Try Your Own Falsification of the CO2 Greenhouse Effect

Comments (4)

• 

  very old white guy

  November 13, 2025 at 10:57 am | #

  Not much point in discussing this any longer. The terminally stupid are in control and unless or until we do something about that nothing will change and the spiral downward will continue.

  Reply

• 

  Jerry Krause

  November 13, 2025 at 8:59 pm | #

  Hi VOWG and Others,

  (https://principia-scientific.com/solar-radiation-sufficient-no-greenhouse-effect-certain-atmospheric-gases/)

  Have a good day

  Reply

• 

  crackpot

  November 14, 2025 at 1:19 am | #

  R.W. Wood did a dual-greenhouse experiment in 1909, but he used a non-IR absorbing salt window in the control – the glass alone was the IR source in the other. He also isolated conduction and convection. His experiment was repeated and extended to include CO2 by Prof. Nahle, although you can’t get the equivalent of a 50-miles of CO2 at 400 ppm in a small chamber. I repeated Wood’s experiment myself and extended it to include the claimed “super GHG” methane and the “super-duper GHG” nitrous oxide – no temperature rise. The GGE does not exist.

  It’s important to note that Wood’s was a disproving experiment, the only kind of settled science there is.

  There are two types of experiments, proving and disproving. If you seek to prove a claimed cause-effect relationship, you isolate variables as best you can, and apply a small dose of the claimed cause – you feed the rats a little saccharin. If they don’t get cancer, it doesn’t really mean anything, as they may with higher doses. If they do get cancer, you add proof to your theory, but there’s always the chance you didn’t isolate variables properly, and something else was the cause. Someone can come along with a different experiment design, better isolation, and have no effect. A proving experiment thus requires repeats by others and is never “settled.” As Feynman said, “You can never be sure you’re right, only that you haven’t been proven wrong yet.”

  If you seek to disprove, you isolate variables, then apply a large dose of the claimed cause – you feed the rats a ton of saccharin. If they get cancer, it doesn’t really mean anything, as they may not at lower doses. But, if they don’t get cancer, you’ve disproved the theory – forever. It really doesn’t require repeat, except to see for yourself. As Einstein said, “A thousand experiments will never prove my theory right, but a single experiment can prove it wrong.”

  Using glass, which absorbs and emits far more infrared than CO2 (or a salt window), applies a much higher dose of the claimed cause of surface warming, “back-radiative forcing.” No effect means the GGH was permanently disproved experimentally over a century ago.

  Reply

• 

  LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

  November 15, 2025 at 10:22 am | #

  This can be accomplished with more precision utilizing Linear Thermistors (such as the Texas Instruments TMP61) connected across a Wheatstone Bridge. Any deflection of the gauge in the Wheatstone Bridge will show which container is warmer.

  https://www.ti.com/lit/ta/ssztc25/ssztc25.pdf

  But we really needn’t go to such lengths, when we can prove in a scientifically-rigorous and mathematically-precise manner that the AGW / CAGW hypothesis has been disproved.

  The AGW / CAGW hypothesis is predicated upon mathematical fraudery (the misuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation in Energy Balance Climate Models (EBCMs), using the idealized blackbody form of the equation upon real-world graybody objects, which essentially isolates all objects into their own system such that objects cannot interact via the ambient EM field by assuming emission to 0 K, and which thus conjures “backradiation” out of thin air), and upon misattribution of cause to effect (the claim by the climatologists that their wholly-fictive “AGW / CAGW (due to greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)))” causes the atmospheric temperature gradient, when we know full well (and can mathematically and empirically prove) that the atmospheric temperature gradient is actually caused by the Adiabatic Lapse Rate.

  With the AGW / CAGW hypothesis disproved, that leaves only the Adiabatic Lapse Rate (ALR)… a long-known and well-corroborated physical phenomenon… the blue-shifting of temperature as one descends a gravity well in an atmosphere due to gravitational auto-compression. The “ECS” (ie: change in adiabatic lapse rate) of CO2 is only 0.00000190472202445 K km-1 ppm-1 (when accounting for the atoms and molecules which CO2 displaces).

  You will note that the climatologists have conflated their wholly-fictive “AGW / CAGW (due to greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)))” (a radiative energy phenomenon that does not and cannot exist) with the gravitational auto-compression of the ALR (a kinetic energy phenomenon).

  We can prove that AGW / CAGW is nothing more than a complex mathematical scam… utilizing bog-standard radiative theory, cavity theory, entropy theory, quantum field theory, thermodynamics, dimensional analysis and the fundamental physical laws… all taken straight from physics tomes and all hewing completely to the fundamental physical laws.

  AGW / CAGW describes a physical process which is physically impossible.

  https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711

  It starts with the climatologists clinging to the long-debunked Prevost Principle from 1791, which postulates that an object’s radiant exitance is determined solely by that object’s absolute temperature, therefore that all objects > 0 K emit, therefore that energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to the energy density gradient, therefore that “backradiation” exists, therefore that the “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)” exists, therefore that “greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))” exist, therefore that “AGW / CAGW (due to greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)))” is possible, therefore that all of the offshoots of AGW / CAGW (carbon footprint, carbon credit trading, carbon capture and sequestration, net zero, degrowth, total electrification, banning ICE vehicles, replacing reliable grid-inertia-contributing baseload electrical generation with intermittent renewables, etc.) are justified.

  Because of this, they misuse the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation in their Energy Balance Climate Models (EBCMs) (which I prove using the Kiehl-Trenberth ‘Earth Energy Balance’ graphic, which is a graphical representation of the mathematical results in their EBCM), which conjures “backradiation” out of thin air.

  There are two forms of the S-B equation:
  https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif

  [1] Idealized Blackbody Object form (assumes emission to 0 K and ε = 1 by definition):
  q_bb = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
  = 1 σ (T_h^4 – 0 K)
  = σ T^4

  [2] Graybody Object form (assumes emission to > 0 K and ε < 1):
  q_gb = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)

  This is how climatologists conjure “backradiation” out of thin air by misusing the S-B equation in their Energy Balance Climate Models:
  https://i.imgur.com/V2lWC3f.png

  Climatologists misuse the S-B equation, using the idealized blackbody form of the equation upon real-world graybody objects. This essentially isolates each object into its own system so objects cannot interact via the ambient EM field. It assumes emission to 0 K, and it thus artificially inflates radiant exitance of all calculated-upon objects. Thus the climatologists must carry these incorrect values through their calculations and cancel them on the back end to get their equation to balance, subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow.

  That wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow is otherwise known as ‘backradiation’. It is nothing more than a mathematical artifact due to the misuse of the S-B equation. It does not and cannot exist. Its existence would imply rampant violations of the fundamental physical laws (energy spontaneously flowing up an energy density gradient in violation of 2LoT).

  The S-B equation for graybody objects isn’t meant to be used by subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow, it’s meant to be used by subtracting cooler object energy density from warmer object energy density to arrive at the energy density gradient, which determines radiant exitance of the warmer object. This is true even for the traditional graybody form of the S-B equation, because Temperature (T) is equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density (e) divided by Stefan’s Constant (a) (ie: the radiation energy density constant (J m-3 K-4)), per Stefan’s Law.

  Note that Stefan’s Law is different than the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

  e = T^4 a
  a = 4σ/c
  e = T^4 4σ/c
  T^4 = e/(4σ/c)
  T^4 = e/a
  T = 4^√(e/(4σ/c))
  T = 4^√(e/a)

  We can plug Stefan’s Law:
  T = 4^√(e/a)
  …into the traditional Stefan-Boltzmann equation for graybody objects:
  q = ε_h σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
  … which reduces to the energy density form of the S-B equation:
  q = ε_h * (σ / a) * Δe

  Canceling units, we get W m-2.
  W m-2 = (W m-2 K-4 / J m-3 K-4) * ΔJ m-3

  NOTE: (σ / a) = W m-2 K-4 / J m-3 K-4 = W m-2 / J m-3.

  That is the conversion factor for radiant exitance (W m-2) and energy density (J m-3).

  The radiant exitance of the warmer graybody object is determined by the energy density gradient and its emissivity.

  Energy can’t even spontaneously flow when there is zero energy density gradient (ie: at thermodynamic equilibrium):
  σ [W m-2 K-4] / a [J m-3 K-4] * Δe [J m-3] * ε_h = [W m-2]
  σ [W m-2 K-4] / a [J m-3 K-4] * 0 [J m-3] * ε_h = 0 [W m-2]

  Or, in the traditional form of the S-B equation:
  q = ε_h σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
  q = ε_h σ (0) = 0 W m-2

  … it is certainly not going to spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.

  Note 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense:

  “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”

  ‘Heat’ [ M1 L2 T-2 ] is definitionally an energy [ M1 L2 T-2 ] flux (note the identical dimensionality), thus equivalently:

  “Energy can never flow from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”

  That “some other change” typically being external energy doing work upon the system energy to pump it up the energy density gradient, which is what occurs in, for example, AC units and refrigerators.

  Remember that temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant, per Stefan’s Law, thus equivalently:

  “Energy can never flow from a lower to a higher energy density without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”

  Or, as I put it:

  “Energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.”

  My statement is merely a restatement of 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense, but you’ll note my statement takes all forms of energy into account… because all forms of energy follow the same rules, the same fundamental physical laws.

  Do remember that a warmer object will have higher energy density at all wavelengths than a cooler object:

  https://web.archive.org/web/20240422125305if_/https://i.stack.imgur.com/qPJ94.png

  … so there is no physical way possible by which energy can spontaneously flow from cooler (lower energy density) to warmer (higher energy density). ‘Backradiation’ is nothing more than a mathematical artifact conjured out of thin air due to the climatologists misusing the S-B equation.

  “But they’ve measured backradiation!”, some may claim. Yeah, no.

  https://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/08/how-to-fool-yourself-with-pyrgeometer.html

  As Professor Claes Johnson shows in that article on his website, pyrgeometers (the instrument typically used to ‘measure’ backradiation) utilize the same sort of misuse of the S-B equation as the climatologists use. The bastardized form of the S-B equation used by pyrgeometers [ usually some form of q = (σ T_h^4 – σ T_c^4) or equivalently L_d = U_emf/S + σT_b, as outlined in the documentation for the instrument, with U_emf/S being negative in sign ] apriori assumes a subtraction of a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but far too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow, which as is shown, is fallacious.

  This is why energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient…

  As Δe → 0, ΔT → 0, q → 0. As q → 0, the ratio of graybody object total emissive power to idealized blackbody object total emissive power → 0. In other words, emissivity → 0. At thermodynamic equilibrium for a graybody object, there is no radiation energy density gradient and thus no impetus for photon generation.

  Remember that all action requires an impetus, that impetus will always be in the form of a gradient of some sort, and spontaneous action is always down the slope of that gradient.

  As Δe → 0, ΔT → 0, photon chemical potential → 0, photon Free Energy → 0. At zero chemical potential, zero Free Energy, the photon can do no work, so there is no impetus for the photon to be absorbed. The ratio of the absorbed to the incident radiant power → 0. In other words, absorptivity → 0.

  α = absorptivity = absorbed / incident radiant power
  ρ = reflectivity = reflected / incident radiant power
  τ = transmissivity = transmitted / incident radiant power

  α + ρ + τ = 100%

  For opaque surfaces τ = 0% ∴ α + ρ = 100%

  If α = 0%, 0% + ρ = 100% ∴ ρ = 100% … all incident photons are reflected at thermodynamic equilibrium for graybody objects, which is why entropy does not change at thermodynamic equilibrium… because no energy flows (see below).

  This coincides with standard cavity theory… applying cavity theory outside a cavity, for two graybody objects at thermodynamic equilibrium, no energy flows, no absorption nor emission takes place. The system reaches a state of quiescence (which is the definition of thermodynamic equilibrium). The photons remaining in the intervening space set up a standing wave, with the wavemode nodes at the object surfaces by dint of the boundary constraints. Nodes being a zero-crossing point (and anti-nodes being the positive and negative peaks), no energy can be transferred into or out of the objects. Photon chemical potential is zero, they can do no work, photon Free Energy is zero, they can do no work… there is no impetus for the photons to be absorbed. Should one object change temperature, the standing wave becomes a traveling wave with the group velocity proportional to the radiation energy density gradient and in the direction of the cooler object.

  Now, obviously, if energy cannot spontaneously flow when there is zero energy density gradient (ie: at thermodynamic equilibrium), it certainly cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.

  The problem, however, for the climate alarmists is that their take on radiative energy exchange necessitates that at thermodynamic equilibrium, objects are furiously emitting and absorbing radiation (this is brought about because they claim that objects emit only according to their temperature (rather than according to the radiation energy density gradient), thus for objects at the same temperature in an environment at the same temperature, all would be furiously emitting and absorbing radiation… in other words, they claim that graybody objects emit > 0 K), and they’ve forgotten about entropy… if the objects (and the environment) are furiously emitting and absorbing radiation at thermodynamic equilibrium as their incorrect take on reality must claim, why does entropy not change?

  The second law states that there exists a state variable called entropy S. The change in entropy (ΔS) is equal to the energy transferred (ΔQ) divided by the temperature (T).

  ΔS = ΔQ / T

  Only for reversible processes does entropy remain constant. Reversible processes are idealizations. They don’t actually exist. All real-world processes are irreversible.

  The climatologists claim that energy can flow from cooler to warmer because they cling to the long-debunked Prevost Principle from 1791, which states that an object’s radiant exitance is dependent only upon that object’s absolute temperature, and thus they treat real-world graybody objects as though they’re idealized blackbody objects via: q = σ T^4. Sometimes they slap emissivity onto that, often not.

  … thus the climate alarmists claim that all objects emit radiation if they are above 0 K. In reality, idealized blackbody objects emit radiation if they are above 0 K, whereas graybody objects emit radiation if their temperature is greater than 0 K above whatever is within that object’s view factor.

  But their claim means that in an environment at thermodynamic equilibrium, all objects (and the ambient) would be furiously emitting and absorbing radiation, but since entropy doesn’t change at thermodynamic equilibrium, the climatologists must claim that radiative energy transfer is an idealized reversible process. Except radiative energy transfer is an irreversible process, which destroys their claim.

  In reality, at thermodynamic equilibrium, no energy flows, the system reaches a quiescent state (the definition of thermodynamic equilibrium), which is why entropy doesn’t change. A standing wave is set up by the photons remaining in the intervening space between two objects at thermodynamic equilibrium, with the standing wave nodes at the surface of the objects by dint of the boundary constraints (and being wave nodes (nodes being the zero crossing points, anti-nodes being the positive and negative peaks), no energy can be transferred into or out of the objects). Should one object change temperature, the standing wave becomes a traveling wave, with the group velocity proportional to the radiation energy density differential (the energy flux is the energy density differential times the group velocity), and in the direction toward the cooler object. This is standard cavity theory, applied to objects.

  All idealized blackbody objects above absolute zero emit radiation, assume emission to 0 K and don’t actually exist, they’re idealizations.

  Real-world graybody objects with a temperature greater than zero degrees above whatever is within their view factor emit radiation. Graybody objects emit (and absorb) according to the radiation energy density gradient.

  It’s right there in the S-B equation, which the climate alarmists fundamentally misunderstand:

  https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif

  All real-world processes are irreversible processes, including radiative energy transfer, because radiative energy transfer is an entropic temporal process.

  Their mathematical fraudery is what led to their ‘energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to radiation energy density gradient‘ narrative (in their keeping with the long-debunked Prevost Principle), which led to their ‘backradiation‘ narrative, which led to their ‘CAGW‘ narrative, all of it definitively, mathematically, scientifically proven to be fallacious.

  Now, they use that wholly-fictive “backradiation” to claim that this causes the “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”, which they use to designate polyatomics as “greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))”.

  You will note that it’s always polyatomics… they had to use radiative molecules to get their “backradiation” scam to work… monoatomics have no vibrational mode quantum states and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR in any case; and homonuclear diatomics have a net-zero electric dipole which must be perturbed via collision in order to emit (or absorb) IR, except collisions occur exponentially less frequently as altitude increases due to air density exponentially decreasing with altitude.

  They then use that to claim certain of those polyatomics cause AGW / CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, due to CO2), from which springs all the offshoots of AGW / CAGW: net zero, carbon footprint, carbon credit trading, carbon capture and sequestration, degrowth, total electrification, banning ICE vehicles, replacing reliable baseload generation with intermittent renewables, etc.

  Except “backradiation” is physically impossible. Energy does not and cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.

  Thus the “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)” is physically impossible.

  Thus “greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))” are physically impossible.

  Thus “AGW / CAGW (due to greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)))” is physically impossible.

  Thus all of the offshoots of AGW / CAGW are based upon a physical impossibility.

  The climatologists know that “backradiation” is physically impossible, thus their “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)” is physically impossible… but they had to show it was having an effect, so they hijacked the Average Humid Adiabatic Lapse Rate.

  We know the planet’s emission curve is roughly analogous to that of an idealized blackbody object emitting at 255 K. And we know the ‘effective emission height’ at that temperature is ~5.105 km.

  6.5 K km-1 * 5.105 km = 33.1815 K temperature gradient + 255 K = 288.1815 K surface temperature

  That 6.5 K km-1 is the Average Humid Adiabatic Lapse Rate. That 33.1815 K temperature gradient and 288.1815 K surface temperature is what the climatologists try to claim is caused by their “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”… except it’s not. It’s caused by the Average Humid Adiabatic Lapse Rate, and that has nothing to do with any “backradiation”, nor any “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”, nor any “greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))”.

  The Adiabatic Lapse Rate is caused by the atmosphere converting z-axis DOF (Degree of Freedom) translational mode (kinetic) energy to gravitational potential energy with altitude (and vice versa), that change in z-axis kinetic energy equipartitioning with the other 2 linearly-independent DOF upon subsequent collisions, per the Equipartition Theorem. This is why temperature falls as altitude increases (and vice versa).

  In short, the climatologists have misattributed their completely-fake “backradiation” as the cause of the atmospheric temperature gradient which is actually caused by the Adiabatic Lapse Rate and its associated gravitational auto-compression (the blue-shifting of temperature as one descends a gravity well in an atmosphere).

  We cannot have two simultaneous but completely different causes for the same effect (one radiative energy… the wholly-fictive “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”; and one kinetic energy… the Adiabatic Lapse Rate). If we did, we’d have double the effect. One must go. And the one which must go is the mathematically-fraudulent “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”.

  That leaves only the Adiabatic Lapse Rate. And we can calculate the exact change in temperature gradient (and thus surface temperature) for any given change in concentration of any given atmospheric gas.

  For instance, the “ECS” (ie: the change in Adiabatic Lapse Rate) of CO2 is only 0.00000190472202445 K km-1 ppm-1 (when accounting for the atoms and molecules which CO2 displaces).

  So as one can see, it’s all nothing more than a complex mathematical scam. I’ve unwound that scam above.

  If you’re curious about the temperature change for any given change in concentration of any given constituent atmospheric atomic or molecular species, see the PatriotAction URL above. I’ve reverse-engineered the adiabatic lapse rate (ALR), deriving each gas’s contribution to the ALR from the concentration of each constituent gas. I’ve included the equations, so you can confirm the maths yourself.

  But wait! There’s more! Once the climate loons started lying to sustain their narrative, they found they had to lie about everything. They typically do this by inverting reality, by flipping causality… because the easiest lie to tell is an inversion of reality. They needn’t invent entirely new physics to explain and describe their claims, and most people are too scientifically-illiterate to discern between reality and flipped-causality inverted-reality anyway.

  Here’s just a couple of things they’re lying about:
  https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/1gsv82i/corals_and_mollusks_were_being_lied_to/?rdt=62203&sort=new

  https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/1h93i15/the_paradox_of_co2_sequestration/?rdt=57057&sort=new

  Reply