Point by Point - Why C02 Doesn't Warm the Globe
Want some advice? - don't try to understand global warming by researching it. I started this process months ago and the more I get into it the more I end up "going down the rabbit hole". There is so much information out there, so much argument for both sides, so much emotion and anger that it is almost impossible to sort it out and come to a pure, undisputed, definitive conclusion. Yet we have to try.
One of my guiding principles it that I have to rely on the laws of thermodynamics that have existed now for almost 200 years and I have to rely on the basic laws of quantum physics regarding the creation, storage and emission of energy as photon based electromagnetic waves. These are sound guidelines and well accepted in nonemotional disciplines other than climate science.
So, here are the "Principles by which to make a decision in Global Warming Science"
Law of Thermodynamics #1 - energy cannot be created or destroyed, even though it can be transformed from one type of energy to another.
Law of Thermodynamics #2 - energy can only flow from a system with a lower number available microstates (ie. hot) to a system with a higher number of available microstates (ie. colder). Entropy is now defined as the natural trend of the energy to flow towards the system or systems with a higher number of available microstates.
Law of Thermodynamics #3 - The entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero. (ie. all movement of molecules stops at absolute zero).
Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics - Any two objects that are equal in temperature to a third object are equal to one another. (ie. axiom 7 in mathematics - kind of obvious but defined with a law).
A photon - is the smallest possible particle of energy. A photon's mass cannot be divided into any fragments as it is the smallest particle and is indivisible.
A photon's energy - is expressed through the frequency that it vibrates at. Photons with higher energy levels vibrate faster and the frequency (measured in Hertz) is also higher.
A photon's frequency - is used to define the various groups of photon / electromagnetic wave that comprise the electromagnetic spectrum of the Sun and the Earth. ( gamma, xrays, UV rays, Visible light rays, Infrared rays, Microwaves, Radio Waves).
Loss of energy - by a photon based electromagnetic wave is demonstrated by a change in the frequency (and the character) of that wave, whereby it assumes a longer wavelength consistent with its new state of lower inherent energy.
The Law of Common Sense - if it sounds too good to be true then it probably isn't true. Act accordingly.
And so, Based on These Principles, My Conclusions on C02 Based Global Warming:
The glaring weakness in today's ongoing argument regarding human caused climate change is the dependence on blaming carbon dioxide for trapping heat and warming the planet by a so called "blanket effect" also known as the Greenhouse Effect. Much work has been done to try and relate this lowly molecule to some kind of superpower whereby it prevents the Earth, all quadrillion cubic kilometers of it from giving up the heat it gains each day as the Sun shines on it. After months of review and several individual blogs, I conclude that C02 has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change.
The following is a list of reasons why not, gleaned from the literature and from the other blogs on this website. In no particular order the arguments against C02 driven anthropogenic global warming are as follows:
There's so little of it...
1. The concentration of C02 in the atmosphere is miniscule compared to the total volume that is supposed to be affecting the climate - .04% in total. If you look at the mixture you will find that if there are 86800 air molecules in a sample there will be 33 carbon dioxide molecules, of which 32 are being generated by Nature each year and only 1 of those molecules (3%) is attributed to man's yearly activities.
2. Over 100 years it is claimed that the carbon dioxide has increased from a long term norm of 300 ppm to a present day average of 415 ppm. This has been blamed on man's activities but cannot be validated, and could just have likely been long term changes generated within the earth's bio-system. For example, warming oceans (caused by other reasons than C02 rise) would release dissolved C02 - kind of a chicken and egg problem).
3. Historical records have periodically shown much higher levels of carbon dioxide, in the thousands of ppm's compared to today's levels around 400 ppm. Records have also shown that warming occurred before the increases in C02, not after and therefore not as a result of carbon dioxide increases. There appears to be no record and therefore no correlation between increases in C02 followed by a general global warming.
4. C02 Effect is negatively logarithmic - If 100 units of C02 raises the temperature of the Earth by 1 degree Celsius, then it requires 200 more units to raise it another 1 degree Celsius, then it requires 400 more units to raise it another 1 degree Celsius. The effect is logarithmic. It requires more and more C02 to effect progressive temperature rises. It took 100 years to raise it by 100 ppm. How many years to raise it another 200 ppm? 400 ppm?
5. IPCC claims that temperatures have gone up 1 C in the last 100 years (starting when c02 was 300 ppm). They also say .75C happened in the last 10 years. Has C02 doubled from its start level of 300 ppm. Did it double from 300 ppm in the last 10 years. IPCC have reversed the curve, trying to show it is a positive logarithmic function instead of a negative one.
6. U.S. Weather Bureau, Washington D.C. - An argument copied from Quora is interesting because it cites widely used Accredited Atmospheric data that says C02 has NO part in warming and that it is ALL due to water vapour. Cited in the following Quora answer.
"How much warming does the entire CO2 greenhouse of 400 ppm cause? William Hoffman, Ph.D. Chemist/Professor/Chemistry Consultant (1974-present)Answered Dec 15
Using the methods derived by the authors of The U.S. Standard Atmosphere who found that water accounts for all the global warming, I recalculated the warming effect of 400 ppm CO2 to see if their dismissal of it as a "trace gas" was warranted, and found it could account for 0.017K of the total 33K, or about 0.05%.
There no secret method and you can do it yourself (The U.S. Standard Atmosphere, 1962).
Accounting for 99.95% of global warming is good enough in my opinion to regard CO2 as a trace gas and stop worrying about it."
The sky is wide open...
1. The Earth is not a closed system greenhouse with a glass roof that physically inhibits passage of hot air trying to move to the outside. It is an open ended system with an "open rooftop" that leads to outer space - a massive sink at extremely low temperature (3 degrees Absolute) that encourages heat energy to radiate away heat from its upper atmosphere into the void.
2. Earth energy balance charts that explain how heat is removed from the Earth to outer space say that long wave infrared radiation removes 22% of the total heat gained during the day. They also say carbon dioxide traps 8% of this IR holds it without escaping to space - returning half of it to Earth instead in the form of new IR waves. In other words, at best it will catch and return 4% of the heat received from the Sun during each day. Even assuming the Earth doesn't just send it right back out again through all its mechanisms for heat removal, that's not much entrapment considering the implications believers assign to it.
It's radiative / absorptive properties are massively overstated...
1. IPCC states that C02 is perfect absorber / emitter of infrared radiation within its fingerprint radiation zone (2.7, 4.3 , 15 um) known in physics as a "black body". In fact C02 is a terrible absorber / emitter of infrared radiation. Whereas a black body is assigned a value of 1.0 to indicate complete absorption / emission action of at all wavelengths it receives, carbon dioxide emissivity has been measured at .0024, making it almost a perfect "white body" or total reflector of all radiation.
2. Infrared transfer efficiency is dependent on the difference in temperature between the emitting body and the receiving body and works best at really extreme temperatures in the thousands of degrees, not between an object such as the Earth at around 33 C and the air at around 15 C. The IR waves are weak in heat energy as they leave the earth and are received by a poor absorber at a temperature very close to the sender. Don't expect much from this scenario.
Wiens Law calculates the temperature of a black body required to radiate at a specific wavelength. In the case of IR waves absorbed by C02 it states that the temperatures of the radiating body (earth) must be -110 F for 15um, 700 F for 4.3 um and 1000 F for 2.7 um. These temperatures do not happen on a day / night cycle. So how can C02 absorb anything at all?
3. Spectroscopy of C02 has shown that it will only absorb IR radiation at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 um wavelengths. Raman spectroscopy also shows that absorption is not 100% and is actually rather miniscule (.2%), and so the ability to absorb even the 8% it is exposed to may be considered insignificant.
4. One convincing (but controversial) argument is that C02 actually absorbs a very low portion of any IR wave hitting it (.2%) because of its low emissivity characteristic. Instead it causes the incoming IR wave to bounce off the molecule at a longer wavelength due to energy loss. This new wave cannot be absorbed by any new C02 molecules because its new wavelength may be well outside C02's fingerprint radiation zone.
5. The smaller amount of energy absorbed by C02 due to this partial absorption means that when new IR is re-emitted it will be at a much longer wavelength and will not be capable of heating anything as it is not even an IR wave.
It breaks the laws...
1. Back radiation - of emitted IR waves back to the Earth violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The Earth is always the hot body and is practically an absolute infinite source of uprising energy waves as it is being heated also by conduction from within its core and that heat energy would be occupying all of its surface microstates all of the time. This means that there are never any available microstates on the Earth's surface that could receive any radiation sent in its direction and any waves would therefore just bounce off back to space as there would be no "room at the inn" for them back at Earth.
2. It breaks the Law of Common Sense - if carbon dioxide is incapable of performing the superhuman feat of absorption and back radiation then it cannot be blamed for climate / global warming. Investigation of its radiant properties show that it cannot do what alarmists say it can. Therefore, why do we care if C02 levels are rising or even if we are causing their levels to rise. It's more likely that there will be more benefits than costs as it is a natural fertilizer that will help to feed the world.
Kinetic energy transfer overwhelms it...
1. Any energy (even absorption of the full complement from the incoming IR wave) gained by a C02 molecule is more likely dissipated to surrounding nitrogen and oxygen molecules as there are 2600 of these molecules surrounding every C02 molecule and kinetic transfer is common as they bump into each other. The excited air molecules carry away any absorbed heat by rising to the the top of the atmosphere and radiating it to space which has infinite microstates, not back to the Earth, which is saturated..
2. Conversely, carbon dioxide is more likely to be warmed kinetically by the molecules of N2 and O2 surrounding it than the other way around just because of the sheer volume of these "neutral" molecules (99%) compared to the carbon dioxide (.04%). Carbon dioxide would have to be sucking up an enormous amount of IR energy in order to have any real effect on warming the surrounding (2600 to 1) molecules to any noticeable degree whatsoever.
