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.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to CO2Imp...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
Here are the numbers oin the attached
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.
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
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to CO2Imp...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
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.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to CO2Imp...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
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.
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.
--
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
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.
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.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
--
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
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
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
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.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to CO2Imp...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
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.
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
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.
Dear (Dr?) Peter JanYour 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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
--
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
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.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
Here are the numbers oin the attached
--
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
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.
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.
"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 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.
--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CO2Impossible/025e3a32-bc0f-4019-9caf-4536bce4ece1n%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/6043171b-bf73-4d92-97c2-8ac814c7e6fen%40googlegroups.com.