People who live in greenhouses shouldn’t stow thrones
(OR: Just how much of this ‘Global Warming’ scam are we
expected to green & bear?)
These arguments are in full accordance with the Laws of Physics, so any Physicist or Engineer would know this only too well.
1) A greenhouse is a construct that,
generally speaking, has sides and a roof made of the material known as glass.
Glass is pretty well transparent to Light Energy, but semi-opaque to Heat Energy.
In simple terms Light goes straight through, whereas Heat takes a little bit of
time to conduct through. And this happens in both directions - towards the
inside and towards the outside. The net result of this is that Heat can
accumulate within the confines of the greenhouse, raising the internal
temperature.
2) The last time I looked, the Earth was not surrounded by a
big glass bowl. It was surrounded by an atmosphere of GASES, not a SOLID called
glass. And while on the one hand, many characteristics of gases are dissimilar
to those of solids, there is one characteristic that remains comparable. They
certainly work the same in both directions.
3) Consequent to these facts, there is no such thing as a
Greenhouse Effect. There would only be a true Greenhouse Effect if the Earth
were enclosed in a large goldfish bowl. Thus comparisons between the Earth and
greenhouses will always be, to some extent, inaccurate.
4) The total amount of Heat Energy that strikes the surface
of the Earth is determined by the OPACITY of the gases in the atmosphere. If
there were no Carbon Dioxide, Monoxide, CFCs, Water Vapour (in other words zero
so-called Greenhouse Gases), then the Earth would be exposed to the full glare
of the Sun during daytime. A child of 3 years old is capable of imagining what
that would be like. Yes, Global Warming for sure!
5) However, we are fortunate that is not the case. We are
fortunate that these atmospheric gases provide some degree of protection - in
the Temperate Zones, at least. Three cheers, therefore, for Carbon
Dioxide! Carbon Dioxide … that same gas that plants convert into Oxygen for us
to breathe. Three MORE cheers, therefore, for Carbon Dioxide!
6) When Heat Energy strikes a 'body' (for example the surface
of the Earth) only one of two things can happen, and these are mutually
exclusive (by Newton's Law of Energy Conservation). What can happen is
that (a) Heat Energy is absorbed by that surface, raising its temperature OR
(b) Heat Energy is reflected by that surface, thereby having no effect on the
temperature of that surface. That is basic, fundamental, Physics.
7) And (a), above, is limited entirely to the sum total
of the Heat Energy available (Newton's Law, once again). And
atmospheric gases considerably reduce that same sum total, away
from 'the full glare of the Sun'.
8) While it is true that, due to these atmospheric gases, the
Heat Energy that is reflected (via (b), above) gets a 2nd (or even 3rd, 4th,
etc.) bite at the 'cherry of absorption', the sum total of Heat Energy
available to raise surface temperature due to any of these 'bounces', is
always limited to that which was allowed through in the first place. (Oh
yes! Do they mention that what happens from below, also happens from above? No.
They don’t. All designed to confuse you. A lot of Heat that arrives, gets
reflected back into space by a thicker layer of gases. Bang goes their argument
if they draw attention to this.)
In summary, therefore
If it were not for these atmospheric gases we would be very
hot.
Their very existence prevents this from happening.
However, if it were not for the 'bouncing' we would (most likely) be quite cold.
Fortunately, however, the 'bouncing' gives the Heat Energy
sufficient opportunities for life to exist in some degree of comfort.
As Carbon Dioxide increases, so does the opacity of the atmosphere. So the Heat
Energy available reduces. But, at the same time, the 'bouncing ability'
increases, giving more efficiency to the Heat Energy available.
That's why the so-called Greenhouse Gases have had no measurable effect.
They are self-correcting to some considerable degree.
A single-paragraph summary
If it were not for these gases we would fry. Their presence does, indeed create ‘bouncing’. And the thicker the layer, the more ‘bouncing will occur. Yes. Very true.
But the thicker the layer the less will get through in the first place. This is the part they DELIBERATELY hide from you. And ‘Average Temperature Data Measurements’ prove the above explanation.
All one has to do is to observe what happens when a cloud (water vapour, see above) moves across the face of the Sun.
According to Al Gore, when the Sun ‘goes in’ you become warmer. Try it. See if Al Gore is right. (I dunno … it might be different where you live)
I could produce formulae for this but, since it is all so blindingly obvious (pardon the pun), I don’t see the point. Furthermore formulae would cloud the issue to a non-scientific person (pardon the pun once again).
What has happened is that Gore and Co. have based their
arguments entirely on ‘computer modelling’. This model produces a
graph, showing an enormous temperature rise (known as the ‘hockey stick’). It
was discovered that – whatever values were inserted into the so-called ‘model’ –
whether these values were realistic or not – the same ‘hockey stick’ graph
would come out the other end. The Computer Model was, therefore, (and
obviously) totally incorrect as a mechanism of realistic prediction.
OK. What Al Gore & NASA & Co. would like you to believe, with all their little red arrows going in all directions (so as to confuse), is that the same energy can exist in two places at the same time. That it can multiply itself.
In other words that you can fill up your car with petrol or diesel (‘potential energy’) and use the contents of your fuel tank to drive your car (potential energy becomes ‘kinetic energy’) – without reducing the amount of fuel in the tank (without disturbing the amount of potential energy you have at your disposal).
What I’m saying is “You can’t have your cake & eat it”. Which was defined by Sir Isaac Newton as “Energy cannot be created or destroyed”.
All energy can do to transfer … from a Heat Ray to ‘warming the Earth’ (for example). But it can’t ‘warm the Earth’ and then still remain a Heat Ray (to do some warming somewhere else). Once it’s done, it’s done.
If we want to reduce atmospheric pollution, then why don’t we stop bombing everyone left, right & centre?
Or, in a slightly more folksy way:
Veronica Chapman
24th June, 2008