Two Scorpions in a Bottle Global Warming Global Warming Global Warming Global Warming Polar Bear on Melting Ice Floe 'How to Survive the Coming Ice Age' fake Time mag. cover, 2007 Greenhouse Gas Theory Busted Science Denial Characteristics

The Big Lie About CO2

TLW's shortest disproof of the CO2-driven anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hoax using undergraduate-level physics

By T.L. Winslow (TLW), the Historyscoper™

© Copyright by T.L. Winslow. All Rights Reserved.

Original Pub. Date: Dec. 17, 2019. Last Update: Aug. 9, 2020.


A Lesson in TLW's New Real Climate Science Course




Alternate url for this page:
http://tinyurl.com/biglieaboutco2


Ever hear of the Big Lie Theory? The CO2 greenhouse warming theory is a gigantic fake science hoax with ulterior purposes. It originated back in the 19th century when understanding of thermodynamics was still primitive and atmospheric CO2 levels were low, and in 1988 as it was about extinct it was picked up, remodeled, and propagated by the globalist Marxists at the U.N. and their politician-run IPCC octopus of kept scientists, academics, journalists, and politicians as part of a vast plot to foist Marxist world government by scaring the world into giving them power to save us from the evil fossil fuel industry and its CO2 emissions that they hate so much for undergirding capitalism and its healthy wealthy happy comfortable high-octane lifestyle. If it weren’t for the brass ring they were grabbing for, the CO2 greenhouse warming theory would have been discarded into the dustbin of history long ago. It couldn't last a month if science would return to a f air free market system.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

How does the hoax fool so many people? It’s always the same con game pushed on a scientifically-illiterate public, namely, that a glass tube of pure CO2 in the lab that’s illuminated by infrared gets hotter than one of pure air where CO2 is only 0.04% (400 ppm). This ignores the blatant fact that CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t enclosed in glass, and when it warms via conduction at Earth's surface, air gets less dense (more buoyant) and begins rising toward space along with the non-CO2 molecules it’s mixed with via convection, taking the heat with it while the surrounding molecules absorb and spread it. In other words, CO2 helps cool the Earth’s surface by removing the heat deposited daily by the Sun, making Earth's atmosphere not a greenhouse but a gigantic chimney. That’s a long jump from being able to send the heat back to the surface in as useful a form as the Sun originally did, which is impossible because the iron Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy) prohibits a cooler body from heating a warmer body, that is, RAISING ITS TEMPERATURE, and requires entropy to increase. Real greenhouses have glass walls and roof, causing warm air to be trapped while blocking winds, allowing plants to be grown in the winter in cold regions. Sorry, CO2 isn't glass. No glass, no greenhouse.

Second law of thermodynamics

Heating doesn’t mean just sending radiation to it, but making its temperature rise, a gigantic difference that the CO2 warming hoaxers don’t want you to understand, along with the fact that the entire atmosphere, not just its trace CO2 component acts as a gigantic blanket as well as chimney, taking the Sun's daily heat safely to space while slowing the heat loss from the surface below pure radiation to keep it within livable temperatures. For a nearby example of unlivable temperature extremes caused by having no atmosphere, take the Moon. The daily convection of heat from Earth's surface toward space causes vertical and horizontal temperature gradients to form in the sky, causing winds and weather, none of which heats the surface up more than the Sun did, but only assists in cooling it more. Indeed, to create wind the air must transform heat into work, losing more of the Sun's heat without having to dump it into space. Watch Tony the Hawk take a thermal for a long ride.

Convective heat transfer

Atmospheric circulation

Do the lab tests ever limit the infrared to the range that the Earth’s surface actually generates, or does it include temperatures way higher, such as are only found in volcanoes? Is the glass tube absorbing heat via radiation only, or via conduction also? Duh, CO2 has a lower heat capacity than air, meaning it takes less heat energy to raise its temperature a given amount. Even if there's no conduction, do the lab tests limit the infrared to the wavelength range that CO2 absorbs? This is key to proving the experiment has anything to do with the real Earth’s surface, so why is it glossed over?

Every photon has photon energy that increases inversely with wavelength. When a photon is absorbed by a material, it transfers its energy to its atoms in the form of kinetic energy, which raises the temperature, which in fact is a measure of internal kinetic energy. An object doesn’t absorb all wavelengths, just selected ones based on its quantum energy level. Plenty photon energy just bounces off solid objects, which is why we can see. That's why we can talk about hot and cold radiation, based on the way its photon energy is turned into internal kinetic energy AKA temperature. A photon from the 5800 Sun will transfer way more kinetic energy to a molecule than a photon from 0C ice. A UV photon will actually cause skin damage. Yes, all coalesced (solid or liquid) objects above 0K radiate Planck radiation in an attempt to return to 0K, but the wavelengths determine which gets heated. For example, if you suspend an ice cube over a hot skillet, it will radiate 0C cold radiation into the skillet but won’t make it get hotter, rather the skillet will send hot radiation at it and melt and vaporize it. The hotter a body gets, the more the maximum power point of the Planck (blackbody) radiation curve shifts to shorter wavelengths (e.g., a skillet going from cold black to red hot to white hot), and the higher that maximum power gets, creating a more powerful heating element. CO2 hoaxer scientists who tell you that atmospheric CO2 radiates x number of watts per square meter to the surface don’t tell you that it’s at a way longer wavelength and can’t raise its temperature, what are you wearing Jake from State Farm? A stream of low temperature photons can never heat something like a stream of high temperature photons. Cold is not hot. Cold doesn't heat.

Planck's radiation law

Black-body radiation

Planck's radiation law is the most general law of radiation, covering all cases. It can be used to derive Wien's Displacement Law, which states that the Planck radiation power curve for different temperatures peaks at different wavelengths that are inversely proportional to the temperature: l = b / T, where l is the peak power wavelength in microns, T is the temperature in K, and b is the Wien displacement law constant 2898 microns-K. This equation is accurate to the quantum level, and can't be ignored or gotten around.

Too bad for the U.N. IPCC CO2 global warming hoaxers, atmospheric CO2 doesn't have a Planck (blackbody) radiation curve because it's a gas not a liquid or solid. Instead it has a narrow Planck (blackbody) radiation wavelength centered at 15 microns, which corresponds to a Planck radiation peak power temperature of -80C (193K) (-112F), which can't melt an ice cube, although ironicallly it's a little colder than frozen CO2 (dry ice) (-78.5C) (-109.3F). A stream of -80C 15 micron photons from dry ice could add some energy to an ice cube because all photons have energy, but not enough to raise its temperature since they're so weak, instead just getting lost in the energy exchange to maintain equilibrium with the ambient temperature. Yes, with some elaborate power-consuming machinery a 15 micron laser might be constructed that could blast an ice cube with high wattage collimated 15 micron photons, which if the ice cube can absorb them will fill its tank and raise its temperature by pure heat capacity (so many K per Joule), but we don't find that in Earth's atmospheric/climate system limited to natural Planck radiators. BTW, a single photon has an energy of 10^-19 Joules, meaning that it takes 10^+19 photons per second to equal 1 watt, so anybody talking about individual photons bouncing around like it matters is whistling Dixie because, as they say, at the macro level the quantum level disappears, and the Planck radiation law rules.

One critic corrected me that CO2's absorption band is centered at 14.9 microns, stretching between 12 and 20 microns. Duh, that means Planck radiation temperatures of -128C to -32C, which still can't melt an ice cube.

How does dry ice work?

Check my work with this blackbody calculator.

Earth surface blackbody radiation Planck radiation law curves

What the IPCC CO2 hoaxers don't want you to know is that every body that radiates Planck radiation can be thought of as having a color, no different than an iron poker that's heated in a fire and goes from black to red to orange to yellow to white, when it's hot enough for the wavelengths to reach visual levels (400-800 nm). The color corresponds to the peak power wavelength for that temperature, and completely characterizes it. Think of a hot object as containing a bunch of nozzles of different pressures based on wavelength, with the shortest and hottest nozzle having the highest pressure draining the object of heat energy at that wavelength. No natural Planck radiation stream of cold (longer wavelength, lower energy) photons can ever raise the temperature of a hotter body, because the later is already radiating those cold photons from a way higher pressure nozzle, and besides, a given molecule can't be absorbing and emitting photons at the same wavelength at the same time, can it? Planck curves are parameterized on temperature, and the higher temperature curves have greater power emissions at every wavelength than lower temperature curves, so a stream of photons from a colder body won't raise a hotter body's temperature, but instead just bounce off or get chewed up and spit out harmlessly, like pissing into a waterfall. Only when the biggest nozzle drains so much heat energy that the object cools down to allow the next biggest to take over, and so on until it gets so cool that it reaches the temperature of the cold photons and even below that can the cold photons begin raising the object's temperature to their temperature. So much for their big lie about CO2 causing global warming, and how we should shut down CO2 emissions to prevent a doubling of warming. Like with the leftist Trump-Russia hoax, there's no there there.

But even -80C photons have energy, weak as it is. If a CO2 molecule does absorb some 15 micron radiation, it's just going to minutely increase its kinetic energy and not reradiate, which the CO2 global warming hoaxers often claim as "trapping" infrared energy. Too bad, trapping infrared energy in the sky doesn't send it back down to the surface, making them try to play both sides of the street by also claiming that CO2 emits"back radiation", which is moose hockey because once a photo has been absorbed it no longer exists, and its energy was added to the kinetic energy of the absorbing molecule, which being in gaseous state doesn't even emit Planck radiation, but even if it did it would be at the low low temperature of the surrounding air. For argument sake let's say it can reemit it all intact instantly, which contradicts the claim that it traps energy. In that case it will likely be absorbed by another CO2 molecule then reemitted, over and over, which combined with the inverse square law means that not much 15 micron radiation originally emitted by the surface will make it back, and the surface doesn't have any CO2 molecules unless it's made of dry ice, so how much if any will be absorbed? Let's humor the hoaxers again and say that atmospheric CO2 bastes Earth's surface with all of its own 15 micron emissions, which is the most it can do. Let's say also that the surface absorbs all of CO2's 15 micron energy. That energy will cancel the surface's 15 micron emissions, but it will still be a fraction of the heat energy the surface is emitting, hence it can't raise the surface temperature, only slow the cooling. Zonk! 15 micron energy is at -80C, which isn't heat! Since the surface never cools that far, keeping the 15 micron energy in the surface won't even slow the cooling. So let atmospheric CO2 molecules emit 15 micron energy all day and night, but the Earth isn't going to warm any. Meanwhile CO2 gas is part of the atmosphere, and is really cooling the surface via conduction and convection, so CO2 isn't threatening global warming, but just helps cool Earth's surface each day, and the rest is moose hockey. Atmospheric CO2 doesn't absorb heat, and doesn't emit heat. Read my lips: Cold isn't heat it's cold. They picked the wrong getaway driver, the desert never ever lies.

Who but sick self-hating leftists have the brazeness to hijack science to the extent of turning cold hot and hot cold in order to get their hands on cold cash? To them cold is not cold, it's gold.

I'm not making it up that the CO2 hoaxer started preaching that 15 micron radiation is heat from day one. Here's a snippet from my TLW's Climatescope:

On May 25, 1953 Time mag. pub. the article Science: Invisible blanket, containing an interview with Toronto, Ont., Canada-born infrared physicist Gilbert Norman Plass (1920-2004) of Johns Hopkins U., who warns of increasing CO2 atmospheric concentrations, with the soundbytes: "This spreading envelope of gas around the earth... serves as a great greenhouse. Transparent to the radiant heat from the sun, it blocks the longer wave lengths of heat that bounce back from the earth", and "At its present rate of increase, the CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the earth's average temperature 1.5° Fahrenheit every 100 years... For centuries to come, if man's industrial growth continues, the earth's climate will continue to grow warmer"; in May 1956 after proving that the absorption bands of H20 and CO2 don't completely overlap, leaving CO2 with its own free band, Plass pub. the article The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change in Tellus A: Dynamic Meteorology and Oceanography, becoming the earliest reference to the term "climate change"; the abstract starts out: "The most recent calculations of the infra-red flux in the region of the 15 micron CO2 band show that the average surface temperature of the earth increases 3.6° C if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is doubled and decreases 3.8° C if the CO2 amount is halved, provided that no other factors change which influence the radiation balance. Variations in CO2 amount of this magnitude must have occurred during geological history; the resulting temperature changes were sufficiently large to influence the climate."

Let's review some of the more recent crap put out by the establishment community owned by the leftist environmentalists. Here's a choice quote from a 2003 public release about a peer-reviewed study that no doubt consumed big taxpayer bucks:

"The researchers analyzed sediments deposited on the seafloor during a period known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a massive release of heat-trapping greenhouse gases is thought to have triggered a runaway process of global warming. Climate theory predicts that the increase in greenhouse gases would have caused temperatures to rise all over the planet, with greater increases in sea surface temperatures at high latitudes than at low latitudes." - New evidence of global warming in Earth's past supports greenhouse climate theory

Duh, no matter how "massive" the "heat-trapping greenhouse gases" are, CO2 only "traps" 15 micron radiation, which is a tiny part of the surface emission spectrum, and doesn't even do that but reemits it, and can do no more than return part of it to the surface, not even slowing the cooling and never increasing surface temperatures "all over the planet". If you can't believe this establishment propaganda then you can't believe anything any of them say, so believe me instead, I work for free.

Here's the related hoax about ocean temperature being relentlessly raised by CO2 15 micron cold radiation, which the IPCC octopus bolsters with a beehive of lies about the temperature rise tracking the atmospheric CO2 rise, the best fake data that money can buy. When asked why the temperature rise is so small, they respond that the ocean's heat capacity is 1000x the atmosphere's, and it's really piling a gigantic amount of hidden heat, when they know good and well that cold isn't heat but the CO2 hoax is their money train. The ocean temps like land temps are caused by solar irradiation not the atmosphere, period.

Greenhouse gases, as in more than one? Let's switch to another alleged greenhouse gas, say, methane. First, atmospheric methane is around 1.7 ppm, vs. 17,000 ppm for water vapor, which have almost identical absorption/emission wavelengths. Sorry, but because of the entropy of mixing. the 400 ppm (0.04%) (1 in 2500) of CO2 molecules, or 1.85 ppb (1 in 540M) of methane molecules are thoroughly mixed and hence trapped in the rest of the air filled with 99.96% (2499 in 2500) non-CO2 molecules that are rising via convection, and as they rise there’s a thermodynamic phenomenon called lapse rate that automatically causes all gases to transform their heat energy to work to expand in the decreasing pressure and thus cool with height. The lapse rate for dry air is 18.8F per mile. This is a pure thermodynamic process, not radiative. By the time the heated air has gone very high, there’s no heat left to send back down. Try riding in an open cockpit airplane without a heavy jacket and muffler. Yet the IPCC CO2 hoaxers don’t even mention convection in their global warming calculations, and act like it doesn’t exist, when it's the only thing that really exists, not their fake physics surface warming CO2 back radiation. What a ridiculous hoax. Somebody should demand their gigabucks back. BTW, methane's radiation emission/absorption wavelengths are 3.5 microns and 8 microns, which have Planck radiation temperatures of 1030F (554.8C) and 192F (89C) which are way out of the Earth surface temperature range of -50C to +50C, hence methane can’t cause global warming, period. A cooked steak has an internal temperature of 145F. God must have designed Earth for the convenience of cows and steak eaters. :)

Entropy of mixing

Lapse rate

TL Winslow's answer to What is the scientific reason behind 'normal lapse rate' that is the decrease in temperature with increase in altitude?

Not that it matters, but only 5% of Earth’s surface infrared radiation is claimed to be absorbed by atmospheric CO2: How much does CO2 absorb?. Meanwhile all the rest of the surface infrared radiation found in Earth surface radiation from 13.6 microns (-60C) to 8.94 microns (+51C) is conducted, convected, and radiated safely to space, with CO2 having nothing to do with it other than going along for the ride with the rest of the atmosphere.

How sad for the CO2 hoaxers that CO2's absorption spectrum isn't a golden basket of wavelengths from -60C to +51C (Earth's surface temperature range), comprising 10%-50% of total surface radiation. That way it would significantly slow down surface cooling near the surface and actually act like a blanket. Instead, it's an empty basket because CO2 doesn't absorb diddly in the desired range, so it's all a stupid hoax. The lowest surface temperature ever recorded on Earth was -89C in Antarctica, which probably means that CO2's trace amounts couldn't heat it back up to -80C either.

Did I mention the Carnot heat engine, which transforms heat into work? As surface heat is on its way toward space, it has to convert its heat to work to expand against the decreasing pressure, and whole regions with different temperatures generate wind along the thermal gradient, driving storms. Thus, a lot of solar heat never makes it back to space but drives the atmospheric heat engine that makes our unpredictable violent weather.

From a higher perspective, let's not forget about the Second Law of Thermodynamics AKA Entropy. This law makes it impossible for the atmosphere to reheat the Earth's surface with its own heat by any means. One doesn't even have to consider wavelengths.

For novices, we're done, but for people with physics backgrounds who still think I'm a looney tunes I'm going to keep beating the dead horse and risk repeating myself because there's so much money involved and I'm threatening to cut off the flow when I wake the public up, excu-u-use me. :)

In actual practice, the CO2 global warming hoaxers never mention specific wavelengths, especially CO2's. Instead, they rely on playing mind tricks with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law that gives that gives the total energy per unit surface area (watts per square meter) from a radiating blackbody over all wavelengths, which has a big fourth-power relationship with T (T^4), meaning that the amount rises dramatically with temperature, not just the square but the square of the square, and in practice doesn't really start taking off before 2,000 K.

Their swindle is to hide in the S-B Law of total power over all wavelengths, pretending that any power at any wavelength raises the S-B curve and hence the overall Earth temperature (T^4), when they don’t explain how the material can absorb radiation at all wavelengths and whether the Planck curve overwhelms them and just chews them up and spits them out. Worse, you can’t reverse-engineer the S-B Law to derive an object’s temperature from the total power except if you know how much is absorbed in an equilibrium situation, and the Earth is never in equilibrium anyway, it just gets basted like a rotisserie turkey and heats and cools at the same time, so trying to derive an “average Earth temperature” from the S-L Law is based on chicanery, and I needn’t mention emissivity.

I'm not making this up. Here’s the CO2 global warming hoaxers at NASA Goddard pushing their big swindle:

“When the flow of incoming solar energy is balanced by an equal flow of heat to space, Earth is in radiative equilibrium, and global temperature is relatively stable. Anything that increases or decreases the amount of incoming or outgoing energy disturbs Earth’s radiative equilibrium; global temperatures must rise or fall in response”. - Climate and Earth's Energy Budget

Duh, they switch from “incoming solar energy” to “flow of heat to space”, and neglect to mention the goodly amount of solar energy that’s transformed into work to create wind and storms, which can keep global temperature from needing to “rise or fall in response”.

Back to lapse rate. The opposite of the lapse rate happens when cold air rolls down a mountain, warming up along the way, what they call a foehn wind, specifically a katabatic wind like the Santa Ana wind. This is the only true Earth surface warming, but it only happens rarely in certain locales and is weather not climate.

Foehn Wind

Santa Ana Winds

There actually is a real greenhouse warming effect, with ground fog at night, which blocks convection and radiation from the surface and slows cooling. But it never raises the surface temperature, and when the Sun rises the fog dissipates, and it’s rare, so it’s weather not climate, plus it has nothing to do with so-called greenhouse gases, unless you call water vapor a greenhouse gas, which is fraught with problems because it's more buoyant than dry air and the net result is cloud formation and precipitation in the frigid air zone, cooling the Earth’s surface way more than the Sun warmed it. Fog

Cloud

The hoaxer scientists knew all this, so to please their IPCC masters they invented their imaginary physical process of “CO2 back radiation” with Byzantine mathematical equations that scientific novices can’t challenge, claiming that CO2 reemits IR back down to the surface like a dragon in the sky, often compounding the lie by claiming that CO2 emissions are reabsorbed by more CO2 then reemitted again, for a multiplier effect. That this is a hoax is easily seen from the very lab experiment that showed a tube of CO2 heating up when IR was shined on it, not carefully limited to 15 microns (which could be a big block of dry ice :) but probably emitting all wavelengths up to 400+C. If even pure CO2 could send the IR back via pure radiation, then the tube would never heat up, rather, a nearby tube of water or dirt would heat up while the tube remained cool. To see how low the hoaxers will go to er, snow non-scientists, they love to show a model wearing a space age thermal blanket, remarking how thin it is and how it keeps them warm by reflecting 90% of their body heat back to the skin, claiming it proves the CO2 greenhouse warming lie. Too bad, the CO2 layer goes miles high, into the stratosphere, and a lot of it is in the frigid zone caused by the lapse rate, so why don’t they show the model holding the blanket on a long pole while freezing to death? And what happened to the back radiation that can supposedly make up the distance gap? Either way, a blanket can only keep body heat from escaping, and never reach a temperature higher than your body did.

Space blanket

How dumb do the hoaxers think people are? Try this laffer from the stuffed-shirt U.N. puppet called the Am. Chemical Society:

"A different analogy is the atmosphere acting like a blanket. Think of yourself under a blanket in a cold room. You represent the Earth, a warm body giving off energy, what we usually call 'heat'. The blanket represents the atmospheric layer of greenhouse gases. As the heat energy leaves your body it is absorbed by the innermost fibers of the blanket. As they give off some of that energy, they warm the next layer of fibers and so on and on until some energy leaves the outermost cold fiber layer and is lost to the room. Just as the sun continually warms the Earth, you continually produce energy through respiration. You will finally reach a balance where the energy leaving the blanket is equal to the energy you produce and your skin will remain at a constant temperature, just like the surface of the Earth.

"Among the Earth’s blanket of greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide is the one you probably hear about most often, because it is increasing in the atmosphere as we burn a great deal of coal, oil, and gas for energy. Besides carbon dioxide, greenhouse gases include water vapor, methane (natural gas), nitrous oxide (from fertilizer use), and chlorine- and fluorine-containing gases used in air conditioning units and as solvents. Adding more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere increases the amount of absorption and release of heat energy required for the energy from the surface to reach the top of the atmosphere and go off into space.

"In our blanket analogy, this is like putting on another blanket, so there are more layers of blanket fibers for the energy to pass through to reach the top. The old energy balance is upset and after a time a new one takes its place with you feeling warmer than before. This is what is occurring for the Earth as well. The increased amounts of greenhouse gases our activities are adding to the atmosphere have upset the balance that was in place since the end of the last ice age and the Earth is getting warmer than it was before we started burning large amounts of fossil fuels." - A Greenhouse Effect Analogy - Am. Chemical Society

I’m not just making this up for a straw man argument. Here’s the #1 pro-CO2 AGW Web site, claiming to be run by working climate scientists: Empirical Evidence for CO2 Enhanced Greenhouse Effect - skepticalscience.com

Here’s a direct quote:

“The greenhouse effect works like this: Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation. The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 'capture' some of this heat, then re-emit it in all directions - including back to the Earth's surface.”

“Through this process, CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep the Earth’s surface 33°Celsius (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2, and temperatures have gone up. There should be some evidence that links CO2 to the temperature rise.”

They then display a “Spectrum of greenhouse radiation”, showing a bump at 15 microns for CO2, brrrr give me an igloo.

Partial cop-outs about CO2 only slowing the surface cooling don’t address the -80C problem, which causes any radiation from CO2 reaching the surface to just bounce off like so many other wavelengths not in the infrared heating range. It’s funny to see the hoaxers talking about radiation pinging from one CO2 molecule to another, when we all know that CO2 is a gas and there isn’t any on Earth’s surface.

That claim that CO2 adds 33C to Earth’s surface temperature is yet another sick hoax, based on cunningly miscalculating the ability of the Sun to heat the Earth and claiming that it can’t keep it above 0C by itself, making CO2 warming seem proved without any more ado:

How much does the Sun contribute to global warming?

Let’s cut to the chase. Cut and and paste this widely to spread my message along with a link to this url if possible:

MY SHORTEST DISPROOF OF THE CO2 GREENHOUSE WARMING THEORY

A photon of radiation of wavelength l has an energy in Joules of hc/l, where c is the speed of light 299792458 meters per second and h is Planck’s constant 6.62607015×10-34 J·s. Doubling the wavelength halves the energy.

Photon energy

Speed of light

Planck contest

All material objects continuously emit Planck (blackbody) radiation, with a power-wavelength curve dependent on the object’s temperature. The curve peaks then decreases exponentially with wavelength, making the object act like a bunch of radiation generators, each with a different wavelength and power, but always with the wavelength with the maximum power determined by the temperature, and dominating the total radiation. In essence, this max power wavelength determines what it can and cannot heat, with the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibiting it from heating (raising the temperature curve of) a hotter object, because its max power wavelength would have to be shorter in order to move it to the left and start emitting on a hotter temperature curve. You can’t fool Mother Nature, no matter how powerful your political organization is, because no matter how much agitprop it churns out, it can’t change physics.

Blackbody Radiation

That’s the end of the story as far as physics is concerned, but the IPCC CO2 hoaxers claim that atmospheric CO2 emits x watts per square meter over the Earth’s surface, pretending it is causing global warming regardless of its wavelength.

Can it?

CO2 absorbs radiation at 15 microns, which has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C = 193K = -112F, which can’t melt an ice cube, whose Planck radiation max wavelength by the way is 10.6 microns.

CO2’s other absorption wavelengths are 2.7 microns and 4.3 microns.

2.7 microns corresponds to a Planck radiation temperature of 797C (1070K) (1466F), and 4.3 microns corresponds to one of 401C (675K) (755F), neither of which the Earth’s surface is capable of reaching outside of volcanoes.

So the x watts per square meter the hoaxers claim for CO2 back radiation is composed of what?

Infinite Zonk! How jaded the CO2 hoaxers must be to believe that they can push a blatant hoax like this on the non-scientist public.

Check my work with this blackbody calculator.

Ever heard the IPCC dupes claim that a drop of strychnine can kill a human in seconds, so 0.04% atmospheric CO2 can kill the Earth's climate? Zonk! Atmospheric CO2 isn’t a poison that sabotages the delicate human nervous system, it’s a gas that’s supposed to change Earth’s climate through sheer wattage on a global scale. At 0.04% the question is, What wattage? THREE WHOLE WATTS PER SQUARE METER.

Radiative forcing.

Man is this scary, NOT. The basic irradiation from the Sun is about 1000 watts per square meter. But this radiation is at a Planck radiation temperature of 10,000F (5800K), whereas the Earth’s surface only radiates at an average Planck radiation temperature of 57F (14C).

World of Change: Global Temperatures

Sun

Planck's law

Weather Report: A CO2 front is moving in from the Arctic raining down -80C radiation on the Great Plains and threatening a heat wave, fires, drought, and buckets of sweat running in the gutters! :)

Still believe the IPCC agitprop that -80C cold photons can heat a hotter object? Take a big block of dry ice and suspend it 1 inch over an ice cube. This should be a good source of -80C photons. Guess what? The ice cube isn't going to melt.

Now rest the block of dry ice on top of the ice cube, for direct conduction. Guess what? The ice cube still won't melt, but will probably get colder. So if direct conduction can't melt the ice cube, how can -80C photons? Compare this with the IPCC's sanctimonious predictions of 3C of global warming after each doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The truth is that the concentration could increase 10 times and the global warming will be zilcho.

Want another quick laugh? IPCC octopus main org. NASA Goddard, whose Web site is full of climate alarmist agitprop pushing the CO2 greenhouse warming hoax also has a video talking about solar storms, admitting that CO2 along with NO absorb and reemit vast quantities of radiation from the Sun during them in the thermosphere, which starts 50 miles up.

Thermosphere

Now get this:

“The thermosphere is typically about 200° C (360° F) hotter in the daytime than at night, and roughly 500° C (900° F) hotter when the Sun is very active than at other times. Temperatures in the upper thermosphere can range from about 500° C (932° F) to 2,000° C (3,632° F) or higher.”

Yes, CO2 works great in that temperature range, but not at the temperatures of Earth’s surface. The video even has a shot of the fireworks in the thermosphere from a ground angle, showing it covered in snow while being rained with -80C radiation from atmospheric CO2. When will NASA Goddard give it all up and admit to the public that they’re tired of pushing a scientific hoax and disband?

Thermosphere - overview (UCAR Center for Science Education)

In contrast, water vapor has all kinds of absorption bands from the visible wavelengths right up to 15 microns, which is why clouds keep nights warmer, but never do clouds warm the surface more than the Sun did during the day, and after blocking sunlight they eventually drop precipitation, more than making up for the Sun’s warming by massive cooling.. Either way, atmospheric CO2 is ruled out by physics from causing global warming, period, end of story.

Electromagnetic absorption by water

Really, it’s the end of story, but diehard IPCC dupes out there might still want to bring up microwave ovens. They pop popcorn using wavelengths way longer than 15 microns, usually 100,00 microns (10 cm), with a Planck radiation temperature near absolute zero Kelvin (0.02898K), don't they?

Microwave oven

Sorry, microwave ovens are yet another disproof of the hoaxers’ CO2 AGW theory, because their cold long wavelength radiation can’t heat even a piece of toast without some technical tricks. First, they pump a large amount of microwave power into the food using a klystron. But that doesn’t cook it. It only causes the dipole water molecules to align to the field, and even then only those in the outer 1.5 inches. To make it cook they have to alternate the polarity of the field so as to make the water molecules spin, heating the food by good old fashioned friction. It’s called dielectric heating. Without the tricks, microwave radiation can't melt an ice cube. Okay, to have some fun try microwaving an ice cube and try to figure out what happened.

Dielectric heating

So how does -80C atmospheric CO2 generate a high power that also oscillates? It can’t. So if the CO2 hoaxers were leading you to believe that microwave ovens proved the heating power of long wavelength cold radiation, ask for your money back and tell them to quit (masturbation joke here).

Speaking of -80C, how about 48.9C, which is 120F? That's the temperature of hot water heating units in big institutional residential complexes, because they know that 120F heat can't ignite anything and start a fire, allowing them to lower their fire insurance payments. A typical lit cigarette is 1600F, and you can throw one into the heater grating and it won't start a fire, but probably go out. So even building engineers know about ignition temperature, which with -80C is a big laugh. They use 120F hot water heat so that the heaters can't start a fire, and Nature uses -80C CO2 heat so that it can't cause global warming, er, it evolved that way which is why we're here.

I'm waiting for the king of Sweden to send me my telegram and announce that they're taking a bunch of other Nobels back, yawn. Even if you are lucky enough to read this in the face of massive attempts at Internet censorship, there are skyscrapers full of professional climate agitprop artists churning out scare lit. based on the CO2 global warming haox, because they actually don't care about the climate, they just want to manufacture useful idiots who help them dismantle the fossil fuel industry to impoverish themselves and soften them up for their dream of a global Marxist utopia where nobody is a capitalist or wealthy anymore, and everybody is poor and groaning in a Marxist police state slave standing in long bread lines while the top 1% Marxist elite live like Russian royalty. Now that the cat is out of the bag about their -80C hoax, what are they going to do? Don't wait for them to proclaim that they're been lying for decades and offer to give all the money back, along with their degrees, awards, govt. contracts, etc. Like in the days after Copernicus, Galileo, and their revolutionary heliocentric theory, it took a new generation of scientists to displace the old ones who clung to the geocentric theory for life and never gave their bling back.

Guess what will happen if you pull this argument on an IPCC minion whose income would be threatened by it? Supercilious cluck-clucking about how superior they are and how they feel sorry for you. Here's one rejoinder: Ask them to cite the peer-reviewed journal article that directly addresses the -80C problem and explains it away. Zonk! They won't, because they know they're part of a conspiracy to push a hoax on the public, and you've got them by the short hairs. Watch them squirm around and admit that CO2 back radiation has a problem but that there are other sources of back radiation. Ask them if they're abandoning the claim that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration will raise global temperatures by so many degress C :)

I hope by now you know that the CO2 greenhouse warming theory is pure moose hockey, and are mad that the globalist Marxists at the U.N. and their politician-run IPCC octopus of kept govt.-funded scientists, academics, journalists, and politicians keep perpetuating it only because it’s their ticket to trillions if they can put it over on the general public. It’s really a great con for them since they never have to produce any real results of cooling the climate, and don’t have to refund the money, plus there are many signs that the climate is going to cool on its own because of sunspot cycles. And if they get t heir way, capitalism will be destroyed and a Marxist utopia built on the ashes. Once they gain power they’ll never let go of it without unthinkable violence as history has shown time and again.

To make themselves seem like victims, they like to portray Big Oil as spreading disinformation keeping their truth from being accepted. I guess that Al Gore, Greta Thunberg and other spokespersons are secretly on Big Oil’s payroll, I'm sure not, although I'll take a big buck love offering anytime as long as there's no strings attached and it lets me move permanently to Hawaii to enjoy the GREAT WEATHER.

In reality Big Oil is the victim, because all it does is provide a useful product and service to hordes of eager customers to give them comfortable lifestyles, and the IPCC just wants to shut it down to foist global Marxism by spreading the real disinformation, because Marxists believe that the end justifies the means, not Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand that’s the er, powerhouse of capitalism.

Actually, the leftist environmentalist scam pushed by the IPCC is worse than classic Marxism, which wanted workers to seize the means of production, because these dudes want to seize the means of production of information to destroy the means of production so they can burn the capitalist world down and erect a Marxist utopia on the ashes.

All along, atmospheric CO2 is pure good, a clean green odorless gas that’s the basis of all plant and animal life, and more atmospheric CO2 would be good not bad. Meanwhile the IPCC octopus has been engaged in a mighty effort of suppression of the truth, closing academic journals and mainstream media to so-called climate change deniers, while villifying them with superficial ad hominem moose hockey suitable only for shallow thinkers, making the few independent scientific voices out there speaking truth to power hard to find.

Companion Article: "Why Are Greenhouse Theories Dead Wrong?", by TLW

2nd Companion Article: Why are discussions of thermal infrared radiation confusing?, by TLW

3rd Companion Article: Where is the Evidence that Seems to Persuade People that Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere is Not Causing Global Heating?", by TLW

Worthwhile articles on the CO2 AGW hoax and the IPCC conspiracy

DR TIM BALL MUST READ : Environmentalism – Evidence Suggests It Was Always And Only About Achieving World Government

Why is climate change politicized? by TLW

TACKLING The Climate ‘Crisis’ Means The End Of Capitalism As We Know It

Climate Hoax: Politicians, Communism and The Deep State.

THE Climate Control Knob

TLW's answer to: Doesn't more CO2 in the atmosphere mean plants will grow better?

Science's Untold Scandal: Professional Societies' Sell Out on Climate Change | PSI Intl

Vilifying People Who Question Global Warming Is Anti-Science | PSI Intl

Scientists Find 'Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice' | PSI Intl

The Problem With Man-Made Global Warming | PSI Intl

Carbon Dioxide Levels Known Accurately Only Since 1930 | PSI Intl

TWILIGHT OF ABUNDANCE - THE CASE FOR GLOBAL COOLING (MYTH20C - EP135) - Myth of the 20th Century

Another Experiment Proving CO2 is Innocent of Climate Change

Bill Nye the Science Boob

Here’s a ridiculous video from Bill Nye the Science Guy, who once wanted climate change skeptics jailed. He shows a heat lamp (100F+) being shined on bottles of CO2 and air, then shows the thermometer rising faster with the CO2 bottle, when it can’t absorb any wavelengths but -80C. Never mind that some people discovered it’s the same thermometer and trick photography :)

Bill Nye, ‘The Jail-The-Skeptics Guy!’: Nye entertains idea of jailing climate skeptics for ‘affecting my quality of life’ (Exclusive Video)

Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment

The Real Greenhouse Effect Sans CO2

Once you acknowledge that CO2’s -80C cold heat can’t cause global warming, you can finally accept that CO2 is just another part of the atmosphere that cools the Earth’s surface daily after the Sun warms it, and nothing more, i.e., the Earth’s atmosphere is not a greenhouse but a giant chimney.

Addendum: CO2 Global Warming Hoaxer Mainline Lit.

Here's what unfounded armchair truth seekers like us are up against.

Here's an actual quote from the NASA Goddard site attempt to teach children what the greenhouse effect is. If you started out thinking that I'm a physics ignoramus and NASA is a respectable authority despite holding its hand out for gigabucks and working hand-in-hand with the global Marxist U.N., read this for yourself:

"As you might expect from the name, the greenhouse effect works … like a greenhouse! A greenhouse is a building with glass walls and a glass roof. Greenhouses are used to grow plants, such as tomatoes and tropical flowers.

"A greenhouse stays warm inside, even during the winter. In the daytime, sunlight shines into the greenhouse and warms the plants and air inside. At nighttime, it's colder outside, but the greenhouse stays pretty warm inside. That's because the glass walls of the greenhouse trap the Sun's heat. "The greenhouse effect works much the same way on Earth. Gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, trap heat just like the glass roof of a greenhouse. These heat-trapping gases are called greenhouse gases.

"During the day, the Sun shines through the atmosphere. Earth's surface warms up in the sunlight. At night, Earth's surface cools, releasing heat back into the air. But some of the heat is trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That's what keeps our Earth a warm and cozy 58 degrees Fahrenheit (14 degrees Celsius), on average." - NASA Goddard: What Is the Greenhouse Effect

Here's a quote from leftist-dominated Wikipedia attempting to explain the greenhouse effect, with user editing blocked because they know they're pushing fake physics:

"The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet's atmosphere warms the planet's surface to a temperature above what it would be without this atmosphere.

"Radiatively active gases (i.e., greenhouse gases) in a planet's atmosphere radiate energy in all directions. Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, warming it. The intensity of the downward radiation – that is, the strength of the greenhouse effect – will depend on the atmosphere's temperature and on the amount of greenhouse gases that the atmosphere contains.

"Earth's natural greenhouse effect is critical to supporting life, and initially was a precursor to life moving out of the ocean onto land. Human activities, however, mainly the burning of fossil fuels and clearcutting of forests, have accelerated the greenhouse effect and caused global warming.

"The planet Venus experienced runaway greenhouse effect, resulting in an atmosphere which is 96% carbon dioxide, with surface atmospheric pressure roughly the same as found 900 m (3,000 ft) underwater on Earth. Venus may have had water oceans, but they would have boiled off as the mean surface temperature rose to the current 735 K (462 °C; 863 °F). "The term 'greenhouse effect' continues to see use in scientific circles and the media despite being a slight misnomer, as an atmosphere reduces radiative heat loss while a greenhouse blocks convective heat loss. The result, however, is an increase in temperature in both cases." - Wikipedia: Greenhouse effect

If you can stomach it, here's a quote from the Web site of the Am. Physical Society pushing the CO2-driven global warming hoax. This is what happens when a small group of hardcore leftists take over a professional org. and pub. crap not approved by the members. At least they try to hedge their bets by lumping methane and water vapor into the definition of greenhouse gases, while insisting on giving CO2 a prominent place in order to push the global Communist agenda of destroying the fossil fuel industry that underpins their real enemy, capitalism:

"Weather and climate are driven by the absorption of solar radiation and the subsequent re-distribution of that energy through radiative, advective, and hydrological processes. The Earth's surface temperature is primarily determined by the balance between the absorption and emission of radiation. A change in this radiative balance is termed a radiative forcing, which is measured in Watts per square meter.

"Naturally occurring greenhouse gases, primarily water vapor and carbon dioxide, trap thermal radiation from the Earthís surface and this effect keeps the surface warmer than it would be otherwise. Human activities are causing an enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect by substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. For example, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has already risen by about 30% from its pre-industrial level and methane concentrations are more than double their pre-industrial value. Further substantial increases in carbon dioxide concentrations are inevitable, at least in the near term, as world-wide use of fossil fuels continues to increase." - Am. Physical Society: Climate Change

On Feb. 25, 2015 Lawrence Berkeley Nat. Lab pub. an article claiming to have directly measured the CO2 greenhouse effect: First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect. Too bad, the fine print hedges on the amount, settling on such a miniscule effect that it might as well not exist: "Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor." Of course, no claim of any actual global warming from the 0.2 W/sq. m per decade, just the bald lie that it's "infrared energy".



T.L. Winslow (TLW), 1953 T.L. Winslow (TLW), 1953 Historyscoper Logo The Earth

Short bio: T.L. Winslow (TLW), born in 1953 in Denver Colo. is the reigning World's Great Genius (WGG), striding atop the world like a colossus, having spent a lifetime becoming a pansophist master of STEM and world history, but all outside the academic system and its degrees and featherbedded union shop system that's grown hopelessly dependent on government support. TLW had a half dozen master's degrees by age 23 but didn't apply for any because like Milton's Satan he would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven. Not that he wouldn't accept high-paying sinecures and love offerings as long as there's no strings attached and he doesn't have to compromise himself to bow to the global Marxist PC mind control regime. He's big, blonde, giant-brained, too large and white, and he's right, live with it. In the meantime he runs the Historyscoper Online World History School that is striving to flood the world with unlimited deep broad fact-packed expert world history knowledge for the lowest possible price, currently free until I get a big buck investor to help me create a corporation to bring it to the millions and inevitably have to start charging for some services. Visit my Historyscoper site and click the Investor page to see how you can invest your big bucks in the world's most valuable copyright and change the course of you guessed it. Black Lives Matter and Antifa are already running riot on the streets and toppling statues while academic historians are almost pure global Marxists who want to erase history and rewrite it for future Marxist slaves, and I'd like them to have to take on my giant global corporation and lose.




TLW's New Real Climate Science Course

TLW's Two Cents Worth on Climate Change

TLW's Climatescope - become a walking encyclopedia of Earth climate and climate science history including the controversy

Historyscoper Home Page







© Copyright by T.L. Winslow. All Rights Reserved.