Taller Tower Test Exposes CO2 Back Radiation Nonsense

Written by Geraint Hughes

11 Most Expensive Science Experiments In The World ...

To debunk the theory of the greenhouse gas effect (GHE), which is claimed to be the scientific cornerstone of man-made global warming, skeptics have turned to empirical science – actual, repeatable lab experiments.

Geraint Hughes, an independent British researcher, has performed a series of lab experiments that a diligent person may replicate to expose the great climate fraud. His results are a damning defeat for consensus science promoters.

Hughes writes:

“Principia Scientific International (PSI) covered the story of my first lab experiments testing the greenhouse effect here. As promised, I have performed a taller tower test to see if using a “taller column of CO2 gas” induces a greater CO2 back radiant heating effect as so many fake experts have told me is what is needed. The results are astonishingly bad for climate alarmists.

All that happened is that the surface temperature of the bulb is now even lower than before.  Yes that’s right, with the taller tower, more convective effects can occur because there is now less restriction to movement and so more cooling occurs.  Its that simple.

There was no increase in surface temperature of the bulb due to back radiance, to think such things is just stupid.  To tell others such things is a lie.

Every student that has ever paid tuition fees and then been taught climate crisis lies and radiation greenhouse effect twaddle, has been swindled.  They are due full refunds for their degrees in fake science education.  I hope that this puts many useless universities under  severe scrutiny.  They deserve it.  How dare they deceive and defraud on such a widespread basis.

Here are the results of the videos all of which are on a playlist on You-tube.

I recommend Videos 1, 7 & 8, they are the most informative and entertaining.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF66zq1SOYivgEk-j122ZLYOkt_PNpunb

Video 1 – 20 minutes Vacuum – Max Temp 62.3

Video 2 – 40 Minutes Vacuum – Max Temp 67.3

Video 3 – 20 Minutes CO2 smaller Chamber – Max Temp 55.9 (COOLER!)

Video 4 – 40 Minutes CO2 smaller Chamber – Max Temp 61.6 (What a shame!)

Video 5 – 20 Minutes CO2 TALLER CHAMBER – Max Temp 39.5 – WHAT NO WAY IT SUPPOSED TO BE HOTTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I know, maybe if write the number in red it will heat it up a bit?

Video 6 –  40 Minutes CO2 TALLER CHAMBER – Max Temp 42.2 (Oh dear)

Video 7 – This had to be done again, I must have done it wrong – 20 Minutes CO2 Taller Chamber – Max Temp  40.3 (NO!)  You should listen the comments, they are most informative.

Video 8 – 40 Minutes CO2 TALLER CHAMBER (AGAIN!) – Max Temp 42.8 (Oh, double dear.)

Well, well, well.  I am glad so many dissenters told me to use a taller tower, it simply proves them doubly wrong. The challenge to modify my experiment to comport with the shifting argument of climate alarmists has done nothing to advance their claims but has been most helpful to skeptics of the GHE seeking reliable empirical proofs (experimental evidence) to warrant dismissing the nonsense of the greenhouse gas theory claims.”

Direct, easy to demonstrate, repeatable lab tests show the theory of the atmospheric CO2 radiation effect to be UNDENIABLY FALSE. But we shouldn’t be surprised because it was never backed by reliable lab tests to begin with.

And yet there are thousands of brainwashed and gullible souls going out protesting about the “EFFECT THAT NEVER WAS!”  That is what the radiation greenhouse effect amounts to.

And there is more to come. For readers interested in gaining a deeper understanding of the misuse and abuse of science in sustaining the fake greenhouse gas theory of climate change, please order a copy of the new book by Geraint Hughes:

Black Dragon: Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of the Big Lie of Climate Change Science Price: $15.95

Perhaps now climate doomsayers should turn their attentions towards questioning the universities, corporations, fake news media corporations, fake celebrities and governmental organisations which are deceiving and defrauding them.


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 (113)

  • Avatar

    Pierre D. Bernier

    |

    Very nicely done. Congratulations ! ! !

      • Avatar

        Pierre D. Bernier

        |

        When you’re in a hole, first rule… stop digging !

      • Avatar

        Pierre D. Bernier

        |

        From…
        https://principia-scientific.org/how-to-fool-yourself-with-a-pyrgeometer/

        How To Fool Yourself With A Pyrgeometer (by Prof Claes Johnson, Professor of Applied Mathematics KTH).

        / The pyrgeometer’s thermopile detects the net radiation balance between the incoming and outgoing long wave radiation flux and converts it to a voltage./

        Got that ? The only thing it detects is a NET !!!

        / To derive the absolute downward long wave flux, the temperature of the pyrgeometer has to be taken into account. It is measured using a temperature sensor inside the instrument, near the cold junctions of the thermopile. The pyrgeometer is considered to approximate a black body. Due to this it emits long wave radiation. /

        Got that again ? CONSIDERED TO BE !!! an approximation of a black body which itself is an approximation. An error in the temperature measurement also with that maybe ?

        So what measure do we really have ? I mean really have ? The only real one we have is NET IR ! With a probable measurement error in it ! So, if you criticise the validity of the net then you criticise all the rest as well, up or down.

        Zoe Phin says:
        2019/08/06 at 9:57 AM
        / A pyrgeometer MEASURES Upwelling IR and Net IR, while Downwelling IR is a derived fantasy name. Downwelling IR is really Upwelling-from-device IR. /

        Zoe Phin says:
        2019/08/06 at 12:16 PM
        / “After completing the installation the pyrgeometer will be ready for operation. The downward atmospheric long-wave radiation can be calculated with Formula 1″
        Ld = Uemf/S * sigma * T^4
        Uemf/S = Net IR” /

        Zoe Phin says:
        2019/10/07 at 11:30 AM
        / A pyrgeometer measures Net IR. /

        So we are on the same page that the only real sensible value we have of a pyrgeometer is Net IR ! Let’s sum it all up…

        ____________________Net_Solar_Net_IR_Net_Flux

        Bondville_2018______129,92_____48,55____81,37
        Desert_Rock_2018—____192,54____122,33____70,21
        Fort_Peck_2018______119,11_____62,08____57,03
        Goodwin_Creek_2018__146,02_____49,37____96,65
        Penn_State_2018_____108,32_____40,64____67,69
        Sioux_Falls_2018____122,63_____48,94____73,69
        Table_Mountain_2018_153,59_____82,88____70,71

        Average :___________138,88_____64,97____73,91

        Source_: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/aveform.html
        Wow !!! Plenty of Solar In.

        Good bye geothermal !!!

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          Pierre,
          It’s true that a pyrgeometer only acurately measures Net IR, but it does so because we can fairly estimate Upwelling-from-surface and Upwelling-from-pyrgeometer.

          If we can’t trust the top and bottom thermometers than there is no Net IR we can measure.

          So YOU trust the both thermometers.

          Your math makes absolutely NO SENSE.

          You need to prove the sun can generate both top and bottom temperatures, not their difference!

          As an analogy, the sun delivers 138.88 gallons of water, and now you think you can douse someone with 364.97 gallons in the front and 300 gallons in the back. And that’s OK with you because Net Water is only 64.97 gallons.

          This is stupid.

          You need to prove that Net_Solar = Upwelling IR.

          Your stupid math can be used to prove that the sun generates
          1,000,064.97 W/m^2 of Upwelling and
          1,000,000 W/m^2 of “Downwelling” IR

          Your being a silly sophist. Cut it out.

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          Pierre,

          “The pyrgeometer is considered to approximate a black body. Due to this it emits long wave radiation. /

          Got that again ? CONSIDERED TO BE !!! an approximation of a black body which itself is an approximation. An error in the temperature measurement also with that maybe ?”

          The problem with this is that any error does NOT work in your favor.

          You need emissivity to be greater than 1 in order for Net_Solar to match Upwelling.

          Assuming it’s a blackbody is the most advantageous for you.

          Anything else would imply the temperature is greater than its BB emission. Now you have to explain further how the sun needs to match a greater temperature than its pure BB would suggest.

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          Pierre,

          I can answer your question for you.

          “/ The Precise™ IR halogen capsule has multiple layers of very durable, thin, interference film which redirects heat, which would otherwise be wasted, back onto the lamp filament. This increases the filament temperature and allows it to give off more visible light for the same input power /”

          This statement by GE is misleading.
          They need to change

          “This increases the filament temperature”

          to

          “This increases BRIGHTNESS temperature in the visible light range for the filament”.

          The energy doesn’t increase. Those IR photons are simply converted to Vis. Light photons.

          Imagine a BB curve, but you move the IR part and stack it on top of the Vis. Light range.

        • Avatar

          lifeisthermal

          |

          Ld = Uemf/S * sigma * T^4 should be
          Ld = Uemf/S + sigma * T^4 where Uemf/S = -x*W/m^2

          This is a rearrangement of the SB-equation from σ(T1^4-T2^4) which doesn´t show Ld, but instead makes an assumption about the local atmosphere temperature from the heat transferred from the sensor. And of course Net solar is never so low as ~140W/m^2, 1000W/m^2 is standard.

          All of the emission by the Surface originates from the internal state, and spherical emission from 4pir^2 requires input of at least 4pir^2*σ288^4.

          Planck, page 6, theory of heat radiation:

          “The empirical law that emission from any volume element depends entirely on what takes place inside this volume element holds true in all cases (Prevost´s Principle)”

          https://archive.org/details/theoryofheatradi00planrich/page/6

          I don´t think we have a reason to doubt Planck?

          Prevost:

          ” the emission from a body is logically determined solely by its own internal state”

          It´s said to be true for all cases. which means that emission from the surface must come from within and it depends only on the internal state of the planet. So emission is not caused by absorption, emission and absorption is only relative to the internal state.

          All heat emission by the surface is geothermal, the ~90mW/m^2 average is just the rate of transfer between two points inside the crust. But emission coming out from the surface is the transfer to surroundings from the crust.

  • Avatar

    Marianne. Kopec

    |

    Excellently Proven, My Dear !!!!!! You GO MAN, GO !!!!
    THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH !!!!!

  • Avatar

    Herb Rose

    |

    Hi Geraint,
    The problem with your proof is that you are using the old science. If you wish to make a living as an independent researcher you must use the new science which gives the results that people want to hear.
    Well done,
    Herb

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Geraint,
    Please shield your tower with reflective material, so that emission can only occur at the top. Any sideways emission will be considered within the atmosphere, and thus a heat transfer, not a to-space cooling.
    Thank you.
    Great work!

  • Avatar

    Bogdan Majkic

    |

    Your experiment is not conducted right so to early to celebrate. What did you expect to happen here. I would conduct completely different experiment and if proves true well then we will know for sure. To do that you need different approach. Cheers brother!

    • Avatar

      Geraint Hughes

      |

      Bogdan.

      Interesting you say that as I do have another one entirely under production. Will keep you all updated. 😀

      • Avatar

        Herb Rose

        |

        Hi Geraint,
        I believe that repeating and modifying the experiment is futile. You have already offered proof to reasonable, thoughtful people. The GHGT theory has nothing factual to support it.You are now trying to convince people who believe that if you reflect energy back to its source the source will increase in energy. In other words you are dealing with idiots like Zoe. There are many people like her whose unshakable belief is in their own infallibility and using evidence or reason cannot change this belief. They will always come up with some spurious objection to retain their belief. Having demonstrated your point to reasonable people you are now trying to convince fools not to be foolish which is an impossible task. How much effort are you willing to expend to try and make the Zoes of the world see reason?
        Herb

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          Herb,
          You’re a dishonest twerp.
          I suggested a reflective coating not because I believe in radiative-co2 warming, but to shield Geraint from any criticism that the experiment is inappropriate.

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          In the experiment, sideways cooling is allowed, but in the real atmosphere there is no sideways cooling, only upward cooling.

          Do you disagree?

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Energy flows from higher levels to lower levels. In the atmosphere heat will flow from the equator towards the poles, from sunny areas to shaded areas, from the surface of the ocean into deeper water. Energy has no sense of direction, just as you have no sense when it comes to physics.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Herb,
            “Energy flows from higher levels to lower levels.”
            Exactly. And because of this shielding the tube with a reflector will still lead to cooling.

  • Avatar

    Kevin Doyle

    |

    There is a company named Danfoss which manufactures refrigeration units. I’ve repaired many of there refrigeration/freezer units and heat exchangers. Guess what there new favorite ‘cooling’ gas is?

  • Avatar

    Kevin Doyle

    |

    Their preferred refrigerant gas is CO2.
    1) No environmental side-effects.
    2) Reasonably inexpensive.
    3) No special license required.
    4) Cools stuff quite well.

    Possibly, why planet Venus uses CO2 in high-concentration to effectively transfer heat from the sunny side to the dark side?

  • Avatar

    Stephen wells

    |

    One more experiment needs to be done to properly kill off the GHE. The “slows cooling thereby making it warmer on average” brigade won’t be satisfied until you record the temperatures over time of the lightbulb’s surface after you turn it off again to simulate night. The idiots will argue that the heat is “trapped” in the CO2 and will “back radiate” to the surface at night keeping the average day plus night temperatures warmer.

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Zoe and Pierre, please don’t get confused by the pseudoscience. Fluxes can NOT be added, subtracted, or averaged, except in very special cases. Trying to work with a “net” flux will just lead to violations of the laws of physics. Solar flux has a much different spectrum than Earth’s emitted IR. The two fluxes will not interfere. Solar and IR do not have a “net”.

    A simple example is a large cube of ice hanging from the ceiling of an insulated room maintained at -1 ºC. The ice is also at -1 ºC, and emitting about 300 Watts/m^2 from all 6 faces. If each face is 1 sq. meter, the pseudoscience tries to claim the ice is emitting 6 * 300, or 1800 Watts/m^2.

    But, flux does NOT add. The ice is only emitting 300 Watts/m^2,

    For further clarity, if another identical block of ice is suddenly hung from the ceiling, pseudoscience would claim the ice is now emitting 3600 Watts/m^2. Again, the ice is only emitting 300 W/m^2.

    Pseudoscience tries to add flux. That allows them to add the IR from the atmosphere to solar flux to claim the atmosphere can raise surface temperature. Pure, unadulterated pseudoscience.

  • Avatar

    Norman

    |

    Geran

    You are as confused and messed up in your thought process as when you pretended to be JDHuffman.

    No one claims that ice emitting 300 W/m^2 emits 1800 W/m^2 if you have 6 sides. The ice block will emit 1800 watts total (1800 joules of energy per second). If you do not supply such an ice block with 1800 watts of energy it will cool. You interchange values like you have zero understanding. Total watts emitted does not translate to Watts/m^2. You have 1800 Watts total emitted but you have a surface area of 6 m^2. Therefore the emitting surface is still only emitting 300 W/m^2 no matter how large the object becomes.

    You need to learn some physics and learn a little logic as well.

  • Avatar

    Norman

    |

    Geran

    You were totally wrong and incorrect as JDHuffman when you made the false, and easily proven false, conjecture that fluxes do not add. This is so wrong.

    Take a UV light and shine it on a surface that is painted with a highly absorbing black paint (can absorb well in UV, Visible and IR bands) and get a steady state temperature. Now shine an IR lamp on the surface and you will see that the temperature rises more. You basically don’t know what you are talking about and you got banned by the PhD Dr. Spencer and you are trying to peddle your total junk science here. A website where 90% of the posters have never taken any higher level science classes but all think they are experts.

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      I remember you from Spincer’s blog. You were never able to get things right, but you always had an adolescent fascination with celebrities.

      It seems you haven’t changed much.

  • Avatar

    Andrew

    |

    Let’s take a little dig into the ‘science’ behind this nonsense.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I doubt our ‘independent researcher’ here has as little as a master’s degree in a relevant field, much less a PhD. Just from that, this research is unreliable.

    Also, ‘simple’ experiments usually don’t hold much water in disproving well-supported scientific theories, and especially don’t conclude that said theories are “undeniably false”. Just looking at the methodology (which, first and foremost, isn’t even a reputable/verified one!), it seems to neglect the complexity which underlies climate science. Yes, basic chemical and physical principles can be proven at home with simple experience, but this isn’t a simple principle. There’s far more complexity to earth science than can be represented in the lab; simplifications won’t do, especially not on this scale. Lastly, saying “you can do this yourself” isn’t equivalent to the decades-worth of rigorously repeatable evidence real climate scientists have produced.

    I understand climate change is a hard notion to come to terms with. It probably means that we have to make economic compromises for the sake of sustainability, and you all don’t like it. I understand that. Keep this debate political/economic. Don’t spoil science for your partisan politics. I might not be a climate expert, but I am a scientist, and this reeks of bad science.

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Andrew,
      There is no experiment that shows CO2 warms beyond its provided level of radiation. None! In your mind this proves that CO2 MUST warm in the atmosphere.

      Have you heard about purple unicorns? They’re real. Give me money and I will find them for you. What? You never heard of it, never seen it? Well, that’s further proof they exist.

      You’re an idiot if you think CO2 knows whether it’s in the atmosohere or in the lab, so that it could act differently.

      • Avatar

        Andrew

        |

        Zoe,
        Please consider reading some literature on the biosphere and the atmosphere, which I highly doubt you’ve done so far. Svil’s book (The Earth’s biosphere..) is an excellent intro and details the history of research into the greenhouse effect; experiments have been performed for over 100 years validating it. Arrhenius, in 1896, carried out chemical and physical experiments to derive an estimation for the effect of atmospheric CO2 concentration on surface temperature. This was long before global warming was even recognized, so Arrhenius was no ‘climate alarmist’. Also, your allegory is nonsensical and weak, and clues into your inability to provide a real refutation. Stick to logic instead of ad hominim rebuttals.

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          Andrew, since you mentioned Arrhenius, have you ever seen the derivation of his bogus CO2 equation? No, you haven’t, because there is none. He contrived the equation based on his belief. That is NOT science.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            I saw that years ago. That’s why I said there is no derivation for the bogus equation. It is all based on “belief”.

            The ln of a dimensionless ration is dimensionless. Yet, the “forcing” ends up with units of “Watts/m^2”. Arrhenius created flux out of nothing. The equation doesn’t work because it is bogus. That’s why they continue to try to come up with different coefficients to make the equation work. They can’t do it.

            Your belief in a belief that violates the laws of physics disqualifies you as a scientist.

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          Arrhenius caried out a THOUGHT experiment, not any real co2 experiments.

          My thought experiment says there are purple unicorns.

        • Avatar

          Geraint Hughes

          |

          Hey Andrew.

          You walk, talk & sound like a loser.

          You clearly havent read my book, because you have no idea what your talking about.

          Show me one CO2 experiment which utilise back radiance to induce surface temperature rises in the heat source.

          You see, you fail.

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Andrew,
      Spoken like a true elitist. You seem to equate degrees with with intelligence and ability which is not the case. Education does not fix stupid. The percentage of high school graduates who go to college has increases from under 15% to 70%. The graduation rate from college has gone from 35% to over 50%. The intelligence and abilities of the population has not gone up. Colleges are no longer about the quality of education and their graduates but about mass producing graduates and getting as much money from them as possible.
      If a whole group of graduates in science (climatologists) believe that by reflecting energy back to its source you will increase the energy of the source then they know nothing of science and are idiots with degrees.

      • Avatar

        Norman

        |

        Herb Rose

        You do prove that you know nothing about science. You make up absurd ideas and post them on this blog and you think that is good science. Sorry pal you are very ignorant.

        You again have not got a clue what scientists say about the GHE nor do most of the unscientific on this blog.

        You do NOT increase energy by reflecting it back, that is correct, but if you reflect back energy to a source and continue to input new energy you will reach higher temperatures.

        I used this analogy on Roy Spencer blog some time ago. It did not help there, maybe it will help you.

        If you have a bin of apples. There is a continuous input of 10 apples. If there is another process of removing 10 apples the amount in the bin stays the same. Now add the same 10 apples but as 10 are removed one of those 10 is put back. What do you think happens now with the number in the bin?

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          Readers need to know about “this” Norman. He is NOT Dr. Norman Page. “This” Norman is Norman Grinvalds. Norman Grinvalds is a low level employee of MidAmerica Energy, living in the Omaha, Nebraska area. Grinvalds has little education, and used to troll full time until his company found out about him. He has no meaningful background in physics, and only knows how to insult, slander, and type long useless comments, as above.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Geran

            You prove youi were the one and the same JDHuffman who endlessly trolled Roy Spencer blog. JDHuffman was the one who stated my name and made the false claim I don’t know physics (which I know much more about than you).

            You (as Geran) were banned long ago before you posted this on Roy’s blog. Not only don’t you understand any physics. You are a complete and total phony. So why do you hide behind a phony mask. Tell who you are and where you live and work. We will see what credentials you actually have. Are you afraid to do this because the true will hurt?

            You are one phony troll on Roy’s blog and now here. The same tactics, nothing new.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Norman has no meaningful background in physics, and only knows how to insult, slander, and type long useless comments, as above.

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          Norman,
          Quantity of apples is an extensive property.
          Temperature is an intensive property.

          1 Apple + 1 Apple = 2 Apples
          1°C + 1°C = 1°C

          “if you reflect back energy to a source”

          Energy flows from hot to cold. You can’t get energy to flow from cold to hot – unless you do work (which is an energy input).

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Zoe Phin

            Wrong! Energy flows both ways even with conduction. Heat flows from Hot to cold not energy. Energy flows in both directions at the same time.

            I am not sure what your point is about temperature and apples. I doubt you understood the point. Temperature is determined by the energy contained in an object. The more energy the hotter the object is.

            You should read original Clausius he also was aware energy flowed in both directions as do any who actually study real physics and not the made up versions on blog spaces.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            I knew poor Norman would not understand Zoe’s simple example:

            1 Apple + 1 Apple = 2 Apples
            1°C + 1°C = 1°C

            Norman can’t understand physics.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Wrong, Norman, energy doesn’t flow in both directions. Energy flows from hot to cold, and we call that heat.

            When two objects are in equilibrium – there is 0 energy flow, BUT that doesn’t mean the objects don’t contain energy.

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Norman you are wrong. While all objects above 0 K radiate energy the flow of energy is from higher energy to lower energy The Earth radiates energy to the sun but the flow of energy is from the sun to the Earth.
            Temperature is measuring the kinetic energy of an object, not its total energy. Larger molecules contain more energy than smaller molecules even they may have less kinetic energy. Burning a larger molecule will releasee more energy than burning a smaller molecule even though they may have the same temperature.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Zoe Phin

            No Zoe, sorry your are just plain wrong. When two objects are in equilibrium there is a continuous flow of energy between them. What is not flowing is heat. Energy flows between both and until you actually read real physics you will not accept this reality. You can test it with an IR camera. If you put such a device in the middle of the two objects it will still pick up IR from each surface. Energy is emitting and absorbed by both objects. Your physics is wrong, it is bad and you don’t seem willing to accept the reality that you are incorrect.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            When poor Norman can’t understand the physics, he resorts to semantics. He will argue about the definition of “heat”, for days.

            He couldn’t understand the apples/ºC example, provided by Zoe. So he will likely be asking for the definition of an apple!

            I remember all his tricks from about a year ago, before Spencer censored me. Norman believes the more he types the more convincing he is.

            It’s fun to watch.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Norman,
            You’re a pathological liar.

            An IR camera at thermal equilibrium with the object its looking at, will see NOTHING.

            An electron can’t absorb and emit a photon at the same time, anyway.

            You’re confusing diagrams that show two-way Radiating-Potential-to-0-Kelvin arrows as if they are energy flows.

            I bet you think a flat surface of water is actually two raging waterfalls, one reversed – and therefore creating the illusion of stable flat water.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Zoe Phin

            Rather than call a poster a liar falsely you should try to get a hand held IR camera and see how wrong you actually are. It might break up your deluded thinking to do this.

            Water that is standing still at the macroscopic level it is in total motion at the molecular level. The molecules of the water are moving about quite rapidly in room temperature water.

            To give you an idea of the still water molecular speed.
            https://www.verticallearning.org/curriculum/science/gr7/student/unit01/page05.html

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Yep, in water, on average, half the molecules are moving up and half are moving down – accross an invisible barier.

            You’re saying that two objects radiate their ENTIRE potentials both ways across an actual barrier.

            How two electromagnetic waves can travel through each other is left unexplained.

            How photons (that have a mass of h/(f*l^2) ) can travel through each other is left unexplained.

            “Rather than call a poster a liar falsely you should try to get a hand held IR camera and see how wrong you actually are.”

            Liars have a tendency to send people on a wild goose chase rather then just present their evidence.

            Show everybody what you have seen, if you have seen it. lol

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Zoe Phin

            Since you have not studied any physics and it appears you never will and you want to promote the silly notion that the surface warming is because of geothermal effects it seems a waste of time to engage you on anything.

            You make these stupid childish points and think you are somehow a clever.

            Your total ignorance of science shows with these two:
            YOU: “How two electromagnetic waves can travel through each other is left unexplained.

            How photons (that have a mass of h/(f*l^2) ) can travel through each other is left unexplained.”

            https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/09/06/can-one-bit-of-light-bounce-off-another-bit-of-light/

            If you possessed reasoning skills (which obviously you do not) you would not attempt to show how ignorant you are.

            You are in your room with a light on. You are facing opposite the light looking at the wall. The photons from your light source hit the wall and bounce off into your eyes. They move against the gradient of light. That you can see things kind of demonstrates how irrational you really are. Why do you feel the need to post when you are so clueless about so much? Pretending you know things does not mean you do. I read what Joe Postma said about you. You should reread it and try to figure out what is wrong with your thought process.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Norman,
            Why are you discussing light when we’re discussing heat?

            Irradiance and luminosity are completely different.

            The sun gives us 1361 W/m^2 of thermal radiation while in terms of luminosity it’s in the GIGAwatts/m^2 range.

            Irradiance is MAX normal 2D, while luminosity is Additive 3D.

            You’re an idiot sophist.

          • Avatar

            lifeisthermal

            |

            Keep it up! You´re exactly correct. I´ve pushing these arguments for years. You´re spot on with heat, it´s the only observed flow of energy except for work. The idea of equal opposing flows of “energy” from low T to high T has never been observed or measured. It only exists in imagination.

      • Avatar

        Andrew

        |

        Herb,
        I actually agree that having a degree doesn’t equate to intelligence. I’ve met quite a few graduates from my university who aren’t the sharpest tools in the shed. What it does produce, however, is more knowledgeable individuals. The reality is that calling yourself “woke” and reading some blogs (like this one) doesn’t come close to 4+ years of rigorous study and research.

        Before calling climate scientists idiots, please cite multiple peer-reviewed papers disproving the GHE. Note, peer-reviewed means published in an actual scientific journal and reviewed by experts in the field, not published on a blog and agreed with by people with little more background in climate science than doing some sporadic pseudo-scientific reading.

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          Andrew, when your theories violate the laws of physics, you are practicing pseudoscience.

          • Avatar

            Andrew

            |

            Please enlighten me, o physics expert.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Andrew, if you seek enlightenment, you must first be impartial and accepting.

            Your comments reveal the opposite.

          • Avatar

            Andrew

            |

            And your last comment reveals that you don’t have an answer.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Wrong again, Andrew.

            My answer reveals that I have encountered closed minds before. I have learned they do not wish to have their beliefs challenged. I no longer waste much time with such.

          • Avatar

            Andrew

            |

            I get what you mean, but let me just put it this way: when you make a (rather bold) claim and then make every effort necessary not to explain, it badly looks like you don’t have an explanation.

            I’ve made bold claims too on this blog. The difference between you and I? I explain, and I cite my explanations.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            You can NOT violate the laws of physics. That is not a “rather bold” claim. It is science.

            All of your efforts here have been to deny that simple fact.

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Hi Andrew,
          The problem with peer review is the people who decide what articles are published and those who review them usually have the same knowledge and beliefs as the authors. Are you willing to accept evidence from geologist, physicists, chemists, and other disciplines that repudiate the theory? Do you not consider Dr. Ball and other highly qualified people who call it frauds experts? All progress in science is a result of dissatisfaction with accepted beliefs.
          Science tends to form incestuous groups that protects their beliefs from attacks. I will ask a question of you that I have asked others with no response. Crystals have ionic bonds and metals have metal bonds where the structures formed are from electrons that are disassociated from their parent atoms. The objection to the wave theory of light that led to the creation of the photon (particle) was that a wave would require time to transfer enough energy to an electron to dislodge it from an atom. Since the compounds that produce the photoelectric effect have ionic and metallic bonds where the electrons are already separated from the atoms isn’t this objection spurious? Do you believe that any peer reviewed physics journal would publish an article that questioned the basis of Einsteinian physics?
          Herb

          • Avatar

            Andrew

            |

            To answer the latter part of your question – yes. String theory is something of a contradiction to “Einsteinian physics” (moral properly the theory of relativity), but has been developed extensively. And yes, any paper that provided a rigorous proof to a novel hypothesis questioning the theory of relativity would be published in a scientific journal. Here’s the snag – the theory has been so thoroughly developed that a rigorous enough proof seems infeasible. This same idea goes for climate science.

            Now, as for your question on chemistry. You’re plainly wrong regarding about the nature of both ionic and metallic bonding. While electrons in metals are ‘dissociated’, they are held to nuclei by electrostatic attraction; energy is needed to overcome that attraction and thereby produce the photoelectric effect. The same goes for ionic bonding. Cations and anions are ‘separated’ but held together once more by electrostatic attractions.

            While all new science is unorthodox in its infant stages, what differentiates new science from pseudoscience is in how convincing the proof/explanation is. Who’s the judge? Inevitably the experts. Scientific history tends to show a trend. Hypotheses, proofs considered and all, that demonstrate a genuine improvement over historical knowledge tend to be accepted fairly quickly. Resistance to new ideas has always existed, but when the proof is convincing, the resistance wanes. When the resistance is upheld, it’s probably because of an issue in the hypothesis at hand. See the anti-vaccination movement. Andrew Wakefield was an “expert”, much like your Dr. Ball, but holding an MD didn’t mean he wasn’t a quack. Nonetheless, the vast majority of doctorate-holding scientists aren’t disreputable, and practice good science for its own sake.

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Andrew,
            Yes the ionic and metallic bonds are held together by electrostatic forces where there is a balance between attractive and repelling forces. An electromagnetic wave of the right wave length can change this balance and cause a current just as mechanical pressure on a crystal can distort the bonds creating the piezo electric effect.
            Herb

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Andrew,
            “please cite multiple peer-reviewed papers disproving the GHE.”

            Please site a peer-reviewed paper disproving phrenology and iridology.

            “Note, peer-reviewed means published in an actual scientific journal and reviewed by experts in the field”

            Yes, only expert phrenologists and iridologists are allowed to weigh in on the matter.

            I’m waiting …

          • Avatar

            Andrew

            |

            Wait no longer, Zoe.
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6143440/ Please read the attached, an article in a peer reviewed journal disproving phrenology using modern empirical methods. This was written by medical specialists, whose area of knowledge encompasses phrenology – they are authorities on the matter

            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12678893_Iridology_Not_Useful_and_Potentially_Harmful This article, also peer-reviewed and by an opthalmological researcher, also serves to critique iridology. Iridology has not been as rigorously deconstructed by the biomedical scientific community, so is not as fitting an example compared to phrenology.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Andrew,
            Thank you for proving my point.
            No phrenologist or iridologist disproves their field. It’s only done by outside experts.

            “whose area of knowledge encompasses phrenology – they are authorities on the matter.

            Uhuh, and experts at PSI have knowledge encompasing the GH effect. They, and myself, are authorities on the matter.

            “Opthamologist”
            Uhuh, that’s the same as an iridologist. LOL

            I know you don’t have the self-awareness to recognize your hypocrisy, so pointing it out to you would probably be moot.

          • Avatar

            Andrew

            |

            Okay, so phrenology wasn’t disproved by a phrenologist. It was disproved by a medical doctor – a close field. I’d accept a chemist, physicist, or geologist doing work on disproving climate science – they’re experts in those fields, and much like medicine and phrenology, each of those fields has relevance to climate science. What I won’t accept is individuals, much like yourself, who haven’t taken the time and rigour to read and carry out research, calling themselves “experts” because they’ve read some online articles and have strong convictions.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Andrew,
            What happens when an expert like Joule (ever heard of him?) says that the atmosphere exists because the surface is hot, and not vice-versa?

            What happens when an expert like Maxwell (ever heard of him?) reaffirms that the the atmosphere exists because it’s hot (and not vice-versa) and its heat loss moving up is g/Cp ?

            Very simple: you completely ignore those experts and listen to other “experts”.

            As an analogy: You didn’t disprove phrenology or iridology, you’ve simply ignored the experts and listened to other experts. Do you see what you’re doing?

            (P.S. I do agree phrenology and iridology are junk science – in case that wasn’t obvious)

            Now you have a choice. You can listen to two experts who have UNITS named after them, an honor higher than the Nobel prize, or you could listen to your preferred “experts” that tell you what you want to hear.

            The GH effect was never proved by experiment. Ever! So there is no need to disprove it.

            Tyndall was the first to prove CO2 can BE warmed by radiation, and the first to prove that CO2 then heats nothing else.

          • Avatar

            Andrew

            |

            Oh Zoe, your condescending and holier-than-thou attitude isn’t getting you anywhere. If you went to any university, you wouldn’t find the same reception to that. I’ve studied chemistry at an advanced level, so I’m well aware of Joule and Maxwell. There is no unit named after Maxwell (he has a distribution curve named after him – many scientists do), and Joule has a unit named after him pursuant of his work on thermodynamics and mechanical work – not the atmosphere. You cite two scientific experts, but their specialty work (which I’ve read!) makes no mention at all of the atmosphere. And yes, there’ll always be scientists who disagree with present theory, which is why we work on a basis of worldwide consensus. Whether this changes in the future is a matter of speculation, but right now, climate science is factitious and verifiable.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Andrew, two more mistakes to add to your growing list:
            1) “There is no unit named after Maxwell”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_%28unit%29

            2) “…climate science is factitious and verifiable.”

            The bogus GHE comes from “climate science”–’nuff said.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Andrew,

            Specialty work?
            Fourier was a mathematician, and Arrhenius’ specialty was Electrolytes.

            LMAO!

            Maxwell’s book “Theory of Heat” contains the word “atmosphere” 58 times!

            In the book “The scientific papers of James Prescott Joule”, the word “atmosphere” appears 75 times!

            58 and 75 is just a subsample of their work, but according to you:

            “no mention at all of the atmosphere”

            Ah, you reality deniers are adorable. You just fabricate lies convenient to you.

          • Avatar

            Andrew

            |

            Graduate in what, Geraint? Have you produced a thesis? I’ve met my fair share of graduates and professors in climate science, geology, physics, and chemistry too. They’ve all written, proven, and defended rigorous works in their fields at top institutions worldwide. Nobody’s perfect, of course, but if I’m looking for an expert on the subject, it’ll be them and their works I turn to first.

            Also, calling my mind “too small” doesn’t really work as a refutation.

    • Avatar

      Henrik

      |

      Geran proves CO2 is an excellent coolant in several lab tests.
      Dude says that theory of CO2 “trapping” and backradiating heat to a warm surface to make it even warmer 🙂 – is so complex that it can’t be proven in a lab.
      Then lectures on sustainability, politics, and economics.
      Finally calls himself a scientist.
      Okey-dokey!

      • Avatar

        Henrik

        |

        Geraint!!!
        Sorry.

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    Andrew:
    Please cite multiple peer-reviewed papers disproving the GHE.
    James:
    There is no such thing as, “the” GHE. It is a propaganda term. It isn’t real science. You won’t find any papers that disprove GHE just as you won’t find any that disprove ghosts or fairies. So your request betrays your lack of scientific training/understanding.

    Andrew:
    Note, peer-reviewed means published in an actual scientific journal and reviewed by experts in the field, not published on a blog and agreed with by people with little more background in climate science than doing some sporadic pseudo-scientific reading.

    James:
    The problem, you moron, is that people in climate refuse to apply basic scientific methods and procedures. Instead they appeal to the lowest common denominator of the public (ie. yourself) for political support because dummies like yourself think scientific truth is determined by appeals to authority and peer review.

    • Avatar

      Andrew

      |

      Saying something isn’t science doesn’t make it not science. Also, a very quick database search turns up 20+ scientific papers and books discussing the GHE in depth . On the contrary, there aren’t any scientific papers or books either for or against ghosts/fairies. The former is a scientific concept, underpinned by scientific theories, hypotheses, and the scientific method. The latter isn’t. Your point falls apart.

      The onus is on you to demonstrate how the plethora of scientific literature regarding the GHE all fails to apply the scientific method / procedure. What do you think constitutes good science? Also, scientists appeal to the public out of genuine concern for the implications of their research. It’s not scientists making their science political – it’s those who fear the implications of science that make it political.

      And on a less related note, calling me “moron” and “lowest common denominator of society” doesn’t disprove my points as much as it proves you can’t make and don’t have a sustained logical rebuttal to my argument.

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Andrew,
        The GHE has several definitions. One of them is so broad that it can’t be debunked. If your definition of GHE is the temperature difference between 0 and 5km height of atmosphere, then YES, it exists. If you then go on to say that CO2 and H2O created this differece, then the answer is WRONG.

        One of the rules of good science is not to deny Heat Capacity.

        Since H2O and CO2 have a higher MOLAR heat capacity than O2 or N2, they can not be gases that warm – as they need More Energy to raise themselves by 1°C.

        But your junk scientists deny heat capacity. You must think this is all OK.

        • Avatar

          Andrew

          |

          Across the board, scientists define the GHE as the tendency for greenhouse gases (CO2, H2O, CH4, nitrogen oxides) to trap long-wavelength radiation in the earth’s atmosphere, resulting in an increase in temperature relative to if there were no greenhouse gases. This is something that could easily be gleaned by a genuine review of actual climate science literature.

          Also, while you’re correct that H2O and CO2 have a molar heat capacity higher than O2 or N2, that has little to do with the GHE. The greenhouse gases themselves aren’t heating up; they’re merely reflecting radiation that itself does the heating.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Andrew,

            “trap long-wavelength radiation in the earth’s atmosphere, resulting in an increase in temperature relative to if there were no greenhouse gases.”

            “The greenhouse gases themselves aren’t heating up; they’re merely reflecting radiation that itself does the heating.”

            And since there are NO experiments to prove that, you feel confident in asserting this “truth”.

            You think colder gases in the atmosphere HEAT the warmer surface air. How cute.

            One of Fourier’s and Arrhenius’ mistakes is assuming that the atmosphere makes it warmer than without an atmosphere.

            This is not true. The atmosphere exists because it’s warm, not vice-versa.

            The presence of the atmosphere is determined by 3 factors.

            1) Insolation
            2) Geothermal
            3) Availability of gases

            Removing the atmosphere would make it warmer (but this would create a new atmosphere).

            Removing a kilometer of earth’s surface and dropping down a kilometer would make it hotter.

            Removing another kilometer of earth’s surface and dropping down a kilometer would make it even hotter.

            And on an on, until reaching the core.

            “that has little to do with the GHE.”

            Ah, yes, of course. Everything that debunks the GHE has “little” to do with it. Gosh, you’re such a blind ideologue. Do you have any self-awareness?

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Geraint’s experiment proves there is no backradiation heating. CO2 doesn’t know if it’s in the lab or in the atmosphere, amd acts the same. Why would you think otherwise?

          • Avatar

            james McGinn

            |

            So, Andrew, above you stated: “scientists define the GHE as the tendency for greenhouse gases (CO2, H2O, CH4, nitrogen oxides) to trap long-wavelength radiation in the earth’s atmosphere.”

            Further along you state: “The greenhouse gases themselves aren’t heating up; they’re merely reflecting radiation that itself does the heating.”

            So, which is it? Are they trapping or reflecting? How can you continue the charade that you actually understand any of this?

            James McGinn / Genius

          • Avatar

            Andrew

            |

            I’m referencing a scientific book (specifically Vaclav Smil’s) I read while I studied at university – I’ve mentioned it in the comments above. If you just go to google books, you can find it; read the section on the GHE, and therein you’ll find the experiments I’m referencing in asserting scientific theory.

            Now, as for the heating mechanism. I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again, since clearly once wasn’t enough. It’s not gases that do the heating – it’s IR radiation, which the gases simply reflect and trap. This is the most fundamental principle of the GHE.

            As for Arrhenius and Fourier – consider the moon. Its atmosphere contains only a few trace gases, and its temperature? Ranges from 100+ degrees to less than -100 degrees. Clearly, atmospheric gasses play a role in the maintenance of temperature and heat at surface level. It’s also very warm on Mercury. Cold on Mars. Does they have a significnant atmosphere? No.

            Think of GH gases in the atmosphere as a sort of blanket, trapping IR radiation and reflecting it to the earth. There’s a start. Now, getting mad at me and calling me a “blind ideologue”? That’s not getting you anywhere.

          • Avatar

            Andrew

            |

            As for James, a few things.

            Calling yourself genius doesn’t prove your points. Rather makes you sound a little like the knucklehead in the oval office. Trapping and reflecting are synonymous, although I’ll admit not the best to use in conjunction. The earth’s atmosphere stretches from the troposphere to the exosphere. This idea of trapping means heating IR radiation doesn’t escape the atmosphere as a whole. The mechanism of that is reflection towards the surface.

          • Avatar

            james McGinn

            |

            So, now you say: It’s not gases that do the heating – it’s IR radiation, which the gases simply reflect and trap.

            All you have is generalities. You don’t have a concise, well considered argument.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Andrew,

            “This is the most fundamental principle of the GHE.”

            Surely this “reflecting and trapping” heating could be proved in a lab? No such evidence.

            “As for Arrhenius and Fourier – consider the moon. Its atmosphere contains only a few trace gases, and its temperature? Ranges from 100+ degrees to less than -100 degrees. Clearly, atmospheric gasses play a role in the maintenance of temperature and heat at surface level.”

            LOL. You’ve confused cause and effect.

            Since the moon has 6 times less geothermal influence than earth and its availability of gases is also low – it has a tiny negligible atmosphere.

            Think about it, Andrew. There is an atmospheric bulge in the tropics because it’s hot. It’s not hot in the tropics because there is an atmospheric bulge.

            The temperature of the moon mainly tells you about its geothermal status.

            “Think of GH gases in the atmosphere as a sort of blanket, trapping IR radiation and reflecting it to the earth. ”

            Blankets don’t raise your skin temperature. Your skin warms the blanket.

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    Saying something isn’t science doesn’t make it not science. Also, a very quick database search turns up 20+ scientific papers and books discussing the GHE in depth .

    Right. it’s a cottage industry. There are 20, 40, 60, 80, 100 different variants of “the” GHE. That’s the trick. That’s the con. It’s a moving target. It’s just propaganda. It isn’t science.

    Global warming is just a story told to children.

    • Avatar

      Andrew

      |

      I’ve referenced the standard scientific definition of the GHE above. Defining it otherwise would misconstrue the concept.

      You haven’t developed anything more than before. You continue to deny the decades-long work of scientists in the field, and then pass it off as a byproduct of politics when your denial is in fact a clearer byproduct of politics.

  • Avatar

    james McGinn

    |

    I’ve referenced the standard scientific definition of the GHE above. Defining it otherwise would misconstrue the concept.

    You’ve references a broad set of beliefs that mean many different things to many different people, some of whom with which you share ideological inclinations. That is all you have done and that is all you will ever do. Scientifically you got nothing.

    You haven’t developed anything more than before.

    The burden of proof is on the shoulders of those making extraordinary claims.

  • Avatar

    avro607

    |

    Many conflicting ideas above.Do any of the above commentators disagree with Hottel and Schack? If they do ,then please inform all the thermodynamicists,scientists and engineers,that all their work is invalid,and the manuals need to be rewritten.

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Boil water in a closed container.

    There’s two types of people in this world:

    1) Those who think the raised temperature created steam.

    2) Those who think the steam raised the temperature

    Andrew is clearly of the second sort, and he thinks we’re crazy for pointing out his flawed belief.

    Am I wrong?

    • Avatar

      Joanne

      |

      Zoe,
      Yes you are wrong. You furthered the use of the blanket analogy by saying that your skin warms the blanket. This is true, because your skin radiates longwave energy. Anything that is above absolute 0 radiates longwave energy. However, the energy that your skin radiates is trapped by the blanket, which is why you get warmer when you are under a blanket.

      The earth, since it is above absolute 0, also radiates longwave radiation. The gases in the air act like a blanket. The earth, like your skin, radiates the energy, it gets reflected, and thus gets trapped, which causes an increase in temperature.

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Joanne,
        The definition of heat is the FLOW of energy from hot to cold. Trapping heat would mean stopping the flow, and thus preventing heating. “Trapping heat” is an oxymoron.

        Temperature is an intensive property, and doesn’t stack up.

        “However, the energy that your skin radiates is trapped by the blanket, which is why you get warmer when you are under a blanket.”

        Poetically, you can say thay a blanket warms you, but scientifically you can’t – since it doesn’t actually raise your skin temperature.

        Funny that you don’t actually respond to the content of my comment. I take it you believe steam makes water boil, thereby raising its temperature. LOL

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Sorry Joanne, but that’s all wrong.

        A blanket holds body heat by blocking convection and conduction. It actually radiates as your skin does. It does not warm your body radiatively. The heat flow is from your body, through the blanket, into the environment. The blanket is insulation.

        The atmosphere is NOT an insulator. It responds to temperature in several ways. It acts as a temperature-controller, based on the laws of thermodynamics. Too hot, the atmosphere expands and emits more to space. Too cold, the atmosphere contracts and emits less to space. The heat flow is from Earth’s surface, through the atmosphere, to space.

        • Avatar

          lifeisthermal

          |

          A blanket is thermal insulation, thermal insulation aims to reduce absorption in Cold surroundings. GHGs enhances absorption in cold surroundings.

          “Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body”

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

          This is very basic knowledge. Cold air doesn´t limit heat transfer from a hot body, it adds to it, cold air absorbing heat cools. Just like an air-cooled Engine is cooled by air absorbing heat from it´s outer surface, the Earth surface is cooled by air absorbing it´s heat.

    • Avatar

      Andrew

      |

      You don’t need a scientific education to know the former is true. Perhaps you do need a scientific education to comprehend that steam (water vapour) is a greenhouse gas, behaving much like carbon dioxide, and that it prevents heat loss to the environment.

      You’re wrong on a number of other fronts. Heat is not “flow” – heat is a form of energy. To defend Joanne, her argument is quite accurate. The earth absorbs solar radiation, in term emitting long-wave (infrared) radiation. Research on the chemical structure of covalent bonds in gas molecules (i.e. CO2) has found them capable of absorbing radiation in the infrared range, vibrating, and upon vibrating, emit IR radiation (please see IR spectra). The amount of radiation is not an intensive property.

      Much like a blanket creates a (mostly) closed system that prevents heat loss, the atmosphere works in much the same way (Geran). I’m much aware of the laws of thermodynamics, and I’m not quite sure where the experimental evidence is for that. Or, rather, would you say that’s a…”thought experiment”?

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Andrew, your refusal to accept reality is showing.

        A blanket blocks conduction and convection, but it emits just as your skin.

        If the atmosphere tries to “trap heat”, the laws of thermodynamics dictate that funny things will happen. You may have heard of “weather”?

        • Avatar

          Joanne

          |

          Geran,
          You are partially correct by stating that the heat does not stay trapped in the atmosphere forever. The term “greenhouse” is a bit of a misnomer, because there is a transfer of heat from the earth to space.

          HOWEVER, the atmosphere delays the transfer of heat from earth to space enough to cause an average global increase in temperature.

          It’s not a fully isolated system, but that does not mean there aren’t impacts related to the emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

          Obviously the earth doesn’t just keep warming indefinitely, there are cooling factors too, such as albedo. But that does not disprove that the emission of CO2 does reflect longwave radiation as to cause a temperature increase.

          Furthermore, weather and climate are two different things. But yes, funny things ARE happening, such as an increase in frequency and severity of hurricanes to give an example.

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Joanne,
            Bad example Joanne as the frequency and severity of hurricanes have been decreasing.
            CO2 does not reflect IR but absorbs it and re-radiates it in all directions. If CO2 reflected IR it would not be used as a refrigerant gas to remove heat from an object.
            Herb

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Joanne, you are still regurgitating the GHE pseudoscience. If you want to learn, you must leave that false religion.

            Atmospheric CO2 can NOT warm the surface. The surface warms the atmosphere, NOT the reverse.

          • Avatar

            Matt

            |

            Hi Joanne.
            “But yes, funny things ARE happening, such as an increase in frequency and severity of hurricanes to give an example.”
            There are records of hurricane frequencies. Please do a little research rather than bleating like a sheep recorded on a stuck record.

          • Avatar

            WhoKoo

            |

            realclimatescience.com has already compiled much of the research for you. The whole nine yards. Then research the veracity of Mr Heller’s good work.

      • Avatar

        Herb Rose

        |

        Hi Andrew,
        Water as a gas does not exist in the atmosphere at temperatures under its boiling point. A brief explanation is that it requires 540 calories/gram to convert 100 C water to 100 C steam. This amount of energy is to great a divergent from the norm to occur. Water in the atmosphere is small droplets of liquid water.
        It is important to distinguish between an object reflecting an electromagnetic wave and absorbing a wave and then re-radiating a similar wave. A object painted red will reflect the red wave length back in the direction it came from. A red piece of glass will absorb light and radiate red light in all directions.
        Water is very good at absorbing IR not very good at reflecting it. The clouds at the troposphere/stratosphere boundary are composed of water droplets asserted to be surround by gases molecules with a temperature of -50 C. There is no way that water in clouds can reflect heat back to the surface of the Earth.
        The wavelength a molecules absorbs is determined by its size. (Just as the length of an antenna determines what waves it absorbs,) O2, N2, and argon do not absorb or reflect IR while the smaller CH4 and H2O do?
        Herb

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        “Perhaps you do need a scientific education to comprehend that steam (water vapour) is a greenhouse gas, behaving much like carbon dioxide, and that it prevents heat loss to the environment.”

        LMAO! OMG, he actually defends the position that steam raises temperature so the water boils.

        Andrew, please lift yourself up by your bootstraps. LOL

        “Heat is not “flow” – heat is a form of energy”

        Uhm, yes it is.
        The form of energy that flows from one place to another.

        An object can contain energy, but an object can not hold, trap, or contain heat. Heat is a phenomena BETWEEN objects.
        The phenomena is a flow from a more energetic object to a less energetic object.

        Andrew, please learn the difference between physics and self-serving rhetoric disguised as physics.

        • Avatar

          Andrew

          |

          Frankly, I never said steam causes water to boil. I plainly said that it functions to prevent heat loss to the environment. You interpreted my point in such a way that it suits your argument – your idiocy is showing. Have you taken university physics?

          You’re correct that energy flows from warmer bodies to cooler bodies – eventually, following thermodynamics, all heat on earth will be lost to outer space. What matters is the rate of that loss would be substantially higher in the absence of a GH-gas containing atmosphere.

          I never said the gas molecules themselves are trapping heat – again, well-established chemical research shows their ability to reflect IR radiation. We define the earth and atmosphere as a system. GH gases make the earth a mostly isolated system, not holding heat itself, but merely slowing the transfer of heat from earth to outer space.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            If you’re arguing that GHGs make it warmer then you’re arguing steam made the water warmer – despite the fact that YOU turned the oven knob to boil the water.

            Yes, I’ve taken 3 physics and 2 astronomy courses at university. All A’s.

            My textbook does not mention backradiation heating except when talking about the climate. That’s because the concept does not exist in actual physics – only climate “science”.

            Considering that nearly all objects absorb IR to some extent (especially solids), and that every physics problem involves 2 or more bodies, and that 1 body is always blocking the other body from some point of view (preventing faster cooling), it should hold that backradiation heating should be OMNIPRESENT in nearly every physics thermodynamics problem.

            But it’s not! Why? Because it doesn’t exist. It only exists in climate junk science.

          • Avatar

            lifeisthermal

            |

            Steam IS heat transfer away from the heat source. Evaporation cools, it doesn´t retain heat.

            GH-gases do the opposite to what insulation does. Insulation minimizes heat absorption. You don´t slow heat transfer by absorption of heat, that´s how you enhance it.

  • Avatar

    Norman

    |

    Geran/JDHuffman

    When will you bring up your phony idea that the Moon does not rotate on its axis. Haven’t you exceeded your post quota without bringing this absurd idea here? I guess a race horse does not turn when it enters a curve. I wonder how long you can hold it back.

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Grinvalds, at least you have an excuse for your inability to learn. You believe you can warm your room with a block of ice, so your brain is frozen!

  • Avatar

    Jason A

    |

    Sorry to see so much heat vs light in the comments, but I guess that’s the state of affairs. Ran across this interesting pre-published article, looking closely at CO2 and H2O atmospheric heating physics:

    https://www.sciencetalks.nl/the-physics-of-doubling-co2/

    “We analyzed CO2 absorption and emission of infrared radiation and calculated the upper limit of a possible temperature increase at the earth’s surface, including the effect of average annual cloud cover. The calculations are based on measured spectra data of CO2 and we computed those using the general laws of physics and quantum mechanics. We found 1.33 W/m2 extra absorption for doubling CO2 of which we assume that half will be lost into space and half (0.67W/m2 ) contributes to a surface temperature increase with a worst case upper limit of 0.16K. We assess that the assumptions in IPCC report 2015 of 3.8W/m2 and 1K increase respectively is overestimated considerably.”

    If I read him correctly, his estimate that is a doubling of CO2 could increase average surface temperatures by 0.16 degrees Kelvin, versus IPCC 2015 at 1.0K. There are so many other factors not included in the model, but it’s a start at bringing reason to bear on a complex problem.

    See also background here that expands the kinds of phenomenology that must be included in future models if they are to perform with realism against ex ante data, and also why so much of climate science and cosmology has been politicized to get the answers the entrenched global elite need in order to green-light their rather obvious financial and social engineering agendas:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEWoPzaDmOA
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4pWZGBpWP0

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      I figure CO2 sensitivty is actually exactly ZERO.

      The atmosphere doesn’t warm the surface. How warm it is determines the size of the atmosphere.

      If the atmosphere did warm the surface, it would lead to more outgassing, which would increase the size of the atmosphere which, by theory, would cause more warming and more atmosphere – more warming and more atmosphere – more warming and more atmosphere. There is no mechanism to stop it.

      Fourier’s and Arrhenius’ premise is an obvious failed hypothesis.

  • Avatar

    Mark

    |

    Something to think about. Some 123,000 or so years ago, According to Scientific American THE STORY OF US, our hominid ancestors were almost wiped out during severe cooling brought about during an Ice Age. I have yet to see proof hominids were almost wiped out by a Heat Age. We seem to adapt better to heat than cold. This is all about attacking “the Rich’ who made money from the current petroleum-based economy, nothing more.

Comments are closed