CO2 only holds onto that IR photon for between a picosecond and a few milliseconds before it is re-emitted or transferred through collision to another atmospheric molecule. Global warming theory needs to be re-established in a framework of Quantum Physics before I will accept it.
“CO2 only holds onto that IR photon for between a picosecond and a few milliseconds before it is re-emitted or transferred through collision to another atmospheric molecule. Global warming theory needs to be re-established in a framework of Quantum Physics before I will accept it.”
That seems to me to be the very best argument and I don’t understand why it is not presented.
“GREENHOUSE EFFECT IN SEMI-TRANSPARENT PLANETARY ATMOSPHERES”
Dr. Ferenc M. Miskolczi
Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Society, 2007
(Any imbalance our CO2 emissions caused [is] effectively countered by about 1 per cent decrease in the water vapor amount, and the system still fluctuates around its theoretical equilibrium value. His calculations on the NASA / NCAR atmospheric database proved that the Earth’s greenhouse effect does not show any steady increase, regardless of our CO2 emissions.)
Summaries of the paper:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m5d31-Einstein-like-breakthrough-in-Climate-Science
THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD
(Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.)
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
The Great Global Warming Hoax?
James A. Peden
(Man’s contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant. We didn’t cause the recent Global Warming and we cannot stop it.)
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
Greenhouse Misconceptions
by Tom Kondis
November 2008
(speculators blame IR absorption by carbon dioxide, approximately 0.035% of the atmosphere, for changing our climate. They haven’t verified their unique viewpoint by utilizing IR radiation, synthetic gas mixtures and temperature measurements independent from the influences of poorly understood and incompletely considered natural forces that do control earth’s climate and weather. Their arguments lack substance and veracity.)
http://www.junkscience.com/nov08/greenhouse_misconceptions.html
Greenhouse Gas Facts and Fantasies
by Tom Kondis
May 21, 2008
(advocates of man-made global warming have intermingled elements of greenhouse activity and infrared absorption to promote the image that carbon dioxide traps heat near earth’s surface like molecular greenhouses insulating our atmosphere. Their imagery, however, is seriously flawed.)
http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Kondis-Greenhouse.html
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
(Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4))
Abstract: The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.