College is too expensive for students to waste money
paying incompetent professors who teach the long discredited belief
that carbon dioxide has a magical power to affect the temperature of
the air. I recognize that some of the
professors who push Enron's global warming scam
are crooked rather than incompetent. The science version
of prostitutes will say science is whatever their employers
want it to be.
The claim that slight changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 could
affect air temperature is based on a primitive early 19th Century
belief that infrared radiation was "heat" and the
atmosphere was heated by trapping it.. Physicists at the
time had only a limited understanding of radiation, heat or
atoms. For example, Jean Baptiste
Joseph Fourier claimed in what is called the "greenhouse
gas theory" that the earth was heated in part by the IR
received from distant stars. Physicists would not learn until late
in the century that heat is the kinetic energy of atoms and atoms
are not the smallest particles of matter.
Radiation doesn't heat the gas molecules in the atmosphere, but may
heat dust and soot particles in the atmosphere. If IR
heated the atmosphere then the high energy IR from the sun would
heat the atmosphere much more than the low energy IR emitted
by the ground. Physicist R. W Wood disproved
Fourier's theory in 1909. He used small greenhouses that were
identical except that one reflected IR and the other was transparent
to IR. There was no significant temperature difference. In
the initial run of the experiment the greenhouse that was
transparent to IR heated faster than the one that reflected IR
because the reflective greenhouse reflected the high energy solar IR
back into space. If CO2 reflects IR then increasing the amount
of atmospheric CO2 should result in more solar IR being reflected
back into space and thus reduced solar heating.
Warmers have yet to provide any proof that the process they talk
about exists. Their pathetic attempt to prove their
theory involves creating a mathematically worthless number they call
"the global average temperature".
The so-called global average temperature "is thermodynamically
as well as mathematically an impossibility,
says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute,
University of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in
collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of
Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph,
Canada."
"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something
as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says,
an expert of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for
a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a
single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the
processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which
make up the climate".
"While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it
is meaningless to talk about a a global temperature for Earth. The
Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just
add up and average."
Even if "the global average temperature" had mathematical value, an
increase couldn't prove an increase in atmospheric CO2 was
responsible. Continued increases in the heat generated
by human activity should be causing an increase in air temperature.
The global warming alarmists don't claim that an increase in
the teracalories of heat humans collectively introduce into the
air each day can cause dangerous global warming. .
Instead they claim that unverified process that involves a gas that
comprises only 0.04% of the atmosphere is the threat.
These people shouldn't be teaching college. They
should be reading fairy tales in a day care center.
A normal person entering a room that is too hot and has a
space heater operating at the highest setting and a small lit
birthday candle would turn off the space heater. The
person would treat the candle as a decorative feature that
didn't add any significant amount of heat. The
alarmist would blow out the CO2 producng candle and ignore the
heater.
Showing posts with label Bjarne Andresen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bjarne Andresen. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 7, 2019
Friday, May 1, 2015
Global Average Temperature Debate - Much Ado About Nothing
The global warming priests have presented no evidence that the
process they claim causes "global warming" exists. They
just illogically claim that any increase in what they call the
"global average temperature" can only result from carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere.
Paul Homewood has recently reported on questionable manipulation of temperature data used to calculate this global average temperature. Anthony Watts has documented problems with temperature data for several years on his blog.
The controversy over the accuracy of the data can be viewed as much ado about nothing because the so-called global average temperature "is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada."
"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says, an expert of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".
"While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average."
Even if the concept of a global average temperature was meaningful, the method of determining it is too primitive to produce a valid average. Instead of using hourly temperatures, they just use the high and low temperature which may not be representative of temperatures during the day. For example, the arrival of a strong cold front late in the day can make the low temperature significantly lower than temperatures during the rest of the day.
Even social scientists have moved away from using broad averages because such averages cover up too much information. For example, social scientists look at the number of people in various age groups instead of the average age. The number of homes with children or with one adult or two adults is used rather than the average household size which always ends up with a fraction of a person. In the last presidential election people talked about the 3% in one income group and the percentage that didn't pay any income tax instead of the per capita income.
A third problem with the climate shaman's obsession with temperatures is that although a temperature decrease would disprove the claim of global warming, a temperature increase would not prove that CO2 was responsible. The global warming preachers routinely commit the logical fallacy "post hoc ergo proper hoc". I learned that basic logic concept in high school English class. The global warming fanatics either didn't learn about the fallacy or don't understand that the fact that A follows B doesn't necessarily mean A causes B.
With their simple minded view of the situation they blithely assume that any temperature increase could only be a result of an increase in CO2. They seemingly cannot understand that they must provide evidence that an increase in CO2 would cause any temperature increase. They ignore the fact that other factors are known to be able to increase air temperature.
The teracalories of heat human activity generates each day would be the most likely cause of any temperature increase that wasn't caused by an increase in the sun's output. Each teracalorie is capable of raising the temperature of a trillion grams of water by 1 Celsius. A teracalorie would raise the temperature of about 4-5 trillion grams of air 1 C.
Except in desert and tropical areas, most of the time the human body has a higher temperature than the air. Automobile engines and other human technology generate sufficient heat to boil water. Many types of air conditioning systems remove heat from the interior of buildings and transfer it outside where it heats the outside air. Some of the heat used to warm the interiors of buildings in cold weather leaks out and heats the outside air.
Paul Homewood has recently reported on questionable manipulation of temperature data used to calculate this global average temperature. Anthony Watts has documented problems with temperature data for several years on his blog.
The controversy over the accuracy of the data can be viewed as much ado about nothing because the so-called global average temperature "is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada."
"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says, an expert of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".
"While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average."
Even if the concept of a global average temperature was meaningful, the method of determining it is too primitive to produce a valid average. Instead of using hourly temperatures, they just use the high and low temperature which may not be representative of temperatures during the day. For example, the arrival of a strong cold front late in the day can make the low temperature significantly lower than temperatures during the rest of the day.
Even social scientists have moved away from using broad averages because such averages cover up too much information. For example, social scientists look at the number of people in various age groups instead of the average age. The number of homes with children or with one adult or two adults is used rather than the average household size which always ends up with a fraction of a person. In the last presidential election people talked about the 3% in one income group and the percentage that didn't pay any income tax instead of the per capita income.
A third problem with the climate shaman's obsession with temperatures is that although a temperature decrease would disprove the claim of global warming, a temperature increase would not prove that CO2 was responsible. The global warming preachers routinely commit the logical fallacy "post hoc ergo proper hoc". I learned that basic logic concept in high school English class. The global warming fanatics either didn't learn about the fallacy or don't understand that the fact that A follows B doesn't necessarily mean A causes B.
With their simple minded view of the situation they blithely assume that any temperature increase could only be a result of an increase in CO2. They seemingly cannot understand that they must provide evidence that an increase in CO2 would cause any temperature increase. They ignore the fact that other factors are known to be able to increase air temperature.
The teracalories of heat human activity generates each day would be the most likely cause of any temperature increase that wasn't caused by an increase in the sun's output. Each teracalorie is capable of raising the temperature of a trillion grams of water by 1 Celsius. A teracalorie would raise the temperature of about 4-5 trillion grams of air 1 C.
Except in desert and tropical areas, most of the time the human body has a higher temperature than the air. Automobile engines and other human technology generate sufficient heat to boil water. Many types of air conditioning systems remove heat from the interior of buildings and transfer it outside where it heats the outside air. Some of the heat used to warm the interiors of buildings in cold weather leaks out and heats the outside air.
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Global Warming and the Great Pumpkin
After watching last Halloween's broadcast of "It's the
Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown", I realized that Linus van Pelt
is like those who preach global warming. Linus
doesn't let the failure of the Great Pumpkin to appear destroy his
belief that the Great Pumpkin exists. Similarly,
the climate shaman who preach global warming won't let colder
than normal winter weather in recent years destroy their belief that
someday their "Great Pumpkin" will rise from the pumpkin patch and
distribute warming throughout the world.
When I started examining the claims about global warming I was surprised by the total lack of any scientific basis for the claim that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide could raise the temperature of the air. The idea that a gas that is only 0.04% of the atmosphere could determine atmospheric temperature sounds more like magic than science. The false belief that heat in greenhouses and the atmosphere involved the trapping of low energy infrared radiation developed at a time when scientists falsely believed atoms were the smallest particles of matter. Many believed Benjamin Franklin's theory that heat involved some mysterious "fluid". they called "caloric"
For those not familiar with the "Great Pumpkin..." program, Linus van Pelt is a little boy in the "Peanuts" comic strip which is available at Gocomics.com. A recurring story line is his long standing belief that on Halloween the Great Pumpkin will rise from a sincere pumpkin patch and distribute toys. On this particular Halloween he convinces Sally Brown, who considers him her "sweet babboo", to sit in the pumpkin patch with him. She is mad when the Great Pumpkin doesn't appear. However, Linus is undeterred in his belief that the Great Pumpkin will eventually appear. In the comic strip Linus is occasionally shown waiting in the pumpkin patch on Halloween. Sometimes he will persuade someone else to wait with him
I decided to wait until winter to write about the subject so everyone but global warming shaman would recognize that global warming. is as much a myth as the Great Pumpkin. Near and subfreezing weather
occurred frequently in the continental U.S. except for Florida, California, and small parts of Texas, Arizona and the coasts of Oregon and Washington. For example, on the morning of January 8 subfreezing temperatures extended south into the atmosphere over the northern Gulf of Mexico and west from the Atlantic to California and parts of Oregon and Washington. The 20 F line reached through Georgia just north of the border with Florida.
Those who preach the global warning religion act more like religious fanatics than scientists. Real scientists respond to critics by trying to fi nd more facts to support their theories. The global warming preachers respond to criticism with name calling and threats. They use terms such as "denier" and "contrarian" like religious fanatics use the term "heretic", Religious fanatics rely on consensus about beliefs rather than facts.
The claims of empirical science are considered more valid than other claims when the science claims are based upon verification through observation and experimentation. Physicist R.W. Wood tested the claim that trapping infrared radiation helped greenhouses retain heat in 1909 in an experiment that used greenhouses that were identical except that one greenhouse used glass that reflected IR and the other used glass that was transparent to IR . His experiment disproved the theory that "trapping" IR caused the heat in greenhouses or the atmosphere.
Neils Bohr subsequently demonstrated that the process of absorbing and re-emitting specific wavelengths of light by molecules had nothing to do with heating. Instead, the process involved changes in the energy state of the electrons. His calculations indicated that the very small amount of energy involved was what he called a "quantum". The quantum of energy released by CO2 molecules wouldn't be enough to heat anything. The process of absorbing and re-emitting radiation breaks up the radiation instead of trapping it.
Real scientists know that conduction by heated surfaces heats the atmosphere and the air in greenhouses. At any one instant heated objects convert only a fraction of their heat energy to radiation so heat transfer by radiation to other objects is limited. However a heated object in what physicists call "thermal contact" with another object or gases will attempt to heat the other substance to its temperature. The walls and ceiling of a greenhouse hold the heated air inside. Outside the greenhouse gravity holds heated air close to the ground.
Global warming shaman have yet to provide any proof that carbon dioxide or any other gas can cause heating by interacting with electromagnetic radiation. They just demonstrate their ignorance of science and math by claiming a nonsense number they call "average global temperature" proves global warming. More on the average temperature nonsense in my next post.
When I started examining the claims about global warming I was surprised by the total lack of any scientific basis for the claim that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide could raise the temperature of the air. The idea that a gas that is only 0.04% of the atmosphere could determine atmospheric temperature sounds more like magic than science. The false belief that heat in greenhouses and the atmosphere involved the trapping of low energy infrared radiation developed at a time when scientists falsely believed atoms were the smallest particles of matter. Many believed Benjamin Franklin's theory that heat involved some mysterious "fluid". they called "caloric"
For those not familiar with the "Great Pumpkin..." program, Linus van Pelt is a little boy in the "Peanuts" comic strip which is available at Gocomics.com. A recurring story line is his long standing belief that on Halloween the Great Pumpkin will rise from a sincere pumpkin patch and distribute toys. On this particular Halloween he convinces Sally Brown, who considers him her "sweet babboo", to sit in the pumpkin patch with him. She is mad when the Great Pumpkin doesn't appear. However, Linus is undeterred in his belief that the Great Pumpkin will eventually appear. In the comic strip Linus is occasionally shown waiting in the pumpkin patch on Halloween. Sometimes he will persuade someone else to wait with him
I decided to wait until winter to write about the subject so everyone but global warming shaman would recognize that global warming. is as much a myth as the Great Pumpkin. Near and subfreezing weather
occurred frequently in the continental U.S. except for Florida, California, and small parts of Texas, Arizona and the coasts of Oregon and Washington. For example, on the morning of January 8 subfreezing temperatures extended south into the atmosphere over the northern Gulf of Mexico and west from the Atlantic to California and parts of Oregon and Washington. The 20 F line reached through Georgia just north of the border with Florida.
Those who preach the global warning religion act more like religious fanatics than scientists. Real scientists respond to critics by trying to fi nd more facts to support their theories. The global warming preachers respond to criticism with name calling and threats. They use terms such as "denier" and "contrarian" like religious fanatics use the term "heretic", Religious fanatics rely on consensus about beliefs rather than facts.
The claims of empirical science are considered more valid than other claims when the science claims are based upon verification through observation and experimentation. Physicist R.W. Wood tested the claim that trapping infrared radiation helped greenhouses retain heat in 1909 in an experiment that used greenhouses that were identical except that one greenhouse used glass that reflected IR and the other used glass that was transparent to IR . His experiment disproved the theory that "trapping" IR caused the heat in greenhouses or the atmosphere.
Neils Bohr subsequently demonstrated that the process of absorbing and re-emitting specific wavelengths of light by molecules had nothing to do with heating. Instead, the process involved changes in the energy state of the electrons. His calculations indicated that the very small amount of energy involved was what he called a "quantum". The quantum of energy released by CO2 molecules wouldn't be enough to heat anything. The process of absorbing and re-emitting radiation breaks up the radiation instead of trapping it.
Real scientists know that conduction by heated surfaces heats the atmosphere and the air in greenhouses. At any one instant heated objects convert only a fraction of their heat energy to radiation so heat transfer by radiation to other objects is limited. However a heated object in what physicists call "thermal contact" with another object or gases will attempt to heat the other substance to its temperature. The walls and ceiling of a greenhouse hold the heated air inside. Outside the greenhouse gravity holds heated air close to the ground.
Global warming shaman have yet to provide any proof that carbon dioxide or any other gas can cause heating by interacting with electromagnetic radiation. They just demonstrate their ignorance of science and math by claiming a nonsense number they call "average global temperature" proves global warming. More on the average temperature nonsense in my next post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)