The Top 4

Tim the plumber wrote: IBda-science-and-reality-denier,

Tim the plumber wrote: Your idea that there cannot possibly be a greenhouse effect is driven by your private religion.

IBdaMann wrote:
The biggest problem with "the greenhouse effect" is the word "the"...as if there is only one. There are, in fact, many, to include some that don't involve any increase in the average global atmospheric temperature. I will review here the Big 4 "greenhouse effect" models with explanations as to why they violate science.

IBdaMann wrote:
One note first on semantics. It should be mentioned that quite a few "greenhouse effect" models don't depict anything beyond the sun simply warming the earth via solar electromagnetic energy. These particular models try to credit atmospheric substances, e.g. CO2, "greenhouse gases," etc., with performing the sun's job. However, when the sun radiates energy to the earth, if that energy changes form due to absorption and/or thermal emission by some substance, the substance does not somehow become the source of that energy nor does the substance become responsible for "warming" anything with that energy. These particular models don't involve any increase in the average temperature of the earth or earth's surface, and are not considered for this list.

IBdaMann wrote:
1. Greenhouse Gases Create Heat (in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics (1st LoT): This is the most common model type.

IBdaMann wrote:
A believer in this model will tell you that if you were to swap out a certain quantity of the earth's atmospheric nitrogen and were to replace it with an equivalent mass of his/her favorite "greenhouse gas", that the earth's atmosphere would increase in temperature.

IBdaMann wrote:
This necessarily implies that total energy would increase due to that quantity of the "greenhouse gas."

IBdaMann wrote:
That necessarily implies that that quantity of "greenhouse gas" caused the creation of the additional energy, ...

IBdaMann wrote:
... which is a flagrant violation of the 1st LoT.

IBdaMann wrote:
There is no need to analyze any further.

IBdaMann wrote:
2. Temperature as the Dependent Variable (in violation of Planck's Law). This model usually gains believers from the crowd that previously believed in the model described above but who eventually learned how it violates the 1st LoT and are thus looking to "relocate" their beliefs.

IBdaMann wrote:
3. The Convoluted Invisible Mirror Layer (unfalsifiable).

IBdaMann wrote:
4. Thermal Forcing (in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics). This model simply claims that "climate" uses its magic superpowers to "force" heat to flow from a cooler upper atmosphere to a warmer lower atmosphere in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (2nd LoT). Any such miracle performed by "climate" is called a "forcing."

Greg wrote:
However, I do need to point out, there is only one model of the greenhouse effect. Splitting it into four is your own invention.

Greg wrote: The lower atmosphere would also warm, but the immediate effect on the upper atmosphere would be cooling as less heat would reach it. That's in fact what we're seeing now: a warming trend at or near the earth's surface, and a cooling trend in the upper atmosphere.

Greg wrote: Yes, that's true. The total energy at the earth's surface, and eventually throughout the atmosphere would increase. Of course, the total energy in the universe doesn't increase by this effect. It's just less escapes into space.

Greg wrote: What? No. Redistribution of energy doesn't imply creation of it. This is where your argument jumps the rails.

Greg wrote:Yes, creating energy would violate the 1st LoT, but that's not what the model says is happening. It says the greenhouse gasses are absorbing energy and then re-emitting back towards earth. Maybe you'll say that's a different model, but really that's the only model.

Greg wrote: In fact, you've stated elsewhere that you do believe that greenhouse gasses absorb infrared radiation. That's really a tacit affirmation of your belief in the greenhouse effect

Greg wrote: One pipe dream ... can you show where Planck concluded that his law contradicted the greenhouse effect.

Greg wrote: it was Fourier's earlier work with blackbody radiation that led him to realize that the earth's surface was warmer than could be explained by solar irradiation alone.

Greg wrote: Yur analogy of a mirror breaks down on a couple of points. First, mirrors reflect light. Greenhouse gasses absorb light (in the infrared band), then re-emit it in a random direction.

Greg wrote:However, if there were measurements showing that greenhouse gasses were increasing in the atmosphere, and also measurements showed that incoming energy was equal to outgoing radiation, then I would take that to falsify the greenhouse effect.

Greg wrote: However, measurements currently show more radiation coming into the system than is going out, which is why the earth's surface is warming.

Greg wrote: First, the definition of a forcing isn't "magic superpower".

Greg wrote: However, really the 2nd LoT just says that the net flow of energy from warm to cool must always be positive.

Greg wrote:The greenhouse effect doesn't say that more energy flows from the atmosphere to the earth's surface than the other way around, just that some does, and that less energy escapes into space than would if the greenhouse gasses weren't there.

IBdaMann wrote:
In your version of the "greenhouse effect" the atmosphere's total energy increases. That can only happen by additional energy being created.

Greg wrote: However, measurements currently show more radiation coming into the system than is going out, which is why the earth's surface is warming.

There are no valid measurements showing this.

IBdaMann wrote:
In your version of the "greenhouse effect" the atmosphere's total energy increases. That can only happen by additional energy being created.

Greg wrote: However, measurements currently show more radiation coming into the system than is going out, which is why the earth's surface is warming.

There are no valid measurements showing this.

Totototo wrote: Wait, so it can't happen because of energy re-emition?

IBdaMann wrote:
Nope. Your personal version of the "greenhouse effect" might be that way but countless other versions vary from yours. I know you need to insist that your version is the only version because you wouldn't be able to otherwsie claim that it is based on the single solitary science model.

IBdaMann wrote:
No, that's not what we're seeing now, at least not some new "trend."

IBdaMann wrote:
This is a violation of Planck's Law.

Total energy increasing necessarily implies an increase in temperature. An increase in temperature necessarily implies a greater amount of energy radiating off into space.

IBdaMann wrote:
Do yourself a favor and read a little.

IBdaMann wrote:
Just for completeness, in your version of the "greenhouse effect" is atmospheric convection considered to be "greenhouse effect" ?

IBdaMann wrote:
In your version of the "greenhouse effect" the atmosphere's total energy increases. That can only happen by additional energy being created. You claim that "greenhouse gases" are responsible for this increase and you acknowledged how this violates the 1st LoT.

IBdaMann wrote:
Thank you for proving my point, and perhaps now you see that the version of the "greenhouse effect" that violates the 1st LoT is more popular than you first imagined.

IBdaMann wrote:
So you believe that absorbing IR is, itself, another "greenhouse effect"? Why? Do you think energy is somehow created by doing so?

You made a big deal about not understanding why I made my semantic clarification note, yet here you are being confused over what I endeavored to clarify.

IBdaMann wrote:
Planck never wrote about religious miracles or how they violated his law.

IBdaMann wrote:
He did not "realize" this. You have been duped.

IBdaMann wrote:
1) What do you have, besides your religious belief, that outgoing thermal radiation differs from the incoming solar radiation?

2) It doesn't matter what you would take as falsifying the "greenhouse effect." Until there is a falsifiable "greenhouse effect" model, the "greenhouse effect" remains unfalsifiable conjecture, i.e. it can't be proven false any more than the existence of God can be proven false, and it cannot be science any more than the existence of God can be science.

IBdaMann wrote:
There are no valid measurements showing this.

IBdaMann wrote:
The term "forcing" is just the Global Warming equivalent of "miracle" in Christianity. The ability to perform miracles is definitely a magic superpower.

IBdaMann wrote:
We'll stick with the net.

You are violating Planck's Law again. You are making "temperature" the dependent variable.

My point was that if there were such measurements and they showed no energy imbalance, despite the increase in greenhouse gasses, that would falsify the greenhouse theory.

Greg wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
The biggest problem with "the greenhouse effect" is the word "the"...as if there is only one. There are, in fact, many, to include some that don't involve any increase in the average global atmospheric temperature. I will review here the Big 4 "greenhouse effect" models with explanations as to why they violate science.

That's great. Breaking things down into manageable chunks is a great way to promote understanding. However, I do need to point out, there is only one model of the greenhouse effect. Splitting it into four is your own invention. The Big 4 is a good name though. It does make it seem like you're reviewing an established position.

IBdaMann wrote:
One note first on semantics. It should be mentioned that quite a few "greenhouse effect" models don't depict anything beyond the sun simply warming the earth via solar electromagnetic energy. These particular models try to credit atmospheric substances, e.g. CO2, "greenhouse gases," etc., with performing the sun's job. However, when the sun radiates energy to the earth, if that energy changes form due to absorption and/or thermal emission by some substance, the substance does not somehow become the source of that energy nor does the substance become responsible for "warming" anything with that energy. These particular models don't involve any increase in the average temperature of the earth or earth's surface, and are not considered for this list.

I'm not seeing a semantic point there. However, I can't imagine any model of the greenhouse effect which, when applied to the earth and its atmosphere, wouldn't involve warming the earth's surface, so I'm fine with excluding these putative models from this discussion.

Off we go!

IBdaMann wrote:
1. Greenhouse Gases Create Heat (in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics (1st LoT): This is the most common model type.

Good start. I completely agree that if the greenhouse effect relies on the greenhouse gasses create heat from nothing, that's a clear violation of the 1st LoT.

IBdaMann wrote:
A believer in this model will tell you that if you were to swap out a certain quantity of the earth's atmospheric nitrogen and were to replace it with an equivalent mass of his/her favorite "greenhouse gas", that the earth's atmosphere would increase in temperature.

Hmm, I'm not sure why swapping with the equivalent mass is part of your argument here, vs. just adding some my favorite greenhouse gas (which is water vapor by the way in case anyone has started Christmas shopping yet, hint hint). It's not that this weakens your argument. I just don't see why it's relevant. Also, it's the surface of the earth that would warm. The lower atmosphere would also warm, but the immediate effect on the upper atmosphere would be cooling as less heat would reach it. That's in fact what we're seeing now: a warming trend at or near the earth's surface, and a cooling trend in the upper atmosphere.

IBdaMann wrote:
This necessarily implies that total energy would increase due to that quantity of the "greenhouse gas."

Yes, that's true. The total energy at the earth's surface, and eventually throughout the atmosphere would increase. Of course, the total energy in the universe doesn't increase by this effect. It's just less escapes into space.

IBdaMann wrote:
That necessarily implies that that quantity of "greenhouse gas" caused the creation of the additional energy, ...

What? No. Redistribution of energy doesn't imply creation of it. This is where your argument jumps the rails.

IBdaMann wrote:
... which is a flagrant violation of the 1st LoT.

A valiant attempt to get back on track, but the train of your logic is now lying on its side. Yes, creating energy would violate the 1st LoT, but that's not what the model says is happening. It says the greenhouse gasses are absorbing energy and then re-emitting back towards earth. Maybe you'll say that's a different model, but really that's the only model.

In fact, you've stated elsewhere that you do believe that greenhouse gasses absorb infrared radiation. That's really a tacit affirmation of your belief in the greenhouse effect ... that is unless you believe that the energy once absorbed would remain in the gas molecule forever, or that the photon when re-emitted would necessarily go in the same direction the original photon was going (away from earth), or that the photons re-emitted from the gas molecules that do get redirected back to the earth's surface somehow don't add energy to it. You don't believe any of those things, do you?

IBdaMann wrote:
There is no need to analyze any further.

Agreed.

IBdaMann wrote:
2. Temperature as the Dependent Variable (in violation of Planck's Law). This model usually gains believers from the crowd that previously believed in the model described above but who eventually learned how it violates the 1st LoT and are thus looking to "relocate" their beliefs.

I don't really follow this one. However, the crowd of people who think that the greenhouse effect violates the 1st LoT is vanishingly small. Seriously, it barely registers even in fringe denial sites. Of the few that do think that, I doubt you could find a single one looking to "relocate their beliefs" in the greenhouse, much less a crowd. You believe it because you don't believe in the greenhouse effect. If this crowd of believers is fictional, then I don't see any point discussing what they believe.

One pipe dream ... can you show where Planck concluded that his law contradicted the greenhouse effect. In fact, it was Fourier's earlier work with blackbody radiation that led him to realize that the earth's surface was warmer than could be explained by solar irradiation alone.

IBdaMann wrote:
3. The Convoluted Invisible Mirror Layer (unfalsifiable).

Your analogy of a mirror breaks down on a couple of points. First, mirrors reflect light. Greenhouse gasses absorb light (in the infrared band), then re-emit it in a random direction. Still, that's not so different from partial reflection. The big problem with your analogy is that a mirror is a continuous surface reflecting all light that hits it. The atmosphere is mostly empty space. It's easy for a photon to travel all the way from the earth's surface into space without hitting a single molecule in the atmosphere, much less one that will absorb it. Your idea that greenhouse gasses form a kind of lattice, and every escaping photon must necessary be absorbed and re-emitted at each level is nonsensical. It also ignores that photons re-emitted towards earth can also be absorbed on the way down and then re-emitted back up.

Calling this mirror (that's not a mirror) invisible also misses the mark somewhat. Yes, it's invisible in the sense that it doesn't reflect or emit visible light. However, we do have instruments that can see infrared light, and yes they do detect infrared radiation from the atmosphere, and not just from the direction of the sun.

In regards to this effect being unfalsfiable, I agree it would be difficult to track one photon's tortuous route through the atmosphere. However, if there were measurements showing that greenhouse gasses were increasing in the atmosphere, and also measurements showed that incoming energy was equal to outgoing radiation, then I would take that to falsify the greenhouse effect. However, measurements currently show more radiation coming into the system than is going out, which is why the earth's surface is warming. This tends confirms the greenhouse effect, although it doesn't definitively prove that greenhouse gasses are causing the imbalance.

IBdaMann wrote:
4. Thermal Forcing (in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics). This model simply claims that "climate" uses its magic superpowers to "force" heat to flow from a cooler upper atmosphere to a warmer lower atmosphere in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (2nd LoT). Any such miracle performed by "climate" is called a "forcing."

I've been wondering what you thought of the myth that the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd LoT. This one seems much more widespread. That is, I can find several references to it online. The 1st LoT one, well, that seems to be just you, and maybe two or three other people.

First, the definition of a forcing isn't "magic superpower". It's just something that tends to push a system in a particular direction. For example, a change in the sun's output would be a forcing on temperature. You don't consider that to be "magic", right?

I agree that the 2nd LoT says heat can't flow from a cool area to a warm area, and that seems like what the greenhouse effect says must be happening. However, really the 2nd LoT just says that the net flow of energy from warm to cool must always be positive. It doesn't say that no energy at all can travel from a cool area to a warm. The greenhouse effect doesn't say that more energy flows from the atmosphere to the earth's surface than the other way around, just that some does, and that less energy escapes into space than would if the greenhouse gasses weren't there.


Wow, that was a slog! I hope (but doubt) that it helped you. It's not that I don't respect you. You're playing your hand very well. It's just that it's an extremely weak hand, and a couple of your cards are on fire.

Totototo wrote:

My point was that if there were such measurements and they showed no energy imbalance, despite the increase in greenhouse gasses, that would falsify the greenhouse theory.

IF there were such measurements. But there aren't so it's still unfalsifiable right?

Ceist wrote: There are such measurements. The natural 'greenhouse' effect has always been falsifiable ....

Here are just some of the data sources:

https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/
http://hitran.org/
http://www.bsrn.awi.de/
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/
http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/
http://www.exomol.com/
http://www.astro.uni-koeln.de/cdms/

IBdaMann wrote:

Ceist wrote: There are such measurements. The natural 'greenhouse' effect has always been falsifiable ....

Here are just some of the data sources:

https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/
http://hitran.org/
http://www.bsrn.awi.de/
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/
http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/
http://www.exomol.com/
http://www.astro.uni-koeln.de/cdms/

@ To4, Did you notice how Ceist first assured you that there were valid measurements, but then shifted to semantics about falsifiability, and then provided a barrage of links to....

...nothing.

You're supposed to think there are many datasets of the valid measurements you seek, just one click away!...it's just that you aren't supposed to actually check the links.

There's nothing there. There are no complete datasets of valid measurements. Ceist is living one huge religious delusion.


.

Surface Detail wrote:The links work fine for me.

Try switching off the "Forums and batshit-crazy conspiracy websites only" option in your router settings.

Totototo wrote:
@IBdaMann and Ceist - Thank you both for answering.

Surface Detail wrote:The links work fine for me.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:The links work fine for me.

The links work fine for me as well. That wasn't the point.

They don't lead to what Ceist promised. They're completely bogus in that regard.

Both Ceist and yourself are playing semantics games to distract from the fact that you have neither the science nor the data you insist you have.

If I ever adopt your religion I'll say a Global Warming prayer for you both.



.

Greg wrote:I don't need to insist there aren't multiple versions of the greenhouse effect, and if I did that wouldn't be the reason.

Greg wrote: I don't know what the single solitary science model is.

Greg wrote: In any case, your "Big 4" represented four arguments you have against the greenhouse effect, not different models of it.

Greg wrote: We're not seeing stratospheric cooling?

Greg wrote: I could cite evidence, but you don't accept evidence so that would be futile I guess.

Greg wrote: Planck's Law says that blackbody radiation increases with temperature.

Greg wrote: However it doesn't say that radiation has to go into space.

Greg wrote: Earth is radiating more energy now than it did than it was cooler,...

Greg wrote: but less of that radiation makes it into space and so the earth's surface is still warming.

IBdaMann wrote:
Just for completeness, in your version of the "greenhouse effect" is atmospheric convection considered to be "greenhouse effect" ?

Greg wrote: Energy can only increase in a system if it's created? How about if it's added?

Greg wrote: Greenhouse gasses absorbing IR and re-emitting it in all directions

Greg wrote: In any case, I am confused by your non-response here.

Greg wrote:Did he criticize Tyndall's work as religious miracles, or did he just assume everyone knew that?

Greg wrote: I went back and read his 1824 paper (well, a translation of it). He makes it pretty clear that the temperature of the earth's surface isn't consistent with solar radiation alone, and that earth's internal heat is not much of a factor for surface temperatures.

From On the Temperatures of the Terrestrial Sphere and Interplanetary Space by Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier

The movements of the air and the waters, the extent of the oceans, the elevation and form of the surface, the effects of human industry and all the accidental changes of the Earth's surface modify the temperature of each climate. The basic character of phenomena arising from fundamental causes survives, but the thermal effects observed at the surface are different from those which would be seen without the influence of these accessory causes.

From On the Temperatures of the Terrestrial Sphere and Interplanetary Space by Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier

It is difficult to know just to what extent the atmosphere affects the mean
temperature of the globe, and here the guidance of rigorous mathematical theory
ceases.

Greg wrote: Again, just because I don't agree with your arguments, doesn't mean my arguments are religious beliefs. Attack my arguments with logic, not with insults.

Greg wrote: It's true that you can deny the validity or even the existence of measurements showing the imbalance of energy coming to earth

Greg wrote:My point was that if there were such measurements and they showed no energy imbalance, despite the increase in greenhouse gasses, that would falsify the greenhouse theory.

Greg wrote: Oh, pshaw. Yes, that's right, pshaw! A forcing is just something that tends to produce an effect over time, as I said before.

Greg wrote: As I've said, I'm impressed by the way you present your arguments, even if though they break down in several places.

Greg wrote: My native language is English. I assume you didn't really doubt that, and asking was just another attempt to belittle me,

Greg wrote: .. just like your assertions that everything I say is just religious dogma.

Greg wrote: though you do try to force the principles of physics to fit your ideology instead of the other way around.

Greg wrote: Yes, you've failed to convince me because the points you're making happen to be wrong,

IBdaMann wrote:
I have only presented science.

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
I have only presented science.

You have presented no science at all, just rhetoric. A scientific discussion must be backed up by evidence. You have presented none.

Surface Detail wrote: You have presented no science at all, just rhetoric.

Surface Detail wrote: A scientific discussion must be backed up by evidence. You have presented none.

Surface Detail wrote: I'd rather stay here and encourage IBdaMann to keep on posting.

trafn wrote:
Well, if you change your mind and want to get into some good discussions in time for the Paris UNCCC 2015, PM me.

You could even moderate your own sub-forum!

Surface Detail wrote:
trafn,

I'd rather stay here and encourage IBdaMann to keep on posting. When someone with his good grammar and obvious dedication to the cause is reduced to posting stupid pictures, calling people names, conspiracy theorising and generally defining the English language to suit himself, then you know that the argument is pretty much won. The crumbling edifice of AGW denial sags a little more every time he declares that evidence has no place in science or that peer review is irrelevant.

So no, I'm staying here to encourage the deniers to keep digging!

Ceist wrote: By keeping Sky Dragon Slayers IBdaMann and Into The Night engaged frantically writing so many science-denying comments and posting silly pictures on this tiny forum where there are only a handful of visitors, we are providing a public service.

trafn wrote:

Ceist wrote: By keeping Sky Dragon Slayers IBdaMann and Into The Night engaged frantically writing so many science-denying comments and posting silly pictures on this tiny forum where there are only a handful of visitors, we are providing a public service.

I guess. But that's kinda like engaging members of the Klu Klux Klan over civil rights. Sure, you're on the right side of the argument, but you're never going to convince them otherwise, and if they're just left alone to die off, then all the better. You only give them more attention by paying them attention. Don't forget, most of them have been here for a while: