posted September 29, 2019 02:04 AM            

If you say they're being hypocritical by having a bunch of jets then you imply that CO2 does warm the earth.

If it does not as you claim it doesn't then having jets is irrelevant.

You can't be on both sides of this argument, pick a stance.

You shift from "climate isn't changing" to "humans aren't causing it," to "warming isn't a problem"

Pick a stance

posted October 01, 2019 05:28 PM            

Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide Can’t Cause Global Warming
Scarcely a day goes by without us being warned of coastal inundation by rising seas due to global warming.

Why on earth do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.

Carbon dioxide, we are told, traps heat that has been irradiated by the oceans, and this warms the oceans and melts the polar ice caps. While this seems a plausible proposition at first glance, when one actually examines it closely a major flaw emerges.

In a nutshell, water takes a lot of energy to heat up, and air doesn’t contain much. In fact, on a volume/volume basis, the ratio of heat capacities is about 3300 to 1. This means that to heat 1 litre of water by 1˚C it would take 3300 litres of air that was 2˚C hotter, or 1 litre of air that was about 3300˚C hotter!

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. If you ran a cold bath and then tried to heat it by putting a dozen heaters in the room, does anyone believe that the water would ever get hot?

The problem gets even stickier when you consider the size of the ocean. Basically, there is too much water and not enough air.

The ocean contains a colossal 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of water! To heat it, even by a small amount, takes a staggering amount of energy. To heat it by a mere 1˚C, for example, an astonishing 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy are required.

Let’s put this amount of energy in perspective. If we all turned off all our appliances and went and lived in caves, and then devoted every coal, nuclear, gas, hydro, wind and solar power plant to just heating the ocean, it would take a breathtaking 32,000 years to heat the ocean by just this 1˚C!

In short, our influence on our climate, even if we really tried, is miniscule!

So it makes sense to ask the question – if the ocean were to be heated by ‘greenhouse warming’ of the atmosphere, how hot would the air have to get? If the entire ocean is heated by 1˚C, how much would the air have to be heated by to contain enough heat to do the job?

Well, unfortunately for every ton of water there is only a kilogram of air. Taking into account the relative heat capacities and absolute masses, we arrive at the astonishing figure of 4,000˚C.

That is, if we wanted to heat the entire ocean by 1˚C, and wanted to do it by heating the air above it, we’d have to heat the air to about 4,000˚C hotter than the water.

And another problem is that air sits on top of water – how would hot air heat deep into the ocean? Even if the surface warmed, the warm water would just sit on top of the cold water.

Thus, if the ocean were being heated by ‘greenhouse heating’ of the air, we would see a system with enormous thermal lag – for the ocean to be only slightly warmer, the land would have to be substantially warmer, and the air much, much warmer (to create the temperature gradient that would facilitate the transfer of heat from the air to the water).

Therefore any measurable warmth in the ocean would be accompanied by a huge and obvious anomaly in the air temperatures, and we would not have to bother looking at ocean temperatures at all.

So if the air doesn’t contain enough energy to heat the oceans or melt the ice caps, what does?

The earth is tilted on its axis, and this gives us our seasons. When the southern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, we have more direct sunlight and more of it (longer days). When it is tilted away from the sun, we have less direct sunlight and less of it (shorter days).

The direct result of this is that in summer it is hot and in winter it is cold. In winter we run the heaters in our cars, and in summer the air conditioners. In winter the polar caps freeze over and in summer 60-70% of them melt (about ten million square kilometres). In summer the water is warmer and winter it is cooler (ask any surfer).

All of these changes are directly determined by the amount of sunlight that we get. When the clouds clear and bathe us in sunlight, we don’t take off our jumper because of ‘greenhouse heating’ of the atmosphere, but because of the direct heat caused by the sunlight on our body. The sun’s influence is direct, obvious, and instantaneous.

If the enormous influence of the sun on our climate is so obvious, then, by what act of madness do we look at a variation of a fraction of a percent in any of these variables, and not look to the sun as the cause?

Why on earth (pun intended) do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.

By Dr. Mark Imisides, Guest writer

posted October 19, 2019 01:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by todd:
[URL=http://humansarefree.com/2019/10/chemistry-expert-carbon-dioxide-cant.html?lm=854c95d298cd512df71689a95a4a641a&ls1=7f7b5e0480662ac30ec41c4a35e5b4350c477952&ls2=4196f1d3880545c 20a35]http://humansarefree.com/2019/10/chemistry-expert-carbon-dioxide-cant.html?lm=854c95d298cd512df71689a95a4a641a&ls1=7f7b5e0480662ac30ec41c4a35e5b4350c477952&ls2=4196f1d3880545 c20a35[/URL] 6c32f5a07f123472aba145b3dc046fcc0a2ee1376e96

Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide Can’t Cause Global Warming
Scarcely a day goes by without us being warned of coastal inundation by rising seas due to global warming.

Why on earth do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.

Carbon dioxide, we are told, traps heat that has been irradiated by the oceans, and this warms the oceans and melts the polar ice caps. While this seems a plausible proposition at first glance, when one actually examines it closely a major flaw emerges.

In a nutshell, water takes a lot of energy to heat up, and air doesn’t contain much. In fact, on a volume/volume basis, the ratio of heat capacities is about 3300 to 1. This means that to heat 1 litre of water by 1˚C it would take 3300 litres of air that was 2˚C hotter, or 1 litre of air that was about 3300˚C hotter!

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. If you ran a cold bath and then tried to heat it by putting a dozen heaters in the room, does anyone believe that the water would ever get hot?

The problem gets even stickier when you consider the size of the ocean. Basically, there is too much water and not enough air.

The ocean contains a colossal 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of water! To heat it, even by a small amount, takes a staggering amount of energy. To heat it by a mere 1˚C, for example, an astonishing 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy are required.

Let’s put this amount of energy in perspective. If we all turned off all our appliances and went and lived in caves, and then devoted every coal, nuclear, gas, hydro, wind and solar power plant to just heating the ocean, it would take a breathtaking 32,000 years to heat the ocean by just this 1˚C!

In short, our influence on our climate, even if we really tried, is miniscule!

So it makes sense to ask the question – if the ocean were to be heated by ‘greenhouse warming’ of the atmosphere, how hot would the air have to get? If the entire ocean is heated by 1˚C, how much would the air have to be heated by to contain enough heat to do the job?

Well, unfortunately for every ton of water there is only a kilogram of air. Taking into account the relative heat capacities and absolute masses, we arrive at the astonishing figure of 4,000˚C.

That is, if we wanted to heat the entire ocean by 1˚C, and wanted to do it by heating the air above it, we’d have to heat the air to about 4,000˚C hotter than the water.

And another problem is that air sits on top of water – how would hot air heat deep into the ocean? Even if the surface warmed, the warm water would just sit on top of the cold water.

Thus, if the ocean were being heated by ‘greenhouse heating’ of the air, we would see a system with enormous thermal lag – for the ocean to be only slightly warmer, the land would have to be substantially warmer, and the air much, much warmer (to create the temperature gradient that would facilitate the transfer of heat from the air to the water).

Therefore any measurable warmth in the ocean would be accompanied by a huge and obvious anomaly in the air temperatures, and we would not have to bother looking at ocean temperatures at all.

So if the air doesn’t contain enough energy to heat the oceans or melt the ice caps, what does?

The earth is tilted on its axis, and this gives us our seasons. When the southern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, we have more direct sunlight and more of it (longer days). When it is tilted away from the sun, we have less direct sunlight and less of it (shorter days).

The direct result of this is that in summer it is hot and in winter it is cold. In winter we run the heaters in our cars, and in summer the air conditioners. In winter the polar caps freeze over and in summer 60-70% of them melt (about ten million square kilometres). In summer the water is warmer and winter it is cooler (ask any surfer).

All of these changes are directly determined by the amount of sunlight that we get. When the clouds clear and bathe us in sunlight, we don’t take off our jumper because of ‘greenhouse heating’ of the atmosphere, but because of the direct heat caused by the sunlight on our body. The sun’s influence is direct, obvious, and instantaneous.

If the enormous influence of the sun on our climate is so obvious, then, by what act of madness do we look at a variation of a fraction of a percent in any of these variables, and not look to the sun as the cause?

Why on earth (pun intended) do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.

By Dr. Mark Imisides, Guest writer

Dr. Mark Imisides is an industrial chemist with extensive experience in the chemical industry, encompassing manufacturing, laboratory management, analysis, waste management, dangerous goods and household chemistry. He currently has a media profile in The West Australian newspaper and on Today Tonight. For a sample of his work visit www.DrChemical.com.au

---

http://humansarefree.com/2019/10/27-years-before-greta-thunberg-another.html?lm=854c95d298cd512df71689a95a4a641a&ls1=7f7b5e0480662ac30ec41c4a35e5b4350c477952&ls2=4196f1d3880545c20a 356c32f5a07f123472aba145b3dc046fcc0a2ee1376e96

27 Years Before Greta Thunberg, Another Child Was Used to Address the UN, Warned of Mass Extinctions: “I Am Afraid to Breathe the Air” or Go Out in the Sun

Nearly 30 years before angry 16-year-old girl Greta Thunberg "shamed" world leaders in a tearful tirade at The UN, a 12-year-old girl “silenced the world for five minutes”.

In 1992, Severn Cullis-Suzuki - then 12-year-old daughter of Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki, addressed the plenary session of the UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

In it, she described being “afraid to breathe the air” or go out in the sun, warned of mass extinctions of plants and animals and urged rich nations to stop spending so much money on war and “let go of some of our wealth”.

Sound familiar? It Should:

Caleb SkHull 💀🎃👻
✔ @CalebJHull

I just dug up this clip from 1992...

Severn Cullis-Suzuki's speech to the UN in 1992 on climate change sounds an awful lot like Greta Thunberg's in 2019.

I cut the two together to show just how similar the language is:

Embedded video

posted November 03, 2019 01:44 PM            

Gov. Cuomo: ‘We Didn’t Have’ Hurricanes, Superstorms, Tornadoes Before Climate Change
Pam Key
1 Nov 2019

On Friday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Live,” Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) argued hurricanes, superstorms, and tornadoes were on the rise because of anthropogenic climate change.

While discussing the flooding in New York State, Cuomo said, “Anyone who questions extreme weather and climate change is just delusional at this point. We have seen in the state of New York what every one has seen. We see these weather patterns that we never had before. We didn’t have hurricanes. We didn’t have superstorms. We didn’t have tornadoes. This is a storm that came up just overnight, dropped about five inches of rain, and it was literally a matter of life or death for people.”.....

posted November 04, 2019 11:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shura:
Because the stupid ignorant and brain dead are electing him.

---

posted December 02, 2019 06:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
Oh, yeah that would do it.

---

posted December 11, 2019 11:38 AM            

Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball Sets the Record Straight on the Deliberate Deception to Demonize CO2

By Dr. Tim Ball, Climatologist
http://youtu.be/sO08Hhjes_0

Many years ago, I compared the claim that human CO2 was causing global warming was analogous to determining what was causing your car to falter.

To simplify the analysis, you decided to not look at the engine, the transmission, the gearbox, the drive shaft, the differential, the axle, and the wheel, to focus attention on one portion of the thread of one bolt of one nut on the right rear wheel.

Figure 1 is a systems diagram of the atmosphere and atmospheric processes.

Tim Ball Co2 1

It appears complex, but is, in reality, a simple representation. The people who created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) decided this system, analogous to your car was faltering. Through their definition of climate change as only those changes caused by humans, they narrowed the search to human CO2.

In the diagram, it is one thread on one bolt in the section labelled “Atmospheric composition.” That section includes all the gases of the atmosphere and the billions of tonnes of particulates. These gases and particles affect the incoming solar radiation and outgoing long-wave heat energy.

They also vary over time, but we have virtually no idea of quantities or the variability. Of all the gases in the composition, the so-called greenhouse gases (GHG) comprise approximately 4 percent. And of that 4 percent total, carbon dioxide (CO2) is 4 percent, and human CO2 is approximately 3.4 percent.

It is one thread on one bolt of the complex system. The actual amount of human-produced CO2 added to the system is an estimate produced by the IPCC. It is, like all other numbers used, a barely educated guess presented with the authority that it is accurate and real.

Tim Ball Co2 2

The first use of CO2 for a political agenda was by Margaret Thatcher. She wanted to break the coal miner’s union that was holding the country to ransom and also to promote nuclear power.

She used Sir John Houghton, head of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office, to produce the science. He later became the first co-chair of the IPCC.

Houghton was an ideal candidate because he believed human industrial development was a sin and wrote articles on the subject. He is entitled to his personal opinions, but science must be amoral and apolitical, but that, apparently, does not apply to Houghton. Later in life Margaret Thatcher, to her credit, accepted that the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis was wrong, but a dangerous precedence was set.

The precedence was to maintain the lie that CO2 was a dangerous gas. They ignored from the start its role as a life source for plants, without which there is no oxygen or any lifeform.

A major assumption was that an increase in CO2 would result in a temperature increase. In 1990 the Antarctic ice core was produced that appeared to show confirmation (Figure 3).

Tim Ball Co2 3

Within 5 years it was shown that the graph showed that temperature increased before CO2. They claimed that the residency time in the atmosphere of the CO2 humans produce was 100 years. The argument was that even if we stopped production now, the problem would persist for a very long time.

Also, failure to stop prolonged the problem. It didn’t take long to show that the actual residency time was at most 6 years. Figure 4 shows a comparison of independent research measures against that of the IPCC.

Tim Ball Co2 4

Before CO2 became the focus more attention was paid to methane (CH4). This was pushed by groups battling the cattle industry. Jeremy Rifkin wrote a book and led a campaign titled, “Beyond Beef.” The basic claim was that cattle were the cause of virtually every ill, both environmental and socio-economic, afflicting the world.

They conveniently ignored the 210 million “Holy Cows” in India that produce no foodstuffs whatever. The biggest challenge involved the fact that methane, although a greenhouse gas, is only 0.36% of all the GHG by volume and just 0.00017% of all atmospheric gases. Compare this with water vapor (H2O) that is 95% of GHG.

They tried to inflate the impact of CH4 by introducing an effectiveness scale. This claimed, without evidence, that the global warming potential (GWP) of CH4 was 50 times greater than CO2. GWP became an official designation, but even with the multiplier, the actual effect is a fraction of that for H2O.

All you need to know is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates for the GWP for CH4 is between 28 and 36. The GWP became important again later when the focus shifted from CH4 to CO2 because it was pointed out that CO2 is only 4% of the total GHG. The IPCC included a GWP Table for all GHG, almost all are man-made elements, but they do not include H2O. This is statistical manipulation of the worst kind and central to the estimates of the GWP is the residency time, which we already discussed.

This process is a standard practice of the AGW claim.

There are virtually no actual measures of anything including temperature and precipitation, but especially GHG. What they do is produce data in a separate computer model and then use it as real data in another model.

This practice is the basis for the data on which the global climate models (GCM) are built. We have no real weather data for 85% of the Earth’s surface and less than 1% above the surface. They create data in a process called parameterization and use it as real data to build the GCM.

When the deception began, they assumed the increase in CO2 and temperature was unlimited. Very early it was shown that the atmosphere was virtually saturated with CO2’s capacity to slow down the rate of heat escape to space. I describe it using a black paint analogy. If you want to stop light coming through a window, apply one coat of black paint.

That coat is equivalent to the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Add a second coat of paint and only a small fraction more of light is blocked. This is the same as increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Figure 5 shows estimated temperature increases for doubling CO2 by 3 different scientists. The fact they disagree all using physics shows how imprecise the understanding is of the dynamics.

Tim Ball Co2 5

In response to this problem, a positive feedback was proposed. This claimed that a CO2 increase caused a temperature increase and this increased the rate of evaporation. A higher level of H2O in the atmosphere would enhance the warming started by CO2 would continue.

The first problem is that with more H2O in the atmosphere the more cloud potential which acts as a negative cooling feedback. Second, there are not even crude measures of the amount of H2O in the atmosphere, so it is impossible to determine the effect of a human addition. Third, measures of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere are also very crude estimates.

For example, two of the major natural sources of CO2 are the oceans and rotting vegetation. The error of the estimate for annual production both these sources exceeds the gross amount estimated for human production.

Finally, the IPCC says the current atmospheric level of CO2 is 400 parts per million (ppm). Al Gore and others will have you believe this is the highest level ever. People like Bill McKibben of an organization called 350.org join with Gore demanding a reduction in that level. Their name implies this is an optimal level. Let’s put this in context by looking at a reconstruction of CO2 and temperature levels inferred from a variety of geologic and biologic sources (Figure 6).

Tim Ball Co2 6

Some important points:
•The current level on the right side shows 400 ppm was only matched 300 million years ago (y.a).
•The highest reading is 7000 ppm.
•Around 438 million y.a., with atmospheric CO2 at 4500 ppm the Ordovician Ice Age occurred.
•For most of the last 300 million years, the CO2 level averaged 1200 ppm.

The last point is important because research by Sherwood Idso and others show this is the optimum level for plant growth. It is confirmed over the last 100 years by commercial greenhouses injecting this level to achieve four times greater yield.

So, fix that car and keep on driving because the CO2 it produces is not causing global warming and is essential for both flora and fauna (that includes you) on planet Earth.

Source: Technocracy.news

posted January 03, 2020 11:37 AM            

No global warming, but only the vertical shift of the temperature gradient of the atmosphere

Written and Submitted by Enkidu Gilgamesh

CONTENT
1.What is wrong?
2.Vertical shift of the temperature gradient of the atmosphere!
3.Depletion of the ozone layer with chlorine!
4.Analogy of an external jalousie!
5.Triggering the chain of murder!
6.The lie about nitrogen oxides!
7.Conclusions!

.

1. What is wrong?

All answers are wrong if wrong conditions are assumed!

Knowing the basics secures reliable knowledge!

All claims about CO2-driven global warming through the greenhouse effect and the positive feedback effect are false! All of these claims are false and all of these terms are tricks for the scientific packaging of the biggest scam of humanity! Where there is a lie, the truth is not far away, because it is exactly the opposite of the lie!

Nothing is really secret and nothing is too complicated to understand and explain.

Everything can be observed and is perceived by everyone.

But it is also true that the humanity is mentally blinded.

Each individual is subjectively unable to recognize and interpret the obvious.

Almost no one in the world is spared from the effects of the dramatic changes in the weather and climate system. Damage, disease and mass death are rampant. Wars over waterways, water sources, water sinks and the air spaces of the wind-water routes are waged with all brutality.

Death toll from Idai in southeast Africa has topped 800, making it the third deadliest tropical cyclone on record for the Southern Hemisphere — Weather Underground (@wunderground) April 1, 2019

Death toll from #Idai in southeast Africa has topped 800, making it the third deadliest tropical cyclone on record for the Southern Hemisphere https://t.co/sZHjU3RJk6 pic.twitter.com/LdNpkwh6G4
— Weather Underground (@wunderground) April 1, 2019

But the causes and effects are misinterpreted because the whole humanity is suggestively blinded by mass hypnosis and mass psychosis. The falsehood arises suggestively in mind, in that the victims are fed with false knowledge, false truths from fake authorities, resulting in false conclusions and false awareness, which exactly correspond to the intended manipulation.

This article and the sources cited explain the real cause of the temperature change.

.

2. Vertical shift of the temperature gradient of the atmosphere!

The Earth cannot heat up additionally because its energy content depends on its mass and distance from the sun and these do not change. As a result, the Earth’s energy balance always remains balanced.

But what is the cause of the warming of the Earth’s surface?

Short answer: It’s about deliberately shifting the temperature gradient between the Earth’s surface, the troposphere, the tropopause and the stratosphere!

The green line shows the natural temperature gradient and the red one shows the gradient shifted by the reduction of the ozone layer. Lower ozone density leads to a lowering of the temperature in the ozone layer and the heating of the layers below. The ozone layer becomes more transparent for the UV-B light or in other words, it doesn’t limit the transit of the UV-B rays.

To support my statements I would like to quote the great article of Peter L. Ward and at the same time recommend all of his other articles:

The Primary Cause of Global Warming is Ozone Depletion http://ozonedepletiontheory.info/primary-cause-of-warming.html

“Nearly all ultraviolet C solar radiation is absorbed in the stratosphere and above (figure on left). The amount of ozone, the “thickness” of the ozone layer (green line in the figure above right), in the lower stratosphere determines how much ultraviolet B radiation is absorbed in the stratosphere, warming the stratosphere, and how much is able to penetrate to Earth’s surface, warming Earth. When the amount of ozone in the stratosphere is depleted, more ultraviolet B radiation reaches Earth’s surface, cooling the stratosphere and warming Earth. Ultraviolet B radiation is absorbed most efficiently on Earth by the ocean, which contains the primary heat capacity of the Earth-atmosphere system. Depletion of stratospheric ozone warms the ocean, which warms near surface air temperatures.”

http://ozonedepletiontheory.info/Images/atmosphere-temp-ozone-density.jpg

http://ozonedepletiontheory.info/Images/actinic-flux-frequency.jpg
“A 50% decrease in total column ozone increases the amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching Earth’s surface by ~2 W m-2 between 882 and 1033 terahertz (290 and 340) nm (green shaded area) when Sun is directly overhead (Madronich, 1993).“

Under natural conditions, the oxygen (O2) is broken up by the strong UV-B radiation and then reconnected in the form of ozone (O3). This process intercepts the UV-B rays and converts them into infrared radiation. Therefore, the stratosphere in the area of the ozone layer is about 15°C warmer than the upper limit of the troposphere and the tropopause.

Temperature Gradient (This one is in German, but You may find the same elsewhere)
http://www.gerd-pfeffer.de/dyn_tgradient.html

In the absence of ozone, no UV-B can be converted into infrared radiation and heat in the area. Where there is no heat, it remains cold. After the ozone has been depleted, the ozone layer in the area of the ozone hole is cooled by a few degrees. The ozone hole is also a heat hole.

Than the left-through UV-B rays do their job in the tropopause and troposphere, where the molecules of oxygen intercept the UV-B radiation and convert them into infrared radiation. Unnaturally high levels of ozone and heat are now occurring in the tropopause and troposphere.

Some of the UV-B radiation makes it to the surface of the oceans and landmass, causing increased water evaporation and unusually hot periods below the ozone hole.

So there is a vertical shift in energy content and humidity in the atmosphere that leads to “climate change“. The wording “climate change” is chosen correctly because it is not a one-time or short-term weather change, but a permanent and still growing global-industrial application, the implementation of which is “without alternative” and “inevitable” for the “global dominance” and “energy security“. Species that cannot “adapt” to this “change” must somehow “live” with the consequences or die.

The appropriate term for this is climate control or large scale climate engineering or climate geoengineering, whose desired results and the intended or collateral damage cannot be objectively overlooked. But the victims must be distracted by mental blinding with NLP, because nobody with a sound mind and knowledge would agree to climate geoengineering.

.

3. Depletion of the ozone layer with chlorine!
http://youtu.be/v7pxq8P35Ss

Everyone is familiar with the term “ozone hole”. Since the 1960s, the stratosphere has been made more transparent to UV-B radiation by the large-scale depletion of the natural formation of ozone at heights between 20 km and 30 km.
http://youtu.be/tWvrGIgGnRY

Chemicals containing chlorine are sprayed to prevent the building of ozone. In order to conceal this measure, a lot of fuss is made about the ChloroFluoroCarbons (CFCs) and HydroChloroFluoroCarbons (HCFCs), since these also contain chlorine and are produced and distributed by human activity. However, their number of molecules is perhaps 200 parts to a trillion in the near-surface atmosphere. With more than 3kg per cubic meter of air, the CFC and HCFC molecules are too heavy, which is why they do not float 20 to 30 km in order to be able to react with the oxygen in the very thin atmosphere, let alone that their total amount would not suffice to reduce the ozone layer.

Why should HCFCs and CFCs float above 20 km when the near-surface atmosphere provides much more oxygen molecules with which the chlorine can react?

Lighter chlorine compounds such as TriChloroFluoroMethane are more suitable.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Trichlorofluoromethane-3D-vdW.png

The following video document provides two important basic insights:

1. Only helium balloons or missiles can reach the stratosphere since there is no uplift for aircraft.

2. The application must take place on the night side so that the chlorine does not react violently during the spraying before it is optimally distributed.

The spraying of the chemicals certainly does not serve space research!

Here is another example of spraying with light molecules with chlorine!

Given this method, everyone should understand why the private rocket producer SpaceX of Elon Musk is subsidized by the state, even though it has already burned billions of tax dollars.
http://youtu.be/X2QrrdwBGEs

Elon Musk’s missiles serve in the stratosphere, just as the “cheap” and Arab airlines do their part of climate control in the troposphere.

In order to achieve the “climate goals”, the stratosphere must be kept open permanently. This is only possible through the regular and increasing application of the chlorine. The goal is to increase the energy input into the troposphere down to the Earth’s surface. The temperature specifications such as 1.5°C or 3°C correspond to the intended vertical shift of the heat.

If the spraying of chlorine would be stopped, the formation of ozone regulates back quickly, because only two things are required: oxygen and UV-B radiation. Both are permanently and sufficiently available. Therefore, the fear of the “collapse of the ozone layer” and the claim that the prevention of which would require the permanent use of climate geoengineering, is a malicious marketing lie.

.

4. Analogy of an external jalousie!

Please imagine the ozone layer as an external Venetian blind in the midday sun, which intercepts the light and thus prevents the room from heating up. If it is opened a little or even pulled up completely, the sunlight enters the room unhindered.

https://pixabay.com/de/photos/lobby-lounge-aufenthaltsraum-3623669/

Unlike the outer blind, the ozone layer is always closed under natural conditions, so that the space below it (the troposphere and the surface of the earth) remains well tempered.

Under natural conditions, 97% of UVB radiation is absorbed in the ozone layer and converted into infrared radiation. This heats up only the ozone layer and not the entire atmosphere. The temperature difference is about 15°C plus, compared to the upper limit of the troposphere at about -60°C.

Due to the precipitation of the ozone layer with chlorine and flour, the region under the ozone hole is supplied with significantly more UV-B light and subsequently heated. The entire air column below the ozone layer (20km to 30km altitude) down to the surface of the oceans and land mass is energetically charged, i.e. heated.

This also increases the ozone level below the conventional ozone layer. That is why there are ozone warnings and burning eyes during the so called “heat waves”.

Psychologically the warming under the ozone holes is framed as the confirmation of the alleged global warming. However, the days of warming are followed by abrupt cloud cover and a significant cooling (15°C to 20°C), sometimes within an hour.

.

5. Triggering the chain of murder!

Ocean life is killed at the bottom of the food chain, by sunlight deprivation!Depending on the depth of the water, the algae are adapted to a narrow light spectrum and are very sensitive to drastic changes.

The unnaturally high UV-B radiation leads to the mass extinction of the corals, which generally visible by the so called coral bleaching, since the micro-algae living with them in symbiosis are not adjusted to such radiation, cannot fulfill their nutritional function and are therefore rejected and disposed by the corals.

Without algae, the corals lose their color, starve and suffocate in their own exhaled air. In this oxygen-free environment, all other marine animals also suffocate and die. A colossal chain of murder is set in motion with the ozone hole, since the food chain and the oxygen cycle begin with the symbiosis of corals and algae.

Following the ozone holes, and UV-B attack, the marine life is deprived of sunlight by tropospheric aerosol injection. It is not possible for the flora and fauna to adapt to these artificial and drastic modifications of sunlight.

Murdering the Circle of Life! Explaining sunlight deprivation by studies! http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.com/p/murdering-circle-of-life.html

Oxygen deprivation! Global suffocation! http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.com/p/oxygen-deprivation.html

.

6. The lie about nitrogen oxides!

When asked why ground-level ozone formation occurs, the answer is that ozone on the ground would be the result of the reaction of nitrogen oxides in conjunction with UV radiation.

In order for UV-B light to build O3 (ozone) from O2 (oxygen), no nitrogen oxides are required! The story is another evasive lie that distracts from climate geoengineering and helps to link the blame to the combustion engines. This is how suggestive manipulation works.

Do you notice that the fraudsters always have to twist reality in order to maintain the greenhouse lies?

It’s always the same with lies, they’re the opposite of the truth!

The lie about nitrogen oxides is a desperate one, because people are aware of the lie about the fine dust by combustion engines. They need to distract from the fine dust wording at all, because more people are also getting aware that the fine dust correlates with the dust sprayed by airplanes to implement the so called “Pinatubo-Effect”, which is nothing but the artificial industrial simulation of a volcanic eruption throwing high amounts of dust to about 7 km altitude and higher.

In German: The cruel hoax with the fine dust! The absurd accusation of drivers by demonizing the diesel! Covert economic war!
https://geoarchitektur.blogspot.com/p/der-grausame-schwindel-mit-dem.html

.

7. Conclusions!

Let’s summarize it step by step:
1.Spraying the ozone layer with chlorine-containing chemicals.
2.Chlorification of ozone from the stratosphere, forming ozone holes.
3.Cooling of the stratosphere in the absence of sufficient oxygen to capture the UV light.
4.Warming and expansion of the troposphere.
5.Formation of ozone at all levels of the tropopause and troposphere.
6.Warming the ocean surface, increasing water evaporation.
7.Warming of the land mass, feeling warmer phases in arid regions.
8.Development of extreme weather events due to the stronger flywheel mass (water vapor) in the weather system.
9.Mass murder along the food chain by climate geoengineering.

So this is the vertical shift of the temperature gradient.

You are be exposed to the negative effects, so please start to think more about the methods of climate control by yourself.

If the above explanations have been understood, then I would also like to explain the horizontal temperature and humidity shift in a separate article.

The whole topic of Geophysical Warfare and Geoengineering cannot be explained in a single article or a few ones. Please read on, connect the dots and get the full picture and understanding. Most of my articles are also published on VeteransToday, please look here for them:
https://www.veteranstoday.com/?s=Enkidu

posted January 14, 2020 04:55 PM            

Facebook Glitch Reveals Greta Thunberg’s Father And A UN Delegate Are Posting As Teenage Climate Activist

Thursday evening software update at Facebook accidentally allowed anyone to view exactly who is posting under the accounts of public figures, businesses and other entities, according to Wired.

The result? For starters, some 3 million followers of teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg have been reading posts written by her father, Svante Thunberg, and a climate activist in India who serves as a delegate at the UN’s Climate Change organization, Adarsh Prathap.

Thunberg, Inc. claims Greta is still the one writing the content.

Greta, Inc. explained this in a Saturday Facebook post purporting to be the young climate activist.

Facebook Glitch Reveals Greta Thunburg's Father Posting As Teenage Climate Activist

“Some people have been asking who manages this page. First of all, since last spring I only use Facebook to repost what I write on my Twitter and Instagram accounts,” reads the post, in which ‘she’ says she tried Facebook “early on,” but didn’t like it, so she uses “my father Svantes account to repost content.”

“The rest that is shared on Facebook is reposted from Twitter and Instagram by the guy who founded the Greta Thunberg Facebook page long before I knew it existed. His name is Adarsh Prathap and he lives in India. Since a lot of people thought it was my official page in the beginning I asked if I could co-manage it and he said yes.”

Greta Handler 1Greta Svante

Greta claims to have written all the content posted by her father and Prathap.

In other words, “of course it’s not me silly – you should have known I just ‘co-manage’ the fan page.”

Except – by all outward appearances it appeared to be her page alone.

Greta Page 1as

Facebook’s ‘page transparency’ shows Greta as the confirmed owner – with the only clue suggesting she might have help being a page manager located in India.

Greta Transparency

Read & share: Greta’s Parents Pictured In Antifa Gear & She Raised Funds For Antifa-Supporting Organisation In Europe

According to Facebook, the flaw was quickly fixed – but not before the people behind famous accounts were revealed and shared on public forums such as 4chan.

“We quickly fixed an issue where someone could see who edited or published a post on behalf of a Page when looking at its edit history,” said the company in a statement. “We are grateful to the security researcher who alerted us to this issue.”

Facebook says the bug was the result of a code update that it pushed Thursday evening. It’s not something most people would have encountered on their own, since it took navigating to a Page, viewing an edit history, and realizing that there shouldn’t be a name and profile picture assigned to edits to exploit it.

Still, despite the Friday morning fix, screenshots circulated on 4chan, Imgur, and social media appearing to show the accounts behind the official Facebook Pages of the pseudonymous artist Banksy, Russian president Vladimir Putin, former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton, Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau, the hacking collective Anonymous, climate activist Greta Thunberg, and rapper Snoop Dogg, among others.

Facebook points out that no information beyond a name and public profile link were available, but that information isn’t supposed to appear in the edit history at all. And for people, say, running anti-regime Pages under a repressive government, making even that much information public is plenty alarming. – Wired

Putin About Greta Thunberg: “It’s Deplorable When Someone Is Using Children And Teenagers In Their Interests”