All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 6, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
01:04:05
The Real Deal: Climate Change: Myth vs. Reality, Part 5 (5 February 2022) with Joe Olson, P.E.
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is Jim Fetzer with a Real Deal Special, or Part 5 on the Climate Change Series, featuring the engineer extraordinaire Joe Olson in Houston.
Joe has an introduction for us, but I want to share with you the image of Principia Scientific, of which Joe was a co-founder while he provides us with a background for today's program.
Joe?
Yes, these are tutorials that are specifically aimed at GT high school students and college students.
And actually, I've been lectured, I lectured for an engineering organization several years ago, and we had three graduating PhD engineers.
And I sat them on the front row and I said, if I make one mistake describing the transfer of energy in the atmosphere, I want you to correct me.
And after I made the presentation, they all three came up to me and said, I never really understood radiation and I didn't understand latent heat.
And these are guys that were PhD in mechanical and electrical engineering.
So, bottom line is, I'm going to try to make it Uh, possible for the layman, but certainly for any gifted students or college students to understand the incoherent cycle babble that you're being fed by your professors because none of it makes any sense.
One of my more famous quotes is, when your opponent refuses reason, resort to ridicule.
So I want to start with a quote that I put online many, many years ago.
The Royal Meteorological Society was founded in 1854.
in 1854, as of March 2019, according to Wiki, 1,879 employees.
But in April of 2009, they got ragged on so constantly because they couldn't do a three-day forecast that was reliable that finally they made a statement.
And I'm going to read the first part of their statement, and then I'm going to go dot dot dot for my translation of what the Royal Meteorological Society confessed in 2009.
The Met Office has admitted that predictions about weather and climate are beyond the ability of dot dot dot charlatans with supercomputers using hocus pocus algorithms and have therefore switched to the seance and poltergeist form of forecast.
Future predictions will be made by the ghost of Marcel Marceau, the mime who brought poetry to silence, Offering the royal subjects the same level of accuracy and entertainment.
That's unbelievable!
Yeah, that's what we're dealing with.
A bunch of clowns, and they're horrible.
They're ugly.
They're maligned.
It's ridiculous that we have to deal with this shit, but now we'll get into finishing up a little bit of program four.
We were talking about the axis of inclination and how that affects climate, so let's go ahead and bring up the summer winter solstice slide.
Yes, they're up.
Yeah, okay.
Well, if you're up at the North Pole in the middle of winter, the sun doesn't even come over the horizon.
It's like dark all the time.
If you're at the North Pole on the summer solstice, the sun comes up and circles you.
That's why they call it the Land of the Midnight Sun.
The sun actually just circles around you.
So, that's the effect that latitude and axis of inclination have on the amount of solar radiation that we're getting.
So, next thing I want to switch to is the electromagnetic spectrum.
Joe, Joe, before we go there... Yes?
How do flat earthers deal with any of these elementary phenomena?
The 24 hours of the day defined by the earth rotating on its axis, a determination of a month by the lunar orbiting around the earth, a determination of a year by the earth transiting around the sun, and the seasons that you've just been describing.
It seems to me all of this is incoherent in terms of flat earth theory.
Well, Greg Reese just put up a nine-minute-long segment deifying everything that the Flat Earthers have been saying, and it's a complete frickin' joke.
We know how to do longitude based on star charts and chronological time, so the chronometer was invented by a guy, I think his name was Hamilton, but we'll get into that in a later discussion.
He used a dual tuning fork watch that was able to take wave motion and could circle the earth and come back to London and be accurate within A minute or two, and so he won the Royal Prize, but it took the Royal Society like 30 years before they granted him the prize because he wasn't a royal.
So that's another scandal that goes back, but anyhow, we know that because if you have two clocks, and one of them is you set at the location where you are, and the other one you set for mean Greenwich time, and you just keep it wound, Then, as the sun comes up in the morning, you set your clock based on that observed time.
Then, you go out and take star calculations, and you can calculate where you are anywhere in the world.
That navigation has been effective for, oh, I don't know, about 350 years.
Then, there's the... I'm sure the Norsemen navigated by the stars.
If not, the Greeks Yeah, but bottom line is you can navigate latitude, but you have a hard time doing longitude unless you know what the rotation of the Earth is relative to a fixed body in outer space.
But to think that the Earth is the only flat object in the world, I mean in the whole universe, and everything else circles around it, and everything else is circular because of forces of gravity.
It's absolutely absurd, but we don't want to waste a whole lot of time on that.
Let me know, Joe.
I just want to mention it because it's so ridiculous from a scientific point of view.
Okay, here we got the visible light.
Go for it.
Right, now this is the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
If you look on the left-hand side, you see a sinusoidal wave that the wavelength keeps getting shorter and shorter and shorter as you go up the electromagnetic spectrum, and then you have a very narrow band where you have visible light, and then, and this is a similar electromagnetic spectrum.
This is one that we discussed previously.
And so, bottom line is, as you get closer and closer, you end up going outside of visible light.
You go to the ultraviolet, and then you go to gamma rays.
And that's how the energy is being delivered to the Earth from the Sun, is through this electromagnetic spectrum.
And like we mentioned before, anything with a temperature above zero degrees Kelvin radiates electromagnetic energy.
I have a question.
Yes.
So it appears to me that the shorter the wavelength, the greater the energy delivered.
Am I right?
That's correct.
So when you get up into those ultraviolet and x-rays, remember how they put a lead apron on us just to take an x-ray of our teeth for a millisecond.
So we're getting into some serious energy delivery.
When you get up to gamma, those are going to induce death in a really relatively short period of time.
Am I correct?
Or you could vaporize a 110-story office building with gamma rays, but that's another subject.
Yeah, it is, we've discussed.
So the next thing we're going to bring up is the Stokes shift.
