/sci/ There's No Radiative Greenhouse Effect

1511x774

2law.jpg

🧵 There's No Radiative Greenhouse Effect

Anonymous at Sat, 6 Apr 2024 04:00:33 UTC No. 16114738

It's pretty self evident. How did this garbage theory ever gain traction. Oh yeah, I know, DEI and Jews.
Literally 2 generations of scientists laughed Arrhenius's theory out of the academy.

Also, the premise of greenhouse effect contradicts science. "Height of emissions rises against density so temperature increases" is dumb. It assumes
1) Density gradient exists 'cuz (some idiots claim gravity reduces over height so "less force" holds air down, hence density)
2) The atmosphere would be cold without greenhouse gas (GHG)
3) GHG because of density lapse creates a temperature lapse
4) Pressure lapse results
Retarded

It's:
1) Gravity+atmospheric mass creates a force. Surface pressure equals this force and is fixed.
2) Pressure lapse rate is a given, gas laws
3) Add energy, and temperature increases.
4) Temperature along a pressure lapse leads to kinetic work against gravity.
5) Temperature and mass climb up the pressure gradient
6) Density lapse results.

Higher temps means higher top of troposphere and a distribution of density upward. There is no height of emissions rising against density, that's dumb.
Work against gravity is potential energy. Doesn't emit. Falls back down and compresses gas as work. Higher temperatures which emit more.
Thus surface temps are hotter than blackbody average, higher temps are colder.
Expresses as convection cells.

There. Is. No. Radiative. Greenhouse. Effect.

Anonymous at Sat, 6 Apr 2024 04:06:10 UTC No. 16114746

>>16114738
To explain picrel.
As back-radiation happens to be absorbed by the surface medium, there is a proportional amount of high energy that cannot attenuate within the medium to the back-radiated portion.
This leads to a proportional increase in the high-energy radiation.
Thus back-radiation doesn't alter the rate of energy loss from a hotter object.

The reason why the proportionally more high-energy radiation doesn't get absorbed by the GHG medium is because of Kirchoff's law.
The GHG absorption capacity is "occupied" by the low-energy channel it's blocking.

Low energy media cannot "block" or "trap" heat, or "slow the rate of cooling" from high energy media in an open system.

Warmists use Q = sigma(T1^4 - T2^4) but it's used inappropriately.
You CAN use it to describe the rate of heat gain by T2 from T1, the colder object.
However, it does not modify the absolute rate of heat loss from T1.

It's called fucking thermodynamics.

Anonymous at Sat, 6 Apr 2024 04:07:57 UTC No. 16114751

>>16114738
>How did this garbage theory ever gain traction.
The global warming scam, like more environmentalist ideas, appeals very strongly to the narcissistic savior complex: "i am the protector of mother nature, i am the savior of planet earth" which translates to "you can't do that on MY planet, I am god", the former thought being the savior complex angle and the later one being the narcissistic part.
They can believe in the idea via Dunning Krugerism, since none of them have any in depth education in the relevant physics (mainly thermodynamics) they will accept the idea on an emotional basis because it appeals to their narcissistic savior complex. There is only a tiny tiny fraction of a percentage of the population that is well educated enough in physics to approach the issue on a rational basis.