CAGW is nothing more than a complex mathematical scam... the proof

[Morpheus]

ChemEngineer wrote:
You miss the point that ONLY those who are as technically proficient at all this material as the author was ca POSSIBLY be "informed" by it.  
I had no intention of wading through mountains of calculations, graphs and dialogue when it can be neatly summarized with far less pain and effort, which will convince far more people who need to be convinced.

Well, that's part of the problem... it's a very complicated problem that requires knowledge of cavity theory, thermodynamics, a bit of QFT and quantum mechanics, as well as a deep understanding of the fundamental physical laws to fully understand, but the climate scammers have come up with a very simplistic explanation (which doesn't hold up to even slight scrutiny, but which the scientifically-illiterate believe)... so the only avenue open to us is to educate.

And for the scientifically-illiterate, education requires a lot of repetition, a lot of analogization and a lot of explanation.

I've been casting about for someone with graphical skills who could distill the concepts down into moving graphics or perhaps a mini-movie, but I've not found any. I can't do it, I have no artistic ability whatsoever. I've tried. That moving S-B equation graphic above was one of my better efforts.

[Morpheus]

Well, apparently some forums don't allow URL shorteners, so I'll include this here:

I've solved a thermodynamics problem using electrical theory equations (the equations for fluid flow, electrical theory, thermodynamics, etc. are all derivations of the same thing, just for different forms of energy).




You can play with the circuit simulator here:
https://tinyurl.com/yzo8hak9

[Billy_Bob Patriot Master]

Well, apparently some forums don't allow URL shorteners, so I'll include this here:

I've solved a thermodynamics problem using electrical theory equations (the equations for fluid flow, electrical theory, thermodynamics, etc. are all derivations of the same thing, just for different forms of energy).




You can play with the circuit simulator here:
https://tinyurl.com/yzo8hak9

BINGO!  WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

I have tried to explain this to other PhD's and they simply cannot grasp the logical correlations.  With your permission, I want to steal this.  Being able to explain the emissive state is part of what they simply do not grasp.

[Morpheus]

Well, apparently some forums don't allow URL shorteners, so I'll include this here:

I've solved a thermodynamics problem using electrical theory equations (the equations for fluid flow, electrical theory, thermodynamics, etc. are all derivations of the same thing, just for different forms of energy).




You can play with the circuit simulator here:
https://tinyurl.com/yzo8hak9

BINGO!  WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

I have tried to explain this to other PhD's and they simply cannot grasp the logical correlations.  With your permission, I want to steal this.  Being able to explain the emissive state is part of what they simply do not grasp.

Feel free to use any of what I've created however you wish. Attribution is neither required nor desired. You can rip it off wholesale, no problem. If someone writes an article or book based on what I've created, and makes a buck off it, more power to them. Just work to destroy AGW / CAGW before it destroys our way of life.

[Physics Hunter]

I am pleased to see somebody cleaned up the Blackradiation to Black Body and Grey Body.  Much clearer.

The things that I did not see discussed, and especially in regards to discussing this in simple Thermo terms (including relative to the circuit) are...

1) Ignoring the discussion of the non-emissive bodies being at or below the ambient temperature of their environment (unless I missed that in the overwhelming gob of equations with undefined (here) variables...), seems to be an omission.  According to Max, both a warmer and cooler body will still be emitters unless they are below the ambient temp (energy level), where they become only absorbers.

2) The explanation of Black/Grey emission, absorption, and retention (resistance) rates here is impossible to understand without a Physics degree.  Emission is putting your hand toward (not above) a warm surface, or fire, and feeling the radiated heat  It is infrared heat.

3) I could explain this to a ten year old with a warm oven, a cup of boiling water, a cup of room temp water, and a cup of slightly warm water positioned in a triangle.

Didn't y'all ever have to cover recitation (auditorium seating remedial help) for Physics for Non Majors?  It was my first teaching job in the Physics department. 

Did I miss something?

[Morpheus]

I am pleased to see somebody cleaned up the Blackradiation to Black Body and Grey Body.  Much clearer.

The things that I did not see discussed, and especially in regards to discussing this in simple Thermo terms (including relative to the circuit) are...

1) Ignoring the discussion of the non-emissive bodies being at or below the ambient temperature of their environment (unless I missed that in the overwhelming gob of equations with undefined (here) variables...), seems to be an omission.  According to Max, both a warmer and cooler body will still be emitters unless they are below the ambient temp (energy level), where they become only absorbers.

2) The explanation of Black/Grey emission, absorption, and retention (resistance) rates here is impossible to understand without a Physics degree.  Emission is putting your hand toward (not above) a warm surface, or fire, and feeling the radiated heat  It is infrared heat.

3) I could explain this to a ten year old with a warm oven, a cup of boiling water, a cup of room temp water, and a cup of slightly warm water positioned in a triangle.

Didn't y'all ever have to cover recitation (auditorium seating remedial help) for Physics for Non Majors?  It was my first teaching job in the Physics department. 

Did I miss something?

1) Which equations have undefined variables? Every equation is using the standard symbol for its particular value, and I've even done dimensional analysis on much of it.

1a) Yes, both warmer and cooler objects which are above the temperature of the ambient will be emitting... to the ambient. We're not discussing multiple flow paths for energy here, we're strictly focusing upon how that energy can only spontaneously flow down an energy density gradient, which disproves the AGW / CAGW hypothesis.

2) There is no such thing as "Grey emission"... both blackbody objects and graybody objects emit blackbody radiation. Don't confuse blackbody objects and blackbody radiation as some do, so they claim blackbodies emit blackbody radiation and graybodies emit graybody radiation. The dominant source of blackbody radiation is transient oscillating dipoles induced by inter-molecular thermal vibrations within a material. Solids, liquids, plasma of sufficient density and gases of sufficient density can emit blackbody radiation, but our atmosphere cannot simply because the gas molecules spend the majority of their time relatively distant from each other, and thus they cannot sustain the inter-molecular oscillations necessary for blackbody radiation. As gas density increases, blackbody radiation production increases and eventually dominates the discrete emission spectra. Similarly, as gas density increases, blackbody absorption increases and eventually dominates the discrete absorption spectra.

3) Huh? You can explain how energy only spontaneously flows down an energy density gradient, to someone who doesn't understand what energy is, what 'spontaneously' means in a scientific sense, what 'heat' is, what an impetus is, what a gradient is, what energy density is, that energy density is radiation pressure because 1 J m-3 = 1 Pa, what radiation pressure is, that all photons are perfectly reflected at thermodynamic equilibrium, why all photons are perfectly reflected at thermodynamic equilibrium, what thermodynamic equilibrium is, why entropy doesn't change at thermodynamic equilibrium, why radiative energy exchange is an entropic irreversible process, what idealized reversible and entropic irreversible processes are, what entropy is, what reflection from a potential step is, etc., etc.? Without introducing misconceptions? With mathematical proof of the assertions made? Demonstrate, please.

---

Ok, now for something not-so-completely different... a disproof of one of the offshoots of AGW / CAGW. A little something I whipped up to refute a climate alarmist on Reddit. Strangely, I posted it in the /r/ClimateOffensive subreddit, which usually hates us skeptics... but that post has a 69% Upvote Rate even there. In /r/ClimateSkeptics, it received a 95% Upvote Rate... so I don't think it's going to be so hard to turn people against the AGW / CAGW narrative simply by telling them the truth.

===============

"We must protect the corals! CO2 is going to kill all the coral! It's an existential crisis!", we're told.

For instance:
https://www.surfrider.org/news/washington-state-re-ups-leadership-in-addressing-ocean-acidification
"Global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions over the past two centuries have altered the chemistry of the world’s oceans, threatening the health of coastal ecosystems and industries that depend on the marine environment."

"Calcifiers are marine organisms that depend on the mineral calcium carbonate to make shells, skeletons, and other hard body parts. Ocean acidification makes an essential component of calcium carbonate – the carbonate ion – more scarce. As a result, calcifiers have to use more energy to pull carbonate ions out of the water to build their shells. Calcium carbonate also dissolves more easily as acidity increases. These changes can result in slower growth and/or higher mortality among calcifiers, especially in shellfish larvae and juvenile shellfish."

Corals and mollusks, which evolved during the Cambrian Explosion which had many times higher CO2 concentration (which was arguably the cause of the Cambrian Explosion), evolved no carbonate transporters, instead evolving bicarbonate transporters... because as CO2 concentration rises, ocean pH falls which means carbonate practically disappears at ~pH6, whereas as CO2 concentration rises, ocean bicarbonate concentration rises, thus that makes it easier for coral and mollusks to undergo the calcification process. Calcification is currently rate-limited because atmospheric CO2 concentration is nearly at historic lows, and thus oceanic bicarbonate concentration is comparatively low.

IOW, if you want to 'save the corals', emit more CO2.

But all of the "muh CO2 bad" blather about CO2 harming corals is predicated upon the corals using carbonate transporters. To date, several bicarbonate transporters have been found across a wide taxa of corals and mollusks, whereas no carbonate transporters have been found.

[1] CO2 (carbon dioxide) + H2O (water) ==> H2CO3 (carbonic acid)

[2] Aqueous: H2CO3 (carbonic acid, from [1]) ==> H+ (hydrogen cation) + HCO3- (bicarbonate anion)

[3] In-vivo: Bicarbonate transporter transports HCO3- (bicarbonate anion, from [2]) across cellular membrane

[4] In-vivo: HCO3- (bicarbonate anion, from [3]) ==> CO3-2 (carbonate anion) + H+ (hydrogen cation)

[5] In-vivo: CO3-2 (carbonate anion, from [4]) + Ca+2 (calcium cation, dissolved in water) ==> CaCO3 (calcium carbonate)

[6] In-vivo then excreted: H+ (hydrogen cation, from [4]) + H2O (water) ==> H3O+ (hydronium cation)

Yes, coral and mollusks excrete acid.

pH = −log_10 [H+]

And that excreted H3O+ (hydronium cation, from [6]) then goes on to interact:

[7] Aqueous: H3O+ (hydronium cation, from [6]) + CO3-2 (carbonate anion, dissolved in water) ==> H2CO3 (carbonic acid) + OH- (hydroxide anion)

[8] Aqueous: H2CO3 (carbonic acid, from [7]) ==> H+ (hydrogen cation) + HCO3- (bicarbonate anion)

[9] Aqueous: OH- (hydroxide anion, from [7]) + H+ (hydrogen cation, from [2] or [8]) ==> H2O (water)

You'll note that the hydronium (H3O+) cations actively scavenge carbonate anions (CO3-2) (which the coral and mollusks cannot use) and coverts them into carbonic acid (H2CO3), which then undergoes the first aqueous reaction above to convert to H+ (hydrogen cation) and HCO3- (bicarbonate anion... which the coral and mollusks can use).

Kind of strange that coral and mollusks can handle the extreme acid of undiluted H+, and H3O+ (the strongest acid that can exist in water), but purportedly they can't handle a tiny change in ocean pH, despite evolving at a time when atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times higher than today and thus the ocean was less alkaline.

Almost as if we're being lied to. Hmmmm...

[Physics Hunter]

As to your #1, I'm sure you work with those variables and symbols every day.  I don't.

#2 Of course there is no Grey emission, there is no Black emission either, it is all IR, Conduction, Convection... or worse...

As to your #3, like I said such heat transfer "explanation" is more clearly understood if felt than talked to death. 
There is an old Physics joke about such: What if light bulbs don't emit light?  Maybe they suck dark. 
With heat it is easier at reasonable temps, a human can feel it on their skin.  Thermo rules are actually relatively simplistic compared to other exchanges and transformations in the overall domain of Physics.
I am not trying to make a 10year old PhD, but I can teach them the basics of the laws...  I did this with my kids...

The same applies to the Climate idiots. 

I am not insulting you or disparaging your work.  I am simply saying that, having taught Physics for non-majors, people who see your posts as a wall of voodoo, need a more visceral and undeniable explanation.

[Morpheus]

As to your #1, I'm sure you work with those variables and symbols every day.  I don't.

#2 Of course there is no Grey emission, there is no Black emission either, it is all IR, Conduction, Convection... or worse...

As to your #3, like I said such heat transfer "explanation" is more clearly understood if felt than talked to death. 
There is an old Physics joke about such: What if light bulbs don't emit light?  Maybe they suck dark. 
With heat it is easier at reasonable temps, a human can feel it on their skin.  Thermo rules are actually relatively simplistic compared to other exchanges and transformations in the overall domain of Physics.
I am not trying to make a 10year old PhD, but I can teach them the basics of the laws...  I did this with my kids...

The same applies to the Climate idiots. 

I am not insulting you or disparaging your work.  I am simply saying that, having taught Physics for non-majors, people who see your posts as a wall of voodoo, need a more visceral and undeniable explanation.

Yeah, that's the wall I'm running up against. I can't simplify or analogize it any more to make it layperson digestible. I've analogized thermodynamics to fluid flow and electrical theory... I suppose I could try another analogization, but the point is kind of moot... the current analogizations demonstrate that all energy, no matter its form, must obey the same fundamental physical laws; as well as the fact that all action requires an impetus, and that impetus is always in the form of a gradient.

No gradient, no impetus. No impetus, no action. No action, quiescent state. Quiescent state, thermodynamic equilibrium.

As to people sensing temperature, we don't. We sense enthalpy, hence the psychrometric chart for HVAC:

   

We mustn't allow Perfecshionism to be the enemy of The Good. ;-)

[Sunsettommy]

I have no problem with complex posts here as that requires a lot of work and the person who make them clearly wants to help people see the bullshit the AGW conjecture is in this manner.

I usually point out to people that using the IPCC own CO2 warm forcing claims that after the first 80-100 ppm CO2 quickly becomes irrelevant to the purported heat budget and also in relation to the claimed DOWNWELLING backradiation idea.

From Where is the Climate Emergency?

Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.

(WEB chart) TOTAL GLOBAL AVERAGE DOWNWELLING In 1750 is 505 W/m2 (278 PPM CO2) to 509 W/m2 (556 ppm CO2)

The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …

LINK

Scroll halfway down to see the chart.

===============

Also tell people there is no predicted "hot spot" found after 30 years of waiting that the Positive Feedback Loop is still not found in today's world and never seen in last billion years either in the proxy records.

[Billy_Bob Patriot Master]

As to your #1, I'm sure you work with those variables and symbols every day.  I don't.

#2 Of course there is no Grey emission, there is no Black emission either, it is all IR, Conduction, Convection... or worse...

As to your #3, like I said such heat transfer "explanation" is more clearly understood if felt than talked to death. 
There is an old Physics joke about such: What if light bulbs don't emit light?  Maybe they suck dark. 
With heat it is easier at reasonable temps, a human can feel it on their skin.  Thermo rules are actually relatively simplistic compared to other exchanges and transformations in the overall domain of Physics.
I am not trying to make a 10year old PhD, but I can teach them the basics of the laws...  I did this with my kids...

The same applies to the Climate idiots. 

I am not insulting you or disparaging your work.  I am simply saying that, having taught Physics for non-majors, people who see your posts as a wall of voodoo, need a more visceral and undeniable explanation.

Yeah, that's the wall I'm running up against. I can't simplify or analogize it any more to make it layperson digestible. I've analogized thermodynamics to fluid flow and electrical theory... I suppose I could try another analogization, but the point is kind of moot... the current analogizations demonstrate that all energy, no matter its form, must obey the same fundamental physical laws; as well as the fact that all action requires an impetus, and that impetus is always in the form of a gradient.

No gradient, no impetus. No impetus, no action. No action, quiescent state. Quiescent state, thermodynamic equilibrium.

As to people sensing temperature, we don't. We sense enthalpy, hence the psychrometric chart for HVAC:

 You sir are talking at a Grad Student or PhD level in your posts.  

The average layman doesn't have a clue how to understand or even do the math necessary, and properly, to understand the outcome. When this PhD tries to communicate with those general laymen, I try and use layman terms and common life things they see every day to portray what it is they are looking at, when this complex deception is discussed.  

One of the main reasons the political class has grabbed onto this is its complexity and inability of the common man to understand it. This makes it easy to dupe the general populace and then "refer to the scientists" they have paid to lie for them.  Even worse, many scientists (meteorologists) do not have the ability to see through the deception, the media they work for want them to propagate the deception, in an effort to gain favor with the political class pushing the agenda to gain power.

I have created walls of text myself and gotten nowhere.  Only when I learned to take each concept and put it in layman's terms did I begin to make progress.

Hear is an example: 

The oceans cannot be directly warmed by the radiation of CO2. (Also known as back radiation.)

Long Wave Infrared Radiation (LWIR) is how the CO2 molecule and every other molecule in our atmosphere releases its energy. An example of LWIR is your hair dryer.  The red color of the coils emits LWIR warming the air that passes through the hair dryer.
 
The ocean has a barrier which absorbs this energy, in its skin layer, and then immediately releases it back into the atmosphere. Just below this skin layer is a cooler layer which must be overcome if it were to warm the ocean. A simple experiment can show how this works. In a 9 x 12 inch glass pan place water at 100 degrees F. Place a thermometer in far end and read the temperature. Next, take a hairdryer, placed on high heat, 12 inches away, blowing it across the pan while avoiding the glass edges and thermometer.  Simply watch the temp.  What did it do?  

The temperature will decrease. This will demonstrate that LWIR being directed at water, even with convection, will cause the water to cool in the pan rapidly. This demonstrates that even with wave mixing it will not create warming. Then you can go on to the fact that 72% of the earth is not critically affected by CO2 or its rise.

[Morpheus]

The Paradox Of CO2 Sequestration...

Paradoxically, sequestration of CO2 will increase atmospheric CO2 concentration, even if humanity emits zero CO2 to the atmosphere.

Let's say you have a fuel that is 100% carbon, and it burns by chemically interacting with atmospheric O2, to form CO2, then that CO2 is 100% captured and sequestered.

Let's take an extreme example... let's say we burn so much of that carbon, converting it to CO2 then sequestering 100% of that CO2, that we totally remove all O2 from the atmosphere.

We have to account for the atoms and molecules which that O2 displaces. We'll do the calculations for the three most-prevalent atomic or molecular species.

209441.21395198 ppm O2 to start --> 0 ppm O2 to end

Ar | 39.948 g mol-1 | 20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 | 18.846929895790 K km-1
(Ar) 209441.21395198 ppm * 0.00934 = 1956.1809383114 ppm
(Ar) 9340 ppm + 1956.1809383114 ppm = 11296.180938311 ppm

N2 | 28.0134 g mol-1 | 29.12 J mol-1 K-1 | 9.4339738283240 K km-1
(N2) 209441.21395198 ppm * 0.780761158 = 163523.56473807 ppm
(N2) 780761.158 ppm + 163523.56473807 ppm = 944284.72273807 ppm

CO2 | 44.0095 g mol-1 | 36.94 J mol-1 K-1 | 11.683426182319 K km-1
(CO2) 209441.21395198 ppm * 0.00043 = 90.059721999351 ppm
(CO2) 430 ppm + 90.059721999351 ppm = 520.05972199935 ppm

So if we were to burn enough carbon that all O2 was converted to CO2, then all of that CO2 was sequestered, the atmosphere would have a CO2 concentration of 520 ppm.

And that's with us putting no CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 concentration per parcel of air rises strictly and solely because we're removing other atmospheric constituents (in this case, O2) which dilute that CO2 already existing in the atmosphere.

Thus, the climate alarmists are yet again diametrically opposite to reality.

Here's another topic upon which they are diametrically opposite to reality:
https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics...t/m0l4mju/

... and another:
https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics...g_lied_to/

The climatologists and climate alarmists invariably wind up being diametrically opposite to reality because the easiest lie to tell is an inversion of reality, a flipping of causality... they needn't invent new physics to describe and explain their claims, because most people are so scientifically-illiterate that they cannot discern between reality and flipped-causality anyway.

---

Now, using the above, we can calculate the effect upon the lapse rate and thus the surface temperature:

Assume they draw O2 down from 209441.21395198 ppm to 0 ppm. That would reduce the lapse rate (and thus surface temperature) by:

O2 | 31.9988 g mol-1 | 29.38 J mol-1 K-1 | 10.680770320623 K km-1
(O2) 10.680770320623 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.000001 = 0.0000545253324867 K ppm-1
(O2) 10.680770320623 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.20944121395198 = 11.4198518271666 K
(O2) 10.680770320623 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.0 = 0 K

11.4198518271555 K cooling, without taking into account the atoms and molecules that O2 displaces.

But wait! We also have to account for the atoms and molecules which that CO2 displaces. We'll do the calculations for the three most-prevalent atomic or molecular species.

N2 | 28.0134 g mol-1 | 29.12 J mol-1 K-1 | 9.4339738283240 K km-1
(N2) 209441.21395198 ppm * 0.780761158 = 163523.56473807 ppm
(N2) 780761.158 ppm + 163523.56473807 ppm = 944284.72273807 ppm
(N2) 9.433973828324 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.94428472273807 = 45.477164326869 K
(N2) 9.433973828324 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.7808782721737 = 37.6074383581611 K
(N2) 45.477164326869 K - 37.6017980884478 K = 7.8753662384215 K warming

Ar | 39.948 g mol-1 | 20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 | 18.846929895790 K km-1
(Ar) 209441.21395198 ppm * 0.00934 = 1956.1809383114 ppm
(Ar) 9340 ppm + 1956.1809383114 ppm = 11296.180938311 ppm
(Ar) 18.84692989579 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.011296180938311 = 1.0868459758471 K
(Ar) 18.84692989579 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.009341401 = 0.898769605503737 K
(Ar) 1.0868459758471 K - 0.898634810282194 K = 0.1882111655649 K warming

CO2 | 44.0095 g mol-1 | 36.94 J mol-1 K-1 | 11.683426182319 K km-1
(CO2) 209441.21395198 ppm * 0.00043 = 90.059721999351 ppm
(CO2) 430 ppm + 90.059721999351 ppm = 520.05972199935 ppm
(CO2) 11.683426182319 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.00043 = 0.0256468729841176 K
(CO2) 11.683426182319 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.00052005972199935 = 0.0310183851959 K
(CO2) 0.0310183851959 K - 0.0256468729841176 K = 0.0053715122118 K warming

11.4198518271555 K - 7.8753662384215 K - 0.1882111655649 K - 0.0053715122118 K = 3.3509029109573 K cooling

Reducing O2 from 209441.21395198 ppm to 0 ppm would decrease the lapse rate (and thus surface temperature) by 3.3509029109573 K.

---

So the climate alarmists would have to sequester 100% of humanity's CO2 emission, and enough atmospheric CO2 to offset the concentrating effect of the reduction in atmospheric O2, and then even more just to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentration.

And in so doing, all they're accomplishing is burning up the world's O2 and sequestering it, so they're harming fauna... including people.


https://i.imgur.com/GhowgLe.png

So... CO2 sequestration would put people closer to (or into) that hypoxia zone... meaning mass migration to lower elevations just so people can get enough oxygen to survive.

And they're sequestering the world's CO2, so they're harming flora as well as corals and mollusks.

https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/1gsv82i/corals_and_mollusks_were_being_lied_to/

And in the process, they're squandering humanity's treasure... spending trillions of dollars to do nothing but damage.

This is what happens when climate alarmists start from an incorrect premise... their conclusions do nothing but damage.

https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/1h7aijs/comment/m0l4mju/

[Billy_Bob Patriot Master]

The Paradox Of CO2 Sequestration...

Paradoxically, sequestration of CO2 will increase atmospheric CO2 concentration, even if humanity emits zero CO2 to the atmosphere.

Let's say you have a fuel that is 100% carbon, and it burns by chemically interacting with atmospheric O2, to form CO2, then that CO2 is 100% captured and sequestered.

Let's take an extreme example... let's say we burn so much of that carbon, converting it to CO2 then sequestering 100% of that CO2, that we totally remove all O2 from the atmosphere.

We have to account for the atoms and molecules which that O2 displaces. We'll do the calculations for the three most-prevalent atomic or molecular species.

209441.21395198 ppm O2 to start --> 0 ppm O2 to end

Ar | 39.948 g mol-1 | 20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 | 18.846929895790 K km-1
(Ar) 209441.21395198 ppm * 0.00934 = 1956.1809383114 ppm
(Ar) 9340 ppm + 1956.1809383114 ppm = 11296.180938311 ppm

N2 | 28.0134 g mol-1 | 29.12 J mol-1 K-1 | 9.4339738283240 K km-1
(N2) 209441.21395198 ppm * 0.780761158 = 163523.56473807 ppm
(N2) 780761.158 ppm + 163523.56473807 ppm = 944284.72273807 ppm

CO2 | 44.0095 g mol-1 | 36.94 J mol-1 K-1 | 11.683426182319 K km-1
(CO2) 209441.21395198 ppm * 0.00043 = 90.059721999351 ppm
(CO2) 430 ppm + 90.059721999351 ppm = 520.05972199935 ppm

So if we were to burn enough carbon that all O2 was converted to CO2, then all of that CO2 was sequestered, the atmosphere would have a CO2 concentration of 520 ppm.

And that's with us putting no CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 concentration per parcel of air rises strictly and solely because we're removing other atmospheric constituents (in this case, O2) which dilute that CO2 already existing in the atmosphere.

Thus, the climate alarmists are yet again diametrically opposite to reality.

Here's another topic upon which they are diametrically opposite to reality:
https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics...t/m0l4mju/

... and another:
https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics...g_lied_to/

The climatologists and climate alarmists invariably wind up being diametrically opposite to reality because the easiest lie to tell is an inversion of reality, a flipping of causality... they needn't invent new physics to describe and explain their claims, because most people are so scientifically-illiterate that they cannot discern between reality and flipped-causality anyway.

---

Now, using the above, we can calculate the effect upon the lapse rate and thus the surface temperature:

Assume they draw O2 down from 209441.21395198 ppm to 0 ppm. That would reduce the lapse rate (and thus surface temperature) by:

O2 | 31.9988 g mol-1 | 29.38 J mol-1 K-1 | 10.680770320623 K km-1
(O2) 10.680770320623 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.000001 = 0.0000545253324867 K ppm-1
(O2) 10.680770320623 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.20944121395198 = 11.4198518271666 K
(O2) 10.680770320623 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.0 = 0 K

11.4198518271555 K cooling, without taking into account the atoms and molecules that O2 displaces.

But wait! We also have to account for the atoms and molecules which that CO2 displaces. We'll do the calculations for the three most-prevalent atomic or molecular species.

N2 | 28.0134 g mol-1 | 29.12 J mol-1 K-1 | 9.4339738283240 K km-1
(N2) 209441.21395198 ppm * 0.780761158 = 163523.56473807 ppm
(N2) 780761.158 ppm + 163523.56473807 ppm = 944284.72273807 ppm
(N2) 9.433973828324 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.94428472273807 = 45.477164326869 K
(N2) 9.433973828324 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.7808782721737 = 37.6074383581611 K
(N2) 45.477164326869 K - 37.6017980884478 K = 7.8753662384215 K warming

Ar | 39.948 g mol-1 | 20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 | 18.846929895790 K km-1
(Ar) 209441.21395198 ppm * 0.00934 = 1956.1809383114 ppm
(Ar) 9340 ppm + 1956.1809383114 ppm = 11296.180938311 ppm
(Ar) 18.84692989579 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.011296180938311 = 1.0868459758471 K
(Ar) 18.84692989579 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.009341401 = 0.898769605503737 K
(Ar) 1.0868459758471 K - 0.898634810282194 K = 0.1882111655649 K warming

CO2 | 44.0095 g mol-1 | 36.94 J mol-1 K-1 | 11.683426182319 K km-1
(CO2) 209441.21395198 ppm * 0.00043 = 90.059721999351 ppm
(CO2) 430 ppm + 90.059721999351 ppm = 520.05972199935 ppm
(CO2) 11.683426182319 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.00043 = 0.0256468729841176 K
(CO2) 11.683426182319 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.00052005972199935 = 0.0310183851959 K
(CO2) 0.0310183851959 K - 0.0256468729841176 K = 0.0053715122118 K warming

11.4198518271555 K - 7.8753662384215 K - 0.1882111655649 K - 0.0053715122118 K = 3.3509029109573 K cooling

Reducing O2 from 209441.21395198 ppm to 0 ppm would decrease the lapse rate (and thus surface temperature) by 3.3509029109573 K.

The earth's climate is a paradoxically presenting system. A set of systems, working together, to create balance from imbalance. Here is an excerpt from an article I wrote back in 2017.

Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted.

As I watch many claim global warming for the current weather events, it appears it is time for some sanity and a reality check. The earth has always been a paradoxical presentation and it's high time people were taught that what they see is in far to short a time span for any realistic determination to be made about what our climate is doing.

When the sun is active the flows from the sun, like wind, push against our atmosphere. As the earth rotates this pressure pushes atmosphere to the poles increasing the mass of the atmosphere above them. The NASA photo below shows how solar wind pushes against the magnetosphere and against our atmosphere.

When the wind reduces so do the pressures against our atmosphere. If you spin a partially filled balloon and apply a wind pressure against it the center will flatten and the ends round. This is what happens to earths atmosphere.

When there is high pressures against our atmosphere from the sun the depth of atmosphere above the equator decreases and above the poles increase.

This allows the polar jet to reside high in latitudes and warming of the equator will push towards the polls keeping the polar jet tightly constrained to the poles. This is a warming globe.

With cooling and low solar influence things are very different. With low pressures (as we have today) against the magnetosphere and atmosphere, the mass of the atmosphere is flung out due to earths rotation, allowing the atmosphere near the poles to be drawn to the equator.

The draw down of atmosphere causes the polar Cells to thin and widen pulling the polar jet to mid latitudes. This results in a paradoxical warming of the arctic regions and massive cooling of the mid latitudes. The thin atmosphere mass above the poles allows heat escape to accelerate.

What we see today is a natural and normal presentation of the earth entering a cooling phase. With Solar influence now slated to be very low for the next 30-60 years our cooling is just beginning.

As we near the new thermal equilibrium of the earths new energy input/output levels, the zones will return to what we have seen as normal over recent years. When that happens, the poles will freeze over rapidly and glaciation will resume. Many Northern Hemisphere glaciers have already begun to increase in size. The ice mass on Greenland has tripled in just three years.

In a warming world the polar jets will become tightly constrained and cold will be tightly kept locally until the warming and the heat retention of the atmosphere above the poles eventually warms it. Were nowhere near this eventuality. Paradoxical presentation of a cold and constrained arctic in a warming world.

In our currently cooling world, the wide and powerful polar jets cool the mid-latitudes while the heat is released above the pole from the reduced mass of the atmosphere and the heat being widely spread out, high in the reduced atmosphere. Again, a paradoxical presentation of a warming arctic in a cooling world.


In both a cooling world and a warming world, when we reach near equilibrium the polar jet will expand to it median path or retract to its median path. Right now, were nowhere near the median path.

None of these fits in many people's minds because they do not know how the system works or why. Were just getting a good scratch on the surface. This is a very simplified explanation but one that is desperately needed to teach people that any man caused warming is extremely exaggerated.

This was discussed here--> https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread....576#pid576