Does the Greenhouse gas effect exist?
    Topic posted February 10, 2009 by cleanwaterContributor, last edited January 19, 2012 
    7654 Views, 54 Comments
    Does the Greenhouse gas effect exist?

    The world of scientific proof  has been turned upside down. A 150yr old " theory" that has never been proven  by test data and retested has become the bases for the expenditure of trillions of dollars. NASA has data that the 95% CO2 atmosphere of Venus does Not have an effect on the retention of heat on Venus. The Paper " Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics" by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralph D. Tscheuschner shows that the greenhouse gas effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamic. This paper should be given pier review by Nature ASAP.

    Some of the things we use daily that indicate that GHG effect does  not exist are IR thermograph, IR spectrography, and IR photography.  



    • LSchnapf

      When i was in college in the early 1970s, the concern was about global cooling presumably from the precipates in the atmosphere. Most of my geology friends do not believe that climate change is primarily anthropogenic in nature.

      Putting aside the moral issue of whether we need to see absolute proof before we act, the real issue is that concern over climate change has reached the tipping point. The majorty of the american population is now subject to some kind of climate change initiatives through state or local programs. As they say on wall street, you cant fight the tape. Our job as environmental professionals is to help our clients navigate these shoals regardless if we believe the concern is justified.


      • cleanwater

        Hello Larry: What I am seeing is that the politician have lost there minds. They want to add taxes to the cost of coal fired generators and insisting that we go to overpriced alternate fuels to protect the environment from CO2 that has nothing to do with the temperatures on Earth or Venus or anywhere. For a professional who is supposed to protect our clients from wasting there money we have to get to the truth. NASA has data showing that the 95% atmosphere of Venus does not affect the heat losses of that planet.

        There is more than strong evidence that the greenhouse gas effect does not exist.....The real temperature controllers on earth are solar energy and  Water. Water  and its multiple phases in the atmosphere and the energy stored when we have evaporation and the released of energy when we have precipitation far exceeds what would happen if the greenhouse gas effect existed. There is no where in physics that 320 ppm of CO2 could have any effect on global temperatures. This number cannot exist in reality because of Beer's Law and the effect of winds, snow and rain.  We should be talking about the "Water Effect" not the franticly of greenhouse gas effect. Check the web-site "Ponder the Maunder" where a very realistic description of heat absorption and energy release by gases is described. Also check the web site "" For real info on global climate effects.

        To take a position that we let the politicians of a few state that should be in the funny farm control science is not rational to me. I have been doing environmental engineering for more than 45 years and have seen some good thing done by EPA but I am seeing that these people are totally irrational about many other thing now that they are making work for themselves.

      • hammuraby

        another cause of heating of athmosfhere is a low reflection caused of a low stream put into atmoshere by a desertification causes

         (basicly a stupidity of man, that not use a "durable"sistem to reach a water uphill, in river bassins as Niger... etc etc)

        a missed  reflexion from white numbs, cause a doubled (easely: go and back to/from earth...) heating of air , because a density on the lower stage of air is also an capable thermic store...

        the proportion of storage of air, is directly proportional to density of air...

    • jamesw
      Remember Acid Rain? Whatever happened to acid rain? Global warming is a farce. Al Gore is making millions trading carbon offset credits. As long as there is money to be made global warming will be the real deal. Once the well is dry we will be talking about another agenda driven crisis. Anyone who has studied any science at all knows everything goes in cycles. Climate is no different.
      • cleanwater

        Hello Jamesw: I agree that global warming is a hoax!!! The problem is that many young people believe the lies being told by crocks like Al Gore and James Hansan of NASA. They are like sheep being led to the slaughter. If we don't stop the idiots we will see taxes on electricity and other energy source  that will raise the costs 20 to 30% a year to do nothing.

        The greenhouse gas effect does not exist it violates the Second Law of thermodynamic>

        • McCarthy

          This website is "to improve the quality of real estate due diligence".

          Please consider finding a more appropriate website to pitch your politics.

          • jamesw
            McCarthy said...

            This website is "to improve the quality of real estate due diligence".

            Please consider finding a more appropriate website to pitch your politics.

            Actually it is also for sharing opinions on environmental issues if you read the above desription.
          • jamesw
            Read the definition
          • jamesw

            commonground Environmental Due Diligence discussions

            Commercial and residential property experts worldwide use these forums to ask environmental due diligence questions, share opinions on environmental issues, and debate current issues facing the environmental due diligence market. Commonground members discuss regulatory standards and issues such as contamination, underground tanks, vapor intrusion, asbestos and many other pressing environmental concerns.
      As a geologist (30 years in the profession), I believe it is important to differentiate between global climate change (which has been occurring since the Earth was formed) and "anthropogenic global warming". Evidence suggests our planet experienced a "Little Ice Age" that begin sometime around the 16th century and ended in the late 19th century. This period was characterized by a very slight cooling (probably about 1 degree C) and was accompanied by advancing continental glaciation, changes in weather patterns and crop failures. The data I've seen suggests that the current warming trend begin before anthropogenic CO2 emissions associated with modern global industrialization reached measurable levels. In layman's terms, the planet was already warming up. The problem with current studies is that we're attempting to predict long-term trends based on very near-term measurements.
    • LSchnapf

      I was a geology major at Rutgers during the early 1970s and I remember quite well scientific papers expressing alarm that we were about to go into an era of global cooling b/c of the particulates in the air.

      Presumably, the Clean Air Act Pm regulatory helped to abate that concern but this string does raise some interesting issues.

      First, most of my geology friends seem to dismiss the notion that global warming/climate change is primarily anthropogenic in nature.  I suppose that is because we have studied the enormous shifts in the earth's climate over geologic time and the meteorological records are not geologically representative in terms of time.

      Second, it is difficult to publicly question the science behind climate change  without being accused of being a Philistine or worse a Luddite.

      Third, science is not as impartial as we all were led to think in high school and statistics can certainly be manipulated to fit agendas.

      Fourth, no environmental regulation eliminates all risk and no environmental regulation can be implemented without some regard for underlying economics. Do you think we would have had such consensus on many environmental issues if individual homeowners were routinely fined for improper disposal of used oil, old light bulbs, obsolete paint, etc?

      Fifth,  I think the underlying issue in the debate is when should we has a species take action. Do we wait until there is unequivical proof of anthropengic changes to the climate? That certainly was not the standard that was used, for example, when Congress enacted the Clean Air Act. The science was really not complete on what levels of exposure to certain pollutants caused health problems-certainly not for the hazardous air pollutants. Instead, it was the visual impact of smog in the LA basin, the weather inversions in the fall in NY and London, the lack of visibility in Pittsburgh, etc that prompted the call to action.

      Likewise, it was the river in Cleveland catching on fire that led to the enactment of the Clean Water Act along with Love Canal and the Valley of Drums that caused Congress to pass CERCLA. In many cases, Congress did not understand the full scope of the problem but just understood that some action needed to be taken.

      Now it is the images of polar bears on small ice floes, shrinking glaciers, warmer winters that have prompted all levels of government to act. Sometimes we should act because its is simply the right thing to reduce the human footprint on the earth and Creation. I dont eat meat anymore not because it is unhealthy but because I think it is morally wrong to mistreat and slaughter animals for protein when we can easily manufacture it.   Having more energy efficient buildings is a good thing because it reduces the amount of pollution we generate and reduces our country's dependency on unstable sources of oil that can lead to severe economic dislocations or worse-war. 

      As environmental service providers, we are not involved in policy decisions. Our job is to respond to the opportunities that local, state and federal governments are creating for us. Whether you believe Climate Change is anthropogenic in nature, it is clear we have hit the tipping point. A majority of the American public now are subject to some kind of green building or climate change regulation. The horse is out of the barn and  the bird has flown the coop. As an environmental professional you need to be in a position to help clients deal with their climate change mandates. Otherwise, you will end up like the blacksmith with lots of horseshores and horses.  

      • cleanwater

        Hello : You make some very valid points especially about our need to do better with energy efficiency and insulation in our houses.

        The problem is that the greenhouse gas effect which does not exist and is a Hypothesis that has not been proven and cannot be proven is causing people to make bad decisions thinking they are going to reduce global warming-to save the planet. The cause of all climate change is variation in solar energy that reach the surface of the Earth. If particulates from volcanos erupting or wind storm over the dust bowl is causeing decreases of solar energy reasching the Earth ,this is a measurable effect but little can be done-it is nature. To sequester CO2 at the cost of billions of dollar that will be passed on to the consumer and it will do nothing. This is a crime as serious as the ponsi hoaxes of Middoff.

        One of the most efficient source of energy is oil and coal. The available BTU's per pound is why they have been used for the last 150 or more years. The cost of producing electricity by wind generation is about 4 time that of gas, coal or water generated electricity. And the reason gas and coal generation is in disfavor is the mistaken believe that CO2 causes global warming.

        There are more polar bear in the northern hemisphere that ever before-in excess of 10,000. The ice capes have been getting thicker in the last 7 years because there is no increase in Earth temperature as measured by NASA satellite data. As the ice gets thicker there may be a decrease in polar bears because more will die when they can't get enough seals, they may start eating people to survive. ( I volunteer Al Gore and Jim Hansen)

        The fire on the Cuyahoga river in Cleveland was only one of many fire that have occurred on rivers. , there have been many fire on the Buffalo River  in Buffalo New York even before Cleveland . My father told me a German saying that he learned as a child -translated it is "Throw  water on the Maine (river) because its burning" --he lefty Germany in 1924.

        Repeating again the greenhouse gas effect was disproved in 1909 by R.W. Wood the inventor of IR photography. Today the EPA and Jim Hansen of Goddard NASA are lying about Man made global warning and they must be stopped.

        • McCarthy

          Technology has come pretty far since 1909.  I visited the websites discussed and reviewed some of the information (having of course to muddle through all the other conspiracy theories purported at these extremist sites).  I doubt Nature or any other reputable scientific magazine will spend much time on these arguments. 

          I guess I agree with the other fellows.  Its not as important what the cause of the warming is, as much as the projected potential effects.  A suit was just thrown out in MN about trying to keep a serious bacterial fish killing disease out of Lake Superior.  The judge threw it out because the disease hasn't arrived yet.  With all these old schoolers, it seems the horse must be out of the barn, down the road, over the river, and three towns away before they decide that maybe a bit of pre-emptive action wouldn't have been such a bad idea.  Once this disease hits the rest of the Great Lakes its going be much more expensive than just zapping the bilge water before releasing it.

          It seems unlikely that the vast majority of the worlds professional atmospheric scientists are risking their careers just to please Mr. Gore.  These people have spent their careers studying these relationships, they are not all in one big conspiracy.  And, we're not all idiots just because we disagree with your position.

          • cleanwater

            Where is the test data showing that the "greenhouse gas effect exists" I have received some rhetoric but have not had on bite of proof. If the greenhouse gas effect exists, some one must have done an experiment to show how much IR is absorbed per mole of CO2 and then measure the amount of long wave IR is back radiated.

            A point of information -originally 2500 technical people were part of the UN study on Climate change-when it was released only about 1800 were willing to sign the final document- of those about 1000 have withdrawn their endorsement  thus only about 500 are willing to back the corruption of the UN. There are more than 30,000 engineers and scientist including large numbers of meteorologist that present data that shows that man made global warming is a hoax and have signed a document stating that man made global warning does not exist.

            Check the Website

            If you were confused by the technical reference try reading the Website "Ponder the Maunder" or ""

            When a court of lawyers make a decision on technical maters 90 % of the time they are wrong. When the court stated that CO2 was a pollutant they condemned the world to wear CO2 absorbing gas masks as we all breath out about 6% CO2. The soda that you drank for lunch expelled about 10% CO2.

            Technology has changed a lot since 1909 but R.W.Wood's conclusions can be verified today with "modern instrument" and come up with the same result and conclusions that he did.

            If you want to learn what the Global Warming nut have is store for us look up the Website of GreenPease.

            It is important that environmental engineers and true scientist learn the truth about the Hoax of Greenhouse gas effect ,otherwise we are not going to be able to provide real answers to real air pollution and water pollution problems.

            • McCarthy

              Here's another winner from your purported "non-politcal scientific website":

              Welcome to the Smoker’s Lounge, the place to go for sound science, economics, and legal commentary on tobacco issues. This “issue suite” cuts through the propaganda and exaggeration of anti-smoking groups by giving you access to the best available research and commentary from scores of independent research organizations, publications, and government sources.

              Give me a break.  According to your scientists even smokings not bad for you.   They seem to have failed on their big-tobacco lobbying attempts, but having the petroleum lobby create a massively financed propaganda machine to sway public opinion away from the truth on global warning is just as transparent.   Maybe you believe all the drug-company financed testing as well?

              • cleanwater

                Hello Mc Carthy: you really don't understand the danger of not understanding that greenhouse gas effect is a hoax. The EPA is talking about required sequestering of CO2 at  water and wastewater treatment plants- therefore do you tell your clients that they have to install millions of dollar of equipment to sequester CO2 produced by biological process that treat wastewater? This equipment will do the job but will do nothing to effect global temperatures. Similarly do you design a lime soda water softening plant to remove the excess CO2 use to recarbinate after treatment. Even if you know it will do nothing to control man made global warming. This is just the beginning. Will  the EPA require every US steel plant to install CO2 sequestering equipment to control CO2 from smelting operation. Will we have to control the CO2 from every pond ,lake,swamp, field,forest with decaying leaves.

                If you are so sure that CO2 is causing global warming show me the test data and not just rhetoric.

                If you look at the data from NASA satellite temperature reading for the last 7 year you will find that we have not had any global warming, infact it shows that we are experiencing some of the coldest weather in years.

