The Physics of Climate Change

We need to look at the Second Fundamental Theorem of thermodynamics. The Second Fundamental Theorem of Thermodynamics states that there are no perpetual motion machines of the second kind. Such a machine may not violate the law of the conservation of energy and hence may seem to run on a viable process. However, in other words, the Second Fundamental Theorem of Thermodynamics says, it is impossible to periodically transfer heat from one body to another without needing additional energy. Hence it is not possible that a body heats itself up with its own thermal radiation. End of debate. There is nothing more to say. Just go thru the following thought experiment. A heater in a room surrounded by mirrors or any material that reflects the thermal radiation it emits. Is the heater going to steadily warm itself up? Most certainly not, we all know it from experience.

The heat radiation of the earth, as a thermal body, is electromagnetic radiation of a certain range of frequencies or “colors”. Now, what does it do to CO2? Does it heat it up? This would require, that the mean kinetic energy of CO2 had to rise somewhat (kinetic energy is equivalent to temperature). Or does the CO2 molecule rather act like an antenna, i.e. a dipole with the proper resonance? This in turn would mean it absorbs the radiation and then radiates it back as a spherical wave. Scattering is the proper term for this effect. Now, the Second Fundamental Theorem of thermodynamics applies to the scattered radiation, which hits back on earth. (Recall, another part radiates into outer space.) That is, the scattered radiation, which radiates back on to the surface of the earth, cannot heat up the earth. Now to the former scenario, CO2 gains kinetic energy. First of all, it is minuscule because the thermal radiation of the earth depends, like of any thermal body, on its temperature. A low body temperature means there is little (low frequencies) thermal radiation, i.e. little energy is being radiated. Thus the energy potentially transferred to the CO2 is also little and therefore there is little gain in kinetic energy, i.e. little rise in temperature of the CO2. In any case, since CO2 is less than 0.05% of the air there would probably be no measurable rise in air temperature at all. The problem with this scenario, CO2 heating up, is that there is no physical mechanism to turn thermal radiation of the earth into kinetic energy of CO2 molecules though. Even if you believe that there is some tiny rise in air temperature, then the thermal radiation of the air also has to rise slightly and all the additional heat dissipates into outer space. In no case can it lead to a gradually heating up of the earth’s atmosphere. The same applies to the body of the earth.

That may be hard to swallow for those ‘believers’ in the global warming theory. How come so many scientist and medias are talking about it? One thing is certain. The medias are not neutral nor unbiased nor really critical nor scientific. For whatever reason that may be. Here are some more facts.

  1. The IPCC is not a scientific organization. It is political with a clear ideological agenda. By the way, it is the only organization that claims that there is anthropogenic global warming.
  2. There is no basic theory of climate science. Unlike Physics which has basic theories everybody agrees on, like for instance the Newtonian Mechanics or Maxwell’s Electrodynamics, climate science has almost as many theories as there are climate scientists. Hence, there is no consent that ‘anthropogenic
    global warming’ is true. Moreover, science is not about consent, it is about proving or refuting conjectures by logical and analytical reasoning.
  3. The average temperature of the world, ‘the world temperature’ is as useful, as quantity, as the ‘world telephone number’, i.e. the average telephone number of all telephone numbers of the world.
  4. The CO2 curve has nothing to do with the temperature curve. Just examine it properly. The two curves may rise coincidentally over a period of 10 to 15 years (1990-2000). That is not a correlation. Graphic from
  5. The climate is a statistical quantity that is obtained from weather data. So, after the weather has occurred it can be worked out. Hence it is not possible to keep some climate values in a certain range.

There is not even a grain of truth to ‘anthropogenic global warming theory’ yet in most media it is portrayed as a scientific truth. Why is the media stubbornly biased? Well, because their agenda is propaganda and disinformation of the people even though they claim the opposite. Like poverty, climate change is a global problem that needs global solutions and therefore we must have a one world government. Get it?