In this post we will expose one of the biggest scientific frauds of them all, in its relation to and its invention alongside the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
In previous posts we have learned how the atmospheric greenhouse effect was invented by climate science: They artificially reduced the incoming power of Sunshine to -18oC (actually in this figure it is -42oC!), completely hiding its actual & real input value of +49oC, and then invented a purely fictional mechanism to get more energy into their system so that they could make it look like reality with its real high-temperature input. This heat self-amplification mechanism they invented is called the atmospheric greenhouse effect, even though it has nothing to do with a real greenhouse. They just named it that to confuse you.
After having invented the idea of an atmospheric greenhouse effect, they needed to invent a mechanism by which it might “plausibly” work, so that they could vilify the life-creating-gas of carbon dioxide. The mechanism is called back-radiation. The simple (but fraudulent) idea they created, is that the radiation from the atmosphere acts like an additional source of energy for the Earth, and by their reckoning, the atmosphere provides twice the amount of heat, to itself and to the surface, than the Sun does in the first place! This is postulated to occur even though the atmosphere is colder than the surface itself, and the same temperature as itself. The atmosphere is able to do this with the radiative heat energy it gets from the ground, and so the energy is said to be “sent back” to do some more heating. Essentially, the atmosphere is said to heat itself up by giving itself its own energy! Thus the moniker of “back-radiation”.
So in climate science, back-radiation from the atmosphere is said to provide twice the heating power of the Sun, even though the atmosphere is colder than the surface of the Earth, and even more colder than the input sunshine. This sequence is described in Part 4 of this series, so please read that post again if you would like to refresh your memory.
Now let’s make one thing very clear here: the atmosphere has a temperature. Of course it has a temperature. An ice-cube has a temperature. Everything has a temperature (except for outer-space itself). But just because something has a temperature, does not mean that it is causing or providing heating power. Heat, of course, only flows from hot to cold. Anything with a temperature is holding internal heat energy, but that temperature does not cause heating on any other object unless an object is colder. And a temperature never causes heating upon itself! A temperature can not increase its own temperature.
Other than matter simply holding energy in its temperature, the only other place heat energy gets trapped is in latent heat. This is why deserts get so much colder overnight than humid regions. It is quite ridiculous when greenhouse effect believers say that CO2 causes delay of cooling at night, when it is so well known that the only substance which is known to do this is water vapor and liquid due to their latent heat. There is no mechanism by which CO2 can replicate that behavior.
So, the atmosphere has a temperature which is colder than the ground and far colder than the input sunshine: does this then mean that the atmosphere provides twice the amount of heating power than the Sun does, and that it is an independent source of heating energy for itself and for the planet?
Well of course not! Why would anyone even say that? It is a plain abuse of logic and especially of thermodynamics. No amount of graphs and fancy charts that shows that the atmosphere has a temperature, or reflects or absorbs some radiation and produces an absorption spectrum, means that the colder atmosphere is heating up the warmer planet Earth! The atmosphere gains its temperature mainly from contact with the warmer ground surface; this temperature can not “go back” to the ground and heat itself up some more! It is such a stupid thing to say…it really has to be up there on the all-time-stupid-list. Yet, this is what happens when pseudoscientists (fake scientists) start inventing ideas to fix their faulty theories.
How do we know that back-radiation doesn’t increase the temperature of itself? Well we already know this from the Laws of Thermodynamics and the most basic rational logic. Remember, work is done in raising an objects’ temperature, and it takes energy to do work. It takes higher quality energy, to do higher quality work. This means that it takes higher frequencies of energy, to generate higher temperature. To put it more simply: the temperature of a substance can not increase its own temperature! What a laughable idea. We know this simply because it is so obviously true, and because experiments have confirmed it for hundreds of years.
This graphic by Jim Peden offers a clear, humorous illustration of what back-radiation is thought to do by climate scientists:
Do you see how ridiculous this is? It doesn’t matter if there’s an input source of energy or not in the climate-pseudoscience scheme – their invented fictional physics is specifically that an object becomes its own source of heat and will heat itself up to higher temperature by its own output radiation being sent back upon itself. This does not require an external input, because anything with a temperature puts out radiation. This is exactly the same thing as how they say that the ground sends radiation into the atmosphere, and then the atmosphere sends some of the energy back to further increase the temperature of the ground. Just like the self-cooking oven, this doesn’t actually have to make any reference to the input at all! The actual input doesn’t even factor in…it is the output, any output, which can come back and heat itself up some more, to any temperature. It is such a stupid idea and obvious invention of pseudoscience, it is difficult to even write about it without just saying: “It’s a stupid idea”. Full stop. Nothing more needs to be said. No explanation required.
Their whole scheme doesn’t even require an input source of energy, and so it is irrelevant to them that they dilute the power of Sunshine to -42oC. They could dilute the input power to however low of value they wished, and still they could say that the greenhouse makes up the difference. If we do acknowledge the real power input of sunshine, being very hot, then of course we have no reason to invent such insanity. It is the Sun that heats the Earth to the temperature that the Sunshine can generate, and we showed this in my last paper with real-world observations. The Earth does not heat itself up to the temperature that the sunshine can already generate. And the only place that heat actually gets trapped is in latent heat of H20, which keeps the poles much warmer than they would otherwise be.
Of course, all of this is why greenhouse effect believers have turned on their original explanations, and now just try to say that the greenhouse effect merely “slows down cooling at night”. But we already know how cooling is slowed down at night, and that it is from the release of energy from water vapor due to its latent heat. Carbon dioxide does not do this, because it does not release any latent heat at night time (or day time for that matter). Besides, we measured for this delayed cooling in my last paper, and we found that cooling was actually enhanced at the surface, not delayed, relative to the whole column. This is probably because the emissivity is highest near the surface and so this is where energy is lost most efficiently, and hence where cooling is most efficient.
The radiation that is inside the atmosphere, being emitted due to the temperature of the atmosphere, is not the cause of the atmosphere’s own temperature. It is a result of the temperature, not a cause. Anything with a temperature radiates, and nothing increases its own temperature with its own radiation. The cause of the temperature of the surface and atmosphere is due to the input energy from the Sun, together with the atmospheric lapse rate gradient and latent heat trapping.
Many “believers” refer to the absorption spectrum of the Earth as observed from outer space: it has a “bite” out of it where CO2 scatters a portion of the outward energy. Let’s be very clear about this with a short physics lesson: an absorption spectrum is created when radiation from a warmer source is shone through a gas of colder temperature. Do you get that? Warmer radiation, from a warmer source, through a colder gas. Nowhere, in all of physics, in all of astronomy, in all of chemistry, is this colder gas said to be the cause of the higher temperature of the warmer radiation shining through it! This is only a pseudoscientific idea created by and for the pseudoscience of climate hyper-reality. Can radiative absorption in a gas increase the gases’ temperature? Why yes, of course! Is that absorption the cause of the radiation coming into it in the first place? Why no, of course not.
The reason why I am writing the “religion series” on this blog is because I have been forced to develop a psychological, philosophical understanding for why people believe in such ridiculous, insane, stupid, things. Once you see how it all gets put together, it will be undeniable that a new religion is precisely what climate pseudoscience is. What will be even more amazing it why it is has been created as such, and for what purpose, larger than itself.
We had actually already won this (backradiation) topic with the publication of my papers last year on this subject, here, here, and here. We had full admittance, by several members of the climate-pseudoscience community, that the flat Earth models indeed do not represent reality in any way, although, they couldn’t explain why they would use such a flat Earth model to teach as real the very result that only such a model produces in the first place! They’d been caught-out in other words, and exposed as sophists and incompetents, and a lot of people witnessed it. But then they continued using the flat-earth backradiation theory anyway, switching it from an actual heating force to a simpler delayed-cooling phenomenon, but which as we have seen is also bunk.
Let’s make one thing very clear then: a “scientific theory” that randomly switches from one explanation to another, from one set of “physics” and math to another, is not science, but is pseudoscience. We don’t see the Theory of Relativity having explanations which are proven wrong and then others being thrown in to keep it going!
The backradiation-heating greenhouse effect is a complete and utter lie. It is believed in by crazy people, incompetents, and follower-slaves.