Global Warming Deception – Part III

Klaus Müller
Epoch Times
Monday June 11, 2007

This is the third in a series of three articles. Please also read Global Warming Deception—Part I and Global Warming Deception—Part II

During the last century an Austrian politician and dictator was supposed to have said that a lie becomes believable if repeated often enough.

How often have we all heard or read the mantra "Greenhouse Effect?" It has become our constant fear-inducing companion and has metamorphosed into one of the horsemen of the apocalypse.

In retrospect, in considering the CO2 fraud, the most absurd of all absurdities is the so-called Greenhouse Effect—because it defies any basis in physics and is thus easily discredited.

The Traditional Greenhouse Theory
This theory assumes that the temperature inside a greenhouse, within its glass walls, rises when the sun's heat waves pass through the glass, heating the air. The heated air rises to the roof where it is prevented from escaping, thus warming the space. This represents the greenhouse effect theory in a nutshell.

This is Newton's Law of Cooling, which depends on some type of limiting boundary (the glass greenhouse) to operate. At night, natural heat loss occurs by convection and conduction through the glass, also according to Newton's Law.

The Swedish Nobel laureate Svante Arrhenius built a greenhouse in 1896 to predict future ice ages. He proposed that the heat buildup in a greenhouse was based on the concentration of CO2, which he believed enveloped heat. Almost all scientists, particularly leading German scientists from the Kaiser Wilhelm-Max Planck Institute, as late as 1970, considered this random speculation.

Using Arrhenius' model, all greenhouse operators could merely add additional CO2 to their greenhouses and they could turn off or use smaller space heaters during the cold seasons!

However, scientific treatises and scientifically "correct" colleagues at the "Club of Rome" have since revisited this theory, bringing it back to life.


Greenhouse Reality
The so-called and actually perceivable greenhouse effect in a real greenhouse can thus only be attributed to a lack in air exchange (convection). Replacement of warm air by cold air does not readily happen. That is the reason a greenhouse cools down slower than the surrounding area, thus behaving exactly according to Newton's Law. That's all there is!

Besides, a greenhouse effect presumes a closed system, which simply does not fully exist in a greenhouse and certainly not with planet Earth. There is no definable border from the Earth to the cosmos—in the final analysis both are part of the same system.

That is why the "natural Greenhouse Effect" does not exist.


Water Vapor or CO2?
According to research, water vapor accounts for two-thirds of the ongoing heat absorption on Earth. Just like a blanket of clouds. Nevertheless, according to calculations by the U.N.'s IPCC, (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) this process is not happening. Since the IPCC panel deems the effect of water vapor simply too difficult to calculate and predict, they must call on other culprits, foremost CO2, but also CO, ozone and fluorocarbons.

To be blunt, it appears that two-thirds of the hypothetically assumed Greenhouse Effect's factors are not taken into consideration. Since they do not appear in any calculations, they make for an easy conclusion by anyone with a sound mind.


CO2—Catching Minos in a Shark's Net
Why is it that CO2 or other gases cannot contribute to heat absorption? CO2 does have the potential to store heat, but there is another consideration which collapses the reasoning behind the CO2 Greenhouse Effect. There is this law of physics: liquid or solid bodies, i.e. oceans, clouds and earth, emit and absorb energy via a spectrum of rays. Gases such as CO2 can only selectively absorb or emit energy, a fact easily verifiable in any elementary chemistry textbook.

Based on the aforementioned facts, the Greenhouse Effect does not exist; neither in a garden greenhouse nor on Earth. To put it more directly—even if the atmosphere consisted of 100% CO2, the Earth's atmosphere would be unable to heat up as claimed; it is impossible according to the law of physics. So, that leads to another principle of physics.


The ABCs of Physics
Certain elements are heavier than air, and others are lighter than air. Some elements rise, like a helium balloon at a carnival, having a molecular weight of 4. Others descend, such as CO2 which has a molecular weight of 44, while air is only 29. That means CO2 naturally concentrates near the ground, where plants can derive nourishment.

By contrast, in the upper atmospheric regions where CO2 is accused of wreaking havoc, the CO2 concentration lowers to under 10 ppmv (parts per million by volume). These findings were discussed extensively in the 1980s in the journal Nature when it was still possible to publish such research results.

In a nutshell, the CO2 shell Arrhenius had postulated does not exist. CO2, for all intents, does not exist in the atmosphere where people imagine the Greenhouse Effect to be.


What is CO2's significance in the atmosphere?
As discussed in a prior article, CO2 constitutes a mere 0.038 percent of the atmosphere. Human CO2 production accounts for a mere 3 percent of the total CO2. Then what influence would we notice if worldwide CO2 levels were reduced by 10 or 20 percent? Such a reduction would have no effect whatsoever, since given the Earth's age, the portion of CO2 is uniquely low; during other Earth ages it was much higher. Actually, during the carbon era, our Earth saw a value as high as 6,000 ppmv. Yet life continues.


Entitled to Know Reality
The environmental political debate for a reduction of CO2 is a distant Utopian goal. In actuality, for over a decade, hysterics about climate changes have brought no practical solutions. An actual reduction is actually undesirable, but the menacing specter has to be kept alive.

All this continues, despite the 2003 Berlin Ministry of Ecology's pronouncement regarding CO2, "…such scenarios are not prognoses, but merely a broad spectrum of assumptions for future developments and their accompanying influences affecting global climate."

They conveniently left the back door wide open.

Email This Page to:

 


PRISON PLANET.com     Copyright © 2002-2007 Alex Jones     All rights reserved.