Cold Scientific Fact: Earth is Cooling Down

Written by Anthony Bright-Paul

Every object in the Universe that is radiating infra red is cooling down. Ergo the mighty Sun is cooling down as every molecule that is radiating infra red is also cooling down. The Earth also, this Planet on which we live, is radiating infrared, not so powerful as the infrared from the Sun, but powerful enough. Ergo the Earth ĺikewise is cooling down.

Who are the leaders, the first to declare that the Earth is exuding infrared?  Why, none other than those Warmists, who repeat ad nauseam that we are heating up. Their logic exists not.

Not only do they declare that there is man-made Global Warming, they also declare the cause. The cause for this Anthropogenic Global Warming is, according to them,  none other than the human Emissions of Carbon Dioxide that reside in the atmosphere.  According to them this minutely increased amount of Carbon Dioxide is also affecting the Climate systems,  bringing about the much vaunted man-made Climate Change.
Although the Warmists declare that this CO2 has now increased recently from 0.0325 of the atmosphere to 0.04%, they confirm this massive increase in terms of tonnage, creating a misleading impression in the process.
So let us examine their argument in a logical manner.
From this we can agree that the total weight of the atmosphere is approximately 5.3 million gigatonnes. By comparison the total weight of all the Carbon Dioxide is a mere 0.003 million gigatonnes. Compare those two figures and observe the green dot representing the total atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.
Next we pass on to the human contribution, which is agreed by both sides to be around 4% of the whole. So we arrive at a derisory figure of 0.000012 million gigatonnes of CO2 that is supposed to be warming the Planet and producing Climate Change.
That position is breathtakingly illogical. Since by itself all heat is flowing from hot to cold how is it that these mountebanks have, by means of relentless propaganda, managed to persuade a whole generation of their claims?
The trouble is that many renowned Physicists, both Warmist and Skeptic are unable to distinguish between warming up and cooling down.
Firstly how is heat generated, in a manner that conforms to the 1st law of Thermodynamics?  The first and most obvious way that  conforms to ‘work done’ is friction, rubbing two sticks together to produce fire. Once ancient man had learned how to produce fire, his whole life changed for the better. Even living in a cave he was able to keep warm. From combustion man was able to make horseshoes and all sorts of weapons of iron.
In more modern times  man discovered that producing an electric current against a resistance produced both light and heat. So heat can be generated in a number of ways, including compression, fusion and fission.
All these are active ways of generating heat. All substances have different heat capacities. It is clear for example that water retains its heat longer than air and that an ingot of steel will hold its heat longer than the same quantity of water.
Warmed objects radiate their heat away until equilibrium is arrived at with their surroundings. Sending that radiated heat back to its source can not make that source any warmer, but that’s not always well understood; that re-radiated heat is in fact “used heat” that does not have the same power as the “original heat” carried by the Sun’s radiation.
If the world did not receive its daily dose of radiation from the Sun, the Earth would gradually decline towards Absolute Zero, no matter how much Carbon Dioxide was in the atmosphere. So much for the man-made Global Warmers. As mankind froze to death surely they would begin again to worship the Sun, one time source of heat and light.

Comments (9)

  • Avatar

    Dr Pete Sudbury

    |

    Difficult to know where to start.
    The sun is a main sequence star, half way through its life, and is warming up. It’s energy comes from nuclear fusion. It radiates across the electromagnetic spectrum, and that is indeed how it loses energy. Losing energy is not the same as cooling down. It’s the balance or equilibrium between generating / absorbing energy and losing it that determines whether an object is cooling or warming.
    Equilibria are very sensitive things. The energy imbalance at the earth’s surface required to produce observed warming is a fraction of a percent (a couple of watts per square meter on a baseline of 350 or so). As an analogy, if you or I were a fraction of a percent adrift in our heat generation and loss, we would rapidly become hyper/hypothermia: it takes 80kcal to raise an 80kg person’s temperature 1 degree: (that’s 5% of daily intake), so if you were persistently a kcal a day too hot, you’d be dead in less than a year of hyperthermia.
    The other thing you may have noticed is that I used the term “observed temperature rise”: when theories don’t fit observations, observations win out: it is rumoured that it can be “proved” that it is impossible for bumblebees to fly, but nobody disputes they can. They just accept the theory is wrong.
    Each of the last five decades has been warmer than the previous one. You’ll probably tell me the results are faked or misunderstood. My response is that when every reputable scientific body, every government in the world except the US, the national security apparatus of the US itself rate climate change (warming) as a threat, and they are joined by insurers like Zurich, whose job is to work out the likely costs of future events, and even the energy companies, who may stand to lose out from decarbonisation of power, then I’m going to cast my bets in with them.
    The really useful debate is what we do about it. I’d really like to hear your thoughts on that.
    Have a great day!

    • Avatar

      Dr Weiland

      |

      So the boiled down logic is… the earth radiates heat in the infared, therefore it’s cooling? Did you consider the fact that we have been in relative equilibrium with the heat coming in from the sun?
      Heat in – Heat out = Heat accumulation. You assume heat in = 0?
      Heat accumulation has been near zero because the earth found balance between sun energy in and infared out. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not block sunlight in, but blocks some of the infared trying to get out. Now you have a situation where Heat in > Heat out, so heat accumulation > 0. Warming.

    • Avatar

      Sandman

      |

      Dr. Pete, CO2’s contribution is insignificant. Tyndall even said so. Water vapor dominates. It is 35 times more prevalent and absorbs and emits in over 100 different bands. CO2 emits in 1 IR band. We need more CO2 not less. The planet is greening. We don’t have a global warming problem. We have a global cooling problem. We won’t be able to feed ourselves if the planet cools. Our current temperature is within the natural variation seen during the last interglacial over 100,000 years ago. Get your head out of your butt.

      • Avatar

        Squidly

        |

        Forget it Sandman, Dr. Dumbass is a Greenpeace activist. He isn’t interested in facts.

      • Avatar

        Dr W.

        |

        Al, this is another example from this website that is extremely misleading to non-scientists. What they are simply doing is computing temperature bases on the ideal gas law (pv=nrt) except substituting density for p and v. This calculation has nothing to do with planitary heat balance prediction, it calculates temperature of ANY gas anywhere with a known density and MW. They are tricking you into thinking it somehow predicts planitary heat balance. This is a dangerous site.

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    It’s the balance or equilibrium between generating / absorbing energy and losing it that determines whether an object is cooling or warming.

    Isn’t this obvious?

    Equilibria are very sensitive things.

    How is equilibria a thing. What makes it sensitive, in your opinion

    The energy imbalance at the earth’s surface required to produce observed warming is a fraction of a percent (a couple of watts per square meter on a baseline of 350 or so).

    I think you are just making this up. Where the experimental data that underlies this strange conclusion?

    As an analogy, if you or I were a fraction of a percent adrift in our heat generation and loss, we would rapidly become hyper/hypothermia: it takes 80kcal to raise an 80kg person’s temperature 1 degree: (that’s 5% of daily intake), so if you were persistently a kcal a day too hot, you’d be dead in less than a year of hyperthermia.

    Absurd speculation. You appear to make one absurdly speculative comment after another. You make up facts like a seven year old describing the magic kingdom.

    The other thing you may have noticed is that I used the term “observed temperature rise”: when theories don’t fit observations, observations win out: it is rumoured that it can be “proved” that it is impossible for bumblebees to fly, but nobody disputes they can. They just accept the theory is wrong.

    That don’t mean pigs can fly.

    Each of the last five decades has been warmer than the previous one.

    This is another absurd claim. The fact is we really don’t know. The best data, satellites, indicate very little change.

    You’ll probably tell me the results are faked or misunderstood.

    No. You are just an idiot.

    My response is that when every reputable scientific body, every government in the world except the US

    So, every government in the world, except for the one footing the bill. Hmm. Gee golly. I wonder why?

    , the national security apparatus of the US itself rate climate change (warming) as a threat, and they are joined by insurers like Zurich, whose job is to work out the likely costs of future events, and even the energy companies, who may stand to lose out from decarbonisation of power, then I’m going to cast my bets in with them.
    The really useful debate is what we do about it. I’d really like to hear your thoughts on that.

    I refuse to believe any medical institution would allow anybody as dumb as you to graduate.

  • Avatar

    Dr. Weiland

    |

    So the boiled down logic is… the earth radiates heat in the infared, therefore it’s cooling? Did you consider the fact that we have been in relative equilibrium with the heat coming in from the sun?
    Heat in – Heat out = Heat accumulation. You assume heat in = 0?
    Heat accumulation has been near zero because the earth found balance between sun energy in and infared out. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not block sunlight in, but blocks some of the infared trying to get out. Now you have a situation where Heat in > Heat out, so heat accumulation > 0. Warming.

  • Avatar

    Dr. W

    |

    Your boiled down logic is… the earth radiates heat in the infared, therefore it’s cooling? Did you consider the fact that we have been in relative equilibrium with the heat coming in from the sun?
    Heat in – Heat out = Heat accumulation. You assume heat in = 0?
    Heat accumulation has been near zero because the earth found balance between sun energy in and infared out. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not block sunlight in, but blocks some of the infared trying to get out. Now you have a situation where Heat in > Heat out, so heat accumulation > 0. Warming.

Comments are closed