The Antarctic Volcanoes Project Blog: Climate ‘Weeds’ versus ‘High Altitude’ Survey

Thursday, October 15, 2020

Climate ‘Weeds’ versus ‘High Altitude’ Survey

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/10/13/climate-weeds-versus-high-altitude-survey/

My reply:

[[The Green House Effect. Of course it exists. But is often misunderstood even amongst skeptics, because does not work like a real greenhouse (inhibiting convection), so is weaker. It works by inhibiting radiative cooling to space. So is not a direct warming, is actually just an absence of sufficient IR cooling (only some of which is ‘downwelling warming’, itself a skeptical misconception resulting in endlessly ‘wrong’ SST downwelling IR debates) to balance incoming insolation.

[This is caused by molecular infrared absorption by ‘green house’ gasses, and then their omnidirectional rescattering, which inhibits it all going back to very cool space. In sum, any GHE is just an indirect warming via an absence of sufficient radiative infrared cooling. A simple physics idea, which fully suffices here.]]

How many times will I see this ridiculous fake physics CO2 warming hoax repeated by so-called climate scientists?

CO2 doesn't have any way to block Earth's surface heat either coming or going. The Earth's surface range is -50C to +50C, and CO2's radiation absorption/emission wavelength of 15 microns has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C, way outside this range. It's not even infrared, but more like microwave radiation, which doesn't have anything to do with heat and mainly bounces off things after maybe doing some kind of damage. So how many people are still left who don't know the first thing about Planck's Radiation Law, the ground theorem of radiative physics that covers all cases?

CO2 causes ZERO global warming, nada, zilcho. Sometimes I wish that CO2's -80C 15 micron radiation could cause a little bit of global warming to cut the leftist-run U.N. IPCC octopus a little slack and not have to keep calling it pure evil. But alas, -80C radiation can't cause global warming any more than a wet match can light a cigarette. Even a frozen wet match at 0C is way way hotter than CO2's -80C.

Here's my free lesson on radiative physics that nobody interested in this subject can afford to miss, and literally so, since big plans are underway to rob you blind to solve the imaginary heating caused by odorless, colorless, harmless CO2 after shutting down the fossil fuel industry and leaving us starving, freezing, and softened up for a global Marxist takeover, or what they now call a Great Reset.

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

https://greenjihad.com/2020/10/15/the-green-new-deal-arrives/

Repeat after me: Just Say No to the IPCC and -80C.

No matter how many billions it's siphoned from taxpayers to push their fake physics hoax, the IPCC can't change physics. It's time to quit giving them any respect and just laugh them off and hope they will go away.

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