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 Historyscoperô
© Copyright by T.L. Winslow. All Rights Reserved.
Original Pub. Date: Dec. 17, 2019. Last Update: Apr. 6, 2020.
Ever hear of the Big Lie Theory? The CO2 greenhouse warming theory is a gigantic scientific 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 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. If it werenít for the golden ticket they were grabbing for, the CO2 greenhouse warming theory would have been discarded into the dustbin of history long ago.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
How does the hoax fool so many people? Itís always the same con game pushed on a scientifically-illiterate public, namely, that a glass tube of CO2 in the lab thatís illuminated by infrared gets hotter. This ignores the blatant fact that CO2 in the atmosphere isnít enclosed in glass, and when it warms it begins rising toward space along with the non-CO2 molecules itís mixed with via convection, taking the heat with it while the surrounding molecules absorb and spread it. In other words, CO2 helps cool the Earthís surface by removing the heat deposited daily by the Sun. Thatís 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. Heating doesnít mean just sending radiation to it, but making its temperature rise, a gigantic difference that the CO2 hoaxers donít want you to understand.
Second law of thermodynamics
Do the lab tests ever limit the infrared to the range that the Earthís surface actually generates, or does it include temperatures way higher, such as are only found in volcanoes? Even more important, 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 Earthís surface, so why is it glossed over? An object doesnít absorb all wavelengths, and only those in the infrared region cause heating. For example, if you suspend an ice cube over a hot skillet, it will radiate ďcold radiationĒ into the skillet but wonít 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 radiation curve shifts to shorter wavelengths (e.g., a skillet going from 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 donít tell you that itís at a way longer wavelength and canít raise its temperature, but only join the longer wavelength lower power part of the surfaceís Planck radiation curve, which is what a cool surface radiates, meaning, who cares what measly infrared radiation a cool surface radiates after the hot surface has depleted itself, your teeth are starting to chatter?
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 yellow to white. The color corresponds to the peak power wavelength, and completely characterizes it. No stream of cold photons can ever raise the temperature of a hotter body, because the later is already radiating those cold photons, and a given molecule can't be absorbing and emitting photons at the same wavelength at the same time, can it? No matter how big the stream of cold photons, they won't be absorbed and raise the hotter body's temperature, but instead just bounce off harmlessly. 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. Sorry, but two times zero is ZERO.
Wien's Displacement Law 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.
Actually, CO2ís Planck (blackbody) radiation wavelength is 15 microns, which corresponds to a Planck radiation peak power temperature of -80C (193K), which couldnít melt an ice cube, although ironicallly it's about the same temperature as frozen CO2 (dry ice) (-78.5C) (-109.3F), and could easily make one. If a stream of -80C photons could heat an ice cube, it would turn physics upside-down, because it should instead cool it to -80C. Yet there are skyscrapers full of professional climate agitprop artists churning out scare lit. because they actually don't care about the climate, they just want to manufacture useful idiots who 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 and everybody is a Marxist police state slave standing in long bread lines while the 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?
How does dry ice work?Check my work with this blackbody calculator.
But didnít I just say that infrared heated the CO2? Let's say yes for argument's sake. Or let's switch to another gas, say, methane. 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 thereís a thermodynamic phenomenon called lapse rate that automatically causes all gases to transform their heat 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, thereís 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 donít even mention convection in their global warming calculations, and act like it doesnít exist. What a ridiculous hoax. Somebody should demand their gigabucks back.
Convective heat transfer
Entropy of mixing
TL Winslow's answer to What is the scientific reason behind 'normal lapse rate' that is the decrease in temperature with increase in altitude?
Actually, only 5% of Earthís surface infrared radiation is absorbed by atmospheric CO2: How much does CO2 absorb?. Meanwhile all the rest of the surface infrared radiation from 12.4 microns (-40C) to 8.94 microns (+51C) is conducted, convected, and radiated safely to space, with CO2 having nothing to do with it, so even if CO2's Planck radiation temperature were 40C, we wouldn't feel it.
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.
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 itís rare, so itís 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 the net result is cloud formation and precipitation in the frigid air zone, cooling the Earthís surface way more than the Sun warmed it. Fog
The hoaxer scientists knew all this, so to please their IPCC masters they invented an imaginary physical process of ďCO2 back radiationĒ with Byzantine mathematical equations that scientific novices canít 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. If it 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, and a lot of it is in the frigid zone caused by the lapse rate, so why donít 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?
How dumb do the hoaxers think people are?
A Greenhouse Effect Analogy - American Chemical Society
Iím not just making this up for a straw man argument. Hereís the #1 pro-CO2 AGW Web site, claiming to be run by working climate scientists: Empirical Evidence for CO2 Enhanced Greenhouse Effect - skepticalscience.com
Hereís a direct quote:
ďThe 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.Ē
ďThrough this process, CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep the Earthís surface 33įCelsius (59.4įF) 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.Ē
They then display a ďSpectrum of greenhouse radiationĒ, showing a bump at 15 microns for CO2, brrrr give me an igloo.
Partial cop-outs about CO2 only slowing the surface cooling donít 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. Itís 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 isnít any on Earthís surface.
That claim that CO2 adds 33C to Earthís surface temperature is yet another sick hoax, based on cunningly miscalculating the ability of the Sun to heat the Earth and claiming that it canít keep it above 0C by itself, making CO2 warming seem proved without any more ado:
How much does the Sun contribute to global warming?
Letís cut to the chase:
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 Planckís constant 6.62607015◊10-34 J∑s. Doubling the wavelength halves the energy.
Speed of light
All material objects continuously emit Planck (blackbody) radiation, with a power-wavelength curve dependent on the objectís 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 canít fool Mother Nature, no matter how powerful your political organization is, because no matter how much agitprop it churns out, it canít change physics.
Thatís 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 Earthís surface, pretending it is causing global warming regardless of its wavelength.
CO2 absorbs radiation at 15 microns, which has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C = 193K = -112F, which canít melt an ice cube, whose Planck radiation max wavelength by the way is 10.6 microns.
CO2ís 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 Earthís 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 isnít a poison that sabotages the delicate human nervous system, itís a gas thatís supposed to change Earthís climate through sheer wattage on a global scale. At 0.04% the question is, What wattage? THREE WHOLE WATTS PER SQUARE METER.
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 Earthís surface only radiates at an average Planck radiation temperature of 57F (14C).
World of Change: Global Temperatures
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.
Now get this:
ďThe thermosphere is typically about 200į C (360į F) hotter in the daytime than at night, and roughly 500į C (900į F) hotter when the Sun is very active than at other times. Temperatures in the upper thermosphere can range from about 500į C (932į F) to 2,000į C (3,632į F) or higher.Ē
Yes, CO2 works great in that temperature range, but not at the temperatures of Earthís 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 theyíre 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 Sunís 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, itís the end of story. Some IPCC dupes out there might still want to bring up microwave ovens. They use a wavelength way longer than 15 microns, usually 100,00 microns (10 cm), with a Planck radiation temperature near absolute zero Kelvin (0.02898K). Donít they pop your popcorn?
Sorry, microwave ovens are yet another disproof of the hoaxersí CO2 AGW theory, because their cold long wavelength radiation canít heat even a piece of toast without some technical tricks. First, they pump a large amount of microwave power into the food. But that doesnít 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. Itís called dielectric heating.
So how does -80C atmospheric CO2 generate a high power that also oscillates? It canít. 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.
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 itís their golden ticket to trillions if they can put it over on the general public. Itís really a great con for them since they never have to produce any real results of cooling the climate, and donít 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 their way, capitalism will be destroyed and a Marxist utopia built on the ashes. Once they gain power theyíll 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 Oilís payroll.
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 Smithís Invisible Hand thatís 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 thatís 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
Companion Article: Why are discussions of thermal infrared radiation confusing?, by TLW
2nd Companion Article: Where is the Evidence that Seems to Persuade People that Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere is Not Causing Global Heating?", by TLW
DR TIM BALL MUST READ : Environmentalism Ė Evidence Suggests It Was Always And Only About Achieving World Government
TLW's answer to: Why is climate change politicized?
TACKLING The Climate ĎCrisisí Means The End Of Capitalism As We Know It
Climate Hoax: Politicians, Communism and The Deep State.
THE Climate Control KnobTLW'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
Bill Nye, ĎThe Jail-The-Skeptics Guy!í: Nye entertains idea of jailing climate skeptics for Ďaffecting my quality of lifeí (Exclusive Video)
Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment