I’m going to ask Reddit. Any ideas as to the best way to phrase the question and which subreddit to use?
I was thinking https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/ : Are there any temperature control experiments comparing Co2 with Argon?
But that seems too wordy to me.
Definitely the way to go; following whatever question interests you most.
Perhaps I can answer it like this.
Firstly the actual physical world measured solar insolation is 1,361 W/m^2 [1], which is equivalent to a blackbody temperature of 120.46C [2], not -18C.
How do they get from 120C to -18C? This is done by a trick of mathematics. They observe that the Earth receives this 1,361 W/m^2 across a circular cross-section – the intersection of the Sun’s emitting sphere of rays, with the Earth’s spherical surface. Then they assume that by some definition of ‘equilibrium’ the Earth must be emitting this 1,361 W/m^2 at all times, evenly, across its entire surface area, which is 4 times the surface area of this circular cross-section that it receives from the Sun. Therefore the Earth emits 340 W/m^2 at all spots. They then further apply the “energy out = energy in” yet again to say that the Sun just provides 340 W/m^2 at all times – even though it’s really 1,361 W/m^2! You can see this in the energy budget diagrams[3].
Then even though this is supposed to be a calculation of an atmosphereless Earth, they still take the albedo of 0.3 into account, which is due to clouds and such, therefore this 340 is multiplied by 0.7 to result in 238 W/m^2, which is equivalent to a blackbody of -18C [4].
The entire premise here is that energy in equals energy out at all times instantaneously across the entire Earth. This mathematically reduces the Earth to a flat disk that’s twice as far from the Sun and has 2x the radius as the actual Earth, with equal amount of light impinging upon each square millimeter that’s equally radiated out at all times etc. This is what the -18C is.
Therefore, by their very model, they are saying the Sun is equivalent to basically being in a vast flat room with a -18C ceiling way ‘up there’ and with a -18C floor.
After all these transmogrifications, it doesn’t make sense to say the Sun of 5500C is “really” the heat source – because they’ve already mathematically manipulated this physically real 5500C heat source, into a -18C one.
Then they do the further magic math to eke out +15C out of this reduced-to-negative-18-C heat source, i.e. the physically impossible thermodynamic violation.
One could argue that in reality the sun really is hotter etc., but by then you’re already departing from the model that is the premise of the whole thing. The model must be addressed in terms of the model. You will observe in arguing with warmists that they change the goal posts to suit them based on what they’re arguing. When measuring the magnitude of the effect, it doubles or triples the amount of Sun coming in! And it’s all possible cause the Sun is much hotter anyway! Yet in the model that calculates this doubling or tripling, the Sun isn’t! The model doesn’t account for the real temperature of the Sun. It reduces it to this cold -18C.
Perhaps that answers the question?
Cheers,
Claudiu
↩︎The solar constant includes radiation over the entire electromagnetic spectrum. It is measured by satellite as being 1.361 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m2) at solar minimum (the time in the 11-year solar cycle when the number of sunspots is minimal) and approximately 0.1% greater (roughly 1.362 kW/m2) at solar maximum.
Solar constant - Wikipedia
This is done by a trick of mathematics…This mathematically reduces the Earth to a flat disk…they are saying the Sun is equivalent to basically being in a vast flat room with a -18C ceiling way ‘up there’ and with a -18C floor…all these transmogrifications…physically impossible thermodynamic violation
It seems really quite obvious to me that the model was always meant to be taken with lots of salt. It’s napkin math. Though napkins are hard to write on. I’ve heard people use back-of-envelope math.
Once the physics of radiating CO2 were taken as fact then a model was needed to get some calculations out there and begin a process. Perhaps that process has gone askew. Maybe they have failed to question the fundamental number of -18C, which would be an epic blunder. Maybe they’re using two dimensional steady state math for three dimensional constant flux problems and failing to give adequately large ranges to minimize the inevitable discrepancies they should know they’ll find in the real world. Or maybe they have imputed their calculations with an authority they don’t deserve. But it seems to me the primary step is establishing the role of CO2. Do they prove that CO2 radiates significant energy back and the 3 other main gasses don’t?
I think what you may be arguing is that the entire school of measuring and predicting the properties of gasses is based on mathematics that haven’t been properly verified: The Stefan–Boltzmann constant, in this case.
Correct
They have not proven that CO2 causes the surface to be warmer than it otherwise would be. They use the -18C argument to say that it has to. Then they assume it does. Then they base everything else on this assumption. I traced it back from the latest IPCC here - How We Know the Effect of CO2 on Global Temperature
They just refer to past IPCC reports and papers that are just calculations based on earlier calculation. There is no evidence provided anywhere in the last 4 decades of reports.
Although it’s certainly suspect to use an equation designed for solid and perfectly thin black bodies (that is itself really meant to calculate the radiation a perfectly black cavity would radiate) — that isn’t what’s under question here.
CO2 does absorb infrared light in a way that O2 and N2 and other gases don’t. This is easy to measure and not under question.
But now does this property of the gas contribute to providing twice as much energy to the Earth’s surface than the sun itself?
That is the hypothesis. And they have never proven it - it’s only been assumed that it does. Besides which the various experiments falsifying it (like the fact that a greenhouse doesn’t work this way) is ignored or discounted. Then this is all reinforced with the groupthink etc.
Quick peccadillo if I may. So far, I’ve read nothing but acknowledgement that greenhouses are convective and greenhouse gasses are radiative. Everyone seems to be aware that it’s a misnomer.
Is it provable? Can an experiment be conducted that mirrors the actual atmosphere?
I haven’t been able to find any experiments that prove CO2 re-radiates heat enough to increase the temperature of any environment. Do you have links?
It’s more meaningful than is apparent at first, that a greenhouse doesn’t work this way. Because the set-up is exactly as it should be:
You have shortwave radiation coming in from the Sun, going through a surface transparent to it (glass ; atmospheric gases). Then this shortwave radiation heats the ground. The ground radiates longwave (thermal) radiation due to it heating up, which is unable to escape due to that same surface being opaque to it (glass ; CO2). Therefore this ‘trapped’ radiation should heat up the ground, shouldn’t it?
Yet it doesn’t, not at all! Why not then, if the greenhouse effect is a real phenomenon? Why would it work for the atmosphere but not a greenhouse?
If it isn’t provable then it’s not falsifiable, and it isn’t science.
It is up to the proponents of a theory to prove it, not the detractors.
Addendum: It should be easy to prove though. If 0.04% of the atmosphere can cause the surface to double its energy content (from -18C to +15C) then this effect should be readily apparent in other situations as well. The fact that it hasn’t shown to be in any experiment in the 100+ years since the theory was first proposed, and the 30+ years the IPCC was created… should be all the evidence needed to cast it aside.
It is now at the point where the warmists just say it’s such basic physics and science that it’s already well-established, i.e. no experiments needed… even though it was never demonstrated! Lol.
There is no such experiment, because it doesn’t do it 
. See greenhouse above ^ .
Quick question while I have you. Does this mean it has been proven that CO2 absorbing those wavelengths does not increase the temperature of an environment? Or just that no such experimental results exist and after 100 years the lack of any experiments should tell you all you need to know? From your addendum, I will assume that latter.
Yet it does work for a greenhouse. Greenhouses are hotter than the outside.
Of course that is said to be due to a reduction in convection. And we’re talking about radiating properties. First off, can you explain what properties in glass make it absorb the same wavelengths CO2 absorbs?
It should if glass acts like CO2. But any heating in an actual greenhouse would also be the result of a lack of convection cooling. Are you saying greenhouses, in theory, should be even hotter because glass acts just like CO2? And that thermal radiation should be re-heating the greenhouse along with the extra hot air.
Oh wait, I recall you posting an experiment showing that a greenhouse with glass and a greenhouse with some sort of rock had the same temperature increase. So assuming that glass absorbs infrared radiation just like CO2 does and those rocks do not then that would disprove the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect. But that still leaves me clueless to the properties of glass that make it absorb infrared radiation a la CO2.
Noted
Yes, exactly 
The ‘why’ of it doesn’t matter for this purpose I suppose. One just has to show that glass does absorb infrared wavelengths.
I suppose the answer of why the glass absorbs infrared can be the same answer as to why sunglasses prevent some visible light going through, why colored glasses prevent only certain wavelengths and allow only others, etc. The property of the material is such that it absorbs some wavelengths, transmits others, and reflects others.
The ultimate ‘why’ may be just like asking why water is wet – it’s wet because it is . Humans can identify these properties and then rearrange matter to suit our purposes - by making sunglasses, for example.
My apologies. I don’t need to know why either. We just need to confirm that greenhouse glass does indeed absorb IR light a la CO2. The perusing I’ve done this afternoon suggest that it doesn’t.
Oh it certainly does absorb IR. You can demonstrate it with an IR camera: https://www.quora.com/Can-infrared-light-pass-through-glass/answer/Paul-Spade?ch=15&oid=83020603&share=21335f79&srid=q00J&target_type=answer
This is great. And I recall reading that many months ago when I was looking up another subject. So glass can act as a proxy for CO2. It doesn’t have to be exactly the same. It just has to be compared to a material that doesn’t absorb IR nearly as well.
Even though I agree with your note* in reply #314 that the onus is on the AGW people. Their unverified conclusion has gone on so long and may be starting to become quite costly to so many obscenely rich and powerful people that you would think they would fund research disproving AGW. After all it’s as easy as setting up multiple greenhouses side by side and they have already demonstrated a willingness to spend billions influencing public opinion and legislation.
I found an unsatisfactory experiment how-to manual claiming to remove the results of convection. But it doesn’t say to use argon instead of air. It just uses an open beaker which they claim allows for convection to be unrestricted.
In part 2, however, replacing the plastic bottles with open beakers removes the restriction on convection. The difference in temperature rise between the two beakers comes mainly from absorption by the gases of the radiant (infra-red) energy from the lead discs at the bottom of the beakers
*It is up to the proponents of a theory to prove it, not the detractors.
What makes you think the rich and powerful aren’t profiting massively off of AGW?
A lot of effort and spending has already successfully influenced public opinion and legislation… where do you think the psychic-current-backed groupthink surrounding this issue is coming from?
That’s because using argon would give the same effect as CO2. Part 2 says:
- When this gradual rise levels off, introduce carbon dioxide as a steady flow into one of the beakers. The trace from that beaker should soon show a higher temperature than the beaker with only air – typically up to 8 degrees higher. If the gas flow is stopped, the carbon dioxide will slowly diffuse out of the beaker, replaced by air, and the temperature should begin to fall again.
The steady flow of CO2 into the beaker is preventing convection. Convection is when hot air rises — this is prevented by the constant introduction of a denser gas above it, preventing the lighter air from rising. Once this steady flow stops, convection stops being obstructed.
Can you show me how it’s easier to profit from AGW than simply investing in oil and gas. And who is doing the profiting? If I was a billionaire, I’d just invest in Chevron and BP stocks while buying up fracking rigs for myself. And if I was Chevron or Saudi Arabia, I’d throw some couch change towards a set of greenhouses that disprove AGW.
As for the beaker experiment, it does seem that convection would still be the primary driver.
In fact, the guys over in Boston said:
radiative effects are small and easily dominated by changes in convection, making it difficult to devise a convincing and authentic classroom demonstration of the radiative greenhouse effect. Even if the experiments were done in a sealed container, and CO2 were compared with Ar, differences in convective transport could not be ruled out.
link
Perhaps convective transport simply cannot be measured or ruled out in any experiment small enough to not be prohibitively expensive. But like I said, one would think that someone from either group by now be it the Saudi’s, Chevron or the AGW people would have funded a large enough experiment to prove their claims.
