The Radiative (Climate Pseudoscience) Greenhouse Effect

Came across this pic randomly on the interwebs.

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!):

35bb82ee03df8cb50f4140d69fa31db8

‘nough said 🙂

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

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:

greenhouse

Again, there’s the atmosphere (cord), going back into the plug (surface) to make the plug provide even more power (have higher temperature).

 

 

Gallery | This entry was posted in Fraud of the Greenhouse Effect and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The Radiative (Climate Pseudoscience) Greenhouse Effect

  1. Richard111 says:

    There is an interesting comment on ‘back radiation’ over at WUWT.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/21/is-the-climate-computable/#comment-1642956
    My personal layman studies tell me ’emission’ is temperature dependant — absolutely!
    ‘Absorption’ only happens when frequency of incoming photons are above peak radiation temperature of the target. CO2 molecules in the atmosphere will be warmed by conduction to local air temps say from +15C to -20C (more than 80% of the total atmosphere) which means CO2 is happily radiating from 13 to 17 microns which tells me peak radiation temperature for CO2 in the atmosphere is -50C. CO2, being a gas simply CANNOT absorb the high frequency photons from the surface but DOES radiate over its lower signature bands (some 3,800 lines!!). So yes, you can measure radiation from the atmosphere produced by CO2, but it is only cooling the air and certainly not warming the surface which has an average peak radiation temperature of +14C (287.15K). If you look up the link you can buy an instrument that measures all this stuff. 🙂

  2. Robert W Turner says:

    Actually emission is NOT temperature dependent FOR A GAS. This is where the pseudoscience of the back radiation hypothesis starts, by taking the volumetric composition of gas molecules called the atmosphere and pretending that it is a solid emissive layer – the gray line in their diagram.

    A solid object emits an IR spectrum as a function of temperature because the molecules are locked together, thus the laws of the universe dictated by quantum mechanics has these molecules emit IR based on the heat energy within the molecular vibrations. A gas molecule is not locked in place, the molecule has kinetic energy and kinetic energy transfer from those molecules to a thermometer is how the temperature of a gas is determined. It also means that the molecules do not emit IR as a function of the total energy within the molecular vibrations, but rather by the resonant frequency of these vibrations. So a gas molecule will always emit the same energy level of photons that it absorbs. The back radiation hypothesis is pseudoscience right from the start.

  3. Christopher Marshall says:

    Is this why they are claiming CO2 is bonding to create a ‘blanket’ because they are viewing it as a solid?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s