Nahle, Wood, and simple science

Sometimes folks ‘tip’ about something and I open a tab… but don’t get to read it for a few days. Sometimes the article is long, or sometimes it takes a bit of thought and I’m ready for a break, or sometimes it just looks kind of silly and I figure “maybe someday when I’m cooling down” and want something a bit lite…

Occasionally those ‘bit lite’ bits turn out to be more interesting than expected. But a side effect of the occasional “go back and see if I can just close that old tab” is that I’ve often forgotten by then if it was a “tip”, or something at WUWT, or something I stumbled on via a web search for something else… So if you “tipped” this one, h/t to you… give a shoutout…

Has a summary of a stripped down demo that finds that Wood had it right when he showed the “greenhouse gas” effect is non-existent. It also has a reference to a set of experiments said to reproduce the experiments of Wood. Which is itself a summary of the full write up here:

The summary of that PDF:

My Summary of the Summaries and Experiments

OK, cardboard boxes in one case, balloons of gas in another. Silicon glue, glass and plastic sheeting, aluminum foil.

Hard to be impressed at first look with someone putting cardboard boxes with different things covering them in the sun and getting different temperatures. Reading a long description of making a box and covering it with aluminum foil and black paint and plastic, well “What’s the point?” comes to mind.

Turns out the point is pretty simple. (The articles would have benefited from the “one liner” up front. Should the author choose to take my one liner and use it, I’m happy to contribute).

The Point:

The GHG thesis depends on an IR absorbent material ‘back radiating’ IR. If can be tested with putting both IR and NON-IR absorbent materials in front of a surface and measuring for temperature differences. IFF a Greenhouse is heated by the relative IR, instead of preventing convection, letting convection happen ought to have little effect.

Each of these things is tested.

No surprise, boxes with a hole in them are cooler than those without a hole. Even if the cover is IR transparent. It is the trapped air that warms, as the IR can leave.

Glass covered boxes warm about the same, and often a tiny bit less than polyethylene covered boxes. At first I had a “So?” thought. But the glass blocks long wave IR. Just like CO2 is reputed to do. What this says is that the blocked IR is not “back radiated” raising the temperature inside the box. It’s just a function of total radiation in, and limited conduction and convection out.

A related experiment puts a glass screen in front of the P.E. covered boxes.

At the end of it I came away thinking “Golly. It does demonstrate that convection is what matters; and it does demonstrate that differential IR absorption does NOT cause more warming (if anything, it looks like less warming to me.)

Now in that first “introduction to the summary of the paper” there is another experiment described (down in ‘comments’). One that is still under development.

In some ways I find it more compelling. A black sheet is put on the ground. A plastic balloon filled with GHG is put in front of that black surface. There is no difference in measured surface temperatures of the black sheet.

Simple. Clear. Almost elegant. The IR absorbent gas does not “back radiate” warming the ‘shaded’ surface. The surface warms in proportion to insolation, and cools in proportion to convection. “Back radiation” need not apply.

There’s a bit of math about going from a few hundred ppm to 100% and how things like Methane are supposedly even more “powerful” than CO2 so ought to have great impact. Yet…. nothing.

I can’t think of a more simple, direct, and unarguable test than putting a layer of 100% GHG in front of the sun and measuring the “delta-T” on the surface behind it.
QED with the emphasis on the “D”…

The articles are reasonably well written. I’m going to copy the entire comment here, just because some times comments ‘go away’ after a while. I’d like this one to be available… There are also a couple of ‘killer quotes’ at the bottom. I especially love the one from Ben Franklin ;-)

Here is another experiment that confirms the fact that the “greenhouse gas effect does not exist”

The Experiment that Failed and can save the World trillions.
Proving the “greenhouse gas effect” does not exist!

By Berthold Klein P.E November 16, 2010 revision 11-19-2010 REVISED STARTING JULY 4,2011

PREAMBLE: After hearing from a Ph. D in mechanical engineering and a teacher of environmental studies that they could not follow this experiment it is necessary to rewrite this experiment. It is necessary that anyone that can read to be able to understand this experiment and what it means. I made a mistake in the first edition as it is created as I thought about it and did the experiment. This edition is for everyone -the man on the street who would suffer the most by government “1984 Big Brother” control and the Ph. D in social studies or science.

I have been communicating with some ordinary people and some Ph. D’s and I realize that my mission is a “Mission Impossible” being able to read does not mean that the reader can comprehend and that having a Ph. D means that their ego and arrogance will get in the way of comprehension. I will do my best with the help of those that edit the new version , so here goes.

Before this is released it will have been reviewed and edited by knowledge individuals most will have minimal science education but do understand that the “Greenhouse Gas effect” does not exist.

There are several words or terms used in this revision that need some explanation:

IR= infrared radiation is a form of radiation(invisible light also know as heat rays) that is present in sun light 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.

IRag= Certain gases will absorb different wavelengths of radiation (a characteristic of the light ) depending on the construction of the gas. Some gases do not absorb IR , there 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 IRags. The words “greenhouse gas effect” has never been proven by creditable scientific experiments and therefore will only be used when absolutely necessary.

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 can change from a gas at all temperature ,to a liquid at 32F(0C) or above,and a solid below 32 F.(0 C). Many people who pretend to be scientists choose to ignore these facts and call Water/l/v/s a “greenhouse gas” As we go through this experiment it will become clearer why this is bad science.

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. Most process that produce mechanical movements and electrical energy convert fossil fuels to CO2( carbon dioxide) A very important and necessary part of live on this planets.

CH4= methane a part of “natural gas” used to heat homes ,cook food and run engines as cars,buses and trucks,etc .It is present in the ground along with oil but is only present in the air(atmosphere) at very tiny amounts.( part per billion) While millions of tons of this gas escape into the atmosphere most of this is destroyed by interaction with Ozone(O3) and UV a very active radiation present in sunlight.(this reaction is documented by a paper in the EPA library) The Methane that is formed by bacteria is almost everywhere. Its from swamps,rice paddies, bottom of oceans, lakes and streams, decaying leave piles etc. It is a part of natures process of recycling.

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.

To demonstrate if the “greenhouse gas effect exists it is necessary to define it.

The hypotheses of the “greenhouse gas effect” is the process where a combination of IR absorbing gases including Water/vapor/liquid/solid, CO2.CH4. NO2 and others are super insulation and cause the atmosphere to be 33 degrees warmer than would be explained by the “black body temperature” A term developed by a renowned physicist as a theoretical way to compare radiation. There are only a few materials and conditions that approach these theoretical properties. (The earth and its atmosphere is not one of them.).

How is this done? The hypothesis says that the IRag’s absorb the IR radiation then it is “back radiated to earth causing the earth to be warmer by the resonating of this heat energy.

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 therefore anyone that wants to get into more of the details,please join in.

As others have not started to define “The greenhouse gas effect” lets start with what are the “features that should be testable!” Because water/liquid, vapor,solid (H2O /lvs) is different than gases IRag’s as CO2 ,Ch4,NO2 and others gases -the IRag’s will be dealt with first.

Critical features:

1. The IRags absorb the IR radiation and thus prevents it from escaping into space reducing the rate of atmospheric cool- it causes the air to be warmer.
2. The IRags will “back radiate” IR radiation to earth to cause increased heating of the surface.
3. The IRags will heat up by the absorption of the IR radiation thus heating the air.
4. The IRag’s have different levels of “back-forcing”.Thus CO2 is supposed to be from 23 to 70 times more “back radiation “ and CH4 (methane) is 1000 times that of CO2 Having ask others how this is determined,( no answer yet) ,it is assumed that someone has reviewed the amount of IR that a particular molecule absorbs by a IR spectrophotometer analysis then comparing this to the absorption of CO2. (I have not seen any experimental data that the “back-forcing” relates to absorption).This is a very important feature of the “ghg effect”
5. The higher the concentration of IRags the greater the amount of “back-radiation” the higher the temperature of the Earth and “global atmospheric temperature will also increase.
6. The concentration of CO2 found in million year old Ice cores can be used as proof that the “ghg effect” exists. When there is no experimental data that proves that the “ghg effect”exists.
7. Where does this lead?

We all know that the “greenhouse” effect exist. Anyone that has gotten into a hot car on a sunny day.(summer or winter). Has walked into a store with south facing window , its temperature will be much higher than a car ,or window 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.

What experiment could be performed to “prove” that the ”greenhouse gas effect exists.

All the AGW point out it is impossible to simulate what actually happens in the atmosphere therefore they propose using computer models. The problem with “computer models” is that unless all the factors that effect the atmosphere are included into the program it is “garbage in is garbage out”. When this is tried there are no computers made that have sufficient capacity to handle all of the factors. Many of the factors are not even fully know yet. Then the big guess is what are the factors to include and which are really of minor importance and can be left out and still get usable results. To data no one has come up with the “right model” More than 20 different “models of weather /climate program have been published and not one has been successful in predicting the weather a year from now ,let alone a hundred years from now.

Using the list of “critical factor” lets see if there are some ways of indicating if the concept may exist.

To use the concentration of IRags in the atmosphere for testing does not work otherwise there would not be the controversy that exists today. In the field of engineering and research there is the use of “scale models”” or models with similar factors that can be either up sized or down sized. That are either similar in behavior or can be proportioned to a larger or smaller series of events that relate to an actual set of events. That generate data that can be compared to known conditions or events.

As 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/ year) we need a more dramatic experiment to show that the concept actually exists. If the experiment at a much higher 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. However if the concepts does not work at High Concentrations of IRags then the concept of the theoretical “greenhouse gas effect “has been proven to be a fraud.

Some numbers are needed now: By definition 10,000 ppm is 1%, therefore 100 % equals 1million parts per million( 1×10+6) . Another way to put it is if there are 1 million soldiers in the army and only one has a gun ,he better have a lot of bullets if he is going to defend the country. The atmosphere is supposed to contain 400 ppm (round Number) therefore a concentration of 100% CO2 is 2500 time that of what is in the atmosphere. If the effect 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 57500 time stronger that using CO2. It is claimed that NO2 is 100 time more powerful that CO2 thus it should cause 250,000 X the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.

As CH4 is found to be about 2ppB ( 2 X 10 -9)in the atmosphere , a concentration of 100 % CH4 should give a 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 will be even more powerful thus the proposed experiment shown below was done with 100 % butane.

The experiment shown below substituted “natural gas” a mixture of 70% CH4 about 29% CO2 and the remainder is H2 and other trace gases. This is readily available for test purposed from any natural gas stove. Now 100 % CO2 is available for several sources, but one that is not too expensive is from any Paint ball supply store, another is from a supplier of Dry ice. Do not use Alka Seltzer as you have to put this in water to get the CO2 thus you have a mixture of CO2 and water and water vapor – you are not testing the effect of CO2 only. Discussion of H2O/lvs in the atmosphere will follow later.

The natural gas mixture should have a combined effect of less that 100% CH4 by a weighted average of 70% CH4+ 29% CO2or 3.500000725X10+9 times the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. If this occurs the temperature increase must be measurable.

How does the experiment contain the high concentration of the IRags for this test? Having reviewed several experiments that contained the IRags is glass containers then they measures the increase in temperature of the gas which had increased, they claimed this increase was do to the “ghg”effect, they are absolutely wrong. The cause of the temperature increase was do to the heating of the glass by its absorbing the IR and the glass heating. ( A Master’s thesis (peer reviewed) with this information is available on request). Another failure of these tests were their including a black cardboard inside the containers, thus additional heating of the IRag’s from conduction of heat from the black cardboard. (They created a Greenhouse effect-confined space heating)

The proper way to contain the high concentration of IRags is in a thin walled material that will not absorb the IR and heat. The experiment used crystal clear Mylar balloons. They are available in various sizes, several 20 inch diameter(major diameter) were chosen. If you want you can use larger ones to contain larger numbers of IRag molecules.

Now lets discuss the experiment.

1. Fill the balloons with the various IRags ,and one with dry air as a control.
2. Let the balloons reach ambient temperature. If you are going to use sunlight let it adjust outside in the shade.
3. Use an IR thermometer to check the temperatures of each balloon, use a digital thermometer that reads to 0.1 degree to check air temperature in the shade. Record data.
4. Take a large black mate 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 as it raises in the sun. Record the data. When it appears to reach a maximum then go to step 5.
5. Suspend the balloons over the black background (about 1 foot above) and measure the temperature of the balloons initially. Record the temperature.
6. 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” of the balloons.

Now lets repeat the Critical factors and note the result of my test to the critical factor.
Critical features:

1. The IRags absorb the IR radiation and thus prevents it from escaping into space reducing the rate of atmospheric cool- it causes the air to be warmer. The air between the balloons and the black background did not change temperature.
2. The IRags will “back radiate” IR radiation to earth to cause increased heating of the surface. The black background did not change temperature either in the “shadow” or outside the shadow. The temperature of the black background heated to 20 t0 30 degrees above ambient before the balloons were placed over the black background. When this was done outside in bright sun light the black background heated to 130 to 140 degrees F. Similar temperature can be measured from black asphalt. When the experiment was done with the 500 watt power shop light (see below)inside the black background went from ambient of 70-72 degrees to 100 -110 degrees. Again when measuring the temperatures of the black background with the IR thermometer there was no measurable temperature difference anywhere along the surface.
3. The IRags will heat up by the absorption of the IR radiation thus heating the air. The balloons did not warn any warmer than ambient. The IRags in the balloons will not warm because that would be a violation of the Bohr Model.
4. The IRag’s have different levels of “back-forcing”. Having ask others how this is determined,( no answer yet) ,it is assumed that someone has reviewed the amount of IR that a particular molecule 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).(an assumption based on The Bohr model however a time factor is needed) As there was no temperature difference under any of the balloons, there was no stronger “back-forcing” because the IRag absorbed more IR radiation.
5. The higher the concentration of IRags the greater the amount of “back-radiation” the higher the “global atmospheric temperature will become.(were is the experimental data )
6. The concentration of CO2 found in million year old Ice cores can be used as proof that the “ghg effect” exists. When there is no experimental data that proves that the “ghg effect”exists.
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 models available.

I have thought about several refinements, but it would not change the bottom line that the “ghg effect” is a fairy-tale.

I’m sure that the AGW’s will not believe this proves that the “greenhouse gas effect does not exists , therefore I challenge them to come up with an experiment that they claim “proves the existence of the “greenhouse gas effect”.

As an alternate light source the experiment has been performed with an incandescent light. By using a 500 watt shop power light which because of the temperature of the filament approach the spectral characteristics of the Sun light ( should have more long wave IR because of a lower temperature) It was place 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.

Now lets talk about water( H2O/lvs):

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. Of course tomorrow it may be sunny and clear. As is said in the Great Lakes region if you don’t like the weather wait 15 minutes and it will change. Now the “climate” has not changed for the last 300 years just ask the Indians.

Any way lets look a H2O/lvs in the atmosphere : If its 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, Now we know that the air temperature where the clouds are forming is at or below the “dew point”, now as the H2O vapor cools to form clouds there is a release of energy( Heat of condensation), 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 or as lightening or probably high winds or tornado.

This is only one phase of the complex weather conditions when H2O/lvs is being evaluated another is the solar heating of clouds both day and night. During the day the warming of the top of clouds is obvious but it is also relevant that in spite of significant solar absorption the “clouds “ have not absorbed enough radiation to convert the water or solids back to vapor; there is probably a rapid turbulent exchange of energy in both directions from evaporation/ sublimation to condensing, to freezing. This is why “climatologists” can not get the correct “sign” on the “forcing” it is a constantly changing set of conditions, non are wrong and non 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. This has been confirmed by both measurements and visible lighting (multiple colors ) of the clouds. The clouds and the atmosphere cool until about 2:00 am when there is 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 real astrophysics researcher that are showing that Solar flares, and different type of radiation have an effect on cloud formation,this is only a beginning of learning about our atmosphere.

There is no way in the world of Fairy-tales that CO2 can have an effect on weather or “climate”

The nice thing about this experiment is that it can be done by high school physics classes or freshmen college physics lab classes . It would teach a very important lesson in that “not all experiments have to have a “positive” end result to be meaningful.

Mann-made global warming is a hoax,because the “greenhouse gas effect” is a fairy -tale.

Berthold Klein P.E.

November 19, 2010
List of references:
The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. 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
Scientific Publishing Company,
Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.

Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
By Alan Siddons
from: at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST

The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect 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.”

After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current pretend president.

Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.

University of Pennsylvania Law School
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
Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
Jason Scott Johnston
May 2010
This paper can be downloaded without charge from the
Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:
Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv: ‘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 [Kindle Edition]
Tim Ball (Author), Claes Johnson (Author), Martin Hertzberg (Author), Joseph A. Olson (Author), Alan Siddons (Author), Charles Anderson (Author), Hans Schreuder (Author), John O’Sullivan (Author)

Web- site references: Ponder the Maunder
The Great Climate Clash -archives December, 2010 , G3 The greenhouse gas effect does not exist.( not yet peer reviewed).
many others are available.

The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted – they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.

The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
—Albert Einstein

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb.” Benjamin Franklin

I am in the process of editing the text so it is more understandable And adding two more balloons for O2 and N2 but in it current text it should be usable.

In Conclusion

I find these to be useful ‘touchstones’ to the science. Ways to step out of the “computer model” and into direct experiments.

A more “fancy” version of each would likely be more “impressive” (even if the science might not be any different). So perhaps some computer modeling of the IR flows and fluid dynamics in a sidebar ;-)

It also points toward a resolution of one of the “Oh Bother!” points about CO2 absorption. That we USE lots of IR in the atmosphere and it does not seem to be absorbed. Rather, it is scattered (and not always very much…).

We use giant CO2 lasers to make all sorts of measurement, communications, and even cutting tools. They don’t have much trouble getting through the air, and CO2 ought to absorb in the same bands where it radiates… (Yet another loose end to chase down “someday”).

We use giant IR lasers to shoot down missiles up to 150 miles away. What about “IR Absorption in the air in a few feet” do those IR Lasers not understand? (Yet Another loose end to chase…)

The carbon dioxide laser (CO2 laser) was one of the earliest gas lasers to be developed (invented by Kumar Patel of Bell Labs in 1964[1]), and is still one of the most useful. Carbon dioxide lasers are the highest-power continuous wave lasers that are currently available. They are also quite efficient: the ratio of output power to pump power can be as large as 20%.

The CO2 laser produces a beam of infrared light with the principal wavelength bands centering around 9.4 and 10.6 micrometers.

My that 10 ish micrometer band looks familiar…

But even more impressive is under uses:

Because the atmosphere is quite transparent to infrared light, CO2 lasers are also used for military rangefinding using LIDAR techniques.

So, which is it? Is the atmosphere ‘quite transparent to infrared light’ emitted by CO2, or is is so opaque that the “GHG” absorbs the IR in a few feet?

I think I’ll side with the folks actually using them for rangefinding (that, by definition, happens ‘at some range’) and LIDAR where the “D” stands for “distance”…

claims to show that CO2 can not warm the planet, largely through claiming that all the IR is already absorbed. It lists different absorption peaks than the CO2 emission peak. So ‘why?’ comes to mind. Is it due to the mix of CO2 and N2 used in the laser? The different pressures? If so, then what about the interaction of CO2 and N2 in the air? The changes of pressures with altitude? Something in this whole “IR absorption peaks” just doesn’t add up. It smells of hypothetical ideal gases vs real life gas mixtures being very different. Yet Another “Dig Here!”…

The assumption of some persons is that shorter distances mean the heat stays in the atmosphere longer before escaping into space. Supposedly, the radiation will be reemitted and re-absorbed more often, when distances are shorter. But they err in two ways. One is in not taking into account the convection which removes the relevance of short distances. The other is in assuming the direction is toward space. When radiation is re-emitted in the atmosphere, it moves in all directions. The energy does not move closer to space, because it is not directional. The only way heat can move toward the outer atmosphere is through convectional currents. Here’s how the dynamic works. The IR is emitted from the surface of the earth as black body radiation, which has a wide bandwidth. Then CO2 absorbs a fingerprint set of frequencies, which is 8% of the available black body radiation. As it is absorbed, it is instantly converted into heat (in less than a pico second). The heat is distributed over all molecules in the atmosphere, which means 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen. After some time, an equivalent amount of black body radiation is emitted from everything in the atmosphere, and 8% of it is absorbed by CO2 as fingerprint radiation.

Proponents do not have clear explanations for their assumptions. They use computer models and juggle the numbers until they get the results they want.

Then it repeats the same absorption points:

The Absorption Peaks

Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of frequencies, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (μM). This means that most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the available black body radiation is picked up by these “fingerprint” frequencies of CO2.

Furthermore, the wiki on IR gives a LOT of uses that depend on atmospheric transparency to IR. Is it just possible that the “IR Peaks” of CO2 are just not relevant in a gas mixture? Or perhaps “scattering” is more important than ‘absorption’ and the scattering is just not that strong?

What is done in the 3-8 and 8-15 μM bands?

3-8 µm
In guided missile technology the 3-5 µm portion of this band is the atmospheric window in which the homing heads of passive IR ‘heat seeking’ missiles are designed to work, homing on to the Infrared signature of the target aircraft, typically the jet engine exhaust plume

8–15 µm
This is the “thermal imaging” region, in which sensors can obtain a completely passive picture of the outside world based on thermal emissions only and requiring no external light or thermal source such as the sun, moon or infrared illuminator. Forward-looking infrared (FLIR) systems use this area of the spectrum. This region is also called the “thermal infrared.”

Not seeing a whole lot of CO2 limitation on IR transmission in two of the bands that CO2 “blocks”…

Infrared imaging is used extensively for military and civilian purposes. Military applications include target acquisition, surveillance, night vision, homing and tracking. Non-military uses include thermal efficiency analysis, environmental monitoring, industrial facility inspections, remote temperature sensing, short-ranged wireless communication, spectroscopy, and weather forecasting. Infrared astronomy uses sensor-equipped telescopes to penetrate dusty regions of space, such as molecular clouds; detect objects such as planets, and to view highly red-shifted objects from the early days of the universe.

Humans at normal body temperature radiate chiefly at wavelengths around 12 μm (micrometers), as shown by Wien’s displacement law.

Do you feel extra warm from YOUR IR being “back radiated” at you? Say, out under a clear desert night sky?

The image here:

shows the emissions and absorption bands as the same points. So if the gas is both absorbing and radiating, don’t the photons just keep on going? Rather like in a laser where a photon stimulates the next emission in the same direction? Or perhaps it is even simpler than that:

Thus, emission spectra are produced by thin gases in which the atoms do not experience many collisions (because of the low density). The emission lines correspond to photons of discrete energies that are emitted when excited atomic states in the gas make transitions back to lower-lying levels.

A continuum spectrum results when the gas pressures are higher. Generally, solids, liquids, or dense gases emit light at all wavelengths when heated.

An absorption spectrum occurs when light passes through a cold, dilute gas and atoms in the gas absorb at characteristic frequencies
; since the re-emitted light is unlikely to be emitted in the same direction as the absorbed photon, this gives rise to dark lines (absence of light) in the spectrum.

Perhaps the “dense gas” at the surface is simply not bound by the absorption spectrum. Perhaps it just isn’t “cold” or “dilute” enough. Perhaps CO2 emission lines only really mater up in the Stratosphere where the IR is radiated away to space. That would kind of make the whole IR GHG ‘trapping spectrum’ argument silly.

Given that “tunable” CO2 lasers are widely used, the idea that CO2 is absorption spectrum limited at the surface of the earth is a bit silly too, IMHO. Now add in that carbonic acid gas has been found in the atmosphere and nobody knows what absorption / emission it contributes and the whole issue of “broadening” takes on a whole new dimension. Water does what again?…

IMHO, we simply do not know what CO2 is doing to IR in the atmosphere, but some direct physical evidence seems to say “not much”.

Not enough to interfere with LIDAR, laser guidance, IR tracking missiles, and IR communications. Nor enough to influence surface heating in tests with far more than is in the air.

Personally, I’ll go with “existence proof” for now and let the “model muse” folks work on their computer fantasies a bit more…

Subscribe to feed


About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW Science and Background, Science Bits and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Nahle, Wood, and simple science

  1. E.M.Smith says:

    Oh, and this site:

    also covers the CO2 issues along with a lot of other stuff (like cycles in the climate).

    Another open tab documented and closed ;-)

    It’s nicely done with decent graphs and pictures.

    has a nice picture of a flying military laser and a drawing of the different laser types with wavelengths of 10.6 and 2.7 to 3.8 so ought to be absorbed by CO2, yet it isn’t..

  2. George says:

    The “lid” on our greenhouse is the tropopause. A warming troposphere will simply cause the tropopause to move to a higher altitude. Now imagine that the IR radiated from the troposphere to space happens at the tropopause. That has basically a surface area corresponding to the surface area. Increase the temperature of the troposphere, the tropopause rises, the surface area increases. What happens when you increase the surface area of an object? It loses heat faster so it brings the temperature inside the troposphere back to equilibrium.

    So if you increase the amount of heat inside the troposphere, you will expand the size of the troposphere so its total heat is increased but the temperature will be pretty much the same. If you decrease the amount of heat, the troposphere will shrink and radiate less heat into space.

  3. George says:

    “That has basically a surface area corresponding to the surface area” meant surface are corresponding to size (as in diameter).

  4. adolfogiurfa says:

    Al baby please help us! Why don´t you show us another of your PPS ?
    You were so funny!. Being serious about a non existing problem is the same as making propaganda to the non existing problem.
    Why do we have a body temperature of 36 degrees celsius….without a GREEN HOUSE?

  5. Robert Austin says:

    As an engineer and not a physicist, I will try to summarize how I see the role of the so called greenhouse gases in earth’s atmospheric heat engine. For simplification, I am ignoring clouds.
    The back radiation meme is a crude kludge pretending to be good science. Back radiation is not necessary to explain the temperature structure of earth’s atmosphere. The key is that the earth cools by IR radiation to outer space and a substantial portion of that radiation is emitted from the upper troposphere. At the atmospheric density of the lower troposphere, the mean time between molecular collisions is much less than the mean time that a greenhouse gas molecule remains in an excited state. Thus, IR in the absorption bands of greenhouse molecules ends up being thermalized through collisions with the preponderance of non greenhouse molecules in the atmosphere.
    The upper tropospere as I see it occurs at the altitude where the atmospheric density is such that greenhouse gases are able to radiate a significant portion of their emissions to space and the thermalization through molecular collisions becomes a minor factor.
    Thus greenhouse gases are the secret sauce that enables a significant portion of outgoing radiation to be emitted from the upper troposphere. But like a catalyst, only a minor amount of greenhouse gas is needed to do the job as demonstrated by the logarithmic diminishing effect with increasing greenhouse gas concentration. So we have a giant heat engine with short wavelength solar radiation heating the surface and base of the atmosphere and the cooling radiator occurring at the top of the troposhere. And the primary means of energy exchange is by convection as demonstrated by the tropospheric lapse rate. The characteristic radiative temperature of the upper troposphere necessary for the energy balance of the earth combined with the lapse rate structure of the troposhere fixes the temperature of the atmosphere near the earth’s surface.
    This fundamental nature of the lapse rate structure can be also be observed in the atmospheres of Jupiter and Venus at altitudes with pressures equal to earth’s troposphere.
    So the addition of any gases, not just greenhouse gases will theoretically elevate the troposphere and the lapse rate extended over a higher troposphere will dictate a higher surface temperature.
    The infinitesimal man made gas additions will thus raise the top of tropospere infinitesimally also since the altitude of the top of the troposphere is dictated by overall gas density, not by greenhouse gas density.
    Thus we have it, no need to invoke the vulgar back radiation concept.

  6. jim2 says:

    Any organic material absorbs in the IR. Just saying the plastics used will absorb IR and that needs to be taken into account. IR spectrometers use KCl or NaCL salt plates to hold samples for that reason.

  7. Jason Calley says:

    Consider two hypothetical idealized atmospheres. The first has a troposphere with zero greenhouse gas effect. Temperature differential is driven solely by convection of heat which is absorbed at the surface. The lapse rate should approach a linear function of altitude. Consider an idealized atmosphere with greenhouse effect but no convection. Temperature differential should be a logarithmic function of greenhouse gas concentrations summed from top down.

    My understanding is that in the real world, tropospheric temperature change with altitude is essentially linear, ie, the troposphere is strongly dominated by convection with little or no greenhouse effect.

  8. adolfogiurfa says:

    Read here about the DENSITY OF THE SUN´s ATMOSPHERE:
    The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth;(13) at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth;(14) in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

    Click to access cosmos_without_gravitation.pdf

  9. adolfogiurfa says:

    This is why TEMPERATURE ON EARTH is proportional to the GLOBAL MAGNETIC FIELD!:

  10. Sera says:

    @ adolfo:

    If that is true, then the iron in the sun is actually ‘rafting’ along the magnetic fields. Just like sprinkling iron filings on a piece of cardboard and then shoving a magnet underneath, the iron should follow the magnetic field rather than the gravity/pressure field. This might also explain the Fe emission lines we are observing.

  11. Sera says:

    Fwiw- At first glance, i thought that the title of this post was ‘Natalie’ wood and was somehow related to bouyancy.

  12. R. de Haan says:

    Here’s another article from Climate Realists:
    about solar activity. Since the article was posted we’ve had three volcanic eruptions and the quake in Northern Italy. Just observing…

  13. Agile Aspect says:

    IMHO, we simply do not know what CO2 is doing to IR in the atmosphere, but some direct physical evidence seems to say “not much”.


    When carbon dioxide absorbs a photon it re-emits the photon since the excited state has a short lifetime (assuming a purely radiative emission.)

    In order to build a carbon dioxide laser, you need to include nitrogen since nitrogen can trap energy in it’s excited states for long periods.

    You need to add another balloon containing nitrogen.

  14. Agile Aspect says:

    Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of frequencies, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (μM). This means that most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the available black body radiation is picked up by these “fingerprint” frequencies of CO2.


    The wavelength at peak power of the outbound radiation from the Earth, the thermal emissions from your body and the carbon dioxide laser is roughly 10 microns.

  15. adolfogiurfa says:

    :- How much IR do we emit after eating fast food? A lot more than CO2.

  16. tckev says:

    IMHO what is always missed is the fact our greenhouse (the planet) does not have a roof. This rather flippant remark was first said to me as a joke – but it is a basic fact.
    Without a roof our atmosphere is free to expand and contract where and when necessary. NASA has noted that the earth’s atmosphere breaths (causing premature satellite fails).

    Surely this should affect how our ‘greenhouse’ operates?

  17. Mark Miller says:

    Well at least this explained something I’ve been wondering about. I heard a few years ago about this experiment with CO2 in a jar from a local newspaper columnist. I put forward the proposition that in that case the CO2 jar must’ve remained warm longer than a jar with just normal air in it after the heat source was removed. All he said was, “It didn’t stay warm longer,” which just left me thinking, “Whaaa?? How does this prove anything, then?” In our dialogue on this, he seemed to be saying he believed this proved the point, because the jar got warmer than the surrounding air while the heat source was acting on it. I thought, “Dude! CO2 is *not* a heating agent! You can’t heat something up just by spraying CO2 on it!” The whole point of the discussion about GHGs is that the side of the earth not facing the Sun doesn’t freeze over because the atmosphere absorbs and reradiates some amount of the surface radiation, thereby “staying warm longer” than it would with no atmosphere. What Klein says is that the jar got warmer than the outside air, but this was due to the heat conducting properties of the glass, not the CO2 inside it. I just had the thought that greenhouses use glass as well to trap heat.

    I am skeptical of Klein’s experiment, because he separated the gas from the black body. He says that he separated the balloons from the black body by 1 ft., but doesn’t explain why he used this distance. Why not put the balloons right on the black body after measuring the temp. of the black body? Yes, the balloons would heat up from the black body heat radiation, but you could compare that with the just-black-body temperature to control for that. The reason I ask this is it seems to me there’s ample opportunity for the radiation to “miss” the target. When Dr. Lindzen made his observations about radiation escaping to space a few years ago, the satellite he used was situated right over the tropics. He explained he did this because this band of the surface had sunlight that would come directly in, and would reflect directly back out, thereby letting the satellite not miss much radiation transfer. Klein doesn’t talk about the time of day he used for conducting the open air experiment, nor the angle he used for the experiments with a lamp, nor the position of the IR sensor he used. Maybe this doesn’t matter, because at this scale the IR is transmitted scattershot from the surface, and would come out equally no matter where you put the balloons or the sensor. I don’t know.

    Secondly, was this really to scale? Perhaps just having the gas present is not enough to create the effect. Maybe part of what matters is the number of gas molecules relative to surface area (of the black body surface). This would relate to gas pressure as well. I agree with Agile Aspect about the gas mixture. Even according to skeptics, it’s not just CO2, but really a complex interaction of IR with a cocktail of gases that creates the reradiation effect. So by this measure, to say that “since CO2 doesn’t have this effect, the whole greenhouse effect doesn’t exist” seems a logical fallacy to me. Skeptics have already surmised that CO2, at the concentrations we have on earth, has a negligible effect on temperature.

    I think a better experiment would be to have a black body inside of a container that’s filled with the gas mixture he talks about, but using a material for the container that has the properties he describes, of not absorbing heat/IR. This way there’s no opportunity for the black body radiation to not interact with the gas, since you’d have a “contained atmosphere.” What you could also glean from it is how much radiation was escaping the container, and compare it with how much energy was contained in the black body, to see if any was being reflected back. It would also be helpful to try a variety of suspected gas mixtures, at various pressures, to see if any combinations result in a “heat trapping” effect.

    What I remember hearing years ago was that the bodies in space with no atmosphere have dramatic temperature swings as one side faces the Sun, and then turns away from it, which suggests that black body heat absorption doesn’t account for the phenomenon we experience on this planet. For example on Mercury it goes from +527 degrees C on the day side to -163 degrees on the dark side. Even on the Moon it’s 117 degrees C on the day side and -173 degrees on the dark side. From my reading of the description of the temperature situation on Venus, temperature stays relatively constant on the day and night side, because of the planet’s atmosphere. So it seems reasonable to surmise that somehow the atmosphere acts as an insulator. From what you’re saying, it’s all due to convection, but I’m not sure about that. Just having a gas move around doesn’t strike me as an effective insulator. Somehow the gas in this scenario must still be absorbing energy. Is it just conducting energy from the Sun, perhaps, rather than this whole mechanism of absorbing it from the surface? But what about the notion, which has been discussed here earlier, that air is a terrible conductor of heat. It doesn’t hold the energy for very long.

    I used to see a graph like this when I took atmospheric science in college.

    Temperature at first decreases as you get farther away from the surface, and then *increases* above the tropopause, until you get to the stratopause, where it gets cooler again. Somehow this section of the atmosphere is capable of *gaining* energy. I remember Dr. Lindzen saying that there are “a lot of good *theoretical” reasons” it does this, which indicates to me that scientists don’t know why it works the way it does.

  18. Mark Miller says:

    Argh! Failed on the image link. Here’s the graph I talked about in the last paragraph:

  19. Baa Humbug says:

    The greenhouse effect claim, if I understand it correctly, says that given the level of solar insolation, what would otherwise be a planet at 255k is warmed by 33k to 288k by the presence of GHGs in the atmosphere.’

    People from both sides of the debate then do all sorts of mathematical calculations to ‘prove’ this theory. It all seems so simple and reasonable.

    However, with our heads in those calculations, have we asked ourselves “what exactly does 255k mean?” It means MINUS 18DegC, it means about the same temperature at which we keep commercial ice creams and party ice. MINUS EIGHTEEN DEGREES CELCIUS.

    Without experimental evidence, we are asked to accept that radiation from MINUS 18DegC upwells from the surface, is intercepted (trapped) by the GHGs in the atmosphere, is reradiated back down to warm the surface by 33k to PLUS 15DegC. GIVE ME A BREAK.

    Why bother with complicated experiments? Grab a bag of party ice and an old empty glass aquarium, pour the ice in, suspend a thermometre in the aquarium and put the glass lid on. Let me know how long it takes for the aquarium to reach PLUS 15DegC. Backradiation heating its own source is fraudulent science. The numbers of people who fall for it is beyond belief.

    I’ve asked at other blogs, why do we allow old folk who can’t afford power bills to die from the cold, when all we need do (according to the greenhouse theory) is shovel lots of cold snow on to their lounge room floor and watch that backradiation heat the room to a comfy 15DegC.

  20. E.M.Smith says:

    Oh Dear!

    I go off and deal with a car, then do some bit-wrangling on the GHCN data and finally get a look back here and find 20 postings to catch up on… and only 15 minutes and I’ve go to run.

    Sigh. OK, I’ll try to catch up with everyone else ;-)


    Always Liked Natalie Wood… wonder if it was a subconscious thing…


    I drink beer, so no IR from Fast Food! Quench those fires!!

  21. E.M.Smith says:


    Even the tropopause isn’t a solid lid. It has tears and leaks all over it and major thunderheads can punch through it. I posted a link over at Tallblokes about it it some time back. The stratospheric winds are quite strong and fast and tend to ripple and churn the tropopause. IMHO it isn’t so much that the tropo ‘pauses’ there as that it gets torn off in little bits and rapidly moved all over the planet there…

    @Robert Austin:

    I’d only add that UV excitation at the stratospheric / upper tropopause level changes atmospheric height and modulates the system. We have very cold polar vortex now as a result of a lower UV output from the sun. It will take a while for the cold polar flux to cool the tropics, but it will…

    Folks tend to forget that the stratosphere gets sucked down to the surface at the poles and that the “tropopause” is leaky enough to replenish it.

    @Jason Calley:

    Oooohh, another nicely done one too!

    @Solar Fe stuff:

    My brain is too tired and full of temperature numbers right now… I’ll think about iron sun stuff later tonight ;-)


    And it’s the solar UV that makes it breath….

    @Mark Miller:

    I think the point was that he wanted to isolate conduction / convection from radiation effects.

    That the black surface behind the balloon behaves as it did says the IR absorption / reradiation is not acting as the warmers say it ought.

    @Baa Humbug:

    Cute ;-)

    So I think I’ll go buy a pint of ice cream, eat it, and let the back radiation raise my body temperature from the inside…

  22. Baa Humbug says:

    So I think I’ll go buy a pint of ice cream, eat it, and let the back radiation raise my body temperature from the inside…

    Don’t know EM, I guess it would depend on the amount of Gasses in your tummy :)

    I wasn’t trying to be cute. Unless I’m dreadfully wrong about the GH Hypothesis, it indeed does claim that radiation bouncing back n forth from a source as cold as commercial ice cream causes the planets surface to be 15DegC.

  23. Jason Calley says:

    @ Baa Humbug “Unless I’m dreadfully wrong about the GH Hypothesis, it indeed does claim that radiation bouncing back n forth from a source as cold as commercial ice cream causes the planets surface to be 15DegC.”

    Perhaps an even more fundamental argument is that the Earth is NOT a black body and using the Stephan-Boltzmann equation is not accurate. How inaccurate? I wish I knew — and I gladly defer to anyone who does.

  24. blouis79 says:

    Chiefio, like you i find the lack of experimental proof of the “greenhouse effect” astounding. while tyndall was a genius, he did not measure nor demonstrate nor consider absorption=heating versus absorption//emission = scattering and not heating. nor has anybody else in the 150 years hence that i can find. tom vonk wrote a piece on a theoretical discussion he writes of a simple experiment which is unclear if it is a paper one or real. radiative transfer data has been cited as undisputed evidence. but t has all been measured inside IR reflective chambers thus excluding measurement of thermodynamc effects of emission.

    i figure all the CO2 in the atmosphere 17km of 0.04% CO2 from sea level to zero pressure = about 3.7m thick of 100% CO2. surely someone could measure something…. i did email ralf tscheuscher of gerlich and tscheuschner “falsifcation of the greenhouse in theoretical physics” and they may be able to perform a proper physics experiment on ths one day.

    can’t wait to see some proper experimental science appled to the greenhouse theory.

  25. E.M.Smith says:


    It would be nice… but the folks with the money “know” it’s right while those who have questions have no facilities to test…

    For may part, I’m quite certain that convection and precipitation make radiation irrelevant. Then, above the tropopause (that has Cat 2 hurricane winds… so isn’t much of a ‘pause’) CO2 enhances radiative cooling.

    So in that context the entire AGW argument is that CO2 limits radiation just across the tropopause, as though it is a static glass lid… but it’s turbulent, as mass mixing to the stratosphere, and is doing 80 knts sideways toward the dark polar winter do dump heat in the Night Jets… Just not a radiative barrier…


    How about the troposphere is not a radiative regime, it is convective and conductive; the tropopause is not a ‘pause’ but a mixing zone, and above that the Stratosphere does radiate, but more to space…

  26. blouis79 says:

    i’m inclined to think that the “atmospheric depth integrated” temperature of earth as measurable from space is properly independent of everything in the atmosphere except things that change reflectance/albedo. this is what radiative thermal equilibrium dictates. solar output does have an impact which is well described and theoretically consistent. i can’t argue with joseph postma.

    what happens under the clouds is different. i agree with you that convection dominates. i like what claes johnson has to say on that. the atmosphere is chaotic and unpredictable. cosmc rays affect clouds and therefore have an impact on albedo and hence temperature measurable from space.

    i have still not seen the “establishment” advance a sound physical theory of the “greenhouse effect”, which is agreed. (backradiation vs radiative blanket vs something else) i figure it is only a matter of time before the greenhouse effect goes the way of the flat earth theory. i’m guessing that real physicists are completely bemused and that simple experimental disproof of thermalization of IR by greenhouse gases is beneath them.

    by the way i think the reason remote sensing IR is not majorly attenuated in the atmosphere might in part be due to wavelength used.

  27. Paul Hanlon says:

    Can’t believe I missed this thread when it was written. All the more because around that time I was installing an Echelon Smartserver in a commercial greenhouse operation. These are used to monitor and control energy use.

    As part of doing the analysis to optimise the setup, I asked if they switched the heating on in the CO2 enhanced greenhouses later at night than in the non CO2 enhanced greenhouses, thinking that there should be a difference. There was no difference. Both had to be switched on at the same time, i.e. they both lost heat at the same rate. That shouldn’t happen if CO2 has the effect that we’re being led to believe it has.

Comments are closed.