Climate Fraud Exposed: CO2 Doesn’t Rise Up, Trap And Retain Heat

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: NobodiesNormal

Both CO and CO2 are produced from combustion.

If I am not mistaken CO molecules actually break down when the oxygen molecule joins an O2 molecule forming O3, better known as ozone, and leaving a singular carbon atom. What happens with that carbon atom? No idea. I never asked that question, but I assume it remains in gaseous form and falls to the surface.

The Carbon is an atom. Atoms don't undergo phase changes, so there is no such thing as a gaseous Carbon atom. It is the arrangement of multiple atoms and the heat of that arrangement and the attraction between the molecules that determines whether an element or compound is a solid, liquid, or gas. For instance, H2O is a polar molecule. It looks like a Mickey Mouse head, with the O atom the face, and the Hs the ears. Because of this arrangement, they are loosely attracted and the result is a liquid. Heat is just a word for movement, and if you add enough heat, you get enough movement to overcome the attraction, the molecules fly apart, and you get a gas, or water vapor. Take enough heat away and you reduce the movement, the attraction overcomes the kinetic energy of the molecules and you get condensation. Take more heat away and the polar attraction locks the molecules together in a crystal form and you have ice.
Finally, in the physical chemistry classes I had to take in grad school, I measured the absorption and emission spectra of CO2, and it it unquestionable that it acts as a chemical heater. CO2 absorbs sunlight at one frequency, but emits at a higher frequency. Since energy of a photon equals Planck's constant (6.62607004 × 10-34 m2 kg / s) times the frequency of the photon. Higher frequency means higher energy. If you direct energy to a molecule, you increase its movement, and, therefore, its heat. That's why solar cells work. While each photon carries an almost infinitesimal amount of energy, sunlight bombards us with so many photons, it results here in South Florida of over 5 kilowatt hours per square meter per day. If you want to spend a long time doing it, you could mathematically figure out how many photons it takes to do that. A hint is that there are a lot of zeroes in that number, like 45 or so. A decent approximation is that the average solar photon has an energy of 1 electron volt, or 1.6x10^-19 Joules.

Science doesn't have to be incomprehensible.

What you say cannot be true or you'd be getting more energy out of each molecule than you put in, violating physics. If that were true, solar panels would be powering everything and be on everything and energy would be free and we wouldn't be burning coal.

In other words, if C02 absorbs the photon, it cannot re-emit at a higher frequency than the original photon, because then it would be outputting more energy than it absorbs, and we'd have perpetual energy.

THERMO-DYNAMICS.

Jesus Christ.

Part of the reason science is "incomprehensible" is because people talk out of their booty hole.

C02 would replace uranium if that were true.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: Outlier13

So with all of the above data being collected and widely disseminated long before the false man-made global warming narrative came along I'm supposed to believe that somehow in the past 227 years (Industrial Revolution began in 1790) that man has somehow been able to dramatically alter and disrupt an entire global weather system to such a degree that we are going to cause an ice age?

That narrative is for idiots.

Ignoring that and dismissing thousands of scientific analysis is typical of the anti science ignorance that pervades the west, especially the US, these days. That you are expressing on this increasingly ignorant site.

So you think the activities of man cannot affect the atmosphere on a global scale do you? Here is an example of how ignorant you are, this is not GW related but is an example of man affecting the globe. NB agitated anti GW folks a double reminder in case you are having difficulty understanding this example is NOT related to GW but an example of a proven mans effect on the globe.

We have Ozone holes across both poles that are now recovering, albeit slowly. They were caused by man made CFC's unless you are going to ignorantly state it was some as yet undiscovered mechanism which of course you will "have to invent" to prove your ignorant assertion is correct.

The evidence of GW is increasing all the time without science! and we are rapidly heading towards a point of no recovery and fools like you are preventing the mitigation of the causes.

Chlorofluorocarbons and aerosols putting holes in the Ozone has been proven wrong almost 20 years ago, in 1998. It was a "hypothesis" developed by the E.P.A. [not scientists] so they could sell reclamation devices for profit and write even bigger fines to those who didn't use said reclamation devices. R-22 is still the very best refrigerant on the planet and it was replaced by less efficient refrigerants because of the costs of reclamation imposed by the EPA. While it's illegal for anyone to manufacture products that use R-22, guess what? The government still uses it daily.

The side caveat; we can create ozone molecules at will. So if there ever was a threat of depleting ozone molecules, why wouldn't we just produce new ozone molecules and patch up the hole? Oh yeah, and Ozone was also regulated by the EPA.

