Saturday, March 8, 2014

An error in "logic" that both skeptics and warmists make: Wrongly assuming linearity of response

Regarding the effect of CO2 alone, a small ("trace") amount of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere does dramatically affect mean global surface temperature and does significantly contribute to establishing the present base level of mean global surface temperature, but a large increase (doubling or ten-fold) in CO2, in addition to the small present amount, does not significantly change the global surface temperature.

This is because of the physical phenomenon of optical saturation in the infrared resonance of the CO2. [See detailed physics calculation and references HERE.]

In other words, the "logic" that a small amount can't have a large effect because it is a small amount is wrong. The physics is unambiguous on this point.

Likewise, the "logic" that a large increase must have a large effect because it is a large relative change in concentration is wrong.

For example, by analogy, a small amount of a very toxic substance can kill you but doubling the lethal dose will not kill you more. That's saturation.

The quantity-of-causal-agent-to-magnitude-of-the-effect ratio depends on the causal mechanism at play, and is often not linear. Linearity cannot be assumed.
Climate papers and media interviews by Dr. Denis Rancourt are listed HERE.


Unknown said...

Co2 is a very poor absorber of IR. It only absorbs IR at three very narrow bands 4nm. 9nm,14nm (round numbers). Co2 does not absorb all the IR at these wavelengths, it is limited by quantum physics, this is show in any IR spectrographic data of both in-bound and out bound IR spectrums.
Where is the credible experiment that proves that the hypotheses of the GHGE exists.

richard said...

Harvard agrees with you.


Another important point from the above discussion is that all greenhouse gases are not equally efficient at trapping terrestrial radiation. Consider a greenhouse gas absorbing at 11 mm, in the atmospheric window ( Figure 7-8 ). Injecting such a gas into the atmosphere would decrease the radiation emitted to space at 11 mm (since this radiation would now be emitted by the cold atmosphere rather than by the warm surface). In order to maintain a constant terrestrial blackbody emission integrated over all wavelengths, it would be necessary to increase the emission flux in other regions of the spectrum and thus warm the Earth. Contrast this situation to a greenhouse gas absorbing solely at 15 mm, in the CO2 absorption band ( Figure 7-8 ). At that wavelength the atmospheric column is already opaque ( Figure 7-13 ), and injecting an additional atmospheric absorber has no significant greenhouse effect.

Unknown said...

It is claimed that by increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere that there will be a temperature increase. How could this be because CO2 has a higher Thermoconductivity than both O2 and N2 thus the more CO2 added to the atmosphere the poorer the insulation qualities of the atmosphere.
Having asked manufactures of storm windows if the would use CO2 between the layers of glass instead of Dry Air they laughed at my. They pointed out that CO2 is a better conductor of heat thus a window with CO2 would let more heat escape. If they want better insulation they use Argon or neon which have lower thermo- conductivity.
In the above quote about greenhouse gases being opaque at certain wavelengths, This is not consistent with quantum physics that states that a molecule will only accept a specific quantum and everything else will go through the molecule.

GoFigure560 said...

If it is true that co2, at 20ppm, would have already absorbed 50% of all sun energy bandwidth available, then it must be true that at its current level, 400 ppmv, it has long since reached saturation.

Denis Rancourt said...

@Berthold Klein:

Yes, CO2 is a "poor" IR absorber, in the sense that the resonant absorption is confined to discrete bands, and yes quantum mechanics limits the resonance absorption of a single molecule, and yes CO2 has a high thermal conductivity compared to N2 and O2, and so on.

But none of these obviously true things in any way change the conclusions and calculations that I (and others) have presented about how CO2, when acting alone without feedbacks, affects global mean surface temperature.

The calculated 1C increase for doubling of CO2 concentration, while all else remains equal, is a robust result. The point is: 1. 1C is not a significant increase, even from doubling; 2. other things do not remain equal and can affect surface temperature up or down; and 3. other factors are orders of magnitude greater in effect than CO2. The dominant effects are calculated to be related to: land use changes, water management changes, phenomena such as brush/forest fires, volcanic activity, industrial particulates, and so on, for constant solar irradiance and magnetic shielding.

If you don't understand this paper then start by studying that. And calm down.

Unknown said...

Denis: where is your experimental results that proves this Statement: If it is true a laboratory experiment should prove your point.
"The calculated 1C increase for doubling of CO2 concentration, while all else remains equal, is a robust result. The point is: 1. 1C is not a significant increase, even from doubling; 2. other things do not remain equal and can affect surface temperature up or down"

Denis Rancourt said...


It is not possible to do an experiment where one changes the CO2 concentration alone, while holding all other factors the same, on Earth, unless one is God.

But we can calculate the result using physics. When the calculation uses no adjustable parameters, and only established physics principles, and only simplifying assumptions that are shown to not affect the outcome, then we say that the calculation is robust.

Einstein would call it a "thought experiment". The real experiments establish the physical principles and mechanisms. But control of a complex planetary system is not possible, although many global properties are measured, such as the solar flux, etc.

That is what Earth and planetary theoretical scientists do.

There is no doubt that an IR resonant scatterer in the atmosphere will, by itself, all else being constant, increase the planetary surface temperature.

If you don't accept that, then you will be considered crazy by all/any physicist who can do the calculation, or who can reason out the radiation budgets. Indeed, most skeptics would never claim such a thing.

So, it's up to you what you want to believe. In my book, your belief is exactly that: a belief. Certainly not something that follows from physics or correct reasoning.

These kinds of beliefs, fortunately, are not harmful because even most skeptics recognize them as, well, off.

Unknown said...

Sorry Denis but there are not less than 30,000 scientists & engineers including not less than 9,000 Ph. D. physicists that have examined the physics and thermodynamics and found that the Hypotheses of the greenhouse gas effect is faulty ( The Petition Project) in addition an uneducated guess is that 500,000 or more technical individuals do not believe in the Hypotheses of GHGE.

I would suggest that you look up the resignation letters of Dr.'s Hal Lewis and several other prominent physicists from the American Society of Physicists that do not accept the Hypotheses.
As I expected your response on not being able to change the CO2 concentration to test the Hypotheses,here is references to several experiments that shot holes in the Hypotheses and paraphrasing Einstein again if you can't test a hypotheses it is not valid.
Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Einstein’s words express a foundational principle of science intoned by the logician, Karl Popper: Falsifiability. In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false. A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis, but one critical failure could result in its demise. The history of science is littered with such examples.
The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance."
—Albert Einstein
Here is a references to the experiment of Dr. Nasif Nahle which is found on look under the Authors then Dr. Nahle. The experiment is titled .More carbon dioxide cools, not warms, the earth

The Greenhouse Effect ExploredWritten by Carl Brehmer | 26 May 2012
Is “Water Vapor Feedback” Positive or Negative?
Exploiting the medium of Youtube Carl Brehmer is drawing wider attention to a fascinating experiment he performed to test the climatic impacts of water in our atmosphere.
Carl explains, “An essential element of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is the positive “water vapor feedback” hypothesis. That is, if something causes an increase in the temperature this will cause an increase in the evaporation of water into water vapor.” The experiment shows that when there is more evaporation the atmosphere is colder.( This experiment proves that GHGE by the AGW is wrong)

Unknown said...

Retitled: Proving the “greenhouse gas effect” does not exist!

The Experiment that Failed which can save the World Trillions:Proving the “greenhouse gas effect” does not exist!

By Berthold Klein P.E (January 15, 2012)

Edited by John O’Sullivan, incorporating comments by Dr. Pierre Latour, Professor Nasif Nahle, Edward J. Haddad Jr. P.E, Ganesh Krish, and others.


To Professor Robert W. Wood (1909), the first scientist to demonstrate that the Hypothesis of the “Greenhouse effect in the atmosphere” was unscientific. To all other scientists since Professor Wood who have added sound technical and scientific knowledge in many related fields to strengthen the case against the greenhouse gas effect hoax.

To protect my grandsons JJ and BA plus their generation and all the generations that follow - because we finally got it right. For the generations that would otherwise suffer extreme economic harm if the Hoax of (Michael) Mann-made global warming - AKA the “greenhouse gas effect” (GHGE) is not stopped now and forever.

Table of Contents:


Section 1: The Hypotheses

Section 2: The Definitions - The Clues

Section 3: The Experiment

Section 4: Numbers

Section 5: Holding the gases - “containment”

Section 6: Setting up the Experiment

Section 7: Results: Examining the Clues

Section 8: Water - liquid, vapor, solid (H2O /lvs)




This paper endeavors to solve a 188-year-old mystery that has eluded many scientists. It merely takes a cogent, specialist application of science that has been in the books of physics and thermodynamics for over 100 years. To solve the mystery of why “The greenhouse gas effect (GHGE)” does not exist, one certainly has to have an understanding of quantum physics and the basic laws of conservation of energy. To most people, including many scientists, quantum physics is a mystery especially because many things that occur are not intuitive. When explained and proven by experiments, it can be understood. As with any mystery; what are the real clues and what are the red herrings?

It is desirable that anyone that can read be able to understand the experiment documented herein and what it means. This paper is for everyone - from the man on the street who would suffer the most by government “1984 Big Brother” control to the Ph.D. holders in social sciences, finance and otherwise unrelated branches of science, law and politics.

At the outset, having communicated with real people and some Ph.D’s, I realized that my mission appeared to be a veritable “Mission Impossible”. Being able to read does not mean that the reader can comprehend the inner workings of science. While having a Ph.D. in one field does not give someone sound knowledge or judgment in unrelated fields (although many are increasingly taking the time to study in other areas to accumulate the knowledge needed). Each person may possess an area of expertise but only a few can extend this knowledge to analyze clues within totally unfamiliar mysteries.

We need to start with a very brief definition of the greenhouse gas effect (GHGE) - an effect where certain gases have the molecular composition to absorb Infrared (heat) radiation - and what happens afterward is important because it is not intuitive but is proven by basic physics. The Bohr model shows this millions of times each day by our use of Infrared heaters in homes, restaurants (food warmers), factories, bus stops, etc. This process of absorbing Infrared radiation (IR) is supposed to cause the earth to be warmer than a planet without carbon dioxide (CO2), or any other atmosphere. Yet here is just one example of a recent paper that gives us insight into the real causes of “climate change”: _ hyperlink “”__The Sun’s Impact On Earth’s Temperature Goes Far Beyond TSI – New Paper Shows_

By _ HYPERLINK “”__P Gosselin_ on 30th December 2011 (TSI=total solar irradiance)

Unknown said...

There are several words or terms used in this paper that need some explanation; a Glossary of terms is provided within the Appendix.

Section 1: The Hypotheses:

To demonstrate the existence of “greenhouse gas effect (GHGE) it is necessary to define it. We are told the Hypotheses of the “greenhouse gas effect” is the process involving a combination of “Infra-red absorbing gases” (IRag), including Water/liquid/vapor/solid (H2O/lvs), CO2, CH4, NO2 and others are super insulation which cause the atmosphere to be 33 degrees C warmer than would be explained by the “black body temperature” (a theoretical perfect radiator of electomagnetic energy).” -The earth along with its atmosphere is not one of them.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of the magic caused by the “greenhouse gas effect” as has been said the truth is in the details. Regarding this see the Commentary by Professor Nahle and Dr. Latour *

To begin to define “The greenhouse gas effect” let’s start with the “features that should be testable.” Because water/liquid, vapor, solid (H2O /lvs) physically reacts differently than other IRag gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) these IRag gases will be dealt with first.

Section 2: The Definitions - The Clues

Here are those critical features claimed (yet unproved) in the Standard Model “greenhouse gas effect”:

Infrared absorbing gases (IRag) absorb IR radiation and thus they inhibit such radiation from escaping into space, thereby reducing the rate of atmospheric cooling i.e. causing air to be warmer.

IRag’s will “back radiate” IR radiation to earth causing increased heating of the surface.

IRag’s will heat up by the absorption of the IR radiation thus heating the air. (Oxygen, Nitrogen, Water vapor and trace gases).

IRag’s have different levels of “back-forcing”. Thus CH4 (methane) is supposed to deliver 23 to 70 times more “back radiation “ than CO2. NO2 delivers 289 times that of CO2. (Alarmist ‘experts’ have yet to explain these numbers). Evidently, it is assumed that someone quantified the amount of IR that a particular sample of gas absorbs utilizing IR spectrophotometer analysis and then compared this data to the absorption of CO2. This is a very important feature of the “GHGE”

The higher the concentration of IRag’s the greater the amount of “back-radiation” and the higher the temperature of the earth which in turn results in an increase in the global atmospheric temperature.

The concentration of CO2 found in million-year-old ice cores can be utilized as proof that the “GHGE” exists.

Where does this standard model greenhouse gas effect lead?

We all know that there is one true kind of “greenhouse” effect. Engineers have built real greenhouses for decades for a useful purpose (growing plants). Anyone that has gotten into a hot car on a sunny day (either in summer or winter), experiences this. We see temperatures that are much higher in the car than in the shade. This is caused by confined space heating. This was established in 1909 by R.W. Wood a professor of Physics and Optics at John Hopkins University from 1901 to 1955 an expert in IR and UV radiation. Professor Nasif Nahle famously confirmed Professor Wood’s worth in 2011.

So what experiment could be performed to “prove” that the “greenhouse gas effect exists?

Unknown said...

Part 2
Section 3: The Experiment

A believer in the man-made global warming theory (AGW) point out it is impossible to simulate what actually happens in the atmosphere. They propose using computer models to predict these effects. The primary problem with “computer models” is that unless all the relevant factors that effect the atmosphere are included in the program algorithm it becomes: “garbage in equals garbage out”. *

There are no computers or modelers yet available that have sufficient capacity to handle all of the factors driving our complex climate. There will be contributory factors not even known yet. Then the big guess for modelers is what are the factors to include, which are really of minor importance, can be left out to still obtain usable results; which factors are “red herrings”. As such, to date no one has come up with the “right model”.

More than 120* different models of weather /climate programs have been published and not one has been successful in predicting the weather a year from now, let alone a hundred years ahead. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has just started the installation and start up of a Cray AMD 16-core Intrago processor in 16 cabinets array of 26 cabinets to create a 1.1 petaflops supercomputer. That’s a good start. But until they can define the real facts about climate it is yet another super supercomputer creating “garbage in equals garbage out” at super fast speed.

Using the list of “critical factor-the Clues” lets see if there are some ways of indicating if the concept may exist. Utilization of the concentration of IRag’s in the atmosphere for testing does not work otherwise there would not be the controversy that exists today.

The fields of engineering and research employ “scale models,” or models with similar properties that can be either sized up or down to relate a test to the factors being studied. “Model studies” or “bench tests” are either similar in behavior or can be proportioned to larger or smaller series of events and relate to an actual set of events. They generate data (the evidence) that can be compared to known conditions or events. Chemical engineers and others build pilot plants from lab experiments before finalizing sizing design of a full-scale commercial process plant. Scale-up is a serious engineering art.

An example of down sizing is the use of the super collider at CERN to study what happens in a nuclear explosion. Because the amount of heating that is supposed to be added by the “greenhouse gas effect” is on the order of fractions of a degree per year (some claim the change to be 1 to 3 degrees C/ year), we need a more dramatic experiment to show that the concept actually exists.

However if the effect is vanishingly small, it will be hard to prove or disprove. This is one of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) tricks to fool mankind. They employ wide ranges and invent probabilities out of very thin air.

If the experiment at very high concentration does demonstrate the effect then the “Concept” does exist. If the concept does works at high concentration then it can be tried with lower and lower concentrations until a threshold of effects is reached. It might be linear or logarithmic to zero. However if the concept does not work at High Concentrations of IRag’s then the concept of the theoretical “greenhouse gas effect “has been proven to be a fraud. *

Unknown said...

Section 4: Numbers

Some numbers are needed now. By definition 10,000 ppm (parts per million) is 1%, therefore 100 % equals 1 million parts per million (1x10+6). The atmosphere is supposed to contain 400 ppm of CO2 (round Number) therefore a concentration of 100% CO2 is 2500 time that of what is in the atmosphere. (Volume concentrations are per high school chemistry).

If the GHGE exists it should be much easier to measure and demonstrate that “back radiation” is causing a heating effect on the earth.

Now it is claimed that CH4 is from 23 to 70 time the effect of CO2, thus using the lowers figure by using a concentration of 100 % CH4, the effect should be 57,500 time stronger that using CO2.

