Click here to check out why greenhouse-warming theory is physically impossible

WHAT REALLY CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING?
GREENHOUSE GASES OR OZONE DEPLETION?
DO YOU WONDER..
If greenhouse-warming theory could be mistaken?



Greenhouse gases cannot physically cause observed global warming

In fact, Greenhouse-Warming Theory Does Not Appear to Even Be Physically Possible

Average global temperatures have warmed nearly one degree Celsius since 1975 as explained in videos 2 and 3. This warming is already causing problems for life on Earth, but these problems appear to be manageable. The reason climate scientists are so concerned about future climate is that climate models based on greenhouse-warming theory predict average global temperatures will increase several more degrees during this century.

Most climate scientists are convinced, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the primary cause of global warming is increasing emissions of greenhouse gases due to increased burning of fossil fuels. These scientists argue that we must act promptly to make major reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions or face severe harm.

World leaders, impressed by a very broad consensus among climate scientists, agreed in Paris on 12 December 2015 to work together to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in order to keep the increase in average global temperature to 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. An assessment as of November 2018 suggests that nations must triple their efforts to reach the 2 oC target. Costs of implementing the Paris Agreement are estimated to be in the trillions of dollars over many years.

Recent discovery of seven fundamental mistakes in the physics of heat explained below show that greenhouse-warming theory is not only mistaken, it is not even physically possible. Current thinking about the physics of heat seems to work adequately for most engineering applications but fails catastrophically for large differences in temperatures such as between Sun at 5500 oC and Earth at 15 oC (10,000 oF and 59 oF ).

Right now, the major crisis we citizens of the world are facing is not in climate, it is in climate science because most climate scientists simply refuse to face a changing scientific reality. They refuse to even consider the possibility that there could be the slightest problem with greenhouse-warming theory. One of the greatest benefits of the scientific method, according to Carl Sagan, is that science is self-correcting over time. But to be self-correcting, some scientists must keep an open mind and must remain scrupulously objective. And even then, major corrections tend to occur in scientific revolutions. We appear to be in the midst of perhaps the greatest revolution ever in the history of science, at least in terms of its direct effect on humanity.

Greenhouse-warming theory is rapidly becoming the most expensive mistake ever made in the history of science, economically, politically, and environmentally. The time has come for my fellow climate scientists to extract their heads from the sands of a manufactured consensus and face scientific reality before humanity wastes trillions of dollars. Science is not done by popular vote. Science is not done by consensus. Don’t you agree that we should re-evaluate the science carefully before totally upsetting the cost and the flow of energy that we rely on to live and that we rely on to improve our quality of life, our economies, and our future?

The closest things to ultimate truth in science are direct observations of how things happen physically in Nature. All of the issues discussed below are based on direct observation.

Earth Cannot Be Warmed by Its Own Radiation

Greenhouse-warming theory, as first quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, posits that average global surface temperatures rise when increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere absorb increasing amounts of infrared radiation from Earth. In other words, the surface of Earth is warmed when Earth’s lower atmosphere absorbs thermal radiation emitted at Earth’s surface. This rise in temperature is estimated to be a few degrees Celsius when the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is doubled.

But we observe clearly in Nature that no body of matter can be warmed in any way by absorbing its own radiation. Such warming is not physically possible. If it were possible, bodies of matter could, under the right circumstances, spontaneously heat up—something we all know does not happen. We would have an inexhaustible source of free energy—something too good to be true.

Imagine two bodies of solid matter positioned next to each other. Each at the same temperature. Each potentially absorbing radiation from the other. Neither can become hotter. Neither will get hotter, no matter how long you wait. Both bodies can lose heat to cooler surroundings, but neither can absorb heat from the other body as long as both bodies are at the same temperature.

Heat is what a body of matter must absorb to get hotter. Heat is well-observed to flow by radiation or by conduction only from a body at a higher temperature to a body at a lower temperature. The smaller the temperature difference, the slower the rate at which heat flows—the smaller the flux of heat. Zero difference in temperature means zero flow of heat, which means zero increase in temperature of the absorbing body. The physical reasons for why Earth cannot physically be warmed by its own radiation are explained in more detail below.

This single observation that a body of matter cannot be heated in any way by absorbing its own radiation is completely sufficient to show that greenhouse-warming theory is not physically possible. But there are many other reasons.

Earth Cannot Be Warmed by a Blanket of Greenhouse Gases

Some scientists propose that greenhouse gases act like a blanket surrounding Earth, keeping Earth approximately 33 oC warmer than expected for a planet at Earth’s distance from Sun. Blankets are well-known to slow the loss of thermal energy from a body of matter, but a blanket cannot be the source of new thermal energy required to increase the temperature of the body under the blanket, unless it is an electric blanket that adds thermal energy from somewhere else.

Temperature profile of Earth's atmosphereEarth’s blanket is observed to be the stratosphere, which does act like an electric blanket because it is heated by ultraviolet radiation from Sun. The stratosphere is the only part of the atmosphere below the thermosphere where temperatures increase with increasing altitude from an average of around -51 oC at the base of the stratosphere to an average of around ‑15 oC at the top of the stratosphere, approximately 36 degrees of warming.

This temperature increase is caused by high-energy, solar, ultraviolet radiation that dissociates a bond holding together gas molecules such as oxygen, ozone, and carbon dioxide. Upon dissociation, when the bond is broken, the pieces of a gas molecule fly apart at high velocity. Temperature of a gas is well-known to be proportional to the average kinetic energy of motion of all gas molecules, which for a single molecule is equal to its mass times its velocity squared. Thus, when a molecular bond is dissociated, all of the energy holding that bond together is converted instantaneously and completely into increased air temperature.

A similar example is found on Venus where the atmosphere is more than 96% carbon dioxide. It is dissociation of carbon dioxide by solar ultraviolet radiation that most likely causes the average surface temperature of Venus to be approximately 462 oC.

Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, absorb terrestrial infrared radiation that has a factor of more than sixty-times less energy than the ultraviolet radiation capable of dissociating oxygen and a factor of more than sixty-five-times less energy than the ultraviolet radiation capable of dissociating carbon dioxide. What is most surprising, given the importance of greenhouse gases in today’s politics, is that greenhouse gases absorbing infrared radiation have never been shown by experiment, a cornerstone of the scientific method, to cause any significant increase in air temperature as explained at JustProveCO2.com.

Slowing Cooling Does Not Cause Heating

Other scientists argue that slowing the cooling of Earth, which is heated by Sun, would cause a net increase in the amount of thermal flux absorbed by Earth, which would cause an increase in Earth’s surface temperature. This assumption that temperature of Earth is determined by the total amount of heat absorbed by Earth minus the total amount radiated back into space was first emphasized by Joseph Fourier in 1822. This assumption has deep roots in physics and forms the basis for the study of thermodynamics today. Yet, it turns out to be mistaken. We now observe clearly that the thermal and chemical effects of heat increase with increasing temperature of the emitting body and that the rate of change in temperature increases with increasing difference in temperature between the emitting and absorbing bodies.

In the 17th century, heat was thought to be a fire-like element, a substance called phlogiston released during combustion. The greater the amount of phlogiston released, the hotter the body was thought to become. In 1783, Antoine Lavoisier proposed that the substance of heat was a self-repellent “subtle fluid” called caloric that flows from hotter bodies to colder bodies. Again, the greater the amount of caloric flowing, the hotter the body was assumed to become. In 1798, Benjamin Thompson noted that heat was excited by friction when drilling the bore of a cannon. The greater the amount of boring, the greater the amount of friction, the warmer the cannon became. His work ultimately led to the modern concept that heat is not a substance, it is simply the amount of thermal energy flowing though some surface measured in units of watts per square meter, where one watt is the flow of one joule of thermal energy per second. All of this thinking about amount was done long before physicists began to understand the atomic structure of matter—long before physicists began to realize that the bonds holding matter together oscillate at higher amplitudes of oscillation and higher frequencies of oscillation when a body of matter in heated.

Greenhouse-warming theory is built on this concept of a balance in the amounts of heat flowing. Plus and minus radiative forcings, in watts per square meter, are typically calculated for each greenhouse gas, aerosol, cloud, soot, albedo, changes in solar radiation, etc. and added together. Heat is thought of as additive. Trenberth and Fasullo (2012) suggest that recent warming is caused by Earth absorbing 0.9 watts per square meter more solar radiation than it loses to space. Wild et al. (2013) suggest the difference is only 0.6 watts per square meter.

What is fascinating about this emphasis on amount of some generic thing called thermal energy flowing per second is that it never addresses the issue of what thermal energy is physically in matter, in air, and in space. Thermal energy physically exists. But what is it physically? What physically changes in a body of matter to make it feel warmer?

What Physically Is Thermal Radiation?

Visible colors of sunlight separated by a prism.In 1672, Isaac Newton showed, using a prism and lenses, that sunlight is made up of a broad spectrum of colors and that these colors physically coexist within sunlight—they are displayed by but not created by the prism. We observe that these colors do not interact with each other in any way in air and space—only when in the immediate presence of matter. We refer to these colors as the visible spectrum extending from red through violet, but they clearly form a continuous spectrum or continuum meaning a continuous sequence of shades of color in which adjacent colors are not perceptibly different from each other, although the extremes are quite distinct. The human eye can detect about ten million distinct colors.

Visible spectrumWe physically measure visible light as containing all frequencies of oscillation ranging from 450 to 789 terahertz, where one terahertz is one-trillion cycles per second (1012 cycles per second). We also observe that the visible spectrum is but a very small part of a much wider continuum that we callElectromagnetic continuum electromagnetic radiation with frequencies extending over more than 20 orders of magnitude from extremely low frequency radio signals in cycles per second to microwave, infrared, visible, ultraviolet, X-rays, to gamma rays with frequencies of more than 100 million, million, million cycles per second (1020 cycles per second). Thermal radiation is a portion of this continuum of electromagnetic radiation radiated by a body of matter as a result of the body’s temperature—the hotter the body, the higher the radiated frequencies of oscillation with significant amplitudes of oscillation.

We observe that electromagnetic radiation has two physical properties: 1) frequency of oscillation, which is color in the visible part of the continuum, and 2) amplitude of oscillation, which we perceive as intensity or brightness at each frequency. Planck's lawIn 1900, Max Planck, one of the fathers of modern physics, derived an equation by trial and error that has become known as Planck’s empirical law. Planck’s law is not based on theory, although several derivations have been proposed. It was formulated solely to calculate correctly the amplitudes observed during extensive direct observations of Nature. Planck’s Law calculates the observed intensity or amplitude of oscillation at each frequency of oscillation for radiation emitted by a black body of matter at a specific temperature and at thermal equilibrium.

Thermal radiation from Earth, at a temperature of 15 oC, consists of the narrow continuum of frequencies of oscillation shown in green. Thermal radiation from the tungsten filament of an incandescent light bulb at 3000 oC consists of a broader continuum of frequencies shown in yellow and green. Thermal radiation from Sun at 5500 oC primarily consists of a much broader continuum of frequencies shown in red, yellow and green.

Note in this plot of Planck’s empirical law that the higher the temperature, 1) the broader the continuum of frequencies, 2) the higher the amplitude of oscillation at each and every frequency, and 3) the higher the frequencies of oscillation that are oscillating with the largest amplitudes of oscillation. Radiation from Sun shown in red, yellow, and green clearly contains much higher frequencies and amplitudes of oscillation than radiation from Earth shown in green. Planck’s empirical law shows clearly that the physical properties of radiation are a function of the temperature of the body emitting the radiation.

Heat, that which must be absorbed by solid matter to increase its temperature, is similarly a broad continuum of frequencies of oscillation and corresponding amplitudes of oscillation. For example, the broad continuum of heat that Earth, with a temperature of 15 oC, must absorb to reach a temperature of 3000 oC is shown by the continuum of values within the yellow-shaded area in this plot of Planck’s empirical law.

Heat is a broad continuum of frequencies and amplitudes of oscillation that cannot be described by a single number of watts per square meter as is currently assumed in physics and in greenhouse-warming theory. The physical properties of heat as described by Planck’s law and the thermal effects of this heat are determined both by the temperature of the emitting body and by the difference in temperature between the emitting body and the absorbing body. But what is oscillating?

Oscillation of All the Bonds Holding Matter Together

Oscillation of a bondWe observe that when a radio transmitter applies a frequency of oscillation to its antenna, that specific frequency is transmitted through air and space where it can be received by any radio receiver tuned to resonate at that specific frequency and located at a reasonable distance within or very close to line of sight. We also observe that a very large number of these radio frequencies coexist in the electromagnetic continuum where they do not interact in air and space. Physicists and electrical engineers think of transmission of frequency as the result of the physical motion of electric charge on the surface of the antenna of a radio transmitter.

We also observe that chemical bonds holding matter together are not rigid. They oscillate between electrodynamic forces of repulsion when the atoms get too close together and electrodynamic forces of attraction as the atoms move apart as approximated by the Morse potential shown in this figure, or by the more detailed Morse/Long-range potential. Oscillations of bonds are frictionless and therefore can last essentially forever. As the amplitude of oscillation increases, the energy of oscillation increases until the energy of oscillation reaches a threshold (Emax) equal to the energy holding the bond together. At this energy level, the bond is essentially shaken apart—the bond is dissociated.

Thus, the frequencies and amplitudes of oscillation contained within thermal radiation and described by Planck’s empirical law must also be the frequencies and amplitudes of oscillation of molecular bonds on the surface of the emitting body that are transmitting the radiation. They must also exist below the surface of the radiating body, interacting via conduction. In this way, Planck’s empirical law shows the frequencies and amplitudes of oscillation of bonds that must exist within a body of matter for that body to be at a specific temperature. Planck’s empirical law shows clearly that to increase the temperature of solid matter, you must increase the amplitude of oscillation at each and every frequency of oscillation and you must increase the frequency of oscillation that has the maximum amplitude of oscillation. The body, to be warmed, must absorb substantial amplitudes of oscillation primarily at the higher frequencies of oscillation.

Thermal Energy is Similarly a Broad Continuum of Energies

To develop his law, Planck postulated that thermal energy (E) at the molecular level, equals the Planck constant (h) times the frequency of oscillation (ν, the Greek letter nu). This simple equation, E=hν, says that the level of thermal energy of oscillation (E) of a single, frictionless, molecular-bond-scale oscillator is merely the frequency of oscillation of that particular oscillator times a scaling constant (h). Thus, oscillatory energy is physically the same physical thing as frequency of oscillation, and the Planck constant (h) is the number of electronvolts or joules of energy contained in a frequency of oscillation of one cycle per second.

Since radiant energy is a function of frequency of oscillation, E=hν must be plotted as an alternative x-axis as shown at the top of the plot of Planck’s empirical law as shown. Even though Planck postulated that energy equals a constant times frequency (E=hν) in order to write his law, he thought of this simple equation as “a purely formal assumption” stating that “I really did not give it much thought except that no matter what the cost, I must bring about a positive result.” He never stopped to think that E=hν means energy should be plotted on an alternative x-axis, not on the y-axis. E=hν is now known as the Planck-Einstein relation and is essentially universally accepted as physically accurate.

E=hν also applies at the macroscopic level to the total thermal energy contained within radiation. In this case, frequency of oscillation (ν), plotted on the lower x-axis, is observed to be a broad continuous spectrum or continuum of values that all coexist. Similarly, energy (E), plotted on the upper x-axis, is a broad continuous spectrum or continuum of values in units of watts per square meter that all coexist. Note from Planck’s empirical law that energy is a function of frequency, not intensity, amplitude, or amount as currently assumed in physics and in greenhouse-warming theory.

There is a different energy at each and every frequency. The total energy of radiation, therefore, is the result of the simultaneous oscillation of all the bonds holding matter together—the co-existence of all frequencies of oscillation. Thermal radiation is the result of a very, very large number of molecular-scale oscillators, all oscillating simultaneously on the surface of the radiating body. There is, physically, no such thing as a single amount of thermal energy in watts per square meter as currently assumed in physics and in greenhouse-warming theory. There is a level of energy at each frequency of oscillation, not a single total amount of energy as currently assumed.

To summarize, Planck’s law was derived by trial and error to describe accurately the observed physical properties of thermal radiation. Planck’s empirical law shows clearly that what we perceive as temperature of matter is the result of a very broad spectrum or continuum of frequencies of oscillation of all the bonds holding matter together. Similarly, increased temperature is the result of increased amplitudes of oscillation at each and every frequency of oscillation, especially at higher frequencies.

For the temperature of a body of matter to increase by absorbing radiation, that radiation must come from a hotter body that is emitting radiation containing higher amplitudes of oscillation at each and every frequency of oscillation. This is why a body of matter cannot be heated by its own radiation. Its own radiation does not contain the higher amplitudes of oscillation required to raise the temperature. Similarly, a blanket has no way to increase the amplitudes of oscillation at every frequency of oscillation. That can only be done by absorbing radiation from a hotter body that has higher amplitudes of oscillation at every frequency of oscillation.

How Physically Does a Broad Continuum of Frequencies of Oscillation Flow Through Air and Space?

If you take two bodies of matter that are identical in every way except for temperature and connect them together so that heat can flow by radiation or by conduction, the resulting temperature, at thermal equilibrium, is observed to be the average of the two temperatures, not the sum of the two temperatures. Temperature is not additive—it is averative.

Averative warmingIf you shine a light on a small black object, the rate of warming, the rate that heat flows, similarly decreases with decreasing difference in temperature forming an asymptotic curve shown by the black line in this figure. The red line shows the temperature calculated by multiplying 4.6% times the average of the existing temperature and the ending temperature of 28 oC at each 10-second interval. The 4.6% has to do with the conductivity per second of heat into the black object and other boundary conditions

Similar asymptotic curves are observed for both warming and cooling of matter by conduction or by absorbing or emitting radiation. In this way, the flux of heat is observed to be based on temperature difference and is not additive as currently assumed by greenhouse-warming theory and by most physicists. Heat and the flux of heat are both observed to be averative, a word that I have coined. This is an extremely important observation that is one of the primary reasons why greenhouse-warming theory is mistaken.

But how does the warming body “know” the ending temperature of 28 oC and how, physically, does Nature determine an average? The answer is by resonance, also known as sympathetic vibration. Resonance is a fundamental property of oscillating systems.

The simplest example of resonance is a single frequency transmitted by a radio station. The radio program modulates a center frequency assigned by the government to prevent interference with other nearby stations. The radio transmitter causes oscillations of this modulated center frequency on the surface of the transmitting antenna. You tune your radio receiver to resonate at that specific center frequency. Resonance is the way two oscillators oscillating at the same frequency can, under the best of conditions, average their amplitudes of oscillation, effectively transferring amplitude from the transmitter to the receiver. In this way, your radio receiver differentiates the center frequency of the radio station from all the other frequencies out there. It is the oscillatory nature of electromagnetic radiation that makes it possible for radiation, for heat, to be transmitted across air and space via resonance.

Resonance is observed to transfer amplitude of oscillation at a specific frequency of oscillation only from higher amplitude to lower amplitude, which Planck’s Law shows clearly is from higher temperature to lower temperature. Resonance occurs between one discrete molecular oscillator on the surface of the emitting body and one discrete molecular oscillator on the surface of the absorbing body. Radiant heat travels through air and space when resonance occurs simultaneously between different pairs of oscillators at each and every frequency of oscillation of all the molecular oscillators on the surface of matter.

Resonance is all around us. You experience resonance most clearly when you push a child on a swing. If you push at exactly the same frequency as the swing is swinging, the amplitude of the swing will increase. You tune radio and television receivers to resonate at whatever frequency your preferred station is transmitting. Your cellphone is tuned to resonate with the different frequencies of transmission and reception used at a local cell tower. Individual hair cells, called cilia, in the cochlea of your ears, resonate with sounds in air, sending signals to your brain, allowing you to hear. Visible colors, which are frequencies of oscillation between 450 and 789 trillion cycles per second, resonate with cells in the cones of your eyes that send signals to your brain, allowing you to see ten million different colors. Visible light is visible because these are the natural frequencies of oscillation that the cells in your eyes oscillate at, given their physical size.

For centuries, scientists have argued whether light, in the form of electromagnetic radiation, travels through space as waves or as particles. Waves and particles, however, describe how the energies of motion of physical pieces of matter are visualized as traveling. But light is not physical matter and light cannot be observed until it interacts with physical matter. Light, electromagnetic radiation, appears to travel by resonance.

Conduction is resonance enabled by physical contact of molecules of matter. Radiation is resonance enabled by the interaction of what we think of as electric and magnetic fields via line of sight where what we think of as the velocity of light is proportional to the very short time required for resonance to occur over any distance. Frequency of oscillation is observed not to change with distance, even over galactic distances, except for Doppler effects where the source and receiver are moving relative to each other. Similarly, amplitude of oscillation is not observed to change with distance. Thus, the Planck temperature of radiation from Sun is the same close to Sun as it is close to Earth. But the thermal effect of solar radiation is observed to decrease with the square of the distance. What appears to be happening is that the density of molecular bonds on the surface of matter that resonate decreases with distance, so that the amplitude increase due to resonance must be shared with increasing numbers of bonds that are not resonating with bonds on the distant source. Resonance is explained in more detail in video 9.

Seven Fundamental Mistakes in the Physics of Heat and in Greenhouse-Warming Theory

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Fundamental problems with greenhouse-warming theory

The primary problem with greenhouse-warming theory is that it is based on calculating a single number for the amount of energy, while energy in radiation has a different level at each and every frequency of oscillation. Greenhouse-warming theory does not take into account the major increases in the level of energy as a function of increases in frequency of oscillation. Greenhouse-warming theory does not take into account the reality that ultraviolet-B radiation has a 50-times greater level of energy than infrared radiation absorbed most strongly by carbon dioxide and that this difference in level of energy does not change no matter how much radiation per square meter is present. Global warming is not about how much energy is available as currently assumed. It is about the frequency content of the radiation available, which is determined by the temperature of the radiating body.

Planck's law logarithmic frequencyPlus, carbon dioxide is well observed to absorb only 16% of the frequencies radiated by Earth as shown by the vertical black lines in this logarithmic plot of Planck’s law. Yet to increase the temperature of matter, Planck’s law shows clearly that the amplitude of 100% of the frequencies of oscillation must be increased. Carbon dioxide can only re-radiate the limited frequencies that it absorbs and these limited frequencies, when absorbed by any body, could not raise its temperature even to the temperature of Earth. It has never been shown by experiment, a cornerstone of the scientific method, that greenhouse gases absorbing limited frequencies of infrared radiation from Earth, can warm air perceptibly as discussed at JustProveCO2.com.

Greenhouse warming theory is rapidly becoming the most expensive mistake ever made in the history of science, economically, politically, and environmentally as explained in detail in sixteen short videos found at WhyClimateChanges.com/most-expensive-mistake/. Video 1 is an introduction. Videos 2 through 6 describe evidence for global warming and for the role of humans and of volcanic eruptions in causing observed climate change. Videos 7 through 10 explain what is mistaken concerning greenhouse-warming theory and why this theory is physically impossible. Videos 11 through 16 discuss issues related to setting informed public policy concerning climate change.

Click here for a 20-page scientific paper A Most Inconvenient Reality — Greenhouse Gases Cannot Physically Explain Observed Global Warming submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research on May 28, 2018, that describes these issues in more detail. This file includes the editor’s email rejecting the paper without review.

The Crisis in Climate Science

Climate science is in a state of crisis because climate scientists, enamored with their broad consensus regarding greenhouse-warming theory, refuse to face the remarkably clear physical reality that greenhouse-warming theory is not even physically possible. What has happened to scientific objectivity?

All of the issues discussed on this webpage were known to me by 2015. Since then I have tried to get my fellow scientists to stop and think. I have written many high-quality papers, which when submitted for publication were not even sent out for review. I have sought interaction with many leading climate scientists and some climate skeptics. I have gone to great lengths, as explained in video 12, to try to get people to recognize that greenhouse-warming theory appears to be mistaken.

On this webpage, I have tried to explain the issues as cogently at I can. I challenge anyone in the world to find any serious problem on this webpage that could change the clear conclusion that greenhouse-warming theory is not only mistaken, it is not even physically possible. Please ask anyone defending greenhouse-warming theory to find the error in the observations reported on this webpage. I issued this challenge in a major way on November 4, 2019, described at WhyClimateChanges.com/the-global-challenge/.

If you have any good ideas pro or con, please join the scientific discussion at groups.google.com/d/forum/co2impossible which follows below.

Dr. Peter Langdon Ward

CO2Impossible@gmail.com