Spoken language can be confusing because you can have words which sound exactly the same but mean totally different things. Such words are called homophones, as found in this section title. At the very least, and if you’re very familiar with the language in question, the differentiation is implicitly understood given the context. If you don’t understand the language that well then help is provided by a differentiation of the spelling, but this doesn’t help if you’re not reading it.
Bass Lead Wind
Things can get even more confusing for first-time literates when the words don’t sound the same but are spelled the same: I caught the bass by singing bass (whatever works I guess!); Lead the bird to fill it with lead; Wind the coil in the wind. These words are called homographs.
The Greenhouse Effect The Greenhouse Effect
There are two versions of “the greenhouse effect” and, obviously, they use both the same spelling and the same pronunciation. Such words (or phrases I guess) are called homonyms. However, few people are aware of any distinction in the case of “the greenhouse effect”. Let us enlighten ourselves, therefore.
The first version of the greenhouse effect is that which is found in a real greenhouse. For, why would we have such a thing called “greenhouse effect” if it weren’t for the behaviour of a real greenhouse? This version of the greenhouse effect comes out of traditional science and physics and denotes the effect found typically inside a glass-ceiling greenhouse where the ceiling prevents what would have been natural atmospheric convection, otherwise found in the open atmosphere. That is, when a surface is heated, the air in contact with it heats by conduction (and radiation but generally this is a much weaker component of the heating at the contact boundary between the surface and the air), and then the warm air rises because it is less dense, and cool air falls from above to replace it. This is a natural and automatic process in the open atmosphere. A real greenhouse prevents convection because it traps the warmed air inside the enclosure and in contact with the surface heating it; the warm air is unable to ascend away and cool air is unable to descend and replace it, because of the glass roof. Thus, the air inside the greenhouse continues to rise in temperature, and the maximum temperature that could theoretically be achieved inside the real greenhouse is the temperature of the maximum solar heating being absorbed by and within the greenhouse. Any gas trapped inside a real greenhouse can be considered a “greenhouse gas”, although the term is rather passive, and moot.
The second version of the greenhouse effect is that postulated by climate science, and it is an alternative description of the warming process known for a real greenhouse. In this second version, a real greenhouse and the open atmosphere operate the same way, rather than the opposite way. Instead of warm air being trapped, the alternative “climate science greenhouse effect” says that radiation is trapped, and since radiation is trapped then the inside must get warmer than the outside. The same process happens in the atmosphere because “greenhouse gases” trap radiation just like the ceiling of the real greenhouse traps radiation. In this case, the temperature inside the greenhouse can become hotter than the maximum solar heating temperature. That is important for the climate science greenhouse effect because climate science thinks that the solar input to the Earth is too cold to ever heat anything above -18C in temperature on its own.
Now that we’ve learned about the two types of greenhouse effect – the one for the real greenhouse and the alternative one for climate science – it would be nice to label them differently so that they are easier to distinguish and put into the correct context. Since the greenhouse effect of a real greenhouse is about trapping air, which is physical material, let’s call the greenhouse effect of a real greenhouse the “physical greenhouse effect“. And then, since the alternative greenhouse effect of climate science is about trapping radiation, let’s call it the “radiative greenhouse effect“.
OK, Now What?
Okay, so, we have two versions of the greenhouse effect. Are we supposed to do something with this? Well yes we are!
Logically, we can have A) either one or the other version describes the actual operation of a real greenhouse, or B) both versions describe the actual operation of a real greenhouse and the atmosphere. Recall that there is an important logical and physical difference between the two versions. In the physical greenhouse effect, a real greenhouse operates oppositelythe way the open atmosphere operates; in the radiative greenhouse effect, a real greenhouse operates the same way that the open atmosphere operates.
If option B is in play, if it is real physics, then it will lead to the same “empirical observable” as if only the radiative greenhouse effect is in operation from option A. However, if only the physical greenhouse effect is real and in play, then option B is invalid together with the radiative greenhouse effect.
Let me simplify that. In other words, we can test which greenhouse effect is real, or if they’re both real. It is an important test because each version of the greenhouse effect says the opposite thing about how a greenhouse and the open atmosphere operates, and, they use different physics and different maths. (I will not get into the maths here to keep this article readable for non-math people.) If you want to be perfectly logical, and you should be, it is not really possible for both versions of the greenhouse effect to be real since they contain a mutual contradiction regarding how the open atmosphere operates; however, most people wouldn’t accept that because it is too logical, and so, at best, we can be gracious and allow that perhaps both versions are in play at the same time.