The water effect...
1. Carbon dioxide is surrounded by a massive amount of water vapour (up to 5%) that is very close (.96) to a black body when considering absorption (80%) of the full range of wavelengths of IR radiation. Its actions literally overwhelm the miniscule effect of C02 if there is even any effect at all. Although it is called a greenhouse gas, water vapour most likely doesn't re-radiate heat at lower atmospheric levels at all due to its ability to transfer kinetically to surrounding air molecules as well as to its ability to rise and condense during cloud formation, dispersing its latent heat to outer space by upper atmosphere radiation as it cools - again, not back to the Earth.
2. Carbon dioxide is highly soluble in water and it is known that it is literally washed out of the sky by water droplets as acid rain. It is also sucked up by plants and the ocean, reducing its presence in the sky and limiting its so called ability to trap heat. There should be more concern for other GHG's that aren't water compatible or plant friendly - and yet there isn't.
3. If we were to believe the mechanism of greenhouse gas warming of the Earth (and we don't) then emphasis on carbon dioxide is misplaced. We should be looking at other gases such as freons (CFC's) which are thousands of times more effective than C02 on "causing" the greenhouse effect. Besides, carbon dioxide is "natural" and we all know that natural things are good for us.
Other causes of climate change...
1. The long term historical record shows that we've had dramatic warming periods before, but they were followed by increases in C02 not preceded by increases. Can't heat up Earth retroactively - this would violate the Law of Common Sense.
2. The well documented cycles of the Sun show that major highs and lows cycle over 60 years, affecting climate and all associated weather patterns along the same 60 year pattern. They also show former hot peaks during periods when C02 was considered to be low, not high and not increasing in concentration. How could this be if C02 is supposed to be the driving force behind global temperature?
3. There's evidence that Sun variations causing climatic changes on Earth are not even related to Infrared radiation at all, but rather is due to variations of ocean currents due to solar wind interacting with the Earth's geomagnetic field. Carbon dioxide does not play into this scenario at all other than continuing to claim it can trap heat emitted from a warm Earth.
4. Very long term studies are showing that the core of Earth itself varies in temperature and fission based energy reactions are occurring in cycles. One effect of these cycles is to create and abate massive 100,000 year long Ice ages, in spite of normal or excessive irradiance occurring from the Sun during these periods. This shows that the Sun is not responsible for heating the Earth at all beyond some relatively "minor" surface effects that mean nothing to the Earth but do mean a lot to humans who live on its "skin".
We just can't deal with it...
1. Urbanization - we've moved off the farms and procreated ourselves into a population that was 2.5 billion in 1950 to one that is 8.5 billion today. We've put ourselves in every available space in spite of the fact that they may have always been associated with climate variations and extremes. When they exhibit themselves we blame the climate and refuse to look at our own actions. As they said in the comic strip Ogopogo years ago - "I have seen the enemy and it is us!"
2. The Media has taken sides - and it is along the disaster scenario, so the ability to get counteracting information out to the people is almost impossible. This allows opportunists, politicians, ecoterrorists and anyone else who can profit by the scare free rein to pursue their goals with public acquiescence.
3. We're kind of stupid. We're suckers for a good story and particularly if it is being given under some kind of authoritative blessing. We are rewriting society's narratives in the structures of information being given and accepted today. Even if they are wrong, they will prevail and will be the guiding force for future actions and generations.
4. it takes too long for Mother Nature to reveal herself. 60 year cycles don't stand out in people's minds who really only live actively for one of those 60 year cycles at best. We can't compare personal experience of one 60 year cycle to the next because we aren't here long enough to see them. So we stay short term in a long term world.
5. Comparisons of historical records are in the thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. We simply cannot relate to these time spans and definitely cannot worry about whether any of these long term extremes are coming at us. So we don't.
It might actually be good for us...
1. We might actually be short on C02 with respect to plant growth. Plant's flourish when they are grown in Greenhouses with elevated C02 levels.
2. Water use of plants goes down if C02 concentrations around them are higher. C02 penetrates stomata easier and less water gets out. A plant can lose 100 molecules of water for every molecule it absorbs. A richer C02 atmosphere gets inside easier and less water migrates out, so it reduces the effect of droughts.
97% of Scientists DON'T agree - there's a ton of them that disagree...
3. If we warm up the Earth maybe we'll stave off the upcoming little ice age, due to begin in 2030.
RESOURCES:
Collisional De-Excitation Discussed
Ramen Effect Warming Discussed
Blame C02? - Part. 1 - Concentrations...
Electromagnetic Energy Defined
Global (S)warming? - Are We in Harm's Way...
ITPS - "It's the Planets Stupid" - Could Our Planets Affect our Sun? ...
The Sky Above - What Is Going On up There?...