Do blankets warm you?

Believers of the Greenhouse Effect all use the same analogy to get you to believe in their junk science. The site Skeptical Science sets the standard in this article:

So have climate scientists made an elementary mistake? Of course not! The skeptic is ignoring the fact that the Earth is being warmed by the sun, which makes all the difference.

To see why, consider that blanket that keeps you warm. If your skin feels cold, wrapping yourself in a blanket can make you warmer. Why? Because your body is generating heat, and that heat is escaping from your body into the environment. When you wrap yourself in a blanket, the loss of heat is reduced, some is retained at the surface of your body, and you warm up. You get warmer because the heat that your body is generating cannot escape as fast as before.

Link

And more:

To summarise: Heat from the sun warms the Earth, as heat from your body keeps you warm. The Earth loses heat to space, and your body loses heat to the environment. Greenhouse gases slow down the rate of heat-loss from the surface of the Earth, like a blanket that slows down the rate at which your body loses heat. The result is the same in both cases, the surface of the Earth, or of your body, gets warmer.

Link

NASA reminds us that:

The greenhouse effect is the way in which heat is trapped close to the surface of the Earth by “greenhouse gases.” These heat-trapping gases can be thought of as a blanket wrapped around the Earth, which keeps it toastier than it would be without them.

Link

You got that? Blankets warm you! Their logic is so sound that they couldn’t possibly be wrong, could they?

What empirical evidence do they provide for such an assertion? None!

Do they even attempt to predict what temperature a blanket could force? No!

Any such attempt would be very embarrassing for them, so instead they just leave it to the reader’s imagination.

First a note: there is no doubt that a blanket can make you warmer by blocking convection. The issue at hand is whether there is a warming due to radiative heat transfer, as is claimed for the greenhouse effect by analogy.

Let’s consider the case of a typical cotton blanket, whose emissivity ranges from 0.81 to 0.88 [Bellivieu 2019], depending on humidity. I will choose 0.85 for an average humidity condition; The exactness hardly matters. According to the verified program provided in my article The Dumbest Math Theory Ever, a blanket with an emissivity of 0.85 placed on a human being whose normal temperature is at 37°C, should produce a final skin temperature of …

$ ALB=0 TSI=2090.8 bash gheffect 0.85

Sec | Upwelling |   Temp    | GH Effect |  Trapped  | To Space
  1 | 522.700 W |  36.701 C | 444.295 W | 222.148 W | 300.553 W
  2 | 744.848 W |  65.389 C | 410.973 W |  94.413 W | 428.287 W
  3 | 839.260 W |  75.642 C | 396.811 W |  40.125 W | 482.575 W
  4 | 879.386 W |  79.738 C | 390.792 W |  17.053 W | 505.647 W
  5 | 896.439 W |  81.436 C | 388.234 W |   7.248 W | 515.452 W
  6 | 903.687 W |  82.151 C | 387.147 W |   3.080 W | 519.620 W
  7 | 906.767 W |  82.453 C | 386.685 W |   1.309 W | 521.391 W
  8 | 908.076 W |  82.582 C | 386.489 W |   0.556 W | 522.144 W
  9 | 908.632 W |  82.636 C | 386.405 W |   0.236 W | 522.464 W
 10 | 908.869 W |  82.659 C | 386.370 W |   0.100 W | 522.600 W
 11 | 908.969 W |  82.669 C | 386.355 W |   0.043 W | 522.657 W
 12 | 909.012 W |  82.673 C | 386.348 W |   0.018 W | 522.682 W
 13 | 909.030 W |  82.675 C | 386.345 W |   0.008 W | 522.692 W
 14 | 909.038 W |  82.676 C | 386.344 W |   0.003 W | 522.697 W
 15 | 909.041 W |  82.676 C | 386.344 W |   0.001 W | 522.699 W
 16 | 909.042 W |  82.676 C | 386.344 W |   0.001 W | 522.699 W
 17 | 909.043 W |  82.676 C | 386.344 W |   0.000 W | 522.700 W

82.6°C ! Really hot!

Note that I set the albedo to zero. This is because I figure any scattering of photons between human and blanket will find its path back to the human (and thus “should” cause warming), with very little leakage at the edges of the blanket. But let us be as generous as possible to climate alarmists and say the blanket has an albedo of 0.22 (The highest value found for cotton in scientific literature: Source 1, Source 2). What then?

$ ALB=0.22 TSI=2090.8 bash gheffect 0.85

Sec | Upwelling |   Temp    | GH Effect |  Trapped  | To Space
  1 | 407.706 W |  18.040 C | 346.550 W | 173.275 W | 234.431 W
  2 | 580.981 W |  44.999 C | 320.559 W |  73.642 W | 334.064 W
  3 | 654.623 W |  54.635 C | 309.513 W |  31.298 W | 376.408 W
  4 | 685.921 W |  58.484 C | 304.818 W |  13.302 W | 394.404 W
  5 | 699.222 W |  60.081 C | 302.823 W |   5.653 W | 402.053 W
  6 | 704.875 W |  60.752 C | 301.975 W |   2.403 W | 405.303 W
  7 | 707.278 W |  61.036 C | 301.614 W |   1.021 W | 406.685 W
  8 | 708.299 W |  61.157 C | 301.461 W |   0.434 W | 407.272 W
  9 | 708.733 W |  61.208 C | 301.396 W |   0.184 W | 407.522 W
 10 | 708.918 W |  61.230 C | 301.368 W |   0.078 W | 407.628 W
 11 | 708.996 W |  61.239 C | 301.357 W |   0.033 W | 407.673 W
 12 | 709.029 W |  61.243 C | 301.352 W |   0.014 W | 407.692 W
 13 | 709.043 W |  61.245 C | 301.349 W |   0.006 W | 407.700 W
 14 | 709.049 W |  61.245 C | 301.349 W |   0.003 W | 407.703 W
 15 | 709.052 W |  61.246 C | 301.348 W |   0.001 W | 407.705 W
 16 | 709.053 W |  61.246 C | 301.348 W |   0.000 W | 407.706 W
 17 | 709.054 W |  61.246 C | 301.348 W |   0.000 W | 407.706 W

61.2°C ! Still very hot.

OK, I’m now going to be extremely generous, and use an emissivity value of 0.5, which is not even scientifically justifiable, but let’s give the alarmists a huge advantage. What then?

$ ALB=0.22 TSI=2090.8 bash gheffect 0.5

Sec | Upwelling |   Temp    | GH Effect |  Trapped  | To Space
  1 | 407.706 W |  18.040 C | 203.853 W | 101.927 W | 305.780 W
  2 | 509.633 W |  34.746 C | 152.890 W |  25.482 W | 382.224 W
  3 | 535.114 W |  38.525 C | 140.149 W |   6.370 W | 401.336 W
  4 | 541.485 W |  39.448 C | 136.964 W |   1.593 W | 406.113 W
  5 | 543.077 W |  39.678 C | 136.167 W |   0.398 W | 407.308 W
  6 | 543.475 W |  39.735 C | 135.968 W |   0.100 W | 407.606 W
  7 | 543.575 W |  39.750 C | 135.919 W |   0.025 W | 407.681 W
  8 | 543.600 W |  39.753 C | 135.906 W |   0.006 W | 407.700 W
  9 | 543.606 W |  39.754 C | 135.903 W |   0.002 W | 407.704 W
 10 | 543.607 W |  39.754 C | 135.902 W |   0.000 W | 407.706 W
 11 | 543.608 W |  39.754 C | 135.902 W |   0.000 W | 407.706 W

Now we get only 39.8°C, for a total warm up of 2.8°C – by a blanket that can only be heated by the human, and starts off colder (or same) as the human.

So is there any evidence to support the heating of human skin by a passively heated blanket via backradiation ?

However, if a cotton blanket heated to 90°C is in contact with skin the patient does not experience the same tissue injuries, because the blanket has less than one third the specific heat of skin. In addition, the blanket has less than 1/1000 the density of skin (the density of a blanket is about 1 kg/m³ because it is roughly half cotton and half air.) The blanket can give up all of its heat to the skin yet raise the temperature no more than 1/80th of the 70°C temperature difference, or about 1°C.

[ House 2011 ]

This scientist rightfully does not acknowledge warming by radiative effect. The blanket must be theoretically warmed to 90°C to achieve a rise of about 1°C. A table of empirical results is also provided in [House 2011]:

Body PartUnheated BlanketsBlankets Warmed to 43.3°CBlankets Warmed to 65.6°C
Abdomen0.17°C1.11°C2.39°C
Lower Legs0.33°C0.89°C1.11°C
[ House 2011], Table 2, Converted to Celcius

Though there is obviously a tiny amount of warming due to blocking convection, we don’t see any warming as predicted by GH effect radiative heat transfer theory. We should’ve seen a very generous 2.8°C warming as predicted by such a theory in the column Unheated Blankets. We don’t even see such a high number with blankets externally heated to 65.6°C !

Now we move onto [Kabbara 2002]. In this paper we see how expensive equipment can be used to maintain a patient’s temperature. Figure 6 shows how externally heated air prevents a patient’s temperature from falling. But one may ask: What is the purpose of this expensive equipment when climate “scientists” already know that a non-externally heated blanket should raise skin temperature by at least the very generous 2.8°C?

Would you trust these climate “scientists” with your health? Do you think they really believe what they claim?

And now we move onto: US Patent – US6078026A

The blanket A has a maximum power draw of 6.5 amps. With fully charged batteries, the blanket will reach its target temperature (i.e. 100 degrees Fahrenheit or 38 degrees Celsius) approximately 5 minutes and will remain heated for five to eight hours.

Patent US6078026A

An external power source to raise T to 38°C?

Why need external power or even a patent when a simple blanket ought to do the trick?

Please do not object to this article because I based this off a normal temperature of 37°C. Even a hypothermic temperature of 33°C should be raised by 2.72°C, IF the GH effect blanket analogy held any merit.

