The Antarctic Volcanoes Project Blog: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #434

Wednesday, December 9, 2020

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #434

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/12/07/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-434/

My reply:

[[The earth is cooled by outgoing infrared radiation, which has a longer wavelength than visible light. Greenhouse gases interfere with infrared radiation by absorbing and re-emitting photons at particularly wavelengths. Expressed simply, as the concentration of a specific greenhouse gas, CO2, increases, its effectiveness diminishes. In other words, as the amount of CO2 increases, its ability to further increase temperatures decreases. This is similar to an automobile approaching maximum speed. It will not go much faster no matter how hard the driver presses on the accelerator.]]

Zonk! Moose hockey detector went off!

The Earth's surface heat caused by Solar radiation isn't cooled exclusively by radiation. Convection does a lot of the job, driving a Carnot heat engine in the atmosphere along with a vertical treadmill that wastes the heat long before it reaches the top of the troposphere. CO2's radiation absorption/emission wavelength of 15 microns has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C, which is completely outside the Earth surface's normal temperature range of -50C to +50C and hence can't even interfere with it. It's not even infrared, but closer to microwaves. The entire IPCC CO2 global warming hoax is based on mass ignorance of Planck's Radiation Law and how it gives every wavelength a temperature, as everybody experiences now firsthand every day with handheld infrared thermometers. Instead, it's based on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law derived from it that integrates the Planck radiation over all wavelengths and shows that it's dependent on the fourth power of temperature, then tries to invert it on a static flat fake Earth sans atmosphere and oceans illuminated by a weak Sun to derive a "global average temperature", arriving at a number that's 33C less than the measured value, "proving" that CO2 is supplying the difference. Of course there is no evaporation or convection, only radiation, and no rotation that brings it in, so this 5th grader model bears no relationship to reality and that's why they use it.

Without this hoax, the IPCC empire is like a house built on a hill of horse manure, which keeps sliding deeper into it until it finally turns onto its side and fills up completely. All other Earth climate science is junk until it's been refounded sans CO2 back radiation warming, and anybody who gives the IPCC credence for a second is letting them rob the world of trillions to save the world from a nonexistent threat, promising instead a new Dark Ages. No, CO2 doesn't warm the globe a little less as more is added. It can't warm the globe one iota at any concentration. -80C radiation can't melt an ice cube. If you think so, show me your patent for a dry ice-powered microwave oven or flamethrower. Maybe a mountain of dry ice attached at the back :)

Want a patient and deep step-by-step walkthrough of the physics? It's being shadow-banned by the IPCC because they can't answer it. It's amazing how a lie races around the world at jet speed while truth limps along behind. The fossil fuel industry is good not bad, and needs continued support for hundreds of years until the day arrives that unlimited cheap/free nuclear power is available to all. Even then, fossil fuels will always have their uses in the chemical/plastics industry.

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

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