Climate Alarm and the Abomination of Desolation

Why doesn’t the alarmist greenhouse effect exist?  Because alarmists think that the Sun and sunshine can’t melt ice without it, even on Mercury, let alone Earth.  Of course, aside from all of the basic physics and mathematics we’ve discussed here, if you just want to look at it in terms of simple logical induction, if alarmists believe that their greenhouse effect exists because Sunshine can’t melt ice on the equator, or on the planet Mercury, then the greenhouse effect must not exist since Sunshine can do these things, and the alarmists are simply wrong in their belief system.

Note here the name for the climate science greenhouse effect which has been found – this is something I’ve struggled with logically naming in the past, usually calling it the “climate science greenhouse effect” or “radiative greenhouse effect”, etc.  Perhaps the best name for their belief is the Alarmist Greenhouse Effect, of course to be distinguished from a real greenhouse as discussed here.  The climate science greenhouse effect has only one purpose: to be alarming.  Hence, it should be called the alarmist greenhouse effect.

So let’s look at some statements from a climate alarmist I was interacting with the other day.  If you read the comments, and if you’ve been around here lately, you will note my approach has become much meaner – I’m exploring what happens if I just insult the heck out of people, just absolutely insult and verbally punish them.  Why not?  Being nice to people has never really worked, and I’ve come across a theory recently which says that most people actually like and prefer to be punished and abused, rather than be given truth and a happy freedom.

Calvinius:

“You’re seriously denying that the greenhouse effect exists? Wow, that’s a whole new level of dishonesty. Without the greenhouse effect, the entire planet, all the way to the equator, would be in a permanent ice age and life more complex than bacteria would be nonexistent.

Without the greenhouse effect, sunlight wouldn’t melt ice.

BTW, there’s ice on Mercury, despite it being 2.5 times closer to the sun than Earth.

So, here we see the fundamental underpinning of alarmist greenhouse theory, parroted by this idiot “Calvinius”.  I had just informed the fellow that the Sun CAN melt ice on the Earth and that sunshine is hot, that we need a real-time spherical model not an averaged flat-Earth model, etc.

His response, and those who follow it in climate alarm, represent the Abomination of Desolation.

It is such, because you have to be a disgusting mental and moral degenerate of an order far beyond the likes of any moral or intellectual evil we have ever encountered in humans in our past, to say something so absolutely devoid of logic and reason and opposite of reality.

You have to be absolutely mentally and hence spiritually desolate to think that the Sun’s rays can not melt ice on the planet Earth, let alone the planet Mercury.  There being ice on Mercury in permanently-dark craters near the poles does not mean that the Sun can’t melt ice on Mercury, but this is the sophistic implication which the fellow was attempting.

These are disgusting things to say…these are sick, vomitously nauseating things to say.  These things are absolutely desolate - without any type of qualification, they are simply the pure definition of desolation – and those who think them are an abomination unto existence.  They are an abomination of desolation that can make you physically puke, if you truly witness them in your minds eye for the mentally fetid disgustment of pile of rotting faeces and viscera and entralia that is their non-existent soul and mind which you will surely see.

____

And these are the people who are climate alarmists, who believe in the alarming greenhouse effect, because they have desolated themselves from the reality of the Sun.

____

Every climatetard-alarmist idiot should be rounded up and put deep into a desert or forest and FORCED to not change their environment.

How long can these idiots last without changing their environment?

Do you get it, idiots? Man can not survive without changing the environment.

We’re not animals – We have MINDS!

The only way man survives is by changing her environment.  Read here, The Anti-Mind of Climate Alarm.

And carbon dioxide is plant food, and is actually the very basis of life itself; it is not pollution you miserable freaks.

We MAKE our environment behave the way WE want it to, so that it becomes conducive to our (man’s) existence.

We don’t “adapt to climate change”, we make the climate adapt to us. Seeding the atmosphere with a natural organic fertilizer (carbon dioxide) is the most rational thing we could have ever done.

Some of my Illuminist friends say it is our duty to raise the consciousness of those still in the dark.  I mostly agree.  However, when I am faced with people like this Calvinius, my Gnostic Spirit deeply desires to mete total destruction to the stupid, to the liars.

Anyway, happy days :)

About these ads
Gallery | This entry was posted in Sophistry and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

103 Responses to Climate Alarm and the Abomination of Desolation

  1. Greg House says:

    “Some of my Illuminist friends say”
    ========================================

    Joe, if you want to have some reasonable discussions on climate issues on this blog, I humbly suggest you keep your illuminism away from climate topics. Just for practical reasons. For the same reasons it would be even better, if you started another blog on illuminism and kept it completely away from this one.

  2. I disagree. People who wish to hide from knowledge can keep hiding; when the time comes, they’ll have long sealed their fate, and I relish that time.

    Do you really think that anything that I write can have an effect on people who believe in the greenhouse effect? Demonstrably, no. This place is for people who know the score, like reviewing it, and can do something else with it.

  3. If I can’t convince PhD’s in physics that there is a physical mathematical difference between a plane and a sphere, the average person who can merely follow what the “authorities” have to say rather than think for themselves, I have absolutely no hope with. Of course that’s the same problem with these “PhD’s” – they need for my work to be peer-reviewed by the “authorities” before they can accept it or even think about it. They need me to submit for peer-review the mathematical difference between a plane and a sphere, under the conditions of conserving energy and surface area.

    This I will not do. I will not do it. I’ve been asked to, but I will not do it. Because what I want is for people to wake up and be free of slave mentalities (which is what climate alarm is all about), which means to think and decide for themselves. If they merely begin to tentatively accept it, or still reject it, after peer-review, it has done nothing for actually initiating a cognitive awakening. And yes, to have woken up, you WILL begin to comprehend that there is an important mathematical physical difference as referenced – it is not a matter of opinion or my ego and wanting followers…the Earth truly is a sphere and sunshine truly is warm enough to melt ice, and hence the premises of the alarming greenhouse effect truly are wrong.

    The climate alarmist slave religion machine can ignore a peer-reviewed paper as easily as they are currently doing. Well, maybe I’ll publish it in a philosophy journal rather than a physics journal, since the underlying problem is truly one more of cognition and logical mentation.

  4. Greg House says:

    Joe, I do not think this is that hopeless. My impression is that the most people fooled by propaganda can still be unfooled by reasonable explanations. However, this should be done in the most understandable way. And they should not be alienated by excessive language and some other topics.

  5. Joe, please don’t hold back and just tell us what you really think LOL

    Have you seen these 3 papers that refute the conventional GHE explanation? I’d be interested in your opinions…

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/02/three-new-papers-challenge.html

  6. D.M. says:

    In a report from a recent committee meeting in the UK House of Commons (on climate change) I read that Professor Lindzen had said “Climate scientists were not very bright”. This got me thinking because it was a conclusion I had come to for some time. I then wondered what academic entry qualifications you needed to study “climate science”? So where better to look than the home of the “climategate emails” – the University of East Anglia where many of the world’s “best known climate scientists” are based.

    Here is the link stating entry requirements for a B.Sc in Climate Science – http://www.uea.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/degree/detail/bsc-climate-science#requirements . It should be noted that a qualification in physics is NOT a mandatory requirement! Only ONE science subject is required and quote “Acceptable science subjects include: Biology, Chemistry, Environmental Science / Studies, Geography, Geology, Mathematics, Physics”. So I’m afraid Joe that “climate scientists” churned out by the UAE are not going to be able to understand all the good stuff which you have explained so well.

    The actual course contents are described here – http://www.uea.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/degree/detail/bsc-climate-science . Again there doesn’t seem to be any physics in the course, but there is a module in the 2nd year on “climate change”. So to be able to teach students a subject called “climate change” the science must now be settled! Perhaps data tampering is in there somewhere as well!

    How can anyone be called a scientist if they don’t have to study the basic laws of physics? Perhaps this explains why there is so much nonsense spouted by so called “climate scientists”, even if they profess to have PhDs

  7. Greg House says:

    Hockey Schtick, I have just read in your introduction “The papers [...] support the position of some skeptics that the entire 33K “greenhouse effect” is explainable solely on the basis of the natural lapse rate alone, with unmeasurable influence from CO2″. You urgently need to update your knowledge, because there is no “33K “greenhouse effect””. This 33°C difference is a false number calculated via a false application of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

    There is no “additional average temperature” on Earth created by whatever, including lapse rate.

  8. Henri Suyderhoud says:

    Joe, I am surprised that many “deniers” are still talking about the “bad but small efffect of CO2s Why is CO2 given an even small influence on global warming, when it doesn’t exist? Here are my reasons.

    KINETIC THEORY OF GAS APPLIED TO GLOBAL WARMING

    It will be shown that the presence of CO2 at its present proportion (400 ppm) can have no influence on the increase of temperature of the atmosphere, assuming that an increase in temperature exists in the first place, say for the past 75 years.

    The kinetic theory of gas was very successfully applied during the development of Thermodynamics by such great men like Joule, Maxwell, Stefan, Bolzmann, Kirchhoff, Boyle, Mayer, Van der Waals, Poisson, Kamerling-Onnes and Avogadro, to name some of the most influential scientists.

    A gas, or a mixture of gasses like the atmosphere, can be thought of consisting of molecules moving about randomly, each having an average speed v, being a 3-dimensional vector with three components vi , i=1,..,3. It is true that the gas has an average temperature of say, T K(degrees Kelvin, i.e., w/r to absolute zero). Under calm weather conditions, this representation applied to the atmosphere is a very good description of reality. If we were to enclose a portion of this air in a cylindrical container V with a moving piston attached to it, the well know gas law has been derived which holds that

    P.V = 1/3 Nmv2 = 2/2×3 Nmv2 = 2/3x(Nx1/2mv2 ) = 2/3xE

    where N stands for the number of molecules (a very large number, in the billions) in the container V, and P is the pressure inside V, while m is mass and v is speed of the molecules, while E is the total kinetic energy of all molecules, being a constant at a given temperature T.

    Now let’s consider the 400 ppm presence of CO2 in this gas mixture. It amounts to an average of one (1) molecule of CO2 in the presence of 2500 molecules of other gases, mostly Oxygen, Nitrogen, and some other trace gases. During daytime, when there are no clouds, the Sun sends its EM (electro-magnetic) energy mostly in the visible part of its spectrum, to Earth. That energy is absorbed by the Earth’s crust outer layer, cities and towns, some of it by the atmosphere, some of it by the Earth’s water (oceans, lakes, rivers), etc.

    The fact that we can measure the daily temperature increase of say, the sand on the beaches, and in the many structures that exist, and of buildings, and in water in its diverse locations, can be ascribed to the increased molecular activity of the substance under consideration. Some of that EM energy of the Sun is absorbed by solid matter in two possible ways. First, it will be manifested by increased molecular vibrations, exhibiting itself by feeling warmer, for example. Some of that Sun energy however will be absorbed by causing the internal energy of the molecules to increase, by complex outer layer electron positioning within the great variety of Earth’s molecules in their upper layers.

    This internal energy increase is different according the composition of Earth’s material composition. To be more precise, it is dependent on the absorption spectrum of that material. During the night period of the day-night cycle when the Sun is not reaching that diverse material, some of the energy of the Sun that was absorbed before, is returned to space in part by heating up the air above it by means of (convective) molecular vibrations being more vigorous than those of the air it is in touch with. CO2 is present in the ratio of 1:2500, and it receives its minute share by achieving an increase in vibratory motion, thus being “warmer” than before, like the rest of the atmosphere. However, it can be stated that the unfavorable ratio of 1:2500 has no influence on convective heat transportation, and thus the temperature T.

    There is also radiative EM energy released by “Earth”, by whatever composition that may be. That energy is determined by a diversity of spectral radiation characteristics. This radiation is spread over many parts of the EM spectrum, but a significant amount of it is found to be in the red and infra-red part. CO2 has the characteristic of absorbing EM energy in that infra-red part of the spectrum. It can be stated however that the absorption of such radiated energy by CO2 is very minute in the first place relative to what escapes, for the same reasons of being so scarcely present, relatively speaking. Moreover, what happens when and if each CO2 molecule emits such infra-red radiation back out? Given the random orientation of the molecules, it must be expected that at least 50 per cent of the infra-red CO2 energy when emitted never reaches Earth. And when less than 50 per cent of that minute amount reaches Earth, there might be a question as to how it will affect Earth, if it were measurable at all, and it isn’t. Thermodynamics’ Second Law teaches us that such a process does not result in a transfer of heat (Q), because the temperature of the atmosphere where the CO2 resides is lower than Earth’s crust. Thus, no increased molecular activity can result, and hence, no increased temperature can occur due to radiation from CO2. This minute amount of radiation is lost in the shuffle. The Earth is simply reflecting it back at the ratio 1:2500 or absorbing it back to where it came from in the first place.

    In conclusion, the day-night cycle of this process gives CO2 no opportunity to impart energy back to earth and cause increased T values, thus no temperature effect on the lower layer of Earth’s crust or its atmosphere. Other factors must have caused the temperature to increase before, but the trend ceased in the most recent 15-17 years, as the record clearly shows. Deliberately omitted in this analysis is further influence from wind, clouds (if present), and some kind of similarity with a greenhouse behavior. The latter in particular can only be extremely minute given the 1:2500 “disadvantage” of CO2 presence in the atmosphere.

    Henri Suyderhoud – 02/23/2014

  9. This is an amazing idea check it out. Lets create massive inland mangrove swamps in the sand seas of Algeria with water pumped over the Atlas mountains near Tan Tan in Morocco. Once over the mountains the water will pool in shallow seas that can be planted with salt water mangrove, plant enough and we’ll create weather and fresh water will fall over the entire Sahara. That means savannah and forests and sustainability. Please like and share the page if you can! https://www.facebook.com/greatsaharanforestproject

  10. SkepticGoneWild says:

    Hi Joseph,

    This is off-topic to your above particular post, but something you might be interested in commenting on in maybe a future post.

    There are apparently three new papers that challenge the greenhouse effect, and atmospheric physics:

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/02/three-new-papers-challenge.html

    The article states:

    “The papers are based on weather balloon observations, theory, and laboratory experiments, and support the position of some skeptics that the entire 33K “greenhouse effect” is explainable solely on the basis of the natural lapse rate alone, with unmeasurable influence from CO2. The papers collectively demonstrate man-made greenhouse gases have a trivial, unmeasurable effect on global temperatures.”

    Sorry to post it here, but I didn’t know where else to post.

  11. johnmarshall says:

    Thanks again Joe.
    Increase in CO2 atmospheric content will increase the overall mass of the atmospheric column, which will increase the kinetic energy, increase temperature a minute amount. But this increased CO2 content will increase the atmospheres ability to loose heat/reduce the surface insolation. So overall there will be a zero temperature increase.

  12. Arfur Bryant says:

    Max,

    Agreed. But, with phrases like ["With this in mind, we suggest that the so-called “climate sensitivity” is exactly zero, i.e., doubling the relative concentration of infra-red active gases in the atmosphere will not alter the atmospheric temperature profile."], it is not surprising they will likely meet resistance in the pal-review system! :)

    It seems there is hope for objective science after all…

  13. SkepticGoneWild says:

    Oops. haha. Did not see earlier post on the 3 papers I mentioned.

  14. Will Janoschka says:

    Joseph E Postma says: 2014/02/27 at 3:37 PM
    This I will not do. I will not do it. I’ve been asked to, but I will not do it. Because what I want is for people to wake up and be free of slave mentalities (which is what climate alarm is all about), which means to think and decide for themselves. If they merely begin to tentatively accept it, or still reject it, after peer-review, it has done nothing for actually initiating a cognitive awakening. And yes, to have woken up, you WILL begin to comprehend that there is an important mathematical physical difference as referenced – it is not a matter of opinion or my ego and wanting followers…the Earth truly is a sphere and sunshine truly is warm enough to melt ice, and hence the premises of the alarming greenhouse effect truly are wrong.
    Thank you Joesph,
    I agree with all your logic in debunking all CO2 stupid claims. it is all corect, in any POV.

    Please consider my different POV. You insist that true mathematics, is physical, and always correct. I disagree, true mathematics is always wonderfully conceptual and devoid of any physical.. Modern conceptual mathematics can calculate the probility of your being gored, and eaten by the local rhinoceros today, or and the probility of your being stomped on and eaten by the local T-rex today., your conceptual mathematics has no concept of how fast “you” (one non statistical entity will run or dodge). I also disike stomping and eating. however goring has been popular in Spain, for many years.
    Your conceptual mathematics, though useful as to what may be. Has nothing to offer in what physically “is”. Please offer a better way of discovering what “is” right here, right now!! -will-

  15. Joe & others:

    I finally found a free copy of this paper which we talked about a few months ago on another thread where you commented:

    http://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.pdf

    Joseph E Postma says:
    2013/12/09 at 7:04 PM

    Yes that is really really neat about the 0.1 bar thing. Why? Because one thing I’ve always found curious is that, given all the differences in insolation at the surface (Venus has hardly any direct insolation at its ground surface) and other atmospheric differences, if you combine the radiative surface with the atmosphere’s lapse rate, you always calculate the near-surface-air temperature correctly. So if IR opacity is largely dependent simply on pressure, then bang, that defines where the radiative surface is going to be and then it automatically follows what the air temperature at the surface will be given the particular lapse rate. Great stuff.

    Common 0.1 bar tropopause in thick atmospheres set by pressure-dependent infrared transparency

    ” At higher pressures, atmospheres become opaque to thermal
    radiation, causing temperatures to increase with depth and
    convection to ensue. A common dependence of infrared
    opacity on pressure, arising from the shared physics of
    molecular absorption, sets the 0.1 bar tropopause. We reason
    that a tropopause at a pressure of approximately 0.1 bar is
    characteristic of many thick atmospheres, including exoplanets
    and exomoons in our galaxy and beyond.”

    My reading of the paper is that the entire T profile of any planetary atmosphere is set by lapse rate from tropopause at 0.1 bar down to the surface.

    The CAGW alarmists are claiming that somehow CO2 sets the height at which P=0.1 bar, I say it’s independent of CO2 levels.

    Anyone have opinions on this?

  16. D.M. says:

    Hi Joe,
    I was initially impressed with these new papers (http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/02/three-new-papers-challenge.html) until I read down the comments and answers from the authors. That is when I came upon this comment from one of the authors. Quote –
    “1. The Earth system (surface + atmosphere) absorbs about 240 W/m2 of incoming solar radiation (mostly UV/vis and shortwave IR), and reflects about 100 W/m2 (“albedo”, etc).
    2. The Earth system (surface + atmosphere) emits roughly the same amount back to space (about 240 W/m2), mostly in the form of longwave IR”.
    This is the same nonsense shown in the K&T cartoon. So they have accepted the concept of an average flux calculated from radiation acting on the whole of the earth’s surface (so flux in = flux out). Although they have some good stuff in their papers, this unfortunately becomes overall another example of trying to baffle us with science and all the good stuff can get ignored. What is so difficult to understand about radiation flux that averaging it, and adding it, is nonsense in physics?
    You have explained some good points in all your articles Joe, but what we need now is a relatively short article bringing everything together. That is explaining energy, flux in doesn’t equal flux out, through to your real time model and experimental evidence. Refer to your original articles for specific details and explanations. It would become a concise reference for us to quote to people who wouldn’t trawl through all your separated posts.

  17. @Greg House 2014/02/27 at 4:15 PM

    Understood, and I have an avenue to go in that direction that would be successful. I should focus on that rather than spend so much time online…or get it done and then come back online. Thanks for the advice.

  18. @Hockey Schtick 2014/02/27 at 4:27 PM

    It looks like they’re doing honest work at first glance. Interesting that they’re basically copying PSI in this idea of an open online review system. However, we found it doesn’t work, as is evidenced on their own blog. Because what you get is some degenerate hounding you using sophist debate tactics to avoid the point of otherwise basic research, and so you see this idiot commenting under “then there’s physics” on their blog hounding them with idiocy and a magical ability to miss the point, and be a dark-minded follower rather than self-thinker, etc. It is interesting to be able to SEE that happening to someone else, as I’ve certainly become aware of how the tactics have been applied to me. Now that I know, I know how to get around them, and will be attempting to do that soon, as per Greg House’ advice etc.

  19. @D.M. 2014/02/27 at 4:30 PM

    Yes indeed, they simply do not understand physics and mathematics. They literally do not have any concept of physics. We see this even in the “more respected” (lol) climate scientists such as Roy Spencer, who didn’t know what a time-dependent differential equation was! And then take the case of Dr. Robert Brown, an outside observer, who still doesn’t understand how to do basic physical algebra – he can do algebra, but he doesn’t understand how to do physics with his algebra and gets into insane and erroneous reinterpretations of the equations.

    So yes, you’re right, they can do an average, but they don’t know what an average is, and have no concept if an average is actually physical, etc. Things like that.

    In terms of the archetypal psychology occurring, climate alarm is simply a new religion, identical to the old one: feel guilty for your living, feel guilty for having a mind which is used to BE human, seek “indulgences” and “blessings” to be able to live (carbon tax = sin tax = indulgences), and watch out for the sky God which may seek vengeance upon you at any moment.

  20. @Greg House 2014/02/27 at 4:40 PM

    Yes to follow on that, Earth’s temperature is not “33K hotter than it should be”. The radiative temperature of Earth, just as it is for any other planet, is exactly what it’s radiation says it is, which obeys conservation of energy. It is semantics but in this case the semantics are physics – the bottom-of-the-atmosphere temperature is not the surface temperature, and the surface temperature is not the average temperature.

    On a related note as I’e been repeating lately, in radiative physics the ONLY thing that determines a radiating substance’s temperature, it is emissivity. O2 and N2 have next to no emissivity, hence they are the warming gases, if you want to call them that. Also, think of the differential in lapse rate for ascending air vs. descending air – in Calgary these are called Chinooks and occur because of the mountains, however this is something that occurs anywhere – it is just something which is amplified across mountain ranges: moist air rises with a slow lapse rate, the air divests itself of that moisture, and when that air falls back down, it falls with a steeper lapse rate; this occurs anywhere and anytime there is precipitation.

  21. @Henri 2014/02/27 at 5:19 PM

    Thanks for that analysis. Good work. Indeed, CO2 can not impart heat back to the surface, and there simply is no such thing as trapping heat such as to increase the temperature of the source, outside of if we might call such a thing “low emissivity”, which we wouldn’t since we already call it emissivity.

  22. @kevin dwan 2014/02/27 at 5:40 PM

    Yes indeed, great idea. That is the kind of environmentalism and development that is sane and progressive and future-oriented. Brilliant stuff.

  23. @SkepticGoneWild 2014/02/28 at 1:06 AM
    @Max 2014/02/28 at 3:05 AM

    I haven’t had time to really read it yet. Hopefully it’s not just some other crank trying to associate themselves with GHE criticism and the Slayers in order muddy the waters, like Doug Cotton.

  24. @D.M. 2014/03/02 at 10:09 AM

    Agreed.

  25. Arfur Bryant says:

    Joe,

    ["...in Calgary these are called Chinooks and occur because of the mountains, however this is something that occurs anywhere..."]

    It is known as The Föhn Effect.

    Regards,

  26. OK I read the 3rd paper: http://oprj.net/oprj-archive/atmospheric-science/25/oprj-article-atmospheric-science-25.pdf

    So this appears to be legitimate science…it is how science is supposed to be done. Looks like great work with good scientific conclusions.

  27. Will Janoschka says:

    @Joseph E Postma says:2014/03/03 at 9:57 AM
    @SkepticGoneWild 2014/02/28 at 1:06 AM
    @Max 2014/02/28 at 3:05 AM
    I haven’t had time to really read it yet. Hopefully it’s not just some other crank trying to associate themselves with GHE criticism and the Slayers in order muddy the waters, like Doug Cotton.

    Joseph,
    IMHO the Connolly three papers are the first scientific “conjecture”, that truly competes with the religious non-science, but apeal to athority, of Your Climate Clowns!
    I consider this true “conjecture” with one repeatable observation, outstanding, and a discovery of a new path to understanding. All the Clowns have is fantasy! Please quickly read all three entirely, then report here on your opinion of such. I find these three papers, fraught with attack points, from the well organised Climate Clowns, very compelling reading. To become a “hypothesis”, this conjecture only needs a defined method of falsification!
    Joseph if you read these, three with attemped comprehension, I W.J. promise to read “any” three of your Illuminati papers with attemped comprehension. Not a challange Joe, but an opportunity to learn an ugly opposing POV. At the end, if we both survive. A purchasing of any wished for imbibement by the other, then a polite discussion limited to “has either of us learned anything”!

  28. I will read the other two papers Will :)

  29. Right, I’ve read the other two papers. Anyone know if Watts, Spencer etc. have read them? They must be choking on crow. Unfortunately at the Connolly site, the usual idiots (Folkerts et al.) are hard at work doing their best to miss the point and to reinvent the fundamental principles of what science is.

    The 3 papers seem to represent a phase-change in the approach of understanding the atmosphere, and they do it successfully. It appears to be brilliant work. I would be very surprised if these fellows were not aware of my papers and that of the Slayers etc., since we’ve discussed many of the same topics, although, not to the detail and development that Connolly has. We (I, the Slayers etc) were never able to completely reinvent a new and successful approach to understanding the atmosphere, and I stayed mostly within pointing out what the fundamental logical flaws were of the atmospheric greenhouse idea, leaving a redevelopment of the science to someone else. Connolly has done that, and in much nicer style than I could have or would have. If they take the credit for finally debunking the alarmist approach and its greenhouse effect, I will be more than happy to quietly watch it unfold – they did a more meritorious and complete job than I did. Although, I still like my logical philosophical approach of pointing out the sophistry, the simulacrum, the illogic, etc, albeit these unfortunately being less important to science, even though they couldn’t be more fundamental: that is, in my cognition space, forget the scientific details, the logical basis isn’t even valid from the get-go, so why develop a science based on illogic and then explore where it goes wrong? It is wrong right away, and so who cares how that branches out. (Although, those branches are where shitheads think of things like carbon taxes!)

    WJ, read these three books in order: The God Factory, The God Game, The Last Man Who Knew Everything.

  30. Joe,

    Glad to hear you liked the Connolly papers.

    The CAGW proponents are attacking it by claiming the tropopause height is set by 0.04% CO2, which seems silly, and I think this paper helps to support that tropo height is set by gravity & atmospheric mass where P=0.1 bar. Then work from there using the lapse rate down to the surface to determine the whole atmospheric temp profile. You agree?

    http://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Robinson2

  31. Well, the paper demonstrated that the troposphere temperature nor its height is determined by CO2. They’ll default to their usual sophistry, all Connolly needs to do is to refer to their paper. Yes I would agree.

  32. Greg House says:

    I guess I may repost my comment on this outbreak of science I posted on the PSI site.

    Unfortunately, Connolly family a)supports the “global warming” fiction, b) do not dispute the IPCC’s “greenhouse effect” which is warming the source by back radiation and c)support the unscientific calculation of -18°C being the maximum average temperature the Sun can induce on the earth surface (which invites speculations on why the Earth is 33°C warmer and makes the non-existing “greenhouse effect” to an extent plausible).

    Worse, in the section “Popular Questions” they essentially fake misrepresent the “greenhouse effect” selling it as just “slowing down the rate of cooling”:

    Q. Is there a greenhouse effect?

    A. …Some theoreticians proposed that these infrared-active gases should slow down the rate at which the Earth’s atmosphere loses energy to space (known as the rate of “infrared cooling”), and so keep the lower atmosphere warmer than it would be otherwise, e.g., Stone & Manabe, 1968 (Open access). This theory became known as the “greenhouse effect theory”, and the infrared-active gases became known as “greenhouse gases”.

    Again, the IPCC “greenhouse effect is not slowing down the rate of cooling, it is back radiation heating the source (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1-figure-1.html), which is physically impossible.

  33. Greg House says:

    So, I downloaded all the 8 papers of Connolly’s, but instead of reading them I made a quick search for certain key words using a pdf viewer. “Back radiation” does not appear there at all, not a single time. Which means you will find no disagreement with the IPCC on their central point, the physically impossible “greenhouse effect” (“back radiation heating).

  34. Will Janoschka says:

    Joseph*,
    “WJ, read these three books in order: The God Factory, The God Game, The Last Man Who Knew Everything”.
    I will read, and try to understand each of what you offer/suggest! This will take a while! Please understand, My POV is that “all” that has been expressed or written by “earthlings” is Bull Shit. Perhaps your Illuminati have, as an extension to mathematics, a concept that includes the very restrictive “virtues” of humans. I will look for that! OTOH Earthlings have long demonstrated no “vrtues” only “whatever”!
    With the Connolly papers, please try to develop a logical method of falsification, of the writings. My opinion is that any attempted falsification, will fail, but create a “severe” restriction on the scope of the Connolly conjectue. Perhaps this will lead to a Connolly hypothesis. This of course must be violently, attacked by the self appointed those who know! Such is the nature of current stupid science!~ ~will-

  35. Greg I am not sure why your comments are always going into moderation. Same with you Will. I’ve checked over all the setting etc. and can’t find anywhere that might be doing it.

    Yes those are good points Greg, and they bring my work back into the picture. However, as far as “essentially” making the point, in a way that won’t cause retards and idiots and establishment academic lackeys to wet their pants at the concept of a new (and better) way of thinking and doing physics, I think the papers do a very good job. What is unfortunate is what you basically point out, that scientists, even if or when they did realize a new approach was needed and that the old one was incorrect, they would simply take it all as self-evident (as that quote goes) and obvious and would neither admit to nor comprehend the blunder that they had duped themselves with, or understand how the science or logical thinking they didn’t subscribe to was the fundamental source of the problem. They would simply go on, being on welfare and protecting their welfare system, called academia.

    So as you say, this leaves room for my work to point out these things, in the appropriate venue, which I will do.

  36. Yes Will that is actually mathematically explained, i.e. earthling “bullshit”, as a consequence of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, and evolution.

  37. Max™ says:

    Uh, Greg, I don’t see where they in any way support the idea that IR warms the surface.
    They specifically say that the bulk properties of N2 and O2 alone explain the surface temperature, directly contradicting the that the greenhouse effect is involved at all.

  38. D.M. says:

    Max I didn’t find anything about the principle of “back radiation” in the paper. But as I stated earlier, and Greg did also, the give away is in the comments section and the author’s answers to comments. Until others start applying Joe’s fundamental work (demolishing the K&T cartoon) then there will never be a correct explanation for the earth’s thermodynamic system.

  39. Arfur Bryant says:

    Joe, Greg, All,

    I seems to me that one significant problem is that the basic physics does not seem to be settled at all. Right down to the most fundamental questions. I understand and accept that you guys do not think that ‘backradiation’ can cause warming of the surface. I agree based purely based on logic, evidence and intuition.

    So, being a non-scientist, I have approach this specific point from a questioning direction. I have read several text books which seem to just accept that Prevost’s ‘theory’ of exchanges is unassailable. So I decided to ask questions of various physics forums on the internet. Whilst this may not be considered the most academic way forward, in this day and age this is the area from which most members of Joe Public (i.e. me) will get their information.

    So here are three different physics Q&A which, in varying degrees of objectivity (The Physics Forum being easily the best), display either ambiguity or vagueness in how these ‘physics mentors’ see the subject of radiation and absorption. I know Max (and others) has commented on one of these, so I apologise for repetition. However my point is that if these physics forums cannot seem to agree with what you guys think is obvious, how does any scientist expect Joe Public to understand?

    Below are the three links and a few choice answers. I have to say the Physics forum (especially DaleSpam) seems to be far more objective than the others. I offer these links for your perusal and offer you a question…

    Why is there such a difference of opinion on this specific subject (which basically applies to whether or not ‘backradiation’ warms the surface)?

    If you spot any logical error in my responses, please tell me.

    Regards to all,

    Arfur

    http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=734589&highlight=cooler+sourc

    http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/100410/radiation-and-absorption

    http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=25129

    Some answers (of varying objectivity):

    ["The thermal radiation from B does indeed heat object A."] (Stack exchange)

    ["Even if the hotter body does not absorb or transmit the radiation from the cooler body, then it must reflect. If some of the reflected radiation is sent back to the cooler body, from the perspective of the cooler body it is the same thing as if the hotter body had emmited the radiation. The cooler body has no way to know otherwise, and the hotter body will appear to have increased its radiation output, in other words, hotter."] (Physics Forum)

    ["In non-relativistic theory (most of daily cases) it can heat it in the sense that the radiation of the cold body deposits some energy in the hot body. It cannot heat it in the sense that the temperature of the hot body would become even greater, since that would most probably lead to violation of 2nd law."] (Physics Forum)

    ["The rate at which it cools down would indeed decrease, but it would never start to warm up. Once the warm body is completely enclosed by cooler bodies (they cover 4π steradians) then the addition of more cooler bodies makes no further difference."] (PF, DaleSpam)

    ["Cooling more slowly is not heating. No insulation manufacturer claims that their insulation heats the home."] PF, (DaleSpam)

    ["Yes. Radiation from B to A always warms A, regardless of their initial temperatures. Do you really need a reference for the fact that adding energy to a system raises its temperature? Try any thermal physics book in the world."] (Van Illinois)

    ["Our infrared-absorbing atmosphere causes the Earth to be significantly hotter than it would be if it were just a black body spinning at the same distance from the Sun. The Earth's reflectivity would decrease the steady-state temperature by ~23°C below the ideal black-body T, but the greenhouse effect increases the steady-state T even more, leaving the net T about 10°C hotter than it would be for an ideal black body.  Adding more infrared absorbing gases (mainly CO2 and methane) increases the warming effect."] (Van, Illinois)

  40. Arfur, yes from those responses it is apparent that the answer is not settled. Your findings are interesting.

    The correct answer, because it is 1) obvious, 2) intuitive, 3) obeys the Laws of Thermodynamics, 4) obeys the concept of heat flow which is required to heat i.e. cause temperature to increase, is that a cold object will not raise the temperature of a warmer object. The cold object does NOT add energy to the warm object, because the FLOW is always away from the hot object, to the cool, as per fundamental mathematical statistics i.e. thermodynamics. That is the error being made by some of them. No, the cold object does NOT add energy to the warm object, in any thermodynamic sense, because heat does not flow from cold to hot. You have two streams, but they’re not matter streams, they’re photons streams, but in either cause of fermions (matter) or bosons (light), the stronger stream, i.e. the stream of higher matter or energy flux density (matter flow rate or energy flow rate), determines which direction the FLOW occurs, and it is only in the direction of flow that matter/energy can accumulate: with matter, this would create a “pile” of matter away from the stronger flow to the weaker which causes the weaker to gain mass, and with energy this creates a “pile” of energy away from the warmer, to the cooler, and this creates a “pile” of energy at the cooler which causes it to warm.

  41. Neither does a cold object cause a hot object to trap its heat inside itself to make itself hotter – the warm object simply heats the cooler object and the best the hot object can do is to come to equilibrium with the cool object.

  42. Arfur Bryant says:

    Joe,

    I agree with you. That is my understanding of how radiation between two objects works in the real world.

    So I have to ask: Where are the University Seniors/Astrophysicists/Thermodynamicists who can correct the misunderstanding that seems so prevalent on this subject? Do they just accept that their undergraduate tutors are ‘doing their best’ or is it that they don’t know either? Or do they, when they read the cAGW alarmist nonsense, just smile to themselves and ponder how wrong the climate scientists are?

  43. Sure Arfur, there are all sorts of reasons. One is that academia is not nearly as “intellectual” or “academic” as people think it is…there are just stupid people focusing on TINY, TINY subject materials in which they specialize. The simply naively trust that other “scientists” are doing the “right thing”, and have never, ever encountered such a concept as hijacking or simulating science. Then you also have the climate alarm machine, one of the most highly funded political machines in all of history (which of course most naive scientists can’t comprehend the existence of). So, most scientists buy the hype, the cause, and the emotions of alarm. Why? For one because it makes them feel like science is actually doing something useful as opposed to just being a welfare system for high-functioning autistics. Second, it is because humans have a need for this psychological cognitive archetype that has been instilled in man for the last 2000 years – that of “sin” and “guilt” for your mere existence, i.e. for the existence of your mind which you use to think and thus change the environment in order to survive and live. It is not coincidental that most traditionally-religious people do not buy into climate alarm – it is because they have already fulfilled that archetype. Most scientists aren’t actually philosophical idealists, they’re just humans with a job with no comprehension of the governing boundary conditions of their own psychological state or that of humanity, or their own job. Sure they may be atheists, but they haven’t really thought about it. In the last analysis, it is because they actually do not know themselves, and so they go to the safest location; the safest location is this impression, this pretence of majority that the alarmists have manufactured. Anyone online who is a staunch advocate of alarmism ideas and anti-thermodynamic concepts can very well be a paid-for “troll”, and if they’re not that then they’re extremely deluded, very, very stupid people wedded to their emotions involved in “the cause”.

    Whatever it is, and all of these things, indicates a severe illness, a sickness, a blackness, in either the human condition, or in those trying to hijack and control that condition.

  44. Climate alarm is PRECISELY traditional Western Religion, i.e. Christianity, in terms of the underlying cognitive emotional archetypes.

    Our having a conscious mind means we HAVE TO use it to survive, and the only way to use it is in understanding and then manipulating the environment to meet our needs. This is the only way humanity survives. You can not put a human into the wilderness and ask them to survive without changing their environment – they would die very, very quickly.

    Let me put it this way: MIND = CHANGING THE ENVIRONMENT

    NO MIND = NO CONSCIOUS CHANGE OF THE ENVIRONMENT

    The drive to instil this idea of not changing the environment, that changing the environment is bad, is identical to “Jehovah’s” original anger over man (Eve) choosing to have knowledge. It was at that very point (metaphorically of course) that man could no longer live naturally on the environment, and had to begin moulding the environment to suit his and her survival. So you see, that this is an archetypal concept that goes way, way back, that people understood long long ago: mind = changing the environment in order to survive; no mind = being an animal at the environment’s mercy.

  45. And so the guilt of the “sin” of Eve’s choosing for knowledge is identical to the guilt which climate alarm tries to create related to changing the environment – these are the exact same thing, as directly recounted in Genesis, as Adam had to begin tending the land (i.e. changing the environment, managing the environment, etc.) just as soon as him and Eve became conscious and had modern-human minds.

    This is not a sin of course, it is progress.

    The same basic idea is recounted even earlier, in Prometheus Bound.

  46. Arfur Bryant says:

    Joe,

    Thanks for the answer about scientists as a group. Whilst I can accept that a group can act like sheeple and can be regarded as ‘stupid’, any individual does not have to be quite as stupid as the group. It therefore seems less likely that a scientist who has the ability to think objectively and is secure in himself can be led quite so easily down the path of ‘The Emperor’s New Climate’. There are scientists who have come out against the illogicality and ‘un-scientificness’ of the cAGW meme. However, these scientists then seem (with a few exceptions) to fade into obscurity, which leads me to suspect there really is a circling of the wagon mentality residing at the upper echelons of the scientific elite.

    WIth the political aspect, it does seem as if Crichton’s State of Fear was not hopelessly off the mark.

    As an interested outsider, I find it quite fascinating.

  47. State of Fear actually has more bona fide science in it than all of alarmism. If you see what Crichton was talking about, he was actually opening the critique on greenhouse theory.

  48. Greg House says:

    Arfur Bryant says: “Where are the University Seniors/Astrophysicists/Thermodynamicists who can correct the misunderstanding that seems so prevalent on this subject?”
    =============================================

    In my humble view, the most people simply do not know what exactly climate liars the IPCC presented as “greenhouse effect” (which is a physically impossible heating the source by it’s own heat (back radiation)).

    Generally, some things warm other things, insulation, blanket and so on, so without looking into details the idea that CO2 somehow makes the air warmer is not that crazy. Note that this “greenhouse effect” was established before there was internet.

    Now, everyone can read the sections on “greenhouse effect” in the IPCC reports and find out what sort of crap it is, but only few people do it. One of the reasons is that many pseudo-skeptical blogs have been created where this simple issue has been successfully obfuscated and the readers have been successfully distracted. Even on this blog warmists have been doing the same thing, e.g. by redirecting the discussion to some theories and using appeals to authority, like references to University Seniors/Astrophysicists/Thermodynamicists not criticizing the climate hoax.

  49. Joseph*,
    “WJ, read these three books in order: The God Factory, The God Game, The Last Man Who Knew Everything”.
    I have purchased your “factory”! I am not convinced I can continue. Talk about sophistry!!
    “FEEDBACK LOOPS ARE THE essence of life” Are those not Climatology speak? Along with more sick words like “omega point”, “chaotic state”, “terminus”, and “dialectic” ! What total bull shit. Absolutely no concept control systems, feedback, observability, controlability, and transport delay. So zero, infinity, and mathematics are all. Joseph, Have you ever had your foot stepped on by a horse? Please describe “pain” in terms of mathematics and dialectic? Pain may be the “only” thing that “is” ! All else may be a fantasy. Only “pain” is truly undeniable! I may continue to read. Right now I need a barf bag!

  50. paul says:

    i was kicked by a horse …once!..it was painfull,so i learnt! do not to stand behind a horse. :-)

  51. Arfur Bryant says:

    Joe,

    ["State of Fear actually has more bona fide science in it than all of alarmism. If you see what Crichton was talking about, he was actually opening the critique on greenhouse theory."]

    Yes, agreed.

  52. Arfur Bryant says:

    Greg,

    ["Even on this blog warmists have been doing the same thing, e.g. by redirecting the discussion to some theories and using appeals to authority, like references to University Seniors/Astrophysicists/Thermodynamicists not criticizing the climate hoax."]

    Are you seriously calling me a warmist? You couldn’t be more wrong.

    By asking why other scientist don’t criticise the ‘consensus’ view, I am not redirecting the discussion in any direction other than towards the basic fallacy of the ‘Greenhouse Effect’.

    I am amazed you would interpret my post any other way.

    I understand how you feel about the topic Greg, and I know you feel strongly that your view is correct. I tend to support your view, if not the way you promote it. However, the fact remains that MOST textbooks (and physics teachers that I have spoken to) accept Prevost’s theory as a given and are unwilling to argue it. I have no such dogma, and am quite willing to argue it from a logical perspective. Although several people seem to think Prevost has been proved correct experimentally, I have seen no such proof.

    This is not redirection, Greg. This is the most fundamental question in the entire AGW (or cAGW) debate – that ‘backradiation’ can warm the surface. If this fallacy can be demonstrated to Joe Public without anyone coming across as a fruit cake, then Joe Public will see the fallacy for what it is. Much of Joe Public already does, to be fair (because they live in the real world), but more is need before the politicians will turn the oil tanker that is cAGW. Even dumb politicians know that going against Joe Public will seldom work out well for them.

    Just my opinion.

    Congratulations though, you are the first person ever to consider me a ‘warmist’! Even the lukewarmists on Lucia’s blog consider me somewhere way past ‘denier’ moving away from ‘warmist’!

    Arfur

  53. You are only into the briefest intro Will…keep going through the 3 books, and then the rest :)

    I get the barf bag comment…I felt that too.

  54. Joesph,
    I did read more, threw up, got half dronk, then bits and pieces, made some sense.
    The whole thing remains a mishmash of disconnected ramblings, written by at least six different individuals each with something to hide. Such can appeal to someone that wishes to know!!.
    Zero and infinity are the wrong place to start. They are difficult, even mathematically. on the physicalConsider zero squared and infinity squared. these can be considered locations on a two dimensional surface “not the origin or edges”, as those are scalars in two orthogonal directions, such as the real and the imaginary directions. the locations on this plane are the locations of the Laplace transform zeros and poles. An integration across such asymptotes leads to mathematical nonsense. The integral must be done by proceeding around each asymptote in a small circle never containing the asymptote then letting the radius of the circle approach a zero “value” at that “location”.
    I started at my undeniable “pain”, which is both real and physical. I put aside for now the unknowable real, instead concentrating on understanding “the physical”, carefully going from pain, to all observable and measurable, ie. what I call the “physical”. I do not know all the physical, and that path is difficult, but both sufficient and rewarding to me! I am willing to discuss my learning with my POV. I cannot translate to your POV on your path. :-)

  55. Greg House says:

    Arfur Bryant says: “By asking why other scientist don’t criticise the ‘consensus’ view, I am not redirecting the discussion in any direction”
    ==========================================

    Yes, you are doing exactly that. If you were honestly concerned with that question, you would email them, some of them, of course, and ask why. Instead you suggest we speculate about that here.

  56. Greg House says:

    Arfur Bryant says: “However, the fact remains that MOST textbooks (and physics teachers that I have spoken to) accept Prevost’s theory as a given and are unwilling to argue it. I have no such dogma, and am quite willing to argue it from a logical perspective. Although several people seem to think Prevost has been proved correct experimentally, I have seen no such proof.
    This is not redirection, Greg.

    =======================================

    Yes, it is, because the IPCC “greenhouse effect” (which is warming the source of heat by it’s own heat) has nothing to do with the Prevost’s theory and you know that.

    The IPCC “greenhouse effect” can be easily debunked on the schoolchildren level without any reference to any theory, you know that too.

  57. Arfur Bryant says: 2014/03/05 at 2:18 AM “However, the fact remains that MOST textbooks (and physics teachers that I have spoken to) accept Prevost’s theory as a given and are unwilling to argue it. I have no such dogma, and am quite willing to argue it from a logical perspective. Although several people seem to think Prevost has been proved correct experimentally, I have seen no such proof.”
    Arfur,
    You are correct! There is no such thing as “back radiation” that has ever been demonstrated!
    The whole concept is a deliberate misuse of the word “radiate or to radiate” in order to confuse. To radiate means to transfer (flux) in a particular direction, a “ray”!
    The deliberate errors are written in the Wikipedia explanation of “Prevost theory”!
    1) “In climate science, the net change in the tropopause after temperatures readjust to radiative equilibrium in the stratosphere, is used to determine the radiative forcing, as part of an assessment of natural and anthropogenic climate change.[3]” From IPCC 2007.
    2) “The radiation from each body is emitted regardless of the presence or absence of other bodies.[5][6][7]” None of the three references used the tern “radiation” or “emitted”. They all used the correct “radiant intensity” which is the thermal radiative potential, a function of that asolute temperature raised to the fourth power. With units of “Watts per steradian” a vector quantity not a scalar. Read on in Wiki, 3)”From the specific radiative intensity they derive \mathbf{F}_\nu, the monochromatic vector flux density of radiation at each point in a region of space, which is equal to the time averaged monochromatic Poynting vector at that point (Mihalas 1978[12] on pages 9–11). They define the monochromatic volume-specific rate of gain of heat by matter from radiation as the negative of the divergence of the monochromatic flux density vector; it is a scalar function of the position of the point:

    h_\nu = – \nabla \cdot \mathbf{F}_\nu.”
    The monochromatic Poynting flux at any point is the vector sum of all the Poynting vectors at that location and frequency! integrating over all frequencies give the total Poynting flux at that point, proceeding along that resultant vector. Resolving the solid angle of that vector gives the thermal irradiance arriving along that vector. It is not that difficult once the mathematics is precise and the geometry plus word usage is just as precise. Magicians distract by hand waving all the time. With magicians it is humorous! With Climate Clowns it is ludicrous! :-)

  58. Greg House says: 2014/03/05 at 11:22 AM “The IPCC “greenhouse effect” can be easily debunked on the schoolchildren level without any reference to any theory, you know that too.”
    That theory was well done, by highly paid authors of fraud! You Greg, underestimate the skill, and ignore the intent of such fraud.

  59. Jim McGinn says:

    Greg, Arfur,

    In reference to these insightful comments:

    ” . . . pseudo-skeptical blogs have been created where this simple issue has been successfully obfuscated and the readers have been successfully distracted. Even on this blog warmists have been doing the same thing, e.g. by redirecting the discussion to some theories and using appeals to authority, like references to University Seniors/Astrophysicists/Thermodynamicists not criticizing the climate hoax.”

    Not all paradigms of science are scientific.

  60. Thomas Homer says:

    Joseph –
    Another interesting dialog, and I now understand your need to use “powerful” language when responding to farcical assertions that never seem to include actual science in their defense. I invite you to give me the same treatment should you find me bothersome.

    If I may, I’d like to relay a mental exercise I undertook as an “average person”, that ended up cementing my disbelief in the physical property known as: “Greenhouse Gas”. I’m hoping that you might gain some perspective of a person that doesn’t have your extensive scientific experience, and maybe you’d even embellish my exercise to challenge the advocates to provide some science.

    I was thinking that Mars is currently too cold to support human life, but that I should be able to employ the claims of Greenhouse Gas advocates to formulate a hypothetical proposal to start warming Mars by introducing CO2 into its atmosphere. I looked up the Mars’ atmospheric composition and learned it’s currently 95% CO2. I did not expect this, but then I figured that here we have a real-universe planet that offers a chance to define properties of CO2 in an almost isolated atmosphere. I searched for the scientific formula that defines the “Greenhouse Gas” property of CO2, figuring that I could formulate a rudimentary equation. I found no such scientific formula, I did not expect that. (How can there be no formula after all these decades of research?) Then I figured that the Mars’ Rover would include a measuring device that could precisely chart the amount and duration of heat trapped at sunset by the Mars’ atmosphere that is 95% CO2. How long would the heat remain trapped? That’s when I also learned that there is no way to measure the “Greenhouse Gas” property. NASA could prove beyond doubt that this property exists, but they haven’t, and now I know why.

    Okay, that was the exercise. But here’s a little more of what I’ve self-discovered along the way. I’m curious what happens to the CO2 molecule when it “traps” the radiating heat of the Earth’s surface. Henri Suyderhoud discussed this topic in his comment above. One thing I’d like to add is that if the CO2 molecule doesn’t actually absorb any heat from the infrared radiation, but only reflects it. Then, one calculation I’ve made is to chose a CO2 molecule that is about at the upper limit of CO2 in the atmosphere, 40 kilometers (roughly 25 miles). Now a single radiation wave traveling at the speed of light could bounce between that same CO2 molecule and the earth 3,720 round trips per second. (I figure there’s a chance that it would miss the CO2 molecule on the 3,721 trip and escape into space.) So does this mean that the duration of heat trapping by CO2 is analogous to turning the light out in a room full of mirrors and timing how long the light continues to reflect back and forth?

    And finally, I wanted to propose an exercise where we choose a location and chart the recorded temperatures throughout a single day. Then I would challenge the advocates to show how those temperatures would be different had all of the CO2 been removed from the atmosphere precisely when that day started. I found a site that lists yesterday’s actual recorded hourly temperatures. One item of interest I saw for Denver (I’m figuring that the advocates will be able to describe how the heat trapping effects vary by altitude), was that the temperature dropped 31 degrees in a single hour. From 63 degrees at 5PM to 32 degrees at 6PM. Where did the heat go? What portion of it was trapped?

    Well, that was more than I expected to say.

  61. A pleasure Thomas. All very good points. Climate alarm theory can’t answer those question because it doesn’t contain the legitimate scientific or mathematical tools required to do so. I’ve used such data in past arguments with alarmist believers, and without being able to demonstrate any mathematics or physics to support or quantify their beliefs, they merely claim that the temperature would have dropped even faster. They just make things up.

  62. Kristian says:

    Joseph E Postma says, 2014/03/04 at 10:11 AM:

    “The cold object does NOT add energy to the warm object, because the FLOW is always away from the hot object, to the cool, as per fundamental mathematical statistics i.e. thermodynamics. That is the error being made by some of them. No, the cold object does NOT add energy to the warm object, in any thermodynamic sense, because heat does not flow from cold to hot. You have two streams, but they’re not matter streams, they’re photons streams, but in either cause of fermions (matter) or bosons (light), the stronger stream, i.e. the stream of higher matter or energy flux density (matter flow rate or energy flow rate), determines which direction the FLOW occurs, and it is only in the direction of flow that matter/energy can accumulate: with matter, this would create a “pile” of matter away from the stronger flow to the weaker which causes the weaker to gain mass, and with energy this creates a “pile” of energy away from the warmer, to the cooler, and this creates a “pile” of energy at the cooler which causes it to warm.”

    Hi, Joe.

    I like your explanation. But you talk about two streams of energy, ‘photon streams’. Isn’t light in propagation considered as waves? Speaking of light as streams of photons makes me at least think of real particles (pingpong balls?) flying along a specified route, like a wavy curve, when in fact the photons are the bundles of energy (quanta) making up the wave itself.

    Have you read Claes Johnson’s latest posts on this?

    http://claesjohnson.blogspot.no/2014/02/physics-illusion-2-photons-as-light.html

    http://claesjohnson.blogspot.no/2014/02/physics-illusion-4-elementary-particles.html

    http://claesjohnson.blogspot.no/2014/02/physics-illusion-13-light-as-stream-of.html

    There’s some interesting stuff here.

    He says of the whole idea about two opposing ‘streams’ between two objects (like in the Prevost exchange principle):

    “Computational Blackbody Radiation describes radiative energy transfer as a resonance phenomenon between resonators connected by standing electromagnetic waves in a vacuum between the resonators. The acoustic analog is depicted above: Energy is transferred from one tuning fork to another by standing acoustic waves as pressure variations in still air.

    In this model the finite speed of electromagnetic (or acoustic) waves only influences the energy transfer in a start up phase, while in a stationary state of standing waves the energy transfer can be viewed to be instantaneous without time delay, or to be without time aspect. The transfer of energy is one-way from hot (high frequency) to cold (low frequency).

    In this view there is no need to introduce particles named photons carrying energy packets at finite speed back and forth between the resonators, as if the resonators were connected by a two-way highway with trucks transporting energy in both directions. There is no experimental evidence of the existence of such a two-way stream of light quanta. (From the first link above.)

  63. Kristian says:

    And by ‘light’ in my previous comment, I mean of course ‘EM radiation.’

  64. Greg House says:

    Thomas Homer says: “I searched for the scientific formula that defines the “Greenhouse Gas” property of CO2, figuring that I could formulate a rudimentary equation. I found no such scientific formula, I did not expect that.”
    =========================================

    A “scientific formula that defines the “Greenhouse Gas” property of CO2″ can not be found for the simple reason that the “greenhouse effect” is physically impossible, a pure fiction.

    What can be found is specific heat of CO2 and a formula to calculate how certain concentrations of CO2 change the heat capacity of the air. Under usual circumstances CO2 in it’s usual concentration contributes about 0.0001-0.001°C. But this is not the IPCC “greenhouse effect”.

  65. Greg House says:

    Thomas Homer says: “One item of interest I saw for Denver (I’m figuring that the advocates will be able to describe how the heat trapping effects vary by altitude), was that the temperature dropped 31 degrees in a single hour. From 63 degrees at 5PM to 32 degrees at 6PM. Where did the heat go? What portion of it was trapped?”
    =====================================

    You can not argue like that against the notion of ” trapping heat”, because there is such a thing like cold wind.

  66. Greg House says:

    Joe, I guess the software puts me under moderation if I check “Notify me of follow-up comments via email”.

  67. Greg House says:

    Thomas Homer says: “I searched for the scientific formula that defines the “Greenhouse Gas” property of CO2, figuring that I could formulate a rudimentary equation. I found no such scientific formula, I did not expect that.”
    =========================================

    A “scientific formula that defines the “Greenhouse Gas” property of CO2″ can not be found for the simple reason that the “greenhouse effect” is physically impossible, a pure fiction.

    What can be found is specific heat of CO2 and a formula to calculate how certain concentrations of CO2 change the heat capacity of the air. Under usual circumstances CO2 in it’s usual concentration contributes about 0.0001-0.001°C. But this is not the IPCC “greenhouse effect”.

  68. Greg House says:

    No, my guess was apparently wrong, because I have just reposted my previous comment without checking “Notify me of follow-up comments via email” and see “Your comment is awaiting moderation”. The only explanation I can find is that the software reacts to some key words this way.

  69. This thing seems to be randomly moderating comments…can’t figure it out!

  70. Will Janoschka says:

    Joseph E Postma says: 2014/03/05 at 3:29 PM
    “This thing seems to be randomly moderating comments…can’t figure it out”!
    The illuminati at work. :sigh:

  71. Will Janoschka says:

    Jim McGinn says: 2014/03/05 at 1:54 PM
    “Not all paradigms of science are scientific.”
    Indeed! Jim/Claudius;
    Welcome to the site of “angry” serfs! Have you a self, with a pitchfork or torch?
    Please read the Connolly papers! They speak of multimers of O2 and N2, like your dimers and trimers of H2O, best illustrated by the fantastic detail of a snowflake. I would call both a polymer, but not to be confused with a sheet of polyethylene. Please explain what you mean by “heavy” air? Is a pound of lead heavier than a pound of feathers? . :sigh:

  72. Will Janoschka says:

    Joseph E Postma says: 2014/03/05 at 3:29 PM
    ‘This thing seems to be randomly moderating comments…can’t figure it out!’
    I post from several computers with the same IP address, that of my DSL modem, but many different port redirections. That may appear as spam to some filters! :-)

  73. Arfur Bryant says:

    @ Greg House,

    Greg,

    With due respect, I have repeatedly told you that I agree with your general view. You, however, seem to want to make a fight of this issue based on your POV. So be it. The problem with having an opinion in the cAGW debate is that, without some form of authority (even when you know you are correct) it remains just an opinion.

    1. ["If you were honestly concerned with that question, you would email them, some of them, of course, and ask why. Instead you suggest we speculate about that here."] Greg, of those ‘physics experts’ that I have indeed emailed about this subject, the majority – I would say 75% – fall into the category of believing that the radiation from C (cool object) does indeed get absorbed (for energy gain) by W (warm object). They then proceed to state that the ‘net’ heat flow is from hot to cold. Claes Johnson is one of the few that addresses this point specifically – as Kristian points out above – from the 25% or so. I am NOT asking people here to speculate; that would be pointless. If anything I am asking for some sort of irrefutable proof that the ‘backradiation’ is not absorbed for energy gain by the surface, rather than opinion (such as yours). I hate appeals to authority (really, I do) but, in a debate, Joe Public is less likely to listen to your opinion than he is to the text from a physics text book. Sorry, that’s just the way it is. I would love to argue that the textbooks are wrong on this specific subject but saying “because Greg House says so” isn’t going to get me anywhere.

    2. Yes, it is, because the IPCC “greenhouse effect” (which is warming the source of heat by it’s own heat) has nothing to do with the Prevost’s theory and you know that. Greg, that is just plain wrong. The IPCC states (of the Greenhouse Effect) ["Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet."] My bold. This is exactly the realm of Prevost, who stated: ["In reality the heat of any portion cannot arrest that
    of another. These two heats give each other mutually free passage."]
    and ["Thus the exchanges between the two portions would be unequal. One would send to the other eleven particles, while the latter would return only ten."]. Like it or not, Greg, this has been interpreted by later physicists as this:
    ["According to this well substantiated theory any object, no matter how cold, supplies heat to its neighbour, no matter how hot."] (Humphreys 1910)
    ["According to Prevost's theory both A and B emit radiation the amount of radiation emitted by A is greater than that of B. The radiation emitted by A is absorbed by B. Since A emits more radiation than it absorbs hence A suffers a net loss in radiation and hence its temperature falls."] (online physics tutorial from google search)
    And this is why the K&T cartoon shows the backradiation from the GHGs as being “absorbed by the surface”. Whenever I challenge that assumption, all I get – from the establishment – is “How dare you challenge 150 years of Physics textbooks.”

    3. ["The IPCC “greenhouse effect” can be easily debunked on the schoolchildren level without any reference to any theory, you know that too."] Greg, I challenge you to produce a text book that would be given to ‘any schoolchild’ which would debunk the nonsense that is the IPCC ‘GHE’. You and I opine that it can be debunked, but the schoolchildren DO NOT, because they are being taught dogma based on someone’s interpretation of what happens to ‘discrete radiant fire particles’ between two objects.

    I seem to have to keep repeating that I agree with you, so this argument is (personally) unnecessary. However correct your opinion is, it will not be enough to sway the schoolchildren – who will trust their teacher.

    So I want to appeal to the teachers, not you. The reason I post here is not to ask for speculation, but to ask for help. If you don’t want to help, please ignore these ramblings of an interested and caring (for the future of scientific objectivity) non-scientist.

    Kind regards,

    Arfur

  74. Arfur Bryant says:

    Will Janoschka says:
    2014/03/05 at 12:04 PM

    Will, thank you. Interesting and fascinating stuff.

  75. Kristian says:

    Hockey Schtick says, 2014/03/01 at 6:03 PM:

    “My reading of the paper is that the entire T profile of any planetary atmosphere is set by lapse rate from tropopause at 0.1 bar down to the surface.”

    Hockey Schtick, I tried posting this on your own site, but it seems not to have gone through. So I try here. Joe, hope that’s alright with you.

    The radiative flux of a planet with an atmosphere as measured from space is ALWAYS ‘seen’ as coming out of ONE specific atmospheric layer. This layer is the ToA, at or above the convection top, the tropopause. Why? Because the tropopause will always act as a planet’s ‘radiative surface’ to space. And this is because only from this level on all energy is transported outward through radiation. This is how far the surface heat will go by way of convective processes. This is the first level, coming from below, where the radiative flux of 239 W/m^2 is ‘complete’ (reaches its full intensity). Below it, the radiative flux would be less intense. At the surface it is only 50-60 W/m^2. The 239 W/m^2 is a ‘total’, a ‘final’ flux, ‘accumulated’ upward from the surface through all atmospheric layers, all making their small contributions, until we reach the tropopause, the ToA.

    This means, there is NO inherent connection between the flux going out through a planet’s ‘radiative surface’ and the physical temperature of this ‘surface’ (atmospheric level). Why?

    Because an atmosphere is a gas, a volume of gas. It doesn’t radiate from ONE particular solid surface (like a proper BB) according to the temperature of this surface. The Stefan-Boltzmann law doesn’t work on (apply to) a volume of gas.

    But, yes, we can of course easily determine the surface temperature of any planet with an atmosphere if we only know the physical temperature of the ‘radiating surface’ (the tropopause) and the planet’s tropospheric lapse rate.

    On Earth, for instance, the mean global tropopause temperature (at an average height of ~12 km) is around 210K. If you track the lapse rate going downward from this you will reach the surface at 288K, quite naturally.

    If, however, you insist that the physical temperature of the ‘radiative surface’ of the Earth MUST be the same as its S-B calculated BB emission temperature, based on the measured planetary flux to space, then you end up with a problem. Then you would have to ‘place’ your ‘radiative surface’ somewhere in the middle of the troposphere (that is, far below the tropopause). But that level is NOT the ToA. The ToA is at tropopause level. And the tropopause, after all, is NOT at 255K. It’s at 210K. This way, if anything, the ‘GH warming’ through the lapse rate would’ve been +78K, not +33K (?!).

    But how come we can so predictably find the surface temperature of the Earth by just knowing the temperature of the ‘radiating surface’ (ToA) and the lapse rate? The answer really is simple: it couldn’t be otherwise.

    The surface temperature is set first. NOT the tropopause temperature. The surface is where the heating from the Sun originally takes place. From here the heat is then propagated upwards through the atmospheric column by way of convection along the lapse rate-established temperature gradient/profile. Until we reach the convection top and gravity finally equals/overcomes the buoyancy gained from the original surface heating.

    The tropopause is at 210K because the SURFACE is at 288K, not the other way around. It’s not like the solar flux coming in first (or only) warms the tropopause (the ‘radiating surface’) to some specified temperature and then the lapse rate somehow ‘takes care of’ the rest, progressively warming the atmosphere going down from this level.

    The lapse rate doesn’t work downwards, just as little as heat propagates downwards.

  76. Kristian says:

    And with ‘heat’ in the last sentence, I mean of course ‘surface heat’. All data from the real Earth system shows that the surface warms (or cools) first, then the atmosphere. Before finally the OLR at the ToA changes accordingly.

  77. Kristian says:

    Arfur Bryant says, 2014/03/06 at 12:44 AM:

    “I would love to argue that the textbooks are wrong on this specific subject but saying “because Greg House says so” isn’t going to get me anywhere.”

    Hehe, good one, Arfur!

  78. Kristian says:

    Arfur Bryant says, 2014/03/06 at 12:44 AM:

    “Like it or not, Greg, this has been interpreted by later physicists as this:
    ["According to this well substantiated theory any object, no matter how cold, supplies heat to its neighbour, no matter how hot."] (Humphreys 1910)
    ["According to Prevost's theory both A and B emit radiation the amount of radiation emitted by A is greater than that of B. The radiation emitted by A is absorbed by B. Since A emits more radiation than it absorbs hence A suffers a net loss in radiation and hence its temperature falls."] (online physics tutorial from google search)
    And this is why the K&T cartoon shows the backradiation from the GHGs as being “absorbed by the surface”. Whenever I challenge that assumption, all I get – from the establishment – is “How dare you challenge 150 years of Physics textbooks.””

    This is why I make the effort to show these idiots what they are actually doing with their absorbed ‘back radiated’ energy. They claim the ‘back radiation’ only reduces cooling (that the warming is indirect) by making the net flux (the heat) out of the warm object less. It is somehow the energy from the ‘heat source’ (like the Sun) of the warmer object that actually does the extra warming, according to them (these people are dimwits like Joel Shore, Tim Folkerts and Robert Brown).

    But looking at their different radiative energy fluxes in and out to the warm object, it is plain obvious to all which flux is doing the warming, the direct increase in the object’s internal energy. The flux IN from the heat source (the Sun) isn’t getting bigger or smaller. It remains the same. The resultant radiative flux OUT from the object isn’t in any way obstructed from escaping, it is never reduced in any sense of the word. The only thing left, then, is the EXTRA incoming radiative flux from the cool object (like the atmosphere). It ADDS directly to the ‘heat source’ flux, making the total bigger. It this way it clearly represents an extra HEAT gain. It alone is what is increasing the warm object’s internal energy. The warming from the ‘back radiation’ is direct, it’s not indirect.

    The Shores and Folkerts and Browns go away or start employing evasion tactics at this point. Every single time.

  79. Greg House says:

    Arfur, you know very well that the IPCC “greenhouse effect” has nothing to do with Prevost’s theory of exchange. The question whether a)there is physically only one single flow from hot to cold or b)there are 2 flows in opposite directions and the resulting heat flow from hot to cold is the “net” result of subtraction, is irrelevant to the IPCC “greenhouse effect”, because in their presentation the hot thing makes itself HOTTER without any additional source of energy, which is apparently physically impossible and absurd and, of course, in no way is supported by the Prevost’s theory of exchange.

    So, what you have repeatedly been doing is redirecting the discussion to an irrelevant topic. Clever, but not clever enough.

    Yes, there is indeed a problem with some newer textbooks contaminated with the warmists crap, but luckily for us it being crap can be easily demonstrated on the schoolchildren level. This is what we should focus on, despite some f***ing warmists constantly trying to derail these efforts, like this one: (written on the PSI blog by David Cosserat) “Do stop going on and on about back radiation not causing warming. No sane scientifically educated person thinks it does. NOBODY AT ALL.” (http://www.principia-scientific.org/an-inconvenient-experiment-that-invalidates-the-greenhouse-gas-theory.html#comment-4246). He knows very well that the IPCC “greenhouse effect” states exactly that: back radiation causing warming (of the source), which is simply a physically absurd self-eating by own heat.

  80. Greg House says:

    Kristian says: “This is why I make the effort to show these idiots what they are actually doing with their absorbed ‘back radiated’ energy. They claim the ‘back radiation’ only reduces cooling (that the warming is indirect) by making the net flux (the heat) out of the warm object less.”
    ============================================

    This is not true and I can not believe you do not know that after all those discussions.

    They claim that the back radiation (from “greenhouse gases”) WARMS the surface, RAISING it’s temperature, not just “reduces cooling”. Now tell me you are unaware of this: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1-figure-1.html or can not convert flux into temperature.

  81. Greg House says:

    Arfur Bryant says: “I would love to argue that the textbooks are wrong on this specific subject but saying “because Greg House says so” isn’t going to get me anywhere.”
    =================================

    I never suggested anyone should refer to me as authority, but everyone is welcome to use my argumentation that partly originated, by the way, in Joe Postma writings. Me being an authority has never been a part of this argumentation.

    The pleasant thing is that this argumentation is very simple and practically self-evident to any normal person.

  82. Kristian says:

    Greg House says, 2014/03/06 at 9:54 AM:

    “This is not true and I can not believe you do not know that after all those discussions.

    They claim that the back radiation (from “greenhouse gases”) WARMS the surface, RAISING it’s temperature, not just “reduces cooling”. Now tell me you are unaware of this: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1-figure-1.html or can not convert flux into temperature.”

    Greg, if you don’t have anything of substance to contribute, can you please stop commenting on my postings? You do nothing but misrepresent and frankly it’s only annoying.

    I state right there in the post you quote from that the people I’m talking about are Shore, Folkerts, Brown and their ilk. NOT IPCC. YOU can talk about IPCC all you want. I’M NOT! OK?

    Shore, Folkerts and Brown DO NOT claim that the ‘back radiation’ warm the surface directly. That’s exactly what they don’t do. They know better. So they try to weasel their way around it by appealing to ‘reduced cooling’ and indirect warming.

  83. Kristian says:

    Greg House says, 2014/03/06 at 9:44 AM:

    “(…) in their [IPCC's] presentation the hot thing makes itself HOTTER without any additional source of energy (…)”

    Yes, and it allegedly does so with ‘back radiation’ from the atmosphere which it has previously warmed spending the very energy that’s now in that ‘back radiation’. The ‘back radiation’, then, is seen at this point as one part of the exchange of energy between the surface and the atmosphere. If it weren’t for Prevost’s ancient concept, we wouldn’t talk about ‘back radiation’ at all.

    I agree, this is all physically impossible and absurd. But the absurdity is made possible in the first place because of Prevost.

  84. solvingtornadoes says:

    Please read the Connolly papers! They speak of multimers of O2 and N2,

    Hopefully it isn’t the same Connolly that was part of CRU and was exposed for putting AGW propaganda on Wikipedia? Multimers of O2 and N2 sounds unlikely to me. What force is holding them together. H2O molecule has its dramatic polarity. I don’t think N2 or O2 have anything like this. But, for all I know, they do have some residual positive or negative charges. Okay, I’ll take a look at the Connolly papers.

    like your dimers and trimers of H2O, best illustrated by the fantastic detail of a snowflake. I would call both a polymer, but not to be confused with a sheet of polyethylene. Please explain what you mean by “heavy” air? Is a pound of lead heavier than a pound of feathers? . :sigh:

    Air having different weight/volume is a pretty simple concept. Think of a hot air balloon or a dirigible.

  85. Thomas Homer says:

    Greg House says: 2014/03/05 at 3:14 PM

    Thomas Homer says: “I searched for the scientific formula that defines the “Greenhouse Gas” property of CO2, figuring that I could formulate a rudimentary equation. I found no such scientific formula, I did not expect that.”
    =========================================

    A “scientific formula that defines the “Greenhouse Gas” property of CO2″ can not be found for the simple reason that the “greenhouse effect” is physically impossible, a pure fiction.

    What can be found is specific heat of CO2 and a formula to calculate how certain concentrations of CO2 change the heat capacity of the air. Under usual circumstances CO2 in it’s usual concentration contributes about 0.0001-0.001°C. But this is not the IPCC “greenhouse effect”.
    ==========================================
    Thank you, Greg – Like you say, I’ve considered that the temperature of the atmosphere has to be a function of its own thermal mass. So when they talk about emitting tons of CO2 into the atmosphere it sounds like it’s increasing the thermal capacity. And I think that’s true, but like you pointed out it’s almost negligible, and even more so when I realized that the oxygen was already in the atmosphere and if my atomic weight calculations are correct (C -> 12, O -> 16) then a single CO2 molecule has an atomic weight of 44 and 32 of those are from the two oxygen atoms. So we’re really only increasing the mass of the atmosphere by just over one quarter of the CO2 mass.

  86. Thomas Homer says:

    Greg House says: 2014/03/05 at 3:18 PM

    Thomas Homer says: “One item of interest I saw for Denver (I’m figuring that the advocates will be able to describe how the heat trapping effects vary by altitude), was that the temperature dropped 31 degrees in a single hour. From 63 degrees at 5PM to 32 degrees at 6PM. Where did the heat go? What portion of it was trapped?”
    =====================================

    You can not argue like that against the notion of ” trapping heat”, because there is such a thing like cold wind.
    ======================================
    And another Thank You Greg. You’re right, I was being a little snarky about that temperature drop. However, if a “cold wind” can influence surface temperature readings that dramatically, then does this mean that “hot winds” also have the same influence. And if that’s true, then shouldn’t temperature readings from locations that are downwind from wildfires be ignored? I’ve seen online comments claiming that although North America is experiencing a cold winter, it’s balanced by the recent hot temperatures and wild fires in Australia. And yet there never seems to be the acknowledgement that those wild fires are creating “hot winds” and potentially influencing the temperature readings.

  87. Thomas Homer says:

    Joseph,

    You said above: “And carbon dioxide is plant food, and is actually the very basis of life itself; it is not pollution you miserable freaks.”

    Please also include that CO2 is plankton food, and so CO2 is all food.

    Why would anyone want to restrict the food necessary for all carbon-based life forms?

    BTW – Whenever I see the phrase “carbon pollution” I know the author is not serious. For what is the definition of carbon pollution? Pollution is defined as harming the capacity for life.

    Water pollution = something is fouling the water
    Air pollution = something is fouling the air
    Carbon pollution = ??? the intent here is that carbon is fouling something, not that the carbon is being fouled. But carbon is used in water filters to purify the water, it doesn’t pollute it.

    If CO2 were pollution then we wouldn’t want to consume it, and yet there are carbonated beverages.

  88. That’s great stuff Thomas! haha Indeed. In fact, we are ALL carbonated beings…ALL life is carbonated.

    Great point about the inherent illogic of the term “carbon pollution”, as compared with water pollution etc. That is just it, how their entire religion works – based on cognitive dissonance and sophist underlying illogic of all their terms. They do this to prevent the application or presence of THOUGHT itself, i.e. it is designed just like NewSpeak(!), from 1984…it is to shut down thought itself. Brilliant you pointing that term out.

  89. Greg House says:

    Kristian says: “If it weren’t for Prevost’s ancient concept, we wouldn’t talk about ‘back radiation’ at all. I agree, this is all physically impossible and absurd. But the absurdity is made possible in the first place because of Prevost.”
    ================================================

    OK, Kristian, now please focus on the following.

    There are 2 possibilities, a)back radiation exists and is an inherent part of energy exchange between bodies of any temperature (Prevost’s ancient concept) and b)back radiation does not exist, radiation goes only from hot to cold (but the rate of transfer depends on the temperatures).

    Now, if (b) is correct, that is if back radiation does not exist, it can not warm anything, because it does not exist, you know. If (a) is correct, then back radiation can not warm the source or the warmer body either, because even 100% of radiation returning to the source as back radiation from a perfect reflector is not different from the situation, where 2 bodies of the same temperature simply face each other, and everyone knows that they do not warm each other.

    So, whether the Prevost’s ancient concept is right or wrong, the result is the same: the temperature of the source can not increase via back radiation. Therefore the IPCC central concept (warming the source by back radiation, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1-figure-1.html ) is physically impossible, a pure fiction, which in turn renders the “climate policy” of reducing CO2 having no basis in science.

    Therefore there is no need to discuss whether the Prevost’s ancient concept is right or wrong, it is irrelevant to the topic of climate hoax.

  90. Will Janoschka says:

    Jim/solvingtornadoes says: 2014/03/06 at 12:51 PM
    “like your dimers and trimers of H2O, best illustrated by the fantastic detail of a snowflake. I would call both a polymer, but not to be confused with a sheet of polyethylene. Please explain what you mean by “heavy” air? Is a pound of lead heavier than a pound of feathers? . :sigh:”
    “Air having different weight/volume is a pretty simple concept. Think of a hot air balloon or a dirigible.”

    OK, not heaver (higher weight). instead (higher density). Please say what you mean, others are not you, and cannot decipher what you mean! Are you posting only to yourself?
    Please explain why you think dimers, trimers, and higher, have the same volume as a monomer?
    Why can not the polymers have lower density than less-mers? Snowflakes do! What makes you think that atmospheric H2O monomers do not exist below 100 C.? No criticism Jim, only thoughtful questions! I see your tornado concepts interesting!
    The Connolly papers! are from a family in Ireland. See the above:
    Max™ says: 2014/02/28 at 3:05 AM
    Whoa, that pervection paper: http://oprj.net/oprj-archive/atmospheric-science/25/oprj-article-atmospheric-science-25.pdf is a heck of a thing.

  91. Arfur Bryant says:

    Greg,

    ["Arfur, you know very well that the IPCC “greenhouse effect” has nothing to do with Prevost’s theory of exchange. The question whether a)there is physically only one single flow from hot to cold or b)there are 2 flows in opposite directions and the resulting heat flow from hot to cold is the “net” result of subtraction, is irrelevant to the IPCC “greenhouse effect”, because in their presentation the hot thing makes itself HOTTER without any additional source of energy, which is apparently physically impossible and absurd and, of course, in no way is supported by the Prevost’s theory of exchange.
    So, what you have repeatedly been doing is redirecting the discussion to an irrelevant topic. Clever, but not clever enough."]

    Greg, I am not trying to be clever; there are plenty of clever people around the blogosphere. I am trying to be objective. I consider that the most important intellectual quality anyone can have in the cAGW debate is objectivity. And I hope to show you why I think you are wrong about Prevost…

    You and I both know that one object cannot make itself hotter, ok? But you mis-representing the warmist argument is a pointless exercise which leaves you open to the goalpost-changing manoeuvres of the warmists – a point that Kristian has already made – and I will now elucidate on that.

    Once again, here is what the IPCC actually says about the ‘Greenhouse Effect':

    ["Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet. "]

    But that IPCC quote don’t exactly explain HOW the backradiation warms the surface! Initially, they may have suspected that backradiation can heat the surface directly but, now that people like you and Joe and Will and Claes have explained the 2nd LoT, they have had to slightly change their emphasis without necessarily having to change the above quote. They now say – with complete lack of irony – that the primary source of heating is the Solar Insolation but – and this is a big but (to quote Monty Python) – the thermal energy from backradiation is ADDED to that primary insolation. The result of this addition is that the surface warms. I agree with you (for the umpteenth time) that this is nonsense but you just gainsaying the warmists isn’t enough. We can be objective and still point out the nonsense. In saying that the backradiation is supplementary to the solar insolation they can claim (erroneously) that they are not saying that radiation from a cooler source “actually (directly) warms the surface… NOBODY is saying that!” as per your David Cosserat example and as per Lucia who has used the same deflection. They now say that if it was a case of hot body versus cold body, the hot body will not get warmer “but if there is a separate source of primary heating (the Sun), then the added thermal energy from CO2 WILL make the surface warmer…”. Greg this is a specious argument I agree! Where would they get such an idea from? Prevost, that’s who. So please just read on…

    Look again at the K&T (IPCC) cartoon you linked earlier:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1-figure-1.html

    You will notice that there are two different places annotated ‘absorbed by the surface’. The Solar radiation really IS absorbed (for energy gain) because it is at a higher frequency than is currently being emitted by the surface. As such, that radiation can ‘bridge the energy gap’ required by the surface molecule electrons to move to a higher energy orbit and therefore WARM up (somebody please correct me if I am wrong). However, the backradiation arrow represents radiation which is at a lower frequency (longer wavelength) and, as such, will be totally irrelevant to the thermal energy level of the surface molecules which are already emitting at that wavelength. That radiation cannot be absorbed for energy gain. It will be either transmitted or reflected (and by reflected I mean absorbed for no energy gain and instantly re-emitted at the same wavelength). Therefore I maintain that it is not the case that backradiation does not exist but that the warming effect of backradiation does not exist! That is where objectivity comes in. And the reason the warmists think they can ADD energies (thermal) is because Prevost said they could (“One would send to the other eleven particles, while the latter would return only ten…”)! This is the DEFINING ARGUMENT of the cAGW debate. And it is ALL based on a dogma which assumes Prevost was correct.

    Greg, you understand the physics, I completely accept that, but you shouldn’t be so quick to attack based on what you think the warmists mean. As a non-scientist (albeit someone who works in a science environment), I do not have the luxury of relying on my scientific qualifications. I can only look at each argument and apply logical reasoning. In order for me to be accurate, I have to be objective. There is just too much emotion in the debate. Emotion leads to assumption, dogma and lack of reason. The basic physics is not being questioned because too many people are insisting that they – or their textbooks – know best.
    I hope you can see that I am not trying to redirect the debate. I truly believe that the assumed interaction of radiation at the surface is the key to the warmists’ fallacy. I have no doubt that your thinking is along the right lines but I still want to try to clarify the argument by trying to figure out WHY the pro-cAGW brigade think the way they do.

    Respectfully yours,

    Arfur

  92. solvingtornadoes says:

    W.J:
    Please explain why you think dimers, trimers, and higher, have the same volume as a monomer?

    J.Mc:
    Look into Avogadro’s Law.

    W.J.:
    Why can not the polymers have lower density than less-mers? Snowflakes do!

    J.Mc:
    I’m not going to try to figure out what you mean by this.

    W.J.:
    What makes you think that atmospheric H2O monomers do not exist below 100 C.?

    J.Mc:
    It’s because I have an extremely explicit understanding of the physics of the water molecule. But if you were paying attention you would have seen that this issue was/is addressed on the same page that I introduced the moist air heavier: reverse atmospheric engine couldn’t possibly work otherwise (prove me wrong).

    W.J.:
    No criticism Jim, only thoughtful questions! I see your tornado concepts interesting!

    J.Mc:
    The physics of the water molecule are *extremely* counterintuitive and difficult to explain. And these physics are extremely important to understanding what situational factors that allow/enable H2O to provide structure in the atmosphere.
    And, by the way, structure (as was explicated in their demonstration) is the key to pervection.

    I am currently working on a book that will attempt to put some meat on the bones of this theoretical thinking. I’m hoping it will be done before June.

    W.J.:
    The Connolly papers! are from a family in Ireland. See the above:
    Max™ says: 2014/02/28 at 3:05 AM
    Whoa, that pervection paper: http://oprj.net/oprj-archive/atmospheric-science/25/oprj-article-atmospheric-science-25.pdf is a heck of a thing.

    J.Mc:
    Thank you for bringing this to my attention. You are right. I had completely overlooked the significance of these three papers. These people (the Connellys) have not in my opinion arrived at the right answer/solutions to the issues they highlight. But they are asking the right questions.

    In Paper 1, we developed new analytical techniques for studying weather balloon data. Using these

    techniques, we found that we were able to accurately describe the changes in temperature with height

    by just accounting for changes in water content and the existence of a previously unreported phase change.

    J. Mc:
    They are right that there is a phase change occurring at the boundary of the tropopause and the top of the Troposphere. And the phase change involves “multimers” but not of either N2 or O2. And they are especially on target when they associate this with high winds. (The other factor they should be looking for in association with their “multimers” is windshear between bodies of air that have different levels of moisture, one dry the other moist.)

    In Paper 2, we suggest that the phase change we identified in Paper 1 involves the “multimerization” of

    oxygen and/or nitrogen in the air above the “troposphere” (the lower part of the atmosphere). This has

    important implications for a number of important phenomena related to the atmosphere, e.g., ozone

    formation, the locations of the jet streams, and how tropical cyclones form.

    Even though their model is, IMO, flawed their model is able to explain something that the convection model fails to explain: the origins of low pressure associated with storms.

    In Paper 3, we identify a mechanism by which energy is transmitted throughout the atmosphere, which

    we call “pervection”. This mechanism is not considered in the greenhouse effect theory, or in the current

    climate models. We carried out laboratory experiments to measure the rates of pervection in air, and

    find that it is much faster than radiation, convection and conduction.

    The need, conceptually, to explain how the Troposphere achieves the mixing and resulting thermodynamic stability that provides the normally calm atmospheric conditions we enjoy on this planet is EXACTLY on target. In sharp contrast to the field of Meteorology these guys get it. I suspect that if these people (Connellys) had the same sophisticated understanding of the physics of the H2O molecule that I possess they would, I believe, have arrived at many of the same solutions that I have arrived at and that I hope to make public in my book that I hope to realease before June. Thanks again, Will, for brining this to my attention.

  93. Greg House says:

    Arfur Bryant says: “Once again, here is what the IPCC actually says about the ‘Greenhouse Effect’: [...] In saying that the backradiation is supplementary to the solar insolation they can claim (erroneously) that they are not saying that radiation from a cooler source “actually (directly) warms the surface… NOBODY is saying that!” as per your David Cosserat example…”
    =========================================

    Arfur, I am very glad that you stopped pretending half-stupid “i am just asking questions” guy and are trying somehow to save the IPCC concept. Unfortunately for you, post-editing the David Cosserat statement I referred to previously was not really clever, because it is so obvious, you know, and gives away a f***ing liar, please excuse my French. It is not that I am against letting the liars lie or discussing things with them, I have been doing that the whole time, so please continue.

    You idea of renaming the physically impossible back radiation heating in SUPPLEMENTARY back radiation heating might confuse a few readers, but it neither changes the IPCC concept nor can save it. Of course it can be called “supplementary”, why not, the source is not at the absolute zero, this is self-evident, therefore nobody including the IPCC uses such a term. However, their concept is that the back radiation RAISES the temperature of the source and exactly that is physically impossible. It being physically impossible can be, as I said above, easily demonstrated on the schoolchildren level without any reference to the Prevost theory, which makes the Prevost theory irrelevant to the main point. Whatever theory warmists refer to trying to sell the IPCC “greenhouse effect” is irrelevant.

  94. Will Janoschka says:

    solvingtornadoes says: 2014/03/07 at 10:07 AM
    W.J: Please explain why you think dimers, trimers, and higher, have the same volume as a monomer?
    J.Mc: Look into Avogadro’s Law.
    AHH! Jim, Hence the question. That law, a number of of molecules or atom acting as individual molecules, relating the triplet of temperature, pressure, volume, to his constant. Nothing about counting loosly clumping molecules.(polymers). Please show why your H2O “trimer” occupies any less volume than 3X an H2O monomer?

    W.J.: Why can not the polymers have lower density than less-mers? Snowflakes do!
    J.Mc: I’m not going to try to figure out what you mean by this.
    The difference in 2D and 3D geometry. Why are snowflakes so reflective at all wavelengths.

    W.J.: What makes you think that atmospheric H2O monomers do not exist below 100 C.?
    J.Mc: It’s because I have an extremely explicit understanding of the physics of the water molecule. But if you were paying attention you would have seen that this issue was/is addressed on the same page that I introduced the moist air heavier: reverse atmospheric engine couldn’t possibly work otherwise (prove me wrong).
    I have no wish to prove anyone “wrong”. I am trying to learn. I was off reading your army references. No elimination of monomers, great inducement to polymers via their deliberate
    ionisation. Clouds can likely do this much better than the army can.

    W.J.: No criticism Jim, only thoughtful questions! I see your tornado concepts interesting!
    J.Mc: The physics of the water molecule are *extremely* counterintuitive and difficult to explain. And these physics are extremely important to understanding what situational factors that allow/enable H2O to provide structure in the atmosphere.
    I can’t go there Jim, I have not the understanding
    J.Mc: And, by the way, structure (as was explicated in their demonstration) is the key to pervection.
    J.Mc: I am currently working on a book that will attempt to put some meat on the bones of this theoretical thinking. I’m hoping it will be done before June.

    W.J.: The Connolly papers! are from a family in Ireland.
    J.Mc: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. You are right. I had completely overlooked the significance of these three papers. These people (the Connellys) have not in my opinion arrived at the right answer/solutions to the issues they highlight. But they are asking the right questions.

    I agree with you in both cases! I “tink” your answers/solutions are not the best. Please go find some Sparky you trust, (some old EE that has done much, but never wanted to teach idiots) .
    Ask about electrical potential, and electro-motive energy, having a large effect on your studies.
    Perhaps I can assist in the language translation. All the best Jim!

  95. Arfur Bryant says:

    Greg,

    My children are way past the petulant and whining teenage age, so I have almost forgotten how to react to your ‘stamping feet’ tantrum.

    You calling me a f***ing liar crosses the line of reasonable discourse. I was merely trying to point out what your enemy (which is not me, by the way) will use in the debate. I would have thought me actually quoting the IPCC rather than you using your interpretation would stand on its own merit. I can assure you I am in no way a supporter of the IPCC. Of course, as I am ‘a f***ing liar’, you would not believe me anyway.

    My contribution to this ‘conversation’ ends here. I wish you every success in the future.

  96. Will Janoschka says:

    solvingtornadoes says: 2014/03/07 at 10:07 AM
    The need, conceptually, to explain how the Troposphere achieves the mixing and resulting thermodynamic stability that provides the normally calm atmospheric conditions we enjoy on this planet is EXACTLY on target. In sharp contrast to the field of Meteorology these guys get it. I suspect that if these people (Connellys) had the same sophisticated understanding of the physics of the H2O molecule that I possess they would, I believe, have arrived at many of the same solutions that I have arrived at and that I hope to make public in my book that I hope to realease before June. Thanks again, Will, for brining this to my attention.

    Jim,
    Please come down from the meta-physical. Please explain why Humans have this need to invent John paper?, even knowing, “Why wipe, you are just going to shit again”! Earthlings. and all other critters, creachers, varments, and roaches ignore that. Young female kittys lick their ass incessantly, to have the bestest cats ass! Humans do not lick, they invent John paper, why? Before anyone can claim CAGW, they must explain the immense amount of human stupidity!

  97. Will Janoschka says:

    Arfur Bryant says: 2014/03/07 at 11:39 PM
    Greg,
    My contribution to this ‘conversation’ ends here. I wish you every success in the future.
    Arfur,
    Please do not give up on then rest of us. You have excellent questions, mostly difficult to answer Do not believe my answers, I do not know, I only have “my” opinion, go check. Kindly inform me when I really Fuck Up, Kinda story of my life! Please do not blame Prevost for that he did not write nor even implied. Blame the arrogant Nuevo science academics for all written misinterpretation. In your Wiki article the reference to Jimmy Maxwell’s paper, if you read it, denies all claims of the arrogant Nuevo science academic ass-holes.. The old guys seem to be very careful with words in their writings! Ask more difficult questions, briefly consider all answers, discard the trivia, then ask even more difficult questions of the rest. This is called “learning” without poking yourself in the eye with a pencil!. The poking in the eye knowledge lasts a whole lifetime.

  98. Arfur Bryant says:

    Will Janoschka says:
    2014/03/08 at 8:22 PM

    Will,

    What a lovely post!

    My reference to the ‘conversation’ meant my discussion/argument with Greg, not with anyone else. I love this blog. People here really care about the subject – and that counts for a lot in my book! I have learnt a great deal from you and Joe and the other posters here.

    I also do not actually blame Prevost personally for the warmist fallacy. I blame their interpretation of Prevost, Whenever I have had the opportunity to debate with a warmist, apart from their pathetic attempts to deflect the debate away from science and on to the personal, I have found that their fundamental assumptions are based on their collective (groupthink is a major player on some blogs) interpretation of some of the old statesmen of science. So I don’t blame the statesmen, I blame the warmists’ lack of objectivity and reasoning.

    Anyway, I will continue to ask questions and hopefully learn from both the good and bad answers!

    All the best to you! :)

    [“

  99. Greg House says:

    Arfur Bryant says: “I blame their interpretation of Prevost,”
    =================================================

    The IPCC “greenhouse effect” is not an interpretation of the Prevost’s theory.

    The IPCC “greenhouse effect” does refer to back radiation, but it goes beyond simple stating that “back radiation” exists. Again, as we know very well, the IPCC “greenhouse effect” states that “back radiation” INCREASES the temperature of the source (Earth surface) which is physically impossible and can not be derived from the Prevost’s theory either. Besides, if it could be derived from the Prevost’s theory, then logically this would prove the Prevost’s theory wrong.

    So, again, if the Prevost’s theory is incorrect, there is no “greenhouse effect” and if it is correct, there is no “greenhouse effect” either. This is so simple.

    So, please, stop pretending stupid and dragging us away from the main issue to an irrelevant one.

  100. Will Janoschka says:

    Arfur Bryant says: 2014/03/08 at 11:13 PM
    Will Janoschka says:2014/03/08 at 8:22 PM

    Will, What a lovely post! All the best to you! :)
    Arfur,
    There is much more, Folk with integrity, and charging for advice, seldom BS you. (BS is the best way to go out of business). This needs your careful attention, My attorney advised “Will, lie, steal, avoid, run away, from going to court! Stupid I, went to court. What a painful, poke in the eye, learning experience.
    The guy at the state fair, selling a set of knives that never get dull, is the epitome of climate science. My cardiologist remarked ” Climatology is to physics, as the Stork is to obstetrics” ..
    Get your your younger sibling to take the poke in the eye! Mom will only swat you up the side of your head. (“that” S matrix is very interesting)!

  101. D.M. says:

    Will, your cardiologist must have heard about this statistic which was mentioned in a statistics course in the late 50s. As the population in Germany was increasing so was the Stork population. This was given as an example of how to be careful with cause and effect. Fortunately at that time we didn’t have present day politicians who would have ordered a cull of Storks to avoid a catastrophic population problem based on a hockey stick graph! Your cardiologist is pretty smart!

  102. solvingtornadoes says:

    W.J: Please explain why you think dimers, trimers, and higher, have the same volume as a monomer?
    J.Mc: Look into Avogadro’s Law.
    W.J: AHH! Jim, Hence the question. That law, a number of of molecules or atom acting as individual molecules, relating the triplet of temperature, pressure, volume, to his constant.
    J.Mc: Yeah, so?
    W.J: Nothing about counting loosly clumping molecules.(polymers).
    J.Mc: Yeah, so?
    W.J: Please show why your H2O “trimer” occupies any less volume than 3X an H2O monomer?
    J.Mc: Are you suggesting Avogadro’s law isn’t applicable to multimers (molecules clumped together by forces other than covalent bond)? Why?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s