GREEN house effect ,( so called) foundation, consensus,🧐😂
1.2 The greenhouse effect hypothesis
Among climatologists, in particular those who are affiliated with the Intergovernmental Panel
of Climate Change (IPCC)3
, there is a “scientific consensus” [22], that the relevant mechanism
is the atmospheric greenhouse effect, a mechanism heavily relying on the assumption that
radiative heat transfer clearly dominates over the other forms of heat transfer such as thermal
conductivity, convection, condensation et cetera [23–30].
In all past IPCC reports and other such scientific summaries the following point evocated
in Ref. [24], p. 5, is central to the discussion:
“One of the most important factors is the greenhouse effect; a simplified ex-
planation of which is as follows. Short-wave solar radiation can pass through the
clear atmosphere relatively unimpeded. But long-wave terrestrial radiation emit-
ted by the warm surface of the Earth is partially absorbed and then re-emitted
by a number of trace gases in the cooler atmosphere above. Since, on average,
the outgoing long-wave radiation balances the incoming solar radiation, both the
atmosphere and the surface will be warmer than they would be without the green-
house gases . . . The greenhouse effect is real; it is a well understood effect, based
on established scientific principles.”
To make things more precise, supposedly, the notion of radiative forcing was introduced by
the IPCC and related to the assumption of radiative equilibrium. In Ref. [27], pp. 7-6, one
finds the statement:
“A change in average net radiation at the top of the troposphere (known as the
tropopause), because of a change in either solar or infrared radiation, is defined for
the purpose of this report as a radiative forcing. A radiative forcing perturbs the
balance between incoming and outgoing radiation. Over time climate responds to
the perturbation to re-establish the radiative balance. A positive radiative forcing
tends on average to warm the surface; a negative radiative forcing on average tends
to cool the surface. As defined here, the incoming solar radiation is not considered
a radiative forcing, but a change in the amount of incoming solar radiation would
be a radiative forcing . . . For example, an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentra-
tion leads to a reduction in outgoing infrared radiation and a positive radiative
forcing.”
However, in general “scientific consensus” is not related whatsoever to scientific truth as
countless examples in history have shown. “Consensus” is a political term, not a scientific
3The IPCC was created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WHO) and the United Nations
-
8:52
RobertHolmesPhD
1 year agoCLIMATE SCIENCE 1 - There is No Greenhouse Effect
2612 -
33:48
pstallinga
11 months agoGreenhouse Effect of the Atmosphere
3 -
3:14
Climate Realism
1 year ago97% Consensus on Climate Change is a Myth
3761 -
11:01
Cumberland County Republican Committee (Maine)
1 year agoClimate Change: Part 3: Q&A with Prof. David Dilley and Mike Brakey
36 -
6:15
Traffic Conversations Podcast
8 months agoClimate Change Controversy: Examining Both Sides
56 -
1:18
B.C. Begley
1 year agoWhite House Studies Blocking Sun to Stop 'Climate Change'
33 -
1:07:42
Climate realism
1 year ago#62 David Legates: A climate skeptic in government
401 -
40:59
RobertHolmesPhD
1 year agoClimate Science 6 - CO2, CH4 Changes Do Not Cause Any Measurable Warming
1401 -
0:20
Brain59
1 year agoUnderstanding Global Warming: Protecting Our Planet's Future
3 -
0:49
Wide Awake Media
7 months agoHow Climate Grifters Create The Illusion Of Climate Apocalypse
74