No argon nor any other noblle gas is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases are infra red active gases which absorb and emit radiation based on the vibrations of the atoms which compose the molecule. Nobel gases only have one atom per molecule and hence do not have any vibrations.

Like the noble gases, homo-nuclear diatomic molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen are also infra-red inactive.

Thanks, Alastair. I have folks on another thread trying to convince me otherwise.

w.

PS—O2 and N2 can very occasionally absorb a little bit of IR. The photon has to hit at the instant that the O2 or N2 molecules are colliding. But it's so small that it's neglected in climate calculations

Alastair,

I was asking a very similar question to that just yesterday. It is clear that all three of us would agree that argon gas does not absorb (with Willis' above exception noted) some portion of any externally generated IR that comes its way, and then store that energy for a time in the form of deviations to its normal internal bonds, and then release that amount of energy once again at some later point in time in the form of IR.

My question was whether, in the spirit of the Stephan-Boltzmann Law, a collection of argon gas molecules would emit ongoing radiation solely because they are collectively existing at a temperature which is greater than absolute zero. Some people involved in the discussion that Willis referred to above believe that such a collection of argon gas molecules would do that.

Regards and Thanks,

Peter Eirich

Thanks, Peter. I'm missing the physics in your claim that a collection of argon molecules would absorb IR despite the fact that argon molecules physically cannot either absorb or emit IR.

A link to that would be appreciated.

All the best to you,

w.

PS—the S-B law works perfectly for argon. All you need to do is set the emissivity to zero. I'm at a loss to understand why that would change if you have a collection of argon molecules.

Hi Willis,

I would too! I read that on the usually-reliable Science of Doom site during an intensive flurry of reading one day, as part of a very detailed discussion, after one page had led to the next and then led to the next, etc., but when, the next morning, I decided that I had better go back and thoroughly bookmark that page for future eventualities, such as this one, I couldn't find that same page again.

I'll try looking once more, with today's more-refined search engines, but right now I've got nothing.

I did, however, just create a what-if post, looking into the implications -- in the event that this can be shown to be true -- that I made as the 5th post on this page:

• https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_statistical_relationship_between_CO2_concentration_level_and_Global_change_in_Temperature/1193

... but the @ mention feature seems to have stopped working for you on that thread, so you won't be seeing any notifications of that.

Regards,

Peter

Alastair, Wilis and Peter. VanWijngaarden, W. A. and Happer, W., 2020: Dependence of Earth's Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases. arXiv:2006.03098v1 Jun 2020, In quantitative "Line by Line" modeling, Ferenc Miskolczi in his HARTCODE uses " N = 11 is the total number of major absorbing molecular species" including N2, O2 and O3, besides CO2, H2O, and CH4 as found in the HITRAN data base. Best David https://hitran.org/. https://www-f9.ijs.si/~margan/CO2/Refs/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf

David L. Hagen

• Alastair, Willis, and Peter. ...

____________________________

Thanks for those excellent references, David!

Robert Holmes said:

"I never said Argon is a GHG, and never said that it could absorb IR; that is a lie.

Here is what I said at;

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_statistical_relationship_between_CO2_concentration_level_and_Global_change_in_Temperature/1186

RIH; All objects above absolute zero emit radiation; which includes the Argon atmosphere."

Per Kirchoff's Law, an object that emits radiation at some frequency perforce also absorbs radiation at the same frequency.

So yes, Robert, you DID say argon can absorb IR.

But you didn't understand enough science to know that you did say exactly that.

w.

@RobertHolmes ' photo epitomizes the illogical and anti- scientific weakness conventional "climate science". See facts and scientific logic of Willis Eschenbach; VanWijngaarden, W. A. and Happer, W., 2020; Ferenc Miskolczi 2023 above. For further detail on climate science, see the 16 volumes of ClimateChangeReconsidered.org with the NIPCC's reviews of 4,000 articles vs the IPCC's perspective. Corrected Nov 20, 2023 11 AM. Apologies Robert for my hasty misreading of your post. David

Robert Holmes added an answer

===

Willis Eschenbach

"RIH; All objects above absolute zero emit radiation; which includes the Argon atmosphere."

"WE; Per Kirchoff's Law, an object that emits radiation at some frequency perforce also absorbs radiation at the same frequency.

So yes, Robert, you DID say argon can absorb IR. But you didn't understand enough science to know that you did say exactly that."

.

I still don't see anywhere that I said Argon absorbs IR.

===

Kirchoff's Law says that if a substance emits radiation at some frequency, it will also absorb radiation at that frequency.

So when you say that argon emits IR radiation, you are also saying that it absorbs IR radiation.

Read up on Kirchoff's Law and maybe you'll understand that.

w.

Looking at the official tables

https://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Handbook/Tables/argontable2.htm

we see that Ar has the highest really strong spectral line at 9122.967 Å - this is 912. 2967 nm (or approximately 1 µm) and therefore located in the infra-red range going from 780 nm to 1 mm. However, I can't say anything about the line-width just now. For CO2 we have a fairly wide range of 1430 - 1452 nm (the famous 15 µm band).

So there might be an absorption by Ar albeit in a very small band. One should consult a spectroscopist on this matter.

Finally it is interesting to note that the atomic weight of Ar with 40 u is comparable with the molecular weight of CO2 with 44 u. This will be relevant for comparison of the mechanism of de-excitation of the Ar atom and the CO2 molecule by collisions: probably here it really matters if one deals with a molecular vibration of CO2 or just a valence electron in an excited state such as in Ar.

David L. Hagen —

• Robert Holmes ...

____________________________________________________________

INSERT: Added 2023-11-20 at 1150 hours U.S. Eastern Time.

PE: FYI -- David's original post, which was once found located at this spot on the page, was later deleted by David for the reasons that he explains further down on this page in his Post [p002--9]. I want to commend David for his response.

I have left my own original response in place, below, just in case it may be clarifying for others.

_________________________ [p002--6] _______________________

David,

I have become a fan of your thinking in the short time since I first saw one of your posts, just as I have been for years wrt both Robert Holmes

However, there is a problem with your above statement. (Note -- emphasis mine in all of the quotes below)

The sequence leading up to it began with Jack Broughton (@ not working) stating his opinion [p1192--1] that:

• JB: If the science were so proven and indisputable, there would be no debate on which came first, and the evidence that CO2 led temperature would be established by measurements.
• https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_statistical_relationship_between_CO2_concentration_level_and_Global_change_in_Temperature/1192

Subsequently, Barton Levenson (@ not working) expressed his contrary opinion [p1192--2] that:

• BPL: In the scientific community, there is no such debate. (Ibid.)

... after which I gave my reasons to believe that there should be such a debate underway [p1192-10]. I suggested that the only reason why such a debate would not be already ongoing, and in a way that Barton would have recognized as such, would be, in my opinion, if Barton and many other climate scientists were simply ignoring relevant evidence that was plainly available to be seen. I concluded my points with analogies to both ostriches and to the Three Monkeys to help give my points a good associated mnemonic that might help them to remain more memorable. (Ibid.)

Then Robert Holmes

• https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_statistical_relationship_between_CO2_concentration_level_and_Global_change_in_Temperature/1193

So far, all I see there is a range of peoples' differing opinions about other peoples' opinions. Nothing that rises to the level of being a defamatory statement:

• "A defamatory statement is something factually incorrect being presented as the truth. ... So saying a coworker is tough to work with is not defamatory—it’s your opinion. Saying they are habitually late (when they are not) would be considered defamatory."
• https://www.dictionary.com/e/libel-vs-slander/

For that matter, there isn't even any nastiness there, and contrary to your statement, no ad hominem attacks either. Nothing even off-topic was said. A scientific head-in-the-sand attitude was the main topic, in this instance.

There is already far too much nastiness on some of these RG threads. I don't engage in it, with one rare exception. I also try to actively discourage it. The exception? There are a couple of individuals who so blatantly engage in a steady steam of nastiness, invectives, and put-downs that I don't feel an occasional mild jab back at them is unwarranted, and I will sometimes Recommend a post by someone who deftly gives such a mild jab back in their direction.

And, by the way, ostrich-like behavior, for those who don't know, is a commendable activity. At the cost and risk of not immediately seeing what is going on right around them, those ostriches are doing something that is very important: They are deftly and repeatedly manipulating their egg underground so that their ostrich chick will develop normally and be healthy.

David L. Hagen —

• For further detail on climate science, compare the 16 volumes of ClimateChangeReconsidered.org with the NIPCC's reviews of 4,000 articles vs the IPCC's perspective.

_________________________ [p002--7] _______________________

All,

Be aware that some of the articles on the ClimateChangeReconsidered.org site have begun to disappear. For example, "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming (2016)" yields:

• 404 Not Found
• https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/Books/Why%20Scientists%20Disagree%20Second%20Edition%20with%20covers.pdf

However, for those who may not know, you can retrieve most or all of such "vanishing" articles by using the Wayback Machine:

• Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming (2016)
• https://web.archive.org/web/20181009091026/https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/Books/Why%20Scientists%20Disagree%20Second%20Edition%20with%20covers.pdf

See:

• https://web.archive.org/

... then paste in a URL of interest to you, such as the one for "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming (2016)", as above:

• https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/Books/Why%20Scientists%20Disagree%20Second%20Edition%20with%20covers.pdf

Then be patient. There can be a delay before the Wayback Machine is able to respond to your request.

David L. Hagen —

• Robert Holmes

  ... exposes the logical and scientific weakness of his arguments and his lack of evidence.

_________________________ [p002--8] _______________________

David,

I don't see how that follows at all.

If you would like to read a concise summary encompassing Robert Holmes

• https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_physical_processes_of_global_warming_and_climate_change--How_can_alternative_viewpoints_be_resolved/3

Regards,

Peter

Robert Holmes

Markus Kreer and Willis Eschenbach Eschenbach Thanks Markus for your reference to NIST on Ar absorption bands. The other major quantitative source for all gas absorption lines and magnitudes is HITRAN. See HITRANonline. For software quantitatively evaluating such Line By Line absorption see: Kratz, David P., et al. "An inter-comparison of far-infrared line-by-line radiative transfer models." Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer 90.3-4 (2005): 323-341. One program is Ferenc Miskolczi's HARTCODE. See Miskolczi's latest 58 p application to greenhouse modeling: Ferenc Miskolczi, Greenhouse Gas Theories and Observed Radiative Properties of the Earth’s Atmosphere, Science of Climate Change, researchgate.net/profile/Ferenc-Miskolczi/publication/374530216_Greenhouse_Gas_Theories_and_Observed_Radiative_Properties_of_the_Earth's_Atmosphere/links/65215dfed717ef1293d32b56/Greenhouse-Gas-Theories-and-Observed-Radiative-Properties-of-the-Earths-Atmosphere.pdf

Markus Kreer ”So there might be an absorption by Ar albeit in a very small band.” seeems to be based on plasma emission of argon as tabulated by NIST.

Willis Eschenbach asked about greenhouse effect which is IR adsorption in a planets atmosphere. If the atmosphere is plasma we do not need to be concerned with the greenhouse effect.

“One should consult a spectroscopist on this matter.” Harry ten Brink !

Fig. 1 Optical emission spectrum of argon plasma. Article Atmospheric pressure glow discharge (APGD) plasma generation...

David L. Hagen “Thanks Markus for your reference to NIST on Ar absorption bands.” Really Markus Kreer gave you argons plasma emission peaks, not absorption. These are useful for optical spectra calibration if one use plasma for atomisation of samples.

Hol;mes

WIKIPEDIA as scientific reference????

THAT your level of knowledge?

Argon is an atomic gas and does as such not absorb and thus not emit infrared radiation

Why are you so stubborn in disciplines in which you are not even a dilettante but an ignorant

Kreer

ONE micron is in the so-called near INFRARED and not at a wavelength in whihc the Earth emits its LONG-wave radiation peaking at 16 micrometer

and a negligible energy at 1 um

and as you already indicate the line is very narrow compred to the full spectrum of the terrrestrial AND solar radiation

Article Retrieval of outgoing longwave radiation at top-of-atmospher...

Ferenc Miskolczi, in his quantitative atmospheric line by line modeling with HITRAN, includes absorption of 12 gases: H20, CO2, O3, N2O, CO, CH4, O2, SO2, N2, F11, F12, CCL4. ie. HITRAN gases 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 22, 39, 40 and 41. See: researchgate.net/profile/Ferenc-Miskolczi/publication/374530216_Greenhouse_Gas_Theories_and_Observed_Radiative_Properties_of_the_Earth's_Atmosphere/links/65215dfed717ef1293d32b56/Greenhouse-Gas-Theories-and-Observed-Radiative-Properties-of-the-Earths-Atmosphere.pdf

Robert Holmes added an answer

44 minutes ago

==============

Harry ten Brink

"RIH; "All normal (baryonic) matter emits electromagnetic radiation when it has a temperature above absolute zero."

Markus Kreer Said;

"https://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Handbook/Tables/argontable2.htm

we see that Ar has the highest really strong spectral line at 9122.967 Å approximately 1 µm".

.

"HTB; Argon is an atomic gas and does as such not absorb and thus not emit infrared radiation"

.

Dear Harry; so you disagree with the measurements from the official tables?"

============

Robert, I fear you misunderstood the tables. We're talking about thermal infrared, AKA "far infrared", in particular the range between about 6 - 30 microns (µm).

On the other hand, the spectral line of argon at 1 µm you mention is in the "near infrared". It is a result of the argon electrons changing energy levels.

But absorption of thermal IR has nothing to do with electrons changing energy levels. Absorption of thermal IR is a totally different physical process involving the stretching or flexing of interatomic bonds …

… but argon has exactly zero interatomic bonds, so it cannot either absorb or emit thermal IR.

See

https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-works/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

for an animation of how thermal infrared flexes the interatomic bonds of CO2.

Regards,

w.

David Hagen

Why a reference to Miskolsci??

There are hundreds of REAL experts in atmospheric radiation as reflected in standard textbooks

Also: van Wijngaarden/Happer REAL PHYSICISTS

Misko HOT AIR

DAvid

link to Misko doesn't work

Robert

You do not give up do you?!

The argon line at 1 um is very narrow and thus Ar absorbs a negligible amount of SOLAR light

thermal IR, as the question reads, is the wavlength reagion of 4-6 to 100 um with a peak around 15 um (CO2 band)

Why are you so stubborn: what if I would just wave my habd here about mining safety: I would not dare to and also see no reason why I would do that as a complete ignorant

David

I scanned thru Miskolszi: he has an old code from 1989

In the mean time HITRAN perfroms superiorly

YET: his forcing by CO2 doubling also is 3 Wm-2

So what's new versus standard and VWijngaarden's extended recent work?

Robert Holmes added an answer

===

"Harry ten Brink

"HTB; thermal IR, as the question reads, is the wavlength reagion of 4-6 to 100 um with a peak around 15 um (CO2 band)"

.

It is not my fault that you were not specific and also not my fault that Willis posed the wrong question.

The question he should have asked (if he were honest) is 'does Argon emit EMR'?

===

Robert, the question came up in the context of my proof. I'd said that argon could neither emit nor absorb thermal (longwave) IR.

You claimed it could. So I asked the group the question—does argon absorb/emit IR? The answer, obviously, is no.

Don't like it?

Don't care …

===

But of course he is not honest; he sets the questions to get the answers he wants, apparently not to further science but simply to boost his own ego.

===

Ah, yes, the vile false personal attack, the go-to tactic for those who don't have any real scientific arguments.

Pass. I obey the "First Rule of Pig Wrestling".

I asked the question, Robert, because you were wrongly claiming that argon absorbs/emits IR. This is called "furthering science".

w.

Holmes

You have the habit to twist and turn when you are wrong

Kreer furthere science? No obstructed it

Found an EMISSION line in a plasma set-up for detecting elelemenst

That line is so narrow that it negligibly absorbs solar energy

at 1 um the energy in the OLR (outoing Longwave Radiation) is NADA

and absorption of NADA is NADA

@ Harry ten Brink and Henrik Rasmus Andersen

Thanks for pointing it out that the nist entry is about Ar in plasma state - I have just overlooked it. Do we have any reference for the spectrum of Ar at room temperature?

Always glad to learn something new in experimental physics.

Once again Robert Holmes displays his lack of understanding. Here's the interchange:

===

"WE; I asked the question, Robert, because you were wrongly claiming that argon absorbs/emits IR. This is called "furthering science"."

.

RIH; And this is called "yet another lie".

Show where I said that argon absorbs/emits IR, because I never did."

===

Robert, I already showed you that in this very thread, and you proceeded to do an excellent job of ignoring it. Here's my previous comment:

===

Robert Holmes said:

"I never said Argon is a GHG, and never said that it could absorb IR; that is a lie.

Here is what I said at;

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_statistical_relationship_between_CO2_concentration_level_and_Global_change_in_Temperature/1186

RIH; All objects above absolute zero emit radiation; which includes the Argon atmosphere."

Per Kirchoff's Law, an object that emits radiation at some frequency perforce also absorbs radiation at the same frequency.

So yes, Robert, you DID say argon can absorb IR.

But you didn't understand enough science to know that you did say exactly that.

Now, I suppose you could lie, and say you were really talking about argon in the plasma state … but that can't be, because you were talking about an argon ATMOSPHERE, which clearly isn't plasma.

w.

Markus Kreer

In priciple the emission band should also be present in absorption but emission is much more sensitive becuase only say one photon per hour of emission gives enough signal for a measurement while in absoprtion there must be difference in the light shining though an Ar gas and around it of a few percent. This might not occur for standard pressure for Ar gas

Also: when this 1 um is emission to the electronic ground state "So" this is also a line in absorption

However, in this thread the focus is that Argon does not absorb thermal radiation

Markus Kreer , Argon in gas form does not emit or absorbe light so there are no spectra to reference.

Henrik Rasmus Andersen added an answer

Markus Kreer , Argon in gas form does not emit or absorbe light so there are no spectra to reference.

**********************************************************************

Dear Henrik Rasmus Andersen:

I am not a spectroscopist and I did not enjoy my experimental courses in my undergraduate studies - but I do remember that we measured the spectrum of Ne and He in their gaseous state. Both are noble gases. I have some problems to believe that Ar does not emit or absorb any electromagnetic radiation at all. Someone must have measured electromagnetic spectra of Ar - be it in the ultraviolett, the visible or the infrared range. Would be good to find some paper which has done this. Probably done in the late 1890s to early 1900's.

Holmes

You accuse womenone else of your own wrong doing

You have zilch knowledge in spectroscopy

A one-liner in a booklet from 2010 is NO basis

There are hundreds of textbooks on spectroscopy explaining that gases have specific narrow lines in whihc they absorb and emit radiation and for He Ne Ar this is not in the THERMAL infrared

I do not get why you are so stubborn in an issue you just cannot win

In this way you convince people that everything you write down is at the same level

A also do not get when a phenomenon is explained to you you just can not accept it even though you do not understand it

I give up. Holmes' sickness is beyond my capacity for cure.

w.

Robert Ian Holmes, "If they are right, then it follows that Argon must be directly thermalised by the Sun .."

Clearly then observed facts disagree with your conclusion there are something you have misunderstood or your reasoning is wrong.

Markus Kreer, Obviously I had more fun with experimental courses and continued. Is it possible you ionized the noble gasses in your experiment by sending an electron current through the gas?

Good luck searching for the old publications. Beyond the time Google can help you with. Can you see how much easier it would be to just measure the spectra of Argon in the laboratory?

@ Henrik Rasmus Anderson

As a curious person I'm open to new knowledge. Unfortunately do I neither have a lab to measure the Ar spectrum nor the time to start an ab initio calculation using a Hartree-Fock approach to solve the Schrödinger equation for the valence electrons of Ar.

But I take it from our discussion that to move one valence electron from the 3rd shell of Ar we need a fairly high energy. The first ionisation energy is approx 15 eV so I need photons with a wave length of approx. 80 nm wave length to kick one valence electron out for good - and probably with a quick and dirty estimation photons with 200 nm wave length to move one electron from the 3rd into the 4th shell. Infrared and visible light will not do the job. So in view of this, Ar under room temperature is not an active absorber or emitter of photons.

I remember that we did also Franck - Hertz experiment with Ar some 35 years ago. Here an external electron beam did indeed all the kicking of the valence electrons. Thanks for reminding me of that.

Robert, I'm sorry, but your inability to accept the reality that argon cannot and does not emit or absorb IR is fatal to further discussion.

And your vile personal attacks? The endless spectacle of you standing on tiptoe to try to bite my ankles was somewhat amusing at first, but soon became boring, and is now disgusting.

I'm not "running away". I'm just following the First Rule Of Pig Wrestling.

w.

Robert, check out the question at the top of the page. We're talking about THERMAL infrared, also known as longwave infrared. This is the kind of infrared being emitted by objects at earthlike temperatures.

Your reference is to what is called shortwave infrared, which is emitted by the sun.

Let me suggest that you restrict your answers and your references to the question posed, that of argon and thermal infrared.

Thanks,

w.

Markus Kreer, If one compare your approximately 200 nm to the Suns spectra you can see all sunlight would pass through a hypothetical Argon atmoshere of a planet which is required for a brilliant thought experiment suggested by Willis Eschenbach .

Willis Eschenbach I hope I can restate your experiment for Markus Kreer so he can see what it is Holmes is so angry about that he cannot answer. Or maybe he has an answer now.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/13/a-matter-of-some-gravity/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/31/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach-for-setting-the-nikolov-zeller-silliness-straight/

Article On the Apparent Relationship Between Total Solar Irradiance ...

@ Henrik Rasmus Anderson

I thought I made it clear in my reasoning of my last posting that I consider Ar under earthly conditions not an active emitter or absorber of radiation as provided by the sun. And yes, I was aware that my back-of-the-envelope estimate of 200 nm is far away from the solar spectrum.

It would be good to write up the argument of Ar not being radiative active under "usual" conditions in an orderly way to avoid this kind of emotional discussions using e.g. references from peer reviewed journals.

Best regards to all people involved into our discussion here. Weekend coming closer and my cross-country ski look forward to the fresh snow in the Taunus.

Holmes

As said before it is sad that you are a sad looser. Too sad you have no idea of spectroscopy/radiation in the atmopshere but keep on insulting experts

This your example of auto-expression??!!

Holmes

As a non-native I am looser in my spelling

Sorry Markus Kreer, It did seem you understood it all. While my last post was addressed to you my aim with emphasizing the point was to cut off Holmes denial.

Dear all,

Please do have a look at this paper from 1972 about photoionization of the noble gases at room temperature. Fig. 2 shows for Ar a maximum of photoabsorption in the range of 20 eV corresponding to a wavelength of 62 nm. This is far below the wavelength of the solar spectrum with it's left cut-off at 250 nm. So Ar is not a greenhouse gas on earth.

https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.5.227

Sorry Markus

Photoionization is not the issue here. It is about absoprtion of a photon by Ar within the solar spectrum and there are quite a number. The issue then is:

These are ver narrow lines that aborb negligible energy form the total energy spectrum

AND: the amount absorbed in that line depends on the "absorption strength"

by the 1 atmosphere presure argon-atmosphere of the hypothetical Argo-planet

BTW: It is not worth looking for the strength because the absorption is negligible anyhow.

H olmes

Even this is like an insult: I have no GHE belief. GHE is THE standard concept in meteorology and thus in models. No big deal because radiation transfer is simple compared to dynamicla processes

Nocturnal WV for instance and its effect on temperature to name an example

Reflction of solar radiation by aerosols on a hazy day

Holmes

I WROTE "Meteorology": thus meteorological models

and the NATURAL GreenHouseEffect by IR and UV/Vis active atmos. components

I cannot locate the answer from Robert Holmes that has generated so much excitement here: has it been deleted?

Yes. Deleted.

[PE 008-4]

Jack Broughton added an answer 17 hours ago

• I cannot locate the answer from Robert Holmes that has generated so much excitement here: has it been deleted?

------------------

I probably have it saved, but I'm not sure which answer you were looking for.

____________

Peter Eirich Almost all the AGW-believers on this site, and Willis too, have attacked a Robert Holmes statement / posting that does not seem to appear anywhere on the site ....... I am confused, probably not difficult! Would be grateful if you could clarify the matter for me.

Jack Broughton I believe that all of the comments posted by Robert Holmes have been removed from Research Gate.

[PE 008-7]

YES

Crap crap crap

Argon just DOES not absorb in the IR that is emitted at the temperatures of surface and atmopshere

It has a very very weak absoprtion LINE in the near IR

And mind you I am a SPECTROSCOPIST an even your guru Sidiropoulos accepts that I have this knowledge

So stop with this line of fairy tales and go studt for instance ScienceofDoom by Steve Carson on RADIATION in the atmopshere with reference to standard tesxtbooks dating back decades ago

As said, deniers grasp every straw in whatever discipline thay have no idea about to come up with a new THEORY as your GURU calls this

BAH

Peter Eirich Thank you for your efforts, I understand that the censors have got at Robert Holmes: a sad day indeed for scientific debate.

As a true expose of the evil that the “Climate change” industry is doing, it is well worth viewing the recently released video by Martin Durkin: Climate, The Movie. The link to this is: https://vimeo.com/924719370.

Of course, it involves all the “rogue scientists” who have criticised the junk science that is AGW. What is more important is that it highlights the foolishness of the woke-elite who are pushing so-called “sustainability” on the poorest people, where sustainability means deprivation in the name of the climate-models.

As I predicted 3 days back, the film has been removed from Vimeo. There is good cause for concern about the extent of censorship and propaganda that the billionaires who control the western media wield: the film criticised the consensus science in a completely reasonable and rational way, as many of us do here ....... Virtually no-one can publish criticisms of the dubiously based science that is labelled "climate science". Hopefully The Heartland Institute can resurrect this movie.

The horror that NON-spectroscopists have the guts to dare to propose that argon could be a greenhouse gas.

A single line with a width of a nanometer and a very low absoprtion strength at the NIR contributes less than 0.001% to the absoprption

THIS is the level of the DENIERS!

How the heck dare you mix with expert?! shows your general level of knowledge in everything realted to atmopsheric science

This here becomes the cesspool of ResearchGate where all sht goes unmoderated like on the dark web

The mere guts to vent opposition to the GreenHouse effect that is accepted by right and left by a bunch of nincompoops??

Why don't you consult ONCE the scientific contributions of "deniers" like Lindzen who shows in a few paragraphs how the GHE effect works

Better even Roy Spencer: search for Roy Spencer and GreenHouse Effect

As long as the present nonsense is popping up here I will also be here to debunk it

The technical question was "does argon absorb and radiate in the thermal infrared?" NOT "Does it have a major or minor, significant or insignificant impact on climate." Regards. Harry ten Brink Willis Eschenbach

And the answer is:

NADA nil zero null negligible nothing etc til the exponent -100