3 Chemists Conclude CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is ‘Unreal’, Violates Laws Of Physics, Thermodynamics

New Paper Uses Physics Laws To

Disassemble Greenhouse Theory

Eight years ago, 2 physicists published a comprehensive 115-page scientific paper entitled “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics” in the International Journal of Modern Physics.

Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2009

Buttressed by a reference list of over 200 scientific publications, the authors addressed the merits of commonly held greenhouse “conjectures” as they relate to the laws of physics.

“By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33°C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.”

From pages 35 to 44, Gerlich and Tscheuschner critiqued 14 different “fictitious” manifestations of the greenhouse effect theory as they have appeared over the course of the last several decades.

In a newly-published scientific paper, meteorologist and physical chemist Dr. Martin Hertzberg (and two other chemists) provide a condensed update to the Gerlich and Tscheuschner appraisal of the theoretical greenhouse effect.

Hertzberg  and colleagues also apply the standard laws of physics to critique 6 current theoretical explanations for the role of greenhouse gases (CO2) in presumably keeping the Earth 15°C warmer than it would otherwise be.

Included below is an abridged, less-technical version of the paper in an ostensibly user-friendly format.

It should be noted that the conclusions may be controversial even for skeptics of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) alarm.  That’s because the vast majority of climate skeptics at least accept the basic tenets of the greenhouse effect theory.  Instead, the existing skepticism focuses on the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 forcing in particular (low vs. high), not on whether the greenhouse effect as conventionally expressed is “real” or meets the standards applied by the laws of physics.

It is widely assumed that that the common understanding of how greenhouse gases operate in the climate system (the atmosphere and oceans) is both real and supported by scientific observation and physical tests.  This paper, like Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009), may challenge this assumption.

Role of greenhouse gases in climate change

Hertzberg et al., 2017

This study examines the various definitions of the greenhouse effect for compatibility with the laws of physics.

Definition 1

A greenhouse is a glass/plastic enclosure, warmed by sunlight, facilitating plant growth. Several definitions argue that the effect in the atmosphere is analogous to a greenhouse. It is stated that sunlight transmitted into an enclosure through transparent glass warms the interior of the enclosure, increasing the Infra Red (IR) radiation. As glass is partly opaque to IR radiation, it cannot freely pass outward through the glass and is thus retained within the enclosure. Several definitions infer the radiation is being ‘trapped’ and it is argued that atmospheric gases such as CO2 are analogous to the glass pane action of a greenhouse and this serves to ‘trap’ IR radiation within the atmosphere and obstruct radiative cooling.

The Critique

An early test of the ‘trapped’ radiation theory was conducted by R. W. Wood.  He constructed two enclosures, one covered with a glass plate and the other covered with an IR transmitting rock salt plate. When adjusted so that both were exposed to the same solar input radiation, they both reached the same temperature of 55°C with ‘scarcely a difference of one degree between the temperatures of the two enclosures’. His experiment clearly showed that it was the presence of the enclosure itself that enabled the warming. Therefore, it is the heat generated by absorbed sunlight that becomes ‘trapped’. In the absence of an enclosure, the warmed air near the ground would rise by buoyancy and be replaced by cooler air from the surroundings thus cooling it. This natural convective cooling process is restricted and suppressed by the enclosure. It is the same process that generates a cooling afternoon sea breeze on a beach with cooler air from the ocean replacing rising warmer air over land. To argue that an open gaseous atmosphere confines in the way that the top and sides of a greenhouse enclosure does is not valid. To the contrary, a gaseous atmosphere is conducive to the convective cooling that occurs in the absence of an enclosure. It could be argued that CO2 along with the other gaseous components of the atmosphere in fact helps to cool the Earth’s surface.

Definition 2

Another common theme among the various descriptions of the effect is that the ‘greenhouse gases’ serve as a ‘blanket’ keeping the earth warm.

The Critique

A simple experiment to test the validity of this argument is to appear naked outside on a cold evening and observe how long the blanket of ‘greenhouse gases’ in the atmosphere keeps you warm. Air warmed by body heat rises by buoyancy and is replaced by cooler air from the surroundings, causing rapid cooling down and shivering. An actual blanket is a flexible insulating enclosure that reduces the rate at which body heat is lost to the surroundings. Thus the atmosphere is more given to being an agent for cooling by way of natural convection.

Definition 3

A regular description of the ‘greenhouse gas’ heating mechanism is that referred to as ‘back radiation’. Atmospheric gases such as CO2, having a dipole moment, absorb some incoming solar radiation and some of the IR radiation the Earth’s surface radiates toward free space. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, ‘re-radiated energy in the IR portion of the spectrum is trapped within the atmosphere keeping the surface temperature warm’. This ‘trapping’ is assumed to occur as the surface radiates to the atmosphere and the atmosphere radiates back to the surface.

The Critique

The radiation emitted from the warmer surface absorbed by the colder atmosphere is readily detected by orbiting satellites. However, back radiation from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface heating the surface further violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

There are two problems with that amount of down-welling radiation: the atmosphere is not a blackbody with unit emissivity and equally, is not radiating toward a receptive absorber. Yet it is depicted as radiating heat downwards to the warmer Earth’s surface in direct violation of the Second Law.

The flow of heat is always from the hotter surface to the colder surface as required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Nowhere in the radiation field between the two surfaces is the flux of radiant energy equal to that which either surface would emit if they were facing a complete void. Thus, the simple use of the Stefan-Boltzmann term, δT4 to characterize the emission from a source of radiation in the manner that depends only on the temperature of the source without considering the temperature of the surroundings receiving the radiation, is a misapplication of the equation and the notion that a colder source can transfer radiant energy to a warmer object is a misapplication of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

It would therefore be clear that the application of the Stefan-Boltzmann term to simply characterize radiant energy being transferred from an object to its surroundings without reference to the conditions of the surroundings in radiative contact with that object is a misapplication of the equation.

It would be incorrect to talk in terms of radiation exchanging, since transfer occurs only from warmer to cooler matter, from higher energy level to lower energy level.

Definition 4

A proposed new definition of the greenhouse theory to overcome the objections raised against warming by back radiation argues that IR absorbing ‘greenhouse gases’ hinder radiative transport from the Earth’s surface upwards and aid to keep the surface warm and warmer than it would otherwise be in the absence of those gases.

The Critique

The definition ignores the fact that those gases themselves emit radiation to free space adding to radiation loss from the system.  Radiation loss to free space from the earth’s surface and its atmosphere is essentially the same with or without presence of absorbing gases for the following reasons: the cooling by radiation to free space is a one-step process; in the presence of an atmosphere, it is a two-step process with the same loss, with or without, the absorbing and emitting gaseous atmosphere. When talking about radiation, it is absorbed radiation or emitted radiation that is being considered.

Definition 5

In many of the various definitions, attempt is made to prove that ‘greenhouse gases’ in the atmosphere keep the Earth warm, warmer than it would otherwise be in the absence of an atmosphere as conveyed by the following [enviropedia.org] quote:

“This process (radiation trapping) makes the temperature rise in the atmosphere just as it does in the greenhouse. This is the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and keeps the Earth 33°C warmer than it would (otherwise) be without an atmosphere, at an average of 15°C.”

The Critique

Logically that argues that if the Earth had no atmosphere, its average temperature would be -18°C rather than its current temperature of 15°C. Such a temperature is based on calculated ones, that is ‘otherwise’ ones. The calculations arise from several mistaken assumptions. The most obvious one diminishes the solar radiation input by 37% from the Earth’s cloud albedo while simultaneously taking no account of any lessening of the IR radiation emitted to free space by the same blocking clouds. Equally, all IR radiating entities on the surface are assumed to be blackbodies with unit emissivity. The calculation that yields the -18°C temperature is obviously mistaken. The question is considered and covered in detail in the ‘Cold Earth Fallacy’.

Further argument used to illustrate the greenhouse effect of CO2 is the atmosphere of Venus, which is almost entirely [965,000 ppm] CO2. Based upon its distance to the Sun relative to that of the Earth, and using the Earth’s average temperature, Venus surface temperature should be about 280°C. Yet the measured value is about 465°C. This difference is attributed to the strong greenhouse effect of its higher CO2 concentration. The difference is more correctly attributable to Venus’ high surface pressure and the adiabatic compression of the atmosphere adjacent to its surface. Venus’ surface temperature would be just as warm if its atmosphere consisted of any gas whose compressibility was the same as that of CO2. The temperatures in the Mohave Desert and the Dead Sea are higher than the temperatures of surrounding areas at sea level. That is not a greenhouse effect but is caused by adiabatic compression of the higher pressures at their elevations below sea level.

Definition 6

All atmospheric gases that are believed to be ‘greenhouse gases’ absorb IR radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface. Their absorption spectra are well known and it is relatively easy to calculate the radiation flux, those gases absorb from the Earth’s IR emission.

The Critique

The problem arises when those radiation fluxes are translated into a resultant temperature rise while ignoring the fact that atmospheric gas is being simultaneously cooled by radiating to the unlimited sink of free space.


In one of science’s first ‘thought experiments’ Pierre Prevost (1751–1839) conjectured that a hot body absorbed less radiation from a cold body than the reverse, and that both would eventually reach the same temperature. Thus, the theory of radiant exchanges came into being, a view that predated the more thorough understanding of the Laws of Thermodynamics that came later. Yet it is noted that aspects of Prevost’s 200-year-old theory continue to be applied in regard to ‘net flow’ of heat – a concept that radiation flows both downhill and uphill. The latter flow is a violation of the Second Law, which informs us that a hot body can absorb no radiation from a cold body to make it warmer still.

Radiative greenhouse supporters have theorized a blackbody as an all-absorbing entity, capable of absorbing and retaining its own radiation to elevate its temperature and have used radiant exchanges in support of their arguments.

[S]o far no way has been found to be able to readily transpose or correlate experiments conducted in the contained, static, isothermal and isobaric conditions of a laboratory to the great vastness of earth’s atmosphere.


The various stated definitions of the greenhouse effect have been subjected to the rigorous scrutiny and application of the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics. They were found to be unreal, and unless some new definition can be put forward that satisfies and complies with those laws, it can only be concluded that the concept of a ‘greenhouse gas’ or a ‘greenhouse effect’ has not been demonstrated and is thus without merit.

152 responses to “3 Chemists Conclude CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is ‘Unreal’, Violates Laws Of Physics, Thermodynamics”

  1. dennisambler

    “That’s because the vast majority of climate skeptics at least accept the basic tenets of the greenhouse effect theory.”

    This is why “global warming” hasn’t been put to bed yet. There is more good discussion on these themes here and examination of the flawed theories of Arrhenius and Tyndall:

    “The “Greenhouse Effect” is defined by Arrhenius’ (1896) modification of Pouillet’s backradiation idea so that instead of being an explanation of how a thermal gradient is maintained at thermal equilibrium, Arrhenius’ incarnation of the backradiation hypothesis offered an extra source of power in addition to the thermally conducted heat which produces the thermal gradient in the material.

    The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909.

    The “Greenhouse Effect” is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the “Greenhouse Effect” has, in fact, no material foundation.”

  2. Johannes S. Herbst

    As a simple layman, I just know that greenhouse gasses (as nearly any other materials) are absorbing and emitting IR radiation at certain wavelengths in average directions.

    So there is a certain back radiation, and it can be measured. How much it does affect average global temperature, nobody knows exactly.

    I tried to read through Tscheuschner and Ehlich several times but I found not out, how in their Universe CO2 & Co gasses are working.

    You can debunk a theory, but you have to show how other Laws of Physics are working, e.g. radiation.

    The “Colder objects cannot warm warmer objects, therefore CO2 cannot re-radiate” meme ist utter nonsene. Nearly every mataterial above 0 kelvin is radiating in an average direction. And there is no policeman directing the rays according to a certain law.

    BTW, laws are made on ground of observations. They are not a commandmend to be observed by nature.

    1. AndyG55

      Conduction and convection rule in the lower atmosphere.

      And absorption by the tiny amount of CO2 in a very narrow band is immediately thermalised to the remaining 99.96%.

      The collision time between molecules is magnitudes lower than the relaxation time of the CO2 molecule, so basically ALL absorbed energy is converted. CO2 does not actually radiate much below about 11km , where collisions are reduced because of molecular sparseness.

      This energy is then dealt with in by the normal convective and conductive conduits.

      The atmosphere provides a “regulating” force which allows the atmosphere to retain only as much energy as the gravity based thermal gradient dictates.

      As for CO2 “blocking” radiation…it has been shown that CO2 used between double glazing, actually transmits better than normal air.

      1. Andy May

        Quite so. Observations clearly support the 2nd law of thermodynamics, I know of no exceptions. CO2 is a cooling agent in the atmosphere, not a warming agent.

      2. Andy May

        I got a question about this comment on another blog, this was my answer: “Unlike some, I do not want to reject the views of so many very qualified theoretical physicists (Claes Johnson, Ferenc Miskolczi, Gerlich, Tscheuschner, Kramm and Dlugi) being somewhat inclined toward physics myself. I’m not saying I buy into all of it, I just cannot reject it. The meaning of the comment however was simple. CO2 has little effect in the lower atmosphere because the heat of the lower atmosphere and surface (especially the ocean surface) is transported mostly by water and water vapor or melting ice. CO2 plays a large role in radiating heat energy to outer space though from the upper atmosphere, especially in the stratosphere. It acts primarily to cool the Earth. Does a change in CO2 concentration somehow slow the transport of heat energy to outer space?? I’ve seen no evidence that this is the case, but I’m all ears.”

    2. Robert Folkerts

      Johannes S. Herbst says

      “BTW, laws are made on ground of observations. They are not a commandmend [sic] to be observed by nature.”

      Are you quite sure about that?
      Do you think various natural laws require an observer?

  3. Ron Clutz

    In definition 5 I think you mean minus 18C.

  4. tom0mason

    Remember this world is NOT a greenhouse but a robust wet and windy planet with much surface water, some land, and a thin envelope of atmospheric gases around it. This atmosphere is not static but dynamic and will rapidly change shape as external conditions dictate.
    This planet is also the home of complex organic life for the best part of 4 billion years.

    The basic premise that all this global warming founders is that heating or cooling the planet is somehow and isolated event. It is not.

    If the planet is heated or cooled (even by the smallest amount), rapid physical changes take place mostly because of the enormous amount of water on the planet.
    The atmosphere changes from the global through to macro scale, with changes in movement (in velocity and direction); in volumes, and in mass(humidity). Similarly such things happen to the oceans albeit at a slower pace.
    This planet and it processes are a dynamic inter-coupling of natural systems, and as these rapid changes take place slower, systematic biologic changes occur. These biological changes ensures that nature traps all energy it requires to maximally flourish from moment to moment.

    Reducing the planet to a theoretical rock with an atmosphere is scientific reductio ad absurdum.

    1. ScottM

      “Reducing the planet to a theoretical rock with an atmosphere is scientific reductio ad absurdum.”

      I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.


      1. tom0mason

        ScottM 3. June 2017 at 5:40 AM

        You seem not to understand, by the definition you give for ‘reductio ad absurdum’ is exactly what I mean for “the planet to a theoretical rock” etc., — there is much more to this planet that the absurd notion of the atmosphere controlling the climate!

        My point is that ‘climate science’ attempts to reduce this planet’s many intertwined processes to a simple ’cause:effect’ when it come to climate. That IS all BS.
        This planet is dynamic, chaotic and influenced by off planet changes (the SUN, moon, orbital variations, etc.) more than ANY amount of CO2 level change. Man’s effect on and our generation of CO2 has a negligible effect on this planet’s climate, the rest of NATURE is still in full control of that.

        1. ScottM

          Physics is an endeavour in reduction. That hardly makes it absurd. Contrast the unscientific strong emergence touted by the anti-science bunch, for example the fraudulent papers of “Volokin” and “ReLlez”, or the ratings of Cotton and Postma. You’re on shaky ground if you side with them.

  5. Lightworm

    As sometimes happens with landmark scientific papers, written in haste while understanding just begins to dawn, Revelle’s explanation was hard to grasp. Other scientists failed to see the point that was obscurely buried in the calculations, and continued to deny there was a greenhouse effect problem. In 1958, when Callendar published a paper to insist once again that CO

  6. Andy May

    Another paper in support of Gerlich and Tscheuscher (2009) is Kramm and Dlugi (2011). Kramm and Dlugi, 2011, “Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact,” Natural Science, vol. 3, no. 12, 971-998.

  7. tom0mason

    Awaiting moderation.

    I be back some other day


    1. AndyG55

      tom0.. happens to me all the time.

      either I”in moderation” or “just vanished”.

      But eventually they appear (mostly)

      Its the auto-moderator… and I don’t think even the boss man himself has any idea what makes it kick in.

      Be patient ! 🙂

  8. Andy May

    Definition 5 is the easiest to refute (the low blackbody temp is -18, not 15). If the Earth had no atmosphere, then we would have no oceans. The albedo would be similar to the Moon’s. The max temp on Earth would be 109C when the sun is directly overhead. With the Earth’s current albedo of 0.3, the max temp would be 86C. With no water vapor (and its latent heat of evaporation) or convection the nighttime temp would quickly drop to -153C, for an average temp of -23C. Close to -18C, but silly. It is an average of 107C and -153C!

    1. Visser

      I imagine that the highest temperature occurs over sand (albedo of 0.4). Then the maximum temperature is somewhat lower, 74 degrees C.

  9. Sitting Shivering in May

    “However, back radiation from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface heating the surface further violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.”
    Not sure about that one.
    Try this experiment:
    There are two black bodies a certain distance apart in free space.
    One is hotter than the other.

    1) Both will be radiating IR.

    2) The radiation of each body that is incident on the other will be absorbed by the other. It must be, or conservation of energy would be contravened.

    Question: Does the hotter body cool faster, slower, or at the same rate if it is next to the other, cooler body, instead of being on its own.
    I think it cools down at a lower rate, as the incident energy when it is on its own is zero, and when the other body is near it, it is more than zero.

    But I bow to others’ knowledge.

    1. Visser

      Sitting shivering, you are right. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about the net flux of heat.

  10. cdquarles

    I am going to invoke the kinetic theory of gases to explain what ‘buoyancy’ means, for 1. gases are not dense, not condensed, the constituent atoms an molecules are moving rapidly on the order of 1km/sec at standard temperatures and pressures, and finally, because they are not dense nor condensed, there is a large mean free path for 3 dimensional translation, for which most of the internal kinetic energy is expressed. Thus, the ‘hot’ gas is moving faster relative to the surrounding ‘cool’ gas. It is moving against and through it. It displaces it in all 3 spatial dimensions, with the exception of downward at the surface, where it slightly increases the pressure and gets a bit of a kick on reflection from the surface.

    So, what may really be happening is that the hot gas, possessing higher kinetic energy simply is less “dense” in that for any given imagined volume the faster moving particles are fewer in countable numbers for a specific time slice; and pushes upward against gravity relatively more, keeps moving faster vertically compared to the gas it is pushing aside and thus has a net upward force. Since gases are not dense and not condensed, they do not conduct heat well (net exchange of kinetic energy from one side to the next through collisions) but do mix well, unless confined. Add in the latent heat of vaporization/condensation of water, where the phase change does not change temperature (no net change of kinetic energy) but does have potential energy available that can be so converted later, you get the appearance of buoyancy. What you are actually seeing is convection in 3D.

    One other thing, bodies in flight in a gravitational field retain their mass but are ‘weightless’, so there is no such thing in the open atmosphere of ‘heavier than air’ since the air is the full measure of all of its component gases. Yes, some fractions of said air have less molecular mass than others, but again, in flight, they all have the same ‘weight’ which is zero. ‘Heavier’ than air molecules will thus mix throughout its depth, given enough time, just like ‘heavier than water’ pigment molecules will color a full tank of water.

    Unlike water, which is dense compared to a gas, being condensed, the diffusion time is a lot faster and you also have the physical mixing from surface heating, so it will be no surprise to find ‘heavy’ molecules at the top of the atmosphere.

  11. AndyG55
    1. sod

      i watched the speech. Where are the arguments? this was a fact free speech.

      1. AndyG55

        Where is your post,.

        Its a FACT FREE post.

        1. sod

          i am a random guy on the internet.

          Trump is supposed to be the president of the USA and the leader of the free world.

          Why is there not a single scientific argument in his speech?

          1. AndyG55

            “Why is there not a single scientific argument in his speech?”

            Because the Paris Agreement is not, and never was, about science.

            There is absolutely zero science behind it, it is purely political.

          2. yonason (from my cell phone)

            The AGW scam to defraud the citizens of the world is not about the science. It’s never been about the science. All this is about is concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a few elitists, at the expense of everyone else. Had Mr. Trump attempted some scientific justification beyond citing the MIT study, it would have shown he didn’t know what he was talking about.

            Bottom line, President Trump said “NO!” to international corruption, which was exactly the morally correct choice to make.

          3. Don G

            The economic argument is easier than the scientific argument. As you can tell by the lack of response to the economics.

  12. sod

    The paper was published in Energy and environment again. Please folks, why not stick to something that is peer reviewed?

    1. P Gosselin
      1. sod

        you are right. because the review process failed one time, the papers that never went through review are much better.

        1. AndyG55

          peer review has failed MANY time, especially in “climate” science.

          There are MANY papers that should just never have been published, even in a comic magazine.

          eg Mann’s hockey stick.

        2. sunsettommy

          Now about Roger Pielke complaining,he never requested that ANY of his papers be removed from the list at Popular Technology,this from POP Tech FORUM:

          Rebuttal to Roger Pielke Jr. – “Better Recheck That List

          “Roger Pielke Jr’s inaccurate and years old post misinterpreted why his papers were included and has no relation to the current version of the list. When the list was first published in 2009 an alarmist notified Roger Pielke Jr. (Ph.D. Political Science) that some of his papers as well as his fathers appeared on it. Contacting him was intentional as Roger Pielke Jr. is someone who spends extensive amounts of time arguing against alarmist positions but outright refuses to be labeled a skeptic and will spend just as much time arguing that he is not. He is thus great for alarmists to use for soundbites against skeptics. No attempt was ever made to imply a specific personal position to him or any of the authors. All of this was explained to him in the comments to his blog post. The irony here is every single alarmist using Roger Pielke Jr.’s comments to attack the list would never use his papers in support of their arguments but instead outright attack him.

          Update – Roger Pielke Jr. added a misleading notice at the top of his post from Russell Dickerson who was a co-author on a paper [“Climate Change: The Need to Consider Human Forcings Besides Greenhouse Gases”] but was using strawman arguments for why it was included on our list (e.g. “Please remove this article from your list of skeptics” – The list is not a list of skeptics but a bibliographic resource of papers that can be referenced to support skeptic arguments.) The lead author Roger Pielke Sr. never made any such demands and explicitly stated in an email to the editor that their paper argues against the IPCC. Regardless, the paper has been removed as it is not worth investing the time to defend the real reason for its inclusion, that it supports the skeptic argument for CO2 not being the sole dominant human forcing as the IPCC has argued. The removal notice on Pielke Jr.’s website is over a year later from the actual time the paper was removed.”

          Lot more in the link Sod,that shows Dr. Pielke objections were fully addressed.

    2. AndyG55

      sob-sob shows he know NOTHING about science.

      peer-review is a journalistic thing, NOT part of the scientific process.

    3. sunsettommy

      This is for you Sod,

      Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary scholarly journal
      ISSN: 0958-305X
      – Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek, Scopus and Thompson Reuters (ISI)
      – Found at hundreds of libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, McGill University, Monash University, National Library of Australia, Stanford University, The British Library, University of British Columbia, University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, University of Queensland and MIT.”


      “Cited by the IPCC:

      Energy & Environment is cited 28 times in the IPCC reports;

      IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) (2000)

      Fujino, K., 1994: International Cooperation for Environmental Coexistence and Technology Transfer of Hydropower Development in Developing Countries, Energy & Environment, 5(2), 159-171.

      IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) (2001)

      Working Group 3 (WGIII)

      Chapter 5

      Lofstedt, R., 1992: Lay perspectives concerning global climate change in Sweden. Energy and Environment, [3](2), 161-175.

      Chapter 8

      Barker, T., and N. Johnstone, 1993: Equity and Efficiency in Policies to Reduce Carbon Emissions in the Domestic Sector. Energy & Environment, 4(4), 335-361.

      Chapter 9

      Barker, T., 1995: Taxing pollution instead of employment: greenhouse gas abatement through fiscal policy in the UK. Energy and Environment, 6(1), 1-28.

      Chapter 10

      Edmonds, J., and M. Wise, 1998: The Economics of Climate Change: Building Backstop Technologies And Policies To Implement The Framework Convention On Climate Change. Energy & Environment, 9(4), 383-397.

      IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) (2007)

      Working Group 1 (WGI)

      Chapter 6

      McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick, 2003: Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) proxy database and northern hemispheric average temperature series. Energy Environ., 14, 751–771.

      McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick, 2005b: The M&M critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere climate index: Update and implications. Energy Environ., 16, 69–99.

      Working Group 2 (WGII)

      Chapter 2

      Castles, I. and D. Henderson, 2003: The IPCC emission scenarios: an economic-statistical critique. Energ. Environ., 14, 159-185.

      Chapter 4

      Goklany, I.M., 2005: A climate policy for the short and medium term: stabilization or adaptation? Energ. Environ., 16, 667-680.

      Chapter 5

      Goklany, I.M., 2005: A climate policy for the short and medium term: stabilization or adaptation? Energ. Environ., 16, 667-680.

      Chapter 6

      Goklany, I.M., 2005: A climate policy for the short and medium term: Stabilization or adaptation? Energy Environ., 16, 667-680.

      Chapter 11

      Nicholls, N. and D. Collins, 2006: Observed change in Australia over the past century. Energy and Environment, 17, 1-12.

      Working Group 3 (WGIII)

      Chapter 3

      Castles, I. and D. Henderson, 2003a: Economics, emissions scenarios and the work of the IPCC. Energy and Environment, 14(4), pp. 415- 435.

      Castles, I. and D. Henderson, 2003b: The IPCC emission scenarios: an economic-statistical critique. Energy and Environment, 14(2-3), pp. 159-185.

      Goklany, I.M., 2003: Relative contributions of global warming to various climate sensitive risks, and their implications for adaptation and mitigation. Energy and Environment, 14(6), pp. 797-822.

      Grübler, A., N. Nakicenovic, J. Alcamo, G. Davis, J. Fenhann, B. Hare, S. Mori, B. Pepper, H. Pitcher, K. Riahi, H.H. Rogner, E.L. La Rovere, A. Sankovski, M. Schlesinger, R.P. Shukla, R. Swart, N. Victor, and T.Y. Jung, 2004: Emissions scenarios: a final response. Energy and Environment, 15(1), pp. 11-24.

      McKibbin, W.J., D. Pearce, and A. Stegman, 2004a: Can the IPCC SRES be improved? Energy and Environment, 15(3), pp. 351-362.

      Nakicenovic, N., A. Grübler, S. Gaffin, T.T. Jung, T. Kram, T. Morita, H. Pitcher, K. Riahi, M. Schlesinger, P.R. Shukla, D. van Vuuren, G. Davis, L. Michaelis, R. Swart, and N. Victor, 2003: IPCC SRES revisited: a response. Energy and Environment, 14(2-3), pp. 187-214.

      Chapter 6

      Bertoldi, P., S. Rezessy, and D. Ürge-Vorsatz, 2005: Tradable certificates for energy savings: opportunities, challenges and prospects for integration with other market instruments in the energy sector. Energy and Environment, 16(6), pp. 959-992.

      Chapter 13

      Betz, R., W. Eichhammer, and J. Schleich, 2004: Designing national allocation plans for EU emissions trading – A first analysis of the outcomes. Energy & Environment, 15(3), pp. 375-425.

      Meyer, N.I., 2004: Development of Danish wind power market. Energy & Environment, 15(4), pp.657-672.

      Moe, A., K. Tangen, V. Berdin, and O. Pluzhnikov, 2003: [E]missions trading and green investments in Russia. Energy & Environment, 14(6), pp. 841-858.

      IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) (2014)

      Working Group 1 (WGI)

      Chapter 5

      Loehle, C., and J. H. McCulloch, 2008: Correction to: A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies. Energy Environ., 19, 93–100.

      Chapter 13

      Boretti, A., and T. Watson, 2012: The inconvenient truth: Ocean levels are not accelerating in Australia or over the world. Energy Environ., 23, 801–817

      Working Group 2 (WGII)

      Chapter 5

      Nicholls, N., D. Collins, 2006: Observed climate change in Australia over the past century. Energy & Environment, 17(1), 1-12.

      Working Group 3 (WGIII)

      Chapter 2

      Held H., M. Ragwitz, and R. Haas (2006). On the success of policy strategies for the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources in the EU, Energy & Environment 17 849–868 pp.

      Chapter 6

      Eisenberger P., R. Cohen, G. Chichilnisky, N. Eisenberger, R. Chance, and C. Jones (2009). Global Warming and Carbon-Negative Technology: Prospects for a Lower‐Cost Route to a Lower-Risk Atmosphere. Energy & Environment. 20, 973–984 pp.

      Chapter 15

      Klobasa M., J. Winkler, F. Sensfuß, and M. Ragwitz (2013). Market Integration of Renewable Electricity Generation – The German Market Premium Model, Energy & Environment 24 127–146 pp.”

      Once again SOD, your ignorance and stupidity gets exposed.

    4. Michael

      Sod is a troll. Waste no time on it.

  13. Svend Ferdinandsen

    Please dont use this argument: “back radiation from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface heating the surface further violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.”

    The colder atmosphere is not heating the surface, but avoid the heat to go out to the cold space, like when you isolate your house.

    If you had no atmosphere you would look out to the cold space and all outgoing radiation would be lost. (400W/m2 at 17C)
    With an atmosphere you have a layer with a higher temperature than the space, so relative to the case with no atmosphere you could say that you have some outgoing radiation and some ingoing. It is not violating any rules, because the therotically outgoing is anyway less than the ingoing.

    Anyway, to blame CO2 for the greenhouse effekt is far out.
    Clouds and water vapor makes up the main part.
    Clouds by reflecting the direct sun, making rain and weather and water vapor doing the same as Co2.

    I wonder how CO2 can be concidered the main culprit by any scientist.

  14. Craig T

    From the paper:
    “In Section 3.3.5 it was indicated how simple it is to falsify the atmospheric greenhouse hypotheses, namely by observing a water pot on the stove: Without water filled in, the bottom of the pot will soon become glowing red. However, with water filled in, the bottom of the pot will be substantially colder.”

    I don’t know how to argue with that; I foolishly thought conduction heated the water. So here are a couple of papers written by people to challenge this paper.

    The laws of thermodynamics are useful things. Here’s a web page that uses the laws of thermodynamics to prove that evolution cannot be true.

    1. Adrian

      You cannot argue with that. It is true that with a heat conducting layer (being the simple heat conductivity or coupled with convection aided by latent heats – in which case it can be very efficient) on top of a surface the surface can be cooler than without, despite the layer having a rich IR absorption/emission spectrum. Incidentally, that’s how for example some CPU coolers work.

      To be fair, there are also challenges to the challenges, here is one for the first one, I think they mention also other replies to the second one: https://arxiv.org/abs/1012.0421

    2. Adrian

      Here is the challenge to the second challenge: https://arxiv.org/abs/0904.2767

  15. AndyG55


    Here’s a web page that MIS-uses the laws of thermodynamics to prove that evolution cannot be true.

    But I doubt Craig would realise the difference.

    1. Craig T

      I would call it misapplying and miscalculating thermodynamics in both the Creationist page and this paper. The laws of thermodynamics are popular with individuals working outside the bounds of consensus science.

      1. AndyG55

        “The laws of thermodynamics are popular with individuals working outside the bounds of consensus science.”

        But almost universally IGNORED by those working inside “consensus climate non-science”

      2. AndyG55

        And its totally irrelevant what you would call it.

        Baseless AGW drone opinion. WORTHLESS. MEANINGLESS.

  16. Don from OZ

    ‘consensus science’ Consensus is not science Craig T

  17. Craig T

    From Roy Spencer:
    “In an e-mail I just responded to this evening, I once again found myself defending the existence of the Earth’s “greenhouse effect”. … I’ll admit I used to question it, too. So, many years ago Danny Braswell and I built our own radiative transfer model to demonstrate for ourselves that the underlying physics were sound.”

    You can read all of it here:

    For the actual physics behind the greenhouse effect:
    An Introduction to Atmospheric Physics

  18. Thin Air

    It is certainly true that colder bodies cannot transfer heat to warmer bodies, via any means (radiation, convection, conduction, etc.)

    However, it is not necessary for “Green House Gasses” (GHG) to do that, to create an average warming effect, over the diurnal cycle. GHGs need only to slow the transport of heat from a planetary surface to outer space for brief while, so have some affect on the average temp over the 24 hour day.

    Water vapor and water droplets (clouds) certainly do a good job of that at night, but a major reason for water’s effectiveness in doing this, is its higher Specific Heat (i.e., heat holding capacity). Thus, atmospheric water, having been warmed during the day by the sun, stays warmer longer at night (i.e. takes longer to give up its heat to the dark sky, because it has more heat to give up) .

    None the less, if the atmospheric water above a patch of dry ground is cooler than the ground (at night), it will not transfer heat to the ground. It can only slow the transfer of heat from at patch of dry ground, vs. the scenario with no atmospheric water. (e.g., perhaps a few hours longer, that otherwise). If you have ever camped outside without a tent, on both clear and cloudy nights, you may have experienced this.

    If the atmospheric water at night is warmer than the dry ground beneath it (e.g., from catching more of the last rays of sun as it set, or having come in on a wind from the west), only then is some heat transferred back to your patch of cold ground.

    CO2 however is not so effective at doing this, have only ~20% of water’s heat holding capacity per unit mass.course many fewer molecules per unit volume in the “relevant” lower layer of the air (~100x fewer) with clouds present. Also CO2 has much less heat absorbing capacity in the mid-IR waves (under 10 micron), and no absorption below 1.5 micron, as needed to capture significant heat from the sun directly (as water vapor and clouds can do). Therefore it is very poor at both capturing and holding heat.

    I would even guess, in the presence of normal amounts of water vapor (and certainly within clouds), CO2 molecules are much more likely to be “heated-up” via collisions with H2O molecules which recently absorbed direct sunlight, than by the much, much cooler radiation coming from the surface of the earth.

    So I can accept that CO2 is a GHG (in the much narrower definition as provided above, which must include consideration of its Specific Heat, to enable it to hold heat absorbed from the daytime). But CO2 is such a poor GHG compared to H2O that it is completely inconsequential (when water vapor or clouds are present in normal amounts), and nearly inconsequential in air with no water vapor or clouds.

    1. AndyG55

      H2O slows the upward convection rate…

      … but DOES NOT slow the upward energy flow.

      And yes, CO2 is totally inconsequential.

      1. sod

        “H2O slows the upward convection rate…”


        1. AndyG55

          So you admit that you know NOTHING about basic hydrology and the effect of H2O on the lapse rate.

          We KNEW that.. your ignorance is your only trait worth mentioning.

          We have tried to educate you more than often enough, but you have proven to have a brick wall against EVER actually learning anything.

          Go back to primary school and at least make an effort this time through. !!

          1. sod

            please explain it to me.

            How does H2O slow the upward convection rate?

          2. AndyG55

            I am NOT your teacher.

            I gave up attempting to teach low-IQ juveniles, who have zero wish to be educated, 20 years ago.

            Go and learn something yourself, bozo. !!

          3. AndyG55

            I will give you a hint.

            Google at “dry lapse rate” and “wet lapse rate” and how they are related to specific energy. (and the fact at CO2 has essentially zero effect on the atmospheric cooling rate.)

            Its not all that hard to comprehend..

            But you do have to try. !!

          4. ScottM

            Lapse rate is not convection rate. Lapse rate measures the temperature differential over an elevation change. Convection rate is a power flux. Citing a reduction in one is not evidence of a reduction in the other.

  19. sod

    “He cited an MIT study that concluded that even if all the emissions cuts in the Paris agreement were put in place and continued for the next 85 years, the amount of warming that would be “saved” would amount to only 0.2 C by 2100. That’s how negligible the warming effect associated with CO2 emissions is…according to the proponents of dramatic emissions cuts themselves!”

    as a majority of people here do not understand how an argument works, here is mine:

    The MIT totally destroys this claim.

    “Trump Misused MIT Research in Reasons for Ditching Climate Deal
    MIT scientist says his study showed the Paris Climate agreement was a good first step, but more emissions cuts —not fewer — are needed.”


    “In fact, the “two-tenths of one degree” figure seems to have come from an earlier study by the same group conducted in 2014, before the Paris deal was finalized the following year. It didn’t include all the eventual commitments to cut emissions by participating nations, or assume any continuation of those pledges beyond 2030, says Erwan Monier, coauthor of the study and principal research scientist at MIT’s department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences.”


    He lied about the number and he lied about the source. At least that is, what the source itself says.

    1. richard verney

      Since we know as fact that not one single model, accurately models reality, any modelled projection as to the consequence of the US pulling out of the Paris Accord is bound to be wrong.

      Further, we know as fact that all models are running too warm when compared to observation, and hence we know that any modelled projection of the consequence of the US pulling out of the Paris accord is bound to be exagerated on the high side.

      But further and more significantly, what these model projections fail to take account of is that just like when the US was outside Kyoto, the US will still reduce its CO2 emissions more than any other developed nation even though the US is now outside the Paris accord.#

      It is a false projection (the usual GIGO so much loved of climate modellers) to make a projection without taking account that US Co2 emissions will still fall. Even the BBC, which is about as extreme as anyone on the warmist side, recognises this. They are carrying a an article on the consequence of the US pulling out of the Paris Accord and they (correctly) observe:

      Despite President Trump’s withdrawal from the accord, US carbon will continue to drop. The projections are that they will fall about half as much as had been planned by President Obama. That’s because US energy production is now powered more by gas than by coal.

      The fracking revolution has seen a huge jump in the production and a huge drop in the price of natural gas. Energy producers like gas because it is flexible and integrates better with renewable sources which are also growing rapidly.

      The world will be just fine, even though China. India, Russia, Brazil and Germany will increase emissions in the coming decade.

      1. AndyG55

        “The world will be just fine, even though China. India, Russia, Brazil and Germany will increase emissions in the coming decade.”

        The world be fine BECAUSE China. India, Russia, Brazil and Germany will increase emissions in the coming decade.

        Add Africa, Vietnam (and other Asian countries), Indonesia, Turkey.

        CO2 levels in the atmosphere still need boosting to a more sustainable level, and fortunately there is plenty of emission increase still in the pipeline.

  20. AndyG55

    A bit of lite reading for those who want to know about the gravity/thermal effect, which the so-called greenhouse effect is really all about.


  21. richard verney

    However, it is not necessary for “Green House Gasses” (GHG) to do that, to create an average warming effect, over the diurnal cycle. GHGs need only to slow the transport of heat from a planetary surface to outer space for brief while, so have some affect on the average temp over the 24 hour day.

    This begs the question, how long is a photon of IR emitted from the surface slowed down/delayed in its outward journey to space?

    And herein lies the problem. If the planet’s energy budget was truly like that depicted in the K&T energy budget cartoon, you might have a worthwhile point. In that cartoon, the planet is said to receive energy from the sun, over its entire surface, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year (366 in leap years). However, in practice the planet does not, over its entire surface, receive solar irradiance 24 hours a day, but on average only 12 hours a day over half its surface.

    Thus the question becomes, is there sufficient time during the period when the planet received no incoming solar irradiance for a photon of IR emitted from the surface to exit the atmosphere into space?

    If there is sufficient time for all the energy received by the planet during the day (the hours of sunshine) to exit from the planet during the hours of darkness (when one half of the planet receives no energy from the sun) then the planet does not warm. It may mean that the coldest time of the day is say 4.10am instead of say 4am, but overall it makes no significant difference to the overall temperature.

    The K&T energy budget cartoon fails to appreciate that only one side of the planet receives solar irradiance in bouts of 12 hours (the strength varying throughout those 12 hours), but the entire planet radiates to space for the entire 24 hours of a day.

    It should also not be overlooked that given the very small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (about 400 ppm), each molecule of CO2 is separated from each other molecule of CO2 by about 13 molecules of non radiating gases. So when a molecule of CO2 absorbs a photon of IR from the surface and then re-radiates a photon say in a downwards direction so that it forms some part of DWLWIR, how does this re-radiated photon get absorbed by another molecule of CO2? The re-radiated photon is likely to impact a non radiating gas, and thus the chain of re-radiating photons in a downward direction is immediately broken.

    problems, problems.

  22. Bob Armstrong

    I might be missing something by skipping all this but I think it’s all being made too complicated and I see no equations .

    The equilibrium ( radiative balance ) temperature of a radiantly heated colored ball is rather straight forward to calculate . http://cosy.com/Science/warm.htm#EqTempEq presents what is essentially a generalization of Hertzberg’s computation and the computation which produces the endlessly parroted 255K meme .

    The divergence theorem says the average internal energy density must match that value calculated for the surface . No spectral effect can overcome that absolute .

    As HockeySchtick and others have pointed out , gravity is left out of this energy accounting — and it cannot be . And in fact does complete the balance explaining why the bottoms of atmospheres are hotter than their tops .

    I’ll wait to work thru and implement the computations until someone is interested in expressing the problem in CoSy , or some other APL . Then a succinct but thorough model of planetary temperature physics can start being constructed in a few score expressions as succinct as a physics text rather than 10k lines of Fortran .

  23. crosspatch

    People look at the greenhouse effect in the wrong way, in my opinion. We can clearly see the effect of it but it is not in daytime heating, it is in radiative cooling at night. GHE would not increase daytime highs so much as it would increase nighttime lows. We have all seen the results of this. For example, a day that is 35C but very humid. At night the sun goes down but it doesn’t cool. Maybe by dawn it has cooled to 25C. Now take a day that reaches 35C in a desert where the air is very dry. As soon as the sun sets the temperature drops rapidly and by dawn maybe the temperature is 15C.

    People are doing the wrong tests. Take a box with a bottle of water in each one. One has a glass top, one has a salt top. Take them outside on a cool, dry night. Heat them both up to the same temperature and then turn off the heat source and notice the rate at which they cool off.

    CO2 is fairly evenly mixed in the atmosphere, water vapor is not because it can condense out. Where one would expect to see the impact of greenhouse warming the most is in polar winter. The air there is extremely dry and CO2 would provide a larger proportion of the total atmospheric greenhouse effect. So increasing CO2 would be felt more readily in polar winter by moderating low temperatures. In polar summer when there is more water vapor, the total contribution of CO2 would be swamped by the larger contribution of the H2O.

    This is why taking annual average temperatures can be misleading. It does not necessarily mean the earth is getting “hotter”, it likely means it is getting “less cold” and lowest temperatures are being moderated which raises the average but did not make the high temperature any “hotter”. There would likely be little difference in humid tropical regions and in daytime high temperatures in temperate regions.

    1. AndyG55

      “Where one would expect to see the impact of greenhouse warming the most is in polar winter.”

      Interesting that UAH shows South pole temperatures dropping in winter since 1990, with a slight rise in summer.


    2. BillyHill

      This is why taking annual average temperatures can be misleading. It does not necessarily mean the earth is getting “hotter”, it likely means it is getting “less cold” and lowest temperatures are being moderated which raises the average but did not make the high temperature any “hotter”. – See more at: https://notrickszone.com/2017/06/01/3-chemists-conclude-co2-greenhouse-effect-is-unreal-violates-laws-of-physics-thermodynamics/comment-page-1/#comment-1212847

      What you claim is that the greenhouse effect is insulating earth. Because that is what thermal insulation does, it doesn´t heat anything, but it reduce heat loss. Like how a blanket is nice if it is cold. The problem is that a blanket, or any other thermal insulation, does the opposite. It prevents heat absorption in air(included GHG:s), and that is what “retains heat”. I want to make sure you understand the problem of your reasoning.


      “Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”

      Read the citation carefully.

      The EXACT same mechanism that you claim to raise average temperature, and the EXACT same “physics” that the greenhouse theory is built on, is the EXACT opposite of how thermal physics work. Increasing absorption in the surroundings of a body, both planets and naked ladies, will cool that body. Increasing absorption in the surroundings mean increased rate of heat transfer FROM the body. Just look at the SB-equation for transfer between two bodies at different temperatures. sigma(T1^4-T2^4). To increase absorption in the lower temperature body without the warmer body getting hotter first, what are your options?

      Increasing absorption always mean increased rate of transfer from the warmer body. If the energy supply from the heat source is constant, the only outcome can be dropping temperature throughout the system. Absorption doesn´t cause emission, they are not cause and effect. Temperature/internal state is what cause emission, and absorption depends on temperature of the emitter that absorbs the heat. They are related through temperature, but they are not cause and effect.

      It is a mystery why a theory which claim that increasing absorption from increasing amounts of dry ice in already cold, damp air, is a heating mechanism for a planet which for most parts consist of red glowing high temperature mass. When you add the fact that it is irradiated by a blackbody at 5770K it gets really funny, or annoying, its hard to decide.

      Two glowing bodies in space. Let´s figure out the surface temperature of the colder one. Someone says: look, the colder body has a thin layer of gas, it is damp, there is some dry ice in it that absorbs heat effectively, and it has a mean temperature of -18C. THAT must be the main heat source.

      It is f*****g unbelievable. How is it possible that this is the main theory of earth climate? It is a shame. The theory is so stupid that it is hard to avoid conspiracy thoughts. No one can be so stupid, it must be a deliberate deception. All the claims made in the greenhouse theory are violations of physics. It is a detailed list of violations, its like someone knew how it really works and then built the theory in the exact opposite way.

  24. McNeil


  25. crosspatch

    AndyG, a lot can depend on weather, too. If the polar vortex stays more or less anchored at the pole for most of the season, it will get extremely cold and sequester the pole from warmer higher latitude air. If the vortex is knocked off the pole, as the NH vortex was this year, it allows warmer air to reach the pole. The problem is in trying to sort out multi-decadal scale patterns from “climate”.

    We generally use a 30 year average to represent “climate” but that is probably too short a period. I would feel more comfortable with a 60 year average.

    1. AndyG55

      “We generally use a 30 year average”

      Absolutely the silliest average period you could use.

      And who is “we” …. don’t tell me you are a climate scientist !!!!

      But OF COURSE that is what “they” wanted to use in the early 2000’s when the AGW scam was in full swing.

      They may appear ignorant of things like the AMO, and the warm period of the 1940’s, but they really aren’t, they just think everyone else is.

    2. BillyHill


      The problem is, what we know about thermodynamics say that it works in a different way. If the poles are colder than normal it necessarily includes a larger than normal rate of transfer from hotter areas. If the poles get warmer, that means that less heat is transferred to them. A warming pole means that there is less heat going in that direction. Beautiful self-regulation in a system with constant and limited supply of heat. Thermodynamics also leads to another interesting consequence:

      If earth gets warmer, and it is not from the sun getting hotter, inevitably less heat will be transferred from the sun. That is how it works and I don´t understand why this isn´t discussed.

      I think 30 years is way to much. I think 24-48 hours is enough. Why do you think it is slowly reacting? Heat is a question of instantaneous power. The unit is Watt which is Joule/second. If the power of the heat source would drop in an instant we would notice a difference the next day. Heat travel in and out of the earth system at light speed. If something changes the heat flow, the change is instantaneous. It may take 1-2 days before the system stabilizes into a new steady state. But 30 years, come on, that is ridicolous.

      Climate is bullshit, there is only weather.

  26. crosspatch

    Typo in my last. Meant “it will get extremely cold and sequester the pole from warmer LOWER latitude air”

  27. Stephen J Crothers

    Understanding the true nature of the Sun is also important for understanding climate. Professor Pierre-Marie Robitaille has released the first 8 lectures of his series of 40 on the condensed matter nature of the Sun and stars, and the importance of water for cosmology.

    Lectures 1-6:
    * History of the Gaseous Sun
    * Is the sun a Gas? The Standard Model Explained!
    * What is Occam’s Razor? (Law of Parsimony)
    * Does the Sun have a Surface? Transverse Waves, Helioseismology, CMEs,
    X-Rays and Flares!
    * The 0th Law of Thermodynamics
    * Stewarts’s Law (of radiative exchange)

    Lecture 7:
    The Life cycle of the Stars,

    Lecture 8:
    The Structure of Liquid Water, (and its implications for cosmology)

  28. DWD mit dem Klammerbeutel gepudert? „Der Mai 2017 in Deutschland war warm“! – wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung

    […] Das Pariser Abkommen ist Vergeudung von Zeit und Geld – Die Welt  […]

  29. sod

    Just in case anyone is interested in the facts, May was warm looking at the Globe (UAH):.


    and in Germany:


    The real data is of course driving another wedge between those who claim that the physics are wrong (they have to explain the warming) and those who think the effect is small (it is not).

    1. BillyHill


      you wrote:

      “The real data is of course driving another wedge between those who claim that the physics are wrong (they have to explain the warming) and those who think the effect is small (it is not)”

      This is a common thing blanket-people say in debate. But the rising temperatures(which is questionable, it´s probably climate-science incompetence) doesn´t prove the greenhouse theory. Why would anyone have to explain a warming which is measured only on parts of the planet, and claimed to be largest where there is no data (arctic, deep sea)? We don´t have to believe in your religious beliefs just because there is no other complete explanation for the dynamics of the climate.

      Your attitude is quite similar to Islam, soon you will be cutting throats of the infidels (skeptics) and pray five times a day with your heads directed towards the location where Al Gore happens to be at that moment. The prayer is: “forcing is a real physical concept even though everyone knows that in physics you either have a force or you don´t”.

      “Forcing” is one of the flaws in GH-theory which is easiest to use for embarrassing climate scientists.

      The earth is a system with constant limited supply of energy from the sun. The atmosphere has even tighter limits, since mostly longwave-radiation from the surface is available for absorption. A “forcing” is not work, it is not energy, it is not heat, it doesn´t add anything at all to the heat flow. On the contrary, absorption spectra show that it does the opposite. It´s action is decreasing intensity of radiation, observed as the “radiative imbalance”, which is another evidence of climate scientists lacking physics knowledge. It´s called less heat, not “radiative imbalance”. I don´t know why you even focus on what earth emits to space, as if that was the factor controlling surface emission. If emission to space decrease, it means that there is less heat/lower temperature in the system. Calling it “imbalance”, “forcing”, “blanket” or unicorn-balls doesn´t make a difference. The independent relationship between emissive power and Temperature is absolute. Prevost said: the emission of a body depends on the internal state only. I don´t know why you blanket-people think you can ignore that and say that “imbalance” is a “forcing” which can violate the independent relation between emissive power and temperature. Less emission which you call “imbalance” and “forcing”, is nothing else than less heat-lower temperature.

      Now, please give a reference to your claim that physics allow such mechanisms, where you can increase the power of a system with constant limited heat flow, by dropping the temperature in the coldest part of the system. Because such a mechanism violates the foundation of thermodynamics from 200 years ago. The most solid relationship in the universe, temperature and emissive power, you seem unaware of it. If “forcing” was real, then I could increase the temperature of a running engine by cooling the exhaust.

      Think about Prevost´s statement for a minute. Emission depends on the internal state, only. The internal state is what we measure in temperature.

      Then think about what blanket-religion claims. That the emission of the surface depends on what? The EXTERNAL state of the atmosphere. Why not include some unicorns, leprichauns with pots of gold, fairys and a magic rainbow? Since you use only violations of physics anyway.

      If your theory is based on the claim that increasing the amount of dry ice in the atmosphere, and that decreasing emission is a sign of rising temperature, and that “forcing” can raise temperature without doing any work or adding any energy, why is the problem that skeptics doesn´t have an explanation for your tortured data and graphs of doom?

      The problem is not that we don´t have a theory of climate, the problem is that the greenhouse theory is the worst possible theory.

      We don´t have a theory explaining how life is possible in a universe of dead matter either. Now, I have a theory about that. Life in the universe came from my ass. And you don´t have any other explanation, so I´m right.

      Does that sound like a good approach? Because that is your argument about your crayon-drawings of temperature-anomalies that you claim shows how dry ice will burn the earth to death.

      1. AndyG55

        “Life in the universe came from my ass.”

        To burro a question…. where did your donkey come from ? 🙂

        It must have been alive, before it gave life.

        It really is a chicken and egg quandary, isn’t it.

        1. BillyHill

          I am leaning towards that there is no life. Nothing out of the ordinary is happening where we observe life. Well, maybe one thing, it seems like humans have the ability to act as a catalyst, enhancing entropy-production. As a life form humans seems to be the only species that can make energy flow outside metabolism. That seems like a unique property of mass from what we know about the universe. A big win. On top of that, we release energy from locations which was not possible without us, like oil that was bound in the crust. But it is not really a big deal.

          If humanity was erased tomorrow, what difference did we make during our existence?

          We liked to burn stuff in general, explosions was also hip, shooting stuff into space by burning ridicolous amounts of fuel was also a hobby of humans, the more energy we used the better we liked it.

          Looking at the night sky, the burning thing is popular in the universe. So, what makes life and humans special?

          1. sunsettommy

            I know of a Botanist who grew some potatoes on Mars……

  30. New Paper Uses Physics Laws To Disassemble Greenhouse Theory – CO2 is Life

    […] Read More: 3 Chemists Conclude CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is ‘Unreal’, Violates Laws Of Physics, Thermodynamics […]

  31. Aubrey G Bailey

    Probably important to read the official peer reviews:
    Who shred them, irreparably.

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