https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/11/29/slight-beneficial-warming-from-more-carbon-dioxide/
My reply:
[[Meanwhile, America and the world are forced to ponder only “permissible” climate science – which is being used to justify demands that we eliminate the fossil fuels that provide 80% of all US and world energy, and replace that energy with enormous numbers of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, new transmission lines … and mines to produce their raw materials … all with major environmental impacts.]]
That's the only real truth in this article, namely, that the U.N. IPCC octopus of scientists, academics, journalists, and politicians is controlled by global Marxists who have long been pushing to frame CO2 emissions as causing global warming in order to make useful idiots who will dismantle the fossil fuel industry thinking they're saving the world, but are in reality softening it up for a Marxist takeover. Nobody can laugh us off as conspiracy theorists anymore after the Green New Deal and Great Reset were announced, and no surprise, we're on the verge of inaugurating a true believer in Joe Button, er, Biden as U.S. president.
I've provided extensive free documentation to arm your mind:
http://www.historyscoper.com/whatisenvironmentalismideology.html
The real question is, Why do so many scientists like Happer and van Wijngaarden get educated beyond their intelligence so that they are easy for the hardcore Marxists at the IPCC to use?
For the umpteenth time, the Earth's atmosphere isn't a greenhouse, it's a giant chimney that cools the Earth's surface of the heat deposited by the Sun, and can't reheat it with its own heat because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That means not even 1 measly degree C, whatever the radiation bands or concentration.
Read my lips: CO2-driven global warming is a pure fake physics hoax pushed for political purposes. To even play along with the IPCC for one minute is a waste. Since we know that the IPCC is a political org. that has hijacked science, we should spend our energies fighting back with counter-agitprop on all available channels. One of the most open to us is quora.com. Check out my space there called New Real Climate Science and start publishing your own articles. Some people get tens of thousands of page views a month.
https://www.quora.com/q/newrealclimatescience
https://www.quora.com/What-specific-chemical-properties-of-carbon-dioxide-causes-the-greenhouse-effect-Why-chemically-is-carbon-more-reflective-than-other-gases/answer/TL-Winslow
https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-the-warming-from-human-CO2-contribute-to-the-entire-greenhouse-effect-of-33C/answer/TL-Winslow
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-that-we-will-have-a-runaway-greenhouse-effect-on-Earth-due-to-humans/answer/TL-Winslow
Back to Joe Biden. Only I provide a free historyscope of his checkered life and career. It's worthy of serious study, especially now.
http://www.historyscoper.com/bidenscope.html
To be repetitious, you don't play along with Marxists, you fight them, else they'll win walking away.
My reply:
Why let the leftists run you around a sucker maze?
Robson isn't a physicist, so he took the sucker bait and wasted a lot of time and energy, when for all of us, to even waste a minute worrying about the supposed consensus of scientists on anything is a mental dead end. The core issue is still all about physics not politics. Now that the Green New Deal and Great Reset are out of the bag, we all know that the U.N. IPCC has long had plenty of political reasons to push fake science for the advancement of their global Marxist utopia dream world. Too bad for them, they have been exposed as fakes by moi with my killer analysis of Planck's Radiation Law that proves that atmospheric CO2 can't melt an ice cube with its weak 15 micron photons that have a Planck radiation temperature of -80C like dry ice.
So when will their mental glaciers start melting and they are forced to drop their confirmation bias and give this CO2 warming hoax up no matter how much it slows their drive for the Great Reset?
http://www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2129319-liberals-are-no-strangers-to-confirmation-bias-after-all/
http://www.historyscoper.com/whatisenvironmentalismideology.html
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/11/23/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-430-2/
My reply:
[[To understand the physics, let us repeat that at equilibrium, the solar radiation absorbed by the earth will be exactly matched by the radiation emitted by the earth as a whole, namely 244 W/m2. An increase in CO2 concentration will necessarily decrease the amount of IR emitted in the CO2 band, and will heat the surface somewhat. The warmed surface will radiate more IR at all wavelengths, allowing more IR to escape at other (non-CO2) wavelengths. In other words, all other things remaining the same, the earth will still radiate 244 W/m2 averaged over the entire globe out to space. In still other words, the effective blackbody temperature of the earth [including the atmosphere] does not change…”]]
How long will this fake physics hoax go on? For the umpteenth time:
1. There is no global radiation balance with the Sun because the atmosphere acts as a Carnot heat engine that turns heat into work to generate wind and storms via conduction at the surface followed by convection, which bypasses radiation. A Carnot heat engine is like a gasoline engine that uses gas to move the wheels. The input energy isn't returned intact, rather, it's used up forever. Any physical reasoning that starts with this fake science Earth-Sun radiation balance is divorced from reality and totally Looney Tunes.
2. It was always an attempt to frame CO2 emissions as evil in order to attack Big Oil and hopefully shut it down to prepare the world for global Marxism. Too bad, they picked the wrong getaway driver. CO2 can't heat anything with its weak 15 micron photons that have a Planck radiation temperature of -80C like dry ice. -80C isn't heat, period. It's closer to microwaves, and no matter how high the power, the photons can't melt an ice cube or cause global warming higher than -80C, thus CO2-driven AGW is a pure fake physics hoax, and now we see that all of the other layers of the bloomin' onion were created just to keep the hoax going to prepare the world to accept the Great Reset global Marxist Neverneverland. Notice how the hoaxers never mention Planck's Radiation Law that is dependent on photon wavelength, but only the more limited derivative Stefan-Boltzmann Law that is dependent on temperature alone and doesn't worry about the problem of photon energy being inversely proportional to wavelength, which is what makes photons have temperature, even though even a child can see an iron rod turn from black to red to orange to yellow to white as it is heated in a fire.
I'm sorry that an entire generation of scientists have to find new jobs, but unless they can overturn Planck's Radiation Law they should see if there are any blue collar job opportunities in their area. I won't even mention the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Read my free online essay that does the math and forever kills the hoax that CO2 can heat anything.
http://www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html
Study my golden basket of links that forever proves that the CO2 AGW hoax was always about foisting global Marxism to take away all freedoms so that the elite can control population, which explains why leftist billionaires who are all Malthusians are all on its bandwagon.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-environmental-concept/answer/TL-Winslow
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/11/12/modern-climate-change-science/
My reply:
[[Thus, thousands of scientists and billions of dollars later, we still have the same theoretical uncertainty about the impact of CO2 on climate. The one empirical estimate of ECS shown is about 1.5°C. Most such empirical estimates are less than 2°C and cluster around 1.5°C to 1.6°C (Lewis & Curry, 2018). Guy Callendar’s empirical estimate was 2°C (Callendar, 1938) and Arrhenius’ theoretical estimate (Arrhenius, 1908) was 4°C, so it can be said all the work and money spent since 1938 to attribute climate change to humans was wasted.]]
I could have saved them all that work and money. The true ECS is ZERO, zilch, nada. The scientists kept by the leftist-run U.N. IPCC are a government bondoggle clown show looking for a pony in the manure and regularly announcing a hoof clipping or tail hair, when they're just chasing unicorns.
For the umpteenth time, there is no physical way that atmospheric CO2 can melt an ice cube with its 15 micron radiation that has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C like dry ice. Like most leftist witch hunts, there is no 'there' there. All along, the IPCC has based its entire CO2 AGW hoax on computer climate models that are no more than video games on government funding that aren't searching for the truth but are pure garbage in garbage out, regurgitating the results wired-in.
https://www.quora.com/Are-The-Global-warming-climate-change-theory-models-oversimplified-and-or-corrupted-by-data-that-is-not-accurately-representative-of-reality-the-main-reason-for-their-dismal-track-record-on-their-predictions-could/answer/TL-Winslow
The entire CO2 AGW edifice relies on the hoax that without atmospheric CO2's back radiation the Sun couldn't keep the Earth from freezing, which is supposed to prove the heating power of CO2 back radiation without further ado. How do they get that? They reduce the Earth to a flat disk 1/4 the surface area of the globe then reduce the Sun to 1/4 power, claiming that everything about Earth's climate can be derived from pure instantaneous but static radiation shining on a fixed static flat Earth, allowing long-term averages to be easily calculated but bearing no resemblance to reality. As if the Sun doesn't shine only half of each day on most of the surface, and as if the Earth doesn't have a thick atmosphere that turns solar energy into work to power thermals, wind, and storms by acting as a Carnot heat engine, which doesn't work instantaneously like radiation and modifies all calculations with energy storage. That's why they put out values for solar radiation and CO2 back radiation in watts per square meter for the whole disk, as if a flat Earth model has any physical validity whatever. They have literally turned Science back to the Flat Earth days. But like Galileo said, "But it still moves".
http://www.historyscoper.com/howmuchdoesthesuncontributetoglobalwarming.html
Using instantaneous radiation to/from a flat Earth makes it seem natural to use the Stefan-Boltzmann T^4 Law that gives the total power output of a surface keyed to the 4th power of temperature, and is derived from the more general Planck Radiation Law that gives a temperature to radiation via its peak power wavelength keyed to temperature. Like all leftist bait-and-switches, using only T^4 for all calculations, one can probably prove that a block of dry ice in an unplugged microwave oven can cook a turkey, because total power freed from wavelength distribution makes dry ice as hot as a blowtorch.
How convenient for Marxists whose mentality is to make everybody equal, why not photons? They never mention that photon energy is inversely proportional to wavelength, so all photons aren't equal, and the longer the wavelength the weaker the photon and less able it is to override a molecule's kinetic energy and increase its temperature.
All these T^4 equations should be towed out to sea in a barge and sunk, and climate science refounded using the full Planck Radiation Law, where only wavelengths of 12.986 microns (-50C) down to 8.967 microns (+50C) (roughly 13 to 9 microns) are carrying the burden of shedding Earth's surface heat, and radiation of 15 microns wavelength (-80C) isn't even capable of interfering with it and is thus irrelevant to climate. Alas, to discriminate on the basis of wavelength makes it necessary to junk their precious S-B 5th grader calculations and confuse their Marxist social-racist justice minds. :)
It's sad that the scientists at the top must have known this all along and used the S-B Law purposely to fool their own students as well as the public, which is why the bastard pseudoscience or junk science field called climatology is a giant government boondoggle and should be defunded ASAP, while real physicists like moi and a few of the readers hired in their place. Fat chance under the global Marxist U.N. IPCC octopus that has infiltrated every human society, especially the scientific ones. I take it back. Top IPCC scientists like Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann are probably total physics flunkouts and can't even be trusted to understand anything about radiative physics. No wonder Joe Biden just chose him for his climate advisor :)
But cracks are showing. Lately I've seen the IPCC hoaxers deemphasize CO2 back radiation and shift focus to water vapor as an alternate "greenhouse gas". What a sick attempt to keep the money pouring in. First, humans have no control of the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, and they certainly don't need to shut down the fossil fuel industry because of it. Second, the only reason there's water vapor in the sky is that it has already cooled the surface via evaporation, taking a lot of solar heat energy with it, and no radiation it could supposedly emit could replace that lost heat, much less warm the surface more than the Sun originally did. Then there's the thermodynamic lapse rate of 9.8C/K (18.8F/mi.), which causes the water vapor to quickly grow frigid with height, so that when it drops precipitation it will cool the surface more than the Sun already did, and never warm it at all. That's why Jehovah covered the Earth in a water vapor layer so that Adam and Eve didn't need air conditioning. :)
Then there's water vapor's radiation problem. First, water vapor is a mixture of gas and liquid, and gas can't emit Planck distribution radiation, only liquids and solids. Water is a weakly polar molecule and can absorb and emit some radiation on a photon by photon basis, never a complete Planck power-wavelength curve that can raise the temperature of the Earth's surface, but since it's embedded in liquid, the latter will likely catch all of it, and yes, water can emit Planck radiation. But the Planck radiation power-wavelength curve makes frigid sky water or ice unable to raise the temperature of anything higher than itself, which might be 0C or lower, meaning no global warming would be possible. Only ground fog might be able to block convection and slow surface cooling, but never warm it higher than the Sun did, and that's weather not climate.
It's time to drop the very term greenhouse gas and refound climate science on sound physical principles without political aspirations to fool the world into redistributing its wealth for Marxist social-racial justice. If that causes brainwashed leftists to fear losing their warm fuzzy feelings, I don't care, because I seek truth, and it's not subject to politics. Back to the lead paragraph, maybe all those billions wasted chasing unicorns was Marxist social justice, make-work projects for unemployable losers. :)
http://www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html
https://www.quora.com/How-does-convection-in-Earth-s-interior-and-conduction-in-the-surface-affect-the-temperature-in-our-atmosphere/answer/TL-Winslow
https://www.quora.com/Disregarding-all-evidence-that-flows-from-the-logical-fallacy-of-correlation-implying-causality-what-evidence-is-there-that-atmospheric-CO2-is-causing-global-warming/answer/TL-Winslow
https://www.quora.com/When-scientific-evidence-of-climate-change-was-first-presented-what-was-the-initial-reason-many-politicians-decided-to-ignore-it-while-listening-to-scientific-evidence-on-other-issues/answer/TL-Winslow
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/11/10/facts-and-theories-updated/
My reply:
[[There are other ideas that Popper calls pseudoscience. These are ideas that are framed in such a way that no matter what one observes, the observation can be seen to confirm the idea.]]
Funny you should mention pseudoscience and observations. I was just having a big laugh reading an article by the prestigious American Chemical Society trying to explain the CO2-driven AGW hoax in simplified physics:
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/singlelayermodel.html
The article features a diagram showing several up and down arrows labeled with T^4 plus modifiers. It shows a big arrow coming down from a long line that they claim is the entire Earth's atmosphere made into a "single layer model". You see, it reaches a temperature Ta, and radiates Planck radiation both up and down, with the result of the down arrow being, guess, CO2-driven AGW. For an extra wow factor, they claim that there is a master energy balance with the Sun that's neatly accounted for by these arrows alone, as if the Earth's atmosphere isn't a gigantic Carnot heat engine that turns solar energy into winds all the time, making their energy balance into mental doodoo. The atmosphere turns "excess" solar energy into wind power, like a car turns gasoline into motive power. No, the gasoline isn't recycled into the gas tank to keep an mystical energy balance, but burning it gets the car down the road.
Back to the T^4 arrows coming out of thin air in the diagram. First, you can't reduce the entire atmosphere to a 1-dimensional line at any temperature, because the atmosphere is miles high and has a systematic drop in temperature with height called the thermodynamic lapse rate, which has nothing to do with radiation.
And Zonk! Air doesn't emit Planck radiation. Only coalesced materials (liquids and solids) do. That's because coalesced materials are in close contact and share their kinetic energy in a pool while attempting to equalize it to a single temperature, and at the boundary surface they turn kinetic energy into electromagnetic energy to cool down, with a power-wavelength profile based on T and having a maximum power wavelength inversely proportional to T (Wien's Displacement Law), and a total power proportional to T^4 (Stefan-Boltzmann Law). It's all included in Planck's Radiation Law, the most general law for radiative physics that covers all cases.
Gases, on the other hand, are just detached molecules bouncing against each other, and their temperature is their kinetic energy, which they try to equalize with each bounce. There is no big pool of kinetic energy that can be tapped and turn into electromagnetic energy at their boundary surface, and in fact there is no boundary surface. The S-B Law is in units of watts per square meter, not cubic meter. All of the kinetic energy is used up in bouncing, and there's no radiative emissions. How convenient for the ACS that it thinks it can get around all this by making the entire atmosphere into glass pane in the sky, and voila! a greenhouse effect. :)
Too bad, their down arrow doesn't even mention CO2, and it's no surprise since only polar molecules emit radiation at all, the main one being CO2, but this is photon by photon radiation, not a big powerful continuous Planck radiation power-wavelength curve like would be needed to actually raise the temperature of anything, as if CO2's 15 micron radiation wavelength doesn't have a Planck radiation (Wien Displacement Law) temperature of -80C, which can't melt an ice cube. So they try to have their cake and eat it too by lumping CO2 into the T^4 arrows sans mention.
Don't try to post a criticism on their site. You're a pseudoscientist who isn't in their club and has no citations listed in Google Scholar, and they're professionals who are all getting money from the fair impartial nonpolitical government, really part of the leftist-tun U.N. IPCC octopus of kept scientists, academics, journalists, and politicians, who don't want anybody rocking the boat.
We renegade climate heretics see that the entire article is pseudoscience, designed to keep their climate priests in business churning out official Bibles of lies about past global temperatures that always are in lock-step with atmospheric CO2 measurements at the sacred mountain of Mauna Loa, toward which they probably pray three times a day. Their god is Mammon, look it up in the Bible. I wish that we were all funded by Big Oil to fight the IPCC's lies, but alas they long ago made a deal for a piece of the renewable energy boondoggle pie, and we have to have other means of support and just work to find the truth and speak truth to power in hopes that somebody will keep score someday.
Too bad, no matter who submits it, the ACS won't reprint this correction and disassociate themselves from the leftist-run U.N. IPCC. I'm just a climate heretic that's outside their club, but I know radiative physics like they apparently don't. Or do they really know, and are deliberately trying to deceive the public, for political purposes? Somebody tell me if/when they take this article down and if they mention me, much less give me a medal. :)
I cover this layer of the CO2 fake physics hoax plus all the other layers of the bloomin' onion in my non-peer-reviewed "free science" article on my private Web site:
http://www.historyscoper.com/climatetlw.html
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
Aug. 31, 2011. Giant pipe and balloon to pump water into the sky in climate experiment
May 31, 2013. Scientists find that higher CO2 levels green arid regions
Mar. 30, 2015. Higher atmospheric CO2 levels causing boom in vegetation
Aug. 2015. 'Unprecedented' volcanic eruption released enough water vapor to heat Earth: report
Aug. 15, 2017. Scientists find 91 new volcanoes miles beneath Antarctica's thick ice sheet
How Much CO2 Do Volcanoes Emit?
Will a major volcanic eruption fix climate change? - James Matkin
Part of the heat is coming from beneath our feet
Did any volcanoes erupt in 2020?
T.L. Winslow (TLW, the Historyscoper (tm)
