- If You are lied at …
- What should cause Your suspicion?
- Now let us talk about CO2.
- Non existent planetary and glasshouse Greenhouse Effect!
- Positive Feedback!
- Warming shifted to Troposphere!
- Let us resume!
- Further sources
1. If You are lied at …
than the truth is not far away, because it is always the opposite of the lie!
The lie about human caused global warming and climate change is the following:
“Only the CO2 share, emitted by humans is causing a Positive Feedback and Greenhouse Effect, which entraps the heat and inevitably leads to a climate catastrophe! 97% of climate scientists agree in consensus about that occurring now! ”
Why is that statement wrong, many of You will ask now, because it is presented as an “scientific consensus” by “all Main-Stream-Media”!
2. What should cause Your suspicion?
1. “Scientific Consensus” – Science is based on evidence, not on consensus voting! Apart from this, there was no consensus voting within the scientific community about that. It would be absurd to do it! If there was a voting, the share of supporters of the above construction would be less than 1/1000 and the statement would be easily ripped off by scientific evidence! Even the propagated consensus is totally fake!
The “consensus lie” doesn’t even deserve to be called a speculation and it is never a theory, it is just a dumb marketing lie, developed by marketing swindlers not by any scientist!
2. “All media is propagating it!” – The so called media consists of propaganda companies and they are correctly not named as media anymore! More appropriate names are “FakeNews“, “Lügenpresse”, “Presstitutes”, “Maulhuren” … Just when all Presstitutes are announcing something or pointing into a direction, everyone should look around, generally the truth is at the opposite side!
3. Now let us talk about CO2.
What is CO2?
CO2 is one of the natural components of our atmosphere.
How much CO2 is there?
CO2 is a trace gas, besides 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, 0.934% Argon and 0.029% other trace gases only 0.037% CO2 is in the Atmosphere.
Full list of components of Atmosphere:
|Remaining||0.026361% (Other trace gases S0x, N0x etc.)|
Total share of humanity on CO2 is 0.0011%, only the share of industry is with 0.0000077% much lower and relatively irrelevant!
Is CO2 a poison?
CO2 is a rare, odorless non-poisonous gas.
Properties of CO2!
CO2 is with its 1.977 kg/m³ one of the heavier components of air and therefore tends to accumulate at near surface level.
Is CO2 needed?
The relatively heavy specific weight of CO2 is a fortunate for life, because CO2 is similar to water a main element of life!
Who else needs CO2?
Plants feed from atmospheric CO2, which they need for their bare existence and growing. The carbon is sequestered from CO2 and joined with other molecules of plant food to build the cell material!
Do we, the humans, also need CO2?
Yes, because all animal life (also human) depends on plants. We feed directly on plants or eat meat of animals feeding on plants!
Where else do we need CO2?
Plants separate oxygen (O2) from CO2 and oxygen is required for animal breathing! When we look into the biochemical details, the O2 atoms in CO2 are integrated into the glucose, but the same amount of O2 atoms which are cracked from H2O are the ones which are released for our breathing. But the molecular balance of the amount is the same! 6 times O2 taken in with CO2 are released by cracking O2 from H2O!
6H20 + 6CO2 –> C6H12O6 + 6O2
We use O2 to burn carbon for our body heat. This burning results in CO2, which we thankfully give back to the plants. CO2 is the element of symbiosis between plant and animal life! A more detailed explanation of photosynthesis is will be delivered on a separate post, but You may research on abundant and free resources by Yourself.
Please ask Yourself!
What do we want to breathe in an Atmosphere without CO2 and O2?
How the plants survive without getting CO2 from air?
How will humans and animals survive without plants as food and Oxygen (O2) to breathe?
Is CO2 warming?
No, CO2 is always a result of burning, never the reason. Building of CO2 is an energy absorbing process not an emitting one. CO2 and H2O are effectively the gaseous ashes of a burning process.
Is CO2 a strong heat absorber?
No, CO2’s capacity for heat is considerably less than of other gases in the atmosphere.
“Specific heat (= specific heat capacity) is the amount of heat required to change temperature of one mass unit of a substance by one degree.“
|Component||Heat Value cp (kJ/(kg K))|
Is CO2 cooling?
Yes, by evaporation of water (H2O) and CO2 as results of burning, both molecules carry the heat away by rising upwards and cool down the surface area of their origin. This process is similar to our sweating. Sweating is mainly done with water, but also a little bit of CO2 is emitted, as we also breath with our skin!
Can CO2 accumulate at 6km height as greenhouse cover?
No, CO2 is with 1.977 kg/m³ to heavy to rise up high and stay there for long. It always tends to the surface after releasing its energy and cooling down and plants absorb it by photosynthesis. Water vapor has only 0.590kg/m³ specific weight and can rise up by diffusion to the upper border of troposphere (ca. 11km in the Temperate Climate Zone).
Is CO2 responsible for the heat in a real greenhouse?
No, the heating in a greenhouse is intentional. It is produced by burning methane gas, to reach three goals:
- Keep the temperature of the greenhouse stable, specifically on cold days.
- To feed the plants with CARBON, which they can absorb as CO2 to crack out the C and release O2 from H2O by PHOTOSYNTHESIS.
- Deliver also humidity to the air, because second remain of burned methane is H2O (water).
The glass cover of the greenhouse is to keep the higher CO2 level inside. Else the production of CO2 would not make any sense, it would be wasted.
In addition to CO2 production the light wave quality must be optimized to enable and maximize the effect of PHOTOSYNTHESIS.
Is CO2 an acid? Can it acidify the oceans?
No, CO2 is not an acid. The common use of the notion “carbonic acid” (H2CO3) in some languages is chemically totally wrong. By putting energy on water under pressure, about 0.2% of CO2 could be bound to carbonic acid. Such conditions could exist for example in a canister of soft drink. Opening the canister this small amount of this weak acid would turn into H2O and CO2. In an open water and particularly a far basic and alkaline sea water no acidification is possible.
The Climatism fraudsters than argue, that the sea water would become “less alkaline” and they would use the notion of “acidification” to describe this in a non-scientific manner. That is like talking about “coolification” when the temperature in a summer day falls from 35°C to 34°C. 🙂
4. Non existent planetary and glasshouse Greenhouse Effect!
Does the greenhouse effect exists on another planet, e.g. the Venus?
No, there is no greenhouse effect, neither in a real greenhouse and certainly not on any planet!!
Venus is about 108 million km and Mars is about 228 million km away from the sun.
Both the cold Mars and the hot Venus have a CO2 share in the atmosphere of about 96%.
The only reason that the CO2 is not split up and O2 is released is that there are no plants on both planets to conduct photosynthesis. The relative distribution of individual components of the atmosphere does not say anything about the density of the atmosphere.
Mercury, although only about 58 million kilometers away, is too small to form a nameable atmosphere.
Apart from the solar radiation, the warming comes by the density of the atmosphere. The density of the atmosphere depends on the mass of the planet and the availability of vaporizable elements.
Planetary objects, which have a very large mass and can form a very dense atmosphere, are called suns, because by the extreme pressure they convert excess matter into energy and emanate it as electromagnetic waves. It is only through this energy-intensive process with very high pressure and heat conditions that heavy elements are created in a sun.
Objects that are too small to hold a noteworthy atmosphere are exposed to the cosmic cold and direct exposure to the sun.
A very good example is our Moon. On the sunny side, the soil can become 130 ° C hot, but on the shadow side it is about -160 ° C cold.
On Mercury it becomes cold in the night up to -173 ° C and up to 167 ° C hot during the day.
Diameters of some planetary object in our solar system:
|Planetary Object||Diameter in km|
So, the sense of temperatures lies in the mass of the planets and their ability to hold a dense atmosphere.
The volume size of Venus is similar to the Earth. If we assume that both have similar composition and an equally strong gravity, the proximity to the Sun makes the only difference that leads to more heating, evaporation of volatile substances and thus resulting in a more dense atmosphere.
However, Venus must have more heavy elements and thus has a higher mass, which greatly increases its ability to bind a more dense atmosphere.
On Venus a day is longer than a year and it rotates, relative to all other planets and the Sun, in the wrong direction. This slow rotation also causes a completely different climate on Venus compared to Earth. Our Earth has a similar volume, but it is a more blown up and less dense object, compared to the more dense Venus.
On Venus, pleasant pressure conditions such as on the Earth arise at altitudes of about 50km to 65km!
Large planets can even bind hydrogen, while on smaller planets such light elements escape into the universe. CO2 is one of the heavy molecules. On the Earth it collects near the surface.
Dear readers, just assume that everything about global warming is false and faked.
Here is compilation of facts about the planets.
There You find the pressure on the surface!
Earth has 1 bar,
Venus 92 bar and
Mars 0.01 bar!
What is the Temperature of Jupiter?
By Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor | November 7, 2012
Because Jupiter’s distance from the sun is an average of 484 million miles (778 million km), heat from the star is weak, though it does contribute. Much of the heating of the gases come from the inside of planet itself. Beneath the surface, convection from the liquid and plasma hydrogen generate more heat than from the sun. This convection keeps the massive gas giant warm enough to avoid it freezing into an icy world.“
5. Positive Feedback!
Positive Feedback of CO2 as true as if someone would claim that the reflection of the Moon would be the main reason of the heat of the Sun.
Please consider that the Sun is sending its light to the infinite space. A little portion of light reaches the Moon. Only a small insignificant part is reflected back to the Sun.
The sunlight needs about 8 minutes to reach the Moon, the reflection needs additional 8 minutes, so a photon emitted by the Sun needs about 16 minutes to come back.
Knowing this, would You claim, that the Sun is glowing by the reflection of the Moon? That the Moon is the reason of the heat on the surface of the Sun?
Exactly that is claimed about CO2 by the ClimateControl Mafia! Remember, from 0.037% CO2 of Atmosphere, not all human share of 0.0011% is blamed but only the 0.0000077% of industrial emission would be responsible for global warming. A material which is cooling and an indicating result of burning, but never the reason of heating!
This tiny immeasurable CO2 share shall entrap the infrared radiation and send it to the Earth surface, to keep and send the infrared waves back from the surface, playing ping pong with the heat waves and causing the rise of inner heat on the surface.
At the beginning, the sect priests of Climatism Church, who happily abuse the notion “scientist” for themselves, used the crazy speculations of Svante Arrhenius about a glass like cover at 6 km altitude, consisting of carbon dioxide snow.
The fictitious greenhouse effect (German)
Von Loki45 16.07.2009, 12.40 Uhr
“It is always surprising, how the “greenhouse effect” as a myth can exist even in the realm of science. He (Svante Arrhenius) claims in his publication “About the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air onto the Ground Temperature” that a “glass roof” of “carbonic acid snow” at an altitude of 6 km would isolate and heat the Earth, like in a green house. However this “glass roof” was never found till this day. Also a heat reflecting carbon dioxide layer doesn’t exist, which would push back the heat reflected from the Earth – these are the myths of the climate catastrophe apologists.”
As such claims have been embarrassingly disproven many times and sound very dumb, the Climatism Sect doesn’t talk about any altitude or carbon dioxide glass anymore, but however demands that we should believe in the illusion of the existence of a magical cover.
We shall just believe in any idiocy of Climate Sect, which is branded as “climate science” and never question it.
6. Warming shifted to Troposphere!
Under natural conditions the dual oxygen (O2) molecules within the stratosphere are separated by intense UV-C and UV-B radiation and bonded together as triple Oxygen (O3), which is named ozone. Therefore this area is named Ozone Layer.
The heavy Ozone molecules absorb most of the UV-C and UV-B rays and release the excess energy as heat (infrared rays). Therefore the Stratosphere is about -15°C at top relatively warm, compared to the -56°C at the upper border of the Troposphere.
What Is the Earth’s Atmosphere Composition & Temperature?By Maria Kielmas; Updated April 25, 2017
“The stratosphere lies above the troposphere and extends to 50 kilometers (31 miles) above the Earth’s surface. It holds 85 percent to 90 percent of atmospheric ozone created by the photolysis – the decomposition by solar radiation – of oxygen.“
With Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), which is a fake naming for the process, as there stratosphere contains no humidity, so no building of aerosols can be triggered by spraying fine dust particles, the ozone is dropped out by oxidation with chemicals. So the application should be named Stratospheric Ozone Oxidation (SOO) or Stratospheric Ozone Burning (SOB) or similar. The Ozone is highly reactive to any material sprayed out within the stratosphere. The result is chemical ash, not aerosol.
Ozone Layer Fear Mongering!
The intention behind dropping out the ozone is to make the stratosphere more transparent for UV-C & UV-B rays, that they may reach down to the troposphere and the surface of land & oceans.
Less Ozone means cooler stratosphere, but hotter troposphere!
At the same time all the chemical ash falling from the stratosphere down to the troposphere and all the Tropospheric Aerosol Injection (TAI) material sprayed within the troposphere to build artificial smog, to bind and lift water, increases the total mass of material within this lowest layer of the atmosphere. More mass means higher potential for inner heat. With other words, more material can absorb more energy and release more excess energy as heat (infrared rays).
The Stratosphere is cooled by SOO (SOB, SAI) but the Troposphere is heated by TAI!
This is the reason of hysterical marketing of the “Globalwarming” spin. When we look at the total balance of temperature for the whole Earth there is no change, as the total mass of the Earth remains the same, but an important part of stratospheric mass is reduced and the tropospheric mass is increased dramatically.
The expectation is that this will result in higher inner heat in all areas of troposphere with higher material density in air, which causes death and damage. To prevent being sued and forced to pay for this, the ClimateControl propaganda blames its doing on the victims by claiming that the production of CO2 by their bare existence is to blame for heating, because more mass is put into the air by more CO2 emission.
The CO2 remains in air, because of reduced sunlight by SRM, which results in reduced photosynthesis! This means less O2 is produced. So the second job of the propaganda is to prevent the victims from thinking about their suffocation.
When I write all this, I know that most people are so deadly dumbified that they don’t know anything about the symbiotic role of CO2, O2 & H2O in photosynthesis. This is the biggest shame and problem of the humanity.
Do You get the logic of the Globalwarming propaganda now?
7. Let us resume!
CO2 and H2O are foundations of life!
If someone aims to control and tax CO2, doesn’t he want to control and tax the life itself?
Exactly that is the target of this measurement, to occupy, privatize, tax and trade the natural cycles of WATER and CARBON!
The owner of both cycles will be able to decide about life and death by drought, floods, sunlight deficiency, poisoning and contamination.
Control on CARBON and WATER is the ultimate weapon of WWIII, which we have already entered as Geophysical Warfare is applied in many regions of our planet.
Main mechanism of this technology depends on water physics. By using desublimation aerosol covers are built. Desublimatios trails are the most evident indicators of “Tropospheric Solar Radiation und Water Management” (TSRWM)!
Knowledge gives power! Ignorance ends in helplessness!
Knowledge gives wisdom! Ignorances is blinding!
8. Further sources
Dipl. Engineer Claus-Eckart Puls talking about the attack on CO2
Malcolm Roberts: Carbon Dioxide in perspective
Fred Goldberg – Can Humans Cause Global Warming with CO2-Emissions From the Burning of Fossil Fuels?
If carbon dioxide is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouse growers buy CO2 generators to double plant growth?
Why our CO2 emissions do not increase Atmosphere CO2
“Contrary to what Al Gore told you, CO2 does not control temperature. Temperature controls CO2.”
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009)
replaces Version 1.0 (July 7, 2007) and later
Gerhard Gerlich Institut f¨ur Mathematische Physik Technische Universit¨at Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig Mendelssohnstraße 3 D-38106 Braunschweig Federal Republic of Germany firstname.lastname@example.org Ralf D. Tscheuschner Postfach 60 27 62 D-22237 Hamburg Federal Republic of Germany email@example.com
“The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.
Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that
(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects,
(b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet,
(c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 ◦C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,
(d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately,
(e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical,
(f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.“