CO2 alarmism is supported by measurements of "downwelling long wave radiation DLR" or "back radiation" as flux of heat energy from the atmosphere being absorbed by the Earth surface. The measurements are made using specific instruments designed for the specific task of measuring DLR, which can be named DLR-meters and which supply concrete instrumental evidence of a substantial effect on global climate of the atmospheric trace gas CO2, referred to as a "GreenHouse Gas GHG effect" viewing "CO2 as a GreenHouse Gas".
A DLR-meter reports a heat flux of about 300 W/m2 from the atmosphere to the Earth surface, to be compared with about 170 W/m2 as shortwave heat flux from the Sun. DLR overpowers the Sun with a factor 2.
There are several different DLR-meters, such as pyrgeometer, bolometer and interferometer, all calibrated to show consistent DLR measurements. A pyrgeometer pointed to the sky reports DLR using the formula:
- DLR = U_emf/S + sigma x T_i^4 = Pyrgeometer Formula,
The Pyrgeometer Formula can be seen as a reformulation of an energy balance of the form
- U_emf/S = sigma x (T_a^4 - T_i^4) = Stefan-Boltzmann's Law
We understand that sigma x (T_a^4 - T_i^4) is the net heat flux between the atmosphere and pyrgeometer according to Stefan-Boltzmann's Law, effectively a net flow from the warmer pyrgeometer to the colder atmosphere, a net heat flux which recorded by the pyrometer detector as U_emf/S, which may be of size - 40 W/m2 to be compared with the gross DLR of 300 W/m2, almost 10 times as big, from the atmosphere to the Earth surface, as recorded in the Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget underlying CO2 alarmism:
We see that DLR = sigma x T_a^4 is the radiance of a blackbody of temperature T_a into a surrounding at 0 K, while the DLR terminology suggests that it is the radiance from the atmosphere to the pyrgeometer representing the Earth surface. This change of meaning is the deception behind CO2 alarmism.
We understand that measuring U_emf and T_i knowing S, makes it possible to determine the temperature T_a of the sky towards which the pyrgeometer is pointed, by Stefan-Boltzmann's Law.
But the pyrgeometer as DLR-meter does not report the measured net heat flux sigma x (T_a^4 - T_i^4), but instead the gross heat flux DLR = sigma T_a^4, as if
- sigma x (T_a^4 - T_i^4) = sigma x T_a^4 - sigma x T_i^4 = DLR - sigma x T_i^4,
The one way net heat flux effectively measured by the pyrgeometer is thus translated into DLR as gross heat flux from the atmosphere according to the Pyrgeometer Law as an algebraic reformulation of Stefan-Boltzmann's law of the form
- sigma x (T_a^4 - T_i^4) = sigma x T_a^4 - sigma x T_i^4 = False Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
To decode CO2 alarmism requires decoding DLR and the Pyrgeometer Formula as a False Stefan-Boltzmann's Law. The deception is made by such a simple trick that it is difficult to decode. It illustrates the old truth that if you are going to lie, make it simple and big, the simpler and bigger the more convincing.
Summary: The World Meteorological Organization WMO specifies a standard for DLR-meters based on the Pyrgeometer Formula corresponding to a False Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Manufacturers like Kipp&Zonen fabricate pyrgeometers which record DLR according to the preconceived specification of WMO, which are used to give instrumental evidence of DLR as support of CO2 alarmism.
Putting a DLR-meter into a satellite and pointing it towards the Earth records outgoing long wave radiation OLR as the radiance from the Earth + atmosphere, which gives instrumental evidence of an effect of "blocking of outgoing radiation" by CO2 of size 40 W/m2, with a "radiative forcing" of 3.7 W/m2 from doubled atmospheric CO2, which is by IPCC presented as the core evidence of the warming effect of CO2. Again it is fabricated evidence obtained using a specific instrument design for the specific purpose of identifying a warming effect of CO2.
The fabrication of evidence in support of CO2 alarmism in the form of DLR and OLR as measured by DLR-meters, appears as the biggest scientific bluff all times. Even hardheaded critics of CO2 alarmism have been fooled by DLR-measurements. The success of the bluff comes from putting up a bet so high that it cannot be met. How could you ever think of challenging a DLR of the double power of the Sun? And if you cannot question DLR, then it can remain as a fact with massive instrumental evidence in support of CO2 alarmism.
The fact that a DLR-meter effectively measures temperatures but reports radiance, is covered up by describing the output from the instrument as "products". This is the same form of deception deliberately fabricated to sell financial "products" to innocent people and institutions, "products" with only fictional "values" presented as real values. The tragical fate of the modern homo sapiens sapiens is to be transformed by governmental disinformation into a homo non-sapiens.
Very good !!!
SvaraRaderaI say it this way: They have literally reversed cause and effect, and believe the ("measured") radiation determines the temperature, when the truth is that the (thermodynamically established) temperature determines the "radiation" they "measure".
SvaraRaderaYes, that is what "they" do, and "they" are many.
SvaraRaderaWould it be possible with a simple experiment: Two parallell flat surfaces, radiating from warmer to colder, first setup with temperature difference say 50K, second setup at higher temperatures but with the same (delta T)^4 , that is same radation power.
SvaraRaderaFirst step in vaacum, than repeated with some supposedly partially radiation absorbing matter between the two surfaces?
Purpose of experiment to show no dependence of absolute radiation level on absorbing, all other variables constant.
"Putting a DLR-meter into a satellite and pointing it towards the Earth records outgoing long wave radiation OLR as the radiance from the Earth + atmosphere, which gives instrumental evidence of an effect of "blocking of outgoing radiation" by CO2 of size 40 W/m2, with a "radiative forcing" of 3.7 W/m2 from doubled atmospheric CO2, which is by IPCC presented as the core evidence of the warming effect of CO2. Again it is fabricated evidence obtained using a specific instrument design for the specific purpose of identifying a warming effect of CO2."
SvaraRaderaI thought these experiments used ~0K as reference. Are they still false? Why?
If you are saying back radiation doesn't exist, then how do you explain a low cloud night sky vs a cloudless night sky where the low clouds can cause up to a 10C difference in temperature; all else being equal?
SvaraRadera