No More Analogies
In my last post we developed the equations for the temperature of a powered resistor with or without an ambient environment.
As has been pointed out to me, and has now been made clear to me, is that “argument by analogy” is a trap. Analogies are an approximation to the “actual thing”, but are not the actual thing. Also, an analogy from an actual thing, to another idea-thing, doesn’t in any way indicate something else which is factually-actual.
What I mean is that a horse is analogous to a unicorn, however, this does not lend any support, not one iota of support, to the supposition that unicorns exist. You can have the proposition that unicorns exist, of course, and you can say that unicorns are analogous to horses and that since horses exist, then unicorns should also exist since “they’re so well known – everybody has heard of a unicorn!”, and you can have lots of people agree with you, and people can write papers about the properties of unicorns since they’re so similar to horses…however, none of this proves or supports in any way at all the proposition that unicorns exist.
Climate pseudoscience almost exclusively uses argument by analogy to attempt to support its version of the greenhouse effect. See, climate science has an alternative version of the greenhouse effect, compared to the one that actually makes a real greenhouse function in the first place. A real greenhouse works the opposite way that the atmosphere operates, by preventing convective cooling. The real greenhouse effect in a real greenhouse does the opposite thing of what the atmosphere does. Climate science invented an alternative version of the greenhouse effect, using the same name as the real greenhouse effect, where its version and the atmosphere behave and operate the same way. The only time that climate pseudoscience isn’t using an analogy to argue for the greenhouse effect, is when it is discussing the terms of its alternative version of the greenhouse effect; however this is very rare because, as soon as you point out that a real greenhouse does not operate the same way as the atmosphere, then immediately the climate pseudoscientist must switch to using an analogy, thus changing the focus away from that very central point.
That is, since simply stating the fact that unicorns don’t exist is a fatal blow to the proposition that unicorns exist, then the argument is switched over to the fact that horses exist and so we must discuss the properties of horses if we are to understand unicorns because they’re analogous to each other, and if you accept these properties of horses, then you must accept the same is true for unicorns which must therefore give tacit acknowledgement of the legitimacy of unicorns, according to the unicorn believer.
Obviously, this type of argumentation is a fraud, which maybe wins debates occasionally, but it doesn’t determine reality.
Argument by Analogy
When you start trying to make arguments this way out of good faith, out of an actual attempt to educate, the fact that you’re using analogies can get you into trouble. I have pointed out long ago that climate science and its version of the greenhouse effect is the only place in science where analogies to the real thing are presented as opposed to the real actual thing. Of course, this admission from the climate fraudsters only came after the Slayers and I exposed that the climate pseudoscience greenhouse models were a fraud; the pseudoscientist’s response was to say that those flat-Earth, cold-sunshine models were only an analogy! In which case 1) where’s the real thing? (they don’t know…they can’t actually say or point it out!), and 2) if in “the real thing” the Earth isn’t flat and sunshine isn’t cold, then why does it still have their version of the greenhouse effect?, 3) why didn’t you say this before we pointed it out and why did you present the flat-Earth cold-sunshine models as the real thing, and say that it was the same as how a real greenhouse functions?
Switching Words
So in the last month or two I’ve gotten myself tripped up by the pseudoscientists. The first time was when such a person, Joel Shore probably, stated that the greenhouse models are all based on the equation “Power in = Power Out”. That’s a bald lie of course. They’re based on “Flux in = Flux out” and that is a very different thing than power in/out, and it is also physically meaningless for the reasons I subsequently wrote about. However, I kept on using Joel’s terminology of “power” instead of “flux”, and that was an honest mistake by me which got sorted out simply by correcting the words from “power” to “flux”. The point is these are tricky sneaky bastards and their forte is in mixing up terms and conflating analogies in order to trip-up the well-meaning bystander. One of the readers of this blog helped point out what had happened.
Experiment by Analogy
The twin of “argument by analogy” is “experiment by analogy”. Of course, argument by analogy is completely meaningless, as demonstrated with the unicorn example. The real thing doesn’t need analogies. Experiment by analogy would be the act of actually getting a real horse, making it run around, do jumps, neigh real loud, and riding it, and thus demonstrating that since a horse can do these things, a unicorn can do them as well which must therefore necessitate and demonstrate that unicorns exist.
In writing about how Anthony Watts and Curt Wilson did just such an experiment using light-bulbs (measuring the wrong thing, lying about what the measurements meant, etc), I then got tripped again in writing about the heat-flow equation for resistors and their power usage.
People keep writing to me about wanting to do experiments with “one object held at a cool temperature and another at a warm temperature, and then raise the temperature of the cooler one to see what it does to the hotter”. Why? Well because, it’s analogous to the climate science greenhouse effect of course! Similar to this is holding an “ambient temperature fixed” and then having a powered heated object in that environment.
So I went along with that too, until I realized it was wrong. The climate science greenhouse effect is not any of these things. In assuming an ambient environment, such as a radiative one, you assume an independent source of energy to maintain it. In assuming a cooler powered source, you’re assuming an independent source of energy to power it. If you have TWO power sources and you’re manipulating their environment, you can get all sorts of stuff to happen, as ‘Neutrino’ demonstrated in the comments of the last post by combining two separately-powered boxes into one and reducing their surface area. But are any of these experiments actually testing the climate science greenhouse effect?
No! First, they’re not tests of the climate science greenhouse effect. Full stop. And second, the climate science greenhouse effect doesn’t have two independent sources of power into the climate! Well, it sort of pretends there are by making the atmosphere an additional source of power for heating the surface (even though it’s cooler than the surface, thus violating the law of heat flow, lol, and it has no intrinsic source of energy release), but really there is only one source of power for the climate and atmosphere – the Sun.
There’s no cooler second object with its own independent source of power, there’s no cooler ambient environment with its own independent source of power, etc. That was what I was working towards and thinking about (but not consciously enough!) in my last post when we got to the equation
TR4 = V2/(2σπlrR) + TAmb4,
for the temperature of the resistor. If the ambient radiative environment for the resistor was provided by the resistor, which IS what the climate science greenhouse effect is about, then the equation would be
TR4 = V2/(2σπlrR) + TR4,
so that
0 = V2/(2σπlrR).
In other words there is no possible solution for the proposition that the source of heat (the ground surface, after being warmed by the Sun) can heat itself further via the thermal environment it itself creates. The equation just “zeros out” and says that nothing can happen like this, if that’s what you want to try. And that’s of course consistent with the heat-flow equation
Q = σTh4 – σTc4,
which says that if the second “cool” term becomes equal to the first “hot” term, then no heat will flow between equal temperatures and so no temperatures will change. If the hot term is the “powered source” creating its own thermal environment, then the warmest environment it could create is that equal to its own temperature, and no more, since heat can’t flow back into itself to raise its own temperature.
Thanks to Tim Folkerts for pointing out that a resistor can not heat itself with the thermal environment it itself creates.
Direct Experimentation
Instead of all these theoretical and experimental analogies, it is not that difficult to directly test the alternative climate-science version of the greenhouse effect. Of course, since a real greenhouse doesn’t operate via the alternative version even though the alternative version says it should, then it already means that the alternative version isn’t correct. The real version of the greenhouse effect of a real greenhouse is still what makes a greenhouse function, and a greenhouse and the atmosphere do not operate the same way, but oppositely. The alternative proposition that the atmosphere and a greenhouse operate the same way via an alternative set of physics is thus refuted.
Direct tests of the real thing, done correctly, as discussed in this paper, are what I will accept as evidence for the climate science greenhouse effect, because they test for the actual thing using the thing, not an analogy of it. Basically you want to do the “Wood’s Box” experiment because it directly tests the exact mathematical proposition of the postulate of the alternative version of the greenhouse effect of climate alarm. The results are already known but I’d be happy to see more people confirming them.
Climate of Sophistry 
Link to “this paper” does not work.
Yes experiment is the reality check.
Every now and then several plausible explanations are given about some physical process.
Take the science of tides.
People debate the influence of Sun Moon and Earth rotation, each theory with different emphasis.
The science of climate is no exception.
IPCC science is plausible enough, but does it pass the reality check?
Orthodox physics was quite clear after R W Woods experiment that the greenhouse theory was false.
There is no description in any fundamental physics or thermodynamics book of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Kittel now includes it as a footnote but refers back to IPCC for support.
A perfect example of circular reasoning.
Joel Shore informs us that it is now included in one introductory physics text but unfortunately for him the example he gave even got the IPCC science garbled .
Lets be quite clear what the atmospheric greenhouse effect claims.
A 33K increase of temperature inside a glass fronted shoebox.
Since the glass is a better radiator than air its a fair test.
The long list of failures now include Vaughan Pratt, Roy Spencer , De Witt Paine and others.
Some claim success if any tiny difference between a box topped with a radiator such as glass and a non radiator such as polyethylene.
Climate Science textbooks will start by including a diagram showing how a single slab representing the atmosphere can raise the temperature of the Earth surface by a huge extent.
Another reality check is the pause of the last 17 years in surface temperature increase despite CO2 rising considerably.
No…They are based on “Average flux in = Average flux out”, where average flux is ***defined*** as simply the power divided by the numerical constant 4*pi*R^2. You have very creatively come up with a claim that amounts to saying that it is illegal to divide both sides of an equation by the same numerical constant.
[JP: What does it matter if you “define” a sun which shines over the entire Earth at once with 1/4 the power, being unable to create the water cycle, melt ice, etc etc?? Reality doesn’t care that you try to redefine flux this way. Equating power is NOT the same thing as equating flux, and this makes all the physical difference in the world, because the real-time actual flux creates the water cycle, whereas the average power can’t. Hence the climate science greenhouse effect is refuted on basic physical grounds.]
Link fixed @JK.
Bryan says:
I am pretty sure it is more than a footnote, Furthermore, your logic seems to be that if someone refers at all to the IPCC then it doesn’t count? That is a convenient way to carve out a huge exception to your claim, since nearly every scientist who talks about global warming will reference the IPCC report. So, you are saying that Kittel isn’t capable of judging the basic physics of the greenhouse effect himself?
Again, you are just coming up with any excuse to discount it. It is not surprising that physicists discussing global warming may not state the science that goes well beyond the basic physics perfectly. What does that have to do with whether the basic physics of the atmospheric greenhouse effect is discussed in physics textbooks?
And, I didn’t say there is only 1 physics textbook. I in fact noted that BOTH of the intro textbooks that we are currently using have it in there. I am many sure others do. In fact, I know for a fact that it is discussed in AT LEAST these 5 introductory textbooks:
Young & Freedman, “University Physics”, 13th edition.
Knight, Jones, & Field, “College Physics”, 2nd edition.
Freedman, Ruskell, Kesten, & Tauck, “College Physics”, 1st edition.
Serway & Faughn, “College Physics”, 6th edition.
Giambattista, Richardson, & Richardson, “College Physics”, 2nd edition.
[JP: As has been identified clearly now, the greenhouse effect of climate science is an alternative version of the real greenhouse effect that functions in a real greenhouse. This alternative version is a simulacrum of physics that is not the real thing, nor is it independently real as a separate aspect of physics. The mathematical physics proposition of the alternative climate science greenhouse effect predicts an observable which is subsequently not observed, hence the postulate is refuted empirically, plus there are all manner of theoretical problems if you want to take that route. A powered heater, such as the ground surface, or a single resistor, heating its environment, does not get hotter still by “return” heat or “trapped” energy from the thermal environment it has just created.
There is no climate science greenhouse effect. It is that simple. It scientifically refutes itself with its own mathematics, because it predicts something which is empirically contradicted. That’s how real science works.]
Yes… it’s not what you say, it’s how you say it.
Excellent mea culpa. 🙂
“Lets be quite clear what the atmospheric greenhouse effect claims.
A 33K increase of temperature inside a glass fronted shoebox.
Since the glass is a better radiator than air its a fair test.” — Brian
When you examine the details, though, you find that climate ‘experts’ go way past THAT introductory model. Sure, they start off claiming that IR-opacity is shared by glass and the atmosphere, and that radiation from each ‘enhances’ the temperature inside a glass or gaseous enclosure. But they do understand that atmospheric motion subverts the heating that a glass box can accomplish. To compensate for this cooling effect, then, climate experts like Lindzen and Spencer propose that the atmosphere emits MUCH MORE than a re-radiating glass pane. See
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/198_greenhouse.pdf , for instance.
Lindzen points out that a 100% return from an atmospheric layer (a glass pane in another guise) is not enough to heat the earth’s surface because of atmospheric motion. So MORE THAN 100% back-radiation actually exists. The purely radiative impact of greenhouse gases, he claims, is able to heat the earth to an average of 80°C, not the 15°C that we hear so often. All of that heat blasting at us from the sky, however, is relieved by air in motion, so the earth’s surface settles down to 15°C.
Spencer says much the same:
“In fact this is one of the very first things that was figured out about the climate system back in the 1960s, so I’m not making this up. It turns out that there’s actually a more accurate phrase than that related to the greenhouse effect, and that’s that weather systems help keep the Earth habitably cool because they short-circuit 60% of the greenhouse effect warming that the greenhouse effect is trying to make on the surface of the Earth. If it weren’t for the cooling effects of weather, the average surface temperature over the whole Earth would be about 140 degrees Fahrenheit.”
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2007/02/28/facts_science_smash_the_global_warming_myth11
Putting this in perspective, raising a blackbody to 140 degrees Fahrenheit requires 698 watts per square meter. But in greenhouse models the sun provides only 239.
Bryan says: “Another reality check is the pause of the last 17 years in surface temperature increase despite CO2 rising considerably.”
================================================
Why exactly do you think that this “global temperature” thing is real? Warmists usually get nervous when asked to prove that what they derive from the data available is representative for the whole Earth.
Bryan says: “IPCC science is plausible enough,”
==================================================
What exactly is there plausible? “Greenhouse effect” is impossible, their “global temperature” is apparently another fiction, so what is it exactly that you call “IPCC science”? Those 2 fiction are not science, what is the “IPCC science” then?
Remember “Greenhouse Effect” itself is a warmist weasel phrase that is an analogy. Green is a very effective word for a warmist. “Gesunt-haus-Effekt” would have no pizzazz yet is still a “GHE”! Joseph I wish you would avoid the use of “real or reality”‘ these are philosophical terms, use the scientific “physical”. The physical may or may not be real, it is only an earthling concept fabricated entirely from observation and measurement, no theory is involved.
The main warmist bull shit is not GHE or even “back radiation”, it is the claim of “All things with a temperature radiate with a flux equivalent to that that may be radiated to near absolute zero”.
This is a deliberate lie, the Clowns know better, but it helps their agenda.
To your referenced PSI paper. You accept the Climate Clown inference of what albedo means. It is not the the amount of insolation reflected. If you look at the definition and the measuremant of albedo you will see that it is a measure of lumence, not radiance, no longer wavelengths, while 1/2 of the sun’s flux is above 0.8 micron wavelength Astronomical albedo assumes a flat planetary surface with that cross sectional area and a perfect Lambertian scatterer with reflectivity from zero (black) to one (white). Bond albedo is more accurate as it is a measurement
of reflectivity into a hemisphere centered on the primary.. None considers reflection at longer wavelengths nor any specular reflection or forward scattering from the globe to the other hemisphere.
BTW the message I got from Gerlich & Tscheuschner’s “Falsification of the
Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics”. Was that these Climate Clowns have no clue in what they are writing or claiming. I notice only Climate Clowns disagreeing with that analysis.
Thanks for the post, Joe.
Something I never see discussed; how does a ‘transparent’ atmosphere cool after it has been warmed by conduction and convection from the sun warmed surface?
Greg House you quote me
Bryan says: “IPCC science is plausible enough,”
you then add
“What exactly is there plausible? “Greenhouse effect” is impossible, their “global temperature” is apparently another fiction, so what is it exactly that you call “IPCC science”? Those 2 fiction are not science, what is the “IPCC science” then?”
So apparently according to you, R W Wood and others were wasting their time in testing this theory by experiment.
Likewise Gerlich & Tscheuschner’s authors of “Falsification of the
Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics” were wasting their time.
Joseph Postma might as well pack up because his excellent papers examining the Greenhouse Effect were clearly redundant.
With your razor like logic perhaps you don’t need to use the scientific method to examine alternative conjectures you “just know” apparently.
Bryan, my point was very easy, but I can make it even easier for you: there is no reason to call the main IPCC claims about “greenhouse effect” and “global warming” science.
Demonstrating that is not redundant, of course. Calling the unscientific crap made by the IPCC “science” is, however.
Kittel which is a very serious thermodynamics book trace their greenhouse theory footnote back to IPCC publications.
We use names like IPCC Science and Christian Science as labels without necessarily endorsing them.
Greg be careful not to sound off like some sort of sectarian crank.
You must communicate with people and examine carefully what they are saying pointing out where they are in error.
Bryan says: “You must communicate with people and examine carefully what they are saying pointing out where they are in error.”
==============================================
I guess I did exactly that. Let me quote myself then: “Bryan says: “IPCC science is plausible enough,” —–What exactly is there plausible? “Greenhouse effect” is impossible, their “global temperature” is apparently another fiction, so what is it exactly that you call “IPCC science”? Those 2 fiction are not science, what is the “IPCC science” then?”
And this one: “Bryan says: “Another reality check is the pause of the last 17 years in surface temperature increase despite CO2 rising considerably.”—–Why exactly do you think that this “global temperature” thing is real? Warmists usually get nervous when asked to prove that what they derive from the data available is representative for the whole Earth.
Your answer was very revealing, Bryan.
Alan Siddons says: “Lindzen points out that a 100% return from an atmospheric layer (a glass pane in another guise) is not enough to heat the earth’s surface because of atmospheric motion. So MORE THAN 100% back-radiation actually exists. … Spencer says much the same: ”
===============================================
Many thanks for the links, Alan. Great stuff. Absolutely crazy.
Merriam-Webster
PLAUSIBLE
1: superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious
2: superficially pleasing or persuasive
3: appearing worthy of belief
Alan Siddons says: “Merriam-Webster PLAUSIBLE…”
==============================================
An examples of “plausible science” IPCC type: Baron Münchhausen pulling himself out of a swamp by his own hair.
Well, Greg, I used to accept the greenhouse effect as plausible, too — in the sense of something you’ve been told and believe although you haven’t given it much time to examine. The GHE sure sounds like a real thing in Tyndall’s words, for instance.
“[A]queous vapor is a blanket more necessary to the vegetable life of England than clothing is to man. Remove for a single summer-night the aqueous vapor from the air which overspreads this country, and you would assuredly destroy every plant capable of being destroyed by a freezing temperature. The warmth of our fields and gardens would pour itself unrequited into space, and the sun would rise upon an island held fast in the iron grip of frost. The aqueous vapor constitutes a local dam, by which the temperature at the earth’s surface is deepened: the dam, however, finally overflows, and we give to space all that we receive from the sun.”
Powerful stuff.
Alan Siddons says: “Well, Greg, I used to accept the greenhouse effect as plausible, too — in the sense of something you’ve been told and believe although you haven’t given it much time to examine.”
===================================================
Such things happen to all of us, like when we hear some news on TV. Bur Bryan has been around here for a long time and is familiar with the argumentation. He must know how the “IPCC science” stinks.
All the analogizing gets our minds away from the point.
The greenhouse effect of climate science is an alternative version of the real greenhouse effect that functions in a real greenhouse. This alternative version is a simulacrum of physics that is not the real thing, nor is it independently real as a separate aspect of physics. The mathematical physics proposition of the alternative climate science greenhouse effect predicts an observable which is subsequently not observed, hence the postulate is refuted empirically, plus there are all manner of theoretical problems if you want to take that route. A powered heater, such as the ground surface, or a single resistor, heating its environment, does not get hotter still by “return” heat or “trapped” energy from the thermal environment it has just created.
Moreover, this alternative version of the greenhouse effect isn’t consistent with existing physics, which is consistent with the previous result of it having theoretical problems and being empirically non-existent. That is, the alternative greenhouse effect of climate science requires something with higher emissivity to be warmer in temperature, whereas standard physics indicates the opposite, that low emissivity holds higher temperatures.
…the alternative greenhouse effect of climate science requires something with higher emissivity to be warmer in temperature, whereas standard physics indicates the opposite, that low emissivity holds higher temperatures. — J Postma
And on THAT point greenhousers are hypnotized: They’re FIXATED on the notion of “if it’s bright (in IR) then it’s hot.” Mumbling “blackbody, blackbody, blackbody” over and over again, like a magical incantation, they refuse to grasp that a real body can get hotter than a blackbody by having a lower emissivity. To greenhousers, though, if it’s dim it’s cool.
Greg
From the PSI site
“The rise in dissent in the corridors of power is matched by a new willingness among impartial observers to review the very cornerstone of climate alarmism, the so-called ‘greenhouse gas theory’ which researchers at Principia Scientific International (PSI) say is also refuted. One of PSI’s leading climatologists, Professor Ole Humlum of the University of Olso recently published a telling study in the respected Global and Planetery Journal that used only approved government-sourced data to prove that temperatures rose before levels of carbon dioxide (CO2). Professor Humlum and his team concluded: “Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.”
Professor Humlum and his 200+ PSI colleagues are now in the vanguard of exposing the flaws in “greenhouse gas” science, once discarded already by mainstream scientists over 50 years ago. The American Meteorological Society (AMS) had, at that time, thrown cold water on the notion that carbon dioxide could do anything to alter our climate. In one of it’s main publications the AMS concluded that idea that CO2 could alter the climate “was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor.” [1]”
If advocates of “greenhouse gas” science propose a conjecture that rising CO2 will produce rising temperature it is surly fitting to point out to them that not only is there no historical basis for such a claim but the last 17 years temperature record (using their own temperature figures) does not support the claim.
Greg you appear to think that using extreme language makes you more correct.
It is more likely to make you appear as a paranoid crank or perhaps as a provocateur who tries to discredit greenhouse theory skeptics by such tactics.
Joe,
It seems that the work of Svensmark and others is another nail in the “greenhouse gas” coffin …
That post has links to the various source data, but some of the comments are interesting as well.
No analogies, just observational science.
The comment by Bob Webber about electric weather effect is especially interesting in the post linked by my previous comment.
Bryan says: “Greg you appear to think that using extreme language makes you more correct.”
==================================================
What “extreme language”? I asked you this twice: “Why exactly do you think that this “global temperature” thing is real? Warmists usually get nervous when asked to prove that what they derive from the data available is representative for the whole Earth.” You seem to be unable or unwilling to answer this simple question, instead you made up “extreme language” argument. Very poor performance, Bryan.
So, been away for a few days but I had an interesting exchange over on WUWT with LdB who said that the same properties which make CO2 useful in a laser make it work as a greenhouse gas.
I was thinking about that and decided to break it all down:
Now then…
Well, in the case of CO2 and the red 667 cm^-1 it is because it can vibrate up and down:
” ~ ,, ~ ” #> ,, ~ ” ~ ,,
^ ~ v ~ ^ #> v ~ ^ ~ v
…where the ,, and ” are an O and two C molecules but I figure this won’t work:
₀ ~ ⁰ ~ ₀ #> ⁰ ~ ₀ ~ ⁰
as I’m not sure if the subscript/superscript zeroes will carry over on wordpress right.
And it can vibrate like this:
O ~ o ~ O #> o ~ O ~ o
(+ ~ – ~ +) #> (- ~ + ~ -)
…where the capital and lowercase o’s represent motion in and out of the plane of the page.
So a CO2 molecule can be excited to the same energy level in two ways, and mathematically this is represented as an eigenvalue of the Hamiltonian with more than one eigenstate available, and all of the n-dimensional spaces that come along with it… which is a bit spooky to deal with since I’ve been catching up on Stross and his Laundry stories as it happens.
Now, as I’m sure you know, as I know, and as probably anyone who has continued reading this exchange knows, there are transitions where the degenerate vibrational state gives up more energy to a rotational state, and there are transitions where the opposite happens. The latter transitions can produce IR photons, while the other dips down into the microwave range.
In a CO2 laser you make use of various mechanisms to get more of one transition than the other, pumping heated nitrogen in can work, as it lacks the vibrational modes and is only able to lose energy rapidly by pumping CO2 molecules. Do this properly and you wind up with more CO2 molecules poised to fall into the weaker rotational state than you would normally get, and they readily cough up those tasty photons so we can burn stuff with pew-pew deathrays, weee!
——————————
How is this not like a greenhouse effect?
In the system typically described in GHE discussions you have the ground/water providing energy to CO2 molecules in the form of photons, and a fairly normal population of states means some of them give a tasty IR photon back up, some crap out weaksauce microwaves instead and just end up spinning a bit faster, and some lose energy by bumping into other molecules.
Yes, it is true that other molecules–warmed in various fashions–bump into CO2 molecules and jostle them properly to cause an excited vibrational state to drop to a lower rotational state and dump that energy as an IR photon.
Yes indeed, and some of those photons will wind up heading back down to the ground… but that isn’t exactly the mechanism implied now is it: having other gases heating up and losing energy to CO2–through collisions–which then radiates it away in whichever direction.
That sounds like an unlikely heating mechanism if you ask me, as it kinda seems like the CO2 is helping cool the other molecules when it is put that way, doesn’t it?
Now, in a CO2 laser the nitrogen molecules need to be dealt with after they do the bump and grind with a CO2 molecule, as they generally aren’t energetic enough to kick off another one of the desired transitions, so they need to be excited again by some other source of energy before you’re likely to get another lasing event, right?
In the atmosphere, if there is a greenhouse effect functioning like a laser, the only energy source is the sun, and in a roundabout manner the surfaces heated by the sun.
If said nitrogen molecules are dropping back down to pick up more energy from said source so they can head back up and smack into a CO2 molecule to trigger off another lasing event (which again is just about as likely to occur as the less exciting interactions unless you’re dealing with a specifically manipulated population of molecules under controlled and carefully modulated conditions) and said CO2 molecules are then releasing that energy in the form of photons, let’s be charitable and say half go up and half go down, and let us ignore the possibility of said photons being intercepted en route.
At best you’re looking at a bit less than half the energy carried away from the surface by said nitrogen molecule making it back down to the ground.
Said N2 molecules can’t be assumed to bounce off the surface and beeline straight for a CO2 molecule without losing any energy 100% of the time, can they?
So there’s a loss creeping into this laser mechanism you’re describing.
Said CO2 molecules can’t be assumed to immediately emit that energy directly back at the ground 100% of the time, even assuming half of all lasing events are fired directly back at the ground, that’s another rather significant loss in your laser mechanism.
Then we have the lasing events which go up and out into space, which is a strange place to dump energy for a mechanism meant to be heating the surface, isn’t it?
I mean yeah, more realistically we have to account for the energy carried upwards which doesn’t quite make it to a CO2 molecule before being dissipated in collisions or weaksauce microwave emissions…
Then we have to tally up the shots which were fired towards the ground that don’t quite make it, some of which may get emitted back towards the ground, some will head back up, and some will get lost in the molecular bump and grind on the way…
…hmmm, I’m not sure which side of the argument you’re supporting with this atmospheric greenhouse laser idea…
Oh, but wait, the ground will no doubt emit as well, and some of those photons will make it up to waiting CO2 molecules, and some of those won’t lose that energy to collisions or fire it uselessly towards the stars, and some of those photons shot back towards the surface won’t be intercepted and will actually make it back, along with however many don’t get wasted by this atmospheric greenhouse laser, carrying back a bit less energy than the very same mechanism helped lose to space?
Just not seeing it, and arguably looking at it from a laser paradigm doesn’t help counter the idea that CO2 does a pretty good job helping the atmosphere cool.
I mean, if you wanted to waste a lot of energy, running a very low efficiency CO2 laser with no containment whatsoever open to the sky sounds like decent way to do it.
Greg
You appear to have some difficulty with reading.
I have highlighted the appropriate part of my quote above.
“If advocates of “greenhouse gas” science propose a conjecture that rising CO2 will produce rising temperature it is surly fitting to point out to them that not only is there no historical basis for such a claim but the last 17 years temperature record (USING THEIR OWN TEMPERATURE FIGURES) does not support the claim.”
I have had enough of your paranoia.
Do yourself a favor get an elementary physics book and do some reading.
Bryan says: “Do yourself a favor get an elementary physics book and do some reading.”
========================================
Even here you are not honest. In physics textbooks there is no place for “global temperatures”. This unscientific crap is the invention of “climate scientists”.
That’s Solid Climate Gold Max, for real, you should go tell LedBettor WHaT’S uP WiTH THaT!
I said, “for real” knowing what transpired in the thread, I don’t mean for everyone to run bone up on LedBettor’s laser.
Greg
You seem to have some problem with telling me Greenhouse Theory advocates that using their own definitions of temperature and atmospheric CO2 increase, their theory is falsified.
Despite a considerable increase in CO2 there has been no increase in atmospheric temperature for the last 17 years.
So Greg would presumably say that since there is no global temperature its impossible to say whether greenhouse gases are warming the atmosphere or not.
Im sure this advice would be very welcome over at Skeptical Science since they also deny there has been a pause.
Or that nobody knows whether the atmosphere has warmed or cooled since records began
If you are interested in the correct way to deal with atmospheric temperatures read
Gerlich & Tscheuschner’s “Falsification of the
Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics” .
However you had better read a more elementary physics textbook first because I doubt you will make much sense of it and probably will regard it as warmint literature.
Bryan says: “If you are interested in the correct way to deal with atmospheric temperatures read
Gerlich & Tscheuschner’s “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics” . However you had better read a more elementary physics textbook first…”
==============================================
Again, neither physics in general nor any elementary physics textbook deal with the cooking of the so called “global temperature”. Like I said, the main problem of this fiction is representativeness of punctual local temperature measurements for the whole world. Until it is proven to be representative, the “global temperature” remains an unscientific crap, please excuse my French.
Therefore any references to the “global temperature” as a fact, designed either to prove or disprove anything, are of the same quality: unscientific crap, please excuse my French again. Get it now?
If you mean that there is an internal contradiction in the AGW predictions, then no, they were careful enough to relate to 95% probability. So, according to them there is 5% probability that their dreams would not come true. Therefore they can not be nailed on that.
If you mean that THEIR INTERNAL absence of correlation between CO2 concentrations and their “global temperature”proves something, then it is ridiculous, because if other factors are not excluded, absence of correlation does not mean anything, exactly like correlation does not mean anything.
The continuous talk about this fictitious “pause” on pseudo-skeptical blogs like WUWT is a very good distraction from the main point in the first place.
Bryan says: “So Greg would presumably say that since there is no global temperature its impossible to say whether greenhouse gases are warming the atmosphere or not.”
=============================================
I said like a 100 times that there was no “greenhouse effect” and it was not related to the fictitious “global temperature” at all. I guess every single f***ing liar who has been active on this blog knows that. So, please, do not speculate about what I “would” say on the “greenhouse effect”.
[JP: As has been identified clearly now, the greenhouse effect of climate science is an alternative version of the real greenhouse effect that functions in a real greenhouse. This alternative version is a simulacrum of physics that is not the real thing, nor is it independently real as a separate aspect of physics. The mathematical physics proposition of the alternative climate science greenhouse effect predicts an observable which is subsequently not observed, hence the postulate is refuted empirically, plus there are all manner of theoretical problems if you want to take that route. A powered heater, such as the ground surface, or a single resistor, heating its environment, does not get hotter still by “return” heat or “trapped” energy from the thermal environment it has just created.
There is no climate science greenhouse effect. It is that simple. It scientifically refutes itself with its own mathematics, because it predicts something which is empirically contradicted. That’s how real science works.]
Joe, that is pretty long winded. I prefer the Rudy Clausius version “By itself heat don go uphill”.
It could have been water, still a law, no longer a theorem, or hypothesis.. To have stuff go uphill “show the pump”.
Stay tuned for my next post Will 🙂
.. OK I hope it includes that those that claim to be Climate scientists are not scientists at all.
All science, and most effort is to produce “action”. Action is defined to be the time integral of work. Planck’s constant h, (6.63×10^-34 Joule seconds), is the SI unit of action. One wave of electromagnetic radiation is equal to just that value. A photon is a larger unir of such action, the action done on a surface to produce one free electron. A larger unit is like a sailboat, each sailboat is one quantum of sailboat. All countable but lotsa man hours! Have any or all so called climate scientists produced any action at all? What is that action? It seems to be some minimal effort in creating and disposing of “entropy” (waste work). Perhaps it is that they all are all mwembers of the (AAA), who cannot do, only teach (stand in front of a classroom and create entropy). The student does all of the work, not a professor, not a book. If a book did work you must have less book. Just a maybe!!!
All thermal radiation from the Sun has a purpose, It keeps the Sun from increasing in temperature. It is also all entropy as far as the Sun is concerned. The Earth and its atmosphere absorb some of this Solar entropy and converts that entropy backl to energy. The earth can do that because it has a temperature less that the Sun but still above coild space, its environment. These two are requirements for the conversion of waste heat from another back to energy that can do work. The real through variable for work is entropy (delta Q / delta T) this through variable times the same delta T becomes some work. All electromagnetic radiation from the Earth system is also the disposal of entropy for the Earh. This thermal radiation from the Earth’s atmosphere, has the same purpose, it keeps the temperature of the earth from increasing. These subsystems need not conserve energy. It is believed by some, that our Universe must conserve energy. Time will tell!! Meanwhile “do not look in the entropy bucket”, it will melt your face off.
Joel Shore says
“And, I didn’t say there is only 1 physics textbook. I in fact noted that BOTH of the intro textbooks that we are currently using have it in there. I am many sure others do. In fact, I know for a fact that it is discussed in AT LEAST these 5 introductory textbooks:”
Young & Freedman, “University Physics”, 13th edition.
I have the 9th edition of this book (1996) and its not there.
Why do you think that is ?
When this was discussed at WUWT several posters pointed out that the greenhouse effect portion of the 13th edition contained many fundamental mistakes even from an IPCC position.
No other section of the book contains fundamental mistakes
Quite clearly the section was added without much care to sell books to the growing number of climate science students.
And you now inform us that it is spreading into other introductory textbooks.
This commercial corruption of physics is unforgivable.
Are you not ashamed of yourself for taking part in such a scam?
The IPCC and others such as Professor Tim Ball and Professor Ole Humlum of the University of Olso have noted that for 17 years there has been no temperature increase and some like Tim Ball go even further and say that there has a decrease.
The world’s temperatures (measured by all methods) indicate that they do not track CO2.
The greenhouse theory is falsified once again.
Bryan says: “The IPCC and others such as Professor Tim Ball and Professor Ole Humlum of the University of Olso have noted that for 17 years there has been no temperature increase and some like Tim Ball go even further and say that there has a decrease.
The world’s temperatures (measured by all methods) indicate that they do not track CO2.
The greenhouse theory is falsified once again.”
===================================================
It does not matter who claimed that, IPCC people or PSI people. The alleged trend in so called “global temperature” can neither verify nor falsify anything, because it has never been proven to be a real thing.
The “greenhouse effect” is non-existent and physically absurd without any relation to the fictitious “global temperature”.
It is noteworthy that the invalid argumentation about the alleged “pause” has been put forward persistently by the same people who repeatedly claim the “greenhouse effect” is real, e.g. Monckton.
Greg House
I find it hard to believe you are so thick.
The exact value of some average global atmospheric temperature is what cannot be worked out.
However if countless thermometers by different methods read the same or less than they did 17 years ago you can be sure that the world is not ‘heating up’ as the IPCC advocates say.
Read the link I gave you to Gerlich & Tscheuschner.
You are now in the position of thinking that everyone is a ‘warmist’ apart from yourself.
This is classic paranoia.
Your only hope is to read some elementary physics book and think before you post.
Bryan says: “if countless thermometers by different methods read the same or less than they did 17 years ago you can be sure that the world is not ‘heating up … elementary physics book …’”
===================================================
Yeah, you still won’t get it.
You have to prove first that the calculated by their “methods” value is a REAL thing, REPRESENTATIVE for the whole world. Until you have done that, you do not know if there is warming or cooling or whatever.
And for the Xth time, physics does not deal with this “global temperature” crap at all.
Bryan says: “You are now in the position of thinking that everyone is a ‘warmist’ apart from yourself.”
=================================================
I call warmist people who promote the IPCC absurd “greenhouse effect” in the first place. Usually they also insist on the other fiction “global warming”. The difference is that theoretically global warmings and coolings are possible. However, my point is that it needs to be scientifically proven first.
The sad thing is that it practically impossible to prove, and beyond that the calculations I looked at are apparently a hoax as well, because they refer in the process to something they have not scientifically proven either.
As I said many times, a fiction can not disprove anything, neither can an unproven thing.
LoL Max, you think he’s ‘lased in’ on ‘the stuff he didn’t think about’ now?
You guys Max went back over there to WUWT and told Laser Ledbettor he wasn’t really buying his magical magnifying laser.
I dont think he’s been back. It’s my guess he’s doing seminal work on
=====
“Disruption of Bigfoot Migrations by Area 51- dependent Blinding, Backerdistical Boilings ,” where
“CO2 magnified
Dark Light”
emitted from re-booted,
crash-landed alien vehicles creates
“both substantial and permanent disorientation during migratory habits associated with foraging for Salmon along waterways in the North American West,”
as “adult Bigfoot females searching for food for young, have Backerdistcal Boilings reflect up out of fish eyes, traveling through water which is a greenhouse gas. Passage through water as accepted by current scientific professionals working in Bigfoot Preservation as well as adjacent fields, is known to create lasers during passage through the exhaled breath of the female Sasquatch,
creating even more DarK LaseR MagnificatioN through diffraction of some DarK LighT from receptors in the eye;
as is well recorded in thermodynamic literature, “less is more, cold is hot, CO2 is DragoN SnoT.”
He’s probably finishing up his Backerdistical Statistacanalysisms Algorithms, so he can predict the exact number of thousand Bigfoot which have in fact fallen into the water and drowned.
It’s QwantuM!
Ya’W!
HenryP was saying he thought you made great points Max.
He isn’t sure who”s bullshooting about what how but he’s firmly in the saddle about Twerk Watts milking out the alarmist bullshoot to aggrandize himself.
Even the claimed 33C need is wrong since the alarmist flat earth model only gets 167W/m2 which by SB is -40C (ish) so the GHG required increase is 54C to get to their ”average” +14C. This means that the good old CO2 molecules would be radiating in the far UV to get somewhere near that temperature increase.
IMPOSSIBLE! And this radiation has never been detected/measured or even considered by the idiots so as to actually thinking their theory out FAIL.
Their flat earth model has no feedback mechanism to regulate the GHE, it had to start(?) so why does it not continue increasing?
Poor theory failed by reality.