Contradicting Greenhouse Gas Theory
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Physicists make not just magical particles, but doubly-magical particles
Next: the life within us all
From: John Vreeland on 28 May 2010 12:22 On Fri, 28 May 2010 00:33:43 -0700 (PDT), Nick <prochemica(a)hushmail.com> wrote: >Thanks for posting this. Why? It's bonzo-spam; did you read it? I don't think he did ether. >HISTORICAL FOOTNOTE: > >The Stefan-Boltzmann law is derived by integration of the Planck law. >See: >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann and >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law > >These laws apply in small laboratory experiments (planets are not >small). No. Whatever made you think that? Plank's Law is a general law that is independent of size, which you would have noticed right away if you had looked at those links you posted. Black body spectral radiation depends on temperature only. It's a pretty basic rule well-covered in undergrad classes. It's certainly discussed in high school, too. It applies to stars, black holes galaxies, galaxy clusters---even the universe as a whole. It certainly applies to tiny objects like planets. -- 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: Just A Guy on 29 May 2010 04:03 On May 27, 8:04 pm, "B , O , N , Z , O" <n...(a)oob.com> wrote: > Apollo Mission: A Giant Leap Contradicting Greenhouse Gas Theory > May 26, 2010 John O'Sullivan > > 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 incorrectly assumed > Earth's "average" temperature all along. > > The study questions the numeric bedrock of the greenhouse gas theory > (GHG) by applying data collected by NASA decades ago. It seems during > the Apollo Moon landings era NASA devised a whole new set of hitherto > unreported equations, more reliable than those relied upon by supporters > of the GHG theory, to get Neil Armstrong's carbon boot prints safely > planted on that airless Sea of Tranquility. > > 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 researchers had the bright idea of > delving back into NASA's archives to test the "Stefan-Boltzmann" > equations in fine detail. The three men stumbled on the apparent flaws > during an online debate on the science behind global warming. > > Published online on May 24, 2010, the study argues that the flaw has > always lain in Stefan-Boltzmann's equations. The long-trusted formula > has been used by climatologists without question-until now. The > researchers report that the numbers used in those equations are the"first > assumption that climate science makes when predicting the Earth's > temperature." > > NASA Abandoned Flawed Climate Calculations in 1960's > Siddons, Hertzberg and Schreuder were astonished to find that "the > principal method for predicting a planet's temperature is surprisingly > arbitrary and simplistic." That was, they believe, why NASA needed to > set aside the blackbody equations when doing their own calculations for > the Moon landings. > > To climate sceptic scientists it seems self-evident that the Earth's > 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 Sun's light and energy. But, despite > the U.S. government knowing since the 1960's that the blackbody > equations were of no use to real-world science, these facts don't appear > to have been passed on to climatologists. > > Lunar Temperatures Cast Doubt on Climate Theory > NASA had found that daytime 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 empirical fact that > challenges the GHG theory. Computer models supporting GHG theory had > predicted that such heat energy would be 'blanketed' above a planet's > surface. > > 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. > > Thus the success of NASA's moon landings becomes evidence against the > unreliability of the Stefan- Boltzmann equations in real world science. > > Stefan-Boltzmann Calculations Way Out > The paper tells us how far out Stefan-Boltzmann's equations could be, > "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 isn't just Earth's Moon that doesn't support the GHG theory. > Other planets don't 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, "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 Earth's Moon) to store > heat makes all such blackbody estimates questionable. > > Along with the Climategate revelations, these new findings contradict > the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has placed > enormous reliance on catastrophic predictions based on research around > greenhouse gas theory that has now been called into question. Even some > IPCC scientists have denounced the theory. > > Are Climate Equations Mere Junk Science? > Some may be, if this analysis of NASA's Apollo numbers is correct. The > Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody equations failed to give NASA the crucial > information it required on the Moon's 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. > > NASA no longer shows any 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. > > If guesstimates were not good enough for NASA, concerned for the safety > of its astronauts, then they should be questioned by the IPCC and world > governments proposing billion-dollar cap and trade taxes on western > nations. > > Read more at Suite101: Apollo Mission: A Giant Leap Contradicting > Greenhouse Gas Theoryhttp://climatology.suite101.com/article.cfm/apollo-mission-a-giant-le... > > Warmest Regards > > Bon_0 > > "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps > US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists > worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct > from natural variation." > Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville Thanks for posting this. The Greenhouse hypothesis (radiative energy transport theory) works best on the moon where there is no atmosphere. In Greenhouse theory, the thermodynamic properties of atmospheres are ignored only its optical properties are considerd. How often are we told about "heat trapping greenhouse gases"? A gas is subject to convenction and cannot "trap heat". Greenhouse theory is a hoax
From: John Vreeland on 29 May 2010 18:32 On Sat, 29 May 2010 01:03:34 -0700 (PDT), Just A Guy <JustAG(a)hushmail.com> wrote: > >The Greenhouse hypothesis (radiative energy transport theory) works >best on the moon where there is no atmosphere. In Greenhouse theory, >the thermodynamic properties of atmospheres are ignored only its >optical properties are considerd. How often are we told about "heat >trapping greenhouse gases"? A gas is subject to convenction and cannot >"trap heat". Greenhouse theory is a hoax Convection accelerates heat transfer, but not infinitely. The claim that "A gas is subject to convenction and cannot trap heat" is almost completely wrong. The primary mode of transfer from earth's surface to space is still primarily radiation. You can judge this yourself by comparing the outside temperature after both clear and cloudy nights. Clear nights are much colder as clouds tend to reflect heat back to the surface. Besides, most heat is stored in the ocean and does not convect to outer space. As an aside, are JustAGuy and the others real persons? He sounds like one of those hired pnoney "grass roots" commenters. I've known devout and hyper-annoying Evangelical Christians who did not match that tone of superciliousness. Am I smelling a sock puppet? -- 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: Last Post on 30 May 2010 13:37
On May 30, 12:37 pm, Desertphile <desertph...(a)invalid-address.net> wrote: > On Sat, 29 May 2010 01:03:34 -0700 (PDT), Just A Guy > > <Jus...(a)hushmail.com> wrote: > > The Greenhouse hypothesis (radiative energy transport theory) works > > best on the moon where there is no atmosphere. > > ROTFL! Oh, man, that's hilarious! Thank you for the amusing quote. > > > In Greenhouse theory, > > the thermodynamic properties of atmospheres are ignored only its > > optical properties are considerd. How often are we told about "heat > > trapping greenhouse gases"? A gas is subject to convenction and cannot > > "trap heat". > > Greenhouse theory is a hoax Ø Desertphile is so negative, his head is facing REAR! 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. |