Essay: The Greenhouse Effect – Does it even exist?

Within a very limited time budget I would like to point out the most significant and pivotal issues (as I see it) that there are with the
theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), which of course is totally based and dependent on the theory of an existing
greenhouse effect (GHE). For the sake of saving time I will neither try to explain the basic physics hereto as far as they are
undisputed, as one I am not an expert on it, and two there are plenty of resources out there which readily explain those matters.
Moreover, anyone reasonably educated on the subject will probably know about it anyhow. Rather I will focus on basic concepts
which I feel have not or hardly been mentioned in the (more or less) public discussion, but do appear consistent if put in to
perspective.

1. What is the Greenhouse Effect?

If your answer was like it is an elevation of surface temperatures due to greenhouse gases - then you may have been mislead in the
first place. This is NOT how it came into existence AND it is not its cause. The truth is far less exciting and much more formal. It is
nothing but the difference between a theoretically determined surface temperature and the actual observed temperature. The difference
between the two could have any kind of cause, and the “greenhouse gas” concept is just one possible explanation, among others, and
will later provide proof that it is definitely a non-viable explanation.
However it is important to understand, that historically this (theoretical) deviation was there first, and only consequently scientists
tried to explain it, whereby the term “Greenhouse Effect” is highly suggestive of course, ruling out other alternative explanations.

2. Magnitude of the temperature anomaly

As most people know the GHE on Earth amounts to roughly 33°K. This corresponds to 288°K actual surface temperature vs. roughly
255°K Earth should have in theory. The starting point for this calculation is always a hypothetical “perfect black body” (PBB) that
perfectly absorbs (solar) radiation, as well as perfectly emits heat (infrared). How much energy is emitted now depends on the
temperature of a body and is increasing (or decreasing) by the power of 4. So if you double the temperature, 16times as much energy
will be emitted.
This could be seen as “energy loss” just as well, and once you can tell how much energy is being put into the system (by the sun) you
can determine the temperature where loss and input must be equal. This temperature should be, at the distance of Earth from the sun,
279.2K, which corresponds to 344.6W/m2 of solar radiation1. So this is the temperature Earth should have, if it was a PBB, which of
course it is not. Rather Earth has an albedo of 0.31, that is 31% of solar radiation get reflected right back into space, thereby not
heating the planet at all. If we take that into account, the result is (1 – 0.31) ^(1/4) * 279.2 = 254.5°K. Here we are!

3. Attributing the temperature anomaly to “greenhouse factors”

So, once this deviation was established, the apparent question was what causes it. Essentially this was a guessing game which reached
far into the establishment of the AGW theory, and has not been settled yet. There is one excellent peace of evidence by the
“godfather” of climate change, Mr Roger Revelle in 1980. He states that because of CO2 “temperature near the earth surface is
about 30° Centigrade higher than it would be in the absence of carbon dioxide”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzE4oDwoYyY&t=335s

Now this is very different from what you might be hearing nowadays, where estimates on the contribution of CO2 to the GHE range
from 9-26%, according to Wikipedia. Despite the large range of estimates, these figures are obviously sharply down from the 90%+
that Roger Revelle suggested.

4. Changing the theory, holding on to the results

Now this is probably one of the worst thinkable insults to science. I will not try to quote all the necessities sound science is requiring,
but quite obviously we must not confuse fact finding with theory finding. If we consider that CO2 was the main contributor to the
GHE, then any increase in CO2 would be of great concern. If 280ppm in the atmosphere would heat up the planet by a staggering
30°K, than doubling CO2 would arguably cause a climate apocalypse, despite diminishing returns, if you will. So from that
perspective alarmism was understandable.
By now however it has been settled, that the role of CO2 is much smaller, and even doubling it, would at best increase temperatures
by only 1°K. This however would not justify the political implications the AGW theory is so much focusing on. So rather than
stepping back, levelling down the conclusions and giving us time to observe the situation as it evolves, ominous “multiplicators” or
“feedbacks” have taken over, which allow to hold on to the alarmism. So while the theory has changed, the conclusions stay the same.
This is an inversion of science where actually politics trump science.
Beyond that, the multiplicator theory is not viable at all, as these multiplicators would not be triggered by CO2 itself, but elevated
temperatures hereto. So whenever temperatures would rise to a certain level, these multiplicators would be triggered and should cause
a vicious circle of a global meltdown, suggesting a highly unstable climate on Earth. Now given that temperatures have indeed been

1
That figure is based on 5778K surface temperature of the sun, and an average distance from the sun’s surface of 149.1 mio km. I
think that 149.1 (= 149.6 – 0.5) is more reasonable, as we receive solar radiation from the hemispheric surface of sun, not it’s core.
However such attempts to be “over accurate” may well be futile, as the exact surface temperature is possibly unknown, and only
assessed from measured radiation. You may well assume (slightly) different values, but that will not interfere with the basic findings
here.
higher in past, we do know that did not happen. But that shall not be the scope of this essay. However I am going to prove, that water
vapour does not serve at all as greenhouse gas, not to speak of being a “feedback factor”.

5. Why vapour is not a greenhouse gas

The most significant greenhouse gas is said to be water vapour. As the amount of vapour in the atmosphere is heavily depending on
temperature, is also an obvious feedback or multiplicator to any kind of warming, if you follow the standard theory.
If vapour is responsible for roughly 20°K of the GHE, and vapour is potentially and practically increasing (or decreasing) by 6.5% for
every degree up (or down), we seem to be close to a singularity. If it was not for the logarithmic character of greenhouse gases, we
might think temperatures could go up (or down) infinitely just because of such a potent feedback, or should I call it vicious circle.
Now I do not know, what the specific logarithmic function of vapour should be, and how doubling it would increase temperatures. But
as it has been suggested to be the main feedback factor, there should be a substantial yield.
This is a theory we can test. As vapour will increase with temperature, and temperatures on our planet are generally at their highest
around the equator, we should have the highest greenhouse effect just there.
We know that the sun is emitting about 1378.4W/m2 onto the surface of Earth, if we took it as a disc. As the surface of a sphere is 4
times that of a (single sided) disc, we divide this figure by 4, which gives us 1378.4/4 = 344.6W/m2, which again is resulting in
279.2°K for a perfect black body.
Ignoring the inclination, we can also approximate equatorial temperatures of a PBB in this way. This time however, we need to relate
the diameter of a circle to its perimeter. So it is roughly 1378/PI = 438.6W/m2 for the equator. Doing it the simple way, this yields
(438.6/344.6)^0.25 * 279.2 = 296.6°K, or 23.6°C.
If we compare that figure to the temperatures we actually find in equatorial regions, like 27°C on average (?), then obviously this is a
very close approximation. We furthermore need to relate this to the global average for a PBB of 279.2 vs. the 288°K we can observe,
and obviously the gap is much wider here.
Now there is convection, which will be driving down equatorial temperatures to the benefit of peripheral regions (the poles and so
on..), but nothing is going the change the fundamental fact, that the GHE is at its lowest in the warmest region of Earth. But this is
also the place, where vapour is having its maximum, and should maximize the GHE accordingly. So this is an obvious contradiction
which falsifies another significant part of the standard model.

6. The troubles with the “greenhouse formula”

a) As stated before the starting point to determine the theoretical surface temperature on Earth (or other planets, moons..) is always the
hypothetical PBB. In reality objects are different from this ideal and I have explained how allowing for the albedo is taking that into
account. But that is just one side to the story, because neither does Earth emit energy perfectly. So there are deviations from the ideal
on both sides of the equation.
While the actual uptake of (solar) radiation is less than 1 (represented by 1 – albedo), so is emissivity or the emission coefficient.
Although this fact is widely acknowledged, it is usually argued that emissivity was so close to one (maybe 0.95) that this deviation
would be negligible. Furthermore it seems little research has been done on this issue and the whole question has been marginalized.
This however is a very bold position, given that even if the 0.95 held true, this would decrease the GHE by 3.3°K, which is not
negligible.
In general it must be considered, that in reality deviations from the ideal PBB are not at all one sided. In fact, absorption rate (A) and
emissivity (E) are equal as a rule of physics (Kirchhoff’s law), with one pivotal restriction: this is only true for radiation of the same
wavelength. In practice that does not help a lot, as solar radiation has a very different wave length as compared to terrestrial infrared.
Yet it is well possible, that the absorption rate is higher than emission rate, or the other way round, or that both are about equal. Keep
in mind, that if both rates were equal, the resulting surface temperature would be just the same as that of an ideal PBB, because both
deviations would even out. And in the first scenario, temperatures would be even higher than that of a PBB.

b) “Surface temperatures” is a complicated term, for the definition of “surface”. This may sound odd, but becomes an obvious issue
when you think of gas giants. What is the surface of a gas giant? There is a simple bureaucratic solution to this question: it is where
the atmosphere has the pressure of one terrestrial atmosphere, or 100 hPa. This simple solution has a significant side effect in the way
that Venus, which is best described as a gas dwarf, has the “deepest” surface in the solar system, with a pressure of 92 bar.
Given that gases get the hotter the higher the pressure is (potentially so hot that it facilitates fusion, which is the mechanism to create
stars), it should not be a surprise Venus holds the highest surface temperatures within in the solar system. At a pressure level of 92 bar
even the otherwise cold gas giants are pretty hot (approx. Jupiter 550°K, Saturn 500°K, Uranus, Neptune 400-450°K). If you went
even deeper into these atmospheres, temperatures will increase to a thousands °K, even hotter than the surface of the sun. And no, that
has undisputedly nothing to do with a GHE. This is just simple physics. Only when it comes to Venus we make an exception, forget
about physics, and talk about a runaway GHE. Nonsense!
A much more accurate definition of surface, with regard to the radiation equilibrium, would be the place where radial exchange is
actually taking place. To define that, we would need to look into the specific optical (or radial) properties of a gas hull, if there is one.
For that reason it is also a highly questionable practice to count clouds to the (surface-) albedo, while otherwise not taking them as
surface at all. This is pure confusion!

7. Venus

Venus is indeed a special case that runs high on contradictions. Venus is 0.723 AU from the sun, resulting in (1 / 0.723) ^(1/2) * 279.2
= 328.4 °K for a PBB. This is an interesting figure, and I will come back to it. Of course, allowing for the albedo (0.77 – there are
various figures to be quoted, ranging from 0.7 – 0.9, I will stick this one for the sake of simplicity), Venus should be even colder than
Earth. (1 - 0.77) ^(1/4) * 328.4 = 227.4°K. One might think, that any formula telling us Venus should be colder than Earth, despite it
being much closer to the sun, might be somewhat flawed. But ok, we will leave at this for the moment.
In reality “surface” temperatures stand at a boiling 740°K, which suggests a GHE of over 500°K. Given that its atmosphere is about
100times as strong as that Earth (mind that gravity is with 90.5% of Earth somewhat lower), and consists of 96% CO2, the surface is
covered by 240.000 as much CO2. So who would wonder there is such a massive GHE?
Well, reality is a way more complex. First of all, large amounts of CO2 do not have such a cumulative effect. Despite its high
concentration, CO2 remains transparent for certain wave lengths (otherwise probes could not have taken pictures of the surface of
Venus), while it is already impenetrable for other wavelengths at the moderate concentration on Earth. Causing a GHE of this
magnitude seems impossible by whatever amount of CO2 there may be.
Then only about 2.5% of solar radiation make it onto the surface of Venus, which is both due to the high albedo and thick cloud layer.
Even during “daytime” it is very dim on Venus, like on an overcast northern winter day. In fact that little amount of radiation actually
hitting the surface would only be enough to heat it to 0.025 ^(1/4) * 328.4 = 130.6°K. Real temperature is 5.67 times as high, and that
goes along with 5.67 ^4 ~ 1000times as much heat emission. To achieve that, the CO2 atmosphere would need to reflect 999 of
1000(!) infrared “rays” back to the surface, and let pass just one. CO2 however has huge “windows” of transparency.
Furthermore this also means that about 90% of the solar radiation Venus eventually receives is absorbed well above the firm surface,
predominately in the upper cloud layers. Accordingly the cloud layers act as an insulation to the hot surface, which henceforth can not
emit its heat into space, while CO2 has nothing to do with it. And there is a wonderful showpiece proving it.

Now this is just one of many charts available on the internet, but all tell more or less the same story. Temperatures rise less strongly
once you get below the cloud layer. And also slower than a perfect gas would do, just due to elevating pressure. Why is that?
Obviously there is heat exchange between the surface and the bottom of the cloud layer, making the surface cooler than it would be
otherwise, considering the behaviour of a perfect gas. This process is possible, despite the fact that most CO2 (>90%+) is located in
the lower 30km of the atmosphere, thereby countering the effect that adiabatic compression would have otherwise. Clearly the
insulating effect is caused by clouds, not by CO2.
There is even more to it. If we assume, that in terms of radial exchange we should redefine the term “surface” to where it is taking
place, that would mean the upper cloud layer on Venus. If we furthermore assume, that for the above named reasons absorptivity tends
to equal emissivity, then 328.4°K would be the most likely surface temperature. And this indeed happens to be (more or less
accurately) the temperature Venus has on the upper side of the cloud layer. By the way, even beyond this zone there are massive
amounts of CO2 (approx. 2000x as much as in Earth’s atmosphere), which however do not seem to cause any GHE at all with regard
to this redefined surface.

8. The black swan

A scientifically well established concept is that theories must be falsifiable. Undisputable truths may seem very solid, but are taking
themselves off the field of science, and move over into the “beliefs” category, along with plenty of religions. The claim all swans were
white only held true until black swans were discovered, a theory that has been falsified.
Our black swan is indeed a white swan, and its name is Enceladus, a moon of Saturn. Enceladus stands out in the way that it owns the
highest albedo within the solar system (0.99), as it is virtually a snow ball. That is 99% of solar radiation is reflected back into space,
leaving only 1% to heat it. This makes it a perfect example to put the formula that determines Earths GHE to the test.
Saturn (and its moons) is 9.58 AU (astronomical units) from the sun. This gives a temperature of (1/9.58)^0.5 * 279.2 = 90.2°K for a
PBB. Allowing for the albedo of Enceladus we get to (1 – 0.99)^(1/4) * 90.2 = 28.5°K. Please note, that this figure is very imprecise,
as minor deviations from 0.01 (=1-0.99) make a significant difference. If the albedo was 0.98 the theoretical temperature would jump
to 34°K.
But anyhow, Enceladus should be extremely cold, and definitely much colder than it is - about 75°K. So roughly this moon is two and
half times as warm as it should be, giving it a massive GHE of about 45°K, even stronger than the GHE of Earth. The problem with
that: Enceladus does not even hold an atmosphere that could possibly cause a GHE.
This showpiece very much falsifies the approach to determine Earth’s GHE. For the known flaws named above, this formula simply
fails to accurately predict surface temperatures, even if the term surface is not complicated, like in the case of an atmosphere-free
moon. This fact alone takes away any foundation to the claim there even was a GHE on Earth, or anywhere else.
Actually the “far too high” temperature of Enceladus suggests, that its very low absorption rate is largely neutralized by a similarly
low emission rate. If the one was 0.01, an emission rate of 0.025 would just result in the observed temperatures, thereby indicating
that both rates are indeed correlated and have a tendency to be about equal.
PS. It has been suggested Enceladus’ temperature would be driven by geothermal energy. This seems very unlikely, as temperatures at
the poles are much lower (33°K) and also it would require extremely high temperatures deep inside, of which there are no indications.
Also geothermia has another distinct characteristic, as the hot plumes on the south pole of Enceladus show (one could also name Earth
as an example): it does not spread evenly over the surface! According to tectonic structures, there will always be “hot spots” and
otherwise unaffected areas. Except for these plumes, Enceladus’ surface temperatures are too well in line with solar heating.

© NASA2

In this illustration by NASA adds another twist. Why would they predict such (relatively) high temperatures in the first place? Did
they simply ignore Enceladus’ super low albedo??

9. A better model to predict surface temperatures

I brought up the question whether we should include the albedo to determine surface temperatures at all. We
can put this to the test and see if excluding albedo might give us a better approximation.
distance AU Solar factor Albedo obs. Temp. incl. Albedo Zero albedo
Mercury 0.387 1.607 0.142 440 431.9 448.8
Mercury maximum 0.387 1.607 0.142 700 610.9 634.7
Venus 0.723 1.176 0.77 737 227.4 328.4
Earth 1 1.000 0.31 288 254.5 279.2
Moon 1 1.000 0.136 218 269.2 279.2
Moon maximum 1 1.000 0.136 403 380.7 394.8
Mars 1.524 0.810 0.25 220 210.5 226.2
Ceres 2.768 0.601 0.09 167 163.9 167.8
Jupiter 5.203 0.438 0.343 165 110.2 122.4
Io 5.203 0.438 0.61 110 96.7 122.4
Europa 5.203 0.438 0.68 102 92.1 122.4
Ganymed 5.203 0.438 0.44 110 105.9 122.4
Kallisto 5.203 0.438 0.19 134 116.1 122.4
Saturn 9.583 0.323 0.342 134 81.2 90.2
Titan 9.583 0.323 0.22 94 84.8 90.2
Enceladus 9.583 0.323 0.99 75 28.5 90.2
Uranus 19.201 0.228 0.3 76 58.3 63.7
Neptune 30.07 0.182 0.41 72 44.6 50.9
Pluto 39.482 0.159 0.5 44 37.4 44.4

2
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/teach/activity/teachable-moment-flying-by-saturns-moon-enceladus/
I included the maximum temperatures for Moon and Mercury, as both feature extreme temperature variations due to their (slow)
bound rotations, lack of atmosphere and vicinity to the sun. Both objects will emit almost all infrared radiation from the hottest
regions of their daylight hemisphere, which thus play the dominant role. Allowing for the specific temperature profile of the moon it
emits about as much radiation as if it had 280°K throughout its surface, or about 2.7times as much as the 218°K figure would suggest.

Decile Temp K radial contribution formula
1 80 0.4096 =(b2/100)^4
2 85 0.52200625 =(b3/100)^4
3 90 0.6561 =(b4/100)^4
4 100 1 =(b5/100)^4
5 120 2.0736 =(b6/100)^4
6 230 27.9841 =(b7/100)^4
7 260 45.6976 =(b8/100)^4
8 330 118.5921 =(b9/100)^4
9 370 187.4161 =(b10/100)^4
10 390 231.3441 =(b11/100)^4
205.5 61.56953063 =SUM(c2:c11)/10
2.801182862 =c12^0.25
280.1182862 =c13*100

This calculation is based on an abstraction of “Figure 3” in this presentation:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/22/unified-theory-of-climate-reply-to-comments/

So uneven temperature distribution causes an “Anti-GHE”, or troubles the definition of “average” temperatures respectively.
Maximum temperatures however are not affected by this problem, so I include them for the sake of comparison.
To approximate the temperature of these extremes you need to multiply solar radiation simply by the factor 4, treating the surface like
it was flat rather than a sphere, meaning the sun stands in the local zenith for a long time.
And yes, ignoring the albedo and treating these objects like PBBs does indeed give better approximations in the vast majority of
cases. These data are probably imprecise and, like in the case of Venus, there might be multiple other factors to take into account. But
isolating the question over including the albedo or not, there is a clear conclusion.

10. What is driving Earths climate for real

Having falsified the concept of the so called GHE, we are still left with a temperature anomaly on Earth. Are there alternative, more
reasonable concepts to explain it? To answer this question I will focus on two pivotal “surface types” of Earth, which are (liquid)
water and clouds, which are of course also water but in a different shape. I will show how these two components do largely determine
Earth’s climate – that is the temperature as it is, and leave little to no room for greenhouse gases. Which of course then is the ultimate
falsification of the so called GHE, and all conclusions based on it, most notoriously global warming.

a) the Ocean

As water covers 71% of Earth’s surface, its radial properties will be pivotal to understanding the climate of Earth. It is an absolute
absurdity, which I can not explain as an “outsider”, that this question seems to never have been dealt with seriously. I can promise,
that if it ever had been done, the theory of the so called GHE would have been buried a long time ago.

There is a reason why I got interested in the climate-related properties of water. There is a Norwegian city called Trondheim, located
63° 26′ N, or just 350km south of the polar circle. Its average temperature is a modest +5.6°C. And a few thousand miles to east there
is the Siberian City of Jakutsk, located at exactly 62° N, 120m above sea level with an average temperature of -8.8°C. So Jakutsk is
14.4°C colder than Trondheim, and the minor differences in latitude or elevation can not explain it.
Of course we know the reason. Siberia is so cold because it is landlocked, far from any ocean. And the Pacific to the east does not
help a lot, as air streams would usually come from the west. In fact we know that “continental” climate is not only associated with
extreme, but also lower temperatures. Except for equatorial regions, where average land temperatures are close to average sea water
temperatures (but not higher!), and a few places like California, where local cold streams off the coast play a role, land temperatures
are always lower. And while temperature gaps between sea bound places and sea temperature may be moderate (Trondheim 5.6 to
10.2°C), this gap widens substantially the farther you get from the sea. Furthermore even very landlocked places like Jakutsk are still
benefiting from mild oceans, only to a lesser degree. One may only guess what climate was like without oceans, but most certainly
much colder.

So it seemed like water was heating the planet. In the over-simplified consensus model that would not even play a role, as water
would just be one component of total surface, whose radial properties would only be described as 1 – albedo. More accurately
however, we need to distinguish between surface and what is above surface, like the atmosphere, or clouds.

Surprisingly we have tremendously accurate information on the radial properties of water, data that are being used in optics, or even
in computer games. As these data and concepts play a vital (though badly ignored) role in climatology, I will need to introduce you to
them.
Water has a specific absorptivity (A) and a specific emissivity (E). Both A and E however can not to be simply “googled”, and if you
try, you would definitely not find the correct answers. The best, most accurate information you might find will look something like
this:

These curves are Fresnel equations. Simplified they tell us what fraction of electromagnetic radiation is reflected or absorbed by a
certain surface. Well, to be more accurate, the alternatives to reflectance are absorption and transmission. As a water surface as such
does not absorb, all radiation which is not reflected will rather get transmitted in the first place. Ultimately the water (or swimming
particles) underneath the surface will absorb radiation. For the sake of simplicity we can say, that radiation will either be reflected or
absorbed.
Please mind that the charts above are differing in two dimensions. The first chart is showing emissivity in the context of infrared
radiation typical for Earth’s emissions. The second chart is giving reflectivity with regard to visible light. Think the second chart
inverted, and you will get absorptivity with regard to sun light.
If you think that both charts (A and E) would almost be equal, then you are not mislead. Indeed the refractive index of water is not
varying all too much with wave length. The refractive index of water is about n = 1.27 for terrestrial infrared, and n = 1.33 to 1.34 for
sun light. And that is all we need.
I recently read an article by Clyde Spender (I do not know who he is) where he considers parts of the subject, but, as I need to say,
goes down in confusion and wrong conclusions. Not to mention, that of course he failed to think things to the end.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/12/why-albedo-is-the-wrong-measure-of-reflectivity-for-modeling-climate/

He refers to the subject, that is the second of the two charts above: "The area under the reflectance curve for seawater (Fig. 1, above)
is about 9% .. I also did a discreet summation of the frustums of a hemisphere (Af = 2πR DX). Multiplying the normalized (to a unit
area for the hemisphere) frustum areas by the average reflectivity for the angle of incidence, for each of the frustums, gives the area-
weighted reflectivity for each frustum. Summing them gives an area-weighted average reflectivity of about 18% .. Even on the real
Earth, these specular-reflection effects are significant because about 71% of the surface is covered by water, which NASA claims has
a reflectance of about six percent."

Had a lot to laugh on this one, and it may serve as an example for how not to. And also I am afraid that this single time, NASA is in
fact right.
The reason why I name this article is to show how complicated even trivial things seem to be in climate science. And that apparently
is true for both sides, the deniers and the apologetics. Of course what we need to do here is to think in 3 dimensions and, just believe
me, it is not so hard to do.

First we need to get the geometry right. While radial input, that is solar radiation, is essentially falling one-directional onto the
hemisphere of Earth, emissions go out into all possible directions of a hemisphere. I have drawn a highly sophisticated chart
(“cough”) to illustrate the subject.
Next we need to determine what the weight of a single gradient (from normal) has with regard to total radiation received, or emitted.
We can calculate the accumulated fraction of light received by the formula SIN^2 θ. Essentially we treat the hemisphere like a disc,
and at SIN 45° ^2 = 0.5 50% of total radiation is received. At 45° the specific gradients will accordingly receive most radiation, which
becomes obvious if we look at the first declination. Areas close to the terminator, where reflectivity runs high, however only receive
very little light, like the section 80-90° which accounts only for 1- SIN 80° ^2 = 3%.
For emissions on the other side we need to use the formula 1 - COS θ. This will give us the accumulated share of the surface of a
sphere by gradient. In this case 50% of total surface are only attained at 60°, and the section 80-90° accounts for a significant 17%.
At this point you may already guess where it will lead us. At high angles (from normal) reflectivity runs high, with similar rates for
both visible and infrared radiation. As we will need to weight these high angles very differently, with regard to A and E, this will have
a significant impact.

Next we need to have the charts on reflectivity and emissivity as shown above, though not as charts, but as formulas. I will admit, that
at first I did not know what a Fresnel equation is and for the sake of simplicity I constructed a logarithmic function which only
resembled that shape. It worked well and gave accurate results, but obviously it was not the real deal. But ultimately I got back onto it
and did the proper thing.

So dealing with Fresnel equations we need to know the specific refractive index of water, and that of air btw. As we can put air (n1) to
1, regardless of wavelength, that part is hardly bothering. Water will be somewhat more complicated. With regard to visible light its
refractive index (n2) is 1.33 to 1.34345. With n2 = 1.33 we get this result for R (reflectivity):

Next we convert this function to attain A (absorptivity) and weight it accordingly for every single gradient, which leads us to this:

3
https://refractiveindex.info/?shelf=main&book=H2O&page=Hale
4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_refractive_indices
5
https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/11599/SegelsteinComRefInd.pdf?sequence=1
The area of this chart amounts to 93.4, which means 93.4% of course. With a refractive index of n = 1.33 a hemisphere of water
absorbs 93.4% of solar radiation, putting reflectivity to 6.6%. So NASA is largely right in claiming the albedo of water was 0.06,
while Mr. Spencer is completely wrong.

However things will only start boiling hot and controversial as we turn to emissivity. The refractive index of water within terrestrial
infrared will be about n = 1.27. Among other sources already named, this seems to be the best estimate given a couple of papers
dealing with the subject.6
1.27 is so close to 1.33 that you might see much of a difference in the chart. It means however, that reflectivity will be somewhat
lower at any angle of incidence for infrared, as opposed to visible light. Accordingly emissivity will be somewhat higher as
absorptivity at any given angle.
But once we merge this Fresnel equation the specific geometric weighting, we come to a very different result.

Total hemispheric emissivity of water, in the typical terrestrial temperature range, amounts to 83.95% (!!!), and that is an Earth
shattering fact!
Have we not always been told Earths emissivity was so close to 1, that minor deviations from it would be negligible? Have we not
always been told, that only absorptivity was different from that of a perfect black body and we not need to take care of the other side,
that is E? And did it not mean, that surfaces would always need to colder than a PBB?
Well, here we are, with the world standing upside down. Water has indeed a lower hemispheric E than A. In other words, water
naturally turns warmer than a PBB. For the sake of clarity we can now plot both functions for A and E against each other.
6
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/12/27/emissivity-of-the-ocean/ - (Niclòs et al – 2005, Konda et al – 1994, Smith et al – 1996,
Henderson et al – 2003)
Now we are to determine the natural temperature of terrestrial water, and it is easy to do. If we assume, as before, a PBB on Earth’s
position had 279.2K, then we will get 279.2 * (0.934 / 0.8395) ^0.25 = 286.7K (!!!!!).

This gives us a definite answer to what is driving Earth’s climate. It is water, the ocean, by easily 90%. Liquid water is in fact the most
significant “greenhouse gas” on Earth, not the one in the atmosphere, but that wet ubiquitarious source of life which covers 71% of
the surface.
And well, I am afraid, the theory of a greenhouse effect is nothing more than the extract of mass-idiocy raging among what we
perceive as the brightest of our society. Except for marginal magnitudes, there is NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT! Furthermore there
can not possibly by the slightest global warming due to CO2 emissions, to name another collateral.
Personally however I am more concerned over the status of our society. What kind of world are we living in, if we spent trillions of
Dollars onto nothing else but fake science? And what does it mean, if I can figure out such a “complex science” essentially within a
couple of weeks, starting from zero. I need to assume there is much more wrong, than just climate science.

Well, we are not done yet. As promised I will still investigate the role of clouds.

b) What is the effect of clouds on climate?

“Clouds increase the global reflection of solar radiation from 15% to 30%, reducing the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the
Earth by about 44 W/m². This cooling is offset somewhat by the greenhouse effect of clouds which reduces the outgoing longwave
radiation by about 31 W/m². Thus the net cloud forcing of the radiation budget is a loss of about 13 W/m²” 7

This is one of the claims that made me suspicious. Every square meter of Earth receives about 344W of solar radiation. This figure is
reduced by the albedo of Earth, which is about 0.31. So the total albedo reduces the amount of solar radiation received by 0.31 x 344
= 107W/m2. Now if we compare the stated 44W/m2 to the total of 107W/m2, then clouds will only contribute 0.127 to the total
albedo of 0.31, or would account for 41% of Earths albedo.

In opposition to this, there are a lot of sources claiming, that clouds would account to 2/3 of the albedo. This is an obvious
contradiction, as apparently 41% are not 66 or 67%. Also the albedo remaining, after we subtract the effect by clouds, would turn
remarkably high. Clear sky albedo would seemingly be 0.31 – 0.127 = 0.183, if we took the “too simple” approach. However we need
to consider, that sunlight reflected by clouds would neither be absorbed by a 100% in their absence. So more accurately clear sky
albedo would need to solve the equation 0.127 + x * (1 - 0,127) = 0.31, which is true for 0.21

Now most of Earth is covered by water and the albedo of water is not a secret. If its average albedo was 0.068 (you might just as well
take the more accurate 0.066 determined in the previous chapter), and water covers 71% of the surface, then the remaining 29%
would need to have an albedo of 0.577 (as 0.06 * 0.71 + 0.577 * 0.29 = 0.21). Obviously that figure can not hold true, and it is even
possible to directly compare the albedo of Earth to that of the moon (which has a low albedo of only 0.13). There is a picture from
NASA’s DSCOVR satellite9 taken from a 1 million miles distance and one can fairly well tell, that the North American continent,
although partially covered by clouds, happens to be just as bright as the moon.

7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_forcing with reference to the 1990 IPCC report
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf (page 79)
8
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/processes/albedo.html
9
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/from-a-million-miles-away-nasa-camera-shows-moon-crossing-face-of-earth
Just the same seems to be true for Australia, which appears in some later frames of this picture series. If we put continental albedo to
0.13 we get to a total clear sky albedo of 0.06 * 0.71 + 0.13 * 0.29 = 0.08(!).

So even if we were extremely generous on that matter and assumed continents would have an average albedo of 0.2, then we would
still end up with 0.06 * 0.71 + 0.2 * 0.29 = 0.1 for clear sky albedo. This is a very high estimate however to account for whatsoever
uncertainties, and even if we include the negligible contribution of polar ice shields (negligible because they naturally receive very
little sun light, which is the reason why it is so cold there) we can not get substantially beyond 0.1.

Which brings up the question, why is the IPCC and its affiliates lying to us? And let us get this straight, it is a lie. They can not
possibly be that blind, or stupid.
The answer may be somewhat tricky. As I will argue, clouds are not cooling the planet, but rather heating it, falsifying the IPCC in
understating the cooling effect of clouds seems like going in the wrong direction. I am doing that for two reasons. First the “intended”
outcome shall never interfere with perception, not if you try to make sense of anything. And secondly, there is likely a specific reason
why they are lying to the public, and after all we are meant to find out.
If we accept, that clear sky albedo is about 0.1, then the cloud albedo effect must be about 0.23(!!!). Why not 0.21? Again, as named
above, the equation x + 0.1 * (1 - x) = 0.31 must be solved. We must take into account that the light reflected by clouds can not get
reflected a second time by the surface, which reduces the net effect of clear sky albedo to about 0.08 and necessarily increases the
contribution of clouds, if we want to end up with a total albedo of 0.31. And of course 23% of 344W/m2 = 79W/m2.
So the albedo effect of clouds must be at around 79W/m2, which is huge as opposed to the named 44W/m2. Also this result is largely
in line, even though a bit higher, with the claim that clouds accounted for 2/3 of total albedo. But why is that such a troublesome fact
for the IPCC?

A perfect black body on Earth’s position should have about 279.2K. Including an albedo of 0.31 we get to (1- 0.31)^0.25 * 279.2 =
254.5K, thus defining the GHE of roughly 34K vs. the 288K (or slightly more) we can observe as average surface temperature. These
temperatures correspond to 237.4W/m2 (254.5K) and ~390W/m2 (288K) respectively, which is a difference of 152.6W/m2. If we put
the 79W/m2 in relation to that figure, clouds account for over half of the total green house effect, which is a painful weakness for the
whole GHE theory.
Now the GHE apologetic position ends up between a rock and hard place. With clouds being that important, you could either argue
they would cool the planet by 79W/m2 by reflecting solar radiation, while only contributing 31W/m2 to the GHE. In this way you
“save” the role of GHGs, but you become easily falsifiable on the massive net cooling effect. Or you could be more realistic by
assigning a much bigger share of the GHE to clouds, thereby diminishing and marginalising the role of “other” GHGs. However both
options look very unpleasant and are at best to be avoided, and you can do so by simply lying on the albedo effect of clouds in the first
place. I think this is all the mystery behind the infamous 44Watt figure.

bb) Deriving cloud forcing from nocturnal cooling patterns

Now let us turn to the GHE of clouds and what we can possibly find out about it. I once witnessed a hot, clear summer day (up to
35°C during daytime). At sunset it had still around 30°C, and soon after the sky got overcast. It was a Friday night and when I went
home at 4am it had still about 25°C. So this was a perfect tropical night in a small European town with rather continental climate.
Temperatures would otherwise be falling well below 15°C in late night during hot summer times. So what contained the heat on this
night? Apparently the cloud cover!
It is a very common phenomenon we are probably all familiar with. During a clear night temperatures fall off sharply, while they
remain quite stable if there is a cloud cover. This however is not just common wisdom, it is also representing the GHE that clouds
have. And if we investigate cooling patterns during night time we should be able to acquire valuable information.

So what I did was do to download data of weather stations provided by the NCEI (formerly known NCDC)10. I selected stations which
would both provide data on the time of sunset and the sky condition. Then I ran these data through a couple of scripts which would
plot every single night, starting with the first measurement up to one hour before sunset, putting this temperature to 1. Any later
measurements would be put on the x-scale with an offset of one cell (obviously done in excel) for every 10 minutes, with temperature
relative to the initial “1”.
The sky condition was described by one or more out of 5 categories and an index value ranging from 0 – 8.11
Clear …… 0
Few …….. 0 - 2
Scattered .. 3 - 4
Broken …. 5 - 7
Overcast ... 8

I used the figures 0, 1, 3.5, 6 and 8 for each of these conditions, added and averaged all these measurements within a night and then
again grouped all these nights according to this average. That may sound complicated, but the outcome is pretty well understandable I
guess. The first sample was of Parkersburg, WV including the years 2015-2016.

There are yet a couple of things to explain. As stated above, the x-axis is giving the number of minutes times ten. The description
gives information on the cloud index (0-0 would mean all clear nights, 0-1 clear and mostly clear nights, 8-8 would only include all
overcast scenarios, and so on..), and the size of the sample. The y-axis gives the deviation from the starting temperature (=1) by
degree Kelvin. As most measurements are taken in an hourly interval (though not all), we see a typical stair pattern in the charts.

When I had these data for the first time, not knowing if the concept was vital enough, or whether my scripts were working properly, it
really shocked me. I was very much considering to end up with some use- and meaningless junk. But rather the approach works
perfectly, showing an extreme sensitivity of nocturnal cooling to sky condition, which proves me right, both with the concept, as the
technical execution.

There is yet another physical aspect to be considered. As the night progresses, we can clearly see how the rate of cooling diminishes,
especially in the clear sky scenarios, for a simple and more or less obvious reason. There is always a certain inertia with regard to
heating or cooling. Convection takes time. So soil temperatures move along with the temperature on the surface, but they will always
lag behind. This primitive graph may illustrate the issue.

10
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/quick-links#loc-clim
11
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/orders/qclcd/ExplanationofCodes.htm
So surface temperatures above the average will have a tendency to go down quickly once the sun is gone. And even though
temperatures will not be at their peak at sunset, they will still be above average. On the other side temperatures will be at their lowest
at sunrise. So as the night progresses, and temperatures fall below average, convection provides some heating, which counters cooling
due to the absence of sun light.

The important part here is to isolate the role of clouds with regard to the process of nocturnal cooling. This factor will be best
described at the moment that temperatures correspond more or less to the (seasonal) average, where the role of convection is
minimized. This may be so around 2h into the night, to make an educated guess.

At that point nocturnal cooling is reduced to 15-20% in an all overcast scenario vs. of the clear sky scenario, as the data on
Parkersburg and other locations suggest. This fact alone indicates a huge potential GHE by clouds, which is well in the range of their
albedo effect.
Of course at this point, we are comparing apples to oranges, as the local maximum impact of clouds may be completely different from
their global, average impact. So what we need to do is to figure out the average impact of clouds on a local level, and then make it less
local, by applying the same method on more than just one location.

If we plot the average nocturnal cooling including all sky scenarios vs. the only clear sky scenarios, we should be able to tell what
impact clouds (given their prevalence) will have as a GHE. Again, starting with Parkersburg, WV, I need to add another variable,
which is the average cloud index. On average this place has a precipitation of 1073mm, which is close to the global average, and a
“cloud index” (CI) of 2.79 (0-8) over the observed period.

In Parkersburg average cooling is down by about 34% vs. the only clear sky scenarios, which again is a huge figure on its own. Yet we
need to put this into perspective. The big unknown here is the rate of cooling under a clear sky. How much is the energy output?

Now, I am not at all interested in the specific emissivity of Parkersburg, as cloud forcing (as a share of emissivity) will be relative to
any amount of emission. Also it is well established, that at an average surface temperature of 288K Earth should emit around
390W/m2, if it was a perfect black body. The specific question here is, what is the emissivity under a clear sky?
If we assume the figures named above, and stick to the “consensus” that the GHE is causing a forcing of 152.6W/m2, then we can
subtract 31W/m2 (for clouds) from this figure, ending up with 121.6W/m2. So under a clear sky, emissions would be 390 – 121.6 =
268.4W/m2. In Parkersburg cloud forcing reduces this emissions rate by 34% on average, which is 268.4 * 0.34 = 91.3W/m2.
This figure, again, does not reflect the actual emissivity of Parkerburg, but only it’s average cloudiness, which may well be above, or
below the global average. But assuming for one moment, that it was representing the average, this would be the global GHE
contributed by clouds, which is over 3times as much, as the 31W/m2 the IPCC wants to make us believe, and also well above the
79W/m2 for the albedo effect I have named before.
But this is just one step (or should I say leap?) in an iterative process. As I will ultimately prove that there is no such thing as a GHE
at all, we must consider the alternative. In reality there is no GHE reducing emissions under a clear sky, but the emission rate is (of
course) not the “one” of a perfect black body. With the most important surface type of Earth (water) having a specific emissivity of
about 0.84, we can put clear sky emissions to 390* 0.84 = 328W/m2. As the emssivity of land will likely be lower than this, we can
define an upper limit. In this case cloud forcing could be 328 * 0.34 = 111.5W/m2. So the net heating effect of clouds would be
between 15W/m2 (94-79) and 32.5W/m2 (111.5-79). Hypothetically of course, as we still do not know how well the cloudiness of
Parkersburg is representing a global average.

Yet there is another aspect we should consider. Is night time cloudiness even representing the daily average, or is there a certain bias?
I quickly ran a script on all the US datasets from 2015 and 2016 to figure out this question. Quite surprisingly there is not just a clear
pattern, it also is very specific.

(based on 10.6 mio measurements of 472 US weather stations in 2015/2016)12

Cloudiness is at its highest during early morning and happens to be its lowest at early night. One might think, if at all, clouds would
follow temperature. And they may well be doing so, but only with a large offset. Maybe this is due to surface temperatures being
passed on to elevated levels of the atmosphere only with a considerable lag. I do not know!
But what it definitely means is, that the cloud index during the daily period we are looking for, will be lower than average. And even
though it is hard to quantify, it will rather underestimate cloud forcing by maybe 5%.

So ultimately we need to put Parkersburg into perspective. I would love to tell things are straight forward at this point, but rather they
are awfully complicated. To provide an overview I collected data of a couple weather stations. That was not so much about obtaining
representative data, but rather to outline the extremes and to establish cornerstones. Of course it would be nice to work through all the
available data, though regrettably I do not own the resources for doing so.

For instance we have extremely dry places, like Palm Springs and China Lake (both CA). Cooling rates are yet down by 7% (Palm
Springs, and 9% (China Lake) vs. the only clear nights. On the other side we have very wet places (at least in terms of cloudiness) like
Juneau, AK (57%) and Lihue, HI (60%), where the average cloud effect on cooling is massive. These places however feature very
small “all clear” samples, which makes reading the data somewhat complicated.

12
Mind that the cloud index is varying depending on how you average it. The reason is, that measurements are more frequent during
troubled weather conditions as opposed to plain vanilla clear sky scenarios.
Next I tried to find out, what the average Cloud Index is. As the preselected 472 stations still provide 10.6 million records, it was a bit
hard to handle these data. Obviously I could not operate them in Excel and so my access was restricted. Rather I ran a C program to
calculate an average Cloud Index, which then proved to be not consistent with the results I gained for individual stations in Excel.
The first thing you suspect is a flaw in your program, but that could not be identified. Rather, after doing quite some investigation, I
found out, that there is a strong bias to frequent measurements during “complicated” weather scenarios, which is not surprising, as
most, if not all, stations are located at airports. For this reason, the Cloud Index happens to be much higher, if you just average them
through all observations.
In order to even out this criterion, I calculated an average for each day, and then again, averaged these daily Cloud Indices over all
stations. This procedure dropped the average from 3.28 to 2.92, which is much more in line with the night time averages I computed
for single stations. Accordingly I ran the programme on individual station data, to get a direct comparison.
Next of course we still need to consider, as stated above, that the Cloud Index would generally be lower during the investigated night
times, which should explain the remaining deviation. The following table shows the results for 20 selected stations. The results for
“CI unw. Average” and “CI daily average” were obtained by a C program, while “CI night average” and the “Delta Cooling” where
obtained from individual station data in Excel.

CI unw. CI daily
average average CI night average delta cooling
total of 472 stations 3.28 2.92
25308 Annette AK 5.15 4.89 4.66 56%
25309 Juneau AK 4.49 4.49 4.49 57%
12816 Gainesville FL 2.95 2.65 2.21 33%
12815 Orlando FL 3.55 3.42 3.17 37%
13996 Topeka KS 2.7 2.37 2.1 20%
93104 china lake CA 1.24 1.19 0.92 9%
94014 Williston ND 3.15 2.72 2.55 23%
3103 Flagstaff AZ 2.12 1.61 1.4 23%
3104 Palm Springs CA 0.44 0.37 0.36 7%
22536 Lihue HI 3.47 3.41 3.51 60%
22516 Kahului HI 2.57 2.47 2.36 42%
3804 Parkersburg WV 3.4 3.16 2.79 35%
93987 Lufkin TX 3.35 2.92 2.34 31%
94008 Glasgow MT 2.84 2.46 2.24 22%
24135 Butte MT 3.27 2.95 2.82 34%
12919 Brownsville TX 3.4 3.08 2.59 33%
23044 El Paso TX 2.47 2.41 2.33 25%
14827 Fort Wayne IN 4.55 4.37 4.18 41%
14606 Bangor ME 4.47 4.26 4.05 43%
93842 Columbus GA 3.01 2.48 2 27%

As these data suggest, there is not surprisingly a correlation between the average Cloud Index and the impairment of night time
cooling. If we plot both variables against each other, that becomes well visible. At the national average CI of 2.92, the trend line
indicates average “delta cooling” of about 35%, which ultimately validates the assumption Parkersburg could be representative.
Still we do not know, and as I do not have such data, there is no way I could tell, if the US average is corresponding to the global
average. So there is certainly a substantial margin of error if we expand these results onto the whole globe. But, and that is the
important thing here, including all the uncertainties, even those yet to be named, we are only talking about a margin, not another
dimension. We are heading for something in the 100W/m2 range, not 31W/m2!
Now there is yet another problem. The raw data are not meant to provide useful information with regard to climate science, but rather
to aviation. So there is actually a limit to the observed sky condition which is 12.000ft. Anything above that altitude would (or should)
be ignored. We may, and probably will, have occasions where we assume a clear sky, while indeed there will be some amount of
clouds, or even a completely overcast situation above 12.000ft. Given this possibility, it seems close to a miracle we ended up with all
the results named above.
Yet there is another ironic twist to it all. As I could only investigate the “GHE” of low clouds, which is obviously massive, the
consensus is suggesting rather the opposite. “Usually, the higher a cloud is in the atmosphere, the colder is its upper surface and the
greater is its cloud greenhouse forcing“13
I will not argue to take NASA seriously on climate, there are more than enough reasons not to. But either this claim is untrue, like
many others, or the data provided here would yet substantially underestimate the “GHE” of clouds.

So what does it mean?

It is very much like looking through an optical device, like a telescope, that is less than perfect. We might get a clearer picture if we
could sort out the flaws and/or get to a higher technical standard. Galileo’s telescope may seem pathetic by modern standards, but that
will not undo the moons of Jupiter.
The discovery has been made! Better resolution will only add to the differentiation between clear sky and cloudy conditions, and will
henceforth only increase the magnitude of the GHE of clouds, not the other way round.

Even at the level, now well established, we can tell that the case of Parkersburg is more or less representing the US situation. It’s
Cloud Index is 8% above the US average. However the night time cloudiness is about 5% below the daily average. Adding up both
factors, and allowing for all the other observations, the assumptions made will be largely true.
Estimating cloud forcing at 100W/m2 seems a very rational thing to do. It may be up or down by 10, or in the extreme, even by
20W/m2, but ultimately we will not get beyond that magnitude.

Conclusions:
There are a couple of major conclusions to be derived from the named discoveries.
1. The albedo effect of clouds is much stronger than we are made believe, rather like 79W/m2. The reason for doing so is
probably to hide the even stronger “GHE” of clouds.
2. The claim that positive cloud forcing was like 31W/m2 is falsified beyond any reasonable doubt. This claim is a lie and must
not be considered. In reality cloud forcing is about 3times as strong.
3. By all reasons clouds will have a heating effect on Earth’s climate. I will suggest it is likely in the range of 90 – 115W/m2,
which will be more than the albedo effect (79W/m2). As 5.5W/m2 roughly correspond to 1°K, this means a net heating effect
of 2.5 to 7.5°K, or 5K on average.

13
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Clouds/
11. Conclusions overall

The GHE theory is based on ill-fated assumptions, with such poor foundations, that it should never have been considered a reasonable
scientific theory. A closer critical look at this theory reveals inconsistencies back and forth, with plenty of definite falsifications. It is a
travesty that yet this theory is largely considered solid, which may be due a perceived lack of alternatives, i.e. better theories.
For this reason I felt a need to provide such a sound explanation, which ultimately proved quite easy to do. It does not take more than
a close look at the physics of water and clouds to fully explain the temperature of Earth as it is, leaving neither space nor scope for
any “greenhouse gases”, which obviously do not even exist.
Adding up the main driving factors of our climate, again liquid water and clouds, will yield a temperature most likely in the 290K+
region, which is warmer than the usually assumed average surface temperature of about 288K. This is not a mistake, nor does it
necessarily indicate cooling by land masses. Rather arithmetic averaging of surface temperatures will always cause a pseudo-anti-
GHE, as emissivity is a highly logarithmic function of temperature.

The basic consensus concept is highly suggestive and tends to mislead human logic. If even a PBB (279.2K) would be colder than
Earth (288K), and Earths absorptivity is down to 0.69, how could emissivity ever compensate for that, even if it was less than 1, say
0.95 or so? It goes so far, that we do have a word for the deviation from perfect absorptivity, which is albedo of course, while there is
no term for the deviation from perfect emissivity. I will simply call it 1-emissivity for that sake.

This graph shall illustrate the issues there are. Clouds are treated with as if they were schizophrenic, as if they were part of the albedo
on the one side, and part of the GHE on the other side. Closer to the truth, clouds are just clouds, reflecting radiation in all ways, that
is infrared back to the surface, and solar light back into space.
As both roles will be interconnected, it will be necessary not just to flip the heating effect of clouds into a cooling effect, but also to
diminish their impact over all, to serve the ill fated theory of a “GHE”. Only in this way the error gets the substantial margin to give
greenhouse gases a role.

The other pivotal error in the consensus model is the remaining fraction of the albedo. Even though this part is bloated up by the
falsely “minimized” cloud albedo, it becomes completely annihilated if we look at emissivity. With emissivity = 1, 1 – emissivity is
neither declared, nor would it even exist.
As shown however, emissivity of the dominant surface type - water - is far lower than 1, namely 0.8395. The term 1 – emissivity
henceforth is anything but negligible. Rather, based on the 390W/m2 a PBB with Earths temperature would emit, emissions get
reduced by 390*(1-0.8395) = 62.6W/m2. A figure that is anything but negligible.
Clouds furthermore impair emissions from the surface somewhere by a magnitude of 100W/m2, which is huge as opposed to what the
IPCC wants to make us believe. And furthermore, just for the sake of argument, if count clouds to the surface, like we do with regard
to absorptivity, emissivity is not 1, or 0.95, but rather around 1 - 163 / 390 = 0.58(!!!).
PS. Understanding “greenhouse gases”: I think this is important, otherwise I would not write it. However I am not trying to provide
evidence, but just analogies, which is always the path to understanding. The concept of greenhouse gases which scatter infrared back
to surface makes actually a lot of sense. Think of it as a semitransparent mirror, covering 10% of the sky. As radiation can not pass
through it, the surface must emit to the remaining 90% at an accordingly higher rate. The higher rate of radiation would be achieved
by higher temperatures, and we can even calculate that: (1 / 0.9) ^0.25 * Temp. If Temp was 255°K, that would yield 261.8, or a GHE
of 6.8°K.
In fact this is very similar to a bridge pier planted into a river and covering like 10% of its width. Then the remaining 90% must have
an according stronger water flow. And also, although hardly recognizable, the water level will be somewhat higher just in front of the
pier, which will be the reason why water flows just a bit faster.
Now greenhouse gases are not a mirror, and neither they are reflective. They are just standing in the way of radiation. And even
though they may cover a wide range of the radial spectrum, they are doing only so over a very long (accumulating) distance. How is
that different?
Just think of the river again, where we do not have one massive pier, but a large number on tiny rods being put into the river, over a
distance of let us say 5km. They altogether, if you look down the river, may cover like 10% of its width. But the question is rather,
what will be the accumulative effect on the water level at the entry point of this section with poles. And the answer is, I guess, close to
none.