Illustrated example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Then our discussion is at an end, as you do not understand how science works.

Postma claims he can test for the greenhouse effect:

Postma proposes a methodology for the test:

Postma describes his resulrs:

BUT HE NEVER DID THE TEST.

It doesn't matter if the test was a good test, well designed or logical. It doesn't matter if the results he didn't get are supported by the best fucking theoretical backing imaginable, Postma fails at basic scientific honesty.

I did read Latour paper, after this discussion had been going on for some time. My response to it was in this comment. There are many valid refutations for it, I even linked to one.

The conclusions offered in Postma's web post are not supported by any evidence. His proposed experiment makes no sense, but that doesn't matter because nobody ever actually performs it. He makes outlandish claims without citation. This is the reason why nobody can offer a scientific refutation of the web article: THE WEB ARTICLE HAS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS TO ATTACK.

I have tried to explain to you instead the logical failings in that page. You have ignored or misrepresented my statements in an almost pathological manner.

As a last, desperate attempt to find some sign of reason in you, let's see if we can find even the most basic common ground. In the article, just before the results section, Postma finally defines the experiment he intends:

Can you at least admit that in the experiment he did, he maybe, sorta, should have actually measured some temperatures inside a greenhouse?

Let me direct you to my earlier words:

I did not elaborate further because, as I stated, I did not want to get into a semantic argument, because it does not materially affect my argument.

Once again, I do not claim that nobody ever believed that the mechanisms were the same. I even link to a NASA for-kids education module that states exactly that. What I say is that those people are incorrect. It is entirely possible for someone to believe something that isn't true, as I am sure you will agree.

With regards to that exact quote you mentioned, it comes from Arrhenius's Worlds in the Making, and while I do not have the full text of the book with me perhaps some larger quotes would give you some perspective on his work:

As you can see, as far back as your 1906 quote, "The Hothouse Effect" refers to heat rays, not convection. I do not have Fourier earlier work either, so I cannot comment on whether his theories were about trapped radiation or convection.

I will try to keep this short, since reading is clearly not your strong suite. Here was my original statement:

I did not mention the second document because I had not at that time read it, because the first article was, as I say, absurd. No amount of other links will be able to redeem it because its problem is not maths or science (climate or otherwise). The problem is it is logically inconsistent in itself. To be blunt, IT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE, as I explain in my earlier comment. As I stated:

You then responded with:

which was a good guess, especially since the very next sentence I wrote in that comment was "The same CO2 density inside and outside the greenhouses means that the CO2 would increase the greenhouse temperature and the external temperature by the same amount."

Well done.

Once again, Postma's pivotal claim is that The observed heat increase in a greenhouse can be entirely explained by trapped convection. As I pointed out in the same comment as before, he provides two sources for that claim: his experiment that doesn't involve a greenhouse at all, and another that does not provide his conclusion.

Once again, and for the last time, I hope this sets the matter to rest. Regarding the rest of your most recent reply with arguments about Latour's thermodynamics claims, I will again quote what I said earlier:

I am willing to admit that I did find a relationship between Postma's article and Latour's: they are both as absurd as the other. I am willing to bet that this skydragon book you are pimping is just as absurd as both.

Correct, but what that "especially" means is "you are technically correct but you should probably pick a more accurate word".

edit (again) :(

sir or madam.

I have read the article, sir. That is not what it claims at all. It contains the following clear claims:

1. There are two things called "The Greenhouse Effect" (false)
2. The observed heat increase in a greenhouse can be entirely explained by trapped convection(true)
3. Therefore the actual greenhouse effect doesn't exist.(false)

At the very end of the article, in the line before the results section, Postma attempts to jam in a different premise about "maximum solar heating". However, as I explained in my previous comment, no evidence is offered to support it. Additionally, as I have also explained twice, the extra PDF you linked to has nothing to do with the article.

Frankly, it sounds like you are trying to move the goalposts. That article does not mention any of the following at all:

• back radiation
• The second law of thermodynamics
• thermodynamics
• Stefan-Boltzmann law
• any mention of colder bodies heating warmer ones
• Roy Spencer
• Anybody called "Latour "

Even if this is a "layman's explanation", it is not a layman's explanation of the argument you are now making. I believe this brings the discussion to an end.

As a service to you: You probably still have some questions or confusions about "the greenhouse effect violating the second law of thermodynamics." This isn't correct, for two main reasons:

1. Thermodynamics applies to complete systems. You could "disprove" any law of thermodynamics you'd like by simply examining incomplete systems and models.
2. CO2 does not heat the ground, it effectively slows the rate at which the (hot) ground loses heat to (cold) space.

There are many things you can read that explain this more fully. Start with the link below and move on to Google for more evidence, but I suggest that if you have issues with them, you discuss them on the appropriate forums rather than attempting to shoehorn them in to this discussion.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/why-greenhouse-gas-warming-doesnt-break-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/

Edit:

Look, this really shouldn't devolve into an argument about semantics. Sophistry does often imply intent, and "after the manner of the glass panes in hot-houses" possibly refers to the fact that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and greenhouses both trap heat, not that they use the exactly the same mechanism to do the trapping.

Regardless, we are all telling you now that there is only one effect correctly referred to as "the greenhouse effect" in science, and that it not the same mechanism that keeps greenhouses warm. Any source that claims otherwise is incorrect, no matter how official-sounding the domain name.

No, I am proposing that the CO2 would be aproximately the same inside and outside the greenhouse, so its effect would not be noticeable. In the experiment, the greenhouse temperature is compared to the external temperature, right?

Regardless of the size of the greenhouse, the increased temperature (increased, that is, over the external temperature) will be due to trapped convection. The same CO2 density inside and outside the greenhouses means that the CO2 would increase the greenhouse temperature and the external temperature by the same amount.

That is why we say the experiment on that website has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.

Uh, yes. That parenthetical statement I made that referenced a cartoon joke, was a joke, an attempt at humour on my part. I am sorry it offended you so. If I may ask, why did you chose to link to the PDF document when there are (as you noted) many other HTML documents mirroring the original? Also please note that I did not "ask [you] about credibility". We are discussing these pages on content, only.

In any case, the original source page was up when I googled for it before I posted. As I stated, it had little to no relevence to the article you referenced.

There are two sources provided for the web article's results. You probably meant to link here: http://www.principia-scientific.org/publications/Absence_Measureable_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf

That is a report produced by the person who wrote the web article, linked to from the article. It seems to contain the conclusions listed in the "Results" section of the web article. In it is a very different experiment to the one listed on the website (that doesn't even involve measuring temperatures in a greenhouse at all!)

That report is rife with errors, but that is an entirely separate subject. What matters is that the experiment described in it does not correspond with the website. On the other hand, his other provided source does have an experiment similar to the web article. However, it does not contain the results in the article.

This is (partly) why we say that that page is absurd.

I understand what the author was trying to say. I am saying his premise is entirely wrong.

Firstly, there is only one definition of "The Greenhouse Effect", not two as claimed by the article. That is the greenhouse effect of global warming. The mechanism that keeps greenhouses warm is not called the greenhouse effect.

There is no attempt at sophistry, no double-meaning, and you are not living in the Matrix.

Secondly, because of this, OF COURSE the greenhouse effect's impact on the temperature in the greenhouse was minimal. The dominant force in that system would be the trapping of the heat that would normally have been lost by convection, i.e. the normal mechanism by which greenhouses stay hot. Trapped radiation (i.e. the greenhouse effect) would have minimal effect.

As a footnote, that PDF (which appears to be a text paste of a website in order to move the contents up the trustworthyness scale) really doesn't apply to the contents of that page. Regardless, google the title of that document and you will find all the refutations you seek.

Since postscripts seem to be popular in this thread, I will add one here containing direct quotes from that article.

Judging by the contents of the article, I would suggest that the exclusion of the maths was also to keep the article writable for non-math people.

Frankly, that "Climate Sophistry" page is absurd. Never mind that two fifths of the article is a section entitled "Modern Philosophical Analysis", the basic premise of the article displays a basic misunderstanding of fact.

The article claims (in the most obtuse way imaginable) that the way the so-called "greenhouse effect" does not mirror the actual observed behaviour of greenhouses here on Earth.

If the authour had even a basic grounding in science he would know that "the greenhouse effect" is NOT how greenhouses retain heat. The greenhouse effect was so named in 1824 by analogy to the effects observed in a greenhouse, not because the mechanism was the same.

Is "greenhouse effect" therefore a bad name for way radiation is trapped in a planet's atmosphere? Maybe, but in almost any introductory text on the subject you will see phrases like "would have a sort of greenhouse effect" that clearly show the term to be descriptive, not prescriptive.

Regardless, I cannot understand how any reasonable person could make that leap from "bad name" to "ALL CLIMATE SCIENCE IS LIEZ OMG".

Leave it to a Nazi to be pedantic about ovens.

Oblig. http://xkcd.com/243/