Setting the Landscape
As we have learned in my ongoing series on the fraud of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, climate pseudoscience invented an artificial, fictional scheme by which the atmosphere can heat itself up without the Sun, so that they could create an alarmist political movement to vilify the life-creating-gas of carbon dioxide. What we are going to learn now is that this is not just a political movement. It is something much more profound.
I first want to speak on the level of insanity that we’re dealing with on this issue: The people who believe in the greenhouse effect, believe it makes no difference to think of the planet as either flat, or spherical, and they believe that a flat planet Earth must actually do a better job at explaining the “average system” than a spherical planet Earth. They believe it makes no difference whether we model the input power of sunshine at -18oC, or at +49oC. They believe that if you fictionalize the input power of the Sun to -18oC, on average, on a flat Earth, and then create a greenhouse effect to explain why it is so much warmer than this on the ground, that this is a more valid way of thinking about the planet Earth than its reality of actually being spherical with +49oC of heating input. I have literally had to write out differential calculus equations proving that the Earth can be modeled as a sphere, and with real-time power from the Sun, and that it makes things very hot, and that this produces wildly different results than a flat Earth requiring the invention of a greenhouse effect. But still, some people prefer to believe in thinking of the planet as flat.
That is as simple as my criticism is: I look at the standard atmospheric greenhouse schematic and energy budget from climate science, see that it has a flat Earth and that sunshine is cold, and so I ask, “What difference does it make if you treat sunshine as hot, its real strength, and the Earth as a rotating sphere?”.
That is the entire essence of my criticism. Do these things make a difference? Why wouldn’t they? (read my Copernicus Meets the Greenhouse Effect). Hot is different than cold: QED. The essential idea is that real Sunshine is hot, and can melt water from ice and keep it melted (liquid), whereas the Sun is not strong enough to do that by itself in the climate-science model which uses a reduced power of sunshine. How much of a difference does it make? I don’t honestly know exactly, but I am trying to figure it out. Already, it is clear that heat-trapping from latent heat is the only real place heat gets trapped, and that this keeps the poles and other cool places much warmer than they would otherwise be if no liquid water was present, and that the Sun can keep the oceans liquid all by itself. I would like to know why it “doesn’t” make a difference, when it is so clear that it does? I see no reason to continue assuming the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect, especially one based on a flat Earth model and which has no clear or realistic physical description, and who’s definition constantly changes depending on what the criticism is.
So let us think about that. We are having a debate between whether the Earth is round, versus if it is flat, and whether Sunshine is hot, versus if it is cold, and if these differences make a difference… And people take this debate seriously, and in fact they would prefer to not have it at all! I take the debate seriously because I can’t believe how insane people must have to be, in order to believe that a flat Earth with cold sunshine actually means anything scientifically. The people who believe in a flat Earth greenhouse effect take the debate seriously because they are mentally deficient, notwithstanding whatever sophistic excuses they invent to justify their beliefs. These are the simple facts. In the 21st Century, with space stations orbiting the Earth, robots looking for life on Mars, and space probes visiting the planet Pluto, you literally have to be mentally deranged to defend an idea that rests on the planet Earth being flat. Every sane person should be perfectly happy and ecstatic to see if we still need an atmospheric greenhouse effect when treating the Earth dynamically with real inputs. But there is a reason this is not so, as we will see.
Thus, it becomes very apparent that what we are dealing with is not something which can be communicated or debated within the realm of rationalism, but is something else entirely outside the realm of conscious rational awareness. We have to identify where such a profound degree of insanity exists similarly in other places and find where people can be so insane such as to believe in the opposite of reality with fervent zeal.
Basic Human Psychology and Philosophy
I would like to introduce you to the concept of an “archetype”. From Wikipedia:
“An archetype is a universally understood symbol, term, statement, or pattern of behavior, a prototype upon which others are copied, patterned, or emulated. Archetypes are often used in myths and storytelling across different cultures.”
Archetypes are thought patterns which are subconsciously held by the human population, spanning all barriers of space and time and culture, which unconsciously direct our customs, desires, belief systems, etc. The most common archetype of the entire human race, spanning all history, cultures, and locality, is the “Hero Archetype”. (See the documentary film “Finding Joseph” for more explanation.) Almost all of our movies, all of our books, all of our entertainment, etc., tell exactly the same story: the story of the archetypal hero. It is a story of a single and very infrequent individual, the one person in a billion, who through some form of internal strength that they never knew they had, overcomes both internal and external challenges and obstacles, and radically transforms both them-self, their soul, and even sometimes the outside world. They overcome the obstacles and self-limiting beliefs which kept them from being free and kept them from living the real life which was out there waiting for them. Neo, in the first Matrix movie, is the perfect hero, and he tells the perfect archetypal story of overcoming the world, and his own beliefs about it, as an illusion. So, archetypes are important, and it is important to know that we humans have them, seemingly built-in to the way we live out our lives. We’ll come back to this.
Next, if you are familiar with philosophy you may have heard of the “Hegelian Dialectic”. From Wikipedia:
“The Hegelian dialectic, usually presented in a threefold manner, was stated by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus as comprising three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction, an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis, and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis.”
The Hegelian dialectic explains that every phenomenon that exists, exists along-side its “dialectical twin“, which is its opposite. For example: love vs. hate; anarchy vs. statism; good vs. evil; etc. One phenomenon can be called a thesis, and its dialectical twin is then called the antithesis. The thesis and antithesis basically vie for supremacy, but because they’re dialectical twins, neither of them wins-out in totality in the end. What does occur in the end is called the synthesis, and this is where the battle gets resolved. For example, anarchy vs. statism may end in the synthesis of a republican democracy. The Hegelian dialectic is thus a process of thesis, antithesis, and then synthesis. The synthesis then becomes a new thesis, which generates a new antithesis, and these will contrast with each other until yet a new higher synthesis is achieved. It is basically a form, or even an exact description of, archetypal evolution, and the idea is that as the thesis/antithesis pairs become resolved, in the synthesis, better and more powerful archetypal conditional states are achieved. For example, republican democracy is better than either statism or anarchy.
Can anyone state what the dialectical resolution (synthesis) is between good and evil? If you can, put it in the comments below; there is certainly an answer, but you must think about it to realize it. Or as another example, what is the antithesis to republican democracy?
Lastly, we must understand the psychological condition known as cognitive dissonance. From Wikipedia:
“Cognitive dissonance is the term used in modern psychology to describe the state of people when holding two or more conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people may sometimes feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment.”
Almost every single person alive suffers from some form of cognitive dissonance, and we will discuss these ahead. It is not a state a person needs to be consciously aware of, and is generally a psychological state that is only subconsciously present, and it can lead to extremely irrational and outright dangerously insane behavior if the dissonance is not resolved. The manifestation of dread, guilt, anger, embarrassment, etc., can literally break a person’s mind. One way of resolving the cognitive dissonance is, obviously, via the dialectical method, or in other words just by thinking about the problem and its options. But the important point is that most people are not consciously aware that they are holding mutually contradictory ideas as true, and it is as if they have compartmentalized these cognitions, to keep them separate. Many people can simply live their entire life in such a state as this, because of the fact that rational resolution of internal thought patterns is the last thing most people think or care about. It requires a conscious, active love of rationality, reading, philosophy, psychology, logic, science, mathematics, self-awareness, and self-criticism, to become aware of all this in the first place, but the vast majority of people, including most scientists, aren’t mentally capable of this type of cogitation. The only personality types which you will find consciously improving their mental fidelity are Myers-Briggs INTP and INTJ types: introversion (as opposed to extroversion), intuition (as opposed to sensing), and thinking (as opposed to feeling) are the hallmarks of idealist rationalism, and this combination represents less than 5% of the population. Everyone else watches American Idol, or “sports”, or is otherwise busy following their friends, seeking physical thrills, or believing in faith. To be sure, most scientists are actually not of the idealist-rationalist type, but are more generally “sensing” types. And by the way, don’t worry if you have the “right type” of personality or not; that’s not what this is about…and I am sure rationalism actually extends to more types that the two I stated, so apologies for being so exclusive about it.
So that’s where I’ll end it for now, before beginning to put it all together. The important concepts are: archetypes, the Hegelian Dialectic, and cognitive dissonance. When properly unified these form the basis of religion; we will go through the main example of such, and then explain how it relates to the modern meme of climate change alarm and carbon vilification, and what the true purpose of these are.
Stay tuned…
Climate of Sophistry 
Again, a good write-up. A couple of points…
It flows out from the cold-sun theory that AGW believers should therefore have no problem with the poles, as even the summer sun (-18degC and at a low angle of incidence) could not melt them. Yet they want it both ways.
The holding of a religious faith and being a thinker are not mutually exclusive. I live in Cambridge, UK, where there are a great many Christian scientists, many more than in your average town (& much to Richard Dawkins consternation).
[Reply: It should be mutually exclusive, and I can provide reading material for why this is so, and it is FAR beyond anything Richard Dawkin’s has ever said…he doesn’t get the tenth of it!]
Nice post. You’re right, it goes beyond politics. No matter how it may appear on the surface, it’s really not irrational (merely diabolical).
Pingback: Joe Postma: Taking Climate Back from the Flat Earthers | johnosullivan
Joe,
Your definition of archetype is much better than Wikipedia’s, but it can and should be expanded. The “hero archetype” is only one of many which influence not only human attitudes, but productions. I suppose I can temper that by saying that at some time everyone aspires to be a hero in his or her chosen field and subsequent perceived failure in reaching a goal either through inadequacy or or through realisation that one has acquired it or part of it through false pretenses is what leads to bitter and twisted older people – a real Hell on Earth.
Anyway you’ve made a good start and I am looking forward to seeing how you develop this.
[Reply: Thanks for the expansion on archetypes. I will be discussing it more in the next post. Cheers!]
Good and evil are just words, what is done really isn’t either, unless you know how to perform a subjective action I suppose. 😀 I live in a happy universe, there’s no such thing as good or evil, sin is just opposite over hypoteneuse, and I have only myself to answer to. A truly representative democracy, such as that which may some day evolve from the internet, is superior to anarchy, but I’ll keep my lack of gods and kings until then, but then all forms of government are still too easily twisted towards the direction of irrationality and powerseeking for my taste.
Ultimately there is an issue with beliefs, I think, when I booted up my self, I guess I didn’t have the repositories for the belief package and it’s dependencies, because the idea of holding something to be true when I know that it is not actually certain to be true is one of the craziest damn things I’ve ever heard of.
For that matter, why do we define knowledge as “justified true belief”, isn’t a belief just unjustifiably claimed knowledge? I don’t believe that certain things are how they are, I simply am unable to show how they could not be that way, and so I accept them to be true… at least to some extent.
Rational idealists unite! Death to the unjustifiable claims of knowledge!
Oh, I think I’m going to begin describing people as flat-earthers for believing GHE alarmism, thanks for the idea!
Good post.
Perhaps holding a religious faith and being a thinker are the two sides of a Hegelian dialectic?
[Reply: Indeed. Basically, mythos vs. logos…stupidity vs. rationality. But that’s not to say atheism is correct either. I prefer Gnostic Illuminism – 100% rational, and YOU are on your way to becoming God!]
Looking forward to more on this theme.
Joe, if you tell me something about Cepheids, I accept that as true because I do not know anything about the subject. Almost everybody has to accept knowledge in fields where he is not an expert. This also makes people vulnerable to charlatans. Even among experts there exists the stubborn belief that if a theory makes correct predictions, that theory must be true. A false theory like a paradox (or AGW) implies both p and not-p. Fifty percent of its predictions are true (variation of the clock standing still). I have seen a whole list of falsifications of AGW, including yours, and find it quite amazing that these do not count. What makes some experts obstinate believers of a falsified theory? Perhaps Popper has more to say here than Hegel. Added your site to my list of favorites.
[Reply: Indeed….how does one falsify a religion?]
You are correct in exploring the ethical and religious dimensions of the climate change movement. It is also important to recognize the human journey regarding morality.
The ethic of Good vs. Evil is a teleological paradigm, going all the way back to Plato, but still a reference for some today. This model asserts that values can be determined as eternal truths, applicable in all times and places.
Most people have moved to an ethic of Right vs. Wrong, a legal paradigm. Here morality is relative to a society that determines what is morally acceptable or not. And of course, there are variations both among different places, and within a single society over time.
Modern ethics has taken an additional step to an ethic of Responsiblity vs. Irresponsiblity, a contextual paradigm. Now moral behavior seeks the largest possible context: “the greatest good for the greatest number.” This can lead to some strange choices, such as suicide bombers or pro-life advocates who justify murdering abortion clinic doctors.
It should be clear that when climate alarmists appeal to saving the planet for future generations, they are applying contextual ethics. Less obvious is the ancient religious notion that by making sacrifices, we humans can assure more favorable weather. These days, fossil fuels have become the sacrificial lamb required by Mother Nature to play nice with human beings.
[Reply: Precisely!]
I was just explaining to someone on a forum that his claim about how “if a deranged model makes a confirmed prediction it isn’t deranged” breaks down in the face of things like earth centric models making successful eclipse predictions using epicycles.
Wonder what his response will be.
[Reply: LOL!! The insanity of these people! The stupidity! Sense perception is NOT truth. You can fit an N’th order polynomial perfectly to N+1 data points…does that mean the polynomial actually describes the reality of the underlying physics? No! Great example you thought of there with epicycles.]
Joe, you ask …
“Can anyone state what the dialectical resolution (synthesis) is between good and evil? ”
To answer that, you first have to define “good” and “evil” as they are concepts that change from person to person, culture to culture.
[Reply: Within the context of any person and culture, the contrast of good and evil exists. So within this all-embracing definition, what is the resolution of good and evil? Of course, this doesn’t extend to the nihilists who are unable to place value upon anything, even their own lives.]
My first pass resolution of good vs evil is pragmatism. Do I win a prize?
[Reply: Pragmatism might, under certain explanations, be the antithesis of the synthesis I am thinking of. The resolution between good and evil is also the opposite of the antithesis of republican democracy…that was the hint. What is it that makes republican democracy NOT work? It is the opposite of that which resolves evil, at least in much of its current manifestation.]
Joe, I think that putting republican democracy in the same philosophical arena as good and evil is mixing apples with fish (apples with oranges implies that both items can be at least categorised as fruit and I do not think you can even make that analogy in this case). Good and evil are concepts that are independent of any political system. However, I think what you are looking for is idealism which I can see as a synthesis of good and evil.
[Reply: It is more subtle than that. Good and evil is resolved by the opposite of the antithesis that republican democracy suffers from. Idealism is close…mental idealism. But what is that, really? It is rationalism. Reason. The solution to evil is reason. Republican democracy necessitates reason. Truly, evil is caused by stupidity. Can you really point out some human engaging in evil and say, “Oh hey, that’s really smart…”. You can’t. Was Abraham obeying the order to kill his son “smart”? Many Jews, Christians, and Muslims think so…but of course to think that you have to be a complete idiot. Stupidity is also the antithesis to democracy, as many have stated before. Once you have a stupid population, votes mean nothing. And that’s where we are now: an extremely dumbed down and stupid population in which the ideal of republican democracy is meaningless; this is happening everywhere votes are conducted, not just the US of course. Perhaps Plato’s “Philosopher King” is the solution to democracy failed by the stupid mob? That’s what he thought anyway…
The example we have, from Abrahamism, of an “infinite god” is rather poor: just read the Torah (Old Testament) and you will read a litany of crimes against humanity. If the “god” presented in the books of Abrahamism (Torah, Bible, Koran) isn’t actually Satan himself, the Demiurge, then I don’t know how one would define Satan. And if that’s the best we have for an infinite god, then we’re really in trouble. The truth of course, in this context, is simply that Jehovah is actually Satan, and why hence he was such a weak, sensitive, and jealous “being” that needed worship “before the other gods”. Huh? Other gods?! lol There is no science, math, morality, nor reason in any of Jehovah’s (Satan) books. It is all pure mythos, 100% devoid of logos and reason. Therefore, since it is obvious that Mythos is the purview of Satan (Jehovah) as openly stated in his books, then Logos must be the purview of the true God, and being the opposite of Satan (Jehovah), therefore being the opposite of evil. So, logos reason is the solution to evil, and is the good. That’s why Satan (Jehovah) hated that Eve chose to have knowledge, because she then was able to figure out that the master of the garden was actually Satan. The task for a human is to master their Dionysian “satanic” side, with reason, instead of having “reason” be the slave of passion. You can be passionate, just do it intelligently. ]
So, I was right the first time when I said “pragmatism”.
[Reply: No, you were entirely incorrect. Checking the wiki page on pragmatism: it denies the ontological existence of the mind, and it is a philosophy based in, essentially, materialism. There is nothing pragmatic or practical in Plato’s conception of the Republic…it is entirely a work of rational idealism. Pragmatism is also supportive of faith-based belief systems, and will incorporate such if found practical. Whereas there is no room for faith-based beliefs in rational idealism.]
Joe, my perception of “pragmatism” is probably closer to “rationalism” as you define it. I think I used to the wrong term for the right concept.
[Reply: Yes I suspected what you intended, but I used the opportunity to make the clarification. Cheers! :)]
I don’t know about a “new religion” of climate change, but there needs to be a “new paradigm” getting away from energy budgets.
Consideration of the planet Uranus very clearly indicates that radiative models (and any type of “Energy Budget” similar to those produced by the IPCC) can never be used to explain observed temperatures on Uranus. We can deduce that there must be some other physical process which transfers some of the energy absorbed in the upper levels of the Uranus atmosphere from the meagre 3W/m^2 of Solar radiation down into its depths, and that same mechanism must “work” on all planets with significant atmospheres.
Uranus is an unusual planet in that there is no evidence of any internal heat generation. Yet, as we read in this Wikipedia article, the temperature at the base of its (theoretical) troposphere is about 320K – quite a hot day on Earth. But it gets hotter still as we go further down in an atmosphere that is nearly 20,000Km in depth. Somewhere down there it is thought that there is indeed a solid core with about half the mass of Earth. The surface of that mini Earth is literally thousands of degrees. And of course there’s no Solar radiation reaching anywhere near that depth.
So how does the necessary energy get down there, or even as far as the 320K base of the troposphere? An explanation of this requires an understanding of the spontaneous process described in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is stated here as …
“The second law of thermodynamics: An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system”
Think about it, and I’ll be happy to answer any questions – and explain what actually happens, not only on Uranus, Venus, Jupiter etc, but also on Earth.
(continued)
The issue is not whether “climate denial” is right or wrong, but rather that the explanations pertaining to the greenhouse conjecture just simply don’t adhere to well known physics, and ignore the physics which explains the warming of the surface by non-radiative processes.
The IPCC (in its Glossary of Terms under “Greenhouse Effect”) refers to a “radiative forcing” effect which is by no means adequately explained in terms of physics. The concept of all radiation coming from a certain altitude is pure fiction. In fact the peak radiation comes from where water vapour is most prolific, somewhere around an altitude of 3Km. Radiative flux is quantified with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, and it is nothing like a nice linear function declining with altitude. Quite a bit comes from the surface straight to space anyway. The altitude at which equal amounts of outward radiation come from above and below (including the surface) can be shown to be about 3.0Km to 3.5Km. The whole plot rotates around this pivoting altitude such that it has a less steep gradient in moist regions, and thus intersects the surface at a lower temperature.
Now, it is obvious that a planet’s atmosphere does indeed lead to the surface being hotter than it would have been if it only received the same amount of incident Solar radiation but had no atmosphere. Venus would receive only 10W/m^2 and would thus be far colder without an atmosphere. Uranus would receive nothing from the Sun, and would thus be colder than 3K. Even if it received all of the Solar radiation reaching its TOA (about 3W/m^2) it would be colder than 60K.
So it is very clear that the concept of energy budgets supposedly balancing energy and, in effect, instantaneously determining surface temperatures is fictitious. The energy required to maintain these surface temperatures has built up over the life of the planet from just a small amount of the daily dose of Solar radiation, most of which, but not quite all, was radiated back to Space.
It is not a day to day balancing act, and so all radiative forcing and all energy budgets, even for Earth, are totally irrelevant.
The Sun is not heating the atmosphere and outer crust from zero K each day. Thermal energy has built up over many years and is trapped by the gravity effect which keeps more of it closer to the surface than to the top of the troposphere. It does so by the spontaneous evolving process described in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Heat can and does flow up the very shallow thermal gradient which represents the thermodynamic equilibrium described in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In doing so, flowing away from a new source of energy which is disturbing the thermodynamic equilibrium, it is merely acting with a propensity to restore the thermodynamic equilibrium, just as the Second Law says it will.
That is how some of the incident Solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere as night becomes day makes its way towards the surface, maintaining the thermal gradient determined by gravity (and reduced a little by inter-molecular radiation) so that the base of the troposphere is kept warm and thus “supports” surface temperatures. This is a non-radiative convection process which has nothing to do with radiative forcing.
