Another Problem for the Greenhouse Gas Theory
The supporters of the Green House Gas Theory face many problems when defending this man-made global warming invention. The main one being there is no scientific support for it, which has resulted in them resorting to slogans, demonstrations, and trying to silence those who question their faith.
The claim that CO2 is reflecting energy back to the Earth is absurd. If a molecule absorbs a wavelength of energy it doesn’t reflect it. Reflection is returning a wave back in the direction from which it came. When a molecule absorbs radiation it can re-emit radiation of the same wavelength but it is emitted in all directions.
How can a CO2 molecule in constant motion selectively reflect infrared radiation coming from the Earth back to the Earth and not reflect infrared radiation coming from the sun back into space? If the CO2 is miraculously heating the Earth by reflecting how can it not be cooling the Earth by reflecting the stronger infrared radiation from the sun?
The claim that an object can add heat to the source heating it by reflecting heat back to it is pure garbage and violates the laws of thermodynamics. It is an example of people looking for anything, no matter how ridiculous, to support their beliefs, and preserve their income. No scientist can support this claim. A scientist examines all data in order to postulate theories. A propagandist selects data that support his beliefs and will ignore ay contrary evidence. It is a matter of ego not reasoning.
An egoist will embrace anything that supports his belief, like the flat Earth models, no matter how obviously inaccurate and will challenge and find fault with any experiment (Geraint Hughes experiments) that shows their beliefs to be nonsense.
The problem is in trying to reason with someone that has lost the ability to reason because of their ego.
The idiocy that I will discuss is the contention that the sun does not heat the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth is heating the atmosphere.
All objects absorb radiated energy, including gas molecules, and all objects, above absolute zero, radiate energy. This is basic physics. The claim that because nitrogen and oxygen do not absorb infrared radiation they are not receiving energy from the sun is truly stupid.
They do not absorb infrared because their molecule size does not match the wavelength of infrared but they do absorb ultraviolet. When they absorb radiation they must emit radiation but they do not have to emit it in the same form as they receive it.
The ultraviolet wave length matches the bond length of nitrogen and oxygen molecules and transfers energy to the atoms forming these bonds. When enough energy is absorbed the bonds break converting the molecules into atoms.
This is what forms the ionosphere and the ozone layer.
This reaction occurs at all levels of the atmosphere where ultraviolet radiation interacts with the gas molecules. The bond energy (942 kjoules/mole for nitrogen and 450 kjoules/mole for oxygen) is converted into kinetic energy of the atoms. The atoms lose energy by radiation and when enough energy is lost the molecules reform with added kinetic energy.
The nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the atmosphere are converting the energy absorbed from ultraviolet light coming from the sun into kinetic energy. Ultraviolet light contains more energy than visible light and penetrates the entire atmosphere adding kinetic energy to nitrogen and oxygen molecules. (Infrared light has less energy and is absorbed by larger molecules which is why infrared telescopes are being launched into orbit above the atmosphere to see deeper into space.)
People ask if the ultraviolet light from the sun is heating nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere why aren’t these molecules hotter higher in the atmosphere where they receive the most energy?
To answer a question with a question why is the space between the Earth and the sun so ‘cold’ when it contains all the energy heating the Earth?
The answer to that is that there are so few molecules in space that there are none to transfer energy to a thermometer. At what concentration of a gas are there enough molecules for a thermometer to give an accurate indication of the energy?
The answer to that question is, there isn’t any.
A thermometer is designed and calibrated for liquids and in a gas with increased energy of molecules a gas expands and fewer molecules transfer energy to the thermometer. In order to get an accurate comparison of the energy at different altitudes you must use the universal gas law. (The pressure factor in the gas law is not atmospheric pressure, which is the weight of the molecules in the atmosphere, but gravity which holds the atmosphere to the Earth resisting its expansion and is fairly constant throughout the atmosphere.)
When it is used it shows that the kinetic energy of molecules increases slowly in the troposphere (where water is absorbing energy) and increases exponentially in the upper layers of the atmosphere.
It is at the top of the atmosphere that the Earth is absorbing energy from the sun and radiating energy into space. The Green House Gas Theory is thoroughly discredited.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Ken Hughes
| #
Some very good points there Herb. Thanks.
Reply
geran
| #
The “greenhouse effect” hoax has gone on WAY too long. When the scam finally dies out, hopefully mankind will reap some benefit. Hopefully the public will learn to think as individuals, not as sheep.
Just because some clown has a “PhD”, he is still a clown. He’s just a clown wirh a PhD. That does NOT make him a scientist. Just because some clown puts on a robe and a funny hat, he is srill a clown. He’s just a clown with a robe and a funny hat. He is NOT a scientist. Just because a clown works for NASA, he is still a clown. He’s jusr a clown that works for NASA. He is NOT a scientist.
A scientist uses the established laws of physics, and the scientific method, to expand knowledge. A scientist does not pervert and corrupt reality to promote an agneda.
The public needs to learn the difference between clowns and scientists.
Reply
Steve Parker
| #
It’s worse when they have a Nobel Prize.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Dr. Ronan Connolly has a paper that he is trying to publish on Global Warming Solved. Professor Richard Lindzen recently spoke to GWPC and described the Greenhouse Theory and explained why CO2 is basically not a big player….that the El Nino weather event easily overwhelmed any CO2 effect …cirrus clouds and H2O vapor also overwhelm CO2 effect. Professor W. Soon maintains that TSI….Total Solar Irradiation…is the primary controller of climate temperature and TSI changes climate through long term cycles. I am in the process of reviewing all these recognized scientists who do not recognize CO2 as some kind of evil poisonous substance hellbent on destroying planet earth.
Reply
Chris
| #
Also, the atmosphere doesn’t absorb all energy. Most of it just passes through on its way to a solid surface that it cannot pass through. So the Earth heats up the most, and thankfully, it retains the heat and radiates enough of it at night to keep us from freezing.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Chris,
The surface of the Earth contains more energy just as a pot of boiling water contains more energy than a 100 C oven but most of that heat comes from energy being radiated by the molecules in the atmosphere not the sun. Most of the energy coming from the sun is in the short wavelengths (ultraviolet, blue) and these are the wavelengths that are most easily absorbed by molecules. The molecules at the top of the atmosphere (thermosphere) are exposed to the most intense energy and will absorb the most energy but because there are very few molecules the thermosphere won’t contain a lot of energy. As the light descends in the atmosphere it transfers energy to the molecules or atoms in the atmosphere and loses energy. Because the number of molecules/atoms in the atmosphere increases as the altitude decreases the amount of energy stored increases even though the energy absorbed by individual molecules/atoms decreases.
Any object radiates energy in all directions but the flow of energy is from more energetic objects to less energetic objects. The atoms in the thermosphere are radiating energy into space and to the less energetic molecules/atoms lower in the atmosphere. During the day these atoms at the top of the atmosphere are receiving more energy from the sun then they are radiating and increase in energy. At night when they are no longer gaining energy they continue to radiated energy in all directions, into space and to the cooler molecules lower in the atmosphere This causes them to lose energy and the atmosphere to contract. At the Earth’s surface the molecules that received energy during the day are transferring the energy to the more numerous molecules around them causing the hotter atoms to cool but at the same time they are absorbing energy from the more energetic (but fewer) molecules in the atmosphere above them. This slows their cooling. (Compare that to the cooling of the surface of the moon when the sun sets.) The atmosphere (especially water stores energy.and distributes it when energy levels fall.
A cloudy night will be warmer than a clear night. This is not because the water in the clouds are reflecting heat back to the surface as meteorologist claim but because the water in the clouds contain stored heat and water is more effective in transmitting heat than gases.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb: The atmosphere (especially water stores energy.and distributes it when energy levels fall.
A cloudy night will be warmer than a clear night. This is not because the water in the clouds are reflecting heat back to the surface as meteorologist claim but because the water in the clouds contain stored heat and water is more effective in transmitting heat than gases.
James: Yes!
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
T L Winslow
| #
You can waste years trying to peel the onion off the CO2 greenhouse warming hoax, but let me save your time. Just one pesky fact shoots it down.
CO2 absorbs radiation at 15 microns, which has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C = 193K = -112F, which can’t melt an ice cube, whose Planck radiation max wavelength by the way is 10.6 microns.
CO2’s other absorption wavelengths are 2.7 microns and 4.3 microns.
2.7 microns corresponds to a Planck radiation temperature of 797C (1070K) (1466F), and 4.3 microns corresponds to one of 401C (675K) (755F), neither of which the Earth’s surface is capable of reaching outside of volcanoes.
So the 150 watts per square meter of CO2 back radiation is composed of what?
Infinite Zonk! What sick schmucks the CO2 hoaxers are.
Check my work with this online blackbody calculator:
https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
Absorption is a misnomer, it’s more like harmonic resonance, but the conservation of energy means this absorption is followed in a billionth of a second by an EMISSION of a longer wavelength, lower energy photon. Review my “Green Prince” interview yesterday at PSI on AGW and Lukewarmist errors.
Reply
T L Winslow
| #
Emission of a longer wavelength lower energy photon? It’s already at -80C. What does it emit, microwaves? 🙂 CO2 can’t cause global warming unless the Earth’s surface gets down to -81C.
https://www.quora.com/Where-is-the-evidence-that-seems-to-persuade-people-that-carbon-dioxide-in-the-atmosphere-is-not-causing-global-heating/answer/TL-Winslow
Reply
judy
| #
Thanks Herb Rose,
I understood nearly all that you wrote, until I started reading the comments. So, now I have a request. In the 5 min video linked to below NASA credits NO and CO2 with sending 95% of the sun’s ray back out into space during a solar storm, thereby protecting planet earth. Critics say that it’s only because there is a storm which I suppose has some kind of kinetic energy? Anyway, I don’t accept the critics storm explanation. So, I would appreciate your comments on the video below.
