Posted on 08/08/2019 12:02:43 AM PDT by kathsua
College is too expensive for students to waste money paying incompetent professors who teach the long discredited belief that carbon dioxide has a magical power to affect the temperature of the air. I recognize that some of the professors who push Enron's global warming scam are crooked rather than incompetent. The science version of prostitutes will say science is whatever their employers want it to be.
The claim that slight changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 could affect air temperature is based on a primitive early 19th Century belief that infrared radiation was "heat" and the atmosphere was heated by trapping it.. Physicists at the time had only a limited understanding of radiation, heat or atoms. For example, Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier claimed in what is called the "greenhouse gas theory" that the earth was heated in part by the IR received from distant stars. Physicists would not learn until late in the century that heat is the kinetic energy of atoms and atoms are not the smallest particles of matter.
Radiation doesn't heat the gas molecules in the atmosphere, but may heat dust and soot particles in the atmosphere. If IR heated the atmosphere then the high energy IR from the sun would heat the atmosphere much more than the low energy IR emitted by the ground. Physicist R. W Wood disproved Fourier's theory in 1909. He used small greenhouses that were identical except that one reflected IR and the other was transparent to IR. There was no significant temperature difference. In the initial run of the experiment the greenhouse that was transparent to IR heated faster than the one that reflected IR because the reflective greenhouse reflected the high energy solar IR back into space. If CO2 reflects IR then increasing the amount of atmospheric CO2 should result in more solar IR being reflected back into space and thus reduced solar heating.
Warmer have yet to provide any proof that the process they talk about exists. Their pathetic attempt to prove their theory involves creating a mathematically worthless number they call "the global average temperature".
The so-called global average temperature "is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada."
"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says, an expert of thermodynamics. "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".
"While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average."
Even if "the global average temperature" had mathematical value, an increase couldn't prove an increase in atmospheric CO2 was responsible. Continued increases in the heat generated by human activity should be causing an increase in air temperature. The global warming alarmists don't claim that an increase in the teracalories of heat humans collectively introduce into the air each day can cause dangerous global warming. . Instead they claim that unverified process that involves a gas that comprises only 0.04% of the atmosphere is the threat. These people shouldn't be teaching college. They should be reading fairy tales in a day care center.
A normal person entering a room that is too hot and has a space heater operating at the highest setting and a small it birthday candle would turn off the space heater. The person would treat the candle as a decorative feature that didn't add any significant amount of heat. The alarmist would blow out the CO2 producng candle and ignore the heater.
bkmk
The CO2 climate models do not explain the ice ages when much of the northern hemisphere was covered in glaciers a mile thick, nor the subsequent and relatively abrupt end of these ice ages. The model also fails to account for the medieval warm period, nor the so-called little ice age in the 16 century. The idea that there is a climate tipping point from which the climate does not return is debunked by two major volcanic events, Krakatoa in the early 19th century and Pinatubo in the 1980s... both produced significant major drops in global temperatures, but did not precipitate any long term effects or cause another ice age.
All scientific credibility for climate change alarmism is ended when it is declared that the science is settled or the bogus 97% of scientists surveyed argument is used. Science is never settled nor based on consensus. That anyone who credibly questions the CO2 global warming theory is labeled a denier (I.e., heretic) shows climate change to be a cult religion based on unchallenged dogma.
Lastly the recent Google camp where celebrities and politicians flew in hundreds of private jets, were chauffeured in gas guzzling SUVs and had lavish energy using parties to lecture us peons about how our carbon sins were going to end life on our planet in a decade was the ultimate hypocrisy. That Hollywood nitwits with no knowledge of anything scientific and who live lavish energy guzzling lifestyles are to be seen as the great source of wisdom on planetary climate is laughable. The Green New Deal being touted by politicians is similarly just a vehicle for establishing a socialist state and has nothing to do with climate.
A fool and his money......
`
`
They should study that big thing in the sky that appears every morning. 🌞
The university where I work has just instituted a “common read” for incoming freshmen this fall semester. Everyone is to read “Falter” by Jim McKibben. Faculty are encouraged to participate in discussions of the book. A list of suggested questions was emailed to all of us to help us facilitate these discussions which will be organized when the semester begins. Questions such as what are the stances of the two political parties; how can we as individuals limit our carbon footprint, blah, blah, blah. I haven’t read the book, but McKibben’s notions as described in the reviews of the book that I’ve read are that the human race has come to the end if drastic action isn’t taken soon to reduce global warming. He’s even advocated violent civil unrest. And this is the hogwash impressionable undergraduates are being fed without any consideration of other points of view. So, they’re being told that it’s the end of the human race; that we’re all doomed. No wonder kids are taking drugs, killing themselves in increasing numbers, or cracking up and going on shooting rampages. This is simply abuse and if you disagree with the global warming fascists, you are branded as a climate denier and are punished for your heresy.
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.