(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects
(b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet
(c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly
(d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately
(e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical
(f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified
…… in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.
According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation.
Diagrams of the type of Figure 23 are the cornerstones of "climatologic proofs" of the supposed Greenhouse effect in the atmosphere . They are highly suggestive, because they bear some similarity to Kirchhoff rules of electrotechnics, in particular to the node rule describing the conservation of charge . Unfortunately, in the literature on global climatology it is not explained, what the arrows in "radiation balance" diagrams mean physically. It is easily verifed that within the frame of physics they cannot mean anything.
Furthermore, Al Gore confuses absorption/emission with reflection. Unfortunately, this is also done implicitly and explicitly in many climatologic papers, often by using the vaguely defined terms "re-emission", "re-radiation" and "backradiation".
3. Is it physically correct to consider radiative heat transfer as the fundamental mechanism controlling the weather setting thermal conductivity and friction to zero?
For instance in many calculations climatologists perform calculations where idealized black surfaces e.g. representing a CO2 layer and the ground, respectively, radiate against each other.
In reality, we must consider a bulk problem, …… In this context an application of the formulas of cavity radiation is sheer nonsense.
Global climatologists claim that the Earth's natural greenhouse effect keeps the Earth 33 ℃ warmer than it would be without the trace gases in the atmosphere. 80 percent of this warming is attributed to water vapor and 20 percent to the 0.03 volume percent CO2.
If such an extreme effect existed, it would show up even in a laboratory experiment involving concentrated CO2 as a thermal conductivity anomaly. It would be manifest itself as a new kind of 'superinsulation' violating the conventional heat conduction equation. However, for CO2 such anomalous heat transport properties never have been observed.
6. Re-emission is not reflection and can in no way heat up the ground-level air against the actual heat flow without mechanical work.
7. The temperature rises in the climate model computations are made plausible by a perpetuum mobile of the second kind. This is possible by setting the thermal conductivity in the atmospheric models to zero, an unphysical assumption.
7. 第2種の永久機関は気候モデル計算における温度上昇をもっともらしくする。 これは「非物理的な」仮定として、大気モデルの熱伝導率をゼロに設定することによって可能となる。
It would be no longer a perpetuum mobile of the second kind, if the "average" fictitious radiation balance, which has no physical justification anyway, was given up.
9. Infrared absorption does not imply "backwarming". Rather it may lead to a drop of the temperature of the illuminated surface.
10. In radiation transport models with the assumption of local thermal equilibrium, it is assumed that the absorbed radiation is transformed into the thermal movement of all gas molecules. There is no increased selective re-emission of infrared radiation at the low temperatures of the Earth's atmosphere.