"You Are NOT Alone!"
Apollo Mission: a Giant Leap Discrediting Greenhouse Gas Theory
From Canada Free Press
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.
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.
Views: 40
-
Comment by Wendy Brown on June 2, 2010 at 5:54pm
-
Thank you for posting this. It is sad that the juggernaut advances crushing all in its path in spite of the science being totally discredited. But then we all know this is not actually about science.
Comment
© 2024 Created by Web Master.
Powered by
You need to be a member of The 9-12 Project of Central PA to add comments!
Join The 9-12 Project of Central PA