One thought on “Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Cannot Exist So What Does CO2 Really Do?”

  1. My reply:

    This article is so lame. CO2 only absorbs surface IR in a narrow band around 15 microns, which is in the far infrared, which mainly heats only water. This narrow band contains only 8% of the total, and since any material emits radiation along its Planck temperature power-wavelength curve, not at the wavelengths it absorbed energy at (witness the ground absorbing visible light and emitting only IR radiation after reflecting some visible light), even if IR readmitted all its IR energy straight back to the surface from 1 inch away, it would cause its Planck radiation curve to shift to a higher power curve and cool faster, something which can’t runaway via a feedback loop because the gain is way less than 1. Worse, the radiation is supposed to be governed by the inverse-square law dispersing in all directions, and way less than 8% can ever hit the surface.

    The reflection of visible light doesn’t take collisions among surface molecules to trigger, but is instantaneous, a big difference.. If the CO2 AGW hoaxers claimed that CO2 reflects IR they’d at least have a little credibility, but alas, they show lab demonstrations of tubes filled with CO2 warming more than tubes filled with plain air, when if CO2 reemitted radiation the CO2-filled tube would remain cool and heat a nearby slab of concrete or tank of water.

    Unless the air near the surface is hotter than the surface, which isn’t likely because of convection, which pushes warmer air up and colder air down, there can be no net heat transfer from the air to the surface, the presence of CO2 notwithstanding. The CO2 AGW hoaxers keep claiming that increases in atmospheric CO2 cause corresponding increases in surface temperature (yearly avg. at least), not just more comfortable temperature swings, which doesn’t compute, but they don’t care because it’s a hoax and the cash registers are ringing. Too bad, your article seems to half-swallow the hoax.

    As to collisions in the sky, what makes you think that every collision by a CO2 molecule causes it to burp its surface radiation instead of transferring kinetic energy to what it’s bumping into, if it’s hotter because of its absorbed IR? The atmosphere is always trying to equalize its temperature, and heat cannot flow from colder to hotter, therefore why would hopped-up CO2 radiate anything after it bumped into colder air and cooled down?

    As to the blanket effect, CO2 has no role in it. Instead, the entire atmosphere blocks IR radiation with conduction and convection, and like any mass it can only warm and cool so fast, so it naturally moderates the temperature swings like a blanket as it removes the surface heat and sends it to space, no different than when you stick an iron poker in a fire and the tip glows red while the handle remains cool. This would be true even if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere, or if the atmosphere were pure CO2. If anything the latter case would cool the surface faster like in CO2 refrigeration units. Anybody who really believes in the umpteen watts per square meter back radiation hoax has the IQ of a doughnut, and I have an ice cube-powered flamethrower patent to sell him.

    The atmosphere is a giant chimney not greenhouse, and until that becomes the main paradigm the field is stuck on stupid. “The human mind is capable of infinite self-deception.” (Charles Smith)

    All of climate science has been turned into fake science by bestowing nonexistent magical heating powers to CO2 while denigrating the role of the Sun as the surface’s only heat source, and all of the current degreed climate scientists should be short-sheeted and retrained for useful careers while real physicists remake their science from the er, ground up.

    Only I have a free online course setting the field straight from my usual know-it-all perspective. Click the above link, roll up your sleeves, and finally see through the swamp.

Comments are closed.