Posted on 07/09/2017 7:14:54 AM PDT by rktman
A new scientific paper contends the entire foundation of the man-made global-warming theory – the assumption that greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere by trapping heat – is wrong.
If confirmed, the study’s findings would crush the entire “climate change” movement to restrict CO2 emissions, the authors assert
Some experts contacted by WND criticized the paper, while others advised caution.
Still others suggested that the claimed discovery represents a massive leap forward in human understanding – a “new paradigm.”
The paper argues that concentrations of CO2 and other supposed “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere have virtually no effect on the earth’s temperature.
They conclude the entire greenhouse gas theory is incorrect.
Instead, the earth’s “greenhouse” effect is a function of the sun and atmospheric pressure, which results from gravity and the mass of the atmosphere, rather than the amount of greenhouse gases such as CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere.
The same is true for other planets and moons with a hard surface, the authors contend, pointing to the temperature and atmospheric data of various celestial bodies collected by NASA.
So precise is the formula, the authors of the paper told WND, that, by using it, they were able to correctly predict the temperature of other celestial bodies not included in their original analysis.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
There’s no question the climate changes, and there’s no question it was happening before man discovered fire. The so-called consensus scientists never make even an effort to distinguish the influence of human activity from natural climate fluctuations. I believe they don’t because they can’t. And that’s why they won’t tolerate any questioning of their climate dogma; it’s indefensible.
A Hindu co-worker once asked me why, if you get milk from her, would you want to eat the cow. I found it difficult to answer because nothing I said could match the idiocy of the question.
Bookmark. And thank you!
You’re welcome. Just tryin’ to do my part to get a visit from the climate cops. ;-)
btt
??1.. Define the “correct” temperature range for the planet.
2. Define the “correct” humidity range for the planet.
3. Define the “correct” mean sea level for the planet.
4. Define the “correct” amount of precipitation for the planet.
5. Define the “correct” makeup of the atmosphere.
6. Define the “correct” amount of sea ice at the N/S poles.
7. Define/explain past glaciation and subsequent warming without any input from humans.
<<
A: Whatever is needed to transfer the most money from the grubby masses to the ruling liberal elite and despots.
So precise is the formula ... they were able to correctly predict the temperature of other celestial bodies not included in their original analysis.”
The Marxists won’t like this “heresy”.
“Good thing gravity can’t be defeated.”
This science is not only settled it’s the law!!
Just got a copy of Bill Bryson’s “A Short History of Nearly Everything” He uses geological evidence to discuss climate changes in the far distant past wayyy before man was here.
The Sahara desert has ancient river beds!
Should be define “correct” “for any point in time” since they have constructed “time” throughout their anal ysis.
Bump for later
Come on. That's just crazy talk. How could anything as far away as the sun have any influence on the temperature here? You must be one of those deniers.
The basis of the article:
I try to do the print when available as the first choice to help skip useless ads and then the non print for some folks who prefer that option.
I believe the theory is CO2 acts like the roof of a greenhouse, "trapping" the heat and holding it in. But as you stated, the concentration is too minimal to have any such effect.
Amazing...who would have thunk it....
Gallileo was correct.
To Michael Mann, your world is crumbling, You refuse to give data in the Canadian SLAPP lawsuit that you had brought against Dr. Tim Ball. You had agreed to provide it, and now the loser has to pay. You claim he lied about you yet you refuse to offer the data to prove that he lied..,.,why? Because your analysis is flawed and your published theories are being disproved. The wheels are coming off, and this lawsuit should have been as easy as a “can of corn” if what you have been screaming about for 20 odd years was true!
If the science is done, then debate the skeptics and crush them with facts. Destroy them with data, do not hide behind lawsuits and battalions of lawyers. You are a scientist, then prove it with science, Why not do that? Because you analysis is wrong and you cannot prove it, and you have tied yourself to a ten ton anchor then threw it overboard. Your lawyers don’t have the strength to pull it up. Hold your breath!
You created your hockey stick by changing previously accumulated data, by coming up with a nonsense rationale to alter (i.e. lower) temperature readings from the earlier part of the 20th century, to show a higher hockey stick raise in the latter part. This foolery is obvious to any observer, but yet it is a fact that has not been covered thoroughly by the MSM. It is a contra-narrative and the MSM has been protecting you. That adulteration was ugly but then your bogus tree stump readings were then hideously spot welded onto to other data series to create more questionable hockey stick graphs. I am not surprised of your desire to hide it. Totally fabricated and your critics are dead right about you. You now try to obfuscate in a courtroom what you cannot prove in the science hall.
These suits may clear the atmosphere, to coin a phrase, of a lot of factless garbage being spun by your ilk. Now you are forced to perform, unless your lawyers can think up another obfuscation!
Yet - the predictions is where we can rest our hat of your deception; that NYC would be unlivable by 2015, as you have noticed that has not happened, I fear more an Islamic suitcase nuke as a real crisis in NYC rather that the so called rising oceans. The oceans are not doing what you said they would do. Your models have no predictive power. Your scare mongering, and lawsuits are the last refuge of a phony science scoundrel.
Your ridiculous climageddon was called far too soon, and listen moron, if you want to start a false religion, make sure your stupid ass cosmological event, that you have predicted and can solve by selling “indulgences”, is so far into the future that you cannot possibly be alive when it is so hilariously disproved, and then scramble in courtrooms as the ponzi sheep demand their money back. Et Tu Bernie Madoff?
Why should governments continuously give you and Al Gore money. Read the East Anglia emails, you are swimming in a cesspool of bullshit. Your data is a joke, but the industry and the grant money is too big to ignore. All fear, all the time. Scaring the children with tidal waves that will bring the ocean to Ohio, where great whites will devour seven year olds playing in their driveway. It is outrageous, and brings Blazac to mind - behind every great fortune there is a great crime!
Prove it or lose it!
It was my understanding that the science on this was already settled. If you don’t believe me, ask Al Gore.
PV=nRT isn’t the right equation for this though. That equation describes the behavior of a “perfect” gas, considering either a change in temperature or a change in pressure or a change in volume. Whatever the equation is for the steady-state temperature of a planet’s atmosphere, that would be heat transfer equations.
Maybe I’ll call him this afternoon. ;-)
I believe this theory posits that atmospheric temperature is a function of the mass of the atmosphere, more or less. If the atmosphere is cooler, it becomes more dense, not as thick, but not much change in pressure - and maybe, with a given mass, slightly HIGHER pressure.
I do agree, more energy in results in higher temperature, but I don;t think the temperature increase follows from pressure increase. The volume of atmosphere around a planet is more variable than the pressure at the bottom of the atmosphere. The pressure at the bottom of the atmosphere is directly a function of the mass of atmosphere above a unit of area.
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.