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: Leon on 29 May 2010 18:35 Stefan-Boltzmann equations Apollo Mission: a Giant Leap Discrediting Greenhouse Gas Theory By John O'Sullivan Wednesday, May 26, 2010 Researchers have uncovered proof that the Apollo Moon landings required a whole new set of hitherto unreported equations to get Neil Armstrongs carbon boot prints safely onto the Sea of Tranquillity; the ones still relied on today by global warmists to fix Earths average temperature were thus known to be junk by NASA 40 years ago! The paper, A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon is a cogently-argued scientific refutation of the basic equations used by global warming theorists. Apparently, climate scientists may have falsely assumed Earths average temperature all along. The study refutes the numeric bedrock of the greenhouse gas theory (GHG) by applying old NASA data. It seems NASA dumped the equations relied upon by supporters of the GHG theory, to get Neil Armstrongs carbon boot prints safely planted on the Moons Sea of Tranquillity. The paper is co-authored by Martin Hertzberg, PhD, Consultant in Science and Technology, Alan Siddons, a former radiochemist and Hans Schreuder, a retired analytical chemist. The climate researchers had the bright idea of delving back into NASAs archives to test the so- called Stefan-Boltzmann equations in fine detail. The three men stumbled on the embarrassing flaws during an online debate on the science behind global warming. Published online on May 24, 2010, the study argues that the fatal flaw has always lain in Stefan-Boltzmanns equations. The long-trusted formula has been used by climatologists without question-until now. The researchers reveal that guessed at numbers used in equations are the first assumption that climate science makes when predicting the Earths temperature. NASA Abandoned Flawed Climate Calculations in 1960s Siddons, Hertzberg and Schreuder were astonished to find that the principal method for predicting a planets temperature is surprisingly arbitrary and simplistic. That was, they believe, why NASA needed to scorn the blackbody equations when doing their own calculations for the Moon landings. To climate sceptic scientists it seems self-evident that the Earths surface should not be treated like a flat, two-dimensional blackbody. It is more properly a complex spinning sphere with large variability in reflectivity and absorption of the Suns light and energy. But, despite the U.S. government knowing since the 1960s that the blackbody equations were of no use to real-world science, these facts dont appear to have been passed on to climate scientists. A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon is a fillip to global warming sceptics because it proves that super-power scientists can and do get their numbers right when its a matter of life and death. Lunar Temperatures Disprove Climate Theory 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 planets surface. In fact, the Apollo data proves the Moons surface temperatures throughout its two-week night were higher than predicted by the blackbody equations because the moon feeds on the heat it had previously absorbed-contrary to the accepted GHG theory. Thus the success of NASAs moon landings becomes the proof of the unreliability of the Stefan- Boltzmann equations in real world science. Stefan-Boltzmann Calculations Way Out The paper tells us how far out Stefan-Boltzmanns crude equations really are, the surface of the real moon is roughly 20° cooler than predicted by day and 60° warmer by night, the net result being a surface that is 40° warmer than predicted. But it isnt just Earths Moon that refuses to comply with the GHG theory. Other planets dont conform either. As the paper tells us, The atmosphere of every planet in our solar system is also warmer than predicted. The three scientists pointedly ask GHG believers, Is it any surprise, then, that even a relatively simple body like the moon would refuse to conform to such a method? Other scientists have also come out to refute the greenhouse gas theory. Some even go as far as to say the theory actually contravenes the established laws of physics. The Earth is not Unusually Warm The paper concludes that the Earth is not unusually warm. It is the application of the predictive blackbody equation that is faulty and overly simplistic and should not be applied in a real-world context. The proven ability of common substances ( e.g. the Earths Moon) to store heat makes a mockery of all such blackbody estimates. Along with the Climategate revelations these new findings will come as a blow to the beleaguered Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that has placed enormous reliance on catastrophic predictions based on discredited research around greenhouse gas theory. Even some IPCC scientists have denounced the theory. Are Climate Equations Mere Junk Science? It appears so, if this analysis of NASAs Apollo numbers is correct. The Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody equations failed to give NASA the crucial information it required on the Moons day and night temperatures. Thus, NASA scientists had to create their own blackbody sun-angle model to chart the lunar surface temperatures astronauts might encounter. Pointedly, NASA no longer shows any supposed greenhouse gas backradiation in its relevant graphic representation of the energy budget of the Earth. In simple terms, GHG theory may have applied an average temperature method of no more use than a rule of thumb calculation on the back of a cigarette packet. The moral of the story is: if guesstimates were not good enough for NASA concerned for the safety of its astronauts, then why are they good enough for the IPCC or world governments proposing billion-dollar cap and trade taxes on western nations? References: Dr. Gray, Vincent, The Global Warming Scam, tech-know.eu (April 2008); accessed online: May 26, 2010. Hermalyn, Brendan, Radiative Non-Equilibrium at the Lunar Surface, Summer Institute on Atmospheric, Biospheric, Hydrospheric, and Solar and Space Plasma Sciences NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, 2006 (accessed online: May 26, 2010). Hertzberg, Martin Earths Radiative Equilibrium in the Solar Irradiance, Energy and Environment, Vol. 20, No. 1 (2009) pp 83-93. Dr. Hertzberg, M,, Siddons, A & Schreuder, H., A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon? ( May, 24, 2010), accessed online: May 26, 2010. 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.
