Saturday, August 10, 2019
Is Anyone Paying Professors to Lie?
As I discuss below, in the nineties the crooked Enron corporation paid purported scientists and environmental groups to claim that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would cause higher temperatures. In the previous post I mentioned that some professors may be so incompetent they actually believe the greenhouse gas myth. Those who have previously accepted money for supporting the myth may be reluctant to admit that they lied. Younger professors may fear punishment by corrupt department heads if they don't support the myth.
Corrupt federal bureaucrats seem to have taken over Enron's role in supporting the global warming scam. Federal bureaucrats bribe professors by paying for projects that claim global warming is a threat.
[Most of this was previously posted. Some of the links may no longer work.].
In the nineties, Enron executives came up with a get rich scheme. Enron owed part of its early success to sulphur dioxide emissions trading. Basically emissions trading was established as a way for some companies to profit from pollution while allowing other companies to continue to produce the chemicals that can cause acid rain.
The Enron Corporation "the Crooked E" , the corrupt firm whose failure should have disproved the myth "too big to fail", but didn't? At the time it was the seventh largest corporation. It's bankruptcy was the largest in history until Lehman Brothers failed. Incidentally, Lehman Brothers was also involved in carbon trading.
Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute, has reported that Enron played a major role in pushing the global warming scam, including establishing the Kyoto Protocals.
Enron had already profited from trading sulfur dioxide credits and saw the potential for even greater profits from trading what would become known as "carbon credits".
The article is the first in a series of articles about those who seek to profit from what Weather Channel founder John Coleman calls "the greatest scam in history."
Solomon states, " The climate-change industry — the scientists, lawyers, consultants, lobbyists and, most importantly, the multinationals that work behind the scenes to cash in on the riches at stake — has emerged as the world’s largest industry. Virtually every resident in the developed world feels the bite of this industry..." which increases the costs of various goods and services.
Enron was an early player beginning early in the administration of Bill Clinton to push for a carbon dioxide trading system. Enron also sought support from environmental groups.
"Between 1994 and 1996, the Enron Foundation donated $1-million to the Nature Conservancy and its Climate Change Project, a leading force for global warming reform, while [Chairman Kenneth] Lay and other individuals associated with Enron donated $1.5-million to environmental groups seeking international controls on carbon dioxide."
According to Solomon, "Political contributions and Enron-funded analyses flowed freely, all geared to demonstrating a looming global catastrophe if carbon dioxide emissions weren’t curbed. An Enron-funded study that dismissed the notion that calamity could come of global warming, meanwhile, was quietly buried."
Enron advised the Clinton administration what to do at the Kyoto Japan Conference in 1997.
To improve its chances for success Enron hired former Environmental Protection Agency regulator John Palmisano to become the company's lead lobbyist as senior director for Environmental Policy and Compliance. Palismano wrote a memo describing the historic corporate achievement that was Kyoto.
“If implemented this agreement will do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring of the energy and natural-gas industries in Europe and the United States,” Polisano began. “The potential to add incremental gas sales, and additional demand for renewable technology is enormous.”
The memo, entitled “Implications of the Climate Change Agreement in Kyoto & What Transpired,” summarized the achievements that Enron had accomplished. “I do not think it is possible to overestimate the importance of this year in shaping every aspect of this agreement,” he wrote. He cited three issues of specific importance to Enron in the climate-change debate: the rules governing emissions trading, the rules governing transfers of emission reduction rights between countries, and the rules governing a gargantuan clean energy fund.
Polisano’s memo expressed satisfaction bordering on amazement at Enron’s successes. The rules governing transfers of emission rights “is exactly what I have been lobbying for and it seems like we won. The clean development fund will be a mechanism for funding renewable projects. Again we won .... The endorsement of emissions trading was another victory for us.”
“Enron now has excellent credentials with many ‘green’ interests including Greenpeace, WWF [World Wildlife Fund], NRDC [Natural Resources Defense Council], German Watch, the U.S. Climate Action Network, the European Climate Action Network, Ozone Action, WRI [World Resources Institute] and Worldwatch. This position should be increasingly cultivated and capitalized on (monetized),” Polisano explained.
Those who believe in Global Warming like to claim that they are opposed by corporate interests in the form of the energy companies. They neglect to mention that the battle isn't against corporations, it is between different groups of corporations. The energy companies are attempting to continue providing energy to consumers. Companies on the other side are merely attempting to create a financial opportunity for themselves as financial parasites who provide nothing to anyone and get rich in return.
Democrats often criticize Republicans for being too close to business. Democrats are just as close to business. They simply favor different businesses.
As William O'Keefe, chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute, puts it: "The American people have had enough of convoluted, indecipherable financial schemes and the opportunists who exploit them. The public is understandably angry about Wall Street's exploitation of Main Street, and yet our political leaders are setting the stage for an
Wednesday, August 7, 2019
College Students Shouldn't Borrow Money to Pay Global Warming Liars
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.
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.
Monday, October 15, 2018
Why Do People Believe Climate Liars?
The self-proclaimed Climate Prophets who claim they can
predict climate years in advance are either deliberately lying or
incredibly stupid. Weather related scientists don't know
enough about the factors that control daily weather to make
more than approximate predictions of short term weather.
How can anyone believe weather scientists can accurately predict
weather decades in advance?
If you look at a Weather Bureau forecast you will notice that if it predicts the possibility of rain the prediction will show the probability of rain as a percentage. The probability of rain might by 20% or maybe 60%. Meteorologists know rain can occur under various conditions. The percentage figure indicates how often it will rain when the conditions are like the conditions predicted for that day
The forecast page will show daily forecasts for a week. If you check the daily forecast you may notice that the daily forecast for a specific day may change as the week progresses. For example, on Saturday you start checking on the forecast for the next Friday and the notice the forecast temperature is 80 F with a 20% chance of rain. The next day the forecast might change to 75 F and a 30% chance of rain. On Tuesday the temperature forecast might change back to 80 F with no rain prediction. On Thursday the Friday temperature forecast might drop to 70 F with a 40% chance of rain.
Meteorologists' forecasts are more accurate than they were 50 years ago and we are far less likely to have to shovel three inches of "party cloudy" off the sidewalk. Forecasts still aren't perfect, but computers can help process the data. Programmers work to improve the accuracy of their models as more data is collected.
The computer programs the Climate Prophets use are of no value because they cannot be tested for accuracy against data.that won't exist for years.
Most people don't understand that scientists are the original Western Civilization con artists. Early "scientists" got money from wealthy nobles by claiming to be working on a way to convert lead into gold. Scientists know other scientists cannot be trusted. Science magazines adopted a peer review process to reduce fraud. Unfortunately. this process is no longer working.
Horace Freeland Judson in his book "The Great Betrayal", "sketches science as a fortress rising out of the mists, focused solely on defending and enriching itself. It might pretend to worship the Goddess Truth but inside, out of sight, it is the God Mammon who is lusted after."
The Climate Prophets pursue checkbook science. The person with the checkbook decides what "science" says. The Prophets can predict anything they want because they know by the time the future gets here people will have forgotten what the prediction was.
If you look at a Weather Bureau forecast you will notice that if it predicts the possibility of rain the prediction will show the probability of rain as a percentage. The probability of rain might by 20% or maybe 60%. Meteorologists know rain can occur under various conditions. The percentage figure indicates how often it will rain when the conditions are like the conditions predicted for that day
The forecast page will show daily forecasts for a week. If you check the daily forecast you may notice that the daily forecast for a specific day may change as the week progresses. For example, on Saturday you start checking on the forecast for the next Friday and the notice the forecast temperature is 80 F with a 20% chance of rain. The next day the forecast might change to 75 F and a 30% chance of rain. On Tuesday the temperature forecast might change back to 80 F with no rain prediction. On Thursday the Friday temperature forecast might drop to 70 F with a 40% chance of rain.
Meteorologists' forecasts are more accurate than they were 50 years ago and we are far less likely to have to shovel three inches of "party cloudy" off the sidewalk. Forecasts still aren't perfect, but computers can help process the data. Programmers work to improve the accuracy of their models as more data is collected.
The computer programs the Climate Prophets use are of no value because they cannot be tested for accuracy against data.that won't exist for years.
Most people don't understand that scientists are the original Western Civilization con artists. Early "scientists" got money from wealthy nobles by claiming to be working on a way to convert lead into gold. Scientists know other scientists cannot be trusted. Science magazines adopted a peer review process to reduce fraud. Unfortunately. this process is no longer working.
Horace Freeland Judson in his book "The Great Betrayal", "sketches science as a fortress rising out of the mists, focused solely on defending and enriching itself. It might pretend to worship the Goddess Truth but inside, out of sight, it is the God Mammon who is lusted after."
The Climate Prophets pursue checkbook science. The person with the checkbook decides what "science" says. The Prophets can predict anything they want because they know by the time the future gets here people will have forgotten what the prediction was.
Friday, October 5, 2018
Carbon Dioxide Sequestering Would Be Insane
The people who want to sequester carbon dioxide (CO2) don't
understand the biosphere. Carbon and oxygen are two of the
most
important elements for biological life. 65% of the
human body is oxygen and 18.5% is carbon. Plants are carbon
structures with the percentage of carbon varying according to
the
type of plant.
The CO2 oxygen cycle is critical to the functioning of the biosphere. Animals exhale CO2 which plants then use to produce the molecules such as sugars and starches that animals use for food. Plants release oxygen into the air which animals inhale and combine with the carbon compounds to grow or perform various body functions.
CO2 is a major source of that carbon that provides the structure for plants. Absorbing CO2 through the leaves allows plants to use their roots for water and minor nutrients, particularly during the initial growth when they don't have extensive root systems. Some plants grow better as the amount of CO2 in the air increases. Some greenhouses use CO2 enrichment equipment to add CO2 to improve plant growth.
Humans are already removing large amounts of carbon from the environment through such actions as construction of wooden buildings and making paper. Much paper and plant wastes are buried in landfills making the carbon unavailable to become part of plants.
The combustion of fossil carbon fuels offsets the removal of carbon from the environment and increases the planet's ability to grow more plants. Adding carbon to the ground to replace carbon in harvested plants isn't as practical as adding carbon to the air in the form of CO2. Converting carbon to a gas allows easy transfer of carbon to places where plants grow.
Plants are normally thought of in terms of their biological function, but they have an important physics function. Plants are the original solar energy storage devices. Globally plants convert huge amounts of solar radiation into the chemical bonds of complex carbon molecules. This process reduces the amount of solar energy converted to heat energy. Thus, increasing CO2 actually leads to lower temperatures rather than higher temperatures.
The molecules plants produce can be extremely long lived. If fossil fuels are ancient plant wastes as is commonly believed, the combustion of fossil fuels releases solar energy stored millions of years ago.
Each CO2 molecule contains 2 oxygen atoms which are essential to animal life because animals breathe oxygen. Burying oxygen would reduce the amount available for humans to breathe and adversely affect human health.
A better way to "get rid" of CO2 would be to encourage plant growth to return the oxygen to the air humans breathe. For example, power plants that produce CO2 could have attached greenhouses to recycle the CO2 into oxygen for humans to breathe and plants to convert to food or fuel.
The CO2 oxygen cycle is critical to the functioning of the biosphere. Animals exhale CO2 which plants then use to produce the molecules such as sugars and starches that animals use for food. Plants release oxygen into the air which animals inhale and combine with the carbon compounds to grow or perform various body functions.
CO2 is a major source of that carbon that provides the structure for plants. Absorbing CO2 through the leaves allows plants to use their roots for water and minor nutrients, particularly during the initial growth when they don't have extensive root systems. Some plants grow better as the amount of CO2 in the air increases. Some greenhouses use CO2 enrichment equipment to add CO2 to improve plant growth.
Humans are already removing large amounts of carbon from the environment through such actions as construction of wooden buildings and making paper. Much paper and plant wastes are buried in landfills making the carbon unavailable to become part of plants.
The combustion of fossil carbon fuels offsets the removal of carbon from the environment and increases the planet's ability to grow more plants. Adding carbon to the ground to replace carbon in harvested plants isn't as practical as adding carbon to the air in the form of CO2. Converting carbon to a gas allows easy transfer of carbon to places where plants grow.
Plants are normally thought of in terms of their biological function, but they have an important physics function. Plants are the original solar energy storage devices. Globally plants convert huge amounts of solar radiation into the chemical bonds of complex carbon molecules. This process reduces the amount of solar energy converted to heat energy. Thus, increasing CO2 actually leads to lower temperatures rather than higher temperatures.
The molecules plants produce can be extremely long lived. If fossil fuels are ancient plant wastes as is commonly believed, the combustion of fossil fuels releases solar energy stored millions of years ago.
Each CO2 molecule contains 2 oxygen atoms which are essential to animal life because animals breathe oxygen. Burying oxygen would reduce the amount available for humans to breathe and adversely affect human health.
A better way to "get rid" of CO2 would be to encourage plant growth to return the oxygen to the air humans breathe. For example, power plants that produce CO2 could have attached greenhouses to recycle the CO2 into oxygen for humans to breathe and plants to convert to food or fuel.
Thursday, October 4, 2018
Global Warming Theory Disproved a Century Ago
The claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) can increase air temperatures by
"trapping" infrared radiation (IR) ignores the fact that in 1909
physicist R.W. Wood disproved the popular 19th Century
thesis that greenhouses stayed warm by trapping
IR. Unfortunately, many people who
claim to be scientists are unaware of Wood's experiment which
was originally published in the Philosophical magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320.
Philosophical Magazine might not sound like the name of a science publication, but a century ago leading scientists published their discoveries in it.
During the early 19th Century many physicists supported the theory postulated by Benjamin Franklin that heat involved some type of fluid. The theory became known as "caloric theory". Joseph Jean Baptiste Fourier's theory that the atmosphere was heated from infrared radiation from the ground was a variation of caloric theory with IR functioning as the "fluid". Fourier believed greenhouses were heated by trapping this radiation.
Physicists in the early 19th Century were attempting to develop theories to explain the nature of atoms and their properties such as heat. Physicists theorized that atoms were the smallest particles of matter.
By the end of the century a new theory of heat, called "kinetic theory", was being developed that suggested heat was the motion, or kinetic energy, of atoms. However, Fourier's theory that IR heated the atmosphere particularly by interacting with carbon dioxide and water vapor continued to have support.
In 1897 J.J. Thompson overturned the popular theory of the atoms being the smallest particles of matter by reporting his discovery of the electron and predicting two other types of charged particles he called protons and neutrons.
Wood was an expert on IR. His accomplishments included inventing both IR and UV (ultraviolet) photography. In 1909 he decided to test Fourier's theory about how greenhouses retained heat.
Wood constructed two identical small greenhouses. The description implies the type of structure a gardener would refer to as a "cold frame" rather than a building a person could walk into.
He lined the interior with black cardboard which would absorb radiation and convert it to heat which would heat the air through conduction. The cardboard would also produce radiation. He covered one greenhouse with a sheet of transparent rock salt and the other with a sheet of glass. The glass would block IR and the rock salt would allow it to pass.
During the first run of the experiment the rock salt greenhouse heated faster due to IR from the sun entering it but not the glass greenhouse. He then set up another pane of glass to filter the IR from the sun before the light reached the greenhouses.
The result from this run was that the greenhouses both heated to about 50 C with less than a degree difference between the two. Wood didn't indicate which was warmer or whether there was any difference in the thermal conductivity between the glass sheet and the rock salt. A slight difference in the amount of heat transfered through the sheets by conduction could explain such a minor difference in temperature. The two sheets probably didn't conduct heat at the same rate.
The experiment conclusively demonstrates that greenhouses heat up and stay warm by confining heated air rather than by trapping IR. If trapping IR in an enclosed space doesn't cause higher air temperature than CO2 in the atmosphere cannot cause higher air temperatures.
The heated air in the greenhouses couldn't rise higher than the sheets that covered the tops of the greenhouses. Heated air outside is free to rise allowing colder air to fall to the ground.
Atmospheric CO2 is even less likely to function as a barrier to IR or reflect it back to reheat the ground or water than the sheet of glass in Wood's greenhouse.
The blackened cardboard in Wood's greenhouses was a very good radiator of IR as is typical of black substances. The water that covers 70% of earth's surface is a very poor radiator and produces only limited amounts of IR as is typical of transparent substances. Water releases heat through evaporation rather than radiation.
The glass sheet provided a solid barrier to IR. Atmospheric CO2 is widely dispersed comprising less than 400 parts per million in the atmosphere. Trapping IR with CO2 would be like trying to confine mice with a chain link fence.
Glass reflects a wider spectrum of IR than interacts with CO2. The glass sheets reflected IR back toward the floor of the greenhouse. CO2 doesn't reflect IR.
At the time of Wood's experiment, it was believed that CO2 and other gas molecules became hotter after absorbing IR.
Four years later Niels Bohr reported his discovery that the absorption of specific wavelengths of light didn't cause gas atoms/molecules to become hotter. Instead, the absorption of specific wavelengths of light caused the electrons in an atom/molecule to move to a higher energy state. After absorption of light of a specific wavelength an atom couldn't absorb additional radiation of that wavelength without first emitting light of that wavelength. He called the amount of energy absorbed and emitted as a "quantum". (Philosophical Magazine Series 6, Volume 26 July 1913, p. 1-25)
Unlike the glass which reflects IR back where it comes from, CO2 molecules emit IR up and sideways as well as down. In the time interval between absorbing and reemitting radiation, CO2 molecules allow IR to pass them by. Glass continuously reflects IR.
Those who claim that CO2 molecules in the atmosphere can cause heating by trapping IR have yet to provide any empirical scientific evidence to prove such a physical process exists. The experiment by R.W. Wood demonstrates that even a highly reflective covering that reflects a broad spectrum of IR cannot cause heating by trapping IR in a confined space. There is no way CO2, which at best only affects a small portion of the IR produced by earth's surface, can heat the atmosphere by trapping IR.
Contrary to the lie repeated in news stories about climate, science doesn't say that CO2 is causing higher temperatures by trapping IR. Empirical science indicates that no such process exists in this physical universe.
Philosophical Magazine might not sound like the name of a science publication, but a century ago leading scientists published their discoveries in it.
During the early 19th Century many physicists supported the theory postulated by Benjamin Franklin that heat involved some type of fluid. The theory became known as "caloric theory". Joseph Jean Baptiste Fourier's theory that the atmosphere was heated from infrared radiation from the ground was a variation of caloric theory with IR functioning as the "fluid". Fourier believed greenhouses were heated by trapping this radiation.
Physicists in the early 19th Century were attempting to develop theories to explain the nature of atoms and their properties such as heat. Physicists theorized that atoms were the smallest particles of matter.
By the end of the century a new theory of heat, called "kinetic theory", was being developed that suggested heat was the motion, or kinetic energy, of atoms. However, Fourier's theory that IR heated the atmosphere particularly by interacting with carbon dioxide and water vapor continued to have support.
In 1897 J.J. Thompson overturned the popular theory of the atoms being the smallest particles of matter by reporting his discovery of the electron and predicting two other types of charged particles he called protons and neutrons.
Wood was an expert on IR. His accomplishments included inventing both IR and UV (ultraviolet) photography. In 1909 he decided to test Fourier's theory about how greenhouses retained heat.
Wood constructed two identical small greenhouses. The description implies the type of structure a gardener would refer to as a "cold frame" rather than a building a person could walk into.
He lined the interior with black cardboard which would absorb radiation and convert it to heat which would heat the air through conduction. The cardboard would also produce radiation. He covered one greenhouse with a sheet of transparent rock salt and the other with a sheet of glass. The glass would block IR and the rock salt would allow it to pass.
During the first run of the experiment the rock salt greenhouse heated faster due to IR from the sun entering it but not the glass greenhouse. He then set up another pane of glass to filter the IR from the sun before the light reached the greenhouses.
The result from this run was that the greenhouses both heated to about 50 C with less than a degree difference between the two. Wood didn't indicate which was warmer or whether there was any difference in the thermal conductivity between the glass sheet and the rock salt. A slight difference in the amount of heat transfered through the sheets by conduction could explain such a minor difference in temperature. The two sheets probably didn't conduct heat at the same rate.
The experiment conclusively demonstrates that greenhouses heat up and stay warm by confining heated air rather than by trapping IR. If trapping IR in an enclosed space doesn't cause higher air temperature than CO2 in the atmosphere cannot cause higher air temperatures.
The heated air in the greenhouses couldn't rise higher than the sheets that covered the tops of the greenhouses. Heated air outside is free to rise allowing colder air to fall to the ground.
Atmospheric CO2 is even less likely to function as a barrier to IR or reflect it back to reheat the ground or water than the sheet of glass in Wood's greenhouse.
The blackened cardboard in Wood's greenhouses was a very good radiator of IR as is typical of black substances. The water that covers 70% of earth's surface is a very poor radiator and produces only limited amounts of IR as is typical of transparent substances. Water releases heat through evaporation rather than radiation.
The glass sheet provided a solid barrier to IR. Atmospheric CO2 is widely dispersed comprising less than 400 parts per million in the atmosphere. Trapping IR with CO2 would be like trying to confine mice with a chain link fence.
Glass reflects a wider spectrum of IR than interacts with CO2. The glass sheets reflected IR back toward the floor of the greenhouse. CO2 doesn't reflect IR.
At the time of Wood's experiment, it was believed that CO2 and other gas molecules became hotter after absorbing IR.
Four years later Niels Bohr reported his discovery that the absorption of specific wavelengths of light didn't cause gas atoms/molecules to become hotter. Instead, the absorption of specific wavelengths of light caused the electrons in an atom/molecule to move to a higher energy state. After absorption of light of a specific wavelength an atom couldn't absorb additional radiation of that wavelength without first emitting light of that wavelength. He called the amount of energy absorbed and emitted as a "quantum". (Philosophical Magazine Series 6, Volume 26 July 1913, p. 1-25)
Unlike the glass which reflects IR back where it comes from, CO2 molecules emit IR up and sideways as well as down. In the time interval between absorbing and reemitting radiation, CO2 molecules allow IR to pass them by. Glass continuously reflects IR.
Those who claim that CO2 molecules in the atmosphere can cause heating by trapping IR have yet to provide any empirical scientific evidence to prove such a physical process exists. The experiment by R.W. Wood demonstrates that even a highly reflective covering that reflects a broad spectrum of IR cannot cause heating by trapping IR in a confined space. There is no way CO2, which at best only affects a small portion of the IR produced by earth's surface, can heat the atmosphere by trapping IR.
Contrary to the lie repeated in news stories about climate, science doesn't say that CO2 is causing higher temperatures by trapping IR. Empirical science indicates that no such process exists in this physical universe.
Is Science Just Another Religion?
[Copy of earlier entry from my general blog.]
A common theme in science fiction involves a highly advanced society in which people no longer understand the basis of science and technology. In such societies science is often just a series of beliefs that are to be accepted without question like in a religion.
The Star Trek episode "Spock's Brain" dealt with a society in which the people had little understanding of anything, even though the women lived in a climate controlled environment underground with sophisticated technology that required Mr. Spock's brain to operate. Installing Spock's brain had required one of the women to put on a machine that temporarily provided her with the knowledge to accomplish the task. After completing the task she forgot everything.
"For the World Is Hollow..." was another such episode with a priestess in charge of the knowledge taking orders from a machine viewed as a god.
Is our society moving in that direction? Is science on our planet becoming just another religion possibly a primitive religion based on a wizard's magic?
Some people who call themselves scientists claim that slight changes in the minor atmospheric gas carbon dioxide (CO2) can affect the temperature of the entire atmosphere.even though CO2 comprises less than 400 parts per million (0.04%) of the atmosphere. That sounds more like magic rather science. That's not the tail wagging the dog. That's a few hairs on the tail wagging the dog. The earth's land and water is the dog and the atmosphere is it's tail.
If the claim by the priests of global warming that what they are doing is accepted practice by modern science, then science has become nothing more than a form of religion. It is based on acceptance of beliefs by faith rather than rigorous examination of physical reality through experimentation and observation.
Real science used to be based on verification through experimentation and observation. Global Warming "science" is based on acceptance of long disproved 19th Century beliefs.
French polymath Jean Baptiste Fourier first suggested that greenhouses were heated by trapping infrared radiation (IR) in the early 19th Century. He then suggested that the atmosphere was heated by gas molecules such as carbon dioxide and water vapor absorbing IR.
Physicist R.W. Wood tested this hypothesis in 1909 with an experiment involving identical greenhouses and demonstrated that the greenhouse that trapped IR was the same temperature as one that didn't trap IR. The experiment disproved Fourier's theory.
Global warming believers rely on consensus which is a political concept not a scientific one. Real scientists rely on facts and will abandon a theory when evidence contradicts the theory. During the 19th Century the consensus among physicists was that atoms were the smallest particles of matter and could not be further divided. They abandoned that consensus when Sir J.J. Thomson demonstrated the existence of the electron and suggested the existence of two other charged particles he called "protons" and "neutrons".
A more recent consensus involved a belief that the human brain stopped developing new cells. Research over the last few decades has demonstrated that the human brain continues to produce new brain cells through it's life.
Real science is mathematically rigorous. Global Warming "science" is mathematically ridiculous. The only evidence for what they call global warming is something called an average global temperature.
“It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth,” according to thermodynamics expert Professor Bjarne Andresen, of the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen. “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, etc. which make up the climate.”
In real science, including the social sciences, averages went out with slide rules. Averages cover up too much information. For example, the numbers "0" and "100" have the same average as the numbers "20" and "80" but if those temperatures represent temperature ranges for different areas, those areas would have different climates.
Real scientists qualify their claims, particularly predictions, because they realize there is still much they don't know. The soothsayers of Global Warming claim there can be no doubts about their explanation and imply they have the gift of prophecy. They claim they can predict what climate will be decades in the future even though they cannot always get tomorrow's weather forecast correct.
Real scientists look for better evidence when people question their theories. The priests of Global Warming treat those who disagree as heretics and call them names like "contrarian" and "denier".
Real scientists are concerned about potential data errors and examine alternate explanations for results. The priests of Global Warming ignore the issue entirely.
They claim global warming has occurred even though they only claim a change in temperature during the 20th Century of about 0.7 C which is a only a 0.25% change. Such a change could easily result from data errors. Accuracy within 0.25% may be possible under controlled laboratory conditions, but is impossible in the diverse locations chosen for temperature measurement.
Investigative weather journalist Anthony Watts has studied the sites used for temperature measurement in the U.S. and discovered equipment next to heat sources such as pavement and air conditioner heat exhausts. Steve McIntyre has reported on the tendency of the HO-83 Hygro-Thermometers used during the 90's at some U.S. stations to produce artificially high readings under some circumstances.
The claim that the priests of global warming are scientists raises doubts about the credibility of science because it implies that all physical sciences are based on beliefs rather than thorough study of physical phenomena. If the recent harsh winters in various parts of the world continue all science will be discredited not just the pseudo science associated with global warming.
Real scientists need to borrow a phrase from Mr. Spock and tell the wizards of global warming to go play with their beads and rattles.
A common theme in science fiction involves a highly advanced society in which people no longer understand the basis of science and technology. In such societies science is often just a series of beliefs that are to be accepted without question like in a religion.
The Star Trek episode "Spock's Brain" dealt with a society in which the people had little understanding of anything, even though the women lived in a climate controlled environment underground with sophisticated technology that required Mr. Spock's brain to operate. Installing Spock's brain had required one of the women to put on a machine that temporarily provided her with the knowledge to accomplish the task. After completing the task she forgot everything.
"For the World Is Hollow..." was another such episode with a priestess in charge of the knowledge taking orders from a machine viewed as a god.
Is our society moving in that direction? Is science on our planet becoming just another religion possibly a primitive religion based on a wizard's magic?
Some people who call themselves scientists claim that slight changes in the minor atmospheric gas carbon dioxide (CO2) can affect the temperature of the entire atmosphere.even though CO2 comprises less than 400 parts per million (0.04%) of the atmosphere. That sounds more like magic rather science. That's not the tail wagging the dog. That's a few hairs on the tail wagging the dog. The earth's land and water is the dog and the atmosphere is it's tail.
If the claim by the priests of global warming that what they are doing is accepted practice by modern science, then science has become nothing more than a form of religion. It is based on acceptance of beliefs by faith rather than rigorous examination of physical reality through experimentation and observation.
Real science used to be based on verification through experimentation and observation. Global Warming "science" is based on acceptance of long disproved 19th Century beliefs.
French polymath Jean Baptiste Fourier first suggested that greenhouses were heated by trapping infrared radiation (IR) in the early 19th Century. He then suggested that the atmosphere was heated by gas molecules such as carbon dioxide and water vapor absorbing IR.
Physicist R.W. Wood tested this hypothesis in 1909 with an experiment involving identical greenhouses and demonstrated that the greenhouse that trapped IR was the same temperature as one that didn't trap IR. The experiment disproved Fourier's theory.
Global warming believers rely on consensus which is a political concept not a scientific one. Real scientists rely on facts and will abandon a theory when evidence contradicts the theory. During the 19th Century the consensus among physicists was that atoms were the smallest particles of matter and could not be further divided. They abandoned that consensus when Sir J.J. Thomson demonstrated the existence of the electron and suggested the existence of two other charged particles he called "protons" and "neutrons".
A more recent consensus involved a belief that the human brain stopped developing new cells. Research over the last few decades has demonstrated that the human brain continues to produce new brain cells through it's life.
Real science is mathematically rigorous. Global Warming "science" is mathematically ridiculous. The only evidence for what they call global warming is something called an average global temperature.
“It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth,” according to thermodynamics expert Professor Bjarne Andresen, of the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen. “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, etc. which make up the climate.”
In real science, including the social sciences, averages went out with slide rules. Averages cover up too much information. For example, the numbers "0" and "100" have the same average as the numbers "20" and "80" but if those temperatures represent temperature ranges for different areas, those areas would have different climates.
Real scientists qualify their claims, particularly predictions, because they realize there is still much they don't know. The soothsayers of Global Warming claim there can be no doubts about their explanation and imply they have the gift of prophecy. They claim they can predict what climate will be decades in the future even though they cannot always get tomorrow's weather forecast correct.
Real scientists look for better evidence when people question their theories. The priests of Global Warming treat those who disagree as heretics and call them names like "contrarian" and "denier".
Real scientists are concerned about potential data errors and examine alternate explanations for results. The priests of Global Warming ignore the issue entirely.
They claim global warming has occurred even though they only claim a change in temperature during the 20th Century of about 0.7 C which is a only a 0.25% change. Such a change could easily result from data errors. Accuracy within 0.25% may be possible under controlled laboratory conditions, but is impossible in the diverse locations chosen for temperature measurement.
Investigative weather journalist Anthony Watts has studied the sites used for temperature measurement in the U.S. and discovered equipment next to heat sources such as pavement and air conditioner heat exhausts. Steve McIntyre has reported on the tendency of the HO-83 Hygro-Thermometers used during the 90's at some U.S. stations to produce artificially high readings under some circumstances.
The claim that the priests of global warming are scientists raises doubts about the credibility of science because it implies that all physical sciences are based on beliefs rather than thorough study of physical phenomena. If the recent harsh winters in various parts of the world continue all science will be discredited not just the pseudo science associated with global warming.
Real scientists need to borrow a phrase from Mr. Spock and tell the wizards of global warming to go play with their beads and rattles.
Tea Partiers Smarter than Democrats
[I am reposting entry from a more general blog.]
The dumbest criticism the Democrats' media sheep make of Tea Party members is that Tea Partiers don't accept the global warming nonsense that most Democrats and their media sheep have fallen for.
Most Tea Party members aren't climate experts, but they are smart enough to recognize a political con when they see one. In business cons, police warn that if something sounds too good to be true it probably is. In political cons, if something sounds too bad to be true it probably is too bad to be true.
Like most con artists, the people attempting to continue Enron's global warming scam try to oversell their claims. The global warming scammers are essentially saying that if we don't stop producing the "evil" gas carbon dioxide God will flood the world like he did in the time of Noah.
Supporters of Enron's global warming scam falsely claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) possesses some magical power to increase the temperature of the atmosphere by interacting with low energy infrared radiation (IR).
In the 90's Enron paid scientists and so called environmental groups to claim that an increase in atmospheric CO2 would cause significant temperature changes even though CO2 comprises less than 0.04% of the atmosphere. Enron even wrote the Kyoto Accords for the Clinton administration.
Enron wanted the opportunity to make a fortune by trading what the company called "carbon credits". Enron had previously made a fortune trading sulfur dioxide credits under a program set up to allow northeastern power plants to continue producing the pollution associated with acid rain.
People who are unfamiliar with science don't understand that western science has long been infected with con artists. In the Middle Ages "Alchemists" obtained money from wealthy nobles by claiming to be working on a method of turning a base metal like lead into gold.
Some of the more popular science scams today involve miraculous medical treatments and machines that use little or no energy.
Today's scientists don't trust each other to be truthful. Science journals require "peer review" of articles to discourage writers from publishing phony results that seem to support their theories. Attorneys in court often question whether a scientist witness has been paid to testify a certain way.
Scientists who have trouble getting money for legitimate research may feel they have no choice but to adjust their research and statements to conform to the desires of the businesses or political organizations that offer them money.
Many of the global warming "scientists" who call themselves "climatologists" lack the qualifications for making such claims. The only qualifications most of them have are for predicting short term weather.
Understanding the way climate changes over time requires a background in astrophysics and the operation of earth's complex energy system as well as an understanding of weather patterns.
The Milankovich cycles are the primary factors causing climate. Changes in the earth's tilt on its axis determine how temperatures change from one season to another. Changes in the sun's output affect short term changes in air temperature .
Those familiar with thermodynamics know that physicist R.W. Wood disproved the claim that greenhouses and the atmosphere stayed warm by reflecting IR.
Those who support the claim if global warming don't talk like scientists.
Real scientists don't use terms like "settled science" or "consensus" when talking about their theories. "Consensus" is a political term not a scientific term Scientists don't rely on consensus because the consensus view has been wrong before. In 1895 the consensus among physicists was that atoms were the smallest particles of matter. The consensus was proved wrong when Sir J.J.Thomson reported his discovery of the electron.
Priests suggest their statements represent matters that are "settled". Real scientists qualify their claims and look for additional tests to make to see if they have missed something. Scientists who believe they may have an accurate model of the nucleus of atoms are using the Hadron Collider to determine if they might have missed something.
I learned in high school that when scientists conduct experiments, they should mention conditions that could reduce the accuracy of results. Those who claim global warming ignore the likelihood that the 0.25% change in temperature during the 20th Century might indicates nothing more than the use of different equipment.
Real scientists use mathematically rigorous methods. The people who claim global warming rely on the mathematically meaningless term called "average global temperature".
Priests use terms similar to "denier" and "contrarian" to describe heretics who question their statements. Scientists provide.the results of experiments and observations to refute critics.
Contrary to the statements of President Barack Obama and various energy companies, there is no such thing as clean energy. Large wind generators kill birds and many believe they are visual pollution. The companies that produce solar cells in China are heavy polluters. Using solar energy to heat water to produce electricity requires large amounts of water.
Carbon dioxide is the most essential molecule in the atmosphere. Plants need it to convert solar energy into the bonds that hold complex carbon molecules together. Humans and other animals then use those carbon molecules for food.
Animals than return part of the carbon to the atmosphere as CO2 to be used by plants to complete the carbon cycle. Unfortunately, humans remove large amounts of plant carbon from the cycle by using plant products for items like clothing and paper in which the carbon isn't returned to the atmosphere. Some unused portions of food products are put in landfills instead of the carbon being returned to the atmosphere. We actually need to use fossil fuels to replace the carbon that we remove from the carbon cycle.
I have various posts on this blog exposing flaws in the global warming scam. I also have a Global Warming, Not Blog that primarily only has global warming type posts.
The dumbest criticism the Democrats' media sheep make of Tea Party members is that Tea Partiers don't accept the global warming nonsense that most Democrats and their media sheep have fallen for.
Most Tea Party members aren't climate experts, but they are smart enough to recognize a political con when they see one. In business cons, police warn that if something sounds too good to be true it probably is. In political cons, if something sounds too bad to be true it probably is too bad to be true.
Like most con artists, the people attempting to continue Enron's global warming scam try to oversell their claims. The global warming scammers are essentially saying that if we don't stop producing the "evil" gas carbon dioxide God will flood the world like he did in the time of Noah.
Supporters of Enron's global warming scam falsely claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) possesses some magical power to increase the temperature of the atmosphere by interacting with low energy infrared radiation (IR).
In the 90's Enron paid scientists and so called environmental groups to claim that an increase in atmospheric CO2 would cause significant temperature changes even though CO2 comprises less than 0.04% of the atmosphere. Enron even wrote the Kyoto Accords for the Clinton administration.
Enron wanted the opportunity to make a fortune by trading what the company called "carbon credits". Enron had previously made a fortune trading sulfur dioxide credits under a program set up to allow northeastern power plants to continue producing the pollution associated with acid rain.
People who are unfamiliar with science don't understand that western science has long been infected with con artists. In the Middle Ages "Alchemists" obtained money from wealthy nobles by claiming to be working on a method of turning a base metal like lead into gold.
Some of the more popular science scams today involve miraculous medical treatments and machines that use little or no energy.
Today's scientists don't trust each other to be truthful. Science journals require "peer review" of articles to discourage writers from publishing phony results that seem to support their theories. Attorneys in court often question whether a scientist witness has been paid to testify a certain way.
Scientists who have trouble getting money for legitimate research may feel they have no choice but to adjust their research and statements to conform to the desires of the businesses or political organizations that offer them money.
Many of the global warming "scientists" who call themselves "climatologists" lack the qualifications for making such claims. The only qualifications most of them have are for predicting short term weather.
Understanding the way climate changes over time requires a background in astrophysics and the operation of earth's complex energy system as well as an understanding of weather patterns.
The Milankovich cycles are the primary factors causing climate. Changes in the earth's tilt on its axis determine how temperatures change from one season to another. Changes in the sun's output affect short term changes in air temperature .
Those familiar with thermodynamics know that physicist R.W. Wood disproved the claim that greenhouses and the atmosphere stayed warm by reflecting IR.
Those who support the claim if global warming don't talk like scientists.
Real scientists don't use terms like "settled science" or "consensus" when talking about their theories. "Consensus" is a political term not a scientific term Scientists don't rely on consensus because the consensus view has been wrong before. In 1895 the consensus among physicists was that atoms were the smallest particles of matter. The consensus was proved wrong when Sir J.J.Thomson reported his discovery of the electron.
Priests suggest their statements represent matters that are "settled". Real scientists qualify their claims and look for additional tests to make to see if they have missed something. Scientists who believe they may have an accurate model of the nucleus of atoms are using the Hadron Collider to determine if they might have missed something.
I learned in high school that when scientists conduct experiments, they should mention conditions that could reduce the accuracy of results. Those who claim global warming ignore the likelihood that the 0.25% change in temperature during the 20th Century might indicates nothing more than the use of different equipment.
Real scientists use mathematically rigorous methods. The people who claim global warming rely on the mathematically meaningless term called "average global temperature".
Priests use terms similar to "denier" and "contrarian" to describe heretics who question their statements. Scientists provide.the results of experiments and observations to refute critics.
Contrary to the statements of President Barack Obama and various energy companies, there is no such thing as clean energy. Large wind generators kill birds and many believe they are visual pollution. The companies that produce solar cells in China are heavy polluters. Using solar energy to heat water to produce electricity requires large amounts of water.
Carbon dioxide is the most essential molecule in the atmosphere. Plants need it to convert solar energy into the bonds that hold complex carbon molecules together. Humans and other animals then use those carbon molecules for food.
Animals than return part of the carbon to the atmosphere as CO2 to be used by plants to complete the carbon cycle. Unfortunately, humans remove large amounts of plant carbon from the cycle by using plant products for items like clothing and paper in which the carbon isn't returned to the atmosphere. Some unused portions of food products are put in landfills instead of the carbon being returned to the atmosphere. We actually need to use fossil fuels to replace the carbon that we remove from the carbon cycle.
I have various posts on this blog exposing flaws in the global warming scam. I also have a Global Warming, Not Blog that primarily only has global warming type posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)