One of the title items seems incongruous, but it may not be. Prohibition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition) was a movement aimed at purifying the social practice of imbibing. When viewed from a Western perspective, it seems like a non-issue except from some protestant view, Christian view. When viewed from a world point of view, we have various cultures, the muslim,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
AGW Revealed
Ever since "global warming" was FORCED into our National Lexicon, I've been curious - at times Outraged - by this phoney baloney term, and sought to flush out its validity or true nature. As a professional engineer it was painfully apparent that billions of dollars of architectural and natural resources a lot of political capital was being squandered on this phoney notion (more on this in a moment).
Fast forward to now, I now realize that "the cart has been placed before the horse". This dialog is in reality a federal propaganda monologue. This inversion is that, instead of being a scientific discovery, AGW (anthropological global warming, or the like) is in reality a POLITICAL AGENDA to increase the federal tax to fund Socialism take by means of a contrived issue, AGW. The true agenda is to Tax human activity more completely, especially on energy usage - the next "necessity" after food.The mechanism is to tax a very broad range of consumed materials, basically carbon fuels (into which even the food we eat, also carbon-based, can be place at will). Thus the term "Carbon Tax" has entered the national Lexicon.
The stage was set. A rationale segue linking "emergency" to "cause" was needed.The moon-watching community came up with it... "OMG, the earth is heating up because we are burning too much coal and too much gasoline in our daily lives". This sure beats the "moon is made of green cheese" notion..... and might even be believable (credible enough for politics). Now, Bureaucrats as well as Leftists can want this because it fattens their trade, even some independent congressman and today the POTUS!
It remains to establishing a wider credibility. Federal grants to study the issue abounded toward the end of the last century. But the scientists that would win grant contracts were led to understand that the main question to be answered by their travail was whether it can credibly stated that man's activity is causing an increase in earth's temperature. Qualitatively, anyone can say that when one strikes and burns a match, the earth has become warmer. The stickiness comes when the next question is raised "How much warmer?" I note that the answer is hardly ever pursued on a theoretical basis. Rather, the contractors (university professors and the like) are charged with (and paid for) the task of creating a "Computer Model" (all hail! the Holy Grain of 21st century federal technology) of what may be happening. Having made countless such in my routine work in the last several decades, I have concluded that I can make my models do or say result in anything I like... sort of like a trained dog. In this way, the "Hockey Stick" was born. This has been debunked recently. The trial by fire of all computer models is "Validation". Here, one puts a trial problem into the model whose answer or result is already known via real observations. That's where the Hockey Stick result was debunked. When new investigators plugged in all Real, and newly vetted temperature observations worldwide, the depression before modern times and uptick of recent years no longer appeared. In is place was only the small random variation that occurs in all widespread natural processes. It was clear that manipulation for a cause was recently practiced, and tell-tale university research staff E-mails to that effect were discovered; the data presented readjusted for reality.
By 2008, my curiosity peaked. As an independent Ph.D. physicist I applied my knowledge of atmospheric physics and infrared technology - gained on a variety of endeavors over decades - made my prediction calculation based on black bodies, Stephan-Boltmann etc. My result is for all the fuels and matter we burned to date above and beyond old society sustenance ( well, 2008, but you can update any time). I found that the the earth's temperature should have risen 0.011 decrees C (0.02F). I can send this calculation to you as an Excel spreadsheet on your request. I have sent it to many firends and colleagues. None have replied with any comments. I can only conclude that they either have not read it, or cannot read normal scientific calculations, or don't want to hear this result.
You ask "What will you do about that temperature increase?". My answer is "Nothing".
On further thoughtful analysis, I also conclude that the heat energy from this excess burning - and all the sunlight energy as well - leave our planet by only ONE mechanism; INFRARED RADIATION! I also calculated the infrared emissivity (something like albedo, but for infrared wavelengths) to be approximately 0.88.
My qualitative analysis result regarding the greenhouse gas conundrum is that added CO2 in the air has a zero sum effect, gains are balanced by losses; that extra CO2 concentration neither raises nor lowers earth temperatures. A slight temperature lowering is possible as the air gains emissivity with more CO2 in it, thereby casting off heat energy all night especially from the higher atmosphere levels - 50,000' and higher.
I say further on the Carbon Tax issue. It should be buried NOW!. If Congress wants a new tax on energy, they should write a new Bill under that title and vote on it NOW.
Comments welcome, Ange.
Fast forward to now, I now realize that "the cart has been placed before the horse". This dialog is in reality a federal propaganda monologue. This inversion is that, instead of being a scientific discovery, AGW (anthropological global warming, or the like) is in reality a POLITICAL AGENDA to increase the federal tax to fund Socialism take by means of a contrived issue, AGW. The true agenda is to Tax human activity more completely, especially on energy usage - the next "necessity" after food.The mechanism is to tax a very broad range of consumed materials, basically carbon fuels (into which even the food we eat, also carbon-based, can be place at will). Thus the term "Carbon Tax" has entered the national Lexicon.
The stage was set. A rationale segue linking "emergency" to "cause" was needed.The moon-watching community came up with it... "OMG, the earth is heating up because we are burning too much coal and too much gasoline in our daily lives". This sure beats the "moon is made of green cheese" notion..... and might even be believable (credible enough for politics). Now, Bureaucrats as well as Leftists can want this because it fattens their trade, even some independent congressman and today the POTUS!
It remains to establishing a wider credibility. Federal grants to study the issue abounded toward the end of the last century. But the scientists that would win grant contracts were led to understand that the main question to be answered by their travail was whether it can credibly stated that man's activity is causing an increase in earth's temperature. Qualitatively, anyone can say that when one strikes and burns a match, the earth has become warmer. The stickiness comes when the next question is raised "How much warmer?" I note that the answer is hardly ever pursued on a theoretical basis. Rather, the contractors (university professors and the like) are charged with (and paid for) the task of creating a "Computer Model" (all hail! the Holy Grain of 21st century federal technology) of what may be happening. Having made countless such in my routine work in the last several decades, I have concluded that I can make my models do or say result in anything I like... sort of like a trained dog. In this way, the "Hockey Stick" was born. This has been debunked recently. The trial by fire of all computer models is "Validation". Here, one puts a trial problem into the model whose answer or result is already known via real observations. That's where the Hockey Stick result was debunked. When new investigators plugged in all Real, and newly vetted temperature observations worldwide, the depression before modern times and uptick of recent years no longer appeared. In is place was only the small random variation that occurs in all widespread natural processes. It was clear that manipulation for a cause was recently practiced, and tell-tale university research staff E-mails to that effect were discovered; the data presented readjusted for reality.
By 2008, my curiosity peaked. As an independent Ph.D. physicist I applied my knowledge of atmospheric physics and infrared technology - gained on a variety of endeavors over decades - made my prediction calculation based on black bodies, Stephan-Boltmann etc. My result is for all the fuels and matter we burned to date above and beyond old society sustenance ( well, 2008, but you can update any time). I found that the the earth's temperature should have risen 0.011 decrees C (0.02F). I can send this calculation to you as an Excel spreadsheet on your request. I have sent it to many firends and colleagues. None have replied with any comments. I can only conclude that they either have not read it, or cannot read normal scientific calculations, or don't want to hear this result.
You ask "What will you do about that temperature increase?". My answer is "Nothing".
On further thoughtful analysis, I also conclude that the heat energy from this excess burning - and all the sunlight energy as well - leave our planet by only ONE mechanism; INFRARED RADIATION! I also calculated the infrared emissivity (something like albedo, but for infrared wavelengths) to be approximately 0.88.
My qualitative analysis result regarding the greenhouse gas conundrum is that added CO2 in the air has a zero sum effect, gains are balanced by losses; that extra CO2 concentration neither raises nor lowers earth temperatures. A slight temperature lowering is possible as the air gains emissivity with more CO2 in it, thereby casting off heat energy all night especially from the higher atmosphere levels - 50,000' and higher.
I say further on the Carbon Tax issue. It should be buried NOW!. If Congress wants a new tax on energy, they should write a new Bill under that title and vote on it NOW.
Comments welcome, Ange.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)