Greenhouse Effect Does Not Exist

by Berthold Klein

Table of Contents

Section 1. Mixing the energy
Section 2. Chasing Photons
Section 3. What happens in an IRag molecule (or any compound molecule)?
Section 4. Quality of Sun light
Section 5. Dr. Alan Carlin of the US-EPA -No effect of CO2
Section 6. All sources of Photons:
Section 7. What is the magnitude of the heating?
Section 8. Measuring temperatures:
Section9. How much variation ?
Section 10. The Demonstration

Eine kleine Nacht Hypotheses of IR and other EM radiation from the Sky at night


Section 1. Mixing the energy

This started as a response to Dr. Leonard @ G2@2 and covers a lot more. While I agree with much of Dr. Leonard, he does not go far enough.

You don’t “activate” GHG to get the effect. The atmosphere is in LTE. This means that absorbed photons are almost immediately used to put energy in all the surrounding gas (by collision) and could heat them some. However, the surrounding gases are at some temperature (with a velocity distribution including some higher velocity ones), such that the GHG gives off photons, and the lost energy is replaced from the surrounding gas collisions. The balance of absorbed and INDEPENDENTLY emitted photons determines if the radiation contributes to some heating or cooling of the local gas.

However, whichever occurs, free convection mixes and readjusts the gas temperature profile to fit (on average) the adiabatic lapse rate. Thus incoming absorbed energy makes no difference to the so called atmospheric greenhouse effect. The papers you keep quoting do not in general totally disagree with what Al and I keep telling you. They just disagree with a claim that back radiation is the cause of heating, and it is not as I clearly stated. They just do not go on from there to explain what the cause of heating is. Both sides on this issue seem to confuse cause and effect.

Evidence obtained under different experimental conditions cannot be comprehended within a single picture, but must be regarded as complementary in the sense that only the totality of the phenomena exhausts the possible information about the objects.

Excerpt from Niels H. Bohr Atomic structure 1921:

The general lines of the latter considerations are known from various recent theories of atomic constitution, such as those of A. Kossel and G. Lewis, based on a systematic discussion of chemical evidence. In these theories the electro-positive and electro-negative characters of these families in the periodic table are interpreted by the assumption that the outer electrons in the atoms of the inactive gases are arranged in especially regular and stable configurations, without, however, any attempt to give a detailed picture of the constitution and formation of these groups.

In this connection it may be of interest to direct attention to the fundamental difference between the picture of atomic constitution indicated in this letter and that developed by Langmuir on the basis of the assumption of stationary or oscillation electrons in the atom referred to in Dr. Campbell’s letter.

Quite apart from the fact that in Langmuir’s theory the stability of the configuration of the electrons is considered rather as a postulated property of the atom, for which no detailed a priory interpretation is offered, this difference discloses itself clearly by the fact that in Langmuir’s theory a constitution of the atoms of the inactive gases is assumed in which the number of electrons is always in the outermost shell.

Thus the sequence of the number of electrons within the groups of a niton atom is, instead of that indicated above, assumed to be 2, 8, 18, 18, 32, such as appearance of the periods in the sequence of the elements might seem to claim at first sight.

To Leonard Weinstein:

My use of the word “activate” in referring to the physics of an IRag absorbing IR radiation is not the commonly used nomenclature, it has been used by Niels H. Bohr in his Atomic Structure paper of 1921. This would be the process of appropriate wave lengths light entering the IRag molecules and exciting the electrons to jump from their “inactive shell” to a higher active shell. As each IRag molecule can absorb many photons of IR energy and other radiation depending on the number of electrons in the molecule; they still must be at the correct wavelengths for energy to be absorbed. This is why Infrared spectrograph works to identify different gases.

This absorbed energy is only released again as IR radiation at the same wavelength when the “activated/excited” electron returns to it original orbit. (See the Bohr model.)

Now let’s look at one of your erroneous statements in your first paragraph above:

“The atmosphere is in LTE.”

As the atmosphere is receiving constantly changing amounts of energy from the sun in the form of UV, visible light IR, gamma, electromagnetic radiation, there is no such thing as LTE.

Assumed definition of LTE = light transmission equilibrium

Leonard, your next to final sentence is very profound:

“They just do not go on from there to explain what the cause of heating is. Both sides on this issue seem to confuse cause and effect.”

I find your love affair with the Adiabatic lapse rate both dry and wet to be unwarranted for several reasons.

As is stated in the definition of an Adiabatic Process:

“An adiabatic process is one in which no heat is gained or lost by the system. The first law of thermodynamics with Q=0 shows that all the change in internal energy.”

Going back to a very basic course in thermodynamics this tells me that someone has simplified the equations to be able to approximate what is really happening. Thus the equation contains many terms – the adiabatic lapse rate is the effect and not the cause.

Planet g cm/s2 Cp J/gm/K Adiabatic Lapse Rate K/Km Rg J/gm/K Auto- convective Lapse Rate K/Km
Venus 889.89 0.8501 10.468 0.18892 47.104
Earth 979.86 1.0040 9.760 0.28710 34.130
Mars 374.10 0.8312 4.500 0.18892 19.802
Jupiter 2425.61 12.3591 1.963 3.74518 6.477
Saturn 1000.09 14.0129 0.714 3.89246 2.569
Uranus 880.07 13.0137 0.676 3.61491 2.435
Neptune 1110.46 13.0137 0.853 3.61491 3.072
Titan 135.80 1.0440 1.301 0.29000 4.683

Leonard Weinstein says in G1: November 27, 2010 at 3:47 am
G1@8, Leigh,

You have asked several very good questions. I will try to answer them, but if I miss some point please repeat or modify your response.

Please understand that the description I gave was a simplified one, and thus easy to confuse.

To start, remember that light consists of photons with a range of energies. This is also equivalent to different wavelengths. The first point was about the atmosphere window. This window is due to the fact that the solar heated ground, oceans, and even some atmospheric materials (aerosols, clouds, and even some gases) absorb solar energy (photons) with relatively short wavelengths (most in the range of 0.3 to 3 microns, with a peak at about 0.5 microns). Most of the atmosphere, including the so-called atmospheric greenhouse gases, is mainly transparent to this range of wavelengths (there is some of the specific short wavelengths absorbed going down, but it is small for gases). The Earth absorbs these photons, and this heats it up. The initial thermal radiation from the Earth is nearly like that of a black body that radiates longer wave thermal energy outward corresponding to the surface temperature (most is in the range of 4 to 20 microns). There are some gases in the atmosphere that absorb very strongly in certain spectral regions of that outgoing radiation. The main one is water vapor, and the second is CO2, but others, such as methane also contribute some. These are the ones called atmospheric greenhouse gases. However, the absorption is not uniform, but in selected spectral bands (mainly due to specific molecular vibration modes). With the combined absorption bands of all absorbing gases (ignoring clouds and aerosols) there still are spectral regions not being absorbed on the average. These result in some radiation direct from Earth’s surface to space (about 8%). A point to note is that the wavelengths that exist in the “window” came only from the surface. Those wavelengths absorbed and those radiated by the gases are not in the “window”, so this window does not repeat as you go up re absorbing and re radiating.

Gases that absorb the long wave radiation also radiate long wave radiation at wavelengths determined by their local temperature. The absorbed wavelengths and re-radiated wavelengths have to travel a certain distance before about 50% of the energy at that wavelength is absorbed. Twice that distance results in 50% of the remainder being absorbed and so on. That is, it takes a finite distance to absorb a certain fraction of any absorbed wavelength (due to interacting with a finite number of molecules per area over a distance).

The atmospheric density drops with increasing altitude, so the amount of a particular absorbing gas per volume also decreases with increasing altitude. Thus the distance to absorb a certain fraction of a given wavelength gets larger with increasing altitude. At some point, most the energy at that particular wavelength escapes to space because there is not enough of the blocking gas left over it. Increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (for example) means that the concentration at a particular altitude increases, and you have to go higher to be clear enough of more molecules to escape. This is not a sudden process. Some photons escape from lower altitudes, and the relative amount escaping increases with increasing altitude. Thus the so called altitude of outgoing radiation is not a specific altitude, but a band of varying transmission, and it can be a fairly large thickness. I use an effective average to describe this band only to simplify the discussion.

However, the effective average altitude increases with increased concentration (it is not the atmospheric density that matters, but the number density of the greenhouse gases), and this was the point I was trying to make.

The comment on convection is only to indicate that most of the radiation from the ground does not go directly to space, but is absorbed and re emitted several times before going to space. If the radiation heat transfer were strong enough, it would lower the lapse rate, and we know the lapse rate is the adiabatic lapse rate. Therefore the convection heat transfer has to be dominating to assure the lapse rate will be the adiabatic lapse rate. In order to understand the effect of adiabatic lapse rate you would best go to the wiki write up. The adiabatic lapse rate is not a set of particular temperatures it is a temperature gradient. You have to specify (force) the value of a specific temperature at a particular location to then specify the actual temperature variation with altitude (you only need to force it at one location).

If there were no atmospheric greenhouse gases, the absorbed solar energy at the ground would have to match the radiated thermal energy from the ground, and this would result in an average ground temperature about 255 K (-18 C). The atmospheric temperature would then decrease above the ground by about 9 C drop per km altitude (dry adiabatic lapse rate assuming no water vapor). With the actual gases in the atmosphere, the “effective” location in the atmosphere where the temperature is about 255 K (the temperature needed to match outgoing energy to incoming) is about 5 km, and the adiabatic lapse rate we need to use (which is different due to liquid water evaporation) is 6.5 C drop per km (the so called wet adiabatic lapse rate). The 6.5 C times 5 km plus 255 K gives the ground temperature of 288 K (15 C). This is an over simplification, but basically correct.

Back radiation is not the cause of anything, it is a result of the fact that atmospheric greenhouse gases absorb and radiate long wave radiation. I realize it is non obvious, but the greenhouse gas is a radiation insulator but the atmosphere heat transfer is dominated by unbounded convection. The up and down radiation at the ground will be larger than expected from direct absorbed solar radiation, but the up and down heating will be exactly balanced, and is based on the absorbed solar heating, the effective location of outgoing radiation, and the adiabatic lapse rate.

Quit chasing photons, convection dominates up to near the outgoing radiation.

I question this last statements for several reasons.

This development fails to discuss the Atmospheric temperature inversions that occur regularly throughout the world – meteorologists can address this more completely.

The wind patterns throughout the world from ground zero to the stratosphere do more mixing than can the “atmospheric lapse rate”. High pressure , lower atmospheric pressure hurricanes,tornadoes, wind storms with velocities up to 100 miles /hr and even an occasional “calm”, etc.

The surface velocity of the earth at the equator is calculated at 2000 miles /hr. this varies to theoretical zero at the pole of rotation- plenty of surface to atmosphere shear. The gradients in 3 dimensions are significant. What happens to the atmospheric lapse rate in the real world?

What happens to the atmospheric lapse rate over the oceans compared to over summer land vs snow covered winter snow covered land, the atmospheric lapse rate changes?

Dr. Leonard said his description was a simplification. How much “simplification” can we accept when we are trying to determine the “supposed effect” of > 400 ppm of CO2?

Yes the atmospheric lapse rate exists – the “adiabatic lapse rate” is a mathematical toy that cannot exist in the atmosphere.

When I had thermodynamics lab we were able to perform good approximations to “adiabatic conditions for a few types of experiments” but they are very limited and not related to the conditions in the atmosphere.

No one doubts that the amount of inbound radiation is again radiated back to space every rotation of the earth.

Section 2-Chasing Photons

“Quit chasing photons, convection dominates up to near the outgoing radiation.”

This is a very foolish decision to “not chase the “photon.”

  1. Radiation (photons) are the only known method of delivering energy to the Earth from the Sun.
  2. Photons have both a known velocity and momentum.
  3. Photons have a mass.
  4. Radiation has the properties of waves thus they have a frequency.
  5. Photons have various levels of energy related to frequency/wavelength.
  6. Because of the properties of photons ,they can exert force on masses that they strike.
  7. The energy of the photon can be converted to Kinetic energy in the mass -it moves the mass faster or it can be absorbed in the mass as inter molecular movement.
  8. As is the case of IR radiation and IRag’s if the photon colloids/interacts with an electron the electron “jumps” to a higher energy orbit but the molecule does not move any faster (Bohr’s model” -heating of the gas.
  9. If the photons collides with the nucleus of the atom or a molecule it can cause a change is kinetic energy of the atom or molecule. This is defined as causing the heating of the mass.
  10. We know that photons can travel hundreds of million Light years through space- man’s photon detectors “his eyes” or cameras with film or electronics came record this information.
  11. When these photons from stars or the sun strike the earth they can be reflected,or absorbed. What is really happening when the photon is absorbed – it means that the energy has been captured by the nuclease of atoms or molecules and converted into molecular kinetic energy(heat). As we know different materials have different Heat capacities thus the depth of penetration of the photon will differ with each materials. The higher the density of the material the less the penetration before the photon strikes a nucleus and gets absorbed. As is know from modern physics is that even the atom of even the dense material is mostly a “void”. Thus photons of some energy level and frequency can travel through even the densest material (gamma radiation).
  12. Now let’s back off to “transparent materials” -by definition visible Light-(photons) can travel through the material with minimal chance of colliding with a nucleus and being absorb. But every transparent material will absorb some frequency of light-photons- common glass absorbs certain frequencies of IR and UV, but not all. If you want to absorb IR you use special cyan colored heat absorbing filters. IF you want to photograph in the UV range you use lenses made of quartz. If you want to let IR through you use panels of salt(sodium chloride) as was done by R.W. Wood in 1909. One should look up the biography of R.W. Wood, it is a lesson in science itself.
  13. Now let’s back off one more level of density- liquids- the most common liquid water will absorb many frequencies of light , it absorbs IR of many frequencies, visible light of the reds to greens are absorbed with various degrees depending on the impurity in the water. UV and blue has the greatest penetration before it is totally absorbed at fairly great depth. I believe that some surface light will penetrate to 50 or more Meters. Ask any underwater photographer.
  14. The next level of density with the most concern to the current debate are gases. The number of nucleus per unit volume varies greatly from the surface of the earth to the top of the stratosphere and beyond until we get into “space”. Is there something in the void we call space we don’t know yet. Anyway what happens when photons from the sun or other stars enter the atmosphere, the vast majority travel through the gases and strike the earth, some are reflected at different interfaces thus to change direction of a mass-the photon has a force acting on it and a change of energy results. Basic physics. Now some of the photons (a minuscule number have to strike gas molecules and have their energy converted to kinetic energy (heat). Some of the photons of the correct wavelength ( frequency) IR will strike IRag’s and the energy is absorbed thus converted to increased electron energy.(not heat). Now after some period of time maybe in the range of nanoseconds or minutes or years the energy is again sent into the atmosphere as photons of the IR frequencies, they go in any direction. Now they are just IR frequency photons- if they strike the nucleus of a O2 molecule they can convert their energy to Kinetic energy of the O2 molecule or they may be reflected out into “space”or they might be heading down to earth where they might be reflected to space or might be absorbed by the earth. The length of travel has been calculated and is in another posting.
  15. Now let’s look (seeing) at another aspect of photons and the Human and animal photon detectors- eyes and heat sensors in the skins of all living things including plants. The “eye” receives photons which strike the retina and the energy is converted to electrical signals that go to the computer (brain)that converts the patterns of photons streams to what we call vision. The miracle of vision where photons reflected off the branches of a tree a half mile away or the photons reflected from a hair on the back of a pet or a microscopic partial can be seen at a millimeter, it tells us that photons are everywhere traveling in every direction, obviously the vast majority get through the atmosphere but we know that some are striking molecules of gas or other surfaces. Some are absorbed,some are reflected , some are converted to Kinetic energy (heat). These are the properties of photons and have nothing to do with the supposed “greenhouse gases”.
  16. Below is the abstract and intro of a paper about the increase of UV from the Sun of approximately 50% over the past 400 years . We are aware that skin cancer has been increasing this may have something to do with it. I do not agree with this articles references to “greenhouse gases” but they will learn.

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. ???, XXXX, DOI:10.1029/, Reconstruction of solar spectral irradiance since the Maunder minimum, N. A. Krivova1, L. E. A. Vieira1, and S. K. Solanki1.


Solar irradiance is the main external driver of the Earth’s  climate. Whereas the total solar irradiance is the main source of energy input into the climate system, solar UV irradiance exerts control over chemical and physical processes in the Earth’s upper atmosphere.

The time series of accurate irradiance measurements are, however, relatively short and limit the assessment of the solar contribution to the climate change. Here we reconstruct solar total and spectral irradiance in the range 115–160 000 nm since 1610. The evolution of the solar photospheric magnetic flux, which is a central input to the model, is appraised from the historical record of the sunspot number using a simple, but consistent physical model. The model predicts an increase of 1.25 W/m211 , or about 0.09%, in the 11-yr averaged solar total irradiance since the Maunder minimum. Also, irradiance in individual spectral intervals has generally increased during the last  centuries, the magnitude of the trend being higher towards shorter  wavelengths. In particular, the 11-yr averaged Ly- irradiance has increased by almost 50%.  An exception is the spectral interval between about 1500 and 2500 nm, where irradiance has slightly decreased (by about 0.02%).


Various observations suggest that the Earth’s climate has always being changing. Both internal sources and external drivers contribute to this variability. The most recent strong increase of the global surface temperature appears to be rather unusual, however [Solomon et al., 2007]. Although human activity has being widely recognized to be a major contributor, the relative roles of different drivers are still not well understood and need more accurate evaluations.

The solar radiative output is the main external driver of the Earth’s coupled atmospheric and oceanic system [Hansen, 2000; Haigh, 2001, 2007]. A prime solar quantity for the Earth’s climate is solar irradiance, which is the total solar energy flux at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere.

With the advent of coupled chemistry and general circulation models (GCM), the variability of solar spectral irradiance (SSI) is increasingly coming into the focus of attention of climate research due to its importance for the chemistry and dynamics of the Earth’s atmosphere [Haigh,1994, 2001, 2007; Langematz et al., 2005]. Whereas the total solar irradiance (i.e. the irradiance integrated over the whole spectrum, TSI) changes by about 0.1% between solar activity minimum and maximum [Fr¨ohlich, 2006], the UV emission changes by a few percent at 200–300 nm to up to 100% around the Ly-alpha emission line near 121.6 nm [Floyd et al., 2003; Krivova et al., 2006]. The variability in the IR is comparable to or lower than the TSI variations.

In the range between about 1500 and 2500 nm, i.e. in the vicinity of the atmospheric water vapor absorption bands, the variation over the solar cycle is even reversed with respect to the TSI cycle [Harder et al., 2009; Krivova et al.,47 2010]. Max-Planck-Institut f¨ur Sonnensystemforschung, D-37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany Laboratory for Physics and Chemistry of the Terrestrial Environment/CNRS, Orleans, France School of Space Research, Kyung Hee University, Yongin, Gyeonggi 446-701, Korea Copyright 2010 by the American Geophysical Union.0148-0227/10/$9.00.

Unfortunately, the time series of accurate measurements  of solar and geophysical parameters prior to the increase  of man-made greenhouse gases are relatively short, which  limits the assessment of the Sun’s role in present-day climate change relative to contributions of humanity and to other natural drivers. Reconstructions of these parameters  prior to the satellite era are therefore needed in order to obtain further insight into the nature of solar influence on the Earth’s climate on longer time scales.

Recent century-scale reconstructions of the total solar irradiance [Foster, 2004; Lockwood, 2005; Wang et al., 2005;  Balmaceda et al., 2007; Krivova et al., 2007; Crouch et al.,  2008; Steinhilber et al., 2009] suggest that the magnitude of the secular increase in the total irradiance since the Maunder minimum, which was a period of extremely low solar activity observed prior to 1700 [Eddy, 1976], is comparable to the solar cycle variation. In most earlier reconstructions, the secular trend was not derived consistently but was assumed based on solar-stellar comparisons. Such an approach  was later criticized and the derived values, between XX and 8 W/m268, were found to be significantly overestimated [for a discussion, see Krivova et al., 2007].

Reconstructions of solar UV irradiance since the Maunder minimum have earlier been presented by Fligge and Solanki [2000] and by Lean [2000]. Of these, the first one was based on LTE (Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium) calculations of the solar spectrum, whereas the latter was scaled using UARS/SOLSTICE measurements. The LTE approximation gives inaccurate results below approximately 200 nm and in some spectral lines, whereas the long-term uncertainty of SOLSTICE (indeed, of all instruments that measured solar UV irradiance before SORCE) exceeded the solar cycle variation above approximately 250 nm, thus leading to incorrect estimates of the UV irradiance variability at longer wavelengths [see Lean et al., 2005; Krivova et al., 2006]. Furthermore, both reconstructions assumed a higher value of  the secular trend than currently accepted, as discussed in the previous paragraph.

In this paper, we present a new reconstruction of solar total and spectral irradiance back to the Maunder minimum.

It is based on the SATIRE-T (Spectral And Total Irradiance Reconstructions for the Telescope era) model developed by  Krivova et al. [2007], which is modified and updated here to take into account the latest observational data and theoretical results. These include: the new model of the evolution. End of intro. The link to the full report is on . Sorry Al Tekhasski just take another tranquilizer or more meds.

Having just read the work of Roy Spencer on cloud effects and listened to Roy Spencer and Lord Monckton at the junk science conference in Cancum, there is a lot to learn.
One thing I have learned is the more I learn the more there is to learn.

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

Section 3. What happens in IRAG (compound) molecule?

Comment from Dr. Ed:


The first thing I notice is you assume the Earth’s radiation moves GHG electrons to a higher orbit. This is known to not be true. The IR does not have enough energy to do this. If the IR had such energy, then such IR would not care if a molecule were a GHG (meaning 3 or more atoms). It would excite all molecules.

GHG’s absorb IR in their vibrational states, not in their electron states. I think you need to revise your paper with this in mind. What do you think?

First response.

Hello Dr. Ed: I am basing my statements on my understanding of the Bohr model. I’ll restudy the work of Niels Bohr and if necessary I’ll include more of this technical work in my post.

As I do not believe that “ghg” effect exists I’ll prefer to use the scientifically correct term IR absorbing gasses-IRag’s.

We know that IRag’s as CO2 absorb multiple wavelengths of IR, thus we are not talking about a single molecule only absorbing a single photon(s) but actually each molecule can absorb multiple photons of many different wavelengths thus we are talking about the accumulated effect before the electron moves from one energy shell to a higher energy shell as this is my understanding of the Bohr model.

What happens inside the IRag’s molecule is not relevant to the supposed “ghg” effect. You have inspired me to do another section “What happens inside an IRag molecule”.

It may be a couple of days before I can get to this new section and rechecking the work of Niels Bohr and subsequent more recent modifications.

After rereading only one or two documents on the Bohr model and quantum physics it is obvious to me that this is only the tip of a needle that will lead to 100 or more years of advanced physics. The main conclusion that I jumped to is that the Bohr model is talking about all type of radiation and not just IR absorption.

Dr. Ed is probably correct in that IR itself (or a few wavelengths) would not impact the CO2 molecule with enough energy by itself to cause the electrons to jump from on electron shell to another. That is unless there are other factors causing the energy necessary to jump the electrons to a higher shell to be at a smaller threshold than the amount of absorbed accumulated IR energy.

It is my understanding that when a group of atoms combine into a compound that the attraction of the nuclei and the balance of forces including the sharing of electrons in-varies orbits that result in the compound having different properties that the parent atoms. The compound also have different radiation absorbing characteristic base on what is happening inside the molecule. All the IRag’s have somewhat different footprints as to what wavelengths are absorbed and the degree of absorption. Thus IR spectrophotometry works to identify many different compound at various different concentrations.

But it is time to look at the real world of radiation.

IR in the atmosphere is accompanied by many other levels of radiation including the visible light group and the UV group of wavelengths and others thus when radiation impacts a molecule it is like spraying it with a water hose and everything that is in the water.

Why is it that only molecules with 3 or more atoms absorb IR? It appears that the intermolecular forces are either stronger or weaker than in two atom molecules and thus the photons can impact the nuclease or interact with the bonding forces within the molecule. As any chemist knows that bonding forces vary greatly between compounds, one compound will ionize very easily and another will not.

Another characteristic of compounds is that if we perceive that it has color it absorbs certain wavelengths of light and reflects others. We also know UV radiation has an effect on almost any compound, there are very few that can resist the weathering effects of UV.

We know that UV can cause O2 molecules to combine into O3 (ozone), and UV can disinfect water,UV can fade pigments in most fabrics, and can cause polypropylene and polyethylene to deteriorate in very short amount of time unless they have UV stabilizers impregnated into them. The UV can cause “sunburn” that could lead to cancer and many other effects. The point is that all kind of radiation are present in the “Sunlight” entering the Earth’s atmosphere and having an effect. To look at only one type of radiation IR or one molecule CO2 without identifying what is the interaction of the others is not scientifically valid.

By this time you are wondering what the hell the last few paragraphs have got to do with the “greenhouse gas effect” probably nothing except that we can do experiments to prove what is happening in space ,to what is happening inside molecules and atoms but where the hell is a creditable experiment that proves that the “greenhouse gas effect” exists. If all the great minds that spend hours,days , months, years claiming that the “greenhouse gas effect”can not be demonstrated in the laboratory want us to believe that they are “experts on Climate change” should we believe them?

Life is sure complicated especially when we so over simplify things that it does not relate to the real world! When renowned Physicist like Freeman Dyson , Dr. Charles Anderson, Gerlich and Tscheuschner, Alan Siddons, etc, etc, etc, have provided the physics that prove that the “greenhouse gas effectdoes not exist” only people that believe in Santa Claus and gremlin still believe in the “fairy tale of the greenhouse gas effect

The world prefers to believe in lies,fantasies,and fairy-tale and listen to people who create the fairy-tale like Joe Romm, Michael Mann, Al Gore, IPCC, James Hansen, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Jame Cameron (Avatar fiction) many others. See the entry at “PCA-Public Comment Area@7.

Just look at TV for 30 minutes and switch a few channels most everything is a “story” even the news broadcasts.

Section 4. Quality of Sun light

To a photographer Sun light changes quality from morning to noon to sundown. To a physicist the Sun light is nearly a constant except when there is a solar flare that results in major increases in high energy particles in addition to the various wavelengths of electromagnetic energy.( recent data shows that there is changes in the intensity of UV with it increasing over the last 400 years-a short time in the life of the universe).

To a photographer the morning sun is very “warm” as it is dominated by reds and yellows, the noon sun is very “blue” approaching the K=5500 or more, the afternoon light is shifting back to the “warm” side with more of the reds& yellows, then the late afternoon or evening light is “cool blues” with only yellows and reds reflected from the clouds that are still illuminated by the sun as the portion of the earth where the photographer is standing turns away from the direct radiation of the sun. An answer to a young girls question to Albert Einstein in 1911 resulted in his paper “Why the sky is blue” The thing that makes this relevant to our concerns is what is happening to the UV and the IR radiation that is hitting the surface of the Earth as the earth is rotating . It should be expected that diffraction of these radiations will be greater in certain portions of the “day” and less at other times. The “heating” of the molecules in the atmosphere by UV and other electromagnetic radiation even after sun down makes all the gasses heat sinks .

The work “The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory” By Alan Siddons at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST

elaborates on this in more detail.

Section 5. Dr. Alan Carlin of the US-EPA – No effect of CO2

Dr. Carlin has a B.S. in physics from Cal Tech to start, then add his advanced degrees from MIT at a time that was not corrupted by phonies like Joe Romm.

Attached is the Executive summary that contains more useful and pertinent information than all of Dr.Eric’s entries combined.

Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act

By Alan Carlin
Based on TSD Draft of March 9, 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY by Alan Carlin Report March,16,2009-EPA

These comments are based on the draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act (hereafter draft TSD) issued by the Climate Change Division of the Office of Atmospheric Programs on March 9, 2009. Unfortunately, because I was only given a few days to review this lengthy document these comments are of necessity much less comprehensive and polished than they would have been if more time had been allowed. I am prepared, however, to provide added information, more detailed comments on specific points raised, and any assistance in making changes if requested by OAR.

The principal comments are as follows:

As of the best information I currently have, the GHG/CO2 hypothesis as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because it fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data. Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible conclusion based on current data. As Feynman (1975) has said failure to conform to real world data makes it necessary from a scientific viewpoint to revise the hypothesis or abandon it (see Section 2.1 for the exact quote). Unfortunately this has not happened in the global warming debate, but needs to if an accurate finding concerning endangerment is to be made.

The failings are listed below in decreasing order of importance in my view:

  1. Lack of observed upper tropospheric heating in the tropics (see Section 2.9 for a detailed discussion).
  2. Lack of observed constant humidity levels, a very important assumption of all the IPCC models, as CO2levels have risen (see Section 1.7).
  3. The most reliable sets of global temperature data we have, using satellite microwave sounding units, show no appreciable temperature increases during the critical period 1978-1997, just when the surface station data show a pronounced rise (see Section 2.4). Satellite data after 1998 is also inconsistent with the GHG/CO2/AGW hypotheses
  4. The models used by the IPCC do not take into account or show the most important ocean oscillations which clearly do affect global temperatures, namely, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and the ENSO (Section 2.4). Leaving out any major potential causes for global warming from the analysis results in the likely mis-attribution of the effects of these oscillations to the GHGs/CO2 and hence is likely to overstate their importance as a cause for climate change.
  5. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility of indirect solar variability (Section 2.5), which if important would again be likely to have the effect of overstating the importance of GHGs/CO2.
  6. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility that there may be other significant natural effects on global temperatures that we do not yet understand (Section 2.4). This possibility invalidates their statements that one must assume anthropogenic sources in order to duplicate the temperature record. The 1998 spike in global temperatures is very difficult to explain in any other way (see Section 2.4).
  7. Surface global temperature data may have been hopelessly corrupted by the urban heat island effect and other problems which may explain some portion of the warming that would otherwise be attributed to GHGs/CO2. In fact, the Draft TSD refers almost exclusively in Section 5 to surface rather than satellite data.

The current Draft TSD is based largely on the IPCC AR4 report, which is at best three years out of date in a rapidly changing field. There have been important developments in areas that deserve careful attention in this draft. The list includes the following six which are discussed in Section 1:

  • Global temperatures have declined—extending the current downtrend to 11 years with a particularly rapid decline in 1907-8; in addition, the PDO went negative in September, 2007 and the AMO in January, 2009, respectively. At the same time atmospheric CO2 levels have continued to increase and CO2 emissions have accelerated.
  • The consensus on past, present and future Atlantic hurricane behavior has changed. Initially, it tilted towards the idea that anthropogenic global warming is leading to (and will lead to) to more frequent and intense storms. Now the consensus is much more neutral, arguing that future Atlantic tropical cyclones will be little different that those of the past. Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions under CAA • The idea that warming temperatures will cause Greenland to rapidly shed its ice has been greatly diminished by new results indicating little evidence for the operation of such processes.
  • One of the worst economic recessions since World War II has greatly decreased GHG emissions compared to the assumptions made by the IPCC. To the extent that ambient GHG levels are relevant for future global temperatures, these emissions reductions should greatly influence the adverse effects of these emissions on public health and welfare. The current draft TSP does not reflect the changes that have already occurred nor those that are likely to occur in the future as a result of the recession. In fact, the topic is not even discussed to my knowledge.
  • A new 2009 paper finds that the crucial assumption in the GCM models used by the IPCC concerning strongly positive feedback from water vapor is not supported by empirical evidence and that the feedback is actually negative.
  • A new 2009 paper by Scafetta and Wilson suggests that the IPCC used faulty solar data in dismissing the direct effect of solar variability on global temperatures. Other research by Scafetta and others suggests that solar variability could account for up to 68% of the increase in Earth’s global temperatures.

These six developments alone should greatly influence any assessment of “vulnerability, risk, and impacts” of climate change within the U.S., but are not discussed in the Draft TSD to my knowledge. But these are just a few of the new developments since 2006. Therefore, the extensive portions of the EPA’s Endangerment TSD which are based upon science from the IPPC AR4 report are no longer appropriate and need to be revised before a TSD is issued for comments.

Not only is some of the science of the TSD out-of-date but there needs to be an explicit, in-depth analysis of the likely causes of global warming in my view. Despite the complexity of the climate system the following conclusions in this regard appear to be well supported by the available data (see Section 2 below):

  1. By far the best single explanation for global temperature fluctuations appears to be variations in the PDO/AMO/ENSO. ENSO appears to operate in a 3-5 year cycle. PDO/AMO appear to operate in about a 60-year cycle. This is not really explained in the draft TSD but needs to be, or, at the very least, there needs to be an explanation as to why OAR believes that these evident cycles do not exist or why they are so unimportant as not to receive in-depth analysis.
  2. There appears to be a strong association between solar sunspots/irradiance and global temperature fluctuations. It is unclear exactly how this operates, but it may be through indirect solar variability on cloud formation. This topic is not really explored in the Draft TSD but needs to be since otherwise the effects of solar variations may be mis-attributed to the effects of changes in GHG levels.
  3. Changes in GHG concentrations appear to have so little effect that it is difficult to find any effect in the satellite temperature record, which started in 1978.
  4. The surface measurements (such as HADCRUT) are more ambiguous than the satellite measurements in that the increasing temperatures shown since the mid-1970s could either be due to the rapid growth of urbanization and the heat island effect or by the increase in GHG levels. However, since no such increase is shown in the satellite record it appears more likely that urbanization and the UHI effect and/or other measurement problems are the most likely cause. If so, the increases may have little to do with GHGs and everything to do with the rapid urbanization during the period. Given the discrepancy between surface temperature records in the 1940-75 and 1998-2008 and the increases in GHG levels during these periods it appears even more unlikely that GHGs have as much of an effect on measured surface temperatures as claimed. These points need to be very carefully and fully discussed in the draft TSD if it is be scientifically credible.
  5. Hence it is not reasonable to conclude that there is any endangerment from changes in GHG levels based on the satellite record, since almost all the fluctuations appear to be due to natural causes and not human-caused pollution as defined by the Clean Air Act. The surface record is more equivocal but needs to be carefully discussed, which would require substantial revision of the Draft TSD.
  6. There is a significant possibility that there are some other natural causes of global temperature fluctuations that we do not yet really understand and which may account for the very noticeable 1998 temperature peak which appears on both the satellite and surface temperature records. This possibility needs to be fully explained and discussed in the Draft TSD. Until and unless these and many other inconsistencies referenced in these comments are adequately explained it would appear premature to attribute all or even most of what warming has occurred to changes in GHG/CO2 atmospheric levels.

These inconsistencies between the TSD analysis and scientific observations are so important and sufficiently abstruse that in my view EPA needs to make an independent analysis of the science of global warming rather than adopting the conclusions of the IPCC and CCSP without much more careful and independent EPA staff review than is evidenced by the Draft TSP. Adopting the scientific conclusions of an outside group such as the IPCC or CCSP without thorough review by EPA is not in the EPA tradition anyway, and there seems to be little reason to change the tradition in this case. If their conclusions should be incorrect and EPA acts on them, it is EPA that will be blamed for inadequate research and understanding and reaching a possibly inaccurate determination of endangerment. Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until about 2030 given the 60 year cycle described in Section 2) there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain much of the available data.

Finally, there is an obvious logical problem posed by steadily increasing US health and welfare measures and the alleged endangerment of health and welfare discussed in this draft TSD during a period of rapid rise in at least CO2 ambient levels. This discontinuity either needs to be carefully explained in the draft TSD or the conclusions changed.

This entry was posted in Greenhouse Effect. Bookmark the permalink.

Section 6. All sources of Photons

Another area that has never been considered is the other forms of radiation including Micro-waves, radio, gamma, and several others that can be detected as originating in space from the Sun or other interstellar space. Each is an energy stream of photons or subatomic particles,each can be converted into some heating of molecules and atoms.As I don’t claim to be knowledgeable about them all , this is the areas of physicists.

Visible light is just a small part of the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
Windows to the Universe original artwork.

The Electromagnetic Spectrum

Light is a form of electromagnetic radiation that is very familiar to us. However, there are several other forms of electromagnetic (EM) radiation, such as X-rays, radio waves, and ultraviolet and infrared “light”. Together, these different types of EM radiation make up the electromagnetic spectrum.

Each section of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum has characteristic energy levels, wavelengths, and frequencies associated with its photons. Gamma rays have the highest energies, the shortest wavelengths, and the highest frequencies. Radio waves, on the other hand, have the lowest energies, longest wavelengths, and lowest frequencies of any type of EM radiation. In order from highest to lowest energy, the sections of the EM spectrum are named: gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet radiation, visible light, infrared radiation, and radio waves. Microwaves (like the ones used in microwave ovens) are a subsection of the radio wave section of the EM spectrum.

Two high radiation regions surround Earth – the inner and outer Van Allen radiation belts.
Windows to the Universe.

Particle Radiation

One main type of radiation, particle radiation, is the result of subatomic particles hurtling at tremendous speeds. Protons, cosmic rays, and alpha and beta particles are some of the most common types of particle radiation.

Particle radiation can harm living creatures and can short out electronic circuits… so it is dangerous for humans and robots alike.

Protons and electrons are two of the most common types of particles encountered. Tear apart an atom of hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe, and you get a proton and an electron… hence the abundance of this type of radiation.

Strip the two electrons from the second most abundant element, helium, and you are left with a nucleon containing two protons and two neutrons. This helium-nucleus particle is called an “alpha particle”. Free electrons, when zipping around as radiation, are known as “beta particles”. A third type, gamma radiation, is not a particle but rather a high-energy form of electromagnetic radiation.

Neutrinos are bizarre particles that can pass through almost anything, even miles (kilometers) of solid rock. Because neutrino radiation rates may be able to tell us about the nuclear reactions at the core of the Sun, scientists have gone to great lengths to try to devise detectors that sense these elusive particles.

There is a second main type of radiation, which deals with the transfer of energy by waves from vibrating electric and magnetic fields. That type of radiation is called “electromagnetic radiation“.

Last modified June 22, 2005 by Randy Russell.

Section 7. What is the magnitude of the heating?

How much energy is delivered to earth by Solar Microwave radiation?

We all know that microwave radiation can heat things very rapidly and to very high temperatures. Almost every home in the US has a microwave oven in the kitchen or every college student’s dorm or every apartment. A microwave oven can heat a cup of water from ambient to 150 F in a minute or two. Microwave ovens are used to melt metals to refine them. What are the microwaves from the Sun doing to heat the planet?

Having just started to search for data on Solar microwaves we are lead to such fields as

Cosmology and space science ,we run across statements that certain frequencies of microwaves are “almost totally absorbed in the outer atmosphere yet we know that these same frequencies are used in communications or other earth related application.

In my search for information I find that “microwave ovens” are or were banned in Russia and a whole group of people are totally afraid of “microwave ovens”. Yes microwaves can kill people and animals. Are microwaves the cause of large “black Bird” kills that occur throughout the country and maybe the world? Will a flock that flies through the path of a beam of microwave communication between towers be OK but if their flight parallels the beam or is in the beam will their brains be cooked?

Knowing that water as a liquid and solid do absorb microwaves and heat (microwave ovens) and probably as a vapor (but at a much lower rate because of low density). It is claimed that there is a difference between the Microwaves as generated by a magnetron tube and natural microwaves because the magnetron is generated from an AC electrical power supply. This does not make sense as we are still dealing with a beam of photons with a measurable frequency and wavelength.

Section 8. Measuring temperatures

Do we know how much microwave energy is absorbed by all bodies of water/liquid/solid on the earth?

Do we know how much heating is caused by this absorption? Do we know how much heating of gases is caused by microwaves? If gases are heated (likely at least a little) is it equal to or greater than the imagined effect of IRags or is this heating actually the effect of Microwaves( photon absorption or collisions)?

As microwaves are used to measure earth and atmospheric temperatures ,(see below info from Roy Spencer) it appears that in addition to the IR that is radiated by all bodies above absolute zero temperature that all or most bodies also radiate microwaves including the O2 molecules of the atmosphere. This is going to be both a source of heating and cooling thus the photons of microwaves when inbound cause heating and when out bound there goes excess energy back into space.

When this is not accounted for by “scientists that have their heads in the “greenhouse gas box” or the “adiabatic lapse rate box “ maybe we will start getting some real answers and not fairy-tales.

“How the UAH Global Temperatures Are Produced”

January 6th, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Microwave temperature sounders like AMSU measure the very low levels of thermal microwave radiation emitted by molecular oxygen in the 50 to 60 GHz oxygen absorption complex. This is somewhat analogous to infrared temperature sounders (for instance, the Atmospheric InfraRed Sounder, AIRS, also on Aqua) which measure thermal emission by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

As the instrument scans across the subtrack of the satellite, the radiometer’s antenna views thirty separate ‘footprints’, nominally 50 km in diameter, each over a 50 millisecond ‘integration time’. At these microwave frequencies, the intensity of thermally-emitted radiation measured by the instrument is directly proportional to the temperature of the oxygen molecules. The instrument actually measures a voltage, which is digitized by the radiometer and recorded as a certain number of digital counts. It is those digital counts which are recorded on board the spacecraft and then downlinked to satellite tracking stations in the Arctic.

Now for the important part: How are these instrument digitized voltages calibrated in terms of temperature?

Once every Earth scan, the radiometer antenna looks at a “warm calibration target” inside the instrument whose temperature is continuously monitored with several platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs). PRTs work somewhat like a thermistor, but are more accurate and more stable. Each PRT has its own calibration curve based upon laboratory tests.

The temperature of the warm calibration target is allowed to float with the rest of the instrument, and it typically changes by several degrees during a single orbit, as the satellite travels in and out of sunlight. While this warm calibration point provides a radiometer digitized voltage measurement and the temperature that goes along with it, how do we use that information to determine what temperatures corresponds to the radiometer measurements when looking at the Earth?

A second calibration point is needed, at the cold end of the temperature scale. For that, the radiometer antenna is pointed at the cosmic background, which is assumed to radiate at 2.7 Kelvin degrees. These two calibration points are then used to interpolate to the Earth-viewing measurements, which then provides the calibrated “brightness temperatures”. This is illustrated in the following graph: [Graph or text missing here. – Ed]

temperatures”. This is illustrated in the above graph:

The response of the AMSU is slightly non-linear, so the calibration curve in the above graph actually has slight curvature to it. Back when all we had were Microwave Sounding Units (MSU), we had to assume the instruments were linear due to a lack of sufficient pre-launch test data to determine their nonlinearity. Because of various radiometer-related and antenna-related factors, the absolute accuracy of the calibrated Earth-viewing temperatures are probably not much better than 1 deg. C. While this sounds like it would be unusable for climate monitoring, the important thing is that the instruments be very stable over time; an absolute accuracy error of this size is irrelevant for climate monitoring, as long as sufficient data are available from successive satellites so that the newer satellites can be calibrated to the older satellites’ measurements.

For AMSU channel 5 that we use for tropospheric temperature monitoring, that brightness temperature is very close to the vertically-averaged temperature through a fairly deep layer of the atmosphere. The vertical profiles of each channel’s relative sensitivity to temperature (‘weighting functions’) are shown in the following plot:

These weighting functions are for the nadir (straight-down) views of the instrument, and all increase in altitude as the instrument scans farther away from nadir. AMSU channel 5 is used for our middle tropospheric temperature (MT) estimate; we use a weighted difference between the various view angles of channel 5 to probe lower in the atmosphere, which a fairly sharp weighting function which is for our lower-tropospheric (LT) temperature estimate. We use AMSU channel 9 for monitoring of lower stratospheric (LS) temperatures.

For those channels whose weighting functions intersect the surface, a portion of the total measured microwave thermal emission signal comes from the surface. AMSU channels 1, 2, and 15 are considered “window” channels because the atmosphere is essentially clear, so virtually all of the measured microwave radiation comes from the surface. While this sounds like a good way to measure surface temperature, it turns out that the microwave ‘emissivity’ of the surface (it’s ability to emit microwave energy) is so variable that it is difficult to accurately measure surface temperatures using such measurements. The variable emissivity problem is the smallest for well-vegetated surfaces, and largest for snow-covered surfaces. While the microwave emissivity of the ocean surfaces around 50 GHz is more stable, it just happens to have a temperature dependence which almost exactly cancels out any sensitivity to surface temperature.

Section 9. How much variation?

How does the energy output of the Sun vary? We know that it increases with at least 2 known cycles an eleven year pattern and a 210 (approximately) year. Do we know if all frequencies follow the pattern? Based on the information about UV radiation increases over the last 400 years (referenced above) the output is not uniform. This is probably true of all frequencies. Thus if the UV increases does the IR also increase or does it decrease. Does the Microwaves frequencies increase or decrease when the overall output increases or decrease? I’m sure someone may know probably NASA or other space agencies, so why aren’t they speaking out to show how important these effect are?

The “greenhouse gas effect” has never been demonstrated why? Because the effect does not exist!

This is not the end of the search for knowledge it is only the very beginning. One thing I have learned is the more I learn the more there is to learn.

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

There are many references in previous comments these are to be found throughout this Great Climate Clash.

Section 10. The Demonstration

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

The Hypotheses (ghg effect) that failed and the experiment that demonstrates why the Hypotheses (ghg effect) fails!

Dear Dr. H. Lewis:

I am aware that you do not believe in the “greenhouse gas effect” We need an experiment that proves that the ghg effect does not exist. Would you please review the experiment that I have performed that I believe proves that the “ghg effect” does not exist. Review the logic and the math etc. I have shared this with several other physicists including Dr. Charles R. Andrson and Gerlich & Tscheuschner and others.. If you can find the time I’d appreciate your comments and your time.

Berthold Klein P.E.

The Hypotheses (ghg effect) that failed and the experiment that demonstrates why the Hypotheses (ghg effect) fails!

By Berthold Klein P.E November 16, 2010 revision 11-19-2010 revised 11-24-2010

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.

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 detail.

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 -this will deal first with the non H2O ,IRags.

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”. 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)
  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.
  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”

Using the list of “critical factor” lets see if there are some way 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 “models” 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.

As the amount of heating that is supposed to be is on the order of fractions of a degree per year- we need a more dramatic experiment to show that the concept actually exists. If the experiment at a much higher concentration does not demonstrate the effect then the Concept does not exist. If the concept works at high concentration then it can be tried with lower and lower concentrations until a threshold of effects is reached.

Some numbers are needed now: By definition 10,000 ppm is 1%, therefore 100 % equals 1million parts per million( 1×10^+6) . 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.

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”of the ballons containing the high concentrations of IRags 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 the “ice core data is meaningless..

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 let’s 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 as 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

Appendix. Eine kleine Nacht Hypotheses of IR and other EM radiation from the Sky at night.


Solar radiation is impacting the planet continuously the only reason we have night is because the planet is rotating thus part of the surface does not receive direct radiation after 9:00 solar time.

Due to the fact that the planet rotates on an axes that is inclined to the path around the sun in the summer the north pole will receive “light” for 24 hours a day. Most of this is direct light but after midnight much is due to refraction in the atmosphere.

Now let’s look at the rest of the planet. While the surface does not receive Solar radiation 24/7 the atmosphere does. Obviously the atmosphere is many miles greater in diameter than the planet, and it is still receiving “light” after the ground directly below the Sun is in the shade.

As the “light” both visible and IR and other EM are refracted by the atmosphere (See Albert Einstein’s Why the Sky is Blue” some will be sent into space and some will be directed to the surface. The “light” will strike the surface at various distances passed the visible horizon because of the various wavelengths of EM radiation. There are probably bands of this radiation striking the surface. If the radiation is IR and other EM radiation it will heat the surfaces that it is absorbed by or reflected it can heat other surface that it strikes.

The bands of radiation are probably poorly defined because clouds cause absorption , reflection and refraction that will scatter the IR and other EM radiation As clouds are a heat “sink” of energy they can radiate IR as the contents of the ”cloud” change phases from liquid to ICE or absorb IR and go back to liquid or gas. While one side of a cloud could be heating at the same time the other “side” could be cooling. A very complex set of physics and thermodynamic phenomenon.

Now let’s talk about measuring IR at night- it is coming from everywhere. Plants are obviously living things therefore they are producing IR from both oxidation and by radiation as “hot bodies” Any structure or thing is radiating both Hot body and radiators from the contents.

By using a hand held IR thermometer it is possible to measure incoming IR from the ”sky”. As the thermometer is calibrated in temperature units degrees C or F it would be necessary to convert them to units of energy/area to be most accurate.

Observations have shown that aiming the IR thermometer vertically up perpendicular to the surface the lowest readings are obtained. As temperature readings of -19 F have been shown usually after midnight on a very clear sky with atmospheric temperature in the 70’s F. Just above the horizon to avoid including ground vegetation the reading can be in the + 30’s. When measuring on a cold winter night when air temperature at the ground was 3 F, the IR sky reading was -70F. When measuring reflection and radiation from clouds in warm weather- reading in the 50’s and 60’s can be observed. Obviously if you can see the clouds you are getting visible light as well as IR and other EM radiation.

Direct reading of the sky where there are no clouds will vary greatly –if the sky is very dark blue the reading are very low. If the sky has some thin clouds and are various colors at sundown the temperatures can be in the 50’s or 60’s.


IR and other EM radiation are present in the atmosphere at all times. The source can be from many different items including refracted, reflected, radiated and generated. This has been happening as long as we have an atmosphere. Even late at night when the surface is opposite the sun there could be” Sun Light” IR and other EM radiation reaching the surface by refraction and reflection.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.