The entire premise, the ground floor of climate alarm and all climate policy, the sky-scraper of climate alarm, rests on the foundation of the concept of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. It is only via a postulated atmospheric greenhouse effect that CO2 can have an influence on the climate in the way that the alarmists and climate policy makers desire.
Therefore, the first thing to look at, in my role as a scientist reviewing the case for climate policy, is this foundation (the atmospheric greenhouse effect). Because this foundation is so important, is also why such vitriol and hatred is produced when exposure of its flaws is publicized. It is also why the concept is always glossed over quickly, why the climate policy backers try to avoid it, why they minimize any criticisms, and why they play games to make it appear and make people feel silly for criticizing it.
Please read the following figure and mentally image in your mind’s eye the physical processes described:
In the figure above we see the water cycle and the sequence of the energy.
Now lets take a look at the IPCC energy budget which is fundamentally the same type of accounting upon which the atmospheric greenhouse effect is based:
In the above figure of the energy balances from the IPCC, which has numbers displayed for a greenhouse effect, does the power of sunlight displayed in that figure have the strength (energy flux density) to create the water cycle as listed in the previous figure?
The power of sunlight is listed as 168 W/m^2 absorbed on the surface. This is equivalent to -40 degrees Celsius (which is the same numeric value in Fahrenheit at that temperature, coincidentally).
1: Does sunshine feel like it is -40F to you, when you stand outside in it?
2: Can that value of sunshine power create the water cycle? (i.e. can it evaporate water, or even melt ice into water?)
No. Hence, there is a fundamental, raging mad, paradox in here somewhere. Something is badly wrong. We must decide what is wrong. What is wrong?
Is the water cycle wrong? No, the water cycle is not wrong. The water cycle exists and it requires VERY hot sunshine in order to create it. Have you ever seen a giant cumulonimbus cloud forming a thunder-head? Sunlight did that…HOT sunlight, not sunlight at -40F.
So then, is the IPCC figure wrong?
Yes, it is wrong. Because it is attempting to approximate a four-dimensional, spherical, rotating, real-time system that only exists dynamically, as a static system, and with fewer dimensions (two dimensions, but really, it reduces to only ONE dimension).
This is fundamental physics and math theory here…as fundamental as it gets. Have you ever seen a 3-dimensional lathe? For metal working? Can a 3-dimensional lathe perform the same type of metal work that a 5-dimensional lathe can? Ask as mechanical engineer about this. The point is, that with fewer dimensions, you simply can NOT reproduce the same physics that occurs in higher dimensions. It is fundamentally impossible.
Could your body function if it was two-dimensional, like a piece of paper? If your body was a flat piece of paper, could it have tubes going though it and not fall apart? No, your body needs to be three-dimensional to have all of the physics and chemistry that occurs inside your body. That physics and chemistry simply can not occur in two dimensions only, and if you tried it in two dimensions you would fail both on paper and in practice.
So, the IPCC figure, and, let me tell you, EVERY SINGLE FIGURE THAT EXISTS which looks similar to the IPCC one and which claims demonstration of a greenhouse effect, is wrong. It looks nice and it looks like something, but it’s not real. It is just a two-dimensional plane drawn on a piece of paper with some numbers above it. That’s not what the Earth is. -40F is not what the power of sunshine is.
Why would anyone have ever though that a plane drawn on a piece of paper represents the Earth? Is the Earth not round? Can you not go outside and feel hot sunshine? Does the Sun not create the water cycle with its strength?
Then why would we have ever thought that a plane drawn on a piece of paper, which, because of its reduced dimensionality, has to reduce the power of the Sun to -40F, represents anything about reality?
The reduced dimensionality of the IPCC and all atmospheric greenhouse effect figures, because the reduced dimensionality can’t actually represent the full 4-dimensional reality, automatically has to bungle the numbers up just like a 3-dimensional lathe would get extremely confused and bungle up the metal work if you gave it instructions that were meant for a 5-dimensional lathe.
To fix the bungle of the numbers, to fix the reduced dimensionality, new numbers are simply inserted into these figures so that the atmosphere causes itself to heat itself up some more even though it cannot be a thermodynamic source of heat since it is not actually a source of energy, to the value that the REAL Sun actually does in full-dimensionality in any case.
That is how the atmospheric greenhouse effect is created. It is a sleight of mathematical dimensional trickery. It is one of the most brilliant, subtle, devious, perhaps accidental, perhaps genius, errors of science in hundreds of years. It is a lesson in fundamental mathematics and physics that will go down in history as one of the biggest examples of how math can go wrong when physics is left out of the equation. It is as big as Kepler overturning the Earth-centred solar system…it is in fact a direct mathematical analogy if you’re aware of such things (I discuss it briefly on a previous article). An error like this should not have occurred in the 20th & 21st Centuries…that is why it is as big as Copernicus/Kepler, and because so few people who should be smart enough to understand it, do not.
Only the Sun drives the climate. CO2 does not. The only thing CO2 does is create life. Ever heard of the “Circle of Life”? Sounds like a simple idea for kids but it is actually a profound philosophical and scientific principle: the Circle of Life is such a profound principle that it even occurs through man’s industrial activity! Man is a part of this world after-all, why wouldn’t the basic principle of life, the Circle of Life, also operate through man? It operates through man’s industrial activity because such activity produces carbon dioxide, which with sunlight is the sole basis of the entire biosphere, of all life. Through the Circle of Life we are putting carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere where it can turn back into (literally, carbon dioxide TURNS INTO) plants and animals, which it once WAS.
We humans get a higher standard of living, and in return via the circle of life plants get more food and so animals get more food and their standard life increases too. All living things increase in their standard of life via man’s release of carbon dioxide via industrial activity.
There is a religion of self & human hatred that exists out there that absolutely detests, that demoniacally and Satanically detests that humans should exist and that we are fundamentally good and doing good; they will absolutely hate any idea that the Circle of Life operates also through man, and they will refuse to acknowledge their paradox in that man is also a member of this planet and so the beneficial Circle of Life also must operate through him. This anti-human neo-religion is a moral sickness and I don’t know where it came from.
And at its basis is the mathematical bungle of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, a scientific blunder that will go down in history, if man survives this period in a civilized fashion.
Pingback: The Fraud of the AGHE Part 16: Further Summary | Climate of Sophistry
We have solar panels to convert some of that 198W/m^2 solar energy into electricity. Why has nobody invented a back radiation panel to convert some of that 324W/m^2 back radiation into electricity?
i heard from John O’Sullivan, I wish my demonstration, of no “back radiation” to be effictive. For me that is the distruction of the concept of “back anything”. Can you help?
The greenhouse effect is not “postulated”. It’s something that’s been very thoroughly demonstrated since before your grandfather was born.
So in other words Cal you lack the ability to understand simple concepts like planes vs. sphere, real-time vs. averaging, etc.
The greenhouse effect is not even observed in a real greenhouse…hence it can’t be observed in the atmosphere either. Nice faith you have though…I am sure it will serve you well in keeping you very alarmed and afraid.
The GHE was a theoretical idea about 150 years ago. 100 years ago a man, Dr Woods, carried out an experiment that demonstrated the GHE fallacy. it has been reintroduced for political reasons not fact.
Cal, if you still believe in this crap theory look at QM which clearly shows it cannot work.
I have a feeling that some scientists confuse themselves by considering light in wavelenths rather than frequency as QM does. We all talk about radio stations as frequency but as soon as light, same thing but higher frequency, is mentioned they convert to wavelength.
Right John…the GHE is a rather shocking display of the depth of human depravity and stupidity. Note well, and remember well, with whom those problems lie. It will be important one day.