Ontological Mathematics, Boundary Conditions, Physics, & Empiricism


In the last post we discussed how although certain mathematical operations can be performed, it does not mean that they are actually representative of reality, i.e., that they’re “ontological”.  If you perform a mathematical operation which has no actual physical meaning, and then extrapolate from that position, then you’ve created a false underlying ontology which means that everything which is implied or which comes out of that calculation, is false.  Such is the case with the climate alarm radiative greenhouse effect.

Ontological Mathematics

– Mathematical Freedom –

Mathematics frees us from conscious subjectivity and arbitrariness, from our emotions, experiences, senses, desires, will and mystical intuitions. These have no bearing on objective mathematics. Only mathematics is rigorous, systematic and analytic. Everything else is belief, delusion, opinion, conjecture and interpretation.

Mathematics is the ultimate egalitarian, equal opportunities, meritocratic subject. It doesn’t care about how much money you had when you were growing up, who your parents were, where you lived, what your social status was, how popular and fashionable you were. All that matters is how good you are at it, how talented, how meritorious. Mathematics is the supreme hammer that smashes to smithereens all bullshit and charlatanry. You can bullshit a bullshitter. You can’t bullshit a mathematician. No blowhard can succeed in mathematics. You have to put up or shut up. You have to walk the walk, and not … like so many … just talk the talk.

It has been said that the reason the world doesn’t hear much about Gödel’s Incompleteness theorems is that they concern Truth, and who cares about THAT? That’s exactly right. Humanity is an inherently mendacious species. It has no regard for Truth. Human consciousness is dishonest, self-serving, egotistic and delusional. To get to the Truth, we have to overcome ourselves, our own conscious self-deceit. That’s why the Truth is the hardest thing of all.

People say that the world doesn’t make sense, but of course it does … exactly because it’s a mathematical world, hence has an analytic answer. The world that doesn’t make sense is the emotional, irrational, sensory, wilful, mystical interpretive world of consciousness. It’s consciousness that hides the Truth from us. Consciousness has its own priority – success in life: power, attractiveness, popularity, wealth, glory, the sexiest partners, the best jobs and careers, the best homes, best possessions, fastest cars, biggest yachts, most money, most luxurious lifestyle, highest status, most adulation, and so on. Absolutely none of that has any connection with Truth, yet it’s what drives each and every one of us on a daily basis.

Our vanity is far more important to us than philosophy and mathematics. We prioritised worldly success and power over unworldly Truth. That’s the history of the human race in nutshell. We have a Will to Power, not a Will to Truth. Power and Truth align only at the Omega Point.

What could be more problematic for the human race? – the gate to the Truth, to knowledge of ultimate reality, opens to you only if you overcome your own consciousness, your own vanity, selfishness and egotism. You have to abandon your Ego Trip if you want to enjoy the trip to gnosis, enlightenment, the Truth … to divinity.

The Gods aren’t the most arrogant of beings. They’re the opposite … the most humble. They’re humble in the company of knowledge and Truth, and that’s what allows them to learn and grow. Narcissists learn only what’s useful to them. If mathematical Truth delivers no advantage to a narcissistic psychopath, he will have zero interest in it. That’s true for the whole of humanity. The only human beings who like mathematics are those who are socially empowered by it (by getting high-paying tech jobs thanks to it), or those who love the Truth, and know that there’s no Truth other than mathematical Truth.

“The truth will set you free” = “Math will set you free”.

The Truth is Logos. It’s all about reason and intellect. Humanity’s tragedy is that it has always considered the Truth to be Mythos, i.e. concerned with “holy” books, religious revelations, prophets, popes, priests, gurus, messiahs, faith, the senses, the emotions, mystical intuitions, personal epiphanies and subjective experiences. Absolutely none of that will you help you, and you’re living in a fantasy world if you think it will. Sadly, humans are the experts in believing their own propaganda, and subscribing to their own fantasies.

Hockney, Mike (2015-06-02). The War of the Ghosts and Machines (The God Series Book 28) (Kindle Locations 1366-1401). Hyperreality Books. Kindle Edition.

Boundary Conditions

A problem arises when we try to do physics and we have to determine, say, the boundary conditions required for solving the Fourier Transform relevant to some heat flow problem.  You can have insulated boundary conditions, constant-value boundary conditions, boundary conditions as a function of time, or boundary conditions set at a slope…which could also be a function of time.

In computing the numerical solution for the Fourier Transform which describes heat flow, you might have a solution that looks like this:

Elementary Applied Partial Differential Equations with Fourier Series and Boundary Value Problems" Richard Haberman, 1998

Elementary Applied Partial Differential Equations with Fourier Series and Boundary Value Problems”
Richard Haberman, 1998

or, like this:

Elementary Applied Partial Differential Equations with Fourier Series and Boundary Value Problems" Richard Haberman, 1998

Elementary Applied Partial Differential Equations with Fourier Series and Boundary Value Problems”
Richard Haberman, 1998

depending on if you need to use determined boundary conditions or slope boundary conditions, etc.

What the heck is the relevance of these mathematical considerations?  The relevance is that the solutions using different boundary conditions lead to different results and different behaviors of the solution, and these can be politicized, can be emotional, can depend on ideology, can be personal, can be sophized about, can get you money, can compromise your career, and can still suffer from the problem of possibly being founded on a false ontology.

Recall this diagram of the climate alarmist radiative greenhouse effect:


University Of Washington Department of Atmospheric Sciences

The climate alarmist says that the boundary conditions for the heat flow at each layer are such that the energy from each layer adds heat to each layer adjacent to it, irrespective of consideration for the direction of heat flow.  They want this boundary condition because it serves their political agenda of their wish to restrict energy, food, and basic resources to poor people and poor countries.  These environmentalist climate alarmists pretend that environmentalism is a “social justice issue”, but then they turn around and say that, ‘for the good of the environment’, resources must be taken away and kept away from poor people and poor countries:

  • “To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.”  – Lamont Cole, environmentalist and author
  • “We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”  Michael Oppenheimer, ‘Environmental Defense Fund’
  • “Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”  Professor Maurice King
  • “Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy…”  Amory Lovins, ‘Rocky Mountain Institute’
  • “The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”  Jeremy Rifkin, ‘Greenhouse Crisis Foundation’
  • “The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically…”  Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview
  • “Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”  John Davis, editor of ‘Earth First! Journal’

So much for environmentalism being about socialism, social justice, and distribution of wealth to the poor and needy!  These people are outright psychopaths and mass murderers!  They are sick, Satanic, demented, damaged people.  They actually need our help…our help to become human again.  They’re like Anakin Skywalkers who’ve gone too far out of touch with their humanity, reality, and with their soul.  We should really pity these poor people, and find a way to help them out of their disgusting, revolting position they’ve happened to find themselves in.  The poor things!

These people are certainly sick enough to try to reinterpret mathematics and Fourier Transform solution boundary conditions in the way that their disgusting political ideology requires.

And let this be the last time anyone think that environmentalism is about “social justice”!

Actually, before I move on, just take a look at this idiot’s quote from above:

“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.” –  Jeremy Rifkin, ‘Greenhouse Crisis Foundation’.

He’s from the “Greenhouse Crisis Foundation”?  WTF!?  The “greenhouse crisis” is supposed to be due to use of hydrocarbon fuel emitting carbon dioxide.  The development of fusion energy would be the solution to that crisis!!  So what does this duplicitous position actually indicate?  It indicates that he’s actually a completely bloodthirsty psychopath who wishes for poor people to die and for poor countries to not develop, and that man should stop his evolution and development of mind altogether.  Given the name of his organization, obviously he’s already all for preventing poor people and poor countries from having access to cheap hydrocarbon fuels, but then he goes further than that and says that humanity as a whole shouldn’t have access to cheap clean fusion energy either which would allow us to go beyond hydrocarbon fuels!

STOP thinking that environmentalism is about social justice and socialism and distribution of wealth!  This is the most moronic, cognitively dissonant, inverted thought one can have today.  Environmentalism is pure unadulterated nihilism, denial of the existence of mind and of man’s purpose and meaning.  It is, as has been demonstrated by these fellows’ own words, psychopathic and regressive.  Their words should sound blood-curdling to any rational non-psychopathic non-nihilistic person.  If they don’t, you are one of the ones that needs help.  Please, go see an Ontological Mathematician and figure out how to be a better human being, before you hurt and murder any more people.


A rationalist driven by a political ideology of nothing other than the drive to understand reality will look at the ontology of the argument for the above diagram, and will come to entirely different boundary conditions required for its solution.  They will attempt to determine the math and boundary conditions which are truly ontological, rather than like psychopaths premeditatedly try to determine ones which justify them murdering lots of people.

First, let’s follow the murdering climate alarmist logic of the diagram and generalize it to explore its limits and implications.  The reasoning is that if you have a radiatively opaque upper layer above a bottom surface layer where heat is generated, then the upper layer will split the surface radiation by two.  Hence, only half of the energy can get out from the bottom layer through the upper layer.  This requires the bottom later to double in flux output so that the upper layer then receives a doubled radiation, splits it in two, and thus on the exterior side of the outer layer all the energy is emitted that was supposed to originally be emitted from the bottom layer.

One can generalize this by simply adding more layers.  The same mechanics must then be applied to every layer which required the doubling in radiation flux output for each layer below it, and thus the solution for the bottom-layer flux is

Fbottom = 2n*F0.

Thus, if you have 10 layers of glass and the noon-time solar input through the glass is 1000 W/m², the bottom later temperature would be, via the Stefan-Boltzmann Law which converts radiative flux into temperature,

Tn=10 = [210*1000 W/m² / 5.68e-8]1/4 = 2061 K = 1788 C = 3251 F.

Lava, molten rock, has a temperature of only 900 C or 1652 F.  Imagine that if all one needed to do to melt rocks was to place it under a few layers of glass!

Now something about this just doesn’t seem right.  Call it intuition, experience, general theoretical knowledge of thermodynamics, or whatever.  As I asked in the last post, why do we use magnifying glasses and parabolic focusing mirrors to concentrate Sunlight and make it more powerful, rather than simply use much-easier-to-manufacture flat panes of glass?

And the other thing on the theory-side of things is the boundary condition which required each pane of glass to heat up the layers underneath it independent of what the direction of heat flow should be, i.e., only from hot to cold; the climate alarmist boundary condition required that cold sends heat to hot.

What the rationalist will postulate is that the layers of glass actually form insulation, and insulation in the mathematics of Fourier Transform heat flow requires slope-boundary conditions with the derivative set equal to zero.  Insulation, in Fourier Transform heat flow mechanics, indicates boundary conditions for each layer such that the spacetime gradient of temperature is equal to zero.  Stacked panes of glass are commonly understood to create insulation, not heat amplification!

With these boundary conditions, heat never flows from cold to hot, and simple panes of glass don’t concentrate solar radiation like rounded magnifying glasses or parabolic mirrors – the latter two operate on the same principle, while that principle doesn’t exist for planes.  These boundary conditions also don’t allow for a concept of a “radiative greenhouse effect which man is increasing in strength” which the murderous environmentalists require for the basis of their cognitively dissonant “social justice environmentalism” and “climate alarmism” which is actually just a deceitful cover label for their underlying wish to kill people for whatever arbitrary reason they can invent and convince you of.

Always remember:  Whenever you are dealing with an environmentalist, keep in mind that you are dealing with a very sick, very damaged person, who has such extreme cognitive dissonance that they believe ‘social justice’, ‘socialism’, and ‘distribution of wealth’ equates to making poor people even poorer, and then killing them.  These are people who are spiritually damaged, and you must be very careful around them such as to not be infected by their sophistry and degenerate ways of thinking.


It is not that empiricism is completely unnecessary in Ontological Mathematics, it is just that empiricism should be in the service of Ontological Mathematics.  Even still, we are still left with the problem of psychopaths who will do their best to ignore and cover up empirical refutation of the basis of their murderous beliefs.

In any case, real greenhouses demonstrate that their internal temperature does not amplify according to the psychopathic environmentalist method, and Joseph Fourier himself worked with a friend who had a device with multiple layers which also showed that the temperature did not amplify according to that blood-desiring environmentalist method.

Stacked panes of glass form insulation.  They are not a heat amplifier.   The ontological boundary condition, of insulation, for the heat flow Fourier Transform for those panes results in their temperature only being equal to that of the radiant forcing into to them from the active source – Sunlight from the Sun.  This is what real greenhouses demonstrate and it is what Fourier found as well, 200 years ago.

The days of climate alarmist idiocy are numbered.

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

18 Responses to Ontological Mathematics, Boundary Conditions, Physics, & Empiricism

  1. Such a shame, declaring your rationality and not realizing that it’s not the opacity of the atmosphere that is the issue, but the clear fact that since any emission ORIGINATING in the atmosphere and exiting to space is the result of an omidirectional dispersion. Let’s not argue about the numbers — they are wrong first because not all the energy emissions exiting to space originate from the atmosphere, but from the surface directly into space. That said, if there is, say, 100W/m^2 exiting to space from atmospheric emissions, there is also certainly 100W/m^2 heading downward. THAT idea in the chart is at least on the right track: there is a recirculation of a significant fraction of the energy delivered to the earth, before it is finally delivered to space. If you could please set aside your practically religious bias of superiority for a moment, and consider that not all you consider rational IS rational — just like every other human on this earth — you might realize that is correct.

    How can a rational man not grasp that imagining that recirculation of energy has NO meaningful effect on the rates of temperature change, both up and down… is in fact not rational? How can a rational man argue for the amplification you claim would have to occur, when rationally considered, downward emissions would face the same omnidirectional dispersion on the way down, thus nullifying that wrongly-imagined amplification as a significant fraction of the energy is turned right back around and sent upward again by another cycle of that recirculation?

    Religious zealots won’t reconsider their beliefs, or allow sound reasoning to invade their space. They turn away from reasoned debate, engage in demeaning their “enemy”, and cling to their bias in spite of evidence to the contrary.

    Don’t continue to be a — how can the irony of the religious analogy be ignored? — a “dragon slayer” in the face of the clear evidence of omnidirectional dispersion that must be accounted for, watt by watt, without mere hand-waving.

    And no, I hardly expect you to publish this. After all, you’ve become the irrational zealot you elsewhere complain bitterly about. Isn’t that what self-assessment — “first, remove the log from your own eye…” — is all about? http://unknownbuddhist.com/2014/09/29/ability-to-self-assess/

    Fighting the warmists takes more rationality than name-calling can live with. And yes, it applies to me, as well.

    [JP: Tom…recirculation of energy can NOT increase temperature; this is direct violation of thermodynamics. Energy can not be passively recirculated to be used again to increase temperature some more. THAt is indeed what is rational. Look at the empirical results if you have to, let alone the maths of it. The climate GHE model is pseudoscience. Climate alarm is pseudoscience. Sorry but saying that recirculation of energy can increase temperature in a radiative GHE is wrong, and irrational, and in opposition to thermodynamics. Hence there is no reason for you to try to make the secondary case that recirculation of energy has an effect on climate – THAT is not the issue here. Hence why I’ve been deleting your comments, because you’re refocusing the discussion and moving the goal posts. There is no radiative GHE…and I don’t care that rain and clouds circulate energy, because that’s not the point or issue here.]

  2. Shawn Marshall says:

    As an undergraduate EE studying physics and Maxwell’s equations et al I was awestruck at the beauty, the elegance of nature and stupefied that it could be so rationally described by mathematics. For me it pointed to the presence and Grandeur of God. Your quote above might offend Christians who hold that Christ was the Word of God: He did speak of Truth. The author unnecessarily conflates sincere religious search for Truth with mankind’s typical foibles. Religion and Science are not at all inimical since the search for Truth is the search for a “closer walk with Thee.” In fact I wonder if Einstein wasn’t simply touched by God.

  3. DurangoDan says:

    Joe, I had posted this as a comment to “The Sophistry of Back-Radiation” but last I checked it was still under moderation. This comment can just as well be posted under this article (which I think is one of your best) as it addresses the issue of using radiative heat transfer as one of the imaginary boundary conditions setting up the narrative of photons back radiating to the surface and supplementing heating. Here it is:

    When molecular kinetic energy, commonly known as heat (and measured as temperature), is transferred from the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere by a process of molecular contact commonly known as conduction of heat, the atmosphere which is a gaseous fluid responds by expanding at the immediate surface / atmosphere interface. This bit of atmosphere now being less dense than the air above it, rises and allows cooler denser air to contact the surface initiating a very efficient heat transfer process commonly known as convection. This convection feeds back on itself carrying the air and heat higher and higher above the surface. In dealing with conductive heating it is easy to visualize by the bicycle wheel analogy why heat only flows from warmer to cooler. If warmists had to explain the greenhouse effect in the context of conductive heat transfer I don’t see how they could do it effectively. This is why the graphics most commonly used to display the greenhouse effect show radiative heat from the surface to the atmosphere and back again. Since radiative heating is not the predominant process by which the Earth’s surface sheds heat to the atmosphere, the very use of radiative heating in this diagram is fraudulent. Radiative heat transfer by photons makes for a much easier magic trick when it comes to creating the illusion that cold can heat hotter. Going along with the radiative mechanism facilitates the deception.

  4. @Shawn, maybe you’ll like this:

    “Reason never errs, provided it is conducted mathematically. Mathematics is the true language of reason. Mathematics is the living, ontological expression of reason. It’s how reason actually exists in the world. If “God” never errs, only one conclusion is possible: God is mathematics. God is reason. God is perfect because mathematics is perfect. To say that God created everything is to say that everything is made of mathematics. God is all-powerful because mathematics is all-powerful. There is nothing external to mathematics. Mathematics is literally everything. Mathematics is the entire universe, all that was, all that is and all that can be. What is the mind made of? – mathematics. What are thoughts made of? – mathematics. What are feelings, sensations, intuitions, and desires made of? – mathematics. What is free will and will to power made of? – mathematics. What is life made of? – mathematics.”

    Hockney, Mike (2014-06-27). Why Math Must Replace Science (The God Series Book 18) (Kindle Locations 80-88). Hyperreality Books. Kindle Edition.

  5. Yep great comment DurangoDan.

  6. Shawn Marshall says:

    I like his devotion to rationality and Mathematics. If God was only Mathematics, we could define Him(possibly, eventually). This is anti-theological. God may rule our physical lives by mathematic descriptors of His physical laws but, many believe, He is not defined by what He has created.

  7. Shawn Marshall says:

    On Durango Dans thunderhead post I would like to add that if one, for the sake of putting away bad ideas, would give the Lukies and Warmists a little re-radiation effect, it calls to mind a teapot in a tempest.

  8. Mr Pettersen says:

    I have followed Joes many atempts to explain why co2 cant heat the surface. So many ways and so many difficult numbers to follow.
    As i understand it IR is a result of energy present. In other words temperature are the reason for IR and temperature are a result of frequency. So both the frequency and the amount of IR are fixt to the avarage for the gas mix. Changing a small amunt of the mix will not influence the avarage and thus not the temperature.
    Put simply: The chief mass of the air sets the avarage temperature and the IR emmission.

  9. Well it’s the reverse of that Shawn: not that God is only Mathematics, but that Mathematics is only God 🙂

    The basis of reality is not a Divine entity, but a Divine system. You should read that series of books, you’d like them I think.

  10. More or less Mr. Pettersen.

  11. Pingback: Ontological Mathematics, Boundary Conditions, Physics, & Empiricism | ajmarciniak

  12. Rosco says:

    I am delighted to see so many sensible comments :-

    “Since radiative heating is not the predominant process by which the Earth’s surface sheds heat to the atmosphere, the very use of radiative heating in this diagram is fraudulent.”

    Obviously true as convection, combined with water in the atmosphere, drives all weather including the most violent of convective storms – hurricanes and tornadoes – which alarmists are keen to highlight – often with barely suppressed glee in exploitating others misery – as being driven by a “radiation trap” ?

    “In other words temperature are the reason for IR ” and “The chief mass of the air sets the avarage temperature and the IR emmission.”

    How can alarmists argue that IR “trapping” by a small percentage of the atmosphere – even water is a small percentage of the atmosphere – is the principal method of heating the air when they claim that 99% of the atmosphere does not absorb or emit IR ?

    Are they saying that when I sit inside my house in summer that only GHGs are at 30 degrees C ?

    If not then how does 99% of the atmosphere gain, or more importantly, lose heat daily – often changing 10 or more degrees daily in summer and sometimes more than that in winter ?

    Joe, I think there is another area that merits examination with respect to Plankc curves and why satellite emission charts used in atmospheric radiation texts are usually expressed in wavelength units.

    I understand the transformation between wavelength, frequency and wavenumber – that is not the issue.

    The issue is that such a transformation shifts peak emission of a 300 K object from wavelength of ~9.6 micron in the wavelength plot to ~18 micron in the wavenumber plot such as the one often seen as the Nimbus satellite chart.

    This shifts peak emission to the band of principal CO2 absorption and creates – to my mind – a false sense of alarm.

    The GOES satellite charts use wavelength and thus the CO2 absorption band is at the right end of the plot and obviously insignificant with the central emissions much greater and obviously not attenuated by GHGs.

    I get the mathematics of it.

    I believe wavenumber plots are deliberately presented to create alarm and support the theory.

    I also believe the original experimental evidence recorded by Wien, Stefan, Boltzmann etc leading to the equations of radiation must have been based on wavelength data recorded using diffraction grating experiments.

    I cannot see how any other unit would have been available to them at the time !

    Thus Wien’s law is always presented in wavelength form in texts.

    So, are the transformations of units used to produce the different plots of Planck curves – even though mathematically sound – perhaps not “physically” sound ?

    Surely it cannot be correct that a 300 K object has different peak emissions wavelengths simply because I perform some mathematical transformation on an equation ? Yet this is simply accepted.

    I believe wavelength has the only experimental basis as the “unit of choice”.

    The Stefan-Boltzmann equation – despite being derived earlier – is pi times the integral of Planck’s equation.

    To my mind this relationship demonstrates the problems of algebraic twisting the SB equation into yielding ludicrous answers such as the Steel Greenhouse effect.

    Anyway, I think wavelength is appropriate as “unit of choice” and that there may be something perhaps not “ontological” about a lot of the equations or mathematics of “climate science”.

    I wrote a piece about the significance of the Planck curves shift in peak emissions but PSI didn’t run with it.

    Do you think this is worth pursuing ?

  13. Any rational analysis is since science doesn’t engage in that itself!

  14. Thomas Homer says:

    “Mathematics is perfect”; “Mathematics is all powerful”; Hang on, let me bask in the awesomeness of those words. I take it that mathematics encompasses symbolic logic, set theory and similar areas of reasoning certitude.

    99.96% – a simple mathematical term, quite close to 100%, could be used to represent how much of the atmosphere is not CO2. Ivory Soap boasts 99.44% purity in ad campaigns, there are 14 times as many impurities in Ivory Soap as there is CO2 in our atmosphere. Instead, we’re told that CO2 has moved from 350 to 400 ppm, a dramatic 14% increase. In truth, CO2 could increase to 250% and the atmosphere would remain 99.9% “other”. Even 2500% of current CO2 would leave 99% “other”. These percentage numbers are rather alarming when viewed with the perspective that CO2 is the fuel of all carbon-based life forms, the lone singular throttle in the carbon cycle of life. Perspective.

    With this in mind, campaigns to restrict growth in atmospheric levels of CO2 must necessarily be backed by compelling reasoning. Instead, we’re told to accept:”settled science”. There is no actual definition for the term that I’m aware of, so here’s mine. If by “settled” we mean stagnant, sedentary and inactive, then we can distinguish this from active science. Active science is where we can apply reason to scientific laws, NASA employs active science to land a craft on an asteroid. “Settled science” has no laws that can be reasoned with, so there is no active reasoning. If science were a fish tank, the swimming fish would represent active science, the sediment and excrement on the bottom would represent “settled science”. Perspective.

  15. Hah that’s about right Thomas.

  16. Thomas Homer says:

    Is “Fish Excrement” too harsh? Well, until they publish any deterministic laws of their “settled science”, it remains non-deterministic. Since it’s non-deterministic, it has no value to active reasoning, so my latest thought is to label it “Vapid Science”.

    Settled Science === Vapid Science

  17. Mr Pettersen says:

    There is something i dont’t understand when talking about heat transfere. Every time co2 comes in the picture everybody starts talking wawelengths and windows. Your heat tranfer figure have only heat inn and out with no spesific wawelength.
    I rember a Planck diagram over co2, sunlight and earths radiation where co2 made a tiny little top in the line way out to the right. The topp from co2 was outside the curve where you place the Q in your equations. So the Q value must be unaffected but still the line was raised by co2.

    I find this climate science stuff really anoying because everybody knows how co2 works but nobody will ever take a serius look to where the energy goes.
    It’s like emptying a boat full of water. We all know the propperties of the cup we are using. Arguing over when the boat will be empty by disqussing the cup size and function will not give the answer. The answer comes from the simpel fact, where do i empty the cup. Inside or outside the boat?

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s