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/jr/Sun_and_C02.pdf
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Judy,
The diagram is propaganda nonsense.
The Earth’s atmosphere does not have a shell to reflect anything The higher the altitude the fewer the number of molecules/atoms. and the fewer lightwaves are intercepted by these molecules/atoms. The light penetrates the atmosphere where as more molecules/atoms intercept these waves the intensity of the light decreases.
The waves are not being reflected but absorbed by molecules of the appropriate size. After energy is absorbed by a molecule it emits energy to re-establish equilibrium. The emitted energy can be the same wavelength as the absorbed energy or a different wavelength.When the wavelength emitted is the same as the wavelength absorbed it gives he appearance of reflection but it is a completely different process. Reflected energy returns in the direction it came from and does not add energy to the reflecting object. In order for an object to reflect a wavelength it must have strong bonds between the atoms that do not distort from the wavelength striking it. Gases do not reflect energy, they absorb or transmit.
When energy is absorbed by a molecule it increases the energy of the molecule and if the molecule is in equilibrium the energy is emitted in all directions, not just back to the source. (Red paint will reflect the red wavelength and absorb the other wavelengths of visible light giving the object a red color. Red glass will absorb different wavelengths of light and emit the energy at the red wavelength in all directions giving the glass a red color.)
NO molecules are unstable because oxygen has a valence of two while nitrogen has a valence of three. This leaves an un-bonded electron and the molecules will split and reform to the more stable compounds of O2 and N2. The reason there is NO in the upper atmosphere is because the uv light from the sun splits O2 and N2 into atoms and some of these atoms recombine temporarily as NO. It is not a reflection but emission.
There is no CO2 in the upper atmosphere. The energy from the sun would split the molecule into atoms if they were ever released there.
The Earth is in equilibrium with the energy from the sun which means it will emit as much energy as it absorbs (less the amount stored or used). We know from atmospheric test of nuclear bombs that the lower atmosphere rotates east faster than the surface of the Earth. I would expect that the upper atmosphere is moving at an even faster rate which would mean the molecules in the thermosphere are quickly transfer energy from the sun side of the Earth to the night side and radiating that energy into space.
Herb
Reply
Richard
| #
God will fix everything, don’t worry
Reply
T L Winslow
| #
[[The thermosphere is typically about 200° C (360° F) hotter in the daytime than at night, and roughly 500° C (900° F) hotter when the Sun is very active than at other times. Temperatures in the upper thermosphere can range from about 500° C (932° F) to 2,000° C (3,632° F) or higher.]] – https://scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/thermosphere-overview
755F, 1466F – Yes, at that temperature range CO2 actually absorbs and reemits.
Note in the video they show the fireworks in the thermosphere above a ground covered in snow. At the same time NASA Goddard tells the public that CO2 heats the ground with -80C cold radiation. What a hoax. Too bad, they have the big stage, and we’re relegated to blogs with one-millionth the readership. If we could only get P-S 1 million email subscribers – but what a pipe dream. Still, a journey of a million miles starts with one step. It has to start with you. Did you spam your entire email list with a request to subscribe yet? Better if P-S sets up the software to do that like a lot of social media sites have.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
All satellites that measure Earth’s temperatures (RSS, UAH, etc) use ~60GHz OXYGEN emission. This is ample proof that real scientists don’t even care to use CO2 for such measurements. Therefore its concentration has no effect on UTILIZED observations.
Reply
philf
| #
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
GCM General Circulation Model (many, based on IPCC CO2 assertions)
These eight links from five authors are all you really need to understand global warming.
My speculation: As the temperature went down into the Little Ice Age, limestone was deposited around the edges of bodies of water. As the temperature has recovered since, the limestone dissolved and added CO2 to the oceans, with a delay of 300-400 years. It was just an accident that this added CO2 coincided with our industrial revolution. Temperature creates CO2, not the other way around. There is proof of that. Read on.
Pangburn
Shows that temperature change over the last 170 years is due to 3 things: 1) cycling of the ocean temperature, 2) sun variations and 3) moisture in the air. There is no significant dependence of temperature on CO2.
https://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com/
Connolly father & son
Shows the vertical temperature profile follows the ideal gas laws and is not caused by CO2. Millions of weather balloon scans and trillions of data points have been analyzed to come to these conclusions. One important conclusion is that there is no green house gas effect.
https://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/11/summary-the-physics-of-the-earths-atmosphere-papers-1-3/
utube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY
Pat Frank
Shows that GCM results cannot be extrapolated a few years, let alone 50 or 100.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full
and
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/15/why-roy-spencers-criticism-is-wrong/
Joe Postma
Shows that the “flat earth model”of the IPCC is too simple. Their real models are built into the GCMs which don’t fit the real data.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/10/19/the-thing-without-the-thing/
https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/09/05/real-climate-physics-vs-fake-political-physics/
https://principia-scientific.com/webcast-no-radiative-greenhouse-effect/
Reply