?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
26 August 2010 @ 08:49 am
The greenhouse effect tested  
An interesting and refreshingly new view of why the "greenhouse" hypothesis regurgitated by Hansen et Al is wrong. I don't necessarily go along with all that is claimed, such as the significance given to nitrogen and oxygen absorption of IR but the tests, simple and convincing are impressive.
From the post at http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.html:

The "Greenhouse Effect" Hypothesis
The so called "Greenhouse effect" is just an hypothesis.
A hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
The hypothesis of the "greenhouse effect" despite being more than 150 years old has never and will never achieve the status of a testable theory.
The “greenhouse effect” hypothesis of CO2 is based on the claim that Oxygen and Nitrogen do not absorb infrared radiation.
Only “greenhouse gases” absorb infrared according to this hypothesis.
It has been necessary to falsely claim that Oxygen and Nitrogen are transparent to infrared radiation in-order to demonise CO2 and other gases and blame them for causing atmospheric warming.
All gases absorb and re-emit infrared radiation. The fallacy of CO2 “greenhouse effect” is the keystone of AGW fraud.

Air is :
20% Oxygen
79% Nitrogen
0.0385% CO2

Air, pure oxygen and pure nitrogen all absorb more infrared radiation than pure CO2.
For proof see the video's below [Go to the site].
For further verification see here:

Specific heat capacity of Gases
Oxygen and nitrogen do indeed absorb infrared radiation:

Infrared absorption bands for OXYGEN

A close-up of an infrared absorption band for NITROGEN
 

From the post that considers the diurnal bulge: http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2_files/The_Diurnal_Bulge_and_the_Fallacies_of_the_Greenhouse_Effect.html
The pictures below demonstrate how simple it should be to show the "Greenhouse Effect" experimentally. Plastic greenhouses work just as well as glass ones. The size is not important either because as we know greenhouses come in all different shapes and sizes. These bottles are to all intents and purposes, mini greenhouses. The one on the right contains ordinary air and tap water and the one the left sparkling mineral water vigorously shaken to produce enough pure CO2 to fill the container.

These thermometers, the backs of which are shaded from direct incoming Sunlight with aluminium foil, read as follows :-

Brown - Green 0 Blue +

Figure 4:

No-G-E-3

After one hour in a south facing window at around 3 pm on a late January afternoon, in Southern UK, the results in figure 4 and 5 are quite clear.

Figure 5:

No-G-E-2

CO2 is approximately 1º C cooler than ordinary air.

Figure 6:

No-G-E-1

And again 1º C cooler. In the many variations on this experiment which I have conducted I cannot produce a result in favor of CO2.

Again, clearly the reason that the "Greenhouse Effect" has yet to be demonstrated with such a simple experiment is because it is false. In these simple tests and many similar tests that I have carried out, pure CO2 is always cooler than air by at least 1º C. That is because weight for weight, CO2 has a lower specific heat capacity than Air, Oxygen and Nitrogen,
*********
What is demonstrated is that at higher concentrations of CO2, warming due to the molecule is not evident.

I find I can agree with most of the positive assertions, however the negative assertions need a little more research on the part of W.R. Platt.

The whole blog is an entertaining read, for example Dr Spencer is tackled on this page: http://www.spinonthat.com/Spinonthat%20Blog/Blog/C01EDCAD-5171-4C7F-8B06-EE2AA965BF91.html

I thank him for his efforts.
**********
By Nasif Nahle Scientific Research Director at Biology Cabinet
The Total Emissivity of Carbon Dioxide and it's effect on the Tropospheric Temperature 
Abstract
By applying generally accepted algorithms on radiative heat transfer, verified through experimentation by Hottel, Leckner and other contemporary scientists and engineers, I demonstrate that carbon dioxide molecules do not possess the thermal properties to be able to cause global warming or climate change here on Earth.

Total Emissivity Of A Mixture Of Gases Containing 5% Of Water Vapor And 0.039% Of Carbon Dioxide, And The Total Emissivity Of The Carbon Dioxide On Mars Atmosphere And Its Effect On The Temperature Of Mars’ Atmosphere
Abstract
This article is a response to a claim about the positive feedback of water vapor on the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide related to the overlap of absorption-emission bands. I have taken into consideration the total altitude of the atmosphere, answering to another erroneous claim on the sense of including the total path length of the irradiance from the surface. In addition, I have calculated the effect of the carbon dioxide in the temperature of the atmosphere of Mars for demystifying the concept of the carbon dioxide as a warming gas.

Introduction
When I presented my article on the Total Emissivity of the Carbon Dioxide and its Effect on the Atmospheric temperature, the main criticisms were on the sense that I had not considered the overlapping absorption and emission bands of the carbon dioxide and the water vapor, as well as the length that I had introduced for making my calculations which, according to those criticisms, it should be 7000 m, which is the altitude of the atmosphere at which the proportion of the gases in the air mixture is more or less uniform, instead 1 m.
I have acceded to those claims and introduced the altitude of 7000 m in the algorithms for calculating the total emissivity of the mixture of water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Determination of the Effective Total Emissivity of the Carbon Dioxide in the Venusian Atmosphere
Abstract
This assessment on the effective total emissivity of the carbon dioxide in Venus, and the mean free path length and the crossing lapse time of photons through the Venusian atmosphere demonstrate the "greenhouse" effect in Venus does not exist.
[...] one might deduce that Venus is hotter than Mercury and Earth because it holds 43.56 x 10^17 tons of carbon dioxide in its atmosphere (around 95% of the composition of the atmosphere of Venus). As a matter of fact, this is one of the main arguments, which is often wielded by the proponents of the anthropogenic climate change and global warming (CAGW) in support of their ideas. Nevertheless, scientific truth is not on their side.
*********
Facebook - Clothcap, Twitter - Capofcloth