Twenty Facts About Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Written by Dr Darko Butina

Twenty facts about CO2 that have been kept ‘top secret’ by the manmade global warming community

By Dr Darko Butina

carbon dioxide molecule

1. We know everything about physico-chemical properties of CO2 there is to know since its discovery 200 years ago, and categorical statement can be made that the physico-chemical properties of CO2 in its pure state, including IR properties, have nothing to do with its properties as part of the mixture called air.

2. We know that no gas molecule of the open system, as our atmosphere is, can possibly control temperature.

 

3. We know that there are two very different mechanisms that drive dynamics of CO2 exchange between airwater and air-biomass and therefore there is no such thing as global levels of CO2. Levels of CO2 above the water mass, covering 70% of the Earth surface is controlled by solubility of CO2 in water which is solely driven by temperature; while levels of CO2 above the biomass that covers most of the land surfaces is solely driven and controlled by photosynthesis.

 

4. We know that the only way to know exact numbers about CO2 concentrations above the water and biomass surfaces is to measure them at the surface levels, which we do not do, and therefore use of CO2 levels measured at a single point on the globe and at 4000 meters altitude (Mauna Loa Observatory, MLO, at Hawaii) represents one of the most miss-used high accuracy dataset in the history of modern science.

 

5. We know that the total emissions/reabsorption of CO2 by nature makes emissions of CO2 by burning fossil fuels totally insignificant and lost in the instrumental accuracy levels.

 

6. We know that the levels of CO2 that we live amidst in our everyday lives have nothing in common with the observed CO2 levels at MLO based at an altitude of 4000 meters above sea level.

 

7. We know that there is no difference between CO2 levels accurately measured 200 years ago and last year – they all go up and down depending when and where you measure them.

 

8. We know that there is no possible correlation between CO2 levels dissolved in water in its liquid state and CO2 levels found in ice, i.e. water in its solid state.

9. We know that it is CO2 that makes major contribution to the width of tree rings. So, no CO2 means no tree rings and no life.

 

10. We know that the human body ignores CO2 levels in air when breathing in and the only function of breathing out is to get rid of CO2 that is created in every cell of the human body by the complex bio-chemical process that maintains life.

11. We know that CO2 levels would need to reach concentration in air of 60,000 ppm (from current levels of 390 ppm) to become toxic for humans.

 

12. We know that every single molecule of CO2 is surrounded by 2500 molecules that are NOT CO2 and therefore any theoretical blanket built from CO2 fibers that supposedly is surrounding the Earth is practically made of NOTHING.

13. We know that every single molecule of CO2 is surrounded by 2500 molecules that are NOT CO2 and therefore one has to offer some explanation as to what those 2500 ‘other or NOT-CO2’ molecules are doing while 1 molecule among them is receiving and ‘back radiating’ all that heat energy.

14. We know that every molecule of CO2, irrespective of which source it comes from, can go up-and-down (in Z-axis) due to its molecular weight, its heat capacity and its solubility in water (rain or snow) and along (X-Y space) carried by wind. Therefore someone has to be able to explain: how does a molecule of CO2 generated by an SUV in Los Angeles gets transported across 2500 miles of water mass to Hawaii and then go up another 4000 meters, while avoiding all the biomass available within few miles of land surface in California and all the water mass along its journey to the CO2 detector at MLO, Hawaii?

 

15. We know for certain that at 200 ppm of CO2 plants stops growing and that the optimum levels for plants grow is between 1300 and 1500 ppm, and yet the advice to all governments around the globe is to commit mass suicide of all species by reducing CO2 concentrations to 200 ppm levels.

 

16. We know that there is no difference whether we grow or dig fuel in terms of CO2 emissions, we know that CO2 emissions from burning fuel are irrelevant to the CO2 dynamics of emissions/absorption and yet we use our precious food-growing surfaces to grow fuel and thus create famine and kill life.

 

17. We know that there is no such a thing as self-heating greenhouse and yet new theories have been invented to argue something that cannot be argued.

18. We know that there is nothing in common in IR spectra between CO2, methane and water and yet they have been classified together as ‘greenhouse gases’ because they absorb infrared radiation, together with millions of other molecules.

 

19. We know that CO2 in the atmosphere could not be detected by a standard IR-spectrometer and yet that property of CO2 has been used to argue for the existence of a greenhouse effect.

 

20. We know that all the knowledge about the physical world comes from experiments that can be validated and not from calculations that cannot be validated. And yet, everything about man-made global warming is about calculations and NOTHING about measurements.

 

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments (16)

  • Avatar

    Carbomontanus

    |

    Rusty of the West:

    No, I have no problem with this language.

    The problem is that you hardly grasp your own words and what it may be about. That very characteristic problem is due to your arbitrary mother and her stupid tounge, who hardly understood what she was talking about either, and forbade you to grasp and to understand your own talking and writing as well.

    You are quite obviously being severely cheated by your own and silly political and religious formulas and syntax all the time.

  • Avatar

    Rusty of the West

    |

    Carbomontanus, it appears you have trouble with this language or you are one of the blind fools who try to discredit anyone that disagrees with the agenda you peddle. No different to those that insisted the earth was flat or still try to convince that it was made in 6 days. I have one question that you may be able to answer though. If the plan to have carbon dioxide levels severely reduced is successful sometime in the future, where have you decided to live? Do you know of a habitable planet close by that you are going to because this one won’t be, at least not for us anyway. If only the consequences of foolish decisions and behaviour could be delivered only to those that made them!

  • Avatar

    Carbomontanus

    |

    After having red through 1…20, I must say that: If for nothing better, Tne Psi Principa scientific international is the best place to recommend for digging, if the task is to find and to show typical statements and exaples of para- science and of false statements about Nature and Science.

    • Avatar

      ewiljan

      |

      [quote name=”Carbomontanus”]After having red through 1…20, I must say that: If for nothing better, Tne Psi Principa scientific international is the best place to recommend for digging, if the task is to find and to show typical statements and exaples of para- science and of false statements about Nature and Science.[/quote]

      PSI is getting better in some ways, but still does not lead the way to the defeat of the Carbon Clown liars!

      • Avatar

        Carbomontanus

        |

        Who are the Carbon Clown liars?

        • Avatar

          ewiljan

          |

          [quote name=”Carbomontanus”]Who are the Carbon Clown liars?[/quote]

          In order:
          Al Gore,
          James E Hansen, et al.
          Michael Mann et all
          Any that claim to be a Climate Scientist.
          Any that claim to be a Climatologists.
          Any that clain “back radiation” exists.
          Any that claim a flat parallel plane model of the Earth and its atmosphere can ever give a correct clue to how the weather system in this planet does actually work.
          Any that consider that the difficult geometry of a spherical, tilted, spinning, object; that is precessing about the Sun in an eliptical orbit,can be ignored, because it is to complicated.
          All inherit the title of Climate Clown.
          Lying is a charististic of Academic Arrogance.

          • Avatar

            Carbomontanus

            |

            Your arbitrary mother and her stupid thounge has quite obviously cheated you quite a lot.
            Here in Norway, we are not confused and linguistically stupid enough to immagine and to discuss “back- radiation”. We talk of “Gjenskinn” and of “diffus spredning og refleksjon”.

            Denial of the fact that bright daylight comes every day at sunrise even if it is a cloudy day, is such a consequense of your arbitrary mother and her stupid thounge. If her thounge is stupid enough, you will not even believe you own eyes and take elementary notice of what you see in any understood way.

            In Germany they talk of Atmosphärischer Gegenschein.

            Lack of quiye elementary and basic conscepts of light and of optics in relation to molecular matter, is typical of arbitrary mothers and their stupid thounges, who deny and who protect their children against playing with candles in the snow at night.

            Gjen- skinn, re- flex.

            I think some of you are severely and basically protected against and deprived of being able rather to read the elementary and basic signals of Nature.

            And it definitely has got to do with political religion on rather private and protected level for the last 2-3 generations. And rather similar or equal to industrialized dilettantism and dialectic materialism.

            Not being able to understand and to discuss light and radiation in relation to a material sphere is definitely silly.

          • Avatar

            John in France

            |

            “Thounge” – that’s a wordI’ve never come across, please define.

          • Avatar

            Carbomontanus

            |

            “Tounge” for language is severely traditional, and does come directly from latin. Sorry I wrote an “h” there because of some severe english lisperings.

          • Avatar

            Carbomontanus

            |

            But quite in particular, lacking the very conscept of “gjen-skinn” =diffuse reflection, and that it can and will quite necessarily, partly light up and / or heat up, and denying quite fanatically that reality for dogmatic relligious, fanatic, politic and commersial reasons,……

            ……. is quite solidly and severely stupid and deprived. It is rather very betraying of ones own mental & ideological situation, along with a series of further quite betraying things.

