The Most Comprehensive Assault On 'Global Warming' Ever

dailywire.com ^ | December 23, 2015 | Mike Van Biezen

[trebb]

The average global temperature for the last 10 years is approximately 0.35 degrees centigrade higher than it was during the 1980's.

Might make sense if the measuring devices were all in the same type areas - i can leave my house with the car telling me it's 70 degrees and by the time I get to the main highway, less than 1/2 mile north, it is likely to tell me it's 73 degrees.

They started moving the measurement devices a long time ago to help boost their lies - I'm surprised they only claim 0.35 degrees......that's about 0.63 degrees F and it would be easy to make it over a degree with "proper" placement....

[gusopol3]

thanks

[Blueboar]

More people need to read Clancy’s book, “DARK WINTER”! Here are the real facts on Global warming & why it is ONLY a political stunt! The globe is actually in a solar cooling mode & will continue for the next 2o to 30 years. Very scary!

[Tennessean4Bush]

He ends with the corruption of the data.

[VRW Conspirator]

Global warming’s strongest correlation is with the concentration of leftist activists.

Global warming is caused by illegal aliens. It's settled science.

[scripter]

Believe what thou wilt. I remember it.

Indeed. along with the Time cover you posted, I have pictures of two similar Time magazine front covers:

• The Big Freeze from Dec 3, 1973 with a pic of Archie Bunker
• The Cooling of America from Dec 24, 1979 with a pic of a family trying to stay warm by watching a fire on TV because gas prices were too high.

And today we have evidence of the IPCC purposely changing data to fit their bias.

[Texas Eagle]

Thanks for the assist. I shall add those to my next diatribe.

[Qwackertoo]

Thanks.

[CPT Clay]

What is the composition of the atmosphere?

[Bob434]

[[The atmosphere has so many CO2 molecules that every single outgoing IR photon hits a CO2 ]]

‘so many CO2 molecules’ In the atmosphere? Only 0.00136% of the atmosphere has any CO2 molecules in it due to man- it contains only 0.04% due to all sources- that means 99.96% of the atmosphere doesn’t have any- surely there are far far more IR photons than CO2 molecules-

And here’s something else to consider- the heat rises, gets trapped by CO2 and as you say ‘almost instantly releases it to surrounding molecules’ (I’m assuming you mean atmospheric molecules) And I say “Yeah? So what? Heat is doing what it does- rising into atmosphere- the only thing now is that it BARELY gets delayed by seconds because a very small portion of it gets trapped briefly by CO2 then released almost instantly- The fact is the heat is going skyward whether there is CO2 or not-

There is NO thick blanket of CO2 holding heat indefinitely causing an electric blanket like effect on the earth

You have never explained how just 0.00136% of our atmosphere is aBLE to capture and back radiate enough heat to cause global climate change- How is it possible?

You analogy about the stadium is wrong- there aren’t trillions of seats of CO2 in the stadium one 0.00136% of the stadium would have a CO2 seat in it- the rest of the seats would not be CO2 seats- so your analogy actually illustrates the silliness of the idea that mans’ CO2 could be causing climate change- you throw trillions of baseballs into the stadium, and only a few of htem will wind up in the one CO2 seat- The rest will not because there are simply not enough CO2 seats to capture enough baseballs to cause any kind of change within the stadium (assuming for he sake of argument that those baseballs that get caught in CO2 seat are heated up slightly) The vastness of the stadium will be unaffected by those few baseballs that are slightly warmer (not the best analogy, but it shows the futility of trying to exclaim that man is causing climate change- or that CO2 for that matter is-)

[[Because of the CO2, the entire atmosphere is warmer.]]

Sorry, but this is nonsense- The heat was rising anyways- (and incoming from the sun) what insignificant amount of CO2 there is does absolutely nothing to change how warm the atmosphere is, and it certainly has nothing to do with how warm surface temps are back on earth There is no way 0.00136% of the atmosphere can even capture enough heat to cause 99.96% of the atmosphere to ‘heat up’ beyond what it normally does naturally

[Bob434]

[[Add to that teh fact water vapor, NOT CO2, is responsible for the the majority of the thermal trapping in eatth’s atmosphere;]]

And even that there is so little water vapor compared to total volume of the atmosphere that it can’t trap much heat at all

the bottom line is that there isn’t enough of anything in our atmosphere to interfere with natural heat process- and there certainly is not enough CO2 naturally occurring to cause any kind of change, and there most definitely is not enough man produced CO2 to cause any change at all

The ‘man-caused climate change’ scam artists want us to believe there is some think blanket of clouds and another thick blanket of CO2 In the atmosphere preventing heat from radiating out away from earth- there isn’t- there are only isolated localized cloud covers at any given point in time, meaning heat to the sides of these cloud covers does what it always does- nothing impeding it- the majority of heat not being captured or impeded in any way- There simply isn’t enough cloud or CO2 cover to affect a global climate- Where one local area In the world is warmer because of cloud cover, another is cooled by a lack of cloud cover and a lack of CO2 cover- Everything balances just like it has for 1000’s or years-

[Bob434]

[[What good is truth in America today? Won’t the Paris treaty, CAFE standards, climate change taught in public schools, mindless EPA regulations like on wood stoves... - still be rammed down our throats?]]

Yes they will- truth is now whatever the liars and scam artists say it is-

[Personal Responsibility]

Because they can’t gain power over you, or more of your money, because the sun got hotter

[American in Israel]

Just read a study last week that showed that co2 actually causes global cooling. Now what?!

[wastedyears]

There’s trace amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is all about gaining more control.

[TChad]

Believe what thou wilt. I remember it.

That Time cover is fake, and the left uses it to discredit AGW skeptics.

The global cooling scare/scam of that era was definitely real.

It would have been reasonable for Time to have used that cover, but they did not.

[palmer]

and it certainly has nothing to do with how warm surface temps are back on earth There is no way 0.00136% of the atmosphere can even capture enough heat to cause 99.96% of the atmosphere to ‘heat up’ beyond what it normally does naturally

First part is true, there is no way to say how much the added warmth in the atmosphere affects the earth because of weather complexities. But for the second part, the warming of the bulk atmosphere is true. The reason is that the CO2 molecules bump into the O2 and N2 molecules roughly 10^10 times per second and transfer a portion of any extra energy that they contain.

About 0.1 nanoseconds after the interception of and IR photon the CO2 molecule bumps into an O2 or N2 molecule and transfers some of that extra energy to the O2 or N2. The O2 or N2 is warmer due to the CO2. All IR photons are intercepted in roughly 100 feet of atmosphere by one of the 10^41 CO2 molecules (there are 10^44 total molecules).

The alternative to the CO2 transferring some of the extra energy to the bulk atmosphere is that it reradiates it towards earth or into space. But that is a slow probabilistic process.

Here's a post at WUWT that disagrees with what I say above: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/ but the commenters add lots of corrections. The main one is that the IR flux invalidates the LTE claim. It would be true that the temperature of the atmosphere is independent of the amount of CO2 if there were no IR flux passing through it.

[Bob434]

palmer- the heat is rising fro mthe surface of the earth- most of it does not even contact CO2- there ismpyl isn’t enough CO2 and Way too much heat molecules for what little CO2 is there to absorb it all- and even if it did absorb 100% what difference does it make? None- it releases it immediately and the molecules are no warmer than when they were absorbed

[[The O2 or N2 is warmer due to the CO2.]]

It can’t be- CO2 isn’t a furnace heating up the escaping heat molecules from earth- it can only transfer what it captures- Heat escaping from earth and meeting NO CO2 will transfer it’s heat naturally to surrounding molecules just the same as it would when absorbed then released by the CO2- there is no increase in heat

IF I turn on a room heater, it spits out warmer air, which heats the cooler air it collides with- IF the room were to contain 0.00136% CO2 in it, that warmer air coming from the ceramic heater isn’t going to get even warmer once it has left the heater and entered into the air space of the room even if it encounter’s CO2 molecules- Unless you are suggesting that CO2 acts as a furnace?

IF there were a thick blanket of CO2 preventing heat from going past the CO2, that stretched over the entire planet, then you could claim CO2 was beign prevented from

[[All IR photons are intercepted in roughly 100 feet of atmosphere by one of the 10^41 CO2 molecules (there are 10^44 total molecules).]]

There are 6 quadrillion tons of atmosphere- only a few billion tons of CO2- there is no way 0.04% of the atmosphere translates to an atmosphere saturated with CO2 particles- you are claiming that nearly all of the atmosphere is saturated with CO2- the figures are not adding up- only 0.04% of the atmosphere has CO2- (man responsible for just 0.00136% of the CO2 in atmosphere)How are you coming up with a totally different %? I have never seen a claim that nearly all the atmosphere has CO2 molecules in it-

[Bob434]

[[About 0.1 nanoseconds after the interception of and IR photon the CO2 molecule bumps into an O2 or N2 molecule and transfers some of that extra energy to the O2 or N2.]]

The energy from the escaping heat from earth gets transferred to molecules in the atmosphere whether it bumps into CO2 or not-

I don’t know what you don’t agree with with that article on WUWT- I’ts speaking to many of the issues I’ve brought up (only in more succinct manner)

LTE speaks to localized Thermodynamic equilibrium which MUST be the case with CO2 since CO2 takes up only .04% of the atmosphere- only the immediate surrounding O2 molecules are affected by any absorbed and released photons- and these will quickly reach equilibrium because they are MASSIVELY outnumbered by the cooler molecules In the atmosphere- There simply isn’t enough CO2 to capture enough outgoing and incoming heat to cause any kind of change in atmospheric temperature except for very minor and brief localized changes which almost immediately reach equilibrium

The idea that the temp doesn’t reach equilibrium because of flux doesn’t jive- especially when dealing with such small amounts of heat transfer in localized areas- to simply say there isn’t equilibrium because the temperature is constantly changing I think ignores the obvious equilibrium is whatever the current temp is from outside sources-

To explain- and I’m venturing into unknown waters here) The localized atmosphere areas temp is constantly changing from cooler to warmer depending on the heat source location- this temp is independent of the CO2 captured/released energy- then we add in small amount of CO2 to capture and release further upward and downward heat into the mass of the local volume of atmosphere- The majority of the atmosphere is heated or cooled independent of the captured released heat (simply because there is just not enough CO2 to capture and release enough heat to move the overall temp in any direction- the bulk of temp change comes independent of CO2, and therefore sets the standard for equilibrium at that present time- the small amount of heat transferred by CO2 gets absorbed into the surrounding mass volume of molecules and gets effectively cancelled out

Let’s assume that at 1:00 pm the atmosphere is say, for the sake of illustration only, 100 degrees. This local area of atmosphere has just 0.04% CO2 in it- It captures upward IR photons, releases them, the energy results in heat of say, for the sake of illustration, 102 degrees- This 0.04% molecules of warmer heat collides with the mass of 99.96% of the area’s 100 degree molecules- instantly the 0.04% warmer molecules get cooled down to the 100 degrees of the surrounding molecules (actually it would be even less because the heat radiated out from the CO2 goes either upward, downward, or to the sides- so only a fraction o that 0.04% warmer molecules would hand around to be absorbed by the local area molecules-

Unless I’m missing a point here about IR flux? I’m assuming it means an influx of more heat from energy source whicxh causes the net temp to increase or decrease- and the thought is that since it is near constant change, that there can’t be an LTE? The argument beign that it’s really LDE?

In my mind it doesn’t matter whether a local area is I n equilibrium for 1 day, one hour, 1 second or 1 nano second- at some point, no matter how brief, there is LTE- and we can quibble about LTE or LDE all day, but the fact remains at some point there is an LTE ,and the major point is that the small amount of IR transferred energy from the 0.04% CO2 in that particular area, isn’t a large enough amount to affect the then present LTE- it all comes back to quantity- no matter howe many theories or variables we throw into the mix, it comes back to quantity- there simply is not enough CO2 in any given area to affect the equlibrium

[Bob434]

I’ll have to read more of that WUWT article ande comments tomorrow- too tired tonight-