                The congress and the UN are working on taxing the hell out of veryone to force reduction in CO2/carbon foot prints . Do you want to pay 20 t0 30 % more for electric energy and get nothing for it except deeper in debt.

                • McCarthy

                  You really don't understand that it isn't a hoax.   These wacko industry-financed websites are continuing to fight the truth as long as possible.  Just because there are two sides to an argument in the "equal time" world, doesn't mean that both deserve equal consideration by the scientific community.  Do you really think some 15 year old kid has a better handle on global climate than professional scientists?

                  I was wondering why an old school wastewater guy was so involved in pressing this argument from the beginning.  Your agenda in your industry is now clear from your latest response.  And you're playing the "UN Conspiracy" boogieman card.

                  I guess this is where I get off.  Best wishes.

                  • cleanwater

                     I am glade you looked at the Web-site" Ponder the Maunder" and yes this 16 year old young scientis has more inteligency than many so called climate scientist that prefer to use crystal balls instead of data. As I asked in my original question Where is the data proving that the Greenhouse gas effect exists. I'm sure you can direct me to a site with the data.

                    Albert Einstrein was about 21years old when he publised the Theory of Relativity. Many of the greatist scientist have done their best work before they were 30 years old.

                    In other of my responses I have listed several references by Ph.D physists that show that the so called greenhouse effect and the greenhouse gaseffect  violates the second Law of Thermodynaic. I hope you had some physics in school.

                    On the web-site are references to a document  signed by more than 30,000 slcientists that agree with the conclusions that man made global warming does not exist.

                    Have you looked up the British court documents that show that Al Gore's book is 90% lies and the UK courts have banded the use of his book in science classes. The courts conculsion was that it is political propaganda,.

                    You refer to the UN  shows that you have not taken the time to really look at their document -because it is very vage about its conclusions. It has been proven that they manipulated the data .  It is documented that fewer than 600 of the origanal signer are still supporting the document.

                    Most of your response is retoric and does not give any data or references - where is the proof of your statements?

                    If the greenhouse gas effect exists where are the products that contain CO2 or CH4 or Nitrogentri fluide thats supposed to be a super greenhouse gas that could give us thermopane window with R-factors of 40 or 50?

                    I have an ax to grind- it to get people to learn the truth That the greenhouse gas effect does not exist and that politicans are using lies to promote the taxing of CO2 so they will have more money to waste.

                    I feel sorry for you "McCarthy" because i"msure you have invested in " CarbonCredits" Unfortuneatly you've lost your money.

                    • McCarthy

                      Mr. Cleanwater,

                      Good luck in your continued battle against good science.  I'm done with this conversation.

                • hammuraby

                  i am not a geologist, but i trust that the antropyc doing can be a cause, but not too much in US, more in EU...

                  because in europe there is many under-surface box for cars,

                  and that have turn a land in a radiator-dissipator of a geotermich heat,

                  and also the surface underground isn't wet from rain, and that give a thermic to atmosphere every time that the external temperature is under 14C°....24/24h  and...square to delta Thermic

                  my be use a ground under the home like a sun-summer thermic storage, and use thet THERMIC for heat the house in winter can be USEFULL........

                  • jamesw

                    hammuraby said...

                    i am not a geologist, but i trust that the antropyc doing can be a cause, but not too much in US, more in EU...

                    because in europe there is many under-surface box for car and that have torn a land as an radiator-dissipator of a geotermich heat, and also the surface underground isn't wet from rain, and that give a thermic to atmosphere every time that the external temperature is under 14C°....24/24h  and...square to delta Thermic

                    my be use a ground under the home like a sun-summer thermic storage, and use thet THERMIC for heat the house in winter can be USEFULL........

                    Dude, do you write Phase Is?
                  • cleanwater

                    Hello hammuraby: I had difficulty understanding what you are saying, however If I  understand what your concept is ,it been in use in some parts of the world for about 300 years( in Iceland )and in many part of the US for 50 t0 60 years. We call it heat pumps or geothermal heating. It has some use in the more southern states. In the northern parts of the world the supplemental heat that is needed for very cold weather makes it impractical or uneconomical.

                    Thanks for the input. You still have not come up with an answer to the first Question- Where is the proof that the Grenhouse gas effect exists?

                    • hammuraby

                      i think you don't have fully understending....

                      in europe there is a VVEERRYY big vaste of heating , that came from a underground surface...

                      i call that fhenomena a MARYLIN MONROE effect,  (if you remind her skirt up, when she walk up the grill)

                      and this heat is not used, because thi is "ONLY" 14 C° , in the eathing needing is 20C° or above...

                      for  the question , my certain answere is:

                      there is an antropic cause, but is not the CO2 put into the athmosphere, bur the escavations in the land ,

                      grown whit a escavation (digging) means in the last twenty-therdy  years.

                      that have turn a land surface in a dissipator of a base- geotermal heat...

                      1 ectar , NOW,  have a 11000 Mt2 exposed, (not 10 000!)

                      and the 1000 Mt2 more,  is under the building roof, then not refrigerate from COLD winter rainS

                      • cleanwater

                        Hello hammuraby: Your right I do not understand what your saying. I can not relate what the excavation of the ground has to do with a supposed atmopheric affect of Greenhouse gases.

                        Thanks for the input but I can not understand the relivance.I'm assuming that this is not just a joke on your part.

                        If you have any data about Proof of the Greenhouse gas effect please share it with the world.

                    • hammuraby

                      hi, the green house effect , in my studies, is not really important....

                      because the main cause of atmosfheric heating is a geotermal dispersion encreased whit a lot and durable work of excavation for hauses, (look a little picture  under -right) and, undergraund pipe for rain water...

                      my be there is not a EASY solution to apply,

                      the only one that can be usefull,  is recicle a heat in winter, using a thermich from summer sun, (eu)

                      for heat a deep-graund; then store thet thermich underground,

                      making a geothermal dispersion above a 20C° degree, 

                      stop the dispersion into air...for use it  into heating sistem in winter..

                      certainly my studies is not a joke...

                      anthrophic causes YES , but not a greenhouse effect...

                      many tenks for attenction..

                      • cleanwater

                        Hello hammuraby: I find your comment on geothermaly heating to be off base> Solar energy has far more effect than convection of geothermal heat . As you are not familiar with the American southwest you many not be aware of the rapid rate of heating observed daily.The  temperature before sun rise can be below 0 C but by noon the temperature of the air will be in excess 45 C and ground temperature will be in excessive 50 C. the absorbsion of the solar heat in not the major effect. more of the heating is by convection and condution from the heating of the earth. What you are talking about is the residual heat remaining in the earth after it cools at night.

                        the concept you discribe has been use in some home especially in central Europe , I'm not sure how long they've been in use maybe 80 to 100 years. there is an artical in a recent Popular Science magazine in the US. Check their archieve of early 2008.

                        • hammuraby

                          certainly, the difference from ALL europe (i am living in milan) and the south usa, is a lot...

                          and for that i talk about a concept used here...i trust that usa is not responsable about a heating in atmosfhere,

                          because in USA, there are a little encreased of natural dispersion by  underground geotermich relase....

                          at fist because your building system,  is not used to excave a room undergraund for a wine-cells or box for cars...

                          and for second cause because in europe, in one year,  there is a lot of time thet the atmosfhere temperature is under the ground temperature...

                          relase is dubled2 of DELTA termich

                          • cleanwater
                            Thank you for the info. this does not address the situation on Manmade Global warning which is a Hoax. As there is no proof that the greenhouse gas effect exists.
                            • hammuraby

                              yes, my study agreed whit your wiewpoint, the greenhouse effect isn't reality...but...

                              there is a heating of athmosphere at same, caused from geo-dispersion, and a low white-numbs reflex...

                              for thi is necessaire to do something, like contrast a desertification, whit a correct

                              "MENAGEMENT of SURFACE WATER"

        • bglasberg

          It never ceases to amaze me how many geologists and environmental professionals I meet who do not “believe in” global warming.  The 1996 UN Report on Global warming, as well as subsequent international reports, written by thousands of the world’s most preeminent atmospheric scientists, as well as NASA reports, clearly shows how release of ozone, methane, carbon dioxide and other atmospheric pollutants are exacerbating global warming and depleting the ozone layer.  The North Pole, for the first time ever, will be all water within the next few years.  It’s like in the old days when the flat earth society refused to acknowledge that the earth was round even though more and more evidence showed the earth was round. 


          Simple common sense says that millions and millions of cars and diesel trucks spewing toxic exhaust and soot into the air cannot be good for the atmosphere; hundreds of coal fired plants around the world spewing toxic soot, carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the air cannot be good for the atmosphere, deforestation cannot be good for the atmospheric chemical balance, and countless other polluting sources have to adversely impact the atmosphere.  If you follow the money trail for the conferences where global warming is derailed, the conferences are sponsored by oil companies, who have spent millions in a PR campaign fighting against climate change legislation.  


          As environmental professionals, we should be leading the way to help save this planet, not assist those who’s short goals are to maximize profits now!

          • cleanwater

            Hello bglasberg: It is beyond your comprehension that you are the one that has been deceived by the lies of the UN and of Al Gore and Jim Hansen. Below are just a few of the miss conceptions that you have been learning from false advertising and uninformed people.

            • The greenhouse  effect and the greenhouse gas effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamic. This was proved in 1909 by R.W. Wood inventor of IR photography .If you dare to learn the true find and read the paper "

              Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics 

              by Dipl.-Ing. Heinz Thieme .

            • If you want the Ph.D. in physics version and you have more than a Highschool education try "Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2  Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics" by Gerlich and Tscheuschner

            • If you find that the above paper are beyond your comprehension try the web-site "Ponder the Maunder" It was prepared by a young scientist that has a better understanding than 80% of our Congressmen and the pretend President.

            • The U.N. document have been show to be corrupted by the politicians of the UN. Originally 2500 "scientist " were on the committee but only about 1800 signed the document the remainder refused because of the corruption that was included including the manipulation of data  to show a false conclusion. Since then about 1200 of the signers have withdrawn their endorsement because of the corruption. This leave about 500 or less.

            • You must be aware that Al Gore has formed a company that sells "Carbon Credits" . He has probably made million or more from the fools that thing that controlling CO2 will have any effect on global warming. Who has an ax to grind>

            • The current data from NASA satellite data shows that there has not been any Earth warming (average temperature) for 7 years.

            • The NASA data on the size and thickness of the Polar ice cap has gotten larger and thicker.

            • The northern hemisphere has just experienced the coldest winter in about 100 years,especially in Europe and China.

            • When you add up the total CO2 from all the item you listed it is less that 1 trillionth of the CO2 from natural sourses as volcanos, plant decay, biological processes, etc.

            • My original question was where is the proof that the greenhouse gas effect exists. You obviously can't answer the question.

            • You reference to the Arctic ocean being free of ice is not correct check the geological records- during the days of the dinosaurs there was very little ice any where on Earth and there was a lot more CO2.

            • You must also know that AL Gore's book has been band in the UK because it was proven in court that it is 90% lies and that it has more than 35 technical errors in it. The Academy aware from Hollywood is correct except its in the wrong category -it should be for fiction trying to be science fiction.

            • You forgot to talk about the polar bears- according to a recent  committee report that there are between 25-30,000 polar bear in the northern hemisphere and inceasing in north America at more than 10,000 . Gee I guess that polar bear on the ice flow could swim.

            • If you was to start learning real fact try the following web-site

            • bglasberg

              Dear Cleanwater,

              Your response does not at all address the critical point.  How can tens of millions of cars and diesel trucks spewing toxic exhaust into the air decade after decade not adversely impact the atmosphere.  That violates the laws of physics.  How can hundreds of coal fired plants spewing toxic exhaust into the air decade after decade not adversely impact the enviornment.  That violates the laws of physics.  I learned about the green house effect when I was in college in the late 1970's.  The green house effect is established science, just like the the earth being round is established science.  And, you did not address the money trail that clearly shows oil industry behind the the movement against the science and regulations dealing with climate change.

              Your response shows anger and a political bias against the UN, Al Gore, etc. that is obviously clouding clear thinking on this issue.

              • cleanwater

                Dear bgasberg: You made my day I haven't stopped laughing at how uninformed  your question have shown . The lack of knowledge of science ,the power industry and the auto industry is obvious to the world by the responce.You have show that the environmental extremes minds are still in the middle of the 20th or even the 19th century. They seem to believe in the "flat Earth theroy.

                • Let s start with the importance of CO2 it is an essential beneficial part of the cycle of life> If we did not have CO2 there may  be harm to both human life and plant life.
                • If we start sequestering CO2 we could reduce plant growth and thus have less food available.
                • The greenhouse gas effect has been proven to be a hoax thus to require power generator to capture CO2, or cattle raisers to capture CH4 is redicules.
                • The Power industry has been installing pollution control equipment for 40 years. The quality of the exhaust of a power plant only contains CO2 ( essential part of the Cycle Of Life).,water vapor , NO-x,( part of the normal atmosphere.( NO-x are formed by lightening also) particulats have been reduced to near zero. The power indusry has spent trillions of dollars to improve their products lets thank them .
                • The automobile industry has been adding pollution control equipment to cars for the last  50 year. If you live in a city that requires exhaust test you would know that most or almost all car pass the EPA test and most are well below the allowable. ( get with it bglasberg)
                • Laws going into effect in 2010 will require the addition of an additive to new truck engines that will improve efficency and reduce certain contaminent even more. Have you seen a cloud of smoke from trucks or buses recently? Air pollution improvements have been added to diesel engines for the passed 30 years. The auto/truck indusry has spent billions of dollars to improve their products lets thank them .
                • To use the phrase "violates the laws of physics"to apply to the process that is happening shows  that you don't understand that the Laws of physics or science in general are based on tested observation of years of data . If you can see something happening that is obeying the laws of physics or chemistry etc. ( please go back to high school and take a general science class)
                • You stated that where you went to college in the 70's that the greenhouse gas effect was accepted as science , I'd go get your money back because there is no scientific data showing that the greenhouse gas effect exists.  As I have said earlier the greenhouse effect and the greenhouse gas effect were disproved in 1909 by R.W. Wood. The two effect both violate The Second Law of Thermodynamics-you obviously skipped class the week they taught about the Laws of Thermodynamics..
                • I am not angry against AL Gore , Joe Lieberman,Jim Hansen and the UN ,I am furious that crocks like theses are allowed to be free and spreading lies and taking money from the public. and stupid people cannot see that they are sheep being lead to the slaughter. As a professional engineer of more than 45 years I have seen many good laws that have been passed but there have been far more that should be totally ignored, and because they do not make sense there are. The ranting of the environmental extremists  will hurt mankind not help.
                • Politician pass laws that try to change peoples' behavior, but after more than 6000 years of laws- mankind has not change one bite. The Laws of nature have not changed in trillions of year( since time began). We have been spending 10,000 year finding out what they are - as we have learned more about the laws of nature- technology has changed. People have not changed -There are some very inteligent people as Einstein or Max Plank  and many many others , there are many smart people, there are very many people with less intelligents and there are a few people that don't think but are lead around by the politiacans  and the  enviromentals extremests who are trying to correct a problem that does not exist.  Remenber the Cycle of Life.
                • The oil industry reference is a red herring- they want people to know the truth, the liberal politicans only want to take your and my money to line their pockets not to correct the problem-"I'm from the government and I'm here to help you!!!"
                • There are only two thing that cause climate change and mankind cannot do anything about it-Solar energy reaching the  earth -(earth's orbit and tilt )and the benefits of the "water effect". Only egomaniacs think that mankind has the knowlege or power to control nature/climate.
                • Send me another response so I can have another day of laughter.Of coure you may know the saying- its better to keep your mouth closed than open it and prove how litle you know.
                • Before you answer please check the web-site  They are only supported by private donations ,not money from Greenpease or the oil companies.
                • bglasberg

                  Dear Cleanwater,

                  Lets be respectful of each others point of view. At your suggestion I did go the website and here is what I found:  "Heartland's mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies."  Heartlands “mission”  is right out of the Republican/Conservative movement playbook.  This is not a neutral website…sorry to say.  

                  Global problems take global solutions.  The “free market” promotes short term, profit driven solutions that do not work with longterm issues environmental degradation or health care for that matter.  The common good should not be for sale.   

                   Here is one global warming description (with references) that may help:

                  Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and the oceans since the mid-twentieth century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 100 years ending in 2005.[1][A] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the twentieth century,[1] and that natural phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect afterward.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science,[B] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[4][5. 

                  1.         (1) (a,b,c,d,)"Summary for Policymakers" (PDF). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007-02-05. Retrieved on 2007-02-02. 

                  2.        ^ Hegerl, Gabriele C.; et al. (2007-05-07). "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change" (PDF). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 690. Retrieved on 2007-05-20. "Recent estimates (Figure 9.9) indicate a relatively small combined effect of natural forcings on the global mean temperature evolution of the seconds half of the twentieth century, with a small net cooling from the combined effects of solar and volcanic forcings" 

                  3.        ^ Ammann, Caspar; et al. (2007-04-06). "Solar influence on climate during the past millennium: Results from transient simulations with the NCAR Climate Simulation Model" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104 (10): 3713–3718. doi:10.1073/pnas.0605064103. PMID 17360418. "However, because of a lack of interactive ozone, the model cannot fully simulate features discussed in (44)." "While the NH temperatures of the high-scaled experiment are often colder than the lower bound from proxy data, the modeled decadal-scale NH surface temperature for the medium-scaled case falls within the uncertainty range of the available temperature reconstructions. The medium-scaled simulation also broadly reproduces the main features seen in the proxy records." "Without anthropogenic forcing, the 20th century warming is small. The simulations with only natural forcing components included yield an early 20th century peak warming of ˜0.2 °C (˜1950 AD), which is reduced to about half by the end of the century because of increased volcanism.". 

                  4.        ^ "The Science Of Climate Change". Royal Society. May 2001. Retrieved on 2008-01-04. 

                  5.        ^ "Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change". Royal Society. June 2005. Retrieved on 2008-01-04. 



                  • cleanwater
                    bglasberg said...

                    Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 100 years ending in 2005.[1][A]

                    Thank you for doing some research . You noticed that the data you referenced stopped in 2005. Since then the current data shows that the "average temperature " has decreased by more than the .74deg. C ( 1.32Deg F) thus wiping out the bases for the conclusion that we are in a continuing upward climb. I am giving you another web side to review of sea ice.situation . While there is a statement in this Website that does not make sense that variations in solar energy is of little impact. Anyone that has been in the southwest on a clear day knows that the temperature can go from below freezing to 130 deg. in about 4 hrs. then by morning the next day it will be back to below freezing.

                    Anyone that has worked with statistical data will know that !.32 deg. change in an average when the daily change in temperatures for most areas is from 50 to 100 deg. is like saying my dog has a flea therefore we should destroy the dog. !.33 deg. with a plus or minis of .33 means nothing except someone has added up a bunch of numbers and divided by the number of items. The numbers that would mean far more is the data on the variations in solar energy that has reached Earth during the same time period. Do to solar flares and other variations in solar out put the temperatures will vary from year to year.

                    The problem with this full discussion is that it is talk about global temperatues that can be effected by a thousand variables. There is no test data about the fact that the greenhouse gas effect was disproved in 1909 by R.W. Wood and others more recently.

                    • bglasberg


                      While 2008 was cooler then the previous few years, it was still the 9th warmest year since 1880.  The overall trend is warmer and warmer, as seen from the graph below. 

                      GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

                      Global Temperature Trends: 2008 Annual Summation

                      Originally posted Dec. 16, 2008, with meteorological year data. Updated Jan. 13, 2009, with calendar year data.

                      Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis [see ref. 1] of surface air temperature measurements. In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880 (left panel of Fig. 1). The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008. The two-standard-deviation (95% confidence) uncertainty in comparing recent years is estimated as 0.05°C [ref. 2], so we can only conclude with confidence that 2008 was somewhere within the range from 7th to 10th warmest year in the record.

                      A) Line plot of mean annual global temperature anomalies since 1880, and B) Global map of mean temperature anomalies for 2008 met year

                      Figure 1 above. Left: Annual-means of global-mean temperature anomaly Right: Global map of surface temperature anomalies, in degrees Celsius, for 2008. (Click for PDF.)

                  • cleanwater

                    Hello bglasberg: Just a few more things to think about-If you are talking to a metrologist that works with daily temperatures the best they will predict in 5 to 10 days in the future. Most of them say that manmade global climate change is not supported by the data.

                    If you talk to climatologist they are talking about things that could possible happen 50 t0 500 years in the future. That if certain undefined thing might happen. Now I know that I will not be here 50 or 100years from now to tell the climatologist that they are all wet. But I'm more confident that the metrologist are more with reality as they are working with the real thing daily and not looking in the crystal balls that may be clouded over with frost or rain clouds.

                    Again referring to one of your earlier  responses to me-you have not addressed the key issue where is the data that proves that the greenhouse gas effect exist?

                    The political leaning of one Website or another has nothing to do with the data that they present if documented. If someone is presenting undocumented information or has been shown to be presenting falsified information for political reasons then they should be taken to task. The information from the UN and The Goddard Center of NASA has been shown to be  in error on several occasions- they have had to issue corrections.

                    • bglasberg

                      Here is some evidence of Greenhouse gas effect vs. temperature.

                      Scientific Evidence

                      Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases

                      Through the study of ancient ice cores from Antarctica it is possible to compare atmospheric concentrations of the dominant greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere with temperature variations over the past 400 thousand years of the earth's history (Fig 1). A visual comparison of the two trends indicates a very tight connection between their performance, with fluctuations in one plot almost exactly mirrored in the other for more than 400 thousand years. But suddenly in the 1800s, as the Industrial Revolution takes off, atmospheric CO2 concentrations begin an unprecedented upward climb, rising rapidly from 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) in the early 1800s to a current level of 376 ppmv, 77 ppmv above the highest concentrations previously attained in the course of the preceding 400 thousand years.

                      CO2 and Temperature
                      • cleanwater

                        Hello bglasberg: the graph you have is very interesting ,however one problem is that the place where the data is taken for the passed 50years  is on top of an active volcano.The other caution is that the data is plotted on a log scale that causes a compression of the horizontal . If you carefully compare the temperature peaks to the CO2 peaks you will find that the CO2 peaks are 400 years after the temperature peaks.

                        You will notice that the first vertical graduation is at 50 thousand years ago.To create a graph like this there would have to be several million data points. I question if there have been that many cores taken in the Antarctica in the last 100 years that we have been exploring in the Antarctica.

                        During this time frame there have been several magnetic pole inversions following is an excerpt of info from a web page on this phenomena:

                        A chart showing Earth polarity reversals over the last 160 million years. Black = normal polarity, White = reversed polarity. From Lowrie (1997)

                        Again, we simply do not know. We do know that this magnetic pole flip-flop has occurred many times in the last few million years, the last occurred 780,000 years ago according to ferromagnetic sediment. A few scaremonger articles have said geomagnetic reversal occurs with "clockwork regularity" - this is simply not true. As can be seen from the diagram (left), magnetic reversal has occurred fairly chaotically in the last 160 million years. Long-term data suggests that the longest stable period between magnetic "flips" is nearly 40 million years (during the Cretaceous period over 65 million years BC) and the shortest is a few hundred years.

                        Some 2012 theories suggest that the Earth's geomagnetic reversal is connected to the natural 11-year solar cycle. Again, there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support this claim. No data has ever been produced suggesting a Sun-Earth magnetic polarity change connection.

                        We have no idea of what this up coming event will have on global temperatues.I am attaching a list of web sites that show that there have been times in the life of the Earth when the CO2 concentrations have been much higher than it is at the present.

                        Again I ask you to show me a web site that proves that the Greenhouse gas effect exists. This info is interesting but if my contention based on the technical papers is true then all this effort to relate that global temperature are effected by CO2 in the atmosphere is a waste of time and effort.. Try keeping with the subject- " the greenhouse gas effect" where is the proof.

          • cleanwater

            Hello bglasberg: I assume you are aware that the former president of the Siarha Club has changed his mined about global warming and has issued statments that man made global warming does not exist.

            The former head of the Australian "climate change" department has issued statement saying that man made global warming does not exist.

            There are many  scientist that have left the NASA becaue of the lies of Jim Hansen. One that should be looked up is Roy W. Spencer Ph.D Principal Research Scientist -University of Alabama Huntsville.

            I'm sure they can be found on the internet.

            Again look up the web-site to start  learning facts ..

    • LSchnapf

      Whether Climate Change exists and whether it is anthropogenic in nature is really not the right question for us environmental professionals to ask at this point in time. The fact of the matter is that some sort of GHG regulation is going to take place. Thus, our job is how can we help our clients (1) minimize their liability for non-compliance and (2) how can we and our clients benefit from the inevitable regulatory change.

      When I studied geology in college back in the 1970s, the climate change of concern was global cooling. Most of my friends who studied geology are at best agnostic about climate change and many simply  believe the changes we are seeing are too short term to be geologically significant. Others believe that even if the climate is changing, how much of the change is caused by human activity. If humans are indeed the tail wagging the climate change dog, then they feel we really cant influence the change.

      As many of you know, I teach a course on the "Bible and the Environment". As a person of faith, i believe that humans have a moral obligation to reduce the impact of our activities on the earth and Creation. This is one reason why I dont eat meat. 

      Consistent with that belief, I feel we should not wait until there is unequivocable proof that humans are changing the climate. We as a country did not wait for such certainty when we enacted the Clean Air Act in 1970, the Clean Water Act in 1972, the ESA in 1973, RCRA in 1976, TSCA in 1977 or CERCLA in 1980. Congress responded to incomplete scientific evidence and some very obvious physical and visual impacts such as weather inversions in NYC, smog alerts in LA, a river catching on fire in Cleveland, the discovery of the Valley of Drums and Love Canal in 1978. I think it is the right thing to reduce the emissions of GHG just  as I think we should reduce the amount of meat we eat because of the enormous environmental impacts caused by CAFOs and the inhumane treatment of the animals who are treated like nothing more than protein factories.

      Regardless of our personal views, climate regulation is coming. As professionals, we need to prepare for this opportunity so we can help our clients. 

      and if the science is wrong, well I've witnessed alot worse waste of our country's resources that did not benefit the environment and made things worse.


      • cleanwater

        hello Larry : While I agree with some of what you say  I cannot agree that we are helping our client or ourselfs if we let the EPA put out regulations that will steal money from all of us in the form of Carbon taxes. The greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.

        Man-made “global warning is a hoax!!


        The greenhouse gas effect was disproven in 1909 by R.W. Wood inventor of IR and UV photograph.

        The concept of the GHG effect” Violates the second Law of Thermodynamics “ therefore it does not happen.

        It is a proven fact that “the water effect” is the primary cause of weather modification on the planet Earth. It is not a GHG effect.

        There is not data showing that the GHG effect exist.

        Before any Engineer or scientist wastes  time or money of there own or there client  make the EPA show proof that the GHG effect exists.

        If they go to a court order as proof, we know that lawyers and judges do not know anything about physics, thermodynamics or science in general.


        Following are a few of the references that show that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.

        “Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics by Dipl. –Ing Heinz Thieme.

        “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics.”

        By Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner.




        “Ponder the Maunder





        To site back and let the world be shafted by the lies being told about global warming is a violation of personal and professional ethic. I have been asking the world to show proof that the ghg effect exist -no one has any proof. It can not be proven. The amount of wasted time and money is in the trillion of dollars and the only causes of climate change is solar energy modified by the "water effect" not the "ghg effect" . From a religious stand point GOD has not created a mechandism "ghg effect" that man could use to destroy them selves.

        • LSchnapf
          I do not represent clients involving federal legislation and I suspect most of those who participate on Common Ground are similarly situated. My comments were directed to those whose primary involvement with climate change will be helping clients deal with the various regulatory initiatives being implemented. Those who are involved in advocacy or lobbying and who believe that the anthropogenic contributions to climate change are over-stated or will unfairly burden their clients are certainly free to advance those positions.  
          • cleanwater

            Larry : If you represent any clients ,they will be impacted by the EPA and their unreasonable goals. If you have not seen where the Federal EPA has proposed declaring that GHG's are health risks. That will result in their declaring that  humans that breath out 6% CO2 are harming other humans that are breathing in someone else CO2 is injuring them therefore everyone will have to wear CO2 absorbing gas masks. I know this sounds stupid until it happens. The current heads of the EPA and the Department of Climate change are heading in that direction.

            This business of the Hoax of Man-made global warming is affecting every level of our society from the school teacher  in elementary school that teaches the lies about GHG's to the President. After you read the references I supplied and you still think that this lie will not have an effect on your clients thing about the number of manhours they will be spent doing CO2 and other greenhouse gas inventories.

            Have you seen the studies of people going out and putting gas collection bags on cows in Canada and India to determine how much GHG is emitted by these animals? This is real and a total waste,pun interned. Do any of your clients have farms or waste products that may produce CO2 or Ch4 or whatever EPA besides to call a GHG?

            Where will the stupidity end.

            I have been told by a friend that her daughter at 10 years old question a teacher about "how could we be having Global Warning" when we in Ohio have been experiencing the coldest winter in 8 to 10 years. The teach could not give a good answer-

            This is affecting everyone already and every environmental specalist will see it affecting them in what is paid for Energy and then every thing else.

            Cap and Trade will be the next superfund disaster.

    • hammuraby

      then , the Gh effect isn't real

      but a lot heat  is waste for human work  on surface

      and a unability to make a correct surface water menagement is the cause of desertification...

      then for the hi-level of CO2 into atmosphere...

      I think that a real help , can came from this: "THE final SOLUTION" against a saler of right (uman)

    • cleanwater

      Contact your Congressman ASAP

      Tell your Congressman to get evidence that the Greenhousegas effect exists.

      The congress is planning to pass a Cap& steal or Carbon tax tell them that they must get evidence that the “greenhouse gas effect exists” If they cannot get this evidence they should not pass this stupid legislation.

      If they pass it then we should tell them that we will not vote for any Congressman that vote for this legislation.

      Even if you think that this legislation should be passed-demand the evidence that the “greenhouse gas effect exists”

      • cleanwater

        Comments on Greenhouse gas effect 5-16-09

        Dear Readers: I will try to answer all the comments as many of them are worth sharing

        what I do know and give references where someone else does a better job of explaining

        why the greenhouse gas effect does not exist.

        A general comment on the supposed test “proving that the greenhouse gas effect exists.”

        This is a very poorly set up experiment. Every one of my question or comments was

        meant to point out an error or fault with the experiment. Having done a bite of

        experimenting for my Masters degree and having had my butt reamed for poor definition

        of the problem and ways to set up the experiment to either prove or disprove the

        hypotheses behind the experiment. I can recognize other’s mistakes. The experiment of

        proving that the “greenhouse gas effect exist” must show that there is “back radiation

        “caused by properties of CO2 and other gas molecules. It has been shown by Niels Bohr

        in 1922 that when a gas molecule absorbs electromagnetic energy as photons from IR it

        causes the electrons to go to a higher energy shell in the molecule- it does not cause the

        gas to heat up. The individual molecule can only absorb a specific amount of energy

        before it is reradiated as “light energy” with the same wavelength as was absorbed. The

        “light energy” will be radiated in any direction ( a three dimensional model) there is no

        force that cause it to go back in the direction that it came from. Using

        the picture used by advocates of the Greenhouse gas effect is pure fantasy. There no fixed

        layer of CO2, in the troposphere –The CO2 is distribute through out the troposphere thus

        if the molecule (very few-380ppm) absorbs the specific wave lengths that it will accept

        (only 2 or 3 wave lengths in the IR range) they can be from any direction thus during the

        day sunlight will be the primary source –very little from outward radiation from the

        heated Earth. At night after sundown the IR radiation from Earth could be absorbed by

        the CO2 however as stated above only 2 or 3 wavelengths of the IR spectrum will be

        absorbed. Any particular molecule may or may not absorb the IR depending on its

        individual energy level, because most of the molecules are already at an excited level

        from the sun, most of the IR from Earth will escape into space.( about 1 millionth of out

        bound IR will be absorbed then reradiated in any direction). This is proved every day

        because the temperature from one day to the next is totally different. Daily temperatures

        are obviously controlled by moving air masses. Ask any weatherman-meteorologist-The

        best they can do is predict the next 5 days with some reliability –why do you believe a

        Climatologist who is trying to use his frosty crystal ball to predict 10-20-30- 50- 100

        years into the future. They tell us that they have this great computer model that makes all

        kind of assumptions but because there are limitations in the capacity of the computers

        they have to ignore the effects of water and sun light variation. As with all computers

        “garbage in is garbage out” Having checked with many Meteorologists ( and a few

        climatologist including the retired head of the Climatologist Society) that work with the

        data daily they know that the greenhouse gas effect is bull and that Man-made global

        warming is the product of corrupt politicians. If the politician and wacky

        environmentalists would close their mouths the Earth temperature would drop at least 5


        Just a short comment about “heating” and “Heat transfer” –Thermodynamics-this is very

        simplified so the wacky environmental can understand it- gases do not get heated by

        absorption of radiation they get heated from conduction from other heated bodies- and

        when it heats up it causes the molecules to move faster( higher energy) this energy will

        then transfer to other molecules by collisions. Like pole balls colliding. This explains

        why the experiment that was supposed to prove that the greenhouse gas effect exists is in

        error. The light passes through the gas without heating it (Per Niels Bohr and others)

        then it is absorbed by the glass containers and the black cardboard inside the containers

        that heat up and then the gases are heated by conduction. The reason I was concerned

        whether one of the containers with the air was open is that convection through an open

        top would prevent heating as much as the closed top container with CO2 (greenhouse

        effect) We all know that the greenhouse effect exists. The problem is the explanations of

        why it happen is not understood- Look up the work of R.W. Wood that explains what

        happens –not back radiation of IR.

        The above is an answer to Brian D and Paul in Mi

        To Paul in MI –you did not read the previous comments of early May- I have performed

        similar experiments that were better thought out and the results were totally different.

        That is why I have gone into the above dissertation on basic physics, thermodynamics,

        not so basic radiation physics and a little nuclear physics.

        To Adam –the experiment does not prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas- it proves that the

        greenhouse gas effect does not exist- again it proves that they set the experiment up

        wrong and proved the opposite –the greenhouse gas effect does not exist.

        To Paul in Mi- You are very good to question the reference to “Gerlich and Tscheuschner

        “ this is a first class reference because I have done the tests that they explained and gotten

        the results they said I would . Yes it is written by Ph D physicists for knowledgeable

        scientists. It may have some error but reading the comment there have not been any that

        shows any errors just rhetoric by environmental wackos who do not want to realize the

        works of Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius is Hypothesis that contain theoretical

        calculations and no actual test data. There has been much scientific research and great

        scientific discovery like the work of Einstein, Niels Bohr and many others that shows that

        these early Hypotheses have not been supported by facts.

        Another reference that I have given before is “Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates

        Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link

        that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax. It is a lot easier for the

        average person to read and understand. It also is consistent to the work of Gerlich etc.

        Another reference is “Ponder the Maunder” that is an excellent reading for the beginner.

        Adam-do you think “I am grabbing at straws? In additions I have communicated to

        physicists that are experts in IR photography and they have supplied data on the

        absorption of IR by CO2 and other gases. This supports the fact that the greenhouse gas

        effect is a hoax.

        I am not contending that what I have written is absolutely correct, much has been

        simplified for understanding. Many of the references and there links give more complete

        explanations. It is not possible to condense 7000 years of scientific research and learning

        into a few pages. There have been many mistakes made during that time like the Earth is

        Flat (Known by the ancient Egyptians that it is spherical) or that the Earth is the center of

        the Universe but to go back 150 years to a Hypotheses that has not been proven by data is


        There have been references to the 95% CO2 atmosphere of Venus and the fact that it is at

        a mush higher pressure than on Earth and the temperature of it is mush higher. Some

        idiots claim this is proof that the greenhouse gas effect exists-they are wrong Venus is

        much closer to the Sun therefore it receives much more radiation than Earth and this will

        make it hotter. Because of the higher pressure and higher concentration of CO2 there are

        many,many,many more molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere-if the greenhouse gas effect

        existed all the IR radiation from the hot Planet (2 or 3 wavelengths) would be captured

        and back radiated to the planet. NASA has data that this is not . Also there are clouds of

        Sulfuric Acid over the layer of CO2 that has the same effect as the water cloud on Earth.

        These are not greenhouse gases-Water has proven effects on temperature because of

        known properties. There are Thousands of volumes about water and it effect. Water and

        CO2 are essential for live on this planet.

        There are a few million pages of scientific information or more and yet people prefer to

        believe the fantasy and fiction of a few corrupt politicians, Henny Pennies and

        climatologist that use frosty and dirty crystal balls to predict 50 or 100 years into the

        future based on illogical and unproven fantasy.

    • Joshua

      Fascinating discussion. What intrigues me most is the way debates are handled (or mishandled) these days. I have appreciated cleanwater's focus on evidence. If I disagree with him, all I need to do is refute his premises or show that his premises do not lead necessarily to his conclusion.His claims are pretty straightforward. For example:

      Premise 1.GHG effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

      Premise 2. (By implication) The Second Law of Thermodynaimcs cannot be violated. 

      Conclusion. Therefore, GHG effect is a hoax.

      His conclusion is necessary if his premises are correct. If I refute his premises, I can call his conclusion false. If I cannot refute his premises, I have to admit his conclusion is correct. This is how the game works.

      Anything short of refuting the premises (e.g. "greenhouse gas effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamic") is meaningless. Further, accusing someone of believing the world is flat or that smoking is good is irrelavant and inflamatory. We must let the best ideas win the day not the loudest mouth.

      Even if his conclusions are true, there still remains the question of what do we do with this. It is an interesting position for a professional to encourage his clients toward political action. Maybe we need more of that. I'm not sure. Any good arguments for why we should do this? Or not do this?

      Thank you for an interesting discussion.

    • LSchnapf

      Climate change skeptics got some support recently when a previously undisclosed draft report written by two employees of EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics was released.

      The draft March 16th report (NCEE Report) was submitted in response to the EPA draft Technical Support Document for the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Endangerment Analysis (TSD).   Among the highlights of the NCEE Report:

      • Global temperatures as evidence by satellite readings have declined over the past 11 years while CO2 emissions have increased;
      • There has been 60-year periods of alternating warmer and colder periods; 
      • Global temperatures fell between 1940s and 1970s despite increases in CO2 emissions; 
      • There is a strong correlation between the El Nino phenomenon known formally as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and global temperatures over 30 year periods. ;
      • There is a correlation between solar radiation variation and temperature variation during the Halocene period (past 11,000 years);
      • There is a correlation between Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) flux and global temperature variation (i wonder if scientists on other planets in other solar systems have found the same correlation);
      • Solar sunspot activity modulates GCR flux;
      • GCR flux may effect production of cloud condensation nuclei and ion-aersol cloud processes    

      I am not endorsing these conclusions or the analysis but encourage others to read it and post responses. 


    • Tom McCloskey

      I hope our new President reads some of this - he said last week that CO2 emissions threaten our existence!  What a crock of bad science.

    • bsavage

      Lots of good posts.  Here's another, not by me but from AIPG:

      • R Scott Powell

        Too bad they didn't weigh in one way or the other.  Basically AIPG stated climate change happens... we need to keep studying it.  I support their idea that we need more scientifically defensible proof, but those letters were a non-direct way of telling the government they are shooting without knowing where the target is.  I guess I always prefer the direct method... "Hey! Your making laws blindly!"  ...or something like that.  I am for the reduction of pollutants though, just not defining CO2 as the most important one.


    • smendum

      You know, whether climate change is real or not, it does not change the perception and policy of this and other nations. Customers are demanding higher fuel efficiency in cars, more efficient buildings, a more efficient power infrastructure, alternative fuel and power generation sources...and so on.

      As long as that market exists, and irrespective of your opinion on climate change you have to admit that improved efficiency is a good thing, then as an industry we have the opportunity to service that sector, and make a real difference.

      How many of you with the view that climate change is questionable, or does not exist, are going to turn down a large infrastructure project on the basis that you don't believe the science behind the driver for the project? Or walk away from significant LEED consulting opportunities? You see, regardless of scientific belief, while there is money to be saved, then the climate change market will be sustainable (pardon the pun).

      Whatever your personal opinion, there is a significant and emerging market in this sector, which is going to continue to provide opportunities for some time to come.