This will be “Part 1” of my summary of some of what I’ve written about on the false paradigm of the greenhouse effect (GHE) upon which “climate science” is based. My latest paper can be found at this link:
(My previous papers can be found here:
Given how much I have written it is not possible to cover the entire gamut in a single post; however, going to single posts on specific topics gives me the opportunity to highlight certain important aspects of my research.
Let us consider energy budgets. If anyone is familiar with my work, then they know about the so-called “P/4 issue”, which indicates that the standard approach of climate science is to average-out the actual real-time power of sunshine by dividing its real power, P, by the number 4. Now to be sure, the real power of sunshine is this value we call “P”. It has a numerical value of about 1370 Watts per square meter. This is the real power of sunshine and it can be converted into a temperature, which has a value of 121 degrees Celsius – boiling hot! Some of this sunshine power is actually reflected by the Earth though, about 30%, and therefore doesn’t cause any heating; when you factor this in, the real power of sunshine is about 960 W/m2 which is a temperature of about 88oC.
Out of the mathematical convenience of not having to treat the system in real-time, and with the real power of sunshine, climate scientists average the real-time power of sunshine over the entire surface of the Earth at once, so that they can get rid of day and night, and also so that they can treat the Earth as flat, which makes things easier for them in the math. By spreading the power of sunshine over the entire Earth at once, so that they don’t have to worry about the difference between day and night, the mathematical number required to do this works out to a division of the real incoming power P by the number 4. It is a result of a geometric math problem of transforming a sphere into a flat plane, which is how climate scientists make the simplifications of the real system to something which is not real but is a convenient “approximation”.
Wait a minute…let’s back up here. Climate scientists take the real power of sunshine, of P = 960 W/m2, equal to +88o Celscius, but divide the power by the number 4 so that they can make the Earth flat and get rid of day and night – for convenience. When they do this, they artificially (it is artificial because it is no longer real, and only a mathematical simplification to make the Earth flat) decrease the power of sunshine to 960/4 = 240 W/m2 which is equal to -18oC.
After having taken a real number, and then converted it into something which is not real – the flat Earth approximation – climate scientists then go on to think that the power of sunshine is far too cold to heat anything by itself because it is only as strong as -18oC. They forget that the simplification they made doesn’t actually correspond with reality, because they’ve taken the real numbers which are actually from reality in the first place, but then mathematically diluted them into very small numbers which aren’t actually found or measured in real-life.
This puts climate scientists into a predicament, of having to figure out why it actually feels so warm under the Sun, and why the temperatures are far above -18oC for most of the planet, particularly on the day-time side where there is actual real sunshine. Instead of questioning if their approximation of no day and night and a flat Earth with cold sunshine is valid or not, climate scientists instead invent an internal mechanism for the surface and atmosphere to self-amplify their own temperatures. This mechanism is called the “Greenhouse Effect”, even though this effect doesn’t actually have anything to do with how a real greenhouse works. They just used the same name for this effect they invented, that makes you think of something else that is warm. But the climate science “Greenhouse Effect” and a real greenhouse do not actually work the same way in any way at all (see pages 49-51, 68, and 77 in “On the Absence of“). So they use base sense-perception, imagining something warm, to get you to think that their new effect is the same thing, when it actually isn’t.
To distinguish the effect of what happens in a real greenhouse, versus the effect that climate science invented that isn’t actually the same as a real greenhouse, we will call the climate science version the “Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect”, or “AGHE”, for clarity.
The disparity between this climate-science approximation and the real-world is so great, that climate scientists have to postulate that the atmosphere provides twice as much heating power to warm itself up than they think the cold sunshine does in the first place. They even publish this result in their “peer-reviewed” journals, such as this paper here (see the last page).
Nowhere else in science can a substance heat itself up without having a source of chemical or nuclear or other energy, but in climate science a gas can warm itself up spontaneously with its own passive energy by warming up an already-warmer ground surface by some mysterious recycling of its own internal energy. Everybody outside of climate science knows that this is wrong, because you can never get more work (i.e. more heating) out of the energy than what you initially put in and the first time it is used, from the sunshine. So because this is obviously ridiculous, but climate scientists have never been able to either admit or discover their original mathematical error, they have created terms such as “greenhouse effect”, “back-radiation heating”, “delayed cooling”, and many others, to explain this phantom self-heating process they were accidentally forced to invent. In fact, they have all sorts of ways of trying to explain their AGHE, as can be seen here, and most of them contradict each other. This is a result of the AGHE not being based in reality but based on a fictional approximation of a flat earth and cold sunshine, and so by its very nature you can make up almost anything you want to say about it because there is no actual reality-based single way that it exists.
I will end this post with a diagram of a reality-based model I have created which represents the Earth and power of sunshine as it actually exists in reality. It is somewhat more complex than the flat-earth models which create the AGHE, but, it also corresponds with reality, and so the increased complexity is a good thing. If you want to read more about why this model was created, before I write Part 2, you can see this paper here: Copernicus Meets the Greenhouse Effect.
In Part 2 I will explain this model and show that, because it is based on actual reality, it is far superior to the fictional flat earth models of climate science and the AGHE. I will also explain how a reality-based model does not create the need to invent a self-heating mechanism and that the heat is generated solely by sunshine, unlike the climate science models where they have to invent the AGHE.
Until then, take care!