How do you Debate a Greenhouse Gas Theory ‘Expert’?
For the last five years I have been arguing against people who have more academic credentials than me. People who have much more ability at mathematics than me. People who are experts in a scientific field that is relevant to understanding climate.
People who are, quite frankly, more intelligent than I am. I am just a bloke with an above average but not exceptional IQ who stopped formal study of mathematics and Physics at age 16 (achieving O level grade B in both) and who didn’t begin informally studying either again until the age of 44.
Yet I keep arguing. At first, I thought my suspicions must be wrong. Who was I, after all to be challenging people who do this stuff for a living? But the thoughts wouldn’t go away and the more I asked for experts to prove me wrong, the more my doubts grew. After a while I started to think that, maybe, just maybe, I might be right after all. Now I am sure of it! As certain as I can be that the Earth is not flat, I am as certain that there is no such thing as a Radiative Greenhouse Effect.
In the course of my arguments I have been made to look like an idiot on the subject of thermos flasks, space blankets, air conditioners, water syphons, glazing, light bulbs, microwave ovens and even lasers.
My knowledge of all of these different things has improved greatly with each embarrassing encounter, but my opponents can still run rings around me on the finer details of how any of these things work. Then there are opponents who know the ins and outs of Einstein’s theory of Relativity, quantum mechanics or the inner workings of photons, and happily respond to my arguments with four line equations to demonstrate what an idiot I am and encourage me to shut up and accept the judgement of my betters.
After each encounter I learn a little more about all of these things than I knew before and come away even more confident that my assertions about a lack of Greenhouse Effect are correct.
Astrophysicist Joseph Postma (see climateofsophistry) has a word for the tactics of my opponents: Sophistry. That of deliberately adding complexity where it is unnecessary to the understanding of a subject, for the purpose of discrediting opposition to a flawed idea.
People who are cleverer than ourselves can be genuine experts who wish to enlighten us, or they could be people who think they are experts but are mistaken in their assumptions, or they could be con artists who are using their superior knowledge and intelligence to deceive us. How to find out which one they are? How does one find out who is saying correct things to us and who is wrong, when our own knowledge of a subject is so inferior to the person who is trying to convince us of their views?
We have been bombarded with the message that “97{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of scientists believe in climate change”. Should we make our decisions about what the majority of clever people say is true? The majority of clever people in 1000AD said the sun revolves around the Earth. They were wrong. A majority of doctors twenty years ago said that eating food that is high in cholesterol such as eggs would increase your chance of a heart attack. They were wrong.
A majority of mechanics might tell someone who knows nothing about cars that they need to spend $2,000 to prevent their car from breaking down. The majority of mechanics might be con artists! Depends where you live.
No, it’s not good enough to simply “trust the experts”. Regardless of whether it’s a mechanic, a climate scientist or a doctor treating your cancer. So what to do?
First recognise that is incumbent on anyone more knowledgeable than you to prove to you that they are not con artists. It is not incumbent on you to show you are clever enough to rebut their claims. The default position on ANYONE who has superior knowledge of something than you who wishes you to believe them about something, should be that they are con artists until they can prove otherwise to YOUR satisfaction.
That means the person must tailor their language and their knowledge to a level you can understand. More importantly they must overcome your objections and reasoning, with logic and language that fits your level of intelligence. Finally, they must be able to directly respond to your objections and not use vague analogies or bring up examples of things that appear completely unrelated.
So in my own experience with the Greenhouse Effect, I have had many very clever people tell me all kinds of things about everything from lasers to quantum physics. But I’m still waiting for any of them to show me a lab experiment where the basic premise of the diagram below is demonstrated.
This diagram (above) shows the surface of the earth absorbing energy from the sun. Then the earth’s surface emits infrared radiation. The “Greenhouse gasses” absorb some of this energy and send half of what they absorb back to the surface. The surface then re-absorbs this energy as well as new energy from the sun and this results in the surface emitting more energy than the sun alone is providing.
Simple enough. Should be easy enough to show me an example where the same thing occurs in a lab experiment.
I don’t need the sun to provide the energy for the experiment. All I need is a solid object with a constant input of energy which results in the object emitting infrared radiation. An electric bar heater would do just fine. Or a metal plate with an electric current running through it.
Now, if I put enough Carbon Dioxide in the way of the radiation, the CO2 should absorb some of it, send some of the energy back to the bar heater or metal plate, they should increase their infrared energy output and get hotter.
I’m also happy if the person wishes to substitute the Carbon Dioxide for another IR absorbing substance. It doesn’t even need to be a gas! As long as the IR radiation is absorbed and the energy output of the original emitting object is increased above that of the power source, you’ve got me!
Five years of making a complete fool of myself will be shown beyond a reasonable doubt and I will hand over all my money to Al Gore’s beachside property fund! If someone can show me this experiment doing what is proposed in the diagram, I will make a public apology and then shut up forever.
What happens instead is my opponents talk about thermos flasks, space blankets, water syphons, photons, microwave ovens, lasers, or post long equations with Greek symbols instead of numbers.
I am clever enough to be able to engage on these subjects and very often stupid enough to allow myself to be engaged in them! I don’t get as ridiculed as I used to, as I’ve educated myself a little bit along the way, but these people still know a hell of a lot more than me about all of these subjects. Just like every mechanic still knows a hell of a lot more than me about cars.
The funny thing is, is that the better I get at arguing with “expert” scientists about the Greenhouse Effect, the less money I seem to be spending on fixing my car.
Read more at m.facebook.com/libertariangreenhousedenier
****
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
tom0mason
| #
Interesting isn’t it.
So temperature emitted from the ground (but not the oceans?) is just added to the temperature of the atmosphere?
Simple!
So if I have a bucket of cool water and I add to it a little hot water, then the final temperature will be the sum of their temperatures? Cos the just add don’t they?
Reply
Robert Graham
| #
Tom, your claims are unsubstantiated, the author never says “temperature” but radiated from the surface and surface, he did not mention land or oceans. Are you an alarmist sophist?
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Stephen Wells:
Simple enough. Should be easy enough to show me an example where the same thing occurs in a lab experiment.
. . .
Five years of making a complete fool of myself will be shown beyond a reasonable doubt and I will hand over all my money to Al Gore’s beachside property fund! If someone can show me this experiment doing what is proposed in the diagram, I will make a public apology and then shut up forever.
Jim McGinn:
This is the same approach I take with the meteorology con artists that want us to believe the absurd supposition that moist air contains gaseous H2O. Just show me an experiment where this “cold steam” has been detected. It doesn’t have to be a perfect experiment. I’m flexible. But, of course, they never will. Science-based con artists never admit they are wrong. They change the subject. And when this doesn’t work they then use the only tactic they have left and that involves them claiming to have more education and more authority.
The roots of climate fraud are in meteorology:
Why Meteorology (Storm Theory) is a Cargo Cult Science
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16613
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Stephen,
Enjoyed your article except a natural system cannot be modeled by a laboratory experiment any more than it can be modeled with a computer program. You have to go make observations (measurements) in a Natural Laboratory. (https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/)
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Bob Armstrong
| #
Cavendish determine the weight of the Earth in a closed room .
Pound & Rebka confirmed the gravitational blue shifting of light in a university tower in 1959 .
So don’t preemptively place bounds on what may be observable in a laboratory .
Certainly were an optical phenomenon responsible for raising Venus’s bottom temperature by 400K over the distance of 200km , a lab experiment could demonstrate the effect .
Except it’s bull merde .
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Bob,
Because you mentioned Venus I must share a portion of an email conversation I was have with another Bob (Robert Beatty, an Australian mining engineer) about the evidence of volcanic activity on a property I own.
” “The top of the tube freezes quickly when lava is flowing.” This is a stupendous observation based upon a fundamental scientific’fact’ like the existence of gravity is a fundamental scientific fact. The interior of a ‘solid’ planetary body with volcanic activity must be cooled by radiation from its surface Hence, when I reasoned that the Venusian surface was so hot because the heating of its atmosphere above the its cloud deck by photochemical reactions, I was wrong. It was the principally the scattering of the upwelling IR radiation being emitted by it hot surface back toward the surface by the sulfuric acid cloud dropets which was severely limiting the transmission of this radiation to space. And the volcanic activity is irrefutable evidence of the nuclear fission occurring in its interior just as our volcanic activity is the result of such nuclear fission occurring in the earth’s interior. But the seasonal warming and cooling of surface soil layer at most land locations is irrefutable evidence that solar radiation is the principal cause of the earth’s surface temperature. And why the top of the tube freezes quickly when lava is flowing.”
What do you think of this? Is it simple or is it simple?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Bob Armstrong
| #
After Kelvin calculated that the Earth should have cooled in about 80m years , radioactivity became the standard answer .
There certainly is that , and tectonic , tidal forces . But I believe it will be realized that the gravitational lapse rate is why planets just stay hot ( matching their radiative balance at their surface ) .
I think it will be found that their outward radiant heat flow does not match what you would expect in the absence of gravity . That is kinda obviously true in the case of atmospheric lapse rate .
It’s a reason why I like thinking in terms of spatial energy density rather than temporal energy flow ( convertible by division by a lightsecond ) to eliminate the notion of a direction to the energy , well , density .
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Bob,
I am slow and for too long I did not recognize who Kelvin was.
First, I believe it is important to recognize that when two people have differing ideas and they discuss these ideas it is no debate if each participant recognizes they could be wrong and that the purpose of the discussion is to honestly come to some agreement other than to agree to disagree.
When you wrote: “But I believe it will be realized that the gravitational lapse rate is why planets just stay hot ( matching their radiative balance at their surface ) ” you are claiming there are two different causes involved. The gravitation lapse rate and a radiative balance at their surface. I believe you might agree that the atmosphere’s lapse rate has nothing to do with any radiative balance at their (planets) surface (if they have one?). The reason for the question is do gaseous planets have a surface?
The green house effect is totally an idea about the earth’s radiative balance system which involves more than the atmosphere. For if you review the data (https://principia-scientific.com/the-corvallis-or-uscrn-site-a-natural-laboratory/) measured that this natural laboratory you might agree that a portion of the solar energy absorbed at the surface is being stored in the soil below the surface and the air above the surface during the daytime as a portion of this absorbed energy is continuously being emitted by the surface toward space 24hr of a day. And if there is no apparent cloud in the atmosphere it seems the radiation being emitted is being transmitted through the atmosphere so that one day begins nearly like that of the day before.
Have a good day, Jerry.
jerry krause
| #
Hi Bob,
I did not clearly identify the natural system, to which I was referring, was the earth’s radiation balance system of which the idea of the greenhouse effect is a proposed factor. So, I accept your correction.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
lifeisthermal
| #
If co2 has a temperature increasing effect it will show irregardless of scale. A heat source and co2 is all you need. And what you´re looking for is increasing temperature of the heat source, not the gas. Because that´s the claim.
Reply
Bill Stolk
| #
One thing I’ve come to understand in my debates on various subjects of this kind: someone who claims to be an expert can prove it by explaining their argument simply and concisely. If they can’t do that, they’re probably not an expert.
Reply
Squidly
| #
I would agree. The so-called “radiative greenhouse effect” (RGHE, as illustrated in this article) comes down to a very simple thing for me:
Given two molecules (of any type), Molecule A and Molecule B (hereafter referred to as Ma & Mb) … For Ma to further excite (transfer energy) Mb, Ma must be of greater energy than Mb. There are no exceptions.
As it relates to the RGHE, the “re-radiated” IR from CO2 cannot further heat the surface. It violates the physical law described above.
DONE! … The RGHE is completely disproven by very well known and verified scientific fact.
No need to go any further.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Squidzee:
As it relates to the RGHE, the “re-radiated” IR from CO2 cannot further heat the surface. It violates the physical law described above.
DONE! … The RGHE is completely disproven by very well known and verified scientific fact.
No need to go any further.
James McGinn, Atmospheric physicist:
Right. Academia has long ago stopped pursuing truth when it comes to the atmosphere. They are only concerned with consensus. And that means academia is mostly concerned with the collective perception of their models. They comply with the “keep it simple stupid” approach to science: models are dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the voting public.
Most skeptics of global warming are too naïve and gullible to realize that none of this is new. Meteorologists have been using the same tactics for 170 years. The convection model of storm theory is dumbed down to make it digestible to the public.
Academia cares about consensus because consensus pays their bills. Academia does not care about empirical truth so much because empirical truth can often be an obstacle to the perceived credibility of their dumbed down models, and maintaining the perceived credibility of their dumbed down models is essential to maintaining the consensus that pays their bills. Consequently, the main skill that is essential to academia is the ability to pretend to understand what actually doesn’t make sense.
None of this is new. Academia has been pretending to understand for a long time now. The convection model of storm theory harbors numerous plainly nonsensical assumptions. Since its inception, many generations of meteorologists have pretended to understand what actually doesn’t make sense. They aren’t going to stop pretending. Pretending pays their bills.
Nobody notices that the real frauds in all of this are and have always been meteorologists. Meteorology’s success at fooling the public into believing they understand what they don’t is ultimately the behavior that underlies climatology and global warming fraud. That behavior isn’t going to stop until it becomes unprofitable. And its not going to stop being profitable until the public realizes that the core of the problem lies in meteorology not climatology.
The roof leaks at the top.
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Bob Armstrong
| #
The reason bottoms of atmospheres are hotter than their tops is gravitational lapse rate , not a mythical ( because no enabling equation exists & leaving gravity out violates conservation of energy ) spectral GHG phenomenon .
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Bob,
The force gravity at the top of the atmosphere (distance 4030 mi) is not significantly different than the force of gravity at the bottom of the atmosphere (distance 4000mi). The bottom of the atmosphere is not hotter than the top it just has a higher temperature which is an inaccurate method of determining heat in a gas.
When you add heat to a gas it expands and becomes less dense. This is why hot air rises. The hottest air would be at the top of the atmosphere where the gas receives the most energy from the sun. The gas molecules at the top of the atmosphere (all of them) prevent the surface of the Earth from radiating heat into space because they are hotter and are transferring more heat to the molecules lower in the atmosphere than they are receiving from them.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Bob Armstrong
| #
It’s NOT the difference in the force of gravity .
It’s the difference in the gravitational “potential” energy of any particle at any height in the gravitational field . And it is simple to understand that “a particle moving up slows down , ie: cools ; one moving down speeds up ; ie: heats . The even applies to the blue and red shifting of photons .
And the phenomenon has QUANTITATIVE EQUATIONS of gravitational lapse rate have been worked out by several people and shown to QUANTITATIVELY apply across planets .
Until Hansen et al’s 1981 paper where he talks about more CO2 emitting less because it’s emitting to space from “higher” where its colder — without saying why its colder — and then turn around and WITHOUT QUANTITATIVE EQUATION ascribes all the heating below to a spectral GHG effect . At this point it ceased being physics . But supplied an excuse for the would-be-dictatorial class .
Because my interest is implementing language for expressing arbitrary computations over arbitrary sets ( see http://CoSy.com ) , I’ll wait til someone like HockeyShtick who I first saw the physics worked out with references going back to Maxwell is interested in implementing the rather simple equations in CoSy to work thru them myself .
At the time of my http://cosy.com/Science/HeartlandBasicBasics.html talk , I just worked thru the quantitative absurdity that Venus’s bottom of atmosphere thermal energy density , 25 time that delivered to it by the Sun , could be explained as a spectral “trapping” phenomenon . It was only later when links to HockeyShtick’s quantitative work and others ( more all the time ) got thru to me what an inexcusable violation of conservation of energy it is to not account for the gravitational energy of particles at the top versus the bottom of atmospheres and see it as exactly the same tradeoff one sees to the center of every massive object .
At this point I considered the question understood , so it became far lower priority versus building a CoSy language community .
If you are going to argue at this point in time that you can leave gravitational energy , which it is easy to show computes as a negative , out of your total energy balance equations , you are going to have to do better than just wave some qualitative words ; you are going to have to produce you TESTABLE QUANTITATIVE equations .
But in these 37 years since Hansen’s paper , NONE have been presented .
Reply
Bob Armstrong
| #
It’s NOT the difference in the force of gravity .
It’s the difference in the gravitational “potential” energy of any particle at any height in the gravitational field . And it is simple to understand that “a particle moving up slows down , ie: cools ; one moving down speeds up ; ie: heats . The even applies to the blue and red shifting of photons .
And the phenomenon has QUANTITATIVE EQUATIONS of gravitational lapse rate have been worked out by several people and shown to QUANTITATIVELY apply across planets .
Until Hansen et al’s 1981 paper where he talks about more CO2 emitting less because it’s emitting to space from “higher” where its colder — without saying why its colder — and then turn around and WITHOUT QUANTITATIVE EQUATION ascribes all the heating below to a spectral GHG effect . At this point it ceased being physics . But supplied an excuse for the would-be-dictatorial class .
Because my interest is implementing language for expressing arbitrary computations over arbitrary sets ( see CoSy . com ) , I’ll wait til someone like HockeyShtick who I first saw the physics worked out with references going back to Maxwell is interested in implementing the rather simple equations in CoSy to work thru them myself .
At the time of my cosy . com Science /HeartlandBasicBasics.html talk , I just worked thru the quantitative absurdity that Venus’s bottom of atmosphere thermal energy density , 25 time that delivered to it by the Sun , could be explained as a spectral “trapping” phenomenon . It was only later when links to HockeyShtick’s quantitative work and others ( more all the time ) got thru to me what an inexcusable violation of conservation of energy it is to not account for the gravitational energy of particles at the top versus the bottom of atmospheres and see it as exactly the same tradeoff one sees to the center of every massive object .
At this point I considered the question understood , so it became far lower priority versus building a CoSy language community .
If you are going to argue at this point in time that you can leave gravitational energy , which it is easy to show computes as a negative , out of your total energy balance equations , you are going to have to do better than just wave some qualitative words ; you are going to have to produce you TESTABLE QUANTITATIVE equations .
But in these 37 years since Hansen’s paper , NONE have been presented .
Reply
Bob Armstrong
| #
Sorry for the dup post . It told me it rejected the included URLs as spam .
Wish there were a way to fix minor typos .
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
Anyone interested should check out these video links I have uploaded. These 7 videos are direct proof that CO2 does not have a back radiant forcing effect on a heat source. The first two are explanatory so you can understand what I am doing. 6 & 7 are more of the same, but with no dialogue.
1 https://youtu.be/g4GXJs8ROP4 – Twin Vacuum Video
2 https://youtu.be/MCbFjqLPU1E – Evacuation First Stage
3 https://youtu.be/51ZumW5T0w8 – CO2 is added to the chamber
4 https://youtu.be/iREcSHAo1oY – Vacuum and CO2 Comparison
5 https://youtu.be/82B10tE33Ek – Like for like proof
6 https://youtu.be/oNgdamTlavc – Non Dialogue Showing the Cooling of the Filament
https://youtu.be/5Etl3kH_1WQ – Non Dialogue Experiment 1 First Successful Attempt
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Bob,
Newton’s force of gravity is an energy from mass (matter). The concept of potential energy was created in order to preserve the conservation of energy. I believe that Newton needed a source for his force and the only thing available was matter.( The concept of energy had not been developed.) The data he used to develop his theory (velocity of planets and distance from the sun) had no mass units so he put them in is gravitational constant.
If you change Newton’s assertion that an object will travel in a straight line (nothing does) until a force acts upon to that an object will maintain its energy until energy is added to it or given off by it and also think of energy as a field (that is one of the building blocks of objects along with matter) everything makes sense. The energy field of an object decreases with distance. The velocity squared (energy) of a planet time the distance it is from the sun is the same for all planets and is the energy field of the sun. Planets equalize with the strength of the field they are in and there is no potential energy or pulling on them to keep them in orbit. E = V^2.
An object moving higher into the atmosphere slows down (loses energy) because energy is being transferred to the energy field as it tries to equalize with it. A falling object will gain energy as it absorbs energy from the energy field trying to equalize with it.
The molecules at the top of the atmosphere are absorbing energy from the sun during the day trying to equalize with the sun’s energy field and losing energy (radiating) at night to equalize with the Earth’s energy field.
It is the atmosphere that is moderating energy. Those who believe that the 10% of the solar energy that reaches the surface of Venus is heating it while the 90% of the solar energy contained in the atmosphere does not heat the atmosphere are delusional. The GHGT ignores the fact that the molecules in the upper atmosphere are receiving more energy from the sun than the molecules lower in the atmosphere and they must lose energy before the lower molecules can lose energy. It has nothing to do with reflecting energy. All objects above absolute zero radiate energy and all object absorb radiated energy. In order for an object to cool (lose energy) it must transfer more energy away from it than it absorbs.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Bob Armstrong
| #
Herb ,
I don’t know what most of that had to do with the simple fact that :
“a particle moving up slows down , ie: cools ;
one moving down speeds up ; ie: heats .
quantitatively as given by Newton’s gravitational equation from which I’m sure lapse rate can be worked out . Several people have now worked out the temperature profiles for various planets on the basis of the gravitational thermal trade off . ( I’ll wait til someone is interested in collaborating on implementing them as part of a planetary model in CoSy . )
Of course the radiative interface sets the temperature of the molecules at the top of the atmosphere and the trade off with gravity the increase within that shell .
Again , a number of people have now QUANTITATIVELY demonstrated that gravity explains atmospheric lapse rate across planets .
I have yet to see any QUANTITATIVE derivation of thermal energy trapping by a spectral filtering effect . If you have equations , please let us see them so we can play with them and even experimentally test them .
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Bob,
Heat rises not molecules necessarily. Molecules transfer heat to other molecules. On a hot stagnant day the smog stays put as the heat rises.
The behavior of a gas is determined by the universal gas law, PV=nkt. If you change the number of molecules (n) in a gas or increase the kinetic energy (t) of the molecules, either the pressure or volume of the gas will increase. The pressure confining the atmosphere (P) is gravity which does not change significantly from the bottom of the atmosphere to the top.The number of molecules in the atmosphere can also be treated as a constant. If you increase the kinetic energy (t) of the gas molecules the volume (V) of a gas increases. The density of a gas ,n/V, decreases with increasing temperature, Pk/t. Since the density of the atmosphere decreases with altitude the kinetic energy (t) of the molecules must be increasing.
The higher you go in the atmosphere the greater the kinetic energy of the gas molecules.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
lifeisthermal
| #
But temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of molecules/atoms, and temperature drops the higher you go(well almost, it rises in strato but still highest at the Surface), except for in the thermosphere but there is very low density there. So, by just looking at the temperature gradient, we can see that kinetic energy of molecules is the highest at the Surface.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Temperature may be defined as the average kinetic energy but that is not true in a gas. In order to get an average you must know the number of molecules transferring heat to the thermometer. A thermometer records the total heat being transferred to it but not how many molecules transfer the heat. If one molecule (gas) with energy X strikes the thermometer or 1 million molecules (liquid) each transfer a millionth of X to the thermometer the thermometer will record the same temperature but the average kinetic energy is not the same. This is what the universal gas laws states.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
Temperature may be defined as the average kinetic energy
JMcG:
Temperature is the rate at which energy is flowing out of an enfity.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
I would argue that measured temperature is where the rate of energy being radiated by an object is equal to the rate of energy of energy being absorbed by the object. The rate of outflow depends on the difference in energy levels, slowing as they approach equilibrium.
Have a good day,
Herb
jerry krause
| #
Hi Bob,
Very good!!! The lapse rate has every thing to do with your simple explanation and does not require vertical convection as so many seem to consider.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Bob Armstrong
| #
Thanks . It was only after my Heartland talk which showed the quantitative absurdity of its extreme bottom of atmosphere temperature being explicable by a spectral effect that discussion on WUWT and links to , particularly HockeyShticks work that it got thru to me that the whole paradigm was inexcusably and virtually with malice leaving the other macroscopic force out of their consideration . I can’t say equations because they’ve never presented any .
It was only quite recently that my thoughts distilled to the simple consideration of just any particle in a gravitational field . I think the trade-off of temperature with gravity is clearly undeniable , calculable and universal .
I think the period between Hansen’s 1981 paper where he makes the switch between it being colder higher ( without explanation ) and all temperature profile below being due to a spectral effect ( without equation ) will go down in the history of science as perhaps the greatest regression of understanding and denial of a universally observable phenomenon . Everybody knows the phenomenon extends to the centers of any massive object . Atmospheres cannot be immune .
Reply
Bob Armstrong
| #
Yes . Very good point and way to put it .
When people talk about heat waves , sometimes they can be .
And gravity provides the necessary asymmetry matching temperatures , ie: velocity between above and below .
Are you interested in working out the equations ?
You could post your work at http://cosy.com/Science/ComputationalEarthPhysics.html#Disqus .
It will give me motivation to implement them in CoSy .
Reply
Squidly
| #
I just have to laugh … so many comments on here are illustrating exactly what Stephen just described in his article.
So much fancy pants bullshit when disproving the RGHE is so very simple.
I love it … so much fun …
Reply
Bob Armstrong
| #
Very well put . That states the equilibrium :
Given two molecules (of any type), Molecule A and Molecule B (hereafter referred to as Ma & Mb) … For Ma to further excite (transfer energy) Mb, Ma must be of greater energy than Mb.
And the velocity asymmetry intrinsic in a gravitational gradient determines the thermal energy gradient between the neighbors above and below .
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Stephen,
I will tell you how to argue with GHGT believers but first I must provide a disclaimer.
People believe what they want to believe and will accept anything, no matter how ridiculous, that supports they beliefs and discard anything that disputed or cast doubt on their beliefs, no matter how valid and substantiated. You have been warned.
You need to ask the advocate how Al Gore got the authority to repeal laws of physics. I know he went to divinity school but he dropped out to become a politician.
The universal gas law states that the volume-pressure of a gas equals the number of molecules, times the gas constant for the molecules, times the kinetic energy of the molecules. If you increase the number of molecules or their energy either the volume of the gas or the pressure of the gas will increase. In the unconfined atmosphere when you add heat (kinetic energy) to the molecules the volume of the gas increases. This means the density of the gas (number of molecules divided by volume) is inversely proportional to the temperature of the molecules. The greater the heat of the molecules the less dense the gas. Since the density of the atmosphere decrease with increased altitude the molecules in the atmosphere must be getting hotter with increased altitude.
It is almost impossible to convince people that this is true because they cannot accept the temperature registered on the thermometer doesn’t accurately represent the kinetic energy of the molecules. The will accept the validity of the gas law but dismiss it when it doesn’t support their beliefs. This is true of people who don’t even believe in GHGT.
If molecules are hotter at the top of the atmosphere the law of thermodynamics says heat cannot be added to them by cooler molecules lower in the atmosphere until they have lost enough energy to become cooler than the layer of molecules lower in the atmosphere. This means the surface of the Earth does not radiate heat into space. It is the atmosphere that is radiating heat not the surface of the Earth so the premise of the GHGT is wrong.
In order to believe the GHGT a person must believe one of these basic laws of physics is wrong or has been repealed.
Good luck with arguing these points. Opponents will change the argument to an ad hominem attack to try to discredit you and avoid the basis of your argument.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
lifeisthermal
| #
I could’ve written this myself. We seem to have nearly identical experiences and background.
One very important question to ask these fear-mongers is: where’s the evidence that co2 can increase temperature of anything?
One would think that if you so rudely push the idea that co2 increases temperature, as these climate ghouls do, you should at least have experimental evidence that co2 can increase temperature. But there is none, I have looked for it for years. They have made the mistake to confuse heat absorption from a heat source with heating of the heat source. It’s really amazing that nobody has reacted to this during all the years. When heat is absorbed from a heat source it’s a cooling process, not warming.
I’ve read 100:s of papers on co2 and heat absorption, and it always cools the heat source, it doesn’t raise temperature. I regret not taking notes because it would have been a nice paper with a massive reference list. But I’m not a scientist, so I never thought about taking notes. Also, I found something more interesting along the way, a connection between electricity, charge, heat and gravity. They obey the same laws when it comes to global temperature. Gravity is to heat what charge is to an electric current, according to my calculations. It’s no coincident that the solar system looks like the atomic model.
Now I’m just enjoying climate science fall to pieces before my eyes. They’re in serious trouble, they don’t even have evidence that co2 can increase temperature. And if they try to find it, they’ll find the opposite.
Thanks for a nice article and keep up the fight.
Reply
Bob Armstrong
| #
Yes , kinetic energy is highest at the surface exactly balancing gravitational potential which is lowest . And the exchange continues as long as there is a gravitational gradient .
BTW: Alarmists frequently reference Tyndall as proving the “heat trapping” by CO2 . I read most of his ~ 1859 summary lecture , he was a great experimentalist , quite a while ago . But it recently struck me is that what he demonstrated , and all he claimed , was that CO2 absorbed radiation in certain bands like any other material , not that thru some unquantified mechanism thicker layers of CO2 rose to ever greater temperatures .
The fact that an apparently transparent gas actually did absorb and get heated by
radiation was impressive enough news for the time .
Reply