Stefan-Boltzmann equations
Apollo Mission: a Giant Leap Discrediting Greenhouse Gas Theory
By John O'Sullivan Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Researchers have uncovered proof that the Apollo Moon landings
required a whole new set of hitherto unreported equations to get Neil
Armstrong’s carbon boot prints safely onto the Sea of Tranquillity;
the ones still relied on today by global warmists to ‘fix’ Earth’s
‘average’ temperature were thus known to be junk by NASA 40 years
ago!

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 falsely assumed
Earth’s “average” temperature all along.

The study refutes the numeric bedrock of the greenhouse gas theory
(GHG) by applying old NASA data. It seems NASA dumped the equations
relied upon by supporters of the GHG theory, to get Neil Armstrong’s
carbon boot prints safely planted on the Moon’s Sea of Tranquillity.

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 climate researchers had
the bright idea of delving back into NASA’s archives to test the so-
called Stefan-Boltzmann equations in fine detail. The three men
stumbled on the embarrassing flaws during an online debate on the
science behind global warming.

Published online on May 24, 2010, the study argues that the fatal flaw
has always lain in Stefan-Boltzmann’s equations. The long-trusted
formula has been used by climatologists without question-until now.
The researchers reveal that guessed at numbers used in 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
scorn 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 climate scientists.

‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon’ is a fillip to global warming
sceptics because it proves that super-power scientists can and do get
their numbers right when it’s a matter of life and death.

Lunar Temperatures Disprove Climate Theory
NASA had found that 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 embarrassing empirical fact
for believers of the GHG theory whose computer models erroneously
predicted that such heat energy would be ‘blanketed’ above the
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-contrary to the accepted GHG theory.

Thus the success of NASA’s moon landings becomes the proof of 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 crude equations
really are, “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 refuses to comply with 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 GHG believers, “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 a mockery of all such blackbody estimates.

Along with the Climategate revelations these new findings will come as
a blow to the beleaguered Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) that has placed enormous reliance on catastrophic predictions
based on discredited research around greenhouse gas theory. Even some
IPCC scientists have denounced the theory.

Are Climate Equations Mere Junk Science?
It appears so, 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.

Pointedly, NASA no longer shows any supposed 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 on the back of a cigarette packet.

The moral of the story is: if guesstimates were not good enough for
NASA concerned for the safety of its astronauts, then why are they
good enough for the IPCC or world governments proposing billion-dollar
cap and trade taxes on western nations?

References:

Dr. Gray, Vincent, ‘The Global Warming Scam, ’tech-know.eu (April
2008); accessed online: May 26, 2010.

Hermalyn, Brendan, ‘Radiative Non-Equilibrium at the Lunar Surface,’
Summer Institute on Atmospheric, Biospheric, Hydrospheric, and Solar
and Space Plasma Sciences NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, 2006
(accessed online: May 26, 2010).

Hertzberg, Martin ‘Earth’s Radiative Equilibrium in the Solar
Irradiance,’ Energy and Environment, Vol. 20, No. 1 (2009) pp 83-93.

Dr. Hertzberg, M,, Siddons, A & Schreuder, H.,’ A Greenhouse Effect on
the Moon?’ ( May, 24, 2010), accessed online: May 26, 2010.

Short, Nicholas M. ‘Planetary Remote Sensing: The Exploration of
Extraterrestrial Bodies’, nasa.gov (accessed online: May 26, 2010).

Dr. Williams, David R.’ Planetary Fact Sheets’, nasa.gov (January,
2005); accessed online: May 26, 2010.

On May 29, 3:35*pm, Leon wrote:
Stefan-Boltzmann equations
Apollo Mission: a Giant Leap Discrediting Greenhouse Gas Theory
By John O'Sullivan *Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Researchers have uncovered proof that the Apollo Moon landings
required a whole new set of hitherto unreported equations to get Neil
Armstrong’s carbon boot prints safely onto the Sea of Tranquillity;
the ones still relied on today by global warmists to ‘fix’ Earth’s
‘average’ temperature were thus known to be junk by NASA 40 years
ago!

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 falsely assumed
Earth’s “average” temperature all along.

The study refutes the numeric bedrock of the greenhouse gas theory
(GHG) by applying old NASA data. It seems NASA dumped the equations
relied upon by supporters of the GHG theory, to get Neil Armstrong’s
carbon boot prints safely planted on the Moon’s Sea of Tranquillity.

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 climate researchers had
the bright idea of delving back into NASA’s archives to test the so-
called Stefan-Boltzmann equations in fine detail. The three men
stumbled on the embarrassing flaws during an online debate on the
science behind global warming.

Published online on May 24, 2010, the study argues that the fatal flaw
has always lain in Stefan-Boltzmann’s equations. The long-trusted
formula has been used by climatologists without question-until now.
The researchers reveal that guessed at numbers used in 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
scorn 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 climate scientists.

‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon’ is a fillip to global warming
sceptics because it proves that super-power scientists can and do get
their numbers right when it’s a matter of life and death.

Lunar Temperatures Disprove Climate Theory
NASA had found that 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 embarrassing empirical fact
for believers of the GHG theory whose computer models erroneously
predicted that such heat energy would be ‘blanketed’ above the
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-contrary to the accepted GHG theory.

Thus the success of NASA’s moon landings becomes the proof of 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 crude equations
really are, “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 refuses to comply with 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 GHG believers, “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 a mockery of all such blackbody estimates.

Along with the Climategate revelations these new findings will come as
a blow to the beleaguered Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) that has placed enormous reliance on catastrophic predictions
based on discredited research around greenhouse gas theory. Even some
IPCC scientists have denounced the theory.

Are Climate Equations Mere Junk Science?
It appears so, 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.

Pointedly, NASA no longer shows any supposed 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 on the back of a cigarette packet.

The moral of the story is: if guesstimates were not good enough for
NASA concerned for the safety of its astronauts, then why are they
good enough for the IPCC or world governments proposing billion-dollar
cap and trade taxes on western nations?

References:

Dr. Gray, Vincent, ‘The Global Warming Scam, ’tech-know.eu (April
2008); accessed online: May 26, 2010.

Hermalyn, Brendan, ‘Radiative Non-Equilibrium at the Lunar Surface,’
Summer Institute on Atmospheric, Biospheric, Hydrospheric, and Solar
and Space Plasma Sciences NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, 2006
(accessed online: May 26, 2010).

Hertzberg, Martin ‘Earth’s Radiative Equilibrium in the Solar
Irradiance,’ Energy and Environment, Vol. 20, No. 1 (2009) pp 83-93.

Dr. Hertzberg, M,, Siddons, A & Schreuder, H.,’ A Greenhouse Effect on
the Moon?’ ( May, 24, 2010), accessed online: May 26, 2010.

Short, Nicholas M. ‘Planetary Remote Sensing: The Exploration of
Extraterrestrial Bodies’, nasa.gov (accessed online: May 26, 2010).

Dr. Williams, David R.’ Planetary Fact Sheets’, nasa.gov (January,
2005); accessed online: May 26, 2010.

Thanks for posting this. The cognitive dissonance created in the minds
of true believers of the "greenhouse effect" is papable.

On Sat, 29 May 2010 15:35:44 -0700 (PDT), Leon
wrote:

Stefan-Boltzmann equations
Apollo Mission: a Giant Leap Discrediting Greenhouse Gas Theory
By John O'Sullivan Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Researchers have uncovered proof that the Apollo Moon landings
required a whole new set of hitherto unreported equations to get Neil
Armstrong’s carbon boot prints safely onto the Sea of Tranquillity;
the ones still relied on today by global warmists to ‘fix’ Earth’s
‘average’ temperature were thus known to be junk by NASA 40 years
ago!

....

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-contrary to the accepted GHG theory.

Thus the success of NASA’s moon landings becomes the proof of the
unreliability of the Stefan- Boltzmann equations in real world
science.


What a load of hype. Who writes this stuff? A press release for
crying out loud. If the ID movement had this kind of funding our kids
would be counting the dinosaurs on the Ark.

The black body calculations were thought of as a good first
approximation. No one expected them to be exactly right. Why do I
feel as if the original author is being disingenuous? Hmmmm?

News Flash: Climate science has moved on since 1960. Actually, I'm
not sure it even existed in 1960. Everyone was too busy talking about
the weather.


--
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.

On 5/29/2010 6:58 PM, Big fella wrote:
On May 29, 3:35 pm, wrote:
Stefan-Boltzmann equations
Apollo Mission: a Giant Leap Discrediting Greenhouse Gas Theory
By John O'Sullivan Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Researchers have uncovered proof that the Apollo Moon landings
required a whole new set of hitherto unreported equations to get Neil
Armstrong’s carbon boot prints safely onto the Sea of Tranquillity;
the ones still relied on today by global warmists to ‘fix’ Earth’s
‘average’ temperature were thus known to be junk by NASA 40 years
ago!

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 falsely assumed
Earth’s “average” temperature all along.

The study refutes the numeric bedrock of the greenhouse gas theory
(GHG) by applying old NASA data. It seems NASA dumped the equations
relied upon by supporters of the GHG theory, to get Neil Armstrong’s
carbon boot prints safely planted on the Moon’s Sea of Tranquillity.

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 climate researchers had
the bright idea of delving back into NASA’s archives to test the so-
called Stefan-Boltzmann equations in fine detail. The three men
stumbled on the embarrassing flaws during an online debate on the
science behind global warming.

Published online on May 24, 2010, the study argues that the fatal flaw
has always lain in Stefan-Boltzmann’s equations. The long-trusted
formula has been used by climatologists without question-until now.
The researchers reveal that guessed at numbers used in 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
scorn 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 climate scientists.

‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon’ is a fillip to global warming
sceptics because it proves that super-power scientists can and do get
their numbers right when it’s a matter of life and death.

Lunar Temperatures Disprove Climate Theory
NASA had found that 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 embarrassing empirical fact
for believers of the GHG theory whose computer models erroneously
predicted that such heat energy would be ‘blanketed’ above the
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-contrary to the accepted GHG theory.

Thus the success of NASA’s moon landings becomes the proof of 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 crude equations
really are, “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 refuses to comply with 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 GHG believers, “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 a mockery of all such blackbody estimates.

Along with the Climategate revelations these new findings will come as
a blow to the beleaguered Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) that has placed enormous reliance on catastrophic predictions
based on discredited research around greenhouse gas theory. Even some
IPCC scientists have denounced the theory.

Are Climate Equations Mere Junk Science?
It appears so, 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.

Pointedly, NASA no longer shows any supposed 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 on the back of a cigarette packet.

The moral of the story is: if guesstimates were not good enough for
NASA concerned for the safety of its astronauts, then why are they
good enough for the IPCC or world governments proposing billion-dollar
cap and trade taxes on western nations?

References:

Dr. Gray, Vincent, ‘The Global Warming Scam, ’tech-know.eu (April
2008); accessed online: May 26, 2010.

Hermalyn, Brendan, ‘Radiative Non-Equilibrium at the Lunar Surface,’
Summer Institute on Atmospheric, Biospheric, Hydrospheric, and Solar
and Space Plasma Sciences NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, 2006
(accessed online: May 26, 2010).

Hertzberg, Martin ‘Earth’s Radiative Equilibrium in the Solar
Irradiance,’ Energy and Environment, Vol. 20, No. 1 (2009) pp 83-93.

Dr. Hertzberg, M,, Siddons, A& Schreuder, H.,’ A Greenhouse Effect on
the Moon?’ ( May, 24, 2010), accessed online: May 26, 2010.

Short, Nicholas M. ‘Planetary Remote Sensing: The Exploration of
Extraterrestrial Bodies’, nasa.gov (accessed online: May 26, 2010).

Dr. Williams, David R.’ Planetary Fact Sheets’, nasa.gov (January,
2005); accessed online: May 26, 2010.

Thanks for posting this. The cognitive dissonance created in the minds
of true believers of the "greenhouse effect" is papable.

Oh, holy crap, if anybody thinks that the Moon or the Earth is a black
body they need to retake sophomore heat transfer. The question is what
leads to their divergence from that ideal model.

On Sat, 29 May 2010 15:58:15 -0700 (PDT), Big fella
wrote:

On May 29, 3:35*pm, Leon wrote:
Stefan-Boltzmann equations
Apollo Mission: a Giant Leap Discrediting Greenhouse Gas Theory


Short, Nicholas M. ‘Planetary Remote Sensing: The Exploration of
Extraterrestrial Bodies’, nasa.gov (accessed online: May 26, 2010).

Dr. Williams, David R.’ Planetary Fact Sheets’, nasa.gov (January,
2005); accessed online: May 26, 2010.

Thanks for posting this. The cognitive dissonance created in the minds
of true believers of the "greenhouse effect" is papable.


The sock-puppetry is embarrasingly obvious. Painfully so. I hope you
are being paid for this, because the idea that you are doing this to
make some kind of point is alarming.

I would have given it a pass but I have never seen it this bad before.
It's like getting follow-up unsolicited consumer testimonials
referring to penis enlargement spam email.

Scientologists do what you are doing. And think they are dion good. I
cannot make it any clearer than that.

--
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.

On 5/29/10 7:39 PM, in article ,
"John Vreeland" wrote:

On Sat, 29 May 2010 15:35:44 -0700 (PDT), Leon
wrote:

Stefan-Boltzmann equations
Apollo Mission: a Giant Leap Discrediting Greenhouse Gas Theory
By John O'Sullivan Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Researchers have uncovered proof that the Apollo Moon landings
required a whole new set of hitherto unreported equations to get Neil
Armstrong¹s carbon boot prints safely onto the Sea of Tranquillity;
the ones still relied on today by global warmists to Œfix¹ Earth¹s
Œaverage¹ temperature were thus known to be junk by NASA 40 years
ago!

...


In fact, the Apollo data proves the Moon¹s surface temperatures
throughout its two-week night were higher than predicted by the
blackbody equations because the moon ³feeds on² the heat it had
previously absorbed-contrary to the accepted GHG theory.

Thus the success of NASA¹s moon landings becomes the proof of the
unreliability of the Stefan- Boltzmann equations in real world
science.


What a load of hype. Who writes this stuff? A press release for
crying out loud. If the ID movement had this kind of funding our kids
would be counting the dinosaurs on the Ark.


Ø Bull****!!!!

‹‹*‹‹
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.

1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the
logic of what you say. You have to tell them
what is right in very simple terms. If they do
not agree, you will never be able to change
their mind.

2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes
against their religious belief, they will cling to
that belief even if it means their death.

3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a
million years. There is no way to convince

the anthropogenic_global_warming_alarmists,

the terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and

predators to change their evil ways, They
knew what they were doing was wrong, but
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil deeds.

On Sat, 29 May 2010 15:35:44 -0700 (PDT), Leon
wrote:


NASA had found that 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 embarrassing empirical fact
for believers of the GHG theory whose computer models erroneously
predicted that such heat energy would be ‘blanketed’ above the
planet’s surface.


If true, then conduction of heat into the earth and its oceans could
currently be hiding the full effects of warming.

On Sat, 29 May 2010 19:54:44 -0400, John Vreeland
wrote:

On Sat, 29 May 2010 15:58:15 -0700 (PDT), Big fella
wrote:

On May 29, 3:35*pm, Leon wrote:
Stefan-Boltzmann equations
Apollo Mission: a Giant Leap Discrediting Greenhouse Gas Theory


Short, Nicholas M. ‘Planetary Remote Sensing: The Exploration of
Extraterrestrial Bodies’, nasa.gov (accessed online: May 26, 2010).

Dr. Williams, David R.’ Planetary Fact Sheets’, nasa.gov (January,
2005); accessed online: May 26, 2010.

Thanks for posting this. The cognitive dissonance created in the minds
of true believers of the "greenhouse effect" is papable.

The sock-puppetry is embarrasingly obvious. Painfully so. I hope you
are being paid for this, because the idea that you are doing this to
make some kind of point is alarming.

I would have given it a pass but I have never seen it this bad before.
It's like getting follow-up unsolicited consumer testimonials
referring to penis enlargement spam email.

Scientologists do what you are doing. And think they are dion good. I
cannot make it any clearer than that.

What really cracks me up with mirth is that without the greenhouse
effect Earth would be around 11 degrees Fahrenheit. FUNNY!


--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

On Sat, 29 May 2010 19:39:14 -0400, John Vreeland
wrote:

On Sat, 29 May 2010 15:35:44 -0700 (PDT), Leon
wrote:

Thus the success of NASA’s moon landings becomes the proof of the
unreliability of the Stefan- Boltzmann equations in real world
science.

What a load of hype. Who writes this stuff? A press release for
crying out loud.

ExxonMobil pays $10,000 per article: they said so. If I were a
scientist without any ethics or morals, perhaps I would write such
press releases also. That's damn good money!

If the ID movement had this kind of funding our kids
would be counting the dinosaurs on the Ark.

$10,000 for an hour or two of writing.

The black body calculations were thought of as a good first
approximation. No one expected them to be exactly right. Why do I
feel as if the original author is being disingenuous? Hmmmm?

Black body calculations are idealized: no scientist expects the
calculations to be 100% accurate.

News Flash: Climate science has moved on since 1960. Actually, I'm
not sure it even existed in 1960. Everyone was too busy talking about
the weather.


--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz