Posted on 10/13/2023 8:08:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The climate-change scheme and net-zero carbon policy are based upon a false notion that carbon dioxide and other gases cause global warming. They do not. We don’t have to guess about this. We have empirical and scientific proof.
I owned a Weights and Measures gas-physics test-and-repair facility and conducted tests. We learned gas physics from engineers at factories that manufacture gas-physics instruments. They must understand gas physics, or their instruments won’t work.
How academia got this wrong
In 1988, James Hansen flip-flopped from “global cooling” to “global warming” being dangerous.
Al Gore fed the fear with $22 billion in annual funding for universities and professors to study the matter. Hansen’s claim is a falsehood. People move to warmer climes for their health. Consider all the species, in the plant and animal kingdoms, that thrive near the equator, whereas none survives at the poles.
Yet, out of desperation for the money, professors cornered themselves into attempts to prove a falsehood to be true. To do that, one must lie. Each lie created new falsehoods until they have made gas physics look like a child’s messy bedroom strewn with theories.
Nearly everything we have heard about global warming for the past thirty-five years has been from the professorial world, which has been untested theory. How often have their declarations and predictions come true?
Because their world is theoretical, they use peer review for approval. But there is no such thing as peer review in the private sector; either something works or it does not, and everything is tested. Engineers who design gas-physics instruments must be correct, or their instruments fail, buildings might burn, and they certainly would be fired.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
And here lies the problem. When the left changed the narrative from pollution to global whatever, they backed themselves into a corner. Now they cannot get out and are trying to change the narrative again. Wash, rinse and repeat since the mediacrats will not call them out.
Yes, the author appears to have left out that key piece of information. My understanding of CO2 warming theories are that CO2 absorbs longer wavelength IR radiating from the earth and re-radiates half of that power back to the earth. I wonder if the author is trying to point out that the extremely low thermal mass of the trace amounts of atmospheric CO2 mean that all of the energy absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 is radiated away at night and thus the average temperature of the CO2 is constant over a 24 hour period and thus cannot provide a heat affect over an extended period of time.
Been saying this for many years-
The Facts show CO2 rising only AFTER temperatures rise- 100’s of years after temps rise- CO2 is not driving warming- but the other way around
but, the left don’t care about facts- they invent whatever “New Truth” they want, and gaslight the world until they buy into it hook line and sinker
oh, and the left claim that we are “At a Tipping Point” with atmospheric CO2 and life will fail to thrive if we go over that point- CO2 is around 430 parts per million, which is an extremely low amount compared to the atmosphere- in the past, CO2 was over 1000 parts per million, and life thrived which is why we have the billions of species today=- if 430 is ‘close to a tipping point- then ALL life woudl have ceased when CO2 was over 1000 ppm
His article is all well and good, but it may be condensed considerably by saying that the solubility of carbon dioxide is inversely proportional to temperature. Every second year Chemical Engineer is taught that in their Physical Chemistry classes.
Also, the term used to describe the deviation of a gas from the ideal gas law is the “fugacity coefficient”. That concept is covered in thermodynamics courses. The values are found in Chemical Handbooks such as “Perry’s Handbook of Chemical Engineering”.
bookmark
Shhhhhh, that doesn’t fit the narrative!!!
CO2 being a lagging indicator of ‘warming’ (meaning a consequence of and not a cause of) has been known for quite a while, people.
I’m still waiting for the California proof used motor oil and other controlled substances cause cancer. Just like this, they don’t have any. They just “decided” it did whether it does or not.
Read later.
National Bureau of Economic Research
https://www.nber.org
“A metaphor might help here. Your car engine that heats to near a thousand degrees cools to cold steel by morning. It does not matter whether there are 200 or 400 cars in your neighborhood. Nor does it matter whether the engine is large or small. Without a heat source, they all cool quickly and at about the same rate.”
Without a heat source?
Check out the billions of people, millions of cars, heavy industry, etc,. etc as a constant and growing heat source.
Dont forget about the sun either. If the earth’s heat captured in the day escapes the atmosphere at night at a slower pace due to the greenhouse gas of cloud cover verses a clear night, then greenhouse gases will increase the warming of the earth with an ever increasing heat source.
It is not rocket science.
Two comments. First, not sure what Boyle’s law has to do with AGW? He never connects the two. And I’m not sure he disproves Boyle’s Law. It may be different for different gasses, but from what I know of internal combustion engines, shrinking the volume of gas in a closed container does increase pressure and temperature. That’s the whole premise of the diesel engine.
Second, I’m not sure that is the argument the climate nuts make in terms of CO2. I think their argument is that CO2 acts as a blanket trapping heat radiating back from the earth. Don’t think they are saying that CO2 absorbs and holds heat as much as it doesn’t allow heat to escape. Like putting on another blanket on a cold night. The more or thicker blankets you have the warmer you are.
And for the record I think AGW is total BS, but let’s not contort ourselves to try and disprove it.
Good Post. I hate it when those opposed to the Green House warming theory use bad science. There are multiple ways to disprove CO2 induced global warming. This article was not one.
Ping
Actually, it is the opposite, as the earth warms in a post-glacial period, CO2 increases because the oceans cannot absorb as much CO2 when they are warming as opposed to when they are cooling
Yup. The amount of solar energy in the CO2 absorbance bands of the solar spectrum and re radiated IR spectrum are a finite and fixed quantity determined primarily by the Suns solar energy output and the surface temperature at which the Sun radiates solar energy. .
At around 400 ppm concentration and above , the CO2 molecules in the Earth's atmosphere filter out and convert all of the finite quantity of available solar and radiated energy in the CO2 absorbance bands and convert it to thermal energy.
It's kind of analogous to increasing the SPF of sun screen. At a certain SPF level, the sun screen blocks out 100% of all the UV radiation available to create a sunburn so going to a higher SPF concentration of UV blocker or slathering on more sun screen on has no additional effect because you can't get more than 100% total protection.
We are already pretty much there so increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration have vastly diminishing contributions to the Earths energy balance and it's contribution to warming.
CO2 absorbs electromagnetic radiation in a number of wave lengths across the visible and IR spectrum and converts that energy to kinetic energy via a number of molecular vibration modes. The kinetic energy is then dissipated and transferred to the atmosphere generating an increase in heat.
Many of these CO2 absorption wave lengths overlap with the absorbance bands of water vapor and water vapor totally dominates the energy absorbance over CO2 in that segment of the spectrum.
A very interesting article. I wonder, if his conclusions are correct, how we can account for the high surface temperature on Venus, since it seems to be too high to be just a result of its proximity to the Sun. Something is holding excess heat in.
He contends that, since these and other gases cool rapidly after the earth rotates its surface from the rays of the sun,
as do trees, rocks, water, buildings, etc., they do not retain heat to radiate further the following day; and, no
more than the aforementioned structures of the planet, regardless of the amount of gas percentage present.
Furthermore, the "greenhouse gas theory" postulates that gases like CO2 retain the sun's heat disproportionately
radiate over a long enough time span as to build "heat sinks" that build up more and more heat to radiate over a
period of days.
this article doesn’t seem to address the actual idea of how it WOULD work..
His point is that there is no way to prove, by scientific measure, that this theory would, could, or should work.
The theory does not even hold up. Anyone with a basic — and I mean very basic — understanding of physics, in particular absorption spectra, knows this.
For those curious:
CO2 only absorbs infrared light aka heat in two very narrow bands of wavelengths (think “colors” of heat). In those narrow bands, CO2 is almost completely opaque.
Even at only 4% of our atmosphere, CO2 absorbs almost all infrared light in those bands within a few tens of meters. Hence, if you increased CO2 by even 10 times, the total amount of infrared light (again, heat) absorbed by the atmosphere would NOT CHANGE.
Outside of those narrow bands, CO2 is almost completely transparent. So again, if you increased CO2 by even 10 times, the amount of infrared light (again, heat) would NOT CHANGE.
Now the climate “scientists” try to handwave and “computer model” their way around these basic physics facts. After all, computer models are always right (/sarc). But that’s how the REAL physics works.
Short version: manmade aka CO2 cause climate change is not just a hoax, it is not even a very good hoax for those who know the physics. Unfortunately the level of basic physics education in this nation is basically nil with the exception of real engineers, physicists, and scientists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.