It is extremely easy to discredit the "science" behind man-made (anthropogenic) carbon dioxide, CO2, caused global warming and climate change. Why do we not see it? I intend to show you now.
Are you familiar with heat or sun lamps or camp, bon, or fireplace fires? They give off infrared radiation, IR, in addition to some visible light. That kind of radiation heats us and other things from the outside in (unlike microwave radiation). I love radiant heat. It is much preferable to convection heating. You don't know what you are missing if all you have experienced is forced warmed air heating. Why are some fires called bonfires? The magic of radiant heat is there is no heat between you and the source. We have to qualify that a bit. The sun gives off radiant heat, including IR. We should even qualify that statement. The sun gives off certain waves (I never understood the particle theory, so I'm ignoring it). Now there is no heat whatsoever in those waves or as those waves travel from the sun to Earth's atmosphere. It is only when the waves strike some mass that heat is created. But is heat always the result?
Space is not warmed by infrared waves. The air in a room heated by radiant heat would not be warmed by those waves either except for the fact there are many molecules and other stuff in the room's air that those waves strike. However, most warming of the air in the room is from the waves striking the ceiling, walls, floor, furniture, clothing, skin, etcetera, and those things, in turn, warming the air.
Now a radiant heat wave warms everything that has mass and that it strikes. (I will refine this statement shortly). IR, qualifies as a radiant heat wave and warms every other thing in the air besides CO2 (say 0.04% of air) like nitrogen (79% of air) and oxygen (21%). Admittedly, CO2 has more mass than either of those, so more heat may be generated. (Why did he only say, "May be?"). However, there are other things in the air and atmosphere with even greater mass than CO2 that would absorb even more IR. For example, dust, other particulates, and water vapor (not a water molecule) would have more mass than a CO2 molecule.
Even though everything in the air is heated by IR, we are told that CO2 plays a special and apparently unique role in "trapping" heat. We hear endless horror stories of "greenhouse gases" and a "CO2 blanket." It is all garbage.
Let us deal with the claim that CO2 "traps heat." What is the genesis of this idea? What is really happening? A laboratory expirement can be conducted that shows CO2 makes certain infrared wavelengths disappear. From that, a false conclusion that CO2 "traps heat" was drawn. But there is no heat to trap. There is only heat to be created when the required wavelengths encounter some mass. But something "special" does happen when certain IR wavelengths or frequencies encounter a CO2 molecule. It is not what we are told.
The "disappeared" or reduced or "missing," almost missing(?) --- how about significantly attenuated(?) wavelengths and the relation to CO2 were first observed, I believe, while noting the "missing" incoming radiation from the sun at those wavelengths after passing through our atmosphere. Thus, does CO2 keep us cooler? What is the net of incoming and outgoing radiation being "trapped," "blocked," or "disappeared?").
Just because certain wavelengths in the infrared, IR, spectrum are gone, "disappeared," does that mean they necessarily created heat? Remember, IR, as we know it, warms from the outside in. CO2 has the magical power to let those wavelengths in as if there were a special keyhole or secret entrance. Can we assume there is no resistance to their entry? If so, little or no heat could result. Is resistance necessary for the generation of heat?
The observed "missing" IR wavelengths are due to the fact that CO2 molecules' carbon-to-oxygen bonds are "resonant" at certain IR wavelengths or frequencies. When radio circuits are at resonance, the least heat is generated, and more energy is transfered. That is the nature of resonance. (Is any of this resonating with you, or are you still resisting)? The CO2 molecules could absorb some of that special IR energy as vibrational energy. That is consistent with resonance. Would the CO2 molecule then be in a higher more active state (Are you excited yet or heated?). They might expand. Rapidly expanding gas molecules are the basis for refrigeration. They get cold when released from a compressed state and expand. Does that apply to one expanding molecule? (Are you expanding, ready to blow?). Such a CO2 molecule that is stimulated but not heated by some IR actually "traps" less heat per unit of mass than oxygen and nitrogen and other things in the air. Never forget that one molecule of oxygen is removed from the air for every CO2 molecule made. Net?
There is no evidence IR waves once "captured" by a CO2 molecule are later re-transmitted, otherwise they would not have gone missing in the first place.
All molecules in the air are in motion, hitting and bouncing off other molecules --- kinetic energy. Can we assume a CO2 molecule absorbing IR energy becomes "stimulated" and begins bouncing off other surrounding molecules like an enraged, beserk, three hundred pound NFL lineman on "the juice." Consider certain IR frequencies as CO2 "performance enhancing drugs," PEDs.
Each CO2 molecule is 57% heavier than any nitrogen molecule and 37% heavier than any oxygen one.
So what could the scenario really be? Do stimulated CO2 molecules blast larger distances between other molecules, creating more openings for running back IR waves to get further down field, further into space? Why does our atmosphere expand? It is not constrained by the walls of any "greenhouse." That's all hoakum. "Greenhouse gas" is a shibboleth. It's the rigid enclosure responsible for the extra warmth in a green house not CO2. Earth has nonesuch.
Air and the atmosphere are not the same things. There are a lot of water molecules in the atmosphere that we don't associate necessarily with dry air, at least. And there's more stuff. How many other things percentage wise? They all absorb IR and are heated. How many are resonant at some IR frequency?
The more CO2 molecules that are out there the less chance there is of IRs striking other non-resonant molecules that would resist and thus be warmed.
[Fun with numbers: Assuming an average NFL lineman of 315 pounds --- first, as our nitrogen molecule. The CO2 molecule would be 494 pounds. If the oxygen molecule were 315 pounds, the CO2 molecule would be a paltry 431 pounds. And, if the water molecule were 315 pounds, the CO2 molecule would be 768 pounds. Such beastly CO2 brutes can bully and blast immense holes for IRs to escape.Let's work the last one backwards. If the CO2 molecule were 315 pounds, the water molecule would be a mighty 129 pounds ... dripping wet. Call out the stretcher bearers]!
Climate lies are an essential part of the globalists' agenda. Climate "accords" were supposed to generate funds for them and weaken us, suck us dry. It is also the rationale to force tighter construction of our buildings and higher indoor CO2 on us that actually causes more energy to be used over all and results in many sick, dumb, fat, crazy, violent, and criminal individuals to further harm us. It should trouble you that the very same people who forced us to change emissions to favor CO2 are the very ones screaming most loudly about CO2, while ignoring the real harm.
There have been small savings in energy costs associated with tighter building construction, but over all, we have increased our spending on energy because the higher indoor CO2 that resulted changed our behavior and mental and physical health for the worse. The bad consequences that have occurred have been ignored, denied and lied about, and red-herrings and false narratives have been developed to deceive us. (I will develope the harm later. You can get an advanced preview by looking at my twitter accounts).
If there were any real scientists still awake and paying attention, we would have been told that energy consumption over all had gone up as a result of tighter buildings. One of the first symptoms of higher CO2 is anxiety. Fuel for "cabin fever" escape driving will devour the paltry savings associated with tighter building construction. Paranoia and suspicion of those around you are symptoms. "Helicopter parenting" became prevalent. Drive kids to and from school and organized activities. Neighborhood play suffered. Then there was the "white flight" cover up. Many moved further out from their jobs and endured longer commutes to escape areas with no racial strife. Eventually, CO2 causes us to turn against each other. Domestic violence became common. Families split. Two cars, two houses, two jobs, two commutes, and trips to and from day care became necessary where they might not have been before. Then there are the extra trips to the doctor, counselor, shrink, and lawyer. What have you witnessed?
Consider the premise behind global warming. Look closer. The whole thing is extremely weak on its face. If CO2 "traps heat," by definition, it only slows the rate of cooling. It even requires we not be in a cooling period in order to work, ... if it could (if you still believe it could, go back to the top). Cooling plus a lesser rate of cooling cannot result in warming. Even if the so-called "CO2 blanket" were perfect, the best attainable result would be a cessation of cooling and no warming. Remember, the construct has nothing to say about the rate of warming or any new source of heat. It should be considered as a joke that the theory of global warming is actually about a rate of cooling. It is not even really about temperatures. It is about changes in temperature per unit of time. This is never addressed. There is no "heat trapping" meter. How would a real scientist get around that? What we witness is akin to a cop in court testifying about mileposts not speed. But a real cop would never be so stupid. Besides he probably used a radar gun, which computes distance per unit of time or speed, the first derivative of distance with respect to time. The premise for global warming concerns the derivatives of temperature with respect to time not temperatures. They are as irrelevant as mileposts. Why are our mathematicians silent? Instead of truth and reason, we get temperatures, melting ice, dying polar bears, rising seas, (such correlations or any correlation is never proof of anything) and other scare stuff. What anxieties and neuroses are being created, especially in our young people? Why?
But, "What of science?" you ask. I just gave you a dose. What is all this faith in science? Do you know even a smidgeon of the history of science? Don't go back any further than the Twentieth Century. Should we throw eugenics in the face of science adherents? Are you aware that many scientists hate America at least since Robert Oppenheimer was cashiered? (Review the ill feelings between those on Edward Teller's side and those on Oppenheimer's). I assert the hatred by some preceded that. For example, what was Klaus Fuchs about? Julius Rosenberg? How about the whole Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists, and Technicians, FAECT, bunch? Architects and chemists, eh? Who dreamed up and pushed the construction of more airtight buildings? Are the Physical Sciences Study Committee, PSSC, and STEM, Science Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, the spawn of FAECT? Why were high school physics books gutted? College chemistry texts? Where is a STEM person who would reveal even something as simple as I have above?
The solubility law concerning temperature for a gas in a liquid implies warming precedes an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere as warming oceans cannot hold as much. The pressure law concerning solubility implies more CO2 will be released from the oceans as bottom water rich in CO2 rises as it is heated by a warmer earth's crust and is not under as much pressure. Open a carbonated beverage. CO2 bubbles are released when the pressure is removed. More CO2 bubbles are released as the liquid warms. We are informed, by scientists that the earth was once very hot and the atmosphere was mostly CO2. Did earth burn up, I've forgotten?
Will we all be forced by our social engineers to buy gas guzzling SUVs when we enter a severe and prolonged cooling period? Anyone asking? We are entering a cooling period, you know? Oh, "climate change!"
Copyright © 2018 Donald L. Beeman. All rights reserved.