Radiative models are simply not relevant.
If you believe that planetary surface temperatures are all to do with radiative forcing rather than non-radiative heat transfers, then you are implicitly agreeing with IPCC authors (and Roy Spencer) that a column of air in the troposphere would have been isothermal but for the assumed greenhouse effect. You are believing this because you are believing the 19th century simplification of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which said heat only transfers from hot to cold – a “law” which is indeed true for all radiation, but only strictly true in a horizontal plane for non-radiative heat transfer by conduction.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics in its modern form explains a process in which thermodynamic equilibrium “spontaneously evolves” and that thermodynamic equilibrium will be the state of greatest accessible entropy.
Now, thermodynamic equilibrium is not just about temperature, which is determined by the mean kinetic energy of molecules, and nothing else. Pressure, for example, does not control temperature. Thermodynamic equilibrium is a state in which total energy (including potential energy) is homogeneous, because if it were not homogeneous, then work could be done and so entropy could still increase.
When such a state of thermodynamic equilibrium evolves in a vertical plane in any solid, liquid or gas, molecules at the top of a column will have more gravitational potential energy (PE), and so they must have less kinetic energy (KE), and so a lower temperature, than molecules at the bottom of the column. This state evolves spontaneously as molecules interchange PE and KE in free flight between collisions, and then share the adjusted KE during the next collision.
This postulate was put forward by the brilliant physicist Loschmidt in the 19th century, but has been swept under the carpet by those advocating that radiative forcing is necessary to explain the observed surface temperatures. Radiative forcing could never explain the mean temperature of the Venus surface, or that at the base of the troposphere of Uranus – or that at the surface of Earth.
The gravitationally induced temperature gradient in every planetary troposphere is fully sufficient to explain all planetary surface temperatures. All the weak attempts to disprove it, such as a thought experiment with a wire outside a cylinder of gas, are flawed, simply because they neglect the temperature gradient in the wire itself, or other similar oversights.
The gravity effect is a reality and the dispute is not an acceptable disagreement.
The issue is easy to resolve with a straight forward, correct understanding of the implications of the spontaneous process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Hence radiative forcing is not what causes the warming, and so carbon dioxide has nothing to do with what is just natural climate change.
Nearly everyone, (including myself until a year ago) is still sucked into the line of thinking first thrust upon the world by the AGW crowd, namely that it is all to do with radiative forcing. Yes, this includes virtually all other PSI members..
I have been thinking this through for a long time and am now firmly of the opinion that all these energy budgets are incomplete, mainly because they don’t show the missing link. On Venus and Uranus that missing link is a huge amount of energy which must flow downwards in the atmosphere. It’s quite a lot on Earth too. Over the life of these planets there has been a build up of thermal energy from the Sun which can’t escape.
So these planets (Uranus, Venus, Earth) are not still cooling off. It’s cold out there where Uranus is because it only receives about 3W/m^2 in the very top of its atmosphere. It could easily have cooled off, but for the one thing that stops it. And that one thing is the gravitationally induced thermal gradient which forms by diffusion at the molecular level,, because molecules in free flight between collisions interchange kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy. In just two lines of calculations, you can derive the -g/Cp value by equating PE and -KE. Kinetic energy will tend towards being homogeneous during collisions, but only at each altitude. Inter-molecular radiation reduces the gradient by up to about a third, but by less than 5% on Uranus where there is just a little methane causing that.
The Clausius (hot to cold) statement of the Second Law is not comprehensive and for conduction and diffusion it only applies in a horizontal plane. The process described in the Second Law means that thermodynamic equilibrium evolves spontaneously, and, in the process of maintaining such equilibrium there must evolve a temperature gradient. Most importantly, extra energy absorbed at higher altitudes can actually flow up this gradient because that will help restore the equilibrium.
Let’s consider some facts. Is the Arctic warming? Yes, like everywhere else, with a long-term trend for 500 years rising out of the Little Ice Age at the rate of about half a degree per century, due to turn to cooling at least within 200 years. But is there a hockey stick? No.
In fact the Arctic is no hotter than it was in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s.
Is there a super-imposed 60 year natural cycle that caused all the alarm during the 30 years of rising prior to 1998? Yes.
But it’s all natural – every bit of it. And it’s nothing whatsoever to do with carbon dioxide, radiative forcing, back radiation, greenhouse effects or any such travesties of physics.
The AGW Greenhouse Effect’s cold Sun is calculated by planckian skullduggery on the thin 300 mile wide atmosphere of visible light around the Sun – it is so ludicrous it hurts to think this is not only not questioned by ‘climate scientists’ or those great bodies of science, but actively promoted by them ..
The Greenhouse Effect is an impossible world with its Sun a cold Star of 6000°C, around the temp of Earth’s innards, but they have a good reason for this science fraud – to eliminate the direct radiant heat from our real millions of degrees hot real Star our Sun, so they can then pretend all real world measurements downwelling are from “the atmosphere backradiating by greenhouse gases”, and not from the Sun.
So, the Greenhouse Effect Illusion is “shortwave in longwave out”, and they have two ‘explanations’ for radiant heat from the Sun not reaching the Earth’s surface.
The ‘original’ of the KT97 and ilk cartoons, that there is an “invisible barrier like the glass of a greenhouse at TOA preventing longwave infrared heat entering”.
This invisible barrier is unknown to traditional physics, which teaches that the heat we feel from the Sun is the electromagnetic wavelength of heat, longwave infrared, which is why it is called thermal.
By more science fraud sleight of hand the AGWScienceFiction version says that thermal refers to the heat source.. The AGWSF meme to hide this fraud, and others, is “all electromagnetic radiation is the same and all create heat on being absorbed”.
The second explanation which I have been told is the AGW version which disdains the ‘original’ which is CAGW. Shrug. Their explanation is even more ludicrous – the cold “Sun of 6000°C which gives off insignificant longwave infrared and insignificant of insignificant reaches TOA”
To hide all their, both versions, shenanigans of using the real direct radiant heat measurements for their “backradiation by greenhouse gases” claim, they have had to create the fiction that visible light from the Sun is the source of heat and what we feel as heat. This is physically impossible in the real world, it is gibberish nonsense but is believed because it was introduced into the education system through teaching the Greenhouse Effect. It is now ‘official’ and in dictionaries and encyclopedias and taught at university level.
Visible light works on the electronic transition level, that is, on the electron level, and not on the bigger molecular vibrational level which is what it takes to heat matter up. The whole molecule has to be vibrated, internal kinetic energy which is heat.
Rub your hands together, that is mechanical energy moving the molecules of your skin into vibration, which we can feel as heat, because it is heat. This is what radiant heat, aka longwave infrared, aka thermal infrared which is heat transfer by radiation, does to our skin, and, we absorb it and it heats the water in us internally. This is the direct heat of the Sun in transfer by radiation which heats up land and water of the ocean and us.
We cannot feel visible light, it is not a thermal energy, it is not hot, it is not heat. Heat from the Sun is the Sun’s thermal energy on the move to us transferred by radiation.
Light is not heat, that is why we have these two basic categories already defined in traditional physics, we get light and heat from the Sun.
Near infrared is 1% of the “Solar shortwave in” in the AGWSF comic cartoon energy budget, in real world physics this is not thermal either, that is why infrared was divided into thermal and non-thermal, because not all infrared was Heat. Near infrared is classed with light as Reflective not Thermal.
Electronic transitions of visible light from the Sun – visible light is much tinier than longwave infrared heat and is absorbed by the electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen in our atmosphere, which are briefly energised by this and move in their orbit. Always wanting to return to ground state they do and in doing so emit the same light they took in – this is how we get our blue sky. This is the electronic transition of reflection/scattering. This is not moving the whole molecule into vibration. Visible light is not ionising as is some uv, which means it is too weak to move the tiny electron out of its orbit..
Visible light from the Sun cannot heat the water of the ocean, water is a transparent medium for visible light which means the water molecules do not absorb it at all, not even on the electronic transition level, it is transmitted through unchanged.
There is an extra twist to this sleight of hand trickery – the comic cartoon uses the figure for the solar constant for its “shortwave in” at TOA – but this is a traditional physics measurement of radiant heat energy at the Earth’s surface, calculated by how much heat energy from the Sun heats up the surface.
So, we have the weird KT97 which places that at TOA and calls it “shortwave in mainly visible light”, then subtracts from that figure the shortwave scattering etc. to get its surface figure “absorbed and converted to heat”, and so, ends up with more heat energy upwelling from the Earth than they have energy coming in..
This is an old page from NASA which was taken down from their site, but still exists in isolation.., someone did not want traditional real world empirically well understood physics of heat and light to disappear:
NASA traditional physics teaching:
“Infrared light lies between the visible and microwave portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Infrared light has a range of wavelengths, just like visible light has wavelengths that range from red light to violet. “Near infrared” light is closest in wavelength to visible light and “far infrared” is closer to the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The longer, far infrared wavelengths are about the size of a pin head and the shorter, near infrared ones are the size of cells, or are microscopic.
“Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared. The temperature-sensitive nerve endings in our skin can detect the difference between inside body temperature and outside skin temperature
“Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all – in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are the ones used by your TV’s remote control.”
http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared.html
The AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect has fraudulently changed basic physics, and this has been brainwashed through the general education system.
Which is why it is not questioned, the memes have become the new ‘scientific basics’ and taken for granted so never thought about.
Just as the real gases of nitrogen and oxygen and carbon dioxide have been replaced by sleight of hand by the real world physics imaginary “ideal gas”, without mass therefore not subject to gravity and without weight, and without volume and attraction, which means, their Greenhouse Effect atmosphere is empty space, which is why they have no sound.
To stop their massless hard dots of nothing disappearing to the ends of the universe at great speed under their own molecular momentum, they have created another invisible “container” against which these molecules miles apart from each other in empty space bounce back from and off each other at great speeds, so “thoroughly mixing they cannot be unmixed” – hence their “well mixed carbon dioxide” and “carbon dioxide accumulates for hundreds and thousands of years”..
Carbon dioxide is a real gas with real properties and processes in traditional physics, it is heavier than air and so will always sink in air, and will not readily rise in air, it takes work to change that.
Carbon dioxide is also fully part of the Water Cycle, which AGWSF has disappeared as it has the real direct heat from the Sun. The residence time of water in the atmosphere is 8-10 days, all natural unpolluted rain has a pH of around 5.6-8 because water and carbon dioxide have a great attraction for each other, forming cabonic acid.
And, the problem is the “Greenhouse Effect” ‘theory’.
It has never been shown to exist.
Real, empirically well tried and tested up to date modern physics as still traditionally taught shows this “GHE” is faked physics.
The -18°C comes from real physics and is the temperature of the Earth without any atmosphere at all, it is not the temperature without the AGWs “greenhouse gases” – compare with the Moon -23°C.
The real atmosphere of mainly nitrogen and oxygen, but minus water, think deserts, is 67°C.
It is the heavy voluminous real gas atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen which is the real thermal blanket around the Earth.
Not the trace real gas carbon dioxide which is practically 100% hole in the atmosphere.
They have removed the Water Cycle and have no rain in their Carbon Cycle, they have no direct heat from our millions of degrees hot Sun and they have excised the whole of the real gas atmosphere in which real gases expand when heated and so rise because lighter than air, and condense when cooled so sink, which is how we get our heat transfer by convection and winds, and replaced it with “empty space populated by massless ideal gas miles apart from each other” – their impossible imaginary Earth goes straight from the surface to empty space, hence their “radiation physics”..
Which is why they have trouble hearing this..
The dogma of the new religion’s The Greenhouse Effect..
A parallel to the saying, “Where there’s smoke there’s fire” is the saying, “Where bad science is being practiced, there’s an agenda.” I’ll let you connect the dots.
Joe, I think this history of the rise of the Gaia Theory and the religion of “green” is interesting:
http://openmythsource.com/2010/11/04/the-biocentric-philosophy-of-the-gaia-hypothesis-and-the-rise-of-global-green-religion/
Hegel was positing the relationships between philosophical categories; essence/appearance, chance/necessity, particular/universal to name a few. Good and evil are relative terms, and like all moral constructs have a social origin. Howver, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a dialectical relationship between such terms,as twentieth century history has tragicaly demonstrated. Incidentally, I am a left-wing opponent of global warming hysteria and hype.
The resolution of good and evil… Amorality?
Reason.
Pingback: Thanks To IPCC Public Doesn’t Know Water Vapor Is Most Important Greenhouse Gas – American Creed
Pingback: CO2 Data Manipulation – The Great Climate Debate
Could be that good is one possible resolution of two opposite evils, the other possible resolution would be a third type of evil worse than the original two opposite ones.