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.
“Ira says “2 – The effect of “Greenhouse” warming of the Earth is over 30ºC, which is many, many times the maximum possible temperature difference due to (1). ”
Here’s a section from the document noted above
It explains a reason why GHGs do not cause 30+ degrees of warming. This GHG theory is looking more and more shaky. (Is the GHG theory built on such poor science).
tech-know.eu/upload/Understanding_the_Atmosphere_Effect.pdf
[This link did not work for me. It brought up a plea for a donation, and I could not see any way to view the supposed .pdf document. It appears to be a scam of some sort. – Ira]
The greenhouse theory states that the reason the ground is warmer than -18 C is because the atmosphere, via greenhouse gases like CO2, re-emits thermal radiation towards the ground and therefore amplifies the heat at the ground from -18 C up to +15 C.
This is the same point as discussed just above, in using a projection factor of p=4. But to make the point more clearly: the entire surface of the Earth is not simultaneously illuminated by the incoming solar energy around all sides, but only half of the Earth is ever actually illuminated. When the solar input heating is incorrectly averaged over the entire Earth at once, there isn‟t a high enough radiative energy flux density to explain why the temperature ever gets above -18 C. Therefore a greenhouse theory must be proposed in order to explain why the ground temperature is +15 C.
However, if the solar energy is correctly averaged over only the single hemisphere that actually physically receives sunlight, the heating temperature equals +30 C for that hemisphere (and much higher directly under the solar zenith, as we have seen). The +15 C average over both day and night, which is less than +30 C, is then easily understood as simply being due to the fact that the night-side is cooler. Of course, the night-side has to be cooler because it receives no solar energy, but it doesn‟t cool very fast because of the thermal capacity of the atmosphere and the ground. The average temperature of both the day and night hemispheres then comes out to +15 C, which is less than the input solar heating, not more.
It is not surprising therefore that in the first case, we need to theorize a greenhouse effect which ends up violating the laws of physics,
Ira Glickstein says
…..” The effect of “Greenhouse” warming of the Earth is over 30ºC, which is many, many times the maximum possible temperature difference “…….
Looking at Ira’s CV perhaps he comes from an electrical engineering background.
Perhaps the degree options he picked did not include much thermodynamics.
However he has to be congratulated for his attempts to make a moving pictorial representation of the atmospheric radiative effects.
However these effects are greatly exaggerated such as the claimed 33K magnitude.
Ira consider this analogy from electrical engineering.
The suns effect on the earth surface as it spins resembles a half wave rectified AC signal (say after passing through a diode represents day/night) .
The earth has a great capacity to store the energy it receives from the sun.
This can be represented as three large capacitors connected in parallel.
The largest by far represents the oceans.
Another represents the atmosphere and a third represents the land surface say to a depth of two metres.
Completing the circuit is a resistor in which represents radiation to space.
Such a system would smooth out the day/night effect and would account for most of the 33K falsely attributed to the so called “greenhouse effect”.
Thomas says:
March 29, 2011 at 1:57 am
“bananabender. Go ahead, try to explain the temperature of the Earth using only the ideal gas law! It can’t be done, you see, if you actually start to think about what you do.”
Earth does not have a temperature, except in the fantasies of Climategaters. It also does not have a Santa Claus, an Easter Bunny, or a Thanksgiving.
Ira
Here’s one link
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Understanding_the_Atmosphere_Effect.pdf
The section posted above is on pages 25 and 26
Or try this one to get to it
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7457
bananabender says:
March 30, 2011 at 7:14 am
Igloos are temporary structures that work primarily by preventing wind chill and heat loss by convection.>>>
The Inuit lived in igloos for months at a time and if you knew the first thing about them you’d know they have a surprisingly large hole dead centre a the top. This is to promote fresh air exchange otherwise the inhabitants would suffer oxygen deprivation within days, let alone months. The design is promotes heat loss by convection and is a net cooling effect on the temp inside the igloo. As for wind chill, sorry, you’ve not done Scouts 101 nor any winter camping obviously. At -40 degrees, in the best sleeping bag you can buy, and with a wind chill of zero, you will most likely freeze to death sleeping outside beside the igloo. Don’t be daft, crawl into the igloo, deal with the -1 wind chill caused convection by you being a heat source inside the igloo and you will very likely be just fine.
bananabender;
I was never a boy scout. That means I didn’t learn any of their incorrect explanations for how fires work.>>>
You claimed the authority of Scouting 101 and now admit the credential was false. You also don’t appear to have much experience with building fires.
“A pyramid or a “log cabin” fire forms a venturi drawing fresh air in from outside the base like a chimney. Hot air rises via convection up the the inside of the structure. This causes the evaporation of volatiles which then ignite.”>>>
So….the fresh cool air streaming into the centre of the fire would cool it….convection through the “venturi” is exhausting hot air OUT of the fire…this process sounds like net heating to you? The volatiles evaporate DESPITE the net cooling of the convection process because the combined heat of the various surfaces radiating at each other is high enough to overcome the cooling via convection. Don’t believe me? Build yourself a decent sized fire and turn a fan or leaf blower on it to put 10 or 20 times the air through and around the hole thing than convection could. Watch what happens and report back.
“I’ve got three science degrees and have studied physics and chemistry at university. Unlike you I actually understand how radiation works.”>>>
Really? What are these science degrees you possess? Clearly not physics or chemistry since you only “studied” them, and you no more understand how radiation works than you do Scouting 101. Oh yeah, you didn’t have that credential either.
Stephen Wilde
However the jumble of logs will also obstruct and redirect and locally accelerate the flow of air between them so it is also true that accelerating the flow of air between the logs will fan the flames further.>>>
The air flow has a net cooling effect as cold air is pulled in while the hot air escapes out the top. Build yourself a small fire either teepee style or log cabin. Pull out your 3.5 Hrspwr leaf blower (mine’s hanging on the garage wall if you need to borrow it) and play it at idle on the flames. The illussion is that they get bigger. The volatile compounds burning at high enough temps to become incandescent get pushed farther and faster by the air, resulting in them travelling further before going out. The flames get longer, but the fire isn’t as hot. Now whip the leaf blower to max. Poof, fire went out.
In fact you can prove these things with matches and candles. Bend ther wicks horizontal to the rest is easy to do. Strike a match and try and light a candle wick with the very tip only of the match flame. Now try with just the base of the candle flame. Now try with the side of the flame about 1/3 up from the bottom. You’ll find that is by far the hottest part of the flame. A long flame is a cool flame, its the short fat ones that are hot. A jumble of charcoal gets even hotter and it has no flame at all! And the purpose of closing your BBQ lid is to minimize heat loss by convection. Despite which the ones in the middle always turn to ash faster than the ones at the edge, because they heat each other up.
For banana and stephen and richard, please be aware that I am a raging skeptic. CAGW is a total farce. But you can’t win the battle by arguing physics with warmists because on this issue they are correct and all you do is discredit yourself and any arguments that you might have that are correct. If any of you could falsify there being a positive flow of heat from cold to warm despite there being a NET negative flow of heat in total you will most likely win a Nobel prize. The laws of physics verified thousands of times through experimentation are now centuries old. They make it plain that any body radiates the exact same amount of heat at a given temperature no matter WHAT the temperature of the surrounding objects is. That heat impacts cooler things and warmer things and get absorbed by all of them. The warmer things radiate more heat than the cooler, and so the cooler things have a net heat gain relative to the warm things.
If that is wrong, then the Stefan-Boltzmann Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law (1879!), Planck’s Constant, Wien Displacement Law, Raleigh-Jeans Law, and Kirchoff’s Law have all been disproven. Things like combustion engines, turbines, ramjets, and a whole long list of other things were therefore designed using falsified physics despite which they worked anyway.
There is SO much the CAGW crowd has gotten wrong. Why attack them on a nitpicking little detail like this one where they just happen to be right? Order of magnitude, effect of feedbacks, THOSE are the places where their arguments fall apart.
RJ says:
Bryan says:
Both of these comments are simply incorrect. The energy balance constraint on the surface temperature of the earth in the absence of an IR-absorbing atmosphere is that the fourth root of average of T^4 over the earth’s surface must be equal to ~255 K. If the temperature on the earth was uniform, this would mean that the average of T would also be 255 K. However, to the extent that temperatures are non-uniform over the earth’s surface, the average of T is actually less, not more, since there is an inequality where will always be less than the fourth root of (where denotes average). This inequality is one of the few things that Gerlich and Tscheuschner get right in their paper (although they misinterpret what it means).
In arguing (March 29, 2011 at 10:50 am) for the primacy of sensible radiative transport of heat based on its presumed near-light speed, Glickstein once again overlooks a crucial physical fact: the RATE of thermal energy transport by MOIST convection. At ~590 calories per gram of evaporated water, the latent heat transport is enormous. In fact, the Bowen ratio of sensible-to-latent heat transport rates has been shown in numerous experiments world-wide to be below unity in general, and invariably well below in marine environments that account for the great majority of the globe’s surface. Only in ultra-dry environments (Sahara, Antarctica) does it much exceed unity. Even Kiel & Trenberth’s “global energy-budget” cartoon reflects that fact–once the nearly null-net radiative exchange between surface and atmosphere is properly accounted for.
Despite all the traffic generated by this pop-science series of posts on the ethereal notion of a “radiative greenhouse,” the lack of deeper comprehension of real-world physics does a disservice to WUWT readers.
RJ:
So now the link works but we are left wondering what your point is. If it is that one can find a lot of nonsense out on the internet, I agree with you. If it is something else, then I would not use a paper that is so clearly nonsense to try to make your point!
Here’s a hint to you on where that paper goes wrong in all of its claims regarding thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect: The greenhouse effect does not say that (net) heat flows from hot to cold. (Some would say the word “net” is redundant since heat is usually a macroscopic concept describing the net energy flow.) In all models of the greenhouse effect, whether they are toy models or full-blown line-by-line convective-radiative transfer models, the heat flows from hot to cold.
The greenhouse effect is simply stating this: In the absence of an IR-absorbing atmosphere, all of the terrestrial radiation would be emitted directly out into space. However, in the presence of an IR-absorbing atmosphere, some of the terrestrial radiation is absorbed and when the atmosphere subsequently emits radiation, some of this radiation comes back to the earth. This keeps the earth warmer than it would be in the absence of the IR-absorbing atmosphere.
Also note that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not magic: It does not state that colder objects magically detect the presence of a hotter object and refuse to emit any radiation towards said object. Rather, it is a statement derived from statistical physics that says that the amount of radiation that the colder object absorbs from the hotter will always be greater than the amount of radiation that the hotter object absorbs from the colder.
davidmhoffer says:
March 30, 2011 at 10:23 am
Stephen Wilde
However the jumble of logs will also obstruct and redirect and locally accelerate the flow of air between them so it is also true that accelerating the flow of air between the logs will fan the flames further.>>>
The air flow has a net cooling effect as cold air is pulled in while the hot air escapes out the top. Build yourself a small fire either teepee style or log cabin. Pull out your 3.5 Hrspwr leaf blower (mine’s hanging on the garage wall if you need to borrow it) and play it at idle on the flames. The illussion is that they get bigger. The volatile compounds burning at high enough temps to become incandescent get pushed farther and faster by the air, resulting in them travelling further before going out. The flames get longer, but the fire isn’t as hot.
In my experience with bellows at a forge, very little, and at a fireplace, a lot, adding a stream of air increases the temperature of the flame. This can be seen as the fire without the air cannot melt a given metal, but with the stream of air it can. Varying the amount of airflow controls the temperature lower for forging, higher for melting.
Joel Shore says:
Whoops…I guess the HTML markup doesn’t do well with the brackets that I used to indicate averaging. That sentence should read:
davidmhoffer says:
David and I completely disagree on most things regarding AGW, but on this we completely agree. Trying to argue that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist just discredits you in the eyes of any serious scientist. It is like arguments that the earth is only 7000 years old…It is just like wearing a sign around your neck that says, “I am an anti-science crackpot.” Better to argue about things like feedbacks and climate sensitivity, where there are at least some significant uncertainties in the actual science.
Ira says:”However, since the Earth reflects about 30% (or 28%) of the incoming sunlight, the planet’s effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) is about −18 or −19 °C, about 33°C below the actual surface temperature of about 14 °C or 15 °C. “” and same for mkelly regarding your “15 C max”.”
STP temperature is 0 C so -18 up to 0, the 15 C as actual surface temperature per your quote above. The difference between 0 C and 15 C would be GHG. You answered your own question.
However, all this is based on the -18 C assumption.
240 w/m^2 = SB X T^4
240/SB = T^4
T= 255 or -18 C
1360/4=340
340 times .7 = 240 rounded
The 340 average may infact be incorrect for TOA as my heat transfer book shows 1063 w/m^2 at 90 deg sun angle (over head at equator) for a surface W/m^2.
I have just realised that according to some of you I have transgressed terribly. I was tuning in my radio when I picked up some of the cosmic microwave background. Since this has a spectrum of a black body at 3K (that is 3 degrees above absolute zero) according to you I have clearly broken the second law of thermodynamics. I am currently 290 degrees warmer than 3K. I am sorry but my radio would only have warmed a little bit since the energy is very low.
On the other hand maybe you do not have it quite right!
mkelly says:
On average, the sun is not at a 90deg angle overhead. The average power in W/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere is obtained by considering the solar constant and the ratio of the area of a disc to the surface area of a sphere. Needless to say, these geometric formulas are on a pretty solid footing!
mkelly: Okay…My last post may have been in haste, as I now see what you might be trying to say. However, the 1063 W/m^2 is probably a value for a sunny day, i.e., it presumably neglects cloud albedo. (But, it also includes some things that lower the value from the solar constant, such as scattering from aerosols and other components in the atmosphere and absorption by the atmosphere.) [At any rate, even if we took 1063 W/m^2, divided it by 4 and used it in place of the 240 W/m^2, it would only raise the 255 K value to ~261.5 K.]
Is “back radiation” really required to explain the greenhouse effect? It seems to me that it just confuses the issue.
With a pure nitrogen atmosphere, almost all infrared radiation would pass through. The molecules of this atmosphere are primarily heated by direct contact with the surface of the sphere, and convection of this thin layer with the upper layers.
Now replace a mass of that nitrogen with a like mass of CO2. Now you have layers of the atmosphere (top to bottom) heated by infrared radiation that was previously not heating any portion of the atmosphere. The atmosphere is warmer – period. No need to talk about whether or not back radiation will heat up the surface or not, because it is obvious that the atmospheric blanket itself is warmer than it was before. (If you really want to make it warmer, exchange H2O for either of the other two gases.)
Do you feel warmer in a room with 15 degree air versus -15 degree air. Uh, yeah. But 15 degree air is below body temperature, so how could it possible be keeping you warm?! Well, neither is keeping you warm – that’s why you are cooling off. But you will cool at a slower rate in one versus the other.
“This keeps the earth warmer than it would be in the absence of the IR-absorbing atmosphere.”
But its a 30 degrees increase because of backradiation. Not keeps the earth warmer / reduces the amount of cooling.
Some other points
The article was very good. But then it does not challenge my strongly held beliefs.
How much of the energy /heat leaves the surface by conduction. If the majority then the likelihood of the extra 30 degrees is surely even further reduced even if back radiation can add extra energy and heat the surface like the sun does.
We are playing into the alarmists hands if we accept the GHG theory as a fact. It clearly is not so why not acknowledge this. Explain the theory but also explain the possible problems with this theory
Joel Shore says:
March 30, 2011 at 12:51 pm
You can see by the earlier post I know where it came from and why. I could have said the chart in my heat transfer book shows from 90-5 deg and the range is 1063 to 41 w/m^2. I am starting to get an inkeling that the 1360/4 may not be correct for TOA that is all I said. I need to look into it further.
RJ says:
This diagram shows the relative transfers: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html And, yes, convection and evaporation / condensation play a very important role in heat transfer in the troposphere. However, that doesn’t affect the conclusion that the role of the greenhouse effect is to raise the average surface temperature by ~33 deg above what they would be in the absence of the effect. That is based on experimentally-observed surface temperatures. In fact, what I understand is that if one uses a purely radiative model to calculate the greenhouse effect, one predicts around twice that amount of warming of the surface…and it is the addition of convective effects to the model that then reduces that to something much closer to what is actually observed.
By the way, although this back-radiation is a useful concept for explaining things, the technically-better explanation is to focus on the effect of greenhouse gases on the top-of-the-atmosphere radiation budget (because you know that the only significant heat transfer that occurs between the entire earth-atmosphere system and space is via radiation) and then to figure out what will happen on the surface in a way that accounts for the importance of convective transport in the troposphere. I believe that to the first approximation, what is expected to occur is that convective and radiative terms between the surface and the atmosphere will be such that the lapse rate is expected to remain about the same in an atmosphere with more greenhouse gases.
Steve Keohane;
In my experience with bellows at a forge, very little, and at a fireplace, a lot, adding a stream of air increases the temperature of the flame. This can be seen as the fire without the air cannot melt a given metal, but with the stream of air it can. Varying the amount of airflow controls the temperature lower for forging, higher for melting.>>>
As with all real world examples, there’s no yes/no. In every situation, at every air flow, you get a curve and somewhere along that curve, yes, you can within a range on that curve control the heat of the fire. But at the far end of the curve, a large enough gust of air has the same result – fire goes out. Mini example – most people extinguish a match with a quick puff of air.
But getting back to your forge….thanks for yet another fine example. Could you bring metal to the melting point with the same amount of fuel in an open fire? No, of course not, if you could there’d be no need to build a forge. Lots of heat going out by convection alone, and then along comes you pumping that bellows to get the maximum temperature. So with all that heat being pumped by convection PLUS the bellows, which is WAY more than an open fire would lose, it is still WAY HOTTER inside the forge…
’cause the walls of the forge absorb heat from the fire, and as they heat up they radiate heat. Some away to the outside…and some right back into the fire. Which is why it is so much hotter in there than in an open fire.
Thanks, RJ, that link worked. I read up to page 6 and stopped, and I want my ten minutes back! The author goes on correctly and then provides an example:
The author is OK so far. Notice that the amount of ENERGY the blackbody is RE-EMITTING is EXACTLY the same as the amount of ENERGY it is ABSORBING. That is the very definition of thermal equilibrium, and absolutely correct. But, the author goes off the rails when he continues:
Say what? After correctly saying the RE-EMITTED ENERGY was EQUAL to the ABSORBED ENERGY, he now contradicts himself with the false claim that the RE-EMITTED ENERGY is of “a lower energy”. Nope! Thermal equilibrium is when energy in = energy out.
Now, what is true is that the input energy was from a light bulb and was therefore in the shortwave region (around 0.2μ to 4μ) and the output energy was from a blackbody at a lower temperature and therefore in the longwave region (around 4μ to 20μ). But, BUT, the amount of ENERGY (say in Joules) is EXACTLY EQUAL.
Having made that error, the author continues:
Yep, it should warm up and (if it is a true blackbody in the longwave region) it will absorb that reflected longwave energy and, all else being equal, will warm up. (NOTES: (1) Indeed, some commercial incandescent light bulbs have an IR-reflective material on the inside to do just that. (2) In your example, we are dealing with longwave radiation and there is a problem with the idea of “reflecting” longwave radiation, so I will assume that the “mirror” proposed by the author is actually a thin surface that absorbs and re-emits longwave energy, about half back towards the source, and half outwards. Almost any metal painted black will do.)
Given the incorrect science, the author continues with wrong conclusions:
The above is simply not true. It is a misunderstanding of the laws of physics.
When you make a false assumption, you can “prove” false conclusions. For example, ASSUME I have a perfectly smooth elephant with neligible mass. Wow, can he do amazing circus tricks. Or, assume I have a frog who eats clay and has a rectangular anus. Wow, he will (make) bricks.
RJ says:
It depends what your goal is. If your goal is just to sow confusion in the general public and hope that this helps keep policymakers from implementing the steps that you oppose, then you may be right…I don’t know. However, if your goal is to be scientifically-correct and to have an impact on the real scientific debate, then you are surely incorrect.
When I see people challenging the basic facts of the greenhouse effect, what it tells me is that they are either misguided or (if they are knowledgeable enough to know better) that they are trying to actively deceive people and confuse them on the science, i.e., their real goal has nothing to do with science and everything to do with pursuing their policy objectives at the expense of science.
Ira Glickstein says:
My favorite example of this, attributed to Bertrand Russell is showing that if 0 = 1 then I’m the pope: If 0 = 1, add one to each side to get 1 = 2. Then consider a room containing 2 people, myself and the pope. However, since 1 = 2, it can also be said that the room contains 1 person…and yet it must still be true that it contains me and the pope. Therefore, clearly I must be the pope!