Where is the evidence that seems to persuade people that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not causing global heating?
By T.L. Winslow (TLW), the Historyscoper™
© Copyright by T.L. Winslow. All Rights Reserved.
Original Pub. Date: Apr. 2, 2020. Last Update: May 9, 2020.
Where is the evidence that seems to persuade people that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not causing global heating?
Ever hear of Hitler’s 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 weren’t for the golden ticket they were grabbing for, the CO2 greenhouse warming theory would have been discarded into the dustbin of history long ago.
Big Lie Theory - Wikipedia
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia
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 CO2 in the lab that’s illuminated by infrared gets hotter. This ignores the blatant fact that CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t enclosed in glass, and when it warms it 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.
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. Heating doesn’t mean just sending radiation to it, but making its temperature rise, a gigantic difference that the CO2 hoaxers don’t want you to understand.
Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia
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? This is key to proving the experiment has anything to do with the real Earth’s surface, so why is it glossed over?
An object doesn’t 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 “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 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 don’t tell you that it’s at a way longer wavelength and can’t raise its temperature, but only join the longer wavelength lower power part of the surface’s 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?
Planck's law - Wikipedia
Black-body radiation - Wikipedia
But didn’t I just say that infrared heated the CO2? Let’s say yes for argument’s sake.. But thanks to the entropy of mixing. the 0.04% (1 in 2500) of CO2 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 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. What a ridiculous hoax. Somebody should demand their gigabucks back.
Convective heat transfer - Wikipedia
Entropy of mixing - Wikipedia
Lapse rate - Wikipedia
Atmospheric circulation - Wikipedia
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 Earth’s surface infrared radiation is absorbed by atmospheric CO2: How much does CO2 absorb?
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 winds. This is the only true Earth surface warming, but it only happens rarely in certain locales and is weather not climate.
Foehn wind - Wikipedia
Santa Ana winds - Wikipedia
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 without CO2 having any role. 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 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 - Wikipedia
Cloud - Wikipedia
The hoaxer scientists knew all this, so to please their IPCC masters they invented an 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. 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 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?
How dumb do the hoaxers think people are?
A Greenhouse Effect Analogy - American Chemical Society
Space blanket - Wikipedia
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
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.
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?, by T.L. Winslow
Here’s a Quora article from an apologist for the CO2 AGW hoax, who doesn’t claim to be a scientist but is a “volunteer conservation chair” and isn’t shy about rattling off the talking points used by IPCC cage hen CO2 hoaxer scientists against independent climate realist scientists, trying to delegitimize another Quora article by a research scientist, not failing to mention that he works for a lab that takes money from Big Oil:
Ned Ford's answer to answer to CO2 is causing climate change. Can someone point me to the study that demonstrates how it is a greenhouse gas?
Paul Noel's answer to CO2 is causing climate change. Can someone point me to the study that demonstrates how it is a greenhouse gas?
He starts out:
"The greenhouse effect was discovered in 1857 or 1858 by John Tyndall who spent several years projecting heat (infrared radiation) through various gases which were transparent to visible light, to see if he could prove his theory that there were gases which were transparent, but which blocked infrared. He was apparently getting close to giving up when he tried the gas piped into his laboratory, which was mostly methane. Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, and once the principle was demonstrated a number of other gases were identified."
Duh, blocking infrared doesn’t mean reemiting it, else where does he try to see if a nearby tube of water or soil heats up when a tube of methane is irradiated with infrared? If all it did was heat up, it’s happening way up in the sky. not down on the ground where we live, no different than heat from a chimney, which rises towards space carrying its heat with it, and can never send energy back down to cook the meal twice.
Talking about some straw man Quora climate skeptics, he continues:
"... because they assume you won’t know that it was proven more than a century ago that CO2 was high enough in the atmosphere that at the surface of the Earth it is effectively saturated, so that adding more CO2 won’t increase the infrared blocking. It wasn’t until the 1930’s and 40’s that early computers were used to prove that adding CO2 at the surface would increase concentrations of CO2 in the upper troposphere, which would cause warming at the surface."
That’s right, he claims that the solar heat radiated by the surface is slowed by being blocked by CO2 high in the troposphere instead of low in the stratosphere. How does that work? Planck radiation from the surface is a local process, and doesn’t take orders from the sky. Once the radiation is emitted, it goes on its way, spreading out via the inverse square law, and there’s no infrared mirror in the sky to reflect it, but even if there were, the inverse square law would only reflect a weak image not the full power originally emitted.
He then says:
"More sunlight reaching the Earth would have three simple obvious hallmarks: It would make the daytime temperatures warm more than the nighttime temperatures. It would make the summers warm more than the winters. And it would make the Equator warm more than the poles. Only the greenhouse effect would cause more warming at night, at the poles and during the winter. This is because the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with how much energy reaches the Earth. It alters how fast energy leaves the Earth. And there you have it. Because the hallmark of the greenhouse effect is crystal clear."
Duh, if CO2 causes warming at the surface, it would have to not just absorb CO2 but reradiate it back to the surface, not just slow it down leaving the surface, as if convection doesn’t go to work in parallel, becoming more powerful as the temperature difference between air and ground increases. So much for his “hallmark of the greenhouse effect” being “crystal clear”.
You can waste years trying to peel the onion off the CO2 greenhouse warming hoax, but let me save your time. Just one pesky fact shoots it down.
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 - Wikipedia
Speed of light - Wikipedia
Planck constant - Wikipedia
All compressed (non-gaseous) 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.
Black-body radiation - Wikipedia
A simple formula to calculate the peak power wavelength for each Planck temperature is called Wien's displacement law: l = 2897.8/T microns.
Wien's displacement law
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.
CO2 absorbs and emits 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/emission 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 claimed for CO2 back radiation is composed of what? Infinite Zonk! Sorry, but low temperature photons can't raise the temperature of a hotter object.
Check my work with this Wien's displacement law calculator.
The Big Lie About CO2
Want a 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 - Wikipedia
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
IIn 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.
Water absorption spectrum
Really, it’s 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. Don’t they pop your popcorn?
Microwave oven - Wikipedia
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. 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.
Dielectric heating - Wikipedia
The Physics of Microwave Ovens
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).
Are you still trying to save the IPCC CO2 global warming hoax? Here's one last hope: CO2 lasers.
Carbon dioxide laser - Wikipedia
By expending a lot of energy with elaborate equipment a population inversion can be created in CO2 that lases from higher levels at 10.6 and 9.4 microns, and can be amplified in a cavity to create a narrow collimated beam of high power. This has nothing to do with natural uncollimated Planck radiation absorption/emission at 15 microns.
10.6 microns corresponds to 0C (32F). 9.4 microns corresponds to 35C (95F). A CO2 laser aimed at water will penetrate only 20 microns, but since it’s collimated or focused and at high power it can not exactly raise the temperature of individual atoms but break individual chemical bonds via energy transfer and thus vaporize the outer layer of water or tissue, making it good for removing warts, but not for making coffee. In other words, it dumps energy into outer molecules until they vaporize away, but leaves the rest of the material at the same temperature, so there's no way a giant CO2 laser in the sky can cause even local surface heating although it might evaporate a lake first.
The Role of the CO2 Laser and Fractional CO2 Laser in Dermatology
Incision of Tissue by Carbon Dioxide Laser
One more observation. When 15 micron radiation hits the Earth’s surface, it either bounces off or is absorbed, but as the surface is usually way hotter than -80C it can’t raise its temperature. Instead its miniscule energy will either be immediately reemitted or absorbed by surrounding molecules via conduction to maximize entropy, but do diddly to raise the temperature. If it can’t raise the temperature it can’t raise the temperature. The surface is constantly emitting 15 micron wavelength radiation caused by solar radiation, and that swamps out anything from atmospheric CO2, so it will just cycle the additional 15 micron wavelength energy through the pump and stay at the same temperature. No matter what happens to it, 15 microns isn’t even in the normal weather range, it’s dry ice temperature, and for the IPCC hoaxers to want to take over the world to stop CO2 emissions is a sick hoax designed to fool suckers.
I hope by now you know that the CO2 greenhouse warming theory is pure moose hockey, and are mad that the environmentalist leftists and globalist Marxists at the U.N. and their politician-run IPCC octopus of kept govt.-funded scientists, academics, journalists, and politicians keep perpetuating it and hijacking science only because it’s their golden 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 their 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.
Climatology: Why is climate change politicized?, by T.L. Winslow
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.
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 destroy the means of production so they can burn the capitalist world 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 loose thinkers, making the few lone voices out there speaking truth to power hard to find.
DR TIM BALL MUST READ : Environmentalism – Evidence Suggests It Was Always And Only About Achieving World Government
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
TL Winslow'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
**TWILIGHT OF ABUNDANCE - THE CASE FOR GLOBAL COOLING (MYTH20C - EP135)** - Myth of the 20th Century
Another Experiment Proving CO2 is Innocent of Climate Change | PSI Intl
Here’s a typical hoaxer explanation of the CO2 greenhouse warming theory, to show how real climate science is being strangled in the cradle by the IPCC octopus: