“Simple Experiment on Global Warming” Debunks Radiative Greenhouse Effect
In September of 2020 the “Royal Society Open Science” journal published a peer-reviewed article claiming to provide experimental evidence for the mechanism of global warming, i.e., the radiative greenhouse effect.
In summary, the experiment was this: fill a balloon alternately with air, and with carbon dioxide, and measure how quickly a hot electrical element heated with power from outside to +500C placed inside the balloon cools down.
Thus, right from the foundation of this experiment we may identify that it has nothing to do with the radiative greenhouse effect of climate alarmist political science, which is the actual basis of global warming theory. For, what is the radiative greenhouse effect of climate science? We see it in the next figure.
The mechanism of the radiative greenhouse effect of climate science, as opposed to the mechanism of a real greenhouse, is found in “backradiation” where the radiation from the cold atmosphere causes the temperature of the warmer surface to rise to higher temperature.
We note that although climate science calls this proposed mechanism of “back radiation” a “greenhouse effect”, real greenhouses function by limiting convective cooling and their internal temperatures do not rise above the temperature at which they are heated by the Sunlight. In the “greenhouse effect” of climate science, “backradiation” is said to cause the temperature of the ground surface to rise above the temperature at which it is heated by the Sunlight.
From the previous figure, sparing the details of the minutia and assuming that the reader has some familiarity with this scheme, the climate science greenhouse effect and in fact the very foundation of climate science is such that it treats the Sunlight as being unable to create the climate at all, where the Sun has only a maximum of -180C heating potential for the surface of the Earth.
Climate science starts here because it dilutes solar power over the entire surface of the Earth as if the Earth is a flat plane, which by mathematical consequence is this treatment forces the Sunlight to be reduced to a heating power of -180C from its actual intensity at the Earth of +1210C. Under this erroneous premise that the Sunlight cannot create the climate or heat the Earth above -180C, climate science then postulates a “backradiation” or radiative greenhouse effect, where the cold atmosphere recycles or sends heat back to the warmer surface to increase the temperature of the surface from -180C to +150C.
Does the experiment published by the RSOS actually demonstrate this in some sort of experimental analogy? Not at all. Not in any way whatsoever. It doesn’t touch upon climate science’s proposed warming mechanism at all. All that the experiment did was place a 500C element into a balloon, and then watch the temperature drop. What the experiment should have been able to do, and what it should have been designed and intended to do, particularly in the case where the balloon was filled with 100% CO2, was show that, for example, a heating element placed inside the balloon at -180 (or any value) was bumped up in temperature to some much higher value. Nothing of the sort was demonstrated at any temperature, and nothing of the sort was even attempted nor discussed, thus demonstrating that neither the authors, nor the peer-reviewers, had any idea what they’re actually supposed to be testing. This is the state of climate science and peer-review!
This is not a novel argument to attempt to feign evidence or reasoning for climate science’s “greenhouse effect”. We have witnessed it many times. For when it is pointed out that the backradiation heating mechanism of climate science’s greenhouse effect violates thermodynamic law in that it posits heat flow from cold to hot (an impossibility), then the argument switches from direct heating and direct temperature increase caused by backradiation to “backradiation slows down cooling which leads to higher average temperature over time since the surface doesn’t cool down as far”.
Of course, that changes the entire premise of the initial argument, changes the goal posts, and changes the entire field: for slowing down cooling from a maximum solar heating of -180C such that, say, it reaches only -250C instead of -350C, does not cause the average between such values to become +150C!
What they need to demonstrate is some cool temperature becoming a much higher temperature, not merely a cool temperature cooling more slowly to some even cooler temperature.
All of the experimental and empirical evidence required to demonstrate, or disprove, whatever mutually-exclusive mechanism of climate science’s “greenhouse effect” one wishes to subscribe to, is provided in an actual greenhouse. For an actual greenhouse does produce its own “back radiation” or “slowed cooling” internally in any case. Do real greenhouses demonstrate that internal temperatures can be achieved which are higher than the temperature at which they are being heated by the Sun?
There are numerous examples of such experiments being performed starting even with the so-called “father” of modern thermodynamics in Josef Fourier, and exclusively, it has never been demonstrated that a back radiation mechanism exists which should have caused observed temperatures to exceed that at which they were generated by the Sun.
The mechanism of climate science’s “greenhouse effect” should function in any greenhouse, yet the results are never observed, which therefore proves that the mechanism does not exist. It is the Sun which heats greenhouses, just as it is the Sun which heats the Earth and creates the climate.
That is: The premise which climate science refuses is that the Sun creates the climate.
Read more at climateofsophistry.com
Please note: Any specific questions to Joe Postma should be posted at his blog, not in the comments section below.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
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.
Alan
| #
How did that paper get through peer review when Joseph Postma who produced the diagram above cannot get his work published? The Royal Society is a disgrace. Last Christmas it showed an experiment with a glass tube and a candle outside the tube and it claimed the temperature of the candle flame depended on the gas in tube..
Reply
Tom0mason
| #
The Royal Society is a disgrace.
And then some. This organization has been a major coordinator of ‘consensus science’ for many decades, if not centuries. On the subject of climate (and many other subjects) it is a intolerant, hide-bound collective of unimaginative, over educated fools!
Reply
JaKo
| #
This is as awful as it gets — these persons are demonstrating that a complete nonsense presented on behalf of certain benefactors and their “ideas” is “peer reviewed” no problem. Are these so called “scientists” willing to perform mental back-flops for a buck (or a pound) or has the Mass Formation /Hypnosis Programming already consumed their minds?
As said, the Red Pill is going to taste so awful, that nobody will take it. “They will have nothing and they will be happy.”
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
julian
| #
The balloon experiment is like the junk experiments I see at “science” shows using aquariums and heat lamps. What it actually is measuring is the cooling effects of convection and conduction. The heavier the gas (ie the greater the mass of the molecules/atoms) the slower the rates of convection and conduction. If they had used Krypton or Xenon the cooling rate would have been slower yet. Going the other way the balloon would have cooled much faster had it contained hydrogen. The difference between cooling rates of balloons containing air and 0.03% CO2 and 0.04% CO2 would have been too small to measure.
How do the Warmistas explain the temperatures on the moon where there is no atmosphere to heat it above -18C?
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
Carbon Dioxide has a Specific Gravity of 1.5 = 50% heavier than average gas molecule.
Carbon Dioxide has a Specific Heat coefficient of 0.8 = it heats or cools faster than average.
Reply
Tom0mason
| #
Many UK farmers see net zero as a scam!
Headline “Farmer Focus: Carbon neutral and net zero – biggest scam yet – Farmers Weekly”
https://www.fwi.co.uk/arable/farmer-focus/farmer-focus-carbon-neutral-and-net-zero-biggest-scam-yet
UK farmer probably understand more about the good that atmospheric CO2 does than most people.
Reply
Allan Shelton
| #
My home experiment is to get a tub of dry ice [about 100% CO2].
Place a bottle of bear into the middle of the tub of ice.
This represents the planet Earth surrounded by an atmosphere of about 100% CO2.
After waiting for an hour or so, check to see if the bottle of beer is warmer from back radiation.
No??? Hmmmmm!
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
I already did this test with CO2 and Argon, argon was warmer. Its not even an IR gas so how can that be?
Reply
davejr
| #
The elasticity of the balloon is going to impart a pressure. Was this monitored in the experiment, since delta T and delta P are linear, it is relevant. Or is this another Bill Nye laboratory trick used to confound the children?
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
As Julian points out, “Why does the Moon, with no atmosphere, get warmer than -18C ?”
The silly experiment simply verifies Molar Specific Heats of gases. CO2 has a Molar specific heat a third greater than air. Therefore, it takes longer (and more energy) to heat, and longer to cool down.
One could perform the experiment with lead bricks and find it takes a lot longer for lead bricks to cool down than particles of air…
If one put lead shot into the atmosphere, it would act as a heat sink, or coolant. CO2 does the same in a smaller way.
Reply
Homepage
| #
… [Trackback]
[…] Informations on that Topic: principia-scientific.com/simple-experiment-on-global-warming-debunks-radiative-greenhouse-effect/ […]
Reply