          • Avatar

            ewiljan

            |

            I do not claim to understand your response, we seem to speak an entirely different language.
            I will try! You requested me to identify “the Carbon Clown liars”. This article we are commenting upon is about carbon dioxide (CO2).
            In my response to your question, the first three and their (et,al), are the most well known promoters of the the concept that “CO2 is evil and must be eliminated”. They claim this to promote the business plan of Al Gore’s natural gas producers. That plan is to attack the only bi-product of the use of coal as a fuel for electrical power generation. If sucessful this effort will eliminate coal producers as a competitor to natural gas.
            The next two are groups of academics that claim those titles, who further promote and repeat the lies of the first three. “Back radiation” is a mistaken concept promoted by these folk that claims there exists “spontanious infra-red thermal radiation that is produced by the cold atmosphere that transfers heat energy to the higher temperature Earth surface.” This radiation is produced both day and night and not to be confused with your “Gjenskinn” and of “diffus spredning og refleksjon”. Which in English, I think is, defuse reflection by the sky and clouds of the energy from the Sun. also not to be confused with “Atmosphärischer Gegenschein”, which again is atmospheric reflection, mostly of Solar radiation. “Back radiation” is not reflection but a diferent concept that is in direct conflict with “The Second Law of Thermodynamics.
            The last two identifiedare also groups of folk that refuse to consider doing the work that is required to help determine the real processes that go into the Earth control of its weather. These are the folk that would prefer to make up silly stories constructed to confuse you and make you fearful. Please ask others to identify such folk by name, they are well known here.

          • Avatar

            ewiljan

            |

            [b]Your arbitrary mother and her stupid thounge has quite obviously cheated you quite a lot.
            Here in Norway, we are not confused and linguistically stupid enough to immagine and to discuss “back- radiation”. We talk of “Gjenskinn” and of “diffus spredning og refleksjon”[/b]
            Is that (translated) “your mother tongue (language) prevents me from understanding what you say”?
            Please try to understand that what the Carbon Clowns mean by “back radiation”, has nothing to do, at all, with “Gjenskinn” and of “diffus spredning og refleksjon”. Thank you, -will-

          • Avatar

            ewiljan

            |

            back to the end of 1600 and change all of Sir Isaac Newton’s labels to wit:

            Label Old label
            New** Integral of old Energy over time.
            Energy old Momentum
            Power old Mass
            dP/dt derivative of old Mass wrt time Joules per second per second ???
            Rate of change.of power exchanged, Weird,
            But is the Voltage across an inductor that is changing current. Hummmm!!!
            I have no idea of what New** might be!!

          • Avatar

            Carbomontanus

            |

            The mis- conscept is obviously on your side, postulating verbally that reflection from a mirror or from any substance that is able to shine further when thrown light or heat radiation on is “spontanous” and against physical laws. That is Joseph Postmas big bluff and elementary fraud.

            And further mis- consceived when you simply unable to accept and to grasp that this shining is able to add to the heat and temperature in the source where the light or the heat comes from.

            You are probably severely deprived and unable to immagine or to make simple experimental situations that may convince you of this.

            I could do it quite elementary with a lamp and a white sheet of paper and a dark wall behind the lamp.

            We further have the dark iron plate to shield us and the enviroment for the hot stove. That cooler shielding plate actually heats up the hot stove to a higher temperature a bit.

            Try not to instruct us that this is neither “back-radiation” nor gjen- skinn.

            What you further have to grasp is that things may be “coloured” i. e not shining or reflecting or absorbing on a continuous spectrum.

            Denying this, or fighting it, deprives you of very common and wide and necessary and elementary understanding of light and of Nature, and of heat radiation and possible isolation.

            Blame it on Joseph Postma and instruct him to grasp a few very basic and elementary things better first, so that he can rather write and tell the truth.

    • Avatar

      solvingtornadoes

      |

      [quote name=”Carbomontanus”]After having red through 1…20, I must say that: If for nothing better, Tne Psi Principa scientific international is the best place to recommend for digging, if the task is to find and to show typical statements and examples of para- science and of false statements about Nature and Science.[/quote]

      Jim McGinn (Solving Tornadoes)
      To me it seems strange you would make such a dramatic statement as this and then not follow it up with at least one specific argument.

      • Avatar

        Carbomontanus

        |

        [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”][quote name=”Carbomontanus”]After having red through 1…20, I must say that: If for nothing better, Tne Psi Principa scientific international is the best place to recommend for digging, if the task is to find and to show typical statements and examples of para- science and of false statements about Nature and Science.[/quote]

        Jim McGinn (Solving Tornadoes)
        To me it seems strange you would make such a dramatic statement as this and then not follow it up with at least one specific argument.[/quote]

        Do you instruct your readers that I did not follow up with any single argument?

Comments are closed