The greenhouse effect does not exist

The developments of forums and the site. Humor and conviviality between the members of the forum - Tout est anything - Presentation of new registered members Relaxation, free time, leisure, sports, vacations, passions ... What do you do with your free time? Forum exchanges on our passions, activities, leisure ... creative or recreational! Publish your ads. Classifieds, cyber-actions and petitions, interesting sites, calendar, events, fairs, exhibitions, local initiatives, association activities .... No purely commercial advertising please.
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79126
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974

The greenhouse effect does not exist




by Christophe » 31/08/06, 12:49

Received by email and for information ...

From the same author : https://www.econologie.com/forums/un-avis-fa ... t2245.html

GREENHOUSE EFFECT - CARBON GAS and NITROGEN OXIDE.

From perpetual motion, to the "bug" of the year, 2000, through the heat pump, we have arrived at the greenhouse effect. "Scientists Said" is our informants' favorite phrase for spreading the worst nonsense.
The laws of physics are often difficult to understand.
The characteristic equation of gases imagines them perfect.
Dalton's laws are often poorly understood.
As for thermodynamics, it is so badly perceived that in the 21st century one can build a marvelous atomic boiler, but it is only to operate the machines of Denis Papin (1690) or, better, of FULTON. Our cars will continue to use the inventions of the 19th century for a long time under the name of Beau de Rochas cycle (1862), popularized by the four-stroke engine. Electronics, by improving it, will never be anything but a cautery on a wooden leg.

Office Scientists still have a bright future in their predictions, which are not supported by measurement, statistics, or serious experimentation. Their invention of the greenhouse effect, caused by the accumulation of carbon DIOXIDE (admit that it looks more like carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere, would cause them to fail the Certificate of Primary Studies if it still existed .
Without going to such a level of scientific culture, let us limit our bibliography to the average of the years 1957 and following.
They are trying to extract the carbon dioxide accumulated at the bottom of a fermentation cellar. They will find that to lift it you have to completely pump it.
Let them try, by blowing on it, to keep it suspended in the air. They will see that it is so heavy that it falls back, dissolving in the slightest drop of rain and in many other things.
At atmospheric pressure one liter of water dissolves one liter of carbon dioxide.
At "n" times this pressure a liter of water will dissolve "n" liters of carbon dioxide.
Imagine what the ocean can absorb in its depths.
What the human industries produce is ridiculous compared to the volumes emitted by breaths, fermentations, volcanic eruptions, calcinations of carbonates of all kinds which constitute a good part of our planet. Finally, the consumption of carbon dioxide by plants has never been measured, or even estimated. However, it is the only source of carbon available to plants for making cellulose. You imagine all it takes to build a tree trunk.
Before making it the "glazing" of our atmosphere, it would be good to seriously measure its real concentration as a function of altitude.
The same goes for these famous nitrogen oxides, the "hole" in the ozone layer and all these nonsense that rely on nothing. Indeed, our statistics on these issues clearly lack seniority.
What about this story of rising sea levels? Is it the water going up or the earth going down?
Our miserable lives have always been the victims of these majority conformisms, against which we have to fight better than Panurge sheep.

For those who still doubt.

Nitrogen and oxygen are intimately mixed to form the atmosphere we breathe. Their different densities should dissociate them? Why should it not be the same between carbon dioxide and air?

Findings which are not explanations.

Water and oil do not mix, the less dense oil floats.
Water and alcohol mix in all proportions, despite different densities.
Why ? If we do not want to be drowned in a physics class, we will have to be satisfied with an adjutant response:

"It is like that because it is not otherwise."

Carbon dioxide has no affinity with the air around us. At most, air can dissolve three volumes for ten miles (3/10000). Beyond this concentration, it separates from it and "falls" to the bottom where everything contributes so that it is absorbed by water, but also by other minerals and plants.
The same goes for the famous nitrogen oxide that our cars are accused of producing in excess. However, the real producer of nitrous oxide is high voltage electricity. Of course, there are a few on the electrodes of spark plugs of internal combustion engines.
The blue egrets that escape from the insulators of the high-voltage lines produce a little more. In humid weather, you can smell it, which accompanies the characteristic sizzling sound. It mixes a little ozone which accentuates the odor.
All this does not produce much if we compare it to the enormous power of lightning in stormy weather, capable of synthesizing thousands of tons.
This nitrous gas is a blessing for nature and for man. Without it, there would be no vegetation.
We can make the same observations with sulfur gas.
Carbon dioxide, nitrous gas and sulfurous gas, soluble in water, do not remain in the atmosphere. Fortunately, if life were not so, it would not be possible on earth: we would be all suffocated. Since the time that we consume the oxygen of the air to make oxidations, its content should decrease if we continue the reasoning of our famous "Media Scientists". We never saw it and we still breathe.
These three dioxides combine with water to give acids, carbonic, nitrous and sulfurous which cannot be isolated. It is their solutions that have acidic characteristics.
Unlike other solutions, these dioxides see their concentration in water decrease when the temperature rises. Finally, they all tend to be absorbed by the soil.

How could they cause a greenhouse effect? Who really causes the greenhouse effect? how do we see it?

It is water in the atmosphere that is the source of clouds. The scattering properties of radiation by clouds are known to common sense. Clear skies cause the earth to cool down at night. A cloudy sky, on the contrary, protects against excess of the sun and the loss of calories accumulated by the earth and the waters.
If we compare the masses of cloud water, with the few transparent gases, which are diluted in ridiculously small quantities in the atmosphere, we can see that all these gases, so-called "greenhouse effect", cannot have no influence on the planet's climate.

Greenhouse gases: hoax? Or imbecility?

It would be so much more satisfying if it were a hoax. How to analyze the real causes of imbecility?
A response test is provided by a number.
When we asked these famous "Scientists", regular correspondents of our "Reporters", how much they estimated global warming since the 1900s, they replied:

"The planet experienced a warming of half a centigrade in the twentieth century"

To scorn error calculation at such a level is frankly scandalous.
How to measure temperatures with such precision?
The conditions of temperature measurement and the performance of materials, both at the beginning of the twentieth century and now, allow us to be as affirmative, to claim that the figure given is significant.
No statistical gossip can support such nonsense.

Even universal suffrage does not allow us to protect ourselves from scientific "Chantal maries", who are no less dangerous than their sisters in Politics and Literature.

KYOTO or the globalization of stupidity.

Human industrial activities, adding other land uses, cover less than ten percent of the earth's surface. The exploitation only pierces the bark over an average of a few hundred meters. Human ants are very pretentious when they claim to modify climates, by their tiny activities.
To accuse the United States of America of all evils is to forget its gigantic territory.
Reduced to the square kilometer, their industrial and human activity is much lower than that of Europe.
However, it is fearlessly expected that the population of the world will quickly reach ten billion people. Like all forms of life, that of man will disappear drowned in his poop. In the universal dead pit, when men see the level of the sanies reaching their lower lip, each new arrival will cause the unanimous supplication: "Above all, no waves". Would the biggest ones be the last to disappear?
This will not be the consequence of carbon dioxide emissions which is eliminated automatically. The real source of nuisance and self-destruction lies in a single sentence of genesis:

Grow and multiply

Things have to stop one day.

Global warming :

“Without the greenhouse effect, how can we explain global warming? "

I have already said how insufficient our statistics and the accuracy of our measurements over time are to prove that the climate is warming. Our poor memories are so short that they forgot the torrid months of June during which we "made hay". They also forgot about the “rotten”, cold and humid summers with the crops that were rotting on the ground, the appalling droughts that were decimating the herds. So think that in 1947 and 1959 the vines of the North produced and brought to maturity very sweet grapes. At Melun the banana tree in the public garden produced a splendid bunch of perfectly edible bananas.
In those years, the wines were unrecognizable. They were so generous that it hid their lands. The white wines all had the flavor of Spanish sherry and, in Champagne, they were unsuitable for the second fermentation called "prisez de mousse". It was necessary to cut them (we say to assemble that made more noble) with "stakes" of the previous years.
The winds were then as much from the southwest as from the northwest, the storms too. We were not yet talking about global warming.

"But, dear sir, without going over the thermometric measurements that you contest, the regression of the glaciers, the melting of the polar ice creams are indeed related to an evolution of the climate which finds no explanation except in the greenhouse effect, universally recognized. "

The melting ice is a reality. So ! Who warms them?

The sense of proportion:

We must put the quantities back in their places which are all relative. The living world occupies a "thin film" of the terrestrial globe: barely one per thousand of the radius of the earth. In volume, this represents only three per thousand of our globe. Bring it down to a beautiful grapefruit with a hundred millimeter radius, it painfully represents a tenth of a millimeter, the skin of a new potato.
Astronomy does not report movements of the sun, nor unusual heat emissions. In contrast, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes have stood out in recent years. When we think of the hot springs of Iceland and elsewhere and we observe that the glaciers and the ice floes melt mainly by the base, we can wonder if it is not the earth's crust which lets sweat a little more central fire so little known.
A campaign to measure soil temperatures, both on land and at the bottom of the oceans, would make it possible to make less philosophical assumptions than the greenhouse effect. It will take time and, in the meantime, we will still hear beautiful nonsense.
Finally, history is there which teaches us that the Vikings called VINE LAND what we still call GROELAND, despite the ice and snowfields which cover this territory.

We can regret that our intellectual training specializes us too much by taking away from us the generalist capacity for scientific and technical reasoning. Learned societies and academies have failed in their mission.

Dinard February 17, 2001 -
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79126
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974




by Christophe » 31/08/06, 13:02

Apart from a few mistakes, this text is much more credible than the other by the same author (but which ultimately discredits this one) ... It would be necessary to verify the scientific hypotheses that it affirms in particular at the level of the CO2 which "flows " in the air...
0 x
Targol
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1897
Registration: 04/05/06, 16:49
Location: Bordeaux region
x 2




by Targol » 31/08/06, 13:43

This text makes interesting hypotheses but the conclusions confuse me a little. If we follow the reasoning of this gentleman, we can continue to pollute without worrying about the greenhouse effect since it is only a view of the mind : Shock:

The questions are good, the answers inappropriate (at least, in my opinion).

A question that I ask myself: rather than sending it to you by email, since this gentleman knows the econology site, why wouldn't he post these texts in the form of a thread? We could thus debate it and he could explain his choices and his positions.
0 x
"Anyone who believes that exponential growth can continue indefinitely in a finite world is a fool, or an economist." KEBoulding
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79126
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974




by Christophe » 31/08/06, 14:15

Targol wrote:A question that I ask myself: rather than sending it to you by email, since this gentleman knows the econology site, why wouldn't he post these texts in the form of a thread? We could thus debate it and he could explain his choices and his positions.


I invited him ... but I can't force him to register and to participate of course ... we'll see if he comes ...

As for the conclusions of this "article", there are not any directly, simply the fact that certain "natural" phenomena can be more influential than our emissions ... which is not false far from the ...

But where I say NO (and that I advise the author to find out) it is on the following points:

1) The greenhouse effect is NOT only caused by CO2: CH4, NOx ...

see in detail https://www.econologie.com/l-effet-de-se ... -2936.html

Thunderstorms there have always been ... pkoi does the concentration of these gases increase in the atmosphere in a manner almost proportional to the human population?

2) How to explain that the population, energy need and CO2 concentration curves (method and altitude of measurement ???) are linked if the CO2 precipitated?

Image
Image

There is therefore no minimizing the human impact as the author wants to make believe!
Last edited by Christophe the 03 / 04 / 15, 13: 43, 1 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
abyssin3
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 623
Registration: 18/07/05, 15:12




by abyssin3 » 31/08/06, 15:03

Note in passing that the study of the ice in depth on I do not know which continent (maybe all?) Gives a precise indication on the composition of the ambient air, in particular of CO2 which existed in very remote times. The variations observed clearly show that these values ​​are not constant, and vary, in any case within a certain range.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79126
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974




by Christophe » 31/08/06, 15:13

Yes but the study of carrots gives the concentration of CO2 at ground level just right?
0 x
User avatar
abyssin3
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 623
Registration: 18/07/05, 15:12




by abyssin3 » 31/08/06, 18:06

no because it traps microbubbles of air whose composition is analyzed. The air was then close to the ground, certainly ...
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79126
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974




by Christophe » 31/08/06, 18:25

Author response following my invitation here:

Read your articles well and regret to see that you are not reading very well. For example, I am not a retired INSA engineer. I was a teacher at INSA with the title of Professor-engineer. It is a detail, but the most important thing is that I do not intend to scan the old elementary school things lesson books for you. You can get them anywhere and they respond perfectly to many of the objections read.

The refrigeration facilities were part of my frequentation when I had to transport bananas by boat. As for handling of CO2, I have practiced it in industry by working on questions of CO2 extraction from alcoholic fermentation cellars to systems of mining galleries.

I do not take away anything from what I wrote, nor from the reasoning given in solving a problem by "going through energy". I draw your attention to the disappearance of this means in secondary education in the years 1975. The abstract notion of quantity of movement reserved to it was preferred, formerly to higher education.

Your forums surly do not interest me.


We had to suspect it given his tone ...
0 x
Christine
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 1144
Registration: 09/08/04, 22:53
Location: In Belgium, once
x 1




by Christine » 31/08/06, 18:34

Christophe wrote:We had to suspect it given his tone ...


[mode: I lecture]
A word of advice, as soon as you come across a guy who ends his pseudo-demonstrations with "if not, prove me the contrary!" Or "I am not going to explain your school lessons again", run away !!
[/ I lecture]
0 x

Go back to "The bistro: site life, leisure and relaxation, humor and conviviality and Classifieds"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 234 guests