It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 1
34
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+9 more 
posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:24 PM
link   

The first damaging fact to the theory: CO2 is actually a heavy gas. It is not ‘well mixed’ in the air as per the glib claim.  Just check out the NASA image (above) showing widely varying carbon dioxide concentrations. Indeed, schoolchildren are shown just how heavy CO2 is by way of a simple school lab experiment. This heavy gas thus struggles to rise and soon falls back to earth due to its Specific Gravity (SG). Real scientists rely on the SG measure which gives standard air a value of 1.0 where the measured SG of CO2 is 1.5 (considerably heavier). Thus,  in the real world the warming theory barely gets off the ground.

As shown  in Carbon Dioxide Not a Well Mixed Gas and Can’t Cause Global Warming the same principle applies to heat transfer: the Specific Heat (SH) of air is 1.0 and the SH of CO2 is 0.8 (thus CO2 heats and cools faster).  Combining these properties allows for thermal mixing. Heavy CO2 warms faster and rises, as in a hot air balloon.  It then rapidly cools and falls. Once it falls it loses any claimed climate impact.



principia-scientific.org...


I did a quick search on this and I cannot believe it hasn't been posted before. I would like our resident AGW and Anti AGW folks here to take a look and see if this info is accurate.

I am just curious because in another thread someone posted that CO2 traps heat and I was curious for how long it traps the heat. I came upon this article and thought I would post it here.

Is this science wrong?
edit on 22-11-2017 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: liejunkie01




Thus, in the real world the warming theory barely gets off the ground.


............I see what you did there...



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:33 PM
link   
CO2 is a contributing factor, but it is not the reason we are having wild weather. It is a combination of many things both natural and man made. We are contributing to the failure of the ecosystem, but what these climate groups do is try to blame it on us directly instead of getting rid of all the air traffic in the sky. All of this travel, cruise ships, and vacation resorts way far away are causing lots of unnecessary damage to our ecosystem and contributing a lot more to global warming than heating our houses. They are creating an entitled society where waste is more important than our needs. They do not want to change that though, europe wants all of us to go spend our money over there.


+3 more 
posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: liejunkie01

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



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:38 PM
link   
I can agree with what you say. I tend to think that when one side tried to prove something with "science" they often overlook or intentionally leave out aspects that need further explaining.

To me it's like the old saying, " if everyone jumps of the bridge, would you". I just think that there is more to the story here and politics seems to be playing a crucial role in telling us what they want us to believe.

I can believe that the earth is changing, I can also believe that we may have an impact on it's climate. But I don't know if we have as much impact as what we are being led to believe.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: liejunkie01
I can believe that the earth is changing, I can also believe that we may have an impact on it's climate. But I don't know if we have as much impact as what we are being led to believe.

We definitely have an impact, but I'm in the same boat, I don't believe man-made climate change is as impacting as it is sold as. For every peer reviewed report supporting man-made climate change, there is another peer reviewed report showing the opposite.

It's all about money.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: liejunkie01

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


What that Venus is the second planet in the solar system and is approximately 41.6 million miles closer to the sun than earth? Mercury, VENUS, Earth.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: liejunkie01
I can agree with what you say. I tend to think that when one side tried to prove something with "science" they often overlook or intentionally leave out aspects that need further explaining.

To me it's like the old saying, " if everyone jumps of the bridge, would you". I just think that there is more to the story here and politics seems to be playing a crucial role in telling us what they want us to believe.

I can believe that the earth is changing, I can also believe that we may have an impact on it's climate. But I don't know if we have as much impact as what we are being led to believe.


The earth can take care of our needs without problem. It is our wants that damage our ecosystem. All the unnatural and concentrated natural chemicals we dump into our environment are causing a lot of negative effects. Birds poop in the trees, their poop contains high nitrogen, that nitrogen is absorbed by the tree and helps the tree to grow more fire resistant leaves. We are poisoning the birds and killing the bugs they eat that contribute to the nitrogen in the poop.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: liejunkie01

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: liejunkie01

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


What that Venus is the second planet in the solar system and is approximately 41.6 million miles closer to the sun than earth? Mercury, VENUS, Earth.


No, the fact that it is a hot rocky planet due to runaway global warming fueled by excessive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

In other words, Venus is hot because of CO2.


+9 more 
posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99


Venus has a atmosphere of 96 percent co2

so the whole idea of it not being lighter than what we call air is irrelevant in that situation

But I can help u a bit with a small experiment


go get a balloon blow it up with co2 ... you exhale the stuff so not to complex now let the balloon float up to the upper layer of the atmosphere ... see the problem


I'm surprised no one mentioned this but it's really logical like no kidding I know this i have always known this ... yet I never questioned co2 being lighter than air


+2 more 
posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: liejunkie01

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: liejunkie01

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


What that Venus is the second planet in the solar system and is approximately 41.6 million miles closer to the sun than earth? Mercury, VENUS, Earth.


No, the fact that it is a hot rocky planet due to runaway global warming fueled by excessive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

In other words, Venus is hot because of CO2.


How do scientists know that Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect? Are they able to see its history somehow?

Why isn't Venus just hot and full of CO2 BECAUSE it's so close to the Sun?



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: markovian

So, you are saying because a balloon filled with CO2 doesn't float that there is no CO2 in the atmosphere?



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: liejunkie01

You don't have to build a greenhouse in the upper atmosphere for it to heat up your tomato garden.. It can be on the ground.



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

nope but it certainly proves co2 will not reach high altitude it needs to function in the same way it dose on Venus

so unless you have some proof that co2 at ground level effects the temperature of the planet



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Tempter

Venus is in what would be called the "goldilocks zone" it's proximity to the sun may be a factor, but it's more likely that it was extremely active volcanically in it's earlier days and created a condition that could never be recovered from.

My point was CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it does rise, it does have a warming effect.

I'm not a subscriber of man-made AGW weekly, but if you wan't to have honest discussion of a subject, you must also call out the falsities.



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: markovian

There is CO2 in the stratosphere, why is that?



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: liejunkie01

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: liejunkie01

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


What that Venus is the second planet in the solar system and is approximately 41.6 million miles closer to the sun than earth? Mercury, VENUS, Earth.


No, the fact that it is a hot rocky planet due to runaway global warming fueled by excessive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

In other words, Venus is hot because of CO2.


How do scientists know that Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect? Are they able to see its history somehow?

Why isn't Venus just hot and full of CO2 BECAUSE it's so close to the Sun?


Mercury has no greenhouse effect and it's closer to the sun than Venus and it's hottest temps are below Venus average temps.

Gases in an atmosphere are warm.. when you walk into a warm room it's the air you feel that is holding the heat.. It's the shirt you put on that traps air close to your body that warms it up..

I don't agree with the "science" the way they are using it politically and so many nuances about how much effect exactly? Their models are wrong so scientifically they need to be reworked.. but that's not to say that co2 doesn't make the earth warmer. It does.

If bigger government through forced reductions in creating co2 was not in the cards I'd be all in.. I grew up hippy and hate pollution.. I walk everywhere, and don't even heat my house..

I hate hearing "the science is settled." No true scientist speaks in absolutes like this. The evidence leads you to surmise your hypothesis is correct, but you don't get to tell everyone else to shut up.. It reaks of misdirection even if none is there.. its a gross misuse of the fallacy argument of appeal to power..

Instead let's just use less FIRE while we figure it out lol.

It's a dumb argument.. if anyone really cared they would cancel all flights stop all cars and all power plants... we would let people freeze in the winter and be stuck without medivac. Pick your poison... haha
edit on 23-11-2017 by Reverbs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99




A simple look at the planet Venus debunks your entire thread, sorry.
So what you are saying is not all CO2 is man made and the Co2 on Venus came from ...?



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: liejunkie01

What has always amazed me with the entire "man-made global warming" narrative is how blindly ignorant people are to gobble up propaganda without applying some basic critical thinking skills.

Definition of critical thinking:

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.

Volcanoes. Long before the myth of man-made global warming there was a very detailed research article published in National Geographic about how the number of active volcanoes world wide erupting have a greater ozone depleting effect than a combined 10 years of man-made pollution. When the myth of man-made global warming first broke onto the scene I immediately recalled this article from memory and thought to myself, "Well, wait a minute. What about the data we have regarding volcanoes? Seems to be a contradiction from what we actually have documented. How come no one is talking about that?"

Then I got to thinking about the age of the Earth. It is generally accepted the Earth is roughly 4 billion years old. The oldest weather pattern samples we have are from the EPICA ice cores. That only accounts for 800,000 years and shows CO2 levels were significantly higher at different periods of time during that 800,000 years than today. How come no one mentions this?

Then I got to thinking about the extinction level event of the meteorite impact on the Yucatan peninsula and the effects that had on a global level. I won't rehash it all but it basically occurred some 65 ish million years ago and accounted for what is known as the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event which essentially eradicated 75% of plant and animal life on Earth. No one ever discusses this either.

So with all of the above data being collected and widely disseminated long before the false man-made global warming narrative came along I'm supposed to believe that somehow in the past 227 years (Industrial Revolution began in 1790) that man has somehow been able to dramatically alter and disrupt an entire global weather system to such a degree that we are going to cause an ice age?

That narrative is for idiots.



posted on Nov, 23 2017 @ 12:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Reverbs

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: liejunkie01

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: liejunkie01

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


What that Venus is the second planet in the solar system and is approximately 41.6 million miles closer to the sun than earth? Mercury, VENUS, Earth.


No, the fact that it is a hot rocky planet due to runaway global warming fueled by excessive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

In other words, Venus is hot because of CO2.


How do scientists know that Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect? Are they able to see its history somehow?

Why isn't Venus just hot and full of CO2 BECAUSE it's so close to the Sun?


Mercury has no greenhouse effect and it's closer to the sun than Venus and it's hottest temps are below Venus average temps.

Gases in an atmosphere are warm.. when you walk into a warm room it's the air you feel that is holding the heat.. It's the shirt you put on that traps air close to your body that warms it up..

I don't agree with the "science" the way they are using it politically and so many nuances about how much effect exactly? Their models are wrong so scientifically they need to be reworked.. but that's not to say that co2 doesn't make the earth warmer. It does.

If bigger government through forced reductions in creating co2 was not in the cards I'd be all in.. I grew up hippy and hate pollution.. I walk everywhere, and don't even heat my house..

I hate hearing "the science is settled." No true scientist speaks in absolutes like this. The evidence leads you to surmise your hypothesis is correct, but you don't get to tell everyone else to shut up.. It reaks of misdirection even if none is there.. its a gross misuse of the fallacy argument of appeal to power..

Instead let's just use less FIRE while we figure it out lol.

It's a dumb argument.. if anyone really cared they would cancel all flights stop all cars and all power plants... we would let people freeze in the winter and be stuck without medivac. Pick your poison... haha


I'm not saying Venus doesn't have a greenhouse effect. I'm saying that maybe it has always had one. And of course the Temps are higher on Venus as its atmosphere traps gases in a way Mercury cannot.

However, my point is that although it's in a Goldilocks zone, it doesn't automatically mean the planet should have a stable atmosphere which is conducive to organic life.

We barely have one.



new topics




 
34
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join