There is no positive feedback causing global warming!
There is no any heating effect of CO2 or CH4!
Svante Arrhenius had no global-warming theory, his spin was pure idiocy!
CONTENT
- The greenhouse effect doesn’t exist in any greenhouse!
- Energy by splitting out neutrons!
- In 1890 the CO2 percentage was 400ppm (0.04%)!
- The greenhouse effect doesn’t exist on any planet!
- Why is it warm on the Venus?
- Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Mercury
- Cold, snow, hail and flush-floods for Arabia!
- Ozone holes as energy entry valves!
- There are no greenhouse gases!
- Positive feedback illusion!
- The choice between idiocy and fraud!
- Further resources
1. The greenhouse effect doesn’t exist in any greenhouse!
Natural gas is intentionally burned in greenhouses to supply the plants with heat, CO2 (food) and H2O (humidity). The light is adjusted optimally so that the plants can absorb the CO2 from the air by photosynthesis.
The glasshouse hinders convection and prevents the loss of expensive CO2, but there is no radiation barrier. The claims about a non-existent radiation barrier effect caused by greenhouse gases distort the reality in a real greenhouse.
So sehen moderne Gewächshäuser aus: mit einem Kohlendioxid-Verteiler in der Mitte.#Klimawandel #RealSatire
— Maik Pittel (@maikpi70) February 12, 2024
Wenn der natürliche #Co2-Gehalt unserer Atemluft erhöht wird von 420 ppm auf 600 bis 1000 ppm, wachsen die Pflanzen schneller, liefern größere Erträge und sind gesünder. pic.twitter.com/jJfkBVqyh1
Prof. Wood had already tested and proved this in 1909 and Prof. Nasif S. Nahle from San Nicolas de los Garza, N.L., Mexico repeated his experiment.
Repeatability of Professor Robert W. Wood’s 1909 experiment on the Hypothesis of the Greenhouse Effect
By Nasif S. Nahle*
“GENERAL CONCLUSIONS:
The greenhouse effect inside greenhouses is due to the blockage of convective heat transfer with the environment and it is not related, neither obeys, to any kind of “trapped” radiation. Therefore, the greenhouse effect does not exist as it is described in many didactic books and articles. The experiment performed by Prof. Robert W. Wood in 1909 is absolutely valid and systematically repeatable. In average, the blockage of convective heat transfer with the surroundings causes an increase of temperature inside the greenhouses of 10.03 °C with respect to the surroundings temperature.“
When You are lied at, the truth is not far, because it is often the opposite of the lie!
2. In 1890 the CO2 percentage was 400ppm (0.04%)!
The proportion of CO2 has not changed since 1890! This value cannot change at all because the Earth is still the same.
When You are lied at, the truth is not far, because it is often the opposite of the lie!
2. In 1890 the CO2 percentage was 400ppm (0.04%)!
The proportion of CO2 has not changed since 1890! This value cannot change at all because the Earth is still the same.
As the amount of CO2 was already 0.04% in 1890, then the average may have fluctuated somewhat depending on the season, time of day or special circumstances, depending on the region and location, but it was certainly not man's fault , except that the location of the measuring station was chosen incorrectly, or not enough global statistical data could be collected and evaluated.
In any case, nothing has changed about the fact that the actual source of the CO2 cycle is the volcanism at the continental fractures (at least 90%) and that only about 10% is kept in cycle by life symbiosis between plants and animals.
So if we talk about 0.04%, then the proportion of all animals is 0.004%. The proportion of humans then moves in a range of 0.00001% or less. Ants have a biomass 5 times higher than humans, so they produce 5 times more CO2. The same goes for thermites. It doesn't matter whether there are people on Earth or not, the CO2 balance will not change. When pets and humans are absent, wildlife fills that gap.
Even without animals, i.e. only with plants, the proportion of CO2 would not change on average, only that the pendulum cycles would be different. The crucial factor is the balance between the oceans and the air. The CO2 percentage would only increase if there were no plants absorbing it and releasing O2 (oxygen) instead.
3. Energy by splitting out neutrons!
I want to go into the cosmic energy sources to explain why planets have a hot core and what is the difference to the suns. Basic knowledge of the structure of planets and suns makes it easier to recognize the falsehood of the “greenhouse effect”.
The lie about the generation of energy from nuclear fusion in suns is also refuted. Anyone who understands this will easily decode the rest.
Planetary objects that have a very large mass and can therefore form a very dense atmosphere are called suns if their inflamed nucleus grows so far that it extends beyond the entire radius of the object and even reaches into its atmosphere.
Imagine that egg yolk had grown and reached the circumference of the eggshell, so that from the outside the whole egg appeared like egg yolk, while the egg white and the shell would have dissolved in it.
Both in the suns and in the inflamed nuclei of planets, excess neutrons are converted into protons, electrons and electromagnetic radiation by the extreme compression of matter.
This is nuclear fission, where neutrons are knocked out of the isotopes and after a short time they dissolve into a proton, an electron and radiation.
It is only through this process with very high pressure ratios that heavy elements are created in the suns through nuclear fusion as a by-product of nuclear fission. Nuclear fusion is basically an energy-absorbing side effect, not the cause of the energy emission.
In smaller planetoids, the hot core forms from a critical mass and remains closed inside. It is therefore no coincidence that the surface of the Earth’s core is about 6,000°C as hot as the surface of the Sun. The Earth’s core is a small sun, the energy of which is sufficient to at least soften the Earth’s mantle, to break up the Earth’s crust and to generate Earth’s magnetism through the convective movement of the melted matter.
The release of energy is an effect of the mass. This effect goes seamlessly from the smallest meteorites to smaller and larger planets and small and super massive suns.
With these findings, the illusions about energy generation through element fusion and absurdities like “free energy” should be buried. Further explanations follow about the planets of our solar system and how the density of the atmosphere of planets correlates with their mass.
4. The greenhouse effect doesn’t exist on any planet!
The greenhouse effect exists
- neither on Earth,
- nor on Venus,
- Mars,
- Jupiter
- or another planet in our solar system,
- our galaxy
- or anywhere else in the universe.
All claims about the existence of the greenhouse effect have no physical basis at all and are spread out of pure pseudo-scientific idiocy or as deliberate lies of climate control propaganda.
The greenhouse effect is the pseudo-scientific core lie to disguise the perforation and depletion of the ozone layer! More details about that follow below.
Venus is approximately 108 million km and Mars is approximately 228 million km away from the Sun. Both on the cold Mars (0.01 bar air pressure) and on the hot Venus (approx. 95 bar air pressure) the CO2 content in the atmosphere is around 96%. The only reason the CO2 is not absorbed and O2 released is because there are no plants on both planets that conduct photosynthesis.
Mercury, about 58 million km away, is too small to create a noteworthy atmosphere.
Apart from solar radiation, global warming comes from the density of the atmosphere, which in turn depends on the availability of evaporable elements. Without the atmosphere, the absorbed energy could not be distributed more evenly. There would only be extreme heat by an external energy source or extreme cold of space.
With more mass, the atmosphere can absorb more energy that is generated by a sun or the interior of a big planet, such as Jupiter. As a result, planets with more mass also have a denser and warmer atmosphere. The higher energy consumption with larger and denser material can be compared by heating differently sized and denser rocks under the midday sunlight.
The stratification of the atmospheric components corresponds to their specific weight. Large planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus) can even bind hydrogen, while on smaller planets (Earth, Venus, Mars etc.) such light elements escape into space. CO2 is one of the heavy molecules and therefore concentrates near the surface.
Without photosynthesis by plants, the CO2 cannot be bound and O2 released . That is why the proportion of CO2 on Venus and Mars is around 96%. Life activity still plays a crucial role on Earth.
Ultimately, gravity resulting from mass defines the density and composition of the atmosphere of each planet.
Physics does not need a greenhouse effect to generate a higher surface temperature with higher density and more energy input.
- More energy creates more heat,
- more mass absorbs more energy and
- any excess energy is emitted.
5. Why is it warm on the Venus?
On earth, the air pressure is 650 km below sea level at around 65 bar. The air pressure increases by one bar for every 10 km.
The pressure on the surface of Venus is around 95 bar. The smaller radius is based on the fact that the solid mass of Venus is more compact and denser, but the mass of its atmosphere is much larger.
Due to the relatively higher surface pressure, it could be assumed that Venus has a slightly larger mass overall. If we would assume that both planets have a similar composition and have the same level of gravity, then the proximity to the sun makes the only difference that leads to greater heating and evaporation of volatile substances and thus results in a denser atmosphere.
The proximity to the Sun in combination with the denser atmosphere results in an average temperature of over 450°C on the surface of Venus. Pleasant pressure conditions, like on Earth arise at heights of approximately 50km to 65km!
Venus is a day longer than a year and rotates in the opposite direction relative to all other planets and the Sun. This slow rotation also causes a completely different climate on Venus than on Earth.
So Venus is …
- closer to the sun,
- packed more densely and
- has a smaller radius.
- higher surface temperature,
- denser atmosphere and
- 95 times higher air pressure on the surface.
6. Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Mercury
Our Earth was very compact until 700 million years ago, so it had a much smaller radius. Until that time the hot core of the Earth softened the Earth’s mantle so much that the remaining Earth’s crust became brittle, volcanic cracks appeared and the first deep ocean was formed. After that, there were further serious fractures of the Earth’s crust about 250 and 65 million years ago, intensified by comet impacts.
Around 65 million years ago, the Earth’s atmosphere was so dense on the surface that significantly heavier dinosaurs up to 200kg could fly and glide. Thick air provides higher, thin air lower buoyancy. With this knowledge it becomes clear why today’s flying birds can weigh a maximum of 21kg.
Around 65 million years ago, the Earth’s atmosphere was so dense on the surface that significantly heavier dinosaurs up to 200kg could fly and glide. Thick air provides higher, thin air lower buoyancy. With this knowledge it becomes clear why today’s flying birds can weigh a maximum of 21kg.
Anyone who has grasped the development process of planets will also better recognize the continental drift. Unfortunately, these findings are often pulled into the abstruse with crude claims about mass growth by neutrinos.
For an explanation, I recommend Samuel Warren Carey’s research, which I included in the following article.
From German: Cosmological complexity against the FlatEarth of flatted minds!
https://geoarchitektur.blogspot.com/p/kosmologische-komplexitat-gegen-die.html
The surface pressure of the planets is listed there!
| Planet | Atmospheric pressure on the surface |
|---|---|
| Earth | 1 bar |
| Venus | 92 bar |
| Mars | 0,01 bar |
What is the Temperature of Jupiter?
By Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor | November 7, 2012
https://www.space.com/18391-jupiter-temperature.html
By Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor | November 7, 2012
https://www.space.com/18391-jupiter-temperature.html
“Heating sources
Because Jupiter’s distance from the sun is an average of 484 million miles (778 million km), heat from the star is weak, though it does contribute. Much of the heating of the gases come from the inside of planet itself. Beneath the surface, convection from the liquid and plasma hydrogen generate more heat than from the sun. This convection keeps the massive gas giant warm enough to avoid it freezing into an icy world.“
Objects that are too small to hold an effective atmosphere are exposed to the cosmic cold and direct exposure to the Sun.
Our Moon and Mercury are very good examples. On the sunny side, the bottom of the Moon can reach 130°C, while on the shadow side, the temperature is around -160°C. On Mercury, it gets cold down to -173°C at night and hot up to 167°C during the day.
Diameter of some planetary objects in our solar system:
| Planetoid | Diameter |
|---|---|
| Moon | 3.476 km |
| Mercury | 4.879 km |
| Venus | 12.104 km |
| Earth | 12.742 km |
| Jupiter | 139.822 km |
The surface temperature is an effect of the mass of the planets and their ability to form and maintain a dense atmosphere.
7. Cold, snow, hail and flush-floods for Arabia!
7. Cold, snow, hail and flush-floods for Arabia!
Since the energy absorption capacity of a planet depends on its mass, the Earth cannot heat up continuously. Only a temporary vertical and horizontal shift of the available energy is possible.
If some regions, e.g. Europe is suffering from a heat waves, drought, rivers barely carrying water for shipping, we must ask where the water has gone to. The natural currents are formed by the geography and the rotation of the Earth. So these wind-water routes have to be followed to determine where the precipitation came down. The water, what is missed in is being shifted to Arabia and North Africa!
Auxiliary spillway? Arabian soil washed away!
http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.com/p/all-arabia-is-one-spillway.html
ELEPHANT in the room is SRM for water theft! Extreme weather!
http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.com/p/water-delivery-by-tropospheric-srm.html
http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/p/water-deliver-with-srm.html
http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/p/water-delivery-by-tropospheric-srm_1.html
In North America, the same contrast arises between California and Texas.
Why the water of California is now in NewMexico Texas & Arizona?
California has no water-rights!
http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.com/p/where-water-goes-to.html
The main reason for this non-natural transit is the water demand for the fracking of oil and natural gas, closely followed by industrial desert farming.
From German: Farewell to (organic) agriculture! Not global warming, but cooling of the stratosphere and warming of the troposphere by SRM!
http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.com/p/nicht-erderwarmung-sondern-abkuhlung.html
Can you follow these explanations? To get freely available evidence, simply observe the locations of huge industrial water consumption live (with a time delay) on satellite images.
8. Ozone holes as energy entry valves!
CO2, H2O, N2, O2 or other components of the air, even fine dust and smog, can absorb heat up if they receive energy and cool down if there is no energy supply. With additional energy input the inner temperature of the atmosphere and the surface will increase and with less it will decrease.
The ozone layer in the lower troposphere is a limiting barrier for energy input, because under natural conditions it absorbs most of UVB rays.
The distance between our Earth and Sun, the total mass of both and the geography of the Earth cannot be modified by human activity. Therefore prerequisite for any additional warming below the ozone layer are the ozone holes.
Dear readers, please try to understand how the ozone holes are responsible for the transmission of more UVB and consequently for the heating. The ozone layer is the natural external Venetian blind all over the world, which blocks about 97% of UVB light without artificial intervention and converts it into heat and infrared light. Therefore, the ozone layer is warmer than the underlying tropopause and the upper limit of the troposphere.
However, if the ozone layer is sprayed with chlorine and fluorine, then large-scale ozone holes are created, where no more ozone is formed and no UVB light is blocked, but is let through unhindered. Therefore, the ozone layer in the area of the ozone holes cools down significantly, but the air column below, down to the surface of the earth, is heated. That is the truth behind the so-called “global warming”.
From German: No global warming, just the vertical shift in the temperature gradient of the atmosphere!
https://geoarchitektur.blogspot.com/p/keine-erderwarmung-sondern-nur-die.html
9. There are no greenhouse gases!
From German: No global warming, just the vertical shift in the temperature gradient of the atmosphere!
https://geoarchitektur.blogspot.com/p/keine-erderwarmung-sondern-nur-die.html
9. There are no greenhouse gases!
If you are interested in the specific thermal properties and the proportion of CO2 in the air, then please take a look at the article on “Questions and Answers on CO2“. Other components of the troposphere are also listed there to compare their proportions and properties.
You will quickly find that CO2 is not suitable for reacting with sunlight. Before even a single CO2 molecule can react to a photon, there are 99.66% other components that are more reactive, especially the water vapor, which is around 1000 times more in the air.
As already mentioned, in 1909 Professor John Wood and newly Prof. Nasif S. Nahle repeatedly demonstrated that a greenhouse with a high CO2 share in the air cools down measurably.
The graph is showing that methane reacts much less to the Sun’s rays than CO2. Methane is almost completely transparent in the infrared range too. In addition, the proportion of methane is measured in parts per billion, i.e. one million times less than the trace proportion of CO2. Hence, the thermal effect of methane in the atmosphere is another big lie.
10. Positive feedback illusion!
The positive feedback effect of CO2 is as true as if someone would say that the light reflection of the Moon is the main cause of the heat on the Sun, because when the Sun sends light into space, a very small part reaches the Moon and a negligible part of it is reflected back to the Sun. That is the “feedback” of the Moon.
Consider that the light from the Sun to the Moon takes about 8 minutes, the reflection another 8 minutes, so a photon that was emitted by the Sun comes back to the Sun after about 16 minutes.
Would you claim that the Sun would stop glowing if there wasn’t the feedback by the Moon?
This is exactly what some idiots claim about global-warming by CO2! Mind you, of the 0.037% CO2 in the atmosphere, not the entire human share of 0.0011%, but 0.0000077% from industry is accused for causing global warming. For a molecule that has a cooling effect, is a result of the heating, but is never the cause of of it!
This hardly measurable proportion of CO2 is supposed
- to reflect the absorbed sunlight as infrared radiation to the Earth’s surface,
- to intercept and reflect the infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface again and again and
- build an infrared-light ping-pong,
- that would increase the internal heat of the Earth’s atmosphere and surface.
At the beginning, the climate-cult priests, who like to be called “climate scientists”, referred to the crazy speculations of Svante Arrhenius, about a “glass roof” of frozen carbon dioxide snow at a height of 6 km.
The fictitious greenhouse effect
By Loki45 16.07.2009, 12.40
http://community.zeit.de/user/loki45/beitrag/2009/07/16/der-fiktive-treibhauseffekt
By Loki45 16.07.2009, 12.40
http://community.zeit.de/user/loki45/beitrag/2009/07/16/der-fiktive-treibhauseffekt
“It is always astonishing how his “greenhouse theory” as a myth, even in science, is preserved. In his publication “On the influence of carbon dioxide in the air on soil temperature” he claimed that a “glass roof” made of frozen carbon dioxide snow at 6 kmheight would seal off the Earth and “heat up” like a greenhouse. The glass roof “was not found. Nor is there a heat-reflecting carbon dioxide layer that reflects heat radiation reflected from the Earth – they are a myth of the climate catastrophe apologists!“
Since such claims seem too ridiculous, the climate sect no longer locates this shield at a certain level, but demands that we all believe in the existence of an indefinable cover.
11. The choice between idiocy and fraud!
Dear readers, just assume that everything about global warming is false.
- There was never a greenhouse effect
- there is no greenhouse effect,
- and there will never be a greenhouse effect.
This power-political-strategic lie campaign was conceived in 1965 on behalf of President Lyndon B. Johnson to mask the destructive effects of military and commercial climate control.
The fraudsters expect us to simply believe in any nonsense that the climate sect proclaims as “science” and not question it at all, for not to be insulted as “climate denier”.
In the following excerpt from the Today Show, Albrecht Humboldt and Tina Haustensatirically expose the energy transition and climatism as a fanatic evangelical religion. The post was obviously too revealing, that it was removed from YouTube several times. Here is another copy of it.
Heute Show: Satire on the energy transition
If this link is deleted, here is another one!
Angela Merkel’s Groko and the energy transition – heute Show – 07.03.2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76mbsDBnS4
12. Further resources
The greenhouse effect was already refuted in 1909
https://www.heise.de/forum/Telepolis/Kommentare/Klima-Europaeer-sind-etwas-gleicher-als-der-Rest-der-Menschheit/Treibhaus-Effekt-wurde-bereits-1909-widerlegt/posting-2227812/show/?nid=cfr-HFcv
https://www.heise.de/forum/Telepolis/Kommentare/Klima-Europaeer-sind-etwas-gleicher-als-der-Rest-der-Menschheit/Treibhaus-Effekt-wurde-bereits-1909-widerlegt/posting-2227812/show/?nid=cfr-HFcv
The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the “Greenhouse Effect”.
Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.) Consulting Geologist
First Uploaded ISO: 2009-Oct-13 Revision 5 ISO: 2011-Dec-07
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.) Consulting Geologist
First Uploaded ISO: 2009-Oct-13 Revision 5 ISO: 2011-Dec-07
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
“Misattribution versus What Fourier Really Found
Contrary to what Arrhenius (1896, 1906b) and many popular authors may claim (Weart, 2003; Flannery, 2005; Archer, 2009), Fourier did not consider the atmosphere to be anything like glass. In fact, Fourier (1827, p. 587) rejected the comparison by stipulating the impossible condition that, in order for the atmosphere to even remotely resemble the workings of a hotbox or greenhouse, layers of the air would have to solidify without affecting the air’s optical properties. What Fourier (1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, p. 12) actually wrote stands in stark contrast to Arrhenius’ claims about Fourier’s ideas:“
Specific heat capacity of gases
https://www.ahoefler.de/maschinenbau/thermodynamik-waermelehre/waerme/spezifische-waerme/spezifische-waermekapazitaet/460-spezifische-waermekapazitaet-von-gasen.html
“In contrast to liquid or solid materials, there is a peculiarity regarding the specific heat capacity of gaseous substances. For these substances it must be considered how the heat is supplied. A distinction must be made between two cases, which are illustrated in the experiment shown below:
- Change of state with constant volume (isochoric process)
- Change of state at constant pressure (isobaric process)“
From German: Skeptic errors III: the greenhouse effect and thermalization
http://www.science-skeptical.de/klimawandel/skeptikerirrtuemer-iii-der-treibhauseffekt-und-die-thermalisierung/0012906/
“Although CO2 absorbs the heat radiation / infrared radiation (IR radiation) of the Earth well at a wavelength of 15 µm (= wave number 670), there is no spontaneous or “thermal emission” of CO2 close to the Earth, since in the troposphere (lower atmosphere) the radiation energy is completely converted into kinetic energy / heat through radiationless deactivation processes / shock processes. This process is also known as “thermalization”. “The astronomer does not see 15 µm IR radiation / counter radiation on the Earth’s surface”. As a result, there can be no greenhouse effect (GHE).“
Here is another statement that refutes all claims about warming by CO2.
The tale of the climate catastrophe
In Memoriam PROF. DR. – ING. habil. CLAUS MEIER Architekt SRL, BayAK Nürnberg
http://clausmeier.tripod.com/klima13.htm
“The radiation of the Earth’s surface into space is only reduced by wavelength-dependent absorption of climate-sensitive trace gases. The absorption lines of the CO2 are at the wavelengths 2.8 µm (here solar radiation is absorbed) and at 4.5 µm and 14.5 µm (Fig. 1). Only at these last two wavelengths is the terrestrial radiation absorbed – only there and only about 65% (source: Günzler / Heise, IR spectroscopy, Weinheim 1996, p. 63 from [17]). However, since the terrestrial heat radiation from the Earth’s surface spans the range from about 3 to over 40 µm [11], the radiation is hardly influenced by increased CO2 proportions, which only make up 0.03% of the atmosphere anyway. Here, too, man cannot do anything.“
The above statements about CO2 apply millions of times less for methane.
Absorption by Gases in the Atmosphere
http://ozonedepletiontheory.info/ImagePages/absorption-rhode.html
What is slightly higher with O2 than with CO2 is the specific heat capacity at static pressure. This value is more than twice as high for water and is still surpassed by methane. However, methane does not survive long and oxidizes to CO2 and H2O when exposed to sunlight.
From German: List of specific heat capacities
https://www.chemie.de/lexikon/Liste_der_spezifischen_W%C3%A4rmekapazit%C3%A4ten.html
This process is accelerated with more UV radiation.
Efficient photocatalytic oxidation of methane over b-Ga2O3/activated carbon composites
https://pubs.rsc.org/-/content/articlepdf/2017/ra/c7ra05692c
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009)
replaces Version 1.0 (July 7, 2007) and later
Gerhard Gerlich Institut f¨ur Mathematische Physik Technische Universit¨at Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig Mendelssohnstraße 3 D-38106 Braunschweig Federal Republic of Germany g.gerlich@tu-bs.de Ralf D. Tscheuschner Postfach 60 27 62 D-22237 Hamburg Federal Republic of Germany ralfd@na-net.ornl.gov
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf
"The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.
Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 ◦C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified."
Here the famous Carl Sagan reveals himself to be an non-scientist. Has he really become so deceived or is he just doing his job of pseudo-scientific lying?
Carl Sagan testifying before Congress in 1985 on climate change
License of Enkidu Gilgamesh – Sharing is Caring
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf
"The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.
Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 ◦C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified."
Here the famous Carl Sagan reveals himself to be an non-scientist. Has he really become so deceived or is he just doing his job of pseudo-scientific lying?
Carl Sagan testifying before Congress in 1985 on climate change
License of Enkidu Gilgamesh – Sharing is Caring
No comments:
Post a Comment