+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: How to debunk the climate hoax

  1. Link to Post #1
    Scotland Avalon Member
    Join Date
    29th February 2012
    Posts
    621
    Thanks
    209
    Thanked 2,924 times in 554 posts

    Default How to debunk the climate hoax

    Hi Folks

    I am 55 years old.

    When I first was confronted with the "climate change agenda" I was 20. It was 1984 and Margaret Thatcher was in power. At that time she used the the threat of imminent "climate change" as a tool in her armoury to help destroy the coal mining unions.

    Following that I did an engineering degree at a Scottish university whose scientific heritage owed as much to studies of heat transfer as anything else. Aeroplanes were built, steam engines, gas turbine engines and even concorde and rocket engine designers were amongst the staff that administered and tought the courses I took.

    It never occurred to me that the "global warming" agenda might be a wholesale scientific scam. I probably went 20 years before even considering it. Why would I ?

    But one day, I came across a gas turbine engineer who took it upon himself to take apart the whole greenhouse gas theory. Gas turbine engineers are generally quite competent in solving heat transfer problems because if they weren't, the engines that power holiday flights would let people down somewhat.

    Meanwhile, my family is not able to grow orange trees in their garden despite being bombarded with propaganda that we are now in a state of "climate change". No orange trees in Scotland, none in England. No deserts in Spain. No deserts in Portugal.

    I urge you to take a look at this document: (the one called "Planetary Environments" linked to in this page. It's a PDF that can be downloaded).

    https://gvigurs.wordpress.com/2020/0...-climate-hoax/

    This is a superbly thought through piece of work by a gas turbine engine designer for whom heat transfer problems are like playing with lego. He didn't bother trying to get it published for 2 reasons:

    1. He's an engineer, not a scientist
    2. He sees the academic publishing institutions as a political domain, not a scientific one, therefore assumed they would not be interested (Engineers are required to keep planes in the air, not satisfy institutional academic agendas).

    However, what engineers are very good at is modelling the natural world from first principles.

    TL;DR: There are two scientific laws that predate any "global warming" theories which prevail:

    • The Stafan Boltzman law which describes temperature at the surface of a black body. It allows us to calculate the EXACT temperature that the earth should have given its distance from the sun and "albedo" (which is the amount of reflection due to ice, clouds etc). ("Grey body" = "Black body" - albedo)

    Kirchoff's Law of radiative balance at thermal equilibrium. This states that a body at thermal equilibrium must radiate away as much heat as it absorbs

    With this in mind, consider the fact that there is not only 1 planet in the solar system but 8 (9 if you include pluto which was recently "outlawed"). All of these planets have vastly different atmospheric constituents, yet all are in thermal equilibrium. (They obey Kirchoff's law: radiative heat in = radiative heat out).

    Mars atmosphere is 95% Co2, yet it can lose 100 degrees in a single evening. Earth atmosphere is 0.04% Co2. Just to clarify, that is 4 hundredths of 1 percent. Barely enough to be detectable and keep the plants growing.

    Please draw your attention to page 17 of the document linked above. Consider it in the context of the Wikipedia article linked here that describes how radiative heat is absorbed by the atmosphere and then "re-radiated" back to earth as if it was an independent heat source. Notice how the big arrow is pointing down and the small one points up. This is propaganda, not science. The science of the matter is correctly expressed by the equations below which show that emissivity creates no net asymmetry in the radiative heat transfer between atmospheric layers. We could be 100% Co2 and still have the same climate.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenh...use_Effect.svg

    It is not an independent heat source. The heat was already absorbed by the planet surface in the first place so cannot be counted twice.

    To see the mathematical modelling of the problem, refer to page 17 of the "planetary atmospheres" document:



    Notice that epsilon (the emissivity of the atmospheric gas) appears on both sides of the equation on the second last step. It therefore cancels out. It is not a factor in the symmetry of solar energy absorbed and emitted by the planet.

    This explains why English people can still not grow oranges in their gardens despite 80 years of "climate change" propaganda. It explains why there is no significant sea ice loss for the last 100 years. It explains why snow still falls on Scottish mountains.

    There IS however a real "greenhouse effect". which is that the atmosphere (by virtue of having a finite mass and heat capacity) can absorb heat and retain it as long as the heat source (sun) continues to be available. But the "trap" isn't carbon dioxide, it's gravity. Gravity prevents the atmosphere from floating away and that's what keeps us warm. Carbon dioxide (or other "greenhouse gasses) has nothing to do with it.

    A garden greenhouse also works on this basis. Ironically it does not function on the "greenhouse effect" of asymmetrical radiative heating, rather it works by allowing radiative heat enter but not allowing the warm air to float away. i.e. the asymmetry isn't between radiative heat in and out, it's between radiative heat in and physical retention of the warm air.

    There is a radiative balance. On planet earth, radiative heat absorbed equals radiative heat emitted. It has to (otherwise we'd have fried to a cinder eons ago).
    Last edited by indigopete; 26th July 2020 at 12:31.

  2. The Following 27 Users Say Thank You to indigopete For This Post:

    Alan (26th July 2020), aoibhghaire (27th July 2020), Baby Steps (26th July 2020), Bill Ryan (26th July 2020), ByTheNorthernSea (26th July 2020), Craig (26th July 2020), David Trd1 (26th July 2020), EFO (26th July 2020), Ewan (27th July 2020), ExomatrixTV (26th July 2020), Gemma13 (4th August 2020), Gwin Ru (28th July 2020), happyuk (26th July 2020), HikerChick (4th August 2020), Iancorgi (26th July 2020), Ioneo (26th July 2020), kfm27917 (26th July 2020), Maknocktomb (26th July 2020), meeradas (26th July 2020), mpennery (26th July 2020), O Donna (26th July 2020), Open Minded Dude (26th July 2020), Rhogar (26th July 2020), Richard S. (26th July 2020), Tintin (3rd August 2020), toppy (26th July 2020), Wind (26th July 2020)

  3. Link to Post #2
    Wales Avalon Member
    Join Date
    8th October 2012
    Location
    Wales, UK
    Language
    English
    Age
    52
    Posts
    566
    Thanks
    2,980
    Thanked 3,025 times in 527 posts

    Default Re: How to debunk the climate hoax

    Excellent analysis indigo. The IPCC’s disaster scenario is quite speculative, and unsupported by the evidence. It exists in a virtual world of computer models which reflect the prejudices and the input of the climatologists who programmed them. They have about as much relevance to the real world as Grand Theft Auto.

    There has been little rational debate. It's been reduced to something you either 'believe' in or don't, and in my case, I don't!… This issue has got completely out of hand. It has become a new religion. If you do not believe it, you are a heretic!

    There is a small publication entitled "Reconsidering the Climate Change Act", that summarises a presentation given in the House of Commons by renowned atmospheric physicist Richard S. Lindzen of MIT. It should be compulsory reading for policymakers, including that huge majority of British MPs who voted for the Climate Change Act in October 2008 (as an exceptionally early snow fell over London).

    Anyone who has looked at a graph of global temperatures over the last two and a half million years would see an Ice Age, with short regular spikes to warmer temperatures every 100,000 years or so. We are in such a spike right now, and if that very regular cycle continues, we could expect glaciation to resume in the next thousand years or so. Global cooling is a much more realistic and ominous threat to humanity than global warming. A resumption of the glaciation seen 20,000 years ago would decimate humanity.

    People who disagree with these claims have been known to be intimidated verbally, ridiculed or even physically threatened. Schoolchildren, misled by the alarmist disinformation, demonstrate in crusade-like rallies led by my own MP, whom I would not trust as far as I could throw a grand piano.
    Last edited by happyuk; 26th July 2020 at 20:21.

  4. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to happyuk For This Post:

    aoibhghaire (27th July 2020), Baby Steps (26th July 2020), Bill Ryan (26th July 2020), Ewan (27th July 2020), Gwin Ru (28th July 2020), HikerChick (4th August 2020), indigopete (26th July 2020), kfm27917 (26th July 2020), leavesoftrees (27th July 2020), Star Mariner (27th July 2020), Tintin (3rd August 2020)

  5. Link to Post #3
    Netherlands Avalon Member ExomatrixTV's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Language
    Dutch
    Age
    54
    Posts
    4,755
    Thanks
    3,913
    Thanked 23,918 times in 4,067 posts

    Default Re: How to debunk the climate hoax

    Bjorn Lomborg Declares “False Alarm” on Climate Hysteria:

    ~no need2follow anyone only consider to broaden (y)our horizon of possibilities
    ~new: Stop5G.net & FB groups/Stop5G

  6. Link to Post #4
    Scotland Avalon Member
    Join Date
    29th February 2012
    Posts
    621
    Thanks
    209
    Thanked 2,924 times in 554 posts

    Default Re: How to debunk the climate hoax

    "Global warming is real, it's man made, it's something we should fix"

    Doesn't sound like he thinks it's a "false alarm" to me.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts