CO2 Retains Heat For Only 0.0001 Seconds, Warming ‘Not Possible’
%3Amax_bytes(150000)%3Astrip_icc()%2Fcarbon-dioxide-molecule--artwork-499159817-571a1c485f9b58857d7facd4.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
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.”
Image Source: Nahle, 2011a
Image Source: Nahle, 2011b
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.
geran
| #
The Warmists won’t be able to live with 0.0001 second. They will report it as 100000 nanoseconds, to make it sound scary. They have their techniques.
But, it wouldn’t matter if CO2 retained the energy for a full year. It still couldn’t raise surface temperatures. The peak energy wavelength of an ice cube is 10.7 μ. The “colder” 15 μ photon from CO2 couldn’t even melt ice!
Reply
Squidly
| #
Bada boom !!! … Spot on Geran !!!
Just like selling a perpetual motion machine, there is simply no way to configure it to get to that result !! .. it simply is not possible in this universe !!
Reply
T L Winslow
| #
A proper understanding of the Earth’s atmospheric lapse rate rules out any attempt to make atmospheric CO2 into a warming agent for Earth’s surface.
Why? Because if CO2 “warms the atmosphere” and “piles heat”, it would wipe-out the lapse rate and heat the atmosphere hotter than the surface, allowing it to rewarm the surface as allowed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But the CO2 greenhouse warming hoaxers try to play both ends against the middle by not challenging the lapse rate while claiming that a colder atmosphere can somehow heat a hotter surface. This is a miserable hoax, and it should be case closed right there if the public understood it. John Cook’s SkepticalScience Web site is a big fraud run by scientists on the government easy street who want to keep their snouts on the hog’s teats no matter how much they have to prostitute science and themselves by pretending to be skeptics.
Here’s my Quora article patiently explaining lapse rate and drawing the unavoidable conclusions about CO2 greenhouse warming moose hockey. I wish some billionaire would finance mass distribution to every adult on Earth.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-scientific-reason-behind-normal-lapse-rate-that-is-the-decrease-in-temperature-with-increase-in-altitude/answer/TL-Winslow
Reply
Squidly
| #
But I felt it !!!! … I was definitely hotter during that period of time .. It was like a flash of greenhousery all over the place. Everything went dark, then all I could see is green! .. Greenhouses, green energies .. all green!
Reply
T L Winslow
| #
Speaking of the realclimate site, here’s one of their biggest hall of fame howlers:
[[The climate deniers claim that the colder atmosphere cannot radiate thermal radiation towards the warmer surface. This is of course nonsense. The cool Earth also sends thermal radiation towards the hot sun – how would thermal radiation leaving Earth know how warm the surface is that it’s going to hit? It’s just that the sun sends more radiation back to us – the net flow is from hot to cold. More is not implied by the second law of thermodynamics.]]
“Thermal radiation” has no heat. It’s just radiation. Only when it is absorbed by matter can it become heat. The Sun heats Earth’s surface because it is way hotter. The Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits a colder body from HEATING a warmer body. It’s not about just sending “heat radiation”. These loons actually believe that the Earth can heat the Sun 🙂 I’m still waiting for their patent on the ice cube-driven flamethrower to be granted.
My big list of all climate sites pro and con:
http://www.historyscoper.com/climateblogs.html
When I get the time I think I might create a joke book with the 100 biggest howlers from
realclimate )
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/09/can-a-blanket-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
Reply
lifeisthermal
| #
You wrote:
“The Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits a colder body from HEATING a warmer body”
It goes a bit further than that. Remember that the laws are originally about heat engines. The second law is very specific about that the only spontaneous transfer of energy is one-directional from high T to low T, and that’s what we call heat. IF there’s any transfer of energy in the opposite direction, against the potential/gradient, it can only be in the form of work. Like in electric circuits only work can transfer energy (charges) against the flow.
The second law prohibits any transfer of energy from low temperature to high temperature, unless it’s work. The GHE doesn’t even include work.
Other interesting conclusions from the laws is that, according to the first law, the difference between input power and output power is ∆U=Q-W. So for a perfect emitter, a blackbody that emits exactly the same amount of heat that it absorbs, you have ∆U=Q with no work involved. Which means that for a “grey” body the difference to a blackbody is the amount of energy converted to work. A “radiative imbalance/forcing” is about that difference to a blackbody, the heat that’s “missing” in emission. Making the bold assumption that the first law always holds, because… it always does, this means that a change in “radiative imbalance/forcing” where the rate of emitted heat is reduced by some amount, can only be a sign of more heat being converted to work. Because ∆U=Q-W says so.
The first law also tells us that any heat converted to work by a system means cooling, So according to the first law an increase in “radiative forcing” measured as reduced emission of heat to space, is a definite sign of cooling.
Since i had a glass of wine I’m gonna propose a thought about perfect blackbodies and the first law. For the perfect blackbody that absorbs a single photon in its black surface, what is necessary to emit the same amount of energy without any loss? The first law says that heat converted to work will be “lost” in terms of the heat flow, subtracted from it. So the absorbed photon must not be involved in any work to be equally emitted. This means that it can’t be emitted at another angle, not from another point on the surface, not be delayed in time etc. Because all of that would include displacement=work. So for the 100% perfect blackbody, a single absorbed photon must be emitted in the exact direction it came from, with the exact same intensity and with no delay in time. Which would lead to an instant cancel of that photon at the surface. The exact same amount of energy going in, goes out at the same time. This would make the surface pitch black no matter how much light that strikes it, all incoming rays cancel themselves at impact by an equal ray in opposite direction.
Then imagine that body in space surrounded by stars in a galaxy, all radiating towards it and all its rays cancel out at it’s surface by an exact equal force/energy in exactly opposite direction. It seems to me that it would be similar to a roller bearing which everything is balanced to. Even though this perfect blackbody sits in an ocean of light, by absorbing and emitting instantaneously exactly equal what it receives from all directions, it would be pitch black. An observer on Earth looking at it would maybe interpret it as a black hole at the center of the galaxy.🤔
It’s fun to speculate, and nobody actually knows what those “black holes” are. I think they might be perfect blackbodies, because… the first law.
Another thought, which is undeniably true, is: An observer in space at any point around the sun sees rays of light directed straight towards him. At any position around the sun, there’s contsantly rays of heat/light flowing in every direction originating from the sun. But if the observer turns his head away from the sun, space is black. Even though we know that every point in the observers field of view that appears black and empty, is packed with photons! We just can’t see photons that’s not directed straight towards us, we can’t see them from the side going past us. But they’re there, we know they are. So space is not black and empty, it’s an ocean of light. Every point of that “black empty space” is packed full of heat/light streaming straight outwards from the sun(or other stars). This should give an entirely different view on Earth and climate. It’s completely submerged in a constant heat flow like a rock in a stream. It’s not a lonely rock in empty space, it’s deep in an ocean of heat.
Sorry about using space here to speculate and maybe go offtopic, but this place has a (mostly) nice crowd and I was bored.
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
Dr Nasif Nahle orginal research first published at PSI. The billionth of a second COW absorption is followed by an emission of a longer wavelength, lower energy photon, COOLING the incoming solar radiation. The absorbed Kinetic Energy is then shared by adjoining, non absorbing N2 and O2, rises up as convective wave to the next CO2 absorption band, at 14.7 microns and -80°F, which the false Thermosphere temperature spike. Climaclownology is the worst science since the world was flat.
Reply
Matt
| #
“The Piltdown hoax stands as a cautionary tale to scientists not to be led by preconceived ideas, but to use scientific integrity and rigor in the face of novel discoveries.”
Reply
Matt
| #
The above quote comes from a Washington Post Article.
Writing in the journal Royal Society Open Science, a new team of investigators says.
Apologies for not referencing.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
I proposed many years ago that an experiment be conducted by building 2 greenhouse type buildings that are air tight and using one as the control with the atmospheric 400 ppm CO2 and the other with 4000 ppm CO2. The temp and CO2 levels and atmospheric pressure and humidity would be monitored for a year. I realize that a greenhouse is not a very good model of the atmosphere but I would predict no difference in temp between the 2 buildings during the experiment.
Reply
geran
| #
And I predict you would be correct, T. C.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
The T at the bottom will be the same.
The T at the top will be 0.24% higher with CO2 @4000ppm. This amounts to 0.7°K, if Tbottom is 288°K.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Actually, the whole column will be 0.7°K higher – top and bottom.
Reply
geran
| #
Actually, you’re still wrong, as usual.
At least you’re consistent….
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
So you deny isochoric heat capacity just like you deny solar flux can be added to geothermal flux?
Don’t project your incompetence onto other people.
geran
| #
You’re as relentless as you are wrong.
At least you’re consistent.
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran,
What type of evidence would convince you?
geran
| #
“Facts and logic” is always a good place to start.
Ron Arts
| #
Nahle’s paper was criticized heavily here:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/04/determining-the-total-emissivity-of-a-mixture-of-gases-containing-overlapping-absorption-bands/#comment-481063
I don’t know enough of the subject matter. Anyone care to comment?
Reply
geran
| #
The Warmists have to try to criticize it, Ron. If they can find even one typo, or grammar error, they believe they can change the laws of physics. That’s how they work.
CO2 can NOT warm the planet. That’s the fact they can’t change.
Reply