Prove It!
Periodically someone sends us a paper, a video or just some reflections to the effect that “Greenhouse-warming theory has never been verified by experiment”. And it has a slightly annoying “gotcha” feel because some key aspects of AGW certainly have been experimentally verified, like that CO2 absorbs and scatters infrared radiation at certain frequencies, as does water vapour.
But unlike silly assertions that someone just refuted all the conventional physics behind claims of man-made climate change, the point about experimental verification contains an important truth so large it’s hard for either side to see. It is that the overall global warming theory, even in its non-hysterical version, relies on assembling a bunch of individually sound pieces of science and logic into a vast speculative theoretical construct that not only hasn’t been tested in a laboratory, it couldn’t be, because you’d need one as big and complicated as the Earth, with all the processes that operate there. The Earth, in fact. So it’s no good saying what’s happening now is explained by a theory that was proved somewhere else. What’s happening now is the test, and its results are necessarily hugely ambiguous.
Some people think not. They say the huge increases in extreme weather prove that we’ve busted the planet. Which isn’t true on two grounds, the first being that not even the IPCC thinks there have been increases in extreme weather, let alone huge ones. And the second being that if the weather had gotten measurably worse, it still wouldn’t prove that it was because the planet had warmed, let alone that we had warmed the planet.
If natural climate changes happen, and always have, it is clearly within the realm of possibility that sometimes the weather gets a lot worse and it’s not our fault. Or that it gets a lot better and we can’t claim credit. It’s even possible that in a fairly stable climate, in terms of long-term averages of temperature and even things like precipitation, there could be a lot of short-term variability, some of it nasty. The climate really is very complicated, logically as well as scientifically. And it is a vital part of the picture that alarmists often neglect, and is usefully captured by the point that while bits and pieces of their theory can be demonstrated in a lab, the vast majority cannot. For instance that small temperature increases due to rising CO2 change the water vapour content of the atmosphere in ways that then cause large increases in temperature.
It could happen, sure. But it also might not. And there’s no gotcha here. Those who offer cash for anyone who “proves” global warming theory miss the point. Bits and pieces of this ramshackle intellectual edifice can be proven and have been. It’s how they fit together that’s the puzzle. And what a puzzle.
As we’ve frequently observed and frequently been ignored, surprisingly modest physical systems can become transcomputably complex surprisingly fast. It’s why, for instance, airplanes have to be tested in practice after being designed according to sound principles: turbulence is chaotic.
Moreover, chaos theory was not discovered by observing the whole planet over long periods of time, and it does not only affect things of that sort. But it certainly does affect them. So those who claim that because we know that in a lab CO2 will absorb and scatter infrared radiation, we know that cars are causing typhoons are guilty of cartoonish oversimplification verging on insolence. It doesn’t mean this behaviour by CO2 can be dismissed out of hand. But it also doesn’t mean proof of AGW is in our hands… or easily could be.
We also get critics of our position brushing such considerations aside by claiming that if we don’t know if the theory is correct we must play it safe, assume it is, and react accordingly. Which doesn’t even hold up in theory, let alone prove that their favoured reaction would be logical if the theory were true. We cannot possibly react in this manner to every potential threat even if the proposed remedies are minor. And we definitely should not try in situations where the proposed remedies are drastic, even arguably worse than the disease.
If we are told, for instance that purple dragons might be coming to devour everyone and their stuff, and we must slay every maiden in the kingdom to appease them, it is clear that the remedy is so drastic that the burden of proof is on those who claim to see the dragons and know what they intend and what would make them go away. Which is not a far-fetched analogy given that the policies advocated to “stop” warming really would have disastrous impacts on human flourishing or even survival.
Since it’s arguably far-fetched on other grounds, let us offer a less exotic economistic example. Such alarmists have compared the situation to buying insurance against unlikely but catastrophic possibilities, such as house fires. But the analogy breaks down if we are asked to pay premiums that will exceed the cost of the house within a decade, and pay nothing in the event of fire. In the case of climate change, most of the “prevent don’t adapt” policies will cost more than any plausible estimate of the harm, while preventing nothing.
All of which means there’s no way around the heavy lifting here. Certain well-established principles of physics do mean that, if they interact in ways hypothesized in some quarters and assembled in computer models that drastically oversimplify reality, human GHGs could cause not just warming but disastrous impacts of warming. But we cannot perform a definitive or even approximate test of whether they do so in a lab. We can only do it by observing the Earth. One Earth. One mind-bogglingly complicated Earth.
In a scientifically perfect world, we might have hundreds of Earths we could expose to subtly different inputs of CO2, methane or what have you. Though frankly there is nothing in our experience of this Earth that gives confidence that we could manipulate atmospheric CO2 if we tried; the carbon cycle is so huge, and the human contribution so small, that the assumption that all natural carbon is absorbed and about only half the human kind is itself not science but a rejection of science in favour of something easier but of no practical relevance.
For our part, we lean on historical evidence because it’s the closest thing we have to a controlled experiment. Not multiple Earths, but one Earth going through multiple scenarios. And we say again that when you test the theory that CO2 drives temperature against what we think we know about virtually any period in the history of our planet, it almost never checks out. That it seemed to from 1980 to 2000 may cause nostalgia in people who were young then. But once again, that sort of thing is not scientific evidence.
Here we also respond to a reader who asked us about the melting of the Matterhorn glacier. The Washington Post predictably fingers climate change as the bodies of climbers are recovered, “a grisly discovery that underscores the unforgiving nature of the world’s highest summits and how climate change is warping the magnificent peaks.”
Boo climate change. Warping magnificent peaks. And we all know mountains were straight until recently. But hold on a sec. In the interest of science, let’s consider the Post’s further lament that:
“Rising temperatures and melting glaciers have not only revealed more bodies, but also made the journey for other climbers even more dangerous, as melting permafrost increases the risk of landslides and rockfall. The volume of alpine glaciers has shrunk by about 60 percent since the mid-19th century, according to the Swiss National Center for Climate Services, and annual snow days have also decreased since at least the 1970s.”
OK then. The glaciers have been retreating steadily for nearly two centuries, and snowfall has diminished for at least half a century. So when did the human impact become significant? Because if things have been going on steadily since before that time, we didn’t do it. Cause cannot follow effect. Science doesn’t allow it.
P.S. The Post, undaunted, offers a “More on climate change” selection at the end of the Matterhorn story whose first item blares “Understanding our climate: Global warming is a real phenomenon, and weather disasters are undeniably linked to it. As temperatures rise, heat waves are more often sweeping the globe — and parts of the world are becoming too hot to survive.”
P.P.S. As for the question of whether it’s been proved that “warming” is “bad”, it really misses the point. How much warming? How fast? From what starting point? With what criteria of “good” and “bad”? If it’s cold and gets warmer, biodiversity increases, which sounds good. But there’s an austere beauty to an Arctic landscape, and some venomous or just really disgusting stuff in a jungle. A planet above a certain temperature would be lifeless, as one below it would be, and presumably lifeless is bad. But is Saturn “bad”?
Source: CDN
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About Covid 19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Herb Rose
| #
In science you can never “Prove It” because you can never have all the data and never know all the influences that are involved. All we can do is disprove and in the case of the GHGT this is so easy that people who have no science knowledge but only life experience can see that the claims by the “scientists”are not true.
The basic premise of the theory is that the sun heats the Earth, the Earth heats the atmosphere and certain gasses are slowing the atmosphere from transferring heat into space causing global warming.
Anybody who lives in an area where it snows will have experienced occasions where it has snowed overnight and the next day dawns clear and sunny. On these occasions the snow on the ground requires attention, as children it was playing in the snow, sledding or building snowmen, as adults it was shoveling or skiing. In either case the procedure was to wait until the temperature rose before dealing with the snow. Advocates of the GHGT will tell you this wait is futile because the temperature can never rise above freezing until the Earth has melted the snow and is then able to warm the atmosphere.
Everyone who has experienced these episodes knows that it is the sun that is heating the atmosphere. This heating is done by the non greenhouse gasses (O2 & N2) absorbing UV light and converting it to heat.
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
A summary of the witless wisdom from the Herb Rose school of Nonsense Science and ThermoDUMBnamics.
Reply
Squidly
| #
Actually, that is only 1 such hypothesis with an often interchangeable hypothesis “sun heats ground, ground heats air, air re-heats ground more, etc..”
Neither hypothesis can exist in this universe. You cannot “trap” heat, and further still, “heat” cannot “pile”. Adding the same magnitude (temperature) energy into the system cannot increase the magnitude (temperature). For example, no matter how much 140F coffee you pour into your cup, you cannot increase the temperature of your coffee more than 140F .. thus disproving the entire “trapped heat” hypothesis. Even delaying radiative transfer cannot further excite molecules to a higher energy state, and then there’s that little inconvenience of convection in our atmosphere.
As for the latter (sun heats ground, ground heats air, air heats ground more), an object (the ground) cannot heat itself (the source of that IR). There is no such thing as a “greenhouse effect” in this universe. It would be violation of fundamental laws that govern our universe. Once you consider it deeply, if the so-called “greenhouse effect” were possible, we could not exist.
Reply
Shawn Marshall
| #
I stood in the shade of a solitary tree one morning. It was much cooler than standing in the sun. I gazed skyward all about me and everywhere was open sky supposedly saturated with man made CO2 warming the earth. All this radiation from CO2 was not blocked by my little tree so why was I feeling relief in the shade. QED.
And there is an easy experiment to practically test the CO2 back feed radiation theory…. Put a temp controlled ground grid in a vented building@90F. Install a plastic cloud of C02 and measure the electricity to maintain the 90F temp vs no CO2 cloud.
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
The sub heats the planet during the day. CO2 and water vapor are invisible to the radiation from the sun. Upwelling radiation cools the planet at night. Greenhouse gases and night clouds impede the cooling, keeping outdoor plants from freezing every night. Your experiment is worthless..
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
You are some expert on thermodynamics and your ego prevents you from ever considering that what you believe could be wrong. The law of thermodynamics clearly states the ALL mater absorbs radiated energy. This includes CO2, water vapor, nitrogen, oxygen, and even argon (otherwise it would reach 0 K).
If you care to look at a phase chart of water you will see it cannot exist as a gas at sea level below a temperature of 100C.
In the troposphere the transfer of energy is primarily done through collisions, not radiation. This transfer obeys the law of conservation of momentum which states that the object with greater velocity (energy) will transfer velocity (energy) to the object with less velocity regardless of the masses of the objects. An object with less kinetic energy CAN transfer energy to an object with more kinetic energy if the mass with less velocity has a large enough mass.
Maybe the reason that, even though you live in Michigan where the temperature during the day does sometimes exceed the temperature of the snow, you believe that the surface heats the atmosphere is because you walk around with your head up your ass. .
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
More nonscience claptrap
All objects at temperatures above absolute zero EMIT radiation. Greenhouse gases reflect some upwelling radiation back down to the Earth. More radiations rises from the Earth at night than is reflected back down.
A stronger greenhouse effect from more CO2 and water vapor reflects more radiation downward. The net radiation flow is the upwelling radiation that reaches space minus the downwelling, or back, radiation that reach’s Earth’s surface. The NET radiation flow is up toward space, and that is why our planet cools at night. The radiation movement toward space is caused by convection.
Over most of Antarctica, there is a permanent temperature inversion that prevents convection. That’s why the average temperature of Antarctica has barely changed since decent measurements were made in the 1970s.
Herb Rose “science” disagrees with at least 99.9% of the scientists living on our planet. A very lonely ,contrary position of a non-scientist.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The top layer of the atmosphere is called the thermosphere because it is where the gas molecules are the hottest. Those molecules are radiating heat downwards and before heat can escape from the surface by radiation, those molecules must lose energy. It is in the thermosphere where the energy of the Earth is transferred into space and where contraction and expansion of the atmosphere occurs.
It takes 540 calories/gram to convert 100C liquid water into water vapor. The water coming out of a tea kettle is clear vapor that cools, becoming water droplets. Those water droplets then somehow absorb 540 calories/gram and convert back into a vapor. Your beliefs have nothing to do with reality.
Herb Rose
| #
Let’s see. The gas molecules in Antarctica are radiating energy because they are above absolute zero but not absorbing radiated energy or gaining energy by convection and this continuous loss with no gain results in the temperature being constant. Brilliant.
Squidly
| #
Hahaha .. talk about scientific clap trap .. OMG .. and you are calling Herb names? .. WOW! .. go back to school!
James McGinn
| #
What you are saying here, Richard, is true for (liquid vapor) H20 but not true for CO2 gas. The AGW frauds like to fool people into thinking that gaseous CO2 has the same properties as liquid H2O. Only a fool would believe such nonsense.
Most people are so dimwitted that they genuinely believe that H2O can be gaseous in the atmosphere despite the fact that no part of earth’s atmosphere is anywhere near the boiling temperature/pressure for H2O to be genuinely gaseous.
The truth is we are surrounded by morons and they are coming at us from all directions and all political affiliations.
James McGinn / Genius
You Can’t Get There From Here
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/james-mcginn/episodes/You-Cant-Get-There-From-Here-e2a61bs
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
“Most people are so dimwitted that they genuinely believe that H2O can be gaseous in the atmosphere”
You must be kidding?
You never heard of water vapor, the primary greenhouse gas? Have you heard of humidity?
The amount of water vapor in the air is called humidity. The amount of water vapor the air can hold depends on the temperature of the air. Warm air can hold more water vapor, while cold air cannot hold as much.
You definitely are not a member of Mensa
Perhaps a member of Densa?
And a Herb Rose school of non-science graduate?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Humidity is not the amount of water in the air but the percentage of the water the air can hold at that temperature. Air at a high temperature can contain more water at a low humidity than cold air at a high humidity Nothing says that water is a gas. The fact that sublimation occurs where water enters the air without even gaining enough energy to become a liquid shows that the water is not becoming a gas.
Squidly
| #
Humidity and your so-called “water vapor” are not mono-molecular .. so they cannot be a “gas”. Chemistry 101.
james McGinn
| #
Richard: You never heard of water vapor,
JMcG:
Water vapor is liquid droplets. (That are sometimes so small as to be invisible.) There is no such thing as gaseous vapor. The H2O phase diagram doesn’t lie. The problem is morons telling morons and morons listening to morons.
Richard: the primary greenhouse gas?
JMcG:
The atmosphere doesn’t work anything like a greenhouse, moron.
Find a new hobby. Science ain’t your thing.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Squidly
| #
Well, that isn’t entirely true James, CO2 is definitely a “greenhouse gas”, but just because it makes plants in the greenhouse grow .. 😉
James McGinn
| #
Good point.
Matthijs
| #
Flat earth free energy physics.
It’s not about limiting the rate of energy exchange, it’s about the flat earth and the energy that gets created without the work.
It’s total nonsense and anyone with half a brain can see it.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Why and How CO2 Became Vilified
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/james-mcginn/episodes/Why-and-How-CO2-Became-Vilified-e2a3b9b/a-aaf0j5a
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
CO2 is vilified by leftists to scare and control people.
Reply
james McGinn
| #
Religion was created by rightist to scare and control people.
Reply
Howdy
| #
“Religion was created by rightist to scare and control people.”
Prove It. Shouldn’t be too hard too, since science is a religion. with it’s own deities.
Reply
Squidly
| #
Interesting, I am not aware of anyone in the world being able to demonstrate the entire foundation of “global warming” or “climate change”, and that is the “radiative greenhouse effect”. Show me one empirical experiment that demonstrates this fundamental mechanism that is supposed to be the very driver of “cliiiiimate change”.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Squidly,
They will never be able to do such an experiment. They have enough problems trying to manipulate the existing data and come up with excuses for natural phenomena that disprove it.
In winter Antarctica is in darkness so the land is receiving no solar energy. At higher altitudes the atmosphere is warmer than the surface which makes it difficult to maintain that the land is heating the atmosphere. Instead of acknowledging that since the atmosphere is exposed to sunlight 24/7 and is being heated by the sun, they need to create a “negative greenhouse effect” as an explanation. As long as they use the phrase “greenhouse effect” in some manner it will be accepted no matter how ridiculous. They need to use all their efforts to avoid conceding that they are wrong in order to preserve their, egos, infallibility, and income.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
You should check out this interview of Tom Shula by Tom Nelson. It mostly involves insight gained through usage of a pirani gauge. Accordingly, it would appear that the radiative aspect of the greenhouse hypothesis is, in and of itself, complete nonsense.
Tom Shula: A Novel Perspective on the Greenhouse Effect | Tom Nelson Pod #98
https://youtu.be/NS55lXf4LZk
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Thanks for the link. It’s refreshing to see someone who looks at realty instead of only believing theory.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi All,
Can everyone agree that the prediction of the greenhouse effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide gas theory (GHE) is that the air temperature would be about 33C (57F) less if there were no carbon dioxide like gases in the atmosphere?
I have reported here at PSI several times that the atmosphere’s ‘temperature and the atmosphere’s dew point temperature are commonly measured at the same place and at the same time. And when this done the atmosphere’s temperature has never been found to be less than the atmosphere’s dew point temperature. Thus, absolutely refuting the prediction of the GHE theory and proving the theory to be absolutely wrong.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi All,
I am still waiting for someone of you commenters to make a comment about my comment. How can you all ignore it?
Have a good day
Reply