[Kryptid]

So why dident you say it clearly ?

I don't know what about my statement was unclear, honestly. Is there a language problem? I know English isn't your native language. Perhaps that's why you didn't understand him or me.

He even never said anything.

I, again, don't know what you think he neglected to explain. He said that the equation posted by the OP generally proceeds in the opposite direction because formaldehyde is combustible. I don't know what's unclear about that.

[Deecart]

And as I mentioned, I believe that as temperatures drop and background radiation decreases then emission and absorption spectrums can be comparable to opposing charges such as a polar molecules have. In the upper troposphere temperatures can drop to -40º C. or F. The tropopause is colder.

I think (but i am not a specialist) that even if the reaction you propose is irreversible, it can occur like you say in the high atmosphere, perhaps due to the fractionation of the molecules when some cosmic radiations or sun radiation hit them.
The reactions occuring in the atmosphere are very complex because they depend on the altitude, so some reaction can deplete ozone here and produce some at other place.
There are lots of reactions occuring there and ionisation must be taken in account.

So the reaction you show can occur (globaly speaking) if you consider some other intermediate reactions. You can consider that some amount of the molecules can produce some amount of the others using intermediate reactions.

[Deecart]

I, again, don't know what you think he neglected to explain. He said that the equation posted by the OP generally proceeds in the opposite direction because formaldehyde is combustible. I don't know what's unclear about that.

You see.
You say it again, you say "generaly", so you dont have yet understand...
It do not proceed in the opposite direction at all (not even sometime, so not "yes generally but if we change pressure or temperature it is ok..."), because it cant, it is a combustion EQUAL it is an irreversible reaction.

[Kryptid]

It do not proceed in the opposite direction at all, because it cant, it is a combustible EQUAL it is an irreversible reaction.

Yes, the equation for the combustion of formaldehyde is:

CH₂O + O₂ → CO₂ + H₂O

Formaldehyde reacts with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide and water. That is the equation that Bored Chemist was talking about. What OP was talking about was the opposite equation:

CO₂ + H₂O → CH₂O + O₂

Bored Chemist was pointing out that the equation that OP posted isn't the one that occurs, but that the opposite (the combustion of formaldehyde) is what happens instead.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 What I mention and this does matter, at elevation and not at ground level. What the bored chemist does not understand is that if my experiment works then it will be a new process/principle in science. And at the same time it would explain what was in the IPCC's 2013 report on climate change.
 When the IPCC associated CO2, N2O and CH4 with recovery of the ozone layer, the rate of change would show that relationship while suggesting a common source. And I doubt any research or experiment such as I am pursuing has been done.
 And what needs to be considered is that the IPCC suggests a common unknown source while the following research states that an unmeasured precursor for formaldehyde is not known. My experiment could explain both observations and it is on my website https://climate-cycling.com/ while this quote comes from research I have cited.
However, while the differences between the two CH2O instruments are somewhat larger than expected, there is a systematic under prediction by the model, and the median measured [CH2O] is a factor of 2 larger than calculated. An analysis of the model uncertainties indicates that no single model input parameter could be responsible for such a discrepancy if the stated uncertainties for these parameters are correct. We conclude that the model-measurement differences are not due to some fundamental error in the methane oxidation scheme. A consideration of the possible reasons for the model under prediction of CH2O indicates that the error most likely is in the model source terms. We suggest one possible source of the model under estimate is its failure to account for unmeasured formaldehyde precursor species such as oxygenated VOCs.[44] 
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2001JD000896

 Just an FYI (for your information), such interactions might occur at sea level (MBL, marine boundary layer) but no one thought to try my experiment.

[Bored chemist]

It is useless (scientificaly speaking, socialy speaking it can help to form a clan of course) to say something that only the one who already know understand.

Did you not realise that everyone here already understands that?

[Bored chemist]

Combustion reactions are generaly irreversible.

Not exactly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microscopic_reversibility

The point I was making is the the equilibrium favours carbon dioxide and water by many orders of magnitude at any accessible temperatures and pressures.
In this case, Le Chatelier's Principle tells me that pressure won't make much difference.
So this

It do not proceed in the opposite direction at all (not even sometime, so not "yes generally but if we change pressure or temperature it is ok..."), because it cant, it is a combustion EQUAL it is an irreversible reaction.

is wrong. it overstates the case.

But the reality is that the reaction goes in the wrong direction for the OP'sclaim

What the bored chemist does not understand is that if my experiment works then it will be a new process/principle in science.

It will not work.
You might as well say "if my idea works then we will all travel by flying unicorn". You are not doing science.

No, I understood it perfectly well.

It seems that the only one who doesn't understand it is Deecart. 

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 It is strange when education states you can do nothing because we already know what is allowed for. And it is clear that the IPCC does not know what allows for their observation. Is this what the over 700 scientists associated with the IPCC decided, if what's known does not allow for our observations then we will not discuss it? That does seem to be the situation.
  How are known scientific observations that have no known cause understood? What I am pursuing did start with my "discovering" NOAA's report on the depletion of the ozone layer. I think this is what needs to be considered first. And in another part of this forum I posted research that stated that the warming of the early 20th century is different than that near the end of the 20th century. And that research paper cites IPCC 2001 as well.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82400.msg686238#new
 And why I found NOAA's report was because the depletion of the ozone layer was not considered a factor in global warming. And with the research paper that I cited and their saying and I quote;
The models show that the latter warming event was due to an increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas released, while the former warming event was due to natural variation (IPCC., 2001). end quote
 And the research paper that cited the IPCC is in my other post on this website (I did link it).
 And now it seems like the IPCC is involved in a cover up. The information suggests an anthropogenic cause since circa 1978. And that agrees with depletion of the ozone layer. I never thought I'd say that the IPCC knew this but now have the evidence. And it is in their own 2001 report.

[Origin]

And now it seems like the IPCC is involved in a cover up.

I was kind of expecting to see a conspiracy theory raise it's head at some point.

The information suggests an anthropogenic cause since circa 1978. And that agrees with depletion of the ozone layer. I never thought I'd say that the IPCC knew this but now have the evidence. And it is in their own 2001 report.

Your inability to understand the paper is not the same as a cover up

[JLindgaard (OP)]

In the global average, these observed 20th century warming events—both in the early mid-century and at the end of the century—have been well represented by climate models. The models show that the latter warming event was due to an increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas released, while the former warming event was due to natural variation (IPCC., 2001).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1873965211000053

 That is the 2nd paragraph of the introduction quite clearly stating the warming period 1920 - 1940 was mostly in the northern latitudes.
 From the 1st paragraph;
Between the 1920s and the 1940s, a large warming event occurred in the Arctic, concentrated to the high latitudes; this event was comparable to the recent 30-year warming.

 And both statements combined;
 Between the 1920s and the 1940s, a large warming event occurred in the Arctic, concentrated to the high latitudes; this event was comparable to the recent 30-year warming.
In the global average, these observed 20th century warming events—both in the early mid-century and at the end of the century—have been well represented by climate models. The models show that the latter warming event was due to an increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas released, while the former warming event was due to natural variation (IPCC., 2001).

 The IPCC considered both events to be from different causes. That rules out CO2 and supports ozone depletion. From 1950 - 1980 there was basically no warming while CO2 levels steadily rose. And ozone depletion is what led to the Montreal Protocol in 1987.

[Colin2B]

And now it seems like the IPCC is involved in a cover up.

Please do not post conspiracy theories, they can lead to a ban.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 To be clear, I support the IPCC and the fact that CO2 is causing global warming. I just found it disturbing that scientists would publish a research paper saying that the warming that occurred from the 1920's to the 1940's would say "natural climate variance" and then cite research the IPCC did to legitimize their research paper.
 Maybe those scientists should be investigated for making false claims? And in my original post, I was only concerned with showing that the IPCC research has led to an interesting possibility in atmospheric chemistry.
 And natural climate variance is not understood just as why ice ages occur is not understood. My hypothesis of how the Earth's moment of inertia and either glaciers or the lack there of explains my position quite clearly I believe. What led me to the research paper that makes questionable statements about research the IPCC has done.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82400.msg686238#new

 And as for my interest in ozone, it was to support research that the IPCC has made known concerning gasses associated with the natural occurrence of ozone and its precursor/source gasses. I think my familiarity with research on formaldehyde should be considered.
 It has been my opinion that if CO2 directly supports recovery of the ozone layer than as I posted earlier in this thread, the IPCC should be discussing that as well but have ignored that issue. My post specifically commenting on that is very short. If reducing CO2 emissions impacts the recovery of the ozone layer then that should be a part of the discussion.
 As for what I believe, I believe that CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2 and then 2CH2O > CO2 + CH4.
As for what scientists wrote in their research paper, my opinion does not matter. Whose opinion does matter is the scientists who wrote that research paper and the IPCC research they are citing.
 And it is not for me to say if what those scientists published means. I have my own research that I have been pursuing and will continue to pursue and that is if CO2 supports the recovery of the ozone layer which the IPCC's research suggests it does.

 @Colin2B, as you see, I don't need an opinion on published research papers. I have no control over what those scientists said or research that they have cited. What I say simply will not matter when it comes to that research paper and all research associated with it.

[Bored chemist]

As for what I believe, I believe that CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2 and then 2CH2O > CO2 + CH4.

But it doesn't.
You can get a broadly similar reaction driven by photosynthesis.
It was once put forward as how plants made  carbohydrates.
But it's outdated and it failed about a hundred years ago..
https://portlandpress.com/biochemj/article/24/4/1210/20605/Studies-in-photosynthesisI-The-formaldehyde

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 And now you're over simplifying it. Are you suggesting that if we put CO2 and H2O in a Joules-Thomson throttling process that they'd form CH2O + O2 before polymerizing C6H12O6? I have considered that since the photosynthesis process is not known. If the O2 is removed then that would increase the vacuum/absence of background radiation?
 I have to say I do not support solar radiation breaking the double covalent bonds of a CO2 molecule. That would be radiation entering into a plants cell. That would cause it to burn and that hasn't been observed. That is one reason why if my experiment works in the MBL then it might be a more common phenomena than what has been considered which is it hasn't been considered.
 And it might be the lack of an appropriate explanation in photosynthesis that encouraged my belief that CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2 is basically a new process.  Some might not be familiar with C6H12O6 being a simple carbohydrate. If you look at the inside of a plant's cell, when it absorbs solar radiation, can it expand creating a localized J-T field?
 Joules-Thomson was 1852. And can a plant create such an effect? While I do consider that I do not know enough about plant physiology to have anything more than an opinion.
 For considering CO2 + H2O, what you considered is something for people to think about.

 @All, one reason why I refer to a Joules-Thomson field or throttling process is simply because there is no research involving various types of molecules. And could plants mimic such an environment because its cells limit background radiation in a given field? It would take a botanist/organic chemist and possibly an atomic physicist to consider that. I am mostly focused a gasses in the Earth's environment. Hopefully everyone understands this and at the same time, what might be true in our atmosphere might be true in a plant/tree.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 @Bored chemist, just a thought. Has anyone put pure CO2 and a limited amount of water in a Joules-Thomson throttling process? That's my simple answer. The kinetic energy of the CO2 wouldn't allow for water to become a liquid.
 Then what happens when 2 gasses expand in a vacuum while the temperature is dropping? This actually gets into what you know. How do we consider angular (orbital, rotational) velocities relative to slower linear velocities? How do gasses in a field react to such changes?
 Myself, I don't know. Kind of why I'm pursuing an experiment. Because I keep saying Jules-Thomson, it's possible no one has considered what effect their research has outside of their J-T coefficient. And with my interests, I consider the upper troposphere up through the tropopause to be a similar effect. Why does the temperature drop?

[Bored chemist]

Are you suggesting that if we put CO2 and H2O in a Joules-Thomson throttling process that they'd form CH2O + O2 before polymerizing C6H12O6? I

No, I am saying that you would get CO2 and H2O
No reaction would take place.

I have considered that since the photosynthesis process is not known.

It is.
In fact two slightly different versions are known.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis#Overview

Since you are not interested in science, why are you posting here?

I refer to a Joules-Thomson field or throttling process is simply because there is no research involving various types of molecules.

There are hundreds of years of research.
Why do you post nonsense?

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 The photosynthesis process isn't known. My experiment works and it will demonstrate that. After all, your
point is that CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2 doesn't happen while that would allow for what plants and trees do.
 Why not just like science? I have looked at the structure of plants based on the molecular/atomical function.
Plants are basically where the atomic realm goes from matter to life. This also includes phytoplankton which are harmed by an excess of UV radiation. Another reason why I like the ozone layer. It supports the food chain.
 And what you can consider is if I am right. I'll have taken the work of the IPCC and many other scientists to create and pursue a hypothesis based on work their work suggested. Science isn't based on faith so I can accept work that has been done and what it suggests.
 Just an FYI everyone, some "fun" time for me. Einstein's work was ridiculed and discarded. That is until someone who was famous for their failed research published Einstein's paper. While this is fact you guys will not know that Max Planck failed. And when his experiment was a failure he calculated his constant.
 And you'll say this never happened when his failed experiment happened before a generator produced electricity. And now you'll say he worked by the light bulb Thomas Edison invented when he actually burned the midnight oil in his lamp.
 And while you guys don't know that, I can understand that you never read the book.
 

[Bored chemist]

The photosynthesis process isn't known.

You may not know it, but it seems that just makes it part of a long list.

[Bored chemist]

And what you can consider is if I am right.

You aren't.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 You can't win. My work is not based on organic chemistry. And I can't be nice about this. It is about who wins while I'm pursuing an experiment. We can agree I'll pursue my experiment while you say I am wrong. And everybody agrees with you. And now you are right.