31,487 U.S. Scientists Reject Global Warming Hoax

Fairfax Free Citizen ^ | June 4, 2017 | Jonathon A Moseely

[Moseley]

A growing list of 31,487 U.S. scientists (and counting) has signed a petition strongly rejecting as unproven the hypothesis of man-made global warming or climate change. These signers include four NASA astronauts, at least two Nobel Prize winning physicists, 9,029 Ph.D.s and some of the nation’s top climatologists. Only U.S. scientists are included in this particular petition. Only relevant scientific fields are included.

The “Global Warming Petition Project” includes a dramatically strong statement to which 31,487 scientists have already signed their names:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

[alloysteel]

Carbon dioxide is NOT CAPABLE of making the necessary physical trapping of heat energy in quantities sufficient to make a measurable difference in heat retention in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide has approximately the same capability of retaining heat energy as water vapor, and there is anywhere from 30 to 100 times as much water vapor in the atmosphere at any given time, as there is of carbon dioxide.

Water vapor also has two attributes that carbon dioxide cannot match. Within the range of earth’s atmospheric pressures and temperatures, water vapor may condense, forming liquid water, or as temperatures decline further, the liquid water may become ice, a mineral substance with a crystalline structure. While changing from one of these phases to another, either an enormous amount of heat energy is taken up, or released. Under normal earth atmospheric temperature and pressure, carbon dioxide can do neither of these phase changes, as it normally exists only as a gas. Under extreme pressure, carbon dioxide CAN become a liquid, but upon release, it reverts to the gas phase. If cooled sufficiently, carbon dioxide forms a solid, which is known as “Dry Ice”, but that temperature is VASTLY much colder than almost any point on the surface of the earth, and the “Dry Ice” evaporates directly from the solid to a gas, a phase change called sublimation.

There is really a lot more to the physical properties of water in all its states, than I have mentioned here, including the fact that the molecule of water vapor is much LIGHTER than the vast quantity of the mixture of gases that make up the atmosphere, primarily nitrogen, some 78%, and oxygen, some 21%, and rises VERY high into the stratosphere, forming the high thin clouds we call cirrus, which are primarily very tiny ice crystals. Carbon dioxide, being about 40% greater molecular weight than either nitrogen or oxygen, tends to stay much lower in the atmosphere. There is a reason why there is a “tree line” on mountains, that is because the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere at that altitude is TOO LOW to support large tree growth. Small twisted plants can grow, but only very, very slowly.

Carbon dioxide CANNOT do even a small part of heat energy transfer that water vapor is capable of.

[PatriotGirl827]

bookmark

[Sasparilla]

Democrats are hopping mad that Obama’s “achievement” and climate “change” are being continuously exposed as frauds and hoaxes.
We are continually seeing that liberalism is founded on lies, fraud, misrepresentation, and hoaxes.

[Moseley]

You should expand what you wrote into an article. Maybe send it to Editor@Americanthinker.com

[Pagey]

Bttt

[Moseley]

"Also, don’t be tricked into believing that we have the burden of proving the absence of man-made global warming. Those who eould wreck our economy have the burden of proving — more than alleging — the need to act

Excellent point.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

It’s about time the 3% spoke up!

Snort. JK.

[EQAndyBuzz]

Take the grants from the 557k getting grants and give it to the 31k who probably could do a better job of forecasting.

[publius911]

The hypothesis rests exclusively on computer models. Models are created by humans and merely reflect the assumptions and biases of the humans who create them. The only test of such models is whether they predict accurately future events.

Actually, no.
The best test is how they can predict future events. How?
Unfortunately only 1 or 2 "checks" can be made, due to the time periods involved. The fraudsters are clever, but not stupid! Any period of less than 20 years is useless and inconclusive. Any prediction of less 10 years is just noise.

Just pick a year, any year in the last 30. Search out the prediction from 20 years before. The score correct is zero.

That is why ALL "predictions" of Armageddon or the end of all our coastal cities are 50 or more years into the future. No chance of embarrassment of looking like idiot morons by being 100% wrong again...

There is an mathematically inviolable rule of computer calculations and simulations : GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT.
That has always been and must always be 100% TRUE.

[dpwiener]

Thanks for the link. I printed out the petition form just now, signed it, and will be mailing it in tomorrow morning. (I would have preferred to email it, but oh well. These days I doubt that I have to send stamped physical letters via the U.S. Postal Service more than half a dozen times a year, if that.)

[Moseley]

"I wish people who don't understand these things would not pontificate on them. The effect of CO2 on re-radiation from the earth to outer space is unarguable. That is not the point. The point is the response of the system to increased generation of CO2.

But the overlooked variable is that hot air rises. When air containing CO2 absorbs heat, it expands and it MOVES. It does not stay in one place.

It has never been tested -- and it would be impossible to test -- the effect of CO2 in the open atmosphere given the reality that when air absorbs heat it ELEVATES to higher altitudes.

The concept of CO2 absorbing heat focuses exclusively on the idea that air containing CO2 remain STATIC as a layer blanketing the Earth's surface.

There is no possibility of examining what happens on a planetary scale when CO2 absorbs heat and then RISES 5, 10, 20 miles above the Earth's surface.

Remember that at only 5.5 miles where passenger jets fly the air is so thin that humans cannot breath and live for any significant length of time.

So how does the heat-trapping quality of CO2 behave when the air containing heat-trapping CO2 rises up to 10 miles above the Earth or 20 miles?

And if one were a scientist, not just a fiction writer wearing a lab coat, how would you TEST this behavior of CO2 at 10 or 20 miles or more above the Earth and the effect on the planetary-wide energy budget?

Not only has this never been tested but it CAN NEVER be tested.... unless you build a laboratory experiment the size of an entire planet.

What if you used a vacuum chamber and reduced the pressure in a chamber to approximate 20 miles above the Earth?

That still would not tell you what happens on a planet-wide scale to the circulation of heat-carrying gases from the Earth's surface up to high altitudes.

[Moseley]

Sounds like that could be expanded into an article, too.

[Moseley]

"I wish people who don't understand these things would not pontificate on them. The effect of CO2 on re-radiation from the earth to outer space is unarguable. That is not the point."

If CO2 absorbs heat....

Well, EVERYTHING absorbs heat, doesn't it? I can't think of any substance that does not absorb heat. Nitrogen absorbs heat. Oxygen absorbs heat.

But if CO2 absorb heat at the Earth's surface...

... and then RISES to high altitudes....

... does CO2 not TRANSPORT heat from the Earth's surface to high altitudes?

We have no idea the effect of CO2 on a planet-wide climate system.

It is just as possible that CO2 acts like an air conditioner cooling the Earth by absorbing heat at the Earth's surface, carrying it up to high altitudes, and releasing heat at high altitudes where it goes out into space.

[eyeamok]

Sounds like plenty enough Expert Witnesses to put the Whole Global Warming Crowd in Prison for life and 100% Civil Asset forfeiture for the FRAUD they have been perpetrating.

[Skooz]

Bump for later.

[AndyJackson]

If CO2 absorbs heat...

It doesn't. It immediately [e.g. instantaneously on the time scale of any bulk motion of the atmosphere] re-radiates any absorbed light - it just scatters the radiation. So, at the infra-red wavelengths of interest it is like a grey sky - like looking through a cloud.

[DarthVader]

I am one of them.

[Mark]

Greenland ...ain’t green no more.

[TigersEye]

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

[ifinnegan]

Thanks.

You should link to the actual petition.

http://www.petitionproject.org