https://climateofsophistry.com/2021/01/27/a-note-on-fourier-and-the-greenhouse-effect/
My reply:
[[the top layer of the atmosphere must emit 239.7 W/m2 of infrared radiation to space (same amount of solar radiation that enters the atmosphere: what goes in must go out). The bottom layer of the atmosphere will emit an equal amount downward to the surface of the planet. Hence, for thermal equilibrium, the surface of the planet must emit enough radiation to balance not only the amount it receives from the sun (239.7 W/m2), but also what it receives in the form of downward infrared radiation from the atmosphere 239.7 W/m2). Hence, its emission must match 239.7+239.7 = 479.4 W/m2. Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann law: constant x T4= 479.4 W/m2.We thus calculate T = 303 K.”]]
Zonk!There is almost no downward IR from the atmosphere, as measured by the
Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (https://www.ssec.wisc.edu/aeri/). It's in milliwatts per square meter not watts per square meter.That's because gases can't emit Planck radiation, or any radiation at all unless they're polar, and that kind of radiation is photon by photon not a power-wavelength curve with a S-B T^4 integral like solds and liquids emit.Any time you see a diagram of Earth's atmosphere showing big arrows coming out of thin air, skip the page.
Neither is there any radiation balance between the Earth and the Sun. How can there be when a good portion of solar radiation ends up being converted to kinetic energy then potential energy via convection? Plus, it's totally illegitimate to try to equate the Sun's energy that's mainly in the visual range of 0.4-0.8 microns (6971C-3349C) with the surface's energy that's in the range of 12.986 microns (-50C) to 8.967 microns (+50C). The Earth's atmosphere is a giant Carnot engine, which uses up solar energy to create winds and weather. Once used up, it's gone, converted to potential energy. Anybody pushing the fake physics CO2 warming hoax that mentions radiation balance should be cancelled quick. If they are talking about the dead lifeless atmosphereless Moon, they can use the S-B Law all they want since there's no convection to worry about.
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wiens-law
Learn real radiative physics from my cool free online course and fight the ignorance:
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
Duh, atmospheric CO2 only absorbs/emits radiation at a 15 micron
wavelength, i.e., wave number 666, which has a Planck radiation
temperature of -80C, which can’t melt an ice cube. So the intensity is
irrelevant and there is no way carbon dioxide can cause any global
warming. The cloudy-clear AERI graph goes to 8.3-7.7 microns, which is
76-103C, and can cause warming, but only because of the water vapor.
When will this CO2 warming hoax finally die? 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://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/01/22/the-ir-absorptive-characteristics-of-greenhouse-gases-addendum-david-coe/
Why do you keep publishing Coe's clueless analysis? Photons aren't all equal. They have energy and thus a limit to the temperature they can raise a molecule to. If he can't understand that CO2's radiation absorption/emission wavelength of 15 microns is totally outside Earth's surface temperature range of -50C to 50C and thus can't have any effect on climate, making the climate sensitivity zero, he's stuck at stupid. A hoax is a hoax. Coe should get out of bed with the hoaxers.
https://www.quora.com/Does-one-body-at-lower-temperature-than-the-surroundings-still-emit-thermal-energy-through-radiation/answer/TL-Winslow
https://www.quora.com/Where-is-the-earths-evaporator-responsible-for-glaciers-and-cold-conditions-suppose-the-ventilating-atmosphere-was-modelled-for-a-refrigeration-system-comprising-compressor-evaporator-condenser-and-refrigerant/answer/TL-Winslow
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/01/21/failing-computer-models/
== Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.18 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.32 degrees F per decade). ==
Duh, they never 'splain how they get 2 decimal point accuracy for averages of averages over 10 years when the basic global temperature data is loaded with inaccuracies in the first decimal digit, making the decadal GAT graph the same as flat. https://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Methods-GIGS-1-103.pdf
Whatever the true graph, any computer climate model (CCM) that includes the fake CO2 back radiation hoax is guaranteed to be wrong. if it weren't for the Marxist-run IPCC octopus trying to frame CO2 as evil in order to make useful idiots like Gore and Biden who want to shut down the fossil fuel industry as a prelude to a global Marxist takeover, cage hens like Robert Muller wouldn't have a job.And if they didn't think that wealthy happy comfortable Western capitalist society wasn't a bunch of sheep they could sheer to redistribute their wealth for their idea of Marxist social-racial justice, they'd lose their motivation.
Here's my golden basket of links on the failings of;CCMs;
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
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-of-the-recent-paper-saying-that-in-2040-well-reach-a-tipping-point-where-plant-life-will-emit-more-CO2-than-it-absorbs/answer/TL-Winslow
My reply:
[[There was quite a warming in early January to about 250 K, roughly 50 K (or Celsius) above normal. That is 90F above normal! Wow.]]
250K is -23C, 200 K is -73C, and the stratosphere starts at 6 mi. altitude, so it's yawn not wow.
Meanwhile the CO2 global warming hoax keeps rolling down the tracks to the bank, hoping to swindle trillions out of billions of suckers to save the Earth's surface 6 mi. down from weak puny 15 micron -80C photons.
What other so-called scientific field has skyscrapers of parasites living off billions in taxpayer funding and producing only boatloads of fake scientific papers for political reasons?
When these fake/junk scientists can prove how CO2's 15 micron radiation can melt an ice cube, and show their working models for the dry ice-powered microwave oven and flamethrower, they should be allowed another dollar of taxpayer money. Until then, it should be held in escrow to give back to the taxpayers along with all the other moneys.
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
My reply:
[[The results demonstrate clearly that the warming effect of the atmosphere is almost entirely due to the spectral absorption characteristics of CO2 and H2O. They are both exceptionally strong absorbers of infra-red radiation. It is however this strength which determines the characteristics of the earth’s temperature, and in particular its stability.]]
So many people are ignorant of radiative physics based on Planck's Radiation Law, the master law that covers all cases. CO2's absorption/emission wavelength of 15 microns has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C, colder than dry ice, and can't melt an ice cube. The Earth's surface temperature range is -50C to +50C, hence atmospheric CO2 can't absorb or reemit any ot this infrared heat, and can't interfere with Earth's climate. CO2-driven global warming is a fake physics hoax based on mass ignorance of radiative physics, and sadly even most physicists fall for it.
Study my free article that patiently explains the physics needed to see that CO2 can't raise global temperatures even 1C:
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://principia-scientific.com/greenhouse-gas-the-two-bottles-experiment-explained/
My reply:
What a waste this article is. Why stay stuck on stupid with lame obsolete experiments from the horse and buggy era?
Why no comment that CO2's specific heat is lower than air's, hence it takes less Joules of energy to raise its temperature by 1 degree C, thus it will heat faster if large amounts of heat are applied. This experiment is moose hockey because it doesn't limit the IR input to the specific wavelength that CO2 absorbs from Earth's surface, namely 15 microns. If it did, actually nothing would heat because its Planck radiation temperature is -80C, lower than dry ice. The picture shows the use of an infrared lamp, which radiates in the range .78 microns to 1000 microns and often has an effective radiating temperature of 1000C or 1800C, yet no specifics are given.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_heater
IR heaters can heat not only the gases but the bottles, both by direct radiation and warmed air. The gases will then warm by conduction and convection. Good luck finding a bottle material that doesn't absorb the radiation but passes all of it to the gas. Either way, the heater should be kept a long distance away from the bottles to eliminate cross-convection.
But why bother? The CO2-driven global warming theory is dead. The Planck Radiation Law of 1900 killed it. I have shown how radiative physics really works here on P-S, complete with the killer bullet of exposing CO2's weak puny -80C photons as unable to melt an ice cube, yet nobody seems to have caught on or fought to spread it. Meanwhile the IPCC juggernaut is closing its grip. I can only hope P-S gets newer smarter readers.
Just Say No to the IPCC and -80C.
This is my best deepest disproof of the CO2 global warming hoax, patiently explaining each step and answering all known objections. If millions of people read it, the IPCC would be dead. Don't be among the last when you can be among the first. Even if you can't handle all the physics, you can still take away the soundbyte that atmospheric CO2's -80C radiation can't melt an ice cube and can't cause global warming at any concentration.
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
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)
.jpg)
