The PSYOP of Climate Alarm and its Greenhouse Effect

This is a guest article by anonymous author – it was from an email just don’t know if the person wants attribution for it or not.  I’m sure they wouldn’t mind my posting it either way.  In spirit it follows directly on from the concluding statements of my last post.  This is one of the most insightful things you will ever read on this issue:

_______________

I sense your frustration in the apparent widespread abandonment of the scientific method when it comes to the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis.  The fact is, we are not actually dealing with science here because science does not have a political agenda.  The Ptolemaic model of the universe was simply an example of scientists being trapped within a false paradigm; I doubt that Aristotle was promoting any particular political agenda when he developed his model.

What is the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a political agenda?  Someone might falsely believe and improperly assert:

“Carbon dioxide ‘traps heat’ in the atmosphere.”  

That statement by itself is nothing more than a scientific hypothesis that can be tested empirically and discussed.  It can actually be refuted just by the fact alone that “heat” cannot be “trapped” since heat is energy in transit and to trap it would be to stop its movement thus causing it to disappear.  Thus even though that statement is false, even nonsensical, taken in isolation it merely demonstrates ignorance – a simple lack of knowledge, but has no political agenda attached to it.  No harm; no foul.

On the other hand though if someone says:

“Carbon dioxide ‘traps heat’ in the atmosphere therefore we must stop burning hydrocarbons as an energy source regardless of what consequences might ensue.”

then what we are actually dealing with is a political agenda and not science.  It is not the ignorance contained within the rather nonsensical statement “Carbon dioxide ‘traps heat’ in the atmosphere,” that is troubling, but rather the political agenda that is attached to it, i.e., “we must stop burning hydrocarbons as an energy source regardless of what consequences might ensue.”

In many ways the success of any political agenda depends upon the effectiveness of the propaganda campaign that promotes it.  In today’s world propaganda is officially referred to as “psychological operations” or “strategic perception management”.  The academic expertise of Prof. Philip Zelikow (the executive director of the 9-11 Commission), for example, was the creation and maintenance of “public myths and public presumptions”.  (“Thinking about Political History”, Miller Center Report, Winter 1999, pp. 5-7)

Psychological Operations:  Planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator’s objectives. Also called PSYOP. See also consolidation psychological operations; overt peacetime psychological operations programs; perception management. “ US Department of Defense

Let’s pause for a moment and just look at some of the language that is being used in the global PSYOP called “climate change” that is at its core a propaganda campaign because it seeks to manage the perception of the world’s generally unsuspecting and scientifically illiterate population in the promotion of a political agenda.

Is there such thing as a heat trap in thermodynamics?  I don’t know, but there is a “heat sink” but a heat sink draws heat away from something else.  The atmosphere is in fact a “heat sink” in that it draws heat away from the surface, but that is opposite from what the hypothetical “greenhouse effect” supposedly does, so one never hears the atmosphere being referred to as a “heat sink”.  I am fairly certain that within radiation thermodynamics there isn’t a notion that radiation escapes from its source, yet both “heat trap” and “escape” are emotive words that you will see present within IPCC reports.  They claim that carbon dioxidetraps heat within the lower atmosphere and only after a considerable struggle does IR radiation work its way up to high altitudes where it escapes into space.

This type of rhetoric is drawn from liberation theology and not from thermodynamic texts.   [JP:  Exactly.  See the Religion of Climate Change series.]

They might just as well have written:

“We are the champions of freedom; it is therefore our objective to liberate IR radiation-to help it ‘escape’ from the evil clutches of carbon dioxide which would otherwise ‘entrap’ and ‘enslave’ it.”

Is such language not itself a dead give away that we are dealing with a propaganda campaign and not science?

The fact is, the success of their global energy deprivation program depends in large part on their ability to successfully corrupt language.  For example, beyond the notion that carbon dioxide traps heat so that it cannot escape the atmosphere thus causing irreversibledamage to the environment, under the moniker “green energy” we observe the madness of turning perfectly good food into bio-fuels thus exacerbating world hunger.  We have elementary schools teaching our children and grandchildren to fret about the size of their “carbon footprints” as though they are trampling the Earth underfoot, while the most vehement anti-carbon dioxide rhetoric is being spewed by those who produce more of it than anyone else (even if that were a bad thing.)  We have people being accused of being addictssimply because their lifestyle depends upon the energy derived from burning fossil fuels and we hear people being labeled “immoral” because the better lifestyle that they desire requires a plentiful supply of relatively inexpensive energy.  We hear natural gas being called a “dirty” fuel simply because it releases when burned an odorless, tasteless, invisible gas called carbon dioxide.  At the same time wind turbines are called “clean energy” even though their manufacture produces toxic lakes of death in China.

toxic lake

The lake of toxic waste at Baotou, China, which has been dumped by the rare earth processing plants in the background.

“On the outskirts of one of China’s most polluted cities, an old farmer stares despairingly out across an immense lake of bubbling toxic waste covered in black dust. He remembers it as fields of wheat and corn. . .  Vast fortunes are being amassed here in Inner Mongolia; the region has more than 90 per cent of the world’s legal reserves of rare earth metals, and specifically neodymium, the element needed to make the magnets in the most stricking of green energy producers, wind turbines.”

Mail-Online (2011)

Doesn’t the double-speak that is present within the “climate change” PSYOP remind you of the “double think” in Orwell’s 1984, “War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength?”   If you take anything that they say and just reverse it you are likely to find the truth, which is:

1) Carbon dioxide does not “trap” heat.

2) Carbon dioxide does not prevent the “escape” of heat into space.

3) Carbon dioxide is a boon to the biosphere rather than causing “irreversible” environmental damage.

4) Biofuels do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions even if that is something you want to do.

5) The concept of a “carbon footprint” is upside down.  One’s “carbon footprint” is how much you give back to the environment since the flora thrives on carbon dioxide.

6) Wanting inexpensive plentiful energy is no more an “addiction” than is wanting air to breathe or food to eat.  An addiction is the habitual use of something that is bad for you.  Having inexpensive, plentiful energy is good for you.  Just ask any environmentalist who refuses leave home without it.

7) There is nothing “immoral” about wanting to raise up out of squalor via the use of energy.  What is immoral is seeking to deprive one’s fellow man of the benefits of relatively inexpensive, plentiful energy while you yourself live under and enjoy its benefits.  Hypocrisy is immoral.

8) Natural gas is actually very “clean” energy as well as being “green” since the carbon dioxide that it releases when burned is not only invisible, it is plant food as well.

9) Wind energy is very “dirty” when you take into consideration the pollution that is created when you build a wind turbine.  Plus they are bird choppers.  It just so happens that the best place to put wind turbines is where the wind is the strongest, which also just so happens to be the flight paths of migratory birds.

The most effective way to thwart a PSYOP is simply to recognize that you are under one.  When the “mark” realizes that he is being “conned” the “con game” is over.  “Con” is short for “confidence game”.  Didn’t the IPCC even tell us that that they are running a “confidence game” when in their AR5 report they chose to create and place their scientific assertions on a “confidence scale”?  They didn’t even bother to call it something other than what it is – a “confidence game“!  There is no such thing as a “confidence scale” in science.  In science how much “confidence” a scientist has in the accuracy of his own hypothesis is meaningless, but projecting confidence is all important if you are running a “con game”.

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

44 Responses to The PSYOP of Climate Alarm and its Greenhouse Effect

  1. Splendid additional article to Postma’s prior post. Correct conclusions in both pieces, especially so this one: “There is no such thing as a “confidence scale” in science. In science how much “confidence” a scientist has in the accuracy of his own hypothesis is meaningless, but projecting confidence is all important if you are running a “con game”. ” Yet the public at large are still not aware of the con that has been perpetrated and are being kept in the dark by false propaganda from so-called green groups who promote wind turbnes and solar PV panels as green, with no mention at all about the vile pollution created in the manufacture, nor the further vile pollution to recycle them nor the costs to transport them, erect them and install complex control equipment. We live in an age of informatoin overload, yet the truth about man-made climate change is not getting through to enough people to stop the nonsense.

  2. Tim Ball says:

    Michael Crichton said it all;
    “When we allow science to become political then we are lost. We will enter the internet version of the Dark Ages, an era of stifling fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don’t know any better.”

  3. Crichton has everything right in his book State of Fear. He saw through the propaganda immediately. He was one of the first climate greenhouse effect debunkers.

  4. If we consider this:

    http://michaelscharf.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/a-new-equation-for-intelligence-f-t-s.html?m=1

    and the implications:

    -Intelligence is a force that maximises the future freedom of action.
    -It is a force to keeps options open.
    -Intelligence doesn’t like to be trapped.

    Then that really makes sense what the purpose of the climate greenhouse effect and its language is. It is about trapping intelligence. Trapping the mind and limiting the possibilities of the future, through greenieism etc.

    Therefore, consider the types of minds of the people who promote this, and who love it. What kind of minds do they have?

    Disgusting minds. Damaged souls. That’s what.

  5. Rosco says:

    The really funny thing is that centuries ago Pictet conducted an experiment in radiation using polished concave metal mirrors. Each mirror was placed far enough from each other such that conduction/convection played little part in the experiment.

    He initially placed a hot object at one focus and a thermoscope at the other focus.

    The thermoscope indicated a temperature increase due to IR. He allowed for equilibrium with room temperature to re-establish.

    He then placed a cold object – a container of snow/ice at the focus and – viola –

    the thermoscope indicated a temperature decrease.

    He introduced a “new” energy source – the flask of snow/ice – emitting say 235 W/sqm at say minus 18 C so remote from the thermoscope that the low conductivity of air played no part in either the hot or cold energy transfer BUT he PROVED that cold does not heat hot – quite the reverse occurred.

    Modern physics explains this phenomenon by claiming the mirror screens the thermoscope from say up to 50% of the radiation from other objects in the room and the thermoscope is then radiating more to the flask than it gets back from the flask and hence decreases in temperature.

    This explanation sounds reasonable but fails to account for the fact that the air around the thermoscope was unable to maintain equilibrium with the thermoscope ?

    BUT any way you care to spin this the radiation from a cold object always results in a decrease in temperature of a hotter object.

    This has been known for centuries until climate science invented their fantasies.

  6. Rosco says:

    Meant to post this comment on another post – somehow WordPress mixed this up.

  7. Squid2112 says:

    One thing that remains a pet peeve of mine, is when I hear people claim things like “I only used $1/day in electricity all month” … as if that were some noble achievement. My response to them is “I was only able to consume 2000kWh of electricity this month, I’ll try harder next month” .. I gain a great deal by utilizing the energy I consume. I have no respect for people that make these claims of superior “conservation” of energy, as if they are doing me some sort of favor. What possible benefit can one achieve by utilizing less energy?

  8. Opinionated says:

    Now what I know about chemistry you can probably write on the back of a postage stamp, but I would like to know what people think of the following analysis.

    Heat requires mass. Therefore the greater the mass the greater capacity for heat or put more correctly, the longer it takes to get to thermal equilibrium with its surroundings.

    Now the approximater atomic mass of the relevant elements in our atmosphere are;

    Hydrogen (H) = 1
    Carbon (C) = 12
    Nitrogen (N) = 14
    Oxygen (O) = 16
    Argon (Ar) = 40

    So, N2 = 28, O2 = 32, Ar = 40, CO2 = 44 and H2O = 18 by atomic mass.

    When we look at the gases in the (slightly simplified) dry atmosphere by volumn we get;

    N2 = 78%, O2 = 21%, Ar = 0.96%, CO2 = 0.04%

    H20 can be between 0% and 5% depending on local conditions – I will get back to that.

    So using the atomic masses and the volume percentages, the relative mass percentages of these gasses are;

    N2 = 75.41%, O2 = 23.2%, Ar = 1.33%, CO2 = 0.06%

    So the ambient measured temperature of at any point in the dry atmosphere would be distributed by these proportions.

    As for humidity, adding water vapour increases the atmospheric mass so making the atmosphere more difficult to heat during the day and slower to cool at night – deserts versus jungles.

    Conduction, convection, evaporation and radiation are simply the mechanisms by which the heat will flow. They do not determine the heat itself.

  9. Yep that’s pretty much got it all right Opinionated. You must have received a proper education before its destruction.

    The real effect from water vapour comes from its latent heat. Take a look at this pic for example:

    A HUGE amount of heat is being stored in there inside latent heat. Latent heat allows water to lose energy while the temperature remains constant instead of dropping like a normal substance would without latent heat. Latent heat is THE battery which keeps the system pumped up with more heat inside. Latent heat is constantly pumped into the system around the poles with hot sunshine. It comes back out of the system elsewhere. This has a huge effect on the temperature of the planet because latent heat keeps things from cooling down as fast.

  10. Opinionated says:

    Joseph,

    I think I am getting a better understanding now. I have always had a problem with everyone lumping vapours with gasses. I think that the critical reason that vapours make a difference is because of their capacity for latent heat. So what makes a vapour a vapour and not a gas, is its capacity to store and release latent heat. So the effect of water vapour is not so much the mass it has, as I said earlier, but its latent heat capacity. Since it is a vapour it can change state within an atmosphere and produce the effects we observe every day.

    What it is not is a sheet of plastic or glass that makes a greenhouse a greenhouse.

  11. Not sure if all vapours have latent heat, but water vapour and water liquid certainly do, a very large amount in fact. Indeed even though latent heat traps energy, it is not a greenhouse effect.

  12. johnmarshall says:

    CO2 is labelle a GHG becaus it is a good adsorber of IR. But the Climateers stop there. Being a good adsorber means that it is a good emitter of IR. This is radiated to the surroundings but being of low energy cannot increase the temperature of anything at a higher energy level. ie., cold cannot warm hot. Basic Thermo but ignored in Climateeria.

    Thanks Joe for your work.

  13. Derek Alker says:

    Whilst thinking about latent heat, it is very easy to show it is the most powerful cooling mechanism at earth’s surface. All you need is a kettle, a couple of mugs, and a little bit of cooking oil. Oh, electricity for the kettle helps too… LOL.
    http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1617.html
    The water only mug will cool so much quicker than the oily mug that within a few minutes you can feel the temperature difference on the mugs surface with your fingers, no thermometer required. Placing a fan nearby makes the difference quite a lot larger, AND, most surprisingly (to me at least) the oily mug does not cool much faster with the presence of a fan. So, wind effects latent heat surface losses to a far larger degree than it does for sensible heat losses.

    Latent heat losses MUST BE the most powerful cooling mechanism, otherwise how would plants keep leaves cool without transpiration? AND, this explains why plants wilt so quickly when the ground dries out….

  14. Greg House says:

    johnmarshall says: “CO2 … is a good adsorber of IR.”
    =========================

    What you said contradicts the fact that adding CO2 to the air only negligibly affects its heat capacity.

  15. Opinionated says:

    Joseph,

    I found this from a HockeyShtick comment via Jo Nova …

    http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/JCao_N2O2GreenGases_Blog.pdf

    Seems to say that you were right about me being right …

  16. solvingtornadoes says:

    It’s sophistry to suggest clouds store “latent heat.” It’s meaningless. It’s imagination. Not science. It (latent heat) has never been measured. Moist air cools as it rises. There is no latent heat.

  17. solvingtornadoes says:

    J. P.
    “Not sure if all vapours have latent heat, but water vapour and water liquid certainly do, a very large amount in fact. Indeed even though latent heat traps energy, it is not a greenhouse effect.”

    ” . . . latent heat traps energy . . .” ?
    Joe,
    Do you believe in “cold steam?”
    http://wp.me/p4JijN-81

    Cold steam is to meteorology what CO2 forcing is to global warming

  18. David Appell says:

    The author wrote:
    “Carbon dioxide does not prevent the “escape” of heat into space.”

    If not, then why are there substantial gouges in the Earth’s outgoing spectrum when measured at the top of the atmosphere — gaps at the absorption frequencies of H2O, CO2, CH4, N2O…?

    [JP: That’s an absorption spectrum, which simply means that some of the gas may have been warmed by a warmer background source of radiation. You get absorption spectra when you have a cold gas in front of a warmer source background. It does not mean that the colder gas in front of the warm source has created or warmed up the warmer source background. Quite the opposite in fact: the cooler gas may have been warmed up by the radiation from the warmer source behind it. That’s all it means. And that does not translate to the climate alarmist’s greenhouse effect – in fact it too debunks it.]

  19. CW says:

    solvingtornadoes:
    Condensation is the process by which water vapor in the air is changed into liquid water. Condensation is crucial to the water cycle because it is responsible for the formation of clouds. These clouds may produce precipitation, which is the primary route for water to return to the Earth’s surface within the water cycle. Condensation is the opposite of evaporation.
    You don’t have to look at something as far away as a cloud to notice condensation, though. Condensation is responsible for ground-level fog, for your glasses fogging up when you go from a cold room to the outdoors on a hot, humid day, for the water that drips off the outside of your glass of iced tea, and for the water on the inside of the windows in your home on a cold day.
    The phase change that accompanies water as it moves between its vapor, liquid, and solid form happens because of differences in the arrangement of water molecules. Water molecules in the vapor form are arranged more randomly than in liquid water. As condensation occurs and liquid water forms from the vapor, the water molecules become organized in a less random structure, which is less random than in vapor, and heat is released into the atmosphere as a result.
    Please note: a phase change takes place—with a substantial amount of “heat” released, when water vapor condenses to liquid. Temperature is just a point measurement–not a measurement of “heat”–which is a bulk measurement.

    It is all in the “phase” change–there is JP’s latent heat.

  20. solvingtornadoes says:

    2014/11/23 at 12:51 PM
    CW says:
    Condensation is the process by which water vapor in the air is changed into liquid water.

    ST:
    Steam (mono-molecular H2O) cannot/doesn’t exist in our atmosphere. Steam (mono-molecular H2O) can only exist at temperatures above boiling point of water (100 degrees, at 1 Atm). It is physically impossible for steam to persist below its boiling point. Condensation, therefore, does not involve a phase transition from gaseous H2O to liquid H2O. Water vapor, therefore, is liquid H2O that is suspended in the air in droplets/clusters.

    It’s important as a scientists to not let assumptions dictate their own conclusions.

    What is misleading is that these droplets/clusters are often so small that they are effectively invisible to us; people tend to assume that since steam is invisible that therefore invisible forms of vapor must also be steam (mono-molecular H2O). And that simply isn’t true. Condensation, therefore, is a process in which the clusters/droplets join together to become large enough to become visible. Precipitation is a process in which the clusters/droplets join together to become heavy enough that the electro-static forces in the air can no longer keep them suspended.

    For details to the underlying and strange dynamics of the H2O molecule please follow this link:
    http://wp.me/p4JijN-9l

    CW says:
    Condensation is crucial to the water cycle . . .

    ST:
    True, but this does not, therefore, dictate the conclusion that the only way water can travel to the top of the troposphere is due to buoyancy/convection. In fact moist air is heavier than dry air (all other factors being equal) therefore convection/buoyancy is impossible.

    CW says:

    It is all in the “phase” change–there is JP’s latent heat.

    ST:
    There is no phase change and no latent heat, which explains why it has never been detected/measured.

  21. solvingtornadoes says:

    2014/11/20 at 8:08 PM
    Opinionated says:
    I think I am getting a better understanding now. I have always had a problem with everyone lumping vapours with gasses.

    ST:
    Your instincts are on target. Vapor or evaporate is liquid, not gas.

    Opinionated says:
    I think that the critical reason that vapours make a difference is because of their capacity for latent heat.

    ST:
    Latent heat is a fiction created by confused meteorologists.

    Opinionated says:
    So what makes a vapour a vapour and not a gas, is its capacity to store and release latent heat. So the effect of water vapour is not so much the mass it has, as I said earlier, but its latent heat capacity. Since it is a vapour it can change state within an atmosphere and produce the effects we observe every day.

    ST:
    Looking at clouds and believing you see evidence of buoyancy, convection and/or latent heat is the equivalent of looking at the sun move across the sky and believing you see evidence that the earth is the center of the universe

  22. Opinionated says:

    ST:
    “Steam (mono-molecular H2O) cannot/doesn’t exist in our atmosphere. Steam (mono-molecular H2O) can only exist at temperatures above boiling point of water (100 degrees, at 1 Atm). It is physically impossible for steam to persist below its boiling point. Condensation, therefore, does not involve a phase transition from gaseous H2O to liquid H2O. Water vapor, therefore, is liquid H2O that is suspended in the air in droplets/clusters.”

    Opinionated:
    I was laughed at over at Steve Goddard’s Real Science when I raised my “vapours are not gasses” point. I think that water vapour is in clusters and those clusters being liquid are much denser than the surrounding gasses. However the atomic weight of H2O is quite low compared to N2 and O2 and so that is probably part of the reason for the buoyancy of these clusters. Since they are clusters they will retain kinetic energy internally much longer that a single gas molecule.

    Would you prefer the term phase transition to latent heat?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat

  23. Pingback: Video Presentation by Dr. Tim Ball on the Climate Scam | Climate of Sophistry

  24. solvingtornadoes says:

    2014/11/24 at 4:53 AM
    Opinionated:
    I was laughed at over at Steve Goddard’s Real Science when I raised my “vapours are not gasses” point. I think that water vapour is in clusters and those clusters being liquid are much denser than the surrounding gasses.

    ST:
    The world is full of people that are largely or completely unaware of their ignorance of physical reality. They lack the ability to model physical processes in their minds and are blissfully unaware of why such is essential. Goddard is a statistician. His understanding of physical processes is based on what other people told him to think. There are many like him. All meteorologists, for example, fall into the same category.

    Opinionated:
    However the atomic weight of H2O is quite low compared to N2 and O2 and so that is probably part of the reason for the buoyancy of these clusters.

    ST:
    You are not following. Moist air is heavier than dry air.

    Looking at clouds and believing you see evidence of buoyancy, convection and/or latent heat is the equivalent of looking at the sun move across the sky and believing you see evidence that the earth is the center of the universe.

    Opinionated:
    Since they are clusters they will retain kinetic energy internally much longer that a single gas molecule.

    ST:
    Liquid water has a huge capacity to absorb heat, as seen in a steam engine. (Note: The high heat capacity of H2O and the high boiling point of H2O are a consequence of the polarity [and associated hydrogen bonding] of the H2O molecule.) But, so what? The CAPACITY to absorb heat does not mean that therefore there are significant amounts of heat waiting to be released as it rises in the atmosphere. You are mixing metaphors.

    Opinionated:
    Would you prefer the term phase transition to latent heat?

    ST:
    I’m not going to argue with you about terminology of a process that does not exist.

    Opinionated:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat

    ST:
    Nonsense. Note how the author conflates evaporation with boiling. Wikipedia is a good source for what everybody believes. And that is about it.

  25. CW says:

    A google search of “solvingtornadoes–Jim McKinn–theoretical scientist should be ’nuff to conclude responding is not productive. I only have interest in scientists that generally accept working definitions of the water molecule, and it’s phase changes involving “heat” transfer.

  26. solvingtornadoes says:

    2014/11/24 at 11:23 AM
    CW says:
    A google search of “solvingtornadoes–Jim McKinn–theoretical scientist should be ’nuff to conclude responding is not productive. I only have interest in scientists that generally accept working definitions of the water molecule, and it’s phase changes involving “heat” transfer.

    ST:
    LOL. Ad hominen, appeal to authority, appeal to consensus. Checkmate!

    That was easy. Maybe you should find a hobby that doesn’t involve complex things, like facts.

    BTW: It’s Jim McGinn

    In sci.physics they at least pretended to present an argument:
    http://goo.gl/W1Y9b3

  27. Will Pratt says:

    solvingtornadoes says:
    2014/11/24 at 11:05 AM

    You are long on wind, short on facts.

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/vapor-steam-d_609.html

    There is no chemical or physical difference between vapour and steam except for temperature. Everything else you say is pure semantics.

    Example: “Steam (mono-molecular H2O)”

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monomolecular

    To imply that steam is mono-molecular H2O is pure sophistry (fallacious argument with the intent to deceive). The term mono-molecular is applied to a substance of a single molecule thickness.

  28. solvingtornadoes says:

    [JP: Clipped. I know you want to defend yourself, but my blog isn’t the place for you to promote your ideas which are unrelated to my concern, which is the fraud of climate science via its greenhouse effect. Yes yes, perhaps there’s related content, but still, it’s not on point close enough. So, no more of solving tornadoes here.]

  29. Carl Allen says:

    “The author wrote:
’Carbon dioxide does not prevent the “escape” of heat into space.’
    If not, then why are there substantial gouges in the Earth’s outgoing spectrum when measured at the top of the atmosphere — gaps at the absorption frequencies of H2O, CO2, CH4, N2O…?”

    If I read the article correctly it is about how “non-scientific” semantics is being used within a presumed scientific discussion to make “greenhouse gases” seem ominous. The word “escape” is an emotive word that doesn’t belong in a discussion about radiation thermodynamics.

    One could say, “carbon dioxide increases the opacity of the atmosphere to certain wavelengths of IR radiation” and that would be correct, but to then jump to the conclusion that this increased opacity prevents the Earth/atmosphere ensemble, as a collective unit, from emitting sufficient IR radiation into space to disgorge itself of the solar energy that is simultaneously being absorbed is simply not justifiable based on the fact that the average temperature of tropospheric air is about minus 18 °C. Since the average temperature of tropospheric air (-18 °C) is equal to the Earth’s “effective radiating temperature” how can one rightly claim that the troposphere because it is 0.04% carbon dioxide is retaining excess thermal energy?

    What does exist within the troposphere is a thermal energy imbalance, i.e., sea-level air kg for kg contains more thermal energy than does upper tropospheric air. This creates a temperature lapse rate within the troposphere, which makes sea-level air some 33 °C warmer than the average temperature of the troposphere as a collective whole. The real question is this: Is the thermal energy imbalance that is present within the troposphere being caused by a “greenhouse gas” mediated “greenhouse effect”. Absolutely not. How do I know? Water vapor, the presumed “most potent greenhouse gas”, causes a demonstrable, measurable reduction in that energy imbalance, i.e., water vapor reduces the lapse rate. If the lapse rate were being cause by a “greenhouse effect” and if water vapor were a “greenhouse gas” then water vapor would cause an increase rather than decrease the lapse rate. It doesn’t. More is required than simply observing that water vapor increases the opacity of the atmosphere; it must actually do what you say that it does to the thermal structure of the troposphere.

    Since water vapor is only present in significant amounts in the lower ~5 km of the troposphere it consequently has very little affect on the temperature profile of the upper troposphere. Its affect on the lower 5 km of the troposphere is to reduce, via a reduction in the lapse rate, the temperature of those entire 5 km of air. This affect is measured hundreds of times per day by weather balloons; thus the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is falsified hundreds of times per day via empirical observation.

    Carl

  30. Opinionated says:

    ST, I was enjoying our little discussion. I will come and visit you from time to time.

    JP, I think you may like this post at the Hockey Schtick …

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/derivation-of-entire-33c-greenhouse.html

  31. That’s a great article. I’ve done similar/identical derivations in my papers. Someone should tell the moderator there to trash Doug Cotton’s comments and ban further ones from him…he’s an infiltrator, and pretends that heat conducts down from the top of the atmosphere or some stupid thing, without showing the math for it because according to him, physics doesn’t always need to be explained with math…

  32. Greg House says:

    Opinionated says: “JP, I think you may like this post at the Hockey Schtick …
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/derivation-of-entire-33c-greenhouse.html
    =================================

    You can trash it right away though, for many reasons. Like there is no “greenhouse effect” at all, and there is no “additional temperature” on the earth surface either. Time to get real.

    The best way to deal with the “greenhouse effect” scare is to focus on the apparent fraud, this is sufficient. Attempts to do actual science may well lead to some ridiculous results, like warming gravity e.g. etc.

  33. Will Pratt says:

    Yeah, right Greg, brilliant idea. Let’s all focus on the “apparent fraud” of AGW whilst, acting on your sage like advise, we ignore entirely, the actual evidence that proves that AGW is a fraud!

    Greg you’re genius, I wish I’d have thought of that!

  34. Opinionated says:

    Joseph,

    I have been looking back through this website and found this diagram …

    A couple of questions;

    1. Why is the spherical output calculation divided by 4? There are only two hemispheres. The surface area of a sphere is calculated by Area = 4 x pi x r2 but I am struggling to see how that fits into what you are displaying in this diagram.

    2. Shouldn’t the average temperature calculate to +15C? Are you not trying to show that you do not need “greenhouse gases” to get from the S/B calculated value of -18C to the observed value of +15C?

    Thank you in advance.

  35. 1. That’s the way the calculation works out in terms of flux. In terms of total power then of course the input and output are the same. I put them in flux units to indicate the difference of the temperature of the radiation between input and output. The solar input does physics that the terrestrial output average can’t do, and this helps make it clear that that averaged value (/4) can’t be used for input, because it produces boundary conditions mistakes.

    2. The temperatures are those of the radiant flux given the way the input and output are distributed. The blackbody effective temperature of the Earth is -18C, but the surface temperature is something else because its at the bottom of the atmosphere etc…but I don’t show this.

    The point of the diagram is to provide a rational boundary condition for beginning one’s analysis, rather than the silly flat-Earth model of climate science and the IPCC.

  36. Opinionated says:

    Joseph,

    This all makes sense now. Thank you for your timely response.

  37. Greg House says:

    “The blackbody effective temperature of the Earth is -18C,”
    ========================================

    If you see a calculation and do not find any errosr there, it is still not so that the calculation is correct. Sometimes the errors are well hidden. There are some math sophisms that are hard to crack even for mathematicians e.g. Anyway, if you see a theorem “proving” 2+2=5, you do not need to look for hidden errors.

    Back to the -18° thing, this is absurd for the simple reason that a)it meant to be the MAXIMUM temperature induced by the sunshine and b)there is no more powerful source required to achieve a higher temperature. Done.

    You can look for the hidden errors or not, that does not matter.

  38. Opinionated says:

    Greg,

    Sometimes I wonder if your comprehension skills are sufficient for rational debate.

    The -18C figure is a TOA number as Joseph specifically says that the BOA number is something else. Any S/B calculation for Earth has to be at TOA as that is the emission edge of the entire system. Anything else is sophistry.

  39. Greg House says:

    Opinionated says: “The -18C figure is a TOA number as Joseph specifically says that the BOA number is something else. Any S/B calculation for Earth has to be at TOA as that is the emission edge of the entire system.”
    ======================================

    I think you guys know that Joe has made a mistake and you would like to keep it this way.

  40. Opinionated says:

    Greg, by all means, please enlighten us poor misguided souls as to the error that you say Joseph the Guru has made. You have failed to do so up to this point.

    Just so you know, strawmen don’t count.

  41. SkepticGoneWild says:

    Hi Joseph,

    Slightly off topic, but here is a fascinating paper by Ferenc Mark Miskolczi entitled, “The Greenhouse Effect and the Infrared Radiative Structure of the Earth’s Atmosphere”.

    He concludes:

    “Unfortunately the Nobel Laureate IPCC is not a scientific authority, and their claim of the consensus and the settled greenhouse science is meaningless. The quantitative results of this paper massively contradict the CO2 greenhouse effect based AGW hypothesis of IPCC.”

    “In our view the greenhouse phenomenon, as it was postulated by J. Fourier (1824), estimated by S. Arrhenius (1906), first quantified by S. Manabe and R. Wetherald (1967), explained by R. Lindzen (2007), and endorsed by the National Academy of Science and the Royal Society (2014), simply does not exist.”

    The paper is way beyond my pay grade scientifically speaking. Here is a link:

    http://www.seipub.org/DES/PaperSub/Global/DownloadService.aspx?PARAMS=Sm91cm5hbElEXjMzNF5JRF4yMTgxMA_0_0

  42. SkepticGoneWild says:

    There is supposed to be a post at Climate Etc. tomorrow regarding this paper.

  43. Yep his summary certainly states the point!

  44. Pingback: Religion of Climate Change Part 5: Cold Gods don’t create Hot Gods | Climate of Sophistry

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