All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:

Thursday, 21 November 2013

When will the Alarmist charlatans sneak off into the Sunset?

Professor Ole Humlum, Professor of Physical Geography at the University of Oslo has released his latest Climate4You to end of October 2013 (link pdf)

So, is the planet suffering catastrophic global warming (CAGW)? Well not according to the surface air record.

All three surface air temperature records continue to show negative temperature trends for the last 5 to 10 years. NCDC and HadCRUT4 show at least 10 years of cooling. And GISS data also show no warming for 10 years.

But aren't we told that rising atmospheric CO2, or specifically man's emissions of CO2 are causing catastrophic global warming?

Even over at the Alarmist's paid Climate Disinformation site (UN) Skeptical Science, we find that their Temperature Trend Calculator shows that the RSS satellite data have been trending down  for 16 years since 1997 (Link)
Skeptical Science Trend Calculator

So what has happened with carbon dioxide?

Graph: Climate4You

Well, according to Professor Humlum's graph (see above) from the Mauna Loa data;  in 1997 atmospheric CO2 was at around 365ppmv and currently it is ~395ppmv - an increase of 30. That is an increase of around 8%.  So for the last 16 years: 8% increase in CO2 but negative warming; increase in CO2 but decline in temperatures. IS this ANOTHER falsification of the man-made global warming hypothesis?

Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Einstein’s words express a foundational principle of science intoned by the logician, Karl Popper: Falsifiability. In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false. A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis, but one critical failure could result in its demise. The history of science is littered with such examples.

When will these charlatans hand back their grant millions and sneak off into the Sunset?


  1. Lance Meadowbrook21 November 2013 at 18:32

    The chart seems to coincide with solar activity cycle. Obviously not man made.

  2. There has been no net warming with CO2 up 8%.The earth has been cooling since 2003 - a trend which will continue for 20 years and perhaps for hundreds of years beyond that.
    The key factor in making CO2 emission control policy is the climate sensitivity to CO2 . By AR5 - WG1 the IPCC is saying: (Section

    "The assessed literature suggests that the range of climate sensitivities and transient responses covered by CMIP3/5 cannot be narrowed significantly by constraining the models with observations of the mean climate and variability, consistent with the difficulty of constraining the cloud feedbacks from observations "

    In plain English this means that they have no idea what the climate sensitivity is and that therefore that the politicians have no empirical scientific basis for their economically destructive climate and energy policies.

    In summary the projections of the IPCC - Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them are based on specifically structurally flawed and inherently useless models. They deserve no place in any serious discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a basis for public policy their forecasts are grossly in error and therefore worse than useless. A new forecasting method is now imperative.
    A In earlier posts on my site
    at 4/02/13 and 1/22/13
    I have combined the PDO, ,Millennial cycle and neutron trends to estimate the timing and extent of the coming cooling in both the Northern Hemisphere and Globally.

    Here are the conclusions of those posts.

    1/22/13 (NH)

    1) The millennial peak is sharp - perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming - and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two - 2014/16 -with a net cooling by 2035 of about 0.35.Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.
    2) The cooling gradient might be fairly steep down to the Oort minimum equivalent which would occur about 2100. (about 1100 on Fig 5) ( Fig 3 here) with a total cooling in 2100 from the present estimated at about 1.2 +/-
    3) From 2100 on through the Wolf and Sporer minima equivalents with intervening highs to the Maunder Minimum equivalent which could occur from about 2600 - 2700 a further net cooling of about 0.7 degrees could occur for a total drop of 1.9 +/- degrees
    4)The time frame for the significant cooling in 2014 - 16 is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate we should see the effects of the sharp drop in the Ap Index which took place in 2004/5 in 2016-17.

    4/02/13 ( Global)

    1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
    2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
    3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
    4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 - 0.15
    5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 - 0.5
    6 General Conclusion - by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
    7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
    8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial - they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
    9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent - with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above. which may turn out to be a best case scenario."

  3. It appears that no one has asked the very critical question-Where is the credible test/experiment that proves that the Greenhouse gas effect exists? There is another important question that has not been asked is "Where is the credible experiments that show that reducing the CO2 content in the atmosphere will cause a decrease in atmospheric temperature?
    Looking at the great quote from Albert Einstein above- If one experiment shows that an important part of the Hypotheses of Greenhouse gas effect cannot be proved or is disproved it is very likely that the Hypotheses is false from beginning to end.
    Here is an experiment that shows that at least 5 of the features of the Hypotheses are false and here is a reference to another experiment that shows that another feature is ass backward as presented by the CAGW crowd.
    The Greenhouse Effect Explored
    Written by Carl Brehmer | 26 May 2012
    Is “Water Vapor Feedback” Positive or Negative?
    Exploiting the medium of Youtube Carl Brehmer is drawing wider attention to a fascinating experiment he performed to test the climatic impacts of water in our atmosphere.
    Carl explains, “An essential element of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is the positive “water vapor feedback” hypothesis. That is, if something causes an increase in the temperature this will cause an increase in the evaporation of water into water vapor.”
    Another factor that even the meteorologists have not included in there pretend thinking is "evaporative cooling that is occurring on at least 99.95 % of the earth's surface.

    The Experiment that Failed and can save the World trillions.
    Proving the “greenhouse gas effect” does not exist!
    By Berthold Klein P.E 1-15-2012 Incorporation of comments of Dr.'s Pierre Latour, Dr. Nasif Nahle and others.

    To Robert W. Wood (1909) who first demonstrated that the Hypotheses of the “greenhouse effect in the atmosphere”were unscientific. To all the physicists and other scientists since Professor Wood who has added sound technical and scientific knowledge to many related field that have strengthened the case against the Hoax.

    To protect my grandsons JJ and BA, their generation and all generations who follow because we finally got it RIGHT. THE GENERATIONS that would suffer extreme economical harm if the Hoax of Mann-made global warming-aka the “greenhouse gas effect” is not stopped now and forever!!

    Table of Contents:
    Section 1-The Hypotheses:
    Section 2-The Definition
    Section 3: The Experiment.
    Section 4-Numbers
    Section 5-Holding the gasses -”containment”
    Section 6-Setting up the Experiment
    Section 7-Results
    Section 8-Commentary
    Section 9-Water- liquid, vapor, solid (H2O /lvs)
    Section 10 Post-script

  4. PREAMBLE: Solving a 188 year olde mystery that has eluted many scientists when the answers have been in the books of physics and thermodynamics for up to 100 years To solve the mystery of why “The greenhouse gas effect” does not exist, one has to have an understanding of quantum physics and the basic laws of conservation of energy. To most people including many scientists quantum physics is a mystery especially because many things that happen are not intuitive. When explained and proven by experiment it can be understood
    It is desirable that anyone that can read be able to understand this experiment and what it means. This edition is for everyone -the man on the street who would suffer the most by government “1984 Big Brother” control and the Ph. D in social studies , financial, many unrelated branches of science , lawyers and judges.
    After communicating with some real people and some Ph. D's I realize that my mission is a “Mission Impossible”. Being able to read does not mean that the reader can comprehend the inner workings of science. That having a Ph. D in one field does not give them sound knowledge or judgment in unrelated fields (many have taken the time to study in other areas and do have the knowledge needed).

    A very brief definition of GHGE is an effect where certain gases have the molecular composition to absorb Infrared (heat) radiation and what happens afterward is important because it is not intuitive but is proven basic physics.(See Bohr model). This process of absorbing Infrared (heat) radiation is supposed to cause the earth to be warmer than a planet without CO2 or any other atmosphere.
    This recent paper gives us insight into the real causes of “climate changes”

    The Sun’s Impact On Earth’s Temperature Goes Far Beyond TSI – New Paper Shows
    By P Gosselin on 30. December 2011
    There are several words or terms used in this revision that need some explanation a Glossary of terms is in the appendix.
    Section 1-The Hypotheses:
    To demonstrate if the “greenhouse gas effect exists it is necessary to define it.
    The hypotheses of the “greenhouse gas effect” is the process where a combination of IR absorbing gases (IRag) including
    Water/liquid/vapor/solid, CO2.CH4. NO2 and others are super insulation and cause the atmosphere to be 33 degrees warmer than would be explained by the “black body temperature” This is a fair description. In 1981 James Hanson stated average thermal T at surface is 15C and Earth radiates to space at -18C. Then he declared 15 - (-18) = 33C is the greenhouse gas effect. Not OK because there is no physics to connect these two dissimilar numbers. Thermal T is a point property of molecular motion measured by a thermometer or thermocouple, it decreases with altitude. Radiation T is a point property of radiation corresponding to its intensity by Stefan-Boltzmann law, measured by a pyrometer or spectrometer. Solar radiation T increases with altitude. One is apples the other eggs. So 10 apples - 6 eggs is indeed 4 whatchamacallits by math but nobody will ever know what a whatchamacallit is. Therefore it is quite true the 33C greenhouse gas effect is whatchamacallit nonsense. Since this is irrefutable logic, no experiment is called for. You do not have to prove the existence of hogwash either.

  5. A term developed by a renowned physicist as a theoretical way to compare radiation. (By the renowned Dr. Pierre R. Latour) . There are only a few materials and conditions that approach these theoretical properties. “black bodies) (The earth and its atmosphere is not one of them.).
    How is this done? The hypothesis says that the IRag’s absorb the IR radiation then it is “back radiated to earth causing the earth to be warmer by the resonating of this heat energy. {No experiments are needed to refute the back-radiation hypothesis because it would violate the Second Law of thermo, constituting a perpetual motion machine. Mankind has enormous experimental verification Second Law is valid since Carnot developed it, so we can call it a Law of nature. The proof that back-radiation does not exist is at and an object of this experiment.
    This is just the tip of the iceberg of the magic caused by the “greenhouse gas effect” as has been said the truth is in the details.
    As others have not started to define “The greenhouse gas effect” let’s start with what are the “features that should be testable!” Because water/liquid, vapor, solid (H2O /lvs) is different than gases IRag's as CO2 ,Ch4, NO2 and others gases -the IRag's will be dealt with first.
    Section 2-The Definition
    Critical features:
    1. The IRags absorb the IR radiation and thus prevents it from escaping into space reducing the rate of atmospheric cool- it causes the air to be warmer.
    2. The IRags will “back radiate” IR radiation to earth to cause increased heating of the surface.
    3. The IRags will heat up by the absorption of the IR radiation thus heating the air.
    4. The IRag's have different levels of “back-forcing”. Thus CH4(methane) is supposed to be from 23 to 70 times more “back radiation “ than CO2. NO2 is 1000 times that of CO2 Having ask others how this is determined,( no answer yet) ,it is assumed that someone has reviewed the amount of IR that a particular molecule absorbs by an IR spectrophotometer analysis then comparing this to the absorption of CO2. This is a very important feature of the “ghg effect”
    5. The higher the concentration of IRags the greater the amount of “back-radiation” the higher the temperature of the Earth and “global atmospheric temperature will also increase.
    6. The concentration of CO2 found in million year old Ice cores can be used as proof that the “ghg effect” exists.
    Where does this lead?
    We all know that the “greenhouse” effect exists. Engineers have built them for decades for a useful purpose (growing plants). Anyone that has gotten into a hot car on a sunny day or has walked into a store with south facing windows (Summer or winter experiences this), its temperature will be much higher than a car ,or windows in the shade. This is caused by confined space heating- this was established in 1909 by R.W. Wood a professor of Physics and Optics at John Hopkins University from 1901 to 1955.( confirmed by Dr. Nasif Nahle in 2011)
    What experiment could be performed to “prove” that the ''greenhouse gas effect exists.

  6. Section 3: The Experiment.
    All the AGWS point out it is impossible to simulate what actually happens in the atmosphere therefore they propose using computer models. The problem with “computer models'' is that unless all the factors that affect the atmosphere are included in the program it is “garbage in is garbage out”. When this has been tried there are no computers made that have sufficient capacity to handle all of the factors? Many of the factors are not even fully know yet. Then the big guess is what are the factors to include and which are really of minor importance and can be left out and still get usable results. To date no one has come up with the “right model” More than 20 different “models of weather /climate program have been published and not one has been successful in predicting the weather a year from now, let alone a hundred years from now. The NOAA has just started the installation and start up of a Cray AMD 16-core Intrago processor in 16 cabinets array of 26 cabinets to create a 1.1 petaflops supercomputer. Until they can define the real facts it will be “super supercomputer garbage in and the super super garbage out at super super speed.”

    Using the list of “critical factor” let’s see if there are some ways of indicating if the concept may exist.
    To use the concentration of IRags in the atmosphere for testing does not work otherwise there would not be the controversy that exists today.
    In the field of engineering and research there is the use of “scale models''” or models with similar properties that can be either up sized or down sized to relate by test to the factor being studied “Model studies” or “bench tests” are either similar in behavior or can be proportioned to a larger or smaller series of events that relate to an actual set of events. They generate data that can be compared to known conditions or events. Chemical engineers and others build pilot plants from lab experiments before finalizing sizing design of a commercial $200 million process plant. Scale-up is a serious engineering art.
    An example of downsizing is the use of the super collider at CERN to study what happens in a nuclear explosion.
    As the amount of heating that is supposed to be added by the “greenhouse gas effect” is on the order of fractions of a degree per year-(some claim the change to be 1 to 3 degrees/ year) we need a more dramatic experiment to show that the concept actually exists. However if the effect is vanishingly small, it will be hard to prove or disprove. This is one of the UN IPCC tricks to fool you. They employ wide ranges and invent probabilities out of very thin air. If the experiment at a much higher concentration does demonstrate the effect then the Concept does exist. If the concept does works at high concentration then it can be tried with lower and lower concentrations until a threshold of effects is reached. It might be linear or logarithmic to zero. However if the concepts does not work at High Concentrations of IRags then the concept of the theoretical “greenhouse gas effect “has been proven to be a fraud.

  7. Section 4-Numbers
    Some numbers are needed now: By definition 10,000 ppm is 1%, therefore 100 % equals 1million parts per million (1x10+6) .
    . The atmosphere is supposed to contain 400 ppm (round Number) therefore a concentration of 100% CO2 is 2500 time that of what is in the atmosphere. (Volume concentrations high school chemistry) If the effect exists it should be much easier to measure and demonstrate that “back radiation” Is causing a heating effect on the earth.
    Now it is claimed that CH4 is from 23 to 70 time the effect of CO2,thus using the lowers figure by using a concentration of 100 % CH4 ,the effect should be 57,500 time stronger that using CO2. It is claimed that NO2 is 100 time more powerful that CO2 thus it should cause 250,000 X the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere
    As CH4 is found to be about 2ppB ( 2 X 10 -9)in the atmosphere , a concentration of 100 % CH4 should give a results that is 5 X 10 + 10 times what exists in the atmosphere.
    Now if CH4 is 23 times the effect of CO2 another longer chain hydrocarbon molecule will be even more powerful thus the proposed experiment shown below was done with 100 % butane.(Available in pressure cylinders with regulators as Butane torches for soldiering pipe. A small flow of gas from the torch was used to fill the balloon.)
    The experiment shown below substituted “natural gas” a mixture of 70% CH4 about 29% CO2 and the remainder is H2 and other trace gases. This is readily available for test purposed from any natural gas stove.
    Now 100 % CO2 is available from several sources, but one that is not too expensive is from any Paint ball supply store, a regulator is needed to reduce the flow and the pressure while filling the balloon.
    Do not use Alka Seltzer (from an ineffective test promoted by some groups at NASA)as you have to put this in water to get the CO2 thus you have a mixture of CO2 and water and water vapor – you are not testing the effect of CO2 only. Discussion of H2O/lvs in the atmosphere will follow later.
    The natural gas mixture should have a combined effect of less that 100% CH4 by a weighted average of 70% CH4+ 29% CO2 or 3.500000725X10+9 times the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. If this occurs the temperature increase must be measurable.

  8. Section 5-Holding the gasses -”containment”
    How does the experiment contain the high concentration of the IRags for this test? Having reviewed several experiments that “contain” the IRags is glass containers then they measure the increase in temperature of the gas. They claimed this increase was due to the “ghg “effect, they are absolutely wrong. The cause of the temperature increase was due to the heating of the glass by its absorbing the IR and the glass heating thermally. ( A Master's thesis (peer reviewed) with this information is available on request with about 100 other references). Another failure of these tests was their including a black cardboard inside the containers, thus additional heating of the IRag's from conduction of heat from the black cardboard Black objects absorb most of the light including IR & UV converting the energy to “heat” which is conducted to the gas in the container. (They created a Greenhouse effect-confined space heating) That seems unfair. Why would they do that?
    Another experiment painted the inner surfaces of the boxes to capture more thermal radiation and avoid high reflection from these surfaces. Corrugated cardboard walls have a higher thermal resistance than glass but, additionally, for enhancing thermal resistance of cardboard, we wrapped their outer surfaces with aluminum foil, which has a very low absorptive potential (0.03). It is true that inner walls conduction and convection towards the inner atmosphere were exaggerated by painting the inner surfaces of the containers with flat black paint because the coat had a very high absorptive and emissivity potentials. (From the experimental work of Dr. Nasif Nahle see references)
    The proper way to contain the high concentration of IRags is in a thin walled material that will not absorb the IR and heat. [For a slimmer walled material, the lower its thermal resistance and its better conduction of thermal energy. A factor to be considered is the thermal conductivity of Mylar, which is 0.154808 W/m K by Dr. Nahle based on his experiment verifying the work of R.W. Wood ] The experiment used crystal clear Mylar balloons about 3mil thick. They are available in various sizes, several 20 inch diameter(major diameter) were chosen.

  9. Section 6-Setting up the Experiment
    1. Fill the balloons with the various IRags , and one with dry air as a control.
    2. Let the balloons reach ambient temperature. If you are going to use sunlight let it adjust outside in the shade (minimize IR absorption ahead of testing).
    3. Use an IR thermometer to check the temperatures of each balloon, use a digital thermometer that reads to 0.1 degree to check air temperature in the shade. Record data. Do not forget these measure two different phenomena. Digital thermometers measure thermal energy, while IR thermometers measure thermal radiation emitted by the system.
    4. Take a large black mate board or a large black cloth or sheet and lay it on the ground in the sun. Use the IR thermometer to check the temperature as it rises in the sun. Record the data. When it appears to reach a maximum then go to step 5. . [DuPont Duco #71 wrought iron black paint has an absorptive of 0.98. It would make a very good absorber] The black mate board is used to absorb as much IR as possible that supposedly “back-radiates “from the IRag in the balloon. This is not to simulate a “black-body”. Having done some IR measuring of objects in a Hot car, the color of the object has a significant effect on the IR readings. Use of bi-metal digital thermometers has to be set so they do not absorb IR and heat because of the absorption.
    5.Suspend the balloons over the black background (about 1 foot above) and measure the temperature of the balloons initially with the IR thermometer. Record the temperature. You mean balloon surface or internal gas? This is a valid question from Dr. Latour. The best answer at this time is that it is a combination of both. The properties of IR thermometers are to “see” the IR impinging on the sensor bases on the optic of the instrument. The sensor integrates the IR energy to a reading. Thus both the Mylar, and the contents are projecting IR radiation in all directions .The instrument which reads a range of IR frequencies is not able to differentiate between IR from the surface, from the gas inside the balloon and the background IR passing through the balloon. Thus it is necessary to determine IR reading based on the instrument “seeing “through the balloon for one set of readings. Another set of readings would be from an adjacent position but not through the balloon.

    In multiple testing there was no differences, in the readings. This indicating that the IRag's in the balloons stayed at ambient air temperature. The IRags did absorb IR but did not “heat” the gas.
    To put a bi-metal digital thermometer either on or inside the balloons would give erroneous readings because the metal of the thermometer would absorb IR and heat up no mater what the temperature of the IRag was.
    The study by Anthony Watts of weather stations throughout the US shows how easy it is to get junk readings from improperly constructed temperature recording devises.
    6. Measure the temperature of the black background in the “shadow” of each of the balloons also measure the temperature of the black background outside of the “shadows” of the balloons.

  10. Section 7-Results
    Now let’s repeat the Critical factors and note the result of the test to the critical factor(s).
    1. The IRags absorb the IR radiation and thus prevents it from escaping into space reducing the rate of earth and atmospheric cool- it causes the air to be warmer.
    Results and explanation: The air between the balloons and the black background did not change temperature. It did not get “hotter thus normal IR radiation cooling of the black mate was occurring. The 100% CO2or the high concentration of other IRag did not “hinder “normal cooling. This has been confirmed by the work of Dr. Roy Spencer and satellite IR measurements showing significant losses of “heat”/radiation to space. Far more than is stated by the IPCC.
    2. The IRags will “back radiate” IR radiation to earth to cause increased heating of the surface.
    Results and explanation: The black background did not change temperature either in the “shadow” or outside the shadow. The temperature of the black background heated to 20 t0 30 degrees above ambient before the balloons were placed over the black background. When this was done outside in bright sun light the black background heated to 130 to 140 degrees F. Similar temperature can be measured from black asphalt. Air temperatures were 90 to 95 degrees F. When the experiment was done with the 500 watt power shop light (see below)inside the black background went from ambient of 70-72 degrees to 100 -110 degrees. Again when measuring the temperatures of the black background with the IR thermometer there was no measurable temperature difference anywhere along the surface of the black mate . Not a sign of “back-radiation”.
    3. The IRags will heat up by the absorption of the IR radiation thus heating the air.
    Results and explanation: The balloons did not warn any warmer than ambient. The IRags in the balloons will not warm because that would be a violation of the basic physics described by the Bohr Model. A statement of basic physics that shows that absorption of IR by CO2or other IRag does not increase the kinetic energy of the molecules (heat).
    4. The IRag's have different levels of “back-forcing”. Having ask others how this is determined,( no answer yet) ,it is assumed that someone has reviewed the amount of IR that a particular molecule(CH4,NO2,) absorbs by a spectrophotometer analysis then comparing this to the absorption of CO2. (I have not seen any experimental data that the “back-forcing” relates to absorption).
    results: As there was no temperature difference under any of the balloons, there was no stronger “back-forcing” because the IRag absorbed more IR radiation.
    5.The higher the concentration of IRags the greater the amount of “back-radiation” the higher the “global atmospheric temperature will become.
    Conclusion of test results: Based on the failure of all the previous portions of these tests which were done with very high concentrations of IRag's to demonstrate the GHGE, it is valid to say that increasing CO2 or other IRag's in the atmosphere will have NO EFFECT.
    6.The concentration of CO2 found in million year old Ice cores can be used as proof that the “ghg effect” exists.
    Conclusion: The use of ICE core data is at best circumstantial evidence but it is not proof of anything.

  11. Section 8 Commentary by Dr. Nahle
    I conclude your experiment shows solar radiation affects thermal temperature of high concentration gases (CO2, H2O, CH4, NO2) the same amount as natural air (N2 + O2) by heating the earth then conduction and convection heat the atmosphere ( not absorption of radiation). I understand Hottel did experiments in 1940’s that showed CO2 does absorb and radiate differently from other gases. I have not taken time recently to delve deeply but I think Kalmanovitch shows there is no conflict, CO2 absorbs and radiates just like everybody else. It’s absorption spectrum has a wide notch which GHG folks say blocks Earth’s IR from escaping to space, trapping it somehow. Seems to me that IR just bypasses CO2 molecule and goes out. [Hottel, Leckner (corrected Hottel charts), Lapp (corroborated Hottel and Leckner), Sarofim (corroborated Hottel and Leckner experiments).
    Based on the IR absorption spectrograph of CO2, it shows that only very narrow bands of IR are absorbed. The absorption occurs at about 4, 9, and 15nm .Thus all other wavelengths of IR pass though even 100% concentration of CO2, and can heat the earth ( inbound sunlight)or escape to space(out-bound long waves) cooling the earth. Thus the GHG folks are wrong. Even at the frequencies that are absorbed not all of them are absorbed which is demonstrated by the difference of peak heights of any typical CO2 spectrograph.
    I'm sure that the AGWs will not believe this proves that the “greenhouse gas effect does not exists , therefore I challenge them to come up with an experiment that they claim “proves the existence of the “greenhouse gas effect”.
    As Dr. Latour says: Since AGWS are the promoters, skeptics like me say the onus is not on skeptics to disprove GHG, it is on promoters to prove GHG. The literature on GHG theory is childlike, 3rd grade level, incoherent nonsense. So another approach is asking GHG promoter’s questions. Why? How come? Where did you get that? What procedure did you use? Why? Can you prove that claim? Can you quantify what you are claiming and explain reasoning?

    As an alternate light source the experiment has been performed with an incandescent light. By using a 500 watt shop power light which because of the temperature of the filament approach the spectral characteristics of the Sun light ( should have more long wave IR because of a lower temperature) It was placed one(1) meter away from the balloons to avoid conduction and convection heating of the balloons. As is stated above there was no difference in the final results.

  12. Section 9-Water/liquid/vapor/solid (H2O/lvs
    Now let’s talk about water( H2O/lvs): Why? Everybody seems to acknowledge H2O dominates atmosphere in complex ways, swamping any CO2 effect. AGWS promoters just ignore H2O. I suppose when CO2 collapses they will declare DI-hydrogen monoxide a pollutant too. And so it goes.
    Yes H2O/lvs has a major effect on weather conditions, where I'm at in Northern Ohio it just started to rain, if it gets any colder we will have snow or sleet. As is said in the Great Lakes region if you don't like the weather wait 15 minutes and it will change.
    Examining H2O/lvs in the atmosphere : If its clear the humidity can be from near 0 % relative humidity to 100%. Now if it’s cloudy the “relative Humidity” can vary from 30 to 100% depending on temperatures, Now we know that the air temperature where the clouds are forming is at or below the “dew point”, now as the H2O vapor cools to form clouds there is a release of energy (Heat of condensation)(also a reduction of volume), if the general air temperature is low enough ( below freezing) more energy is released as ice or snow is formed. This energy has to be dissipated either as IR radiation or as lightening or probably high winds or tornado.
    This is only one phase of the complex weather conditions when H2O/lvs is being evaluated.
    Another is the solar heating of clouds both day and night. During the day the warming of the top of clouds is obvious but it is also relevant that in spite of significant solar absorption the “clouds “ have not absorbed enough radiation to convert the water or solids back to vapor; there is probably a rapid turbulent exchange of energy in both directions from evaporation/ sublimation to condensing, to freezing. This is why “climatologists” cannot get the correct “sign” on the “forcing” it is a constantly changing set of conditions, non are wrong and non are correct.
    Now let’s add the next variable- solar heating at night of the clouds. Having taken IR radiation measurements at night for the last year at many different times by solar time it is apparent that when the sun goes down below the visible horizon, the clouds are still receiving solar energy. This has been confirmed by both measurements and visible lighting (multiple colors) of the clouds. The clouds and the atmosphere cool until about 2:00 am (solar time) when there are measurable increases in cloud temperatures and air temperatures. This warming continues until daylight is visible. The degree of warming is related to the time of year and what is happening with the jet stream and arctic storms.
    There are other factors that are being monitored by real astrophysics researcher that are showing that Solar flares, and different type of radiation including cosmic partials have an effect on cloud formation, this is only a beginning of learning about our atmosphere.
    There is no way in the world of Fairy-tales that CO2 can have an effect on weather or “climate”. Besides thermal temperature in my back yard cycles +- 8C daily, so why should I care if average “heat “temperature increases 1C/100 years?

    The nice thing about this experiment is that it can be done by high school physics classes or freshmen college physics lab classes . It would teach a very important lesson in that “not all experiments have to have a “positive” end result to be meaningful.

    The “science is not settled” ,just look at CERN for the newest real science done by experiment and retested until they have 6 sigma confidence levels. They use computers to analyze the data but “computer models” are not the end only the beginning, Science is not done by CONSENSUS.
    Everybody has a different point of view; but scientists and engineers learn how to agree on how nature works.

    What you see in GHG & AGWS hoax is what happens when untrained, incompetent people attempt to do science & engineering.
    A mess.
    Dr. Pierre R Latour

  13. Section 10- Post script
    If anyone gets this far, do you still believe the “GHGE exist”? Do you question its existence?. You also better be doing some independent research because it has been proved that there are large numbers of groups of supposedly scientific societies that have pissed on their own “Codes of Ethic” by agreeing with the Hoax of Mann-made global warming” by Consensus not by proven experiments.
    Those that have accepted the Hoax of Mann-made global warming/GHGE include such organizations as Society of Sigma Xi ( a major group of scientists and engineer), the American Society of Civil Engineers, The National Academy of Science,, these are just some that I have had personal experience. The list of others would be in the thousands.
    At the same time a few Noble prize recipients in physics have resigned from the American Physical Society because of their consensus accepted of the GHGE.
    The witchdoctors of the IPCC , The US EPA, some at NASA, the EU, George Soros , Australia politicians and John Cook that are attempting to destroy the economics of the world because they lie about the fact that science has proven that the “GHGE” does not exist.

    Berthold Klein P.E.
    NASA in Shock New Controversy: Two Global Warming Reasons Why by John O'Sullivan, guest post at Climate Realists
    Thursday, May 27th 2010, 3:06 PM EDT
    Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
    NASA covered up for forty years proof that the greenhouse gas theory was bogus. But even worse, did the U.S. space agency fudge its numbers on Earth’s energy budget to cover up the facts?

    As per my article this week, forty years ago the space agency, NASA, proved there was no such thing as a greenhouse gas effect because the ‘blackbody’ numbers supporting the theory didn’t add up in a 3-dimensional universe:
    But NASA’s lunar temperature readings prove that behind that smoke was real fire. Some experts now boldly go so far as to say the entire global warming theory contravenes the established laws of physics.

    How NASA responds to these astonishing revelations may well tell us how politicized the American space agency really is.

    Short bio: John O’Sullivan is a legal analyst and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain. Visit his Website:

    The paper "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics" by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
    Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
    B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
    Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.

    Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme

  14. R.W.Wood from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine, 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
    The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
    By Alan Siddons
    from: at March 01, 2010 - 09:10:34 AM CST

    The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.

    “In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”

    The work of Arrhenius was shown to be significantly in error by Angstrom in1903. Arrhenius changed his career shortly after> Why?

    After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by many physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    Paraphrasing: Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 Million politicians and 20 Million environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.

    University of Pennsylvania Law School
    A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,
    and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences
    at the University of Pennsylvania
    Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
    Jason Scott Johnston
    May 2010
    This paper can be downloaded without charge from the
    Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection: http://ssrn.

    Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv: 'There is no direct evidence showing that CO2 caused 20th century warming, or as a matter of fact, any warming' link to this paper on climate depot.
    Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory
    Tim Ball (Author), Claes Johnson (Author), Martin Hertzberg (Author), Joseph A. Olson (Author), Alan Siddons (Author), Charles Anderson (Author), Hans Schreuder (Author), John O'Sullivan (Author)
    Ponder the Maunder
    The Great Climate Clash -archives December, 2010, G3 The greenhouse gas effect does not exist.( peer reviewed).
    Many others are available.
    The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance."
    —Albert Einstein
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb." Benjamin Franklin

    • IR= infrared radiation is a form of radiation(invisible light also know as heat rays) that is present in sun light and is also radiated by every body of mater whether it is a gas, a liquid or a solid. If it is a living thing it will radiate more IR that if it is an inanimate object because of its temperature. animals radiate IR from exothermic oxidation and plants do so from endothermic photosynthesis. Photosynthetic organisms also have a thermoregulatory system that permits them to radiate the excess of absorbed thermal radiation and the heat generated from metabolic processes. Dr. Nahle conducted an experiment related to this mechanism of thermoregulation in melons and spearmint:

    • IRag= Certain gases will absorb different wavelengths of radiation (a characteristic of the light ) depending on the construction of the gas. Some gases do not absorb IR, there construction will not allow them to absorb the IR, they may absorb other forms of radiation but as was said above they still radiate IR. Many other materials including water will absorb IR. These should not be included in the term IRags. The words “greenhouse gas effect” has never been proven by creditable scientific experiments and therefore will only be used when absolutely necessary. Atoms and molecules absorb according to their unique absorption spectrum and emit according to their unique emission spectrum. They emit amount of radiation, w/m2 that they absorb.
    • The Bohr model is the work of Dr. Niels Bohr a physicist that studied the behavior of gasses when they absorb IR and other forms of radiation. This is much more complicated than presented here. It is a branch of science called Quantum physics.
    The basic studies resulted in Dr. Bohr receiving a Nobel Prize in physics in 1922.
    The important part of the Bohr model is that when the gas absorbs IR radiation it does not “heat” the gas. It does not increase the kinetic energy of the molecule which is the velocity of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. The IR (photon) energy is converted to inter-molecular activity. The explanation is a concept that is beyond the scope of this experiment. It has an important part in proving that the GHGE does not exist. Many volumes of experiments are available and can be explained better by Quantum physicists; the subject is being studied continually -”The science is not settled.”
    • Water/l/v/s=Water has some very important characteristic that are important to earth and to live on earth. Because of earth's fortunate location in the universe, its temperature varies from a low of-90 F to a high 130 F+. But in the majority of the earth temperatures are between 0 F to 100 F. and water (liquid/solid) can change to a gas at all temperature, to a liquid at 32F(0C) or above, and a solid below 32

  16. F.(0 C). Many commenters on GHGE fail to characterize these differences and call Water /l/v/s a “greenhouse gas” In fairness H2O can indeed be a gas, steam or humidity. As we go through this experiment it will become clearer that water or any other IRag is not a “greenhouse gas”
    • CO2= a gas that is breathed out by every living mammal and most other living creature, it is absorbed by plants and algae and is them converted back to oxygen which we need to live. [Carbon dioxide also is processed by species of photosynthetic bacteria, i.e. cyanobacteria, green sulfur bacteria, purple sulfur bacteria, green non-sulfur bacteria and purple non-sulfur bacteria] Most process that produce mechanical movements and electrical energy convert fossil fuels to CO2 (carbon dioxide) A very important and necessary part of life on this planet.
    • CH4= methane a part of “natural gas” used to heat homes , cook food and run engines.. It is present in the ground along with oil but is only present in the air (atmosphere) at very tiny amounts (parts per billion). While millions of tons of this gas escape into the atmosphere most of this is destroyed by interaction with Ozone(O3) and UV a very active radiation present in sunlight.(this reaction is documented by a paper in the EPA library if they have not erased it) The Methane that is formed by bacteria is almost everywhere. It’s from swamps, rice paddies, bottom of oceans, lakes and streams, decaying leave piles etc. It is a part of nature’s process of recycling.
    • NO2= a gas formed by nature when there is lightening. It is also formed in any high temperature burning including engines. The gas is washed out of the atmosphere in every rainstorm. It is used by plants, and is very necessary for their growth. NO2 is a toxic gas and an air pollutant, along with other oxides of nitrogen, NOx. They are major components of smog. dioxide!
    • Specifications of the IR thermometer: model: MTPRO laser-Micro Temp; temperature range: -41degree C/F to 1040 degrees F. IR range 5 to 16 nm. Angle of view D:S =11:1. Cost about $60.00. many other models available
    Addendum: Water Absorption Spectrum by Dr. Martin Chaplin
    The end for now

  17. As all datasets show Arctic warming, it follows that the rest of the planet has been cooling over the last decade or so.
    The amount of kinetic energy involved with Arctic warming is trivial compared to lower latitudes.


All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!