Back Radiation does not Create a Greenhouse Effect
A point of contention that seems to have evolved into a hinge point is back radiation. The claim by promoters of the global warming hype is that heating of the upper atmosphere by carbon dioxide results in radiation flowing back toward the earth increasing the temperature near the surface of the earth.
The concept of back radiation is scientifically absurd. Warmists claim there is a point in the atmosphere which heats due to carbon dioxide. No such point has ever been detected. This means that the back flow would have to start from a point of undetectable temperature increase.
Here's a look at some of the hypothetical concerns for the nonexistent back radiation. Hypotheticals can go in numerous directions, since no such effect exists.
We could compare the temperature of a cubic centimeter of air at the emitting point to a cubic centimeter of earth which absorbs the back radiation. About twenty thousand times as much temperature increase would be needed at the starting point for the back flow as at the surface of the earth. If the surface temperature has increased by the measly 0.6°C which warmists claim, the back flow would have to start at a temperature of 12,000°C. (Even though the sun is not that hot, it is high density, while the fake zone of emission is thin air.) This concept says that the back radiation must heat solid earth to 1°C before it heats the nearby air 1°C.
There are two factors involved. One is density and the other is specific heat. The density of water (The earth's surface is 70% oceans.) is 833 times that of air (ignoring the salt in ocean water). The density of air is one third as much in the upper atmosphere where the supposed greenhouse gasses absorb radiation. The specific heat of water is four times that of air. So 833 x 3 x 4 = 10,000.
This means there is 10,000 times as much heat required to raise the temperature of one cubic centimeter of water as one cubic centimeter of air where the back flow begins. So warmists would say, look at the air at the surface of the earth instead of the water. The air doesn't absorb the radiation according to their claims, which is why greenhouse gasses do the absorbing. So what absorbs the back-flowed radiation? It would have to be the water, soil, vegetation, etc.
Then, not all of the heat at the starting point is going to get to the ground. Warmists claim half of it will, which is not true, but even if it were, the 10,000 would need to be multiplied by 2 to get 20,000. There would have to be 20,000 times as much temperature increase at the starting point of the back flow high in the atmosphere as the temperature increase at the surface of the earth.
The half-brains who argue for warmists (Physicists need degenerates to argue for them, because their logic won't stand up to scientific scrutiny.) would say that the heat does not come from a cubic centimeter in the atmosphere for each cubic centimeter on the surface but from some atmospheric depth, like maybe a cubic kilometer. Tell that to the climatologist/physicists. They applied the Stefan-Boltzmann constant to the subject and claim there is a surface in the atmosphere at -19°C and about five kilometers up which cools the planet by emitting radiation into space. That's radiation per square meter, not cubic meter. So maybe the depth is a fraction of a micron. They won't say, because they can't resolve the contradictions in their fraudulent equations. If the layer which emits into space and cools the planet is not the same layer which back radiates to earth, how does the heat get from one layer to another? Such absurdities do not have answers, because there is no such layer.
If we do a reverse logic and determine how much depth to the atmospheric layer is required to send the appropriate amount of heat when it is warmed 1°C more than usual, we get these numbers: The one cubic centimeter is multiplied times 1/0.6 for temperature difference. Then it is multiplied times 20,000 for difference in specific heat and density of the matter, which is 20,000 centimeters or 200 meters times 1.67 equals 333 meters of atmospheric depth. The trouble is, no one has found the 1°C temperature increase in the atmosphere, and no theory has been given indicating the atmospheric depth should be 1/3 kilometer. Neither the measurement nor the theory exists.
However, the real problem is that the surface of the earth supposedly being heated through back radiation is not really one centimeter deep, because 70% of the earth's surface is oceans, and they absorb radiation to a depth of about 30 meters. This is 3,000 times more than the one centimeter over 70% of the earth. But the radiation diminishes as it goes down in the oceans, so we might use one third this amount or 1,000 times 70%. The 333 meters of atmospheric depth now becomes 233 kilometers, which goes off the scale. There isn't that much atmosphere.
In other words, when the claimed back radiation enters the oceans, it literally disappears. You don't get so many degrees of temperature increase from so many calories (the frauds say joules) of heat. There is no direct relationship between heat and temperature.
For oceans, small amounts of heat disappear without producing significant temperature increase. The heat has to be spread through a lot of mass in the oceans. Spreading the heat around reduces the resulting temperature. That's due to the "specific heat" of a mass. So if the top several meters of the oceans absorb a few watts per square meter of radiation (which will be churned to some depth), the resulting temperature increase of the surface of the oceans will be something like 0.0001°C. The air temperature over the oceans cannot increase by 0.6°C, while the oceans which absorb the heat only increase temperature by 0.0001°C.
They can't say that the heat in the oceans will accumulate until it reaches an increased temperature of 0.6°C. The above analysis based of specific heat and temperature is an instantaneous, proportional analysis. Furthermore, there is no hold at 0.6°C for accumulating heat. If heat were to accumulate up to 0.6°C, it would keep accumulating up to 1.2°C, 3.6°C, etc. However heat accumulates in the oceans (most of it getting there directly from sunshine, not some miniscule back radiation), The end result is stable and controlled due to nature creating an equilibrium, not some stroke of luck being referred to as "a delicate balance" by the brainless frauds who took control of this subject.
Then there is the not-so-small problem that the oceans will not transfer all of their heat to the near-surface atmosphere. Instead, they will convert much of it to water vapor, which carries the heat upward and releases it high in the atmosphere, where precipitation occurs.
There isn't a three component equation which does all of this, as the fudge factor indicates. Physicists certainly didn't account for the salt in the oceans with a three component fudge factor.
Persons who have very poor understanding of science, such as greens who speak for scientists, assume that the back flow of heat is the entire greenhouse effect. They assume that instead of heat radiating out into space, some of it is stopped and forced to flow back to earth. They often assume that reflection is involved.
There is no such thing as a gas reflecting radiation under atmospheric conditions. Reflection requires a surface. The back flow being theorized is nothing resembling reflection. It is heat being re-radiated back. In the process of being re-radiated, the wavelength changes from the narrow, fingerprint wavelength which a greenhouse gas absorbs to the wide bandwidth of black body radiation. Reflection does not change wavelength.
One of the reasons why greenhouse gasses do nothing to heat the atmosphere is because conduction and convection are the primary means of heat entering the atmosphere, not radiation. But even if radiation were significant, the temperature of the atmosphere rapidly equilibrates to a defined temperature which nature requires. The cool-down at night and the cold at high elevations show how fast heat is lost from the earth. So it doesn't matter how heat gets into the atmosphere; nature creates the same temperature for the atmosphere regardless. (See Equilibrium Page.)
The variations in global temperature, which can be long term or short term, are due to net imbalances. The claimed global warming is not due to a net imbalance; it is a redistribution question. Redistribution of heat cannot change the over-all temperature.
The net imbalances which create real changes in global temperature are due to such things a variation in the amount of solar energy which the earth absorbs and variations in the amount of heat reaching the surface of the oceans. Absorbed solar energy can vary due to variations in cloud cover which reflects away sunlight and due to variations in the intensity of energy emitted by the sun.