The Antarctic Volcanoes Project Blog: A ‘wrongful conviction’ in the climate change case?

Thursday, July 30, 2020

A ‘wrongful conviction’ in the climate change case?

https://principia-scientific.com/a-wrongful-conviction-in-the-climate-change-case/

My reply:

HR: Your article is such a crackpot theory that you make the IPCC octopus look good.

[[The premise that the atmospheric gases do not absorb radiated energy from the sun and are heated by the Earth’s surface violates the law that ALL objects absorb radiated energy and all objects above absolute zero radiated [sic] energy. This includes the nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere. They do not absorb visible light but they do absorb energy from shorter wavelengths.]]

This is a strawman argument. Not all objects absorb radiated energy if the quantum levels don't permit it, and once they do, they usually just heat up a little and slowly cool via Planck radiation at a far lower wavelength, which is based on the object's final temperature after absorbing the collected photon energy into its kinetic energy.

The upper atmosphere absorbs almost all solar UV, blocking it from reaching the surface, meaning it can't be absorbed any more further down. The temperature of this thin high altitude region is irrelevant to Earth's surface temperatures. Why do you confuse the two? The Sun's wavelengths in the heating range are all visible wavelengths, which the atmosphere is transparent to, contradicting your Simple Simon statement. When they are thoroughly absorbed by the surface, it heats up then starts to cool via Planck radiation at far longer IR wavelengths, but the numerous other cooling processes keep it in the range of -50C to +50C even though the Sun's temperature is 5800K. A mirror farm concentrating all solar energy in a single point might reach near 5800K, but the same field with no mirrors stays within -50C to +50C.

The IPCC fake physics theory is that CO2 absorbs surface IR everywhere and heats the atmosphere and surface at the same time, when CO2's absorption/emission wavelength of 15 microns has a Planck temperature of -80C which isn't even heat. Too bad for them, photons aren't all the same but have a temperature, because their energy is dependent on wavelength and 15 micron photons can't impart enough kinetic energy to raise the temperature higher than -80C.

Cold is not hot, and cold can't heat diddly. Like all leftist power grabs, the leftist-run IPCC will even turn cold hot and hot cold to get their hands on the gold, er, cold cash. Clouding the issue with strained manipulated historical temperature correlation moose hockey and bureaucracy is like trying to find a pony in a stream of liquid manure and announcing after an expenditure of billions that they found a few hairs. That leftist-run Wikipedia blocks user edits and claims the issue is closed shows the sad result of politicizing science. They too shall pass because the truth will win in the end. Either way, HR is a crackpot and it's sad that P-S publishes his articles instead of letting him do it on his own crackpot blog.

http://gsp.humboldt.edu/OLM/Courses/GSP_216_Online/lesson2-1/atmosphere.html

http://www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html

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