Climate alarmism feeds on a "greenhouse effect" resulting from "backradiation" as illustrated
in the above energy budget set up by NASA Earth Observatory: We read
- 100% backradiation
- 117% =390 W/m2 outgoing radiation from the Earth surface
- 48% total incoming radiation from the Sun to the Earth surface
- 30% transported by convection/evaporation from the Earth surface to the atmosphere.
This represents a severely underfinanced budget with 117% going out and 48% coming in. In politics this may pass as inevitable (for some time), but in science this is catastrophical.
In Computational Blackbody Radiation I show that the "backradiation" creating the NASA budget miracle, is unphysical and purely fictional. This eliminates the main source of energy
to climate alarmism.
This looks pretty much like my bank account...
SvaraRaderaJust a thought: If radiation from the surface is so much more important than convection, then why don't we find *real* greenhouses that build on this principle, i.e. contain the outgoing radiation? Surely it would be possible to make some kind of one-way mirror for the purpose? According to this energy budget, such a greenhouse would have been a lot more efficient, right?
Yes, NASA carries a double radiative budget. Clever?
SvaraRadera