On the tale of the Earth as a greenhouse
by Wolfgang Thüne, PhD, Meteorology
With the French Revolution in 1789, which were "liberty, equality, fraternity" elevated to the rank political values in order to come closer to the "Peace on Earth" in respect of government. But so beautiful the word "equality" sounds and our senses desire so ambiguous it is, because nothing on earth is "equal" and can be "razed". Therefore, we incessantly on comparisons. We compare humans, plants, animals according to appearance, character, ability, usefulness, and behavior. We compare landscapes, political systems, cities, cars, ... We prefer instead-like and inadmissible comparisons and come to some reasonable extent completely unreasonable analogy. The worst are the comparisons that arise from jealousy and envy and strife and hatred sow, out of political ambitions and desires rule.
The earth a greenhouse?
The threat remains: from "global cooling" to "extreme weather"
For several decades, scientists and politicians will not get tired to compare the earth with a global warming. Is the greenhouse comparison permitted or about nonsense? A greenhouse is nothing more than a greenhouse, housed in the in a location protected from the weather and also air-conditioned room for faster seed sprouting and plants are to be grown mounted and controlled. Greenhouses are distinguished in that they have a fixed enclosure made of glass or plastic. The envelope must be transparent to the sunlight, because only the sun and photosynthesis enabled plants can only grow in the light. The envelope must be airtight and windproof, so the heated air in the greenhouse can not be immediately blown away. The heat has to be some time "saved" so that at night, the plants are protected from rapid hypothermia, yes frost. This risk is particularly in the spring at the time of the "Ice Saints" big. Is dry polar air flowed and it clears up in the night, then escapes with a cloudless sky, the heat radiation from the earth through the "always open atmospheric radiation window" unhindered into space, under cool the plants and freeze the young shoots and flowers. A protective effect can be achieved only when a closed space is created and all fields are covered with foils.
Video Fernsehmeteorologe Sven Plöger in a VOX recording to the greenhouse effect. With thanks to R. Hoffman for this snippet
Greenhouses are man-made, artificial material, and are built because the earth no global warming and no glass or plastic cover is just surrounded. The air is a mobile shell of gas to infrared heat radiation is particularly permeable and can not cause heat build-up. In this respect, the comparison is physically completely inadmissible and therefore misleading. In the atmosphere, air masses are constantly extremely different in character from north to south, transported from west to east or vice versa, and mixed. About the atmosphere makes a huge exchange of air between the equator and the poles. Air for radiation largely permeable, so transparent. This applies to the visible sunlight as the invisible, infrared heat radiation from the earth. Under the open sky, there is no greenhouse effect.This knowledge is general and is disputed by nobody. Horizontal air is blown by the wind or rises above ground heated thermally to. The earth protects from excessive heating by convection. On hot summer days you can see this at the flickering air. The earth to compare with a global warming is therefore not admissible, not physically correct. It is profoundly unscientific to equate a movable gas envelope with a rigid glass envelope!
All what has been said every person will be immediately apparent. Never a man would draw a comparison such unsuccessful. No one would be set at night with a clear sky at the time of the "Ice Saints" under the open sky on a green meadow to let warm up alone from the "back radiation" without protective covers. Why does this man still-despite contrary experience-to the thesis of climate experts that the earth is a "greenhouse" and functioned as well? ...The reference to large bodies such as the IPCC arbitration is a game with the alleged knowledge is power. Also, the individual is against the might of the "greenhouse hypothesis" spread through the media and "public opinion" sold argumentative powerless. But even if someone is highly trained professional and the necessary moral courage has to offer the zeitgeist forehead and to swim against the current, has a chance to get a barely heard. If necessary, he is denounced as a complainer, and as eternal yesterday, although everyone knows that all the laws of nature "yesterday" and are not subject to majority political opinions.
To break the instinctive resistance to the hypothesis of the "greenhouse effect" completely, this is touted as "natural" and portrayed as "vital". Without it, the earth would have only a "global temperature" of -18 ° C. Possible an ice-house and life would not be possible. So it's a blessing, that there is this effect. Should we make an "effect" question, which causes so many good things and the earth heats up to a comfortable +15 ° C? Of course not. This can not be expected, especially since many scientists behave politically correct and can be intimidated by the people. For direct comparison, however the supposed "natural greenhouse effect" of unnaturalness is not to beat. This already knew "Adam and Eve", when they were expelled and sentenced after the Fall from Paradise to earn by the sweat of their brow their bread. This perceived knowledge has been experimentally verified in 1666 Sir Isaac Newton and dressed in an equation, the "Newton's law of cooling". It states with simple words that, without exception, each with energy expenditure heated body to its ambient temperature cools and this all the more quickly even the larger the temperature difference. Newton also formulated the law of gravity.
If the Earth were no air cover, then it would lose heat by radiation alone. With air surrounding the earth even loses additional heat by conduction and by convection or by thermal buoyancy due to the Archimedean principle. Warm air rises, expands, cools and when it reaches the dew point, condensation will start to form clusters or cumulus clouds. A soil with air envelope cools off faster than an Earth without an atmosphere. The "natural greenhouse effect" is still unnatural in reality. There is not it. He's a fraud, a lie! This has already been demonstrated in 1888 by the physicist Josef Stefan experimentally. On him the Stefan-Boltzmann law goes back. You realize as a rule of thumb: The thermal radiation of a body rises or falls with the fourth power of the absolute temperature (° C + 273 = Kelvin). That's why lava cools so fast and is black to red-hot stove plates cool off first very rapidly and then more slowly! Even if they are optically "black", you can still enormous burn your fingers when touched.
For the "natural greenhouse effect" there is no evidence. Worse: it is physically impossible! He is a fantastic computing construct, obtained under completely unnatural assumptions. As these are impossible, which can be read in the first report of the Enquete Commission "Preventive Measures to Protect the Earth's Atmosphere" of 2 11 1988. The nasty trick is that you in the sunlight the earth sees as "slice", but the appearance can be done on the earth as a sphere with four times the surface. But secretly 50% of solar energy are suppressed about the division by 4, because the sun shines from the rotating globe is always a hemisphere, so the double circle. If ever a man believes in his arrogance, pick up day and night and the incident solar energy to equal spread over the surface, then a division would have been enough by 2. Then would "radiative equilibrium temperature" does not amount to -18 ° C, but 30 ° C. The crude disk-ball-trick one has invented the totally "unnatural greenhouse effect" to sell him as a warm life-giving blessing. Now the mental leap was not far off. Man emits more CO2 than they should. then sin begins: Each additional "anthropogenic" emissions of CO2 molecule is harmful, heating the planet and leads directly into the air disaster.
Thus, not only a new ideology was born, but a religion. The climate religion is like the Christian religion with a "original sin" for all people equipped, of whatever religion he may also belong. It emits too much CO2, then the greenhouse and is heated to hell. In addition, the sea level is still rising and it threatens a deluge itself sinful caused.The climate religion presents itself as an ideological "superstructure" of all religions!
What is to draw a lesson from this? Only the essential thought and freedom of expression can not free ourselves from the dilemma and save it from global warming, which is conceived as a penitentiary for men. Expert testimony, even if they are appointed to a consensus of opinion, remain nothing but questionable hypotheses, as long as they are inconsistent with any experience and observation and also experimentally can not be confirmed. You just have to follow the laws of logic. If you do not on the disk-ball-trick in, but it goes right out of the ball, then the "Factor 4" to a factor of 2, as already nonsensical "radiative equilibrium temperature" would result in a value of +30 ° C. Compared with the -18 ° C would be turned into its opposite, a cooling effect of -15 ° C, the "natural greenhouse effect" of +33 °. Even without this correction, the whole computation process remains a pure acting, because the alleged "global temperature" of 15 ° C there is not, except as a mathematical play value.
What consequences should consider the politics of it? You should require the climate experts now experimental evidence of the allegedly "natural greenhouse effect". Can not be performed this, then you should, indeed all research funds would be immediately deleted. But the policy will do nothing but support them with huge amounts of research funds this greatest scientific fraud of all time. We citizens are encouraged active resistance, because we know that the project climate protection fails simply because the weather can not be protected.
Oppenheim, the May 19, 2014
Dipl.-Met. Dr. phil. Wolfgang Thüne
See also: Meteorologist Dr. Wolfgang Thüne Calls Potsdam Institute’s Science “Pure Voodoo Magic For Spreading Fear Among The Public”
See also: Meteorologist Dr. Wolfgang Thüne Calls Potsdam Institute’s Science “Pure Voodoo Magic For Spreading Fear Among The Public”
No comments:
Post a Comment