Title : Global Warming is not Man-Made Part 2: Singing from the same Hymn Sheet
link : Global Warming is not Man-Made Part 2: Singing from the same Hymn Sheet
Global Warming is not Man-Made Part 2: Singing from the same Hymn Sheet
William Happer: The truth about greenhouse gases - New GWPF Document InformationalLondon, August 17 - The Global Warming Policy Foundation today published an information document highlighted by the distinguished physicist professor William Happer of Princeton University (USA) .
in her article the truth about greenhouse gases, professor Happer criticized the scaremongering about CO2 emissions and the habitual exaggeration of the potential impact and risks posed by global warming wrong. In particular, he complains of the cooptation of climate science by governments.
Happer discusses what he calls the "contemporary moral epidemic" of climate alarmism: the idea that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, have disastrous consequences for humanity and for the planet and advocates a sober and balanced assessment based on empirical observations, not computer models.
"CO2 actually cause a warming of our planet. All things being equal, the more CO2 will cause more warming. The question is how much warming, and if the increased CO2 and warming causes will be good or bad for the planet, "Happer writes.
Related Post: Global warming is not Part 1 artificial: The truth about greenhouse gases
William Happer is the Fogg Brackett professor of Physics at Cyrus Princeton University. He is a member of the Academic Advisory Board of the GWPF.
The truth about greenhouse gases
Now, skeptics and skeptical professors, does it is to make their hearts feel good to see another eminent professor obviously physics has come out boldly in favor of the skeptical cause? But is there anything in his statement that makes you pause?
I am not a teacher, I have no degree of any kind, I personally am only concerned with logic. I worry Facts and Conclusions. In reading the history of science what you see that time is needed for data and even longer are established so that the correct conclusions reached. This process is ongoing.
There is one thing though that did not concern the statement of Professor Happer, that is, "indeed CO2 causes warming of our planet." Why does that worry me? This is because it is precisely the argument that the alarmists use. Note the use of the word "cause". This means that the teacher Happer considers that carbon dioxide can be a driver of climate, which is precisely the argument that Al Gore proposed and that most skeptics claim is false. Professor Happer continues "All things being equal, the more CO2 will cause further warming."
Once again it is stated that CO2 is causal, but only in a small degree. But is that logical? What is the basis for asserting that carbon dioxide may cause global warming? Lord Monckton takes the same attitude, claiming that the greenhouse effect is real, based on the experiment Tyndall easily replicable. But what it does show the Tyndall experiment? Carbon dioxide absorbs strongly in the infrared and near infrared. No one will argue with that, as an established fact. But what conclusion can be derived from that? Since carbon dioxide absorbs heat, it does that infer that causes heating? Sorry, there is no way that is logical. Because we also know that carbon dioxide can also be cooled to dry ice. Ergo, carbon dioxide is reactive and not an agent, not a driver.
This is even clearer with steam. We can all experience the humidity on a hot day. Is the humidity create the heat? Obviously not, because we know that freezing fog is water vapor. In both cases, the gas is passive. In simple language that can both cool and heat. There is no way they can cause heat.
Yesterday at noon here in England, Farnborough where I live, which was 22 ° C and very humid, so I was reluctant to get up and cut the lawn, sitting at my table in the garden. This varnished table was noticeably warmer to the touch. I conclude that, for the table was warming the garden? No way, it was clear that the day before when we were inundated by the rain of the table was equally cold.
did now moisture, water vapor that warmer temperature, or simply more uncomfortable? Or it could have made it even cooler? Here I quote the book of Ian Plimer Heaven + Earth, P433.
"Water vapor is an amplifier instead of a trigger. This can be easily tested. In a coastal area wet with a clear sky that is warm in the day and warm at night. inside the same latitude where the air is dry, it will be hot in the day and cold at night. "
here's an interesting use of the word "trigger." And water vapor is not a cause. Had there been no water vapor then the temperature would probably have been higher and the coldest night. This seems to confirm the thesis of Hans Schreuder far from warming, the so-called greenhouse gases actually have a cooling effect
Al Gore is clearly unable to distinguish cause and effect -. Let that can not be said of any skeptic.
Professor Happer '... calls for a sober and balanced assessment based on empirical observations, not computer models.
not must all agree with him. Based on empirical observations! Absolutely. But is there a single proof that man has in no way, shape or form has been able to cause heating? Is there any one piece of evidence that any warming can be attributed to man that can not simply be attributed to the Great Nature?
Thus Alarmists improvise disparate observations that Arctic ice is melting, even that the Northwest Passage is open. Such fusion season is easily explained by warming ocean currents. The birth of Arctic glaciers as Jim Peden said, is a sign of progress, not receding glaciers. As far as I am aware that there is no empirical observation that some conclusively proves that man has caused no warming at all. Even Professor Karoly could produce a summer day
Svante Aarenhuis wanted to make the world warmer. - Who can blame him? - But all the evidence is that everything is always hot cools. Is there any one thing that grows hotter and hotter by itself?
here simply on the basis of Philosophy and Logic hope and pray that all the skeptics will gather and sing the same song sheet . I certainly agree with Stephen Wilde that the last thing we would like is for skeptics to attack each other. Therefore, if my facts are wrong, I am willing to be corrected. Similarly, if my reasoning, if my logic is flawed, I am willing to be corrected. However, if we say that the CO2 causes warming causes global warming in any manner or form, we are creating a hostage to fortune; We are giving one of the mainstays of the alarmists.
Given the Adiabatic Lapse Rate, since the atmosphere above about 7,500 feet is zero ° C and in decline, and is about 45 ° C less than 30,000 feet, how you can heat reflected down from that altitude where there is no heat? Let the teacher Trenberth make diagrams that make no sense, and according to Rev Philip Foster, not even add up, but they are skeptical trapped in such confusion. It can not be, of course, with the exception of greenhouse gases in a greenhouse. It's pretty easy to catch a butterfly with a fine net, but try to catch it with the air, any gas or combination of gases, that is impossible. So the gas can be heated, can even be burned, can be compressed, may even be liquefied, but in no way can trap gas nothing. The amount or volume of gas is totally irrelevant.
is vital that skeptics agree on this fundamental, so it is totally logical. Keep it simple and logical, so the skeptical cause is presented in a simple and logical way for the average man on the street. Clearly it is totally illogical to suggest that any leads at all climate gas. Physics deals with the mechanics of how things happen. But we must never confuse the mechanics to the cause, so it is what the alarmists.
Here is an interesting excerpt from John Gribbin of "The history of science."
Joseph Priestley began his experiments with air '' during your stay in Leeds, where he lived near a brewery. The air immediately above the surface of the beer fermentation tanks had recently been identified as "fixed air" of Black and Priestley saw that he had a laboratory already made where he could experiment with large amounts of this gas.
it was found that a layer of about nine inches was formed a foot deep above the fermentation liquor and, despite a lighted candle placed on this layer was extinguished, the smoke He remained there. by adding smoke to the layer of carbon dioxide, Priestley made visible, so that the waves on the surface could be observed (the boundary between carbon dioxide and ordinary air), and it could be seen that flowing over the sides and onto the floor.
from this we know that carbon dioxide is once and heavier than the air medium, and therefore should be subject to the laws of gravity . in which case you can only carry up by convection, and must fall to the ground later as ashes of a campfire
. Author: Anthony Bright-Paul
"Global Warming is not Man-Made Part 2: Singing from the same Hymn Sheet", article source: riseearth.com
Thanks for Reading Global Warming is not Man-Made Part 2: Singing from the same Hymn Sheet
Thank you for reading this Global Warming is not Man-Made Part 2: Singing from the same Hymn Sheet, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article Global Warming is not Man-Made Part 2: Singing from the same Hymn Sheet Url Address https://healthnbeautyarticles.blogspot.com/2011/09/global-warming-is-not-man-made-part-2.html
0 Response to "Global Warming is not Man-Made Part 2: Singing from the same Hymn Sheet"
Post a Comment