The theory of radiative forcing—central to modern climate orthodoxy—rests on assumptions that defy thermodynamic logic and observational reality. By examining Venus’s extreme surface temperatures and comparing them with Earth’s energy budget, this article challenges the notion that greenhouse gases like CO₂ and methane drive planetary warming. Instead, it argues that gravitational gradients, cloud dynamics, and natural variability offer a more coherent explanation. The implications are profound: if radiative forcing fails, then so too does the rationale behind Net Zero policies and the trillion-dollar climate agenda.

The cloud structure of the Venusian atmosphere, seen using ultraviolet imaging by Kevin M. Gill. CC BY 2.0.

The prevailing climate narrative collapses under scrutiny. To illustrate, imagine a lake perched atop a mountain, with a stream flowing down its slope. Now suppose someone builds a small dam at the base of that stream, its wall far lower than the lake’s elevation. Would anyone seriously claim that this dam could raise the level of the lake above? Yet this is precisely the kind of backward logic embedded in the theory of radiative forcing.

How planetary thermodynamics expose the myth of trapped heat

Climatologists have failed to explain how Venus’s surface became so extraordinarily hot in the first place. Even if we accept that the surface is somehow heated, there must be a mechanism for slight warming—perhaps 1 to 5 degrees—on the sunlit side to compensate for inevitable cooling during the long Venusian night. But downward winds cannot warm the surface, and in any case, Venus’s circulation is not simply downward on the day side and upward on the night side. The dynamics are far more complex and do not support the notion of sustained surface heating from above.

Even more critically, once energy is released from the surface—whether by radiation or convection—it cannot all be returned to the surface to maintain its temperature. That would require all the energy that was emitted by radiation in the first place, as well as that which cooled the surface by convection—violating basic thermodynamic principles because the convected energy cannot add to the radiation from CO₂. Some of that energy, especially via convection, must escape to Space. Also, in accord with thermodynamic laws, that which is radiated from less-hot regions in the atmosphere cannot create heat that increases the temperature of the already-hotter surface.

Why CO₂ and methane don’t drive surface temperatures—on Venus or Earth

Carbon dioxide cannot “trap” convective heat any more than other gases on Venus and, similarly, nitrogen, oxygen or argon on Earth. It’s a physical impossibility.

So let us now consider Earth. CO₂, CH₄, and H₂O cannot retain thermal energy that they have absorbed solely from radiation, and yet then send more energy back to the surface than was originally released by the surface, that original surface cooling being not only through radiation, but also by conduction, convection, and evaporation.

There is no significant difference between Earth and Venus in this regard. Both planets receive far too little direct solar radiation at the surface to explain their observed temperatures using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. For instance, Earth’s surface receives approximately 161 W/m² of solar radiation—insufficient to account for a global mean temperature above about 230 K (−43°C). There is no valid mechanism whereby a system can send back to the surface more energy than the surface had lost while cooling. This discrepancy exposes the fundamental error in radiative forcing theory.

The flawed logic behind Net Zero and the billion-dollar climate agenda

Radiative forcing assumes that, if there is a small imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere, then that difference drives surface temperature changes. But this interchanges cause-and-effect. In reality, it is natural variations in surface temperature—driven by factors such as cloud cover, cloud altitude, and latitude—that cause fluctuations in radiative balance. Cloud cover, for example, has less effect in polar regions than in tropical ones, and shifts in global cloud distribution can easily account for observed temperature changes. The magnitude of the temperature gradient in the troposphere (which is formed by gravity at the molecular level) also has a significant effect. This so-called “lapse rate” varies with the concentration and distribution of water vapor, as is well known.

So, Venus, far from validating greenhouse theory, actually helps dismantle it. The planet’s thermal behavior underscores the implausibility of radiative forcing as a mechanism for surface warming. Carbon dioxide and any other so-called “greenhouse” gases have no meaningful bearing on planetary temperatures and pose no threat. It follows that the entire “Net Zero” agenda is built on a false foundation—one that is costing nations billions in pursuit of a phantom crisis.