What makes global warming such a complicated concept for people to understand? September 8, 2019climatehistoryscoper https://www.quora.com/What-makes-global-warming-such-a-complicated-concept-for-people-to-understand
One thought on “What makes global warming such a complicated concept for people to understand?”
The concept of global warming is easy to understand if you know that only the Sun can cause it by delivering more heat energy to the Earth, either by exploding more atomic bombs or because it’s getting closer to Earth and/or positioned just right. It’s the concept of atmospheric CO2 causing global warming not the Sun that is complicated, because like all con games it’s a shell game designed to push a political agenda of foisting Marxist world govt. by the U.S.-hating U.N. and its IPCC.
Let me make it simple. The hoaxers want you to accept the proven fact that a tube of pure CO2 in a lab that’s illuminated by an infrared lamp gets hotter than an identical tube containing pure air. That means that CO2 absorbs IR energy and because of its heat capacity increases in temperature somewhat.
What they don’t want you to understand is that CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t pure, it’s only 0.04% of the total, and is well-mixed with oxygen and nitrogen, hence if it heats up those other gases will steal its extra heat to equalize temperatures, the whole package becoming less dense and rising to space like a hot air balloon, ultimately wasting it. Never do they send the heat back to Earth’s surface where we live. Once it’s gone it’s gone, like a rock rolling down from a mountaintop.
So that’s the hoax, pretending that we should worry about heat way up in the sky that’s heading to space harmlessly, harping on the atmosphere being a greenhouse instead of telling you the truth that it’s a giant chimney whose purpose is to take the Sun’s heat to space and keep the climate livable. A typical hoax statement is that CO2 piles heat and warms the entire planet. What moose hockey. We don’t live way up in the sky, we live down on the surface.
The hoaxers even try to deny that heat doesn’t just radiate in the atmosphere but convects, that is, rises via buoyancy after heating up. They also try to deny that the heat transforms into work to create winds, storms, etc., further wasting itself even before it can be vented into space. In the hoaxers’ lala world the Earth has no atmosphere, it’s like the Moon, all pure radiation. I wish they’d all go there.
And they really stoop low to ignore or even deny the role water vapor plays in absorbing surface IR and turning it into freezing rain, snow, and hail that cools the surface retroactively more than the Sun heated it. Their CO2 greenhouse warming theory is literally all wet.
Back to radiation. Did they try to browbeat you with impressive-looking graphs of the Earth’s surface infrared radiation as seen from a satellite? There’s always a big notch around CO2’s absorption wavelength of 15 microns. Yes, a tiny amount of surface IR is emitted at 15 microns, less than 10% of the total. But infrared absorption in the sky tells us nothing about surface temperatures, does it? After absorbing that IR, what happens to it? Obviously, it doesn’t reach space, else there wouldn’t be a notch in the graph. But does it return to the surface, or does it get wasted in the 99.96% bath of surrounding O2-N2 molecules, which aren’t shown on the graph, although HO2 molecules are, and studiously ignored? If CO2 could somehow reradiate the surface IR and it magically returned to the surface through the gauntlet of other molecules, it would be absorbed by the ground, partially replenishing the heat that originally went to the sky, slowing down the cooling process a tad (half what originally went up, that is less than 5%, which isn’t global warming it’s sales tax) but never warming it more than the Sun did in the first place, maybe the cold nights get a little less cold, who cares, we’re sleeping. But there’s no CO2 on the ground, it’s all in the sky, so if CO2 only sent IR back and forth to itself, it would end up rising to space, and there wouldn’t be a notch in the graph. Zonk! Hoax detector went off!
Read my free online essay that disproves the CO2 greenhouse warming hoax using physics and puts it to rest forever, if you’re brave enough to allow me to challenge your preconceived notions more than I already did and can handle some physics. None of the IPCC scientists is willing to debate the physics of their hoax, instead relying on tampering with historical temperature data to make a dragon in the sky appear out of the graphs, and also relying on the massive IPCC climate alarmist agitprop machine to scare the unscientific masses into coughing up billions and trillions and surrendering everything they love most including their happy comfortable fossil fueled lifestyles and even cheeseburgers. Don’t buy it. Like they used to say about drugs, Just Say No to the IPCC and its Green Deal.
TLW’s Two Cents Worth on Climate Change (http://www.historyscoper.com/climatetlw.html)
TL Winslow’s answer to If climate change is a hoax, why do so many scientists say it’s happening? (https://www.quora.com/If-climate-change-is-a-hoax-why-do-so-many-scientists-say-its-happening/answer/TL-Winslow)
TL Winslow’s answer to What is more accurate description of what is happening to the world weather systems? Is it Global warming or Climate change? (https://www.quora.com/What-is-more-accurate-description-of-what-is-happening-to-the-world-weather-systems-Is-it-Global-warming-or-Climate-change/answer/TL-Winslow)
TL Winslow’s answer to Scientists for climate change have many proofs. Do Anti climate change scientists have any proofs of their own? (https://www.quora.com/Scientists-for-climate-change-have-many-proofs-Do-Anti-climate-change-scientists-have-any-proofs-of-their-own/answer/TL-Winslow)
TL Winslow’s answer to Are there any university Physics educated climate change skeptics who can definitively refute the 120 year old basis for Anthropogenic Global warming? (https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-university-Physics-educated-climate-change-skeptics-who-can-definitively-refute-the-120-year-old-basis-for-Anthropogenic-Global-warming/answer/TL-Winslow)
Comments are closed.