Climate Change: Observations

Climate Change
Climate Change: Debate
Climate Change: The Convenient Lie
Climate Change: The World Natural Health Organization

Carbon dioxide is one of several gases that exhibits a greenhouse effect and many references exist that explain the theory of the effect of this gas. It has a low proportion (as one of the trace gases) in the atmospheric mix (mainly nitrogen = 78% and oxygen = 21%), but does contribute to the issue of climate change theory. However, this is also the one gas that has the maximum effect through its indirect financial contribution: global taxes based on fossil fuels that provide energy.

Dinosaurs should be left to die: car manufacturers. They make a product that in its current form has no place on Earth. The taxpayer underwrites the 'finance' to bail-out the car manufacturer and in the process this 'makes' grotesque amounts of interest for... someone. The wholly emotive argument is that jobs will be at stake. The speciousness of the argument is absolutely made clear.

Cut back on production of CO2 or trade quotas (what a ridiculous concept!!). Produce more fossil-fuel guzzling cars and promote air travel. This, of course, simply transports and spreads the CO2 'pollution' to other parts of the world, but implies that a gas can be contained in one place. Both illusion and delusion. Cynical and dishonest.

People should buy a product and drop themselves into huge debt to save others' jobs. The risk is destitution to save jobs. It's a magnanimous gesture to sacrifice one's own livelihood to rescue others, but not very sensible. Lenders would have everyone believe that they do the right thing by self-sacrifice. It is revealing to examine the scenario: the taxpayer can hardly pay himself interest for borrowing his own money. So how does it all work? Where does the 'money' come from to pay someone all that confounded interest? Obviously not the taxpayer. So, the question remains:

Who?

It's all designed to be hidden in the complexity, but the Occam's (Ockham's) Razor principle is don't look any further beyond the simple and the obvious. It's designed to obfuscate and perplex the borrower. If there's something not understood then questions must be asked. Many people prefer to say nothing so as not to appear stupid.

The really stupid ones accept
everything. Without question

Presidents (USA) or prime ministers UQ (aka UK) Ltd are highly predictable and can dump an impossible loan on the people. They will be long gone while the 'loan' of virtual money is still very active and still 'creating' a very great deal of theoretical vaporous money for... someone.

A good way to debunk the concept that governments are the agents to extract money from the people by taxation is by seriously considering the trinity of wind energy, wave (tidal) energy (Moon) and solar energy (Sun). These are free and will exist essentially forever (hundreds of millions of years). The wind is a product of the other two. Once upon a time in a fairytale land it's possible that governments had a reasonable number of honest politicians (!) in it to serve the people and not themselves or wield power. It's naïve to imagine so, but it's still possible, however unlikely. Finance should (theoretically) be raised through taxation to only pay for the provision of essential services to the nation. The taxpayer would receive due recompense for the service provided. A non-profit ethos, even though never before seen in a capitalist society that worships money.

The government + taxpayer combination
defines a true Them and Us partnership

The really smart capitalist would work towards a way of getting money in return for the free and very natural resources (wind, tidal, solar) that are by their nature completely sustainable. Creative capitalism could be a new concept.

Truly, to get something out
from nothing in. All profit

• The obvious flaw is in the justifiction for charging for a free resource (they did it with oil - DA). Nevertheless, it would not be inappropriate to make a charge for supplying the service. The problem is how to charge excessive amounts that equate at least with the loss of revenue from the move from oil-based products? The ingenuity of the capitalist who worships growth could manage some specious argument. Or they cannot describe themselves as true capitalists.
  

• Consider budgets: if you don't use it, you lose it. In the same way that any underused budget will be withdrawn, so it is with revenue: the loss of revenue MUST be made up, so unless some creative accounting can be devised that 'creates' the justifiction for raising taxes on a 'free' product, then any potential solution to the specious argument about climate change can never happen. Even if the world comes to an end. It won't. But the argument will be revealed for what it is: fallacious and insincere (specious).
  

• Imagine, the safety of not having the wild animal in the living room (nuclear power-derived energy), but the security of a never-ending source of energy, but it demonstrates that just the threat of termination can introduce a grotesque levy.

The bonus would be that the capitalist might not be a figure of hate, but admired. This could even promote a concept of fair play and still make money and save the planet. The inspired moron is a beast unto itself that would cut off its own hand with which it feeds itself (nothing new here, though).

The next 'theory' to be spun will probably involve nuclear-derived power that generates the steam to generate electricity since it does not produce carbon dioxide, but the disposal of the nuclear waste will need to be heavily taxed. Something has to replace the money-generating potential if old fuels are replaced. The oil-based waste products (petrol and diesel) that fuel vehicle engines must be replaced by something. It is an impossibility to dispose of the radioactive 'waste' as it cannot be destroyed. It will exist for thousands of years. It is at best simply deferring the destruction of all biological life on Earth for a few more years. A few more years of money redistribution. The lunacy of the concept is that denial condemns all biological life to inevitable destruction. Crustaceans may survive and have proven to be one of the most successful groups to have ever existed on planet Earth. They will continue as the human race destroys itself.

The cash cow carbon dioxide con works because at the superficial level it is plausible. At closer examination it becomes a very unstable argument. Continued production of carbon dioxide will not result in the gas being compressed and liquefied. The atmosphere will simply extend to a higher altitude. As the lungs of the Earth continue to be destroyed the generation of 'new oxygen' is dangerously compromised. The concentration of carbon dioxide in an upwardly expanding atmosphere gradually increases as the proportion of oxygen decreases. The altitude of the highest boundary of carbon dioxide increases.

The density of carbon dioxide changes dramatically at temperatures below -78.51 degC when the gas changes phase from gas to solid (deposition). The variation of the temperature of the atmosphere varies with altitude and increasing height above sea level firstly experiences cooling up to the Tropopause (about 10km altitude) down to almost -60 degC. The Tropopause marks the boundary between the Troposphere and the Stratosphere. It then remains constant for the next 10km before it gradually warms again to zero degC. Over the next 40km the temperature drops to a minimum of -90 degC. For the gas to solidify, the height would be in excess of 80km. However, the atmospheric pressure at such altitude would be almost zero and would mitigate against a solid form even if CO2 were to be found at such extreme height.

Schematic representation

• As height increases, the linear increase in volume of any atmosphere will decline. The circumference of the layer around the planet Earth will become larger, much like the rings of an onion the nearer the outside surface. Volume is a 3D quantity and the generation of CO2 by destruction of Earth-based sources (timber, coal, oil) by an exponentially growing population on Earth (the ridiculous tax revenue base), the trend conspires to fill the increasingly large volume. In effect, as the volume increases, the potential to create more CO2 expands.

Ironically, in the colder seasons when more carbon dioxide-generating fossil fuels are consumed, it is also the period when less carbon dioxide is removed: plants go dormant (photosynthesis). The winter months is the period of greatest seasonal CO2 production since the two effects conspire to make this happen. Any climate change/global warming issues will also be exaggerated in the winter.

Coal (primarily carbon) replaced trees (to some extent) as a fuel source and was itself superseded by oil (primarily carbon) products. It was fortuitous that the new alternatives released trees as the main fuel source although these products were themselves derived from the trees that they replaced. This was at a time before the science was speculated.