A search on google scholar for “hospital blankets temperature” should convince anyone with integrity that blankets don’t raise your skin temperature in accordance to radiative transfer theory. For if they did, most of the discussion and science in that search would be moot: human-only heated blankets would solve the problems and special technology would not be necessary.

Skeptical Science finishes off their article:

So global warming does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. And if someone tells you otherwise, just remember that you’re a warm human being, and certainly nobody’s dummy.

Link

I’ll translate that for you: If you believe their sophistry, you are a dummy!

While using poetic license it is alright to say that blankets warm you, but using actual science, it is not correct. The best a blanket can do is keep you warm, but never make you warmer.

Enjoy 🙂 -Zoe

Addendum

Blanket(s) can suppress your perspiration and make you sick from your own urea, thus causing your temperature to go up. However, this could never be a proper analogy for the greenhouse effect.

50 thoughts on “Do blankets warm you?

  1. A quick note regarding your “First a note: there is no doubt that a blanket can make you warmer by blocking convection.” – did you really mean to say can make you warmer, or keep you warmer?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Convection can prevent your skin from reaching the normal 37C. A thermometer can’t be wrapped in your skin all around. I allow for a tiny bit of warming. You can disregard my comment if you know what I mean. I anticipate that some papers will show some tiny warming, and I want to have a ready explanation.

      Like

      1. Yes, well, normal is relative and average is conveniently inaccurate. Insulation dampens convection but dampness tends to heighten it. Sleep outdoors for two nights @ -5C, one night with your face inside the sleeping bag breathing warm air and one night with it outside breathing cold air. On which night is your skin likely to be warmer?

        Like

      2. I for one has stopped using blankets all together. On a cold winter night, I hoist up a solid steel plate about a meter or so above my bed, and enjoys the back-radiation from the steel, as I am a firm believer. (Well, it happens I envy my wife a bit, as she is not as firm in her beliefs as I am, and uses blankets).

        Liked by 1 person

        1. That’s very dangerous. Assuming you have a ceiling, that’s now 2 layers of solid. The greenhouse funny math predicts your blood should be boiling.

          This is why Eskimos never built a two layer igloo. Too hot.

          Like

  2. “The issue at hand is whether there is a warming due to radiative heat transfer, as is claimed for the greenhouse effect by analogy.”

    Nope. It is simply about the fact that clothes reduce cooling, therefore the body is warmer than it would be otherwise. It is not meant to be a 1-1 analogy. If you think otherwise, prove it.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Science doesn’t work by analogy. GHGs (with emissivity ~= 0.792) are said to raise surface temperature by ~33C due to radiative transfer theory. Yet cotton blankets (with emissivity = 0.85) are shown AT BEST to raise temperature less than 1C due to a completely different principle.

      If you don’t see a problem with this, it’s probably because you went beyond the domain of science.

      Like

      1. Why human temps are not dramatically pushed around by our surroundings is indeed an interesting question, one I hope I will be able to answer over the years/months/weeks.

        Like

        1. There is already is an explanation. It’s the 2nd law of thermodynamics. 2nd law was derived by countless experiments. Doubtful you will find an exception and remove this law.

          Like

  3. Skeptical Science is a heap of horrible stinky garbage written by someone with a huge chip on their shoulder, and was obviously given its title in order to attract readership among people hoping to find skeptical sources – a ploy at about the 11-year old cleverness level. Viscerally disgusting on every level and really should be beneath our attention, but worth fighting because of that ploy. Thanks for the great article!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Skeptical Science was founded by the cartoonist John Cook – he of the notorious 97% consensus study. Cook is known for dressing up in Nazi garb. The fact that Skeptical Science is also known as SS is quite ironic and revealing of the fascist leanings of the Klimat Kult Krowd (KKK).

      Like

  4. If the sleeping bag is made of good insulating material, it will allow you to keep your body warm for some time when you are outdoors. The lower the outside temperature, the faster you lose heat.

    Like

    1. Absolutely true. Insulation will help KEEP your temperature, but not raise it.

      Spending less money will lead to more savings. But the correct analogy of temperature in this context is: income. Your income will not change the more you save. You need a raise for that.

      Like

  5. Zoe:

    Does the blanket analogy (really, a metaphor, since, as you’ve pointed out, it does not work by trapping radiatively active gases), work better with your concept of geothermal? In other words, the body acts as the earth’s core – putting out heat – which presumably would warm the blanket (treated here as the “surface”)?

    Indeed, isn’t the reference to these gases as “green house” gases also misleading? Does not a green house primarily work by preventing convection?

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Duh, Zoe… even if Skeptical Science uses a poor analogy, that doesn’t detract from the TRUTH about the physics of the atmosphere and its interaction with energy!! If you had a continual EXTERNAL energy input (in the real world, that’d be the sun, where the light energy is being converted to heat energy as it interacts with matter on Earth), and compared the temperature under your lighter blanket (less able to trap heat) to the temperature under your heavier blanket (like an atmosphere with higher CO2 content), then, YES, the temperature under the blanket would be higher. That would have to assume, though, that the EXTERNAL heat source was easily able to pass from outside to the inside of your blanket, which doesn’t really happen, so the blanket analogy is flawed. You fail to account for the fact that light energy from the sun easily penetrates the atmosphere, but once that light interacts with matter on the earth’s surface, it is converted to heat energy – that re-radiated heat CANNOT pass easily back out through the atmosphere, so becomes trapped. This is different from a real blanket, where light energy is NOT able to pass through it easily. No climate scientist is trying to LITERALLY tell you that the increased CO2 is making us warmer because there’s some sort of blankie around the earth that is trapping OUR OWN heat inside it. GEEZ…

    Like

    1. lol. Your body is analogous to the sun. It’s a real raw energy source (as long as you ate) that’s able to radiate to the inside of the blanket.

      Greenhouse solids like a blanket do not raise your temperature, and neither do greenhouse gases.

      Fourier discovered in the 1820s that no amount of layers of glass raised the surface temperature beyond what the sun could provide. Glass lets shortwave in, and impedes longwave out. Still no effect.

      Your junk science is just assertive rhetoric with nothing to back it up. It’s fantasyland.

      Why would skepsci use an analogy that debunks them?

      Because they thought they could fool dumb people into thinking blankets do raise your temperature.

      Try some reality:
      https://phzoe.com/2019/12/25/why-is-venus-so-hot/

      Like

      1. Your comments here are not science based, Zoe! In your argument, your body is analogous to the sun. However, that’s flawed because 1) your body doesn’t emit LIGHT than can be converted to heat. 2) Your energy source (your body) is coming from within the blanket, not without, and 3) The sun is emitting WAAAAAAY more energy than your body! In reality, the inside of a blanket around your body could never reach a temperature higher than your own body temp. Yes, true. Using that same analogy, then the earth could never reach a temperature higher than the oh, say like 27 million degrees fahrenheit energy that’s the sun is emitting. That alone should give you pause for trying to take the analogy seriously. Have you ever been in a greenhouse? Gets lots hotter in there than in the ambient air outside, right? Then why would you be so adamant that this can’t happen on Earth? So, will you claim, oh, but the greenhouse cools off – it doesn’t STAY hot? Yes, 1) that’s because the materials (glass, plastic, weed, whatever we’re using as the greenhouse building materials) interact with the heat being re-radiated differently than atmospheric gases. And 2) oh, wait — the earth ALSO cools at night and seasonally, just like a greenhouse, wow! Using Fourier’s findings to make your point is weird, since glass is a totally different state of matter, not to mention type of molecule, than CO2, methane, etc. (the greenhouse gases). Think about it – glass conducts heat – not well, but it does (that’s why we put double paned windows on – with a VACCUUM inside – which does not conduct/convect heat). And light goes both ways through a window, that’s why you can see through it!! This is basic science! You should be thanking God for the greenhouse effect, or our planet would be waaaay too cold for us to survive. Or do you have some other explanation for why we have livable temperatures here on Earth, so far away from a heat source? Your arguments completely fail to even acknowledge that NO HEAT comes to us through the vacuum of outer space from the sun. LIGHT does, and the way it interacts with our atmosphere absolutely results in the greenhouse effect! Referring me to another one of your posts is NOT a valid way to try to introduce me to a dose of reality! You’re trying to debunk long-proven scientific assertions with citations of cotton emissivity and hospital blankets? Not actual research done with “greenhouse” gases??? Good grief! A dose of reality comes with actual references to actual scientific research completed. Here, try a REAL dose of reality – all the actual research you could want, on actual greenhouse gases, with citations and everything, like real science!!! https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter07_FINAL-1.pdf

        Or if that’s a bit too heady…

        https://www.carbonbrief.org/new-study-directly-measures-greenhouse-effect-at-earths-surface

        Like

        1. 1) Sunlight is 43% Light, 7% UV, and 50% Infrared. Doesn’t matter. All radiation can stimulate kinetic energy, not just infrared.
          2) The sun-warmed Earth emitting infrared to the atmosphere is like your body emitting infrared to a blanket. Both are on the inside.
          3) You forgot the inverse square law and albedo. The sun only provides ~240 W/m^2, which is ~-18C. The thousands or millions of degrees you’re talking about is a remote fantasy.

          “Have you ever been in a greenhouse? Gets lots hotter in there than in the ambient air outside, right?”

          Yes it’s hotter in there because there is blocked air convection.

          The maximum temperature in a greenhouse is solely determined by geothermal and solar. The greenhouse does not raise the surface temperature. The blockage of convection can only make the 3D greenhouse air match the surface tempetature. It can’t and doesn’t make it hotter.

          That’s not what the radiative greenhouse effect claims. It claims an additional 33 degrees.

          “Using Fourier’s findings to make your point is weird, since glass is a totally different state of matter, not to mention type of molecule, than CO2…”

          Uhuh, a greenhouse solid can’t raise temperature, but a gas can. Sure. As if CO2 does not have conductive and convectice interaction in the atmosphere. Hypocrite.

          We’ve done experiments with CO2. At no point does CO2 cause warming back at the source of its radiation. GH Effect was fully debunked by Tyndall in 1859, if you didn’t like Fourier’s 1824 debunking.

          “You should be thanking God for the greenhouse effect, or our planet would be waaaay too cold for us to survive.”

          LMAO. No, that is not true. The atmosphere is a coolant. The atmosphere can only exist because kinetic energy gets converted to potential energy, causing a vertical lift of gases. If you remove the atmosphere, the surface would be much hotter, so much so, that another atmosphere would just evaporate out of the ocean.

          “A dose of reality comes with actual references to actual scientific research completed.”

          Referring to people who adopted the same false premises does not prove the assertions you or they make.

          Your premises are false. You have been throughly debunked. You ignore this and just repeat the same junk science over and over again until you yourself are fully convinced. There’s a term for this behavior.

          The fact is:
          https://phzoe.com/2019/12/25/why-is-venus-so-hot/

          There’s no greenhouse effect. It’s a figment of mathematical imagination.

          Like

    1. And what are your source’s sources?
      Communists can also cite their sources, but it doesn’t make their rhetoric scientific or real.
      Islamists can also cite their sources …

      Citing people who believe in false premises only shows you don’t understand what circular reasoning is – a fallacy.

      Did Tyndall observe CO2 warming back the source of his radiation? No. Did anyone else? No. We’re done. Simple as that.

      Like

  7. You can’t “throughly debunk” someone without actually providing citations for actual research done, otherwise you’re just going on ideas that you like to have. Did you check out the scientific research I provided? Scientific research isn’t based on false premises adopted by folks – it actually provides evidence that leads to a logical conclusion. P.S. the word is THOROUGHLY. P.P.S. Have you taken organic chemistry? This might help you understand how different molecules interact differently with other matter and energy.

    Like

    1. ‘You can’t “throughly debunk” someone without actually providing citations for actual research done, otherwise you’re just going on ideas that you like to have.’

      Are you suggesting I fabricated this NASA diagram of Venus?:

      Are you suggesting that I fabricated the fact that Tyndall didn’t see a temperature rise back at his radiation source? Does your cult claim that he did?

      Like

  8. And Tyndall? Where do you get the idea that he even debunked the GH effect? His research showed exactly what I’m trying to point out – that certain gases interact differently with heat and light than others. His work is often cited as the origin of GH gas studies. And where would all this heat on Earth come from if not the sun? You trying to say geothermal processes, like with your venus post? If that were the case, then wouldn’t the Earth’s surface temp continue to radiate all that heat at night, too? Girl, get your facts together.

    Like

    1. Tyndall showed CO2 being warmed by radiation, and NEVER warming back the source. GH effect claims the source is warmed. Tyndall debunked this. Con artists use Tyndall, when his research shows the opposite.

      Geothermal .. day and night

      https://phzoe.com/2020/02/25/deducing-geothermal/

      “Scientific research isn’t based on false premises adopted by folks.”

      Yes yours is. Venus’ surface is completely explained by geothermal. Same for Earth.

      Like

  9. Zoe – what the HECK does your NASA diagram have to do with radiation interacting with CO2 differently than with glass?? I din’t say nuthin’ about your dang Venus diagram. But if you are trying to say that NASA’s Venus diagram and your associated post somehow PROVE that geothermal alone can explain Earth’s surface temp., well… you just cray-cray. You putting a bunch of numbers into a computer model/algorithm doesn’t prove anything. Cite me some experimental data, like actual physical experimentation with the REAL, physical world you are trying to explain, that is directly trying to answer whether or not our lil’ Earthen molten core gives us all our heat and then I’ll give you some cred. I gave you an actual paper, with actual physical experimentation in the REAL world, and that’s a false premise? So, you really think that the 5 (+) scientists involved in a 10 year study are just somehow adopting a false premise? Want more studies? Go here and check out all the related studies: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25731165/
    Are all those scientists also in on the plot? Like I said before, by definition, science is an endeavor that bases its assertions on EVIDENCE provided by EXPERIMENTATION. Is there crappy science in the world? Sure. Is some published research biased? Have some scientists manipulated data to support a shaky claim? Of course. But the overwhelming majority of scientists, and the large body of EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE about the GH effect, aren’t part of some conspiracy to crush your lil’ ol view of whatever.

    As for Tyndall, GEEZ. I don’t really even know what you mean by this:
    “Are you suggesting that I fabricated the fact that Tyndall didn’t see a temperature rise back at his radiation source?”
    His radiation SOURCE was just a light source in the lab, and he was passing that light through tubes filled with different gases. So… Tyndall didn’t see a rise in temp at his radiation SOURCE? Of course the lights’ temps didn’t increase – they are giving off a discrete amount of energy. Science isn’t trying to assert that “the source” (the sun? you can’t mean Earth, can you? ‘Cause the earth is NOT the source of said radiation). He DID, however, see big temperature changes/differences resulting from those lights’ interaction with the different gases.

