Mexican Professor shows Greenhouse Effect does not exist

by Ed Berry

Here is a simple physics experiment any high school student can do to show the greenhouse effect does not exist. Step-by-step instructions are given in Professor Nasif Nahle’s report, downloadable on Climate Clash.

Professor Nahle of Monterrey, Mexico, backed by a team of international scientists, recreated a famous 1909 experiment by Professor Robert W. Wood at John Hopkins University. Nahle’s results confirm Wood was correct and confirm that the greenhouse effect cannot cause global warming.

Professor Emeritus Vaughan Pratt of Stanford University attempted to replicate Wood’s experiment in 2010 but his experiment failed. Pratt claimed he had disproved Wood’s findings but Nahle’s experiment proves Pratt was wrong.

One must wonder

  • why our government spent over $100 billion attempting to prove our carbon dioxide causes catastrophic global warming before checking the facts.
  • why our alarmist college and university professors do not bother to check facts before parroting the fraudulent reports of the United Nations IPCC.
  • why our schools force students to watch Al Gore’s alarmist fraudulent movie but they do not bother to check facts in their own physics lab.
  • why our EPA moves to manage every aspect of our lives concerning our carbon dioxide emissions when they could have performed this same simple experiment.

Nahle concludes:

The greenhouse effect inside greenhouses is due to the blockage of convective heat transfer with the environment and it is not related to any kind of “trapped” radiation. Therefore, the greenhouse effect does not exist as it is described in many didactic books and articles.

The experiment performed by Prof. Robert W. Wood in 1909 is absolutely valid and systematically repeatable.

Nahle has nailed the coffin on the idea that our carbon dioxide emissions cause any important climate change. And the remarkable thing is your high school students can repeat Nahle’s experiment to test the greenhouse hypothesis for themselves.

To get an idea of what $100 billion in wasted money means, note that America is about $560 billion in the red on its account balance. Add another $100 billion or so for the damage to our economy done by the climate change fraud and we are talking about more than one-third of our present red ink!

By contrast, China has about $280 billion positive in its account reserve, not much more than the amount our eco-freaks and global warmists have wasted in America. We have let a false ideology decimate America’s cash.

Don’t expect Obama, the EPA, any government agency, eco-freaks, or retired alarmist professors to stop promoting their false global warming religion on the public. These people have agendas or are so brainwashed they cannot see reality.

So we still have a public relations battle to fight to bring the truth to the public. The truth is we do not have to worry that our carbon dioxide emissions will overheat the planet.

  (1112)

Comments

  1. 1

    by Al Tekhasski

    Ed,

    You wrote, “The truth is we do not have to worry that our carbon dioxide emissions will overheat the planet.”
    It is likely very true. However, the article you submitted is not worth publishing nor even discussing.

    (1) First, the author concludes that “The greenhouse effect inside greenhouses is due to the blockage of convective heat transfer with the environment and it is not related to any kind of “trapped” radiation.”

    This is a well known and long established fact, see Wikipedia links:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

    1. Oort, Abraham H.; Peixoto, José Pinto (1992). Physics of climate. New York: American Institute of Physics. ISBN 0-88318-711-6. “…the name water vapor-greenhouse effect is actually a misnomer since heating in the usual greenhouse is due to the reduction of convection”

    2. Schroeder, Daniel V. (2000). An introduction to thermal physics. San Francisco, California: Addison-Wesley. pp. 305–7. ISBN 0-321-27779-1. “… this mechanism is called the greenhouse effect, even though most greenhouses depend primarily on a different mechanism (namely, limiting convective cooling).”

    Therefore, the article totally lacks any novelty.

    (2) Second, the author has no clue about what to expect from his experiments. The common explanation of planetary GH effect involves global atmospheric temperature profile anchored to temperature of emission layer, see G2.
    http://climateclash.com/2010/11/28/g2-greenhouse-gas-effect/

    The air path in experimental box is obviously too short to absorb any significant amount of IR emission from the bottom, it must be at least 100m tall. However, when a IR-opaque lid is used, it serves as IR interface to environment, not the bottom. Therefore, when a box has a non-IR transparent lid, the bottom temperature will be determined by temperature equilibriun at the top, plus whatever lapse rate dictates. For a 30cm box the drop in temperatures is expected to be about 3/1000 of a degree (assuming 10K/km standard dry adiabatic lapse rate). In reality the convective stirring inside the box will be suppressed, so the “lapse rate” will be even less, giving even less expected delta T as compared to a box with totally transparent lid.

    To measure the differences, the author employed a kitchen grade thermometer that has an accuracy of about 6C.
    ( see his ref. #3, http://cemszmkpl.en.makepolo.com/productshow/4569429.html )

    Obviously his instrumentation is four orders of magnitude short of necessary requirements for this kind of experiment. No wonder he got all sorts of random data unrelated to the problem at hand, and arrived to absurd conclusion.

    It is unfortunate that the physics of planetary greenhouse effect requires a bit more sophistication than the 8th-grade science fair schoolkids can afford. The article of Nasif Nahle is a typical example of crackpottery and pseudo science.

  2. 2

    @1 Hi Al,

    Thanks for your comment. But I must respectfully disagree with your comment. I think the experiment is done well and is very relevant.

    (1) Your Wikipedia link says the following:

    The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface, energy is transferred to the surface and the lower atmosphere. As a result, the temperature there is higher than it would be if direct heating by solar radiation were the only warming mechanism.

    That is a nice theory but how accurate is it? Now we have an experiment that tests this theory, and it is relevant.

    Although other reports agree, as you point out, that convection is more important than radiation in transferring heat from the earth’s surface to the upper atmosphere, that point misses the problem.

    The problem is Professor Pratt, referenced in the more detailed report of Nahle’s experiment, claims to show that Wood’s 1909 experiment was wrong. Global warmers have taken great pleasure in claiming Pratt’s experiment supports Al Gore’s thesis that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming.

    The point is, an experiment was needed to show Pratt’s experiment was done improperly and Nahle did just that. Indeed, Nahle’s experiment IS novel and IS important.

    (2) Your comment seems to miss the point of Nahle’s paper. He is not attempting to measure the effect of carbon dioxide in his boxes. The glass cover on the box is the analogy to carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

    The atmospheric interpretation of Nahle’s experiment is the glass acts as a powerful absorber of infrared radiation, and thereby simulates the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. The polyethylene simulates our atmosphere without greenhouse gases. According to the Wikipedia paragraph quoted above, the box covered with glass should be much hotter than the box covered with polyethylene.

    It is not. Why not?

    I don’t know where you got the idea Nahle’s thermometers were only accurate to about 6C. In his complete description in his PDF downloadable on ClimateClash, he identifies his thermometers as:

    2 Hanna Instruments® Digital Thermometers, Model HI98501. Range of Temperatures: -50 to 150 °C. Accuracy of ±0.3 °C (inside) and ±0.5 °C (outside). EMC deviation ±0.3 °C. [2]

    3 CEM® Digital Thermometers, Model DT-131. Range of Temperatures: -40 to 250. Accuracy of 0.03 °C. EMC deviation 0.1 °C.[3]

    Clearly, these digital thermometers are sufficiently accurate to support his conclusions.

    In conclusion, Nahle’s experiment is meaningful. That he found the box with polyethylene to be 1 to 2 C hotter than the box with the glass definitely implies the greenhouse effect on the box does not increase the temperature. His simple experiment does not support the Wikipedia paragraph above.

    Unless we can find a flaw in his experiment, we must conclude there is a flaw in the Wikipedia statement, at least to the degree of accuracy of the experiment and to the degree of accuracy intended by the statement.

    Anything done in science is open to challenge but the points you bring up do not suffice to show his experiment is inaccurate or irrelevant. As a start, please use physics to explain Nahle’s glass versus polyethylene data.

    Al, thanks again for your comment.

Leave a Reply