Are we agreed?
As the Earth rotates on its own axis, one half of the Earth is cooling while the other half is warming up. All agree? So the Earth is warming and cooling daily and the temperature is changing 3,600 times in every hour in every location all over the world, as there are 3,600 seconds in every hour. Do we all agree?
As the Earth is travelling around the Sun in an ellipse at 66,000 miles per hour and is tilted and wobbling as it spins, so the Earth has seasons, as the angle to the Sun varies. So the temperatures in the Spring and Summer are usually warmer than in the Autumn and Winter, when temperatures decline. So there is a massive number of differing temperatures over the whole Earth, constantly changing and always in flux. Does everybody agree that these are facts of everyday experience? We can see the differing temperatures on CNN and the BBC every day. There is then no one Global Temperature.
It is autumn in the Isle of Man. I see that the forecast from Ronaldsway says that tomorrow will start at 5ºCelsius and rise to 14ºCelsius maximum during the day. Here we see a typical range of temperatures for the time of year. So temperatures are rising and falling according to the time of day and according to the seasons. Does anyone disagree with that?
Now since we are not only swinging round the Sun, the whole of our Solar System is also part of the Milky Way and the whole lot is spiralling around something else again, with the result that we have had in the past history of the Earth huge Ice Ages punctuated by Warm Periods. Although this is not a fact of direct experience, we can be pretty certain that this is indeed so, geologically speaking. In the present day we are probably in the end of a Warm Period. Scientists disagree on this; there is no exact consensus.
Temperatures on the Earth are usually measured by thermometers in Weather stations, a louvred box situated at circa 5ft above the ground. (Image above). There are a few thousand weather stations dotted about the Earth, mostly near sea level and very few on mountains at altitude. As 70{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the surface is water, although there are attempts to make an average, it is simply impossible to arrive at a Global temperature. There is no one place to put a thermometer. To take an average of something that is in flux is not realistic.
Furthermore our atmosphere is not 5ft thick but some 66 miles high to the edge space. We know that the temperature of the atmosphere declines by 2ºCelsius for every 1,000 feet of altitude so there are any number of temperatures constantly changing at altitude also. Nowadays aircraft have monitors aboard so that one can actually see the exterior temperature of circa minus 50º Celsius when the plane is at 30,000 feet, and one can also watch the temperature rising as the plane descends to the Earth.
Why is it colder at altitude? Why is the air thinner? Everyone knows that whether one ascends Snaefell or Mt Everest it gets colder and colder with altitude. Why is that? Our air is composed of molecules of Nitrogen and Oxygen which together make up 99{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the atmosphere, while the entire Greenhouse Gases comprise only 1{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} and Carbon Dioxide a mere 0.04{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the whole.
At ground level the molecules are packed tightly like billiard balls. When the air is warmed by the action of the Sun upon the Earth, hot air rises – that is to say the molecules rise up and separate and grow farther and farther apart. At 30,000feet say the molecules are far apart. The question is: What is between the molecules? The answer is nothing, absolutely nothing. The molecules are suspended in vacuum. As we all know one cannot heat nothing, one can only heat something, which in Physics is called mass. Are we all agreed so far?
Once we understand together this simple concept we can also see that the much vaunted Greenhouse Effect is a non-starter. What sort of a Greenhouse would be full of holes, open to the sky? It would not and could not retain heat. Sure, the Greenhouse Gases absorb and emit infrared radiation, but then so do humans when they sunbathe.
The idea that Carbon Dioxide forms some sort of barrier to prevent heat escaping ultimately to Outer Space cannot realistically be contemplated.
As to the idea that the temperature of the Earth can be controlled by, in turn, controlling the emissions of Carbon Dioxide is simply inadmissible. Furthermore, since Carbon Dioxide is the food for green plants, which in turn provide Oxygen for all mankind and the animal kingdom, all thoughts of burying or hiding Carbon Dioxide away in the earth somewhere are just the ravings of suicidal inclined power maniacs.
Are we all agreed?
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
THOMAS W ADAMS
| #
Because the Earth has now entered the early stage of it’s orbit in the great realm of space where it always, always, is subjected to an ice-age, my beliefs on this subject have always been set in concrete, and now this excellent dissection has added the ice-ing on my cake. Thank you.
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
If you look at the pattern of the glacial and interglacial periods we have been having for about 1.2 million years, it looks a lot like the charge up and discharge of an RC circuit. Considering the Electric Universe that recognizes the electromagnetism is 10^34 times stronger than gravity, what we have is 80k years of charging of the Sun by an interstellar electric current and then about 10-12k years of discharge, our interglacial periods.
When an RC circuit finally reaches its overload point, it starts to discharge, the initial warming of the resistor lowers the resistance a bit and the Interglacial gets a bit warmer. Eventually the RC circuit will settle into a fluctuating decline in current that results in a fluctuating decline in temperature and, finally, the circuit ceases as the discharge is complete, the Sun goes quiet. The temperature report of the Holocene follows this pattern very nicely.
Our overalll Ice Ages, composed of millions of years of glacial/interglacial periods, might be caused by the region of space our solar system is in as the interstellar current might no be available consistently for millions of years. I do not think the glacial/iinterglacial cycles are caused by changes in our region of space.
Reply
Michael Grace
| #
Prediction of realities is very difficult. Description of previous realities is also very difficult.Nothing is easy.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
Wrong, Wrong!!! Anthony has drawn to your attention several simply observed facts which even after their discovery have general been ignored by those who have other wrong ideas to promote. Galileo had to lie to save his life. His lie: “The earth doesn’t move.”
I have just returned from observing the clear evidence of volcanic action which has occurred in the long past on some property I now own. What is the energy source which ‘drives’ this well observed action. Is there any question that this energy source is nuclear fission? While maybe some of these reactions are similar to those occurring in a ‘breeder’ reactor, the fact still remains that there is a finite source of this energy. But it is no mystery what had occurred in the past due to these reactions and which are occurring at the present, and we reasonably and simply understand they are not likely to cease tomorrow.
Anthony referred to the long observed fact that the average atmosphere’s temperature (although quite variable from day to day) changes from season to season and generally decreases with increasing altitude.
I ask question, to which I am sure nearly everyone know the answer: What happens when one throws a body (rock, baseball, etc) upward and why? I ask: Why should the action of gravity upon these large bodies be any different than that upon the random motion of the tiniest gas molecules? That as this random motion is upward, the motion of the molecule is decelerated and we understand that the average kinetic energy of the molecule’s motion (based upon the definition of kinetic energy) is decreased and we also understand that temperature is proportional to the average kinetic energy of the many, many molecules which still exist in a cubic meter of atmosphere in the stratosphere and beyond. Hence, we have a simple explanation for why the atmosphere’s temperature generally decreases with increasing altitude. This if we remember what the scientists before have discovered for us.
I forget so easily and I believe most of us have that problem.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Readers,
And just to prove my point about my memory problem, I call attention to the periods which should have been question marks.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Judy
| #
What a well written common sense evidence based explanation. I think I will send it to all the politicians. If they are smart enough to understand it, which one would hope they are, they need to put the suicidal inclined power maniacs into a mental asylum for their own protection. But who would be left to run the country?
Reply
dave jr
| #
Yes, we are all agreed and therefore “the science is settled” 🙂
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Anthony:
“At ground level the molecules are packed tightly like billiard balls. When the air is warmed by the action of the Sun upon the Earth, hot air rises – that is to say the molecules rise up and separate and grow farther and farther apart. At 30,000feet say the molecules are far apart. The question is: What is between the molecules? The answer is nothing, absolutely nothing. The molecules are suspended in vacuum. As we all know one cannot heat nothing, one can only heat something, which in Physics is called mass. Are we all agreed so far?”
JMcG:
It’s not as simple as you suggest. And pretending things are more simple than they actually are is a huge problem.
Activity in the troposphere is actually more complicated than you suggest here. Warmer air is a magnet for moisture. And moisture makes warmer air heavier, since all moisture in the atmosphere is liquid (the myth is that evaporation produces gaseous H2O–this is impossible). Convection is mostly nonexistent. Molecules in the atmosphere are more effected by the energy and charges of other molecules than they are by gravity. This misconception is one of the biggest obstacles to progress and people are emotionally attached to the simplicity of convection.
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
Reply