Why there can be no temperature increasing greenhouse effect in our open atmosphere

Hans Schreuder, www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/carbondioxide.html Summary The importance of this submission lies in the fact that the EPA needs to rapidly come to the conclusion that any and all hype about mankind's carbon dioxide emissions is based on the incorrect application of science. Carbon dioxide has a nil effect on the global climate and does not cause climate change in any way, shape or form. This submission will go against all the established interpretations, including those of many skeptical scientists, yet is based entirely upon the proper application of scientific principles, especially those of observation based evidence, none of which has yet been presented to cast doubt, in even the most circumstantial manner, upon the opposite of what is presented to you here.

---

Researchers in climatology should put aside their present work for a moment and focus their attention on the central and decisive subject of climatology. This is the extremely close correlation between the changes in the mean surface temperature and the small changes in the rotational velocity of the Earth in the past 150 years (see http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2787E/y2787e03.htm), which has been ignored by the mainstream climatologists. Almost everything in climatology follows from this one central phenomenon. By Dr. Gerhard Lobert, Munich. Physicist. Recipient of The Needle of Honor of German Aeronautics. A lot of obscurantism has been thrown at the nature of radiant energy in order to make the weird propositions of greenhouse theory seem plausible. The unalterably downward flow of thermal energy is the very essence of the second law of thermodynamics, for instance, but academics will try to argue that the 2nd law of physics only applies to "whole systems," not to heat transfer in each and every particular. That's obscurantism, a practice that's gotten so common in science that anyone who states a matter plainly is now suspected of being a fake. A sad irony, for it's been the academics, the pros, who have tripped all over themselves to explain and defend a theory that the evidence keeps contradicting. So what has this left us with? Just a sour attitude toward science that "if it's incomprehensible, it must be true." If glass lets visible wavelengths of sunlight in but doesn't let invisible long-wavelengths (infrared) out, thus raising the temperature inside, then glass thermometers have been misleading us for centuries. According to the theory, glass thermometers necessarily register an extra "greenhouse effect," not the true temperature. (In reality, however, no extra heating would come about even IF the glass were trapping infrared. The thermometer would simply take longer to adjust to changes of temperature. But it would NOT record a higher-than-actual temperature. As a thermos demonstrates, trapping heat doesn't raise the temperature, it only sustains it.) There is in fact no such mechanism as the greenhouse effect in our open atmosphere and neither carbon dioxide nor water vapor are so-called greenhouse gases. More...(it is a PDF)

---