Global warming a product of solar heating and atmospheric pressure, not CO2

CO2 has nothing to do with temperature.
____________________

Global warming a product of solar heating and atmospheric pressure, not CO2

By Kevin Scasny

Drs Nikolov and Zeller (https://twitter.com/NikolovScience) recently (2017) published their paper and research rigorously showing the earth’s temperature (and the temperature of the other solar system’s planets) is controlled primarily by the mass of the atmosphere and gravity through the force of air pressure. This produced compression, in turn, called the atmospheric thermal effect, establishes and is the controlling factor for the earth’s temperature. CO2 has nothing to do with temperature.

The Greenhouse Theory (and the trace CO2 gas) it relies upon has no bearing on temperature. In fact, the Apr 1896 paper by Ahrennius which proposed the Greenhouse Theory is seriously flawed in theory, mathematics, and with the laws of thermodynamics, has never been yet validated, and which was proven false from 1903 to 1905.

You can read the paper here:
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf


12 thoughts on “Global warming a product of solar heating and atmospheric pressure, not CO2

  1. 12 year olds know this basic law of physics and gases: simplified to PV=RT where R is a constant. Thus the temperature T is directly proportional to pressure P, where the volume V is more or less constant, as in the globe. Never was any need to involve CO2.

  2. I am old. At school we were taught to draw pictures of ice ages coming and going with lots of jungle between the ice ages . Told it was natural and was going on long before the dinosaurs. The kids where impressed. Went home with out drawings and explain it to our parents.
    So what happened? From,”climate warming,”to “climate change,” and wait for it “climate cooling. “
    It’s all to do with money.
    Peak everything happened….so they invent,”shit,” no one knew they needed.
    Out with everything old and buy everything new. Gore, Obumma and Wall St. ……Just sayin. (WMD 2)

  3. cracks me up when the quote arhennius work as still the “Agrade proof” for co2 being a problem
    anyone does that to you…its a signal to walk away because theyre too stupid to debate with.
    the level of not washing hands between patients or surgery sorta IQ

  4. It amazes me that the “Greenhouse Theory” has come to refer to the effect of CO2. I grew up understanding that the “Greenhouse Effect” as it was known as then was about water vapour trapping heat and blanketing the Earth in clouds. How could I have been so misguided?… 😉

  5. I wrote an article on PSI in 2014 where I used NASA’s planetary fact sheets and PV = nRT to calculate the temperatures of all planets with an atmosphere – https://www.dropbox.com/s/83y0ew6jv0x80dy/Analysis%20of%20Blackbody%20Temperatures%20versus%20Universal%20Gas%20Laws.docx?dl=0

    The alarmists all ridicule this factual description of an atmospheric mass and pressure effect as it undermines their explanation that approximately 0.06% of the atmospheric mass controls climate.

    Funnily enough NASA, one department of which is one of the cheerleaders of climate madness, says the following :-

    “The temperature in the clouds of Jupiter is about minus 145 degrees Celsius (minus 234 degrees Fahrenheit). The temperature near the planet’s center is much, much hotter. The core temperature may be about 24,000 degrees Celsius (43,000 degrees Fahrenheit). That’s hotter than the surface of the sun!”

    https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-jupiter-58.html

    I know you all will agree that NASA couldn’t possibly lie to children ?

    How does Jupiter have a temperature exceeding the surface temperature of the Sun if a large mass of atmosphere compressed by gravity cannot cause massive temperatures ?

    If this is nonsense how do stars “ignite” ?

    As I said in my article – “There is absolutely no “greenhouse effect” on Jupiter by any rational definition.”

    The total power of the Sun at Jupiter’s orbit is 50.5 W/m2 and this is the power emitted by something at a temperature of minus 100°C – no greenhouse effect possible on Jupiter.

    Remember these calculations alone cannot explain the wide variations in temperature by themselves.

    On Earth the sun’s radiation heats the land and ocean surfaces and the transfer of heat to the atmosphere causes changes in density due to rising air and coupled with the Earth’s rotation this causes a pumping action in the atmosphere – take a bicycle pump and put a finger over the nozzle and pump – heat is generated by the transformation of work.

  6. I believe a commenter left out a variable in the ideal gas law, it’s PV=nRT, where n is the number of moles of gas – I am sure it was a typo. Anyway, I remember reading this same explanation some time ago and it makes perfect sense to me.

    NOW, you could argue, since temperature and pressure are directly related (if the other variables are constant) that that the greenhouse influence does increase temperature by back radiation, and this only increases pressure. BUT data does not show an increasing pressure as c02 increases. What is OFTEN left out of the our man made warming skeptic arguments, and they should talk about it more, is most heat the earth holds is lost to space – in fact, the earth has a pretty cool system to control temperature. Heat moves from high temp (and pressure) in equatorial regions up and down to the poles (this is why storms at the poles sometimes can be intense), where it quickly rises and is expelled into space.

    Think about how cold space is relative to even the very top 1,000 meters of our atmosphere. So if overall pressure increases, heat will be exhausted out into space more rapidly, until equilibrium is reached. Heat cannot simply build up in our atmosphere in an unlimited way, like the so-called “scientists” that work for the cabal of greedy and power hungry jerks behind this entire farce need you to believe.

    We go through natural warming and cooling cycles AS this system fluxes to keep temperature balanced which, due to the oceans, and their incredible heat capacity, take quite a while to store or release heat, and other complex factors that slow or speed up the natural flow of warm air poleward and out into space. Of course heat is just not lost to space do to the poles. It is lost in all parts of the top layers of our atmosphere, but the main flow is poleward upward and outward. Oh, yes, and c02 increases always happen after warming, not before. This is a fact.

    So what heats the earth to begin with – the sun of course. The sun plus orbital mechanics, including our moon, are cause the main variations of how much heat goes into the system, but also we have geothermal heating which is horribly ignored, especially when we are talking about heat changes of a few tenths of a degree – of course heat transferred from the core of the earth to the surface is not constant either.

    Asking us to believe, when soil alone, gives off 9X the c02 that man does in all his activities, and termites 2X our use of fossil fuels is simply stupid. If the earth responded to c02 like the warmunists want us to believe -and by the way, measuring the background c02 on top of a volcano, when it is a flat out lie that c02 is a well mixed gas is stupid… AND a 70 year smoothing average is applied to this data to give them their nice inclining curve!!! YOU DO NOT apply smoothing averages to time series data!! It take all the peaks and valleys, not to mention independent inspectors are not allowed to check the calibration, as the sensors are owned, operated, and calibrated by some guy that is an EX-IPCC chairman, and who was a known fanatic.

    Bottom line C02 IS NOT evenly distributed over time, latitude, or altitude. Bottom line is what they are showing you is an interpretation AVERAGE c02 – so you CANNOT DRAW a line from this PLOT DOWN TO THE X AXIS (year), and claim c02 was this amount during year X, c02 levels are much more complicated to measure globally. Measure inside a cave and it will be over 1000 ppm or much higher than outside, or perhaps much lower, measure it at the poles and it will be much less – NASA’s own Satellite image of c02 distribution clearly shows this – it varies greatly by latitude, altitude, and air circulation. WE KNOW that c02 was 425ppm in many areas during WWII, and close to as high as it is today two other times in the 20th century. c02 is heavier than air, and mainly hang out closer to the ground, where, lucky for US, plants gobble it up and a report just out shows that not only is the planet greener, but forest cover has actually increased in the last few decades.

  7. I cannot find nor indeed remember fully the paper or article where I read about the radiative effect of CO2 so allow me to try forward what I gleaned from the piece in a rather awkward way.

    In it the gas’ ability to hold/radiate heat was measured in Planks, at a certain value of Plank it becomes impossible to add to the effect no matter how much you increase the volume. The effect itself being minimal.

    This also led me to an experiment where CO2 was forced into deposition by pressure which led the experimenters and those observing to wonder if at some stage in geological history such deposition was part of the cycle whereby CO2 was removed from the atmosphere. The results were very short lived though and the obvious problems of the pressure variables in order to maintain the CO2 in such a state seem to preclude the process, it is a theoretical possibility though with sublimation a possible mechanism for it’s reabsorption into the atmosphere.

    Can’t remember any given epoch for such an event but a little food for thought in the discussion on pressure as we are not a sealed jar so the variables do impinge somewhat on Boyle’s law as the experiment proved when once the required pressure was no longer maintained the solid sublimated.

    Not an argument against the article just stating that we are not quite a closed unit. Another argument for natural cycles.

    Sorry for the rambling nature of my post, bust yet another tablet so all the bookmarks went too. Any natural cures for butterfingers known?

  8. The cAGW theory basically says 3 hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere is OK but 4 hundredths will cause an overheating catastrophe!

    Nowhere do they rate changes of solar output in all of its forms as so important in determining this planet’s climate. This despite so much evidence that solar variations initiated such events as warm periods and glaciations.

    Call that logical, ’cause I don’t.

  9. OK so pressure in one place rises temperature rises. Heat escapes into space at night. so pressure falls?
    For temperature to keep rising(or falling) globally, pressure needs to be constantly be rising(or falling) globally. That is impossible.
    Pressure change is caused by temperature change.
    Maybe pressure change increases density and thickness of the atmosphere thus keeping more heat from escaping?
    Now do solar winds and flares increase atmospheric pressure?
    If there is any global change in temperature it has nothing to do with pressure only solar output and cloud cover.

Comments are closed.