1 hour ago, Maddus Mattus wrote
The greenhouse theory, wich global warming theory is based on, clearly states that the atmosphere does heat the surface (not just exchange heat, heats), via the back radiation wich is trapped
Then I maintain that you have misunderstood what greenhouse theory actually states because you are working from a simplified explanation and taking it as if it were literal. What greenhouse theory actually states does not in any way contradict the second law of thermodynamics.
This is the Wikipedia definition of the greenhouse effect: "The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface and the lower atmosphere, it results in an elevation of the average surface temperature above what it would be in the absence of the gases." You'll note it matches what I said, not what you said, and does not violate any laws of thermodynamics. You can argue about the size of the effect, how the various gases contribute to it and its relevance to climate change, but that is a separate debate; the basic fact that it does not violate the laws of thermodynamics remains.
The reason why I believe him above others? I don't know, it just makes more sense to me.
Yet the problem is, complex physics often defies common sense. Why do some people believe the moon hoax theories? Because they are applying earth based common sense to a very outlandish situation (low gravity vacuum on the moon), misapplying the laws of physics and therefore common to an incorrect conclusion.
The same thing is happening here. You don't actually know enough about the physics involved to make a qualitative judgment about these publications. Neither do I. You are basically chosing to trust this guy because it sounds reasonable to you, a layman, or possibly because it coincides with what you already believed in the first place. Neither of these are fair ways to judge anything.
Remember that Einstein of all people thought with all his might against quantum mechanics, because he felt it didn't make sense to him. Yet in the end, even he was proved wrong. The more complex something is, the more likely for common sense to let you down.
A minor amount of Googling and you will find just as many well argued debunkings of Miskolczi's work. Those sounds reasonable too. But I recognize that I am not qualified to make that decision. Climate science is incredibly complex because there are very many factors involved, and I am at best an armchair physicist. I can't decide which theory makes more sense. Saying that I'm not capable of making that judgment is, in my view, the only intellectually honest thing to do.
And since I can't make that judgment, I choose to trust the experts. And by expert, I mean the scientific community. I choose to trust them because I am an academic, I know how that process works, I know it's not perfect, but I know it's better than anything we have. Peer-review ensures a work is reasonable, and general acceptance by the community and consistence with other results means it's valid. The fact that Miskolczi's work hasn't been published in any reputable journal and has not been cited by any other work in a reputable journal means to me that most experts see no merit in this work. And since there is an overwhelming amount of work from actual experts that contradicts him, I'm chosing to go with the experts.
I've always found the more simpler the explanation the more accurate they are. We could describe the law of Ohm including electron spin and quantum states, but R = U / I is just fine for me.
But just because that simplification works, doesn't mean every simplification works. F=MA is a perfectly acceptable approximation that almost always works, but even that is a simplification that has been known to break down under extreme circumstances for over a hundred years.
Climate science is a complex problem, and as the famous quote from Mencken says, "for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong".
That idea just doesnt fly with me, we should be seeing some effect of that.
We are seeing effects of that. Both in lab experiments and actual atmospheric measurements, the effect of atmospheric infra-red absorbtion is clearly seen. We've known about it for more than a century, and the paper from 1941 I posted collects many of the then-current observations. Modern satellite observations, such as that graph I posted, also confirms it.
