Actual Experiment Proves As CO2 Rises, Surface Temps Drop
At an outdoor test site in Italy, CO2 concentrations vacillating between 1,000 and 750,000 ppm have no more or less an effect on local temperatures than a nearby site with stable, ambient (<400 ppm) CO2 concentrations.
Mofette fields are “natural carbon dioxide springs” that allow us to observe the effect that a 100% (1,000,000 ppm) CO2 concentration has on ecosystems, temperatures…even spiders (Balkenhol et al., 2016).
Temperature changes over the CO2-spewing Bossoleto spring (pictured below) in Tuscany, Italy, were measured over the course of a few days in the early 1990s by Gardingen et al., 1995.
The scientists observed the site’s CO2 rises daily from 1,000 ppm at 3:30 p.m. in the afternoon to 750,000 ppm by 7:00 a.m. the next morning.
The temperature changes associated with these extreme CO2 variations are about 33°C at 3:30 p.m., falling to 23°C by 7 a.m.
More specifically, when the Sun rises above the horizon, temperatures abruptly warm by 10°C, and then CO2 rapidly falls from its morning peak (750,000 ppm) to its afternoon nadir (1,000 ppm).
At a nearby site, where CO2 levels center around an ambient 360 ppm (1992 levels) throughout the day, Gardingen and colleagues observed temperature changes to be effectively identical to the Bossoleto site: 23°C at 7 a.m. and 33°C at 3:30 p.m.
In other words, the CO2 concentration – whether a stable 0.036% throughout the day or a wildly fluctuating 1% to 75% over the course of a 24-hour period – had no detectable effect on changes to the surface temperature.
This real-world temperature-CO2 experiment would appear to show CO2 varies in response to environmental factors, but it does not appear to causally affect temperature changes.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method
Trackback from your site.
Dean Michael Jackson
| #
“At a nearby site, where CO2 levels center around an ambient 360 ppm (1992 levels) throughout the day, Gardingen and colleagues observed temperature changes to be effectively identical to the Bossoleto site: 23°C at 7 a.m. and 33°C at 3:30 p.m.”
It’s impossible that IQs have sunk so abysmally low, thereby identifying the Marxist co-option of the West’s institutions. We have the same pretense where a DNA amplification tool is called a test, and naturally the Marxist co-opted medical/research community keep their silence, thereby identifying elements within those communities that are the ‘false opposition”.
Air temperature will naturally give the same temperature results for Site 1 as with Site 2 due to the high saturation of carbon dioxide in Site 1. It is relatively smaller increases in carbon dioxide that cools by dislocating greater thermal energy holding nitrogen and oxygen molecules. This is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is not immune to Marxist propaganda aimed at the destruction of the globe’s economies, thereby annihilating 90% of humanity.
In the case of Site 1, where carbon dioxide is 750,000 ppm, the only difference between that site and Site 2 is that each carbon dioxide molecule is approximately one-third the volume of Site 2; therefore Site 1 has one-third more molecules than the nitrogen-oxygen Site 2.
Reply
Dean Michael Jackson
| #
Correction; Should read:
This is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is immune to Marxist propaganda aimed at the destruction of the globe’s economies, thereby annihilating 90% of humanity.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Dean,
Avogadro’s law states that one mole of a gas at STP will have volume of 22.4 liters no matter what the molecular weight of the gas is.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I hope you realize that your comment requires Dean to know what a ‘mole’ is.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Dean Michael Jackson
| #
“Avogadro’s law states that one mole of a gas at STP will have volume of 22.4 liters no matter what the molecular weight of the gas is.”
Sure, when one is dealing with laboratory experiments where each gas is separated from the other, otherwise in the actual atmosphere the kinetic diameters of gasses vary, identifying different volumes.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The universal gas law (PV<-nrt) states that the volume of an unconfined gas is a product of the number of gas molecules times the kinetic energy (mass included) times a gas constant. The CO2 molecules with the same temperature as a combination of nitrogen and oxygen molecules both will have the same number of molecules and volume.Gases are mostly empty space.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Dean,
Would you explain, for us who is not familiar with your science, what is the kinetic diameter of a gas.? And I would really like you to define what a mole is.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Dean Michael Jackson
| #
“Would you explain, for us who is not familiar with your science, what is the kinetic diameter of a gas.?”
My science? It’s science…
Kinetic diameter is a measure applied to atoms and molecules that expresses the likelihood that a molecule in a gas will collide with another molecule. It is an indication of the size of the molecule as a target.
Atmospheric gas molecules are different sizes.
“And I would really like you to define what a mole is.”
A unit of measurement for a particle that equals 602,214,076,000,000,000,000,000 particles of the particle under study, such as an atom, molecule, and other environmental particles.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Dean,
The conservation of momentum states that when two objects collide their energy (velocity) will equalize. This does not mean their kinetic energy (1/2mv^2) will equalize. All the molecules in a gas will equalize to the same velocity regardless of their masses.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Dean and Herb,
I have commonly read something like this: “a gas of many molecules has a predictable distribution of molecular speeds, known as the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution”.
This is why I wanted to make sure the number that a ‘mole’ (like dozen is 12) represents. It is a very, very critical number because of its ‘size’. For 0.0001% (a small percentage) of it is still and ‘huge’ number.
And the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecular speeds (contrary to what Herb claims) depends on the fact that the atmosphere is composed of many, many molecules.
And Dean I got upon in the middle of the night to agree with you about the importance of the idea of kinetic volume. But I will share this a little while later as its lunch time.
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I gather you don’t believe in the conservation of momentum. This is odd since you continue to stress the importance of evidence. Perhaps you also don’t believe in the equilibrium of energy during collisions?
Have a good day,
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Am I wrong that it seems your critical comment refers more to Maxwell and Boltzmann’s idea, which you seem to contradict which I accept as being valid,. Or, are you claiming I do not understand their idea or your idea?
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
What I was referring to is that the Maxwell-Boltzmann hypothesis conflicts with the conservation of momentum which I consider to be a theory based on observations. What observations were these theorist able to make that enabled them to distinguish between the kinetic energy of molecules, which will differ with mass, from their velocity?
Have a good day,
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You wrote “Hi Jerry,
What I was referring to is that the Maxwell-Boltzmann hypothesis conflicts with the conservation of momentum which I consider to be a theory based on observations.” (Dec. 14,1:01am)
The Conservation of Momentum is Scientific Law based solely upon observations (first demonstrated by Galileo in ‘Two New Sciences’. Hence, it is no theory but simply an observed fact which does not need to be explained with any theory to make it an reproducible observed fact.
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
If you believe that in a collision the conservation of momentum (M1v1 + M2v2 = (M1 + M2)v3) is an established fact then you must accept that the conservation of kinetic energy ((M1v3^2)/2= (M2v3^2)/2) cannot be true in a collision unless the masses are equal.
Have a good day,
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
There is a Lw of the Conservation of Energy. But as soon as you refer to Kinetic Energy you are dividing the Total Energy the initial system into parts of energy. So if you divide the Total ENERGY into KINETIC ENERGY what is the other PART of the Total ENERGY? My general answer to this question is: POTENTIAL ENERGY. And POTENTAL ENERGY can be defined to other specific types (classes) of POTENTIAL ENERGY.
Which in the case you. have proposed I consider to be Chemical Potential Energy. Such a geopotenial energy due to gravity between one body and another body.
For the equation ‘(M1v1 + M2v2 = (M1 + M2)v3)’ implies that a third body has been formed, which moves with a velocity (v3), as consequence of the collision. So what is the Chemical Energy of this new particle relative to the sum of the Chemical Energy that each had before this collision?
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Even though I tried to proofread, I see that, as usual, this effort was not at all successful. So feel free to dwell on my mistakes and ignore that which I was trying to write. Which I hope some readers might be able to understand.
Again, have a good day, Jerry .
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
The conservation of momentum is where, in an elastic collision, the two objects will have the same velocity (v3) which means they have the same energy (v^2) and energy is conserved (no potential energy) but since mass is not transferred between the objects their kinetic energy will not be equal unless the two masses are equal. Kinetic energy is a function of both energy and mass. 2 variables.
Have a good day,
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and PSI Readers,
I believe Herb is referring to the demonstration know as Newton’s Cradle. Which is based on the action of a pendulum where a steel ball is lifted and released with higher position (potential energy) and allowed to freely swing down to it lowest position with its maximum kinetic energy at which its momentum at the time of the collision is transferred through three balls which basically do not move but the kinetic energy is conserved and the fifth ball swings up to nearly the same potential energy to which that the first ball had been lifted before being released.
Google it to see a video.
But Herb, in the system you defined there were only two balls and both had a velocity. But Newton’s Cradle only one ball has a velocity, while the four other balls are stationary at the moment of collision.
So to model (demonstrate) your system we need to remove three of the five balls so only two hang in contact with each other. Then lift each to the same potential energy and release them so the collide with the same kinetic energy but not the same momentum if they are to collide with each other. For to have the two balls collide the velocity of one ball must be the negative velocity of the other ball. When the velocity of each is squared to calculate its kinetic anergy at the moment of collision there is no negative kinetic energy. But momentum is a vector quantity so at the moment of collision the sum of momentums is zero. Since before the balls were released the momentum was zero because the balls were stationary. And therefore at the moment of collision their momentums are zero as they reverse their directions of movement and swing back up to their potential energy at which their motion initially began.
Just some ramblings.
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Your rambling about something I never referred to is the result of the evidence (conservation of momentum) not supporting your beliefs (conservation of kinetic energy).You attempt to resolve this conflict by citing non observable factors (potential energy) to modify the evidence to conform to the belief. You continually cite Galileo but you still believe Aristotle and that objects with more mass will fall faster (have more energy).
Have a good day,
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Dean,
Almost forgot about Dean’s kinetic volume which I believe caused me to see what I had not seen before. For I did understand what Dean proposed. Which was that a less than spherical shaped molecule would tend to occupy a larger space when randomly spinning than when it was packed statically (without motion) together. Hence, when two water molecules become hydrogen bonded to each other so they moved as a single ‘unit’, their spinning would create a larger volume of space than the two molecules spinning independently. With the result that the volume of space occupied by these larger molecules would increase as the numbers of these ‘two water molecule’ modecules began to become stable at temperatures below 4.2
To begin to understand the influence of this spinning and bumping action upon water molecules it is essential that you know the number quantity of a ‘mole’ which Herb did not share as he shared the word ”mole. This number is 6.02 x 10^23. Hence the ‘bumps’ of the very, very small water molecules are very, very small. But another factor, not commonly mentioned, requires 273 be added to degrees Celsius to define the magnitude of temperature (for there cannot s be a negative temperature). 10C and 20C become 283K and 293K negative 10C becomes 263K. So the world of the many, many tiny, tiny atoms and molecules becomes very, very subtle because of the huge number of the mole.
Even though a liquid is quite different from a gas, the idea is that the spinning motion of the liquid molecules, as well as there linear motions, decrease with decreasing temperature. Hence, as the bumping and colliding motions become less severe, so that the hydrogen bonds which spontaneously (accidentally) form between the water molecules eventually begin to survive and larger units (masses) unit a unit of water molecules which has the same geometry of the carbon atom where each carbon atom of a diamond are bonded to four other carbon atoms. I had forgotten the fact that ice has the same structure as diamond where the carbon atoms are replaced by water molecules.
SO, thank you Dean and Herb for helping to remember what I had forgotten or had not yet seen.
Have a good day, Jerry .
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
This is one of the best science lessons I have ever received.
Thank you. Matt
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
Did you notice that it is the result of a good conversation. And when I got up at midnight I had begun my relatively long comment with a quote of Galileo’s which everyone should seriously consider.
“I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn’t learn something from him” (Galileo)
To which I had I had followed with: James, Herb, and Dean have just educated me.
Unfortunately it seems Geniuses seem not to follow Galileo’s quote.
I encourage you and every PSI to enter into conversations because one can never know what it is that you might know that will help someone else discover something they had not yet discovered or had forgotten.
Have a good day, Jerry
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
Hence, when two water molecules become hydrogen bonded to each other so they moved as a single ‘unit’, their spinning would create a larger volume of space than the two molecules spinning independently. With the result that the volume of space occupied by these larger molecules would increase as the numbers of these ‘two water molecule’ molecules began to become stable at temperatures below 4.2
James:
Well, Jerry, I appreciate the fact that you are at least taking the problem seriously — you are not glossing over details and pretending that it makes sense. This is good!
Unfortunately to make any progress at all on this you have to first understand Pauling’s error. That will not be easy for you.
Jerry:
I had forgotten the fact that ice has the same structure as diamond where the carbon atoms are replaced by water molecules.
James: Ice does not have the same structure as ice. Strangely, it would be more accurate to say that liquid water and diamond have the same structure in that in both there is comprehensive bonding. And here is another really strange thing. Ice has from 30% to 50% FEWER bonds than does liquid water. However, unlike the bonds in liquid water which have very close to zero percent polarity (thus the reason liquid water has such low viscosity) the bonds in liquid water will generally have between 50% and 25% polarity. So, the transition between liquid H2O and ice involves situational factors (the locking of H2O molecules in a broken-bonded relative orientations) that increase and maintain a higher magnitude of polarity than is possible in liquid water:
More on this here:
James McGinn / Genius
Dean Michael Jackson
| #
For your convenience, I obtained precise sizes for the gasses nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide:
The diameter of an O2 molecule is 292 picometers, and that of N2 is 300 picometers.[1] One picometer is equal to one trillionth of a meter (1 m / 1,000,000,000,000). Carbon Dioxide measures 232 pm.[2] Molar mass is often conflated for volume.
[1] http://inertion.org/oxygen-smaller-than-nitrogen/
[2[ https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23372/whats-the-size-of-carbon-dioxide
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Dean,
I have a hard time accepting your data. Triple bonds are shorter than double bonds which are shorter than two double bonds. According to bond lengths the smallest molecule would be N2 and the largest CO2.
Herb
Dean Michael Jackson
| #
“Hi Dean,
I have a hard time accepting your data. Triple bonds are shorter than double bonds which are shorter than two double bonds. According to bond lengths the smallest molecule would be N2 and the largest CO2.”
My data? It’s scientific data. Where did you get the impression it was mine? The volume of a molecule determines the molecule’s size via the molecule’s ‘electron cloud’, not the atoms’ nuclei bond length. Once again…
“The more protons there are contained in the nucleus, the stronger the positive charge and the more tightly bound the electrons are. An oxygen nucleus has eight protons and a nitrogen nucleus has seven. The oxygen nucleus attracts its electrons more strongly—literally, keeps them closer—than the nitrogen nucleus does. Even though the oxygen molecule is heavier, it has a smaller volume compared to the nitrogen molecule.”
http://inertion.org/oxygen-smaller-than-nitrogen/
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Dean and Herb,
Mainly for Dean but Herb, you did not refer to the nonsense of referring to the ‘diameters’ of these molecules as if they were spherical. And I cannot understand how carbon dioxide, a 3 atom linear molecule, could have the smallest diameter.
Have a good day, Jerry
.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Dean and Herb,
I finally looked at Dean’s references to his information. Now, I ask you both: How you not yet learned that one should not believe everything that is published???
If I remember, I compare what I read with my knowledge I gained from my personal experiences.
