 |
The issue of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) or climate change has been with us since the 1980s. At that time, the recognized climate “experts” claimed that increases in human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) have resulted in substantial warming of the surface and atmosphere through the greenhouse effect, and continue to do so. This is the effect in which a portion of upward-bound infrared (IR) radiation in the atmosphere is absorbed by certain tri-atomic trace gases (called greenhouse gases or GHG) and the captured EM energy is converted into thermal energy, thereby causing a temperature rise. The concern raised about this human-enhanced greenhouse warming is that a temperature shift by over 1.5°C (in either direction) could affect the existence of numerous important species and result in various catastrophies as the earth's eco-system adjusts to the changes. |
|
| |
|
|
Now, in addressing the issue of CO2 greenhouse warming, we must consider two aspects:
| |
| |
|
|
| (1) | Is the reported global temperature data consistent with a current warming trend? Or, in other words, Just how real is the problem? It must be noted here that this is not a trivial task and may not even be possible with the zillions of temperature data sets that are not necessarily consistent with each other. Temperatures that have been declared as accurate for years could still be “corrected” without a clear basis, and entire careers could be spent in checking out the “expert” claims. For this reason, I quit attempting to deal with these climate “scientists” concerning the validity and integrity of their temperature data, and granted them the notion that we have had a global warming trend for the past 4-5 decades which could become catastrophic.
|
| | |
| (2) | Is it physically possible for the CO2 greenhouse effect to absorb sufficient IR energy to cause the catastrophic warming predicted by the climate science community? If not, then it hardly makes sense to concoct and implement regulations for reducing CO2 emissions, also known as our “carbon footprint”. That would be “barking up the wrong tree” if the plan is to save the planet from catastrophic warming. Remember that the temperature data can only indicate that there is a warming problem. It does nothing to identify the cause or any solutions. |
| |
|
| |
|
In reviewing studies specifically of the CO2 greenhouse effect done in the late 1990s, I strongly believe that the band saturation effect of CO2 at the 15 micron absorption band prevents any significant increase in greenhouse warming by this GHG, regardless of how much more is added. As would be expected, of course, the climate science community came up with “rebuttals” to this argument, but they are not only false but actually self-contradictory. Also, online climate forums simply redact any negative comments about these rebuttals.
On the suggestions of several acquaintances of mine, I pulled together a set of slides for a possible lecture series designed to aid the layperson in obtaining some understanding of the scientific principles related to the alleged climate change. This could enable them to make informed decisions on their own concerning where they stand on the issue of climate change without being bombarded only by “what the science says” claims. Click on the button below to view the slides.
| |
| | |
| 
| |
| | |
| You can also download .pdf versions of the slide sets from the links below. One file has the same tinted blue background used in the website slides, and the other uses a plain white background which saves on ink.
| Filename | | Background | | |
| | fearnocarbon_tintedbg.pdf |
|
 |
|
|
 |
| | fearnocarbon_blankbkg.pdf |
| |
| | |
Please contact me at admin@fearnocarbon.com if you have questions or comments, or if you would be interested in meeting with me. Also, I can do presentations by invitation at no charge, but will need access to the appropriate equipment.
| |