Exposé of Manmade Climate Change Theory

The theory of manmade climate change happens to be scientifically incorrect.

The warming itself was discovered by Eunice Foote in 1856. But the theory is not wrong because she is a woman. She was a top scientist, in a time when women had difficulty even in getting to college.

The theory is wrong because scientists found out it was wrong. (Actually “wrong” is the wrong word, the original work is absolutely correct, but there were limits discovered to her original work.)

After Foote’s discovery of Global Warming by Carbon Dioxide, the science spread slowly. People got concerned because they could see that human activities were likely to significantly increase Carbon Dioxide levels in the world.

At that time, a science called Thermodynamics was emerging. Newton had been able to bring star-and-planet-orbit mathematics down to Earth, to the fall of a stone or a runner’s gait. All were now subject to mathematics. Before this, mathematics was for accounting and calendar calculations, it was mostly for star scholars of the era. But suddenly mathematics came down from the stars to the Earth. Now it ruled the motion of anything and everything, not just stars and Sun and Moon and planets!

People tried to do this mathematical analysis for other things. The revolution spread out from Newton, so England and then Europe encountered it first.

People there tried to reduce heat and cold to mathematics, similarly. This was very successful and became a science called Thermodynamics.

Thermodynamics was the perfect science to take a look at Eunice Foote’s experiment, and to advance it. This is how it often happens in science, somebody makes a breakthrough but the expertise to examine that breakthrough may not emerge until decades later.

People had learned many things about heat. One type of heat was “radiation heat”, and this was the kind of heat that comes as sunlight. It is the heat you feel at your skin when it is in sunlight. Your skin absorbs that radiation, making itself warm.

They had learned that everything absorbs radiation, but to varying degrees. Turns out what Foote had observed, was just this type of warming. Just like your skin absorbs sunlight, so does carbon dioxide absorb radiation.

Carbon dioxide is a gas and most of the radiation goes through it. But even gases absorb some radiation. They absorb radiation in – it was discovered – certain radiation frequencies. This is how we can do spectral analysis. We run light through some substance, some gas usually, and the gas absorbs its own frequencies. We look at the other side at what got absorbed, and from that we can deduce what is the substance.

If you do spectral analysis of Carbon Dioxide, it will absorb its own spectral frequency. Oxygen will absorb its own. Nitrogen will absorb its own. There is nothing special about Carbon Dioxide, it has its spectral frequencies, exactly like everything else does.

But turned out, there was something special about Carbon Dioxide on Earth. There is a whole lot of organic material covering the Earth’s surface, and there are Carbon Dioxide molecules and/or molecular structures there. These Carbon Dioxide structures give up some heat over time as they cool off from the peak temperature of day, and that heat is in the special spectral frequencies of Carbon Dioxide.

Yes – there is some heat in Carbon Dioxide frequencies on Earth. This heat is what Foote had measured in her experiment, long before theory caught up with her.

The catch is – the heat is not a lot, it is tiny. It cannot raise the temperature a lot, maybe around half a degree or so at best. (Some early literature apparently claimed 5-6 degrees even. There is lot of early work on this issue, scientists knew mankind’s CO2 emissions would rise, and they were seriously concerned.)

Turns out, that half a degree(or whatever) had already happened. Not now, not some “tipping point” we crossed, but the total amount of heating that was ever possible from Carbon Dioxide, had already happened a hundred years ago.

Scientists stopped being concerned about the rising Carbon Dioxide levels. There was only enough energy in the relevant frequencies on Earth that the Carbon Dioxide would be able to raise the temperature by a little bit at most, and that little bit was already done and over with. The available energy in Carbon Dioxide frequencies, was already fully reflected in Earth’s temperatures.

But somehow certain NASA scientists had forgotten all this and made up the Carbon Dioxide bogeyman again, more than a hundred years after Foote’s discovery.

Well, actually, turned out these certain NASA scientists had not forgotten any of it. Because they never had learned any of it in the first place, there was nothing for them to forget. No knowledge, no understanding of Thermodynamics, just some wild guesses from some computer programs they had put together. People who are good at Computer Programming often imagine they do not need to learn other subjects, they can find out all they need to know from a brief summary comment somebody gives them. This is not true, Thermodynamics requires heavy learning. What you can learn from brief summary comments meant for programmers – is high level overview, and is likely to miss some very important details.

What they did not know about physics while copying and pasting programs that used physics – included details such as there was no manmade climate change possible from carbon dioxide, manmade carbon emissions were irrelevant, the alarm was entirely false.

The problem was simply that they did not know the science, they had made stuff up to cover what they did not know and combined it with rumors floating around about Carbon Dioxide.

The authors of manmade climate change were senior managers at NASA, and this gave them authority to hire and fire people – and they used their authority with a strong hand. NASA did have other scientists, and some of them knew some Thermodynamics. When they learned about the Greenhouse Gas Theory, some questions occurred to them. The lack of knowledge among the theory-authors started showing.

As the theory authors’ brutal incompetence started showing up, they started taking brutal actions to cover up that incompetence.

This resulted in the viciously suppressive manmade climate fraud. There were billions of dollars supporting hundreds of thousands of scientists in this “save the world from manmade climate change” issue. Anybody questioning the science was threatening the livelihood, ideals, the very being – of these hundreds of thousands of climate scientists, and they reacted with strong suppression of any science that raised any critical issues. There was serious data manipulation with nobody to question it, because all of the hundreds of thousands of scientists were vested in not questioning any of the fraud.

I was able to write a short series of 3 PDF files, which are one page each but explain to any people with understanding of physics, how manmade climate change is a mistake turned into a fraud. I challenged climate scientists publicly anywhere I could, with those 3 PDF files. I challenged MIT on Facebook. This was a two sided challenge. The oil-funded denier leader Richard Lindzen was an MIT professor, and I had found his refutation of manmade climate change was mistaken. Other MIT scientists were fully supportive of climate change, and I challenged them one and all, alarmists and deniers alike, on a public forum.

Not only was I challenging all of MIT scientists I was saying that even their denier didn’t get it right. I made it obvious I was the master of MIT scientists on this, I had material they needed to learn from me. I was doing it in on MIT’s own Facebook pages in full view of thousands – mostly including MIT professors, students and alumni. None came to the defense of their institution, my three PDFs were devastating to anybody who had ability to understand physics.

Then I followed up with the article mentioning and somewhat insulting to the NASA scientists of relevance. This article provided evidence that I could publicly goad NASA to sue me for slander, libel, defamation, whatever… and they would stay totally silent.

This weakened the manmade climate change in the scientists’ own minds, but the media was not going to be so easy. The environmentalists have been a vicious bunch, convinced they know “The Science”. Most of them usually do not, do not understand, any actual science. That is a problem, for I could not speak science to them and expect them to understand. Science was beyond them.

I targeted their information supply lines. All the articles in the media by environmentalists, use some scientists to provide quotes to make the article seem respectable.

I would look up these scientists and then send them my 3 PDF files and perhaps a link to the inflammatory article as well. They knew science, they realized what was happening, and stopped giving quotes to the environmentalists.

Without scientists to quote, the journalists kept getting weaker and weaker. Climate desks closed down.

In this environment, Trump’s actions to back out of the Paris Climate Treaty did not face any widespread outrage, unlike in 2017 when they had raised a strong ruckus.

This time around, the Environmentalists had been taken down, they had no power left to create widespread outrage. There was nobody left to quote.

19 responses to “Exposé of Manmade Climate Change Theory”

  1. anewscienceblog Avatar

    Eunice Foote is not generally given credit by Environmentalists. Instead, credit is given to Svante Arrhenius. But what Arrhenius actually did – besides being a man – was to do some calculations using Foote’s work, 40 years later.

    The reasons for this are unclear. But the Environmentalist movement is sheerly political in nature, and one possibility is that they might have calculated that giving credit to a woman might have weakened their case to the public.

    Like

  2. anewscienceblog Avatar

    For people familiar with Stefan Boltzmann equation – the NASA model is based on Stefan Boltzmann. On the WRONG Stefan Boltzmann. NASA used Stefan Boltzmann without the “e”, the manmade climate change authors did not know there was an “e” supposed to be in there.

    The correct equation is P=ϵσAT4, but NASA used P=σAT4, without the e.

    The “e” causes things to be warmer than Blackbody temperatures. Not knowing about the warming from “e”, NASA scientists searched around for the cause of the warming, and found the cause lingering in rumors and SciFi – CO2. In actual science, CO2 as a cause of warming had been discarded by early 1900s. NASA manmade climate science is based on rumors and SciFi about CO2, the authors had no knowledge of basic Thermodynamics. While their political chops are clearly stellar, they were able to advance this science-less nonsense all over the world – their actual knowledge of physics was so poor, they did not even know the correct equation their entire model is based upon.

    When found out, they have been trying to horse-trade “OK, I will give you X degrees from this ‘e’ thing, you give me Y degrees from CO2.” That’s utter nonsense, if they knew the science, at best they would have been able to state “We have reason to believe the ‘e’ is dynamic and varies with CO2 levels.” Of course it does not – ‘e’ does not vary with CO2 levels as Angstrom taught. But the point is they do not understand physics that much, to even be able to understand or state that concept of CO2 affecting the ‘e’, because they did not know about ‘e’ at all.

    Since they did not know about ‘e’, there was no attempt to even compute the value of ‘e’ for Earth as a Thermodynamic object.

    I am the first human afaik, to compute the correct value 0.6 for Earth’s emissivity.

    Like

    1. anewscienceblog Avatar

      Technical details: The Blackbody temperature they calculated for Earth was 255K, the actual temperature 288K. Not knowing that the 33K warming came from ‘e’, they attributed the warming of 33K to CO2. In their view, everything in the world is at its Blackbody temperature, unless there is CO2 hanging around it! In actual reality, the warming for Earth comes from Earth’s ‘e’, which ‘e’ is built up of millions upon millions of square miles of clouds, ground, grass, buildings, animals, trees….

      Their attribution of all of it to CO2 instead is hilariously funny!

      Like

      1. anewscienceblog Avatar

        The 0.6 comes out of straightforward algebraic operations. It comes from dividing the 255 by the 288 and raising the result to the power 4.

        The 0.6 is not totally correct, for it is based on NASA data, which data randomly excludes radiation from some parts of the Earth. This exclusion is based on their lack of understanding of Thermodynamics and Stefan Boltzmann Equation which they had copied and pasted the wrong version of. The exclusion is based on “albedo theory”, and they randomly selected out certain parts of Earth as being guilty of albedo. It was kind of like “Oh, look a bird” – they randomly noticed “Hey, too much energy is coming out of that area, we better cut it out.” Like all of manmade climate theory, it is stupid and rooted in the simple fact that they had no understanding of Thermodynamics but had huge political abilities, and were able to dig out old pre-Angstrom literature from the times when real scientists had real reason to be concerned about CO2. They combined this with SciFi and pseudo-scientific literature from people that still sometimes came out after Angstrom, from people who had no ability to understand absorption frequencies or Thermodynamics. Alarmist books sell, specially if they can put out a good pretense of “science”.

        Still, NASA focus on the “albedo theory” did change the data for no good reason.

        This exclusion has not been fact-checked before me, by any alarmist or denier ever. But it does affect the 0.6, and there is work that needs to be done to set the data straight. (Then again, there is a ton of work to set straight all the data that NASA and their allies have falsified.)

        Like

  3. anewscienceblog Avatar

    Prof Manoranjan Sinha, IIT Kharagpur India, challenges Angstrom’s “zero warming from CO2” results.

    Sinha points out that increased CO2 levels are likely to increase the CO2 fixed into organic matter on Earth’s surface. (He also points out that there is a balance between CO2 fixed into Earth’s surface radiating energy, and free CO2 in the atmosphere absorbing it.)

    This is a valid challenge to Angstrom. While CO2 increase in the atmosphere cannot directly cause any warming, as Angstrom showed – the CO2 increase can increase the organic material on Earth’s surface (increase plant numbers/size/density.) We know the Earth’s plant cover is growing. The growing/denser plant cover can trap more energy.

    In terms of “e” – recall that the “e” of Earth is built up of millions upon millions of square miles of clouds, ground, grass, buildings, animals, trees…. And yes, grass and plants and trees are part of that “e”. Changing amounts of CO2 can change the grass and plants and trees over time, and can affect the “e” thereby.

    This is valid, though I would say the physics of the situation says it is trivial. Given that 0.04% of CO2 in atmosphere has been absorbing all of the energy available in CO2 frequencies since Angstrom’s time, the energy is very little, and changes in that energy are correspondingly extremely little. Therefore this is entirely negligible.

    However, it does change the fundamental situation – the warming from CO2 is not the hard zero of mathematics as Angstrom said. It is the soft “negligible” zero of physics.

    Like

    1. anewscienceblog Avatar

      THIS is something NASA should have investigated when they tried to challenge Angstrom.

      But NASA could not. Their model effectively says that the energy available for CO2 warming is infinite, limited only by the amount of CO2. This is false physics. The energy in CO2 frequencies is not infinite, and in fact only 0.04% of atmospheric CO2 is enough to absorb all the available surface energy in a mere 10 meters of atmosphere.

      The amount of CO2 is not the gating factor, the available surface energy is the gating factor.

      NASA has been in deception and cover-up mode, therefore they could not measure the amount of energy available in CO2 frequencies, because that first-of-all falsifies their “infinite energy in CO2 frequencies” model.

      While NASA did not measure the amount of available energy in CO2 frequencies, they tried to challenge Angstrom in other ways. Bizarrely, they have tried to claim that “CO2 frequencies” is nonsense, and that CO2 can absorb energy from outside its frequencies. This is a ridiculous position. Spectral frequency analysis is real, and it works.

      NASA ran experiments to measure CO2 absorbing energy from outside its own frequencies.

      The cutoff is rapid and exponential. NASA did a strange kind of deception on this – they showed the exponential drop on a logarithmic axis, making it look linear. Unless you carefully check it, from a casual brief visual check of the graph in NASA’s paper it would appear that CO2 is indeed absorbing energy from outside its frequencies!

      But that’s a fake impression. The science of spectral analysis is solid – it is not the scientists who built the science of Thermodynamics who were engaging in fraud and cover-ups.

      Like

      1. anewscienceblog Avatar

        NASA’s position “CO2 can absorb energy from outside its frequencies” is absurd at first glance.

        CO2 has a signature, like other gases. If CO2 was absorbing energy from outside its spectrum, that would create havoc with all other signatures. Somebody finding Nitrogen couldn’t be sure if it was Nitrogen’s signature – or was CO2 sneaking out and absorbing Nitrogen’s spectrum? NASA’s position that CO2 can absorb energy from outside its spectrum and all of absorption spectroscopy is just so much nonsense – shows continued ignorance and neglect of actual science in favor of pushing their bogeyman by all kinds of fake and deceptive means. That their “CO2 can absorb energy from outside its spectrum” was uncritically accepted by many scientists, shows the lack of skepticism that NASA has encouraged in science.

        CO2 has a magical place in Science Fiction, because “oceans boiling due to human sins” has been a compelling Science Fiction trope. But in actual science, CO2 obeys the laws of physics.

        Like

      2. anewscienceblog Avatar

        Rough Calculations
        =====

        Absorption spectroscopy is real. CO2 has a signature, for real. I am not making it up. This is actual science. Those thin dark lines one sees on the other side of the absorption in a spectroscope – the whole debate is about those thin lines.

        The energy on earth in CO2’s signature thin lines, is measurable. Given the amount of energy E in CO2 frequencies, the total possible temperature rise T is directly calculable.

        For a rough calculation without measurements being available, we can use proportionality. The entire set of CO2 frequencies barely occupies a whole micron out of the infra-red spectrum which encompasses 350 microns. In fact the CO2 frequencies are so narrow that all of them put together is more like less than half a micron wide, than even 1 whole micron. (“Narrow” impression based on NASA research. For those people who have seen the NASA paper, ignore the log scale on the X-axis and just check the raw numbers, they fall astonishingly fast. Hence my impression of very narrow base.)

        While the temperature rise is not proportional, because energy changes based on frequencies, we can put an upper limit on CO2 frequency energies, based on its spanning 0.5 microns out of the 350 microns of infra-red frequencies.

        Therefore, for a measured temperature of 288K, the included CO2 warming measures proportionally at less than half degree.

        Calculations: 0.5 μm x 288K / 350 μm = 0.4K.

        Less, than, half, a, degree, K.

        That’s all that’s possible, it doesn’t matter how much CO2 we put in the atmosphere. (And that half a degree already happened. Even a hundred years ago that half a degree was already accounted for, in Earth’s temperature.)

        Despite all the wonderful Science Fiction about human sins and boiling oceans, CO2 is not magical, it cannot create energy from nothing.

        Increased/denser plant cover, say a 10% increase, would change that by less than 0.05 degrees K, which is what in real physics would be considered “negligible” in this context.

        Like

      3. anewscienceblog Avatar

        Note: The calculations above are based on uniform distribution of energy emissions across Infra-Red, the question is “If energy emitting material were uniformly distributed, how much energy in CO2 frequencies?”

        Of course, the material is NOT uniformly distributed, there are only 4 CO2 molecules per 10,000 molecules of air. The molecules fixed in Earth’s surface would be proportional to those 4 molecules. Given that, and the fact that CO2 wave energy content is not at high end – I think the “negligible” is reasonable. It is highly negligible. Because accounting for all the factors, never mind 0.4 degrees, even 0.04 degrees is too high.

        This is subject to experimental verification. Calculations like this are merely guesswork, if slightly educated guesswork. Experimental measurement of energy available from Earth’s surface in CO2 frequencies, can put this to rest. (The experiments would be determining, IMHO, the question of how many zeros after the decimal point.)

        It is hard to believe NASA never even bothered to find out what happened to Angstrom’s “10 meters”. Has the 10 meters increased over time, has it decreased? It’s been over a 100 years, since we have a recorded “10 meters”. NASA has either been very incurious about the 10 meters, or else did not like the newer experimental results.

        But never mind the 10 meters, currently the theory and technology available to NASA, I would imagine is capable of measuring the total available energy in CO2 frequencies directly in Joules. From the Joules, we can compute not guess, the maximum possible temperature increase over Earth, in degrees.

        Like

    2. anewscienceblog Avatar

      This is a question that some might wonder about – what about the radiation from O2 and N2 fixed in the surface?

      The answer is simple. Instant absorption. (There is a very massive amount of O2 and N2 in the air, compared to CO2.)

      Like

  4. anewscienceblog Avatar

    What’s with the “10 meters?” Actually, it is 9.8 meters if I remember correctly.

    A scientist named Angstrom checked out Foote’s alarm using the then recent understanding of absorption frequencies. He found that there indeed was energy in CO2 frequencies that was being absorbed by CO2 molecules near the ground. The energy was decreasing as distance from ground increased, showing energy absorption. However, at 9.8 meters above ground, the energy stopped changing. All of it had been used up, and it flatlined.

    This was explained as “saturation”. Thermodynamics had been concerned with this “outermost layer” issue. A layer of paint (say, painted on wood or metal) would completely absorb all radiation, but thin layers would let some radiation through. Clear oil would pass through a lot of radiation, but as you kept adding paint to the oil, it would start stopping radiation. When there was enough paint material in the oil (or other solvent), it stopped all radiation. This was known as “saturation” of the paint in the lingo of Thermodynamics scientists. It didn’t mean you couldn’t add more paint to the oil (like a saturated salt in water solution.) You certainly could. But the paint was saturated from the point of view of blocking radiation, which is the view of relevance in Thermodynamics. Therefore, it was reasonable to call CO2 “saturated” in their terminology. It just meant the 9.8-meter-thick layer of CO2 contained in the air above the ground, was fully saturated like a paint, and totally blocked all radiation.

    NASA scientists had no clue of all this, but NASA had set its mind that CO2 was causing warming. (I mean, urban legends and SciFi were so clear on this.) They had then to find some way to discredit the earlier science.

    They found or came out with an utterly stupid and in fact hilarious “refutation” of this “CO2 is saturated” explanation. It is explained in the 2nd one of my 3 PDFs.

    Like

    1. anewscienceblog Avatar

      The climate scientists’ “refutation of Angstrom” is not just hilariously absurd, it is also very rude and disrespectful. We have morons who have no clue of Thermodynamics, stating with great confidence and pomp “What Angstrom failed to understand…”

      What Angstrom failed to understand, indeed!

      It was like a chess player who has to keep a piece of paper handy explaining the knight’s moves, and they have to keep referencing that piece of paper during games. Then this person pontificates with great pompousness about chess moves in a world championship match “What the player failed to understand… (deeply stupid insights about knight moves)”

      Somebody who can’t understand salt-in-water saturation from frequency absorption, who has no clue that a Blackbody is literally about the color black, who has no understanding at all even of their own model’s fundamental equation that it is based upon – that somebody then claims to explain what Angstrom failed to understand about his own work. Wow! I mean wow!

      I mean, there are idiots of science, there are ignorant idiots, there are arrogant idiots, there are ignorant arrogant idiots, and to top it all, there are NASA climate scientists.

      Like

      1. anewscienceblog Avatar

        Clarification: The “What Angstrom failed to understand” stuff wasn’t literally from NASA per se. It was from a couple of Ivy League Professors. But those professors, in terms of their career outputs, were nobodies in comparison to Angstrom. They had no reason to denigrate Angstrom. Even if they had found fault with his works, there are respectful ways to write up their disagreement.. They wouldn’t take that insulting approach on their own – it was clear they were being fed the material to write.

        So in my view it was NASA writing “What Angstrom failed to understand.”

        Besides, such colossal arrogance – combined with a total lack of understanding of absorption wavelengths or signatures – had to be originating at NASA’s GISS organization.

        Like

  5. anewscienceblog Avatar

    So, how do I know all this? Well, I got involved in debates on many forums where scientists gather. As I started proving my mettle, people started giving me references to various NASA internal papers.

    These papers were not exactly “secret”, but they were not widely known. Given their fundamental relevance in modern manmade climate change theory, this was surprising, and it would be reasonable to say NASA was keeping them relatively secret.

    NASA has been known to make these papers “not publicly accessible” if the paper starts getting questioned. I have also suspected that the online papers sometimes change, and start incorporating answers to questions that had been used to debunk them, and sometimes devolve into nonsense.

    Anyway, my allegations here are “adversarial”. Climate Change Inc. has hundreds of thousands of people with Ph.D.s. They can refute these allegations.

    The primary allegation is stark – NASA did not know there was an “e” in a given equation. They found Earth’s temperature averaged at 288 degrees K, but “blackbody calculations” gave 255 degrees K. They did not know that the cause of this warming was “e”.

    Not knowing this, they searched for the cause of the warming, and assigned the warming to “Greenhouse Gases”, which they had learned of from urban legends and Science Fiction.

    This is utterly absurd. Gases do NOT absorb much radiation, and it was surprising that they do absorb tiny bits of radiation. (People probably have made the connection that Foote was the first to observe radiation absorption by a gas.)

    This knowledge has led to the rise of absorption spectroscopy. Anybody familiar with absorption spectroscopy can clearly see WHY Foote found CO2 became warm – it was absorbing its absorption signature, that’s all. Imagining that the thin lines of the absorption signature could cause catastrophic warming, is absurd. The only conclusion we are led to – NASA staff who created the modern revival of greenhouse gas theory – had no understanding of what a blackbody is, had no understanding of their own fundamental equation, had no understanding of absorption signatures….

    Like

    1. anewscienceblog Avatar

      To me, some of NASA’s positions are absolutely hilarious, and it is sad that I cannot share the humor, because the field of Thermodynamics itself has been corrupted due to various NASA subterfuges. I think there are a lot of Thermodynamics professors who had no understanding that a Blackbody is about the color black/blackest. Who knows what they have been teaching the students.

      But to me, with my ancient knowledge of Thermodynamics, these things are ROTFL kind of funny:

      • Earth is a Blackbody.
      • CO2 may be saturated on the ground, but it’s not saturated higher up where there are fewer CO2 molecules.
      • Their claim that 33 degrees of warming came from Carbon Dioxide, while having no inkling never mind understanding of an “e” term which actually causes the 33 degrees of warming.

      I hope the field of Thermodynamics is restored to proper knowledge and understanding, so future classes are actually able to share in my humor and understand how funny the revival of the Greenhouse Gas Alarm actually is, in terms of its science.

      Like

      1. anewscienceblog Avatar

        In terms of the painter adding paint to oil until the paint is saturated – the NASA objection is like “Ok, the paint is saturated down there, but look, there is a droplet of paint floating in the air above the paint coat, and that droplet is not saturated, huh?”

        Who the heck cares about droplets of paint above the paint coat. The paint coat is already thick enough to block all radiation in those frequencies, there is no radiation getting through already. More paint (CO2) is not going to be doing anything, has no more role to play, is irrelevant, that was the whole argument.

        So anyway, if you see all that together, it is really funny to me! They totally missed the argument. It went right over their head. They had obviously no clue at all why Angstrom’s experiment proved CO2 could not cause any warming. But they managed to hang on to one single word “saturation” which they knew from their science classes about salt and sugar solutions. The climate changers then made up an argument based on that hilarious misunderstanding. Their attitude was: “Saturation”? Did somebody say “saturation”? Yeah, yeah, I know this “saturation” thing, I learned it in my Science class where we learn heavy Science things. Now watch me destroy this “saturation” argument.

        I mean, isn’t it really hilarious?

        Like

      2. anewscienceblog Avatar

        Well, at first it wasn’t all that funny, because I thought this was serious science argument!

        Personally, since Angstrom’s experiment was obvious to me, and “saturation” was not part of the experiment itself but merely a way to try to explain it… I was rather very confused by this “It is not saturated up there.” It took me a while to realize that these were science morons with deep political talents and had zero clue what Angstrom’s experiment meant. Once I realized that they were understanding “saturation” as “salt-in-water saturation”, the situation became clear (and funny)!

        This “Saturation of CO2 is same as salt-in-water saturation” idiocy was incredible – I mean, they seriously expected that adding more CO2 to atmosphere was impossible, the CO2 molecules would fall out or something? All this with 0.04% concentration? Realistically, CO2 would “saturate” (using their high school science version of “saturation”) at 100% – because yes, you can take a volume of air and totally replace it with 100% CO2. There is nothing physically impossible about a CO2 atmosphere.

        I tried to argue against their idiocy on forums, but it was like arguing with donkeys, they just kept braying. Both alarmists and deniers, both sides had zero understanding of what Angstrom’s experiment was all about, but both sides were convinced they understood it! I couldn’t even figure out WHAT it was they understood – how would a salt-in-water type “saturation” ever translate to “there is not going to be any warming from additional CO2?” What did they think the scientists of the past were saying – the additional CO2 would fail to get added to atmosphere because it was “saturated”? Where would it go? Up above, and that’s where their brilliant “up above” insight came from?

        Over time, from their brayings, it became clear they had nothing clear in their heads, all they knew was “I know what is saturation, my high school science class made me an expert on it and all of science”, and then there was some kind of bizarre mysticism in their heads about how scientists of the past (who NASA considered idiots who just happened to stumble upon creating the entire field of Thermodynamics) thought salt-in-water type saturation actually worked in the case of CO2 in air.

        Even from common knowledge, Greenhouses operate at much higher CO2 levels than found in atmosphere. I have no clue how the donkeys reconciled this with their high-school “saturation” class – if they thought CO2 was “saturated” in air like salt in water, why could Greenhouses double the CO2 levels found in air without the extra CO2 falling down?

        I mean, the idiocy levels, they can be hurtful to engage with, because you go in expecting these people with Ph.D. degrees from top institutions will have at least barely-functioning brains.

        Finding the humor in the situation was emotionally cathartic. Humor is good medicine – I would rather laugh at the idiots! And how could you not feel like laughing once their “understanding” became clear enough?

        Like

      3. anewscienceblog Avatar

        So what exactly did NASA think Angstrom’s work was all about? Apparently, Angstrom proved that air was saturated with CO2, like water can get saturated with salt, therefore more CO2 could not cause any more heating, because the extra CO2 wouldn’t fit in the saturated atmosphere. What happens to any CO2 getting added? Apparently Angstrom thought it would … unclear… fall to the ground, vanish?

        That dumb Angstrom… Unlike NASA geniuses, he didn’t realize that the additional CO2 wouldn’t just vanish. No sir, it had a place to go. It would just climb higher, because you see, the air up there is NOT saturated, because the NASA genius knows there are less CO2 molecules up there.

        So that’s the best I can make out of their insane “Angstrom was wrong” cult. They literally thought Angstrom was saying more CO2 wouldn’t fit in the atmosphere and would therefore just vanish or fall down or something. It took NASA geniuses to realize the extra CO2 would just climb up where it could still cause the mysterious “warming”.

        In all of this NASA genius work, no glimpse of the merest hint of any understanding of absorption frequencies.

        Angstrom’s entire experiment was about CO2 absorption frequencies; he wasn’t measuring CO2 density in air at all.

        Like

  6. anewscienceblog Avatar

    There have been hundreds of thousands at least, maybe reaching millions, of climate scientists with Ph.D. degrees. They ferociously tend to defend NASA (at least those who have the knowledge necessary to follow the argument) and that’s why you will see my responses have evolved to pre-empt them.

    Their defense, naturally, tends to devolve into the absurd.

    When defending the “saturation”, the defenders came out with a strange argument, complicating the lunacy. They claimed – the paint (CO2) absorbs the energy, but then emits it right back, sending it up for the floating speck to deal with. This would be like the paint being opaque, but also transparent.

    This was utter lunacy. CO2 within 9.8 meters of ground was sufficiently thick to be opaque to CO2 frequencies, as Angstrom’s experiment showed. It can’t be both opaque and transparent. It is opaque only when it is no longer transparent to any degree. If there is transparency, there is no opaqueness.

    You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t use the same gasoline (petrol) over and over again. Yet these people with Ph.D. degrees were arguing that CO2 was special, it took the energy, used it to heat up the air, and then spit the energy right back upwards. Towards the floating specks.

    All this just to give cover to “that floating speck up there is not saturated, so there, you stupid Angstrom” idiocy.

    Like

Leave a comment

Discover more from Limot's Newsletter

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading