How Does CO2 Heat The Earth?
He was trying to explain why the Earth had grown warmer, since the end of the little ice age and proposed that the industrial revolution was adding more CO2 to the air. This trace gas was preventing heat from being radiated into space.
Knut Angstrom disagreed with the theory, claiming that because of the water in the atmosphere any effect of CO2 would be insignificant.
This argument caused Savvanti to admit that his theory was wrong and he withdrew it in the 1890s.
The science was settled over one hundred years ago.
There is about twenty times as much water in the atmosphere then there is CO2. Water absorbs heat at the Earth surface, then carries that heat up into the atmosphere, where it is released to be sent into space during condensation. Each gram of water in the atmosphere will take six hundred calories of energy and transport it to space every nine days.
This means that every day sixty seven calories of heat will be removed from the surface of the Earth by each gram of water.
Water is cooling the surface preventing it from getting hotter.
To overcome this cooling and cause the Earth to gain heat, CO2 must overcome the cooling by water and each gram of CO2 must block over twelve thousand calories of energy from being radiated into space each day.
This is obviously ridiculous.
Why, after one hundred years of settled science would the greenhouse gas theory be resurrected?
It was done by crooked politicians in order to create a fake crisis (every ten years for the last forty years they’ve predicted catastrophic consequences because of global warming).
They have corrupted science by paying fake scientists to promote their fraud and have wasted trillions of dollars (producing no effect) so they could steal billions of dollars.
It is now time to spend more money which will actually produce some positive results.
We need to put all the corrupt politicians and their accomplices into prison for the next forty years.
Bold emphasis added
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
sunsettommy
| #
He posted his first paper in 1896, On the influence of Carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground.
https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
and his other paper in 1906, The Probable Cause of Climate Fluctuations
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Arrhenius%201906,%20final.pdf
Reply
D. Boss
| #
oops, you’ve got your math wrong. 67 cal/day of heat removed by a gram of water, and if water is 20x more abundant than CO2, means 1 gram of CO2 needs to add 67*20=1,340 cal/day.
Still ridiculous, but an order of magnitude different than your presentation.
Furthermore, I have been doing my own experimental observations of this CO2 nonsense. I was raised to never trust so called authority, or I naturally distrust things as I tested nonsense my parents told me too. Don’t believe what you are told blindly, but either test it yourself, or find actual 3rd party evidence for or against the issue at hand.
So I got a good IR thermometer, calibrated it to be able to assess it’s accuracy at both higher and lower temperatures. And I set about measuring the effect of water vapor in absolute terms, against the vertical sky temperature, and against the ground temperature, at sunrise each day. (ground being grass, away from buildings or concrete/asphalt) (sky being clear air, away from cloud)
I further tested how high in altitude the IR gun was able to measure the air column, by also measuring the temperature of various cloud bases, and obtaining their actual altitude from local METAR data. The IR gun can measure from 27,000 to 30,000 feet MSL. So pretty much the whole troposphere.
Then each day at sunrise (the ground and air have had all night without solar heat input) I get the actual air temperature, 2 m above ground, and the actual relative humidity and current barometric pressure. These data are then used to determine the absolute humidity/water content in ppmv of the air. (relative humidity is deceptive as air can hold huge variations of absolute content based on air temperature)
https://www.aqua-calc.com/calculate/humidity
When I plot these values, you can easily see that water vapor is the climate thermostat – as it has 50-80 times more effect than CO2 on an annual basis.
The average absolute humidity at my location is around 21,500 ppmv. The data shows a direct relationship between absolute humidity and the amount of heat radiated from the ground, or from the sky column is directly proportional.
At my [South Florida] location, the range of absolute humidity is from 5,000 ppm on a cold winter day to peaks of about 32,000 ppm in sweltering summer. So a wide range makes it a particularly telling set of data.
I plot the radiative flux from the ground and the sky, with Stefan-Boltzman. Not sure if I can insert a chart into this forum, but as an example this morning’s data is as follows:
Air temp = 78F; ground temp = 75F; air column temp = 18F; R.H = 79%; pressure = 1018.2 mb
Absolute Humidity = 26,084 ppmv
Radiative flux from ground = 418.5 w/m² (upwards)
Radiative flux from sky = 266.5 w/m² (downwards)
Net radiative flux upwards = 152 w/m²
Now the IPCC says CO2 has a radiative flux at 1.8 w/m². If we take 266.5 for today’s air column, divided by CO2’s flux of 1.8 we get 148 times more from water vapor than CO2. Of course annual average is not as today, that comes in more like 50-80 times more effect for natural water vapor than CO2.
This is a simple test anyone can do with some perseverance and a little diligence and math/spreadsheet acumen. I have 2.5 years of data and it’s pretty clear that CO2 is not the thermostat, water vapor is.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi D.Boss,
Thanks for the info but I realized after I submitted the article that the 9 day hydro cycle is irrelevant. Each gram of water is transferring the 600 calories and as that heat is released into space the next gram evaporated water takes its turn releasing another 600 calories so during the day it is a continuous process..
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi D. Boss and PSI Readers.
D. Boss has done what Herb should do. However, he concluded: “I have 2.5 years of data and it’s pretty clear that CO2 is not the thermostat, water vapor is.” From which I conclude that he maybe and other PSI readers may not have read about how water vapor is actually as thermostat which has nothing to do with the fact that water molecules absorb certain photons.
(https://principia-scientific.com/dr-jerry-l-krause-how-stupid-am-i/)
And given what D. did and wrote about, I doubt if he is aware of to USA government research projects which are commonly being ignored by most everyone. Just as only few have probably done what D. Boss has done.
(https://principia-scientific.com/surface-temperature-sometimes-things-are-too-simple/)
(https://principia-scientific.com/validation-of-earths-surface-skin-radiative-temp-measurement-hence-air-temp-proxy-of-surface-temp-bad/)
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause,
| #
Hi D. Boss and PSI Readers,
Please consider the following.
32–5 Scattering of light
(https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu)
“There are several points to be made about the above results. One interesting question is, why do we ever see the clouds? Where do the clouds come from? Everybody knows it is the condensation of water vapor. But, of course, the water vapor is already in the atmosphere before it condenses, so why don’t we see it then? After it condenses it is perfectly obvious. It wasn’t there, now it is there. So the mystery of where the clouds come from is not really such a childish mystery as “Where does the water come from, Daddy?,” but has to be explained.
“We have just explained that every atom scatters light, and of course the water vapor will scatter light, too. The mystery is why, when the water is condensed into clouds, does it scatter such a tremendously greater amount of light?”
I skip Feynman’s theoretical reasoning to fast forward to its result. “That is to say, the scattering of water in lumps of N molecules each is N times more intense than the scattering of the single atoms. So as the water agglomerates the scattering increases. Does it increase ad infinitum? No! When does this analysis begin to fail? How many atoms can we put together before we cannot drive this argument any further? Answer: If the water drop gets so big that from one end to the other is a wavelength or so, then the atoms are no longer all in phase because they are too far apart. So as we keep increasing the size of the droplets we get more and more scattering, until such a time that a drop gets about the size of a wavelength, and then the scattering does not increase anywhere nearly as rapidly as the drop gets bigger. Furthermore, the blue disappears, because for long wavelengths the drops can be bigger, before this limit is reached, than they can be for short wavelengths. Although the short waves scatter more per atom than the long waves, there is a bigger enhancement for the red end of the spectrum than for the blue end when all the drops are bigger than the wavelength, so the color is shifted from the blue toward the red.
“Now we can make an experiment that demonstrates this. We can make particles that are very small at first, and then gradually grow in size. We use a solution of sodium thiosulfate (hypo) with sulfuric acid, which precipitates very fine grains of sulfur. As the sulfur precipitates, the grains first start very small, and the scattering is a little bluish. As it precipitates more it gets more intense, and then it will get whitish as the particles get bigger. In addition, the light which goes straight through will have the blue taken out. That is why the sunset is red, of course, because the light that comes through a lot of air, to the eye has had a lot of blue light scattered out, so it is yellow-red.”
In (https://principia-scientific.com/the-corvallis-or-uscrn-site-a-natural-laboratory-part-three/) is a photo I took of the sun, rising over the crest of the Cascade Mountains about 60 miles away and through a wildfire, about 150 miles to the east, smoke bank. The rising sun is not the fire engine red which I saw because the direct solar radiation is over exposed. But the blue-light of the cloud bank is not over exposed. It is clear evidence, according to Feynman’s scattering theory, that the smoke particles are approximately the size of the wavelength of blue light. And “the light that comes through a lot of air, to the eye has had a lot of blue light scattered out, so it is yellow-red.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Shawn Marshall
| #
So how many ice cubes in an egg basket above my coffee will warm it up🤪
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Shawn,
For an explanation on how cold heats hot by convection (not by radiation) see my article in PSI “How Cold Heats Hot”.
I tried to write this article with as little science as possible to avoid that eye glazed over look that occurs when you argue with someone who knows nothing of science. They know how the evaporation of water cools and what calories are so I hoped this explanation of how its hard to heat a house with the air conditioning on would demonstrate the folly of the GHGT based on their knowledge from experience. There is no science in the GHGT and the fraudsters have used scientificish lies, counting on people’s ignorance, to commit this scam.
Herb
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
“ CO2 must overcome the cooling by water and each gram of CO2 must block …” Professor J.W. Woods’ experiment of 1904 fairly showed that entrapment and blocking of heat by CO2, an infrared radiation (IR) active gas was less than a Celsius degree in 65. Outside enclosed space non-radiant conduction and convection is the major coolant. The hydrologic cycle partners this atmospheric transport of energy from the heated surface to cooler altitudes and latitudes.
It seems doubtful CO2 warming by “block[ing] energy radiated” away (i.e., warms what was cooled?). Svante was clearly not following Max Planck’s work at the time. Otherwise he would note by Wilhelm Wien’s Displacement Law that the gas’s quantum number keeps its activity overwhelmingly to -80°C (minus 80) transmission in the stratosphere and Antarctic plateau – with a secondary 29°C band directly warming the ozone layer through the atmospheric window. (Salbv, 2012, Ch. 8.) CO2’s major spectral absorption and emission band peaks at about 15 microns, radiating at subzero temp. This is visible in the satellite pictures as a large missing wedge of outgoing IR radiation at that wavelength/frequency. CO2 has removed most of that band of on its way in.
As I understand it, cooling in the troposphere is mostly by the non-radiant 99.96% of gases that provide plentiful free molecules for conducting and convecting thermal energy away from the heated surface to cooler altitudes and latitudes. Water, evaporating at the surface, then cooling and condensing at altitude, is a very significant parallel energy transport. Both these masses of warmed molecules moving within gravity all but entirely offset the continuous incoming heat of the sun, the Earth’s sole energy source. Very impressively, they do this as a precisely balanced function – cycling away neither more nor less heat from the surface than the sun delivers. If it they did not, the atmosphere we depend on would not last long, much less exist. No CO2 needed.
Finally, I have begun to believe it is a fatal error to address any climate problem using alarmist assumptions as valid and correct. A lawyer would demur rather than answer; there is no viable cause of action there. Two significant papers have pretty well gutted, fileted and trashed alarmist positions. Read them, kick out the CAGWH and start fresh.
See – Gerlich, Gerhard, & Ralf D. Tscheuschner, “Falsification of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame of physics. “ International J. of modern physics B, v. 23, No.3 (2009), 275-364 and Kramm, Gerhard & Ralph Diugi, “Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact,” Natural Science, 17 Oct. 2011, v. 3, pp. 971-998. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ns.2011.32124
Reply
Massimo Ippolito
| #
Please, correct the dates about Svante Arrhenius according the sunsettommy comment.
Reply