Gas physics was discovered and developed by factory engineers who invented gas physics instruments, starting with the American Meter Company’s invention of the gas meter in 1836. Academia ignored the private sector and did not learn the subject.
There is no curriculum for gas physics in academia. Engineering and physics classes merely touch upon the subject with centuries-old, misleading postulates such as continuity of energy and thermodynamics.
Professors use these to leap to the conclusion that energy cannot be destroyed, or at least migrates on and on. Thus, they proffer the false theory that gases retain heat from day to day (global warming).
Theoretical gas physics is like theoretical math – it leads to false conclusions. This article offers true gas physics from the private sector.
Energy does not migrate on and on. Kinetic energy (motion) is continuously destroyed in a gravitational field. Put bluntly, a six-year-old can see that a baseball rolls to a stop. Professors say that energy continues in the form of vibration, sound, and/or heat.
All matter, including gases, is affected by gravity. Temperature is a measure of kinetic energy. The definition of temperature is “an indication of the speed that atoms and molecules are moving” [Dorling Kindersley Science Encyclopedia, page 140].
A heat source causes them to accelerate, collide with one another, and when they cool, they slow down. They do not go elsewhere.
Professors skip over this simple truth: the definition of temperature. Temperature simply speeds up and slows down – like the atoms in a mercury thermometer. Any migration of energy ends abruptly, like sand under a rolling baseball.
The empirical proof that an elephant weighs more than a mouse is observation. The scientific proof is to put both on a scale and weigh them. All agree that from 1950 to 1985, our atmosphere cooled very slightly. It did the same from 1997 to 2015.
During both periods, carbon dioxide (CO2) levels rose dramatically.
That is empirical proof that CO2 does not cause warming. It is fifty-five years of proof. It is the elephant in the room.
We need to stop thinking, “It has to cause at least some warming.” No, it doesn’t – obviously it doesn’t. The question we should be asking is, “Why doesn’t CO2 cause warming?” That leads to the proper scientific conclusion: Measure it.
At our Weights and Measures gas-physics test facility, we conducted a test of vaporous (70 percent humidity) atmospheric air, including CO2 and other trace gases therein. The air-CO2 mixture matched actual conditions.
The air-CO2 mixture was isolated in our climate-controlled proving (test) room and heated. Once the heat source was discontinued, the temperature dropped steadily at about one degree Fahrenheit every 32 minutes.
During a typical sunny day, our atmosphere absorbs about 22 degrees Fahrenheit. The vaporous air-CO2 mixture in this test cooled 22 degrees in about 11 hours, 45 minutes. This, by no coincidence, closely matches the cooling rate of our atmosphere.
In our next experiments, we tested pure CO2. We measured the time it took for the CO2 to cool 22 degrees once the heat source was removed.
The cooling time varied between about three and ten minutes, depending on the type of container. The fastest cooling time was in a plastic container at 3 minutes and 47 seconds. Any container will slow cooling, so the gas in the open atmosphere cools faster than indicated by the test.
In the atmosphere, CO2 will therefore cool as fast as the Sun, and the vaporous air allows it to cool.
Even the vaporous mixture of all gases cools faster than 24 hours. Temperature does not, and cannot, accumulate in our atmosphere.
Some gases absorb more heat than others; however, for how long do any of them retain that temperature after the heat source is removed? The answer is certainly not long enough for the greenhouse theory to be true or to cause warming.
Advocates claim that greenhouse gases retain temperature from day to day. There is no such thing.
Yes, CO2 can absorb infrared heat, as would any other gas. But it is still temperature as defined above. Infrared is an interpretation of temperature using a mechanical device such as a prism or spectroscope. The point is irrelevant because the source of infrared cools quickly when the sun goes down.
And the notion that an increased number of parts per million (ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause warming is also false.
A metaphor might help here. Your car engine that heats to near a thousand degrees, cools to cold steel by morning. It does not matter whether there are 200 or 400 cars in your neighborhood. Nor does it matter whether the engine is large or small. Without a heat source, they all cool quickly.
