Global Warming: Hoax

by

You may have heard of people claiming you can run a car on ordinary water, or that if you arrange machine components in a certain way you can get infinite energy, or any number of other things. A lot of people fall for these things when they come around, because if they were true so many of life’s problems will disappear.

Physicists have a number of tools in their bag of tricks, but none so well-used and useful as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is simply this: There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. If you want to take energy and do something useful with it, you are going to have to pay a dear price for that privilege, no matter how you transfer the energy from one place to another. Breaking even is out of the question. The only question is how much do you pay.

Global Warming, it turns out, has been based on the pseudo-scientific term called the “Greenhouse Effect”. This tricky term sounds scientific, since there are things called “effects” out there, and it seems like it has an easy, clear explanation. However, real physicists have done their homework and shown that no such effect exists, and can never exist. (link)

You see, the “Greenhouse Effect” relies on violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That, in and of itself, is enough to get yourself labeled a “crackpot” in the physics community. In fact, you almost have to produce theories that violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics to earn the title outright. If you understand and adhere to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, there’s hope that you’ll make a fine physicist one day. But if you violate it, you get classified as a “crackpot” and that’s that.

Folks, from here on out, anyone who considers Global Warming and the Greenhouse Effect with any more reverence than the theory of bug-eyed space aliens invading earth or machines that can power the world on a single teaspoon of ordinary tap water or people who claim to have mastered cold fusion. At least, in the case of the latter crackpots, they didn’t consume billions of dollars of public money on funding their “research” or nearly bankrupt the entire planet with their hare-brained ideas to drive humanity back to the stone-age.

If you can’t let go of the scam that you were entrenched in, I’d like you to consider one thing: If Global Warming violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, how can they claim to be scientific at all?

Advertisements

8 Responses to “Global Warming: Hoax”

  1. co2hound Says:

    I read the paper you referred to. And I agree with it in that CO2 alone cannot cause a greenhouse effect to occur in our modern world. But climate scientists are not saying that CO2 works alone.

    Here’s an example from a very different time when CO2 did save us.

    In the past the Earth was covered with ice, right into the 30s in Latitude. It has happened several times to varying degrees. The sun has the biggest influence on the planet’s temperature. But during these ‘snowball’ earth phases the planet was a giant mirror which dramatically reduced the sun’s ability to heat the planet.

    This was a tough situation because, left unchecked, a snowball Earth would never have evolved humans. So what changed those conditions, giving us the chance to be here today? Who was our buddy way back when? It was the volcanoes. They continued to spew out all kinds of things including CO2 for many 10s of thousands of years increasing the CO2 content of the world to 1000s of ppm. There was no place for the CO2 to go … land was covered with ice and ice covered cold oceans absorb CO2 but at greatly reduced rates. They could not match the rate of volcanoes over time.

    So it turns out that CO2 was our real buddy back then. Its concentration eventually reached a level where the atmosphere retained enough heat to re-hydrate and start the melting process. The change in humidity is about 4% for every change of 1 degree F.

    CO2 was our buddy back then.

    I’m not too sure whether CO2 is our buddy today.

    The last time the planet had CO2 at levels like today, it was about 8 degrees F hotter with 32% more humidity.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      In the past the Earth was covered with ice, right into the 30s in Latitude. It has happened several times to varying degrees. The sun has the biggest influence on the planet’s temperature. But during these ‘snowball’ earth phases the planet was a giant mirror which dramatically reduced the sun’s ability to heat the planet.

      Were you there when this happened? I mean, it’s a fascinating story, but where’s the proof of this? Where’s the evidence? Where’s the competing theories and investigation? Please cite sources, since your side of the argument has been caught making stuff up and trying to pass it off on “consensus”.

      CO2 was our buddy back then.

      I’m not too sure whether CO2 is our buddy today.

      I try to befriend real people, rather than molecular gasses, buddy.

      You’re treating science like a religion, as if science cares one whit whether there is even a human being to observe or reason at all. Science is not something to be worshiped or believed. It simply is, and that’s all there is to it.

      I’m getting the feeling that you didn’t read the paper at all or you couldn’t understand it. I’m saying this because the paper goes over in precise detail how you measure the properties of air, and the theories behind it all, and show that CO2 CANNOT act like a “Global Warming” blanket at all, otherwise the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would be turned on its head. It also shows how EVERY measurement of the property of air disproves the “Greenhouse Effect”, which cannot be called an “effect” because (a) it isn’t even based in our understanding of the universe, and (b) it has never been observed in any experiment or measurement.

      The last time the planet had CO2 at levels like today, it was about 8 degrees F hotter with 32% more humidity.

      If this is true, and I do mean IF, then you have a causation-correlation problem. IF the atmosphere was indeed hotter by 8 degrees Fahrenheit (and that DOES NOT mean the average temperature as it is measured by so-called Global Warming scientists), and IF the atmosphere also had more CO2 and H2O, then the question is:

      (1) Did the temperature cause the increase in CO2? OR

      (2) Did the CO2 cause the increase in temperature?

      You CANNOT answer this question decisively. The planet is an extraordinary complicated system that cannot be described with simple equations. What equations we do think describe the system lead to such a complicated system that no mathematical analysis of any accuracy can be performed. Ever heard of a butterfly wings causing hurricanes? Yeah, that’s the math we’re dealing with, only reality is far more complicated than what we have come to understand.

      If you somehow ascertain that (2) is the correct causation relationship, then you have to prove that in today’s world, a similar increase in CO2 would cause an increase in temperature. Given the FACT that we cannot describe, let alone predict, the climate patterns of our planet, then even if you somehow definitively proved (2), you CANNOT state that it will have the same effect today. I can use math to show you how you cannot prove this. Computer simulations that were intended to resolve this question have all failed in the worst way possible.

      To put it another way, we simply don’t know, and can’t know, much about the weather because we are too stupid to even begin to understand what is really at work, and whatever mathematical models we think may be useful cannot be solved. In the end, we are left sticking our hand out the door and guessing whether we need a coat or shorts.

  2. co2hound Says:

    Thanks Jonathan for your reply,

    The latest in the geophysics of the effects of CO2 as regulator of Earth’s temperature can be found in a recent talk given by Dr. Richard Alley to the American Geophysical Union.

    http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

    It’s a high bandwidth talk and given your response above, I’m sure you will enjoy it.

    You seem to be bothered by the limits of our ability to know different things about the world especially past events. Science has moved quite rapidly in this area in the last 15 or so years. Our technology has improved quite substantially so that areas of expertise and study like paleobiology, paleoclimatology and others have opened up.

    With regard to CO2 being our buddy back then. How else would you describe something that saves your life … even before you were born?

    Hehe

    CO2 is definitely THE control knob to our planet’s thermodynamics whether we want to believe it or not. Physics does not care what we believe in, what we want or even our politics. Physics is physics and we can’t say much more than that … and neither can I.

    I agree with you when you talk about the limits of human knowledge. We have limits … there is no doubt in my mind about that because our brains are limited in their capacity and ability to conceive.

    With regard to causation I prefer to wear my 221-B Baker Street hat. One can eliminate all possibilities and whatever remains … that’s it.

    The sun has increased its output by about 30% since the planet was born. That would pretty well make us a snowball right from the start.

    There is one event, I’m sure you are aware of, the PETM (about 55 million years ago) when the spike in CO2 from natural sources was similar to the spike in CO2 we are seeing today. The CO2 went directly into the oceans causing them to acidify and the land temperatures increased rapidly. Bottom line, 95% of the species on the world died.

    The oceans are 30% acidic over baselines right now and this number is growing.

    This event gets as close to the rapidity of the CO2 increase in our atmosphere today as the natural world can get. It’s happening faster today, about 10 times faster. And we are the new volcanoes on the planet. We release about 100 times as much CO2 into the atmosphere as all the current volcanoes combined.

    So in the past things happened much slower because natural forces work on their own time. Today we are making things happen much faster.

    We are committed to 2 C warming right now because we have about 450 ppm equivalent CO2 in the atmosphere. We are at about .74 C over baseline right now and getting hotter.

    We are committed to a much hotter world in the near future and we as a species and all the other species alive today have, like us, no experience with these kinds of changes.

    Regards.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Talks are nice. They are fun and interesting. But they are not science.

      Where’s the paper? Who peer-reviewed it?

      CO2 is definitely THE control knob to our planet’s thermodynamics

      Source?

      The oceans are 30% acidic over baselines right now and this number is growing.

      Source?

      We are committed to 2 C warming right now because we have about 450 ppm equivalent CO2 in the atmosphere. We are at about .74 C over baseline right now and getting hotter.

      Source?

      Without sources, I can’t find out what in the world you are talking about. Without data and peer-reviewed studies—reviewed by people who DISAGREE with your conclusions—you do not have science and you certainly don’t get to declare facts without citing sources.

      97% of scientists do not believe in catastrophic man-made global warming. You don’t even have consensus on your side anymore—and never did!

  3. co2hound Says:

    The talk used all peer reviewed work. Just look at it.

    One you look at it and check out the sources …. there are many … then you can start asking questions.

    I gave you a source at your request and as far as I know you have not looked at it.

    Don’t complain to me about something you have not done!

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      The fact that you can’t cite the papers that support your arguments mean that you don’t know anything at all about the science. You have missed the whole “Climategate” affair wherein it was shown that the so-called “peer-reviewed” studies were anything but, and wherein it was shown, conclusively, that the data either doesn’t exist or was manipulated beyond the point of any credibility, thus making the papers worthless.

      When you make a claim, you have to show your evidence. When I say your claim is absurd, or that evidence or theories don’t exist to support such, it’s up to you to present them. You are not succeeding in convincing anyone. If you can’t see this, then you are succumbing to the science-as-religion fallacy, wherein you simply believe the word of the ministers and evangelists who wear lab coats and present religious scripture as scientific research.

  4. Greenhouse Effect is “Scientific Malfeasance” « Federal Way Conservative Says:

    […] earlier about how the so-called “Greenhouse Effect” is not an effect but a fairy tale. (link) The reason is that it is not based on any theory and it is not observed in any experiment. In […]

  5. “Greenhouse Effect” is Real, According to Blog « Federal Way Conservative Says:

    […] in the March 2009 International Journal of Modern Physics. I’ve already posted my papers (link), so I encourage others to do the […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: