As I have described previously on this blog there appears to be a group of people, here denoted the Lukewarmers, whose mission is to convince people that the Greenhouse Effect is not the Greenhouse Effect.
Or perhaps it should be rephrased as follows: The Greenhouse Effect™ does not refer to the Greenhouse Effect. Why would they do that? Because the Greenhouse Effect™ is now so deeply ingrained into the public consciousness that it would be simply inadmissible to let people know what it actually refers to.
What it refers to in the climatology literature is a heat pump composed of so called greenhouse gases that act so as to cool the stratosphere and warm the surface at the same time, and it does so with an astonishing efficiency. The absurdity of this is obvious, especially since it can be so easily disproven by simply looking at the planetary data.
For this reason the Lukewarmers have devised at least two strategies to deal with this dilemma, one intended for gullible ordinary citizens and another one for gullible scientists. In short they go as this:
1. The Greenhouse Effect is the Tyndall Effect
2. The Greenhouse Effect is the Neanderthal Effect
We will deal with these in the proper order:
1. The strategy to re-define the Greenhouse Effect as the Tyndall Effect is common in many videos available online, often intended for defenseless school children. By shining light from some particular lamp on two different containers of gas one can apparently detect a difference in the heating rate between the two containers.
One of the things you could object to is the use of a lamp in the first place. Why can’t you do anything unplugged?
The answer would probably be: Because in the lab we don’t have access to the sun. I could accept that answer if it hadn’t been that according to the canonical description of the Greenhouse Effect the greenhouse gases are supposed to let the sunshine through, it is the terrestrial radiation that is supposedly being trapped.
Moreover, if we are to believe the radiation intensities used in standard climatology there ought to be an abundance of terrestrial radiation in the lab, hence I do not understand the use of the lamp.
2. I guess the Lukewarmers have somewhat sensed the above inconsistencies, hence the need for another strategy intended for deniers with scientific training. This one is much more cunning and deceitful, that is probably the reason why so many people have difficulties dealing with the following argument. The argument is: The Greenhouse Effect is the Neanderthal Effect.
The Neanderthal Effect is simply the obstruction of radiative cooling caused by blankets, furs, aluminium foil on light bulbs, most probably the atmosphere, in other words a very ordinary effect known even by the Neanderthalians.
A common reply by skeptics is something like the following:
-Yes, the obstruction to cooling is real but it is not caused by “back-radiation”.
Oh, no no no no no…….
You went into the trap. Now you have, for free, given the Lukewarmers an extra degree of confusion:
3. The Greenhouse Effect is whatever effect is caused by “back-radiation”
The problem is that we don’t know exactly what causes the Neanderthal Effect. Hence, you cannot say anything about the role of back-radiation in this case. All we know is that it is very ordinary and is caused by virtually any material, including CO2. And since it is caused by any material there is no justification picking out some particular “greenhouse gases” responsible for some particular “Greenhouse Effect”. The latter is simply an illegitimate scientific concept.
In summary:
What the Lukewarmers want you to believe is that:
Radiative heat transfer is special
CO2 is a special gas (as regards thermodynamics)
Whereas the truth reads:
Radiative heat transfer is ordinary
CO2 is an ordinary gas (as regards thermodynamics)
About the author: Anders Nordenfelt is a physics professor at King Juan Carlos University, Spain. He is Swedish by birth and obtained his PhD from the University of Gothenburg. He has 12 peer-reviewed papers published at researchgate.net Anders has varied interests. He first began following Principia Scientific International in 2013 when he was looking into studies about AIDS. He’s a keen piano player and studies the physics of body kinematics in relation to the piano.During his PhD research he applied his mathematical prowess in studying how carbon nanotubes and graphene can create faster computers and better mobile phones. See: phys.org
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
I’m old enough to have lived through both climate scams, the coming ice age of the 70’s and of course now the global oven BS. One thing is crystal clear and factual. Those in power, and I mean absolute control, will change the very definition of words to suit their narrative if needed. Let’s think. Have we seen this, most notably, at anytime in the last few years? With “vaccines”? With now the definition of basic economic concepts like what is a “recession”?
I recall Bill Clinton redefining what a “sexual act/relation” was live on TV and the media covered for him. They supported what should’ve been a laughable moment. The very idea that the emperor can parade around naked and everyone just applauds his beautiful and regal clothing. Ha!
I will bend the knee if needed, kiss the ring if required, and retire into the woods to be left alone by these nut jobs. I sense a social collapse way before any climate issues, real or imagined. Mouse utopia was the greatest warning we all (myself excluded) ignored. You can see society eroding more and more, these sickly and self-isolating mass shooters are an easy prime example of many such cases.
The problem is that there is a big cohort of people who think they are granted and entitled the power to lie to everyone to suit their whims. Once the public KNOWS that they are 100% being lied to, the people WILL hold those liars to account.
IMO the water cycle cools Planet Earth. WV is a coolant.
CO2 is a gas and all gasses expand and rise when heated, thus a coolant.
CO2 cannot act like a blanket and “trap” heat, because a blanket is a solid. [slows down heat loss]
The GHG Theory is bunk as far as I am concerned.
All the backers of AGW are either totally ignorant or purposely backing the lies of the UN IPCC.
Here is funny part about the postulated role of CO2 as a warm forcing effect, when the world warms up it loses far more energy to space than CO2 is capable of generating warm forcing which means CO2 NEVERS generate any true warming anyway.
That is why they generated the bogus POSITIVE FEEDBACK loop to get around that failure of the CO2 molecule to be a warming forcer which is why you and everyone else should be all over the warmist/alarmists continual failure to show the existence of the PF Loop, where is the freaking Tropospheric “Hot Spot” the one they predicted would show up because of the PF Loop hypothesis says it is supposed to be there!
The whole atmosphere acts like a blanket Alan, only a blanket hung from a branch shading you.
I cannot for the life of me believe that anyone could be fooled into believing that an atmosphere between direct sunlight and the surface they are standing on, absorbing or reflecting 25/30 percent of the sun’s rays makes the surface they are standing on warmer, than if it wasn’t there.
We have an ongoing experiment to observe and describe mathematically: Earth and Moon have the same albedo and are the same distance from the Sun. So why do they have different temperatures? Let’s see the numbers and the explanation. Any messing around in the meantime is a waste of time and money, except in the eyes of those on the receiving end, who will be glad to mess around as long as possible so don’t want or need a solution. Science is a drag: if you’re not careful it it might lead to the truth.
James, the Earth does not have the same albedo as the Moon. You are ignoring the fact that water is a multi-layered absorber but not a multi-l;ayered emitter, it only emits on the top level. The standard calculation is wrong. Also, the standard method makes no account for the lapse rate effect of the atmosphere. https://www.newscats.org/the-watery-planet-effect/
The comments under the heading Tyndall Effect remind me of an experiment performed by Prof Andrea Sella in a TV programme about climate. He used a light, a magnifying glass and a piece of gun cotton. The light represented the sun and the gun cotton the surface of the earth. The magnifying glass was trickery to make the experiment work. Firstly, by concentrating the light beam the gun cotton burst into flame. Showing that light contains heat. Next the experiment was repeated with a tube of carbon dioxide in the light beam and this time the gun cotton did not light. Showing exactly the opposite of what was being claimed – CO2 in the atmosphere means the surface is cooler. The light beam was scattered by the CO2 and the magnifying glass could not concentrate it. Take away the magnifying glass and nothing would have happened to the gun cotton in either case.
I wonder whether the experimenter really understood what he was doing. Certainly the producers of the programme were too stupid to work it out.
Surely we all know warm wet air rises, cools by expansion, the water in it condenses and releases its heat to the air, which is dried, and falls again, but warmer than when it started to rise, having gained heat, the latent heat of the humidity that condensed. This is the so-called greenhouse effect, the well known foehn or chinook. That powerful heat engine that lifts all our rain and snow into the hills and releases the corresponding amount of heat as defined by the second law.
Hi James,
You are confusing cause and effect. Heating of a gas causes that gas to expand (UGL). It is not the expansion and contraction that cause heating and cooling. It is the same confusion as a loss of kinetic energy of a gas molecule causes it to descend in the atmosphere. That “falling”does not result in an increase in the kinetic energy of the molecule.
Herb
Actually this is one of the most misunderstood notions in science. We are told that 1) clear moist air contains gaseous H2O and 2) that as a consequence it is less dense per volume molecularly, and 3) as a consequence it rises due to being more buoyant than the “denser” drier air.
In actuality clear moist air contains invisibly small nanodroplets of liquid H2O (see H2O phase diagram for details). It is always 3% to 7% heavier per volume (more dense) than surrounding air. There is no convection/buoyancy involved with earth’s weather. There is no phase change and the phrase “latent heat of condensation” is meaningless pseudoscience. Uplift of moist air only happens in storms and it always is the result of low pressure being introduced at higher altitude by vortices.
We have all been greatly misinformed by pretend scientists who call themselves meteorologists who absolutely refuse to do real experiments to verify the diatribe of misinformation that flows from this phony discipline.
A larger problem is all of the goons and pretenders that having been educated in meteorology’s phony rhetoric thinks that repeating it makes them look intelligent.
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Bill
| #
I’m old enough to have lived through both climate scams, the coming ice age of the 70’s and of course now the global oven BS. One thing is crystal clear and factual. Those in power, and I mean absolute control, will change the very definition of words to suit their narrative if needed. Let’s think. Have we seen this, most notably, at anytime in the last few years? With “vaccines”? With now the definition of basic economic concepts like what is a “recession”?
I recall Bill Clinton redefining what a “sexual act/relation” was live on TV and the media covered for him. They supported what should’ve been a laughable moment. The very idea that the emperor can parade around naked and everyone just applauds his beautiful and regal clothing. Ha!
I will bend the knee if needed, kiss the ring if required, and retire into the woods to be left alone by these nut jobs. I sense a social collapse way before any climate issues, real or imagined. Mouse utopia was the greatest warning we all (myself excluded) ignored. You can see society eroding more and more, these sickly and self-isolating mass shooters are an easy prime example of many such cases.
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
The problem is that there is a big cohort of people who think they are granted and entitled the power to lie to everyone to suit their whims. Once the public KNOWS that they are 100% being lied to, the people WILL hold those liars to account.
Reply
Allan Shelton
| #
IMO the water cycle cools Planet Earth. WV is a coolant.
CO2 is a gas and all gasses expand and rise when heated, thus a coolant.
CO2 cannot act like a blanket and “trap” heat, because a blanket is a solid. [slows down heat loss]
The GHG Theory is bunk as far as I am concerned.
All the backers of AGW are either totally ignorant or purposely backing the lies of the UN IPCC.
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
Here is funny part about the postulated role of CO2 as a warm forcing effect, when the world warms up it loses far more energy to space than CO2 is capable of generating warm forcing which means CO2 NEVERS generate any true warming anyway.
That is why they generated the bogus POSITIVE FEEDBACK loop to get around that failure of the CO2 molecule to be a warming forcer which is why you and everyone else should be all over the warmist/alarmists continual failure to show the existence of the PF Loop, where is the freaking Tropospheric “Hot Spot” the one they predicted would show up because of the PF Loop hypothesis says it is supposed to be there!
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
The whole atmosphere acts like a blanket Alan, only a blanket hung from a branch shading you.
I cannot for the life of me believe that anyone could be fooled into believing that an atmosphere between direct sunlight and the surface they are standing on, absorbing or reflecting 25/30 percent of the sun’s rays makes the surface they are standing on warmer, than if it wasn’t there.
Reply
James
| #
We have an ongoing experiment to observe and describe mathematically: Earth and Moon have the same albedo and are the same distance from the Sun. So why do they have different temperatures? Let’s see the numbers and the explanation. Any messing around in the meantime is a waste of time and money, except in the eyes of those on the receiving end, who will be glad to mess around as long as possible so don’t want or need a solution. Science is a drag: if you’re not careful it it might lead to the truth.
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
James, the Earth does not have the same albedo as the Moon. You are ignoring the fact that water is a multi-layered absorber but not a multi-l;ayered emitter, it only emits on the top level. The standard calculation is wrong. Also, the standard method makes no account for the lapse rate effect of the atmosphere. https://www.newscats.org/the-watery-planet-effect/
Reply
Alan
| #
The comments under the heading Tyndall Effect remind me of an experiment performed by Prof Andrea Sella in a TV programme about climate. He used a light, a magnifying glass and a piece of gun cotton. The light represented the sun and the gun cotton the surface of the earth. The magnifying glass was trickery to make the experiment work. Firstly, by concentrating the light beam the gun cotton burst into flame. Showing that light contains heat. Next the experiment was repeated with a tube of carbon dioxide in the light beam and this time the gun cotton did not light. Showing exactly the opposite of what was being claimed – CO2 in the atmosphere means the surface is cooler. The light beam was scattered by the CO2 and the magnifying glass could not concentrate it. Take away the magnifying glass and nothing would have happened to the gun cotton in either case.
I wonder whether the experimenter really understood what he was doing. Certainly the producers of the programme were too stupid to work it out.
Reply
James
| #
Surely we all know warm wet air rises, cools by expansion, the water in it condenses and releases its heat to the air, which is dried, and falls again, but warmer than when it started to rise, having gained heat, the latent heat of the humidity that condensed. This is the so-called greenhouse effect, the well known foehn or chinook. That powerful heat engine that lifts all our rain and snow into the hills and releases the corresponding amount of heat as defined by the second law.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
You are confusing cause and effect. Heating of a gas causes that gas to expand (UGL). It is not the expansion and contraction that cause heating and cooling. It is the same confusion as a loss of kinetic energy of a gas molecule causes it to descend in the atmosphere. That “falling”does not result in an increase in the kinetic energy of the molecule.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
James: Surely we all know warm wet air rises,
JMcG: Do we? How do you figure?
Actually this is one of the most misunderstood notions in science. We are told that 1) clear moist air contains gaseous H2O and 2) that as a consequence it is less dense per volume molecularly, and 3) as a consequence it rises due to being more buoyant than the “denser” drier air.
In actuality clear moist air contains invisibly small nanodroplets of liquid H2O (see H2O phase diagram for details). It is always 3% to 7% heavier per volume (more dense) than surrounding air. There is no convection/buoyancy involved with earth’s weather. There is no phase change and the phrase “latent heat of condensation” is meaningless pseudoscience. Uplift of moist air only happens in storms and it always is the result of low pressure being introduced at higher altitude by vortices.
We have all been greatly misinformed by pretend scientists who call themselves meteorologists who absolutely refuse to do real experiments to verify the diatribe of misinformation that flows from this phony discipline.
A larger problem is all of the goons and pretenders that having been educated in meteorology’s phony rhetoric thinks that repeating it makes them look intelligent.
The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.
https://thunderbolts.info/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=446
Reply