Living Room Instead of Greenhouse Model?
About 5 years ago I was convinced that global warming could not be caused by the Green house effect.
After all, in the last 200 years it has happened four times that the global temperature dropped while the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere kept rising.
To support this opinion more scientifically, I applied a special mathematical operation to the very noiselike graph of the global temperature, which filters out all that noise, but preserves the essence.
The result was a much clearer contradiction between global temperature and CO2 concentration, which I interpreted as a confirmation of my opinion.
Shortly thereafter I realized that the graph also shows a clear long-term increase, which ultimately shows a strong correlation with the CO2 concentration.
Eventually it could be made clearly visible that a precise sinusoidal (64-year period) change is the cause of what led originally to the qualification: conflicting observations. This curious phenomenon has to be seen as completely independent of the long-term increase in global temperature.
I was convinced of the correctness of the Green house effect. However, in my original article: “Relation Between CO2, Global Temperature and Energy Consumption”, I wrote already:
“The increase in global temperature can thus easily and directly be calculated from the
increase in the worldwide generated power, without considering CO2 emissions”!
Based on the physical law that prescribes that all consumed energy is fully converted into heat, the idea arose that the increase of the global temperature could, in principle, be caused by direct heating due to the consumed energy. In this report called the “Living room model”.
The result of the theoretical investigation of this Living room model, shown in chapter VII, forces to the conclusion that this model is much more likely than the Green house one. This implies that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere does not cause the increase of the global temperature.
Investigation of the relation between the emitted CO2, for example in terms of Gigaton/year, and its concentration in the atmosphere, learns that during the past 50 years the atmosphere did absorb relatively more CO2 than the years before. Instead of the distribution 30 – 70 a century ago, the distribution is now 40 – 60, meaning that the atmosphere absorbs more of the emitted CO2, due to its higher temperature, at the expense of earth’s surface absorption.
A kind of Reverse Green house model!
Read the full paper at http://vixra.org/abs/1906.0410
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.
Oneshotorgan
| #
Yo, the greenhouse effect is not real, and the earth has stopped warming in 1999. It hasn’t warmed since, and co2 cannot cause warming. Post your fallacious alarmist paper somewhere else, you alarmist! This is a website that doesn’t promote alarmism. Skeptical science on the other hand would love your fallacious paper!
Reply
Sjaak Uitterdijk
| #
Look at figure II.3 of my report, try to understand chapter II.2 and come to the conclusion that ostensibly, I repeat: ostensibly, the earth has stopped warming in 1999.
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
Actually, there has been no significant warming since 1988, 31 years.
I should be pointed out that, while man’s CO2 emissions go up logarithmically, atmospheric CO2 is going up linearly. This means that out emissions are having no effect on atmospheric concentrations. Thus, we are not warming the climate with CO2, regardless of whether is it a “greenhouse” or radiation gas.
We are not in control of atmospheric CO2.
Reply
Sjaak Uitterdijk
| #
Charles,
I have to advise you to read chapter II more carefully in order to prevent such misconclusions.
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
The Sun shines through your window and warms your floor, therefore GLASS is a warming agent. The Sun shines through the atmosphere, 30% of the incoming energy is absorbed and immediately emitted as lower energy, longer wavelength IR, or is reflected. How can the atmosphere “warm” by day. At night, the atmosphere delays cooling, but….
DELAYED COOLING IS NOT WARMING….QED
Reply
Tom Harding
| #
The lowest temperature of our atmosphere is ~-65 degrees F reached at 68000 feet
and is constant thru the troposphere.
So, in view of that how can a mass of hot air be accumulating causing our planet to
warm as a result? Why doesn’t that heat cause the temperature in the troposphere to
warm?
Looking for answers.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Tom,
The thermometer does not give an accurate indication of kinetic energy. In a 100 C oven and a pan of boiling water the thermometers will record the same temperature meaning they are receiving the same total heat. In the water there are a million more molecules transferring heat to the thermometer than in the oven. The mass of the water molecules transferring heat is greater in the water. Since the total heat is the same this means that the velocity of the fewer molecules in the oven must be greater and they have greater kinetic energy despite the thermometer saying they have the same.
In the atmosphere the number of molecules transferring heat to the thermometer decreases with increasing altitude (lower density). Is the lower temperature recorded by the thermometer a result of lower kinetic energy (velocity) of the molecules or fewer molecules (less mass) transferring energy to the thermometer?
The only way to tell is by using the universal gas law (PV =nrt) to find the kinetic energy of a constant number of molecules. (Note the pressure referred to in the universal gas law is NOT atmospheric pressure. It is the pressure that confines the atmosphere and resists its expansion, gravity. Since gravity is measured from the center of the Earth the added 30 miles of the atmosphere only results a 1.5 % change in pressure. Pressure can be considered constant.) To find the kinetic energy of the molecules in the atmosphere you must divide the temperature read by the thermometer (total heat) at an altitude by the density of the air at that altitude.
When this is done it shows the kinetic energy of the gas molecules in the atmosphere slowly increasing in the troposphere (moderated by water) until the boiling point of water is reached at the stratosphere. At this point the kinetic energy increases in an exponential curve showing that it is the sun that heats the Earth.
Herb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Doug,
I don’t like answering you because humoring fools only encourages them.
Every thing above absolute zero radiates energy. Equilibrium doesn’t stop this, it just means the energy being absorbed from an object is equal to the energy being transferred to .it Dumbass
Kinetic energy is a function of velocity of molecules and their mass. If there are more objects striking an object there is more mass and the kinetic energy will increase even if all the molecules have the same mass and velocity. Here’s an experiment for you.See if you can figure out how to do it. Instead of submerging just the bulb of a thermometer into boiling water, submerge part of the thermometer’s tube. This magically causes the mean kinetic energy of the boiling water to increase even if you remove the source of energy and shows that you can raise the boiling point of water above 100 C without increasing pressure.
The pressure on atmosphere holding it to the Earth and resisting its expansion into space is gravity, idiot. Atmospheric pressure is the weight of the molecules in the atmosphere.
Why do you continue to post comments when you know they will be deluded? Its because a fool must continually demonstrate his foolishness.
Reply
John
| #
Can he explain the Roman and Middle ages warm period? Where people did not emit co2?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
They farted a lot more.
Reply