Claim: Real-World Spectral Measurements Show The ‘Greenhouse Theory Is Wrong’ – ALL Gases Are GHGs

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Ninety-nine percent of the Earth’s atmosphere is made up of two gases: (78%) nitrogen (N2) and (21%) oxygen (O2). Neither is considered an IR-absorbing/re-emitting greenhouse gas (GHG) like (0.041%) carbon dioxide (CO2) or (0.00018%) methane (CH4).

Utilizing real-world Raman spectrometer data, an independent researcher from Sweden has found both N2 and O2 do indeed absorb radiation, or function as GHGs. If true, the CO2-is-a-special-heat-trapping-gas conceptualization effectively collapses.

Image Source: ResearchGate

A new paper entitled “Quantum Mechanics and Raman Spectroscopy Refute Greenhouse Theory” has recently been made available online.

Written by Blair D Macdonald, an independent researcher specializing in fractral geometry and quantum mechanics, the analysis utilizes real-world IR spectral measurements from a Raman spectrometer (laser).

Concisely, Macdonald has determined that CO2 is no more “special” a gas absorber and re-emmitter of radiation than nitrogen or oxygen, even though the latter are not considered greenhouse gases.

What follows is but a tiny snapshot of some key points from this comprehensively-sourced paper.

Note: It would be advisable that interested readers – especially those who are rightly skeptical of iconoclastic analyses like these – should read the text in some detail before commenting.  Turning the spotlight on papers that question conventional wisdom is primarily intended to elicit open-minded discussion.  It is not intended to convey we have arrived at a definitive conclusion about the authenticities of the CO2 greenhouse effect.

Macdonald, 2018

Quantum Mechanics and Raman Spectroscopy

Refute Greenhouse Theory

Abstract:  Greenhouse theory’s premise, nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases as they do not emit and absorb infrared radiation, presents a paradox; it contradicts both quantum mechanics and thermodynamicswhere all matter above absolute 0° Kelvin radiates IR photons.  It was hypothesized these gases do radiate at quantum mechanics predicted spectra, and these spectra are observed by IR spectroscopy’s complement instrument, Raman spectroscopy; and N2 spectra can be demonstrated to absorb IR radiation by experiment, and application o the N2-CO2 laser.  It was found the gases do possess quantum predicted emission spectra at 2338 cm−¹ and 1156 cm−¹ respectively, both well within the IR range of the EMS, and are only observed – and their temperatures accurately measured – by Raman spectrometers.  Raman spectrometers measure, more accurately, the Keeling curve, and have application with meteorological Lidars and planetary atmospheric analysis.  The N2-CO2 Laser showed – contrary to current greenhouse theory – N2 absorbs electrons or (IR) photons at its – metastable ‘long-lasting’ – spectra mode.  It was argued atmospheric CO2, as a law, is heated by the same mechanism as the N2-CO2 laser: nitrogen (first) and the entire atmosphere absorbs IR radiation directly from the Sun, just as it heats water on the ocean surfaceWith these findings, greenhouse theory is wrongall gases are GHGs [greenhouse gases] – and needs review.”

 

 

Image(s) Source: Macdonald, 2018
Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

145 responses to “Claim: Real-World Spectral Measurements Show The ‘Greenhouse Theory Is Wrong’ – ALL Gases Are GHGs”

  1. SebastianH

    First sentence of the abstract says it all:

    Greenhouse theory’s premise, nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases as they do not emit and absorb infrared radiation, presents a paradox; it contradicts both quantum mechanics and thermodynamics – where all matter above absolute 0° Kelvin radiates IR photons.

    Let’s take the simple definition of Non-GHGs from Wikipedia:

    The major atmospheric constituents, nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2), and argon (Ar), are not greenhouse gases because molecules containing two atoms of the same element such as N2 and O2 have no net change in the distribution of their electrical charges when they vibrate, and monatomic gases such as Ar do not have vibrational modes.

    There is no contradiction. You posted another junk science paper by a “skeptic” with – presumably – no peer review at all. Why? Because he talks like you do? Do you think articles like this one here really strengthen your skeptical viewpoint?

    1. Kurt in Switzerland

      Read the paper, Seb.

    2. Bitter&twisted

      Ah yes Wikipedia as a go to science source.
      Says it all.

      1. SebastianH

        Not understanding what I was getting at says a lot about you too. Unfortunately I forgot the closing blockqoute tag above, but it wasn’t about „science from Wikipedia“.

    3. skeptik

      –> SebastianH

      Although, like you, I happen to think that this particular “paper” is probably a load of rubbish, I still think that NTZ is performing a useful function in bringing it to our attention. We certainly need to have something to counteract the over politicised and one sided stories promulgated by the IPCC and the BBC.

      There are many potential weaknesses in the AGW orthodoxy as it currently stands. These need to be discussed.

    4. Ron

      @SebastianH
      Argon has no vibrational modes but it can clearly take up energy in waveform as “heat” which in this case means more molecular movement in a closed containment increasing pressure based on the ideal gas law.

      It’s just nonsense that Argon absorbs nothing.

      1. SebastianH

        Heating something and and absorbing and emitting IR at a certain wavelength are two different pairs of shoes.

        1. Ron

          Yes, they are.

          I just wonder if focus on IR, H2O and CO2 is the right approach calculating the overall absorbed energy balance. There have to be effects of the other wavelengths and interactions of all the other molecules in the atmosphere and IR is maybe just finally converted in kinetic energy without further waves emitted generating the “IR holes” in the spectrum at surface. That does not imply the other molecules do not contribute to conversion of photon energy in kinetic energy/”heat”. Even if there contribution is relative minuscule on a single molecule level their abundance could add up to be pretty relevant.

  2. Paul Stevens

    Well this kind of changes things, if confirmed. Can’t wait for others familiar with the field and technology to either confirm or refute this paper.

    1. Ron Clutz

      I’m out of my depth on this. I thought they were some kind of Japanese noodle.

      1. Yonason

        Yes, I’m in need of getting up to speed, as well. Perhaps this will be a good place to start?
        https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCG8rf7h-jboi8L4zKlCJZvQ

        I’ll listen while having my snack (all of a sudden hungry for some reason).

        1. Ron Clutz

          Yonason, thanks for the link. Macdonald has a video that explains his analysis clearly.

          1. Ron Clutz

            The video embed code is

            URL link is https://youtu.be/T0IHKKkOwdU

          2. Yonason

            It seems to me that Macdonald didn’t go into even superficial depth researching Raman spectroscopy and how to interpret the data. Here are some short videos on the topic.
            https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMiikclf3GL7IEIW83vf3boslwtj4lMLp

            Another e.g., of where he appears to take wrong assumptions for facts.
            https://youtu.be/GntYJ-2Tb5I?t=101

            “… It’s well understood that infrared radiation radiates and heats the water…” – B. M.

            No, Blair, IR radiation barely penetrates the top few millimeters or so of a body of water. See here.
            https://i.stack.imgur.com/HOD9W.gif

            I hate to be too critical, because I don’t want to feed the trolls, but it is important to see that he makes mistakes that significantly impact his conclusions.

            IMPORTANT – rephrasing a comment I made elsewhere, just because Macdonald is wrong about his theory, doesn’t make the warmists correct about theirs. At least he, not having any training in science, has an excuse. They, on the other hand, do not.

  3. Schrodinger's Cat

    I like it! I was lined up to do a PhD on “A study of the bonding of hydrogen on silica using laser raman spectroscopy” way back in the sixties but luckily I was offered a real job by a company I had worked for as an undergraduate. I did however spend a few weeks desperately finding out about laser raman and if my remaining brain cells are working properly I agree with the author. It is complimentary to IR and involves an energy shift by interaction between EM energy and the molecular bond vibrations.

  4. El Niño: Kommt er oder kommt er nicht? – wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung

    […] Studie widerlegt CO2 Theorie: Spektralanalyse beweist:  Alle Gase in der Erdatmosphäre sind „Treibhausgase“ […]

  5. Patrick Hrushowy

    I’d like to hear from people knowledgeable in this field. As a lay person with some Batchelor level science I’ve always wondered why the greenhouse effect came from such a narrow band of gases in the atmosphere. If what this fellow writes stands up to scrutiny then the whole warming scare is without foundation.

    1. Hivemind

      Not entirely without foundation. But we may find that we are subject to yet more stupid demands, eg to remove all the oxygen from the atmosphere.

      1. Yonason

        If we remove too much of the CO2 we won’t have to remove the O2. It’ll disappear all by itself, once the plants starve and die.

    2. Yonason

      @Patrick Hrushowy

      “If what this fellow writes stands up to scrutiny then the whole warming scare is without foundation.”

      I think it’s important to note that even when it’s shown where Macdonald is wrong, that still won’t vindicate the “warming scare.” The latter will still be wrong.

  6. Willis Eschenbach

    I’m sorry, but this is not correct. It is true that almost all gases are GHGs. However, most gases are only able to absorb/radiate in a very narrow frequency band. As a result, they make no practical difference in the atmosphere.

    Next, in his table, he objects to the claim that O2 and N2 are NOT GHGs … kinda true, as any decent text will show. While they can do so in certain circumstances, in general they do not absorb IR. And ozone (O3) is a GHG.

    Next, the author is correct that the “noble gases” (helium, neon, argon, zenon) are not GHGs.

    Finally, the author says:

    “Greenhouse theory’s premise, nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases as they do not emit and absorb infrared radiation, presents a paradox; it contradicts both quantum mechanics and thermodynamics – where all matter above absolute 0° Kelvin radiates IR photons.”

    Not true. That is HIS premise, not GHG’s premise. As pointed out above, as everyone (except this good fellow) knows, N2 and O2 are indeed GHGs, just very weak ones.

    And it has NEVER been true that “all matter above absolute 0° Kelvin radiates IR photons.” While this is widely believed by non-scientists, actual scientists know that the noble gases neither absorb nor radiate IR photons, and in general, symmetrical dipole molecules like N2 and O2 do not absorb or emit IR.

    Best regards,

    w.

    1. Ron

      I am not really sure if you understand the point of the paper. His claim is that the IR absorption and emission of N2 and O2 is unnoticed by conventional IR measurement and only taken up using Raman spectrometry.
      Therefore, your claim “in general, symmetrical dipole molecules like N2 and O2 do not absorb or emit IR.” is an incomplete observation based on the method used. That would not be the first time in science history that a measurement method determines and biased the outcome. Just time will tell if that holds true.

      I did some work with Raman spectrometry in the past and although I do not know if his measurements were done correctly and the interpretation is solid, I can at least confirm that Raman spectrometry works in the way he describes.

      1. LdB

        The issue is the paper is like a layman presentation trying to pretend they understand nuclear physics.

        The background to atmospheric Raman spectroscopy is well known, like really really well known .. start here that is calibrated to radiosonde data
        https://ocw.upc.edu/sites/all/modules/ocw/estadistiques/download.php?file=29408/2011/1/52892/ors_7_raman-3729.pdf

        1. Ron

          That is funny: Raman spectrometry is used to calculate the temperature of water vapor through its Raman mode yet these modes are not considered contributing to the net energy absorption/transfer in the atmosphere…?!

          1. LdB

            I assume you are talking about something in Climate Science models or such which I have no idea. As you notice the actual transfers are measured and calibrated but the background is it is done not for climate science .. look carefully can you guess what it is done for.

        2. Ron

          The Raman modes seem not to be used in climate modeling when it comes to IR absorption but Raman spectrometry is used for assessing temperature measurements of water vapor in the atmosphere in different altitudes.

          How can a Raman mode consist information about the energy of a molecule if the mode does not absorb energy and contributes to the whole energy content of the molecule? I just wonder. The quantum mechanics behind this might somebody else investigate.

    2. Tasfay Martinov

      Never say never (where quantum is involved).

  7. Curious George

    It does not appear that the author undertook any real-world spectral measurements. It is a rehash of information from multiple sources, like a spectrometry of car exhaust gases. I don’t intend to spend more time on it.

  8. BobW in NC

    Conclusion: We have been lied to by Ignorant science hacks such as Al Gore and the UN’s IPCC.

    “Anthropogenic Climate Change” is a fraud. Hopefully, this paper will be widely circulated and understood and will break the back of “Climate Change.” No more windmills or solar panels.

  9. mwhite

    No mention of water vapour???

    1. Bernd Felsche

      Shhh.

      Don’t mention the elephant.

  10. Yonason

    Offhand, I’d say that seems like it’s consistent with the results of these experiments.
    http://www.schmanck.de/TreibhausMessung.pdf

  11. Brett Keane

    Thanks, you have nailed it. Herr Allmendinger showned this too, Not to mention James Clerk Maxwell eg ‘Theory of Heat’ And the Poisson Relation ie Ideal Gas Laws. Anything else always was stupid……

  12. John F. Hultquist

    This is interesting, but not really relevant to the UN IPCC scary thing about redistributing the wealth of the haves to the have-nots.

    There has been no claim that humans have been adding tons (tonnes) of N2 and/or O2 to the atmosphere. Thus, there are no reasons to claim the “haves” have done anything to harm the “have-nots” — and thus no taxes, fees, reparations or the like to argue about. That is also, more or less, why we don’t hear much about water vapor as a GHG.
    What’s the phrase? No harm, no foul.

    Other than that, I mostly agree with Willis E., above.

    1. Kurt in Switzerland

      His main argument is challenging a few key points of the widely-accepted GHG Theory. It doesn’t “refute” the theory rather than argue for a re-assessment of the numerical assumptions. Even if the relative effect of N2 and O2 were minuscule in comparison to “classic” GHGs, their total effect could be significantly larger due to their overwhelmingly greater presence.

      IF N2 and O2 are in fact absorbing and re-radiating energy, similarly to CO2, H2O and others, then the numerical calculations / estimates from the GHG (and the enhanced GHG theory) would need to be revisited.

      So if some atmospheric warming over the past few decades has been attributed (partially of completely) to increased human GHG emissions, primarily CO2, but may in fact be due to something else, then it’s back to the drawing board. Begs the “cloud question” even more than before.

      It would be naïve to reject the author’s inputs outright.

      But it is no less naïve to assume that late 20th Century warming was due mainly (or entirely) to increased human CO2 emissions.

      Any comments from the paper’s reviewers?

      BTW, I didn’t like the various typos in the paper: §4.4 ‘Error’; multiple references to ‘O2′ using ’02’ instead (the digit vs. the letter).

      1. SebastianH

        Any comments from the paper’s reviewers?

        There is no review. It’s self published by an economics blogger, isn’t it?
        http://www.fractalnomics.com/2018/10/quantum-mechanics-and-raman.html

        It would be naïve to reject the author’s inputs outright.

        I obviously agree. Questioning the conventional wisdom is the heart of skepticism, even science.

        Applying an itsy tiny bit of common sense should augment this naive skepticism of yours then.

  13. Georg Thomas

    I have been wondering for quite some time why the basic physics of CO2 receives so little attention by skeptics and sense that there is not much secure understanding of it among all parties disputing the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (CAGW-H).

    Those who address the basics – like e.g. CO2IsLife – do not seem to be taken up much by the rest of the skeptical community. One would suspect that if CO2 is physically incapable of achieving the peril ascribed to it by CAGW-H, skeptics would make this fact the center of their argument – or criticise such a theory if it were wrong. Instead, this fundamental issue is being rather avoided, I feel. If my observation is correct, why should this be so?

    I commend the skeptics for trying to ensure a truly scientific treatment of the issue and succeeding especially in pointing out methodological errors and empirical evidence contradicting CAGW-H. They deny the hypothesis to the best of their ability – which is the scientific way, putting obstacles in the way of the alarmists’ faith-based stampede.

    I hope, in addition to these efforts, henceforth more attention will be directed to the physics of CO2. I look forward to the day when someone will be able to explain to me, a layperson, what contributions we can expect CO2 to make to climate and whether it is physically capable of exerting a significant impact on temperatures in the manner proposed by CAGW-H.

    1. DMA

      Georg
      Two other recent works attacking IPCC “consensus science”:
      https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018EA000401

      https://ams.confex.com/ams/2019Annual/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/349565

      The first shows how the data do not reflect a central part of the models. The second builds on Salby’s and Harde’s work to show human emissions only about 4% of the atmospheric content and are not materially increasing that percentage. It further demonstrates the failure of the IPCC Bern of atmospheric CO2 evolution to replicate known data.

      1. scott

        Hi DMA,

        I pretty sure I replied to one of your comments on WUWT re the CRES satellite picture of the natural release in the NH of CO2 in May, completely overwhelms all natural sinks and cannot recover in time for the next cycle so CO2 increases. During winter there is no human CO2 hot spots identifiable over any major population centre at all.

        CO2 grows in part because temp increases promote tree and undergrowth growth, which enhances the May increase add that to ocean outgassing and there you have increases in CO2 lagging temperature.

      2. Ron Clutz

        DMA, thanks for the links. Glad to see Dr. Ed Berry’s paper finally got published after a concerted effort by alarmists to censor it. I posted in the past a synopsis of analyses by Humlum, Harde and Berry that counter the IPCC consensis science regarding attribution of rising CO2.

        https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/04/13/who-to-blame-for-rising-co2/

        The focus in this piece is the claim that fossil fuel emissions drive observed rising CO2 concentrations. IPCC consensus scientists and supporters note that human emissions are about twice the measured rise and presume that natural sinks absorb half, leaving the other half to accumulate in the atmosphere. Thus they conclude all of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is from fossil fuels.

        This simple-minded conclusion takes the only two things we measure in the carbon cycle: CO2 in the atmosphere, and fossil fuel emissions. And then asserts that one causes the other. But several elephants are in the room, namely the several carbon reservoirs that dwarf human activity in their size and activity, and can not be measured because of their complexity.

        The consensus notion is based on a familiar environmental paradigm: The Garden of Eden. This is the modern belief that nature, and indeed the climate is in balance, except for humans disrupting it by their activities. In the current carbon cycle context, it is the supposition that all natural sources and sinks are in balance, thus any additional CO2 is because of humans.

        Now, a curious person might wonder: How is it that for decades as the rate of fossil fuel emissions increased, the absorption by natural sinks has also increased at exactly the same rate, so that 50% is always removed and 50% remains? It can only be that nature is also dynamic and its flows change over time!

        That alternative paradigm is elaborated in several papers that are currently under vigorous attack from climatists. As one antagonist put it: Any paper concluding that humans don’t cause rising CO2 is obviously wrong. One objectionable study was published by Hermann Harde, another by Ole Humlum, and a third by Ed Berry is delayed in pre-publication review.

        The methods and analyses are different, but the three skeptical papers argue that the levels and flows of various carbon reservoirs fluctuate over time with temperature itself as a causal variable. Some sinks are stimulated by higher temperatures to release more CO2 while others respond by capturing more CO2. And these reactions occur on a range of timescales. Once these dynamics are factored in, the human contribution to rising atmospheric CO2 is neglible, much to the ire of alarmists.

        1. Penelope

          Ron, I remember a Japanese study which looked into the whereabouts of the increased CO2– and surprise, surprise– it was not in the industrial northern hemisphere. No, twas in the southern hemisphere.

          Rotting vegetation, marshlands, etc I guess.

          Sorry I couldn’t find the link.

          1. scott

            Hi Penelope,

            sorry missed this earlier. my understanding is that it is the northern hemisphere but not over man made cities but over the boreal forests.

            The link to the CRES satellite CO2 readings are here:

            http://euanmearns.com/co2-the-view-from-space-update/

          2. SebastianH

            Instead of comparing the CO2 map to a forest map, that author should have made a comparison to a population map: http://luminocity3d.org/WorldPopDen/#3/41.24/69.08

            And find that it is out of balance where the humans are.

            Or is this another primary water / contrail conspiracy?

          3. Ron

            Like the rain forest or Canada? Of course it’s the other side that does cherry picking.

          4. Yonason

            Can we see on a map that CO2 is, according to SebH, “out of balance were the humans are.”

            You know, like the South Pacific Ocean, Western Sahara Dessert, Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, Indian Ocean, Eastern Pacific Ocean and Western USA, Southern S. America, etc., etc. I.e., everywhere were humans either are not or aren’t industrialized.

            Surprise, surprise, no we can’t see it – SebH is wrong yet again. And it’s not as if he couldn’t know it. I and others have posted about that on this blog, and others have elsewhere (which is where I learned it). So, is it deliberate deception on SebH’s part, or is he just too stupid to remember? Either way, he’s just wrong, as usual.

            And what does he mean “out of balance?” How do we even know what “balance” is for CO2? He doesn’t know, because nobody does. It’s just a made up concept, like Earth’s alleged “energy balance.” Interesting, isn’t it, how it’s always the unbalanced people who see imaginary imbalances everywhere. ;-o)

          5. SebastianH

            Ehm Yonason, have you even read that Euan Mearns post that Scott linked to? It mentions the forest being out of equilibrium, e.g. being out of balance. I was referring to that.

            These childish „he is wrong“ strawman rebuttals of yours need to stop. I am not the one deceiving others here. Look amongst your peers.

  14. Greenhouse Theory Is Wrong – ALL Gases Are Greenhouse Gases – Hommunism News

    […] notrickszone.com/2018/11/12/real-world-spectral-measurements-show-the-greenhouse-theory-is-wrong-all… […]

  15. Ron Clutz

    Georg, an example of what you say. This recent study analyzed in detail the last 40 years of satellite measurements of the temperature profile in the troposphere and stratosphere. They conclude that any effect from rising CO2 can not be discerned.
    This paper just published Has global warming already arrived? by C.A.Varotsos and M.N.Efstathiou
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682618305030?fbclid=IwAR2K7rMBEtRzuI7e0covP9r5vYr79lak–HnAAQWq0kRN7kT4xW-pouYpfQ

    Highlights
    • The global warming during 1978–2018 was not more enhanced at high latitudes near the surface.

    • The intrinsic properties of the lower stratospheric temperature are not related to those in the troposphere.

    • The results obtained do not reveal the global warming occurrence.

    My synopsis is https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/11/09/atmospheric-observations-contradict-global-warming-theory/

    1. Georg Thomas

      Ron, Thanks for the very interesting paper. Sometimes I wonder how do these guys pluck up the courage to write such heretical stuff?

  16. Der Ganzumsonst

    Does this mean that what is measured in Mauna Loa is the total IR absorption, calibrated in ppm CO2?

    1. John F. Hultquist

      I believe the Mauna Loa folks are measuring molecules, not IR.

      1. SebastianH

        Read up on how CO2 in the atmosphere gets measured. You radiate a tube with IR at a certain wavelength and a detector on the other side tells you how much got through. It exploits the GHE of CO2.

        1. Paul Achatz

          “It exploits the GHE of CO2”

          Not really. What you mean by the GHE of CO2 is the ability to absorb and emit IR. Whereas this ability is condition for the GHE of CO2 it has not much to do with it. Nearly all of the GHE of CO2 comes from lifting the effective emission height of the atmosphere to a slighly higher (colder) layer with rising CO2 concentrations. That is the theoretical and quite sound hypothesis (without any feedbacks). Whether this happens exactly so in the real world is the question. What does the lapse rate do, how does convection or evaporation reacton that impulse? Nobody really knows. The sparse measured values give room for all possible interpretations. Far away from being settled no matter what models say and how they match temperature measurements.

          1. Scott

            Hi Paul,

            Question. does only CO2 raise the emission height of the atmosphere, or does water vapour also play a role?

          2. Paul Achatz

            Hi Scott

            of course water always plays the dominant role but in terms of the GHE of CO2 without feedbacks water is assumed to be constant. The purpose is to determine what happens if you double CO2 and leave evrything else unchanged. Out comes a higher effective emission layer radiating less energy to space and thus heating our poor and dying planet from 288 K to catastrophic 289.2 K.

            That‘s the theory. In reality the warming world will see more evaporation, more water in the atmosphere, sometimes more convection, sometimes less. The question is where will the water accumulate? In high clouds with cooling or in low clouds with warming during the night and cooling at day? Or where will that happen? Only in dry areas with no water overlap? Will wet areas with high overlap be affected at all? What happens to the lapse rate? Will it steepen as radiosondes are indicating or flattening as satellite data are indicating? And what about the interaction of all those effects with natural cooling/ warming by ocean oscillations, with changing ice albedos or with the effect of the greeening earth?

            Nobody in this world can ever calculate that without error bars higher than Empire State Building. That is ridiculous. And the best thing: Even if somebody was able to do that calculation there would be no solution for the problem except the whole world going full nuclear. Fine for me, but obviously not for the AGW believers. This is the clearest sign to identify the whole thing as a pure ideology/religion.

          3. Yonason

            Clive Best has something on that here.
            http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=5911

            I’ve also heard Lindzen speak about it, but can’t remember which video it was in.

            It’s not a big effect, and nothing to panic about. If it was, the damage would have already been done due to much higher [CO2] in the past.

          4. scott

            Thanks Paul,

            I get where you are coming from. I suppose in my earlier post is in relation to the so called energy budget diagrams which talk about back radiation which I just don’t get, hence my different level comment which means that if this were the mechanism heat would simply escape. Which we know happens ie el Nino heat just disappears in the following years. Any impact that inhibits heat release into space is doing a terrible job of it:)

            I think the issue I am having is the statement “the water is assumed to be constant” which we know its not ie deserts and tropics. This means that the emission layer is actually at different levels all over the world.

            The issue then becomes what happens at these changes in emission height? does the heat escape more readily through these lower emission levels?

            I think the post by Okulaer covers this point well with the differences between a high and low humidity location with similar input.

            https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/the-congo-vs-sahara-sahel-once-more/

            I think when massive statements like “assume this is constant” are made in a chaotic world, the output is bound to fall over.

          5. SebastianH

            And the best thing: Even if somebody was able to do that calculation there would be no solution for the problem except the whole world going full nuclear. Fine for me, but obviously not for the AGW believers. This is the clearest sign to identify the whole thing as a pure ideology/religion.

            I’d say the clearest sign that you skeptics are not to be taken seriously is this paragraph. You are conflating AGW proponents with anti-nuclear types and completely ignore that nuclear is by far the most expensive solution to provide eletricity. Imagining that this would be the solution and – presumably – thinking that renewables would be too expensive is just ridiculous.

          6. Paul Achatz

            Nuclear today is more expensive than fossil fuels. That is true. Mostly because it was overregulated within the last decades. It was killed by exaggerated political fears.

            Still, nuclear is by far cheaper than wind & solar if you compare apples with apples and add a battery to every windmill or a gas power plant to a solar park in order to provide constant output. Solar will never produce enough energy to justify the invest and spent area compared to just burn a little more gas in the nevertheless existing gas power plant which then also runs at a higher efficiency rate.

            If it was that cheap why do we have to throw billions after billions in those technologies year after year? And that is still without forcing those parasites in the grid to come up with a technical solution to deliver constant output before getting grid admission in the first place! This requirement immediately and rightfully kills that childish dream which in fact is a nightmare for nature & landscape on top. Although this is obvious to everybody in the real world the green dreamers still promote 100% renewables. If that was achieved, Germany’s landscape would be completely destroyed and the grid completely unreliable without any potential to support growing energy demands from new technologies in the future. How serious is that?

          7. SebastianH

            Still, nuclear is by far cheaper than wind & solar if you compare apples with apples and add a battery to every windmill or a gas power plant to a solar park in order to provide constant output.

            Paul, here is the thing, power demand isn’t constant. You can’t follow demand with only nuclear power stations, you’d need batteries or some kind of storage as well.

            If it was that cheap why do we have to throw billions after billions in those technologies year after year?

            “was” … it wasn’t cheap, it is cheap now and economical in many regions already. We threw money at it so this happens faster.

            And that is still without forcing those parasites in the grid to come up with a technical solution to deliver constant output before getting grid admission in the first place! This requirement immediately and rightfully kills that childish dream

            That is not a requirement. Why would you want to force a power station to deliver constant output when nobody needs the power? What you want to have is a good mix that is able to follow demand. At a certain point storage will surely be necessary for solar and wind, but that point has yet to be reached.

            Although this is obvious to everybody in the real world the green dreamers still promote 100% renewables. If that was achieved, Germany’s landscape would be completely destroyed and the grid completely unreliable without any potential to support growing energy demands from new technologies in the future. How serious is that?

            This is BS and you know it (I hope). Are you trying to troll me?

            @Kenneth: you are no skeptic and I am not a believer. Stop imagining these two things.

          8. Paul Achatz

            Scott

            Thanks a lot for the link to Okulaer, very interesting stuff.

          9. Scott

            Hi Paul,

            I really enjoy reading and learning all there is on this subject. thanks to people like yourself, Kenneth, Pierre, etc etc. Its the only way the real story will be found as its not coming from inside the cult that’s for sure.

            There are way too many holes in their hypothesis to even make it to a theory let alone settled science and government policy.

            My favourite reply to the “what if they are right” is to respond with “what if they are wrong, as there are and have already been massive consequences to them being wrong”

          10. SebastianH

            Scott,

            Its the only way the real story will be found as its not coming from inside the cult that’s for sure.

            The cult is you guys however. You are making up a story that you feel is easier to believe. No one knows why, except maybe you are somehow invested in fossil fuels or like them really much.

            I assure you the holes are entirely on the climate skeptic side. None of the arguments brought forward have any weight. Almost nothing is replicable.

            The question is not “what if we are right or wrong”. The question is why you guys are so stubbornly sticking to what is clearly wrong and only amounts to massive disinformation campaigns. It’s always the same memes that you guys post. All have been shown to be false, yet you continue as if nobody has told you. Like a cult.

          11. scott

            Ahh Seb your a bit like reading the comic or horoscope pages in a newspaper, good for a bit of a chuckle but useless for anything important.

            maybe not totally true you do prove the sceptic side every time you type something before being eviscerated so completely by Kenneth and the others on here.

            keep up the good work my man as no one does more harm to your cultist cause, than you do.

  17. John H. Harmon

    Please follow this line of inquiry as Real Scientists search for “truth”. If the evidence is discovered that the whole atmosphere adsorbs and reemits IR energy carbon compounds cannot be large enough proportion of the energy equation to exert control.

    1. Ron

      I am not sure if their could be maybe a general misconception about “heat” in the AGW and “greenhouse” theory with regards to IR?!

      IR is surely important because of its interaction with and energy transfer to H2O – and H2O is a main component of our lower atmosphere and of course biosphere – but “heat” is thermodynamically defined as molecular movement of molecules but also the swinging of atom cores around their degree of freedom. This can be induced by multiple wavelengths depending on absorbance spectrum of the given molecule and is not limited to IR. So it is maybe just a general misconception to focus on IR alone when it comes to “heat” absorbance in the atmosphere.

  18. LdB

    Someone linked this junk to WUTW, if you can’t see the problem with this rubbish you shouldn’t be commenting. Raman interactions are very very minor but they are easy to detect which is why it’s used for chemical sampling etc. Ask the author how many Raman interactions occur in the atmosphere to other types, that alone should tell you if he understands anything.

    1. Ron

      Maybe you should reconsider your view. Absorbance /= emission. That the Raman signature is a weak emission signal does not tell you anything about energy absorbance/transfer and heat convection.

  19. Brett Keane

    Equipartition Does not seem to be understood by most of the theorists, armchair or otherwise. Which leaves us just with the experimenters. They have also disproven AGW many times.
    So had Maxwell, Tyndall and Poisson. Wood, Hartmann, Allmendinger and Klein. For starters…. This paper may fill a gap known in atmospheric absorption, but papered over all the time.
    The uselessness of radiative emission in non-sparse atmospheres is likewise ignored by armchair experts.

  20. pochas94

    At least it is clear that the atmosphere is transparent to short wave solar photons but opaque in certain IR wavelengths. Were that not so the emissions height would be the surface and the surface temperature would be 255 K. I continue to believe in the spectroscopy texts.

    1. Ron

      Is “transparent” the right term when 1/3 of the visible spectrum does not reach the surface? And shouldn’t there energy be transmitted in a scattering process?

      1. pochas94

        Transparent to transmission of shortwave. Scattering reduces transmission, of course, and there is some IR in solar radiation.

  21. Neogene Geo

    Ron, is Kirchhoffs Law of thermal radiation then not true?

    1. pochas94

      It is true, but only under conditions of local thermal equilibrium, as for example your living room where temperatures have equilibrated throughout. The sun / earth / space system is far from lte, so Kirchoff’s law cannot be assumed.

    2. Ron

      It’s only true for systems in thermodynamical equilibrium. I am not so sure Earth is one.

      And I also wonder now if the “missing” energy from sunlight without atmosphere minus sunlight at sea level in the visible spectrum is really just through “scattering” from N2 and O2.

      1. pochas94

        The earth is not in thermodynamic equilibrium. That was my point.

        1. Ron

          Sorry, I wrote my answer to Neogene Geo without seeing you had already made this point.

        2. Yonason

          @Pochas

          Right. As Vincent Gray writes

          “No part of the earth ever has an energy “balance”. There is excess energy in daytime and in the summer and a deficit at night and in the winter. The imbalance can change with every breath of wind, every cloud and every change of weather. The earth has a large thermal capacity, so it could possibly absorb surplus energy or lose it for very long periods. Geologists know that this has happened many times in the past. The periodicity can be short or long.”

          And lots more information there.

  22. sasquatch

    Lake Nyos

    Shouldn’t Mars that has an atmosphere of 95 percent CO2 be warming and be even rather hot by now?

    A GHG absent of nitrogen and oxygen is not behaving like it should.

    Purdy much explains it all.

    1. SebastianH

      Shouldn’t Mars that has an atmosphere of 95 percent CO2 be warming and be even rather hot by now?

      No, do you even want to know why Mars is not hot despite a 95% CO2 atmosphere?

      1. sasquatch

        My commentary:

        Yes, I realize I have exposed my ignorance.

        An ignorant person is someone who doesn’t know what you just found outWill Rogers

        It was 6 degrees Fahrenheit yesterday morning. The record high temperature is 69 degrees Fahrenheit on this date in 1939.

        In 1940, the record low was recorded at minus 20 degrees Fahrenheit.

        Go figure. You can’t.

        In 1953, the record high temp was at 69 degrees F again, and in 1927, it was -19 degrees F. Go figure again, one more time.

        Climate is a conundrum. Climate science is the best thing going, it don’t get no better. A good try as to how it can be and is done, nonetheless, it will be befuddling, no matter how hard you try.

        Here’s this.

        Since Mars has a greater radii, it has more distance in diameter, therefore, the circumference is more than the earth’s. The AU is 1.52 for Mars. 1.52 times 93 million is 141,360,000 miles. The circumference, the distance of the revolution, amounts to a pile of miles.
        444,095,537.511 x 2 = 888,191,075.023 miles, according to Google’s calculator. Gonna take longer, more time for infrared radiation to reach the surface of Mars.

        292,168,116.784 times two is 584,336,233.568 miles. 304 million miles more. No matter what, you’re bookin’ it.

        An indication of more exposure to IR radiation, has to have some effect. Including radiation filtered by the Van Allen belt, another solar radiation direct effect on the surface of Mars, gamma rays included.

        Farbeit from me what it can possibly be, I have no access to instruments capable of how to measure, what the measurements are. It can be done. One look at what humans have done is proof enough.

        When you have AI on the surface of Mars, you know you are out of the dark.

        Although, I have eyes. Begins there and then to the brain, whatever that is.

        Brains are like belly buttons, everybody’s got one. lol

  23. RickWill

    It is evident here that very few people actually grasp field theory. There is only ONE electro-magnetic field. That field is a continuum that exists in all matter as well as a vacuum. In terms of a field it is no different to gravity.

    All matter interacts with the E-M field at the speed of light in either that matter, other adjacent matter or vacuum that it exists in. The same speed as matter interacts in a the gravity field. (There may be a unified field but that is yet to be grasped)

    Different types of matter can respond in different ways to various disturbances (waves) in the E-M field. Some matter will not interact with the field at all. Some matter will react with certain waves in the field and absorb as well as release energy quanta or energy continuum from the field. Some matter will not absorb energy from the field but its speed of interaction is not at the speed of light.

    Raman spectroscopy relies on scattering. That is where matter (in this case gases) alter the speed of interaction rather than actually absorbing and releasing energy quanta.

    Scattering is a poorly understood atmospheric phenomena but the main player there is water in the form of ice. The linked lecture is gold from the perspective of understanding E-M field theory and how it applies to atmospheric scattering:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjKJyn_uoIE
    It is one hour long lecture including questions and is worth taking the time to take it all in. A question on climate models near the end is revealing.

    1. Paul Achatz

      Rick

      I fully agree with Kenneth. Thank you very much for that link.

    2. sasquatch

      I have watched the presentation twice now. Have to do things and miss some the first time around.

      Well worth watching, you do pay attention.

      If you haven’t, do so.

    3. Yonason

      Thanks. Nice video.

      Two points.

      FIRST: (T = 47:31 to T = 48:12)…
      https://youtu.be/hjKJyn_uoIE?t=2851

      Wonderfully honest, exposing the “settled science” claim for the nonsense it is.

      SECOND: (T = 48:55 to T = 49:22, ending with “this is my only message”)
      https://youtu.be/hjKJyn_uoIE?t=2934

      And at the very end he takes a sledge hammer to the tunable models. Sweet.

      I don’t feel so guilty now about not being able to explain what he tells us the experts haven’t bothered to investigate thoroughly enough to understand.

  24. Real-World Spectral Measurements Show The ‘Greenhouse Theory Is Wrong’ – ALL Gases Are GHGs – Truth is difficult but essential; to find, to understand, to accept

    […] No Tricks Zone – Claim: Real-World Spectral Measurements Show The ‘Greenhouse Theory Is Wron… […]

  25. Penelope

    I’m sorry, I’m probably wrong, but I can’t see that demonstrating that nitrogen & oxygen are greenhouse gases disproves the AGW fallacy– namely that CO2 is a cataclysmically greater greenhouse gas.

    The minions of those who are paying for the AGW hoax will simply answer something like the following:

    “Yes, of COURSE the major components of our atmosphere retain to the surface some of the sun’s heat. It’s well-known in every child’s textbook that life on earth wd be impossible w/o our atmosphere– for this reason among others.

    HOWEVER, this is a natural effect. When we add the unnatural effect of increased CO2 . . . .”

    I’m sure I’m expressing this badly, but if you cannot win by pointing out that the amt of nitrogen & oxygen dwarfs that of methane & CO2, then how can you win by pointing out that the warming by one makes the warming by the other irrelevant?

    The AGW hoaxers are merely arguing that there is a manmade CHANGE in CO2. Can’t see it’ll matter a whit to them if MacDonald is correct as he probably is.

  26. Ron

    Did anybody here heard so far about “Collision-induced absorption and emission”? Interestingly, the majority of the absorption spectra generated by this mechanism are in the IR and microwave wavelength.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collision-induced_absorption_and_emission

    As the atmosphere is a mixture of gases it would make much more sense to not collapse the individual spectra of each gas and try to re-identify these in the whole atmospheric spectrum but try to understand all possible molecule-molecule interactions.

    To make things really interesting: the collision-induced absorption spectrum is T and p as well as mixture dependent so its character would change with the altitude.

    Quantum mechanics would imply that there are way more states than the one from the GHG which can absorb IR. A thicker atmosphere would imply more collisions generating a higher chance of a state absorbing additional IR.

    And of course, the effect of convection in heat transfer is still not addressed.

  27. Penelope

    Ron, Quite. I think you wd find this fascinating, as I did:

    https://twitter.com/nikolovscience/status/932759751590424576?lang=bg

  28. Penelope

    Well, I can’t add anything substantive to the conversation, but this link to Ned Nikolov, PhD shows him discussing this very question of the potential of N2 & O2 to absorb IR. A year ago.
    https://twitter.com/NikolovScience/status/933003288215109632

    I think you should fit him into your conversation, not excluding his link to page 224 of Principles of Planetary Climate.

  29. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #336 | Watts Up With That?
  30. Energy & Environmental Newsletter: December 3, 2018 - Master Resource

    […] Real-World Spectral Measurements Show the ‘Greenhouse Theory Is Wrong’ – ALL Gases Are GHGs […]

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close