Greenhouse Gasses Simply Do Not Exist - Mathematical PROOF!!!

New and Amazing dot com Blog ^ | October 10, 2014 | Harry Dale Huffman

[America_Right]

Hi fellow Freepers,

I have been away since the last general election, but since we cleaned up in this midterm, I have been getting back into the news and politics a little more.

Anyway, I was reading a globull warming article's comments on some website, and one of the comments was from a physicist named Harry Dale Huffman. He used an equation to show that there is almost NO difference between Earth and Venus when it comes to atmospheric temperature, even though Venus has an atmosphere composed almost entirely of CO2.

With indisputable math, he is able to show absolute proof that there is NO WAY CO2 emissions can be causing any kind of atmospheric temperature changes.

Enjoy! Follow the link to the article, and you can go from there to Harry's blog - the comments are awesome. More than a few Warmists had their eyes opened by this.

Earths temperature at the surface is 288 Kelvin. (15 C). The atmospheric pressure at the surface of the Earth is 1000 millibars. The temperature of Venus at 1000 millibars is 339 Kelvin (66 C) Using only the distance from the sun, we can determine that Venus should be about 17.6% hotter than Earth in degrees Kelvin. (explanation below) BIG NEWS: Venus’s temperature at 1000 millibars is almost exactly the same as Earth’s … based solely on the distance from the sun. (differing only by about 0.5%.) The temperature comparisons continued to hold true all the way from 1000 millibars through 200 millibars, varying by a maximum of 5% and by less than 1% in most cases.

[palmer]

CO2 captures outgoing IR photons (a well studied fact). In fact, there is enough CO2 even at 0.04% to trap all outgoing IR photons within 100 meters (IIRC). Then those photons almost instantly give up that energy to the surrounding N2 and O2. Thus the atmosphere is warmer with CO2 than without.

[palmer]

Does a water molecule react the same way as a carbon dioxide molecule to UV and IR radiation?

Different parts of the spectrum are absorbed by water vapor and CO2. There is some overlap as well.

[alpo]

Metal objects and anything black will absorb heat when exposed to sunlight.

We should have to put a Cap on these materials during the day or Trade them to someone who is in the dark.

s/. This both solves the problem and shows there isn’t a problem.

[America_Right]

There is NO water vapor on Venus

Yes there is. Just not much.

I stand corrected...

20 PPM. More than I thought!

Thanks for the correction. :)

[America_Right]

This article is just bad. The atmospheres of Earth and Venus are not even remotely similar.

I think you missed the whole point of the article. The atmosphere of Venus is almost entirely composed of CO2, and yet the temp is the same as Earth's at the same pressure level and allowing for distance from the Sun.

He's a physicist (and a good one). He DOES know what he's talking about. No one has been able to argue this FACT that he has brought to light - These so-called "greenhouse gasses" have zero effect on atmospheric temperature. It is all controlled by solar radiation.

[America_Right]

This is nonsense. Go back and learn something about science.

Obvious troll is obvious.

But, I will bite.

Give us a taste of your brilliant genius, and tell me where the article or the math is wrong. Do you have a better handle on physics or math than the author? Somehow, I doubt it.

That sounds like something a Lib would say in an argument. When presented with irrefutable facts, just try to ridicule your opponent - right out of Alinsky's playbook!

[moose07]

CO2 captures outgoing IR photons (a well studied fact). In fact, there is enough CO2 even at 0.04% to trap all outgoing IR photons within 100 meters (IIRC). Then those photons almost instantly give up that energy to the surrounding N2 and O2. Thus the atmosphere is warmer with CO2 than without.

Interesting bit of info.
So doubling the Atmospheric Co2 levels would have no effect on the thermal capturing that takes place as the IR adsorbsion rate is already 100% ?

[zeestephen]

Thanks - that’s an excellent link.

I read all of it, some parts twice.

One correction to your comment, though.

You said CO2 was 400 times higher than present.

Sorry - in the Early Carboniferous CO2 was about 1500 parts per million.

Today, it’s 400 ppm, so the difference is about 4 times.

You probably made your error when you looked at the “percentage” of CO2, which is expressed 0.04%.

Percent is expressed in “parts per hundred.”

PPM is expressed like this - 0.000400 and 0.001500.

[palmer]

The trick is to think about the atmosphere as layers. Even when a layer is saturated the next layer above will still warm because it receives outgoing IR from the layer below.

[palmer]

But, it is the reason why there are decreasing returns on added CO2. There is a logarithmic decrease in the warming with a linear rise in CO2. Since CO2 is going up relatively linearly, the amount of warming will steadily decrease.

[Sawdring]

The concentration of CO2 is .04 percent not .004.

[Bob434]

how is it known that 20ppm causes warming, or causes a ‘huge effect’? If 400ppm that we have today only amountsw to 0.04%, then how on earth can 20ppm, and even more insignificant amount, be the cause of warming? or is that just a guess?

and yep and increase from 280 to 400ppm sounds scary, just like the alarmists wish it to, but it still only amounts to 0.04% of the TACO2 levels (total atmospheric CO2)- this maount simply is nowhere near enough to create a blanket thick enough around the globe to trap heat- it’s simply impossible for that small amount to accomplish that

Think of it like the following- 0.04% would be very small splotches here and there across the globe- I’m guessing at these figures, but for the sake of visualization, I’ll just say it would bel ike having a splotch of CO2 about a mile wide over Australia, one over japan, one over china, the us perhaps, maybe one over bhudapest, - but the point is, you have these small insignificant pockets of CO2 scattered far apart from each other , and relatively few of them at that, and the rest of the atmosphere is completely free of CO2- infact 99.96% of the atmosphere is free from CO2- in other words, almost 100% of our atmosphere has no CO2 in it

Either that OR, the CO2 formed a blanket- a microscopically thin blanket around the entire globe, a ‘blanket’ so thin that it is simply ridiculous to even suggest that it can trap heat and then reflect it back to earth- CO2 isn’;t even a very efficient heat trapper to begin with- let alone the fact that even IF CO2 blankets the earth, it’s so thin that it can’t possibly be causing rising temperatures

[moose07]

Thanks for the explanation. :)
Shockingly i understood that.

[palmer]

The reason is pretty simple, the number of molecules of air in a cubic meter of air is something like 10^25. That means 20 ppm of CO2 gives you 10^20 molecules of CO2. It doesn't take a very big thickness of air (100 meters?) to absorb every every outgoing IR photon with the right wavelength. Of course those same molecules emit those same wavelengths and send them off into space (and 1/2 back to earth). The key is that the transfer of energy from CO2 to the bulk atmosphere (mainly N2 and O2) is much faster than the release of energy via the photon release. Therefore the rest of the atmosphere warms.

Either that OR, the CO2 formed a blanket- a microscopically thin blanket around the entire globe, a ‘blanket’ so thin that it is simply ridiculous to even suggest...

Very thin blanket indeed, but with 10^20 molecules of CO2 per cubic meter, it is thick enough to absorb many outgoing IR photons. I suppose you could think of taking all those CO2 molecules and replacing them with a single very thin sheet of mylar somewhere well above the surface. One difference however would be that the mylar would also reflect (scatter) IR photons, not just absorb and release them like CO2.

[kosciusko51]

The short answer is yes.

The more complex answer is that for a given wavelength of light (λ), a material can absorb (α_λ), reflect(ρ_λ), and/or transmit(τ_λ) a fraction of the energy in the wavelength, and the sum of α_λ+ρ_λ+τ_λ = 1.

[Bob434]

the answer is ‘yes’ to what? I understand that CO2 can absorb then retransmit heat back to earth, however, it is very inefficient, and only a very small part of the heat is released back towards earth- most likely to be cooled on it’s return trip- only a small fraction of heat would be sent reflected back- and the other point is that our atmosphere is only 0.04% CO2- that number is far too small and insignificant to even cause any kind of heat trapping to begin with- IF the atmosphere were I dunno, 50% or more CO2, then yeah- you’d be seeing isolated pockets around the globe that would see a rise in mean temperatures because of REFLECTED heat, but you wouldn’t see universal global rise in temperatures everywhere- there would be large swaths of atmosphere with no CO2, and heat would be escaping through these holes still-

I’m at a loss as to how just 0.04% of the atmosphere can cause global warming- it seems very illogical to claim that man is 100% responsible for global warming as the warmists claim when man is only responsible for 3.4% of 0.04% of the total CO2 I n the atmosphere- that’s akin to claiming thaqt someone sneezing in china is causing hurricanes in the US

[kosciusko51]

"Yes" was to this question:

Ok that explains one of the questions I had about CO2 reflecting the sun’s energy or not- But even if it isn’t absorbed, can it be reflected by CO2?

As for your other question, please do a web search for "radiation in participating media".

[Bob434]

[[”radiation in participating media”.]]

Does nothing to explain how 0.04% of our atmosphere can be causing climate change on a global scale- all it basically says is that CO2 CAN transfer heat- it doesn’t say on what scale- and from I ve read, CO2 isin’t even a very efficient heat transferer compared with other mechanisms/processes- and like I mentioned before, even the TINY amount of heat being transferred back to earth will dissipate mostly, and this TINY amount can’t possibly be causing global climate change-

Simply pointing me to article that explain that CO2 can transfer heat does nothing to explain how such a small amount of CO2 can be causing massive global climate change-

Nor does it explain how that despite the fact that we’ve pumped the most CO2 into our atmosphere over the last 20 years than we ever have (YET it is STILL a very tiny fraction of our atmosphere), our earth has remained flat temperature wise for nearly 20 years now- That directly contradicts the alarmist’s claims that CO2 ‘causes climate change’- the earth should have bee3n steadily and consistently warming these past 20 years-
NOT remaining flat like it has been-

You and others avoid answering these two questions- I don’t need to know that CO2 can transfer heat- that is a known fact- what I need to know is how just 0.04% of our atmosphere can possibly be causing global climate change- There simply is nowhere’s near enough CO2 In the atmosphere to be causing massive climate change- AND there is the inconvenient truth that despite increased CO2 levels by man, the temps have remained flat- contradicting the claims that CO2 by man is causing global climate change

[kosciusko51]

I simply responded to a question that you had. I made no claims about how rising CO₂ levels affect the earth's temperature.

I mean this as no offense, but this conversation reminds me of the story of A Man in a Balloon:

A man in a hot air balloon realized he was lost. He reduced altitude and spotted a man below. He descended a bit more and shouted,

"Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."

The man below replied, "You are in a hot air balloon hovering approximately 30 feet above the ground. You are between 40 and 41 degrees north latitude and between 59 and 60 degrees west longitude."

"You must be an engineer," said the balloonist.

"I am," replied the man, "How did you know?"

"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and the fact is I am still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help so far."

The man below responded, "You must be a manager."

"I am," replied the balloonist, "but how did you know."

"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you are going. You have risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. The fact is, you are in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but now, somehow, it's my fault."

And, yes, I am an engineer.

[Bob434]

how is it that I’m full of hot air? I’m asking a perfectly legit question about how it’s possible for CO2 at just 0.04% of the atmosphere is capable of causing global climate change- the 0.04% is a fact- and it only stands to reason that such a small amount can’t possibly be causing global warming unless there is some super capability that CO2 has that I am unaware of? I wasn’;t blaming you for not having answers- You made mention that CO2 is capable of radiating heat back to earth, gave some figures, and my point/question was ‘sure, it can reflect heat back, but it is an inefficient reflector of heat first of all, and second, simply showing that CO2 is capable of reflecting heat still doesn’t address the question for how such aa small amount of it can affect global temperatures like the alarmists are claiming-

I thought perhaps you knew of the mechanism such a small amout uses to somehow increase temperatures on such a small scale-