Thoughts on economics and liberty

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 HISTORY

This is a reasonable starting point for the history of the “effect”. 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.

The key to the growth of the greenhouse gas mania, however, was the conscious decision by Maurice Strong and Barbara Ward in 1972 to promote curbs on CO2 as key mechanism to control the population of the poor countries.

PLASS:

The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change – GILBERT N. PLASS

 

JUDITH CURRY’S EXCELLENT POINTS REGARDING THE NATURE OF THE EFFECT

Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect – Judith Curry

She rightly points out that providing a narrative with history + an “analogy” of greenhouse – the approach commonly taken in popular books and undergraduate texts is a very bad way to explain this effect. To understand the greenhouse effect requires specific graduate level physics work.

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

FURTHER

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

TEXTBOOKS/ COURSES

This course material is a good start.

Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis – R. M. Goody, Y. L. Yung

Radiative Transfer in the Atmosphere and Ocean – Knut Stamnes, Gary E. Thomas, Jakob J. Stamnes

An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation – K.N. Liou (Ed)

See chapter 7 of this book.

HERE’S A TYPICAL PHYSICS VIEW

Power Hour: Dr. Denis Rancourt on the True Physics of CO2

THE PHYSICS IS CONTESTED

The following papers claim to REFUTE the physics of the greenhouse effect:

  1. Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, 2007 [free pdf]
  2. Human CO2 Emissions Have Little Effect On Atmospheric CO2
  3. Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation – Claes Johnson, 2012 [free pdf]
  4. “The Greenhouse Effect and the Infrared Radiative Structure of the Earth’s Atmosphere” – Ferenc Mark Miskolczi [free pdf]
  5. Sky Dragon Slayers  [free pdf]
  6. Radiative emissions from greenhouse gases delay cooling, do not produce warming
  7. A video.Vacuum Chamber Temperature Test Debunks Climate Crisis Claims
  8. The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the “Greenhouse Effect”.
    Timothy Casey
  9. Alternative view to greenhouse effect – that atmospheric density causes heat (Nikolov-Zeller effect)This has been confirmed. See this.

GENERAL COMMENTS ON/ DESCRIPTION OF THE PHYSICS

THERE IS A GREENHOUSE EFFECT BUT ITS MAGNITUDE IS CONTESTED

Is the Greenhouse Effect a Sky Dragon Myth?

EXPERIMENTAL PROOF

Here’s the scamster Bill Nye’s “proof”

Here’s proof that his “experiment” is a pile of nonsense:

Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment

Someone sent me these papers to review:

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00626
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00373

DOI: 10.1088/0143-0807/35/2/025016

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.

 

ALTERNATIVE VIEWS

 

Wood’s 1909 greenhouse experiment, performed more carefully

Sanjeev Sabhlok

View more posts from this author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *