There is no consensus in science, only evidence!
CO2 cannot cause global warming!
The increase in CO2 is an indicator of the decrease of oxygen!
The greenhouse effect does not exist in a greenhouse or on the planet!
Positive feedback effect is an illusion to fraud!
The lies about CO2 serve as a distraction from climate control!
CONTENT
The increase in CO2 is an indicator of the decrease of oxygen!
The greenhouse effect does not exist in a greenhouse or on the planet!
Positive feedback effect is an illusion to fraud!
The lies about CO2 serve as a distraction from climate control!
CONTENT
- If You are lied at ...
- What should cause Your suspicion?
- Questions and answers about CO2.
- What is CO2?
- How many are 400 ppm?
- Why is 400 ppm is used instead of 0,04%?
- What does the proportion of CO2 in the air depend on?
- Has the CO2 share in the air increased?
- Where does the CO2 come from into the oceans and the airspace?
- How much CO2 is in the air?
- What is the share of humans on atmospheric CO2?
- Is CO2 a poison?
- What is the specific mass of CO2?
- Is CO2 needed?
- Who else needs CO2?
- Do we, the humans, also need CO2?
- How is the balance between CO2 & O2?
- 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?
- Is CO2 a strong heat absorber?
- Is CO2 cooling?
- Can CO2 accumulate 6km height as greenhouse cover?
- Is CO2 responsible for the heat in a real greenhouse?
- Is CO2 an acid? Can CO2 acidify the oceans?
- Is the partial pressure of CO2 in the air responsible for the CO2 share in the oceans?
- Is the CO2 level in the troposphere increasing since the beginning of the industrialization in 1812?
- What would be the effect of CO2 if it could cause warming?
- Non existent planetary and glasshouse Greenhouse Effect!
- Positive Feedback!
- Warming shifted from Stratosphere to Troposphere!
- Let us resume!
- Other sources
- Sources
1. If You are lied at ...
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 Madia is propagating it!” – The so called Media consists of propaganda companies and they are correctly not named as media anymore! More appropriate names are “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. Questions and answers about CO2.
3.1. What is CO2?
CO2 is one of the natural components of our Atmosphere.
3.2. How many are 400 ppm?
Obviously many people don't know that PPM or. 400 ppm CO2 in the air means!
0.04% are 0.4 per thousand 4 per 10,000, 40 per 100,000 or 400 per million, abbreviated ast ppm (parts per million)!
3.3. Why is 400 ppm is used instead of 0,04%?
The only reason 400 out of a million was used instead of 4 out of 10,000 or 40 out of 100,000 is simply because that number sounds a bit high to the uneducated masses, but not too high as 400,000 ppb (parts per billion)!
The brainwashers behind the marketing of climate control were not physicists or meteorologists, but overpaid advertisers! They have taken the idiocy of the masses into account of their promotion concept!
Mind you, the 0.04 is the total, 90% of which is released into the oceans by volcanoes, mostly along the continental rifts. If we disregard other natural processes and give all the rest to animals, then all animals would account for 0.004%. The human fraction would be somewhere around 0.0001 or less! The proportion of ants and thermites is about 10 times higher.
3.4. What does the proportion of CO2 in the air depend on?
The composition of the atmospheric gases depends on the mass of the Earth, solar radiation, the internal heat of the Earth and the photosynthesis of plants, but NOT AT ALL on HUMANs!
Even if the proportion of humans were doubled, that would not change the 0.004% total proportion of all animals, let alone the 0.04% total share of CO2!
3.5. Has the CO2 share in the air increased?
No, the German conversation encyclopedia of 1890 states that CO2 share as 0.04%! This is an average as it can vary from about 800ppm before sunrise to below 200ppm before sunset, depending on the time of day, weather conditions, season and region. During the day, the plants absorb the CO2 by photosynthesis and at night the CO2 share increases because no photosynthesis takes place.
3.6. Where does the CO2 come from into the oceans and the airspace?
Over 90% of the CO2 is generated by volcanoes, particularly submarine volcanism along the continental rifts. Only 10% of CO2 come from life activity, with the human share being about 0.00011%. The thermites and ants have each five times higher share than humans (Together 10 times!). More details are given below.
Over 90% of the CO2 is generated by volcanoes, particularly submarine volcanism along the continental rifts. Only 10% of CO2 come from life activity, with the human share being about 0.00011%. The thermites and ants have each five times higher share than humans (Together 10 times!). More details are given below.
3.7. How much CO2 is in the air?
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:
| Component | Percentage |
| Nitrogen | 78.000000% |
| Oxygen | 21.000000% |
| Argon | 0.934000% |
| Helium | 0.000520% |
| Neon | 0.001820% |
| Krypton | 0.000110% |
| Xenon | 0.000009% |
| Radon | 0.000000% (insignificant) |
| Methane | 0.0000180% |
| CO2 | 0.037000% |
| Remaining | 0.026361% (Other trace gases S0x, N0x etc.) |
| Total | 100.000000% |
3.8. What is the share of humans on atmospheric CO2?
Over estimating that human may have up to 3% of the 0.0037 % CO2 in the air, the total share of humanity on CO2 would be 0.00011%, only the share of industry is with 0.00000077% much lower and relatively irrelevant!
However, the real human share is much lower! The above numbers would have to be divided by at least 10 to get close to the real value.
Main emission of about 90% of CO2 doesn't come from the biomass but from continental rift and other volcanic activities.
Massive and prolonged deep carbon emissions
associated with continental rifting
Hyunwoo Lee1
*, James D. Muirhead2
, Tobias P. Fischer1
, Cynthia J. Ebinger3
, Simon A. Kattenhorn2,4
,
Zachary D. Sharp1 and Gladys Kianji5
PUBLISHED ONLINE: 18 JANUARY 2016 | DOI: 10.1038/NGEO2622
"Emissions of mantle-derived CO2 are thought to be sourced
primarily at volcanic centres, where it is currently estimated that
∼90% of Earth’s natural CO2
is released through active degassing
of volcanic plumes or passive, diffuse emissions around volcanic
edifices, mid-ocean ridges, and volcanic lakes."
The Biomass of Ants
Written by W. McDonough-M. Braungart
http://www.gritfish.com/index.php/deep-ecology/life-scientists-view/2518-w-mcdonough-m-braungart
"The entomologist E. O. Wilson has estimated that the earth is home to between one quadrillion and ten quadrillion ants, across more than 12,000 species--4,500 alone in the rain forest. Consider this quadrillions-to-billions comparison: the biomass of six-billion humans compared to the biomass of at least a quadrillion ants (termites have the same biomass, but no one likes them, even though they are vegetarians). The ants' biomass is greater than ours. When humans are compared to ants, they don't even come close. At any given moment, the biomass, or stored energy of the world's ant population is 5 times the biomass of our current human population , or roughly the equivalent of 34 billion people.
The important fact is not just that ants have 5 times the biomass of humans. It's that, at that phenomenally large of biomass, they have thrived on this planet, and continue to thrive, redistributing thier resources rather than (as people do) depleting them.
William McDonough & Michael Braungart, The Upcycle, p.32."
The biomass distribution on Earth
Yinon M. Bar-On, Rob Phillips, and Ron Milo
Edited by Paul G. Falkowski, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, and approved April 13, 2018 (received for review July 3, 2017)
PNAS June 19, 2018 115 (25) 6506-6511; first published May 21, 2018; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1711842115
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506#T1
"The sum of the biomass across all taxa on Earth is ≈550 Gt C, of which ≈80% (≈450 Gt C; SI Appendix, Table S2) are plants, dominated by land plants (embryophytes). The second major biomass component is bacteria (≈70 Gt C; SI Appendix, Tables S3–S7), constituting ≈15% of the global biomass. Other groups, in descending order, are fungi, archaea, protists, animals, and viruses, which together account for the remaining <10%. Despite the large uncertainty associated with the total biomass of bacteria, we estimate that plants are the dominant kingdom in terms of biomass at an ≈90% probability (more details are provided in the SI Appendix). Aboveground biomass (≈320 Gt C) represents ≈60% of global biomass, with belowground biomass composed mainly of plant roots (≈130 Gt C) and microbes residing in the soil and deep subsurface (≈100 Gt C). Plant biomass includes ≈70% stems and tree trunks, which are mostly woody, and thus relatively metabolically inert. Bacteria include about 90% deep subsurface biomass (mostly in aquifers and below the seafloor), which have very slow metabolic activity and associated turnover times of several months to thousands of years (18⇓⇓⇓–22). Excluding these contributions, global biomass is still dominated by plants (SI Appendix, Fig. S1), mostly consisting of ≈150 Gt C of plant roots and leaves and ≈9 Gt C of terrestrial and marine bacteria whose contribution is on par with the ≈12 Gt C of fungi (SI Appendix, Table S8).
Whereas groups like insects dominate in terms of species richness [with about 1 million described species (23)], their relative biomass fraction is miniscule. Some species contribute much more than entire families or even classes. For example, the Antarctic krill species Euphausia superba contributes ≈0.05 Gt C to global biomass (24), similar to other prominent species such as humans or cows. This value is comparable to the contribution from termites (25), which contain many species, and far surpasses the biomass of entire vertebrate classes such as birds. In this way, the picture that arises from taking a biomass perspective of the biosphere complements the focus on species richness that is commonly held (SI Appendix, Fig. S3)."
PNAS June 19, 2018 115 (25) 6506-6511; first published May 21, 2018; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1711842115
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506#T1
"The sum of the biomass across all taxa on Earth is ≈550 Gt C, of which ≈80% (≈450 Gt C; SI Appendix, Table S2) are plants, dominated by land plants (embryophytes). The second major biomass component is bacteria (≈70 Gt C; SI Appendix, Tables S3–S7), constituting ≈15% of the global biomass. Other groups, in descending order, are fungi, archaea, protists, animals, and viruses, which together account for the remaining <10%. Despite the large uncertainty associated with the total biomass of bacteria, we estimate that plants are the dominant kingdom in terms of biomass at an ≈90% probability (more details are provided in the SI Appendix). Aboveground biomass (≈320 Gt C) represents ≈60% of global biomass, with belowground biomass composed mainly of plant roots (≈130 Gt C) and microbes residing in the soil and deep subsurface (≈100 Gt C). Plant biomass includes ≈70% stems and tree trunks, which are mostly woody, and thus relatively metabolically inert. Bacteria include about 90% deep subsurface biomass (mostly in aquifers and below the seafloor), which have very slow metabolic activity and associated turnover times of several months to thousands of years (18⇓⇓⇓–22). Excluding these contributions, global biomass is still dominated by plants (SI Appendix, Fig. S1), mostly consisting of ≈150 Gt C of plant roots and leaves and ≈9 Gt C of terrestrial and marine bacteria whose contribution is on par with the ≈12 Gt C of fungi (SI Appendix, Table S8).
Whereas groups like insects dominate in terms of species richness [with about 1 million described species (23)], their relative biomass fraction is miniscule. Some species contribute much more than entire families or even classes. For example, the Antarctic krill species Euphausia superba contributes ≈0.05 Gt C to global biomass (24), similar to other prominent species such as humans or cows. This value is comparable to the contribution from termites (25), which contain many species, and far surpasses the biomass of entire vertebrate classes such as birds. In this way, the picture that arises from taking a biomass perspective of the biosphere complements the focus on species richness that is commonly held (SI Appendix, Fig. S3)."
Along With Humans, Who Else Is In The 7 Billion Club?
November 3, 20117:14 AM ET
"Loh was kind enough to provide data for a chart. While it doesn't pretend to be an exhaustive survey of species with large populations, it does give a sense of the range of life on Earth — and how different populations compare to one another.
| Species | Population | Biomass(million tons) |
|---|---|---|
| Bacteria total | 4 quadrillion quadrillion | 1,000,000 |
| Ants(many species) | 10 billion billion | 3,000 |
| Marine fish(many species) | 800-2,000 | |
| Cattle(Bos taurus) | 1.4 billion | 520 |
| Termites(many species) | 445 | |
| Humans (Homo sapiens) | 7 billion | 350 |
| Antarctic krill(Euphausia suberba) | 500 trillion | 150 |
| Sheep(Ovis aries) | 1.1 billion | 65 |
| Domestic chickens(Gallus gallus domesticus) | 18.6 billion | 40 |
| Great whales(10 species) | 3 million | 20 |
| Elephants(2 species) | 0.5 million | 2 |
Sources: World Atlas of Biodiversity (2002) by B. Groombridge and M.D. Jenkins; FAOSTAT, United Nations; "Biomass (ecology)," Wikipedia
Credits: Jonathan Loh / Zoological Society of London - WWF International; Bill Chappell and Alyson Hurt / NPR"
3.9. Is CO2 a poison?
CO2 is a rare, odorless non-poisonous gas.
3.10. Was is the specific mass 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.
CO2 is with its 1.977 kg/m³ one of the heavier components of air and therefore tends to accumulate at near surface level.
3.11. 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!
3.12. 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!
3.13. Do we, the humans, also need CO2?
Yes, because all animal (also human) life depends on plants. We feed directly on plants or eat meat of animals feeding on plants!
3.14. 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.
Dear reader, remembering that some confused people want to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, please answer the following questions yourself at this point:
3.15. What do we want to breathe in an Atmosphere without CO2 and O2?
3.16. How the plants survive without getting CO2 from air?
3.17. How will humans and animals survive without plants as food and Oxygen (O2) to breathe?
3.18. 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 the burning process.
3.19. Is CO2 a strong heat absorber?
No, CO2's capacity for heat is considerably less than 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)) |
| Water vapor | 1.93 |
| Nitrogen | 1.04 |
| Oxygen | 0.919 |
| Carbon dioxide | 0.844 |
3.20. 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 always also a little bit of CO2 emitted, as we also breath with our skin!
However, CO2 generally has a cooling effect, as it absorbs almost no sunlight spectrum or infrared rays from the ground in order to be stimulated and heated.
The graphic above shows that CO2 can only absorb a narrow range of infrared radiation. This is even more limited with methane. In comparison to water vapor, the difference becomes very clear. What cannot absorb energy cannot heat up, and if it is oversaturated emit energy by itself.
3.21. Can CO2 accumulate 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 it is absorbed by plants 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).
However, the absorption capacity of the air decreases with decreasing temperatures in altitude. The cooling of the air correlates with the lower molecular density and accordingly the low air pressure at higher altitudes.
3.22. 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 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.
3.23. 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 about 0.2% of CO2 in water could be bound to carbonic acid.
Carbonic Acid
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlens%C3%A4ure
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlens%C3%A4ure
"Carbonic acid (H2CO3) is an anorganic acid and the reaction product of acid anhydride carbon dioxide (CO2) with water."
3.24. Is the partial pressure of CO2 in the air responsible for the CO2 share in the oceans?
The "partial pressure" is similar to "greenhouse effect" or "positive feedback effect"one of those magical lying terms that are used to turn reality upside down - in this case by intentional improper usage!
Partial pressure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_pressure
"In a mixture of gases, each constituent gas has a partial pressure which is the notional pressure of that constituent gas if it alone occupied the entire volume of the original mixture at the same temperature.[1] The total pressure of an ideal gas mixture is the sum of the partial pressures of the gases in the mixture (Dalton's Law)."
Carbon in the ocean (simple)
"Due to the weight of the air, there is always a certain pressure in the atmosphere, the air pressure. The proportion of carbon dioxide in this pressure is called the partial pressure. The same applies in the ocean: The pressure component of the CO2 gas dissolved in the water is the partial pressure in the ocean. These two partial pressures now meet on the sea surface. If the partial pressure in the ocean is stronger, the ocean releases CO2 into the atmosphere. If, on the other hand, the partial pressure in the air gains, the ocean absorbs CO2, as is the case today, because more and more CO2 is being released into the atmosphere by the humans.
From German: Physics in a champagne bottle
"At approximately room temperature, the pressure in the bottle is slightly over seven bar - and if you leave the bottle in the sun on hot summer days, the pressure can even rise to 15 bar at forty degrees Celsius."
The air pressure is 1bar. In addition to the air pressure in the water rises 10 times faster than in the air.
"In addition, the normal atmospheric pressure (air pressure) weighs on the diver under water, which in our case - based on sea level - is approx. 100 kPa (1 bar). Therefore, at a depth of 10 m there is a total pressure on the diver of 200 kPa (2 bar), and at a depth of 20 m there is a total pressure of 300 kPa (3 bar)."
The measurement of CO2 in the atmosphere is fraught with difficulty. There is a 180-year record of atmospheric CO2 measurement by the same method. It has been measured with an accuracy of 1-3% from 1812 until 1961 by a chemical method. Between 1821 and 1961, there have been more than 90,000 measurements of atmospheric CO2 by the Pettenkofer method. These showed peaks in atmospheric CO2 in 1825, 1857 and 1942. In 1942, the atmospheric CO2 content (400 ppmv) was higher than now. A plot of the CO2 measured by these methods shows for much of the 19th century and from 1935 to 1950, the atmospheric CO2 was higher than at present and varied considerably.
In 1959 the measurement method was changed to infra-red spectroscopy with the establishment of the Mauna Loa (Hawaii) station, and measurements were compared with a reference gas sample. Compared to the Pettenkofer method, infra-red spectroscopy is simple, cheap and quick. However, the infra-red technique has never been validated against the Pettenkofer method. The raw data from Mauna Loa is "edited" by an operator who deletes what may be considered "poor" data. Some 82% of the raw infra-red CO2 measurement data is "edited" leaving just 18% of the raw data measurements for statistical analysis. With such a savage editing of raw data, whatever trend one wants to show, can be shown. In publications, large natural variations in CO2 were removed from the data by editing, in order to make an upward-trending curve showing an increasing human contribution of CO2.
The IPCC's Third Assessment Report of 2001 argued that only infra-red CO2 measurements can be relied upon and prior measurements can be disregarded. The atmospheric CO2 measurements since 1812 do not show a steadily increasing atmospheric CO2 as shown by the Mauna Loa measurements. The IPCC chose to ignore the 90,000 precise CO2 measurements compiled despite the fact that there is an overlap in time between the Pettenkofer method and the infra-red method measurements at Mauna Loa. If a large body of validated historical data is to be ignored, then a well reasoned argument needs to be given. There was no explanation. Just silence.
A pre-IPCC paper used carefully selected Pettenkofer method data. Any values more than 10% above or below a baseline of 270 ppmv were rejected. The rejected data included a large number of the high values determined by chemical methods. The lowest figure measured since 1812, the 270 ppmv figure, is taken as a pre-industrialization yardstick. The IPCC want it both ways. They are prepared to use the lowest determination by the Pettenkofer method as a yardstick, yet do not acknowledge Pettenkofer method measurements showing CO2 concentrations far higher than now, many times since 1812."
Because of its particularly revealing content, I first quote from the German dumbification server, which only pursues the goal of brainwashing the children according the geoengineering agenda.
"Due to the weight of the air, there is always a certain pressure in the atmosphere, the air pressure. The proportion of carbon dioxide in this pressure is called the partial pressure. The same applies in the ocean: The pressure component of the CO2 gas dissolved in the water is the partial pressure in the ocean. These two partial pressures now meet on the sea surface. If the partial pressure in the ocean is stronger, the ocean releases CO2 into the atmosphere. If, on the other hand, the partial pressure in the air gains, the ocean absorbs CO2, as is the case today, because more and more CO2 is being released into the atmosphere by the humans.
You can imagine that it is the pressure, and not the amount, that determines the exchange between the atmosphere and the ocean using a soda bottle (or another carbonated drink): The lid is screwed on so that it does not come off and presses the little air in the bottle. When opening, the pressure from the outside is reduced by removing the lid. Therefore, the pressure of the CO2 molecules in the drink is suddenly greater than the counter pressure from outside and the CO2 leaves the bottle. You can see this in the many small bubbles that form inside and hear the hissing sound when the gas escapes. This happens even though the amount of CO2 in the bottle and in the air has not changed at all when it was opened (at first). The pressure difference is the only reason why CO2 flows into or out of the water."
In the text of the German dumbification server, manipulation is deliberately suggestive by lying that the CO2 pressure in the air would rise immensely and the CO2 would be pressed into the oceans: "If, on the other hand, the partial pressure in the air gains, the ocean absorbs CO2, as is the case today, because more and more CO2 is being released into the atmosphere by the humans".
Exactly the opposite of the description by the German dumbification server is true!
Neither does the "partial pressure of CO2" gain, nor does more CO2 get into the air through human activity and therefore the air pressure doesn't rise. In any case, it is more than dubious to selectively highlight a partial pressure of CO2 from the air pressure and the water pressure in order to support a lie.
The sentence "This happens even though the amount of CO2 in the bottle and in the air has not changed at all when it was opened (at first). The pressure difference is the only reason why CO2 flows into or out of the water." is pointless, but serves as a distraction from the fact that when filling the bottles with five times atmospheric pressure, an over-pressure was deliberately created.
From German: Mineral water: Lets the summer sparkle
By Peter Thomas - Updated at 21.08.2011-10:00
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/technik-motor/technik/mineralwasser-laesst-den-sommer-sprudeln-11112557-p2.html
By Peter Thomas - Updated at 21.08.2011-10:00
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/technik-motor/technik/mineralwasser-laesst-den-sommer-sprudeln-11112557-p2.html
"After a visual check for damage and the test in the "blasting chamber" with 5 bar overpressure, the bottle can be filled."
From German: Physics in a champagne bottle
Franziska Konitzer 31.12.2015
"The CO2 gas in the bottle neck exerts a not inconsiderable pressure: while the air pressure at sea level is one bar and a car tire has a pressure of around four bar, the pressure in a well-cooled champagne bottle can be over four bar at just a few degrees Celsius."
"At approximately room temperature, the pressure in the bottle is slightly over seven bar - and if you leave the bottle in the sun on hot summer days, the pressure can even rise to 15 bar at forty degrees Celsius."
It is truth is that climate control measures hinder and prevent photosynthesis and thus damage the life activity at the roots, which is why more CO2 remains in the air and in the ocean and less O2 is produced.
Murdering the Circle of Life! Explaining sunlight deprivation by studies!
Oxygen level in the air decreasing? Who is not aware of that? What is the reason?
Let us remember, the share of CO2 in the air is 0.037%. Of this 90% comes by volcanism. The human share is a maximum of 3% of the 0.0037%, which is also highly exaggerated, i.e. only 0.00011% in absolute terms, the share of industry is only 0.00000077%.
The air pressure is 1bar. In addition to the air pressure in the water rises 10 times faster than in the air.
From German: Relationship between pressure and depth
"In addition, the normal atmospheric pressure (air pressure) weighs on the diver under water, which in our case - based on sea level - is approx. 100 kPa (1 bar). Therefore, at a depth of 10 m there is a total pressure on the diver of 200 kPa (2 bar), and at a depth of 20 m there is a total pressure of 300 kPa (3 bar)."
As demonstrated by the example of the soda bottle, no air and certainly no CO2 comes into the bottle when the lid is opened, but comes out of the bottle. There is nothing that can close off the atmosphere from space and ensure pressure accumulation, so that air pressure would rise, exceed water pressure and cause injection of CO2 from the air into the ocean.
The oceans are home to the larger habitat, where an abundance of fauna and flora exists. As a result, CO2 is exhaled there and O2 is inhaled and vice versa. So that's why the oceans emit H2O as well as O2 and CO2.
The main source, however, are the volcanoes on the ocean floor, which release a lot of CO2 into the water. The plants and some bacteria use the CO2 as a nutrient and emit O2 through photosynthesis.
The oceans are at least to 70% the source of atmospheric oxygen.
CO2 rise by Geoengineering SRM! Deconstructing Geoengineering Mafia by simple facts!
The air pressure, let alone the partial pressure of the CO2, from the air to the ocean does not matter, because the air pressure remains far below the pressure in the water.
The pressure conditions are given due to the mass and geography of the earth.
During the day and in the summer season, more H2O and CO2 are emitted, while more is absorbed at night and in the winter season. This becomes particularly clear with the icebergs, which essentially consist of frozen H2O, but the other air molecules are also marginally enclosed, also CO2.
When the temperature rises, i.e. during the day, the pressure in the water rises either and the oceans evaporate. The heating and evaporation also increases the pressure in the air. The increasing air pressure is mainly the result of the increased temperature and less of the additional emissions. No CO2 can be injected from the air into the ocean under natural conditions.
When the temperature drops, the air cools down, the air pressure drops and the oceans absorb air molecules, essentially water, as it condenses and falls as precipitation
The oceans are the main source of atmospheric H2O, O2 and CO2 and not the other way around!
3.25. Is the CO2 level in the troposphere increasing since the beginning of the industrialization in 1812?
Definitely not. The increasing CO2 curve presented by the henchmen of the geoengineering lobby is pure fraud, made by selective and fake statistics and intentional elimination of real data. As qualified answer I will quote Excerpt from "Heaven and Earth", by Prof. Ian Plimer.
"MEASUREMENT OF CO2
The measurement of CO2 in the atmosphere is fraught with difficulty. There is a 180-year record of atmospheric CO2 measurement by the same method. It has been measured with an accuracy of 1-3% from 1812 until 1961 by a chemical method. Between 1821 and 1961, there have been more than 90,000 measurements of atmospheric CO2 by the Pettenkofer method. These showed peaks in atmospheric CO2 in 1825, 1857 and 1942. In 1942, the atmospheric CO2 content (400 ppmv) was higher than now. A plot of the CO2 measured by these methods shows for much of the 19th century and from 1935 to 1950, the atmospheric CO2 was higher than at present and varied considerably.
In 1959 the measurement method was changed to infra-red spectroscopy with the establishment of the Mauna Loa (Hawaii) station, and measurements were compared with a reference gas sample. Compared to the Pettenkofer method, infra-red spectroscopy is simple, cheap and quick. However, the infra-red technique has never been validated against the Pettenkofer method. The raw data from Mauna Loa is "edited" by an operator who deletes what may be considered "poor" data. Some 82% of the raw infra-red CO2 measurement data is "edited" leaving just 18% of the raw data measurements for statistical analysis. With such a savage editing of raw data, whatever trend one wants to show, can be shown. In publications, large natural variations in CO2 were removed from the data by editing, in order to make an upward-trending curve showing an increasing human contribution of CO2.
The IPCC's Third Assessment Report of 2001 argued that only infra-red CO2 measurements can be relied upon and prior measurements can be disregarded. The atmospheric CO2 measurements since 1812 do not show a steadily increasing atmospheric CO2 as shown by the Mauna Loa measurements. The IPCC chose to ignore the 90,000 precise CO2 measurements compiled despite the fact that there is an overlap in time between the Pettenkofer method and the infra-red method measurements at Mauna Loa. If a large body of validated historical data is to be ignored, then a well reasoned argument needs to be given. There was no explanation. Just silence.
A pre-IPCC paper used carefully selected Pettenkofer method data. Any values more than 10% above or below a baseline of 270 ppmv were rejected. The rejected data included a large number of the high values determined by chemical methods. The lowest figure measured since 1812, the 270 ppmv figure, is taken as a pre-industrialization yardstick. The IPCC want it both ways. They are prepared to use the lowest determination by the Pettenkofer method as a yardstick, yet do not acknowledge Pettenkofer method measurements showing CO2 concentrations far higher than now, many times since 1812."
3.26. What would be the effect of CO2 if it could cause warming?
There is no greenhouse effect and warming from CO2, but supposing it were otherwise, a calculation could be made based on the amount of CO2.
If you want to do the math, the calculation according to the Bolzmann law is offered by @no_nwo. For the sake of simplicity, he more than doubled the amount of CO2. He calculates with 1 in 1000 instead of 1 in 2381 or 1 in 2500 parts.
It must be remembered that this formula has a catch. The larger the parts are calculated, the more unrealistic the result becomes. So I added more calculations.
"Boltzmann's law rearranged for temperature is: T = (P/(Sigma*A))^0.25, where:
- P = entering solar energy = energy radiated from the earth's surface = constant;
- Sigma = Boltzmann constant;
- A = Earth's surface = constant.
The inverse value of 0.042% (current weight percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere) is 2381, i.e. one part of air in 2381 is currently a CO2 molecule. Which latter is said to be reflective. Please, may it be!
For the sake of simplicity, we should now calculate with 1 part CO2 per 1000 parts air (1/1000 = 0.001), accordingly the area A that can radiate is reduced by a factor of (1 – 0.001)A = 0.999A.
For the sake of simplicity, we should now calculate with 1 part CO2 per 1000 parts air (1/1000 = 0.001), accordingly the area A that can radiate is reduced by a factor of (1 – 0.001)A = 0.999A.
Since the right-hand side of the above equation contains constants without exception, the equation can now be written as a factor: Factor ∆T = reciprocal of 0.999^0.25 = 1.000250156. If this factor is now set in front of the average earth temperature of 287° Kelvin, the result is an increase in the earth temperature with one part more CO2 per 1000 parts air - drum roll !!! – is exactly 1.000250156*287° K = 0.0718° C.
And lo and behold, DAMN, it's that fast, and the thesis of man-made global warming lies flat to the ground! Good for those who are not totally flat in spirit and understand a little bit of physics."
A more realistic calculation with 0.04% CO2, without statistical manipulation of the geoengineering lobby:
Parts of CO2 in the air: 100 / 0.04 = 2500
One part CO2: 1/2500 = 0.000400000000000000000
Reciprocal of one part CO2= 1 - 0.0004 = 0.9996
Raised to the power of 0.25: 0.9996 ^ 0.25 = 0.999899985
Reciprocal of the result: 1 - 0.999899985 = 0.000100015
Temperature rise for one part of CO2: 0.000100015 * 287 = 0.028704305
If we calculate this based on the share of humanity, then we get an even more realistic value:
Parts of human CO2 in the air: 100 / 0.0001 = 1,000,000
A part of human CO2: 1 / 1000,000 = 0.000001
Reciprocal of one part CO2= 1 -0.000001 = 0.999999
Raised to the power of 0.25: 0.9999 ^ 0.25 = 0.99999975
Reciprocal of the result: 1 - 0.99999975 = 0.00000025
Temperature rise for one part of CO2: 0.00000025 * 287 = 0.00007175
If this formula is broken down to the CO2 by industry and agriculture, then the result drops even further:
Parts of human CO2 in the air: 100 / 0.00000077 = 129870129.87012987
A part of human CO2: 1 / 129870129.87012987 = 0.000000008
Reciprocal of one part CO2= 1−0.000000008 = 0.999999992
Raised to the power of 0.25: 0.999999992 ^ 0.25 = 0.999999998
Reciprocal of the result: 1 - 0.999999998 = 0.000000002
Temperature rise for one part of CO2: 0.000000002 * 287 = 0.000000552
From German: Stefan Boltzmann law example
https://studyflix.de/ingenieurwissenschaften/stefan-boltzmann-gesetz-1640
"For example, the surface temperature of the sun can be roughly calculated using the Stefan Boltzmann law. In doing so, the sun is treated approximately as a black body and the above formula can therefore simply be reshaped according to the temperature
For this, however, one needs the radiant power of the sun. In order to calculate the radiation power of the sun, one can measure the radiation intensity on the earth's surface and then the radiation power with the formula
In this example we use the solar constant for the irradiance
. Here 
represents the distance between the earth and the sun and 
the solid angle. We continue to assume that the sun radiates isotropically in all spatial directions, which is why the solid angle is then 
. Inserting the radiant power into the above formula results in this
In addition, the surface of the sun with the radius of the sun of
can be easily calculated with
We approximately assume that the surface of the sun can be viewed as a spherical surface. If you insert the values into the formula, we get the temperature of the sun's surface"
"For example, the surface temperature of the sun can be roughly calculated using the Stefan Boltzmann law. In doing so, the sun is treated approximately as a black body and the above formula can therefore simply be reshaped according to the temperature
For this, however, one needs the radiant power of the sun. In order to calculate the radiation power of the sun, one can measure the radiation intensity on the earth's surface and then the radiation power with the formula
In this example we use the solar constant for the irradiance
. Here represents the distance between the earth and the sun and the solid angle. We continue to assume that the sun radiates isotropically in all spatial directions, which is why the solid angle is then . Inserting the radiant power into the above formula results in thisIn addition, the surface of the sun with the radius of the sun of
can be easily calculated withWe approximately assume that the surface of the sun can be viewed as a spherical surface. If you insert the values into the formula, we get the temperature of the sun's surface"
Stefan-Boltzmann Gesetz und Kirchhoffsches Strahlungsgesetz
tec-science
Mar 18, 2022
tec-science
Mar 18, 2022
4. Non existent planetary and glasshouse Greenhouse Effect!
THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT HAS NEVER EXISTED AND WILL NEVER EXIST! IT IS A LIE!
https://geoarchitektur.blogspot.com/p/the-greenhouse-effect-has-never-existed.html
5. Positive Feedback!
This chapter is in the same article like the former one.
6. Warming shifted from Stratosphere to Troposphere!
Under natural conditions the dual Oxygen (O2) molecules within the Stratosphere are separated by intense 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-B rays heat up and release the excess energy 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 Oxication (SOO) or Stratospheric Ozone Burning (SOB) or similar.
Ozone Layer Fear Mongering!
The intention behind dropping out the Ozone is to make the Stratosphere more transparent for UV-B rays, that they may reach down to the Troposphere and the surface of land & oceans.
Less Ozone means cooler Stratosphere! But 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.
The expectation is that this will result in higher inner heat in all areas of Troposphere with higher material density in air, which may cause 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, claiming that more mass is put into the air by more CO2 emission.
The CO2 remins in air, because of blocked sunlight by SRM, which results in reduced photosynthesis! This means less O2 is produced. 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?
More about all that can be found in following articles:
Heat waves are feasible at any time by ordering ozone holes! Climate Control!
No globalwarming, but only the vertical shift of the temperature gradient of the atmosphere!
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 cylcles 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.
Because of miserable mass education and daily distracting and brainwashing propaganda the dangerous impact of this weapon is deemed as "bad weather" !
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!
7. Further resources
Apr 3, 2012
Fred Goldberg - Can Humans Cause Global Warming with CO2-Emissions From the Burning of Fossil Fuels?
Fred Goldberg - Can Humans Cause Global Warming with CO2-Emissions From the Burning of Fossil Fuels?
Mar 15, 2016
The Climate Change Hoax, with Professor Willie Soon at Camp Constitution 7-3-17
The Climate Change Hoax, with Professor Willie Soon at Camp Constitution 7-3-17
Jul 13, 2017
If carbon dioxide is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouse growers buy CO2 generators to double plant growth?
http://www.naturalnews.com/040890_greenhouses_carbon_dioxide_generators_plant_growth.html
Why our CO2 emissions do not increase Atmosphere CO2
http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/
"Contrary to what Al Gore told you, CO2 does not control temperature. Temperature controls CO2."
9. Sources
The sources have been noted in the text with their URLs.
If carbon dioxide is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouse growers buy CO2 generators to double plant growth?
http://www.naturalnews.com/040890_greenhouses_carbon_dioxide_generators_plant_growth.html
Why our CO2 emissions do not increase Atmosphere CO2
http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/
"Contrary to what Al Gore told you, CO2 does not control temperature. Temperature controls CO2."
9. Sources
The sources have been noted in the text with their URLs.
No comments:
Post a Comment