Physics Doesn't Rely on Analogy, the Greenhouse Gas Theory Does

Scientific truths do not require an analogy; they are defined by simple observation. But anyone entering the man-made global warming debate quickly discovers that it’s cornerstone, the greenhouse gas theory, depends on analogy rather than hard, cold fact.
What all laws of physics have in common is that they are defined clearly and concisely without relying on an analogy, a metaphor or a simile; they are defined by simply describing what actually happens in the real world. Veteran Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball has continually warned us:
“The Earth’s atmosphere only appears to work like a greenhouse. it was a convenient analogy because people associate it with warmer.”

Unfortunately,the otherwise excellent blog, WUWT, recently fell into this trap. It ran Willis Eschenbach’s analogy-laden ‘Can A Cold Object Warm A Hot Object?’ (November 24, 2017) to explain the greenhouse gas theory. Willis suffered considerable blow-back in comments from unhappy readers.
Willis asks, Can A Cold Object Warm A Hot Object? He answers himself:
“Of course not, that would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics … BUT it can leave the hot object warmer than it would be if the cold object weren’t there. Let me explain why this is so.”
He then proceeds to illustrate a cash flow analogy for a dollar transaction between two parties while arbitrarily conflating the meaning of the terms ‘heat’ and ‘energy’:

Mr Eschenbach then proceeds to convince himself that earth’s cold atmosphere prevents our planet being much colder than if exposed to the nearly infinite heat sink of outer space. In other words, Willis argues CO2 and other gases keep us warmer than we would be without the cold atmosphere.
This begs the question:
“So, how many cold objects does it take to warm a warmer object?”
‘Arfur’ was one of many WUWT commenters to rip apart Eschenbach’s flimsy work:
“This is NOT a good analogy! According to Willis, doubling the number of ‘Yous’ would give $150 to the ‘Me’. Hence, by implication, ‘warming’ the ‘Me’.
But RADIATION IS NOT HEAT. Here is a counter- question: How many cold objects does it take to warm a warmer object?
Answer – it can’t be done.
In Fig 1, the ‘net’ flow (Heat) is always from ‘Me’ to ‘You’, no matter how many ‘You’s there are.
In the climate debate, doubling the ‘You’ (CO2) will have no measurable effect on the temperature of the ‘Me’.
Why?
Because the spending power of the $75 will never overcome the spending power of the $100. ‘Me’ is richer than ‘You’. ‘Me’ can afford to give all the ‘You’s their $75 back and ‘Me’ would STILL be richer than all the ‘You’s. Equate richer for warmer and you have the true picture.
Ask yourselves this:
Why does the Sun’s radiation heat the Earth? Because the energy of the radiation from the Sun is sufficient to increase the thermal energy of the Earth’s receiving molecules. Can atmospheric CO2 not do that? NO.”

‘Arfur’ and others see that Willis’s Figure 2 (above) is also wrong:
“The 321 W/m2 that REACHES the surface is NOT absorbed for thermal gain. The ‘absorbed by the surface’ is irrelevant in a thermal context if the Earth is warmer than the atmosphere. This is why you can surround a hot object by billions of cold objects and the hot object will never (EVER) get hotter.”
That Useless ‘Blanket’ Analogy
If you don’t understand thermodynamics it is all too easy to fall into the classic GHE believers’ trap of conflating insulation with insolation.
For example:
Comparing atmospheric CO2 with a blanket, thermos, whatever, is like saying that a string vest made of 99.96% air and 0.04% cotton is an effective insulator. Even that would be wrong because the atmospheric CO2 doesn’t actually prevent heat loss, so the effectiveness of the cotton is further reduced. CO2 does not trap heat. Backradiation is not heat. Remember the ONLY source of energy in this process is the Sun. [h/t: ‘Arfur’]
Nowhere in applied science or engineering is there empirical evidence to demonstrate carbon dioxide does anything other than make things COOLER – it never warms. (see: ‘The Four Known Scientific Ways Carbon Dioxide Cools Earth’s Climate’ & ‘Industry Experts: CO2 Worse Than Useless In Trapping Heat/Delaying Cooling’)
This is why the CO2-driven “greenhouse effect” hypothesis only exists as an analogy – and a very flawed one in all its many confused and often self-contradictory iterations.
If there were some underlying truth behind the notion that surface level air temperatures are determined by the concentration of carbon dioxide that there is in the air, then they could just tell us what that truth is.  Instead they invoke a mental image of a greenhouse—steel or glass—because they are defining a mental concept and not a physical reality.
Examples of science laws not reliant on analogy:
Charles law: “if a given quantity of gas is held at a constant pressure, its volume is directly proportional to the absolute temperature.”
Boyle’s law: “at constant temperature for a fixed mass, the absolute pressure and the volume of a gas are inversely proportional.”
Curie’s Law: “In a paramagnetic material, the magnetization of the material is (approximately) directly proportional to an applied magnetic field. However, if the material is heated, this proportionality is reduced: for a fixed value of the field, the magnetization is (approximately) inversely proportional to temperature.” 
Remember that the GHE hypothesis not only states that the carbon dioxide level effects surface level air temperatures but rather it controls surface level air temperature.  Humanity can therefore set the Earth’s temperature by controlling how much carbon dioxide humanity produces!
Time to dump this junk science!
Source