Evidence – CO2 Is Not A Greenhouse Gas

Written by Geraint Hughes

 

I believe that it is very important – in fact, the most important thing for all citizens – to know and understand that they are indeed being deceived and manipulated by the state and state actors (climate activists, left wing educators, mainstream media, etc.) into believing untruths.

It is not a mere conspiracy theory, it is real. There is a wide-spread deliberate deception being imposed upon the people of the world to force them to spend money, to pay taxes – all in exchange for nothing. Then be worried sick and ridden with guilt about “destroying the planet.”

People with integrity need to stand up, be counted and have the courage and will to speak the truth. They need to speak the truth, and also demonstrate the truth.

To this end I have conducted several experiments, so that I can demonstrate to people, live if necessary, that fake climate alarmist scientists are teaching lies, plain and simple. An entire industry is living like a horde of parasites on the back of a whale – and we the people are that whale.

Wow, some claim, I am sure some of you may be thinking.

So, let’s delve, briefly into my experiments, which can be found on YouTube. There will, of course, be more.

Experiment 1 – CO2 Cause’s Lighting Incandescent Filaments to Dim

If we were to believe the lies that Carbon Dioxide is the cause of global warming, via its mechanism of back radiation, then adding CO2 gas to a vacuum chamber, which within contains a tungsten filament, should cause the temperature of the filament to rise.

An electrically heated straight tungsten filament contained within a vintage vacuum bulb glows brightly at approximately 2000K. It emits some of its radiation in the IR wave bands which CO2 most strongly absorbs and so it would be expected that any back-radiant heating effect would be maximal and self-evident. Unfortunately, as we will see later, it is not.

This can be seen in the CO2 spectral absorption graph, where its absorbance in 4 to 5 micron wavelength (light bulb spectra) is far in excess of the strength of its absorption in the 14 to 16 micron wavelengths (more earth Spectra).

Spectral Graph of absorption and emission of CO2

Many people do not know that CO2 absorbs strongly in the shortwave IR part of the spectrum. This is one of the reasons that the CO2 gas in a bottle experiment is misleading, because the CO2 gas in the bottle is absorbing radiation, DIRECTLY emitted from the light bulb, in a wavelength, which the Earth just does not emit, because it is far too cool to do so. I elaborate on this in my book, Black Dragon: Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of the Big Lie of Climate Change Science. There are other reasons as to why that experiment and others like are it misleading. Back irradiance from a gas as a form of heat induction is just plain wrong, as I can show.

Therefore, we would expect the CO2 to absorb well this radiation being emitted, by the filament, be warmed by it, send the IR back to the filament, which would in turn become hotter and then glow more brightly as a result.

So, how to go about proving if this back radiant effect is all powerful, or if in fact, other far more dominant factors are at play. What perhaps is actually occurring?

To this end, I have had constructed the twin vacuum chamber, portable comparison experiment, so that I can compare two different states of heat loss with each other and show this effect live, if necessary.

The schematic of the experiment is shown below, along with a picture of it.

Filament Cooling Experiment Schematic

I may in future, make single chambers, as those are more affordable, lighter, easier to use and far more portable. Everyone, who wants to fight back against the lies of the alarmists, should have one of these. Alarmists cannot argue against it, without making themselves sound like the idiots that they are. And believe me, they do try.

Briefly, you can see that this arrangement allows me to evacuate two chambers, so I can make a comparison between two straight tungsten filaments, one in a vacuum and the other with a gas added.

Filament Cooling Experiment Photograph

To the see the experiment in action and an explanation of how it works, click this link.

I conducted several different comparisons to record the differences between the two, which can be seen in this video. The main comparisons are between the Vacuum bulb and the filament in carbon dioxide from 0 Bar and 0.7 Bar.

This is the picture of the filament at 0 Bar, a Vacuum.

Freeze Frame Exposed Tungsten Elements in a Vacuum 0.0 Bar – Bright

You can see this is equally bright across the entire length of the filament – i.e., the filament is clearly very bright. It is bright top, middle and bottom.

So, what happens if I add a small amount of Carbon Dioxide to the filament? Are the filament surfaces “globally warmed” by the CO2 thus experiencing an increase in temperature as a result of back radiation, as all the experts say it would do?

Well, actually, no. No such warming occurs. To think it could, is actually quite silly. That is what an ignorant child, who can be brainwashed by deceptive agenda-ridden teachers, could be misled into believing. Just as people are misled into believing CO2 causes surface temperatures and ocean temperatures worldwide to rise.

Freeze Frame of Exposed Tungsten Elements in a CO2 Gas 0.7 Bar – DIM!!!

The comparison is stark and evident, isn’t it?  It is noticeably far less bright.

At 0.7 Bar CO2 it can be seen that the bottom is now not even glowing at all, with the middle dimmed visibly to a faint red glow, and the top glowing much less bright. The thinness of the filament is more evident. In the first picture, the filaments look thick because of the brightness of the light. The filaments are approximately 0.005mm thick.

So, we can concretely say that the addition of CO2 gas had no “heating effect” on the filaments at all. The cooling effect, however, on the filament is entirely evident. The cooling and convective effect could never be overcome by an IR emissive gas, even if we pretended to ourselves that the tiny amount of back radiance did cause some sort of heating.

From a radiation steady-state-temperature point of view, the effective surface area for cooling of the filament cage has increased. There are millions upon millions of molecules in this chamber and this energy is now being spread among them; whereas previously this was not the case.

As the gas is emissive, the molecules would be emitting the radiation in all directions. In effect, creating a filament/gas body which has a larger number of molecules and therefore a larger surface area for emissive cooling, compared to just the filament on its own.

This increase in 3-dimensional surface area for cooling could never be overcome by an IR gas, no matter how many thousand times more powerful, as supposed greenhouse gas, it was. The addition of the IR effects of the gas could never overcome conduction cooling losses, convective cooling losses, or the increase in radiation losses due to having a larger 3D emissive area for cooling.

It is an idiotic thing to even think it could, yet this is the kind of idiotic backward thinking, twaddle talking alarmists expect everyone to believe. Correction, FORCE everyone to believe. In short, they are all a bunch of brown-shirts, whether they know it or not.

Increasing the current would make the filament hotter, adding Trillions and Trillions of CO2 gas molecules, which could never replicate that increase.

Any country which has a CO2 reduction law, a carbon-pricing mechanism, CO2 taxes of any kind, Carbon Levies, or pays subsidies to fake CO2 offsetting companies, and so on and so forth, is imposing LIES.

Why wouldn’t an untrustworthy government do such a thing?  Of course, they would. To have the chance to take someone’s money and have nothing to give back in return is a dream for them.

I actually sent letters to many politicians, mainstream television media outlets and radio news stations in the UK. None of them brought this information to the public. Why would they? They are raking in money from the scam. Why would they want to stop the money flood?  It was only Principia Scientific International and now also the Postil, who were willing to publish such news. They have the guts to stand up – so should we all.

Here is a final comparison from this experiment, zoomed out so you can see both. The difference is obvious to all. The left is with a vacuum the right is with CO2 inside at 0.7 Bar. This is an indisputable fact. Yet I have actually had many politicians and fake alarmists dispute it. That on its own tells you all you need to know. They are desperate to ignore the truth and cling to their lies.

Experiment No 2 – Temperature Test Comparisons Small Chambers

I received hundreds of troll comments, most of which I deleted; some claiming to be professors, experts at NASA, and all sorts of nonsense. Whether they were true or not, I have no idea.

Although some from their links did seem genuine in their claims of expertise, but what they were claiming was not. I received the same sort of nonsense claims from politicians also, as I have been sending out letters telling them, they need to repeal CO2 tax laws, and that the “Climate Crisis” is nothing but a lie.

Their crazy claims ranged from, “You didn’t leave it on long enough for the tipping point to occur,” to “The base is shiny. It’s affecting the experiment,” to even, “Light bulbs don’t emit IR!”  (Yep, the alarmists trolls will lie pathologically like this.)

But we all know – many politicians are nothing but cowards.

What you see, in the comparison picture above, is the truth. Nothing can change that.

We all need to be brave and understand we are being lied to. That’s right, kiddies, Santa is not real.

In order to further progress my claim and provide further evidence that we are being lied to, I have conducted a series of temperature tests, again using light bulbs and my vacuum chamber, some gases and a thermometer.

What I did, is that I performed some simple comparisons. In these smaller chambers, I placed a thermometer against the surface of the bulb, to measure the surface bulb temperature and then left it there with a camera watching it, to record the temperature. I evacuated the chamber and performed a baseline comparison with the bulb in a vacuum.

I then performed a comparison with Argon and another with CO2. The results were not surprising to me, but they do surprise every climate alarmist, or anyone who has been fooled into believing them. When I ask, they all expect CO2 to be the hottest. Why wouldn’t people think this?

They have in some instances grown up, being force-fed the lies that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” which “induces warming,” via the fake mechanism of “back irradiance.” They think this is the gospel truth. It is not. It is Satan’s lies, and the alarmist preachers are nothing but false prophets and con-artists disguised as saviours.

The results of the comparisons are below. These too can all be seen on YouTube as I uploaded them. They are not entertaining to watch; they are there to show proof. They are there so you can all see the truth.

To help understand the tables – RT (Room Temperature) indicates the temperature which a free-standing digital temperature probe indicated to be the room-temperature. The starting temperature was indicated on the digital probe inside the vacuum chamber, as I activated the light.

This probe touches the side of the bulb, and it reads the highest temperature, which is the bulb glass. This is not perfect; and, in due course, I will get better thermometers. But this is sufficient to show that the concept of gaseous back radiant induced heating just doesn’t work.

In each instance, the chamber was evacuated first, pressurised and then the light activated.

In the first test, I used a Vintage Squirrel Cage bulb, and pressurised the gases to 0.5 Bar. In the second test, I used a Spiral Vintage bulb, and pressurised the gases to 0.6 Bar. The result is similar in both instances. (My squirrel cage bulb blew L)

You can see here that in both tests, the bulb surface temperatures were cooler than in the vacuum, than with CO2 added. In the first test, after 20 minutes, the Vacuum achieved a maximum temperature of 69.1, and in the second test 63.6. CO2 on the other hand achieved a maximum temperature of 63.3 and 59.2 with the different bulbs respectively, which was amazingly, COOLER!

The addition of CO2 gas had no warming effect, only a cooling one. And when I compared Argon to CO2, I found that Argon resulted in warmer conditions and faster temperature rises than CO2, despite the fact that Argon is not a “Greenhouse Gas,” which is actually fake and misleading terminology.

Now amazingly, I still had troll comments about these tests too. One of the most common troll comments was that my experiment was too small and that I should use a much taller tower in order to get more back radiance from the CO2.

Yes, this really is how ignorant some people are. They will say anything and grasp at whatever silly straw they can, to hold onto their lies. They are in effect “pathological.” They are not scientists. They aren’t being reasonable. They are suffering mental health issues. They are in denial; and thus, they are the Deniers. Deniers, who refuse to acknowledge the truth, even when they see it.

Experiment No 3 – Tall Tower Chamber

But I wanted to see if they were right or wrong. I got a chamber which was 2.6 times the height of the smaller chambers – just to see what happens. Would I be proved wrong?  Would the extra CO2 induce more back radiance, like all the fakexperts predict?

The results are in the table below:

These can all be seen here.

The difference is stark, obvious, undeniable and indisputable. This is how it is.

The difference between how a greenhouse works and the lies being preached by deceivers in schools, colleges and universities looks as stark as this:

The Lies They Teach

What Truth Looks Like:

This and so much more is elaborated upon in my book. Everyone, everywhere needs to arm themselves with as much knowledge that they can get their hands on, against the deceivers of the state, to repel their lies and take direct action against them.

The climate of corruption, around the money-flood, which fake activism has instigated, has corroded all forms of government, especially democracy. The pernicious deceit and lies need to be purged out of all corners of society.

Any scientist who tells you CO2 induces GMST to rise is nothing but a charlatan, a two-bit actor reading out his lines and playing a part in an act designed to con you.

CO2 does not act like an insulating blanket. It does not induce warming of the surface, which means that the radiation greenhouse effect and all its preachers are just pure pompous ridiculous self-serving fraudsters and fools.

I have more experiments in the works and I will broadcast the results of those when they are completed.

It is clear that “True Science” is being denied us and our children by the state which we have entrusted to look after, and educate, us. We all now know that we need to take that power back and demand that the lies stop, and we need to throw the faker politicians out of power.

I would even go as far as jail the ringleaders and fine any organisation found to be engaging in such despicable deceptions and frauds. Oh, and if the silly cry-baby climate protesters don’t like that, they can face the water cannons; and I’m pretty sure those crusty sensitive snowflakes will find jail enjoyable too. It’s what they deserve.

Geraint Hughes is the author of Black Dragon: Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of the Big Lie of Climate Change Science.

The photo shows, ” Sunburst in the Mountains,” by Caspar David Friedrich.

Read more at www.thepostil.com


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.

Comments (68)

  • Avatar

    julian

    |

    I have been somewhat more concerned than most with dealing with students, politicians and the general public in these matters. I have an academic background but I also held public elected office for 7 years. The number one enemy is ignorance. Number two is big lie brain washing and they work together. Sometimes as the only voice of real science in a room of 200 plus can be intimidating but I also found that they are equally scared of me.
    The students I confronted for the most part came from “Environmental Studies” programs which are run by Social sciences departments. I cannot recall any interaction in public places with students from STEM fields…. they dont engage in public displays as a rule. The activist students always have hack demonstrations a la AlGore where there are heat lamps and containers of various configurations. The thermometers show higher numbers thus it is proven. The circumstance that this is caused by density layering inhibiting convection and/or 4 micron band absorption is beyond their comprehension. They have great confidence because they have been to college (and the public has not). After all their Sociology professor has to be right because she has a PhD ( in geography or gender studies or something like that).
    Most politicians tend to worry about issues the same as the public but the pols just have more hubris and are willing to spout it. The pols are willing to voice the fad of the moment. They dont have more knowledge, they are just more confident with their ignorance.
    When challenged with natural laws of physics none of these know what to think or say and if they can they flee. There is great comfort derived from being part of a mob believing the in same thing and people find that going separately from the mob is very hard and discomforting. In other words they want to believe because that is where they are comfortable.
    When dealing with mob ignorance one has to be careful. Your statements have to be simple enough and true enough that the point you are making is obvious. I could give a 2 hour seminar on why CO2 is harmless and does not cause any warming but If you cannot make your point in one or two sentences you have lost the mob intention span. This is more important than being scientifically precise. I found the following particularly useful.

    -They say that 97% of scientists agree that humans cause warming but they dont tell you that is 73 out of 75 researchers carefully pre-selected from 3000 for having the right opinion.

    -“If back radiation warms then how come we dont melt steel using candles and mirrors.?

    If CO2 levels dropped by the same amount that they have increased in the last 100 years all life on Earth would have perished from CO2 starvation.

    “If CO2 captures and blocks heat loss why is it that engineers never put CO2 in multi-pane windows? And Answer Because CO2 accelerates heat transfer from the warm side to the cold side.”

    “Did you know that carbon taxes can only affect temperature change in the range of millionths of a degree, so small that it cannot be distinguished from zero when other climate factors are considered? Is it worth $$ per litre/gallon?

    Since the Inuit (Eskimo) hunt was stopped in 1978 polar bear numbers have tripled.

    Defamation lawsuits by Alarmists have all failed because they cannot prove what they claim
    is correct in a court of law.

    Stuff like this. Leave Planck and Stefan-Boltzmann to Principia sites.

    I have also found that being firm and assertive about CO2 being benign and not causing warming does not result in mob assault. Face the enemy (ignorance) and speak firmly but politely. It seems that a large block of the public is not sure about CO2 and wants to hear both sides. They want a voice that is reassuring and comfortable and believable. They trust a firm knowledgeable voice with common sense over some wacko making outrageous statements.
    However I have found the biggest barrier to fact dissemination is the media. It seems that most media types took the same “Environmental studies” courses from the same sociology professors as the student activists. Thus anything politically correct, social justice-y gets reported on and anything they dont care for gets ignored. The editor of the local paper has ghosted me. Will not report, will not print letters, it is as if I am invisible, non-existent.

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Geraint, great job.

    As you know, the clowns hate “facts and logic”.

  • Avatar

    Dr Roger Higgs (geologist)

    |

    Geraint, that’s an excellent article, thank you.

    Julian, your comment is spot-on, and completely accords with my own recent experience. Last month I was on the invited panel of a climate ‘debate’, at a London private school, attended by about 250 pupils aged 16-18. As a geologist with 30+ years studying Earth history (all 4.5 billion years of it, as opposed to the paltry 150 years since thermometer records began, a time-span thirty million times briefer), I was the sole CO2 defender. My three co-panelists were an Extinction Rebellion activist (specialist in, er, experimental psychology), a geography lecturer (yes, really), and an electric-car salesman (I’m not making this up). The first two fervently believe the new religion (for that is all it is, an unfounded BELIEF) that life-giving CO2 is a pollutant. The 250 pupils clearly thought I was mad (well, I am rather), a believer in conspiracy theories, for doubting what the BBC, Guardian, government, IPCC, etc. have been telling them since birth. In an event lasting 1 hour, my aggregate speaking time amounted to about 12 minutes. It was a waste of my day (3 hours’ travel each way, on public transport I might add).

    The last two generations are so strongly brainwashed that I fear the battle for truth is already lost. Nevertheless we must keep fighting.

    More CO2 truths …

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332245803_27_bullet_points_prove_global_warming_by_the_sun_not_CO2_by_a_GEOLOGIST_for_a_change

    John, thank you for hosting.

    Regards,

    Roger

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Hi Roger
      It’s true that the last 2 generations are very brainwashed. I would be too if I didn’t work on wall street for 10 years. I stumbled upon skeptics while researching various energy companies.

      Question: What is the best evidence Earth is 4.5 billion years old?

      How come there are no ice cores older than 1 million years old? Is that because it was too hot to accumulate ice before 1MYA?

      Thank you, Zoe

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          Peter,
          Thank you, but I don’t buy it.

          “The ice core with the 2 million-year-old ice comes from an area known as Allan Hills, which is about 130 miles from the U.S. Antarctic research station known as McMurdo Station. Ancient meteorites had been found on the surface in this area, leading scientists to believe there could be ancient ice in the ice sheet.

          The core with the 2 million-year-old ice was drilled to a depth of 200 meters during the 2015-16 field season.”

          All depends on their dating of meteorites.

          Hard to believe that old study with 800,000 ice was found 1-2 kilometers deep, but this study found 2MYA only 200 meters deep. Makes no sense to me.

  • Avatar

    James Brooke

    |

    Flawed experiment to produced the results you are looking for.
    Heat conduction and convection contribution ignored.

    • Avatar

      Squidly

      |

      Could you please elaborate? .. Your comment makes absolutely no sense to me. Please explain.

      Thank you.

      • Avatar

        John Harrison

        |

        I agree with James entirely in that the experiment is greatly flawed as insufficient thought has been given to the control factors. As soon as CO2 is introduced into the chamber then conduction, convection and radiation all occur at very high levels which would massively overwhelm any back radiation effects. I would, therefore, certainly expect the filament temperature to drop rapidly as soon as CO2 is introduced. I would also expect the filament temperature to drop when Argon is introduced but probably not as great. Much would depend on the relative heat capacities, densities, conductivities, absorption coefficients, viscosities etc. Results in a vacuum therefore can be totally ignored as there is no comparison to be made as only radiation is a factor. The resultant cooling with CO2 is entirely as expected. The only true comparison would be to compare the effect of CO2 with the behaviour of another gas at precisely the same pressure and which has precisely the same physical properties mentioned above and others which I have not yet thought about and a gas which you are certain is not going to radiate the thermal energy gained by contact with the filament and certainly not a gas which could absorb IR photons from the filament. When you have fixed all of the above variables I would expect the very small amount of back IR emitted from the CO2 which was previously absorbed IR from the filament to have absolutely no measurable effect. To be confident of any meaningful results far more precision would be required than could be expected from your rather crude apparatus and experimental method.

        • Avatar

          geraint

          |

          John,

          As ever, your just full of bull poo. If you think you can build one which demonstrates the lies you spew, go ahead. Secondly you did read experiment 2 or 3, PLEASE LEARN TO READ. I put thermometers against the surface of the bulb, nothing to do with filament exposure, it exhibited lower temperatures and a slower rate of cooling with CO2 gas present, and Co2 was cooler than Argon. CO2 is supposed to back radiate to make things heat source surfaces hotter, yet it doesn’t. You need to stop being such a small minded child and grow up into an adult & that means realising that the state is lying to you.

          • Avatar

            WhoKoo

            |

            Hi Geraint.
            Well that was pretty unambiguous.
            Even I understood what you were saying and I am only a Chocolate Labrador.
            Thank you for your valuable contributions.
            Tail Wagging.
            WhoKoo

  • Avatar

    Sonny Thorgren

    |

    “The last two generations are so strongly brainwashed that I fear the battle for truth is already lost”

    Please, all you young people: Do not let the battle for truth be hijacked by Orwellians. Ask me or anyone better than me striving for truth to tell you the opposite of what you hear from those who do not want you to use your own judgement about truth.
    I am an old fart but knowledge is knowledge and truth is truth, however old the truth is.

  • Avatar

    Squidly

    |

    Geraint .. thank you for this !! … this is awesome work !!

    I will be sharing this as far and wide as I can. You have done remarkable work here!

  • Avatar

    tom0mason

    |

    “I would even go as far as jail the ringleaders and fine any organisation found to be engaging in such despicable deceptions and frauds. Oh, and if the silly cry-baby climate protesters don’t like that, they can face the water cannons; and I’m pretty sure those crusty sensitive snowflakes will find jail enjoyable too. It’s what they deserve. “

    WELL SAID!
    The miasma of the pseudoscience as professed by ‘climate science™’ and the vast majority of so called climate scientist is utter junk. Within 10 years people will have a taste of where the climate is heading — the solar minimum will hurt and probably kill many thousands if not millions of people.
    This climate-worrying charade will be seen as an amoral move by the UN in its bid to be the unelected, Marxist-socialist ‘One World Government’. Hopefully it will not be too late to stop them.
    History shows that the sun drives our climate, NOT CO2!

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Thanks Peter.

      Two relevant quotes from the study (emphasis mine):

      “We conducted an experiment on heating small greenhouses to find the greenhouse effect as described in the Storting Report. We have not been able to demonstrate a temperature increase with this greenhouse effect.

      “A variation of Tyndall’s experiment has been conducted by Thorstein Seim and described in geoforskning.no (2). He showed that heat radiation is stopped by CO2, but did not find increased temperature in CO2 gas. The global temperature has also not increased significantly in the last 20 years, although global CO2 emissions have increased by 50%.”

      • Avatar

        Peter

        |

        I found the article from the magazine mentioned on the website. I translated the conclusion of the experiment.

        The experiment can be found on pages 78-83.

        http://www.norskfysikk.no/nfs/ffv_old/2016/FFV_2016-3.pdf

        Conclusion:

        Radiation heating experiments on small greenhouses show that the greenhouse effect is primarily due to the fact that roofs and walls prevent hot air from escaping during convection. We find that the heat loss during convection is greater than that of radiation, as is also the case at the earth’s surface.

        Increasing the C02 content in our greenhouses has not led to a stable higher temperature. If we fill a greenhouse with CO2, the temperature stabilizes at about the same, or slightly lower, level than with normal air. Therefore, we cannot conclude that more CO2 in greenhouses leads to heating.

        When we use daylight lamps for heating, the difference between light flux from the lamps is the biggest uncertainty factor. With the sun as a source, we eliminated this uncertainty. But even with the sun as a light source, we have managed to measure increased heating with more C02.

        Our experiments show that it is wrong to compare the Earth’s atmosphere with a glass greenhouse that stops IR radiation. The IR-absorbing gases transmit most of the radiation from the ground to the movement of molecules (heat) transported by heat conduction, convection and latent heat. This heat transport is stopped by walls and ceilings in the greenhouse. It is therefore inappropriate to use the conditions in a greenhouse to describe the Earth’s atmosphere.

        The terms greenhouse effect and greenhouse gases are therefore meaningless to describe conditions in the atmosphere. (4) However, we utilize the real greenhouse effect for heating houses with windows (and ceilings) of glass that let in visible light and stop outgoing IR radiation, while limiting heat leakage by insulating walls and ceilings and stopping drafts. Gardeners increase the C02 content of their greenhouses to better grow their plants. Here it may be appropriate to use the term greenhouse gas.

        First high up in the atmosphere where the gas pressure is low, radiation takes over as the dominant, and finally the only, method of energy transport. What happens up there cannot be determined by experiments in greenhouse on the ground with atmospheric pressure.

        • Avatar

          Peter

          |

          Something went awry in the translation of the third paragraph. I used Google Translate.

          The correct sentence should be as follows.

          But even with the sun as a light source, we have not been able to measure increased heating with more C02.

  • Avatar

    John Harrison

    |

    Geraint. I agree with James entirely in that the experiment is greatly flawed as insufficient thought has been given to the control factors. As soon as CO2 is introduced into the chamber then conduction, convection and radiation all occur at very high levels which would massively overwhelm any back radiation effects. I would, therefore, certainly expect the filament temperature to drop rapidly as soon as CO2 is introduced. I would also expect the filament temperature to drop when Argon is introduced but probably not as great. Much would depend on the relative heat capacities, densities, conductivities, absorption coefficients, viscosities etc. Results in a vacuum therefore can be totally ignored as there is no comparison to be made as only radiation is a factor. The resultant cooling with CO2 is entirely as expected. The only true comparison would be to compare the effect of CO2 with the behaviour of another gas at precisely the same pressure and which has precisely the same physical properties mentioned above and others which I have not yet thought about and a gas which you are certain is not going to radiate the thermal energy gained by contact with the filament and certainly not a gas which could absorb IR photons from the filament. When you have fixed all of the above variables I would expect the very small amount of back IR emitted from the CO2 which was previously absorbed IR from the filament to have absolutely no measurable effect. To be confident of any meaningful results far more precision would be required than could be expected from your rather crude apparatus and experimental method.

    • Avatar

      Kevin Doyle

      |

      John and James,

      One of the criticisms of CO2 warming ‘Theory’ is it completely disregards the reality of the physical traits of gases in our atmosphere (i.e. – they conduct, convect, and have kinetic energy). In a roundabout way, you may have stumbled upon this with your criticism of these experiments.
      Trade Winds transfer a lot of heat…

      In real science, the proponent of a ‘theory’ is required to provide repeatable evidence through experimentation and demonstration, to support his theory. The burden should be upon UN IPCC, NASA, MIT, CalTech, James Hansen, and Michael Mann to demonstrate their theory with concrete, reproducible laboratory experimentation.

      Sadly, the table has been turned, and the proponents no longer are required to prove a theory. Instead, those questioning the theory, such as Geraint, are attempting to ‘disprove’ the theory with laboratory demonstrations.

      I wonder how many AGW proponents would ingest a medicine which had never gone through clinical trials? Or ride on an airplane which had only been ‘modeled’ on a computer, bet never flown?

      Kevin

      • Avatar

        John Harrison

        |

        Kevin. I get the impression that James, like myself, is a confirmed skeptic and are perfectly aware that radiation of thermal energy in the atmosphere is greatly overrated when compared with conduction and convection. However, we are both concerned that Geraint is claiming to have disproved GHG back-radiation with such a basically flawed experiment which even my students could eviscerate. I have to marvel at his conviction that a good number of learned physicists could possibly believe that back-radiation was thermodynamically possible and heaps abuse upon them for such ignorance. Doubly so if the results of his greatly flawed experiment did not convince them otherwise.

        • Avatar

          geraint

          |

          I do hope you don’t lie and commit fraud against your students by teaching them that back radiation induces warming on surfaces you incompetent idiot? If so, they couldn’t eviscerate their way out of butter, for you have taught them nothing but lies.

      • Avatar

        James McGinn

        |

        Kevin Doyle:
        In real science, the proponent of a ‘theory’ is required to provide repeatable evidence through experimentation and demonstration, to support his theory. The burden should be upon UN IPCC, NASA, MIT, CalTech, James Hansen, and Michael Mann to demonstrate their theory with concrete, reproducible laboratory experimentation.

        James McGinn:
        I agree. Unfortunately, In the geographic sciences theories/models/hypotheses that are easy to explain to the public and easy to grasp even by people who are scientifically unqualified/incompetent are politically dominant. Greenhouse theory is only the most obvious nonsense put forth by the geographic sciences. Meteorology, especially the storm theory aspects of meteorology, which blatantly misrepresents (fictionalizes) the role of water in storms (by, for example, pretending it turns gaseous to power convective updrafts and other maliciously stupid concepts) is even worse.

        Superstition and half-baked theory dominate the atmospheric sciences. Currently meteorological theories on atmospheric flow and storms maintain three superstitious and half-baked notions: 1) Convection. This is the superstition that evaporation makes air buoyant enough to power strong updrafts in the atmosphere (included in this is the strange belief that H2O in the atmosphere becomes gaseous at temperatures/pressures that have never been detected in a laboratory); 2) Dry layer capping. This is a superstition that imagines dry layers having structural properties that explain the how/why convection does not constantly produce storms and uplift; 3) Latent heat. This is the superstition that phase changes from a gaseous phase of H2O (which are purported to exist despite never having been detected and being inconsistent with what is indicated in the H2O phase table) to a liquid phase releases “latent heat” which itself has never been confirmed/verified.

        See this for more:
        The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
        http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329

        James McGinn / Genius / Solving Tornadoes

  • Avatar

    John Harrison

    |

    Geraint. Here is a very simple experiment to prove whether back-radiation from GHG molecules is possible. Best done with water vapour but possible with CO2 if you can get the necessary apparatus. A low intensity IR laser of appropriate wavelength is required and a sensor capable of detecting this wavelength. The sensor is placed at various positions in a chamber which will be filled with the GHG at a pressure of your choice. Note the readings on the sensor before and after the laser beam passes through the chamber. If back-radiation occurs an increase in detected radiation will occur wherever the sensor is positioned, even at 180 degrees to the beam direction. If back-radiation is detected then any grey or black body surface in that position will absorb those photons, even if they are warmer than the GHG. Admittedly, the greater the temperature difference the lower will be the rate at which IR photons will be absorbed. The logical conclusions then concerning behaviour in the Earth’s atmosphere I shall leave to you.

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Harrison, if your purpose was to prove you don’t understand the subject, then you certainly succeeded.

      • Avatar

        John Harrison

        |

        Geran, unfortunately, that is the kind of insulting remark I have come to expect. Good manners, it seems is a subject you don’t seem to understand.

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          “Insulting remark”?

          You’re insulted by reality?

          Harrison, my poor whiny snowflake, you need to grow up.

    • Avatar

      Henrik

      |

      Well, do the test as you’ve described it!
      And live stream it, please!
      I would love to see these colder photons heat up a warmer surface 🙂
      What’s holding you and your students back?

  • Avatar

    Lauchlan Duff

    |

    Re experimental measurements of GHE. Lets look at the next step up from lab experiments as described in the preceding few days here, and in other PSIA and published paper sites. I refer to the ESRL SURFRAD data collected across 7 continental USA sites, commencing from 1996. Effectively surface radiation measurements resulting from emission from tropospheric lower cloud levels. As we all know, satellites cannot measure lower tropospheric radiation levels due to these interferring clouds but we can get good global TOA LWR results from CERES/ERA data and hence can combine both sets of data to make GHG trapping/heating assesments. Its hard to convey my own results from this work in this format but the results to be reported below are clear. If one plots all the differences in parameters between starting time (which varies depending on the station,and end of 2018,) and plot all these parameter differences against the reported temperature differences dT, one can then compare the linear regression coefficients. One could argue more sophisticated statistical techniques would be more appropriate but lets just report this technique here. After all, the basis for the CO2 paradigm forcing sensitivity hardly uses sophisticated statistical techniques.
    One of the parameters not reported by ESRL in this study is CO2 at each of the sites so in this case I had to use Muana Loa CO2 data.
    The net result is that the parameter with the highest correlation with dT is downwelling IR (R2=0.74). Putting aside how this “modelled” measurement is compiled, we have to say, wow, what is driving this DWIR? Out of the 12 measured parameters (DWIR, SPHumidity,TotalNetRadiation, Albedo,PAR,NetIR, DirectNormalSolar,RelHumidity,NetSolar, CO2,DWGlobalSolar,Wind)-CO2 showed the 3rd lowest R2 of 0.013. Specific Humidityhad second best linear fit with R2 of 0.35, total net radiation R2= 0.28. I could go down the list. But my conclusion on the results was that clouds were the major driver of the DWIR, not CO2. ESRL conclusion is exactly the same as mine allthough I could not find the methodology they used to reach this conclusion. But not a single mention of CO2 in the ESRL conclusions from this data. I wonder why???
    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/about/theme2.html
    We will leave discussion of TOA LWR from CERES/ERB from 2000 on clear vs all sky for another day.

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      But my conclusion on the results was that clouds were the major driver of the DWIR, not CO2.

      You are exactly correct, Lauchlan!

      And it’s really only low clouds that can contribute appreciably to DWIR. High clouds can be very cold.

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      DWIR doesn’t exist.

      • Avatar

        Lauchlan Grant Duff

        |

        Zoe-you should question ESRL as to how they compiled the DWIR component. I would be very interested in their reply. Website below explains the instrumental component of the IR measurEments for example but of course that doesnt show the full story about how these measurements are “interpreted/modelled” in order to produce the numbers that they do for DWIR
        https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/instruments.html

  • Avatar

    lifeisthermal

    |

    Lauchlan Grant Duff:

    This is what they use for DWIR:
    PRECISION INFRARED RADIOMETER

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgeometer

    ” By also measuring its own temperature and making some assumptions about the nature of its surroundings it can infer a temperature of the local atmosphere with which it is exchanging radiation. ”

    “Since the mean free path of IR radiation in the atmosphere is ~25 meters, this device typically measures IR flux in the nearest 25 meter layer. ”

    As you can see, it doesn´t measure DWIR, it can only infer a local temperature of the lowest layer of the atmosphere, and then implies that the temperature^4 is equal to DWIR. Zoe is right, there is no DWIR and there exists no measurements of it.

    • Avatar

      JDHuffman

      |

      We know there is DWIR since everything emits. The sky is no exception. So to say “there is no DWIR” indicates a lack of understanding.

      And, the DWIR can be verified with a cheap handheld instrument. I take readings often with one like this, purchased for around $60:

      http://www.southwiretools.com/tools/tools/31030S

        • Avatar

          JDHuffman

          |

          “We know there is DWIR since everything emits. The sky is no exception. So to say “there is no DWIR” indicates a lack of understanding.”

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi JD,
            Everything emits but the wavelength it emits depends on the structure of the object and what wavelengths it absorbs so everything does not emit IR
            You are correct that there is downward IR since the surface of the Earth is heated by the atmosphere and the energy it absorbs from the sun. The kinetic energy of molecules increases with altitude and the ridiculous graph of the temperature of the atmosphere is because the thermometer gives an inaccurate indication of the kinetic energy of gas molecules.
            To get an accurate comparison of the kinetic energy of molecules at different altitudes you must use the universal gas law, PV=nrt, (pressure (gravity) is constant) .and divide the temperature at an altitude by its density to compare the volume of a constant number of molecules thereby showing their kinetic energy.
            Herb

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            JDHuffman,
            Assertion is not evidence. Why do you believe there is two radiation dead-ends? What happens to the Upwelling Radiation that was going through the Pyrgeometer? Black hole?

            Sorry, JDH, but your Handheld thermometer registers a NEGATIVE voltage when you point it in the sky. That means energy is LEAVING the device, not ARRIVING.

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            Herb, you get to argue with yourself: “Everything emits…so everything does not emit IR”

            And Zoe, you need to learn the difference between a handheld IR thermometer and a pyrgeometer.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            JDHuffman,
            Very convincing argument. And you need to learn what they have in common.

  • Avatar

    JDHuffman

    |

    There’s so much confusion in the last few comments.

    All matter emits electromagnetic energy. At typical Earth temperatures, that energy is in the infrared band (IR). The few exceptions being such events as molten lava, lightning, and forest fires, which all also emit in the visible.

    Since the atmosphere is emitting IR, some of it will arrive Earth’s surface, called “downwelling IR” or “DWIR”. That fact is not arguable or controversial, for those that understand the science.

    The controversy starts when some try to claim the DWIR will be absorbed by the surface. Some people believe that the atmosphere can warm the surface. That is the foundation for belief in the GHE. But just because electromagnetic energy strikes a surface, that does NOT mean the surface temperature will increase. If the energy is reflected, it will not be absorbed, and consequently, there will be no increase in temperature.

    A pyrgeometer is not a good instrument for measuring DWIR, as mentioned by Claes Johnson in the link supplied by E.N. Tropy. A pyrgeometer can cost about 100 times more than a simple handheld IR thermometer, and has several drawbacks, namely requiring almost constant calibration. The handheld requires no calibration, and works on a full range of surfaces and fluxes, with even greater accuracy due to its basic design.

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi JD,
      You confuse temperature with kinetic energy. Objects radiate energy not temperature. You can put your hand into a 100 C oven without ill effects but not into 100 C water.The water contains more heat but the kinetic energy of the gas molecules in the oven is greater. The reason you hand is not burned in the oven is the kinetic energy of the gas molecules is dispersed to many molecules while in the water every molecule on your hand has energy transferred to it. Even though those molecules have less kinetic energy they transfer more total kinetic energy to your hand.
      The instruments tell you both the oven and the water have the same kinetic energy but neither the kinetic energy of the molecules or the total kinetic energy are the same. You can cook an egg in the water in 5 minutes while one in the oven will never cook.
      Herb

      • Avatar

        JDHuffman

        |

        Herb, it is YOU that is so terribly confused. You believe the sky both emits and doesn’t emit! THAT is confusion. Maybe you believe by falsely accusing someone you can make up for your lack of knowledge?

        Now, you confuse temperature with heat transfer. Put an egg in the 100C oven for an hour. See if it cooks or not.

        Learning requires some effort, huh?

    • Avatar

      James McGinn

      |

      The controversy starts when some try to claim the DWIR will be absorbed by the surface.

      I mostly agree with what you are saying, but I don’t agree with this last sentence. That the DWIR is absorbed is standard, not controversial. But the temperature of the surface will not increase because at the same time that it is absorbing it is emitting at a greater rate than it is absorbing. So, although the DWIR is warming the surface (very slightly) the temperature of the surface will not increase as a result because at the same time the surface is emitting (cooling) at a much higher rate than it is being warmed by DWIR.

      The real problem is that everybody in academia is a moron.

      James McGinn
      http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=360#p125466
      I discovered the empirical shortcomings of meteorology after I discovered them in climatology. My reasoning was very simple. Knowing that the origins of climatology are in meteorology, I reasoned that if AGW is as bad as it appears then meteorology must also have skeletons in its closet. So I did something that nobody has done before, I looked at the convection model of storm theory with scrutiny. I found numerous fatal flaws and I found that meteorologists have long ago established a tradition of ignoring these fatal flaws.
      My point is that you/we cannot defeat a conversational science based on empiricism because conversational sciences are based on allegories that appeal to the base sensations of the public. The only way to defeat a conversational science is to reveal it as such to the public. And the best way to reveal it to the public is to start with meteorology since this is the spring from which it sprang (or is it sprung?). The conversational tradition is the problem and its roots are in meteorology, not climatology.

      Some people believe that the atmosphere can warm the surface. That is the foundation for belief in the GHE. But just because electromagnetic energy strikes a surface, that does NOT mean the surface temperature will increase. If the energy is reflected, it will not be absorbed, and consequently, there will be no increase in temperature.

      • Avatar

        JDHuffman

        |

        James, you gave yourself away: “…the DWIR is warming the surface (very slightly)…”

        The flaw in that thinking, as others have mentioned, is just add enough ice and you can bake a turkey. (No, you can’t!)

        DWIR from a cold sky is NOT absorbed by a warmer Earth.

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      JDHuffman,

      “But just because electromagnetic energy strikes a surface, that does NOT mean the surface temperature will increase. If the energy is reflected, it will not be absorbed,”

      For the sake of simplicity, let’s say the sky sends 240 up and 240 down. You claim the down will be reflected. Great! Now show us evidence that Emits 480 into space!

      Gotcha!

  • Avatar

    JDHuffman

    |

    Zoe, you’re still treating flux as energy. Flux does not add, as you are suggesting. You are having a hard time learning because you apparently have little interest in learning. Show us any evidence that you have the willingness to learn.

    Your “Gotcha!” gives you away.

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      JDH,
      Energy adds.
      Energy per second per square meter adds.

      The only fluxes that don’t add are the reflected fluxes from same source. Earth emits to atmosphere. Yet you believe you can detect radiatiom from atmosphere to earth. The only way to detect it is if it adds. You debunked yourself.

      You believe “everything” emits IR, EXCEPT your handheld IR device! When your IR instrument actually sends radiation to the sky, you believe this doesn’t happen!

      • Avatar

        JDHuffman

        |

        Your very first sentence was correct, “Energy adds”.

        But your accuracy dropped quickly after that.

        Then, you began with the false accusations, trying to attach me to false beliefs. Such actions are why you can’t learn. You have no appreciation for reality. Your “gotchas” are more important to you than truth.

        Nothing new.

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          JDH,
          Again, you took a long time to just say “evaded you, again”. Your evasions are more important to you than the truth. You lack self-awareness. Enough of you!

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            Well, that sounds like you will leave me alone, but the reality is you won’t. You can’t control yourself. It’s only a matter of time.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Is the big old man scared of a tiny girl?

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            See? You just can’t control yourself.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Dance for me!

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            Someone needs a hug….

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    JDHuffman:
    James, you gave yourself away: “…the DWIR is warming the surface (very slightly)…”

    James McGinn:
    LOL. I didn’t give anything away. You are just confused. DWIR is being absorbed by the surface and anytime any radiation is absorbed the entity can said to have been “warmed.” You simpletons want to insist that the word warming only applies if the temperature is increased. You are just being dogmatic.

    Dogmatism is an indication that you do not really understand it as well as you think you do.

    JDHuffman:
    The flaw in that thinking, as others have mentioned, is just add enough ice and you can bake a turkey. (No, you can’t!)

    James McGinn:
    You simpleton’s can’t deal with the fact that other people may assume different definitions of words than you assume. Your point is meaningless because it just pivots off the ARBITRARY assumption that warming can only mean increase in measurable temperature. Only an asshole would insist that their own arbitrary assumptions about the meaning of the word warming are the correct assumptions.

    In my ARBITRARY opinion the word warming means only that the temperature is greater than it would be otherwise. Yourself, Slayers, and all of the other dogmatic assholes on this planet do not have the right to insist that I accept your interpretation that warming can only mean that the measured temperature increases in the entity, which everybody (except the dumb AGW advocates) recognizes is not the case with DWIR.

    So, my advice to you and to all of the “slayers” is to stop being dogmatic assholes. Stop insisting that your own ARBITRARY definitions of the word warming is the only valid definition. There is no problem with my understanding of thermodynamics. There is a problem with your dogmatic application of the English language. Stop being an english usage nazi.

    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
    Superstition and half-baked theory dominate the atmospheric sciences. That was true then and continues to be true now. Currently meteorological theories on atmospheric flow and storms is dominated be the following three superstitious and half-baked notions: 1) Convection (including the strange belief that H2O in the atmosphere magically becomes gaseous at temperatures/pressures that have never been detected in a laboratory); 2) Dry layer capping. This is a strange superstition that imagines dry layers have structural properties that explain the exceptions to #1.’\; 3) Latent heat. This is the pretentious notion that random phase changes of H2O in the upper atosphere produce gusty winds.
    The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329

    • Avatar

      JDHuffman

      |

      Now James, there is no need to go all “potty-mouth”, just because reality does not match your false beliefs.

      People might think you are unstable….

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    LOL. I knew you wouldn’t defend your position, you frickin moron. Did it ever occur to you dogmatic morons that other people might use words differently than you?

    Jesus Christ It’s like talking to little kids here on this forum.

    • Avatar

      JDHuffman

      |

      Your medications are not working, James.

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    LOL. You slayers are too dimwitted to realize your dispute is semantic and not scientific. You all need to pull your collective heads out of your collective asses and make more of an effort to be cognizant of the fact that other people may define words differently than you do. Thermodynamics is not a hard to understand as you all are making it out to be.

    • Avatar

      JDHuffman

      |

      James, you can’t even come up with a decent “gotcha”. You’re so unoriginal all you can do is lash out. You can’t handle the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

      It must be so frustrating for you. Especially since many of us are laughing at you.

    • Avatar

      E.N. Tropy

      |

      “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

      “Warming” is probably best defined as an increase in energy state. Matter can only absorb energy emanating from a higher energy source. Energy from a lower energy source will be reflected. There’s never any two-way, net exchange. The transfer is always down a thermodynamic one-way street until equilibrium. At equilibrium, both entities will continue to radiate and energy can potentially flow in both directions, but absorption will occur only if the recipient has momentarily dropped (e.g., through radiating) to a lower energy state to the sender at the instant of sending.

      • Avatar

        JDHuffman

        |

        Exactly!

      • Avatar

        James McGinn

        |

        EN Trophy:
        “Warming” is probably best defined as an increase in energy state.

        James McGinn:
        Well, yes and no. I would agree that we are generally interested in the energy state. But the problem is that the energy state is not directly measurable. Temperature is directly measurable. Temperature is the rate of energy flow out of an entity. Temperature does not measure energy it measures energy flow. And from temperature we can infer relative energy states for, for example, two different entities and get a good sense of their relative energy states (this assumes that there physical properties are relatively similar). But we can’t actually measure energy state. All we can do is infer that a substance that has a higher temperature is at a higher energy state. And this works pretty good as long as we are comparing two samples that have similar thermal characteristics. (Water is a problem in this regard because it’s thermal characteristics are so unique–dramatically so.)

        EN Trophy:
        Matter can only absorb energy emanating from a higher energy source.

        James McGinn:
        Pure nonsense. Where do you get this crap? What is your source for this plainly wrong belief?

        EN Trophy:
        Energy from a lower energy source will be reflected. There’s never any two-way, net exchange. The transfer is always down a thermodynamic one-way street until equilibrium.

        James McGinn:
        Science fiction. You have no idea what you are talking about. There is no “one way street.”

        EN Trophy:
        At equilibrium, both entities will continue to radiate and energy can potentially flow in both directions, but absorption will occur only if the recipient has momentarily dropped (e.g., through radiating) to a lower energy state to the sender at the instant of sending.

        James McGinn:
        Absurd silliness. It is always two way.

        http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=60#p114924
        For example, do you concur with the notion that moist air contains gaseous H2O? Yes? No? Do you dispute my assertion that this notion is nonsense? Yes? No? Undoubtedly we will never know because, like all science pretenders, you are determined to ride the fence, play it safe. And that is too bad. Science isn’t about looking or even being right. It’s about being specific so that if you are wrong you can realize you are wrong when you are wrong. Because realizing you are wrong when you are wrong is the hardest part of any scientific endeavor. More than anything else, science is about defeating your minds desire to take the easy path and just believe.

        James McGinn / Genius

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    You got nothing!!!

    James McGinn / Genius
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=165#p122167
    The ‘plasma’ of my model is novel, unfamiliar and, therefore, hard to accept. But that is the case for any scientific discovery. Alfred Wegener proposed continental drift in 1912. It took geologists 50 years to warm up to the idea. Now, however, when you look at a map of the southern Atlantic ocean the congruence of the eastern and western shorelines jumps out at you. When it came to deducing the molecular composition of atmospheric vortices and arriving at the conjecture that they contained wind shear generated, rapidly spinning polymers of H2O, I feel that I had a huge advantage that allowed me to avoid a common misassumption that traps others. I knew that the sheath of the tornado must involve some kind of molecular distinction.

    These principles prevented me from making the common error of casually assuming that the molecular composition of tornadoes was the same as that of air and/or moist air. I’ve encountered a number of other tornado theorists and it is very common for them to casually assume that a tornado is just fast spinning air. They don’t take into account the fact that the sheath needed to possess the ability to resist itself from casually mixing with the surrounding air molecules. In other words, my principles of entitiness allowed me to realize that tornadoes could not persist as entities if the molecules that comprise the sheath of the tornado did not possess some kind of internal resilience greater than that of just air. Otherwise the molecules in the sheath would casually mix with those outside the sheath and the tornado would not have persistence.

Comments are closed