The Mercator projection is a cylindrical map projection presented by the Flemish geographer and cartographer Gerardus Mercator in 1569. It became the standard map projection for nautical purposes because of its ability to represent lines of constant course, known as rhumb lines or loxodromes, as straight segments which conserve the angles with the meridians. While the linear scale is equal in all directions around any point, thus preserving the angles and the shapes of small objects (which makes the projection conformal), the Mercator projection distorts the size and shape of large objects, as the scale increases from the Equator to the poles, where it becomes infinite.
The Mercator projection is all about the problem of how to transform a physically 3-dimensional object into a two-dimensional representation. The problem is that this can’t be done without distorting the intrinsic physical properties of the 3-dimensional object, when viewed in the 2-dimensional representation.
What does this have to say about the greenhouse effect? Simple. A flat Earth is not a physically correct approximation to the true 3-dimensional nature of the planet. Just like a 2-D map of the planet Earth is not a true representation of the 3-D planet.
Not only do things like day and night disappear, and rotation stops, but the physics numbers themselves get modified by this physically incorrect mathematical transformation to make the Sun twice as far away as it really is and its energy four times less intense (far below “freezing cold” in fact).
And since the greenhouse effect only exists in these 2-D maps of the planet, such as the IPCC K&T and related energy budgets, and it comes about only in order to reconcile the difference in the physics between the false 2-D and real 3-D planet, then the greenhouse effect is demonstrated as a fiction invented to fix a fiction.
It’s like if we took a Mercator map projection of the Earth and chose to believe it was absolute fact, and then found that the Northern and Southern continents weren’t the size and shape the map said they were, and so we just invented some idea that swamp gas is the explanation for the difference, because we can’t stop believing in the 2-D map, and we can’t figure out that the planet is actually 3-dimensional.
If scientists were anywhere remotely actually thinking about their science, and thinking about other things they already know, the greenhouse effect would have never been tricked into the mass consciousness. The truth is that most scientists don’t actually like knowledge and aren’t actually intellectuals or interested in reason – they just like to make a salary talking about other people’s ideas, and never going beyond them. The last thing they might do is question or analyse any known limitations of these ideas, for their career is based on trusting them and talking about them. The trick is merely to control the appearance of authority…that’s all the academic science game is. It is also about doing completely useless and irrelevant work that never gets noticed because it benefits no one and doesn’t even hold the promise of benefiting anyone ever, just as long as your dean and department head are told that you wrote 3 papers this year. Not that they would understand them or care whether or not they’re correct.
You all realize that science is over and we’re heading into a zombie apocalypse, right? These animals are about to get so stupid, that they’ll kill you for stating that cold doesn’t heat hot. Please help me prevent this. How do we effectively communicate to people that cold doesn’t heat hot?
Here’s the thing… Is it even possible to communicate such a thing, if you have to? That’s disturbing as all heck. Wow…that’s the most disturbing thought I’ve ever had.
Mercator scale varies with the secant of the latitude. (to be technical)
No John…its CO2 that changes the scale 😉
Math and geometry has NOTHING to do with it!
How to communicate the laws of thermodynamics:
@It doesn’t add up – I think I’ll upgrade that youtube link to a new post 🙂
“Mercator”, of course, is Latin for “merchant”.
So even back then the rich were defining how the science was presented … 😉
Oh I didn’t know that. Neat. And good point.
The analogy of a greenhouse is about as apt as comparing the abortion of a future violinist to the trimming of your fingernails.
This post clearly indicates that those opposed to global warming theory have absolutely no idea of what they are talking about and can safely be ignored.
This is amazingly stupid. Wait, is it satire?
You mean to say that you don’t understand the geometrical difference between a plane and a rotating sphere, and how if you try to represent a sphere as a plane then the physical features on the surface of the sphere are not conserved? OK then. This is why global warming succeeds…because of a failure of our education system and the lack of critical thinking faculties among the general populace. Interesting to note that such a lack is found in the liberal population, most of all.
No no, I understand in extraordinary detail the problems of a sphere becoming a 2D projection. I have a degree in geography for all that’s worth.
The problem is the connection you have made. The climate system is not modeled on a 2D map. Computers are pretty amazing these days and they actually model the climate using an actual sphere, the same shape as Earth, which contrary to popular belief is not actually a sphere. They do this because the Coriolis effect changes the motion of storms and wind. Pretty amazing eh?
So, given that the post above is completely wrong, do you all believe in global warming now?
Good that you understand that physical features are not conserved when mapping from 3-D to 2-D. However, the greenhouse effect is created to fill in the gap of the difference which is created when the solar flux is averaged as if the planet is a plane. This reduces the power of sunlight from what it is in real-time, to a fiction that doesn’t exist. There is no such physical thing as an averaged solar power, there is only real-time solar power. The models use solar averaging and hence do not conserve physics. If they do use real-time on the other hand, then they don’t have the greenhouse effect. In any case, CO2 warming is modelled based on a simple projection of an assumed (and erroneous) causative correlation between the CO2 rise in the 20’th century, and the same period’s rise in temperature; this is an assumption, with no basis. If we then go back to the “greenhouse effect” to pretend to provide that basis, the greenhouse effect itself is a fraud, and doesn’t exist. Modelling the Coriolis effect in GCM “fluid models” has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect or the invented postulate of global warming. Plus the models have been empirically demonstrated to be wrong in terms of temperature prediction.
See these posts:
So, since there is no “greenhouse effect”, then no I do not accept global warming theory, which is based on it. CO2 is plant food. Oxygen and Nitrogen are already greenhouse gases due to the laws of radiative physics, i.e. they have low emissivity. Climate science doesn’t even get the basic definitions correct.
I think I need a clear explanation of greenhouse gas. Anyone?
Well, there is truly nothing to explain since a “greenhouse gas” doesn’t actually exist. How would I give a clear explanation of a unicorn? I can sort of describe it, but I can’t actually describe it, and I don’t know what the purpose of the horn might actually be, etc. I can tell you the alarmist idea of a greenhouse gas, but to do that I have to engage in mental gymnastics and cognitive dissonance, etc.
In simplest terms: it is a cold gas that returns heat it received from a warmer surface, back to the warmer surface. That’s really it.
It is a cold gas that returns heat it received from a warmer surface, back to the warmer surface, *by no known mechanism*.