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 ...
EXACTLY CORRECT.
As someone noted above, the absorption spectra of other things in our atmosphere overlap some of CO2's. I ignored this so as to avoid getting too far into the weeds. My brief analysis was based on an assumption that only CO2 was in play. Add the other things, and CO2 becomes less of factor even within its own absorption spectra.
Dangit. I meant 0.04% not 4%...
Too much money and power to be gained from “climate change” to allow scientific data to stop the grift.
"Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids
In fact, it's cold as hell
And there's no one there to raise them if you did"
Even at only 4% of our atmosphere, CO2 .
It's actually 0.04% (400 parts per million).
Yes.
The whole theory is ludicrous.
Very good analysis on your part. We already have too little CO2, which is a very tiny fraction of the less than 1 percent of rare gases in our atmosphere. Very tiny amount, which is necessary for plants to survive.
Studies have shown that increases of CO2 happen because of global warming, and not the other way around. Earth gets hotter primarily due to Solar activity and interaction with gravitational causes with interplanetary bodies; that leads to increases of CO2 which is beneficial to life on Earth. CO2 does not cause any global warming.
The whole CO2 is bad thing just shows how far our education system has fallen. Everything (we know of) on this planet that is a alive is a CARBON BASED LIFE FORM. No CO2 in the atmosphere means EVERYTHING DIES. More CO2 can only enhance life.
As Pres Raygun put it: “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.”
Greenhouse gas theory doesn’t say it holds the heat and then acts as a heat source, but that it reflects some of the heat down instead of up. Or from wiki: “the greenhouse effect retains heat [to the Earth] by restricting radiative transfer through the air and reducing the rate at which heat escapes to space.”
How can you explain an IF? It doesn’t work, the science says what it says.
Do you want someone to pump up the CO2 to 8,000 ppm like it has been in the past? I think it was actually closer to 13,000 ppm at times. In the depths of the ice age, it was down to 150 ppm. Plant life just about went extinct at that. It thrives at high levels of Carbon, it is toxic to life when at its lowest.
Except for once you quit slapping, it cools to room temperature. If the ball stops and transfers the energy to heat, the heat dissipates and returns to the previous.
$.53 a gallon in WA, to go into a green energy fund. To parse out funds to favorite parties, no accountability or oversight.
They phased out 2 former coal fired plants, that had been converted to NG. They are experimenting with Hydrogen. Running the so called dangerous NG, to create hydrogen, to save the planet. Duplication of power generation, to again, save the planet. Someone on this forum has written how much legacy energy expenditure is needed to create hydrogen. The input required, to replace the input never measures up.
The “science” in the article is irrelevant to the greenhouse gas discussion. I don’t care about greenhouse gases, but the article has has nothing to do with the discussion. It is like discussing carburetors on a fuel injection car.
BKMK
Your quote from Wikipedia is an over simplification of my already simplified explanation. CO2 does not reflect infrared but it does absorb it and re-radiates infrared isotropically, meaning half into higher altitudes and eventually space and the other half to lower altitudes and eventually the surface of the earth. This is a very complicated process, which I doubt any climate scientist has ever modeled remotely close to what is actually happening in the atmosphere. And as others have pointed out, CO2 plays a tiny role in the atmosphere’s thermodynamics. CO2 was chosen as the villain because it is the one atmospheric gas that humans could actually affect.
Yes. The heat dissipates, heating up the environment. Point is that the kinetic energy is not somehow destroyed by gravity. In fact, the only thing Stephen Hawking ever got right, and what made him so famous, was he accounted for the loss of entropy in a black hole; it’s converted to Hawking radiation: a proton and an antimatter proton spontaneously appear, anaihilate each other, and release a tremendous amount of enery in doing so.
[[The more or thicker blankets you have the warmer you are.]]
True- to a certain point- BUT, there is nowhere near enough CO2 to create a ‘blanket’ anywhere near thick enough to trap heat globally- CO2 takes up only a very small fraction of the atmosphere- man’s created CO2 takes up even less- 0.00136% roughly - again, nowhere near enough CO2 to blanket it-
The alarmists want us to think there is a great thick blanket preventing any heat from escaping
To put in perspective just how little CO2 there is in the vast atmosphere- someone figured out that if you have an Olympic sized pool of say 90 degree water- the CO2 equivalent would be just four 5 gallon pails of say 100 degree water dumped into the pool-
There just is nowhere near enough 5 gallon pails to change the temp of the pool-
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.