Trionfo Publishing News Blog


Read This Page with a Text-to-Speech Reader


Topics:

Ready for Earth (Peak Oil and Global Warming) Day?

The Man-Man Global Warming Hoax

Jalousies Wide Open = no Green House Effect.

Earth Day Update

Computer Models of Global Warming.

Simple Experiment that Anyone Can Do to Disprove Man-Made CO2 Global Warming






Trionfo Publishing News Blog











Trionfo Publishing News Blog

April 21, 2010

Ready for Earth (Peak Oil and Global Warming) Day?

The Man-Man Global Warming Hoax

If you want to get all hot and bothered about something it should not be global warming.

Global warming is taking place because the date of the Earth's perihelion (point of closest approach to the sun in a planet's elliptical orbit) is moving toward mid summer in the southern hemisphere so more and more of the energy of the sun is being stored in water evaporated from the south Atlantic and pacific oceans each year.

At present we are in an interglacial period. Florida has been inundated with water many times in previous interglacial periods. The glaciers in the north and south poles may eventually melt altogether. During the Cretaceous the great planes of North America were covered with water so that there was not only a north and South America but an east and west America as well.

When the date of the Earth's perihelion starts to move toward mid summer in the northern hemisphere we will be headed for another ice age because more and more of the sunlight will be reflected into space by the continental masses of Asia and North America. The tilt in the Earth's axis accentuates or attenuates this process

There have been over 60 advances and retreats of glaciers over the last 2 million years. That is about one glacial period every 33,333 years.

When have Ice Ages occurred?

This is about midway between the 21,000 year cycle in the Earth's perihelion and the 41,000- year cycle in the rotation of the tilt in the Earth's axis

The Seasons and the Earth's Orbit - Milankovitch Cycles

Both Mars and the Earth have elliptical orbits with their axis of rotation inclined so that seasons occur. Both planets undergo cyclical global warming for much the same reasons.

Water acts as a tremendous reservoir of energy and is a much more important source of global warming on the Earth than CO2. It may also play a greater role on Mars, which may be in an ice age at present. There is evidence that liquid water once existed on Mars and it may exist there again if Mars heats up enough.

What people really should be concerned about (if they care at all about the fate of the human race and the very existence of life in the Universe) is the Orion Arm theory of Mass Extinction.

Our sun passes back and forth across an arm of the Milky way where it encounters a dense populated area of debris which causes mass extinctions on Earth every 26 million years.

We have only 13 million years left to prepare for the next encounter!

A New Explanation For Apparent Periodicity of Mass Extinctions

The smooth areas on the moon are caused by encounters with this debris because of the very high kinetic energy of the impacts. Large chunks of both the moon and Mars have found their way to the Earth in this way.

Antarctic Meteorite May Have Been Blasted Off The Moon

Antarctic Meteorites Are Different

Why are Antarctic meteorites different?

Species extinction rates have reached as high as 95%. Not only mankind but the Earth itself may not survive another pass.

The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter may have once been a planet which was totally destroyed by a titanic collision during one of the 26 million year mass extinction cycles.

"The Sun and the Solar System, including the Earth, are in a Spiral Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy. The Sun and Earth happen to currently be near the "inner edge" of an Arm segment called the Orion Arm. There are virtually no nearby stars farther inward, but several billion of them that are nearer the center-line of the Arm are (currently) gravitationally pulling the Sun and Earth "outward", toward that center-line of the Arm. Collectively, this gravitational attraction creates a relative net acceleration,

ACROSS THE ARM, toward the center-line of the Arm. Over a very long period of time, this crossways acceleration creates a crossways velocity, and the Sun will certainly move across the width of the Arm! The Sun therefore "weaves" continuously back and forth across the width of the Arm! preliminary computer analysis of the many gravitational forces acting on the Sun, and its resultant acceleration variations, suggest that the Sun will complete one whole cycle across the Arm and back, in roughly 52 million years....

Interestingly, the geologic record suggests that mass extinctions occurred on Earth at roughly those eras. A 26 million year pattern of repetition of mass extinctions was noted during the 1980s. The general premise suggested here just implies that the Sun and Earth would pass through such congested areas at roughly 26 million year intervals. The appearance of a 26 million year periodicity of passing through the Arm's centerline, and our known current position near the inner edge of the Arm we are in, seemed like amazing coincidences, in presenting seemingly very obvious explanations for the known mass extinctions.

