# Why the radiation-based Greenhouse Effect is a Fraud, Part 1

The atmospheric greenhouse effect is a fraud, and I will show you why. Let’s take a typical example of a model greenhouse effect used by climate “scientists” as found in a free online book from Harvard. Here is the relevant formulas, text and diagram:

I will assume their assumption that f=0.77, although this number is not based on any observations, but is merely a fudge factor to make their formulas match real observations. The surface temperature is indeed somewhere around 288°K.

In Eq 7.13 I already see a problem. The surface temperature is dependent on the atmosphere temperature, and yet the atmosphere temperature is dependent on the surface temperature. This is a lifting-yourself-by-your-bootstraps type of problem.

Eq 7.15 summarizes their fraud. We see that they magically enhanced global average solar input at the surface by a factor of 1/(1-0.77/2)=1.626. This is a complete violation of the laws of thermodynamics. If the sun is considered the only input, then you can never get more radiation out of the sun then what originally came in. Going from 1 to 1.626 is over-unity, and is not allowed in physics.

So how did it come to this?

Let’s first work out some of the numbers. Fs=1361, A=0.3, f=0.77.

Fs(1-A)/4 =~ 240 W/m²

Now what do they do with this incoming radiation?

A diagram will help. Below is an accurate representation of what they want to happen. This diagram is in joules per second per square meter. Each dot represents 10 joules. Half dot is 5

1) The sun sends 340J

2) The surface (and lower atmosphere in reality) receives only 240J due to albedo and then sends it out to the atmosphere

3) The radiation gets split. 195J goes up and 195J goes down

4) Earth now has 435J, and will emit an additional 45J to space

5) Space was sent a total of 240J, and Earth “keeps” 390J.

Everything seems to be in order according to their math. So what’s the problem?

The problem is they cheated. How?

In Step #2, the surface sent 240J to the atmosphere, while still retaining it! It takes energy to create radiation, and thus sending to the atmosphere must drain the energy at the surface, but they don’t do that. They mathematically cloned energy.

In Step #3, they emit 2*195J=390J from only having received 240J.

They have a serious problem with the order in which things must happen.

More on this in part 2.

https://phzoe.com

## 20 thoughts on “Why the radiation-based Greenhouse Effect is a Fraud, Part 1”

1. Martin says:

Temp of Venus is determine by atmospheric pressure, why not earth too?

Liked by 1 person

1. Thank you for the comment. I also used to believe that Venus’ high surface temp was set by the atmo pressure, but I now see this is as an inversion of cause and effect. Nowadays I know that Venus is hot because it’s hot (don’t laugh) geothermally, and this is what creates a large atmosphere with high pressure. I will eventually address this fully on this blog, but it’s a very complicated topic one needs to warm up to. If you would like some nuggets, they’re available in the comment section here: https://notrickszone.com/2019/10/19/controversy-swirls-as-numbers-dont-add-up-1-3c-missing-heat-earth-supposed-to-be-16c-but-its-only-14-68c/#comments

Like

1. Martin says:

Even if you said (don’t laugh), it is funny that the cause of the high pressure of Venus is its very active mantle…. maybe, anyway its geologic.:)

Liked by 1 person

2. Venus is heated from the inside out. The best its giant atmosphere could do is slow the rate of cooling. Venus has pristine craters and other signs that it is a fairly new entity in its current orbit. Still cooling down from its amalgamation as a giant comet. Velikovsky turned out to be right about a couple of things.

Of course this goes against mainstream solar system creation myths. In order for the mainstream to deny the youthfulness of Venus they have to pretend that the entirety of the surface of Venus turns molten all at one time. Which is just silly. But they have to do it. Or else they would need to update all their paradigms.

Liked by 1 person

1. I completely agree with this. Venus is the youngest planet in our solar system.

Like

2. Zoe
Thanks for your insights, as soon as I saw point 3 I knew we had a problem.

Keep up the good work..

Liked by 1 person

3. Zoe I think everyone has to consider the secondary energy source, also primarily from the sun, and that is electrical energy fighting its way from the ionosphere to the deep earth. The solar wind is moving ions, if a proton can be seen as an ion of hydrogen. Anyway its a charged particle. Moving charged particles are an electrical current. But further to that if we can get past aether denial we find that space (or aether) is both a resistor and a capacitor. So the space between us and the suns corona is all chockers with electrical energy. Some of which fights its way down through our atmosphere. So you want to bring this into it as well.

Liked by 1 person

1. This I’m going to have to disagree with. Solar Wind is mostly ordered energy flow. It can’t add to random molecular motion, that is kinetic energy, that is temperature.
The higher atmo layers have fast moving molecules, this is true. If you ever find yourself up there with an oxygen tank, you will still freeze to death, as your body is pierced with those fast moving “high temperature” molecules.

Like

4. So what is causing that high-termperature? It seems to be as high if not higher than source right? I’m not just talking about the solar wind, but charge buildup thanks to charge separation between the Corona and the photosphere. The sun doesn’t work as advertised. For that we would need to accept the doctrines of the self-compression and self-segregation of hydrogen.

And what causes such persistent horizontal winds? Such as we see in the jet streams for one example (the super-rotating cloud banks in Venus for another.) If not electrical energy trying to earth?

Were it all just convection the main effects would be seen closer to the ground. And they would be randomised. Not persistent horizontal winds in one direction.

Liked by 1 person

1. Q=m*Cp*dT
It’s easy to raise a small amount of mass to a really high temperature. But adding mass (as you descend) and the temperature …

Like

1. Sure but thermal energy always travels from higher to lower temperature. Thats about all that temperature tells us So it cannot get higher than its source. Or not without a special reason. So the corona being hotter than the photosphere is always going to be a mystery if we persist with the idea that the photosphere is heating the corona. Its not just about total energy content. Absolute temperature is important as well. It says something about direction of thermal energy flow, and or the conversion of one energy source to another.

Liked by 1 person

1. Yes, but a drop of hot water won’t melt a bucket of ice.

Like

2. Yes the direction of the thermal energy flow is from the water to the ice. Not from the ice to the water drop or to the water vapour in the room. So for example the bucket of ice has more thermal energy total than that drop of water, in accordance to your formula. And yet as you say you cannot expect the object with the greater mass and energy to heat the object with the smaller mass and energy, but the higher temperature. If thats what you are saying, I’m saying it too.

So we cannot expect the photosphere to heat the corona, just as we cannot expect the bucket of ice to heat the drop of water. Because temperature doesn’t tell us much. But it does tell us who heats who.

Like

3. I’m saying that those higher hotter molecules are so few in number that they have no real noticeable effect on what’s below them.

Like

4. I certainly agree with that. But its hard to figure out how they got that hot.

Like

5. Over at Joanne’s place WXCycles has got the best observations. So I’ll be quoting him and pointing out that what he is observing implies electrical energy. Once you start looking for it the tendency is to see it everywhere.

Liked by 1 person

1. I enjoyed their research. But I think they got it backwards. Temperature -> Atmo Pressure. The simplest evidence is found here:
https://phzoe.com/2019/12/25/why-is-venus-so-hot/

It would be odd for the ideal gas law to cause a continuing gradient into the surface. Ideal gas law is not ideal solid law!
Makes more sense for atmo pressure to be based on geothermal gradient plus insolation.

Like

6. Max Polo says:

I love the mathematical cloning of energy ! These climatologists are sooooo smart ….!

Liked by 1 person