Douglas Lightfoot - Kevin Kilty
Thermodynamics - CRACKPOT PAPERS
John Shanahan
January 23, 2024
Jan. 23, 2025
Douglas Lightfoot ro Kevin Kilty
dlightfo@aei.ca
January 23, 2025
to kevin, gerald.ratzer, me, Terigi
Kevin:
I have attached our paper, which was officially published yesterday. It disproves the concept that carbon dioxide is significantly warming the earth.
"The
Sun Evaporates Water to Cool
the
Earth for Life to Flourish" in "Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences "
Jan 22, 2025
John Shanahan to Douglas Lightfoot, Gerald Ratzer
I hope you understand it.
I have read and responded to all of your comments. There is no point in continuing this discussion.
Best wishes,
H. Douglas Lightfoot
Doug,
For 15 years, I answered questions about climate change and windmills to life long friends. They ignored my detailed answers with references which they never read. I've given up on them. I can do a lot of better things.
Same with you.
Thanks for letting us know that you have reached the quitting point with Kevin Kilty.
Enjoy all the good things that are going on in 2025 finally.
Best wishes.
John
John A. Shanahan Civil Engineer Denver,
Colorado, USA
Jan. 22, 2025
Douglas Lightfoot to John Shanahan, Gerald Ratzer
E-mail: john.shanahan@allaboutenergy.net
Website: allaboutenergy.net
Hello:
I am tired of trying to teach Kilty anything. We are going around in circles, and he does not pay attention to anything I say.
I spent a lot of time on the message I sent this afternoon. He ignored it.
I do not mind having contact with serious people. Professor Kilty is not.
I have no plans to respond to Kilty’s last message because it is mostly nonsense. He does not understand the psychrometric chart or its properties. He is so interested in proving we are wrong that he cannot think straight.
Regards,
Doug
Jan. 22, 2025
John Shanahan
To: Gregory Wrightstone, William Happer, Kevin Kilty, Daniel Neberte
Cc: Patrick
To: Select members of the CO2 Coalition
Cc: Other members of the CO2 Coalition
For many years, I enjoyed being a member of the CO2 Coalition, even contributing recommendations for the position of Executive Director. I find the subject matter of all the articles and reports fascinating and important
Moore, Richard Lindzen, John Droz for the wellbeing of the United States.
Due to issues that developed in 2024 between four members of the CO2 Coalition and two non-members in Canada, I resigned my membership.
That does not mean that I don't want to work with all members of the CO2 Coalition for our mutual goals.
Outside the CO2 Coalition, I have had a rewarding career since 1970 in the development of nuclear power and in establishing a website: allaboutenergy.net dedicated to presenting many sides of key issues and to education of public leaders and the public. To that end, I have studied the lives of many great scientists and engineers of the last 150 years including working with many up to their last days. Their outstanding accomplishments are documented on my website in 3,700 plus articles, reports, slide presentations, eBooks, and videos.
Below is an announcement of the latest publication of the two Canadian scientists/engineers you have personally labelled unprofessionally.
I look forward to working with all members of the CO2 Coalition for our common goals against people who seriously want to destroy the modern world and greatly reduce the world population.
To go forward constructively in the spirit of Richard Feynman, it just needs a few strokes of the pen. See sample below:
To: H. Douglas Lightfoot and Gerald Ratzer
We retract the use of the words crackpots, crackpotsy with regards to your work with psychrometric charts and apologize.
Let us go forward with professional discussions to the extent that this is more important than the work to discredit man-made climate change alarmists and antifossil fuels and anti-nuclear power modern world destroyers - our common goal.
GW, WH, KK, DN
If this issue with an outstanding 95 year old Canadian mechanical engineer and his younger co-author isn't resolved in a simple private communication, there may be an occasional Cloud Burst (a climate science technical term) from this Irish-American civil engineer.
It is my sincere desire that we discuss our scientific disagreements professionally and forcefully go after the real anti-modern world, anti-human c$%^*@ots.
Best wishes,
John
John A. Shanahan Civil Engineer Denver, Colorado, USA
E-mail: john.shanahan@allaboutenergy.net
Website: allaboutenergy.net
Jan. 22, 2025
Areez Khan to Douglas Lightfoot and Gerald Ratzer
From: areez.khan@setpublisher.com <areez.khan@setpublisher.com>
Sent: January 22, 2025 12:41 AM
To: dlightfo@aei.ca
Cc: Gerald Ratzer <gerald.ratzer@mcgill.ca>
Subject: Manuscript Online for JBAS
Dear Dr. H. Douglas Lightfoot,
First of all this email is to thank you for your recent article contribution entitled "The Sun Evaporates Water to Cool the Earth for Life to Flourish" in "Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences ". Please find attached the complimentary copy of the final article in PDF format for your personal use.
Looking forward to your cooperation and hope you will continue to publish your work with us.
Best regards
Areez Khan Manager Publication SET Publisher
Jan. 20, 2025
Kevin Kilty to Douglas Lightfoot
Kevin Kilty
Hi Douglas,
We and you are both very cold today aren't we?
It's possible that we will never arrive at any agreement, here, as we might be talking past one another. However, I am going to zero in one just a couple of points to see if
we can make headway in some manner. Because long pieces of extraneous text become confusing, I am going to just use your red comments to place us in context.
1. Regardless of your disagreement, the psychrometric chart is a mathematical model of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Here is where we might be speaking past one another. My idea of a model is that it can provide explanations of dynamics and provide testable predictions. What do you mean by a model? The psychrometric chart is a model of the properties of moist air, but no more in my view.
2. I suggest that you consult a competent chemist. Any gas above its boiling point acts as an ideal gas regardless of the temperature or pressure. There is no problem with water vapor below 10kPa (1.45 psi). it is irrelevant.
Don't need a competent chemist. What one needs is a chart of the compressibility factor as a function of reduced pressure and temperature. I'll appeal to Cengel and Boles excellent textbook and the chart 3-45 in the section under the heading "when is water vapor an ideal gas?" You'll see that the statement I made is true.
3. The reason that CO2 is not mentioned in the psychrometric chart is because it is too [small to?] measure, i.e., it is undetectable.
This is very puzzling because you state that your claims are substantiated by the psychrometric chart and some of these claims are very specific. For example, the claim "10.6. Comparison of three radiation profiles with the 7
ratio of water molecules to CO2 molecules shows the warming effect of CO2 is negligible."
I have placed two figures below generated with MODTRAN. Both use the midlatitude winter atmosphere but in one I set water vapor to zero and the other I set CO2 to zero instead. Radiometer looking upward from the surface. Note that the radiant intensity from CO2 alone is 60 watts per meter squared while water vapor is 178 W per meter squared. CO2 is not negligible but about 1/3 the effect of water vapor in this instance. The ratio of molecules does not matter. What matters is the temperature of the atmosphere, temperature of the ground, and the spectrum of the two substances. The obvious emission at 15.5um in the figure is from a very large absorption cross section of CO2 at and around this wavelength, and it occurs in the more or less transparent water vapor window. Now, by the time a person mixes CO2 and water vapor and looks at a doubling of CO2 alone, the ultimate effect of CO2 seems diminished because the effect of CO2 is saturating. Yet, even in this case doubling CO2 results in about 0.7C of change -- 70 times your figure of 0.01C.
4. At Mogadishu on April 2021 the temperature was 32oC. 23.8oC was by water vapor and 8.2oC by the Sun.
This claim is very puzzling, but extremely revealing to me, because interpretation of this graph is a misuse of the psychrometric chart. The interpretation of the point on the chart is this. Using data at Mogadishu the air
Jan. 15, 2025
Douglas Lightfoot to Kevin Kilty
temperature is 32C and absolute humidity is about 19g/Kg. Using -50C as a reference point which is what you imply, to reach 32C, you couldn't do it by just adding water vapor. You'd have to also add enough enthalpy to take the dry air portion from -50 to 32 which would be pretty close to 82kJ, but this air would be exceedingly dry so to get the humidity to 19g/Kg you'd have to add water vapor at 32C which would involve more enthalpy -- temperature of air is not a function of specific humidity which is what you are implying by the use of this graph in this manner. The psychrometric chart provides values of changes of enthalpy and water vapor needed to take air from one state to another.
Can you answer the objections I raise here?
Stay warm, Kevin
Douglas Lightfoot
Hello Kevin:
I am responding to your message by including comments in red in your message.
From: kevin kilty <ktf.kilty@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2025 4:03 PM
To: dlightfo@aei.ca
Cc: John Shanahan <acorncreek2006@gmail.com>; gerald.ratzer@mcgill.ca
Subject: Re: FW: Encouraging dialogue between Kevin
Kilty, Gerald Ratzer and Douglas Lightfoot
Hello Douglas,
Let me state as clearly as I can that I have no argument with the psychrometric chart. I discussed it with my own thermodynamics students, even though we didn't use it in our class, but would have had I taught the HVAC course. In a couple of Figures in your paper which I read I showed that you obviously used your spreadsheet version correctly to determine the relationship between temperature and enthalpy of dry air (Figure 2) and moist air (Figure 3). However, this does not show anything more than the spreadsheet psychrometric chart is using available relationships (Cp for dry air as a function of T, for example) correctly. Thank you for saying that we used the psychrometric program correctly. The input is temperature and relative humidity. The outputs are also correct, i.e., water vapor in grams per kg of dry air, dew point in degrees C, dry air enthalpy in kilojoules per kg of dry air, moist air enthalpy, specific volume and dew point.
But just demonstrating that your spreadsheet calculates the suite of properties needed for HVAC calculations, does not substantiate the claims you make. It is possible to have a perfectly good tool, be able to swing it with skill, but misapply it to problems. We are not applying the calculations to HVAC applications and do not claim to do so.
The psychrometric chart provides an equation of state
for at least some of the working fluid used in HVAC -moist air. It tells us, for example, how much enthalpy must be added to home interior air that has fallen below the dead band of the thermostat in order to bring air back to the top of the dead band. The chart can tell us how much enthalpy is needed, but can't help us at all in deciding what manner is employed to add this enthalpy. For this we need specifications for a furnace, boiler or heat pump, and the associated ductwork, heat exchangers, fans etc. Just this simple case should illustrate the limitations of the chart. This is all good information for an HVAC application. But that is not we are doing.
Thus, when I read in your paper this statement "...the psychrometric chart, which is a proven mathematical model of the Earth’s atmosphere...." I disagreed entirely. A model of the atmosphere would have to include all sorts of details about transport of heat and moisture, which the chart does not, and be able to demonstrate how the unequal heating of the Earth by the Sun and the radiant properties of the atmosphere leads to the mechanical work that results finally in the temperature distribution of the atmosphere. The chart provides not even a clue about how this is accomplished.
Regardless of your disagreement, the psychrometric chart is a mathematical model of the Earth’s atmosphere. The model was converted to a computer model, Humidair, in the 1980s. You might like to review the properties of the Humidair program at: https://www.megawatsoft.com/psychrometrics.aspx
In other words, a model of the atmosphere would require the equivalents of the boiler, heat exchangers, and so forth for HVAC. Sorry, this would only be true for an HVAC application. We are not dealing with HVAC.
Next you claim the Sun and troposphere set the temperature of the atmosphere. The temperature distribution of the atmosphere depends not on the sun per se or even on the combination of the troposphere and sun, but on the first law of thermodynamics applied to the atmosphere. Nowhere do you describe how the chart is a substitute for the first law. And it can't be. When I took the undergraduate class in thermo for the first time 51 years ago we used the Zemansky text, and in it Zemansky explains that an equation of state is an addition to thermodynamics, not derived from thermodynamics and not a substitute for the science.
I suggest that you need to show us where there ii a fault in the science that leads to our conclusion in our paper: The Sun and the Troposphere control the Earth’s temperature. Available at: https://doi.org/10.29169/1927-5129.2023.19.14
There is one very serious error or misunderstanding in the paper that I read. This occurs on page 166 following the heading entitled "THE WARMING BY CO2 IS LINEAR RATHER THAN CURVILINEAR" The straight line relation ship is shown in Figure 2. The enthalpy of dry air is one of the accurate calculations by the Humidair program. The Humidair program calculates
enthalpy from zero degrees Celsius. Below zero the values are negative. To avoids this, we used the lowest temperature in the set of 240 points as the baseline— McMurdo at-37oC. Cell I57.
In this section you are equating the curvature noted in the radiative forcing of the surface by CO2 (your ΔRF allusion) to the sort of curvature observed in the enthalpy vs. temperature relationship of air at constant relative humidity -- the curvature in your figure 3. These are entirely different things that have nothing to do with one another. Moreover, you state that water vapor below its boiling point is not an ideal gas; but whether or not any gas can be treated as ideal is a function of both pressure and temperature. Below 10kPa or so water vapor behaves as an ideal gas no matter the temperature with an error less than 0.1%. I suggest that you consult a competent chemist. Any gas above its boiling point acts as an ideal gas regardless of the temperature or pressure. There is no problem with water vapor below 10kPa (1.45 psi). it is irrelevant.
Finally, in the final section of this paper you draw eight conclusions. Number 10.7, for example, states that the "...Sun determines Earth's temperature...". I have just explained that this is not so, and even including the troposphere doesn't aid its deficiency. Below is a figure with the dew point added. It is clear that temperatures below the dew point are caused by water vapor and those above are caused by the Sun. This is Figure 3 from: Earth’s Temperature: The Effect of the Sun, Water Vapor, and CO2. Available at: https://setpublisher.com/pms/index.php/jbas/article/v
iew/2425. At Mogadishu on April 2021 the temperature was 32oC. 23.8oC was by water vapor and 8.2oC by the Sun.
The figure below is Figure 4 is from The Sun and the Troposphere control the Earth’s temperature. with the dew point added. The water vapor is a quadratic curve. It is not logarithmic.
None of these claims results from use of the psychrometric chart, but would require a great deal of other science none of which is clearly in evidence in the paper. Five of these claims involve the effect of CO2 on warming the Earth, and the paragraph prior to these claims in your paper identifies the psychrometric chart as one of three means of demonstrating these claims. Yet, the chart doesn't depend on CO2 at all because CO2 is a miniscule contributor to the heat capacity of moist air, and certainly has nothing to say about the IR radiative properties of CO2. The chart cannot prove any claims regarding CO2. The reason that CO2 is not mentioned in the psychrometric chart is because it is too measure, i.e., it is undetectable. We show this in papers such as: Only the Greenhouse Gas, Water Vapor, Measurably Warms the Earth. Available at: https://setpublisher.com/index.php/jbas/article/view/ 2513
Now, I agree with you and Gerald when you say that water vapor is more important than CO2 in warming the earth, but the figure of 1,000 times more important that you claim has no defensible argument provided -- the chart doesn't pertain to the issue and the spectra of atmospheric radiation are not capable of demonstrating it at the resolution they are drawn. I suggest that you examine how Figure 1 was constructed. You will need the Excel calculations. Click on “SUPPL” when you go to the publisher’s website. That gives you the Excel spreadsheet. See columns BK to BS.
There are many other deficiencies of your efforts, but just tackling these few are going to be a large task. Thank you for your comments. Generalizations are of little use You must be more specific so we can identify the problems exactly and thereby give a reasonable response.
Best regards,
H. Douglas Lightfoot
Comments are welcome.
Regards, Doug
Jan. 14, 2025
Kevin Kilty to Douglas Lightfoot
Best to you both, Kevin
January 14, 2024)
Kevin Kilty
to dlightfo, me, gerald.ratzer
Hello Douglas,
Let me state as clearly as I can that I have no argument with the psychrometric chart. I discussed it with my own thermodynamics students, even though we didn't use it in our class, but would have had I taught the HVAC course. In a couple of Figures in your paper which I read I showed that you obviously used your spreadsheet version correctly to determine the relationship between temperature and enthalpy of dry air (Figure 2) and moist air (Figure 3). However, this does not show anything more than the spreadsheet psychrometric chart is using available relationships (Cp for dry air as a function of T, for example) correctly.
But just demonstrating that your spreadsheet calculates the suite of properties needed for HVAC calculations, does not substantiate the claims you make. It is possible to have a perfectly good tool, be able to swing it with skill, but misapply it to problems.
The psychrometric chart provides an equation of state for at least some of the working fluid used in HVAC -moist air. It tells us, for example, how much enthalpy must be added to home interior air that has fallen below the dead band of the thermostat in order to bring air back to the top of the dead band. The chart can tell us how much enthalpy is needed, but can't help us at all in deciding what manner is employed to add this enthalpy. For this we need specifications for a furnace, boiler or heat pump, and the associated ductwork, heat exchangers, fans etc. Just this simple case should illustrate the limitations of the chart.
Thus, when I read in your paper this statement "...the psychrometric chart, which is a proven mathematical model of the Earth’s atmosphere...." I disagreed entirely. A model of the atmosphere would have to include all sorts of details about transport of heat and moisture, which the chart does not, and be able to demonstrate how the unequal heating of the Earth by the Sun and the radiant properties of the atmosphere leads to the mechanical work that results finally in the temperature distribution of the atmosphere. The chart provides not even a clue about how this is accomplished.
In other words, a model of the atmosphere would require the equivalents of the boiler, heat exchangers, and so forth for HVAC.
Next you claim the Sun and troposphere set the
temperature of the atmosphere. The temperature distribution of the atmosphere depends not on the sun per se or even on the combination of the troposphere and sun, but on the first law of thermodynamics applied to the atmosphere. Nowhere do you describe how the chart is a substitute for the first law. And it can't be. When I took the undergraduate class in thermo for the first time 51 years ago we used the Zemansky text, and in it Zemansky explains that an equation of state is an addition to thermodynamics, not derived from thermodynamics and not a substitute for the science.
There is one very serious error or misunderstanding in the paper that I read. This occurs on page 166 following the heading entitled "THE WARMING BY CO2 IS LINEAR RATHER
THAN
CURVILINEAR"
In this section you are equating the curvature noted in the radiative forcing of the surface by CO2 (your ΔRF allusion) to the sort of curvature observed in the enthalpy vs. temperature relationship of air at constant relative humidity -- the curvature in your figure 3. These are entirely different things that have nothing to do with one another. Moreover, you state that water vapor below its boiling point is not an ideal gas; but whether or not any gas can be treated as ideal is a function of both pressure and temperature. Below 10kPa or so water vapor behaves as an ideal gas no matter the temperature with an error less than 0.1%.
Finally, in the final section of this paper you draw eight conclusions. Number 10.7, for example, states that the
"...Sun determines Earth's temperature...". I have just explained that this is not so, and even including the troposphere doesn't aid its deficiency.
None of these claims results from use of the psychrometric chart, but would require a great deal of other science none of which is clearly in evidence in the paper. Five of these claims involve the effect of CO2 on warming the Earth, and the paragraph prior to these claims in your paper identifies the psychrometric chart as one of three means of demonstrating these claims. Yet, the chart doesn't depend on CO2 at all because CO2 is a miniscule contributor to the heat capacity of moist air, and certainly has nothing to say about the IR radiative properties of CO2. The chart cannot prove any claims regarding CO2.
Now, I agree with you and Gerald when you say that water vapor is more important than CO2 in warming the earth, but the figure of 1,000 times more important that you claim has no defensible argument provided -- the chart doesn't pertain to the issue and the spectra of atmospheric radiation are not capable of demonstrating it at the resolution they are drawn.
There are many other deficiencies of your efforts, but just tackling these few are going to be a large task.
Best to you both,
Kevin
Jan. 14, 2025
Douglas Lightfoot to Kevin Kilty
dlightfo@aei.ca
January 14, 2025 10:31 AM
to gerald.ratzer, ktf.kilty, me
Dear Professor Kilty:
Unfortunately, we haven't received your reply to our October 24, 2024, message, which is given below.
Nobody has found a fault in the science that leads to our papers' conclusions. You might have been unable to find a fault, so we have not heard from you.
The science Willis Carrier used in 1904 to invent the psychrometric chart was developed by a group of eminent scientists, as in the chart below.
You can find more information at http://www.handsdownsoftware.com/Psychrometrics-
Oct. 24, 2024
John Shanahan to Kevin Kilty
100th-Bday.pdf
The psychrometric chart invented by Willis Carrier does not mention warming by carbon dioxide. This is because the warming effect of carbon dioxide is too small to measure. The warming effect of each greenhouse gas is identified in Table 2.14 of AR4, and the total warming effect is too small to measure. It is less than 0.01oC.
As you can see, we can defend our work.
Best regards,
H. Douglas Lightfoot, P. Eng. (retired), MBA #305 678 Surrey
Baie-D’Urfe, QC, H9X 3S1 Canada
Email: dlightfo@aei.ca
Tel: 514-457-6129
From: John Shanahan <acorncreek2006@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2024 1:47 PM
To: ktf.kilty@gmail.com
Cc: Gregory Wrightstone <gwrightstone@gwrightstone.com>; Gerald Ratzer <gerald.ratzer@mcgill.ca>; H. Douglas Lightfoot <dlightfo@aei.ca>; Terigi Ciccone <terigiciccone@gmail.com>; William Happer <happer@princeton.edu>; Patrick Moore <pmoore@ecosense.me>
Subject: Encouraging dialogue between Kevin Kilty, Gerald Ratzer and Douglas Lightfoot
Hello Professor Kilty,
On Oct 22 you sent the following email message regarding the climate studies of Douglas Lightfoot and Professor Gerald Ratzer about the influence of CO2 in global warming.
------------------------------------------------------------------
What a strange approach to terrestrial heat flow is this use of the psychrometric chart. Just to make sure people know what this chart is, it's the equation of state of moist air. It enables a person to calculate how much energy (heat generally) and water vapor must be added to or subtracted from a kilogram of dry air to take it from one state, say too warm and moist for comfort, to a cooler and drier condition that is comfortable. Knowing this, and knowing the characteristics of the available HVAC equipment, an engineer can size a system required to make a house in Florida, say, comfortable year round.
Notice that I said a knowledge of the equipment available for HVAC is needed along with the psychrometric chart. The chart doesn't provide enough information on its own. I taught thermodynamics probably a dozen times, and one of the common errors students make once they learn the ideal gas law
(another equation of state, but for gasses at temperature well above and pressures lower than their condensation to a liquid state) is they view it as the fundamental piece of thermodynamics -- they try to apply it to every problem, including problems that don't involve a gas at all. And they are unaware of what else is needed to solve most problems. It takes effort to stop their erroneous thinking.
As you know, I occasionally write pieces for the WUWT site, and there is a group of characters who haunt that site who are just like the novice engineering students, and similar to the authors of this paper. They see the ideal gas law (and would view the psychrometric chart similarly if they knew of it) as an answer to all sorts of problems, such as rising atmospheric average temperature, when in fact what is required is the first law of thermodynamics, an appropriate set of constitutive relations for heat transport (possibly fluid transport too), and boundary conditions.This generally results in a set of differential equations of integrodifferential equations to solve.
That the authors of this paper don't recognize what they are missing to actually discuss heat transport realistically (rest of message was inappropriate in my opinion and deleted - John Shanahan)
I am writing to Professor Kevin Kilty in the USA and Professor Gerald Ratzer and Mechanical Engineer Douglas Lightfoot in Canada to encourage the three of you to discuss this topic objectively and professionally for
Oct. 24. 2024
Douglas Lightfoot to Kevin Kilty
the sake of my global audiences in 124 countries.
Thanks.
John John A. Shanahan
Civil Engineer
Denver, Colorado, USA
From: dlightfo@aei.ca <dlightfo@aei.ca>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2024 4:17 PM
To: 'ktf.kilty@gmail.com' <ktf.kilty@gmail.com>
Cc: John Shanahan <acorncreek2006@gmail.com>; gerald.ratzer@mcgill.ca
Subject: RE: Encouraging dialogue between Kevin Kilty, Gerald Ratzer and Douglas Lightfoot
Dear Professor Kilty:
Thank you for your comments.
Please review our papers and tell us where we have misapplied the psychrometric chart. This would help us learn how to correct our approach.
Our approach uses temperature and relative humidity, both readily available on a smartphone's AccuWeather
app, as input to the Humidair psychrometric program. We used the output as the grams of water per kg of dry air, the enthalpy as Joules per kg of dry air, and the specific volume as cubic meters per kg of dry air.
We use the Humidair program (by MegaWatSoft) because it works with the Excel spreadsheet, which simplifies the calculations for many inputs. We have used up to 400 inputs.
We think the psychrometric data is used correctly in the paper at this Dropbox link:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ 24wsi1vo4105rk018vrp7/Reliable-Physics-DemandRevisiion-of-the-IPCC-Global-Warming-Potentials.pdf? rlkey=r5bovxfbk80yooiz1xrsqca78&dl=0
This paper is Reliable Physics Demand Revision of the IPCC Global Warming Potentials. Available at: https://doi.org/10.29169/1927-5129.2024.20.05
On the Journal website, click on Suppl-2. This opens the Excel calculations. Please let us know if the psychrometric program is not working properly.
Here is a paper showing about 100 molecules of water vapor for each molecule of CO2 in the Tropics: Laws of Physics define the insignificant warming of Earth by CO2. Available at: https://doi.org/10.29169/1927-5129.2023.19.02. Go to Suppl to access the Excel spreadsheet calculations. It might be possible to calculate this using another method, but Humidair makes it relatively easy.
See Figure 3 in this paper. Figure 4 shows that the
Oct. 24, 2024
Douglas Lighfoot to Kevin Kilty
Oct. 22, 2024
Kevin Kilty to Gregory Wrightstone
warming effect of CO2 is a maximum of 0.006oC.
We appreciate your concern about using the psychrometric program correctly. I am a retired mechanical engineer who was first exposed to the psychrometric chart in my third year of engineering. I had the option to take either aeronautics or heating and ventilation. I had made model airplanes and knew something about aeronautics but nothing about HVAC. Very early on in the course, we were taught about the psychrometric chart and how to use it.
We look forward to your response.
Best regards,
H. Douglas Lightfoot
Hello Professor Kilty,
On Oct 22 you sent the following email message regarding the climate studies of Douglas Lightfoot and Professor Gerald Ratzer about the influence of CO2 in global warming.
From: kevin kilty <ktf.kilty@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 11:39 PM
To: Greg Wrightstone <wrightstone@co2coalition.org>