GREENHOUSE GAS, CARBON CYCLE, AND CO2

 

 

 

Here are the simple details of the 'carbon energy cycle'. This cycle refers to the use of solar energy for life processes. I am amazed that so many people rave on about the climate who have never read their own Biology I course book. 

 

1.) Solar energy strikes leaves and is absorbed by Chlorophyll molecules. Chlorophyll is the green molecule in plant cells that carries out the energy fixation in the process of photosynthesis. The resulting (food) molecules formed/synthesized contain carbon in various structures. This causes the leaves to absorb CO2 from the air during the day. They give off O2 during the night.

 

2.) Thus molecules that contain carbon (C) are required to grow trees and plants. Plants are the basis of food that animals/we eat and need to grow. 

 

3.) We, animals, use the energy of carbon molecules (food) for motion, thinking, etc. The end result is CO2 that we expel from our lungs. At the same time our lungs absorb O2.

 

4.) Trees and plants also return their carbon molecules (CO2) to the atmosphere by forest fires (**natural**) or bacterial decay that returns the CO2 to the atmosphere.

 

Thus the carbon cycle is completed. Clearly if there were no CO2 for the cycle, we would all be dead and life impossible.

 

A) Incidentally, I suspect that if there were more CO2, the Earth climate would be cooler because more solar energy would/could go to tropical plants and less to the rocks and water. But this is a difficult calculation.

 

B)  Most solar energy goes into the sea, and no one talks about this at all!!!

 

C) Many books have been written about the foolishness of public hysteria = like greenies today.

 

 

 

 

 

There is a TV ad everyday that says, "Only you can prevent forest fires." Who thought up this crazy statement?

 

If there were no CO2 TO CARRY ENERGY from the Sun to living things, everything dies.  CO2 is the 'link' or the 'carrier' of the energy from the Sun to all life on Earth. I.e.:

 

I.  If there were no Sun to provide energy to all life, everything dies.

 

II. If there were no CO2 TO CARRY ENERGY from the Sun to living things, everything dies.  =  DEAD.. NADA... GONE... FINI. Thus CO2 is an absolute necessity.

 

This simple fact must be used to evaluate the 'greenie' ideas.

 

Forget the 'greenhouse effect'. It is a popular nonsense idea. The complex chemistry of the upper atmosphere is known by NO ONE!  I was once the upper atmosphere chemist for the Apollo Moon project at MIT and I know that no one knows. There are good solid reasons why.

 

I think present society should re-think the important role of CO2 in supplying life with energy from the Sun:

 

Fact:  No CO2 and all life must die.

 

FINAL FACT: THE GOVERNMENT IS WASTING BILLIONS OF $$ FOR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE SIMPLE 'CARBON CYCLE'.

 

 

 

The MIT upper atmosphere Project:

 

I was the upper atmospheric scientist for the Apollo Lunar-landing project, at MIT, and later for the GPS navigation system project, at Aerospace Corp. My under-grad degree was in bio-chemistry and a PhD in physics from U of Penna.

 

 For those projects it was necessary to understand the behavior of the Earth's upper atmosphere that is largely created by solar radiation impacting the atmosphere. As a result, I state with 100% CERTAINTY that the current popular notions of global warming, greenhouse gases, bad carbon-dioxide, carbon foot print, man-made polluting gases, etc. have no basis in fact. Instead they have become a popular and global hysteria that is best described by the classic book Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (Buy at Amazon.com).   

 

Amazon.com gives the following review of the book, which sums it up:

Why do otherwise intelligent individuals form seething masses of idiocy when they engage in collective action? Why do financially sensible people jump lemming-like into hare-brained speculative frenzies--only to jump broker-like out of windows when their fantasies dissolve? We may think that the Great Crash of 1929, junk bonds of the '80s, and over-valued high-tech stocks of the '90s are peculiarly 20th century aberrations, but Mackay's classic--first published in 1841--shows that the madness and confusion of crowds knows no limits, and has no temporal bounds….

 

The facts are:

 

1) The heat that warms the Earth comes mainly from solar radiation*.  Ongoing measurements show that the variability of solar radiation far exceeds the heat generated by human activities. This variation is created by Sunspots (solar hurricanes) whose origin and intensity are unpredictable despite extensive study. Thus to conclude that human activities cause global warming is a MEANINGLESS STATEMENT.

 

2)  The amount of solar heat that reaches Earth is determined by a large array of ionic molecules: H+, H2+, N+, N2+, CO+, O+, O2+, O3+, CO2+, and many others  in the upper atmosphere. Several satellites experiments to measure the upper atmosphere have been prepared for launch (some by MIT (2) but the results have been indeterminate. Lab experiments have never been attempted because the size of the vessels would have to be greater than the mean-free-path in the upper atmosphere which is about one kilometer. Thus the concept of GREENHOUSE GASES IS MEANINGLESS.

 

3)  *Significant heat also comes from the Earth's center (1), but knowledge of this is even less than that from the Sun. Significant quantities of H2, H2O, CH4, and many hydrocarbons are diffused from the Earth center (1), but the amounts are unknown because the large majority are emitted under the oceans.  Thus to conclude that significant heat or atmospheric gases are produced by human activity HAS NO LOGICAL BASIS.

 

4) Not only do we not know the role of CO2 in global warming, it is possible that it MAY COOL THE EARTH, as follows:

        

   Consider that the Earth's vegetation, mostly in equatorial regions, must absorb CO2 and emit O2 to grow. This is the only method to grow and it is the final only source (100%) of human food. Lab experiments have shown that the rate of growth of plants depends importantly on the CO2 concentration. More CO2 results in much faster growth. This fact is exploited by growing tomatoes, for example in greenhouses. 

   Thus we tentatively deduce that if there were more CO2 in the atmosphere, equatorial plants might grow faster, the coefficient of heat absorption would be increased by the greater density of plant life, and more solar energy would be converted to food, not to heat. The Earth then cools.

 

5)  Is CO2 detrimental to humans? Should we try to stop it, as in THE Kyoto Conference? NO! As discussed in 4) above, WITHOUT CO2 there would be no LIFE ON EARTH!  THE GREEN-GOAL OF STOPPING CO2 PRODUCTION WOULD BE SUICIDE FOR THE HUMAN RACE. 

 

Finally, I wish to add that nothing here objects to people keeping rivers, streets and their backyards clean.  This is a worthwhile goal and a fine job for the 'greenies'. 

 

 Milo Wolff

 

References

1)Geospheres..... Temple University Frontier Perspectives, 2006 (?)

2) MIT Research Report, Investigation of the Upper Atmosphere by Satellite scanning, 1959

 3) Milo Wolff, Photopolarimetry of Scattering Surfaces by Computer Model, 1979, Contract NASW-22985, NASA

 

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS        BOLD CHALLENGES        CLIMATE CHANGE CONTENTS