Dr.Peter Langdon Ward Debunks Global Warming by JEWELSTAITEFAN

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Texas Republican asks: can we fix the moon’s orbit to fight climate change?
The Texas Republican congressman Louie Gohmert has asked a senior US government official if changing the moon’s orbit around the Earth, or the Earth’s orbit around the sun, might be a solution for climate change. Though he seemed to be entirely earnest, some observers have posited that Gohmert was seeking to express a belief that climate change was a phenomenon of natural changes in the orbits of celestial bodies, and so any other efforts to address it would be futile. - www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/09/texas-republican-louie-gohmert
-climate-change

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 9, 2021 11:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:

To get back to my question: A is person diagnosed with viral pneumonia, and they later die because their lungs gave out ... any guesses what their cause of death should be listed as?

If the year in question is 2020, Covid-19.

--------------------------------------------------

Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 9, 2021 11:11 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I didn't specify what kind of virus. And the answer is pneumonia, no matter what the year.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 10, 2021 7:45 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

"The 'science-y sounding' reasons most politicians use to reject climate change are not primarily due to lack of education or knowledge," Katharine Hayhoe, climate scientist and co-director of the Climate Center at Texas Tech University, wrote on Twitter. "No: they are deliberately manufactured and offered as palatable excuses to hide the real problem: solution aversion. They don't want to fix it." -

www.cnn.com/2021/06/09/politics/louie-gohmert-climate-change-fact-chec
k/index.html

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 10, 2021 8:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:

I didn't specify what kind of virus. And the answer is pneumonia, no matter what the year.

You didn't need to. If you died in a car crash in 2020 you died of Covid-19.

--------------------------------------------------

Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 10, 2021 9:35 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Pollster's private message to GOP: Win on climate

Conservative lawmakers are urged to a) talk more about climate change, because voters care about it, and b) not actually do anything about climate change, because fossil oligarchs don't like it.

"When a Republican talks about the environment, it's a man-bites-dog-type story. All of a sudden it's 'Oh, he's not talking about abortion or a tax cut. Wow, this person must be a decent human being.' The type the middle wants to vote for."

www.eenews.net/stories/1063734411

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 10, 2021 9:44 AM

How's Joe* doing on climate?

--------------------------------------------------

Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 10, 2021 4:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Maybe evacuation w/ xs O2 has to do with fire/ explosion risk?

No.

The OSHA confined space standard is 29 CFR 1910.146
Sorry I was not specific about application.

The numbers I recall for 02 were 19.5-23.5% - which was a larger window that what I stated. But still less than I had previously assumed.
Bottom of the 2nd page:
https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/2019-03/confinedspace.pdf

Our use was for toxic gases. We were required to be fully conscious at all times in the confined space. One confined space was plenums which collected diesel exhaust. Another was a chamber which had just run atmo through it at fastest speed for 2 or more days, so it should in theory be stabilized atmo - but OSHA requires the toxic gas detector/monitor at all times when inside.
I didn't mean to imply mass-evacuation.

https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.14
6
"Oxygen enriched atmosphere" means an atmosphere containing more than 23.5 percent oxygen by volume.

Hydrogen sulfide has a PEL of 20 parts per million (PPM) and an LEL of 4.0%. Carbon monoxide has a PEL of 50 PPM and an LEL of 12.5%.

CO2 was another monitored gas.

Anyhow, we can skip the 23.5% figure, let's go with that other one mentioned, something like 31%.

If 31% is too much for humans, and presumably animals, then what is the upper limit of CO2 which is harmful to plants? All plants, or just trees, or just flowers, or just fruit, or what?

Recently somebody posted about corn growing, with a detailed description of carbon and minerals/nutrients in the soil. Don't recall which factor increased the harvest yield. The story was about sustainable energy credits, IIRC.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 10, 2021 4:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JSF: do you know what TEMPERATURE is?

At a fundamental level, it's a measure of HOW FAST atoms or molecules are travelling.

You presume (and it's a presumption on your part) that when an oxygen atom (O2) is excited by ultraviolet radiation and the two oxygen atoms are ripped apart, they they go ricochetting off at increadible speeds from each other. You're misled by the keV energy needed to break the atoms apart.

In reality, that energy DOESN'T go into making the oxygen atoms go really fast. What it goes into is breaking those two atoms apart, because they really really don't want to be separated from each other. The fact that the rise in temperature in the stratoshpere is always primarily attributed to OZONE absorption of ultraviolet light, NOT OXYGEN dissociation, implies that the oxygen atoms don't fly from each other, they kind of mosey part
Quote:
Stratospheric temperatures increase with height because stratospheric ozone and, to a lesser extent, molecular oxygen absorb ultraviolet sunlight and convert some of the energy into molecular kinetic energy, or heat.

https://personal.ems.psu.edu/~brune/m532/meteo532_ch7_stratospheric_ch
emistry.htm

I hope that clears it up for you where stratospheric heat comes from.

Why is this important?

Dr Langdon Ward's description of where stratospheric heat comes from is muddled, at best. He claims, as far as I can tell, that it comes from the breakup of the oxygen molecule (O2) into individual atoms. He also claims that global warming comes from the absorption of UV rays by ozone lower in the atmosphere ... specifically, ozone created by pollutants at ground level, especially in cities.

He would need to provide some justification for that premise, for example, by theoretically calculating the absorption of UV light by a known concentration of ground-level ozone resulting in a sensible temperature increase, instead of referring to other environments (the stratosphere, where ozone concentrations are much higher than at ground level, and exposure to UV rays in much greater) and the "heat island" effect which has already been explained by much simpler causes.

It's an interesting concept, but I don't have the knowledge or the time to do his calculations for him, and his evidence is unpersuasive.
Somewhere in this thread the separation of oxygen molecules is described as "ejected" - which doesn't sound like moseying.

Of the internet descriptions of separating oxygen molecules, all seem to express a high-speed motion of atoms resulting.
LINKS PLEASE

I spent some time trying to find the speed of resulting atoms from oxygen dissociation in the stratosphere. Various searches keep coming up with the result that the increased temperature IN THE STRATOSPHERE results from absorption of UV rays BY OZONE. Since the increased temperature only NEGLIGIBLY results from oxygen, I can only conclude that absorption of UV by oxygen and subsequent dissociation doesn't result in fast-moving atoms.

In any case, Dr Ward is trying to analogize the heat- production by absorption of UV rays BY OZONE IN THE STRATOSPHERE to absorption of UV rays BY OZONE IN THE TROPOSPHERE.

Since the "ejection" of oxygen atoms seems to be irrelevant to his main point, I think we can safely ignore it.

Quoted for readability.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 10, 2021 4:35 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
I didn't specify what kind of virus. And the answer is pneumonia, no matter what the year.

Quote:
You didn't need to. If you died in a car crash in 2020 you died of Covid-19.

How did the doctors who sign death certificates manage to manufacture 370K EXTRA deaths in 2020? And how is it that a lot more people died of heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s, chronic liver disease, stroke and high blood pressure in 2020 than before, (suicides dropped), and not COVID-19?

BTW, if they were dx'ing everything as COVID-19, how is it that Signy's hubby got diagnosed with BACTERIAL pneumonia 3 out of 3 times over all these months, and not once with COVID-19?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 10, 2021 5:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Quote:
Your problem, Kiki, is that your criteria for "evidence" is flawed.

You believe what you want to believe when you want to believe it. Just like pretty much everybody else does.
No, I actually try to VERIFY my information. I go to many countries, many news services but especially foreign ones, many scientific organizations and original research ... and so on.

I don't start out with the idea that everybody is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That would be ridiculously naive of me. I ALSO don't think the entire planet is colluding together to fool me with a cohesive narrative. That would be irrationally paranoid.

So, for example, if I see that Brazil and China and Russia and Iran and Venezuela ... and the US and England ... and Sweden and Norway ... have COVID-19 deaths, I don't assume they're ALL lying that COVID-19 kills people, especially because these are countries with different and even opposing philosophies, economies, and approaches to COVID-19. I understand that some may want to maximize the numbers for political reasons ... just as someone may want to minimize the numbers for political reasons (like for example not wanting public unrest, or not wanting to appear weak to an enemy). So I take all numbers with a grain of salt.

But the FACT of people dying from COVID-19 is inescapable. So I would never make a statement like - 'nobody dies of COVID'. Because there is ample and well verified EVIDENCE that people actually - you know - die of COVID-19.

You and JSF OTOH have no problem throwing out a planetfull of evidence when it doesn't suit your emotions.

This seems to be confusing consensus with science.

When EVERYBODY KNEW for a FACT that the world was Flat, except for those who wished their bodies be removed from their heads, that was consensus - good enough science for kiki.

And when EVERYBODY KNEW for a FACT that the Sun orbited the Earth, except those who wished their bodies be removed from their heads, that was consensus - good enough science for kiki.

ETA:
The Piri Reis Map of the entire world, with exacting detail of the coastlines (including Pacific coastlines of the Americas, and Antarctica), which was copied from the Maps that Columbus used to sail across the Atlantic (before the Americas or "Antarctica" had been discovered or mapped, dating before 1492) - were dated 1513.
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/atlantida_mu/esp_atlantida_23.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piri_Reis_map

The Church insisted that the Earth was Flat, based upon Scripture. The Old Testament specified the 4 corners of the earth and the Arch - which the Church insisted must be only Flat Earth.
The Church insisted that the Sun orbited the Earth because it was specified in Scripture.

Philolaus (of Croton), 470-385 BC. (heliocentrism, Earth is not the center of the Universe)
Aristotle, 384-322 BC. (Earth is a globe, but center of the Universe)
Aristarchus of Samos, 310-230 BC (Earth and other planets orbit Sun, specified sequence order of planets from the Sun.)

Erdapfel made 1492 (with no presentation of the New World)
Christopher Columbus, 1451-1506.
Nicholas Copernicus, 1473-1543. Published 1543.
Johannes Kepler, 1571-1630. (Published Mysterium Cosmographicum in 1596, later introduced elliptical orbits. Established Mars had elliptical orbit by 1601.)

Telescope invented 1608.

Yes, this means that kiki would prefer to wade through 2,000 years of "consensus" facts before allowing science truth to intrude upon her beliefs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 10, 2021 5:20 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Uhhmmm ... the Popes didn't care if you thought the world was flat or a globe. So that's a misstatement on your part. What they cared about was if you thought the sun went around the earth, or the earth went around the sun. And the evidence they had at the time pointed to the sun going around the earth because - just look at it!.

But then new equipment like the telescope provided evidence that the earth - she still moved. (And Newton later provided the formulas to show that they both went around a common center of gravity.)

I follow evidence and change my understanding with the evidence.

What do you follow?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 10, 2021 6:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
BTW, if they were dx'ing everything as COVID-19, how is it that Signy's hubby got diagnosed with BACTERIAL pneumonia 3 out of 3 times over all these months, and not once with COVID-19?

Because he's still alive.

And now it's 2021, so it's moot.

--------------------------------------------------

Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 10, 2021 6:31 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
BTW, if they were dx'ing everything as COVID-19, how is it that Signy's hubby got diagnosed with BACTERIAL pneumonia 3 out of 3 times over all these months, and not once with COVID-19?

Because he's still alive.

And now it's 2021, so it's moot.

--------------------------------------------------

Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.

SIX, you're so stupid. Do you think they dx people after they die???

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 10, 2021 9:00 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
How's Joe* doing on climate?

--------------------------------------------------

Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.

Biden looks at financial rules to deprive oil of capital, shift country on climate

The Biden administration, facing a Congress unlikely to take significant action on climate change, is considering reaching beyond environmental law to establish tough, new financial regulations that raise the capital costs of the nation’s fossil fuel industries.

To accomplish the president’s agenda of dramatically lowering greenhouse gas emissions, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Treasury Department are in various stages of rulemaking to encourage the nation’s banks, institutional investors and other financial players to invest more heavily in clean energy, mirroring efforts underway in the European Union.

The strategy threatens to accelerate the shift of investment away from the oil and gas companies that dominate the Houston and Texas economies, depriving them of the capital they need to launch drilling projects, expand and hire workers, analysts and policy experts said. It would only add pressure on an industry that has fallen out favor with investors after years of high costs and low returns and uncertainty over its future in a low-carbon world.

“The SEC is where the money that goes into the ground gets regulated, so it’s a big deal for them to get into the climate game, not to mention all these other financial regulators moving at the same time” said Kevin Book, managing director at the research firm ClearView Energy Partners. “Nobody who assesses the health of these (publicly traded) entities will be able to say (emissions) don’t matter anymore.”

The process is still in the early stages. Furthest along is the SEC, which is still collecting comments on how greenhouse gas emissions are reported.

The agency has not said what action it might take, but the examination signals an attempt to establish uniform reporting standards that would allow investors to make apples to apples comparisons between not only companies but entire industries, experts said.

Companies now report emissions through a variety of voluntary protocols — with varying standards — that allow companies to present themselves as cleaner than they are, a practice known as “greenwashing.”

Investors maintain that the lack of such reporting standards hinders their ability to determine how well positioned companies are for a low-carbon future. Were the SEC to require uniform data on climate exposure — the same way they do on profits and cash flow — investors would likely move money away from companies with the largest carbon footprints, experts said.

For the oil and gas industry, this could be particularly problematic, with as yet no viable way to capture the huge volumes of emissions that come out of vehicles’ tailpipes.

“If you have asset managers and financial institutions all with net zero targets and at some point those things all become real,” said Ben Cahill, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank in Washington “There is a risk of decapitalizing the (oil) industry just as you have industry starting to grow again, at a time the industry has been underinvesting for years.”

. . .

Earlier this year, the Bank Policy Institute, the financial industry’s largest lobbying group, said that it opposed measures such as testing how well banks perform under the stresses of climate change and depleting values for oil and other fossil fuels — already underway in the United Kingdom and Europe. But the trade group also says that financial institutions need better data, including standardized emissions tallies, if they are to effectively shift trillions of dollars in capital to less carbon intensive companies and sectors.

“Disclosure is a relatively politically acceptable argument,” said Book, of ClearView Energy Partners. “Most people putting money to work in the market will accept the concept of better information.”

More at https://web.archive.org/web/20210610142545/https://www.houstonchronicl
e.com/business/energy/article/Biden-looks-to-financial-rules-to-shift-country-16238047.php

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 10, 2021 10:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
BTW, if they were dx'ing everything as COVID-19, how is it that Signy's hubby got diagnosed with BACTERIAL pneumonia 3 out of 3 times over all these months, and not once with COVID-19?

Because he's still alive.

And now it's 2021, so it's moot.

--------------------------------------------------

Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.
SIX, you're so stupid. Do you think they dx people after they die???

I don't know what dx-ing people means.

ETA: Oh... Right. Diagnosing.

They were just making up shit on death certificates. If you died in 2020 you died of Covid-19.

Maybe there weren't any death certificates and the CDC and John's Hopkins were just making up numbers.

I want a full list of every single person that died in the US of Covid-19, since we started keeping score, along with the date of their death and their age.

Until I see that list, they're full of shit.

--------------------------------------------------

Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 14, 2021 2:01 AM

When I posted the text in the 13th post of this thread, the paste/copy did not catch a lot of the paragraph separation.

I've finished cleaning that up now. But the linky website does include a bunch of graphs and images.

It also includes another linky:
www.physically-impossible.com

Sigs, do you dispute the points within that linky? Many of the points are handily numbered.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 14, 2021 4:28 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

JSF, thanks for the link.

I re-scanned the article complete with graphs and pictures, and it's still faulty. I started taking notes as to where it was wrong but gave up because it was wrong in too many places to count. Also, I addressed these before.

1) Warming by earth's surfaceis constant year after year...

WRONG. Long-term changes in earth's reflectance of visible light (albedo) - by loss of icefields and depostion of carbon particles on ... everything ... cause more warming

2) Warming by dissociation of oxygen in the stratosphere ...

Does not occur in significant quantities. (And BTW the bond energy holding oxygen together - ~5eV ... is low energy)

3) The dissociation (of ozone) in the stratosphere warms the stratosphere ...

Here, he contradicts himself as to exactly WHAT is warming the stratosphere, because first he says it's dissociation of oxygen, then he says it's dissociation of ozone

4) Montreal Protocol of 1987 stopped the increase in global warming

It did??? According to temperature measurements, it didn't

5) The absorption energy of CO2 is 50X less than the absorption of ozone at our level (troposphere)

But then ... the concentration of carbon dioxide is 4,000 (four THOUSAND) times the concentration of ozone at ground level. Mass counts for something! On top of that, there is a lot greater flux of infrared passing thru the troposphere than UV radiation.

etc etc etc

Sorry, I justcan't be bothered to go thru all of this again. Self-contradictory and wrong on so many points. Even back-of-envelope calculations show me that. It's an interesting idea and I'm sure he feels that he's reached a great insight but I can't find any data to back it up.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 14, 2021 9:12 AM

Not stating an opinion here.

Just giving props to a good advertisement.

And finding it hilarious that I still have a YT ban on my zero video/zero influence channel by Susan with no explanation why, and this channel has 662k subscribers and the video's been seen 3.5 million times and they've still got a channel because of rightthink.

--------------------------------------------------

Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 14, 2021 5:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Not stating an opinion here.

Just giving props to a good advertisement.

And finding it hilarious that I still have a YT ban on my zero video/zero influence channel by Susan with no explanation why, and this channel has 662k subscribers and the video's been seen 3.5 million times and they've still got a channel because of rightthink.

Sounds like you are in the company of WI Senator Ron Johnson, who is also banned from BoobTube.

When the founders envisioned the First Amendment portion dealing with Free
Speech, they must have intended for political speech such as President Trump and a current U.S. Senator to under this umbrella of Freedom and Protection.

No doubt the Era of Constitutional America has ended.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 14, 2021 5:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
When I posted the text in the 13th post of this thread, the paste/copy did not catch a lot of the paragraph separation.

I've finished cleaning that up now. But the linky website does include a bunch of graphs and images.

It also includes another linky:
www.physically-impossible.com

Sigs, do you dispute the points within that linky? Many of the points are handily numbered.

Posting the text here, so I can read it here.

Greenhouse gases cannot physically cause observed global warming
The World Is Warming

All four major analyses of Earth’s average surface temperatures (NASA, NOAA, Hadcrut4, and Berkeley Earth) document global warming since 1950 of approximately 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.6 degrees Fahrenheit). There was very little change in temperature from 1950 to 1970. The world warmed 0.6 degrees from 1970 to 1998. There was very little change in temperature from 1998 through 2013. Then the world warmed an additional 0.3 degrees from 2013 to 2016, making 2016 the hottest year on record. Most climate scientists are convinced, based on greenhouse-warming theory, that this warming is caused primarily by increased burning of fossil fuels, causing increasing emissions of greenhouse gases, that are absorbing increasing amounts of infrared radiation emitted by Earth. Annual, average concentrations of carbon dioxide measured on Mauna Loa, Hawaii, have increased from 316 ppm in 1959 to 411 ppm in 2019 (30%). Most climate scientists are convinced that we must decrease burning of fossil fuels substantially and promptly in order to prevent dangerous overheating of Earth during the next few decades.
Why the Physics of Greenhouse-Warming Theory Appears to Be Mistaken

Greenhouse-warming theory, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, posits that greenhouse gases, primarily water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4) and ozone (O3)

“absorb terrestrial radiation emitted by Earth’s surface and elsewhere in the atmosphere. These substances emit infrared radiation in all directions, but, everything else being equal, the net amount emitted to space is normally less than would have been emitted in the absence of these absorbers. … An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases increases the magnitude of this effect.”

Greenhouse-warming theory is thus based on the fundamental assumption described by Joseph Fourier in 1822 (Page 3) that the average temperature at Earth’s surface will increase if the net amount of terrestrial radiation reaching space becomes less than the net amount of solar radiation reaching Earth, often explained as the Earth-atmosphere energy balance, Earth’s energy budget, Earth’s radiation budget, tracking Earth’s energy, or Earth’s energy balance).

Since 1798, physicists have thought of heat as thermal energy in transfer—a flux through some surface measured in watts per square meter, where watts are the number of joules of energy passing through the surface each second. Climate scientists calculate radiative forcings, which are the net changes in flux (downward minus upward) caused by changes in concentrations in the atmosphere of each type of greenhouse gas, dust, black carbon soot, smoke from biomass burning, aerosols, volcanic aerosols, contrails, and such, or caused by any changes in radiation from Sun. They add these radiative forcings together to estimate changes in temperature.

Thus greenhouse-warming theory is based on the assumption that (1) radiative energy can be quantified by a single number of watts per square meter, (2) the assumption that these radiative forcings can be added together, and (3) the assumption that Earth’s surface temperature is proportional to the sum of all of these radiative forcings. A fundamentally new understanding of the physics of thermal energy and the physics of heat, described below, shows that all three assumptions are mistaken. There are other serious problems: (4) greenhouse gases absorb only a small part of the radiation emitted by Earth, (5) they can only reradiate what they absorb, (6) they do not reradiate in every direction as assumed, (7) they make up only a tiny part of the gases in the atmosphere, and (8) they have been shown by experiment not to cause significant warming. (9) The thermal effects of radiation are not about amount of radiation absorbed, as currently assumed, they are about the temperature of the emitting body and the difference in temperature between the emitting and the absorbing bodies as described below.

The thermal effects of radiation are not about amount of radiation absorbed, as currently assumed, they are about the temperature of the emitting body and the difference in temperature between the emitting and the absorbing bodies.

Heat is, in concept, what a body of matter must absorb to get warmer and emit to get cooler. Defining heat as thermal energy in transfer completely sidesteps the issue of what thermal energy is physically in matter and in radiation. Physics is supposed to be about what is physically happening in Nature. What physically is thermal energy? What physically is heat? Once we can answer these questions, then we can observe how, physically, thermal energy and heat flow through matter, through air, and through space?
What Physically Is Thermal Radiation?

Visible colors of sunlight separated by a prism.In 1672, Isaac Newton showed, using a prism and lenses, that sunlight is made up of a broad spectrum of colors and that these colors physically coexist within sunlight—they are displayed by but not created by the prism. Newton also showed that by using a second prism, he could combine the colors back into white light.

We observe that these colors do not interact with each other in any way in air and space—only when in the immediate presence of matter. We refer to these colors as the visible spectrum extending from red through violet, but they clearly form a continuous spectrum or continuum meaning a continuous sequence of shades of color in which adjacent colors are not perceptibly different from each other, although the extremes are quite distinct. The human eye can detect about ten million distinct colors.

Visible spectrumWe physically measure visible light as containing all frequencies of oscillation ranging from 450 to 789 terahertz, where one terahertz is one-trillion cycles per second (1012 cycles per second). We also observe that the visible spectrum is but a very small part of a much wider continuum that we call electromagnetic radiation Electromagnetic continuumwith frequencies extending over more than 20 orders of magnitude from extremely low frequency radio signals in cycles per second to microwave, infrared, visible, ultraviolet, X-rays, to gamma rays with frequencies of more than 100 million, million, million cycles per second (1020 cycles per second). Thermal radiation is a portion of this continuum of electromagnetic radiation radiated by a body of matter as a result of the body’s temperature—the hotter the body, shown here at the bottom as Temperature, the higher the radiated frequencies of oscillation with significant amplitudes of oscillation.

We observe that electromagnetic radiation has two physical properties: 1) frequency of oscillation, which is color in the visible part of the continuum, and 2) amplitude of oscillation, which we perceive as intensity or brightness at each frequency.Planck's law In 1900, Max Planck, one of the fathers of modern physics, derived an equation by trial and error that has become known as Planck’s empirical law. Planck’s empirical law is not based on theory, although several derivations have been proposed. It was formulated solely to calculate correctly the intensities at each frequency observed during extensive direct observations of Nature. Planck’s empirical law calculates the observed intensity or amplitude of oscillation at each frequency of oscillation for radiation emitted by a black body of matter at a specific temperature and at thermal equilibrium. A black body is simply a perfect absorber and emitter of all frequencies of radiation.

Thermal radiation from Earth, at a temperature of 15 oC, consists of the narrow continuum of frequencies of oscillation shown in green in this plot of Planck’s empirical law. Thermal radiation from the tungsten filament of an incandescent light bulb at 3000 oC consists of a broader continuum of frequencies shown in yellow and green. Thermal radiation from Sun at 5500 oC consists of a much broader continuum of frequencies shown in red, yellow and green.

Note in this plot of Planck’s empirical law that the higher the temperature, 1) the broader the continuum of frequencies, 2) the higher the amplitude of oscillation at each and every frequency, and 3) the higher the frequencies of oscillation that are oscillating with the largest amplitudes of oscillation. Radiation from Sun shown in red, yellow, and green clearly contains much higher frequencies and amplitudes of oscillation than radiation from Earth shown in green. Planck’s empirical law shows unequivocally that the physical properties of radiation are a function of the temperature of the body emitting the radiation.

Planck’s empirical law shows unequivocally that the physical properties of radiation are a function of the temperature of the body emitting the radiation.

Heat, defined in concept as that which must be absorbed by solid matter to increase its temperature, is similarly a broad continuum of frequencies of oscillation and corresponding amplitudes of oscillation. For example, the broad continuum of heat that Earth, with a temperature of 15 oC, must absorb to reach a temperature of 3000 oC is shown by the continuum of values within the yellow-shaded area in this plot of Planck’s empirical law.

Heat is, therefore, a broad continuum of frequencies and amplitudes of oscillation that cannot be described by a single number of watts per square meter as currently assumed in physics and in greenhouse-warming theory. The physical properties of heat as described by Planck’s empirical law and the thermal effects of this heat are determined both by the temperature of the emitting body and, as we will see below, by the difference in temperature between the emitting body and the absorbing body. But what is oscillating?

Heat is a broad continuum of frequencies and amplitudes of oscillation that cannot be described by a single number of watts per square meter as currently assumed.

Oscillation of All the Bonds Holding Matter Together

We observe that when a radio transmitter applies a frequency of oscillation to its antenna, that specific frequency is transmitted through air and space where it can be received by any radio receiver tuned to resonate at that specific frequency and located at a reasonable distance within or very close to line of sight. We also observe that a very large number of these radio frequencies coexist within the electromagnetic continuum where they do not interact in air or space. Physicists and electrical engineers think of transmission of frequency as the result of the physical motion of electric charge on the surface of the antenna of a radio transmitter.

Oscillation of a bondWe also observe that the chemical bonds holding matter together are not rigid. They oscillate between electrodynamic forces of repulsion when the atoms get too close together and electrodynamic forces of attraction as the atoms move apart as approximated by the Morse potential shown in this figure, or by the more detailed Morse/Long-range potential. Oscillations of bonds are frictionless and therefore can last essentially forever. As the amplitude of oscillation increases, the energy of oscillation increases until the energy of oscillation reaches a threshold (Emax) equal to the energy holding the bond together. At this level of energy, the bond is essentially shaken apart—the bond is dissociated.

Thus, the frequencies and amplitudes of oscillation contained within thermal radiation and described by Planck’s empirical law must also be the frequencies and amplitudes of oscillation of molecular bonds on the surface of the emitting body that are transmitting the radiation. They must also exist below the surface of the radiating body, interacting via conduction if the body is at thermal equilibrium. In this way, Planck’s empirical law shows the broad continuum of frequencies and amplitudes of oscillation of all the bonds that must exist throughout a body of matter for that body to physically be at a specific temperature.

Planck’s empirical law shows the broad continuum of frequencies and amplitudes of oscillation of all the bonds that must exist throughout a body of matter for that body to physically be at a specific temperature.

Planck’s empirical law shows clearly that to increase the temperature of solid matter, you must increase the amplitude of oscillation at each and every frequency of oscillation and you must increase the frequency of oscillation that has the maximum amplitude of oscillation. The body, to be warmed, must absorb substantial amplitudes of oscillation primarily at the higher frequencies of oscillation. These higher amplitudes and frequencies of oscillation only occur in a body of matter that is hotter. We observe that amplitude of oscillation can only “flow” from a hotter to a cooler body of matter.
Thermal Energy is Similarly a Broad Continuum of Energies

To develop his law, Planck postulated that thermal energy (E) at the molecular-bond level, equals the Planck constant (h) times the frequency of oscillation (?, the Greek letter nu). This simple equation, E=h?, says that the level of thermal energy (E) of oscillation of a single, frictionless, molecular-bond-scale oscillator is merely the frequency of oscillation of that particular oscillator times a scaling constant (h). Thus, energy of oscillation is the same physical thing as frequency of oscillation, and the Planck constant (h) is the number of electronvolts or joules of energy contained in a frequency of oscillation of one cycle per second.

E=h? says that energy of oscillation is the same physical thing as frequency of oscillation. The Planck constant is the number of joules of energy contained in a frequency of oscillation of one cycle per second.

Since radiant energy is a function of frequency of oscillation, E=h? must be plotted on an alternative x-axis shown at the top of the plot of Planck’s empirical law. Even though Planck postulated that energy equals a constant times frequency (E=h?) in order to write his law, he thought of this simple equation as “a purely formal assumption” stating that “I really did not give it much thought except that no matter what the cost, I must bring about a positive result.” Planck never stopped to think that E=h? means energy should be plotted on an alternative x-axis, not on the y-axis as widely thought at that time and still today. E=h? is now known as the Planck-Einstein relation and is essentially universally accepted as physically accurate.

E=h? also applies at the macroscopic level to the total thermal energy contained within radiation. In this case, frequency of oscillation (?), plotted on the lower x-axis, is observed to be the broad continuous electromagnetic spectrum or continuum of values that all coexist. Similarly, energy (E), plotted on the upper x-axis, is observed to be the broad continuous spectrum or continuum of values of energy in units of joules or electronvolts that all coexist. Note from Planck’s empirical law that thermal energy is only a function of frequency of oscillation. Thermal energy is not a function of intensity, amplitude, or amount as currently assumed in physics and in greenhouse-warming theory.

Currently climate scientists plot energy on the y-axis and integrate as a function of frequency. It makes no physical sense to integrate as a function of frequencies, which means to add up frequencies. If you add red light to blue light, you end up with some red light and some blue light that coexist. There is no way in air and space that frequencies can be physically added together to equal a new frequency or to sum up energies to create a single number representing the total energy. Energy is a broad continuum of values.

The fundamental mistakes with greenhouse-warming theory are plotting energy on the y-axis of Planck’s empirical law and integrating as a function of frequency to get one number for the total amount of thermal energy flowing per second in units of watts per square meter. This method grossly overestimates the thermal effects of infrared energy.

The fundamental mistakes with greenhouse-warming theory are plotting energy on the y-axis of Planck’s empirical law and integrating as a function of frequency to get one number for the total amount of thermal energy flowing per second in units of watts per square meter. This method grossly overestimates the thermal effects of infrared energy.

There is a different value of energy and flux of energy at each and every frequency. The total energy of radiation, therefore, is the result of the simultaneous oscillation of all the bonds holding matter together—the co-existence of all frequencies and energies of oscillation. Thermal radiation is the result of a very, very large number of molecular-scale oscillators, all oscillating simultaneously on the surface of the radiating body. There is, physically, no such thing as a single total amount of thermal energy flowing per second in units of watts per square meter as currently assumed in physics and in greenhouse-warming theory. There is a level of energy at each frequency of oscillation, not a single total amount of energy as currently assumed. The variable closest in concept to amount in Planck’s empirical law is amplitude or intensity of oscillation.

Thermal radiation is the result of a very, very large number of molecular-scale oscillators, all oscillating simultaneously on the surface of the radiating body.

To summarize, Planck’s empirical law was derived by trial and error to describe accurately the observed physical properties of thermal radiation as a function of temperature, which are the frequencies of oscillation and their associated intensities or amplitudes of oscillation as a function of temperature. Planck’s empirical law shows clearly that what we perceive as temperature of matter is the result of a very broad spectrum or continuum of frequencies of oscillation of all the bonds holding matter together. Similarly, increased temperature is the result of increased amplitudes of oscillation at each and every frequency of oscillation, especially at higher frequencies.

Planck’s empirical law shows clearly that what we perceive as temperature of matter is the result of a very broad spectrum or continuum of frequencies of oscillation of all the bonds holding matter together.

For the temperature of a body of matter to increase by absorbing radiation, that radiation must come from a hotter body that is emitting radiation containing higher amplitudes of oscillation at each and every frequency of oscillation.
Earth Cannot Be Warmed by Its Own Radiation

Greenhouse-warming theory posits that average global surface temperatures rise when increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere absorb increasing amounts of infrared radiation from Earth. In other words, the surface of Earth is warmed when Earth’s lower atmosphere absorbs thermal radiation emitted at Earth’s surface. This rise in temperature is estimated to be between 1.5 °C and 4.5 °C. when the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is doubled.

But we observe clearly in Nature that no body of matter can be warmed in any way by absorbing its own radiation. Such warming is not physically possible. If it were possible, bodies of matter could, under the right circumstances, spontaneously heat up—something we all know does not happen. We would have an inexhaustible source of free energy—something too good to be true.

Imagine two bodies of solid matter positioned next to each other. Each at the same temperature. Each potentially absorbing identical radiation from the other. Neither can become hotter. Neither will get hotter, no matter how long you wait. Both bodies can lose heat to cooler surroundings, but neither can absorb heat from the other body as long as both bodies are at the same temperature.

The reason a body of matter cannot be heated by its own radiation is because its own radiation does not contain the higher amplitudes of oscillation at every frequency of oscillation that must be absorbed to physically increase the body’s temperature.

The reason a body of matter cannot be heated by its own radiation is because its own radiation does not contain the higher amplitudes of oscillation at every frequency of oscillation that must be absorbed to physically increase the body’s temperature.

Fourier and most climate scientists today would argue that greenhouse gases slow the cooling of Earth, which Sun, therefore, makes hotter. But Planck’s empirical law shows that the only way for Sun to make Earth hotter is when Earth absorbs higher than normal amplitudes of oscillation at higher frequencies of oscillation. This is precisely what is observed to happen when the ozone layer is depleted. Greater than normal amplitudes of oscillation of ultraviolet-B radiation are observed to pass through the depleted ozone layer, reaching Earth. Ultraviolet-B is the highest frequency, most energetic radiation to normally reach Earth’s surface. The average temperature of Earth’s surface is determined primarily by the optical thickness of the ozone layer. The less ozone in the ozone layer, the greater the amplitudes of oscillation of ultraviolet-B radiation reaching Earth, causing Earth to warm.

The average temperature of Earth’s surface is determined primarily by the optical thickness of the ozone layer. The less ozone in the ozone layer, the greater the amplitudes of oscillation of ultraviolet-B radiation reaching Earth, causing Earth to warm.

Earth Cannot Be Warmed by a Blanket of Greenhouse Gases

Some scientists propose that greenhouse gases act like a blanket surrounding Earth, keeping Earth approximately 33 oC warmer than expected for a planet at Earth’s distance from Sun. Blankets are well-known to slow the loss of thermal energy from a body of matter, but a blanket has no way to increase the amplitudes of oscillation at every frequency of oscillation. A blanket cannot be the source of new thermal energy required to increase the temperature of the body under the blanket, unless it is an electric blanket that adds thermal energy from somewhere else.

Temperature profile of Earth's atmosphereEarth’s blanket is observed to be the stratosphere, which does act like an electric blanket because it is heated by ultraviolet radiation from Sun, not by the body under the blanket, Earth. The stratosphere is the only part of the atmosphere below the thermosphere where temperatures increase with increasing altitude from an average of around -51 oC at the base of the stratosphere to an average of around -15 oC at the top of the stratosphere, approximately 36 degrees of warming.

This temperature increase is caused by high-energy, solar, ultraviolet radiation dissociating any bond holding together gas molecules such as oxygen (O2), ozone (O3), or carbon dioxide (CO2). Upon dissociation, when the bond is broken, the pieces of a gas molecule fly apart at high velocity. Temperature of a gas is well-known to be proportional to the average kinetic energy of translation of all gas molecules, which for a single molecule is equal to one half its mass times its velocity squared. Thus, when a molecular bond is dissociated, all of the energy holding that bond together is converted instantaneously and completely into increased air temperature.

A similar example is found on Venus where the atmosphere is more than 96% carbon dioxide. It is dissociation of carbon dioxide by solar ultraviolet-C radiation that most likely causes the average surface temperature of Venus to be approximately 462 oC.

What is most surprising, given the importance of greenhouse gases in today’s politics, is that greenhouse gases absorbing infrared radiation have never been shown by experiment, a cornerstone of the scientific method, to cause any significant increase in air temperature as explained at JustProveCO2.com.

Greenhouse gases absorbing infrared radiation have never been shown by experiment to cause any significant increase in air temperature.

How Physically Does a Broad Continuum of Frequencies of Oscillation Flow Through Air and Space?

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.

Averative warmingIf you shine a light on a small black object, the rate of warming, the rate that heat flows, similarly decreases with decreasing difference in temperature forming an asymptotic curve shown by the black line in this figure. The red line shows the temperature calculated by multiplying 4.6% times the average of the existing temperature and the ending temperature of 28 oC at each 10-second interval. The 4.6% has to do with the conductivity per second of heat into the black object and other boundary conditions.

Similar asymptotic curves are observed for both warming and cooling of matter by conduction or by absorbing or emitting radiation. In this way, the flux of heat is observed to be based on temperature difference and is not additive as currently assumed by most climate scientists and most physicists. Heat and the flux of heat are both observed to be averative. This is an extremely important observation that is one of the primary reasons why greenhouse-warming theory is mistaken. Heat is what a body of matter must absorb to raise its temperature. Because temperature is averative, there is no physical way that heat could not be averative.

Heat is what a body of matter must absorb to raise its temperature. Because temperature is averative, there is no physical way that heat could not be averative.

But how does the warming body “know” the ending temperature of 28 oC and how, physically, does Nature determine an average? The answer is by resonance, also known as sympathetic vibration. Resonance is a fundamental physical property of oscillating systems. Remember that all bonds holding matter together are oscillating at all times.

The simplest example of resonance is a single frequency transmitted by a radio station. The radio program modulates a center frequency assigned by the government to prevent interference with other nearby stations. The radio transmitter causes oscillations of this modulated center frequency on the surface of the transmitting antenna. You tune your radio receiver to resonate at that specific center frequency. Resonance is the way two oscillators oscillating at the same frequency can, under the best of conditions, average their amplitudes of oscillation, effectively transferring amplitude of oscillation from the transmitter to the receiver. In this way, your radio receiver discriminates the center frequency of the radio station from all the other frequencies out there. It is the oscillatory nature of electromagnetic radiation that makes it possible for radiation, for heat, to be transmitted across air and space via resonance.

Resonance is observed to transfer amplitude of oscillation at a specific frequency of oscillation only from higher amplitude to lower amplitude, which Planck’s Law shows clearly is from higher temperature to lower temperature. Resonance occurs between one discrete molecular-scale oscillator on the surface of the emitting body and one discrete molecular-scale oscillator on the surface of the absorbing body. Radiant heat travels through air and space when resonance occurs simultaneously between different pairs of oscillators at each and every frequency of oscillation of all the molecular-scale oscillators on the surface of matter.

Resonance is observed to transfer amplitude of oscillation at a specific frequency of oscillation only from higher amplitude to lower amplitude, which Planck’s Law shows clearly is from higher temperature to lower temperature.

Resonance is all around us. You experience resonance most clearly when you push a child on a swing. If you push at exactly the same frequency of oscillation as the swing is swinging, the amplitude of the swing will increase. You tune radio and television receivers to resonate at whatever frequency your preferred station is transmitting. Your cellphone is tuned to resonate with the different frequencies of transmission and reception used at a local cell tower. Individual hair cells, called cilia, in the cochlea of your ears, resonate with sounds in air, sending signals to your brain, allowing you to hear very low frequencies typically from 20 to 20,000 cycles per second. Visible colors, which are frequencies of oscillation between 450 and 789 trillion cycles per second, resonate with cells in the cones of your eyes that send signals to your brain, allowing you to see ten million different colors. Visible light is visible because these are the natural frequencies of oscillation that the cells in your eyes oscillate at, given their physical size.

For centuries, scientists have argued whether light, in the form of electromagnetic radiation, travels through space as waves or as particles. Waves and particles, however, describe how the energies of motion of physical pieces of matter are visualized as traveling. But light is not physical matter and light cannot be observed until it interacts with physical matter. Light, electromagnetic radiation, is observed to be a broad continuum of frequencies of oscillation where amplitudes of oscillation are observed to travel simultaneously at each frequency of oscillation by resonance.

Light, electromagnetic radiation, is observed to be a broad continuum of frequencies of oscillation where amplitudes of oscillation are observed to travel simultaneously at each frequency of oscillation by resonance.

Conduction is resonance enabled by physical contact of molecules of matter. Radiation is resonance enabled by the interaction of what we think of as electric and magnetic fields via line of sight where what we think of as the velocity of light is proportional to the very short and constant time required for resonance to occur over any distance. Frequency of oscillation is observed not to change with distance, even over galactic distances, except for Doppler effects where the source and receiver are moving relative to each other. Similarly, amplitude of oscillation is not observed to change with distance. Thus, the Planck temperature of radiation from Sun is the same close to Sun as it is close to Earth. But the thermal effect of solar radiation is observed to decrease with the square of the distance. What appears to be happening is that the density of molecular-scale bonds on the surface of matter that resonate decreases with distance, so that the amplitude increase due to resonance must be shared with increasing numbers of bonds that are not resonating with bonds on the distant source. Resonance is explained in more detail in video 9.

Another key property of resonance is that the absorbing oscillator, in an undamped system, may oscillate at an amplitude much greater than the average between the emitter and the absorber. This explains why oxygen molecules are dissociated most efficiently at frequencies of oscillation close to 1237 terahertz and not at higher frequencies. This also explains the spectral lines of absorption by carbon dioxide discussed below that are thought to be the resonant frequencies of all the bonds that hold matter together. We still have a lot to learn about resonance, but we first have to realize how important it is for the flow of heat.
Nine Fundamental Mistakes in the Physics of Heat and in Greenhouse-Warming Theory

Numerous assumptions central to greenhouse-warming theory turn out to be mistaken.

(1) Radiant energy cannot be quantified by a single number of watts per square meter as assumed in physics for more than two centuries. Planck’s empirical law shows clearly that radiation from matter, as a function of temperature, consists of a broad spectrum or continuum of frequencies of oscillation. According to the well-accepted Planck-Einstein relation, each frequency has its own energy. Therefore, energy radiated by a body of matter is a continuum of energies where all energies coexist. It makes no physical sense to integrate across these frequencies or energies to calculate a single number of watts per square meter. This approach seems to have worked adequately for most engineering applications where temperature differences are small. It fails catastrophically, however, for large differences in temperatures such as between Sun at 5500 oC and Earth at 15 oC.

(2) Radiative forcings cannot be added together. Temperature and heat are not additive. They are averative because heat flows by resonance.

(3) Earth’s surface temperature is not proportional to the sum of all radiative forcings. Planck’s empirical law shows clearly that temperature in matter is the result of a broad continuum of frequencies of oscillation and associated continuum of amplitudes of oscillation. Planck’s empirical law shows what frequencies and amplitudes of oscillation must be occurring throughout a body of matter for that body to possess a specific temperature.

(4) Greenhouse gases absorb only certain limited bands of frequencies of radiation emitted by Earth as shown in this diagram. Water is, by far, the strongest absorber, especially at lower frequencies.

Within these narrow frequency bands, what is being absorbed is only narrow spectral lines of oscillation shown in red in the diagram on the left. These spectral lines turn out to be the resonant frequencies of all the overtones of oscillation, of all the normal modes of oscillation or all the bonds holding the molecules together. Radiant energy is absorbed into the bonds, which has no direct effect on the temperature of the gas. Temperature of a gas is proportional to the average kinetic energy of translation of all atoms and molecules making up air. One has to assume that the absorbed oscillatory energy is converted by collisions into translational kinetic energy, a process that does not appear to be efficient.

Planck's law logarithmic frequencyÅngström (1900) showed that “no more than about 16 percent of earth’s radiation can be absorbed by atmospheric carbon dioxide, and secondly, that the total absorption is very little dependent on the changes in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content, as long as it is not smaller than 0.2 of the existing value.” Extensive modern data agree that carbon dioxide absorbs less than 16% of the frequencies emitted by Earth shown by the vertical black lines of this plot of Planck’s empirical law where frequencies are plotted on a logarithmic x-axis. These vertical black lines show frequencies and relative amplitudes only. Their absolute amplitudes on this plot are arbitrary.

Temperature at Earth’s surface is the result of the broad continuum of oscillations shown in green. Absorbing less than 16% of the frequencies emitted by Earth cannot have much effect on the temperature of anything.

(5) Greenhouse gases can only reradiate what they absorb. A molecule of carbon dioxide cannot physically emit black-body radiation. It can only emit the spectral lines that it absorbed into its bonds. When these limited spectral lines are absorbed by any body of matter, they would have minuscule effect on temperature of that body of matter because they only make up a very small part of the continuum of frequencies whose amplitudes of oscillation must be increased in order to warm a body of matter.

(6) Greenhouse gases do not reradiate in every direction as assumed. Radiation by resonance is observed only to flow from a hotter body of matter to a cooler body of matter, which at the molecular-bond scale is from a higher amplitude of oscillation to a lower amplitude of oscillation at the same frequency.

(7) Carbon dioxide makes up only 0.04% of the atoms and molecules in air. Any increase in energy resulting from absorption by carbon dioxide, must be shared with 2500 other molecules and atoms.

(8) Ångström (1900) shows by two experiments that greenhouse-gas concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have minimal effect on air temperature. My experiments show that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations by a factor of more than 23 has no measurable effect on air temperature. Experiments reported on Internet that claim to see greenhouse warming utilize heat sources that are much, much hotter than Earth. More information at JustProveCO2.com.

(9) The thermal effects of radiation are not about amount of radiation absorbed, as currently assumed, they are about the temperature of the emitting body and the difference in temperature between the emitting and the absorbing bodies as explained above.

Greenhouse warming theory depends on at least nine assumptions that appear to be mistaken. Greenhouse warming theory has never been shown to be physically possible by experiment, a cornerstone of the scientific method. 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. A separate video, A Most Unexpected Revolution in the Physics of Heat, explains current problems with the physics of heat.

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 and my response.

Greenhouse warming theory is rapidly becoming the most expensive mistake ever made in the history of science, economically, politically, and environmentally.

The Crisis in Climate Science

Climate science is in a state of crisis because climate scientists, enamored with their broad consensus regarding greenhouse-warming theory, refuse to face the remarkably clear physical reality that greenhouse-warming theory is not even physically possible. What has happened to scientific objectivity? Politics requires consensus, but science required debate. As Michael Crichton explained: “In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” Michael Crichton

A Global Challenge

All of the issues discussed on this web page were known to me by 2015. Since then I have tried to get my fellow scientists to stop and think. I have written many papers, which when submitted for publication were not even sent out for review. I have sought interaction with many leading climate scientists and many climate skeptics. I have gone to great lengths, as explained in video 12, to try to get people to recognize that greenhouse-warming theory appears to be mistaken.

On this web page, I have tried to explain the issues as cogently at I can. I challenge anyone in the world to find any serious problem on this web page that could change the clear conclusion that greenhouse-warming theory is not only mistaken, it is not even physically possible. Please ask anyone defending greenhouse-warming theory to find the error in the observations reported on this web page. I issued this challenge in a major way on November 4, 2019, described at WhyClimateChanges.com/the-global-challenge/.

I challenge anyone in the world to find any serious problem on this web page that could change the clear conclusion that greenhouse-warming theory is not only mistaken, it is not even physically possible.” Dr. Peter L. Ward

If you have any good ideas pro or con, please join the scientific discussion at groups.google.com/d/forum/co2impossible which follows below.

Dr. Peter Langdon Ward (bio)

CO2Impossible@gmail.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 14, 2021 5:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JSF, thanks for the link.

I re-scanned the article complete with graphs and pictures, and it's still faulty. I started taking notes as to where it was wrong but gave up because it was wrong in too many places to count. Also, I addressed these before.

1) Warming by earth's surfaceis constant year after year...

WRONG. Long-term changes in earth's reflectance of visible light (albedo) - by loss of icefields and depostion of carbon particles on ... everything ... cause more warming

2) Warming by dissociation of oxygen in the stratosphere ...

Does not occur in significant quantities. (And BTW the bond energy holding oxygen together - ~5eV ... is low energy)

3) The dissociation (of ozone) in the stratosphere warms the stratosphere ...

Here, he contradicts himself as to exactly WHAT is warming the stratosphere, because first he says it's dissociation of oxygen, then he says it's dissociation of ozone

4) Montreal Protocol of 1987 stopped the increase in global warming

It did??? According to temperature measurements, it didn't

5) The absorption energy of CO2 is 50X less than the absorption of ozone at our level (troposphere)

But then ... the concentration of carbon dioxide is 4,000 (four THOUSAND) times the concentration of ozone at ground level. Mass counts for something! On top of that, there is a lot greater flux of infrared passing thru the troposphere than UV radiation.

etc etc etc

Sorry, I justcan't be bothered to go thru all of this again. Self-contradictory and wrong on so many points. Even back-of-envelope calculations show me that. It's an interesting idea and I'm sure he feels that he's reached a great insight but I can't find any data to back it up.

Unless I missed it, I don't see where you addressed any of the 9 points he makes. In the text of the post I just made/copied.

Did you already?
Do you disagree with all 9 points?
Do you agree with any of the 9 points?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 14, 2021 6:00 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JSF, thanks for the link.

I re-scanned the article complete with graphs and pictures, and it's still faulty. I started taking notes as to where it was wrong but gave up because it was wrong in too many places to count. Also, I addressed these before.

1) Warming by earth's surfaceis constant year after year...

WRONG. Long-term changes in earth's reflectance of visible light (albedo) - by loss of icefields and depostion of carbon particles on ... everything ... cause more warming

2) Warming by dissociation of oxygen in the stratosphere ...

Does not occur in significant quantities. (And BTW the bond energy holding oxygen together - ~5eV ... is low energy)

3) The dissociation (of ozone) in the stratosphere warms the stratosphere ...

Here, he contradicts himself as to exactly WHAT is warming the stratosphere, because first he says it's dissociation of oxygen, then he says it's dissociation of ozone

4) Montreal Protocol of 1987 stopped the increase in global warming

It did??? According to temperature measurements, it didn't

5) The absorption energy of CO2 is 50X less than the absorption of ozone at our level (troposphere)

But then ... the concentration of carbon dioxide is 4,000 (four THOUSAND) times the concentration of ozone at ground level. Mass counts for something! On top of that, there is a lot greater flux of infrared passing thru the troposphere than UV radiation.

etc etc etc

Sorry, I justcan't be bothered to go thru all of this again. Self-contradictory and wrong on so many points. Even back-of-envelope calculations show me that. It's an interesting idea and I'm sure he feels that he's reached a great insight but I can't find any data to back it up.
Unless I missed it, I don't see where you addressed any of the 9 points he makes. In the text of the post I just made/copied.

Did you already?
Do you disagree with all 9 points?
Do you agree with any of the 9 points?

I read YOUR original post, and re-read YOUR original post as pdf with all the whips, whistles, and balloons attached.

If you can't post the post that you want me to evaluate after three attempts, I can't be bothered to look at it. My time is too valuable to be wasted on long posts that you (in essence) retract, only to post something even longer later.

But I DID scan the first couple of paras, and it sounds like hogwash.

Here are a couple of points that I stumbled on:

Quote:
Thus greenhouse-warming theory is based on the assumption that (1) radiative energy can be quantified by a single number of watts per square meter

It can be, altho it is difficult because you must measure energy levels at all frequencies. Saying that you "can't" quantify energy as a single measurement is like saying that you can't study thermodynamics. Energy is energy. Energy+matter cannot be created or destroyed, only changed.

Quote:
(2) the assumption that these radiative forcings can be added together, and (3) the assumption that Earth’s surface temperature is proportional to the sum of all of these radiative forcings.

Not all frequencies act the same way on the earth. Neutrinos, for example, zip right thru without interacting much. But the earth is a large body made up of a lot of different elements, and it will mostly absorb the energy impinging on it, in one way or another. For example, the earth's magnetosphere aborbs plasma.

Quote:
A fundamentally new understanding of the physics of thermal energy and the physics of heat, described below, shows that all three assumptions are mistaken.

NEW! ALL NEW!

Quote:
There are other serious problems: (4) greenhouse gases absorb only a small part of the radiation emitted by Earth, (5) they can only reradiate what they absorb, (6) they do not reradiate in every direction as assumed

The definition of "radiate" means "in all directions", coming as it does from the same word as radius,

Quote:
(7) they make up only a tiny part of the gases in the atmosphere, and (8) they have been shown by experiment not to cause significant warming.

Yeah, It'd like to see those experiments!

Quote:
(9) The thermal effects of radiation are not about amount of radiation absorbed, as currently assumed, they are about the temperature of the emitting body and the difference in temperature between the emitting and the absorbing bodies as described below.

Ok, yeah, whatever.

I'll tell you what, JSF.

You read it for me an give me an executive summary. How does that sound?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 14, 2021 7:41 PM