View Article

The two sides of the global warming debate have always been one side in reality.

Alarmist David Archer - this screen shot is taken from YouTube Lecture 5 - The Greenhouse Effect

David Archer teaches the same conceptual model as ‘Skeptic’ Richard Lindzen.



Source: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/198_greenhouse.pdf
And Gavin Schmidt teaches the same.

That is, the whole blooming climatology club teaches that greenhouse gases absorb radiation from the earth’s heated surface, reach the same temperature as the surface, and radiate energy back to the surface to heat it even more, as Derek Alker illustrates here:

It doesn’t matter to the climatology club that such a simple phenomenon has never been duplicated in a laboratory. It doesn’t matter to the climatology club that if it COULD be duplicated it would revolutionize physics, for this process continuously turns the energy of 1 watt into 2. In other words, it doesn’t matter to the climatology club that their conceptual model is ludicrous. What matters is only that you believe in this model because climatologists do. And they will attack you without mercy if you don’t.

Stupid as it is, and despite long-winded denials, the atmospheric greenhouse model originated from a misconception about glass greenhouses, the belief that panes of IR-opaque glass reradiate heat back to the interior, thus making it hotter than it would be otherwise.

Climatologists just made ‘greenhouse gases’ a substitute for glass. It’s a theory that’s been bogus from the very beginning, and decades of indoctrination haven’t changed that fact a bit.

I should add that there are at least 3 obvious problems with climatology’s model of greenhouse physics.

Surface area: Even if an overhead layer of greenhouse gases did exist, that layer would have TWO exposed surfaces, upper and lower. 239 W/m² from the earth’s single surface would thus amount to 239 watts per TWO square meters on that fictional layer, hence about 120 W/m² would radiate in two directions, not 239 W/m². Moreover, adding 120 W/m² to the 239 W/m² surface would bring it to only 359 W/m², which translates to 282 Kelvin. But 282K is not nearly enough when convective and evaporative cooling are taken into account. Indeed, by professor Lindzen’s estimate, an astounding 851 W/m² of radiative “forcing” — or 350 degrees Kelvin — are needed to counter these non-radiative cooling mechanisms and reach a compromise surface temperature of 288K.

Thermodynamics: Even if the overhead greenhouse layer had 100% opacity and thereby reached the same temperature and thermal emission as the earth below, it is impossible for one body at the same temperature as another to heat that other body. There is ZERO heat transfer when two bodies are at the same temperature.

Reciprocity: Even if an equally warm atmosphere WERE able to raise the temperature of a planet’s surface, the now-warmer surface would necessarily heat the atmosphere. This would of course bring about a “runaway greenhouse effect” from the very start!

Extra:

Further to the above screenshot from Archer’s lecture to cross-compare with professor Lindzen’s (identical) depiction, but I hadn’t seen the Archer video for a long time. So tonight I gave it another look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-5PsoF7Vp0&feature=relmfu

And whaddya know? He originally presents that ATMOSPHERIC greenhouse layer as a pane of glass (14:25)! Quote: “We’re going to put a pane of glass to represent an atmosphere.”

Then Archer erases ‘glass’ in order to extend the layer for labeling purposes.

Later on, in response to a student’s confusion (20:40), he repeats that this layer that “hangs there magically above the ground” is indeed meant to represent the atmosphere, and scribbles “atm” beside the layer to remove any doubts.

I repeat: Stupid as it is, and despite long-winded denials, the atmospheric greenhouse model originated from a misconception about glass greenhouses....AS