The Climate News Story The Media Won’t Report
It is common sense that we believe colder things cannot further warm anything that is already warmer. There is also a law of physics that says “no process is possible the sole result of which is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature”.
We are all well aware of this but for an issue of such national and far reaching significance as the widespread belief in anthropogenic global warming it is essential that the words and explanatory diagram in the UN IPCC statistical assessments of likelihood must be examined and considered by everyone.
Constant media propaganda has created widespread belief that increasing trace levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause excessive global warming. Many people have a strong vested interest in maintaining the greenhouse gas scare.
The present position of increasing power prices, blackouts, uncompetitive industries and job losses will continue unless the widespread belief in anthropogenic global warming is clearly
shown to be untrue. It is therefore absolutely essential to consider and evaluate the basic facts: –
1) Everyone knows from their own experience or from an elementary law of physics that colder things cannot further heat anything that is already warmer.
2) It is necessary and essential that everyone reads and has confirmed by others the actual wording recorded in the IPCC statistical assessments of likelihood reports. Copies of the definition of greenhouse effect and explanatory diagram on pages 946 and 115 of IPCC Report 4, 2007, are reproduced here because they also record the average temperature for the colder clouds and upper atmosphere as -19°C and =14°C for the warmer Earth and air below.
These pages from the IPCC Report are true copies and this can be verified by download from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/ of the published report.
The prevalent belief that CO2 emissions will cause excessive global warming is of such national and international importance that opinion, interpretation, media reports, newspaper advertisements, publications, etc. should not be relied on. Authoritative evaluation of the basic facts is required. Attention must focus on the wording of the IPCC Reports as published.
Pages 946 and 115 from this report are therefore reproduced (above) for you to consider.
The erroneous concept of heat radiating downward from the colder clouds and upper atmosphere to further heat the warmer Earth and air below is repeated in the first five IPCC statistical assessments of likelihood. The IPCC definition of ‘Greenhouse Effect’ in Report 4, 2007, records average temperatures for the colder clouds and upper atmosphere and for the warmer Earth and air below.
About the author: John N Elliston AM, BSc(Chem), BSc(Hons. Geol), FAusIMM(CP) has had a
stellar career in geology and chemistry. For his services to his country John received the prestigious honour of the Order of Australia (AM). John has been Vice Chair of Principia Scientific for five years.
Stringent career demands taught John the value of correct scientific method and the need for rigorous testing and scrutiny of new ideas. His current book, “The Origin of Rocks and Mineral Deposits – using current physical chemistry of small particle systems,” is enhanced thanks to John’s access to leading world academic advisers and summarizes ground breaking results not yet widely published.
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
Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Matthias
| #
further explantion: Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
Reply
Knut Sandaker
| #
https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021797921005555X
Reply
James McGinn
| #
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.0421.pdf
It is shown that the notorious claim by Halpern et al. recently repeated in their comment that the method, logic, and conclusions of our “Falsification Of The CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics” would be in error has no foundation. Since Halpern et al. communicate our arguments incorrectly, their comment is scientifically vacuous. In particular, it is not true that we are “trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process” and that we are “systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to Earth’s surface and atmosphere”. Rather, our falsification paper discusses the violation of fundamental physical and mathematical principles in 14 examples of common pseudo-derivations of fictitious greenhouse effects that are all based on simplistic pictures of radiative transfer and their obscure relation to thermodynamics, including but not limited to those descriptions (a) that define a “Perpetuum Mobile Of The 2nd Kind”, (b) that rely on incorrectly calculated averages of global temperatures, (c) that refer to incorrectly normalized spectra of electromagnetic radiation. Halpern et al. completely missed an exceptional chance to formulate a scientifically well-founded antithesis. They do not even define a greenhouse effect that they wish to defend. We take the opportunity to clarify some misunderstandings, which are communicated in the current discussion on the non-measurable, i.e., physically non-existing influence of the trace gas CO2 on the climates of the Earth.
Reply
Dan
| #
Not quite. A cold thing cannot “warm” a warmer thing. But a cold thing can keep a warmer thing warmer THAN IT WOULD OTHERWISE BE if the thing behind the cold thing is even colder.
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
Dan, you are confusing “insulation” with an “energy source”. And neither applies to CO2. That mistake is common with people that don’t understand thermodynamics.
CO2 absorbs AND emits. A banana can absorb and emit. Do you believe bananas are “heating the planet”?
Reply
Dan
| #
JDBanana – no, I am not.
CO2 is never posited and an independent energy source, but in fact as an insulator not dissimilar to a reflective blanket. That mistake is common with people that don’t understand thermodynamics.
Without IR coming off the earth CO2 will of course not “heat the earth” – but as it radiates some energy back it can (in theory) delay the net cooling rate, i.e. minimum and average temps would statistically be higher as they are aggregate (cooling rate / time) functions.
CO2 cannot add “extra” energy, as that indeed violates the 2nd Law of adding net heat up a heat gradient. But it can shield us from something cooler, and modulate temps. This is really not hard to understand. It does not require bananas or turkeys cooking ovens.
I suppose you advocate that IR is destroyed on its way back via “standing waves” or some other misconstrued notions about the 2nd Law?
As such, CO2 cannot cause catastrophic runaway warming – it can only modulate cooling rates – i.e. whatever is provided by the sun. The degree to which it does that is also rather insignificant in the scheme of IR active gases.
Talking voodoo science will only discredit those who can actually do something about the AGW scam.
Reply
JDHUffman
| #
Dan, the more you pound on your keyboard, the more confusion you reveal. CO2 is NOT a “radiative blanket”. A radiative blanket does not pass infrared. CO2 is a “radiative gas”. It passes infrared into space. The remainder of the atmosphere acts as an active blanket, expanding and contracting. Earth temperatures get too hot, the atmsophere responds by expanding and emitting more infrared to space. Too cold, the opposite occurs.
And the infrared emitted back to Earth by CO2 (the 15μ photon) does not have enough energy to melt ice.
You are confused, but the next question is “Can you learn?” Many cannot.
Reply
Carbon Bigfoot
| #
The only way we can fix stupid is the same way we fix our pets.
Dan Paulson
| #
Dan you are 100% correct in saying that the CO2 in the atmosphere can delay the loss of IR to space. Where your notion falls flat is in the fact that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates in about 80 femto-seconds. At this speed, the effect is virtually unmeasureable to humans, and cannot have any practical effect on the atmosphere or temperatures.
Reply
Dan
| #
DanP – I’m not actually saying that CO2 has any temperature effect in the scheme of things – for many reasons. Only that back radiation exists and is measurable. It does not break the 2nd Law, as some here seem to think. i.e. that objects do not emit radiation at all into warmer environments. Expounding such things will just make PSI a laughing stock.
Hans Meijer
| #
Dan, you state that “CO2 is never posited and [as?] an independent energy source.“ Here is another quotation, from 2015: (http://tinyurl.com/rul4a8a)
“We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming solar radiation,” says Daniel Feldman, a scientist in Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division and lead author of the Nature paper. “Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect,” Feldman adds.”
Here Feldman speaks, in summary, of “adding energy to the system” in response to the sole energy source (recognized as such by ‘friend and foe’): the incoming solar radiation. With, of course, carbon dioxide as the magic wand. Ergo Feldman’s Credo: creatio ex nihilo. Like it befits the true believer. If you want to take this seriously, in the wake of Nature’s strict peer reviewers, you should rather study the simplest principles of thermodynamics for a while. Starting with the First Law. “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.” G&T were spot on: Feldman, too, obviously believes in a perpetual machine. Not only of the second kind but, here, also of the first kind.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Dan,
Radiation of energy is the transfer of energy from an object to the electro/magnetic field surrounding it, not to other objects. The rate of transfer of energy between the object (cold or hot) and the field around it depends on the difference in.energy between the object and the field. The energy of a field around an object will decrease with distance creating fields of different energy within a system.
The Earth and its field is in equilibrium with the energy field coming from the sun. The moon is in equilibrium with the energy field from the sun. Both can block energy from reaching the other by absorbing solar energy but neither can change the amount of energy coming from the sun or its field.
Herb.
Reply
geraint hughes
| #
dan, stop spouting nonsense. Read and watch this to learn how wrong you are.
https://principia-scientific.com/greenplate-effect-it-does-not-happen-proof-no-2/
Your lie theory does not occur using metal plates.
Your lie theory does not occur using gases.
https://principia-scientific.com/light-recycling-disproves-greenhouse-gas-theory/
What you say happens, does not happen, not matter which way you look at it.
Reply
Wiliam Masters
| #
The three forms of heat transmission Conduction, (transfer by physical mass), Convection (transfer by liquids and gases, and vapors), and Radiation (transfer by electromagnetic radiation) do not all three follow the same rules.
Conduction and Convection act according to to the 3rd Lw of Thermo-dynamics, and move from high to low. Warm to Cold. However, Radiation is made by electro-magnetic Photons, which are Quantum Particles, they obey the Laws of Quantum Mechanics. Not Thermodynamics.
When an atom or molecule absorbs a heat photon (I.R. photon), it increases is rate of vibration, then emits the photon out returning to is bases (lowest) state. The direction it emits the photon out is totally random. It may be emitted out towards an object like the sun, much hotter, or at a rock that is much colder, or into empty space. What surrounds the atom is immaterial, the emittance of the photon.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
The corpuscular theory of light you espoused is wrong and can’t be used to deduce Planck’s Law.
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
“However, Radiation is made by electro-magnetic Photons, which are Quantum Particles, they obey the Laws of Quantum Mechanics. Not Thermodynamics.”
William, EVERYTHING obeys the Laws of Thermodynamics. Where have you been?
Infrared photons, with long wavelengths (lower frequency) are reflected by molecules with higher frequency. It’s almost as if photons know the Laws of Thermodynamics, huh?
“Cold” can not raise the temperature of “hot”. The entire universe knows that, except Warmists and Lukewarmers.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hi William, I think we need more detail to really get a good sense of energy flow in the atmosphere.
Two of the three forms of heat transmission that you mentioned were:
1) Conduction: transfer by physical mass), 2) Convection: transfer by liquids and gases, and vapors
You state: “Conduction and Convection act according to to the 3rd Law of Thermo-dynamics, and move from high to low. Warm to Cold.”
Most of the flow that happen in earth’s atmosphere has to do with vortices and collectives of vortices that produce streaming, ie. jet stream. The details of this “streaming” appear, in my assessment, to not be fully captured in the categories you describe. This is very important, because streaming is the most important form of energy transfer that is associated with weather and it is poorly understood.
What Causes Streaming in the Atmosphere?
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/What-Causes-Streaming-in-the-Atmosphere-eai2jq
James McGinn / Woke Meteorology
Reply
Squidly
| #
@Wiliam Masters
WRONG! … “heat” is not a thing, it is a “result”. “Heat” cannot be transferred from place to place or thing to thing. Only the energy can be transferred and “heat” is a result of that energy. There is no such thing as a “heat photon” .. that is scientific gibberish.
For an example how everything is bound by the Laws of Thermodynamics, consider 2 molecules .. Ma and Mb .. Ma can only transfer energy to Mb if, and only if Ma is of greater energy state (vibrational state) than Mb .. there are no exceptions to this physical law, whether by quantum mechanics or classical physics.
So what you say is physically invalid.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Squidly,
Luke/Warmists like to use water analogies for heat. I tell them that heat is like a water fall. You can capture the water falling with a cup, but you can’t capture the phenomena of falling water into a cup. Heat is like the phenomena of falling water, but not the water itself. They don’t get it. How could they? It would destroy their religion.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Squidly,
You are absolutely right. Objects radiate energy, not heat or temperature, and other objects absorb that energy and convert it to kinetic energy (heat).
What the GHGT believers and deniers both fail to take into account is that over half the energy (uv and x-rays) coming to the Earth from the sun is absorbed in the atmosphere by N2 and O2 where they convert it to kinetic energy. The visible spectrum that transfers energy to the Earth’s surface cannot increase the kinetic energy in the gas molecules in the atmosphere above it because they already have greater energy. It is the atmosphere that is both radiating and absorbing energy equalizing with the energy coming from the sun.
Herb
Reply
Monty
| #
Herb, I need some clarification. You say that objects radiate energy, not heat. But isn’t heat a type of energy? When I walk pass large brick building, after sunset, I feel the heat coming from the wall.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Monty,
All objects in the universe have electric fields. When these field move it causes a change/disturbance in the electric field around the object. This is radiating energy. An object in an electric field will react to changes in that field. This is absorbing energy. Kinetic energy causes an object to radiate energy while radiated energy gives an object kinetic energy.
The empty space between the sun and the Earth contains the energy that heats the Earth. This is radiant energy and it does not become kinetic energy/heat until it interacts with matter so the temperature of this empty space is close to absolute zero despite the large amount of energy there.
The brick wall radiates energy which reacts with the matter in your skin causing an increase in the sensation of heat. If you were further away from the wall the energy would decreases and you would feel less heat. If you were far enough away it would be cold because the energy striking your skin would be less than the energy being radiated by your skin.
Heat is the manifestation of energy by matter. Does this clarify or confuse?
Herb
olav ankjær
| #
Heat is the transfer of energy from one place to another due to differences in temperature. Heat always goes from a higher temperature to a lower temperature.
Such energy exchange between two systems goes in the direction of temperature equalization. When the two systems have reached the same temperature, the energy transfer stops.
The energy contained within a system, e.g. in a hot oven, is called inner energy, and only when energy goes out of the oven is it called heat. We cannot know if a oven is hot (transmits energy to us) until energy goes out of it and into our skin or into a thermometer. If you touch the oven and it feels cold, energy is transferred from you to the stove, this transfer is called heat. When you get energy from an object you say the object feels warm, and when you lose or give / transfer energy to an object we say it feels cold.
Usually we use the word heat when we really mean temperature. When you say that you, or something, is warm or warmer, you really mean that the temperature rises.
Joule investigated how much mechanical work was needed to produce the same temperature rise as a certain amount of energy supplied.
On the basis of the recognition of equivalence between work and heat, Hermann Helmholtz, Rudolph Clausius, James Maxwell and Ludwig Boltzmann developed the thermodynamics where heat is a form of energy transfer.
Dan
| #
William – correct. It is subtly different for radiation yet the aggregate thermodynamic outcome is the same in that the net flows in various vectors add or subtract to not break the 2nd Law on balance. It’s that simple.
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
Dan, “cold” cannot warm “hot”. It’s that simple.
And dissimilar fluxes do not “add or subtract”. It’s that simple.
Reply
Chris
| #
You are wrong. It follows thermodynamics. I know this because no science has replaced thermodynamics. There are no experiments which contradict thermodynamics. Energy leaves an object but if it is less than the object that it is approaching ir will not reach it. If this were otherwise we would use that.
Reply
Jerry
| #
There is no physical mechanism to accommodate the transfer of energy from the stratosphere to the troposphere which is key to the IPCC’s AGW theory.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682618305030 (Has global warming already arrived?)
https://principia-scientific.com/vacuum-chamber-temperature-test-debunks-climate-crisis-claims/
https://principia-scientific.com/an-experiment-to-invalidate-the-greenhouse-gas-effect/
https://principia-scientific.com/the-fundamental-mistakes-in-greenhouse-warming-theory/
https://principia-scientific.com/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Nice article, as for those who say a cold object can keep a warmer object warm…I don’t know what to say.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
My coat is colder than my body, but i stay warmer radiating to it than i would without it and just radiating to my surroundings whilst walking the labrador.
My coat does not warm me, i warm it inside.
My coat has no energy to emit to me, i simply warm the air my coat traps close to my skin.
The inside lining of my coat gets warmer than the room temperature it was at when i put it on, the outside lining gets colder than room temperature when i go out.
My coat does not warm me, i warm me.
Global warming is not global, it is hemispherical, it is only global ”warming” when night and day time temps are aggregated and averaged over both hemispheres over a whole 24 hour period.
Warmer 12 hour nights do not equate to warmer 12 hour daylight days.
They just mean a higher average temperature over a 24 hour period.
You can leave 3 pans of water in your garden at day break one frozen one room temp and one left out all night,
By mid day all 3 pans of water will be the same temperature, the maximum temperature the shortwave radiation received could generate.
It matters not a jot if the surface at day break is a degree or 2 higher than it would have been after a cloudless clear night, or the air stays warmer by heat island effects.
The fraud is averaging oranges and apples.
Warmer nights is a good thing, but meaningless to shortwave radiation receive during the 12 hour period it falls on the same surface.
.
Reply
Dan
| #
Andy – would you rather be naked in a room at -5C or naked in a room at +20C? Both are cooler than your body. One will raise your average skin temperature, one will cool it.
Adding heat and keeping warm are two different things.
Slowing down cooling increases average temperature by definition… it’s really not hard.
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
Dan, Gary explained it to you.
You are unable to learn. It’s that simple.
Reply
Dan
| #
JD – what is wrong with you. Gary is saying the exact same thing I am. I quote “… a higher average temperature over a 24 hour period.”
Slowing the cooling rate. Raising the time-average temp.
Not ADDING net heat.
Are you unable to read?
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
ibid.
Al Shelton
| #
Gary..
Your coat is a solid.
CO2 is a gas. All gasses expand and rise when heated.
Therefore the CO2 is removing heat from your body and is thus, a coolant.
Reply
Evelyn Windsor
| #
Andy Could they be referring to Igloos. ? I believe they are quite warm inside !! Just a thought.
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
Evelyn, obviously you’ve never lived in an igloo. Obviously you’ve never studied thermodynamics, or heat transfer.
An igloo protects the inhabitants from severe cold and wind. Ice is a good insulator. Ice will NOT increase the temperature of the human body. Ice will not raise the temperature of anything above the freezing point of water.
Now you know the basics….
Reply
Maurice Lavigne
| #
Igloos are made of compacted snow, not ice. A snow igloo keeps the warm bodies inside from cooling by both trapping the warmer air and insulating it from the colder outside air. Snow contains a lit of trapped air, but ice? Not much..
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
The more snow is compacted, the more it approaches ice. That’s why samples taken from layers of snow are called “ice cores”, not “snow cores”.
Now, to continue your pedantry, you can search the internet for some instance where “snow cores” are taken….
Reply
Maurice Lavigne
| #
Igloos are made of compacted snow, not ice. A snow igloo keeps the warm bodies inside from cooling by both trapping the warmer air and insulating it from the colder outside air. Snow contains a lot of trapped air, but ice? Not much..
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Evelyn and Guys,
I have seen pictures of Eskimos and they were wearing what appeared, in the old days, layered seal skin clothing, just as we moderns wear insulating clothing to greatly reduce thermal conductivity from cooling our bodies when we go outside at below freezing temperatures. So how are they actually heating the air of the igloos?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Dan
| #
JDBanana – you seem to confuse “adding heat” with “raising average temperatures”. They are NOT the same thing. An insulator does not add heat but is raises the average temperature of a cooling body. Why is that hard to understand.
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
Dan, now you’re getting desperate. You’re misrepresenting me, and behaving like an adolescent — “JDBanana”. I never even used the term “adding heat”.
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Igloos protect those inside from the vicious colkd outside, they don’t cause those inside to warm up, they just prevent them from freezing to death from the wind chill 🙂
Reply
John Harrison
| #
John. You are undoubtedly correct in you condemnation of the IPCCs unscientific terminology in describing the “Greenhouse Effect” but that does not make their hypothesis incorrect. CO2 absorbs a very narrow band of IR radiation which serves to momentarily increase in the internal energy of the molecule without necessarily affecting its translational kinetic energy or related to the temperature of the gas. When the molecule returns to its base state it emits a photon of the same wavelength which again is not necessarily related to its temperature. The direction of the emission is random so some of the radiation emitted by CO2 molecules will impinge upon the surface of the Earth and some of that radiation must be absorbed. The greater the amount of this absorbed back radiation the more energy the surface must emit in a given time to achieve the same rate of cooling. However, this rate of cooling of the surface is determined largely by its temperature so the rate of cooling decreases. It is this persistent reduced rate of cooling which in effect means that the surface is warmer than it would be in the absence of back-radiation. It does not, therefore, contravene any of the LoTs. It is not, and never has been in scientific circles, a claim that a cold gas directly raising the temperature of a warm surface because no half-way intelligent scientist would make such a preposterous claim. I think you are making a classic mistake of greatly underestimating the intelligence and commonsense of the opposition. The counter argument to the alarmists claims of catastrophic AGW should largely be focussed on the supposed magnitude of the effect of CO2. A very small part of a very narrow band of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a trace amount of CO2 would actually impinge upon the surface. There is absolutely no way, without all the hypothetical and totally unproven train of positive feedbacks, that a significantly raised “equilibrium” temperature of the surface could result. Any effect of this minute amount of narrow band of EM energy back-radiated from a trace amount of CO2 would be totally swamped by the broad band of EM radiation emitted by H20 with concentrations approximately 100x greater than that of CO2. Let’s be sensible about this and dispute the narrative with strictly scientific arguments and not by deliberate misinterpretation of alarmist hypotheses.
Reply
Knut Sandaker
| #
Thank you for the straight forward explanation and analysis without Capslock on! Here is a site with lots of data and discussion about these topics. http://www.climate4you.com/GreenhouseGasses.htm
Reply
Dan
| #
@John – thank God someone has a brain on this site. Of course CO2 only serves to modulate solar-driven temperature. Nobody ever said otherwise.
What others on this site cannot grasp is that slowing the rate of cooling (which CO2 purportedly does) is not “adding heat”.
It is an effective (net-radiative) insulation effect that thus serves to raise AVERAGE temperature over a cooling time-period. Which also requires them to understand what a mean average is.
Tricky stuff, obviously.
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
Dan, you are still confused. First you state: “Of course CO2 only serves to modulate solar-driven temperature. Nobody ever said otherwise.”
You appear to deny that CO2 can raise Earth temperatures. But, then you state: “It is an effective (net-radiative) insulation effect that thus serves to raise AVERAGE temperature over a cooling time-period.”
It’s the “raise AVERAGE temperature” that reveals your ongoing confusion.
Reply
Dan
| #
JD
No I am not confused. Do you not understand what a time-average is?
Slowing the rate of cooling is NOT raising point-in-time temperature.
A tea-cosy does not add heat to a tea pot but it will certainly raise its average temperature over 30 minutes. Please don’t deny even this…
It is not adding net heat to raise point-in-time temperature – it cannot.
Over TIME (I’ll say it again… TIME) the average will be higher however as the rate of cooling is lower due to different net radiation flows vs no IR active layer.
That is the physics, however, its real effect is exaggerated at the concentrations we have, plus dispersion by other entropic mechanisms.
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
No, you are confused. You keep trying to twist the physics to match your incorrect beliefs.
CO2 does NOT “slow the cooling”. CO2 is one of the ways Earth cools itself. If more CO2 is added, there is more cooling. The back-radiation is insignificant because it doesn’t have the ability to raise temperatures.
Al Shelton
| #
Dan …
The tea cozy is a solid.
CO2 is a gas. Gasses expand and rise when heated thus CO2 is a coolant.
Kevin Doyle
| #
John Harrison and Dan,
As the author of the article, John Elliston, has cited the exact text of the The multiple UN IPCC reports, I don’t understand how you could allege ‘no one is claiming a cold gas warms a warmer surface’. The reports say verbatim, “… The effect of this is to WARM the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere.”
What part of that did you misread?
This same statement is repeated on the NASA website and in numerous textbooks.
You may have a theory which hypothesizes CO2 reducing the rate of cooling, but have offered no real-world empirical evidence. Just opinion.
Basic chemistry and thermodynamics states quite clearly that when you trade a gas with higher molar specific heat (CO2) for a gas with lower specific heat (O2), then the soup of gases in the atmosphere will take longer to warm, and also longer to cool off. If one adds water vapor to the ‘soup’, the soup takes longer to warm, and longer to cool. Same with CO2.
One could then conclude these gases are coolants, and/or modulators. Contrary to UN IPCC, they do not increase temperature.
Reply
Maurice Lavigne
| #
Igloos are made of compacted snow, not ice. A snow igloo keeps the warm bodies inside from cooling by both trapping the warmer air and insulating it from the colder outside air. Snow contains a lot of trapped air, but ice? Not much..
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
Maurice, you seem to be repeating yourself.
Reply
Moffin
| #
Maurice. A speech therapist for your stutter maybe. Yo.
Reply
Al Shelton
| #
Maurice…
The igloo is a solid. Try building an igloo out of CO2 and see how much heat it traps.
CO2 is a gas. Gasses expand and rise when heated thus CO2 is a coolant.
Reply
judy
| #
From my childhood memories, how is rain any different from condensation dripping from the ceiling as it does in a poorly insulated caravan overnight in the snow? The heat in the caravan is generated mainly by human bodies and old fashioned hot water bottles overnight. The heat rises hits the cold ceiling and rains down. If I remember correctly it was a lot warmer and wetter on the top bunk. Further, how does this disprove the greenhouse effect, as I think it might do. Where is the back radiation? Does the ceiling in the caravan emulate the behavior of clouds?
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
All molecules emit electromagnetic radiation at their skin temperature not electron/core temperature/energy state..
It is the orbiting atoms energy state emitting the photons.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
The frequency of the incoming photon has to be higher than the frequency of the orbiting atoms of the molecule to pass through and into the electrons.
Otherwise they are deflected or scattered by the atoms,
This is why low frequency photons cannot increase the frequency of higher frequency electrons, i.e. cold invigorating warm to a higher energy state, i.e. make warmer.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Gary. You are making the very common mistake of thinking in terms of a unimolecular system. Even if you consider 1sqcm of the Earth’s surface there will be a multitude of different energy states for different molecules. Temperature, if you like, can be thought as the AVERAGE of possibly a very large range of energy states. Have you ever thought about why a black body at a particular temperature emits photons with a wide range of different wavelengths. Well, that same body at the same temperature will absorb photons of that same range of wavelengths. The Earth’s surface constitutes a grey body but the same principles apply.
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
John, you are using the “exception makes the rule” technique.
A rushing mountain stream will have water bouncing upstream when it impacts with a big rock. That does NOT translate to “water flows uphill.”
Reply
JD
| #
JD – you are agreeing with net aggregate bidirectional flows and time-averages. Even though insignificant, water bouncing upstream will change the time-averaged net flow down the gradient. You are implicitly confirming what I am saying.
JDHuffman
| #
Yes, clowns believe water flows uphill.
They also get so confused they can’t make a comment without messing up their name.
Nothing new.
rod
| #
Don’t Eskimos build igloos by cutting and shaping blocks of snow, stacking them up, and then lighting a large fire inside to melt the snow sufficiently for it to fuse together as it freezes into ice after the fire goes out? it will support a polar bear on top, so it doesn’t seem reasonable that it would consist of snow when completed. They leave a hole in the top when stacking the snow blocks, and fill it later with clear ice for a skylight.
Reply
John Harrison
| #
Gary. You are making the very common mistake of thinking in terms of a unimolecular system. Even if you consider 1sqcm of the Earth’s surface there will be a multitude of different energy states for different molecules. Temperature, if you like, can be thought as the AVERAGE of possibly a very large range of energy states. Have you ever thought about why a black body at a particular temperature emits photons with a wide range of different wavelengths. Well, that same body at the same temperature will absorb photons of that same range of wavelengths. The Earth’s surface constitutes a grey body but the same principles apply.
Reply
Alan
| #
You would think that humans would have more common sense after at least 2000 years of advancing civilisation, even if they don’t have any scientific knowledge. We have lived in caves to protect us from the climate – wind, rain and cold, and we had the sense not to build on flood plains, now sadly lost to us. We have built shelters and developed glass to give us brighter, warmer homes. We discovered fire and how to control it to keep us warmer. We do everything we can to protect ourselves from the cold. We know that heat does not appear from nowhere, and certainly not from cold objects. It is a pity that we left the Greek concept of phlogiston behind because CO2 certainly does not contain any.
History tells us that our standard of living increased dramatically when we discovered fossil fuels but now we stupidity want to abolish the cheapest source of energy available to us, except for wood, which is the real killer. The poorer societies still use wood for warmth and cooking in enclosed poorly ventilated places. The smoke results in more deaths than other energy sources. In the UK the environmental movement forced the conversion of Drax to burning wood pellets brought from North America at a huge cost. Drax changed from cheap electricity to expensive electricity with a huge environmental cost in cutting down trees and transporting wood across the Atlantic using fossil fuel. This is not a rational concept.
We left wind energy behind years ago when we discovered fossil fuel, steam power and electricity. Modern wind turbines are more efficient but still suffer from being an unreliable source of energy and we will never operate a modern economy using them. Our grid system is becoming increasingly unreliable because it does not have enough reserve energy to recover from faults. Even the National Grid seems to have forgotten about science and also the trade union that represents the employees of the electricity supply system. Both seem determined to close the electricity supply system.
We cannot live in an advanced society with Mother Earth Zombies regularly occupying the streets demanding that we destroy the means to survive. They have sunk to the level of using school children to promote their message. One school dropout has even lectured the world leaders at Davos, telling them what a mess they are making of the world and how they are killing people. What did the leaders do? They applauded her. Humans have become insane.
Reply
Dan
| #
Quite. When the UN platforms schoolchildren and their credibility is not questioned by the media – but lauded by it – you have to slap yourself. What on earth is going on here… where are the adults and rational debate? The Emperor’s New Clothes springs to mind.
This has some good commentary on the political agenda: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ
It’s likely about social eugenics and control of society / restraining 3rd world development, higher taxes and prices and a strict regulation of individual freedom away from the metered grid and Orwellian State. Of course that’s all conspiracy theory, but funny how Google and YouTube actively and demonstrably filter such films and content. It’s insidious. But what to do when everyone is brainwashed?
Reply
tom0mason
| #
But, but … if the UN-IPCC says it’s so it must be, right? Why would they lie? Just for power and money to create the One World Government (OWG) ? A OWG that would be unelected, antidemocratic, and run by the world’s finest oligarchs.
No, the UN-IPCC says it’s so because it’s ‘science’. As they say, that ‘back radiation’ from the effects of CO2 warms our planet and creates the weather you can experience every day. It works like that because the UN-IPCC’s theory says that the sun’s rays are too puny to do this.
And anyone can test this idea every time you go outside when it is not sunny and feel how much warmer it is compared to those chilly days when the sun is shining. That is the super thin and damp blanket, of evenly mixed (if we ignore the tropical rain forests and tropical oceans) CO2, at 0.04% of the atmosphere, keeping us all warm and giving us weather. Warmth and weather by re-radiating ‘heat’ from CO2 molecules at -18C or so, back to the earth’s surface.
Yes, warmth you can really feel every night and on sunless days — yes, because the ‘science’ of the UN-IPCC says it is so!
Now stop saying the UN-IPCC is wrong and just believe! The UN-IPCC is protecting all of us by attempting to keep climate unchanging and at stasis, protecting the Earth’s deserts and frozen tundra by seeking to limit polluting CO2 ’emissions’.
Reply
Barry
| #
That’s right Tom that pesky co2 that adds to the greenery of earth,if only we had more of it. I have said before I understand uneducated people like myself just believing what they are told,but what is unforgivable is having educated people repeating this drivel to our children in an attempt to get rid of that nasty capitalism( you know that thing that pays for everything) and have Bernie Sanders look after all of us because it is all just free. It’s like the Americans that want our health system here in Canada that wouldn’t put up with it for a day. I call it the get in line to die program,politicians don’t though they go get special care at a military hospital while telling the rest of us how wonderful our great health care is. The same applies to our carbon footprint,politicians and celebrities flying around in private jets telling the rest of us to just be happy at home. Anyone who believes this nonsense will never have a high enough iq to understand the science of climate.
Reply
Brian James
| #
Feb 23, 2020 Animals Sense Quakes, Cold & Chaos, LHC Search | S0 News
Daily Sun, Earth and Science News
https://youtu.be/n2H1V3nV2yk
Reply
Barry
| #
I have to thank Joseph and all his followers here for helping me to understand the pseudoscience of climate change. I always knew it was wrong because of the politics and people involved but now feel quite confident in arguing the point from a scientific point of view, always thought there must be something to co2 heating but now realize that it is a complete lie. Never thought that academics would fall for such stupidity,I was wrong as they are the ones down in the trenchs fighting for their socialist leaders at the IPCC . The general public have no idea that they are the ones paying for this war. If the tax funded salaries of these so called academics dried up tomorrow this whole cult would disappear over night.
Reply
Barry
| #
Sorry wrong thread back button got me, meant for Postma.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Guys and Gals,
At February 23, 2020 at 3:51am I asked a question and I still have no clue as what the answer might be because I have not discovered that anyone tried to directly answer it. If you do not understanding the working of my question I will rephrase it: What is the primary mechanism by which a human, would warm an igloo, without lighting a fire?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Barry
| #
That would be breathing but in reality they used seal oil lamps.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Barry,
That is right on both counts. But what were they breathing out?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Barry
| #
That would be the dreaded Co2,that’s why it heated up so fast.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Barry,
I considered you might go to carbon dioxide but Judy wrote: “From my childhood memories, how is rain any different from condensation dripping from the ceiling as it does in a poorly insulated caravan overnight in the snow?” Carbon dioxide would not condense and drip from the ceiling.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Al Shelton
| #
My question…… is this…. Dan??
If CO2 can slow down cooling , why are we not putting 100% CO2 in the all weather windows instead of an inert gas?
If 0.04% CO2 can slow down cooling the earth then 100% CO2 in our windows should help keep our houses warmer. No??
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Al,
I Googled this and found it was tried sometime ago and a problem was that at that earlier time there was a ‘fogging’ problem due to some reaction between the sealants being used then and the carbon dioxide. So, they switched to the more expensive Argon which had an atomic weight (40) comparable to carbon dioxide’s molecular weight (44).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Al Shelton
| #
Thanks Jerry..
The fogging would block light but what about ir escaping?
I never saw the google report.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Al,
If you read my recent comment which still listed, you will find that the measurements of air temperature and the dewpoint temperature refute the prediction of the GHE so there is no GHE of carbon dioxide.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
richard
| #
Hot air balloons go up. Take off the heat and it descends.
Reply
John Elliston
| #
My posting “An error has been found in the IPCC reports!” on the Principia websites has provoked a lot of discussion. Most of it is on possible ways that increasing levels of trace CO2 in the atmosphere (about 0.03 to 0.04% in the last century) might increase the insulating effectiveness of the Earth’s atmosphere, ways that downward radiation may or may not result in continued rise in global average temperatures or other aspects relating to “Climate Change”. It is regrettable that some of the remarks have become abusive or derogatory.
Only a few comments have been focused on the actual wording and meaning of what the IPCC have written in their statistical assessment of likelihood reports. It is this wording and meaning that IPCC have based their “Summary for Policymakers” on. It is the wording and meaning of the IPCC definition and explanatory diagrams of “Greenhouse Effect” that require close and authoritative scrutiny. The IPCC concept of downward radiation from the colder clouds and upper atmosphere further warming the warmer Earth’s surface and air below appears to be quite wrong but we must achieve much greater and widespread agreement for it to be recognised by policy makers.
I thank you for your comments on my posting but please keep discussion focused on what IPCC have actually recorded. This may have little to do with what actually happens in nature.
With regards,
JOHN ELLISTON
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi John,
The problem with the whole nonsense of GHGT, Global warming, Climate change, etc. is the ignoring of evidence. As you said cold cannot warm hot.. Because visible light penetrates the atmosphere and heats the surface of the Earth both believers and “deniers” assume this radiation is heating the atmosphere. They completely ignore the greater energy coming from the sun in the uv and x-ray wavelengths that is being absorbed N2 and O2 in the atmosphere and being converted to kinetic energy. The gas molecules in the atmosphere have more kinetic energy (heat) than the surface of the Earth. Instead of believing the thermometer, which can’t even accurately measure the kinetic energy of water, you need to use the universal gas law (nrt > PV) to determine the kinetic energy in the atmosphere. In the upper atmosphere (above the troposphere) uv is transferring enough energy to O2 molecules to break them into atoms creating the ozone layer and the ionosphere where x-rays ionize atoms. At night these “hot” molecules and atoms are radiating heat both into space (cooling) and to the surface of the Earth (heating). Nobody will understand either the weather or climate until they realize that the thermometer provides bad data.
Herb
Reply