Bad Measuring Made CO2 our Climate’s Control Knob

Written by John O'Sullivan

A US Federal Court finally recognizes that climate scientists do not measure properly. Honest mistakes are forgivable, some are plainly intended to commit science fraud.

An open California courtroom this week saw dodgy alarmist scientists properly exposed and taken to task by a US Federal judge –  who just so happens to also be a trained engineer! (see: ‘California Court Shines Bright Light On Junk Climate Science

In court Oxford Professor Myles Allen failed in his shyster attempt to deceive the judge with a shoddy graph purporting to depict how much CO2 was now in the atmosphere.

This shameful Oxford professor must surely have been schooled in the same fake science techniques employed so  infamously by the disgraced climate fraudster, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann. Mann is on the cusp of the most monumental court defeat by Dr Tim Ball, the co-founder of Principia Scientific International and proud fellow ‘Slayer’ of greenhouse gas theory.

Ball is on a roll. He has already wiped the British Columbia Supreme Court floor with that other IPCC shyster, Dr  Andrew Weaver (see: ‘Tim Ball’s Huge Courtroom Win Now Targets Michael Mann!‘)

Finally, the world is now seeing that open courtrooms are the best venues to shine a bright light on climate criminals. I’ve been saying this since 2009; it is the ultimate and most compelling way to apply the “red team, blue team” adversarial test. I’m so glad Tim took my advice and bravely accepted the legal gauntlet thrown at him by Weaver and Mann. The best is yet to come!

Judge Alsup (that trained engineer) spotted that the dodgy Oxford professor (Myles Allen) had sought to fool the court with a misleading graph that made the atmosphere appear to have more than 400 parts per million of CO2. It is no coincidence that PSI is comprised of many applied scientists and engineers with PhD’s. Judge Alsup thinks and speaks our language.

Justice Alsup“It’s 400 parts per million but you make it look like it’s 10,000 part per million” 

Professor Allen: “Your honor is quite right,” he agreed

As Judge Alsup is fast learning, global warming is truly ‘man-made’ – but not from CO2 – but by those errant clammy hands of climate profiteers and careerist data-manglers selling the Big Lie.

Even the ‘lukes’ are slowly starting to get it. Dr. Willie Soon et al., as ‘friends of the court,’ followed our lead and finally saw it takes applied science and engineering know-how to win in these cases (see: amicus curiae brief to Judge Alsup).

Check the Facts, Not the Hype

First, here is some of the easy science: Paleoclimate researchers know that when looking back over eons, not just the last century or two, we see historic levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) levels (that supposed control knob of climate) in no way match changes in temperature.

Diligent examination of the paleoclimate record reveals some truly astonishing facts about CO2. For example, levels of carbon dioxide in the air have been more than TEN times higher than modern levels and occurred during times when there were both brutally cold ice ages and warm periods (see graph above).

We can see ice ages are common and pleasantly warmer epochs, like our current Holocene interglacial are rare. If we look back to the previous interglacial period (the Eemian) we see it was warmer than today, but CO2 levels were significantly lower than current values. This is prima facie evidence even to a non-scientist, that CO2 did not the cause the warming climate of the Eemian epoch, which began about 130,000 years ago and ended about 115,000 years ago.

Thus, paleoclimate research shows the record of our climate system did not operate in a manner consistent with man-made global warming conjecture; groupthink that began to take hold from the late 1970’s.

Indeed, the re-emergence into consensus science of the discredited greenhouse effect during the 1980’s relied heavily on computer models programmed with the science fiction of high climate sensitivity to CO2, even when real world evidence showed sensitivity about zero.

But climate modelers had an advantage. From around 1975 began a generation’s worth of higher global temperatures at the same time as levels of atmospheric CO2 were rising. Correlation existed for sure. But ‘Correlation does not imply causation’ as we know.

And today, in 2018 there is no longer any such correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures. CO2 levels keep going up, temperatures are flat, even going down. Does the next ice age cometh?

Moreover, independent climate researcher, Tony Heller, brilliantly demonstrates how climate was much more extreme at lower levels of CO2 (see: ‘Further Proof That Reducing CO2 Won’t Save The Climate‘)

  1. The climate was not better at lower levels of CO2;
  2. The climate would not get better if we reduced CO2 levels;
  3. The NASA temperature record is complete garbage.

When the Theory Fails, Dump the Theory

As lower solar activity sets in scientists now realize temperatures are headed down with a new ice possible. But those pesky measured levels of CO2 keep rising; no correlation, no causation there. So, finally, inquiring minds are turning their intention to more careful examination of the greenhouse gas theory (GHE) relied upon by governments, as cited by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This ‘theory’ was thoroughly trashed in the world’s first and only book dissecting those wacky numbers. Nonetheless, PSI still identifies no fewer than 53 Bogus Authority Statements That Earth’s Atmosphere ‘Like A Greenhouse. This is the inescapable problem when groupthink takes hold.

In 2009 ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory  (lead author: Tim Ball) challenged the consensus and exposed glaring flaws in the GHE.  The book correlated well with ideas and analysis put forward by German physicists Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D Tscheuschner. We were ridiculed by alarmists and lukewarmers alike.

The ‘Slayers’ (morphing into Principia Scientific International (PSI) and now 1,000+ strong) showed that man-made global warming conjecture is based upon a simplistic, non-time dependent model of our planet fashioned from bad measuring at NASA in the 1980’s by Dr James Hansen.

PSI’s ‘Slayers’ explained in detail why the radiant greenhouse effect, supposedly driven by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere via Long wave infra-red radiation (LWIR) bore no resemblance to how a real greenhouse operated.

Regardless of our efforts, the consensus persisted in reliance on a simple, but false model. It was false because, in reality a radiant greenhouse effect has never been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere, or anywhere else in the solar system.

Climate Fraud Goes Right to the Top

Second, here’s some more tricky science: A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of LWIR in our atmosphere absorbing heat trapping gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect that keeps a real greenhouse warm and not a radiative greenhouse effect.

Yet despite such an obvious and crassly unscientific paradigm, government-funded science institutions worldwide (even NASA) have lied to the public that our climate works like a greenhouse.

Their junk science greenhouse analogy omits to tell you the truth that gravity, plus the heat capacity of the atmosphere controls our climate via convection and conduction acting through the water cycle.

Thirdly, some of the ‘hard’ science: The other lie we are told is that the greenhouse gas effect ‘keeps our planet 33 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be.’ That number is a whopping great lie fabricated by Dr. James Hansen’s (innumerate) mixing of scalar and vector numbers – more bad measurements. You simply shouldn’t do it. Nonetheless, the idiocy stuck and Hansen’s error is oft repeated, by among others,  NASA’s new top climate scientist, Dr Gavin Schmidt:

“The size of the greenhouse effect is often estimated as being the difference between the actual global surface temperature and the temperature the planet would be without any atmospheric absorption, but with exactly the same planetary albedo, around 33°C. This is more of a ‘thought experiment’ than an observable state, but it is a useful baseline.” Dr. Gavin Schmidt, NASA

Note how Schmidt qualifies his misfeasance by calling the idiotic “33°C degrees” effect just a “thought experiment” and not an “observable state.” It’s not observable because it is a fantasy from bad measurement!

To further the fraud, Schmidt, in his own diagram of the GHE (below), crassly doubles the atmospheric infrared energy input (both ‘up’ and ‘down’). Bad measure on top of bad measurement!

Such is the willful blindness of climate science “group think.”

Schmidt’s Impossible Outcome: Examine how much energy that two-sided (dotted) air layer is radiating. In the real world, when a unit of light is absorbed by a flat plane that’s free to discharge this energy in two directions, its emission on each side will be cut in half. This means that a 1 square meter plane emitting 1 Watt per square meter will radiate half a Watt from one side and half a Watt from the other — certainly not a Watt from each side! Otherwise, two Watts would be emitted for each Watt absorbed.  NASA, Schmidt & Hansen DOUBLED the effect by a statistical sleight of hand- just as Professor Myles Allen attempted on Justice Alsup in federal court this week.

Layer upon layer of clumsiness and/or intentional errors by Schmidt, NASA & consensus climate science depend on the original and widely-promoted paper by NASA researcher, Dr James Hansen in 1981. [1.2]

PSI Slayers showed that it was Hansen (pictured below) who was the ‘scientist’ who put together those dodgy numbers to form the official (and legally-recognized) UN IPPC consensus model greenhouse gas theory.

If you go through the literature you will see the whole climate kerfuffle kicked off officially with the 1979 First World Climate Conference.  BUT back then the term “greenhouse gases” (GHG) had not yet been coined. It simply doesn’t appear in the literature till later. In fact, it was my own research that first brought to wide attention that the highly-influential ‘Charney Report‘ (1979), the most important and detailed US government climate report of all time,  being  13,000-words long, has not ANY mention WHATSOEVER of the “greenhouse gas effect” or “greenhouse gas theory”.

They needed the shyster father of the fraud, NASA’s James Hansen to step in to fully fabricate the ‘science’.

The abstract for the hugely important paper, Hansen et al 1988  only uses the term “trace gases” with no mention of the term “greenhouse gases”, but in the body of the text  (page 9358) Hansen switches from talking of “trace gases” to “greenhouse gases” without ever first defining this newly made up term. The climate science world swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Hansen had thus provided the veneer of a mathematical proof of a greenhouse gas effect tied to wholly innocent carbon dioxide (CO2), a benign trace gas the biosphere craves as plant food.

On their face, Hansen’s numbers appear to validate the 33C “greenhouse effect.”  But that number is utterly bogus, unscientific and an intentional fraud inflicted upon non-scientists and the gullible, but beloved by tax-raising policymakers.

As PSI researcher scientist, Dr Pierre R Latour noted:

“The ‘Slayers’ proved the standard greenhouse gas effect equation is a statistical anomaly created from the perverse addition of scalar and vector numbers. But Physics 101  tells us “vector and scalar quantities cannot be added together.”

Believers in the 33C “greenhouse effect” hypothesis say our atmosphere thus acts “like a blanket” and use the insulation analogy in support of their hypothesis. They say that “greenhouse gases” make the atmosphere a better insulator. But what they omit to consider is that CO2 is one of the most superior EMITTING gases (i.e. no ‘trapping heat’ or delaying of cooling). Indeed, Hansen’s model (adopted bt NASA and UN IPCC) violates three basic laws of thermodynamics:

1) energy created out of thin air,

2) energy moving from cold to hot without added work, and

3) depends on physically impossible 100% efficiency, zero loss, perpetual looping.

While another PSI researcher, Nick Schroeder BSME PE gave a detailed debunk in ‘’To Be 33C Or Not To Be 33C’ Greenhouse Gas Fallacy Exposed’ ( February 28, 2017). Our team of highly-credentialed researchers prove government scientists misuse the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and crassly ascribe to Earth an emissivity of 1.0 when real data proves it is lower. Such that:

The S-B equation: Q/A = sig * emis * T4

Let’s insert a 0.5 emis. There are two choices: constant Q/A or constant T.

Constant Q: Q/A = sig * 0.5 emis * T4/0.5 Equation stays balanced, but T4 doubles.

Constant T: 0.5 * Q/A = sig * 0.5 emis * T4 Equation remains balanced, Q/A is halved.

We know the real value of T from actual physical data, therefore Q/A must go down – and take that nonsensical greenhouse gas theory down with it.

17 New Peer-reviewed Studies Trash Greenhouse Gas Theory

Wholly independent validation of PSI’s refutations are finally appearing. In 2017 some of the ‘lesser’ peer reviewed journals permitted publication of studies debunking the GHE as we saw with ‘17 New Scientific Papers Dispute CO2 Greenhouse Effect As Primary Explanation For Climate Change’.  Even in Japan, scientists are pointing out the hidden fatal errors James Hansen et al. rely on and another paper in 2018 shows how our planet’s temperature is easily explained without reliance on any GHE. Recently, Russian scientists have declared the GHE dead as global cooling sets in; while a team of Italian scientists called for a “deep re-examination” of the failing theory.

Climate realists see that the direct heat of the sun can only impact half of our three-dimensional planet at any time.  We also see that an artificial “heat gap” was created in the models, as identified by government calculations creating an anomaly caused by crudely averaging all solar energy into the “P4 number error.” The P4 error was due to Hansen and propagated thereafter by the IPCC and all consensus science because they crudely model solar energy as constant, 24-hour input (no night/day modulation), which entirely explains the 33 degrees difference due the GHE. It is not a real temperature difference, but a man-made (Hansen-created) number fudge.

Flat Earth, Junk Climate Models

‘The Slayers’ proved this in their published GHE models which all clearly depict a ‘flat earth’ heat source with one-quarter of the intensity averaged out over the entire planet (the ‘P4 number’). We are told ‘better models’ exist that do not rely on the P4 number, but none has been shown.

While climate researcher, Will Haas, shows the nonsense of CO2 ‘climate sensitivity’ noting:

“For those that believe in a radiative greenhouse effect, the initial radiometric calculations performed decades ago came up with a value for the climate sensitivity of CO2 neglecting feedbacks of 1.2 degrees C. One researcher has pointed out that these initial calculations failed to take into consideration that a doubling of CO2 in the troposphere will cause a slight decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere. That decrease in the lapse rate will cause a reduction of the climate sensitivity of CO2 by more than a factor of 20. So now we have a value for the climate sensitivity of CO2 excluding feedbacks of less than .06 degrees C.”

We are told that in the GHE water (H2O) provides a positive feedback to any carbon dioxide-based warming. The idea is that CO2 based warming caused more water to enter the atmosphere. In turn, that supposedly causes more warming because water is also a  ‘greenhouse gas’ with LWIR absorption bands.

The UN’s IPCC don’t define how strong this positive feedback effect is, but they speculate it may be multiplied by three.

Sun, Gravity and Water Cycle Dominate Climate System

But, according to the GHE theory, water acts as a stronger absorber of IR than is CO2 and being the primary greenhouse gas, it renders any additional CO2 as a trivial effect. But the doomsaying GHE conjecture overlooks the fact that as well as being the primary greenhouse gas, water is a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere. Water vapor is well known for transferring heat energy from the Earth’s surface and into clouds via the heat of vaporization.

At PSI we see that Earth’s temperature is a chemical process system coupled with adiabatic pressure (gravity). There are only two CO2 gas phase reactions, both are endothermic: arc welding and photosynthesis; CO2 + H2O + sunlight = sugars + O2, catalyzed by chlorophyll. CO2 can’t cause warming because it isn’t a source of heat.  Only sources of heat can cause cooler objects to warm up.

The GHE theory is a flat-earth, one dimensional model with no time dependent (diurnal) factor. However, climate realists know the atmosphere stays warm overnight because oxygen and nitrogen can’t shed their heat.  CO2 can lose heat. It sheds it literally in the blink of an eye. [3]

What we do know about greenhouses is this: Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere supplies plants with their fundamental natural organic fertilizer.  In real greenhouses we put the CO2 level to about four times what it is in the outside air, because this is what plants like best, and lets them grow the best and produce the most food.  More CO2 in the atmosphere is a boon for life.  

Considering all what I have presented above, a good value for the climate sensitivity of CO2 would be zero. Climate realists (i.e. PSI scientists) assert that in large part, the density of a planet’s atmosphere is a primary determinant of its temperature (plus distance from sun).

Any rational human being (especially a US federal judge in California) can see, when shown all the evidence, that Earth’s atmosphere is not an insulator – carbon dioxide plays zero role – our climate certainly does not operate like a greenhouse. Dr Tim Ball will be fighting for us all in any scheduled future appearance in the British Columbia Supreme Court where he will be demanding of the shyster king of bad measuring – Dr Michael Mann –  “show your work!”


[1] Hansen, J, Johnson D, Lacis A, Lebedeff S, Lee P, Rind D & Russell G, “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”,Science, Vol 213, n 4511, pp 957 – 966, August 28, 1981.

[2] Hansen, J, Fung I, Lacis A, Rind D, Lebedeff S, Ruedy R & Russell G, “Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model”, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 93, n D8, pg 9341 – 9364, August 20, 1988.

[3] Determination of Mean Free Path of Quantum/Waves and Total Emissivity of the Carbon Dioxide Considering the Molecular Cross Section, Nasif Nahle, University Professor, Scientific Research Director at Biology Cabinet Division Mexico. http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_free_path_length.pdf


John O’Sullivan is CEO of PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027. 

Please give generously to help us defend the scientific method. DONATE TODAY and show your support for our important non-profit mission.

Comments (20)

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn

    |

    The ‘notch’ in graphs of TOA radiation flux demonstrates why CO2 has no significant effect on climate. http://energyredirect3.blogspot.com/

    The most important factor currently countering temperature decline has been the sustained rise (trend) in water vapor. According to NASA/RSS satellite measurements, WV has been increasing 1.5% per decade for at least as long as it has been measured (since Jan 1988). Rational extrapolation indicates 8% since 1960. Both WV and UAH temperature are now below their trend lines. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    Excellent article John.
    I have sent this to a warmist.

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    banned and deleted for personal abuse of other commenters

    • Avatar

      John O'Sullivan

      |

      Ross, CO2 is proven next to useless as an insulating gas. It was tried in 1989 in double glazing but was rejected because it was so poor. But if you know of any, do please cite any industry example where CO2 is used widely as an insulator. Try reading Reilly, D. Arasteh, and M. Rubin, ‘The Effects of Infrared Absorbing Gasses on Window Heat Transfer: A Comparison of Theory and Experiment,’ Applied Science Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720; Published in Solar Energy Materials 20 (1990) pp. 277-288, North Holland, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6sn232sk

      Argon, Krypton, and Xenon are the preferred insulating gases (after ordinary air) for industrial applications – not CO2. Seems industry experts, guided by practical concerns rather than junk academic theory, just don’t agree with you that CO2 is a good insulator.
      https://modernize.com/home-ideas/34308/argon-krypton-xenon-best-gas-insulated-window

      • Avatar

        Rosco

        |

        Which is why they simply choose to use ordinary air.

        • Avatar

          Rosco

          |

          How are the actual empirically derived thermal conductivity and specific heat values for various gases, liquids and solids “junk academic theory” ?

          • Avatar

            Rosco

            |

            John you are an inveterate user of strawman attack tactics.

            As usual you mount an argument and fail to realise that what you claim supports the thing you are arguing against –

            Helium (gas) 0.142

            Argon (gas) 0.016

            Neon (gas) 0.046

            Krypton (gas) 0.0088

            Xenon (gas) 0.0051

            Carbon dioxide (gas) 0.0146

            Air, atmosphere (gas) 0.0262

            What is your point ?

            I plainly said that empirical evidence says that CO2 retains its thermal energy longer than ordinary air.

            I said nothing about any of the “Noble” gases !

            From the article you reference –

            “We developed a MODEL to study the coupled effects of radiation and conduction through infrared absorbing gasses separating window glazing layers. For small vertical gap widths and for windows heated from above, where convection is negligible, our model agrees well with experimental data. For larger vertical gap widths, where energy savings from the use of infrared absorbing gasses may begin to accrue, convection effects will begin to take effect and negate the positive impact of going to larger gap widths.”

            As usual this proves nothing.

            You may think it does because they combine radiative effects with other thermal energy transmission methods !

            Let me ask you this –

            There are accurate empirically determined values for thermal conductivity and these are widely accepted.

            The authors of the pseudoscience you quote appear to think these accurate empirically determined values do not include any component relating to blackbody radiation.

            This is also one of the fundamental bases for the “back radiation greenhouse effect” – that radiation is an “extra” that is somehow ignored.

            By this logic you, and the authors of this citation, are supporting the fundamental basis for the “back radiation greenhouse effect” !

            Let me ask – how is it possible to measure thermal conductivity without the test objects radiating ????????????

            Apparently you support this nonsense where the authors separate radiation from other thermal transfers-

            https://www.dropbox.com/s/bhogundc9uwagj3/trenberth9.jpg?dl=0

      • Avatar

        jerry krause

        |

        Hi John,

        Thanks about this information about why carbon dioxide used as a insulating gas rather than Argon. I had pondered this, but was too lazy to try searching for information.

        But it seems we should try to understand (explain) why or how. The observation that the best insulating gases are atoms and not a long molecule like carbon dioxide suggests the possible rotation of the oxygen atoms about carbon atom is a factor which atoms do not have. Degrees of freedom have something to do with it but I am now so far from that reasoning I hesitate to use the term. Also, as I ponder I see there is a possible bending motion which the diatomic molecules of oxygen and nitrogen do not have.

        As I ponder about your information that carbon dioxide is not as good an insulator as the earth’s atmosphere I thought about the possible consequences this atmosphere to that of Venus. Then I come back to the earth’s atmosphere and its adiabatic lapse-rate which during cloudless nights is seen by atmospheric sounding data to become inverted in the lower kilometer layer, or so, by sunrise. The reason I note what I have pondered is that thermal conductivity is always trying to reduce any atmospheric temperature gradient. Just something to ponder.

        Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE

      |

      Thermal conductivity is not the same as specific heat capacity. Because of their density, solids and liquids hold a lot more energy per delta degree than air or CO2.

      Water: 4.18 kJ/kg-C
      Air: 1.012 kJ/kg-C
      CO2: 0.839 kJ/kg-C
      Granite: 0.790 kJ/kg-C

      This is why USCRN data reveals that the 1.5 m surface air heats and cools rapidly while the soil heats and cools slowly as we rotate beneath the solar irradiation.

      5 cm soil and air heat rapidly and together as the sun rises, air cools rapidly and falls below soil temp as the sun sets and stays cooler than 5 cm soil during the night.

      Contrary to RGHE theory there is zero evidence of “back” radiation from the air warming the soil.

      • Avatar

        Rosco

        |

        comment removed and user banned due to persistent personal abuse of other site users

        • Avatar

          John O'Sullivan

          |

          Ross, CO2 absorbs and emits IR radiation more efficiently than any “non Greenhouse gas” so will speed up the transmission of IR radiation through the atmosphere. It will not “trap heat”. There is no industry application that uses CO2 as the preferred gas to insulate/trap heat. Get over it.

        • Avatar

          Rosco

          |

          comment removed and user banned due to persistent personal abuse of other site users

        • Avatar

          Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE

          |

          No, I’m not claiming it “never” happens, but the predominate flow of energy is 1) sun heats soil, 2) soil heats air.

          You say otherwise, back that up.

          BTW, Geeze, Get a Grip!!

    • Avatar

      Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE

      |

      “As should also be perfectly obvious gases actually do retain their heat better than solids or liquids.” This is heat capacity and wrong.
      “Air is a pretty damn fine insulator but CO2 is significantly better.” This is, yeah, conductivity.
      So, yes, you said so.

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    removed by mod

    • Avatar

      Rosco

      |

      It also appears you have become another pharmaceutical distribution and advertising site – how about you simply ban JeffreyJem ?

    • Avatar

      John O'Sullivan

      |

      Ross, a vacuum-sealed thermos vs. a thermos sealed thermos will cool much faster than the vacuum-sealed thermos – CO2 does not “trap” any radiative heat. In the open atmosphere it is only at high altitude, where the temperature was kinetically actually quite cold, could the merely partial radiative absorption of CO2 actually constitute a heating effect on the molecule, greater than that which it would have already acquired collisionally.

  • Avatar

    John O'Sullivan

    |

    Ross, I rely on the science shown in Prof Nasif Nahle’s 2011 paper addressing the thermal properties of CO2 applying standardized metrics. Nahle showed that universally accepted experiments, performed by scientific giants such as H. C. Hottel, Leckner, Lapp and Ludwig showed energy (heat) absorbed by CO2 was re-emitted within five milliseconds (faster than the blink of an eye).
    Determination of Mean Free Path of Quantum/Waves and Total Emissivity of the Carbon Dioxide Considering the Molecular Cross Section, Nasif Nahle, University Professor, Scientific Research Director at Biology Cabinet Division Mexico. http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_free_path_length.pdf

  • Avatar

    John O'Sullivan

    |

    Ross, Hot air balloons rise not because of CO2. The clue is in the name ‘hot air.’ Heat from combustion, captured by the barrier of the balloon’s material.is the driver. The trapped heat lifts the basket upward as long as the heat source (flame) is applying work. Unlike warm air, CO2 will tend to sink because its molecular mass is 44 (12 + 2 x 16 = 44), a higher density than other atmospheric gases. Left to itself CO2 falls to the ground/settles in the oceans.
    All of Nasif Nahle’s calculations rely on standard values derived empirically by other scientists that are well accepted and non-controversial. His paper was published seven years ago and has never been refuted, or errors identified. Nahle proves that absent any obstruction placed before it, energy from CO2 is released back to outer space within 5 milliseconds – no heat trapping/delayed cooling by CO2.
    We have repeatedly offered you the opportunity to submit an article that backs up your opinions but you won’t. That tells me you know others won’t buy into your views. I fear you are becoming another Doug C****n.
    Finally, if you persist in posting insults against those who don’t agree with you, then you will find yourself permanently banned from commenting.

  • Avatar

    gymbo

    |

    Rosco – “comment removed and user banned due to persistent personal abuse of other site users”

    What a travesty for a site that ridicules everyone that doesn’t fit their mold.

    I guess if you can’t win the argument by facts you ban anyone who disagrees.

    Doesn’t that sound familiar ?

Comments are closed