AGW discussion

 

Whatever I write here, it is in the service of truth. I won't write something that I don't sincerely believe. While it is a fact that ANYBODY can say that, I can have no control over how people perceive what I'm saying. What I write therefore, is for my own conscience first. I have to satisfy myself first and foremost that it is right, or I'm not going to write it.

It can turn out to be wrong, and I'll recognize that later. If so, I would be willing to admit error. I believe that this is the only way to be in service to truth is to admit error. If somebody isn't admitting error, they are trying to say that they aren't ever in error. This makes them suspect, in my opinion. Whatever they are in service to, it isn't truth. Admission of error cannot ever be contrary to the service to truth. Indded, it is quite necessary. Otherwise, one can never admit error. That would mean the claim of perfection, which is in itself, is not credible.

A discussion about the subject of AGW occurred today. That is why I came here to write the first two paragraphs before I write anything else on the subject. The thing that came to mind today was the HUMAN FACTOR. The inability to admit failure or being wrong is one of those factors that make up the HUMAN FACTOR of any discussion on any subject.

Could it be that I won't admit error? I hope not. I strive for it not to do that kind of thing because I don't think that it serves the truth if I won't admit being wrong. If I am wrong, I want to admit my error ENTHUSIASTICALLY. I prefer to be corrected than otherwise, if that is truly the case. However, that is theory. The fact is that I, and anybody else for that matter, do not like to lose. This is true if it is a game of some kind, or a debate, or what have you. Nobody likes losing. "Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser." A person of some competitive spirit isn't likely to want to be wrong, and have it shown up as such. Such is the nature of the HUMAN FACTOR.

Therefore, nothing that I write here will convince somebody who is of the opposite opinion, if such opinion is a firmly held belief. Nevertheless, I can write about it in hopes that on some level, I can make my points in such a way that my opponent will find it worthy of consideration. This is also the HUMAN FACTOR, and sometimes it can be quite frustrating, but that is how things are.

After all of that, I will go back into the AGW discussion. It may not do much good, but it IS a firmly held belief of mind that I am right about this, and I won't back off unless I am 100% convinced that I'm wrong.

The thing about this AGW that I think is definitely wrong is this idea that carbon dioxide, in and of itself, and for that matter, ANY GAS, can be a cause of a greenhouse effect. No gas can trap heat by its very nature. The nature of gas is that it is FORMLESS. Gases cannot make a shape like a solid can. It cannot hold together like a liquid can. Gases are the most disorganized of the three basic phases of matter. And having been so, it cannot hold heat within itself, but only can disperse it. Proponents of AGW will tell you that a gas can trap heat. This is not so. It can only remove heat from a solid object, or a liquid object, and then disperse it into a larger area. Therefore, the addition of any gas into atmosphere, or more accurately, the change of its composition, cannot alter the climate at all.

Without a gas, there can be no atmosphere. Without an atmosphere, there can be no climate. If the Earth was like the moon, it would have no climate. The moon doesn't have a climate at all because there is no gases, and no atmosphere. It is the movement of gases within the atmosphere that makes a climate. This is nothing more than the dispersion of energy that it injected into it via the Sun. But that may seem a contradiction. The gases are trapping the heat, which is a contradiction to what was written above. But no, that is not the case. The gases within the atmosphere are not trapping the heat, but sending it in a different location away from its source. The source would be the reaction between the land and the sea, and the atmosphere above it. The sunlight goes through the atmoshpere, and some of the energy is absorbed that way, and lands and the seas absorb it, and reflect it back into the gases in the atmosphere. But all of this energy is going to be radiated out in any case, atmosphere or not.

This may be a ultra fine point that may seem hard to grasp, and seemingly contradictory. To illustrate further, try to observe a few things in relation to how heat is absorbed and radiated out. If you have an electric stove, you can observe how the heating element can turn bright red. You know it is pretty hot then, don't you? But notice that it stays hot for quite awhile afterwards. It release the heat much more slowly than in the case of a gas stove. The gas stove will have a flame. It is very hot, obviously. But notice that the heat goes away very quickly. It is being DISPERSED. The heat remains in the solid heating element, but the hot gases from the flame escape and very quickly dissipate.

In an internal combustion engine, the engine can get very hot. It will need to be cooled. But the gases that make it very hot are dispersed so quickly that you can put your hand in the exhaust of a running car at the tailpipe, and you won't be burned. But try to touch the exhaust manifold where the gases first enter into the exhaust pipe. If you try this, you will be burned. ( Don't try this, by the way. You will definitely be injured) I mention this is yet another example of how a solid object, like the exhaust manifold and the metal part of the engine, will stay hot. But the gases will cool rapidly.

Once again, it is the nature of gases that they don't hold heat, but disperse it.

There is an equation that illustrates further. It is called the gas law equation, and it goes like this: Pressure times volume equals the number of molecules of a gas times a constant, times its temperature=== or,

PV= nrT, where P is pressure, V is volume, n is the number of molecules, r is constant, and T is temperature

This is true for all gases, unless I am in error. Note also that this is in a system. This implies that it is a closed system, meaning that some force is holding the gas IN PLACE. Left to its own devices, the gas will expand into infinity. Only an external force, like the bonds in a solid object, or a liquid, will hold a gas IN PLACE. Gravity holds the gases in a planetary SYSTEM. The Earth's atmosphere is such a system. Gasses therefore, do not hold the heat. Gravitational forces is what holds the heat in a planetary SYSTEM.

Could there be excpetions? What about Venus? Venus is very hot, as many would know. The gas law equation explains WHY. The number of molecules of gas on Venus is much higher than on Earth. It is the MASS that holds the heat, not the GAS. Gravitational forces push the gases down closer to the surface. The atmospheric pressure on Venus is like being under THOUSANDS of feet of water. It will CRUSH YOU. Yes, Venus is hot. But its mass is why it is hot. Not that is is Carbon dioxide. Contrast that with Mars, which also has a similar percentage of carbon dioxide in its atmosphere. But what Mars has is a THIN atmosphere. It is like being 100,000 feet above the surface of the Earth. At that altitude, it is quite cold in Earth's atmosphere. It is the mass that holds the heat, not the fact of its composition. It would be true if it was nitrogen ( as on Earth), or carbon dioxide as on Venus or Mars. Mars is very cold, Venus is very hot. Both have similar percentages of carbon dioxide. The difference, in part, is from the number of molecules, which imparts its MASS.

In summing up, Einstein said if you cannot explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself. I've tried to cite it in such a way that maybe a kid would understand it. If not, then perhaps I should try harder. In any case, it is very simple. Simple enough, that I hope it would be understood.

But the HUMAN FACTOR may prevent that. Such is the case here, I believe. Either I'm right, or I'm wrong. But I don't think so.