Continuing from Part 1, I further show why the mainstream Greenhouse Effect is a Fraud.
First we must understand that math is not physics. Physics uses math, but math is not bound by the laws of physics. In other words, you can use math to fabricate the unreal. For example: say we want to know how much electricity is needed to power a neighborhood that is being planned for development; We can easily do that. Does that mean that there is already electricity doing that? No.
But … in Eq. 7.12 and 7.13, it is already presumed that the surface output (390 W/m²) is already a given, yet in reality they completely failed to show the causality of it. What I’m trying to say is that their equations fuse the available and the needed together to produce what is observed (390 W/m²).
What is available? If the sun is considered the only input, then only 240 W/m² is available. Let’s see what that produces:
A 24-hour average input of 240 W/m² simply produces a 24-hour average output of 240 W/m²
Notice that the Earth “keeps” nothing in step 5. There is another problem with their physics. In Figure 1 of Part 1 they “kept” 390 W/m². The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is for emission and emission only. An object can’t “keep” a flux and be at a given temperature. It has to emit to be said to be at a given temperature. I should have shown a step 6 with 390 W/m² being emitted to space. Doing so would show that they emit 240+390=630 W/m² to space … from a solar input of only 240 W/m²!
It is becoming even more clear that they can’t derive the observable surface temperature directly from the sun, and so they cheat. Here is what they end up doing:
They simply treat Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) as if they are a raw source of energy providing 150 W/m² in addition to the sun’s 240 W/m² (But there is another contradiction I expose in a later article).
Now their math works! So what’s the problem? The needed became GHGs-provide-raw energy! This is a huge affirming-the-consequent fallacy.
In most popular literature on this topic it is claimed that GHGs trap solar energy, but in reality they fabricate energy from GHGs because they want to show that they are responsible for why the Earth is warmer than what the sun alone can do. In reality they can’t actually show the causation in a scientific manner, they can only describe/declare/insist on a process using a logical fallacy.
The radiation-based Greenhouse Effect is nothing but rhetoric devoid of any scientific merit.
-Zoe
Zoe's Insights 
Zoe …You are spot on. I find the gas guys take on the auto gravitational warming very appealing. after all when the sun hits the pressurized cold morning air it gets hot…..dah. What is your take on the geo heat in terms of watts per sq meter….
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have never seen Gay-Lussac’s gas law stated as pressure creates sustained temperature – only the other way around. I also bought into the pressure -> raises surface temperature idea. But logic and reason forced me to abandon that.
“What is your take on the geo heat in terms of watts per sq meter”
That’s a really tough question. For example, we like to think the sun emits roughly the same radiation in all directions. But does it? Have we measured that? If that’s not the case, then same for geothermal – it may vary by latitude. For an average, I would guess it’s somewhere around 220-240 W/m² @ Sea Level, but it may be as high as 340 W/m². I haven’t decided yet. Temperature lifts molecules up causing an atmosphere. This includes water vapor. Water vapor gets a free lift, and then when it condenses there is extra energy released. So is evaporation free? If it is, then geothermal is 220-240 W/m². If not, then it’s 340 W/m². I’m leaning more towards evaporation being free.
LikeLike
Zoe…Let me add some thoughts on pressurized gas…Its early morning, about 6:00 am. the air temp is 45 F. look at a 1″ column of air near the surface of a cement sidewalk. There is a 14.7 pound weight on that 1”cube of air near the surface. Now add enough sun to the surface to raise the temp to 98 f. It will lift the 14.7 pound weight some amount due to expansion and in the process do work which is heat…….Thoughts?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The work in lifting the molecules does nothing to surface temperature. The lift work creates an atmosphere, and the temperature (caused by solar and geothermal) creates the lift work. Pressure alone can never create an atmosphere. The reason the ideal gas law works at the surface is not because pressure creates temperature, but vice versa. For clarity, the ideal gas law should be stated as: PV <- nRT. The "=" sign creates confusion.
I hope I answered your question.
LikeLike
The surface temperature of Earth and Venus is NOT determined by geo-thermal energy, for how would sub-surface regions know night from day? Nor is it determined by direct solar radiation Zoe Phin to these surfaces. Explain the surface temperature of Venus Dear Zoe and how and why it acquires the required thermal energy so that a location on its equator rises in temperature from about 732K to 737K over the course of about four months on the sunlit side and, inevitably, cools by the same amount on the dark side. Guess what! Upward natural (or “free” – meaning not forced) convective heat transfer is no faster on the dark side than is the reverse (that I called “heat creep” for short) on the sunlit side. Why should it be? What other explanation do you have? Answer: none.
LikeLike
Provide evidence that Venus’ SURFACE experiences a 732K to 737K diurnal variation. If you do not, how can I take you seriously?
LikeLike
Hey Zoe- pressure raises temperature because the molecules bump into each other more frequently. Work is being done on the gas.
The simplest example is the Diesel engine: unlike gas engines which require a spark plug to set off combustion within the piston, a Diesel engine relies on heat from pressure alone (except for when the engine is warming up initially where a glow plug is needed since the cold cylinder block absorbs the heat of compression). The fuel mixture is compressed and ignites on its own.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In the ideal gas model, molecular collisions are ELASTIC. Molecules do not increase their average velocity, hence kinetic energy, due to collisions.
I’ve once argued your point for a brief period, but I was wrong.
Diesel engines “pop” the fuel molecules, and release their internal energy. This is not a good analogy for the atmosphere.
Thank you for the comment. -Z
LikeLike
zoe…. pressure alone does not create heat, But if you heat a pressurized gas it will heat the atmosphere.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sure. The atmosphere IS pressurized gas. It exists because solid/liquid “gas” molecules were heated enough to become a gas capable of being suspended “permanently”.
LikeLike
You can program, how about writing a little greenhouse simulator?
LikeLike
Zoe:
As mentioned in my earlier comment, this stuff is way beyond my math and understanding of physics. However, I found your point on the traditional presentation of the metaphorical GH effect interesting: how is the atmosphere producing more energy than is being supplied. You noted, in relation to the (fairly standard) NASA representation of the GH budget that:
“As you can see in the above diagram from NASA, they are trying to imply that greenhouse gases provide 340.3 W/m2. Isn’t that what they are doing? Why else have the label “Greenhouse Gases” in green hovering over “back radiation 340.3 W/m2” with green arrows pointing down?”
Your 2 articles on the GH effect (parts 1 & 2) also note that there’s some odd stuff happening with their calculations.
There’s a recent article making the same point. While the analysis is probably pretty traditional (in that he’s still focused on the GH effect from radiatively active gases), he notes:
“In doing so, they [Climate Scientists] accept that the total LW radiation to the Earth’s surface is 345.6 Wm-2 and that it has been caused solely by GH gases and clouds, which absorb 155.6 Wm-2 from the thermal radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface. The result of this interpretation is that the absorption by GH gases and clouds have caused the Earth’s surface to become 33°C warmer. This approach does not consider a physical contradiction in that an energy source of 155.6 Wm-2 cannot create an energy flux of 345.6 Wm-2, which has the real warming effect on the Earth’s surface.”
Article was cited on No Tricks Zone. http://www.journalpsij.com/index.php/PSIJ/article/view/30127/56520
Cheers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Long time supporter, and thought I’d drop a comment.
Your wordpress site is very sleek – hope you don’t mind me asking what theme you’re using?
(and don’t mind if I steal it? :P)
I just launched my site –also built in wordpress
like yours– but the theme slows (!) the site down quite a bit.
In case you have a minute, you can find it by searching for
“royal cbd” on Google (would appreciate any feedback) – it’s still
in the works.
Keep up the good work– and hope you all take care of yourself during
the coronavirus scare!
~Alex
LikeLike