Have you noticed though that all the supposed debunkings of the thermodynamic objection are just this - articles, explanations, calculations, models, etc. - and never experiments?
Show me one experiment where a cold thing makes a hot thing hotter and then there may be something to discuss.
For me what cinched it is this. I was driving along a highway on a fine sunny partly-cloudy day. All of a sudden I saw what the warmists were saying: that everything as I was seeing it now, all the temperatures of what I was observing — if we were to instantaneously double or triple or whatever the amount of trace gas magic substance CO2 in the atmosphere — then with the same solar input (ie the thing that is heating everything in the first place) — everything would get hotter! The ground would warm up and the skies would too. And as heat is energy it means we would be getting more energy for the same amount of input - ie free energy!
The physical world just doesn’t work this way … whatever the mathematical models (quantum mechanical or otherwise) say.
I am open to being wrong … by seeing an experiment that demonstrates the supposed phenomenon. As when the warmists aren’t touting fraudulent experiments that purport to show the GHE but don’t[1], they are saying that it can’t be experimentally demonstrated[2] — then that seems to rather settle the debate.
Cheers,
Claudiu
“A number of lecture demonstrations with carbon dioxide purport to show how infrared-absorbing atmospheric gases “trap” energy. The demonstration described here shows that the temperature change observed in these demonstrations is a consequence of the density of carbon dioxide relative to air, not its infrared-absorbing property. Since the pedagogical value instructors report for the usual demonstration is based on an incorrect interpretation of the temperature change and can lead to a misconception about global warming, suggestions are made for possible replacement demonstrations.” [“Benchtop Global-Warming Demonstrations Do Not Exemplify the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect, but Alternatives Are Available”], Jerry A. Bell] ↩︎
“I don’t know of any way to demonstrate the planetary greenhouse effect on a laboratory scale.” [John Doty]
“This is a pity, because even the simplest explanations of the atmospheric greenhouse mechanism are still relatively abstract mathematical models of the physics at play. For classrooms, a more concrete model would be useful. Although a demonstration involving IR radiation does not seem feasible […]” [“Benchtop Global-Warming Demonstrations Do Not Exemplify the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect, but Alternatives Are Available”], Jerry A. Bell] ↩︎