|
Or Become A New Monthly Donor Or
Give What You Can
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.
Is Physicist Stephen Hawking Overrated?First off that title has nothing to do with the article. Second, is he overrated? Well, that depends who is asked.
In 2000 a poll by and of Physicists was taken for who contributed more to Physics in the 20th Century than any other. Hawking finished dead last. And the ones who finished above him? Most of the Physicists named 'we' would prolly have never have heard of. This Dead Last finish was in spite of Hawking's best selling book, A Brief History of Time, which opened up the world of Physics to millions of 'regular folk', many of whom I'm sure choose Physics as their life's work after reading it when young. Now to me that's a pretty good 'contribution to Physics'.
Not to mention Hawking's groundbreaking work ON Black Holes. Hawking 'sort of took' a calculation in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, re: Gravity, which resulted in ' = ∞ ' (Infinity Not Good in Physics) and said, 'Okay baby - show me all you got!' And what he got was; Black Holes, the Event Horizon and the Singularity. Which 'kinda proved'(/s) the Big Bang Theory as they're basically the same, just on different scales.
But to Physicists all that meant diddle (What have you done for me lately Stephen?) so he finished last. However to 'regular people' you mention Stephen Hawking and everyone knows who he is -- besides 'a famous guy in a wheelchair' (personally I find THAT very offensive).
Okay.... All that being said, is Stephen Hawking wrong on CO2 and the Greenhouse Effect - You Betcha! But that's okay as nobody is perfect. Plus that's not his area of expertise so his OPINION on that means just as much as 'Joe the Barber'. Plus it's not like Hawking is always correct. In 2010 he even (or finally) admitted one of his past Theories was (gasp!) wrong. It was proved, and he admitted, his Theory on 'Hawking Radiation' and Black Holes eventually 'disappearing' was incorrect and that 'information' can never be lost - which always was a fundamental Law of Physics.
an aside: Einstein knew his Gravity Calculation resulting in ∞ presented a BIG problem. But Einstein believed that the odds of it (infinite gravity) actually occurring was zero, so it was ignored.
Lastly, as to Hawking being a 'Godless Atheist'. He always wasn't one and in any case I don't care. It's 100% irrelevant and he'll find out soon enough anyway how wrong he was on that too.
That is all. Time for me to get back to working on my Cold Fusion Reactor in the garage.
Black holes are, by definition, invisible and will always be invisible. They are mathematical constructs, basically division by zero, and are inferred from certain observations.
Are there other, observable, testable causes for those observations? Yes. The observations can be duplicated with electrical current moving through plasma. There is no such thing as a 'black hole'.
Black holes are absolutely visible, by the matter falling into them. That matter radiates observable energy.
No Sam. They are inferred from observations that are assumed to be generated by 'matter falling into them'. There is a huge difference. And again, electrical current moving through a plasma also radiates observable energy.
If you even read The Electric Universe, it must not have had an impact.
When charged particles get accelerated (as they do when they fall into black holes) they get ionized and emit radiation. The radiation intensifies as the acceleration increases.
There are many black holes but the really interesting ones are at the center of galaxies.
Our galaxy has a central black hole about 4 million times the mass of our sun.
Venus's atmosphere is over 96% CO2. Earth's atmosphere is only 0.0378% CO2. And Venus is twice as close to the sun as Earth. Steve, it just ain't gonna happen until the Sun goes into its red giant stage.That's absolutely correct. There has never been a greater scientific travesty than the theory of "Anthropogenic Global Warming". It's worse even than the theories of Phlogiston, or Universal Ether.
Hover on my screen-name. You’ll see I joined FR sometime shortly after 9/11. I am fairly active on this site and I am on the ping list for all these physics articles. You’ll have to take my word for it that this is not the first time I’ve seen the link you just posted, and this isn’t the first time I’ve heard of the Electric Universe.
I’d rather not get into all that.
I’m just letting you know that I’ve been aware of The Electric Universe for a long time.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not telling you not to post links to the theory. I’m not criticizing you in any way. I’m just letting you know I’ve already experienced the “reading enjoyment” of the Electric Universe theory, that’s all.
No offense intended.
Not trying to start an argument.
Just letting you know.
|
Do you know how we accelerate charged particles so that they emit radiation on earth? We use electricity to do that.
"There are many black holes but the really interesting ones are at the center of galaxies."
Do you realize that you speak of imaginary, invisible objects as though they are real (black holes), yet ignore real observable phenomena (electrical acceleration of charged particles) as though it does not exist?
"Our galaxy has a central black hole about 4 million times the mass of our sun."
Again, black holes are not observed. They are inferred. Conversely, electrical acceleration of charged particles that emit radiation is observed yet ignored.
Welcome to 'science'?
I didn’t say I didn’t enjoy it. I don’t think physics is for our enjoyment, it’s for explaining how the universe works.
And it has nothing to do with diversity. Theories stand or fall on their validity, not their diversity.
(I’m not even sure what you mean in your remark about diversity and I don’t care. It has nothing to do with diversity.)
Here’s some recent news regarding the black hole at the center of the galaxy:
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/07/black-hole-collision-may-have-se.html
Did you notice that instead of one invisible, inferred object, you now have two?
Did you notice how quickly you brushed off the fact that we use electricity to accelerate charged particles until they give off radiation on earth where it can be tested yet you assume that gravity does this out in the center of the galaxy where it cannot be tested?
Do you see the words ‘could’, ‘apparently’ and ‘plausible’ or are you simply determined to believe that black holes are a fact?
Being serious is commendable, but don’t lose your sense of humor over it.
I’m not getting into the discussion you want on this thread. Start one on that subject, ping me, and I’ll join in.
Sorry. I glossed over the humor. My bad.
What are you talking about?
pendejo, oh pendeyyyy-oooo, daylight come and I wanna go home...
I syrup that the bunny didn’t have an earectomy.
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.