“The only source of knowledge is experience.” (Einstein)
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Dean,
It’s your data because you cited it. The idea that an increase in atomic number causes a decrease in the size of an atom is utterly absurd. The size of atoms increase with increase in number of electron.
The bond length in molecules decreases with increase in number of bonds. Look at the bond lengths for acetylene, ethylene, propylene. benzene, ethane, propane, etc.. The science you cite must be agriscience because it’s all bullshit.
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Kenneth,
Thank you for drawing this decades ‘old’ information to my attention. Many research results have been published but very people have read them. For most scientific journals are only read by the ‘few’ scientists who are interested in a very specific area of science. The only Journals which publishes ‘general interest’ scientific reports are Nature and Science. And the report, to which you drew to my attention, certainly does not qualify as a general interest report.
“More specifically, when the Sun rises above the horizon, temperatures abruptly warm by 10°C”
More specifically!!! Richard, or any PSI reader, can you imagine (guess) why (how) this specific information is important to me?? Since I doubt anyone reading this is a mindreader, I will answer my question.
At this this eeason in the Willamette Valley of Oregon USA, ‘morning clouds are common and I have observe that these clouds form shortly after sunrise. And I need to add our climate at this season is rainy and the the relative humidity is ofter near 100%. But the sky condition during the nighttime is usually clear. Hence, I have hypothesized that the atmospheric carbon dioxide molecules absorb a portion of the solar radiation slightly so that atmosphere near the surface is slightly warmed and the expansion of the warmed surface layer lifts the atmosphere above. Hence the lifted layer above the warmed expanded layer is adiabatically cooled and the water vapor condenses upon the condensation nuclei to form many tiny cloud droplets. But because the warmed surface layer does work in lifting the atmosphere above its temperature increase is not easily detected because the carbon dioxide molecules involve is must less than this 75% carbon dioxide atmosphere whose temperature increases a measured 10C some after sunset.
And I understand that if one has not pondered the formation of morning clouds after sunrise it is reasonably possible that one does not understand that which I have just written.
Again, thank you for sharing this information which does prove that the carbon dioxide atmosphere does not prevent the cooling of the measured atmosphere from a high of 33C in the afternoon to 23C at sunrise.
Now, the question, which I finally see, is: What happens to this 33C carbon dioxide surface layer which has been quickly warmed 10C from the lower temperature of 23C?? Because I only just saw this problem I will not immediately give my answer for this question.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Tom O
| #
I would suggest you try this again. It appears that you are trying to somehow see your morning clouds as being caused by instantly raising the atmosphere by the first rays of sunshine. Why wouldn’t the higher level of the atmosphere already be warmed by the Sun before the lower level is? Then again, I am probably looking at what you attempted to say wrongly.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Tom O,
I knew I hadn’t completely defined the atmospheric system, as defined by the atmospheric sounding (launched about 3 miles from our home at the Salem airport) being made at 4am local time time (more than 3 hours before sunrise). I was trying to keep my comment brief so maybe someone like you would read it.
When the sky condition is clear during the previous nighttime, there is a
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Tom O,
I was trying to save what I had written because I needed to refresh my memory with some actual sounding data and it got send instead of being saved.
If you go to 72694 SLE Salem Observations at 12Z 05 Dec 2020.(https//weather,uwyo,.edu/upperaer/sounding.html) you will see the data that I am reviewing as inspect a car setting at the curb in front of my house and see that it is well covered with frost (or solid ice). So maybe can see my problem in trying share what I observed and have pondered.
And about 5 minutes ago I was told I need to leave as soon as possible. But with this additional information maybe you can figure out what I had pondered.
Have a good day, Jerry.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Tom O and others,
I most add what I had pondered relative to the carbon dioxide was the water vapor which also absorbed a significant portion of the solar radiation’s near IR radiation. From the sounding data the atmospheric temperature, as conventionally measured 1.5m or so above the ground was 0C while the temperature only 24m (about 77 ft) was 4C and 5C at 105m above the ground.
Now if the 75% carbon dioxide atmosphere quickly warms t0C after sunrise it is because the ground’s temperatures do not rapidly increase 10C because of the difference of the grounds density that the gaseous atmosphere’s density. So in the case of that atmosphere nearest the surface which is warmed 10C,, I would expect the carbon dioxide not only to rapidly diffuse away from the near ‘point’ surface but to be convectively lifted by the surrounding surface layer which is no where near 35C and therefore more dense than the 75% CO2 atmosphere.
I admit the case of the morning cloud which forms soon after sun rise seem quite different. But we can not forget that the morning cloud is formed given the atmospheric conditions defined by the sounding data and the formation of frost (ice) on the car parked along the curb. And I propose the air in contact with the car and other lawns with frost at a temperature less than 0C, which I know to be the case because I use my inexpensive IR thermometer to measure the temperature of the icy surfaces. So it is easy to reason that air nearly saturated with water vapor just above the surface quickly warmed before the ice even begins to melt and the denser air in the shadows quickly begins to lift the warmed surface layer with its water vapor load.
Oh! Now I remember another observation, All the roofs of the heated house are also covered with frost. Which means, since there is no condensed cloud droplets discernible, means there is a layer of atmosphere that is not saturated with water vapor at the temperature of that atmosphere (4C maybe) However, a fact seen the data of the sounding is that there an atmospheric temperature inversion with prevents the convection which begins in the surface layer which has been suddenly warmed by tha absorption of the solar radiation’ near IR and as the solar radiation more slowly melts the frost and this liquid water evaporates to increase the water vapor content of the trapped atmosphere condensation of this water vapor on the condensation nuclei begins until magically we see a morning cloud.
Now relative to the rate of these proposed processes we must remember the incoming near IR photons being absorbed are moving at the speed of light from a very hot sun.
Have a good day, Jerry.
Reply
Nick Schroeder
| #
The Radiative GreenHouse Effect theory three-legged stool toppled – together with all the pseudo-scientific, confirmation bias, correlation = cause, climate change, Gorebal warming rubbish stacked on top.
Leg 1: By reflecting away 30% +/- of the incoming solar radiation the albedo, which could not/would not exist without the atmosphere, makes the earth cooler not warmer much like that reflective panel behind a car’s windshield. Remove the atmosphere and the albedo goes with it, i.e. no water vapor or clouds, no snow or ice, no vegetation, no oceans, the earth becomes a barren, airless, celestial rock. And much like the moon, an albedo of 10% with 20% more incoming kJ/h, hot^3 lit side, cold^3 dark. Nikolov, Kramm (U of AK) and UCLA Diviner mission all tacitly admit this scenario refuting the RGHE claim that the naked earth would become a -430 F frozen ball of ice.
Leg 2: The upwelling “trapped” and the downwelling “back” radiated energy of the GHG loop must first be removed from the terrestrial system. Removing this “extra” energy would short-change & disrupt the balance at ToA so it must be balanced by some kind of “extra” upwelling energy. LoT absolutely, positively, emphatically PROHIBITS “trapped” and/or “extra” energy.
Leg 3: The “extra” upwelling LWIR comes from an assumption that the earth’s surface radiates as an ideal black body which, by THEORETICAL definition, with unitary emissivity absorbs ALL and emits ALL. However, because of the non-radiative heat transfer participation of the contiguous atmospheric molecules, radiation becomes accountable only for (ALL – non radiative) which renders “extra” upwelling LWIR impossible. Emissivity is not 1.0 or .95 but (ALL – non-radiative)/ALL. In the case of the ubiquitous K-T power flux balance graphic: theoretical ε=63/396=0.16 or per the actual balance ε=63/160=0.39. There is no “extra” upwelling LWIR, no “extra” energy for the GHGs to “trap” and “back” radiate and no downwelling LWIR.
The alleged up/down welling measurements are the result of incorrectly applied instruments and confirmation bias. Remember cold fusion where the “extra” energy was stray currents in the apparatus. There are those who claim to measure the up/down, trapped/”back” radiated energy of the GHGs. I have explained and demonstrated how that energy cannot exist without violating the conservation of energy laws. Their extraordinary claim demanding extraordinary evidence is in their court not mine.
As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_climatechange-globalwarming-carbondioxide-activity-6655639704802852864-_5jW
Leg 1 + Leg 2 + Leg 3 = 0 RGHE + 0 GHG warming + 0 CAGW
Reply
Finn McCool
| #
750,000 ppm?
Reply
J Cuttance
| #
Isn’t it grating? This could have been a good piece if not sabotaged from within.
Reply
JaKo
| #
75% CO2 in a valley with carbonated water spring? What strange about that? — the storage of fresh produce is ran at close to 100% CO2 (to keep them fresh). Just don’t let the sun shine on that — I, for one, don’t like hot fruits;-)
Reply
Nick Schroeder
| #
Pull on your sciencey hip waders, enter only if you are truly curious.
It is my contention that up/down welling, trapped/”back” radiated GHG looping power flux, W/m^2, is allegedly “measured” because the users don’t understand that pyrgeometers use thermocouples/thermopiles to measure temperatures and do not measure power flux directly.
Power flux is inferred by applying the S-B equation to those measured temperatures and ASSUMING BB or 1.0 emissivity.
As I demonstrated in my experiments this assumption about radiation and BB is incorrect.
Because of the contiguous participating media, i.e. atmospheric molecules contributing non-radiative heat transfer, radiation does not function independently but in concert with the non-radiative processes and as such CANNOT function as a BB surface with 1.0 emissivity.
Attached is an annotated Power Point slide that confirms these points. .
See my LinkedIn for Power Point
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_greenhouseeffect-greenhousegases-ghgs-activity-6744030959290736640-RXQM
Reply
TL Winslow
| #
Nice experiment, but all the above comments are clueless as to what’s really going on. No wonder the IPCC is keeping the public fooled walking away.
First, CO2’s weak 15 micron photons have a Planck radiation temperature of -80C like dry ice and can’t melt an ice cube, or raise the temperature of the surface above -80C, period. CO2 can only cool Earth’s surface via convection.
Second, the thermodynamic adiabatic lapse rate of temperature drop with height based on the Ideal Gas Law is a function of gravity g and specific heat capacity h, i.e. g/h. Pure CO2 has a lower h than O2 and N2, hence there will be a slightly faster temperature drop.The presence of water lowers the lapse rate some, but no atmospheric gas can invert it completely and make the atmosphere warmer than the surface and hence able to raise its temperature above what the solar radiation did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_specific_heat_capacities
The speed of convection is the difference between the instantaneous actual and thermodynamic lapse rates, which the convection tries to equalize.
https://www.quora.com/What-specific-chemical-properties-of-carbon-dioxide-causes-the-greenhouse-effect-Why-chemically-is-carbon-more-reflective-than-other-gases/answer/TL-Winslow
All attempts to twist CO2 into a global warming agent are fake/junk physics pushed solely for political reasons, currently with the goal of bilking $5 trillion a year from the world for 30 years to totally ruin capitalism and soften up the world for global Marxism.All attempts to compute how many angels can dance on the head of a pin lose the public and give the money train a clear road. All we have to do is keep repeating the slogan that -80C can’t melt an ice cube. Dry ice is great for storing COVID-19 vaccines, but is a non-starter when it comes to global warming.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-importance-of-the-top-three-greenhouse-gases/answer/TL-Winslow
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-primary-science-behind-the-cause-of-man-made-climate-change-Is-CO2-really-the-main-cause-as-I-keep-seeing-news-about-other-gases-such-as-methane-being-a-much-greater-influence-on-the-atmosphere-and/answer/TL-Winslow
Read the first few paragraphs of this recent article and weep:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/12/12/where-is-the-outrage-over-climate-and-energy-policy/
Reply