"Back radiation"/"downwelling" (see graph) the foundation of "Climate Change", is a known fraud:
We start with a question:
Question to Google AI: where is radiation in e=mc2?
AI Overview
In E=MC2, radiation is represented by the (energy), which is released when mass (M) is converted, as explained in this NSTA article and this PBS article. The formula shows that radiation, heat, or light emitted by a substance is equivalent to the mass lost.
Got that? Energy is radiation, according to physics. Therefore radiation cannot move in the direction of lessened disorder/randomness after its interception and absorption in the atmosphere, radiation must follow the path of greater disorder/randomness in order to facilitate energy's compliance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics...
The second law - The level of disorder in the universe is steadily increasing. Systems tend to move from ordered behavior to more random behavior.
...where [thermal] energy follows the path of greater disorder/randomness, such conditions existing in an ascending path, not a descending path.
As we were instructed in school, although most forget but will immediately recall when reminded, energy follows the path of entropy, entropy merely meaning that thermal energy moves in the direction away from an organized state towards an unorganized state, or from order towards disorder. In the atmosphere, as one moves towards the surface entropy decreases in that disorder decreases, whereas in the opposite direction, upwards towards space, entropy increases because the gas molecules that make up the atmosphere are now spread out, more random. Well, radiation is energy, but in the form of radiation. Therefore, no part of radiation can contradict entropy by following a path of less disorder, less randomness. It is radiation that creates the energy, therefore radiation always follows entropy, otherwise we have radiation creating energy in those areas of the atmosphere that have greater order and less randomness!"
In fact, physics informs us that carbon dioxide (and methane) cools the atmosphere:
Global Atmospheric Cooling due to Increase in CO2 Content
Increase in CO2 content leads to global cooling of atmosphere. This paradoxical, at first sight, conclusion can be inferred from the adiabatic theory of heat transfer. To compare the temperature characteristics of a planet at various compositions of its atmosphere, one can use Eq. (11). If one assumes that the existing nitrogen–oxygen atmosphere of Earth is replaced entirely by an imaginary carbon dioxide atmosphere with the same pressure of 1 atm and adiabatic exponent ˛ D 0:1428, then the value of b ˛ D 1:5970:1428 D 1:069 and the near-surface temperature would decline to 281.6 K. Thus, the atmospheric temperature would decreases by 6.4ıC, instead of increasing according to the traditional theory. Constructing the distributions of temperature in the carbon dioxide atmosphere, one should take into consideration the fact that for the same pressure the corresponding elevation above sea level is lower than that for the nitrogen–oxygen atmosphere of Earth: h.CO2/ D h.N2 C O2/ 29=44, where h is the elevation, and 29 and 44 are the molecular weights of nitrogen–oxygen and carbon dioxide atmospheres, respectively. Such temperature distributions are shown in Figure 1. In this figure, the graph of temperature distribution for the carbon dioxide troposphere lies below the graph of distribution for the nitrogen–oxygen atmosphere. Thus, the near-surface temperature for the carbon dioxide atmosphere is 6.4ıC lower than that for the nitrogen–oxygen atmosphere and not considerably higher as some scientists continue to believe. Therefore, the accumulation of carbon dioxide in great amounts in atmosphere should lead only to the cooling of climate, whereas insignificant changes in the partial pressure of CO2 (few hundreds of ppm) practically would not influence the average temperature of atmosphere and the Earth’s surface. Similarly, if one assumes that the existing carbon dioxide atmosphere of Venus is entirely replaced by the nitrogen–oxygen atmosphere at the same pressure of 90.9 atm, then its surface temperature would increase from 735 to 796 K. Thus, increasing the saturation of atmosphere with carbon dioxide (despite its radiation absorbing capacity), with all other conditions being equal, results in a decrease and not an increase of the greenhouse effect and a decrease in average temperature of planet’s atmosphere.
The averaged temperature distributions for the existing carbon dioxide and hypothetical nitrogen–oxygen atmosphere on Venus are shown in Figure 2.
...and...
The most fundamental assumption in the theory that human CO2 is causing global warming and climate change is that an increase in CO2 will cause an increase in temperature. The problem is that every record of any duration for any period in the history of the Earth exactly the opposite relationship occurs temperature increase precedes CO2 increase. Despite that a massive deception has developed and continues. Ball (2014: p. 1).
Who is orchestrating this massive deception, and why? Who else but Marxists and their Satanist puppet masters, promoting policies for the annihilation of religion:
Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Karl Marx (1843)
"The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion."
...and...
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions."
...and...
"It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world."
Now you know what Marxists are referring to when they utter the phrase, "The Struggle"...
"The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion."
In the article by David Wojick, The Green New Deal could make electricity 28 times more expensive, he observes: "Given electrification, the cost of electricity might jump a whopping 28 times today’s cost. The Green New Deal causes the average household electricity bill to go up a crushing $52,500." David Wojick's cost estimates are based on today's supply and demand for the constituent minerals that go into the manufacture of backup batteries. Today, in the United States 38.4% of electricity is derived from wind/solar/hydroelectric/nuclear sources, most of which don't require battery backup because electricity can be borrowed by the existing traditional electricity grid. As global demand increases for battery backup, the costs associated with mineral extraction will skyrocket at least ten-times what the costs are today, where we arrive at an average household cost of...
10 x $52,500 = $525,000
It should also be noted that the minerals needed to manufacture the world's backup batteries to satisfy demand will take approximately 500 years to accomplish, meaning 99.9% or better of humanity will be annihilated, in compliance with Karl Marx's 1843 directive.
=========================
* Thus Heaven I've forfeited, I know it full well, My soul, once true to God, Is chosen for hell. -- The Pale Maiden (poem).
...and...
Comments
Post a Comment