Did you know that there are only two (2) ways to increase a body’s temperature? Indeed, there are only two ways to increase a body’s temperature. One is with work, the other is with heat.
To repeat: There are only two ways to increase a body’s temperature, and the first is with work being done on the body, and the second is with heat being sent to the body. The 1stLaw of Thermodynamics captures this. This is all of the 1st Law! All of it. And it is written as
dU = dQ – dW,
where dU is the change in internal energy of a system, dQ is the heat entering the system, and dW the work done by the system.
Next, if we refer to the definition of heat
“Heat is defined as any spontaneous flow of energy from one object to another caused by a difference in temperature between the objects. We say that “heat” flows from a warm radiator into a cold room, from hot water into a cold ice cube, and from the hot Sun to the cool Earth. The mechanism may be different in each case, but in each of these processes the energy transferred is called “heat”.” – Thermal Physics
and thus that radiation from the cooler atmosphere does not send any heat (dQ) to the warmer surface, and that there is no dW (work) involved from the atmosphere to surface by radiation, then hence, the radiation from the cooler atmosphere cannot cause an increase in internal energy and hence temperature of the warmer surface.
That’s it. That is all everything we and you and anyone needs to debunk the radiative greenhouse effect and climate alarm.
Ask anyone to use the actual first law of thermodynamics and the actual definition of heat, not an argument by analogy, to show how a cooler atmosphere can cause temperature increase on something warmer. Hint: It cannot be done. The 1st Law cannot be used to demonstrate the existence of the RGHE. Since the 1st Law captures what can exist, then what it cannot demonstrate does not exist.
The alarmist argument is simply making up a process using some arbitrary analogy that cleverly avoids any reference to an actual definition of heat and the First Law. Why use analogies when you can just use the actual definition of heat and the First Law, after-all? Why not use the real thing? They do it (use analogies), of course, because the radiative greenhouse effect can only be explained with cockamamie analogies, and not with the actual fundamental thermodynamic definitions of heat, energy, and temperature.
All this other argument-by-analogy stuff is sophistry. It is pseudoscience. It is meaningless. It is possible to say things which sound reasonable, but do not exist or correspond to reality. Gödel proved that, if anyone needs a proof, but it is also plain and simple common sense and we call it “imagination” when seen in children.
This is the actual thermodynamic physics math involved, utilizing the real actual definition of things. The analogies that are made up to trick your way around this are only word games…sophistry. “Slowed cooling”, “backradiation”, etc., all that stuff, although it sounds like it should work, doesn’t. How do we know? Because of the 1st Law, and what two physical effects are required to increase a body’s temperature.
