Okay Maddus, I'm calling bullshit. This is what you said here:
Despite the fact that you didn't change your view on climate change, you did agree that greenhouse theory did not violate the laws of thermodynamics. Therefore, at least you agreed that that argument against climate change was flawed.
And here you are, using that same argument again. So you either have a very short memory, are dishonest (you only said you conceded to end the discussion, not because you actually understood what I was saying), or just incredibly stupid.
Correct, I did not have the answers then, so I conceded. I have learned new things and have changed my mind. Last time I checked, I'm allowed to do that.
Maybe I'm just really stupid, or maybe you are gullible, who knows? Let's try and find out shall we?
I want you to give me your source (a reliable, scientific source, so either an article in a peer reviewed journal or a regular article that cites its sources so I can check them) for the idea that it is the mass and pressure of the atmosphere, not its composition, that causes it to heat the earth.
I'll try to dig up the paper that was a game changer for me, by Mikolsky (or something, why can't these dudes be called Jones?).
I also want you to explain the following, again citing your sources: if the earth is in equilibrium, why has it been both much hotter (ice ages) and much colder in the past? If higher pressure equals higher temperature, then why is it so cold on at the bottom of the ocean?
The activity of the sun and the angle of the earth relative to the sun. The evidence is against CO2 being any factor.
That has to do with the fact that liquids do not compact (much) under pressure. So the temperature of the oceans are dictated by the sun, rather then gravity. As sunlight doesn't penetrate very far into the ocean, they are relatively cold.
Citation for gas; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_law
Citations for oceans; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagic_zone
Again, I want you to cite sources. They don't have to be scientific papers, anything that cites a sufficiently reliable source is okay (even a Wikipedia page with proper citations will do). I just want to know what source of information you are using to base your opinion on, that it's not just because it's "obvious" or "self evident". After all, since you claim to be a skeptic, you must have properly verified sources for your opinions.
It seems like you think I do this for mere amusement, I don't. I'm convinced that they've got it wrong. And I'm convinced people are actually hurting because of the actions we take in order to 'save the world'. I think it's unjust and unfair to condemn people to energy poverty, because we are afraid to share to wealth. None should be forced to live without cheap abundant energy, without it, life is harsh and unpleasant. That's my motivation behind it.
@Proton2: not this sceptic
I follow Jo's blog, so those articles are not new for me,.
Why do you think it has 1000+ reponses? Because nearly all agree?
Consider the earth to be at a potential of 220V. Consider the atmosphere to be at a potential of 200V. Does current run from the atmosphere to the earth? Clearly not.
Now, if you stick your current meter with a potential of 0V into the atmosphere, you will measure a current.
Exchange Volts for Temperature and voila, greenhouse theory debunked.
The back radiation is measured against a blackbody, clearly the surface of the earth is not a blackbody. Therefore one cannot conclude that there is a flow between the surface and the earth.
You have to set up your measuring device to emit the same longwave radiation as the surface of the earth and then detect if it is indeed receiving additional radiation from the atmosphere. Until they do that, there is no downward radiated flux.
It's a clear violation of the first and second law of thermodynamics to think that radiation bounces around the atmosphere and the surface, performing additional work each time it's absorbed and emitted. This clearly cannot be. You can demonstrate this with the desk light experiment.
You're wrong Maddus. It actually boggles my mind as to how wrong you can be.
Disagreeing with the conclusions of climate change is pretty dubious at best nowadays. But disagreeing that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas despite direct evidence demonstrating it and refuting the theory of the greenhouse effect itself, despite the obvious counter-proof - i.e. greenhouses - is so far beyond ordinary denialism that it actually beggars belief.
What proof do I need to counter?
I've given you real life experiments that you can do yourself. I've disproven your bottle experiment. I've countered the Venus argument. I've explained convection and radiation. I've provided an alternative explanation. I've explained where I think the models are just plain wrong.
The ball is in your hands now,..
You put a kettle of water on the stove, it heats up and starts to boil because it's receiving more energy from the stove than it is capable of radiating away in the same amount of time.
The earth's atmosphere reduces the amount of energy the earth radiates into space.
Wrong. The earths atmosphere distributes the energy around the globe via convection. It's thus cooling by transporting the energy around the planet and it's always radiating at max to space. The earth is in thermal balance with the sun, if it's output increases, so does our thermal radiating. If that wasn't the case, we couldn't live here.
If that weren't the case, the Earth would cool off very rapidly at night, similar to the moon (where it's 100C in daytime and -150C at night).
Agreed, the atmosphere creates a lag for warming and cooling. It's a mass, and mass is slow. Otherwise the extremes would be higher and lower. But the surface temperature is determined by pressure, distance and output of the sun not by the greenhouse effect. As demonstrated with Mars, Venus, etc.
How much the atmosphere reduces that radiation depends on its properties, one of which is composition. It has been shown as early as 150 years ago that carbon dioxide will trap and re-emit radiation in all directions. Therefore, increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reduces the amount of energy the earth can radiate into space in a given time, while it still receives the same amount of energy from the sun. Therefore, it heats up.
Argument from history? The properties determined CO2 demonstrated in a lab 150 years ago, is no justification of it's behavior in the atmosphere. And I'm not in disagreement with it's properties. Sure it can block certain IR frequencies. But that doesn't mean it radiates this energy back to the planet. That's still in violation of the second law. There has to be additional work done in the atmosphere to force the radiation back to it's origin. The models predicted a 'hotspot' in the troposphere, it isn't there.
So, the models are wrong. They can't predict anything and violate basic laws. These should be put on the same footing as other crackpot ideas.
Consider this: if your mirror or ice cube analogy were correct, then it would be completely impossible for the atmosphere to heat the planet at all.
The whole point of the atmosphere is to put a lag on the temperature changes and distribute the warming around the planet.
Why then isn't the earth a barren wasteland like the moon? Those analogies are entirely irrelevant because they utterly misrepresent the actual process at work.
The deeper you go, the higher the pressure, the higher the temperatures.
And why does my experiment fail to represent the process? The greenhouse effect is;
- Light emitted by the sun, get's absorbed by the surface. (This is the desk lamp)
- The surface does work (heats up) and a lower frequency of light (IR) is emitted from the surface. (this is the area on the desk where the light shines)
- This longwave radiation is then reflected by CO2 and other greenhouse gasses (the mirror)
- This radiation get's absorbed by the surface and additional warming is generated (the brighter spot on the desk)
In order for this effect to occur, you would have to violate the second law of thermodynamics. A source cannot heat up (light up) more by it's own emitted photons. Because there is no difference in energy between the two. Current (electrons or photons) wont flow between two points with the same potential. How does the photon know this? It doesn't, it pushes against a stream with equal force, they cancel each other out, net result is zero. This is basic physics,.
Hogwash, if you build a flawed model that violates even the basic laws, there is no need to take that model seriously. They need to go back to the drawing board.
And a model doesn't have to be 100% true to be useful. We still use Newtonian physics, despite knowing that it's "wrong". It's just been shown to be accurate enough for most things (but not all; e.g. GPS satellites need to use general relativity).
Sure we can use Newtonian physics, because it is a model that actually does some things right. The climate system as described by Trenbreth can't even hold a candle to the Newtonian model. It fails to predict anything and when it is put to the test it fails. Meanwhile we spend trillions of dollars on a untrue model.
Sure you can insulate, but that is not a model for the earth. As it has no internal combustion like a human body. The greenhouse theory is based on radiative energy transfers, not on convection. This is a key point, you really need to understand this.
You seem to be claiming that the heat energy reflected back by greenhouse gases can't be greater than the original heat energy provide by the Sun. Well, that's a nice little strawman, because nobody is claiming otherwise. Congratulations. You made a claim that I don't disagree with.
Greenhouse gasses cannot reflect anything back. There is no thermal difference for a flow to start.
The problem is you're trying to simplify this to a 4th grade understanding of science, when it's a bit more complicated than that.
They make it more complicated, if we invalidate the null hypotheses, we can disprove AGW.