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 1875 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 1875 the CO2 percentage was 400ppm (0.04%)!
The proportion of CO2 has not changed since 1875! 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 1875 the CO2 percentage was 400ppm (0.04%)!
The proportion of CO2 has not changed since 1875! This value cannot change at all because the Earth is still the same.
ENCYCLOPEDIA BBITANNICA NINTH EDITION, VOLUME III, MDCCCLXXV (1875), Seite 32 ATMOSPHERE:
This content is on the page 44 of the document.
"The ancients thought that air was one of the four elements from which all things originated, and this doctrine continued to prevail till 1774, when Priestley discovered oxygen gas, and showed it to be a constituent part of air. Nitrogen, the other constituent of air, first called azote, was discovered soon after, and the marked differences between these two gases could not fail to strike the most careless observer. It is ’remarkable that Scheele independently discovered both oxygen and nitrogen, and was the first to enunciate the opinion that air consists essentially of a mixture of these two gases. From experiments made by him to ascertain their relative volumes he concluded that the proportions are 27 volumes of oxygen and 73 volumes of nitrogen. It was left to Cavendish to show from 500 analyses that the relative proportions were practically constant, and that the proportion is 20'833 per cent, of oxygen. The results obtained by Cavendish, though not attended to for many years after they were published, have been shown by recent and more refined analyses to be wonderfully exact. The most recent analyses of specimens of air collected under circumstances which ensure that it is of average purity, give as a mean result the following:—
Volume.
Oxygen 20.96 per cent.
Nitrogen 79.00 "
Carbonic acid 0.04 "
--------
100-00"
The same applies for "Meyer's Konversationslexikon" of 1890!
Since the amount of CO2 was already at 0.04% in 1875, the average value may have fluctuated slightly depending on the region, location, season, time of day or special circumstances, but it was certainly not man's fault, except that the location of the measuring station was wrongly chosen or not enough global statistical data could be collected and evaluated.
In any case, nothing has changed in the fact that the actual source of the CO2 cycle is volcanism at the continental rifts (at least 90%). Only about 10% enters the carbon cycle through other geological processes and the symbiosis of life 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 10 times higher than humans, so they produce 10 times more CO2. Thermites contribute the about same like humans. 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 temporarily if there were no plants absorbing it and releasing O2 (oxygen) instead. But that would result in the death of all animals & their emission of CO2. This mass death is already observable & is caused by the application of Climate Control above huge coral reef habitats.
Ocean life is killed at the bottom of the food chain, by sunlight deprivation!
Oxygen deprivation! Global suffocation!
Criminal stupids! Death by exploration SONAR!
Murdering the Circle of Life! Explaining sunlight deprivation by studies!
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.
In both the suns and the ignited cores of planets, transmutation takes place in two directions due to the extreme compression of matter:
- Neutrons become protons, electrons, anti-neutrinos, gamma radiation & kinetic energy.
- Protons & electrons become neutrons by input of energy under high pressure and can split again, provided they do not form a strong bond with protons, to form elements that contain several times the mass of elemental hydrogen.
The formation of neutrons & heavy elements is basically an energy-absorbing side effect of mass gravity, not the cause of the energy release in a sun.
The separation and fission of neutrons corresponds to what we know from the nuclear fission of uranium-235, plutonium-239 and plutonium-241, where neutrons are knocked out of these isotopes and after a short time they dissolve into the components mentioned and release energy.
To be precise, it is not the fission of a nucleus into two smaller elements, but only the separation of neutrons from the nuclei that causes the energy release.
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.
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?
For comparison, on Earth the pressure under water increases by 1 bar for every 10 m, so that at a depth of 4,000 m, where the Titanic is sunk, the pressure is 400 bar.
If we roughly assume the increase in pure air pressure (without water) per km at 0.15 bar, then at a hypothetical depth of 320 km on Earth we would arrive at an additional value of 48 bar. Together with the natural air pressure, this would result in 49 bar. However, the concentration of CO2 would increase, so the pressure would have to be higher than in normal air.
Even at a depth of 100 km, the temperature under the Earth's surface is around 1,500°C.
The high air pressure on the surface of Venus is the result of the 320 km low surface. However, the dense atmosphere ends at an altitude of 50 km, where the pressure and temperature conditions are similarly pleasant as on Earth!
The dense CO2 layer on Venus is practically part of its surface!
Due to the different masses, it is not possible to calculate the conditions in the depths of Earth & Venus proportionally to each other.
The proximity to the sun causes greater heating, evaporation of volatile substances, formation of a denser atmosphere and temperatures of over 450 °C on the surface of Venus.
The atmosphere of Venus consists of CO2 (96.5%) & nitrogen (3.5%). All other gases only exist in very small quantities.
"The atmosphere of Venus is the very dense layer of gases surrounding the planet Venus. Venus's atmosphere is composed of 96.5% carbon dioxide and 3.5% nitrogen, with other chemical compounds present only in trace amounts."
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. Only then did the hot core of the earth soften the mantle to such an extent that the remaining earth's crust became brittle, developed volcanic cracks and the first deep ocean was formed. After that, there were further serious fractures in the earth's crust around 250 and 65 million years ago, intensified by comet impacts that accelerated this process.
Around 65 million years ago, the earth's atmosphere on the surface was so dense that pterosaurs weighing 120 kg could fly and glide through the air. Today's birds are only able to fly up to a body weight of 20 kg. You can find out more about this in the following articles:
From German: Cosmological complexity against the FlatEarth of flatted minds!
https://geoarchitektur.blogspot.com/p/kosmologische-komplexitat-gegen-die.html
From German: Expansion of the Earth as foundation of the continental der kontinentalen rifts & movements
Anyone who understands the process of planetary development will also be better able to understand continental drift. Unfortunately, these findings are often pulled into absurdity by crude claims about mass growth caused by neutrinos.
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