Mainstream climate science claims CO2 molecules “slow down the rate of heat loss from the surface” as a blanket does.
And yet the rate at which a CO2 molecule retains or slows down heat loss is, at most, a negligible 0.0001 of a second.
A CO2 concentration of 300 ppm versus 400 ppm will, therefore, have no detectable impact.
SkepticalScience, a blog spearheaded by climate science “consensus” advocate John Cook, is widely considered the explanatory guidebook for the anthropogenic global warming movement.
The blog claims CO2 molecules, with a representation of four parts in 10,000 in the atmosphere (or 400 parts per million, or ppm), collectively function as a blanket does in slowing down the rate at which the human body cools.
The rate or time-lapse involved in this “slowing” of heat loss is problematic to the paradigm that says CO2 drives global warming, however.
Professor Nasif Nahle has mathematically assessed the rate at which heat is retained by CO2 molecules; his work was endorsed by the Faculty of Physics of the University of Nuevo Leon (Mexico).
Nahle found the “mean free path” for a quantum wave to pass through the atmosphere before colliding with a CO2 molecule is about 33 meters (Nahle, 2011a).
Such a wide chasm between molecular collisions would appear to undermine a visualization of CO2 functioning like a blanket does.
Even more saliently, Nahle determined that the rate at which CO2 molecules can retain heat at the surface may only last about 0.0001 of a second (Nahle, 2011b).
If heat-loss is slowed down at a rate of 0.0001 of a second by CO2 molecules, the atmospheric CO2 concentration – whether it’s 300 PPM or 400 PPM – effectively doesn’t matter. The time-lapse differential would be immaterial for either concentration.
Consequently, Nahle concludes “carbon dioxide has not an effect on climate changes or warming periods on the Earth.”
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Sorry but this article is bogus by a denier. Just like another one that I read about NASA stating Earth orbit leading to global warming. I researched it and NASA data denied the premise in the article…
Hi There, the article makes perfect sense. My take on something similar several weeks ago was like this. Co2 in the atmosphere is 400 ppm or 1 part in 2500.
Take a house, with an insulated ceiling, (fibreglass), area 2500 sq feet.
Remove 2499 sq ft of insulation and discard. The remaining 1 sq ft, put into a food processor and chop into fine even pieces. If the resultant insulation is spread across all the ceiling evenly, I would suggest that the insulating effect would be the same as having no insulation at all.
The Al Gore medicine show is totally fraudulent.
you missed the following:
” carbon dioxide can never reach the thermal equilibrium with respect to other molecules of air and consequently it cools surrounding systems by taking thermal energy from such systems and redistributing it towards heat sinks; in particular, to outer space.”
what a killer closing statement
The greenhouse effect appears to be more like salmon fishing net trying to catch sprats moving at warp speed. The occasional one will hit the strands of net and bounce in any direction but not a very effective blanket or greenhouse .Goodbye AGW.
Can someone point to any criticism of this paper? From the Alarmists?
I found these:
http://hannahlab.org/climate-skeptics-nasif-nahles-shaky-math/
And more importantly I think, this:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/04/determining-the-total-emissivity-of-a-mixture-of-gases-containing-overlapping-absorption-bands/#comment-481063
Unfortunately I don’t understand the subject matter enough to make my own assessment of the paper. Anyone care to comment?
I’m not an alarmist, but I can be critic for a moment. A quantum that hits CO2 molecule, later gets emited in the random direction. The quantum can hit earth surface again thus warming it up. Used astrophysical formula is applicable for the Sun, where there is no surface.
The problem is that we cannot pick and chose when to use the particle aspect of the wave particle duality. It is convenient to use packet based math for determining radiation transfer in the atmosphere, but it is invalid.
CO2 does not relax in a void, but in a field of outgoing IR. The distances between CO2 molecules is such that local coherence occurs, so when they relax, they are putting energy back into an existent resonance.
There is no ‘back radiation’ The idea is an artifact of reductionist Em particle modelling. There is only rate and amplitude modification.
Plank quite clearly states that his models will fall before a proper wave model.
This is not only evidence – its definitive proof that we are being defrauded by the entire climate-industrial complex to the tune of 3 trillion USD so far. Its time the world stands up to this heist and claims the money back. Based on scientific proof, all proponents of Climate Alarmism must be charged with fraud, convicted, their assets seized and used for reparation for all the pain and suffering they have caused. Anyone who abetted this heist such as the press should be tried as well. Nobody was able to prove that CO2 is responsible for any warming or cooling cycles so far,. But it has been proven that it cannot possibly be the culprit. The world must wake up from its coma and take care of the people again. Not run after some fraudulent and ridiculous causes.
It is also true that carbon dioxide absorbs and emits energy only within a very limited frequency range. It briefly holds photons of light of just two wavelengths: 4.26 micrometers (asymmetric stretching mode) and 14.99 micrometers (bending vibrational mode). Once that small frequency range has been saturated, further additions of CO2 to the atmosphere make virtually no difference.
I must have missed the 3 inch headlines in the N Y Times announcing this wonderful news . Well we know CNN is in the tank but the paper that claims ” all the news fit to print ” .. .on the 100 million trees they have chopped down for their 15 minute daily product .
You know it’s a cult when the facts are proven to be other than presented and nothing changes . This is why Democrats are toast . The public sees the con .
The global warming fear industry is like Halloween every night .
Great analysis. The historical correlation between CO2 levels and temperature rise of the earth surface is zero.
I keep wondering how the Alarmists keep telling us that CO2 is like a blanket, that slow down the transfer of heat. A blanket is a solid, and CO2 is a gas. All gasses expand a rise when heated. That fact alone negates AGW IMO.
I honestly cannot tell if this is sarcastic, if it is I apologise. however, using metaphor and simile to describe the situation is an obvious move to allow others (the public who do not understand the math mostly) to visualise the data. “like a blanket” is not literal language.
Waiting for warmist to provide experiment demonstrating doubling CO2 will raise temp 2 degrees… this may be why they can’t
people are like sheep lead astray and remain Dum and lack understanding and feel safe in numbers!
Ever have a conversation that turned into an argument and gave up because you can’t yell loud enough? That’s where we are.
John Cooke of Skeptical Science.com. That would also be the same John Cooke, self employed Australian cartoonist?
Cartoonists and comedians become known by their perceptive abilities. Scott Adams, for example. I also offer William Shakespeare as an example of such genius. Al Gore? Greta Thunberg? That’s the best ya got?
Apparently this whole article is by science deniers, since the whole Global Warming hoax is “settled science”.
Oh no there they go presenting scientific facts again .
You mean the big bad wolf isn’t even a puppy ?
Didn’t Nahle get the memo … “Real ” climate scientists don’t have to show their work . It’s “intellectual property ” .
If this hypothesis follows the scientific method and is valid the climate fraud
just blew up .
“Real ” climate scientists don’t have to show their work. It’s “intellectual property”.
That is the exact reason the Supreme Court of BC threw out the lawsuits by Mann and Weaver this year against Dr. Ball. The Court demanded Mann & Weaver show their data and calculations and they refused, claiming it was their own and not to be publicized. Mann didn’t even show up in Court for years, likely terrified the world would discover he was a liar and the author of all this climate fearmongering. The Court penalized Weaver & Mann, ruling that they had to pay for Dr. Ball’s legal costs, possibly in the hundreds of thousands. Weaver recently had a heart attack. Hmmm.
The entire conclusions are worth restating verbatim:
Conclusions
The results obtained by experimentation coincide with the results obtained by applying astrophysics formulas. Therefore, both methodologies are reliable to calculate the total emissivity/absorptivity of any gas of any planetary atmosphere.
At an average density, the atmospheric water vapor allows quantum/waves to cross the troposphere to the tropopause in 0.0245 s, i.e. 2.45 cs (centiseconds). By comparing the ability of water vapor to avoid that quantum/waves escape towards the outer space (0.5831 s) with the ability of CO2 (0.0049 s), I can affirm that the role of CO2 on warming the atmosphere or the surface is not possible according to Physics Laws.
The water vapor is five times more efficient on intercepting quantum/waves than the carbon dioxide. Therefore, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere works like a coolant of the atmospheric water vapor.
By considering also that the carbon dioxide has by far a lower total emissivity than the water vapor I conclude that the carbon dioxide has not an effect on climate changes or warming periods on the Earth.
The low thermal diffusivity of carbon dioxide makes of it to be an inefficient substance to adjust its temperature to the temperature of its surroundings. Consequently, the carbon dioxide can never reach the thermal equilibrium with respect to the remainder molecules of the air.
The people who believe the alarmists wouldn’t understand this. They are challenged, scientifically .
My physics teacher put it succinctly ‘ All systems tend toward zero’. Put another way, potential energy is continuously trying to free itself. Heat heads for cold, and the occasional carbon dioxide molecule isn’t going to stop the process.
Dude, Nahle degrees are in biology. He has a BS in physics. What else has he done besides write a bad paper with bad math?
When a climate realist makes comments, facts are commonly used. One fact would be there is a very poor correlation between the historical levels of carbon dioxide and the Earth’s temperature history. There is not only the mini ice age and medieval warm period, but 40% of the warming blamed on man occurred between 1910 and 1941 when the carbon dioxide levels were relatively low and raising very slowly. Another is that the Russian climate model most closely matches real world data and only predicts warming of 1.5 degrees. When alarmists make comments about something they don’t like, it is often by attacking the person. In doing so, they hope to discredit what the person has written.