It’s good news for green plants but bad news for green people: carbon dioxide emissions will increase by 25 percent in the next 20 years, according to ExxonMobil.
The UK newspaper, The Guardian, expressed the lament of the green people, observing that the forecast:
in effect [dismissed] hopes that runaway climate change can be arrested and massive loss of life prevented.
Speaking on behalf of green plants, we observe that greater CO2 emissions represents more life for plants and, subsequently, better lives for people (even the green ones, though they’ll never admit it!)
Please go to http://GlobalWarmingNotes.i8.com and read, “The Science of Global Warming” and there you will see an official chart of the American Meteorological Society of the absorption of IR by the gases in the atmosphere, including methane. It is not a “greenhouse” gas. It is not persistent in air as it auto-oxidizes, hence the name “swamp gas” and has been responsible for many mysterious sightings in swamps and bogs when it bubbles up and burns.
On examining the chart you will see two leptokurtic absorption spikes that have an area of less than 3% of the IR area range where water vapor has about 43% and CO2 has 10%. Both CO2 and CH4 are poor IR absorbers and where CO2 has 380 ppm methane has 18 ppm. It’s a joke.
Ozone is actually atomic oxygen, [O] and lasts 1/5,000,000th second after formation by hard UV. This process is happening all through the atmosphere and not at the tippy top. There is no “ozone shield.” Gases do not form surfaces for reflection or barriers; only liquids and solids can do that.
Every last single free oxygen atom combines with the next molecule it hits and the highest likelihood is that it will hit a nitrogen to make one of the six oxides of nitrogen, one of which is “laughing gas,” I am not laughing. Most of these oxides are brown and have caused smog in the LA basin for thousands of years because of few clouds and lots of sunshine. Again, all caused by hard UV hitting atmospheric oxygen.
Heidi Cullen was the global warming guru on The Weather Channel with a daily rasher of BS “We’re all gonna die” unless we stop driving, burning stuff and breathing too much. She was finally fired after she went to far with some wild claim that was clearly nuts. She has a Ph.D. in climatology, but like many of the degrees today got it without learning anything. She was an Eastern Religions undergrad and how that gives you a ticket to candidacy for a doctoral in climatology escapes me, but she has great legs.
Gentlemen;
Pardon the intrusion, but all of your technical points are irrelevant to the real issue here.
When anyone tries to argue about any of the technical aspects of the global warming debate, the only proper way to respond is to laugh at them. Why? Because just about everyone involved in this debate has completely missed the single most ironic and I believe the important aspect of the hoax.
WARMING IS GOOD!
The alarmists, and their statist supporters on the left, from the very beginning of this current cycle of climate bull$hit, has relied primarily upon their favorite tactical tool in this scam, ridicule. Since they have zero scientific evidence to back up their claim that man is responsible for the natural warming that has taken place since the end of the Little Ice Age, or for their absurd claim that this warming poses any threat whatsoever to life on earth, they ridicule us, and it works. They call us names. They slander us by characterizing us as evil shills for the terrible oil companies who don’t give a damn about the environment, etc.. etc.. etc.. Their main ploy for the last 10 or so years, has been that “THE CONSENSUS IS IN”, which everyone should know by now has been a blatant LIE from the very beginning.
The vast majority of people today, who oppose C&T (Cap & Trade), and all the other economic & political aspects of the AGW hoax, do so primarily on the grounds that the small amount of benefits we’d derive from C&T are too small for the huge costs involved. Even FOX news reporters continue to pay lip service to the AGW premise by referring to the concept of a “carbon footprint” as if the term has any real meaning, when of course it doesn’t. Virtually every aspect of the entire scam is absurd on its face.
In order to truly defeat them, we need to use their own tactics against them, the ones that they used to brainwash the entire world. We need to treat them like the (un-funny) joke that they are. We literally need to laugh at the whole argument to make the public understand how big a lie it is. And it will take time to get the message across, just as it took the left years of constant repetition & propaganda to succeed in tricking the world into believing that their story was true. Al Gore, & John Holdren & all of the leaders of the environmental extremists, look at any challenge to their dishonest world view in the same smug and condescending manner that Obama & his fellow progressives regard us, & the principles that made America great. Their arrogance is simply astounding. But if we have patience, and fight them the smart way, we can and will beat them at their own game for the simple reason that the truth is on our side. They know that too, which is why Al Gore never even acknowledged Lord Monckton’s invitation to debate the issue on TV for a $1,000,000 prize.
In order to defeat them, we need to use clever sound bites that the general public will understand and remember, and we shouldn’t feel that we’re stooping to their level by using their tactics because our sound bites will be true. My favorite is: “IT’S THE SUN STUPID!” We won’t be lying when we say that. I’ve had great success in getting people’s attention, by looking at anyone advocating their junk science with utter and complete disdain and saying “WARMING IS GOOD!” Depending on the circumstances, I’ve even been known to throw in a few choice expletives on occasion, simply for the shock value & to get people’s attention. There are others that are also effective, such as: “WITHOUT CO2 NOTHING WOULD BE GREEN!”. On occasion, when I’m dealing with a really stubborn true believer, I ask them the following question, “Where would you rather live, on a warm & balmy island in the tropics or in Northern Greenland with the Eskimos?” That usually shuts them up.
We need to talk about the BASIC science behind this, over and over again. We need to keep reminding them that the man made CO2 they’re lying about only represents 1 part in 62,500 of our atmosphere. The key to selling things with advertising is repetition, and it will work for us here, just the way it works for Coca Cola. We should avoid all discussion of the scientific subtleties of the issue by consistently reminding them that such argument is irrelevant because “Warming is Good”. We MUST not on the other hand talk about the cost vs. the benefits, because merely by discussing the issue, we’re granting our sanction to their idea that CO2 is bad or harmful to us in any way whatsoever. EVERY time we hear someone use the term “carbon footprint” we should interrupt them and explain to them how bogus that term actually is. If they persist in talking about the cost vs benefits part of the story, we MUST emphatically refuse to enter into the discussion by saying “THERE ARE NO BENEFITS!” and repeating it as many times as necessary. We have to move the game to our court.
With all the articles we see in the conservative blogosphere about “THE END” of the global warming hoax, it’s far too easy for us to become complacent and lazy right now, as if we’ve finally won the fight. We haven’t, & we’re not even close to winning it. Most of us have developed tunnel vision because of who we talk to and where we get our news. Most of us avoid the mainstream media, & mistakenly tend to think that the rest of the world is beginning to see the light. It hasn’t, because the media makes sure they never get to see it. In fact, while it’s painful to admit it, the entire community of global warming skeptics has accomplished very little thus far. If you disagree, ask yourself where we’d be right now without the help we got from the CRU email leak, and from Mother Nature, who, in what can only be described as an act of divine intervention, stopped the heating cycle as years ago.
The vast majority of the world’s people know nothing about the CRU email leaks, because 99% of the world’s media have either ignored the issue completely, or whitewashed it, just as they did with the results of the Brit’s investigation of the scandal, which was a complete farce. The Obama administration and the EPA continue to act as if nothing has happened. The opposition’s lies are so blatant, that the NY Times has actually said that the recent record low temperatures are being caused by global warming.
The biggest thing we have going for us right now is the fact that the warming stopped in 1998, and that we’re starting to see some SERIOUS cooling, which will most likely continue for the next 25 to 50 years. But as past history has shown, all it will probably do is start the cycle over again, and in fact it’s already happening, just like it did 35 years ago.
See the following article from Time Magazine from 1974: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
My favorite part of this article is in the 2nd para on page 2 which says that our fossil fuel emissions are BLOCKING the sun’s heat from reaching us thereby causing global cooling.
There have been 4 cycles of climate alarmism in America in the last hundred years. It’s hard to understand why anyone listens to these charlatans any more, but climate alarmism has been going on since man’s infancy, and it’s going to be really hard to put a stop to it. For more on this see:
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/11/01/lord
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/24/159-years
We need to change our strategy, by repeating the basic science about CO2, and the simple fact that it’s all been a big lie because WARMING IS GOOD!
I’ve found the following short video by Dr. Bob Carter to be the most effective tool to use when introducing people to the truth about climate alarmism:
fs
Sorry Adrian, here, this should pick it up for you.
As an Aussie I have but a vague idea of who or what a Heidi Cullen is.
I’m not inclined to argue the toss, CH4 is a greenhouse gas and, as you eventually stated, it does indeed absorb infrared radiation. As I recall it however, CH4 was considered significant because it occupies an unoverlapped band adjacent to N2O at near 7 microns. It is always possible my memory serves me poorly and anyone is welcome to jump in with precise spectral lines.
What is not gentle about, “Sorry, not true. N2 and O2 are transparent to IR. Please see any absorption chart..”
What is “collision absorption?” Since Tyndall no one has written of that. Who is “Manzanares?” And, I do not think that number is a link of a proper reference.
Sorry if you are a Heidi Cullen fan, but she has done, and continues to any time she can, more damage. When you read her bio it is very clear why. She knows nothing.
Methane is not an absorber of IR. The curve shows one tiny pimple of absorption at 5 mu which is not the high energy part of the spectrum. You can see a comparison chart at my website http://GlobalWarmingNotes.i8.com CO2 is a far better absorber and with 18 ppm plus auto oxidizing it is all gone in 24 hours anyway.
Actually Adrian there are further considerations: while O2 has limited absorption in the sub 3 micron range both it and N2 are subject to collision absorption, see, e.g., Collision-induced absorption of infrared radiation by N2, O2 and CO2 Manzanares et al doi:10.1016/0301-0104(84)85117-4. So it is technically correct to say that both nitrogen and oxygen absorb heat from the earth, just not by direct infrared radiation.
Similarly, while the language quoted is clumsy it is true that CH4 is a far more efficient absorber of infrared than CO2 on a molecular basis, it is simply far less abundant with a relatively short atmospheric half life.
How about we try to gently correct those who haven’t got it quite right rather than bludgeoning them because they haven’t?
“including the other 99% of our atmosphere (78% nitrogen & 21% oxygen) also absorb heat from the earth.”
Sorry, not true. N2 and O2 are transparent to IR. Please see any absorption chart that includes waves from 0.5 mu to 16 mu. That is the “heat wave” spectrum. Same story for methane, CH4. Anyone who says “methane is a greater greenhouse gas than CO2” is a liar or an idiot like Heidi Cullen, Ph.D. who was an eastern religions major undergrad and then got a Ph.D. in climatology, probably on the Internet or by sitting in the front rows and showing a lot of leg.
Water vapor is responsible for 99.8% of all atmospheric heating.
Gases cannot form surfaces and thus cannot become “mirrors” or “shields.” There is no “ozone shield.” It is a product of hard UV hitting O2 and goes on for 18 or 19 miles of air at noon and much more as sun approaches or passes by the zenith. “Smog” was seen in the LA basin long before white men came to clean it up. The Indians were sloppy.
Just don’t drop a GE patented, Chinese manufactured, carbon reducing,Earth saving CFL bulb in your house… That might really make you turn green. And not the environmentalist kind..
Not only is CO2 a trace gas occupying only 4/10ths of one percent of the atmosphere, but the Green’s perceived culprit, man made CO2 (from our use of fossil fuels) only accounts for half of one percent of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. That equals 16ppm, or one art in 62,500. Even water vapor, which accounts for 95+% of all greenhouse gasses, doesn’t have a big effect on climate change.
The primary cause of climate change is the constantly changing cycles of the sun. There’s even a serious debate going on about the validity of the greenhouse gas theory itself, because all gasses, including the other 99% of our atmosphere (78% nitrogen & 21% oxygen) also absorb heat from the earth.
There are 3 means of thermodynamic transfer: Conduction, Convection & Radiation. Greenhouse gasses are the only ones that can absorb radiative energy, but nitrogen & oxygen absorb heat by conduction & convection. Since the greenhouse gas effect comes from such a small portion of the atmosphere, its effect overall is quite small.
And then there’s another factor which the climate alarmists always seem to forget, and that’s the cooling effect that man has on the planet. Just as we do cause some warming (mostly local through the heat island effect) we also cause cooling when we cut down forests which absorb the sun’s heat, and replace them with wheat or other light colored grains that reflect heat back into the atmosphere. In fact nobody even knows whether man’s NET effect on climate change is either warming or cooling.
The claim that CO2 is a pollutant is totally absurd. CO2 is one of the primary building blocks of life. We exhale it after each breath we take, and all of the earth’s plant life eats it up. Increases in CO2 don’t cause warming, warming causes increases in CO2, a fact which has been proven and accepted by the top atmospheric physicists, including Dr. Richard Lindzen, the department chairman at MIT. The science is quite simple actually. The main repository of CO2 is the oceans. CO2’s solubility in water decreases the warmer it gets, causing more CO2 to rise up out of the seas.
The ultimate absurdity of the global warming hoax however is that we should fear warming at all in the first place. WARMING IS GOOD!
35 years ago the same alarmists were pushing the panic button over the coming ice age. See Time Magazine from 1974:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
And now that the recent warming period has ended, the same liars that have been preaching the dangers of global warming, are once again freaking out over another pending ice age. See:
http://www.helium.com/items/2066376
The fact is that throughout history, all life forms and civilizations have flourished during the earth’s warm periods, and suffered during the cold periods. Crops don’t grow well when it gets cold, and all plant life thrives when it’s warm. This has been one of my pet peeves about the entire hoax since I got involved in it and started writing about it.
There is no climate crisis. CO2 is good. We’ve come a long way in reducing the real pollutants we produce, such as sulphur dioxide, but we have a lot more that can be done in that effort. The worst pollution of all, such as General Electric’s disastrous pollution of the Hudson River with PCB’s. And there is no energy shortage in the US. In fact our country has the biggest energy reserves of any country on earth. If we get rid of the criminals running our government, build some new refineries, start building nuclear power plants again, and open up our reserves for drilling again, we could probably pay off our entire national debt within a relatively short period of time.
It’s time to end the madness in our country. We had a good start in the last election, but we need to get rid of the progressives in our government and have veto proof majorities in both houses in order to do what needs to be done. American’s need to get back to work, and we need a completely free market in order for that to occur. The days of the free lunch will soon be over.
fs
CO2 is a trace gas and insignificant by definition. It is a poor absorber of IR compared to water vapor, which is seven times better molecule for molecule and it has 80 times as many molecules generating 560 times the heating effect. Thus, water vapor is responsible for 99.8% of all atmospheric heating. But…
Carbon is 84% of all petroleum and coal which make 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon will give the elected ruling class more power than anything since the Magna Carta in 1215 AD. It is just that simple. Money and power are driving this nonsense.
The atmosphere is an equilibrium system and per Le Chatlelier increasing CO2 will reduce the water vapor capacity and cool the air. That is exactly what happened from 1930 to 1970 when we prepared for and fought WWII burning up all of Europe and Japan. Again, the basic junior high school physical science prevails, but all this generation’s Ph.D.s are poorly prepared. A committee of them in California recently required a week to determine that 100 birds found on the roads were dead. They still do not know the species, but sure can huge a tree.
For conservative ideas, science and humor see: http://adrianvance.blogspot.com The Two Minute Conservative for radio/TV hosts, opinion page editors and you. All free and on Kindle too.