Nothing here causes global warming:
Posted on 11/06/2023 6:53:40 AM PST by foundedonpurpose
Carbon dioxide does not cause climate change No gas causes warming
COMMENTARY By James T. Moodey Wednesday, July 12, 2023 OPINION:
The green movement’s climate-change scheme is based upon the false notion that carbon dioxide and other gases cause global warming. They do not.
We don’t have to guess about this. We have empirical and scientific proof.
I owned a Weights and Measures gas-physics test-and-repair facility and conducted tests. We learned gas physics from engineers at factories that manufacture gas-physics instruments.
A card so good, our experts signed up personally A card so good, our experts signed up personally Paid | The Motley Fool 10 Things to Know About Psoriatic Arthritis 10 Things to Know About Psoriatic Arthritis Paid | Healthgrades Nearly everything the public has heard about climate change for the past 30 years has been from the professorial world, which is theoretical. And how often have their predictions come true?
Because their world is theoretical, they use peer review for approval. There is no such thing as peer review in the private sector. Something either works or it doesn’t. Everything is tested. Engineers who design gas-physics instruments must be correct.
If they aren’t, their instruments would fail and buildings might burn.
There is no curriculum for gas physics in academia. Engineering and physics classes merely touch upon the subject with 100-year-old (and misleading) postulates such as continuity of energy and thermodynamics...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Read the article and debate those points. Unless someone has been to those 3 places, that is non-proven scientific consensus, most likely proven through peer-review. Not hard facts.
The Minoan Warm Period almost exactly corresponds to the Era of Judges (Moses to Samuel). The Greek Dark Age cooling period corresponds to the Era of Kings (beginning with King Saul). Jesus and His disciples lived in the Roman Warm Period. It was during the Dark Age cooling period that the Anglos and Saxons were displaced from Germany (call it my ancestors Trail of Tears). It was during the Medieval Warm Period that England really became a thing. The Little Ice Age cooling period was when it was too hard to do land routes from Europe to Asia (that, combined with the Barbary pirates and the Muslim takeover of Constantinople is why the King of Spain hired Columbus to see if one could sail west to Asia). The LIA was also the time of massive takeovers of many peoples as everyone was desperate for food (crop yields way down during the LIA and rain patters really hard to predict and large increase in deaths by plague). Both the massive African slave trade (300K to 500K brought to what we today call the U.S.) and the European slave trade (1 to 1.5 million whites taken to north Africa as slaves) were during this time.
Then the Modern Warm Period brought happier times with higher crop yields, more predictable rain, and less deaths by plague. We used to embrace it and be glad we lived in it. In fact, the political scam global cooling scare of the 1970's was an acknowledgement that the Modern Warm Period is a great time to be alive (the lie was them saying it was over and it wasn't going to last 4 to 6 centuries like the prior warming periods). NASA used to produce charts much like the one I post -- until the 1990's when Clinton/Gore directed govt money towards only the "research" that made the Modern Warm Period look both unique and bad.
Surface temperature of Mercury (daylight side): 800 F
Surface temperature of Mercury (night side): -300 F”
goodness! I’ll try not to grumble on those days when Texas has a 40 degree swing in a 24 hour period!
>>There is no curriculum for gas physics in academia.
Actually, there is. I’ve suffered through the courses.
>>Kinetic energy (motion) is destroyed by gravity, another tenet of gas physics that has been ignored.
Total crackpot!
It's not that methane and CO2 fails to hold the heat down in the shadow of a midday solar eclipse, it's how much does it absorb and re-radiate long IR waves, slowing the decrease in temperature.
In the vacuum of space, an object can go from hundreds of degrees to minus hundreds of degrees as fast as it can radiate IR when going from light to shadow. Add an insulating layer, and that radiation is slowed, thus slowing the rate of cooling.
Nothing here causes global warming:
“warming” is a silly word to use.
The context they are using is green house effect. Water vapor, for example, has a strong green house effect. It’s the reason why arid deserts get so cold at night even though they were so hot during the day.
CO2 has a negligible greenhouse effect and there isn’t enough of it to make a difference even if it was stronger.
How does an insulator work?
Let’s be honest here. No one says the greenhouse effect operates ‘in the same way glass traps heat in a greenhouse.” The term “greenhouse effect” is purely metaphorical. It is a real thing, btw, but will not lead to the catastrophic scenarios being sold by the media for political purposes.
I notice that instead of discussing the facts you chose to violate FR guidelines with your personal attack.
Don’t post to me in the future.
“ CO2 and water vapor prevent the outward radiation of heat from the earth in the same way class traps heat in a green house. Therefore the CO2 and moisture in the air are green house gasses.
That is the big but plausible lie”
**************************************************
Water vapor in the atmosphere will help retain (actually, it simply slows heat loss) atmospheric heat. Anyone who has spent anytime in a dry desert knows that the ambient air temperature plunges quickly at night with the absence of atmospheric humidity, CO2 is nothing compared to water vapor.
I thought it started out stupid and quit reading it. I don’t believe in man mad global warming either.
Meanwhile the earth’s atmosphere keeps the average temperature near a cozy 300 degrees above absolute zero. Nighttime arctic lows are about 230 and desert highs are about 330 degrees Kelvin.
I don't think I have purposely distorted the author's thesis.
It is his thesis that gasses do not create heat. Fiberglass insulation in your home's walls and ceilings do not create heat either.
Yet we know that fiberglass insulation is a barrier to the flow of heat, and we add it to our homes to slow the movement of heat either into or out of our homes, which is also what greenhouse gasses also do.
“Clearly, gas causes warming.”
In the exact same way insulation heats your home for free, right?
Doesn’t matter ehat the facts are, the left have invented their own “New Truth”, and the world has red it hook line and sinker
0.04% of our atmosphere is not, can not, cause global limited change- there isn’t nearly enough coverage I. The atmosphere to do so.
> He is not distorting the fact that the author uses false statements in order to appear educated to the uneducated.<
His statements are no less false than the eggheads who told us CO2 causes global cooling. End fossil fuels. And the same eggheads who later told us CO2 causes global warming. End fossil fuels. Both cannot be true but both can be false.
EC
“His statements are no less false than the eggheads who told us CO2 causes global cooling.”
His statements, as previously shown, are totally false.
Cloud cover keeps the surface of the earth relatively cool by reflecting solar irradiation, that would warm the earth’s surface up if it got through, back into space.
Certain types of radiation from space nucleate clouds on earth by creating cascading collisions among molecules of gas high in the atmosphere. To the extent such radiation is deflected away from earth, we get less cloud cover, and average temperatures rise. To the extent such radiation is not deflected but is instead allowed to strike the earth’s atmosphere unimpeded, we get more cloud cover, and average temperatures drop.
In this regard, once again, the behavior of the sun determined which way we go, in terms of lesser or greater average amounts of cloud cover.
A more active sun from an electromagnetic perspective (the shorthand version of this is: gobs and gobs of sunspots before, during and after Solar Maximum), tends to extend its protection around earth more forcefully and consistently, thereby deflecting relatively more of the cloud-nucleating space rays, thereby decreasing the average extent and persistence of atmospheric cloud cover, thereby increasing average surface temperature.
The opposite is also observed.
A less active sun, from an electromagnetic perspective (the shorthand version of this is: a relative paucity of sunspots before, during and after Solar Maximum) tends to withdraw its protection around earth, or make it less consistent,, thereby deflecting relatively fewer of the cloud-nucleating space rays, thereby increasing the average extent and persistence of atmospheric cloud cover, thereby decreasing average surface temperature.
Yes, this knowledge and the research that produced it is actively being suppressed.
Yes, in exactly the same way. It is the author's (and yours, I presume) thesis that since gasses do not create heat, they do not contribute in any way to the temperature of the Earth.
That is clearly a false conclusion.
To be clear, I do not believe that anthropogenic CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming. But I don't deny that gasses in our atmosphere do moderate our temperature swings between daytime and nighttime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.