Posted on 07/28/2011 4:01:05 PM PDT by kathsua
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. Venus Not an Example of Greenhouse Gas Effect
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.
Hawking is a theoretical physicist. When he talks about climate change he’s as smart as Al Gore.
Well, like Jackie Chan he does his own stunts.
Can’t think of one good thing that Hawking has done. He’s self serving.
Hawking is a militant atheist rube.
Hawking probably thinks the Polar bears are dying off, too, rather than thriving....oh wait, isn’t there an actual scienticist who studies these bears in a bit of trouble about that....can any of these people be trusted for anything?
He is brilliant at what he knows, theoretical physics (and of course all the sub categories that build to that). Like many people, when you step out of your area of expertise, your knowledge is really a reflection of who you learned from. Statements of his on things like the climate or theology are based on his belief not his education.
In other words, if you need to know the structure of subatomic particles and how they interact with other particles, or if you need to know the full mathematical equations for what happens when a star goes nova, he is your man. If you need to know how a 1/10th degree change in temperature changes the blooming of the yellow-snot corn flower, he is only as knowledgeable as the sources he cites.
Science is “the new hotness”. Even your shampoo is now “scientifically formulated”. Any craptacular field of study is now called a “science” - most are not. Climate, for example, is not exactly subject to the scientific method because we don't have a “control” Earth that we could use for an actual scientific study.
Second point....
Expertise in one field of study doesn't necessary carry over into other fields of study, but the narrower the field of study the more likely the expert is to think it does.
Considering the field of expertise Hawking is in, only another physicist would be competent to assess if he is “overrated” or not.
Hawking's support for the global warming myth raises doubts about his knowledge of physics.This isn't a news flash -- he's been in that camp, or following it, for a good while now.
I know nothing about Hawking but when people fawn all over people in wheelchairs, I get suspicious. I guess I’m just not a nice person!
Like most British scientists, he fits into the crackpot category.
So then greenhouses DON’T heat up and get hotter than the surrounding air temperature? Because they sure do.
I know this says they don’t do it by trapping infrared radiation, but certainly the greenhouse inside is heated by the sun, and the heat energy stays within the glass structure (to a greater degree than if it were in the open air) and the greenhouse gets a lot hotter inside.
I believe reference to the “greenhouse effect” is a metaphor for what the glass does around a greenhouse.
Further, if the author wants to prove Hawking is wrong on global warming that’s one thing.
For the author to assume this must mean Hawking is wrong or mediocre on theoretical physics, without the author understanding theoretical physics at least as well as Hawking, is unfounded.
He’s self serving.
Agree. (many)People in wheel chairs are afforded creedence where none is deserved. Had a camp counselor at Boy Scout camp who reminds me of Hawking. The guy was an arrogant know-it-all who actually knew very little. We tangled - I lost. “He’s in a wheel chair fa crisakes...”
Whattya gonna do
Response: Probably, when compared to Maxwell, Thompson, Cavendish, Fermi etc. But the real issue, as always in 2011, outrageous utterances draw attention, sells soap and thus increases sales.
Stephen is a flaming liberal. He suffers the same disease of all liberals, political correctness. Hawking has even taken the leftist approach to his own Physics, when, after he and Roger Penrose came up with mathematical support for a sigularity at the beginning of our universe, he bowed to the leftist demands to not support anything which might even remotely lend credulity to the Genesis account of creation. I lost respect for Hawking a long time ago.
1. Just because real greenhouses don't primarily work on the basis of the greenhouse effect doesn't mean that the greenhouse effect is not a real phenomenon.
2. The R.W. Wood experiment is not a test of the greenhouse effect.
3. Undoubtedly experimental science has considerably advanced in the last 102 years.
One-trick pony?
Thats hilarious !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.