The Historyscoper's Climate Watch: What do the 3% of scientists who do not believe that climate change is anthropogenic see that the 97% of scientists who do say that climate change is a result of human activity do not see?

Tuesday, April 16, 2019

What do the 3% of scientists who do not believe that climate change is anthropogenic see that the 97% of scientists who do say that climate change is a result of human activity do not see?

https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-3-of-scientists-who-do-not-believe-that-climate-change-is-anthropogenic-see-that-the-97-of-scientists-who-do-say-that-climate-change-is-a-result-of-human-activity-do-not-see

My reply:

When it comes to scientists, opinion polls don’t interest me, just the truth. There has never been a thorough questionnaire circulated to scientists with questions covering every possible viewpoint, just loaded questions, I wonder why?

Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: Second Edition: The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus 2, Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, Marita Noon - Amazon.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOeOYlXrWlQ

What do scientists who don’t believe in anthropogenic climate see? Simple, that the CO2 greenhouse warming theory is based on fake physics, because the Earth’s atmosphere isn’t a blanket or a greenhouse it’s a chimney, continually removing the heat deposited by the Sun and dissipating it in the infinite heat sink of space. Look up lapse rate in Wiki to see how the temperature systematically drops with height above the surface precisely because this chimney effect is in operation. The chemical composition of the atmosphere is irrelevant, only its great mass and the Earth’s gravity, which keeps the atmosphere from escaping to space or freezing and falling to the surface. This creates a powerful gravity gradient causing warm air to rise, expand, and cool all the way to space, similar to bubbles in an aquarium or hot smoke from a chimney. CO2 has no power to send the heat back down to the surface, period, that’s a hoax, and it’s sad but the fake field of climate science starts with this assumption, meaning an entire generation has been miseducated and should demand their money back and retrain for useful careers like nuclear energy.

Lapse rate - Wikipedia
Earth cannot heat itself by it's own radiation | PSI Intl
Back Radiation does not Create a Greenhouse Effect.
Heat Flow Science Discredits Greenhouse Gas Theory | PSI Intl
Recycling of Heat in the Atmosphere is Impossible: A Note from Nasif S. Nahle
The Miseducation Of An Entire Generation: Climate Change | PSI Intl

Read my essay that completely explodes the CO2 greenhouse warming theory along with its blanket moose hockey. No scientist who grasps the iron laws of thermodynamics can ever refute it, because it’s the simple unvarnished truth.

TLW's Two Cents Worth on Climate Change

Whatever the percentage, there’s always been a goodly number of distinguished scientists who risked their career to speak out against the CO2 AGW outfit:
Top Aussie Scientist Reveals UN IPCC Greenhouse Gas 'Errors' | PSI Intl

TLW's Climatescope™, by T.L. Winslow (TLW), "The Historyscoper"™

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