I'm going to write a TLDR post about the actual science behind CO2, global warming and climate change. This is all off the top of my head, no Google searches. This is to demonstrate to the consumers and regurgitators of climate catastrophe lies that I actually have enough working understanding of the physics involved to be able to evaluate the unscientific claims you guys say "experts" tell you. Btw, many of the claims you guys keep repeating are so outdated and wrong that the "experts" you claim to believe are too embarrassed to admit they ever believed them.
You ready? Here we go:
The Sun, Earth's orbit and its axial tilt
Milankovich cycles, obliquity changes and solar output demonstrably account for any warming that might actually be happening. A claim that 1.3 degrees C of warming over 150 years (which is a lie) is only attributable to a gas that makes up 425ppm of our atmosphere is absurd on its face. Seasonal temperatures vary by up to 150 degrees throughout the year, depending on latitude, and that's been mostly due an approximately 23 degree tilt in the axis, and the Earth's normally elliptical orbit. The tilt has charged so that more of the Earth's surface is facing more directly at the sun year round, and Earth's orbit has become circular so the distance between the Earth and the Sun is closer all year round than it once was. Solar output also goes through 11 and 100 year cycles, spotted here and there with solar flares, which cause temperature anomalies due to massive spikes in energy output from the Sun.
If the experts had controlled for all these factors, they would have to conclude that if it weren't for these conditions, the Earth would be cooling far more than it currently is. It's not cooling much, now, and will likely start another warming cycle in the next couple of decades, but it is clearly not warming right now.
CO2 and the "Greenhouse" effect
To start, the greenhouse effect is a misnomer. Greenhouses work by solar radiation passing through glass, and the valence electrons from the SIO2 (silicon dioxide, which is what glass is mostly made of) are hit by photons of a particular wavelength, increasing their energy levels to a higher orbit around their nuclei. As the electrons drop back down into their stable orbits, they emit a lower energy photon of a wavelength that is within the IR (infra red, or "heat") band of the electromagnetic spectrum. To put it simply, glass converts higher energy photons into heat, creating the greenhouse effect, causing warming inside the greenhouse. The glass does not stop IR, in or out. It is merely the conversion of UV light to IR that causes the warming. Once the sun goes down, the greenhouse quickly cools to ambient temperature as all the IR escapes through the glass.
CO2 acts in a similar fashion. It also has valence electrons that are excited by a narrow band of electromagnetic radiation. That band falls within the IR range. Unlike glass of a greenhouse, though, CO2 does not create a thin barrier at a set distance around the Earth, and it doesn't simply allow the radiation to pass through in one direction or the other. It absorbs the energy, and re-emits it in all directions, making CO2 more like a blanket than a greenhouse.
The climate alarmists admit to all the above, so do the skeptics, so none of that is controversial. The alarmists, however, claim that the radiation emitted by the CO2 molecules is then absorbed by other CO2 molecules, and the higher the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, the longer it takes for the heat to escape. They also claim that CO2 concentrations are increasing mostly in the upper atmosphere.
Here's the problem. That claim defies the laws of thermodynamics. Both conservation of energy and action =/opposite reaction. When you have molecules or atoms emitting energy, It's always at a lower level than what it absorbed. This is demonstrated easily with fluorescence and phosphoerescence. You shine the right frequency light onto a phosphorescent or fluorescent material, it emits a lower energy glow as all the valence electrons drop an orbit. CO2 is the same, meaning that the photons it emits are a lower energy level than what it absorbs, meaning, CO2 can't just keep passing photons back and forth to each other. The photons they emit are necessarily a lower frequency than what they absorb. So the lower frequency photons will pass right by other CO2 molecules.
Higher concentrations of CO2 in the outer atmosphere will necessarily prevent CO2 molecules closer to Earth from ever absorbing any IR energy, because the higher up CO2 will have converted all the IR in that band into lower frequency radiation, half of which would be emitted back into space immediately.
The entire premise is a sham. There has been no paper that has ever proven that CO2 contributes to global warming, because it literally cannot do so.
I hope this has been an illuminating read for all you science illiterate Twitter bot echo posters out there.
Next post I may explain why there is no such thing as "climate science" and why there can't be. Until then, keep burning those hydrocarbons. They are the best thing to ever happen to the planet and humans.
the man
