Tales From The Travels

I received a series of comments over the weekend from a person identifying himself as Gord and David. These comments were in response to a posting I made some time ago about a simple greenhouse gas experiment I had devised. To put it bluntly, the comments were yet another series of crackpot comments about how manmade global warming wasn’t real and this individual claimed he could prove it with a big ‘gotcha’ moment. In short, he thought he was smarter than all of the scientists in the world and could single-handedly prove them all wrong. This guy was going off on so much of a diatribe that I finally had to cut him off and refused to allow any more of his comments.

As bad as this guy was, he was really only the most recent example of this kind of individual. Now, I know that it is impossible to ever convince this guy that he made a mistake. No amount of evidence or logic will ever accomplish that. Such are the benefits when you decide to leave the realm of reality like he has. However, there are other people out there that might still be persuaded before they lose their minds. So, I thought I’d address the issue that this individual has raised. The worst part is that he isn’t even original. This complaint has been around for a while and has been debunked. But, I’ll give it another turn.

This ‘gotcha’ moment consisted of a detail in a figure showing Earth’s energy balance. This figure is well known and is used for illustrative purposes in many briefs. The complaint Gord had was with the red arrow on the right labled ‘Back Radiation’ and showing 324 watts per square meter going in a downward direction.

Gord’s claim is that back radiation cannot move from a ‘cold’ atmosphere to a warm Earth by the laws of thermodynamics. Therefore, this entire figure is wrong and the entire argument of anthropogenic global warming is false. Quite a stretch, but that’s his claim.

Its also completely wrong in more ways than I care to cover here. But, let’s begin with a few.

First, the claim that heat cannot move from a ‘cold’ atmosphere to a ‘hot’ Earth is false. All the laws of thermodynamics say is that heat must move from a hot object to a cold one. The error Gord (and people like him) make is that they assume that the atmosphere is colder than the Earth, a claim that is not true much of the time. In fact, the atmosphere is hotter than the surface during much of the day.

Also, an ‘object’ like the atmosphere is not an object at all, but a vast collection of smaller objects. In this case, the atmosphere is a collection of gaseous molecules. The mistake the global warming skeptics make is to claim that all of the molecules in an object must have the same temperature. In fact, something like the atmosphere will have molecules with a whole range of temperatures. ‘Hot’ molecules in the atmosphere can transfer energy to ‘cold’ molecules in the Earth, even when the temperature in the air is less than the temperature of the surface. In this way, heat can move from an ice cube to the warm air around it because, no matter how cold the ice or how warm the air, there will be molecules in the ice that are hot and molecules in the air that are cold. Its just that there will be many more ‘cold’ molecules in the ice than ‘hot’ ones, and vice versa for the air.

According to Gord’s line of reasoning, blankets would never work. If I were to lay down on a bed, I would be radiating my heat out and cooling off. Not bad on a hot summer night, but I could get very chilly this way in the winter. So, I place a blanket on myself. AH HAH! According to Gord, this makes no difference! That is because the blanket would be cooler than my body and COULD NOT RADIATE HEAT BACK AT ME! The effect, according the the rationale of the global warming skeptics is that heat can ONLY flow from my hot body to the cold one of the blanket and NEVER be radiated back at me. This radiation back at me is ‘back radiation’ and they claim it cannot exist.

Even a small child knows this line of reasoning is false. Yet, I receive this argument on a consistent basis. Its really amazing to talk to these people and see in their eyes how they really think they have shown all the scientists to be wrong.

This is how they are wrong. The blanket and the atmosphere work the same way.

All things with internal energy radiate energy out as electromagnetic radiation in the form of infrared light. And, everything has internal energy, therefore everything is radiating energy. But, when things radiate light, they do so in all directions at once. The blanket on the bed absorbs heat from my body (which is in the form of IR light), then radiates that heat out again. But, now it radiates it in all directions. Some goes upwards, some sideways, some downward back to my body. The rate that I will lose heat depends on the temperature differential between my body and the environment around me. The warmer the surrounding environment is, the slower I will cool off. This is because some of that IR light is reradiated back to me at the same time I’m radiating energy out. So, while I’m radiating out at the same rate with the blanket as I was without it, I am now also absorbing some radiation. The skeptics want to claim that is is not true and is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. But, as I showed above, there are molecules in my body that are colder than others, and there are molecules in the blanket that are hotter than others. Heat will flow from those ‘hot’ molecules in the blanket to the ‘cold’ molecules in my body. If you are skeptical of this, lie on a bed without a blanket for awhile, then cover up with a blanket and see how much of a difference there is.

Really, only a fool would argue that an observed event can’t occur because its impossible by the laws of nature. Their first thought should be that maybe they don’t understand the laws of nature as well has they think they do. But, that just doesn’t occur to them.

The atmosphere works the same way as the blanket. The atmosphere absorbs heat from the ground, then reradiates it away. This radiation goes in all directions. Some will leave the atmosphere and go back into space. (Strange how the skeptics never complain about how the heat is going from a cold atmosphere into hot space.) Some of the radiation will go to the ground. And, some will be absorbed by air molecules to be reradiated yet again. Without this effect, the temperature on the surface of the planet would plunge every night, like it does on the Moon when it drops to below 200 degrees below zero. Instead, our atmosphere acts like the blanket and keeps the planet warm.

All of the radiation that does not go into space is called back radiation.

What is happening to our atmosphere is to increase its ability to store heat, thus making the temperature higher. It is like throwing an extra blanket on the bed.

There is a question that I like to ask these skeptics. They agree that the atmosphere absorbs heat from the Earth. So, I ask them, what ever happens to that heat, if it can’t be reradiated?

I’m still waiting for an answer from them.

Their argument is very silly and shows a lack of understanding of the laws of physics.

But more than that, its only a figure and can’t prove or disprove anything. Even if there really was an error in the figure, that doesn’t mean anything about the physical reality of the dynamics of the Earth’s atmosphere.

I guess this is the modern equivalent of believing in voo-doo dolls. Stick a pin in the figure and disprove global warming.

NOTE: This challenge was submitted as comment to ‘Greenhouse Gas Experiment.” My comments are embedded in the challenge. They are separated from the challenge by rows of asterisks and are preceded with the word “COMMENT.”

*************************************

You said…
“If you feel that you can prove, via the scientific method, that global warming is not real, then you can take my $1000 challenge. It is still sitting there and no one had claimed it. This pretty surprising since so many people like you state with so much certainty that it isn’t, you would have thought someone would have been able to prove it by now. One word of caution, nothing you have written here even begins to approach a valid argument.”

First, I have not made any claims that Global Warming is not real. We are currently still coming out of the last Ice Age and the Earth is warming compared to that reference point.

If you use another reference point, like 50 Million Years ago when the Earth’s temp was +22 deg C then the current Earth temp of +15 deg C clearly shows a long term COOLING trend.

The Past and Future of Climate
(See Fig.9 Climate over Geologic Time)

http://climatepolice.com/Past_Future_climate.pdf

—————
What I say is that the Greenhouse Effect and AGW is completely falsified by established Laws of Science and actual measurements.

Scientific method

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

1.Define the question
2.Gather information and resources (observe)
3.Form hypothesis
4.Perform experiment and collect data
5.Analyze data
6.Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7.Publish results
8.Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

——————–
1. Define the question.

Is the Greenhouse Effect and AGW real?

The links I provided to the Greenhouse Effect and Trenberth’s Energy Balance Diagram all show that the Greenhouse Effect and AGW can only occur by Radiative Heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer Earth surface (This is called Back Radiation). Thus, disproving this will disprove the Greenhouse Effect and AGW.

*********************************************
COMMENT: NOTE: The Trenberth figure that the poster is referring to can be found here:

Contrary to your repeated claims, the figure does not show the Earth being heated by back radiation. The numbers by each of the sources indicates the amount of heat provided by that source. What we see is that 342 watts/square meter enters the Earth’s atmosphere. This is the source of almost all heating of the planet. All other arrows in the diagram indicate what happens to that that source of energy. The back radiation you refer to is energy reradiated by the atmosphere after it has absorbed energy that has, in turn, been reradiated by the surface of the Earth. This amount of energy can be measured easily and with great accuracy. Notice that this is less than the amount of incoming energy. This precludes it from being considered a ‘source’ of energy. No claim is being made that this energy is warming the Earth. Instead, what is being shown is that this process of warming the atmosphere which then reradiates the energy in all directions will work to SLOW the cooling of the Earth. If there was no back radiation, the Earth would cool dramatically at night to temperatures that would be fatal, such as what is witnessed on the surface of the Moon. The Moon has no atmosphere, hence no greenhouse effect.

Your argument fails in two respects.

First, there is certainly no violation of the second law here. That would be like saying a blanket doesn’t keep you warm in the winter. Your body heat is absorbed by the blanket and reradiated in all directions. Some of it is reradiated back to you and keeps you warm.

Second, this is merely a figure for illustrative purposes and cannot prove or disprove anything. This figure is not scientific data and is not part of the scientific method. This is a point that you should embrace, since it disproves your earlier claim. Global warming advocates cannot cite this as proof to how wrong you are because it is merely a figure and not data.

What you are trying to do is make a claim that the figure is wrong, therefore the theory of global warming is invalid. This is a false argument.

*********************************************

2. Gather information and resources (observe)

The information gathered was:
- a number of Greenhouse Effect explainations produced by reputable sources.
- Trenberth’s Energy Balance Diagram (Trenberth’s diagram is widely accepted and is found in virtually all AGW literature including the IPCC)
- a number of Physics links (2nd Law, The Law of Conservation of Energy, Heat Transfer, Electomagnetic Radiation) all widely accepted and used.
- an actual measurement done by the Physics Dept. of Brigham Young University.

*********************************************
COMMENT: Nearly all of these claims have been previously addressed in responses to your previous comments to the ‘Greenhouse Gas Experiment’ posting. They have been shown to be scientifically invalid and don’t need to be readdressed.

I’ll address the Brigham Young experiment you refer to.

Your claim that this experiment proves your point is dependent on your claim that the flow of energy involves some kind of bulk motion and can move in only one direction. Actually, if you read the whole experiment you will see that the experiment disproves your claim. The experimenters state:

“One possible reason that daytime cooling was not greater has to do with the different types of solar radiation. There are two kinds of solar radiation; direct and diffuse. Direct radiation is the portion of light that appears to come straight from the Sun. Only direct radiation can be focused. Diffuse radiation is sunlight that appears to come from all over the sky. When sunlight hits the Earth depending on cloud cover more or less radiation is diffused. [2] During daytime cooling I am turning the solar cooker away from the direct radiation however; I am unable to turn it away from the diffuse radiation.”

This statement, and their supporting data, clearly shows that diffuse heat (i.e., back radiation) is providing warming energy to the oven. The oven is cooling, but heat is coming in from the atmosphere at the same time.

This experiment actually goes to show that the Earth can be kept warmer by back radiation.

Once again, your lack of understanding is fatal to your argument.

*********************************************
3. Form hypothesis.

- The Greenhouse Effect and AGW is FALSE.

4. Perform experiment and collect data.

- The physical experiment and data collected was done by the Physics Dept. of Brigham Young University.
- An analysis of the Greenhouse Effect, Trenberth’s Energy Balance Diagram and a Heat Transfer examples were done.

*********************************************
COMMENT: There is no data or scientific argument here to discuss.

*********************************************

5. Analyze data.

The analysis shows that:

The Greenhouse Effect descriptions and Trenberth’s Energy Balance Diagram violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Electromagnetic Physics, Heat Transfer Physics, The Law of Conservation of Energy and are in conflict with actual measurements.

*********************************************
COMMENT: There is no data or scientific argument here to discuss. Your claims have been investigated and shown to be false.

*********************************************

6. Interpret data and draw conclusions.

Only one violation of Any Law of Science or any valid measurement is required to dis-prove the Greenhouse Effect and AGW.

There are numerous violations of Laws of Science and established Physics. Actual measurements confirm that Back Radiation cannot heat a warmer Earth.

*********************************************
COMMENT: Each of these statements is false.

First, it has been shown that no laws of physics have been violated.

Second, even if some laws were violated, or some hypotheses were shown to be incorrect, it only means that they hypotheses need to be corrected. Your argument is the same as saying we have to throw out all modern medicine if even one patient doesn’t respond the way we think he should.

*********************************************

7. Publish the results.

They have been posted here as well as a number of other sites for review.

*********************************************
COMMENT: They have been reviewed and they fail the test of the scientific method, as shown.

*********************************************
8. Retest

There has never been any counter arguments supported by Laws of Science or measurements to dis-prove my conclusions. in fact, there has never been even One Law of Science or even One measurement produced that shows that Back Radiation reaches the Earth.
——————
CONCLUSION BASED ON THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

The Greenhouse Effect and AGW is not real.

The Greenhouse Effect and AGW is completely falsified by established Laws of Science and actual measurements.

All my statements have the support of Laws of Science and actual measurements.

Only one violation of Any Law of Science or any valid measurement is required to dis-prove the Greenhouse Effect and AGW.

There has never been even One Law of Science or even One measurement produced that shows that Back Radiation reaches the Earth.

Falsifiability
Quotations:
- No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. — Albert Einstein
- The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability. — Karl Popper

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

———————–

There you go, proof, via the scientific method, that anthropogenic global warming is not real and I take your $1000 challenge.

PS: If your $1000 Challenge is anywhere close to being realistic then Your “opinion” is not enough to dismiss what I have posted. You have to use the scientific method as well.

****************************
COMMENT: Just as almost everything you say, this statement is false. I do not need to use the scientific method to prove you wrong. I only have to show that you failed to use the scientific method. The purpose of my challenge was to show that no scientific evidence exists to support the claim of global warming skeptics. You have demonstrated the validity of my claim.
****************************

Consensus ‘opinion’ of any group of AGW ’scientists’ is NOT proof of anything. Correlation is NOT proof of anything.

****************************
COMMENT: It is true that ‘consensus opinion’ is not proof of anything. At the same time, global warming skeptics like to say that as proof of their beliefs, and it isn’t. The fact is ‘consensus opinion’ is a necessary part of the scientific method. All results must be reproducible by anyone. If only one individual, or even a small group, is getting a given result and that result cannot be reproduced by the general community, then it is likely invalid. The claims of cold fusion are a textbook example of how that works. So, while ‘consensus opinion’ is not proof, it is a very excellent indicator. And, making that statement certainly does nothing to prove any errors that may exist.

*****************************

Good luck!

*********************************************
COMMENT AND CONCLUSION:
This ‘proof’ is invalid in virtually all claims that it makes. There is no evidence, so support from the laws of physics, and no scientific argument to support your ‘CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.’

I have no doubt that you will reject the evidence I have supplied to you. You have left the realm of reality and have based all of your conclusions on what you WANT to see, not what is real. I did not spend my time to try and change your mind or educate you, you’ve shown that it would be an impossible task. What I am hoping is that someone that is searching for answers, and might otherwise be persuaded by the likes of you, can see for themselves that your arguments are false.

*********************************************