It is a well-advertised fact that putting CO2 (usually referred to as “carbon” ***) into the atmosphere causes global warming. My problems with this idea are that 1) the planet is barely, almost imperceptibly warming, and 2) CO2’s role in this mild warming is very tiny. The demonization of carbon dioxide is another agenda, having nothing to do with warming, and everything to do with command and control, population reduction, and perpetuation of poverty, especially in Africa. Climate Change is in large part a racist agenda.
So, I say CO2 is not a cause of warming. Where are my facts? There are quite a few “greenhouse gases,” the primary ones being water vapor, CO2, and methane. The latter two, CO2 and methane, pale in significance to water vapor, which is the cause of 95% of the so-called greenhouse effect. That is more than twenty six times that of CO2, and over 237 times that of methane. So that if we truly wanted to stop or slow down the greenhouse effect, we would be sequestering water, not CO2.
But do we want to do that? Of course not. Our planet’s global average temperature, according to satellite data, is 59°F. That is why Earth is such a nice place to live.
CO2 is responsible for 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. The current level in the atmosphere is 415ppm, or parts per million. What if everything else stayed the same, and CO2 levels, which we are increasing by 3ppm per year, got to the ungodly level of 445ppm in the next ten years. What percentage of the greenhouse effect would it then be? 3.86%.
But that is not the way it works. The greenhouse effect is but one way that the planet stays at a level temperature. Also, CO2 does not create any heat. That all comes from the sun, and due to conservation of energy, the amount of it in our atmosphere stays constant. Every day a certain amount of solar energy enters our atmosphere, and every night that same amount is radiated out.
Solar radiation enters the atmosphere with maybe 30% of it reflected back by clouds, aerosols and the surface of the planet. Solar energy blows right by greenhouse gases. They do not absorb it.
Every night the earth sends back most of the solar radiation collected during the day in the form of long wave infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases do indeed catch those waves, and re-emit them in all directions, so that perhaps 50% of them go back into space, with the rest retained.
The retained radiation is the greenhouse effect, and it does indeed cause planetary warming. But wait! I said the average planetary temperature was 59°F, and has been at that level for decades, increasing at the modest rate of perhaps 2°F per century. In other words, our planet is habitable due to this warmth. Without the greenhouse effect, the global average temperature would be 1°F, and we would have long ago frozen. In fact, we would never have come to be.
The temperature maintains a steady level due to equilibrium, the same effects day in and day out operating at the same level. There are many other forces at work to keep us comfortable, and I have described but one. Climate science is very complicated, but do not tell this to climate alarmists, who are reductionist. They want to blame CO2 for a tragedy that is not even happening. In fact, CO2 levels in climate history of the planet have been as high as 7,000ppm, and even so, ice ages followed.
CO2 is not dangerous, does not cause global warming (the current levels of which began perhaps around 1680, the bottom trough of the Little Ice Age). CO2 is our source of food and the oxygen we breathe, and importantly, does not drive warming to any degree that should cause alarm. That is all about politics and propaganda.
All of these supposed “scientists” who have reached “consensus” (as if science even operated that way) could not, if pressed, explain why the greenhouse effect, with us since the planet was formed, suddenly became dangerous. They have their heads in a dark place, but at least that place is warm.
__________________
***Saying “carbon” instead of “carbon dioxide”, implies for the average non-scientific person that CO2, which is invisible and odorless, is , like carbon, dark and dirty.
Piece of Mindful 
Aren’t humans “carbon” based lifeforms?
Oh – the irony of demonizing carbon 🙄
LikeLike
I have a thought to add here that speaks of your mentioning of popularion reduction, but it has little to nothing to do with the greenhouse effect (at least at first). I wont add it here because its so far off topic.
Another time perhaps.
LikeLike
Off topic does not bother me. Sometimes what I write is boring. Have at it!
LikeLike
Wow, nice connection with the preferred word choice of that blackness, “carbon”…and we are “carbon-based” as Kenneth notes…so we are the problem. And we are the solution; nice!
Now that the OT door is open, I was impressed by this Ukraine article on Naked Capitalism; “Ives Smith” is not supporting this “current thing”, though some commenters cannot let the ‘rona bone go…
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2022/08/will-europe-go-down-to-defeat-before-ukraine.html
LikeLike
Population reduction is such a hot topic these days I just gotta wonder how effective nuclear weapons (another hot topic) are. They either don’t exist as “all powerful” as we are taught, OR they are so destructive that only a despot would ever dare use them (like there aren’t any of those around either).
All this concern the media feed us with hyping up the possibility of the “next war” (being nuclear) is a bunch of bollocks.
But then that leads all the way back to the “greenhouse effect” ehh?
dios mio… hahaha
LikeLike
Oops – I neglected to mention; if population reduction is so important to these miscreants… then this nuclear option (if they are capable of doing what we are taught) is never off the table.
I, on the other hand don’t belive what I’ve been taught when it comes to many things
Kenneth
LikeLike
I do not know of nuclear bombs were ever real, or if nuclear reactions used to generate energy, is an actual thing. I hear both sides, and am unsure. But suppose nuclear bombs are real … their use at the end of WWII would have had a minuscule effect on population, one that we would easily recover from. It was not a big enough attack.
The way to reduce population is to get rid of the underlying factors that aid its growth, wealth generation and food production. That would be fossil fuels, which indeed make us wealthy and comfortable, and produce the fertilizers that have kept us well fed. That seems to be the objective of Climate Change, to end fossil fuel use, and thereby impoverish and starve us to death. There is no “Climate Science” that supports the movement. Renewables are a cruel hoax.
It is easy to imagine that warfare puts a dent in population, and it does, temporarily. But the Civil War, if numbers are real, was the most devastating event in US history in terms of deaths, and created hardly a blip in population growth. The reason then would be that the deaths were of men, and that the driver behind population growth is the number of available wombs. If warfare is to be truly effective in controlling population, the victims have to be men, women and children alike. Just killing male soldiers does not get it done.,
LikeLike
The US population was 31 million and change in 1860. By 1870 it was 39 million give or take. That can only be attributable to immigration. 750,000 is the fuzzy estimated death toll for the war. That’s not much of a dent.
The northern economy was hamstrung before the war by southern control of congress and favored agrarian policies. With the south’s destruction, northern economic and industrial expansion was finally allowed out of the barn. The wheezing monarchies of Europe couldn’t keep their cheap labor force from moving to where the jobs were across the pond. Frankly, they probably encouraged some of it. Just ask the Irish.
Free Trade was the battle cry, and while the practice in Royal England devastated the Irish population, the southern states survivors at least had a path to move out of the area before they starved to death. While the Irish were organizing to improve work access, the blacks were encouraged to migrate north to help build the new industrial infrastructure. The Irish refused to work with the blacks and since there were more of them, the Irish were promoted up a rung. “How the Irish Became White” is the book that outlines this unhappy ending to the long mutual survival strategies between the original Irish and African slaves.
It was in the plantations that the name Tyrone* migrated to African American culture. I’m certain of that.
*My father was a super Irish, and a low frequency racist, and so would be completely unaware the name had been kept alive by black fathers.
Rambling on……
LikeLike
Good overview of the nonsense of AGW – Anthropogenic Global Warming
I see another problem:
The climate crazies are making an artificial separation that doesn’t exist. There is no such thing as “natural” or “unnatural/extra/human produced” CO2, water or any other so-called greenhouse gas.
Whatever we humans put out in CO2 is just taken up by the natural carbon cycles of System Earth. You cannot separate the two, because they are part of the same system. If more CO2 would be produced, then there is more uptake of CO2 in the vast oceans or by the biomass on land (much much smaller).
There are no 2 carbon cycles, a natural one and a human one, there is just one.
And most of the perceived warming by people is due to the urbanization effect; construction (be it roads, buildings or other materials) stores heat and slowly releases that at night. This also makes that cities in general are more clouded today (no, not because of “chem”trails, conspie crazies) than in the past, increasing the warming a bit, especially at night.
By the way, 2 years ago I already predicted what we see happen today; now, when the Sun is relatively active (we’re going towards a solar maximum), the livestock are allowed to roam free from their shackles, while in the solar minimum “we” were locked down, inside and away.
In 2030, or whenever, they will use these false correlations to blame us, the people, for “warming the planet” because we traveled so much (not that it matters how much, just locked down vs. not locked down is enough) now.
“And look, when people were all inside and not driving around and blah blah blah in 2020, the climate was much cooler ; voilá, Man Made Global Warming con-firmed”
The scams are not so hard to see through, you just have to detach detox deprogram from ALL, and I mean ALL news (including “Fakeology”, as a junkie chasing the same tails but claiming “I do it from a different angle, so it’s ok”. No it is not OK, you swallow the same shit and thus poison yourself with that nonsense.
For the umpteenth time because people are still so dumbfoundedly stupid:
Life is not about conspiracy theory, it is about prosperity theory, and practice. None of these narratives will make you any better, stay away from them.
Only then you start seeing truths, when you stop this “truth” “seeking” addiction.
LikeLike