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) = Iλ(τm)e-τm + ∫ Bλ(T)e-τ dτ
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.