Apollo Mission: a Giant Leap Discrediting Greenhouse Gas Theory
in [Physics]
|
Prev: symmetry of superclusters Chapt 11, Space is EM; magnet & iron filings Experiment #116; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: Two slit experiment
From: Surfer on 29 May 2010 22:53 On Sat, 29 May 2010 15:35:44 -0700 (PDT), Leon <trotsky(a)hushmail.com> wrote: > >NASA had found that temperatures on the lunar surface were lower than >expected because planetary bodies also conduct heat to their inside >rather than radiating it all into space-an embarrassing empirical fact >for believers of the GHG theory whose computer models erroneously >predicted that such heat energy would be �blanketed� above the >planet�s surface. > If true, then conduction of heat into the earth and its oceans could currently be hiding the full effects of warming.
From: Desertphile on 30 May 2010 13:01 On Sat, 29 May 2010 19:54:44 -0400, John Vreeland <john.vreeland(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Sat, 29 May 2010 15:58:15 -0700 (PDT), Big fella > <bestbefore(a)hushmail.com> wrote: > > >On May 29, 3:35�pm, Leon <trot...(a)hushmail.com> wrote: > >> Stefan-Boltzmann equations > >> Apollo Mission: a Giant Leap Discrediting Greenhouse Gas Theory > > > >> > >> Short, Nicholas M. �Planetary Remote Sensing: The Exploration of > >> Extraterrestrial Bodies�, nasa.gov (accessed online: May 26, 2010). > >> > >> Dr. Williams, David R.� Planetary Fact Sheets�, nasa.gov (January, > >> 2005); accessed online: May 26, 2010. > > > >Thanks for posting this. The cognitive dissonance created in the minds > >of true believers of the "greenhouse effect" is papable. > The sock-puppetry is embarrasingly obvious. Painfully so. I hope you > are being paid for this, because the idea that you are doing this to > make some kind of point is alarming. > > I would have given it a pass but I have never seen it this bad before. > It's like getting follow-up unsolicited consumer testimonials > referring to penis enlargement spam email. > > Scientologists do what you are doing. And think they are dion good. I > cannot make it any clearer than that. What really cracks me up with mirth is that without the greenhouse effect Earth would be around 11 degrees Fahrenheit. FUNNY! -- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
From: Desertphile on 30 May 2010 13:04
On Sat, 29 May 2010 19:39:14 -0400, John Vreeland <john.vreeland(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Sat, 29 May 2010 15:35:44 -0700 (PDT), Leon <trotsky(a)hushmail.com> > wrote: > >Thus the success of NASA�s moon landings becomes the proof of the > >unreliability of the Stefan- Boltzmann equations in real world > >science. > What a load of hype. Who writes this stuff? A press release for > crying out loud. ExxonMobil pays $10,000 per article: they said so. If I were a scientist without any ethics or morals, perhaps I would write such press releases also. That's damn good money! > If the ID movement had this kind of funding our kids > would be counting the dinosaurs on the Ark. $10,000 for an hour or two of writing. > The black body calculations were thought of as a good first > approximation. No one expected them to be exactly right. Why do I > feel as if the original author is being disingenuous? Hmmmm? Black body calculations are idealized: no scientist expects the calculations to be 100% accurate. > News Flash: Climate science has moved on since 1960. Actually, I'm > not sure it even existed in 1960. Everyone was too busy talking about > the weather. -- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz |