I had a dream last night in which Barack Obama was wearing a helmet
and carrying a lance like the fictional character Don Quixote
who had a reputation for attacking make believe foes.
The only other clothing Obama
had on was swimming trunks. He was riding a horse that had a
remarkable resemblance to John Kerry
As he moved his lance up and down he was chanting: "we
must stop global warming." He continued to chant as the reading on
the thermometer dropped below freezing and he began turning blue.
He continued chanting "we must stop global warming" as the snow
began to fall. Soon the snow was up to his knees with his
horse unable to move, but he continued to chant "we must stop global
warning" until the snow covered him and his horse.
Obama's comments on non-existent global warming this winter
demonstrates how he is increasingly out of touch with reality.
Obama talked about global warming in a State of the Union speech
delivered on a night when the Gulf Coast was preparing to deal with
freezing temperatures. He urged businesses to switch to
natural gas at a time when natural gas companies were asking for
rate increases because the cold weather was creating a shortage of
gas.
Obama wants to spend $1billion dealing with non-existent global
warming at a time when cities are trying to find money to pay the
costs of a snow filled winter.
Obama has continued to push his global warming nonsense through his
Secretary of State John Kerry.
A rational president would have omitted mention of the global
warming issue during a severe cold spell because he would have
recognized that people who were worried about their cars slip
sliding off the road aren't going to believe talk about global
warming. But then a rational president would understand that
the claim that CO2 causes something called global warming is
nonsense. The claim is based on a 19th Century myth that
greenhouses and the atmosphere are heated by trapping infrared
radiation. Physicist R. W. Wood
disproved this claim in 1909.
Law enforcement personnel will tell you that if a financial
opportunity sounds too good to be true, it's probably a scam.
With political scams the reverse is true. Politicians will
make the situation sound much worse than it is. For
example, President George W. Bush insisted we had to invade
Iraq to keep Saddam Hussein from giving Weapons of Mass Destruction
to al Qaeda. The fact is that there is no way a paranoid
dictator like Hussein would have given WMD to an organization that
might want to take his job. The people pushing the global
warming hysteria are claiming all sorts of unbelievable calamities
will occur.
Obama is also out of touch with reality in the Ukrainian crisis.
His criticism of Russia is questionable He calls the Ukraine a democracy even though the
current change in government control occurred as the result of protests
rather than election. The pro European Union group took
control after members of the president's party were scared
into changing sides or leaving. What is left of the
government may not be sufficient to qualify as a viable national
government of the ethnically divided country.
Crimea is an
autonomous republic within the Ukraine with a mostly Russian
population. Only 28% of the population is ethnic Ukrainian.
Reestablishing a stable government in the Ukraine will be
more difficult if ethnic Russians are forced to be part of a
nation where they don't feel they belong. Thus it would make more
sense for the republic to become part of Russia then remain part of the
Ukraine. Russia is attempting to stabilize an unstable political
situation and prevent a civil war. Obama doesn't understand that
President Vladimir Putin isn't going to destroy the government and then
let the country descend into chaos like Obama did in Libya.
Obama seems oblivious to the possibility that calling attention to
a nation in which protestors forced a president to resign might
encourage his opponents to try to use protests to push him into
resigning. His support for those who used protests to change
the government indicates he considers that approach an acceptable
alternative to elections.
The 25th Amendment to the Constitution who is physically or
mentally unable to handle the duties of President. The
vice president and members of the cabinet can temporarily relieve a
president who has lost touch with reality. The presidency is a
high stress job and high stress can cause mental and physical problems
including high blood pressure and heart disease. Many historians .
believe that the stress of dealing with political scandals killed
President Warren G. Harding.
Showing posts with label R.W. Wood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label R.W. Wood. Show all posts
Saturday, March 8, 2014
Friday, August 26, 2011
Is Physicist Stephen Hawking Overrated?
Professor Stephen Hawking's support for the global warming myth raises doubts about his knowledge of physics.
Professor Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" is one of the books I would like to reread if I could find the time. However, after learning that he supports the global warming myth I would read the book a little more critically than I did the first time.
Hawking says he's concerned about earth becoming as hot as Venus, but the alleged "greenhouse effect" cannot explain temperatures on Venus as I noted in my previous post.
I hope that Hawking is simply repeating something he's been told, but hasn't taken time to examine. If Hawking took the time to examine both sides of the debate over global warming he would realize that global warming is based on a long discredited 19th Century theory that is inconsistent with the laws of thermodynamics. The so called greenhouse effect represents a form of perpetual motion machine that is inconsistent with accepted thermodynamic theories
Jean Baptist Joseph Fourier claimed in 1827 that greenhouses worked by allowing in sunlight and then trapping the infrared radiation produced inside to heat the greenhouse. R. W. Wood disproved this theory in a 1909 experiment that indicated no significant difference in temperature between a greenhouse that "trapped" IR and one that was transparent to IR. In fact in the initial run of the experiment the transparent greenhouse heated faster because the one that reflected IR reflected incoming solar IR back into space.
The greenhouse in R.W. Wood's experiment trapped a much broader spectrum of IR than CO2 interacts with. If that greenhouse didn't heat up more than a greenhouse that didn't "trap" IR, then how can anyone believe that CO2 could cause heating by interacting with IR.
The whole idea that a gas comprising less than 0.04% of the atmosphere can determine its temperature by interacting with a small range of infrared radiation (IR) sounds more like magic than science.
The data that those who claim global warming say supports warming temperatures in the 20th Century is inadequate for that purpose. They claim only a 0.25% increase which could easily result from changes in equipment or inaccuracies in the thermometers used in 1900 which were not as accurate as those used today. Changes in the thermal characteristics of the thermometer sites could explain the increase, particularly considering that many of today's sites are at airports with heat producing asphalt that did not exist in 1900.
A change of only 0.25% might be significant in the controlled conditions of a laboratory with precision equipment, but not in the open air with equipment that may not always be in good operating condition.
Mathematicians Bjarne Andresen, Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick have pointed out that the idea of a global average temperature is absurd. "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".
Most real scientists, including social scientists, gave up using broad averages decades ago because such averages cover up too much information. For example, in climate the amount of time the temperature is above or below freezing is more important than the average temperature of the region because long periods of below freezing temperatures favors snow/ice cover and long periods of above freezing temperatures favors melting. Snow melts depend upon heat distribution not any global average. Significant melting could occur even if global temperatures were cooler because melting snow absorbs heat and cools the air. In order to melt, a single gram of snow must absorb enough heat to cool 80 grams of water 1 C.
Temperatures went up and down in the 20th Century while the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere gradually increased. The heat generated by human activity also increased and would be the more likely cause of any human caused heating. Replacement of plant covered areas by pavement also directly causes heating of the air.
Hawking has apparently failed to read the essay by Dr. Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner - (Falsification of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effects Within the Framework of Physics�) which points out the claim of greenhouse gases and a greenhouse effect conflict with established physics theories.
Hawking may also be unaware that NASA scientist Ferenc Miskolczi has revealed that the equation used to calculate catastrophic warming contains a major flaw. The equation falsely assumed an atmosphere of infinite thickness. Such a condition might be consistent with a black hole, but not the planet earth.
The claim that CO2 has some ability to control air temperature is a cancer growing on science. Many astrophysicists believe that the earth is about to enter a period of colder temperature associated with the sun entering a portion of a centuries long cycle in which it is less active. If the astrophysicists are correct, all of science may be discredited if the claim that global warming is based on science has not been abandoned.
A major difference between science and religion is that science relies on verification through repeated observation and experimentation while religion relies on acceptance of beliefs. The experiment that examined heating in a greenhouse demonstrated that trapping IR didn't cause higher temperatures. Unfortunately, those who believe that humans can control the environment through changes in a minor atmospheric gas aren't interested in scientific proof.
If Professor Hawking wants to protect science he needs to talk to those scientists who question global warming and then change his opinion.
Professor Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" is one of the books I would like to reread if I could find the time. However, after learning that he supports the global warming myth I would read the book a little more critically than I did the first time.
Hawking says he's concerned about earth becoming as hot as Venus, but the alleged "greenhouse effect" cannot explain temperatures on Venus as I noted in my previous post.
I hope that Hawking is simply repeating something he's been told, but hasn't taken time to examine. If Hawking took the time to examine both sides of the debate over global warming he would realize that global warming is based on a long discredited 19th Century theory that is inconsistent with the laws of thermodynamics. The so called greenhouse effect represents a form of perpetual motion machine that is inconsistent with accepted thermodynamic theories
Jean Baptist Joseph Fourier claimed in 1827 that greenhouses worked by allowing in sunlight and then trapping the infrared radiation produced inside to heat the greenhouse. R. W. Wood disproved this theory in a 1909 experiment that indicated no significant difference in temperature between a greenhouse that "trapped" IR and one that was transparent to IR. In fact in the initial run of the experiment the transparent greenhouse heated faster because the one that reflected IR reflected incoming solar IR back into space.
The greenhouse in R.W. Wood's experiment trapped a much broader spectrum of IR than CO2 interacts with. If that greenhouse didn't heat up more than a greenhouse that didn't "trap" IR, then how can anyone believe that CO2 could cause heating by interacting with IR.
The whole idea that a gas comprising less than 0.04% of the atmosphere can determine its temperature by interacting with a small range of infrared radiation (IR) sounds more like magic than science.
The data that those who claim global warming say supports warming temperatures in the 20th Century is inadequate for that purpose. They claim only a 0.25% increase which could easily result from changes in equipment or inaccuracies in the thermometers used in 1900 which were not as accurate as those used today. Changes in the thermal characteristics of the thermometer sites could explain the increase, particularly considering that many of today's sites are at airports with heat producing asphalt that did not exist in 1900.
A change of only 0.25% might be significant in the controlled conditions of a laboratory with precision equipment, but not in the open air with equipment that may not always be in good operating condition.
Mathematicians Bjarne Andresen, Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick have pointed out that the idea of a global average temperature is absurd. "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".
Most real scientists, including social scientists, gave up using broad averages decades ago because such averages cover up too much information. For example, in climate the amount of time the temperature is above or below freezing is more important than the average temperature of the region because long periods of below freezing temperatures favors snow/ice cover and long periods of above freezing temperatures favors melting. Snow melts depend upon heat distribution not any global average. Significant melting could occur even if global temperatures were cooler because melting snow absorbs heat and cools the air. In order to melt, a single gram of snow must absorb enough heat to cool 80 grams of water 1 C.
Temperatures went up and down in the 20th Century while the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere gradually increased. The heat generated by human activity also increased and would be the more likely cause of any human caused heating. Replacement of plant covered areas by pavement also directly causes heating of the air.
Hawking has apparently failed to read the essay by Dr. Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner - (Falsification of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effects Within the Framework of Physics�) which points out the claim of greenhouse gases and a greenhouse effect conflict with established physics theories.
Hawking may also be unaware that NASA scientist Ferenc Miskolczi has revealed that the equation used to calculate catastrophic warming contains a major flaw. The equation falsely assumed an atmosphere of infinite thickness. Such a condition might be consistent with a black hole, but not the planet earth.
The claim that CO2 has some ability to control air temperature is a cancer growing on science. Many astrophysicists believe that the earth is about to enter a period of colder temperature associated with the sun entering a portion of a centuries long cycle in which it is less active. If the astrophysicists are correct, all of science may be discredited if the claim that global warming is based on science has not been abandoned.
A major difference between science and religion is that science relies on verification through repeated observation and experimentation while religion relies on acceptance of beliefs. The experiment that examined heating in a greenhouse demonstrated that trapping IR didn't cause higher temperatures. Unfortunately, those who believe that humans can control the environment through changes in a minor atmospheric gas aren't interested in scientific proof.
If Professor Hawking wants to protect science he needs to talk to those scientists who question global warming and then change his opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
