Why Are Greenhouse Gas Theories Dead Wrong?

By T.L. Winslow (TLW), the Historyscoper™

© Copyright by T.L. Winslow. All Rights Reserved.

Original Pub. Date: Jan. 28, 2020. Last Update: May 9, 2022.

A Lesson in TLW's New Real Climate Science Course

Why are greenhouse gas theories dead wrong?

When it comes to CO2 greenhouse gas theories, I hope they're only dead wrong, not deadly wrong. Who? For over 30 years the environmentalist leftists and climate communists centered in the U.N. and their global Marxist politician-run IPCC global octopus of kept scientists, academics, journalists, and politicians have seized on the idea that CO2 emissions are causing global warming, and have manufactured a skyscraper full of pseudoscience framing them and predicting future climate Armageddon if they are not stopped in order to scare the world into dismantling the fossil fuel industry they hate so much that underpins capitalism to pave the way for global Marxism, which means a global police state that ends all freedoms and cancels history to cover their tracks.

The IPCC crowd actually doesn't care about science except as a cover story to foist a sick unworkable Marxist utopia on a world full of useful idiots. They know that few people are well-versed in physics, especially thermodynamics AKA thermal physics, and it's just too easy to fool them with a hoax that contradicts Nature's ironclad Second Law of Thermodynamics if they push it hard enough. In reality, the IPCC literally turned climate science upside-down, inside-out, and ass-backwards for political gain.

Here is the mass delusion currently being pushed by the Marxist politician-dominated United Nations (U.N.) through its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

"Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. These shifts may be natural, such as through variations in the solar cycle. But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas. Burning fossil fuels generates greenhouse gas emissions that act like a blanket wrapped around the Earth, trapping the sun’s heat and raising temperatures. Examples of greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change include carbon dioxide and methane. These come from using gasoline for driving a car or coal for heating a building, for example. Clearing land and forests can also release carbon dioxide. Landfills for garbage are a major source of methane emissions. Energy, industry, transport, buildings, agriculture and land use are among the main emitters." - What Is Climate Change? - United Nations

What is the threat? More warm moist air that leads to deadly local weather events? Maybe so, but what does CO2 or any so-called "greenhouse gas" have to do with that, when only solar radiation can evaporate the oceans and put warm moist air into the atmosphere? In reality, the only real threat is the IPCC's overarching desire to tax and control all human activities by demonizing greenhouse gases with fake science and propaganda. The above video is a typical pile of lies pushed by leading IPCC pseudoscientist "Dr." Michael E. Mann of Penn. State U., whom real climate scientist Tim Ball said should be in the State Penn, er, Pen. See: How Michael Mann Helped the IPCC Erase 1,000 Years of Climate History.

Like all hoaxers, the IPCC relies on mass ignorance of thermal physics to make it easier for them. They also benefit from common misconceptions about what "greenhouse gas" means, doing nothing to educate them. One such misconception is the "blanket analogy", suggesting a picture of a warm cozy blanket of transparent CO2 keeping the Earth warm like a baby in a buggy. Too bad, they also push the picture of the "gigatons of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere", confusing them with opaque aerosols like dust and soot, which trap or block sunlight and heat up while actually cooling the Earth's surface, which is indeed what water vapor can do when it forms clouds, but it isn't warming the Earth but cooling it more than ever when it drops freezing precipitation, because air temperature systematically drops with height by 18.8F/mi. (9.8C/km) via the thermodynamic lapse rate, so that all the air above 5km or so is frigid.

Lapse rate - Wikipedia

The IPCC octopus doesn't want you to know it, but CO2 and CH4 (methane) are not only transparent to high temperature visual wavelength (0.5 micron) radiation from the Sun, but they don't block or trap far infrared (longwave) radiation from the Earth's surface either, so it doesn't matter how many gigatons have been released into the atmosphere because they don't do diddly to warm anything. It's a misdirection play to note that they are both trace gases, measured in parts per million (ppm), as aerosols would be (the weight of the atmosphere is 5.5 quadrillion or 5.5 10^15 tons). So no surprise, for those few who get past that smokescreen, the IPCC's fine print claims that these atmospheric molecules don't actually permanently trap weak low temperature infrared radiation from Earth's surface to create a blanket in the sky, they absorb and almost immediately reradiate those photons back to the surface to cause global warming there, not the sky. Only then will warmed ocean surface water evaporate more easily and release more warm moist water vapor into the sky to trigger extreme weather events, even though all of them are actually cooling processes for the Earth's surface that was originally warmed by solar radiation.

Speaking of net solar radiation being the only thing that heats the Earth's surface, oceans being 71% of the total, it's a long period of cloud-free skies that permits the top layer of the ocean to heat up, creating rising warm hot air and furnishing the raw fuel for thunderstorms, hurricanes, etc. Like everything else in Nature, Le Chatelier's Principle causes this process to be self-limiting, with the increased cloud cover blocking sunlight from reaching the surface. Warm clouds are certain to cool the Earth's surface more than the Sun heated it after dropping frigid precipitation, so CO2-driven global warming is not even in the picture. Instead, the IPCC scrambles your brains like spaghetti in a bowl, making you believe there's such a thing as their nonphysical "global avg. temperature" (GAT) statistic that's only held in computers they control, which supposedly has risen a whopping 1.1C since 1880, and if it allegedly reaches 1.5C will bring global warming Armageddon. Why does a 1.1C increase in global temperature over 140 years mean anyway? Nothing in Nature could even detect such a small change in the face of daily temperature swings of 10C, 20C, or more. It means something only to the IPCC's unhinged zany leftist environmentalists posing as scientists, because, you see, the global atmosphere can allegedly move vast areas of warmer air from diverse areas to a single region, leaving others cooler than normal, so that the average balances out while causing terrific extreme weather events hot or cold. Or, as they put it, there's "more energy in the air" to cause more fireworks, not directly, but only statistically, as if they're claiming that water evaporation and precipitation are warming not cooling processes. If you believe this crap I have a trillion dollars of swamp land in Pennsylvania to sell you.

What Is the Use of Global Temperature?, by TLW

When it comes to claims that the atmosphere does anything to heat Earth's surface, Nature's ironclad Second Law of Thermodynamics blocks their CO2-driven AGW hoax outright, because the Earth's surface is always warmer than the air above it that carries away its heat, and no colder body including air masses can raise the temperature of a hotter body by any means, whether conduction/convection, evaporation, or radiation.

Planck Radiation Law Curves

Speaking of radiation, almost all coalesced bodies (liquids, solids, plasmas) including the surfaces of the Sun and Earth are good approximations to Planck black bodies, which absorb and emit radiation (photons) at all wavelengths (energies).

Planck's Black Body Radiation Law, promulgated in 1900 by German #1 physicist Max Planck along with the announcement of quantum physics controls the emission power-wavelength curve, which obeys the Second Law of Thermodynamics to maximize entropy increase, causing the power to peak at a wavelength inversely proportional to the temperature in Kelvin while concentrating most of the emitted photons at that wavelength, allowing its radiation to raise the temperature of any colder Planck black body incrementally via its heat capacity (so many degrees C rise per Joule absorbed), systematically cycling it through every Planck black body radiation curve until the two temperatures equalize, but never raising it higher than itself. Why? Nature's ironclad Second Law of Thermodynamics. The classic example is a cold iron rod placed over a hot fire, which starts out black and systematically glows brighter while cycling through the ROY G. BIV colors red, orange, yellow, etc. The maximum temperature the iron rod can reach is set by the temperature of the fire.

Planck's Law gives the big lie to the IPCC greenhouse gas warming narrative. It shows that photons can have a temperature, if they're emitted by a Planck black body. Yes, photons are just energy, but heat is a flow of energy, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics controls the power-wavelength curve of black body radiation so that massive numbers of photons all at the same wavelength constitute a flow of heat that can be absorbed by another black body and raise its temperature. Indeed, it's Nature's main way of transmitting heat over the huge distances found in outer space.

Even the basic temperature of the black body is a measure of heat. The higher the temperature, the greater is the power flow of photons, which are mostly at the peak wavelength. Did I mention that photon energy is inversely proportional to wavelength, i.e., shorter wavelength photons have more energy? Anybody can see that photons have a temperature by looking at the iron rod in the fire and watching it glow brighter and brighter and change colors as it heats up., so if an IPCC apologist pooh-poohs you for claiming that photons have a temperature, pooh-pooh them right back. Ignoring the existence of Color temperature is like palming off a black and white movie as reality, when it only portrays a surrealistic version for the color-blind, and to see reality in all its glory it must be in living color. Planck black body radiation shows Nature attempting to cool the rod by concentrating the emissions at the highest energy wavelength, while also emitting some smaller amounts of photons at shorter wavelengths (higher temperature), and a larger amount of photons at longer wavelengths (lower temperature) because of the Second Law requirement that the emissions always maximize entropy increase, i.e., there is no perpetual motion machine and some of the heat flow is always dispersed into the Heat Death of the Universe.

Thus we can take the photons emitted at the peak wavelength to represent the black body's temperature T in Kelvins to quantum accuracy, which is given by Wien's Displacement Law derived from Planck's Black Body Radiation Law, which shows the peak power wavelength of Planck black body radiation shifting toward smaller wavelengths (higher frequencies) as T rises, actually a direct reciprocal relationship. Due to Nature's requirement to satisfy the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the shape of the power-wavelength curve maximizes entropy increase for each given amount of energy to be radiated, and is beyond human control. Virtually everything you see every day is a Planck black body busy radiating along its characteristic curve. This curve is so fundamental that astronomers use "color temperature" to measure the temperature of stars, and nurses use optical thermometers to take your temperature with infrared radiation peak measurement. The curve for an -80C black body would be far to the right and so dinky it would look like a molehill next to the mountains to its left. Does the IPCC ever tell you that they're making a mountain out of a molehill, turning black white and white black to get their hands on the green? Ask your favorite IPCC climate scientist on their lifetime dole about the -80C 15 micron problem and watch them block you because you're threatening their income after probably giving you a lecture on your need to sacrifice for their cause and reduce your "carbon footprint". If they start giving you hand-waving arguments about so-many percent of the black body radiation curve of a 25C object consisting of 15 micron photons, tell them that an object has just one temperature, and the Wien's Displacement Law value is it.

While you'll never hear the IPCC scientists mention color temperature, its use is ubiquitous in the rest of physics, e.g., astronomy, where astronomers determine the temperature of a star by its color alone. The .5 micron photons from the surface of the 5500C Sun are so hot they're visible to the eye as light, while the 8-13 microns from Earth's -50C to +50C surface are so cold that they're invisible to the eye, in the infrared range, requiring special night vision equipment.

Another consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is Kirchoff's Law of Thermal Radiation, which requires the emissivity and absorptivity of a black body to be equal, meaning that when the colder black body reaches the same temperature as the hotter one, they achieve equilibrium, radiating equally into each other along the same Planck curve. Too bad, while the surfaces of the Sun and Earth are black bodies, the atmosphere isn't, meaning it doesn't absorb and emit radiation at all wavelengths, so Kirchoff's Law doesn't apply, and indeed surface thermal radiation just cools the Earth surface while the atmosphere can't stop it and achieve equilibrium, much less reverse it like the IPCC lie machine tells you. The atmosphere is diathermanous, meaning that it isn't heated by sunlight because solar photons pass through unaffected. Yes, some of the returning infrared surface photons are absorbed, but only a tiny fraction, which don't matter a whit to weather or climate no matter how big the plans of the IPCC are.

Entropy is a pretty tight spot for them, but the IPCC lie machine claims to have a robot car that parks itself, so they invented the "CO2 back radiation" hoax that claims that atmospheric CO2 can get around the Second Law by catching (absorbing) and beaming (re-radiating) Earth surface heat radiation back down and reheating it with its own heat perpetual motion-style, just show them the money and shut up.

What they don't want you to know or understand is that gases aren't black bodies that can absorb and emit photons at all wavelengths. Only a tiny fraction of atmospheric gas molecules can absorb or emit photons, the polar ones, which have an electric dipole that can absorb and reemit photons only at certain wavelengths. This is a far cry, virtually the polar opposite of a black body. In Earth's atmosphere the main polar gas molecules are CO2, H2O, and NH4 (methane).

The IPCC's big hoax is to twist polar gas molecule radiation into a second Sun in the sky that threatens runaway global warming after the "greenhouse gas" concentration gets too high. Zonk! Greenhouse gases can only reemit the photons from the surface that they absorb, so regardless of their concentration, greenhouse gas radiation emission is dependent only on net solar radiation. Once absorbed, excess greenhouse gas molecules are out of luck and total emission peaks. Either way, even if they reemitted 100% of them straight back to the surface, its temperature would continue to fall because almost all of the solar heat was radiated away at the other wavelengths. So when the IPCC lie machine tells you that CO2 back radiation is so many watts per square meter, trying to scare you, it's no surprise that they don't tell you that the original surface radiation was orders of magnitude greater, and passed through the atmosphere untouched, so any attempt to make atmospheric CO2 sound like it threatens global warming is a circus swindle aimed at thermodynamics ignoramuses.

Historically, early climate physicists thought that gases emitted black body radiation, including CO2. Too bad, they found out they don't, but the unscrupulous IPCC lie machine kept the CO2 greenhouse gas warming hoax going anyway for political gain. See: CO2 does not black body radiation make.

Another consequence of Planck's Black Body Radiation Law is the Stefan–Boltzmann law, which gives the total power emitted by a black body over all wavelengths, whose formula has a factor of T^4 (temperature in Kelvin to the 4th power), illustrating the dramatic increase in emitted power with temperature. Note that temperatures are given in Kelvin, not Celsius, which for temperatures found in Earth's climate are all closely packed and don't change much percentage-wise, meaning that you don't see sunlight causing concrete to get so hot that it glows like an iron rod in a fire, but only emit infrared radiation that you can't see without special infrared glasses, and can still see at night because they're still cooling and emitting IR photons.

Use this free online Stefan-Boltzmann Law calculator to verify that an iron bar chilled to -80C emits 79W per sq. meter, and 77W per sq. meter at -81C. Since the IPCC only claims that CO2's 15 micron back radiation is on the order of a few watts per sq. meter, that means it couldn't even raise Earth surface temperature from -81C to -80C because the surface emits far more watts per sq. meter than it can give it. What a sick hoax to claim that atmospheric CO2 keeps the Earth from freezing and threatens runaway global warming.

Stefan-Boltzmann Law Calculator

I'm not making it up. Here's a typical junk science article from the IPCC octopus, this time MIT. What do I know? Their fake scientists get paid more each day than I made in my life as an amateur climate scientist:

"So, given all these factors and their range of errors, what’s the answer? The current level of radiative forcing, according to the IPCC AR4, is 1.6 watts per square meter (with a range of uncertainty from 0.6 to 2.4). That may not sound like much, Prinn says, until you consider the total land area of the Earth and multiply it out, which gives a total warming effect of about 800 terawatts - more than 50 times the world’s average rate of energy consumption, which is currently about 15 terawatts." - Explained: Radiative forcing

800 terawatts - oh my! ROTFL.

Too bad for the IPCC, fundamental thermal physics makes atmospheric CO2 incapable of melting an ice cube, because its absorption/emission wavelength of 15 microns corresponds to a Planck black body radiation temperature of -80C (-112F) (193K), about the same temperature as dry ice. That means that its thermal radiation is indistinguishable from that from an iron rod chilled to -80C, which can't melt an ice cube. If you think I'm a crackpot, try heating your house in the winter with big blocks of dry ice. -80C just isn't heat, and to say that it heats anything on the Earth or in the sky is Looney Tunes crackpot science. But hardcore global Marxists will push any lie if it helps advance their cause, so that's what they've been doing every day for over 30 years.

They're not lying? Watch the IPCC lie machine (mainline IPCC org. NASA Goddard in Manhattan) try to invert the truth by displaying satellite measurements of Earth surface radiation reaching the top of Earth’s atmosphere, crowing about a big notch (really almost invisible in the top graph, except when isolating it and showing it inverted in the second graph as radiation instead of absorption and scattering) at 15 microns then claiming that the whole Earth is on the verge of runaway warming if CO2 emissions are not stopped. Actually there is a really big notch in the second graph that they want you to ignore that runs from 8 microns to 13 microns (-50C to +89C), covering the real Earth surface temperature range of -50C to +50C, knocking out all the other candidates for consideration as causing an alleged greenhouse effect, which is now seen to be mental garbage. When will the IPCC admit the truth, disband, and give the trillions back?

Kaching! IPCC climate science isn't science, it's a sales tool for the U.N. to suck giant amounts of money from the sheeple like the Space Hoover in the film "Spaceballs". They even lie about carbon dioxide by calling it carbon, when it's a completely different molecule, oxygenated carbon, which feeds plant photosynthesis that anchors the chain of life and staves off global starvation. They are even planning to suck mass quantities of CO2 out of the air, yuck, essentially sucking future plant life out of the air and turning it into dead inert carbon. To push over that scam, while their "direct air capture" plants are in the experimental stage, they claim to pipe the extracted trace (0.04%) CO2 component to local greenhouses, but after they foist tens of thousands of them all over the globe, they'll drop that scam and act innocent when mass starvation begins when the greenhouses have no new supplies of CO2.

When you have time, check out my cool article: Doesn't more CO2 in the atmosphere mean plants will grow better?

Back to Wien's Displacement Law. Check my work with this free online Wien's Displacement Law calculator. Just type in wavelength to get temperature, or vice-versa: Wien's Displacement Law Calculator

NASA Earth Radiation Curve

They're still not lying? Why do they usually display a scary-looking diagram of Earth's radiation as seen by satellites showing a big notch at CO2's 15 micron wavelength, but only after sneakily inverting the abscissa to show not wavelength, but wavenumber, the reciprocal of wavelength (10,000 divided by the wavelength in microns), reversing and distorting the scale to make -80C seem to be right next to +21C, Earth's average temperature of 294K (69F). If they showed the wavelength axis in microns, or better yet, Planck radiation temperature in degrees C, it wouldn't draw a gasp but a belly laugh, because the IPCC wants you to be scared of, not a Missile Gap like in the 1960s, but a Dry Ice Gap. Anything divided by zero is infinity, get it? That makes the dinky CO2 emissions peak look huge, and the really important 8-13 micron gap look dinky and insignificant. Plus, they labeled the 8-13 micron gap "O3" (ozone), not telling you that the ozone layer is in the stratosphere above the troposphere where all weather and climate happens, forming a protecting layer against solar UV rays.

NASA's Great Peak Fake Swindle, Part 1 | PSI Intl NASA's Great Peak Fake Swindle, Part 2

CO2 Vibration Modes

CO2 actually has three absorption/emission wavelengths corresponding to its various bending and stretching modes, 2.7 microns, 4.3 microns, and 15 microns. 2.7 microns corresponds to a Planck radiation temperature of 797C (1070K) (1466F), and 4.3 microns corresponds to one of 401C (675K) (755F), none of which the Earth's surface is capable of reaching outside of volcanoes and geysers, so again atmospheric CO2 can’t affect surface temperatures except in limited local regions. Those wavelengths are used by CO2 in the thermosphere at 90km above the stratosphere (10km) and mesosphere (50km) to block high temperature radiation from a solar flare from reaching the Earth’s surface.

See: CO2 solar flares and the thermosphere.

Back to CO2's 15 micron radiation absorption/emission wavelength. If you don't mind me beating the dead horse, here's another way of looking at it.

Look again at the black body radiation curves for the Sun and imagine CO2’s -80C curve way out to the right, a molehill next to the Sun’s mountains. Now imagine a curve at +50C, the normal maximum Earth surface temperature each year (perhaps July 4 at noon in Phoenix). It would look like a mountain next to CO2’s molehill too. Every temperature found on Earth looks like a mountain next to CO2’s molehill, which is why the IPCC’s CO2 dog don’t hunt.

Let’s say that the Earth’s surface cooled down one extremely hot summer night in the Arctic from +50C to -79C. That means that its main photon emission wavelength (the peak) is at -79C, warmer than -80C by 1C. You guessed it. CO2’s -80C 15 micron photons couldn’t even raise its temperature one iota, because the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits any object from raising the temperature of a hotter object by any means including radiation and convection. So on any given day when the Earth surface temperature is way above that, almost all its thermal radiation goes straight up toward space bypassing all CO2 molecules, which can’t touch them, and only the pathetically weak puny 15 micron photons are absorbed at the left tail of the radiation curve, then reemitted not just back to the surface but in all directions, only to be reabsorbed and reemitted by other CO2 molecules until a fraction hits the surface and just bounces off harmlessly without heating anything.

Where do the 15 micron photons go? They end up being dispersed by entropy into the Heat Death of the Universe, which like the Second Law of Thermodynamics the IPCC denies apply to their sacred cow gas. Instead they claim an Earth-Sun energy balance that CO2 allegedly upsets, causing global warming. This hoax reminds me of the saying that liberalism is a mental disorder.

Speaking of mental disorder, let's say that greenhouse gases absorbed and reemitted 100% of Earth surface radiation straight back down intact. That still couldn't cause global warming? Why? Because the Earth surface Planck black body radiation already lost a bunch of energy to entropy dispersion, so that there's not enough left even if completely returned to even reraise the temperature to the original value, much less a higher one. It can't even stop the surface temperature from systematically dropping to ambient temperature. Entropy makes any form of perpetual motion machine impossible, but the love of money is the root of all evil.

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia

Entropy (energy dispersal) - Wikipedia

Heath death of the universe - Wikipedia

If you insist on probing entropy dispersion more deeply, here's the concept of exergy:

"Notice that exergy is not conserved – only if entropy-free energy is transferred, which implies that the transfer is reversible. All processes in reality are, however, irreversible, which means that exergy is lost (and entropy is produced). Loss of exergy and production of entropy are two different descriptions of the same reality, namely, that all processes are irreversible, and we unfortunately always have some loss of energy forms which can do work to energy forms which cannot do work (heat at the temperature of the environment). So, the formulation of the second law of thermodynamic by use of exergy is ‘all real processes are irreversible which implies that exergy inevitably is lost’. ‘Exergy is not conserved’, while energy of course is conserved by all processes according to the first law of thermodynamics." - Science Direct: Exergy: An Overview

Exergy - Wikipedia

I’m not framing them. Here’s an article straight from the IPCC claiming that climate change is caused by lack of Sun-Earth energy balance, which could only occur if the Earth were a giant polished mirror. Real climate science would only be concerned with heat balance inside the troposphere, the bottom layer of the atmosphere where all weather happens. Solar energy isn't heat per se, but when it radiates Earth's surface and is absorbed and raises its temperature, it becomes a flow of heat. After that the surface radiates Planck black body heat radiation at a Wien temperature way less than the Sun's, 50C maximum normally vs. 5500C for the Sun, or 8-13 microns for Earth's surface vs. 0.5 microns for sunlight. Adding surface contact with the atmosphere leading to evaporation and convection, that's the only heat in Earth's atmosphere, and the rest is a misdirection play by the IPCC lie machine.

“There are three fundamental ways to change the radiation balance of the Earth: 1) by changing the incoming solar radiation (e.g., by changes in Earth’s orbit or in the Sun itself); 2) by changing the fraction of solar radiation that is reflected (called ‘albedo’; e.g., by changes in cloud cover, atmospheric particles or vegetation); and 3) by altering the longwave radiation from Earth back towards space (e.g., by changing greenhouse gas concentrations). Climate, in turn, responds directly to such changes, as well as indirectly, through a variety of feedback mechanisms.” - What Factors Determine Earth’s Climate?, by the IPCC

Where Does Heat Energy Go?, by TLW

Back to the MIT article titled "Explained: Radiative forcing". It's subtitled: "When there’s more energy radiating down on the planet than there is radiating back out to space, something’s going to have to heat up." - Explained: NOTHING

It plays their fake Earth-Sun energy balance for all it's worth. It goes on:

"The concept of radiative forcing is fairly straightforward. Energy is constantly flowing into the atmosphere in the form of sunlight that always shines on half of the Earth’s surface. Some of this sunlight (about 30 percent) is reflected back to space and the rest is absorbed by the planet. And like any warm object sitting in cold surroundings — and space is a very cold place — some energy is always radiating back out into space as invisible infrared light. Subtract the energy flowing out from the energy flowing in, and if the number is anything other than zero, there has to be some warming (or cooling, if the number is negative) going on.

"It’s as if you have a kettle full of water, which is at room temperature. That means everything is at equilibrium, and nothing will change except as small random variations. But light a fire under that kettle, and suddenly there will be more energy flowing into that water than radiating out, and the water is going to start getting hotter.

"In short, radiative forcing is a direct measure of the amount that the Earth’s energy budget is out of balance.

"For the Earth’s climate system, it turns out that the level where this imbalance can most meaningfully be measured is the boundary between the troposphere (the lowest level of the atmosphere) and the stratosphere (the very thin upper layer). For all practical purposes, where weather and climate are concerned, this boundary marks the top of the atmosphere."

"In its most recent report in 2007, the IPCC produced the most comprehensive estimate to date of the overall radiative forcing affecting the Earth today. Ronald Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Science and director of MIT’s Center for Global Change Science, was one of the lead authors of that chapter of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. Radiative forcing “was very small in the past, when global average temperatures were not rising or falling substantially,” he explains. For convenience, most researchers choose a “baseline” year before the beginning of world industrialization — usually either 1750 or 1850 — as the zero point, and compute radiative forcing in relation to that base. The IPCC uses 1750 as its base year and it is the changes in the various radiative forcing agents since then that are counted.

"Thus radiative forcing, measured in watts per square meter of surface, is a direct measure of the impact that recent human activities — including not just greenhouse gases added to the air, but also the impact of deforestation, which changes the reflectivity of the surface — are having on changing the planet’s climate. However, this number also includes any natural effects that may also have changed during that time, such as changes in the sun’s output (which has produced a slight warming effect) and particles spewed into the atmosphere from volcanoes (which generally produce a very short-lived cooling effect, or negative forcing).

"Although all of the factors that influence radiative forcing have uncertainties associated with them, one factor overwhelmingly affects the uncertainty: the effects of aerosols (small airborne particles) in the atmosphere. That’s because these effects are highly complex and often contradictory. For example, bright aerosols (like sulfates from coal-burning) are a cooling mechanism, whereas dark aerosols (like black carbon from diesel exhausts) lead to warming. Also, adding sulfate aerosols to clouds leads to smaller but more abundant droplets that increase cloud reflectivity, thus cooling the planet.

'The error bars in the greenhouse gas forcing are very small,' Prinn says. 'The biggest uncertainty in defining radiative forcing comes from aerosols.'

'"So, given all these factors and their range of errors, what’s the answer? The current level of radiative forcing, according to the IPCC AR4, is 1.6 watts per square meter (with a range of uncertainty from 0.6 to 2.4). That may not sound like much, Prinn says, until you consider the total land area of the Earth and multiply it out, which gives a total warming effect of about 800 terawatts — more than 50 times the world’s average rate of energy consumption, which is currently about 15 terawatts."

Aha! Like I said, the IPCC literally turned climate science upside-down, inside-out, and ass-backwards to torture out a tiny 1.6 watts per square meter of "radiative forcing", not on Earth's surface, but at the top of Earth's atmosphere. And the physical fact that almost all of this upwelling radiation was inside the 8-13 micron window where Earth's surface heat resides doesn't prove greenhouse gas warming, but disproves it because that radiation was from surface cooling. How does upwelling radiation change local surface temperatures when it resulted from cooling it? Can't they read their own graph that says: "Upgoing Thermal Radiation. 15-30% Transmitted"? Did they ever hear of entropy dispersion? Or the thermodynamic lapse rate that would soak up all them terawatts? Clearly they've abdicated physics for politics, contenting themselves on building up fake "global average temperature" data by a million lies and waiting for the cash registers to ring after their agitprop machine goes to work spreading alarm.

The IPCC approach is as stupid as taking the Earth as the center of the Solar System and trying to calculate all the planetary orbits using wheels within wheels (epicycles). This went on for centuries in the closed self-congratulating Church academic system until Copernicus turned the Solar System model right-side up and showed them how it really was. Maybe I should mention Galileo and the Leaning Tower of Pisa here, but my detractors would claim I'm comparing myself to him. :) Remember Marco Polo, whose account of his travels to the East was popularly called "A Million Lies", even though it was mostly true? This time the million lies are just what the IPCC pushes for filthy lucre and power.

It's slightly off-topic, but recently IPCC climate scientists vented their frustration with world govts. not bowing to the IPCC's demands for endless money to save the world from greenhouse gases, threatening to go on strike. That's a start. Now make it permanent after repudiating all their scientific papers and giving their money, degrees, and other awards back, and retraining for useful jobs like cook, barber, or taxi driver - Climate scientists threaten a strike

When you have time, check out my article How Can I Become a Client, er, Climate Scientist? for some good laughs.

No surprise, after all this trouble in paradise, in 2015 IPCC mainline org. Berkeley Labs blinked, simultaneously claiming to prove that CO2 emissions are causing global warming, then hedging their bets by attributing only 10% of global warming to it, and 90% to water vapor. What pretzel logic to keep the IPCC money grab going when without CO2 claimed to cause most or all global warming they can't tax the oceans and might as well cancel all their big plans to extort hundreds of trillions.

Is it true that Berkeley Labs in 2015 put out a press release that atmospheric CO2 caused only ten per cent of the trend of increase of infrared energy from all sources such as clouds and water vapour?

Back to the MIT article. It ends: "Part two of this series will examine the concept of climate sensitivity, which determines how much the planet’s temperature will change due to a given radiative forcing."

That's right, they will cover climate sensitivity, which is ZERO, just like all of the IPCC's physics is zilcho, but they love the fact that you keep reading, while paying a zillion bucks a word with tax money.

BTW, I'm not making hundreds of trillions up. That's what the IPCC octopus really demands. Check this article out:

Consulting firm McKinsey estimates $9 trillion per year cost for climate accords

Did I make it up that the environmentalist movement's true goal is global Marxism? Here's my golden basket of links to articles exposing the global Marxist takeover of the environmentalist movement from conservatives, switching from sensible conservation of air, water, and forests to various schemes to create a false crisis and then propose a massive increase in the size and reach of government to save us, while actually trying to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, i.e., capitalism. What's really scary is how by now the iron fish, er, fist has come out of the velvet glove, and U.N. puppet U.S. pres. Biden has loaded his administration with far leftists who are hell-bent on getting what they want via executive orders and legislation railroaded through the Democrat-controlled House and Senate. Thank the lucky stars that a couple of brave Democrats have stopped the train in the Senate, for the time being.

What Is Environmentalism Ideology?, by TLW

DR TIM BALL MUST READ : Environmentalism - Evidence Suggests It Was Always And Only About Achieving World Government

Here's my Quora articles taking apart the IPCC's lies that methane is a greater threat then CO2, which they obviously ginned up after more and more people started to see through their CO2 hoax.

Why is methane part of the greenhouse gases? What effect does methane have on climate change? Is the melting of the permafrost really making global warming worse? Is there any recent information about methane release and how dangerous it can/could be for the future of Earth? Could the release of methane also trigger a runaway effect for the climate and harm us in the near future?

More Reading

TLW's Climate Science 101 Course. Disproves the IPCC lies step by step. Be prepared to work hard to learn some real thermal physics.

The Big Lie About CO2, by TLW. A more expansive article showing my mental thought processes on the way to the truth.

Stop and study the above articles and finally rid yourself of the IPCC CO2-driven AGW hoax forever, then stop and think how many lies and half-truths they've told you and never again fall for their moose hockey or let them get into your wallet, not just for billions or even trillions, but hundreds of trillions, probably more money than exists. Only if their schemes to destroy capitalism and substitute communism come true will we have to worry about deadly wrong, as in mass deaths perpetrated by a global Marxist police force that destroys all freedoms, starting with freedom to know and speak the truth.

Late notice! Just came in! Now the IPCC octopus is calling for climate lockdowns a la Covid lockdowns:

IEA Wants Energy Lockdowns

TLW's Quora answer giving the simplest fastest disproof of the IPCC greenhouse gas warming hoax

TLW revisits history starting with Fourier to trace how climate scientists went wrong

TLW's New Real Climate Science Course

Historyscoper Home Page

© Copyright by T.L. Winslow. All Rights Reserved.