Ph.D. Physicist Uses Empirical Data To Assert CO2 Greenhouse Theory A ‘Phantasm’ To Be ‘Neglected’

 New Paper: Experiment Reveals No Detectable

‘Greenhouse’ Difference Between CO2 And Air

Below is a very abridged quoted summary of a new scientific paper published by Dr. Thomas Allmendinger, a physicist (chemistry, quantum mechanics) who uses a real-world experiment to document a glaring lack of empirical support for the position that CO2 is a dominant agent of atmospheric warming.

One-sentence summary: Shortwave radiation heats both CO2 and air only up to a limited temperature threshold, and there is no observed difference between the heat absorption/emission of  air vs. CO2.  


Dr. Thomas Allmendinger (2017)

Original Greenhouse Theory Not Backed By Experimental Data

The starting point of the here referenced research was the generally accepted greenhouse thesis which assumes that the present climate change is mainly due to the observed growing amount of the so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, particularly of carbon-dioxide in spite of the fact that, unlike a greenhouse, the Earth atmosphere doesn’t exhibit a transparent roof …  This [greenhouse effect] idea takes its source in Fourier’s treatise made in 1827, exhibiting no empirical data or physical calculations and experimental data.

The first results were delivered by Tyndall in the sixties of the 19th century, using artificial IR (= infrared) radiation. His photometric [light-measuring] apparatus consisted of metallic tubes as gas vessels and Leslie cubes as heat radiation sources, entailing comparatively low temperatures, namely 100°C and lower. In the [eighteen] nineties, Arrhenius continued such measurements. He established the greenhouse thesis claiming that, unlike air, carbon-dioxide considerably absorbs infrared-radiation. Thereby we distinguish between near IR (λ = 0.8 – 3μm), emitted at high temperatures (> 1000 K), and medium IR (λ = 3 – 50μm) occurring at lower temperatures as usual thermal radiation, while IR-radiation with larger wavelengths (λ = 50 – 1000μm) is defined as far IR.

[O]verall, the greenhouse thesis has been commonly settled even if […] its empiric basis appears poor while several theoretical presumptions are speculative.  … there is reason enough to examine the current climate theory, and in particular the greenhouse thesis, regarding fundamental scientific principles and possibly to question the usual assumptions.

The analytic methods applied in climatology were exclusively photometric [light-measuring] ones. … Thermal measurements have never been made, except those by pyranometers comprising the whole spectrum, so that direct coherences between light absorption and warming-up effects at matter have not been detected yet.

The natural laws which were used for constructing the theory were confined to the temperature law of Stefan-Boltzmann (1), Planck’s distribution law (2), both being solely valid for black bodies, and BeerLambert’s absorption law (3), being unequivocally valid solely for visible light, and not compellingly for IR radiation (see below). These laws were often impermissibly generalized and used in an incorrect way leading to wrong conclusions.

Questioning The CO2-IR-Warms-The-Atmosphere Assumption

[A]ccording to this [greenhouse theory] model the assumption is made that any warming-up of the atmosphere is exclusively due to a partial absorption of medium-wave IR-radiation while any short-wave IR-absorption can be excluded since it has never been detected spectrometrically.

Against this, at least the following [5] arguments may be alleged [just the 1st , 4th, and 5th arguments are included here in very condensed form]:

1. As already found within a previous investigation [12], the greater part – namely at least 60% – of the energy being emitted from a warmed plate to the surrounding atmosphere is transferred by heat conduction, and not by heat radiation [i.e., via the greenhouse effect] obeying Stefan-Boltzmann’s law which is only valid in the vacuum. That part is even enhanced when the air convection is enhanced. Moreover, near the ground the molar concentration of water vapour is much higher than that one of carbon dioxide letting assume that its absorbance of heat radiation is much stronger. (e.g. at 20°C and 60% rel. humidity, the molar concentration of water vapour is 36 times larger than that one of carbon-dioxide being 0.038 volume%). Hence it can be assumed that the major part of the heat transfer between Earth surface and atmosphere occurs near the ground while the greenhouse theory neglects that part solely regarding the radiative absorption by CO2 passing the whole atmosphere.

4. Between the energetic absorption of electromagnetic radiation by gases and their resulting warming-up no empirical – and also no
theoretical – coherence is known which would be needed to carry spectroscopic results onto thermodynamic properties. There is no good reason to assume that absorbed IR-radiation will be entirely transformed into heat. Rather it is conceivable that a part of it is re-emitted, to wit in all directions. But the link between the two phenomena is not known.

5. The question of radiation emission by hot gases is related with it since it is obvious that any gas, also air, begins to radiate to such an extent as it is warmed-up. This question arises when the so-called radiative energy transfer is studied. But instead of empiric measurements, complicated theories were developed [15-17] starting from the abstruse assumption that the atmosphere behaves like a black body obeying Stefan-Boltzmann’s emission law, and disregarding the kinetic gas theory.

Overall it must be assessed that the atmospheric theory is on a shaky ground. widely missing empiric key methods to check the principles and their consequences.

Air Vs. CO2 Experiment: ‘The Final Proof That The Climate Theory Cannot Be True’

Beyond, there is an aspect which hitherto has been overlooked, and which delivers the final proof that the climate theory cannot be true. It is the topic of the here reported author’s work [Allmendinger, 2016] concerning thermal measurements instead of spectroscopic ones, and delivering the evidence that any gas absorbs IR-radiation – but in the short wavelength range -, with the consequence that air is warmed up by direct solar insolation – as well as by artificial IR-light – up to a limiting temperature due to radiative emission, and leading to an equilibrium state.

Preliminary tests for the present investigation were made with solar light using square twin-tubes from Styrofoam (3 cm thick, 1 m long, outer diameter 25 cm), each equipped with three thermometers at different positions, and covered above and below by a thin transparent foil (preferably a 0.01 mm thick Saran-wrap). The tubes were pivoted on a frame in such a way that they could be oriented in the direction of the solar light (Figure 3). One tube was filled with air, the other with carbon-dioxide. Incipiently, the tubes were covered on the tops with aluminium-foils being removed at the start of the experiment.

The primary experimental result was quite astonishing in many respects.

Firstly: The content gases warmed within a few minutes by approximately 10°C up to a constant limiting temperature. This was surprising – at least in the case of air – for no warming-up was anticipated since sunlight is colourless and allegedly not able to absorb any IR-radiation. However, the existence of a limiting temperature is conceivable since a growing radiative emission has to be expected as far as the temperature rises.

Secondly: The limiting temperatures were more or less equal at any measuring point. This means that the intensity of the sun beam was virtually not affected by the heat absorption in the gas tube since the latter one was comparatively weak.

And thirdly: Between the two tubes [one filled with air, the other with CO2] no significant difference could be detected.  Therefore, thanks to this simple experiment a special effect of carbon dioxide on the direct sunlight absorption could already be excluded.

As evident from Figure 8, any gas absorbs IR-light – even the noble [non-greenhouse] gases argon, neon and helium do so – while there is no significant difference between argon and carbon dioxide, but only a small difference between carbon-dioxide and air.

Conclusion/Summary

Besides a critical discussion of the convenient atmosphere theory profoundly questioning the greenhouse thesis by disclosing several basic errors, the here reported investigation reveals the discovery of direct absorption of shortwave IR-radiation by air. It is part of the incident solar light, but also of artificial light which enables a more exact detection. It is caused by another effect than the one which is responsible for the longer-wave absorption being observed at carbon dioxide, and it is not detectable by IR-spectroscopy since its absorption coefficient is too low. However, it is clearly detectable by means of the here applied apparatus leading to a distinct temperature elevation up to a limiting temperature which depends on the radiative emission. The limiting temperature depends on the gas kind, whereby practically no difference between air and carbon-dioxide could be found.

Nevertheless, that direct absorption effect [shortwave] which was discovered thanks to this method probably contributes significantly to the warming up of the atmosphere while the warming-up due to carbon-dioxide can be neglected.

But since the direct absorption cannot be influenced, the surface albedo must be focused as the governing factor providing the only [anthropogenic] opportunity to mitigate the climate, or at least the microclimate, by changing colour and structure of the surface, particularly in urban areas. However, a prediction seems not feasible since the global climate is too complex. But the greenhouse theory turns out to be a phantasm delivering the wrong diagnosis for the climate change, and a wrong diagnosis cannot enable a healing.

355 responses to “Ph.D. Physicist Uses Empirical Data To Assert CO2 Greenhouse Theory A ‘Phantasm’ To Be ‘Neglected’”

  1. Ryddegutt

    I think the saran-wrap used at the ends is behaving both as a filter for different wavelengths and a absorber that will convert radiation into heat and transfer that heat into the chamber by conduction.

    When dealing with IR, say in thermocameras or CO2 lasers, they are using special lenses made of ZnSe.

    1. Thomas Allmendinger

      Since the saran-wrap is very thin (0.01 mm), its adsorption effect can be neglected.

  2. Ben Palmer

    “I think the saran-wrap used at the ends is behaving both as a filter for different wavelengths and a absorber that will convert radiation into heat and transfer that heat into the chamber by conduction.”
    Maybe, maybe not. The saran-wrap doesn’t have a high enough heat capacity to transfer much heat by conduction. Assuming that the ambient temperature during the experiment was far below the temperature in the tubes, convection would rather be directed outwards.

    1. Nigel S

      Polyethylene is transparent to IR, Saran wrap (cling film) is now made from polyethylene (originally PVDC). The different IR absorption properties of glass and polyethylene are another problem for the conventional junior school explanation of how a greenhouse works (IR has almost no effect on a conventional glass greenhouse, polytunnel film can be formulated to absorb IR to prevent scorching of tender fruit and vegetables but polytunnels work fine with standard polyethylene).

  3. Taylor Pohlman

    Interesting that this got published – what as been the reaction from the faithful? Also, I agree that the apparatus seems primitive, we’ll see as attempts to replicate are hopefully made. I also would have liked to see other components of air tested, notably Nitrogen and high humidity vs. low humidity air (I.e. Water vapor).

    1. Jack Dale

      A repost.

      Apparently anyone can publish in a OMICS journal after they pay the processing fee. https://www.omicsonline.org/article-processing-charges.php

      1. sunsettommy

        Jack Dale, thinks people posting science research is unacceptable because it was in the wrong journal.

        You are hilarious since it doesn’t matter WHO publish it,it is the CONTENT of the paper that matters.

        Your CRAAAP detector is is all in your head,since many publications does the very same thing you complained about with this journal,Do try to be this stupid again.

        Then he writes this howler,

        “I have responded to the experiment, as have others I think it is seriously flawed.”

        In your dreams since you provided ZERO counter to the paper itself,the details not addressed.The Methodology used for the experiment not addressed either.

        Why bother making empty postings,since it gets exposed quickly as being worthless.

        1. Jack Dale

          That experiment would not pass muster at junior high science. How did he fill one chamber with CO2 – he could not evacuate a Styrofoam container: it would collapse and the Saran wrap would tear. The Styrofoam would emot flourcarbons, a known green house gas.

          1. sunsettommy

            Dale your reply is an OPINION, where is the EVIDENCE to support your claim.

            Still waiting for a real counterpoint to the paper…..

            Waiting,Dale waiting……….

          2. The Chemist

            Styrofoam has not been made with fluorocarbons for some time now. Get with the program! Also, flushing a container with CO2, which is heavier than air, would displace the air. Wake up!

      2. Thomas Allmendinger

        The respective basic work is entitled “The thermal behaviour of gases under the influence of infrared-radiation”. It was published within the “International Journal of Physical Sciences” (Vol. 11(15), pp. 183-205, 16 August, 2016). The here referenced article represents solely a summary, pointing to its relevance to the atmospheric greenhouse theory

  4. yonason
    1. Jack Dale
  5. A C Osborn

    I cannot totally agree with the statement “The limiting temperature depends on the gas kind, whereby practically no difference between air and carbon-dioxide could be found.”
    I would call >5% a practical difference, especially when the “Air” contains CO2 as well.
    What this experiment does NOT do is look at the main claim of warmists,ie that it is IR downwelling (not solar) that does the warming.
    Solar Stills/Ovens that turn to nighttime refrigerators strongly suggest that the warmist theory is wrong, it is a shame that the experiment was not aimed at refuting that claim.

    1. Thomas Allmendinger

      The experiments yielded that the limiting temperatures depend on the gas kind. Significant differences could solely be detected in the case of the noble gases helium, neon and argon, while pure carbon-dioxide and pure air behaved quite similar. Since – moreover – in the atmsophere the carbon-dioxide content is solely approx. 0.04 %, it will not have the slightest influence on the atmospheric temperature. As a consequence, the atmospheric greenhouse theory turns out to be completely wrong, so it has to be abandoned as soon as possible. A more detailed refutation of this theory, comprising more than 20 further arguments, is delivered in an article published in the related journal “Environment Pollution and Climate Change” (2017, 1:2).
      However, that does not contest the fact of climate warming. It solely refutes the greenhouse explanation exposing it as a phantasm, while the surface darkening of the Earth – particularly in cities -, leading to a decrease of the so-called albedo, has to be identified as the real cause of the global warming.

      1. Jack Dale

        Without that 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere the earth would be ball of ice.

        The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study has concluded that the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero. https://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.pdf

        1. yonason

          BERKELEY SCHMERKELY

          “…the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero. ” – Jack Dale

          That’s true for it’s affect on actual overall air temperatures. BUT, most of the temperature measurement is done there, and then they use those results to “adjust” their data, artificially and fraudulently raising the values. And, when they don’t have rural data to “adjust,” they make up temperatures for regions they have no ability to measure (oceans, deserts, polar regions, tropical forests, etc.)

          So, again, there’s no reason to believe that the UHI adds significant heat to the planet, but when it comes to generating phony data, I have no doubt there is a substantial effect.

          “Numerous peer reviewed papers have shown the overstatement of observed longer term warming is 30-50% from UHI contamination alone.”
          https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0023.pdf

          And then there’s how they erase the past…
          https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Image904_shadow-1024×714.png

          Bottom line, activist climatologists are scoundrels!!

          1. Jack Dale

            Judith Curry has called Heller’s analysis “bogus” and “highly problematic”.

          2. Jack Dale

            BEST completed their research after the UK Parliament hearing. BEST is more current.

          3. SebastianH

            To say it with Kenneth’s words: has the strategy of yours been effective so far? What are you trying to achieve with that condescending language?

          4. yonason

            “Judith Curry has called Heller’s analysis “bogus” and “highly problematic”.” – Jack Dale

            SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CLAIMS WITH FACTS, JACK….!

          5. Jack Dale

            “Goddard’s actual analysis (including averaging, etc) has been shown to be highly problematic.”

            https://judithcurry.com/2014/06/28/skeptical-of-skeptics-is-steve-goddard-right/#comment-603261

            After this she asked Zeke Hausfather to write a series of posts on her blog refuting claims of data manipulation.

          6. yonason

            @Jack Dale 8. September 2017 at 3:26 PM

            Give the whole quote, Jack@$$

            Here’s the rest of it….

            His point about ‘estimated data’ and zombie stations is well taken (which was tabulation rather than involving any mathematical analysis.) It is not very easy to convey complex points on twitter”

      2. SebastianH

        Do you really think the greenhouse effect is the warming of the atmospheric gases caused by them absorbing radiation? And do you really think that your heat lamp (artificial light source in your paper) emits SW radiation as the Sun does?

        1. GW

          “Do you really think the greenhouse effect is the warming of the atmospheric gases caused by them absorbing radiation?”

          Do you really think that it ISN’T that?

          In its most basic terms the greenhouse effect is described something along the lines of “SW radiation from the sun comes in, the atmosphere is not warmed by it, LW radiation from the warmed Earth’s surface exits the top of atmosphere (TOA), there is a radiative balance between what comes in and what goes out; an increase in greenhouses gases reduces the amount that exits, so there is then less outgoing energy than incoming energy, and that results in warming”.

          But WHAT exactly is supposedly warmed in that “warming”?

          a) the Earth’s actual, physical, ground (and water) surface.
          b) the atmosphere.
          c) both.

          First of all, we don’t measure the temperature of a). What’s referred to as global average temperature is actually comprised of temperature measurements made of the ATMOSPHERE 1 metre or so above the ground (or water). So if your answer is either a) or c) then you face the problem that we are not actually measuring the temperature of what you state is supposed to be warming in the first place!

          If your answer is b), then by what mechanism do you propose that the atmosphere is being warmed, if not ultimately by absorption of additional radiation (that radiation which is not now leaving the Earth) by greenhouse gases?

        2. GW

          And in answer to your second question, he is talking about SW infrared radiation and not SW radiation (like for instance UV). Infrared radiation is all essentially LW radiation in comparison to e.g. UV light, however it (infrared radiation) can still be further categorised into short, medium or longwave infrared.

  6. John Chism

    These apparatuses were of 3 sections angles with 3 temperatures of one at each angle. Gases lighter than air would therefore rise to the higher section and those heavier to the lower section and only the middle section temperatures are given. This should be done under a vacuum before adding the air/gases to be exposed to the direct sunlight at high altitude to not be filtered by the atmosphere of lower elevations. The gases should be near pure and added in proportion to the atmosphere for the “air” and how do you create water vapour in a vacuum? There is potential for this experiment that needs to be addressed.

    1. Jack Dale

      Creating a vacuum in a Styrofoam and Saran wrap environment would be difficult. As well Styrofoam off gasses fluorocarbons which are GHGs.

      1. sunsettommy

        Just your opinion,Dale.

        Why can’t you address it from a scientific angle instead?

        Waiting for something beyond empty unsupported words from you Dale,where is the science based reply?

        1. Jack Dale

          “Styrofoam off gasses fluorocarbons which are GHGs.” fact, not opinion

          https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#f-gases

          1. yonason

            That quote appears nowhere on that page, Jack.

            A page search (ctl f) yields zero hits for “styro.” There are two hits for “foam” and both are “foam blowing agents.”

            Not what you said it was.

        2. Jack Dale

          sty·ro·foam
          ˈstīrəˌfōm/Submit
          nountrademark
          a kind of expanded polystyrene.

          The beads of polystyrene produced by suspension polymerization are tiny and hard. To make them expand, special blowing agents are used, including propane, pentane, methylene chloride, and the chlorofluorocarbons.

          Read more: http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Expanded-Polystyrene-Foam-EPF.html#ixzz4s3BBL9er

          I released that Allemendinger likely did not use Styrofoam(tm) which is usually blue. His apparatus is white. He likely used another expanded polystyrene product.

  7. Bryan

    Is it possible to get an English translation of the paper yonason 4 linked?

    http://www.schmanck.de/TreibhausMessung.pdf

    It seems to be a very thorough experiment.

    1. yonason

      Sorry, Bryan. I’ve looked, but haven’t found one. My fallback in cases like this is Google Translate. Its a bit clunky, but it’s usually sufficient.

      I hope that helps.

  8. cdquarles

    This has been known for some time, I thought. Shine a light on a gas in a bottle, the gas will warm up. That does not, by logical necessity, mean that the same effect will be seen in the open atmosphere. The open atmosphere has many more ‘degrees of freedom’ as it were.

    1. yonason

      Hi, CD. Nice to see you here.

  9. Brett Keane

    The Berthold-Klein Mylar balloon expt got similar results – no GHE apart from when convection is blocked. Arguments over how purportedly unreactive gases handle sunlight frequencies point to the possibility we have more to learn there. But CO2 as a bogeyman, that is finished, should never have started. Would not have without incredible dishonesty. Gas Laws rule!

  10. John F. Hultquist

    Firstly: . . .for no warming-up was anticipated since sunlight is colourless and allegedly not able to absorb any IR-radiation.

    The word “sunlight” seems wrong here.
    Is “atmosphere” intended?
    Sunlight is composed of many different wavelengths with eyes and brains producing a colour. I’m confused by this usage.

  11. René

    I am definitely not convinced by the greenhouse hypothesis (it is far from a theory), but I am also not convinced by this experiment. The author claims he has discovered a new effect, with diatomic gaz absorbing radiations. Waoooo ! Incredible results need outstanding demonstrations.
    I think there is a much simpler explanation: sunlight simply heats the thermometers in the tube, and the gaz cool them down, so the equilibrium temperature is slightly depending on the nature of the gaz. Are the thermometers shielded from incident sunlight?
    By the way I don’t agree with affirmations like “it is obvious that any gas, also air, begins to radiate to such an extent as it is warmed-up” or “There is no good reason to assume that absorbed IR-radiation will be entirely transformed into heat”. At normal pressure (and far below) the gaz do not emit any radiation. Simply because the flight time of the molecule (the time before it hits a neighboring molecule) is much shorter than the life time of the excited state. Thus all the molecules come back to the fondamental state through collision, and therefore to kinetic energy (temperature). To be convinced one can look at a barbecue. The charcoal is red hot, but the gaz above (mainly air and CO2) at the same temperature does not emit anything. And on the image from IR camera one never see any image of the gaz emitting above a heat source.
    If you want to see a gaz emitting a radiation, it has to be at very low pressure!
    Therefore the greenhouse hypothesis is simply wrong because the radiative effects in the atmosphere are negligible. The temperature of the atmosphere is due to adiabatic gradient and to convection (plus the phase transition of the water).

  12. Ph.D. Physicist Uses Empirical Data To Assert CO2 Greenhouse Theory A ‘Phantasm’ To Be ‘Neglected’ – Infinite Unknown

    […] – Ph.D. Physicist Uses Empirical Data To Assert CO2 Greenhouse Theory A ‘Phantasm’ To Be ‘Neglec…: […]

  13. New Paper: Experiment Reveals No Detectable 'Greenhouse' Difference Between CO2 And Air | Newsfeed - Hasslefree allsorts

    […] Ref.: http://notrickszone.com/2017/09/04/ph-d-physicist-uses-empirical-data-to-assert-co2-greenhouse-theor… […]

  14. RickWill

    A more valid experiment would be to place the tube over a tub of heated water held at say 30C, similar to a tropical ocean, that is emitting IR then measure the temperature in the tubes with the top of the tube aimed at the night sky.

    The experiment conducted with sunlight is looking at the response to incoming broad spectrum EMR not IR emitted at surface temperature. It is meaningless in terms of the way radiative gasses affect the release of heat from the surface, which is predominantly water.

    The atmosphere certainly limits the rate of heat loss from the tropical oceans. The question is whether a tiny amount of additional CO2 can make any measurable difference. If it could we would see reduction in sea ice cover at the poles due to increasing ocean temperature and that is not significant for the last 35 years:
    https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNgVQxxALD4EXWLeWB

    1. Jack Dale

      In the past 2.5 centuries atmospheric CO2 has increased 40%. That is not insignificant. Using carbon isotope analysis that 40% increase can be directly attributed to the burning of fossil fuel.

      Antarctic and Arctic sea ice are both in decline.

      “Arctic sea ice appears to have reached on March 7 a record low wintertime maximum extent, according to scientists at NASA and the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado. And on the opposite side of the planet, on March 3 sea ice around Antarctica hit its lowest extent ever recorded by satellites at the end of summer in the Southern Hemisphere, a surprising turn of events after decades of moderate sea ice expansion.”

      https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles

      1. RickWill

        Jack
        The charts you linked to are prepared for gullible public who do not understand data. It shows anomaly that exaggerates the true picture. I have plotted the sea ice extent to a base of zero so it is much easier to assess the significance of the changes. It has not changed much in total and cycles over each year. Picking one day and writing headlines about it is desperation to bolster belief in an unproven theory.

        The sudden drop in Antarctic extent in the austral summer was in the aftermath of the 2016 El Nino. The reduction in sea ice just means greater heat loss from the planet so it will now be cooler following that event.

        Greenland had the end of its melt in early August. The ice gained in 2017 was in the top quartile of the recorded data at 550Gt. That will actually reduce sea level by some unmeasurable amount. The Arctic sea ice melt season was shorter than average and temperature is already plummeting. The Arctic sea ice minimum extent is some 2Mkm^2 greater than the 2012 record low. Wadhams Arctic death spiral ended in 2012. We are now 5 years down the track and he is desperate to sell more of his fear mongering book.

        Less ice means the planet is losing more heat. The ice insulates the ocean. Reasonably obvious when you look at this chart:
        http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png
        The surface of the sea ice will be 30 degrees cooler than the water below and the surface has low emissivity while water has high emissivity. So heat loss from very cold ice is much lower than heat loss from open ocean water surface. Water, in all its phases, regulates the global climate. CO2 is a tiny bit player in the thermal balance hardly worthy of any credit or consideration. Its significant role is that almost all life on the planet relies on CO2 for the basic building blocks.

  15. sunsettommy

    I notice that Dale doesn’t delve into the science of the paper at all, he whines about some of the materials used for the test, but never factually explains why he doesn’t like the set up.

    He employs a number of fallacies, and thinks fact free opinions is good enough to counter the paper. He also avoids science based questions given to him.

    Dale, thinks attacking the person credentials and the publication journal are legitimate points of discussion. All it really shows that this is a miserable warmist troll, who has no interest in an honest debate.

    1. SebastianH

      I notice that Dale doesn’t delve into the science of the paper at all, he whines about some of the materials used for the test, but never factually explains why he doesn’t like the set up.

      You guys aren’t the least bit skeptical about the content of this paper despite the huge BS signs?

      He employs a number of fallacies, and thinks fact free opinions is good enough to counter the paper. He also avoids science based questions given to him.

      Do you have anything that could support the notion that this paper contains a great scientific discovery and finally disproves the greenhouse effect? It’s junk science and if you can’t see that and are not skeptical about papers like these then well … why do you even call yourselves skeptics then?

      Dale, thinks attacking the person credentials and the publication journal are legitimate points of discussion. All it really shows that this is a miserable warmist troll, who has no interest in an honest debate.

      So it’s not important to you what scientific review a paper received before being published? But it is important to you guys that this author has a PhD and experience in the field? And that’s enough to believe anything he publishes without being skeptical about it? Hmm …

      Anyway, staying away from the comment section of this blog has been refreshing. You continue to attack commenters who don’t share your opinion and try to “convince” them with you weird arguments. Keep going and stay in wonderland … this author didn’t disprove the greenhouse effect and as his other recent papers show he is one of those “there is no AGW” nutters. The fact that you feel that he has a point makes me sad. Be skeptical towards those papers/authors that seem to support your opinion guys … could help your “side” not look as nuts as it does 😉

      1. sunsettommy

        Sebastian, have you noticed that I haven’t stated any position on this article?

        What I am asking Dale to do is point out factually WHY he doesn’t like the article,opinions doesn’t convince anyone.

        You are being absurd when you complain about people,who amazingly want more than fact free opinions on the topic.

        “So it’s not important to you what scientific review a paper received before being published? But it is important to you guys that this author has a PhD and experience in the field? And that’s enough to believe anything he publishes without being skeptical about it? Hmm …”

        Dale tried to derail the conversation away from the research itself, by attacking the Researcher and the Journal that publishes his paper. It is why I am pushing Dale to get back to the research itself,comment on WHY he thinks it is no good. But he never has gone beyond the opinion level,which is why he failed to state his case.

        You are doing the very same thing,trying to complain about what others think,so you can avoid the published paper itself. Then you can tell your friends about your chest beating exploits here……………….

        It is clear here in the thread that You,chip and Dale, don’t offer ANYTHING based on the science,just complaints and opinions.

        You are a poor alarmist.

        1. yonason

          “Sebastian, have you noticed that I haven’t stated any position on this article?” – sunsettommy

          Same here.

          I wouldn’t mind at all if they gave objective criticism, but their unhelpful activist trolling is both laughable and annoying.

        2. SebastianH

          Why do you believe the paper? Why aren’t you the least bit skeptical?

          1. sunsettommy

            Ha ha ha.

            Sebastian as usual has nothing to say.

            Myself and Yonason TOLD you that we don’t have a position on the paper. Can’t you read and think at the same time?

            This means you,Dale and anyone else who is unhappy with the paper,have an OPPORTUNITY to persuade readers here,but NOOOOOOO….., you clods pee all over the place with NOTHING but deflecting drivel.

            Seb and Dal, why don’t two TELL us in some science based detail,WHY you don’t like the paper.

            Why is it so hard for you two to do it?

          2. yonason

            @sunsettommy 5. September 2017 at 8:48 PM

            When in grad school, and then when employed (retired now), we used to meet periodically for “journal club.” It was for the purpose of critiquing a recent paper or two, not always favorably. Personally, I would be happy if posters would be more critical of some of the material presented here, but in a constructive way.

            In fact, I think what Kenneth Richard is doing is totally going over the trolls heads. Rather than realize he is just presenting another side of the story, they attack him as if he’s thinking as concretely as they are, which doesn’t appear to me to be the case. But then, I suppose we should understand how hard it is for trolls to think clearly when their heads are exploding.

        3. Jack Dale

          Yes I have concerns about predatory journals. I have not questioned the credentials of the author. I have questioned the mickey mouse apparatus used – as have others.

          1. sunsettommy

            Yes, we know you question it, but you NEVER tell us why in some detail WHY you don’t like it.

          2. yonason

            Speaking of mickey mouse apparatus, the “pal review” hijacking of major journals by warmist activists, in order to control the narrative, should bother you a lot more.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac

            Does it? If not, why not?

        4. Jack Dale

          Fact- Styrofoam off gasses fluorocarbons, known GHGs, which would contaminate the experiment.

          1. yonason

            The data would show it, and it doesn’t

      2. Kenneth Richard

        Do you have anything that could support the notion that this paper contains a great scientific discovery and finally disproves the greenhouse effect?

        But it is important to you guys that this author has a PhD and experience in the field? And that’s enough to believe anything he publishes without being skeptical about it?

        Is there someone here – anyone at all – who has written that this paper “contains a great scientific discovery and finally disproves the greenhouse effect”?

        Is there someone here – anyone at all – who has written that the credentials of Dr. Allmendinger are “enough to believe anything he publishes”? No and no.

        This is just you, SebastianH, fabricating thoughts or opinions that no one has expressed (or thought) so that you can justify your name calling, characterizing both Dr. Allmendinger and those you don’t agree with as “nutters”.

        Do you have something you could offer here besides fabrications, name-calling, and straw man concoctions? If not, why are you even here?

        1. SebastianH

          Then why post papers like this? What is the reason? To show another side of the story you say? Do you want to show the “warmists” just how insane science on the skeptics side can get? Why distance yourself from this now?

  16. Mark Wallace

    None of the “Global Warming” models has explained the recovery from the last Ice Age, which was presumably done without the aid of SUVs and coal-fired power plants.

    1. Jack Dale

      Milanovitch cycles are considered by the “alarmists”.

      1. Kenneth Richard

        Milankovitch cycles are a solar forcing of climate changes. So you agree that the warming since the LIA has been solar-forced?

        1. SebastianH

          It wasn’t an actual ice age just because it is called LIA …

          1. sunsettommy

            Gee Seb, Kenneth said NOTHING about Ice age at all. You keep making up irrelevant statements.

            When are you ever going to TELL us in some detail, WHY you don’t like the paper.

            You also failed to answer his question.

            He he.

          2. SebastianH

            Gee Seb, Kenneth said NOTHING about Ice age at all. You keep making up irrelevant statements.

            Milankovitch cycles are generally revered to as causing the back and forth between ice ages and interglacials. The thread was about the last ice age. Kenneth used the term little ice age.

            You also failed to answer his question.

            Oh, not demanding a counterpoint this time? And can I use this reply whenever you didn’t answer my question in your replies? 😉

          3. SebastianH

            Kenneth, you are mixing up two different solar forcings here. One is the variability in the actual output of the Sun (TSI) and the other is the amount of that energy that is reaching different parts of this planet.

            You usually argue that it’s an increase in TSI that is causing the current warming (since the LIA). You mention the solar maximum, etc … and now it’s the Milankovitch cycles? What changed your opinion?

        2. Jack Dale

          Milankovitch cycles are based on eccentricity, precession and axial tilt, not solar variability / forcing. Therefore your question does not follow.

          1. sunsettommy

            Dale, you sure about that?

            Lets see what this college website thinks about Solar effects on his work:

            “Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation

            The episodic nature of the Earth’s glacial and interglacial periods within the present Ice Age (the last couple of million years) have been caused primarily by cyclical changes in the Earth’s circumnavigation of the Sun. Variations in the Earth’s eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession comprise the three dominant cycles, collectively known as the Milankovitch Cycles for Milutin Milankovitch, the Serbian astronomer and mathematician who is generally credited with calculating their magnitude. Taken in unison, variations in these three cycles creates alterations in the seasonality of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface. These times of increased or decreased solar radiation directly influence the Earth’s climate system, thus impacting the advance and retreat of Earth’s glaciers.”

            http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm

            Kenneth didn’t say Solar VARIABILITY, you made that up.

          2. Jack Dale

            yonason

            “solar forcing = total irradiance” I will accept that.

            Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) varies 0.1% which is insignificant in climate change.

            A review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Climate. Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, “it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes.” That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.

            http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/2009RG000282.pdf

          3. Jack Dale

            Kenneth

            Sorry to rain on your parade. Cosmic rays have precious little to do with cloud formation. Svensmark’s hypothesis has no standing.

            Changes in solar activity, sunspots and cosmic rays, and their effects on clouds have contributed no more than 10 percent to global warming, according to two British scientists.
            The findings, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, reconfirm the basic science that increasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing most climate change. They also reexamine the alternative case made by climate deniers: that it is the Sun’s changing activity and not us that is causing the Earth to heat up.
            The two scientists, Terry Sloan at the University of Lancaster and Sir Arnold Wolfendale at the University of Durham, conclude that neither changes in the activity of the sun, nor its impact in blocking cosmic rays, can be a significant contributor to global warming.

            https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmic-rays-not-causing-climate-change/

            And from CERN

            In the latest work, published in Science, researchers built a global model of aerosol formation using CLOUD-measured nucleation rates involving sulphuric acid, ammonia, ions and organic compounds. Although sulphuric acid has long been known to be important for nucleation, the results show for the first time that observed concentrations of particles throughout the atmosphere can be explained only if additional molecules – organic compounds or ammonia – participate in nucleation. The results also show that ionisation of the atmosphere by cosmic rays accounts for nearly one-third of all particles formed, although small changes in cosmic rays over the solar cycle do not affect aerosols enough to influence today’s polluted climate significantly.

            https://home.cern/about/updates/2016/10/cloud-experiment-sharpens-climate-predictions%5B

        3. Jack Dale

          Changes in solar radiation are known as solar forcing. Milankovitch cycles are independent of changes of solar radiation. There is a reason it called a solar constant; it varies about 0.2% at most. Milankovitch cycles do affect how much of that solar radiation reaches the earth.

          The warmest point of the last Milankovitch cycle was around 10,000 years ago, at the peak of the Holocene. Since then, there has been an overall cooling trend, consistent with a continuation of the natural cycle, and this cooling would continue for thousands of years into the future if all else remained the same.

          All else did not remain the same. Dumping 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere over the past 2.5 centuries has messed up the natural cycles.

          1. yonason

            “Changes in solar radiation are known as solar forcing.” – Jack Dale

            Nope. It’s not the changes, but the total that counts for that.

            “…solar (total irradiance) forcing.” – Nir Shaviv, listing various forcings, in an article on our ignorance of just how much if any temp change is cased by CO2 vs solar.

            I.e., he’s giving the definition…
            solar forcing = total irradiance

            You keep CRAAPing out. Are you gong for some kind of record?

          2. SebastianH

            Sorry, I am not a native speaker, but how is your reply making sense here? If solar forcing = TSI and that’s the output of the Sun reaching us (as in “our orbit”), then it is not what the Milankovitch cycles are about. That’s exactly what Jack Dale is saying. Or did I miss something here?

          3. John Brown

            Jack Dale not knowing his numbers.

            Dismissing 0.1% as not relevant for Solar Irradiation.
            But will think that 0.01% ice mass loss in Antarctiva is relevant, like the IPCC 2013 suggests.

            He not realises that energy content in atmosphere changes by only 0.3% for one Kelvin up.

          4. SebastianH

            So why do you think it is that sea levels have continued rising since then, to the point that they were 2 or 3 meters higher than they are now between 4,000 and 6,000 years ago?

            When you put ice in a glass of hot tea, does the ice melt despite the temperature of the liquid decreasing?

            ocean temperatures warmed up by 2 degrees C within less than 200 years (Bova et al., 2016)

            Do you trust that proxy reconstruction? What makes you think that it’s a global ocean temperature that Bova et al. are writing about? Do you think it is possible that you misunderstood the paper (or rather the abstract)?

            So if CO2 didn’t cause those far more rapid and expansive centennial-scale warmings during the Mid-Holocene

            Do you realize what you are doing here? You take local proxy data from a “test” and assume that this means that the ocean heat content changes more rapidly and on a global scale in the past. You state it as a fact … why?

          5. SebastianH

            What are the “facts” as you see them

            Fact is that we are influencing the climate and your attempts in trying to attribute the current warming to the same causes that affected previous warming are weird.

        4. Jack Dale

          sunsettommy

          Why did you omit this paragraph from the Indiana website?

          “It is of primary importance to explain that climate change, and subsequent periods of glaciation, resulting from the following three variables is not due to the total amount of solar energy reaching Earth. The three Milankovitch Cycles impact the seasonality and location of solar energy around the Earth, thus impacting contrasts between the seasons.”

          1. sunsettommy

            I didn’t because this was good enough,which presumably you read:

            “Taken in unison, variations in these three cycles creates alterations in the seasonality of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface.”

            Neither has Kenneth or myself say it the way you claim we say it.

            Kenneth writes,

            “Milankovitch cycles are a solar forcing of climate changes.”

            Gee,he never said MK cycles causes the sun to vary,he was referring to alterations of the solar effect,by the long term MK changing cycles,on the planets surface.

            YOU wrote this using a phrase Kenneth NEVER wrote,

            “Milankovitch cycles are based on eccentricity, precession and axial tilt, not solar variability / forcing…..”

            He never wrote Solar Variability, as if the Sun had variable output because of the MK theory. He was talking about the MY cycle effecting the solar radiation impact on the planet.

            You got it BACKWARDS!

            Kenneth wrote,

            “Milankovitch cycles are a solar forcing of climate changes. So you agree that the warming since the LIA has been solar-forced?

            How did you manage to misread it so badly?

        5. Jack Dale

          The papers you have presented depend on correlation. As we all know correlation is not sufficient to claim causation; a mechanism must be shown. The CLOUD experiment at CERN can find no such significant mechanism; there, there is not causal link between cosmic rays and cliud formation. CERN has found a mechanism for amines and cloud formation.

          Here we use the CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets) chamber at CERN and find that dimethylamine above three parts per trillion by volume can enhance particle formation rates more than 1,000-fold compared with ammonia, sufficient to account for the particle formation rates observed in the atmosphere. Molecular analysis of the clusters reveals that the faster nucleation is explained by a base-stabilization mechanism involving acid–amine pairs, which strongly decrease evaporation. The ion-induced contribution is generally small, reflecting the high stability of sulphuric acid–dimethylamine clusters and indicating that galactic cosmic rays exert only a small influence on their formation, except at low overall formation rates.”

          https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7471/full/nature12663.html

          If you have some thing that demonstrates a mechaism for cosmic rays, please provide it. Just one will do; no word salad please.

          1. Jack Dale

            What I am looking for a a replication of Svensmark’s claims’ so please do not post Svensmark’s experiments; I have read them.

          2. SebastianH

            You keep quoting those numbers as if we never discussed this nonsense comparison and/or you didn’t understand what the result was.

            Why is it ok for you to compare 5.4 W/m² of increased SW radiation to the CO2 forcing without accounting for the decrease in LW radiation? As you wrote yourself, the cooling caused by clouds is just 18 – 21 W/m² … so and 6.8% reduction of cloud cover would mean a negative forcing of 1.22 – 1.43 W/m².

            Also, why do you think the cloud cover changed independently from the increase of the greenhouse effect? Cosmic rays? 😉

        6. Jack Dale

          So you disagree with yonason’s post:

          “…solar (total irradiance) forcing.” – Nir Shaviv, listing various forcings, in an article on our ignorance of just how much if any temp change is cased by CO2 vs solar.

          I.e., he’s giving the definition…
          solar forcing = total irradiance

          http://notrickszone.com/2017/09/04/ph-d-physicist-uses-empirical-data-to-assert-co2-greenhouse-theory-a-phantasm-to-be-neglected/comment-page-1/#comment-1228674

          Shaviv does not include total irradiance in his definition.

        7. Jack Dale
          1. Jack Dale

            My request

            What I am looking for a a replication of Svensmark’s claims’ so please do not post Svensmark’s experiments; I have read them.

            http://notrickszone.com/2017/09/04/ph-d-physicist-uses-empirical-data-to-assert-co2-greenhouse-theory-a-phantasm-to-be-neglected/comment-page-1/#comment-1228791

    2. yonason

      Woolly Mammoth farts. And look what happened to them! Learn from history, or repeat it. (-;|

  17. Tom Martin

    Who else has done this experiment?

    1. richard verney

      Hi Ton

      I would suggest that you have a look at this paper

      A comparison of the efficacy of green house gas forcing and solar forcing at https://www.witpress.com/Secure/elibrary/papers/HT14/HT14024FU1.pdf

      The take home observation from the experiment is this:

      Where water is free to evaporate, test “A” shows that back radiation from GHGs will have a negligible effect on the heat content of that water. Test “B” shows that nearly all the energy from an increase in back radiation from GHGs is returned to the atmosphere as latent heat of evaporation. It follows that any Radiative flux change at the TOA will likely be restored more quickly if it is caused by a change in GHG forcing than if it is caused by a change in solar forcing.

      It is quite interesting since this paper reproduces (and validates) an experiment conducted by Konrad Hartmann. This experiment has evolved in its sophistication. Konrad used to comment on WUWT, and I recall exchanges on an article by Willis Radiating the Oceans wherein Konrad, I (and others) sought to point out to Willis the problem with DWLWIR and the oceans. DWLWIR, because of its omni-directional basis, is essentially fully absorbed within the top 6 vertical microns of the ocean.

      There are a lot of problems if this is sensible energy capable of doing real work in this environment, unless the energy so absorbed can in some way be diluted to depth (thereby dissipating the energy in a large volume of water), at a speed greater than the speed that this absorbed energy would otherwise drive evaporation.

      1. SebastianH

        That experiment has the same problem as the one from the paper above. Someone with an opinion about how things ought to work got exactly the results he wanted to get. That the setup could be flawed doesn’t occur to them … (And you guys)

        1. sunsettommy

          But of course you don’t tell us WHY you think they have problems (You don’t state them),you say the set up is flawed (You don’t state them)

          Again you put a lot of words on the board,but gee whiz where are the details,the evidence,the facts….., my dog ate it!

          It is clear that you can’t tell us why they are bad.

          1. SebastianH

            sunsettommy, it takes a lot of time to read all those papers that Kenneth posts here and trying to make you understand why it’s either nonsense or you (Kenneth) is omitting important information or just doesn’t understand the conclusion. Maybe that is his strategy … to maximize the waste of the time of his “opponents”.

            Anyway, since you asked:
            1) the paper is full of language errors (so nobody read this paper before it was published = zero peer review)
            2) On page 2 the author tries to explain the greenhouse effect as absorption of “medium-wave IR-radiation” by the atmosphere and thus causing the warming of that atmosphere. He is missing the important part of back radiation. Does the author really know what he is writing about?
            3) He writes that Stefan-Boltzmann’s law is only valid in a vacuum, which is false.
            4) The “previous investigation” he refers to got this wrong too. The result is that he thinks radiation is only a minor part of how the emission from an object. Is that so? If heat conduction accounts for 60% of the energy emitted, how many hundreds of W/m² is that exactly?
            5) I don’t know what his point 2 on page 2 is about. Something about issues with averaging?
            6) Point 3 seems to be nonsense too … “the latter one [artifical light] – as well as the up-going IR-radiation –
            exhibiting an intensity loss inversely proportional to the distance in the square while the intensity of the incident solar radiation is independent of the distance”
            . I am pretty sure every kind of radiation behaves the same.
            7) I don’t know why Kenneth implies that the author means “to space” with “re-emitted, to wit in all directions” in point 4. I can’t decide if the rest is made up or not … is the kinetic gas theory really being completely ignored by climatology? I hope not 😉
            8) Point 5 is weird again. The atmosphere behaves like a black body towards space. The effect it has on the surface can also be interpreted as if the atmosphere were a black body. That hides the true mechanism and distribution, but it’s good enough for some calculations. Regarding all gases radiating at certain temperatures, sure. But it’s a different story with mono atomic gases vs. gases with more atoms, e.g. greenhouse gases as the author himself explained in point 4.

            Regardings the experiment itself:
            – the author is ignoring that the Sun is heating his styrofoam enclosure.
            – the author is ignoring that a heat lamp heats his styrofoam enclosure and temperature sensors. He is measuring a temperature gradient corresponding to that and his conclusion from this is point 3 on his list.
            – the author thinks that a heat lamp (or IR-bulbs as he wrote) emits “shortwave IR-radiation”

            The author seems to be overwhelmed by his “discovery” which is just the result of a flawed setup. Rest assured, it is no planet wide conspiracy if you’ll never hear from this discovery again anywhere 😉

          2. sunsettommy

            Sebastian,

            at least you gave it a try,but still has ZERO science based counterpoints in it.

            You say:

            “1) the paper is full of language errors (so nobody read this paper before it was published = zero peer review)”

            No examples provided.

            “2) On page 2 the author tries to explain the greenhouse effect as absorption of “medium-wave IR-radiation” by the atmosphere and thus causing the warming of that atmosphere. He is missing the important part of back radiation. Does the author really know what he is writing about?”

            He is talking about the ATMOSPHERE itself,He is trying to account for how much of the atmosphere warming can be had via the IN THE AIR absorption effect.

            “3) He writes that Stefan-Boltzmann’s law is only valid in a vacuum, which is false.”

            You didn’t show where he said that,you should provide a quote to make a case.

            “4) The “previous investigation” he refers to got this wrong too. The result is that he thinks radiation is only a minor part of how the emission from an object. Is that so? If heat conduction accounts for 60% of the energy emitted, how many hundreds of W/m² is that exactly?”

            where is the quote? You again failed to show what the researcher actually said.

            “5) I don’t know what his point 2 on page 2 is about. Something about issues with averaging?”

            Again no quote.

            “6) Point 3 seems to be nonsense too … “the latter one [artifical light] – as well as the up-going IR-radiation –
            exhibiting an intensity loss inversely proportional to the distance in the square while the intensity of the incident solar radiation is independent of the distance”. I am pretty sure every kind of radiation behaves the same.”

            No it doesn’t. In any case you failed to back up your claim with evidence. Opinions are not enough in science.

            “7) I don’t know why Kenneth implies that the author means “to space” with “re-emitted, to wit in all directions” in point 4. I can’t decide if the rest is made up or not … is the kinetic gas theory really being completely ignored by climatology? I hope not 😉”

            You failed to show what Kenneth said,therefore your entire complaint is up in the air.

            “8) Point 5 is weird again. The atmosphere behaves like a black body towards space. The effect it has on the surface can also be interpreted as if the atmosphere were a black body. That hides the true mechanism and distribution, but it’s good enough for some calculations. Regarding all gases radiating at certain temperatures, sure. But it’s a different story with mono atomic gases vs. gases with more atoms, e.g. greenhouse gases as the author himself explained in point 4.”

            You write confusingly,since you don’t quote at all. What are you really complaining about?

            Your case against him is poor and unconvincing.

            For me it doesn’t matter since a simple calculation of the Postulated warm forcing effect of CO2 is simply too small to be a climate driver. Here is the basics at this website that explains it:

            The Science of why the Theory of Global Warming is Incorrect!

            “A 0.5 °C temperature difference between these two years resulted in an additional 2.5 W/m2 increase in the measured amount of energy lost to space. That increase in energy loss is not theoretical, it is a measured difference. It is also what is predicted by the Stefan-Boltmann Law.

            If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

            The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up. The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years.”

            http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2012/05/the-science-of-why-the-theory-of-global-warming-is-incorrect/

          3. SebastianH

            Kenneth,

            isn’t that interesting. You attribute knowledge to this “scientist” (yes, in quotes) because of his biography. No skepticism or fact checking required?

            The statement of this Dr. Allmendinger that he thinks his artificial light source (the heat lamp) is outputting SW radiation and that he thinks the greenhouse effect is warming the atmosphere through radiation from the ground should have been enough to cause suspicion. His claim that he discovered something extraordinary (and new) with such a setup (the experiment part) should have made all your BS detecting lights go on immediately.

            Why do you blindly believe such junk science without questioning it at all?

            sunsettommy,

            are you serious? Open the paper and read it … it isn’t that much text and you’ll find the sections I am talking about.

            No quotes no counterpoint? What is wrong with you?

            The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up.

            What kind of argument is that? The author uses the temperature and OLR difference between two dates to show that Earth “loses” more energy towards space when it is warmer. And then he argues that it won’t get warmer because of the loss? Besides, isn’t the difference between OLR and downwelling SW radiation what determines whether or not Earth is losing energy (cooling) or gaining energy (warming)?

      2. Jack Dale

        A comparison of the efficacy of green house gas forcing and solar forcing at https://www.witpress.com/Secure/elibrary/papers/HT14/

        Another predatory journal.

  18. Top Scientist: Time to 'Slay' Greenhouse Gas Climate Theory | Principia Scientific International

    […] For those keeping count, the number of highly-qualified experts from the ‘hard’ sciences who have either published in the peer-reviewed literature or made public statements refuting the consensus theory of climate change is rising fast. More details of the new paper may be found at No Tricks Zone. […]

  19. Pochas

    A device in local thermal equilibrium with its surroundings will exhibit no temperature effects that depend on emissivities. This is a consequence of Kirchoff’s radiation law, and is evident because all of the objects in your living room have come to the same temperature. A valid experiment must create a disequilibrium condition within the device itself. A conceptual experiment might involve a hollow sphere with the shell maintained at a low temperature by some means, with a heating element installed in the center that supplies a known heat load to the device. The cavity is filled with the gas to be studied, and a fan keeps the gas well mixed. The temperature of the gas is measured. If the presence of the gas produces an elevation in temperature compared to a reference monatomic gas, then the gas is shown to be a “greenhouse gas.”

  20. Jack Dale

    Understanding predatory publishers
    Their primary goal is to make money.
    They do not care about the quality of the work published.
    They make false claims or promises.
    They engage in unethical business practices.
    They fail to follow accepted standards or best practices of scholarly publishing.

    http://instr.iastate.libguides.com/predatory

    One of the many problems with predatory journals.

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2017/07/22/predatory-journals-star-wars-sting/#.Wa9mKz595QI

    1. Jack Dale

      Here is a list of predatory journals:

      http://beallslist.weebly.com/

      against which I check.

      1. Pethefin

        Epic failure by Jack Dale, the troll of the month:

        http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/IJPS/edition/16_August,_2016

        Not on your list, is it?

        Time to put your scientific arguments up or shut up, you sad little troll

        1. Jack Dale

          Actually it is. IJPS is published by Academic Journals for a $550 publishing fee.

          http://www.academicjournals.org/manuscript_handling_fee

          Speaking of epic failures.

          1. Pethefin

            So what? Many journals have fees to be paid upfront and publish open access articles, others take loads of money afterwards by use of subscriptions that cost so much that many university libraries are forced to allocate their diminishing resources very carefully, forcing scientists to buy access through paywalls.
            You obviously have no idea how academic publishing works so stop make a bigger fool of yourself.

        2. Jack Dale

          But, but you said it was not on the list. But, but it is on the list.

          Yes, predatory journals take upfront processing fees.

          Subscriptions are a different matter.

          1. Pethefin

            My blunder, I admit, I checked for journals and not publishers. But you did not even realize that you were barking the wrong tree (which means that you had not read even the first sentence of the article that was the starting point of this thread) which is what I was referring to with my notion of epic failure.

            Nevertheless, the list you are using specifically states that the list covers “Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open‑access publishers”. Do you even understand what that means? Do you understand how open access publishing functions?

            In science, it does not matter where you publish. Only your data and methods count. It is the argument and the proof that matters, not who presents the arguments and proof, nor where they are presented. The only point with peer review is to filter scientifically plausible arguments, and even Nature has numerous retractions of their articles, when the “findings” are later shown to be wrong due to bad data or methods, or both. Therefore, if the publication has low impact factor, or is published in a “questionable publication”, you should read the article even more critically, not dismiss it automatically.

    2. yonason

      @Jack Dale 6. September 2017 at 5:16 AM

      Just substitute “climatologists” for “journals,” and you get…

      Understanding predatory “climatologists.”
      Their primary goal is to keep the govt funding pouring in.
      They do not care about the quality of the work published.
      They make false claims or promises.
      They engage in unethical academic practices.
      They fail to follow accepted standards or best practices of scholarly behavior.

      They’ve been exposed for so long, that only fools and scoundrels come to their defense.

  21. claude brasseur

    Many thanks to Dr Allmendinger .
    Is it possible to get his article ? I am french speaking,
    and made a similar but theoretical article in french the 10-8 2017 without knowing this one.
    “L’atmosphère n’est pas une bouteille de verre…”(atmosphere is not a glass bottle)

    1. Thomas Allmendinger

      Unfortunately, there exists no French version of my article. However, it should be mentioned that several French scientists such as Dulong and Petit number among the pioneers. Even the greenhouse-idea traces back to a French man (namely to Fourier). As a Swiss man, I can understand several languages (besides French particularly German) which is necessary to study the history of this theory, and to find the principal faults which were made already in the 19th century.

      1. Jack Dale

        This is an excellent history of the theory. It is written and published by physicists

        https://history.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm#contents

  22. Dale

    Isn’t the concern with trapping infrared radiation (long-wave radiation)with increased CO2 concentration in our atmosphere?

    1. John Brown

      Dale,

      no concern with trapping radiation. Why Dale thinks? Radiation trap only works when no emission. But heat goes elsewhere. It goes convection and advection and evaporation.
      All climate people say emission and back-radiation. If that – no trap -no concern.

    2. sunsettommy

      CO2 doesn’t trap anything,plus there is a logarithmic effect on increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere,to a point that by the 400 ppm level very little warm forcing left to dwell on.

      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png

      You just made yourself a subject of ridicule.

      1. Pethefin

        Unfortunately, trolls of Dale’s level do not realize how the language that they use reveals the inconvenient lack of basic understanding.

  23. Konrad

    While the AGW conjecture can be disproved with simple empirical experiments, this is not one of them.
    Dr. Thomas Allmendinger is attempting to show solar radiation (UV, SW, SWIR) heating various gases. His experiment is not showing this. What it is showing is solar heating of the interior surfaces of his tubes and conductive heating of the gases in contact with with the walls of the tubes. The differing limiting temperatures observed is due to the speed of conduction of the various gases, transferring energy to the cling film windows.

    If this experiment were to be repeated with a coherent beam of light passing through the tube and not impinging on the walls, little or no heating of the gases by UV, SW or SWIR radiation would be observed.
    Our atmosphere, just like the gases in Dr. Thomas Allmendinger’s tubes is primarily being heated by contact with solar illuminated surfaces. The key to disproving the AGW conjecture is to study how the sun heats those surfaces, primarily in solar illumination of the oceans.

    These five rules have been derived from empirical experiments –
    http://imgur.com/a/NXjB8
    Because these five rules were ignored by climate scientists trying to determine the critical figure for “average surface temperature without radiative atmosphere”, they got the wrong answer. They have 255K as their figure instead of 312K. This leads to the erroneous belief that the atmosphere is warming the surface by 33K when instead it is cooling it by around 24K.

    Tyndall was correct, CO2 and H2O can warm by absorbing LWIR and also cool by emitting LWIR. But Fourier before him was wrong. The sun could drive the surface materials of this planet far hotter than he supposed. Arrhenius, in trying to use Tyndall’s findings to support Fourier’s error also got it wrong.

    1. yonason

      If this experiment were to be repeated with a coherent beam of light passing through the tube and not impinging on the walls,… – Konrad

      CO2 scatters IR. It would be impossible for the light to not impinge on the walls. That would result in selectively heating the walls in the CO2 containing tube. At least the way he did it, any heat contribution from the walls was more likely to be uniform across the experiment.

  24. John Brown

    Master Konrad you describes the ocean. This is a great solar collector. Why nobody from climate knows? There must be a paper written.

    1. Konrad

      Yes, climastrologists ignore the fact that the sun heats the oceans from up to 200m below their surface. They also treat LWIR emissivity for water as near equal to its SW absorptivity. The reality is hemispherical LWIR emissivity for water is only 0.67 while its SW absorptivity is over 0.9.

      However not all scientists are such fools. Many oceanographers know that depth of absorption has a critical role in ocean heat content. Sweeny et al. 2005 looks at the effect of differing turbidity effecting depth of absorption and thereby heat content.

      Because climastrologists ignored how the sun actually heats the oceans, they missed how solar variance effects climate. TSI (total solar irradiance) only changes 0.1%. But the variance in solar spectral variance is far greater. Solar UV has increased 3.0% since the end of the LIA. UV penetrates the deepest, therefore variance in UV has the greatest effect on ocean heat content.

      1. John Brown

        Konrad,

        thank you soo much for confirming my suspicion.

        I will read SweenY.

        This is happy times.

  25. sunsettommy

    Dale,

    you need to drop your stupid Journal credibility argument since nothing in it is illegal,or you would have long ago pointed that out.

    You wrote,

    “Then why was the paper not published elsewhere in a journal with more academic credibility?”

    You are making a big fool of yourself over an irrelevant claim.

    1. Jack Dale

      yonason and Kenneth Richards

      Duh I defended a different paper.

      1. yonason

        The “different paper” you were “defending” was a paper about Mann and his hockey stick. Here’s a quote from the intro paragraph.
        ” Mann et al. (1999) has been validated through the publication of numerous hockey stick graphs since 1999. ”

        You were talking about Mann. Stop lying.

    2. Jack Dale

      Who said anything about illegal? Predatory journals are an questionable means of taking advantage of the publish or perish syndrome. They are the vanity press of academia.

  26. Thomas Allmendinger

    The here cited publication refers to my basic publication
    http://academicjournals.org/journal/IJPS2016/article-full-text-pdf/E00ABBF60017
    Therein, the development of the method is described in detail. An interaction with the tube walls by heat conduction can be excluded, not least since the temperature enhancement due to the irradiation occurs simultaneously at the three measuring points, and not delayed in time.
    A comprising refutation of the greenhouse theory is given in
    https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-refutation-of-the-climate-greenhouse-theory-and-a-proposal-for-ahopeful-alternative.php?aid=88698
    delivering more than 20 arguments against this theory. Therein, the measurements of Tyndall and of Arrhenius are described in detail. Similar to the later spectroscopic measurements, not the temperature enhancement of gases is has been measured, but solely the intensity loss or adsorption degree, respectively.
    Moreover, in the customary greenhouse theory the fact is disregarded that the whole atmosphere should have to be co-warmed by the “greenhouse gases” such as carbon-dioxide, whose concentration is only 0.04 percent.
    An overseeable depiction of my relevant contributions is given on my website http://allphyscon.ch (Part C). In particular, the commentary http://www.allphyscon.ch/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/The-Real-Cause-Allmendinger-home.pdf
    comprises the most important arguments.

    1. SebastianH

      Has it ever occurred to you that Sunlight is fundamentally different (SW radiation) from the light heat lamps (LW radiation) emit? Has it ever occurred to you that the Sun could be warming the interior of your styrofoam construction and it’s not the gas inside absorbing SW radiation?

      Has it ever occurred to you that you might not understand what the greenhouse effect is? Sentences like “Moreover, a greenhouse needs a solid transparent roof which is absent in the case of the atmosphere.” as an argument against it make that very evident.

      It is hard to believe: But at least twenty objections could be alleged to question and refute the climate greenhouse theory […]

      It is not only hard to believe, it is nuts. It’s almost as if you are deliberately ignoring how the greenhouse is supposed to work to argue against it.

      1. yonason

        Speaking of nuts, chatbot, which one are you?
        https://nuts.com/images/auto/510×340/assets/0f73019f521e7d31.jpg

        activist chatbot trolls – never objective, never constructive, never polite, never correct.

        1. Jack Dale

          Slithering to the bottom of Graham’s hierarchy is usually a tactic admission of defeat.

          1. yonason

            The observation was addressing SebH’s rude, boorish, insulting and, as usual, unsubstantiated assertions. It didn’t merit anything more than what I gave it. You don’t use a silk shirt to mop up vomit.

      2. John Brown

        SebH must explain how the greenhouse effect works. He not friendly.

        He never says what it is so John has to guess.

        Why not say how he thinks Greenhouse effect works?

    2. Konrad

      You are not good enough Thomas.
      You are looking for how the sun heats the atmosphere beyond 255K. This is your epic failure.
      You should have looked at how hot the sun could drive the surface materials of this planet in absence of atmospheric cooling.
      Then you should have looked for what atmospheric mechanisms were cooling them from an average of 312K to to 288K.

      1. yonason

        Thank you, Konrad, for that short but pointless diversion.

        1. Konrad

          Pointless?
          Good thing you don’t work on spacecraft thermal control. Surface properties are everything.
          Climastrologists calculated solar heating of the surface our planet under the assumption it could be considered a “near blackbody”
          To shoot me down, all you need to be is better at thermodynamics, radiative physics, and fluid dynamics than I am.
          Thomas hasn’t made the grade. Think you’re better?
          Explain this experiment design – https://imgur.com/a/kY5Bo
          Bet you can’t.

          I own you. Know it.

          1. yonason

            You may need to up your Zyprexa.

    3. GW

      Apparently it hasn’t ever occurred to SebastianH that you’re talking about SW IR radiation and not SW radiation (i.e. visible light/UV).

      1. John Brown

        SebH is funny. He says

        “Fact is that we are influencing the climate and your attempts in trying to attribute the current warming to the same causes that affected previous warming are weird.”

        John not understand nobody laughing. This is funny. SebH is a more funny than John.

        1. Jack Dale

          Apparently several on this thread do not understand that dumping 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere raising levels to those not observed in 3-5 million years messed up natural l cycles that had existed for at least 800,000 years when CO2 levels never exceeded 300 ppm. During than time humans evolved and then domesticated their food crops that were suited to that atmosphere.

          At 550 ppm several of our crops start to lose their nutritional value.

          https://www.insidescience.org/news/elevated-carbon-dioxide-levels-rob-crops-nutrients

          1. yonason

            Ohhh, so THAT’S what wiped out the dinosaurs! //s//
            https://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html

          2. John Brown

            Jack Dale has some numbers.

            John also knows numbers game.

            https://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/math-how-much-co2-by-weight-in-the-atmosphere/

            Jaack Dale might want answer question what those number mean.

          3. Jack Dale

            Some folks need to understand the role of trace substances. For comparison selenium is a trace substance required in the human diet. However at 400 ppm (by weight) it starts to become toxic. The trace amount of CO2 in the atmosphere prevents the earth from being a ball of ice. Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth’s average temperature would be near 0°F (or -18°C) instead of the much warmer 59°F (15°C). Anthropogenic CO2 has increased atmospheric levels by 40%. Carbon isotope analysis attributes that increase to the burning of fossil fuels.

          4. Pethefin

            LOL, Jack attempts to lecture the skeptics about trace gases. Where the ignorant arrogance of these alarmists comes from is a mystery, but here’s something for Dave and others to read:

            http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/

          5. Jack Dale

            H2O is recognized by the IPCC and others as the most potent GHG.

            From Remote Sensing Systems

            As the Earth’s troposphere warms, it is able to “hold” more water vapor without the vapor condensing into clouds and then rain. Assuming the relative humidity remains constant, the amount of extra water vapor is governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship, and is about 7% more water vapor per degree Kelvin increase in temperature. The global increase in water vapor is easy to see in Figure 5, which shows the global mean time series of total column water vapor over the worlds oceans, expressed in percent change from average.

            This increase can be formally attributed to human-induced climate change — see Santer et al, 2007.

            http://www.remss.com/research/climate.html

            BRW – who is Dave?

          6. Jack Dale

            Pethefin

            Some science on the relationship among Milankovitch cycles, CO2 increases and temperatures.

            “To repeat, the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas depends mainly on physics, not on the correlation with past temperature, which tells us nothing about cause and effect. And while the rises in CO2 a few hundred years after the start of interglacials can only be explained by rising temperatures, the full extent of the temperature increases over the following 4000 years can only be explained by the rise in CO2 levels.”

            https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/

          7. Jack Dale

            Kenneth

            This comment seems to suggest that the Rosenthal, 2013 does not provide evidence to support your assertion.

            “Lead author of the study, Yair Rosenthal, told us this rapid rate of change is another piece of evidence showing that current climate change is unusual:

            “This seemingly small increase occurred an order of magnitude faster than suggested by the gradual change during the last 10,000 years thereby providing another indication for global warming.”

            The recent warming adds to the idea that oceans are taking up much of the extra heat trapped as a result of human activities.”

            https://www.carbonbrief.org/10000-year-record-shows-pacific-depths-warming-fast

          8. Jack Dale

            Kenneth – here Rosenthal 2013

            https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yair_Rosenthal/publication/258215955_Pacific_Ocean_Heat_Content_During_the_Past_10000_Years/links/02e7e5293aaeb7b816000000/Pacific-Ocean-Heat-Content-During-the-Past-10-000-Years.pdf

            Why are you editing the graphics? Please provide the entire graphic, in context, in the future – preferably with a link to the original source.

            The blog reference from Carbon Brief I gave is a direct quote from Rosenthal. You should also be complaining about your usual suspects who post from joanneNnova, Heller, Briggs, micpohling, c3headlines (contextomy central), etc.

            FYI – no climate scientist says CO2 is the only forcing. Even I (not a claiming to be a climate scientist) recognize the role of Milankovitch cycles, volcanic activity, industrial aerosols, other GHGs, and a slight impact from solar activity – among others.

          9. Jack Dale

            Kenneth

            “None of this supports the conclusion that “only” CO2 can explain “the full extent” of temperature increases (or decreases).”

            Strawman – no climate scientist says that.

          10. Jack Dale

            Kenneth – AGW is a an extremely recent phenomenon. Your graphs of 10 of thousands of years “hide the incline”.

          11. Jack Dale
          12. Jack Dale

            Kenneth – so you concede that temperature can follow CO2 increases.

            ““And while the rises in CO2 a few hundred years after the start of interglacials can only be explained by rising temperatures, the full extent of the temperature increases over the following 4000 years can only be explained by the rise in CO2 levels.”

          13. Jack Dale

            Kenneth – The decline that was hidden was in tree ring densities, not temperatures.

            You include Rosenthal as the first non-hockey stick. Get serious. You told he he was believer.

            https://www.carbonbrief.org/media/243696/intermediate-water-temperatures.jpg

            Look at the uptick at the end. Most hockey sticks deal with past 2000 years.

            But you go right on ahead and cover your eyes and plug your ears. It’s not as if your mind is open anyway. You’re content to ignore evidence that doesn’t fit your presuppositions.

            Not one single academy of science in any country on the planet supports your views. None, Nada, Zilch.

            There are individuals on your side, but none represent the views of their professional associations.

  27. Konrad

    @Jack Dale
    “The trace amount of CO2 in the atmosphere prevents the earth from being a ball of ice.”

    This claim is not supported by the empirical evidence. Climastrolgists have claimed the oceans would freeze without the presence of radiative gases in our atmosphere, but the “Snow Line” in our solar system is out in the further reaches of the asteroid belt. Only after that point can worlds like Ceres and Europa with frozen oceans exist.

    “Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth’s average temperature would be near 0°F (or -18°C)”

    Wrong again. 255K (-18C) is the temperature calculation for a near blackbody receiving 240 w/m2 of solar radiation. However 71% of the surface of this planet is ocean, an extreme short wave selective surface. For 240 w/m2 of sunlight received in a diurnal cycle peaking around 1000 w/m2, the surface of this planet would average 312K were it not for cooling by our radiatively cooled atmosphere. Our current average is only 288K, therefore the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere on surface temperatures is 24K of cooling not 33K of warming.

  28. PhD-Physiker zieht empirische Daten heran und weist nach, dass die CO2-Treibhaus­theorie ein ,Hirnge­spinst‘ ist, dass ,nicht beachtet‘ werden sollte – EIKE – Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie
  29. sunsettommy

    Jack Dale,post this howler.

    “The trace amount of CO2 in the atmosphere prevents the earth from being a ball of ice.”

    Actually if you subtract the entire CO2 warm forcing effect out of the “heat budget”,it would only be one K cooler.

    Based on the Trenberth 1997 and 2008 models models….

    What would the temperature of the Earth be without CO2 in the Atmosphere?

    “This total energy transfer is consistent with the daily temperature cycle that exists in the atmosphere. I can provide more details on that if anyone is interested.

    Since the accepted value of the total GHE is 33 °C, I used each proportion of energy to the 33 °C. The result was as follows:

    Evaporation: 22.0 °C
    Water vapor (GHG): 5.0 °C
    Convection: 4.7 °C
    CO2 (GHG): 0.9 °C
    Ozone (GHG): 0.3 °C
    Other (GHG): 0.2 °C

    If CO2 were removed, the change in energy transfer would be 3.3 W/m^2 which is 2.75% of the total. That change corresponds to a total change to the GHE of 0.9 °C which I will consider 1 °C as the ozone transfer really takes place in the stratosphere.

    Since the Earth’s temperature is ~287K, the temperature of the Earth without CO2 would be ~286K.”

    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2012/08/what-would-the-temperature-of-the-earth-be-without-co2-in-the-atmosphere/

    Your claim is even sillier when we had an Ice Age right in the middle of a time when CO2 levels were between 2,000-4,000 ppm, in the atmosphere.

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

    1. SebastianH

      That is one silly quotation. Do you need an explanation why this calculation is wrong or can you find that out on your own?

      1. John Brown

        SebH might want to explain what the calculation is wrong.

        Jaack Dale used a strange comparison for the effect of CO2. He compares with Selenium. Very much stupid. He thinks physical process is not by quantity but quality. He wrong. Quality effect is chemical.

        Konrad explains well about oceans. SebH needs to learn oceans are important.

      2. sunsettommy

        The Calculation is based on what Dr. Trenberth published.

        1. SebastianH

          The Calculation is based on what Dr. Trenberth published.

          In a very, very weird way. From the 396 W/m² of surface radiation, they subtracted the radiation emitted to space through the atmospheric window and the back radiation, resulting in just 23 W/m² of surface radiation. They then split that amount up between the relevant GHGs and their effect. The result is what you linked to … nonsense.

          Nonsense because why on Earth would someone attribute the surface radiation to the greenhouse effect? The GHE is happening in the atmosphere and the result is the back radiation in the Trenberth diagram. You’d need to take those 333 W/m² and could split those up between the relevant GHGs. But if you reduce the amount of any GHGs this would also reduce the surface radiation and that would decrease back radiation in turn. Sounds circular, but you can easily solve for it. Another problem would be that changed surface radiation means the surface temperature changed and that neither evaporation nor thermals (convection) would likely stay the same.

          It’s a complex system and not as simple as the author of your quoted website makes it appear.

          Enough of an explanation or are you going to reply that I didn’t quote anything and therefore it must all be wrong again? 😉

          1. sunsettommy

            Seb, you didn’t point out what is incorrect,as it based on what uber warmist Dr. Trenberth published.

            John stated:

            ” I used Kiehl-Trenberth 1997 and 2008 and others. While slight differences existed the overall result is that there is 120 W/m^2 of energy transferred to the atmosphere by the Earth’s surface. This is 71% of the total energy that is absorbed by the surface from the Sun.

            I then broke down each transfer mechanism. Here is the end result as shown in my book.

            Evaporation: 80.0 W/m^2
            Water vapor (GHG): 18.1 W/m^2
            Convection: 17.0 W/m^2
            CO2 (GHG): 3.3 W/m^2
            Ozone (GHG): 1.0 W/m^2
            Other (GHG): 0.7 W/m^2″

            I have the book where he make clear it is based on DR. Trenberth’s energy transfer science.

            you going to dispute this?

            “CO2 (GHG): 3.3 W/m^2”

            You are all wind and babble.

          2. SebastianH

            Seb, you didn’t point out what is incorrect,as it based on what uber warmist Dr. Trenberth published.

            I did exactly point out what is incorrect. According to Trenberth the surface receives 161 W/m² and emits slightly less towards space. 40 W/m² go directly to space and roughly 120 W/m² is transferred to the atmosphere. That part is correct. It’s also correct that evaporation transfers 80 W/m² and convection/thermals 17 W/m² towards the atmosphere. However, GHGs don’t transfer energy from the surface towards the atmosphere. They absorb surface radiation (356 W/m²) and re-emit it in all directions and that includes the direction of the surface (333 W/m²). And that’s what the greenhouse effect is and is very clearly seen in the Trenberth diagram: https://bobfjones.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/trenberth-cartoon-ex-colose.jpg

            It’s silly nonsense what you are posting here and your inability to see that and your reply “You are all wind and babble.” are willing to believe nonsense just like that and dismiss anything contradicting your belief … and to top that guys like you ironically claim that it’s actually the other side that is believing something that isn’t real. Very weird.

          3. yonason

            3 words for the chatbots

            “CONSERVATION OF ENERGY”

            This diagram SebH posts…
            https://bobfjones.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/trenberth-cartoon-ex-colose.jpg
            …shows 341 (W/m*m) coming in from the sun. That is ALL the “income” we have available for deposit. But they tell us that (internal) withdrawals equal 396+80+17=493. Withdrawals therefore exceed deposits by 152. SORRY! Check returned for insufficient funds.

            And no, it doesn’t help that they have the same amount leaving earth as arriving, because even internally energy conservation cannot be violated the way they picture it. Energy can’t be locally created and destroyed at the whim of magical thinking warmists, in order to warm the planet. This is Classical, not Quantum physics.

            What you could (actually do) have is an oscillation, resulting from alternating accumulation and dissipation of heat. But then outgoing would be less than incoming during some portions of the day, and greater for some portions of the night. But that’s not what that simplistic cartoon shows.

            Now, how about dealing with the issue in detail, if you are able. Stop pretending that just because you have a silly misleading diagram that you understand the process. Go ahead and explain it to us, as Kenneth Richard has been asking for ever. We’re STILL waiting.

          4. SebastianH

            yonason, thank you for showing us that you have no idea how energy budgets work and what conservation of energy means.

            I suggest you study how insulation works and how it “violates the laws of thermodynamics” if you think that is impossible to have higher temperatures (and heat fluxes) internally, then what an observer would measure from the outside.

            Energy can’t be locally created

            There is no energy that just magically appears in this diagram.

            What you could (actually do) have is an oscillation, resulting from alternating accumulation and dissipation of heat. But then outgoing would be less than incoming during some portions of the day, and greater for some portions of the night. But that’s not what that simplistic cartoon shows.

            The diagram shows an average over the whole surface and long time periods. It’s different for the day/night cycle and varying latitudes.

            Go ahead and explain it to us, as Kenneth Richard has been asking for ever. We’re STILL waiting.

            I have been trying to do that in the first months I was commenting on this blog. Now it’s just pointing out where you guys are wrong. But if you insist …

            Why do you think it is correct to attribute the difference between outgoing radiation and back radiation to greenhouse gases? That makes no sense but is what the author at your link writes.

            A good starting point to understanding the greenhouse effect is – surprise – the Wikipedia article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Mechanism

            Or do you think that the explanation of the mechanism is also fake or a lie?

          5. SebastianH

            One comment lost to spam filter?

            tl;dr was: please go back to school and learn about conservation of energy before you write nonsense like this. This effect is not creating energy out of nothing. Look up how insulation works and how a heat source can generate higher internal temperatures the better the insulation is. Or do you think you kitchen oven violates the laws of thermodynamics too?

          6. yonason

            BAIT AND SWITCH?

            Why do you think it is correct to attribute the difference between outgoing radiation and back radiation to greenhouse gases? That makes no sense but is what the author at your link writes. – SebH

            first – I never said anything about “greenhouse gasses.” I’m not attributing it to anything. I’m just taking the numbers at face value, without regard for how they were arrived at, and I’m asking YOU how they got the results they did. According to the cartoon (YOUR CARTOON, not mine) there is more energy leaving the earth’s surface than is arriving from the sun.

            Arriving from sun = 341 (THAT’S TOTAL INCOME)
            ———————————————
            Leaving earth’s surface…
            a. 396 (radiation)
            b. 80 (evap transp)
            c. 17 (thermal updrafts)

            Total outflow from earth’s surface = 493

            493 > 341

            That’s a total of 341 arriving, and a total of 493 leaving. What I’m asking you is how that’s possible. And you obviously have no answer.

            What I want you to explain is why you have more energy available internally than is supplied from without, and you have failed.

            SECOND – I repeat… What do you mean “the author of your link.?”????? That was YOUR link I was addressing, not mine!
            http://notrickszone.com/2017/09/04/ph-d-physicist-uses-empirical-data-to-assert-co2-greenhouse-theory-a-phantasm-to-be-neglected/comment-page-1/#comment-1229188

            But instead of explaining it, you pull a bait and switch to a wiki-pee cartoon in which the problem has been erased, and then act like I’m the one who’s making things up, when it’s you.

            Man-up and defend the one you posted, or apologize for it. If you picked the wrong cartoon to illustrate what you wanted to, just say so. But do not blame your mistake on me.

          7. yonason

            UPDATE

            Sorry, SebH. I just found this by someone who agrees with me that the basis of that cartoon is “divine intervention.”

            That critic there adds up the flows slightly differently from me, but gets the same result. That “energy balance” isn’t “balanced.”

            Also, I repeat:
            1. It’s YOUR link, and…
            2. I wrote nothing about GHG’s. Why would I? That’s your schtick.

          8. SebastianH

            1) sorry for confusing you with sunsettommmy. He was the one who posted that nonsense above and with all the discussions going on in parallel .. well, sorry.

            2) there is nothing out of balance in this “cartoon”: https://bobfjones.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/trenberth-cartoon-ex-colose.jpg

            341 W/m² incoming radiation from the Sun and 161 W/m² reach the surface. 17 W/m² and 80 W/m² leave the surface by thermals and evaporation, the “net absorbed” is 0.9 W/m², leaving around 63 W/m² for radiation emitted. And surprise that is exactly the difference of the surface radiation (396 W/m²) and the back radiation (333 W/m²).

            There is no energy magically appearing in this “cartoon” and everything balances out. Your “divine intervention” uses slightly different numbers, but it adds up as well (see the two equations at the bottom). The part in the center that is marked as “divine intervention” is also perfectly in balance. 169+350 W/m² going in and 165+30+324 W/m² going out of the atmosphere. Where do you see the problem with that?

  30. clipe
  31. John Brown

    Poor SebH, has no friends. Is afraid to ask a physics teacher, afraid to be surprised. Has he not read Kenneth. he explain where SebH not knows.

    He says no need to convince, only stranger he says. Why he posts?

    Kenneth explains very good.
    http://notrickszone.com/2017/09/04/ph-d-physicist-uses-empirical-data-to-assert-co2-greenhouse-theory-a-phantasm-to-be-neglected/comment-page-1/#comment-1229419

    John not know how to link.

    SebH really is not listening. He not logic. If John ask physics teacher and what if teacher wrong? SebH thinks scientist can wrong. But what if teacher is wrong. He would ask teacher and thinks he wrong because not hear what he wants?

    Poor SebH. Not understand that CO2 not effect much.

    Oceans are effect. Konrad says and explains very good.

  32. yonason

    Peaking over the shoulder of someone taking their PhD climate activist exam we see…
    https://scottthong.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/standarizedthought.jpg

    (sssshhh. Don’t distract him. It’s a very difficult test.)

    😉

  33. URL

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More here: notrickszone.com/2017/09/04/ph-d-physicist-uses-empirical-data-to-assert-co2-greenhouse-theory-a-phantasm-to-be-neglected/ […]

  34. SebastianH

    Kenneth,

    do you agree or disagree that there is a power gap between incoming radiation (to the surface) and outgoing energy transfers (by radiation, evaporation, conduction)?

    If you agree, you have to explain that gap somehow. Everything you suggested so far by posting weird “science” papers doesn’t do the job. Uncertainty doesn’t do the job. I guess you don’t even understand the problem from reading your replies.

    We can actually measure the downwelling longwave radiation. Do you think that is a hoax? Some part of that radiation is from CO2 in the atmosphere. And you seem to believe that this part of the radiation does nothing to surface temperatures? Or just small variations do nothing?

    Learn the how the mechanisms work, Kenneth and you’ll see that there aren’t huge gaps in this theory.

    Oh,and you don’t seem to understand that the current CO2 concentration has only begun to influence the climate. A forcing doesn’t translate into instant temperature changes. It’s also beyond me why you think that CO2 would be responsible for OHC changes in the past, when the levels didn’t change much. Pardon, you don’t think that, but you think we do. Why?

    Natural variations will always be there. What you don’t seem to understand is that this doesn’t cancel what an increased CO2 Level does. It might overwhelm it, true. But it’s not gone because of some change in cloud layers.

    There is not single thing causing climate change. It’s the sum of everything. But if one of those variables is influenced by us you can subtract it from that side of the equation. Is that so hard to understand?

    P.S.: You call us/me believers and yourself skeptic. I think it is theotherway around. You aren’t the least bit skeptic when it comes to junk science in papers and believe what they write because it supports your views. This goes so far that you are arguing against the laws of physics. This wouldn’t happen if you would finally learn how things work (the mechanisms). So please do us the favor. Thank you.