Saturday, February 4, 2012

The Global Warming Fraud: Showing Proof Positive That CO2 Is NOT A Greenhouse Gas!

Recently, I have been over at Youtube in major discussions with my friends in the Apollo Moon Hoax group, and also checking into interesting new evidence that has come forward from researchers such as "Hunchbacked", "Pt1gard", and even Jarrah White's "Moonfaker" series.   I have also been keeping up with the comments made by the Apollo Believers camp and their constant ridicule and attacks on those who know the truth that Apollo was a massive fraud and swindle.

But I came under recent attack for a statement I made a while back, and I have already backed up in previous articles, that Carbon Dioxide, in spite of all the Global Warming believers may claim, is absolutely NOT a so called "Greenhouse" gas.   After one of these Global Warming believers who also is a rabid Apollo Was Real believer actually called me out, and outright called me wrong, I decided that I would put up an article here, that links together all the information showing that HE is wrong instead.  So here goes...

First, I want to present the following PDF file, from the website: Climate Realist, at, under the title: "Carbon Dioxide Not A Well Mixed Gas, And Can't Cause Global Warming" right here for everyone to view:

Carbon Dioxide Not a Well Mixed Gas and Can’t Cause Global Warming

One of the least challenged claims of global warming science is that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a “well-mixed gas.” A new scientific analysis not only debunks this assertion but also shows that standard climatology calculations, applicable only to temperature changes of the minor gas, carbon dioxide were fraudulently applied to the entire atmosphere to inflate alleged global temperature rises.

Acceptance of the “well-mixed gas” concept is a key requirement for those who choose to believe in the so-called greenhouse gas effect. A rising group of skeptic scientists have put the “well-mixed gas” hypothesis under the microscope and shown it contradicts not only satellite data by also measurements obtained in standard laboratory experiments.

Canadian climate scientist, Dr Tim Ball is a veteran critic of the “junk science” of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and no stranger to controversy.

Ball is prominent among the “Slayers” group of skeptics and has been forthright in denouncing the IPCC claims; “I think a major false assumption is that CO2 is evenly distributed regardless of its function.“

School Children Prove Carbon Dioxide is Heavier than Air

Dr. Ball and his colleagues appear to be winning converts with their hard-nosed re- examination of the standard myths of climate science and this latest issue is probably one of the easiest for non-scientists to comprehend.

Indeed, even high school children are taught the basic fact that gravity causes objects heavier than air to fall to the ground. And that is precisely what CO2 is – this miniscule trace gas (just a very tiny 0.04% of atmosphere) is heavy and is soon down and out as shown by a simple school lab experiment.

Or we can look at it another way to make these technical Physics relationships easy. This is because scientists refer to ratios based on common standards. Rather than refer to unit volumes and masses, scientists use the concept of Specific Gravity (SG). Giving standard air a value of 1.0 then the measured SG of CO2 is 1.5 (considerably heavier). [1.]

CO2: The Heavy Gas that Heats then Cools Faster!

The same principle is applied to heat transfer, the Specific Heat (SH) of air is 1.0 and the SH of CO2 is 0.8 (heats and cools faster). 

Combining these properties allows for thermal mixing. Heavy CO2 warms faster and rises, as in a hot air balloon. It then rapidly cools and falls.

This 'thermal' mixing is aided by wind flow patterns, but the ratios of gases in the atmosphere are never static or uniform anywhere on Earth. Without these properties CO2 would fill every low area to dangerously high levels. Not 'high' in a toxic sense, only that CO2 would displace enough Oxygen that you could not have properrespiration. Nitrogen is 78% of the atmosphere and totally non-toxic, but if you continue to increase Nitrogen and reduce Oxygen the mixture becomes 'unbreathable.’

It is only if we buy into the IPCC’s “well mixed gas” fallacy that climate extremists can then proceed to dupe us further with their next claim; that this so-called “well mixed” CO2 then acts as a “blanket” to “trap” the heat our planet receives from the sun.

The cornerstone of the IPCC claims since 1988 is that “trapped” CO2 adds heat because it is a direct consequence of another dubious and unscientific mechanism they call “back radiation.” In no law of science will you have read of the term “back radiation.” It is a speculative and unphysical concept and is the biggest lie woven into the falsity of what is widely known as the greenhouse gas effect.

Professor Nasif Nahle, a recent addition to the Slayers team, has proven that application of standard gas equations reveal that, if it were real, any “trapping” effect of the IPCC’s “back radiation” could last not a moment longer than a miniscule five milliseconds – that’s quicker than the blink of an eye to all you non-scientists. [2.]

Doomsaying Climatologist Abandons ‘Back Radiation’ Meme

Only recently did Professor Claes Johnson persuade long-time greenhouse gas effect believer Dr. Judith Curry to abandon this unscientific term. Curry now admits:

"Back radiation is a phrase, one that I don’t use myself, and it is not a word that is used in technical radiative transfer studies. Lets lose the back radiation terminology, we all agree on that."

IPCC doomsayers claim it is under this “blanket” of CO2 (and other so-called greenhouse gases) that the energy absorbed by Earth’s surface from incoming sunlight gets trapped.

But one other important fact often glossed over is that CO2 comprises a tiny 0.4% of all the gases above our heads. Nasif Nahle reminds us that this is a crucial point when considering the claims of the “grandfather” of the greenhouse gas hypothesis (GHE), Svente Arrhenius.

Change in CO2 Temperature Is NOT Change in Atmospheric Temp

When applying the GHE formula devised by Arrhenius, IPCC scientists appear to have forgotten that we must consider the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the proportion of the whole mixture of gases.

Even if Arrhenius was right about the GHE any change of temperature obtained from his formula is exclusively a change of temperature of the mass of carbon dioxide, not of the atmosphere.

The trick of climate doomsayers is that they draw their conclusions obtained from the Arrhenius formula for CO2 (only 0.04% of atmosphere), then apply that change of temperature to the WHOLE Earth; this is bad science, or possibly fraud.

Nahle poses this question for GHE believers:

“Is the atmosphere composed only of carbon dioxide? Why calculate the change of temperature of a mass of carbon dioxide and then after say it is the change of temperature of this trace gas that now becomes the temperature of the whole Earth?”

Astrophysicist and climate researcher, Joe Postma similarly comments:

“No one seems to have realized that any purported increase in temperature of CO2 due to CO2 absorption is APPLIED TO CO2, not the whole danged atmosphere! Again, just a slight tweak in comprehending the reality makes a whole paradigm of difference.”

NASA Data Confirms CO2 Not a Well Mixed Gas

Professor Nahle and his colleagues insist that in addition to the above facts the proven varying density of atmospheric CO2 also needs to be taken into account to show how IPCC scientists are guilty of the greatest scientific swindle ever perpetrated.

From the NASA graph below (verify with link here) we can discern distinct and measurable regional variations in CO2 ppmv. So even NASA data itself further puts paid to the bizarre notion that this benign trace gas is “well-mixed” around the globe.

NASA's diagram thus not only proves CO2 isn't a well mixed gas but also demonstrates that there is no link between regions of highest CO2 concentration and areas of highest human industrial emissions.

Groundbreaking Science Trumps IPCC Junk Claims

Both Postma and Nahle have recently published groundbreaking papers discrediting the GHE. Professor Nahle analyzed the thermal properties of carbon dioxide, exclusively, and found that 0.3 °C would be the change of temperature of CO2, also exclusively, not of the whole atmosphere. Nasif pointedly observes:

“Such change of temperature would not affect in absolute the whole mixture of gas because of the thermal diffusivity of carbon dioxide.”

Additionally, Nahle and his Slaying the Sky Dragon compadres demonstrate that carbon dioxide loses the energy it absorbs almost instantaneously, so there is no place for any kind of storage of thermal energy by carbon dioxide. To the more technically minded what Nahle and his colleagues say is that the release of a quantum/wave, at a different wavelength and frequency, lasts the time an excited electron takes to get back to its base state.

Thus the IPCC's CO2 “sky blanket” is shot full of holes as rational folk are increasingly abandoning the unphysical nonsense that carbon dioxide “traps” heat and raises global temperatures. Policymakers may be the last to wise up but they, too, must nonetheless consign the man-made global warming sham to the trash can marked “junk science.”


[1.] In our “current environment,” atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen vastly outweigh CO2. Nitrogen: 3,888,899 Gigatons; Oxygen: 1,191,608 Gigatons; Carbon Dioxide: 3,051 Gigatons. On a weight basis the specific heat of nitrogen and oxygen together is approximately 1 per kilogram, whereas CO2’s is about 0.844. Thus it’s clear that everyday air has a better ability to hold onto heat.

[2.] Professor Nahle, N., ‘Determination of Mean Free Path of Quantum/Waves and Total Emissivity of the Carbon Dioxide Considering the Molecular Cross Section’ (2011), Biology Cabinet, (Peer Reviewed by the Faculty of Physics of the University of Nuevo Leon, Mexico).

Next, I want to put up the following Youtube video that shows a simple demonstration that anyone can do for themselves to show that CO2 is also heavier than air, and therefore cannot be in the upper atmosphere to cause the blanketing effect that the Global Warming crowd has stated for CO2 to be a major instigator of "Global Warming".   It does start with the narrator covering other subjects, but the experiment he does is simple, and very informative:

Now, to explain the truth about CO2 for everyone... CO2, in spite of what the "Warmists" believe is very essential for life on Earth.  All plant life is dependent on this gas for it to thrive.   The fact is that right now, with the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere to some 390 parts per million, our Green plant life around the planet is actually thriving, and that is in spite of human intervention into major plant life regions on the planet!

But the question arises... WHY and HOW did the criminals ever come up with CO2 being a "Greenhouse " gas in the first place... As I stated before, the answer is NOT on Earth, but our closest neighboring planet, Venus.

When the United States started shooting Radar at Venus back in the 1950's, they discovered something startling... The captured radar signal reflection from the planet showed that it was tremendously HOT!... Russian Venera probes that actually landed on the Venusian surface starting in the late 60's showed a planet with a surface temperature of some 900 degrees Fahrenheit (550C), and a surface pressure of some 90BAR (90x that of Earth).    Scientists and astronomers wanted to know why, and they looked at the planetary atmosphere for the answer.  Well lo and behold, Venus's atmosphere is some 96% Carbon Dioxide.    That led to the speculation that Venus's high temperature was a result of a "runaway" Greenhouse effect due to CO2....  They have used that as a method of alarming citizens of Earth into the false belief that a CO2 buildup could cause the same effect here....

But the model for Venus as the so called "runaway" Greenhouse Effect planet is all wrong, as you well see from the following article that comes from the website:, entitled: "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect", which throws a monkee wrench into the entire Venus model for the Global Warming fraudsters.   Here is that article:


Venus: No Greenhouse Effect

The flip side of the entrenched incompetence in science today is that all it takes is scientific competence to make revolutionary discoveries, or fundamental corrections to current dogma. Being a competent physicist rather than an incompetent climate scientist (which 97% of them demonstrably are), I was able recently to post an answer on to a question about the greenhouse effect on Venus, an update to which I give here:

Surprisingly to most, there is no greenhouse effect at all, and you can prove it for yourself.

From the temperature and pressure profiles for the Venusian atmosphere, you can confirm that, at the altitude where the pressure = 1000 millibars, which is the sea level pressure of Earth, the temperature of the Venusian atmosphere is 66ºC = 339K.

This is much warmer than the temperature at the surface of the Earth (at pressure = 1000 millibars), which is about 15ºC = 288K. HOWEVER

Venus is closer to the Sun, and gets proportionally more power from it. Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun, on average, while Venus is only 67.25 million. Since the intensity of the Sun's radiation decreases with distance from it as 1 over r-squared, Venus receives (93/67.25) squared, or 1.91 times the power per unit area that Earth receives, on average.

Since the radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the radiating temperature of Venus should be the fourth-root of 1.91 (or the square-root of 93/67.25) = 1.176 times that of the Earth. Furthermore, since the atmospheric pressure varies as the temperature, the temperature at any given pressure level in the Venusian atmosphere should be 1.176 times the temperature at that same pressure level in the Earth atmosphere, INDEPENDENT OF THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INFRARED ABSORPTION in the two atmospheres. In particular, the averaged temperature at 1000 millibars on Earth is about 15ºC = 288K, so the corresponding temperature on Venus, WITHOUT ANY GREENHOUSE EFFECT, should be 1.176 times that, or 339K. But this is just 66ºC, the temperature we actually find there from the temperature and pressure profiles for Venus.

[Note: The derivation of the radiating temperature above is for absolute temperature, in degrees Kelvin (K), so the 1.176 factor relates the Kelvin temperatures, not the Celsius temperatures.]

So there is no greenhouse effect. You have just proved that climate science is utterly wrong to think otherwise. This is the scandal that so many "experts" in climate science, and all the scientific authorities, will not face. Listen to the physicists that tell you there is no greenhouse effect; they know without having to go to the Venus data -- and I am one of them. The continuing incompetence on this vital point among so many scientists, for more than a century, is amazing, and tragic.

Here is a table more precisely comparing the temperatures at various pressures in Earth's atmosphere (the standard atmosphere) with the corresponding temperatures in Venus's atmosphere:

(updated 12/02/10)

My uncertainty in finding T_Venus from the graphs is +/- 1.4 K, so any error less than about 1.2 K (in the last column) is negligible. I don't know why the comparison falters slightly between 600 and 300 mb, or why it improves suddenly at 200 mb (~60 km altitude), but the Venus cloud top is given as 58 km, between the 300 and 200 mb levels.

The Venus atmosphere is 96.5% carbon dioxide, and supposedly superheated due to a runaway greenhouse effect, yet that portion of it within the pressure bounds of the Earth atmosphere is remarkably like the Earth in temperature. This is student-level analysis, and could not have been neglected by climate scientists, if they were not rendered incompetent by their dogmatic belief in the greenhouse hypothesis. (Again, the overwhelming extent of fundamental incompetence exhibited by scientists today is the real underlying story.) This result also flies in the face of those who would say the clouds of Venus reflect much of the incident solar energy, and that therefore it cannot get 1.91 times the power per unit area received by the Earth -- the direct evidence presented here is that its atmosphere does, in fact, get that amount of power, remarkably closely. This in fact indicates that the Venusian atmosphere is heated mainly by incident infrared radiation from the Sun, which is not reflected but absorbed by Venus's clouds, rather than by warming first of the planetary surface. (It also indicates that the Earth atmosphere is substantially warmed the same way, during daylight hours, by direct solar infrared irradiation, and that the temperature profile, or lapse rate, for any planetary atmosphere is relatively oblivious to how the atmosphere is heated, whether from above or below.) This denies any possibility of a "greenhouse effect" on Venus (or on Earth), much less a "runaway" one. This has already been pointed out recently by physicists Gerlich and Tscheuschner, who have written succinctly, "...since the venusian atmosphere is opaque to visible light, the central assumption of the greenhouse hypotheses [sic] is not obeyed." Yet they are ridiculed by climate scientists, who thus behave like spoiled children who refuse to be chastised by their parents.

Another way to look at the Venus/Earth data is this:

Venus is 67.25 million miles from the Sun, the Earth, 93 million.

The radiating temperature of Venus should be 1.176 times that of the Earth.

Without ANY greenhouse effect as promulgated by the IPCC, at any given pressure within the range of the Earth atmosphere, the temperature of the Venus atmosphere should be 1.176 times that of the corresponding Earth atmosphere.

The facts:
at 1000 millibars (mb), T_earth=287.4 (K), T_venus=338.6, ratio=1.178
at 900 mb, T_earth=281.7, T_venus=331.4, ratio=1.176
at 800 mb, T_earth=275.5, T_venus=322.9, ratio=1.172
at 700 mb, T_earth=268.6, T_venus=315.0, ratio=1.173
at 600 mb, T_earth=260.8, T_venus=302.1, ratio=1.158
at 500 mb, T_earth=251.9, T_venus=291.4, ratio=1.157
at 400 mb, T_earth=241.4, T_venus=278.6, ratio=1.154
at 300 mb, T_earth=228.6, T_venus=262.9, ratio=1.150
at 200 mb, T_earth=211.6, T_venus=247.1, ratio=1.168
(Venus temperatures are +/- 1.4K, Earth temp. are from std. atm)

The actual ratio overall is 1.165 +/- 0.015 = 0.991 x 1.176. It does not vary from the no-greenhouse theoretical value at any point by more than about 2%.

There is no sign whatever of a greenhouse effect on either planet. The fact that the temperature ratios are so close to that predicted solely by their relative distances from the Sun tells us that both atmospheres must be warmed, overall, essentially in the same way, by direct IR solar irradiation from above, not by surface emissions from below. Keeping it simple, the atmospheres must be like sponges, or empty bowls, with the same structure (hydrostatic lapse rate), filled with energy by the incident solar radiation to their capacity to hold that energy.

There is no greenhouse effect on Venus with 96.5% carbon dioxide, and none on the Earth with just a trace of carbon dioxide.

NTS Notes:  OK, so now we have CO2 causing the Greenhouse effect here on Earth torn to shreds.. But some will still ask:  WHY is Venus so hot?    I have a very interesting theory that I have had for years about Venus, and I will state it here.   Remember, the following report is my own speculation, and still needs more positive proof for more verification.

Historical records, myths, and even ancient texts, states that Venus was "born of Jupiter" (myth? or something more?).  And we have the famous stories of cataclysms here on Earth... Our stories of an ancient flood, Atlantis, etc... And I have wondered if there might be something to it..  Here goes my own idea and synopsis of why Venus is what it is today:

Suppose that around 15000-20000 (?) years ago, a wandering massive world crossed path with our own solar system, and affected our largest planet Jupiter and its many satellites... If one of those satellites was what we call "Venus" today and this wandering mass caused it to become ejected from the Jupiter system and sent on a  collision course with the inner planets....(A famous science writer, Velikovsky wrote about this scenario in "Worlds in Collision" but assumed it was tied to the false Exodus tale)...(It also helps explain the ancient "folklore" of Venus being "born of Jupiter")  

Now suppose this roving Venusian world crossed paths with Earth causing major upheavals on this planet (flood, destruction of Atlantis, etc?) and eventually was captured into an orbit around the Sun.   Such a capture by our sun, Sol, would have pulled Venus every which way (tidal forces, kinetic energy, etc), superheated that world,  and caused every volcano on its surface to go off at once, on top of almost tearing the entire planet apart! (Venera probes discover surface is made up of almost entirely of igneous rock, usually formed from volcanic eruptions).    That release of volcanic gas would have collected into its atmosphere (super high pressure, CO2, and SULFER (!) compounds discovered in Venusian atmosphere).

Here are some keys to Venus that support the idea of a captured world.... High temperature (from the energy of being captured?), an almost non existent rotation of Venus (Venus day is 243 days, while its year is 239 days), and the KEY fact that Venus orbits the Sun in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION from all other planets!  And of course there are some historical references to Venus having a "tail" like a comet! (superheated mass almost torn apart by solar capture releasing material into space?)... 


I may not have all the pieces, but I am not afraid to make that speculation about our closed planet in our solar system.   Remember though.. my synopsis of why Venus is what it is today is just my own speculation....

Bottom line here readers, is that the scam artists running the Global Warming fraud are continuing to perpetuate the lie that CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas, and are basing all of their push for their fraudulent carbon tax legislations on that lie.    It is again time to stop this lie, and to put them out of their misery!

More to come



Admin said...

I enjoy you because of your entire effort on this web site. My niece enjoys participating in investigations and it is easy to understand. I just want to share about my get promoted or get promotion follow.

Saladin said...


Fred said...

NTS there is also a much more in depth refutation of the "green house effect" in general found here the actual paper is here but it is over 150 pages long I d/l the pdf and read through most of it the paper you referenced is short concise and a slam dunk on the CO2 aspect of the scam I have also copied and printed out and gave away quite a few copies of that paper. For a total of 4 pages I tell everyone in science you don't have to prove a concept invalid many times it only takes one and if you have any questions on the paper i can explain all parts of it.

mary sullivan said...


johnosullivan said...

thanks for posting my article. My latest story on this subject can be found here: