My reply:
To make a cloudy picture of atmospheric CO2, the camera must be tuned to the thin 15 micron wavelength band, which has an energy density too low to heat any black body higher than -80C, colder than dry ice. The Earth's surface is a black body.
That alone kills the U.N. IPCC greenhouse gas warming theory, but recently I discovered that it isn't even honest physics but based on a sleazy energy double-counting magic trick, revealing that their physicists knew it was garbage all along and resorted to a magic trick to make their useful idiots. Who wants to pay for tickets to see the lady sawed in half after you learn about the trick saw?
See how the trick works and laugh the IPCC off forever:
https://www.quora.com/Peter-Singer-How-can-climate-change-skeptics-be-persuaded/answer/TL-Winslow
https://theeconomicstandard.com/solar-power-creates-waste-and-pollution/
The mainstream media may be finally waking up to the fact solar power isn’t as environmentally friendly as its promoters have claimed and as they have been largely uncritically reporting. My The Heartland Institute colleagues and I have previously described the environmental impact of producing solar energy, from the production of solar panels in terms of waste and pollution, and their operations’ impacts on birds and other species and footprint on land. Another problem Heartland scholars have discussed on multiple occasions is the growing solar panel waste problem, from broken panels and those that have reached the end of their useful lives. The latter problem is beginning to get the attention it deserves. A recent investigative report by the BBC found the billions of solar panels currently on roofs and at industrial solar facilities worldwide, and the tens of billions more to be installed under the plans of governments around the globe, are creating or will soon create mountains of waste the industry has no good way to handle. It is difficult to dispose of or recycle decommissioned solar panels. Currently, most used solar panels are either taken to landfills or shipped for use overseas. Fewer than 1 in 10 solar panels are recycled. Solar panels are typically removed when the energy they produce declines significantly, usually between 20 and 30 years if they have not been damaged or become nonfunctional previously. Such panels still produce energy, but significantly less than is required for homeowners, businesses, and utilities to benefit. Some companies have found a growing market for used, substandard solar panels in developing countries. The panels’ useful lives do come to an end eventually, however, so this just shifts the waste disposal problem from developed countries to poorer nations. In addition, improved solar technologies are moving the waste problem closer in time. As with televisions, computers, automobiles, and other technologies, many people are replacing existing solar panels with newer, more efficient ones as the technology improves, after just 10 or 15 years of use, long before the end of the panels’ functional lives, as discussed by the BBC. That creates more waste sooner. Solar panels contain an admixture of valuable and toxic materials, some recyclable, some not, or at least not easily. Large amounts of glass are used, of course, but also small amounts of copper, silver, and various critical materials. Because of the way the panels are composed, it is expensive to recycle them, as detailed by the BBC. Even when recycling is undertaken, it still doesn’t deal with most of the waste. As Nicolas Defrenne of Soren, a French firm working with others to recycle solar panels in France, told the BBC, “Over 60% of the value is contained in 3% of the weight of the solar panels.” In addition, solar panels contain toxic metals such as lead, cadmium, and selenium. The blending of recyclable and toxic elements makes teasing the small amount of valuable materials in each panel out from the toxic ones prohibitively expensive. “The reason you do not see more companies doing solar panel recycling is because the economics don’t make sense,” A. J. Orben, vice president at We Recycle Solar, told GreenBiz. “It costs more to break a panel down and recover the raw materials than what the raw materials themselves are worth.” How big is the challenge? An analyst the BBC consulted estimated there could currently be 2.5 billion solar panels installed on rooftops and at industrial solar facilities worldwide. With a current annual installation growth rate in the double digits and governments subsidizing and mandating ever-more solar power be used, we can expect hundreds of billions of panels to be installed over the next few decades—if sufficient raw materials can be mined and transformed into panels, a big if at present. Ute Collier, deputy director of the International Renewable Energy Agency, described the challenge to the BBC: It's going to be a waste mountain by 2050, unless we get recycling chains going now. … By 2030, we think we're going to have four million tonnes [of scrap]—which is still manageable—but by 2050, we could end up with more than 200 million tonnes globally. That’s just the solar energy waste disposal problem. Other expensive difficulties arise when companies developing large industrial solar facilities don’t account for indirect environmental impacts of the development, as solar developers discovered in a recent court case. A federal jury recently awarded a couple in southwest Georgia $135.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages in a lawsuit filed against Silicon Ranch Corp. and its contractor IEA Inc., after runoff from the 1,000 acre Lumpkin Solar facility polluted waters and soils on their rural property and destroyed a trophy fishing lake. Meta, Facebook’s parent company, recently praised the Lumpkin facility for providing green energy to its Georgia data center. “We thank Silicon Ranch … for their dedication to successful execution and for sharing our commitment to have a positive impact on the communities where we locate,” Meta’s renewable energy director said upon inking the deal for power. Based on the pollution it caused, the power it produced can hardly be thought of as green or having a positive impact on at least some people in the community. It seems that when IEA cleared about 1,000 acres of timberland, farm, and hunting land to construct Silicon Ranch’s 100 megawatt Lumpkin solar facility, it failed to install adequate pollution control measures. This may have been a moneysaving move, but it ended up costing them a lot. Heavy rains washed silt and sediment onto the property of Shaun and Amie Harris. “The result is what one would expect—when it rained, pollution poured downhill and downstream onto the neighbors’ property, inundating wetlands with silt and sediment, and turning a 21-acre trophy fishing lake into a mud hole,” said James E. Butler, the couple’s attorney, in a statement. Rather than exercising due diligence and the normal duty of care, the companies “created, operated, and maintained a nuisance … that caused sedimentation to pollute plaintiffs’ wetlands, streams, and lake,” Federal District Judge Clay D. Land ruled. “The court further finds that this nuisance has continued for approximately two years unabated.” This is just one case, but it is something to watch out for as more large solar facilities are developed. Environmental problems from these operations can come in many forms. Sources:Climate-Science Press; CFACT; BBC
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)