Okay.
George Stokes, George Gabriel Stokes, was an Irishman, and he's more famous for Navier-Stokes relationship, which is something in fluid dynamics.
And while I was at the Heartland Conference, I was assaulted by this pretend-to-be-royal Who pretends now to be a climate skeptic, whose only degree was in journalism, and he insists that people, you know, identify him with the surname of his royal title, which is inherited.
And according to the U.S.
Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8, there is no nobility title in America.
And I told him, I'm not going to call you L-O-R-D.
I will call you sir if you call me sir.
And he went, I'm in America, I better do what the Americans say.
So anyhow, he makes a big point about being Margaret Thatcher's science advisor that talked her into believing into the carbon climate forcing and CO2 controls, so that he could get rid of the coal unions, which were the major funders of the Labor Party, so that Margaret Thatcher could rule as a Tory.
And he suggested that they switch to nuclear power.
Well, nuclear power is absolutely absurd, and by destroying the coal industry, he inadvertently destroyed the Sheffield Steel industry in the UK.
So you're telling me this whole climate change thing was politically driven by the desire to compromise coal, and the claim was falsely made Because it was productive of CO2 that CO2 is bad and therefore coal must be done away with.
Joe, this is so insulting!
Oh yeah, Obama said he was gonna kill coal and when he took office, the coal industry in the United States have a market capital of 40 billion dollars and after several years of Obambi, it was dropped to 400 million dollars value.
That's a 90% reduction in shareholder and owner value, and then those companies went bankrupt and they were all bought up by Soros and Warren Buffett.
Yeah, it's a bunch of pirates running a scam on everybody.
And using Obama as the instrument of the destruction of the company.
Disgusting.
This guy's going to go down as one of the greatest scoundrels of history, Joe.
It's just insulting.
Right.
Okay, so we're going to get to something a little bit later on the original light bulb and mercury vapor, but for just right now, I need people to keep in the back of your mind.
The Stokes shift is the decrease in wavelength that you get by, or excuse me, increase in wavelength that you get by absorption and then followed by an emission.
And that'll become more clear when we get to two videos that were done by a woman named Kathy Loves Physics and History.
So, the next thing is layers of atmosphere, thermosphere.
We got George Stokes in fluid dynamics, Joe.
Oh, okay, yeah.
Well, he was most famous for Navier-Stokes, and like I said to the wannabe royal that was at the ICC conference, he said that anybody that tries to question me about climate, I just say, well, have you ever heard of the Navier-Stokes equation?
And I go, yeah, I took fluid mechanics in 1970.
I know exactly what the Navier-Stokes equation is, but since you never took a math or science course, you don't know anything other than the name, and you're just trying to browbeat somebody with your appeal to authority on something you know absolutely nothing about.
So get out of my face, you clown.
I'll debate you anytime, Mr. Stuntman Moncton.
Anytime.
There's a lot of that bullshit out there, Joe.
Oh, it's an enormous amount.
Okay, so the next thing we're going to get into is another little bit of a measurement problem.
This is the layers of the atmosphere.
Got it.
Okay, if you pull it up, you'll notice that there's a line that goes up, and it's a line that's in the lower part of the atmosphere.
And that's linear, and that's the lapse rate, and that's where you end up having a four degree Fahrenheit, three degree centigrade decrease in temperature in the atmosphere as you go up for every thousand foot of altitude.
And that's constant pretty much all over the planet with the minor exception of barometric pressures that can vary with warm and cold fronts and high pressures and low pressures, but that's just a few millibars of pressure differentiation.
The actual temperature gradient doesn't change that much, even though the front can move in and out.
So inside the front, you still have that same lapse rate going up to a certain altitude, and then you have these ziggly lines, and then when you get up to what's called the thermosphere, Which is pretty high up in the altitude.
I didn't write down exactly what the altitudes are, but you can see it on the graph.
Bottom line there, it soars off, and if you read it on wiki, it says that it's 3,500 degrees Kelvin at the top of the thermosphere, like 90 kilometers in the in the sky.
Well, that doesn't mean that it's going to fry every satellite that's out there.
What that means is that all you're measuring with a thermometer is the average kinetic energy of molecules and so down low where you have a whole bunch of molecules and they're moving around you take an average of those molecules and you'll have a linear decrease as you keep going up and reducing the pressure with altitude but then you get up to the point where what's called the mean free path
is so tremendous at those high altitudes you only have a couple of molecules per cubic meter so when they get heated up by the sun they just go bananas and they hit at really high velocity to a thermometer and so the thermometer can't tell the difference between a million particles
hitting it you know per second at a certain velocity or a few particles hitting it a hundred times or a thousand times that velocity and so it just squares that number and so if you square a thousand you get you know a hundred thousand and so basically it's just telling you kinetic energy when there's virtually no energy there because you're close to a vacuum.
That brings up the next point is that you have three means of transferring heat.
That's conduction, convection, and radiation.
And the reason why thermos bottles work so good is because the most perfect insulator is a vacuum.
And so if you have a thermos bottle, you have where the neck of the bottle... That's of course for the obvious reason there are fewer molecules to interact with one another, where it's the interaction of molecules that produces heat.
Well, that affects just the convection portion.
The conduction is going to continue up the bottle, through the neck of the bottle, and out through the spout, because that's where it's connected.
If you had a thermos bottle that wasn't connected to the outside, just surrounded by a vacuum, then you would be able to reduce conduction and convection.
But by having a vacuum, you reduce just Convection but you don't reduce radiation because radiation can go right across there so you're losing energy out of a thermos bottle from the inside of the flask across the vacuum to the outside where then it's conducted out and radiated both out into the atmosphere and that's why a thermos bottle actually will cool down or heat up or regardless of whatever the ambient temperature is over a period of time but
That's why they use that and that's why insulation all it does is provide a physical barrier to slow down the convective loss but it can do nothing about radiant loss and that's why they put radiant barriers in because they can do a little bit to reflect some of the radiant energy either back into the space if that's where you want the rate the energy to be kept or to keep it from getting into the space if you put a radiant barrier on the roof to keep the Sunshine.
Styrofoam is one way they use it.
It is used for insulation to achieve that effect.
Right, right.
All you're doing is you're limiting the ability of travel of the gas molecules for convective purposes.
So anyhow, so then the next thing we're going to do is the bolometer.
Are we going to talk about earth shine yet?
Not.
Yeah, we'll do the bolometer first.
Do you have a slide for bolometer?
I don't, Joe.
Do you want me to?
No, that's cool.
That's cool.
I'll describe it.
In 1881, a guy named Samuel Langley invented the bolometer, which was to measure infrared radiation.
And he did a paper that was in the Astrophysical Journal.
In that paper, he stated that the moon had a temperature of zero degrees centigrade on the non-solar side of the moon.
So, if you take the waxing and waning moon and you take a telescope and you just isolate nothing but the portion of the moon that's not being lit by the sun, he calculated that it had a temperature of zero degrees and had that published in 1881.
And that's what Cervantes Arrhenius used as his measurement for how much CO2 was able to absorb infrared radiation, and we'll get to that in just a second.
So what he didn't know is that the moon glows because the Earth is reflecting sunshine back onto that portion of the, I think, It's like the umbrium part of the moon.
It's the portion of the moon that's not in direct sunlight that we can still see because the Earth is reflecting light back onto it, which adds to the light that you would measure coming off of the moon, but we'll get to that a little bit deeper later.
So, the next thing is Strange Tale of the Greenhouse Gas Gang, and this is an article.
No, Joe, we're still on moonshine, actually.
I'm going to Earthshine onto the moon, you know.
Right.
Well, we finished discussing that for right now.
Let's switch over to... Well, I'm sorry to say I hadn't shown the images, so...
Oh, okay.
High in the evening sky I see my faint reflection.
Pale facsimile like what others see when they look in my direction.
Earth shine.
And here's another image of it, Joe, of moon from the earth and of earth from the moon.
It's amazing how in the, you know, photographs that were allegedly taken from the moon, the moon has the same relative size.
The Earth has the same relative size to the Moon as the Moon actually has to the Earth.
I mean, that's such an obvious deception, Joe.
It's insulting.
It's insulting.
It is.
And so, NASA can lie about that.
They can lie about anything.
Okay, let's switch over to the father of the greenhouse gas series, Cervantes Arrhenius.
The strange tale of the greenhouse gas gang.
And you'd like me to read a few paragraphs?
Yeah, just read the first two paragraphs while I have a sip of water.
The greenhouse gas gang began in 1896 when Savante Arrhenius of Sweden discovered heat storage increases with increased carbon dioxide levels.
The father of the gang was a child prodigy, Nobel Committee member, Nobel Laureate, and founding member of the eugenics movement.
In 1900, he became involved in the creation of the Nobel Prize.
In 1901, was a member of the Nobel Committee.
And in 1903, helped give himself a Nobel Prize for chemistry.
No conflict of interest there, Joe.
He served on the Nobel Committee until 1927, where he exerted enormous influence on the selection of all prize winners.
In 1922, he helped father the State Institute for Racial Biology, which was to have been a Nobel Institute.
The principles for this had been in discussion by the literati for decades and were incorporated in the U.S.
Progressive Movement of the 1900s and fully implemented by the Nazi eugenics program.
Carbon dioxide was the first member of this gang.
Padron Savantich calculated that if the atmospheric level of this gas were doubled, it would raise Earth's temperature by 6 degrees centigrade.
By 1900, he was challenged by his rival, Newt Engstrom, and fought valiantly to uphold his claim.
By 1906, however, he was forced to reduce his original estimate under laboratory conditions.
What happens in a test tube is not always an accurate reflection of reactions in a wide range of environmental conditions, but atmospheric CO2 can be absorbed through chemical actions or broken apart by nuclear bombardment.
So he was a promoter of CO2 as being an earth-warming mechanism.
Oh yeah, he was a white supremacist Nazi.
How in the world do you green guys just embrace this garbage, man?
The founder of it was worse than anybody in the Confederacy.
He wanted to make a Nobel Prize for white people being superior.
Get over it!
It's a horrible science by a horrible man.
Was there any scientific validity whatsoever?
No, that's the amazing thing.
He published his work in December of 1895, and in 1896, his main rival, which was Newt Angstrom, did the same experiments and said, well, guess what, Arrhenius?
You didn't take water vapor out of your sample size.
So, since we know water vapor absorbs in 37,000 spectral lines, that's this line right here, and water vapor only absorbs in three, so if you've got water vapor in your sample, it's an error.
So he retracted his paper, re-ran his experiment with dehydrated air samples, and still came back.
And then at that point, Angstrom was well enough aware of the defects of Langley's measurements that he knew that that's what
Uh Arrhenius had used and so he said no you're wrong because the amount of uh infrared radiation cannot be absorbed and so that was an ongoing argument and it was uh settled by 1902 in the um and I'll put the exact name no mature to it down in the title but it was the monthly weather report issued by the U.S.
government in uh in 1902 and it said that Angstrom had proven that there was no CO2 warming.
We're talking about the one who introduced the Angstrom unit as a measurement.
No, no, no.
That was his father, Anders Angstrom.
And so Anders Angstrom was the most famous Swedish scientist of the day.
And so as Arrhenius was growing up, everybody's going, oh, you very smart.
You be the next Mr. Angstrom.
And he hated Angstrom, and Newt Angstrom was his son, and so he did everything he could to obstruct Newt Angstrom, along with a whole bunch of other scientists that he had political disagreements with.
The man was an absolute tyrant.
Hennius Arrhenius is what he should be known as.
That's what I always call him.
Joe, Joe, it's Arrhenius who's the tyrant, right?
It's not the Angstrom family.
No, no, no.
Angstroms were straight up folks.
So yeah.
So you're telling me you've given several examples now where the whole climate change business is motivated by politics and is not supported by science even from the beginning.
No, yeah, and everything about it is lies.
You know, they had to create this pedigree of where Fourier and Tyndall supported the thing, and then Cervantes Arrhenius, and then we'll get to this next guy, Mr. Guy Stewart Callender in 1938, but that's a little further down the road.
Now let's switch over to the invention of the light bulb, because this is going to tell us some important things about... Well, I've got, I've got, I've got Guy's image up.
Did you want to comment more on him or no?
No, no, no.
Let's switch over and do the invention of the light bulb.
All right.
Now, we've printed text here that says the light bulb was invented by Humphrey Davies and presented to the Royal Authority in 18... the Royal Society in 1802, but we've got a more... what I consider to be a more accurate source, and that would be... Kathy loves physics and history,
So Joe, Joe, Joe, the bottom line here for Americans, Thomas Edison did not invent the light bulb, which is attributed to him everywhere you look.
I'm sure Wikipedia would be an illustration, correct?
That's right.
And Alexander Graham Bell did not invent the telephone.
Marconi did not invent radio.
David Sarnoff with NBC did not invent television.
We've been lied to about virtually everything.
We'll go into a little more depth on some of these guys.
Were these guys simply entrepreneurs who stole others' inventions and then seized credit for themselves?
Some of them were front men, interlopers on the part of the Rothschilds and Rockefeller dynasties, but some of them were legitimate inventors that had their inventions stolen, and we'll get in a little more detail on that once we do these first two videos.
Okay, should I turn to the first video?
Here we go.
Yeah, the history of the light bulb.
Stand by.
Imagine you happened to fall back in time to November 1705, and imagine you happened to have been invited to the Royal Society of London.
Then you would have seen an incredible sight, Isaac Newton's assistant, 45-year-old Francis Hawkesby, who was an expert in vacuum pumps, demonstrating a strange device with a glass tube on a spindle that he could spin with a handle.
Then the room would be dramatically darkened and Hoxby would have spun his glass and placed his hand on the spinning tube and the tube would glow with an eerie purple light that was, according to Hoxby, bright enough to read large print with and be seen from 10 feet away.
How did this light bulb work?
How did Hoxby think of it?
And how did it lead to the battery and to the first bright and long-lasting electric light nearly a hundred years later?
Well, let me be your time traveler guide, James Burke style.
Ready?
Let's go.
Electricity, electricity, electricity, electricity.
So luckily, Hawksby explained his motivation.
So in preparation for this talk, he had read a report from a French scientist who had noticed that the top of a barometer would glow when it was shaken.
Since a barometer was just a vial of mercury upended so that the top of the tube was a vacuum, Hawksby figured that a drop of mercury in a tube that was evacuated with air would glow if he shook it.
So that's what he did, and he found to his delight that it did glow a little bit.
Then, to make it easier to shake, he put his tube on a spindle, which is how he discovered that placing his hand on the spinning tube to stabilize it made a significantly brighter light.
Finally, Huxby realized that by spinning this tube and putting his hand on it, he was creating a lot of static electricity, which he demonstrated in a separate spinning glass with threads in it, That would become attracted to the outside of the sphere.
Huxby just needed to add fluorescent crystals to the tube to absorb that purple and the UV light and emit white light instead.
And he would have made a fluorescent light bulb that he powered with electricity.
Static electricity.
By the way, you too can light up a fluorescent bulb with static electricity.
If you use saran wrap to make the static electricity.
26 years after Hoxby's Bowl, a rival of Hoxby named Stephen Gray accidentally discovered that electricity can travel when he rubbed a glass tube and a feather stuck to a cork in the tube instead of on the tube itself.
Soon Gray was picking up objects at great distances.
and discovered that some objects conduct electricity, conductors, and some don't, insulators.
And if you want stuff to stay electrified, you better hang it up with insulators like silk.
To demonstrate this, Gray took a young boy and hung him up with silk thread and electrified him with a charged tube and watched as small objects floated up to the child's hand like magic.
Gray then inspired a French scientist named Charles Cisternet Dufay, and Dufay then accidentally discovered that a feather can dance between two rubbed objects if they are made of different materials, and decided that there are two kinds of electricity, which he called vitreous for glass-like and resinous for wax-like.
In determining which category all the objects he could find fell into, Dufay realized that every solid object he could find, even conductors, could stay electrified if he rubbed it and then put them on an insulating stand.
Dufay's work was then read by a dramatic German named Gorg Matthias Bosa, who got bored with rubbing tubes by hand and came up with the idea of charging objects on stands with a Hawksby machine.
After writing a bad poem about how great he was, Bose had decided that putting a person on a stand and then electrifying them with a Hawksby machine would be a great way to do crazy human electricity experiments.
Like electrifying pretty women with a Huxby machine and then having men give them shocking kisses.
Or my favorite, which I had to recreate, of electrifying himself and then having a spark from his own hand or from a sword light alcohol on fire.
Let's watch that again in slow motion.
Boza even created his own electric light bulb.
Which was in the form of a crown that would spark and glow when near an electrified plate.
Meanwhile, the King of France was so enamored of these kinds of demonstrations that he elevated his son's tutor, Abbe Nolet, who had also been Dufay's assistant, to be the resident electricity demonstrator at Versailles.
Although it wasn't exactly an official title.
And Nollet created globes filled with different gases that would spark when touched in a beautiful manner called an electric egg.
These experiments got even more shocking when Nollet got a letter from his friend, Pieter von Muschenbrock from Leiden, Denmark.
Sent him a story of how a jar full of water could store electricity from a Huxby machine and then give it out in such a rush that he wrote, quote, I thought I was done for.
He also wrote that he only survived by the grace of God and I would not do it again for all the Kingdom of France.
Challenge accepted!
Nole immediately used his jars to shock everyone including 200 monks at a time and made a bit of money on the side selling Leyden jars to other electrical wizards.
Meanwhile in America, youngish Benjamin Franklin became excited about electricity after he heard about the experiments going on in Germany and wrote his friend, I never was before engaged in any study that so totally engrossed my attention in my time.
My friends come continually in crowds to see them.
I have, during some months past, had little leisure for anything else.
Franklin then built his own Hawksbee machine, but instead of having a person rub the glass, Franklin's machine used a brush to rub the glass.
And Franklin then found that a volunteer could get electrified by touching either the glass or the brush, but not both.
As brushes pick up dirt, Franklin decided that the brush was also picking up the electrical fire.
So he named the brush's charge to be positive and the glass, as he assumed it lost electrical fire, to be negative.
Franklin also made a lot of unique and fun electricity devices, including a special frame that had a gold foil which would spark and glow as the electricity flowed through it.
One of the first examples of incandescence.
Franklin then found the electricity tended to go to and come from sharp points over smooth surfaces and wondered if, as he considered, lightning clouds were made of electricity, then maybe a sharp metal stick Could silently drain storm clouds of their electrical fire and save humans from what he called their mischief.
But first he had to prove that lightning was electric, which he theorized you could do with a large metal stick that wasn't stuck in the ground.
But had a little point or kink in it.
And if a person could get electricity from that pole during a thunderstorm, then the pole must be draining electricity from the clouds.
And lightning must be the same as the electrical sparks they were getting, just on a much bigger scale.
In France, Abbe Nollet, the king's electrician, who was also a priest, Abbe means friar, thought Franklin's theory of electricity was rubbish.
Sparks were sparks and lightning was judgment from God.
So some enemies of Nollet decide to take up the challenge and try to steal some of electricity from the clouds.
And on May 10th, 1752, in Marlet, France, that is exactly what they did.
In October of 1852, Benjamin Franklin wrote that he had heard from Europe of the success of the Philadelphia Experiment for drawing the electrical fire from clouds by means of pointed rods.
But he had done it in a different and more easy manner with a kite.
Side note, no, none of them actually drained the clouds of electricity.
The rods and the kite were charged with inductance as the electrons at the top of the spikes were repelled by the charges in the cloud.
But it still worked!
In fact, if they had been hit by lightning, they probably would have been killed.
Despite or because of the success of the Philadelphia experiment, Abbe Nolay was very upset and he and other religious leaders railed against the lightning rod.
In Bologna, Italy, scientist Laura Bassi, who had the town's only Hoxby machine, also became the first in town to recreate the Marley experiment of getting lightning from the clouds.
However, when she and her husband tried to install lightning rods, there were actual riots and they had to take them down.
Bassi, who was only allowed to earn her Ph.D.
to attract attention to the town, wasn't allowed to actually teach at the university.
So she instructed her students at home, where she was free to teach about Franklin's theories with her electricity machine.
And she also set up an outdoor system to study atmospheric electricity.
Which is how her student, Luigi Galvani, who was a biologist, learned about electricity.
20 years later, Galvani and his wife, who was also a biologist, bought their own Hoxby machine to electrify animals.
One day, they placed a dead, dissected frog on the table for anatomy lecture.
When an assistant, accidentally or for a lark, touched the dead frog with an electrified prong and was shocked to find the dead frog jump.
They were therefore galvanized, which is the origin of the term, to electrify every dead animal they could find.
And they decided that all life is electric.
Just to double check, they took some frog legs outside to see if they would jump in an electrical storm.
And one day, the frogs jumped on a calm day, and they realized it was the combination of the two metals, the iron and the fence, and the copper wires holding the leg together, that caused the frog to jump.
When Italy's premier electrician, Alessandro Volta, heard about it, he thought that it was the metal that electrified the frog, especially if he got two different metals to make a live frog jump.
And after a few years of playing with it, Volta decided that it only worked when wet.
In 1800, Volta proved his theory by making a pile of metals with wet cardboard between them that would give continual shock.
Volta gave his device an odd name of artificial electric organ So most people just called it a galvanic pile, or sometimes, after Franklin's terms for Leyden jars, a battery.
Volta published his paper in England and in France and in Germany and in Italy, basically everywhere.
And in England, the Secretary for the Royal Society of London let his friend read it.
And when that friend named Anthony Carlyle and his friend made a pile, they accidentally found that the ends of the battery would bubble.
Where one end was hydrogen and the other one was oxygen.
Batteries could do more than shock.
They could also electrically separate chemicals.
Volta's discovery happened just weeks before a handsome chemist and poet named Humphrey Davy was given a lectureship at the newly made Royal Society of London.
Davy then impressed everyone with his galvanic experiments and then proved Volta's pile worked due to chemistry.
Because the salt water was working as an acid, And therefore the battery would be more powerful if it had a more powerful acid in it.
which made Davy into a scientific superstar.
Anyway, Davy had heard that another scientist had used the battery to make gold and silver glow, just like Franklin did many years before.
And Davy also found that a thin slip of platinum, which is a platinum alloy, glow with, quote, a vivid light.
Which is why Davy is often incorrectly credited with discovering incandescence.
Then the next year a Scottish surgeon named William Crickshank was using a battery for biological experiments and found that his pile kept on falling down.
So he placed his pile on its side called a trough battery.
This gave Davey the ability and the idea of making a huge battery with over 2,000 plates of copper and zinc and gallons of acid in the basement of the Royal Institute with wires to lecture hall and to the laboratory.
He supposedly put it in the basement because it smelled really bad.
In 1806 and 1807, Davy used this battery to increase the number of known elements by 62 percent.
With this giant battery and his chemical experiments, Davey discovered something amazing.
If he had two carbon rods and he put a big voltage between them, as he started to separate it, it would make a brilliant light.
Davey demonstrated what he called his arc lamp on November 16, 1809.
An audience member wrote that the light, quote, was so intense as to resemble that of the sun.
It was a dazzling splendor.
Suddenly, the over 100-year-old electric light was bright enough and long-lasting enough to be useful as a public light.
However, it still took another 55 years for anyone to make any profit off the arc lamp of Davies and a further 20 years.
That's enough of that.
That's.
Making money off the incandescent bulb.
So how.
Okay.
Joe, that was just absolutely fascinating.
That That woman is sensational!
And you can't understand physics without understanding the history because, you know, that's the problem with the way we're taught these days.
Everything is taught as an abstract, like it just exists on its own little universe, and all of this stuff was created.
So here we went through the Voltae, coming up with the chemical battery.
We went with...
I have it written down in my notes, but my notes are not that well organized.
Anyhow, we had the 1705 guy that did the Mercury.
Okay, we'll back up on that a little bit.
1644, Evan Torselli, Got a four-foot-long glass tube that was sealed at one end, filled it up with mercury, and then lifted it up and created the first mercury barometer.
These guys were just brilliant at unpacking the secrets of nature, Joe.
They were doing just brilliant research.
I mean, these are famous names in the history of science.
And raw empirical discoveries, just one after the other, and networked with each other to be able to amplify what they could do.
You know, the sum is greater than the parts to develop Western science.
So anyhow, at mean sea level, a mercury barometer has a Elevation of 760 millimeters or millibars is what they actually like to call it.
But what happens is that you have a vacuum at the top because anything more that you do to a vacuum, the mercury beneath that pressure will flash to Mercury vapor and not be visible, and so you can't raise the surface level.
For water, that number is 33 feet.
You could put the world's greatest vacuum pump on a column of water and try to suck that water up a tube, and it'll go to 33 feet, and then the top of it will just sit there and boil off, and you'll never pull it higher than 33 feet, which when we get to a further discussion about water infiltration, when we're doing our infiltration zones in groundwater,
When we're doing our discussion on abigenic oil production, we'll go into an amazing fact of soil mechanics, which is called the wilting point, where the moisture in the soil can be drawn down by trees to within three percent.
But beyond that, trees can't suck it out.
But beyond that, the world's greatest vacuum pump can't suck it out.
You have to bake it out.
So we'll get into a little more discussion on that.
I just wanted to kind of throw that aside.
We must, of course, dissect the Green New Deal and its battery-operated automobiles and devastation of the coal, gas and oil industry.
I mean, Yeah, we'll do it.
Yeah, the devastating effects were this to be implemented boggled the mind.
Oh, it's absolutely incredible.
So then we're going to get back to fluorescent, the guy that was rubbing the top of this vacuum with mercury vapor in it and getting a ultraviolet light.
Well, ultraviolet light is great if what you want to do is kill bacteria and mold and disinfect water.
But if you want to actually have visible light, she mentioned if you put something in there that would Phosphorized, and that's exactly what a CRT was, and that's what we'd call a cathode ray tube.
Some people call it computer remote terminal, but the old TV sets, the radar screens, what they did is they had a vacuum tube with mercury vapor in there, And then they coated the surface of that with phosphorus, and when phosphorus absorbs ultraviolet light, it gives off visible light.
So there again, you get that Stokes separation, where it absorbs at one spectrum length, and then it reduces the wave, I mean, increases the wavelength, and it emits a lower energy, which goes from ultraviolet to visible light.
Now let's go to our next film, which is on spectrosity, and we'll do a little shorter segment on that, because people can pull these films up.
They're fascinating.
I've watched a dozen of her films, and as far as I can tell, they're 100% accurate, and she's made the best presentation possible.
Let's get into spectrosity, because that's the next thing we need to discuss.
Absolutely.
She's fantastic, Joe.
Here we go.
Did spectroscopy, the study of how objects emit and absorb light, really revolutionize the sciences and change our world?
In a word, yes!
In chemistry, spectroscopy was used to find new elements, and infrared spectroscopy is still used in chemical analysis to this very day.
In astronomy, spectroscopy allowed us to figure out what the sun and stars are composed of, And is the most powerful tool in the astronomer's toolbox.
And physics?
Ah, physics is where spectroscopy had the most influence.
For spectroscopy directly led to the development of quantum mechanics.
And all of this began when a shy, small physicist named Gustav Kirchhoff suggested that his friend, a large, absent-minded chemist named Robert Bunsen, use a prism.
Ready for one of my favorite stories?
Let's go.
Electricity, electricity, electricity, electricity.
Kirchhoff and Bunsen met because of a revolution.
Several revolutions, actually.
See, in 1848, young Gustav Kirchhoff won a scholarship to travel from Prussia to France for his astonishing work that he had done as an undergrad on how complicated circuits follow Ohm's law, though still causing students in engineering and physics to butcher the spelling of his name today.
However, the summer of 1848 was the beginning of, quote, the most widespread revolutionary wave in European history.
Therefore, Kirchhoff only made it as far as Berlin.
Undeterred, he talked his way into a temporary position at the University of Berlin, and then a position at the University of Berslau.
Where he became close friends with a visiting chemist named Robert Bunsen.
Bunsen was a renowned chemist, but also an eccentric character so famous for his amusing quirks that his friends wrote an entire book about his humorous stories.
For example, Bunsen was a lifelong bachelor, but according to legend, he had once asked a woman for a hand in marriage and had been accepted.
However, after that, he got so involved in his research, he forgot to talk to his fiancée for several weeks.
He also forgot whether he had proposed or not.
Undeterred, he just went to the young lady and proposed again.
Insulted, she changed her mind and promptly showed him the door.
Anyway, in 1852 Bunsen got a chemistry position at the University of Heidelberg and used his influence to get Kirchhoff a physics position there too.
A few years later, Bunsen heard that the town was to be supplied with gas to light the street lamps at night and homes at night.
Bunsen then worked out a deal with a gas company to supply his laboratory with gas during the day.
Bunsen then realized that the gas burners available were unsteady and did not produce a lot of heat.
He then set out to make a better one, and by 1857, published a description of a Bunsen burner, a device still in use in chemistry laboratories throughout the world.
However, Bunsen would never think of patenting his device, writing once that, working is beautiful and rewarding, but acquisition of wealth for its own sake is disgusting.
Bunsen thus had a very good heat source to play with and decided, as he was a chemist, to systematically study the light produced by different chemical salts when they burned.
Bunsen tried to qualify the colors by studying them through colored filters, which didn't work very well.
One day in the summer of 1859, he complained to Kirchhoff, who wondered why he didn't just use a prism.
Physicists had known since Newton's time that prisms bend different colors by different amounts and could make a rainbow.
However, when they looked at heated low-density gases with a prism, they didn't see a rainbow.
In fact, the gases would make sharp bars of specific frequencies called spectral lines.
This is not to say that Bunsen and Kirchhoff were the first to study spectral lines with a prism.
They weren't.
What made this different is the Kirchhoff was suggesting that they use a movable arm so they could systematically study the colors produced by different elements.
They soon found that each element had its own unique optical fingerprint.
What is going on?
Well, the electrons in a gas are bound to the nucleus and can only exist at certain energy levels.
When they are heated, the electrons will jump up energy levels.
Then, when they fall back down, they release a photon of light whose energy and color depends on the change of energy levels.
Different elements have different energy levels, so they produce different bands of light.
Bunsen and Kirchhoff built their first spectroscope out of Bunsen's old cigar box, some telescope parts, a prism, and of course, a Bunsen burner.
Despite being crude, this was a surprisingly sensitive device.
Bunsen noted that, quote, "Chemistry produces no single reaction which in the remotest degree can compare in sensitiveness." They found, for example, they could see sodium when as little as one out of 20 millionth of it was suspended in smoke.
They also found that they could burn compounds and from their fingerprints determine what they were composed of.
Bunsen and Kirchhoff burned some compounds and found some fingerprints that didn't correspond to any known chemical, and in this way discovered two unknown elements, rubidium and cesium.
That's not all.
In October, Kirchhoff was playing with a fingerprint of sodium, and as a lark, decided to add the light from a bright lamp.
Kirchhoff knew that his lamp, like most heated liquids and solids and plasma gas, would produce basically a continuous spectrum, or a rainbow.
Therefore, with both a lamp and heated sodium, he expected to see a rainbow with two extra bright yellow lines from the sodium.
To Kirkhoff's shock, he got a rainbow with two black bands in the yellow, exactly at the spots where the bright lines were supposed to show.
Excitedly, this rainbow with black bands in it Look like sunlight.
See, sunlight is not actually continuous rainbow, but if you study it with a really good prism and a microscope, you will see little dark bands in it.
The fact that sunlight has dark bars was first discovered in 1802, but was made famous 12 years later by a German glassmaker named Joseph Fraunhofer, who counted over 570 lines of sunlight.
Kirchhoff therefore realized that he was recreating the Fraunhofer lines of sunlight with lamplight and sodium.
It seemed immediately clear to Kirchhoff that the shadows in the yellow part of sunlight must be due to the sodium gas on the sun.
Let me explain in detail because this is both really amazing and a little bit complicated.
The sun is a hot plasma where the elements are so dense and hot that the electrons are ripped free from their atoms and are free to move.
Therefore, the electrons in the Sun produce a continuous spectrum of light.
The atmosphere of the Sun, however, has spots cool enough for the elements to be in gas form instead of plasma form, although they are still ridiculously hot, hot enough that even the metals are in gas form.
As these gases are cooler than the sun, they absorb more radiation than they produce.
Therefore, the gas elements in the atmosphere of the sun will leave the shadows of their optical fingerprints in sunlight.
By studying the optical fingerprints on Earth and comparing it to the optical shadows from the sunlight, Kirchhoff had found a way to determine what the sun was composed of.
Soon, Kirchhoff and Bunsen found many different elements in the sun.
But no helium, as helium was actually discovered because of the shadows in the sunlight.
Which is why helium is named after Helios, the Greek sun god.
Kirchhoff and Bunsen even found trace amounts of gold in the sun.
It's true, about 60th of a billionth of a percent of the sun is made of gold gas.
But as the sun is so large, There's about as much gold in the sun as water in the oceans of the earth.
Kirchhoff liked to tell the story of how his banker was unimpressed about finding gold in the sun, as he couldn't bring it to earth and put it in his bank.
Soon after, Kirchhoff won a prize for this work and told his banker, look here, I have succeeded at last in fetching some gold from the sun.
But wait, we aren't done yet.
In 1860, Kirchhoff wrote a theoretical physics paper about the emission and absorption of light.
In this paper, Kirchhoff imagined a perfect object that would completely absorb all incident rays, which Kirchhoff called perfectly black, or more briefly, black bodies.
If it absorbed all incident light, then any light that emitted from a black body would be from the substance itself being heated.
And Kirchhoff theoretically predicted that the amount of light you get only depends on the temperature of the substance and the frequency you're looking at.
Kirchhoff didn't have a theoretical form for this equation, but he felt that, quote, to determine this function is a matter of the greatest importance.
Although he's sure of success, since the form of the function in question is no doubt simple.
The equation turned out to be pretty simple, but it was very difficult to create the experiment and find a good theoretical logic behind it.
In fact, it took 40 years to solve the blackbody radiation puzzle.
In 1900, a man named Max Planck wrote a paper deriving the blackbody equation where, as he put it, quote, the most essential point of the entire calculation is that energy is composed of very definite number of equal finite packages.
Five years later, Einstein called these energy packets quanta of light.
In other words, in 1900, Max Planck started the quantum mechanics revolution because of blackbody radiation.
Joe, I gotta tell you, that's good.
That is utterly fascinating.
And I can't imagine, you know, any student of science not wanting to be completely absorbed by this.
She is sensational.
What you're doing is phenomenal.
This is absolutely phenomenal, Joe.
Okay, well now we're going to get back to the arrogant snob that was Samuel Pierpont Langley.
He was approached by Rockefeller and his gang to create a group to steal the patents from the Wright Brothers.
And they formed an organization, and it included Alexander Graham Bell, who had already stolen the patents from Antonio Misi for the telephone, and created with Rockefeller the AT&T monopoly, and was ripping everybody off with that.
So they thought, well, gee, we'll just go ahead and steal the 12 patents that are sitting in the patent office.
The Wright brothers were very well aware of patent theft.
And so they were cautious about submitting anything to the Patent Office until they had a complete workable model and they had enough patents that you couldn't steal them.
And so they submitted a package of patents.
They sat at the Patent Office the same way that Tesla's radio patents sat there, the same way that Westinghouse's patents for air brakes, which we might get to in another chapter, but we're already running long on this one.
And so what happened was, we'd already mentioned that Langley had invented the bolometer in 1881 and made measurements from the infrared.
And it was an interesting creation, but it wasn't very accurate.
In 1906, they had come up with a better one, and so he admitted that his measurements for the infrared for the moon were incorrect, and that meant that Savinti could easily claim that, well, he's retracting his claim that there was carbon dioxide warming.
So Savinti officially did that in 1906, but since he was head of the Nobel Committee, nobody noticed it.
Well, in the process of stealing the Wright Brothers' patents, Langley had done two flop aircraft in the Potomac River, and one of the curators of the Air and Space Museum was a guy named Walter J. Boyle.
Walter J. Boyle joined the Air and Space Museum in 1974 as an assistant curator, and he held that position until 1983 when he became the director of the Air and Space Museum.
He's a retired U.S.
Air Force colonel, a command pilot, has over 5,000 hours of flying time, and he's author of, and when this book was published in Yes, 1982.
You've got a perfect one-hour session up to you here.
I think going into aerodynamics and all that is... No, no, no.
This is important, just to put a cap on this.
We're a little over time, but I told you we were going to be fine.
Okay, so I'm just going to further discredit this Mr. Langley character, because he had a flop of an airplane, and I put a bookmarker in here, and dang if I can find it.
About page 90.
I want to read the exact quote, because he created an airplane that sunk in the, here we go, the original Langley Flying Machine, 1903.
This machine sat in the Smithsonian Museum until 1943.
And here's the card that was placed on it.
It says, the first man-carrying aeroplane in history of the world, capable of sustained free flight, was invented, built, and tested on the Potomac River by Samuel Pierpoint Langley in 1903, and successfully flown in Hammondsport, New York, June 2, 1914.
This is the fraud that was in the Smithsonian for 40 years while the Wright Brothers had their plane sitting in a barn rotting.
And this is why they were able to steal all of the Wright Brothers' patents and create European-oriented aviation industry, all due to the Rockefellers and the...
We had a lot of material to cover today, and I knew it was going to be a little bit excessive.
We'll try to keep them down to an hour.
and even through the patent office is just staggering, staggering.
It's unbelievable.
They lied to us about everything.
So anyhow, I realize we went a little over our projected time.
Oh, we're fine.
We're fine.
We're good.
We had a lot of material to cover today, and I knew it was going to be a little bit excessive.
We'll try to keep it down to an hour.
Just a few closing thoughts, Joe.
Oh, yeah.
Well, in 1938, a clown in England named Guy, and I had it to the right page and just closed up my book.
Guy Callender, his middle name, Guy Stuart Callender, in 1938, said that carbon dioxide warms the planet.
He came up with his own little hypothesis, and it was quiet over the World War II period, but after the war, he started pumping around again.
In 1951, the U.S.
Meteorological Society said that because Water vapor outnumbers carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere by several thousand molecules and absorbs in far more bands, including every band that carbon dioxide absorbs in.
There cannot possibly be any carbon dioxide warming.
So here we had it refuted by Angstrom in 1895, refuted by Dr. Robert Woods at Stanford in 1909 with Greenhouse Experiment refuted by Samuel Langley himself when he admitted that his infrared measurements were incorrect and his machine had been improperly calibrated and then proven again by the American Immunological Society in 1951.
And they keep resurrecting this stupid little straw dog so they can beat us out of using functional energy on this planet.
The whole thing is an absolute scam and includes the Green Energy Hoax, which we do another program on.
Joe, this is completely sensational.
This is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Real Deal, thanking Joe Olson for another spectacular Position of knowledge of the history of technology and science in the area of electricity and energy, once again exposing the greenhouse gas myth that CO2 is responsible for global warming, which is so remote from the facts of the matter as to make it completely absurd.
It's only because of scientific illiteracy that the public is being played for their gullibility.
It's a disgrace.
We're doing our best to set the record straight.
Thanks for joining us today.
Part 5 will be back soon with another episode of the Global Warming Reality vs. Facts vs. Fiction with Joe Olson.
▲
Export Selection