# Dumbest Math Theory Ever? The Greenhouse Gas Effect!

### Related: In Parts Of Japan, Mean Maximum Temperatures May Be More Impacted By Remote Ocean Cycles Than By CO2

By Zoe Phin via Principia Scientific International

Mainstream climate scientists believe in the dumbest math theory ever devised to try and explain physical reality. It is called the Greenhouse Effect. It’s so silly an unbelievable that I don’t even want to give it the honor of calling it a scientific theory, because it is nothing but ideological mathematics that has never been empirically validated. In fact it is nothing but a post hoc fallacy: the surface is hotter than what the sun alone can do, therefore greenhouse gases did it!

Today we will play with this silly math theory called the greenhouse effect. Here are two examples of its typical canonical depiction:

Let’s get started. Please create a new file called gheffect, and paste the following into it:

``````# bash gheffect
# Zoe Phin, 2020/03/03

[ -z \$TSI ] && TSI=1361
[ -z \$ALB ] && ALB=0.306

echo \$1 | awk -vALB=\$ALB -vTSI=\$TSI 'BEGIN {
SIG = 5.67E-8 ; CURR = LAST = SUN = TSI*(1-ALB)/4
printf "Sec | Upwelling |   Temp    | GH Effect |  Trapped  | To Space\n"
} {
for (i=1 ;; i++) {
printf "%3d | %7.3f W | %7.3f C ", i, CURR, (CURR/SIG)^0.25-273.16

CURR = SUN + \$1*LAST/2 ; GHE = SUN - (LAST*(1-\$1))

printf "| %7.3f W | %7.3f W | %07.3f W\n", GHE, CURR-LAST, CURR-GHE

if ( sprintf("%.3f", CURR) == sprintf("%.3f", LAST) ) break

#if ( CURR==LAST ) break

LAST = CURR
}
}'``````

Now run it with atmospheric emissivity = 0.792:

``````\$ bash gheffect 0.792

Sec | Upwelling |   Temp    | GH Effect |  Trapped  | To Space
1 | 236.133 W | -19.125 C | 187.018 W |  93.509 W | 142.625 W
2 | 329.642 W |   2.971 C | 167.568 W |  37.030 W | 199.104 W
3 | 366.672 W |  10.419 C | 159.866 W |  14.664 W | 221.470 W
4 | 381.336 W |  13.212 C | 156.816 W |   5.807 W | 230.327 W
5 | 387.142 W |  14.296 C | 155.608 W |   2.300 W | 233.834 W
6 | 389.442 W |  14.722 C | 155.130 W |   0.911 W | 235.223 W
7 | 390.352 W |  14.890 C | 154.940 W |   0.361 W | 235.773 W
8 | 390.713 W |  14.957 C | 154.865 W |   0.143 W | 235.991 W
9 | 390.856 W |  14.983 C | 154.835 W |   0.057 W | 236.077 W
10 | 390.912 W |  14.994 C | 154.824 W |   0.022 W | 236.111 W
11 | 390.935 W |  14.998 C | 154.819 W |   0.009 W | 236.125 W
12 | 390.944 W |  14.999 C | 154.817 W |   0.004 W | 236.130 W
13 | 390.947 W |  15.000 C | 154.816 W |   0.001 W | 236.132 W
14 | 390.949 W |  15.000 C | 154.816 W |   0.001 W | 236.133 W``````

W is shorthand for W/m². Parameters are taken from NASA Earth Fact Sheet.

As you can see, by delaying outgoing radiation for 14 [¹] seconds [²], we have boosted surface up-welling radiation by an additional ~66% (154.8/236.1 W/m²). Amazing, right? That’s what my program shows, and that’s what is claimed:

This is zero in the absence of any long‐wave absorbers, and around 155 W/m² in the present‐day atmosphere [Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997]. This reduction in outgoing LW flux drives the 33°C greenhouse effect …

— Attribution of the present‐day total greenhouse effect

The main prediction of the theory is that as the atmosphere absorbs more infrared radiation, the surface will get warmer. Let’s rerun the program with a higher atmospheric emissivity = 0.8

``````\$ bash gheffect 0.8

Sec | Upwelling |   Temp    | GH Effect |  Trapped  | To Space
1 | 236.133 W | -19.125 C | 188.907 W |  94.453 W | 141.680 W
2 | 330.587 W |   3.168 C | 170.016 W |  37.781 W | 198.352 W
3 | 368.368 W |  10.746 C | 162.460 W |  15.113 W | 221.021 W
4 | 383.481 W |  13.614 C | 159.437 W |   6.045 W | 230.088 W
5 | 389.526 W |  14.738 C | 158.228 W |   2.418 W | 233.715 W
6 | 391.944 W |  15.184 C | 157.745 W |   0.967 W | 235.166 W
7 | 392.911 W |  15.361 C | 157.551 W |   0.387 W | 235.747 W
8 | 393.298 W |  15.432 C | 157.474 W |   0.155 W | 235.979 W
9 | 393.453 W |  15.461 C | 157.443 W |   0.062 W | 236.072 W
10 | 393.515 W |  15.472 C | 157.431 W |   0.025 W | 236.109 W
11 | 393.539 W |  15.477 C | 157.426 W |   0.010 W | 236.124 W
12 | 393.549 W |  15.478 C | 157.424 W |   0.004 W | 236.130 W
13 | 393.553 W |  15.479 C | 157.423 W |   0.002 W | 236.132 W
14 | 393.555 W |  15.479 C | 157.423 W |   0.001 W | 236.133 W``````

A 1% rise in atmospheric emissivity (0.8/0.792) predicts a 0.479 °C rise in surface temperature.

You would think such intelligent and “correct” mathematics would be based on actual experiments, but you would be wrong; it is not based on anything other than its presuppositions, and has been so for more than a century by name, and two centuries by concept.

Let’s outline a very simple experiment to test whether the greenhouse effect is true:

``````          Solid Surface
v

1) Person   => |     IR Camera

2) Person   <- | ->  IR Camera

And repeats until "equilibrium"``````

Radiation leaves the body and strikes a screen. After absorption some radiation will go out to the IR camera, and the rest will go back to the person, thereby warming them up further, according to greenhouse effect theory. Note that we don’t even need absorption, merely reflecting back a person’s radiation should warm them up.

Let’s assume the human body emits 522.7 W/m² (37 °C) (Emissivity: 0.9961, [Sanchez-Marin 2009]). For compatibility with my program, we multiply this figure by 4, and call it TSI. Let’s assume the screen and air in between together has a total emissivity of 0.9. Now run:

``````\$ TSI=2090.8 bash gheffect 0.9
Sec | Upwelling |   Temp    | GH Effect |  Trapped  | To Space
1 | 362.754 W |   9.658 C | 326.478 W | 163.239 W | 199.515 W
2 | 525.993 W |  37.188 C | 310.154 W |  73.458 W | 289.296 W
3 | 599.451 W |  47.498 C | 302.809 W |  33.056 W | 329.698 W
4 | 632.507 W |  51.830 C | 299.503 W |  14.875 W | 347.879 W
5 | 647.382 W |  53.725 C | 298.016 W |   6.694 W | 356.060 W
6 | 654.076 W |  54.566 C | 297.346 W |   3.012 W | 359.742 W
7 | 657.088 W |  54.943 C | 297.045 W |   1.356 W | 361.398 W
8 | 658.443 W |  55.112 C | 296.909 W |   0.610 W | 362.144 W
9 | 659.053 W |  55.188 C | 296.848 W |   0.274 W | 362.479 W
10 | 659.328 W |  55.222 C | 296.821 W |   0.124 W | 362.630 W
11 | 659.451 W |  55.238 C | 296.809 W |   0.056 W | 362.698 W
12 | 659.507 W |  55.244 C | 296.803 W |   0.025 W | 362.729 W
13 | 659.532 W |  55.248 C | 296.801 W |   0.011 W | 362.743 W
14 | 659.543 W |  55.249 C | 296.799 W |   0.005 W | 362.749 W
15 | 659.548 W |  55.250 C | 296.799 W |   0.002 W | 362.752 W
16 | 659.550 W |  55.250 C | 296.799 W |   0.001 W | 362.753 W
17 | 659.552 W |  55.250 C | 296.799 W |   0.000 W | 362.753 W``````

We see that the screen is “trapping” a lot of human radiation from reaching the IR camera, and we expect an extra 296.8 W/m² greenhouse effect, bringing us up to 55°C. Merely placing a screen in front of us should make us feel as if we’re stepping inside a sauna.

##### Look at all the trapped radiation!

These people must be really feeling the heat. But they don’t, and for good reason: preventing radiation from reaching a colder place does not cause heating back at the source. Had these people had thermometers strapped to them, they would note the virtually zero temperature rise (due to blocked convection). Look very closely at the videos. Note the seconds the screens are placed in front of their faces and notice the lack of any thermal reading changes. None!

All empirical evidence shows the opposite of the claims of the greenhouse effect.

So the question remains, why is the surface hotter than the sun can make it alone?

##### Energy Budget

If we look at the energy budget, we can see a dependency loop between surface and atmosphere: Surface -> Atmo = 350 and Atmo -> Surface = 324. So which came first, the chicken or the egg? This is nonsense. You can’t have a dependency loop for heat flow. Let’s try a theory that does not cause mental anguish and lacks empirical evidence. For this, we ignore the climate “scientists”, and go to the geophysicists:

Here we see that Earth’s geothermal energy is capable of delivering 0 °C to the surface; This is equivalent to 315.7 W/m². We add the sun and subtract latent+sensible heat:

315.7 + 168 – 24 – 78 = 381.7 = Upwelling Radiadtion

Now we get a figure that that’s 390 – 381.7 = 8.3 W/m² off, but that’s OK because latent and sensible heat are not directly measured but estimated with certain physical assumptions, and/or the 0 °C geothermal is an approximation too.

Now we finally realize that the greenhouse effect is a hoax, and nothing but geothermal flipped up-side down. There is no Downwelling Radiation, there is only Upwelling-from-measurement-instrument Radiation (See here). Those who read Why is Venus so hot?, probably already saw where I was going. Now doesn’t it make more sense than backradiation temperature raising? Reality shows absolutely normal geothermal and solar combining to produce what we observe. We see all normal heating, and no ugly backwards zig-zag heating.

Let’s summarize:

``````     Upwelling
^
|      |       ^        ^
v      |       |        |
===============================
|    Latent  Sensible
Solar ---+     Heat      Heat
|       ^        ^
|       |        |
+------ Geothermal``````

Now which explanation does Occam’s Razor favor?

I hope you have enjoyed the return to sanity.

Sincerely, -Zoe

Notes

[¹] We only care about matching 3 decimal places. If we want to extend it to IEEE754 64-bit precision, it takes 40 seconds. Not that this matters much; Most work is accomplished in the first 5 seconds.

[²] I debated with myself whether to use the term seconds or iterations. Real physical calculations would take mass and heat capacity into account, but since greenhouse theorists don’t use these, I won’t either. Their simple model is in seconds.

Read more at phzoe.com

Not clear what program he was using ..

### Global Warming Drives Wildfires Study–Ignores Pre 1979 Data

Correction: Leftist arsonists drive wildfires, in Amazonas, in Australia and lately also in the US!

A few of this year’s arsonists and where they were captured: