Carbon Dioxide Doesn’t Cause Global Warming
Written by Craig Brougher
There is a little-known fact that gas molecules excite with direct radiation, while atom pairs do not. This warming is called “resonance,” not because we hear them singing when buzzed by solar photons, but because physicists have no other way of describing how molecules pass on heat energy.
What the “resonance effect” means is this: The definition of a molecule is a compound which contains two or more atoms. Think of a little bag with two nickels that jingle as soon as you shake it. Atom pairs (like O2) are just like putting a single dime in your bag and doesn’t jingle so—no resonance, OK? Now we could use technical jargon for this instead and sound really smart, but what’s the point when you can explain this concept to a kindergartener? Besides, every mathematician and every physicist always begins with a very simple concept like this one anyway, so we’re starting where they should always start from. Well, that is, the REAL physicists, anyway.
“Complex” can refer to a number of related concepts assembled to reach a conclusion. You never have to get “complex” if you can clearly show that global warming due to man-made CO2 violates the basic laws and structure of nature itself, and it’s very easy to do it. Not that getting detailed is wrong, of course. But just begin with the principles. We don’t need to construct anything, nor do we need to dig out their research and debunk it, or analyze algorithms or anything else, since what they are claiming as a cause is physically impossible. You’re about to see how simple this is.
As an aside, the book “Trashing the Planet” by Dr. Dixie Lee Ray documents one of the largest sources of “greenhouse gas” on the earth’s surface to be termites, whose annual production of CO2 and methane alone is “about 50 billion tons annually. This is 10 times more than the present world production of CO2 from burning ‘fossil fuel.’” (pg 33) The bibliography credits this to Dr. Hansen. Also interesting is that termites alone outweigh mankind in sheer tonnage by 1000 times! There is hard, uncontestable, proven evidence to compare to the completely undocumented claims spoken as “fact.” If you can’t trust the veracity of a study then you can’t trust any of its claims. The first proof of honesty is transparency and ready availability of its empirical and measureable evidence to peers for evaluation.
It’s unfortunate that the people we think of as our “scientists” for global warming are not really scientists at all, but just political spokespersons who have been paid, flattered, noticed, or rewarded in some way to propound global warming nonsense as though it was physics.
So first let’s see how they’re doing this and selling it. It is imperative that we be so intimidated by their abilities we are silenced by awe. Then in case we lose a little awe, they would throw us in jail simply for doubting them. Certain religions do that, too. Unbelievers can lose their heads for disagreeing. And by the way, there’s no such thing as a ‘Climate Change Denier.’ Even I have hoped for more ‘Global Warming’ in the winter, if that’s what it takes. Now climate change I am forever in favor of. That’s why they renamed it ‘change,’ once it was discovered to be fraudulent, thanks to a Russian hacker who published their criss-crossing emails.
Furthermore, their scientific references never credit names, dates, or places of authorship. They have never yet willingly and freely provided a list of studies we can use to check accuracy and repeat the experiment. Just the opposite, actually. Their foundational studies are always hidden and in most cases, either do not even exist, or were never actual scientific studies with names attached. Even these documents are so unavailable to those wishing to review their work that it has required an office of lawyers and lawsuits based on FOIA requests, plus years of legal stonewalling and finally either a partly redacted, almost worthless document to begin with, or no way to verify their equipment, the precise locations in detail, recalibration schedules and repair. Moreover, there is the fact there were no names to connect to all the obvious miscalculations and contradiction of data, not to mention the clearly erroneous algorithms and continuous changes to same which never ended. In other words, all they have left is, “Because we said so, that’s why.”
Before we continue here, let’s add that there are always, unfortunately, a lot of good and honest people caught up in every large but dishonest endeavor. However, it should never be up to them when put upon to verify the research as government employees, even though their paycheck comes from such a government program.
All truly genuine and honest researchers are proud of their accomplishments and want their name connected to all their work. They want to be recognized too, but first that requires a “peer review.” That means, other people with similar technical backgrounds can freely study their hypothesis, duplicate their results, acknowledge publically that which they feel is correct and that which is questionable. Then finally give credit to- or discredit – the individual (or team) who first learned about these new findings.
One singular scientific fact of “molecule resonance” has been chosen by the “global warmists” to become the foundation to base their hypothesis on—that since the earth’s atmosphere has a molecular gas called CO2, and since CO2 is able to resonate with active sources of infrared radiation (IR) and thus reradiate that energy as LWR, meaning ‘long-wave radiation,’ or waste heat, it can therefore cause the earth to get hotter and hotter. Now as far as this goes it is partly correct in theory but totally wrong in practice.
If there were no other forces or effects to consider here, and earth’s atmosphere was 100% CO2, and there were no oceans, no flora, no wind, no rain, no arctic regions, temperatures never fluctuated across a surface, and if the earth was flat and faced the sun at all times like a platter, then CO2 would be the controlling factor of earth’s atmosphere, but even at that it wouldn’t make any difference in the heat our earth collected because of a principle known as “heat capacity.”
This physical principle is a constant. It is a given ratio for every element and compound there is, and when combined with another factor we call MASS, is represented as a constant we know of as “specific heat capacity.” If you were to divide the quantity of heat in calories which you added to your sample, by the product of its mass times the resultant change of temperature you would have its specific heat. In the case of CO2, it is .205 cal/g deg. C. Now frankly, this destroys the thesis that CO2 could ever cause global warming in a nutshell because Specific Heat is also known as the “heat transfer coefficient,” and determines how efficiently something is able to transfer its heat to something else. It is the inverse of thermal insulance, and yet the global warmists are claiming both properties for the same gas. Hmm.
This fact is deadly to the global warmists because it means that even if the earth’s atmosphere was 100% CO2, it could make no measureable difference in earth’s temperature at all. Think of warming up a bowl of cool water by exhaling repeatedly on it. Your water is 65 degrees and your breath is 95 degrees and you want the water to be 95 degrees. Not very practical, is it? Particularly if the water has other cooling sources which are removing heat continually—like the earth for example—outer space, or even another well-known physical principle called “evaporative cooling.” Now on the other hand, if the material you are surrounding your water in has a high heat transfer coefficient equal to or greater than the water, you’ll get to 95 degrees, but that would be something like a warm, massive heavy metal container. In very simple terms, given equal factors otherwise, the more mass there is in the transferring object, the quicker the transfer of energy. And now to make it even more ridiculous, CO2 comprises only 0.04% (yes, that really is zero-point-zero-four percent!) of the earth’s total atmosphere. This figure varies slightly by area, so industrial areas are higher.
Very simply put, heat transfer coefficient refers to how many calories CO2 could actually transfer to the earth itself by radiation or conduction as LWH, in comparison to the sun’s own IR energy and since the mass of the earth itself is so many trillions of times greater than the atmosphere surrounding it anyway, it doesn’t have a chance.
So what do the global warmists do next? Well, they quickly jump from CO2’s heat transfer properties to CO2’s insulative properties! But woops! The two properties are the inverse of the other! That means, CO2 cannot both warm and insulate at the same time. Nor are there any insulative effects anyway, even if the atmosphere were 100% CO2. Remember, “physical laws come first.” But to make it more hilarious yet is the fact that LWR heat, or conductive waste heat back from earth to the CO2 does not “resonate” CO2. Only the energy from active radiant sources like the sun’s IR can do it (Double Woops)! That means CO2 would have zero insulative properties, of and by itself! Sorry, that’s just another inviolable law of nature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer_coefficient
Since no one is claiming a flat earth however, (just insinuating it) and now must either admit to many other interactive forces as well or sound pretty stupid, then let the global warmists stop ignoring far more important factors controlling climate earth, like the sun and solar storms, etc. Perhaps they should begin to consider the gigantic variable forces, all of which obey physical laws of nature in determining earth’s weather to date, and the likely percentage of their influence regarding earth temperature. It might be smart not to prefer one small effect over a dozen interacting natural controls.
For instance, a physical property known as gas dissolution, also described as Henry’s law, explains how CO2 behaves both above and within the oceans. The global warmists are so angry about this one I’ve been told that some of them won’t even speak to anyone named Henry anymore—but I could be wrong.
Basically, raising the temperature of water in which CO2 is dissolved increases the vapor pressure of the dissolved water which then escapes. The oceans contain an estimated 60 or more times as much CO2 as does the atmosphere but do not necessarily get their CO2 from the air itself. That would be an insignificant CO2 source. The oceans get most of their CO2 from thermal vents, underwater volcanoes, and marine life. There are many thousands of times more active volcanoes in the world’s oceans than on its surface. The present estimate is over 1 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_volcano That could make the CO2 situation just a little cooler for the “warmists” unless of course they have been sternly commanded to ignore all facts to the contrary and listen only to their glorious leader or else. That said however, CO2 has to have, overall, a slight cooling effect since even a more active solar radiation easily makes for hotter years during solar flare cycles. That in turn heats the oceans, releases lots more CO2, but if CO2 release warmed the earth even a little bit, its release would add to the heat, forcing more CO2 to be released, and so forth. There is not a single ecological system that could ever work that way!
Because the oceans clearly have their own sources of CO2 and certainly don’t require our own atmosphere to supply it (CO2 is a necessary fertilizer for all vegetation), that means the oceans are also our own main source of CO2 as well—definitely not man. The “New Scientist” even admits “this happens faster than we thought.” So what was it they all thought? They just assumed the oceans got all their CO2 from our own atmosphere, which of course is totally wrong to begin with: Just the reverse. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20413-warmer-oceans-release-co2-faster-than-thought/
I really don’t know what’s happening to our so-called “science” today, except that it must have a crop of the worst teachers who ever lived to make such hard and fast assumptions and classify it all as, ”Well, everybody knows that.” Maybe they must either agree with the globalists or lose their certificate and go to jail? Only the Shadow Knows.
Another similar website called oilprice.com claims the singular source of ocean CO2 comes from decaying phytoplankton. When the plankton dies, it decays and creates CO2. This then causes CO2 from the air to be redeposited in the oceans, and that’s that. Case closed. http://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Global-Warming/New-Research-On-The-Oceans-And-Carbon-Dioxide-Release.html Except the percentage of plankton, compared to all other forms of marine life and vegetation on earth is so miniscule it wouldn’t even register on a scale of “CO2 from Plankton versus CO2 from one submarine volcano,” much less a million volcanoes! Are we really this stupid?? Also when marine vegetation dies (which is so vastly greater in volume than just plankton), it too decays and generates methane, CO2, and many other hydrocarbons. I suppose though that doesn’t count, since they’ve already decided, it’s just the plankton.
As a matter of fact, ocean hydrocarbon is actually the source of the world’s so-called “fossil fuels,” once the truth is allowed to be known. There is vastly more vegetation in the oceans than on the land. https://anticorruptionsociety.com/anatomy-of-a-con-job/con-2-oil-is-not-a-fossil-fuel-it-is-renewable/ and http://www.wnd.com/2008/02/45838/ and https://principia-scientific.org/russians-nasa-discredit-fossil-fuel-theory-demise-of-junk-co2-science/
“Recent estimates have calculated that 26 percent of all the carbon released as CO2 from fossil fuel burning, cement manufacture, and land-use changes, over the decade 2002–2011, was absorbed by the oceans. (About 28 percent went to plants and roughly 46 percent to the atmosphere.) During this time, the average annual total release was 9.3 billion tons of carbon per year, thus on average 2.5 billion tons went into the ocean annually.” https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/07/03/how-much-co2-can-the-oceans-take-up/
That said, “carbon” is not simply CO2 but just tricky semantics which they hope you fall for. Real science is specific, while con-jobs and their dodgy thesis still labors under the false assumption that all this CO2 came from man and man’s activities – but just to hedge the bet, we’ll refer to it all now as “carbon.” And let’s not forget our faithful cattle! These gentle creatures are now represented by farts for the ages.
Another source is “Scientific American” in which an article proclaimed, “Ocean Circulation May Have Released CO2 at End of Ice Ages!” Oh gee-whiz! Do ya really think so? That was long before our aforesaid Henry was even born, so how could that be? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ocean-circulation-may-have-released-co2-at-end-of-ice-ages/
And then one of the coup d’ĕtat warnings of all time come from “Climate Change News” which warns that as the oceans warm up, more and more CO2 will be released from the oceans and we will all be incinerated. http://www.climatechangenews.com/2012/01/24/warming-oceans-face-co2-tipping-point/ .
That brings us to a very important point, doesn’t it? The end of the first ice age had to have been caused by the most extreme temperature escalation that has ever existed in order for earth to have disposed of billions and trillions of tons of worldwide ice so quickly (relatively speaking). That means, Dissolved CO2 trapped in ocean water and in ice itself was by necessity and natural law being released at a record rate from what had been earth’s mean temperatures, “causing even more warming, which caused more CO2 release, which caused more warming, etc.” In other words, the earth would have, hundreds of millions of years ago cascaded catastrophically to its own destruction! No man required, if you were so stupid as to actually believe these claims that CO2 causes global warming. If it did, you would never need mankind to begin that process.
Now for a second, just think how utterly ridiculous and self-contradictory and ultimately impossible this is! If the oceans are the great reservoirs of CO2 (and they are) then as they warm up, just 1 mm depth at a time, they release millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, which in turn (according to this ridiculous, self-contradictory theory) would cause more and more CO2 release correspondingly as the deadly CO2 cycle cascades catastrophically to destroy the earth and all living things (“runaway greenhouse effect!”). Such a silly claim disgraces the term science.
The demise of the ice age didn’t require a single man to begin the process of his own self-destruction, but now we also have the ice ages to prove it, too. Here was CO2’s perfect opportunity to show us what it could do! Why didn’t the earth self-destruct at the end of its first ice age? It’s great proof the theory is false. Instead, the earth returned to its normal, verdant self. Why? It’s called natural, symbiotic balance, which requires many interacting, balancing factors to achieve. Factors billions of times more powerful than their panic-grab, “molecular resonance to solar IR.”
Remember what Al Gore warned everybody about? If in fact “deadly” CO2 was only dependent upon an initial warming trigger and from there was able to take off on its own to suffocate all living things and incinerate the earth, then clearly all of this should have already happened millions of years ago! Since it didn’t do any such thing, it’s going to take someone to say, “Obviously then, we are wrong. OH WAIT! It wasn’t the CO2 after all. It was the methane! Doggone, we just misspoke. Silly us!” So get ready now for round two.
Now granted, there is far more evidence stacked up against them than simply the laws of nature. They have many times contradicted themselves in their own charts, graphs, and tables, and were all their temperature sensors in published locations specifically checked out, regularly calibrated, and actually photographed, unlike the few I’ve seen, one mounted over a warm air grate or in a doorway to an arctic building instead of an empty snowy field, truthful data might possibly have shut this sham operation down a decade ago. Even satellite data contradicts their own and has many times proven their declarations of shrinking glacial ice to be simply bogus. Polar bears will be thrilled to know (said population up from 5,000 in the 1970’s to over 25,000 today!).
We have also read and seen proven in their own charts how a supposed rise in CO2 invariably FOLLOWS global warming rather than preceding it, without exception. Their claim is that “CO2 CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING” and yet their own chart proves that CO2 merely RESPONDS TO GLOBAL WARMING. And whatdoyaknow, it’s still called “Henry’s law,” even after all this.
And yet, in all their literature, it’s apparently against the law to even dare mention the word, “sun.” Much less to note that all warmth we have comes from it! Now folks, that is willingly true ignorance of science, not science. It is the total abrogation of true science and its complete rejection of its methodology.
So one has to ask, just who are these great minds, anyway? Political Scientists and Social Anthropologists? Maybe it’s really no wonder why there are no names attached to their epochal, science-changing, law-defying discoveries of all time, after all. No man will ever be able to understand nature if he is unwilling to acknowledge its own laws.