Friday, May 28th, 2010
This week, John O'Sullivan stumbled upon information from NASA that seems to refute the very basis of Global Warming Theory - and worse, he may have discovered a concerted, forty-year effort to cover it up.
O'Sullivan reports on a paper (link opens a PDF file - Acrobat Reader or similar program required) co-written by three men: Martin Hertzberg, PhD, Consultant in Science and Technology, Alan Siddons, a former radiochemist and Hans Schreuder, a retired analytical chemist. According to these three, the equation upon which all Global Warming Theory studies are built is inherently flawed.
...The researchers had the bright idea of delving back into NASA’s archives to test the "Stefan-Boltzmann" equations in fine detail...
The long-trusted formula has been used by climatologists without question - until now. The researchers report that the numbers used in those equations are the “first assumption that climate science makes when predicting the Earth's temperature.”
The "Stefan-Boltzmann" equation is, apparently, remarkably simplistic and arbitrary, so much so that NASA actually abandoned the use of that equation when preparing for the Apollo Mission in the 1960's. You read that right; this equation was deemed not good enough for NASA more than forty years ago. And yet it is still the equation upon which climate scientists base their assumptions.
The problem with the equation is that it does not factor in the earth's crust varying capacity for absorbing heat; instead treating it as a two-dimensional, uniform "black body."
NASA had found that daytime temperatures on the lunar surface were lower than expected because planetary bodies also conduct heat to their inside rather than radiating it all into space - an empirical fact that challenges the GHG theory. Computer models supporting GHG theory had predicted that such heat energy would be ‘blanketed’ above a planet's surface.
In fact, the Apollo data proves the Moon’s surface temperatures throughout its two-week night were higher than predicted by the blackbody equations because the moon "feeds on" the heat it had previously absorbed.
Thus the success of NASA’s moon landings becomes evidence against the unreliability of the Stefan- Boltzmann equations in real world science.
Worse, however, than the flaw in the equation, is that this fact has remained covered up by NASA from the first Lunar landing until now, nearly 41 years.
But it gets worse: compounding such disarray, NASA, now apparently acting more like a politicized mouthpiece for a socialist one world government, cannot even provide consistent numbers on Earth’s actual energy budget.
Thanks to further discussion with scientist, Alan Siddons, a co-author of the paper, ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon,’ it appears I inadvertently stumbled on a NASA graph that shows the U.S. space agency is unable to tally up the numbers on the supposed greenhouse gas "backradiation." Why would this be?
In its graphic representation of the energy budget of the Earth the agency has conspicuously contradicted itself in its depiction of back-radiation based on its various graphs on Earth's radiation budget.
As Siddons sagely advised me, "This opens the question as to WHICH budget NASA actually endorses, because the one you show is consistent with physics: 70 units of sunlight go in, 70 units of infrared go out, and there’s no back-flow of some ridiculous other magnitude. Interesting."
To reiterate: 40 years ago, NASA scientists discovered that a certain equation was too simplistic to risk the lives of their astronauts when calculating the first Lunar landing, so they threw it out and used their own. The landing was successful. Then, for whatever reason, their reservations about the first, simplistic equation vanished, and it was used in support of Man-Made Global Warming theory, despite its obvious inadequacies in the 1960's.
This bombshell comes the same week two seemingly staunch supporters of Climate Change action appear to have backed down. In the U.S., Reuters reports that it is extremely unlikely the proposed climate bill will be tackled before 2011 at the earliest. And the U.N. is now arguing that economic considerations for nature preservation are far more compelling than those of Global Warming. Both actions appear quite obviously to be a response to growing public doubt in the veracity of global warming science. Yet, scientists (and their lackeys in the media) wonder why their cries of "wolf!" continue to lose credibility with the public.
At some point, the media and climate scientists alike are going to have to respond to these doubts. It probably won't happen until the see their funding dry up. So it's up to you. Contact your local congressman and tell them how you feel. And forward this email to anyone interested in the topic.
In the end, the truth will win out. It always does.
This week, John O'Sullivan stumbled upon information from NASA that seems to refute the very basis of Global Warming Theory - and worse, he may have discovered a concerted, forty-year effort to cover it up.
O'Sullivan reports on a paper (link opens a PDF file - Acrobat Reader or similar program required) co-written by three men: Martin Hertzberg, PhD, Consultant in Science and Technology, Alan Siddons, a former radiochemist and Hans Schreuder, a retired analytical chemist. According to these three, the equation upon which all Global Warming Theory studies are built is inherently flawed.
...The researchers had the bright idea of delving back into NASA’s archives to test the "Stefan-Boltzmann" equations in fine detail...
The long-trusted formula has been used by climatologists without question - until now. The researchers report that the numbers used in those equations are the “first assumption that climate science makes when predicting the Earth's temperature.”
The "Stefan-Boltzmann" equation is, apparently, remarkably simplistic and arbitrary, so much so that NASA actually abandoned the use of that equation when preparing for the Apollo Mission in the 1960's. You read that right; this equation was deemed not good enough for NASA more than forty years ago. And yet it is still the equation upon which climate scientists base their assumptions.
The problem with the equation is that it does not factor in the earth's crust varying capacity for absorbing heat; instead treating it as a two-dimensional, uniform "black body."
NASA had found that daytime temperatures on the lunar surface were lower than expected because planetary bodies also conduct heat to their inside rather than radiating it all into space - an empirical fact that challenges the GHG theory. Computer models supporting GHG theory had predicted that such heat energy would be ‘blanketed’ above a planet's surface.
In fact, the Apollo data proves the Moon’s surface temperatures throughout its two-week night were higher than predicted by the blackbody equations because the moon "feeds on" the heat it had previously absorbed.
Thus the success of NASA’s moon landings becomes evidence against the unreliability of the Stefan- Boltzmann equations in real world science.
Worse, however, than the flaw in the equation, is that this fact has remained covered up by NASA from the first Lunar landing until now, nearly 41 years.
But it gets worse: compounding such disarray, NASA, now apparently acting more like a politicized mouthpiece for a socialist one world government, cannot even provide consistent numbers on Earth’s actual energy budget.
Thanks to further discussion with scientist, Alan Siddons, a co-author of the paper, ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon,’ it appears I inadvertently stumbled on a NASA graph that shows the U.S. space agency is unable to tally up the numbers on the supposed greenhouse gas "backradiation." Why would this be?
In its graphic representation of the energy budget of the Earth the agency has conspicuously contradicted itself in its depiction of back-radiation based on its various graphs on Earth's radiation budget.
As Siddons sagely advised me, "This opens the question as to WHICH budget NASA actually endorses, because the one you show is consistent with physics: 70 units of sunlight go in, 70 units of infrared go out, and there’s no back-flow of some ridiculous other magnitude. Interesting."
To reiterate: 40 years ago, NASA scientists discovered that a certain equation was too simplistic to risk the lives of their astronauts when calculating the first Lunar landing, so they threw it out and used their own. The landing was successful. Then, for whatever reason, their reservations about the first, simplistic equation vanished, and it was used in support of Man-Made Global Warming theory, despite its obvious inadequacies in the 1960's.
This bombshell comes the same week two seemingly staunch supporters of Climate Change action appear to have backed down. In the U.S., Reuters reports that it is extremely unlikely the proposed climate bill will be tackled before 2011 at the earliest. And the U.N. is now arguing that economic considerations for nature preservation are far more compelling than those of Global Warming. Both actions appear quite obviously to be a response to growing public doubt in the veracity of global warming science. Yet, scientists (and their lackeys in the media) wonder why their cries of "wolf!" continue to lose credibility with the public.
At some point, the media and climate scientists alike are going to have to respond to these doubts. It probably won't happen until the see their funding dry up. So it's up to you. Contact your local congressman and tell them how you feel. And forward this email to anyone interested in the topic.
In the end, the truth will win out. It always does.
No comments:
Post a Comment