Arguments
Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?
What the science says...
| Select a level... |
Basic
|
Intermediate
| |||
|
The greenhouse effect is standard physics and confirmed by observations. |
|||||
Climate Myth...
Greenhouse effect has been falsified
"[T]he influence of so-called greenhouse gases on near-surface temperature - is not yet absolutely proven. In other words, there is as yet no incontrovertible proof either of the greenhouse effect, or its connection with alleged global warming.
This is no surprise, because in fact there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect: it is an impossibility. The statement that so-called greenhouse gases, especially CO2, contribute to near-surface atmospheric warming is in glaring contradiction to well-known physical laws relating to gas and vapour, as well as to general caloric theory.' (Heinz Thieme)
At a glance
Did you know that in the late 1700s, astronomers calculated the Earth-Sun distance to within 3% of the correct average value of 149.6 million kilometres? That was an incredible feat for the time, involving painstaking measurements and some pretty serious number crunching, with no help from computers.
Why is that mentioned here, you might ask. It's because not long afterwards, in the 1820s, French physicist Jean Joseph Baptiste Fourier made another crucial calculation. He worked out that at this distance from the Sun, Earth should have been an uninhabitable iceball.
Fourier suggested there must be some kind of insulating 'blanket' within the atmosphere. By the end of that century, Eunice Foote and John Tyndall had proved him quite correct through their experiments with various gases and Svante Arrhenius quantified matters in 1896, even calculating the effect of doubling the concentration of CO2. They had it largely figured out all that time ago.
If you are still sceptical about the existence of a greenhouse effect on Earth, there's something you can do in order to double-check. Go to the moon.
Well, you don't have to go personally, thanks to remote sensing and lunar landings by both unmanned and manned craft. Such intrepid expeditions mean we have a stack of data regarding lunar properties. The moon is pretty much the same distance from the Sun as Earth, but the lunar atmosphere is so thin it may as well not exist at all. There's virtually nothing to inhibit heat transfer, in or out.
In addition, the Moon turns but slowly on its axis compared to Earth. While a mean Solar day here lasts 24 hours, on the Moon it lasts just under a month. You get the best part of a fortnight of relentless Solar heating followed by a similar period of cooling in the long lunar night. So what's the temperature?
In the vicinity of the Lunar equator, daytime temperatures eventually reach a boiling hot 120oC. During the lunar night, that temperature drops away to -130° C. No atmosphere so no greenhouse effect. All that heat accumulated in the long lunar day just shoots straight back out into space. Nights on Earth may be much shorter, but nevertheless in the absence of a greenhouse effect they would be brutal.
Our approximately Earth-sized near neighbour, Venus, closer to the Sun, is different again. It has a massive dense atmosphere mostly consisting of CO2 with a side-helping of sulphur dioxide. Surface atmospheric pressure on Venus is so great that on Earth you would need to go a kilometre down in the ocean to find similar values. The planet rotates very slowly on its axis so days and nights are even longer than on the Moon. But unlike the Moon, Venus is always a hot place. Its surface temperature is over 450oC, day or night. An extreme greenhouse effect maintains that heat.
Remember: no atmosphere, no greenhouse effect and unimaginably cold lunar nights - but the example of Venus shows you can also have too much of a good thing. Earth really is a Goldilocks planet.
Please use this form to provide feedback about this new "At a glance" section. Read a more technical version below or dig deeper via the tabs above!
Further details
Some climate science deniers dispute the existence of the ‘greenhouse effect’. This is where their arguments lurch from silly - to beyond silly. The greenhouse effect keeps the surface temperature of Earth approximately 33oC warmer than it would be if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In other words, without the greenhouse effect, Earth would be effectively uninhabitable.
Fig 1: The greenhouse effect is an analogy not meant as a scientific model of effect; hence, detractors have attacked the wrong model. (source: jg)
How do we know for sure this effect is real? The principle is demonstrated through basic physics, because a bare rock orbiting the Sun at the Earth-Sun distance (mean = 149.6 million kilometres) should be far colder than the Earth actually is. This was realised by Jean Joseph Baptiste Fourier in the 1820s, but the explanation why it was the case was not forthcoming for a few more decades. Fourier considered it to have something to do with the atmosphere having the properties of a kind of insulating blanket.
The existence of Fourier's hypothetical 'blanket' was confirmed by the experimental studies done by Eunice Foote and John Tyndall, working independently on either side of the Atlantic in the 1850s. Foote's results were announced at the 1856 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and published in the American Journal of Science and Arts in the same year. The paper was entitled, ‘Circumstances Affecting the Heat of the Sun’s Rays’, with an excellent recent review by Ortiz and Jackon (2020). A key passage is as follows:
“The highest effect of the sun’s rays I have found to be in carbonic acid gas. An atmosphere of that gas would give to our earth a high temperature; and if as some suppose, at one period of its history, the air had mixed with it a larger proportion than at present, an increased temperature from its own action, as well as from increased weight, must have necessarily resulted.”
In his 1861 paper, “On the absorption and radiation of heat by gases and vapours, and on the physical connexion of radiation, absorption, and conduction” (PDF here), Tyndall stated:
“Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air; while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate.”
Tyndall had in his own words identified methane as an even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Later that century, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius put the numbers on the relationship between greenhouse gas concentrations and surface temperatures. He was able to calculate the effect of doubling the CO2 concentration in the air. The result was a globally-averaged figure of 5-6°C of warming, not that dissimilar to modern values.
Empirical Evidence for the Greenhouse Effect
We only have to look to our moon for evidence of what the Earth might be like, without an atmosphere and greenhouse effect. It's not as though we're short of data about our satellite. While the moon’s surface reaches 120oC (248oF) in direct sunlight at the equator during the long lunar day, when it gets dark the temperature drops down to a frigid -130oC (-202oF).
Since the moon is virtually the same distance from the sun as we are, it is reasonable to ask why at night the Earth doesn’t get as cold as the moon. The answer is that, unlike the Earth, the moon has no insulating blanket of greenhouse gases, because it has virtually no atmosphere at all. Without our protective atmosphere and its greenhouse effect, the Earth would be as barren as our lifeless moon. In the absence of the heat trapped overnight in the atmosphere (and in the ground and oceans) our nights would be so cold that few plants or animals could survive even a single one.
Conclusive evidence for the greenhouse effect – and the role CO2 plays – can also be seen in data from the surface and from satellites. By comparing the Sun’s heat reaching the Earth with the heat leaving it, both things we can measure with great accuracy, we can see that less long-wave radiation (heat) is leaving than arriving. Since the 1970s, less and less radiation is leaving the Earth, as the levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases build up. Since all radiation is measured by its wavelength, we can see that the frequencies being trapped in the atmosphere are the same frequencies absorbed by greenhouse gases.
To conclude, disputing that the greenhouse effect is real is to attempt to discredit centuries of science, the laws of physics and indeed direct observation. Without the greenhouse effect, we would not even be here to argue about it.
Last updated on 26 November 2023 by John Mason. View Archives
Reed Coray @ 194
1. No. See Charlie Brown @ 189.
2. Not a fact. See #1.
3. Not a fact. See #1.
4. Yes.
5. No. See #1.
6. N/A. See #1.
Agreed – your arguments about trapping heat can be dismissed.
For further discussion – you say @195: “Those emissions may very well lead to increased global surface temperature. One thing I'm unsure about is "how big is the increase?". I say not “may” but “will.” The magnitude of the increase by increasing GHG emissions can be calculated with high accuracy. Also @ 182 you discuss ERE and conclude “to achieve a new ERE state when gases are added to the atmosphere, the temperature distribution within the system must change. One component of that temperature distribution is the Earth's surface temperature, which may go up or down.” When GHG are added to the atmosphere, the surface temperature will go up, not down.
Re-read the Basic and Intermediate explanations, then check out this tool to help you with the calculations and your question of “how big is the increase.” Hint: the results are consistent with the science of forcings as described in IPCC WG1 AR5 Physical Science Basis Chap 8 Table 8.2.
https://skepticalscience.com/Introducing-an-Atmospheric-Radiation-Model-to-Learn-About-Global-Warming.html
What's the difference between "atmosphere permanently and completely traps" and "atmosphere traps?" The definition of "trap" used as a verb is
1. Catch (an animal) in a trap. Synonyms: confine, cut off, corner, shut in, pen in, hem in, imprison, hold captive "a rat trapped in a barn“
a) Prevent (someone) from escaping from a place. “Twenty workers were trapped by flames” Synonyms: snare, entrap, ensnare, lay a trap for
b) Have (something, typically a part of the body) held tightly by something so that it cannot move or be freed. “He had trapped his finger in a spring-loaded hinge”
None of the above implies "permanently and completely" can't leave, they simply imply "can't leave." Good luck finding a non-technical dictionary that has a word that whose definition contains the words "permenantly and completely traps."
Ask a random person on the street if there is difference between "can't leave" and "permanently and completely can't leave." I think you're going to get a puzzled look.
In discussions of the greenhouse effect, most people do use "trap" in the sense you mean. But the average person rarely enters into a greenhouse effect discussion. So if you enter into a discussion of the geenhouse effect with the average person, he won't be aware of the subtle difference you imply. For example, if you pulled a coin out of your pocket and told the average person you have encased the coin in a substance that traps heat, I believe he's going to believe that heat can't leave the coin. He's not going to ask you "Do you mean permanently and completely not leave the coin" or simply "not leave the coin?"
When discussing something with the average person, assigning a meaning to a word that is deviates from the meanings commonly found in a generic dictionary is to confuse the person. If you told some one you've wrapped a coin in a substance that "permanently and completely traps the heat in the coin," what would you say if his response was: Do you mean "permanently and completely trap" or "really permanently and really completely trap?"
In technical discussions with people knowledgeable in the field it may be okay to use words that have a subtle meaning, but to use those words in the sense of the subtle meaning in conversations with lay people is to muddle the discussion. If you're trying to convince the average person that atmospheric greenhouse gases can trap heat and you don't qualify what you mean by trap with the caveat that "I don't mean "permenantly and completely", you're not communicating, you're obfuscating.
I think we've come to an impass. Regarding the meaning of "trapping heat," nothing I say will change your mind, and nothing you say will change mine. Stalemate. I'll leave the decision as to who is right to the public, but know that every time I hear someone make the claim that greenhouse gases trap heat, I'm going add: "he/she doesn't mean the heat is permenantly and completely trapped, he/she means the heat is temporarily trapped."
Reed Coray @ 202
In so doing, you would be spreading misinformation and you would be misrepresenting my explanation. I don't take kindly to that. It is not temporary, and as I have already explained, it is not inaccurate.
"So if you enter into a discussion of the geenhouse effect with the average person, he won't be aware of the subtle difference you imply. "
Specifically what "subtle difference" are you talking about? In talking about "adiabatic walls", it is you that is introducing the issue of permanence and completeness, not me, and not those explaining the greenhouse effect as "trapping heat".
I note you have not addressed the examples I gave. Is it reasonable in a discussion with a lay-person to talk of a blanket "trapping heat" or of a thermos flask "trapping heat"? Yes or no.
I have taken the time to directly answer your questions (although you have done nothing so far with those answers), so please give direct answers to mine.
"Regarding the meaning of "trapping heat," nothing I say will change your mind, and nothing you say will change mine. "
Speak for yourself. I am open to rational argument, such as a good answer to my question about blankets and thermos flasks "trapping heat", and willing to change my mind.
Reed Coray @ 202:
Well, at least you admit that you can't change your mind.
You have confirmed my statement, repeated in comment 199: " as I pointed out in #188, "...you create such a strict literal meaning to the words 'trap heat' that is unjustified."
FYI, we haven't changed our minds because you have not provided a convincing argument, and you keep avoiding questions that are asked.
You have presented one, and only one, definition of "trap", without citing a source. Most dictionaries provide several variations/definitions of "trap" suitable for different circumstances. Once again, you are cherry picking to suit your position.
Let's try another source for a definition of "trap": the Cambridge dictionary. It provides several definitions for "trap", one of which is:
Let's try the Collins Dictionary. One part of their definition says:
Of course, you will not find that convincing, because you probably believe that the Cambridge and Collins dictionaries are part of the Grand Plot to "manipulate truth and facts" in regard to human influences on climate.
...or maybe they just understand the colloquial use of "trap" better than you do.
Here is another one, from the Britannica dictionary:
Face it, Reed. Your argument is a dog that won't hunt.
Reed Coray,
Indeed, some people will try to argue that this matter of increased levels of ghgs causing an increase of the surface temperature is just a matter of opinion ... meaning there are no reasons why anyone would ‘have to’ change their belief.
That is an unscientific way to think about this matter which has a well-developed evidence-based understanding that is open to well-reasoned evidence-based improvements.
In addition to the comments by Others, especially Charlie Brown @201, I will specifically address your use of: may and unsure. I will also comment regarding 'permanent trapping' of heat energy.
Increased levels of ghgs ‘will’ (not may) increase the surface temperature. The current understanding is a range of potential magnitude of warming for a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm. But the low end of that ‘range’ is a significant increase. The only thing that is ‘unsure’ is how much worse than the very bad ‘best case’ the warming due to increasing CO2 levels ‘will’ be.
Note that the understood low end of the range of warming due to a doubling of CO2 levels is increasing, being (has been) updated ‘up’, because the current 50% increase of CO2, to 420 ppm from 280 ppm, has produced significantly more than a 1.0 C increase of surface temperature.
Building on the point of my comment @186, the increased ‘amount of trapped energy’ due to increased amounts of ghgs and the resulting increased average surface temperature is ‘essentially permanent’. It will last as long as the increased level of ghgs occurs. And increased CO2 levels will last a very long time, unless humans implement actions to effectively ‘essentially permanently remove’ CO2 from the atmosphere.
Hopefully, you were being hyperbolic when you declared that your mind was ‘permanently made-up regarding this matter’. The ability to learn is a critical thinking ability that enables humans to sustainably, permanently, improve things.
Dikran Marsupial at 19:53 PM on 3 April 2025 wrote: "I am open to rational argument, such as a good answer to my question about blankets and thermos flasks 'trapping heat', and willing to change my mind."
Okay try this. Take two vacuum thermos bottles as nearly identical as possible. The vacuum region of each thermos bottle surrounds its chamber. Punch a small hole in one of the thermos bottles (letting gas into the vacuum region of that thermos bottle), and choose for that gas CO2 (a heat-trapping, greenhouse gas). Reseal the hole so that the CO2 gas can't leave the insulation region." Call the thermos bottle without CO2 gas the vacuum thermos bottle. Call the thermos bottle with CO2 gas the CO2 thermos bottle.
In the vacuum thermos bottle, a vacuum surrounds the thermos bottle's chamber. In the CO2 thermos bottle, a heat-trapping greenhouse gas (CO2) surrounds the thermos bottle's chamber.
Place equal amounts of coffee heated to the same temperature in each thermos bottle chamber. Place both thermos bottles side-by-side in an external envirornment whose temperature is lower than the temperature of the heated coffee. Eventually the temperature of the coffee in both thermos will reach and stablize at the temperature of the external environment; but the CO2 thermos bottle will reach that temperature much more rapidly than the vacuum thermos bottle. If CO2 gas traps heat, how is this possible?
When describing to a lay person what is happening, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say "a greenhouse gas (CO2) is freeing heat" to say "a greenhouse gas (CO2) is trapping heat?"
The above experiment is a comparison of "rates of heat loss," not a comparison of temperatures. But the experiment can easily to modified to be a comparison of temperatures. Simply place equal or nearly equal constant-rate heat sources in the chambers along with the coffee. As long as the heat source is outputing heat at a constant rate, the temperatures of the coffee in both thermos bottles will reach a stable temperature higher than the environment's temperature, but the stable temperature of the vacuum thermos bottle will be higher than the stable temperature of the CO2 thermos bottle. As with the "rate of heat loss" comparison, for the temperature comparison it is more correct to say the CO2 gas "frees heat" than it is to say the CO2 gas "traps heat."
hus, in thermos bottles CO2 gas doesn't "trap heat" it "frees heat."
Reed Corey @208 :
You have use multiple paragraphs of words to point to an "experiment" where a vacuum (plus silvered surfaces) does a better job of trapping heat than does silvered surfaces plus CO2 gas.
Which really does nothing to support your argument (such as it is).
Your argument being: that words are important and realities are not.
Reed Coray, you have not addressed my question, just evaded it with a thought experiment of your own. My question was whether it was reasonable in a discussion with a lay-person to say that a blanket keeps you warm by "trapping heat" or whether a thermos flask keeps tea warm by "trapping heat". How about a greenhouse (is the Cambridge dictionary that uses it as an example usage of "trap" incorrect?).
I have seen this time and time again in discussions with "contrarians", which is that I am happy to give very straight answers to direct questions, but they are not. The reason is that they know that their argument collapses if they give a straight answer.
So are you going to give a straight answer to my question, or are you going to continue with the evasion.
"In the vacuum thermos bottle, a vacuum surrounds the thermos bottle's chamber. In the CO2 thermos bottle, a heat-trapping greenhouse gas (CO2) surrounds the thermos bottle's chamber."
You appear not to understand the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect if that thought experiment was intended to be relevant to that question.
Reed Coray @208,
New questions:
Why doesn’t your thermos experiment compare the cavities being filled with CO2 vs Air (a Nitrogen Oxygen blend), or (Air with 280 ppm CO2) vs (Air with 560 ppm CO2)?
Do you agree that those comparisons would be more valid than CO2 vs vacuum?
I am struggling to see what it is gained by these sematic arguments. The real language of the GHE is the hard cold language of physics and maths, especially the Radiative Transfer Equations. No matter how these are interpretated in layman's language, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere warms the earth surface. The equations predict things like the amount of radiation received at the surface or at the top of the atmosphere and the spectrum of that radiation with exquisite accuracy. Also, see this paper for direct observation of CO2 increasing the greenhouse effect at the earth surface. Suggesting this is not real based on misunderstanding greenhouse theory is futile. You are fooling only yourself.
Question: "Why doesn’t your thermos experiment compare the cavities being filled with CO2 vs Air (a Nitrogen Oxygen blend), or (Air with 280 ppm CO2) vs (Air with 560 ppm CO2)?"
Answer: My thermos bottle experiment didn't compare the cavity's being filled with 'CO2 vs Air (a Nitrogen Oxygen blend), or (Air with 280 ppm CO2) vs (Air with 560 ppm CO2)' because when discussing global warming those gases are seldom mentioned. I picked the gas (CO2) that most people argue is the primary cause of harmful global warming.
Question: "Do you agree that those comparisons would be more valid than CO2 vs vacuum?"
Answer: More valid for what— Earth surface warming, the behavior of thermos bottles, etc? I was responding to Dikran Marsupial's statement: "I am open to rational argument, such as a good answer to my question about blankets and thermos flasks "trapping heat", and willing to change my mind." He mentioned blankets and thermos flasks. I chose thermos flasks.
Reed Coray @ 208, 213:
You continue to avoid the real question. It may be that you don't understand the question - but I agree with Dikran that you probably simply don't want to answer his question.
At least you have abandoned your attempt to claim that "trap heat" is not a term that would appear in "a generic dictionary".
Let's play word games again, and look at another definition of "trap" - this time as a noun. It comes from one of the links I gave earlier.
Your attempts to divert attention away into more word games is obviously because of the "unpleasant situation which you have got into and from which it is difficult or impossible to escape". It is also a trap of your own making - posting poorly-thought-out arguments in a public forum, where others are free to point out your errors.
[Note that all three of the dictionaries that I referenced in comments 205 and 206 provide similar definitions.]
I agree with Dikran @ 210, when he says that your sort of behaviour is common from "contrarians". Avoid the questions. Avoid dealing with the arguments presented. Avoid admitting to the glaring errors of logic and inconsistency that are pointed out to you.
Word of advice: when you find yourself in a deep hole, stop digging.
scaddenp @ 212:
My guess is that Reed started these semantic word games because he has nothing else to present. Maybe he actually finds it convincing, but it is clear that he has not presented any substantive arguments against the science.
This response is to Dikran Marsupial at 02:14 AM on 7 April 2025. I struggle putting comments on this blog in the right spot.
Your statement: “My question was whether it was reasonable in a discussion with a lay-person to say that a blanket keeps you warm by ‘trapping heat’ or whether a thermos flask keeps tea warm by ‘trapping heat’”.
My response: Yes, it is reasonable when interacting at an educational level. But It is not reasonable when presenting a scientific argument for the purpose of persuading someone to change his way of life.
My question to you: Forget global warming for a minute, if as part of an effort to get a lay person to appreciably change his way of life, is it okay to use scientifically invalid arguments?
Your comments: (a) "How about a greenhouse (is the Cambridge dictionary that uses it as an example usage of "trap" incorrect?)." and (b) "The most popular dictionary and thesaurus for learners of English. Find meanings and definitions of words with pronunciations and translations in various languages."
My response: Could you send me the URL where the Cambridge dictionary uses greenhouse as an example usage of "trap?" When I Googled "Cabridge Dictionary Online" the URL that appeared was "https://www.bing.com/search?q=cambridge+dictionary+online&qs=HS&pq=cambrid&sc=10-7&cvid=69BDBA17495D45A3B8FE6E7E187CDE83&FORM=CHRDEF&sp=1&lq=0" The first entry that appeared on the screen was: "Cambridge Dictionary | English Dictionary, Translations & Thesaurus..." When I clicked on that the URL what appeared was: "https://dictionary.cambridge.org/"
When I entered "greenhouse" as the word to be defined, the word "trap" appeared nowhere on the screen. A link did appear for the phrase 'greenhouse effect." When I clicked on that link, three definitions of greenhouse effect appeared. (1) "an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere (= mixture of gases around the earth), that is believed to be the cause of a gradual warming of the surface of the earth," (2) “A reference to the American Dictionary which defined the greenhouse effect to be: ‘the gradual warming of the earth because of heat trapped by carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere’." (3) “A reference to the BUSINESS ENGLISH dictionary which defined the greenhouse effect to be: ‘an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere (= mix of gases which surround the earth), which is believed to cause the surface of the earth to become gradually warmer and to be a threat to its future’.”
At that point I quit my online search. The "American Dictionary" definition did include a reference to "trapped heat, but the Cambridge dictionary did so only as a reference to the American Dictionary. In any event, all of those dictionaries are targeted at the general public. As such, “every-day” dictionaries omit detailed scientific arguments and replace it with phraseology that is familiar to the common man. If there is a valid complex scientific explanation that shows an error in the common-man definition, that explanation will be omitted from the dictionary. Thus, when you argue that it’s okay to use terminology from an every-day dictionary to discuss a scientific matter with a lay person, you are correct.
However, that doesn’t establish the scientific validity of the discussion, it only means that the same terminology is used both in both the “definition” and the “discussion.” So, when an every-day dictionary uses the phrase “trap heat,” it establishes that using the phrase in discussions with lay people is a common practice and therefore acceptable, but it does not establish the scientific validity of the phrase “trap heat.”
Your comment: "I have seen this time and time again in discussions with "contrarians", which is that I am happy to give very straight answers to direct questions, but they are not. The reason is that they know that their argument collapses if they give a straight answer."
Question to you: Are my above answers "straight answers to your direct questions?”
Your comment: "You appear not to understand the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect if that thought experiment was intended to be relevant to that question."
My response: My understanding of the ‘basic mechanisms of the greenhouse effect” is as follows. (a) the absorption of IR emitted from the Earth's surface prevents some of that IR from reaching space (i.e., leaving the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system), (b) the energy in the IR that doesn’t reach space is absorbed by gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, and (c) a portion of that absorbed energy is radiated back to the Earth's surface thereby increasing the rate the Earth's surface absorbs IR, which in turn acts to increase the Earth’s surface temperature.
If my understanding of the mechanism is wrong or incomplete, please explain why.
Responding in kind to your statement that “I (i.e., you) have seen this time and time again in discussions with "contrarians", which is that I am happy to give very straight answers to direct questions, but they are not. The reason is that they know that their argument collapses if they give a straight answer.”
I make a similar comment. "I have seen time and time again in discussions with "global warming advocates," that the use of precise scientific terminology is seldom employed. The reason being that most global warming advocates are at best minimally knowledgeable of the science, and if asked to explain the details of the underlying physics, can’t.
@216 :
Very entertaining, Reed Coray.
It is amusing how you keep moving your goalposts. I am interested to see when you do eventually come full circle.
Regarding mechanisms, per your 14th paragraph (or 13th ~ depending on counting odd line usage) . . . you list mechanisms (a) and (b) and (c) . . . and you have gotten all three wrong substantially.
Perhaps you were meaning a joke ~ but otherwise, it demonstrates that you need to go away for many hours, and educate yourself scientifically on the physics of Earth's atmosphere. Then, when you do get to understand "Greenhouse Effect" you may (or may not) choose to split hairs about the semantic meanings of English words.
But first, please educate yourself ~ rather than flounder about as now.
Reed Coray What you are doing is known as a "Gish Gallop" which is a rhetorical device used to prevent in depth discussion of any partiular point by constantly raising new ones while the previous points have not yet been settled. So I'll answer the first point or two and we can go badk to the other isse when those are settled.
You replied to my question about whether it is O.K. to talk of a blanket or a thermos flask trapping heat:
The explanation of the greenhouse effect trapping heat is only being used in an "educational" level here, so that people who don't understand the greenhouse effect might start to understand the very basics.
I think this is what is called "motivated reasoning". It appears that you are making a special case here because you don't like the consequences of someone understanding the greenhouse effect. It is a political objection masquerading as a scientific one.
Personally, I am not asking anybody to change their way of life - I just want the public debate to be well informed. That includes the science.
As I have pointed out to you repeatedly, saying the greenhouse effect "traps" heat is not a scientifically invalid one. It isn't the best explanation, but as a starting point it is completely reasonable. You have already conceded that by admitting it is O.K. to talk of a blanket or a thermos flask as "trapping heat".
You have already been given it (by Bob Loblaw), here it is again
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/trap
It says:
You give the explanation of the greenhouse effect:
As I thought, there is quite a lot missing there. Firstly the outbound IR that is absorbed by GHG is distributed to the bulk atmosphere by collisions. Sometimes collisions cause the bulk atmosphere to give a molecule of a GHG enough energy to reradiate. That is quite important as it is a common source of misunderstanding. Next most of the outbound IR is absorbed by GHGs and re-rediated and some of that is absorbed further up. The key thing is not that IR is absorbed near the surface, but the properties of the layer in the atmosphere from which it *can* escape to space. Due to the lapse rate, this layer is *cold* and hence GHGs there radiate less (including into space). It is also missing the key point (and why it is called the "greenhouse effect") which is that the atmosphere is largely transparent visible and some UV light, so the surface is mostly warmed by the incoming UV & visible light from the Sun. The atmosphere is warmed from beneath. So good start, but the lapse rate is crucial.
"a) the absorption of IR emitted from the Earth's surface prevents some of that IR from reaching space (i.e., leaving the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system),"
"prevented from leaving" - you mean like it is trapped or something? ;o)
Now guess what, that is only an approximation to what actually happens, leaving out lots of important detail (just a first year undergrad explanation). Science is full of that sort of thing and there is no clean distinction between "science" and "not science" when it comes to levels of explanation - it depends on the audience. As an example, I just read Katie Mack's book on the ways the universe might end, and it turns out the explanation of Hawking radiation (virtual particles forming at the evnt horizon, one escapes and the other doesn't) isn't actually what happens, it is just the closest you will get for an audience that hasn't spent three years studying maths as undergraduate level.
You are being inconsistent here, apparently because you don't like the idea of someone making a well-informed decision to change their lifestyle.
Reed @ 216:
It is obvious that you are not even bothering to read much of what people say in response to your comments here.
To give you one hint: some of the comments include links to relevant information. Your browser will probably highlight those links by underlining the the text and/or changing the display colour where the link is buried. The displayed text will not be the link itself, but clicking on the displayed text will take you to the link. Your browser will probably pop up the details of the link when you hover over the text - most likely in the bottom left corner of your browser window. This is basic Web Browsing 101.
For example, here is a link to your most recent comment. Here is another one, but I have chosen to display the actual link as text, instead of displaying "here is a link to your most recent comment" : https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=98&p=9#143775
You were previously given instructions on navigating the comments on this web site in the green Moderator's box below this post of yours. Please follow that link, and read those instructions again.
You complain:
As Dikran has already pointed out, in comment 218 (note how I have created a link pointing directly to that comment), I already gave you that link in comment 205. I also quoted the definition in plain text, which Dikran has repeated. I also gave you a link to the Collins Dictionary definition in that comment, and a link to the Britannica dictionary definition in comment 206.
Instead of spending time trying to justify your preconceived notions or chasing a new squirrel, why don't you try to spend time actually reading what others are saying and spend time trying to understand it?
Reed Coray,
In your response @213 to my ‘new questions’ @211 you state
My thermos bottle experiment didn't compare the cavity's being filled with 'CO2 vs Air (a Nitrogen Oxygen blend), or (Air with 280 ppm CO2) vs (Air with 560 ppm CO2)' because when discussing global warming those gases are seldom mentioned.
Are you seriously trying to 'use such a lame claim' to argue that in the context of the effect of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere it is more valid to compare CO2 to a vacuum than to compare ‘a greenhouse gas’ to ‘non-greenhouse gases’ (or to compare different amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere)?
You established the context for all the discussion that has followed your comment @180 where you made the following questionable declaration:
...(“the Earth's surface is warmed by-heat-trapping greenhouse gases”) is invalid because heat cannot be trapped—i.e., an adiabatic wall does not exist in nature. If heat can’t be trapped, any and all claims that rely on the existence of heat-trapping material or trapped heat constitute misinformation.
I believe the phrases "trapped heat" and "heat trapping" are used to incorrectly explain a physical process in a way that will resonate with the general public.
The discussion that has developed is in the context of whether it is ‘misleading’ to say ‘greenhouse gases trap heat’ in a public ‘plain language’ presentation of the scientific understanding of greenhouse gases.
In your response to my question @181 you conclude with the following:
If your theoretical estimate of Earth surface warming requires the existence of 'trapped heat' (i.e., your theoretical argument is that Earth surface warming will occur because some gases 'trap heat' within the lower troposphere), then your theoretical argument is nonsense because heat can't be trapped.
As I said, I'm not sure an 'easily understood term' exists for Earth surface temperature change.
In spite of being provided with a diversity of reasoned justifications for the validity of saying that “the Earth's surface is warmed by heat-trapping greenhouse gases” you persist in the belief that “...the phrases "trapped heat" and "heat trapping" are used to incorrectly explain a physical process...”
Responding to my new questions @211 the way you did @213 is just another tragic result of ‘desperately trying to maintain an invalid belief’ about the validity of saying that “the Earth's surface is warmed by heat-trapping greenhouse gases”.
In closing I will note that by comparing CO2 to a vacuum in the thermos bottle experiment you are implying that the global average surface temperature of the Earth would be warmer (more of the incoming energy would be trapped at the surface) without an atmosphere containing greenhouse gases. Claiming that a vacuum would keep more energy at the surface would appear to be a clear case of ‘incorrectly explaining an understood physical process’ (in the context that you established for this discussion).