Guck-a-Fator
Team MVP
Poor baby, I can see why you would love for everyone to feel that way....when all you believe in is bullsquat..... it is all you can hope for.....
you.... are the flat earther....
Earth is on its way to the biggest mass extinction since the dinosaurs, scientists warn
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
you.... are the flat earther....
Once again, that's not a study. It can't even charitably be described as a white paper. And, as already shown, your authors are either incompetent or lying. A point you never addressed.
And yet...still no answer to the question posed.
Guck-a-Fator
Team MVP
Can YOU Prove the Greenhouse effect?
STUDY BLOWS 'GREENHOUSE THEORY OUT OF THE WATER'
'All observed climatic changes have natural causes completely outside of human control'
Published: 6 days ago
ALEX NEWMAN Email | Archive
Subscribe to feed
Print
BOZEMAN, Mont. – A new scientific paper contends the entire foundation of the man-made global-warming theory – the assumption that greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere by trapping heat – is wrong.
If confirmed, the study’s findings would crush the entire “climate change” movement to restrict CO2 emissions, the authors assert
Some experts contacted by WND criticized the paper, while others advised caution.
Still others suggested that the claimed discovery represents a massive leap forward in human understanding – a “new paradigm.”
The paper argues that concentrations of CO2 and other supposed “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere have virtually no effect on the earth’s temperature.
They conclude the entire greenhouse gas theory is incorrect.
Instead, the earth’s “greenhouse” effect is a function of the sun and atmospheric pressure, which results from gravity and the mass of the atmosphere, rather than the amount of greenhouse gases such as CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere.
The same is true for other planets and moons with a hard surface, the authors contend, pointing to the temperature and atmospheric data of various celestial bodies collected by NASA.
So precise is the formula, the authors of the paper told WND, that, by using it, they were able to correctly predict the temperature of other celestial bodies not included in their original analysis.
The paper
The paper, published recently in the journal “Environment Pollution and Climate Change,” was written by Ned Nikolov, a Ph.D. in physical science, and Karl Zeller, retired Ph.D. research meteorologist.
The prevailing theory on the earth’s temperature is that heat from the sun enters the atmosphere, and then greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane and water vapor trap part of that energy by preventing it from escaping back into space.
That theory, which underpins the anthropogenic global-warming hypothesis and the climate models used by the United Nations, was first proposed and developed in the 19th century.
However, the experiments on which it was based involved glass boxes that retain heat by preventing the mixing of air inside the box with air outside the box.
The truth about global warming is no further than the WND Superstore, where “Climategate,” “The Greatest Hoax,” and more publications are available.
The experiment is not analogous to what occurs in the real atmosphere, which does not have walls or a lid, according to Nikolov and Zeller.
The new paper, headlined “New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model,” argues that greenhouse theory is incorrect.
“This was not a pre-conceived conclusion, but a result from an objective analysis of vetted NASA observations,” Nikolov told WND.
The real mechanisms that control the temperature of the planet, they say, are the sun’s energy and the air pressure of the atmosphere. The same applies to other celestial bodies, according to the scientists behind the paper.
To understand the phenomena, the authors used three planets – Venus, Earth and Mars – as well as three natural satellites: the Moon of Earth, Titan of Saturn and Triton of Neptune.
They chose the celestial bodies based on three criteria: having a solid surface, representation of a broad range of environments, and the existence of reliable data on temperature, atmospheric composition and air pressure.
“Our analysis revealed a poor relationship between global mean annual temperature] and the amount of greenhouse gases in planetary atmospheres across a broad range of environments in the Solar System,” the paper explains.
“This is a surprising result from the standpoint of the current Greenhouse theory, which assumes that an atmosphere warms the surface of a planet (or moon) via trapping of radiant heat by certain gases controlling the atmospheric infrared optical depth,” the study continues.
The paper outlines four possible explanations for those observations, and concludes that the most plausible was that air pressure is responsible for the greenhouse effect on a celestial body.
In essence, what is commonly known as the atmospheric “greenhouse” effect is in fact a form of compression heating caused by total air pressure, the authors told WND in a series of e-mails and phone interviews, comparing the mechanics of it to the compression in a diesel engine that ignites the fuel.”
And that effect is completely independent of the so-called “greenhouse gases” and the chemical composition of the atmosphere, they added.
“Hence, there are no greenhouse gases in reality – as in, gases that can cause warming,” Nikolov said when asked to explain the paper in layman’s terms.
“Humans cannot in principle affect the global climate through industrial emissions of CO2, methane and other similar gases or via changes in land use,” he added. “All observed climatic changes have natural causes that are completely outside of human control.”
For the first time, Nikolov said, there is now empirical evidence from NASA data that the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere is not caused by the trapping of heat, but by the force of atmospheric pressure.
The pressure is the weight of the atmosphere, he added.
And the combination of gravity and the mass of the atmosphere explains why the Earth, for example, is warmer than the moon.
“The moon receives about the same amount of heat from the sun as Earth, yet it is 90 degrees [Celsius] colder than the Earth, because it has no atmosphere,” Nikolov explained.
What it all means for science and the climate debate
This is not the first paper to reject the greenhouse-gas theory entirely.
In 2009, for example, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner published a paper titled “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics” in the International Journal of Modern Physics.
They wrote that the “atmospheric greenhouse effect” that “is still supported in global climatology” basically “describes a fictitious mechanism.” The second law of thermodynamics, they said, shows that “can never exist.”
However, their paper did not propose a mechanism to explain the higher temperature of Earth relative to the moon.
The new paper by Nikolov and Zeller does propose such a mechanism – atmospheric pressure.
If correct, the implications of the discovery would be enormous, multiple scientists told WND.
For one, it means the climate projections used to forecast warming doom and justify a wide range of policies are completely wrong.
That is because they were produced by computer models built around a “physically deeply flawed concept, the radiative greenhouse theory,” said Nikolov, who works as a federal scientist but did the new study completely on his own time.
“One major implication of our recently published study is that there is indeed a fundamental problem with the physics of current radiative greenhouse concept,” he told WND, highlighting the origin of the “inaccurate” theory in two 19th century papers.
“The foundation of the greenhouse theory was born of an assumption, it was never shown experimentally, and our results show this is completely wrong,” Nikolov said. “Our study blows the greenhouse theory completely out of the water. There is nothing left.”
“Hence, the public debate on climate needs now to shift focus to the fact that the basic science concept underlying current climate projections by the UN [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] IPCC and other international bodies is physically flawed,” Nikolov added, saying the new findings require a “fundamental overhaul of climate science” and that Earth may be heading for a cooling period.
“This is what the data shows,” he said. “We didn’t start with a theory, we started with the data, which is the opposite of how the greenhouse theory came about.”
The greenhouse theory, Nikolov explained, is based on the assumption that a free convective atmosphere – an atmosphere with no “lid” on it – can trap heat.
“This was an assumption born out of a misinterpretation of experiments involving glass boxes in the early 19th century by Joseph Fourier, a French mathematician,” he said.
Full story
http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/study-blows-greenhouse-theory-out-of-the-water/#VUmbbDtHKfoHgU5r.01
STUDY BLOWS 'GREENHOUSE THEORY OUT OF THE WATER'
'All observed climatic changes have natural causes completely outside of human control'
Published: 6 days ago
Subscribe to feed Print
BOZEMAN, Mont. – A new scientific paper contends the entire foundation of the man-made global-warming theory – the assumption that greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere by trapping heat – is wrong.
If confirmed, the study’s findings would crush the entire “climate change” movement to restrict CO2 emissions, the authors assert
Some experts contacted by WND criticized the paper, while others advised caution.
Still others suggested that the claimed discovery represents a massive leap forward in human understanding – a “new paradigm.”
The paper argues that concentrations of CO2 and other supposed “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere have virtually no effect on the earth’s temperature.
They conclude the entire greenhouse gas theory is incorrect.
Instead, the earth’s “greenhouse” effect is a function of the sun and atmospheric pressure, which results from gravity and the mass of the atmosphere, rather than the amount of greenhouse gases such as CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere.
The same is true for other planets and moons with a hard surface, the authors contend, pointing to the temperature and atmospheric data of various celestial bodies collected by NASA.
So precise is the formula, the authors of the paper told WND, that, by using it, they were able to correctly predict the temperature of other celestial bodies not included in their original analysis.
The paper
The paper, published recently in the journal “Environment Pollution and Climate Change,” was written by Ned Nikolov, a Ph.D. in physical science, and Karl Zeller, retired Ph.D. research meteorologist.
The prevailing theory on the earth’s temperature is that heat from the sun enters the atmosphere, and then greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane and water vapor trap part of that energy by preventing it from escaping back into space.
That theory, which underpins the anthropogenic global-warming hypothesis and the climate models used by the United Nations, was first proposed and developed in the 19th century.
However, the experiments on which it was based involved glass boxes that retain heat by preventing the mixing of air inside the box with air outside the box.
The truth about global warming is no further than the WND Superstore, where “Climategate,” “The Greatest Hoax,” and more publications are available.
The experiment is not analogous to what occurs in the real atmosphere, which does not have walls or a lid, according to Nikolov and Zeller.
The new paper, headlined “New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model,” argues that greenhouse theory is incorrect.
“This was not a pre-conceived conclusion, but a result from an objective analysis of vetted NASA observations,” Nikolov told WND.
The real mechanisms that control the temperature of the planet, they say, are the sun’s energy and the air pressure of the atmosphere. The same applies to other celestial bodies, according to the scientists behind the paper.
To understand the phenomena, the authors used three planets – Venus, Earth and Mars – as well as three natural satellites: the Moon of Earth, Titan of Saturn and Triton of Neptune.
They chose the celestial bodies based on three criteria: having a solid surface, representation of a broad range of environments, and the existence of reliable data on temperature, atmospheric composition and air pressure.
“Our analysis revealed a poor relationship between global mean annual temperature] and the amount of greenhouse gases in planetary atmospheres across a broad range of environments in the Solar System,” the paper explains.
“This is a surprising result from the standpoint of the current Greenhouse theory, which assumes that an atmosphere warms the surface of a planet (or moon) via trapping of radiant heat by certain gases controlling the atmospheric infrared optical depth,” the study continues.
The paper outlines four possible explanations for those observations, and concludes that the most plausible was that air pressure is responsible for the greenhouse effect on a celestial body.
In essence, what is commonly known as the atmospheric “greenhouse” effect is in fact a form of compression heating caused by total air pressure, the authors told WND in a series of e-mails and phone interviews, comparing the mechanics of it to the compression in a diesel engine that ignites the fuel.”
And that effect is completely independent of the so-called “greenhouse gases” and the chemical composition of the atmosphere, they added.
“Hence, there are no greenhouse gases in reality – as in, gases that can cause warming,” Nikolov said when asked to explain the paper in layman’s terms.
“Humans cannot in principle affect the global climate through industrial emissions of CO2, methane and other similar gases or via changes in land use,” he added. “All observed climatic changes have natural causes that are completely outside of human control.”
For the first time, Nikolov said, there is now empirical evidence from NASA data that the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere is not caused by the trapping of heat, but by the force of atmospheric pressure.
The pressure is the weight of the atmosphere, he added.
And the combination of gravity and the mass of the atmosphere explains why the Earth, for example, is warmer than the moon.
“The moon receives about the same amount of heat from the sun as Earth, yet it is 90 degrees [Celsius] colder than the Earth, because it has no atmosphere,” Nikolov explained.
What it all means for science and the climate debate
This is not the first paper to reject the greenhouse-gas theory entirely.
In 2009, for example, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner published a paper titled “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics” in the International Journal of Modern Physics.
They wrote that the “atmospheric greenhouse effect” that “is still supported in global climatology” basically “describes a fictitious mechanism.” The second law of thermodynamics, they said, shows that “can never exist.”
However, their paper did not propose a mechanism to explain the higher temperature of Earth relative to the moon.
The new paper by Nikolov and Zeller does propose such a mechanism – atmospheric pressure.
If correct, the implications of the discovery would be enormous, multiple scientists told WND.
For one, it means the climate projections used to forecast warming doom and justify a wide range of policies are completely wrong.
That is because they were produced by computer models built around a “physically deeply flawed concept, the radiative greenhouse theory,” said Nikolov, who works as a federal scientist but did the new study completely on his own time.
“One major implication of our recently published study is that there is indeed a fundamental problem with the physics of current radiative greenhouse concept,” he told WND, highlighting the origin of the “inaccurate” theory in two 19th century papers.
“The foundation of the greenhouse theory was born of an assumption, it was never shown experimentally, and our results show this is completely wrong,” Nikolov said. “Our study blows the greenhouse theory completely out of the water. There is nothing left.”
“Hence, the public debate on climate needs now to shift focus to the fact that the basic science concept underlying current climate projections by the UN [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] IPCC and other international bodies is physically flawed,” Nikolov added, saying the new findings require a “fundamental overhaul of climate science” and that Earth may be heading for a cooling period.
“This is what the data shows,” he said. “We didn’t start with a theory, we started with the data, which is the opposite of how the greenhouse theory came about.”
The greenhouse theory, Nikolov explained, is based on the assumption that a free convective atmosphere – an atmosphere with no “lid” on it – can trap heat.
“This was an assumption born out of a misinterpretation of experiments involving glass boxes in the early 19th century by Joseph Fourier, a French mathematician,” he said.
Full story
http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/study-blows-greenhouse-theory-out-of-the-water/#VUmbbDtHKfoHgU5r.01
Holy shit...so they propose - seriously - that a molecule of CO2 will only absorb infrared radiation when enclosed in a glass box???? WTF is the physical explanation for that?
Last edited:
See? Three lies right here. Cons never tell the truth
Guck-a-Fator
Team MVP
Wow...did you read the entire thing,... they have predicted temps of other celestial bodies using the same formula and have been correct 100% of the time..... time to wake up....
LOL...they claimed that a molecule of CO2 will only absorb and re-emit IR when trapped in a glass box. That's frankly so far beyond breathtakingly stupid that there's no word to describe it. I'm hoping this is a parody journal like the Journal for Irreproducible Results - which is where this paper belongs. As for their "predictions" (and I can't even type that without laughing) you might want to wait a while before you make the claim that they were "100%" correct.
Guck-a-Fator
Team MVP
Yes. CO2 absorbs outgoing IR radiation. Neither O2 nor N2 will. CO2 re-emits that IR in random directions including back to the planet. Boom. Done. Those are physical processes that aren't even open to dispute. That's why your "scientists" claims are beyond bizarre.
Guck-a-Fator
Team MVP
Wrap your head around this,...
John Murphy, BSc (hons) Physics from London University a long time ago
Updated Apr 9
Fake Science is a good description because the Greenhouse Gas Effect (GHE) cannot exist.
Not only that – it is straightforward to prove it doesn’t exist.
How people have got away with this stuff for so long amazes me.
Below are a couple of proofs that the GHE can’t exist.
First, lets define what the Greenhouse Gas Effect (GHE) is supposed to be.
This “energy budget” diagram summarises what is taught in universities world-wide – and more complex versions of it can be seen on NASA and other government websites world-wide.
The key here is in the “Energy balance at the the Earth’s surface” box.
Here the Solar radiation flux is added to the flux from the Greenhouse gases (Infrared radiation from the atmosphere) to get a total flux – and from there using Boltzmann's (fourth power) relationship the Earth’s temperature is calculated.
It would mean (amongst other impossible things) that heat from a source would be added to whatever was there in the first place; heat piling on top of heat.
Straight out of Alice in Wonderland which used to be Literature not Physics.
I like to think that in my day they’d never get away with because it’s completely wrong; you just can’t add fluxes together. It would mean that two or more sources of radiation aimed at the same target would create a higher temperature than either of the sources could acting alone.And that’s an easily testable property of heat and heat transfer. It is not a property of Climate or Atmosphere – it is a heat-transfer property of heat. It may be necessary for the GHE theory to work – but it is a basic heat property.
It must work everywhere – basic properties are not selective.
Theoretical proof that two or more sources of radiation aimed at the same target do not create a temperature based on adding the individual fluxes together.
Take two powered heat sources H and M and a sink S at say 25C
Move M close to S and temperature of S becomes 35C
Move M away and move H close to S and temperature becomes 50C
Now move M back, so that both M and H are close to S – what will the temperature be?
Can M heat up the S higher than 50C – because on its own it could only manage 35C – and right there is where the 2nd Law comes in; can M get any heat to S – or is S already at too high a temperature; that is the central question.
In my interpretation, the 2nd Law says M cannot raise the temperature of S above 50C.
It’s fairly easy to work out what the results should be if the fluxes aggregate as is supposed to happen in the GHE.
[Total flux] = [Independent flux from H] + [Independent flux from M]
As all the fluxes here are proportional to the fourth power of the temperature they create, and all the modifiers are more or less the same, we have
The “Flux added” temperature “S” should be around 102C. (See the flux diagram above)
And that is what you would expect because it mirrors the Greenhouse Effect theory that the temperature created on the Earth’s surface is greater than can be created by Solar radiation or Greenhouse Gas radiation independently.
And that is what we are eternally told – the Earth would be freezing and uninhabitable if it weren’t for the Greenhouse Gas contribution.
Therefore using the logic and arithmetic of the Greenhouse Gas Effect theory, we can boil water with two sources which individually and independently can only manage 50C and 35C.
That’ll be the day.
If you try a version of the above, you must in honesty post the results for the world to see.
The fluxes do not aggregate and the maximum temperature with both M and H close to S is that created by H alone – ie 50C – and you can add as many Ms as you like, it still won’t get above 50C.
Which when you think about it is our everyday experience. Many low level sources do not elevate the temperature of an already hot target.
Therefore in the atmosphere, either Solar radiation produces the Earth’s temperature or the Greenhouse Gases do – but not both: they don’t aggregate so you can’t add them.
Another thought experiment if that one didn’t get you:
Take a high number of electric bar elements (1kw) and surround a block of iron.
According to the GHE / flux adding theory, the block of iron will become much, much hotter than the wire in the elements.
The block of iron will radiate and begin to increase the temperature of the elements – which will then radiate more heat towards the iron block.
(Note that the block of iron can be made as hot as you wish – just add more elements.)
The block of iron will then get even hotter still – and so on ad-infinitum.
The positive feedback effect (actually unknown in nature) would progress at near the speed of light and as there is nothing to slow it down or stop it (convection being far too slow) it would consume the universe.
Not only that, it would do so without energy; no extra energy is needed at the elements for them to get hotter and hotter to infinity.
Completely impossible or Alice in Wonderland – take your pick.
Two or more sources of radiation aimed at the same target do not create a temperature based on adding the individual fluxes together.Therefore the GHE which relies on the two sources of Solar radiation and GHE radiation to be summed cannot be true.
The Earth’s surface reaches the temperature achieved by either Solar or GHE acting alone – they cannot be added together. (See experimental results for the algebra / arithmetic)
To test it experimentally is fairly straightforward; either do this at home or get your university to do it better:
Assemble
[Flux from both filaments] = [Flux from upper filament] + [Flux from lower filament]
As the conditions (constants / modifiers) are the same for all three cases, the Flux addition calculation reduces to
for the respective thermocouple temperatures for Both, Upper and Lower filaments.
Here are my results - and you can see the Flux addition idea is false
Is an example of the arithmetic.
Of course there are many other methods of doing this – and Lab Technicians will probably come up with some great ideas to minimise heat heat leakage from conduction and effects of convection.
The bulb in the experiment is not ideal as it is filled with argon gas and is not a vacuum as many assume.
Nevertheless, the results should be convincing with even the most basic equipment.
Therefore two or more sources of radiation aimed at the same target do not create a temperature which is the sum of their radiation (flux).
The Greenhouse Gas Theory is not credible.
Therefore the GHE which relies on the two sources of Solar radiation and GHE radiation to be aggregated cannot be true.
The Earth’s surface reaches the temperature achieved by either Solar or GHE acting alone – they cannot be added together.
Oh, sorry - my apologies - the Greenhouse Gas Effect does work to produce funding, which of course is much more important than science.
https://www.quora.com/The-greenhouse-effect-has-never-been-demonstrated-Is-it-Fake-Science
John Murphy, BSc (hons) Physics from London University a long time ago
Updated Apr 9
Fake Science is a good description because the Greenhouse Gas Effect (GHE) cannot exist.
Not only that – it is straightforward to prove it doesn’t exist.
How people have got away with this stuff for so long amazes me.
Below are a couple of proofs that the GHE can’t exist.
First, lets define what the Greenhouse Gas Effect (GHE) is supposed to be.
This “energy budget” diagram summarises what is taught in universities world-wide – and more complex versions of it can be seen on NASA and other government websites world-wide.
The key here is in the “Energy balance at the the Earth’s surface” box.
Here the Solar radiation flux is added to the flux from the Greenhouse gases (Infrared radiation from the atmosphere) to get a total flux – and from there using Boltzmann's (fourth power) relationship the Earth’s temperature is calculated.
- Who said you can add fluxes together?
- Just because measurements are the in the same units does not mean you can add or aggregate them .
- Did anyone test it?
- Where are the examples that you can add radiation flux to radiation flux
- Who made that assumption – and why don’t students challenge it?
It would mean (amongst other impossible things) that heat from a source would be added to whatever was there in the first place; heat piling on top of heat.
Straight out of Alice in Wonderland which used to be Literature not Physics.
I like to think that in my day they’d never get away with because it’s completely wrong; you just can’t add fluxes together. It would mean that two or more sources of radiation aimed at the same target would create a higher temperature than either of the sources could acting alone.And that’s an easily testable property of heat and heat transfer. It is not a property of Climate or Atmosphere – it is a heat-transfer property of heat. It may be necessary for the GHE theory to work – but it is a basic heat property.
It must work everywhere – basic properties are not selective.
Theoretical proof that two or more sources of radiation aimed at the same target do not create a temperature based on adding the individual fluxes together.
Take two powered heat sources H and M and a sink S at say 25C
Move M close to S and temperature of S becomes 35C
Move M away and move H close to S and temperature becomes 50C
Now move M back, so that both M and H are close to S – what will the temperature be?
Can M heat up the S higher than 50C – because on its own it could only manage 35C – and right there is where the 2nd Law comes in; can M get any heat to S – or is S already at too high a temperature; that is the central question.
In my interpretation, the 2nd Law says M cannot raise the temperature of S above 50C.
It’s fairly easy to work out what the results should be if the fluxes aggregate as is supposed to happen in the GHE.
[Total flux] = [Independent flux from H] + [Independent flux from M]
As all the fluxes here are proportional to the fourth power of the temperature they create, and all the modifiers are more or less the same, we have
The “Flux added” temperature “S” should be around 102C. (See the flux diagram above)
And that is what you would expect because it mirrors the Greenhouse Effect theory that the temperature created on the Earth’s surface is greater than can be created by Solar radiation or Greenhouse Gas radiation independently.
And that is what we are eternally told – the Earth would be freezing and uninhabitable if it weren’t for the Greenhouse Gas contribution.
Therefore using the logic and arithmetic of the Greenhouse Gas Effect theory, we can boil water with two sources which individually and independently can only manage 50C and 35C.
That’ll be the day.
If you try a version of the above, you must in honesty post the results for the world to see.
The fluxes do not aggregate and the maximum temperature with both M and H close to S is that created by H alone – ie 50C – and you can add as many Ms as you like, it still won’t get above 50C.
Which when you think about it is our everyday experience. Many low level sources do not elevate the temperature of an already hot target.
Therefore in the atmosphere, either Solar radiation produces the Earth’s temperature or the Greenhouse Gases do – but not both: they don’t aggregate so you can’t add them.
Another thought experiment if that one didn’t get you:
Take a high number of electric bar elements (1kw) and surround a block of iron.
According to the GHE / flux adding theory, the block of iron will become much, much hotter than the wire in the elements.
The block of iron will radiate and begin to increase the temperature of the elements – which will then radiate more heat towards the iron block.
(Note that the block of iron can be made as hot as you wish – just add more elements.)
The block of iron will then get even hotter still – and so on ad-infinitum.
The positive feedback effect (actually unknown in nature) would progress at near the speed of light and as there is nothing to slow it down or stop it (convection being far too slow) it would consume the universe.
Not only that, it would do so without energy; no extra energy is needed at the elements for them to get hotter and hotter to infinity.
Completely impossible or Alice in Wonderland – take your pick.
Two or more sources of radiation aimed at the same target do not create a temperature based on adding the individual fluxes together.Therefore the GHE which relies on the two sources of Solar radiation and GHE radiation to be summed cannot be true.
The Earth’s surface reaches the temperature achieved by either Solar or GHE acting alone – they cannot be added together. (See experimental results for the algebra / arithmetic)
To test it experimentally is fairly straightforward; either do this at home or get your university to do it better:
Assemble
- a double filament auto bulb (globe in Australia) and holder.
- 12V variable power supply
- two DMMs (digital multi-meters) – one of which should be able to read temperature
- thermocouple (comes with DMM)
- Clamps
- Activate one of the filaments and read the temperature at the thermocouple near the bulb surface
- Activate the other and ditto
- Activate both (but make sure the voltage across the filaments is the same in all three cases) and ditto.
[Flux from both filaments] = [Flux from upper filament] + [Flux from lower filament]
As the conditions (constants / modifiers) are the same for all three cases, the Flux addition calculation reduces to
for the respective thermocouple temperatures for Both, Upper and Lower filaments.
Here are my results - and you can see the Flux addition idea is false
Is an example of the arithmetic.
Of course there are many other methods of doing this – and Lab Technicians will probably come up with some great ideas to minimise heat heat leakage from conduction and effects of convection.
The bulb in the experiment is not ideal as it is filled with argon gas and is not a vacuum as many assume.
Nevertheless, the results should be convincing with even the most basic equipment.
Therefore two or more sources of radiation aimed at the same target do not create a temperature which is the sum of their radiation (flux).
The Greenhouse Gas Theory is not credible.
Therefore the GHE which relies on the two sources of Solar radiation and GHE radiation to be aggregated cannot be true.
The Earth’s surface reaches the temperature achieved by either Solar or GHE acting alone – they cannot be added together.
Oh, sorry - my apologies - the Greenhouse Gas Effect does work to produce funding, which of course is much more important than science.
https://www.quora.com/The-greenhouse-effect-has-never-been-demonstrated-Is-it-Fake-Science
Guck-a-Fator
Team MVP
Ummm...they're not. Other than that, he's spot on.
He's trying to claim that the incoming energy and the outgoing energy balance. When climate is stable that's true. But they don't balance. The incoming is greater than the outgoing. It's that fraction of energy that ISN'T escaping that is warming the planet. That fraction is absorbed by GHG and re-emitted back to the Earth,
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/
Guck-a-Fator
Team MVP
Ummm...they're not. Other than that, he's spot on.
He's trying to claim that the incoming energy and the outgoing energy balance. When climate is stable that's true. But they don't balance. The incoming is greater than the outgoing. It's that fraction of energy that ISN'T escaping that is warming the planet. That fraction is absorbed by GHG and re-emitted back to the Earth,
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/
You mean the faked Government findings? You have to do better than that....
Guck-a-Fator
Team MVP
Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists
By JULIE WHELDON
Research said to prove that greenhouse gases cause climate change has been condemned as a sham by scientists.
A United Nations report earlier this year said humans are very likely to be to blame for global warming and there is "virtually no doubt" it is linked to man's use of fossil fuels.
But other climate experts say there is little scientific evidence to support the theory.
In fact global warming could be caused by increased solar activity such as a massive eruption.
Their argument will be outlined on Channel 4 this Thursday in a programme called The Great Global Warming Swindle raising major questions about some of the evidence used for global warming.
Ice core samples from Antarctica have been used as proof of how warming over the centuries has been accompanied by raised CO2 levels.
But Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.
The programme also highlights how, after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.
The UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was published in February. At the time it was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world's leading scientists.
But Professor Paul Reiter, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said it was a "sham" given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.
Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria, said his name was removed from an assessment only when he threatened legal action against the panel.
"That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he said. "It's not true."
Gary Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, claims clouds and solar activity are the real reason behind climate change.
"The government's chief scientific adviser Sir David King is supposed to be the representative of all that is good in British science, so it is disturbing he and the government are ignoring a raft of evidence against the greenhouse effect being the main driver against climate change," he said.
Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, said climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds.
He said: "The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be or indeed of continuing to produce CO2.
"It is ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2c or 3c."
The documentary is likely to spark fierce criticism from the scientific establishment.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-440049/Greenhouse-effect-myth-say-scientists.html
By JULIE WHELDON
Research said to prove that greenhouse gases cause climate change has been condemned as a sham by scientists.
A United Nations report earlier this year said humans are very likely to be to blame for global warming and there is "virtually no doubt" it is linked to man's use of fossil fuels.
But other climate experts say there is little scientific evidence to support the theory.
In fact global warming could be caused by increased solar activity such as a massive eruption.
Their argument will be outlined on Channel 4 this Thursday in a programme called The Great Global Warming Swindle raising major questions about some of the evidence used for global warming.
Ice core samples from Antarctica have been used as proof of how warming over the centuries has been accompanied by raised CO2 levels.
But Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.
The programme also highlights how, after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.
The UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was published in February. At the time it was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world's leading scientists.
But Professor Paul Reiter, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said it was a "sham" given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.
Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria, said his name was removed from an assessment only when he threatened legal action against the panel.
"That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he said. "It's not true."
Gary Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, claims clouds and solar activity are the real reason behind climate change.
"The government's chief scientific adviser Sir David King is supposed to be the representative of all that is good in British science, so it is disturbing he and the government are ignoring a raft of evidence against the greenhouse effect being the main driver against climate change," he said.
Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, said climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds.
He said: "The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be or indeed of continuing to produce CO2.
"It is ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2c or 3c."
The documentary is likely to spark fierce criticism from the scientific establishment.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-440049/Greenhouse-effect-myth-say-scientists.html
Last edited:
Some conservatives are very bright. But not too many conservative policies are very smart these days.
Guck-a-Fator
Team MVP
Spending into oblivion is the way to go,.....rah rah rah
Lets recap the Amarmist recipe.
The Scientific Method we all learned about in 6th grade:
1. See something (observation).
2. Think about it (formulate a hypothesis).
3. Design an experiment to test your hypothesis.
4. Observe the results of your hypothesis.
5. Adjust hypothesis to fit observation.
6. Go to 3.
7. Repeat as needed.
The Scientific Method as practiced by acolytes of the Church of the Cranky Climate:
1. Observe something.
2. Formulate a hypothesis.
3. Design a model to accommodate the hypothesis.
4. Cherry pick data to fit the hypothesis.
5. Shriek DENIER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! when confronted with data contradicting your hypothesis.
6. Get more grants to continue making more and more models.
7. Testify before congress on the need for trillion dollar programs to take care of the crisis.
8. Go to 6.
9. Repeat until the nation is bankrupt.
Lets recap the Amarmist recipe.
The Scientific Method we all learned about in 6th grade:
1. See something (observation).
2. Think about it (formulate a hypothesis).
3. Design an experiment to test your hypothesis.
4. Observe the results of your hypothesis.
5. Adjust hypothesis to fit observation.
6. Go to 3.
7. Repeat as needed.
The Scientific Method as practiced by acolytes of the Church of the Cranky Climate:
1. Observe something.
2. Formulate a hypothesis.
3. Design a model to accommodate the hypothesis.
4. Cherry pick data to fit the hypothesis.
5. Shriek DENIER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! when confronted with data contradicting your hypothesis.
6. Get more grants to continue making more and more models.
7. Testify before congress on the need for trillion dollar programs to take care of the crisis.
8. Go to 6.
9. Repeat until the nation is bankrupt.
Last edited:
Did you know they're still building beachfront hotels and condos in Florida? Foolish developers. Don't they know the ocean is about to rise up and destroy those properties?
Guck-a-Fator
Team MVP
No; you're using HIS data to claim no warming.
I POSTED his data, which PROVES warming is IN LINE WITH projections.
Go away troll.
Damn...you just love playing the idiot. Do you honestly think the govt has more money to put into climate research than the fossil fuel industry AND the countries who depend on fossil fuels for revenue?
Awesome.
We wouldn't need trillion dollar programs if we had started putting the brakes on 20 or 30 years ago when it was already becoming clear that doing so was necessary.
Now we're confronted with a different equation. We can either spend a lot to slam the brakes on or we can spend a lot confronting the disasters that will hit if we don't.
Some of those disasters are already baked in. So we are already on the hook for huge disaster relief, migration problems, infrastructure rebuilding, major health problems, food disruption, and more.
Guck-a-Fator
Team MVP
You, all by yourself, are a great comedy routine....
No one can be this gullible...and it not be satire....
Guck-a-Fator
Team MVP
Guck-a-Fator
Team MVP
The one world government crusaders would highly disagree with you.
This is where you are gullible. You think the government is like your god. And you do everything. Including probably praying to it.
You prove you are nothing but livestock, ... Sheep... I know that analogy is old, but...it just fits....
You are just what they want, good little sheep, do not question a damn thing we tell you.... take it as the gospel.
There has been no significant warming in 20 years.... if co2 output by humans, has done nothing, but INCREASE every year, for the past 100 years.... and co2 causes Warming,.... then there is ZERO excuse...to have a Pause.... Temps should be Hauling ass straight up....
You are claiming CO2 is the fuel that is causing the Warming....
Can you show me another fuel that, when you add more of it and more of it and more of it.... and the fire goes out?...... You.... are getting duped.... and it is kind of comical....
We have not increased 1 degree of temperature, in the past 100 years.....
Plenty of evidence that. this planet has been much warmer in the past, and this is not unprecedented.
But the idiots who have invested in the notion that the government has no reason what so ever to lie.... wow..... I'll let you get back to praying....
Last edited:
And now you go off the deep end... and you have no floaties.
Guck-a-Fator
Team MVP
When you have nothing, but government,... then this is how you reply....
One basic question...
what is the optimum temperature for life on earth. You must have a temp, because there must be a starting point to say there is significant warming.....
So, what is the optimum temp the Planet MUST STAY at at all cost......and, how did you arrive at that temp....
Last edited:
More evidence that conservatism = sociopathy. You think world-wide devastation, mass suffering and death are amusing.
BTW, if you are a conservative who doesn't like being identified as a sociopath, start speaking out against sociopathic policies and stop voting for sociopaths.
Guck-a-Fator
Team MVP
lol you are brainwashed....and NOTHING you think is predicted is going to happen anytime even remotely soon,....
You are funny as hell....cause no one can be that ignorant...
Guck-a-Fator
Team MVP
Heck we are in a cooling stage now.... gotta dig up those global cooling scares from the 70's .....
Love how you keep thinking you have these "gotcha" questions. Difference is...I answer yours. The optimal temp would be the natural temperature of the planet w/o interference by man.
Now...would you support a red team/blue team debate between those who believe in a spheroidal Earth and those who espouse a flat Earth? Explain your reasoning. Quit dodging.
BTW, there's a big difference between an "optimum temperature for life" and an optimum temperature for large complex civilizations. I would say you probably already understood that...but you probably had no damn idea.
Guck-a-Fator
Team MVP
You did not answer the question, you tapped danced around it.... We need an exact number..... you have no answer, because there is no answer....
BTW there is so many fluctuations of this planet without man here.... you have no legs to stand on....
And I refuse to answer your apples and toilet plungers question.... because it will lead us no where.... which i believe is what you want.... LOOK...a Squirrel..
Since you are all chicken little....what is the total amount of warming in the past 100 years again?
This is what Alarmist sound like.... and, how stupid they sound....
.
Last edited:
Guck-a-Fator
Team MVP
Imagine that....
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Last edited:
You did not answer the question, you tapped danced around it.... We need an exact number..... you have no answer, because there is no answer....
BTW there is so many fluctuations of this planet without man here.... you have no legs to stand on....
And I refuse to answer your apples and toilet plungers question.... because it will lead us no where.... which i believe is what you want.... LOOK...a Squirrel..
Since you are all chicken little....what is the total amount of warming in the past 100 years again?
This is what Alarmist sound like.... and, how stupid they sound....
.
I was right...you had no damn idea. You asked the question which has no specific answer so that's on you. Life has existed on Earth for something like 4 billion years through conditions that would possibly have exterminated man. Those conditions - snowball Earth, the Chicxulub meteor, etc - would undoubtedly destroy any trace of civilization were they to occur today. If you would like to rephrase your question and try again....
Sadly you've now been reduced to taunting like a 5 year-old.
"I'm right and you're wrong!! Nyahh Nyahhh Nyaaahhhh!!!"
And your little water blurb is funnier if water is ID'ed as dihydrogen monoxide or hydrogen hydroxide. One can get scientifically illiterate people like you to sign petitions banning it.
Last edited:
Similar threads
