The phrase ‘irrefutable settled science’ is bandied about a lot when talking about climate science.
Usually this is from theoretical physicists or astrophysicists who actually have little understanding of gas dynamics and thermodynamics as applied to gases. If you really want to know how gases behave, ask somebody who designs gas turbines or steam generating plant, i.e. the people generally overlooked by the intellectual snob.
The ‘irrefutable settled science’ to which they refer constitutes mainly the Stefan Bolzmann Law, the Schwarzschild equation, and perhaps Fourier’s Law of cooling.
We start with Fourier’s Law. Anybody who suggests conduction is relevant to heat flow in the bulk of a gas is seriously ignorant of the thermal properties of gases. At best Fourier’s Law applies in a very thin layer in the vicinity of a solid surface, it has absolutely no relevance to the bulk of the atmosphere. Talk of gases forming a ‘blanket’ around the Earth is utter hogwash, intent on hoodwinking a technically naïve public.
Think about it. Why are there air gaps in double glazing units if conduction in gases were significant?
That is the point; We do not dispute the validity of the equations,only their relevance to the problem. It is the classic ivory tower academic’s error of trying to map their narrow field of expertise on to a problem, rather than seeking to characterise the problem correctly,.and finding out which phenomena are actually relevant.
The equations are indeed irrefutable settled science, but unfortunately have very little to do with the actual problem. They are not wrong, but they have been wrongly applied.
The irrefutable settled science statement is a mischievous half-truth, intent on implying skeptic points of view must be based on ignorance, stupidity, malice or self interest. Perhaps that is why its protagonsts revert to ad hominem, and in such name calling as ‘deniers’, in preference to actually discussing the science. After all, if draconian measures are needed, shouldn’t we be absolutely certain the underpinning science is correct?
The chances of publication of any refutation of the sacred cow of the greenhouse effect in the current political climate are about the same as the debunk of the ‘irrefutable settled science’ of racial purity in 1930s Germany. It has nothing to do with science.
Using just the equations of radiative heat transfer we can construct a model of the troposphere which, sort of, vaguely resembles reality.
This model exhibits extreme sensitivity to the optical properties of the atmospheric gases relating temperature to emissivity, hence the much vaunted, but completely mythical, greenhouse effect.
The current folklore claims that temperature distribution in the troposphere is dictated by radiant heat transfer, and not by gravitational compression of the circulating atmosphere, as has been demonstrated empirically by, for example, Nikolov and Zeller, and theoretically in https://gvigurs.wordpress.com/2019/04/28/the-emperors-new-climate/.
Now let us consider a balloon rising up through the atmosphere.
It gains height. In other words it gains potential energy. Ask yourself, where did that energy come from?
According to the radiative theory, it cools down because the temperature at each level is a radiation balance, and colder than the surface. But that would mean it would lose, and not gain, energy.
Even if we accepted the direct contravention of the Second Law of Thermodynamics by allowing heat to flow from the colder ambient atmosphere to the warmer balloon, we note that the energy exchange takes place after the balloon has reached its altitude. This is rather like setting out on a long journey with an empty fuel tank, on the basis that we will fill it up when we reach our destination. Try it sometime, see how far you get.
Of course, what happens is the lifting gas expands, and as it does so it cools, so the reduction in heat content (more correctly the enthalpy) of the lifting gas equals the gain in potential energy.
Precisely the same thing happens to gas circulating in the troposphere: As it rises it cools, as it descends it warms up. That is why the temperature drops with height in the troposphere.
We can characterise this process by applying the First Law of Thermodynamics to deduce the temperature lapse rate, from which we get the correct value, with no account of the contribution of radiative heat transfer at all.
Irradiance is power, it is not energy. Watts per square metre are not the same as Joules per kilogram and treating power as energy just to apply an established but irrelevant theory is really garbage science. We see ‘power’ and ‘energy’ used interchangeably in the literature, as if they were equivalent.. That in itself should be a cause of concern. It is like applying Bernoulli’s Equation of fluid flow to calculate the stresses in a beam. The equation is indeed ‘irrefutable settled science’, it just has nothing to do with the problem.
Radiation does indeed account for something like two thirds of the surface heat flux from the Earth, but that is power, it is not energy, hence it is does not determine temperature.
So, if the radiative energy balance formulation were correct, balloons wouldn’t fly.
Let’s move on to another consequence of the radiative balance model: The Sun won’t shine.
If gravitational compression does not cause temperature to rise, we are left with the problem that there is nothing to raise the temperature of a stellar nebula at 3 degrees Kelvin to cause the star to ignite.
But when a sphere of matter condenses on to the protostar its gravitational potential energy is increased. What happens to that energy?
The First Law of Thermodynamics says it is converted to enthalpy and the temperature rises.
Now it isn’t a difficult calculation, but we can show that starting from the expected density of a stellar nebula, the mass of gas which must be compressed to raise the temperature to a level where fusion reactions will initiate is equal to the mass of a typical star. Is this coincidence?
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that gravitational compression alone is all that is needed to explain why stars start to shine.,
The so-called ‘debunk’ of the effect of gravitational compression determining the temperature distribution in the troposphere amounts to a ‘debunk’ of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
It therefore belongs in the same category as crank proposals for perpetual motion machines, or compulsive gambler’s ‘systems’. The one principle of physics which really is not up for negotiation is the Law of Conservation of Energy.
Gordon Vigurs 