|
|
Gary Novak
The Cause of Ice Ages and Present Climate |
The Nonsense Of Radiative Transfer Equations There is no number that shows the heating caused by increasing carbon dioxide in the air, the simple reason being that temperature is determined through equilibrium. Equilibrium is the interaction of many factors in subtle, constantly changing and complex ways. No number can represent equilibrium.
Yet, fakes need a number to lock in their frauds and pretend that they have it figured out. So they produce a number where there is no number. The number that they use is 3.7 watts per square meter of radiation less leaving the atmosphere upon doubling the amount of CO2. There are numerous reasons why that number is total fraud. One is because it is a rate rather than a temperature or a quantity of heat. Rate has no meaning apart from additional numbers and analysis. Rate cannot be a forever number without a forever change, yet a fixed temperature is associated with it. Fake radiative transfer equations say there are 3.7 watts per square meter less radiation flow out from the earth's atmosphere and into space when the amount of CO2 doubles in the atmosphere, and the result is 1°C increase in atmospheric temperature, with about 1% error in the determination. It's total nonsense. Yet it is the basis for everything else in the fake science of global warming. If the temperature goes up by 1°C, why would there be less radiation? There is sort of a muddled concept that CO2 blocks radiation, and therefore, there is less radiation with more CO2 in the atmosphere. But CO2 does not block radiation. CO2 emits radiation exactly as everything in in the atmosphere and in the universe does. Every molecule in the universe emits radiation based upon its temperature. But the use of radiative transfer equation to show heating requires a number to represent heating. There is no number to represent heating, in part because: One: There is no number to represent equilibrium of temperature. Two: There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas blocking radiation. Three: Rate of energy entering the Earth's environment from the sun can never be different from rate of energy leaving the earth's environment, on average. This image shows what the nonsensical numbers look like:
The claim is that 390 W/m² of radiation leaves the surface of the Earth at the average temperature of 15°C . This number comes from the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. Also claimed is that this radiation is 79% of the energy leaving the surface of the Earth, which means other sources must be 104 W/m². Fake scientists apply the Stefan-Boltzmann constant to the atmosphere, even though it is designed to apply only to opaque surfaces, because the incompetents have no other means of doing quantitative evaluation of that concern. Having nothing real for physics to apply to the subject results in any old calculation being applied no matter how absurd. Based on those claims, there must also be 390 W/m² of radiation being emitted from the atmosphere at 15°C. But of course, the atmosphere varies in temperature cooling with height. However, CO2 absorption of fingerprint radiation saturates in 10 meters, and not much temperature change occurs in 10 meters; so a comparison can be made for equal temperatures at 15°C at the surface of the earth and nearby atmosphere. In fact, at 10 meters of saturation, the temperature will always be about the same for radiation being emitted and absorbed in the atmosphere. Therefore, the fakes say 3.7 W/m², as derived from radiative transfer equations, correlates with 1°C temperature increase in the atmosphere, as indicated by the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. The problem is, fewer watts per square meter are supposed to result in lower temperature, not higher temperature. The fakes have fewer watts per square meter correlating with higher temperature. At higher temperature, there is supposed to be more radiation given off, not less. Notice that the reversal of concept stems from the underlying assumption that CO2 (and all so-called greenhouse gases) block radiation and cause heating. There is no such thing. Less radiation must always be associated with cooling, and more radiation must always be associated with heat. There are no exceptions in the universe, as indicated by the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. This reversal of concepts results from an attempt to create a concept of trapping heat in the atmosphere, when there is no such thing possible. The fakes are trying to create a concept similar to a thermos bottle for keeping coffee warm, where a reflective surface blocks radiation to keep the coffee warm. Besides the fact that such barriers do not exist in the atmosphere, the thermos bottle produces slower cooling, not more heating. Reducing cooling is not increasing heating. Reducing cooling does not change the laws of the universe; changing cooling to heating does defy the laws of the universe. Of course, rationalizers would say, if you beam radiation into a thermos bottle and prevent radiation from leaving, the coffee will get hotter. But there is no such thing. Physicists say absorptivity equals emissivity, which means radiation must enter at the same rate it leaves for everything. They might say microwaves enter food and cause the temperature to increase. But that situation is not a steady-state. Over time, the temperature has to stabilize. They might say, it will eventually stabilize at a higher temperature, but that is not the analysis of radiative transfer equations, which say there must be 3.7 W/m² less radiation leaving the atmosphere than entering. There is no number for heating something to a steady-state. Some of the incompetents say the effect of greenhouse gases is to shift the equilibrium temperature upward. But there is no 3.7 W/m² in a shifted equilibrium. Equilibrium temperature says the same amount of radiation goes in and out. There would be a trace of theoretical truth to saying CO2 does the same thing in 83 femto seconds as something in a microwave would do in a half hour, if equilibrium through radiation were occurring. But that is not what the fakes are saying. They are saying equilibrium is 3.7 W/m² less radiation outflow than inflow, which is a contradiction in concepts. If the incompetents admitted that equilibrium occurs with an 83 femto second delay, the effects of greenhouse gases would disappear, and they would not have a number and rationalization for saying otherwise. Saying, heat trapping gas and greenhouse effect, doesn't translate into an 83 femto second delay in radiation escaping.
|
 |
