First report is a must-read for anyone who’s in doubt about the global warming swindle.
Pay attention to figure 1
5.1. The fraud of simple-minded mathematics and sense-perception.
What is the originating error of the GHE, the assumption which underlies everything that follows? In addition to the error of associating the terrestrial albedo with the ground surface, it is the error of averaging the input power temperature of sunlight over the entire globe.
If you average the input power of sunlight over the entire globe it makes it appear as though sunlight can only provide -180C worth of heating at the surface. But you have to look at the units of the metric you are dealing with here: W/m2 or J/s/m2. Units mean something…you need to pay attention to what they mean. The units pose the question: what is the energy, in one second, over a square meter? These all have to occur together, simultaneously. The time and space in which incoming solar energy also impinges the night-side of the planet simply does not physically exist. It is only an imaginary mathematical trick that does not actually occur. What does occur in one second, and in the square meters where sunlight actually impinges, is illumination of a hemisphere with an intensity projection factor that goes as the function of the cosine from the zenith.
If you integrate to the average projection factor and combine this with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and terrestrial albedo, then the real-time instantaneous heat input is constantly +49C. At the zenith it has a maximum of +121C, constantly, when the albedo is zero. Modern physics is patently not based on the simple type of linear averaging mathematics as seen in climate cience; rather, it is based on calculus, i.e., Leibniz’ greatest mathematical achievement of all time. Calculus is what breathes life into modern physics and allows us to characterize dynamic physical systems in detail. This simple type of linear algebraic manipulation we see underlying models and energy budgets in climate science, of what should be real-time dynamic quantities, cannot possibly provide a valid scientific basis for insight into a dynamic non-linear system. Such an attempt is patently invalid, and it should have been obvious when this scheme concluded that sunshine is freezing cold at -18C, and that the atmosphere provided, with no actual chemical or nuclear source of radiant energy, twice as much heating power as the Sun itself.
The intrinsically defective concept of backradiation heating was thus created to cover this mathematical blunder up. Why can’t you average-out the power density? The answer, both physically and mathematically, couldn’t be any more simple: you cannot linearly average the power density because the system is non-linear. It is that simple. The system is non-linear for at least three fundamental reasons: 1) heating and cooling is a function of insolation and temperature to the fourth power; 2) the input heating occurs non-uniformly over a hemisphere, not uniformly over a plane or a globe; 3) a large fraction the system is itself physically non-linear, due to the presence of H2O, which has completely discontinuous responses to energy input at its triple-point. The heat capacity of H2O changes between its phases, and at the discontinuity point of the phase change, has latent heat which absorbs or releases energy without any change in temperature.
The amount of internal heat of a 1kg block of ice at 0C is approximately 200,000 J (evaluated by numerically solving the ice problem with temperature-dependant specific heat). But the latent heat of fusion of ice (to turn ice into water, taking in energy without changing the temperature) is 334,000 J/kg, which is entirely 167% of the energy it took just to get the ice block to 0C. Given that the power of sunshine can intrinsically overcome this latent heat barrier and induce even much higher temperatures – as opposed to the IPCC belief that the atmosphere needs to provide twice as much power as the Sun without actually having any source of energy – then the system naturally has a significant obstacle to cooling below this threshold and therefore the average temperature will be higher, as we have seen.
Combine that with the even more energy-dense latent heat of vaporization which allows heat to be transported relatively quickly from the equator to the poles. This presents a substantial negative-feedback to temperature change in general but in combination with our distance from the Sun and the related radiant power, prevents excess cooling specifically.