Toronto Girlfriends
Toronto Escorts

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

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,096
2,592
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
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.

You see, so much of what we have been told about the greenhouse gas mechanism is false. James Moodey wrote an excellent debunk of CO2 pseudo-science. He tells us:

“Proponents [of the greenhouse gas theory] point to scientist John Tyndall for postulating what we now call global warming in his 1861 paper published in “Philosophical Transactions.” Tyndall’s experiments methodically measured with an electronic galvanometer, the relative heat absorption of various gases, gas vapors and even a few solids. He proved that they absorb heat in the order listed.

Generally, the larger the gas molecule (compound gases), the more heat they absorb with the most heat absorbed by olefiant gas (ethylene). Although he does not mention carbon dioxide, it might absorb about a third of that amount. He discovered that that these gases absorb less heat as their pressure rises, so he measured at extreme low pressures.

At one point, he generalizes that gas vapors, such as aqueous vapor, absorb roughly 13 times more than dry gases. Solids absorb even more heat. He notes that gases cool in proportion to the absorption with large molecule gases taking longer to cool. Tyndall leaps a bit with this concept when he hypothesizes the affect on our atmosphere by stating, “to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times” – which we attribute to global warming.”
There is no doubt what he measured exists, but nowhere in John Tyndall’s paper does he add the element of time. Yes, some gases absorb heat, but for how long? If you ask any climate ‘scientist’ how long CO2 traps heat they are unable to tell you. They certainly can’t claim Tyndall “settled” it. Instead you will find airy-fairy, hand-waving pronouncements like this peach:


“As humans emit greenhouse gases like CO2, the air warms and holds more water vapor, which then traps more heat and accelerates warming.”


You see, they want to convince you that CO2 is trapping heat (like a greenhouse) but then don’t tell you how much and for how long. In fact, the only scientist to test CO2 absorption/emission in the open atmosphere is Professor Nasif Nahle (Monterrey, Mexico) in his peer-reviewed paper, ‘Determining the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing Overlapping Absorption Bands.’ [1]


By performing his experiments in the open atmosphere Professor Nahle found:

“Applying the physics laws of atmospheric heat transfer, the Carbon Dioxide behaves as a coolant of the Earth’s surface and the Earth’s atmosphere by its effect of diminishing the total absorptivity and total emissivity of the mixture of atmospheric gases.” [emphasis added]
So much for that ‘greenhouse effect’! Unlike academics playing with computers, applied scientists like Nahle and measurement engineers, who must be correct or buildings would catch fire, use four aspects of physics to measure gases: Pressure (Boyles Law), Temperature (Charles Law), Super-compressibility and Specific Gravity. Charles Law and Specific Gravity should be at the center of any analysis of Global Warming.


But take a look at any climate ‘science’ publication explaining how they quantify and explain their mechanism of carbon dioxide’s ‘heat trapping’ in the climate and you will only read about radiation effects, nothing at all on those essential laws that chemical science experts rely on. Anyway, a greenhouse works by blocking out cooling convection, not by trapping radiation.

And the greenhouse gas theory is all about radiation. But radiation is not the principle method of heat transport in a gaseous environment like earth’s atmosphere. Here. it is convection and conduction that carry heat around the system. No wonder climate computer models fail.

So, does carbon dioxide trap and retain heat? No, although it cools more slowly than some other gases, it absorbs some amount of heat and quickly cools the same amount when the heat source is removed. Does it rise up in the atmosphere? No, it does the opposite. It sinks.

It is well known that CO2 pools in the lower atmosphere – it is heavy and sinks to the ground where it forms large concentrations (e.g as carboniferous limestone). Geologists know this all too well. They can point us to innumerable examples e.g. those prehistoric limestone deposits on ocean beds which gave the south coast of Britain it’s marvelous white cliffs of Dover (see image).


As Moodey goes on to tell us:

Charles Law precisely quantifies the volume expansion of gas when heated at each degree of temperature. Likewise, as gas cools its volume shrinks precisely the same. Our modern instruments measure instantaneous changes in volume and temperature. This does the same as John Tyndall’s instrument, except we can measure a slight change in volume with each degree of temperature. By my experience with this, I estimate that gases lose the absorbed temperature very rapidly when the heat source is removed.

Specific gravity is the weight of a gas compared with air. Carbon Dioxide has a specific gravity of 1.52. It is about one and a half times heavier than air. It is the same weight as propane and anyone who uses propane knows it to be very heavy. Carbon dioxide sinks into our storm drains and into the ground like a puddle of water.
Now back to some Geology:


And we know carbon dioxide forms into insoluble carbonates that will eventually be washed into the ocean and settle on the ocean floor. Just as well it does. A high carbonate content in the ocean has been a godsend to life. Dissolved carbonates in seawater provide an efficient chemical buffer to various processes that change the properties of seawater. For instance, the addition of a strong acid such as hydrochloric acid (naturally added to the ocean by volcanism), is strongly buffered by the seawater carbonate system. Marine biologists and oceanographers, unlike most climate ‘scientists’, know that Phytoplankton have always sucked CO2 out of the sky, then dumps to ocean floor. [2]

This is the carbon cycle in operation – heavier organic carbon settling down to intermediate and deep waters. Earth’s oceans and rains serve as a go-between to transport the carbon back … and free the CO2 gas which makes its way back up to the surface through volcanoes. [3]

It is sensible to see dispersion of CO2 via volcanic eruptions (and the very tiny human emissions of CO2) as fertilization of the land fauna and flora. The inconvenient truth for global warming alarmists is that NASA finds that the rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last 35 years “represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.” [4]


more at

http://principia-scientific.org/climate-fraud-exposed-co2-doesnt-rise-trap-retain-heat/
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,012
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Do you know how fucking stupid that article is?

CO2 causes global warming by reflecting heat. Not retaining it.

Anybody who takes that article seriously is a moron, and the authors are idiots.
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,096
2,592
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,096
2,592
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
It's the reflection of heat that is warming the planet. Do you even understand the most basic principles here? Clearly not. Neither do the people who wrote the ridiculously misinformed article you posted -- and if you understood a damn thing about this topic you would have realized how ridiculously wrong that article you linked was.
constantly repeating a false claim does not make it true. reflection is the opposite of absorption. go back to high school science
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,012
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
constantly repeating a false claim does not make it true. reflection is the opposite of absorption. go back to high school science
Your post #1 is a false claim that you constantly repeat. CO2 absorbs light and emits heat. It's proven to do so and its impact on the temperature of the planet is observed fact.

Your article #1 is a hoax and you were dumb enough to post it here.
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,096
2,592
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Your post #1 is a false claim that you constantly repeat. CO2 absorbs light and emits heat. It's proven to do so and its impact on the temperature of the planet is observed fact.

Your article #1 is a hoax and you were dumb enough to post it here.
CO2 does not absorb light nor emit heat. more scientific illiteracy from Fuji
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,952
68,453
113
Canada-Man, if the "Global Warming Hoax" was as simple to disprove as you apparently now claim, every first year university earth sciences geek would have told his parents and his computer gaming buddies that global warming was a crock and it would have been laughed out of existence. The inference is that your article is so fucking silly that only yokels and - it would seem - you are gullible enough to believe it.
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,096
2,592
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Canada-Man, if the "Global Warming Hoax" was as simple to disprove as you apparently now claim, every first year university earth sciences geek would have told his parents and his computer gaming buddies that global warming was a crock and it would have been laughed out of existence. The inference is that your article is so fucking silly that only yokels and - it would seem - you are gullible enough to believe it.
CO2 is heavier than air does not mix well in air. has a lower heat capacity than air. high school science. did you forget those lessons?
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,012
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
CO2 is heavier than air does not mix well in air. has a lower heat capacity than air. high school science. did you forget those lessons?
CO2's warming effect has been observed and measured. It's an empirical fact. Your article is a hoax and you're making a fools of yourself.
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,096
2,592
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
CO2's warming effect has been observed and measured. It's an empirical fact. Your article is a hoax and you're making a fools of yourself.
High School science and experiments shown that CO2 is a heavy gas which is heavier and denser than air, have a lower hear capacity than air, does not mix will and does not retain heat very well. continue to display your scientific illiteracy.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,012
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
High School science and experiments shown that CO2 is a heavy gas which is heavier and denser than air, have a lower hear capacity than air, does not mix will and does not retain heat very well. continue to display your scientific illiteracy.
And yet we find lots of it in the upper atmosphere. So you're just completely wrong.

By the way if CO2 did behave the way you claim we would all be dead. In fact it mixed thoroughly with other gases which is why we're able to breathe...
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,096
2,592
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
And yet we find lots of it in the upper atmosphere. So you're just completely wrong.

By the way if CO2 did behave the way you claim we would all be dead. In fact it mixed thoroughly with other gases which is why we're able to breathe...


CO2 is a heavy gas it does not rise up to the upper atmosphere 400 parts per million is a trace gas which does not harm human and animal life

more scientific illiteracy from Fuji


Density of Air 1.225 kg/m3

the density of carbon dioxide is around 1.98 kg/m3, about 1.67 times that of air.


Fuji expect me to believe that Carbon Dioxide which is heavier is rising upward
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,012
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
CO2 is a heavy gas it does not rise up to the upper atmosphere 400 parts per million is a trace gas which does not harm human and animal life

more scientific illiteracy from Fuji


Density of Air 1.225 kg/m3

the density of carbon dioxide is around 1.98 kg/m3, about 1.67 times that of air.


Fuji expect me to believe that Carbon Dioxide which is heavier is rising upward
Again, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is an observed fact, and the amount of warming it contributes has been precisely measured.

If it didn't mix and settled out the way you claim than that 400ppm would all be sitting at the surface, not mixing, and you would suffocate.

Fortunately it does mix and so is spread around the atmosphere, contrary to your claim.
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,096
2,592
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Again, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is an observed fact, and the amount of warming it contributes has been precisely measured.

If it didn't mix and settled out the way you claim than that 400ppm would all be sitting at the surface, not mixing, and you would suffocate.

Fortunately it does mix and so is spread around the atmosphere, contrary to your claim.

constantly repeating the same paragraph over and over is annoying and does not make it true
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,340
5,565
113
Canada Man is hilarious with his copy and paste of some real fake articles. Carbon Dioxide during the ice age was around 200 ppm in the atmosphere. In 2013 for the first time it had really doubled in it's atmospheric content. Today it is around 410 ppm. Yes, PURE carbon dioxide has the Gas SG (relative to air) @ 1.528. Obviously, Carbon Dioxide at 400 ppm does not, yes does not have the Gas SG at 1.528. By volume carbon dioxide is approximately 0.03% by volume in dry air. If it is 1.5 times more dense than air and if your Canada Man's hilarious theory was right then we would have the a layer of carbon dioxide layer near the sea level, and there would be no living beings left on earth. At higher elevations the pressure decreases and generally the amount of air content decreases, though the composition of the air itself stays the same. So carbon dioxide content within the air stays the same but as air as a whole content in that atmosphere decreases so will the carbon dioxide. In this scenario, the carbon dioxide in the air itself will still be 0.03%.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,952
68,453
113
Canada Man is hilarious with his copy and paste of some real fake articles. Carbon Dioxide during the ice age was around 200 ppm in the atmosphere. In 2013 for the first time it had really doubled in it's atmospheric content. Today it is around 410 ppm. Yes, PURE carbon dioxide has the Gas SG (relative to air) @ 1.528. Obviously, Carbon Dioxide at 400 ppm does not, yes does not have the Gas SG at 1.528. By volume carbon dioxide is approximately 0.03% by volume in dry air. If it is 1.5 times more dense than air and if your Canada Man's hilarious theory was right then we would have the a layer of carbon dioxide layer near the sea level, and there would be no living beings left on earth. At higher elevations the pressure decreases and generally the amount of air content decreases, though the composition of the air itself stays the same. So carbon dioxide content within the air stays the same but as air as a whole content in that atmosphere decreases so will the carbon dioxide. In this scenario, the carbon dioxide in the air itself will still be 0.03%.
Canada-man won't accept that analysis, B-H. Canada-man knows that science is merely a corrupt lackey of the Illuminati. And that is because Canada-man himself has been breathing pure CO2 for many years now and it has given him new and very profound insights into the way things really are.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts