I am definitely not a Global Warming believer. However, I need help understanding why the Second Law of Thermodynamics is “proof” that this scam is a scam.
But, Romney said the Earth is “getting warmer”. That’s all we need to know.....
Thanks for the post. He is 100% correct.
To the climate “scientists”: “It is the Sun stupid!”
*
fyi
Almost sounds like an organized effort at using the Global Warming Scam to implement a Macro form of Communism at the Global level.
I remember when the “hole in the ozone layer” was a big thing. I had a young friend whom I had sailed against in Maine for many years who was a physicist, and ended up going down to Antartica every year to study that ozone hole.
One summer, at an annual beach barbecue, he told me, “You won’t hear this in the news, but that hole in the ozone layer has started to shrink.”
Sure enough, the media scarcely mentioned that embarrassing development, and the hole in the ozone layer was soon abandoned, for greener pastures—i.e., government funding.
Understand this, and the rest is just fluff.
The fact the envirowackos and gubmint banned a component used in making insulation on the space shuttle led to the death of the crew of Columbia because it was destroying the climate, is relative.
Just a reminder.
I would remind everyone “man-made” global warming is a PROVEN FACT. It does not help skeptics when someone denies this.
...reminds me of the belief of everyone I know under 30. They think AGW theory is a proven fact, when it is not even a sound theory. How do you even begin to enlighten someone who KNOWS just KNOWS that AGW is a proven fact. PROVEN fact. Where do you start? You can't. It is like a Christian and a Jew trying to convince each other on their belief of Christ. It is an impossible thing. The schools have been thorough in greenwashing an entire generation of vegetarian wiccans.
BUMP!
This is certainly an interesting comment:
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Phil says:
March 9, 2012 at 3:18 pm
While nonscientific assertions by William Connolley are regurgitated to no avail, more and more people now recognize that CO2 has no effect on climate, the rate at which a body of matter loses energy is determines by it’s molecular density, the emission wavelength of an emitting molecule or body is determined by it’s temperature, can my FiveGuys burger emit at a wavelength incident to 350 degreesF? No. The Oceans lose energy at a much slower rate vs the atmosphere for this reason, and it is why the contain so much more energy than the atmosphere.
CO2 in the cold upper atmosphere cannot warm or slow energy loss from the higher density lower atmosphere by more than a few trillions of a degreeF because the wavelength quantified as “backradiation” is saturated in a warmer body, reducing LW release in the CO2 spectrum will simply result in more LW leaving the planet in other wavelengths, but to a barely noticable exent. The 33C warming above the S-B threshold DOES NOT REQUIRE A GHE! You have the oceans and atmosphere which will NOT lose all of their energy overnight WITH OR WITHOUT GHGes! Hence the next day you’re warmer to begin the daily heating cycle, still far from solar equilibrium.
When I cover my body with a blanket at night, the reason the air in between my body and the blanket warms is because the blanket has a higher density than the air in between it and my body, hence a higher retainement threshold. Changing the amount of CO2 in under the blanket will do nothing to effect the temperature. My body is the warmest source in this case, and it is LW radiation from my body, UNLIKE SW radiation from the Sun which cannot be applied in the same sense because it has a vector in relation to the atmospheric LW value which has no vector, and does not travel at the same rate nor has the same perturbational value.
This example should do it…
If the GHE theory were correct, then if I put a cold gellpack on my head, I should expect my head to warm because my head is warming the gellpack while my body remains at 98.6 degreesF! It is so very IMPOSSIBLE!
The comment below speaks to my own guess that the earth’s atmosphere may not work like a hothouse greenhouse since we don’t have a physical barrier trapping air beneath it. The air in our atmosphere has nothing preventing it or slowing it down from releasing it’s heat into space as it rises. I say “space” but of course I mean giving up its heat to cooler air above until that heat over decades or centuries, is eventually given off into space.
The comment that speaks to my guess is below:
The debunking of man made warming disproves the fallacy of AGW that says there exists a mechanism where carbon dioxide in the cooler upper atmosphere exerts any thermal forcing effect on the warmer surface below.
That violates the First AND Second Laws of Thermodynamics. There is no glass roof on the Earth that traps excess heat as it escapes upward and out into space. Remember, the deeper the ocean – the colder the water – and remember that heat rises – it does not fall.
What AGW proponents seem to forget is that the mechanism of warming in a real greenhouse is different than the mechanism of warming of the Earth’s atmosphere – it is not a “greenhouse” effect – not even close.
More commentary along the lines of my guess:
__________________________________________________________________________________________
They show that the classic concept of the glass greenhouse wholly fails to replicate the physics of Earth’s climate. The German scientists show how greenhouse gas theory relies on guesstimates about the scientific properties involved to “calculate” the chaotic interplay of such a myriad and unquantifiable array of factors that is beyond even the abilities of the most powerful of modern supercomputers.
They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a “closed” system while the Earth works as an OPEN system. Moreover, the term “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does NOT occur in any fundamental work involving Thermodynamics, Physical kinetics or Radiation theory.
Mister, can you spare a $50?
By John Stossel
Published March 9, 2012 | FoxNews.com
That’s how much you’ll need to buy the Energy Department’s prize-winning light bulb.
Last year the government announced a $10 million prize “designed to spur lighting manufacturers to develop high-quality, high-efficiency solid-state lighting products to replace the common light bulb.” The winner? A light bulb that costs $50 each.
Only in the government would they think it was “progress” worth celebrating to replace something you can buy on Amazon.com for a little more than $1 with something that costs $50.
“I don’t want to say it’s exorbitant, but if a customer is only looking at the price, they could come to that conclusion,”Home Depot worker Brad Paulsen told the Washington Post.