In weniger als einer Minute können Sie mit dem Lesen von Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory auf Ihrem Kindle beginnen. Sie haben noch keinen Kindle? Hier kaufen Oder fangen Sie mit einer unserer gratis Kindle Lese-Apps sofort an zu lesen.

An Ihren Kindle oder ein anderes Gerät senden

 
 
 

Kostenlos testen

Jetzt kostenlos reinlesen

An Ihren Kindle oder ein anderes Gerät senden

Jeder kann Kindle Bücher lesen  selbst ohne ein Kindle-Gerät  mit der KOSTENFREIEN Kindle App für Smartphones, Tablets und Computer.
Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory (English Edition)
 
 

Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory (English Edition) [Kindle Edition]

John O'Sullivan , Hans Schreuder , Claes Johnson , Tim Ball , Charles Anderson , Alan Siddons , Joseph A. Olson , Martin Hertzberg
4.0 von 5 Sternen  Alle Rezensionen anzeigen (1 Kundenrezension)

Kindle-Preis: EUR 7,19 Inkl. MwSt. und kostenloser drahtloser Lieferung über Amazon Whispernet

Weitere Ausgaben

Amazon-Preis Neu ab Gebraucht ab
Kindle Edition EUR 7,19  
Taschenbuch EUR 10,75  

Produktbeschreibungen

Kurzbeschreibung

Even before publication, Slaying the Sky Dragon was destined to be the benchmark for future generations of climate researchers. This is the world's first and only full volume refutation of the greenhouse gas theory of man-made global warming.

Nine leading international experts methodically expose how willful fakery and outright incompetence were hidden within the politicized realm of government climatology. Applying a thoughtful and sympathetic writing style, the authors help even the untrained mind to navigate the maze of atmospheric thermodynamics. Step-by-step the reader is shown why the so-called greenhouse effect cannot possibly exist in nature.

By deft statistical analysis the cornerstones of climate equations – incorrectly calculated by an incredible factor of three - are exposed then shattered.

This volume is a scientific tour de force and the game-changer for international environmental policymakers as well as being a joy to read for hard-pressed taxpayers everywhere.

Produktinformation

  • Format: Kindle Edition
  • Dateigröße: 3800 KB
  • Seitenzahl der Print-Ausgabe: 366 Seiten
  • Verlag: ebookpartnership.com; Auflage: 1 (22. November 2010)
  • Verkauf durch: Amazon Media EU S.à r.l.
  • Sprache: Englisch
  • ASIN: B004DNWJN6
  • Text-to-Speech (Vorlesemodus): Aktiviert
  • X-Ray:
  • Durchschnittliche Kundenbewertung: 4.0 von 5 Sternen  Alle Rezensionen anzeigen (1 Kundenrezension)
  • Amazon Bestseller-Rang: #513.009 Bezahlt in Kindle-Shop (Siehe Top 100 Bezahlt in Kindle-Shop)

  •  Ist der Verkauf dieses Produkts für Sie nicht akzeptabel?

Kundenrezensionen

5 Sterne
0
3 Sterne
0
2 Sterne
0
1 Sterne
0
4.0 von 5 Sternen
4.0 von 5 Sternen
Die hilfreichsten Kundenrezensionen
2 von 2 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
4.0 von 5 Sternen Erschlagt den Himmelsdrachen! 6. Januar 2012
Format:Taschenbuch|Verifizierter Kauf
Das Hauptargument des Weltklimarates IPCC lautet, dass CO2 ein schädliches Treibhausgas ist. Gewinner der Debatte um den Klimawandel ist also, wer dies entweder schlüssig beweist oder widerlegt. Die Autoren dieses Buches wollen diesen mythischen "Himmelsdrachen" erlegen.

Der Weltklimarat argumentiert wie folgt:

1. Treibhäuser heizen sich auf, weil die Glaskonstruktion zwar Licht hinein lässt, es aber nicht vollständig wieder entweichen kann. Die Atmosphäre der Erde wirkt ähnlich.
2. CO2 ist ein Treibhausgas.
3. Die Atmosphäre verstärkt die Wirkung von CO2. Es gibt eine Schwelle, ab der das Klima kippt.
4. Der Mensch erzeugt (besonders durch die Industrie) CO2 und ist deshalb am Klimawandel schuld.

Eine physikalisch korrekte Argumentation lautet jedoch:

1. Treibhäuser erwärmen sich, weil die warme Luft nicht entweichen kann. Die Atmosphäre wirkt nur sporadisch und lokal begrenzt als echtes Treibhaus (nämlich bei Inversions-Wetterlagen).
2. CO2 ist im Labor ein Treibhausgas; diese Ergebnisse lassen sich jedoch nicht auf die Physik der Erdatmosphäre übertragen und widersprechen den Eisbohrkernen (dort steigt erst die Temperatur und danach CO2-Konzentration). CO2 würde außerdem tags stärker kühlend wirken, als es nachts wärmte, sodass netto eine Abkühlung bewirkt würde.
3. Die Atmosphäre wirkt nicht als Verstärker und die Klimageschichte weist nicht auf eine Temperatur- oder CO2-Schwelle hin.
4. Das meiste CO2 ist natürlichen Ursprungs (u. a. gast bei höheren Temperaturen eben mehr aus den Ozeanen aus).

Man will uns erzählen, dass Sonnenstrahlen, Wolken, Treibhausgase usw.
Lesen Sie weiter... ›
War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?
Die hilfreichsten Kundenrezensionen auf Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com: 3.6 von 5 Sternen  24 Rezensionen
69 von 93 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
1.0 von 5 Sternen You cannot debunk global warming pseudo-science with gobbledegook science 13. Januar 2012
Von Martin A - Veröffentlicht auf Amazon.com
Format:Taschenbuch
Summary

This is a book that purports to discredit the hypothesis of man-made global warming due to carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels. However, it contains much of what I would term "crackpot science" and so the book cannot be taken seriously. Worse than that, it is seriously misleading if used as a source of scientific information. Finally, it enables CAGW believers to say "Deniers are talking nonsense as usual".

My own position

My review of "Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory" is not complimentary so, for the avoidance of doubt, let me make my own position clear:

- I think that belief in catastrophic man-made climate change is akin to a religion which has many passionate believers, whose belief is based on faith rather than evidence.

- I think that the global warming mass delusion has resulted in immense harm in numerous ways.

- The evidence for global warming was based on analysis of temperature data with numerous problems of reliability but in any case the data has failed to show continued global warming for the past ten years or so.

- The evidence for CO2 being a threat is non-existent. The only "evidence" is computer models, which have been programmed by people with a strong desire to produce evidence for a strong relation between CO2 and global temperatures. But, as someone said, a computer model is an illustration of a hypothesis, it is not evidence.

I am sure that, at some time in the future, perhaps not in my lifetime, the whole thing will be recognized as the greatest mass-delusion of all time. However, there are now so many people and organizations who benefit from it, not to forget a generation of indoctrinated school children, that I don't think this will happen soon.

Let me make clear my understanding of thermal radiation, because the explanations in the book differ very greatly from radiation physics as taught in normal texts. Here is how it is normally understood:

- A black body absorbs all radiation that impinges on it, irrespective of the temperature of the black body or the wavelength of the radiation. Equivalently, every photon impacting a black body is absorbed by it, irrespective of the energy of the photon or the temperature of the body that emitted the photon. The temperature of the black body absorbing the photon is irrelevant to anything - it absorbs all photons whatever its temperature.

- A spherical black body emits radiation whose total power is determined solely by its surface area and its absolute temperature, the radiated power being proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature. The spectrum of its radiation is described by the Planck's law formula.

The book has numerous explanations of radiation that disagree totally with what I have written above.

Review

Nine chapters, covering about 50 pages, are by Alan Siddons generally dealing with radiation, greenhouse effect and claiming to expose misconceptions of physics that are to be found in climate science.

There are two chapters by Tim Ball "Analysis of Climate Alarmism" parts one and two which reviews how climate research became politicized and how the IPCC came into existence as an organization whose mission was to convince governments that they needed to introduce policies based on the danger of man-made global warming. I found these chapters interesting and informative.

There are ten more chapters, by six other authors, including two by Claes Johnson, entitled "Climate Thermodynamics" and "Computational Black Body Radiation".

The book contains numerous misconceptions of physics. To correct or explain all of them would need a document almost as long as the book itself. I will focus on two examples from two chapters. However note that misconceptions abound throughout the book - it is not simply a matter of just one or two errors here and there.

"Examining Greenhouse Theory" by Alan Siddons.

This chapter starts with a diagram from a Washington University course. Many readers of this review will be familiar with similar diagrams showing:
- 342 W/m^2 arriving as solar radiation
- 102.6 W/m^2 being reflected to space immediately
- 239.4 W/m^2 continuing downwards and then warming the earth (taken to be 240 W/m^2 in the text)

The earth then re-radiates 240 W/m^2, as it is in thermal equilibrium.

It is assumed that the 240 W/m^2 radiation leaving the earth is absorbed by an atmospheric layer and re-radiated 50% upward and 50% downward, so that 120 W/m^2 goes to space and 120 W/m^2 goes back to earth, where it is absorbed and the 120 W/m^2 is then re-radiated.

I see no problem with this. Of the 120 W/m^2 re-radiated by the earth, 60 W/m^2 returns again, then 30 W/m^2, and so on. So we have going spaceward 120 + 60 + 30 +... = 240 W/m^2. This is the same as originally arrived at the surface, so things are in equilibrium, with as much power being radiated spaceward as originally arrived at the surface directly from the sun.

Nothing wrong with that that I can see. The earth's temperature is being maintained but it is not receiving any additional heat from anywhere - including the cooler greenhouse gases above its surface so there is no need to argue that cold objects do not heat hotter objects.

Yet Alan Siddons immediately says "If people are gullible enough to believe such a scenario, and apparently millions do, they deserve what's coming down the road at them."

Then he says "Substitute an infrared filter for that layer of 'greenhouse gases.' Direct a radiant heater at an infrared filter, then. (sic) According to greenhouse physics you will now have the equivalent of two radiant heaters. (...) Two heaters for the price of one. But no, that's not all. Remember that the radiant heater will be heated by its own re-directed energy (...) It's not only a perpetual motion machine - it accelerates to boot!"

This is a fallacious argument. The earth is not equivalent to a radiant heater generating its own heat and radiating it. The greenhouse gasses are not equivalent to an infrared filter.

Other chapters by Alan Siddons contain many misconceptions. Most can be translated as equivalent to a belief that photons emitted by cool body cannot be absorbed by a warmer body.

"Computational Blackbody Radiation" by Claes Johnson
At a quick glance, this chapter seems to be a detailed discussion of radiation physics from a mathematical viewpoint, with plenty of mathematics - no shortage of integral signs and formulas. But looked at in any detail, it is simply nonsense - scientific sounding nonsense but still nonsense.

In section 1.1 he says "The purpose of this note is to show that particle statistics can be replaced by deterministic finite precision computational wave mechanics. We thus seek to open a door to restoring rational physics including climate physics, without any contradictory wave-particle duality".

Immediately my alarm bells started sounding. Anyone who announces that he will replace the physics of the twentieth century with a new alternative immediately runs the risk of being thought to harbor delusions of grandeur. "...contradictory wave-particle duality." Sounds impressive but does it mean anything? I don't think so.