Simplifying further, what it comes down to is a difference in the “empirical observable” that either version predicts. This is standard science of course – form a postulate, make a prediction, test the prediction. So easy, right? It is most of the time. The two versions of the greenhouse effect operate differently and predict different things about temperature. What was the empirical observable that is different between the two versions?
In the physical greenhouse effect, the temperature inside the greenhouse can not exceed the temperature of the maximum solar heating. In the radiative greenhouse effect, the temperature inside the greenhouse can exceed the temperature of the maximum solar heating.
This is actually centuries-old knowledge, because R.W. Wood performed the relevant experiment in 1909 and found that the temperature inside the greenhouse did not exceed that of the maximum solar heating. A summary can be read here. I too performed a similar experiment (paper here, where you can see the maths in gory detail, and the details of how to properly perform the experiment) on the ground surface of Earth itself, with the postulate that the radiation trapped inside the atmosphere should induce a temperature on the surface higher than the maximum solar heating, as per the radiative greenhouse effect. What I found was that the maximum ground surface temperature was only equal to the maximum solar heating temperature, and so the radiative greenhouse effect postulate was not confirmed. By default these results only support the physical greenhouse effect, and the radiative greenhouse effect becomes a failed hypothesis for both a real physical greenhouse and the atmosphere.
Recall that there is a very good reason for why climate science postulated an alternative version of the greenhouse effect, based on radiation. It is because climate science thinks that the heating power from sunshine is too cold to heat anything above -18C, (or -40C in some climate science energy budgets). So, a rather simple associative postulate was formed imagining that the atmosphere might do “something” like what a greenhouse does, to make the air warmer than what they thought sunshine was capable of doing. However, this needed to be a radiative effect rather than a physical effect because, basically, sunshine, which is radiation, needed to be made stronger.
It was, at the least, a logical stretch to try to redefine the physical greenhouse effect or to create an alternative version of it, but the attempt was certainly an obvious one to take given the position climate science had put itself in with this previous postulate of solar heating being too cold. The logical propagation goes back from the radiative greenhouse effect being incorrect, to the previous postulate that solar heating is so feeble. By incorrectly modelling the solar heating as so cold, there was no possible way, by simple logical propagation, that any math, science, or physics based on that postulate would subsequently be correct or represent reality.
Of course, solar heating is not so cold. It is much, much hotter than -18C, (or -40C). After-all, a real greenhouse gets so hot because of solar heating! And most people are familiar with a hot sidewalk, or hot sand at the beach, and all manner of things which are heated to high temperature by the action of sunlight.
In fact, the strength of the action of sunlight is the most important physical force on planet Earth in its own right. If sunshine were really only capable of heating anything to -18C, then it wouldn’t be able to melt ice into water or cause water to evaporate into vapor and form clouds; i.e., create the water cycle. Just look at any typical picture of of a cumulonimbus cloud:
It takes a huge amount of heat and high enough temperatures to be able to send that much mass of water that high into the atmosphere! Sunshine could never do this if solar heating was only -18C…the water would never even be melted from ice in the first place.
Modern Philosophical Analysis
In modern philosophical parlance, what climate science did was create a simulacrum of reality. The theory of simulacra is, I think, the most important knowledge any person can have in the modern world where access to information is so readily available. By necessity, if you care for a rational world based in reason, this comes with the fundamental requirement of being able to and having to evaluate the truth of all this information. Information is only that, and the term does not connote truth or value; information always needs to be evaluated. One of the best books to read to familiarize yourself with the theory of simulacra is called “Hypersex” by Adam Weishaupt – don’t worry about the title, the book is tame, mostly, and is a wonderful read. You can also read Jean Baudrillard’sbook Simulacra and Simulation, but Hypersex is much more fun, and its only $4.
Basically, a simulacrum is copy, a simulated copy, which while appearing to be the same thing as the original, does not actually contain the essence of the original. A good example of this is, of course, the movie The Matrix, where all of reality is simulated by a computer program and all the people’s minds trapped inside the computer program can’t tell the difference, can’t tell that their reality is not real. (Well, most people can’t tell…there are a small few who can “see through the matrix”.)
The climate science version of the greenhouse effect, the radiative greenhouse effect, is probably a perfect, modern, real-world practical example of the creation of a simulacrum, which had all of the potential to entirely replace the original, and real, physical version of the greenhouse effect. And just like the Matrix, only a few people are able to see through it. Once you can understand the simulacra of the climate science greenhouse effect, you can begin to identity a very large number of other and related examples of simulacra within all of alarmist climate science; for example, the claim that the ice-core record shows that CO2 increases cause temperature increase, when it is actually the other way around…the simulacrum is hidden simply by never plotting the graphs at high resolution, or by never putting the graphs on the same axes! Another example is when carbon dioxide is vilified as a pollutant, when it is the greenest environmentally-friendly gas that exists because it is fundamental plant food, and the basis of all life!
The importance of this “greenhouse” example to modern science, to intellectualism in general, to the state of the entire human condition, is monumental. If humanity, intellectualism, academia, etc., ever required a practical lesson in rational critical thinking, it is provided by the climate alarm and hysteria which comes directly and solely out of the simulacra version of the greenhouse effect of climate science. This is not a simple lesson. It is the most profound development that can have possibly occurred in modern scientific times, because if the lesson is not learned, then it guarantees that humanity is not capable of rationally and scientifically surviving in this universe. Humanity may survive in other ways, surely, but the rational scientific option for humanity’s future, the option of rationally fixing the things which need fixing, rationally developing what needs to be developed, rationally finding peace and prosperity, etc., will be cut off, because humanity will have no guarantee that its science and knowledge corresponds to reality.
Such a guarantee doesn’t exist, in any case, but humanity will be helped tremendously by learning this lesson, and it will be harmed tremendously by not. What it means is that a large fraction of practicing scientists do not have a critical rational faculty as part of their mental schema, or at least they do not have one which they actively exercise. This is therefore a stupendous state of affairs for the academic establishment, because it issupposed to be what academia is all about. It indicates a profound, and fundamental, philosophical and pedagogical crisis in modern academia. That crisis is fully and satisfactorily described by the “God Series” of books found under the author Mike Hockney.
Climate alarm environmentalist policy is all about global austerity, about making energy more unaffordable and inaccessible to persons and countries of low monetary income. That is the future which awaits if the lesson of the radiative greenhouse simulacrum is not learned. Things could end up like, say, “The Hunger Games”, where the monetarily “wealthy”, the plutocratic rulers of society, live in luxury and abundance while everyone else lives in destitute poverty. Why does Al Gore get to fly around in private jets and own multiple mansions when he is one of the leading exponents for climate alarm environmentalist policy which otherwise lambastes such luxury? Why, because he can afford the “carbon credits”, of course. And YOU can’t! So don’t complain if you can’t afford it. Just like “President Snow”, from those “Hunger” movies, “Welcome! We salute your courage and your sacrifice and we wish you Happy Hunger Games!”.
Almost the entire set of linguistics surrounding climate alarm environmentalism revolve around how we need to “sacrifice” to “save the planet”. And lo-and-behold, population reduction is one of the main themes! See here for a short list of quotations (near the end of the article) from alarmist environmentalists calling for the outright killing of large numbers of people. ”Do you mean to tell me that you have a problem with an American citizen practicing Capitalism in this country!?“, Gore angrily retorted to a senate hearing when questioned on the conflict of interest of promoting austerity for the general populace when he himself stood to make billions of dollars from carbon credit trading austerity schemes. Can you believe these people!? It’s called the “Chicken Little Strategy” for world domination…a literal application of the children’s “Chicken Little” story; perhaps this says just as much about the state of general human intelligence as it does the goals of the plutocratic rulers.
All of these things regarding greenhouses have been very well known for some time and are likewise easy to understand. You can be assured that anyone who doesn’t allow the climate science version of the greenhouse effect to be questioned and analyzed is defending and protecting the policies that the alarmist environmentalist austerity measures are meant to harm humanity with. People will do this for one of two reasons: 1) they’re too stupid to understand, 2) they’re compromised either or/and morally, socially, financially, etc. It is quite easy for the plutocrats to generate support for their policies – they merely buy support in the media in programmatic and editorial support, buy coverage and spin of their policies, sell them as something that looks like a “good cause”, and to never allow the fundamental basis of their philosophy to be questioned, and to attack anyone who does. All that. It is easy, and powerful in aggregate.
Much more difficult is being a Neo in the Matrix that can see through it all; the convenience and strength of this, however, is that it only takes One, to expose the lie, and destroy the system of simulacra.
Read more from Joe Postma at: climateofsophistry.com