https://newsaddicts.com/top-climate-scientists-blow-whistle-expose-cover-up/
Reply:
What will it take to wake up people to the truth that the CO2-driven global warming claim is a deliberate scam pushed by the global Marxist politician-run U.N. IPCC octopus for political gain in the hopes that they can trick and scare Western nations into committing economic suicide to soften them up for absorption in a global Marxist police state run by them. If they pull it off, there might be no way back.
Thermal physics makes their greenhouse gas warming theory into garbage, because literally tries to deny Nature's ironclad Second Law of Thermodynamics to make CO2 into an invisible dragon in the sky. It boils down to a sleazy carnival show magic trick of energy double-counting. Once you learn how the trick works, will you want to buy any more tickets?
(1022) TL Winslow's answer to Why do some scientists deny climate change? - Quora
https://climateofsophistry.com/2023/07/14/sabine-still-does-not-understand-the-greenhouse-effect/
My reply:
Hossenfelder is a typical example of the sad fact that most prof. physicists only dabbled in thermal physics in undergraduate school before branching to quantum, atomic, or nuclear. and remained at the 5th grader level their entire careers. This universal ignorance of thermal physics, the deepest and broadest branch of physics that will never be overthrown has made the global Marxist politician-run U.N. IPCC octopus of fake scientists trillions, with their gravy train still speeding down the tracks towards a terrible crash that will waste trillions and hurt millions.
Hardcore Marxists love to lie to non-Marxists to get them to surrender their future thinking they're saving it. When it comes to Earth climate science, to make it appear that the tail wags the dog they've literally turned the science upside-down, inside-out, and ass-backwards, ultimately denying that the Sun is the only thing that heats the Earth, and that weather and climate are caused only by the Sun, ocean, and clouds, with CO2 being irrelevant.
I tried to reach Hossenfelder in YouTube comments, but they were deleted. I guess she's hopeless for educating to the truth. Too bad, because she has a large platform to broadcast it. If a miracle should happen and she should study my total clarification of thermal physics with regard to Earth climate, the IPCC would at last begin to crumble. Alas, they would try to cancel her.
Hossenfelder is no genius, more like what they call a reader of physics who tries to popularize it. The mark of a genius is the ability to simplify a complex subject to the point of triviality. Take moi. I never published academic papers criticizing the IPCC because they are blocked, and don't need to since popular articles reaching their suckers have way more punch. I recently revealed that the IPCC's greenhouse gas warming hoax is not even honest physics but a sleazy carnival trick of energy double-counting, because they treat atmospheric CO2 as an independent source of energy that adds to the energy deposited on Earth's surface by the Sun to raise the temperature higher than the Sun alone can, when in reality it's just a regurgitated and delayed portion of the surface radiation that's left after all the real heat escaped via radiation to space at the speed of light and will never return.
All day short wavelength (hot) solar radiation is absorbed by Earth's surface (land, water), slowly raising its temperature via its heat capacity, while the surface continually attempts to cool to absolute 0K via black body radiation that depends only on its absolute temperature T at that instant, with total power rising as the 4th power of T. Each fraction of a second the surface emits long wavelength (infrared) radiation and cools by a fraction of 1K depending on its heat capacity, reversing what the Sun did.
Atmospheric CO2 only captures and returns a measly fraction of that radiation, and since the surface was heated by the original solar radiation at a way shorter and hotter wavelength, CO2 back radiation can't reraise the surface temperature one iota even if the surface absorbs 100% of it. Rather, those weak cold long wavelength IR photons are just regurgitated with the cold long wavelength end of the surface radiation that's only dependent on its instantaneous temperature T. That means that during daylight the surface blackbody cooling fights the Sun's warming more and more as its temperatue rises, keeping max temperatures usually below +50C in conjunction with surface conduction/convection and evaporation, while doing nothing to stop the temperatures from decreasing all night until the next sunrise.
The IPCC wants their suckers to believe that the CO2 back radiation returned to the surface and heated it higher than the Sun did before the surface radiation even left :) When called on that point, they switch to the dodge that CO2 back radiation at least slows cooling, when black body radiation cooling is dependent only on the instantaneous surface temperature, which back radiation can't change, like dirty water bouncing off a Sherman tank.
RIP greenhouse gas theories.
Earth's atmosphere thus plays no role in surface radiative warming or cooling, but acts as a pure cooling mechanism via surface conduction and convection/evaporation, or, as I love to say, Earth's atmosphere isn't a greenhouse but a chimney, while clouds act as Earth's refrigerator and air conditioner.
No surprise, the IPCC acts like convection doesn't exist, and laughably in the fake Trenberth junk science diagram you showed that's published in IPCC papers and textbooks and used in classes, convected surface heat is treated as a radiation toward space that is included in the Earth'Sun energy balance :) Convection is not radiation, and the process of convection is the raw energy input into the atmosphere's heat engine that drives all winds and weather, converting heat to work and dispersing the energy via entropy into the heat death of the universe, thus making it unavailable for Trenberth's bogus Earth-Sun balance. Did you ever hear IPCC sciences try to deal with entropy? How sick can Trenberth get with the dinky numbers for convection and whopping numbers for radiation? Who said that the human mind is capable of infinite self-deception?
Let me straighten it all out. Here's my popular article exposing the IPCC magic trick that even a 5th grader can understand, yet it undermines and renders into garbage even the most sophisticated IPCC junk climate science. The average person doesn't want to spend a career delving into the depths of thermal physics, but since I already did and trivialized it they can now do the baby arithmetic and see that 0 doesn't equal 6.
Click here and take the time to free your mind from the IPCC scammers forever. To even play their game and take their junk science papers seriously is unnecessary and insulting, like it would be with the flat Earth theory. Author of the above article: please stop. Just trumpet the energy double-counting trick to the skies and spread it to the masses at the grassroots level.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-increased-carbon-dioxide-has-a-negligible-effect-on-the-Earths-climate/answer/TL-Winslow
https://www.quora.com/Peter-Singer-How-can-climate-change-skeptics-be-persuaded/answer/TL-Winslow
The physics exploded, it's now seen to be a political fight:
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-scientists-deny-climate-change/answer/TL-Winslow
This reply is long-winded but is just a drop in my ocean. If you're serious about saving the world, here's my treasure trove of 1K+ Quora articles dismantling every IPCC octopus lie, provided free as a public service to shut down a gigantic global octopus raking in trillions. You can't spend too much time learning from it:
http://www.historyscoper.com/tlwsquoraclimatechangearticles.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)
