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 lab0 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 proper respiration. 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
Dr. Judith Curry
"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
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."
Sources:
[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).
Reader Comments
The only thing these globalist power-freaks are good at is making self-serving shit up and then throwing money at it, trying to get people to swallow it.
My solution: Take their ill-gotten gains away, and put them in pillories in a public square so people can throw rotten things and insult them.
That was a good practice in the middle ages. We need to bring it back for criminal public officials.
NO2 is far more potent than CO2 and is 300x more effective at trapping heat within Earth's atmosphere but do we hear noises about this gas, NO.
The simple answer to that is they'd have to stop flying planes, can you just imagine how that would be received by the misinformed public, jabbed up to the eyeballs in toxins and now told no more holidays
So it's easier for the lying Bastards in Government to blame all Earth's ill doings on the humble combustion engine.
From Wiki: [Link] Its always interesting when articles promoting renewable energies, so obviously tasked with Renewables 'damage control' always fail to add the bolded emphasis, like this one: [Link]
-a snippet- So 900kg of SF6 over 6 years equates to 150kg of SF6 per year to the 3,525 tonnes of C02 a year. So that would work out as: 150kg SF6 x 23,900 C02-potency equates to the equivalent of 3,585,000kg or 3,585 tonne s of C02 a year. Do the math.
Did I ever tell you about that? Do you want to know what I think about halogenated chemicals because by the way, I also did work at a former DuPont site now owned by something named Chemours I think it is. In Fayetteville, NC area, so if you don't think I know what I'm talking about, regarding fluorinated chemicals and their effects on the environment, then who will you.....ever believe?
~
By the way, the element of the month of August that I'm looking at on my calendar is Chlorine - man, I have been in the Chlorine cloud.
To make a refrigerant efficiently requires refrigerants already made - even more complicated one - ever heard of a Frick?
There - that is all I will tell except a Frick machine is effing complicated to keep freaking effing running - I can tell you that based on first-hand experience in El Segundo.
I say this also - to make refrigerants using a Frick refrigerator requiring refrigerants must mean the refrigerant chemicals already been made before and so there must of been past inefficiency, but have you ever seen the video where the guy drinks R11?
My bet most folk will sink under water before their fried to death