Thread by @DaleCloudyman

We have now seen that the greenhouse effect is predicated on a *mathematical discrepancy* caused by *grossly unphysical assumptions*.

Next, we will see how the proposed mechanism *ignores basic properties of matter* overlooking *most of the atmosphere*.

Let's dig in... 👇🧵

To recap, we found that climate scientists modelled the Earth equivalently with a flat disk twice as far from the Sun as in reality.

This gave a value of -18°C for the Earth's temp.

They brought in the greenhouse effect to cover the gap to +15°C.

1/

They genuinely take this -18°C as a reality, as evidenced by statements that the Earth would be a frozen ball if not for the greenhouse effect.

2/

The last thread elicited protestations that the GCMs really *do* treat the Earth as a rotating sphere with varying insolation.

Let's look to the IPCC.

"GCMs depict the climate using a three dimensional grid over the globe (see below)..."



3/ ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pag…

So it is 3D?

Well, if we drill down to one grid square, we see a familiar picture. Compare to the energy balance diagrams and simple one-layer models.

Each grid cell reduces to a locally flat surface.

This is sensible as the Earth is locally flat. What's the point then?

4/

The key question is: what principles do these GCMs use to model this locally flat grid square?

The answer is: the very same ones used in the zero-dimensional, one-layer model.

The very *motivation* for the models, is the flat-Earth-equivalent derivation that we have shown.

5/

Per the IPCC, the purpose of the GCMs is to simulate "the response of the global climate system to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations" ().

The importance of GHGs is *assumed*.

6/ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pag…

Looking at the referenced "criterion 1" is quite revealing.

The IPCC provides "five criteria that should be met by climate scenarios if they are to be useful..." ().

Criterion 1: Consistency with global projections.

Let that sink in for a sec.

7/ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pag…

The stated criteria for assessing the usefulness of a model...

... is that it agrees with existing projections.

That are themselves also based on such models.

Climate science is filled with many such Ourobori.

8/

Criterion 2 is possibly even more mind-boggling.

"Criterion 2: Physical plausibility."

...

You read it right. It's more important to the IPCC that a model agrees with the consensus...

... than that it does not "violate the basic laws of physics".

9/

Let's move on.

The one-layer model is quite effective for illustrating the premises of climate science.

The University of Washington provides an explanation ().

First they derive the (terribly unphysical) 240 W/m^2 of insolation, giving the -18°C

10/ atmos.washington.edu/academics/clas…

They then add an atmosphere layer, and this is where the magic happens.

The IR emitted by the earth is said to be absorbed by the atmosphere, which then re-radiates it out in both directions.

11/

The IR emitted downwards from the atmosphere - varyingly known as back-radiation or downwelling IR etc - is then received by the surface.

The surface therefore gets not only 240 W/m^2 from the Sun, but another 240 W/m^2 from the atmosphere itself!

12/

And as the Earth's surface is receiving more energy in total, it must heat up until it reaches a temperature such that it emits 480 W/m^2 back out.

Whether it is depicted as this downward IR warming the surface, as the IPCC did in AR1 ()...

13/ ipcc.ch/site/assets/up…

... or as this IR "blockage" somehow causing the surface to warm in response, as in AR6 ()...

The effect is the same. Downward IR --> surface heats up.

The math in the simple model is easy enough, and the equations balance out. What's the problem?

14/ ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1…

The issue is that the oversimplifying assumptions of the flat-Earth model lead one to only look at the IR-absorbing gases of the atmosphere.

The very definition of a greenhouse gas is one that absorbs IR (IPCC: )

15/ ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr…

Most of the atmosphere is made up of nitrogen & oxygen ().

According to UCAR, nitrogen and oxygen "cannot absorb heat and contribute to the greenhouse effect" (.).

Further, they "have no impact on the climate"

16/ atmo.arizona.edu/students/cours…
scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/…

What they really mean, however, is that they *cannot absorb infrared radiation*, not that the cannot "absorb heat".

Back to the UW course, note that they said conduction of heat & evaporation of water transfer *about twice as much* energy to the atmosphere than IR does.

17/

What's the point?

To answer that, let's look to "Basics of Radio Astronomy", published by NASA's JPL ()

From Chapter 3 ():

"Did you know that any object that contains any heat energy at all emits radiation?"

18/ www2.jpl.nasa.gov/radioastronomy/
web.archive.org/web/2000081522…

"All the matter in the known universe behaves this way."

All matter, including gases.

*All gases*... not just ones that absorb IR.

**All gases**... ... including nitrogen and oxygen!

19/

To put it in perspective:

99% of the atmosphere is nitrogen & oxygen. GHGs are <1% of the atmosphere.

These GHGs are said to account for 100% of the greenhouse effect... due to them radiating IR towards the Earth.

Yet *the entire atmosphere*, all 100% of it, emits IR.

20/

Further, the heating caused by convection *far surpasses* the heating caused by IR radiation and absorption.

From Atmospheres 1972 (): "At lower altitudes, convection takes over from radiation as the most important heat transport process."

21/scienceofdoom.com/2010/12/07/thi…

The GHE is predicated on downward IR causing surface heating.

By these very same premises, then, the non-IR-absorbing 99% of the atmosphere, heated far more by convection, emit IR just like the IR-absorbing part...

and should therefore contribute more to the GHE.

22/

One might ask, do these gases really emit IR?

A user's answer on a physics forum was quite indicative: "Experimentally it is probably very hard to measure these emissions [...] I am not aware of such measurements." ()

...

23/ physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7617…

Almost four decades since the IPCC was founded, centuries of climate science, all predicated on downwelling IR's effects on surface temps...

... and it is not common common knowledge how much IR nitrogen and oxygen emit & contribute.

One can only speculate why.

24/

One might ask, do nitrogen and oxygen really emit IR due to their temperature? As we said, it's not well-studied - what if they don't? Or only very little?

If that were the case, then 99% of the atmosphere would have *no way to cool down* radiatively.

25/

Any heat uptaken from the Earth's surface, by conduction & convection (which dominate below 12km) would have **no way to be lost to space**.

They would perfectly inhibit such cooling -- and therefore still achieve the purpose of keeping Earth warmer than otherwise.

26/

Nitrogen and oxygen are, in effect, greenhouse gases either way:

By the very tenets of the theory if they emit IR,

and by being near-perfect retainers of heat if they don't.

27/

This thread ends here, but not the journey.

As a hint for what's next, take a look at this particularly illustrative diagram of the one-layer model.

See how the thermal radiation emitted by the surface returns back to the surface to heat it up further?

28/

As you go about your daily life, ask yourself if any objects you interact with behave this way.

If you stand in front of a mirror, does your reflected heat cause you to warm up?

29/

The simple models have a ~50% IR return. Aluminum foil reflects over 90% of IR.

If you step into a foil-lined closet, would you nearly burst into flame as your own body heat reflected off the walls back onto you and heated you up?

30/

Does *anything* you observe in the world heat itself up with its own heat?

We will explore the answer next time.

Special thanks to:

- Richard ()
- Alan Siddons ()

fin/actualfreedom.com.au/sundry/factsan…
americanthinker.com/articles/2010/…

@threadreaderapp please unroll!