TLW's Two Cents Worth on Climate Change
By T.L. Winslow (TLW), the Historyscoper™
© Copyright by T.L. Winslow. All Rights Reserved.
Original Publication Date: Jan. 18, 2019. Last Update: Sept. 12, 2019.
Note to readers: This article didn't start out so long-winded, but I had to keep lengthening it to respond to feedback so that it answers all known objections, turning it into the #1 online course on climate physics for the gen. public. It's weighty, but a tiny drop in the ocean compared to the CO2 greenhouse warming lit. it seeks to overthrow, so enjoy and celebrate your freedom from GHG (greenhouse gas) warming worries.
If you're reading this, you know it wasn't because the PC media recommended it. The global warming colossus dominates the media, and those who accept it without question can live happily in their mental cage as their pockets are being picked, while skeptics also have to live under the media blanket but still defiantly challenge the colossus, suffering ostracism and persecution, meaning they have more to lose than gain, making impartial thinkers like moi eager to see their side. The more I studied both sides, the more I smelled a big rat with the official U.N.-backed side, eagerly supported by global Marxists who see the end of the fossil fuel industry and capitalism itself in sight, while blaming Big Oil for funding dishonest climate deniers, although long ago Big Oil switched to supporting the environmentalists via their Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI) in order to get a share of the renewable energy boondoggle. While currently so-called climate denier scientists are getting virtually no funding (it goes to lobbying), the Big Green Machine in the U.S. has a $13B/year income, and $100B on tap to spread their sick jaded hoax. The total funding picture of the global warming machine must also include bankers, publishers, and the secretive Koch Brothers. P.S.: If Big Oil is still funding climate deniers, somebody please tell them they forgot me, and I'd gladly accept $2-3 million right now for back pay plus $1 million a year, with of course no strings attached :)
When it comes to the well-funded global warming colossus, there's the professional scientists organized into Big Science, the government mucky-mucks who fund and back them in lock-step formation, and the populace, divided into science ignoramuses and science amateurs. Luckily for Americans, despite the kowtowing by Pres. Obama, the public and the Trump administration don't buy it. Meanwhile, too bad for everybody, some global warming fanatics have turned their cause from a scientific movement into a political movement and even into a religion to incrementally gain votes, which causes true believers to lock their minds in a cage and dote on every word pronounced by their religious authorities. Do they ever 'get' that nobody respects a cage hen, because everybody knows that someone is collecting the eggs? This sick phenomenon of cage hens trying to block out information that's not from their religious authorities is what fueled the horrible wars of religion between Protestants and Catholics that raged for centuries. All along the IPCC colossus scientists rely on the general public being physics ignoramuses, allowing them to peddle mathematical science fiction as science in order to hook them on their insane religion.
Speaking of religion, as the big year 2000 approached, not only was the techie world rife with alarmist fears of Y2K, which resulted in a government boondoggle to fix computer programs even when they didn't need it, the Christian world was rife with alarmist fears of the End of Days (Apocalypse) and the Second Coming of Christ, the Spirit in the Sky, which didn't happen, so that by now a void has been left, just in time for you know who Albert Arnold "Al" Gore Jr. (1948-), the new huckster prophet who doesn't know science or math but pretends to have a crystal ball and see the future, which is pure kaching! climate alarmism, which has grown into pure pyschological terrorism - see my TLW's Climate Alarmistscope for a list of climate alarmist agitprop articles on the Web back to the 1970s. This time it's not about the nature of God but about Big Science and its alleged ability to er, trump God and predict the future of the Earth, with the same apocalyptic claims of Armageddon from the Sky on the table, not by the future Second Coming of the Sun, it's already here and is coming every day and you have to pay to stop it, with no ceiling on the spending demands this time. The truth is that climate alarmism is moose hockey, invented and marketed solely to foist a global Marxist govt. on the world. How sad, the great scientists of history would roll over in their graves, as would the great religious figures.
Speaking of great figures. Was English satirist Jonathan Swift (1667-1745) a prophet? Duh, I think so, that's my two cents worth, and here's why I think so. More than two cents worth actually. I hope to become the hero that slays this dragon and saves the world from a phony Armageddon. The establishment can take note of it and wise-up, or bury it and go on as before if it's really about politics not science as I suspect.
Puhleeese, don't bother. If my strident sardonic tone bothers you, I don't care. I'm fuming when I see the huge rivers of money being extorted to a useless purpose of fighting an imaginary problem like the Y2K boondoggle, and the rivers of agitprop being spewed by the PC media in league with the scammers in order to waste big bucks on carbon taxes and loser solar and wind power while trying to kill nuclear power, the only real answer to phasing-out fossil fuels and preserving our lifestyles including yes, capitalism.
HEADS UP: Too many people skip over the first four quotes by James Hansen's NASA Goddard Inst. for Space Studies (GISS) climate outfit attached to Columbia U. in New York City at the beginning of my essay. The whole purpose of my essay is to prove that they and their partners in crime at NOAA and the U.N. IPCC are full of shit. I spent a lifetime gaining the scientific background to slay their narrative, and spent more than six hard months writing and rewriting the essay to make it as polished and complete as possible. So please go back and read them and try to keep them in mind before going on.
Let's get started. For starters the global warming colossus wants us to be deathly afraid of not tens of degrees but 0.1C-0.2C in global warming per decade, and a total of 0.8C since 1880. What do they even mean by global warming? An increase in global avg. daily max surface temperatures? An increase is yearly max surface temperatures? No, just yearly global mean surface temperatures, which includes night as well as day. Every day the temperature rises and falls tens of degrees, and nobody including plants and animals could detect a 0.8C change in the mean surface temperature over even 1 day without instruments, and even less that tiny amount in a decade, so no surprise, the so-called yearly global mean surface temperature is an artificial non-physical statistic concocted from often questionable measurements from temperature measurement stations often located near hot urban heat islands and calculated with computers after running climate models filled with CO2 warming subroutines existing only in scientists' heads that invariably run hot and are chaotic.
Speaking of history, ever heard of the Ordovician Period, from 485.4 million years ago to 443.8 million years ago (41.6 million year span)? The atmospheric concentration went from 7,000 ppm (parts per million or thousand thousand), when the climate was hot, down to 4,400 ppm, when there was a million-year ice age. How ridiculous the CO2 AGW hoaxers of today look with their pathetic attempts to invent a looming catastrophe from an increase from 300 ppm to 400 ppm over an 80-year period just because the fossil fuel industry was booming along with capitalism and individual freedom, and the increased CO2 was causing global plant life to bloom, promising to supporting a much larger population, and their Malthusian puppetmasters want to gain world control so they can kill off everybody they don't want and get away with it.
Even more ridiculous in the face of the absurd claims of the CO2 hoaxers is the universal existence of a lapse rate of 9.8C (17.6F) per km (3C or 5.38F per 1K ft.), which means that the air temperature systematically falls with height above the ground, so at what height do they take the global temperatures to get their mean temperature accurate to 1 decimal place? The lapse rate is caused by gases trading heat for work to expand as they rise, with the formula g/h, where g is gravity and h is heat capacity. CO2 obeys this formula like all the other gases in the atmosphere, and being a trace component its contribution to the total heat capacity is negligible. Worse for the CO2 hoaxers, the lapse rate has nothing to do with radiation. Heat leaves the surface and enters the atmosphere via evaporation of water, conduction (molecule-to-molecule contact), convection (rising against gravity after warming), and Planck Law radiation, but unlike the Moon, surface radiation is swamped by convection and doesn't escape straight to space, putting another nail in the CO2 AGW hoaxers' coffin, which requires massive radiation absorption followed by massive reemission straight back to the surface in Puff the Magic Dragonland. The hoaxers like to minimize or deny the existence and importance of convection. What do they want us to believe? That the air just sits there stationary? Did they ever hear of convection cells? I guess hawks and eagles are going to have to walk everywhere :) Where do you think all that hot air on July days in Arizona comes from, radiation? :) Where does wind come from, Puff's farts? :)
Speaking of eagles and dragons, NASA pub. the GISS global surface temp database that supposedly accounts for all objections, but it only claims a 1C rise in global avg. temps since 1880, which is so small it wouldn't even indicate a fever in a human patient, and soils, er, spoils its credibility by attempting to predict out to 2100, when conveniently for global Marxists there is supposed to be a climate Armageddon at a CO2 level of 900 ppm, when I know that CO2 has nothing to do with global temperature and probably so do they, but they've abandoned science for politics, n'est-ce pas? Worse, they continually tamper with the historical data to put it in lock-step with CO2 to make a case for global warming out of er, thin air, but I won't waste more time on it here, go watch the YouTube videos of giant killer Tony Heller. With all their dirty laundry now exposed, NASA should get out of the climate business and stick with space exploration.
How does global mean surface temperature work? Let's try for local mean surface temperature. Do they sample it continuously, even, say, once a minute, or once an hour? Then what? Do it for the next station over, but how far away? 1 mile? There are 197 million sq. mi. of Earth surface area. Maybe they take a giant thermometer and stick it up the Earth's ass like an infant. What if the temp increases in one place and decreases in another - does that even out? A lot of good that goes me if I'm frying in the Mojave Desert. The very concept of a global temperature is scientific moose hockey. Obviously global mean surface temperature is an illustration of the slogan that statistics lie, and the only useful physical measurements are the daily max and min temps, and real global warming would see these two track each other closely, else any talk of global warming would be crapola. And NASA's claim that they can calculate a world temperature back to 1880 is moose hockey, because outside the U.S. until recently there was almost no data being recorded. Notice that the global warming figures never have any real mathematical validity as proved by failure to provide a standard deviation and variance, and to name which type of statistical model governs it. Why? Because they're peddling junk science, tricking-up a statistic like a pretzel then pushing it for more than it's worth to claim horrific looming Armageddon, always with the apology that the tinier the global warming the more we should be scared of it. Meanwhile the greenhouse gas warming agitprop artists love to push the meme that there is no evidence of a global conspiracy among scientists, even after the Marxist Green New Deal was announced exposing their hand that they're all on the same team working to destroy capitalism itself to create a Communist utopia like in Stalin's defunct Soviet Union. How can I free your mind from the glass cage they've put it in? The CO2 greenhouse warming theory is a pure hoax with ulterior motives, and always will be.
Back to the lapse rate. It's a consequence of the iron laws of thermodynamics. The lapse rate of temperature drop with height above the ground is proof that the Earth's atmosphere is a giant chimney not greenhouse, taking heat deposited by the Sun from the surface up into space while cooling it along the way, more like running it through a freezer, although the rising convecting air isn't being cooled by the surrounding air as it rises, it's converting heat to work to expand against the decreasing pressure. This cooling is caused by the sheer mass of the atmosphere and gravity, not the atmosphere's composition. The iron laws of thermodynamics are what keep the atmosphere suspended between the surface and space instead of collapsing into a single layer on the surface or escaping to space. If the Sun were to go dead then eventually the entire atmosphere would freeze and fall to the surface, but it never fails, keeping the system balanced within a zone. Sorry, but the percentage of carbon dioxide is irrelevant, that's why CO2 greenhouse warming is a hoax based on fake physics. Once heat leaves the surface it rises slowly to space, and never returns to warm the surface a second time like the CO2 hoaxers lie. That the Earth is warmer than the Moon is not due to any greenhouse effect of CO2, it's because the entire atmosphere acts like a leaky blanket that captures the heat radiation from the surface and slows its escape to space, and despite the climate alarmists predicting coming Armageddon if the fossil fuel industry isn't dismantled, CO2 can never cause runaway global warming, and the demands for oceans of money to slay this imaginary dragon are a gigantic hoax. Of course, the climate alarmist nightmares of runaway global warming seem silly in the light of the fact that the Earth is permanently covered in a thick blanket of frigid air, and only the sunlight it lets through to the surface can warm it in the first place, usually spending most of daylight just trying to bring the surface temperature back to what it was the day before, and having only a few precious hours usually in the afternoon to really get hot, even in the dog days of summer. In short, we're always closer to global freezing than global warming. By the way, air can convect heat only to the edge of space, after which it emits the rest of its heat via Planck radiation in an attempt to equalize to the near absolute zero temperature of space, believe me, people have had trouble understanding this when it's so simple.
Meanwhile the gigantic climate alarmist agitprop machine churns out an ocean of fake news, with every in-sync unusual or extreme weather event such as a big heat wave in the summer or forest fires in the winter casually blamed on global warming, as if weather equals climate, while out-of-synch unusual or severe weather events such as super-cold summers or winters can be shrugged-off as weather not climate too, making the scientists' alarmist claims unfalsifiable. What a perfect con game to steal money. Meanwhile if the global avg. temp (currently 58.7F) could actually be permanently increased by 25F or so, with a uniform temperature profile centered around 83F (28C) not subject to wild extremes, the whole Earth would become a paradise with Hawaii-like shirtsleeve weather, and the increased H20 vapor would green the deserts and feed the teeming billions. What do they think we have stamped on our foreheads, the word DUMBASS? :) There were super-hot summers in the 1930s despite low atmospheric CO2, and super-cold winters way back in the 1880s, and the line that CO2-driven global warming is causing more water vapor to be generated to explain winter blizzards is moose hockey because the CO2 didn't stop the air from getting super-cold, whereas if it had any effect on temperature the winters would be rainy now snowy. Duh, all along climate is the net result of sunlight, geographic location, altitude, proximity to large bodies of water, etc., and the 99% of the atmosphere that's not CO2, which we breathe out 20,000 times a day at a concentration of 30,000 ppm, not the puny 400 ppm that global warming hoaxers hope to turn into large bodies of cash in their pockets.
The things you say, your purple prose just gives you away, you're unbelievable. I've even seen the true believers claim that horrific cold spells are proof of global warming because warmer summers lead to warmer winters, er, forget that, more water evaporation, which turns to rain, cooling the surface, er, which in the winter is still up there because it forgot to fall in the summer, er, forget that, it travels to the opposite side of the Earth without letting go, maybe for each cold region of the Earth there is another hotter region on the opposite side as if there's a global adding machine, but never balancing out but always coming out that the tricked-up global mean surface temperature is a teensy-weensy bit higher each decade as if evaporated water carries over that long, what happened to CO2, help me mix up some spaghetti with your brains. Real permanent global warming would mean snow-free summers, rain-free springs and autumns, and snow-free winters, because all precipitation cools the air and the surface, canceling any previous warmth. That means that even if the Sun itself cranked up its emissions to send more heat to the surface, the Earth's surface is 71% water, so who do the U.N. IPCC hoaxers think they're kidding? Oh yes, of the 3.5% that is fresh water, 69% of that is ice, and if that melts they're back in business, for a season, until a new Paradise Earth emerges with Hawaii-like weather sans ice.
The biggest con game is that CO2 is not bad but good, the basis of all carbon-based life forms, but in their greed the global warming colossus tries to turn black white and white black to get their hands on the green. Carbon pollution? Who do they think they're kidding? CNO are atomic numbers 6, 7, and 8, hence C is not pollution but a natural family member. It's plant food. More CO2 will make the world more green. Less than 50-100 ppm and photosynthesis ceases. The intolerant know-it-all warming agitators don't care a fig about CO2 and never did, they only care about eliminating oil, gas, and coal, i.e., all they want is to kill the fossil fuel industry because it's the engine that drives capitalism, and the CO2 con game seems to be working the best, if my skin was dry it would look like this. If only atmospheric CO2 were cranked up along with increased Sun emissions, the Earth would green enough to feed tens or hundreds of billions. Too bad that CO2 can't do the Sun's job and become a second Sun, but the CO2 hoaxers are Malthusians and don't want a Paradise Earth no matter what.
But so many scientists blah blah? When it comes to physics, academia churns out doctorates like airline tickets, always with an exorbitant price that forces the holder to work in that field for years just to pay them back, and virtually all of the so-called doctors are pikers, super-narrow superspecialists educated beyond their intelligence, rather than supergeneralists who are philosophers of science and technology like moi, able to grapple with the basic issues and not accept somebody's word for everything. I've been studying STEM for 50 years now after bailing out of the academic system with a bachelor of science degree, and seen kooky scientific theories come and go. My opinion of advanced degrees is they're just job qualifications for super-specialized jobs in academia, and I prefer to remain a bachelor and not get married to that system and go on a honeymoon with it, remaining free to grow unrestrained by the need to do somebody's dogwork. It's old news that published scientific research is plagued by phony baloneys, not only medical research, but most scientific studies. When it comes to the gigabuck field of climatology, the young new climatologists are recruited from the physics flunkouts, and their physics is predigested for them from day one, while their careers are more or less make-work and grunt-work projects fiddling with details like taking measurements while generating climate alarmist agitprop by extrapolating the flawed climate models decades into the future. Sorry, but they are all pikers when it comes to physics, and the so-called climate science graduates should demand their money back and retrain for useful careers if they can.
Yes, pikers. You can tell a physics piker because he can't tell when the physics is upside and backwards. For example, a telescope. If you give a piker a telescope and tell him to hold the wrong end up to his eye and gaze at the Moon, he will go right ahead and do it, and when the image appears too small he'll attach a microscope to the eyepiece to make it larger, and when that makes the image too fuzzy, he'll add a fancy digital signal processor to make it clearer, at a price of a million bucks, requesting a gigabuck govt. program with thousands of employees; never does he think to turn the damn telescope around before putting his eye to it, a child could do it. So too with the backwards upside-down CO2-driven Greenhouse Gas Theory.
The whole con game runs off the term Greenhouse Gas Effect. It should be called Greenhouse Glass Effect, because it's not CO2 it's glass that traps heat generated by visible and UV light from the Sun and keeps greenhouse air warm, all by conduction and convection, not infrared radiation, since whether infrared passes through glass, for example, infrared heat lamps and infrared camera lenses, letting it out of the greenhouse, or is blocked by the glass, the glass also blocks convected air from leaving, building up a warm layer at the top that builds back down to the surface, causing runaway warming up to a limit set by the Sun until the windows are opened or shades are drawn. An automobile parked in the Sun with windows closed is a real greenhouse, and it works real good, raising the ambient air temperature by 30F-40F in an hour, don't leave pets or infants alone in them if you want them to live. So-called physics giant Joseph Fourier announced the greenhouse theory in 1824, while he still had one foot in the 18th century, warning that CO2 in the sky can trap heat and hold it like glass long enough to back down to the surface and cook us. Sorry, greenhouse theory doesn't apply to the atmosphere because there's no glass up there, and the warmed gas just keeps rising until it dumps its heat in space. As to CO2, it's not a bad guy. Greenhouse operators not only use windows and shades, but pump CO2 into their greenhouses to feed the plants, usually setting a level of 1200 ppm. Enhanced CO2 concentration doesn't increase the greenhouse's air temperature any more than your CO2-rich breath can heat your zipped-up sleeping bag more than your metabolism did. CO2 has nothing to do with warming greenhouses, but they might stock CO2 fire extinguishers for emergencies.
As to the Earth as a whole, duh, all global warming is caused by the Sun, stupid, if you don't believe me try sending a fleet of spaceships to turn it off, or see how often your area gets hotter at night than during day. Duh, the atmosphere cools the Earth's surface and that's it, and itself heats up from the energy removed from the surface, which causes it to rise to space faster because of the phenomenon of convective heat transfer (and its derivative Netwon's Law of Cooling), but it never pipes the energy back to the surface as heat, radiation, or anything else, because it's on its way up to cold space. Each time some heated air rises, it pushes colder air down in its place, priming the surface to give it yet more of its heat. 14.7 pounds per square inch means something real. What global warming via imaginary so-called back radiation (AKA the Dragon in the Sky) boils down to is the bogus claim that CO2 amounts to a second Sun, when actually the atmosphere never acts like a greenhouse with glass in the first place, it acts like a CHIMNEY, flue, stovepipe, or exhaust pipe, venting warmed air from the surface up to space, which is an infinite heat sink. And the chimney consists of the entire surface of the Earth, 197 million sq. mi., which is an awesome vent for heat out to space, which CO2 can do nothing about because heating air causes it to rise, and only if cools can it come back down sans its heat, making it impossible to force runaway warming at the surface. 14.7 pounds per square inch means something. The atmosphere's great mass puts the Earth's surface at the bottom of a protective force field, a unidirectional gravity gradient that forces warmer air to rise relentlessly, like the floor of the sea, which is protected by a powerful unidirectional water pressure gradient that forces oxygen bubbles to rise relentlessly and never come back, or (reversed in direction) like the top of a mountain, which is protected by a powerful unidirectional gravity gradient that forces any rocks that start rolling down to keep going down and and never climb back up. You can't fool Mother Nature, even if you have a doctorate. Speaking of modern doctorates being issued to super-specialists educated beyond their intelligence, who turn physics upside-down and inside-out, check out this Web site supposedly run by "working climate scientists" that claims that CO2 global warming doesn't violate the iron laws of thermodynamics that say that heat cannot flow from a colder to a hotter body, because the Earth heats the Sun, which is a warmer body :) I quote: "The climate deniers claim that the colder atmosphere cannot radiate thermal radiation towards the warmer surface. This is of course nonsense. The cool Earth also sends thermal radiation towards the hot sun – how would thermal radiation leaving Earth know how warm the surface is that it's going to hit? It's just that the sun sends more radiation back to us – the net flow is from hot to cold. More is not implied by the second law of thermodynamics." Duh, the net flow is from hot to cold, hence the climate deniers are right that the cool atmosphere can't have a net flow of heat to the warmer surface, hence the CO2 greenhouse warming theory is manure. Look at this loon try to twist his pretzel around to deny the simple truth and look big to his friends, when he's actually a climate denier himself. Imagine a can of pure dumb and you have seen the mind of a working climate scientist paying off their worthless climate science degree with a high-paying govt.-financed sinecure :)
But I already quoted NASA as laying down the law that back radiation is real and so I must be full of it?
Here's a portion of an article I published in Quora.com on June 29, 2019:
"I'm full of it, because NASA's scientists are the highest authorities, with unimpeachable integrity? Here's a statement from NASA's Web site claiming that atmospheric CO2 is able to rewarm the Earth's surface as if it were a second Sun in the sky:
"'[The natural greenhouse effect raises the Earth's surface temperature to about 15 degrees Celsius on average - more than 30 degrees warmer than it would be if it didn't have an atmosphere. The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called 'back radiation') is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy. The Earth's surface responds to the 'extra' (on top of direct solar heating) energy by raising its temperature." (Climate and Earth's Energy Budget site).'
"Zonk! Moose hockey detector went off! They use a figure of 100% for back radiation, which means that each year the global temperature can't rise any more since it's stuck already on 100%! Yet their graphs show global temps rising in lock-step with atmospheric CO2, just like they made up in some back room to sell to the public. They made the 100% figure up to stick it to AGW skeptics and forgot that they should have made up a figure with some growth potential like 59.9%. The true figure is zero, zilch, nada, cypher, get it? If you can make up numbers you can make up the whole effect. Strike three on the outside corner for NASA when it comes to climate change, it's your tax dollars at work."
But CO2 absorbs some IR? Yes. So if CO2 on its way up to cold cold space absorbs some infrared energy from the surface, it is just helping cool it faster. If it were part of an electrical circuit it would be a capacitor not a battery. Only the atmosphere stands between the surface and the infinite cold void to keep us alive, we are always that close (snap your fingers) to being popsicles. If the atmosphere develops temperature gradients, that stirs up winds, which blow back to the surface bringing rain, hail, and/or snow, cooling it further. If you stand behind the man with the flamethrower you won't get burned. Smoke rises from a fireplace and goes out the chimney, and if the chimney is not blocked it will never send the heat back down to cook the meal twice. Take a big bonfire for instance. The heat and smoke ascends relentlessly to the sky, but if you believe NASA's CO2 hoaxer scientists the CO2 will return 100% of the heat energy and cook everybody in the vicinity :) Of course, if the heat never returns to rewarm the surface, greenhouse gases are a hoax, because they just help cool the surface, which never rewarms, end of story.
Ever hear the expression don't fix something that ain't broke? Humans don't need to worry about temperatures way up in the atmosphere unless/until they build cloud cities. The globalists in the U.N. have hijacked climate science in order to extort trillions for their starry-eyed scheme to foist a Marxist One World Govt. (OWG) on everybody so that we're all poor, equal, and dying from the same old climate sans fossil fuels to make us comfortable. Worse, the hardcore Marxists have a deeper plot to destroy the power and autonomy of white majority countries in the name of Marxist social/racial justice, and for them the end justifies the means, so if they can't convince whites to hand over their wealth and land to non-whites to atone for their past oppression in the name of reparations, conning them out of it to atone for their sins of being beautiful and emitting CO2 will work just fine. So you see, CO2 has been framed for purposes not of science but of politics and economics, pardon me for repeating myself but billions are being er, burned every day in its name. Too bad, if the Marxists really cared about non-whites they'd want to help them modernize with the same power plants, machinery, automobiles and other CO2-emitting transportation as the white-majority nations, and even better, want a massive plan to provide nuclear energy for everybody so we'd all have unlimited power to help us prosper. But alas, any plan that allows whites to thrive and not lose everything they've got is a non-starter with them. What they want is well-known to everybody from "The Matrix" film series, where the Sun itself was blotted out to fight their enemy (the white race in disguise), forcing the pathetic number of multiracial survivors to live like miserable sewer rats deep underground in a geothermally-heated Marxist utopia, yuk yuk.
Take a forest fire for example. Where does all that heat go? What does it do to the climate? Duh, nothing, although dry spells due to bad weather along with bad forest management can lead to forest fires. Does a forest fire charge-up the CO2 in the sky like a battery so that it can become a flamethrower somewhere else after the wind blows it? There are 100K+ wildfires a year in the U.S. alone. Take a bigger example, an atomic bomb detonated at the surface of the Earth, like in Hiroshima. What happened to the Japanese climate? Did Japan turn into a new Sahara Desert? Of course not, because all that waste heat went straight up in the mushroom cloud and dissipated into space. If anything, temperatures dropped for a while, because of the soot blocking sunlight until it was removed by rain. Stop and think what so-called climate scientists say about soot in the atmosphere, how it blocks sunlight from reaching the surface, resulting in colder surface temperatures, even bringing a global nuclear winter if enough a-bombs are detonated at the same time. Duh, soot blocks sunlight by absorbing it way up high, where it heats up and rises and dissipates its heat in space. None of it can radiate diddly to the surface enough to heat a snowflake, and CO2 is irrelevant.
CO2 greenhouse warming theory is moose hockey because the Earth's atmosphere isn't a greenhouse but a gigantic chimney. So you can call the very name Greenhouse (Gas) Warming Effect the Big Lie, because it should be the Sky Chimney Cooling Effect all along, and climate science needs to be turned upside down and backwards to get it on the right track. Earth's atmosphere is not a greenhouse but a chimney. Not Greenhouse Earth but Great Global/World Chimney Earth. Until that happens you can't believe anything so-called climate scientists say, because their fundamental paradigm is as wrong as the Flat Earth Theory or Geocentric Theory. One giveaway is their obsession with making the theory seem too complicated for non-climate scientists, just like the insanely complicated Byzantine wheels within wheels Solar model the flat earth scientists devised to "save the appearances". Actually, you don't need to know everything about climate science to know that the CO2 Greenhouse Warming Theory is mental manure, which is why so-called climate scientists don't want you to know anything about climate science, just their predigested manure that they are peddling as ambrosia.
I'm not making this up. On Apr. 16, 2010 the Wayback Machine saved the NASA Science: Earth page What Are the Primary Forcings of the Earth System?, telling the truth about the Sun driving climate not CO2, with the soundbyte: "The Sun is the primary forcing of Earth's climate system. Sunlight warms our world. Sunlight drives atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. Sunlight powers the process of photosynthesis that plants need to grow. Sunlight causes convection which carries warmth and water vapor up into the sky where clouds form and bring rain. In short, the Sun drives almost every aspect of our world's climate system and makes possible life as we know it"; it then shows the first hijacking attempts by CO2 greenhouse warming scientists, with the soundbyte neatly spliced in: "However, a new force for change has arisen: humans. After the industrial revolution, humans introduced increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and changed the surface of the landscape to an extent great enough to influence climate on local and global scales. By driving up carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (by about 30 percent), humans have increased its capacity to trap warmth near the surface", followed by more truth discounting CO2's role in global warming: "Other important forcings of Earth's climate system include such 'variables' as clouds, airborne particulate matter, and surface brightness. Each of these varying features of Earth's environment has the capacity to exceed the warming influence of greenhouse gases and cause our world to cool. For example, increased cloudiness would give more shade to the surface while reflecting more sunlight back to space. Increased airborne particles (or 'aerosols') would scatter and reflect more sunlight back to space, thereby cooling the surface. Major volcanic eruptions (such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in 1992) can inject so much aerosol into the atmosphere that, as it spreads around the globe, it reduces sunlight and cause Earth to cool. Likewise, increasing the surface area of highly reflective surface types, such as ice sheets, reflects greater amounts of sunlight back to space and causes Earth to cool." No surprise, the page has been censored, so the label of hoax fits like a er, blanket.
But the idea of renewable energy is pure good, and any excuse will do to get it paid for? One of the darkest Marxist cons of man is to try to blackmail the world into going 100% renewable with its energy sources. That doesn't mean nuclear energy, no, that would work 24/7/365. It means solar and wind power, which work only for a fraction of each day and sometimes don't work for days or weeks at a time. So what are people supposed to do in the meantime if there's no fossil fuel or nuclear backup network, freeze or die of heat prostration? Battery power? Batteries can't store enough, Elon Musk already tried that, charging Australia $50M for up to 3 hours at 30MW and 70MW for 10 min, a total of 90 + 70/6 = 101.7 million watt-hours or 11,600 watt-years, and explosion-prone lithium batteries to boom, er, boot. Let's pretend a new ice age comes, shutting down all wind and solar power plants. Compare Musk's battery farm to one year's world energy consumption of 157.5 quadrillion watt-hours or 18 trillion watt-years, which is 1.5 billion times what Elon Musk can do now, for which he would charge $75 quadrillion, making Bill Gates look like a penniless beggar. Let's not overlook the construction and maintenance costs of wind and solar power plants, the murder of birds and bats, noise problems, etc. Let Bill Gates summarize this renewable energy crapola: "Stop jerking around with wind and solar." Can anything make this fantasy come true, like Krell power in the 1956 film "The Forbidden Planet"? No way. And where would all the rare earth materials come from to build them? They need cobalt, 50%-60% of which comes from the unstable Dem. Repub. of Congo, and lithium, most of which comes from China, along with Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, and Chile, with Brazil a future source. For solar panels and wind turbines we need rare earth metals neodymium, terbium, indium, dysprosium, and praseodymium - forget it, and let's not even mention the sure possibility of resource wars. And how long until the components of the Green New Deal Marxist utopia have to be replaced? There's a looming dead end to this approach along with a wind, er, slow but sure death of the human race that has slit its own veins. Obviously, there is a sinister dark dishonest Malthusian intent showing that they hope you don't see until it's too late, bwahahaha.
If you don't know that the U.N. is a globalist Marxist org., it's time you did, making any so-called science they push suspect of ulterior motives. It shouldn't be about economics, Capitalism vs. Communism, etc. Yes, the fossil fuel industry originally frantically funded rogue scientists to fight the global warming scientists in order to save their incomes before selling-out to the environmentalists to reap big bucks from renewable energy, but so have Marxist-run govts. (in the U.S., the Deep State), who hope to pump up their revenues to the trillions one day and shut down the fossil fuel industry and all the good life it provides, did you start drying your clothes on your balcony and bicycling to work to signal your virtue? And the govt. provides cushy lifetime employment with all the benefits, while researchers dependent on private corporations are lucky to get a grant now and then. From the beginning if the govt. funded all scientists without regard to their conclusions, the private funding factor would not have come into play, and after all these decades the truth would have won out as the losing side now enjoy their retirement incomes. Instead, the Marxists have coopted the issue so bad that they regularly engage in name shaming ("climate deniers") and try to use labels alone to get scientists fired and ruined, if not jailed, and their publications suppressed by the peer-reviewed journals controlled by govt.-funded scientists, which charge exorbitant fees for subscriptions that only their govt.-funded orgs. can afford. Even more tawdry and meretricious is the standard trick of leftist global warming agitprop artists of warning people to not even read the remaining few free journals and blogs that dare to question the global warming orthodoxy by labeling them as racist, creationist, etc., as if racists and creationists can't be right on climate science. Sorry, I don't fall for any type of leftism, which can't be argued with but has declared war on Western civilization and culture and is past the point of rational debate, and is a major force driving the CO2 global warming Chicken Little Sky Is Falling scam because of grand plans to tax and control our very breathing.
Marx might be cool to you, you're not one of Communism's zillion victims and didn't learn anything from history, but do you just hate capitalists because they're happy, well-fed, and beautiful, and don't say it, too white? The capitalists aren't exploiting the masses, but providing more and more services at lower and lower prices to more and more people so they can skim a percentage off the top and maintain their lavish lifestyles, who cares? Even the servants of the rich charge through the nose for their luxury services and products, don't you love all those ads for sports cars and diamonds only they can afford? That's way better than making everybody poor so nobody can have a lavish lifestyle except the Commie commissars.
Since it's about science, it shouldn't be about people or organizations but the truth of Nature, and I'm calling the CO2-driven global warming theory a lie about Nature that started as an innocent mistake and was deliberately hijacked and promoted by global Marxism centered in the U.N., which has no respect for basic human rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but wants to own and control slaves who have their minds right and never think for themselves or speak out against their Marxist overlords if they want to live.
How did this big lie get started? CO2 is transparent to visible wavelengths, but opaque to some infrared wavelengths, which is where people get ideas. This observation was made before Planck's Blackbody Radiation Law was announced in 1900, namely, that all bodies when heated emit radiation at all wavelengths, with a hotter body radiating more power than a cooler body at every wavelength, and the radiance dropping exponentially at short wavelengths and only polynomially at long wavelengths, peaking at a wavelength that is inversely proportional to the temperature via Wien's Displacement Law (2900/T microns), meaning that the Earth's surface radiation after absorption of sunlight (after reflection of some visible wavelengths, creating the sensation of color) is so high-wavelength and low-power that the amount some trace element like CO2 absorbs above the surface is irrelevant except for spectroscopists and climate science sci-fi writers, who want us to believe that CO2 is exempt from this law and magically absorbs surface IR into its quantum levels then magically reemits it at the same wavelength in such a useful form that it can reheat the surface like a perpetual motion machine. The only things that can do this reemission trick in real life are radars and lasers, but they are manmade contraptions that expend plenty of energy to do some tricks with radiation. If the Earth's surface did that with sunlight it would shine like the Sun with visible reemissions, and CO2 wouldn't have any IR to absorb in the first place. Check out this alleged "science education" article from the UCAR Center for Science Education that claims that "carbon dioxide absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation", then attempts to play both sides with the soundbyte: "The CO2 molecule might transfer the energy it gained from the absorbed photon to another molecule, adding speed to that molecule's motion. Since the temperature of a gas is a measure of the speed of the molecules in the gas, the faster motion of a molecule that eventually results from the IR photon that was absorbed by a CO2 molecule raises the temperature of the gases in the atmosphere." Duh, raising the temperature of gases in the sky doesn't send heat energy back to the surface, does it? Are they abandoning the CO2 greenhouse warming theory, or just too dumb to admit it's wrong? If a column of CO2 is illuminated by IR, will it heat up, meaning it has absorbed the radiation as kinetic energy, radiating energy only via the slow Planck Law, or stay cool after reradiating it as IR and heating up a thermometer outside the column. You know the answer already. Why every time there's a solar eclipse do astronomers record a sudden temperature drop at the Earth's surface? What happened to the CO2 Sky Dragon? The puppemasters cut the strings? Pee-yuu! This CO2 greenhouse warming theory stinks! This looney tunes crap belongs in science-fiction movies, not serious science and political-economic discourse. You can't handle the truth? Then you might as well quit reading now and save your precious snowflake.
Yes, absorption of IR energy by CO2 raises its temperature a trifle, but sorry, CO2 is just part of the atmosphere, which is cooler than the surface because it only contains a portion of its heat at any one time, and the ironclad First Law of Thermodynamics and Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibit a cooler body from heating a warmer body, but instead compels it to transfer it to a yet cooler body, which is ultimately outer space because the massive atmosphere creates a pressure gradient based on height, forcing warm air upwards that is further cooled by adiabatic cooling as it trades heat for work to expand against the decreasing pressure, hence all surface heat will end up dissipating harmlessly into space, with any thermal radiation absorbed by the trace element CO2 along the way immediately gobbled-up by the surrounding air, rendering it impotent for surface reheating. To spell it out, each CO2 molecule is surrounded by a sea of non-CO2 (21% oxygen and 78% nitrogen) molecules, which bump into it and absorb its excess kinetic energy and all of its radiation almost immediately and begin diffusing it away and up to space, a bunch of isolated emitters in a sea of absorbers, outnumbered 1/.04% = 1/.0004 = 2500 to 1. When the atmosphere runs out at about 70 mi., any remaining heat energy in it is radiated into space via the blackbody law, and because of UV absorption in the thermosphere the temp can be as high as 150F, but by then what do we on the surface care? The CO2 AGW hoaxers claim that when a CO2 molecule absorbs some IR from the surface, it reemits it at the same wavelength, and that the neighboring molecules can't absorb it, hence it travels unimpeded to the surface, yet at the same time admit that the CO2 molecule loses kinetic energy via collisions with neighboring molecules, making it impossible for the diminished remaining energy to be readmitted at the same wavelength, but necessarily at a much longer one, duh, the Planck radiation wavelength. Actually, at low altitudes an excited CO2 molecule only lasts about 1 nanosecond before collision with another gas molecule, giving up its extra energy and leaving nothing to reemit, because it's at a higher temperature and entropy requires it to give up energy to equalize temperatures. Plus, the direction of any super-rare reemission will be random, meaning that half of the time it will not return to the surface, which is a loser's game. To get around the iron laws of thermodynamics the hoaxers have been known to claim that with individual IR photons those laws don't apply, which is true, because they are macroscopic not quantum laws, but if they then want to claim that these quantum events have macroscopic results big enough to cause global warming, they must be dumber than a box of rocks. The quantum world ceases to exist at the macroscopic level, where the iron laws of thermodynamics rule.
Want to hear how lame the greenhouse warming hoaxers can get, by which I mean major scientific organizations like NASA, the Am. Chemical Society, the Am. Physical Society et al.? They regularly claim that since a blanket traps warm air next to your skin, greenhouse gases trap warm air next to the Earth's surface, not millimeters but miles away, keeping us not only cozy, but going beyond and predicting a blazing hot runaway warming and horrible deaths, which is eagerly trumpeted by the pro-globalist media. Some global warming skeptics actually play both ends against the middle, calling themselves Lukewarmers, meaning that they want us to deny the laws of thermodynamics to accept CO2 greenhouse warming theory, but just quibble about the amount.
Why don't they 'get' that there is no way to get warm air to return to the surface any more than there is to get a hot air balloon to land without cooling it back down first. This is true even at 10 ft. above the surface, and the fact that it may contain some CO2 is irrelevant. Did I mention that even the warm air from your body trapped by a blanket escapes straight to space when the blanket is removed, and doesn't return, even if it's pure CO2 outside, and ditto for the blanket, because nobody can defeat the iron laws of thermodynamics, which say that no body can rewarm itself with its own heat, but only cool itself by emitting it. Even if there is zero CO2 in the atmosphere, if you lie outdoors naked in freezing weather it will take your heat away by evaporation, conduction, and convection and diffuse it into the sky way faster than the puny T^4th law radiation can dissipate it, and after you start shivering to increase your metabolism in vain, and your internal organs cool below a certain temperature, you will die, your metabolism will cease, and your corpse will cool to the atmospheric temperature, which wasn't affected by your puny heat. Even on a hot day the Earth's surface isn't much about 98.6F, so what's the difference? A trillion naked bodies lying outdoors side-by-side in freezing weather will all end up just as dead, and their body heat will diffuse to space and be lost forever, go see the 1997 film "Titanic".
The only reason the atmosphere as a whole acts as a blanket is its great mass, which takes time to heat or cool like any other mass, meaning that it can only carry away the surface heat and diffuse it into the sky at a certain rate, and for the umpteenth time, no molecule including CO2 has special powers to catch and store it and form a blanket in the sky, the surface, or anywhere, and no special built-in laser unit to beam it in useful form back to the surface for reuse like a perpetual motion machine. Sorry, there's no Puff the Magic Dragon or dragon hotel in the sky, just say bada book, bada boom. Ditto other so-called greenhouses gases, methane, even water vapor, which isn't a blanket to keep the Earth warm, but blocks sunlight from hitting the surface while rising and preparing to dump precipitation and cool it more than the atmosphere did. If you want a blanket go to Target. Yet this blanket crapola is what they are teaching to the public and even in colleges, like the magicians' trick of pulling a rabbit out of his hat. Since the students thought they were being taught something real they should demand their money back and retrain for useful careers like nuclear power. Yes, there are pathological cases, such as a super-hot day evaporating water from a prior rain, some of which sinks and clings to the ground at night as fog, keeping it warmer than if it were dry, but weather isn't climate, which is dependent only on the sunny sun sun Sun. And the next morning the fog will be dissipated by the you know what starts with S.
The blanket analogy for the CO2 in the atmosphere seems lovely at first. The only problem is, the atmosphere isn't a thin little blanket, it's miles high, and it traps er, absorbs heat from the surface and takes it miles up before dissipating it in space, making it useless for heating the surface any more than the body heat you let escape by throwing off your blanket, which is already useless 1 foot away. CO2 has been framed as a blanket when it's just one of the cooling gases of the real blanket, the atmosphere as a whole, which can absorb all the CO2 we can generate and still keep cooling the surface, the Earth's bosom, during the day, and continue all night, but via evaporation, conduction, and convection not pure radiation like on the Moon. When fossil fuels are burned at the surface to help us live, the CO2 might stay in the atmosphere, but the heat never does; as far as surface heat is concerned, the atmosphere is like a bowling alley, helping conduct the ball from the player's hand to the pins, at a speed controlled by the atmosphere's mass, but without a ball return mechanism. Actually, CO2 is 150% heavier than the O2-N air mixture, and if a balloon were filled with pure CO2 and heated, it probably wouldn't float unless it were very hot, although we see CO2 rising in the hot exhaust of a flue. At 0.04% concentration, CO2 is thoroughly mixed with the surrounding air, and never unmixes because of entropy (e.g., pure CO2 sublimating from dry ice and disappearing into the air), hence it can be found at all heights after it gets carried by convection currents. In the hot air balloon, the CO2 is not only mixed but trapped, forcing it to go where the balloon goes carrying its heat with it, just as it is all the time in vertical convection currents. Either way, after CO2 absorbs some heat from the Earth's surface, that heat is soon diffused to the 99.96% of surrounding air molecules, and they don't need that CO2 anymore to do their job of cooling the Earth's surface 24/7/365, keeping the atmosphere in perfect balance, one that an imaginary CO2 greenhouse effect can't upset. The CO2 hoaxers want you to believe that the 99.96% of non-CO2 air doesn't absorb surface IR via conduction or take it to the sky via convection, that only CO2 absorbs that IR, and being heavier than air keeps it at the surface as if it isn't well mixed and trapped in the convecting part. They must think you're dumber than a box of hot rocks in a scorching sun.
Back to the hot air balloon with CO2 in it. Let's say it starts on the surface, and is heated with IR energy from a hot plate. At some point it will start floating up into the sky, taking its heat with it and thus cooling the surface. The only way to get it back to the surface to release the heat and rewarm the surface is to pull it down with a rope, which takes work. But the air can't do any work, other than generate winds by trading heat for work, which results in more cooling both in the sky and on the ground. A giant thundercloud does heat up after dumping its rain, but that heat just stays up there and joins the convection train to space. Touche! The Hansenites are checkmated.
Remember way back in history before powered flight when heaven was unreachable, and believed to be the domain of angels? Well, the modern-day climate scientists think of the entire Earth's atmosphere as a punchline in their global warming jokes. Actually it goes up over 60 mi. (100 km), and let's say that the entire heat of the surface deposited by the Sun could be magically lifted even 10 km, what would happen back on the surface? We'd freeze as we watched it rise up to cold cold outer space and dissipate forever. Not in the climate scientists' moose hockey theories. What would the U.N. do? Send a massive space fleet up there to bring the heat back? No, it already claims that magic bullet CO2 automatically sends the heat back down to the surface like some kind of angelic chariot to save, er, ruin our day. Sorry Joe, it just ain't so, because the atmosphere weighs 5.15 x 10**18 kg, and it literally squeezes heated air up into space, much like hose bubbles in an aquarium are squeezed by water pressure to the surface. CO2 just goes along with the rest of the atmosphere on a 1-way stairway to heaven carrying its share of the surface heat. To the U.N. dopes CO2 is a magical climate control knob: Turn the dial up, and global temps all go up in lock-step. This is backwards, because CO2 takes heat away from the surface that the Sun deposited, and the only real climate control knob would be if we could magically turn the Sun's emissions up. If we can't do that then case closed on the phony CO2 Greenhouse Warming Theory and its ridiculous imaginary heat pipes in the sky. But not with these bozos, who almost all have the IQ of a doughnut. They actually believe that there's something called climate sensitivity, meaning an increase in global surface temps caused by a doubling of atmospheric CO2. How does that work? Does it halve the lapse rate? It's always going to be cold up in the sky, and have nothing to do with the temperature on the ground. The only ways to increase global surface temps would be to crank up the Sun or get rid of all clouds.
Okay, in an aquarium tiny microbubbles diffuse through the water and keep the fish alive, but the CO2 freaks want us to believe it can heat the surface back up so much that all life is threatened. What is their con here? Let's not forget the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time, i.e., is irreversible, giving time an arrow. Heat unlike oxygen bubbles is always transferred in a less useful form, hence to claim that CO2 builds heat pipes in the sky that pipe useful heat reversibly back to the surface and even reversibly cycle heat up and down is tantamount to a perpetual motion machine or even time travel, so spending good money to stop CO2 emissions for that reason alone is looney tunes.
Even more looney tunes is the allegedly sophisticated argument that the Earth viewed from deep space has a temperature that is far higher than it should be if it were an atmosphere-free blackbody, hence the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation of Energy Law) forces the surface temperature to be a certain value to balance it, which they never explain because of the little problemo of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, much less pin it on CO2, much less pin it on the human-generated CO2 of modern times in face of historical periods of much greater CO2. Instead they evade the issue by claiming "radiative (climate) forcing", by which they don't mean surface heat being sent from the atmosphere back down to the surface, but a net change in radiative flux (W/sq. m) at the tropopause (top of atmosphere), playing both ends against the middle, because if more flux leaves the atmosphere, that doesn't prove global warming via CO2 or anything else, it proves the chimney effect is working splendidly. How bizarre to claim that more energy can be radiated to space than was provided by the Sun, when they've been using that very energy balance or equilibrium to claim that global warming doesn't violate the 2nd, er, 1st Law of Thermodynamics, talk about playing both sides of the fence to keep their income going. It started out being about back radiation, by which they mean downward flux clear to the surface through a series of totally imaginary layers that finesse the Second Law of Thermodynamics away, when everybody knows that a poor orphan boy can stand outside a warm restaurant and freeze while looking in because there isn't nearly enough time for the total system to reach thermodynamic equilibrium through a huge number of tiny layers between them. How convenient for the hoaxers that radiative forcing can't be measured, because it's the total energy balance at the troposphere over an impossibly large area. Worse, from deep space one can only see the temperature of the upper atmosphere, not the surface miles below with a giant insulator in between, any more than it can see the temperature of the Earth's center that's in the thousands of degrees. That's why at the tropopause the constant temperature drop with height reverses part way then rises in the thermosphere as ultraviolet is blocked then reduces to nada as outer space is reached. So any fancy attempts to use the single number of Earth's deep space viewing temperature to deduce anything about the super-complex global climate at the surface are pure moose hockey.
I'll throw the hoaxers one little bone. Let's say that some IR radiation from atmospheric CO2 up close (30m or less) does make it back down to the surface. Too bad, CO2 only absorbs IR in three narrow bands, so that the total energy is a small fraction of the IR energy emitted by the surface, hence all that the CO2 can do is slow the cooling down a bit, never raise the surface temperature, just like the iron laws of thermodynamics say. This also means that the CO2 can only absorb and reemit so much energy at a time, letting the rest pass it by, that is, a saturation effect, so that higher CO2 concentrations won't threaten the Earth like the alarmists claim all the time. Slowing the surface cooling only makes the Earth more livable, so what?
If you still don't think that the atmosphere as a whole is the Earth's blanket, not the 0.04% of CO2 in it, imagine that there's no CO2 in the atmosphere. Do you really doubt that the oxygen (21%) and nitrogen (78%) aren't going to keep the Earth's surface within livable limits? Does your gas heater in the basement heat only the CO2, or the air as a whole, and when its blower blows the heated air into your room, is it radiation that heats it, along with your skin, or forced convection? If convection and conduction didn't trump radiation we'd have to sit directly in front of the heater to warm the front part of our skin, and the back side would freeze. And I barely mentioned sunlight reflection and water evaporation, more giant factors in cooling the Earth's surface and not raising it. The Earth's surface is 71% water and 10% ice, so forget about global warming and prepare for global cooling instead.
Speaking of pulling a rabbit out of a hat and misdirection, the only real anthropogenic global warming all along is that caused on the surface by the burning of fossil fuels, like in heaters and engines, to keep people warm and do useful work for them, with the wonderful atmosphere safely carrying the waste heat to space. How many times do I have to say it? The totally renovated entropy-defying global warming heat energy magically sent down from the sky is moose hockey. You burden me with your questions, you'd have me tell no lies, you're always asking what it's all about, darlin' listen to my replies. You say to me I don't talk enough, but when I do I'M a fool?
Actually, the total power emitted per unit area at the surface of a blackbody is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature via the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) Law that is derived from Planck's Law. That's one way you know the Dragon in the Sky hoaxers are scamming you, because they act like only total power matters in their weird Dragon in the Sky schemes. Let's see. The temperature of the Sun that started it all is 5800K, while the temperature of the Earth's surface maxes at 327K, an 18-to-1 drop that when taken to the 4th power is 100,000-to-1. Oh oh, they don't want you to notice the power drop. The radiation from the surface has a max spectral radiance wavelength peak of 2900/327 = 8.87 microns vs. 5800/327 = 0.5 microns for the Sun. Let's say a parcel of air in the sky is at 0C or 273K. (273/327)^4 = 0.5, cutting the emitted power per unit area in half and shifting the max spectral radiance wavelength peak to 2900/273 = 10.6 microns, which is far infrared and doesn't heat air. But their power source is already 1/100,000 of the power from the Sun, and 1/200,000 is 5 parts per million, some Second Sun, the Greenhouse Effect is dead.
I will just mention that the global warming hoaxers regularly use the S-B Law for 3-D gases, when it only applies to 2-D solid opaque surfaces and is expressed in watts per square meter, not watts per cubic meter as would be needed for gases. Yes, heated gases radiate energy, a molecule at a time as they mix with a cooler gas, not dump their combined energy through a 2-D surface, in which case the power is based on the surface area not the volume. Sorry, Puff the Magic Dragon, but you're dissolving into thin air along with the CO2 global warming hoax.
So sorry, CO2 is not an infrared source in the sky, nor an infrared energy mirror, nor an infrared laser or floating heat pipe, it's just a sparsely-distributed molecule among the oxygen, nitrogen, water, and other molecules in the atmosphere, all of which can absorb infrared energy from the surface as well as some direct energy from the Sun, but can't ping it back to the surface and become a floating space heater, and molecules aren't miniature lasers that emit coherent light that doesn't spread via the r-squared law in the first place; check out the global warming loon who doesn't know the difference between absorption and reflection and claims that "each captured ray gets pinged around the atmosphere, and most end up returning to the surface at least once before escaping to space." Too bad, the Heisenberg Breaking Bad Uncertainty Principle prevents that, forcing line broadening, so that a captured ray is modified upon reemission.
The clouds do reflect some sunlight, keeping it from reaching the surface, and the surface reflects more, absorbing the rest, then losing it via radiation as not a 5.8K blackbody radiator but as a 120F or less blackbody radiator whose intensity is a tiny fraction of the incident sunlight. The molecules of the atmosphere absorb most of that longwave IR, but all radiation that's not collimated like a laser spreads out in all directions and decreases in intensity as the inverse square of the distance, and in addition, absorbance of any material including air is directly proportional to thickness and concentration per the Beer-Lambert Law, but even if the 0.04% of CO2 molecules somehow absorbed all of the surface radiation at full strength, the problem is that it only absorbs IR in three narrow bands, comprising only a small percentage of the total, which only increases its temperature a little, not resulting in laser-like collimated reemission, but only causing the molecules to move faster with the increased kinetic energy, bumping into the 99.96% of surrounding molecules, which are all cooler than the surface from the lapse rate, and transferring their heat energy to them via conduction to equalize their temperature, so that any remaining IR they radiate via the Planck Radiation Law and the Stefan-Boltzman T^4 Law wouldn't be enough to warm cold spit, although the Planck radiation could only happen to equalize temperatures when the CO2 is warmer. And what's keeping IR reemitted by CO2 from being reabsorbed by more CO2, keeping the heat energy trapped in the sky on its way to space? And if any of that narrow bandwidth IR reaches the surface, it won't be reabsorbed by CO2 but by land or water, just slowing its overall cooling a bit, like hooking a small tube from the output to the input of a leaky sieve. In other words, CO2 helps cool the Earth's surface along with the rest of the atmosphere at a rate slow enough to make life livable, and the rest is moose hockey.
Back to the hot air balloon. Eventually the balloon runs out of heat, but it has climbed way up in the sky. This happens also with a packet of warm air, in which CO2 is a trace element (0.04%) and has no special magical properties or mojo. The greenhouse warming hoaxers want you to not even know about convection since it takes away the surface heat energy by absorption of radiation and just trades it for height, bye bye birdie. Whether the convection starts at the Earth's surface or above the surface, and whatever the strength of radiation absorbed, it's the same result, namely, cooling of the surface by air absorbing radiation and dissipating it by rising and expanding against the atmosphere's gravity gradient until the atmosphere ends and the remaining energy is radiated to space. No dragon in the sky. It's a hoax. Snap out of it. The reason the atmosphere keeps the surface in a livable temperature zone is that the speed of the convection that is taking the surface heat away is held down by the great mass of the atmosphere, not chemical composition but mass. There's no f***ing blanket in the sky from CO2, the blanket is the entire atmosphere. So, the outrageous claim that CO2 creates what amounts to not only a blanket but a sheet of glass in the sky that traps all the heat below is a sick and evil hoax aimed at CO2 producers, viz. the fossil fuel industry.
Physics rules out the basic CO2 greenhouse warming theory, but with the scammers it's forget the old physics, they're not breaking physics they're making physics, it's lalaland, make-believe, Hollyweird, and now heat energy doesn't have any internal molecular kinetic energy component and no longer obeys the laws of physics but instead turns CO2 molecules into little hot energy bullet machines that shoot bullets back and forth with no losses like in a video game, sometimes heating, sometimes ping-ponging when they want them too, it's crazy, ask them, they all got doctorates in climate science and are forever paying off their bloated high-interest student loans with their cushy jobs that keep them six weeks from bankruptcy if they rock the boat.
CO2 greenhouse warming hoaxers all downplay the percentage of solar energy removed from the surface by conduction and convection, because their greenhouse effect is about radiation, but conduction, convection, and radiation all cool the surface, along with evaporation of water, and radiation absorbed by the atmosphere on the way up to space just adds to the convection anyway, CO2 or no CO2. Simply put, the atmosphere can't warm the surface, only the Sun does that. It just cools the surface, period.
Delving deeper into the subject of convection vs. radiation in the atmosphere, it's about the Rayleigh number, a dimensionless number that determines whether convection occurs via Newton's Law of Cooling, and yes, for the atmosphere it does. Take a sealed hot air balloon for example. It rises via Archimedes' Principle, slowly losing heat at the balloon's surface until its temperature equalizes with the outside air, call it a mini-greenhouse. It also expands with height because of reduced air pressure via adiabatic expansion, trading heat for work to expand against the atmosphere's remaining pressure via the First Law of Thermodynamics (Q = W), with work equal to force times distance, and force equal to mass times acceleration, the time derivative of velocity, it helps to know calculus. As meteorologists put it, air is moved vertically by kinematic fluxes, which don't involve IR radiation just convection, making the Earth different than the Moon and changing everything, with CO2 having nothing to do with it, sorryU.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) graph of predicted temperature vs. latitude and altitude, 2006 U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) graph of actual radiosonde temperature vs. latitude and altitude, 2006 Predicted temperature vs. latitude and altitude for 2X CO2 Predicted temperature vs. latitude and altitude for 2X solar input
The biggest hoax is their claim of back radiation allegedly sent back to Earth's surface by CO2 in the sky. This is one of the biggest scientific con jobs in history, the new flat earth theory. The lie is given away every time there's a solar eclipse and the surface temperature drops immediately, look ma, no back radiation. Another giveaway is the lack of a tropical tropospheric hotspot caused by more intense solar radiation. One so-called refutation by Australian computer scientist Tim Lambert claims that a hotspot appears in climate models with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 or a 2% increase in solar output, with the former showing "cooling in the stratosphere", duh, all the way to the surface? Actually, who cares about a hotspot in the tropical sky? It's just heat that's long gone from down where we live, a set of bowling pins in the sky, with no return mechanism to the surface for the balls, Mother Earth has always taken care of life in her bosom. Oh yes, using a magnifying glass you can see claims that there is a pronounced decadal warming trend at 30N and 75N, along with pronounced cooling trends at 30S, 40S, and 50S, while for the other latitudes it is mostly in the mud (0.1C-0.3C/decade below 10km alt., going negative above that).
There's no hoax? The concept of "back radiation" is the holy grail of the CO2 warmist cult. What they are really talking about is infrared fingerprint radiation (absorption spectra) that can be used to identify organic molecules. That can be measured. But the climate scientist fraudsters then create a fake non-physical quantity called back radiation via computers, massive amounts of heat not mere fingerprint radiation, and palm it off as physical. They actually claim that CO2 in the sky irradiates the Earth's surface with 324 w/sq. m. of infrared, how obviously fraudulent. Just sit in your kitchen with three 100-watt lamps and a 30-watt lamp on your kitchen table and see if this feels like sitting outdoors on a cloudy day. In Feb. 2015 true CO2 greenhouse warming believers at Trent U. in Peterborough, Ontario, Canada actually claimed to measure the downward IR emission from atmospheric CO2 at the Earth's surface, showing a big peak at wavenumbers 600-800, which means 12.5-16.7 microns, and a total downward surface flux in 2000 of 34.7 W/sq. m in the winter and 10.5 W/sq. m in the summer, while "The [total] greenhouse radiation is typically about 150 W/sq. m", which "has increased by approximately 3.5 W/sq. m since pre-industrial times", pardon me while I get my sauna uncovered. They even claimed that they observed it increase by 0.2 W/sq. m in 2000-2010 to go with the 22 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2, and even saw the radiation dip along with the atmospheric CO2 dip each spring. Too bad, they used the computer model LBLRTM to calculate the downward IR sans CO2 then subtracted to get their answer, meaning it's not really a direct measurement, is it? So how are they measuring the difference in energy going into and out of the Earth's surface from two ground stations? And are they measuring during the day or at night? During the day the Sun is shining and emitting some infrared light that of course can be captured by CO2 and reemitted in all directions. So how are they measuring back radiation with the Sun interfering? Get this: "This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downdwelling longwave radiation." The only proper time for such measurements would be just after dark on hot nights, when the Sun is out of the picture and the ground hasn't cooled much. Maybe they did that, but their description doesn't mention it, so I doubt it. How low can they go, how dark the con of man. With them the fundamental laws of physics cease to apply, how can they be reasoned with when they abandon reason for Mammon?
Speaking of mathematical science fiction, want a little laugh? The graph of the average yearly temps for the contiguous U.S. from NOAA. It features a big blue "trend line" (least-squares fit?) running from left to right through the bumpy choppy roller-coaster data, as if that line were the data, supposedly proving that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels drive the climate. Of course, the highest temps are recent, how professional the data tampering has become. Too bad, the line sails right through 1930-50, when the temperatures peaked but CO2 levels were low, and from 1960-80, when temperatures tanked while CO2 levels were high. Even the record high temps from 2000 to present are sprinkled with pronounced low temps. If CO2 were responsible for climate, indeed, the main climate control knob, what happened during all those long hot or cold years? Correlation doesn't prove causation in the first place, but sorry, this roller coaster graph disproves the CO2 greenhouse warming theory more than proves it. Now check out the graph of the average max and min temps, and see the computer-generated trend line disappear in a wonderland of reality. Either way, the first graph atttemps to blow-up the vertical scale to make a gnat into an elephant, showing an overall min temp of 50F (10C) and overall max temp of 55.5F (13C), when we all know that the CO2-driven hoaxers only actually claim 0.8C total warming since 1880. Why do they strain at a gnat while swallowing an er, camel? It's spelled M-O-N-E-Y.
Did I mention clouds? Clouds are the weather wild card, watering crops in the summer and building a snowpack in the winter that melts in the spring to feed springs and reservoirs, and large cloud formations block sunlight from hitting the surface, which doesn't warm it, does it? Over the huge surface of the Earth bad precipitation happens, get used to it, it's the real world not a computer simulation. Earth is a water planet and there's just too much water to accurately simulate, hallelujah, and then there's wind. Clouds are in balance way more good than bad, but this is the unpredictable world of weather not climate, and for the umpteenth time CO2 is irrelevant. The pretzel logic of the global warming hoaxers is especially weird when it comes to hurricanes. They actually claim that global warming causes hurricanes. Zonk! They actually don't claim that, but they do they claim that when they do occur global warming increases their total energy because it warms ocean waters and somehow that heat energy feeds the big bad wolf. They never stop to realize that hurricanes furiously cool the surface of the ocean and land, and the warmer the ocean water that's being sucked up, the less is left in the ocean, cooling it down, after which the cold rain more than compensates for all the previous heat, just like on land rain takes the heat energy already lifted off the surface along with water vapor and returns the water at a way cooler temperature to cool the surface further; storms actually release heat energy, but that just goes on up to space like the rest. If anything, more frequent and more furious hurricanes would be a sign of global cooling, not warming, but the hoaxers' pretzel logic must never admit to anything cooling.
What about the claim that in ancient times the atmosphere had up to 20x as much CO2 as today, and the avg. global temp was way higher, therefore the CO2 caused the high temperature? Sorry, that's called post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this), a logical fallacy. Maybe the lush warm tropical climate of the Carboniferous Period was possible not because of CO2 warming, but because there were no deserts or ice fields to reflect sunlight, allowing all of it to be absorbed, and the CO2 came from volcanoes, encouraging the growth of vegetation, which emitted more CO2 via lightning-caused fires, creating a stable system, and in any case as the seas warmed they released CO2, meaning that a rise of CO2 in the atmosphere followed warming, not vice-versa. Since there were huge seas with low albedo there must have been way more water vapor too. Maybe there was a literal water vapor canopy circling the Earth that did act like the glass in a greenhouse like, uh, Bible-thumpers claim for the days between Adam and Noah, and in addition filtered harmful ultraviolet and other rays from the Sun, allowing the growth of bigger lifeforms with longer lifespans. Scientists don't have a cosmoscope that can peer back into time, sorry. They just make up theories with evidence they dug up recently, which doesn't come with a birth certificate like a Cabbage Patch Doll, and these theories are all subject to change at any time when something new is dug up.
Want a laugh? The CO2 hoaxers love to tout the results of satellite measurements of Earth's radiation spectrum from space (Figure 7-8), which shows how the original Planck IR radiation from the surface is modified by all the atmospheric gases intercepting it and eventually radiating some of it to space at their characteristic frequencies. Too bad, this can't tell us anything about surface or atmospheric temperature, can it? Does CO2 reemit IR and warm the surface? What if it's just giving up its extra kinetic energy to neighboring non-CO2 molecules? What if it's just keeping the absorbed IR and joining the convention train to space? Combine this with the existence of the non-radiation-based lapse rate that shows the air temperature slowly decreasing with height instead of decreasing exponentially as the cold of space almost reaches to the surface like on the Moon, and it's CO2 Greenhouse Warming Theory busted, news at 9! :) I don't even need to continue now, but I'm doing so to answer the lame objections of my piker critics who need to go back to school and learn physics for real next time.
To risk repeating myself to an audience of mostly physics pikers, I'll go over the physics in more detail. Ever hear of heat (thermal) capacity? Rays of energy don't have a temperature, only matter does, with the heat capacity determining how many degrees the temperature will rise per unit energy absorbed, usually measured in joules per kelvin, while at the same time the wattage of energy radiated rises or falls as the fourth power of temperature, try frying a steak on a rock in the dark. "Heat" is never trapped in anything, only energy, with the temperature being a physical quantity and heat a mathematical quantity only. For CO2 the heat capacity is about 800 J/kg K, meaning that about 800 Joules of energy need to be absorbed for each kg of CO2 to raise its temp by 1 deg K, I fear the dragon in the sky has small balls.
Sorry, Al Gore, but part of the sunlight hitting the Earth is reflected back to space harmlessly via quantum processes, and only the non-reflected part is absorbed by the atoms as heat. The reflected part is measured by the Earth's albedo, which currently averages about 32%. A huge change in albedo caused by a new ice age can definitely change the climate, but CO2 has nothing to do with it, and its atmospheric concentration will lag the climate change as Henry's Soda Pop Law causes warmer seas to release CO2 and colder seas to absorb it. And sorry, we can't save ourselves from a new ice age by frantically pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere, although you can be sure the U.N.-centered CO2 greenhouse warming colossus will find reasons to prohibit it.
Heat energy isn't like other kinds of energy, it only exists during transfer of internal kinetic energy between matter and matter, usually via radiation, and always occurs spontaneously from the hotter to the colder body. Matter and radiation energy are real, but heat energy isn't; only the temperature of matter is real, because it measures the internal kinetic energy of the molecules at any given time. Unlike electrical energy, heat energy cannot be "stored", because once the temperature of a body rises above absolute zero, it immediately starts emitting radiation to cool it down, as governed by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which determines the power distribution as proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature, and the Wien Displacement Law for black bodies (lambda max = b/t), with the body's effective absolute temperature determining the wavelength distribution of the emitted photons, which starts at zero and goes to infinity. For example, the Sun's effective temperature is 5800K, and its emission spectrum peak is 0.58 microns (yellow-green part of the visible spectrum). Actually, CO2 only absorbs infrared in small bands centered at 2.7, 4.3, and 15 microns, the last of which is in the far infrared, which doesn't heat air. Meanwhile the ground emits radiation in a band that is 99% in the 4-100 micron band, so that CO2's three narrow absorption bands only absorb 8% of it, not reflect, but absorb, or as they say, CO2 is opaque to some infrared radiation, absorbing it into its molecular structure and increasing its kinetic energy, increasing the chance of bumping into adjacent molecules and shedding it before having a chance to reemit it in all directions, cutting the amount that reaches the surface in half by geometry.
Too bad, they don't show how that can raise the surface temperature, and how much, obviously it can't because the Sun sets the temperature and the rest is about cooling rate, and they didn't take the measurements after sunset to eliminate sunlight, but in broad daylight, as if the Sun's radiation spectrum doesn't include infrared. For reference, the Sun's flux is 1,367 W/sq. m at the Earth's upper atmosphere. Actually the solar radiation fluctuates from 1,412 in early Jan. to 1,321 in early July. By the time the sunlight hits the Earth's surface it's down to 1050 W/sq. mi. direct, plus another 70 from indirect sunlight. One square meter is about 10.7 square ft. If the hoaxers want to really convince us that atmospheric CO2 returns surface IR, why don't they just rig up a giant outdoor propane grill then turn it on and off while a nearby IR detector immersed in a liquid nitrogen wall is aimed at the sky? According to the hoaxers, the return IR should be so great that they will just need a simple thermometer. Better yet, set up a big chimney with a turkey at the bottom and filled with CO2, and see if you can eat it without getting salmonella. I won't hold my breath waiting for the results, can you imagine a legion of climate pseudoscientists applying for unemployment?
Let's say that CO2 reemits absorbed IR radiation at the exact same wavelength instead of just heating up and emitting only via Planck's Law. That alone dooms the CO2 greenhouse warming theory. "If the Earth's surface is at a certain temperature, then it too will have a black body-like emission spectrum. Now suppose that CO2 absorbs a particular wavelength of infrared radiation out of that spectrum and then re-emits that energy at that wavelength back to the Earth's surface. Can that photon absorbed by the surface raise the temperature of the surface? No. The reason it cannot raise the temperature of the surface is because to do so, the radiative spectrum has to move to the left in the diagram above. The shorter wavelengths on the left correspond to higher frequencies and to higher energies. For the surface to become warmer due to the absorption of the photon from a greenhouse gas, higher energy vibrational states must become occupied in the Earth's surface materials. A photon from a lower temperature emitter cannot warm the surface to a higher temperature because that lower energy photon cannot excite the necessary higher energy vibrational modes. That photon can slow down the cooling of surface at night, since its emission at night will cool the surface and the returned photon will be at a higher energy than the surface is by the time the photon returns. This is the equivalent of the process when we put hot coffee in a thermos, thereby slowing down its cooling rate. But, the returning photons from the reflective wall in the thermos never heat the coffee to a higher temperature than it was at when it was poured into the thermos." - Charles R. Anderson. A virtual thermos in the night for cold coffee. So the globalist Marxists' dragon in the sky is a cream puff that they're overselling, and it's time for buyer's remorse.
The Earth's surface has an effective radiating temperature of 252.91K (-20C) (-4.5F), giving an emission spectrum peak of 11 microns (mid-infrared), although the actual average Earth surface temperature is 14C (287K) (57F), only because of the atmosphere, which takes heat off the surface and lifts it to space slowly because of its great mass including the roughly 50% variable cloud cover and water vapor, which acts as insulation, slowing down the RATE of cooling thus forcing a higher surface temperature to overcome it. An atmosphere takes time to heat or cool it just like any other mass. In other words, if there were no atmosphere the surface would cool via pure radiation and reflection, and that would be slowed only by heat capacity and the radiation laws like on the Moon, and would reduce the surface temperature to the effective radiating temperature of -20C, but because of the atmosphere the surface temperature is livable. CO2 in the atmosphere is only responsible for about 10% of the insulating effect, and once it reaches 300 ppm concentration, increasing it won't increase this effect, but either way CO2 contributes to insulation, which slows down the rate of cooling, but does not cause warming, period. Sorry, climate runaway temperature alarmists, but mathematical science fiction isn't science, and the climate works great so why try to fix something that ain't broke?
Too bad, the CO2 hoaxers ignore the conduction going on all the time when molecules bang together and share their kinetic energy, heating them up directly and starting the convection process to space, and that CO2 molecules comprise only 400 parts per million (0.04%) (4 parts per 10,000) of the atmosphere so they won't retain any absorbed radiation long before bumping into some other kind of the 99.96% of other molecules. No matter how much heat they absorb, they're diluted in a 2,500-to-1-ratio by oxygen and nitrogen molecules, meaning that they'd have to raise their temperature by 2,500 C to raise all 2,500 molecules by 1C.
The CO2 hoaxers make a big deal of surface IR radiation, claiming that only atmospheric CO2 can intercept and absorb it, keeping the Earth from freezing and becoming another Moon, as if the Sun isn't hot enough to heat the Earth to the temperatures we see every day. This is moose hockey, because most of the day the surface temperatures are too low to emit any IR radiation, only far IR. Convection, on the other hand, is based on the simple temperature difference delta T between the surface and the air after heat is transfered by molecule-to-molecule contact, and operates linearly, but only as long as the surface temperature is higher than the ambient air temperature. Convection is relatively slow, yes, but it doesn't need to be fast because sunlight only warms the surface so fast, and it's got all night to finish the job, and it obviously works well enough to keep the atmosphere in place along with its lapse rate profile, the source of all winds and precipitation, which cool the surface faster than anything. If you don't think convection happens check out your computer's CPU chip complete with heat sinks to keep them from burning up.
One of the hoaxers' favorite pseudo-scientific con games is to blindly quote the S-B Law, which predicts seemingly absurdly high rates of radiation even for a block of ice at 0C (315W/sq. m), in an attempt to claim that atmospheric CO2 in cold air can send heat to the warmer Earth's surface because the latter will send even more heat back, like a ping-pong game with a crooked referee. As if the ice will just keep emitting and dropping in temperature down to absolute zero as it heats the room instead of melting from the heat input from the ambient air. Too bad the iron laws of thermodynamics rule, particularly the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that it is impossible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow, or in other words, heat will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object, because work is required. The formula is H = W. The S-Law means one thing in a vacuum such as a heavenly body, where only radiation is being exchanged, changing internal temperature without heat being exchanged, because temperature is a state variable and heat is a process variable, and a different thing when a material is immersed in a fluid (air) that also has a temperature. Back to the block of ice. If the air temperature is higher, heat flows into the block not out. Does it keep radiating Planck radiation anyway that is overwhelmed by the air's radiation as it begins heating, slowing the heating down, or is the radiation effectively shut off at the surface because input exceeds output? Let's say the S-B Law power for the ice is 150 W/sq. m, and the air 350 W/sq. m. Does the ice radiate into the air at 150 W/sq. m. while the air simultaneously radiates into the ice at 350 W/sq. m, or does the air stop the ice radiation at the surface and input 200 W/sq. m. into it? If the former, you should be able to measure the ice block radiation 1 foot away, with its lower energy profile, which can only cool the air not warm it. When equilibrium is reached it becomes academic because there's no thermodynamic boundary any more, and you can think of the radiation as being shut down. Either way, when it comes to heat impossible means impossible, and if the unmelted ice block radiation reaches out and temporarily cools some warm air a foot way, it's never going to warm it, so that sticks another dagger in the heart of the CO2 dragon in the sky and its mythical back radiation, sorry CO2 hoaxers.
That's why when you plunge a long-stemmed rose at 70F (S-B-Law power 425 W/sq. m) into a vat of liquid nitrogen at -321F it will vigorously boil until the rose reaches thermal equilibrium, after which you can pull it out and shatter it on a table top, or sit it down and watch it slowly warm up again via collisions with the air. So only when the surface temperature exceeds the ambient air temperature does the T^4 S-B Law operate to emit (if you prefer, net) heat radiation from the surface in an attempt to equalize the temperatures, and the Wien Displacement Law gives a peak wavelength of 10 microns at 0C (32F), and 9.5 microns at 32C (90F), which is all in the far infrared and is mainly absorbed by water molecules into their kinetic energy, with only a dinky amount left to be absorbed by CO2 molecules in the sky, whose absorption band is centered at 15 microns and won't get much. Even on the hottest summer afternoons the surface temperature finally reaches really hot (49C = 120F) temperatures, with a peak wavelength of 9 microns, and the T^4 ramps up the radiation intensity causing it to dominate convection just when it's needed, a safety valve like the whistle on a teapot, all cooling the surface. Even at 93C (200F) the peak wavelength is 8 microns. But did I say CO2 absorbs at 15 microns (-112F = -80C = 193K), so this all radiation will escape to space anyway, unless it's absorbed by water vapor, which has all kinds of absorption bands from the visible wavelengths right up to 15 microns, where it leaves CO2 its only hope window, although the incoming Sun's spectrum goes way beyond 25 microns, with 99% less than 4 microns. That's why at best the CO2 hoaxers only claim small percentages for CO2 radiation absorption, rarely distinguishing the source (Sun or Earth's surface), much less admitting that there's no surface radiation it can absorb because the wavelengths are too short, and if it could reemit the 15 micron radiation, it's outside the infrared heating region and can't heat much except more water. Either way, who cares if all the surface radiation is absorbed by water vapor or escapes to space? Just so it cools the surface. BTW, the heat transfer to the ice block and the liquid nitrogen might be via conduction not Planck radiation, but it's academic for us because we can't experimentally measure what's happening at the interfaces, just the total result. In the rose video, note all the convection of the liquid nitrogen.
The hoaxers want you to believe that atmospheric CO2 not only absorbs radiation before it can escape to space, which is harmless if it can't return as back radiation to rewarm the surface, but claim just that, aggravating the hottest days with hotter surface temperatures, as if hot air up in the sky can just waltz down to the ground at will. So they actually show that CO2 has no useful purpose on cool days, and is pure bad on hot days, so why do they want it both ways? Because they can't accept that the whole atmosphere is the real blanket that keeps the surface from boiling from day to day, and that CO2 doesn't do diddly squat. Now that we know the real truth about the S-B Law shutting down when atmospheric CO2 is surrounded by air at the same temperature, it can't emit any Planck radiation until it absorbs enough surface radiation to get hotter than its surroundings, but since it's cold up in the sky that radiation will all spontaneously go towards heating the surrounding air to equalize temperatures again, leaving nothing for the remote surface, which is probably hotter anyway. And all the radiation will be at low photon energies, which are below the IR heating range. So talk about hoax, we need a new lawyer joke about CO2 hoaxer climate scientists.
Another favorite hoax the learned ignoramuses push is to show graphs of the radiative flux emitted to space from the top of the atmosphere (TOA), showing a big notch at 15 microns, as if CO2 is blocking it and thus warming the atmosphere somewhere. One, this doesn't say anything about the Earth's surface, and two, it might actually show that CO2 lost the extra heat to surrounding air molecules, who added it to the convection train to space. It's nowhere near proving that CO2 is rewarming the Earth's surface, but they often want you to believe that case is closed with one graph because they have nothing else.
Yes, the slowing of the cooling by the atmosphere theoretically could force the surface temperature back up some because of the laws of thermodynamics in the deepest part of the night in the hottest part of the summer, for a short time, or in a winter with heavy low-lying clouds, with heat actually being transferred from the cold lower atmosphere to the colder surface long enough to equalize before the whole mass starts cooling further. Some warming apologists actually claim that all of the global warming happens at that time, increasing the 24-hour average mathematically, while in Nature the wildlife couldn't care less and certainly wouldn't want to migrate away just because of slightly warmer nights in some desert where they hide from the Sun all day anyway and are busy trying to get something to eat, and even less during the freezing winter nights when many are hibernating anyway. And if they try to add the nighttime avg. temp to the daytime avg. temp, that would be like counting the same heat twice, since there's only one Sun and it deposits what it deposits each day and no more. If there truly were global warming, then the nights would get hotter than the days, and, forget it. Either way, pathological weather isn't climate, is it?
To beat a dead horse, global warming scientists have become con men to get their way, with some claiming that infrared radiation is pretty much 100% absorbed by CO2 within 1 km altitude, and this radiation is not reflected like off the ground, but absorbed somehow into its quantum energy level structure like a crystal, with a half life of excitation before reemission of radiation of 0.45 sec., with a radiance of about 33 watts/sq. m radiating back to the surface (after half is emitted toward space and half toward the ground); too bad, because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics that prohibits a cooler body from spontaneously heating a warming body, this dog won't hunt, thus this 100% absorption claim and reemission claim is the Big Lie of Greenhouse Gas Theory, and what's worse, reemission isn't the same as reflection, because radiation is really absorbed into the molecular structure as heat, and later after molecular collisions deflate its energy, what's left is emitted as governed by the S-B Law that's based on the temperature of the CO2, growing less powerful as the air temperature automatically drops via the Earth's lapse rate of 9.8C/km (3.0C or 5.38F/1K ft.), with a longer wavelength to boot, with each energy transformation also degrading the quality of the energy per the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Brrr, it's cold up there. How can cold air threaten to warm the Earth's surface in any way via greenhouse gases, red devil gases, yellow tiger gases, or any other word salad gas b.s.? The lapse rate creates an insurmountable hurdle to greenhouse warming in the sky. Some of the global warming so-called scientists like Kevin Trenberth like to publish global energy flow diagrams based on moose hockey physics showing heat being piped around the atmosphere like steam, minus the required insulated pipes, causing a virtual second Sun to be created that exists only in his diagram, amounting to a perpetual motion machine that throws the laws of thermodynamics out the window, and sadly, that's the version of the fake science that's considered a 97% consensus and taught to students via leftist-run Wikipedia et al.
This is the second Big Lie of Greenhouse Theory, because without it there's no need for CO2 to warm the surface in the first place. What's the con? The diagram turns the Earth flat and claims that the Sun illuminates the entire surface of the Earth at one time to engage in fake energy accounting and come up with heat energy supposedly required to be piped to the surface from the CO2 in the atmosphere to keep the Earth from freezing, reducing the Earth to flat then quartering its surface area and "reasonably" quartering the Sun's power with it. I guess they don't know how to do a 3-D integral on a spinning spherical Earth to show the total solar energy in Joules deposited on every square meter of the Earth's surface in 24 hours, along with the temperature rise during the day and fall at night, then develop graphs for every day of the year, they should go back to school, but if they got an A the first time they would have become real physicists. If they did this, even with zero cloud cover and all surface radiation assumed to escape to space, they might have the start of some real climate science that isn't pushing moose hockey about the atmosphere being needed to heat the Earth's surface rather than the Sun. Worse, they forgot about (or want you to forget) the T^4 power law and the Planck power-wavelength curves all based on T, which means that if the Sun's power is quartered, its effective temperature is cut to the fourth root of 1/4 or to 70.7%, i.e., from 5800K to 4100K, meaning that they're making the Sun 30% cooler and readjusting its power-wavelength curves down with it, what a paradox that the Sun doesn't work any more, it's sick, no wonder they jump to claim that their pet cow global warming is generated by the atmosphere somehow, as if it's an electric blanket instead of just plain wool, never mind that electrical cord plugged into the wall behind the curtain. Why don't they reduce the Sun's power a million times and calculate the average temperature of one millionth of the Earth's surface? You can't add, subtract, multiply or divide power like that, sorry, power is an intensive not an extensive quantity. Show some respect for the Sun. To generate a surface temperature of 7800K the Sun has to fuse 620M metric tons of hydrogen a second.
And that's not all. Their flat Earth moose hockey is all aimed at justifying some kind of solar energy balance at the upper edge of the atmosphere in order to raise the importance of CO2, treating the Earth like the Moon, a vast desert with no water or oceans, and no atmosphere, as if the atmosphere doesn't waste a large portion of the Sun's energy doing work against pressure and gravity to cool the surface via convection, and water doesn't evaporate, wasting more energy to break chemical bonds before joining the convection train to the sky. There is no need for any upper atmosphere radiation energy balance as long as surface temperatures stay within livable limits. They also fail to consider that water vapor absorbs 70% of surface IR, vs. 8% for CO2, blocking sunlight and IR both ways, then dumping precipitation from the frigid belt in the sky caused by the lapse rate, cooling the surface many more times than the Sun heated it. All to claim that CO2 is needed to keep the Earth from freezing, when the truth is that it does zilcho. Anything but admit that Hansen's original CO2 greenhouse warming theory was crap and there is no coming climate Armageddon. They're not pushing climate science they're pushing a sales pitch for Marxist world govt. These hoaxers actually seem to fail to understand the basic principle that heat can be converted to work, leaving no heat energy and no radiation to make it to space, a concept AKA the Carnot heat engine. I guess they also don't know that Carnot himself considered the Earth's atmosphere to be a heat engine with CO2 having no special role, see the cool article Paper explains Earth's climate by principle of maximum entropy production (& without incorporating greenhouse gases). Or do they know and don't want you to? Every time there's wind, hail, rain, snow, cyclones, hurricanes, you're seeing the Sun's energy being wasted doing work and not returning to space.
So it's their #1 mind game to snow non-scientists to tout the "fact" that without CO2 the Sun alone can only heat the Earth to -18C, and yes, that's where this comes from, what brazen lying hoaxers, with as always NASA's James Hansen in the thick of it. A typical hoaxer lie is that the Greenhouse effect is a leading factor in keeping the Earth warm because it keeps some of the planet's heat that would otherwise escape from the atmosphere out to space, I guess there's a hidden glass sheet circling the globe that spacecraft don't run into. Here's a typical example from another know-it-all always-right hoaxers Web site, disguised with the statement that without CO2 the Earth's surface would cool by -30C, because everybody's supposed to know that the avg. temp is 15C (12C). I guess that they don't know that the real Sun can make a road hotter than a firecracker on the Fourth of July, and is never at -18C but at 5,500C (5800K). What looney tunes they teach in Balnibarni and Laputa these days. Place a block of ice on your kitchen table and see how well it heats the kitchen. Hurry and file your patent application for an ice cube-driven flame thrower. I think the case against the CO2-driven greenhouse warming theory has been made, and you are free to quit reading if you choose, although I have a lot more goodies in store to beat the dead horse.
Another big lie is that infrared radiation keeps traveling through the atmosphere without anything but CO2 absorbing it, because it's the only component than reemits and can cause their coveted global warming. Actually, N2 and O2 do absorb infrared radiation. Why didn't they realize this? Because they only used infrared (absorption) spectroscopy and forgot to use Raman (vibrational and rotational) spectroscopy. So they messed up their own GHG warming theory, not that GHG warming theory isn't pig poop. And radiation absorption is saturated at about 100m, CO2 or no CO2, which works both ways, absorbing any infrared emitted by CO2. Of course, if global warmist (carbophobe) fantasies could come true, if the CO2 concentration were way higher, say 100%, there might be enough right at the ground level to absorb the ground radiation then reemit it at virtually at the same temperature and wavelength straight back to the ground, causing a thermal blanket effect that could warm the surface potentially, maybe even in a runaway fashion, if anybody's still alive that didn't suffocate, but at 0.04% who's zooming whom? Just kidding. If it got hot at ground level it wouldn't need to reemit anything. Too bad, CO2 only absorbs surface infrared in a narrow band around 15 microns, letting the rest escape. Currently CO2 only absorbs 8% of surface radiation vs. 70% for water vapor, and after squelching in its frigid loins water vapor lets go of precipitation that cools the surface several times as much as the Sun originally warmed it.
And just where do the CO2 global warming hoaxers get the idea that just because CO2 in the sky heats up somehow, that will affect ground temperatures? Hot air rises, not falls. Maybe they got it confused with their hair dryers in their bathrooms, which they can point in any direction including down and shoot hot air to heat up anything within reach. Too bad, there's no electric outlet in the sky, no electric heater element, no blower motor and fan. I guess they just made it up in their minds and never wised up.
Meanwhile the Earth Energy Balance Equation gives the avg. effective temp at which the Earth must emit radiation to space to bring the energy budget into balance as only 252.9K (5F), and when it comes to radiated heat from the surface, the atmospheric temp must always be lower than the ground temp because of adiabatic expansion as air rises against the gradient caused by the atmosphere's gravity, sorry Al Gore, no runaway temperature.
Don't blame the lapse rate on CO2. It is not affected by CO2. It depends only on gravity and the specific heat capacity of the whole atmosphere, not radiation, and moisture in the atmosphere only lowers it, so the CO2 greenhouse warming hoaxers who have graduated out of the invisible glass lid moose hockey have twisted their minds like a pretzel so bad that they think they're smarter than the public by claiming that CO2 raises the tropopause and makes the Earth look colder from space because less heat is leaving the Earth than arriving, when there's no viewpoint in space or on Earth to measure the total radiation leaving it, or its total temperature, they can't even do that at the surface. But they simultaneously claim that less heat isn't leaving the Earth than arriving, because thermodynamic equilibrium equalizes it.
Once it's absorbed 100% of the radiation, further increases in CO2 concentration would be pointless, right? No, say the con men. Believe it or not, some of the CO2 hoaxers reverse the usual logic about CO2 reradiating back to the surface, and merely claim that the absorption of radiation slows its exit to space while freely admitting it never gets to radiate before losing it to neighboring non-CO2 molecules, as if that can force the surface to heat itself up to keep the energy in balance. Did I already mention that the sky can't tell the ground what to do, and that the S-B Law is purely local, turning the faucet on or off based on the ambient air temperature alone, with no way to modify the T^4 flow? Excuse me while I crack up laughing. According to them, because of the T^4 (S-B) Law, if increased CO2 concentrations raise the altitude at which the critical density is reached for radiation to escape straight into space, the higher altitude will be colder, meaning that slightly less energy will be radiated to space than before, causing the Earth's surface to warm up a little to retain the balance, not explaining how the signal will go clear back to the ground level through miles of insulating air, much less how the surface can generate its own heat, which if they reject CO2 magic back radiation, requires the atmosphere to do work on it, is this the new Chicken Little? The big rat is that they use equilibrium or steady-state thermodynamics, which exists only in the mind, not real-life non-equilibrium dynamic thermodynamics, which would have to face the fact that the Earth is rotating on its own axis while orbiting the Sun, meaning nothing is ever in equilibrium, not to mention that the temperature varies like a merry-go-round as the Earth turns under the glare of the Sun's light, giving an endless changing range of temperatures at each longitude and latitude. The Earth's atmosphere is a dynamic system that is never in equilibrium. It just has a stable operating temperature, like a running automobile with gas in the tank. Rev up the engine by stepping on the gas pedal and the system achieves a new stable operating temperature, but to call this thermal equilibrium is pseudoscience. The only time it will achieve any kind of thermal equilibrium is after the gas runs out and it's rusting in the junkyard.
I'm not making this up. It's like they totally junked the back radiation bit and think they've got a new rationale for the old religion. Is this a case of one set of CO2 hoaxers calling another set liars?
Speaking of the 70% of surface IR absorbed by water vapor, which the hoaxers call a greenhouse gas even though it's a cooling gas, remember that NASA quote at the beginning of my article? I repeat: "About half the light reaching Earth's atmosphere passes through the air and clouds to the surface, where it is absorbed and then radiated upward in the form of infrared heat. About 90 percent of this heat is then absorbed by the greenhouse gases and radiated back toward the surface, which is warmed to a life-supporting average of 59 degrees Fahrenheit (15 degrees Celsius)... A layer of greenhouse gases - primarily water vapor, and including much smaller amounts of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide - acts as a thermal blanket for the Earth." - NASA's Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet Aha! That's where they get the 90% figure. They combine CO2 with water vapor and everything else and then claim it all emits back radiation, but at the same time acts as a thermal blanket, even way up high where the lapse rate is freezing it, while we live down on the surface not in cloud cities. What snakes in the grass. Too bad, most of the gigantic NASA agency is good, such as Houston and Huntsville and Langley, and it's only NASA'a Goddard Inst. for Space Studies (GIAA) attached to Columbia U. in New York City that's full of charlatans like this and stinking all of NASA up. It should be closed, sold for scrap, all its employees fired and their degrees revoked, and sent to the employment office to find real jobs selling lawn tools or something.
Speaking of pulling a rabbit out of a hat, here's a typical explanation from the loser side, showing how devious they can become to try to save their CO2 hoax: "Greenhouse gases, as well as absorbing IR radiation, emit it. It gets a bit complicated because almost none of the greenhouse gas molecules that absorb IR light emit it immediately. Instead the internal excited energy of the molecule is transformed into thermal motion of the molecules nearby through collisions. This takes about a microsecond, a millionth of a second and is roughly a million times more likely than the molecule directly emitting IR light." Here they admit that CO2 can lose absorbed radiation to neighboring molecules via molecule-to-molecule contact. But in their fairy tale world a CO2 molecule can avoid the 2500 non-CO2 molecules selectively collide with another CO2 molecule.
I continue: "In the same way unexcited greenhouse gas molecules can be excited by collisions into a state where they emit. It turns out that the rate at which excited molecules can form and their emission spectrum is determined by the temperature, so by looking at the spectrum we can tell the level at which the Earth radiates to space. The distance that the emitted radiation can travel is short near the surface, but increases as one climbs through the atmosphere because density, pressure and temperature decrease as we climb." Yes, exactly, but that's not due to CO2 but to the atmosphere as a whole. And the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy) prohibits low altitude CO2 from spontaneously warming the surface if it's already warmer, via radiation or any other means. By the way, for the S-B Law to even kick in to save their scheme, the surface has to become hotter than the ambient air, not the other way around. I continue: "Each of these lengthens the distance radiation emitted from a molecule travels before being absorbed, until about at 10 km altitude where the temperature is -50 C (or ~-60 F or ~220 K) and the density has decreased by a factor of ~3, it becomes possible for radiation from CO2 molecules to reach space, carrying thermal energy away from the Earth. Below that level, energy emitted by a CO2 molecule is soon absorbed by another relatively nearby one. Thus this energy simply cannot be radiated to space to balance the incoming solar energy. Decreasing temperature slows down the rate at which each molecule can emit while decreasing density means there are fewer greenhouse gas molecules available to absorb or radiate the energy. Taken together this means that the doorway to space is very narrow at wavelengths where CO2 can absorb. Since the same amount of energy has to be radiated to space as is coming from the sun, something has to increase, and that is the temperature of the surface. As the surface warms, the rate at which it can radiate energy increases, pushing more thermal IR radiation out into space. If we increase the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere, the altitude at which energy can be radiated to space rises also, but since this higher level is colder and the pressure and density are lower, the doorway becomes narrower, and the surface has to warm more in order to shove the same amount of energy out and restore the balance with the incoming energy carried by the sunlight." - The Simplest Explanation of the Greenhouse Effect, by Eli Rabett
Here's another explanation for gen. public consumption. This one steps on its own dick right away: "In the stratosphere, heat is transferred between molecules mostly by radiation or conduction. Conduction means molecules exchanging energy by slamming into each other, and radiation means they exchange energy by emitting and absorbing radiation. Just as in lower atmospheric layers, carbon dioxide molecules here can release energy they absorb from jostling as radiation. But at these heights, photons released like this - traveling at infrared wavelengths - have a good chance of escaping directly back into space. There's not much around to absorb them. Thus, the cooling ability of these higher layers is enhanced by increased carbon dioxide. One important facet, say some, of the observed stratospheric cooling is the following: It seems to debunk the notion that the sun is behind the warming of the earth's surface during the past 30 years. That's a point made by Real Climate's Gavin Schmidt." How can CO2 molecules release energy they absorb from jostling as radiation? They simply transfer it to non-CO2 molecules via conduction (direct contact), and radiate nothing. The non-CO2 molecules then continue convecting the heat to space, taking the intermixed CO2 with them. Even in the stratosphere, CO2 concentration drops by only about 20 ppm. Who cares if the stratosphere cools from minus something F to a few degrees higher?
Speaking of the stratosphere, it begins where the troposphere leaves off, at 12 km, where the temp is -55C, and above that the temperature begins increasing because of absorbed UV by ozone, as if anybody on the surface cares what happens in this distant graveyard for waste surface heat. "The tropopause minimum acts as a barrier between the troposphere and stratosphere because mixing and heat transport by convection can only occur when temperature decreases with height. The troposphere - with convection allowed - is turbulent and well mixed. The stratosphere with its temperature increase with height is stable, stratified into layers and relatively poorly mixed." - Tropopause and lower stratosphere Actually, mixing ratios in the strosphere are 2-6 ppm, compared to 40K ppm in the lower troposphere and 100 ppm in the upper troposphere. Only desperate sicko climate scientists would resort to arguments about the stratosphere to rescue CO2 AGW of the surface, next thing they'll be discussing the temperatures on Venus, oh yes, they often do :) Plus, the atmosphere contains 85%-90% of all ozone in the atmosphere, and all it can do is block solar UV radiation and maybe absorb some IR from the troposphere. Of course the CO2 hoaxers have made hay of the decrease in mid-upper stratospheric temps in recent decades by 2F-11F (1C-6C) in a vain attempt to connect it with CO2 instead of a decrease in ozone from CFCs. Yes, we need an ozone layer to block UV from spoiling our time at the beach, but its impact on climate is negligible.
Read my lips, CO2 doesn't radiate any heat energy to space. Duh, CO2 just floats toward space intermixed with the 99.96% non-CO2 atmosphere, which systematically sheds its energy trying to expand as it rises, leaving little left by the time it reaches space. I thought that satellite measurements showed a big notch at the CO2 wavelength, not a big peak. Ever try to climb a mountain without expending a lot of energy? The energy balance is satisfied by wasting the Sun's heat at any height, and considering that the atmosphere is a giant chimney, its length or coldness doesn't matter. If you lengthen a chimney, that doesn't cook the meal twice any more than the short chimney. This sick CO2 hoax has them making the tail wag the dog. You can't push with a rope, sorry, climate physics isn't Zen Buddhism. It doesn't matter how long heat takes to vent to space as long as it left the surface, and cools as it rises, meaning it can't rewarm the surface, entropy prevents it, thus nothing that happens in the sky can put more heat back in the surface unless God sends boiling rain like in some Bible story. CO2 doesn't talk to itself, increasing the heating of the surface after cooling the upper atmosphere too much. In fact, CO2 doesn't do shit anywhere. So what happened to the big bad IPCC? Did some scientific hacks working for them gin this crap up one night after a spiked root beer float party? Who did they think they were fooling? Was this meant to be pulled out as a backup rabbit if the public no longer bought the back radiation hoax? That's it, CO2 can't rewarm the surface, but the goddess Gaia will magically add it to keep her energy balance scales from tipping the Earth into runaway warming, except they claim that more CO2 is promising to do just that unless trillions are given them to save us. No priestly temple racket was ever more obvious, the priests always live well on the tithes and donations.
Actually two rats. The S-B Law only applies to solid surfaces, not air, and it's a purely local law that can't be told what to do by the environment, making any attempt at citing thermal equilibrium to justify GHG warming futile. The only solid surfaces in question are the Sun's and the Earth's. The Sun radiates the Earth and warms the Earth's surface, which radiates the energy back as IR. Everything in the atmosphere is a follower not a driver. The hoaxers have all along outrageously tried to get around this by imagining an endless series of "slices" of atmosphere, each with T^4 arrows coming in and out of it, as if they can create imaginary glass in the air to resurrect the Greenhouse Glass Effect. Anything to keep the hoax going. Believe it or not they still teach it in college ' classes, check out this 1999 Princeton U. textbook (Fig. 7-12), current climate scientists probably parroted the lies to get A's then got their doctorates and are now teaching a new generation of climate scientist maroons, who are racking up huge college loans.
Make it three rats. This cockeyed thermal equilibrium rationale totally omits mention of the convection train to the sky, as if all the Sun's energy has to leave via CO2 or the Earth will melt. Rat four: CO2 only absorbs a tiny fraction of surface radiation. Water vapor absorbs far more, disappearing radiation into latent heat. And that heat energy never gets to space, it causes precipitation cooling the surface way more than the Sun warmed it. So what a crock the fairy tale equilibrium CO2 global warming theory is. If this is all the CO2 hoaxers have left to fall back on, I guess they should try lengthening and wrapping an automobile's tail pipe in a jacket of liquid nitrogen and making the engine melt. :)
Again, Planck's Law requires the emitted power to be smaller and the wavelength longer than the Sun's, and the emission to be in all directions not just into space, and there is no mysterious physical mechanism that causes that law to be suspended or the tropopause to change its height. It's called tropopause because the lapse rate has stopped or reversed, meaning that temperature increases with altitude, causing CO2 to emit more not less power anyway. Not that power is energy, it's energy per unit time, the strength of a hose not the number of gallons in the tank. And fantastic scare talk of hidden energy being "stored" somewhere in the sky is also moose hockey, because of the T^4 Law and Johnny Paycheck's "Take This Job and Shove It" Law :). Theoretically if the oceans warmed some, that would mean they were storing some energy, but that fact would cause more CO2 to be released like a soda pop bottle, taking some heat with it, and all the cooling processes to ramp up, which combined with greater precipitation would be self-correcting, wouldn't it?
Here's another moose hockey quote from a Web site dressed up as official govt. propaganda: "Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas: a gas that absorbs heat. Warmed by sunlight, Earth's land and ocean surfaces continuously radiate thermal infrared energy (heat). Unlike oxygen or nitrogen (which make up most of our atmosphere), greenhouse gases absorb that heat and release it gradually over time, like bricks in a fireplace after the fire goes out. Without this natural greenhouse effect, Earth's average annual temperature would be below freezing instead of close to 60°F. But increases in greenhouse gases have tipped the Earth's energy budget out of balance, trapping additional heat and raising Earth's average temperature." - NOAA climate.gov Sorry, but bricks in a fireplace are heated by the temperature of the fire, while CO2 can at most be heated by the temperature of the surface. In this case, it would be like heating some more bricks with the heat of the first bricks some distance away, then taking away the original bricks, my it's going to be cold in front of that fireplace. And highly-mixed CO2 making up 0.04% of the atmosphere makes for mighty tiny bricks, and sorry, heat from many tiny bricks doesn't add together to create a super-hot big brick because heat doesn't add. The internal temperature sets the physical characteristics of a Planck radiator, and 100 radiators at 273K don't make one big one at 27300K. So no matter how much IR is captured by atmospheric CO2 molecules, they're diluted and extinguished individually by the 99.95% of surrounding non-CO2 molecules, like embers floating on the waves, or as they say, divide and conquer. In short, this energy is wasted in the sky and doesn't increase Earth's surface average temperature. Not that each brick has much to work with, since the ground temperature reaches maybe 120F in the middle of the day, and CO2 only absorbs a tiny band of that IR, so it's a pathetically weak and low effective temperature Planck radiation body even if there were no lapse rate chilling it and the surrounding air with height. Did I mention that no matter what wavelength radiation CO2 absorbs, it can only radiate at its own temperature, which up in the cold cold sky is too cold to warm anything.
And get this: Tip Earth's energy budget out of balance? Is Mother Nature up there holding a big balance and a budget ledger with a big quill pen? Are we talking about science or religion? The Sun heats the Earth's surface, and the atmosphere cools it. The temperature profile of the atmosphere is the cooling process in action, and if it weren't balanced it would keep increasing until the atmosphere evaporated, or keep decreasing until it froze and fell back to the ground. CO2 can't throw this out of balance because it's part of the process. Finally, is this so-called climate scientist claiming that if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere the Earth would be freezing, and the Sun couldn't heat the desert up to hotter than a firecracker on the Fourth of July? So they're claiming that we need CO2 and it's not all that bad? Where can I find a govt.-employed scientist with enough brains to fill a doll's wig? :)
So, to kick that dead horse again, CO2-forced global warming is moose hockey, and there's plenty of natural forces at work that make it look like a big fat zero. So, if satellites measure a slight decade-by-decade warming of the upper atmosphere, so what? That warming would still come from the Sun, even if it's real, which it probably isn't because of the shortened time scale, but the Sun itself is affected by galactic forces, and despite that it will never be warm enough up there to support a cloud city like in Star Trek, so we'll still have to live on the surface and shiver at night. Let the Sun go dark for three days and I guarantee that CO2 or not everything on Earth will be freezing.
BTW that's over land, which is only 29% of the Earth's surface. The average temperature of the sea surface is 290.15K (62.6F), and it's not a Greenhouse Effect but a Watery Planet Effect that raises Earth's avg. equilibrium temps above std. black body calculations.
What really gets me is how the alarmists want you to believe that CO2 isn't breathed by plants, which thrive the more they get, increasing their intake as they spread, but magically stays in the atmosphere for decades or centuries or even millennia so that their runaway wet dreams can happen. The One World Govt. (OWG) global warmist elites such as the arch-wizard George Soros don't care because science is just a coverstory for their political goals. The reason they don't talk about sending a fleet of spaceships to turn the Sun off is because it would cost quadrillions or quintillions of dollars, and currently they can only force the wealthy countries to pony up trillions :) The main reason they don't want more CO2 in the atmosphere is to keep it from feeding more green plant life, keeping the population down even at the risk of famines - they're sick :) The real climate is more complicated than this, you say, but at the current trace concentrations there is no way CO2 can drive the global climate period, which doesn't stop elitist globalists from turning it into a great BOOGEYMAN to gain control of the world. All along, the climate change true believers like to scare you into emptying you pockets with strange contrived stories of the supposed horrible effects of global warming, confusing fantasy levels with real levels, which are 1C-2C, way less than the daily variations and not even detectable without instruments.
To recap. Sorry, but 1-2 deg C of warming isn't anything, and can't be detected except with instruments and elaborate computing because temperatures daily slide up and down by way more than that. This is a big lie by leftists to shut down the coal industry and even destroy the entire industrial civilization to please them. It's about the extreme weather and where it's coming from, it couldn't be 1 degree of warming. There is something beyond human control here, perhaps sunspots and their control of cloud cover. CO2 has nothing to do with weather or climate, it's water vapor that absorbs the bulk of infrared, so CO2 shouldn't be used as a boogey man to shut down the fossil fuel industry. The atmosphere serves the function of taking heat energy away from the surface and dumping it into space, and CO2 is a part of that, i.e., it cools the Earth by conduction and convection and can't warm it. As the CO2 is rising into space, if it captures some infrared from the surface, so what? Look up lapse rate. By 10K feet the air temp drops 30F, so if infrared radiation heats CO2 up 1 deg on its way into space, who cares? That's why more and more smart people are calling for the U.N.'s insidious leftist-run IPCC to be shut down and it alarmist moose hockey to be shut up, along with its demands for trillions to solve a nonexistent problem with a disastrous solution.
A little joke. Satan is supposed to be the Prince of the Power of the Air, and it's way too easy to confuse weather with climate, the Devil makes the news and God just keeps the world going gaily along with its Gaia system that has a negative feedback for everything. Since everybody agrees that Satan is let loose on the Earth, the question is whether he is now controlling the world's govts., or the world's corporations, or the world's scientists, and whether climate change is real, and whether it is manmade, with the solution being either that it isn't happening, or isn't manmade, hence leave Mother Nature alone, or that it is real and is manmade, hence man should take drastic actions to make sure it's real but under the control of the OWG and its scientists, so that Earth will become a utopia where the weather may or may not become tame, but for sure the rich mainly white countries will be drained to give to the poor mainly non-white countries, and the dissenters muzzled as the whole world is turned into a classless raceless poverty-stricken communist Hell with no more control over the global climate than a broken hockey stick. In short, we should nuke our runaway hothouse planet and see if we can save it with global winter :)
The entire legitimate concept of the so-called Greenhouse Effect is that the Earth warms and cools more slowly than the Moon because of its atmosphere. While the Sun is shining, it heats the surface, warming the air, which rises and takes heat away via evaporation, conduction, and convection, absorbing surface radiation as it goes, keeping the surface from getting as hot as if there were no atmosphere. When the Sun is not shining, the atmosphere keeps cooling the surface, but its great mass can only convect heat at a certain rate, absorbing surface radiation as it goes, keeping the surface from getting as cold as if there were no atmosphere. This blanket effect is not dependent on the mixture of gases in the atmosphere. Only water can alter the picture, but only by banking water vapor and releasing it as precipitation, which cools the surface faster than the atmosphere can, and the atmosphere with it. Only in pathological cases of ground fog can --it happen, but that's weather not climate. Actually, the Moon has way longer days and nights than the Earth, so even an atmosphere like Earth's might not keep its surface temperatures livable, but this essay is about the Earth not the Moon so forget it.
This is all at the surface. What air does way up high can't affect the surface during the day, first because the lower pressure automatically drops its temperature (AKA lapse rate), second because any energy it absorbs from infrared radiation will warm it and make it rise not drop, and third because the First Law of Thermodynamics says that heat can't flow from a cooler to a warmer surface, that's why the heated air from the sun-warmed surface started rising in the first place. Instead, temperature gradients in the atmosphere can stir up winds that blow the cooler air back to the surface, along with rain, hail, and snow, cooling it more. Santa Ana type winds are from a hot surface to another (lower) hot surface, and are a fluke of weather, not climate.
No surprise, in 2010 NASA double-clutched by simultaneously admitting that CO2 only accounts for 20% of the greenhouse effect, and that water vapor and clouds account for 75%, but that without CO2 acting as a "thermostat" the water vapor would run out of control and plunge the Earth into an ice age. So big bad CO2 is no longer in control of surface temperatures, it's a thermostat for clouds, seemingly abandoning the alarmist narrative about runaway surface temperatures and swinging to a new rationale like Tarzan in the treetops. Is this another case of one set of CO2 hoaxers calling another set liars? Or the same set of hoaxers stepping on their own dicks? Everybody knows that CO2 in the sky can absorb a little surface IR and maybe heat some clouds up, keeping them from dumping a little while longer, they have been claiming that it also sends 100% of surface IR as back radiation clear to the surface, becoming a fictitious second Sun in the sky that they use as their cash register in the sky for their climate alarmist agitprop slash protection racket, and also forgot about the super-hot 1930s when CO2 levels were low. Was that actually a mini ice-age? :) Anything to keep getting their salaries and not have to work for McDonald's flipping burgers. Let me remind you of the NASA Web site big lie, quoted at the beginning of this essay: "The natural greenhouse effect raises the Earth's surface temperature to about 15 degrees Celsius on average - more than 30 degrees warmer than it would be if it didn't have an atmosphere. The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called 'back radiation') is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy. The Earth's surface responds to the 'extra' (on top of direct solar heating) energy by raising its temperature." - NASA Earth Observatory
So how does this work when at typical cloud heights(6.5K-20K ft.) the lapse rate has reduced atmospheric temps to 35F to -12F and is busy sapping the CO2's last heat? I thought they claimed that CO2 absorbed all of its IR by 1km (3.28K ft.). I guess they're admitting they're really politicians and getting ready to pivot to get votes. At the same time they claim that as atmospheric CO2 increases the water vapor increases, which once helped "melt the glaciers that once covered New York City" when CO2 rose above 180 ppm. Duh, I thought rising surface temperatures melt glaciers and vaporize water at the same time, and that atmospheric H20 blocks sunlight and leads to cooling precipitation, is this a mental can of SpaghettiOs? On top of that, scientists now claim that CO2 levels can never dip below 190 ppm naturally because plants would quit growing and using it, which doesn't stop the CO2 hoaxers from crying for a return to the pre-industrial days of 280 ppm, when plants must have been having a hard time breathing and couldn't begin to support the current population anyway, bwahaha.
I don't think that atmospheric CO2 can return any surface heat to rewarm the surface, but even if I'm wrong and it did, the atmosphere can never heat the surface hotter than the Sun does, only slow the cooling rate. Even at 10x the current concentration, CO2 can't return 100% of heat energy because it only absorbs IR in small bands. Sucking taxpayers of trillions to save Earth from a boogie man in the sky is the ultimate fake news of the world's left. I'm on the pill but it's not birth control, feel the burn, Icy Hot, icy to dull, hot to relax.
Speaking of pathological weather. On June 15, 1960 (midnight) the town of Kopperl, Tex. experienced "Satan's Storm", in which a heat burst from a dying thunderstorm caused superheated air to compress and fall on the town, bursting thermometers at 140F (60C), with wind gusts of up to 75 mph (121 km/hr), popping corn on the stalks. That was an electrical phenomenon, like lightning, the only way there can be a real dragon in the sky. Before and after that the atmospheric blanket worked ceaselessly to er, heavenly perfection, sorry climate alarmists.
Here's a letter to the editor I wrote to Principa Scientific.org on Nov. 26, 2018:
"No matter how loud the U.N. IPCC and its sycophants shout, CO2 has nothing to do with global warming. The great con game of the CO2 Greenhouse Gas Warming Theory is to turn physics upside down and backwards and hope pikers don't smell a rat. The only source of daily heat to the Earth's surface is the Sun (other than the pathological case of geothermal energy). Without an atmosphere the Earth would bounce between +/-280F daily like the Moon, visible light energy down to the surface during the day, thermal radiation up into space during the night. The atmosphere substitutes convection, which because of its great weight and height takes time and acts like a capacitor, moderating the surface temps to livable values. CO2, water vapor, and who knows what else might absorb the little remaining infrared radiation from the surface, but that just heats the atmosphere more on its way into the infinite heat sink of space. None of that heat can return to the surface, sorry, it just makes the air lighter and up it goes.
"The warmist scientists try to bamboozle us with imaginary 'steady state' thermodynamics, which doesn't apply to an ever-changing dirurnal situation. Worse, they try to fool us into thinking that because a molecule absorbs radiation at certain frequencies, it's not actually absorbing it but reflecting it like a mirror, ping ping ping. All absorbed radiation does it heat the molecules up some based on heat capacity, and the only emitted radiation will be via Planck's Radiation Law, which because of the Stefan-Boltzman T**4 Law will be like a cigarette butt in front of a furnace. Even more so because as air rises it adiabatically cools via entropy, which is known as the lapse rate, a mere glance at the profile making any global warming con game cash its chips, sorry, there are no heat pipes in the sky to turn heat around to the surface and melt sea ice or cause forest fires. Sure, if things could be stopped in time, with a real glass ceiling around the Earth like a greenhouse, all the warmth in the atmosphere could eventually back down to the surface and create a steady-state warm Earth, but that dog don't hunt it's reality TV. Up goes the warmed air to be dissipated in the great heat sink of space.
"Thus, instead of Greenhouse Earth, it's actually Stovepipe Earth, a lonely planet surrounded by one huge infinite heat sink that threatens us with icy death if it were not for the Sun and the temporary blanket of the atmosphere. We are free to inject as much CO2 as we want into the air, esp. since all our combined efforts only raised it from .03% to .04% so far, like who cares.
"Let's say that CO2 levels could be pumped to 1200 ppm (.12%). Then plants would flourish like all heck, and we could feed the teeming billions. And suck more CO2 out of the air, replacing it with O2 and H2O, making us need to inject yet more CO2 into the air. I'm sure the U.N. doesn't want THAT :)
"Maybe if CO2 levels were something huge, say 20%, the fact that CO2 has a greater molecular weight than O2 and N2 would create a low-lying layer that would maybe act like a blanket and keep the surface warmer. The U.N. wouldn't want that either, namely, a Paradise Earth with Hawaii-like shirtsleeve weather year-round :) Of course, we'd probably choke and die from CO2 poisoning anyway :)
"The worst and most desperate warmist con game is back radiation, a deliberate Byzantine mathematical fiction foisted to create a second Sun in the sky, what do they think we have stamped on our foreheads, the word DUMBASS? Heat cannot crawl back down a chimney and heat the pot, sorry. It's going up and won't be coming back as long as the chimney is open to the outside. Even floating glowing cinders in a chimney won't emit enough infrared radiation to light a spare twig in the fire below.
"If I were the govts. that gave money to solve this fake problem of CO2, I'd demand my money back. Oh, that's just it, it was never their money. :)"
Now that I've brought you up to speed on the relevant physics, here's my masterpiece of devastating analysis of the CO2 hoaxer's best work, the article Part II: What Ångström didn't know by "raypierre" in the popular blog realclimate.org, with the motto: "Climate science from climate scientists", which attempts to refute the saturation theory of atmospheric CO2 and definitively prove the CO2 greenhouse warming theory.
Let's start with the quote: "Roughly speaking, in the part of the spectrum where the atmosphere is optically thick, the radiation to space occurs at the temperature of the high, cold parts of the atmosphere. That's practically zero compared to the radiation flux at temperatures comparable to the surface temperature; in the part of the spectrum which is optically thin, the planet radiates at near the surface temperature. Increasing CO2 then increases the width of the spectral region where the atmosphere is optically thick, which replaces more of the high-intensity surface radiation with low-intensity upper-atmosphere radiation, and thus reduces the rate of radiation loss to space."
He then shows a graph of IR transmission through a tube of pure CO2 of length 2.5m, representing the entire Earth's atmosphere, claiming a value of .66 for 1xCO2, .64 for 2xCO2, and .60 for 4XCO2, with the soundbyte: "The transmission decays extremely rapidly for short tubes (under a centimeter or so), because when light first encounters CO2, it's the easy pickings near the peak of the absorption spectrum that are eaten up first. At larger tube lengths, because of shape of the curve of absorption vs. wavelength, the transmission decreases rather slowly with the amount of CO2. And it's a good thing it does. You can show that if the transmission decayed exponentially, as it would if the absorption factor were independent of wavelength, then doubling CO2 would warm the Earth by about 50 degrees C instead of 2 to 4 degrees (which is plenty bad enough, once you factor in that warming is greater over land vs. ocean and at high Northern latitudes)."
This is supposed to be his most brilliant proof of the CO2 Greenhouse Warming Theory. But is it? First, he totally fails to mention that CO2 only absorbs 8% of surface IR, and water vapor 70%. Then he seems to assume that just because the Sun irradiates the Earth with so much radiation, the Earth must reradiate it exactly to keep from runaway warming, as if a huge portion of the heat energy isn't wasted by the atmosphere by doing work, such as in evaporation, convection, and precipitation. Then he assumes that just because CO2 absorbs some of the surface IR, it can somehow rewarm the surface, without explaining how it can get around the simple law that Planck radiation is done only at the temperature of the CO2, not the wavelengths of the absorbed IR, just like when the ground absorbs visual radiation from the Sun and gets warm instead of reradiating light and becoming a Vegas boulevard.
As CO2 rises higher, it's highly mixed with the oxygen and nitrogen molecules and drops in temperature according to the non-radiative lapse rate (adiabatic expansion, trading heat for work) effect, so there is never a column of pure CO2 in the atmosphere, just one CO2 molecule for each 2500 molecules of oxygen and nitrogen, which bump into it millions of times a second robbing it of any absorbed energy in order to equalize temperatures. No fluid that's at a constant temperature radiates any internal Planck radiation, which requires a surface dividing one material at one temperature from another material or fluid at another, and further requires heat to only flow from a hotter to a cooler material. And duh, if CO2 is reemitting the IR and rewarming the Earth, why doesn't a tube of pure CO2 in the lab being irradiated with infrared stay cool while warming a nearby tank of water or cement?
Speaking of water, what about CO2's absorption band being centered at 15 microns, which isn't in the infrared region that heats cement but in the far infrared that is more sophisticated about it, mainly heating plastic and water vapor, plus there's the big problem that water vapor's absorption dips right at the 15 micron range, leaving nothing left for CO2 to radiate to but more CO2, but it doesn't reside on the surface, only in the sky, proving that it only helps cool the surface like the rest of the atmosphere. Make that a nearby tank of CO2 instead of a tank of water, er, a column of dirt or cement, er, a column of plastic. But a lie dies hard as the dopes don't like to admit they're dupes and have been duping you.
Since CO2 only starts with 8% of the surface energy, which doesn't seem enough to rewarm anything, one commenter #33) claimed that increasing the CO2 concentration doesn't saturate it but causes it to reemit and reabsorb its radiation over and over to raise its temperature, like there's no Second Law of Thermodynamics but instead there's a Perpetual Motion Machine in the Sky. Then there's the problem of water vapor, winds, precipitation, and other secondary cooling systems that don't use CO2 for anything and don't have anything to do with any radiation balance. This dude however thinks CO2 is everything, and needs to prove his preconceived conclusion that CO2 is an evil dragon in the sky threatening Armageddon if the IPCC isn't handed the keys to world govt. How smug and closed-minded he is, the badge of today's climate scientist.
Speaking of lab experiments, CO2 is actually used as a commercial refrigerant because of its superior powers of going through phase transitions to gain and shed heat. The hoaxers never mention phase transitions, do they? Not CO2, H20. With them it’s only about infrared radiation, which is a non-starter because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Remember 9/11, when the World Trade Center towers were burning way up high while firefighters manned the lobby, which was cool? Heated air always rises. And that includes the CO2 in it. Did the CO2 absorb a ton of IR from the inferno and radiate it back to the ground, so that the spectators were frying eggs on the sidewalk? No, I don't believe so. Therefore, CO2 back radiation is a fraud and hoax, QED, send me my doctorate in a plain brown envelope.
This climate scientist is, in short, educated beyond his intelligence, totally flubbing the subject. Or is he smart and deliberately trying to snow non-climate scientists with the IPCC's pet hoax to advance the Marxist world govt. takeover plot? The comments section full of fans sure shows that his con game is working. Meanwhile real physicists like moi would undoubtedly be shut out of this audience. Of course this essay isn't peer-reviewed and I have no worthless climate science degree, so they don't want you to even read it or else you might lose your religion. If anybody has read this far and still thinks they can defend the CO2 AGW theory, then please email me quick so I will see my error and retract this entire essay, else they need to look in the mirror and see what's keeping them from accepting the truth that sets them free.
A genius is supposed to take a complex subject and make it dazzlingly simple, so how's this: CO2 Greenhouse Warming Theory Is Moose Hockey - Where's the Glass? Here's an experiment you can do yourself to disprove the theory. Park your car in the Sun and plant a couple of thermometers inside, say on the steering wheel and the back seat. Now close the doors and windows and let it sit for 15 min. and see what temperature you reach, expressed as so many degrees F above ambient (outdoor) temperature. Now open all the doors and windows and give it another 15 min. and record the temperatures. Notice the big drop. Now close them again and let the temp reach its high point to give CO2 every chance. Now open a cylinder or three of pure CO2 gas in the front seat pointed at the back seat then open the doors and windows again for 15 min. and record the final temperatures. Hopefully the cylinders are big enough to not run dry for the full 15 min. Result: GREENHOUSE GAS THEORY BUSTED. No glass no greenhouse, CO2 or not. I'll be pleased to accept my Nobel Prize any time, I can use the money, thanks king. :) Of course the fossil fuel industry is welcome to send me a genius award of a million or three, I did this for free so nobody can say they own me or even owe me, but I'd like to buy my own house in Hawaii and continue my eccentric lone wolf genius lifestyle in paradise as long as they understand that there will be no strings attached :) Warning: stand outside the car while releasing the gas, it can hamper your breathing or suffocate you.
Oh yes, somebody already did the experiment for you, proving that CO2 back radiation is pure merde, Geraint Hughes. Read this article and see living proof that CO2 doesn't have any power to affect the Earth's climate. What will it take to get the CO2 hoaxers to 'fess up and give it up, then give the money back?
Now that you've read this and are smart, I hope you'll love joining me in the confidence that CO2 has nothing to do with climate, never has, and never will. The fossil fuel industry is saved! The human race has a brilliant future free of CO2-driven climate Armageddons! We're free of all this b.s.! Feel the burn of freedom that truth brings. Send comments to historyscoper at gmail.com, with the title "CLIMATE ESSAY".
A little postscript to my fans. Millions might grope in darkness right now, but since I sit atop the world like a colossus making fun of the mainstream scientific establishment knowing that history
will vindicate me and laughing at how long it will take, I'm now the world's top climate scientist not them, despite their having a landfill of worthless doctorates and moi having none and not wanting one,
nyaa nyaa nyaa nyaa :) No, I haven't taken money from the fossil fuel industry or anybody, I thought this issue out all on my own and live like a monk, but I wouldn't mind a donation of a million or
three to keep my monastery well-endowed, although that wouldn't buy me and I'll always tell the truth as I see it. An investment of a billion or three in my Historyscoper project would be even better,
and could make the investor even richer, that's where my heart is. Actually, the White House should order the restructuring of NASA, NOAA, etc. to take the climate science field away from them and
create a new Nat. Climate Science Agency (NCSA), with me as dir. #1, I only need a million upfront plus another million a year. If former employees of those agencies want to work in my new one, they
must repudiate their doctorates and learned papers and accept that they know nothing and need to let me tell them what to do to really advance the field. Seriously, I'm too busy with more important work
to waste my life on this job, or any other job with the govts. of the world despite how world-shaking I would be, but I did make the offer and hope I'm not put in a position.
Like my plain-speaking style and know-it-all range of knowledge? Here's a list of articles I wrote for Quora on CO2 AGW and climate change, attacking the CO2 hoaxers from every angle, call it my attempt to become a new Galileo, or least a new Voltaire. Feel free to take me on in that forum if you dare.
If climate change is a hoax, why do so many scientists say it's happening? Has there actually been a scientific debate over global warming? Is there actual scientific proof of global warming? How can we better understand what is going on with climate change? What is some good evidence against climate change being catastrophic? Are there any manmade climate change arguments that aren't based on correlation? What, currently, are some of the primary indicators of climate change that should be most concerning, according to the environmental scientists? Since climate data has now reached the “gold standard” of scientific evidence - determining that there’s only a one in a million chance that ongoing climate change could have been caused by anything other than humanity - can we stop arguing about it? Are there any university Physics educated climate change skeptics who can definitively refute the 120 year old basis for Anthropogenic Global warming? We have both climate change fear mongers as well as denialists. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. What is it? How much of our crazy weather right now is a result of global warming? Studies provide evidence that rise in global temperatures over the past 150 years, has been more rapid and widespread than any period in the past 2000 years- do this findings support claims that today's global warming is the result of human activity? Why don't global warming skeptics who claim it's due to natural causes prove it? Where is the evidence that seems to persuade people that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not causing global heating? Is it true that CO emissions are not nearly as harmful to the environment as scientists once thought they were? Doesn't more CO2 in the atmosphere mean plants will grow better? With record breaking heatwaves in Europe, are people still going to deny climate change exists and that we need to tackle it? Has global warming died down in 2019? How much does the Sun contribute to global warming? What is more accurate description of what is happening to the world weather systems? Is it Global warming or Climate change? What is the use of global temperature if it really doesn't exist? Scientists for climate change have many proofs. Do Anti climate change scientists have any proofs of their own? Do you have scientific evidence that global warming is not happening? Why do so many people still believe climate change is a myth? Do you think that most people now can see that irreversible climate change is no longer an abstract concept? Should a climate scientist who suspects that global warming is not happening be allowed to continue to do research? Since we are so worried and maybe even panicking about global warming, what is the ideal temperature of the Earth? What is the temperature we should be striving for? According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), July 2019 was the hottest month in recorded history. For people who still don’t believe in climate change, what kind of evidence would cause them to change their minds? What reasons do people give for being climate change deniers? How do they typically view scientific facts? Do we have conclusive evidence that humans are the root cause of climate change? Are The Global warming/climate change theory models oversimplified, and or, corrupted by data that is not accurately representative of reality, the main reason for their dismal track record on their predictions & could you straighten them out? Why do climate change deniers think they are smarter than some of the world's most respected scientists who say warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities? What makes global warming such a complicated concept for people to understand? How do scientists know that climate change is not just a natural occurrence throughout the history of the world? How would a global warming apocalypse unfold? Is climate change/global warming a money grab for corporations? What is the most critical aspect of Climate Change which human's fail to understand? Is the USCRN temperature station network reliable? Why is the Antarctic sea ice declining dramatically? What makes global warming different from other apocalyptic predictions that turned out to be false (such as Y2K and global cooling)? Since so many people are denying and ignoring climate change, should we just stop studying the atmosphere, ban thermometers, and promote ignorance instead? How dangerous is climate alarmism when it displaces common sense approaches? Is climate change confirmation that the world is ending as predicted in the Bible?