As far as ozone depletion is concerned, the thinning of the ozone layer that occurred throughout the 1980s apparently stopped in the early 1990s, too soon to credit the Montreal Protocol. A 1998 World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report said that, "since 1991, the linear [downward] trend observed during the 1980s has not continued, but rather total column ozone has been almost constant …" However, the same report noted that the stratospheric concentrations of the offending compounds were still increasing through 1998. This lends credence to the skeptical view, widely derided at the time of the Montreal Protocol, that natural variations better explain the fluctuations in the global ozone layer.

Sorry boss. Chlorofluorocarbons and Aerosols making "holes" in the Ozone was a myth, there never was a hole, there was a thinning of the Ozone Layer that was caused by natural phenomena, as we have empirical evidence that shows that CFC's and Aerosol concentrations went UP and the Ozone Layer still "replenished" despite the increase in "Ozone harming" molecules.

You can keep incorrectly calling people ignorant, or you can brush up on 20 year old common knowledge and defeat ignorance yourself.


Sidenote;
Do you know who popularized the "Ozone Hole CFC/Aerosol Crisis" and made it mainstream? Al Gore. AGW was also invented by Al Gore. He's not a scientist, he's a politician who makes profit off fake science fear mongering. Al Gore is the guy behind "Carbon Credits" which is where the profit in AGW comes from. The Chief of the EPA, Scott Pruitt said that C02 carbon emissions are not the primary source of "global warming." This blows up the entire carbon credit industry, so Al Gore can't have that -- so he launched into attack mode and slandered Pruitt.

It's all an Al Gore scam. AGW isn't real, climate change and variance is real, but is natural. Back before man, C02 was at levels of 4,000-5,000ppm and I know dinosaurs weren't producing plastics for industry. Today we have levels of C02 at 400ppm. It's not high at all, and even if it were high, it'd be high because of deforestation, not because of the production of carbon.

When AGW believers claim the planet is warming -- what part of the planet do they claim is warming? Ambient Air Temperatures? Surface Temperatures? Latent Heat Temperatures?

Which temperatures do GHG's change?

Science.

a reply to: SRPrime

Be careful there... you're posting actual science.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: liejunkie01

A simple look at the planet Venus debunks your entire thread, sorry.

venus has a higher temp and that keeps the CO 2higher. hot c02 rises and on earth it falls back. on venus it never cools and stays aloft.

a reply to: yuppa

You're right that Venus' conditions are not indicative of potential conditions on Earth, but I need to correct you on why the CO2 is aloft on Venus. It's not because it's hot; all of the atmosphere is hot. It's because there's literally so much of it (96.5%).

Interestingly enough, sulfur dioxide is Venus' carbon dioxide, at 150 ppmv.

TheRedneck

a reply to: [post=22891810]Vector99[/post

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: liejunkie01

A simple look at the planet Venus debunks your entire thread, sorry.

what in the world... First of all the amount of CO2 on Venus' atmosphere is much higher than that on Earth, BUT (you knew there was a but didn't you?) Venus' atmosphere also has sulfuric acid, it's atmosphere is much denser than that of Earth causing the trace amounts of nitrogen on Venus to be 4 times the amount of it on Earth. Not to mention that Venus is much closer to the sun than Earth. So your whole claim, and that of many other people, using Venus as an example of what "mankind can do to Earth" is nothing more than pseudoscience bs. Earth has had even 12 times the amount of CO2 in it's atmosphere than we have currently, and there was no "runaway global warming"...

"Runaway global warming" is the new way of the left to "try to scare people as if they were children so people will do the will of the envirolunatics".

Due to a long life, CO2 is essentially a well mixed gas. It has plenty of time to end up in the atmosphere, especially since we now pumping out some 9 billion + tons of the stuff a year. Your source lacks basis in actual science. But I shouldn't be surprised, as it is a site that tries to disprove that humankind is responsible for anything ecologically wrong on the planet.

Their premise is stupid. It might have merit if say.. there was literally no air / atmosphere on the planet. But.. there is, and.. it matters.

originally posted by: rickymouse
CO2 is a contributing factor, but it is not the reason we are having wild weather. It is a combination of many things both natural and man made. We are contributing to the failure of the ecosystem, but what these climate groups do is try to blame it on us directly instead of getting rid of all the air traffic in the sky. All of this travel, cruise ships, and vacation resorts way far away are causing lots of unnecessary damage to our ecosystem and contributing a lot more to global warming than heating our houses. They are creating an entitled society where waste is more important than our needs. They do not want to change that though, europe wants all of us to go spend our money over there.

want to back up any of those claims with some facts. it is quite laughable to hear that its the problem of just travel, cruise ships and vacation resorts which pales in comparison to our shipping traffic. that would have been a much better angle except its more of an ecological hazard due to the life they transport across oceans which are invasive to other waterways and oceans around the world.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

i think one bit of information that many people also dont understand is that we arent really creating co2. were just breaking free what was once floating around and became trapped due to whatever process. so far all the data about co2 keeps point to it stimulating vegetation growth in the oceans and on land in massive quantities that we havent seen on earth for a very long time and when this stuff thrives through the seasons it sucks the c02 back down at an impressive rate. not such a bad thing for a growing population on this planet imo

delete double post

Lol at the Venus comparison

Venus is a lot closer to the sun, it was never going to maintain a stable temp, the Co2 levels on Venus are not because of Martian made Co2

It is because it is literally on fire and burning releasing Co2 but it's actually the sun which made it overheat and become a run away

There is absolutely ZERO evidence anywhere that shows Co2 triggering warming

In fact the Warming is tailed by Co2 rises by about 800 years

Co2 is no more of a green house factor than water vapour is

Climate change is a stone cold HOAX and anyone who has done and looked at the research knows it is just a religion, a political agenda backed by literally trillions of $

If you didn't believe in it as a scientist you was essentially removed and somebody who did believe in it was appointed and replaced them and all of a sudden labelled top scientists in the world

It's a hoax

The planets food is Co2

We're all made of carbon

The oceans store it and when over hundreds of years they warm and cool due to the sun they release it

But the Co2 as ALL records show follows the warming so how in Gods green earth is it the cause of warming

Utter tosh

a reply to: SRPrime

Wrong. Dupont's patent on Freon was up so they lobbied to demonize it and retake control of the market with their new 'safe' product...

However radiative forcing is a valid scientific concept. CO2 causesit....it does not violate tge rules of physics...it is an example of the rules in play.


CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere. If you disagree then explain why Venus is hotter than Mercury.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Vector99

A simple look at the planet Venus debunks your entire thread, sorry.

So what you are saying is not all CO2 is man made and the Co2 on Venus came from ...?

You might want to try Google. Unless this is your attempt to launch into a strawman argument. If it is, please do carry on.

a reply to: Vector99the atmosphere of venusand its density is cause of it temperature


The density of the air at the surface is 67 kg/m3, which is 6.5% that of liquid water on Earth. The pressure found on Venus's surface is high enough that the carbon dioxide is technically no longer a gas, but a supercritical fluid.

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: rickymouse
CO2 is a contributing factor, but it is not the reason we are having wild weather. It is a combination of many things both natural and man made. We are contributing to the failure of the ecosystem, but what these climate groups do is try to blame it on us directly instead of getting rid of all the air traffic in the sky. All of this travel, cruise ships, and vacation resorts way far away are causing lots of unnecessary damage to our ecosystem and contributing a lot more to global warming than heating our houses. They are creating an entitled society where waste is more important than our needs. They do not want to change that though, europe wants all of us to go spend our money over there.

want to back up any of those claims with some facts. it is quite laughable to hear that its the problem of just travel, cruise ships and vacation resorts which pales in comparison to our shipping traffic. that would have been a much better angle except its more of an ecological hazard due to the life they transport across oceans which are invasive to other waterways and oceans around the world.

Read my first sentence....CO2 is a contributing factor, but it is not the reason we are having wild weather. It is a combination of many things both natural and man made.... All the concentrated natural chemistry and man made chemistry are included in that first statement. There has been a huge increase in airtravel over the last thirty years or so, those polutants are way up there where there are no trees to put them back into the earth. We are abusing the ecosystem, The Chinese people have to live in that crap to make things people here do not really need, that polution goes all over the world. If people did not buy things they did not need it would be better on the environment. Stuff we need should be built to last a long time, not have planned obsolescence built in.

originally posted by: liejunkie01

The first damaging fact to the theory: CO2 is actually a heavy gas. It is not ‘well mixed’ in the air as per the glib claim.  Just check out the NASA image (above) showing widely varying carbon dioxide concentrations. Indeed, schoolchildren are shown just how heavy CO2 is by way of a simple school lab experiment. This heavy gas thus struggles to rise and soon falls back to earth due to its Specific Gravity (SG). Real scientists rely on the SG measure which gives standard air a value of 1.0 where the measured SG of CO2 is 1.5 (considerably heavier). Thus,  in the real world the warming theory barely gets off the ground.

As shown  in Carbon Dioxide Not a Well Mixed Gas and Can’t Cause Global Warming the same principle applies to heat transfer: the Specific Heat (SH) of air is 1.0 and the SH of CO2 is 0.8 (thus CO2 heats and cools faster).  Combining these properties allows for thermal mixing. Heavy CO2 warms faster and rises, as in a hot air balloon.  It then rapidly cools and falls. Once it falls it loses any claimed climate impact.

principia-scientific.org...


I did a quick search on this and I cannot believe it hasn't been posted before. I would like our resident AGW and Anti AGW folks here to take a look and see if this info is accurate.

I am just curious because in another thread someone posted that CO2 traps heat and I was curious for how long it traps the heat. I came upon this article and thought I would post it here.

Is this science wrong?

This is good science.

I have a few threads on the false science that was wrongly using CO2 to raise the Temps in the models. The failed models everyone is still using here on ATS are , well, wrong.... It is proven by none of the predictions, not one, has been resulted as predicted. I say again none.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: rickymouse
CO2 is a contributing factor, but it is not the reason we are having wild weather. It is a combination of many things both natural and man made. We are contributing to the failure of the ecosystem, but what these climate groups do is try to blame it on us directly instead of getting rid of all the air traffic in the sky. All of this travel, cruise ships, and vacation resorts way far away are causing lots of unnecessary damage to our ecosystem and contributing a lot more to global warming than heating our houses. They are creating an entitled society where waste is more important than our needs. They do not want to change that though, europe wants all of us to go spend our money over there.

want to back up any of those claims with some facts. it is quite laughable to hear that its the problem of just travel, cruise ships and vacation resorts which pales in comparison to our shipping traffic. that would have been a much better angle except its more of an ecological hazard due to the life they transport across oceans which are invasive to other waterways and oceans around the world.

Read my first sentence....CO2 is a contributing factor, but it is not the reason we are having wild weather. It is a combination of many things both natural and man made.... All the concentrated natural chemistry and man made chemistry are included in that first statement. There has been a huge increase in airtravel over the last thirty years or so, those polutants are way up there where there are no trees to put them back into the earth. We are abusing the ecosystem, The Chinese people have to live in that crap to make things people here do not really need, that polution goes all over the world. If people did not buy things they did not need it would be better on the environment. Stuff we need should be built to last a long time, not have planned obsolescence built in.

Speaking of things we don't need, I literally have to go shopping at the Dollar Tree with the ole lady to stop the madness. Chinese crap for a dollar, next thing you know the tab is $37.

originally posted by: liejunkie01

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: rickymouse
CO2 is a contributing factor, but it is not the reason we are having wild weather. It is a combination of many things both natural and man made. We are contributing to the failure of the ecosystem, but what these climate groups do is try to blame it on us directly instead of getting rid of all the air traffic in the sky. All of this travel, cruise ships, and vacation resorts way far away are causing lots of unnecessary damage to our ecosystem and contributing a lot more to global warming than heating our houses. They are creating an entitled society where waste is more important than our needs. They do not want to change that though, europe wants all of us to go spend our money over there.

want to back up any of those claims with some facts. it is quite laughable to hear that its the problem of just travel, cruise ships and vacation resorts which pales in comparison to our shipping traffic. that would have been a much better angle except its more of an ecological hazard due to the life they transport across oceans which are invasive to other waterways and oceans around the world.

Read my first sentence....CO2 is a contributing factor, but it is not the reason we are having wild weather. It is a combination of many things both natural and man made.... All the concentrated natural chemistry and man made chemistry are included in that first statement. There has been a huge increase in airtravel over the last thirty years or so, those polutants are way up there where there are no trees to put them back into the earth. We are abusing the ecosystem, The Chinese people have to live in that crap to make things people here do not really need, that polution goes all over the world. If people did not buy things they did not need it would be better on the environment. Stuff we need should be built to last a long time, not have planned obsolescence built in.

Speaking of things we don't need, I literally have to go shopping at the Dollar Tree with the ole lady to stop the madness. Chinese crap for a dollar, next thing you know the tab is $37.

The thing is it is crap and doesn't last long and it still pollutes to make just as much as the expensive stuff does. Come to think of it, the expensive stuff doesn't last very long either, it just looks a little more expensive.

If you buy a new TV every four or five years you are contributing to poluting the earth more than the person who buys one when it wears out at ten to twelve years.

The new ECO friendly refers to ECOnomy friendly

a reply to: liejunkie01

CO2 is an important component for plant life to exist. Without CO2 we''d all be dead! I hope CO2 levels are high.