buy today

Exposed!

We expose how crooked climate scientists fake climate temperature numbers by a factor of three!

Insightful!

24 leading experts over two epic volumes express their unhindered views on climate science

Revealed!

How the IPCC has turned man-made global warming into a 21st century religion

Factual!

Not just expert opinion but also well-researched analyses with detailed footnotes and bibliographies
firehose

The second law of thermodynamics refers to the NET transfer of heat energy that must be from warmer to cooler bodies.
But, as was noted earlier in this thread, if you are spraying me with a fire hose and I am simultaneously spraying you with a garden hose that has blue-tinted water, I will get a lot wetter, but you will get some blue water on your clothes.
- Dr. Ira Glickstein

I hate to rank on Dr. Glickstein; he seems like a smart and fair-minded man, but this kind of argument is used to justify the human-caused global warming theme. The idea is: outgoing infrared radiation stimulates atmospheric CO2 which heats up and “back radiates” to the earth…making us hotter. Honestly, at this point, does anyone believe this is physically possible? This “greenhouse effect” and analogy is complete nonsense.

What can I do to help Dr. Glickstein? Let’s fix his analogy for him. There is no side channel or alternate path for the fire hose and the blue-water squirt gun. They must use the same path. So, I get the fire hose, you get the squirt gun. Open fire. How much of your blue water will travel into the nozzle of my fire hose? That’s right my friends. None!

However, this is still not right because your finger working vigorously on the squirt gun’s trigger is an independent source of energy. This is not analogous to the human-caused global warming theory. CO2 does not have an independent source of energy. The only energy it has comes from other places…like collisions with the other atoms and molecules of the atmosphere, from infrared radiation and conduction from the earth’s surface. CO2 is not a battery, it is not being combusted and it is not a nuclear reactor.

Let’s refine the analogy further. Instead of a squirt gun, you get a funnel with a blue die injector. A really teenie-tiny, small one to represent 390PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere. Bend the spout of the funnel back toward me…now you capture water from my fire hose and direct blue stuff back toward my nozzle.

How much of your redirected water travels into my nozzle and up my fire hose?

There’s a cardinal rule in the selling business…once the sale is made, shut the hell up.

This is me shutting up now.

Upgrade your paradigm. Buy the book. Thanks. Slaying the Sky Dragon http://www.stairwaypress.com/

Source

Share/Save/Bookmark

Comments  

 
# RJ 2011-03-06 07:36
I had a number of question that I could not find a satisfactory answer to on AGW including:-

Can a hotter body heat a colder one.
How does energy mostly leave the planets surface. Conduction or radiation?
Can energy be increased as in your oven example?

These were questions just based on common sense after reading about the GHG theory.

These and many more were addressed by STSD. So thanks to the authors for the work on this book. It was an easy book to understand even for a non expert. Although the more I read on this subject the more questions I have.

I can now refer to this book when expressing reservation to or challenging either warmists or luke warmists on the GHG theory.

Hopefully the book sells well. And is used as a tool to continue challenging people like Ira.

It has clearly defined a number of areas for further research and discussion.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 

Add comment

Avoid profanities/foul language. Stay on topic and act professionally. Threats are not tolerated. Long links are shortened but still work. Emails not shown. PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to Admin' link.


Security code
Refresh