My reply:
[[One of the biggest uncertainties when it comes to predicting the future impacts of climate change is how fast surface temperatures will rise in response to increases in greenhouse gases. Predicting these temperatures is complicated since it involves the calculation of competing warming and cooling effects in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the planet’s surface while aerosol particles in the atmosphere from volcanoes, fires and other combustion cool the planet by blocking sunlight or seeding cloud cover. Understanding how sensitive surface temperature is to each of these effects and how they interact is critical to predicting the future impact of climate change.]]
Telling lies like this should be some kind of global misdemeanor. There are no such things as greenhouse gases, and there can't be because there is no place to "trap heat and warm the planet's surface" in the face of the thermodynamic lapse rate of 18.8F/mi. temperature drop. If there were such a thing as greenhouse gas, it definitely can't be atmospheric CO2, whose radiation absorption/emission wavelength has weak puny 15 micron photons that have a Planck radiation temperature of -80C, which can't melt an ice cube.Yes, aerosols can block sunlight and cool the Earth, but there's nothing humans can do to heat it hotter than the Sun does. The atmosphere just cools it, and can't be turned into a second Sun in the sky by any means except talk.
Meanwhile the global Marxist-run U.N. and its IPCC are turning the world into a madhouse in order to make the hordes of useful idiots they need to destroy the oil industry and soften the West up for a Marxist police state. Be grateful they still don't completely control the Internet, and there's still places to learn the sweet truth based on physics.
https://www.quora.com/What-does-science-mean-in-the-following-question-Why-do-people-deny-the-science-of-climate-change/answer/TL-Winslow
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/28/the-radiation-fight/
My reply:
[[So there you have it. If you don’t think that downwelling LW radiation leaves the earth warmer than it would be if there was no atmosphere, you need to explain the mystery source of the additional energy necessary to keep the earth from freezing]]
Ugh! Yet another example of the fake physics lie that refuses to die.
Let's see: "If on an ongoing basis the surface is only absorbing 150 W/m2 of solar energy and is radiating 395 W/m2 of energy … why isn’t it frozen solid?"
Duh, because energy in the form of photons has wavelength, which has Planck temperature, and the solar photons are at 5500C while the surface photons are in the range of -50C to +50C. And the 150 value is bogus because it is a claimed average over a flattened globe over a whole year, while instantaneous values alone actually exist, and go way higher, to 1000 and higher.
The big killer for CO2 global warming is that out of all the photon wavelengths that Earth's surface radiates, atmospheric CO2 only absorbs and radiates at the wavelength of 15 microns, which has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C, completely outside the surface range. Thus it actually lets all the real surface heat photons pass through it untouched, and any 15 micron radiation it emits will be absorbed and reemitted over and over by other CO2 molecules until entropy harmlessly disperses it.
Speaking of entropy. Another big misunderstanding comes from failure to account for entropy. Planck black body radiation contains the maximum amount of entropy for a given amount of energy, which explains what happens to the energy from 5500C photons after they hit the Earth's surface, and turn into way more puny -50C to +50C photons, namely, dispersal by entropy into the Heat Death of the Universe. The Looney Tunes climate scientists who try to equate the T^4 radiation from the Sun with the T^4 radiation from Earth's surface seem to be missing that the two T values are way different, so raising them to the 4th power makes them even more different. Everything is running down and adding to the Heat Death of the Universe. Heat isn't cheap, it's dear, and only the Sun's radiation heats the Earth's surface, while the atmosphere just cools it, CO2 included, after dispersing more energy via convection.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01622-6
https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-increase-of-entropy-affect-the-environment/answer/TL-Winslow
As the world increasingly becomes a madhouse, it's all the fault of the global Marxist-run U.N. IPCC, which has hijacked physics for political purposes and created the upside-down inside-out backwards phony field of climate science that is nothing but a beehive of lies to justify extreme leftist environmentalism's visceral hatred of the oil industry. Nothing they say can be believed. There is no compromise. One must junk all of it and start over.
My growing body of students studying my free Climate Science 101 course are becoming the first real generation of climate scientists, who one day will replace the current generation of IPCC fake climate scientists. Don't be left behind.
http://www.historyscoper.com/climatescience101.html
https://principia-scientific.com/rocket-science-debunks-climate-change-pseudoscience/
My reply:
[[Why is climate science founded upon adding temperatures together, rather than averaging (or differencing) them as is done in real-world rocketry (and anywhere else in thermodynamics for that matter)?]]
Even fifth graders know the difference between heat and temperature. Heat isn't a quantity, it's a flow. Objects in contact establish a final temperature based on temperature, mass, and heat capacity, not temperature alone.
[[Heat and temperature are two different but closely related concepts. Note that they have different units: temperature typically has units of degrees Celsius (∘C) or Kelvin (K), and heat has units of energy, Joules (J). Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules in the system. The water molecules in a cup of hot coffee have a higher average kinetic energy than the water molecules in a cup of iced tea, which also means they are moving at a higher velocity. Temperature is also an intensive property, which means that the temperature doesn't change no matter how much of a substance you have (as long as it is all at the same temperature!). This is why chemists can use the melting point to help identify a pure substance − the temperature at which it melts is a property of the substance with no dependence on the mass of a sample."
" We can calculate the heat released or absorbed using the specific heat capacity C), the mass of the substance (m), and the change in temperature (ΔT) in the equation::
q=m×C×ΔT ]]
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-chemistry/thermodynamics-ap/internal-energy-tutorial-ap/a/heat
We're living in a madhouse ever since the global Marxist-run U.N. IPCC hijacked Earth atmospheric science and turned it into "climate science", which is just zany unhinged Looney Tunes leftist environmentalism with science turned upside-down and inside-out to rationalize their visceral hatred of the oil industry. Nothing they teach is true. It's a giant crackpot beehive of lies, and you must throw it all out and start over to really understand Earth's climate. Whatever you do, don't compromise and accept portions as if you're hedging your bets on a dog race.
https://www.quora.com/What-does-science-mean-in-the-following-question-Why-do-people-deny-the-science-of-climate-change/answer/TL-Winslow
A glaring example that's missed even by most IPCC critics is their total failure to recognize the huge role entropy plays in messing up their claimed Sun-Earth energy balance that is the lynchpin of their whole scam. Indeed, black body radiation is defined as that containing the largest amount of entropy for a given energy, which shows the utter incompetence of trying to equate the T^4 energy from the Sun with that of the Earth's surface, when the difference in the T^4 terms is the amount of energy dispersed into the Heat Death of the Universe by the black body radiation process, with dispersion meaning that it's forever useless to create heat or do work, i.e., lost, kaput.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01622-6
https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-increase-of-entropy-affect-the-environment/answer/TL-Winslow
That's why I've been offering my cool Climate Science 101 course that teaches pure sweet physics and explodes every IPCC lie. It's real physics so it's hard, but incredibly useful, the basis of a lifetime of doing real climate science. So why not dig in and improve your mind now? You're discounting it because it's free? Would you be more eager if I charged $10,000? If I don't get more action I'm thinking of trying it.
http://www.historyscoper.com/climatescience101.html
https://principia-scientific.com/rocket-science-debunks-climate-change-pseudoscience/
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)
