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

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: liejunkie01



Then I got to thinking about the age of the Earth. It is generally accepted the Earth is roughly 4 billion years old. The oldest weather pattern samples we have are from the EPICA ice cores. That only accounts for 800,000 years and shows CO2 levels were significantly higher at different periods of time during that 800,000 years than today. How come no one mentions this?

Then I got to thinking about the extinction level event of the meteorite impact on the Yucatan peninsula and the effects that had on a global level. I won't rehash it all but it basically occurred some 65 ish million years ago and accounted for what is known as the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event which essentially eradicated 75% of plant and animal life on Earth. No one ever discusses this either.

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.

I feel a certain need to respond to this.

The epica data says that :

cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov...

Over the last 800,000 years atmospheric CO2 levels as indicated by the ice-core data have fluctuated between 170 and 300 parts per million by volume (ppmv), corresponding with conditions of glacial and interglacial periods. The Vostok core indicates very similar trends. Prior to about 450,000 years before present time (BP) atmospheric CO2 levels were always at or below 260 ppmv and reached lowest values, approaching 170 ppmv, between 660,000 and 670,000 years ago. The highest pre-industrial value recorded in 800,000 years of ice-core record was 298.6 ppmv, in the Vostok core, around 330,000 years ago. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased markedly in industrial times; measurements in year 2010 at Cape Grim Tasmania and the South Pole both indicated values of 386 ppmv, and are currently increasing at about 2 ppmv/year.

So no. They were NEVER higher than they are now over the 800,000 year span. But they did get pretty high sometimes.

Try and understand that ocean levels ALSO got higher and lower at different times over that period.

The idea that ocean levels will rise if CO2 levels keep going up is not refuted at all by the EPICA data. It is in fact, strongly supported by it in every conceivable way.

The Earth won't die, but when Ocean levels rise, we'll permanently lose some of our land. People will endure some scarcities. Some coastal cities will end up having to either build Dikes around them (like the Dutch built in Holland long ago), or expand inland.

It will never get so hot that we can't live on Earth. Maybe the equator might get too hot, and some deserts will expand. But there will still be places a person can live.


Just try and understand that all those "fossil fuels" came to exist precisely because an Earth with lots of extra CO2 gradually began capturing it. Plants and animals died without getting their Carbon recycled. Clearly they were able to live prior to that capture. But the world was certainly warmer back then. How do you think the animal life was able to grow so big? Ever seen how big grasshoppers get in Ecuador?

Here is what we need to do to combat global warming. We all need to get turkey fryers and eat more french fries and fried chicken. phys.org... They make clouds and clouds cool the planet. So the reason for the drought and forest fires in California is that they are not eating enough deep fried chicken and bacon.

a reply to: rickymouse

If cookin and eating more bacon or French fries will help the earth then I am alltoo happy to do my part to save her!

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The Earth won't die, but when Ocean levels rise, we'll permanently lose some of our land. People will endure some scarcities. Some coastal cities will end up having to either build Dikes around them (like the Dutch built in Holland long ago), or expand inland. 

This is the part that bothers me a little bit though.

Throughout human history we have had to adapt to a changing climate and living conditions. Conditions that have been worse and conditions that have been better.

Why is it that people seem to think that the conditions should stay the same for us forever? Why can't we adapt to the situations that are handed to us and learn to live in a world where we learn from our mistakes and produce a better, cleaner way of life? I know that we may be accelerating the pace of change, or maybe we are not. That is not the issue. The issue still stands that change would and definitely come at some point, with or without human intervemtion.

We cannot simply will the world climate to stay the same. We can however figure out a better and cleaner way to live.

Why do we not do this? It is a simple answer and a complicated one also. Corporate greed, personal greed, and a fear of change.

The corporate world is putting profits over products that can make a difference. Products that could be affordable for the average citizen such as myself. The problem is that corporate greed limits the products that are available to the public and suppress this information to keep the stocks high and profit margins lining the pockets of shareholders. So in turn we are left with deciding do I spend the next 10 years paying for a Tesla car with payments that really are unaffordable to the average working individual, or pay for all of the other bills that we endure just to survive in the world today.?

We cannot and will not change things until the corporate world changes.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

EPICA ice core data measured ground level CO2...not atmospheric. You prove the point CO2 levels were higher in the past with your statement about fossil fuels. I'm assuming you understand how crude oil is formed? How exactly do you think such unimaginable levels of plant and animal life existed if not for substantially higher atmospheric CO2 levels?

I'm assuming you understand the one of the primary ingredients to nearly all life on Earth is CO2...right? More CO2 means more life. 300 PPM atmospheric CO2 levels contribute to a 30% increase in plant life and a 50% increase in woody plants. Imagine how high the CO2 levels were before the dinosaurs and during the dinosaurs. Then an extinction level event occurs.

The Earth undergoes a massive 75% extinction level event where sunlight doesn't hit the Earth's surface for nearly 2 years and and life rebounds yet somehow man is going to destroy the Earth by hitting the throttle on their SUV?

Ok.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: markovian

There is CO2 in the stratosphere, why is that?

Jet fuel being burnt.

originally posted by: Greven
Principa-Scientific, the source for this utter nonsense, is a ridiculous shill site that just makes up stuff to go with its ideological leanings.

Honestly, it should be banned from linking like the rest of the ones that are, for the same reasons.

CO2 measurements are taken on top of a volcano in Hawaii, several thousand feet up down to sea level in other locations. There are hundreds of stations that record CO2 all over the world at varying altitudes, yet the variation is not enormous. The most variation is in Antarctica, as I recall.

Yes, CO2 is heavier than O2 and N2. No, it does not all fall down to the surface and cluster at ground level, because we would all have suffocated long ago if it did.

Did you read it or just give up because it counters the liars?

originally posted by: NobodiesNormal

originally posted by: liejunkie01
CO2 traps heat ...

i remember in elementary school decades ago they were strict when they taught us the culprit was Monoxide, CO1, and not to get it confused with dioxide, CO2, that we exhale CO2 and its fine, but CO1 comes from exhaust and is the danger.

yet nowadays everyone refers to dioxide as the danger and it just strikes me as alot of people getting confused...

Bingo!

Venus has CO2 but no man made CO2. The percent man contributes to the makeup of the atmosphere is roughly .04% (point zero four percent) . That is percent not PPB... CO is the problem. (We don't call it CO1).

Carbon is the base element here and Titan, moon of Saturn has a lot of Methane and other Hydro (Hydrogen) carbons with no animals or human activity.

Titans and Venus are examples that man is not producing such volumes, nor dangerous volumes for our climate. The planet's and other major bodies produce their own Carbon based chemistry.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Greven

shill site

So we just have to take your word for it? Yeah right.

principia-scientific.org...

5. FOUNDING MEMBERS & SENIOR FELLOWS Team leader and co-founder, John O’Sullivan, pursued a vision to form a large body of experts united in opposing the worst excesses of government-funded science. By working as a team PSI is succeeding where lone voices had failed. From the outset PSI was driven by retired Dutch Analytical Chemist, Hans Schreuder, Texan engineer and science writer, Joseph A. Olson and Canada’s most popular climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball. Dr. Ball was our first appointed Chair of PSI and his reputation endures as a popular figure in the campaign against junk science. In 2013 John Sanderson, Past President of the Royal College of Science Association, took over as Chairman. In July 2011 PSI published the first of a series of science papers under the optimistic banner of Principia Scientific International. All PSI’s published papers are thoroughly peer-reviewed among a team of highly qualified experts. PSI is particularly proud of all it’s papers not least our first by Biologist, Professor Nasif Nahle and Astrophysicist, Joseph E Postma. These and all our subsequent free-to-view papers are located in the ‘Publications’ section of this website.

You trust them at face value?

Don't take my word for it, take the word of Dr. Roy Spencer and Anthony Watts on WUWT:

As readers may know, Dr. Roy Spencer and I have had a long running disagreement with the group known as “Principia Scientific International” aka the Sky Dragon Slayers after the title of their book. While I think these people mean well, they tend to ignore real world measurements in favor of self-deduced science.
-Anthony Watts, of Watts Up With That

'Well-meaning' pseudoscience is still pseudoscience.

The false IPP pseudoscience is what you are preaching. Case closed as your logic is mine too. The IPP theory is 100% not believable by this Environmental Scientist! Further and presented in several threads on ATS, real scientist who use the 'scientific process' as science and not politics, at various reputable institution planet wide, refute the IPP. This is BUNK and you are its patsy if you continue believing in failed models of future Earth Temps or moisture patterns.

The meteorologist I work with daily will tell you we can't accurately predict the weather within 10 F for a week ahead. We can predict trends, but nature creates it's own weather is the joke.

a reply to: liejunkie01

Principia-Scientia exists solely to publish anti climate change propaganda. Gases like CO2 exist in the form of molecules. These molecules bounce around at different speeds, mixing with other molecules in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is filled with carious current, including convection, analogous to the bubbles in boiling water. The paper cited in this hit piece ignores all that.

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.

CO2 molecular wt - 44.0095, NO2 -28.0134 , O2 - 31.98 CO - 28

CO2 IS HEAVIER by far than air... Case closed. Only CO2 from combustion at high altitudes will be able to have an affect. The elite need to stop flying....
ETA
or at least explain why they are lying about it all.


[

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: liejunkie01

Principia-Scientia exists solely to publish anti climate change propaganda. Gases like CO2 exist in the form of molecules. These molecules bounce around at different speeds, mixing with other molecules in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is filled with carious current, including convection, analogous to the bubbles in boiling water. The paper cited in this hit piece ignores all that.

The IPP exist strictly to lie to you to steal money away from other needs.

www.skepticalscience.com...

Here is a scientist explaining the CO2 warming affect in the Troposphere that we live in and a cooling in the Stratosphere. This guy balances out both sides a bit with his explanation.

Limestone deposits, and the past CO2 extreme levels of both high and the low ends, suggest that the Earth consumes CO2. It releases it also. The cycle of life. We are life and were intended to be in the cycle....

a reply to: Justoneman

CO2 IS "air." It is a component of the atmosphere. It can rise and fall like all the other molecules in response to heat.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: liejunkie01

Principia-Scientia exists solely to publish anti climate change propaganda. Gases like CO2 exist in the form of molecules. These molecules bounce around at different speeds, mixing with other molecules in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is filled with carious current, including convection, analogous to the bubbles in boiling water. The paper cited in this hit piece ignores all that.

The IPP exist strictly to lie to you to steal money away from other needs.

What other needs would you spend your money on? Please be specific.

A CERN Physicist chimes in and sets the record straight as far as I can tell, in a reputable way.

www.skepticalscience.com...

"In fact spectra from space show that the main CO2 bands are saturated in the lower atmosphere with minimal emission from the high atmosphere. The absorption of radiation follows a logarithmic law with distance assuming a uniform concentration of CO2 in air. All that happens if you double the concentration of CO2 in air is that the absorption length is halved. So more radiant energy is absorbed and reflected back to earth at lower levels of the atmosphere than before. However the total energy balance would appear at first sight to be almost unchanged. In fact just such an experiment was performed by Herr. Koch and led Angstrom to dismiss theories of man induced warming already back in the early 20th century (Realclimate: what Angstrom didn’t know)."

originally posted by: Justoneman
www.skepticalscience.com...

Here is a scientist explaining the CO2 warming affect in the Troposphere that we live in and a cooling in the Stratosphere. This guy balances out both sides a bit with his explanation.

Limestone deposits, and the past CO2 extreme levels of both high and the low ends, suggest that the Earth consumes CO2. It releases it also. The cycle of life. We are life and were intended to be in the cycle....

Correct. The planet is a huge ecosystem that we are a part of, like the dinosaurs were. The Earth does not care whether there are dinosaurs or not, just like it does not care whether there are human beings or not. There are an infinite number of things that go into the global climate. We can only control a very few of those. There is no debate about the science, only how to act upon it. Some countries actually welcome global warming.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: liejunkie01

Principia-Scientia exists solely to publish anti climate change propaganda. Gases like CO2 exist in the form of molecules. These molecules bounce around at different speeds, mixing with other molecules in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is filled with carious current, including convection, analogous to the bubbles in boiling water. The paper cited in this hit piece ignores all that.

The IPP exist strictly to lie to you to steal money away from other needs.

What other needs would you spend your money on? Please be specific.

Infrastructure of the peoples needs and not the infrastructure of Al Gore's empire. He has gotten real fat and real rich off this mess and ignored a car that runs on H20 while teaching at the University that built it.

This was built and ran in the early 90's this story was long after that and it is old.

wkrn.com...

Here is their second car they built

www.youtube.com...

Still crickets from Al.....

I met the professor at an event and learned his story.

ETA

They don't care about what works, they care about taxing us another way, period.

www.businesswire.com...

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: rickymouse

If cookin and eating more bacon or French fries will help the earth then I am alltoo happy to do my part to save her!

We have to do our part to save the world right

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Greven

shill site

So we just have to take your word for it? Yeah right.

principia-scientific.org...

5. FOUNDING MEMBERS & SENIOR FELLOWS Team leader and co-founder, John O’Sullivan, pursued a vision to form a large body of experts united in opposing the worst excesses of government-funded science. By working as a team PSI is succeeding where lone voices had failed. From the outset PSI was driven by retired Dutch Analytical Chemist, Hans Schreuder, Texan engineer and science writer, Joseph A. Olson and Canada’s most popular climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball. Dr. Ball was our first appointed Chair of PSI and his reputation endures as a popular figure in the campaign against junk science. In 2013 John Sanderson, Past President of the Royal College of Science Association, took over as Chairman. In July 2011 PSI published the first of a series of science papers under the optimistic banner of Principia Scientific International. All PSI’s published papers are thoroughly peer-reviewed among a team of highly qualified experts. PSI is particularly proud of all it’s papers not least our first by Biologist, Professor Nasif Nahle and Astrophysicist, Joseph E Postma. These and all our subsequent free-to-view papers are located in the ‘Publications’ section of this website.

You trust them at face value?

Don't take my word for it, take the word of Dr. Roy Spencer and Anthony Watts on WUWT:

As readers may know, Dr. Roy Spencer and I have had a long running disagreement with the group known as “Principia Scientific International” aka the Sky Dragon Slayers after the title of their book. While I think these people mean well, they tend to ignore real world measurements in favor of self-deduced science.
-Anthony Watts, of Watts Up With That

'Well-meaning' pseudoscience is still pseudoscience.

The false IPP pseudoscience is what you are preaching. Case closed as your logic is mine too. The IPP theory is 100% not believable by this Environmental Scientist! Further and presented in several threads on ATS, real scientist who use the 'scientific process' as science and not politics, at various reputable institution planet wide, refute the IPP. This is BUNK and you are its patsy if you continue believing in failed models of future Earth Temps or moisture patterns.

The meteorologist I work with daily will tell you we can't accurately predict the weather within 10 F for a week ahead. We can predict trends, but nature creates it's own weather is the joke.

What the # is the IPP?