It is claimed that NO2 is 290 times more powerful that CO2 thus 100% NO2 should cause 725,000 times the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.

As CH4 is found to be present at about 2ppb (parts per billion) (2 X 10 -9) in the atmosphere, a concentration of 100 % CH4 should give results that is 5 X 10 + 10 times what exists in the atmosphere.

Now if CH4 is 23 times the effect of CO2 another longer chain hydrocarbon molecule (more complex C4H10-butane) will be even more powerful thus the proposed experiment shown below was done with 100 % butane (C4H10) available in pressure cylinders with regulators as Butane torches for soldiering pipe. A small flow of gas from the torch was used to fill the balloon.

The experiment substituted “natural gas” a mixture of 70% CH4, 29% CO2 and the remainder being H2 and other trace gases. This is readily available for test purpose from any natural gas stove.

Now 100 % CO2 is available from several sources, but one that is not too expensive is from any paint ball supply store, a regulator is needed to reduce the flow and the pressure while filling the balloon.

Do not use Alka Seltzer (from an ineffective test promoted by some groups at NASA) as you have to put this in water to get the CO2 thus you have a mixture of CO2, water, water vapor, and air – you are not testing the effect of CO2 only.

The natural gas mixture should have a combined effect of less that 100% CH4 by a weighted average of 70% CH4+ 29% CO2 or 3.500000725X10+9 times the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. If this occurs the temperature increase must be measurable. Discussion of H2O/lvs in the atmosphere will follow later.

Unknown said...

Part 3

Section 5: Holding the gases - “containment”

How does the experiment contain the high concentration of the IRag’s for this test? Having reviewed several experiments that “contain” the IRag’s is glass containers then radiate them with a heat lamp (IR source) . These “experimenters” measure the increase in temperature of the gas. They claimed this increase was due to the “GHGE”. But they are absolutely wrong.

The cause of the temperature increase was due to the heating of the glass by its absorbing the IR and the glass heating. (A Master’s thesis (peer reviewed) including this information is available on request with about 100 other references). *

Another failure of these tests was their including a black cardboard inside the containers, thus heating the IRag’s from conduction of heat from the black cardboard. Black objects absorb most of the light including IR & UV and then converting the energy to “heat” which is conducted to the gas in the container. (These “experiments” created a Greenhouse effect - quite simply - merely a confined space heating). That seems unfair. Why would an impartial scientist do that?

Another experiment painted the inner surfaces of the boxes to capture more thermal radiation and avoid high reflection from these surfaces. Corrugated cardboard walls have a higher thermal resistance than glass, additionally, for enhancing thermal resistance of cardboard, we wrapped their outer surfaces with aluminum foil, which has a very low absorptive potential (0.03). It is true that conduction and convection on the inner walls was carried towards the inner atmosphere and exaggerated by painting the inner surfaces of the containers with flat black paint because the coat had a very high absorptivity and emissivity potentials. (Identified by the experimental work of Professor Nasif Nahle: see references).

The proper way to contain the high concentration of IRag’s is in a thin walled material that will not absorb the IR and heat. Important note: The thin walled material is a better conduction of thermal energy. A factor to be considered is the thermal conductivity of Mylar, which is 0.154808 W/m K by Dr. Nahle based on his experiment verifying the work of R.W. Wood. The experiment used crystal clear Mylar balloons about 3mil thick. They are available in various sizes. Several 20-inch major diameter balloons were chosen for this study

Unknown said...

Section 6: Setting up the Experiment

STEP ONE: Fill the balloons with the various IRag’s and one balloon with dry air as a control.

STEP TWO: Let the balloons reach ambient temperature. If you are going to use sunlight let balloon temperature adjust outside in the shade (minimize IR absorption ahead of testing). (a clue).

STEP THREE: Use an IR thermometer to check the temperatures of each balloon, use a digital thermometer that reads to 0.1 degree C to check air temperature in the shade. Record data. Do not forget this measures two different phenomena. [Note: Digital thermometers measure thermal energy, while IR thermometers measure thermal radiation emitted by the system].

STEP FOUR: Take a large black mat board or a large black cloth or sheet, and lay it on the ground in the sun. Use the IR thermometer to check the temperature rise in the sun. Record the data. When it appears to reach a maximum then go to step 5. [Note: DuPont Duco #71 wrought iron black paint has an absorptivity of 0.98. It would make a very good absorber]. The black mat board is used to absorb as much IR as possible that supposedly “back-radiates” from the IRag in the balloon. *This is not to simulate a “black-body”. Having done some IR measuring of objects in a hot car, the color of the object has a significant effect on the IR readings. Use of bi-metal digital thermometers has to be set so they do not absorb IR and heat, because of the IR radiation absorption.

STEP FIVE: Suspend the balloons over the black background (about 1 foot above) and measure the temperature of the balloons’ surface and internal gases with the IR thermometer. Dr. Latour explains that this is doubly necessary to measure both because the properties of IR thermometers are to “see” the IR impinging on the sensor bases on the optic of the instrument. The sensor integrates the IR energy to a reading. Thus both the Mylar, and the contents are projecting IR radiation in all directions .The instrument which reads a range of IR frequencies is not able to differentiate between IR from the surface, from the gas inside the balloon and the background IR passing through the balloon. Thus it is necessary to determine IR reading based on the instrument “seeing” through the balloon for one set of readings. Another set of readings would be from an adjacent position but not through the balloon.

Note: In multiple tests there were no differences in the readings. This indicated that the IRag’s in the balloons stayed at ambient air temperature. The IRag’s did absorb IR but did not “heat” the gas (an important clue!).

