Letters: Misconceptions about global warming
Full story: Silver City Sun-News
Once again we encounter misconceptions about Earth's climate system . First, the letter propagates the idea that the sun is the principal cause of global warming.
Comments
|
I just read about Solarbotanic having a good solution for global warming and taking out CO2 and other pollutants from the air, there is hope something sustainable will come to the market after all.
|
||||
|
Judged: 
3 
3 
2 "First, the letter propagates the idea that the sun is the principal cause of global warming. This is a belief with little foundation." http://www.scsun-news.com/ci_13396384 What a HOOT! The SUN is the ONLY source of energy for the Earth! If the Sun was removed, the Earth would quickly cool to a temperature near absolute zero. The Earth and the Earth's atmosphere IS NOT AN ENERGY SOURCE! And, CO2 is NOT AN ENERGY SOURCE! A few years ago I decided to investigate the AGW "science". After reading a number of papers on the subject, it was obvious that there was absolutely no science that supported the AGW theory. In fact, the AGW theory violated many Laws of Science and actual measurements. AGW theory relies on heat flowing from a colder atmosphere (-20 deg C average) to a warmer Earth (+15 deg C) and heating it. The AGW'ers also said that the Sun, the ONLY energy source, was totally dismissed as a cause of the Earth's temperature. In the process energy is assumed to be created by the Earth and atmoshere (which are not energy sources). All you have to do is open any Physics text book and read three fundamental Laws of Science: 1. The Law of Conservation of Energy basically states that "Energy cannot be created or destroyed". 2. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics basically states that "Energy can only flow from Hot to Cold objects". 3. The Stephan-Boltzmann Law basically shows that "Objects that absorb energy will increase in temperature and radiate all the energy it absorbed" These three simple Laws of Science are all that is required to completely falsify the AGW theory. When you couple this with the fact that there are ZERO Laws of Science and ZERO measurements that support AGW theory, one quickly realizes that belief in AGW is on par with belief in the Tooth Fairy. That's why you AGW'ers are best described as Cult Members. The best CURE is to read the above three Laws of Science and accept them, as all 'rational' people do. |
||||
|
Judged: 
1
1 
1 |
||||
|
Gord,
As correct as you are about the sun being principle to life, I would disagree that the Earth is not a source of heat. From volcanic activity we can conclude the interior of the Earth has heat well beyond man's ability to survive it. The Earth's heat is of the same origination as the sun in that gravity has collapsed matter into a ball of fire, the sun's mass large enough to ignite fusion, Jupiter not so much, and Earth quite less. But the Earth is it's own source of heat and if it were not, the sun would be just as happy if our Earth were a solid frozen ball. And since the article talks about it global warming, we know we are talking about the reletive change in temperature from where it was yesterday to where it is today. You'll find no argument from me that when the sun switchs from hydrogen to helium the Earth will go up in smoke, and that the sun is vital to Earth ecosystems, but a stable sun across the millenia has resulted in symbiotic relationship[s which would not exist is the sun went semi-nova every 20,000 years. Because there is evolved life, there is an argument that the sun is stable, and has been for many millions of years, which means your deflection isn't relevant. The three laws of Physics you listed really make no point in the argument. Because a body absorbs heat and will eventually radiate that heat doesn't help if it takes millions of years because the living systems that evolved in that temperature range will have to adapt or perish. Heat that used to be reflected from ice cover is instead being buried in the ocean, raising its temperature, and eventually that heat will radiate, but will take centuries instead of what used to be the radiative rate. And the argument about water vapour is very relevant, water vapour is 75% more heat trapping than CO2, and creating an environment for more heat trapping will only slow down the rate of radiative cooling across the century. Lastly, using the word "hoot" and talking about climate science as a religion is button pushing for weak sheeple. It works, and those sheep you are swaying are making science an emotional decision because you associate it with religion and comedy. That pretty much makes your observations suspect entirely. |
||||
|
Linda Keller...what don't YOU understand. You are not the selected representative who speaks for everybody.
|
||||
|
Judged:
1
1
1 http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin... Yes, there are other sources of energy besides the Sun, like volcanic activity. However, these sources of energy are totally dismissed by the AGW WACKO's. The article also totally dismisses the Sun as a cause of Earth warming! Letters: Misconceptions about global warming "First, the letter propagates the idea that the sun is the principal cause of global warming. This is a belief with little foundation." http://www.scsun-news.com/ci_13396384 This is a totally FALSE and ABSURD statement. Like I said, "If the Sun was removed, the Earth would quickly cool to a temperature near absolute zero.". And, your unconnected statements like the Sun not going semi-nova every 20,000 years is just an attempt to deflect attention from this obviously true fact. ---------- You said... "Because there is evolved life, there is an argument that the sun is stable, and has been for many millions of years, which means your deflection isn't relevant." Well, let's look at Earth temperatures over millions of years and see how stable the Sun actually was: The Past and Future of Climate http://climatepolice.com/Past_Future_climate.... See Fig.9 Climate over Geologic Time. It is clear that max Average Global Temperatures of +22 deg C existed over 50 to 600 million years ago. It is also clear that there were Ice Ages happening during this time period as well. And, there is absolutely no correllation between Atmospheric CO2 (CO2 ranged between about 350ppm to 7000ppm) and Earth Temperatures. Since, the average Earth temperature is now about +15 deg C, it is apparent that the Earth has been in a long term COOLING trend for the past 50 Million years! ----- Now see Fig.7 The Last Four Ice Ages. The Earth temperature swings about 12 deg C from Max to Min and CO2 "Follows" the temperature swings by about 800 years. The Earth's Oceans take about 800 years to fully reflect the Earth surface temperatures and CO2 is released or absorbed accordingly. Atmospheric CO2 does not Cause warming, it is an Effect of warming! ----- Look at Figure 5. 1990 IPCC Chart of the Medieval Warm Period - Little Ice Age The AGW'ers say that the Earth has unusually warmed over the last 100 years. Well, 800 years ago it was 1209 AD and 900 years ago it was 1109 AD. You can easily see that the period between 1109 AD to 1209 AD corresponds to the rise in temperature of the Medieval Warm Period. In fact, 800 years ago (1209 AD) is at the Peak of the Medieval Warm Period and that is what is affecting Ocean temperatures today. PS: Do you understand that warm Ocean (covering 70% of the Earth's surface) water can heat air and melt Ice? ----- The SUN was and is the Primary energy source for heating and cooling the Earth. The SUN produced an average Earth temperature swing from +22 deg C down to about +6 deg C !...and with a current +15 deg C temp, we are right in the middle of this swing. And, CO2 was not a CAUSE OF WARMING FOR THE EARTH'S SURFACE! ---------- continued... |
||||
|
Judged:
1
1 
1 You said... "The three laws of Physics you listed really make no point in the argument. Because a body absorbs heat and will eventually radiate that heat doesn't help if it takes millions of years because the living systems that evolved in that temperature range will have to adapt or perish." Like I said... "The SUN produced an average Earth temperature swing from +22 deg C down to about +6 deg C !...and with a current +15 deg C temp, we are right in the middle of this swing." But, it is apparent that the Earth has been in a long term COOLING trend for the past 50 Million years! ---- You said... "Heat that used to be reflected from ice cover is instead being buried in the ocean, raising its temperature, and eventually that heat will radiate, but will take centuries instead of what used to be the radiative rate." The rate is and was 800 years. ---- You said... "And the argument about water vapour is very relevant, water vapour is 75% more heat trapping than CO2, and creating an environment for more heat trapping will only slow down the rate of radiative cooling across the century." The colder atmosphere does not "trap" heat energy and it CANNOT heat a warmer Earth. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics basically states that "Energy can only flow from Hot to Cold objects". AGW theory relies on heat flowing from a colder atmosphere (-20 deg C average) to a warmer Earth (+15 deg C) and heating it. This is an obvious violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Only the Oceans can store heat energy. The current Ocean temperature was caused by the Medieval Warm period. The average Ocean temp at the equator is about +29 deg C and overall average Ocean temp is about +18.7 deg C. PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY See the Sea Surface Temperature (Mean)(2nd row first graph) for the Ocean temperature at the equator. (If you take the area under the curve with AutoCad the average temp occurs at a 40 deg latitude and the temperature is 18.7 deg C.) http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/geology/hh1996/o... This is just like putting a large pot of water (Ocean) on a stove burner (Sun). As the water temperature rises it will heat the air (atmosphere) above the pot. The hot water heated by the SUN heated the atmosphere...the atmosphere DID NOT heat the water! You have to get Cause and Effect right! ---- You said... "Lastly, using the word "hoot" and talking about climate science as a religion is button pushing for weak sheeple. It works, and those sheep you are swaying are making science an emotional decision because you associate it with religion and comedy. That pretty much makes your observations suspect entirely." AGW is a HOOT! - AGW theory relies on heat flowing from a colder atmosphere (-20 deg C average) to a warmer Earth (+15 deg C) and heating it. - The AGW'ers also said that the Sun, the ONLY energy source, was totally dismissed as a cause of the Earth's temperature. - In the process energy is assumed to be created by the Earth and atmoshere (which are not energy sources). All you have to do is open any Physics text book and read three fundamental Laws of Science: 1. The Law of Conservation of Energy basically states that "Energy cannot be created or destroyed". 2. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics basically states that "Energy can only flow from Hot to Cold objects". 3. The Stephan-Boltzmann Law basically shows that "Objects that absorb energy will increase in temperature and radiate all the energy it absorbed" These three simple Laws of Science are all that is required to completely falsify the AGW theory. When you couple this with the fact that there are ZERO Laws of Science and ZERO measurements that support AGW theory, one quickly realizes that belief in AGW is on par with belief in the Tooth Fairy. That's why you AGW'ers are best described as Cult Members that totally deny the validity of established Laws of Science. |
||||
|
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_wa...
I address the current climate change science in an easy to read style on the Website linked above. Content is added daily or weekly. I hope you learn something from my site. |
||||
|
Judged:
1 
1
1 Are Gord's questions answered there? I'm getting tired of reading them, but only because none of the warmist, alarmist scientists here have been able to come up with an answer. BS and bafflegab is all they know. |
||||
I found this on your site: Impact of Greenhouse Gases "The greenhouse effect from natural greenhouse gas concentrations prior to the Industrial Revolution has kept the Earth's surface about 33 oC warmer than with an atmosphere with no greenhouse gases." http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_wa... That's great because it directly relates to a question I have repeatedly asked the AGW'ers on Topix. Here is a re-post of the question: ---------- Here are some AGW statements found in ALL AGW literature: Greenhouse effect "In the absence of the greenhouse effect and an atmosphere, the Earth's average surface temperature of 14 deg C (57 deg F) could be as low as -18 deg C (-0.4 deg F), the black body temperature of the Earth." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effec... Earth's Atmosphere Functions of the Atmosphere "Makes possible a mean temperature on Earth's surface of +15 deg C instead of -18 deg C as would be without atmosphere." http://www.kowoma.de/en/gps/additional/atmosp... The Greenhouse Effect "Scientists have long known that the presence of an atmosphere keeps the surface of the planet warmer than it would be without an atmosphere. In fact, without an atmosphere, the surface of the earth would be about 30 degrees Celsius cooler than it is now!" http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Experiments/... Here is how the -18 deg C Earth temp is calculated: TE = TS (((1-a)^0.5 * Rs)/(2*D))^0.5 Where TE is blackbody temp of the Earth in K TS is the surface temp of the SUN in K = 5778 Rs is radius of the Sun = 6.96X10^8 D is distance between the Sun and Earth in m = 1.496X10^11 a is albedo of the Earth = 0.3 Gives TE = 254.90 K or -18.25 deg C http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body ------ Summary: 1. The Sun (the only energy source) only heats the Earth to -18 deg C. 2. The Earth has an average temperature of +15 deg C. 3. The AGW CULT says the "Greenhouse Effect" produced a 15+18 =+33 deg C rise in the temp of the Earth. "Please describe how the Earth temperature can rise from -18 deg C to +15 deg when the ONLY energy source, the SUN, only provides for a temp of -18 deg C and the atmosphere average temp is -20 deg C ??? Remember to include LINKS TO THE PHYSICS when spouting your "Cultish Rant". After all, with over $200 Billion spent on this CRAP and thousands of "scientific" papers written on this junk science...This should be no problem....right?" Come on, answer the question! |
||||
|
Gord,
I appreciate that, as a skeptic, you visited my site. Thank you for not closing your eyes. I do not mean to be sarcastic but do you really think the thousands of scientists who study the various fields related to climate change do not understand basic physics? The "effective" temperature of the Earth's surface (TE) you calculated will be reached when the incoming heat equals the outgoing heat. In the absence of an atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the surface would warm during the day not much differently than now (if we igonre clouds and other aerosols) but then lose a tremendous amount of heat back to space at night. The effective temperature is the average between these two so the much cooler nights (winters) lower the effective temperature. With an atmosphere with greenhouse gases, some of this outgoing heat will be trapped. There is less heat loss during the day and night but it would be most notable at night. So the average temperature at the surface ends up 33C warmer mostly because of the night heat trapping. In fact, we have already seen that the increased greenhouse gases are causing warmer winters at a greater rate than any warming in the summer. Your links and equations are fine. I think you may have confused effective temperature because you were thinking about only the incoming radiation and then only for the daylight times. |
||||
|
Judged:
1
1
1 ---------- My Question was: "Please describe how the Earth temperature can rise from -18 deg C to +15 deg when the ONLY energy source, the SUN, only provides for a temp of -18 deg C and the atmosphere average temp is -20 deg C ??? Remember to include LINKS TO THE PHYSICS. ---------- You said.... "Your links and equations are fine. I think you may have confused effective temperature because you were thinking about only the incoming radiation and then only for the daylight times." No, there was no confusion about any of that! I first want to clarify the development of the equation used for TE: You can see the development of the following equation here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body The Solar Radiation received by the Earth (modelled as a disk, a projection of a sphere onto a 2D plane) represents an average flux density over the entire spherical surface facing the Sun. This quantity is called PEabs, the average solar energy absorbed by the Earth facing the Sun. The emitted energy uses the Earth as a sphere. This is called PEemt. The two quantities are then equated and this equation is the result: TE = TS (((1-a)^0.5 * Rs)/(2*D))^0.5 So this equation represents the Solar Energy received by a disk Earth facing the Sun and emitted by a fully spherical Earth. TE is an average Night and Day temperature in absence of an atmosphere. (actually that is incorrect because it uses 0.3 as an albedo which is largely due to cloud reflections, but let's ignore that) ---------- The major point here is: TE is an average Night and Day temperature of the Earth's surface in absence of an atmosphere. TE = 254.9 K or -18.25 deg C and is produced by the SUN, the ONLY ENERGY SOURCE. ---------- You said... "The effective temperature is the average between these two so the much cooler nights (winters) lower the effective temperature." The equation developed has no Earth tilt associated with it. There is no "winter" or "summer". ---------- You said.... "With an atmosphere with greenhouse gases, some of this outgoing heat will be trapped. There is less heat loss during the day and night but it would be most notable at night. So the average temperature at the surface ends up 33C warmer mostly because of the night heat trapping." Wrong! We are dealing with an AVERAGE Night and Day temperature for the Earth's surface of -18 deg C. You also have to use an AVERAGE atmospheric temperature as well and that is -20 deg C. (Hell, even if you use "night heat" trapping, the Earth would be colder than -18 deg C and produce less atmospheric heating.) continued.. |
||||
|
Judged:
1
1
1 Now, there is ONLY ONE ENERGY SOURCE, the SUN, and it only provides for a -18 deg C Earth temperature. The Atmosphere is NOT an energy source and it's average temperature is -20 deg C! How can the -20 deg C Atmosphere trap energy from a -18 deg C Earth and warm the same Earth up by 33 deg to a whopping +15 deg C ? And, your "answer" was..."So the average temperature at the surface ends up 33C warmer mostly because of the night heat trapping.", it does NOT answer this! The Law of Conservation of Energy states that "Energy cannot be created or destroyed". There is an OBVIOUS VIOLATION of the Law of Conservation of Energy....ENERGY WAS CREATED! Also, your answer implies that a -20 deg C atmosphere is transfering heat to a MUCH warmer Earth!...a VIOLATION of the 2nd Law. “Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.” http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/th... PS: You also forgot to include LINKS TO THE PHYSICS to justify your answer. ---------- Thanks for your response and Please try again. |
||||
|
Judged:
1 
1
1 You are making one fatal assumption: that the sun is the only heat source. Without greenhouse gases, that would be true. With greenhouse gases there are TWO heat sources for the surface: the incoming sun and downwelling IR from greenhouse gases. This is very basic blackbody physics here that has been known since the late 1800s and can be found in every freshman physics text. Svante Arrhenius was the first scientist to show how greenhouse gases kept the Earth warmer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius... Here is a simple tutorial: http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~showman/greenhous... Here is one with illustrations: http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/... |
||||
|
Judged:
1
1
1 Wrong! I have not made ANY fatal assumption. There is ONLY ONE energy source, the SUN. The Sun provides the Solar energy to heat the Earth and the Earth re-radiates the absorbed Solar energy as IR energy. A portion of IR energy radiated by the Earth is absorbed by the atmosphere and that is also re-radiated. ALL the energy absorbed by the atmosphere is a result of the SUN's energy, the ONLY energy source. PROOF: If the Sun were removed the Earth and atmosphere would very quickly cool to near absolute zero. ---------- All Radiative Heat transfer is accomplished by propagating Electomagnetic Fields. Electomagnetic Fields are Vector Fields. Electromagnetic radiation "Electromagnetic waves were first postulated by James Clerk Maxwell and subsequently confirmed by Heinrich Hertz. Maxwell derived a wave form of the electric and magnetic equations, revealing the wave-like nature of electric and magnetic fields, and their symmetry. Because the speed of EM waves predicted by the wave equation coincided with the measured speed of light, Maxwell concluded that light itself is an EM wave." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_... ---- Vector fields "Maxwell's equations allow us to use a given set of initial conditions to deduce, for every point in Euclidean space, a magnitude and direction for the force experienced by a charged test particle at that point; the resulting vector field is the electromagnetic field." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_field ---- With reference to Heat Transfer by Radiation using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law "Radiation is heat transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object." P = e*BC*A(T^4 - Tc^4) Where P = net radiated power (Watts), e = emissivity, BC = Stefan's constant, A = area, T = temperature of radiator and Tc = temperature of the surroundings or another body. ..when rearranged gives P/A = e*BC*T^4 - e*BC*Tc^4 (Watts/m^2) This is an obvious subtraction of two Electromagnetic Fields It also complies with the Vector subtraction of Electromagnetic Fields which are Vectors. The resultant Electromagnetic Field will have a magnitude of P/A and have a direction of propagation in the direction of the larger field. There is absolutely no energy flow from cold to hot, complying with the 2nd Law. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/th... ----- Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics. International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (30 January 2009), 275-364 Notice what is said in the Abstract: "The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system." AND... "According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation." http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161 ---------- Svante Arrhenius did not use or understand Electromagnetic Fields. His paper is OBSOLETE Science. ---------- continued... |
||||
|
Judged:
1
1
1 Here is the link you provided: Tutorial on the Greenhouse Effect- University of Arizona “In this case, the Earth still gains 240 Watts/meter2 from the sun. It still loses 240 Watts/meter2 to space. However, because the atmosphere is opaque to infrared light, the surface cannot radiate directly to space as it can on a planet without greenhouse gases. Instead, this radiation to space comes from the atmosphere. However, atmospheres radiate both up and down (just like a fire radiates heat in all directions). So although the atmosphere radiates 240 Watts/meter2 to space, it also radiates 240 Watts/meter2 toward the ground! Therefore, the surface receives more energy than it would without an atmosphere: it gets 240 Watts/meter2 from sunlight and it gets another 240 Watts/meter2 from the atmosphere — for a total of 480 Watts/meter2 in this simple model.” http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~showman/greenhous... I will also include this link: The Greenhouse Effect “Absorption of longwave radiation by the atmosphere causes additional heat energy to be added to the Earth’s atmospheric system. The now warmer atmospheric greenhouse gas molecules begin radiating longwave energy in all directions. Over 90% of this emission of longwave energy is directed back to the Earth’s surface where it once again is absorbed by the surface. The heating of the ground by the longwave radiation causes the ground surface to once again radiate, repeating the cycle described above, again and again, until no more longwave is available for absorption.” http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals... Both examples violate the 2nd Law because there is heat energy flowing from a colder atmosphere to a warmer Earth. The above Greenhouse Effect links describe a Perpetual Motion Machine, actually a Perpetual Motion Machine in a Positive Feedback Loop. The ultimate outcome is an infinite “creation” of energy and a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy. The Sun is the ONLY energy source, the Earth and atmosphere are NOT energy sources. Here is a most of mine on Topix that describes why heat energy flow from hot to cold objects will violate the 2nd Law and the Law of Conservation of Energy. Clear Light Bulb Example http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin... ------- continued... |
||||
|
Judged:
1
1
1 Here is the link you also provided: http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/... With reference to Kiehl and Trenberth's Earth's Energy Budget Diagram: The diagram shows that the in-coming Solar Energy at the top of the atmosphere is 342 w/m^2. The reflected Solar radiation is 107 w/m^2. This leaves 235 w/m^2 to heat the Earth and atmosphere. 235 w/m^2 is ALL THE ENERGY AVAILABLE !!! and only 168 w/m^2 is AVAILABLE TO HEAT THE EARTH'S SURFACE !! The out-going Longwave Radiation at the top of the atmosphere is also 235 w/m^2 is also 235 w/m^2, so there is no violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy at the top of the atmosphere. However, this is mis-leading because below the top of the atmosphere there are numerous violations of the Law of Conservation of Energy. Example: - The Earth's Surface Radiation (390 w/m^2) exceeds 235 w/m^2 and 168 w/m^2. - The Back Radiation from the atmosphere (324 w/m^2) exceeds 235 w/m^2 and 168 w/m^2. The diagram shows the total Solar Energy absorbed by the Earth's surface as 168 w/m^2. Trenberth clearly shows the colder Atmosphere Back Radiation of 324 w/m^2 being ABSORBED by the warmer Earth's surface. Anytime a body absorbes heat energy it's temperature has to increase, the warmer Earth's surface was warmed by the colder atmosphere. A CLEAR Violation of the 2nd Law. Remember, The Sun (THE ONLY ENERGY SOURCE) only provides 168 w/m^2 of energy that is absorbed by the Earth's surface. Is the Earth an Energy source?...NO IT IS NOT! Is the Atmosphere an Energy source?....NO IT IS NOT! The 168 w/m^2 FROM THE SUN IS ALL THE ENERGY THAT IS AVAILABLE! Trenberth shows the Atmosphere Back Radiation absorbed by the Earth's surface is 324 w/m^2. Is 324 greater than 168? Conservation of Energy "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed" http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/co... ENERGY WAS CREATED IN ALL THE EXAMPLES. ---------- continued... |
||||
|
Judged:
1
1
1 The Kiehl and Trenberth's Earth's Energy Budget Diagram shows: - The Solar Energy absorbed by the Earth's surface is 168 w/m^2 + reflected by the Earth's surface 30 w/m^2 = 198 w/m^2 - The Back Radiation from the colder atmosphere that is absorbed by the warmer Earth's surface is 324 w/m^2 The Back Radiation exceeds Solar Energy and BACK RADIATION IS AVAILABLE DAY AND NIGHT. Solar Ovens are Parabolic Mirrors that can concentrate Solar Energy and IR Back Radiation at a focal point. If Back Radiation actually reached the Earth, Solar Ovens would produce heating at night. Here is an experiment done at Brigham Young Unversity that PROVES that Back-Radiation CANNOT heat the Earth. ---------- Solar Cookers and Other Cooking Alternatives "The second area of solar cookers I looked at was their potential use for cooling. I tested to see how effective they are at cooling both at night and during the day. During both times, the solar cooker needs to be aimed away from buildings, and trees. These objects have thermal radiation and will reduce the cooling effects. At night the solar cooker needs to also be aimed straight up towards the cold sky. During the day the solar cooker needs to be turned so that it does not face the Sun and also points towards the sky. For both time periods cooling should be possible because all bodies emit thermal radiation by virtue of their temperature. So the heat should be radiated outward. Cooling should occur because of the second law of thermodynamics which states that heat will flow naturally from a hot object to a cold object. The sky and upper atmosphere will be at a lower temperature then the cooking vessel. The average high-atmosphere temperature is approximately -20 °C. So the heat should be radiated from the cooking vessel to the atmosphere." http://solarcooking.org/research/McGuire-Jone... ---------- This link shows that heating of the Earth's surface cannot occur from the colder atmosphere. In fact, the article shows how to COOL items placed in the Solar Oven at NIGHT AND DAY! All you have to do is point the Oven away from the Sun during the Day and the Oven will transfer heat from the WARM object in the Oven to the COOLER atmosphere! It can even be used to produce ICE when the ambient air temp is +6 deg C! "If at night the temperature was within 6 °C or 10°F of freezing, nighttime cooling could be used to create ice. Previous tests at BYU (in the autumn and with less water) achieved ice formation by 8 a.m. when the minimum ambient night-time temperature was about 48 °F." And, this also confirms the validity of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics....heat energy CANNOT flow from Cold to Warm objects. ---------- Summary: AGW theory and the Greenhouse Effect has been proven to violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Conservation of Energy. Actual measurements confirm this. My belief is that AGW has been presented to the public as some sort of 'scientific fact' when it is actually a Fraud. |
||||
|
Since: Apr 08
"the green troll" ISP: Balikesir, Turkey |
Judged:
2
2
2 Gord is a troll, Scott- he's posted the same nonsense a zillion times already. Don't waste your time responding- many people have pointed out the very basic errors in his argument before. |
|||
|
Judged:
1
1
1 In case you don't realize it, Scott is well qualified to speak about AGW. Scott A. Mandia Professor - Physical Sciences T-206 Smithtown Sciences Bldg. S.C.C.C. 533 College Rd. Selden, NY 11784 http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_wa... I don't think he needs any advice from "the green troll". |
||||
|
||||
Judge it!
Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.
Other Recent Social Security Discussions
Search the Social Security Forum:
Search the Social Security Forum:
| Topic | Updated | Last By | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Your view: Pets should be muzzled for vet | 2 hr | Franken Berry | 2 |
| Health care reform lies bleeding | 3 hr | Lyin Liberals | 29 |
| Maryland Halts Policy Change For Transgender Dr... | 3 hr | equalityboy81 | 1 |
| Paving scam reported in area (Feb '08) | 5 hr | old tyler | 3690 |
| Diamond announces candidacy for Carlsbad mayor | 5 hr | Michelewith1l | 154 |
| MARYLAND: MVA halts policy change for transgend... | 9 hr | TerryE | 1 |
| Employees spared | 10 hr | Prolife Acti... | 1 |
Daily Horoscope for January 1
Scorpio
Happy New Year, Scorpio! Were we naughty last night?! You are energetic and full of optimism today and this should set the tone for the coming year. You are likely to find that your needs are more or less fulfilled and obsticles cleared to your satisfaction. You could face a pleasant surprise at home later in the day.
|
Reach local customers. Engage a specific demographic. Maximize business-to-business opportunities. Topix can deliver your message.
|
Copyright ©2009 Topix LLC