He says "A blackbody thus can be seen as a system of resonators with different eigen-frequencies which are excited by incoming radiation and then emit radiation. An ideal blackbody absorbs all incoming radiation and re-emits all absorbed radiation below cut-off"

This is simply rubbish. See my note above as to what a black body actually does.

He says

"As a transformer of radiation a blackbody thus acts in a very simple way: it absorbs all radiation, emits absorbed frequencies below cutoff, and uses absorbed frequencies above cut-off to increase its temperature. A blackbody thus acts as a semi-conductor transmitting only frequencies below cut-off, and grinding coherent frequencies above cut-off into heat in the form of incoherent high-frequency noise."

"We here distinguish between coherent organized electromagnetic waves of different frequencies in the form of radiation or light, and incoherent high-frequency vibrations or noise, perceived as heat."

This all sounds impressive but it is simply gibberish. It is nonsense. A black body acts as a semi-conductor? Does he know what a semi-conductor is?

A blackbody grinds coherent frequencies above cut-off into heat? This is meaningless waffle. As I said, see above for my note of what a black body actually does.

Conclusion

I've taken just two snippets from two chapters. It's too bad that the book is filled with scientific nonsense like this, as there is plenty of global warming pseudo-science that needs to be debunked.

But you cannot debunk global warming pseudo-science with gobbledegook science. Worse, it enables The Faithful to say "There you are, you see? Deniers talk nonsense".
74 von 111 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
5.0 von 5 Sternen A most remarkable book 30. November 2010
Von Mr. Peter M. Sullivan Aca - Veröffentlicht auf Amazon.com
Format:Kindle Edition|Verifizierter Kauf
This book leaves the reader in no doubt that those who subscribe to the IPCC's global warming consensus have been well and truly conned. The authors have presented their points in a readily understandable manner, backed with superb reference links. The points presented by the authors are not just very persuasive but, in many instances, they also appear to be conclusive. Readers may find it challenging to appreciate the mathematics and physics expressed by some authors, but nevertheless, somehow the authors do get their points across. Many books have been written about climate change and global warming but this book puts together the key elements that get to the heart of the issue. This book will surely be a best seller.

The only adverse comment I make is that at the end of the book it allows the reader to download a complimentary companion eBook in PDF format. I downloaded it but the PDF simply would not open, instead an error message appeared. I downloaded it a second time but the same problem occurred. I have no idea what else I can do.
49 von 77 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
1.0 von 5 Sternen Pseudoscientific nonsense 17. April 2011
Von Joel Shore - Veröffentlicht auf Amazon.com
Format:Taschenbuch
As a physicist, I became so alarmed when I read a few chapters of this book available free online that I went to the website blog and engaged in a discussion with two of the books authors. Alas, this discussion did nothing but confirm my suspicions about this book and the authors. The arguments made in this book are so far out there that even well-known anthropogenic global warming (AGW) skeptics like Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and Lord Monckton have apparently tried to distance themselves from its arguments. When there is an argument against AGW so bad that even Lord Monckton won't embrace it, that's saying something!

The two chapters that I have read online, written by Claes Johnson, seem to adopt an interesting "strategy" (whether it is a conscious choice or not, since it is hard to tell whether or not the author is deluding himself along with his audience). He presents a lot of mathematics almost sure to go over the heads of most of the readers of the book, but interspersed with some simplistic conclusions and analogies related to AGW that don't follow from the mathematics that he has presented. Thus, the reader who wants to believe these conclusions is left thinking, "See...Here is someone who has shown mathematically what I have suspected all along!" Alas, they don't realize that they are simply being duped.

One example of those who have unfortunately been duped is the reviewer here who states: "The global warming mechanism of carbon dioxide infrared radiation is impossible because heat can not flow from a cooler area (the atmosphere) to a warmer area (the earth surface). If this impossibility was the case it would violate the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics." I teach thermodynamics and have published many papers in top physics journals in the field of statistical physics, which provides the underpinning of thermodynamics, and I can state categorically that this claim is utterly wrong. In all models of the greenhouse effect, be they toy models that one can work out on the back of an envelope or full-blown climate models that occupy the world's fastest supercomputers, the flow of heat is from the earth's (warmer) surface to the (colder) atmosphere as the 2nd Law requires. In fact, the equations of radiative transfer are formulated in a way that there is never a violation of the Second Law if they are correctly applied.

The role of increasing greenhouse gases is simply to reduce the amount of radiation that the earth sends back out into space for a given surface temperature, thus requiring the surface to warm in order to restore the radiative balance of the earth. It is really no more mysterious than a person putting on a coat rather than going out naked when the temperature is 40 below zero in order to prevent themselves from getting hypothermia!

It is sad that some people with scientific and mathematical backgrounds who should know better have such strong ideological biases that they are led to write such pseudoscientific nonsense as this book.
18 von 30 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
1.0 von 5 Sternen Looking behind the curtain 18. Juni 2012
Von Mark T - Veröffentlicht auf Amazon.com
Format:Taschenbuch
The first question for a book like this is how it could get published. You would think publishers would be required to impose some kind of quality control for what is supposed to be a non-fiction title. But when you look at the publisher's website, you quickly realize that everything there is, um, questionable. Science is based on open discussion and questioning of ideas. But if someone came out with a book explaining with seemingly complicated mathematics that gravity (around which exists a rather solid consensus) is a figment of your imagination, would you buy into it? Seriously?
31 von 52 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
1.0 von 5 Sternen Sky Dragon Slayers led by a make-believe lawyer 5. Juni 2011
Von askolnick - Veröffentlicht auf Amazon.com
Format:Taschenbuch
I am updating my review with this brief note to report important breaking news: Following my complaint to the Law Society of British Columbia, the American Bar Association, and other authorities, the leader of the Sky Dragon Slayer authors, John O'Sullivan, has begun to delete some of the bogus professional credentials he's claimed in his writings and online profiles and bios.

Tonight (11/9/2011), I received permission to publish the confidential summary sent to me by the Law Society of British Columbia, showing that Mr. O'Sullivan has been lying in his bios about working as a "legal consultant" for the Victoria law firm, Pearlman Lindholm and that he is an attorney representing fellow Slayer Tim Ball in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. I've uploaded the letter to my web site:
[...]

Mr. O'Sullivan has begun deleting some of the false claims from his bios. In addition, he says he was fired by Suite101.com, where he had contributed more than 60 articles over the past 2 years. Almost all of those articles have been deleted.

Over the next week, I will be uploading additional documentation to my web site that shows virtually none of the Sky Dragon Slayer leader's academic and professional credentials are real.

--------------------------------------

By attacking the scientific community for perpetrating the global warming "hoax," the authors of Slaying the Sky Dragon are doing what psychologists call "projection." For a clue why, one only has to examine the academic and professional credentials the authors claim.

Timothy Ball, for example, has repeatedly been caught padding his resume with false and misleading claims -- such as being the first Canadian to have earned a PhD in climatology and having been a professor at the University of Winnipeg for 32 years. His PhD was in geography and he was only a professor for 8 years.

Even more troubling is John O'Sullivan's claims of being a "highly successful litigator" in NY and federal courts and being "a member of the American Bar Association" -- which if true would mean he is licensed to practice law in the United States. According to the ABA's membership office, Mr. O'Sullivan is NOT a member. He recently joined as an associate, which anybody who wants to support the association can do. He is not licensed to practice law in NY (or possibly anywhere else). He claims to be an attorney "representing Dr. Tim Ball-v-Dr. Michael Mann in the Vancouver Supreme Court." There is no "Vancouver Supreme Court" and there is no case titled Ball v Mann. Ball is NOT suing Mann. Prof. Mann is suing Ball in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada. And, according to the British Columbia Law Society, Mr. O'Sullivan is not licensed to practice law in British Columbia. On top of all that, the humbug claims to have published "more than 150 major articles" around the world including the National Review and Forbes magazine when he has not.

The authors do not publish their global warming-denial theories and attacks in peer-review publications. Instead they self-publish, as they did in this book. They then try to persuade the scientifically-naive public the reason they self-publish is that there's a world-wide conspiracy of scientists who are trying to keep the truth from them. In doing so, they have earned a place in history's rogue's gallery of pseudoscientists and kooks who have argued that their failure to convince the science community is proof that their crackpottery must be true. Why else would there be a conspiracy to keep their ideas from being published?

The credibility of researchers and authorities in the scientific community -- as well as reporters who write about science -- depends on their unflinching commitment to telling the truth. Whenever they abandon that commitment, it's time to toss their work into the dustbin of history, alongside the blather of phrenologists, flat earthers, and eugenicists.

For a better understanding how a small cabal of fringe scientists and their mud-throwing accomplices can gain so much news attention and create so much confusion among the public, I highly recommend an astonishingly important new book written by Naomi Oreskes, professor of history and science studies at UC-San Diego, and science writer Erik M. Conway.

The book, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming, is a virtual genealogy of denialism.

Oreskes and Conway trace the origins of today's powerfully-effective disinformation machines back to three leading, government scientists, Robert Jastrow, Frederick Seitz, and S. Fred Singer, who as scientific advisers to the U.S. government pushed for ever-increasing stockpiles of nuclear weapons. When the nuclear arms race ended with the signing of the nuclear arms treaty, these "Cold War Warriors" found themselves, to put it succinctly, underemployed. So they turned their talents and powerful connections in Washington, Wall St., and the major news media to set up a highly effective disinformation machine to serve corporations by attacking scientists and their research in order to block any regulatory action that would lower the profits of their corporate allies. The quality, safety, or social worth of the products being sold was irrelevant. What counted to them was the uncompromising defense of liberty and free enterprise.

These were the Fathers of False Doubt who helped to establish right-wing "think tanks" through which corporations could launder money to support a small number of scientists, who churn out "data" and editorials promoting the interests of their corporate customers. First it was in defense of the tobacco industry and the Strategic Defense ("Star Wars") Initiative. Then they worked to block restrictions on acid rain pollution, ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons emissions, environmentally deadly DDT, and passive smoking -- which was sickening and killing tens of thousands of men, women, children, and babies every year.

They also employed journalists, often under the table, to help sow the seeds of public doubt on matters of settled science. These hired guns greatly helped to cast aspersions on the science and on the scientists who produced it and to fool the public into believing there is no scientific consensus.

One of their first customers was the tobacco industry and one of the fake front groups created to turn public opinion against calls for government regulation based on science consensus was the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). The industry-funded front group sought to link fear over passive smoking with other popular concerns, including damage to the environment from human activities, and to relabel scientific consensus as "junk science" in the public's mind.

Indeed, one poignant tobacco industry document that came to light after years of litigation clearly identifies what the industry-funded front groups were really selling. As Clive Hamilton reported in "Requiem for a Species":

"As one tobacco company memo noted: 'Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.' As the 1990s progressed ... TASSC began receiving donations from Exxon (among other oil companies) and its 'junk science' website began to carry material attacking climate change science."

In his review of Merchants of Doubt, Peter Galison, Joseph Pellegrino University Professor, Harvard University, says:

"There can be no science without doubt: brute dogma leaves no room for inquiry. But over the last half century, a tiny minority of scientists have wielded doubt as a political weapon to halt what they did not want said: that tobacco kills or that the climate is warming because of what we humans are doing. `Doubt is our product' read a tobacco memo--and indeed, millions of dollars have gone into creating the impression of scientific controversy where there has not been one. This book about the politics of doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway explores the long, connected, and intentional obfuscation of science by manufactured controversy. It is clear, scientifically responsible, and historically compelling--it is an essential and passionate book about our times."

Today, thanks to the Internet, the merchant of doubt disinformation machine is now able to recruit armies of barely literate no-nothings from libertarian and other anti-government groups to set up "blogs," self-publish "books," and pose as legal and scientific experts. They are flooding the Internet making it difficult for the public to search for and read information that passed inspection by the scientific community. Slaying the Dragon, is a perfect example of such work produced for the sole purpose of confusing the public with scientific-sounding mumble-jumbo like this babble from co-author Claes Johnson:

"A cold body can heat up by eating/absorbing high-frequency high temperature coherent waves in a catabolic process of destruction of coherent waves into incoherent heat energy. A warm body cannot heat up by eating/absorbing low-frequency low-temperature waves, because catabolism involves destruction of structure. Anabolism builds structure, but a blackbody is only capable of destructive catabolism (the metabolism of a living cell consists of destructive catabolism and constructive anabolism)."

Stripping away the babble, Johnson is basically arguing that you can't heat something up to a high temperature by bombarding it with low-frequency/low energy radiation. Anyone who has made the mistake of microwaving a food container with metal foil attached has learned what nonsense this is. Microwave ovens heat food with electromagnetic waves in the range used by radar. These wavelengths are more energetic than radio waves but far, far less energetic than visible light waves - or even invisible infrared light. Yet, if you accidentally microwave a bit of metal foil in your oven, in a few seconds you'll see the foil glow white hot - giving off light rays hundreds of times more energetic than the microwave rays heating it.

Not surprisingly, readers who are able to get past two chapters of Johnson's math-strewn mush will find no relief in the rest of Slaying the Sky Dragon. If they'd like to get a better understanding of the science involved in greenhouse warming, they should check this wonderful animation video of a carbon dioxide molecule intercepting infrared radiation emitted by the sun-warmed ground and re-emitting it back to the earth's surface: [...]

Even more wonderful was the Mythbusters television program's test of greenhouse warming. The myth they busted this time is the myth perpetrated by the fossil-fuel industry-financed global warming deniers. The Mythbusters set up three large transparent boxes -- one filled with air plus carbon dioxide at current atmospheric levels, one filled with air with methane at current levels, and one with air without either of those greenhouse gasses. Everything else was identical. After 4 hours, the boxes with C02 and with methane were substantially hotter than the box with air free of greenhouse gasses. [...]
Waren diese Rezensionen hilfreich?   Wir wollen von Ihnen hören.
Kundenrezensionen suchen
Nur in den Rezensionen zu diesem Produkt suchen

Beliebte Markierungen

 (Was ist das?)
&quote;
There is a simple way to tell the difference between propagandists and scientists. If scientists have a theory they search diligently for data that might actually contradict the theory so that they can fully test its validity or refine it. Propagandists, on the other hand, carefully select only the data that might agree with their theory and dutifully ignore any data that disagrees with it. &quote;
Markiert von 13 Kindle-Nutzern
&quote;
The same Vostok data show that changes in temperature always precede the changes in atmospheric CO2 by about 500-1500 years. &quote;
Markiert von 8 Kindle-Nutzern
&quote;
human activities constitute about 3% of the yearly emissions total. More than 98% of this total is absorbed within a year (thus contradicting the long residence claim). Since 1.5% is left over, which is recorded as the increase of atmospheric CO2, the human contribution is only 3% of this 1.5%. &quote;
Markiert von 8 Kindle-Nutzern

Kunden diskutieren

Das Forum zu diesem Produkt
Diskussion Antworten Jüngster Beitrag
Noch keine Diskussionen

Fragen stellen, Meinungen austauschen, Einblicke gewinnen
Neue Diskussion starten
Thema:
Erster Beitrag:
Eingabe des Log-ins
 

Kundendiskussionen durchsuchen
Alle Amazon-Diskussionen durchsuchen
   


Ähnliche Artikel finden