August 16, 2022

Radiative Transfer Equations produce greenhouse gases out of thin air.

There is no such thing as a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. Physicists assumed there would be when they observed carbon dioxide absorbing radiation in a test tube more than a century and a half ago. They missed the rest of the process where radiation is emitted as fast as it is absorbed, since the emissions were not being measured in the test tubes.

Over time, physicists broke into two groups: those who viewed a greenhouse effect as ridiculous and those who pursued their assumptions of a greenhouse effect through all opposition. Characteristically, the losing side stretched arguments and evidence to meet their needs until they found the prevailing mechanism which could supposedly be reduced to numbers showing how much heating would be produced by so much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The mechanism was called Radiative Transfer Equations. The procedure was to slice the atmosphere into many sections and calculate the amount of radiation leaving each one and entering the slice above it. When getting to the top of the atmosphere, there was supposedly 3.7 watts per square meter less radiation leaving the Earth than entering from the sun, whenever the amount of carbon dioxide doubled in the atmosphere, which was said to be creating global warming.

It was a scheme, not a scientific process. No one could verify the results, because the world's largest computers were used and the extreme complexities were not clarified. Supposedly, every influence in the atmosphere was fed into the computer and out came a result with only one percent error. Nice for making calculations but ridiculous for science.

Among the absurdities is that there is no definable amount of radiation being emitted from a narrow slice of atmosphere or entering a narrow slice above it. The radiation travels in all directions and gets absorbed in various distances of travel—very short to very long.

Another absurdity is that watts of energy produce continuous change, not a stable number. Watts are rate of change. That's why home-owners pay for watt-hours of electricity, not watts.

The contrivers needed to express the results in terms of watts, so they could use the Stefan-Boltzmann constant in reverse to convert radiation into temperature. Besides producing the wrong quantities, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is not appropriate for transparent gases, because it is designed for opaque solids. A transparent gas emits radiation vastly more readily than an opaque solid.

So of course, the Radiative Transfer Equations did not end the arguments in science. What really ended the arguments was nonscientists in journalism and organizations taking sides and imposing a version onto the public. No criticism was allowed. The science was supposedly settled. When scientists tried to produce criticism they were trashed and often lost their ability to publish or get grants. Once the incompetent physicists had the journalists and public on their side, the arguing was over—over with the wrong side prevailing.