Facts and Theories, Updated

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/11/10/facts-and-theories-updated/ 

 My reply:

 [[There are other ideas that Popper calls pseudoscience. These are ideas that are framed in such a way that no matter what one observes, the observation can be seen to confirm the idea.]]

Funny you should mention pseudoscience and observations. I was just having a big laugh reading an article by the prestigious American Chemical Society trying to explain the CO2-driven AGW hoax in simplified physics:

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/singlelayermodel.html

The article features a diagram showing several up and down arrows labeled with T^4  plus modifiers. It shows a big arrow coming down from a long line that they claim is the entire Earth's atmosphere made into a "single layer model".  You see, it reaches a temperature Ta, and radiates Planck radiation both up and down, with the result of the down arrow being, guess, CO2-driven AGW.  For an extra wow factor, they claim that there is a master energy balance with the Sun that's neatly accounted for by these arrows alone, as if the Earth's atmosphere isn't a gigantic Carnot heat engine that turns solar energy into winds all the time, making their energy balance into mental doodoo. The atmosphere turns "excess" solar energy into wind power, like a car turns gasoline into motive power. No, the gasoline isn't recycled into the gas tank to keep an mystical energy balance, but burning it gets the car down the road.

Back to the T^4 arrows coming out of thin air in the diagram. First, you can't reduce the entire atmosphere to a 1-dimensional line at any temperature, because the atmosphere is miles high and has a systematic drop in temperature with height called the thermodynamic lapse rate, which has nothing to do with radiation.

And Zonk! Air doesn't emit Planck radiation.  Only coalesced materials (liquids and solids) do.  That's because coalesced materials are in close contact and share their kinetic energy in a pool  while attempting to equalize it to a single temperature, and at the boundary surface they turn kinetic energy into electromagnetic energy to cool down, with a power-wavelength profile based on T and having a maximum power wavelength inversely proportional to T (Wien's Displacement Law), and a total power proportional to T^4 (Stefan-Boltzmann Law). It's all included in Planck's Radiation Law, the most general law for radiative physics that covers all cases.

Gases, on the other hand, are just detached molecules bouncing against each other, and their temperature is their kinetic energy, which they try to equalize with each bounce.  There is no big pool of kinetic energy that can be tapped and turn into electromagnetic energy at their boundary surface, and in fact there is no boundary surface.  The S-B Law is in units of watts per square meter, not cubic meter. All of the kinetic energy is used up in bouncing, and there's no radiative emissions.  How convenient for the ACS that it thinks it can get around all this by making the entire atmosphere into glass pane in the sky, and voila! a greenhouse effect. :)

Too bad, their down arrow doesn't even mention CO2, and it's no surprise since only polar molecules emit radiation at all, the main one being CO2, but this is photon by photon radiation, not a big powerful continuous Planck radiation power-wavelength curve like would be needed to actually raise the temperature of anything, as if CO2's 15 micron radiation wavelength doesn't have a Planck radiation (Wien Displacement Law) temperature of -80C, which can't melt an ice cube. So they try to have their cake and eat it too by lumping CO2 into the T^4 arrows sans mention.

Don't try to post a criticism on their site.  You're a pseudoscientist who isn't  in their club and has no citations listed in Google Scholar, and they're professionals who are all getting money from the fair impartial nonpolitical government, really part of the leftist-tun U.N. IPCC octopus of kept scientists, academics, journalists, and politicians, who don't want anybody rocking the boat.

We renegade climate heretics see that the entire article is pseudoscience, designed to keep their climate priests in business churning out official Bibles of lies about past global temperatures that always are in lock-step with atmospheric CO2 measurements at the sacred mountain of Mauna Loa, toward which they probably pray three times a day. Their god is Mammon, look it up in the Bible. I wish that we were all funded by Big Oil to fight the IPCC's lies, but alas they long ago made a deal for a piece of the renewable energy boondoggle pie, and we have to have other means of support and just work to find the truth and speak truth to power in hopes that somebody will keep score someday.

Too bad, no matter who submits it, the ACS won't reprint this correction and disassociate themselves from the leftist-run U.N. IPCC.  I'm just a climate heretic that's outside their club, but I know radiative physics like they apparently don't.  Or do they really know, and are deliberately trying to deceive the public, for political purposes?  Somebody tell me if/when they take this article down and if they mention me, much less give me a medal. :)

I cover this layer of the CO2 fake physics hoax plus all the other layers of the bloomin' onion in my non-peer-reviewed "free science" article on my private Web site:

http://www.historyscoper.com/climatetlw.html