In other words, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Only in academic theory are there greenhouse gases that retain temperature from day to day. In the real world, they do not exist. The reason CO2 causes no warming in our atmosphere is that it cools too quickly.
These tests further prove that no gas—whether CO2, nitrogen, methane, or even humid atmospheric air—retains heat from day to day. They all cool too quickly. Prolonged warming, if it occurs, is caused by the Sun.
To naysayers, we say prove it. Prove it or stop creating destructive laws and rules based upon false theories.
We say to academics, measure it like real scientists. Build a laboratory like ours or Thomas Edison’s. Try to get CO2 to retain temperature from day to day.
It is a simple test. We used precision instruments. However, this is a repeatable test that anyone can perform with hardware-store instruments.
James T. Moodey owned a Weights and Measures gas-physics test facility. A condensed version of the author’s science paper, “Three Proofs Carbon Dioxide Causes No Warming in the Atmosphere — No Gas Causes Warming,” is here and in his book The Ladder Out of Poverty.
Below are links to my own experiments where you can see for yourself that CO2 is not a “heat trapping gas” and confirming Mr Moody’s post.
There is no such thing as a “heat trapping gas”. Heat is a vector, a flow of energy from hot to cold. So called “back radiation”, such as the energy emitted between two ice cubes for example, is not heat. The con-trick is based on the conflation of radiation and heat. Just as the con-trick of the so called “greenhouse effect” is simply a conflation with the insulation and gravito-thermal effect of the atmosphere.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qTrreN4aGF8&pp=0gcJCZEKAYcqIYzv
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_xu1DZKlXjU
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HyO93i6zhv4
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cs-vu3Njqz8
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VC3VX-vO_EA
It is clear from these experiments that pure CO2 is slower to heat and quicker to cool than ordinary air. The reason is that CO2 is a denser gas yet has a lower specific heat capacity than air.
They can spend billions of tax payers money chasing the Higgs-Boson and yet can’t even be bothered to conduct a £3.50 experiment to test John Tyndall’s parlour tricks, before committing the western world to economic suicide.
I think it is becoming quite clear what sort of people are responsible for all this CO2 pseudoscience.
Private Island visitors!
Will, that first video is well done. And you have a timer on it. As near as I could see, the CO2 dropped 20 degrees from 86 to 66 in about 3 minutes and 15 seconds. We measured a 22 degree drop in 3 minutes and about 45 seconds. You say you did this test over and over. We did the same. The experiment is very repeatable, as real science demands.
Jim Moodey
Jim, yes it is clear that we are two independent researchers/experimenters who have independently conducted an audit of the so called “greenhouse effect” hypothesis with regard to CO2. Our results are close enough that we must conclude that the so called “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is false.
It is clear to me, as I said above. that the so called “greenhouse effect” (and I will never tire of putting that term in quotes), is a pseudoscientific con-trick based on the deliberate conflation with the very real atmospheric insulation/gravitothermal effect. The “greenhouse effect” has never been detected in the atmosphere and the only place it has ever appeared to exist is in computer models which use “parametrisation’s”.
It is a simple trick then, to produce a “GHE” inside a computer model and here is how it is done: You simply take the parameterisation for convection, and deliberately underestimate it and viola, you have a magical “GHE”. The primary function of a greenhouse, as everyone should know, is the prevention of convection.
I agree, there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect that retains heat from day to day. The atmosphere heats up, then cools when the Sun goes down. And there is no lid in our atmosphere, least of all carbon dioxide. It is the same weight as propane, 1.52 sp.gravity. It seeks low points like rainwater and sinks into the ground.
AC Osborn:
“Can you refute the facts presented in this article?”
Richard Greene:
“Of course I can, but why should I?”
Ahh yes, as though hubris can win the day
By sealing every crevice through which falsehood can enter
To distort the minds of men
“What need we of proof?”the hubrant bays
“My pounding and stamping doth suffice, truth is rendered”
Nay, but a claim unsupported is a fabric rent
The proof of what I stated prior as regards Ritard Greene continuing to lie based upon a debunked study… from CFACT:
Ritard Greene boldbleated (to let us all know that reality makes him especially butthurt):
“The Kook is lying & too stupid to know that I can show he is wrong. A 2021 study published in Environmental Research Letters found that more than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans.”
I guess Ritard Greene didn’t know that the Mark Lynas, Benjamin Z. Houlton and Simon Perry study was debunked in peer-review. LOL
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/10/31/mark-lynas-99-consensus-on-climate-change-busted-in-peer-review/
https://doi.org/10.3390/cli11110215
“Here, we point out some major flaws in the methodology, analysis, and conclusions of the study. Using the data provided in the study, we show that the 99% consensus, as defined by the authors, is actually an upper limit evaluation because of the large number of “neutral” papers which were counted as pro-consensus in the paper and probably does not reflect the true situation. We further analyze these results by evaluating how so-called “skeptic” papers fit the consensus and find that biases in the literature, which were not accounted for in the aforementioned study, may place the consensus on the low side. Finally, we show that the rating method used in the study suffers from a subjective bias which is reflected in large variations between ratings of the same paper by different raters. All these lead to the conclusion that the conclusions of the study does not follow from the data.”
I guess they skipped those multiple thousands of studies which show that AGW / CAGW is nothing more than a complex mathematical scam… which pretty much proves that the Lynas et. al. study was junk from known radical climate activists. LOL
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
https://notrickszone.com/248-skeptical-papers-from-2014/
https://notrickszone.com/250-skeptic-papers-from-2015/
https://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016/
https://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016-1/
https://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016-2/
https://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016-3/
https://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2017-1/
https://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2017-2/
https://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2017-3/
https://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2018-1/
https://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2018-2/
https://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2018-3/
https://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2019-1/
https://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2019-2/
https://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2019-3/
https://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2020-1/
https://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2020-2/
https://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2021-1/
https://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2021-2/
https://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2023/
How many dozens upon dozens upon dozens of times has Ritard Greene bleated the outright lie of “99.9% believe”? Of course, he knew (or should have known) that it was debunked… making his lie intentional… the only other alternative is that Ritard Greene is a profound moron, too stupid to figure out that the Lynas et. al. study had been debunked. And that intentional lie makes him a liar. Liars lie… it’s what he does. LOL
But… but… but Ritard Greene emphatically stated that he could prove me wrong! And all he’s proven (yet again) is that he is Ritard Greene, the rake-stomping, lying, backpedaling, ad hominem-spewing, fantasy-ideating, victim-blaming genocide-apologist, non sequitur-frothing, butthurt-bleating, reality-denying, psychologically-projecting, scientifically-illiterate, mathematically-innumerate, reading comprehension-challenged, cognitively-diminished, age-demented, congenitally-dimwitted, AGW-defending, leftist-defending, conservative-attacking, inherently-antisemitic, fake-Christian, terminally TDS-afflicted libtard commie moron who copies-n-pastes AI drivel that he lacks the mental faculties to understand, in hopes that he can make himself appear, to the dimwitted such as himself, to be more intelligent and more sane than he actually is. LOL
Ritard Greene should make a New Year’s resolution to shut his stupid slobbering gob. LOL
99.9% are entitled to believe whatever they wish. However science is not a belief system.
Notwithstanding Ritard Greene’s tardbabble about a “greenhouse effect” existing because ‘consensus’ or somesuch… which he gets from the Mark Lynas, Benjamin Z. Houlton and Simon Perry study… which was debunked in peer-review… because it used the same methodology as all the other fraudulent ‘consensus’ studies… disregarding skeptical papers or misclassifying them as being supportive of the warmist nonsense.
Ritard Greene has been informed that the Mark Lynas, Benjamin Z. Houlton and Simon Perry study was debunked in peer-review, and provided the refutation of that study, along with the multiple thousands of studies the Lynas et. al. drivel ignored to arrive at their fraudulent 99% ‘consensus’… that he continues his ‘consensus’ lie can only be attributed to the fact that libtard commie morons lie… it’s what Ritard Greene does. Well, that and he also barfs metric tons of kookbarf each and every time he’s proven wrong… which is each and every time. LOL
“AGW / CAGW (due to greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)))” is provably physically impossible, provable mathematically fraudulent and thus can be nothing more than a complex mathematical scam.
Why physically impossible and mathematically fraudulent? Because energy does not and cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient per 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense, therefore “backradiation” does not and cannot exist. It is conjured out of thin air via the misuse of the S-B equation in Energy Balance Climate Models (EBCMs), using the Idealized Blackbody form of the S-B equation upon real-world graybody objects. The Idealized Blackbody form of the S-B equation assumes emission to 0 K, and thus artificially inflates calculated radiant exitance of all calculated-upon objects, which conjures “backradiation” out of thin air.
There are two primary forms of the S-B equation:
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
[1] Idealized Blackbody Object form (assumes emission to 0 K and ε = 1 by definition):
q_bb = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
= 1 σ (T_h^4 – 0 K)
= σ T^4
[2] Graybody Object form (assumes emission to > 0 K and ε < 1):
q_gb = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
This is how climatologists conjure “backradiation” out of thin air by misusing the S-B equation in their Energy Balance Climate Models, and how they “measure” it via pyrgeometers and similar such equipment:
https://i.imgur.com/V2lWC3f.png
Climatologists misuse the S-B equation, using the idealized blackbody form of the equation upon real-world graybody objects. This essentially isolates each object into its own system so objects cannot interact via the ambient EM field. It assumes emission to 0 K, and it thus artificially inflates radiant exitance of all calculated-upon objects. Thus the climatologists must carry these incorrect values through their calculations and cancel them on the back end to get their equation to balance, subtracting a (wholly-fictive due to the assumption of emission to 0 K) ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the (real but too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow.
That wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow is otherwise known as ‘backradiation’. It is nothing more than a mathematical artifact due to the misuse of the S-B equation. It does not and cannot exist. Its existence would imply rampant violations of the fundamental physical laws (energy spontaneously flowing up an energy density gradient in violation of 2LoT).
The S-B equation for graybody objects isn’t meant to be used by subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow, it’s meant to be used by subtracting cooler object energy density from warmer object energy density to arrive at the energy density gradient, which determines radiant exitance of the warmer object. This is true even for the traditional graybody form of the S-B equation, because Temperature (T) is equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density (e) divided by Stefan’s Constant (a) (ie: the radiation energy density constant (J m-3 K-4)), per Stefan’s Law.
We can plug Stefan’s Law:
T = 4^√(e/a)
…into the traditional Stefan-Boltzmann equation for graybody objects:
q = ε_h σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
… which reduces to the energy density form of the S-B equation:
q = ε_h * (σ / a) * Δe
Canceling units, we get W m-2.
W m-2 = (W m-2 K-4 / J m-3 K-4) * ΔJ m-3
NOTE: (σ / a) = W m-2 K-4 / J m-3 K-4 = W m-2 / J m-3.
That is the conversion factor for radiant exitance (W m-2) and energy density (J m-3).
The radiant exitance of the warmer graybody object is determined by the energy density gradient and by the object’s emissivity.
Energy can’t even spontaneously flow when there is zero energy density gradient (ie: at thermodynamic equilibrium):
σ [W m-2 K-4] / a [J m-3 K-4] * Δe [J m-3] * ε_h = [W m-2]
σ [W m-2 K-4] / a [J m-3 K-4] * 0 [J m-3] * ε_h = 0 [W m-2]
Or, in the traditional form of the S-B equation:
q = ε_h σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
q = ε_h σ (0) = 0 W m-2
… it is certainly not going to spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient. “Backradiation” is unphysical.
One can prove this to oneself…
The energy density form of the S-B equation:
q = ε_h * (σ / a) * (e_h – e_c)
Where:
σ = (2 π^5 k_B^4 ) / (15 h^3 c^2 ) = 5.67037441918442945397099673188923087584012297029130e -8 W m -2 K -4
k B = Boltzmann Constant (1.380649e −23 J K −1 )
h = Planck Constant (6.62607015e −34 J Hz −1 )
c = light speed (299792458 m sec -1 )
σ / a = 74948114.502437694376419756266673 W J -1 m (W m -2 / J m -3 )
a = 4σ/c = 7.5657332500339284719430800357226e -16 J m -3 K -4
One can compare one’s results to the traditional form of the S-B equation here:
http://www.hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c3
… one can then account for the rounding of σ at that website, whereupon one will find that the two results are identical to a precision of ~3.8 parts per 100 trillion.
One will also learn that energy does not and cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient. Thus “backradiation” is physically impossible. Thus the “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)” is physically impossible. Thus “greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))” are physically impossible. Thus “AGW / CAGW (due to greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)))” is physically impossible. Thus all of offshoot side-scams of the AGW / CAGW scam (carbon footprint, carbon taxes, carbon credit trading, carbon capture and sequestration, Net Zero, banning ICE vehicles and non-electric appliances and equipment, replacing reliable grid-inertia-contributing baseload electrical generation with intermittent non-grid-inertia-contributing renewables, etc.) are all based upon that physical impossibility.
Which makes AGW / CAGW nothing more than a complex mathematical scam, predicated upon the misuse of the S-B equation in EBCMs to conjure the mathematically-fraudulent and physically-impossible “backradiation” out of thin air; upon hand-wavery in claiming that “backradiation” causes the “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”; and upon scientific fraudery in claiming that the “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)” causes the atmospheric temperature gradient (when it’s long been known that the gravitational auto-compression of the Adiabatic Lapse Rate causes it… which is why the climastrologists hijacked the Average Humidity Adiabatic Lapse Rate).
The climatologists know that “backradiation” is physically impossible, thus their “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)” is physically impossible… but they had to show it was having an effect, so they hijacked the Average Humidity Adiabatic Lapse Rate.
We know the planet’s emission curve is roughly analogous to that of an idealized blackbody object emitting at 255 K. And we know the ‘effective emission height’ at that temperature is ~5.105 km.
6.5 K km-1 * 5.105 km = 33.1815 K temperature gradient + 255 K = 288.1815 K surface temperature
That 6.5 K km-1 is the Average Humidity Adiabatic Lapse Rate. That 33.1815 K temperature gradient and 288.1815 K surface temperature is what the climatologists try to claim is caused by their “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”… except it’s not. It’s caused by the Average Humid Adiabatic Lapse Rate, and that has nothing to do with any “backradiation”, nor any “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”, nor any “greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))”.
The Adiabatic Lapse Rate is caused by the atmosphere converting z-axis DOF (Degree of Freedom) translational mode (kinetic) energy to gravitational potential energy with altitude (and vice versa), that change in z-axis kinetic energy equipartitioning with the other 2 linearly-independent DOF upon subsequent collisions, per the Equipartition Theorem. This is why temperature falls as altitude increases (and vice versa).
In short, the climatologists have misattributed their completely-fake “backradiation” as the cause of the atmospheric temperature gradient which is actually caused by the Adiabatic Lapse Rate and its associated gravitational auto-compression (the blue-shifting of temperature as one descends a gravity well in an atmosphere).
We cannot have two simultaneous but completely different causes for the same effect (one radiative energy… the wholly-fictive “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”; and one kinetic energy… the Adiabatic Lapse Rate). If we did, we’d have double the effect. One must go. And the one which must go is the mathematically-fraudulent “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”.
That leaves only the Adiabatic Lapse Rate. And we can calculate the exact change in temperature gradient (and thus surface temperature) for any given change in concentration of any given atmospheric gas.
For instance, the “ECS” (ie: the change in Adiabatic Lapse Rate) of CO2 is only 0.00000190472202445 K km-1 ppm-1 (when accounting for the atoms and molecules which CO2 displaces). And even that doesn’t take into account the radiative cooling effect of having a higher concentration of polyatomic emitters in the atmosphere… we can’t really mathematically model that at this time.
So as one can see, it’s all nothing more than a complex mathematical scam. I’ve unwound that scam above. Virginians will be paying an additional half a billion dollars per year to fund that scam.
https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711
That’s not a scientifically-rigorous and mathematically-precise refutation of the scientifically-rigorous, mathematically-precise and absolutely-irrefutable bog-standard radiative theory, cavity theory, entropy theory, electrical theory, quantum field theory, dimensional analysis, thermodynamics and the fundamental physical laws (all taken straight from physics tomes and all hewing completely to the fundamental physical laws)… no, that’s Ritard Greene yet again bleating more of his ever-growing butthurt because I, his moral and intellectual superior, have proven him wrong on every single topic to date, over on CFACT.
He is Ritard Greene, the rake-stomping, lying, backpedaling, ad hominem-spewing, fantasy-ideating, victim-blaming genocide-apologist, non sequitur-frothing, butthurt-bleating, reality-denying, psychologically-projecting, scientifically-illiterate, mathematically-innumerate, reading comprehension-challenged, cognitively-diminished, age-demented, congenitally-dimwitted, AGW-defending, leftist-defending, conservative-attacking, inherently-antisemitic, fake-Christian, terminally TDS-afflicted libtard commie moron who copies-n-pastes AI drivel that he lacks the mental faculties to understand, in hopes that he can make himself appear, to the dimwitted such as himself, to be more intelligent and more sane than he actually is. LOL
You will note all of the above descriptors were obtained by observing Ritard Greene’s own behavior. He’s not who he claims himself to be (ie: conservative, climate skeptic), and he’s increasingly being forced to rip the mask off and expose his true self.
Consider the example that your car engine heats to near a thousand degrees. Why doesn’t that cause warming from day to day? Explain that. Why are professors picking on carbon dioxide? The answer is that they originally side-stepped real science (testing which is what we did) to vilify fossil fuels. Now, their theories have become groupthink, via peer review. Combustion of the fossil fuel methane produces CO2 and H2O. In answer to the first question, the test has been confirmed. An engineer in Suffolk England, William Pratt, not knowing about our testing, tested and concluded that CO2 cools 20 degrees in 4 minutes. The test is repeatable, very repeatable.
Jim Moodey
While the operating temperature of a car engine’s coolant is generally regulated to between 195°F and 225°F (approx. 90°C–105°C), internal components like exhaust valves can exceed 1,000°F
But heating a car engine to 1000° (whether Celsius or Fahrenheit) would cause catastrophic, irreversible damage that would prevent it from ever running again.
Your lack of knowledge about car engines matches your lack of knowledge about CO2 as a climate forcing. 99.9% of scientists since the mid 1800s have said that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Based on evidence and a 166 year test of time. Yet you claim they’re all wrong and you’re right. That’s quite an ego you have.
Scientists did not “pick on” CO2 from 1859 until the late 1950s.
And that was only a few scientists in the late 1950s, led by Roger Revelle.
CO2 was defined as a greenhouse gas for 100 years before anyone decided it might be dangerous. You were wrong about that too.
The conversion of CO2 from a liquid to a gas causes cooling.
This is irrelevant for CO2 in the atmosphere.
In the Earth’s troposphere, carbon dioxide exists almost exclusively as a gas. Your example is completely irrelevant for atmospheric physics.
Please do conservatives a great favor by stopping your disinformation writing. Conservatives are very gullible when they read CO2 does nothing false articles.
By what mechanism does CO2 cause atmospheric warming?
Greenhouse gases do not “trap” heat like a physical lid; rather, they absorb infrared radiation emitted by the Earth and re-radiate it in all directions, including back toward the surface. This mechanism continuously slows the escape of heat into space, effectively keeping the lower atmosphere warmer
Is deze test ergens in een rapport vastgelegd? Of anders op video?
Neem 2 of meerdere afgesloten glazen volumelementen van bijvoorbeeld 1 m3. Vul deze met 100% Co2, 50% co2, 0,5% co2 en de dagelijkse situatie. En laat deze door zonlicht op het zelfde moment en zelfde omgeving verwarmen en afkoeling. Meet alle temperaturen en tijden tijdens opwarmen en afkoelen.
[English: Has this test been documented in a report somewhere? Or perhaps on video?
Take two or more sealed glass volume elements, for example, of 1 m³. Fill them with 100% CO2, 50% CO2, 0.5% CO2, and the normal atmospheric conditions. Allow them to be heated and cooled by sunlight at the same time and in the same environment. Measure all temperatures and times during heating and cooling. via Google Translate]
Today must be the weekly claim that CO2 does nothing day.
Claiming that 99.9% of scientists have been wrong since 1896.
Nonsense articles like this are why conservatives rarely get listened to in climate science debate. I can recommend many articles at this website, but I can’t recommend the website to anyone because of ridiculous articles like this one.
Agreed – I yield to no-one in my scepticism of the CAGW cult, nor my contempt for its followers, but reading a declaration of scientific illiteracy like “…our atmosphere absorbs about 22 degrees Fahrenheit” made me shake my head in despair.
It’s the CO2 does everything crowned versus the CO2 does nothing crowd … like living in a lunatic asylum.
Can you refute the facts presented in this article?
Of course I can, but why should I?
99.9% of scientists have refuted the CO2 does nothing myth for 128 years. People who claim CO2 does nothing are immediately recognized as stupid people. Those of us who fight the myth that CO2 is dangerous are hindered by stupid people who claim CO2 does nothing. If you want to argue that CO2 emissions are not dangerous, you can’t start by saying CO2 does nothing.
Eunice Newton Foote is credited with the first discovery that CO2 is a greenhouse gas in 1856. Through experiments with glass cylinders in the sun, she found that CO2 trapped heat and suggested that an atmosphere with higher CO2 levels would result in a warmer planet.
The first quantitative estimate of how much warming carbon dioxide would cause was published in 1896 by the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius.
You keep repeating that 99.9% lie as if it were true.
100% may be correct
I’m talking about the belief in the greenhouse effect and the fact that CO2 is part of it. Surveys range from 99% to 100%.
I confirm those surveys with my own reading for the past 28 years. I read and recommend up to 80 climate and energy articles per week. My reading is almost entirely of skeptic scientists and authors. Any denial of the greenhouse effect would be among those people. In 28 years of reading, I’ve only identified one scientist who claimed the greenhouse effect was fake: Tin Ball of Canada, a geographer.
I also identified 3 scientists who claimed the greenhouse effect was very small.
100% of consensus scientists say the greenhouse effect is real. I estimate that at least 99% of skeptic scientists agree the greenhouse effect is real. All the well known skeptic scientists agree: Happer, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Curry, etc..
A 2021 study in Environmental Research Letters found that over 99% of climate-related papers in the peer-reviewed literature support the consensus that human activity causes climate change, based on a sample of 3,000
When fools claim there is no greenhouse effect and humans have no effect on the climate, I will speak up. Very few conservative web sites will publish my comments because they prefer censorship to fact checking.
James T. Moodey owned a Weights and Measures gas-physics test facility. So what? He may has no idea what a spectroscopic measurement of gas is. Spectroscopy was fundamentally developed to analyze gas in 1859 by Gustav Kirchhoff and Robert Bunsen, who demonstrated that chemical elements emit unique spectral lines when heated.
Moodey is claiming that every spectroscopy measurement of gas since 1859 was wrong. It’s a very gullible person to believe that Moodey is a genius and everybody else has been a fool since 1859. Yet conservatives just love the CO2 does nothing clap trap.
You are an ignorant fool with your 99.9% or even 100% bull crap. But keep repeating it and see that no one will bother reading your claptrap nonsense.
Consensus is important in the social sciences, but has no place in real science. My first chemistry professor said that science is not a democracy. When Einstein was presented with a letter from 100 physicists challenging his theory of relativity, he said it would matter if even one of them was right.
I read about a study to determine the support of the climate change narrative among scientists. It reviewed a few thousand articles in a peer reviewed journal. If an article opposed the narrative, it was counted against. If it supported the narrative, it was counted for it. If the article didn’t mention climate change, which was the vast majority of them, then it was counted as supporting the narrative. This study was a fraud, which is so typical of the climate change movement.
And yet it is nonsense like that one which the ignorant fool Greene keeps stating that 99.9% (or even 100%) of scientists say CO2 is causing global warming.
Richard, when ever you use consensus in your posts you are confessing you lack of scientific knowledge. Consensus has no place in real science. The numbers you use are red flag values. It reminds of elections in the Soviet Union where the candidate favored by the state won by 95%. In the case of climate change the lop sided numbers favoring the narrative come from the universal censorship of the publications. Researchers have not been able to get articles published that even cast doubt on the narrative. In addition, people who oppose the narrative get no funding. Climate activists were upset when President Trump cut funding of this research because all of the funding was supporting those who backed the narrative. So, in addition to the censorship, there are not many unbiased researchers.
There you go again. 99.9% lie.
If you think that 99.9% or 100% or 99% is wrong, provide your own number. Then provide evidence why your number is correct & all the other studies are wrong. Anyone can criticize. That’s what we in the US call a cheap shot. It takes intelligence to be correct.
The 99.% consensus is simply that, a greenhouse effect exists & human CO2 emissions make it stronger by some unknown amount.
This would be learned in the first ten minutes of the first hour of the first day of climate science 101. The claim that global warming is dangerous is not supported by any evidence. A consensus not supported by evidence is worthless. Strong evidence plus a long test of time are needed. The consensus on the greenhouse effect and AGW has both.
I consider a consensus to be a strong majority opinion that’s not close to. Almost every subject in science has a consensus opinion. They’re not automatically wrong or automatically right. It sometimes takes a long period of time to falsify a consensus. The consensus that CO2 is a greenhouse gas began in the mid 1800s. There have been 166 years to falsify the claim that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. No success. CO2 as a greenhouse gas has withstood a huge test of time. That makes it very likely to be a correct consensus.
There were 4 poorly conducted climate change polls that I know of and have analyzed. I wrote articles about all four many years ago.
I recall they all seem to add up to 97% of scientists agreed with CAGW. 97% . The 97% was exaggerated due to bad polling methodology.
According to Pew Research Center and AAAS, 77% of scientists polled considered climate change a “very serious” problem.
Based on comprehensive Pew Research Center data, an overwhelming majority of scientists (approx. 77%–79% of AAAS members) consider climate change a “very serious” problem, with 87% to over 90% attributing it to human activity, especially among climate-focused researchers. This consensus highlights it as a severe,, accelerating threat.
Scientific Consensus: 77% of AAAS scientists label climate change a “very serious” issue.
Expert Agreement: Among actively publishing Earth scientists, 93% with a Ph.D. confirm human-driven, dangerous climate change.
Growing Concerns: Despite some, particularly in high-income countries, reporting lower threats in 2025 compared to 2022, 67% across 25 nations still identify it as a major threat.
Future Impacts: 63% of Americans in a 2023 survey expected climate change harm to worsen in their lifetime, with 43% already seeing it as causing significant, immediate damage.
In a 2022 poll, 59% of scientists claimed climate change was dangerous
I asked you where you pulled that number from. I don’t need to refute it since you are the idiot who keeps repeating the lie without anything to back it up.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities,” Voltaire’s Collection des Lettres, 1765. Absurdity: Climate Change pushers claim CO2 released from human activity is dangerously heating the planet. Attrocities: NetZero must be implemented by all nations, stop using fossil fuels and switch to wind, solar (renewables), stop producing gasoline and diesel powered vehicles–switch to electric vehicles. Don’t forget taxing carbon and causing electric rates to skyrocket.
CO2 is needed by Plants and therefore its Not a Pollutant and so banning it would be like Lowering your ships sails with good trade wind blowing in the right direction