From: Big fella on 29 May 2010 18:58 On May 29, 3:35 pm, Leon <trot...(a)hushmail.com> wrote: > Stefan-Boltzmann equations > Apollo Mission: a Giant Leap Discrediting Greenhouse Gas Theory > By John O'Sullivan Wednesday, May 26, 2010 > > Researchers have uncovered proof that the Apollo Moon landings > required a whole new set of hitherto unreported equations to get Neil > Armstrongs carbon boot prints safely onto the Sea of Tranquillity; > the ones still relied on today by global warmists to fix Earths > average temperature were thus known to be junk by NASA 40 years > ago! > > The paper, A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon is a cogently-argued > scientific refutation of the basic equations used by global warming > theorists. Apparently, climate scientists may have falsely assumed > Earths average temperature all along. > > The study refutes the numeric bedrock of the greenhouse gas theory > (GHG) by applying old NASA data. It seems NASA dumped the equations > relied upon by supporters of the GHG theory, to get Neil Armstrongs > carbon boot prints safely planted on the Moons Sea of Tranquillity. > > The paper is co-authored by Martin Hertzberg, PhD, Consultant in > Science and Technology, Alan Siddons, a former radiochemist and Hans > Schreuder, a retired analytical chemist. The climate researchers had > the bright idea of delving back into NASAs archives to test the so- > called Stefan-Boltzmann equations in fine detail. The three men > stumbled on the embarrassing flaws during an online debate on the > science behind global warming. > > Published online on May 24, 2010, the study argues that the fatal flaw > has always lain in Stefan-Boltzmanns equations. The long-trusted > formula has been used by climatologists without question-until now. > The researchers reveal that guessed at numbers used in equations are > the first assumption that climate science makes when predicting the > Earths temperature. > > NASA Abandoned Flawed Climate Calculations in 1960s > Siddons, Hertzberg and Schreuder were astonished to find that the > principal method for predicting a planets temperature is surprisingly > arbitrary and simplistic. That was, they believe, why NASA needed to > scorn the blackbody equations when doing their own calculations for > the Moon landings. > > To climate sceptic scientists it seems self-evident that the Earths > surface should not be treated like a flat, two-dimensional blackbody. > It is more properly a complex spinning sphere with large variability > in reflectivity and absorption of the Suns light and energy. But, > despite the U.S. government knowing since the 1960s that the > blackbody equations were of no use to real-world science, these facts > dont appear to have been passed on to climate scientists. > > A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon is a fillip to global warming > sceptics because it proves that super-power scientists can and do get > their numbers right when its a matter of life and death. > > Lunar Temperatures Disprove Climate Theory > 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 > planets surface. > > In fact, the Apollo data proves the Moons surface temperatures > throughout its two-week night were higher than predicted by the > blackbody equations because the moon feeds on the heat it had > previously absorbed-contrary to the accepted GHG theory. > > Thus the success of NASAs moon landings becomes the proof of the > unreliability of the Stefan- Boltzmann equations in real world > science. > > Stefan-Boltzmann Calculations Way Out > The paper tells us how far out Stefan-Boltzmanns crude equations > really are, the surface of the real moon is roughly 20° cooler than > predicted by day and 60° warmer by night, the net result being a > surface that is 40° warmer than predicted. > > But it isnt just Earths Moon that refuses to comply with the GHG > theory. Other planets dont conform either. As the paper tells us, > The atmosphere of every planet in our solar system is also warmer > than predicted. > > The three scientists pointedly ask GHG believers, Is it any surprise, > then, that even a relatively simple body like the moon would refuse to > conform to such a method? > > Other scientists have also come out to refute the greenhouse gas > theory. Some even go as far as to say the theory actually contravenes > the established laws of physics. > > The Earth is not Unusually Warm > The paper concludes that the Earth is not unusually warm. It is the > application of the predictive blackbody equation that is faulty and > overly simplistic and should not be applied in a real-world context. > The proven ability of common substances ( e.g. the Earths Moon) to > store heat makes a mockery of all such blackbody estimates. > > Along with the Climategate revelations these new findings will come as > a blow to the beleaguered Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change > (IPCC) that has placed enormous reliance on catastrophic predictions > based on discredited research around greenhouse gas theory. Even some > IPCC scientists have denounced the theory. > > Are Climate Equations Mere Junk Science? > It appears so, if this analysis of NASAs Apollo numbers is correct. > The Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody equations failed to give NASA the > crucial information it required on the Moons day and night > temperatures. Thus, NASA scientists had to create their own blackbody > sun-angle model to chart the lunar surface temperatures astronauts > might encounter. > > Pointedly, NASA no longer shows any supposed greenhouse gas > backradiation in its relevant graphic representation of the energy > budget of the Earth. In simple terms, GHG theory may have applied an > average temperature method of no more use than a rule of thumb > calculation on the back of a cigarette packet. > > The moral of the story is: if guesstimates were not good enough for > NASA concerned for the safety of its astronauts, then why are they > good enough for the IPCC or world governments proposing billion-dollar > cap and trade taxes on western nations? > > References: > > Dr. Gray, Vincent, The Global Warming Scam, tech-know.eu (April > 2008); accessed online: May 26, 2010. > > Hermalyn, Brendan, Radiative Non-Equilibrium at the Lunar Surface, > Summer Institute on Atmospheric, Biospheric, Hydrospheric, and Solar > and Space Plasma Sciences NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, 2006 > (accessed online: May 26, 2010). > > Hertzberg, Martin Earths Radiative Equilibrium in the Solar > Irradiance, Energy and Environment, Vol. 20, No. 1 (2009) pp 83-93. > > Dr. Hertzberg, M,, Siddons, A & Schreuder, H., A Greenhouse Effect on > the Moon? ( May, 24, 2010), accessed online: May 26, 2010. > > 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.
From: John Vreeland on 29 May 2010 19:39 On Sat, 29 May 2010 15:35:44 -0700 (PDT), Leon <trotsky(a)hushmail.com> wrote: >Stefan-Boltzmann equations >Apollo Mission: a Giant Leap Discrediting Greenhouse Gas Theory >By John O'Sullivan Wednesday, May 26, 2010 > >Researchers have uncovered proof that the Apollo Moon landings >required a whole new set of hitherto unreported equations to get Neil >Armstrong�s carbon boot prints safely onto the Sea of Tranquillity; >the ones still relied on today by global warmists to �fix� Earth�s >�average� temperature were thus known to be junk by NASA 40 years >ago! > .... > >In fact, the Apollo data proves the Moon�s surface temperatures >throughout its two-week night were higher than predicted by the >blackbody equations because the moon �feeds on� the heat it had >previously absorbed-contrary to the accepted GHG theory. > >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. If the ID movement had this kind of funding our kids would be counting the dinosaurs on the Ark. 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? 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. -- My years on the mudpit that is Usnenet have taught me one important thing: three Creation Scientists can have a serious conversation, if two of them are sock puppets.
From: John Vreeland on 29 May 2010 19:54 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. -- My years on the mudpit that is Usnenet have taught me one important thing: three Creation Scientists can have a serious conversation, if two of them are sock puppets.
From: Leonard on 29 May 2010 22:44
On 5/29/10 7:39 PM, in article 7t83061pgefqqldf6l66bvh4gkpln2cfsd(a)4ax.com, "John Vreeland" <john.vreeland(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Sat, 29 May 2010 15:35:44 -0700 (PDT), Leon <trotsky(a)hushmail.com> > wrote: > >> Stefan-Boltzmann equations >> Apollo Mission: a Giant Leap Discrediting Greenhouse Gas Theory >> By John O'Sullivan Wednesday, May 26, 2010 >> >> Researchers have uncovered proof that the Apollo Moon landings >> required a whole new set of hitherto unreported equations to get Neil >> Armstrong�s carbon boot prints safely onto the Sea of Tranquillity; >> the ones still relied on today by global warmists to �fix� Earth�s >> �average� temperature were thus known to be junk by NASA 40 years >> ago! >> > ... > >> >> In fact, the Apollo data proves the Moon�s surface temperatures >> throughout its two-week night were higher than predicted by the >> blackbody equations because the moon �feeds on� the heat it had >> previously absorbed-contrary to the accepted GHG theory. >> >> 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. If the ID movement had this kind of funding our kids > would be counting the dinosaurs on the Ark. > � Bullshit!!!! ����� There are three types of people that you can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil. 1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the logic of what you say. You have to tell them what is right in very simple terms. If they do not agree, you will never be able to change their mind. 2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes against their religious belief, they will cling to that belief even if it means their death. 3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a million years. There is no way to convince the anthropogenic_global_warming_alarmists, the terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and predators to change their evil ways, They knew what they were doing was wrong, but knowledge didn't stop them. It only made them more careful in how they went about performing their evil deeds. |