Green World Trust

[Derek]

Hi All,

Several times recently I have been left with the impression that
I have been talking / discussing / reading things from a "crossed wire" perspective.

I have, like many been questioning the "consensus science" of AGW, the physics, the modelling, the assumptions, the measurements, etc, etc,
for example this pdf - http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-309.html
but that is probably not the "point" that should be being questioned.
More properly it should be the idea that there is a greenhouse effect in the first place.

I have seen numerous links but the six below I would consider to be a good condensed version,

1) www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/carbondioxide.html

2) www.nothingtodowithco2.com/pdf/AGW_presentation_ILMCD.pdf

3) www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Rethinking_the_greenhouse_effect.pdf

4) www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Falsification_of_the_Atmospheric_CO2_Greenhouse_Effects.pdf

5) www.tech-know.eu/uploads/SUN_heats_EARTH.pdf

6) www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/FAQ.html

I also come across a similie and an old joke that appears particularly relevant.
Joke first,
Thermos flasks - they're great, aren't they? They keep hot things hot and cold things cold.

But how do they know?

OK, so more properly it should be a vacuum flask, but the question remains, how does it know.
Unsurprisingly "it" does not know.
And that is THE point, a vacuum does not know the temperature of anything in it (yes I know it now is not a vacuum..).
It may help to remember that if the earth was scaled down to the size of a (soccer) football,
then the atmosphere at that scale is as "thick" as a layer of cling film placed on the football.
http://freenet-homepage.de/klima/indexe.htm excerpt follows,
" The energy discharge from the troposphere takes place at its upper boundary layer,
at the transition of the atmosphere from its gaseous state to a state approaching a vacuum.
Only in this zone do gases start to emit even small quantities of energy by radiation.
The other energy transfer mechanisms - thermal conduction and convection - which at denser pressure are far more efficient than radiation,
no longer operate because of the low density of the atmosphere there.
But from the surface where man lives and up to 10 to 17km altitude (depending on geographical latitude),
gases transfer the small quantities of energy they might acquire from absorbed radiation by convection and conduction - not by radiation. "

Nothing, has no temperature, so space is not cold, it is merely temperature "neutral" relative to anything in it, ie planets in space.
Contrary to what most believe, space is therefore NOT cold.
Anything in a vacuum will radiate "heat" according to it's temperature,
not any supposed difference between it's temperature and the "temperature" of the space it is in.
So, earth radiates heat according to it's temperature, the higher the temperature on earth, the more heat the planet radiates,
the cooler the planet, the less heat it radiates.

An analogy I saw at globalwarminghoax.com, posted by ron,
regarding the (AGW magical) properties of CO2.

"The best analogy I have heard is that of hot air balloons.
Which should technically be called hot CO2 balloons since the main gas byproduct of burning propane (fuel of choice for hot air balloons) is CO2.
The HEATED CO2 causes the balloon to rise in the atmosphere until it encounters a cooler layer of air aloft and
the heat is transferred, via convection, through the skin of the balloon, to the cooler air around it.
As the CO2 gives up it's heat, the balloon sinks.
In fact, by not running the burner, the balloon can descend pretty fast.
Open diffused CO2 in the atmosphere makes this transfer a little quicker since it doesn't have the rip-stop nylon to convect through.
As is proven by Prof. Lindzen's study.
The Earth is radiating as much as it ever has, regardless of the level of CO2, with sat data going back 20 years."

Also, I first heard of the virial theorum when reading about Dr Miskolczi's works.
In short it simply states that the temperature of air (gas) is dependent upon pressure.
The higher the pressure the more "collisions" or "rubbing together" of the gas molecules in the gas,
so the more heat generated from "within", and consequently the higher the temperature.
I do not think that it is at all "contraversial" as such, but is does rather fly in the face of the standard "greenhouse effect theory".
The virial theorum could mostly explain the temperature of the earth's surface, plus solar inputs, leaving no room for the "greenhouse effect".

Finally an "irony" few have noticed..
http://freenet-homepage.de/klima/indexe.htm
" A second source of misconceptions about the relation between
temperature and the CO2 content of air arises from an erroneous explanation of conditions on the planet Venus.
The Venutian atmosphere is 95% CO2, and its near-surface temperature is approximately 460oC
(see also: http://www.unierlangen.de/docs/FAU/fakultaet/natIII/geol_appl/klima1.htm ).
What climatologists overlook is that atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is 90 bar, and
that it is this colossal pressure that determines the temperature. "

" Estimates of the effects of CO2 concentrations on air temperature are often
– as mentioned before – derived from conditions on Venus.
If one assumed that the atmosphere of Venus was similar to that of the earth, rather than being 95% CO2, and
that it still had a pressure of 90 bar, then the surface temperature would be about 660°C, i.e. about 200°C more than at present.
The difference arises from the somewhat smaller k value for triatomic as against biatomic gases (k Air: 1.4; k CO2: 1.3).

Thus it would actually be somewhat colder on earth if
our atmosphere consisted of CO2 rather than air. "
_________________

An induced feeling of guilt is not sufficient reason
to convict, or punish the human race.

[Richard111]

Deja Vu!

Why Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant and why there can be no temperature increasing greenhouse effect in our open atmosphere.

[Derek]

OK, a slightly different way of putting it..
Given all the present obsession with "back radiation", and
remembering that clouds are generally about 3,000 feet above us,
with a temperature of about 15 degrees celcius.

Ask yourself, when can you last remember
basking under the reflected warmth from a cloud.....
_________________

An induced feeling of guilt is not sufficient reason
to convict, or punish the human race.

[Richard111]

I think I need a sabatical. I am suffering from science overload.

All the conflicting evidence is screwing my mind. Take my local situation; night time temperatures of +9C and daytime temperatures of +5C for the last three days. Just less cloud during the day. This is not a warming factor, it is a blanket mechanism, like putting a cosy on the teapot to keep the tea warmer for longer. The tea is not going to get hotter.

THERE IS NO EXTRA ENERGY ENTERING THE SYSTEM !!!!

[Derek]

Was there a change in wind direction between the mentioned day and night Richard111. ?
(It might help to remember temperature in Blighty is far more dependent upon where the wind came from, rather than the Gulf Stream.)

Don't give in to being "overloaded",
that is what your supposed to do.
_________________

An induced feeling of guilt is not sufficient reason
to convict, or punish the human race.

[Richard111]

Yes, wind indeed. We have had some monumental blows here in Milford Haven as those deep lows sweep over Ireland, the east coast of which is about 50 miles from here. And rain!!! The roof tops on the houses across the valley are turning bright green with moss (CO2 ?).

All due to global warming of course. And I was reading 4C regularly back in September. And now we have the warmest autumn since 1914. Sheesh!

Can't anyone hold these people to account!!

[Derek]

[Richard111]

Time will tell indeed. Sadly the vast majority of UN members are leaders of third world countries who stand to gain mucho moola from this scam.

Current spotless sun is setting a new record every day now. NH crop growing window will be reduced next year and get worse for the next two years at least even if the sun perks up next year.

I read a report somewhere recently that one of the ice ages, about 125,000 years ago, occording to geologic indicators, took only six months to fully develop.

As you say, time will tell. I am preparing for cold and no utilities. I would love it if it would get warm. You don't need coal, gas or electricty so stay comfortable. Just water. I live near the sea and know about solar stills and solar cookers etc. Haven't seen the sun for a solid two months now even though temps are steady at a mild +9C. Due to change soon as a high moves up from the south. I am tired of wind and rain.

[blouis79]

There is little scientific doubt that there is some atmospheric mechanism that makes the earth warmer than if there was no atmosphere. Most people call it a "greenhouse" without there being an accepted theory on its mechanism.

Claiming there is no greenhouse effect will be quickly shot down.

Specifically, there is no "radiative" greenhouse effect, since no gas can radiate net heat from a cooler to warmer substance without breaking the second law of thermodynamics.

Challenge a climate scientist to argue the physical nature of the supposed effect and to prove it by experiment.

[Derek]

[blouis79]

There is enough science to demonstrate that an earth without an atmosphere would be a lot cooler than an earth with an atmosphere. That is the basis for the "greenhouse" term.

[Derek]

[blouis79]

[blouis79]

Here is a plain language falsification of greenhouse
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/

[Derek]

That is a must read link - THANK YOU blouis79.

When I can access GWS I will post that link there in the same named thread.
Maybe you would like to visit the forum sometime, you would be very welcome,
and a great new contributor.
_________________

An induced feeling of guilt is not sufficient reason
to convict, or punish the human race.