https://principia-scientific.com/simple-truth-of-how-greenhouse-gases-actually-cool-earth/
My reply:
Why do so-called physicists trying to understand Earth's climate keep sticking slavishly to the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) Law? This law works for the Sun because it is a mainly unchanging energy source, but the Earth isn't, so the law can't be used to calculate the surface temperature without knowing the instantaneous energy radiated, which leads to circular reasoning, especially when the atmosphere and oceans are added, which control and modulate surface radiation via evaporation and convection. Even then, surface radiation changes instantaneously, and isn't amenable to any trigonometry-based "global average temperature" (GAT) calculation for political purposes.
The elephant in the room is what does atmospheric CO2 have to do with it? Answer: NOTHING. In practice the global Marxist-run U.N. IPCC pushes the 33C CO2 global warming hoax to get around the problem of CO2 actually being unable to melt an ice cube with its weak puny 15 micron -80C photons, as if the 33C must come from CO2 so case is closed and no further debate is necessary.
To really model Earth's climate will take a dynamic 3-D computer program, not some simple trig functions and the S-B Law. But CO2 will never have any place in such a program, so you can be sure the IPCC scientists will never consider it since their mission is only to frame CO2 emissions as evil to put over the multi-trillion Green New Deal and Great Reset and make off with the money to recycle it for redistribution of wealth for Marxist social-racial justice. So ironically real climate science will have to be done outside the IPCC while suffering from ostracism and lack of funding. Meanwhile if we don't wake up the public to the IPCC's big scam they will win walking away, and all freedom will be jeopardized.
Read my cool Quora articles designed for the general reader but with deep physics underpinning, and sharpen your debating skills with IPCC victims: Click the Web site window above for my free online course covering all aspects of the IPCC bloomin' onion of lies.
https://www.quora.com/What-does-an-increase-in-CO2-emissions-have-to-do-with-how-high-the-temperatures-in-our-planet-are/answer/TL-Winslow
https://www.quora.com/How-do-we-know-that-humans-cause-climate-change/answer/TL-Winslow
https://www.quora.com/What-specific-chemical-properties-of-carbon-dioxide-causes-the-greenhouse-effect-Why-chemically-is-carbon-more-reflective-than-other-gases/answer/TL-Winslow
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-the-WEFs-Great-Reset-proposal-and-communism-or-socialism/answer/TL-Winslow
https://popularresistance.org/there-is-no-vaccine-for-climate-catastrophe/
My reply:
This article is just pure global Marxist agitprop. The whole global
warming scare is a hoax perpetuated by the U.N. IPCC to frame CO2
emissions as evil in order to bilk the world of trillions to shut down
the fossil fuel industry they hate so much because it underpins
capitalism, and weaken and soften up the Western world for a Marxist
takeover. Physics proves that CO2 can't melt an ice cube with its weak
puny 15 micron photons that have a Planck radiation temperature of -80C.
The IPCC octopus substitutes physics for alarmism backed by
cherry-picked examples of bad weather to make useful idiots who think
they're saving the world from an imaginary dragon in the sky but are
really delivering it into their hands to use the trillions for their
idea of Marxist social-racial justice.
Here's the proof that CO2 can't cause global warming if you understand college-level physics;
https://www.quora.com/What-specific-chemical-properties-of-carbon-dioxide-causes-the-greenhouse-effect-Why-chemically-is-carbon-more-reflective-than-other-gases/answer/TL-Winslow
https://principia-scientific.com/the-dishonesty-of-greenhouse-gases/
My reply:
[[An over-simplified calculation was concocted about 20 years ago, that misleads most scientists who might probe it into thinking that the average level of radiation that Earth’s outer atmospheric surface (the tropopause) receives from the Sun is 25% of the level that a satellite would measure when existing in space at the same distance from the Sun.]]
[[As shown below, that factor should be 40.6%, (being 4/p2) but non-scientific people have no chance of recognizing that error. In fact, most scientists cannot do so either because that would require them to have studied the Quantum Mechanical theory of light, and to have a good background in statistics as well.]]
[[So the perpetrators of the concocted calculation could have been reasonably sure that they would escape detection for many decades, when they first launched their concocted science with its calculated surface temperature of -18oC and a 33oC GHE Effect to arrive at Earth’s measured temperature of 15oC. And while those scientists may not have understood then that global warming has been arising from solar variations and orbital interactions, of which neither can possibly be ameliorated by mankind, they should have at least tried to understand the thermodynamics of greenhouse gases before they labelled them as the cause of global warming.]]
[[When that double-cosine point-intensity is averaged over the whole sunlit hemisphere, where both q and l each range independently from –p/2 to +p/2 radians, an averaging factor of 2/p is obtained for each component.]]
You're getting close but no cigar, sorry.
To use the S-B T^4 law on the Earth, the U.N. IPCC fake scientists first turn it into a flat motionless disk with no oceans or atmosphere, so that the "average global temperature" can be calculated from pure instantaneous radiation absorption/emission independent of time. But as Galileo said, "E pur si muove" (Nevertheless it moves). Making the Earth spin, with the Sun illuminating a hemisphere instead of a disk, and the oceans and atmosphere acting as heat storage makes this 5th grader model into junk that bears no resemblance to reality. Funny why they want to use a flat Earth with surface area of 1/4 the sphere, and reduce the Sun's power to 1/4 supposedly to compensate, when that also lowers the Sun's Planck radiation temperature and shifts the whole curve, creating a fake weak Sun that of course can't keep the Earth from freezing, with a net temperature of -18C. The IPCC hoaxers than want you to believe that the real figure of +15C proves that CO2 supplies the missing 33C, but without any physical explanation including why they waved away the rest of the atmosphere. Why don't they reduce the Sun's power by only 1/2 and have it illuminate a stationary hemisphere sans oceans and atmosphere? Because they worked backwards, the sure sign of junk science that's trying to find the truth no matter where it leads, not justify a preconceived conclusion for political purposes.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-natural-greenhouse-effect-and-the-anthropogenic-greenhouse-effect-What-is-the-difference-between-them/answer/TL-Winslow
How many times do I have to bring out the killer sword? The IPCC CO2 warming hoax relies on widespread ignorance of radiative physics based on Nature's ironclad Planck's Radiation Law, which
makes CO2's weak puny 15 micron photons with a Planck radiation temperature of -80C incapable of melting an ice cube, or raising the temperature of any molecule higher than -80C.
Planck's Law makes optical IR thermometers (OIRTs) possible that can measure a radiating body's temperature by just sampling it from a distance and focusing the signal with a lens on a thermopile. This only works because photons have a Planck radiation temperature based on their wavelength via Wien's Displacement Law, which is derived from Planck's Radiation Law. If this weren't true then the remote IR signal would keep building up the temperature and never stop, but instead if levels off at a value determined by Wien's/Planck's Law.
The complementary big lie by the IPCC is to show a graph of Earth surface IR vs. wavelength as seen from satellites displayed side by side with one of solar energy hitting the atmosphere, and point out notches at CO2's 15 micron radiation wavelength, claiming that this proves that CO2 "traps and piles heat" in the atmosphere and raises the surface temperature. Zonk! Distortions or not, the surface IR curve as seen from space has a clear peak corresponding to the surface temperature from Planck's Law, and notches only indicate blocking of some wavelengths of radiation on its way to space, which might affect the frigid sky temperatures, but the surface temperature is the surface temperature, and CO2 didn't change it. Instead, they push the sick hoax that CO2's x watts per square meter of IR from the sky raises the surface temperature so many degrees C, when it can't raise it even one millionth of a degree C, and their own satellite data proves it, else they'd prominently show the shift in those graphs.
https://www.quora.com/What-specific-chemical-properties-of-carbon-dioxide-causes-the-greenhouse-effect-Why-chemically-is-carbon-more-reflective-than-other-gases/answer/TL-Winslow
This is a classic case of lies flying around the world at jet speed while the truth limps behind. What will it take to wake the public up and laugh the IPCC away, along with its plans to bilk trillions in the name of saving the world from CO2 but actually planning on redistributing it for their idea of Marxist social-racist justice?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-the-WEFs-Great-Reset-proposal-and-communism-or-socialism/answer/TL-Winslow
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/12/14/the-moon-controls-the-release-of-methane-in-arctic-ocean/
My reply:
[[It may not be very well known, but the Arctic Ocean leaks enormous amounts of the potent greenhouse gas methane. These leaks have been ongoing for thousands of years but could be intensified by a future warmer ocean. The potential for this gas to escape the ocean, and contribute to the greenhouse gas budget in the atmosphere, is an important mystery that scientists are trying to solve.]]
What is even less well known is Planck's Radiation Law, which gives CO2's weak puny 15 microns a Planck radiation temperature of -80C like dry ice, which can't even melt an ice cube.
Methane (CH4) (cow farts) has an atmospheric concentration in the parts per billion, not parts per million like CO2. Methane’s radiation emission/absorption wavelengths are 3.5 microns and 8 microns, which have Planck radiation temperatures of 1031F (555C) and 192F (89C), which are way outside Earth’s normal surface temperature range of -50C to +50C, thus methane can’t even interfere with Earth surface radiation any more than CO2, except maybe over Old Faithful.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-primary-science-behind-the-cause-of-man-made-climate-change-Is-CO2-really-the-main-cause-as-I-keep-seeing-news-about-other-gases-such-as-methane-being-a-much-greater-influence-on-the-atmosphere-and/answer/TL-Winslow
https://principia-scientific.com/actual-experiment-proves-as-co2-rises-surface-temps-drop/
My reply:
Nice experiment, but all the above comments are clueless as to what's really going on. No wonder the IPCC is keeping the public fooled walking away.
First, CO2's weak 15 micron photons have a Planck radiation temperature of -80C like dry ice and can't melt an ice cube, or raise the temperature of the surface above -80C, period. CO2 can only cool Earth's surface via convection.
Second, the thermodynamic adiabatic lapse rate of temperature drop with height based on the Ideal Gas Law is a function of gravity g and specific heat capacity h, i.e. g/h. Pure CO2 has a lower h than O2 and N2, hence there will be a slightly faster temperature drop.The presence of water lowers the lapse rate some, but no atmospheric gas can invert it completely and make the atmosphere warmer than the surface and hence able to raise its temperature above what the solar radiation did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_specific_heat_capacities
The speed of convection is the difference between the instantaneous actual and thermodynamic lapse rates, which the convection tries to equalize.
https://www.quora.com/What-specific-chemical-properties-of-carbon-dioxide-causes-the-greenhouse-effect-Why-chemically-is-carbon-more-reflective-than-other-gases/answer/TL-Winslow
All attempts to twist CO2 into a global warming agent are fake/junk physics pushed solely for political reasons, currently with the goal of bilking $5 trillion a year from the world for 30 years to totally ruin capitalism and soften up the world for global Marxism.All attempts to compute how many angels can dance on the head of a pin lose the public and give the money train a clear road. All we have to do is keep repeating the slogan that -80C can't melt an ice cube. Dry ice is great for storing COVID-19 vaccines, but is a non-starter when it comes to global warming.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-importance-of-the-top-three-greenhouse-gases/answer/TL-Winslow
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-primary-science-behind-the-cause-of-man-made-climate-change-Is-CO2-really-the-main-cause-as-I-keep-seeing-news-about-other-gases-such-as-methane-being-a-much-greater-influence-on-the-atmosphere-and/answer/TL-Winslow
Read the first few paragraphs of this recent article and weep:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/12/12/where-is-the-outrage-over-climate-and-energy-policy/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/12/07/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-434/
My reply:
[[The earth is cooled by outgoing infrared radiation, which has a longer wavelength than visible light. Greenhouse gases interfere with infrared radiation by absorbing and re-emitting photons at particularly wavelengths. Expressed simply, as the concentration of a specific greenhouse gas, CO2, increases, its effectiveness diminishes. In other words, as the amount of CO2 increases, its ability to further increase temperatures decreases. This is similar to an automobile approaching maximum speed. It will not go much faster no matter how hard the driver presses on the accelerator.]]
Zonk! Moose hockey detector went off!
The Earth's surface heat caused by Solar radiation isn't cooled exclusively by radiation. Convection does a lot of the job, driving a Carnot heat engine in the atmosphere along with a vertical treadmill that wastes the heat long before it reaches the top of the troposphere. CO2's radiation absorption/emission wavelength of 15 microns has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C, which is completely outside the Earth surface's normal temperature range of -50C to +50C and hence can't even interfere with it. It's not even infrared, but closer to microwaves. The entire IPCC CO2 global warming hoax is based on mass ignorance of Planck's Radiation Law and how it gives every wavelength a temperature, as everybody experiences now firsthand every day with handheld infrared thermometers. Instead, it's based on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law derived from it that integrates the Planck radiation over all wavelengths and shows that it's dependent on the fourth power of temperature, then tries to invert it on a static flat fake Earth sans atmosphere and oceans illuminated by a weak Sun to derive a "global average temperature", arriving at a number that's 33C less than the measured value, "proving" that CO2 is supplying the difference. Of course there is no evaporation or convection, only radiation, and no rotation that brings it in, so this 5th grader model bears no relationship to reality and that's why they use it.
Without this hoax, the IPCC empire is like a house built on a hill of horse manure, which keeps sliding deeper into it until it finally turns onto its side and fills up completely. All other Earth climate science is junk until it's been refounded sans CO2 back radiation warming, and anybody who gives the IPCC credence for a second is letting them rob the world of trillions to save the world from a nonexistent threat, promising instead a new Dark Ages. No, CO2 doesn't warm the globe a little less as more is added. It can't warm the globe one iota at any concentration. -80C radiation can't melt an ice cube. If you think so, show me your patent for a dry ice-powered microwave oven or flamethrower. Maybe a mountain of dry ice attached at the back :)
Want a patient and deep step-by-step walkthrough of the physics? It's being shadow-banned by the IPCC because they can't answer it. It's amazing how a lie races around the world at jet speed while truth limps along behind. The fossil fuel industry is good not bad, and needs continued support for hundreds of years until the day arrives that unlimited cheap/free nuclear power is available to all. Even then, fossil fuels will always have their uses in the chemical/plastics industry.
https://www.quora.com/What-specific-chemical-properties-of-carbon-dioxide-causes-the-greenhouse-effect-Why-chemically-is-carbon-more-reflective-than-other-gases/answer/TL-Winslow
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/12/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/
My reply:
[[The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.19 C/decade over global-averaged land).]]
So, IPCC-brainwashed scientists found a pony in the manure.
+0.14/decade? How can such accuracy be attained from satellites?
I quote Wikipedia:
[[Infrared radiation can be used to measure both the temperature of the surface (using "window" wavelengths to which the atmosphere is transparent), and the temperature of the atmosphere (using wavelengths for which the atmosphere is not transparent, or measuring cloud top temperatures in infrared windows).
[[Satellites used to retrieve surface temperatures via measurement of thermal infrared in general require cloud-free conditions. Some of the instruments include the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR), Along Track Scanning Radiometers (AASTR), Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS), the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIS), and the ACE Fourier Transform Spectrometer (ACE‐FTS) on the Canadian SCISAT-1 satellite.. Over land the retrieval of temperature from radiances is harder, because of inhomogeneities in the surface.]] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
Duh, how does Spencer get global average temperatures(GATs) for even one day from such spotty unreliable coverage, much less a decade-long average accurate to two decimal places? I suspect that there is no pony in the manure, just a strong desire to find one to make one's life work have meaning. It would have been more honest and done more good to work all those years in health care.
Physics prohibits gases from emitting Planck radiation that can be used to determine temperature. The surface is solid and emits it, as do water droplets in clouds, but the cloud temperatures are made frigid by the thermodynamic lapse rate and bear little relation to surface temperatures. Any real measurement of surface temperature requires clear air from the measurement surface to space, which is very iffy, so it seems very hard to believe that the temperatures for the entire globe can ever be measured at one time. It looks to me like the year-by-year GAT is really flat within experimental error and the rest is like using a Ouija Board to obtain messages from the beyond and thinking it's your dear dead mother because she said you get tire tracks in your underwear regularly.
Either way, atmospheric CO2 can't raise Earth surface temperatures even 0.01C with its weak 15 micron photons that have a Planck radiation temperature of -80C like dry ice. It can't even interfere with the surface heat deposited by the Sun that stays within a normal range of -50C to +50C. If there were any real but minor GAT increase over the decades, it can't be CO2 but must be something else, which the IPCC hasn't been looking for because they might find it and ruin their political program. Meanwhile the horrible leftist-run U.N. IPCC octopus is plotting to rob the world of hundreds of trillions of dollars, as per WUWT's own article:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/12/05/climate-activists-100-150-trillion-over-30-years-to-fix-global-warming/
http://www.historyscoper.com/whatisenvironmentalismideology.html
After this announcement all kibbutzing talk of how accusing IPCC of leftism is wrong is pure manure sans ponies. Manwhile Spencer and his IPCC-appeasing pals are letting them destroy the world's future without a fight by giving the IPCC global warming hoax even one iota of credence. We all know that most of that money will be used not to solve a nonexistent crisis but to foist the Marxist idea of social-racial justice after milking the big dumb mainly white virtue-signaling deplorable herd like cows and shearing them like sheep.
We are on the winner's team all along. Here's my deepest most thoughtful dismantling of the CO2 global warming hoax using physics, fresh off the presses, free for all to study. I hope it gets wide readership despite IPCC shadow-banning. Once you are "woke", I hope you become an activist fighting the IPCC's Great Robbery every step of the way while getting royally pissed-off every time anybody tries to sell it.
https://www.quora.com/What-specific-chemical-properties-of-carbon-dioxide-causes-the-greenhouse-effect-Why-chemically-is-carbon-more-reflective-than-other-gases/answer/TL-Winslow
It's too bad the current brouhaha about CO2 is so narrowly focused. So what if a higher concentration in the atmosphere raises global average temps? If higher temps were accompanied by increased atmospheric moisture, it would even out around the world and turn it into a paradise planet, greening the deserts so that the teeming billions could be fed. Cold temperatures are inimical to life, not a goal of life.
Too bad, it might take a lot more CO2 than you think to really change the global weather, but not because it has any control over Earth's surface temperatures. In fact atmospheric CO2 can't melt an ice cube with its 15 micron main radiation wavelength that has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C, colder than dry ice (-78.5C).
Why do they call CO2 greenhouse gas? Because plants breathe it, and they pump it into greenhouses to help them grow and thrive. Polar regions and deserts look good in postcards, but who wants to live there. Meanwhile global pop. is zooming, so obviously the real answer is to pump more CO2 and water vapor into the atmosphere to turn the Earth into a greenhouse, turning deserts both hot and cold into lush green crop-growing regions like 35 million years ago when the avg. global temp was 88F and the CO2 level was 1K parts per million (vs. 415 PPM today). So what if we lose some desert polar regions and even some yummy coastline, the adjustments will be inconvenient but temporary, but I prefer shirt-sleeve weather to Frosty the Snowman. How many arctic animals can't adapt to a warmer climate? What animal needs to live in ice and snow and wouldn't like a vacation to Tahiti? They can lose the fat, hair or feathers.
The real question is can we make and keep the global CO2/H20 levels high enough, and for how long? Sooner or later mass global starvation will become unstoppable if world pop. keeps climbing, and this is the way to forestall it, if we act soon enough. Don't give me them Malthusian objections, give me some CO2/H20 solutions. I like a paradise Earth in the possibility window.
So, while the world is debating the horrors, extent or lack thereof of global warming caused by CO2, let's engineer the CO2/H20 solution to making the Earth a warm temperate planet from pole to pole with no deserts or ice wastelands, allowing vastly more food to be grown and turning poor nations rich. I DON'T mean a planet with wild swings between super-hot summers and super-cold winters, but one that is warmer than now everywhere, but moister and greener, with a giant network of plant life helping to avoid extremes. Since CO2 and water vapor are the keys, and the paltry amounts in the atmosphere need to be increased as soon as possible to turn deserts green and get the warming process off to a good start, but the new levels have to be maintained permanently, I'm looking to remote Antarctica (which is really a sea) as the most promising source for unlimited CO2 and water vapor generation, given that noxious emissions (sulfur dioxide, etc.) can be controlled.
This blog is for posting news on the world climate situation, scientific and political, along with my own articles. I'm sure it will start out with hardly any interest or followers, but I'm hoping that it will attract the smartest people eventually and in the end I hope for a global consensus that if it can be done it must be done.
So what is the Antarctic Volcanoes Project? My working idea is that an international effort to reactivate as many volcanoes in Antarctica as possible in an ideal location for distributing the CO2/H20 will produce the best and most cost-effective results. Sorry, one-worlders, it won't give you a license to override and control any country's economy, but if your country is suffering from lack of food you will be too busy expanding farming to care. Hence until I think of or hear about a better way to increase world CO2/H20 levels, this is my pet project. If you are a scientist, please climb aboard my AVP Express and let's make it happen.
It Would Be Funny If It Were's So Sad
It would be funny it weren't so sad, but when the scientists say "greenhouse gas" they are using a malaprop. It should be greenhouse GLASS, because that's why a greenhouse stays warm, by glass walls stopping convection of air and trapping heat. Yes, CO2 is pumped into greenhouses, but not for heating purposes, only to help plants BREATHE. So the whole sucker's game of "greenhouse gas" must truly be for the purpose of stopping more vegetation from growing and feeding the teeming billions. Is that their true goal? Another blip on the horizon is the promise of melting permafrost releasing gigantic amounts of CO2 from the Arctic not Antarctic sector. Let's hope we at least get some more good CO2 that way.
Jan. 14, 2011. Good article on CO2 levels and global temps 30-40 million years ago
Aug. 31, 2011. Giant pipe and balloon to pump water into the sky in climate experiment
May 31, 2013. Scientists find that higher CO2 levels green arid regions
Mar. 30, 2015. Higher atmospheric CO2 levels causing boom in vegetation
Aug. 2015. 'Unprecedented' volcanic eruption released enough water vapor to heat Earth: report
Aug. 15, 2017. Scientists find 91 new volcanoes miles beneath Antarctica's thick ice sheet
How Much CO2 Do Volcanoes Emit?
Will a major volcanic eruption fix climate change? - James Matkin
Part of the heat is coming from beneath our feet
Did any volcanoes erupt in 2020?
T.L. Winslow (TLW, the Historyscoper (tm)
