The Fraud of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Part 6: The Stupidity of Backradiation

In this post we will expose one of the biggest scientific frauds of them all, in its relation to and its invention alongside the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

In previous posts we have learned how the atmospheric greenhouse effect was invented by climate science:  They artificially reduced the incoming power of Sunshine to -18oC (actually in this figure it is -42oC!), completely hiding its actual & real input value of +49oC, and then invented a purely fictional mechanism to get more energy into their system so that they could make it look like reality with its real high-temperature input.  This heat self-amplification mechanism they invented is called the atmospheric greenhouse effect, even though it has nothing to do with a real greenhouse.  They just named it that to confuse you.

After having invented the idea of an atmospheric greenhouse effect, they needed to invent a mechanism by which it might “plausibly” work, so that they could vilify the life-creating-gas of carbon dioxide.  The mechanism is called back-radiation.  The simple (but fraudulent) idea they created, is that the radiation from the atmosphere acts like an additional source of energy for the Earth, and by their reckoning, the atmosphere provides twice the amount of heat, to itself and to the surface, than the Sun does in the first place!  This is postulated to occur even though the atmosphere is colder than the surface itself, and the same temperature as itself.  The atmosphere is able to do this with the radiative heat energy it gets from the ground, and so the energy is said to be “sent back” to do some more heating. Essentially, the atmosphere is said to heat itself up by giving itself its own energy!  Thus the moniker of “back-radiation”.

So in climate science, back-radiation from the atmosphere is said to provide twice the heating power of the Sun, even though the atmosphere is colder than the surface of the Earth, and even more colder than the input sunshine.  This sequence is described in Part 4 of this series, so please read that post again if you would like to refresh your memory.

Now let’s make one thing very clear here:  the atmosphere has a temperature.  Of course it has a temperature.  An ice-cube has a temperature.  Everything has a temperature (except for outer-space itself).  But just because something has a temperature, does not mean that it is causing or providing heating power.  Heat, of course, only flows from hot to cold.  Anything with a temperature is holding internal heat energy, but that temperature does not cause heating on any other object unless an object is colder.  And a temperature never causes heating upon itself!  A temperature can not increase its own temperature.

Other than matter simply holding energy in its temperature, the only other place heat energy gets trapped is in latent heat.  This is why deserts get so much colder overnight than humid regions.  It is quite ridiculous when greenhouse effect believers say that CO2 causes delay of cooling at night, when it is so well known that the only substance which is known to do this is water vapor and liquid due to their latent heat.  There is no mechanism by which COcan replicate that behavior.

So, the atmosphere has a temperature which is colder than the ground and far colder than the input sunshine: does this then mean that the atmosphere provides twice the amount of heating power than the Sun does, and that it is an independent source of heating energy for itself and for the planet?

Well of course not!  Why would anyone even say that?  It is a plain abuse of logic and especially of thermodynamics.  No amount of graphs and fancy charts that shows that the atmosphere has a temperature, or reflects or absorbs some radiation and produces an absorption spectrum, means that the colder atmosphere is heating up the warmer planet Earth!  The atmosphere gains its temperature mainly from contact with the warmer ground surface; this temperature can not “go back” to the ground and heat itself up some more!  It is such a stupid thing to say…it really has to be up there on the all-time-stupid-list.  Yet, this is what happens when pseudoscientists (fake scientists) start inventing ideas to fix their faulty theories.

How do we know that back-radiation doesn’t increase the temperature of itself?  Well we already know this from the Laws of Thermodynamics and the most basic rational logic.  Remember, work is done in raising an objects’ temperature, and it takes energy to do work.  It takes higher quality energy, to do higher quality work.  This means that it takes higher frequencies of energy, to generate higher temperature.  To put it more simply: the temperature of a substance can not increase its own temperature!  What a laughable idea.  We know this simply because it is so obviously true, and because experiments have confirmed it for hundreds of years.

This graphic by Jim Peden offers a clear, humorous illustration of what back-radiation is thought to do by climate scientists:

Do you see how ridiculous this is?  It doesn’t matter if there’s an input source of energy or not in the climate-pseudoscience scheme – their invented fictional physics is specifically that an object becomes its own source of heat and will heat itself up to higher temperature by its own output radiation being sent back upon itself.  This does not require an external input, because anything with a temperature puts out radiation.  This is exactly the same thing as how they say that the ground sends radiation into the atmosphere, and then the atmosphere sends some of the energy back to further increase the temperature of the ground.  Just like the self-cooking oven, this doesn’t actually have to make any reference to the input at all!  The actual input doesn’t even factor in…it is the output, any output, which can come back and heat itself up some more, to any temperature.  It is such a stupid idea and obvious invention of pseudoscience, it is difficult to even write about it without just saying: “It’s a stupid idea”.  Full stop.  Nothing more needs to be said.  No explanation required.

Their whole scheme doesn’t even require an input source of energy, and so it is irrelevant to them that they dilute the power of Sunshine to -42oC.  They could dilute the input power to however low of value they wished, and still they could say that the greenhouse makes up the difference.  If we do acknowledge the real power input of sunshine, being very hot, then of course we have no reason to invent such insanity.  It is the Sun that heats the Earth to the temperature that the Sunshine can generate, and we showed this in my last paper with real-world observations.  The Earth does not heat itself up to the temperature that the sunshine can already generate.  And the only place that heat actually gets trapped is in latent heat of H20, which keeps the poles much warmer than they would otherwise be.

Of course, all of this is why greenhouse effect believers have turned on their original explanations, and now just try to say that the greenhouse effect merely “slows down cooling at night”.  But we already know how cooling is slowed down at night, and that it is from the release of energy from water vapor due to its latent heat.  Carbon dioxide does not do this, because it does not release any latent heat at night time (or day time for that matter).  Besides, we measured for this delayed cooling in my last paper, and we found that cooling was actually enhanced at the surface, not delayed, relative to the whole column.  This is probably because the emissivity is highest near the surface and so this is where energy is lost most efficiently, and hence where cooling is most efficient.

The radiation that is inside the atmosphere, being emitted due to the temperature of the atmosphere, is not the cause of the atmosphere’s own temperature.  It is a result of the temperature, not a cause.  Anything with a temperature radiates, and nothing increases its own temperature with its own radiation.  The cause of the temperature of the surface and atmosphere is due to the input energy from the Sun, together with the atmospheric lapse rate gradient and latent heat trapping.

Many “believers” refer to the absorption spectrum of the Earth as observed from outer space: it has a “bite” out of it where CO2 scatters a portion of the outward energy.  Let’s be very clear about this with a short physics lesson:  an absorption spectrum is created when radiation from a warmer source is shone through a gas of colder temperature.  Do you get that?  Warmer radiation, from a warmer source, through a colder gas.  Nowhere, in all of physics, in all of astronomy, in all of chemistry, is this colder gas said to be the cause of the higher temperature of the warmer radiation shining through it!  This is only a pseudoscientific idea created by and for the pseudoscience of climate hyper-reality.  Can radiative absorption in a gas increase the gases’ temperature?  Why yes, of course!  Is that absorption the cause of the radiation coming into it in the first place?  Why no, of course not.

The reason why I am writing the “religion series” on this blog is because I have been forced to develop a psychological, philosophical understanding for why people believe in such ridiculous, insane, stupid, things.  Once you see how it all gets put together, it will be undeniable that a new religion is precisely what climate pseudoscience is.  What will be even more amazing it why it is has been created as such, and for what purpose, larger than itself.

We had actually already won this (backradiation) topic with the publication of my papers last year on this subject, here, here, and here.  We had full admittance, by several members of the climate-pseudoscience community, that the flat Earth models indeed do not represent reality in any way, although, they couldn’t explain why they would use such a flat Earth model to teach as real the very result that only such a model produces in the first place!  They’d been caught-out in other words, and exposed as sophists and incompetents, and a lot of people witnessed it.  But then they continued using the flat-earth backradiation theory anyway, switching it from an actual heating force to a simpler delayed-cooling phenomenon, but which as we have seen is also bunk.

Let’s make one thing very clear then: a “scientific theory” that randomly switches from one explanation to another, from one set of “physics” and math to another, is not science, but is pseudoscience.  We don’t see the Theory of Relativity having explanations which are proven wrong and then others being thrown in to keep it going!

The backradiation-heating greenhouse effect is a complete and utter lie.  It is believed in by crazy people, incompetents, and follower-slaves.

This entry was posted in Fraud of the Greenhouse Effect and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to The Fraud of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Part 6: The Stupidity of Backradiation

  1. Max™‮‮ says:

    Don’t you hate having to try to discuss pseudoscience using the nonsensical language of pseudoscience in an attempt to unravel the errors and holes it possesses?

