My reply:
Once again, the lie that never dies is peddled as common knowledge.
The lie is that the T^4 Stefan-Boltzmann Law can be inverted so that surface photons returned to the Earth's surface can reraise its temperature. The truth is that the temperature of the surface causes radiation that follows the S-B Law, but not vice-versa.In the case of the Earth's surface, the only heating is caused by solar radiation at 0.4-0.8 microns, raising the temperature to the range of -50C to +50C, with a wavelength range of 8-13 microns. Returning the longer wavelength radiation doesn't make the tail wag the dog and reheat the surface to the same temperature that the Sun did.
This lie is based on the bigger lie that all photons of any wavelength have the same power to raise the temperature of an absorbing material based on raw energy (Joules) alone. The truth is that a rod of temperature T cools by emitting radiation controlled by Planck's Radiation Law, whose power curve has a peak power wavelength dependent solely on T, independent of the material, meaning that its radiation can't raise the temperature of an absorbing material higher than T, regardless of the material. Thus, CO2's 15 micron radiation absorption/emission wavelength has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C, colder than dry ice, hence its radiation is indistinguishable from an iron rod cooled to -80C, which can't melt an ice cube, much less cause global warming. The U.N. IPCC lie machine tries to twist the science like a pretzel with ridiculous arguments about energy balance at the top of the atmosphere, claiming that the surface will magically increase its temperature to maintain the balance without any feedback signal or any increased radiation energy input at any temperature. It's fantasy and magic, not science. The IPCC just wishes that atmospheric CO2 can cause global warming, and jumps to save us from our anxieties by demanding trillions, with no money-back guarantee, intending the money to be used for redistribution of wealth using climate as a punch line. Since it's currently picking up steam daily, the hardened global Marxists at the top of the IPCC must be laughing all the way to the bank.
https://www.quora.com/Without-greenhouse-gases-in-the-atmosphere-would-Earth-be-able-to-dissipate-enough-heath-to-stay-cool/answer/TL-Winslow
Reply:
Water vapor can't warm the Earth's surface. At most at night it can slow cooling by backing up convection to the ground. The rest of the time it's a pure cooling agent, starting with removing lots of surface heat via evaporation, then later dropping frigid precipitation from on high. Higher low temperatures aren't global warming, period. The IPCC has messed up your heads.
https://www.quora.com/If-burning-methane-makes-CO-2-is-burning-natgas-good-for-the-environment/answer/TL-Winslow
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/12/25/what-if-science/
My reply:
[[Why do we care about carbon dioxide? We care about it because our planet has this amazing natural blanket. That natural blanket is totally transparent to energy from the sun. The energy from the sun comes in and hits the earth and the earth heats up. And then the earth heats up and gives off heat and those little invisible particles of carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor trap that heat inside the earth system.]]
This woman is brain-dead. Earth system? The atmosphere is 6 miles thick, and its temperature systematically drops by 18.8F per mi., reaching very frigid temperatures. Only near the surface are the temperatures livable. So how does this blanket keep heat from rising like it naturally does, straight into the frigid zone?
Kayhoe is a baby at physics, leaving her stuck at the starting blocks in the race to understand Earth's climate. I hope she reads some of my numerous patient explanations of the real physics and changes her tune. Here's one for beginners like her.
https://www.quora.com/Without-greenhouse-gases-in-the-atmosphere-would-Earth-be-able-to-dissipate-enough-heath-to-stay-cool/answer/TL-Winslow
https://principia-scientific.com/five-science-questions-a-quiz-part-2/
My reply:
The secret word for today is quiet. Stop listening to the outrageous lies of the IPCC lie machine that are just trying to get your money and see through their barge of academic papers confusing the simple physics to keep your alarmed enough to want to "sacrifice" for their cause..
The simple physical fact is that atmospheric CO2 has almost the same radiation as a piece of dry ice, and weaker, with monochrome radiation at 15 microns rather than a complete Planck black body radiation spectrum that peaks there. The temperature of dry ice is -80C (really a little warmer), so its radiation is the same as an that from an iron bar chilled to -80C, which can't heat anything at any range. There is nothing else to this outrageous lie that atmospheric CO2 can cause global temperatures to rise. Its radiation bounces back and forth among atmospheric CO2 molecules, and some bounces harmlessly off Earth's surface until it's dissipated by entropy and joins the heat death of the Universe. Meanwhile the Sun heats the Earth's surface only to a range of about -50C to +50C, and atmospheric CO2's -80C radiation absorption wavelength lets surface thermal IR pass by untouched, proving that it has no effect on the weather or climate, and that its concentration doesn't matter, so CO2 emissions are no threat.
The IPCC trolls can only shout that I'm spreading "misinformation" and call for me to be silenced leftist-style, but can never produce a scientific refutation, because they've politicized science to serve their agenda and scientific truth trumps politics.
Help me wake up the general public to the simplicity of the physics with simple slogans like "CO2's -80C radiation can't melt an ice cube". Just Say No to the IPCC and its -80C.
https://www.quora.com/Without-greenhouse-gases-in-the-atmosphere-would-Earth-be-able-to-dissipate-enough-heath-to-stay-cool/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)
