https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/russells-teapot-and-the-climate-unicorn
My reply:
Climate observations aren't needed to disprove the greenhouse warming theory, only physics.
It's not only garbage based on 19th cent. Victorian steampunk physics, but rit elies on a sleazy carnival shell game of energy double counting, claiming that atmospheric CO2 molecules catch and return IR photons from Earth surface radiation cooling and add them to the original solar energy to raise the surface temperature higher than the Sun alone - before they even left!
Once you see this you can't unsee it. Imagine the evil the global Marxist politician-run U.N. IPCC octopus is doing by pushing this fake physics hoax.
https://www.quora.com/Are-climatologists-correct-when-they-add-solar-and-atmospheric-radiation-together-when-no-physics-texts-say-we-can-do-that-I-also-note-that-the-experiment-linked-below-shows-we-cannot-add-fluxes-and-thus-greenhouse-radiative-forcing-cannot-happen/answer/TL-Winslow
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-believe-in-man-made-global-warming-or-do-you-believe-it-is-a-hoax/answer/TL-Winslow
https://climatism.wordpress.com/2023/10/20/what-youre-told-about-greenhouse-gases-is-wrong/
Methane's absorption band overlap waters?
Zonk!
If your mind isn't caged by the global Marxist politician-run U.N. IPCC octopus, why do you continue to fall for their sleazy circus shell game greenhouse warming hoax?
It simply doesn't matter what wavelengths greenhouse gases absorb and reemit. Gases can't be black bodies that absorb and emit all wavelengths like the surfaces of the Sun and Earth.
As the solar energy is absorbed by Earth's surface (land, water), it slowly heats up via its heat capacity while continually trying to cool via black body radiation, which covers the wavelength range of 0-50 or more microns. All of this goes straight to space at the speed of light, causing the surface to cool back down via its heat capacity.
Any dinky monochromatic radiation absorbed by greenhouse gases can't restore the lost surface cooling radiation even if 100% is reabsorbed. That means that the surface permanently cools until more solar radiation is received. It can never restore the lost temperature and make it even go higher.
Worse. Let's say that the narrow wavelength ranges absorbed by greenhouse gases are blocked and never leave the surface? Will that cause them to keep heating like a feedback loop?
No way. The temperature of a black body is measured by its internal energy density. No matter what wavelengths a black body absorbs, those photons lose their identity as they merge into the internal energy density which is shared by all the molecules.
The black body radiation isn't dependent on the various wavelengths absorbed, only the instantaneous absolute temperature achieved. Typically the Sun's 0.4-0.8 micron photons heat Earth's surface to a maximum of 50C, which corresponds to a black body maximum power wavelength of 8.967 microns via Wien's Displacement Law. So any so-called back radiation from greenhouse gases just gets recycled and reemitted at a a way higher power out the main power wavelength at the time.
Check my work here:
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wiens-law
It's like the back spray from a fire hose falling back into the tank. It can maybe slow the time when the tank completely empties, but can never cause the tank level to rise because it's just keeps falling as the hose pumps it out at high pressure. And with Earth's surface, emptying the tank would correspond to an absolute temperature of zero, which never happens, so the tank just keeps emptying until the next sunrise then starts refilling without ever completely becoming totally empty and drying up.
QED. Greenhouse gases of all stripes are a sick fake physics hoax. Too bad, you've been so brainwashed that you desperately cling to bits and pieces of it for nothing, quibbling about details.
Get over it! You're smarter than all the kept IPCC scientists put together. What a waste their careers are.
Take the time to drink deep from the Pierian spring:
https://www.quora.com/Are-climatologists-correct-when-they-add-solar-and-atmospheric-radiation-together-when-no-physics-texts-say-we-can-do-that-I-also-note-that-the-experiment-linked-below-shows-we-cannot-add-fluxes-and-thus-greenhouse-radiative-forcing-cannot-happen/answer/TL-Winslow
Now that we agree that the entire IPCC edifice is built on sand, it's no wonder that in practice their promoting a flying unicorn cult dressed up as science:
https://www.quora.com/Is-global-warming-a-cult-based-on-faulty-science-If-so-which-parties-are-whipping-up-this-group-hysteria-and-why/answer/TL-Winslow
.end.
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)