    [Reply: lol, yes!]

  2. Baa Humbug says:

    The fraudsters get away with their fraud because they confuse lay people by using terms like Wm2 upwelling and Wm2 down welling etc. Adding these numbers up is easy and seems to make sense.

    What they don’t tell the public is that their proposal involves ‘heat’ from a surface that is supposedly MINUS 18DegC. That’s the temperature of a deep freeze Joe. Energy from this deep freeze is supposed to ‘upwell’, be intercepted by GHGs and sent back to the surface heating it up to a nice balmy 15DegC.

    I’ve mentioned this on a few blogs but nobody seems to want to tackle me on it. I’ve suggested they do a simple experiment with party ice (which is kept at about -18Degc) and an Esky or any other styrofoam cooler used to keep drinks cool.
    Fill it halfway with party ice (-18DegC), add as much CO2 as you like from a small fire extinguisher, seal the lid and let us know how long it takes to reach a nice balmy 15DegC.

    I’ve even suggested that we could stop old folks dying from the cold during bitter winters by asking volunteers to shovel snow and ice into the living room floor of the old folks homes (where the CO2 content of the air in the living room is much higher than the free atmosphere). Just watch the ‘heat’ from that snow and ice be trapped by the CO2, back-radiated onto the floor whereupon it reaches a nice cosy 15DegC. Slippers and cardigan temperature level for old folks who can’t afford heating bills.

    [Reply: quote: “Energy from this deep freeze is supposed to ‘upwell’, be intercepted by GHGs and sent back to the surface heating it up to a nice balmy 15DegC.” Exactly! That’s what I tried to explain around pg. 14 of this paper: Great comment and thanks for the explanation!]

  3. RonaldR says:

    The recent Doha UN Climate Change Conference is yet another push for a global green fascist dictatorship—it has nothing to do with climate science. However, in one respect Doha is scientific: it is a scientific proof that the propaganda line of a “consensus” on man-made global warming is laughable, as Australia is one of only 37 nations, out of the 194 in attendance, to commit to economic self-destruction by signing up to the new Kyoto Protocol. China, which is building approximately one new coal-fired power station per week (compared with Australia’s rate of just four stations built in the last decade), is not one of the 37 signers.
    Many thousands of scientists have been shouting from the rooftops for years that “global warming” is a swindle and they continue to do so despite enormous pressure to submit to the climate gravy train and the mainstream media efforts to supress them.
    On 29 November 2012, 125-PLUS PROMINENT SCIENTISTS WROTE AN OPEN LETTER to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, slamming the entire climate swindle and Ban Ki-moon’s complicity in propagating climate lies, such as blaming Hurricane Sandy on “climate change”.
    In this open letter these scientists stated: “The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years…. The hypothesis that our emissions of CO2 have caused, or will cause, dangerous warming is not supported by the evidence…. we ask that you desist from exploiting the misery of the families of those who lost their lives or properties in tropical storm Sandy by making unsupportable claims that human influences caused that storm. They did not.”
    Contrary to mainstream media hype, the vast majority of scientists do not subscribe to the view that we are facing a man-made climate catastrophe. And they certainly don’t attribute a freak storm to global warming which stopped more than a decade ago.
    In America alone, to date 31,487 scientists (9,029 with PhDs) have signed the Global Warming Petition Project, debunking “global warming” and adding that “there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
    A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the U.S. George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that almost two-thirds (63 per cent) of 571 who responded believe global warming is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment—not human activities. Those surveyed included members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association.
    A more recent 2012 survey published by the AMS found that 41 per cent of their members were not convinced that human activity is the primary cause of global warming and only 30 per cent of members said they were very worried about global warming. This is a highly significant level of dissent considering the official AMS statement on climate change is that the “dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities”.
    The AMS peddles numerous imagined climate disaster scenarios as does the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, the CSIRO and many other institutions under direction from the financial oligarchy. It’s not a good career move to break from the official line and many scientists wait until they retire before they slam the official climate claptrap.
    Scientists who have seriously looked at geological history know that carbon dioxide levels today at 390 ppm are much lower than for most of the history of life on Earth and 450 million years ago the Earth went into an Ice Age when carbon dioxide levels exceeded 4,000 ppm—more than ten times the current concentration.
    Here are some of those among the majority of scientists who don’t subscribe to the nonsense of an anthropogenic climate catastrophe:
    “I AM A SCEPTIC…. GLOBAL WARMING HAS BECOME A NEW RELIGION.”—Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Dr. Ivar Giaever.
    “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”—Stanley B. Goldenberg, U.S. Government (NOAA) atmospheric scientist and meteorologist.
    “AGW (ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING) IS A FICTION AND A VERY DANGEROUS FICTION.”—William Kininmonth, head of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s National Climate Centre (1986-1998), Australian delegate to the World Meteorological Organization’s Commission for Climatology (1982-1998).
    “CO2 EMISSIONS MAKE ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER…. EVERY SCIENTIST KNOWS THIS, BUT IT DOESN’T PAY TO SAY SO.”—Prof. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

  4. Ilma630 says:

    It beats me how a simple bit of maths of the warmists pseudo-construct has been ‘lost’ in their minds. They say “the ground sends radiation into the atmosphere, and then the atmosphere sends some of the energy back to further increase the temperature of the ground.” The simple maths therefore is:

    Let’s say the surface LOSES 1 unit of energy by radiation and so reduces by 1 unit of temperature (to use round numbers and arbitrary scales for the sake of illustration). If the atmosphere radiates any energy back, it is at most 0.5 units causing the surface to warm by 0.5 units, therefore from the surface’s point of view: -1 + 0.5 = -0.5.

    -0.5 units to me is a temperature DROP, not gain. The BIG assumption / error they have therefore made is that when the surface radiates energy, it doesn’t lose any energy and so the surface doesn’t lose temperature, i.e. cool because of that process. This is so obviously wrong, it’s amazing why they don’t realise it, and yet they call *themselves* the experts!!

    Thank you again Joe for making this clear.

    [Reply: And thank you for this. I will do a new post just on exactly how they fudge their math, next.]

  5. johnosullivan says:

    Joe, you’ve proved denialism and hypocrisy are alive and well. The most insane aspect of this is that so-called skeptics like WUWT, Nova, Spencer, Lindzen, Monckton et al. won’t even countenance any discussion of their fabled self-heating greenhouse gas effect. What are they afraid of? If they are correct then they should easily make us look fools – but if we are right then the world can see how stupid these “skeptics” been for years.

    [Reply: I’ve never been able to understand why some of these more famous skeptics run away from criticizing GHE math etc. The issue, even according to them is “how much warming can we expect”. Doesn’t the answer to that question revolve precisely around being scientifically skeptical of the GHE, how it works, what it is said to do, if it makes sense, what the physics is, what the mechanisms are, etc etc? If you want to know “how much warming” then the ONLY thing you need to analyse is the GHE. But this is paradoxically the only thing that most “skeptics” won’t touch, which therefore makes all of their work beside the point, and really only helps to prolong and thereby validate alarmism.]

  6. Pingback: The Fraud of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Part 6: The Stupidity of Backradiation « Skeptics Chillin'

  7. Ilma630 says:

    I have been thinking about this further, and it struck me that the 0.5 units of back-radiation didn’t make any assumption about atmospheric composition, i.e. no matter what concentration the GHGs were, the maximum could only be 0.5. I think it would be fair to say then that even if the atmosphere was 100% CO2, the 0.5 would still apply, which simply means that by the warmists own hypothesis, NO AMOUNT of CO2 could EVER warm the surface by back radiation. Hypothesis well and truly debunked, and without even having to provide an alternative correct one.

    [Reply: Precisely…thanks for this!]

  8. Greg House says:

    johnosullivan says, 2012/12/16 at 3:08 AM: “Joe, you’ve proved denialism and hypocrisy are alive and well. The most insane aspect of this is that so-called skeptics like WUWT, Nova, Spencer, Lindzen, Monckton et al. won’t even countenance any discussion of their fabled self-heating greenhouse gas effect.”

    John, I suggest we do not generalise. There are, of course, some fake skeptics around, who deliberately fool people, but there are also others, who are fooled by skilled liars.

  9. Ilma630 says:

    We could call the -0.5 error “minushalfgate” 🙂

  10. Mindert Eiting says:

    Reminds me of a post by Roy Spencer some time ago (‘Yes Virginia …’), in which he asserted that the presence of a cold bar would prevent another heated bar from cooling (note the language). I wrote him as a layman that his theory implied that if the sun, Jupiter, and Saturn became aligned, the temperature at the surface of the sun would drop with a delay of distance Saturn-sun divided by the speed of light. He wrote a ridiculous reaction as if I were talking about astrology and he banned me from his site. However, I just wrote him a consequence of his back radiation theory.

    [Reply: Nice one.]

  11. Ilma630 says:

    Mindert, I remember that post of Roy’s. I had a guy tweet me that “0.0395% of black ink in water would prevent me seeing into the water for more than 10m”, being an analogy of heat penetrating the atmosphere before being absorbed by CO2 – trying to say that surface radiated heat couldn’t get through without being absorbed, so I responded that “in that case, no heat could escape” and got a similar reaction, wondering what planet I was on 🙂

  12. Mindert Eiting says:

    However, Joe, I do not fully agree with your last sentence. I belong to a generation, having the ‘grace of the late birth’, as a German politician once said. Born after WWII, I’ve never understood antisemitism. Perhaps you do not realize that almost everybody endorsed it, also famous writers and scientists. You have wrong and insane ideas. To be specific, I consider the ancient idea of the earth as a flat pancake quite reasonable. A few thousand years ago some people started to doubt this, but given the knowledge of that day, what could people have thought else? That the sun revolves around the earth, is a funny idea (perhaps not even wrong because of the relativity of motion). Medieval alchemy should be pretty sympathetic to us. Making gold from iron requires nuclear fusion. Not having that at their disposal, these people were quite brave in their endeavor. It is not the wrongness of ideas making them insane. There must be an element of malevolence. If AGW were only wrong we would have a situation occurring every day in science. In the course of time I have come to the conclusion that AGW is malicious. It does not react to falsification as medicine but adapts and mutates like a virus with weather extremes as its latest guise. Again, famous politicians, writers, and scientists endorse it. So we have to ask the question what is the function of AGW. Robert Zubrin wrote about this in his Merchants of Despair. I think he is on the right track.

    [Reply: Thanks much for that. Agreed. An associate of mine, Lionel Griffith, had this to say, which is similar:

    “It is not idiotic, it is absurd. It has a very clear purpose and, if implemented in full, the purpose will be achieved.

    Fundamental principle:

    When you see something that is absurd, don’t question the absurdity. Look at what it accomplishes. That will be its purpose.

    What is the purpose of this particular absurdity?

    The accomplishment will be the end result of a full implementation of their proposal and has nothing to do with the superficial and temporary results. Not money, not power and control, not submission of all to all. The end result will be the end of all higher life on earth and, in particular, human (i.e. rational) life. Their payoff will be the massive suffering they will have caused as life is extinguished. It is their dark substitute for a sense of self worth and efficacy for living on earth which they lack entirely.

    They hate the good for being good so much, they would give their own lives to accomplish their goal. If you don’t believe this, check your and their premises. Then follow the logic to its objective base. Make your own conclusions. Then apply the same line of thinking to the cult of CAGW. Report back on your findings.”]

  13. Max™‮‮ says:

    Sounds like Lionel remembers the Club of Rome folks and their “limits to growth” spiel.

  14. Rosco says:

    I know why “some of these more famous skeptics run away from criticizing GHE math etc.”

    The media, especially publicly funded media, will not present any opposition to the consensus on the climate debate and employ zealots whose sole purpose is to support the theory no matter what.

    These zealots always find a pseudoscientist to ridicule any criticism of climate mantra.

    It is the same tactics used by every dictator ever – get some power, create a diversion by giving the feeble minded something to fear and an outlet for that fear loathing and hatred, divide the population by “branding” critics as less valuable citizen and rigidly enforce these persons isolation.

    This of course leads to book burnings, mass thuggery and genocide – one only has to look at the increasingly insane comments some zealots are posting as the “resolution” of the problem fails at subsequent climate meetings.

    There are already people out there expressing views about sceptics involving murder or at least complete ostracization.

    The “famous” sceptics are afraid of losing their reputations if they “deny” the “settled science”.

    I fear it will take a mini ice age to kill it.

  15. Perfekt says:

    So you mean real microwave ovens doesn’t work too?
    The emitter is colder than the the chicken is supposed to become, therefore it cannot transfer heat to the chicken.

    [Reply: A microwave has nothing to do with the atmosphere and has nothing to do with backradiation and the greenhouse effect. Microwaves don’t function via backradiation from and of the same temperature as the “chicken”, and so therefore they have NOTHING to say about and no relation to backradiation and the GHE and how it is supposed to work.

    This post ( shows a device (from Jim Peden) which is a supposed GHE “microwave oven”. A microwave oven could never work by a chicken heating itself with its own thermal radiation, thus microwaves prove that the backradiation GHE doesn’t exist. Just like a candle flame at the center of focus of a mirror can’t heat itself either.

    The IPCC does not say that the GHE is like a microwave oven. This is a sophistic and reference-frame-shifting thing to try to even claim.

    The NNS335W compact microwave oven features 800W of high power output…”

    See that? 800 Watts. Specifically tuned to excite water molecules to food-eating temperatures. And it takes a few minutes of pumping that energy in to do it [800 W (Joules/second) * 1 minute = 48,000 Joules; enough energy to raise a cup of water from 0C to 50C]. The incoming energy of the microwaves IS more energetic than than the existing vibrational thermal energy in the colder food. That the microwave energy comes from the equivalent of an antenna, which is actually cold, has nothing to do with it.]

  16. Joe, you mentioned something that I noticed a long time ago. Many of the most prominent skeptics present themselves in such a manner that it makes it really easy for some of the more casual observers to dismiss them as stodgy, confused and even slow witted. The overly polite and extremely reticent speaking/writing styles of Lindzen and Mcintyre, for example, makes it very easy for their opponents to upstage them. And then there are skeptics like Monckton who gratuitously concede the notion (despite a known paucity of any supporting evidence) that CO2 does cause some warming. Even though I doubt it could possibly be deliberate or planned on their part, it does seem that the members of the global warming industrial complex have done a good job of propping up strawman that are easy to knock down–this article being a notable exception.

  17. Claudius, I no longer see any reason to be nice to these people. One thing is certain, aside from Tallbloke, these “big names” have NEVER been in any way friendly towards me or the Slayers/PSI at all when I/we ask them if sunshine really falls on one side of the planet only. I mean you should have seen Judith Curry take a crap (well, maybe not) when I told her that you can’t meaningfully average power input into a non-linear system where the average not only doesn’t represent time properly, but also geometry; i.e., the Earth receives sunlight on one side only which is a hemisphere, and therefore the sunlight can’t be averaged as if over a flat plane over 24 hours. These morons lose their minds when you say that sunlight is hot. I mean, sunlight is hot, does it therefore make sense to treat it as freezing cold at -18C? No. And so, to get upset about realizing that and then denying it, you gotta be a complete idiot and fraud.

    I say make fun of these people. Look how easy it is. Call them names. Be loud about it. Call them idiots, fools, frauds, etc etc etc. What do you have to back you up? That sunshine is hot and that the Earth is a sphere. They always retort with “have you never heard of an average?”. Well, have they ever heard of a sphere, or the Sun? Does sunshine melt ice? Is the difference between hot and cold real? Is there a difference between something being ACTUALLY HOT vs COLD IN THEORY?

  18. johnmarshall says:

    Today, 12May, WUWT featured a post by Dr Roy Spencer criticizing your posts on climate. Comments were closed before I could blog anything but ammunition for you is below.
    I emailed Dr Spencer some time ago asking how the GHE overcame thermodynamic law violations and his reply was to the effect that cold could affect hot areas through radiation. His example was to say, ”get into a cold bed and you soon start to feel warm”. So his example relied on heat from the bedclothes heating a body radiating at near 37C. I replied that the bedclothes were acting as an insulator and this slowed heat loss from your body so giving the impression of heat from the bed, which you had to warm with your own radiation first.
    He never replied!
    I hope this helps ”slay” a small selfimportant man who calls himself a denier but is a warmist in all but name.

  19. Allen Eltor says:

    They’re frauds and that’s all there is to it. The Magic Gas Energy Markets Manipulator Al Gore told them all in veiled terms to violate the law to install his policies because the world might end if they didn’t do it. They did so.

    It doesn’t work because it was a scam created to COVER a scam which was the GRANTS scams that Hansen, Mann Jones and others – PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD were GETTING GRANTS from the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT to MILK THIS – were making money on.

    Al just pumped it for energy market manipulation because he’s an Occidental Oil (third largest oil conglomerate on the planet, # 2 supplier of oil to CALIFORNIA inheritor. He inherited stocks from his daddy in the ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SECTION of OCCIDENTAL’S HOLDINGS and after he lost the election he had to PUMP his MONEY situation.

    So he found the guys running the scam and did his little come back tour, and since western socialists everywhere were in a melt down piss-puddles on the spot over not wanting to have to face that a lot of Islamic assholes were gonna have to get snuffed,

    libtards everywhere latched onto it like a Hindu kid with a brand new rat to pray to.

    And so they started committing crimes ON his WORD the WORLD would END if THEY DIDN’T.

    That’s AL GORE for you. When the world really WAS fighting a terror ware

    HE RAN HIS OWN TERROR WAR using the fact that national and international attentions were on SECURITY and NOT TOLERATING DISSENT from GOVERNMENT CLAIMS was part temporarily of the culture and he simply RAMMED enormous CRIMINAL FRAUD down the throat of the WORLD.

    It’s crime from the beginning and anybody who works in thermodynamics knows it.

  20. Allen Eltor says:

    Every single person you see who CLAIMS to believe in it, WILL NOT FACE YOU and MAKES MONEY FROM THE ALARM or the CONNECTION to GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT.

    Anthony Watts sells ELECTRIC CARS.
    as FREE MEDIA for his SITE because people like to see graphs and hear people talk about science.
    He HIMSELF did the EXPERIMENT that proved AL GORE SWITCHED the THERMOMETERS in the two JARS.

    He knows there’s no way to extract the ‘heating component’ of the effects a REFRIGERANT has on the BATH it’s REFRIGERATING.

    Water is the by F.A.R.R.R. most prevalent IR resonant gas and it is a PHASE CHANGE REFRIGERANT that PICKS UP HEAT and HELPS CONVECTION in a DRY NITROGEN/OXYGEN BATH
    it EVAPORATES changing PHASE then flies upward till relaxed pressures cause spontaneous emissions toward space cooling that water: it TURNS to ICE: another CHANGE of PHASE and FALLS AGAIN.

    This is a nitrogen/oxygen bath REFRIGERATED with about a 1%SHOT of WATER.


    There never HAS been
    There never WILL be

    And we as honest men are going to have to WAIT till those bastards are in the GROUND to re-write all those children’s and other texts about their FAULTY THERMODYNAMICS

    where a FRIGID REFRIGERATED BATH a warm ROCK’s immersed in,

    is analyzed as if it were a BIG WARM BLANKIE.

  21. Great analysis Allen!

  22. Alexandra says:

    Reading your post, I understand 2 things: you are paid to write bullshit and you have no idea what you are talking about. You are just waffling around topics that obviously you are incapable of understanding. You talk about the energy balance and heat transfer between the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface in simplistic terms, leaving out extremely important concepts such as both positive and negative feedbacks in the climatic system. These very mechanisms exert forcings that can contribute to warming or cooling of the atmosphere and the Earth. For example, backradiation indeed takes place in the atmosphere but it is done by the clouds. Clouds are white, therefore they have high albedo and re-radiate more energy than they absorb. I think your simplistic take on climate science is what makes you come to ridiculous conclusions. Nobody said radiation is cold, but taking in consideration the distance from Earth to the Sun, we would be freezing if it was not for the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect.

    I am truly sorry for all you people who are either in denial or paid t be stupid. I just hope your children won’t be the same.

  23. Hey Alexandra you mentally retarded idiot. The clouds don’t heat the surface. And why the hell are you changing reference frames to the clouds when it is all about CO2 in the greenhouse effect? Because you’re an idiot that’s why, and a fraud. In radiative physics the only thing that determines the temperature of a thermally radiating source is its emissivity. Since O2 and N2 have next to zero emissivity and don’t radiate at all, then THEY are warming gases. The opacity of the atmosphere has nothing to do with the surface temperature since surface temperature is determined by its own intrinsic property of emissivity, not by the intrinsic property of another distant object which is not emissivity! If you’re capable of actually comprehending the written word and basic logic structures, this this post. If you’re incapable of getting on board, piss off because I detest having to educate the ineducable.

  24. Donald Gisbey says:

    part of the issue is that the energy legit scientists have to expend dealing with this nonsense means we can’t put ourseleves to better use elsewhere.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s