There seems to be additional solid evidence for this concept. For centuries, scientists have been mystified by the fact that the southern hemisphere of the Moon has an enormous number of craters while the northern hemisphere has far fewer and is covered by a lot of smooth areas that are believed to be much younger.

The Surveyor spacecraft mapped Mars and found the same pattern, many craters in the southern hemisphere and more young smooth areas in the northern hemisphere. Scientists seem to either think this is a remarkable coincidence or simply ignore it! But this premise provides a wonderful explanation for these findings. If, as the Sun and Earth last passed through the centerline region 13 million years ago, the northern hemispheres of all solar system objects were leading (the Solar System was essentially going upward through the centerline region of the Arm), then many ferocious impacts would have occurred primarily in that hemisphere. This reasoning would then suggest that the heat of the impacts would have caused extensive melting and then lava flows which would have created the smooth areas that are fairly young. Actually, it predicts that the regions should be 13 million years old!"

A New Explanation For Apparent Periodicity of Mass Extinctions

Yes, the Earth is getting warmer but not at a rate that need concern people.

"Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development."

The Global Warming Hoax

There has been virtually no change in global temperature in the last 100 years.

Constant Global Temperatures over the Last 100 years

The so called "Hockey Stick" increase in global temperature over the last century is based on biased sampling and fraudulent analysis of the improperly taken data.

The "Hockey Stick": A New Low in Climate Science

Some call it "Junk science". Others call it the shake down of corporations for political donations, kick backs for corrupt politicians, and your general payola for not enforcing government regulations (which amount to extortion) by your typical corrupt government bureaucrat.

"Riady featured heavily during the revelations of cronyism and illegal campaign funds, a couple of years ago. He covertly donated tens of thousands of dollars to Clinton's campaign. Also, remember the Escalante millions of acres that was declared a National Monument in Utah--to in fact close off the coal mining in that area, in reality. The low sulfur non polluting coal that is mined only in that region of the U.S.? Well the Lippo Enterprise of Indonesia if you will recall, got the contract to import that same quality coal, making us totally dependent on foreign coal, a necessity for energy production in this country... with the stroke of a pen, this criminal president via EO, ensured that America will be dependent on foreign coal and other minerals."

Crony Riady Invites Clinton to Join Lippo Board

"The continuing and pervasive role of government in the economy has provided an enormous impetus for organized crime... The main way the mafia penetrates into the economy is via the bureaucrats... Russia's reluctance to loosen remaining state economic controls ... is the biggest catalyst for crime. Businesses seek to evade what are perceived as unacceptably high taxes or overly restrictive regulations; mafia groups thrive by providing a means for them to do so ... Both at the federal and local level, government levies a daunting array of transaction costs on normal business activities. Rather than pay fees for countless licensing and permit requirements, firms choose to avoid official red tape by paying less costly bribes ...The mafia often plays the role of middleman in these situations, facilitating transactions between businessmen and corrupt government officials. "

The Rise of Organized Crime in Russia

It is a tradition within the USA to award the highest political office to its most corrupt politicians.

Ives-Duffy investigation into the murders of Kevin Ives and Don Henry

"The Clinton administration's decision to base U.S.-Russian relations on Vice President Gore's relationship with Viktor Chernomyrdin and a handful of other high officials also sent a strong public signal that the United States would not only tolerate but embrace figures clearly identified in the Russian media and public consciousness with corruption--further undercutting law enforcement, and demoralizing not only the out-manned and underpaid Russian foes of organized crime but also the Russian people. "

Years of Bad Advice Culminate in Russia's Total Economic Collapse


How the Clinton Administration
Exported US Government Corruption to Russia
Instead of Free Enterprise

The corrupt politics argument only shows a motive for cooking the data. It does not show how the data has been cooked. The "Land-Ocean temperature index" is only one example of how things can be done by people looking for cushy federal jobs where they can practice their skills at throwing paper wads into waste paper baskets and playing the party animal with interns and secretaries.

"Recently Hansen et al (1996) have developed a Land-Ocean temperature index that combines land measurements with primarily satellite-derived sea surface measurements (Reynolds and Smith, 1994 and Smith et al 1996) but only from 1990. This procedure is an admission by the US workers that the satellite temperature record is more reliable than the surface record. But why only for sea-surface temperatures? Logically, they should admit that the satellite measurements are more reliable for the land surface as well."

The Surface Temperature Record

The land measurements were taken at weather stations which were located in urban and rural areas where people are. As the population density grows termperatures naturally go up. It has nothing to do with global warming but with people trying to keep warm during the winter.

"The surface temperature record, which plots annual temperature anomalies with respect to a given reference period, has an in-built upwards bias because of population increase and expansion of human activity... The pronounced different phases in the surface temperature record over the past century, and its highly regional character are incompatible with theoretical explanations based on steady global change, such as the proposed effects of the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Comparison of land surface regional hot spots identified in the surface record from 1976 to 1998 with the MSU satellite temperature anomalies for the 1979 to 1999 period shows that these regional effects are not detectable from the lower troposphere, although the MSU satellites do detect cooling in the South Indian and South Atlantic oceans and other climatic anomalies due to volcanic action, ocean circulation, and solar activity, evident in the surface record. The regional surface rises must therefore be due to individual local anomalies. The fact that these hot spots often occur in cold climates, and are mainly rises in night-time and winter temperatures, suggests that they are mainly due to local heating. Differences that have recently emerged between sea-surface and land-surface temperatures confirm this conclusion."

The Surface Temperature Record

"Concern over "global warming" is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs. 1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth's climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, 2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend . Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error... The global warming scare has enabled environmental advocacy groups to raise billions of dollars in contributions and government grants. It has given politicians (from Al Gore down) opportunities to pose as prophets of doom and slayers of evil corporations."

Eight Reasons to End the Scam

"The science behind warming is so full of lacunae, speculation, and outright fraud (e.g., the famed "hockey stick chart" purporting to show temperature levels over the past millennium while conveniently dropping both the medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age) to be in any way convincing... "

Resisting Global Warming Panic

"Well, well. Some "climate expert" on "The Weather Channel" wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent "global warming" is a natural process. So much for "tolerance", huh? I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can't find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know: Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon.

Patent Application for a Catalytic Converter for Cows

No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at "The Weather Channel" probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab... I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.

Con job at The Weather Channel

"We do know that the Earth has gone through many phases of warming and cooling during its existence and this was long before we appeared on the planet. To suggest that we have anything to do with global warming or cooling is pure sophistry considering that a single major volcanic eruption spews exponentially more carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere than all the pollutants released in the history of man... It is my observation that all of this excitement over global warming and our roll in it is nothing more than a ploy by environmental extremists to work us into frenzy over this issue in order to further their own left wing agendas. "

Refuting Global Warming

"In a stunning scientific paper just published in Energy and Environment [14,751-771,2003] the infamous 'Hockey Stick' as developed by Mann, Bradley and Hughes in 1998 has been comprehensively discredited - using the same data sources and even methodology used by the Hockey Stick's original authors. According to McIntyre and McKitrick; "The data set of proxies of past climate used in Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, "MBH98" hereafter) for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects. We detail these errors and defects. We then apply MBH98 methodology to the construction of a Northern Hemisphere average temperature index for the 1400-1980 period, using corrected and updated source data. The major finding is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century. The particular "hockey stick" shape derived in the MBH98 proxy construction – a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 — is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components."

The "Hockey Stick"

Broken Hockey Stick!

The Peak Oil Hoax

Another Hoax based more on political science than on empirical science is that of "Peak Oil". The truth is that no one knows how much oil is in the Earth or how long it will last.

It has always been assumed that the reason why our atmosphere is 20% oxygen is because plants produce it as a byproduct of photosynthesis. But oxygen can be made by the photolysis of water vapor in the atmosphere through the action of UV light and by electrolysis through the action of lightning.

The assumption that all atmospheric oxygen comes from plants is based on an experiment by Joseph Priestly. Priestly found that a mouse could be kept alive in a sealed container longer if the oxygen in it was renewed by a plant. Plants produce oxygen, but only in the presence of light. During the night all of the plants in the world use oxygen and do not produce it. Decomposing organism such as fungi and bacteria use oxygen all of the time as do all animals.

Like oxygen, there is evidence that oil is of abiogenic origin, and that it is being continually renewed within the Earth.

"scientists have found that ethane and heavier hydrocarbons can be synthesized under the pressure-temperature conditions of the upper mantle - the layer of Earth under the crust and on top of the core. The research was conducted by scientists at the Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory, with colleagues from Russia and Sweden, and is published in the July 26, advanced online issue of Nature Geoscience. Using a diamond anvil cell and a laser heat source, the scientists first subjected methane to pressures exceeding 20 thousand times the atmospheric pressure at sea level and temperatures ranging from 1,300 F° to over 2,240 F°. These conditions mimic those found 40 to 95 miles deep inside the Earth. The methane reacted and formed ethane, propane, butane, molecular hydrogen, and graphite.

The transformations suggest heavier hydrocarbons could exist deep down. The reversibility implies that the synthesis of saturated hydrocarbons is thermodynamically controlled and does not require organic matter.

"Experiments reported some years ago subjected methane to high pressures and temperatures and found that heavier hydrocarbons formed from methane under very similar pressure and temperature conditions.

Deep-Earth Hydrocarbons

"Last week, Mexico announced finding another giant oil field off Veracruz, the Noxal, estimated to hold more than 10 billion barrels of oil. Exploration yielded surprising results. It turned out that Mexico's richest oil field complex was created 65 million years ago, when the huge Chicxulub meteor impacted the Earth at the end of the Mesozoic Era. Scientists now believe that the Chicxulub meteor impact was the catastrophe that killed the dinosaurs, as well as the cause for creating the Cantrell oil field. The impact crater is massive, estimated to be 100 to 150 miles (160 to 240 kilometers) wide. The seismic shock of the meteor fractured the bedrock below the Gulf and set off a series of tsunami activity that caused a huge section of land to break off and fall back into the crater under water. Proponents of the abiotic, deep-Earth theory of the origin of oil point argue that the deep fracturing of the basement bedrock at Cantarell caused by the meteor's impact was responsible for allowing oil formed in the Earth's mantle to seep into the sedimentary rock that settled in the huge underwater crater. Geologists have documented that the bedrock underlying the crater shows "melt rock veinlets pointing to large megablock structures as well as a long thermal and fluid transport" as part of the post-impact history. In other words, the bedrock at Cantarell did suffer sufficiently severe fracturing to open the bedrock to flows of liquids and gases from the deep Earth below. An important, but neglected, study of the bedrock underlying the Saudi oil fields provided strong evidence that the oil fields resulted from fractures and faults in the basement rock, not from a disproportionately large number of dinosaurs having died on the Arabian Peninsula. The study published in 1992 by geologist H.S. Edgell argued that the Saudi oil fields, including the giant field at Ghawar, were "produced by extensional block faulting in the crystalline Precambrian basement along the predominantly N-S Arabian Trend which constitutes the ‘old grain' of Arabia."

Basement tectonics of Saudi Arabia as related to oil field structures

In other words, according to the abiotic, deep Earth theory of oil's origin, we do not have to assume that all the dinosaurs herded like Elephants to Saudi Arabia at the end of the Mesozoic Era, where they died in a giant heap that produced oil. Bedrock cracks, whether or not due to meteor impacts, can serve to open the above sedimentary layers to trap oil deposits seeping upward. Cantarell has stimulated interest in meteor impact structures as potential locations to explore in order to find oil producing sites.

Another nasty one for the peak oil know-alls

There is enormous quantities of quantities methane hydrate ("fire ice") buried deep within the Earth. The energy stored within this methane hydrate may be many times greater than that stored in all the known petroleum reserves of the world.

Methane Hydrate

It is assumed that the methane hydrate in the Earth is of biogenic origin, but methane hydrated is also present in vast amounts on Titan, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, and there is obviously nothing living on these planets.

"Methane hydrate is thought to have been the dominant methane-containing phase in the nebula from which Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and their major moons formed. It accordingly plays an important role in formation models of Titan, Saturn's largest moon."

Stable methane hydrate above 2 GPa and the source of Titan's atmospheric methane

Is it possible that vast quantities of methane hydrate were trapped in the Earth during the formation of the Earth from interstellar gases and debris? If so, could much of it have been converted into oil by high pressure and heat and formed the primodial ooze from which life evolved?

"The theoretical analyses establish that the normal alkanes, the homologous hydrocarbon group of lowest chemical potential, evolve only at pressures greater than 30 kbar, excepting only the lightest, methane. The pressure of 30 kbar corresponds to depths of 100 km. The high-pressure genesis of petroleum hydrocarbons has been demonstrated using only the reagents solid iron oxide, FeO, and marble, CaCO3, 99.9% pure and wet with triple-distilled water.

The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum

"the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins has played a central role in the transformation of Russia (then the U.S.S.R.) from being a "petroleum poor" entity in 1951 to the largest petroleum producing and exporting nation on Earth. In this article is described a project for exploration and production of petroleum in an area which had been previously condemned, according to the perspectives and reasoning of the old "biological-origin" hypothesis: the northern flank of the Dnieper-Donets Basin. During the first five years of exploration, in the early 1990's, of the northern flank of the Dnieper-Donets Basin, a total number of 61 wells were drilled, of which 37 are commercially productive, an exploration success rate of 57%. These results, taken either individually or together, confirm the scientific conclusions that the oil and natural gas found both in the Precambrian crystalline basement and the sedimentary cover of the Northern Monoclinal Flank of the Dnieper-Donets Basin are of deep, and abiotic, origin. "

The Drilling & Development of the Oil & Gas Fields in the Dnieper-Donetsk Basin

Back to Global Warming:

"According to scientist and inventor Markus Herrema, Cow "exhaust" accounts for "about 20% of global methane emissions, and atmospheric methane accounts for over twenty percent of planetary warming."

Markus has solved the problem by collecting the methane from cows. his invention "utilizes the methane contained within ruminant animal exhalation as a source of carbon and energy for the production of methane-utilizing microorganisms in a microorganism growth-and-harvest apparatus."- feeds it to microbes to make biomass, which "can be processed and sold as a nutritional foodstuff".

if you think i'm kidding, here is the patent application:"

Patent Application for a Catalytic Converter for Cows

Exhalation as a source of carbon and energy

It is not enough that the global warming scammers want to torture cows with their insane schemes they also want to torture sane people with their absurd logic.

Methane accounts for zero percent of planetary warming as does CO2. Natural processes breakdown methane in the Earth's atmosphere to CO2 and H20. This is also true of the carbon monoxide produced by cars.

CO + 1/2 02 ---> CO2

Smog is a problem only in places like the San Fernando Valley where the mountains inhibit air flow so air pollution accumulates at a rate faster than natural processes can eliminate it.

It is, quite frankly, stupid to limit CO2 emissions. CO2 is required by plants for their growth. Plants also require sulfur. Plants can remove the CO2 from the atmosphere only if they have enough sulfur to grow, making it particularly stupid to put restrictions on the use of high sulfur coal if your goal is to keep the CO2 level down.

The Relative Nurient Requirements of Plants

Although, I don't see why you would want to in the first place. The "greenhouse effect" observed on Venus has nothing to do with the weather on the Earth. The Earth revolves every 24 hours creating convection which distributes the heat throughout the planet.

By contrast, a Venusian day is longer than a Venusian year. One side of the planet is continually being baked by the Sun while the other side is in the dark.

Compared to the atmospheres of Earth and Mars there is virtually no convection in the atmosphere of Venus.

It is this lack of convection which creates the "greenhouse effect" on Venus.

Venus has active volcanoes spewing out sulfuric acid. Without convection the sulfuric acid gas, being heavier than CO2, sinks to the bottom of the atmosphere while CO2 rises upward creating a canopy of CO2.

The joint action of the absorption of heat by sulfuric acid and the reflection of infrared radiation back into the sulfuric acid clouds by the CO2 canopy makes the pressure on Venus so high that liquid water can exist on its surface despite the fact that the temperature there is hotter than the inside of an oven on clean.

Yes, Venus is a very strange world: completely unlike Mars and the Earth.

The atmosphere on Mars is close to 100% CO2 as on Venus, yet there is no global warming on Mars. Temperatures plummet during the night just as they do in a dry desert on the Earth, and Mars has seasons like the Earth. This would not be true if CO2 was causing global warming on Mars.

Mars Pathfinder: Historical Weather Data

Mars has seasons because it rotates on its axis like the Earth. A Martian day is about the same length of time as a day on Earth.

We do not know how much of the heat on Venus is due to irradiation by the sun and how much of it is internally generated, but it is likely that if the planet ever started to rotate it would quickly cool down.

There is no greenhouse effect inside a greenhouse when the jalousies are open.

Even if the Earth was not rotating there would be no greenhouse effect on the Earth because the atmosphere of the Earth is practically all N2 and O2 which are both lighter than CO2. There is no greenhouse effect when the jalousies are on the floor of the greenhouse.

The reason why the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is so low (only 0.04%) is because CO2 is continually being absorbed by the vast oceans on the Earth. What CO2 there is is probably due to the convection created by the Earth's rotation. If the Earth ever stopped rotating virtually all of the CO2 would sink to the bottom and eventually be absorbed by the Earth's oceans.

Venus has no oxygen, no nitrogen and very little water. This is probably because, unlike the Earth, it never encountered any comets in its history. Its proximity to the sun may account for this.

Since the pressure on Venus is high enough to allow liquid water to exist, liquid sulfuric acid must be present. This is because sulfuric acid has a much higher boiling point than water. This means that it must be raining sulfuric acid on Venus. And if it is raining sulfuric acid on Venus this means that the planet is releasing infrared radiation into space despite the canopy of CO2.

The sulfuric acid rain on Venus is not anything like the "acid rain" on the Earth as this video suggests:

Sulfuric Acid Rain of Venus

It must be almost pure sulfuric acid. The narrator of the documentary does not know what he is talking about. Venus does not have a greenhouse effect because its CO2 is "trapped" but because a layer of CO2 gas is sitting on top of a layer of sulfuric acid steam in the lower atmosphere. Again, this is because the planet rotates so slowly that there is virtually no convection created by the rotation.

It is only in politically motivated computer models that CO2 can create a greenhouse effect in a rapidly spinning planet. In the real worlds of the Earth and Mars solar energy is not retained by any appreciable amount unless there is a change in the state of matter (e.g. solid to liquid, liquid to gas, etc.). On the Earth it is water that retains the heat caused by solar radiation. On Mars CO2 plays this role. On Venus it is the sulfuric acid which retains the heat.

In the case of sulfuric acid and water, heat energy is trapped by the breaking of hydrogen bonds. The boiling point of sulfuric acid is 3 times higher than that of water. The reason for this is that sulfuric acid can form more and stronger hydrogen bonds than water; hence it can store more heat energy.

CO2 does not boil. It sublimes. This means it goes directly from a solid to a gas. And this means that CO2 stores virtually no heat energy on the Earth at all. It is this lack in ability to store heat energy which makes CO2 such a good reflector of infrared radiation, like the glass in a greenhouse. Even so, there is virtually no greenhouse effect on Mars even though CO2 sublimes there. In other words:

Jalousies Wide Open = no Green House Effect.


February 17, 2014

Earth Day Update

Although my arguments are sound, there are some aspects of Venus which I was not aware of when I first posted this page; such as, what the cause of tremendous pressure on the surface of the planet is. I have since found out that the pressure is due to the enormous amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The atmosphere of Venus is 90 times more massive than the earth's atmosphere.

Ninety earth atmospheres translates to 90 times the pressure. The pressure is so high that the atmosphere of Venus is only 5 times the height of the earth's atmosphere. That is very a compressed state and points out the absurdity of trying to compare the conditions on the earth with it "sister planet."

There is convection in the upper part of the atmosphere of Venus which means that heat must be escaping from the planet. And observations from the earth have detected "infrared windows." As these "infrared windows" are open, how can there be a greenhouse effect? As state before, when a greenhouse has open windows there is no "greenhouse effect."

Nevertheless, there may a greenhouse effect in the lower atmosphere of Venus as the average wind velocity there is about 5 kilometers per hour - about the speed of strolling brontosaurus.

But is it the heat from the sun which is making Venus so hot? Some scientists don't think so because Venus is emitting more heat than it is receiving from the sun - which must be a considerable amount due to it closeness to the sun.

The Mystery of Venus' internal heat – New Scientist, 13 November, 1980

And what is the cause of this? One theory is that, unlike the earth, Venus is a very young planet and therefore a very hot planet as the earth was during the first few billion years of its existence. The earth is about 4.5 billion years old but the fossil record is only about 600 million years old.

The presence of sulfur gases in the upper atmosphere of Venus suggests active volcanism.

"New evidence from a satellite orbiting the planet suggests that its volcanoes may be active and could be the source of fluctuations in atmospheric sulphur dioxide. Most of the sulphur dioxide on Venus is hidden below the planet's dense upper cloud deck, because the gas is readily destroyed by sunlight. That means any sulphur dioxide detected in Venus upper atmosphere above the cloud deck must have been recently supplied from below."

We already know she's hot stuff: But could volcanoes on Venus be spewing sulphur dioxide into its atmosphere?

"Taylor says that the high levels of sulphur dioxide in the venusian upper atmosphere are also almost certainly due to recent volcanic eruptions"

'This year there have been long discussions about how important volcanoes are for climate,'
he says,

'I conclude that they make a major contribution. Over the next few billion years, Taylor says, Venus's volcanism will subside, and the planet will begin to lose much of its heavy atmosphere, leading to a lower surface temperature more like that of Earth.'

Venus crater debate heats up

Venus may not be chronologically old. It may, instead, be a slow aging planet. It may have never received any water by colliding with comets as the earth presumably did. The lighter compounds such as ammonia (NH3), methane (CH4), and water (H2O), seem to be located further away from the sun - mainly in the gas giants such as Jupiter and Saturn. Mercury has no atmosphere at all, and like Venus, it does not rotate rapidly about its axis as does the earth and mars.

Theoretically, water can exist on the surface of Venus but the empirical evidence does not always agree with the theoretical calculation.

Boiling Point Variation

If Venus was not so hot the sulfuric acid in the atmosphere would most certainly be on the bottom of the atmosphere. But if it is kept aloft by evaporation then its heavier weight could be compressing the CO2 below. Unlike CO2, sulfuric acid can absorb heat due to the breaking of its strong hydrogen bonds. It most certainly releases heat when it condenses and false as rain.

The compressed CO2 on Venus may have acted like a thermos bottle, keeping the planet from cooling down. The only heat which can escape being the occasional eruptions of sulfur gases from volcanoes - which may account for the convection in the upper atmosphere.

But sulfuric acid is supposedly a "minor constituent" of the atmosphere of Venus...

"Early evidence pointed to the sulfuric acid content in the atmosphere, but we now know that that is a rather minor constituent of the atmosphere."

Atmosphere of Venus

...which makes it rather puzzling why a volume of 90 earth atmospheres should be compressed into a volume only 4.77 times the volume of earth's atmosphere. Heat makes gases expand, not contract.

"The mass of the Venus atmosphere is about 90 times that of the Earth's atmosphere. 90% of the Earth's atmosphere is within 10 km of the surface, whereas you have to go to 50 km to capture 90% of the atmosphere of Venus."

Atmosphere of Venus

Things do not add up folks!

If we let:

P1 = the pressure on the earth's surface = 1 atmosphere
P2 = the pressure on the surface of venus = 90 atmospheres

V1 = the volume of the earth's atmosphere = 1 (earth atmospheric volume)
V2 = the volume of the atmosphere of Venus = 4.77 (earth atmospheric volumes)

T1 = the temperature on the earth's surface = 14 degrees Celsius
T2 = the temperature on the surface of Venus = 467 degrees Celsius

We know that:

PV = nRT

So:

V = nRT/P

V1 = nRT1/P1

V2 = nRT2/P2

V1/V2 = (nRT1/P1) / (nRT2/P2)

V1/V2 = (T1/P1) / (T2/P2)

1/4.77 = (14/1)/(467/90)

0.209643605870021 = 2.69807280513919

So the atmosphere of Venus is 10 times more compressed than it should be if we are to believe NASA.

Incidentally, rearraging

V1/V2 = (T1/P1) / (T2/P2)

we get:

V1 P1 / T1 = V2 P2 / T2

Which is the

Combined Gas Law.

CO2 is not an "ideal gas" but you would not expect the behavior of a non-ideal gas to deviate from an ideal gas by that much.

I don't believe in Moon landing hoaxes or squirrels in Mars photos which prove that NASA is a phony organization but I do believe in crooked politicians giving cushy FEMA and NASA jobs to their political cronies who "keep their mouth shut" about the crimes of their boss and who go along with their Boss’s political agenda.

Bill Clinton's Rise to Power

The "NASA moon landing hoax" story always seemed to me to me to be a gimmick to discredit the report of Flight 93 passengers getting off at Cleveland Airport where they allegedly entered a NASA facility, never to be seen again.

911: Evidence of Treason (Parts I - VIII)

In any case, rather than the heat being stored in sulfuric acid steam layer beneath a canopy of CO2 the heat may be in the liquid rock just beneath the surface of the planet.

Not to discount the sun's contribution to the heat of venus. But whenever the man-made global warming freaks try to make Venus sound like an aborted earth they point out that the distance from sun to Venus only about 75% the distance of the earth's distance from the sun - 72.33%, actually. What they never tell you is that what that means that the intensity of the sunlight on Venus is not 25% greater but 191% greater due to the inverse square law.


One final kicker in the man-made CO2 argument is an observation that blows out of the water the paranoia that cow farts and smoke stacks can turn the earth into another Venusian inferno.

According to the history channel, the dinosaurs of the Cretaceous period breathed an atmosphere which was 10% richer in oxygen than our own. The earth's atmosphere was at that time was 30% oxygen. It is now 20% oxygen.

So what happened to al that extra the oxygen? Well, according to the history channel's paleontologists an asteroid hit the earth burning up all of the forests in the world. Now, the last time I studied chemistry I seem to remember the equation:

O2 + wood + a lit match = carbon dioxide + water.

So, after the asteroid hit and burned up all the forests in the world we must have had an atmosphere which was at least 10% CO2. Our atmosphere is only 0.04% CO2 today.

Now, my question to the man made global warming freaks is: "where did all of that extra CO2 go to? And why did the earth not morph into another Venus?"

The obvious answere is that CO2 being heavier than N2 and O2 sank and was absorbed by the oceans and that much of it is now forms the coral reefs of the world which are teaming with life. Ecologists think these reefs so important they argue for he sinking of US navy ships to make more of them.

It is assumed that Venus and the Earth started out with the same atmosphere. This must be based on the soul criteria that they happen to be the about same size.

But the moon was originally part of the earth. It was a titanic collision with some celestial object which separated the moon from the earth. This object may have been the same cold icy comet which gave the earth its massive oceans.

The solar system is not uniform but quite heterogeneous. A day on Venus - which orbits the sun much more rapidly than the earth - with much greater inertia and centrifugal force* - is longer than a than a year on Venus. And these 2 planets revolve around their axes in different directions.

Therefore, the "models" which assume that Venus and the Earth started out with the same atmosphere sound more like models for political science (how to extort political contributions and bribes from industry 101) than models of astrophysics.

Computer Models of Global Warming.

The old adage when in it comes to computer programming is "garbage in" -"garbage out." In the case of global warming it is the assumptions which is the garbage.

I don't know if you know it or not but CO2 is required for the survival of not just plant cells but many animal cells as well. Normally, in multi-cellular organisms, animal cells feed each other CO2. When they are placed in tissue culture at very low cell density they will die without CO2 being supplied to their environment.

In my own experiments I grew cells at about 1000 per dish in plastic modular incubator chambers gassed with 5% CO2 and 5% O2 (at low cell density high concentrations of oxygen are toxic to human cells) and placed into ovens kept at a constant temperature (37 degrees - body temperature)

Infrared radiation from the oven would enter them, pass through CO2 atmosphere, enter the culture media keeping it warm. When the incubators were removed from the ovens they quickly became equilibrated to room temperature - through the emission of infrared radiation - despite the 5% CO2 atmosphere and the fact that the media was saturated with CO2.

So when the "experts" with their computer models speak of a threat to life on earth due to minute changes in an atmospheric CO2 which is only 0.04% CO2 I know for a fact that they are being absurd. 5% is 125 times 0.04%! And yet at this concentration of CO2 my modular incubator chambers had no difficulty in releasing their heat once out the culture oven. Moisture from the media condensed on the inner surface of the plastic (as Moisture condenses in the clouds of the earth) and the chambers cooled off very rapidly. There was no green house effect even inside what amounted to a greenhouse - the plastic chambers - in which convection played no role in the release of heat.

October 19, 2015

Simple Experiment that Anyone Can Do to Disprove Man-Made CO2 Global Warming

This little experiment will not reproduce the conditions on Venus of course. Especially the highly compressed atmosphere almost which is almost 100% CO2 and under 90 times the pressure used in the experiment. And how did Venus acquire its atmosphere?

Simple Experiment that Anyone Can Do to Disprove Man-Made CO2 Global Warming

Venus may had its own titanic collision with an asteroid. Its surface appears to be relatively young as if it were covered with lava due collision with the same kind of asteroid which burnt up the earth at the end of the Cretaceous. But if Venus was an Earth twin at that time then what happed to all of its water? The answer may be that Venus did not have any water at that time.

NASA discovered that the earth is loosing its water in its upper atmosphere by UV photolysis – which is the splitting of the water molecule into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen is driven away the solar wind leaving only the oxygen.

This, of course, contradicts the idea that the earth acquired its oxygen rich atmosphere by photosynthesis and throws a monkey wrench into the reducing atmosphere theory of the origin of life on the earth.

Venus, being so much closer to the sun than the earth may have lost all of its water by photolysis. So by the time that it was struck by our hypothetical asteroid it may have had an atmosphere super rich in oxygen. When the asteroid struck it may have spewed out lava onto the surface of the planet and set it into the retrograde motion around the sun - very slowly rotating in the opposite direction as the Earth and Mars. The super rich oxygen atmosphere may have combined with the super-heated organic molecules which the asteroid threw into the Venusian atmosphere to form the massive compressed CO2 blanket that now envelopes the planet.






Trionfo Publishing News Blog






Next Page

Next Page Previous Page

Previous Page