About Me

Name:Catmman
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Coffee doesn't get hotter in a Thermos

Or, "How I learned to mock the Greenhouse Effect and Radiative Forcing and love my CO2!"
 
Does your coffee get hotter after you put it in a thermos?  This is exactly what greenhouse gas alarmists would have you believe happens to the Earths temperature as it relates to the greenhouse effect.
 
Here's the argument:  Greenhouse gases (ghg), primarily CO2 (Carbon Dioxide), trap heat which is absorbed on the planet radiated by the Sun.  This thermal radiation is transformed to infrared energy which is radiated back out into space.  Greenhouse theory (as stated by the alarmists) says ghg's trap this infrared radiation, not letting it escape back into space.  If this were true, we would have baked long ago.
 
GHG's DO trap SOME energy, but this energy isn't held indefinately - it is just released back into space a little slower.  Over time this release of energy regulates the "normal" temperature of the planet.  This is what our atmosphere DOES - it retains heat and moisture and other gases which allow life.  This same mechanism is touted by the alarmists as leading to our ultimate doom.
 
I can think of two examples to illustrate this.
 
First, think of your normal day to day temperature fluctuations where you live.  Here in San Antonio it was 76 degrees F when I left for work this morning.  When I get home this evening, the temperature will be over twenty degrees hotter, around 98 degrees F.  And this temperature fluctuation took place in less than 12 HOURS.  In 12 hours, the temperature where I lived will go from 76 degrees to 98 degrees F - all without me or anything I see, own or enjoy bursting into flames!
 
When the sun sets, the radiation absorbed by the sun will slowly be released back into space.  This drop in temps also accurs gradually over about 12 hours.  And it occurs gradually due to greenhouse gases.  The temperature tomorrow morning will be roughly the same as it was this morning.  Without the greenhouse effect, we would all freeze to death and the Earth would be a giant icicle!
 
To further illustrate this, think of a thermos.  If you fill a thermos with hot coffee, the radiant heat of the coffee is trapped within the thermos by the thermos' insulation.  However, this trapped heat doesn't make the coffee in the thermos any hotter.  Just as with our atmosphere, the thermos traps the heat, releasing it slowly over time, keeping the coffee at it's optimal drinking temperature for a longer period of time.
 
I know this is an oversimplification, but when written like this, it's easier to see just how stupid the alarmists theories are and how easily defeatable their "science" is.  Of course the alarmists and advocates for throwing us all back into the stone age would say, "Well, that's the way it's supposed to work, but if you add MORE CO2 like we are, you throw off the atmosphere's balance and it gets hotter!"  Well, exactly how much effect would CO2 supposedly have if the alarmist argument were true?  More on that below.
 
Or as stated this way:

As Alan Siddons points out: "You might as well believe that your image in a mirror can burn your face”. It is palpably absurd, and yet it is an accurate depiction of the theory that the IPCC has foisted on the public - a theory that IPCC critics won't even attack because, presumably, they believe it too.

Moreover, the actual trapping of heat cannot raise an object's temperature in the first place. It only slows down heat loss. For instance, a polar bear is a living thermos bottle. Its internal body temperature is much the same as ours. But its surrounding fat and fur are such that - and this is remarkable - a polar bear is virtually invisible to a thermal camera. Just like coffee in a thermos, you can't tell how hot the inside of a polar bear is by looking at it from the outside. But neither does coffee in a thermos get hotter because its heat is trapped. It just retains its temperature for a longer time. Otherwise, both the polar bear and the thermos would self-ignite.

In short, the earth absorbs enough energy from the sun to reach a certain temperature. Since it radiates the same amount, its temperature obviously isn't raised by carbon dioxide absorbing some infrared - for CO2 simply releases that energy at the same pace, as satellites attest. But even if CO2 did trap thermal energy, as insulation does (creating an emission discrepancy that would be quite observable to satellites), the earth's temperature could go no higher than what it began with. To repeat, coffee doesn't get hotter in a thermos."
 
If your a techno-math geek and want to see proof, here you go:
 
Canadian geophysicist, Norm Kalmanovitch, made these calculation for me. [see disclaimer below]

They're based on figures obtained directly from the Dutch Met Office, whereby the mass of our entire atmosphere is given as 5,300,000 gigatons and the total carbon dioxide in it as 3,000 gigatons.

5,300,000 gigatonnes of atmosphere require 0.24 x 1,010^10 kcal of heat to warm 1.0°C. 3,000 gigatonnes of CO2 would requite a warming to 5,300,000/3,000 x .24/.34 = 1247°C to have enough heat to transfer to the atmosphere for each 1°C rise in temperature.

Did you read that? Every single molecule of CO2 would need to be over a thousand degrees Centigrade to warm the rest of the atmosphere by one degree!!

Yet by the magic of radiative forcing this will take place, according to the alarmists and based on the UN IPCC pseudo-scientific dogma.
 
[Disclaimer: The specific heat of a gas varies with temperature and pressure and static values such as this can only give a gross approximation. The number quoted of 1247°C is probably only accurate to +/- 400°C; but a range of 800°C to 1600°C is still well beyond anything reasonable for the "forcing" from the greenhouse capture of thermal radiation from the Earth."]
 
So, EACH MOLECULE of CO2 would have to be of such high temperatures as to be unbelieveable to raise the temp of the entire planet - by ONE DEGREE
 
Of course there is no evidence of any of this outside of James Hansens computer models.
 
Al Gore and other alarmists are indeed magnificent bastards for getting so many fools (including ALL of our current Presidential candidates and all but 13 Republican Senators) to believe this crap!
 
(H/T: Icecap)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bob Barr doing what Ron Paul Wouldn't

 
One of the bigger media blunders the Ron Paul campaign made was its handling of endorsements from the bigots at Stormfront. White nationalists slithered around the fringes of the Paul movement, and Paul refused to return a donation from Stormfronter Don Black on the grounds that he'd rather the money be spent on the Paul campaign than spent by racists.

The Bob Barr campaign's taking a different approach to the same issue. Yesterday, James Buchanan
posted a racist Barr endorsement at WhiteCivilRights:
A vote for Bob Barr would at least send a message to the Republican Party that conservatives and Whites won’t sit still as they are stuck with a liberal presidential candidate like McCain. Supporting Bob Barr might even pave the way for a Third Party to replace the increasingly repugnant Republican Party... If voting for McCain is a waste of time, since he’s never going to win (because conservatives hate him), then the best course of action may be a protest vote for the Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. If Barr gets millions of votes, it will be a very strong sign that the neocons and their warmonger policies have failed and the Republican Party should change course and stop supporting wars for Israel.

Stormfront member "WhiteRights" posted the column in the site's message boards, which is where the Barr campaign found it. Barr campaign manager Russ Verney released this statement:

The Barr campaign is not going to be a vehicle for every fringe and hate group to promote itself. We do not want and will not accept the support of haters. Anyone with love in their heart for our country and for every resident of our country regardless of race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation is welcome with open arms.

Tell the haters I said don't let the door hit you on the backside on your way out!

 
Oh, and in case you Paulbots are still deluding yourselves, let me remind you:
 
 
Isn't it refreshing to see a candidate with the guts to do what "The Only Man Who Can Save America" wouldn't?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On Carbon, Sheep and a Brave New World of "Green" Ruin

An interesting essay on the coming carbon "cap and trade" schemes resulting in worldwide ruin.  It's also a good primer on understanding carbon - where it comes from, where it goes, and how peoples' belief that carbon is some evil gas which is somehow just emitted by mankind is just dead wrong.
 
There is also a whole lot of info on sheep.  FYI.

Some highlights
:
 
Let’s look at sheep. Sheep are composed of fat, protein, bone and the spark of life. Speaking loosely, fat is
largely carbohydrates, protein is carbohydrates plus nitrogen, and bone is calcium phosphate, plus some
carbon minerals and tissues. Humans are built similarly. Notice the common thread – “all life is a carbon
equation”.

Now you all know that damara sheep are the smartest sheep on earth. But not even damaras are smart enough
to produce carbon out of nothing. Nor do they eat coal or drink diesel fuel. To grow, they must get a
continuous supply of carbon from somewhere.

We have no cultivation on Sherana, no carbon fertiliser is applied, we do not feed grain to our sheep and they
exist most of the time on natural grassland pasture. But every nine months, every ewe delivers a carbon copy
containing a few kilos of brand new carbon.

Where does all that new carbon come from?

Is it from the soil? Raw soil is just broken down rocks and minerals and seldom contains organic carbon.
Carbon gets into the soil by the activity of plants and the associated life in worms, fungi and miscellaneous
microbes.

We try to improve our pastures every year, we fix erosion gullies, we rotate our grazing flocks to rest the
pasture, we return every unused bit of organic matter to the soil and we replace the minerals we ship off in
sheep bones and muscles, so largely the soil is a stable feature (“sustainable” is the right buzz word).
Sustainably managed soil does not add to or subtract from the world’s carbon reserve. It is a stable
storehouse of carbon – it gets used and replaced.

But notice every clump of pasture – it has its feet deep in the earth digging for moisture and minerals, and its
branches begging for sustenance from the sky. What does it get from the sky? Two things mainly - solar
energy from that big nuclear power plant called the sun, and carbon dioxide, the gas of life, from the air.
Plants combine these two natural ingredients with nitrogen (also from the air) to produce the sugars and
proteins that all animals live on. After they have extracted the carbon from carbon dioxide, they expel the
oxygen they don’t need back to the atmosphere for the benefit of all those dependent on oxygen (mainly the
whole animal kingdom). All these benefits depend on the CO2 in the air we breathe, the dreaded carbon
dioxide that some ignorant people want to tax and bury.

And where does the air get its carbon dioxide from? Nature is a big emitter and the rest comes mainly from
the combustion of carbon fuels:

· Nature emits a huge and unmeasured amount of carbon dioxide from volcanoes, gas seeps, rotting
vegetation, autumn leaves, peat deposits, coal seams, fault lines and submarine vents. And living,
breathing oceans, lakes, ponds and streams emit CO2 when warmed and absorb it again when
cooled. Even live plants emit CO2 at night.

· All animals use internal combustion (digestion) to get energy from plant material like grass,
legumes, lettuce, sugar, bananas, beer and buns; and from animal material like roast lamb,
hamburgers, bacon, eggs and butter. Their front emissions are largely carbon dioxide and their rear
emissions are largely methane, both natural atmospheric gases. Methane get oxidised in the
atmosphere to carbon dioxide and recycled by plants.

· Plant material is also recycled via open air combustion in bushfires, via closed combustion in our pot
bellied stove or via termites and many other natural scavengers.

· Internal combustion of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) produces most of our machine energy –
electricity and power to move generators, machines, cars, trucks, ships, trains and planes.

Every method of combustion of hydrogen-carbon fuels produces the same two gases – water vapour from the
hydrogen part and carbon dioxide (CO2) from the carbon part. Both go into the air. One gas forms clouds
and rain and is the basis for all things we drink, the other forms organic matter and is the basis for all things
we eat. Both also form an insulating blanket for the earth, moderating extremes of temperature. Neither is a
source of earth heating. (The only natural primary heat sources for the earth are geothermal heat from nuclear
fires deep within the earth and solar heat from that big nuclear furnace in the sky.)
 
 
And what does this person believe will happen once the "greens" get what they want?

Not for the first time, political hysteria is going to change our world. Moreover, the real climate is also going
to change, as it always has changed since the days of the trilobites. This is my vision of the Brave New
World emerging:

· Carbon taxes of some sort are going to spread across the world like a deadly virus. There are too
many people who will benefit to stop it soon. Politicians slaver at the power it will give them over
every aspect of our lives. Environmentalists will welcome a return to the noble savage era. And Asia,
Russia, Brazil and the undeveloped world see it as a heaven sent opportunity to get massive carbon
credit money from those guilt ridden and scientifically illiterate fools running the once powerful West.

· Carbon taxes cannot be “revenue neutral” there are winners and there will be losers. And on balance
we will all be losers because a huge amount of community resources will be spent producing fewer
things of real value. The whole society will be worse off, some worse than others. Prices for
everything will soar – food, energy, water, transport, building materials, metal products, chemicals,
plastics, cement and cars. Consumers, workers and old people will suffer everywhere. The world
will shrink. Family and neighbours will become important again. Big cities will not be nice places
and grog and gambling will flourish.

· It will become costly to move anything anywhere, so everyone will try to live local. Tourism will be
shattered. People will again look to get a vegie gardens, and a few chooks, cows and sheep to
supplement family food supplies.

· The real climate may become even more unkind. No one can be relied on to forecast the climate
reliably. However, despite the warming scare stories being spouted by Al Gore and the computer
models, the best evidence I have seen suggests world climate is more likely to get colder and dryer.
  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Anti-Gun Activist Stabbed to Death

If this wasn't so tragic, it would almost be comical.

The grandson of prominent anti-gun campaigner Pat Regan has been arrested on suspicion of stabbing her to death.
 
Mrs Regan, 53, was discovered at the property on Marlborough Grange in the Hyde Park area of Leeds on Sunday.
 
The mother-of-six started campaigning against gun crime when her son Danny was shot dead in 2002.
 
The 20-year-old man was being held on suspicion of murder, police said. It is thought he had been arrested earlier in the day over another stabbing.
 
Pardon me being crass here, but I noticed something reading this story.  This woman's son was gunned down in an act of gang violence.  Her son apparently wasn't the most decent of fellows.  Now her grandson stabs her to death.
 
Perhaps this woman should have spent more time parenting her children, instilling proper values in her offspring and other family members rather than campaigning against guns.  I know I'm speculating here, but no one else sees a pattern?
 
What is this irrational need to project onto an inanimate object? 
 
I'm sorry for the woman's family and her own loss, but guns were and are not to blame for the behavior exhibited by her own family.  As this story illustrates, one can be killed just as easily by other means than firearms. I think the problem is summed up perfectly with this segment from the story:
 
Dee Edwards, co-founder of campaign group Mothers Against Murder and Manslaughter, said Mrs Regan would visit schools and give talks about the dangers and consequences of getting involved in crime.
 
She said: "She made such a big difference to so many people's lives. This is an absolute tragedy for so many people."
 
Not in the lives which should have mattered more - her son and grandson - it would seem.
 
Perhaps if this woman had access to a firearm she could have defended herself?  As the saying goes, "Never bring a knife to a gunfight."
 
Guns are not the problem.  They never have been. 
 
The problem is whacked-out people (and yes, "whacked-out" is a clinical term).
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Eating Bugs for Gaia

The "Greens" continue on their path to turn all of us back towards a subsistence existence.
 
Now we should eat and gather insects for a "greener" planet.
 
Not "yummy"...
 
If you can get beyond the ick factor, insects like grasshoppers can actually be a healthy, low-fat source of protein and vitamins. And when you realize how much land, food, and water it takes to produce cattle, then maybe raising crickets for food isn't such a bad deal for the earth.
 
Yet more evidence showing the true agenda of the "greens".  We must all return to a more primitive lifestyle, subsisting on gathering insects from around our homes and neighborhoods so we won't have to "waste" so much food and land raising things like pesky cattle.
 
Hey greenies, there is no effing way I am going to eat bugs to satisfy your morbid need to lower everyones quality of life.  I am not going to voluntarily enter into a lifestyle which will place the human race back on par with animals.
 
You go right ahead and eat your Bowl-O-'Hoppers if you like.
 
I'll stick with my filet mignon.
 
Rare.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »