# Life is thermal

## Revealing the fraud of the greenhouse

It’s been a while, but I discovered a fundamental flaw in the foundation of the greenhouse theory. It deserves to be mentioned.

It’s said that the surface is ”warmer than it should be” based on a calculation where sunlight received on a disc (πr²) is the total energy available for emission by the whole sphere (4πr²). If that’s not a flat Earth theory I don’t know what is. That disc doesn’t exist, it has no relevance for planetary heat flow. Earth receives heat on a hemisphere, 2πr², double the area of a disc. But the incident angle on a hemisphere varies from equator to poles. By just doing a simple average from the max and min values, 1360.8-680.4W/m², you get 1020W/m²*2(πr²)=2040W. That’s a lot more than the assumptions made in the GHE. And 1020W/m² agrees with observed direct solar irradiance at the surface, measured to 1000W/m² practically everywhere on the dayside of Earth. By repeating the same averaging procedure for the solid surface hemisphere, varying between 1020-510W/m², you get an average of 2(πr²)*765W/m²=1530W worth of absorbed energy. For emission by a sphere, this leads to an average of 1530/4(πr²)=383W/m²

=σ287⁴

Exactly the surface temperature of Earth. And it’s another way of calculating it than I’ve done earlier, but it gets the exact same result.

Of course there’s theoretically less than 680W/m² at a small area at the edge to the nightside. 680W/m² is found at 60° latitude, 1360*cos60°. But this area, that on a solid sphere gets below 680W/m² is so small compared to the area that receives much higer intensity, that this toymodel gives a good approximation. Also, sunlight doesn’t strike a solid surface at TOA, so sunlight doesn’t spread out like when it strikes the surface. Which is confirmed by the levels of incident radiation as far north as here in Sweden, at 60° we get 1000W/m² on a clear day.

(First, I’d like to mention that I get a lot of criticism for my use of units here. This is me playing around, just having fun with concepts. I might be wrong, but I’ll leave it up here anyway)

In the equation E=mc² we find the units m=kg and c=m/s. The unit N, used for forces, is kgm/s.

So, E=N²=kg(m/s)². This also means that E/c²=N²/(m/s)²=kg².

Also, N²/(m/s)²=W/m²

Gravity on earth is kg*9.8m/s, same units as mc².

So sqrtE=9.8N/(m/s)=kg

And

E=g²=9.8²N/(m/s)²=96N/m²=96W/m²=m²

The force of gravity, g², acting on 1m² has the power 96W/m².

Gravity obeys the inverse square law, so the source power is

4g²=4*96W/m²=384W/m². This is equal to the average surface temperature of earth at 287K.

The sun irradiates earth at 1360.8W/m². Earth with the mass m receives Solar heat at the speed c, earth simultaneously emits heat at the speed c in all directions.

So E=mc²=m x T⁴ x TSI.

If 4g²=sigma*T⁴_surface, then this must be valid: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elesph.html

TSI/8g²=(4/3)/(4/3), with g=9.78(equatorial).

With support of electric field theory, isn’t it correct that

E/c²=sigma*T⁴=4g²=384N/m²

=384W/m²=4kg, for earth?

The first law is then dU(TSI)=4W(4g²)+4Q(Q=sigma*T⁴_eff.)

Is E=mc² actually a mass placed in a radiation field with incoming heat at speed c, while simultaneously emitting heat at speed c?

It is just an illusion, someone said. And I agree. Surprisingly enough, I need more of that non-existing time to answer comments here. Maybe I can find some soon.

Evil rises

This is an example of the reasoning behind oppressing skeptic/critical opinion.

Over at the religious page scienceofdoom.com you can find this post where the priest is preaching about how he misunderstands science so badly that he disproves his own theory. I am going to answer his post here, because I like freedom of speech, and he doesn´t, which he admits in the post.

He starts with blabbing about the radiative transfer formula for radiation emitted at the surface and how it passes through the atmosphere:

Iλ(0) = Iλm)em + ∫ Bλ(T)e

He explains it like this:

”The intensity at the top of atmosphere equals.. The surface radiation attenuated by the transmittance of the atmosphere, plus.. The sum of all the contributions of atmospheric radiation – each contribution attenuated by the transmittance from that location to the top of atmosphere.”

This is all fine. But the problem is he thinks he has calculated a greenhouse effect, even though he himself writes ”attenuation”. He must not know what that means.

He then shows this spectrum and points out how good the match is: And he is correct. It is a beautiful calculation with accuracy that almost gives you goosebumps. Now comes the funny part, he thinks it is a spectrum that proves his theory!!!

Look at the left scale, it says: Intensity+units. This is intensity of heat, and the higher up the graph goes, the higher the intensity(hotter)
Now look at the action of co2 in wavelengths 20-13. What happens to the intensity?

A deep drop in intensity, that is what happens. This means that the action of co2 in the atmosphere, is to decrease intensity/heat emission. That is not a greenhouse effect, that is the effect you get when you spray dry ice(co2) in air. It cools.

But the greenhouse-believer think that heat can hide, so they claim that the invisible ghost-heat stays in the system and accumulates.

Non-religious people know from logic that dry ice doesn´t make hot surfaces hotter, just colder.

Then we get this nice little picture, adding to the display of ignorance.

The picture shows, and the text describes, how heat transfers to surroundings of a body. What we know is that the sb-law tells us that at equal temperature there is no transfer of heat between surroundings and solid. When discussing gh-theory, the defenders like to add ”net”, which is pathetic, because the sb-law only calculates heat transfer. Nothing changes from ”net”, because ”net” is heat. The rest is not heat and cannot heat anything.

Do you notice anything missing in the picture? Yeah, a sun. Another proof of ignorance delivered by the priest himself.

Again, we know that at equal temperature there is NO transfer of heat. 0.

In the gh-theory there is the idea that if one body is at lower temperature, it starts to transfer the negative difference, which is not ”net” and therefore not heat.
Anyone with knowledge about heat transfer and thermodynamics knows that only work and heat can increase temperature. Co2 is not producing heat, even greenhouse believers know this. Co2 absorbs heat. The question is then, does co2 do work on the system? Of course not.

Knowing this, can co2 raise the temperature of it´s own heat source? Absolutely not!

Kids understand this, but not blanket-people.

This van der Waals fluid relationship to heat flow turned out to be really interesting. The reduced form of the equation of state for any fluid is: Adding the stefan-boltzmann constant with T^4 on the right side and  T^4=TSI: Apparently, light can, and maybe should, be treated like a form of fluid. This of course gives me some interesting ideas about space and what fills the vacuum, and how massive bodies are affected by it.

Isn´t this a funny coincidence:

Look at the right graph in each figure, the left figure is the temperature gradient in the atmosphere, and the right picture is a van der waals fluid where the terms of stability is broken. The model of the fluid in the right picture is the exact same function that determines the gradient in the atmospheric fluid. It is the part of the graph holding the points M to F that is violating the terms for stability, it is said to be a region where other processes supersedes the isotherm. So, my interpretation of the temperature gradient show that the heat flow in the atmosphere behaves like a van der Waal fluid with the action of gravity included.

There has been some talk about perfect fluid in the universe, in relation to dark matter and other problems. Could it be that heat/radiation is what has the behaviour of a fluid? It looks like that on earth anyway.

In any case, the similarity between the heat flow behaviour and the principles that describe vdW-fluids, indicates that there is something else at work than a greenhouse effect.

If we observed a body which absorbed all light as well as emitted it, it would be an observation of two exactly equal oppositional flows, which means a cancellation of energy?  Like how a black hole cancels out all light at the horizon. A body which absorbs and emits all light would appear like a black hole. If emission equals the flow of energy from the source(s), we get a potential of -1 from flow in opposite direction.

I try to find the relevance in this;
”Now, consider rerunning the simulation, but with a slightly different longwavelength cloud forcing. Again, if we run it long enough, it will settle to an equilibrium state, in which the fluxes balance, and the temperature is constant. However, since the longwavelength cloud forcing is different, some of the other fluxes will also be different, and the equilibrium temperature will, consequently, also be different. There will be an offset, compared to the first simulation, but it won’t grow with time simply because one simulation had a different longwavelength cloud forcing compared to the other”

More

I cannot find this offset in the heat transfer equations. But there is a time-dependent drop in temperature from dropping the emissive power of a heat absorber, like what happens when increasing the amount co2. It shows that without increasing the power of the heat source, the only effect is dropping temperature of the system.

I keep on pointing out the problems of gh-theory;

How hard can it be

”If we then increase atmospheric CO2, while leaving everything else unchanged, that will act to block some of the outgoing flux. What essentially happens is that some of the flux will end up coming from higher in the atmosphere that it did when atmospheric CO2 was lower. Since the temperature drops with altitude (in the troposphere) this means that it will now be coming from regions that are cooler and that, hence, emit less. Therefore, the outgoing flux goes down and the system will have to warm to return to energy balance. As already pointed out, doubling atmospheric CO2 is estimated to reduce the outgoing flux by about 3.7Wm-2.”

The bold part is at the core of the problem. This is a completely backwards statement, a demonstration of the lack of understanding in thermodynamic relationships. ”The outgoing flux” is the ”flux density” which is equal to the emissive power of the body via T^4. A body does not have any possible way to compensate for a dropping flux density from any part of the system, if there is not an increasing power density from the heat source. It just simply drops in temperature in that part, and the source must increase the transfer rate to keep a steady state. Since heat flow from both the sun and the internal generation is constant, there can not be any increasing temperature anywhere.

You cannot ”block” heat by increasing the rate of heat transfer via dropping temperature of the absorber, that is the opposite of ”blocking heat”,

One can only ask these people to study heat transfer and heat engines carefully. Only when they understand that, they will know why they are wrong.