The Fundamental Mistakes in Greenhouse-Warming Theory

Most Common Mistakes In IELTS Writing Task 1 & How To ...

First, physically, radiation, the electromagnetic continuous spectrum, is clearly observed to simply be a continuum of frequencies of oscillation of all the bonds holding matter together.

Radiation cannot be waves, as currently assumed, because waves describe the deformation of a medium and there is no medium in space. Radiation does not have a physical property of wavelength, as widely assumed.

Wavelength is a mathematical abstraction assuming light travels in waves and is calculated by dividing the velocity of light by wave frequency. Wave frequency only applies to waves and is something that is very different from frequency of oscillation of all the bonds holding solid matter together.

Furthermore, radiation cannot be discrete photons because radiation is clearly observed to be a continuum. How do you define a continuum made up of discrete photons? Plus, the energies of photons are currently thought of as additive while radiation is observed to be averative.

Second, temperature of a body of solid matter is observed to be proportional to the amplitude of oscillation at each frequency of oscillation as calculated according to Planck’s empirical law. The hotter the temperature, the greater the amplitude of oscillation at each and every frequency, especially at the higher frequencies.

Third, thermal energy of radiation (E) is equal to the Planck constant (h) times frequency (ν), which is a continuum. Therefore, total energy (E=hν) is a continuum, not a single value of watts per square meter as currently assumed. Every frequency of oscillation has a different number of watts per square meter. The higher the frequency, the higher the level of energy.

Fourth, in the late 19th century, numerous physicists used a prism to separate the different colors of light. They then placed an appropriate sensor within each color band, thinking that they were measuring amount of radiant energy in watts per square meter. What they were actually measuring, however, was the brightness or intensity of each color band, which is determined by the amplitude of oscillation.

These were the data that Planck’s law was designed to fit with energy on the y-axis. This confusion over energy is still prevalent today. There is no such thing as amount of energy in the proper formulation of Planck’s empirical law. My plots of Planck’s law only show orders of magnitude for amplitude of oscillation on the y-axis because I think the precise numeric value needs to be calibrated in the laboratory.

Average bond lengths are typically in the range of 100 to 200 picometers (10-12 meters), and the amplitude of oscillation must vary from zero at absolute zero to the maximum bond length at the frequency or temperature at which dissociation occurs.

Fifth, at the molecular scale, E=hν is the level of energy of an individual mode of oscillation of a particular chemical bond. There is typically a minimum value of frequency (ν) that can cause chemical changes in that bond such as the photoelectric effect or dissociation. At the macroscopic level, radiant energy (E) is a continuum of energies of all the modes of oscillation of all the bonds contained on the surface of matter.

We do not currently have the mathematics available to deal with a continuum of frequencies or a continuum of energies except by calculating Planck’s law at each and every frequency.

Sixth, radiant thermal energy is not additive. Heat flows by averaging amplitudes of oscillation via resonance simultaneously at each and every frequency. Heat is not additive, as currently assumed in physics and in greenhouse-warming theory. Heat is averative.

Seventh, Planck’s postulate E=hν, defined in 1900, was interpreted by Einstein in 1905 to be a light quantum, a particle of light—what became known as a photon. This Planck-Einstein relation (E=hν) is thought today to define the amount of energy contained in a photon where the greater the number of photons, the greater the total amount of energy.

Yet Einstein was trying to explain the photoelectric effect, the minimum frequency of light, the minimum level of energy, required to allow electrons to flow on a fresh metal surface. E=hν is a level of energy, not an amount of energy. Furthermore, since frequency (ν) is a broad continuum, energy (E) must be a continuum.

There is a different number of watts per square meter for each and every frequency of oscillation. You cannot quantify accurately the total energy contained in thermal radiation with a single number of watts per square meter as is currently assumed in physics and in greenhouse-warming theory.

Energy is a continuum of levels of energy, not a single amount of energy. The concept of a photon has been very useful mathematically, but a photon does not appear to exist physically.

Fundamental problems with greenhouse-warming theory

The primary problem with greenhouse-warming theory is that it is based on calculating a single number for the amount of energy, while energy in radiation has a different level at each and every frequency of oscillation. Greenhouse-warming theory does not take into account the major increases in the level of energy as a function of increases in frequency of oscillation.

Greenhouse-warming theory does not take into account the reality that ultraviolet-B radiation has a 50-times greater level of energy than infrared radiation absorbed most strongly by carbon dioxide and that this difference in level of energy does not change no matter how much radiation per square meter is present.

Global warming is not about how much energy is available as currently assumed. It is about the frequency content of the radiation available, which is determined by the temperature of the radiating body.

Plus, carbon dioxide is well observed to absorb only 16{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the frequencies radiated by Earth as shown by the vertical black lines in this logarithmic plot of Planck’s law. Yet to increase the temperature of matter, Planck’s law shows clearly that the amplitude of 100{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the frequencies of oscillation must be increased.

Carbon dioxide can only re-radiate the limited frequencies that it absorbs and these limited frequencies, when absorbed by any body, could not raise its temperature even to the temperature of Earth. It has never been shown by experiment, a cornerstone of the scientific method, that greenhouse gases absorbing limited frequencies of infrared radiation from Earth, can warm air perceptibly as discussed at JustProveCO2.com.

Greenhouse warming theory is rapidly becoming the most expensive mistake ever made in the history of science, economically, politically, and environmentally as explained in detail in sixteen short videos found at WhyClimateChanges.com/most-expensive-mistake/.

Video 1 is an introduction. Videos 2 through 6 describe evidence for global warming and for the role of humans and of volcanic eruptions in causing observed climate change.

Videos 7 through 10 explain what is mistaken concerning greenhouse-warming theory and why this theory is physically impossible.

Videos 11 through 16 discuss issues related to setting informed public policy concerning climate change.

Click here for a 20-page scientific paper A Most Inconvenient Reality — Greenhouse Gases Cannot Physically Explain Observed Global Warming submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research on May 28, 2018, that describes these issues in more detail. This file includes the editor’s email rejecting the paper without review.

Peter Langdon Ward earned a BA at Dartmouth College and a PhD at Columbia University in geophysics. He worked 27 years at the United States Geological Survey, leading a group of more than 140 scientists and staff and playing a lead role in establishing and initially leading a major national research program. He chaired a committee at the White House, worked on a committee for Vice President Gore, and testified before Congress in 2004 and in 1978. He earned two national awards for explaining science to the public. He and his work were featured on Good Morning America.

More at WhyClimateChanges.com/About.


PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (44)

  • Avatar

    Herb Rose

    |

    Hi Peter,
    There is a medium in space in which light “waves” can travel. It is the combination of the electric and magnetic (energy) fields emitted by all objects. Light is a disturbance where a change in an electric field causes a change in the magnetic fields, which in turn causes a change in the electric field. Space contains elemental hydrogen atom with a concentration of 1 atom/cm^3. These atoms radiate fields out until they meet the fields from othjer atoms and the frequency/wave length of the disturbance is determined by the strength of these fields. (The red and blue shifts are a result of the disturbances traveling through fields of different strength.)
    The objection raised by the photoelectric effect to the wave theory of light is invalid. In the crystals and metal bond where the photoelectric effect occurs electrons are already disassociated from their parent atoms and held in place by ionic forces. A light wave only needs to provide enough energy to change the balance between the attractive and repelling forces in the crystals, not enough to separate the electron from an atom. There is no particle nature of light or photon.
    Herb

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Peter Ward

      |

      Herb,
      Even when Maxwell wrote his equations in the 1860’s, physicists wondered how waves could travel through space. No one has yet figured that out, but we all were trained to think that there must be something special about the interaction of electric and magnetic fields. What you describe is a version of what many of us have thought. The issue, though, is what is physically happening? How does light physically travel through air and space?

      We all know that radiation, physically, is a broad spectrum of frequencies of oscillation. We have come to learn that these frequencies of oscillation are transmitted by the oscillation of all the bonds that hold matter together. Transmission is just like a radio signal where oscillation of charge on the antenna of the transmitter transmits a frequency and we tune our radio receiver to resonate at that frequency. Physically, there is no wave-frequency. Physically, there is no wave-length, although the amplitude of oscillation determined the resonant frequencies of oscillation. The smaller the amplitude, the higher the frequency. Physically, there are no waves. When these frequencies are in the immediate presence of matter, they interact via the bonds in matter to be reflected, refracted, diffracted, etc.
      Peter

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    How did you get 16%?
    Did you overlap with the sun?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Peter Ward

      |

      The Clean Talk Spam Filter on this website classified my browser, Chrome, a widely used browser, as illegal. It flagged my email as spam. I shifted to Explorer, but it has limited my contribution. I am trying again. I tried to respond to this message 22 hours ago.

      Angstrom measured the 16% in 1900 (https://www.justproveco2.com/papers/Angstrom1900English.pdf). You can calculate it by getting the spectral-line data from the HITRAN database (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2017.06.038). 16% is a rough estimate because the spectral lines have some width and you can argue about how to count frequencies. But it appears to me that 16% is the maximum.

      This is percent of frequencies, not proportion of flux, or amount of flux that you calculate below. The fundamental mistake in radiation physics that I am pointing out is that radiation is clearly observed to be a continuum of frequencies of oscillation and a related (by E=hv) continuum of energies of oscillation that cannot be accurately represented by a single number of Watts per square meter. There is a different energy at every frequency. Flux, in fact, is proportional to the difference in temperature between emitting and absorbing bodies. The concepts of radiative forcing and amount of flux are not physically correct. This is summarized in my video A Most Unexpected Revolution in the Physics of Heat at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piVPP_PzamY&t=2s.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Peter, I haven’t commented on your post because you were mostly right. Your correct points more than made up for your incorrect points. But, that is no longer the case….

        “Flux, in fact, is proportional to the difference in temperature between emitting and absorbing bodies.”

        Sorry, but that is wrong. A surface emits based on its temperature. It doesn’t care about the temperature of anything else. It’s called the “Stefan-Boltzmann Law”.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Peter Ward

          |

          The Clean Talk Spam Filter on this website classified my browser, Chrome, a widely used browser, as illegal. As I tried different ways to post a response via Explorer, it flagged my IP address as spam. I reported this problem to John O’Sullivan twice.

          Angstrom measured the 16% in 1900 (https://www.justproveco2.com/papers/Angstrom1900English.pdf). You can calculate it by getting the spectral-line data from the HITRAN database (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2017.06.038). 16% is a rough estimate because the spectral lines have some width and you can argue about how to count frequencies. But it appears to me that 16% is the maximum.

          This is percent of frequencies, not proportion of flux, or amount of flux that you calculate below. The fundamental mistake in radiation physics that I am pointing out is that radiation is clearly observed to be a continuum of frequencies of oscillation and a related (by E=hv) continuum of energies of oscillation that cannot be accurately represented by a single number of Watts per square meter. There is a different energy at every frequency. Flux, in fact, is proportional to the difference in temperature between emitting and absorbing bodies. The concepts of radiative forcing and amount of flux are not physically correct. This is summarized in my video A Most Unexpected Revolution in the Physics of Heat at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piVPP_PzamY&t=2s.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Peter, it appears you just pasted the same nonsense as before: “Flux, in fact, is proportional to the difference in temperature between emitting and absorbing bodies.”

            Are you unable to understand the S/B Law?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan–Boltzmann_law

        • Avatar

          Peter Ward

          |

          Geran,
          Yes, this is one of the problems with current thinking. The Stefan-Boltzmann law can be derived by integrating across Planck’s law as originally formulated by Planck. But it makes no physical sense to integrate as a function of frequency. It makes no physical sense to add frequencies together. If you add some red light to some blue light, you just end up with some red light and some blue light. Different frequencies of radiation do not interact in any way in air and space. They can only interact with matter that has bonds. I conclude the Stefan-Boltzmann law is mistaken.

          Now if you look at any curve of cooling or warming, the curve approaches the final temperature in an asymptotic manner. At https://whyclimatechanges.com/impossible/, the next to last figure shows a measured curve of warming and a calculated curve assuming the amount of heat that flows is proportional to the temperature difference. This is observed universally and is strong evidence for my conclusions.
          Peter

          Reply

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Peter, that’s just more rambling. You’re avoiding your mistake. The issue is that a surface emits based on its temperature, NOTHING else, which you have denied.

            I’m sure you will continue with more rambling….

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          I figured out how to use HITRAN. It gives me a bigger number (24%+).

          Who wants to read an article on coding and calculating using HITRAN?

          I’ll post it tomorrow if I get a positive response. -Zoe

          Reply

  • Avatar

    T L Winslow

    |

    [[Plus, the energies of photons are currently thought of as additive while radiation is observed to be averative.]]

    What is “averative”? I know more words than Shakespeare but I couldn’t even find it by Googling.

    https://dict.hinkhoj.com/spell-checker/check-spelling-of-AVERATION.html
    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/108056997303600402?journalCode=bcqb

    http://www.diclib.com/averative/show/en/amslang/A/475/420/0/0/462#.Xcw3_FdKiUk

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01HIzvzqYD4

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Peter Ward

      |

      The word averative I coined to draw the distinction with additive. I upgraded https://whyclimatechanges.com/impossible/ yesterday to say:
      “If you take two bodies of matter that are identical in every way except for temperature and connect them together so that heat can flow by radiation or by conduction, the resulting temperature, at thermal equilibrium, is observed to be the average of the two temperatures, not the sum of the two temperatures. Temperature is not additive—it is averative, a word I have coined to make this distinction. Additive is defined as of, relating to, or characterized by addition. Averative is defined as of, relating to, or characterized by averaging.”

      Resonance in nature averages the amplitudes of oscillation. At any moment, for each frequency of oscillation, the amplitude of oscillation of the absorber will be somewhere between the initial amplitudes of oscillation of the emitter and the absorber.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Peter, do you suppose coining new words is a sign of confusion?

        Are you saying that if a flux of 900 Watts/m^2 and a flux of 300 Watts/m^2 both arrived a surface at the same time, that the effect would be 600 Watts/m^2?

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Peter Ward

          |

          I coined to world to make the distinction clear. Any new word, however, will at first be confusing until you understand the meaning. I should have made the definition very explicit, which I have now done on the website.

          There is no such thing as a flux of 900 watts/m^2. The flux is a continuum of frequencies and amplitudes where each amplitude travels in an averative way by resonance. I realize this is not what we all learned in school. I am proposing a major change in thinking about heat that is based on direct observations of what is actually, physically happening.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Hilarious!

          • Avatar

            Peter Ward

            |

            What the surface emits as a function of temperature is defined by Planck’s law corrected for the fact that energy is on the x-axis and the y-axis is intensity or amplitude.

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          All words are made up, geran. Didn’t you know?

          Reply

  • Avatar

    tom0mason

    |

    ” Heat is not additive, as currently assumed in physics and in greenhouse-warming theory. Heat is averative.
    So true!
    From a tub of water at 10°C take 1 cup of water and heat it to 90°C. Now add the cup of water back to the tub. On average the tubs temperature goes up, it did not go up by 10+90.
    The average temperature of the planet may be x°C but the solar warming only happens at particular locations at any instant. The sun does not warm the whole planet instantly to as the cAGW theory says and theory leads to unphysical brain dead ideas such as this —
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/84n0i7s33r57m2r/GHE_BrainDead.png

    A diagram that Astrophysicist Joseph Postma has shown to be wrong so many times (see https://climateofsophistry.com ).

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JaKo

    |

    Dr. Ward,
    I think I understand your message; however, as you described in your Video #12, the cabal of CAGW fraudsters are not going to accept any “other truth,” but theirs. For many it would drain the funding pools, for some it would put their life’s “achievement” in question and for the very few who honestly believe it, it may cause psychological trauma…
    We will have to wait until the next global cooling convinces enough people, that the “GHG” theories are hoax and will seek to hang the fraudsters en masse.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    I am an 82 year old retired EE and have had trouble with the explanation of “electricity” since high school.
    It’s a photon ,,, no it’s a wave. ?????
    I like Peter Ward’s explanation.
    Thanks Peter. You made my day.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      T. C. Clark

      |

      The double slit experiment is explained by some quantum mechanics physicists as just light being a wave in a field – no photons.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Peter Ward

        |

        The essence of human beings is not their ability to reason but their ability to rationalize.

        The main reason physicists like to think of light as waves was because wave theory provides a clear, logical explanation for reflection, refraction, diffraction, birefringence, the double-slit experiment, etc. When the concept of photons came along, ingenious physicists thought of ways to use photons to describe these observations. Then they thought of ways to describe how photons can act as waves.

        The emphasis was on the mathematics, not on the physics of what is actually, physically happening. My conclusion that radiation is a broad continuum of frequencies whose amplitudes of oscillation travel by resonance is all based on direct observation of what is physically happening. I believe strongly that if it is physically happening in nature, it must be physically intuitive. We might need to improve our physical intuition, but in the end, it must be physically intuitive.

        Quantum physicists decided between 1910 and 1920 that quantum physics was not physically intuitive and that was okay. They rationalized that that must just be the way it is at the quantum level. I am making much of what quantum physics seeks to describe both physically intuitive and deterministic. For example. I explain in my book that resonance is the physical phenomenon that quantum entanglement seeks to explain—spooky action at a distance as Einstein put it.

        Resonance happens by line of sight. Reflection, then, is simply that the cells in the cones of our eyes interact with a bond oscillator on the water surface, which interacts with a bond oscillator on the surface of the object being reflected. I have not had time to figured out how to explain the double slit experiment by resonance, but I am sure it will be done as more people begin to think this way.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          Peter, that’s a lot of rambing just to dodge reality.

          Electromagnetic energy travels at the speed of light in a vacuum. It does NOT need a medium. It is pure energy. A medium slows it down.

          Oscillations produce sinusoidal waves. Sinusoidal waves have frequencies AND wavelengths. One goes with the other. Photons have wavelengths. Resonance only occurs if there is a match between wavelengths.

          But, I see that you have written a book. That explains a lot, doesn’t it?

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Peter Ward

            |

            I think I am explaining reality much more clearly than current thinking.

            I think of the velocity of light as related to the extremely short time it takes for resonance to happen at any distance. That is why it is a constant.

            Waves and wavelengths are only meaningful if you assume EMR is traveling as waves. We observe frequencies. We calculate wavelengths.

            As for photons, how do you divide a continuum up into photons? Is there a different photon for every number of every decimal place over 20 orders of magnitude? How does a photon physically interact with a molecule of CO2?

            The Planck-Einstein relation, E=hv, is widely accepted as the definition of a photon. But frequency v is a continuum. A continuum times the Planck constant h must be a continuum. The definition of a photon is actually the definition of a continuum! I think the concept of a photon is a very useful mathematical idea, but I do not think photons exist physically. Einstein (1905) defined the light quantum (later to be called the photon) to explain the photoelectric effect, the observation that electrons flow on a new metal surface when blue to violet light with sufficient energy is shown on the metal. E=hv is simply the minimum level of energy required to break the bond of an electron. In this case there is one frequency and thus one level of energy.

            In my book, chapter 4 describes the physics and chapter 11 describes some of the implications of EMR being a continuum of frequencies. The book is available from Amazon and other retailers or, if you are in North America, you can get a signed copy from me (https://whyclimatechanges.com/the-book/).

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Hilarious again, Peter.

            I don’t have time to laugh at everything so I’ll just pick a few:

            “The Planck-Einstein relation, E=hv, is widely accepted as the definition of a photon.”

            That is the energy of a photon, not the “definition”. Learn some physics.

            “But frequency v is a continuum.”

            Pure nonsense. Have you ever heard of a frequency of 0.5 Hertz?

            “I do not think photons exist physically.”

            Photons do not exist “physically”. They have no rest mass. They are pure energy. You accidently got something right–like a blind squirrel finding a nut.

            Peter, if your book is a funny as this nonsense, I’m sure it will be a success.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            It’s funny that while photons don’t have a rest mass, S.I. in 2019 has redefined the kilogram as such:

            “The kilogram is the mass of a body at rest whose equivalent energy equals the energy of a collection of photons whose frequencies sum to [1.356392489652×10^50] hertz.”

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Using the HITRAN database and a few parameters like Temperature,Pressure,Atmospheric height (or gas optical length of interest), and Concentration you can figure out an absorption spectrum.

    It seems like climate alarmists inverted reality. They think they can up the concentration (beef up the spectrum) and determine a new temperature. But that’s not how reality works. Their calculations would just show what Temperature is needed for the new spectrum. Their calculation resolves THE NEEDED, not THE AVAILABLE.

    Isn’t this what the whole GHE and subsequent Alarmism debate essentially boils down to?

    They are saying that the observation deck on the 86th floor proves the building was built top to bottom, from the sky and into the ground.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Peter Ward

      |

      The fundamental problem in climate science is that climate scientists and radiation physicists think in terms of amount of radiation in units of watts per square meter. Absorb more radiation, you get hotter.

      There is no amount in Planck’s law. The three variables are temperature, frequency of oscillation, and amplitude of oscillation, but frequency and amplitude are not numbers, they are continua of numbers. Energy is a fourth variable, but it is simply equal to frequency times the Planck constant.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        There is no amount in Planck’s law?

        Where do you get such nonsense, Peter? Do you not understand units? Do you not understand that Planck’s law has units? Do you not understand units are “amounts”?

        And what do you mean by “amplitude of oscillation”? What are the units of your “amplitude of oscillation”?

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Peter Ward

          |

          There is no amount of energy in Planck’s law when properly formulated. The units on the x-axis are cycles per second or joules for E=hv. The units on the y-axis are amplitude of oscillation in picometers.

          In 1900, Planck and everyone else thought of intensity of radiation as energy even though Planck postulated that E=hv. Here is a paper on the issue: https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/Papers/Ward2016OnThePlanckEinsteinRelation.pdf

          Reply

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Peter, Joules are NOT cycles per second. And you must be confusing “amplitude of oscillation” with “wavelength”. I can’t tell for sure because you have some of the most confused pseudoscience I’ve seen yet.

            But; it’s funny!

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Your Planck argument seems similar to what Alarmists say about the adiabatic gas law not working because pressure is not constant in the atmosphere … it’s a continuum. No! Iy’s constant at this height, and it’s a different constant at another height, etc. Yes, you have to integrate as the height changes, but this doesn’t invalidate the law itself.

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Nick Schroeder

    |

    The GreenHouse Effect Anti-Theory

    By reflecting away 30% of the incoming solar energy the atmosphere/albedo makes the earth cooler than it would be without the atmosphere much like that reflective panel behind a car’s windshield.
    Greenhouse theory has it wrong.

    The non-radiative processes of a contiguous participating media, i.e. atmospheric molecules, render ideal black body LWIR from the surface impossible. The 396 W/m^2 upwelling from the surface is a “what if” theoretical calculation without physical reality. (refer to: TFK_bams09)
    Greenhouse theory has it wrong.

    Without the 396 W/m^2 upwelling there is no 333 W/m^2 GHG energy up/down/”back” loop to “warm” the earth. (refer to: TFK_bams09)
    Greenhouse theory has it wrong.

    Man caused climate change is negated by these three points. Hysterical speculations over sea levels, ice caps, glaciers, extreme weather, etc. are irrelevant noise.

    Zero greenhouse effect, Zero CO2 global warming and Zero man caused climate change.

    Geoengineering

    One popular geoengineering strategy proposed for countering imaginary global warming/climate change is through reducing net solar heating by increasing the earth’s albedo.

    This increase is accomplished by various physical methods, e.g. injecting reflective aerosols into the atmosphere, spraying water vapor into the air to enhance marine cloud brightening, spreading shiny glass spheres around the poles with the goal of more reflection thereby reducing the net amount of solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere and surface and cooling the earth.

    More albedo and the earth cools.

    Less albedo and the earth warms.

    No atmosphere means no water vapor or clouds, ice, snow, vegetation, oceans and near zero albedo and much like the moon the earth bakes in that 394 K, 121 C, 250 F solar wind.

    These geoengineering plans rely on the atmosphere cooling the earth thereby exposing the error of greenhouse theory which says the atmosphere warms the earth and with no atmosphere the earth becomes a -430 F frozen ball of ice.

    Zero greenhouse effect, Zero CO2 global warming and Zero man caused climate change.

    Space – the Hotter Frontier

    One of the heated issues underlying greenhouse theory is whether space is hot or cold.
    Greenhouse theory says that without an atmosphere the earth would be exposed to a near zero outer space and become a frozen ice ball at -430 F, 17 K.

    Geoengineering techniques that increase the albedo, the ISS’s ammonia refrigerant air conditioners, an air conditioner in the manned maneuvering unit, space suits including thermal underwear with chilled water tubing, UCLA Diviner lunar data and Kramm’s models (Univ of AK) all provide substantial evidence that outer space is relatively hot.

    But outer space is neither hot nor cold.

    By definition and application temperature is a relative measurement of the molecular kinetic energy in a substance, i.e. solid, liquid, gas. No molecules (vacuum), no temperature. No kinetic energy (absolute zero), no temperature. In the void & vacuum of outer space the terms temperature, hot, cold are meaningless, like dividing by zero, undefined. Same reason there is no sound in space – no molecules.

    However, any substance capable of molecular kinetic energy (ISS, space walker, satellite, moon, earth) placed in the path of the spherical expanding solar photon gas at the earth’s average orbital distance will be heated per the S-B equation to an equilibrium temperature of: 1,368 W/m^2 = 394 K, 121 C, 250 F.

    Like a blanket held up between a camper and campfire the atmosphere reduces the amount of solar energy heating the terrestrial system and cools the earth compared to no atmosphere.

    This intuitively obvious as well as calculated and measured scientific reality refutes the greenhouse theory.

    Zero greenhouse effect, Zero CO2 global warming and Zero man caused climate change.

    Conclusion

    Since the earth is actually hotter without an atmosphere, radiative greenhouse effect goes straight into the historical trash bin of failed theories and all the handwavium, pseudo-science, thermodynamic nonsense pretending to explain it follows close behind.

    If my anti-theorem is incorrect why so and how so, bring science.
    If my anti-theorem is correct contemplate the consequences.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Nick,
      The GHGT is wrong because the molecules in the atmosphere have more kinetic energy than the molecules at the surface of the Earth just as molecules or objects in space are exposed to more energy and will have higher kinetic energy. The argument that because O2 and N2 do not absorb infrared wave lengths they cannot absorb heat is nonsense. O2 or N2 absorb uv in the upper atmosphere creating the ionosphere. O2/N2 + uv > 2O/2N/NO +ke. 2O/2N/NO – radiated energy > O2/N2 + ke. As uv penetrates the atmosphere more uv is converted to ke. The thermometer is wrong in measuring kinetic energy in the atmosphere just like it doesn’t work in space.
      If you have 5 hammers with the same mass and velocity working a piece of metal they will transfer kinetic energy to the metal. If you remove 2 hammers there will be less ke transferred to the metal even though the mean/average ke of the hammers remains the same. The same thing happens the atmosphere where with increasing altitude there is a decrease in the molecules transferring ke to the thermometer. The thermometer does not give an accurate picture of the ke of molecules in space or the atmosphere.
      The GHGT violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
      Herb

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Nick Schroeder

        |

        The atmosphere does not warm the earth. By reflecting 30% of the ISR the atmosphere cools the earth. That alone is sufficient to destroy RGHE. All the rest is unnecessary, over complicated, handwavium.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Hi Nick,
          The belief that atmosphere is reflecting solar radiation is incorrect. The water in clouds is not reflecting light. Through absorption, refraction, and to a lesser degree reflection from a round droplet it disperses incoming light in all directions, not reflect it back to its source.
          When you drive in a fog the problem isn’t from light from your headlights being reflected backing into your eyes but the light being dispersed in all direction not allowing forward visibility. The fog appears white as the light is dispersed just as clouds appear white. While some of the incoming solar radiation is re emitted from the water in the clouds into space the majority of it is redirected into the atmosphere where in interacts with gas or water molecules.
          The reason it feels cooler under clouds is because the solar energy that would normally be striking the surface of the Earth and then re-emitted back into space is being absorbed and re-emitted before it gets to the surface. When you are in the shade of a tree it is cooler because the tree is absorbing solar energy preventing it from striking you. The transparent water droplets in the clouds are doing the same thing. The effect of clouds “reflecting” solar energy is less than the effect of solar energy being reflected by bodies of water.
          Herb

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Nick Schroeder

            |

            1,368 W/m2 arrive TOA. The atmosphere prevents 30% from entering. Nit pick the details, but the end result is cooler w than w/o and no RGHE.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Herb, clouds reflect solar energy back to space. Period.

            Have you never been in a passenger jet flying above the clouds? Did you notice the clouds below you? They were reflecting visible light. That’s why you could see them. Clouds reflect solar energy back to space.

            Quit trying to confuse the issues.

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Geran’
            The reason clouds appear white is that they are emitting light not because they’re reflecting light. An object can reflect energy, absorb energy, or transmit energy. When energy is reflected it returns in the direction it came from or at an angle equal without interacting with the object. A surface painted red appears red because it reflects the red wave length. When an object absorbs energy it will emit energy depending on the bond lengths in all directions. If you dissolve gold into molten glass when it cools the crystal will radiated red light in all directions. When energy is transmitted the energy passes through the object without interacting and has no change of direction like X rays or radio waves.
            Water is transparent to visible light. Water droplets absorb light, refract it, remit it at a different angle making clouds appear white from the top, front, back, or bottom (thin clouds).
            It seems to me that much of your discussion is a result of not distinguishing if radiation is being reflected or absorbed and re-emitted.Radiated energy energy goes in all direction so IR will travel in all directions. The flow of energy will be from higher to lower.
            Herb

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Wrong again Herb.

            For clouds to “emit” visible light, they would have to be at very high temperatures. As usual, you don’t know what you’re talking about. If you would spend as much time studying physics as you do pounding on your keyboard, you might have something useful to contribute.

            Until that happens, please stop confusing the issues.

  • Avatar

    Geraint Hughes

    |

    I find this most interesting. It matches the experiments I have conducted, which show that 2 plate “greenplate effect” just does not occur.

    My experiments show that the greenplate effect does not occur, therefore additive energy, as assumed by greenhouse effect is nothing but a nonsense.

    The presence of the second plate has no effect, at all on warming the 1st plate under a vacuum.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via