The History of Wrong Conclusions - Part Two: Prove it to Yourself! -Health & Beauty Informations. This article, entitled The History of Wrong Conclusions - Part Two: Prove it to Yourself!, we have prepared this article carefully for you so you can retrieve information therein. Hopefully you understand the contents of this article that we put under the category knowledge, well, happy reading.

Title : The History of Wrong Conclusions - Part Two: Prove it to Yourself!
link : The History of Wrong Conclusions - Part Two: Prove it to Yourself!

The History of Wrong Conclusions - Part Two: Prove it to Yourself!

[! You can read: The Story of erroneous conclusions - Part
Many believe that lay on the topic of global warming have to leave the question of "scientific". This means that all scientists agree, that is simply not the case, despite claims of "consensus". Nor are scientific logic alone - far from it! Nor are interest. In fact, on this issue, the large number of consensual scientists are interested, mostly unstated, used either by the UN or by their own governments, precisely to find a connection between carbon dioxide and global warming anthropogenic (AGW in order) to which are rewarded for financing, massive computers, state, and so on and so on.
So can a lay legitimately examine the question "Is there such a thing as artificial warming of the planet?" Yes, it is true that you can, provided you have some clarity of thought, provided you have a little logic, and always adhering to the laws of the well-established physics, which are largely statements corresponding to normal observation.
Therefore, I declare immediately that there is no such thing as anthropogenic global warming, which has never been any artificial planet and warming it never will be. In addition, I will ask every layman who reads, or dare to read this script, to prove everything you say themselves.
I'll start by making a silly question. What temperature is oxygen? What temperature is carbon dioxide? All right? Do you know the answer?
Indeed asked this question only a day or two behind two eminent physicists, much to his surprise. I meant this: Does carbon dioxide, for example, has an inherent temperature or derived? That was how I started myself.
Actually we know very well just saw the weather forecast from the BBC that the temperature at ground level vary. By watching the weather channel on my computer I see that the current temperature is 13 ° C, which is expected to rise to 19 ° C and it will be up to 9 ° C, today, where I live.
So that means that gases, which inhale and exhale, temperature vary throughout the course of the day and night. Do then gas heat, or heat them?
Some gases are heated and retain heat more easily than others, like John Tyndall demonstrated a long time, especially water vapor and carbon dioxide, which became known as the gas greenhouse effect.
But it also can be cooled. Dry ice is the solid form of carbon dioxide, and is colder than water ice, so it must be handled carefully for fear of frostbite. What does this at once? Is carbon dioxide produces heat in any way. Nor can it not a "heat trap" of gas. Try to catch a gas. Certainly, you can trap carbon dioxide by blowing up a balloon! The skin of the balloon traps the gas, but the gas itself can not catch anything. Prove yourself!
Take another example, a home. Put a bottle of beer in the fridge. Opening it will ice cold beer. Bubbles of carbon dioxide, the gas will be as cold. Pour yourself a pint of Best Bitter and leave it on the windowsill in the sun. What is achieved? warm beer. We do not need a thermometer to check the temperature difference - we can prove in an instant. So that the gas temperature does not have inherent, but derived from their environment.
've had a hot day a couple of weeks ago - remember? - So hot that my wife drew the curtains in the living room to keep the room cool. Immediately outside through sliding doors leading south was our greenhouse, a burning heat. It was very humid that day - that is water vapor - so I felt quite insufferable out too. Water vapor heat output slowed sun. (Actually, on reflection, although this statement is not entirely accurate. Since water vapor is indeed small drops of water, everything that is happening it is that the sun warms the water, which has a higher heat capacity than the air, and therefore loses its heat more slowly.)
Does this mean that water vapor Earth warms? Well almost. There are times when we both midwinter hard frost and freezing fog. That freezing fog is water vapor! Therefore water vapor and carbon dioxide can be hot or cold, depending on external factors, depending on the energy, the energy of the Sun
No, greenhouse gases, comprising only 1% of the atmosphere and should rather be called insulating gas, no heat, but only keep it for a while - not forever, but for a short period of time .
Take the example of loft insulation. My loft is already insulated for those things in glass wool. If I had to duplicate that isolation, it would have to do my warm house? The answer is absolutely not. Only the insulation is preventing some heat loss. In order to produce heat that I need to burn something, in my case, the gas, which in turn heats the water that fills my radiators, which is expected, radiate heat.
Once you understand this simple idea, we are three-quarters way to understand that there is no such thing as global warming made by man.
Let's get into the atmosphere. The atmosphere is quite large space or place. On the ground floor the average temperature is 15 ° C, but for each 1000 feet heat decreases by 2 °, so that 7500 feet is 0 ° C, at 10,000 feet it is minus 5 °; 20,000 feet is a Minus 25 ° C; and 30,000 feet where most aircraft fly, is something less 45 degrees Celsius.
This is the scale used by airplane pilots, and is known as type atmosphere, and illustrates the Adiabatic Lapse Rate. And this is why it is colder on the mountaintops set out below.
The same day we will have a wonderful demonstration of this rate within the cyclists of the Tour de France address the Col du Galibier, where we will see snow on the surrounding mountains. To see the peloton ride to the snow line will indeed be a spectacle. Undoubtedly, these brave cyclists exhale a huge amount of carbon dioxide, through their efforts. It is this carbon dioxide contribute to global warming? Or is it just carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels? Neither!
The alarmists claim that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere first absorbs infra-red - which is the hottest part of the spectrum - and then re-emitted in all directions including toward the earth, and this heating also produces evaporation, a positive feedback, and thus further heating. Even they argue that there is a hot spot somewhere 10 kilometers above the tropics. Here I quote from Dr. David Evans recent talk in Perth, Australia.

"weather balloons have been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. Climate models predict that all the planet heated, a hot spot of moist air will develop in the tropics about 10 km upward, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the fresh air and dry up.

during heating of the late 1970s, 80s and 90s, weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. not even a little. This evidence demonstrates that climate models are fundamentally flawed and overestimate largely temperature increases due to carbon dioxide. "

I hope we have shown that there is no way that carbon dioxide can increase the temperature, and as for the inhibition of heat loss very negligible amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, some 0.385%, almost can not have any effect.
Even some skeptics seem to believe that these greenhouse gases cause warming, but only very little, in fact so little as to be negligible. For example Lord Monckton wrote me as follows:

Dear Mr. Bright-Paul, - The relevance of the experiment Tyndall easily replicable is showing to be real greenhouse, although of course It tells us little about the central issue in the climate debate: the amount of heating a given increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration will cause. Since CO2 is a "well-mixed" gas, its concentration is more or less uniformly through the atmosphere, so increasing its concentration tend almost uniformly to increase the probability that a molecule of CO2 pathway will intersect a photon radiation outgoing near infrared, preventing it from escaping into outer space and thus reduce the cooling that would have occurred. The greenhouse effect, therefore, is real, and some warming is expected - all on equal terms. - If the concentration of CO2 is increased

I will not argue with this, neither with nor Tyndall Lord Monckton. I'll accept that carbon dioxide is more or less uniform throughout the atmosphere (although I do not see how it could be proven) and increasing concentrations increases the likelihood that a molecule of CO2 via a photon cross -infra outlet near red radiation.
But where will take place this intersection? And when? That is the question. Monckton will say 'preventing it from escaping into outer space and therefore reduce cooling would occur. "Is semantics change that by" the delay that escape into outer space, and slow cooling will definitely happen? ' no possibility that a gas can heat anything but a gas can be heated or cooled. It's a subtle distinction, but I think an important and necessary one.
Every night when the sun goes down, the part of the Earth cools in the shade. We humans also fresh. When we go to bed we've got you covered with blankets or quilts, to prevent the escape of our body heat.
ah, ha, Alarmist respond, greenhouse gases act as a shelter and are warming the globe. Not so. If a warm-blooded body wearing a coat, which will help retain heat for over time. But a coat in a suit of armor cold, warm coat is armor? Of course, no! Say adds gloves gauntlets, say you put a bearskin on the hull, we should make the game warmer armor? You know the answer, as did I. The armor would remain stubbornly cold.
Everyone knows that heat always rises in a gas or liquid. We also know that heat always flows by itself from hot to cold and vice versa. Put that together with the adiabatic lapse rate Lapse, and what do you get? An enigma. So, how gas is heated at temperatures well below freezing? Are we to believe that carbon dioxide can reflect heat back to say 30,000 feet, where the temperature is minus 45 degrees Celsius? To challenge a fundamental law of physics, the second law of thermodynamics. Are we to believe that somewhere at the top of the troposphere n access point is hidden hitherto hidden?
El Globo makes tibia and Globo is cool. There have been periods in the history of the land of ice ages and periods of great warmth, as the maximum Holocene Warm Period Roman and medieval. Are we going to say that man is warming the planet, with a significant addition of carbon dioxide to the huge amounts that nature produces?
So what heat the balloon? What causes wind? Everyone knows the answer. The sun heats the globe, and because warming is not uniform also indirectly causes the sun winds. This is the primary weather. Some gases are hotter than others. However, gases are passive, non-active heat suppliers. Far from AGW, the only certainty is global cooling. Thank the good Lord that we are living in a period of warming.
q.e.d. . There is no such thing as AGW !!!
topic related articles long-term variations in solar activity and its apparent effect on the climate of the Earth by K.Lassen
space weather can also affect the long-term climate of the Earth. Solar ultraviolet, visible radiation and heat are the main factors for the Earth's climate, including global average temperature, and these energy sources appears to be fairly constant. However, many scientists have observed corrrelations between solar magnetic activity, reflected in the frequency of sunspots and climate parameters on Earth. Sunspots are recorded through several hundred years, making possible the comparison of their variable frequency to climatic variations in the extent that reliable climatological records exist. One of the most striking comparisons was published by E. Friis-Christensen og K. Lassen, DMI, in "Science" in 1991. In his work they compared the average temperatureat the northern hemisphere with the average solar activity defined by the interval between successive sunspot maximum. The more active the sun - the shorter the interval: the solar cycle runs more intense. Their results are shown in the following figure: The red curve shows the solar activity, which usually is increasing through an interval of 100 years, since the cycle time has been reduced from about 11.5 years less 10 years. Within the same interval average temperature of the Earth as indicated by the blue curve it has increased by about 0.7 degrees C. Even the finest structures in the two curves have a similar appearance. (Reference: Friis-Christensen, E. and K. Lassen, duration of the solar cycle: An indicator of solar activity closely associated with the climate, Science, 254, 698-700, 1991).
The red curve shows the solar activity, which usually is increasing through an interval of 100 years as cycle time was reduced from about 11.5 years less than 10 years. Within the same interval average temperature of the Earth as indicated by the blue curve it has increased by about 0.7 degrees C. Even the finest structures in the two curves have a similar appearance. (Reference: Friis-Christensen, E. and K. Lassen, duration of the solar cycle: An indicator of solar activity closely associated with the climate, Science, 254, 698-700, 1991).

Let's compare this theory with other "scientific opinion" (supported by NASA).
Land is the only planet in the solar system because it is the only one that can support life as we know it. Its dense atmosphere serves to protect life on Earth by filtering out harmful ultraviolet rays hitting the surface and vaporization of most meteors before they can attack. In addition, the average temperatures are comfortable enough to sustain life.
conditions to support life on Earth are seen as fortuitous. If the planet had been only 5% closer to the Sun; the surface would have been too hot, as if it had been only 1% more than the surface would be a frozen wasteland. These small differences may also have saved the lives of plants eventually make the habitable atmosphere by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide and increased the amount of oxygen in the air through photosynthesis.
Earth has a wide range of temperatures, with an average temperature of the growing surface and a maximum of 58 ° C and falling to a low of -88 ° C. The highest temperature ever it was recorded on the planet was 70.7 ° C and the coldest temperatures -89.2 ° C. are, of course, much hotter in the planet's core to the inner core is believed to hit 7000 ° C and the outer core about 4000 ° C to 6000 ° C in the mantle, the layer just beneath the Earth's crust, temperatures could reach 870 ° C. global warming has also caused an increase the average surface temperature of the Earth over the past 150 years.
Average global temperatures have increased by 0.8 ° C since the 1880s, with the worst increases that occurred in recent decades. In fact, the last two decades of the twentieth century are among the hottest in 400 years. Among the most affected by global warming is the Arctic areas, which has seen average temperatures rise at twice the world average. This development has led some experts to predict that the Arctic could be completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier.
Video: take the temperature of Earth

Author: Anthony Bright-Paul

"The History of Wrong Conclusions - Part Two: Prove it to Yourself!", article source: riseearth.com

Thanks for Reading The History of Wrong Conclusions - Part Two: Prove it to Yourself!

Thank you for reading this The History of Wrong Conclusions - Part Two: Prove it to Yourself!, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.

You are now reading the article The History of Wrong Conclusions - Part Two: Prove it to Yourself! Url Address https://healthnbeautyarticles.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-history-of-wrong-conclusions-part.html