To put a bi-metal digital thermometer either on or inside the balloons would give erroneous readings because the metal of the thermometer would absorb IR and heat up no mater what the temperature of the IRag was.

The study by Anthony Watts of weather stations throughout the US shows how easy it is to get junk readings from improperly constructed temperature recording devices.

STEP SIX: Measure the temperature of the black background in the “shadow” of each of the balloons also measure the temperature of the black background outside of the “shadows”(projection) of the balloons.

Unknown said...

Part 4
Section 7: Results: Examining the Clues

Now lets repeat the Critical factors-The clues and note the result of the test:

Item 1.The IRag’s absorb the IR radiation and thus prevent it from escaping into space reducing the rate of earth and atmospheric cool- it causes the air to be warmer.

Results and explanation: The air between the balloons and the black background did not change temperature. It did not get hotter thus normal IR radiation cooling of the black mat was occurring. The 100% CO2 or the high concentration of other IRag did not “hinder” normal cooling by the loss of energy to space. This has been confirmed by the work of Dr. Roy Spencer and satellite IR measurements showing significant losses of “heat”/radiation to space. Far more IR radiation escapes than is stated by the IPCC in any of their reports.*

Item 2.The IRag’s will “back radiate” IR radiation to earth to cause increased heating of the surface.

Results and explanation: The black background did not change temperature either in the “shadow” or outside the “shadow”. The temperature of the black background heated to 20 to 30 degrees F above ambient before the balloons were placed over the black background. When this was done outside in bright sunlight the black background heated to 130 to 140 degrees F. Similar temperature can be measured from black asphalt. Air temperatures were 90 to 95 degrees F.

The experiment was also performed indoors with a 500-watt power shop light (see below; the black background showed the temperature increased from 70-72 degrees Fahrenheit to 100 -110 degrees Fahrenheit. Again when measuring the temperatures of the black background with the IR thermometer there was no measurable temperature difference anywhere along the surface of the black mat: no sign here of “back-radiation”.

Item 3. The IRag’s will heat up by the absorption of the IR radiation thus heating the air.

Results and explanation: The balloons did not warm any warmer than ambient. The IRag’s in the balloons will not warm because that would be a violation of the basic physics described by the Bohr Model. A statement of basic physics that shows that absorption of IR by CO2 or other IRag does not increase the kinetic energy of the molecules (heat). (See note in Preamble)

Item 4. The IRag’s have different levels of “back-forcing”. Having asked believers in greenhouse gas “physics” I’ve had no answer as yet). It is merely assumed that “someone” has reviewed the amount of IR that a particular molecule (CH4, NO2,) absorbs by a spectrophotometer analysis then comparing this to the absorption of CO2. (I have not seen any experimental data that the “back-forcing” relates to absorption).

Results and explanation As there was no temperature difference under any of the balloons, there was no stronger “back-forcing” caused by the IRag’s absorbed more IR radiation thus “back-forcing” more radiation. An IRag has an emissivity characteristic of the molecule not the absorption of more IR radiation.

Item 5.The higher the concentration of IRag’s the greater the amount of “back-radiation” the higher the “global atmospheric temperature will become.

Conclusion of test results: Based on the failure of all the previous portions of these tests which were done with very high concentrations of IRag’s to demonstrate the GHGE, it is valid to say that increasing CO2 or other IRag’s in the atmosphere will have NO temperature EFFECT.

Item 6.The concentration of CO2 found in million year old Ice cores can be used as proof that the “GHGE” exists.

Conclusion: The use of ICE core data is at best circumstantial evidence but it is not proof of anything. This is a “red Herring” as so much of the supposed evidence of “GHGE”.

Climate change is measure in centuries not minutes or years.*

Unknown said...

Note: As an alternate light source the experiment has been performed with an incandescent light using a 500-watt shop power light. This is because the temperature of the filament approaches the spectral characteristics of sunlight but contains more” long wave IR” because of a lower temperature. The light was placed one (1) meter away from the balloons to avoid conduction and convection heating of the balloons. As is stated above there was no difference in the final results, No extra heating of the atmosphere or the background.

Section 8: Water - liquid, vapor, solid (H2O /lvs)

Now lets talk about water (H2O/lvs). Why? Everybody seems to acknowledge H2O dominates the atmosphere in complex ways, swamping any CO2 effect. AGW promoters just ignore H2O. We may suppose that when CO2 (GHGE) collapses they will declare DI-hydrogen monoxide a pollutant, too. And so it goes.

Yes, H2O/lvs has a major effect on weather conditions, where I’m at in Northern Ohio it just started to rain. If it gets any colder we will have snow or sleet. As is said in the Great Lakes region, if you don’t like the weather wait 15 minutes and it will change.

Examining H2O/lvs in the atmosphere: if it’s clear the humidity can be from near 0 % relative humidity to 100%. Now if it ‘s cloudy the “relative Humidity” can vary from 30 to 100% depending on temperatures. We know that the air temperature, where the clouds are forming, is at or below the “dew point”.

As the H2O vapor cools to form clouds there is a release of energy (Heat of condensation - also a significant reduction of volume). If the general air temperature is low enough (below freezing) more energy is released as ice or snow is formed. This energy has to be dissipated either as IR radiation, as lightning, probably high winds, as a tornado or convection.

This is only one phase of the complex weather conditions when H2O/lvs is being evaluated.

Another phase is the solar heating of clouds both day and night. During the day the warming of the top of clouds is obvious. It is also relevant that in spite of significant solar energy absorption, the “clouds“ have not absorbed enough radiation to convert the water or solids back to vapor i.e. there is probably a rapid turbulent exchange of energy in both directions from evaporation/ sublimation to condensing, to freezing. This is why “climatologists” cannot get the correct “sign” on the “forcing” - it is a constantly changing set of conditions; none are wrong and none are correct.

Now lets add the next variable - solar heating at night of the clouds. Having taken IR radiation measurements at night for the last year at many different times by solar time it is apparent that when the sun goes down below the visible horizon, the clouds are still receiving solar energy. Both actual measurements and visible lighting (multiple colors) of the clouds have confirmed this fact. The clouds and the atmosphere cool until about 2:00 am (solar time) when there are measurable increases in cloud temperatures and air temperatures.* This warming continues until daylight is visible. The degree of warming is related to the time of year and what is happening with the jet stream and Arctic storms(Alberta Clippers aka Polar Vortex)
There are other factors that are being monitored by astrophysics researchers that are showing that solar flares, and different types of radiation, including cosmic particles, have an effect on cloud formation. This is only a beginning of mankind’s learning about another aspect of our atmosphere and weather and we have yet to see any real world empirical proof that carbon dioxide plays any role, let alone a role as preponderant as solar forcing. Indeed, with natural climatic variability accepted as being substantial anyway, when I see thermal temperatures in my back yard cycling at +- 8C daily, why should you or I care if average “heat” temperature increases 1C over a 100-year period?

Unknown said...

The nice thing about this described experiment is that high school physics classes or Freshmen College physics lab classes can perform the tests. It would teach a very important lesson in that not all experiments have to have a “positive” end result to be meaningful.

What we can demonstrate is that the “science is not settled”. Indeed, just look at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, for the newest real science done by experiment and re-tested until they have 6 sigma confidence levels. They use computers to analyze the data but “computer models” are not the end only the beginning. Science is not done by consensus.

As Dr. Pierre R Latour advises, “Everybody has a different point of view; but (real) scientists and engineers learn how to agree on how nature works. What you see in the man-made greenhouse gas theory hoax is what happens when untrained, incompetent people attempt to do science and engineering. It’s a mess.”

But should we be surprised at how readily the myth of the GHGE can be exposed? No, especially when considering the following footnote from the IPCC’s 4th Edition. It declares its science is premised on what had been “suggested” and “speculated” in the previous century (before the time of quantum mechanics). By plain reading we see it signals no subsequent evidence to prove that the GHGE effect actually exists:

“In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”*

The work of Arrhenius was shown to be significantly in error by Angstrom in 1903. Arrhenius changed his career shortly after. Readers are encouraged to question why and conduct their own research.

Berthold Klein P.E. (Edited & Revised by John O’Sullivan: February 5, 2012)

Unknown said...

Part 5


‘NASA in Shock New Controversy: Two Global Warming Reasons Why,’ John O’Sullivan, (May 27th 2010) Climate Realists: _ hyperlink “” \n _blank__

_ Hyperlink “” \n _blank___’Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics’, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner (Version 4 2009), Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364, DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World:_ hyperlink “”__

Readers are advised to search and read the Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA (March 2009) that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.

‘Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics’ by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme

R.W.Wood from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine, 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p: 340.1.c.95

‘The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory’, Alan Siddons (March 2010), American Thinker.

_ Hyperlink “”__from: at March 01, 2010 - 09:10:34 AM CST _:___

Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 Million politicians and 20 Million _environmental whachos-that don’t know that “the Second law of thermodynamics is an absolute law of physics.

University of Pennsylvania Law School_



A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,

and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences

at the University of Pennsylvania

Jason Scott Johnston,’ Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination’, (May 2010) RESEARCH PAPER NO. 10-08, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA (This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:_ hyperlink “http://ssrn/”__http://ssrn_).

Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv declared: “There is no direct evidence showing that CO2 caused 20th century warming, or as a matter of fact, any warming.” link to this paper on climate depot.

Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory (2010), available on *


_ Hyperlink “”__Ponder the Maunder “

_ Hyperlink “”__wwwclimatedepot.com_

_ Hyperlink “”__icecap.us_

_ Hyperlink “”__www.stratus-sphere.com_

Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI)

Hyperlink “

Hyperlink: Anthony Watt’s

Many others references are available.

Unknown said...

Part 6

IR= infrared radiation is a form of electromagnetic radiation (invisible light also know as heat rays) that is present in sunlight and is also radiated by every body of mater whether it is a gas, a liquid or a solid. If it is a living thing it will radiate more IR that if it is an inanimate object because of its temperature.

Animals radiate IR from exothermic oxidation and plants do so from endothermic photosynthesis.

_ Hyperlink”__ Photosynthetic organisms also have a thermoregulatory system that permits them to radiate the excess of absorbed thermal radiation and the heat generated from metabolic processes. Professor Nahle conducted an experiment related to this mechanism of thermoregulation in melons and spearmint:

IRag= certain gases will absorb different wavelengths of IR radiation (a characteristic of the light) depending on the construction of the gas. Some gases do not absorb IR; their construction will not allow them to absorb the IR. They may absorb other forms of radiation but as was said above they still radiate IR. Many other materials including water will absorb IR. These should not be included in the term IRag’s. The words “greenhouse gas effect” have never been proven by creditable scientific experiments and therefore will only be used when absolutely necessary. Atoms and molecules absorb according to their unique absorption spectrum and emit according to their unique emission spectrum. They emit an amount of radiation as watts per square meter (w/m2), the measure of energy that they absorb.

The Bohr model is the work of Dr. Niels Bohr a physicist that studied the behavior of gasses when they absorb IR and other forms of radiation. This is much more complicated than presented here. It is a branch of science called Quantum physics. The basic studies resulted in Dr. Bohr receiving a Nobel Prize in physics in 1922. The important part of the Bohr model is that when the gas absorbs IR radiation it does not “heat” the gas. It does not increase the kinetic energy of the molecule, which is the velocity of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. The IR (photon) energy is converted to inter-molecular activity. The explanation is a concept that is beyond the scope of this experiment. It has an important part in proving that the GHGE does not exist.* Many volumes of experiments are available and can be explained better by Quantum physicists; the subject is being studied continually -”The science is not settled.”

Water/l/v/s=Water has some very important characteristic that are important to earth and to live on earth. Because of earth’s fortunate location in the universe, it’s temperature varies from a low of-90 F to a high 130 F+. But in the majority of the earth temperatures are between 0 F to 100 F. and water (liquid/solid) can change to a gas at all temperature, to a liquid at 32F(0C) or above, and a solid below 32 F.(0 C). Many commentators on GHGE fail to characterize these differences and call Water /l/v/s a “greenhouse gas” In fairness H2O can indeed be a gas, steam or humidity. As we go through this experiment it will become clearer that water or any other IRag is not a “greenhouse gas”

Unknown said...

CO2= a gas that is breathed out by every living mammal and most other living creature, it is absorbed by plants and algae and is them converted back to oxygen which we need to live. [Carbon dioxide also is processed by species of photosynthetic bacteria, i.e. cyanobacteria, green sulfur bacteria, purple sulfur bacteria, green non-sulfur bacteria and purple non-sulfur bacteria] Most process that produces mechanical movements and electrical energy convert fossil fuels to CO2 (carbon dioxide) a very important and necessary part of life on this planet.

CH4= methane a part of “natural gas” used to heat homes, cook food and run engines.. It is present in the ground along with oil but is only present in the air (atmosphere) at very tiny amounts (parts per billion). While millions of tons of this gas escape into the atmosphere (only a guess as to the total) most of this is destroyed by interaction with Ozone (O3) and UV a very active radiation present in sunlight. (A paper in the EPA library documents this reaction if they have not erased it) The Methane that is formed by bacteria is almost everywhere. It’s from swamps, rice paddies, bottom of oceans, lakes and streams, decaying leave piles etc. It is a part of nature’s process of recycling. Its oxidation is protecting the earth from the next ice age

NO2= a gas formed by nature when there is lightening. It is also formed in any high temperature burning including engines. The gas is washed out of the atmosphere in every rainstorm. It is used by plants, and is very necessary for their growth. NO2 is a toxic gas but also known as laughing gas and an air pollutant, along with other oxides of nitrogen, NOx. They are major components of smog.

. _ Hyperlink “”__

Specifications of the IR thermometer: model: MTPRO laser-Micro Temp; temperature range: -41degree C/F to 1040 degrees F. IR range 5 to 16 nm. Angle of view D:S =11:1. Cost about $60.00. Many other IR meter models are available. *

I said there would also be a link to an experiment that shows that CO2 and water vapor cool the the atmosphere.

More carbon dioxide cools, not warms, the earth

July 19, 2011 By Dr. Ed 2 Comments

Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands.

by Nasif S. Nahle, from the PDF (see general description here)

Professor and Director of Scientific Research Division at Biology Cabinet Mexico


This assessment is a review of the common AGW argument on carbon dioxide increasing the potential of water vapor for absorbing and emitting IR radiation as a consequence of the overlapping absorption/emission spectral bands. I have determined the total emissivity of a mixture of gases containing 5% water vapor and 0.039% carbon dioxide in all spectral bands where their absorptivities-emissivities overlap. The result of these calculations is carbon dioxide attenuates the total absorptivity-emissivity of water vapor, working like a coolant, not a warmer of the atmosphere and the surface.
Water absorption spectrum - London South Bank University   CachedWater Absorption Spectrum. Water and global warming Absorption spectra of gaseous, liquid and solid water The vibrational spectra of liquid water
The end

Unknown said...

My response to Denis is being reviewed.
Denis needs to do some better "think experiments"
It seen "engineers" do better "think experiments" which are followed by laboratory tests,then prototypes,pilot plants, and when necessary actual production.

Denis Rancourt said...


Contrary to your statement, The Petition Project statement does not state that the physical mechanism or process of a planetary greenhouse effect is invalid.

You either are not capable of discriminating the different ideas here, or you are knowingly being intellectually dishonest.

Either way, it does not improve your credibility in your other statements, which I do not wish to take the time to refute.

You also appear to fail to see that we lie on the same side of the issue, in the big socio-political picture: I am against global warming alarmism, and against the myth that climate change is a dominant threat to anything, whereas exposing this myth is a threat to indoctrinated eco-lobbyists, careerist scientists, and carbon economy parasites and predators.

Unknown said...

Yes I realize that in general we are on the same side. There is a difference between a very minimal effect of CO2 on temperature and no temperature effect of warming at all because the Hypotheses is faulty.
As you don't have the time to review the other material, I'd like your comments on the following-2 parts.
Here is a very important question from SkyHunter: **I am eagerly waiting for your explanation of how an object can gain energy without increasing it's temperature.**
If the reader has not had quantum physics this presentation many be very confusing,but with an understanding of the quantum physics you will know why the Greenhouse gas effect does not exist. You will also know why a molecule can add energy without increasing its temperature. (refer back to part 2 where there is an example of adding energy does not cause a temperature increase. Other examples will be given to emphasize the point).
When a molecule of gas absorbs some photons of light the energy causes the electrons and the components of the molecule to get excited. When the molecule has absorbed enough energy any additional energy( photons) either goes through the molecule or around it( light /photons have properties of partials and waves) . Each type of molecule only captures EMR of specific wavelengths. Thus CO2 only absorbs IR radiation of three wavelengths. Namely 4nm, 9nm, and 14nm(rounded numbers and a small number of wavelengths on either side of these peak wavelengths).
These wavelengths are a very small portion of the IR band of wavelengths. The entire range of Electromagnetic wavelengths delivering energy from the sun include Gama waves to very long wavelengths of radio and TV.
The individual that is credited with discovering that certain gases(not all) absorb inferred radiation was John Tyndall , this was done in the 1850's and 60's. The experimental work done by Tyndall shower that “water vapor” absorbed far more IR that any of the other gases that he worked with. Tyndall also stated that he believed that CO2 , Ch4, and other trace gases in the atmosphere were in such small quantities that there effect on temperature could not be measured or detected.
He was right but for a reason that he did not know about. The work of John Tyndall and many other scientists developed what is now called quantum physics. The work of Niels Bohr and his “Bohr model of what happens in the atom and molecules has been the starting point of much more knowledge . Now back to the subject of why a molecule of gas does not “heat” when it absorbs IR.
As stated by Einstein in his texts, the molecule will only accept specific amounts of photon energy- a quantum. The size of these quantum’s varied depending on the molecule being examined. As is shown by IR spectrometry not only are the quantums different but the wavelengths that are absorbed are different. As stated CO2 absorbs only three groups , other molecules as water absorb many different groups including the same groups absorbed by CO2. When testing a gas sample to determine what gases and quantities are present it is essential to remove all water or the results will be wrong.
As the energy ( photons) contained in the light is absorbed it is converted into either vibration energy by moving the neutrons and protons faster or with greater amplitude or when enough energy has been absorbed electrons in orbit around the nucleus go into higher energy orbits. Only enough energy is absorbed to achieve these excited states. All energy is accounted for, thus there is “conservation of energy.” Just like in the example in part 2 there is no increase in temperature.
What happens to this energy? is the next question. All atoms and molecules radiate IR energy as long as they are above absolute zero (- 459.67F, -273.15 C). Thus while part of the molecule is gaining energy another part is losing energy. The part of the molecule that is losing energy by radiation is sending out photons where the wavelengths is proportional to the 4th power of the absolute temperature.

Unknown said...

part 2:
Now to comply with the laws of physics -conservation of energy – the amount of energy radiated has to balance the energy gained thus no change in temperature.
If a gas is Heated by conduction the molecules of the gas are moving faster. If at the same time the molecules are absorbing IR or any other form of EMR there is no way to tell what is causing what.
At this point we have to define what the “temperature of a gas is”. There are two things that define a temperature of a gas – the accumulative kinetic energy of the molecules moving in the atmosphere and the latent heat inside the molecule. The temperature of the atmosphere is measure with a thermometer
A thermometer is an averaging devise, it takes energy from molecules of high, medium and low temperature that impact the sensing component of the devise causing either a mechanical change (bi-metal expansion or an electrical change -thermocouples) or if temperatures are measured by remote monitoring it is done by IR or microwaves. Again all of these are averages not the specific energy of individual molecules.
As molecules of gases travel in many different directions even when a wind is blowing, kinetic energy is an average, thus it is not possible to identify when any one molecule has gotten hotter or colder because of collisions and energy transfer. Similarly when a individual molecule has absorbed energy by capturing photon or has lost energy by radiating IR the wavelengths will be the same as other object that are radiating IR. There are no labels on the IR saying that it is from CO2 or from water or whatever. This is part of the falsity of the Hypotheses of the greenhouse gas effect that a specific source can be identified just by its wavelengths.
There is no question that liquids and solids “heat “ when they are irradiated with EMR, the reason is that the atoms and molecules are very close together and when the atoms and molecules get “excited” they bang into each other transferring energy and generating “heat” by doing that.
The atoms and molecules of a gas are much further apart (by definition) the forces of attraction are weak therefore there are far fewer collisions and any “heat” generated by collisions average themselves out and are mixed with “ heat” energy from conduction.
There are two examples that demonstrate that EMR absorption by a gas does not cause the “gas” to heat.
1. The use of low-Temperature IR heaters are a widely used system that features are one of its strong points ***it does not “heat” the air in the room where its is operating by it does “heat” objects as the people, walls , floors, equipment ,etc***. There are hundreds of manufactures and millions of applications, the science is well established.
2. The use of microwaves for communications. On a clear dry day the signal from one microwave tower to another is very dependable. There is no detectible heating along the signal. On a rainy or foggy day the story is different. In a extreme the microwaves will be absorbed by the water particles or snow particles and communications will be lost. If a solid object gets in the path of the microwaves it can be cooked( just like in a microwave oven).

Unknown said...

Denis you're correct that the Petition Project does not go as far as I do,like so many they are looking at circumstantial evidence and not going back to the root cause "the hypotheses" and looking at the physics and thermodynamics.
Much of what they do in their summary was also done by a 17 year old high school student found at the web-site Ponder the Maunder.
Most of my references go back to the physics and thermodynamics. The three that examine the circumstantial evidence are Alan Carlin formally of EPA, Johnson at University of Pennsylvania and Dr. Vincent Gray formally an IPCC reviewer.
There is a significant difference in there scientific approach. Which do you thing is the better, or more scientific?

Denis Rancourt said...


You have given an example of how wonderful the human brain can be.

I think you have also given enough material to allow anyone who cares to do so to examine your reasoning.

So, I am cutting you off now. Make your own blog.