Silly facts one
This are sensible silly facts to have on account on this lecture you can view in YouTube.
The 3rd Electric Universe Conference March 24th, 2014.
(What has become of the British Association for The Advancement of Science?)
Physics Doctor Pierre Latour lecture on global warming and climate change.
Listen and don’t repeat!
(1) Petrochemical industries.
(2) Greenhouse theory skeptic.
(3) God, religion, and superstition.
(4) [back]ground radiation [microwaves man!].
He says the main basis for the greenhouse theory is called ground radiation… He might have skipped lessons about universe background microwave radiation while getting his PhD in Purdue, Virginia, USA… or maybe he forgot while working for petrochemical industries…
He thinks it might be (this important radiating theory which greenhouse theory supporters claim to be necessary to have on account…no joke, uh? I am being serious…). He THINKS IT MIGHT BE ‘radiant heat transfers from cold CO2 molecules way up high in the atmosphere, comes down and it’s absorbed by the already warmer surface warming it more.’
In his humble opinion, the second law of thermodynamics says that heat transfer goes from hot to cold and not from cold to hot. He got this right, but he might have forgotten again the absolute zero and the correlation between height above and below surface, and temperature, meaning this that as cold molecules of CO2 fall after losing the overheat due to explosion engines of any kind combustion, it grows warmer as it gets down again, because of its higher than O2 and N2 molecular weight and less specific heat, gravity pulls it down again, thus creating a CO2 layer next to the ground.
He also thinks the first law of thermodynamics is contradicted by this sort of (in his PhD mind) two movements of CO2 molecules up and down as a result of (in his mind) cold-warm-cold-warn and so on cycle, creates energy.
He says he is troubled with that, he might be having some trouble with Boltzmann constant, Gibbs degrees of liberty, phase diagrams, Avogadro’s number, and Boyle-Mariott’s law on perfect gases, and background microwave radiation of the universe (or any combination of all of these). I wonder what he thinks about microwave ovens…
The fact is both, the sun, and gravity provide energy more than enough for this, in his mind theoretically contradiction (you can leave out microwave radiating background of the universe which also adds). ‘And that’s called a perpetual motion machine of the second kind’.
(5) Greenhouse believer, scare anybody and tax it.
He says he loves the word ‘engineering’. Me too!
1720, “work done by an engineer,” from engineer (n.). As a field of study, attested from 1792. An earlier word was engineership (1640s); engineery was attempted in 1793, but it did not stick.
1. f. Estudio y aplicación, por especialistas, de las diversas ramas de la tecnología.
2. f. Actividad profesional del ingeniero.
mid-14c., enginour, “constructor of military engines,” from Old French engigneor “engineer, architect, maker of war-engines; schemer” (12c.), from Late Latin ingeniare (see engine); general sense of “inventor, designer” is recorded from early 15c.; civil sense, in reference to public works, is recorded from c.1600 but not the common meaning of the word until 19c (hence lingering distinction as civil engineer). Meaning “locomotive driver” is first attested 1832, American English. A “maker of engines” in ancient Greece was a mekhanopoios.
(De ingenio, máquina o artificio).
1. m. y f. Persona que profesa la ingeniería o alguna de sus ramas.
MORF. U. t. la forma en m. para designar el f. Silvia es ingeniero.
2. m. ant. Hombre que discurre con ingenio las trazas y modos de conseguir o ejecutar algo.
‘Engineering Earth’s thermostat with CO2, that’s carbon dioxide.’
He made that review, the review of control system engineering of Earth’s thermostat with humankind generated CO2 (1997). He ‘proved’ it would never work because it can’t be measured, observed or controlled. <- THIS IS A LIE, and a huge one.
‘CO2 does not affect temperature; temperature affects CO2.’ (It is going to be a long post this one…).
In gas equations for chemistry, there is a generally accepted law:
You have starting and ending ways of processes. Let us call starting one, and ending two.
The product of pressure and the 3D volume divided by its temperature at the start of the process has a value which must be the same at the ending process state.
You must have on account the weight in grams of a substance to balance equations, let’s say the substance is fossil fuel which becomes gas after burned, or no, forget about that…
The weight in grams of any gas divided by its molecular (atomic in the case of inert gases) weight, in mass molecular units, equals a value. This value is generally referred to in chemical equations as ‘n’, being this the number of moles in the total amount of the substance to be balanced.
(If you want to know how many atoms or molecules there are into a certain amount of substance of any kind you only have to multiply it by Avogadro’s number, and you can add Boltzmann and Gibbs to make it much more obscure, but there is no need for those…Although I will write something about these in another post, in order not to overload your heads with little ‘n’, big ‘N’, and phase diagrams today).
A mole of any gas is contained into a 3D volume of 22.4 litres in standard conditions, this is sea level, thus height changes calculations, and 20 degrees Centigrade (273.15 + 20 degrees Kelvin), thus temperature changes calculations too.
Now think of a fixed 3D volume tank (or an Earth thin layer of a mixture of gases with a gravity fixed 3D value). Changing proportions in mixture of gases affects directly their eutectic and other aggregation properties, (which you can calculate via their molar fractions or partial pressures if you please, but in fact there is not need for that either), such as boiling point, freezing point, surface tension, osmosis pressure and mixture specific heat. So, all chemists in the world know proportions in mixtures and temperatures are modulating each other, well, I mean all, but this man…
a) Mathematics is not the language of nature, logic is not the language of nature. Chemistry and physics are the language of nature, being logic and mathematics ‘our’ way to systematize processes.
b) The fallibility theory in mathematical logics, bursts out from the premise that ‘it is impossible to verify that anything complies ever for any process’, because time, in the first place, does not end and we would need to be verifying the process forever, so from the mathematical logical point of view (an abstraction of mind which nature does not know) nothing can be stated as being true ( a logical 1) for as long as there is not a way to know it fails given the certain conditions, and thus (from a logical mathematical point of view) we only can falsify, that is to say we can only estate that a certain law or axiom or principle is false (a logical 0), but we can never verify things. [pssst, from a philosophical point of view this can be fascinating, but nature is more empirical… -> this is… nonsense… or should I say… this is non-sensible…].
thermostats and distillation.
He claims he built some advanced devices for the Shell Oil Co, FCC, NASA… So this man knows about different boiling points of substances according to their molecular weights and proportions, (I was starting to doubt it…)! Thermostats are MONITORING temperatures and work via the different expansion-contraction properties of different materials they are built of. Distillation is a natural process, you know? distilled water is supposed to have a normal conditions boiling point of 100 degrees centigrade, but I suppose this man would say it cannot be proved, nor measured, nor controlled… Oh, and seawater has a freezing point of MINUS 28 degrees Centigrade (that’s MINUS 38 degrees Farenheit | + 245.15 degrees Kelvin), though this cannot be proved either…according to philosophical logical mathematical non-sensible reasoning…
(10) Science one.
Inert? 2 H2O + 2 CO2 -> H2(CO4) + O2
WordReference English-Spanish Dictionary © 2015:
inert adj (not active) inerte adj mf
‘inert’ found in these entries
In the English description:
helium – neon – noble – noble gas
carbonic acid /kɑːˌbɒnɪkˈæsɪd/
English definition | conjugator | English synonyms | in context | images
WordReference English-Spanish Dictionary © 2015:
carbonic acid (Chemistry) (Química) ácido carbónico
I though I had got it wrong for a moment, but no, I got it right. He says he is only aware of two CO2 reactions: arc welding and photosysthesis… Somebody tell this PhD long term working for petrochemical and other (control) industries to check the reference for carbonic acid in both a dictionary and some chemistry worldwide webpages and | or books. He has been awarded some prizes for temperature control devices, and he has not heard of this late one reaction, also widely known as acid rain, which is not as strong as sulphur acids, but dissolves stones and rocks also. This is what Boltzmann, Gibbs, and other chemical, physical, logical, mathematical refineries, oops!, I mean refinements do to physicists nowadays all over the world.
He says also that US Navy submarines say there is less than 8000 parts per million (that’s 8 thousandths in proportion), and that the reason for this measurements output is ONLY that CO2 displaces O2, and in his mind this does not affect chemical balance and can hurt anybody… Well… he is leaving totallly out of his equations all animal and vegetable plants who live in water, and these MUST have their balance values for CO2 and O2 chemical dissolutions (gases into liquid) in order not to unbalance equilibrium.
(11) Science two.
According to these presented data, 380 parts per million (almost half a thousandth in proportion) is the current content of CO2 in atmosphere. If man generates 30 billion, that is 30000000000 tons (1000 x kilograms) per year and plants consume 7 trillion, that is 7000000000000 the simplifying of these two only numbers is 3 x 10 ^ 10 divided by 7 x 10 ^ 12 = 3 / 7 10 ^2 , this is 3 / 700 = 0,00428571428571428571428571428571 a decimal odd periodic number! almost half a centesimal, but were these the only figures to have in total balance, life on Earth would have ended long, long time ago. Obviously he is leaving out of his reasoning (at least) two other important processes:
a) He says plants consume 7 trillion tonnes of CO2. Plants consume CO2 in daylight hours by doing the chlorophillyc function, also known as photosynthesis, but plants do also breathe at night, thus that 7 trillion CO2 provided by plants gets balanced by plants themselves.
b) Animals breathe also in the air and under water.
‘Cutting the 30 billion tons’ (generated by human kind), in his words, halving thirty billion tons, in my words, to fifteen. This is simple: 30 / 2 = 15, would drop CO2 from 380 parts per million, to only 100 parts per million after 70 years (almost a quarter of a pizza, oops!, I mean the total amount of CO2 proportion according to these data presented by this petrochemical, and other industries expert PhD in this lecture: not big, nor small, just THINK of it). And bear in mind his data are an output for ‘simple material balance’, thus all material that is… not simple… does not appear in his calculations, because it cannot be trailed, (according to mathematical and other thing-ical non-sensible considerations…).
Well, it is going to be a long post, but I will publish this as ‘silly facts one’.
Don’t you miss the forthcoming posts on this lecture!
(Happy new year!).