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.
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.
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.
Skeptical Science New Research for Week #18 2024
-
Open access notables
*Generative AI tools can enhance climate literacy but must be checked for
biases and inaccuracies*, Atkins et al., *Communications Ea...
-
* Why climate change ISN'T going to end the world and why we need to stop
obsessing about net-zero, according to Cambridge University professor*
Young peo...
Unforced Variations: May 2024
-
This month’s open thread on climate topics. Many eyes will be focused on
whether April temperatures will be the 11th month in row of records… Note
that w...
How Was Sustainable Development Introduced
-
The lynchpin of U.N. Agenda 2030, originally U.N. Agenda 21, is Sustainable
Development (SD) with its 17 SD goals established by the United Nations’
global...
Fraud Detection and the Presidential Election
-
Since the recent presidential election, I have seen a number of claims
about supposed election fraud. The Trump campaign and allies have filed a
number of ...
Adjust contrast of a pdf free
-
Closer to the eye of the shooter, this is because Preview is quite
literally applying a filter to each individual page of the PDF you are
saving. the proce...
Climate Change Impacts
-
As environmental change influences transportation, it will be paramount to
see how transportation base may be affected over the short- and long haul.
Thi...
Cow Farts causing Global Warming!?
-
Scientists and farmers around the world are debating a very serious subject
at the moment. You may not know it, but cows are actually one of the rudest
an...
Green Printing - Recyled Paper vs. E-Paper
-
One kind of industry rarely discussed among environmental movements is the
paper business.
It seems like such an obvious industry – paper is made from tre...
No comments:
Post a Comment