The "greenhouse gas effect" was disproved in 1909 by R.W.Wood and has been shown to Violate the Fundamental laws of Physics. Look up the publications of Dipl.-Ing Heinz Thieme and Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner. Other important web-sites with true information http://www.strata-sphere.com and "icecap.com" and a few hundred others.
The "greenhouse gas effect" is a hypothesis that can not be proven and is a Fairy-tale, therefore Man-made global warming is a political & environmental wacko hoax.
We are going into a natural global cooling climate change caused by a Solar hibernation- http://www.space and science research.com

Second, I'm curious to know, CleanWater&Air, what you think of the dramatic reduction in Arctic sea ice?

To Ken Ward- when I looked at the NASA data last week it showed that there is more ice in both the North and South pole than in 2004. That web site seen to be hidden now and one claiming the opposite is available I guess Jim Hansen head of NASA Goddard is manipulating the data again.

The Waxman-Markey -Cap & Steal bill is the worst legislation that congress has ever proposed - Do you know what is in the 1400 page of wasted paper?

The last time I checked the NASA temperature web-site it showed that the temperatures have been going down since 1998. I guess Jim Hansen has manipulated the data again.

In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.

Neither had any prove just a guess. The greenhouse gas effect was disproved by R.W. Wood  in 1909 and has been shown to Violated the Second Law of Thermodynamics  thus it does not happen. Also the work of Nobel Prize in Physics Neils Bohr in 1922 shows that the greenhouse gas effect does not happen in spit of the lies of Nobel prize in Peace Al Gore.

Bohr's work that earned him the 1922 Nobel Prize in Physics is the groundwork for explaining the greenhouse effect.  The fact that atoms can absorb and emit radiation (such as infrared radiation -- heat) is the basis of the greenhouse effect.  How you can say otherwise is either complete ineptitude or deliberate lying.  It's so plain and clear that there isn't even a middle ground.

If you really understood that in 1909 there was no evidence that the greenhouse gas effect existed. There is still no evidence that the greenhouse  gas effect exists-experiments and data.

At this time I am busy but I'll be happy to explain why  the work of Niels Bohr and the experiment of R.W. Wood proves that the ghg effect is a Fairy tale.

In the mean time brush up on your knowledge of Quantum physics and thermodynamics.

From: William Kininmonth

To: cleanwater&air; (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) //= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') output += "&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"; else output += unescape(l[i]); } document.getElementById('eeEncEmail_dcaDvf8FRg').innerHTML = output; //]]>

Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 12:56 AM

Subject: RE: Greenhouse gas effect disproved in 1909

Dear Mr. Klein,

Professor Carter has passed your material to me with a request to comment.

You (and Wood) are correct in identifying that the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with the energy exchange processes associated with a common garden greenhouse. Indeed the greenhouse is a misleading metaphor for the integrated processes that ensure Earth’s surface temperature is about 33C warmer than the equivalent blackbody radiation temperature of the longwave IR emitted to space.

As is correctly pointed out, the so-called greenhouse gases (water vapour, CO2, etc) and clouds emit more radiation, both to space and back to Earth, than they absorb. The greenhouse gases and clouds tend to cool the atmosphere. In contrast, shortwave solar radiation passes through the atmosphere (some being reflected back to space from the clouds and surface) and is absorbed at the surface; thus tending to warm the surface. There is an energy disconnect between the radiation processes that tend to warm the surface and those that tend to cool the atmosphere.

The energy connection of the climate system is made by the exchange of heat and latent energy between the surface and atmospheric boundary layer, and the distribution of the energy through the troposphere by atmospheric overturning. When air rises it cools, becomes saturated, and water condenses releasing the latent energy. The rising air follows a temperature decrease with altitude that is in accordance with the ‘saturated’ adiabatic motion (from -6.5C/km near the surface to near -10C/km in the high troposphere – about 10km); the descending air emits IR radiation and instead of following the ‘dry’ adiabatic lapse rate (-10C/km) it follows the same temperature change with altitude as the ascending air. The overturning requires buoyancy forces (in convection) and horizontal temperature gradients (large-scale weather systems) to do work and overcome the natural stability of the atmosphere.

It is the thermodynamic constraints of the overturning atmosphere that ensures the air near the ground is warmer than the air of higher altitude from where emission to space emanates (the greenhouse effect). It is the overturning atmosphere that is essential to distribute the excess energy from the Earth’s surface through the atmosphere and offset the IR radiation loss to space.

While it might have been Wood who first demonstrated the frailty of the greenhouse metaphor it was not until a paper by H Riehl and J Malkus (1958, Geophysica) that the greenhouse effect was explained by rigorous science. Unfortunately the 19th century greenhouse metaphor lives on in the minds of most commentators, especially those trained in environmental science!

William Kininmonth

email (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) //= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') output += "&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"; else output += unescape(l[i]); } document.getElementById('eeEncEmail_SuqcxFcNIU').innerHTML = output; //]]>

You tell me that the theory of greenhouse gas effect violates the second law of thermodynamics (whicch I've never actually seen any evidence to support thus claim) and then you go ahead and quote a professor who says that "the so-called greenhouse gases (water vapour, CO2, etc) and clouds emit more radiation, both to space and back to Earth, than they absorb." which is a clear violation of the fundamental physical law of Conservation of Energy.  How can something emit more energy than it absorbs?  The laws of physics don't change to your needs.

Frankly, I see now you're a deliberate liar and misleader.

Good day.

I think this line alone best exemplifies just how you are full of shit and lies.  I'm done replying to you.  You are not worth the time of day.

I too have better things to do than try to  share facts with someone too ignorant to want to learn.

I doubt anyone can explain atmospheric physics so a 5 year old will understand, but its easy to tell them that there are many people that believe in fairy -tales even when true scientific evidence shows that "man- made global" warming does not happen. There are more polar bears today than 10 years ago and the glaciers in the Himalayas are growing not shrinking. Al Gore's book has been shown to be 90 % fiction and has been band from use in science classes in the UK( by court order)

It would by a good thing if you wrapped your head in aluminum foil may be you would learn something.