9th September 2019
What is the proof for the greenhouse gas theory?
This is a placeholder post and will be updated when I find time.
This theory was created well before later advances in physics. Its laboratory proof is virtually non-existent.
The first person to propose the existence of a planetary greenhouse effect caused specifically by atmospheric carbon dioxide was the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius, writing in the 1890s. As the Oxford English Dictionary notes, the term itself was in circulation by the early twentieth century. The discovery of the atmospheric conditions of Venus, however, did much to bring the subject to the mainstream scientific and public attention.
Here’s the scamster Bill Nye’s “proof”
Here’s proof that his “experiment” is a pile of nonsense:
Someone sent me these papers to review:
These papers do nothing whatsoever to prove the greenhouse effect.
Basically: “it is impossible to run a controlled experiment on Earth’s climate (there is no control planet), the only way to “test” the CAGW hypothesis is through models.” [Source]
This is not a scientific hypothesis:
More CO2 will cause some warming.
It is arm waving.
This is a scientific hypothesis:
A doubling of atmospheric CO2 will cause the lower troposphere to warm by ___ °C.
Thirty-plus years of failed climate models never been able to fill in the blank.
HERE’S A TYPICAL PHYSICS VIEW
JUDITH CURRY’S VIEW
Nullifying the climate null hypothesis – Judith Curry∗
Her key point
Hypotheses about complex problems such as climate change are either implicitly or explicitly built upon a collection of subhypotheses that are related to each other in the context of a syllogistic paradigm or other type of logical analysis. The challenges of testing a complex hypothesis involving a causal chain was addressed by Curry et al.6 in the context of testing the hypothesis that greenhouse warming is causing an increase in global hurricane intensity. The central hypothesis was broken down into three subhypotheses that were each necessary for the central hypothesis to be true, and further comprised a causal chain. A null hypothesis was formulated for each of the subhypotheses, and evidence was presented for both the null and subhypotheses. The conclusion was that the evidence did not support the rejection of any of the subhypothesis, and hence did not support rejection of the central hypothesis
rather than trying to reject either of these hypotheses (regardless of which
is the null), there should be a debate regarding the relative significance of anthropogenic warming relative to forced and unforced natural climate variability
This has been confirmed. See this.