The Historyscoper's Climate Watch: Is carbon dioxide really causing global warming or is it just a theory among others?

Sunday, February 17, 2019

Is carbon dioxide really causing global warming or is it just a theory among others?

https://www.quora.com/Is-carbon-dioxide-really-causing-global-warming-or-is-it-just-a-theory-among-others/

My reply:

CO2 in the atmosphere may absorb some surface radiation from the Earth, but only the Sun can deposit energy on the Earth’s surface and heat it up. The atmosphere only cools the surface, and its chemical composition doesn’t really matter. The iron laws of thermodynamics prohibit a cooler body from heating a warmer body, and the atmosphere is cooler than the surface because of the lapse rate, which is caused by the atmosphere’s gravity field pushing warmer air up and into space where all heat is dissipated forever, much like the water pressure in an aquarium pushes hose bubbles up to the surface where they are released into the air.

Instead of atmospheric CO2 stopping the flow of surface heat to space, it speeds it up because absorbed IR warms it up and makes it lighter. Since it’s a trace (0.04%) element, it absorbs the IR as increased internal kinetic energy, making it bump faster into neighboring molecules and diffuse the heat. CO2 never turns into a mini laser or radar satellite in the sky.

They get emission confused. All materials constantly emit radiation at all wavelengths from zero on up, but the power distribution peaks at an absolute temperature proportional to the fourth power of the temperature, meaning that the photons will not only be much weaker but way slower in flow rate, and they too will be absorbed by surrounding air molecules long before they reach the surface, while the whole mass just keeps rising to space like a chimney.

When you cook a meal in a fireplace, Earth’s atmosphere pushes the waste heat and smoke up the chimney and up to space. The heat never goes back down the chimney and cooks the meal twice. So-called climate scientists never seem to ‘get’ this. They tout CO2’s absorption abilities, but misrepresent its emission abilities, and are always turning physics upside down and backwards to invent a fictitious dragon in the sky supported by a Byzantine network of inscrutable mathematics that are nothing but mathematical science fiction. They also like to turn the Earth flat and pretend to calculate the entire energy flow from one flat quarter, always managing to find fictitious wattage beaming back to the surface from somewhere in fantasyland.

The basic paradigm is wrong, and that’s where climate scientists keep tripping on their own feet. The Earth’s atmosphere, in short, is a giant chimney not a greenhouse. Thus, the obsession with heat in the atmosphere has been misguided, because it contains heat that’s already left the surface, which has cooled and will never be rewarmed by a phantom second Sun made of trace CO2 molecules. In short, CO2 greenhouse warming theory is a hoax, and its blind adoption by so-called climate scientists is one of the scientific scandals of history.

I’m a philosopher of science and technology and can back my views up. Read my devastating expose and join others who are waking up:
TLW's Two Cents Worth on Climate Change

No comments:

What Is the Antarctic Volcanoes Project?

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