Posted on 05/30/2018 3:12:03 PM PDT by PROCON
The greenhouse gas theory( GHGT) is a theory claiming that certain gas molecules in the atmosphere are inhibiting the Earth from transmitting heat into space. There is great debate about what role different gases play in heating and cooling and the accuracy of certain assumptions of data. It turns out that these arguments are irrelevant because the basic assumption of the theory is wrong and based on ignorance of science.
Every object with a temperature above absolute zero radiates energy and every object absorbs radiated energy. Any movement of an atom creates a disturbance in the electromagnetic field that transmits energy to other objects. Energy tries to equalize between objects but radiating energy is not a very effective of efficient means of transferring energy. The distance between objects and the difference in their energy determine the effectiveness of the energy exchange. The further apart objects are and the smaller the difference between their energy levels, the less effective the transfer of energy by radiation.
The mere fact that the Earth is radiating energy into space does not mean that is losing heat or kinetic energy. In order for the Earth to lose heat, we expect it to transfer energy to an object that is cooler. This is basic conservation of energy and is a foundation of physics and the way heat or energy flows from higher levels to lower levels is basic thermodynamics. People’s ignorance of the distinction between radiating energy and losing heat is central to their belief in the GHGT.
Another factor contributing to the belief in this theory is people’s ignorance about the difference between heat and temperature. Heat is the kinetic energy of an object and temperature is how we measure that energy.
(Excerpt) Read more at principia-scientific.org ...
Climate Scientology BUSTED.
LOL, Global Warming nuts do not live in Reality
Absolute gibberish, IMO. The author needs to read up on the concept of thermal radiation and get back to us.
I am an AGO skeptic, but pseudo-intellectual mush like this makes our side look bad.
Uh, no, it is not.
I believe in global warming, but have said for years this theory is bogus. I believe it is caused my multiple contributors. From population increase, to environmental comfort machines. Totally to complex to print all of it here.
Agreed.
How about this?
Science requires use of the scientific method, which entails controlled experiements with reproducible results.
Since controlled climate experiments are impossible, climate “science” does not use the scientific method and is therefore not science.
That works for me. Still doesn’t change that this article is full of non-scientific gibberish.
Uh, no, it is not.
I think you're being picky.
Perhaps he should of said thermal energy, but kinetic energy is energy an object possesses when in motion.
Isn't heat exchange considered motion?
No Smoking Hot Spot (The Australian)
Those two articles take Greenhouse Theory at face value and by the criterion set up in the theory itself finds no evidence of warming on the basis of greenhouse effect.
Sky-high hole blown in AGW theory?
"Forbes reports on a peer-reviewed study that uses NASA data to show that the effects of carbon-based warming have been significantly exaggerated. In fact, much of the heat goes out into space rather than stay trapped in the atmosphere, an outcome that started long before AGW alarmists predicted:"
That article explains why no Hot Spot has been found.
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Harvard astrophysicist dismisses AGW theory, challenges peers to 'take back climate science'
Simple Chemistry and the Real Greenhouse Effect.
Those four articles each show that Greenhouse Theory itself has no basis in reality due to a direct conflict with the known laws of physics. No wonder the smoking gun "hotspot" can't be found.
Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud
That article kills any thought of planetary warming from any cause. Think about it. If there is absolutely no sign of an acceleration of sea level rise how could the planet be warming? The rise in sea level in the last 100 years is far less than the average over the last 18,000 years caused by the inter-glacial period we are in.
Exactly! Human beings are a fraction of a fraction in terms of our significance on the planet, we couldn’t change the climate if we all tried. Nonsense, non science Marxism in disguise.
I’m not a scientist, just curious about definitions.
For later...
I am not being picky. A prime example is a spacecraft entering the Earth’s atmosphere. It has tremendous kinetic energy, but does not generate heat until friction with the atmosphere converts some of the kinetic energy into heat. While in space, the surface of the spacecraft can be extremely cold but still hold tremendous kinetic energy.
It is for this reason that our Thermo instructor forbid us from using the word ‘heat’.
Thermal energy was what we had to use.
From elementary physics I recall that light incident at a transparent boundary layer is ether reflected, refracted or transmitted. For a greenhouse the transmitted light going through glass eventually transforms to heat energy and that heat trapped by the same glass boundary layer. So, where in the atmosphere is the carbon dioxide boundary layer?
The global-warmist literature is full of non-scientific gibberish too.
Well I can tell you one thing for certain.....Herb is in deep dodo! Stay out of Ft. Darcy park.
You don’t battle gibberish with more gibberish.
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.