Why CO2 and greenhouse effects can not cause catastrophic global warming by John A. Shanahan

REVISED, WHY CAN'T CO2 AND GREENHOUSE EFFECTS CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING? Terigi Ciccone. Published 11 Nov 2021. Revised 16 April 2022. JAS suggestion - see page

Part I, how the Sun Heats the Earth. INTRODUCTION. The UN/IPCC, NASA/NOAA, and their servile "scientists" and "universities," the media, and the politicians have been deceiving the scientifically unsophisticated public about the catastrophic global warming caused by human-made CO2 and the greenhouse effect. We will use simple words and concepts and provide data and the science to show why that cannot happen. We will demonstrate that this human-made CO2/greenhouse effect CLIMATE CHANGE CRISIS IS ONLY A GRAND FABRICATION to benefit the well-connected and the politically empowered who support THE DESIRED WORLD-VIEW. Let us start Part I by explaining how the earth's atmosphere and surface are actually warmed and how they cool. Then we will use the NASA Earth Energy Budget (EEB), Figure-1, to start the detailed discussions. Next, in Part II, we present arguments against the CO2/GREENHOUSE EFFECT CONJECTURE and challenge the validity of the concept of "Radiative Heating." Then in Part III, we make reasonable and affordable recommendations on how to correct THIS MEGA-GLOBAL-THEFT.

EARTH's ENERGY BUDGET. There are three fundamental components shown in the Earth's Energy Budget (EEB.) First, the information provided inside the two light blue ovals is actual measurements taken by accurate and sophisticated instruments and are the only verifiable data on this entire diagram. Second, look at the information contained INSIDE the bright freehand drawn RED COLLECTIVE surrounding several assumptions and numbers. This collective is the essence of the alleged CO2 greenhouse effect (GHE) that powers the fabricated NOTION OF "RADIATIVE HEATING." Note, there are NO VERIFIABLE NUMBERS IN THIS RED COLLECTIVE.1 All other numbers in the red collective are estimates, guesses, and wishful thinking. Third. All values in Figure-1, outside the two blue ovals, are estimated annual global averages and have no meaning in our physical world, like saying the average USA family has 2.78 children. All weather and climate changes are local and vary significantly depending on geographical features, latitudes, and altitudes.

BACKGROUND. Solar radiant energy arrives on earth in the form of electromagnetic waves. The most notable parts of this Figure-2 are the wavelength, amplitude, frequencies, and direction. Where frequency is the number of these wavelengths that pass per second along the propagation path. When this electromagnetic disturbance meets a physical body, like a brick, a water drop, a gas molecule, concrete structures, trees, or birds, the objects will warm up. Frequencies in the visible light range will also reflect and scatter, allowing us to see the objects warming. Frequencies determine the energy carried by each wave and are calculated by the Plank-Einstein equation E= hf. Where Energy E is equal to the Plank constant h multiplied by the frequency f. Let me repeat that, in the big physical universe of planets and bumblebees and gas molecules, mass is essential for the existence of Energy. Like Einstein tells us that E=MC2 or Energy equals the mass of an object times the speed of light squared. But in the subatomic world, the world of photons and radiation, Energy depends only on the photon's frequency. As a photon travels, the amplitude or the color brightness of the photon will diminish over distance. But its Energy level never decreases until the photon interacts with the matter of the physical world. Figure-3 shows the frequencies grouped into three major categories. 1. Ultraviolet radiation (UV) is the most powerful and carries the most energy. These invisible rays have the highest frequencies and the shortest wavelengths. This family includes the most powerful and deadly ones like Gamma rays, and the DNA damaging

Quote: “At the assumed average temperature of the earth (15°C, 59°F), it's 398.2 W/m2. Source http://nov79.com/gbwm/sbc.html, The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant is in Error. It shows about 40 times too much radiation at normal temperatures. (NASA Charts)”

X-rays, and several other categories of tissue-damaging UV rays. 2. Visible light occupies a very narrow band of frequencies (see Figure-3), and each photon carries a medium energy level. 3. Infrared radiations (IR) are not visible and make up a wide array of the weakest/lowest energy radiations. Collectively we call these categories "radiation." Our primary focus will be to explain how these radiation waves warm AND COOL the atmospheric gasses as there seems to be little debate on how the big physical objects are warmed and cooled. There are FOUR WAYS TO HEAT AND COOL THE SURFACE AND ATMOSPHERE: by CONDUCTION, BY CONVECTION, BY LATENT HEAT, AND RADIATION. Here radiation warming means the absorption of a photon, and cooling is the emittance of an amount of this radiation which, for convenience, we call photons. More on photons. The general public has a widespread misunderstanding of what a photon is, how it works, and how it travels. First, photons are an electromagnetic disturbance, sometimes shown as a dot or circle on a diagram. But that is not the correct image. PHOTONS HAVE NO MASS and do not occupy any space, and have no shape. But we know its frequency and amplitude and the direction in which they propagate. In Figure-2, we see only a conceptual representation, using the common understanding of physical waves, like a disturbance traveling through water's surface. But at the atomic scale, we have no idea what these two perpendicular waves look like. For a gas molecule to absorb a photon and increase its energy state, the molecule must have an absorption frequency equal to the frequency of that specific photon. When their frequencies are not resonant (non-matching), the photon is not absorbed, there is no energy exchanged, and there is no heating or cooling. Instead, the photon continues on its journey until something else happens to it somewhere else. In Figure-1, we see the total energy arriving from the Sun to Earth called TSI (Total Solar Irradiance). This TSI energy is measured in Watts per square meter per second (W/m2), measured at the top of the earth's atmosphere. It arrives towards the earth in all frequencies, from the very high energy UV rays to the medium energy Visible Light and ending with the low energy IR radiations. As seen in Figure-3, the longwave/low-frequency Infrared radiation is the weakest. As a general guideline2, Visible Light is about 100-times more potent than IR, and UV is about 1,000-times more powerful than IR. Therefore, the Earth Energy Budget uses 340.4 W of TSI as the incoming solar energy. It then estimates that 99.9 W, about 30%, is immediately reflected to space by the air, clouds, snow, water, cars, children playing with mirrors, etc., leaving 240.5 W to warm the earth's atmosphere and surface. Almost 100% of the powerful UV rays are absorbed by the atmosphere, shown in Figure-1 as 77.1 W. On the other hand, nearly 100% of the Visible Light and Infrared Radiation of 163.3 W goes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the earth's surface. "Surface" means all solids and liquids such as rocks, trees, waters, cars, streets, animals, etc. There is also a tiny amount (0.6 W) used by plants for photosynthesis and later stored as potential energy in the plant matter. Let us summarize, the energy of 239.9 W (340.4 - 99.9 - 0.6) of heat must be radiated to space to keep the earth in thermal balance. Figure-1 matches the 239.9 W of outgoing Radiation in the blue oval, and the earth appears in thermal equilibrium.

HOW IS THE ATMOSPHERE HEATED? On average, about 99% of the atmosphere is composed of Nitrogen and Oxygen. Argon, CO2, and all other gasses make up the remaining 1%, of which the much-maligned CO2 is 2

Clarification on TSI, Visible light makes up almost half of the total TSI energy, less by IR and least by UV. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/SORCE/sorce_02.php

currently a miserly 0.042%. All greenhouse gasses combined total less than 0.05%, which is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere. All gasses are well mixed in the atmosphere from sea level to the top of the stratosphere. But water vapor, the gaseous form of water, is generally limited to the troposphere, from sea level to about 10-miles up the sky. Water vapor in the atmosphere is what a wild card is in poker. On average, global water vapor is less than 0.3% of the atmosphere, but in the tropical regions, it can be up to 4.0% and nearly 0.0% in the polar areas. On average, nature produced WATER VAPOR ACCOUNTS FOR 95% OF THE SO-CALLED GREENHOUSE EFFECT, total C02 of about 3.6%, human-made CO2 less than 0.2%, and all other gasses make up the remaining 1.4%3 of the greenhouse effect. Nearly 100% of the very powerful incoming solar UV rays are absorbed by nitrogen (78% of the atmosphere), oxygen (21%), and all other trace gasses in the atmosphere, about 1%. These gasses heat in two ways; Photodissociation of all the gasses, and for oxygen, there is also Photoionization of Oxygen molecules. In Figure-4, we see the images of the molecules of these two primary gasses. Each molecule has two atoms and a bond that hold the two atoms together like rubber bands. When these molecules absorb radiation energy, the additional energy is stored in these molecular bonds, making the bonds oscillate with greater amplitudes and in many oscillating forms, including tortional and stretching the bond lengths. In Figure-5, we see an illustrative model of one of these oscillations. The yellow amplitude grows to the green amplitude when a photon is absorbed. But there is no change in any of these frequencies, and the increased energy is stored in these bonds as chemical energy and NOT THERMAL ENERGY. These molecules are also photon emitters and release new photons very quickly, and when they do, the green arrow amplitude shrinks back to about the yellow arrow. The molecular bonds break when a minimum threshold amount of energy is absorbed. The two atoms then fly apart at very high velocities and in random directions, raising the gas's kinetic energy. The increased kinetic energy of each atom is equal to half the mass of the atom times the acceleration squared, and we call this movement "Brownian Motion." These atoms smash everything in their trajectories like molecules, ions, aerosols, etc. These collisions convert their kinetic energy of motion to thermal heat, which we measure as temperature, and the atmosphere warms up. Oxygen also undergoes a second type of heating, called photoionization. This is when the oxygen atom gains or loses an electron, converting the oxygen atom into an oxygen ion. All the accumulated energy is stored in the internal electron bonds. When these electron bonds break, the chemical energy is converted to kinetic energy like the above; at one-half, the ion's mass times its acceleration squared, which becomes thermal energy through increased collisions and conduction. Figure-1 shows that the earth's surface also cools by releasing heat to the atmosphere by "Thermals" of 18.4 W, and "Latent Heat" by 86.4 W, and by some quantity IR radiation of a questionable amount N.4 NASA does 3

http://arizonaenergy.org/WaterEnergy/Water%20Vapor%20Rules%20the%20Greenhouse%20System.htm Water vapor Rules the greenhouse system, F Singer. 4

In Figure-1 NASA says that N is “absorbed by atmosphere 358.2 W.” The skeptical scientists state that this number is most likely close to zero, with a remote probability that it could be a very small and incalculable amount. This is the heart of the CO2/greenhouse effect Radiative Forcing debate. If there is any heating occurring here it would be a trivially small amount.

tell us that an estimated 40.1 W of IR radiation goes directly from the surface through the atmosphere to space, calling it an "atmospheric window." This atmospheric window radiation does not add any heat to the atmosphere. The global warming alarmists claim that 79% of the surface cools by IR radiation. At the same time, skeptical scientists estimate that it may only be about 1-3%, and the rest of the heat dissipates by conduction, thermals, and latent heat, see endnote i. CO2 is too diluted to warm the atmosphere. In Figure-6,5 we see a sample of the atmosphere, an array of 10,000 air molecules, of which one is CO2. Alarmists tell us that at 400 ppm, this one CO2 molecule will heat up the other 2,499 molecules by an alarming amount! That is the equivalent of saying ONE CUP OF HOT COFFEE HEATS THE OTHER 2,499 CUPS OF COFFEE TO AN ALARMING AMOUNT, REALLY? Second point, how exactly does the CO2 molecule heat up by absorbing the low-energy IR radiation emitted by the surface? Figure-6a6 reveals the absurdity. We are told that one green CO2 atom is energized by one blue weak IR photon. Then within tiny fractions of a second, it releases a stronger/larger purple photon or may bump two adjacent molecules. These may bump into the two adjacent blue nitrogen molecules causing them to emit their weaker photons or increase their vibrations by a tiny bit, causing a near negligible increase in kinetic/collision heat. Bottom line, this process prevents the atmosphere from trapping or holding any IR heat, and ALL THE ENERGY ABSORBED DURING THE DAY FROM THE SUN IS LOST TO SPACE DURING THE NIGHT. So ultimately, all

heat must be changed to this long wave radiant energy form for it to exit the earth.

HOW IS THE SURFACE/ATMOSPHERE HEATED? As shown in Figure-1, the surface absorbs 163.3 W7 from the sun. BUT THERE ARE OTHER HEAT SOURCES that warm up the surface/atmosphere that is unaccounted for in the energy budget. These include the heat from: ● Fires, cars/trucks, factories/industrial machinery, power plants, ships, airplanes, nuclear and fossil plants, etc. ● Also ignored is the warmth of fermentation by the earth's biomass and animal respiration. ● Why are they omitted? But most strange IS THE MISSING HEAT RELEASED BY THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF ACTIVE VOLCANOES AND VENTS, of which about 85% are unseen and unaccounted for at the bottom of the darkest and deepest oceans and under ice sheets and glaciers.8

http://nov79.com/gbwm/emit.html , See article Heat Trapping.

As used throughout the article, “Watts” or “W” is the amount of energy measured in watts per square meter per second.

Recent findings show that there are at least 140 active volcanoes in Antarctica, see article Scientists found 91 volcanoes under Antarctica. Here’s what they might do | PBS NewsHour . In Greenland a tectonic plume has been melting the ice sheets and warming the oceans, see article Both Greenland & Antarctic Ice Sheets Melting from Below Due to Volcanic Activity | Climate Depot

I say most strange because, and I quote; "NOAA, On July 18th, 2011, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), an agency of the United States Government, declared, in Scientific American and also in Nature Geoscience on July 17th, 2011, THAT MORE THAN HALF OF ALL THE HEAT THAT KEEPS PLANET EARTH FROM FREEZING IN THE COSMOS COMES FROM THE FISSION REACTOR AT THE EARTH'S CORE. The other half of the heat that keeps life possible on earth, comes from the sun. The earth's core is said to be 6,230o centigrade . . . Equal to the temperature of the surface of the sun. Scientists described the earth's core as a Fission reactor producing more than one half of all the heat needed to survive in the Universe as we careen through space at 107,000 kilometers per hour circling around the Sun" 9. According to this statement, the earth's nuclear furnace should be adding about another 163.3 W to the surface. This would make the total heat released from the surface to the atmosphere at least 326.6 W, plus the other ignored heat sources. Now in Figure-7, we have an inconvenient simplified model of Figure-1. I say "inconvenient model" because there are no accurate and repeated measurements to show that the earth's surface radiates to the atmosphere 398.2 W. That is more than double the heat the surface receives from the sun; 326.6 W (163.3 x 2) per the NOAA statement of the earth's nuclear furnace. This 398.2 W is one of the outputs of the MISLEADING STEFAN-BOLTZMANN CONSTANT discussed in greater detail below. So why is all this missing heat not mentioned or unaccounted for?10 IS IT THE MISSING HEAT THAT THE ALARMISTS CLAIM IS THE "GREENHOUSE EFFECT?" But the Energy Budget also shows a heat source called the "Greenhouse effect of 340.3" W reinjected from the atmosphere to the surface shown inside the dark red collective in Figure-1. This 340.3 is suspiciously close to the NASA inferred number of 326.6 W (163.3 x 2.) So, what is the source and composition of this mysterious 340.3 W? The truth is, it's the battleground for the CO2/greenhouse effect debate. Let us state the simple fact; CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE IS FAR FROM SETTLED.

HOW IS THE SURFACE/ATMOSPHERE COOLED? For this exercise, we will use only the numbers provided by NASA, 163.3 Watts. Looking again at Figure-1, we see on the right-side two numbers; Thermals of 18.4 W and Latent heat of 86.4 W, which cools the surface and heats the atmosphere. Also, at the boundary between the surface and atmosphere, there is substantial conduction heating that NASA does not address, nor factors in the cooling effect of winds. Thermals are the heat from the warm surface warming the air above it, forming a warm rising air column up to the cooler and less dense air. It makes a hot air balloon rise and causes smoke to go up a chimney. Does NASA show where this heat goes, or how it ever exits the planet? THE ANSWER IS NO! Latent heat of evaporation is the heat released when liquid water evaporates to form water vapor gas and rises up the atmosphere like the Thermals. This is the cooling effect you feel on your skin when you come out of a pool, and the hot sun evaporates the water droplets away from your body. These two packets, thermals and latent, of warmed air, chaotically mix in the atmosphere as part of the process called "weather."

https://www.academia.edu/49442870/The_Axial_Seamount_Nature_s_Response_To_500_Years_of_Cooling The Axial Seamount Nature’s Response To 500 Years of Cooling 10

239.9 is the total energy absorbed by the atmosphere and the surface, corresponding to 163.3 + 77.1 = 239.9 estimates as used in Figure-1. Same analogy should apply for the 398.2 W. Where did the missing heat of 158.3 W (398.2-239.9) come from? Is it the missing heat from the Earth’s nuclear furnace, that is almost the same value as the 163.3 mentioned by NOAA?

As shown in Figure-8, air temperatures and pressures decrease with altitude, like a chimney, sucking up the warm near-surface air and sending it to an ever higher and ever cooling sky. THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE IS THE OPPOSITE OF A GREENHOUSE, where the roof and walls function to block this warm air from rising. Thus, the colder air above cannot ever warm the earth's warmer surface with physical heat. And it is the same with radiation photons. Radiation photons will only travel from a higher energy state to a lower energy state and ultimately to space. We discuss this radiation step-down sequence in greater detail in Part II below. The bottom line, THE MANUFACTURED NUMBER OF 340.3 W, cannot be SENSIBLY EXPLAINED by the laws of physics, thermodynamics, nor reconciled with the 163.3 W of solar input into the surface. Moreover, this 340.3 W cannot be reconciled with the measured incoming net solar irradiance of 340.4 W, nor the 239.9 W of measured outgoing radiation from the atmosphere to space. Therefore, this 340.3 W must be scientifically and quantitatively challenged.

HOW IS THE ATMOSPHERE COOLED? A portion of the atmospheric heat is emitted by radiation to space throughout its atmospheric column. The Latent heat of condensation loses a part of its heat, but Figure-1 does not address this. So, what is the latent heat of condensation? When water vapor condenses in the atmosphere, most of its heat is lost in complex ways. First, some of this heat is radiated to space. Secondly, the condensed water vapor takes several forms depending on the temperature and barometric pressure conditions when and where it is condensed. First, it may form rain or ice, or snow. Then, as these products fall towards the surface, the atmosphere loses some additional heat by conduction as they interact with the atmospheric gasses. And finally, when these condensed products reach the surface, they also cool the surface. Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT atmospheric physicist and lead author of the UN/IPCC AR3 report and subsequent vocal critic of the CO2 greenhouse theory, tells us we do not know how the atmosphere cools. We do not understand atmospheric science, dynamics, and circulations. It is too complex, especially with the interactions with volatile and unpredictable clouds.11 But one thing we know is that the "greenhouse effect" does not appear to provide any scientific data, answers, or explanations.

INTERIM CONCLUSION:

There is a lot of missing information in the Earth Energy Budget and many unsubstantiated estimates and speculations. Here are the significant unknowns and unanswered questions. -

How much heat is missing from the Earth's Energy Budget from human-activities, nature activities, chemical reactions, and especially the earth's nuclear furnace? What is the source and accuracy of the 340.3 W of reinjection heat inside the red collective?

https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-clouds-are-the-key-to-new-troubling-projections-on-warming

What is the atmospheric cooling rate needed to turn the warmed-up gasses' thermal heat, especially in the Nitrogen, Oxygen, to longwave IR radiation and sent to space? We also need to know what lag time is required for variations due to clouds, water vapors, aerosols, and circulation patterns? The oceans have an enormous capacity to store heat and exchange it with the atmosphere. So then, how do the oceans absorb the excess heat of the sun and atmosphere during a warming cycle, and how does it release it to the atmosphere during a cooling cycle? Why does the Earth's Energy Budget remain silent on the atmospheric warming effects of the Pacific Ocean's El Nino's12 or the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC)13 current system that may be even more significant than the El Ninos? The greenhouse effect is not scientifically explainable in terms of physics, mathematics, or thermodynamics. But if this alleged GHE is ever scientifically verified, it might only contribute a tiny fraction of the missing heat. Direct causation has scientifically validated the number of sunspots and the 11-years solar cycle that causes an increase or decrease in cosmic ray flux, which will increase/decrease the atmospheric albedo14 by several percent. Yet, why does NASA fix the albedo at a static 30% and let it remain a major unknown? The term and concept of "Radiative Forcing" or "greenhouse effect" do not exist in any physics, chemistry, or thermodynamics studies. Instead, these terms appear uniquely used and aligned only in the alleged and self-defining field of "climate change." This is not science, but science deception. What role does gravity have in warming the atmosphere? Is it an addition to the greenhouse effect, an alternate to the greenhouse effect, or a combination?15

SUMMARY. In this Part I, we summarized how the atmosphere and surface are heated by sunlight from above and highlighted the role of the earth's nuclear furnace. But we learned nothing about how the oceans function as climate moderators, given its huge heat capacity. We discussed the additional sources of heat on earth that are not mentioned in Figure-1. In PART II, we explain, in simple terms and concepts, why the NASA/UN-IPCC concept of a CO2/Greenhouse driven Radiative Forcing mechanism cannot be the cause of global warming or cooling and why the Earth Energy Budget MUST BE RADICALLY REVISED OR DISCARDED ALTOGETHER.

Part II, arguments against CO2 caused global warming. 1. Common sense items.16 12

Mounting evidence suggest El Nino and La Nina are geological/tectonic heating rather than solar or weather events.

http://www.plateclimatology.com/further-proof-el-nios-are-fueled-by-deepsea-geological-heat-flow/ 13

The AMOC is a huge heat transporting current from the Indian Ocean, and all around the coast of Africa and the Caribbean to the western Atlantic, where the Gulf Stream is only its small and final portion. 14 Albedo is a measure of how much incoming sunlight is reflected back to space by dust, aerosols, and most notably water vapor and clouds. 15 Theories have been put forth that show that gravity can induce atmospheric warming using the simple Ideal gas law, see article. Josef Loschmidt's Gravito-Thermal Effect.pdf. Using data from NASA of the temperatures and atmospheric conditions of some planets and moons Nikolov and Zeller have advanced a similar gravitational warming theory, see https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Effect-Nikolov-Zeller/bddadcd85b73526f261ab c74dab952913881837f 16

http://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html

A SMALL AMOUNT OF SOMETHING CAN NOT HEAT A LARGE AMOUNT OF ANYTHING without extreme differences in temperature, which cannot and do not exist in the atmosphere. For example, look at Figure-9, where the fake science on the right panel is contrasted with the actual science on the left panel. For every single molecule of a greenhouse gas and water vapor, there are about 1,400 molecules of other non-greenhouse/water vapor gasses. Let us assume that one molecule of CO2 increased its atmospheric temperature by, say, 0.5 C. Even if we could somehow spread that 0.5 C from one molecule over the other 1,400 molecules and get an average atmospheric temperature increase of these 1,400 molecules by 0.00036C, a trivial and immeasurable increase? Then almost immediately, all those 1,400 molecules would radiate that spread heat to space, ending the threat of CO2 global warming concerns.

Alarmists tell us that atmospheric CO2 lasts for over a century, giving the uninformed public the impression that once the CO2 warms up, the heated air lasts for a long time. This is not the case. Heat cannot be trapped by the atmosphere because these CO2/GHG molecules radiate away photons in femtoseconds.17 This means that molecules of these greenhouse gasses are constantly absorbing and emitting photons continuously. As shown in Figure-9, the GHG molecules radiate away from the absorbed energy almost immediately after it's absorbed, so there is no heat retention.

Heinz Hug18. His experiment showed that CO2 in the air absorbs to extinction at its 15-micrometer peak19 at about ten meters of atmospheric altitude. Meaning that CO2 does whatever it is going to do in that 10 meters of space. Figure-9a shows that doubling the atmospheric CO2 would also saturate its central peak at about 5m of altitude. There is no significant difference between 5m and 10m for global warming because convection currents mix the air at such short distances. Alarmists looked at the image on the left panel of Figure-9a and pointed out where some radiation frequencies would go through because the molecules on the shoulders of the absorption are thin. But, as shown in Figure-9b20 and Table-9a, the claim would not stand up to criticism, as we see by the saturation heights of the shoulder frequencies. So, they switched to the upper atmosphere, where molecules are thinner. But then, the molecules don't get thin enough until they are far beyond the top of the troposphere and do not impact our lives.

17 18

19 20

A femto second is 1-quadrillionth of a second, about 1/1,000,000,000,000,000th of a second, http://nov79.com/gbwm/hnzh.html#ten Equivalent to 15 micrometer Table of CO2 frequencies ans saturation heights of the central peak and the wings http://nov79.com/gbwm/satn.html

CO2 is at 420 ppm, and the first 200-300 ppm have already absorbed 100% of the available and absorbable IR radiation. SO, WE COULD DOUBLE OR QUADRUPLE THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 WITHOUT ANY NOTICEABLE INCREASED GREENHOUSE EFFECT WARMING. -

The UN/IPCC, NASA/NOAA and their servile scientists, and uninformed persons such as Al Gore give us the impression that all of the heat on the planet is going up the sky then bouncing right back on top of everyone due to CO2/GHE. But as shown and discussed above, scientists know that ONLY THE TINIEST AMOUNT OF HEAT IS EVEN IN QUESTION.

2. A real greenhouse versus the greenhouse effect. Actual, commercial, and physical greenhouses have glass roofs and walls that prevent conduction, convection, latent, and radiation from escaping to the atmosphere. Once the solar energy stops, the greenhouse objects slowly cool by conduction to the outside air, slowly rising up the atmosphere by convection, latent, and radiation, as described in Figure-10. During the day, only a tiny part of the retained heat leaks through the physical barriers, as demonstrated by the purple arrows.

BUT, as shown in Figure-10a, the earth's atmosphere (AKA the greenhouse effect) does not have a physical roof or walls and is open to the atmosphere, where its pressure and temperature gradients and winds and circulations act as a chimney. Even the Earth Energy Budget partially hints at this. It shows Thermals of 18.4 W, Latent 86.4 W rising, and radiation escaping to space, which they call the "Atmospheric Window" of 40.1 W. What they would have us believe is the notion that greenhouse gasses that make up about 0.05% of the atmosphere, are powerful enough to act as a barrier roof/enclosure walls for the earth's atmosphere and surface. 3. The Greenhouse Effect theory violates the second law of thermodynamics. There has never been a case where this fundamental law was broken anywhere in the universe. Below are a few examples of the implications of this law as it applies to heat in our physical, material Universe. - Thermal energy will only move from a higher temperature object to a lower temperature object until a new thermal equilibrium is reached. So, for example, the heat from a hot cup of coffee will warm your cold hands. Or the heat from a cup of 98 F coffee added to a cup of 90 F coffee gives us two cups of coffee at the equilibrium temperature of about 94 F. - Second, heat is not an additive property. The heat from one 100 F brick cannot be added to the heat of another 100 F brick to raise its temperature to 200 F. - A body cannot heat itself. So, as the UN/IPCC proposes, the warm earth radiates heat to the colder greenhouse gasses in the air, then the greenhouse gasses warm, then somehow amplify this warmth, and then re-radiate it back to earth, and the earth warms to a higher temperature. That would be the thermal equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. If it did, the earth would eventually be in a runaway temperature increase until it melts or vaporizes itself, which is nonsensical. 10

Radiant energy only moves from a higher energy state object to a lower energy state object. So, a 75 F room temperature potbelly stove cannot radiate energy to your 98.6 F warm body as you walk towards the cold stove. But if you move that 75 F stove inside a meat freezer, where every object is at zero F, the 75 F stove would radiate its higher temperature photons to all the things in the freezer until a new thermal balance is reached, like all objects in the freezer might increase their temperature by about 0.005 F.

4. Infrared radiation cannot break the CO2 molecular bonds. Look at Figure-11.21 The red line represents the increasing energy value of radiation as a function of increased frequency, measured in electron volts. The UV radiation (red circle) energy is almost 50 times greater than the energy absorbed by CO2 at its most abundant 14.9-micrometer wavelength and frequency (blue circle.) But even that puny IR absorbed energy does not get locked up in those molecular bonds and then keeps on accumulating additional energy until the bonds finally break to create the kinetic energy needed to generate the warming atmosphere as done by nitrogen and oxygen when they absorb the powerful UV radiation. All molecules, including CO2, constantly vibrate, which causes them to EMIT RADIATION WITH GREATER ENERGY AS ABSORBING NEW ONES. That type of radiation is called infrared, black body radiation. SO, EVEN WHILE CO2 IS ABSORBING IR RADIATION AT ITS TINY RESONANT FREQUENCIES, IT IS ALSO EMITTING RADIATION (LOSING ENERGY) JUST AS FAST AS IT ABSORBS IT.22 5. Radiative energy is not additive. In Part-I, we discussed how thermal energy (heat) is not additive at the material level. We cannot take the 80 C heat from one brick and add it to another 100 C brick and raise its temperature to 180 C. The same principle applies to electromagnetic energy. Let us look again at Figure-11. We see that the areas under the curve of the various constituent gasses have been added together into a summary curve called "Total absorption and scattering." In other words, which is what the UN/IPCC has done. They have integrated (added) together each frequency's energy component, which is nonsensical. As discussed in Part-I above, this violates the Plank-Einstein relationship E = hv, which defines an atomic scale harmonic oscillator. Here E is energy, h is the Plank constant, and v is the oscillating harmonic frequency. This radiative energy is independent of mass. Mass plays a role in determining the frequencies of the oscillations of the bonds holding material objects together. But there is no mass involved in this electromagnetic disturbance field, and energy strictly depends on frequency. Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman put it in straightforward terms. These electromagnetic energies do not come as convenient little blobs that can be added to other little blobs of energy and change their energy state. 21

Figure-5, obtained from the book What Really Causes Global Warming, by Peter Langdon Ward, figure 10.2, page 143.

http://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html Heat cannot be trapped in the atmosphere because it radiates away in femto seconds, where one femtosecond equals 1/1,000,000 ,000,000,000 of a second.

6. The historical perspective shows that increased global CO2 does not lead to a temperature increase. Earth's climate history had notable ups and downs in temperature and CO2 levels. There was no relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures in the more remote past. However, as seen in Figure-12,23 data from Antarctica ice core, we see that over the last 400,000-years, CO2 levels and temperatures appear to move in locked steps, going up together and coming down together. So, the fundamental question is, which came first, which is the cause, and which is the effect? Secondly, what is the connecting scientific explanation between them? Based on this Antarctic ice core data, we see that first comes a temperature change red), followed by a corresponding change in CO2 levels (blue.) Looking at periods noted X, we see that the corresponding CO2 increase also comes quickly during fast-rising temperatures, BUT ONLY AFTER THE TEMPERATURE INCREASE. This fast response makes scientific sense. For example, basaltic volcanic eruptions in deep oceans quickly warm ocean waters and release CO2 and other gasses into the waters and atmosphere over months or several years. We experience this personally as we see how quickly the CO2 in a cold coke goes flat as it warms to ambient temperature. Then the warmed ocean waters also release/outgas some of the dissolved CO2, which bubbles up in the atmosphere. But, during periods of global cooling, like the Y periods shown on the chart, the atmosphere cools quickly because the atmosphere has a very low heat capacity. But the ocean, because of its huge heat capacity,24 makes the waters cool much more slowly.25 As a result, we see CO2 absorption back in the oceans lagging by hundreds, even thousands of years, to see the corresponding reduction in atmospheric CO2. Greenland ice core records show identical results. Therefore, we must conclude that, based on the geologic record and the scientific explanation of water/gas solubility changes with temperature, atmospheric levels of CO2 depend on and follow atmospheric and ocean temperature and thus do not cause global warming or global cooling. 7. CO2 radiation absorption Peaks.26 As seen in Figure-13, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometers. Most IR radiation escapes the CO2 molecules and shoots off to space or is partially absorbed by nature-made water vapor. These three frequencies of CO2 absorb about 8% of the available Earth black body radiation. 23

https://archive.is/S6A4f#selection-2195.0-2256.0

The oceans heat capacity, meaning the ability to store energy/heat, is about 1,000 times greater than the atmosphere. The heat capacity of the ocean is about 1,000 times greater than the heat capacity of the atmosphere. https://scholarsandrogues.com/2013/05/09/csfe-heat-capacity-air-ocean/ 25

http://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html

Several decades ago, before global warming was a social issue, scientists concluded that carbon dioxide blocked about 8% of the infrared radiation from going through the atmosphere27. This is consistent with bandwidth. The width of the 15-micron peak is about two microns wide from the outer edges of the shoulders. So, the total range of infrared radiation, called black body radiation, is about 100 microns, tapering off after 50 microns. Black body radiation is all infrared radiation given off by the earth and increases with temperature. Bottom line, even in the outside chance that someday the CO2 global warming hypothesis is verified, the amount of CO2 warming is and will remain trivial. 8. Even if the human-made CO2 hype is true, its impact is trivial. In Table-1,28 CO2 and the listed greenhouse gasses must compete with the much more abundant nature-made water vapor for this limited IR energy. Dr. F Singer estimates HUMAN-MADE CO2 MAY ACCOUNT FOR ABOUT 0.117% OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Perhaps this is why the NASA-UN/IPCC Radiative Forcing theory had to invent the concept of "water vapor amplification." By comparison, nature-made CO2 accounts for about 3.5% of the GHE, and NATURE MADE WATER VAPOR ACCOUNTS FOR 94.999% OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT. This CO2 Radiative Forcing idea was first proposed about 125-years by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius. Yet, even after more than five decades and hundreds of $billions spent on research, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN DATA derived from laboratory experiments that substantiated that this CO2 absorption causes warming of any kind. 9. The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant (S-BC) is wrong and wrong by a lot.29 Figure-14 shows us the concept of the S-BC, which, according to the NASA earth energy budget, shows is about 40 times too much radiation at ambient temperatures. For example, the S-BC says that matter emits 459 watts/m2 of infrared radiation at a room temperature of 27°C. That is like saying that A SMALL KITCHEN TABLE IS EMITTING AS MUCH ENERGY AS FIVE 100-WATT LIGHT BULBS. It tells us that a BLOCK OF ICE RADIATES 315 W/M². That equals three 10027

Quote: “Calculating Femto Seconds. The average wavelength for radiation emitted from the earth is 25 microns, which means 83 femto seconds per wave. While one wave is being absorbed at 15 microns, another wave is being emitted at 25 microns. The emitted radiation is stronger than the absorbed radiation, because the absorbed radiation is limited to 8% of the black body radiation, which is called fingerprint radiation.” Source http://nov79.com/gbwm/dilute.html Dilution Factor. 28

http://arizonaenergy.org/WaterEnergy/Water%20Vapor%20Rules%20the%20Greenhouse%20System.htm Water vapor Rules the greenhouse system, Table 4a, by Dr. F Singer. 29

http://nov79.com/gbwm/sbc.html

Watt light bulbs per cubic meter of ice, and the Earth's Surface radiates 398.2 W. Nothing like this is happening in the real world. As Richard P. Feynman stated, "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with the experiment, it's wrong." The same S-BC tells us that the earth's surface, as seen in the Figure-1 earth energy budget, is emitting 398.2 W/m230. Please recall that in Figure-1, there are only two verified measurements numbers, the 340.4 W TSI arriving from the Sun to Earth and the 239.9 W exiting the earth. All the other numbers are estimates, best guesses, or speculative conjectures. 10. My wine cellar. I built an underground wine cellar adjacent to my basement in my home in Massachusetts, as shown in Figure-15. It was well insulated, deep underground, accessed from my below-ground basement, covered by earth and my deck and snow and ice in winter. The cellar was heated and air conditioned to about 70 F year-round. I casually monitored the wine cellar temperature, and it was in the mid-50s F and varied by a few degrees warmer in the summer and a few degrees colder in the winter. In addition, the water and sewage lines were about three feet below the surface level to keep the water from freezing in the winter. My point is that this is ample evidence that heat is conducting up from the earth's nuclear core to keep the wine room at a constant temperature in the mid-'50s, year-round, night and day, and the water in the pipes from freezing. And I submit that this is the heat from the earth's nuclear furnace, which NOAA addressed, but is unaccounted for in the earth's energy budget. 11. Effect of clouds. The current climate models do not consider the effect of clouds because clouds are not well understood by scientists and are impossible to model. The IPCC admits this openly. However, most climate scientists agree that climate modeling has little value without understanding the feedback effect of clouds. Do they amplify the heat, do they amplify cooling, and do something or nothing? The sad answer is scientists do not know. According to Dr. Lindzen, clouds may even have a significant negative feedback loop, meaning they cool the atmosphere and not heat it. The more the atmosphere warms, by whatever cause, the more water vapor is produced, the greater the cloud cover. Thus, as atmospheric scientist R Lindzen says, this unknown cloud mechanism might actually reduce atmospheric heating.31

Part III Summary and recommendations.

QUOTE “Also, there are no square meters in the atmosphere, but climatologists needed square meters to convert 3.7 W/m² into 1°C by reversing the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. Reversing the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is not valid, because it applies to radiation emitted from an opaque surface, not from a three dimensional and transparent atmosphere. It means climatologists started at the desired endpoint of 1°C and contrived a method of getting there.” Source http://nov79.com/gbwm/rte.html , Radiative Transfer Equations. The underlying science for greenhouse gases was contrived through fake math. 31

http://havaitsija.blogspot.com/2011/06/climate-change-hypothesis-evidence-does.html

1. The Earth's Energy budget can be used only as a conceptual representation and not as a quantitative mathematical expression of what is going on in the earth's atmosphere. It fails to identify all the heat sources for the planet, especially its nuclear furnace and gravitational induced warming. 2. NASA/NOAA must give a detailed clarification on the statements in 2011 that the earth's nuclear furnace supplies as much heat to the surface as the sun. In addition, it must provide the data that led them to that conclusion, and if further research is necessary, then fund it and get it done. 3. The US Government must stop wasting $ billions in research dollars each year to justify the CO2/greenhouse effect concoction and stop intimidating the general public and propagandizing the fiction of human-caused global warming. It needs a complete overhaul – stop wasting valuable funds on deceiving projects. Instead, direct its funds to real research projects, like funding: -

Experiments to prove or disprove the radiative forcing theory,

Stop funding the demonizing of CO2 and the methane propaganda-driven projects, and the nonsense of human-caused sea-level rise,

Investigate what is going on with all the countless volcanoes and vents in the deepest/darkest oceans and under glaciers and ice sheets,

Investigate the El Nino32 and their origins, and the AMOC,

Investigate possible couplings between the solar magnetic cycles and the earth's liquid metal core,

Understanding the role of clouds,

Understanding the role of solar cycles and galactic cosmic rays and their effects on cloud formation,

Understanding the role of volcanic gas emissions in ozone depletion,

Fund research on the thermodynamic connections between gravity and gravity-induced heating.

Hold grant recipients accountable for their research grant projects' quality, completeness, and integrity.

http://www.plateclimatology.com/further-proof-el-nios-are-fueled-by-deepsea-geological-heat-flow/

Abstract. In Part I the paper summarizes how the UN/IPCC presents an incomplete and misleading picture of the Earth’s Energy Budget. How it tells us nothing about other sources of heat besides the sun, like the earth’s nuclear furnace or how oceans act like a climate moderator given its huge heat capacity. PART II presents 11 arguments against CO2 caused global warming. Explaining in simple terms and concepts, the difference between real-physical greenhouses and the misleading term of the “greenhouse effect.” It also explains the challenges posed by the concept of “Radiative Forcing.” Part III summarizes policy recommendations and procedural changes for NASA/NOAA.

We, the citizens of the United States, hold our public institutions like NASA, NOAA, and their grant distributing agencies accountable for how the taxpayer monies are spent. And specifically, assure that the grants are funding research and not propaganda.

Endnotes and references.