Climatologists are implicitly saying that CO2 is a cold conduit for heat. There is no such thing as a cold conduit for heat.

Climatologists admit that the temperature of the CO2 molecules in the air is about the same as the temperature of the rest of the air, which would have to be the case. Yet each CO2 molecule is supposed to heat the surrounding 2,500 air molecules to 1°C upon doubling the amount of CO2 in the air. CO2 would have to be 2,500°C to do that—an impossibility.

The dilution factor was skipped over. There cannot be any such thing as greenhouse gases creating global warming due to the dilution factor. The so-called greenhouse gases are too dilute to heat the surrounding air.

The false assumption is that tiny amounts of heat can add up due to trapping of heat. There is no such thing as trapping heat in the atmosphere. Heat moves in and out of the atmosphere is large quantities, as explained below.

The mediums which transfer heat must always heat up proportionately with the heat that they are transferring. Thermal conductivity coefficients, which have been measured for more than a century, show the amount of heating that occurs in transferring heat.

With climate, heat cannot be converted into temperature due to infinite complexities. Heat is rapidly dissipating and transforming. It dissipates by moving into nearby molecules through conduction (bumping into each other), and it transforms into radiation which moves in all directions, often being absorbed by nearby molecules and sometimes radiating into space.

There are, however, simplified conditions where heat can be converted into temperature, and these conditions define the relationship between heat and temperature. The simplest model is the definition of a calorie. A calorie is a unit of heat that raises the temperature of one gram of water one degree centigrade. Two calories raise the temperature to two degrees centigrade. Or, two calories raise the temperature of two grams of water one degree centigrade.

Notice in this that there is a quantity of heat that stays the same. A calorie is always the same amount of heat. It cannot disappear, because energy cannot be created or destroyed. A calorie of heat will always exist in some form, though it could be transformed into radiation or motion.

From this, it can be stated that if each CO2 molecule is surrounded by 2,500 air molecules, it would have to be 2,500°C to heat the air 1°C. To prove this, pretend that each of the air molecules is a gram of water. To be heaed 1°C would require a calorie of heat for each one, which means 2,500 calories total. These 2,500 calories must all go through the CO2 molecule. To add 2,500 calories to the CO2, if it were a gram of water, would heat it 2,500°C.

I was told by a government scientist that the CO2 molecules in the air are about the same temperature as the air, as they would have to be. But he said they heat the air anyway, "as laboratory measurements show." No way. You can't defy laws of physics in some dark pit unobservable to outside viewers. But this is where global warming came from—lying about what someone did in a dark pit which was never published the way science is supposed to be published. One of the frauds of such a test is that you can't get the atmosphere into a laboratory to test it, particularly the manner in which equilibrium occurs. The manner in which heat transfers has been measured for more than a century producing thermal conductivity coefficients, where heat produces a gradient of temperatures as it dissipates, which is nothing resembling a cold conduit.

There are a whole lot of assumptions which are oversimplified in getting magic out of climatology. The starting point of this subject is that so-called greenhouse gases trap heat. There is no such thing as trapping heat in the atmosphere, as energy is radiated from every point in the atmosphere with 15-30% escaping into space, and some more will be escaping the next time it is radiated. The time in between cannot be determined, but it is short enough to allow the sun's heat picked up during the day to be radiated away during the nights; and that's a lot of heat radiating back into space. Why would some miniscule amount get trapped, while the rest zips into space?

The sad fact is that these bits of nonsensical magic also exist in the heads of the scientists who claim to be studying this subject. When they say a cold CO2 molecule can channel enough heat to warm 2,500 air molecules by 1°C, while itself not being heated, they are imagining magic as if they were in Alice's wonderland. They are in effect saying, a molecule can be a conduit for heat without warming up. That concept has never existed in science.

The implication is a rate problem, so rates must be evaluated in some detail. The conduit concept implies that the heat which is absorbed by CO2 leaves again before more is added, so there is no accumulation of heat. Why would not the same be true of the surrounding air molecules? Why does not the heat which those molecules absorb leave before it accumulates to 1°C? Is it being trapped? If so, it is also being trapped by the CO2, and at a rate of 2,500 times as much. Is the CO2 different? Only the mass is relevant to heat transfers, not the chemistry, as it is the nuclear mass that transfers the heat. The difference in mass between CO2 and N2 is too trivial to consider for this point.

Since the CO2 has the same characteristics as the N2, it has to be doing the same thing, but 2,500 times as much. The "same thing" could be rapid or slow dissipation and transformation of heat, but it has to be the same for the CO2 and surrounding air molecules

In reality, there will be a slight amount more heat in the CO2 than in the surrounding air, because it takes awhile for the heat to move outward. This slight difference would affect about 10 or 20 air molecules around each CO2 molecule, disappearing into no noticeable heating beyond that. This leaves the remaining 2,480 air molecules unaffected. Multiply all of this, and the CO2 has to get up to 2,500°C to get the other 2,500 molecules up to 1°C.

Why then not assume the CO2 is 2,500°C? It's so ridiculous that climatologists are not making such a claim. It's ridiculous when considering the total dynamic. Heat cannot be concentrated, it only dissipates—the second law of thermodynamics. This means the surrounding temperatures will not allow the CO2 to be any higher temperature than the sources of the energy.

The First Concern for Nonscientists