In reply to Jack Smith....

Why not just admit, as the UK Met has had to ---that there has been no warming for 15-16 years, even as CO2 has risen---no correlation, except that the rise in CO2 we see may be due to the fact that CO2 lags temperature---ie the temperature rise causes the CO2 rise.

Also, James Hansen said the following in the 70s...apparently never refuted...

[ [ 'Although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere']

What would you and others here have expected as the earth emerged from the Little Ice Age---even more cooling as it emerged---and more ice? Where does that end??

Or do you contend that temperature should have been static---as it never has.

That leaves warming.

Can you explain why the slight warming trend that has occurred is not the logical result of emergence from the LIA??

For heavens sake, reliable surface temperature measurement has only been possible since the 70s, and for the oceans only since 2003, and the advent of the Argo floats---and the ocean too is not warming--- as it would have to be if CAGW was a reality.

In the early 70s, some of today's warmists like Hansen and the late Steven Schneider were trying to alarm the world about 'the coming ice age', until the Great Pacific Climate Shift in 1976, that started the only warming trend the alarmists can now hang their hats on---and it was over by 1997.

The only possible reason for the warmists' zeal for the spreading of alarm at this slight warming, and for the flogging of measures such as carbon taxes and an ETS to 'remedy' it---- is that they have another agenda and CAGW mass hysteria is a useful tool to bring that agenda to fruition.

The result we'll get will be a tanking Australian economy.

Is that what the warmists want?

The European ETS has been manipulated and rorted by un-elected Eurocrats resulting in it's collapse.

Germany, long the Green's poster nation, is now building 20 coal fired power stations courtesy of cheap Polish coal and even cheaper European ETS credits.

Our Australian government, in their wisdom, recently decided to tie our carbon tax to the European ETS.

The future of our scheme is now controlled by faceless, un-elected Eurocrats in Brussels who will absolutely no account of Australia's concerns if they decide to start manipulating the price again.

They are not accountable to us and we cannot vote them out. And why are we doing this? To reduce the earth's temperature.

Academics in a 1000 years are going to study the newspapers of our times and scoff at our hubris in imagining we can manipulate the earth's temperature with a carbon tax on Australia's industries.

Hopefully, we only have 8 months of this rubbish to go.

Gerard Dean

David Arthur, I am waiting to get a library copy of Maarten Ambaum's postgraduate text. I will not pay money for a document that I know has errors in it.
Here is a document that shows why Section 9.3 is crap. There are many more similar scientific paper that show the “greenhouse gas effect” is a fairy-tale not even a hypotheses.

1
The Manmade CO2 Global Warming Fraud!
Robert A. Ashworth
Published on EnergyPulse -http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=2563
Introduction
Following is an excerpt 1 from a paper written by a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) meteorologist; “Climate models used for estimating effects of increases in greenhouse gases show substantial increases in water vapor as the globe warms and this increased moisture would further increase the warming." However, this meteorologist along with the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) crowd got it backwards about water vapor and CO2 – they cool the earth like all other gases in our atmosphere!
Although moisture in the atmosphere does increase with warming, this is because the higher temperature causes more water to evaporate. With every pound of water evaporated 1,000 Btu is absorbed and that causes cooling. Further, increased water in the atmosphere causes further cooling (not warming) by reflecting more of the radiant energy from the Sun that is hitting the water vapor molecules back to outer space. Al Gore presented the climate change fraud as well in his "Inconvenient Truth”, actually a “Convenient Lie” presentation of the Vostok Ice Core data, see below.
Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" Documentary - Cause and Effect Reversed
In this documentary, Al Gore fudged the Vostok Ice core temperature and CO2 line graphs so it would show a CO2 spike coming first in time, but the real graph showed just the opposite. See the data in a shorter time frame (240,000 Years Before Present rather than 420,000 years as presented by Gore). This makes it easier to see which came first, Figure 1.
Figure 1. Vostok, Antarctica Ice Core Data 2.
2
It is clearly seen that a global warming spike (blue line) always comes first. The spike warms the oceans, which slowly reduces the solubility of CO2 in water that results in the liberation of CO2 from the oceans around 800 years later (see Figure 2). Gore gave no explanation what would cause a CO2 spike to occur in the first place, but then again he is a politician with an agenda to make him wealthy. See the most recent time of warming between the 500 year medieval warming period and the start of an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. One can see that CO2 started increasing during a cooling period showing it was not controlled by the warming that started some 80 years later and it is about 800 years from the end of the medieval warming period. This is historically what happened.
Figure 2. Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age and Carbon Dioxide 3.
Manmade Emissions of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
CO2 emissions created by man, i.e. combustion of fuels, (called anthropogenic emissions) is miniscule compared to the emissions of CO2 from nature? Table 1 was developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who promote the global warming lie. This is their data. It shows annual CO2 emissions to the atmosphere from both nature and man and how much of the CO2 emitted is re-absorbed by nature. Using the table in combination with a total concentration of 392 ppmv of CO2 seen in the atmosphere in December 2011, one sees that the increase in CO2 caused by all of man's activities amounted to only 11.5 ppmv.
TABLE 1. GLOBAL SOURCES AND ABSORPTION OF CO2
Carbon Dioxide: Natural Human Made Total Absorption
Annual Million Metric Tons 770,000 23,100 793,100 781,400
% of Total 97.1% 2.9% 100% 98.5%
Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis
(Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press, 2001), Figure 3.1, p. 188.
3
The amount of CO2 from man is a mouse milk quantity compared to nature's emissions. If we eliminated worldwide, all manmade CO2 emissions, we would go back to the level we had in January 2005. It was slightly warmer (about 0.1oC) in January 2005 than it was in January 2011.
The US EPA is regulating manmade CO2 which is orders of magnitude beyond stupid. The manmade CO2 being generated in the United States in 2010 that contributes to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is 16.4% of the worldwide manmade total 4 and that calculates to be (11.5*0.164) = 1.9 ppmv. The CO2 release from Medieval Warming has caused CO2 in the atmosphere to rise some 2 ppmv per year from 1993 to 2011 5. So if you eliminated all manmade CO2 from the U.S. today, next year at this time it would be the same as this year before the CO2 emissions were stopped.
Nature absorbs 98.5% of the CO2 that is emitted by nature and man. As CO2 increases in the atmosphere, nature causes plant growth to increase via photosynthesis which is an endothermic (cooling) reaction. For every pound of biomass formed some 10,000 Btu are removed from the atmosphere. CO2 is absorbed, and oxygen is liberated. Further, a doubling of CO2 will increase the photosynthesis rate by 30 to 100%, depending on temperature and available moisture 6.
More CO2 is absorbed by the plants due to the increased concentration of CO2 for conversion to carbohydrates. Nature therefore has in place a built-in mechanism to regulate the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere that will always completely dwarf man's feeble attempts to regulate it. Further, no regulation is necessary because CO2 is not a pollutant; it is part of the animal-plant life cycle and without it, life would not exist on earth!
A Common Sense Scientific Truth
Any mass between you and a radiant energy source will provide cooling. Stand near a fireplace that is burning and feel the warmth of the radiant energy; then have two people drape a blanket between you and the fireplace - you will feel cooler! Another example, stand outside on a sun shiny day. When a cloud goes over and shades you from the direct rays of the sun, most people feel cooler, but perhaps not the IPCC scientists. Nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, carbon dioxide and any dust that is in the atmosphere all provide cooling as well. Why is this? If there were no atmosphere, all radiant energy from the sun would hit the earth. However, with an atmosphere, a portion of the incoming sun's rays are absorbed or reflected away from earth by striking the gaseous molecules and dust particles, so less radiant energy hits the earth and the earth is cooler because it has atmosphere, see Figure 3.
Figure 3. Earth without and with an atmosphere
4
Everyone knows that cloud cover at night (more insulation) prevents the earth from cooling off as fast as it does when there are no clouds. However, on a relatively clear night if a cloud goes overhead you cannot feel any warming effect of the cloud, so this insulating effect is shown to be very minimal compared to the daytime effect. No rocket science is required here, just common sense. If common sense isn't good enough for you there is also scientific proof.
Proofs - Water Vapor Cools the Earth
Water vapor is considered by the IPCC pseudo-scientists to have the greatest greenhouse gas effect. If this so-called greenhouse gas actually cools the earth, so must all of the others that are put in that greenhouse gas category (carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons, etc.).
1st Proof
Following the 9-11 terrorist attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration prohibited commercial aviation over the United States for three days following the attacks. This presented a unique opportunity to study the temperature of earth with and without jet airplane contrails.
Dr. David Travis, atmospheric scientist at the University of Wisconsin, along with two others, looked at temperatures for those three days and compared them to other days when planes were flying. They analyzed data from about 4,000 weather stations throughout the lower 48 states (U.S.) for the period 1971-2000, and compared the three-day grounding period with three days before and after the grounding period. They found that the average daily temperature range between highs and lows was 1.1 degrees C higher during September 11-14 (see Figure 4) compared to September 8-11 and September 11-14 for other years with normal air traffic.
Figure 4. Average diurnal (daily) temperature range (DTR) 7
The data proved that contrails (water vapor) cooled the earth. You cannot just look at earth radiation like the IPCC members have done, it is miniscule compared to the radiation hitting the earth from the sun. The overall effect of our atmosphere is cooling, not warming. You have to look at energy in and out, not just energy out. Carbon dioxide and water vapor are both included in the IPCC greenhouse gas category and water vapor is said to be the strongest “greenhouse” gas. The author was the project manager for installing a fluidized bed combustor in a greenhouse to heat the greenhouse during the night and on cool days. A greenhouse is the same as a car with the windows rolled up. It does nothing more.
5
2nd Proof
An experiment was performed by Carl Brehmer to study the effect of rising and falling levels of humidity on soil temperature and discovered that the addition of moisture to the atmosphere exerts a significant negative feedback (cooling effect).
The experiment (Figure 5) showed the same result as the analysis of the 9-11 data; on an overall basis increased humidity reduces the temperature on earth; it doesn’t warm it. The data was taken over 38 days so the first thing done was to find the 38 day mean dew point and divide the days up between those that fell above the mean—the “humid” days—and those that fell below the mean—the “arid” days. Then the data was averaged as shown on the curves on the graph below. One can readily see the hotter day time temperatures for the arid days (red line).
Figure 5. Effect of Humidity on Soil Temperature.8
At night a slight warming effect can be seen by the increased humidity, approximately 2 oC but in the heat of the day it shows a cooling effect of some 6 oC. It is well known that cloud cover doesn’t allow the earth to cool off as fast at night. Higher humidity acts the same both ways. However the cooling of the earth with higher humidity is as much as three times greater in the day than the warming at night. Radiation gets reflected both ways but the radiation from the sun to the earth is greater than that of the earth to the sky. One would have thought the IPCC could do similar tests, but they only use bogus computer models based on fudged data. They are averse to using real data, because actual data refutes the computer model results. I heard a weatherman in Houston relay recently that tomorrow will be cooler because we will have higher humidity. This is well known but refuted by our charlatan government agencies, the NOAA and EPA and also the UN’s IPCC.
6
The Climate Change Agenda is a Complete Fraud
There is a lot of supporting evidence that indicates that the Climate Change agenda is and always has been a fraud 9. Why is it called a fraud? An event now referred to as “Climategate” publicly began on November 19, 2009, when a whistle-blower leaked thousands of emails and documents central to a Freedom of Information request placed with the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. This institution had played a central role in the “climate change” debate: its scientists, together with their international colleagues, quite literally put the “warming” into Global Warming: they were responsible for analyzing and collating the measurements of temperature from around the globe from the present to the distant past.
Dr. John Costello 9 relays, “Climategate has shattered that myth (the myth of global warming). It gives us a peephole into the work of the scientists investigating possibly the most important issue ever to face mankind. Instead of seeing large collaborations of meticulous, careful, critical scientists, we instead see a small team of incompetent cowboys, abusing almost every aspect of the framework of science to build a fortress around their ‘old boys club’, to prevent real scientists from seeing the shambles of their research.
Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. It can be shown that systematically and purposefully, country by country, they removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler. The thermometers kept were near the tropics, the sea, and airports near bigger cities. These data were then used to determine the global average temperature and to initialize climate models. From 1960 through 1980, there were more than 6000 stations providing temperature information. The NOAA reduced these to fewer than 1500. Calculating the average temperatures this way ensured that the mean global surface temperature for each month and year would show a false-positive temperature anomaly, a bogus warming trend. Interestingly (although absent scientific credibility), the very same stations that were deleted from the world climate network were retained for computing the average-temperature base periods, further falsely increasing the bias towards earth warming.
An internal study by the U.S. EPA 11 completed by Dr. Alan Carlin and John Davidson concluded the IPCC was wrong about global warming. Dr. Carlin is an Environmental Protection Agency veteran who wrote a damaging report to Lisa Jackson’s EPA agenda, warning that the science behind climate change was questionable at best, and that we shouldn’t pass laws that will hurt American families and hobble the nation’s economy based on incomplete information.
One statement in his executive summary found that the crucial assumption in the Greenhouse Climate Models (GCM) used by the IPCC concerning a strong positive feedback from water vapor is not supported by empirical evidence and that the feedback is actually negative. This is exactly what is shown here, water vapor in the atmosphere causes a cooling effect (negative feedback), not a positive warming feedback.
EPA tried to bury Dr. Carlin’s report. An email from Al McGartland, Office Director of EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE), to Dr. Alan Carlin, Senior Operations Research Analyst at NCEE, forbade him from speaking to anyone outside NCEE on endangerment issues. In a March 17 email from McGartland to Carlin, stated that he will not forward Carlin’s study. “The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator (Lisa Jackson) and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. …. I
7
can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” A second email from McGartland stated “I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change.”
McGartland’s emails demonstrate that he was rejecting Dr. Carlin’s study because his conclusions ran counter to the EPA/IPCC position. Yet this study had its basis in three prior reports by Carlin (two in 2007 and one in 2008) that were accepted. Another government cover-up, just what the United States did not need
Most of the U.S. House of Representatives agree with the fraud assessment. 12 On February 19, 2011 they voted to eliminate U.S. funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. With a vote of 244-179, they said that it no longer wishes to have the IPCC prepare its comprehensive international climate science assessments. The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Missouri), said; “The IPCC scientists manipulated climate data, suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals, and researchers were asked to destroy emails, so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda”.
The organization responsible for managing a global cap-and-trade system worth billions of dollars for carbon emissions projects around the world is trying to get sweeping legal immunities for its actions, even as it plans to expand its activities in the wake of the recent United Nations’ Rio + 20 summit on sustainable development.13 Yes, global warming from CO2 is a complete fraud - that is why they are seeking shelter from prosecution.
Why Was It Done?
It was all about the money. For example, Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management LLP was started in 2004 and in 2008 this announcement was made, “It will be closed to new investors, having risen close to its $5 billion target!“ 14 It rose five billion dollars in 4 years! This shows that a lot of investment firms were in on the scam big time. They also hooked in nefarious pseudo-scientists who were awarded grants for their work in promoting this fraud. Sadly, much of the world runs on the tenant, “Show Me the Money!”
Conclusion
Based on real data evaluation, CO2 causing global warming is completely contrived. The lesson to the world here is, when it comes to science; never blindly accept an explanation from a politician or scientists who have turned political for their own private gain. Many scientists, including the author, see global warming from CO2 as a cruel global swindle to eliminate fossil fuels, so that a few, at the expense of the many, can reap huge profits from either carbon taxes and/or alternative non-green energy sources such as windmills, solar power, and hydroelectric power. Science is a search for truth – nothing else; when scientific truth is trashed for personal gain, the world and its people are in very deep trouble!
References:
1. Ross, R. J., and Elliott, W.P., "Radiosonde-Based Northern Hemisphere Tropospheric Water Vapor Trends",
Journal of Climate, Vol. 14, 1602-1612, July 7, 2000.
2. Petit, J.R., et. al., "Climate and Atmospheric History of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core,
Antarctica", Nature 399: 429-436, June 3, 1999.
8
3. Solomon, S., Plattner, G. K., Knutti, R. and Friedlingstein, P. 2009. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences USA 106: 1704-1709
4. CDIAC: Record High 2010 Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Combustion and Cement
Manufacture. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html.
5. Ashworth, R. A., “Global Warming from CO2 – All Politics, No Science!”, see Figure 3.
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/138-global-warming-from-co2-all-politics-no-science
6. Pearch, R.W. and Bjorkman, O., "Physiological effects", in Lemon, E.R. (ed.), CO 2 and Plants: The Response of
Plants to Rising Levels of Atmospheric CO2, (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1983), pp 65-1055.
7. Travis, D., A. Carleton, and R. Lauritsen, 2002: Contrails reduce daily temperature range. Nature, 418, 601.
8. Brehmer, Carl, “The Greenhouse Effect Explored”, February 21, 2012,
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/143-the-greenhouse-effect-explored
9. Costella, J.P., “Climategate Analysis”, http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/
10. David Evans, "Carbon Emissions Don't Cause Global Warming”, November 28, 2007,
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf.
11. Carlin, A. and Davidson, J, “Proposed NCEE Comments on Draft technical Support Document for Endangerment
Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act”, March 9, 2009.
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf
12. http://www.cfact.org/a/1968/Rep-Blaine-Luetkemeyer-Defund-the-IPCC
13. Washington Times - “Global Climate Change Group Seeks Immunity for Actions, June 12, 2012,
http://times247.com/articles/global-climate-group-seeks-legal-immunity-for-actions#ixzz1ySY2gR5D
14. New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/business/worldbusiness/11iht-gore.4.10942634.html?_r=1

The author states, 'The ambition is that the EU ETS be expanded to other nations that are establishing comparable schemes, such as Australia.'

Some ambition!

The European Emissions Trading Scheme has been rorted, ripped off and manipulated by faceless Eurocrats in Brussels so much that it is a joke. It is an environmental measure in word only. It allows the green poster nation Germany to build 20 coal fired power stations with cheap Polish coal and cheap Euro ETS tickets.

In view of the above, it's madness for Australia to tie itself to the Euro ETS. How can we hold the un-elected Eurocrats accountable. We have virtually no bargaining position, we cannot appeal their decisions nor can we vote them out when they manipulate the price against Australia's interests.

As for the much vaunted carbon tax. Making my factory pay higher prices for electricity has not reduced the earth's temperature a jot, but what it has done is send more Australian jobs overseas.

When will this madness end?

Gerard Dean

Why Have a "carbon tax" when the greenhouse gas effect does not exist?

David still has not come up with a credible experiment. All his supposed proofs of a ghge are circumstantial evidence at best. The real temperature data shows there has not been an average earth temperature change in 16 going on 17 years. Now many parts of the world are experiencing the coldest winters they have had in a 100 years. These areas will need there fossil -fuel sources to provide cheap heat and energy. The environmental wackos will want people to freeze to death.
Plants need between 350 to 1000 ppm of CO2 for optimum growth. When food supplies fail what will the environmental wackos do?
From a post to The conversation 7-6-2012.
David you obviously do not know what a”creditable experiment is; it is an experiment in which you set up a group of perimeter that can be varied then subjected to different physical-chemistry actions to test for different hypothesized or expected results. If the results do not match the Hypothesized results them the hypotheses has to be changed.
As a civil-environmental engineer we test just about everything: If a new type of pipe is developed it is tested for flow, and strength characteristic. If a new type or mix of concrete is being used for design it is tested for water content and strength vs. age characteristic. Every batch of steel that will be used for a bridge or a building or a railway track it is tested for strength, hardness and many other characteristic.
There is no end to the testing and use of experiments to decide if a new treatment process can be used for a specific type of wastewater or to treat storm-water or surface water to make it recyclable.
Before a building/structure can be designed soil tests must be taken to determine how heavy a load can be put on the soil.
Civil engineers know what “creditable experiments” are and what you refer to as “ a hundred years of creditable experiencing in the field of atmospheric knowledge” is pure crap. Computers are used every day by civil and environmental engineering but we know that “garbage in is garbage out” and unless the end product can be tested and verified it is not used. All engineers have a code of ethics that most of us try to live up to but when there is a mistake made and there is a loss of lives , engineers can go to jail and some have.
This responsibility has been totally ignored by the American Society of Civil Engineers and many more technical societies when they accepted by “consensus “ the hoax of the “greenhouse gas effect” when there is no Creditable experiencing to prove that it exists.

You have correctly defined that you are examining “observations” but there is no way for the experimenter to change any of the variables, or subject the variables to man controlled physical-chemistry actions. Everything you are examining are subject To natural variables and there can be hundreds if not thousand of natural variable that have to be accounted for. These “observations are circumstantial evidence at best because there are other possible causes that the environmental communities refuse to look at, they are fanatics not scientists.

Your Observation 1 is wrong: Any high school physics student knows that Sun irradiation is a continuous field of electromagnetic frequencies from gamma ray to radio waves with visible light at about the middle frequencies. Ultraviolet light is on one side of visible light and Infrared on the other side, it continues uninterrupted to longer wavelengths(lower frequencies) into microwaves ,TV frequencies, and radio waves. A good web-site to look at is :http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~kej7a/Teaching/AST313/Lectures/Lecture13.html

When the magnitude of Sun irradiates of the earth is measured there is 1000 times more Long-wave IR inbound than is measured or calculated in out bound radiation on the dark side of the planet.

Observations 2,3 have been proved by Satellite measurements to be totally insignificant. What is relevant is that in the 12 hour period the dark side losses most if not more of the energy absorbed in the previous 12 hours when the surface is exposed to the Sun. Temperature can go up or down depending on retained heat in the total atmosphere not just the IR absorbing gasses. There are not enough molecules of the so Called greenhouse gasses including water to account for the temperature fluctuation experienced from on day to the next or even from one hour to the next.

Observation 4:

David Arthur commented:

"No "creditable experiment"? We've been running the experiment for at least to centuries. Observation 1. Sun irradiates earth with short-wave energy. Observation 2. Earth re-radiates long-wave energy. Observation 3. Greenhouse gases retard transmission of long-wave energy, not short-wave energy. Observation 4. Arctic sea ice is melting, so that summertime sunlight is being absorbed in exposed ocean rather than reflected off ice. Observation 5. Greenland and Antarctic ice is melting, increasing the rate of sea level rise. The rate of ice melt is accelerating as atmospheric greenhouse gases increase. Observation 6. In the Arctic, tipping points have been crossed. Permafrost is thawing, releasing stored methane and carbon dioxide, and warming Siberian continental shelf is causing release of methane from submarine methane clathrates. Inference 1, drawn from observations 1, 2 and 3. Greenhouse gases thus regulate earth's temperature. Altering atmospheric greenhouse gas content therefore alters earth's temperature. Inference 2, (drawn from inference 1 and observations 4, 5 and 6). Ocean is thermally coupled with atmosphere, and transfers a lot of heat to both Arctic and Antarctic. Root cause analysis 1. Historic fossil fuel use and cement production data (Oak Ridge National (US) Laboratory Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) shows sufficient CO2 emission from 1800 to 2007 to raise atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 430 ppm. Dissolution of CO2 in oceans has limited atmospheric CO2 to about 390 ppm, and decreased ocean pH. What do they teach in "civil-environmental engineering" training courses, anyway?"

Here is an Experiment that shows that the ghge does not exist! Where is the experiment that shows it does exist?
The Experiment that Failed which can save the World Trillions:
Proving the “greenhouse gas effect” does not exist!
By Berthold Klein P.E (January 15, 2012)
Edited by John O’Sullivan, incorporating comments by Dr. Pierre Latour, Professor Nasif Nahle, Edward J. Haddad Jr. P.E, Ganesh Krish, and others.
Dedication:
To Professor Robert W. Wood (1909), the first scientist to demonstrate that the Hypothesis of the “Greenhouse effect in the atmosphere” was unscientific. To all other scientists since Professor Wood who have added sound technical and scientific knowledge in many related fields to strengthen the case against the greenhouse gas effect hoax.
To protect my grandsons JJ and BA plus their generation and all the generations that follow - because we finally got it right. For the generations that would otherwise suffer extreme economic harm if the Hoax of (Michael) Mann-made global warming - AKA the “greenhouse gas effect” (GHGE) is not stopped now and forever.

Table of Contents:
Preamble
Section 1: The Hypotheses
Section 2: The Definitions - The Clues
Section 3: The Experiment
Section 4: Numbers
Section 5: Holding the gases - “containment”
Section 6: Setting up the Experiment
Section 7: Results: Examining the Clues
Section 8: Water - liquid, vapor, solid (H2O /lvs)
Appendix

Preamble:
This paper endeavors to solve a 188-year-old mystery that has eluded many scientists. It merely takes a cogent, specialist application of science that has been in the books of physics and thermodynamics for over 100 years. To solve the mystery of why “The greenhouse gas effect (GHGE)” does not exist, one certainly 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 occur are not intuitive. When explained and proven by experiments, it can be understood. As with any mystery; what are the real clues and what are the red herrings?
It is desirable that anyone that can read be able to understand the experiment documented herein and what it means. This paper is for everyone - from the man on the street who would suffer the most by government “1984 Big Brother” control to the Ph.D. holders in social sciences, finance and otherwise unrelated branches of science, law and politics.
At the outset, having communicated with real people and some Ph.D’s, I realized that my mission appeared to be a veritable “Mission Impossible”. Being able to read does not mean that the reader can comprehend the inner workings of science. While having a Ph.D. in one field does not give someone sound knowledge or judgment in unrelated fields (although many are increasingly taking the time to study in other areas to accumulate the knowledge needed). Each person may possess an area of expertise but only a few can extend this knowledge to analyze clues within totally unfamiliar mysteries.
We need to start with a very brief definition of the greenhouse gas effect (GHGE) - 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 by basic physics. The Bohr model shows this millions of times each day by our use of Infrared heaters in homes, restaurants (food warmers), factories, bus stops, etc. This process of absorbing Infrared radiation (IR) is supposed to cause the earth to be warmer than a planet without carbon dioxide (CO2), or any other atmosphere. Yet here is just one example of a recent paper that gives us insight into the real causes of “climate change”:_ hyperlink “http://notrickszone.com/2011/12/30/the-suns-impact-on-earths-temperature-goes-far-beyond-tsi-new-paper-shows/”__The Sun’s Impact On Earth’s Temperature Goes Far Beyond TSI – New Paper Shows_
By _ hyperlink “http://notrickszone.com/author/admin/”__P Gosselin_ on 30th December 2011 (TSI=total solar irradiance)
There are several words or terms used in this paper that need some explanation; a Glossary of terms is provided within the Appendix.

Section 1: The Hypotheses:
To demonstrate the existence of “greenhouse gas effect (GHGE) it is necessary to define it. We are told the Hypotheses of the “greenhouse gas effect” is the process involving a combination of “Infra-red absorbing gases” (IRag), including Water/liquid/vapor/solid (H2O/lvs), CO2, CH4, NO2 and others are super insulation which cause the atmosphere to be 33 degrees C warmer than would be explained by the “black body temperature” (a theoretical perfect radiator of electromagnetic energy).” -The earth along with its atmosphere is not one of them.
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. Regarding this see the Commentary by Professor Nahle and Dr. Latour
To begin to define “The greenhouse gas effect” let’s start with the “features that should be testable.” Because water/liquid, vapor, solid (H2O /lvs) physically reacts differently than other IRag gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) these IRag gases will be dealt with first.
Section 2:The definition-the Clues
Here are those critical features claimed (yet unproved) in the Standard Model “greenhouse gas effect”:
1. Infrared absorbing gases (IRag) absorb IR radiation and thus they inhibit such radiation from escaping into space, thereby reducing the rate of atmospheric cooling i.e. causing air to be warmer.
2. IRag’s will “back radiate” IR radiation to earth causing increased heating of the surface.
3. IRag’s will heat up by the absorption of the IR radiation thus heating the air. (Oxygen, Nitrogen, Water vapor and trace gases).
4. IRag’s have different levels of “back-forcing”. Thus CH4 (methane) is supposed to deliver 23 to 70 times more “back radiation “ than CO2. NO2 delivers 289 times that of CO2. (Alarmist ‘experts’ have yet to explain these numbers). Evidently, it is assumed that someone quantified the amount of IR that a particular sample of gas absorbs utilizing IR spectrophotometer analysis and then compared this data to the absorption of CO2. This is a very important feature of the “GHGE”
5. The higher the concentration of IRag’s the greater the amount of “back-radiation” and the higher the temperature of the earth which in turn results in an increase in the global atmospheric temperature.
6. The concentration of CO2 found in million-year-old ice cores can be utilized as proof that the “GHGE” exists.

Where does this standard model greenhouse gas effect lead?
We all know that there is one true kind of “greenhouse” effect. Engineers have built real greenhouses for decades for a useful purpose (growing plants). Anyone that has gotten into a hot car on a sunny day (either in summer or winter), experiences this. We see temperatures that are much higher in the car than 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 an expert in IR and UV radiation. Professor Nasif Nahle famously confirmed Professor Wood’s worth in 2011.

So what experiment could be performed to “prove” that the “greenhouse gas effect exists?
Section 3: The experiment
A believer in the man-made global warming theory (AGW) point out it is impossible to simulate what actually happens in the atmosphere. They propose using computer models to predict these effects. The primary problem with “computer models” is that unless all the relevant factors that effect the atmosphere are included in the program algorithm it becomes: “garbage in equals garbage out”.
There are no computers or modelers yet available that have sufficient capacity to handle all of the factors driving our complex climate. There will be contributory factors not even known yet. Then the big guess for modelers is what are the factors to include, which are really of minor importance, can be left out to still obtain usable results; which factors are “red herrings”. As such, to date no one has come up with the “right model”.
More than 20 different models of weather /climate programs have been published and not one has been successful in predicting the weather a year from now, let alone a hundred years ahead. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (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. That’s a good start. But until they can define the real facts about climate it is yet another super supercomputer creating “garbage in equals garbage out” at super fast speed.
Using the list of “critical factor-the Clues” lets see if there are some ways of indicating if the concept may exist. Utilization of the concentration of IRag’s in the atmosphere for testing does not work otherwise there would not be the controversy that exists today.
The fields of engineering and research employ “scale models,” or models with similar properties that can be either sized up or down to relate a test to the factors being studied. “Model studies” or “bench tests” are either similar in behavior or can be proportioned to larger or smaller series of events and relate to an actual set of events. They generate data (the evidence) 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 full-scale commercial process plant. Scale-up is a serious engineering art.
An example of down sizing is the use of the super collider at CERN to study what happens in a nuclear explosion. Because 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 C/ 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 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) tricks to fool mankind. They employ wide ranges and invent probabilities out of very thin air.
If the experiment at very high 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 concept does not work at High Concentrations of IRag’s then the concept of the theoretical “greenhouse gas effect “has been proven to be a fraud.
Section4: Numbers
Some numbers are needed now. By definition 10,000 ppm (parts per million) is 1%, therefore 100 % equals 1 million parts per million (1x10+6). The atmosphere is supposed to contain 400 ppm of CO2 (round Number) therefore a concentration of 100% CO2 is 2500 time that of what is in the atmosphere. (Volume concentrations are per high school chemistry).
If the GHGE 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 290 times more powerful that CO2 thus 100% NO2 should cause 725,000 times the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.
As CH4 is found to be present at about 2ppb (parts per billion) (2 X 10 -9) in the atmosphere, a concentration of 100 % CH4 should give 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 (more complex C4H10-butane) will be even more powerful thus the proposed experiment shown below was done with 100 % butane (C4H10) 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 substituted “natural gas” a mixture of 70% CH4, 29% CO2 and the remainder being H2 and other trace gases. This is readily available for test purpose 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, water, water vapor, and air – you are not testing the effect of CO2 only.
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. Discussion of H2O/lvs in the atmosphere will follow later.
Section 5: Holding the gases- “containment”
How does the experiment contain the high concentration of the IRag’s for this test? Having reviewed several experiments that “contain” the IRag’s is glass containers then radiate them with a heat lamp (IR source) . These “experimenters” measure the increase in temperature of the gas. They claimed this increase was due to the “GHGE”. But 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. (A Master’s thesis (peer reviewed) including 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 heating the IRag’s from conduction of heat from the black cardboard. Black objects absorb most of the light including IR & UV and then converting the energy to “heat” which is conducted to the gas in the container. (These “experiments” created a Greenhouse effect - quite simply - merely a confined space heating). That seems unfair. Why would an impartial scientist 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, 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 conduction and convection on the inner walls was carried towards the inner atmosphere and exaggerated by painting the inner surfaces of the containers with flat black paint because the coat had a very high absorptivity and emissivity potentials. (Identified by the experimental work of Professor Nasif Nahle: see references).
The proper way to contain the high concentration of IRag’s is in a thin walled material that will not absorb the IR and heat. Important note: The thin walled material is a 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 major diameter balloons were chosen for this study
Section 6: Setting up the experiment
STEP ONE: Fill the balloons with the various IRag’s and one balloon with dry air as a control.
STEP TWO: Let the balloons reach ambient temperature. If you are going to use sunlight let balloon temperature adjust outside in the shade (minimize IR absorption ahead of testing). (a clue).
STEP THREE: Use an IR thermometer to check the temperatures of each balloon, use a digital thermometer that reads to 0.1 degree C to check air temperature in the shade. Record data. Do not forget this measures two different phenomena. [Note: Digital thermometers measure thermal energy, while IR thermometers measure thermal radiation emitted by the system].
STEP FOUR: Take a large black mat 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 rise in the sun. Record the data. When it appears to reach a maximum then go to step 5. [Note: DuPont Duco #71 wrought iron black paint has an absorptivity of 0.98. It would make a very good absorber]. The black mat 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 IR radiation absorption.
STEP FIVE: Suspend the balloons over the black background (about 1 foot above) and measure the temperature of the balloons’ surface and internal gases with the IR thermometer. Dr. Latour explains that this is doubly necessary to measure both because 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.
Note: In multiple tests there were no differences in the readings. This indicated that the IRag’s in the balloons stayed at ambient air temperature. The IRag’s did absorb IR but did not “heat” the gas (an important clue!).
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 devices.
STEP SIX: 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”(projection) of the balloons.
Section 7: Results: Examining the Clues
Now lets repeat the Critical factors-The clues and note the result of the test:

Item 1.The IRag’s absorb the IR radiation and thus prevent 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 mat was occurring. The 100% CO2 or the high concentration of other IRag did not “hinder” normal cooling by the loss of energy to space. 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 IR radiation escapes than is stated by the IPCC in any of their reports.
Item 2.The IRag’s 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 to 30 degrees F above ambient before the balloons were placed over the black background. When this was done outside in bright sunlight 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.
The experiment was also performed indoors with a 500-watt power shop light (see below; the black background showed the temperature increased from 70-72 degrees Fahrenheit to 100 -110 degrees Fahrenheit. 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 mat: no sign here of “back-radiation”.
Item 3. The IRag’s will heat up by the absorption of the IR radiation thus heating the air.
Results and explanation: The balloons did not warm any warmer than ambient. The IRag’s 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 CO2 or other IRag does not increase the kinetic energy of the molecules (heat). (See note in Preamble)
Item 4. The IRag’s have different levels of “back-forcing”. Having asked believers in greenhouse gas “physics” I’ve had no answer as yet). It is merely 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 and explanation As there was no temperature difference under any of the balloons, there was no stronger “back-forcing” caused by the IRag’s absorbed more IR radiation thus “back-forcing” more radiation. An IRag has an emissivity characteristic of the molecule not the absorption of more IR radiation.
Item 5.The higher the concentration of IRag’s 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 temperature EFFECT.
Item 6.The concentration of CO2 found in million year old Ice cores can be used as proof that the “GHGE” exists.
Conclusion: The use of ICE core data is at best circumstantial evidence but it is not proof of anything. This is a “red Herring” as so much of the supposed evidence of “GHGE”.
Climate change is measure in centuries not minutes or years.
Note: As an alternate light source the experiment has been performed with an incandescent light using a 500-watt shop power light. This is because the temperature of the filament approaches the spectral characteristics of sunlight but contains more” long wave IR” because of a lower temperature. The light 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, No extra heating of the atmosphere or the background.
Section 8: Water - liquid, vapor, solid (H2O /lvs)
Now lets talk about water (H2O/lvs). Why? Everybody seems to acknowledge H2O dominates the atmosphere in complex ways, swamping any CO2 effect. AGW promoters just ignore H2O. We may suppose that when CO2 (GHGE) 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 it’s 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. We know that the air temperature, where the clouds are forming, is at or below the “dew point”.
As the H2O vapor cools to form clouds there is a release of energy (Heat of condensation - also a significant 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, as lightning, probably high winds, as a tornado or convection.
This is only one phase of the complex weather conditions when H2O/lvs is being evaluated.
Another phase is the solar heating of clouds both day and night. During the day the warming of the top of clouds is obvious. It is also relevant that in spite of significant solar energy absorption, the “clouds“ have not absorbed enough radiation to convert the water or solids back to vapor i.e. 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; none are wrong and none are correct.
Now lets 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. Both actual measurements and visible lighting (multiple colors) of the clouds have confirmed this fact. 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 astrophysics researchers that are showing that solar flares, and different types of radiation, including cosmic particles, have an effect on cloud formation. This is only a beginning of mankind’s learning about another aspect of our atmosphere and weather and we have yet to see any real world empirical proof that carbon dioxide plays any role, let alone a role as preponderant as solar forcing. Indeed, with natural climatic variability accepted as being substantial anyway, when I see thermal temperatures in my back yard cycling at +- 8C daily, why should you or I care if average “heat” temperature increases 1C over a 100-year period?
The nice thing about this described experiment is that high school physics classes or Freshmen College physics lab classes can perform the tests. It would teach a very important lesson in that not all experiments have to have a “positive” end result to be meaningful.
What we can demonstrate is that the “science is not settled”. Indeed, just look at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, for the newest real science done by experiment and re-tested 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.
As Dr. Pierre R Latour advises, “Everybody has a different point of view; but (real) scientists and engineers learn how to agree on how nature works. What you see in the man-made greenhouse gas theory hoax is what happens when untrained, incompetent people attempt to do science and engineering. It’s a mess.”
But should we be surprised at how readily the myth of the GHGE can be exposed? No, especially when considering the following footnote from the IPCC’s 4th Edition. It declares its science is premised on what had been “suggested” and “speculated” in the previous century (before the time of quantum mechanics). By plain reading we see it signals no subsequent evidence to prove that the GHGE effect actually 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. Readers are encouraged to question why and conduct their own research.

Berthold Klein Professional Engineer. (Edited & Revised by John O’Sullivan: February 5, 2012)
Engineering is applied Science.
References
‘NASA in Shock New Controversy: Two Global Warming Reasons Why,’ John O’Sullivan, (May 27th 2010) Climate Realists: _ hyperlink “http://climaterealists.com/5783” \n _blank__http://climaterealists.com/5783_
_ Hyperlink “http://climaterealists.com/5783” \n _blank___’Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics’, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner (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:_ hyperlink “http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb”__http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb_
Readers are advised to search and read the Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA (March 2009) that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming. http://www.carlineconomics.com/
‘Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics’ by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme
R.W.Wood from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine, 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p: 340.1.c.95
‘The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory’, Alan Siddons (March 2010), American Thinker.
_ Hyperlink “http://www.americanthinker.com/alan_siddons/”__from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 - 09:10:34 AM CST _:___

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 that “the Second law of thermodynamics is an absolute law of physics.
University of Pennsylvania Law School_
Institute for Law and Economics
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
Jason Scott Johnston,’ Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination’, (May 2010) RESEARCH PAPER NO. 10-08, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA (This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:_ hyperlink “http://ssrn/”__http://ssrn_).

Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv declared: “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 (2010), available on Amazon.com
_ Hyperlink “http://www.americanthinker.com/”__www.americanthinker.com_
_ Hyperlink “http://www.americanthinker.com/”__Ponder the Maunder “
_ Hyperlink “http://wwwclimatedepot.com/”__wwwclimatedepot.com_
_ Hyperlink “http://icecap.us/”_icecap.us
_ Hyperlink “http://www.stratus-sphere.com/”__www.stratus-sphere.com_
Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI)
Hyperlink “http://www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org
Hyperlink: Anthony Watt’s http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/12/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-41/
Many others references are available.
Appendix
IR= infrared radiation is a form of electromagnetic radiation (invisible light also know as heat rays) that is present in sunlight 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.
_ Hyperlink http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared.html”__http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared.html_ 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. Professor Nahle conducted an experiment related to this mechanism of thermoregulation in melons and spearmint: http://www.biocab.org/Biophysics.html#anchor_36
IRag= certain gases will absorb different wavelengths of IR radiation (a characteristic of the light) depending on the construction of the gas. Some gases do not absorb IR; their 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 IRag’s. The words “greenhouse gas effect” have 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 an amount of radiation as watts per square meter (w/m2), the measure of energy 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, it’s 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 F.(0 C). Many commentators 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 produces 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 (only a guess as to the total) most of this is destroyed by interaction with Ozone (O3) and UV a very active radiation present in sunlight. (A paper in the EPA library documents this reaction 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. Its oxidation is protecting the earth from the next ice age
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 but also known as laughing gas and an air pollutant, along with other oxides of nitrogen, NOx. They are major components of smog.
. _ Hyperlink “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_dioxide”__http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_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 IR meter models are available.