Greenhouse warming theory

[peterj...@gmail.com]

Dear Prof Ward,

I got your email, went to your website, and was surprised by a few issue you raised. Let’s do this one step at a time:

First, physically, radiation, the electromagnetic continuous spectrum, is clearly observed to simply be a continuum of frequencies of oscillation of all the bonds holding matter together. Radiation cannot be waves, as currently assumed, because waves describe the deformation of a medium and there is no medium in space. Radiation does not have a physical property of wavelength, as widely assumed. Wavelength is a mathematical abstraction assuming light travels in waves and is calculated by dividing the velocity of light by wave frequency. Wave frequency only applies to waves and is something that is very different from frequency of oscillation of all the bonds holding solid matter together. Furthermore, radiation cannot be discrete photons because radiation is clearly observed to be a continuum. How do you define a continuum made up of discrete photons? Plus, the energies of photons are currently thought of as additive while radiation is observed to be averative.

Many experiments, many !, show that radiation has a dual character, both as particles, photons, and as waves. One can do interference through a set of very narrow slits
with radiation and the results are that radiation behaves the same as waves in the ocean, in terms of diffraction. Furthermore, when the amount of
radiation is reduced, one can observe that the diffraction pattern is build up by individual particles. Are you suggesting that all these experiments are wrong?
Perhaps first become familiar with the subject before trying to kick it.
Other issues: Radiation is additive, temperature is ‘averative’. The bonds within molecules that hold all matter together have a discrete spectrum,
and the spectrum depends on  the kind of vibrations: linear, rotational, etc. The bonds between molecules can have a continuous spectrum. Again, know the facts.


Second, temperature of a body of solid matter is observed to be proportional to the amplitude of oscillation at each frequency of oscillation as calculated according to Planck’s empirical law. The hotter the temperature, the greater the amplitude of oscillation at each and every frequency, especially at the higher frequencies.

Indeed, if we heat up a body its spectrum increases at every frequency, and the peak shifts to higher frequencies. Green house theory agrees with this.

Third, thermal energy of radiation (E) is equal to the Planck constant (h) times frequency (ν), which is a continuum. Therefore, total energy (E=hν) is a continuum, not a single value of watts per square meter as currently assumed. Every frequency of oscillation has a different number of watts per square meter. The higher the frequency, the higher the level of energy.

Watts/m^2 comes about from performing the INTEGRAL of E over all frequencies. Are you familiar with an integral? 

Fourth, in the late 19th century, numerous physicists used a prism to separate the different colors of light. They then placed an appropriate sensor within each color band, thinking that they were measuring amount of radiant energy in watts per square meter. What they were actually measuring, however, was the brightness or intensity of each color band, which is determined by the amplitude of oscillation. These were the data that Planck’s law was designed to fit with energy on the y-axis. This confusion over energy is still prevalent today. There is no such thing as amount of energy in the proper formulation of Planck’s empirical law. My plots of Planck’s law only show orders of magnitude for amplitude of oscillation on the y-axis because I think the precise numeric value needs to be calibrated in the laboratory. Average bond lengths are typically in the range of 100 to 200 picometers (10-12 meters), and the amplitude of oscillation must vary from zero at absolute zero to the maximum bond length at the frequency or temperature at which dissociation occurs.

See answer to previous issue. What is measured is the energy integrated over the red frequencies (there is a continuum of frequencies that we see as red.
Again, no issue.

Fifth, at the molecular scale, E=hν is the level of energy of an individual mode of oscillation of a particular chemical bond. There is typically a minimum value of frequency (ν) that can cause chemical changes in that bond such as the photoelectric effect or dissociation. At the macroscopic level, radiant energy (E) is a continuum of energies of all the modes of oscillation of all the bonds contained on the surface of matter. We do not currently have the mathematics available to deal with a continuum of frequencies or a continuum of energies except by calculating Planck’s law at each and every frequency.

And than integrating over the Planck curve, this is mathematics 101...

Sixth, radiant thermal energy is not additive. Heat flows by averaging amplitudes of oscillation via resonance simultaneously at each and every frequency. Heat is not additive, as currently assumed in physics and in greenhouse-warming theory. Heat is averative.

Greenhouse-warming theory does not assume that heat is additive. Heat fluxes are. Do you understand the difference?

Seventh, Planck’s postulate E=hν, defined in 1900, was interpreted by Einstein in 1905 to be a light quantum, a particle of light—what became known as a photon. This Planck-Einstein relation (E=hν) is thought today to define the amount of energy contained in a photon where the greater the number of photons, the greater the total amount of  energy. Yet Einstein was trying to explain the photoelectric effect, the minimum frequency of light, the minimum level of energy, required to allow electrons to flow on a fresh metal surface. E=hν is a level of energy, not an amount of energy. Furthermore, since frequency (ν) is a broad continuum, energy (E) must be a continuum. There is a different number of watts per square meter for each and every frequency of oscillation. You cannot quantify accurately the total energy contained in thermal radiation with a single number of watts per square meter as is currently assumed in physics and in greenhouse-warming theory. Energy is a continuum of levels of energy, not a single amount of energy. The concept of a photon has been very useful mathematically, but a photon does not appear to exist physically.

See answers above. As far as I can see the problem is that you are not familiar with the basic notions of mathematics.
The difference between real numbers are natural numbers is most likely alien to you. Then the whole concept of integration is also not
understandable. This is all high-school material. Since you miss these elementary notions a proper discussion of greenhouse warming
is not possible, and your whole website falls apart. 

To conclude, I strongly suggest you first dive a bit deeper into the material that you are trying to talk about. Experience teaches us that this will
take a few years. You call yourself a Dr, but assume you have no PhD degree, otherwise you would be much more careful.
First action would be to tear down the website, then study, and then perhaps put it on again if you have proper physical arguments.

Success in this endeavour!

Best wishes,
Peter Jan

[verite...@gmail.com]

Dear (Dr?) Peter Jan 

Your email is just plain disrespectful and really has no place at all. I follow Dr Ward's work in order to understand the principles that might explain climate change and determine the nature of the risk to the planet and the habitable zone. I came to this Group to look for ideas. Instead I found your post. Your insults and hyperbole towards Dr Ward undermine your scientific credibility. I doubt you would be able to keep your current position if you spoke to co-faculty and grad students with the same style of communications you posted here. You do not help the debate, you poison it. 

I find (similar to Peter Jan) this rude personalization and disparaging dismissal of sincere effort to investigate global warming to be characteristic of many supposedly well educated and responsible professionals. Their attitudes towards well formed opinions that differ from their own belies the confidence with which they tout their views. 

You should share your email with your peers and students. Ask them if it's helpful.

Is this how you are with others? Insult them and then salute with trite sarcasms  like "Best wishes". Fix yourself, man. 

PV

[Peter L. Ward]

On November 4 at 7:50 AM MT I responded to Peter Jan's personal email to me as follows:

Peter Jan,

What you are saying is our current understanding. I know our current understanding well. However, I am showing that our current understanding is mistaken. If I am correct, and the data support me very clearly, this is a major revolution in physics and it has implications that are far broader than climate change. Please watch my video A most unexpected revolution in the physics of heat.

Perhaps the simplest way to see the tip of the iceberg is as follows: The Planck-Einstein relation E=hv is assumed to be the definition of a photon. Nu (v) however is a broad continuum, the electromagnetic spectrum. A continuum times a constant must be a continuum. Therefore E must be a continuum, not a quantum, not as discrete number of watts per square meter.

I would be happy to discuss all of this in detail as soon as you have had time to understand what I am saying and writing.

Sincerely,

Peter

We have had two more exchanges of email that I would be happy to post, but they are off target for this discussion group. This discussion group is intended to discuss the very basic question: Is global warming theory physically impossible? We need to keep focused.

[rcoh...@gmail.com]

Greetings -

Perhaps I missed it in your analysis but did you make a prediction (in 2015, when you first identified this) for whether global temperatures would continue to warm, based on trends in ozone?  What is your prediction for future global temperature trends?  

As you know, the hallmark of science is the ability to make testable predictions. The global temperature predictions based on greenhouse gases seem to be supported by recent observations, so you'll need to at least match that, regardless of any debate on which gases are responsible.

On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 9:18:37 AM UTC-5, peterj...@gmail.com wrote:

[Peter L. Ward]

Warming from 1970 to 1998 was caused by ozone depletion due to CFCs. Temperature due to CFCs should decrease slowly as the ozone layer recovers many decades from now. Temperatures did remain relatively constant from 1998 to 2014. Then Bardarbunga erupted in Iceland, the largest basaltic lava flow since 1783, causing rapid warming to 2016, the hottest year on record. I have predicted that temperatures will gradually decrease unless there is a new, major basaltic lava flow. There is enough variation in annual global temperatures that it is conceivable that a given year in the future could be hotter than 2016, but the overall trend should be down. Major warming in future decades predicted by greenhouse-gas models will not happen.

On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 7:18:37 AM UTC-7, peterj...@gmail.com wrote:

[rcoh...@gmail.com]

Thanks.  While we have to wait to see how the test plays out, having two different predictions provides a test of the two hypotheses.

To make the prediction stronger, can you quantify the amount of cooling you'd expect to see, assuming no basaltic lava flow?

In comparison, predictions of the past aren't too valuable, but even there your explanation could be strengthened with some numbers.  How much warming would you expect from 1970 to 1998 based on ozone depletion?  How much warmer should 1998 have been, relative to the surrounding years?  What explains the amount of warming experienced from 1999 to 2014, prior to the basaltic lava flow?

[Peter L. Ward]

Your questions have convinced me to add a web page to WhyClimateChanges.com describing my predictions, the reasons for my predictions, and the caveats. It may be a week or so before I can complete it.

We observed an increase of 0.6 C from 1970 to 1998 that I argue was all caused by ozone depletion due to CFC gases. In a talk to the AMS on January 12, 2016 found here https://youtu.be/NF438LDeqLA I stated that if there had been no Montreal Protocol, world temperatures would probably be approximately 0.5 C hotter today.

There was no significant warming from 1998 through 2013. We observed 0.3 C warming from 2014 to 2016, which I argue was caused by Bardabunga eruption in Iceland.

The basaltic lava flows erupted in Hawaii on the lower East Rift were very large by Hawaiian standards but half the size of the Bardabunga eruption in Iceland. They lasted only 3 months while Bardarbunga lasted 6 months. I am not aware of any evidence for warming related to the Hawaiian eruption, but I have not had the time to look carefully. I suspect the signal is down in the noise.

[rcoh...@gmail.com]

I look forward to the new web page.

Just to clarify my request, I'm looking for a specific prediction for how much warming one would have expected from the Bardabunga eruption, and why that particular amount of warming (without knowing beforehand how much was actually observed).

By the way, I asked about the warming from 1999 to 2013, not from 1998 to 2013.  If you think 1998 is just part of the random fluctuations, that is okay but then I'm uncomfortable using that year as a starting and ending point.  If it wasn't random, there must be a reason why 1998 was warmer than the surrounding years (both before and after) and there should be a way to explain why it was warmer (than the surrounding years) by the amount it was.  If the warming stopped in 1998 then one would expect 1999 and 2000 to be similar to 1998.

[gma...@btinternet.com]

Peter Jan,

You need to be aware of the following.

1. Greenplate effect does not exist.  It is false.  I can show this.

2. CO2 does not induce warming on heat sources by way of its back irradiance, I can prove this also.

Examples of my proofs.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgjT_665T6U  & https://www.thepostil.com/evidence-co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas/

If you and the silly greenhouse effect theory leads to conclusions which oppose the two above demonstrable facts, you are clearly wrong.  Radiation Greenhouse Effect is a fallacy and any science which says it isn't is just wrong.

Geraint Hughes

[verite...@gmail.com]

Mr. Hughs .... thank you for your information. I am newly subscribed to your site as well. I am trying to understand these issues. I am inclined to agree with the challenges to "theory" (come religion) of CO2 mediated global warming. Ozone depletion and atmospheric particulate make more sense logically as an explanation of increased heat from its source: the sun, not the earth. 

But please, refrain from insulting anyone who is posting here (such as your comment to Peter Jan about "silly" greenhouse effect. Provoking hostilities weakens the credibility of the poster and degrades the conversation. We want to read your explanations and scientific references/principles.

PC

[GERAINT HUGHES]

Hi,

Greenhouse effect is not just "Silly."  It is a complete con and anyone spouting it is a liar, a fool or a damned fraudster.

When I said silly I was being polite.

Read the attached for more information as to why I am forthright and why I hold in absolute Contempt any fake scientist liar, whom spouts off the lie that Radiation GHE is real.

I can prove beyond all reasonable doubt, in more ways that one that it isnt real.  The army of fakers need to be held to account.

Geraint Hughes.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Is greenhouse-warming theory physically impossible?" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/CO2Impossible/OjFCNeBZ7f8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to CO2Impossibl...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CO2Impossible/f3b11246-59e2-4eed-97f9-76eb128701da%40googlegroups.com

.

[rcoh...@gmail.com]

You may have proven your case beyond your doubt, but a reasonably skeptic person would expect some numbers.  Perhaps you can strengthen your argument by quantifying your proof.  In other words, what should be the theoretical cooling vs. warming effect of CO2 in your demonstration according to the two theories?

I ask because it seems you are asserting that the IR absorption impact of CO2, as spouted by greenhouse gas enthusiasts, would predict very significant warming in your situation and not be overwhelmed by the convection effect.  However, you don't have the numbers to show it either way.  How do we know you haven't presented a straw man argument?

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to CO2Imp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CO2Impossible/f3b11246-59e2-4eed-97f9-76eb128701da%40googlegroups.com

.

[GERAINT HUGHES]

I take it you didnt read the attachment, I have attached it again for you.  The numbers are quite clear.

Also, read the attached link the number are on the tables and the live videos are on the you tube links which you can watch.

https://www.thepostil.com/evidence-co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas/

Here are the numbers oin the attached

https://www.thepostil.com/evidence-co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Is greenhouse-warming theory physically impossible?" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/CO2Impossible/OjFCNeBZ7f8/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to CO2Impossibl...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CO2Impossible/f0da8fbd-90a6-4917-88d6-48ee2810f06b%40googlegroups.com

.

[Peter L. Ward]

A common request over many years from leading climate scientists and even from the editors of JGR Atmospheres and of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, is “Use existing equations for heat flux to show quantitatively how ozone depletion could cause more warming than CO₂.” My response is still “I am showing that existing equations for heat flux are mistaken. They do not calculate the flux of heat correctly.” They have worked adequately for engineering applications where temperature differences are small, but they fail catastrophically for large temperature differences between Earth and Sun. The net effect of all greenhouse gases on heating Earth is zero or, at most, so close to zero that it is insignificant.

I have been working hard for the past week on an upgrade, now posted, to http://Physically-Impossible.com that deals up front with what most climate scientists are thinking based on extensive discussions since November 4. I focus on 9 assumptions about greenhouse-warming that turn out to be mistaken. Please check that page out again.

Planck’s law shows clearly that to increase the temperature of a body of matter, you must increase the amplitudes of oscillation at each frequency of oscillation, but especially at the highest frequencies. Ozone depletion increases the amplitudes of oscillation reaching Earth in the UV-B frequency range, the highest solar frequencies penetrating Earth’s atmosphere.

[Peter L. Ward]

The fundamental mistake is that there is no such thing as back radiation, meaning radiation from a cooler body back in the direction of the warmer body. Radiation and heat can only flow physically by resonance from warmer to cooler. Radiation from Earth does not travel towards Sun and is not absorbed by Sun.

And you are quite right that all the arithmetic done assuming radiation in many different directions, does not appear to be physically meaningful.

When you place a plate or sensor between a warm body and a cooler body, the bonds within the closest line-of-sight resonate.

Your experiments should be reproducible. You should not need to average runs if you understand what is physically happening properly. The different runs should agree within the precision that you can measure.

Finally, please recognize that most climate scientists are genuinely convinced by the science as they understand it, that greenhouse gases are the cause of warming and that warming in the future is highly likely to be a threat to humanity. They dismiss most arguments by skeptics as non-scientific. This is especially true if the skeptic is bad mouthing them or ascribing motives to them that they know to be false.

I am trying to show my fellow scientists that current theory is mistaken for these specific reasons. Let’s focus on the reasons and see if we all can come together to agree on physical reality.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to CO2Imp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CO2Impossible/f0da8fbd-90a6-4917-88d6-48ee2810f06b%40googlegroups.com

.

[rcoh...@gmail.com]

I suppose I wasn't clear.

Prior to doing any measurements, what specific temperature did your theory predict and why, and what specific temperature did the radiation theory predict and why?

If those predictions are already in the attachment and links, then I apologize in advance and hope you'll be patient with me and tell me where in the document or the link that information is present.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to CO2Imp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CO2Impossible/f0da8fbd-90a6-4917-88d6-48ee2810f06b%40googlegroups.com

.

[Peter L. Ward]

Both theories are based on observations and assumptions. Neither is developed well enough to calculate the forward problem that you propose.

Greenhouse-warming theory is based on the observation, first made in 1859, that greenhouse-gases absorb some infrared energy radiated by Earth and the assumption that such absorption must cause warming. The amount of warming is calculated by assuming all observed warming is caused by greenhouse gases. Current estimates are that a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations will cause global warming most likely somewhere between 1.5 °C and 4.5 °C. I explain problems with all these assumptions at http://Physically-Impossible.com.

Ozone depletion theory is based on the observation that the world warmed 0.6 ^oC from 1970 to 1998 at the same time that annual average ozone measured in northern mid-latitudes decreased from around 330 to 315 Dobson units. This depletion is thought to be caused by human manufacture of CFC gases. The increase in warming stopped when the production of these gases was severely limited by the Montreal Protocol. There are lots of details for example at https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/ozone-depletion.html.

Furthermore, I show that the current way we calculate heat in watts per square meter is mistaken. Heat is the result of a broad continuum of frequencies and amplitudes of oscillation. Currently, we do not have the mathematics to calculate the total energy in a continuum. What we do know well, however, is that any amount of thermal energy in the ultraviolet-B reaching Earth when ozone is depleted is 50 times more energetic, 50 times “hotter” than any amount of terrestrial infrared absorbed by carbon dioxide.

[rcoh...@gmail.com]

Peter Ward,

Thanks for following up.  While we can continue to question everybody's assumptions, the way I (and others, no doubt) test a theory is by comparing future observations with predictions of the future.  Greenhouse theorists open themselves up to such testing when they make a prediction, like that a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations will cause global warming most likely somewhere between 1.5 °C and 4.5 °C.  They also explain how they obtained those predictions, allowing me to reproduce those predictions if I wish.  I'm just saying that it would strengthen your argument if you (and Geraint Hughes, to which my previous post was directed) could do the same.

[GERAINT HUGHES]

R Cohen,

I already have done the same.

0 degrees rise is what you can expect, back radiation as a force does not exist.  Read the attachments and links please, before you comment next time, as you clearly didnt.

Geraint Hughes.

Peter Ward,

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to CO2Imp...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/CO2Impossible/f0da8fbd- 90a6-4917-88d6-48ee2810f06b% 40googlegroups.com

.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Is greenhouse-warming theory physically impossible?" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/CO2Impossible/OjFCNeBZ7f8/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to CO2Impossibl...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CO2Impossible/7027fe0d-f0cb-464e-878a-37b6313286dd%40googlegroups.com

.

[rcoh...@gmail.com]

Geraint Hughes,

Thank you for being so patient.  I must have missed where you predicted (and explained the basis for your prediction) the 47C max temp with single plate/no chamber, the 70C max temp with single plate/chamber, and 68C max temp with double plate/chamber.  I'll trust that it is there somewhere and I am just too stupid and lazy to find it.  I wouldn't want you to waste any more of your time.

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CO2Impossible/7027fe0d-f0cb-464e-878a-37b6313286dd%40googlegroups.com

.

[Peter L. Ward]

The IPCC predicts that because greenhouse-gas concentrations continue to rise, temperatures, on average, will continue to rise. I, Peter L. Ward, predict that temperatures, on average, will not rise unless there is an increase in ozone depletion. These are two starkly different, testable predictions.

2016 was the hottest year on record. 2017 was cooler and 2018 was even cooler. We have been in a cooling trend since 2016 that I explain as recovery after added ozone depletion due to the 2014-2015 eruption of Bardarbunga, the largest basaltic eruption since 1783. The IPCC has no direct explanation for this cooling trend.

By mid-January, 2020, we will all know where 2019 fits in. I suspect, based on average monthly temperatures, that 2019 may be hotter than 2018 but not hotter than 2016. The 2018 lower Puna eruption in Hawaii from late May to Early August extruded basaltic lava at the same rate, more or less, as Bardarbunga, but only lasted 3 months instead of 6 months. This would be a direct explanation for warming.

We do not know the precise chemical path for ozone depletion caused by basalts and thus cannot calculate a theoretical warming, but we observe that 85 km² of basalts erupted in 6 months at Bardarbunga appears to have warmed Earth 0.3 ^oC from 2014 to 2016. Even for ozone depletion caused by CFCs, which won a Nobel prize, we cannot calculate a predicted warming in a forward manner.

If 2019 is warmer than 2018, the IPCC will say, see, temperatures are continuing to rise. But they cannot explain directly why they fell from 2016 to 2018.

Average global temperatures did not change much from 1998 through 2013, a period known in the literature as The Global Warming Hiatus. Yet the IPCC was predicting continued increase based on continued increase in greenhouse-gas emissions. From 1998 to about 2005, as the hiatus began to become clear, climate scientists waved their arms about statistical variations and that such variations in the past had lasted for 5 years or so. But the hiatus went on for 15 years and no scientist, based on greenhouse-warming theory, can explain directly why. There are dozens of papers full of ideas listed on my website.

So, we are now entering Global Warming Hiatus number 2. Temperatures may not change much on average for a decade or more. And lets say that we begin to decrease greenhouse-gas emissions. As hiatus 2 continues, the IPCC will say, see, we are having an effect on temperatures by reducing emissions. And I will continue to say that temperatures, on average, should not rise unless ozone depletion rises.

Now you want to calculate numbers. I am showing that the equations currently being used to calculate radiative forcings are mistaken. Heat is a continuum of frequencies that cannot be summarized as one number for the amount of heat flux in watts per square meter. All the numbers calculated by years of super-computer time, are simply mistaken. Many people find mathematical masturbation pleasurable, but it is not very productive. What matters is the physics of what is physically happening, not the mathematics. Furthermore, these equations have never been calibrated. Climate sensitivity, the only link between flux and temperature, is calculated by assuming all observed warming is caused by increases in greenhouse gases and there is a wide spread in likely values.

As for ozone depletion, we observe directly a warming of 0.6 ^oC contemporaneous with a decrease in annual average ozone measured in northern mid-latitudes from around 330 to 315 Dobson units.

Furthermore, Planck’s empirical law shows unambiguously, that the only way to increase the temperature of a body of matter by absorbing radiation is if that radiation comes from a hotter body which contains higher amplitudes of oscillation at all frequencies, especially at the highest frequencies. Ultraviolet-B is the highest frequency, most energetic, “hottest” solar radiation reaching Earth. According to Planck’s empirical law, ultraviolet-B is the one radiation that can warm Earth most efficiently.

I am working on a web page describing my predictions in detail. You can get some of the flavor in this post. But I have higher priorities right now to finish my posters for AGU (December 10) and AMS (January 14) and related documents.

[GERAINT HUGHES]

R Cohen,

If you cant understand that radiation GHE is a lie, after I explained and showed it to you. Then yes you are justified in calling yourself stupid.  And yes I would appreciate if you stop wasting not only my time but everyone elses.

I especially dislike people in power whom not only waste everyones time on this issue, but waste all their money also, it is an act of fraud to take someones money, tell them it is to fix a problem which does ot even exist.  Defrauding the public is a crime and I am yet to meet a green politician whom isnt guilty in that regard.

CO2 has no warming effect AT ALL on the GMST, you ignore pretend back irradiance heating entirely.  It is not real.

Geraint Hughes.

https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/CO2Impossible/7027fe0d- f0cb-464e-878a-37b6313286dd% 40googlegroups.com

.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Is greenhouse-warming theory physically impossible?" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/CO2Impossible/OjFCNeBZ7f8/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to CO2Impossibl...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CO2Impossible/9e860752-2aeb-40ff-b3d8-7b03ae0791b5%40googlegroups.com

.

[GERAINT HUGHES]

R Chohen,

I have one for you, tell me what heating effect will adding CO2 to the chamber have?  What is your prediction on say, the warming surface temperature of the bulb?

Oh & I already did that test, read it here. 

https://www.thepostil.com/evidence-co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas/

I already posted this link so i guess you missed it.

I firmly believe you are not actively engaged in debate, because you have already lost the debate.  You are just a troll.  Good evening.

Geraint

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CO2Impossible/2092467241.7636953.1574520893009%40mail.yahoo.com

.

[rcoh...@gmail.com]

Peter Ward,

 

Thank you for the information.  That is helpful.  The cooler 2017-2018 compared to 2016 was not unexpected by greenhouse proponents but, either way, I'm asking about predictions of the future, not explanations of the past.

I appreciate the way you've been patient with my request.

Geraint,

Your response was not useful but don't worry - I won't waste any more of your time.

Everyone else,

I just want to share that, using radiation balance, I predicted a very tiny warming (two plates vs. one plate) in Geraint's experiment, probably too small to notice (I can share my calculations if anyone is interested).  If correct, that suggests Geraint's experiment wasn't an adequate test of the theory.  I tested my approach with the two infinite parallel plate example - and got the same results as Geraint -- but that situation has significant differences with the experiment (i.e., infinite plates, perfect absorbers, no background radiation, etc.).  My request for additional information was an (unsuccessful) attempt to check my assumptions.  Despite my lack of success, I still think it is a fascinating experiment and has the potential for being a good test if one can get significantly different predictions for some other measurement, like perhaps the temperature of the second plate.

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CO2Impossible/9e860752-2aeb-40ff-b3d8-7b03ae0791b5%40googlegroups.com

.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Is greenhouse-warming theory physically impossible?" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/CO2Impossible/OjFCNeBZ7f8/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to CO2Imp...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CO2Impossible/2092467241.7636953.1574520893009%40mail.yahoo.com

.

[GERAINT HUGHES]

R Chohen,

Your clearly a faker on an incompetent.

There was no warming, only cooling, therefore whatever calculation you performed was wrong.  Your sad attempt to garner attention is just that, sad.

Get over it.

Geraint Hughes.

On Saturday, 23 November 2019, 17:48:20 GMT, rcoh...@gmail.com <rcoh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Peter Ward,

 

Thank you for the information.  That is helpful.  The cooler 2017-2018 compared to 2016 was not unexpected by greenhouse proponents but, either way, I'm asking about predictions of the future, not explanations of the past.

I appreciate the way you've been patient with my request.

Geraint,

Your response was not useful but don't worry - I won't waste any more of your time.

Everyone else,

I just want to share that, using radiation balance, I predicted a very tiny warming (two plates vs. one plate) in Geraint's experiment, probably too small to notice (I can share my calculations if anyone is interested).  If correct, that suggests Geraint's experiment wasn't an adequate test of the theory.  I tested my approach with the two infinite parallel plate example - and got the same results as Geraint -- but that situation has significant differences with the experiment (i.e., infinite plates, perfect absorbers, no background radiation, etc.).  My request for additional information was an (unsuccessful) attempt to check my assumptions.  Despite my lack of success, I still think it is a fascinating experiment and has the potential for being a good test if one can get significantly different predictions for some other measurement, like perhaps the temperature of the second plate.

On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 10:01:13 AM UTC-5, GERAINT HUGHES wrote:

R Chohen,

I have one for you, tell me what heating effect will adding CO2 to the chamber have?  What is your prediction on say, the warming surface temperature of the bulb?

Oh & I already did that test, read it here. 

https://www.thepostil.com/ evidence-co2-is-not-a- greenhouse-gas/

I already posted this link so i guess you missed it.

I firmly believe you are not actively engaged in debate, because you have already lost the debate.  You are just a troll.  Good evening.

Geraint

https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/CO2Impossible/9e860752- 2aeb-40ff-b3d8-7b03ae0791b5% 40googlegroups.com

.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Is greenhouse-warming theory physically impossible?" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ topic/CO2Impossible/ OjFCNeBZ7f8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to CO2Imp...@ googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/CO2Impossible/ 2092467241.7636953. 1574520893009%40mail.yahoo.com

.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Is greenhouse-warming theory physically impossible?" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/CO2Impossible/OjFCNeBZ7f8/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to CO2Impossibl...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CO2Impossible/b9802e9d-b797-4bc3-8806-5a713a36ac73%40googlegroups.com

.

[Peter L. Ward]

Geraint,

Please restrict your comments to the scientific ideas that you disagree with and the scientific evidence justifying what you think is scientifically correct. Personal attacks, all too frequent in climate discussions these days, will not be tolerated in this discussion group.

Peter L. Ward 

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CO2Impossible/b9802e9d-b797-4bc3-8806-5a713a36ac73%40googlegroups.com

.

[GERAINT HUGHES]

Peter Ward

Your failure to eliminate trolls is a sign of weakness, which they take advantage of as I can see clearly.

R Chohen is non genuine.  He is not engaging in genuine debate, he is just throwing in nonsense to confuse the issue.

The science is clear and you said it yourself, it is not possible to to warm an object warmer using its own heat.  Yet you do not defend this clear fact from trolls.

R Chohen is an incompetent if he does not know this.  He is of the snooty people I wrote about in my article.  They convince themselves with maths, & even after they see the truth they refuse to acknowledge it.  If he does know and persist with his lies then he is a fraud.  There is no other choice.

Your inability to stand up for the truth, will be why you fail.  You lack backbone.

I on the other hand, will succeed.

Bye.

https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/CO2Impossible/b9802e9d- b797-4bc3-8806-5a713a36ac73% 40googlegroups.com

.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Is greenhouse-warming theory physically impossible?" group.

To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/CO2Impossible/OjFCNeBZ7f8/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to CO2Impossibl...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CO2Impossible/8f941e19-0d71-4bbc-93e2-599f6a7bd6a5%40googlegroups.com

.

[Peter L. Ward]

Geraint,

R. Chohen is raising thoughtful issues. Again, please limit the personal attacks or I will have to remove uncivil posts.

Peter L. Ward

Peter Ward,

PC

And than integrating over the Planck curve, this is mathematics 101...<br clear="none" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0p

[michae...@shaw.ca]

On Friday, 22 November 2019 14:42:44 UTC-7, rcoh...@gmail.com wrote:

I suppose I wasn't clear.

Prior to doing any measurements, what specific temperature did your theory predict and why, and what specific temperature did the radiation theory predict and why?

If those predictions are already in the attachment and links, then I apologize in advance and hope you'll be patient with me and tell me where in the document or the link that information is present.

The point of all this is whether or not GHGs can cause warming at the levels claimed.  It is irrelevant and an unproductive diversion whether or not ozone depletion caused/causes warming and by how much. If as Dr. Ward presents, that it is valid that CO2 cannot be causing our current and past warming periods, then that is sufficient.  What alternative theory(s) are actually the cause (or more likely one of several causal factors) of warming makes no difference to his case. Like a person accused of some crime, it isn't necessary to provide an alternative criminal guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, only that the accused is shown not to have caused the crime. Same for CO2. If it can be shown that it isn't causing global warming that is enough. Leave it to others to figure out what is causing the phenomena, but having eliminated CO2 would be a stunning breakthrough for our responses to what is actually threatening our future. We will all benefit if the discussion can be limited to CO2. One step at a time.

[rcoh...@gmail.com]

Just to be clear, the comments you (michae...@shaw.ca) quoted were ones I made toward Geraint Hughes, where I questioned Geraint's "proof" (invalidating GHG).

However, I think I understand the point -- that it is not necessary to evaluate the ozone hypothesis in order to eliminate the GHG hypothesis.

I think I agreem and if you want to focus first on the GHG hypothesis, that is fine.  I was just interpreting Dr. Ward's request for ideas to include both.  As such, my initial post simply suggested that adding a testable prediction would strengthen the ozone hypothesis.

[osbo...@gmail.com]

Mr Hughes, I too have explored the so called back radiation effect with a number of simple experiments.

One cold object & one warm object, as expected the cold object got warmer and the warm object got colder.

Two identical objects at the same temperature

The lamp in a box experiment.

Reflected heat from a mirror and from Aluminium foil

Cold object in foil.

All conducted in atmosphere as I do not have the luxury of a vacuum tube.

Not once did I detect any increase from so called back radiation, I did experience quite a lot of heating from the air being heated between the 2 objects and in the jar due to reduced convection.

When I introduced a small fan to move the air between the objects not warming was apparent.

All results were met with derision, I didn't know what Iwas doing, the objects were wrong, the electronic thermometer not accurate enough etc etc.

It would have been nice if you had published the temperature of the second plate in the tables.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to CO2Imp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CO2Impossible/f3b11246-59e2-4eed-97f9-76eb128701da%40googlegroups.com

.

[osbo...@gmail.com]

Peter, I am sure that I found a much earlier inernet post by you which confirmed my suspicions about the validity of back radiation.

However I do not think that you can blame the reduction of Ozone for all of the warming as at the same time there was also a serious reduction in Tropical Cloud Cover which is the reverse image of rising Temperatures.

Reduced cloud cover means more UV energy in to the Oceans.

There is also the matter of the fact that although there is very little change in TSI, the UV content can change quite a bit.

[Jaideep Shekhar]

After glancing through these posts, it appears that anyone not following the prescribed views is being discredited and abused.

It also appears that the host have decided what they want to believe. In this case, I do not think there is any space left for debate.
Hence, this appears far more as an echo chamber of preset beliefs, rather than a scientific forum, and has no place for me.

Best Wishes,

Jaideep Shekhar

[GERAINT HUGHES]

Hello Everyone,

Radiation GHE is a lie. Anyone falling for the con has been fooled.

Proof is here. The debate is over, because there is no debate. RGHE IS A LIE!

https://principia-scientific.com/niblet-no-6-no-greenhouse-effect-exists/

Geraint Hughes.

To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/CO2Impossible/OjFCNeBZ7f8/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">CO2Impossible+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CO2Impossible/b9c799ff-f66b-4bc8-b9be-a696b92e6bdd%40googlegroups.com.

[Peter L Ward]

Jaideep,

This Google Group has been largely inactive because people refuse to discuss the science. Here are more current links to articles, papers, videos, and websites. I would be happy to discuss any serious scientific evidence or thoughts for or against what I have written. Please email me at co2imp...@gmail.com.

Peter

NEW -- Climate Cons by Diane Francis, Newsletter on America
Article: Fundamental errors regarding the physics of heat
Article: We have already solved the global warming crisis
Article: The crisis in climate science
Book:   What Really Causes Global Warming? Greenhouse Gases or Ozone Depletion?
Paper: The photochemistry of gas molecules in Earth's atmosphere determines the structure of the atmosphere and the average temperature at Earth's surface
Paper: Ozone depletion explains global warming
Paper: On the Planck-Einstein relation
Paper: Heat does not physically flow in the ways assumed by greenhouse-warming theory
Video: CanYouBearIt.com A one-minute video overview.
Video: A most unexpected revolution in the physics of heat. (13 minutes)
Video: TEDx talk: Volcanoes : A forge for climate change (18 minutes)
Video: The most expensive mistake ever made in the history of science. (16 videos each 5 to 12 minutes)
Website: Videos of talks at scientific meetings
Website: WhyClimateChanges.com What really causes global warming?
Website: OzoneDepletionTheory.info How ozone depletion explains observed global warming.
Website: JustProveCO2.com Greenhouse-warming theory has never been demonstrated by experiment to be physically possible.
Website: Physically-Impossible.com Why greenhouse-warming theory is not only mistaken, it is not even physically possible.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Is greenhouse-warming theory physically impossible?" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CO2Impossibl...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CO2Impossible/cf50ec70-3ae1-4144-ab49-eb306e046323n%40googlegroups.com.

[Rick Lynch]

Prof Ward,

Very interesting ideas! I appreciate when people respond to the technical aspects of your ideas without engaging in questioning your intelligence.

Rick Lynch

[Lyle Robinson]

I find his email very respectful. Perhaps you don't like the narratives being challenged. 

I find it interesting that Ward's notions have yet to withstand peer review. Perhaps that's too high a bar for them?

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 11:38:39 AM UTC-5 verite...@gmail.com wrote:

Dear (Dr?) Peter Jan 

Your email is just plain disrespectful and really has no place at all. I follow Dr Ward's work in order to understand the principles that might explain climate change and determine the nature of the risk to the planet and the habitable zone. I came to this Group to look for ideas. Instead I found your post. Your insults and hyperbole towards Dr Ward undermine your scientific credibility. I doubt you would be able to keep your current position if you spoke to co-faculty and grad students with the same style of communications you posted here. You do not help the debate, you poison it. 

I find (similar to Peter Jan) this rude personalization and disparaging dismissal of sincere effort to investigate global warming to be characteristic of many supposedly well educated and responsible professionals. Their attitudes towards well formed opinions that differ from their own belies the confidence with which they tout their views. 

You should share your email with your peers and students. Ask them if it's helpful.

Is this how you are with others? Insult them and then salute with trite sarcasms  like "Best wishes". Fix yourself, man. 

PV

[Lyle Robinson]

"Dr." Ward also fails to note the fine structures of spectra, which rarely overlap with that of other molecules.

[Lyle Robinson]

Ozone holes are shrinking. What's causing the warming now?

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 10:50:05 PM UTC-5 Peter L. Ward wrote:

Warming from 1970 to 1998 was caused by ozone depletion due to CFCs. Temperature due to CFCs should decrease slowly as the ozone layer recovers many decades from now. Temperatures did remain relatively constant from 1998 to 2014. Then Bardarbunga erupted in Iceland, the largest basaltic lava flow since 1783, causing rapid warming to 2016, the hottest year on record. I have predicted that temperatures will gradually decrease unless there is a new, major basaltic lava flow. There is enough variation in annual global temperatures that it is conceivable that a given year in the future could be hotter than 2016, but the overall trend should be down. Major warming in future decades predicted by greenhouse-gas models will not happen.

[Mike Kelly]

I don’t think Ozone holes are a major cause of warming, but neither do I think generalized assertions are intrinsically valuable:  Rare ozone hole opens over Arctic — and it’s big (nature 27 March 2020)

 

From: co2imp...@googlegroups.com <co2imp...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Lyle Robinson
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 11:49 AM
To: Is greenhouse-warming theory physically impossible? <CO2Imp...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [co2impossible] Re: Greenhouse warming theory

 

Ozone holes are shrinking. What's causing the warming now?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Is greenhouse-warming theory physically impossible?" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/CO2Impossible/OjFCNeBZ7f8/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to CO2Impossibl...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CO2Impossible/aa4f618c-e529-46a7-b10e-1fab0d3283dan%40googlegroups.com.

[Lyle Robinson]

Why is it still warming, if particulates have levelled off and the ozone holes are shrinking?

On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 2:29:45 PM UTC-5 verite...@gmail.com wrote:

Mr. Hughs .... thank you for your information. I am newly subscribed to your site as well. I am trying to understand these issues. I am inclined to agree with the challenges to "theory" (come religion) of CO2 mediated global warming. Ozone depletion and atmospheric particulate make more sense logically as an explanation of increased heat from its source: the sun, not the earth. 

But please, refrain from insulting anyone who is posting here (such as your comment to Peter Jan about "silly" greenhouse effect. Provoking hostilities weakens the credibility of the poster and degrades the conversation. We want to read your explanations and scientific references/principles.

PC

On Sunday, November 17, 2019 at 10:11:12 AM UTC-5, gma...@btinternet.com wrote:

Peter Jan,

You need to be aware of the following.

1. Greenplate effect does not exist.  It is false.  I can show this.

2. CO2 does not induce warming on heat sources by way of its back irradiance, I can prove this also.

Examples of my proofs.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgjT_665T6U  & https://www.thepostil.com/evidence-co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas/

If you and the silly greenhouse effect theory leads to conclusions which oppose the two above demonstrable facts, you are clearly wrong.  Radiation Greenhouse Effect is a fallacy and any science which says it isn't is just wrong.

Geraint Hughes

[Lyle Robinson]

You have made it clear that you're not worth paying attention to. Thanks for saving me the trouble of figuring it out later.

On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 3:36:21 PM UTC-5 GERAINT HUGHES wrote:

Hi,

Greenhouse effect is not just "Silly."  It is a complete con and anyone spouting it is a liar, a fool or a damned fraudster.

When I said silly I was being polite.

Read the attached for more information as to why I am forthright and why I hold in absolute Contempt any fake scientist liar, whom spouts off the lie that Radiation GHE is real.

I can prove beyond all reasonable doubt, in more ways that one that it isnt real.  The army of fakers need to be held to account.

Geraint Hughes.

On Wednesday, 20 November 2019, 19:29:49 GMT, verite...@gmail.com <verite...@gmail.com> wrote:

Mr. Hughs .... thank you for your information. I am newly subscribed to your site as well. I am trying to understand these issues. I am inclined to agree with the challenges to "theory" (come religion) of CO2 mediated global warming. Ozone depletion and atmospheric particulate make more sense logically as an explanation of increased heat from its source: the sun, not the earth. 

But please, refrain from insulting anyone who is posting here (such as your comment to Peter Jan about "silly" greenhouse effect. Provoking hostilities weakens the credibility of the poster and degrades the conversation. We want to read your explanations and scientific references/principles.

PC

On Sunday, November 17, 2019 at 10:11:12 AM UTC-5, gma...@btinternet.com wrote:

Peter Jan,

You need to be aware of the following.

1. Greenplate effect does not exist.  It is false.  I can show this.

2. CO2 does not induce warming on heat sources by way of its back irradiance, I can prove this also.

Examples of my proofs.  https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=FgjT_665T6U  & https://www.thepostil.com/ evidence-co2-is-not-a- greenhouse-gas/

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Is greenhouse-warming theory physically impossible?" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/CO2Impossible/OjFCNeBZ7f8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to CO2Impossibl...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CO2Impossible/f3b11246-59e2-4eed-97f9-76eb128701da%40googlegroups.com

.

[Lyle Robinson]

Has this been published after peer-review?

On Friday, November 22, 2019 at 7:09:05 AM UTC-5 GERAINT HUGHES wrote:

I take it you didnt read the attachment, I have attached it again for you.  The numbers are quite clear.

Also, read the attached link the number are on the tables and the live videos are on the you tube links which you can watch.

https://www.thepostil.com/evidence-co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas/

On Thursday, 21 November 2019, 21:59:29 GMT, <rcoh...@gmail.com> wrote:

You may have proven your case beyond your doubt, but a reasonably skeptic person would expect some numbers.  Perhaps you can strengthen your argument by quantifying your proof.  In other words, what should be the theoretical cooling vs. warming effect of CO2 in your demonstration according to the two theories?

I ask because it seems you are asserting that the IR absorption impact of CO2, as spouted by greenhouse gas enthusiasts, would predict very significant warming in your situation and not be overwhelmed by the convection effect.  However, you don't have the numbers to show it either way.  How do we know you haven't presented a straw man argument?

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to CO2Imp...@ googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/CO2Impossible/f3b11246- 59e2-4eed-97f9-76eb128701da% 40googlegroups.com

Here are the numbers oin the attached

https://www.thepostil.com/evidence-co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas/

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Is greenhouse-warming theory physically impossible?" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/CO2Impossible/OjFCNeBZ7f8/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to CO2Impossibl...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CO2Impossible/f0da8fbd-90a6-4917-88d6-48ee2810f06b%40googlegroups.com

.

[Lyle Robinson]

Nobody says anything about back radiation. The warmer body is the planet's surface, and the cooler the atmosphere. The higher concentration of CO2 closer to the surface causes the thermal energy transfer rate to space to slow. This causes the upper parts of the atmosphere to cool somewhat, which has been shown to occur.

You seem to have created a straw man argument to base your entire notion on.

On Friday, November 22, 2019 at 12:28:02 PM UTC-5 Peter L. Ward wrote:

The fundamental mistake is that there is no such thing as back radiation, meaning radiation from a cooler body back in the direction of the warmer body. Radiation and heat can only flow physically by resonance from warmer to cooler. Radiation from Earth does not travel towards Sun and is not absorbed by Sun.

And you are quite right that all the arithmetic done assuming radiation in many different directions, does not appear to be physically meaningful.

When you place a plate or sensor between a warm body and a cooler body, the bonds within the closest line-of-sight resonate.

Your experiments should be reproducible. You should not need to average runs if you understand what is physically happening properly. The different runs should agree within the precision that you can measure.

Finally, please recognize that most climate scientists are genuinely convinced by the science as they understand it, that greenhouse gases are the cause of warming and that warming in the future is highly likely to be a threat to humanity. They dismiss most arguments by skeptics as non-scientific. This is especially true if the skeptic is bad mouthing them or ascribing motives to them that they know to be false.

I am trying to show my fellow scientists that current theory is mistaken for these specific reasons. Let’s focus on the reasons and see if we all can come together to agree on physical reality.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to CO2Imp...@googlegroups.com.

[Lyle Robinson]

"Ozone depletion theory is based on the observation that the world warmed 0.6 oC from 1970 to 1998 at the same time that annual average ozone measured in northern mid-latitudes decreased from around 330 to 315 Dobson units."

Why is it still warming, even as the holes are diminishing in size?

On Friday, November 22, 2019 at 10:59:24 PM UTC-5 Peter L. Ward wrote:

Both theories are based on observations and assumptions. Neither is developed well enough to calculate the forward problem that you propose.

Greenhouse-warming theory is based on the observation, first made in 1859, that greenhouse-gases absorb some infrared energy radiated by Earth and the assumption that such absorption must cause warming. The amount of warming is calculated by assuming all observed warming is caused by greenhouse gases. Current estimates are that a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations will cause global warming most likely somewhere between 1.5 °C and 4.5 °C. I explain problems with all these assumptions at http://Physically-Impossible.com.

Ozone depletion theory is based on the observation that the world warmed 0.6 ^oC from 1970 to 1998 at the same time that annual average ozone measured in northern mid-latitudes decreased from around 330 to 315 Dobson units. This depletion is thought to be caused by human manufacture of CFC gases. The increase in warming stopped when the production of these gases was severely limited by the Montreal Protocol. There are lots of details for example at https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/ozone-depletion.html.

Furthermore, I show that the current way we calculate heat in watts per square meter is mistaken. Heat is the result of a broad continuum of frequencies and amplitudes of oscillation. Currently, we do not have the mathematics to calculate the total energy in a continuum. What we do know well, however, is that any amount of thermal energy in the ultraviolet-B reaching Earth when ozone is depleted is 50 times more energetic, 50 times “hotter” than any amount of terrestrial infrared absorbed by carbon dioxide.

On Friday, November 22, 2019 at 2:42:44 PM UTC-7, rcoh...@gmail.com wrote:

I suppose I wasn't clear.

Prior to doing any measurements, what specific temperature did your theory predict and why, and what specific temperature did the radiation theory predict and why?

If those predictions are already in the attachment and links, then I apologize in advance and hope you'll be patient with me and tell me where in the document or the link that information is present.

[Robert Cohen]

The language can get in the way sometimes.  Perhaps a more fruitful approach would be to explain something a bit more tangible -- namely that the temperature cools more quickly during a clear night than a cloudy night.

Is it because a cloudy atmosphere, being a better absorber of the terrestrial radiation, warms more (lower atmosphere) and provides some "back radiation" that slows the rate of energy transfer away from the surface (with a similar process on Venus)?

[GERAINT HUGHES]

Incorrect Statement.

"Is it because a cloudy atmosphere, being a better absorber of the terrestrial radiation, warms more (lower atmosphere) and provides some "back radiation" that slows the rate of energy transfer away from the surface"

The rate of cooling of the air with clouds is faster than the rate of cooling of dry air. (Watts emitted is rate of cooling)

The reason the air temperature isn't dropping as fast when it is cloudy is because air with water vapour and water droplets within it has a much higher heat capacity and therefore simply takes longer to reduce in temperature, despite there being a higher rate of cooling. (Watts emitted.)

An equivalent description which ordinary people can follow is if you had two black radiators in a room. One made from aluminium and the other made of steel. The aluminium radiator will heat up (and cool down) much more quickly when the heating is switched on and off but the steel radiator will take longer to warm and conversely longer to cool when the heating is switched off. Someone then pitching the argument that the steel radiator is reducing the rate of cooling as a result of this higher heat capacity would be called a clown and rightly so.

The "clouds induce warming by reducing the rate of cooling" is a false argument entirely and is one which shows the ignorance of the person whom uses it as they have little to no understanding of the real physics which is occurring and are just regurgitating infantile twitter twaddle they read somewhere that they thought made sense but in fact does not.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to CO2Impossibl...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CO2Impossible/b930b83f-62d0-470a-b1b1-b083b15c1c8cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Robert Cohen]

You wrote:

>The reason the air temperature isn't dropping as fast when it is cloudy is because air with water vapour

> and water droplets within it has a much higher heat capacity and therefore simply takes longer to reduce

> in temperature, despite there being a higher rate of cooling. (Watts emitted.)

That seems like a reasonable explanation.

I looked at the Nashville (TN) and Springfield (MO) observations overnight last night.  I chose them because they are relatively close and the satellite picture seemed to suggest that Nashville was overcast while Springfield was clear, and I suspected the temperatures and vapor pressures were similar yesterday.  At 4 PM yesterday the temperatures were 51F and 53F in Springfield and Nashville, respectively, and the vapor pressures were 3 and 4 mb, respectively (both pretty small compared to roughly 1000 mb of other gases).  By the morning, the temperatures fell to 22F and 42F, respectively, with similar vapor pressures (3 mb at each).   The surface wind seemed light at both places.

For those who argue it is the difference in heat capacity, perhaps you can calculate what difference in heat capacity would be needed to create such a significant difference in cooling (11F vs. 29F).  For those who argue it is the radiation, perhaps you can calculate what temperature the atmosphere would have to radiate at to produce such a difference.

[Terry Haskew]

I have concerns regarding the idea of "resonance"

It sounds like a rehash of the dielectric effect 

It also leaves the door open for the promoters of the AGW story and believers in the "greenhouse effect" to argue that energy is additive (which is really the basis of the "greenhouse effect")

I see the photon interacting with "matter" as a particle not a wave

This is supported by quantum theory

It then follows that rather than the chemical bonds "resonating" momentum is transferred 

This then follows the law of conservation of momentum as well as the 1st law of thermodynamics 

Add to that energy transfer within an atmosphere is via conduction not radiation 

[Terry Haskew]

Dear oh dear 

The false idea that cfcs are able to impact the ozone layer

First the thinning of the ozone layer ovee the south pole was observed before widespread use of cfcs

The authors of the paper revisited their findings in the 1990's and found no reason to change their conclusions

Second for cfcs to impact the ozone layer at the South Pole they would have to travel past the equator clump together at the South Pole and levitate against prevailing winds about 9 kilometres high

Third there are no published observations that show measured levels of cfcs in or near the ozone layer 

Fourth if you look at the NASA animations of the ozone layer you will see its cyclical 

Fifth its been decades and the story is still told yet if it were true the cfcs (by the by heavier than air) would have been broken down years ago 

In other words its a story with no basis if fact 

[Peter L Ward]

Terry,
Checkout any of these references. This first Article explains the issues you raise.
Peter

Article: Greenhouse-Warming Theory Is Mistaken As Shown Clearly and Unambiguously By a New Revolutionary Understanding Of the Physics of Heat

Article: Fundamental errors regarding the physics of heat
Article: We have already solved the global warming crisis
Article: The crisis in climate science
Book:   What Really Causes Global Warming? Greenhouse Gases or Ozone Depletion?
Paper: The photochemistry of gas molecules in Earth's atmosphere determines the structure of the atmosphere and the average temperature at Earth's surface
Paper: Ozone depletion explains global warming
Paper: On the Planck-Einstein relation
Paper: Heat does not physically flow in the ways assumed by greenhouse-warming theory
Video: CanYouBearIt.com A one-minute video overview.
Video: A most unexpected revolution in the physics of heat. (13 minutes)
Video: TEDx talk: Volcanoes : A forge for climate change (18 minutes)
Video: The most expensive mistake ever made in the history of science. (16 videos each 5 to 12 minutes)
Website: Videos of talks at scientific meetings
Website: WhyClimateChanges.com What really causes global warming?
Website: OzoneDepletionTheory.info How ozone depletion explains observed global warming.
Website: JustProveCO2.com Greenhouse-warming theory has never been demonstrated by experiment to be physically possible.
Website: Physically-Impossible.com Why greenhouse-warming theory is not only mistaken, it is not even physically possible.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Is greenhouse-warming theory physically impossible?" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CO2Impossibl...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CO2Impossible/d81240de-c313-4c8a-8405-0ff68dea863en%40googlegroups.com.

[Terry Haskew]

Peter no the articles dont address the issues i raised

Ozone depletion does not explain global warming 

Solar cycles have a correlation of about 0.84 as this paper shows

https://benthamopen.com/FULLTEXT/TOASCJ-11-44

Then there is Holmes 2018 which shows a "greenhouse effect" is not necessary to explain near surface temperature 

https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=161&doi=10.11648/j.earth.20170606.18

Does your idea of resonance also explain fundamental physical laws???? 

How does co2 whose chemical bonds dont "resonate" increase its kinetic energy????

Is there any experimental evidence in the atmosphere that shows resonance exists?????

[Ozone Pete]

Terry,
I lay out the science clearly. If you want to show me some mistake or someway to explain it more clearly, that would be useful. But just dismissing my arguments does not move us forward. In the first article below I show among other things
1. On page 5 that there are only 3 ways known in physics to warm air.
2. On page 26 There is no way known in physics by which greenhouse gases can warm the atmosphere. The ways assumed are based on a fundamental error in physics. Page 30.
3. On page 7 how solar ultraviolet warms the stratosphere
4. On page 9, how humans cause ozone depletion that caused warming
This paper describes all the issues relevant to the cause of global warming. Solar cycles have a minuscule effect on global temperatures and they do not match the basic warming data.
Peter

Dr. Peter Langdon Ward (Bio), Geophysicist
Science Is Never Settled, Inc., P.O. Box 4875, Jackson, WY 83001

Article: Greenhouse-Warming Theory Is Mistaken As Shown Clearly and Unambiguously By a New Revolutionary Understanding Of the Physics of Heat
Article: Fundamental errors regarding the physics of heat
Article: We have already solved the global warming crisis
Article: The crisis in climate science
Book:   What Really Causes Global Warming? Greenhouse Gases or Ozone Depletion?
Paper: The photochemistry of gas molecules in Earth's atmosphere determines the structure of the atmosphere and the average temperature at Earth's surface
Paper: Ozone depletion explains global warming
Paper: On the Planck-Einstein relation
Paper: Heat does not physically flow in the ways assumed by greenhouse-warming theory
Video: CanYouBearIt.com A one-minute video overview.
Video: A most unexpected revolution in the physics of heat. (13 minutes)
Video: TEDx talk: Volcanoes : A forge for climate change (18 minutes)
Video: The most expensive mistake ever made in the history of science. (16 videos each 5 to 12 minutes)
Website: Videos of talks at scientific meetings
Website: WhyClimateChanges.com What really causes global warming?
Website: OzoneDepletionTheory.info How ozone depletion explains observed global warming.
Website: JustProveCO2.com Greenhouse-warming theory has never been demonstrated by experiment to be physically possible.
Website: Physically-Impossible.com Why greenhouse-warming theory is not only mistaken, it is not even physically possible.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CO2Impossible/025e3a32-bc0f-4019-9caf-4536bce4ece1n%40googlegroups.com.

[David Jacobs]

Hello, 2023 was the hottest year in recorded history. Why?

[Terry Haskew]

😂😂😂😂😂😂

Just saying something does not make it real

If you bothered to look at the actual temperature it's around +14 degrees Celsius which is about a degree less than the benchmark 

If you believe the media you won't bother to do some homework but the data is there and clear that temperatures are decreasing not increasing 

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Is greenhouse-warming theory physically impossible?" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/CO2Impossible/OjFCNeBZ7f8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to CO2Impossibl...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CO2Impossible/6043171b-bf73-4d92-97c2-8ac814c7e6fen%40googlegroups.com.

[David Jacobs]

That's not what this government source says..where is the "actual data"?

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature