tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6380332481433385691.post2309738371536405942..comments2024-01-04T09:33:57.399-05:00Comments on MiltonConservative: Debunking the Greenhouse Gas Theory in Three Simple Steps (from Co2 Insanity.com)BillMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16338116017515403295noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6380332481433385691.post-79342953795036997452013-01-09T07:20:24.960-05:002013-01-09T07:20:24.960-05:00To Dave McRae
A. I didn't write this.
B. Nobod...To Dave McRae<br />A. I didn't write this.<br />B. Nobody says that CO2 does not absorb infrared radiation. I was a spectroscopist. The question is, how does the energy absorbed get released. It is partially by vibrational to translational energy exchange and partly by reradiation in the IR band. BillMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16338116017515403295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6380332481433385691.post-16184007965128745292013-01-09T00:16:20.608-05:002013-01-09T00:16:20.608-05:00This must be satire. Joseph Fourier came up with t...This must be satire. Joseph Fourier came up with the Greenhouse Effect hypothesis in 1823 because the sun is very weak this far out. And since Tyndall in 1859 the evidence to promote the hypothesis to a theory have been coming in. And we now know why we're warmer than the moon.<br /><br />For the fence-sitters, I urge you to check out how a CO2 meter works. Go to the manufactures' websites. It's global warming to can hold in your hand.<br /><br />If it's impossible for you to accept CO2 can absorb IR radiation then .. we should organise you to be hit with a CO2 laser. I'm so keen to see if there is a reality denier field possible so that well you could be right in your alternate universe :)DaveMcRaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00236295657025758519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6380332481433385691.post-31455158185738933872012-10-17T17:36:12.789-04:002012-10-17T17:36:12.789-04:00Troubled to see the phrase "ground breaking&q...Troubled to see the phrase "ground breaking" applied to a paper by Nasif Nahle. Nasif is a mediocre biologist with absolutely no background in physics or climatology. His mathematical prowess is equivalent to about that of a junior high student. Papers of his in the past have been noted to be riddled with the kind of errors that one would hope even a novice wouldn't get wrong, such as using the wrong constant or equation, or not using dimensional (unit) analysis which would have caught his errors with constants/equations. See http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=19833&st=30&#entry320720Baraknnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6380332481433385691.post-12544902092847046692012-07-03T18:18:57.316-04:002012-07-03T18:18:57.316-04:00The warming that is obviously occurring may not be...The warming that is obviously occurring may not be due to the 'Greenhouse Gas' theory. Volcanic sills (underwater lava flows) are far more extensive than in the past. These huge, deep sea sills, arising from the mantle of the earth, bake the oceanic sediment they come in contact with, and release 'vast amounts of greenhouse gases', according to oceanographic institutions. Thus you have a situation where gasses produced by an increase in deep sea heat, aka mantle activity, are being blamed for the warming itself. <br /><br />No doubt humans have added to greenhouse gases to some negligible extent, but we've also added air pollution, which has been proven to cool the earth's temperature by blocking sunlight. If not for this decreased sunlight the earth's temperature would be even hotter at this point. Super-volcanoes (mantle-plume volcanoes) are the end point of this cyclical increase in mantle activity, and cause massive die-offs of planet life at regular intervals.Che Jouberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12023310086079133087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6380332481433385691.post-9011593010977604292012-01-22T19:10:09.186-05:002012-01-22T19:10:09.186-05:00Hi Anon @9:57.
I thought it must be satire when I...Hi Anon @9:57.<br /><br />I thought it must be satire when I read "Yes, the greenhouse effect has now been proven to be a fabrication".<br /><br />I wasn't so troubled by "Carbon dioxide is a coolant" in the first paragraph. Water (or air) can be a coolant. A coolant picks up heat (and is used to move heat from one place to another). So... for example, in my Air Conditioner, air passes through coils carrying coolant, the coolant picks up the heat from the surrounding air, it's moved to another part of the machine where the heat is blown outside my apartment, and the cooled air is blown inside my apartment.<br /><br />CFCs and related materials (like HFCs, PFCs) are powerful greenhouse gases (they are addressed in the Kyoto Protocol). Freon, which was used in our refrigerator, is a powerful greenhouse gas. It doesn't just destroy the Ozone layer. Scientists have recognized this for a long time.<br /><br />I did read the Postma paper. I should perhaps read it again. I'm not an expert, and found it difficult to understand at times. I know very little about thermodynamics, or the concept of a "black body". But from what I see in the blog post here, and comparing it to the paper, I see some potential problems...<br /><br />For example, the blog post says: "In reality it’s now been shown that the atmosphere acts like a coolant of Earth’s surface, which, otherwise, would have a temperature of 121 Degrees Celsius, or 394 Kelvin (K)."<br /><br />Leaving aside the question of whether or not "the atmosphere acts like a coolant" (which, as I suggested above, may be perfectly consistent with current climate science), the Postma paper doesn't quite say that without the earth's atmosphere, the surface :"would have a temperature of 121 Degrees Celsius").<br /><br />The Postma paper says: "Via equations {1} and {3} it can be calculated that a perfect blackbody sphere surrounding the Sun at a radius of one astronomical unit (1 a.u., the distance of the Earth from the Sun) would heat to an equilibrium temperature of 1210C."<br /><br />So the paper says that the earth would have a temperature of 121 degrees celsius if there was no atmosphere.... AND if it were "a perfect blackbody sphere".<br /><br />But the earth is NOT a perfect black body. (It's not a perfect sphere either... but it comes pretty darn close). <br /><br />The paper says that "the blackbody absorbs all the light that strikes it". The paper also says that the earth does NOT absorb all of the light that strikes it. The paper says that "the Earth, including its atmosphere, reflects 30% of incident sunlight".<br /><br />There are surely people more qualified than me out there to comment on the Postma paper. It looks like it wasn't published in a scholarly paper. I wonder what other Scientists think about it... Of course, the paper (and this Blog post) says they aren't to be trusted... so perhaps there's no reason to check...<br /><br />Best,<br />-anon1152Anon1152https://www.blogger.com/profile/04904955680638696334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6380332481433385691.post-10970194393197140212012-01-21T09:57:37.720-05:002012-01-21T09:57:37.720-05:00Anon1152 -- No it is not. Why would you think so?...Anon1152 -- No it is not. Why would you think so? You can check the work of Postma.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6380332481433385691.post-63949841562642899532012-01-20T19:17:41.009-05:002012-01-20T19:17:41.009-05:00I'm really sorry that I have to ask this... (I...I'm really sorry that I have to ask this... (It's not you, it's me)... but... Is this satire?Anon1152https://www.blogger.com/profile/04904955680638696334noreply@blogger.com