Posted by: graemebird | December 11, 2009

There IS NO Temperature-Anomaly For The “Greenhouse Effect” To Explain.

SOMETIMES IT CAN BE A LITTLE BIT EMBARRASSING TO READ OVER WHAT ONE HAS WRITTEN. THIS HERE IS TAKING AN EXTREMIST POINT OF VIEW. PLUS THERE ARE A FEW THINGS WRONG WITH IT. STILL IT IS IMPORTANT TO SEE THINGS FROM MANY DIFFERENT ANGLES.

According to David Karoly:

“Carbon dioxide is such a minor atmospheric constituent that it can’t affect global climate. This is untrue. While carbon dioxide makes up only 0.038% of the atmosphere, it is vital in the energy balance of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. If the atmosphere contained no greenhouse gases, the surface temperature would be about 30C colder. ”

This is nonsense. In fact it cannot be true even if one were to accept the wrong view that there are greenhouse gases and a greenhouse effect.

But some of you might disagree. Clearly Karoly is working under the assumption that he’s found an average temperature anomaly that needs to be explained by some mechanism or other. But there is no basis for such a claim. Where is the gap that he is talking about? And why is it not assumed that such a gap is not explained by a multitude of factors?

The most obvious factor amongst many is the electrical energy coursing through the galaxy. This electrical energy comes in at least two forms. The charged particles that relentlessly bombard the earths atmosphere. That is to say the charged particles themselves. And on top of that further electrical energy arriving via Birkeland currents. This electrical energy arrives THROUGH the charged particles but can be considered somewhat distinct from the charged particle movement proper.

When the solar winds are blowing hard we are bombarded by charged particles not factored into the average wattage represented by the alleged “solar constant” The solar constant, so-called, is a wattage based only purely on electromagentic radiation moving at the speed of light. So we see that straight electrical energy is being excluded by stupid people.

Louis Hissink has pointed this out a number of times. It is not the whole of the story but it is probably the most important part of the temperature difference. If there is a rival it will be to do with the behaviour of liquid water.

When the solar winds are not blowing as hard we are STILL bombarded by charged particles from the rest of the galaxy. Now folks point out that these wrongly named “cosmic rays” have a marginal cooling effect because of their influence on cloud cover. Yes this is true and pretty much proven. But nonetheless, forgetting the marginal effect, the background effect is in the first instance to add to the thermal energy of the atmosphere by adding electrical energy. When the electrical energy given to us via the solar winds … when this source of electrical energy wanes, part of the slack is taken up by electrical energy from the rest of the galaxy in the form of these “cosmic rays …….. marginal cloud-cover effect notwithstanding.

Moving ions, whether positively or negatively charged, constitute an electric current. It does not matter if we are talking positively or negatively charged particles, or positively or negatively charged molecules. In all cases with this movement we have an electric current. This is what an electric current IS.

This is all going over old wine that Louis has told you about before but I want to add my weight to what he has told you because I have checked it all out and found out that he was right as usual. In total, the Earth appears to absorb a great deal more negatively charged particles than positively charged particles but the fact is it absorbs both. And for thermal purposes they do not cancel.

Whereas most non-planetary matter (and perhaps to make this generalisation we would have to exclude much of the core of stars also) constitutes plasmas once we get below the ionosphere, most of the planet that we have full knowledge of and access to, is made of standard, uncharged molecules. And the thing is that plasmas tend to conduct electricity well. Whereas standard, non-metallic molecules, without charge, conduct electricity poorly.

So the atmosphere is like this resister. The moving particles bombard the atmosphere, they represent electrical energy, they excite the molecules in the Earths atmosphere producing heat. Its analogous to an electric current moving through a resistor. Or you might wish to think of it merely as a kinetic thing. The charged particles bombarding and exciting the molecules.

It is a fact that this happens, totally regardless of whether or not you have come around to the realisation that the “electric universe” contingent have the better paradigm for how the stars operate than the “fusion alone” people.

So what with the way that liquid water behaves. And with overturning. With the way phase-change happens with water vapour and airborne-liquid-water. With tidal warming from the moon and sun. With warming from the centre of the earth itself. With the electrical energy coming in from the bombardment of charged particles from the sun, and from the rest of the galaxy also……… and on top of all that with FURTHER electrical energy conveyed via Birkeland currents from the rest of the galaxy ………..

……

With all of the above and more …. Just where is this anomaly? What known anomaly is there? What anomaly in temperature exists that this nonsensical non-existent “greenhouse effect” is supposed to explain?

If you are a believer find me the anomaly first. I don’t think that this is too much to ask. Find the anomaly or give up on your cost-imposition, and sovereignty selling-out for all time. Find me an anomaly I can work with. If you cannot even so much as find me an anomaly then where are you with this jive? You are nowhere with this jive. Without an anomaly the alarmists are just a bad joke.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Look at this idiot-Wop Cambria. We have to get a Cambria watch going. Here is Cambria, the long-time immovable triangulater, doing this double-act where he runs down Tim Lambert, but supports his policies, like a lunatic. Does both AT THE SAME TIME.

    Cambria sez:

    “Lambert Watch around the blogs:”

    Tim Lambert sez:

    “Humphreys deletes dissenting comments so I will not comment at ALS.”

    SO I SEZ:

    This is a perfectly fair point by Tim Lambert. Humphreys is a control-freak and an utter menace. What would be more fair, and what we would expect, is deletion after the fact for overly vicious comments. But Humprheys is just an idiot and the country is the loser for the LDP still patronizing his blog. We ought to ostracize it en masse.

    “1. Tim was politely asked not to post comments at ALS because of his trolling activities similar to Bird.”

    Well what sort of a fuckhead attitude is that from the idiot Lambert? Lambert thinks there is a problem with CO2. He’s wrong. But he thinks this and acts accordingly. Why would this asshole Humphreys block Lambert? Why not get him arguing with me, and then retrospectively delete comments in pairs?

    I don’t know how Humphreys stole the march on people in this country. But he will soon likely be unemployable, at least on the right. Because others are starting to see what I saw early on. What a treacherous, narcissistic, menace he truly is. Though one time I witnessed him turning it all around and listening for once. So it might be that he can save his act when everyone is onto his case for being an irrational dope with flat learning curves.

    Notice also Cambria. How he now takes up the leftist mantra of “trolling”. I don’t see why anyone ought to ask Lambert to leave? I can see why you might occasionally delete the odd comment of his after the fact. But why politely (or otherwise) ask him to leave?
    Tim Lambert is part of this debate. Humphreys and Cambria are not. They are lunatic triangulaters, constantly muddying the waters. They don’t even believe the things that they themselves say.

    The difficult thing is to get Tim Lambert to stay and debate with people who know as much about the subject as he does. Its not difficulty that he comes around. The difficulty is rather that he is likely to disappear if he is losing the argument against me. But where Humphreys starts losing the argument he makes the other people disappear. He truly is a menace and I may move that the LDP advise members to ostracize his blog from a pre-ordained date.

    So here is Cambria using the leftist lingo of “trolling.” So when Cambria wants to bail his own subsidised ass out, and that of his crony’s at Merril-Lynch (time to lynch-Merrill) …. so when Cambria wants to bail out his homeboys suddenly he’s a leftist.

    Suddenly he’s talking the leftist talk. He’s talking about “trolling”.

    Such a lot of crap for one stupid wop.

    They say that there is this place shaped like a boot. They say its shaped like a boot on account of the fact that you cannot fit that much shit in a shoe.

    2. Tim should be the last person to ever talk about deleting comments at any blog.

    I really can’t believe him. This is Homer’s twin living in Lambverse which is right next to Homerverse.

  2. FOCUS ON THE ISSUES YOU STUPID WOP.

  3. Soetoro the usurper is now wanting a massive new program for chipping all farm animals. This could not be a more brazen ploy to set up a totalitarian country. He wants people to get used to mass-chipping so that it can be applied to humans.

  4. Where’s your fucking evidence,

    EVIDENCE FOR WHAT YOU STUPID WOP? DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE FOR A GREENHOUSE EFFECT? DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE FOR A GREENHOUSE GAS?

    IF YOU FIND THAT EVIDENCE THEN I CAN SHOW YOU WHERE YOU ARE COMING OFF THE BEAM. GIVE ME SOMETHING TO WORK WITH,

  5. See I’m saying there is no temperature-anomaly for the greenhouse effect to fill. If you think otherwise find it, tell me what it is.

    It doesn’t exist. This is the shabby little secret of the whole deal.

  6. The government doesn’t own land except by brute force. Ownership of land morally is to do with homesteading. Which is not just showing up and making a claim over massive territory. But rather taking a small patch of land and intensively improving it.

    This is why it is moronic to talk about gifting land to people and its foolish to imagine that our resources sector works can be treated as if it all conforms to economic theory. Our resources are not being divied out with reference to homesteading principles far from it.

    An example of where this is relevant happened just a couple of days back. Barnaby Joyce proposed no more foreign government buying of our resources. He was quite right and fully in keeping with libertarian principles and good sense. But Laurie Oakes acted like he was a sort of space-alien who didn’t understand economics.

    Communists nationalising our gear is not free enterprise. But going more down to the nitty gritty then that, since our resources aren’t properly homesteaded, free enterprise dogma cannot apply to them.

    Under free enterprise assumptions these huge gas giveaways to the communists are proven to be good by the fact that they occurred. They must be good. Afterall the executives are up by 5.00am and their ties straightened. These are high performance blokes right? The free market wouldn’t put dropkicks in charge who would give away our gear for a song right?

    All of this is utter bullshit. The gas giveaways were and are a crying shame. And this is one of the most important neglected issues there is.

    The government doesn’t own the land. They cannot be giving it away or parceling it together in these appalling deep-pocket auctions presided over by merchants-of-debt and other rent-seekers.

  7. That’s as I thought. No evidence, Bird.

    THATS RIGHT. THRE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR A GREENHOUSE EFFECT YOU STUPID WOP. INDEED THAT IS MY POINT EXACTLY.

    bUT BE SPECIFIC. WHAT SPECIFIC HYPOTHESIS DO YOU WANT EVIDENCE FOR? IF YOU COME UP WITH A SPECIFIC ENOUGH HYPOTHESIS THEN I WILL BE ABLE TO FIND THE EVIDENCE FOR IT.

    It’s an evidence free zone, basically focused on the latest conspiracy theory

    WELL SEE THERE YOU ARE. YOU ARE TOO MUCH OF A DUMMY TO KNOW WHAT IT IS YOU WANT EVIDENCE FOR. WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC HYPOTHESIS YOU WANT EVIDENCE FOR. WHAT CONSPIRACY THEORY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

  8. Seriously fella. What specifically do you want evidence for? Evidence only relates to specific hypotheses. Are you in fact so much of a dummy you cannot formulate a specific hypothesis for me to find evidence for.

    I cannot find evidence for any greenhouse effect. So I wonder why people are claiming that such a thing exists.

  9. […] almost 700 comments now. Graeme Bird is an Australian wanna-be politician of the crank variety, a global warming denialist, anti-vaxer, anti-evolutionist and fan of ID, birther, truther, and like your typical obsessive […]


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

Categories

%d bloggers like this: