Category Archives: chemistry

Observations Refute Greenhouse Effect of Certain Atmospheric Gases


 

Guest Posting by

Jerry L Krause   2017

First we need to review a bit of history from the pen of the one who founded this thing we now term physical science.  But before we review what Galileo wrote in Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences, we need to consider what the publishers (Elzevir) of his book wrote in their preface to the reader.  According to the common saying, sight can teach more and with greater certainty in a single day than can precept even though repeated a thousand times. (as translated by Henry Crew and Alfonso de Salvio, 1914)

Many of us have been taught that Galileo refuted a long accepted general idea—that bodies twice as heavy fell twice as fast—of the Greek philosopher Aristotle by dropping, at the same time, bodies of significantly different masses (weights) from high places and observing that they struck the ground at basically the same time.  However, it seems Galileo efforts of demonstration were not readily accepted by everyone.

For Galileo had his character Simplicio state:  Your discussion is really admirable; yet I do not find it easy to believe that a bird-shot falls as a cannon ball.  To which Galielo had the character Salviati reply:  Why not say a grain of sand as rapidly as grindstone?  But, Simplicio, I trust you will not follow the example of many others who divert the discussion from its main intent and fasten upon some statement of mine which lacks a hair’s-breath of the truth and, under this hair, hide the fault of another which is as big as a ship’s cable.  Several pages Simplicio stated:  The previous experiments, in my opinion, left something to be desired: but now I am fully satisfied.  Even after Simplicio accepted that Aristotle’s idea was false, it seems it was not the demonstration which convinced him.  What was it that convinced Simplicio?

Immediately after Simplicio’s concession, Salviati replied:  The facts set forth by me up to this point and, in particular, the one which shows that difference of weight, even when very great, is without effect in changing the speed of falling bodies, so that as far as weight is concerned they all fall with equal speed: this idea is, I say, so new, and at first glance so remote from fact, that if we do not have the means of making it just as clear as sunlight, it had better not be mentioned; but having once allowed it to pass my lips I must neglect no experiment or argument to establish it.  Herein lies the possible answer to what convinced Simplicio.  If we remove no experiment from Saviati’s last statement, we are left with:  I must neglect no argument to establish it.

I have read that Galileo refused to accept the result (that the planets’ orbits about the sun were ellipses) of Tycho Brahe’s very careful naked-eye astronomical observations and Johannes Kepler’s very careful mathematical analysis of Brahe’s observational data.  I have read that Galileo did this because he considered a circle to be a more perfect figure than an ellipse.  Whatever his reason, the observed fact is he was wrong about the ‘shape’ of the planet’s orbit.  Because of some argument he had with himself?

Relative to Saliviati’s previous reply, I question what was so new, and at first glance so remote from fact.  What was the fact that Galileo’s new idea was so remote from?  I have pondered this question and have concluded the fact was the result of this experiment (experience):  hold a ten-pound bag of sugar in one hand and a one-pound package of butter in the other.

But Galileo was not done, after Salviati’s comment, he had his third character, Sagredo, immediately state:  Not only this but also many other of your views are so far removed from the commonly accepted opinions and doctrines that if you were to publish them you would stir up a large number of antagonists; for human nature is such that men do not look with favor upon discoveries—either of truth or fallacy—in their own field, when made by others than themselves.  A bit later Sagredo added:  In this manner he has, as I have learned from various sources, given occasion to a highly esteemed professor for undervaluing his discoveries on the ground that they are commonplace, and established upon a mean and vulgar basis; as if it were not a most admirable and praiseworthy feature of demonstrative science that it springs from and grows out of principles well-known, understood and conceded by all.

The title of this essay is this essay’s sole purpose.  So as I bring measurements (observations) to your attention, we will only consider the observed facts which apply to this purpose.

It is an undebatable fact that certain atmospheric gases have been observed, by instruments, to absorb certain portions of the invisible, to human eyes, infrared (IR) radiation being continuously emitted by the earth’s surface.  And there are many undebatable cases that when radiation is absorbed by matter it is observed to be transformed into a sensible heat (an increase in temperature) of that matter.  So based upon these cases and a radiation balance calculation, it has been long accepted that the result of this absorption of the IR radiation is that the earth’s average surface temperature would need to be about 33 degrees Celsius (33C) less if not for the presence of these certain atmospheric gases.  This is the claimed greenhouse effect (GHE).

Continue reading

Advertisements

The Myth of Man-made Ozone Depletion


Guest Post by Richard F. Cronin

August 3, 2017

After 31 years working for E.I. DuPont de Nemours here is my understanding about “ozone depletion” — the warm-up act for anthropogenic CO2-induced “global warming”.  Even the proponents of human-induced “ozone depletion” are starting to realize that the thinning of the ozone layer is a natural phenomenon that just waxes and wanes.

http://www.theozonehole.com/2017ozonehole.htm

Ozone (O3) is produced in the stratosphere by the intense solar radiation causing photo-dissociation of the di-atomic oxygen molecule (O2). The oxygen singlet (- O) is a powerful oxidizing agent and readily reacts with another O2 molecule to yield ozone.   Ozone is not produced during the dark polar winters and its lowest point is in the early spring. The ozone layer is renewed by the sunlit polar summers.

Molina and Rowland published in 1974 and their core premise is that heavier-than-air chloro-fluoro carbons (CFCs) convect upwards using a “one dimensional diffusion model”, where they photo-dissociate due to ultraviolet radiation in the band of 2000 Angstroms to yield ozone -destroying chlorine and bromine. Molina and Rowland also stated that CFCs do not dissolve in water, so they are not scrubbed out by rain at lower elevations. However, it is known that organo-halogens adsorb on dust particles and aerosols which are scrubbed out by rain in the troposphere.  Finally, volcanoes emit CFCs as well as copious amounts of hydrofluoric acid (HF), hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrodrobromic acid (HBr) which carry up to the stratosphere. (Ian Plimer, et al).  See “Heaven and Earth” by Ian Plimer, University of Adelaide.  There is always some equilibrium presence of these molecules, in trace quantities.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/RG013i001p00001/full

Click here for Atmospheric aerosols in the Earth System

Continue reading

CO2 And Climate Change Science–Part 2: A Summary Of The Science


The website CO2 Coalition has a post titled “Climate Change: A summary of the Science”.  It one of the best summaries I have come across lately.  It is fairly long, so I could do my usual and summarize it, but there is virtually nothing in it that I would want to skip over.  So, I will not deprive the reader. I will put it in, in its entirety.  I hope that my posting yesterday will fill in any blanks you may have otherwise had.

cbdakota

==========================================================

News 26 Feb, 2017

Climate Change: A Summary of the Science

The climate change science is settled, but not how the climate alarmists want you to think.

Continue reading

Drain The EPA Swamp-Part 1- Social Cost of Carbon


3swamp-1The Trump administration has formed a team charged with making recommendations for changes to the EPA. This action is needed because gone are the days when the EPA followed the legislation written by Congress.  Good things were accomplished by the EPA.  But now the EPA has over stepped it authority. The EPA task is to administer the law, not make it. For example, it has developed criteria to justify their own efforts, often invites “friendly lawsuits to expand their activities, and uses “secret science” to justify their regulations:

The following are some of the areas that the team need to address, in my opinion:

  • Social Cost of Carbon
  • Secret Science
  • Peer Reviewed Studies
  • Friendly Law Suits
  • The Endangerment Finding
  • Research Grants
  • Last Minute Regulations

 

Social Cost of Carbon

The Federal Departments are charged with providing the benefit that results from their regulations. The EPA’s decided that their benefit would be a calculation that they call the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). Their SCC calculates the economic damage per ton of CO2 emissions. They form the SCC by considering all the bad things they say are going to happen if atmospheric CO2 continues to increase.  Sea level rise, terrible weather, crop failures, mass migrations.  These outcomes are predictions made by their computer models.   One thing we know about the computer model’s predictions is that they have consistently overstated the temperature rise and the sea level rise.  These two drive the cost side of the equation.  Thus, all their regulatory schemes are supposed to prevent these costs.   But the EPA fails to include the benefits of additional atmospheric CO2. One thing we know for sure is the increased atmospheric CO2 has resulted in a profound greening of the globe.  Food crop production has increased dramatically as CO2 is the primary food for plants.  The gentle global warming that has taken place has been beneficial as well.

Another problem with the SCC is the discount rate used by the EPA is unrealistic in the view of many economists.  The Federal Government’s Office of Management and Budget(OMB) believes a in different discount rate. When using OMB discount rate, the EPA cost estimates are reduced by 80% and is some cases cause the cost to be negative. And where the calculation goes negative, the increased atmospheric CO2 results in a benefit, not a cost.

 

Using these flawed computer predictions makes this calculation unsuitable for policy making.  Further, the benefits that are actually known (not computer predicted) are not included thus making the calculation even more useless. And lastly the discount rate chosen by the EPA would not likely be used by most economist.

Social Cost of Carbon calculation currently used by the EPA should be drained from the swamp.

Unfortunately, many new regulatory rules have been enacted based upon the social cost of carbon.  One survey found that between May 2008 and August 2014, some 68 major rules were sanctioned by the SCC.   This is an issue the new team should address.

cbdakota

Dependance On Petroleum?—More Than Just Use As A Fuel


How much do you depend on petroleum-based products?   A few of the non-fuel uses are previewed in the following video:

 


<p><a href=”https://vimeo.com/31586887″>Hydrocarbon Man</a> from <a href=”https://vimeo.com/user8463025″>Robert E. Bailey</a> on <a href=”https://vimeo.com”>Vimeo</a&gt;.</p>

 

cbdakota

Neil deGrasse Tyson Is Wrong. Skeptics Know Science Better Than Warmers.


I want to respond to Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson’s video titled “Neil deGrasse Tyson explains the real problem with climate change deniers” so here goes. The problem according to Tyson is that “deniers” do not understand science. “They can not sort out what is true and what is not true,” says Tyson.

If you watch late night TV or mainstream TV news you probably know Tyson. He and Bill Nye “the science guy” are their favorites when the media want someone to talk about “deniers” and global warming. Tyson is reasonably informed about the theory of man-made global warming while Nye is an embarrassment. See Nye’s debate with Marc Morano of Climate Depot.

Back to Tyson.  Climate Depot has assembled a list of 700 or so prominent scientists that are skeptics. Most of them have as much or more understanding of climate science than does Tyson. Is Tyson overwhelmingly arrogant or living in a cocoon? I suspect the answer to that is probably both. With regard to the cocoon, he probably never looks at any of these Skeptics work or their reasons for being skeptical.

Continue reading

Warmer Proof For Ocean Acidification Is Invalid


In 2004, a paper by Dr Richard Feely and Dr Christopher Sabine was published that purports to show that as the atmospheric CO2 increases, the oceans become acidified (1).   In 2010, Dr Feely made a presentation to the US Congress where he used this graph to illustrate the reduction of seawater pH.   It is reported to be widely used as a reference.

The graph is shown below:

Feelygraph

The question that one researcher asked, when he saw the chart was-Why the pH readings, in Feely’s chart, began in 1988?; which was surprising, as instrumental ocean pH data have been measured for more than 100 years — since the invention of the glass electrode pH (GEPH) meter.

Marrita Noon’s posting “What if Obama’s climate change is based on pHraud?” relates the story of this researcher’s observations:

Continue reading