Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Greenhouse Gasses Simply Do Not Exist - Mathematical PROOF!!!
New and Amazing dot com Blog ^ | October 10, 2014 | Harry Dale Huffman

Posted on 11/26/2014 7:58:30 PM PST by America_Right

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-106 next last
To: America_Right

Yes, but what might be interesting is to find out that anywhere in our Solar System where the pressure is the same as sea level on Earth, the temperature is about the same.


61 posted on 11/27/2014 8:41:33 AM PST by UCANSEE2 (Lost my tagline on Flight MH370. Sorry for the inconvenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: America_Right
There is NO water vapor on Venus,

Yes there is. Just not much.

Matter of fact, it is almost the opposite of Earth. Little water vapor and lots of C02.

62 posted on 11/27/2014 8:43:13 AM PST by UCANSEE2 (Lost my tagline on Flight MH370. Sorry for the inconvenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PIF
Proximity to the Sun does not account for the radical differences in surface temperatures.

Due to it's parabolic orbit, the Earth is closer to the SUN in WINTER (for North America anyway) and further away during the SUMMER.

63 posted on 11/27/2014 8:52:59 AM PST by UCANSEE2 (Lost my tagline on Flight MH370. Sorry for the inconvenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: America_Right
Their whole premise is just based on lies, suppositions, and bad computer models that show whatever they want them to show.

It doesn't really matter one way or the other whether it is happening or not. Concern over the Earth's climate isn't important.

Solving global warming is not what the UN wants. If you read up on the Kyoto Protocol, it is really nothing more than an attempt at a massive transfer of wealth from industrialized countries to poor ones through the use of "flexibility mechanisms" (i.e. carbon credits). The global warming scare is how this transfer of wealth has been sold to the public.

64 posted on 11/27/2014 8:59:02 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
Proximity to the Sun does not account for the radical differences in surface temperatures.

Due to it's parabolic orbit, the Earth is closer to the SUN in WINTER (for North America anyway) and further away during the SUMMER.

Huh? What's that have to do with anything? Venus is always closer to the Sun than the Earth ... but not close enough to the Sun to account for the radical temperature differences, as I said.

65 posted on 11/27/2014 9:35:42 AM PST by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

CO2 levels during the Carboniferous Period were 400 times higher than present levels.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html#anchor147264


66 posted on 11/27/2014 9:36:12 AM PST by TStro (Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: PIF

I think there’s some confusion here. The original post was referring to the similarity of temperatures (allowing for distance from the sun) of the two atmospheres at the same pressures, not at the planets’ surfaces. 1000 millibars is the pressure at the surface of the Earth, but that pressure exists in Venus’s atmosphere at 50-65 km above the surface. The temperature at that altitude is what is being compared to the temperature of the atmosphere at Earth’s surface, not the temperature at Venus’s surface.


67 posted on 11/27/2014 9:49:15 AM PST by HartleyMBaldwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

Still even at 0.04% that is not even remotely close to being enough to blanket the globe in a thick enough blanket to trap heat- not even close- As mentioned before, it’s far more likely that this piddly 0.04% is in tiny insignificant pockets scattered 1000’s of miles apart all over the globe and couldn’t possibly be big enough to tap anything-

And, EVEN IF there was a blanket trapping heat from escaping, wouldn’t it also mean that the CO2 PREVENTS heat from entering fro m the sun in equal force thereby cancelling out any effect that trapping has??

We are about to have trillions of dollars stolen from us over this lie- and the GOP sits idly by allowing it to happen without asking the critical questions like how it’s possible for only 4/10’ths of 1% of our atmosphere can be causing warming on a global scale-

The only ‘answer’ I can find online makes the asinine argument that CO2 is like poison, and that ‘it wouldn’t be a good thing to have 0.04% arsenic or risin in a cup of tea” or the equally asinine argument that “our bodies contain .05% iron, but if it gets more, it’s deadly” (not sure on the percentage of iron- but ran across that moronic argument the other day)-

Their only ‘answer’ is that CO2 is “like a a poison”? Really? That still doesn’t even come close to answering how just 0.04% of the atmosphere can cause warming on a global scale


68 posted on 11/27/2014 9:57:18 AM PST by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: PIF

[[It is 460 degrees day or night, at the poles or at the equator]]

Sooooo you’re saying there’s no need for ovens any longer? Woohoo- ovens are energy hogs- We can bake our turkeys outside for free now!


69 posted on 11/27/2014 10:00:34 AM PST by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Flick Lives

[[CO2 constitutes 0.039% of the Earth’s atmosphere. Not 10%, not 1%, not 0.1%; just 0.039%. About 4 parts per 1,000. Climate change alarmists have never explained how a gas that constitutes such an infinitesimally small percentage of the atmosphere could have oh so powerful an effect on climate.]]

Yep- the ‘best’ I can find from them is that they liken it to poison- apparently that is the best they can muster for a feeble attempt at defending their scam


70 posted on 11/27/2014 10:02:13 AM PST by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

[[Solar energy is mostly in the UV spectrum, which is not absorbed by CO2. Radiant energy form the Earth is in the IR spectrum, which is absorbed by CO2]]

Ok that explains one of the questions I had about CO2 reflecting the sun’s energy or not- But even if it isn’t absorbed, can it be reflected by CO2?


71 posted on 11/27/2014 10:05:13 AM PST by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: alpo

[[How does the molecule know which direction the heat is coming from?]]

Star navigation?


72 posted on 11/27/2014 10:05:51 AM PST by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: HartleyMBaldwin

Well. if the guy cannot write clearly then what’s the use?

Further. it’s a bogus comparison in the first place - comparing dissimilar things and then equating them is idiotic. To go on to make a statement deriving from that guy’s bogus equating, is exactly what the man-made climate disruptioners do. So the math and the conclusions are pure made up BS - the guy cannot even keep Kelvin and Celsius straight.

One could make a “mathematical” case that the moon is really made of green cheese by comparing the height of the average lunar surface feature to the height of the cheese counter in the grocery store, the placement of the green cheese on windy days right after a full moon ... and so on ...


73 posted on 11/27/2014 10:36:38 AM PST by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: PIF

Fine, have it your way. By the way, your post 59 confuses temperature with pressure, and Celsius with Fahrenheit, so I hope you’ll forgive me if I don’t take you very seriously.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.


74 posted on 11/27/2014 10:49:52 AM PST by HartleyMBaldwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: HartleyMBaldwin

No it does not confuse anything - the bit about pressure is a separate item and nothing to do with temperature argument preceding, beyond the physics that increased pressure increases the temperature of a medium.

Be sure to have an extra helping of Turkey and make the gal at Salon happy ...:)


75 posted on 11/27/2014 10:58:21 AM PST by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Bob434

Doesn’t that only work at night?

s/ running rampant


76 posted on 11/27/2014 11:06:50 AM PST by alpo (What would Selco do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: PIF

Read your own post, please. This is what appeared: “(1000 millibars = temp at the surface)”. A millibar is a unit of pressure, not temperature. You also stated “There is no way that Venus has a balmy surface temp of 65.8 degrees Fahrenheit.”, when the original post refers to 66 degrees Celsius and makes no mention of Fahrenheit. Nor of Venus’s surface temperature, for that matter.

Not sure what that Salon reference is supposed to mean, but no doubt it’s extremely crushing.

I don’t feel like wasting more time on you. Go ahead and have the last word, and then tell yourself how brilliant you are, and how you got the best of the exchange.


77 posted on 11/27/2014 11:17:42 AM PST by HartleyMBaldwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: alpo

Only moisture and blanket cloud cover can absorb and develop the kind of warming they talk about. CO2 does not even condensate nor reflect/trap infrareds like clouds do.


78 posted on 11/27/2014 11:42:13 AM PST by lavaroise (A well regulated gun being necessary to the state, the rights of the militia shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Bob434
The TOTAL ATMMOSPHERIC CO2 level is just 0.004% but MAN’S contribution to that piddly 0.004% is just 3.4% of that amount

The level of CO2 has risen from 280ppm to 400ppm. Had mankind not been around the level would have risen from 280 to 290 at most due to warming after the Little Ice Age. Instead it has risen to 400ppm.

As for 400 ppm having no effect, that is not true either. The first 20 ppm has a huge effect (i.e. 20 ppm versus zero). The warming decreases with each added 20 ppm, so man's added CO2 doesn't have a very large effect. But without that first 20 ppm of CO2, we would have an iceball planet.

And, by the way, it is 0.04% not 0.004%

79 posted on 11/27/2014 12:40:24 PM PST by palmer (Free is when you don't have to pay for nothing. Or do nothing. We want Obamanet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen
I wonder if the fact that the Earth’s atmosphere at 1000 MB is bordered on one side by land and sea changes the temperature equation?

Most definitely. The earth's water has a number of effects such as thermal inertia, latent heat transfer (global cooling), and global warming by water vapor. The largest effect is warming, but we don't have the thick clouds that venus has that also trap heat there. There are too many different factors to make simple conclusions based on atmospheric pressure.

80 posted on 11/27/2014 12:49:53 PM PST by palmer (Free is when you don't have to pay for nothing. Or do nothing. We want Obamanet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-106 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson