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

originally posted by: Justoneman

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?

Yes, and it was a waste of time as usual.

Read more of the thread.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I've been saying this for years... CO2 is heavier than air, so it tends to sink. This is actually a big design consideration in greenhouse design.

Of course, the atmosphere is not static like a greenhouse. Wind currents continually mix the atmosphere, and volcanoes can shoot gases upward easily. Even respiration puts hot CO2 in the air where it will lift somewhat until it cools. CO2 concentration is a constant battle between the different forces and sources and sinks. The 0.04% figure is an average.

So I would expect to find areas of CO2 concentration in relatively high altitudes. I would not expect the amount of CO2 at high elevations to be equal to those at lower elevations on a consistent basis. We are talking about a dynamic planet, not a laboratory.

The comparisons to Venus are ridiculous, btw. A different orbit, a different heat balance, and a different history.

TheRedneck

CO2 concentration does somewhat decrease with height, but only by a little:

Notice in this chart, that CO2 is approximately 20ppm less (Δ ~= 5%) at 80km compared to 0km (sea level). This one is from satellite measurements.

They also have sampled it with aircraft and balloon, such as this study from March 2017 using data from Jan - Mar 2000, which had a mean surface CO2 ppm of 369.81. If you examine the actual article, you will see charts that show a change in altitude versus CO2 ppm (figures 5a-d on p3869); CO2 ppm in the vertical column from 0km to above 30km differ by less than 10ppm (Δ = less than 3%).

While CO2 does favor the surface, the observations of only small vertical deviation for the vast majority of atmospheric mass supports the idea that it is very well mixed.

Can we agree that the article in the OP is complete bull# now? I mean it says idiotic things like this:

We have been lied to: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an alleged ‘well-mixed gas’ also alleged to reside in sufficient quantities high in the atmosphere to cause global warming

Along with being wrong about CO2 "high in the atmosphere," CO2 will absorb and reemit infrared radiation all through the vertical column - that's simple physics. This absorption/reemission can happen all the way down near the surface, which it is - and that's part of the reason the stratosphere is cooling. Energy input = energy output, and the input from the Sun hasn't changed; what's changed is the distribution of energy nearer to the surface, which changes the temperature of the atmospheric layers to increase at the surface but decrease higher in the atmosphere.

CO2 exits throughout the atmosphere, varying only a small percentage with height.

The premise that because CO2 is heavier than O2 and N2 it will cluster at the bottom should be obviously wrong because you are still alive. There were 3192.627 gigatonnes of atmospheric CO2 in July of this year, which if it were all at the surface displacing O2 and N2, would smother all terrestrial life in several meters of pure CO2.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: liejunkie01

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

We dont have enough understanding of Venus to surmise much what so ever. Did you know a day on Venus is some 243 days.

originally posted by: jrod
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.

You don't comprehend what you read, do you?

C02 can't output more energy than it absorbs, that was the claim that was made. C02 doesn't WARM anything. There is no science to suggest C02 warms anything.

Insulating is not warming. Trapping heat and creating heat are two completely different things, and regardless, you can't compare earth to Venus, when Venus is made of 96% C02, and we are 75% nitrogen. Warming is creating heat. C02 doesn't create heat.

DuPont didn't lobby against R-22 because they lost exclusivity to the patent, that doesn't even make sense. EPA did it for profit. DuPont could have continued to produce R-22 even though the patent was open. In fact -- it's not like DuPont is the only company that makes R-22 alternatives or conversion kits. R-22 is still the best refrigerant, why would DuPont want to not make it anymore when R-134a patents aren't exclusive to DuPont?

The E.P.A. cashed in on "Ozone" fear mongering by forcing reclamation on R-22. Reclamation devices cost a lot of money and basically killed the profit margin on heating and cooling. Roll out the next refrigerant that is "Ozone safe" to avoid reclamation.

They still make R-22 now, even DuPont -- they can only sell it to the government, however.

a reply to: SRPrime

They still make R-22 now, even DuPont -- they can only sell it to the government

This isn't entirely accurate. I am a sheet metal worker and our job title includes heating and air conditioning. A licensed HVAC technician can still buy R-22 but it is very expensive. A good friend of mine, we were in the same apprentice class owns a HVAC company and he still buys R-22. A small cylinder runs about $1,000 for R-22 which gets passed on to the customer. He often sells the customer a new system because they usually need a few hundred dollars to several hundred dollars of R-22 to recharge their system. The legislation pretty much priced it out of the market. Not only the price but you have to account for all of the used R-22 that has been reclaimed. It is a costly process.

I also have my technican cards to purchase these refridgerants. The industry has moved to a more high pressure refridgerant called 410a. This is pretty much the standard at the moment.

originally posted by: SRPrime

originally posted by: jrod
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.

You don't comprehend what you read, do you?

C02 can't output more energy than it absorbs, that was the claim that was made. C02 doesn't WARM anything. There is no science to suggest C02 warms anything.

Insulating is not warming. Trapping heat and creating heat are two completely different things, and regardless, you can't compare earth to Venus, when Venus is made of 96% C02, and we are 75% nitrogen. Warming is creating heat. C02 doesn't create heat.

DuPont didn't lobby against R-22 because they lost exclusivity to the patent, that doesn't even make sense. EPA did it for profit. DuPont could have continued to produce R-22 even though the patent was open. In fact -- it's not like DuPont is the only company that makes R-22 alternatives or conversion kits. R-22 is still the best refrigerant, why would DuPont want to not make it anymore when R-134a patents aren't exclusive to DuPont?

The E.P.A. cashed in on "Ozone" fear mongering by forcing reclamation on R-22. Reclamation devices cost a lot of money and basically killed the profit margin on heating and cooling. Roll out the next refrigerant that is "Ozone safe" to avoid reclamation.

They still make R-22 now, even DuPont -- they can only sell it to the government, however.

Trapping heat is enough. There is no need to create it.

Every object that is subject to heating by a star like the sun eventually reaches a point of thermal equilibrium. The question is: how hot is that equilibrium? As an object gets hotter, it also radiates more heat. So what insulation does is cause it to radiate less heat. And that, in turn causes it to have to be very hot before it can reach equilibrium.

But you are correct that the Earth's temperature can never reach the same levels as Venus. Just raising CO2 levels won't achieve that.

originally posted by: Outlier13
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.

More isn't always better. Space ships have to have CO2 filters to scrub some of the CO2 out of the air as the astronauts breathe in oxygen and breathe out CO2. Without the scrubbers, they would get CO2 poisoning.

Have you ever watched the Apollo 13 movie?

However, there probably isn't enough CO2 in all the coal/oil/natural gas deposits on Earth to ever reach the level where we would actually suffer from CO2 poisoning.

But we could mess up our weather patterns.

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.

The wold won't die, but the changes will be very expensive to adapt to. It's not just ocean levels rising. Weather patterns will change. Areas that used to be desert may become tropical jungles. Areas that were jungles, or good crop lands, may become desert. The people who live in those places will suffer.

There is some speculation even now that the problems in Syria may be an example of this. They are facing record draughts The predictions for global warming right now are that wet areas will get more intensely wet, and dry areas will get more intensely dry. Syria is a somewhat dry area, that has gotten so dry people are killing one another over water rights. (Remember we're talking a rise in AVERAGE temperatures. Like in the sense of how the average American might have 1.6 children... etc.... but have you ever met a person with .6 of a child?)

So much lack of understanding in this thread it boggles the mind.

The OP source is full of crap. Believe what you want, or do a bit of research.. and realize it's a bunch of crap. Whatever.. if you are going to so willingly believe a site that exists to try and disprove that humankind has any detrimental effect on our planet, I guess you will believe anything.

Try to understand the difference between solids, liquids and gases, and then.. understand how gases react in an active atmosphere. Just reading some bullcrap site with ridiculous theories and spouting them here isn't actually proving anything, other than you are gullible.

originally posted by: rickymouse

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

I was in as soon as I saw the word bacon. I didn't need to read anything else!

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: liejunkie01

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

Venus 's atmosphere is 96.5% CO2.
Earth's atmosphere is 400 PARTS PER MILLION

Simple FACTS debunk your entire, uninformed, response.

a reply to: Justoneman

You didn't quite answer the question. What, then, in your opinion, are "the people's needs." I know it is difficult, but please try to refrain from somehow making the people's needs contingent on Al Gore.

a reply to: M5xaz

Venus's atmosphere is similar to that of Earth before life developed photosynthesis. It may have been the reduction of carbon dioxide in favor of nitrogen and oxygen that lowered our global temperature.

originally posted by: SRPrime

originally posted by: jrod
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.

You don't comprehend what you read, do you?

C02 can't output more energy than it absorbs, that was the claim that was made. C02 doesn't WARM anything. There is no science to suggest C02 warms anything.

Insulating is not warming. Trapping heat and creating heat are two completely different things, and regardless, you can't compare earth to Venus, when Venus is made of 96% C02, and we are 75% nitrogen. Warming is creating heat. C02 doesn't create heat.

The physics of the greenhouse effect is extremely well understood scientifically and has been for decades, and is verified by long term experimental measurements. The understanding of radiative transfer did not start out for climatology but for military purposes in the 1950's.

CO2 has a higher reaction with photons in the infrared. As a consequence the atmosphere shines in the infrared more than it would without the greenhouse effect. The equilibrium temperature on the surface is thus higher than it would be otherwise.

This is established scientific fact, in theory and experiment.

originally posted by: Outlier13

How is it these thousands of "climate scientists" are able to make supposedly remarkable predictions on the future of our global weather patterns based off of the false narrative of man-made global warming yet none of them can predict local weather patterns with any level of accuracy past 3 days?

Because you misunderstand the distinct natures of what is being predicted. It isn't the same thing. One is the configuration of the particular state of the atmosphere at a moment (weather), the other is the statistical attractor and ergodically averaged parameters and boundary conditions.

Analogy: You can't predict where any particular snowflake will fall. And yet, you can predict, with good confidence, the temperature, pressure and humidity conditions which make snowfall highly likely or not. Why is that? Because of the laws of physics. Same is true with climate.

The object of the prediction is different between weather and climate and all scientists understand the difference---only dissemblers and willfully ignorant don't listen or care.

A week out and you might as well be throwing darts at a weather board in the dark. Yet somehow these same scientists expect us to believe they can predict GLOBAL weather patterns years and decades out? Laughable.

Please, deny ignorance as the slogan of this site says.

originally posted by: Outlier13

A 9.3 mile wide asteroid / comet / meteor hits our planet, kills 75% of all vegetable and animal life and in the 227 years man has been burning fossil fuels we are somehow going to cause mass destruction and the death of our planet?

No it will make for a hotter climate which will disrupt weather patterns and cause problems for humanity as predicted.

originally posted by: Greven


The premise that because CO2 is heavier than O2 and N2 it will cluster at the bottom should be obviously wrong because you are still alive. There were 3192.627 gigatonnes of atmospheric CO2 in July of this year, which if it were all at the surface displacing O2 and N2, would smother all terrestrial life in several meters of pure CO2.

Nah, we'd start down in Florida with Radon (ugh), then xenon, and some bromine.

Lovely day for a Guinness!

a reply to: DJW001

Venus's atmosphere is similar to that of Earth before life developed photosynthesis. It may have been the reduction of carbon dioxide in favor of nitrogen and oxygen that lowered our global temperature.

A couple of issues with that... photosynthesis cannot create nitrogen gas (N2) from CO2. It can create O2 from CO2.

That is not reduction of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is the reduction of carbon. O2 is less stable than CO2, so the conversion is endothermic (requires energy, typically from sunlight).

For the present atmosphere of Venus to be indicative of pre-life Earth, that means sometime, somewhere, somehow, photosynthesis had to occur. That means plant life had to exist in the conditions we see on Venus (or a reasonable facsimile thereof). That then means there is absolutely no danger of runaway CO2 on the Earth, because it has already, at some time in the past, dropped the carbon dioxide concentration from 90+% to 0.03%. We could not possibly introduce carbon dioxide at a rate high enough to overload a system that stabilized thusly.. we could set the entire surface of the planet on fire and it wouldn't do it.

Incidentally, that basic idea was proposed many years ago by Carl Sagan. He actually put together a basic timetable of how terraforming Venus could be done, first by introducing ice-asteroids into the atmosphere to introduce water vapor, then by seeding the atmosphere with blue-green algae. Made for some pretty good reading.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

First, I did not say that photosynthesis created the nitrogen, simply that the reduction of the CO2 allowed the nitrogen to predominate as the carbon got locked up through photosynthesis. Oxygen is highly reactive, and is more likely to be found bonding to other elements, especially carbon, due to its multiple bonding opportunities. Venus is an example of pre-life atmospheric conditions:CO2 rich. Earth is an example of a post-life atmosphere, CO2 poor. There are other factors that helped create Venus's hostile environment, but CO2 is one of them.

ETA: It is not a question of returning Earth's atmosphere to pre-life conditions by "overloading" it. It is a question of releasing enough of the biologically sequestered carbon into the atmosphere through oxidation to increase Earth's heat retention enough to raise the overall heat content by a few degrees, not hundreds.

a reply to: SRPrime

Radiative forcing....maybe you should look it up.

CO2 traps heat because of this.

No one here says CO2 creates heat. Your argument is void of logic.

About Dupont...i was going off what a late organic chem professor(who possibly suffered from guano psychosis) told the class. Duponts patent on freon was up...they had R-134a on standby so they could still control the market on refrigerants after lobbying to get freon banned. When tgeir patent rights were up, anyone could make it. This happens often in the US with prescription meds.

a reply to: DJW001

First, I did not say that photosynthesis created the nitrogen

No, you didn't. But you never specified where the nitrogen would come from either. I read an insinuation that it somehow came from carbon dioxide, obviously not what you intended.

Oxygen is highly reactive, and is more likely to be found bonding to other elements, especially carbon, due to its multiple bonding opportunities.

Yes. Oxygen reduces carbon.

It is not a question of returning Earth's atmosphere to pre-life conditions by "overloading" it. It is a question of releasing enough of the biologically sequestered carbon into the atmosphere through oxidation to increase Earth's heat retention enough to raise the overall heat content by a few degrees, not hundreds.

Agreed. I personally expect the shift in thermal equilibrium to be on the order of tenths or hundredths of a degree. Carbon dioxide only affects one narrow spectrum band in the radiated heat of the planet.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes, the infrared, which is why it causes the greenhouse effect.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: M5xaz

Venus's atmosphere is similar to that of Earth before life developed photosynthesis. It may have been the reduction of carbon dioxide in favor of nitrogen and oxygen that lowered our global temperature.

The Earths atmosphere was NEVER 95% CO2.