How much energy does carbon dioxide generate? Zero

Human beings have believed a number of things over the years that turned out to be purely imaginary, i.e., the Earth is the center of the Universe, life comes through “spontaneous generation,” the continents are immovable, the list goes on and on.

________________________

How much energy does carbon dioxide generate? Zero

By Carl Allen

(Editor’s note. In a recent article,  analytical chemist Hans Schreuder claimed that 770,000 metric tons of CO2 come from natural sources, whereas only 23,100 metric tons come from human sources. One reader asked where those figures came from, and Carl Allen provides an excellent answer.)

These figures come from a booklet published by the Energy Information Administration called “Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2004.” They, in turn, sourced the information as being the IPCC’s 2001 report “Climate Change 2001: the Scientific Basis p. 188 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001).

Of course, whatever its source carbon dioxide’s benefit to the biosphere is not only profound but indispensable. Extensive scientific experimentation has demonstrated that the optimal level for the most robust plant growth is ~1,000 ppm (250% higher than it is now.) Ergo, the human use of hydrocarbon energy has had a side benefit of boosting atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, which promotes more robust plant growth–our food. On the other hand, the linking of carbon dioxide levels moving from 0.028% to 0.04% of the atmosphere with global warming and/or “climate change” is purely imaginary.

But then human beings, even scientists, have believed to be true a number of things over the years that turned out to be purely imaginary, i.e., the Earth is the center of the Universe, that life comes into being through “spontaneous generation,” that the Universe is filled with “luminiferous aether,” that ulcers are caused by stress, that fire is a fluid called “phlogiston”, that the continents are immovable, that human physiology consists of “four humours,” that the Universe is static, that the Earth is relatively young.

Now they believe that the 3% of the Earth’s annual output of carbon dioxide that is anthropogenic is 100% responsible, not only for all global warming and “climate change” that has occurred since the 1950’s, but is now responsible for all severe weather events–droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, cold snaps, heat waves, etc., etc., etc. Personally I think the Sun is responsible, because it is generating the energy that drives the Earth’s weather, the 30 year average of which = “climate”.

How much energy does carbon dioxide generate? zero. Never-the-less the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis asserts that the downwelling IR radiation from carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” heats the surface with twice the energy as sunlight. 333 W/m^ vs. 161 W/m^2 per the iconic Trenberth et all “Earth’s Energy Budget” paper published in 2009.

I am not making this up. This is what they believe.


13 thoughts on “How much energy does carbon dioxide generate? Zero

  1. This world’s naturally rising CO2 levels are just part of natures cycle. So much utter bunk has been written to entertain the idea that it’s all an effect of modern human’s but it is not!
    Look at where the CO2 concentrations are highest — that right, they are around the tropical and sub-tropical FORESTED areas. That’s right they pump out BILLIONS of tons of CO2 per year. Further towards the poles CO2 levels vary with the seasons, a clear sign that the MAJOR source of CO2 is non-human. If you can find a copy of ‘Recent Changes of Arctic Multiyear Sea Ice Coverage and the Likely Causes’ by Igor v. Polyakov, John E. Walsh, and Ronald kWok DOI:10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00070.1 published by ©2012 American Meteorological Society, and look at page 149 you will find this quote under the title of ‘Echoes’ —

    these rivers breathe a lot of carbon.
    —David Butman, a doctoral student at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, who coauthored a recent article published in Nature Geoscience showing that rivers and streams in the United States are “supersaturated” with carbon dioxide (CO2) compared to the atmosphere, releasing an amount of CO2 equivalent to a car burning 40 million gallons of gasoline (enough to fuel 3.4 million car trips to the moon). Butman and coauthor Pete Raymond, a Yale professor, measured temperature, alkalinity, and pH from samples of more than 4,000 U.S. rivers and streams, and also studied the morphology and surface area of the waterways. They fed this data into a model to determine the fl ux of CO2 from the water and found that the amount of CO2 given off by rivers and streams “is significant enough for terrestrial modelers to take note of it,” according to Butman. The study revealed that the CO2, after being released by decomposing plants, is making its way from the ground into the rivers and streams. The researchers also determined that an increase in precipitation caused by climate change will create a cycle that leads to increasing amounts of CO2 in the waterways and subsequently in the atmosphere. (source: Yale University)“

    They are referring to a much neglected paper published by Nature Geoscience
    Published Online: 16 OCTOBER 2011 | DOI:10.1038/NGEO1294
    Significant Efflux of Carbon Dioxide from Streams and Rivers in the United States — David Butman and Peter A. Raymond

    So consider that CO2 at 400 millionths of a percent [1/2500] of the atmosphere is a minor player when compared to the huge part that water, at up to ~7% [1/14]of the atmosphere, plays in moderating our climate. Consider too that our variable sun is the weather’s and climate’s only real power source.
    Given all these natural effects is it possible that nature, within all it’s complexity, has no method of regulating the CO2 it requires? The idea is laughable when you just survey the known climate and atmospheric history of this planet over the last 300,000 years (or about total time modern humans have been on the planet).

    What most climate alarmists fail to acknowledge is that humans are only part of nature. That we driven by powerful natural urges to survive, to procreate, make ourselves comfortable in the world, and be happy.
    Many seem to believe that our nature can (and will) be diverted into totally unnatural habits – abortions, mass vegetarianism, being corralled into high-rise apartments cities, etc.; habits that lead to ease of management of populations as prescribed by Agenda 21(and its updates) by the power hungry UN elites.

  2. The root of the problem is not CO2. After global cooling turned out not to be the case, the same types moves on to the current fad. And when that fails, they will move on to onto a new stupid. The problems are the educated who think they truly are smarter. It is us who give these two bit elitists in government and universities way too much credit and authority. It is the cult of academia that must be destroyed. Have the elitists from Harvard, Princeton, Yale not shown us that they are just as gullible as the uneducated masses! Perhaps it time we qualify by knowledge and not degrees. Time to end giving a teacher more money teaching the exact same class and kids because the teacher has a new diploma. It is time to stop giving a government or defense company employee more money and authority because now they have a degree or a higher degree.

  3. Carbon Dioxide is so important that greenhouse growers supplement the amount of CO2 in the growing areas to increase the growth rate of their crops. Any increase in CO2 in the atmosphere would be a blessing for plants worldwide.

  4. This entire scientific/political fraud stems from a book and comment made by Carl Sagan and used by the Green NGOs as a stick to beat the West with.
    https://io9.gizmodo.com/heres-carl-sagans-original-essay-on-the-dangers-of-cl-1481304135
    Quote:
    There is an additional factor that can alter the landscape and the climate of Earth: intelligent life, able to make major environmental changes. Like Venus, the Earth also has a greenhouse effect due to its carbon dioxide and water vapour. The global temperature of the Earth would be below the freezing point of water if not for the greenhouse effect. It keeps the oceans liquid and life possible. A little greenhouse is a good thing. Like Venus, the Earth also has about 90 atmospheres of carbon dioxide; but it resides in the crust as limestone and other carbonates, not in the atmosphere. If the Earth were moved only a little closer to the Sun, the temperature would increase slightly. This would drive some of the CO2 out of the surface rocks, generating a stronger greenhouse effect, which would in turn incrementally heat the surface further. A hotter surface would vaporize still more carbonates into CO2, and there would be the possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect to very high temperatures. This is just what we think happened in the early history of Venus, because of Venus’ proximity to the Sun. The surface environment of Venus is a warning: something disastrous can happen to a planet rather like our own.
    Comment:
    The source of that IR radiation is the Earth itself radiating excess solar stored heat back into space. The major reflector to 99.9 % isn’t CO2 but Water vapour, but you can’t tax water, that laps up to a beach, or falls from the sky, but you can tax the delivery pipes which bring it to your house.
    Carl didn’t know at the time that small rocky planets closer into the Sun are more likely to be hit in the ASS by an ELE Comet, than other planets that much further out. Venus’s complete resurfacing of its tectonic plate system is the ongoing process of a major impact and the massive volcanic processes with it. If Venus was a CO2 runaway greenhouse effect why is the majority of the gasses in the Venus atmosphere is SO2 based. It’s very likely that the earth has been thumped many times since the Heavy bombardment which provided all of our surface metals and ores we use to date, but not to the extent that Venus has been thumped in recent geological history (100K years +).
    This is what happens to a giant comet when it hits the largest Planet in the Solar system
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker%E2%80%93Levy_9

  5. Spontaneous generation of life is purely imaginary? I think not. The alternative, “intelligent creation” is far less acceptable to me.

  6. Um Earth is flat and stationary in the center of our universe, continents don’t move, Space is fiction, and the list goes on of things we know to be true…
    Scientism is a religion for butt sore lazy people and AGW is 100% scientism, as is the Globe, gravity, dinosaurs, continental drift (lol) ect.
    Nearly everything fake Science teaches you is BS.

    • What ever your smoking Durward it must be briliant, but highly illegal.
      Try not to smoke magic mushrooms though it will rot what ever little is left of your brain.

  7. There is no doubt Earth’s atmosphere makes the planet livable. But molecules of CO2 do not have the ability to self-assemble into miniature furnaces or a blanket to hold in the heat. We are now in the post-science phase of the “climate change” movement; the Hoax has morphed into an environmental religion where no new facts are allowed. Real science that rebuts the deception is labeled anti-environmental propaganda!

    • The majority of Grand Solar Minimums either destroy or then creates the space for new civilisations to grow. The LALIA around 600AD ended the eastern Roman Empire, and gave rise to the Islamic Empire based on the Saudi Peninsular 600ad to 1475AD, it also pushed a series of Horse tribes from east of the Urals to the western coasts of Europe over a two hundred migration.
      Both civilisations are now experiencing a major clash of cultures during another GSM 1400 years later.
      One of them will get incinerated by a miss-calculation; the other will get wiped within 20 years by the ensuing Glaciation caused by the Nuclear Winter which will follow it. In a 140000 years from now there will be a lot of valuable real estate space to occupy.

  8. If 770,000 metric tons of CO2 come from natural sources, whereas only 23,100 metric tons come from human sources, and if the 23,100 tons is cululitve then by the balance of probabilities the 771,00 tons are just as cumulative. So the human contribution to NATURAL Climate change is around .03%

  9. The “back radiation greenhouse effect” is rubbish and we should stop teaching children such absurd nonsense immediately or risk future generations of truly stupid people.

    As stated in the article these people either are truly stupid or liars.

    Anyone who believes that the radiation from the atmosphere has equal heating power to the solar radiation is clearly not thinking straight yet they teach this in Universities such as this:- https://atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/notes_greenhouse.html

    If they truly believe this they obviously require a court mandated protection order to appoint a mental health guardian as clearly they are not competent to have control over their affairs.

    “The global temperature of the Earth would be below the freezing point of water if not for the greenhouse effect.”

    Tell that to the lunar surfaces where the daytime temperatures exceed the boiling point of water with zero “greenhouse gases” !

    If the Moon rotated as quickly as the Earth does the average temperature over much of its surface would be much hotter than it is currently.

    I find it incredible that they “invent” devices which break the laws of radiative physics to “measure” down welling long wave radiation and that people pay large amounts of money for such devices.

    But the simple physical property which proves that CO2 does not have any “powerful” infra-red radiating capacity is its thermal conductivity – a property extensively measured for all substances.

    Ordinary air has a thermal conductivity of 0.024 W/mK and CO2 has a thermal conductivity of 0.0146 W/mK.

    This means ordinary air is 164.4% more conductive than CO2.

    CO2 is a better insulator but ALL gases are insulators.

    If CO2 emitted large amounts of infra-red radiation as claimed by climate alarmists it WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A HIGHER THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY !!

    But it doesn’t !

    Remember thermal conductivity is determined by experiment and, unless they have found a way to request CO2 not emit infra-red radiation during the experiment, the result includes normal conduction as well as infra-red radiation emissions.

    CO2 is not a “powerful greenhouse gas” !! Actually nothing is because there is no such thing !

  10. ” Have the elitists from Harvard, Princeton, Yale not shown us that they are just as gullible as the uneducated masses! ”

    They are most certainly not gullible!!!

    Nefarious, greedy and criminal are much more suitable adjectives.

Comments are closed.