Planet Earth Climate Topics

Keywords: Climate changes, infrared spectroscopy, ocean acidification, AGW, Vostok ice-core, hurricanes, Cyclone Pam, El Nino, tectonic plates

[04Mar2015. This website launched, but a continuing process. It works with IE 11, Google's Chrome and Apple's Safari. ]

Prologue 1:
That most divisive climate issue, “Climate Change”, depends on whether the change since about 1950 is caused by Man burning carbon-containing “fossil” fuels such as oil and coal, producing high levels of carbon dioxide, CO2 in the air. This proposition is known as AGW
(Anthropogenic Global Warming).

The issue should turn on the quantitative physico -chemical properties of CO2
1. as a gas in the atmosphere, to explain global warming (Chapter 1), and
2. on its solutions in seawater, to explain “Ocean Acidification” (Chapter 5).

Most published papers are indeed written by experts – but ignorant in this most fundamental, critical aspect of this topic.  Instead faith is placed with “someone else’s” opinion – and so on. This has become something of a domino effect.

This site seeks to correct that ignorance.
(My PhD is in physical chemistry, particularly in the properties of gases.)

Prologue 2:
The words “Greenhouse Gas”, particularly applying to carbon dioxide, have become prominent in this discussion. It has become assumed that because CO2, and many other trace atmospheric gases but not the main gases, can absorb Earth’s infrared (ie heat) radiation, this property has a determining warming effect on Earth’s temperature. However, ALL gases, like all substances, can absorb heat by conduction and convection – and are therefore ALL Greenhouse Gases. (See Chapter 1b.)

A more in-depth refutation of AGW follows in Chapter One


SITE STRUCTURE [Changed 07Sep16]

Firstly, the First Section publishes my research as a series of chapters, although the order is changeable. By way of warning, the Chapters are quantitative and scientific, but understandable by most – hopefully .

Secondly, by simply scrolling down further to the Second Section, one gets a synopsis of each chapter. It has opinion arising from the facts. Others’ sensible opinions are welcome.

                                   First Section.   Evidence

Chapter 1. The role that changes in concentration of the Greenhouse Gas, carbon dioxide, has on Earth’s climate changes.
Click  CCPt1U   to view 4 page (.pdf)

Chapter 1a. Addendum. Answers AGW contentions.
Click  Addendum_2 to view 4 page (.pdf)  

Chapter 1b. Greenhouse revisited.
(Because it uses simple but irrefutable high school science, this easy Chapter renders Chapter 1 and 1a largely redundant.)
Click  Greenhouse re-examined to view 3 page (.pdf)

Chapter 2. What is causing climate changes?
Click  Chapter 2 to view 11 page (.pdf)

Chapter 2A: Venus, Earth and Mars   …. Game, Set and Match!
Click to view 3-page .pdf file.  RockyP_1

Chapter 4. The cause of some extreme weather events.
Cyclone Pam:. Click to view 5 page (.pdf)
Chapter 5. Ocean pH.
Seawater pH  . Click to view 5 page (.pdf)

Coming  – if I have time….

Chapter 3. El Nino’s cause follows from this.
Chapter 6. (Work in progress). Timing  of climate changes and some otherwise exceptional weather events – not simply explanation; that bit’s easy – if one is not constrained by AGW.

                             Second Section.  Commentary

Chapter 1. Climate Change: The Role of Carbon Dioxide

[04Mar15, 05Jun15]: The only point I investigate in this first Chapter is the quantitative properties of the “Greenhouse Gas” CO2   as that is the only issue by which AGW stands or falls.

The currently accepted AGW view has been a serious impediment to the scientific community to getting answers to climate topics. The answers follow naturally from knowing the correct cause, but AGW gives a severely blinkered view. Once the blinkers are removed, a goldmine of explanations of natural phenomena becomes available.

I have yet to see any scientific backing for AGW’s that show that CO2 is able to cause such temperature changes.
(One can deduce that there is no such evidence when one hears “We must err on the safe side.”)

[14Apr15]: Corrected error on page 3, 60% to 40%. (Thanks Richard Seymour). Added reference to Gebbie.

1. Chapter One. Click  CCPt1U   to view 4 page (.pdf)         

Hammerfest, 20Jun05
Hammerfest, 20Jun05

Conclusion: Carbon dioxide’s greenhouse contribution to global warming is far too small to measure.

Chapter 1A: [07Mar15]: The Addendum to Chapter One answers AGW queries that I’ve come across. (Please post if you have others – but only if you have given thought to them.)      

1. ALL satellite spectra will need to be adjusted with regard to their measured magnitudes .

2. AGW’s one attempt to quantify carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect uses satellite rather than surface-based IR measurements.  It fails to do the final simple but exact calculation which brings the 2 types into agreement – thus proving that AGW cannot occur. 

[Admittedly, I think my calculation has not been done elsewhere.]

Chapter 1B: [02Apr16, 28Mar17]:
Chapter 1B can be condensed even further as follows: One can check the validity or otherwise of the AGW proposition by simple step-by-step logic as follows.

  1. Greenhouse effect: The original & correct definition is that incoming solar energy into a container, such as a greenhouse, is trapped inside causing its air temperature to rise. A planet’s greenhouse is its container, the atmosphere.
  1. CO2, whether natural or Man-made, is a greenhouse gas, but then so are ALL gases. Like all substances, all gases absorb heat in one way or another eg by radiation, conduction, convection and/or diffusion.
  1. Therefore, the greater an atmosphere’s quantity of gas ie, its total pressure, the greater the amount of heat able to be absorbed.
  1. …and the heat absorbed by each component of any gas mixture such as the atmosphere is roughly* proportional to its percentage in the mixture.

* The proportionality is exact if one includes the specific heat of each separate gas.
[Ironically, because CO2 has a 20% smaller specific heat than the average air molecule, it is actually a 20% lesser greenhouse gas than the average air molecule.]

  1. Therefore, as carbon dioxide represents about 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere, that’s about its contribution to the greenhouse effect; immeasurably small. Methane et al have an even tinier effect, and so none can change climate.

cf AGW assertions:

Even though it is known to be incorrect, AGW re-defines the Greenhouse Effect as being due to heat absorption by certain gases only – the IR gases. Compare to #2.
[This re-definition implies that only the IR gases can be warmed or cooled, never stated openly unsurprisingly. Clearly that’s daft.]
And so, Man’s burning of carbon fuels is defined to be causing global warming!

This false redefinition is the source of all the AGW prognostications!


A planet’s greenhouse effect is determined largely by its atmosphere’s total pressure – ie it is constant – rather than by its composition.

[Illustration, from Chapter 2A:
The greenhouse effects of Venus, Earth and Mars decrease in accord with each planet’s total pressure – as opposed to its carbon dioxide pressure.]


AGW ANTIDOTES:    Opinions from evidence.
This section refutes various statements put forward to support AGW, in a manner that does not require the definitive scientific calculations already shown. This may be sufficient for those with shaky science knowledge. Unfortunately, they also seem to be the most fanatical about this topic – and from both sides!

The basic question at issue is
Q: “Can increasing levels of the greenhouse gas CO2 cause global temperatures to rise?”

From Chapter One,
A: “No.”

  1. Many people rely on such statements as:
    97% of scientists feel that Man is causing Global Warming because the carbon fuels Man burns produce increasing levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.
    (97%: sounds like a Russian election result!) One would think that with this great number of scientists, they’d be able to prove their proposition, yet they are still unable to prove their belief after decades of trying to do just that. For example, the IPCC was formed in 1988 to push such an effort … without success. If this search had been successful, there would not now be a debate.

After so many scientists failing for so many years to validate AGW, you’d think they’d give at least some consideration that their proposition might be wrong!

And note also,
“97% of scientists” believed in the Piltdown Man for decades; it proved to be a hoax.

 “97% of scientists” ridiculed Alfred Wegener’s Continental Drift theory for decades; it is now mainstream.

  1. Greenhouse Gas:
    Most people have now heard of Greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, and have an inkling of what that means, but as they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!Real (Horticultural) greenhouses raise the temperature less than 10°C, and are well confined by solid walls, yet it is conjectured Earth’s Greenhouse Effect is 33°C! Greenhouses often have CO2 pumped into them – as a “fertiliser” – with no noticed temperature effect.
  1. The magical 2ºC limit.
    Whenever record hot spells strike anywhere in the world, the cry arises that Man must reduce carbon fuel use to prevent global warming above 2ºC. What they fail to mention is that Earth’s temperature is expected to rise from natural causes – by that magical, unexplained figure of 2ºC.

This is because it has done so four times cyclically – now approaching the fifth – over the past 420,000 years (Figure 1) – and with CO2 levels of only 290ppm maximum! Clearly, as CO2 levels are now 400ppm but the temperature is 2ºC less than previous temperature maxima, warming does not follow CO2 levels, so they must be irrelevant.

Do you reckon we are being hoodwinked?


Chapter 2: What is causing climate changes?

…..  Planet Earth.

Conclusions: 1. Global warming is distributed irregularly in both time and around the globe – matching tectonic activity qualitatively and quantitatively.

2. Continuing high levels of seismic activity will occur if global temperatures are to reach previous Vostok maxima.

Chapter 2A: Venus, Earth and Mars   …. Game, Set and Match!    [16Aug16]

Courtesy: NASA
Courtesy: NASA

1. The greenhouse effect, G is proportional to a planet’s atmosphere’s total pressure.
2. G for each planet is therefore constant.
3. Vostok shows a planet’s geologically released internal heat, IntT varies with time.
4. G is unrelated to an atmosphere’s carbon dioxide density. AGW is wrong.

Thus validating Chapters 1B and 2.

Conclusions from Chapters 1 & 2:
The faulty AGW theory results from the faulty definition of Greenhouse Effect.     Classic GIGO.



Chapter 4. Pam & severe storms. [26Mar15, 31Mar15]: Cyclones such as Pam develop from the same mechanism causing climate changes. Weather events do NOT occur randomly; they all have a physical basis – it’s just that sometimes we have not been able to identify them yet.

Conclusion: At least some severe storms have identifiable geological beginnings.


Chapter 5: Ocean pH [15Sep15, 29Sep15]


Calculates the extent that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels change ocean pH (ie acidity/alkalinity).

Conclusion: Carbon dioxide’s effect on pH is calculated to be measurable, but like AGW, is too small to be significant.

Currently there is anxiety about coral bleaching, affecting particularly the northern Great Barrier Reef. Valerie Taylor had a short informal interview in The Weekend Australian’s Magazine, May 14. You may recall she made many documentaries with her husband Ron about sharks. She’s now 80, and still dives. [Current researchers would/should have been aware of their well known documentaries.]  She says of the GBR,

“In 1965 we went from one end of the reef to the other, over six months, and we found bleaching then. In the ‘70s we went back and you’d never know it happened. The coral had recovered; nature had taken care of it. I’ve seen reefs in PNG that were as white as snow and I’ve just come back from there and they’re terrific.”
She thus observes that bleaching is reversible. (Presumably spores from unaffected corals can flow in again to re-colonise affected areas once the cause has departed.) Coral bleaching and repair occur independently of atmospheric CO2 levels.

As it is mainly the relatively untouched northern areas of the GBR affected, it is unlikely that run-off is the cause. The current bleaching decreases towards the south, flowing on the north-to-south counter-clockwise current from Vanuatu, and becoming depleted in the process. Upstream undersea volcanic activity around Vanuatu produces toxic H2S (Chapter 4a, Cyclone Pam), in time oxidising to sulphuric acid, lowering pH, but less toxic at that level. Chapter 5 shows the small acidity produced by CO2 is not a concern.

Other coral bleaching areas around the globe, eg Seychelles, Caribbean, Maldives, etc are downstream from undersea volcanic areas. However, Persian Gulf corals are not influenced by undersea volcanic areas and are not bleached, despite being 36°C – much higher than the GBR’s 32°C encountered preceding bleaching events.

What is AGW’s agenda given that both Anthropogenic GW and “Ocean Acidity” can so easily be dismissed by real scientific investigation? Is it a hoax?

AGW is the Millennium Bug, Mark II

[01March 2016: This step of self-publishing has been necessary as journals seem to have an aversion to publishing articles contrary to the current AGW dogma.

For example, I sent what is now Chapter One and its Addendum to Nature Climate Change (email receipt of submission1023 PM, 11Dec2014). EIGHT minutes later (1031 PM) I received a written rejection by a sub-editor! That’s not even enough time to have read past the first page’s title. Nor enough time to solve the geometric problem inherent in #2a of the Addendum.)

Blogs such as The Conversation, funded by many universities, allows its excessively pro-AGW moderator, Cory Zanoni, to remove most non-AGW comments. This can be noticed by the absence of past non-AGW contributors – presumably blocked like me for putting such views. Even the publicly funded CSIRO declined my request for comment.

This site will allow airing of my work. Sensible comments welcome. Abuse is not. ]


Published by


PhD, University of Adelaide (Physical Chemistry) . Otherwise unexceptional.

38 thoughts on “Planet Earth Climate Topics”

  1. Peter, this is going to be a very useful web site which I have come to after seeing your advice on The Conversation. While there are some other useful sites, they are often too complicated for the average blogger to get to grips with. Keep going with it and I will certainly be keeping in touch. Another chemist I “know” via emails is Roger Taguchi. He has taught me a lot about Quantum Molecular characteristics relative to CO2 in physics we take the simple way out and stick with atoms.

    I have been playing around with the theory of the behaviour of CO2 in the atmosphere for a number of years, coming at it from a background in optical laser spectroscopy in Physics – line broadening, depolarisaton of molecules etc.


    1. Thanks John. I’ve tried to keep it simple, just showing a collection of respected data, which led me to the inference that AGW cannot be true. Makes a change from AGW resorting to models and “forcing” data to match the theory, such as it is!

      How did you get to submit your comment? It’s what I want, of course, but the original Comment text box has somehow disappeared. I’m trying to recover it; it may take acouple of hours.


  2. Chapter 1B, added 02Apr16, is an undemanding but definitive analysis showing “Greenhouse Gases” have never had an effect on temperature or climate.
    (Water vapour has a small effect.)


  3. Hi, it’s good do see a detailed analysis of the possible role of so called GGs in the atmosphere. Too much BS coming from both sides. I hope you will find the time to complete the work. It would be good if you break down the work and feed it piecemeal to PS. Work like this deserves to reach a wider audience. Keep up the good work.


    1. Thank you for your kind remarks.
      [Nice looking dog. They do become part of the family, don’t they?]

      PSI expect to publish it as you have suggested.
      The other chapters should keep everyone happy for a while.

      I hope to be able to crack the El Nino timing more exactly than at present but it’ll take a bit of work; I do see the way ahead, but that is yet to be determined. El Nino is important in that it is a subset of what is causing climate changes.


  4. First I should like to thank you for posting your ideas here. I found this sight via PSI’s excellent website. I have read them with great interest.
    I may be missing something here, so please put me right. Surely no scientist would be unaware that the atmospheric gases can transfer heat by means of conduction and convection. It’s just that only the IR active gases can absorb the radiation that is re-emitted by the earth’s surface, some of which is re-radiated back towards the surface. It is that small extra heat that is alleged to cause AGW.


  5. Thanks Derek.
    I’m sure that scientists know heat is also transferred by convection and conduction (and also diffusion, and by winds in the atmosphere), but don’t include it in their AGW-influenced thoughts – by choice or otherwise.

    You refer to “small extra heat” from IR but there is none. There is not a packet of heat from conduction, another from convection, another from IR, another from …., but a single energy determined by the temperature. All the molecules in a packet of gas come to thermal equilibrium, ie the same temperature, with each other regardless of how they receive/release their heat. You’ll see confirmation of this across the rocky planets, Venus, Earth and Mars in Chapter 2A. AGW cannot do so.

    One can also confirm this proposition with the thought or actual experiment. Consider a number of sealed flasks, each containing a different gas, say carbon dioxide, methane, argon, oxygen, etc. When transferred to a thermostat at a different temperature, they all reach the same new temperature, that of the thermostat. No “small extra heat” here.

    You can also see AGW contrary-to-physical-laws thinking in for example current El Nino theory, when such scientists talk about “upwelling” of cold (ie dense) ocean waters from the depths to the warmer less dense surface – with a straight face! A sure sign that the current El Nino theory is wanting.

    You’ll see other instances of AGW-influenced thoughts throughout their arguments. For example, you’ll notice their incorrect re-definition of “Greenhouse Effect” and “Climate Change” to suit their theory.


  6. Hi PJ,
    How nice to get a reply from a blogger. So often blogs are unmanned with no response as if they have been abandoned. As your ideas are so radical and were turned down for publication have you tried to get a scientist to give you a kind of “peer review”. It would be interesting to get the reaction of someone who is knowledgeable in the field. I assume from your rely that you do not believe in the idea of IR active gases. That is a very way out position.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hello again Derek.
      If you read the other Chapters, in particular, 1 and 1A, you will see that I know that CO2 is an IR active gas. However, that’s irrelevant because molecules will reach the same temperature, in equilibrium with each other, if they have some means of transmitting energy, eg conduction, convection, IR, etc – which they do. Not a way out position, just basic thermodynamics.

      However, AGW does have such a way out position that they have to redefine “Greenhouse Effect” because the real definition doesn’t work for them!

      [I do have pertinent qualifications. Nevertheless, I have had some “peers” check through – a necessary condition before submitting papers – amongst them a Reader in Geology, 2x Professors in Chemistry. Funny how AGW proponents don’t get back to me!
      However, the most satisfying validation is that my workings match real-world data quantitatively. Have you seen any such AGW validation?]

      On a different note.
      I’m annoyed because AGW can be seen as a swindle – maybe a commercial ploy to advantage those countries not reducing carboniferous fuels. India is one such; note IPCC’s immediate past chairman, before his own AGW (Another Girl Worry). AGW appeals to the guilt-driven Christian tradition, eg “We must err on the safe side!” – which also points to the fact that AGW’s case is unproven. Most countries accepting AGW to change their industrial planning have such a Christian tradition. (I think it’s appropriate that faith enters an AGW discussion!)


  7. Hi and thanks for your reply. The problem as far as overturning the Greenhouse gas theory is that it appears to be accepted by the “leading scientists” (those with the highest profile) on both sides of the “debate” – the sceptics and the alarmists. People like John Christy, Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen all accept the idea of GHG theory though they argue about the degree of warming. This could be because they believe that it would simply be too difficult to overturn such an entrenched idea and that it is more important to win the argument about the degree of warming as this sidesteps the first hurdle. All of us agree that the alarmists have massively over-hyped the situation and that the politicians have got themselves into a disastrous mess as a result.

    I like your ideas and have wondered for a long time about the heat from the earth’s core and its effect. I think research into this is worth pursuing. Maybe President Trump will give some funding. (I’m guessing that you are in the USA.) Have you read Joseph Postma’s paper on PSI?

    Regarding my blog, it is a mystery to me that it has a .au version. It is normally accessed at


  8. Hi Derek,
    I’m Australian, living and writing in Australia.

    Which Postma article are you referring to? He’s got quite a lot on PSI’s site.

    “The problem as far as overturning the Greenhouse gas theory is that …”
    I just present the facts. I can’t help if the sheep in lab-coats don’t follow the science.

    “… the heat from the earth’s core and its effect …”
    Chapter 2 and 2A determines this heat.

    PSI ( has published a second instalment from my site.
    Unfortunately the heading is a little wrong
    “No Greenhouse Gas Effect on Venus, Earth and Mars”.
    That’s not quite correct, as I have written that ALL gases are greenhouse gases.
    The word “special” should have been added so that it reads
    “No Special Greenhouse Gas Effect on Venus, Earth and Mars”.


  9. Blogspot has echoing servers (or at least a “presence”) in many countries … so bloggers may “appear” (by URL) to be in your “nearest” access point instead of where they are in reality.




    1. “what would they be seeking to achieve…?”
      Speaking for myself, my chief motivation when I decided to major in physics in 1963 was to achieve vast wealth, fame, and cheerleaders. Even in the small town in South Dakota where I was born, the STEM people (as they’re now called) were the rich and famous ones. The town mathematician, the chemists and engineers, the math and science teachers at the high school — all lived in the big, fancy houses up on the hill and drove the big new cars. Nowadays, of course, the ultra-rich all have PhDs in the hard sciences from MIT and Stanford.It’s big news when the President nominates to his or her cabinet someone without at least one Nobel Prize. The U.S. Senate regularly holds MENSA meeting in the Senate chamber.


      1. Bobmunck
        Your comment has nothing to do with this site. It’s apparent you’ve had some disappointments and frustrations in your life but here is not the place to vent them.

        I’ll probably leave your comment for a while to serve as a warning that it represents very close to trolling – like your previous efforts I removed.


  11. Glad to answer, although I thought I already had, at least in passing.

    1. Your first question about why the consensus is as it is. I can only speculate as to the psychology of the masses; I’m out of my comfort zone of quantifiable facts.

    [From the Commentary … 97% etc, and from my 17Jan17 Comment.]
    That is, part herd instinct and part subtle manipulation of the market. I note that India and China have been buying up Australia’s fossil fuel resources.

    2. Your NOAA reference was presumably about why CO2 levels have been rising since the Industrial Age.
    [Prologue 1 & Chapter 1.] They have risen from the about 280 ppm level to 400 ppm largely by Man, with maybe 10 ppm contributed naturally.
    However, as I’ve attempted to show – perhaps unsuccessfully – in Chapter 1, A and B, there’s no influence of CO2 level on Global Temperature. In the Past, ie pre-Industrial Age, Temperature & CO2 levels changed together because they both arose from the same cause, ie changing geothermal activity (Chapter 2).

    It’s just coincidental that Temperature has risen with Man-made accelerated CO2 production since the Industrial Age. From Vostok, temperatures were expected to rise naturally anyway – by about 2K, that “magical” number! If instead the Industrial Age were to have happened a few thousand years hence, temperatures and CO2 levels would still have plunged – and will still do so.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Thanks kymmi600. It seems you sent another comment
        “You might want to go see what they’re up to! Perhaps you will like their blog as much as they liked your comment! ”
        which didn’t show up here, but did in my email.
        [jeffoyler may not be the only one with a problem with this site’s Comments.]

        To which blog were you referring?


    1. I like all the stuff you write about conduction and convection being ignored in favor of radiation. Of course global warming is all about greenhouse gases increasing the amount of thermal energy captured in the Earth’s biosphere, and the only way heat can leave the Earth is via radiation — there’s nothing outside the atmosphere to conduct or convect through. Pretty much everything you say in the pivotal Chapter 1B is utterly wrong; it’s a real tour de force.


  12. bobmunck: (Nice to see you are attempting a scientific answer.)
    While only some gases absorb IR directly, ALL substances above absolute zero radiate energy. In the current case, most of this radiated energy happens to be in the IR band.


    1. So you agree that all your talk of “conduction and convection” has nothing to do with global warming, and that larger concentrations of CO2, because it is opaque to parts of the IR band, will trap a greater amount of thermal energy in the atmosphere (prevent it from radiating out into space), thereby causing global warming.

      That is, of course, what you are arguing against in Chapter 1B.


      1. bobmunck: You obviously read something which is not written. What is it about
        “CO2, whether natural or Man-made, is a greenhouse gas, but then so are ALL gases. Like all substances, all gases absorb heat in one way or another eg by radiation, conduction, convection and/or diffusion.”
        that you can possibly misconstrue as
        “larger concentrations of CO2, because it is opaque to parts of the IR band, will trap a greater amount of thermal energy in the atmosphere (prevent it from radiating out into space), thereby causing global warming.”??


      2. “CO2, whether natural or Man-made, is a greenhouse gas, but then so are ALL gases.”

        Not true. Greenhouse gases are those which are transparent to most or all of the wavelengths of visible light radiated by the Sun and opaque to some or all of the longer wavelengths of infrared radiation. Take a look at the absorption spectra of the major greenhouse gases: water vapor, methane, carbon dioxide. Note how CO2 fills in holes in the H2O spectrum.

        You’re trying to change the definition so that you can disagree with it. Take a look at the Hyperphysics definition: That site is pitched at a quite simple, layman level of science comprehension.


  13. bobmunck: Again, read what I’ve written, eg in The Commentary.
    “Even though it is known to be incorrect, AGW re-defines the Greenhouse Effect as being due to heat absorption by certain gases only – the IR gases. Compare to #2.”

    As a check, see Chapter 2A, which shows quantitatively that the AGW re-definition is wildly wrong but the correct, original greenhouse definition is accurate.

    If you continue mindlessly regurgitating AGW propaganda without considering the arguments I’ve forwarded, responding to you is pointless. I don’t have time.

    However, I’ll leave your current comments to show others the sort of nonsense that the AGW faithful regurgitate. In that sense, I have to thank you.


    1. “AGW re-defines the Greenhouse Effect as being due to heat absorption by certain gases only”

      No, it doesn’t; that’s entirely your own invention, as I said before. I notice you didn’t try to support your contention that it had been redefined.

      “the AGW re-definition is wildly wrong but the correct, original greenhouse definition is accurate.”

      That is correct; your attempt to redefine it is wildly wrong. Here’s another link: Note this text: “Earth’s atmosphere is composed primarily of nitrogen and oxygen. These gases are transparent to incoming solar radiation. They are also transparent to outgoing infrared radiation, which means that they do not absorb or emit solar or infrared radiation. ” Again, nitrogen and oxygen are NOT greenhouse gases.

      “mindlessly regurgitating AGW propaganda”

      I gave you a pointer to the definition; it obviously did not agree with your re-definition.

      ” I’ll leave your current comments to show others the sort of nonsense”

      Apparently the only argument for your re-definition that you can make is an implicit threat to censor my pointing out where you are wrong. That’s understandable; essentially I’m pointing out that your “masterwork” is junk. To quote Aaron Sorkin, “you can’t handle the truth.”


  14. “This re-definition implies that only the IR gases can be warmed or cooled”

    Greenhouse gases block IR, are opaque to it. That’s the basic fact of the real definition of the greenhouse effect. It implies that non-greenhouse gases, such as nitrogen and oxygen, do not block IR, and that’s true; they are transparent to it. There’s no implication in the real definition that non-greenhouse gases can or cannot be warmed or cooled, and no such implications about greenhouse gases.

    You’ve somehow confused in your mind “block IR” and “absorb thermal energy.” They aren’t at all the same thing. Thermal energy can be in the form of radiation, visible or not, but it can also be in the form of kinetic energy of the molecules of a gas. The latter form is transmitted by conduction and convection, and that’s the way that non-greenhouse gases acquire thermal energy.

    If you could just discipline yourself to stop pretending that “block IR” and “absorb thermal energy” are the same thing, most of your problems would go away. No one else thinks the two are equivalent, certainly not anyone who understands what causes AGW. I’ve now given you two links to two very different authorities who explain the greenhouse effect correctly. You need to stop trying to force your incorrect “re-definition” on the world; it’s entirely your own fantasy.


    1. bobmunck: 1. Firstly a warning: Courtesy is a requirement here!
      As I’ve written in the Chapters ….
      2. Google “greenhouse effect”. (No doubt you’ve already done so.) As sites universally admit the AGW definition is incorrect, I haven’t bothered to cite any in particular.
      3. Chapters 1 & 1A dispose of any IR concern; CO2 has already absorbed its maximum amount so that adding more can absorb no more IR.
      4. Chapter 1B shows the IR effect of such a small percent of molecules is too small to worry about anyway.
      5. The size of the greenhouse effect, ie the amount of heat stored in a planet’s atmosphere, depends not on how heat is absorbed but how much. More heat can be stored by a greater pressure atmosphere; confirmed in Chapter 2A. AGW is a long way from matching this (planetary) data – or any data!
      6. Can you show how AGW matches this or any other actual data?

      7. [Take this as a warning.]
      Your arguments have been dispensed with in Chapters 1 & 2. I welcome comments that point out errors – I fixed one such in Chapter 1 pointed out by a reader.
      Comments from those who have not bothered to read – or perhaps not absorbed – my analysis are unwelcome.

      Writing that my logic is not in accord with the herd does not cut it; that is, in fact, the reason for me writing the site. What is the point of a site that agrees with what has already been written? (Although, a large proportion of the “97%” do so – maybe funding is their driver.)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s