Showing that there are no loons quite like global warming loons, Jim Dale, founder of the British Weather Services, recently “demanded” that “climate denial” should be “criminalized.” [emphasis, links added]
According to news from the “United Kingdom’s News Channel,” Dale “likened climate denial to flat earth conspiracy theories, arguing they are too dangerous for public discourse.”
As our favorite Looney Tunes character would say, “What a maroon.”
Yet it makes us wonder: If carbon dioxide were put on trial, charged with overheating our only planet, would it be convicted?
Not if the trial was fair.
Let’s examine the evidence.
CO2 is a trace gas. As a portion of our atmosphere, it is now 425 parts per million (or 0.0425%), as measured at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory. The rest of our atmosphere is made up primarily of nitrogen (78%), oxygen (21%), percent argon (0.9%), and other gases (0.1%), which includes CO2.
Yes, CO2 concentrations have grown. In 1960 they were 317 PPM, in 1970 roughly 325 PPM. By October 1980, they had reached 336 PPM.
But let’s go back further, about 500 million years ago. At that time, long before man’s industrial age, CO2 hit 7,000 PPM, and “the planet was maybe as much as 10 degrees C (18°F) warmer than today,” says Yale Environment 360.
Yale admits that “might seem surprisingly cool for that level of greenhouse gas.” But there are “so many factors at play, the link between CO2 and temperature isn’t always easy to see.”
Or maybe it’s not even there.
Or maybe, as some researchers – and not just these two but also others – believe that increasing carbon levels follow higher temperatures, not the other way around, as the alarmists claim.
To illustrate just how minuscule today’s carbon concentration is, imagine a 100,000-seat football stadium, say Bryant-Denny on the campus of the University of Alabama.
Each seat is one part of the atmosphere. In that stadium, CO2 would take up 42.5 of those seats. And most of that is naturally occurring carbon. Only 13 or 14 represent man’s CO2 contributions – maybe even less.
So how does such a small part of the atmosphere have such a cataclysmic impact? There is no evidence that it does.
We have computer models that show warming along with rising CO2 levels, but those are only models and they are unreliable, predicting higher temperatures that never arrived.
Now, let’s call our first expert witness, Kunihiko Takeda, a credentialed Japanese scholar and researcher. He’s told us that carbon dioxide was not present at the scene of the “crime.”
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another … Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so … global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.”
Our next witness, Delgado Domingos, an environmental scientist professor from Portugal, testifies that “creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense … The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battles. It became an ideology, which is concerning.”
Following up on that is Geoffrey G. Duffy, a chemical and materials engineering professor at the University of Auckland.
He has said that “even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.”
Now we enter into evidence the declaration of more than 1,900 scientists and professionals, including a pair of Nobel winners, who say “enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial,” reminds us that CO2 is plant food responsible for greening the Earth, and “additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass.”
“It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.”
The group further points out for our court that “climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools,” as “they blow up the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2.”
These models are the prosecutors’ best evidence. Which means their entire case against CO2 is theoretical. We need empirical proof, not speculation, for a guilty verdict, and when carbon dioxide is put to the test, we learn that it “does not cause warming.”
That statement was made by James T. Moodey, who wrote the paper Three Proofs Carbon Dioxide Causes No Warming in the Atmosphere — No Gas Causes Warming.
He performed what he calls “a true scientific test because it observes actual measurements of the atmosphere,” and found that “carbon dioxide does not cause warming.”
Now some might point to the fact that more than 10,000 research papers were retracted last year – “smashing annual records” – and say his findings cannot be trusted. To that, he says “any high school class can repeat these observations over a school year.”
Read rest at Issues & Insights
American Citizens should be allowed to Sue the Eco-Freaks and their Groups(Greenpeace, Sierra Club, NRDC, Friends of the Earth, Etc.)for lost jobs and livelyhoods over their own load of Poppycock, Malarkey and Balderdash
In order for any climate-related lawsuit to proceed, plaintiff must be forced to prove physicality.
If plaintiff sued a company because plaintiff believed that the company was funding pink unicorns to fart rainbow-colored glitter into the atmosphere to warm it, the judge would dismiss the case because it’s not based upon physical reality.
The same applies to any lawsuit premised upon AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming, due to CO2)… plaintiff cannot prove physicality… and I’ll mathematically prove that below.
There are two forms of the S-B equation:
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
[1] Idealized Blackbody Object form (assumes emission to 0 K and ε = 1 by definition):
q_bb = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
= 1 σ (T_h^4 – 0 K)
= σ T^4
[2] Graybody Object form (assumes emission to > 0 K and ε < 1):
q_gb = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
Climatologists misuse the S-B equation, using the idealized blackbody form of the equation upon real-world graybody objects. This essentially isolates each object into its own system so objects cannot interact via the ambient EM field, it assumes emission to 0 K, and it thus artificially inflates radiant exitance of all calculated-upon objects. Thus the climatologists must carry these incorrect values through their calculations and cancel them on the back end to get their equation to balance, subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow.
The S-B equation for graybody objects isn’t meant to be used by subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow, it’s meant to be used by subtracting cooler object energy density from warmer object energy density to arrive at the energy density gradient, which determines radiant exitance of the warmer object. This is true even for the traditional form of the S-B equation, because temperature is a measure of radiation energy density, per Stefan’s Law.
That wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow is otherwise known as ‘backradiation’. It is nothing more than a mathematical artifact due to the misuse of the S-B equation. It does not and cannot exist. Its existence would imply rampant violations of the fundamental physical laws.
Temperature (T) is equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density (e) divided by Stefan’s Constant (a) (ie: the radiation constant), per Stefan’s Law.
e = T^4 a
a = 4σ/c
e = T^4 4σ/c
T^4 = e/(4σ/c)
T = 4^√(e/(4σ/c))
T = 4^√(e/a)
where:
a = 4σ/c = 7.5657332500339284719430800357226e-16 J m-3 K-4
where:
σ = (2 π^5 k_B^4) / (15 h^3 c^2) = 5.6703744191844294539709967318892308758401229702913e-8 W m-2 K-4
where:
σ = Stefan-Boltzmann Constant
k_B = Boltzmann Constant (1.380649e−23 J K−1)
h = Planck Constant (6.62607015e−34 J Hz−1)
c = light speed (299792458 m sec-1)
σ / a = 74948114.502437694376419756266673 W J-1 m (W m-2 / J m-3)
The traditional Stefan-Boltzmann equation for graybody objects:
q = ε_h σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
[1] ∴ q = ε_h σ ((e_h / (4σ / c)) – (e_c / (4σ / c)))
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = W m-2 K-4 * (Δ(J m-3 / (W m-2 K-4 / m sec-1)))
[2] ∴ q = (ε_h c (e_h – e_c)) / 4
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = (m sec-1 (ΔJ m-3)) / 4
[3] ∴ q = (ε_h * (σ / a) * Δe)
Canceling units, we get W m-2.
W m-2 = ((W m-2 K-4 / J m-3 K-4) * ΔJ m-3)
One can see from the immediately-above equation that the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation for graybody objects is all about subtracting the energy density of the cooler object from the energy density of the warmer object.
You will note that σ = (a * c) / 4… the S-B Constant equals Stefan’s Constant multiplied by the speed of light in vacua divided by 4.
[4] ∴ q = (ε_h * ((a * c) / a) * Δe) / 4 = (ε_h * c * Δe) / 4
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = (m sec-1 * ΔJ m-3) / 4
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation in energy density form ([3] above):
σ / a * Δe * ε_h = W m-2
σ / a = 5.6703744191844294539709967318892308758401229702913e-8 W m-2 K-4 / 7.5657332500339284719430800357226e-16 J m-3 K-4 = 74948114.502437694376419756266673 W m-2 / J m-3.
Well, what do you know… that’s the conversion factor for radiant exitance (W m-2) and energy density (J m-3)!
It’s almost as if the radiant exitance of graybody objects is determined by the energy density gradient, right?
Energy can’t even spontaneously flow when there is zero energy density gradient:
σ [W m-2 K-4] / a [J m-3 K-4] * Δe [J m-3] * ε_h = [W m-2]
σ [W m-2 K-4] / a [J m-3 K-4] * 0 [J m-3] * ε_h = 0 [W m-2]
… it is certainly not going to spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.
Note 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense:
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
‘Heat’ is definitionally an energy flux, thus equivalently:
“Energy can never flow from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
That “some other change” typically being external energy doing work upon the system energy to pump it up the energy density gradient, which is what occurs in, for example, AC units and refrigerators.
Remember that temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant, per Stefan’s Law, thus equivalently:
“Energy can never flow from a lower to a higher energy density without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
Or, as I put it:
“Energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.”
My statement is merely a restatement of 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense.
Do remember that a warmer object will have higher energy density at all wavelengths than a cooler object:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/qPJ94.png
… so there is no physical way possible by which energy can spontaneously flow from cooler (lower energy density) to warmer (higher energy density). ‘Backradiation’ is nothing more than a mathematical artifact due to the climatologists misusing the S-B equation.
The above completely destroys AGW and CAGW, because they are predicated upon the existence of “backradiation” (radiation spontaneously flowing up an energy density gradient) as the causative agent for the climatologists’ claimed “greenhouse effect”.
The CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, due to CO2) hypothesis has been disproved… it does not reflect reality.
https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711
The takeaways:
1) The climatologists have conflated their purported “greenhouse effect” with the Kelvin-Helmholtz Gravitational Auto-Compression Effect (aka the lapse rate).
2) The climatologists claim the causative agent for their purported “greenhouse effect” to be “backradiation”.
3) The Kelvin-Helmholtz Gravitational Auto-Compression Effect’s causative agent is, of course, gravity.
4) “Backradiation” is physically impossible because energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.
5) The climatologists misuse the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation, using the idealized blackbody form of the equation upon graybody objects, which manufactures out of thin air their purported “backradiation”. It is only a mathematical artifact due to that aforementioned misuse of the S-B equation. It does not and cannot actually exist. Its existence would imply rampant violations of the fundamental physical laws.
6) Polyatomic molecules are net atmospheric radiative coolants, not “global warming” gases. Far from the ‘global warming gas’ claimed by the climatologists, water acts as a literal refrigerant (in the strict ‘refrigeration cycle‘ sense) below the tropopause. CO2 is the most prevalent atmospheric radiative coolant above the tropopause and the second-most prevalent (behind water vapor) below the tropopause. Peer-reviewed studies corroborating the above are referenced in the paper at the link above.