On May 27, 8:04*pm, "B , O , N , Z , O"
wrote:
Apollo Mission: A Giant Leap Contradicting Greenhouse Gas Theory
May 26, 2010 John O'Sullivan

The paper, 'A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon' is a cogently-argued
scientific refutation of the basic equations used by global warming
theorists. Apparently, climate scientists may have incorrectly assumed
Earth's "average" temperature all along.

The study questions the numeric bedrock of the greenhouse gas theory
(GHG) by applying data collected by NASA decades ago. It seems during
the Apollo Moon landings era NASA devised a whole new set of hitherto
unreported equations, more reliable than those relied upon by supporters
of the GHG theory, to get Neil Armstrong's carbon boot prints safely
planted on that airless Sea of Tranquility.

The paper is co-authored by Martin Hertzberg, PhD, Consultant in Science
and Technology, Alan Siddons, a former radiochemist and Hans Schreuder,
a retired analytical chemist. The researchers had the bright idea of
delving back into NASA's archives to test the "Stefan-Boltzmann"
equations in fine detail. The three men stumbled on the apparent flaws
during an online debate on the science behind global warming.

Published online on May 24, 2010, the study argues that the flaw has
always lain in Stefan-Boltzmann's equations. 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."

NASA Abandoned Flawed Climate Calculations in 1960's
Siddons, Hertzberg and Schreuder were astonished to find that "the
principal method for predicting a planet's temperature is surprisingly
arbitrary and simplistic." That was, they believe, why NASA needed to
set aside the blackbody equations when doing their own calculations for
the Moon landings.

To climate sceptic scientists it seems self-evident that the Earth's
surface should not be treated like a flat, two-dimensional blackbody. It
is more properly a complex spinning sphere with large variability in
reflectivity and absorption of the Sun's light and energy. But, despite
the U.S. government knowing since the 1960's that the blackbody
equations were of no use to real-world science, these facts don't appear
to have been passed on to climatologists.

Lunar Temperatures Cast Doubt on Climate Theory
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.

Stefan-Boltzmann Calculations Way Out
The paper tells us how far out Stefan-Boltzmann's equations could be,
"the surface of the real moon is roughly 20° cooler than predicted by
day and 60° warmer by night, the net result being a surface that is 40°
warmer than predicted."

But it isn't just Earth's Moon that doesn't support the GHG theory.
Other planets don't conform either. As the paper tells us, "The
atmosphere of every planet in our solar system is also 'warmer than
predicted.'" The three scientists pointedly ask, "Is it any surprise,
then, that even a relatively simple body like the moon would refuse to
conform to such a method?"

Other scientists have also come out to refute the greenhouse gas theory.
Some even go as far as to say the theory actually contravenes the
established laws of physics.

The Earth is not "Unusually" Warm
The paper concludes that the Earth is not "unusually" warm. It is the
application of the predictive blackbody equation that is faulty and
overly simplistic and should not be applied in a real-world context. The
proven ability of common substances ( e.g. the Earth's Moon) to store
heat makes all such blackbody estimates questionable.

Along with the Climategate revelations, these new findings contradict
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has placed
enormous reliance on catastrophic predictions based on research around
greenhouse gas theory that has now been called into question. Even some
IPCC scientists have denounced the theory.

Are Climate Equations Mere Junk Science?
Some may be, if this analysis of NASA's Apollo numbers is correct. The
Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody equations failed to give NASA the crucial
information it required on the Moon's day and night temperatures. Thus,
NASA scientists had to create their own blackbody sun-angle model to
chart the lunar surface temperatures astronauts might encounter.

NASA no longer shows any greenhouse gas "backradiation" in its relevant
graphic representation of the energy budget of the Earth. In simple
terms, GHG theory may have applied an "average temperature" method of no
more use than a rule of thumb calculation.

If guesstimates were not good enough for NASA, concerned for the safety
of its astronauts, then they should be questioned by the IPCC and world
governments proposing billion-dollar cap and trade taxes on western
nations.

Read more at Suite101: Apollo Mission: A Giant Leap Contradicting
Greenhouse Gas Theoryhttp://climatology.suite101.com/article.cfm/apollo-mission-a-giant-le...

Warmest Regards

Bon_0

"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville

Thanks for posting this.

HISTORICAL FOOTNOTE:

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is derived by integration of the Planck law.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law

These laws apply in small laboratory experiments (planets are not
small). According to Einstein and others, Planck's law solved a
problem in classical mechanics called the "ultraviolet catastrophe".
That is to say that quantization of energy in statistical mechanics
preserved conservation of energy.

It is HISTORICAL INTEREST that the greenie meanies have claimed all
along that the "IMMUTABLE LAWS OF PHYSICS" demanded that "greenhouse
theory" is valid even when it contradicted the LAWS OF
THERMODYNAMICS.
The fact that Planck's law resolved a classical contradiction is lost
of the GREENIE
MEANIES. GREENIE MEANIES don't know **** about physics or the
philosophy of science.

GREENIE MEANIE physics not only contradicts the Laws of
Thermodynamics, it also contradicts the laws of arithmetic.

According to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:R...e-forcings.svg

the total radiative forcing for all the CO2 that is in the atmosphere
right now, 380 ppm is only 1.5 W/m^2.

According to GREENIE MEANIE physics we are supposed to wait to
eternity for additional CO2 to increase CO2 radiative forcing to a
point where we will experience "GLOBAL WARMING".

The excrement of the IPCC has never been vetted by competent
scientists. Radiative forcing happens with the speed of light, i.e.
instantly.


A simple calculation shows that the "solar constant" is not constant,
but that solar radiation recieved by earth varies 90 W/m^2 over the
course of a year because of the eccentricity of earth's orbit.


So where is the observed, instantaneous, speed of light radiative
forcing due to 90 W/m^2 variation in annual solar radiation? Do the
GREENIE MEANIES care? No one cares, because the predicted effect is
not observed because the radiative energy transfer model does not
work. It is false.

The GREENIE MEANIES at the IPCC are not only incapable of physics,
they are incapable of simple arithmentic. 1.5 W/m^2 radiative forcing
is a small number and we are supposed to worry if it gets biggger. 90
W/m^2 radiative forcing is a big number but we are not supposed to
notice because it has no ****ing effect on anything.

The trillion dollar AGW boondoggle could have been avoided by a
global
binding manditory agreement that all persons should show mastery of
high school math, or SHUT THE **** UP. The list includes, Al Gore,
James E. Hansen, Barack Obama, the entire casts of the IPCC, CRU etc.

On Fri, 28 May 2010 00:33:43 -0700 (PDT), Nick
wrote:


Thanks for posting this.

Why? It's bonzo-spam; did you read it? I don't think he did ether.

HISTORICAL FOOTNOTE:

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is derived by integration of the Planck law.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law

These laws apply in small laboratory experiments (planets are not
small).


No. Whatever made you think that? Plank's Law is a general law that
is independent of size, which you would have noticed right away if you
had looked at those links you posted.

Black body spectral radiation depends on temperature only. It's a
pretty basic rule well-covered in undergrad classes. It's certainly
discussed in high school, too. It applies to stars, black holes
galaxies, galaxy clusters---even the universe as a whole. It
certainly applies to tiny objects like planets.



--
My years on the mudpit that is Usnenet have taught me one important thing: three Creation Scientists can have a serious conversation, if two of them are sock puppets.