Dr. Vincent Gray on historical carbon dioxide levels

Myrrh says on June 5, 2013 at 2:51 am
“Olav Henry Dahlsveen says:
June 4, 2013 at 3:42 pm
Once again, yesterday in fact, I performed a simple little experiment that proves that IR radiation cannot penetrate solid, transparent glass and Fourier’s further claim that nor can it penetrate H2O or water is painfully evident in nature. So evident is it – in fact – that no additional experiments should be necessary.
Not sure how you got that, – there is a very large industry producing glass and film for windows which prevent entry to the direct heat rays from the Sun, —“
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Myrrrh, – what my mentor from the past, Fourier wrote in 1824 was as follows:
“The heat of the sun, coming in the form of light, possesses the property of penetrating transparent solids or liquids, and loses this property entirely, when by communication with terrestrial bodies, it is turned into heat radiating without light.
This distinction of luminous and non-luminous heat, explains the elevation of temperature caused by transparent bodies. The mass of waters which cover a great part of the globe, and the ice of the polar regions, oppose a less obstacle to the admission of luminous heat, than to the heat without light, which returns in a contrary direction to open space. The pressure of the atmosphere produces an effect of the same kind: but an effect, which, in the present state of the theory, and from want of — – – – – – – “
– – – – – –
Therefore, what scientists today call IR radiation is what Fourier saw as “heat radiating without light.”
Today’s “scientists” make no distinction between what radiate from the Sun and what radiates from the surface of the Earth. —- Call me stupid if you like but I think the difference is somewhere around 6000 deg. Celsius
Herschel, by the way, was fascinated by the newfangled thermometer and only claimed that the thermometer showed that dark spots on the earth’s surface was warmer than the lighter colored ones. – In other words, he was interested in absorption rates – That’s all.

Years ago, flowers and plants were removed from hospital wards, as it was thought that they expelled CO2 at nighttime. They don’t do that any more? I always tell my alarmist friends, without CO2 we would die, and actually we are basically nitrogen junkies. CO2 is expelled from plants and all organics including us, but – is reabsorbed. More trees and plants, more CO2, they look after themselves without much help from us. Considering the small percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere, what is it less than 4%, you would think we are in danger of suffocation.

Olav Henry Dahlsveen says:
June 5, 2013 at 4:48 pm
Myrrh says on June 5, 2013 at 2:51 am
“Olav Henry Dahlsveen says:
June 4, 2013 at 3:42 pm
Once again, yesterday in fact, I performed a simple little experiment that proves that IR radiation cannot penetrate solid, transparent glass and Fourier’s further claim that nor can it penetrate H2O or water is painfully evident in nature. So evident is it – in fact – that no additional experiments should be necessary.
Not sure how you got that, – there is a very large industry producing glass and film for windows which prevent entry to the direct heat rays from the Sun, —“
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Myrrrh, – what my mentor from the past, Fourier wrote in 1824 was as follows:
“The heat of the sun, coming in the form of light, possesses the property of penetrating transparent solids or liquids, and loses this property entirely, when by communication with terrestrial bodies, it is turned into heat radiating without light.
This distinction of luminous and non-luminous heat, explains the elevation of temperature caused by transparent bodies. The mass of waters which cover a great part of the globe, and the ice of the polar regions, oppose a less obstacle to the admission of luminous heat, than to the heat without light, which returns in a contrary direction to open space. The pressure of the atmosphere produces an effect of the same kind: but an effect, which, in the present state of the theory, and from want of — – – – – – – “
– – – – – –
Therefore, what scientists today call IR radiation is what Fourier saw as “heat radiating without light.”
Today’s “scientists” make no distinction between what radiate from the Sun and what radiates from the surface of the Earth. —- Call me stupid if you like but I think the difference is somewhere around 6000 deg. Celsius
Olav, Casey’s look at Fourier and Arrhenius from what I could gather.., is that Arrhenius misunderstood Fourier in not realising that Fourier was talking about conducted heat flow, and that Fourier had included raditiative in his calculations, which was minimal.
However, what Casey has not done is look at the words being used by Fourier which is what Arrhenius “got” and which was appropriated by the AGW narrative, that it is ‘visible light which changes to invisible heat’ – and on reading Fourier this is exactly what I would have got out of it as in your quote above.. Because, although Fourier mentions both heat and light incoming from other celestial bodies in the same paragraph in the quote below, it appears here and elsewhere that Fourier is actually saying that visible light from the Sun converts to heat. From Casey, quoting Fourier is in blockquotes:
“2.1 Misattribution versus What Fourier Really Found
Contrary to what Arrhenius (1896, 1906b) and many popular authors may claim (Weart, 2003; Flannery, 2005; Archer, 2009), Fourier did not consider the atmosphere to be anything like glass. In fact, Fourier (1827, p. 587) rejected the comparison by stipulating the impossible condition that, in order for the atmosphere to even remotely resemble the workings of a hotbox or greenhouse, layers of the air would have to solidify without affecting the air’s optical properties. What Fourier (1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, p. 12) actually wrote stands in stark contrast to Arrhenius’ claims about Fourier’s ideas:

“In short, if all the strata of air of which the atmosphere is formed, preserved their density with their transparency, and lost only the mobility which is peculiar to them, this mass of air, thus become solid, on being exposed to the rays of the sun, would produce an effect the same in kind with that we have just described. The heat, coming in the state of light to the solid earth, would lose all at once, and almost entirely, its power of passing through transparent solids: it would accumulate in the lower strata of the atmosphere, which would thus acquire very high temperatures. We should observe at the same time a diminution of the degree of acquired heat, as we go from the surface of the earth.”

….
“

“The earth receives the rays of the sun, which penetrate its mass, and are converted into non-luminous heat: it likewise possesses an internal heat with which it was created, and which is continually dissipated at the surface: and lastly, the earth receives rays of light and heat from innumerable stars, in the midst of which is placed the solar system. These are three general causes which determine the temperature of the earth.”

“Fourier’s fame has, in fact, nothing to do with any theory of atmospheric or surface temperature. This fame was earned years before such musings, when Fourier derived the law of physics that governs heat flow, and was subsequently named after him. About this, Fourier (1824, p. 166; Translation by Burgess, 1837, p. 19) remarks:
“Perhaps other properties of radiating heat will be discovered, or causes which modify the temperatures of the globe. But all the principle laws of the motion of heat are known. This theory, which rests upon immutable foundations, constitutes a new branch of mathematical sciences.”
“As you can see, Fourier admits that his work is constrained to the net movement of heat. In fact, nowhere does Fourier differentiate between radiative and, for example, “kinetic” heat transfer, because the means to tell the difference were not available when Fourier studied heat flow. What this tells us is that Fourier’s Law, and only Fourier’s Law, can describe the transfer of heat between bodies in thermal contact. Thus the distribution of heat between the atmosphere and the surface of the earth, with which it has thermal contact, cannot be correctly calculated using the radiative transfer equations derived from Boltzmann (1884) because the thermal contact of these bodies makes this a question of Fourier’s Law. However, to better understand this it is necessary to explore the motion of heat and the modes of heat transfer more thoroughly than did Arrhenius.” http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
Casey has Fourier’s 1824 work here: http://fourier1824.geologist-1011.mobi/
This is the mistake Arrhenius made in misreading Fourier, that Fourier was talking about heat flow in the atmosphere (if I understand it .., in establishing the heat differences through the atmosphere less that tranferred by convection, i.e. lapse rates), but at the same time picking up from Fourier the erroneous “visible light converts to invisible heat”.
Now, we know clearly now, that visible light does not convert to heat; that it is the invisible heat rays travelling with the visible which do all the heating. Fourier has to be read bearing that in mind.
Invisible heat does travel through glass – look at thermal imaging of buildings showing where invisible heat is escaping – the windows are the greatest areas of heat loss – but what Fourier was referring to was the experiments of de Saussure, using the glass analogy. Arrhenius not understanding the principle Fourier was establishing in conduction of heat saying that ‘it would take the nonsense that the atmosphere was solid glass to prevent heat from conducting’, thought Fourier was saying the atmosphere was like solid glass preventing invisible heat from escaping as radiation. And the rest is the AGW narrative continuing to confuse this by selective extracts. Much like they say Arrhenius proved carbon dioxide raised temps when he was actually measuring carbonic acid, that is, including water and at the time his work was torn to pieces because of this.
Herschel, by the way, was fascinated by the newfangled thermometer and only claimed that the thermometer showed that dark spots on the earth’s surface was warmer than the lighter colored ones. – In other words, he was interested in absorption rates – That’s all.
Oh come on.. Herschel discovered the invisible infrared!
This was momentous in the history of science.
Until that time no one knew that there were invisible heat rays from the Sun, they thought that visible light was heat. Herchel was the beginning of that exploration, his measurements were crude because he was moving the solid glass prism by hand at the edge of the table through which he was measuring the invisible heat rays – which he called at the time “dark light” and we now call “infrared” – his measurements were not exact. We now know there is a huge difference in size. Tyndall who explored Herschel’s great discovery said of the visible light, I paraphrase, that’s its use can only be for sight because the great heat is all in the invisible”.
What we cannot do here, and which is being done continually by AGWScienceFiction for its AGW narrative, it to take these past experiments and conclusions as if they define the current state of knowledge – AGW deliberately uses the confusions in the beginning understanding of science to claim that it is proved from them.
So, as interesting as these are, and as interesting as it is to put the past jigsaw together to show the history in context of the growth of understanding, bearing in mind that communication then was not as rapid as it is now…, what we have to do is see that the AGW claim that Arrhenius and Fourier proved the claims made for AGW, is what is nonsense here. They didn’t for a complication of reasons, and, most importantly, it has never been proved since.
I have lost count of the times I have been told that Arrhenius and Fourier proved it and that there are tons of experiments done in the 20th century proving it, but whenever I ask for these to be fetched I get silence. There are no experiments proving the AGW narrative. It is all built on deliberate fake fisics and taking past writings out of context.
It is deliberate fake fisics to say that shortwave from the Sun heats the Earth’s land and water, that Fourier gave that impression and that Arrhenius thought this is what was happening is NOW irrelevant. Which is the point I am making.
The AGWScienceFiction’s Energy Budget claims that “shortwave mainly visible and the two shortwaves either side, near IR at 1% of this total, heats the Earth’s surface”, and claims that “no invisible heat from the Sun gets through TOA so plays no part in heating the land and water”.
This is scientific gobbledegook, but it is also a deliberate fraud. Created by someone/several who knew what real physics says about this and clever enough to twist it by giving the properties of one thing to another and pretend there twists were real by taking past work out of context.
As I’ve said, we now know that Herschel’s “dark light” which he measured direct from the Sun, through a solid glass prism, as invisible heat, is further divided into thermal and non-thermal. The non-thermal we call shortwave infrared and class in with visible light which we now also know to be non-thermal. These are not hot.
Thermal means “of heat”, AGWSF pretends this means “of heat source” deliberately to confuse the unwary and those who don’t know modern up to date traditional physics that is using this to describe the actual properties of the wavelengths, nothing to do with the source of them.. The thermal “dark light” which we now call “infrared”, are the longwaves of infrared, in other words, the longwave infrared are called thermal because that is what they are, “the wavelengths of heat not the wavelengths on non-thermal light”.
Hence traditional science simply calls these heat and light from the Sun, because it’s the basic empirically well understood difference between visible light waves and the the invisible heat waves.
So, shortwave visible, infrared and uv of the AGW energy budget are not thermal, they are not hot, they are not wavelengths of heat.
They are classed in with Light, not in with Heat.
The longwave infrared we get from the Sun is HEAT. Whatever we call it in the different science contexts today, aka thermal infrared, aka radiant heat, aka thermal energy on the move in heat transfer by radiation (compare conduction and convection), it is all the same thing, heat, the state of matter in vibration.
This direct heat we get from the Sun is what AGWSF has removed completely from its energy budget.
Since visible light and these shortwaves from the Sun cannot, cannot physically, heat matter, cannot physically move whole molecules into vibration which is what it takes to heat matter, this means that the AGW narrative has no heat from the Sun
That is the state of play today. With up to date real physics as still taught in traditional science which understands the differences, which understands the properties and processes from the differences.
The difference between heat and light from the Sun is basic bog standard traditional physics, elementary, that the great heat we feel from the Sun is the invisible thermal infrared, longwave infrared, and that we cannot even feel, let alone feel as heat, the shortwaves, which we know cannot heat matter because they work on the much tinier electronic transition level not on the bigger molecular vibrational level.
The AGWScienceFiction’s Energy Budget is completely fake fisics. That’s the bottom line here.
And the ludicrous explanations given for this great invisible heat from the Sun not reaching us are a lesson in brainwashing…
Repeat a lie often enough and it will be taken as the truth.. But as the man who said this noted, the truth is the enemy here and all means must be employed to stop it spreading..
So, what do they give as reasons for no direct from the Sun invisible thermal infrared, longwave infrared, reaching us?
First there’s the unknown to traditional up to date science “an invisible barrier like the glass of a greenhouse preventing the entry of longwave infrared at TOA”.
Well, I’ve given the real scientists from NASA saying this isn’t true, and I’ve explained it further in terms of electronic transition v molecular vibration, and it is simply a well understood well tested physics fact as used in real science industries, that the heat we feel direct from the Sun is the longwave infrared which AGWSF has completely excised from its energy budget – real physics knows there is no such “invisible barrier” preventing us from receiving the Sun’s heat direct.
That should be enough to knock the whole AGWS nonsense out of science discussions, but when I gave this before I had the reply that only CAGWs believe this, that (the implication was) the cleverer AGWs “knew that the Sun produced insignificant amounts of longwave infrared so there was insignificant of insignificant reaching us”.
Does this make sense to you? That a hot fire gives off no heat? Because that is what this is actually saying…
How was this calculated? Another sleight of hand deception from AGWSF, it ‘uses’ the planckian graph to estimate the heat of the Sun from the narrow band of visible light atmosphere around the Sun, which is only 300 miles wide. So it says that this layer of atmosphere defines the heat of the bulk mass of the Sun as 6000°C – if you can’t see how ludicrous that is when we know the bulk of the Sun is millions of degrees hot, then go back to what I first said, that this is saying that a hot fire gives off no heat.
As with the fake fisics meme “shortwave from the Sun heats land and water of the Earth’s surface”, it is the continual repetition of the fake fisics that the “Sun is only 6,000&degC;” which is confusing everyone here. A brainwashed meme has great power..
Because it becomes the paradigm on which subsequent thinking is based, so in effect, subsequent thinking is always seeking to prove it. Unless one has real basic empirically tested and understood physics, as in my example of glass and film for windows, one can’t appreciate the contortions these ‘proofs of the paradigm’ produce.
So, I can be amused that AGW say there is no heat from the Sun, whichever way they chose to justify that, but those using the AGW meme paradigms can’t see that because they can’t extrapolate from real physics facts to see the absurdities.
So, bring back the real heat Trenberth is missing, the direct invisible longwave infrared from the millions of degree hot Sun which we feel as heat because it is heat which is why we call it thermal, the electromagnetic wave of heat, which is the wavelength which actually physical can and does heat both land and water and us, and the rest will fall into place.

gareth says: @ur momisugly June 5, 2013 at 2:30 pm
3rd para: “convert carbon dioxide and nitrogen into a range of chemical compounds and structural polymers by photosynthesis”….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It should be plants use carbon dioxide, water and nitrogen. Nitrogen is needed to form amino acids/proteins but is not used in photosynthesis, it is part of the Nitrogen Cycle “… In plants, much of the nitrogen is used in chlorophyll molecules, which are essential for photosynthesis and further growth…” (WIKI) That is the nitrogen/photosynthesis connection.

Assimilation [edit]
Main articles: Assimilation (biology) and Nitrogen assimilation
Plants take nitrogen from the soil, by absorption through their roots in the form of either nitrate ions or ammonium ions. All nitrogen obtained by animals can be traced back to the eating of plants at some stage of the food chain.
Plants can absorb nitrate or ammonium ions from the soil via their root hairs. If nitrate is absorbed, it is first reduced to nitrite ions and then ammonium ions for incorporation into amino acids, nucleic acids, and chlorophyll.[5] In plants that have a symbiotic relationship with rhizobia, some nitrogen is assimilated in the form of ammonium ions directly from the nodules. It is now known that there is a more complex cycling of amino acids between Rhizobia bacteroids and plants. The plant provides amino acids to the bacteroids so ammonia assimilation is not required and the bacteroids pass amino acids (with the newly fixed nitrogen) back to the plant, thus forming an interdependent relationship.[9] While many animals, fungi, and other heterotrophic organisms obtain nitrogen by ingestion of amino acids, nucleotides and other small organic molecules, other heterotrophs (including many bacteria) are able to utilize inorganic compounds, such as ammonium as sole N sources. Utilization of various N sources is carefully regulated in all organisms. For example, proteins are energeticaly expensive to build and thus may not be broken down for nitrogen assimilation in the presence of readily available sources such as ammonium. Such regulation is evident in some cases even at the whole community scale for both naturally occurring[10] and some xenobiotic materials…. (WIKI)

Gaia evolved mankind so it could save the plants by liberating massive amounts of sequestered CO2. We should get on with it.

How is it that space is freezing cold? The planet is generating heat from the sun, but from what I know is that deserts fluctuate greatly with no cloud cover. In their winter months, it can be 40 C during the day and minus during the night. So luv ’em clouds, eh?