    Any reputable writing you find about Tyndall is going to tell you that his EXPERIMENTAL data showed a DIFFERENTIAL absorption of radiation – infrared- by different gases. Water vapor, especially, absorbs infrared very well (so yes, all that water vapor in our atmosphere DOES provide a “cooling” effect, as you so vehemently state — “The atmosphere is a coolant” – HEY, we agree! Kinda.). The water vapor absorbs some of that energy before it hits Earth’s surface, so yes, cooling. But that doesn’t negate the rest of Tyndall’s findings about how other gases block re-emittance back OUT of the atmosphere from Earth’s surface. You want actual sources? Science? Here’s his actual lecture to the Royal Society in 1961: http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Papers/Spectroscopy/tyndall-1861.pdf

    Or maybe you’d like a DIRECT QUOTE from Tyndall’s address at the “Weekly Meeting of Members” at the Royal Institution of Great Britain on Friday, June 10, 1859 (check it out – starts on page 155 and quote is on page 158:https://books.google.com/books?id=7FFJAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA158#v=onepage&q&f=false)
    “when the heat is absorbed by the planet, it is so changed in quality that the rays emanating from the planet cannot get with the same freedom back into space. Thus the atmosphere admits of the entrance of solar heat, but checks its exit; and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet.” How do you figure that is NOT supportive of the GH effect?

    THAT is citing a source. So, find me something out of Tyndall’s own experimentation or writing that supports your assertion that he didn’t see a temperature rise (back at his radiation source?? Maybe you meant to say something else?)

    Oh, and conflating my asking you for citations and sources with Communism and Islam — classic!! ‘Cause, yah, folks who want to engage in critical debate are Communists or Islamic, right? Way to know the inflammatory words of the year. Anyway, you are obviously very intelligent, great with the numbers, a good writer, and are well-read in your circle of thought. It seems that you can read other people’s posts or GH-denying lit and spit it back out all science-like. But here’s the deal. You still haven’t provided ONE cited experimental source to back yourself up (uh, referring me back to one of your previous posts doesn’t count, as anyone trying to use actual science – not computer modeling- would know). THAT makes you look less intelligent than you likely are. Give me something peer-edited!

    “Tyndall showed CO2 being warmed by radiation, and NEVER warming back the source. GH effect claims the source is warmed.” What the heck do you even mean by this? What is the “source”? Source of what?

    “Tyndall debunked this. Con artists use Tyndall, when his research shows the opposite.” OK, I’ve tried to provide evidence that I’m not the con-artist. Now YOU provide me citable evidence, from Tyndall, that his research “shows the opposite”. Don’t be the con-artist!!!!!!!

    Like

    1. I’m going to keep your comment up so my audience can see how ignorant you are.

      Please do browse my blog entirely so you can learn nothing and just repeat the same thing over and over again. You’ve shown a great penchant for that.

      What never ceases to amaze me is that I continue to get “educated” by people who don’t realize that

      1) I received 7/7 on the Physics IB Exam, allowing me to skip Physics I and II at university

      2) I took 3 more physics and 2 astronomy courses at university. I aced them all.

      3) The greenhouse effect was covered. I aced that exam.

      4) The greenhouse effect conflicted with everything else I learned in Physics. But I didn’t raise my hand.

      Theteach,
      Do yourself a favor and don’t preach to people who have looked at the problem from more angles than you have.

      Like

      1. Whoa, hey… I already said that you were obviously intelligent, so no need to cite your credentials in Physics. Good for you, though, Ace, you clearly ARE intelligent. And no need to claim my ignorance. I assure you, with a B.S. in Zoology from University of Washington, M.S. in Bioengineering from Colorado School of the Mines, and PhD from Caltech , Environmental Science and Engineering, I’ve been around the block a few times and have looked at the problem from, uh, a couple of angles!

        Like

        1. Sorry, but many of your comments make me doubt you’ve been “around the block a few times”.

          I don’t doubt you have much schooling.
          That’s not relevant.

          I get constantly accused of not understanding the GHE, but in reality it’s precisely because I do understand it so well that I reject it.

          I show my credentials so that people don’t bother wasting their time sending me information I already know.

          I went a meta level above what I was taught. Many people can’t understand what that even means.

          Like

    2. “Observational Determination of Surface Radiative Forcing by CO2 From 2000 to 2010”

      Nothing but a post-hoc fallacy.

      My [natural] geothermal warming theory would show more absorption by CO2. And your paper would reverse causality and claim it was CO2 that did the warming.

      Your paper is the absolute bottom of scientific research quality. It’s trash.

      Using their technique I can show that olive production causes warming. Did olive production increase between 2000 and 2010? Yes. Did temperature increase? Yes.
      Do olives block surface radiation from leaving to space? Yes. So obviously it’s the olives that caused the warming…

      Your paper is not an experiment. Your paper is a post-hoc fallacy plus affirming-the-consequent fallacy.

      Your paper’s authors already presumed that which they set out to prove, and so didn’t bother looking at anything other than CO2 as the cause. Then pinned the blame on CO2.

      Like

      1. I always tell my students, if you want someone to pay attention to you, you’d better arm yourself with EVIDENCE. It’s strange then, for you to dismiss published, peer-reviewed research as post-hoc fallacy. I mean, if you’re going to call it “trash”, you might as well point out the errors in method or analysis, as legitimate, disagreeing scientist would do. Did you read the part about where they actually MEASURED the absorption of the CO2 — directly?? So, yah, your olive example could hold up if you actually measured the amount of olives on the planet, then went and measured their absorptive ability, then reported on what you found. Like this, from the “the trash” publication: “Differences between counterfactual spectra and coincidental AERI measurements show structure in the major CO2 absorption features as shown in Fig. 2b and e, at an order of magnitude greater than the longterm residual rms in Fig. 1b. Also shown are those spectral features for which the trend is non-zero at the 3s level. These panels show the unmistakable spectral fingerprint of CO2.” Ah, but yours would talk about the unmistakable spectral fingerprint of olives. Oh, dang, though, here we are back to that whole Tyndall thing, where there’s an assertion that different matter has differential ability to absorb radiation. Oh, yah… Tyndall! Hey, you didn’t respond to my questions about Tyndall. Care to cite your references to support your Tyndall assertions?

        Like

        1. “you might as well point out the errors in method or analysis.”

          I already did. Natural warming would cause CO2 to absorb more. That’s what they found. That’s all their data shows. If they claim CO2 caused the warming, that’s not in their data, that’s just their wishful interpretation. Post-hoc fallacy.

          By analogy:
          Just because a sponge can absorb more water doesn’t mean it caused the spill. Look we measured the sponge absorbing more water!

          As for Tyndall you gave a really silly explanation for why the source didn’t warm. It amounted to a nonsense dismisal.

          You seem to have cognitive dissonance.

          Like

    3. “But if you are trying to say that NASA’s Venus diagram and your associated post somehow PROVE that geothermal alone can explain Earth’s surface temp”

      The Venus diagram proves Venus doesn’t have a greenhouse effect. Wasn’t that obvious?

      “Cite me some experimental data, like actual physical experimentation with the REAL, physical world you are trying to explain, that is directly trying to answer whether or not our lil’ Earthen molten core gives us all our heat and then I’ll give you some cred. ”

      Well obviously the core doesn’t give ALL our surface heat. But the core plus the sun does. Add solar to geothermal and you don’t need silly GH effect.

      I provide diagrams from GEOPHYSICISTS here:
      https://phzoe.com/2020/02/13/measuring-geothermal-a-revolutionary-hypothesis/

      If you’d like to see more diagrams from scientists, just google images “geotherm”.

      Like

      1. “The Venus diagram proves Venus doesn’t have a greenhouse effect. Wasn’t that obvious?” Haha… no, Zoe, a diagram doesn’t PROVE anything. In fact, again, a real scientist would be hard pressed to ever used the word “prove”, knowing that new evidence might just show up to bust your previous ideas right out of the water. And, no, I won’t be Googling for more diagrams because I’m asking for EXPERIMENTAL DATA with which you can support your assertions, not a NASA diagram which is supposed to PROVE what conditions are like 10s of millions of miles away.

        Like

        1. The geotherm diagrams are based on over 70,000 global borehole, well, mining, etc. measurements. Did you think they are just made up from nothing?

          For Venus, you’re ready to accept the GHE hypothesis, but geothermal you just dismiss straight out. That’s incredibly silly, because the thickness of an atmosphere is determined from the available surface kinetic energy. GHGs can’t defeat gravity to create their own atmosphere. The consensus for planets without GHGs: Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune is internal (“geo”-thermal). Once there is a single GHG molecule, climate scientists confuse the issue on purpose.

          Like

  10. Stillllllll waiting for ANY cited sources of data. Stilllllll waiting for a response to Tyndall (to remind you – how was it that Tyndall debunked his own GH hypothesis?? Cite with evidence – I did! I provided his own dang words! Provide something!).

    “As for Tyndall you gave a really silly explanation for why the source didn’t warm. It amounted to a nonsense dismisal. (I think you mean dismissal)” ??? I didn’t give ANY explanation about the source and warming… I asked you what the you even meant by “source”. (I quote myself from previous post: “What the heck do you even mean by this? What is the “source”? Source of what?”)

    “The geotherm diagrams are based on over 70,000 global borehole, well, mining, etc. measurements. Did you think they are just made up from nothing?” Nope I don’t, but until we can directly MEASURE 70,000 boreholes ON VENUS, those done on Earth don’t PROVE anything about Venus!!

    “For Venus, you’re ready to accept the GHE hypothesis, but geothermal you just dismiss straight out.” Umm… didn’t say anything about GHE or geothermal, just said don’t use the word PROVE (and, again, asked for citable evidence).

    Like

      1. I never claimed that. Are you implying that the source of radiation spoken of in the GH effect is the earth? ‘Cause it’s not – the source of that radiation would be the sun…

        Like

        1. No, teach, the primary source of 4 and 15 micron radiation that CO2 loves so much is the sun-warmed Earth.

          The GH effect claims that CO2 warms back the source of its radiation: Earth’s surface by 33C. Are GHE believers claiming CO2 warms the sun? No! Why are you being silly?

          You are supposed to know what your camp claims. You don’t, but here you are not knowing what you’re even supposed to show.

          Like

    1. Tyndall didn’t have a GH effect hypothesis, but he did debunk it before it became a thing.

      Your thought process leads me to conclude you’re uneducable or purposefully obtuse.

      Like

      1. Stiillllll waiting for you to provide ANY evidence that Tyndall debunked his own research (and of course, he didn’t call it GH effect). Anyhow the GH effect would say that the earth is only re-radiating what energy had originally come from the sun, but whatever. Again, to quote the guy you so revere: “when the heat is absorbed by the planet, it is so changed in quality that the rays emanating from the planet cannot get with the same freedom back into space. Thus the atmosphere admits of the entrance of solar heat, but checks its exit; and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet.” How do you figure that is NOT supportive of the GH effect?

        I’m gonna sign off – this has been fun and all, but I should return to my actual job and leave you to your modeling. Now you can scrub my posts or leave them up if you wanna provide evidence of how obtuse I am.

        Food for thought, Zoe. A student mentioned your site to me (if you’re out there, “Hey, Zane!!”), saying that you seemed really intelligent, but were pretty much a crackpot. Like I’ve stated before, you definitely seem highly intelligent. You also definitely detract from your intelligence by calling people who question your ideas communists, Islamic, silly, obtuse, etc. It makes you seem small and scared.

        You have really interesting modeling data, which is so important in science. But without any actual experimental data to back them up, models are only models. Go out there and find some data, it will amplify your legitimacy.

        OK, now blast me as idiotic or something – you can have the last word and claim me fully debunked!!

        Good luck in life, XO, the Uneducable Professor

        Like

        1. And Tyndall’s heat lamp was only radiating energy he got from a battery or power supply. So what?

          To prove the GH effect, his heat lamp should have risen in temperature. No one doubt that the heat lamp warms the CO2. That’s not the GHE.

          Heat doesn’t accumulate, it dissipates / diffuses.

          That’s exactly the problem with GHE junk science. Their definition of “equilbrium” is the conservation of heat flow, a non-physical concept.

          Sorry, but I am not a crackpot. I’m actually grounded in physical reality.

          If the GHE had no political use, it would have been laughed out of science long ago. In fact it was, repeatedly.

          Geothermal denial is what is actually crackpot.

          I’m sorry to say, but I think you lack detached inquiry. You already “know”.

          Like

        2. “But without any actual experimental data to back them up, models are only models.”

          I find this sentence utterly disgusting. All my models are backed up by data. I don’t know how you could look through my site and make such a statement.

          “How do you figure that is NOT supportive of the GH effect?”

          Because his.words are not tethered to anything. He’s making a hypothesis, an assertion. His experiment doesn’t demonstrate what he claims. His experiment only shows UN-disputed warming of CO2 by radiation. The GHE requires that CO2 then force his heat lamp to get hotter.

          No one disputes that Earth’s 4 and 15 micron radiation warms CO2. No one. But that’s not the GHE.

          Like

  11. Although some people really believe this effect to be real, the more conventional explanation of AGW is that greenhouse gases increase the altitude (and so reducing the temperature) at which emission occurs. IPCC is stupid by focusing on back-radiation. If only scientists could say what they really mean about this bullshit without risking their careers….. (I am pretty sure they all know that heat cannot flow from cold to hot even by radiation).

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Actually the AGW “scientists” have said back radiation isn’t a thing.
      I don’t have specific reference but I know it was at Climate Etc and and I think within last 2 years
      https://judithcurry.com/

      It a bad argument {easily disproven}. They tend to like argue things which not so easily disproven.
      Actually getting any AGW “scientist” to actually agree with each other is not common.
      Other than easy stuff like, we need world govt to solve the problem. And it’s a big problem. Etc.
      Anything which could increase their funding will get broad agreement.

      Like

  12. Analogy is a difficult art. In fact, if atmosphere is a blanket, we must imagine for Earth a sick human being who suffers every 12 hours a fever (day) which decreases 12 hours later (night). Its average daily temperature would be 38.5 ° C, varying between 37 and 40. With a blanket, the average temperature will rise not because it heats up but it slows down evacuation of fever heat.

    Like

    1. Evacuation theory is pseudoscience.
      Temperature is a real physical phenomena: the motion of molecules. Molecules do not move more vigorously (higher temperature) due to this motion propagating elsewhere or being prevented from propagating elsewhere.

      There’s not a single experiment to support you.

      Like

Leave a Reply to Zoe Phin Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: