FAQ about Tropospheric SRM!

  • Avatar

    The consensus is that climate change is real. What is not settled is that it is man made. The predictions made by the „man made“ crowd 20 years ago would have New York city a few feet under water by now. The people who pushed this are wealthy enough now to live anywhere they want on high ground in very lavish energy hungry homes. They laugh at you so don’t be naive.

      • Avatar

        It its quite settled that it is anthropogenic. There are four lines of evidence.
        First, the CO2 budget is closed, that is we can account for all the sources and sinks. The increase of atmospheric CO2 shown in the Keeling curve is due to anthropogenic sources.
        Second, the isotopic abundances of carbon in the atmosphere show that the increase in CO2 is due to an increase in ancient carbon. The only source of ancient carbon is fossil fuels.
        Third, atmospheric oxygen is decreasing. The only explanation for this is the consumption of oxygen by combustion of carbon.
        Fourth, models can be run with our without CO3 forcing. Models run without CO2 forcing show a cooling climate.
        It’s real and it’s us.

          • Avatar

            Do You know that there is only 0.037 % share of CO2 in the Atmosphere?
            Do You know that all human contribution is only 0.001 % and all industrial share is nearly immeasurable?
            Do You know that You would need to stop human life for 30 years to reach the prediction of computer models of sinking the temperatures for 1°C?
            Do You know that these computer models don’t work with real measured temperature data?
            Do You know that CO2 and H2O are the main results of a burning, heating process and as such they never cause the heat, but are cooling?
            Would You claim that …
            blooming flowers create the rain?
            sooth and ashes make the fire?
            sweat heats the body?
            centric waves throw the stone?
            thermometer makes temperature?
            the subsidies to Puerto Rico build the USA?
            Or would You claim always the opposite?
            So why are You claiming that CO2, as the smallest indicator of temperature variations on Earth can make global warming?

              see more

              • Avatar

                CO2 averages about 0.040% of dry air, now.
                Annual human emissions are equivalent to about 0.0004% of the atmosphere. Of that, about half is absorbed by the biosphere and oceans, and the remainder adds to atmospheric CO2 levels, which are increasing by about 0.0002% per year. (That’s the percentage of the whole atmosphere; as a percentage of CO2, CO2 levels are increasing by about 0.5% per year.)
                As for the rest…. aw, never mind.

                  • Avatar

                    Thank You Dave, You are delivering all the frame! 🙂
                    1. CO2 emission, like the H2O emission into the Atmosphere is always a RESULT of a heating, burning process on or in the ground. The result is never the REASON!!!!
                    Without burning or heating the Earth would not release water vapor or other gases into the atmosphere. It would be just a ice ball, like it was for a very long time, ca. up to 700 Million years ago.
                    2. All annual human emissions are 0.0004%. Do You want to eliminate the humanity to reduce CO2 level? 🙂 Would it make any difference, it instead of humanity more ants, more elephants, more volcanic eruptions, more general fauna would emit the CO2? For the Earth it doesn’t make any difference, as the emission of CO2 by Fauna and absorbtion by FLORA is a natural symbiosis.
                    3. Water and CO2 levels in the Atmosphere cannot steadily increase, as they are always in a balance, according the bigger climatic oscillations, weather seasons, sun activity etc. H2O and CO2 are emitted in warm periods and absorbed during cold periods. Everybody can observe it by growing (winter) and retreating (summer) ice shields.
                    Such a never ending rise of CO2 is not possible, like it is not possible for the ice shields to grow over the winter period.
                    4. The current slight rise of CO2 levels is a result of „Tropospheric Solar Radiation and Water Management“ where by SRM the direct sunlight is blocked, that the high energetic blue rays cannot reach the surface. All plants, but specifically the trees and more dramatically the conifers cannot execute PHOTOSYNTHESIS, because they need this blue rays for that. Plants under part shade are able to use the red light for photosynthesis, but that is not the case for the trees. So conifer forests are dying now in masses. Because of dead trees also wildfires occur more often.
                    The dying or dead trees are not able to absorb enough CO2 from Troposphere as a healthy forest would do.
                    Practically You are confirming that by linking the document „Fer­til­iz­ing the air with car­bon di­ox­ide to pro­mote plant growth“.
                    Like flora is suffering because of missing blue light, fauna (humans included) is suffering from the lack of UV-B rays for the daily production of VitaminD.
                    I have also collected information about that, which You may search with the keywords „geoarchitektur“ „co2-rise-by-geoengineering-srm“ „vitamin-d-srm“ as DISQUS is blocking links.
                    SRM is the biggest crime on environment, on all life and on humanity.
                    Please realize, that You are a victim of a very dangerous propaganda. Missing sunlight for VitaminD endangers the health of our children, friends, elders and ours.
              • Just for You, 🙂 I checked the content of the link.

                1. „when the Earth’s surface gets warmer, it loses heat faster, thereby reducing the increase in temperature“: That has to be true, because the Earth cannot entrap the rising heat within its Atmosphere, as it is an open planetary system.

                1.1. Mr. Happers measurement may not be wrong about the absorbtion and release property of CO2, however looking only on these properties of CO2 is generally a selective wrong prespective. CO2 is not the source of the Energy, it is indicating RESULT. So if there is more energy on the surface, than he should have looked for the source of this rising heat?

                Main sources of energy are the hot core of the Earth (internal sun) and the Sun (external sun) sending us generously its light waves.

                2. „Convective cooling“ confirms the first point!

                3. „water condenses into clouds, releasing the heat which it had absorbed at the surface“: „This process is the most important way in which heat is removed from surface of the Earth. Warmer temperatures should increase the rate of evaporation, and thereby increase the rate at which heat is transported away from the surface.“ It confirms my statements! No overheating, but an inherent balance.

                4. – 6. Also confirming my descriptions!

                7. The rest is Ok, but look where the SPECULATION or let my say INTENTIONAL DERAILING begins: „AR5 estimates that this effect currently removes about 26% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions from the atmosphere (Fig. 6.1), but that’s a very rough estimate. “ This statement is NOT based on EVIDENDENCE!

                8. Here also first the truth: „Higher CO2 levels increase plant growth rates, which reduces atmospheric CO2 levels.“ and than comes the INTENTIONAL DERAILING by SPECULATION: „AR5 estimates that this effect currently removes about 29% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions from the atmosphere (Fig. 6.1), but that’s a very rough estimate. „

                Hotter Earth means more H20 and CO2 in the air, resulting in more plant growth! The best evidence for that are the coal reserves built in times of higher Atmospheric temperatures!!

                9. TRUE: „CO2 / Coccolithophore feedback. Increased CO2 levels dramatically increase growth of calcifying coccolithophores, removing CO2 from the oceans. „

                10. TRUE: „Increased Greenland ice melt fertilizes the ocean via iron in the runoff water, increasing absorption of CO2 by photosynthesis in the oceans. ↑“

                11. TRUE: „Rock weathering feedback. Atmospheric CO2 dissolves in raindrops, forming weak carbonic acid, which causes chemical weathering of wollastonite and similar silicate rocks. That chemical process removes CO2 from the rainwater, and hence from the atmosphere, and the process accelerates at warmer temperatures and higher carbonic acid levels. Higher atmospheric CO2 accelerates this process two ways: it increases carbonic acid content in rainwater, slightly lowering the water’s pH, and it also causes slightly warmer temperatures through global warming. „

                12. TRUE: „Water Vapor Feedback. It is generally expected that warmer temperatures should increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, because warmer air holds more moisture. This effect is usually approximated in climate calculations by assuming stable relative humidity as temperatures change. Under that assumption, warmer temperatures cause greater amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere,“
                SPECULATIVE SCAM: „since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, increased water vapor in the atmosphere should increase greenhouse warming: a positive feedback. 
                This is generally believed to be the most important positive climate feedback mechanism. Quantifying it is harder, though.“

                ———————————————————
                „Positive amplifying feedbacks“ – SPECULATIVE DERAILING SCAM TRASH, absolute nonsense!

                1. SPECULATIVE SCAM TRASH: “ The latest version of the U. of Chicago’s online MODTRAN interface calculates that for a Tropical Atmosphere water vapor feedback should increase the warming effect of CO2 in the tropics by only about 8% to 9%. That’s probably incorrect: most other sources give much higher estimates, generally between 60% and 100% (i.e., up to doubling). Here’s a fairly in-depth discussion:“

                These people don’t deserve to be named scientists, they are scientific scam designers: „Note that some scientists use the term “water vapor feedback” in a broader sense than I’m using it, to encompass not only the direct greenhouse warming effect of atmosheric water vapor, but also water cycle (evaporative) cooling, and perhaps clouds. For example: ↑“

                2. Ok, but unimportant: „Ice / Albedo Feedback. If warmer climate reduces ice and snow cover, reduced ice cover (on water) and snow cover (on land) will increase albedo (reflectivity), and thus reduce absorption of sunlight during daytime.“

                3. Outgasing H2O and a little bit of CO2:  „CO2 / Water Temperature Feedback. The solubility of gases like CO2 in water decreases as the water gets warmer, so as the oceans warm they outgas CO2. The CO2, „

                SPECULATIVE DERAILING SCAM: „in turn, works as a GHG to cause warming. This is a modest positive feedback mechanism. ↑“

                4. SPECULATIVE DERAILING SCAM: „Permafrost / Methane Feedback. Theoretically, if the climate warms, it could melt some of the Arctic permafrost, causing the release of methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas, so this should increase warming, making it a positive feedback mechanism. However, thus far, this effect seems to be negligible. ↑“

                The hysteria about Methane is spin to create a next „terrorist gas“. The spin doctors of this scam must be the same cocaine addict, lazy, overpayed criminals, which also designed the „War On Terror“, where they invented one „star terrorist“ after another. As we a in a „star system“ some of these criminals surely work for Hollywood in their civil life 🙂 🙂

                The trash about CO2 finance bubble smells like Hollywood trash!!! Bad films, bad scam! 🙂

                The rest of the text can be ignored totally.
          %d Bloggern gefällt das: