13 Oct 1934 – HOW THE ATMOSPHERE BLANKETS THE EARTH. THE EFFEC…
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
- EPA Climate Change Arrest
- Nothing Nuclear Winter Can’t Fix
Recent Comments
- Gamecock on “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- czechlist on “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- Jehzsa on “pushing nature past its limits”
- arn on Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- dm on Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- dm on “pushing nature past its limits”
- William on Compassion For Terrorists
- arn on “pushing nature past its limits”
I’m still trying to work out how pre WWII scientists knew the correct climate mechanisms and post 1980 “scientists” with all their high tech systems, can’t even get the basic concept correct! Is it due to all the acid they dropped at university in the 60’s?
Or did the collective IQ of western nations take a massive dive post WWII?
If they cannot be that dumb (we got to the moon and mars), then that leaves a conspiracy by acolytes of the Edward Bernays school of thought, who are a sociopathic bunch at best. A certain bunch control world finance so controlling world science is reasonably simple for them.
It was exactly the banning of legal acid use that created our Orwellian situation. Psychedelics lift the veil on authoritarianism, rendering it laughable, a mere social game worthy of ridicule. Upon criminalizing the spiritual sacrament of a whole generation, that generation and now many of their kids are Hell bent upon toppling Western civilization altogether as the West has proudly turned its back on the last massive scientific frontier left besides nanotechnogy: consciousness. The Drug War was the trial balloon that created a war against everyday normal civilians, that nowadays only the left is slowly dismantling, the right now being divided by libertarianism and a now overly *religious* Tea Party. As cities grow to further dominate federal politics, a growing majority of people now desire social liberty and fiscal conservatism, yet social liberty wins by a mile now that single professional women dominate urban culture. Those who dropped acid in the 70s created Silicon Valley. No wonder they now flee conservatism. Look at you demonize them!
They dropped acid, dropped out and helped create the leftard world we now occupy that is WORSE than the Conservative mess. You apparently are not paying any attention to actual world affairs instead of the flashbacks playing out in your mind.
H2O doesn’t provide any magical “GHE” either. H2O only provides a holding of latent heat, and itself is not capable of any “warming”. H2O is a “regulator”, not a magical GHG….
The GHE math is wrong, from what I have read.
GHG Theory was invented to explain a so-called 33C atmospheric greenhouse gas global warming effect. In 1981 James Hansen [1, 2] stated the average thermal T at Earth’s surface is 15C (ok) and Earth radiates to space at -18C (ok). Then he declared the difference 15 – (-18) = 33C (arithmetic ok) is the famous greenhouse gas effect. This is not ok because there is no physics to connect these two dissimilar numbers. The 33C are whatchamacallits. This greenhouse gas effect does not exist.
Here is the science for what is happening. Thermal T is a point property of matter, a scalar measure of its kinetic energy of atomic and molecular motion. It is measured by thermometers. It decreases with altitude. The rate of thermal energy transfer by conduction or convection between hot Th and cold Tc is proportional to (Th – Tc).
Radiation t is a point property of massless radiation, EMR, a directional vector measure of its energy transmission rate per area or intensity, w/m2, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is measured by pyrometers and spectrometers. Solar radiation t increases with altitude. Black bodies are defined to be those that absorb and radiate with the same intensity and corresponding t. Real, colorful bodies reflect, scatter, absorb, convert and emit radiant energy according to the nature of the incident radiation direction, spectrum and body matter reflectivity, absorptivity, emissivity and view factors. The rate of EMR energy transfer from a hot body, th, is Q, w = 5.67Ae(th + 273)4, where A is radiating area and e is emissivity fraction. But it may not be absorbed by all bodies that intercept it, as GHG theory assumes. In particular, hotter radiating bodies do not absorb colder incident radiation and reemit it more intensely, as GHG back-radiation theory assumes.
Above Earth’s stratosphere, thin air T is rather cold, about -80C. Yet solar radiation t is rather hot, about 120C. So spacesuits have thermal insulation and radiant reflection. The difference, 200C, is meaningless. On a cold, clear, winter day on snowcapped mountains, dry air T = -10C and radiation t = 50C. I can feel them both.
Much of GHG theory fails to make clear distinctions between these two different kinds of temperature, T and t. One temperature, t, is analogous to velocity, 34 km/hour north; the other, T, is analogous to density, 1 kg/liter. So 34 km/hour – 1 kg/liter is indeed 33 whatchamacallits by arithmetic, but nobody will ever know what a whatchamacallit is because velocity and density are not connected by nature.
To clarify this enormous intellectual flaw, take boiling point of water is 100C (true) and freezing point is 32F (true), subtract 100 – 32 = 68 (correct arithmetic) and declare atmospheric pressure is 68 psia. The declaration is false because a) the difference between C and F has no meaning, b) there is no physics to connect 68 to pressure, psia, and c) atmospheric pressure is actually 14.7 psia. That 33C greenhouse gas effect that has everybody so upset and is researched ad nausea to death is not an effect, merely an easily explained pair of facts.
Therefore, it is quite true the 33C greenhouse gas effect defined by James Hansen in 1981 as thermal T = 15C at surface minus radiant t = -18C to space is whatchamacallit nonsense. Everybody knows you can’t compare apples to eggs; except perhaps Greenhouse Gas theorists. Since this is irrefutable logic, no experiment is called for. Logic trumps nonsense; No one needs to prove or disprove the existence of whatchamacallits. They are not even imaginary. There is no greenhouse in the sky.
Planetary atmospheres reflect, scatter, transmit, absorb, emit and diminish stellar radiation intensity at the surface according to Beer-Lambert Law, 121C incident to Earth’s stratosphere to 15C at surface. Thermal T of atmospheres increase as gravity compresses gas and converts potential energy to kinetic energy closer to the surface, -80C in stratosphere to 14.5C at surface. Therefore atmospheres cause the surface to be colder than it would be if atmosphere were thinner or non-existent. The more O2 is exchanged for higher heat capacity CO2, the colder the surface radiation intensity temperature. Atmospheres are refrigerators, not blankets.
GHG theory postulates back-radiation from cold atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the surface, heating it more. This violates Second Law of thermodynamics (energy can only be transferred from hot to cold bodies), This, also leads to the creation of energy, a violation of the First Law of thermodynamics (energy conservation), and the impossible perpetual motion machine AGW promoters need to cause eternal global warming.
CO2 does not trap radiation; like all molecules, it absorbs some incident radiation according to its absorption spectrum and promptly emits it according to its emission spectrum. CO2 is not a pollutant; it is inert green plant food. CO2 should not be curtailed, starving Earth’s flora. Minor solar driven global warming from 1974 to 1998 has stabilized through 2011. CO2 has nothing to do with global warming; it actually cools Earth. Arctic ice does not melt because of global warming, [increasing T]; it melts when the average T > 0, at rate proportional to T, no matter whether T is increasing or decreasing.
This essay has seven scientific facts (33C whatchamacallit, no blanket, no back-radiation, CO2 no trap, CO2 inert food, no AGW, ice melts), each of which refute GHG and AGW. It has not been peer reviewed because it is well known to professional physicists and engineers; it does not merit a research paper, or research, or experiments. Logic just needs clear definitions and common sense, not government spending and regulation.
If there is no greenhouse effect, why does the desert (low water vapor) cool off faster at night than a humid place. We are talking cloudless, clear skies.
Is this a trick question? Your example proves the point: CO2 cools in the desert. In humid places, water vapor retains its temperature until it precipitates.
Thanks Ron
1. CO2 doesn’t cool the desert any more than it cools the humid place.
2. Water vapor doesn’t retain “its” temperature, it retains the temperature of the surface.
3. In humid places, water vapor doesn’t precipitate because I said clear skies. No clouds.
Ok Edmonton Al. I just read your first post more carefully. It contains a couple of fatal errors.
First, you talk about T and t being apples and eggs, that we can’t compare earth’s thermal temperature T with incoming solar radiation t. We don’t have to. The greenhouse effect has nothing to do with solar radiation t, which only happens in the daytime. The greenhouse effect is all about radiation of heat from earth’s surface, and it happens 24 hours a day. It doesn’t matter how earth is heated. It can be heated by the sun in the daytime, it can be heated by geothermal from inside, it can be heated by a huge monster on Jupiter with a blow drier. It doesn’t matter. All that matters is how earth loses its heat, not how it gets it. All that matters is the temperature of the surface, and the temperature at the top of the atmosphere. It’s apples and apples. You can take one of those IR thermometers they sell, they look like little guns, cooks use them in kitchens, you aim it at something and click the trigger and get the temperature, it measures it by the color temperature of the IR emitted. Stand on the surface of the earth, click it, then go into outer space 100 miles from earth and click it again. The difference in temperature is the heat trapped by the atmosphere, which it turns out, is a blanket. Not a refrigerator.
Second. you say “CO2 does not trap radiation; like all molecules, it absorbs some incident radiation according to its absorption spectrum and promptly emits it according to its emission spectrum.” This is a mistake made by lots of people. CO2 absorbs some incident radiation according to its absorption spectrum, as you say, but it immediately transfers some (most?) of that heat by conduction to the O2, N2, and Ar molecules in the air that surrounds it. It heats the air. There is no reason it has to emit it according to its emission spectrum, it can simply pass it on to the air. If there were no CO2 or H2O in the air, it would not be heated much, but the CO2 and mainly H2O grab the heat and transfer it to the rest of the air by conduction. In time, the H2O and CO2 take the energy back from the O2 and N2, and emit the energy to space, and that time delay is the greenhouse effect.
Greenhouse effect exists. It’s just that 92% of it is from H2O, only 5% from CO2, and the rest from other gasses. The reason AGH is bullshit is we didn’t put the H2O there.
Morgan
Agree that the climate is not driven by CO2.
However, I am not as willing as you to accept that radiation is important in the lower troposphere. Other more powerful means of heat transport–conduction, convection and evaporation– push the heat upward against the atmospheric mass and gravity. Radiation can’t stop this, and can only add a miniscule amount in the same direction.
At the TOA, radiation rules and functions to send heat into space.
I agree. In the desert, without all these other mechanisms of heat transfer to the TOA, it gets cold faster at night than when these other mechanisms that you mention are in play, most of which I assume involve water vapor and latent heat in one form or storm or another. In the desert it’s all about the lack of water vapor, the main greenhouse gas. Really, the only one worth mentioning. I lump CO2 together with CH4 and the others as negligible greenhouse gases. “It’s the water, stupid.” My new mantra,
@Morgan Wright,
Seriously? … ROFLMAO….
Yes, really, idiot.
Nice summary. +1
“CO2 does not trap radiation; like all molecules, it absorbs some incident radiation according to its absorption spectrum and promptly emits it according to its emission spectrum…” as does, I assume, water vapor. I am a biologist, not a physicist, so please bear with me.
I have read that water vapor exists in the atmosphere at 1%–4%. If true and if it absorbs more energy than CO2 (which exists at ~0.04%, 25 to 100-fold less), then any argument that CO2 (of which human origin constitutes only about 3% of the total) affects global temperatures is specious, because water vapor effects would vastly overwhelm any such effect of CO2. At least, that’s my thinking.
So—The numbers I would like to see (or be referred to) to document such an effect are 1) the CO2 absorption spectrum compared with that of water vapor (number of peaks and nanometer wavelengths of each?), 2) the total efficiency of long-wave IR energy absorption comparing a CO2 molecule to an H2O molecule and any other relevant documentation. Then the total ‘concentration’ (?) of each gas could be factored in to obtain a ‘Total Greenhouse Effect’ or whatever descriptive term were appropriate.
Great post, Edmonton Al! Thanks.
Please see my question below. Thanks.
Bob in NC
CO2 is around 0.04% of the atmosphere. Water vapor in the tropics can be up to 4% of the atmosphere by volume, which is 40,000 ppm. This means that water vapor in the tropics under these conditions is 100 times more abundant than CO2. And since each water molecule is 40% better at absorbing infrared than a CO2 molecule, because of the hydroxyl bond, that means water vapor is 140 times more important in this example as a greenhouse gas than CO2 in the tropics. But the tropics is where earth gets most of its sunlight for two reasons. First, the sunlight is stronger there, and secondly, the earth is much bigger at the equator and the tropics covers a much greater area. This demonstrates that CO2 is a trivial greenhouse gas.
The above is water in its vapor form only, and doesn’t include clouds which are liquid droplets which can convert to vapor at a moment’s notice and add to the greenhouse effect. CO2 can’t do this.
Obviously, 4% is an extreme case, but 2% or 1%, which are typical clear-weather levels in the tropics and normal summertime levels in temperate zones, show that H2O is so overwhelmingly more important than CO2 as a greenhouse gas that the latter is negligible as such. Only in the winter in temperate zones, or all year in polar zones, is the CO2 level in the same league as water vapor and even worthy of mention as a greenhouse gas. However, the amount of sunlight under those conditions is not a significant percentage of the total amount of sunlight the earth receives annually, which mostly occurs in the tropics, subtropics, or in the summertime in temperate zones. The only other place where CO2 levels are in the same realm as H2O levels is the upper atmosphere, where it doesn’t matter. There is very little H2O in the stratosphere, mesosphere, or thermosphere, but the CO2 level up there is always .04%. The greenhouse effect, as significant in warming earth’s surface, however, occurs only in the troposphere, where almost all of earth’s H2O vapor is found.
The scientific consensus is that pre-industrial levels of CO2 were 280 ppm, and that we have raised it to 400, and it is commonly held among scientists that in doing so, we have raised the temperature of the earth by 0.8°C. That means 0.8°C for every 120 ppm. Since the atmosphere currently has 400 ppm, that means 2.46°C are accounted for by CO2 if this rule of thumb is true. In Michael McElroy’s “The Atmospheric Environment” which is used as a textbook in many colleges, it states that earth’s greenhouse effect raises earth’s surface from 255°K to 290°K, or 35°C. Of the 35 degrees of greenhouse effect, we have seen that 2.46 degrees were caused by CO2. A simple calculation shows that 2.46 out of 35 is 7.1%, and if we add methane, NO2, fluorocarbons, and SO4, it brings it to around 7.5%. So all the non-H2O greenhouse gases account for 7.5% of the greenhouse effect, and water vapor accounts for the other 92.5%.
Note that the above argument starts with the premise that CO2 actually caused the 0.8°C in warming. This premise was assumed to show that, even using the global warming proponents data and argument, CO2 is insignificant as a greenhouse gas. But, judging by the rising sea levels starting in the 19th century, before CO2 was being produced in quantity by humans, and that this rise has been linear since then, in spite of all the CO2 we have produced, it shows that even the increase of temperature by 0.8°C was probably not caused by CO2 in the first place, so our rule of thumb in the last paragraph doesn’t hold. Whatever has been causing the earth to warm for the past 2 centuries, it’s not CO2.
The arguments I presented make it clear that the greenhouse effect on earth is mediated almost entirely by water vapor. All the other gases don’t amount to a hill of shizzle.
Except that, there is no such thing as a “green house effect”, not in terms of the IPCC definition for sure (warming by “back radiation” from so-called GHG’s).
A cooler object cannot make a warmer object warmer still … ie: the atmosphere cannot heat the ground unless it is actually warmer than the ground, which it usually is not.
Morgan Wright – Thank you for the info!
The IPCC is wrong about back radiation. The atmosphere acts like a blanket, not a radiator.
But they are idiots and you can’t blame idiots for being idiots.
The atmosphere does NOT act like a blanket. That is total sophist garbage. Hence, the reason why the IPCC changed their GHE hypothesis in 1997 to the supposed “back radiation” hypothesis, which, is also wrong. Our atmosphere does not keep us warmer. The supposed 33C discrepancy is sophist crap justified by a flawed static atmospheric model. They use the idea of a “green house effect” to try to fill the gap of their flawed (purposefully flawed) static model. The claim being that without our atmosphere, the world would have an average temperature of -18C. However, if this were true, we would not exist, as in order for this to be true, it means sunshine is cold and is only half the energy it really is at a distance 4x’s further away than it really is, which means we could not have hydrology on this planet, we could not have fluid water, we could not have clouds or liquid water, we could not have water vapor and evaporation.
There is no “blanket”, and there is no heating from “back radiation”. Hence, there is no “green house effect”. If anything, our atmosphere provides cooling (as is observed), and because of the H2O content and the latent heat stored within our atmosphere (due to this H2O and water vapor) and the 72% of our planet that is water, our temperature is moderated (and regulated by other factors that interact with it ..ie: clouds, etc…).
Stop with the GHE “blanket” garbage already. That is sophist crap (and soooo 1990’s).
The atmosphere doesn’t have to be warmer than the surface to keep it warm, anymore than your blanket has to be more than 98.6 to keep you warm. The atmosphere slows the loss of heat from earth’s surface day and night. No back radiation, just slowing the loss of it. That’s the greenhouse effect. I’ll stop saying blanket when you stop saying sophist.
My advice, don’t go around saying the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist. Doesn’t look good in public.
And Santa exists….
Ok we’re done here
Agreed .. you cannot help but spout a bunch of unrelated sophist bullshit.
Blanket = layer of air being held in place by wool fibers.
Atmosphere = layer of air being held in place by gravity.
I prefer the term gravity blanket over greenhouse.
Our atmosphere provides no such “blanket”… that is sophist crap….
Use Le Chatlier’s principle. If the upward radiation is more than the back radiation, the earth cools, but it cools more slowly than if there were no back radiation at all. The atmosphere doesn’t have to be hotter than earth to slow the cooling. It just has to slow it. That’s what blankets do. That’s what the greenhouse effect does.
If you (98.6) stand next to a 60 degree wall on one side and a 30 degree wall on the other, they are both colder than you, so your radiation is more than the back radiation from each wall, but you lose more heat on the 30 degree side because it has less back radiation. It’s Le Chatlier’s principle
I feel absolutely NOTHING from either wall. I cannot, because I am hotter than each of the walls and therefore the radiation from either wall does not impart ANY energy upon me what so ever. Please learn a little bit about the laws of thermodynamics before such sophist bullshit.
Your analogy is garbage.
So, you are saying that both walls are absolute zero? Nice. We are done here.
You have to be an idiot …
Perhaps this is in simple enough terms for you:
http://selfstudy.in/HSEPhysics/PrevostsTheory.pdf
And to reply directly to you on subject
No, are you daft? .. both walls are COOLER than I am, therefore, they are BOTH a thermal sink to me. I cannot feel heat from either one of them.
When you look into the mirror, does your face feel hot? If what you are saying were true, then it should, as the 98.6F of your body is radiating right back at you, you should feel the heat.
When you place a candle next to a mirror, does the flame grow hotter? Does the candle get brighter?
When you shine a flash light into a mirror, directly back at the flash light, does it get brighter? No, because the radiation reflected back <= to the source, which cannot absorb any radiation that is <= to itself. If this were possible, then a perpetuum mobile would be possible. In fact, you could create energy from nothing, which most of us know violates LTD #1 (first law of thermodynamics).
Really, think about this stuff before you say such absurd things…
What you are attempting to describe with the term “gravity” blanket has nothing to do with the so called “green house effect” .. this is a completely different topic and not at all related to the IPCC “green house effect”.
What’s all this IPCC crap anyway. These terms are 100 years older than the IPCC and they are UN politicians not even worthy of mention.
In order for radiant heat to get through the atmosphere is has to be absorbed, reradiated, absorbed, reradiated, absorbed, reradiated, maybe millions of times, before it finally gets to the TOA and out. Just like your body heat does with the air trapped in your blanket. It takes a long time for earth’s heat to scatter through all the H2O molecules and get out.
Here’s a mind exercise. The sun produces energy at its core, and all that radiation travels from the core to the surface of the sun. How long do you think it takes for the radiation to travel through 400,000 miles of hydrogen and helium before emerging at the visible surface of the sun?
1. 2 seconds
2. 2 minutes
3. 2 days
4. 2 weeks
5. other
To answer your question.
A photon emanating from the core of our sun, takes anywhere from 100,000 years to 1 million years to reach its photosphere. From there it takes approximately 8 minutes to reach the TOA (top of atmosphere) of the Earth. From there, everything depends upon frequency whether it is reflected, absorbed or passes through to the surface. A great portion (majority) is reflected, a small portion is absorbed by various gasses and particles and never reaches the surface. A good deal of short wave radiation reaches the surface (without your “absorbed, reradiated, absorbed, reradiated, absorbed, reradiated” garbage), this process takes just a few milliseconds from TOA to surface.
Really, you need to quit commenting on this stuff until you learn much more about it. You are starting to look very foolish. A wise man would quit digging when he has already dug himself into a hole.
sources:
NASA: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980414a.html
Cornell EDU: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=197
You are correct. Now, how long does it take for a photon of IR radiated from earth’s surface to get into outer space?
You will have to find that yourself. I am not here to do your homework for you. Go back to school.
Bzzzt. Wrong answer.
Here is a question for you (since you seem to think you are of such intellect).
Please describe for me, within the framework of physics, what is the description of the IPCC Green House Effect hypothesis?
Pffffttt…. yeah, I thought so…
Ok, I will throw you just one additional bone, then it is off to bed (I have a real job).
Real greenhouses function because there is no atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect that is discussed by climate science for the atmosphere is an entirely different thing than the greenhouse effect of a real physical greenhouse. This is a very convenient hijack of definitions and concepts for creating confusion. A real greenhouse gets warm because it traps hot air. It prevents air which has been heated by the surfaces inside the greenhouse which have themselves been heated by sunshine, from convecting away (hot air rises, the glass roof stops this) and being replaced by cool air from above. That is the physical mechanism of a real greenhouse (because of its solid glass roof) and it has nothing to do with the supposed radiative greenhouse effect in our atmosphere. The underlying physical mechanisms are completely different, and so the term “greenhouse effect” which should correspond to a factual physical greenhouse and the physical trapping of warm air, gets hijacked and contorted and ambiguated with this other atmospheric radiative conception for the atmosphere. It’s a total disaster for clarity, definitions, conceptualization, logic, language, etc.
However the most ironic thing about this, is that the supposed radiative greenhouse effect (which is postulated for the atmosphere) should actually be found and exist in a real physical greenhouse too, because the physics should translate over – but it isn’t!
The only place the supposed radiative greenhouse mechanics exists is within climate alarm – it exists nowhere else in all of industry and all of science and all of physics, etc. It should exist everywhere else because as a basic principle of physics, it has to be universal, and it has to be applicable anywhere else that similar situations exist. Alas, it is nowhere else to be found. It should be seen in a real greenhouse of all places for goodness’ sake! But the radiative greenhouse effect isn’t even found there. Only the real greenhouse effect is found in a real greenhouse.
There literally exists no empirical evidence for the atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect version anywhere. Tests that have been performed to empirically demonstrate it have always and consistently failed to find it, among both critics of the atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect and its supporters. Real physical greenhouses exist; the idea of a radiative atmospheric greenhouse effect is a fiction which hijacks the name of the real thing in a real greenhouse.
The radiative atmospheric greenhouse effect was invented to stand-in for what the lapse rate already naturally explains about the atmosphere – that the bottom of the atmosphere has to be warmer than the blackbody average of the whole system (planet Earth) as seen from outer-space. This radiative greenhouse idea was invented because the lapse rate of the atmosphere, which is a fundamental physical characteristic of all atmospheres around all planets, is left out of the energy accounting and mathematical models that climate science and climate alarm uses for modelling the Earth.
The atmospheric greenhouse effect (AGHE) depends solely upon one of two alternative ideas. And yes please note this, that the supposedly scientific theory of the atmospheric greenhouse effect doesn’t even have a consistent explanation. In any case, we either have that 1) the colder atmosphere heats up the surface, or 2) the atmosphere acts like a mirror and sends surface radiation back to the surface to heat itself up above its own temperature.
Option 1) is a plain falsity because of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Cold doesn’t heat up hot, heat doesn’t flow from cold to hot, hot in heating cold doesn’t become hotter still because it heated the cold. QED. This option doesn’t need to be considered any further. To be sure, this used to be the most common argument and used the phraseology of “backradiation” to “justify” the heating. However, thermal backradiation heating is simply thermal heating from cold going to hot. This is the argument that some organizations still use, but people who are involved in this debate with me have abandoned it because it is so plainly absurd and anti-scientific, and they’ve gotten badly trashed for using it.
Option 2) can be used to develop much more complex sounding mechanics, that usually revolves around a phraseology of “trapping” radiation or heat. All you need to do to figure this one out is take the postulate to the perfect limit, where the atmosphere was a perfect mirror and reflected 100% of the thermal electromagnetic radiation from the surface back to the surface. Again, the Laws of Thermodynamics: a temperature can not increase its own temperature; a temperature can not heat itself; a temperature can not transfer heat to the same temperature or itself. What happens to your temperature when you stand in front of a mirror and get your radiant heat reflected back to you? Nothing. Does shining a flashlight into a mirror make the flashlight shine brighter? No. (Children know this).
So, that’s it. All of the arguments for this atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect (which hijacks the name of the real thing of a completely different process in a real physical greenhouse) fall under one of those two options.
So, what you are saying is, you never took any science classes, and the “science for non-science students” classes you took, you got Cs and Ds.
Pardon me, you did take science courses, from this web site:
http://selfstudy.in/HSEPhysics/PrevostsTheory.pdf
But without an instructor to correct your misunderstandings, and without having a functioning brain, your concept of Prevost’s Theory is exactly the opposite of what it actually says.
Slayers out in force today…