Guest Post by Ira Glickstein
This series began with a mechanical analogy for the Atmospheric “Greenhouse Effect” and progressed a bit more deeply into Atmospheric Windows and Emission Spectra. In this posting, we consider the interaction between air molecules, including Nitrogen (N2), Oxygen (O2), Water Vapor (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2), with Photons of various wavelengths. This may help us visualize how energy, in the form of Photons radiated by the Sun and the Surface of the Earth, is absorbed and re-emited by Atmospheric molecules. 
DESCRIPTION OF THE GRAPHIC
The animated graphic has eight frames, as indicated by the counter in the lower right corner. Molecules are symbolized by letter pairs or triplets and Photons by ovals and arrows. The view is of a small portion of the cloud-free Atmosphere. (Thanks to WUWT commenter davidmhoffer for some of the ideas incorporated in this graphic.)
- During the daytime, Solar energy enters the Atmosphere in the form of Photons at wavelengths from about 0.1μ (micron – millionth of a meter) to 4μ, which is called “shortwave” radiation and is represented as ~1/2μ and symbolized as orange ovals. Most of this energy gets a free pass through the cloud-free Atmosphere. It continues down to the Surface of the Earth where some is reflected back by light areas (not shown in the animation) and where most is absorbed and warms the Surface.
- Since Earth’s temperature is well above absolute zero, both day and night, the Surface radiates Photons in all directions with the energy distributed approximately according to a “blackbody” at a given temperature. This energy is in the form of Photons at wavelengths from about 4μ to 50μ, which is called “longwave” radiation and is represented as ~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ and symbolized as violet, light blue, and purple ovals, respectively. The primary “greenhouse” gases (GHG) are Water Vapor (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2). The ~7μ Photon is absorbed by an H2O molecule because Water Vapor has an absorption peak in that region, the ~10μ Photon gets a free pass because neither H2O nor CO2 absorb strongly in that region, and one of the 15μ Photons gets absorbed by an H2O molecule while the other gets absorbed by a CO2 molecule because these gases have absorption peaks in that region.
- The absorbed Photons raise the energy level of their respective molecules (symbolized by red outlines).
- The energized molecules re-emit the Photons in random directions, some upwards, some downwards, and some sideways. Some of the re-emitted Photons make their way out to Space and their energy is lost there, others back down to the Surface where their energy is absorbed, further heating the Earth, and others travel through the Atmosphere for a random distance until they encounter another GHG molecule.
- This frame and the next two illustrate another way Photons are emitted, namely due to collisions between energized GHG molecules and other air molecules. As in frame (2) the Surface radiates Photons in all directions and various wavelengths.
- The Photons cause the GHG molecules to become energized and they speed up and collide with other gas molecules, energizing them. NOTE: In a gas, the molecules are in constant motion, moving in random directions at different speeds, colliding and bouncing off one another, etc. Indeed the “temperature” of a gas is something like the average speed of the molecules. In this animation, the gas molecules are fixed in position because it would be too confusing if they were all shown moving and because the speed of the Photons is so much greater than the speed of the molecules that they hardly move in the time indicated.
- The energized air molecules emit radiation at various wavelengths and in random directions, some upwards, some downwards, and some sideways. Some of the re-emitted Photons make their way out to Space and their energy is lost there, others back down to the Surface where their energy is absorbed, further heating the Earth, and others travel through the Atmosphere for a random distance until they encounter another GHG molecule.
- Having emitted the energy, the molecules cool down.
DISCUSSION
As in the other postings in this series, only radiation effects are considered because they are the key to understanding the Atmospheric “Greenhouse Effect”. I recognize that other effects are as important, and perhaps more so, in the overall heat balance of the Earth. These include clouds which reflect much of the Sun’s radiation back out to Space, and which, due to negative feedback, counteract Global Warming. Other effects include convection (wind, thunderstorms, …), precipitation (rain, snow) and conduction that are responsible for transferring energy from the Surface to the Atmosphere. It is also important to note that the Atmospheric “Greenhouse Effect” and a physical greenhouse are similar in that they both limit the rate of thermal energy flowing out of the system, but the mechanisms by which heat is retained are different. A greenhouse works primarily by preventing absorbed heat from leaving the structure through convection, i.e. sensible heat transport. The greenhouse effect heats the earth because greenhouse gases absorb outgoing radiative energy and re-emit some of it back towards earth.
That said, how does this visualization help us understand the issue of “CO2 sensitivity” which is the additional warming of the Earth Surface due to an increase in atmospheric CO2? Well, given a greater density of CO2 (and H2O) molecules in the air, there is a greater chance that a given photon will get absorbed. Stated differently, a given photon will travel a shorter distance, on average, before being absorbed by a GHG molecule and be re-emitted in a random direction, including downwards towards the Surface. That will result in more energy being recycled back to the Surface, increasing average temperatures a bit.
wayne says:
It is sometimes (Hans, above, for instance) called high-quality energy. It is then passed down the energy chain until tossed as low-quality low-grade thermal IR.
Yes I agree wayne, I wonder whats happened to Hans, his posts were full of sound science.
Its a bit of a paradox that right at this moment the sceptics are left defending solar cells and windmills as viable energy transducers.
Meanwhile the IPCC inspired advocates are saying all solar energy converts to thermal almost instantly.
Bryan says:
Now, of course, having lost the argument about the greenhouse effect and whether it obeys the laws of thermodynamics, Bryan changes the subject, introducing his usual faulty logic. For example, he well knows that climate scientists don’t claim that the rise in CO2 is the only thing affecting climate. In the period 1940 to 1970, CO2 concentrations were growing, yes, although not as fast as now and concentrations of aerosols were growing rapidly and these have a cooling effect. And, yes, if you look over short time periods, you can cherrypick data so that there is not a rise in temperature…or the rise in temperature is there but the error bars are such that you still cannot say it is yet statistically-significant. Of course, climate models forced with greenhouse gases show the same sort of behavior, so the behavior is not in conflict with the theory, despite what Bryan would like you to believe.
And, yes, in the ice age – interglacial cycles, greenhouse gas levels did not change spontaneously but in response to other things. And, that chickens lay eggs must be proof that eggs cannot produce chickens.
Bryan says:
Reading Bryan’s posts, as well as reading over G&T’s arguments against the greenhouse effect, helps me to formulate general principles of how to distinguish between science and pseudo-science. I think this comment of Bryan’s illustrates an important feature of a lot of pseudo-science.
In science, one always has to choose to ignore certain factors or make certain approximations. For example, no climate model that I know of includes the effect of the gravitational pull of Alpha Centuri. Now, this is clearly wrong: Gravitational attraction drops of 1/r^2, never falling to zero, and hence the gravitational pull of Alpha Centuri clearly has a nonzero effect on the earth, its atmosphere, and our climate.
Likewise, G&T make a big deal about climate models ignoring thermal conduction within the atmosphere, which is clearly an approximation. It is in fact an excellent approximation, but it is an approximation nonetheless. So, here we come to an important distinguishing characteristic of science vs pseudo-science: When someone peddling pseudoscience attacks a theory or a particular scientific work, they will point to an approximation (or small error or a less-than-ideal use of terminology) and will then use it to conclude that the theory or work is invalid. Of course, since it is always possible to do this, the pseudo-scientist can discard any theory or work that they wish to.
By contrast, when someone practicing science attacks a theory or a particular scientific work, what they will do is not just point out something that is an approximation or is incorrect but will endeavor to show (admittedly with greater or lesser degrees of rigor) how such an approximation or mistake has a significant effect on the results or conclusions.
So, yes, we know that technically energy from the sun can be stored in other forms besides thermal energy. But, does this have a significant effect on the energy balance, particularly when one averages over some time period like a year (when there should be a pretty good balance between photosynthesis and organic decay)? There is no evidence that it does and good reasons to believe that it doesn’t.
Bryan would do well to adopt the motto of the tobacco companies: “Doubt is our product!”
“Tim Folkerts version of the Greenhouse Theory
……..”The IR properties of gases in the atmosphere (notably H2O and CO2) cause the earth’s surface to be warmer than it would be in the absence of those IR properties.”…
Joels version
The greenhouse effect is the effect whereby the surface temperature of the earth is higher than it would be if the atmosphere were transparent to the wavelengths of terrestrial radiation (but everything else, such as the radiation from the sun and the albedo of the earth system are unchanged).”
But is this due to slower cooling resulting in higher average temperatures. Especially due to the impact of water vapour.
Or is it due to the GHGs in the atmosphere actually causing the surface to rise to a higher temperature than it would otherwise get to just from the Suns energy.
I wish they would state this clearly. So is it just warmer on average or a warmer highest temperature? Due to for example GHGs backradiation.
RJ says:
You are confusing two meanings of the word “cooling”. I see what you are thinking: Maybe GHGs can cause things to cool more slowly from, say, the daily high temperature to the nighttime low but can they really cause, say, the high temperature to be higher? The answer is that, yes they can. The earth’s temperature is determined by a balance of the radiation that it gets from the sun and that it emits back out into space. So, yes, the GHGs, by reducing the heat flow from the earth back out into space for a given surface temperature, can cause the steady-state temperature to be higher.
Now, how in detail the increase in greenhouse gases will affect the minimum vs the maximum daily temperatures is something that requires more detailed calculation (and I think the basic answer is that it raises both but does tend to have a somewhat larger effect on the minimum temperatures).
But the main point is: There is nothing thermodynamically that says that the maximum temperatures can’t be higher. This goes back to a fundamental principle that seems to be the subject of much confusion here: The surface temperature of the earth is not set just by how much energy it receives from the sun…Determining it instead involves considering the radiative balance between what it receives and what it radiates back out into space.
Actually…One technical correction to my last post: There is a fundamental limitation on the earth’s surface temperature set by the energy that it receives from the sun. However, that limitation is simply that the surface temperature of the earth can never get higher than the surface temperature of the sun (assuming that any internal energy sources in the earth can be neglected).
You might wonder how this limitation is “enforced”, i.e., what would prevent us in theory from increasing greenhouse gases until the earth’s surface temperature exceeded that of the sun? The answer is that as the temperature of the earth increases, the spectrum of the radiation that it emits shifts to shorter wavelengths. As the earth’s surface temperature approached that of the sun, the spectrum would approach that of the solar radiation and hence it would be impossible for greenhouse gases to selectively absorb and re-emit terrestrial radiation while not doing the same for incoming solar radiation. Hence, they would keep out as much radiative energy as they trap.
“The answer is that, yes they can. The earth’s temperature is determined by a balance of the radiation that it gets from the sun and that it emits back out into space. So, yes, the GHGs, by reducing the heat flow from the earth back out into space for a given surface temperature, can cause the steady-state temperature to be higher.”
So you are saying that the higher temperature is not due to backradiation. But by another mechanism.
The only article I have read explaining how the balance of in and out radiation is determined is the Postma article above. I know you do not agree with this article but it seems a much sounder detailed complete explanation than the one you have provided above . It explains for example why Venus has a higher surface temperature. Not due to the high composition of CO2. But the dense atmosphere at the surface (92 times more dense than earth). The average surface temperature is not due to radiative trapping by the atmosphere, but simple because of the massive adiabatic heating capacity.
Can you at least agree this is another possible explanation? And that the science is not as clear cut as you claim.
Joel says
“So, yes, we know that technically energy from the sun can be stored in other forms besides thermal energy. But, does this have a significant effect on the energy balance, particularly when one averages over some time period like a year (when there should be a pretty good balance between photosynthesis and organic decay)? There is no evidence that it does and good reasons to believe that it doesn’t.”
Just to put a nail in this coffin, here are some more specific (but still rough) estimates of the “utilization of blue light” that has been demanded so many times …
Average energy from sun to surface in one day ~ 170 W/m^2 * 86,400 s/day
~ 15,000,000 J/d/m^2
Fraction of sunlight energy that is visible light ~ 50%. Fraction of visible light energy that is “blue ~ 10% (depending on just what wavelengths are considered “blue”), so about 4% of the sun’s energy might be considered “blue”.
~ 800,000 J/day/m^2
Primary production in tropical rain forest ~ 25 kcal/day (from http://www.world-builders.org/lessons/less/biomes/primaryP.html)
~ 100,000 J/d
So far ~ 1/8 of the “blue light” is used for photosynthesis.
But tropical rain forests are near the equator and get ~ 2x the average light, so
~ 1/16 of blue light is used for photosynthesis.
But other wavelengths are used besides blue, so we should divide this by ~3 to account for the fact that other wavelengths also contribute to that primary production.
~ 1/50 of blue light is used for photosynthesis.
But tropical rain forests are among the most productive areas, (especially compared to oceans, so we could divide this result by ~ 10
~1/500 of blue light is used for photosynthesis.
~ 0.2 %
Or we could find a reference:
Since they are comparing to the total solar constant and about 1/2 of that actually gets to the surface, then ~ 0.05% x 2 = 0.1 % of the ground level energy is absorbed by plants. My rough estimate has been independently confirmed, at least within an order of magnitude!
So the ~ 170 W/m^2 of energy hitting the surface should be reduced by ~ 0.1% = 0.2 W/m^2.
But that is only if all of that plant material grew by never decayed! The decayed/digested/burned plants will release any energy they gained. So the whole, the “photosynthesis correction” is much less than 0.1 W/m^2.
RJ says:
No…It is essentially via backradiation. The fact that the atmosphere radiates and some of that radiation goes toward the earth is the mechanism by which the heat flow away from the earth is reduced. (Although, as I have discussed above, at the end of the day, the most important thing once convection is considered is at what level in the atmosphere the radiation can escape into space, coupled with the stability limit on the lapse rate that is set by convection.)
No…That claim is completely incorrect. The notion of “adiabatic heating capacity” that you refer to is just plain wrong. If Venus’s atmosphere were transparent to the IR radiation that the planet’s surface emitted then the average surface temperature (really the 4th root of the average of T^4) would be set by radiative balance, i.e., that the amount of radiation Venus absorbed from the sun would equal the amount it emitted. Pressure ain’t going to change that because we still require conservation of energy: If the planet was significantly warmer than what radiative balance required, it would be emitting far more than it receives and it would rapidly cool down.
The only way that adiabatic compression could come into the equation is if you were talking about the atmosphere of a planet (or the entire planet itself) undergoing continual gravitational collapse (so that the potential energy decrease due to the gravitational collapse could result in conversion to other forms of energy)…but I don’t think anyone is trying to make such a claim because it isn’t plausible.
Again, Postma is correct about the lapse rate playing an important role…but the lapse rate only tells you how the temperature changes with height. It does not tell you the temperature at the surface all by itself. To know that, what you have to know is the effective height in the atmosphere from which the radiation escapes to space, because it is at this height that the temperature has to be equal to that required by radiative balance. Postma would have you believe that this is determined by magic or something…but the fact is that it is this that is determined by the “optical depth” of the atmosphere to the wavelengths of interest, i.e., how good an absorber the atmosphere is of IR radiation, and that is of course determined by the composition of the atmosphere…in particular, by greenhouse gases as well as any condensed phases.
Joel takes the biscuit for idiotic postings.
Just after he recently apologized to all for using incorrect language in his co- written Halpern comment paper he instantly suffers from amnesia.
He posts again asking me to show him any paper on greenhouse models that would be so stupid as to say that a cold surface can HEAT a warmer surface.
Joel that exactly what your Halpern paper says!
Joel carries on with the comedy
….”Now, of course, having lost the argument about the greenhouse effect and whether it obeys the laws of thermodynamics, Bryan changes the subject, introducing his usual faulty logic. For example, he well knows that climate scientists don’t claim that the rise in CO2 is the only thing affecting climate. In the period 1940 to 1970, CO2 concentrations were growing, yes, although not as fast as now and concentrations of aerosols were growing rapidly and these have a cooling effect. And, yes, if you look over short time periods, you can cherrypick data”……
Joel how many excuses does one theory need!
In case you missed it I have already challenged you to contradict the observation that the 33K claimed greenhouse effect is a” meaningless number wrongly calculated”.
Wayne – thanks for the links, I’ve not seen the greening of the Earth so not the figures, but generally aware that plant life is increasing and put down to more abundant Carbon Dioxide.
http://www.geobotany.uaf.edu/teaching/biol474/biol474-06_lesson24.pdf
I don’t know about the other lessons, but this is section really interesting on plants and Sun’s energy – including a graphic from LillisandKiefer1987 on page 2
which says: “Infrared radiation is 756-100,00nm is heat” and on page 9 the light spectrum on a stand of trees from Gates, 1965 American Meteorological Soc.
..could plant life itself, through blue light capture in photsynthesis have caused the ..0.14% rise in the mainly nighttime increase of global temperatures? Capturing that which would have normally been merely reflected back to space. The little chemical engines (think mitochondria and such) warming the nighttime air, for most of the increase has been in nighttime temperatures.
Blue light, or rather the lack of it, is what makes plants ‘leggy’, they struggle to get to the light and grow spindly and in odd directions. I’ve just cleared some old hedging and found an old cherry tree which was began growing practically parallel with the ground after 4/5 ft high in its attempt to grow past through to the light. That’s the first light often used when artificially lighting plants to establish them sturdy well formed first before red light brought in for flowering and fruiting. If there’s more abundance in plant life then more blue light is being used in photosynthesis – burning the sugars produces heat, and this heat is then released in transpiration, a bit like us sweating. When do they do this? I’ve read somewhere that plants make most photosynthesis chemical changes before noon, but I haven’t seen any reference to that since, it was some study on the corn fields in the US iirc. and they need oxygen for this which I happens at night, (which is why you might have heard it said not to sleep in a room full of plants without the window open), but if this study is right then they could be breathing ‘normally like us’ after lunch..
Ah, here we go, on http://www.ext.colstate.edu/mg/gardennotes/141.html
Says that goes on in light and dark, so it would depend on when the ‘dark’ temps are read – afternoon might have to be taken off increase to get night temp increase? Unless of course the plants take a long siesta after lunch before deciding to do some growing.. Although, you said “mainly”, so the extra afternoon stint of growing could account for the part “not mainly”.
I notice Tim’s trying to pretend he’s interesting in this producing everything he can find on blue light and still manages to avoid answering my direct question… (grin).
And, I’m on a roll, do you think we should ask Joel to design a insulating jacket of CO2 and test it out, I’m putting in extra insultation before next winter and would like something cheaper..
..I could breathe into some balloons perhaps and have a layer of them at the ceiling to stop the heat escaping/radiate back thermal IR so I could keep lowering the thermostat on my central heating? At what point does my cold radiatior take up the challenge and begin radiating heat of its own accord?
” In case you missed it I have already challenged you to contradict the observation that the 33K claimed greenhouse effect is a” meaningless number wrongly calculated”. ”
Bryan, you right, bet they can’t. It’s like saying there are no GHG’s but we are still going to use the albedo from the clouds to calculate anyway! And 235 W/m^2 implies a max of 252.7K, not 255K anyway.
It is rather curious though that the very 252.7K figure falls very near 1013.25 / 2 = 506 hPa where half of the mass of the atmosphere is above and half is below. I have always found THAT rather curious and will keep it in mind as we get better data on Venus, Mars, …. atmospheric profiles. A mere coincidence?
Bryan,
I think you are beating a dead horse here. And beating the wrong dead horse, at that.
Joel specifically said “I said that none of the mathematical models that I have seen of the greenhouse effect do [violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics]. Perhaps, Bryan can tell us one that does.” [emphasis added]
You twisted this to “He posts again asking me to show him any paper on greenhouse models that would be so stupid as to say that a cold surface can HEAT a warmer surface.
Joel that exactly what your Halpern paper says!”
I have not read the Halpern paper, but I strongly suspect that nowhere in their MODELS (or their EQUATIONS) do they make any claim that there is a net flow of energy from cold to hot (ie no claim that a cold object heats a warm object ie no violation of the 2nd law).
So, Bryan, where does a MATHEMATICAL MODEL (or equation) in the Halpern paper “exactly” say “that a cold surface can HEAT a warmer surface” as you claim it does?
Now, as was admitted, the paper used the colloquial expression of “to heat” meaning “to warm”. Such a colloquial expression should not have been used in a paper on thermodynamics, but any critical, careful reading the paper would have known what they meant, ESPECIALLY if the accompanying equations were correct.
Only someone trying to misunderstand the paper (or poorly informed in thermodynamics) would interpret this colloquial statement to specifically be stating that their results contradicted the 2nd law.
Joel Shore says:
April 26, 2011 at 4:57 pm
The amount of solar energy used in photosynthesis is quite small.
Don’t worry your head about it. You and Tim mustn’t get distracted by interesting real science, about what Blue light can do in photosynthesis and transmission and so on, all you need to prove is that Blue light can convert to heat the land and water of the Earth, as it is claimed in the AGWScience Energy Budget which claims that these Solar energies directly convert to heat land and sea which then gives off said amount of Thermal IR. What’s so difficult about that? Let’s take it a step at a time.
Take some blue light, shine it on some water, let us know the details.
Repeat for Green, Red, Yellow, Orange, Violet, UV and NR IR when you’ve shown you can do this correctly with Blue.
Until you have done this, or shown us pukkha science detailing it, nothing you say about the AGWScience Energy Budget has any actual proven real science basic premise.
If you continue to ignore this, it is proof that you are not scientists, but charlatans.
I must say that Myrrh’s “Anti-2nd Law of Thermodynamics”, whereby it is difficult to convert other forms of energy into thermal energy is quite a novel view of the way that the universe operates…
Where did I say anything even remotely like that?
Again, it seems you’re getting terribly confused by real science, don’t worry about it. Start off in easy steps and we’ll take it from there. Go measure how much heat Blue light produces directly on meeting water, or if it doesn’t. If it doesn’t then we can take Blue light out of the AGWScience Energy Budget, can’t we?
It is hard to imagine that we would have any sort of “energy crisis” if a signifcant amount of the energy were stored in non-thermal forms on the earth!
Again, you mustn’t worry yourself about real science where energy is stored for use growth of life, or simply transmitted, so I never said that either. It’s your AGWScience that pushes this idea, that Carbon Dioxide can trap heat as a global insulating jacket. So why are you surprised by such a claim when you make it all the time..?
However, I’m so glad you’ve finally recognised it as nonsense. There may be hope for you yet.
– a cold global insulating jacket.
Just to make it clear.
Bryan says:
Which of the mathematical models we present shows heat flow from a cold surface to a warmer surface? Oh, I get it…You are continuing to peddle pseudo-science. You can’t win the argument here on the merits of your case, so you continue to harp on arguably imperfect word choices in a few places in our paper even though I have discussed in detail how to fix them and you have provided absolutely zero evidence to contradict my contention that they are easily fixed without any substantive alteration to the paper. Do you need a personally-edited copy of our paper?
Bryan, if you had any substantive arguments against our paper, I presume you would make them. Since you apparently don’t, you continue to peddle your pseudo-science nonsense (as I defined here it: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/29/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-molecules-and-photons/#comment-649274 ). By the way, using your logic, do you want me to find typos and incorrect word choices in G&T and therefore invalidate their whole paper? We didn’t do that…We attacked the substance of their paper.
You are doing nothing here but blowing smoke to try to confuse, obfuscate, and deceive. Frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself.
In case you missed it, I addressed this here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/29/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-molecules-and-photons/#comment-648723
Wayne, sorry, badly constructed sentence. The plants need oxygen to burn the sugars for growth, so they ‘breathe in’ oxygen and expel carbon dioxide, and water, for this.
Myrrh,
Your ability to ignore science is astounding sometimes! It is almost like I tell you that the force of gravity is F = mg, but you insist I test it on some specific object you have before you will believe that gravity will affect it!
“Let’s take it a step at a time. Take some blue light, shine it on some water, let us know the details. ”
The theory is so simple it is taught in “bog standard” freshman physics.
* Each photon has energy E=hf
* Some photons get reflected. Those are clearly accounted for in the diagram.
* Nearly all photons entering the water do not leave. See http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/72/Water_absorption_spectrum.png
* No significant amount of energy goes into photosynthesis.
* Conservation of energy insists that that energy goes somewhere.
* The only place it can go is into thermal energy of the water.
The ocean will warm Delta(T) = hf/mc for each photon that goes in. The total photons going in add to ~ 168 W/m^2. There is no need to break this up into individual wavelengths, but it could be done in principle.
Experimentally, this happens 24/7 in the oceans. The graph above shows that someone did indeed measure how well photons are absorbed by water. The light goes in; it doesn’t come out. The oceans warm. Further experimental evidence –> the oceans get warmer during the day and cool back off at night.
If you can name any other possible place the energy can go besides warming the water, then put up or shut up. I consider this a “proof” (as much as anything gets “proved” in science). Explain SPECIFICALLY where I am wrong. If you make you usual vague attacks, it will be clear (even clearer) that you are the one who is not understanding the science.
Take it one step at a time as you suggest. What part of the theory or experiment above do you disagree with?