Climate control brainwashing in schools watts up with that tgask


Hotscot; I think you will find what I prepared is exactly the sort of thing you are talking about. Nothing technical, just snippets with diagrams along the line the global warming theory predicts A but what we find is NOT A. Or, the theory of climate change showed “this” in 1990 but by 2000 it had changed to “that” both based on the same data set. How come the same data can generate different results.

I tried the more technical approach and it did not work. As soon as something was raised that conflicted with the listeners beliefs they simply insisted I did not know what I was electricity and circuits test talking about and was an idiot. Like when I tried to point out that oxygen and nitrogen have negligible emission in the thermal infra red. The comment back was, everything emits according to the Stefan Boltzman law and that included oxygen and nitrogen. The fact that I did not immediately agree just proved how ignorant and stupid I was. When I pointed out that gases that absorb and emit in the thermal IR are by definition green house gases and oxygen and nitrogen are NOT green house gases the point was ignored. Thus I have given up trying the technical approach. Instead I now try to point out conflicts and paradoxes in the CAGW electricity how it works theory.

Around 2004 I was a student on a teacher training course to teach science in schools. It was made vividly clear to us that if we did not teach the “Global Warming” (as it was then marketed as) as “settled science” we would fail the course and therefore not become qualified teachers. This threat was not confined to global warming. Almost every school subject had various themes that had to be taught in a particular way, in accordance with the National Curriculum. In a nutshell, we had to teach that our white ancestors had made errors (Slave Trade, colonialism, inequality, racism, sexism, poverty, war, CFCs…) for which today’s children now had to atone and pay compensation. “Global Warming” (aloong with the then popular “Peak Oil”) was special in that it figured in many subjects, not just Physics. It still figures in even most school text books today, though sometimes marginally diluted compared with Peak Panic. I doubt if today’s teachers would risk a run-in with Ofsted inspectors by presenting a skeptical viewpoint in their lessons. Mortgages, food, you know.

Petit Barde british gas jokes; actually the quote you give is correct. At a very basic level, that is how greenhouse gases act. Its also how a blanket keeps you warm. The most obvious example possibly is the use of a foil blanket just a thin layer of plastic with a shiny metallic surface (often used for exposure emergencies). The metal reflects back the energy radiated by the body and thus stops it being lost to space.

Skeptics are not saying that green house gases do not act to make Earth warmer because they do. The issue is, how much incremental warming does doubling CO2 concentration cause. Even on this issue there is less disagreement than one might suppose. Both sides agree the direct impact of doubling CO2 is about 1C rise in temperature. The real issue is feedbacks, are they positive (increasing the rise to 3C or more) or are they negative reducing the rise to 0.3C. In this context it is worth noting that all natural stable systems exibit negative feedback – indeed negative feedback is more bp gas prices ny or less an essential requirement for a stable system.

Malcolm,your comments are correct. By the way, the total atmospheric absorbance of CO2 is so high (saturated) that increasing the concentration has no effect at the line center. What increasing the concentration does is to broaden the absorption line so energy is absorbed over a slightly greater range of wavelengths. This line broadening is what gives the logarithmic effect. In fact all green house gases of significance are saturated at the line center and incremental impact is via line broadening which is why all display the logarithmic relationship. This is because the line width before broadening is usually so narrow that it has little total impact.

Petit-Barde your objection is based on a very narrow semantic definition. You insist the GHG does not warm the surface but you admit “it slows down the rate of cooling” – actually the rate of energy loss. OK use your terminology the end result is the surface is warmer than it would be if the GHG were not present. You can personally experience the same thing readily. Standing outside on a cold calm night in winter you feel cold but when you step back inside into the warm room you feel much warmer. The temperature in the room is lower than your body temperature so by your argument it cannot warm you yet you feel warmer!!!!!

The “scientific” answer – when standing outside you radiate to space at a body temperature of say 30C (303K) (depends on how well you are insulated) and space radiates back to you at a temperature gas out of 4K. Lots of outward radiation very little back so you lose a lot of energy. Inside the room you still radiate to the room at 30C but the room radiates back to you at say 20C (whatever the temperature of the walls is). The radiation from the 20C (293K) walls is much greater than from the 4K space so while you till lose net energy the loss inside the room is less than outside so you feel warmer. Technically one can argue the room does not warm you (you still lose net energy) but in common parlance it makes you warmer compared to standing outside. Hence you host is likely to say “come inside and warm up”. Still cold, put on a jumper and that will warm you up more except of course by you terminology the jumper has no intrinsic source of energy so it cant “warm you up”

OK Samuel gas vs diesel rv; remember you asked! The absorption lines of gases are extremely close to a a gaussian in shape. Imagine the CO2 in our atmosphere as a block of CO2. Doubling the concentration is equivalent to placing 2 identical blocks one after the other. The surface radiation passes through both blocks one after the other. So what is the effect of the second block?

Its like putting a signal through a filter twice. Mathematically the process is described as convolution. If you don’t know what that is, its probably simpler for you to look up convolution on the web rather than me try to explain it here. But gaussian profiles have a very interesting property with regard to convolution. If you convolve a gaussian with itself the result is also a gaussian with the same mean but a larger standard deviation.

You want a non mathematical subjective explanation? For a gaussian shape the absorption never goes to exactly zero. There is always a small amount of absorption out in the wings of the line. By doubling the CO2 the absorption out in those wings increases simply because the radiation has to go through more CO2 so while near the line center all the energy is intercepted anyway, out in the wings some energy that would not have been intercepted will now be intercepted. Hence the apparent line width increases.

In extreme cases its possible to get to the point where the emitting/absorbing line gets so wide it starts to look like continuum emission/absorption. That point is deliberately created in some digital projector lamps where the pressure of the emitting gas in the lamp is around 1000 psi. The electricity facts for 4th graders normally narrow lines of the emitting gas are broadened into a virtual continuum.

We did not have school buses forcing us to get up hours before the start of class. No one was driven to school; we walked to and from with friends, often taking time for some play on the way, or in the dirt school yard before or after school hours. We went home for a nice lunch prepared by our mothers. (If mom was going to be gone for the day, one of the classrooms doubled as a lunch room for those who “brown bagged” that day.)

Families had one car and often only one driver. There was fresh air in the classrooms; neither schools nor homes had air-conditioning (you’d go to the local motion picture theatre to obtain that experience). White boards had not yet been introduced; pupils were “volunteered” to clap the erasers after class (which usually involved eraser fights with lots of chalk dust. )

Our caring school staff gas oil mix ratio chart consisted of a school secretary, a half time principle (he had two schools) and a janitor for a student body of about 250 (K-8). We were well grounded in our subjects of English, arithmetic, history, geography, music (all teachers learned piano in normal school), and in the 7th and 8th grades we were introduced to “social studies” (which I saw as a combination of history and geography).