1. Ned, your papers show a simple model that accurately predicts the Earth’s surface temperature without considering a greenhouse effect.

    In his Chapter 8, Cork Hayden presents two radiation charts that demonstrate the greenhouse effect exists for Earth.

    I can’t find any errors in your papers or in Cork’s.

    How do we reconcile these two results?

  2. I am now somewhat amazed that I, at one time, actually believed in this greenhouse effect caused by, of all things, a trace gas, CO₂, that is only around .04% of the Earth’s total atmosphere and, of extreme importance, CO₂, is 1.6 times heavier than the atmosphere that it is a part of so it quickly settles out of it to ground level to be taken up by plant life or water. When I applied logic and considerable consideration to this issue of the greenhouse effect, this is what I arrived at for an answer to this question.

    There is no greenhouse effect caused by CO₂. The Earth is warmed by the Sun and kept warm due to the pressure of the gases in its atmosphere that is reflected in how much mercury that pressure will displace which amounts to the barometric pressure at various altitudes and that is directly reflected in the temperature range at that altitude.

    I know much about this relationship between altitude and temperature from having went over the 17,769 ft Tharong-La pass on the Annapurna circuit in Nepal and also on my hike to Everest Base camp in Nepal & also when on Kilimanjaro in Tanzania. Then we have alarmist maintaining that; “This research has improved our understanding of how much the world will eventually warm if the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is maintained at double the level of pre-industrial times”.

    Plus this nonsense; “There is much greater certainty that, if left unchecked, global warming would be high enough to bring very severe impacts and risks worldwide”, when in fact there is no evidence that CO₂ has anything to do with the Earth’s temperature or its climate.

    I enjoy seeing what other fable that someone who is so illogical and gullible to believe that the trace gas, CO₂, that is only .03-.04% of the total atmosphere of the Earth has the unbelievable ability to now do to the planet since it became a tool of the unscrupulous people to use to try to control the citizens of the world. In today’s world, who controls the energy controls the world’s population.

    Altitude Above Sea Level Temperature Barometer In. Hg. Abs. Atmospheric Pressure
    500 feet 57⁰F 14⁰C 29.38 17.48 PSI
    15,000 feet 6⁰F -14⁰C 16.89 8.29 PSI

    Greenhouse Effect is Invalidated

    Vacuum Implosion

  3. Dr. Berry,
    The IPCC has promoted a model(s) for temperature prediction that has been woefully inadequate due to their faulty theory. Do you see a model being developed from your, Hayden, Nikolov/Zeller, and Svensmark et. al., and others’ work? Developed from classical atmospheric physicists?

  4. Dr. Berry,
    When I pointed out on line that there are almost 8 billion people on earth, and that they breathe oxygen and exhale CO2 my computer was attacked. Did not have much on the hard drive except my postings on Real Clear Energy but I think it shows the promotors of AGW know it is based on fraud.

  5. J D Swallow, it is because CO2 is 1.6 x heavier than air that it is the most buoyant molecule when warmed, it travels to the highest altitude of all the atmospheric gases.

    It is warmed by the sun at sunrise and starts rising. it sinks back on the darkside as it cools.

    1. Gary Ashe says: “J D Swallow, it is because CO2 is 1.6 x heavier than air that it is the most buoyant molecule when warmed, it travels to the highest altitude of all the atmospheric gases” I really understand none of what Gary Ashe is endeavouring to explain to me about how molecule that is 1.6 x heavier than air can become so buoyant that it, “when warmed, it travels to the highest altitude of all the atmospheric gases”. Would Gary Ashe please elucidate regrading this assertion?
      Densities of Various Substances
      Air 1.29 × 10−3
      Carbon dioxide 1.98 × 10−3
      Carbon monoxide 1.25 × 10−3
      Hydrogen 0.090 × 10−3
      Helium 0.18 × 10−3
      Methane 0.72 × 10−3
      Nitrogen 1.25 × 10−3
      Nitrous oxide 1.98 × 10−3

      “Do the math” and you have to have help with this, I have come to understand.
      1.98 × 10−3 – 1.29 × 10−3= .69
      If this is not enough to convince even you, then I suggest that you get some help and fill a balloon with CO₂ and see how far you can drag it before it burst and then report back on that experiment that you would have a problem doing.

Leave a Reply

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.