The Historyscoper's Climate Watch: How can we better understand what is going on with climate change?

Tuesday, July 16, 2019

How can we better understand what is going on with climate change?

https://www.quora.com/What-is-more-accurate-description-of-what-is-happening-to-the-world-weather-systems-Is-it-Global-warming-or-Climate-change

My reply:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-more-accurate-description-of-what-is-happening-to-the-world-weather-systems-Is-it-Global-warming-or-Climate-change/answer/TL-Winslow

Global warming or climate change? This nomenclature mix-up is stupid, because everybody knows that climate changes naturally, with or without CO2, but only the U.N. IPCC juggernaut claims that CO2 causes global warming, and never claims cooling, so to accept a switch to climate change looks like a win for us CO2-driven global warming skeptics.

Why can’t you put a big block of ice on your kitchen table to heat the kitchen in the winter? Because unless it’s warmer than the surrounding air, all Planck T^4 radiation shuts off and the ice will begin absorbing heat from the air, eventually melting. Yes, if you put the block of ice in a meat locker at -10C, the 0C ice will actually heat the air a little to equalize its temperature at some intermediate value, by emitting Planck radiation. If you plunge a long-stemmed rose in a vat of liquid nitrogen it will vigorously boil as the Planck radiation is released until the temperatures equalize, after which you can pull it out and shatter it on the table.

That’s why the claim that atmospheric CO2 absorbs far infrared (15 microns) from the surface and traps the heat from leaving to space is moose hockey, as is the bigger lie that it reemits it and rewarms the surface. If the CO2 in the sky is surrounded by air that’s the same temperature or cooler, it will emit Planck radiation to equalize the temperature, but never send energy all the way to the surface, which is probably warmer anyway, because sky air is cold, a consequence of the lapse rate. Therefore there can be no CO2-driven global warming, and only the Sun can do that, after which the entire atmosphere cools the surface during the night to reset for the coming sunrise by a combination of radiation and convection. This is why climate has always been stable until the Sun changes or something happens to block it such as volcanic dust and ash, and CO2 doesn’t do diddly squat.

TLW's Two Cents Worth on Climate Change

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THSQqsYvL9o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViY2J3LPgN4

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