Clik here to view.
Scarriet’s chill, roving, homeless, reporter writes:
Yesterday was one of those cool autumn days when the sun goes behind a cloud and you hate it because the sun almost makes it feel like summer. It led me to realize solar energy is climate. In outer space with no atmosphere it’s still hot during the day, right? It just gets super cold at night. But all the air does is redistribute and balance out the temps so it’s not 200 degrees during the day and minus 200 degrees at night. That’s all the atmosphere does. Sometimes it moves in a fierce manner, true, but that’s local weather, not climate. The moon, without our greenhouse atmosphere, gets colder at night and hotter during the day than earth. Our atmosphere balances out the heat of day with the cold of night. Earth’s air has nothing to do with creating this condition in the first place. The sun does that. The atmosphere doesn’t add heat itself or take it away. So why do people think that “emissions” or changing the makeup of earth’s atmosphere slightly can do anything significant to change the climate? It can’t. I know one can die in summer in a closed car, but the earth is not a car. I know a magnifying glass can burn an ant but the air is not, nor ever will be, a magnifying glass. (yes the moon, with no “magnifying glass” or “closed car” of air, is hotter than the earth during the day) Climate change talk is everywhere. One can’t read commentary on 15th poetry “where are the snows of yesteryear?” without climate change seriously being mentioned. (New Yorker 11/27/23) Money, by the way, works the same way. It’s like the atmosphere. When I hear that billions of dollars were lost or “wasted,” well, not exactly. It’s just energy in the air moving somewhere else. Money itself isn’t solar energy. Money is just the result of solar energy. Money is temps transfer in air.
And what of “nuclear winter” scenarios, where heat is followed by extreme cold?
“Nuclear winter” results from a cloud cover of particulate matter (think volcano eruption)— blocking the sun. CO2 (“emissions,” the “evil” source of global warming, supposedly) is a molecule, it’s invisible, it’s not a particulate; it doesn’t block the sun. Atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant. It traps the sun’s energy, or, as was said, regulates and redistributes solar energy, so we don’t freeze to death at night or get too hot during the day. CO2 has no heating properties, per se. It’s not a heat source. Air makes sure the heat doesn’t escape too quickly, so day/night difference isn’t overly extreme. And air with C02 (.04%) added does the exact same thing, the CO2 making hardly any difference. It’s a non-issue. (Except that CO2 is plant food and makes trees grow big, creating pleasant shade.) Then why do those in expensive suites make these dire predictions? Why is “warming” and “climate change” and “carbon emissions” on the lips of all chatterers, all the time? If it’s political grift, the underlying logic of the con is so wrong on a fundamental level one simply doubts the con could be a con. The best minds in the world look at you with a straight face and say the planet is burning up. And if it is a “climate-change con,” it is ironically exactly analogous to what it hides: invisible air (plus invisible CO2) temporarily moves solar energy around—just as a swindle does. Air, whether it contains CO2 or not, can only redistribute energy. Money moves the temps in the air. Air and money are not the energy itself. Our furnaces heat our homes, not the earth. There’s only one furnace: the sun. All that’s cozy leaks away.
