On Greenhouse's & Their Effects
17/06/08 12:07 PM
I get a little
bit tired of trying to coerce people into actually
examining the words that they use, daily it seems, in
conversations all around me to make themselves sound
au courant and ‘down with the struggle’ to save the
planet and all the cute little polar bears from US,
the supposed scourge that an omnipotent god unleashed
on his creation.
When I ask them if they really want their governments to borrow against the future earnings of their children and grandchildren based on the word of a failed politician who managed to catch the imagination of all the ‘beautiful people’. I mean this was Al Gore for crying out loud. The guy who also claimed that he invented the internet, and that he was the inspiration behind the screenplay for the movie “ A Love Story” , and also went on record as unequivocally accepting Bill Clinton’s word that “he did not have sexual relations with that woman”. How could you possibly believe anything so important from such a dweeb as this?
He set in motion a waterfall of funding for any scientist, or pretend scientist, who was clever enough to include the words “GLOBAL WARMING” in their grant applications. I remember reading an interview with a Sudbury professor who said he couldn’t get a plugged nickel to finance his study of the mating habits of squirrels in the pine forests until he changed his title to “ An examination of the effects of GLOBAL WARMING on the sexual reproduction practices of squirrels in the pine forests. “ , and so it goes, on and on, billions upon billions spent and trillions asked for and promised.
All of this to pursue some holy grail of stable global climate. Something that no one can define or quantify because the very idea of climate being stable runs counter to all observable fact. Climate changes, every minute, everywhere, we can’t stop it, we cannot control it, we do not cause it.
A weather guy from the midwest US of A cracked me up one day when he said, “ I really don’t know which is more arrogant, people saying that we (humans) cause global warming, or that we (humans) can control it.”.
Today I just want to tackle one canard that annoys me that I found a rather well written response to. It was part of a letter by a fellow named Hans Schreuder, a chemist by training, regarding the Greenhouse Effect and Radiative Forcing.
He said in part :
“ Following on from your piece in the FT on 30 May 2008, as quoted in your latest CCNet
newsletter (31 May 2008) I wonder how we can get it across to alarmists as well as
skeptics that the much hyped greenhouse effect with its radiative forcing mechanism is
scientifically unsound and, in fact, absurd.
Based on UN IPCC dogma and according to this Australian website for children, the
greenhouse effect is "caused by gases in our atmosphere (especially water vapour, carbon
dioxide and methane). They trap energy from the sun's light and reflect it back to Earth,
so we just keep on getting warmer."
As Alan Siddons points out: "You might as well believe that your image in a mirror can
burn your face”. It is palpably absurd, and yet it is an accurate depiction of the theory that
the IPCC has foisted on the public - a theory that IPCC critics won't even attack because,
presumably, they believe it too.
Moreover, the actual trapping of heat cannot raise an object's temperature in the first
place. It only slows down heat loss. For instance, a polar bear is a living thermos bottle.
Its internal body temperature is much the same as ours. But its surrounding fat and fur are
such that - and this is remarkable - a polar bear is virtually invisible to a thermal camera.
Just like coffee in a thermos, you can't tell how hot the inside of a polar bear is by
looking at it from the outside. But neither does coffee in a thermos get hotter because its
heat is trapped. It just retains its temperature for a longer time. Otherwise, both the polar
bear and the thermos would self-ignite.
In short, the earth absorbs enough energy from the sun to reach a certain temperature.
Since it radiates the same amount, its temperature obviously isn't raised by carbon
dioxide absorbing some infrared - for CO2 simply releases that energy at the same pace,
as satellites attest. But even if CO2 did trap thermal energy, as insulation does (creating
an emission discrepancy that would be quite observable to satellites), the earth's
temperature could go no higher than what it began with. To repeat, coffee doesn't get
hotter in a thermos."
I kind of like the way this fellow put forth his argument and hope it strikes a chord with some of you so you can perhaps sleep a little bit easier at night.
30
When I ask them if they really want their governments to borrow against the future earnings of their children and grandchildren based on the word of a failed politician who managed to catch the imagination of all the ‘beautiful people’. I mean this was Al Gore for crying out loud. The guy who also claimed that he invented the internet, and that he was the inspiration behind the screenplay for the movie “ A Love Story” , and also went on record as unequivocally accepting Bill Clinton’s word that “he did not have sexual relations with that woman”. How could you possibly believe anything so important from such a dweeb as this?
He set in motion a waterfall of funding for any scientist, or pretend scientist, who was clever enough to include the words “GLOBAL WARMING” in their grant applications. I remember reading an interview with a Sudbury professor who said he couldn’t get a plugged nickel to finance his study of the mating habits of squirrels in the pine forests until he changed his title to “ An examination of the effects of GLOBAL WARMING on the sexual reproduction practices of squirrels in the pine forests. “ , and so it goes, on and on, billions upon billions spent and trillions asked for and promised.
All of this to pursue some holy grail of stable global climate. Something that no one can define or quantify because the very idea of climate being stable runs counter to all observable fact. Climate changes, every minute, everywhere, we can’t stop it, we cannot control it, we do not cause it.
A weather guy from the midwest US of A cracked me up one day when he said, “ I really don’t know which is more arrogant, people saying that we (humans) cause global warming, or that we (humans) can control it.”.
Today I just want to tackle one canard that annoys me that I found a rather well written response to. It was part of a letter by a fellow named Hans Schreuder, a chemist by training, regarding the Greenhouse Effect and Radiative Forcing.
He said in part :
“ Following on from your piece in the FT on 30 May 2008, as quoted in your latest CCNet
newsletter (31 May 2008) I wonder how we can get it across to alarmists as well as
skeptics that the much hyped greenhouse effect with its radiative forcing mechanism is
scientifically unsound and, in fact, absurd.
Based on UN IPCC dogma and according to this Australian website for children, the
greenhouse effect is "caused by gases in our atmosphere (especially water vapour, carbon
dioxide and methane). They trap energy from the sun's light and reflect it back to Earth,
so we just keep on getting warmer."
As Alan Siddons points out: "You might as well believe that your image in a mirror can
burn your face”. It is palpably absurd, and yet it is an accurate depiction of the theory that
the IPCC has foisted on the public - a theory that IPCC critics won't even attack because,
presumably, they believe it too.
Moreover, the actual trapping of heat cannot raise an object's temperature in the first
place. It only slows down heat loss. For instance, a polar bear is a living thermos bottle.
Its internal body temperature is much the same as ours. But its surrounding fat and fur are
such that - and this is remarkable - a polar bear is virtually invisible to a thermal camera.
Just like coffee in a thermos, you can't tell how hot the inside of a polar bear is by
looking at it from the outside. But neither does coffee in a thermos get hotter because its
heat is trapped. It just retains its temperature for a longer time. Otherwise, both the polar
bear and the thermos would self-ignite.
In short, the earth absorbs enough energy from the sun to reach a certain temperature.
Since it radiates the same amount, its temperature obviously isn't raised by carbon
dioxide absorbing some infrared - for CO2 simply releases that energy at the same pace,
as satellites attest. But even if CO2 did trap thermal energy, as insulation does (creating
an emission discrepancy that would be quite observable to satellites), the earth's
temperature could go no higher than what it began with. To repeat, coffee doesn't get
hotter in a thermos."
I kind of like the way this fellow put forth his argument and hope it strikes a chord with some of you so you can perhaps sleep a little bit easier at night.
30
|