E-mail fra en skeptiker !
| E-mail fra en skeptiker !26-06-2008 18:56 | |
GLAR ★★★★☆(1023) |
"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." — Edmund Burke And my point is that prominent climate skeptics promote a delusion of great significance. I can't stress too strongly how stupid it is to use an illusory belief about garden greenhouses to explain what occurs in the atmosphere. Greenhouses are unable to trap and multiply radiant energy within the volume they enclose, and neither can the atmosphere. Electromagnetic energy emitted by the earth's surface merely exits to space at the speed of light. The few molecules that hitchhike on several waves do exactly the same. This partial interception process can bring air up to a lower temperature than the surface, but raising the temperature of the surface is completely out of the question. Yet influential people believe that a temperature rise must occur because of the non-existent radiant trapping performed by greenhouses! It is circular reasoning. Correction: it's not reasoning at all. 1. The vacuum of space is not "cold." It is instead a thermal insulator that has no means of absorbing heat and thus restricts a body's energy loss to radiant emission alone, meaning that the earth cannot lose heat (molecular vibration) to space. Nothing on earth restricts its infrared emission, as satellites attest. 2. An infrared-absorber of any kind does not "trap" infrared light but radiates it instantly. The dark absorption lines in spectrographs are an artifact of linear photon flight being interrupted and assuming a radiative pattern. This is why, as point 1 states, satellites see the earth releasing the same amount of radiant energy as it absorbs. Nothing is "trapped." 3. Heat transfer works by difference. If two objects are equal in temperature, no transfer will occur. If one object's temperature is higher than the other, heat will transfer to the other. A source's own energy cannot be used to heat it, then. Source A providing energy to Receiver B would have to be colder than Receiver B in order to be heated by it. In which case, however, Source A would be unable to transfer energy to Receiver B in the first place. But here's the elephant in the room, the silly notion that the IPCC and its parent the United Nations propound: Greenhouse gases make up only about 1 per cent of the atmosphere, but they act like a blanket around the earth, or like the glass roof of a greenhouse -- they trap heat and keep the planet some 30 degrees C warmer than it would be otherwise. http://unfccc.int/essential_background/feeling_the_heat/items/2903.php No one wants to mention this elephant, let alone shoot at it. And so the elephant continues to trample the world. Alan Siddons Klima tips: Undgå sex i lukkede rum - du forgifter din partner med CO2 |
| 27-06-2008 00:23 | |
| Frank Lansner★★★★★ (5727) |
jvnfr Alan Siddons, pkt 1: Vi kan konstatere at planeters atmosfærer uanset sammensætning har en ret ensartet isolerende effekt der tager sig ud som en funktion af tryk og afstand til solen. Så det Alan Sidons er inde på med at det er atmosfæren i sig selv der virker isolerende, virker umiddelbart i tråd hermed. Prøv at tænke tanken ud, HVIS IPCC HAR RET: De tilskriver alle 33 graders opvarmning til drivhusgasser. OK, forestil dig så en planet med en atmosfære af O2, N2 og argon og helium og brint, f.eks. Her er INGEN drivhusgasser. Ifølge IPCC, ja så skulle en sådan planets atmosfære slet ikke virke isolerende. Helt absurd. Det vil sige at for en sådan planet ville vi have en totalt lodret kurve for temperatur som funktionaf højden/trykket i atmosfæren helt ulig alle kendte eksempler fra andre himellegemer. Det er jo faktisk grundliggende urealistisk. Ja, jeg har også overvejet hvordan dette at selvom der måtte være en del CO2 molekyler der absorberer og i samme øjeblik reemitterer stråling, ja, så snakker vi stråling med lysets hastighed, selvsagt. Så selv med mange stationer, dvs molekyler som strålingen skal passere, ja, så er det svært at forestille sig strålingen bruge timevis til at passerer den tynde atmosfære med lysets hastighed... ? Redigeret d. 27-06-2008 00:26 |
| 27-06-2008 09:14 | |
kulden-varmen ★★★★★(2597) |
han han skaffe links til sine informationer? |
Deltag aktivt i debatten E-mail fra en skeptiker !:
Lignende indhold
| Debatter | Svar | Seneste indlæg |
| Skeptiker eller benægter? | 6 | 15-08-2019 18:34 |
| Niels Bohr som CO2-skeptiker?! | 38 | 03-02-2016 09:30 |
| Sådan narrer du en skeptiker....... | 40 | 23-11-2008 04:22 |