Back Radiation does not Create a Greenhouse Effect.

The fakes boxed themselves into a corner claiming greenhouse gasses heat the upper atmosphere (for several screwy reasons), while there is no way to get the cold air up there to heat the surface of the earth. So they claim "back radiation" moves the heat downward. The whole concept is scientifically perverse.

The thickness of the fake zone of emission would need to be known. No one has even mentioned its thickness, as if it were a surface.

Since there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect heating the atmosphere, there is no such thing as back radiation.

Climatologists have been claiming that heating of the atmosphere occurs in a zone either 5 or 9 kilometers up. So they needed to explain how it increases the near-surface temperature, and they said "back radiation" does that.

No one has ever found the heated zone in the upper atmosphere, and this has been an on-going concern. If there were such a zone, the temperature increase would be extremely slight to escape detection.

There is no way to get significant heat from such a zone to the surface of the earth. One reason is because air has almost no heat capacity. So if it radiates onto the solid surface of the earth, no significant temperature increase would occur. Yet the claimed increase is assumed to be uniform everywhere.

The surface of the earth is 70% oceans, which absorb radiation to a depth of 30 meters and traps the heat. To get the near-surface air to increase by 1°C would require heating the land mass by 3.3°C, while half of the radiation goes upward. So the zone in the upper atmosphere would need to be at least 6.7°C warmer than the rest of the air to create 1°C of near-surface temperature increase. But the extreme heating in the claimed zone in the upper atmosphere has not been detected.

TOP