Mount Rushmore officials are trying to increase the cooling trend. South Dakota has a summer cooling trend since 1930 through 2009 (-0.23 degrees per decade) and yet they are stoopid enough to try to prevent warming by turning off their lights for 1 hour.
"Mount Rushmore officials said Thursday that the national memorial will participate this weekend in what they called "the largest call for action on climate change in history." From 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Saturday [March 27], some lights will be turned off at the national memorial as part of Earth Hour 2010."
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/article_2bf822e2-383b-11df-a4e3-001cc4c03286.html
What you can do:
1. Drive to Mount Rushmore by Saturday March 27 8:30pm
2. Keep your engine running and point your car so the headlights are directed at Mount Rushmore
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Here is a simple proof in 10 easy steps why the Greenhouse Effect is a physical impossibility.
ReplyDelete(1) The IPCC claim that radiation from a cooler atmosphere slows the rate of cooling of the (warmer) surface, thus leading to a greenhouse effect.
(2) The "rate of cooling" is a 24 hour worldwide mean, so wherever the Sun is warming the surface (any sunny morning) the rate of warming would have to be increased by whatever process is slowing the rate of cooling.
(3) Thus extra thermal energy must be added to the surface by such radiation in order to increase the warming rate in the morning and slow the mean rate of cooling calculated from both day and night rates.
(4) Now the Second Law of Thermodynamics relates to heat transfer which is not the same as energy transfer. Radiated energy can be two-way, but heat transfer between two points is always one way and it is invalid to split such heat transfer into two opposite components and try to apply the Second Law to each. Physics doesn't work that way.
(5) Hence, the surface cannot warm faster in the mornings due to such an imaginary heat transfer, because that would be clearly breaking the Second Law no matter what. Nor can it slow the rate of cooling because of (4). And in general you would expect the same process to happen whether the surface is warming or cooling.
(6) So, those photons from the cooler atmosphere are not being converted to thermal energy in the warmer surface, as Prof Claes Johnson proved in Computational Blackbody Radiation.
(7) Hence the effect of the photons being either reflected or scattered is that there is no impact on the surface at all.
(8) It is also clear that there is no significant transfer by diffusion or conduction from the atmosphere to the surface because the surface absorbs more solar insolation than the lower atmosphere, and we observe that the atmosphere is generally cooler and even cools faster at night than the surface.
(9) So it really does not matter even if extra thermal energy is trapped higher up in the atmosphere because it does not affect what we call climate, and any such energy cannot make its way back to the surface, except possibly an insignificant additional amount in precipitation.
(10) Hence there is no valid physical way in which backradiation or absorption by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause a significant atmospheric greenhouse effect.
If I haven't convinced you, read this paper Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
Doug Cotton
http://climate-change-theory.com
ReplyDeleteAll should read the breaking news here, from which I quote:
" This story is huge. America’s prestigious National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and related government bodies found no greenhouse effect in Earth’s atmosphere. Evidence shows the U.S. government held the smoking gun all along – a fresh examination of an overlooked science report proves America’s brightest and best had shown the White House that the greenhouse gas effect was not real and of no scientific significance since 1979 or earlier."
For those who have been following the research by myself and others from among nearly 200 members at Principia Scientific International, I'd like to draw your attention to an Appendix now added to my current paper.
Have a Happy Christmas everyone!
It's not just a standstill. It's a 30 year natural slight decline from 1998 to 2028. Read what Geoff Wood (qualified in astrophysics) has explained ..
ReplyDeletehttp://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/01/waste-heat-as-a-contributor-to-observed-warming/#comment-68988
The following are excerpts ..
"As Doug has said about a dozen times, gravity modifies the mean free path between collisions. That is ‘every’ upward, ‘every’ downward ‘every’ sideways, ‘every’, ‘every’ free molecular path between collisions is modified. Therefore it is impossible for the modified ‘collisions’ that result, not to impart the gravitational ‘information’ into the macroscopic development of the gravitational thermal profile. This is the ‘diffusion’ process.
"At this point, we have a reasonable depiction of the thermal profile of ANY atmosphere. FROM BASIC PHYSICS.
"Given a simple reason why any atmosphere tends towards this isentropic profile as depicted and described by entry level physics, why would anyone look for a more complicated reason to explain what we already know!"
The point which Geoff and I make is that the "33 degrees of warming" supposedly caused by water vapour and carbon dioxide etc was already there due to the effect of gravity on the atmosphere. This happens on all planets, and also fully explains why the poles of Venus are over 720K, even though they receive less than 1W/m^2 of direct insolation from the Sun. For more detail read my article "The 21st Century New Paradigm Shift in Climate Change Science" easily found with Google. I've also recorded an introductory 10 minute video here http://youtu.be/r8YbyfqUvfY
Doug Cotton
http://climate-change-theory.com
I think the admin of this website is genuinely working hard in favor of his web page, for the reason that here every information is quality based information.
ReplyDelete