though physics uses mathematics, physics is mathematics informed by the real-world and by the insight of the rational mind seeking an understanding of the Principle for why something is one way and not another. Mathematics doesn’t do that by itself. With Ptolemaic mathematics, you can create a mathematical model with the Earth being at the centre of the solar system, and the outward appearances work – predicting the positions of the planets. This is analogous to how you can create mathematics where the ground heats itself up on a flat Earth – you succeed in matching the outward appearance, the surface temperature, but just because you can do so doesn’t mean that the way the math works actually represents the internal reality! The Earth isn’t flat…Hello.
One final bit of sophistry indicated in the Harvard Model equation, alluded to earlier, is its presumption that the energy in the atmosphere is exclusively a result of radiative input and equilibrium from the surface. In addition to the stupidity of one-quarter-power solar input, the flat Earth, no day & night, etc., this presumption is so devoid of any incorporation of any actual physics of the system it beggars belief that these people get away with it. The reason why they do this is because it directly allows for the creation of a GHE where exclusively all of the temperature difference between the surface and the terrestrial average is caused by the surface heating itself up with its own temperature via the GHE. First, the atmosphere gains a significant amount of energy directly from the Sun itself; second, the atmosphere gains heat energy by conduction with the warmer ground surface; third, the atmosphere gains energy from the latent heat of water vapour condensation. The amount of energy gained by the atmosphere from the surface by radiation is only a fractional part of the total, not the exclusive part.
So, there you have it: tautological math, Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem found in an equation. The basis of the GHE. Do you know that the GHE-believing community has never been able to provide us with an alternative explanation, after we exposed this derivation of it to be a fraud? Indeed