Wednesday, 27 February 2019

The Massive flaw in the Greenhouse Gas Effect Theory

AKA: Why the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not refuted by the greenhouse gas hypothesis

Climate consensus scientists tell us that carbon dioxide (CO2) warms the surface significantly. Their theory derives directly from a hypothesis first proposed by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. 123 years ago. That is the Greenhouse Gas Effect Theory, GHGE. Modern 'climate consensus' scientists have done no real-world, quantitative, studies on this in 31 years of promoting their GHGE as "settled science". More surprisingly, it seems there have been no studies on this since 1900; 119 years ago. In 1900, Knut Ångström, found no surface warming from CO2 when he tried to verify Svante Arrhenius's hypothesis that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the surface by about 4.8K. I think climate consensus scientists must be very incurious people for 'scientists', and very ignorant to talk about CO2 warming the surface without good proof. What is their issue, never doing basic science to validate their hypothesis?

  • Do they lack skill? Easy, just commision an experimental physicist whom they trust.
  • Is it an impossible experiment? No. Knut Ångström did it 119 years ago, and modern physicists have proposed how best to do it today.
  • Do they lack funds? Unlikely, given the billions in annual funding that climate science has been getting for decades.

What do they do with the money, and why are they so incurious for scientists?

Why the conventional, climate consensys, GHGE hypothesis is wrong:

  • Molecular electrons have different energy levels.
  • These energy levels are quantized. That is to say, exist at distinct, precise, energy levels. Much like photons have a distinct energy packet.
  • Cold molecules have electrons at low energy levels.
  • IR (& EMR) is absorbed by molecules to promote electrons to higher levels
  • Conversely: when a molecule cools, its electrons will demote from higher to lower levels. Often by emitting an IR photon
  • But cold IR (low energy) is only absorbed by electrons at low energy levels
  • Electrons are 'promoted' in order. First the low energy levels are used, then the higher levels.
  • Electrons don't absorb IR associated with lower energy levels when they are already at a higher level.
  • Because an electron needs an, ever higher, quantum of energy to gain the next level.
  • The electron needs that energy all-at-once. Hence the term 'quantum'; meaning a single IR photon delivers the energy.
  • The electron does not get its energy, to gain promotion, from many photons of low energy IR. It does not store this energy associated with an IR photon while remaining at the energy level it's at.
  • Warm molecules do not have electrons at low energy levels
  • CO2 IR emissions emit IR at a modal temperature = 253K, -62K significantly below average earth surface temperature. [awaiting precise correction]

    (modal = blue mode line)
  • So IR emitted by CO2 can only promote electrons from low energy levels to slightly higher levels.
  • But a warm surface has very few electrons at those low energy levels. They've already been promoted. That's why it's warmer!
  • So, in general, IR from CO2 'does not warm the surface'. Nearly all the cold LWIR from CO2 can't find surface electrons 'cold' enough to be promoted.
  • A few CO2 IR photons may be absorbed by the surface. Generally the higher energy photons from the left side of the mode.
  • But the vast majority IR photons from CO2 can't find a suitable electron (in surface molecules) at a low enough energy level
  • Warmer air can still warm the surface by conduction. But that is very slow. In general, air is only warmer than the surface at night. So only warms the surface by a little at night
  • CO2 still 'traps heat'. It absorbs some IR leaving the ground to warm the air.
  • But ~99% of that energy absorbed by the air is never coming back to warm the surface.

In general, the Greenhouse gas effect theory of CO2 causing dangerous man-made warming is false. Many scientists concluded the GHGE due to more CO2 is about 10% of the warming claimed by the IPCC climate consensus. The consensus is wrong.

PS: By the term 'molecules', I'm not just referring to covalent molecules but all 3 kinds of bonding: covalent, ionic and metallic.

No comments:

Post a Comment